[This article is subjected to re-editing and revising]
In my article ‘Silent Sermon’ I wrote that, ‘Sri Suki Sivam also mentioned that the late Kundrakkudi Adigalar1 said that in Hindu temples the priests keep account for all the vessels and other things they use, but they never keep an account of the people who visited or did not visit.’ There I also pointed out that a Hindu temple priest is only a professional worker and Hindus go to the temple for their personal sadhana and not to have fellowship with others. Similarly, I pointed out how all their social, ritual and spiritual needs were met in different ways, as Hinduism never remained an Organized religion like Christianity. Whereas Christianity becoming an Organized religion, in the course of its development the church became ‘All in One’ Institution, catering to any and every need of its members.
It is well said that, ‘A Christian without a church is a bee without a hive’.2 There is some truth in this, though this too was stated in their attempt and anxiety to keep the interest and security of their Institution and not addressing to the actual needs of its member [See the article ‘Bee without Hive’., https://dayanandbharati.in/bee-without-hive/]. That’s why a movement that purely started among people in an unorganized way remaining within their social and cultural boundaries, giving more importance to the Personal Relationship with God, later became an Organized Religion trying to control the life of its members. But even in this they failed and the church history and all the denominations clearly prove this.
I am not sure why, how and when even this Organizing Christianity began. But I think it also slowly evolved unlike creating an Organization with set goals and constitution. I think one of the reasons could be to guard the so-called ‘doctrinal purity’ of their faith, this need was realized and started to get shape. But this very attempt to keep the doctrinal purity and to create a uniform faith expression ended in diluting the doctrine in various ways, paying the way to create so many denominations [innumerable] and also creating ‘dis-unity’ both in its structure and religion. Well, that is their problem and there is no need to further elaborate on this point as they themselves know about it and now try to create some kind of equiminism based on the slogan ‘’Unity not uniformity’. It is important to note that even this so-called equiminism is promoted either in writing or on top level to safeguard their interest when there is a threat to their common identity. But real equiminism, though we should not even use this word to point out Hindu reality, both in theory and practice is common in Hinduism. For example, accepting their theological differences the two main branches of Sri Vaishnavas [in South India], still will accept the other school as a Sri Vaishnava and they both will join together in temple rituals and other Vaishnavite events. For example one can see both Vadakalai and Thenkalai [Cat and Monkey schools] will serve in a single temple like Tirupati and SriRangam. Even on special occasions both Smarta Brahmin and Vaishnavite vedic Pandits will come together to chant Vedic portions on that occasion like ‘Kumbabisheka’. Watch a certain vedic chanting program in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. You can see both a Smarta Vedic pandit sitting next to a Vaishnava Pandit chanting together. But one can never see such a common worship or communion service done collectively by all the Christian denominations. Or a Catholic priest serving in a Protestant church or the various denominational churches in Protestant would exchange their Pastor among them to serve their members. Because of their differences in theology [as well in ritual details], the followers of one section won’t call non-Vaishnavite.3 Whereas many denominations will dismiss the other as heretics and even not authentic Christians. Unless you accept their particular doctrine and doctrine, you are not a complete Christians, of course with a home to be won for their denomination.
But my intention of sharing this point is to show how an outsider to one religion not knowing all the conflicting views of another religion can try to address their inside problem with a model from outside their religion. Here a Hindu Sivam, taking the example of a Christian’s need for fellowship, points out the failure of a temple priest like that of a Christian priest. As we all know well, Hinduism, not being a ‘Religion’ in its strictest sense, at the same time having the criteria of a religion in it, still remains a Multi Centered pluralistic Inclusivism adopting and adapting everything that is required for its continuity. But any attempt to create some kind of ‘Patch work faith’ within Hinduism won’t be lost for long. Already I mentioned how a temple priest is merely a professional, though this also became Christian reality, still he is not expected to provide the so called ‘Pastoral care’ to visitors of his temple. Even this is not possible in a small temple within a village or settlement. Because, apart from the local people, several outsiders also would come to the temple for their personal sadhana and needs, not expecting any kind of ‘fellowship’ with fellow visitors during their ‘worship’. In fact, several people would prefer to keep quiet and remain silent during their entire time in the temple as part of their sadhana rather than to have a Church-like fellowship in their visit to the temple. The need for any spiritual sadhana a Hindu would approach only her guru or acharya not a priest. Even to cater to the life cycle events [samskaras] there will be other kinds of priests available not the temple priests. Whereas a church priest/pastor is an all rounder, even taking care of church administration.
