Dialogue with Christians to be revised Part Five

You need not edit it but can just correct some grammar and spelling mistakes in my reflections.  You cannot do any change from all the quotes from Kings and other books.  So which is in red colour is my reflections and you can make the correction only in it.  Can you also please mark with different colour those changes that you will make, so that I can easily check it again.  Take your own time and send it back to me. Kindly don’t share it with anyone, but you can quote. Once you send it back I will post it in my blog and then you can give my blog for your reference. Thanks.

Judith M. Brown and Robert Eric Frykenberg (eds.) Christians, Cultural Interactions, and India’s Religious Traditions, London, Routledge Curzon, 2002,

Disconnected Christianity

Prologue:   This is merely a ‘cut and paste’ review article on Graham Kings, Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker, New Delhi, 2002, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017.  Yes I not only quoting verbatim from the book, but also to substantiate my reflections I verbatim quote from other scholars.  There is an advantage in such ‘cut and paste’ writing.  With my limitation I need not present the scholar’s view in my own words.  Though, in general such long quotes from the scholar might irritate any reader, there is no other option for me. First, I need to quote in length from the book, in order to provide a clear context for my reflection.  Similarly the lengthy quotes from other scholars will also help the reader to understand their points in context. 

Of course any ‘cut and paste’ writing looks very dry and artificial. But it matches with the title ‘disconnected Christianity’, as that too looks like a ‘cut and paste’ religion for the Indians neither remaining completely western nor remain Indian. Rather it remains a ‘patch work faith’—a kind of hybrid.  Though its origin is in Asia, it was introduced by British and Missionaries as part of Western civilization.  Unable to fit neatly with the Indian Dharmic civilization (Badrinath),¹ and at the same time unable to get liberation from Western Civilization, it became a patch work faith and still remains ‘disconnected’ with Indian civilization.  And my reflections on this book further high lights it.

I am not sure whether I can call this as ‘review article’. It runs more than 100 pages.  After Introduction, my reflections are arranged on topic wise in the following order:

Hinduism, Idolatry, Hindu Scriptures are from Devil, Dialogue, How far to go, Presence of Muktinath, conversion, community, contextualization, Theological problem, Evangelism, Muktiveda as Foundation, Religions, Cross and evil, Failures of Muktinath; just acts of God; Liberal, Redemptive acts of God, Spirituality and Social responsibility, Worldview, Imperialism, God and history, Jews and the Lord, Reductionism, Work of the Holy Spirit, Mukti, Summary and Bhakti Theology

24-08-2019 

Introduction:

Though attempting to universalize, homogenize, textualize, essentialize, dogmatize and finally Christianize Hinduism, Christianity remains disconnected with Hinduism in its approach and understanding.  Though both Warren and Hooker were sincere and honest in their approach to understand Hinduism, still they represent such disconnected Christianity.  This book by Kings (The book, Christianity Connected….) clearly demonstrates it.  Their attempt is similar to that of most of the Hindus who identify Western Civilization with Christian Religion. Hinduism being part of Indian civilization should be understood by its dynamic nature accommodating various, even contradicting thoughts and (religious) practices.  Any attempt to understand it from any one particular approach—either through texts or through people (known as popular Hinduism)—never will help anyone, including Hindus, to understand Hinduism.  And my reflections of selected points from Warren and Hooker will help us to understand this.

This book is both interesting and a bit irritating. It is interesting because both Warren and Hooker were ahead of their time and clearly thought about the need of a new paradigm shift in evangelism and its approach in understanding other faiths. It is irritating because, however thoughtful and engaged they were with people of other faiths (Warren in thought and Hooker in life), still they could not think beyond their Church affiliation and orientation.  

At the same time we have to accept that they cannot do more than this considering their background as strong church people. One has to recognize the honest attempt of Hooker to engage with ordinary people of other faiths and his earnest effort to understand Hinduism by learning not only from texts but also from the people. But again, this is another ‘Christian’ approach both to understand and present the gospel, which Hooker rightly criticizes when he was requested to write about the presence of Holy Spirit in Hinduism by John V. Taylor (Hooker Letter 23 September 1973, pp. 326-28).

Some of the challenges they faced by taking their vocation seriously throw some serious challenges and questions to the Christian world, particularly to the evangelicals. And those who want to understand and accept those challenges need to read this book.

As a lay Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I found lots of encouragement in their approach. This book also helped me reflect on my bhakti and understanding of Muktiveda and found lots of materials to learn from them. What I am going to share are my reflections which I began to record while I was reading this book.

This book kept me engaged with both Warren and Hooker, however in several places I found it difficult to understand them because of the language barrier. Though I managed to read English and understand the topic in context, several unfamiliar technical terms made it difficult to understand their thought in depth. So what I am going to share needs to be understood in the context of my limitation and I stand corrected if someone points out my lack of understanding of both Warren and Hooker properly.  

There are two options before me. First I can arrange my reflections based on topic. Second is to share them based on the letters of Warren. But considering the repetition of several points and also the analysis of King, and my limitation of language, it is better for me to share my reflections based on the letters of Warren (and Hooker’s response to them) under various topics. But I will try to avoid the repetitions wherever possible.

Before I share my reflections, I have to explain a fundamental understanding about Hinduism that is essential for anyone seeking to engage it, including common Hindus. According to my understanding, Hinduism cannot be understood with any other religious categories alone, particularly the understanding about religion from a Christian perspective. I too want to say that Hinduism is not a religion but only a way of life as claimed by us at present. But the fact is that it is not merely a way of life. It also has the concept of religion in the sense the word ‘religion’ is used and understood by all (both Hindus and non-Hindus). For me the best way to understand Hinduism is as a civilization in which there is a place of ‘religion’.  However the fundamental two tracks on which Hinduism moves are dharma and karma, not God. Even without God, Hinduism still survives, but not without dharma and karma, which do not require any god to sustain them. Of course when it comes to understanding both dharma and karma and implementing them in life, the role of God is very crucial in bhakti traditions. But it is better to understand Hinduism as a civilization more than as a mere religion.

This is the fundamental failure with the evangelical approach in presenting the gospel to the Hindus. As they tried to understand Hinduism from a religious point of view (that too from their doctrinal orientation), they used only theology as the main criteria rather than sociology and anthropology (though I don’t understand these two properly). Added to this, their missiology (till this day I don’t know what is this) further complicated the matter. At the same time, one cannot approach Hinduism with any spirit of ‘equality of all religions’ (Smart, 1968) which Warren ‘forthrightly criticized’ (p. 141). For me each religion is ‘unique’ from its perspective and we should try to understand its ‘uniqueness’ rather than compare it with other religions. This is because, according to my layman’s understanding, Hinduism is not merely a religion but a civilization.

My temporary solution in preaching the gospel is to allow it to ‘incarnate’ within this civilization even to the extent of making it part of this civilization which has the capacity to accommodate all kinds of faith, not expecting them to compromise on their fundamental doctrine. Sharing one’s faith with the conviction that it is the only way and means for salvation is a common trait for most of the sampradayas within in Hinduism. ‘Conversion’ from one faith (sampradaya) to another always happened.² After all, as the origin of the gospel is in Asia, it can more easily incarnate in India rather than in its present western religious form.

I say it is my temporary solution because if others can present any other approach which will respect the religious and other sentiments of Hindus, I am willing to change my view. While sharing the gospel, one should not hurt the religious sentiment of others. Of course Hindus might think that this approach is nothing but another cynical evangelical agenda to ‘convert’ Hindus to Christianity in a subtle way. Nobody can blame them for holding such views, as ‘community’ conversion was the only motivation behind the ‘religious’ conversion carried out by Christianity in India, in which of course they miserably failed. My response to my fellow Hindus is this: We need not feel threatened by any such approach but see it a challenge to present and preserve our civilization as it is thriving all these centuries while withstanding all kinds of attacks and challenges from outsiders.  

Having shared this initial thought now I would like to go directly to Warren and Hooker and my reflections based on their exchange of letters and analysis of Kings. At the end I will share more of my other thoughts based on those reflection.

1 …There had never existed in Dharmic India any dichotomy between ‘religion’ and ‘culture’…. One, no sooner did a social institution atomize itself, through its excesses, and ceased to have connection with the life-supporting order, than it was dead. Two, any attempt to convert Dharmic India had to show successfully the essence of Dharmic thinking on human order to be wrong and false, and not merely remove this institution or that.  Success in the latter would in itself mean no conversion at all.  The attempts to correct the excess of an institution, or to remove it altogether, had been already a part of Dharmic history.  If the encounter of western Christianity with Dharmic India had to be vital and meaningful, it had to replace the Dharmic conception of life taken in its totality.  For success inputting down one institution or another would have only served to reducing Christianity (p.8) to yet another reforming sect.  But Christianity was not a reforming sect any more than the Buddha was a social reformer.  The history of Christianity in India is the history almost entirely of the issue stated above.  And that was the issue between Christianity and Dharma from the very start….( Badrinath, 2000. pp.8-9)

2 …The image of Hinduism as a tradition that not merely allows but encourages people to stay with their faith community was so successfully propagated by international luminaries such as Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi that its conversionist element especially among bhakti sects has been overlooked { See Arvind Sharma, “Hinduism and Conversion,” in The Oxford Handbook of Conversion, ed. Lewis R. Rambo and Charles Farhadian (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 429-43}.  Yet frequently bhaktas have not been content simply to worship their own deity; their devotion compels them to “convert” others to their own community. One amusing story to illustrate this point is told of a Shaiva saint who was so deeply devoted to Shiva and committed to converting people to worshiping him that when Shiva himself came to visit the saint in disguise, the saint insisted that Shiva follow his devotion and become a Shaiva. When the saint’s zeal was to much for Shiva, the latter tried to tell the former who he was: all in vain, for the saint insisted that Shiva convert, so Shiva “was forced on his knees for the baptism of ash.” {Ramanujan, 1973, 29}—Jone, 2017, p. 12}

Reflections:

The best topic with which to begin in order to understand Warren and Hooker’s (mis)understanding of Hinduism is their discussion of Hinduism itself. This is reflected throughout their letters. Though Hooker came to India, moved among common people, and learnt Sanskrit and Hindi, his and Warren’s understanding is still more academic in nature as they try to analyse their understanding from their religious and theological perspectives. So I will begin with Hinduism based on their letters in a chronological order.  I have to quote the full text. Otherwise my response won’t make sense.   Considering the language I cannot simply paraphrase their thoughts in my own words. This will completely distort their thought. So there is no other option but to give the whole text on which I would like to share my reflection. 

