Dialogue with Christians to be revised Part Eight

Faith and Festivals

The greatest challenge for a Hindu bhakta of the Lord is what to do with the religious festivals that happen in her family.  Once a Hindu become a ‘Christian’ and join any denominational church she can keep away from all such Hindu festivals. But for us who remain a part of our family and community only keeping our bhakti in the Lord, it remains a challenge.  The easy solution given by the Christian mentors to the ‘converts’ is to keep away from such festivals as much as possible.  In case if one is compelled to participate they advice them to keep away from the rituals and eating Prasad.  But this brings more tension in the mind of a Hindu bhakta as she cannot selectively participate in some events in the festivals and religious functions and avoid rest.  Because like every other society in India also life is not divided in water tight compartments.  In a function there will be cultural, social and religious (rituals) events overlapping with each other.  Which one is cultural and which is ritual is not easily marked.  Particularly no outsider to a family and community can decide about it.  So Keeping away from those festivals can never be an option.  As I often said, your absence will be more focused than your presence.  If you participate you will be one among the crowd and others are not going to worried or observe what you keep and what you avoid.  Above all as festivals are natural requirement both for an individual and community to have a break from the routine monotonous life, a Hindu bhakta, taking a higher spiritual ground cannot avoid it, as if she has transcended to the need of any mundane needs.

When this question was asked to me by so many Hindu bhaktas, I told them that they are in the same situation like that of Naaman.@  And the best option for them is to participate actively and wholeheartedly than just choose some events and try to avoid the rest.  There is no point of doing it.  As we have a Tamil proverb: ‘once you get wet (in rain) what is the need of covering only the head’.  (முழுக்க நனைஞ்ச பிறகு முக்காடு எதற்கு). Above all as the rituals in a function happen quickly one after the, a bhakta cannot go in front for one and come back for another disturbing others as well herself.  Just participate as a normal member of your own family and enjoy the function and festival than living with any guilty conscience.   To the question of taking part in certain rituals like participating in arati and eating Prasad, already I have shared my views in other place, which I need not repeat here.  If your conscience is clear and if your bhakti is strong in the Lord, mere outward participation won’t ‘separate you from the love of god’.  For your family and community members by participating in rituals and taking Prasad you are not compromising with your bhakti or accepting their faith.  It symbolizes your unity with the family and community than providing any opportunity to take a ‘stand for the Lord’.  In fact by refusing to participate in the rituals and function one is not taking a ‘stand for the Lord’. It should be demonstrated in other areas of life which one is living day to day than simply in functions which happen once in a while.  But if those who promote of insisting avoiding any participation in the name of taking a ‘stand for the Lord’ only in the time of festivals and family functions are try to do the same what the Lord has already said of ‘straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel’ (Mt. 23:24).

 So now coming to the issue, we never celebrate any ‘Christian festival’ in our life.  Instead we celebrate all our Indian (Hindu) festival keeping the Lord in our worship.  Diwali is our Muktinath Jayanti.  We celebrate Pongal as Harvest festival in the traditional way.  This harvest festival is celebrated in the same time in other parts of India in different names: Bihu (or Bigu) in Assam, Lodi in Punjab, and (Mahara) Sankaranti in most of the parts.  Several times in the past we organized community pongal in our ashram to which we invited local people. One time even few Muslims participated.  One time a bhakta in West Bengal asked me how to celebrate Durga Puja as it was the major religious cum social festival. He said that as a bhakta of the Lord he cannot do puja to Durga.  At the same time as all his neighbors are celebrating in a grand level he has to perform it in his house also as his children and other Hindu relatives will miss it.  Then I suggested to do a three day puja on the 8, 9 and 10^th day.  In general 8, 9, and 10 day are main event in which Sarasvati, Lakshmi and Durga will be celebrated. Then I asked him to celebrate each day focusing on Trinity—Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.  I asked him to select the relevant verses to read in the evening puja and gather his children and other family members and celebrate using all the traditional methods. 

Similarly we celebrate Raki (Rakshabandan) and Holi. Holi comes close to Easter.  Holi is the festival of reconciliation and I asked the North Indian bhaktas to celebrate keeping the same theme as God reconciled human with him.  But I tell the Hindu bhaktas never to celebrate any Christian festival, particularly Christmas as it will send wrong message to other family members and relatives.

Finally I want to insist one point. By celebrating all our Hindu festival we are not ‘redeeming’ them for the Lord or they are the so called ‘Functional Substitute’ (a famous term used in missiology).  We need not ‘redeem’ anything in our culture for the Lord as they are already belongs to us. 

Db

12-1-19

@ It is worth reading what Kenneth Baily says about Naaman incident.  I give the full text to understand the context:

According to her worldview, {I King 17:1-16} each god’s power was limited to his territory. Yahweh, of the land of Israel, could only help those who lived in Israel.  Sidon was Baal’s country, and only Baal had power there.  The widow naturally assumed that the God of Israel was powerless in her district.  Jonah thought he could escape Yahweh by escaping the land of Israel on a ship (Jon 1:3).  Naaman, the visiting general from Damascus, took soil from Israel with him on his homeward journey so that he could pray to Israel’s God while living in Damascus.  Obviously, if each god held sway only over a certain territory, Naaman did not expect the God of Israel to hear him unless he stood on at least some soil from the land of Israel!  He solved his problem by taking the necessary soil from Israel with him to Damascus (2 Kings 5:17)…. — Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, Illinois, IVP Academic, 2008, p. 164

In spite of such limitation of Naaman’s understanding about God, Elisha did not giving any teaching on theology, clearly understood his worldview and never objected to his act of taking the soil or condemned as blind faith.  He simply said ‘God in PEACE’. 

After reading this article which wrote for the private need of a person he asked the question:

I’m not so clear on the last sentence of the article: ” We need not ‘redeem’ anything in our culture for the Lord as they are already belongs to us.”

Someone might ask: can’t we glorify the Lord through good thing in our culture? and for that in a sense we also “redeem”, No?

thanks

S. B.

30-1-19

In response I wrote:

In general many evangelicals when use some Indian symbols or festivals in the name of ‘contextualization’ say that they are ‘redeeming’ them for the Lord.  But for me, the question is, ‘redeeming from whom or what’?  Because most of the Christians think that everything in Hinduism is from devil.  And when they are forced to use certain Indian symbols and rituals/functions they think that they are compromising their faith in the Lord as it will create a ‘syncretistic’ faith.  To avoid any such compromise or syncretism now they use the term ‘redeeming’ them for the Lord viz., redeem those symbols and functions from the devil to use for the glory of the lord.

Regarding the question of redemption about which there are different views¹: God in Muktinath redeemed us from the devil by paying the ransom to him.  But many don’t agree with it but claim that the Lord never paid any ransom to the devil but only appeasing the righteous indignation of God, redeemed us from the sinful nature to make us the children of God.  I too believe that the Lord never paid any ransom to the devil.

Now keeping this technical term in mind, the evangelicals say that they are redeeming certain aspects of Indian (or Hindu) civilization for the Lord as if all those aspects are belong to ‘religion’ which is controlled by devil.   As a digression I have to point out that in the past both the British Government and several missionaries assigned everything in Hinduism to religious sphere.³ Not understanding this present day Christians continue the same legacy in their attitude towards Hindu functions and symbols. 

For me every good thing in every culture and society is a gift from God—though some of the good things in a given society may look evil for outsiders.  So good or bad should be decided by the natives and not outsiders.  Even those religious aspects in Hinduism related with rituals have cultural and social values than strictly related to the various deities of Hinduism. 

Take for example of using ‘manglaya sutra’ (known as thali in Tamil) which is not a pan-Indian symbol which the bridge groom ties to the bridge in marriage symbolizing the culmination of marriage.  Most of the early Christians refuse to include that ceremony in their ‘Christian wedding’. But later when they realize that they cannot easily throw away the ‘sentiment’ attached with ‘mangalya’, with the help of missiological technical term ‘functional substitute’ used a ‘Christian thali’ having ‘Cross’ replacing the traditional thali (in gold which will have the symbol of the family sectarian mark or some other symbol related to that particular family).²  Though I accept their need of it, considering the original background of cross where criminals were crucified and later become the symbol of ‘loving sacrifice’ by the Lord, in principle it won’t be considered as an ‘auspicious symbol’ to be used in a wedding.  But as a joke I say that by wearing the ‘Cross as thali’ the bridge communicate her ‘loving sacrifice’ of her life for her husband and his family in the marriage.

Keeping all this in mind, I say that as every good aspects in our culture is from God we need not ‘redeem’ any aspect in our Indian (Hindu) culture as if they belong to the devil.  Even for those few aspects related to ritual we need not even introduce any so called ‘functional substitute’.  For example, in a marriage where the boy or girl is compelled to use the ‘thali’ with sectarian mark, keeping the ‘Naaman’ formula, we need not object it and fight with their family members to replace it with some other symbol.  For example in a Sri Vaishnavite family they may have a thali with their sectarian mark of tripundhara (Namama in Tamil).  If a girl or boy is compelled to use it in the wedding, she or he should go along with the family.  This is not even any concession shown to the family by a Hindu bhakta of the Lord.  She or he accepts the legitimate right of their parents to perform the wedding of their children in their traditional manner.  Those who wanted to become ‘convert’ and join the denomination Christian church and community can do whatever they want. I am not talking about them.  I only address to every Hindu bhakta of the Lord.  I can show several case studies where such Hindu symbols were objected were later had to change and accommodate the sentiment⁴ of the other family members.  This happened recently. When a heavy duty Pentecostal girl’s marriage was arranged with a Hindu boy her church refuse to accommodate any kind of Hindu symbols or ritual in the marriage and was conducted by that church members in a typical Pentecostal type marriage—with white sari, without our any ornament,  flower etc. for the girl, which symbolizes ‘widowhood’ in Hindu world view (but for the Pentecostals ‘no ornament and flower’ is doctrine and ‘white’ is the symbol of ‘purity’.

But the parents of the boy not only refused attend the marriage but insisted that unless the girl wears their family ‘thali’ they won’t receive the boy and the girl in their home.  Finally their marriage was arranged again in a Hindu temple (Mariyamman) not only with ‘Hindu thalli’ but with flower and ornaments, which are anathema to the Pentecostals.  [I have the photo of this marriage with me, but cannot share as I was requested not to share it with others] In another family, after several years of marriage and having two children, in order to accommodate the sentiment of her husband’s family, the sensible Hindu bhakta removed her ‘Cross thali’ and changed to the family thali given by her mother-in-law.  Interestingly in this case not only the couple are Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, but even the mother-in-law become a bhakta of the Lord, but still she was happy when her daughter-in-law come forward to change ‘the Christian thali’ to a ‘Hindu thali to accommodate the sentiment of the wider family members.

That is why I say that we need not ‘redeem’ anything which already belongs to us.  Even those aspects which we think not compatible with our bhakti in the Lord should be replaced after serious study, research and consideration and not based on any misguided evangelical zeal in the name of taking a stand for the Lord.  For me any function in the family or community is not the only place for us to take a stand for the Lord. That stand should be taken in our everyday life when we rub shoulders with others.

Finally, several people not agreeing with me say that by refusing to oblige to the family pressure we should take a stand for the Lord.  When this discussion came in one place, I pointed out that the same ‘converts’ when it comes to the sharing the family property and name are not ready to do so.  They know that their family property, according to their parents is a blessing and a gift from the family deity.  But when dividing the property comes, the same ‘converts’ throw away the stand that s/he takes for the Lord and even ready to fight for their share in it.  Similarly their family title as ‘Banerji, Nair, Naidu, Yadav, Misra, Pande, etc. are Hindu title, but even after the conversion they want to keep it to parade their caste identity.  For them even this taking the stand for the Lord is very selective and not spread over all areas of their life.  Keeping this in mind they have no right to question our ‘Naaman formula’ of not disturbing the social fabric in the name of faith.

