Yet to be revised and edited
Gandhiji Conversion and Gita
Part One
Mahatma Gandhiji’s dialogues [rather debates] with Missionaries are well known. Though several attempts were made while he was in South Africa to convert him to Christianity, after several sincere and serious readings of the Bible and various books and listened to all the evangelistic messages from various Christians, finally he found that there is no need to become a Christian though one can accepts most of the precepts of Muktinath sincerely implementing in her life. Most of these encounters were published in his magazine [Young India and Harijan], his personal secretary Mahadev Desai compiled and edited a separate book on this subject. If one wants to know Gandhiji’s clear views on this subject should read this book: Christian Mission Their Place in India, Navajivan Press, Ahedabad, 1941. As this book is now available online I am not going to quote extensively from it [as per my habit] but going to share some of my reflections.
The main message that Gandhiji conveyed through his dialogues with Christians is this:
All religions are equal. No religion is perfect as they were founded by human beings. Mere toleration of other’s faith is a bad idea and equal respect for all the religions is important. One can assimilate the good teachings and principles from another religion but should continue to remain in her own [birth] religion. There is no need for an individual to become a member of another faith even after properly understanding the precepts of it. Instead of converting people of other faiths to one’s own religion, they should attempt to make a Hindu better Hindu, a Muslim better Muslim and a Jain as a better Jain etc. Even if a non-Hindu wants to become a Hindu he opposed it and insisted on remaining as the member of her own faith. Though he was much influenced by the Sermon on the Mount still it is Gita which remained close to his heart and when there were confusion in his life [about anything] he found correct guidance only from it [See more on this in Vincent Sheean, Lead, Kindly Light, New York, Random House, 1949 Appendix ‘The Gita and the Gandhi-Gita, pp. 279-299]. Though he accepted Jesus as one of the Sons of God [see p. 282]1, he refused to acknowledge that He alone is the Only Son of God and we all are equally sons of God. He was a great teacher but never God for him and refused to give a solitary throne to Christ. For him ‘Truth is God’ and ‘do not regard God as a person’. (p.279)
One need not preach about her faith to another person but her life should reflect that teaching which she wanted to preach as he often said, ‘my life is my message’ [Narayan Desai, My Life Is My Message, 4 vols. Translated by Tridip Suhrud. New Delhi, 2009]. To the question that no one can be perfect to claim that her life is her message and the Good News is shared to tell others what God has done in the Lord as salvation is only by the grace of God to those who respond by faith and one cannot add her life to it, however perfect she looks to her, his response was, ‘The roes does not say: “Come and smell me.”’ (p.241).
Though these dialogues were held in a particular context of history, still we can learn so many things from Gandhiji’s view, particularly about Christianity and evangelism. Several sincere evangelicals met to convince Gandhi about the need of evangelism but couldn’t be convinced by their clever questions and his clear answers on this subject.2 Some of the Christians tried to point out how some of Gandhiji’s claims about certain facts were wrong [p. See Rev. H. R. Scott’s Repudiation about Gandhiji’s claim that the baptized person ‘had to eat beef and drink liquor’ (p.12-14], Gandhiji refuses to accept them and insisted upon the wrong methods used to convert, particularly vulnerable and ignorant people [Mostly Untouchables in his time]. But he acknowledged that there came some changes in the missionaries approach after their dialogues with him yet they have to completely give up their mission to convert others but continue to serve the needy people if they take the teachings of their religion sincerely and seriously at the same time appreciating their service through their hospitals [particularly for the Leprosy patients] though he strongly would ‘advise missionaries ….not to try to transplant the entire system of Western medicine into India’ and supported ‘indigenous drugs and medicines’ [to Dr. Chesterman , the medical secretary of the English Baptist Mission] (p.296)
The context of those dialogues were completely different from our time, most of his points still remain relevant to our time. Few individual missionaries agreed with Gandhiji and completely gave up their call as evangelist and totally involved with him [e.g. C. F. Andrews, but he disagreed with Gandhi on certain points on evangelism –see pp. 208-210]3 still the Mission never changed and continued to use the same old methods of evangelism to convert the people of other faiths. As the Mission strongly believes that it has received its call from God no attempt made by any human agencies can stop the mission and vision of converting people of other faiths to Christianity. Of course some cosmetic changes were done on superficial level [in the name of Contextualization] the approach to convert others and the conviction remains the same. For it, it is the GREAT COMMISION which it cannot give up because of any human influence. These kinds of encounters from the people of other faiths are not new to Mission. Though the mission learnt a lot through those encounters and tried its best to accommodate certain genuine concerns of their methods raised by many, still it never wavered from its call to evangelise. And however great a person like Gandhiji might be in his time and country, he is going to remain one of the several individuals in the history of mission and it will continue to remain as it is. So if Gandhi cannot change the mission, no other ordinary individual or even government can stop its forward march of expanding their own respective denominational kingdom and not that of Kingdom of God as they claim.
Having said this, in the post-Gandhian era so many books were written confronting evangelism [one e.g. is Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011] and serious counter mission movements were launched to check the growing influence [or menace according to them] of Mission. When I read such books [like this one by Gandhiji or few others like Malhotras] I seriously reflect about my bhakti in the Lord and how I have to face the challenges of those sincere questions which Gandhiji raised in his dialogue with Missionaries for my personal life is the question before me. I never read these books just to gather information or to kill my time but sincerely to learn to grow in my bhakti in the Lord. Where there is some need to change and for correction, I have to do that. Otherwise I will remain stagnant, unable to grow in my personal bhakti in the Lord—though I need not convey or convince others about my views or personal life as a bhakta of the Lord. However I can say one thing clearly that like Gandhiji I can never say that ‘my life is my message’, however I try my best to live up to my conviction in the Lord.
To begin with, I too agree that mere toleration of other’s faith only demonstrates one’s intolerant spirit and condescending view. So mutual respect one should have for another person’s faith however it looks very irrational to her. Even certain inhuman and immoral practices carried out by the followers of certain faiths [or cults] though not acceptable to us, unless we try to understand such practices from the point of the followers of them, we will never learn to respect it. To the question how one can respect or accept such inhuman and immoral practices carried out by others in the name of their faith, my first answer is that what we called ‘inhuman or immoral’ are our own human terms which remain relative to our context. Next is that even such practices should be purged out by the Reformers of their own faith and those who claim higher moral ground should only try to influence such Reformation to come within—like the abolition of sati and infanticide done by Rajaram Mohan Roy with the help of Missionaries and British government. When I say relativistic, certain teachings and practices of our own faith might look inhuman and immoral from other’s point of view—like atonement viz., expecting someone to pay the cost for our crime and participating in Communion which looks cannibalism from their point of view—however symbolic that could be to us.