Hinduism:

Warren: …He {Raimundo Panikkar}… so profoundly confident that Christ is the Universal Saviour & Lord, that he cannot put Hinduism as a ‘Way’ of life & thinking outside the realms of Christ’s Saviourhood & Lordship  I think that if one thinks of Hinduism as a ‘Way of life & thought’ & not primarily as a religion this may be a way forward. As he says there is no Orthodoxy in Hinduism only an orthopraxy,³ i.e. Each man accepts his karma & works at his dharma….(Letter 88 15 October 1966)—p. 206

3 See Panikkar, 1981, 12.—notes, 134, p. 206

DB’s Reflection: The problem is that when Hindus are not sure what Hinduism is all the outsiders finally give their definition based on their own ideals and ideas.  Panikkar is not the last authority to decide what Hinduism is. In his response about Panikkar Hooker wrote:

…He {Raimundo Panikar} said he believes that our task is not to try and convert Hindus, but to convert Hinduism, ‘to go with it into this death of the old mythology, to try to show Hindus a way in which they can still believe in their myths, and in doing so help them to meet the risen Christ.’ (Hooker Letter 2 December 1973)—p. 334

Db’s Reflection: Very poor understanding about Hinduism and Hindus.  But Christians cannot (mis)understand more than this. See below by Warren:

…I find myself a little mistrustful of talk about ‘converting Hinduism’.  I know this is his favourite line and it is paralleled by quite a lot of R C thinking at the moment.  But what does it add up to?  ‘Hinduism’ is a social and religious complex. As such time may modify it in one direction or another.  By all means let us share with Hindus ‘in the death of their mythology’ tho’ how a non-Hindu does that I’m not sure but the encounter with the risen Christ is something inescapably personal and it involves discipleship. Whether discipleship and the re-mythologizing of myths are compatible I would not know….

…Raymond is (a) philosopher (b) an academic moving all the time at real academic level…A Philosopher is concerned ultimately to bring all thought into a unity therefore you mustn’t only read JUNG but other writers.  Nonsense!!! If you were a philosopher you could wear a philosopher’s armour and go out to meet the Goliaths of Hindu philosophy. (p.335)  But it was David with a simpler apparatus who dealt with Goliath. It could happen again!  I am not asking you to press analogies, but challenging dear Raymond’s  non-sequiturs to his approval of your analysis.– (Letter 433 12 December 1973).—pp. 335-36

Warren: …There is a sense in which, so I would guess, contemporary Hinduism can only be understood in terms of its ‘reaction to Islam and Christianity, just as the Hinduism of say the last 500 AD was in a substantial degree created by reaction from Buddhism. And the reaction was two-fold (a) a withdrawal into itself and a consequent rejection of the challenge, and (b) an unconscious response to the challenge by significant modifications.  Do you think there is something in that? (Letter 209 22 March 1969)—p. 233

Hooker: …Hinduism in the north can only  be properly understood against the background of its continuing grappling with the fact of Muslim presence….(Hooker to Warren 10 June 1971)—p. 267

DB’s Reflection: This ‘Hindu reaction to other faiths’ is only a textual Hinduism not the popular Hinduism.  Viewing Hinduism only from a textual perspective will never help outsiders to understand the Hindu phenomena in its various facets.  The relationship of Hinduism with other faiths is a very complex one. Any analysis of it based on the text alone won’t do full justice.   A large section of Hindus lived neither withdrawing nor responding to them.  Several scholars have documented it well (Gaeffke 1984, Ramaswamy, 2014, Stietencor, 2005,  Bece, 2008, Hawley, 2015 Bayly, 1992.) It is beyond the scope of this paper to quote some important points and comments from other scholars. Whether common Hindus have any grappling with Muslims or not, religious leaders, theologians and politicians do. The dichotomy between North and South in relationship to Islam again shows the subjective experience of Hooker. 

Hooker: …Such measure of success as I have, and the desire to do better, come directly from my faith in Christ. So far as I can tell no other faith gives its adherents a comparable passion, indeed I have yet to meet a single Hindu or Muslim who believes that there is another world to look at. Everything outside his own faith – and sometimes things within it – is rejected and often hated, certainly it is not worthy of understanding. (Hooker to Warren 17 July 1969)—p. 242

DB’s Reflection:  It is not the concept of ‘worthy of understanding’ which cause Hindus’ and Muslims’ indifference to other religions.  At least the Hindus think that as Mahabharata says,⁴ what all the other faiths are teaching and claiming is already in their religion.  So there is no NEED to understand about other faiths.  However, only a few evangelicals have this ‘passion’ to understand other faiths like Hooker.  Most of the (Indian) Christians in general and evangelicals in particular never have that passion. In fact they not only ‘rejected’ but ‘often hate’ Hinduism.  So claiming that Christian faith ‘gives its adherents a comparable passion’ is an over-exaggeration.  Even Ziegenbalg was rebuked by his Halle professor and told not to waste his time in learning about Hinduism.⁵  Evangelical Christians always talk about the all sufficiency of Muktiveda, which is indeed a true doctrine when properly understood.  But one evangelical pastor in the north once said to me, ‘by reading all these books on Hinduism you are wasting your time.  All we need is to read the Bible properly and preach the gospel’.

Back in early 1990 I was invited to teach on Hinduism in an Evangelical Missionary Training Centre.  After several days of classes, one day I went to the library to refer a particular sloka in Bhagavadgita.  After searching in the books on Hinduism, as I couldn’t find a copy of the Bhagavadgita, I approached the Librarian to help me to get one.  But to my surprise and dismay he said that they don’t have the Gita in their library.  And they are training students to reach Hindus.  In those days the cost of the Gita was not even one rupee and one can get a copy anywhere in the bus-stand or railway station book shops.  This is the condition of Evangelical’s interest to know and learn about Hinduism in India. –db

4  …whatever about Dharma, Artha and Kama, that is contained in this Bharata, may be met with elsewhere; but whatever is not in it, is not to be found anywhere. [Vaishampayana to Janamejaya].— Dutt, 1988, ADI PARVA, Ch. 62. p.83

5 ‘…When the early Protestant Tranquebar missionary, Ziegenbalg, sent home a thesis on Hindu beliefs and practices, his Halle professor told him “not to waste his time with studying pagan nonsense”’{Frank, Lucknow, p. 7. }

Warren: …This idea that the symbol in everything is very interesting & also goes a very long way into much Indian thinking. Is this the key to interpreting Idolatry – the idol is the symbol. If that is so then our understanding of the Biblical attitude towards idolatry maybe clarified thus – There is only One God, one term of reference in the Universe.  And all truth & goodness & righteousness are in him. Idolatry is isolating a truth, a goodness, a moral quality, & by isolating it, distorting it.  Idolatry encourages the belief in many terms of reference. And this makes for spiritual insecurity. Does that make sense?  India’s philosophers get round it by insisting that all Symbols point to the ONE. But (p.242) in the process, so it seems to me, they lose all real sense of the Personal, of the real I – Though relationship of God & Man.  There, I’m only feeling my way, prompted by your report of Satya Vir’s talk.(Letter 229 23 July 1969)—pp. 242-43

DB’s Reflection:  Not only idols as symbols but the entire Hinduism upholds the ‘belief in many terms of reference’ to understand that one eternal Truth—which even need not be God according to many Hindus.  Polytheism is the Hindu reality.  All the talk about Monotheism in Hinduism is nothing but elitist Hindu response⁶ to outsiders’ criticism to polytheism.⁷  Since pluralism is the Hindu reality, trying to understand and interpret it with the basic tenets of other faiths like Christianity and Islam won’t help outsiders to understand this Hindu reality.  Mere textual information and understanding is not enough. Even the so called interaction and dialogue with Hindus, particularly by an outsider, cannot help them understand this. Because in such talk or dialogue the Hindus know with whom they are talking.  We will see more on idol worship in separate heading.