Whereas, except some outside visitors attending the Church service [called ‘Mass’ in Catholic church], most of the members of the congregation alone will come week after week to the church, not merely to ‘worship’ or to have ‘fellowship’ but to keep their ‘membership’ intact. Because a non-member of a church won’t get some services of the Pastor easily for their private and personal needs. For example, unless you and your family are the official members of the church, they won’t get a grave in the graveyard which is controlled and maintained by that Church. Of course, some could get an exception and I don’t know what the rules are for this. So, keeping in mind their social needs like birth [hatch], marriage [match] and death [despatch] if not regular attendance but occasional one is prerequisite to get all the services done as per their particular church denomination. Note ‘attendance’ is more important than ‘participation’.
This attendance is not exclusively important for the spiritual and religious needs of the members but also to the income to the church. In some churches they worry about their regular collection during the service going away to Independent churches where some of their members keep a dual identity, like ‘CSI’ for social need and ‘Pentecostal’ for spiritual need.
Recently in my talk one Hindu bhakta, who in his early days, started a small fellowship keeping in mind the need of several Professionals in the secular world, particularly new ‘converts’. But he soon closed it for two reasons, Corona pandemic and the dispute about where the ‘collection’ would go? To Which church, as he didn’t start any separate church as he refused to collect and keep the money for any need of their fellowship. A temple priest [except in small temples where he depends upon the collection on the plate] receive regular financial support by the temple administration out of the temple income, or the local people arranged as per their custom], who need not worry about the amount coming to the temple [of course on his plate put by the votaries voluntarily], a church priest cannot remain indifferent to the ‘attendance’ of its member that much easily—not only keeping the spiritual need of his congregation but also financial need of the church. In few Independent churches, the Pastor is very keen in visiting and collecting the ‘titth’ regularly, not allowing to make any dint in his income to survive.
My next point is that, other than other needs, one of the important reasons to go to the church is to receive ‘communion’. Some take it seriously but others take it as part of the essential ritual. If not regularly, at least on important festivals, most of the Christians won’t want to miss this ritual. Whereas, a Hindu goes to the temple, not with such needs. Of course, she too will receive Prasad of any form—be it food offered to the deity, or vibhuti and Kumkum, half of the coconut back after doing the archana etc. They need not receive it exclusively from the priest as there will be separate places selling some of the temple Prasad regularly like the famous Thirupati Laddu.
Except in large scale churches with so many memberships, in small congregations, a priest will easily notice who attends regular ‘communion service’ and who does not. Here also, considering all the complications related to this so-called ‘communion’ which actually should mean ‘fellowship’, as that is the way it is initiated by the Lord, even an organized Church cannot have total control on it. Let me explain both from my personal experience and also my observation. Before that I would like to point one interesting thing that I personally heard from an Anglican Priest when I asked him ‘how you decide to whom should communion served and to whom not’, he said, ‘in principle anyone attend the service before ‘confession’ [this is only in Protestant mainline churches] can receive communion. Whereas anyone coming after the ‘confession’ cannot’ But in reality, if a wealthy and influential church member comes even after ‘confession’ the priest won’t dare to say ‘no’ if he stands in the queue to receive communion. In fact, the priest will be happy to see that that VIP has, at last, come to the church. In such a small congregation a Priest can notice who came and who didn’t. Whereas this is not possible to a Hindu priest and even not required for him. He won’t refuse to give Vibhuti or Kumkum for the devotees who come even after the regular pujas. As young children, we never participate in the entire bhajans or puja but will go to the near end as we don’t want to miss the Prasad that will be distributed after that.
Now coming to extra information about ‘communion’ which is not relevant to this article, but interesting to note. When I was working as a sales representative, I used to go and stay with my Catholic friend. One time, as I stayed on Sunday, he took me along with his family to the church to attend the ‘mass’. After sitting for a few minutes, leaving his wife and son, he came out to smoke, as he was a chain smoker. I followed him. For this he said, ‘you sit and I will come back quickly’. But I told him that I came to his home to have fellowship with his family, not to attend his church service. So, we both went outside and seeing him two more of his friends joined. We four began to chat and I noticed that my friend is not alone in this kind of ‘outside service fellowship’ within the church compound. Several members were doing the same, of course not all were smoking but few. When the time for mass came, then he and others standing outside went in. I also followed him. When he and his wife joined the queue, I also joined. My friend never objected to this. Even the Catholic priest when serving the wafer never asked about whether I am a Catholic or not. Of course, surely he might have recognized that I am not a member of his church. As many travelling Catholics from outstation used to visit the mass, he might have never suspected. Above all, as I was standing behind my friend, he could have thought that my friend knew about my faith. But some Anglican and mainline Protestant churches follow about giving communion [to the attendees before confession], I think Catholics never have such criteria as they have a separate ‘confession’ ritual. But in the temple, a priest while giving ‘holy water’ or Vibhuti or kumkum need not enquire about the faith or not even know whether he is a regular attendee of the temple or not.