Next is improving the life of people of other faiths: making a Hindu better Hindu etc. Though the ideal looks great, still why should a person from another faith attempt to improve the life of another person in another faith? For example why a Christian needs to make a Hindu better Hindu? And how is she going to do that? As the word ‘better’ always remains relative, how long will that process go? And why do I need the help of another person from another faith to make me a better Hindu? Are there not enough gurus and acharyas in my own faith to do that who understand my need in a better way? So this slogan ‘make a Hindu better Hindu’ etc. looks like a mere utopian ideal and not practical. Because if we need to make a Hindu better Hindu then in which area we mean as one’s life is not put in a water tight compartment to improve one area not touched by another. Above all an outsider cannot understand the worldview of another person’s faith however she gathered lots of information about it. Her view will always remain as an ‘outsider view’.
Another important point is that the slogan of ‘making a Hindu better’ Hindu cannot be done by any other person other than oneself due to ‘karma’ theory. When Gita (6:6) says, ‘one’s own atman is one’s friend and one’s own atman is one’s enemy is not only for attaining salvation but applies to every area as it is ‘karma’ which finally decides this. However another person might help unless one has done good karma in the past her life her present life cannot be improved. Even the grace of God has its own limitation in this area. I have to reap the karma [particularly ‘prarabdha karma4] of my past life. Though bhakti can super seed one’s karma at the end it is karma which decides this improvement. One advantage in Hinduism is its relativistic nature in philosophy. Like each deity is the Supreme God in that sampradaya and rest of the deities are subordinate to Him or Her, each doctrine is supreme subordinating the other. For example Bhakti can super seed Karma [even fate]. When even God fails to meet a particular need of a bhakta either she can take it as a leela of God or blame it on her karma. Knowledge can do the same replacing bhakti. So one can take any one particular philosophy to counter others or defend one’s view. But every faith has this problem, for example Free will versus predestination in Christianity.5
However there is doctrinal diversity, still in Muktiveda the Fundamentals never changes—Man a sinner can be saved by the Grace of God alone and he cannot add to it. One can question the doctrinal of original sin [committed by Adam] and the atonement done by the Lord, still this dogmatic view about men’s condition and need forces each individual to take personal responsibility for what she is doing, unable to blame some other thing. Of course several times the devil is demonised further and blamed for deceiving a bhakta. But still at the end one has to accept her moral responsibility. She can receive or reject mukti given by God because of His grace. She has to work it with much fear and trembling with the help of fellow bhaktas [or mandali] and the sanctifying Spirit of God, still she cannot postpone it to some future birth. Of course this theory of ONLY ONE CHANCE is heavily criticized by Hinduism which provides so more opportunities in future births. However some of the scriptures warn [Bhagavad Gita chap.16; Kausitaki Upanishad 2.5; Katha Upanishad 1.28, Isha Upanishad 3; various Tamil scriptures, etc.] about postponing mukti to some future birth and the precious life as human which one rarely gets, still the overall, the karma doctrine alone holds true for both philosophers and common person when it comes to improve one’s life or attaining mukti. This being the reality of karma doctrine, the question of improving a Hindu better Hindu could be questioned. Of course I confess that this is a complicated subject and however we argue and counter argue there won’t be any end to this debate and no one can reach a clear theological conclusion on this subject. But my point is that having this fundamental difference in doctrine, the karma theory puts limits on others to help to make a Hindu better Hindu. Whereas a bhakta of Muktinath is under an obligation to reach out to others not merely to improve one area of her life but to help for the overall improvement in every area of life. That is why, though we have to rightly condemn soap-sup salvation of giving material inducement to convert others by exploiting their [material] need, still it is a part of the Good News which addresses to the need of body, soul, mind, spirit etc. of a person.
The general worldview about Hinduism is that when it comes to mukti it is addressed only to an individual. About this Cho Ramaswami says:
There is a fundamental difference between Hinduism and other religions. Other religions address the whole society. Entire population, whole population, big crowds! There is a reason for this. This One alone is God! They have created this concept. It recruits people for this (p. 475). Of course with good intentions. Only if all of them come, that alone is good. But Hinduism is not like this. It addresses only to an individual. ‘You remain correct. You improve yourself. You attain spiritual experience. You live a holy life. If each one improves then society will automatically improve. It is very difficult to improve the whole world [simultaneously]. If each person realizes then society will remain good. The individual’s cleanness, his dharma, it address this.6
There is great truth in this Hindu reality. At the same time the karma of one person will affect another person. About this also Sri Cho says in another context that the sin of the wife will go to the husband, parents to the children, citizen to the king [p. 402]. Each individual goes to the temple to worship God personally and attain mukti by her own efforts plus past karma, still normal life is affected by the karma of another person in life. That is why marriage is arranged after checking whether the horoscope of both the boy and girl will match, not affecting their married life. In case of love marriages where their horoscope is not considered, still proper remedies are done to ward off any evil influence in their horoscope does not match. In the case of a birth of a child its horoscope might affect the life of the parents. To ward off any bad influence again proper remedies are performed.
Similarly though non-Hindu faith is based on community, the role and responsibility of the individual is equally emphasized when it comes to mukti and normal life. While sadhana dharma [spiritual discipline] of an individual can be separated from her samaj dharma [social order], in Muktiveda it goes together complimenting each other in a bhakta’s life. While carrying one another’s burden is seriously advocated, carrying one’s own burden is emphasized. [Galatians 6:2 & 4]
Above all, as changing personal faith from one deity to another and one doctrine to another is quite common in Hinduism which was promoted by various sampradayas , then how to approach such teaching of ‘making better’? While my Hindu worldview accommodates all kinds of faith expression without need to change the social structure I can still remain a Hindu and follow the Lord without the need of a Church to help me to make me a better Hindu bhakta of the Lord. Of course as I often say I do not have a private faith and I need fellowship from other bhaktas of the Lord. This I get without becoming a Christian and joining a church. Those who strongly advocate the importance and need of the church for [physical fellowship after quoting a verse from Hebrew 10:25] can object to this view. As I have elsewhere said, my understanding of church as the body of the Lord is completely different from their need for a church—however imperfect it might look to an outsider [like me]. They are correct from their point of view as they were born and grew up in that kind of system. However at least they will now recognize that for the past two years due to the Wuhan virus pandemic they were deprived of this physical fellowship and forced to have ‘virtual fellowship’ using the Internet. Of course this is an excuse to avoid church for them. However for me this shows the reality of life which will accommodate us to find the same fellowship—better than what we can get from a church fellowship outside a building.
Next is if one clearly understands the Good News, it never attempts to bring only mere Reformation [to make a Hindu better Hindu] but aims always in Regeneration without disturbing social order. As I often say when we allow the Good News to incarnate it brings that Regeneration from within adding new values in a person’s life. Even if there is no new value which is already in her own worldview, the Good News will revive it by giving new inspiration once we understand the concept of Incarnation. What changes is personal allegiance to the Person Muktinath in whichever form He entered in that person’s life—like a guru in my life.