6 …Since the nineteenth century Hindu thinkers such as Rammohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati, Vivekananda, Radhakrishnan, and others have been appropriating in varying degrees and ways the Enlightenment conception of religion.  For example, like Muller, Dayanada Saraswati privileges the Veda as the only authentic text of Hindus, and he rejects image worship and constructs a pristine form of Hinduism based on the Veda. But unlike Muller who treats the Veda as an infantile document, Dayananda Saraswati projects the Veda as rational and scientific and thereby claims a superior status for it. Since the so-called Hindu renaissance there has been a tendency to construct Vedanta as the religion of Hindus, in response to Western critiques of Hinduism. In doing so, Hindus as replicating orientalist affirmations of Vedanta as the essence of Hinduism.— .( Rajah , 2017:140)

7 …Both orientalists ( William Jones and Max Muller) and missionaries (William Ward and J. N. Farquhar) adopt a textualized approach to Hinduism, each one presenting Hinduism from his differing theological stance…..It is particularly through the prism of biblical monotheism that orientalists and missionaries interpret and evaluate Hinduism.  Jones situates Hinduism within the biblical time-framework and thus asserts the primacy of biblical revelation.  Whereas Jones finds in Hinduism a distorted version of biblical monotheism, Muller locates in it an infantile monotheism which has yet to grow into full maturity. For William Ward, Hinduism is devoid of a living monotheistic god and therefore has no salvific value. Jones views Hinduism in the light of the Mosaic view of history as recorded in genesis, and Muller adopts an evolutionary approach, but both scholars, in different ways, use Protestant monotheism as a yardstick for evaluating Hinduism. As with Muller, Farquhar, too, subscribes to an evolutionary view of religion which holds Christianity as the fulfilment of Hinduism….( Rajah , 2017:139)

Hooker:  …Again and again speakers used the phrases “these people set before us the road on which we must tread.”  They contrasted the virtues of these folk with the blatant failings of present day society.  But these were all domestic and family virtues, and I saw clearly what I had so often read about Hinduism, that there is no sense of obligation to anyone beyond the family and caste circle. (Hooker to Warren 4 October 1969).—p. 248

DB’s Reflection: This is the Christian problem of not reading and understanding Hindu society as a whole.  There are enough epigraphic evidences where kings and others donate land and money to serve food to the travellers and poor.  Till the recent past several rich people donated lands for the construction of public schools and hospital.  A typical Hindu is expected to do five great sacrifice each day (panchamaha–yagna)⁸ taking care of fellow human beings and animals by feeding them.  Of course they have done it and still are doing it both to earn merit (punya) and get rid of past karmas, as the Christians are doing it with an agenda of conversion.  There are few real exceptions but in general Christian charity is ‘either to convert or to the converts’.  And the real tragedy now is that most of those Christian charitable works started with real love and concern for the poor and needy have now become commercial institutions about which Sudhakar aptly says:

               Hospitals, schools, and orphanages as institutions of service in Christ’s name were begun during the colonial era and these were also centres of Christian propaganda.⁹ It was only later that these institutions were seen as Christian expressions of love and compassion for all humans.^9a(Sudhakar p. 169, emphasis by db]

But for a typical Hindu, charity begins at home.   In any religious discourse (attended by Hooker at Bareily) the speakers in general used to rebuke people falling down from the ideals which were set by their forefathers.  It is like a preacher giving exhortations or warnings from the pulpit in any church service.  But taking such rebuke as ‘failings of present day society’ and passing such remarks shows the Christian’s superiority complex and condescension of other people.  However note that:

…Even the Jesuits, behind their general attitude of superiority and condescension, occasionally praised the mass feeding of the poor that was practised both in temples and by princes and magnates….(Buffett, p. 191)

Some may say that Hindu charity is given only to earn merit and primarily as part of a religious act, since large portions of lands were given only to the temples and Brahmins (as Brahmadeyas).  There is some truth in it, but all the evidence from the texts, epigraphic evidences and other records show how charity is not only a Christian prerogative.  Below I am giving only a few references and I need not add my own comments on each point as they speak for themselves.  However it is worth noting as someone well said that: generosity and compassion are a common human impulse.  My guess is that it grows out of the experience of dependence in the family.  Religions simply codify what is already there in the human experience:

…Medhaatithi on Manu IV.5 says that when a person makes a gift through compassion it is not the dana and pratigraha spoken of by the sastra; just as when a man gives instruction as to what is beneficial he does not care to see what the caste of the person to be benefited by the advice is, so a gift made through compassion is made irrespective of caste; and that when non-brahmanas reduced to a helpless condition take what is given by others, it cannot be said that they are assuming to themselves the livelihood by pratigraha which is a peculiar means of livelihood for brahmanas.(Kane, 1962-75, Vol. I Part. 116.)

Without being puffed up and engaging in japa without others seeing it is infinite.  Devala says ‘sacrifice, gift and study lose their power and perish by being declared to others, by boasting about them or by repenting of having done them.  Therefore one should not without good reason [such as protecting a gift etc.] proclaim one’s meritorious act…’Certain things when offered voluntarily by a person with his own hand must be accepted and not spurned even by one who does not ordinarily accept gifts…-ibid. Vol. II. Part. II. Ch.XXV. Daana. p. 849)

  The texts took care to set limits to a man’s generosity.  After emphasizing in very eloquent language the obligation to share one’s possessions, however meagre, with others, Veda-Vyaasa [IV.30-31] inculcate the doctrine that charity begins at home.[p.850]…In this Brhaspati only echoes what Manu says [XI.9-10] ‘the charity of him who has wealth enough to make gifts to strangers, when his own people live a life of misery, is only a false initiation of dharma [and not the true dharma], it is at first like honey but will taste like poison [later]. Whatever a man does for his welfare in the next world by stinting those whom he is bound to maintain, results in unhappiness to him while living and also after death’.  The Anusaasana parva [37.2-3] declares that if one makes a gift stinting one’s servants, he makes himself a sinner, even though one may say that one would give whatever any one begs for [compare Luke VI.30 ‘give to every man that asketh of thee’…-ibid. Vol. II. Part. II. Ch. XXV. pp.850-51.

…In the many hymns of the Rg Veda addressed to Agni, the divine friend, we also come across a few texts that express in a very vivid manner the beauty of liberality, of sharing with others, especially with the needy, the urge to extend the circle of friendliness and unity outside the limited family group.¹⁰ (Panikkar, 1989: 833)

8             These food transactions are codified in the five great sacrifices (mahayajna) that are closely associated with the householder.  Except for the sacrifice to the Vedic seers consisting of reciting the Veda, all these involve the offering of food: to gods, to ancestors, to human beings, and to all beings (bali offerings to bhutas). The householder thus stands at the center of these cycles of food transactions.  Vasistha 8.14-8.16) calls the householder the best of the four asramas, because “as all living beings live dependent on their mothers, so all mendicants live dependent on the householder.” {Olivelle, 2000}— (Olivelle p. 194)

9  The missionary schools started increasingly to impart education through English in smaller towns as well, as they saw “English education as the most opportune way to reach the influential upper and ‘middling’ classes among whom they hoped to find native converts who might help in carrying Christian faith to the masses” (McCully, Bruce T. 1940. English Education and the Origins of Indian Nationalism, New York: Columbia University Press (reprint1966) Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1966:38 based on missionary sources). In other words, the missionaries had a Downward Filtration Theory of their own for dissemination of Christian faith. (Anamalai, op.cit. p. 135)

9a. …I have watched good Christian medical agencies in India gradually lose their original mission as they become institutionalized, with buildings and staff to support. The “quality” of their treatment rises, but so does the expense. To make the work more self-supporting, they branch out into techniques that attract patients who can pay.  Meanwhile, the poor and unloved, who can no longer afford the mission hospital, must turn to the government clinic for help.— Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey, In the Likeness of God, The Dr. Paul Brand Tribute Edition of Fearfully and Wonderfully Made and In His Image, Zondervan, 2004, in, Paul Brand, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, Skin, Loving, pp. 31-230, p. 163

10 Cf. VII.46;56; Cf. also AV IX,6, where hospitality offered to a guest is highly praised and is considered as important as the offering of sacrifice, each act of hospitality being shown to correspond to one of the sacrificial acts.

…A charitable gift given to a need person yields the utmost benefit.  If it is given after entreaties it yields only half the benefit. (Shastri, 2002:92)

               All sorts of charitable gifts recommended by the sages do not merit even a sixteenth part of the gift of protection to a living being.—ibid. Rudra-Samhita, Section V, Yuddha Khanda 5:24, p.828

…In order to escape from sin, a high-caste man must both be insulated from dangerous power and be generous and compassionate.^10a The native system produces two dilemmas.  First, no matter how one tries, he cannot entirely insulate himself from taint.  Second, a man must be generous and compassionate in addition to being insulated from taint.  Many in the past have written on the restrictions one must observe to attain respectability in South Indian society.  What has not been sufficiently emphasized is the corollary of this doctrine: a man must also be compassionate, generous, and a crosser of boundaries to be accorded respect. (Hart, 1999: 128)

10a Some will argue that there is no conflict between the need to insulate oneself from taint and the moral imperative to be generous and compassionate.   To take such a position is, I feel, to misunderstand the importance attributed to generosity in South India.  Generosity means not only distributing wealth to the less fortunate, but eating with them as well.  It is significant that eating is both the most dangerous act one does every day and the act which, more than anything else, one must share with others.—Notes, 15. p.128

…We should not be deceived by the usual translations of our dictionaries: “donation, gift, liberality”, because the modern meanings attached to these words do not coincide with the sense of dana– in traditional India.  Gift-giving among us has become so exclusively a social ceremonial among friends and relatives and liberality so much associated with charity that we are apt to overlook their other aspects (p.208)….. It is in many cases the ceremonial setting which lends property and its transfer their social worth…. It somehow produces rich returns for the donor,^10b for instance because the power ( a concept not rarely identical with wealth) and the prestige of a donor and the pride of the group to which he belongs often depended largely on his ability to maintain a reputation for generosity.^10c(Gonda, 1985: 208-09)

10b It is however not true, as has often been contended, that the acceptance of a gift invariably binds the recipient to return something of equal or greater value.—Notes, 38, p.209

10c See e.g. R. Firth, Primitive economics of the New Zealand Maori (1929), passim.  Among North-West American Indians honour comes not from the possession of wealth but from giving it away.  In New Guinea a man gains status in his group not by possessing an object but because he has once possessed it….—Notes, 39, p.209