In another incident, the opposite happened. After I became a bhakta of the Lord, one time I went to a CSI church to meet one of its members on Sunday. Because I was asked to meet him after the Church service with the letter given by his friend introducing me. So, though I reached a little late, I joined the Church Service almost from the beginning but not till the end. Because when the Pastor gave a call to come and receive ‘Holy Communion’, leaving my Muktiveda on the bench, like others I also went and joined the queue. But immediately one person came and asked me not to stand in the queue. He didn’t give any reason. But easily understood. Because I went with my saffron dress looking like a Hindu Sannyasi. Though I too carried my Muktiveda with me and turned to the verses when the pastor preached the sermon, that never ‘qualified’ me to receive ‘communion. Later I came to know that the man who stopped was the catechist of the church. Probably he was instructed by one of the [evangelical] church members, not allowing a ‘Other than Christian’ to receive ‘communion’ in their church or probably a Hindu. I don’t know. So, after leaving the letter, another person who was standing outside the church [due to the crowd and as he came late, couldn’t get one seat] walked away. Later when I met that person in his home, he regretted it a lot and sought my forgiveness. Later I came to know that in one particular denomination, they won’t give communion to any of its non-members.
Finally, on this complicated ‘communion’, I have witnessed personally how some of the mainline church members, after attending the ‘communion service’ will go to the Pentecostal church to ‘worship’ the Lord in ‘Truth and SPIRIT’ [I mean Holy Spirit]. When I asked one person with whom I was staying on one Sunday after I became the bhakta of the Lord [during my sojourn among evangelicals], with a smile he said, ‘we go to our main church for ‘membership, fellowship and gossip’ and go to the Pentecostal church to ‘worship’.. Knowing this well, several main line churches, unable to stop this double membership to some of their members, will arrange their time of service with a common knowledge that there is no point in competing with the other churches which according to them are involved only in ‘sheep stealing ministry’. Similarly, the Independent churches also will arrange their service, giving enough time to their members from other main line churches to come and join them. A temple priest need not worry or be concerned about any of these details related to the votaries coming to the temple to have ‘darshan’ of the deity.
Finally, one important point to be noted about the difference between a temple priest and church pastor is that while the former almost remains a permanent priest to that temple, a pastor will often be transferred to various other congregations. Even those temple priests who were appointed after completing proper training to become a priest, they won’t be transferred from temple to temple. Whereas a church pastor/priest will be transferred for various reasons [local church politics, his personality, scheme within the committee and church members etc. etc.] Unlike the original model in Muktiveda, where the church leaders [catechist, bishop etc.] were selected locally by the member of a particular congregation, where such leaders were recognized and to serve as the leaders, when Christianity become an Organized Religion, then such ‘appointments’ by the Church Authority become a norm. Now this even becomes more like a profession. After some training to become a Pastor [Mainline Protestant churches and priests in Catholic] is appointed and the church priest has to learn everything new about his congregation members. Before he could be well settled, he could be transferred again, again starting from the beginning to know about the new church members. Except some Independent church pastors, who in most cases founded their own churches [after sheep stealing of course] will stay in one place. This is what the Organized Religion has done to its followers. Whereas rarely a Hindu temple priest would be appointed to a temple like this. Of course this has now started to happen. But here also the temple priest won’t be transferred from temple to temple or place to place, even to other temples within the same administration. Of course to remain as a priest or leave is the priest’s personal choice as he will easily go to some other temple or town where he can get more income. So comparing a Hindu temple priest with that of a church pastor/priest is like comparing between orange and apple, though both of them are fruits.