31-1-19

1…Indeed, while the conviction of redemption through Christ has always been the motive force of Christian faith, no final and universally accepted definition of the manner of its achievement has been formulated to this [The Sub-Apostolic Age ] day…— J.N.D. Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, Second Edition, 1960; Harper & Row, Pub. New York, p.163

…First, there was the so-called `physical’ or `mystical’ theory which linked the redemption with the incarnation.  According to this, human nature was sanctified, transformed and elevated by the very act of Christ’s becoming man…. Secondly, there was the explanation of the redemption in terms of a ransom offered to, or a forfeit imposed on, the Devil….(p.375) Thirdly, there was the theory, often designated `realist’, which directed attention to the Saviour’s sufferings.  Making more of sin and the punishment due for it than of its tragic legacy, this placed the cross in the foreground, and pictured Christ as substituting Himself for sinful men, shouldering the penalty which justice required them to pay, and reconciling them to God by His sacrificial death.

…They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as complementary…—ibid., pp.375-76

2 Even the Vedic mantra used in marriage has nothing to do with any deity but secular in nature. 

Mangalyam tandunaane

Mamajeevana hetunaa

Kande badmaami suupake

Tvama jeeva sarads-satam

Oh auspicious woman, giving the assurance that the family life which I begin today with you should be good one, I tied this mangalyam (wedding chain) in your neck.

Becoming my life partner (family partner), sharing in my joy and sorrow, let you live one hundred years with all kinds of prosperity.

 (a free translation by me).

 [the highlight is ‘Mamajeevana hetunaa’ =mama=my; jeevana=life, hetunaa=welfare, viz. for the welfare of my life.  As women are not entitled to read Veda or chant Vedic mantras, above all no ritual is performed by her in a marriage, we can understand the context of this mantra as ‘husband oriented’.  As she is ‘given’ by her father (a man) to her husband (a man), naturally it will be man oriented ritual.]

மாங்கல்யம் தந்துனானே

மமஜீவன ஹேதுநா

கண்டே பத்நாமி ஸூபகே

த்வம ஜீவ சரதஸ்சதம்!!

’மங்கலமான பெண்ணே! உன்னோடு இன்று நான் துவங்கும் இல்லறவாழ்வு நல்லமுறையில் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்று உறுதியளித்து, இந்த திருமாங்கல்யத்தை உன் கழுத்தில் அணிவிக்கிறேன். என் இல்லத்துணைவியாக, என் சுகதுக்கங்களில் பங்கேற்று, நிறைந்த யோகத்துடன் நீ நூறாண்டு காலம் வாழ்வாயாக.’–தின மலர். ஆன்மிக மலர். அக்டோபர், 23, 2010, ப. 3

3 The attempt by British sources to impart a religious colour to Thugee is explained by Peter van der Veer as follows: ‘Before the British succeeded in placing all criminality in India under the sign of “caste”, “tribe”, and “race” in the second half of the nineteenth century, they still attributed it to religion.’{ Veer, Peter van der. Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001, p.p. 151-52}— Sharma, Arvind. The Ruler’s Gaze: A study of British Rule over India from a Saidian Perspective, Noida, HarperCollins Publishers, 2017, p. 105

4 Thali sentiment is great in South India, particularly in Tamilnadu.  Several films were made on this sentiment.  When I was teaching a group of Full Time workers on contextualization, when the question of keeping ‘pottu’ (bindi) came, I presented my view of allowing it for women. But almost all the participants, including women opposed it by saying that they will never allow it.  Some of the couple who participated in that class was Hindu converts and their wives pointing their forehead said that they removed it for the sake of the Lord. Then with a smile I said, ‘how about the thali which was tied by your husband when you both were Hindus.  Why are you still keeping it even with the old thali with the sectarian mark of the symbol of your family deity? Are you ready to remove it to replace with a ‘Christian thali of Cross’.  Then all of them literally stood on their leg and even some husbands came towards me shouting in their voice, ‘how dare you ask our wives to become widow’?  Then they went and complaint to the Administrator by saying that I told their wives to become widow.  Even now several Hindu converts will easily remove their pottu but never their thali which was tied by their husband.  Such was the deep seated sentiment towards it by Tamil women.

@@@

Dear Eby,

Shanti!

This Bhatacharya’s testimony is fake one.  I heard one such Bhatacharya long back who claims to do ministry in Tamilnadu.  What all he shared has many contradictions.  What he quoted from Rick Veda, ‘“Santhakaram purakasayanam, pathmanabam suresham, vishwakaram mekavarnam lakshikanthan yogikirtham vandal bishnumbam, survalokayika.’ is wrong and he even made several mistakes.  It is a famous mantra from Bhagavatam.  Similaly do you believe what he shared about putting a bomb and killing around 3000 people at Ayodhya?  Do you think govt. is fool enough to trace such a record. 

Without reading it, even I forwarded it to Madhu, Raman and Rajesh.  Only this morning I read it and was laughing.  See the way such fakes can cheat an educated Computer Eng. like you.  You so called evangelical Christians are not only naive but even believe what all one says in the name of gospel and evangelism.  Well don’t waste your time by sending to others or reading such fake materials.

How Vijay is doing?  Did he complete his exams? I will come to Mathigiri on April 28th evening and most probably stay that evening with you.  My regards to your parents and Teena.  Take care.  God bless you.

db

2009/4/3 eby ganesan <pmg.ebenezer@gmail.com>

Dear Uncle,

I got this testimony forwarded to me.

this was a very interesting read !!

Regards and Thanks,
ebenezer

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: <ebenezer.ganesan@wipro.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Subject: FW: A wonderful testimony!!!!!!!! pls read atleast to know that ONLY JESUS is there in True Hindu scriptures and how GOD turned this RSS member
To: pmg.ebenezer@gmail.com, ebenezer_p@yahoo.com

---

From: Brindha Ravindran (WT01 – CIO Office and Operations)
Sent: Thu 4/2/2009 11:30 AM
Subject: A wonderful testimony!!!!!!!! pls read atleast to know that ONLY JESUS is there in True Hindu scriptures and how GOD turned this RSS member

A BREATHTAKING TESTIMONY OF DR.SRINIVASA BHATTACHARY

May 21, 2008 03:03 by Fire

“Good morning. How many of you are really happy this morning? I am Dr. Srinivasa Bhattachary. If I appropriately introduce myself stating my full name it is too long. I come from the 145^th direct generation of Sri Vaishnam Bhattachary priesthood community. Even today, grandfather, Raghu Bhattachary is the chief priest in Srilakshmaneshaswamy Devasthanam at Ponvanugalathoor. I come from a family background of priests and today my whole family are Bhattacharyas for the gods who have eyes but cannot see, who have ears but cannot hear, who have noses but cannot smell, who have hands but cannot touch, who have legs but cannot walk, but I by the grace of Jesus Christ, have come among you as a Bhattacharya for Lord Jesus Christ.

At the age of six I wore the sacred thread (poonool) according to the Hindu tradition. I was given to the Gayathri Diksha, ombhoohu, Ombhuwaha, Om subhaga, ommaha, Omjanaka, Om thapaka, Om sathyam, Om thathuservdarinam, Om barbudevastimagam, Om diviyayonagam,Om prajothaya, Om jothirasakam, Om amarthavaram, Om burbosaram. I was sent to an ashramam for my studies. Right from my childhood I studied the Rigveda, Yegurveda, Samarveda, Adarvarnaveda, Nalayiram Lijya Prabhandtha, Ethihasa, Purana Ramayana, Mahabharatha, Bhagvatgeetha etc etc in the Hindu mythological subjects in Sanskrit as well as in the Grandha Language. Once my early education was over in Hindu philosophy in south India, I was sent to North India, Uttar Pradesh to do my doctorate in the Banaras University. I went there and did my siromony in Sanskrit and PhD in Grandha. While I was studying in the Banaras University the destruction of the Babri Masjid took place at Ayodhya. Since I was a Bhattachary and since I was doing my double PhD in a famous Hindu University, I was chosen by the RSS as their national youth leader. The objective of the RSS, as you all know, is to stop foreign religions coming to India. They are especially dead against Christ and Christianity being proclaimed in the land of India. When I was in this organization as their national Youth leader, my personal commitment was to destroy the mosque then and there. In those days my faith in the Hindu religion and their gods was very strong and so I went all the way to France and I peddled a dynamite bomb and I brought it to India and set it off at the tomb of the mosque, using my personal computer from my cabin. At that time many Islamic fundamentalists came forward to stop us in our activities. In retaliation our Hindu parishad people chopped their hands and legs and chopped off their heads and killed not less than 3000 people and flung their bodies into the Sarayoor River. I recall this, as I was totally submerged into the sinful way of life right from the beginning. That was how strongly I believed in the Hindu philosophy.

After this incident I was doing the research work in my university library. The research topic that I had taken for my thesis was “How will man go to the kingdom of God after his death?” How will a man reach the Brahma patha or Sivan Narayan Patha or how can we go to the kingdom of God. While I was going through many books in the library, a very old sanyasi came to the library and called out to me. He was having a long beard and very long hair. He was wearing only an ordinary dhoti. He called me out, and giving me a small piece of paper he walked out. I did not know who he was or where he came from. After he left I looked at the small piece of paper and on it was written the verse from John chapter 3 verse 16. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, for whosoever believeth should not perish but shall have everlasting life”. The more I read this scripture the more it began to inspire me in the very depth of my heart. My dear brothers and sisters why did this particular scripture inspire me so much? The word of God says in John, chapter 1 that the word of God consists of life. I went to all my gurujis and asked them who is this begotten son. All they could tell me was that the begotten son is Krishna Paramatma and Rama Paramatma etc etc but nobody told me that Jesus is the only begotten son. For one month I was desperately hunting for the answer. After one month, one particular morning I was sitting in my dormitory going through this piece of paper once again. Tears started to gush out my eyes to know who this begotten Son of God is. Then I heard a voice telling me to read the rigveda. Upon opening it what I read in Sanskrit was “Santhakaram purakasayanam, pathmanabam suresham, vishwakaram mekavarnam lakshikanthan yogikirtham vandal bishnumbam, survalokayika.” which means, “The God so loved the world , that he gave his only begotten Son of God that whosoever believes in Him will have everlasting life”. When I read the bible scripture in my own Rigveda I decided that even if I die I must obey this only begotten son and that I must surrender my life to Him.

My exams got over and after finishing my thesis I registered the same with the registrar of the university. When the result came, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ I came first in the whole of India in both my doctorates. I was invited to Delhi to be awarded the presidents Gold medal in the Indian parliament amidst all the distinguished parliamentarians. But all this did not give me any joy. Here I was born into a royal family of Nepal, with my family breeding 13 elephants and having 108 divine temples across the world where we are the chief priests, having obtained double doctorates and double gold medals from the president and yet having no peace nor joy in life. The bible says, “If a man gains the whole world and yet loses his soul what is the use?”

There was a great vacuum in my life. I still did not know Jesus as the saviour of the world, nor as the prince of peace, nor as the redeemer of the world and in such a state I found myself making preparations to return to Tamil Nadu. I booked my ticket on the Ganga-Kaveri express. At Varnasi station I boarded the train and subsequently arrived in Madhya Pradesh. All the while I was reading John 3:16. Something told me that I should keep meditating on this verse and I did so till the train pulled into Madhya Pradesh. The railway staff went for a coffee break and at the same time I heard a voice telling me to get down at this station. I was wondering why I should do this for I did not have any relatives there. The more I refused to listen to the voice the more persistent it became. Finally I gave in and got off the train. After a few minutes the train left the station and I was left alone on the platform. Again I heard a small voice telling me to start walking. I started to walk. After walking for nearly 3 kilometers I came to a place called Baratpur. Mapier town in Jabalpur city. The moment I came to this particular spot, where there was a cement arch, I saw the same old sanyasi who had come to my college library, 800 kilometers away, coming towards me pointing his fingers at me. Putting his hand on me he said, “The Lord who you wanted to know in your life is Jesus Christ. The only begotten son whom you are seeking is Christ. He loves you and forgives your sin and he is going to cleanse you from all your sinful natures. He is going to give you a new life”. When he said all that I could not control myself. Here was a very simple man, very old and ordinary, but yet filled with the resurrected power of the Lord, preaching the gospel to me. I humbled myself and yielded to that saint.

