A Review Article
Krishna and Christ
In the Light of Some of the Fundamental Concepts
and Themes of the Bhagavad Gita and the New Testament
(by Ishanand Vempeny, S. J., Ishvani Kendra, Pune, 1988)
reviewed by Dayanand Bharati and H. L. Richard
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has long been announcing a readymade or instant solution to every global problem of any kind through T. M. Though Dr. Ishanand Vempeny does not claim such a thing, yet his `dialogal religiosity’ (which is `secularism made in India'{p. 460} instead of imported secularism) is claimed to be able to `prepare the way for the realization of this dream…of vasudhaiva kutumbakam (world-family) expressed through the B[hagavad] G[ita] concept of loka-sangraha and the NT concept of God’s kingdom’ (p. 459-460). `Much water has flowed under the bridge since the completion of this book’ (p. 453) and yet more since its publication. One wonders what would be his reaction in the post-Ayodhya scenario including Bal Thackeray’s statements against minorities after the election of the Shiv Sena government in Maharashtra. Regardless of this concern, we must appreciate the efforts of Dr. Vempeny to produce a model of his `dialogal religiosity’ by explaining the various concepts of both Hinduism and Christianity (which are, according to the author, complementary to each other rather than contradictory), essentially using the Bhagavad Gita and the New Testament.
True to late twentieth century concerns, this is all given a practical and even political twist:
`When a religion tends to become ghettoistically self-enclosed to that extent it becomes fanatic and communalistic. In such a situation of inter-religious rivalry religion is hand in glove with adharma and might even do away with a Socrates, a Christ or a Gandhiji. Religion is at the service of dharma and loksangraha when it is in dialogue with other religions on the levels of jnana, bhakti and karma and engages adharma in the `Kurukshetra’ of our day to day life.’ (p. xl)
`…adharma…[is] making its triumphant march in all fields of human life including religion itself. What is most distressing is the fact that religions work hand in glove with the forces of adharma, thereby defeating the very reason for their existence. Universal love and peace…are the implicit if not explicit ideals of almost all the religions….[So] how do religions become impotent before the triumphant march of adharma, as seen in the suicidal armament-race, in the juxtaposition of luxury and dehumanizing poverty, in the denial of justice on the basis of colour, race and creed, and in its numerous other ugly manifestations? How can we channelize the precious energy-potential kept locked up in religions to establish dharma (dharmasamsthaapana) aspired to by all the world religions?’ (p. xxxvi)
The answer, of course, is dialogue.
`Its [this book’s] chief aim is this: to create awareness among the religions, that the guns aimed at each other in inter-religious rivalry be turned towards adharma which is the common enemy of all religions and of humanity as a whole. If this objective is effectively and zealously pursued some of its valuable implications will be the following: (i) Religions will get out of their ghettoistic narrow world by widening their horizons through inter-religious interactions. (ii) This interaction will help religions to develop for themselves an inner mechanism for self-criticism and self-purification. (iii) Such a mechanism triggered by inter-religious interactions will prevent the blind, emotional dimension of religion from becoming a destructive and fanatic energy, and will sublimate it for creative purposes. (iv) Religions will cease to be a dead-weight from the past and the most organized body for the defence of the status quo, but will become a powerful ally of the progressive forces for a better world. (v) It will thus lead to the growth and enrichment of each religion, not at the cost of others but in terms of total welfare and universal harmony. This objective with all its implications is expressed in our work through the concept Inter-religious Dialogue, after loading the concept “Dialogue” with deeper and wider implications.’ (pp. xxxvi-xxxvii)
The book has four major sections. The first section (64 pages) is introductory, describing dialogue and giving background information on the Gita and New Testament. In the second section (161 pages) some fundamental concepts of these scriptures like ultimate reality, the world, man, liberation and the like are analysed in their scriptural and historical contexts and are compared in the spirit of dialogue. The third section (121 pages) discusses the background, nature and purposes of the Krishna avataara and Christ’s incarnation. In the fourth section (94 pages) the complementarity of Hinduism and Christianity are discussed with emphasis on how the two traditions can enrich each other.