I can go on giving various points giving both sides of the information, though now I am an outsider to Christianity. Not knowing all these kinds of complicated details and roles played by a church priest, taking only one important teaching of the need of ‘fellowship’ , several Hindus like Sri Suki Sivam, try to borrow one aspect of another religion to highlight their need. Of course his point is valid. However not the comparison quoting Kundrakudi Adigalar. Of course Adihalar was not the only Hindu trying to borrow ideas from other Organized religions to create an Organized Hindu religion. If I remember correctly, one Siva Subramayam Swami [actually a non-Indian white man] who has an ashram in Hawaii wrote about this somewhere. I read it. Even there came one article about this either in Times of India or The Hindu [I think Bangalore edition] to which another scholarly Hindu wrote a rebuttal. I have both of them somewhere in my documents and I have to hunt for them. Anyhow, even this strange idea of creating an Organized Hindu Religion,4 in recent times failed and any attempt to create one in future will also fail. I think some critics like Romia Thappar have written about this as ‘Syndicate Hinduism’.5 I have to check for the details, again in my documents. Essentializing and homogenising Hinduism is a modern and novel trend. Though it is not completely given up, still how far it took room in the common mind of Hindus is a big question. Only time will let Indian Civilization accept all kinds of trends accommodating everything at the same time keeping the spirit of Unity in Diversity.
As long as pluralism and relativism is the mark of Hinduism, all kinds of efforts to essentialize Hinduism will never create another kind of Organized religion like Christianity. As long as people want to keep their own personal identity, in spite of a unifying thread that connects them together—in our case Indian Civilization, people would prefer their personal identity to common identity. Ask any Sri Vaishnavite, whether he is a Hindu or Vaishnavite and obviously he would say ‘Vaishnavite’. The same is the case with Saivites, Lyngayats. When I directly asked Umapathy, our village head whether he is a Hindu or Lingayat, without hesitation or second thought he said Lyngayat. Though north Indians call all the south Indians as ‘Madarasi’, as Malayali would prefer to identify himself as “Malayali” not “Madarasi”, as an Irish, Whales and Scottish would prefer their personal identity than British.
Gurukulam, 18-5-2024
Notes
1 Kundrakudi is a famous Saiva Mutt in Tamilnadu and the in charge of the mutt is called Adigalar. In this case this particular Adihalar was a famous person in his time in Tamilnadu. Adigalar coming from ‘adi’ = feet ‘halar’ honorific word actually means the servant of God.
2 Attributed to Scottish theologian and pastor Thomas Chaimers (1780-1847). from ChatGPT.
3 …these Vaisnavas were able to disagree with one another while continuing to respect one another as Vaisnavas. Even if the differences of attitude toward caste contributed to the separation of the Thenkalai and Vatakalai communities, such differences did not lead either group to deny to the other the title “Vaisnava.” This combination of intellectual commitment (such that argument is possible) and mutual inclusion (such that intellectual differences do not entirely separate Vaisnavas from one another) is a distinguishing feature of Vaishnavism as a coherent religious tradition throughout its long history.—Francis X. Clooney and Tony K. Stewart, Vaisnava, pp. 162-184, in The Hindu World, eds. Suhil Mittal and Gene Thursby, Routledge, New York, [2004] , Reprint 2018, p. 172
4 ‘Christianity and Islam were well organised. Hindus, on the other hand, were still speaking with different voices and thus had no voice in their own country. Let us convert Hindus to Hinduism, and then everything would be all-right.’ (Swami Chinmayananda, Hindu Vishva, March-April 1979, p.40)— Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics 1925 to the 1990s With a New Afterword, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 348
Vivekananda and Dayanand, too, tried to Christianize Hinduism… [T]he main elements of their Hinduism were, again: an attempt to turn Hinduism into an organized religion with an organized priesthood, church and missionaries; acceptance of the idea of proselytization and religious ‘conscientization’ (suddhi, the bête noire of the Indian Christians and Muslims, was a Semitic element introduced into nineteenth-century Hinduism under the influences of Western Christianity); an attempt to introduce the concept of The Book following the Semitic creeds (the Vedas and the Gita) in the case of the two Swamis); … and a certain Puritanism and this-worldly asceticism borrowed partly from the Catholic church and partly from Calvinism. {Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983), 25}– Timothy S. Dobe, Hindu Christian Faquir: Modern Monks, Global Christianity, and Indian Sainthood, New Delhi, Oxford, 2015
5…In trying to redefine Hinduism today as a universalizing religion; the implicit attempt is to try and include those without the recognized dharma, who have in the past been excluded; but the inclusion is not divorced from the terms of the upper caste dharma and this raises problems.— Romila Thapar, Syndicated Hinduism Critical Quest, New Delhi, 2010. [Originally published in Gunther-Dietz Sontheimer & Herman Kulke edited Hinduism Revisted, Delhi, Manohar (2005). p. 11
[This article is subjected to re-editing and revising]
In my article ‘Silent Sermon’ I wrote that, ‘Sri Suki Sivam also mentioned that the late Kundrakkudi Adigalar1 said that in Hindu temples the priests keep account for all the vessels and other things they use, but they never keep an account of the people who visited or did not visit.’ There I also pointed out that a Hindu temple priest is only a professional worker and Hindus go to the temple for their personal sadhana and not to have fellowship with others. Similarly, I pointed out how all their social, ritual and spiritual needs were met in different ways, as Hinduism never remained an Organized religion like Christianity. Whereas Christianity becoming an Organized religion, in the course of its development the church became ‘All in One’ Institution, catering to any and every need of its members.