Similarly claiming that all the religions are the same is not true. Of course as Gandhiji stated, as founded by human beings all the religions are the same with their imperfection and inner contradiction. But all the theology is not the same—even among various sampradays [in case of Hinduism] and denominations [in Christianity]. For me as I become the bhakta of Muktinath I feel that I attained Mukti but I need to make myself a better bhakta till the end of my life without need to postpone it to some other future birth. This realization is a crucial doctrinal difference for me. Here I am not saying that I become ‘Jivan Mukta’ [‘embodied liberation’ ]7 as per the claim of Advaita where one becomes perfect and transcends all kinds of social norms. Even if there are future births that won’t change my conviction that I attained Mukti even with my imperfect life as for me this Mukti is not going to some heaven after death in future but realized while living in this mortal body and work it out with much fear and trembling till the end of my life—as ‘I am saved; I am being saved and I will be saved’ is the core of Muktivedic theology about this mukti.
Unless one receives this Mukti as a pure gift from God because of His or Her grace all other slogans and formulas however good they might be and relevant to live with social harmony with the golden principle of Live and Let live will remain mere utopian ideas and not practical.
Well as I consider Gandhiji as one of my human gurus I always learn through his life and teaching and this book again helped me in this regard much.
10-2-2022, Gurukulam
Notes
1 …With you [Lady Emily Kinnaird] Jesus was the only begotten son of God. With me He was a son of God, no matter how much purer than us all, but every one of us is a son of God and capable of doing what Jesus did, if we but endeavour to express the Divine in us.’—p. 282
2 About this Mahadev Desai wrote, ‘If there is one thing that one can genuinely admire in the Missionaries, it is their persistence. They know what Gandhiji has to say in reply to their stock questions, but they go on asking them in the spirit of converting him or, I take it, being in their turn converted. (p.277)
3 C.F.A.: ‘I don’t know. If someone earnestly says that he will become a good Christian, I should say, ‘You may become one,’ though you know that (p.209) I have in my own life strongly dissuaded ardent enthusiasts who came to me. I said to them, ‘Certainly not on my account will you do anything of the kind.’ But human nature does require a concrete faith.’
Gandhiji: ‘If a person wants to believe in the Bible, let him say so, but why should he disregard his own religion? This proselytization will mean no peace in the world….—p. 209-210
…IN the late 1920s he wrote that the missionary movement “appeared to me to be out of keeping with the character of Christ Himself and be unworthy of His name.”{Charles Freer Andrews, The Testimony of C. F. Andrews, Edited by Daniel O’Connor. Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1974, 227} But in the 1930s his disagreements with Gandhi over conversion provided an opportunity to outline an explicit vision of a legitimate missionary role in India, one that was entirely consistent with his pre-1914 arguments. Andrews drew a sharp line between bearing public witness to one’s faith on the one hand and direct persuasion, or proselytism, on the other. He believed that Christians should bear witness to their faith through service to others, and look for opportunities to explain the Christian motivation for that service while engaging in respectful dialogue with men and women of other faiths….In his own distinctive way, Andrews believed that in embracing India he was embracing Christ. — Jeffrey Cox, Imperial Fault Lines, California, Stanford University Press, 2002p. 249
For more on C.F. Andrew’s life see: Hugh Tinker, The Ordeal of Love: C.F. Andrews and India, Andrews, Delhi, Oxford India Paperbacks, [1979] 1998
4 Karman can be accumulated from the past (sancita), be performed now (kriyamana), and also be karman of the past which bears fruit in this life (prarabdha). When the prarabdha is just about to bear fruit, it is technically known as ‘niseka’; and “everything (that is accomplished) is accomplished by niseka. Niseka is mightier than Providence….who can deter (or prevent) niseka.” {Brahmavaivarta Purana., Krsnajanmakhanda 46:58}— Sukumari Bhattachari, Fate and Fortune in the Indian scriptures, New Delhi, Foundations Books, 2014, p. 74-75. For a more details see P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona] Vol. V. Part. II. pp.1574-75.
5 Any analysis and critique of karma–samsara theories must be undertaken carefully. Non-Hindus (especially Christians) should first remember their own doctrinal debates on predestination! Then also, instead of entering into an argument based on their worldview (such as Hebrews 9.27 for Christians), they should know that the Hindu scriptures themselves have demonstrated the danger of postponing the question of salvation to some other distant birth. A proper study of the scriptures will show this (e.g. BG chap.16; KU 2.5; Katha U 1.28, Isha U 3; various Tamil scriptures, etc.). Above all remember, as O’Flaherty points out:
The Indians themselves have developed highly sophisticated ways of dealing with such differences of strata, for they do not hold assumptions in the same way on different levels; they treat karma sometimes as a concept, sometimes as a theory, sometimes as a model; sometimes they accept it, and sometimes they challenge it. (Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty , Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (1983) Reprint 1999, xxiv-xxv)
6 இதுல ஒரு அடிப்படை வித்தியாசம் இருக்கு, ஹிந்து மதத்துக்கும் மற்ற மதங்களுக்கும்! மற்ற மதங்கள் பெரிய சமூகங்களை அட்ரஸ் பண்றது! Entire population, whole population, பெரிய crowds! அதுக்கு, ஒரு காரணமும் இருக்கு! இது ஒண்ணுதான் கடவுள்! அப்படின்னு சொல்லி ஒரு கான்சப்டை உருவாக்கியிருக்கு! அதுக்கு ஆட்களை சேர்க்கறது! (ப.475) நல்ல எண்ணத்தோடத்தான்! அவங்க எல்லாம் வந்தால்தான் நல்ல காலம்! ஹிந்துமதம் அப்படி இல்லை! தனி மனிதனைப் பார்த்துத்தான் அட்ரஸ் பண்றது! “நீ ஒழுங்கா இரு! நீ உன்னை உசத்திக்கொள்! நீ ஆன்ம உணர்வைப்பெறு! நீ தூய வாழ்க்கை வாழ்! அப்போ ஒவ்வொருத்தனும் முன்னேறினால் சமூகம் தானே முன்னேறிக்கொண்டு போகும்! உலகம் முழுவதும் முன்னேற வைப்பது கஷ்டம்! தனிமனிதன் அவன் அவன் உணர்ந்தான்னா சமூகம் நல்ல இருக்கும்! தனிமனிதன் அவனுடைய சுத்தம், அவனுடைய தர்மம், இதெல்லாம் பற்றி சொல்றது…’ Cho Ramaswami, எங்கே பிராமணன்? கேள்வி-பதில்.அன்றைய வேதங்கள் முதல் இன்றைய வியவகாரங்கள் வரை, Chennai, Alliance, Second edition (2015) 2017, ப. 475-476]
7 on Jeevan Mukta: ‘embodied liberation’, Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011, p. 114
One of the major controversies is over the possibility of jivanmukti, final liberation, while still in the body…Sankara, who on account of his teaching that reality is identical with consciousness has to come to the conclusion that jivanmukti is possible…Ramanuja, with the same logical consistency, denies the possibility of jivanmukti….— 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, p.264-35
though Ramanuja might have rejected Jivanmukti, what he has rejected is only the name and not the content. In other words, even if he has rejected the name Jivanmukti, he has possibly accepted everything that the name implies, that is, an individual possessed with a high degree of sanctity, and who is untouched by the evils and imperfections of this world. For example, in Gitabhashya, 18.54, Ramanuja declares that an individual who has realized the state of Brahman (Brahma-bhuta), that is, one whose essential nature is not touched by evil, does not grieve over any being other than Brahman, nor desires anything. He is said to regard all beings with an equal eye, and to consider all objects of this universe as worthless as straw….— Cyril Veliath S.J., The Mysticism of Ramanuja, New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993, p. 182
There is yet another state described in Sanskrit which has no equivalent in Christianity. One who has attained moksha may choose to remain in the world and continue to do spiritual work – that is, free from past actions (i.e., karmic bondage) and yet active in the world. This person is called jivanmukta. He or she can, at will, either turn away from the world or turn toward it and deal with it without being touched or limited by it. The Buddhist equivalent of a jivanmukta is a bodhisattva.