This book is a valuable possession particularly for those who want to have a positive, sympathetic(? rather Respective) and healthy understanding of others’ scriptures. Christians who believe in dialogal religiosity either to solve the global or national problems or just to understand the world views of others (even in the context of evangelism) will find this book very helpful toward gaining a deeper understanding of some concepts of the Gita, though we need not agree with the author in all his interpretations.
A potential drawback in the book is that the author uses Sanskrit words as they are and those who are not familiar with these terms will find it difficult to read as they cannot refer to the glossary so often. Yet we cannot blame the author for this as most of the Sanskrit words cannot be correctly translated in any other language and for this reason he rightly uses them without translation. This helps those who know a bit of Sanskrit to enjoy the book with understanding of the original context. And as this book is not for reading in one sitting but for use in classes and groups, a small effort to know the meaning of the Sanskrit terms will add rich experience to reading the book.
A few among many issues for possible discussion (and disagreement) will be raised here. The author himself confesses that `controversial issues have been deliberately avoided; for they often lead to the baby being thrown out with the bath water. And truth is too precious to be allowed to suffer such a fate’. (Yet he also agrees that `by this we do not deny the advantages of controversies such as their ability to awaken us to certain neglected areas of truth’.) He makes it clear that the dialogal method he follows `is based on the conviction that no religion possesses the truth totally and exhaustively, that every religion has enough wealth to enrich other religions and that every religion is worthy of love and respect’ (p. xxxviii).
Truth may indeed be too precious to be allowed to suffer such a fate of being thrown away along with bath water, yet we have to accept also that we cannot allow the baby to drown in the same water, however warm and sweet scented it may be. The problem with philosophers (and even theologians) is that they can rationally think and logically prove certain religious concepts as little more than an intellectual entertainment, which sometimes becomes a scholar’s pass time. But for the man on the street `religion is more an existence than an essence’ (to borrow the words of R. Panikkar) and the real solution to face the adharma in the every day life of Kurukshetra is not only to bring forth the complimentary aspects of each religion to the other, but also the controversial facts to `awaken us to certain neglected areas of truth’.
For example, regarding `universal bondage (which is known as original sin in Christian tradition)’; even if one rejects the `Adamic myth’ of the Bible the admitted fact that Hinduism and biblical teaching differ on the basic causes of human bondage is enough to show that mere similarity in describing its manifestation in human life does not holds much value (p. 224). A good doctor is one who treats the disease and not mere symptoms. This dialogal religiosity may prescribe some treatment to the symptoms in the national and international situation. But until the disease is treated the treatment to the symptoms can only give temporary relief (and in our dialogal situation some intellectual consolation by saying `we found the solution but no one wants to listen’).
Neither the western developed `Christian’ countries nor the eastern (particularly India with Veda, Vedaanta and Gita) have been able to face the adharma of the everyday life of Kurukshetra*. Because they have both already thrown the truth away (keeping the water alone either to wash or to dip one more baby as part of religious entertainment). For this one fact remains true: Jesus Christ stands unique both in the secular and religious history of the world, not a mere avataara of the divine dunamis (power) accomodating himself to our desire for rasaas (as our author expresses his disappointment along with `an internationally known Hindu ballet dancer’ who found it `difficult to experience any real rasaa in the NT suited for dance'(p. 379)).