It is well said that, ‘A Christian without a church is a bee without a hive’.2 There is some truth in this, though this too was stated in their attempt and anxiety to keep the interest and security of their Institution and not addressing to the actual needs of its member [See the article ‘Bee without Hive’., https://dayanandbharati.in/bee-without-hive/]. That’s why a movement that purely started among people in an unorganized way remaining within their social and cultural boundaries, giving more importance to the Personal Relationship with God, later became an Organized Religion trying to control the life of its members. But even in this they failed and the church history and all the denominations clearly prove this.
I am not sure why, how and when even this Organizing Christianity began. But I think it also slowly evolved unlike creating an Organization with set goals and constitution. I think one of the reasons could be to guard the so-called ‘doctrinal purity’ of their faith, this need was realized and started to get shape. But this very attempt to keep the doctrinal purity and to create a uniform faith expression ended in diluting the doctrine in various ways, paying the way to create so many denominations [innumerable] and also creating ‘dis-unity’ both in its structure and religion. Well, that is their problem and there is no need to further elaborate on this point as they themselves know about it and now try to create some kind of equiminism based on the slogan ‘’Unity not uniformity’. It is important to note that even this so-called equiminism is promoted either in writing or on top level to safeguard their interest when there is a threat to their common identity. But real equiminism, though we should not even use this word to point out Hindu reality, both in theory and practice is common in Hinduism. For example, accepting their theological differences the two main branches of Sri Vaishnavas [in South India], still will accept the other school as a Sri Vaishnava and they both will join together in temple rituals and other Vaishnavite events. For example one can see both Vadakalai and Thenkalai [Cat and Monkey schools] will serve in a single temple like Tirupati and SriRangam. Even on special occasions both Smarta Brahmin and Vaishnavite vedic Pandits will come together to chant Vedic portions on that occasion like ‘Kumbabisheka’. Watch a certain vedic chanting program in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. You can see both a Smarta Vedic pandit sitting next to a Vaishnava Pandit chanting together. But one can never see such a common worship or communion service done collectively by all the Christian denominations. Or a Catholic priest serving in a Protestant church or the various denominational churches in Protestant would exchange their Pastor among them to serve their members. Because of their differences in theology [as well in ritual details], the followers of one section won’t call non-Vaishnavite.3 Whereas many denominations will dismiss the other as heretics and even not authentic Christians. Unless you accept their particular doctrine and doctrine, you are not a complete Christians, of course with a home to be won for their denomination.
But my intention of sharing this point is to show how an outsider to one religion not knowing all the conflicting views of another religion can try to address their inside problem with a model from outside their religion. Here a Hindu Sivam, taking the example of a Christian’s need for fellowship, points out the failure of a temple priest like that of a Christian priest. As we all know well, Hinduism, not being a ‘Religion’ in its strictest sense, at the same time having the criteria of a religion in it, still remains a Multi Centered pluralistic Inclusivism adopting and adapting everything that is required for its continuity. But any attempt to create some kind of ‘Patch work faith’ within Hinduism won’t be lost for long. Already I mentioned how a temple priest is merely a professional, though this also became Christian reality, still he is not expected to provide the so called ‘Pastoral care’ to visitors of his temple. Even this is not possible in a small temple within a village or settlement. Because, apart from the local people, several outsiders also would come to the temple for their personal sadhana and needs, not expecting any kind of ‘fellowship’ with fellow visitors during their ‘worship’. In fact, several people would prefer to keep quiet and remain silent during their entire time in the temple as part of their sadhana rather than to have a Church-like fellowship in their visit to the temple. The need for any spiritual sadhana a Hindu would approach only her guru or acharya not a priest. Even to cater to the life cycle events [samskaras] there will be other kinds of priests available not the temple priests. Whereas a church priest/pastor is an all rounder, even taking care of church administration.