The New Testaments calls this ‘being in the world, but not of it’. There is an opening here for a potential development of a Christian jivanmukta, and St. Paul says several things about himself that would indicate he had at least tasted this state, as had other Christian saints. But the important thing is that there is no world for it in Biblical metaphysics; that is because the state was not examined, understood or cultivated through systematic techniques. The words ‘saint’ and ‘prophet’ do not suffice, nor even does ‘mystic’. When Christians experienced such a state, it was not as a result of following a yoga-like systematic process; neither was it seen as bringing salvation….— Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011, p. 306
Part Two
When some famous people make some statements or invent new theories then it becomes famous however it contradicts the orthodox view. For example Gandhiji found only ahimsa in the teaching of Gita which according to him contradicts the orthodox interpretation of the text. When Dr. Kagawa [from Japan] pointed it to Gandhiji, he responded by saying, ‘But that is nothing. The question is whether it is a reasonable interpretation, whether it carries conviction. If it does, it does not matter whether it is mine or X, Y, Z’s. If it does not, it has no value even if it is mine. (P. 273. See pp. 272-73 more on this].8 So when Gandhiji claimed that respect not toleration should be the only principle in encounters of faiths his own Krishna that too in his own Gita does not agree with him. Krishna clearly states that, ‘Even those devotees who, endowed with faith, worship other gods, worship Me alone, O son of Kunti, though not in accordance with rules.’9 In explaining this sloka Sri Cho Ramaswami says, ‘ other religions say that you can be saved if you worship only that particular God and if you believe in other gods then you are doomed. But Krishna says whichever religion you belong to, if you worship god with strong faith that worship finally will only reach Him. But other religions do not say this. But Krishna says that that worship will reach Him and he will do her favour.’10 If we interpret this claim from Gandhiji’s point view, Krishna merely TOLERATES others faith and does not respect or accept it. He never said that it is ok for you to worship any other gods and that is fine for me. But he strongly claims that at the end you are only worshipping me. This claim is even acknowledge by a famous sloka, ‘aakash patitam toam yada gachati sagaram, sarva devah namaskarah Keshava prati gachati = as all the rain waters finally reach only the see the worship of all other gods finally reaches only Keshava [another name of Vishnu, quoted from memory]. Even in Tamil Saiva Siddhanta it is claimed that whichever deity one worships finally it is Siva who appears in that form to that votary.11 Similarly when a Hindu goes to the temple where various sectarians deities have shrines she has to stand before each deity and should say, ‘anyathaa saranam naasthii tvameva saranam mama’ = I took refuge only you I didn’t surrender to anyone else’.12 So when we read such claims by any particular deity of any sampradaya, including that of Christianity we should keep in mind that every Scripture is a sectarian scripture (including Bhagavad Gita) having exclusim in its doctrine. Similarly changing one’s personal faith from one deity and not worshipping other gods is a common practice. Every acharya who defends his sampradaya has first to prove how and why the other sampradaya is wrong and then he has to establish his siddhanta [theology].
Similarly mass conversion took place in the past when a king or a reputed person changed his faith. Buddhist monks were sent as missionaries not merely to promote the teachings of Buddha but also convert people to that faith. At the same time we have to agree with Gandhiji about his objection to the way mass conversions were done in exploiting the vulnerability of the poor and downtrodden people. One of the Church growth principles is ‘win the winnable while they are winnable’. So first convert the mass to Christianity and then try to make them as believers. This kind of missionary method should be opposed in every way. For the Christian mission, however famous Gandhiji might be, his view on them or their methods of conversion never changed and they continue to carry out their methods even in post Independent India that too through mass conversion program. This was clearly stated to Gandhi when one visitor said to him, ‘Our position is that, holding the viewpoint that we do, we cannot give up our mission work as we are today carrying it out, even under persecution’ (p.291)13
When I challenged one Indian evangelical about this his response was the illustration which Muktinath says about the Kingdom of God in which it is like casting the net to catch fish. And when the net was brought to the shore those which were good were selected and the rest were discarded. (Matthew 13:47) Well as we all know the context of this illustration I need not point out how wrong was that Indian evangelical who strongly believes to win few individuals while converting many to discard them at the end to remain as they are without any change in their faith and personal life which the Lord categorically stated that by this kind of proselytization they are making them ‘double the time the children of hell’.(Matthew 23;15)
For a bhakta like me I have to keep a balance between the both extreme of believing that every Scripture attempts to make people of other faith a better person allowing her to remain in that same faith. Though I didn’t read all the religious scriptures, with my limited reading I never come across any scripture that promotes Gandhi’s view of making a Hindu better Hindu etc. Every scripture is exclusive however liberals try to accommodate their view through their own interpretation. Condemning other deities of rival faiths and condescending their doctrine is common in Hinduism. In monotheistic faiths like Islam and Christianity the same is done to other denominations of same religion as they do it to other religious faiths. At the same time understanding the core doctrine of the particular scripture or a sampradaya one should have respect for others scripture and faith however she might secretly or openly want to see others also to follow her own faith or particular doctrine which she thinks is the correct one to profess. This is not limited only to religion and faith. Even in the Secular world the Capitalist wants to convert the communist to their economic policy vice versa. Each political party not only claims that it is the right party to rule and merely tolerate the opposition in a democracy. In general most of the people carry the life with the principle of live and live but not accepting others view of life completely but mostly tolerating them though they won’t openly acknowledge it.
So while I learn many new things by reading such books, I am careful enough not to accept the view of the author, however he is great or earned even my personal respect for his life and teaching like that of Gandhiji.
Several times Gandhiji in his discussion with Missionaries about their obligation to preach the Gospel, particularly to the Harijan, said, ‘Would you, Dr. Mott, preach the Gospel to a cow? Well some of the untouchables are worse (p.240) than cows in understanding. I mean they can no more distinguish between the relative merits of Islam and Hinduism and Christianity than can a cow. You can only preach through your life. The rose does not say: “Come and smell me.”’ (p. 241) Though Dr. Mott gave the regular answers given by most of the Missionaries,14 my point is that Gandhiji couldn’t understand the way God met people in their need.