From there he took me to a place called Bidagarh. That is where the Narmada River flows into a very high velocity. We crossed the river and went to the other side where we could find no human beings at all. He took me into the forest and he took me inside a cave. With a great burden he knelt in the cave and opening the bible he started to preach the gospel. He told me how God created the heavens and the earth, the rivers and the seas, the plants and the animals and how he created human beings. He told me of the fall of man into sin and how the Lord Jesus Christ came into this world as the Messiah, how much He suffered on the cross at Golgotha and how he finally died. When I heard all this I could not control myself for in Hinduism there are 33 crores ( millions) gods. But none of the gods came to die for me and my sins. But here I found the Jesus came and died for my sins. Even Hinduism says very sincerely in the Samaveda, “Every man is a sinner and unless he is cleansed by the precious blood he cannot go into the kingdom of God”. But we find that no one came to shed their blood in Hinduism but we find Christ having done it. I opened my heart to the Lord and cried, “Lord I am very sorry . Lord I open my heart unto you. Lord it was for my sins that both your hands and your legs were nailed to the cross. It was for my sins that you wore the crown of thorns on your head. It was for my sins that a spear was thrust into your right ribs. Lord I am sorry and please forgive me Lord”.

The Lord was merciful to me . As it says in the bible “He that covers his sin shall not prosper but whosoever shall confess it and forsake it shall have mercy”. Again it also says, “If you confess your sins, He is faithful and just to forgive you all your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness”. I did it in the presence of the Lord. I wept bitterly for all my sinful activities right from my childhood to that day. God heard my prayers for in the bible it is written in revelation chapter 3:20, “Behold I stand at your door and knock, and if any man heareth my voice, open the door. I will come to him and will sup with him and he with me”. He stands at your door and knocks. It is because when he chooses a son or a daughter for his kingdom, he has the courtesy to knock. Satan never knocks. For him a small ventilator is enough to creep in through. Lord Jesus alone can bless. That is how I came to know the Lord. After accepting Jesus as my personal saviour, He showed me many areas in my life where there was still sin and on my part I confessed and prayed and got myself cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

I stayed for two months with the old man in the forest. Every morning we used to kneel together in the presence of the Lord for hours and pray and meditate upon the word of God. After 2 months one day he took me to the Narmada River and baptized me in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is very difficult for me to say everything that happened to me that day. As David says in the 23rd Psalm, he prepared a table for me in the presence of my enemies and he anoints my head with oil. My cup runneth over, surely goodness and mercy will follow all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. That was the assurance I got. After I received the Holy Spirit, the old man told me “Now God has brought you to Judea and then he will take you to Samaria and from there to the uttermost parts of the Earth”. He explained to me that Judea meant him, Samaria meant my hometown and community. He told me that I was to go back to my community and preach to them the gospel. I went back to Nepal.

The moment I reached home my parents were standing outside. My father did not allow me to go inside the house. They said to me. “We sent you to get a higher education in the most famous university. You received 2 gold medals from the president of India. After all this you are returning as a poor, downtrodden, inferior untouchable caste. What happened to you?” They left me standing at the door and after asking for some Ganges water from the temple my father proceeded to give me a bath as I was defiled. He poured that water over me. Even then according to them I was still impure for only external purification had taken place and I still needed internal purification. So he sent another priest to the backyard of the house and asked him to bring a glass of cows urine. I was told to drink this by my father. In our family our father is very revered and in no way do we show any disrespect to him. Therefore when he commanded me to drink I had to obey. I silently received this and saying “victory in the blood of Jesus”, over and over again, I silently drank it. Only then was I allowed to enter.

My parents were still afraid that I might sneak out and join some Christian church in Nepal, and once or twice without my fathers knowledge I did visit a faith home in Nepal. Thus my father started to give me so much work that I would always find myself to be busy. I was given lot of chores to do, even in the temple mainly cleaning and washing various idols housed there. All this I did obeying my father, always saying “Victory in the name of Jesus”. Wanting to punish me he left me behind in the temple one night.

These temples were constructed 2000 to 3000 years ago and right from the entrance to the Mola Sarpa Graha, we had to walk not less than 3 km. The ceiling is 100 to 120 ft high and at night there are no lights as there were no electricity connections. The temple was also infested with poisonous snakes and scorpions. For many days I was not given any food nor did I have any proper clothing. But amidst all these dangers I knelt down and prayed, “Lord without your will I can never be here. I do not know for what reason you have kept me here but help me to proclaim and lift your name to these people. Lord open the door where I can proclaim the good news for David said in the scripture, “What shall I do unto the Lord who has given me the joy of salvation?” Again in the very next scripture he says,” I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving and will call upon the name of the Lord, I will pay my vows unto the Lord in the presence of all his people“. The next morning about 60 bhattacharyas came to open the temple early in the morning and doing so they came inside. I was on fire and at that moment called out to the bhattacharyas. “Come here. What does your Vedas say about God? What does Hinduism say about God? Who is true God in Hinduism? What are the characteristics of God mentioned in Hinduism? What does Hinduism say about how a man can go into the kingdom of God? Who is the true god that can bring salvation to mankind? For example Om Shri brahmaputhraye namaha- what does this mean? The only begotten son I worship thee. Who is the only begotten Son? It is the Lord Jesus Christ. Om shri Martha Namaha- the Holy Spirit of God I worship thee. Who is the Holy Spirit of God? Again it is the Lord Jesus Christ. Om shri Kannisuthayeha namaha-which means the Lord who is born to a virgin. Om vidyshtayaha Namaha- the Lord who had the circumcision I worship thee. Om shri Panchkayika namaha- the Lord who had the five injuries for the sake of mankind. Om shri vriksh shula arudayaka nama vrisha pondha marthil shulathil siluthayil baliyanavare, umbaye nan namaskarikunen. Who is the Lord who died on the cross of Calvary? All this is our Lord Jesus Christ. Our God is not a dead God. It is true that he came as a messiah to this world. He preached the gospel. He cancelled the devils and the demons. He healed the sick people ad brought salvation to so many people and finally he died on the cross of Calvary, he was buried but he did not become sand. Om Shri mrithyu nayaya namaha meaning the Lord who resurrected from the depths of the Earth on the third day I worship thee”. By the divine grace of God 13 people accepted the Saviour. Out of them 6 took baptism. Today they are strong believers. All this God did for His glory.

Like this I was inside the temple with these people for 6 months and in the meantime the RSS people came to know about me and so did the BJP and the Shiv Sena along with a lot of other Hindu organizations. They came to Nepal and pulled me out of the temple and thrashed me mercilessly. They fractured both my hands. Today the hand you see is not the real one but an artificial one. In one hand I have 16 screws fixed in my elbow and steel plated within. They poured acid all over me and threw me into the streets. They told me that if I preach Christ anymore then they would kill me. My parents asked me to get out, as I had become a danger to their survival. I was shunned by my family, community, friend and villagers. At a total loss as to what to do then and there I knelt and prayed to the Lord and asked him what He wanted me to do. I claimed His promise where He said that in the days of your trouble I will deliver you and you will glorify me. The Lord told me that along with Judea even Samaria was over and so “Step out in My name and I will take care of you”. I asked for confirmation from the bible if God wanted me to go out for full time mission work and the scripture given to me was John chapter 1:5 “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God. All things are made by Him and with Him not anything made or was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” “But as many received Him to them He gave power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on His name” (John 1:12). Based on this scripture I was convinced that I was truly a child of God.

Slowly I made my way to the faith home in Nepal. There God miraculously provided me first aid and a plane ticket to the Bombay Navarathna hospital for treatment. I took complete treatment for 6 months and now I am all right. After that I went back to Nepal once again. My household did not open the door and they told me to leave. I did not do what to do with my life. There were so many denominations in Christianity like Roman Catholics, Jehovah witnesses, Marthomites etc etc. All I knew was the Father God, the Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit. After this I went into many parts of Nepal and interior villages to proclaim Christ. I was expelled from Nepal for preaching the Gospel. I went to Tibet and from there came to North India. Finally today I am in South India. Today right from Kanya Kumari in the south to Kashmir God has taken me to proclaim the good news. Other than parts of India, God took me to Sinapore, Malaysia, Hongkong, France, Sweden,Germany and Czechoslovakia. I came without anything yet I lack nothing. When I came into the ministry I did not have any money on me yet I cannot say that I have gone hungry even once. God provides me with everything that I want day by day. I am also on the RSS hit list. Ten days ago I was coming back to Tamilnadu from Rajastan and I was circled by the RDD people and I lost all my properties to them. By the grace of God I am well today.

My dear brothers and sisters all this while you have been listening to my testimony fro the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. I request you to get a step closer to the cross of Calvary so that your life would be blessed more. I also humbly request you to uphold me in prayer because the word of God says, “He that has put his hand on the plough and withdraws is unworthy for the kingdom of God” Today you and me, we have put our hands on the plough of our Lord Jesus Christ. Come what may we must till the Christian ground to produce thirty, sixty and hundred folds of fruits for the glory of Lord Jesus Christ. Then only we can boldly say like Paul said “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge shall give me at that day: and not to me only but unto all them also that love His appearing”. Initially Paul was also torturing and persecuting Christians and the early churches.

Then on the road to Jericho near the city of Damascus he was touched by the power of God. Right away he fell flat on the road. When he got up he was blind. God told him to go and get healed by Annaias. Annaias laid his hands upon Paul and prayed and Paul got his sight back. He understood the power of God and accepted the Lord. He committed his life to the Lord. And he came all over Asia and proclaimed the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ. He led thousands of people to the kingdom of God. That was the reason why he could say that he has fought the good fight. It is true in our cases also, dear brothers and sisters. There is a crown of life awaiting each and every one of us. In order to receive it we must run a good race and we should fight a good fight. It is not enough just accepting the Lord as our personal saviour or being baptized, nor is it enough that we receive the f=gifts of the Holy Spirit. What is your personal contribution to the church of God? How much are you contributing to the church of God? The Lord has put you in such a beautiful and affluent place, what are your commitments to the Lord? In how many ways are you robbing God in the church?

—
Regards ,
Ebenezer

@@@

Dear Swamiji,

I am not sure where this chap is getting his information and would be happy if you could respond to his question. And, carbon copy me please. Thanks, Jamie

—–Original Message—–

From: Bill Perry [mailto:bill@billperry.tv]

Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:48 PM

To: info@rethinkingforum.com

Subject: Cultural orientation

Hi again,

I wrote before about attending this summer’s conference in Atlanta.  I am wondering if someone there could tell me if Indian/Hindu culture would fall under or be categorized as a “fear and power” culture, much like many Muslim countries operate in a “shame and honor” culture orientation.  If so, I’m wondering if someone there could point me to a  couple of resources about a “fear and power” culture and what efforts are being made to streamline the gospel for people living in that >orientation.  Many thanks.

Bill Perry

Dear Jim,

I am not sure whether the following response will address that question by Perry.  I don’t have any resources to give but I am sharing from my personal observation and experience.  Some time you may not even understand my way of writing and I am copying this to Rick, so that he can first read and edit it to make sense to non-Indians to understand my thoughts.  Then pl. post it.  Thanks.

db

It is very difficult to categorize any particular culture in clear-cut terms like ‘shame and honor’ or ‘fear and power’.  This is particularly impossible with Hinduism, as Indian/Hindu culture is a mosaic with various shades of worldviews and cultures giving any kind of picture that one wish to find there. 