Whereas, except some outside visitors attending the Church service [called ‘Mass’ in Catholic church], most of the members of the congregation alone will come week after week to the church, not merely to ‘worship’ or to have ‘fellowship’ but to keep their ‘membership’ intact. Because a non-member of a church won’t get some services of the Pastor easily for their private and personal needs. For example, unless you and your family are the official members of the church, they won’t get a grave in the graveyard which is controlled and maintained by that Church. Of course, some could get an exception and I don’t know what the rules are for this. So, keeping in mind their social needs like birth [hatch], marriage [match] and death [despatch] if not regular attendance but occasional one is prerequisite to get all the services done as per their particular church denomination. Note ‘attendance’ is more important than ‘participation’.
This attendance is not exclusively important for the spiritual and religious needs of the members but also to the income to the church. In some churches they worry about their regular collection during the service going away to Independent churches where some of their members keep a dual identity, like ‘CSI’ for social need and ‘Pentecostal’ for spiritual need.
Recently in my talk one Hindu bhakta, who in his early days, started a small fellowship keeping in mind the need of several Professionals in the secular world, particularly new ‘converts’. But he soon closed it for two reasons, Corona pandemic and the dispute about where the ‘collection’ would go? To Which church, as he didn’t start any separate church as he refused to collect and keep the money for any need of their fellowship. A temple priest [except in small temples where he depends upon the collection on the plate] receive regular financial support by the temple administration out of the temple income, or the local people arranged as per their custom], who need not worry about the amount coming to the temple [of course on his plate put by the votaries voluntarily], a church priest cannot remain indifferent to the ‘attendance’ of its member that much easily—not only keeping the spiritual need of his congregation but also financial need of the church. In few Independent churches, the Pastor is very keen in visiting and collecting the ‘titth’ regularly, not allowing to make any dint in his income to survive.
My next point is that, other than other needs, one of the important reasons to go to the church is to receive ‘communion’. Some take it seriously but others take it as part of the essential ritual. If not regularly, at least on important festivals, most of the Christians won’t want to miss this ritual. Whereas, a Hindu goes to the temple, not with such needs. Of course, she too will receive Prasad of any form—be it food offered to the deity, or vibhuti and Kumkum, half of the coconut back after doing the archana etc. They need not receive it exclusively from the priest as there will be separate places selling some of the temple Prasad regularly like the famous Thirupati Laddu.
Except in large scale churches with so many memberships, in small congregations, a priest will easily notice who attends regular ‘communion service’ and who does not. Here also, considering all the complications related to this so-called ‘communion’ which actually should mean ‘fellowship’, as that is the way it is initiated by the Lord, even an organized Church cannot have total control on it. Let me explain both from my personal experience and also my observation. Before that I would like to point one interesting thing that I personally heard from an Anglican Priest when I asked him ‘how you decide to whom should communion served and to whom not’, he said, ‘in principle anyone attend the service before ‘confession’ [this is only in Protestant mainline churches] can receive communion. Whereas anyone coming after the ‘confession’ cannot’ But in reality, if a wealthy and influential church member comes even after ‘confession’ the priest won’t dare to say ‘no’ if he stands in the queue to receive communion. In fact, the priest will be happy to see that that VIP has, at last, come to the church. In such a small congregation a Priest can notice who came and who didn’t. Whereas this is not possible to a Hindu priest and even not required for him. He won’t refuse to give Vibhuti or Kumkum for the devotees who come even after the regular pujas. As young children, we never participate in the entire bhajans or puja but will go to the near end as we don’t want to miss the Prasad that will be distributed after that.
Now coming to extra information about ‘communion’ which is not relevant to this article, but interesting to note. When I was working as a sales representative, I used to go and stay with my Catholic friend. One time, as I stayed on Sunday, he took me along with his family to the church to attend the ‘mass’. After sitting for a few minutes, leaving his wife and son, he came out to smoke, as he was a chain smoker. I followed him. For this he said, ‘you sit and I will come back quickly’. But I told him that I came to his home to have fellowship with his family, not to attend his church service. So, we both went outside and seeing him two more of his friends joined. We four began to chat and I noticed that my friend is not alone in this kind of ‘outside service fellowship’ within the church compound. Several members were doing the same, of course not all were smoking but few. When the time for mass came, then he and others standing outside went in. I also followed him. When he and his wife joined the queue, I also joined. My friend never objected to this. Even the Catholic priest when serving the wafer never asked about whether I am a Catholic or not. Of course, surely he might have recognized that I am not a member of his church. As many travelling Catholics from outstation used to visit the mass, he might have never suspected. Above all, as I was standing behind my friend, he could have thought that my friend knew about my faith. But some Anglican and mainline Protestant churches follow about giving communion [to the attendees before confession], I think Catholics never have such criteria as they have a separate ‘confession’ ritual. But in the temple, a priest while giving ‘holy water’ or Vibhuti or kumkum need not enquire about the faith or not even know whether he is a regular attendee of the temple or not.