No doubt in it that some of the Hindu (rather Indian) concepts can add rich understanding both to the `Christ-event’ and `Christ-value’, particularly for those of us who are Hindu Christ-bhaktas. And certainly no religion exhaustively grasps truth, and all must be respected. At the same time, the `cross fact’ of Christ will always stand alone and unique (both as an event and as a value) which cannot be complemented by any other concepts because it is not only a concept controversial to the normal human reason but is also the only dharma to face the adharma in the Kurukshetra of every day life situations in both national and international arenas.**
Our author clearly has high esteem for Christ, probably much more than for Krishna. But part of his understanding and esteem for perspectives other than his own involves his refusal to draw the obvious conclusion from the fact that Christ and his cross are solid history (thus he talks of `Christ-fact’) while Krishna (despite the fact that `in the BG avataara is presented as a fact, as a real occurence in time and space’ (p. 267)) can be considered one or two or eight (p. 242-244), none truly historically verifiable in anything like salvific events (thus he speaks of `Krishna-value’). (To draw this comparison to its conclusion would apparently be an illegitimate application of the principle of historico-critical exegesis to texts that should only be read ethico-religiously.) No amount of psychological analysis of devotees (however interesting and instructive the study of Mirabai, Narsi Mehta, Teresa of Avila and St. Francis might be, p. 290-324) can overrule this and justify the conclusion that `Khristabhakti is “anonymous” Krishna bhakti and Krishna-bhakti is “anonymous” Khristabhakti’ (pg 352).
One strongly feels that the author is trying too hard to demonstrate for the Hindus that their world views have a lot to contribute to the Christ-fact and Christ-value (like the rasaas of Krishna’s flute playing and Shiva as nataraj); in fact much more than that they should expect to learn some new ideals or new values from Christ (though he mentions a few points here also). Commenting on his dialogues with the Hindus, one north Indian Christian leader said about Dr. Stanley Jones that he always had the upper hand. Nowadays in order to compensate for such imperialistic western behaviour the tendency seems to be to try to passify the dialogue partner by glorifying the strong and good things in him, even to the point of adding imaginary riches which he himself has never dreamed of. (The author himself agrees that at times he is guilty of stretching meanings a bit, although he says this only referring to the use of the flute and cross as symbols {p. 377}.)
Though one such as I should not challenge a scholar like Dr. Vempeny, yet a few questions on specific doctrinal points must also be raised. We are told that kramamukti according to the BG and the Christian doctrine of purgatory have many similar features. `The BG explains this process of growth into “salvation-situation” by the doctrine of rebirths, whereas the Christian tradition through the doctrine of purgatory’ (p. 228). Leaving aside the (virtually admitted) extra biblical nature of the purgatory doctrine, this justification of punarjanma (reincarnation) teaching stuns the mind. Perhaps there exists no bath water to ever (even) throw away!
The love of God in Christ is expounded by Dr. Vempeny in such a way that there seems to be no offense in the teaching of Jesus. `It is the NT teaching that anyone in whom there is at least a spark of genuine love cannot be punished in hell’, we are told (p. 391). That the Pharisees (and Judas) were without even a spark of love is a harsh judgement indeed. Salvation by a spark of love sounds like a broad and easy road, and the Jesus of the NT said that such a road leads to destruction, and the path to life is narrow and found by few. Such statements shock our twentieth century sense of what religion and spirituality are all about, if not also our sense of human propriety; and this reviewer feels the same shock. But should we avoid this shock by ignoring the many such words of Christ, or face up to the shock and wrestle with the causes and consequences of it? Is there any meaning in calling Christ `Lord’ if at the point where He shocks us we ignore Him and accept our own ideas rather than bowing before His teaching?
We are further informed that
`Avataara in the BG presupposes a trinitarian principle “constituteds” of the eternal divine “I”, the eternal Prakriti and the eternal Yogamaayaa or Aatmamaayaa….An unprejudiced Christian thinker will rightly draw similarities in the following way: the Eternal “I”=the eternal Father; the normative Prakriti=the normative “Logos” or Son; the creative Aatma-maayaa=the Divine Spirit.’ (p. 267)
But it hardly seems valid to associate logos and prakriti, despite the author’s learned defense of this point.