Gospel actually is GOOD NEWS. Throughout history people become the followers of the Lord not clearly understanding the theology of SIN, ATONEMENT and SALVATION but when God through the Lord met their felt need. When they are in distress whoever comes to rescue them that person becomes their Saviour. This we experience in ordinary life also. When one’s dear child or relatives are fighting for their life in the hospital we can see the parents or relatives begging literally to the Doctors by saying, ‘kindly save my child. I consider you alone as my God and I will never forget your help in my life’. I don’t know whether in other countries people go and plead this way to any doctors. But this happens in India and I have seen people literally falling at the feet of the doctor who rushes to give treatment. And when the child or patient is saved they fold their hands with many tears without words telling the doctor that she or he is their God. This is well illustrated in one Tamil film song by Kannadasan: in a hungry stomach food is God; in desert water is God; in rain umbrella is God and in parching heat of the Sun shadow is God. [பசித்த வயிற்றில் உணவு தெய்வம்; பாலைவனத்தில் தண்ணீர் தெய்வம்; கொட்டும் மழையில் குடையே தெய்வம்; கோடை வெய்யிலில் நிழலே தெய்வம்.]
I was bit taken back when Gandhiji said that the untouchables have only an understanding like that of cow. First of all what Gandhiji’s view of understanding regarding the Good News is elitist one or only an intellectual understanding which he outright rejected. So there is no point of challenging Missionaries [here Dr. Mott] ‘If you must share it with the Harijans, why don’t you share it with me. Thakkar baba and Mahadev? Why should you go to the untouchables and try to exploit this upheaval? Why not come to us instead?’ (p.241)
Untouchables might not have the same kind of intellectual understanding of the Good News. But in their felt need they understood the Good News that came in a form which met their need. There are so many examples throughout the world, even in India where so many tribes and so called backward community people ‘become’ Christian not with the kind of understanding which Gandhiji expected them to understand but in their own way. Though all of them never uplifted in their life economically and even socially, still the Good News really brought some remarkable changes in their life paving the way for the upward mobility in their social life. The Head Hunting Nagas gave up their inhuman practice and reformed their life. One might say that even without becoming Christian so many other tribes and so called backwards people [according to our understanding of their backwardness] reformed their life without the need of this Good News. Nobody can deny this historical fact. However in that given time it was the Good News which came to them through the missionaries was SALVATION FOR THEM. We have every right to object to such methods. But did Gandhi or anyone who opposed these kinds of conversion ever talked with them?
Even in my case I never become a bhakta of Muktinath with a clear understanding of Good News with its theological aspect. When I stayed with those Tamil Missionaries in the Hill [in Tamil Nadu] first their life appealed to me much. Though they failed to convince me that [their] Jesus Christ was the only God and Saviour and salvation is only in and through Him, later when I began to understand the New Testament which they gave [though I couldn’t follow that Christian Tamil very much] slowly I see in the life and teaching of the Lord the kind of Guru whom I was searching in my life. Then I said to myself, ‘I tried various ways to find a Guru but never met one who satisfied me. Let me give this Guru a chance and if He proves that He is the Guru whom I want to follow then I am benefited. Otherwise I again learnt some good teaching from another Scripture.’ As a digression I want to say one thing that though I went to Sunday School and attended church when I was in High school along with my close Christian friend, when one day he said that Jesus alone is God and all other gods whom I am worshipping are devils, there came an end my going to the Sunday School and church [but our friendship continued]. I still have that diary in which I [as per my habit of collecting important sayings and quotations from various books that I read] I have recorded so many verses from Uttara Veda [NT].
But later after taking deeksha when I began to read deeply the Uttaraveda that too with various commentaries and book by scholars [particularly that of John Stott’s book on Romans (chapter 5 to 8) I think, Men Made New] that I clearly understood what is the meaning of SIN and ATONMEN and MUKTI. Though I was much benefitted by that understanding, still that was not that much important for me to remain as a bhakta of Muktinath. As I have said elsewhere, the historicity of Muktinath, though very important for theology, is not so crucial for me. If Muktinath is merely a Mythological character it won’t change my faith in Him. As Dr. Hoefer pointed out the doctrine of atonement became prominent only later part of the Church history and it was not the main in the early church history.15 Once Muktinath became my guru then I made serious attempts to know about Him and His teachings by reading Muktiveda deeply along with commentaries and other books related to it. My reading never confirmed my bhakti in Him. Rather my bhakti helped me to understand certain facts about Him which might remain historical or not or theologically irrelevant to many.
There are so many bhakti saints in the history of Hinduism who become bhaktas of their chosen deity not after clear understanding about the doctrinal aspects of the sampradaya but some sudden change which came in their life when God met their particular felt need in their life. The life of Tulsidas, Purandaradasa, Pattinattar, Tiruneela Kandar, Kannappar and so many other saints proves this. This is well recorded even in this book about the experience of Dr Kagawa .16
This change is called the ‘born again’ experience among the evangelicals. But this term is not new only to Christianity. Even Pattinattar uses the same thought in one of his songs:what the use of applying holy ash on the body; taking holy dip in rivers oh my mind; you don’t know how to born again. What you found in thousands of mantras in Vedas; you are wandering, dragged by river, you don’t know the shore.17
Though I understand the frustration of Gandhiji still his understanding of the Good News according to his standard is not the only way in which God meets the needs of people and gives them mukti. Salvation is not limited to attaining ‘Moksha’ after death but it is ‘deliverance’ from so many things that binds a person to even lead a Normal Human life if not to become a saint. In fact there were so many people who became followers of the Lord through healing and till the end remained simple followers even after their conversion and joining the church through baptism not much understanding theology or doctrine. But who we are to judge others faith however it is not acceptable to us. So I consider Gandhiji as my guruji, still I cannot accept his approach though I agree that his encounter with Christians Missionaries and Leaders radically brought some change in their approach, but not as per his expectation. They continued their same old method of mass conversion and converting people to Christianity. I am also not happy with such an approach as I clearly stated in person to one Christian Leader that I am not interested in increasing the percentage of Christians in India, still I strongly believe that The Spirit of God blows wherever it wants in whichever form which no human agency can stop.
Finally when I started to read this book I was very much challenged by Gandhi in his counter questions and arguments presented to the Missionaries and Christians Leaders who came to learn as well as know his view on their mission. The way Gandhiji challenged the settled view of the Missionaries and Christian Leaders it never brought much change in the approach of Mission and Church in their endeavour of converting others to Christianity. Of course few among them agreed with Gandhiji but they cannot influence their Mission or Church. However these kinds of encounters help a bhakta like me who wants to remain within the birth culture and tradition assimilating valuable lessons from others life but to live with my own personal conviction not carried by the opinion of everyone—however great that person might be.