… The eulogy of the gift of food contained in RV. 10.117—compare especially st. 6 mogham annam vindate apracetaah satyam braviimi vadha it sa tasya/ naaryamanam pusyati no sakhaayam kevalaagho bhavati kevalaadi, from which it appears that the possessions of the man who does not give are his ruin and that “he who takes food alone eats nothing but sin”—is the basis of the later teaching of Bhagavat Gita. 3,13 bhunjate te tv agham paapaa ye pacanty aatmakaaranaat “those however are wicked and eat sin, who cook for their own sakes”; Manu 3, 118 agham sa kevalam bhunkte yah pacaty aatmakaaranaat, ViDh. (= VisnuSmrit) 67, 43)….—ibid. Gonda, p.216

…An important corollary is the notion that the merit of a grant is passed from king to king; that is, the current ruler, whoever he may be, enjoys the benefit of grants made in the past.  He thus has no reason to (p.84) disturb earlier grants or confiscate land already given.  Copper-plate charters show that these ideas were remarkably widespread by the fifth century.  In the Vakataka grants of Pravarasena II (circa CE 419?-55) the following lines were used repeatedly.^10d

And on this point two verses sung by Vyasa should be taken as authoritative:

The giver of land rejoices in heaven for sixty thousand years (but) he who confiscates (granted land) and he who assents (to such action) shall reside in hell for that period!  Whosoever confiscates land that has been given, whether by himself or by another, he incurs the guilt of the slayer of a hundred thousand cows! (Willis, 2009: pp. 84-85)

10d J. F. Fleet, Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and Their Successors, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. 3 (Calcutta, 1888): 247 Llines 39-41); V. V. Mirashi, Inscriptions of the Vaakaatakas, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. 5. Ootacamund, (1963): 29.—Notes, 18, p. 276

….It was under British rule that temple property passed into the hands of corrupt pujaris and mahants. Even worse, the colonial state and courts had legalized their claims to property and wealth belonging to the ‘Hindu public’. [Devottar Sampatti, 338. Also see Akshaykumar Bandhopadhyaya, ‘Hindu Dharm, Uska Sharir Aur Atma’, Kalyan, August 1944, p. 1118.]…..—ibid. p. 126

Hooker: …For the first time I found Hinduism attractive. It is of course a domestic religion and one need I think to see it in its homes rather than in its temples… (Hooker to Warren, 4 October 1969)— Graham Kings, Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker, New Delhi, 2002, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017. p. 249

DB’s Reflection: Finally he found out the truth.–db

Hooker: …What is becoming abundantly clear is that God or the gods have no will which they are concerned to make effective among men. It is this which makes Hinduism so concerned with the salvation of the individual and so relatively unconcerned about God. At least I think this is so. I don’t think any Hindu could meaningfully pray ‘Thy will be done’. (Hooker to Warren, 3 January 1970). P. 257

DB’s Reflection: Hinduism is ‘dharma’ centred and not ‘god’ centred.  God(s) can help if their help is sought by a devotee to work out her salvation.  But they need not be troubled if one chooses not to trouble them.  The will of God is not there in Hinduism whereas even gods are subjected to karma and dharma. Closer to the ‘will of god’ in Christianity is fatalism in Hinduism on which even gods have no control.  However in bhakti tradition gods can overcome any kind of hurdle in a bhaktas life.—db

Hooker: …But for the Hindu the truth is never at stake, in fact one wonder if truth ever really means anything since everything can be true at the same time! (Hooker to Warren, 3 January 1970)—p. 258

DB’s Reflection: Truth, like dharma is always relative to the Hindus and I think the same to everyone in this world.  Still I cannot understand what actually this TRUTH is? ¹¹ For example after completing his teaching at Gurukulam when the student leaves, the teacher in parting advice tell him: satyam vada; dharmam chara—speak the truth and follow the dharma. But this truth is not defined and each one should consider it in relation to a given time.  Christianity is ‘god centred’ whereas Hinduism is ‘dharma’ centred which is always relative; so is truth.

So when it comes to the understanding of the truth in Hinduism we should also remember its various contexts:

…There are three meanings of the word truth; metaphysically it means the reality (Sat) or substance, the first principle which holds the earth and has been identified with rta as a cosmic principle (Rig Veda.  I.152, I; X.85.1) ….With the raise of the Brahmanas {part of Vedas} and when ‘sacrifices’ became the only means to attain salvation ‘truth’ received a new meaning and religiously it came to mean the exact performance of the sacrifice and the recitation of mantras¹² … for Valmiki, truth was a moral virtue.  Therefore, he says, ‘Satyam hi paramam dharmam’ {Truth alone is the highest one} (Ayodhya Kanda, 14:7). (Khan, 1965: 204) (My translation)

11 In the Bible, Truth is not an intellectual agreement.  As indicated, in the Old Testament it is integrity.  In the New Testament, it is a relationship with Christ.  From both of these right actions will ensue.  In regard to the relativism of truth, one must always tell the truth, but not necessarily all the truth. One needs to make a judgment on what is helpful. (Anonymous)

12 …Satya in the Brahmanas does not refer to any moral principle but it simply means the right performance or conduct of sacrifice, i.e., according to the rules, and the right recitation of the Mantras. (Khan, 1965, pp. 31-32)

I think like ahimsa which is always understood as not-killing or not doing any (physical) harm, truth is understood as not telling any lie.  But according to me Truth is not just telling the facts as facts.  Sometimes telling the facts in a different way is required.  This is called a white lie.  I still cannot understand; what is the Muktivedic view on Truth?  Merely quoting ‘say yes to yes and no to no; rest are from the evil one’ is not what telling the Truth means in Indian context.  ‘Truth is not something that can be done up in package and learned in a formula.  Communication on any truth that matters can only be indirect, and it can be apprehended only by a process which is more than merely intellectual’, says Stephen Neill (p.254)

Regarding the Muktivedic teaching on Truth Keener says:

The Greek concept of truth emphasized reality; the Old Testament word translated ‘truth’ had more to do with integrity or faithfulness to one’s word or character.  Jewish thought characterized God as the Truth, so Jesus’ hearers should realize that he refers specifically to God’s truth in the Jewish sense. (Keener, 1993, JOHN, 8:32 p.286)

… ‘Truth’ in Old Testament and Jewish tradition was God’s covenant integrity; the concept was much more abstract to Greek ears and perhaps impractical to many Romans.—ibid. JOHN, 18:36-38a. p.309

‘No lie’ includes theological lies, i.e., false doctrine (3:9; 1 Jn. 2:22).  Truth telling was important in ancient ethics, although it could be suspended even in the Bible to save life (e.g., Ex 1:19-20; Jer 38:25-27).—ibid. REVELATION, 14:5. p. 800 (emphasis added)

Klostermaier further explains this:

What is Truth?  Pilate the politician asked when Christ stood before him, claiming to be witness to Truth.  (Jn. 18:37)  As a man who knew the backstage of imperial politics, who had to compromise often enough with the powerful of the locality, and of the day in order to keep his own position, and to make his career, he was virtually certain that there was no truth as such.  For him it was a matter of political expediency to call one of two statements true and its opposite untrue.  It all depends on your standpoint.  The worldly-wise man knows that men and their words can be used and manipulated to serve one’s ends which one conveniently then calls truth. (Klostermaier, 1986: 17)

…Jesus Christ says about himself: ‘I am the Truth…’ (Jn. 14:6) that truth is not a mere theory, or an opinion about something or nothing, it is a liberating power.  ‘Know the Truth and the Truth will make you free.’ (Jn. 8:32)—ibid. p. 19

…The Truth that liberates is not the objective truth of the uninvolved observer but the Truth which is.  It requires, and brings about a radical change in one’s life.  Man normally clings to his ‘illusions’ because he is motivated by selfish desires and passions, by fears and all kinds of negative reactions.  A selfish man cannot reach Truth, nor can a man under the influence of passions or fear.  The Truth which our sages mean is not more of information about things—it is becoming and being real.”—ibid. p. 21

And this suspension of telling a truth (see Keener above) in order to save (innocent?!?) life becomes more the important point in arguing about Truth in India.  Even Valluvar who claims to be the top most teacher giving ethical teachings says that even telling a lie becomes truth: Even untruth has the stamp of truthfulness/ If it brings good sans harmfulness (Even a harmless lie can be considered as truth when it brings benevolent results.)(Kural, 292, Rajaram, 2009: 60.)

Mahabharata and Manu echo the same reality:

— (Santi parva.329.13.287.19),’speaking the truth is the proper thing; but rather than truth, speak that which will lead to the welfare of all; because, that in which the highest welfare of all; consists is in my opinion the real Truth’ (Narada to Suka).—Tilak, 1986:46)

(Santi parva.109.15.16–Bhiisma to Yudhisthira)) ‘if you can escape without speaking, then do not speak under any circumstances; but if it is necessary to speak, or if by not speaking you may rouse suspicion in the mind (of another), then, telling a lie has been found, after mature deliberation, to be much better than speaking the truth…’—ibid. p.47

(Adiparva .82.16; see also Santi parva.109 and Manu 8.110)—‘There is no sin in speaking the untruth on the following five occasions, namely, if in jock or while speaking with woman or at the time of marriage, or if your life is in danger, or for protecting your own property’–ibid.p.51

‘Whenever the death of a Sudra, of a Vaisya, of a Ksatriya, or of a Brahmana would be caused by a declaration of the truth, a falsehood may be spoken, for such a falsehood is preferable to truth’. (Manu XIII.104) (Khan, 1965:142)

In Indian worldview there exists no absolute truths and when it is related to ethics, the relative nature of truth is emphasized as we note in Valmiki Ramayana:

…through the different characters Valmiki wishes to prove that there are no eternal or absolute truths or standards of moral judgments.  This does not mean that Valmikian subjectivity of moral standards is a mere whim of one’s mind, or that Valmiki in the guise of this relativity of Dharma, preached moral laxity.  What he means to convey is that ‘rightness’ together with ‘goodness’ and ‘utility’ from a harmonious whole and a standard of moral judgement, to single out any one of these and look upon it as an eternal guide would tend to subversion.  For the sake of ‘rightness’, ‘goodness’ and ‘utility’ should not be sacrificed, but, on the other hand, it would be proper if ‘rightness’ is sacrificed for the sake of ‘goodness’ or ‘utility’.