In another incident, the opposite happened. After I became a bhakta of the Lord, one time I went to a CSI church to meet one of its members on Sunday. Because I was asked to meet him after the Church service with the letter given by his friend introducing me. So, though I reached a little late, I joined the Church Service almost from the beginning but not till the end. Because when the Pastor gave a call to come and receive ‘Holy Communion’, leaving my Muktiveda on the bench, like others I also went and joined the queue. But immediately one person came and asked me not to stand in the queue. He didn’t give any reason. But easily understood. Because I went with my saffron dress looking like a Hindu Sannyasi. Though I too carried my Muktiveda with me and turned to the verses when the pastor preached the sermon, that never ‘qualified’ me to receive ‘communion. Later I came to know that the man who stopped was the catechist of the church. Probably he was instructed by one of the [evangelical] church members, not allowing a ‘Other than Christian’ to receive ‘communion’ in their church or probably a Hindu. I don’t know. So, after leaving the letter, another person who was standing outside the church [due to the crowd and as he came late, couldn’t get one seat] walked away. Later when I met that person in his home, he regretted it a lot and sought my forgiveness. Later I came to know that in one particular denomination, they won’t give communion to any of its non-members.
Finally, on this complicated ‘communion’, I have witnessed personally how some of the mainline church members, after attending the ‘communion service’ will go to the Pentecostal church to ‘worship’ the Lord in ‘Truth and SPIRIT’ [I mean Holy Spirit]. When I asked one person with whom I was staying on one Sunday after I became the bhakta of the Lord [during my sojourn among evangelicals], with a smile he said, ‘we go to our main church for ‘membership, fellowship and gossip’ and go to the Pentecostal church to ‘worship’.. Knowing this well, several main line churches, unable to stop this double membership to some of their members, will arrange their time of service with a common knowledge that there is no point in competing with the other churches which according to them are involved only in ‘sheep stealing ministry’. Similarly, the Independent churches also will arrange their service, giving enough time to their members from other main line churches to come and join them. A temple priest need not worry or be concerned about any of these details related to the votaries coming to the temple to have ‘darshan’ of the deity.
Finally, one important point to be noted about the difference between a temple priest and church pastor is that while the former almost remains a permanent priest to that temple, a pastor will often be transferred to various other congregations. Even those temple priests who were appointed after completing proper training to become a priest, they won’t be transferred from temple to temple. Whereas a church pastor/priest will be transferred for various reasons [local church politics, his personality, scheme within the committee and church members etc. etc.] Unlike the original model in Muktiveda, where the church leaders [catechist, bishop etc.] were selected locally by the member of a particular congregation, where such leaders were recognized and to serve as the leaders, when Christianity become an Organized Religion, then such ‘appointments’ by the Church Authority become a norm. Now this even becomes more like a profession. After some training to become a Pastor [Mainline Protestant churches and priests in Catholic] is appointed and the church priest has to learn everything new about his congregation members. Before he could be well settled, he could be transferred again, again starting from the beginning to know about the new church members. Except some Independent church pastors, who in most cases founded their own churches [after sheep stealing of course] will stay in one place. This is what the Organized Religion has done to its followers. Whereas rarely a Hindu temple priest would be appointed to a temple like this. Of course this has now started to happen. But here also the temple priest won’t be transferred from temple to temple or place to place, even to other temples within the same administration. Of course to remain as a priest or leave is the priest’s personal choice as he will easily go to some other temple or town where he can get more income. So comparing a Hindu temple priest with that of a church pastor/priest is like comparing between orange and apple, though both of them are fruits.