Notes
8 Similarly, when Swami Vivekananda promoted ‘experience is the evidence’ then it was promoted as the main teaching of Hinduism whereas the authority of the Scripture [in this context Veda] alone is the evidence and not one’s personal experience [See Anantanand Rambachan. The Limits of ScriptureVivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas, Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi., 1995
9 Gita, 9:23, Swami Ramsukhadas, Srimad Bhagavadgita, Sadhaka Sanjivani, Gita Press, Ghorakpur, vol. 1, p.736
10 Ramaswami, op. Cit. p. 479-80)
11 This thought is well stated in Siva Purina: …it is enough if Siva alone is worshipped. The root is the most important. When the root is watered, O gods, the branches are well-cared for. (83) O excellent sages, if the branches are taken care of, it do not necessarily mean that the root is cared for. When the deities are propitiated, the same analogy holds good. (84) (p.230)…. O gods, if Siva is worshipped, all the gods are worshipped. (85)….—ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L. Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, The Siva Purina, Four Volumes, 12:83-85, pp.230-1
12 அந்யதா ஸரணம் நாஸ்தி த்வமேவ ஸரணம் மம
அதாவது, ‘உன்னையே சரணடைந்தேன், வேறு யாரையும் நான் சரணடையவில்லை’ என்று எல்லா தெய்வத்திடமும் சொல்வோம்….—ப 104
13 The context of his statement is further shared by him, ‘…This right of propagation of the gospel is part of our religious freedom. Will you under Swaraj allow Christians to go on with their proselytizing activity without any hindrance?’ He paused for a reply.
‘No legal hindrance,’ replied Gandhiji, ‘can be put in the way of any Christian or of anybody preaching for the acceptance of his doctrine’…Besides, what is permitted may not necessarily be the same thing as what is permissible under the law….[Italics original]—p. 291
14 In his response Dr. Mott’s said, ‘ But Christ said: ”Preach and Teach”, and also the faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God….First and foremost we must live the life; but then by wise and sympathetic unfolding of essential truth we must shed light on processes and actions and attitudes, and remove intellectual difficulties so that it may lead us into the freedom which is freedom indeed….The whole Christian religion is the religion of sharing our life, and how can we share without supplementing our lives with words’? page 241.
15 The atonement theory that arose in the Catholic Church from the 11th century became dominant in the Western church, also among the reformers. I think the Eastern Orthodox approach is more sound theologically and more resonant with Indian culture/Hindu thinking. The purpose and victory of Jesus is the conquering of death, achieved in His Incarnation and resurrection. In this view, Jesus could have died of food poisoning (as the Buddha did). The means of His death is not critical; the conquering of death through His resurrection is what is critical.—Dr. Hoefer, Personal communication. See his article ‘Gospel Proclamation of the Ascended Lord; Published in Missiology, October 2005, pp. 435-439
16 … Toyohiko Kagwa …was born out of wedlock, as his biographer Mr. Axling says, or was the son of ‘a professional dancing girl’, who was ‘my father’s second wife’ as Kagawa himself says in an autobiographical chapter in one of his famous books. ‘My father died when I was only four, and the first wife adopted me as her own. We had a big house and many servants. But living in a big house without any love meant hell for me. My family were rich people, but their mode of behaviour was terrible. I wept day and (p.263 night.’ Dr. Kagawa said, as he was talking to me [Mahadev Desai], that it was this polygamy in the family which drove him to Christianity. If I may say so, however, it was not polygamy, but the total lack of love. There is no lack of love in Buddhism, but there was a famine of pure love in the so-called Buddhist home. Even so, Dr. Ambedkar born in Hinduism experienced a total lack of love from his Hindu brethren and so swore enmity to Hinduism.—pp. 263-264
17 நீற்றைப் புனைந்தென்ன நீராடப்போயென்ன நீமனமே
மாற்றிப் பிறக்க வகையறிந் தாயில்லை மாமறைநூல்
ஏற்றிக் கிடக்கும் ஏழகோடி மந்திர மென்ன கண்டாய்
ஆற்றிற் கிடந்தும் துறையறி யாமல் அலைகின்றயே.— 15 Pattinattar, podu, song 40, p. 111, in Periya Jnanakkovai, compiled by V. Saravanamuthuppillai, Chennai, B. Ratna Nayakar and Sons, year not mentioned.
Comments by Dr. Hoefer
I think you have done a good job with this sensitive, complex topic. I would share the following comments/reactions to your essay:
My view is that “religion” is a historical, institutional, human development. I see Christianity as a relationship. It is accepting Jesus as the lord of one’s life. (cf. I Cor 12:3)
The fundamental doctrine of this relationship is that Jesus was God in the flesh. In Him we see the character of God. (cf. Col 1:15-20, Phil 2:6-11)
I agree with you that conversion to another religion should be a human right. People convert because they are not fulfilled/enriched in their previous faith
Likewise, inviting others to join one’s faith should be a human right. If one is convinced that one’s path is the best, should s/he be prevented from sharing that blessing with others? In this, I agree with the thoughts of Andrews and Mott which you cite.
I also agree that it is not my right or role to reform somebody else’s religion. I can share my thoughts, if requested (I Pet 3:15), but I don’t live in that religion so how do I know what it is really lik?. I have only an outside view.
I also agree that the statement “My life is my message” is arrogant and vacuous. If my message is Jesus Christ, can my weak life reflect/express that divine reality? I can only strive that my life to some extent expresses that divine reality and does not distract from it. Our message is Jesus, not ourselves.
The atonement theory that arose in the Catholic Church from the 11th century became dominant in the Western church, also among the reformers. I think the Eastern Orthodox approach is more sound theologically and more resonant with Indian culture/Hindu thinking. The purpose and victory of Jesus is the conquering of death, achieved in His Incarnation and resurrection. In this view, Jesus could have died of food poisoning (as the Buddha did). The means of His death is not critical; the conquering of death through His resurrection is what is critical.
I have no problem with mass conversions. People live in community. The crucial part is what happens after the conversion. Are they trained and guided in their walk with Jesus? Baptism is just the doorway to this new reality.
I give this to you for what it’s worth. God bless.
Herb Hoefer
21-02-2022
Thanks Dr. Hoefer taking your precious time to read and gave your valuable comments. I always learn new things from your teaching. God bless you. The following points I have to include in this article and I need your permission for this. I have your article which you sent me back about atonement. Due to age and other responsibilities I slowly forgetting things and I cannot easily remember that title of that article. Can you please send the title of that article and where to find that. Thanks.
conversion to another religion should be a human right
inviting others to join one’s faith should be a human right.
I also agree that it is not my right or role to reform somebody else’s religion. I can share my thoughts, if requested (I Pet 3:15), but I don’t live in that religion so how do I know what it is really lik?. I have only an outside view.
The atonement theory that arose in the Catholic Church from the 11th century became dominant in the Western church, also among the reformers. I think the Eastern Orthodox approach is more sound theologically and more resonant with Indian culture/Hindu thinking. The purpose and victory of Jesus is the conquering of death, achieved in His Incarnation and resurrection. In this view, Jesus could have died of food poisoning (as the Buddha did). The means of His death is not critical; the conquering of death through His resurrection is what is critical.