               Another point we must note is that in these very perplexing moral situations, Rama and Sita do not take refuge in the ‘authority’ but use their reason and try to do what is best under the given circumstances, i.e., when the voice of authority failed to guide them, they found conscience to be the best guide.—ibid. Khan,  p. 143

This complexity of relative nature of truth in saving the creatures is the biggest moral dilemma for many.  There is a story in the Mahabharata.  When thieves chased a person, he hid from them. And Kausika who was performing tapasya noted it.  Then that man requested Kausika not to tell the thieves.  When the thieves came searching for that man and asked Kausika, in order to not tell a lie he told them where that person was hiding. The man was caught and killed and Kausika went to hell because of that act.  And according to Matilal:

               … Kausika had actually four choices open to him.  He could (i) tell a lie, (ii) remain silent, (iii), courageously tell the bandits that he would not help them; and (iv) tell the truth (which he did).  He would have saved an innocent life, if he followed any one of the first three choices… …For, according to some philosophers today, the moral claim is a claim that cannot be avoided even by eliminating desires.  If he had eliminated his desire for heaven, he would have lied to save innocent lives, for that would then have been his moral obligation. (Matilal, 2002:31)

And it is worth reading what Matilal says further about it:

…It was said by Krsna that, according to him, saving the lives of the creatures should get the highest priority (praaninaam avadhas taata sarvajyaay perjuraan mato mama, Mahabharata, 8.249.20 cr. Ed.).  He clearly ranked the value of saving a life higher than telling the truth.  Here Krsna clearly deviated from Kant, or even from the ideal that was sometimes upheld by Rama in the Ramayana.   In other words, anachronistically speaking, Rama was more Kantian.  But I believe Krsna’s ethics had a concern for a richer scheme of values, moral or non-moral, presupposing a very complex societal and familial structure.  It also envisions a society when saving innocent lives has a higher priority. (p. 30)

When Kant asserted that truth-telling should unconditionally get the highest priority, it is interesting to note that an example was cited which was similar to the Kausika story of Krsna.  A contemporary French philosopher criticized it and said that if a murderer had been chasing a person who had taken shelter in the house of a moral agent; it would not be the obligation of the agent to tell the truth to the murderer.  Kant, in reply, argued that truth-telling would be an unconditional obligation, and, therefore, the contingency of the situation should not affect it at all.  Kant, however, made some comments in the appendix of his Critique of Practical Reason which are worth mentioning.  Kant argued that truth-telling, in that case, would not necessarily lead to murder.  For it might not have been easy for the murderer to locate the person who was hiding.  Or the victim might have fled by the back door.  Or, when the murderer would be searching for the victim, the police or other neighbours might rush in as a group to stop the murderer and arrest him.  These remarks of Kant are of interest to us, for they show that even a great philosopher like Kant was trying to find a way out of the tight corner which had arisen as the combined result of his rigid ethical principle and sound logical reason.—ibid. P. 31

Thus:

‘since every civilisation has a particular understanding of truth, the question as to what truth is becomes of greatest importance.’… (p. 95) The underlying principle, according to the Mahabharata, is: ‘What is truth only formally in speech, is not necessarily truth; one should discriminate between truth and untruth with regard to their effect.’

               But relativism might easily degenerate into opportunism, into unprincipled self-seeking, where what was palpably wrong would be sought to be justified on one ground or another, in bad faith.  It was for this reason that the Mahabharata had subjected the relativity of ethical norms to a larger context of reverence for life. (Badrinath, 1993:95, 96-97)

Finally we cannot close any discussion on Truth without mentioning Gandhi as he is the champion of upholding the truth as he is called ‘satyagrahi’ [holder of the truth] for whom truth is nothing but ahimsa. At the same time he also preferred violence over cowardliness:

               My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than Truth.  And if every page of these chapters does not proclaim to the reader that the only means for the realization of Truth is Ahimsa, I shall deem all my labour in writing these chapters to have been in vain….( Gandhi, 1983: 453)

…First, he insisted on the need to act on the truth as it appears in the now.  To support that argument, he would cite Confucius: “To know what is right and not to do it is cowardice.”  It is very important to remember that for Gandhi, truth was not abstract but concrete.  In other words, truth always implied right…. (Sharma, 2013: 192)

…he preferred violence to cowardice.  Thus, although he insisted on the need to fight injustice nonviolently, ¹³ he also insisted on the need to fight injustice in any way possible if nonviolence was not possible for that person.  This strand in Gandhi’s life and thought enables us to view in a new light the baffling tendency on the part of some of his otherwise sober admires to divinize him….—ibid. p. 202

13 Meeting in Wardha from 6 July to 14 July 1942, the Working Committee discussed a resolution demanding the termination of British rule in India. If the demand were not met, a civil disobedience movement would be launched. The following days found Gandhi in an unusually militant mood. He was certain that the ‘Allies are in for defeat this time if they do not do this initial act of justice [granting (p.270) India freedom]’.  ‘We are betraying a woeful cowardice,’ he declared.  ‘I do not mind the blood-bath in which Europe is plunged.’51  This did not mean he endorsed violence, though.  Nor did it imply any softening of his stance towards Japanese aggression.  ‘India as an independent Power’, he insisted, ‘wants to play … a decisive part in favour of the Allies.’52  All the same, ‘some form of conflict was inevitable to bring home the truth to the British mind’.53— Srinath Raghavan, India’s WAR: The Making of Modern South Asia, 1939-1945, Gurgaon, Allen Lane, 2016. pp. 270-71 [51, 52, 53. Needs to be documented from Raghavan.—db]

Hooker: …in the village all giving for weddings etc. is done on a karma-like basis. If I give you ten rupees and three yards of cloth when someone in the family gets married you will note it in a book and when someone in my family gets married you will give me ten rupees and three yard of cloth. In such a society the idea of Grace in a gift is unintelligible; perhaps it can only become intelligible over a long period of years. Words are part of the problem, but I would want to press the issue a lot further than words. (Hooker to Warren, 17 January 1970).—p. 260

DB’s Reflection:  This shows the poor understanding about Hindus where what is practised on a social level is compared and contrasted with the doctrine of karma and grace.  It is true that in most Indian societies gifts are given and returned back on the same measure. But there is no uniformity in this also.  Not every Hindu will follow this practice.  And no Hindu keeps the doctrine of ‘karma’ while exchanging gifts in any function.  But this is poor comparison and thinking about the doctrines of ‘karma and grace’.  Like ‘karma’ there is also a strong place for grace in Hinduism.  This is at least true in the bhakti tradition.  ‘Avan arulala avan taal vanankgi’ [worshipping his feet through his grace] says Manika Vachkar in Tiruvasagam. I can give lots of quotes and reference about Grace in Hinduism. But as we often note, various sampradayas holds various kinds of interpretation and even the same Hindu will hold different views according to her circumstance and need.  The division in Srivaishnava as ‘cat school’ and ‘monkey school’ (Vadakalai and Thenkalai) is based on their interpretation of grace.  I am not going to give any reference for this.  If one searches the Internet they will get volumes and volumes of information on this subject.—db

Hooker: … a magazine, a monthly called Sarita, is intensely critical of traditional Hinduism; the weapons of its criticism are ridicule – for which of course the short story or lampoon is an ideal medium – and moral protest. I am going to make the point that while we must acknowledge the Unknown Christ of Hinduism we must also recognise the Unknown Christ of the protest against Hinduism….(Hooker to Warren 31 July 1971).—p. 269

DB’s Reflection:  Poor Hooker.  That might be the first such magazine that he came across. But such critical voice against tradition is not new to Hindus.  But as usual he too became a victim to the idea of finding the Unknown Christ in every kind of Hinduism.—db

Warren:  It is once we start looking at the Lord’s Prayer & what it implies for us who pray that we become aware of the demands which it makes upon us, demands which no other religion even not take sin seriously.  Hinduism does not take history seriously, with all the real agony that means.  Buddhism is infatuated with education as a way of escape whereas real enlightenment means involvements (as, indeed, the best Buddhists after Buddha began to glimpse in their belief in the really good man forgoing Nirvana in order to go on serving mankind). And secular Humanism is simply playing with ethics without attempting to find a norm by which to judge them. Bertrand Russell’s Autobiography {Russel1967-1969) demonstrates that beyond all disputing. (Letter 317 19 December 1971)—p. 282

DB’s Reflection:  From my school days I am interested in history and read mostly historic novels.  But my question is: What is history?  Is history actual information of events or the subjective interpretation on those events by the authors of those records?  According to my understanding all the history is nothing but the subjective interpretation of the records.  Forget about the past history.  Even the events that are happening today in front of our eyes will become history next day. But what we see through our own eyes personally, or which we view through visual media or read through printed media, become history next day as interpreted record.  This being the reality, why should we accept others subjective interpretation alone as the authentic history?  Above all Christians’ view on history is always from their religious point of view.  Why should others accept it as the only way to approach history?  Hindu’s view on history is completely different.  Once history is nothing but other’s interpretation based on the events, then whose history or which history becomes authentic one?   We can say a lot about it.  But I limit my temptation to quote only from a few Scholar’s view to help us to understand this clearly:

               The cloudiness surrounding this issue may result from overly narrow understandings of what Hindu views of time and history really are…The real issue is not whether history ‘is significant,’ but rather how history matters. There is no reason to believe that history always matters the same way in the Hindu tradition. Consider the Western world, which has produced Hegel, Marx, and Toynbee, and accepts such disparate accounts of the world’s origin as those of Genesis and the big-bang cosmology. This is a cultural universe that has no single theory of (p.108) history. Why must we assume, then, that there is a single, basic Hindu account of how time passes or what history means?  If there is evidence for distinctive tendencies in Hindu historical cosmology (and I hope to show there is), this does not mean there is consensus on everything. One of the most notable features of Hinduism has always been the adaptability of some of its most basic concepts and symbols. The same is true of Hindu historical cosmology. It is not a single view, but a range of possible views, in which different ideas can be handled differently for different purposes. (Babb, 1986:108-09)

…The historian or ethnographer is a special type of storyteller, the history teller (or histor), who weaves “facts” into the fabric of a narrative.  Therefore, historical accounts have to be justified by evidence or admitted as speculative and, in the latter instance, defended with good reasoning.  This concern with evidence and the logical justification of speculation is what gives “truth-value” to historical and ethnographic descriptions as against fiction and other purely invented genres.  Hence the paradox: verisimilitude is simply impossible in history or ethnography, but it is entirely possible in fictional narratives, where the messiness of “truth” is no impediment to storytelling. (Obeyesekere, 2006:193)

Klinger: The pre-Vedic sacrifices are events in history and therefore to be understood historically, in the sense of a real life-and-death contest. They are an archaic history, but archaic history is also genuine history, although it is not dated precisely…. In any case, ‘dating’ and ‘datability’ must not be equated with ‘historical’ because there is a history that is not datable, which is factual and can be of constitutive importance for the foundation of religion. (Oberhammer, 1997:113)

Heesterman: Historicity, historical interest, does exist in Hinduism. In addition, Hindu thinking need not always be cyclical, since what is cyclical can co-exist with a linear conception of time. Of course uniqueness can only be formulated historically. (Muller 2007: 87)

Oberhammer: …If one goes a step further, one has to admit that as a Christian of the 20^th century one never reaches the historical Jesus, but only the faith in Jesus as it has been handed down. Thus, should the historical fact be so central, the question arises, what 20^th century people can do with their faith under such circumstances.  Was salvation not also attained by the contemporaries of Jesus through their faith?  Merely ‘standing beside’ the historical Jesus, as a fact, is not yet a special salvific event; on the contrary, it can turn into judgment and become fatal. As far as this is concerned, one could imagine that an analysis of myth and mythicizing transcendence and existence could really pave the way towards speaking on the same level with Hindu religious traditions. (ibid. Muller: p. 100)

Schaeffler: Attending the lecture, I had certain difficulties in relating the terms ‘nature’ and ‘history’ to Biblical usage.  For both are not Biblical terms and it would be hard to translate them into Hebrew. On the other hand, the Biblical message obviously has an essential part in the fact that, in the course of the tradition, such terms could develop and perhaps also be defined. But this is again something different from saying that the Bible, in one way or another, speaks of ‘nature’ and ‘history.’  Hence, these terms should not be claimed directly as Biblical usage or concepts, although the Biblical language gave rise to the later development of the concept of ‘history and its explicit distinction from the concept of ‘nature.’(ibid. Klinger: 227)

…Ethnography and folklore, rather than archival history, became the preferred methods for studying the so-called true history of the people….— Partha Chattterjee, Introduction: History in the Vernacular, pp. 1-24, in p. 16, History in the Vernaculr, ed. Raziuddin Aquil & Partha Chatterjee, Ranikhet, Permanent Black,  (2008), Third impression 2015

Warren: …In so far as baptism, in India, had come to signify a move from one communal setting to another, and not essentially an incorporation in Christ, is it something which ought to be sought for at all except where quite independently of the communal aspect it is a deliberated choice, and the entering of the Christian community be seen as wholly secondary. Is there something to be said for a Koinonia of Christian within Hindu Society (which no doubt means Hinduism) a Koinonia which if really inspired by Christ could indeed revolutionise the Hinduism from within, it would most certainly have revolutionary effect on Christianity in India – not, of necessity, leading to syncretism at al.  How far can the Christian as a Tertium Gens¹⁴ demonstrate the Teritum without coming out of the communal shell?  I know the orthodox answers, but I’m wondering how valid they are. Or is all this thinking really responding to the absorptive capacity of Hinduism which accepts everyone and everything so long as the communal fabric is not disturbed?  Is there a point at which for the sake of the community the fabric must be disturbed?—(Letter 388 23 February 1973)

14 Latin phrase for ‘third race’ (originally between Jews and Gentiles).—Notes, 439p. 312

DB’s Reflection: You thought ahead of your time Dr. Warren.  Congratulations.  But there is no need for a separate Tertium Gens within Hindu society, as the social fabric of Hinduism well accommodates separate sampradays or individuals without compromising their/her bhakti in the Lord.—db

Hooker: …The twentieth century is forcing upon Hinduism (and other religions) questions which they have not had to face before, questions to which they may see Jesus Christ as part of a relevant answer. This is only to be expected because contemporary history is in large measure a result of the ferment caused in Asian societies, directly or indirectly, by the preaching of the Gospel.  Hinduism is now being compelled to grapple with the meaning of history and the significance of persons. Categories such as judgement, responsibility and purpose are now relevant. These words are all central to Christian theology, but they are not important, indeed their equivalents are not to be found, in traditional Hinduism.

               This approach has a danger and an advantage. The danger is that one may be tempted to attribute all that is good and creative in the contemporary ferment to the Gospel, and this is to succumb to a new and subtler form of imperialism. The advantage is that one can ask the question of what God is doing on the broadest possible scale, outside the bounds of traditional religion. One can ask what he is doing in movements which may be overtly anti-religions. Indeed the question becomes not ‘What is God doing in other religions?’ but rather ‘What is he doing among other men?’  Yet the question has a certain inbuilt limitation, for it asks what God is doing to other religions or other men by means of what is coming to them from outside themselves and their traditions. Thus this approach does not bring me to the point of asking what God has done and is doing through the scriptures, doctrines, devotion, saints and prophets of other faiths quite apart from the direct or indirect influence of the Gospel upon them. (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 320

DB’s Reflection: again a Christian Missionary rhetoric seeing some outward challenges which Hinduism faced through reformation.  No doubt that the Missionary impact on Reformation was real and brought some changes.¹⁵ But this is not the first challenge that Hinduism or Indian society ever faced.   From Vedic time down the ages India faced many challenges which forced Hinduism to adapt and adopt to so many new forms. But while accepting the changes it never gave up its old forms and concepts (theology).  Viewing Hinduism only from a few Christian theological categories will never help an outsider to understand and assess the change and continuity in Hinduism. I wish Hooker should live now to see the way Hinduism easily adopts to the need and demand of the time which technology forced upon it. Missionaries always found some consolation in assessing Hinduism in these terms, but beyond it they never understood the Hindu reality as it is.  In fact the challenge that Christianity is now facing in western countries is more severe than what Hinduism faces from outside.  Approaching any religion only based on certain theological categories won’t help anyone to understand it and face the new challenges. That is why while Hinduism managed to survive to keep its core of change and continuity, Christianity in several parts of the world is dying a slow death.–db

15 Strictly speaking there is no finis to anything in history.  There is always a moving on. The last word on the ‘Raj’ will not be written for centuries.  But it played a part in Indian development. (Warren, Letter 561 9 September 1976)—p. 380

Hooker: … Hindus seem to me to display a completely lack of curiosity, children are encouraged not to enquire but to conform…. (Hooker Letter to Edward Hulmes, copied to Warren, 30 May 1975).—p. 354

DB’s Reflection:—On which area? Only in family tradition, but there also freedom is given.—db

Hooker: …I am coming increasingly to feel that to describe bhakti as personal devotion as opposed to impersonal monism, is a vast over-simplification. I do not think one can make an equation between personal devotion in Christianity and in Hinduism. Even in Christianity the word personal surely needs a lot of explication…. (p.356) Then too I am coming to see that the two virtues which bhakti commends are loving devotion of a very emotional kind – people are always swooning in Tulsi Das – and obedience e.g. to the king, to one’s father, to one’s guru or elder brother.  None of these is about action, devotion, ‘stepping out’ like Abraham…. (Hooker Letter 20 July 1975)—pp. 356-57

DB’s Reflection: I cannot understand this clearly.  But there are so many stories (whether historical or mythology) in which so many bhaktas ‘stepped out’ exactly like, and some time even more than, Abraham did.  In the Periyapuranam (by Sekizhar)¹⁶ one can find the story of Siruththonada Nayanar who killed and cooked his only son when Siva appeared as a sannyasi of ferocious sect and asked Nayanar for the meat of an only child (3710 ff.) Siva not only demanded that the parents should cook the meat, but also that the father should sit with him to eat it. Another devotee Kotpuliyur Nayanar (4142 to 4145) even kills all his relatives who consumed the paddy which was kept aside for Siva to offer as Prasad, not even sparing an infant when requested by his relatives.  One can read the complete stories by searching the Internet in English. As Hooker is not aware of these stories from other languages he made such comments comparing bhakti with Abraham.—db

16 Periya Puranam, 2000

Warren: …And it is no use his arguing that mortification, asceticism, the life of the Sadhu is the way. The ordinary man cannot follow that path in practice, whatever the theory of the stages of life. God made most men very ordinary and the way of salvation must be the way by which the very ordinary can be saved. Isn’t the real peril of philosophising that it argues that a man can think himself right with God?