Having said this, I would agree the concept of ‘fear and power’ is part of our worldview. I often heard from my childhood that by reciting gayatri one gets power.  Several people pray god to give more shakti (power) to control people, circumstances and even life.  That is why Sannyasis are much respected and feared as they thought to have accumulated more power because of their tapasya (austerity).  In the same way, Puranas contains several stories how asuras (non-gods; opponents of gods but not devils) performed austerity to acquire more power to snatch the kingdom of gods and to brought them under their control.  That’s why, in several purana stories, it is told that after performing austerity for several thousands years (without eating or drinking) finally these asuras ask the supreme god to give them more shakti (power) than any other thing.  One can often hear the words that a particular deity in a particular temple or place is more powerful than its other or similar form in other temples or places.  ‘This deity is more powerful to accomplish the desires of its devotees’ is common recommendation to go to any particular temple or place.  This is true about Christian’s gods also.  Some churches of Jesus or Marry, commonly known as ‘Christian temple’ or even road side shrines of Jesus or Marry have some special power either to heal or to grant one’s desire.   In addition, several times gospel is preached in similar way that Jesus has more power and authority over all other gods and evil forces. 

This is true even in my answer when some of our cultural and traditional forms are demonized and warned not to use in our worship because of some power attached to it by people, I often said, ‘my Lord has more power to over come them and also to protect me’.  Jesus as true god has real power to protect and provide your wishes through prayer is a common gospel approach in India—particularly among common people.  This is true in the ministry among the tribes and backward class people, who have more fear and power oriented religious faiths.

Similarly, ‘fear’ is also part of our worldview.  Fear about future, death, life, evil forces and even about god is part of our worldview.  However this fear for or of god should not be confused with reverence which the bible talks about.  In few cases, particularly their family deity is worshipped because of not offending it than having bhakti (devotion) to it.  Similarly, vows are fulfilled for a deity not because one has committed but because of fear that that deity will take, revenge if one does not fulfill her vows.  In few cases, even if the prayer is not fulfilled by that deity for which the vow is took, yet people will perform the ritual because of fear.  However, bhakti (devotion) is core religious view in Hinduism, yet not to offend and fear of revenge by deity is part in Hindu worldview.  If some unwanted or unexpected things happened in a house, one of the main reasons is ‘daivakkuttam’ (called in Tamil) ‘wrong done against deity (mostly to the family deity known as kul devata or devi) and proper function with lots of rituals is arranged to appease the deity or to amend the wrong done against it.  This kind of fear we don’t find in our devotion to the Lord.  If we have done any wrong to him or offended by our way of life, he is not going to take revenge but we feel shy to live according to our call and commitment to the Lord.  Then amending that wrong for us is to repent and took a resolution not to do it.  Of course feeling shy for moral and ethical lapses and repentance with seeking forgiveness from a particular god is found in religious scriptures.  However, among the common people ‘fear’ and not ‘reverence’ is more dominant attitude towards their respective deity. 

But we cannot make any uniform efforts, which would apply, to all Indians/Hindus even with such worldviews.  Of course, sometimes it helps people to share how faith in Christ can help one to overcome the fear about future, death and devil etc.  However, it is not either or division when it comes to confront life event for a Hindu.  For example, a Hindu might have some fear about future or devil.  But in general, things are assessed after the events happened and the common reason give for any such happening in a person’s life is most of the time: karma.  Appeasement of gods is another remedy to ward off fear about future, people, magic, devil and unknown forces.  That’s why tantic form of magic is sought to chant some mantras and perform pujas to remove the fear, as well as remove the cause of that fear.  And power-encounter ministry is common to reach such people, mostly by Pentecostal oriented ministries in India.

Mathigiri, March 15, 2006.

@@@

                        First National Conference for the First Generation Christians held at Nagpur from 24-26 July, 1998.

            As Rick recommended my name, I had to go to participate in the above said Conference.  As the their request I already prepared a paper for my topic ‘My Culture and My Identity” and sent by email to Hansraj Jain of Inheritors, who organized the meeting.

            Hansraj came to the station and received me along with Sam Dharm of YWAM and Jeya Pillai whom I met two weeks before in Pune.  She was happy to see me.  At Hansraj’s home when Sam said that people will be interested to see a Christian Sanyasii when I talk about Jesus with them in my travel.  For this I said, “Sorry Sir, I am not a Christian.  I am a Hindu and bhakta of Christ”.  So the problem started there and continued throughout the next three days.

            The worst thing that could create an adverse atmosphere to people like me in these kinds of conferences is to ask us to present our paper on the first day and second not giving proper time to share our views.  I was not surprised when more than one hour was given for regular messages (which were given in the name of encouragement) but not enough time was given to present papers.  Conferences like this should spend more time of grappling with issues and analysis than in sharing and hearing regular bible messages.  So as I was asked to present my paper on the very first day that in the first session itself, two days I was looked as a strange creatures by almost everyone of the participants except one or two.

            Actually I got only 40 minutes to share.  Hansraj wanted me to read out my paper plus to share my testimony etc.  But I said I cannot do all with in the time alloted for me.  When I asked him how much time I have to share, first he said one hour and then after seeing the watch said 45 minutes.  For this I said that I can even share for 15 minutes.  Then quickly I shared my journey in Christ and about my conviction where I stand to day.  Generally there was pin drop silence and I saw the shock in most of the people’s eyes when I said that I am not a Christian and not attending any church and do not encourage the Christ bhaktas to become member in any church or full time workers.  As I expected in the question hour followed my sharing, they all in once opposed my views.  Even Rajkumar stood on his leg and began to defend the word “Christian” from the bible.  He even said which I have recorded in my note immediately, ” Christian means followers of Christ and if one who follows Christ doesn’t want to call himself as Christian is unbiblical.  Then quoting the all three places in which the word occurs, he gave his own explanation and said that they all mean “followers of Christ”.  I listened some of them more patiently and gave my answer.  Like wise Sam Dharm also raised his objection and as usual I gave my answer.  I saw panic in the eyes and minds of the participants.  Then the participants are divided in three group to have discussion on my paper, from which also I shared three points.  Probably one of my points that the Hindu converts who can think and understand, instead of going back to their communities, go church after church, Conference after Conference and Mission after Mission preaching to the Christians offended few more deeply that is why they all reacted more strongly to me.  I excused myself from participating in any group and went to my room.

            But the reaction of the group continued outside the Conference Hall also.  Except one or two formal word by one or two no one came near to me.  The Sindhi brothers with whom I confronted at Deepak’s house also came to the meeting.  They were shocked on seeing me in the morning itself.  So in the afternoon when we again gathered, each group came with their analysis on my sharing and began to share their findings.  In group one they said that when the issue of culture comes only Biblical vales should be maintained.  When I asked what do they mean by biblical value the answer came as: values what bible guides our practical life.  Krishnan Kutty said “Value is what we become when Christ come in to us.  Contextualisation is important and not inculturalisation.  Because the word Culture come from the Greek root “cult” which means worship.  I think Sam Dharm shared these points.  In group two generally they opposed on my points of wearing red-dot.  Though we need not force them to remove in the long run as God will speak to the new convert they themselves remove it.  Like wise they all objected to the word ‘deeksha’ for babtism as it may not rightly communicate the concept of baptism.  No change of believer marrying an unbeliever also came.  In Group three Krishnan Kutty read their analysis.  I am a reactionary.  Baptism is important.  Principles are important and not cultural issues.  Faith is transcultural.  My paper and sharing shows what it is and not what ought to be.  A Christian should be non confirmist to the world.

            The interesting thing in all their response is that they all separate certain words which I used like deeksha and imposed their own understanding and began to blast me.  The most funny thing is that as Kulothungan was leading the day, after my session, he summarised few points and finally said,” as relationship with Christ is more important is it necessary insist on baptism”.  When all raised their voice and even Krishnan Kutty said that we are wasting our time by even raising such issues, they all thought that both in my paper and sharing I objected for baptism and all in one voice opposed me.  So I have to make it clear to them that I never raised the issue of Babtism except the term deeksha.  “In the caos and confusion and commotion that followed after my session, it was Kulu who raised that question.  He even doesn’t made any final statement but only raised a question.  But you all imposed his question on me as if I said something against babtism and opposing me.”  Some time I have to categoricaly say that instead of listening me properly and try to understand what I say in its context, if they are imposing their own idea about me based on some imagination, then let them have their entertainment and I am not ready to alter my position.  In between also I said that I am un-wanted element to such a group and even warned my friend to think twice before recommending my name.  For this Sam Dharm said that it is not the question that you are minority and we are majority etc.  However united they stand in opposing me and instead of getting irritated I was laughing within me.

            Then during the tea time and the following evening none came near to me to talk.  There were two messages in the evening with 20 minutes break.  Rajkumar first shared and he said that he was never discouraged in the last 18 years as a Christian.  Supernatural human being.  He can quote almost the whole bible by memory.  For this he said that he never memorised bible verse, but when he needs Holy Spirit brings them to his mind.  Like wise his father accepted Jesus Christ in the intensive care and died after two days (later he told to Shanmugam that he  didn’t receive babtism and there are few exceptions).   His father even mentioned in his will not to do any Hindu rituals as he does not believe in them, but gave instruction to cremenate his body on the bank of river cauvery and dissolve the ash in the river Cauvery and a typical Hindu will understand what does this mean.  Like wise Sam Dharm’s mother accepted Jesus when she came out from Coma and after receiving babtism went back to Coma.  In case Ganesh Pradan, first day he said that though he went for the death of his parents never participated in the funeral rites but gave money and stood with his relatives.  But next day said that his parents also accepted Jesus Christ.  So what I learnt from all these is that the FGCs parents invariably accept Jesus either in the death bed or in intesive care.  There were several inconsistancies several incidents which Rajkumar told which I don’t want to record except one.  On the last day when he said that he led one Bihari brahmin to Christ and who in trun went back to North Bihar and led 35 other Brahmins to the Lord, I asked him whether he could give the name of the place in North Bihar where those 35 Brahmins are living so that I can visit them as I often go there.  For this he said that he exactly does not know the place and will enquire about it.  Strange, an evangelist cannot even remember the name of the place in which his convert led 35 other Brahmins to Christ.  Let God alone be the judge.

            The second day Session started with Krishnan Kutty sharing from Rev. John Stott’s Contemporary Christianity on inclusivism, exclusivism and pluralism, after Rajkumar’s message on Ten Blessings of suffering.  He too like me agreed with Stott and again in three group the points were discussed.  In my group except me all said that there is no light in other religions except Christianity.  The Pentecostal pastor as usual quoted verses out of context and each time gave a small message.  I even openly told him not to preach on each point.  At first I was selected to record but as they couldn’t come to any conclusion I gave up and that Pentecostal Pastor (Kanakaraj—Tamilian from Delhi) recorded but when he presented the group point, I objected several of his statements as I never agreed with them in any matter.  The most interesting thing is that while they all in one voice said (including the IAS Officer from Bihar working here at Nagpur) that there is no light in other religions some of them said that there are good fruits in non-Christian’s life.  When I raised the question how is it possible to bear good fruit in their lives while they have no light in their religion, Mrs. Jain said that individuals may have light but not their religion.  And again on this point they divided.  But I said that I believe that there is light in other religions and others also have good fruits in their life.  In the evening discussion on the group report’s were read and discussed.

            From this after noon slowly Rajkumar and others began to talk with me.  Evening Dr. Vinod Shah shared and before that Hansraj again asked me to share my testimony.  Though I  had to repeat what I shared yesterday, to day shared some more details.  Dr. Shah though not an orator, yet he presented several good points on the mental blacks of FGCs because of their old world views.  On the final day, after Rajkumar’s message on the topic “Our People Our Responsibility”, Sam Dharm presented his quickly prepared paper on Networking.  Following it a resolution is first discussed and after several amandments unanimously passed.  Then Sam shared a Communion service message and asked to break the bread with some one else and I break the bread with Jayaram C. Moryani from Ooty.  After lunch I gave a copy of my book to Rajkumar with a request to write a review and also gave a copy to Moryani.  Then some of us came to Hansraj’s house, where after craking several jokes, I involved a deep meaningful talk with Dr. Shah and Rajkumar and they were impressed to some extent and even Rajkumar said that they will snatch me whenever I visit Delhi.  Kutty uncle asked me to write for the Religious column in Times of India.