Part three
Every scripture and theology has inner contradictions. It can be resolved through proper exegesis and doctrine. Though I am also not in favour of ‘dogmatism’ still without making some dogmatic statements [or claims] it is very difficult to explain the inner contradictions. Already we saw this in the karma doctrine in Hinduism and the Original Sin [committed by Adam] in Muktiveda. However, as I pointed out the relativistic nature in theology [philosophy] one can pick up one particular point of view to defend her position or clearing the doubts of others who question it in Hinduism. But in Muktiveda I found certain dogmatic statements which give a firm ground for further probing her need to grow in her bhakti/faith. The next thing is that Muktiveda never gives much scope to blame someone else for my failures. Though the doctrine of Original Sin can give that excuse and the devil is also blamed by many, still it is my personal responsibility to work out my own salvation.
This I found as the main doctrinal difference between Hinduism and Muktiveda. So when I began to read Uttaraveda [New Testament in Tamil] for the first time I found some kind of clue to the question with which I was struggling a lot for so many years in my youth. Though I now managed to articulate it with some precise technical terms here, still in those days when I was struggling within me not knowing the answer to the question, ‘why I cannot live a perfect life even for one day—not even for a week or month or year; not even up to the expectation of others or gods, but up to my own expectation. As I said these are not the precise words I used that time but that was my condition. That is why in one my songs which I wrote:
O Mother who is adorned with gold on the breast; I adore your holy name;
Save me, the one who took a vain birth by removing my karmas
What kinds of karmas I have done to take such a menial birth worse than a dog;
I don’t know the reason and only Brahma needs to be blamed (for creating me like this)
All the births that I have taken are more than enough; I don’t want any more birth
O merciful Sankari, save me (preventing from future births).18
So in this song though I expressed my anguish, still I blamed the creator God Brhama. Similarly when I questioned some elders and a few religious people whom I met in search of this question they gave the regular answer: your past karma, this is Kaliyug [in which dharma stands on one leg] or the divine play of god. This was well stated by Goswami Tulsidas: kalah karmah aur ishwar par mita dosh lagaye = they falsely accuse either time or karma or even god. Though Hindu apologetics might explain this well with their reasonable argument, still I was not satisfied to blame someone else or some things else for my failures.
That is why when I read Muktiveda, particularly Uttara Veda, in Romans Chapter 7, from verses 15 onwards I was shocked a bit. Because those verses clearly echoed my own inner struggle. Though Sevanand ended that portion by making the cry of dereliction (verse 24)and with a note of hope by saying, ‘Thanks be to God through Muktinath our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin (verse 25) I didn’t understand it very clearly but realized that there was another person who lived in similar condition like me.
Of course when I first read these verses in Tamil I didn’t understand all the theology behind it, particularly the hope in verses 25. However when I began to read several commentaries, particularly the book by Rev. John Stott ‘Man made New’ I clearly understood the context. At the same time I have to confess that there are so many such slokas, poems and mantras in Hinduism which echoes similar struggles. I have elaborately discussed it [Living Dialogue, ‘Early Struggle’ and ‘Sin’.].
For example when performing twilight worship (sadhyavandanam) a Brahmin has to say the following mantras as part samkalpa (resolution) and confession:
ममोपात्त-समस्त-दुरित-क्षय-द्वारा श्री परमेश्वर प्रीत्यर्थं…
mamoopaatta samasta duritakshaya dvaaraa srii parameshvara priityartham
–in order to qualify to receive the grace of god, I crush all the sins attained by me.
सूर्यश्च मा मन्युश्च मन्युपतयश्च मन्युकृतेभ्य: पापेभ्यो रक्षन्ताम्। यद्रात्रया पापमकार्षम्। मनसा वाचा हस्ताभ्याम्।
पद्भ्यामुदरेण शिश्ना। रात्रि-स्तदवलुंपतु। यत्किचं दुइरतं मयि। इदमहं माममृत-योनौ। सूर्ये ज्योतिषि जुहोमि स्वाहा॥
suuryashca maa manyushca manyupatayashca manyukrutebhya: paapebhyoo rakshantaam. yad raatrayaa paapamakaarsham. manasaa vaacaa hastaabhyaam. padbhyaam udarena shishnaa. raatristadavalumpatu. yatkincam duiiratam mayii. idamaham maamamrutayoonow. suurye jyootishi juhoomi svaahaa.
–Let Sun which activates everything and divine shaktis which controls anger save me from all the sin committed me by anger which enslaves everyone; Let the night deity remove sins committed by mind, words, hands, legs, stomach, male organ and other sins that are found in me; by this way I, one whose sins are removed offer my homa in the supreme light in the form of Sun for moksha.19
But I found similar echo of Romans 7: 15ff in another sloka from Mahabharata:
Jaanaami dharmam nache me pravrti
Jaanaami adharmam nache me nivrti
Kenaapi devene hrudayas titena
Yataa niyuktosmi tata karomi
–I know what is righteousness, but there is no progress in it
I know what is unrighteousness but there is no deliverance from it
I don’t know what kind of instinct that god has kept within me
I am doing accordingly prompted by that nature.20
However here again it is the god who is blamed for this nature within me. However Arjuna wants to know what is impelling a man to commit sin:
Atha kena prayukto’yam paapam carati puurusha
Anicchannapi vaarsneya balaadiva niyojitah
But by what is a man impelled to commit sin, as if by force, even against his will O Varsneya (Krishna)?21
This one from Tamil is enough to show how the concept of sin in principle is deeply embedded in the Hindu conscience:
Evil, all evil, my race, evil my qualities all,
Great am I only in sin, evil is even my good.
Evil my innermost self, foolish, avoiding the pure,
Beast am I not, yet the ways of the beast I can never forsake.
I can exhort with strong words, telling men what they should hate,
Yet can I never give gifts, only to beg them I know.
Ah! Wretched man that I am, whereunto came I to birth?22
Of course in theory we know that there is sin however it is explained in various ways by Hindu philosophers. But the one radical difference is that while Muktiveda points out it as ‘SIN IN PRINCIPLE’ whereas in Hinduism it is ‘Sins in work’, as atman is considered to remain pure not contaminated by the sin as it is either the very Brahman [advaita Vedanta] or part of Brahman [vishishtadvaita]. I too took sides which were convenient for me in a given time to answer this question, ‘why I cannot live a perfect life even for one day’. However the Spirit of God slowly convinced me that at the end I have to accept personal responsibility whatever I do not blaming someone or something else other than me. Of course the Origin of Sin in Uttaraveda tries to give a foundation for it. Even if I reject that story [of Adam] as part of myth, for the first time the awakening that I am a sinner not because I commit sins but I commit sin because I am a sinner within me helped me a lot.