               All this is terribly elementary. But it always seems to me that Hinduism is preoccupied with unanswerable questions whereas Christ’s yoke is ‘simple’ – not simplistic!  We are to follow.  How to follow will always test our fidelity in thought as well as action.  But it is a profound Christian conviction that the answers are found ambulando¹⁷ and not in sheer thinking….The Hindu is preoccupied with the question ‘Who am I?’  The Muslim, the Jew and the Christian asks ‘What must I do?’  The latter can become mere activism and legalism.^17a But that is its perversion. (p.360)

               This seems to me to bear on what you say about Philosophy. Tho’ I wonder if you are right in saying ‘Christianity perpetually remains a faith in search of a philosophy.’ So much depends on how you define philosophy. Have we not to come back ever and again to the ordinary man?  And must not our definition of philosophy be judged by its adequacy for the ordinary man? (Letter 503 13 August 1975).—pp. 360-61

17 Latin word meaning ‘in walking’ i.e. ‘as you follow the path of action’.—Notes, 541, p. 360

17a..      How is an evangelical identified in today’s world?  Often they are perceived as people who obey strict rules. Psychiatrists excoriate them as guilt-inducers, declaring that over half their patients got messed up in church.  Somehow we keep producing variations on pole-sitting Christians.  We tend to retreat into our exoskeletons and define our place in the world by how different we are from the rest.

               I am often tempted to view legalism as a harmless diversion of the faith….— Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey, In the Likeness of God, The Dr. Paul Brand Tribute Edition of Fearfully and Wonderfully Made and In His Image, Zondervan, 2004,  in, Paul Brand, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, Inside-Out, pp. 31-230, p. 124

DB’s Reflection: Not every Hindu is ‘preoccupied with the question ‘Who am I’?  That is the the interest of a philosopher or an ordinary Hindu who is in a philosophic mood in life (most of the time struck with suffering and tragedies).  An ordinary Hindu is oriented to karma and dharma and has never minded the ways these were analysed and interpreted by the (Hindu) philosophers.  However perverted Christianity seemed, most of the time converts who became ‘Christian’ were attracted by its activism. Only some high-powered Christian think-tank groups and now few Hindu bhaktas of the Lord are preoccupied with philosophy.  And though some simple Hindu bhaktas of the Lord (like me) enjoy reading such ‘philosophical entertainment of these think-tank groups’, we try to live with simple bhakti in the Lord.–db

Hooker:               Hinduism is changing and it is part of my duty to help it to change in a Christian direction. For example, that scholar whom I quoted is probable, under God, doing a better job where he is than he would be if he were baptised and therefore rejected by his own community.  Again, I know a number of very liberal Hindus in this city who have a deep respect for Christ and Christianity.  They have a social conscience and want to see Hinduism reformed. I see my task as one of encouragement to them in what they are doing, because the further they see into what the service of humanity really means the nearer they will come to Christ. This group asked me to speak about Christianity to them a few months ago and want me to speak again. One of them has asked me to write an article on ‘service’ for his Hindi Language news-sheet. (Hooker Letter 29 November 1975: Letter to John Ward: An ‘Apologia’ For His Missionary Work.)—p. 367 {John Ward was Education Secretary of Church Mission Society}

DB’s Reflection:-Service of humanity is not a new concept in Hinduism.  Taking care of fellow human beings, including the animal kingdom and natural world is part of the Hindu worldview (as nara and bhuta yajnas in five great sacrifices which a Hindu is expected to perform everyday).  The word ‘liberal Hindus’ is used with a Christian understanding of ‘liberal and orthodox’.  Every Hindu is both liberal and orthodox simultaneously.  Such branding of the people of other faiths from one’s religious point of view, particularly Hindus won’t do full justice.  In general a common Hindu is ‘orthodox’ in her personal life and views regarding her faith and orthopraxy, whereas she will be equally liberal in her attitude and approach to other’s faith and orthopraxy.  Of course there are sectarian followers who remain very ‘fundamental’ in their understanding and approach to the people of other sampradayas (like Sri Vaishnavas, Veera Saivas).  Still they too will uphold ‘henotheism’¹⁸ rather than extreme monotheism, accepting the validity and reality of other deities and faiths subordinated to Vishu.

So if people like Hooker think that it is their divine duty to help Hinduism to change in a Christian direction, they will be soon disillusioned.  If every reformer is considered as doing a better job ‘under God’ of reforming Hinduism and thereby need not be ‘converted to Christianity’ and ‘therefore rejected by his own community’, there is no need for evangelism in India.  Making a Hindu a better Hindu and a Buddhist a better Buddhist is not evangelism.  And there is no point of writing ‘I believe in Great Commission’ {Warren, 1976). By saying this I am not contradicting myself.  Evangelism demands bring people to the obedience to the authority of the Lordship of Muktinath.  And one can do this even remaining as a Hindu like me.  But what Hooker promotes is nothing but ‘niceianity’.¹⁹–db

18 ….the development of the concept of the uniqueness of God may be traced in the Hebrew Scriptures from ‘henotheism’ (our God is one God among many gods) ^18a into ‘monotheism’ (there is, in fact, only one God)….—Kings, op. cit. p. 157

18a   Max Muller (in his studies on the Vedas) coined the term ‘henotheism’ to mean the worship of, and devotion to, one God, while allowing that other gods exist. It is interesting to note, in the present discussion concerning the Old Testament and mission, that this term entered biblical studies via the study of Hinduism.—Notes, 31, p. 157

19 But dialogues have dangers.  Evangelisation is not mutual listening but direct proclamation of the good news. The positive presentation of the Gospel should not, therefore, be lost sight of.—(Sudhakar. Op. Cit.  p. 187)

Hooker: …There was a real ‘confrontation, though not I think a meeting of minds, between the traditionalists and the modernisers.@ It was absolutely fascinating listening and was further evidence for the ferment going on in contemporary Hinduism and of its shift in a Christian direction…. (Hooker Letter 4 April 1976. New Philosophies in the Indian Tradition).—p. 373

@Speakers in the four day seminar at the Sanskrit University at Varanasi.

DB’s Reflection: Again an evangelical rhetoric about Hinduisms shift in a Christian direction.  The ‘confrontation between traditionalists and the modernisers’ in Hinduism is not new and it is part of change and continuity in Hinduism.  But reading any ‘shift in Christian direction’ is the traditional ‘evangelical’ reading about any and all such ‘shifts’ not only in Hinduism but all other religions.  Unless they come out from such ‘reading’ they are not going to understand Hinduism.—db

Hooker: …Is the orthodox version of Hinduism really true to the tradition or is it a later distortion imposed on it?  In the church today we (p.378) assume that much of Christendom and the medieval dogmatic system were in fact distortions.  ‘Back to the human Jesus’, yet Giri is concerned to defend his tradition, can this defence be ultimately sustained?  This raises the question of criteria, who has the right to say how the tradition should be interpreted?  For me, the historical method is my starting point because for me the heart of faith is an historical event, but for the Hindu an experience which has no connection with history lies at the heart. It is no doubt useful to apply the historical method to the Hindu scriptures, but this cannot take me to the heart of their meaning. Giri also made the valid point that western scholars ought to ask how Hindus themselves interpret their own writings and not impose their own external and alien norms.  Much western scholarship in the 19^th century was purely rationalistic and perhaps Giri confuses his valid criticism of that with the strictly neutral (?) methods of e.g. archaeology, philology etc. which are surely merely tools….(Hooker Letter 15 August 1976,  Three Key Conversations in One Week {at Varanasi}).—p. 379

DB’s Reflection: like orthopraxy orthodoxy also is a change and continuity phenomena in Hinduism.  For most Hindus, tradition is what is handed over by a particular family which also is subjected to change as per the demands of the time.  Even orthodoxy in theological tradition is not limited to what the original authors propounded in their writings, but was shaped by how tradition was commented and interpreted by the followers down through the centuries.  Advaita of Sankar is the best example for this.  There was not unanimity in its interpretation among Sankara’s followers throughout the history.  We need not talk about the modern scholarly interpretation of it. Under the topic ‘contextualization’ I have given so many references about it. See below under ‘contextualization’.

Warren: Giri – Here you were on a very different wicket – the real Orthodox Hindu His defence of the Vedas is the same as the Muslim’s defence of the Qur’an and of all Christians who want to feel safe on a rock which will not be eroded by criticism.

               There is, of course, a truth that one can only understand a faith from inside it. But this does not apply to the ‘documents’. A critical approach to the Vedas will not destroy Hinduism any more than a critical approach to the Qur’an will destroy Islam. Both faiths may well find its members far stronger when they put their faith in the Living Word and not the Written Word.  How they will discern the Living Word and undo that semblance we cannot tell.  But part of our task is to try to show that no harm can come to truth by putting it to the test. (p.379)

               Giri had a shrewd judgement on Max Muller’s advice to Missionaries.  What enormous barriers there are to trust and understanding?  I wonder how far you are still an object of real suspicion to some of the teachers in the Sanskrit University. Surely you must be. (Letter 559 26 August 1976)—pp. 379-380.