            So far me personally this meeting started with a bad note and ended nicely with an opportunity to share me views at least with few clearly and also reconcile with Moryani brothers from Ooty.  Before I left on 27th I told Hansraj ,” In future meetings if you invite people like me, first prepare the minds of the participants.   Never give first sessions to people like me.  Above all ask them to keep a Human face in their relationship with others even though they cannot agree with them.” But I am not sure how far I can involve with this group in future is a question for which both God and time alone hold the answer. 

@@@

Hello,

The other day I spent some time with my friend Dharma Krishna. He is a young man from the Carpenter caste and has a strong desire to preserve his traditions. We spent a couple of hours discussing religion. The cross is a real stumbling block to him in that he cannot accept how God can forgive someone for sin. ‘You mean to say you can just say sorry and God let’s you off?’ ‘Well yes and no.’ It seems like cheap grace. We all have to bear the consequences of our sin (karma), he insists. We reap what we sow. That is a Biblical principle too, isn’t it. And it is not as if we can just say sorry and then carry on sinning. Romans 6 makes that clear. No, we can only be forgiven if someone else takes the penalty of our sin for us. If Christ has done that then our lives are changed and we don’t want to sin anymore. So there is a difference. Pray for the eyes of his heart to be opened.

Keep praying for Becky as she continues to feel tired and worn out.

Thanks for praying for us.

Mark

Dear Becky and Mark,                                                                                               Hosur, December 11, 2001.

Recently I visited The Golden Temple at Amistar (Amirtasaras) in Punjab.  I saw also their museum.   There two picture much disturbed me at the same time helped me to relate it with Christ.  In one painting a Sikh was sawed in front of his guru at Chandini chowk in Delhi during Muslim persecution.  In the second one another shishya was put in a pot in which he was boiled to death.  When he was asked about his final desire, he responded by saying, ‘let my face be allowed to turn towards my guruji’.  Both happened during Muslim’s persecution against Sikhism.  But the one truth that I cannot digest was this: How can a guru allow the death of his own shishya in his presence?  Then I realised that my Guruji does not want to see that I should be punished for my sin and in stead He voluntarily took my place.  When the soldiers came to arrest Him, He also said, ‘allow them to go’.  What a different guruji we have in Jesus Christ. 

A sub-point here is that as O’Flaherty also wrote in her book, ‘Hindus believe that we are not punished ‘FOR’ our sin but ‘BY’ our sin.

Dayanand

As the bible says that Christ died ‘for’ our sin, Hindus find it difficult to accept that some one could  die for my sin so that I can escape from its consequence.  But I think that in order to help them to understand this theological concept through their word view, viz., ‘we are punished not for our sin but by our sin’, I would prefer to share like this:

Definitely we will be punished by our sin.  Most probably this punishment comes in the form of rebirth (samsara).  And those who do not agree with this doctrinal concept of samsara, may agree that a normal human being will suffer psychologically at least.  And as propitiation for the sin one committed, they have various kinds of praysacittas (propitiation).    But this praysascitta may remove the consequence of sin but not the punishment.  Most of the times Hindus believe that sickness, loss in business, suffering that comes in various forms are the consequence of the sin.  This one may try to avoid by performing various prayascittas.  But none can avoid the punishment by sin.  And this punishment results in the form of samsara.  And as Christ died on the cross and took that punishment, I need not come again in this world.  And the prayascitta for the consequence of sin, that I have to perform is the firm commitment and resolution not to repeat it again—which is the most difficult one.  Mere ritual prayascitta may give some psychological satisfaction.  But yet none can escape from the consequence either physically or mentally.  And here the Mercy of God will help me to remove such consequence when I go and confess my sins and ask forgiveness from God (and man against whom I have sinned—which is again a difficult task, on which the bible does not compromise).  Even if I have to physically suffer due to some sins which I have committed physically, yet the Grace of God will help me to bear it, not with any guilty conscience but rejoicing in the justice of God—who has to punish sin as a judge and save the sinner as a merciful saviour.  If I clearly understands the justice of God I will also enjoy His mercy to bear any consequence of sin on this earth, which may come in any form of suffering.

—This is only a brain storm.

Dayanand

Dear Swamiji,

This is a very interesting discussion. I wonder about one point: Why do you say we most probably suffer punishment for sin in the form of rebirth?

Sharla

Dear Sharala,

Thanks for your quick (and first) response to my brain storm on Sin and Punishment.  My answer to your question is this:

First of all you should understand my limitation in English.  However for my own clarity I used two different word—consequence and punishment for sin.  I hope all the Hindus will agree with me that none can either escape from the consequence and punishment from sin.  And just to explain this two different aspects of the result of sin, I use consequence for sin as various suffering that one reaps while still living this life here on earth.  And to remove either the consequence completely or to reduce its force, a Hindu may do some kind of prayascita (often performed in the form of vratas, pilgrimage, puja, dhana even in some cases yajna etc.)  But at the same time every Hindu in their sub-conscience feel that they cannot escape from the Punishment by the sin.  Here the theory of Karma comes in hand or explain it doctrinally.  However the words ‘consequence’ and ‘punishment’ may mean the same thing and also exchangeable.  Rather we can say ‘suffering’ is the punishment by the sin and consequence is the rebirth.  However I will retain the words as I used as it may help us to understand the doctrine of karma.

Though one can escape from the consequence of sin or reduce its damage or suffering by performing various prayascitta, none can escape the result of the sin.  Every act whether sin or merit will be carried in the next birth of the atman in the form of karma.  Good works resulting in enhancing the atman to go up in its emancipation (in higher and noble birth) bad works or sin committed will bring further suffering and degrading or delaying the process of emancipation resulting in the lower form of birth.  So this cycle of karma or samsara is decided by the karma performed by the individual atman.  Hence any sin committed by a person will definitely force him/her to born again in this world, which is the punishment by the sin (resulting in karma).  Those who never commit any sin (either by word or deed or even in mind) will go to the path of gods (devayana) and after several births in higher realms will finally attain mukti.  But those who continue to commit sin will be punished by the endless cycle of samsara:

‘Anusaasanaparva states “just as the calf finds its own mother from among thousands of cows, so karma done in a previous life pursues the doer of it”’.…–P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. V, Part II,  pp.1570-71.

However those who have performed both good and bad karma, may go via ‘path of the fathers’ (pitryana) and after enjoying the bliss of heaven according to their earned merits, again will come down to this world to carryout the punishment by the sin.  That’s why even karma is divided in three group: sancita, prarabda and kriyamana:

“Karma is put in three groups viz. sancita, prarabdha and kriyamana (or sanciyamana).  The first is the total accumulated deeds of all past existences, the fruits of which have not been experienced.  The prarabdha Karma is that which was the strongest among the group of sancita deeds just before the present existence of a person begins and which is supposed to determine one’s present existence.  What a person accumulates during the present existence is called kriyamana (or sanciyamana, being collected) and the next existence is determined by the strongest (or the earliest according to some) among the sancita and kriyamana deeds put together…”.—Kane, ibid, p. 1574

Hope this long answer to your short question will either clear your doubt or confuse you more.  If you are more confused it is the punishment by your sin of asking such questions to me for which there exists no prayascitta.

dayanand

@@@

Dear Dayanand

I sense a delay and reluctance in sending me those letters you wrote, you are concerned about hurting me and I appreciate your consideration! I just want to reassure you that I have learned some tough lessons in my life on the ‘being abased and abounding’ circuit. I see your letters as valuable insights, which could prove useful to me. And in humility I say, I know how to roll with the punches, as indeed any red-blooded Christ bhakt should!

I have been mulling over this notion your friend has of my letter supposedly “mimicking western Christians” and I am curious about how or why my letter does that. And that too he arrived at his conclusion without even reading my letter! As for sensitizing Christians in my vicinity I would like to invite him to visit Dubai and stay in my home to understand our magazine ministry. If he is unable to see that it is NOT the PM I am targeting, he has missed the point of my letter. I wonder if my first name Frank leads him to stereotype me as a western Christian. It is an abbreviation of Francis the name I was baptized with as a Catholic.

I am keen on receiving all three of your letters, especially the one you wrote AFTER receiving my letter to Atalji. And don’t worry if they are long letters.

Since you don’t know much about me, LT Jeyachandran can perhaps give you some insights. My wife and I have lived in Dubai for nearly 25 years and before that in Los Angeles for five years. I am from Tamilnad, (old Mylapore family in Kutcheri Lane) grew up in Delhi, and my wife Christine is from Goa. We have two daughters, Shana (33) is married with a daughter living in Dubai with her husband Ben, and Raina (30) is doing her Masters in counseling after working with me for 7 years (in sales & marketing) at Gordon Conwell in Boston. Both my children are Christ bhakts as indeed my son-in-law Benjamin from Vancouver who is Caucasian but was a pagan, Buddhist and Hindu before he met Christ. It might interest you to know that my maternal grandfather was Anantha Krishna Iyer from Palghat. He was a planter in Malaya, my pet name Balan used by childhood friends comes from him. My parents were Catholics and most of my family of five brothers and four sisters is still Roman Catholic.

My 10 year old magazine is the only publication of its kind in the Indian Diaspora that has penetrated the secular market of the Indian professional and business community with the gospel presented to them in natural, relevant ways without any apologies. It is not a “Christian” magazine nor meant to be but I make no secret that it is Christ I am introducing them to not Christianity.

I do look forward to hearing from you.

YBIC

Frank

Dear Frank,

Shanti!

Thanks for sending TII which I received to day.  I also received your mail yesterday.  Your e-mail further forced me to think twice before sharing my response with you.  In fact your humbleness in sharing all about your life, even giving some biographical information moved my heart.  But you should understand that I am not like you in every sense.  I am neither a writer nor a trained professional in any academic discipline.  I am still a student on several subjects.  I cannot even write like you.  All that I attempt to write are mere brain storms and rather my own attempts to relieve my inner struggle.  So when I write (or react strongly), I will never share with that concerned person with whom I disagree.  Because in my response I try to relieve myself strongly reacting rather try to soberly giving my response.

Another impediment with me is my language.  I studied only in Tamil medium and I never liked this language English.  Out of compulsion and without any other (international) alternative, I write in English.  But neither I know grammar nor the art of writing in English.  The reason to say is not due to any inferiority complex but to tell that several times I cannot even express what I feel properly in this language.  That’s why some times I seek the help of some of my friends who edit my brainstorms before I could share with others.

So before you read the following one, you should keep all these limitation on my part.  However I will send the third part of my response after what you think about this first one.  The second one is my personal response to my friend’s comment as well as related some other paper (a Phd. work by another person, who sought my comments on his thesis), which is not directly related with your article.  The third one is a strong reaction as my friend told revealing my ‘aggressive self’.  Rest after hearing from you.

Yours at His feet,

Dayanand

Dear Dayanand

Just send me whatever you have!

I still don’t have your address and phone, if you send it I will send you our magazine The International Indian 10^th anniversary issue in which I have explained in a letter to PM Vajpayee about Karma and Christ based on my understanding from one of your earlier emails!

YBIC

Frank

Thanks for your response.  In stead of sending ‘whatever’ I have, I thought it is better to begin one with you.  But before I share my views regarding your letter to Vajpayeeji, I have to clear one thing that any of my response is not against you personally or any individual.  I only want to raise some questions regarding such approach.  So please don’t be offended if any of my view is not agreeable to your views.