However what a Scripture says is one thing and how we need to understand it is different. Mere reading of plain text never helps much, particularly for a lay person like me. So to know more about this main doctrinal difference that ‘Original Sin’ and ‘Atman is pure’ I sought the help of Dr. Hoefer to understand the claims of Muktiveda because the ‘Original Sin’ always remained a problem for me to understand. Though Hinduism claims that ‘atman is pure’ still it also equally recognize the sinful nature that is within us which is either implanted by god within us or because of past karma or even part of our nature as Gita says: Even a wise man acts in accordance with his own nature. Beings follow their nature. What can restraint do? (Gita 3:33). One another sloka says, ‘manasa vacha karmana dush krutam krutam’ = I commit evil deeds by mind/heart, by words and by works. However it never recognizes that we inherit it because someone has done in the past. And the following reply by Dr. Hoefer cleared this doubt to me which I would like to quote verbatim:
There needs to be some reflection on the doctrine of Original Sin. We must be clear that this is a theological concept. It is not a mechanistic concept. St. Augustine had framed it in a mechanistic way when he said Original Sin was passed down through the act of sexual intercourse. Ps. 51:5 is the singular passage that is used to prove this mechanistic viewpoint. I think that is a very flimsy basis for a very formative doctrine. I think a better way of understanding this passage and the whole doctrine is the recognition that we all were born into a fallen world, permeated by sin, “in thought and word and deed,” as we state in our liturgical Confession of Sin. This is the view that St. Paul expresses in Rom 7, as you cited. The doctrine of Original Sin as well as the doctrine of our sinful nature is a doctrine stated in regard to our standing before the holy God. In relation to His righteousness, we are unholy sinners indeed. In grace, however, He wills to see us differently, as forgiven sinners. [Personal communication]
This fundamental difference in the core doctrine alone pushed me to further search both in Hindu Scriptures and Muktiveda with the help of many commentaries when I became the disciple of Muktinath accepting Him as my Guru. It was a gradual revelation with so many questions, doubts, debate-discussion and argument within me. However, I slowly realized that this is the knowledge which helps me to understand the need and nature of mukti by my commitment in my personal relationship with Muktinath through my bhakti motivating me to continue to ‘work out my mukti with fear and trembling as this mukti is not going to some faceless-space less heaven hanging somewhere in the atmosphere in future after my death but to be realized and exercised in everyday life with clear understanding that I am saved, I am being saved and I will be saved. In this understanding all the three: knowledge, bhakti and karma complement each other not working independently which one could use according to her convenience. But this knowledge is not some esoteric understanding of the nature of my atman is Brahman but an answer to my question: why I cannot live a perfect life? As I stated early, realizing this mukti now in this mortal body does not mean that I overcome the sinful nature within me. Each day I live with this knowledge that I am a saved sinner but struggling saint. And this mukti is a sanctification process that I am saved; I am being saved and I will be saved. Though I know that nothing can separate me from the love of God still I can reject it because of my free will. Similarly as I have to ‘workout my salvation’ it is part of my karma which I need to do consciously not influenced by the residue of my past karma about which I don’t have any knowledge at present. I am not against those who strongly believe in karma doctrine as it addresses so many unresolvable questions in life, like why righteous people suffer whereas evil people flourish etc. And bhakti remains the link between knowledge and karma. To say in other words, this knowledge that I am a sinner saved by the grace of God needs to work out my mukti through my bhakti in everyday life. And all the three components of my Hindu worldview viz., jnana, karma and bhakti complement each other accepting personal responsibility not blaming someone else or some other thing other than me for my failures in life. For me this is the fundamental doctrinal difference between Muktiveda and other faiths.
In my life I never try to know who God is but due to so many early influences I always asked the question ‘Who am I’. For me self realization comes not knowing God or about Him but knowing about oneself. Somehow from the early days though I followed our family tradition of worshiping gods, still my longing was to know ‘who am I’ and ‘why I cannot attain mukti’ etc. Even when the question came about seeing God [to have his darshan] I never asked the question ‘how to find god’ but ‘why I cannot find Him’? I always began the question and search asking the question ‘what prevents me etc.
I know I need to explain a lot further. But this is not the place for it as I have already tried it in Living Dialogue which might see the light one day [or may not see].
However my reading of this book and the dialogues by Gandhi with the Missionaries and Christians Leaders helped me to think deeply further and to Thank God for the free gift of mukti in my life and to live with clear conviction as a Hindu bhakta of Muktinath without need to become a Christian and to join a denominational church to exercise that bhakti in everyday life.
Notes
18 பூண்கொங்கை அன்னையே
போற்றுதும் நின் திருநாமம்
வீண் பிறவி எடுத்தேனை
வினை நீக்கி ஆள்வாயே
நான் என் வினை செய்தேன்
நாயினும் இழி இப்பிறவிக்கு
நான் ஒன்றும் அறிகிலேன்
நான் முகனே பழிக்குறியான்
எடுத்த பிறவி போதும்
இனிப் பிறவி வேண்டிலேன்
தடுத் தென்னைக் காப்பாய்
தயாபரி நீ சங்கரியே
19 Anna, Sandhyavandanam, Chennai, Ramakrishna matt.
20 Dhrtarastra…explains his position aptly thus:
Jaanaam yadharmam na hi me nivrttih
Kenaapi devena hrdisthitena
Yathaaniyuktosmi tathaakaromi— K. Kunjunni Raja. A Note on moral Dilemmas in the Mahabharata. Pp. 49-52, in, Bimal Krishna Matilal, ed, Moral Dilemmas in the Mahabharata, Indian Institute of Advanced Study Rashtrapati Niwas, Shimla, in association with Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi, (1989) 2nd Reprint, 2014p. 51
21 Gita: 3:36, Gita Press, Ghorakpur.
22 குலம்பொல்லேன் குணம்பொல்லேன் குறியும்பொல்லேன்
குற்றமேபெரிதுடையேன் கோலமாய
நலம்பொல்லேனான்பொல்லேன் ஞானியல்லே
னல்லாரோடிசைந்திலேனடுவேனின்ற
விலங்கலேன்விலங்கலாதொழிந்தேனல்லேன்
வெறுப்பனவுமிகப் பெரிதும்பேசவல்லேன்
இலம்பொல்லேனிரப்பதல்லால் ஈயமாட்டே
னென்செய்வான்றோன்றினே னேழையேனே–
Tirunavukkarasu, F. Kingsbury, and G.E.Phillips, Hymns of the Tamil Saivite Saints, Calcutta, Association Press, 1921, song 35, p. 44
Dr Hoefer’s comments
This summary sentence is right on target: ” I am a sinner saved by the grace of God needs to work out my mukti through my bhakti in everyday life.” We are declared forgiven and saved by the grace of God because of Christ’s work on our behalf.
There needs to be some reflection on the doctrine of Original Sin. We must be clear that this is a theological concept. It is not a mechanistic concept. St. Augustine had framed it in a mechanistic way when he said Original Sin was passed down through the act of sexual intercourse. Ps. 51:5 is the singular passage that is used to prove this mechanistic viewpoint. I think that is a very flimsy basis for a very formative doctrine. I think a better way of understanding this passage and the whole doctrine is the recognition that we all were born into a fallen world, permeated by sin, “in thought and word and deed,” as we state in our liturgical Confession of Sin. This is the view that St. Paul expresses in Rom 7, as you cited. The doctrine of Original Sin as well as the doctrine of our sinful nature is a doctrine stated in regard to our standing before the holy God. In relation to His righteousness, we are unholy sinners indeed. In grace, however, He wills to see us differently, as forgiven sinners.
Hoefer
3-3-2022
Leave a Reply