I can go on giving various points giving both sides of the information, though now I am an outsider to Christianity. Not knowing all these kinds of complicated details and roles played by a church priest, taking only one important teaching of the need of ‘fellowship’ , several Hindus like Sri Suki Sivam, try to borrow one aspect of another religion to highlight their need. Of course his point is valid. However not the comparison quoting Kundrakudi Adigalar. Of course Adihalar was not the only Hindu trying to borrow ideas from other Organized religions to create an Organized Hindu religion. If I remember correctly, one Siva Subramayam Swami [actually a non-Indian white man] who has an ashram in Hawaii wrote about this somewhere. I read it. Even there came one article about this either in Times of India or The Hindu [I think Bangalore edition] to which another scholarly Hindu wrote a rebuttal. I have both of them somewhere in my documents and I have to hunt for them. Anyhow, even this strange idea of creating an Organized Hindu Religion,4 in recent times failed and any attempt to create one in future will also fail. I think some critics like Romia Thappar have written about this as ‘Syndicate Hinduism’.5 I have to check for the details, again in my documents. Essentializing and homogenising Hinduism is a modern and novel trend. Though it is not completely given up, still how far it took room in the common mind of Hindus is a big question. Only time will let Indian Civilization accept all kinds of trends accommodating everything at the same time keeping the spirit of Unity in Diversity.
As long as pluralism and relativism is the mark of Hinduism, all kinds of efforts to essentialize Hinduism will never create another kind of Organized religion like Christianity. As long as people want to keep their own personal identity, in spite of a unifying thread that connects them together—in our case Indian Civilization, people would prefer their personal identity to common identity. Ask any Sri Vaishnavite, whether he is a Hindu or Vaishnavite and obviously he would say ‘Vaishnavite’. The same is the case with Saivites, Lyngayats. When I directly asked Umapathy, our village head whether he is a Hindu or Lingayat, without hesitation or second thought he said Lyngayat. Though north Indians call all the south Indians as ‘Madarasi’, as Malayali would prefer to identify himself as “Malayali” not “Madarasi”, as an Irish, Whales and Scottish would prefer their personal identity than British.
Gurukulam, 18-5-2024
Notes
1 Kundrakudi is a famous Saiva Mutt in Tamilnadu and the in charge of the mutt is called Adigalar. In this case this particular Adihalar was a famous person in his time in Tamilnadu. Adigalar coming from ‘adi’ = feet ‘halar’ honorific word actually means the servant of God.
2 Attributed to Scottish theologian and pastor Thomas Chaimers (1780-1847). from ChatGPT.
3 …these Vaisnavas were able to disagree with one another while continuing to respect one another as Vaisnavas. Even if the differences of attitude toward caste contributed to the separation of the Thenkalai and Vatakalai communities, such differences did not lead either group to deny to the other the title “Vaisnava.” This combination of intellectual commitment (such that argument is possible) and mutual inclusion (such that intellectual differences do not entirely separate Vaisnavas from one another) is a distinguishing feature of Vaishnavism as a coherent religious tradition throughout its long history.—Francis X. Clooney and Tony K. Stewart, Vaisnava, pp. 162-184, in The Hindu World, eds. Suhil Mittal and Gene Thursby, Routledge, New York, [2004] , Reprint 2018, p. 172
4 ‘Christianity and Islam were well organised. Hindus, on the other hand, were still speaking with different voices and thus had no voice in their own country. Let us convert Hindus to Hinduism, and then everything would be all-right.’ (Swami Chinmayananda, Hindu Vishva, March-April 1979, p.40)— Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics 1925 to the 1990s With a New Afterword, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 348
Vivekananda and Dayanand, too, tried to Christianize Hinduism… [T]he main elements of their Hinduism were, again: an attempt to turn Hinduism into an organized religion with an organized priesthood, church and missionaries; acceptance of the idea of proselytization and religious ‘conscientization’ (suddhi, the bête noire of the Indian Christians and Muslims, was a Semitic element introduced into nineteenth-century Hinduism under the influences of Western Christianity); an attempt to introduce the concept of The Book following the Semitic creeds (the Vedas and the Gita) in the case of the two Swamis); … and a certain Puritanism and this-worldly asceticism borrowed partly from the Catholic church and partly from Calvinism. {Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983), 25}– Timothy S. Dobe, Hindu Christian Faquir: Modern Monks, Global Christianity, and Indian Sainthood, New Delhi, Oxford, 2015
5…In trying to redefine Hinduism today as a universalizing religion; the implicit attempt is to try and include those without the recognized dharma, who have in the past been excluded; but the inclusion is not divorced from the terms of the upper caste dharma and this raises problems.— Romila Thapar, Syndicated Hinduism Critical Quest, New Delhi, 2010. [Originally published in Gunther-Dietz Sontheimer & Herman Kulke edited Hinduism Revisted, Delhi, Manohar (2005). p. 11
Leave a Reply