My first question is what is the use of writing such letter to such people?  We all know that they neither have time nor any concern or interest to read such letters.  Of course we know that, most of the time, any such letter or book written by any Christian is not to confront their opponents but only to inform and educate their own people in the church or mission.  For example Vishal Mangalwadi wrote the book challenging Arun Shourie.  We all know well that a person like Arun Shourie is not going to respond or even read such books.  Their only response is ‘just ignore’ them.  However we have at least to appreciate that Shourie went to the Catholics to address them which latter appeared in his book.  Whereas most of the time several Christian writers involve with their dialogue partner in absence.  Of course there is nothing wrong in attempting even such writings or dialogue.  But what it is going to achieve is my question.  Because most of the Christians ‘react’ than giving proper ‘response’ to any of the challenges raised by their opponents.  Such reactions are neither going to get any response from their opponents nor going to educate their own people either in the church or mission.

If at all the Christians want to involve in any genuine dialogue with the people of the other faiths, they have to train and teach their own lay people than confronting their opponents in an elitist or confrontational way.  Because, the time and energy which is invested in reacting to fundamentalism is not going to bring any positive result.  Above all I personally feel that we should be honest to ourselves when we try to write to address any people who are beyond our reach (both in position and principle).  Often such writing is only help to fulfill any personal evangelical agenda or (western) mission projects and programmes, than reaching any audience (both in the church/mission or opponents camp).  What do I mean by honest to us; let me share one my disappointment in such writing, which appeared several years before in one Evangelical Magazine.  One Christian using a pseudo Hindu name as well role, wrote against the evangelicals attempt to convert Hindus.   When I first read it I genuinely thought that it was really a letter written by a (liberal) Hindu to the evangelicals.  So in response I wrote a long letter back to him.  But later when I met one young ‘convert’ who is involved in that magazine told me that that letter was written by a Christian using a pseudo Hindu name.  When I challenged that young man about such a fraudulent ways, he too agreed with me that originally that letter was written not for publication but to train few young people to think in those lines, but by some mistake that letter leaked out and published in the magazine.

What I mean by fraud is that in order to achieve some mission project/agenda several times such Christians never remain honest either to the bible or to their Hindu and Christian audience.  To say in another way, such individual writers use all kind of people and audience to fulfill certain personal agenda—either to make a living or please some others.  They know well that their writings are not going to hit their imagined target or to help any lay people in the church or mission to train to involve in any ‘living dialogue’.  Because most of the time what such Christian writers write is beyond the reach of the lay people—either too elitist or too negative or worst of all unscholarly.

If at all the evangelicals want to have any genuine dialogue with their Hindu friends and neighbors, they cannot do it by writing books and articles addressing any imaginary or non-responding audience.  It is like fighting in the air.  For example recently I read two chapters in a book ‘Christianity and Hinduism’ by Dr. Tinnent.   When I got those two chapters, I began to read it with much enthusiasm to learn for any new information for dialogue.  But I was not only disappointed but also discouraged to see that writing such books, such Christian writers are in no way helping the lay people in their church and mission to involve in any living dialogue in their life situation—working place, neighbors, etc.  The worst part in such writing is that they are not even elitist and scholarly level.   Merely gathering several information by reading books, they instead of remaining faithful even to that information, try to fix them according to their own personal ideological agendas.  On the other hand, if they train few lay people in the church and mission field to ‘learn’ and ‘know’ their (Hindu/Muslim etc.) neighbors with whom they are rubbing shoulders, at least they could contribute something to their mission.  I have no objection if they really want to write in a scholarly way for other scholars—like J. Gonda, Patrick Ollivelle, Richard Fox Young  etc., at least several people can learn from these scholars.  But those who attempt to write by fighting in the air—targeting only an imagined audience, are not going to contribute anything genuinely to the Kingdom of God.

I have faith and only hope in the lay people.  They are the best one to involve in any kind of living dialogue with the people of the other faiths.  They need not know all hair splitting information about their and other’s faith.  Simple bhakti, witnessing life, using every opportunity to share their faith and conviction in the Lord through simple means—bhajans, worships, prayers etc. can reach others.  Otherwise mere academic dialogue or confrontaionalism with their opponents, the church and mission is further going to alienate their dialogue partner. 

Each one claim this millennium for themselves—American claiming it as theirs (the first millennium belongs to the Romans/Greeks, second to the Europeans and their one for them) and Asians claiming it for them (Vajpayeeji told in his recent visit to China that if China and India co-operate with each other, then this millennium will be ours).  And now I, on my part want to claim this millennium for us—LAY PEOPLE:  The first millennium belongs to the (Roman) Church, second one to the Missions and this millennium belongs to Us—Lay People.  And if any one sincerely writes anything to help us to get some training we will welcome it.

Mathigiri, June 25, 2003.

Dear swamiji

You have hit the nail on the head in your response although we are not aware of the contents of the purported letter to the PM. That Indian Christians mimic their western counterparts is well known and this “Letter to the PM” is another example. Instead of
sensitising Christians in their vicinity they embark on such grand futile projects. I found that in this letter you are mild and not your usual aggressive self.  So the letter should not hurt anyone personally.

Note:

Dear Frank,

After receiving your TII, I realize that your main audience is not the people in the church or mission but people in the secular world.  So to some extent you have a relevant audience to write such letter.  But some in Christian circle (like that article appeared in ‘Our Link’ by a Christian using a pseudo Hindu name) write to no one.  So my first response is irrelevant considering the context in which you have written that letter to Atalji.  However in my aggressive response I reacted even to such letter, which, I may share with you soon.

Dayanand

@@@

Church & Entertainment

OK, quick question: what is the cause for a Church’s success? What is the real reason why a Church has such huge numbers of people attending and/or what really accounts for the success of a particular Christian artist or band? It is almost universally assumed by Christians that if there is a huge influx of people on Sundays, or if a band comprised of Christians is selling millions of cds, it is beyond obvious that GOD is “blessing” these institutions/people (that GOD is somehow “causing” these things to happen). But, what if the substantial underlying reason for this success is the entertainment quality of the place/project? In other words, what if the real reason behind the success of a particular mega-church is its ability to entertain people? Now, I’m not saying that the only reason people go here or there for church is because it is fun. I’m asking if the major reason for the success is the lights, media production, trendy music… If this is so, is it dangerous to assume such a phenomenon of success to be a matter of GOD smiling down upon that place and its people?

So that is my question. Are the reasons for the success of certain churches spiritual, or simply a matter of the entertainment present (I know it is both, but what is the major contributor)? Is the financial success really a sign of GOD’s favor? Does GOD hover over the record stores, coercing people to buy the next Mercy Me record, does HE force people to go to a particular church in order to let the pastor and his deacons know that they are theologically right, and in HIS Will?

It is sad when one church with all the bells and whistles looks down on the small churches that can’t afford “impressive” media and music options. It is obnoxious and repulsive for a church with many wealthy, young and hip congregants to assume that the success of their church automatically proves that GOD is more “pleased” or “approving” of their church rather than the small Catholic Parish down the street!!!

I really see nothing wrong with choosing one church over another, one artist over another because of entertainment reasons. Some people find it hard to worship via music when the quality/musicianship is so shabby. What I am suggesting is that it is dangerous to avoid the possibility that a Christian event (or any “spiritual” event for that matter), ministry or institution is successful mainly because of its entertainment value and not because of its spiritual condition and orientation. Yes it may be a “divine coincidence” that the place where people supposedly feel the “holy spirit” most acutely is also the place that has the best worship music in town. I can’t judge another man’s heart, but I can entertain possibilities that have yet to be honestly engaged, and this is one of ‘em!

Dear Chris,

Your article ‘Church and Entertainment’ again reflects the influence of long tradition of religious institution.  Your question is relevant in your western context and you rightly asked the correct question.  But, as an Indian and a bhakta of the Lord, I would like to view the church from the point of my relationship both with the Lord and other bhaktas.  Is it not this way the original church evolved?  When several true bhaktas go to a particular church keeping an on going relationship with the Lord, yet if they fail that the same  relationship should be extended and realized with other believers, not only inside the church but outside also, then the true meaning of church disappears. Sadly our modern concept of church miserably failed on this level.  Of course, it is not possible for all the believers to keep a close fellowship all the time outside the congregational worship time alone.  But the early church birthed and grew only with such level.  Though we cannot imitate the same model, due to several limitation on our part, yet we can demonstrate that spirit of fellowship outside the church.  Then the ‘church’ will never remain a place for entertainment or measuring success by number or any event, but to the extent it can provide fellowship among the bhaktas.

Db.

YES…..Thank you.

Oh, by the way…I’ve really appreciated the updates.  I have been praying.  Thanks so much for looking over that essay.  It really is steeped in my western perspective.  See, I am a full-time musician, and spend a lot of time performing in churches or North American Church related functions, and I’ve always wanted to see American Christians be a little more honest with why their institutions or events have the success (by success I mean the sheer amount of Money and people involved) they do. 

I loved what you had to say because it’s cutting to the core of some pretty serious assumptions Americans (me included…hahaha) make about the purpose/function of the Church.  When you wrote that the church is a place that “facilitates” fellowship among bhaktas my heart smiled.  I lament much of my cultural upbringing when it comes to understanding and participating with the American Church.  Interestingly though, this last year I’ve been spending some time at a Catholic Monastery…it really was a needed alternative to what I’ve been dealing with as a traveling artist…it changed my life and much of what you describe I see thriving in these cloistered communities…only in a “Catholic context”. 

You’re emails are such a blessing.  Thanks so much for your Time Swami.  I will continue to pray for you.  Please keep the updates coming.  Looking forward to hearing from you again:) 

With much Respect – Chris

 

@@@

The Cosmic Neighbor

Is meeting the needs of people out of an excess of funds or supplies really admirable when it costs us nothing but the giving up of superfluous comforts? I believe the answer is no. Why? Because in giving under such conditions, one has not personally/existentially identified with another’s situation in addition to possibly avoiding an honest engagement of selfishness in his or her own soul.

As my brother has put it “for compassion to matter, it has to bleed!” When one gives in a way that requires true sacrifice, it compels and/or allows (depending on one’s character) the giver to truly identify with the pain and poverty of the other. This creates some kind of spiritual, albeit vague and mystical connection between the two people/cultures/places that I believe is of infinite importance. To give in a way that challenges one’s own basic security is not only to meet a need, but to also (and perhaps more importantly) attempt to understand it.

Without understanding on an existential level what poverty is, can one’s giving really be done out of an authentic spirit of concern and humility? For, it frightfully says much when a person only gives what he or she does not need. What if everyone played by such rules? Tragic indeed. To give only out of excess is to not give for the right reasons and a lack of a proper motivational context renders the act of giving highly questionable. Yes, rich people giving only things and money that they do not need does address suffering, it does right wrongs, it does fill stomachs but from a distance! A distance that when examined has little to do with real concern. Why? Because after examining what is really going on in such situations, what one finds is an evasion of conscious, a convenient way of ridding the soul of committing to his fellow man on a deeper level. Such a person has at least done something, but without understanding the depths of the problem, which is everything.

A powerful corollary of this is that we are morally responsible for the well being of others upon having the knowledge of their suffering and the means to alleviate it. Here is a scary possibility: that GOD holds us responsible for neglecting the needs of others after being made aware of these needs because we possess the items, space and time to meet such needs (those of you annoyed by the religious references can simply substitute morality or moral conscience in place of GOD)! It is a serious charge and therefore ought to be considered. No American would actually try to argue that he or she is ignorant of poverty. So, in light of that knowledge, are we morally obligated to respond to it or is it optional given that we have the means to make a difference? Again, how does GOD see our connection with humanity?

Apart from some exceptional cases where giving would cause the giver to die of starvation or cold, most people can do something and I’m wondering if GOD expects this out of us. Again, since a moral act needs the right motivation, (as well as the act itself and the proper results) simply doing something about pain and suffering in hopes of eventually getting money or “stuff” in return from GOD seems equally problematic as doing nothing at all. What I believe needs to happen first, is for a person to explore his or her connection with humanity and then consider if one has the moral option to avoid the poverty situation in favor of spending time and money on something private, personal and selfish.