Yet these are minor points in light of the broad principle (already initially addressed above in the bath water analogy) of how `religions’ should be compared. Vempeny decidedly opts for `enlightened inclusivism’ over `exclusivism’ (p. 352). And of course it is true that based on our conviction, because of our own respective interpretation of scriptures, we belong to any one of the groups called `exclusive’, `inclusive’ or `pluralists’. But note that though Hinduism is considered as a parliament of religions, yet when it comes to their own theological stand each sect is exclusive despite the outward claims of pluralism. And it seems that in place of the religion traditionally called Christianity there is the danger of dialogue leading into a new faith that could be called `nice-ianity’.
We must of course agree that we must respect others’ religious sentiments. It is good to be nice. And in all our communication as well silent witness to our convictions, we should not cause unnecessary offense. But we must also ask what the stand was of the immediate disciples of our Lord as well the early bhaktas of Christ. Were they `inclusive’ `exclusive’ or `pluralists’? Was Paul a confused pluralistic scholar or an exclusive fundamentalist or an inclusive fulfilmentalist (or maybe an unenlightened inclusivist)? Where will end these plays on words? (Thankfully Vempeny does not go to the extreme of some dialogists who confess to disagreement in words (which must mean in reading scholarly papers) but rejoice that they agree fully and find all problems resolved when united in silence.)
Dialogue must not be based on the premise that nobody knows the truth yet by our mutual sharing and experience we may find out that truth. It certainly cannot be useful when nice-ness is elevated above truth. Rather, in dialogue we share our experience about the truth witnessed through our respective religious tradition. Here our experience is, though a personal one, yet also a `given’ one from our tradition. While our personal interpretation may even disagree with that `given’ tradition, yet we have to stand within that tradition with freedom to have new experience within it at the same time allowing for new interpretation to bring the message relevent to our contemporary situation, not at the cost of basic principles given by our respective Scriptures.
The Word of God must be the primary given tradition for every disciple of Christ. While Paul was not offensive to his Athens audience (Acts 17), yet he also refused to be nice to everyone. Neither Jesus Christ nor His immediate disciples nor the early bhaktas of Christ were nice to everyone to the cost of their convictions. In fact they all were controversialists, unyielding in their basic convictions. By becoming nice people we may earn good opinions about ourselves for some time, but we can never create any kind of conviction (not even that of a pluralist) for a long time in anyone else’s life. Let us rather agree to disagree.
A true dialogue should help us to know the `Truth about our experience’ and not just to `experience about the truth’. (The following quotation I heard in a conference, hence I cannot either give the reference or prove its authencity: Dr. Radhakrishnan once said that `The essence of religion is the experience of the truth’, but for this his contemporary and friend Sri D. G. Moses replied,`No. The essence of religion is the TRUTH about the experience.’) Because in all our dialogue we approach others with our respective experience about the truth and the dilogue platform provides an opportunity to test the truth about such experiences. Here we may disagree, and let us agree to disagree rather than agree not to disagree just to be nice to everyone.
Vempeny has thankfully taken only a few small steps toward `nice-ianity’, and problems in this area by no way means destroy the usefulness of his book. Those who want a simple introduction to dialogue or the Gita should not look here; but for serious students who want to grapple with issues in comparing Gita and gospel, Vempeny is essential reading despite being an inadequate guide in a number of important areas.
*Dhirendra Narain, an Indian sociologist, analysing the Indian character frankly admits the gap between ideals and performance in India. He writes “Truth is extolled, but all kinds of falsehoods are practised; honesty is valued, but dishonesty is rampant, kindness is virtue, but Indians laugh at ohters’ physical deformity or discomfiture, the cow is sacred as mother, but is subjected to inhuman treatment; Indians eat beef abroad, but subscribe to the image of the sacred cow at home; Indians are spiritual, but their greed for material things is insatiable”–Dhirendra Narain, “Indian National Character in the Twentieth Century,: Annals of the Amerixan Academic of Politixcal and Social Sciences, Vol.370, (March1967), p.130)–quoted by P.M.Thomas, 20th Century Indian Interpretations of Bhagavadgita: Tilak, Gandhi & Aurobindo; ISPCK, Delhi, 1987 fn,23 p.154
Leave a Reply