This subject cuts to the core because in essence it’s about choosing the self, over the needs of others because of something wanted for pleasure and not needed for survival. Do people, in the depths of their being, pursue things above and beyond their basic needs even if in forfeiting such things an individual on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean (or in your backyard) is kept from starving? And, if we do really want to make a positive difference how do we begin doing so in an authentic and effective way?

Is giving an all-or-nothing for it to be truly meaningful? How does GOD (or morality) want us to give? Will it suffice, for example, to give the support raising youth minister (or a struggling friend) your old and crappy TV only because you’ve purchased a new one for yourself? Or should you go without a household item for the pleasure of others? Do we only have time and money to serve humanity after all the bills and recreations have been met, or are we willing to consider even these things as optional in the face of poverty? Is giving out of excess fulfilling our duty to humanity in need when we could do more but don’t ONLY because it ruptures our secure and material womb of financial predictability? What action pleases GOD (and/or fulfills our moral obligation) in light of the poverty and pain of this world? Does GOD really value financial and material security the way this culture defends at all costs? Are we willing to take a step out into the realm of sacrifice for the needs of other to see what happens? What if every American did?

Keep in mind that responding too critically to this piece might evidence much about yourself that you never intended to reveal. It is strange (and sometimes disturbing) listening to someone argue that if they have the money (that they worked hard for) they have the right to buy anything that their money can afford. If they want an extra car in the garage, they shouldn’t have to be bothered with how the money used to purchase it, could have saved an entire village the other side of their visible horizon (or a family down the street). This last point is important. I don’t think people go about excessively purchasing at whim not caring at all for the well being of others. However, people do seem to consciously prefer not to be bothered with how they can make a difference with the money they’re spending! This might amount to the same thing as arguing that people really don’t care about the well being of others.

Now, I guess someone could argue, “Well, buying creates jobs! The more people are buying the more production needs there are which means work for people and the more employment options there are the less poverty there is.” This is an entire subject in itself: the value of capitalism and industrialism of yesterday and today, and I’m not really qualified to deal with it. What I have learned in my sociology and anthropology classes however seems to suggest that these two trends add to the problem of poverty, rather than offer solutions. But I’m not really talking about macro level economics/sociology as much as I am the individual American and his or her obligation to humanity.

What we do with our money is a moral issue, whether one wishes to explore it or not is up to us. To lay claim to something only because you want it and can purchase it is dangerous if done outside of the context of humanity’s needs and concerns. Starvation versus the importance of having the newest IPOD; going to the movies versus taking the money and putting it towards feeding an orphan in Romania for a week; serving at a soup kitchen once a month versus spending that time at home watching your plasma screen TV; dropping $10.00 in a donation jar versus using that money to eat out. When you start exploring things by contrasts, it can become a little too obvious what is really going on! And please understand, this essay is something that I am truly applying to myself and it has not been fun. Honesty has its rewards, but the process is a difficult one.

Its only after squaring with these contrasting scenarios that a more fundamental problem begins: where does one draw the line? In other words, at what point do you stop considering nonessential financial activity as something to be sacrificed for the well being of others? How does one go about establishing the boundary within which one is permitted to exercise the priority of comfort and security? I’ve heard it countless times, “It’s ok to enjoy things”, “God wants us to enjoy our blessings”, “and there’s nothing wrong with having some things”. But I’m wondering how one qualifies such statements. It feels like our culture continues to define and redefine a certain level of selfishness as being ok, (of course, it’s regarded as an admirable socio-economic status and not selfishness) and then proceeds to judge the rest of the world from that vantage point.

America says that it is ok to have this and that, you’re not wrong for wanting and pursuing such things and to be made to feel guilty about this because of some unrealistic ideal about feeding the hungry is the height of manipulation. However, once you finally move beyond this, the next question is “when have I given enough?” Is it really a matter of simply giving a bit more when the reason it is not more is still because of a selfish desire to be comfortable at the expense of world poverty? It’s like deciding to only eat out once a month instead of once a week to make money available for charity, but the fact still remains that more could be given. Small, albeit important, steps toward a spirit of charity may not amount to what we think it does when the reason we don’t do more is still because we value or desire our comfort and entertainment over filling a hungry child’s belly. If charity is really an all-or-nothing then what must one do to fulfill its demands? This question is beginning to drive me mad.

Seriously, I am struggling to do something about the problem of poverty but I know I could be doing more and the reason for not doing more is because I’m afraid to challenge my selfishness too deeply. My brother and I beat this question around constantly afraid of what is really being expected of us. What is the answer? I’m not sure. But I am beginning to think that it’s a matter of literally restructuring how life can be lived rather than simply doing more (while maintaining a few material & American comforts for my self).

The only answer I can think of is some kind of monastic/communistic life that is so committed to Love, that everything’s up for grabs for those in need. In other words, it’s not about giving more, but about giving all and to give all is to celebrate love to such an extent as to give up one’s self, one’s life for a completely different way of living; a fundamentally different social model altogether. There are hints of it, perhaps, behind the cloistered walls of a monastery or convent, or perhaps the church we read about in the book of Acts (2:44-45) is an example of this: “All believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need”… It is interesting to note by the way, how glaringly absent these verses are from the Mega-church discussions. Besides, these big churches can’t give up everything; they’ve got to constantly beef up their Sunday production with state of the art technology, otherwise who’s going to attend?

Are people’s needs important enough for me to give up some of my comforts in order to meet those needs? If so, am I only willing to give when it is convenient for me? If not, at what point do I stop giving? How do I move forward with a conviction that sees all that I have (time/money/things) as an available means for meeting the needs of others? What would it look like in action, in real life? And this is the edge upon which some of us stand, looking down into darkness wondering how far we will have to fall before love finds us a home.

I’m not even sure if I’m standing there yet. I’m beginning to think that charity must be “all-or-nothing” to be true to definition and practice, but I am afraid of what such selflessness will bring. Perhaps on my own, I would perish under such a stress of service but in the context of a community all valuing the same picture of humanity and Godliness, it might be a success waiting to happen. Is such a community a pipedream (like world peace) or can it really be achieved in some mysterious way? People are fighting for this kind of dream and it is working, but it is still an effort of the minority aimed at alleviating the suffering of the majority.
Some religions teach that to become greater, you must become the least of the great, even the least of the least. What is more admirable, to work hard for your comfort, or the comfort of another who perhaps doesn’t even deserve it?

Dear Chris,

My initial response to such question about other’s need and our moral responsibility to them is that we need to keep a balance in life, not going one extreme all them time.  Several ‘isms’ in the world, though in theory is not promoting, yet in practice go to extremes.  For example while ‘capitalism’ is more self centered, yet communism/socialism is more ‘group’ centered where several self centered individuals are gathering together, to oppose the ‘individual’ or ‘personal’ centered capitalism.

However, for me, living here in India, where we rub shoulders with poor people, unless we keep the balance, the very same poor only to achieve their personal interest very easily exploit our spirit of charity.  I cannot say much about America and about several African countries where people are really dying due to poverty.  However, here in India, our religious worldview also plays a significant role in doing (and receiving) Charity.

On Feb. 2^nd evening I was talking with one of my shishyas.  Prasad is very emotional in helping others.  Moreover, his brother has some reservation about such help.  However, Prasad said, ‘when I struggled a lot no one was there to help.  Now I am in a position to help others.  When god placed me in such a place, why not help others.’  For this I said, ‘We often never understand the real meaning about charity.  Once I read a quotable quote in Reader’s Digest, which says, “Throwing a bone to the dog is not charity, but sharing in the same bone when you are as hungry as the dog”.  Then I told the story from Mahabharata:

A poor Brahmin lived with his wife, son and daughter in law.  Every day he will glean the paddy after the harvest and make a simple porridge out of it.  After feeding his family, he will wait until noon to know whether any other guest or needy will come.  In order to test his dharma (duty) as a householder, the god of death (Yama) came in the form of a guest and asked for food.  The Brahmin also served him enthusiastically.  After giving all that they have, due to severe draught, the all died due to starvation.

One day a fox was running next to the cottage where that Brahmin lived.  In addition, some leftover flour of the rice porridge, carried by win touched one side of its body and immediately that side becomes gold.  Surprised by this when the Fox was wondering Yama came and told that as the charity of that poor man was so noble that even some leftover flour can bring such an effect on its body.  When the Fox asked how he could make the other side of the body also gold, then Yama said, ‘if someone give charity greater than that of the Brahmin, you go to that place and your other side of the body also will become gold.’

After the great war, when Yudhistria (also called as Dharma the eldest of the Pandavas, the five brothers who fought their cousins Kauravas to regain their kingdom) was Coronated and he gave a big feast and gave so much wealth in charity.  On hearing this, the Fox went and rolled on the leftover food, which was served to feed the Brahmins (in India, in several places in South India in particular, devotees will role themselves on the leaves on which the Brahmins ate food.  It is considered as very meritorious as well as earns virtues).  On hearing this when the King came personally see the strange incident enquired the Fox for the reason for doing so.  In addition, the Fox, shaking its head told the king, ‘your charity is not equal to that of the poor Brahmin who gave all that he had for his survival’ and told the above story.

Here as a digressing, I would like to bring about similar incident from the bible, where the Lord told that the old poor woman gave more than the rich people did as she gave all that she has for her lively hood.  Though there is a parallel between the two stories, yet the difference is that while the Brahmin do it as part of his dharma (as a householder, it is his duty first to feed the guest and then alone eat), where as the old woman done it as part of her religious requirement.  (Of course, the context of the biblical story, I think is not all about charity).

db

Beautiful…

What a wonderful way to start my morning.  I normally wake up early for prayer, but today I slept in:(  So, I made my children breakfast thinking about the fact that I could have been more disciplined this morning; I make my coffee sit down at this cursed computer to respond to emails and there I find a wonderful lesson personally provided by you…today will be a good day:)

I would love to learn more about how poverty is understood/percieved in a Hindu Context?  Coming from an American context, I’m completely ignorant (I haven’t even been to India yet) so to learn more about Poverty in India would be a great help.  

–just by visiting one or two times one cannot understand certain aspects of life in another place.  What an outsider perceive, observe and collect information may not facts.  This does not mean that one cannot learn in such a way.  What I mean is that it takes long time to know another people.

In Indian worldview ‘karma’ is the pivot on which several of their concepts revolves.  Mostly karma is credited (or blamed) for poverty.  Related with karma is fatalism, time (good or bad time, as one succeeded in business and become rich and another fails and becomes poor).  So according to one’s karma one is born in a rich or poor man’s family.  On the other hand, a person, despite her personal efforts her good karmas and time helped to become rich (or poor).  However, personal efforts are never underestimated, yet it depends more upon the influence of karma than mere efforts will help a person.  Similarly, god’s grace is also acknowledged, yet sometimes god’s grace is also works according to the karma of a person.

Strictly speaking in theory it is better not to help a poor, because by her present poverty she can burnt down her bad karmas of the past and can look for a better future (both in next birth or a better birth itself).  At the same time, one is encouraged to help the poor and those who are in need.  By helping the poor, one can earn merit and remove the influence of bad karma.  Therefore, it works both ways.  However, this is only in theory.  In addition, in practical life, in general Indians helps the needy like anyone else.  They never takes all kinds of theological aspect about karma etc. literarily.  However, this theory of karma works as a shock absorber for one to cope with the reality of life.  —db

Interestingly the following article appeared in the local newspaper today

TRUE CHARITY HELPS YOU AT IT’S UNCONDITIONAL, YOGI ASHWINI, The Time of India, Bangalore, Feb. 6, p. 16

Charity is the most important tool for spiritual evolution.  You’ ll know why if you do this simple test: Stand up and start inhaling.  Go on inhaling.  To ensure that no breath is given back to the atmosphere you must go on inhaling.  Do not exhale.  But no matter how strong your lungs are, you will have to exhale at some point.  It is impossible to hold on to your breath endlessly.  Do you realize that even something as precious as life-giving breath cannot be hoarded?  For it would result in destruction.

               One of the five yamas in the eight-fold path of yog translates as charity, a purification.  We all think charity is giving something to the needy.  What we give away is not ours because you are only the channel,.  But charity is ‘done’ and not given.  You only do something for someone without expecting anything in return for it.  The left hand should not know what the right hand is doing because it is not the right hand’s business to know.

               A person who makes an exhibition of his charity is not doing charity; he is merely buying fame.  The world’s resources belong to everyone.  Someone gets a bigger share, but these resources are meant for each one of us.  So, if you are bestowed with fortune, blessings and the capacity to share, then you should just give, without any doubts or questions in your mind as to what use it will be put to, without thinking whether this person is worthy of it or not.  There should not be any judgment attached to that act.  You should not worry about what you gave to someone, or the use it will be put to.  That is not your business.

               In the Gita, Krishna says “judgment lies only in my hands”, what lies in our hands is the karma, the action.  In order to judge another human, you ought to be perfect first and we know that only the Divine is perfect and no one else.  When you judge means that your state of mind is interfering with the charity you are doing, then you are merely doing it for personal satisfaction.  Charity should be free of judgments and attachments.  Just thinking that one has done a good act by giving something to someone indicates his attachment with that act.  If you feel good, happy, satisfied at the end of any action that means that action was done for your own self.  Charity should be done and forgotten.

               Charity need not be expressed in money.  Charity can be kind words; it can be helping someone; teaching or blessing someone, it can even be something as simple as a smile if someone needs that, at that moment, without expecting anything in return.  It can be any act of help to someone without being directly benefited by it.  Your work is only to act and do your karma as a channel and not count your blessings.  For instance, Indra came to Karna to ask for his armour and Karna knew that it was Lord Indra and why he was asking for the armour.  Yet, since Indra came with both his hands spread out, asking, Karna just gave it.  That is charity.

www.dhyanfoundation.com

www.theinnerworld.org

[Indra in order to protect his son Arjuna being killed by Karna in the Mahabharata war, came disguising as a Brahmin begging for his armour, which will protect him.  Once asked, as he cannot say ‘no’, Karna gave it to Indra.  The Tamil proverb says, ‘asking (begging) something in charity is a mean thing, but refuse to give, even after begging is the meanest one.  Giving something in charity is noble, but refuse to accept is the noblest one.’]

And, yes, there is a great risk involved with grappling with and practicing charity…every once in a while my passion to get rid of my disgusting selfishness takes an ironic spin:  people receive my help for the wrong reasons, selfish reasons and that hurts.  I’m just so thankful that GOD does not limit His help only to those “worthy” of it….that’s what makes the Charity of Christ so amazing.

Again, a lot of this is simply me realizing the awful fact that I place myself, my desire for unnecessary comfort and security over others who need basic help (like children who simply need some food).  When Christ talks about “what you do to the least of these, you do unto me” I realize that I do little unto the poor and suffering which sadly reflects on how I am responding to the Christ.  For me, a huge part of the mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ is inextricably connected with the reality of suffering and as long as I neglect suffering out of selfish priorities, I can be pretty sure that I’m not properly connecting with the mystery of Christ.

You’re wisdom is such a wonderful guide Swamiji…thanks for your time.  I know that you’re busy so any time you put into a person like me is considered gold.  Thank you – Chris  

From Chris:

What an interesting spin on the whole poverty issue.  That, to have concern for the other person in need is best expressed in the form of witholding charity lest you hinder the needy in their process of burning off the bad karma that put them in that situation.  Or, if one is to help the poor/suffering, the reasons seem to be “selfish” in that the motivating factor involves a belief that to alleviate the suffering of another, one is burning away HIS or HER band karma…wow, thanks so much Swamiji for helping me understand this better.

I can catch a hint of how deep the issue of Karma “goes” in its relation to pain and suffering in India.  As a Hindu, the struggle to reconcile one’s natural moral response with one’s belief in Karma would have to be quite intense at times.  While I would never, ever, ever attempt to assume myself qualified to make “judgments” about Indian culture, I do know that regardless of culture, religion or philosophical affiliation, all theories must follow the appropriate moral data of human experience.  I believe that it is fundamentally natural for a selfless spirit to want to reach out to those in need and to define such an act as immoral or improper by definition of some tradition seems difficult to accept.  But, alas, I always approach such traditions with respect and patience… I really can’t say much because I simply haven’t spent time IN that culture. 

I’d have to say though, while I’ve never been to India (yet:), I can look at a life like Mother Teresa as an example of someone who HAS lived in India and STILL maintained the belief that to do nothing to help the poor out of a commitment to the belief in Karma, was immoral for any human.  She lived in the culture, connected with the people, understood it’s religion and still said “no, it is wrong to explain a lack of action as a morally preferable stance”.  Now, she wasn’t Indian, nor Hindu, so in these respects, perhaps her life was still a matter of bringing into a culture a foriegn/exterior set of moral/religious standards and spending a considerable amount of time living out those standards in a culture that has little place for them.  Either way, I think I’d still have to side with Mother Teresa’s take on poverty in India, not because it’s more “Christian” or “White/European”, but because it strikes me as more moral in an objective/universal sense.  And, I must say, I’m definitely aware of the difficulty of making ‘objective moral statements’ but then again, even the Indian believes that there are inappropriate, and appropriate ways of interpreting his or her culture, which is another way of stating a universal or objective approach to things.

Swamiji, I can’t thank you enough for the correspondance.  It is such a blessing.  Any emails from you are very appreciated.  I thank you for your time, and wisdom.  You continue to bless me:) – Chris   

@@@

‘From the point of view of evangelism and missions would he be classified as a “Christian”?’

–why every the spiritual experience in Christ should be always measured, understood and interpreted by any point of view of ‘evangelism and mission’?  These are extra biblical programmes and principles, particularly in mission to ‘measure’ their statistics.

The above is my answer to the question of classifying a new Christ bhaktas according to the view of ‘evangelism and mission’.  What I mean by extra biblical programme on evangelism and mission needs some explanation.

About this Roland Allen in his book ‘Spontaneous Expansion of the Church’, has very clearly and with authority demonstrated (also see the appendix on this book in ‘Living Water and Indian Bowl’).  Though evangelism is a programme of a mission, yet it is also the responsibility of every Christ bhakta.  But separating evangelism from the church and assigning it as the sole business of an extra biblical Christian Institution called Mission, then it become an enterprise and not the responsibility of every follower of Christ.  About this Bishop Stephen Neill once said, ‘every Christian (believer) is a Missionary or a mistake’.  This artificial division of responsibility between the church and mission alone created lots of confusion in evangelism.

In fact church and mission cannot exist as separate entity, with separate administration, power and responsibility in the main life of the church.  Ten years before and till I read Allen, I never understood this concept very clearly and in one way remind as a stronger supporter for the Mission.  However after reading Allen and analysing the present trend of Mission, I realized how I was wrong.

But we cannot blame the Mission entirely.  When the church as a body of Christ failed her main responsibility as witness for the Lord and restricted her activity inside the organized religion called ‘Christianity’ and spent her time to take care of the mundane needs of the Christian Communities—like hatch (birth), match (marriage) and dispatch (death), at the cost of serving the believers to reminding their spiritual responsibility, the Mission came into existence as a parallel Christian Institution.  However the circumstances forced the believers to form a Mission outside or along with the church they have no excuse to go on maintain it in the name of evangelism and promoting their programmes and projects in the name of evangelism or church plantiing.

This I want to demonstrate by a case study.  I know about two so called indigeneous Missions serving the Lord in the North.  But even after serving more than 20 years in various mission fields and claimed to have established several hundred churches, they remain blind to the reality that what they have established in the name of Church planting is not the ‘church’ but only expanded their mission fields in the name of Church planting.  Still after nearly two decades in most of the churches all the activities—administration, pastoral care, evangelism etc. are supravised or directly controlled by the South Indian Missionaries.  In principle they say that they are working with the North Indian Diaoces and the North Indian Church Bishops (of respective denomination) are actually the Head of those churches in their mission field.  Whereas the truth is that they mostly used those Bishops and Churches to establish themselves strongly in their mission fields so that their authority and business won’t be challenged by others.

The one reason for this is the poor financial condition of the North Indian Churches.  As they cannot financially support or maintain those mission-field churches, as well as lack of human resources to further take up the responsibility from those Missions, they sccummed to the indirect pressure of those Mission and dance according to their tune in the name of evangelism and Mission.

For example most of the Ordained Pastors in those mission-churches are the same South Indian Missionaries who planted the church.  The native believers are hardly ever given important responsibility in self propagation, self administration of their church life.  Several of the native believers are appointed only as catechist or local evangelists.  I still remember that in North Bihar among one particular Tribals, in several churches the communion service was conducted once in a month or even once in two months.  Because the single Missionary-pastor from South, who is now officially Ordained by the Bishop find it difficult to do all the job both as a missionary and a Pastor.  As a missionary he has to look after so many details in his relationship and responsibility with his mother mission and as a Pastor he has to look after several churches under him.

To say in other words, all the mistakes done by the past western missionaries are practically carried by these (south) Indian Missionaries also in their mission field.  The native believers were not trusted, developed and entrusted with responsibility.  Even after ten and fifteen years the South Indian Missionaries and the Mission has to do every thing for the local church.  The native believers were mentally trained in such a way that they always looked the South Indian Missionaries as in the past the Indian believers looked the western missionaries.  Being a South Indian I myself have several time noted and severely opposed such ‘superiority complex’ nature, attitude and domination of them.  This I say not to accuse them.  But the South Indians in one way have a superiority complex within themselves.  They always claim that their culture, race, values, society etc. are better than the North Indians.  This attitude is a part of the whole South Indian Societies—where they are Christians or not.  In Tamilnadu we will often quote an ancient saying, ‘kal thondra, man thondra kaalathe, vaalodu mun thondriya moota kudi’ (even before earth was formed we are that ancient and first people who came into existence with a sword).

Please don’t mistake me that in order to win the sympathy or support of any North Indian I am sharing this. As far as I have observed this supeirority complex is a part of our South Indian social value.  Several time we ourselves are not aware of it.  But those who lived and worked with us can realise this.  Most of the time the South Indians never delebratly parade or impose their superiority complex.  In most cases and situations, it works in a subtle way.  In their talk, in their behaviour and attitude they will make their North Indian partners or friends (even co-workers and servants) feel in a subtle way how they are not their equal.  Even those humble and very submissive missionaries, even through their very humbleness and submissive nature, several times increased the inferiority complex of the North Indians, than to make them to feel that they too are their equal—with each one having his/her own good and weakness.  This I think the South Indian Christians in one way or the other inherited from their European missionaries.  In most cases the European Missionaries always made the native to feel that they are mere dwarfs before them.  Even to day several westerns, who are really humble and try to serve with a servant attitude create such a mental make among the Indians.  I think this is a common racial value among the Westerners, in every situation—secular, religious etc.  They don’t parade or impose, but by their attitude, behaviour, reaction several time they make their Indian partner that they are not their equal.  Of course in both cases several times the material and monetary advantage of one over the other also plays an important but subtle role.  This we can over come only the Grace of God.

But on the practical side I personally feel that in order to make the ‘mission’ as true ‘church’, first the missionaries must leave, practically leave forcing the natives to swim on their own.  Their parental attitude towards the native believers should change and if needed with some pain learnt to leave the natives at the care of God and the Holy Spirit to teach and guide them.  Allen has already shared a lot and I need not repeat them again here.  Once the mission realises its limitation that it cannot replace the church, then mission and evangelism will become a spontaneous expression of the church.  As I said in my synopsis on Allen’s book the mission should die so that the church could live.  But by church I don’t mean all the ecceliciastically organised and Institutionaly Christianized denominational religious Institutions, but the mystical and living body of Christ.  Of course what I have shared as a mere brain storm is easy to write than to implement.  At least a small level attempt should be made somewhere to experiment this.  Otherwise we will only repeat all the past mistakes.

@@@