DB’s Reflection: No it also applies to the ‘documents’.  Because how that document was translated and interpreted by outsiders also needs to be considered in understanding a faith of others.  When the Veda and other scriptures are interpreted by various ways by the great acharyas of Vedanta (Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, Nimbarka and Vallabha and others), what to say about any outsiders?  Every critical approach is subjective and insiders will only see that kind of subjectiveness in such attempts.  This is also a historical fact.  The way the Sanskrit texts were translated differently by different people proves this.  Even this is true within Hinduism.  The way Veda was translated by Sayana, Orientalists, Missionaries, Indians like Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Arvind etc. are the best example for this.  Just one example is sufficed here:

               One turns therefore to another text of Hinduism, perhaps as well-known as the Vedas, namely the Ramayana. Its critical edition contains the following verses:

Pathandvijo vaagrsabhatvamiiyaat

Syaatksatriyo bhuumipatitvamiiyaat

Vanikjanah panyaphalatvamiiyaat

Janas’ca suudro’pi mahatvamiiyaat (p.138)

 Robert P. Goldman translates the verse as follows:

A brahman who reads it becomes eloquent, a kshatriya becomes a lord of the earth, a vaisya acquires profit from his gods, and even a lowly sudra achieves greatness.{Goldman, 1984, p. 126,}

               Anyone familiar with Sanskrit, even perhaps at an elementary level, will note that there is no word in the Sanskrit text which corresponds to the word lolwly. In other words, the tendency to accentuate the difference between the sudra and the other varnas seems to be so deeply ingrained that it even affects the literal translation of a Sanskrit text. Its use here almost seems like a carry-over from a similar description by A.L. Basham: ‘There was no caste of slaves; though the Arthasastra declares that servitude is not in the nature of the Aryan (in which the humble sudra is explicitly included), an individual of any class might in certain circumstances become a slave, although most slaves were no doubt of low caste’.{Basham, 1999, p. 241}²⁰  Here A.L. Basham characterizes the sudra as humble without any apparent need to do so because the Arthasastra again refers only to the sudra, not to the humble sudra. {Sharma, 2017, 138-39. Italics original}

20  A. L. Basham, op. Cit., p. 152, emphasis added (by the author).—Notes, 12, p. 359

Hooker: …the fact that the Hindu outlook starts not with the moral imperative as theist apologetic normally does, but with the search for permanent happiness in a world of sorrow and pain. The starting point to a large extent conditions the conclusions. Also there is the fact that the Hindu ideal is the harmony of opposites.  Sanskrit dramatic theory is based on this, which is why there are no tragedies.  The Hindu mind moves from the particular to the general, where alone it is most happy.  This has implications for the Hindu experience. (Hooker Letter 31 October 1976)—p. 382

DB’s Reflection: Too simplistic.  I am not sure whether a common Hindu like me ever understood about our experience moving from particular to the general.  There might be some truth even in this. Both the Hindu’s apologetic defense and the other’s critique are all text based analysis.  All such analysis about us by outsiders that use some technical terms, like ‘moral imperative,’ ‘permanent happiness,’ ‘particular to the general,’ looks too artificial and too simplistic to me. I also confess that I don’t understand these terms in their western understanding and as categories to evaluate people.  If moral imperative means ‘obedience and discipleship’ such concept is there in various samprdayas like Sri Vaishnavism and some Tantric sects.—db

Idolatry

Idolatry and caste are the two burning issues for the evangelicals to criticise and condemn in Hinduism.   Sometimes they might even forgive caste discrimination keeping in mind its counterpart ‘racialism’ in Christendom.  But their approach to idol worship puts all of Hinduism into one melting  pot.  So, naturally next to the overall view about Hinduism, Idolatry.

Kings:     In his debates with Hooker concerning idolatry in November and December 1968, and in his book Theology of Attention, Warren was stressing that most of the references in the Old Testament were warnings ‘inwards’ towards the Israelites rather than ‘outwards’ towards the Gentiles….

Here Hooker made a linguistic and hermeneutical point which subtly questioned whether Warren’s thesis fitted the whole of the Old Testament. He pointed out the Hebrew puns²¹ linking the passages about idolatry amongst the nations {Isaiah 41:5-13} and God’s care for his people Israel (vv. 8-13). This showed that warnings against idolatry were ‘outwards’ towards the gentiles, as well as ‘inwards’ towards Israel. Hooker could not resist making a final missiological jibe at Warren: ‘I cannot help feeling that Second Isaiah, had he lived to-day, would have been a follower of Kramer!’—p. 90  {See above page 87 on Kramer}

21  In the RSV, an effort had been made to translate these puns into English with the words ‘take courage’ and ‘encourage’ (Isaiah 41: 6 and 7).—Notes, 37, p. 90

DB’s Reflection: Regarding idolatry whatever might be the Purvaveda’s view, we have to take both Uttaraveda’s view as well as what the natives (here Hindus) think about it. I have spilled too much ink on it. No need to repeat them here.  Most of my articles on Idol worship are not posted in the blog. But I shared with others in another forum.  Also see my view in my book Understanding Hinduism where I stated: So then what is an idol? In my opinion an idol expresses our limitation of understanding God, who is beyond our human comprehension. The idol as a symbol neither expresses nor interprets God. It is in fact a symbol of our limitations. And those who try to worship God through an idol only manage to communicate their limitations. Though it is a good way to express and accept our limitations, yet it is not necessary either to understand or express that limitation, because it may directly or indirectly restrict our efforts to understand God in our spirit beyond all human limitations.

Hooker: …The other evening when he dropped in we were talking about idolatry. I said that Hindus always told me that what they worship is the symbol behind the idol and not the idol itself. Satya Vir said ‘They will say that to please you, though in their hearts it is possible they really do think the idol is the real thing’. That was a salutary reminder of the fact that so often what we hear in India is what the other man thinks we want to hear.  One so easily forgets this. (Hooker to Warren 3 January 1970)—p. 258

DB’s Reflection: Satya Vir is hundred percent correct.  But it all depends upon to which Hindu he talks.  For many Hindus idol is definitely a symbol and they can easily discard it when that symbol²² has served its purpose. But this is not true in all cases.  For example in Sri Vaishnava sampradaya idol is also called ‘archavatara.’²³ For them once the archavatara as idol is consecrated then the very presence of god is dwelling there.  This is also true in Gaudiya-Vaishnava sampradaya where it is considered that Govindadevaji is self-manifested (svayam prakat) (see Berti, 2016, p. 261). There are several Hindu temples of all kinds of sects in which the deity is considered as ‘svayambhu’ (self manifested).  At the same time when the idol is created for some festivals like Durga puja or Ganpati festival, it was nothing but mere symbol.  There is not only various views among various sampradayas, but even the same Hindu could hold one view one time and another view another time—in festivals symbols, in temples real.  Idol worship is not easy to understand and explain, not only in Hinduism but also in all other religions including in Christianity.   So many grand idols of Hindu deities are erected in so many places in India.  But they are only for darshan, just to see but not for worship (puja).

22 Modern apologists, embarrassed by idol-worship, have sought to explain the establishment process as a symbolic undertaking, something that ennobled the worshipper so he or she could realize the presence of divine power through the instrument of an image. But this was not the ancient understanding. In Gupta times, the term pratishtha meant “to place a definite power in an object, to endow an object with faculties, etc.”—at least for those who did not subscribe to the Mimamsa school of thought.…[Mimamsakas] took considerable exception to images and their worship. Beyond their ambit, the pratishtha-process made the idol a living entity—a real being entitled to receive offerings and legitimately hold the property assigned to it by its patrons.(Willis, 2009. 143)

23 This is the concept of archavatara, in which the particular deity (mostly in Vaishnav sampradaya) after consecration physically dwells in the idol. This concept gave a great boost to murtipujas. Willis outlined the historical development related to Vedic traditions:

Because there are no fourth-or fifth -century Vaishnava ritual texts in the north, the Vaikhanasa school provides the best evidence by analogy. The usefulness of Vaikhanasa literature is reinforced by the school’s persistent effort to create a religious system that combined Vedism and the worship of Vishnu Narayana. This synthesis was developed theologically and ritually. The Vaikhanasa are indeed convinced that their form of image-worship is nothing but a continuation of the Vedic sacrifice….The school does not reject fire offerings and other forms of Vedic ritual that are “shapeless” or “imageless” (amurta). Rather they combine the two, making the worship of Vishnu-in-an-image obligatory at the close of every domestic fire rite….In the offering of bali to Narayana…the Vaikhanasa Sutra prescribes that the priest should recite the well-known verse, “I shall proclaim the might deeds of Vishnu,” that is Rig Veda 1.154.1, the famous Vishnu sukta { W. Caland, ed. Calcutta, 1927. Vaikhaanasasmaartasuutra (10: 10) and similarly the Visnubali (3: 13), which is also centred on an image.}  This effectively fused the Purusha of the old Vedic hymns with Vishnu Narayana as a consecrated image.—Wills.  2009, 118

Hindu Scriptures are from Devil:

For most of the evangelicals everything in Hinduism is from the Devil.  So what one finds in Hooker is the telling rebuke on this view.

Kings:     Throughout his intensive study of contemporary Hindi literature, Hooker discerned not only a way of learning about Hinduism and popular culture but, more fundamentally, a way of learning about God. God has not left himself without witness in Indian literature and the tracing of that witness was invigorating….—p. 79

Hooker: …Mere appeals to the heart to the neglect of the head and the mere dismissal of Hinduism as a ‘work of the devil’ simply will not do…. (Hooker Letter 8 May 1977.  J. R. Ballntne, Sanskritist and Philosopher at Varanasi Sanskrit University in the 19^th Century.).—p. 397

DB’s Reflection: Indian evangelicals will call this blasphemy.  When they say the Hindu Scriptures are from devil and that reading them is a mere waste of time to understand Hindus and preach the gospel to them, they will say that the study of any contemporary (Indian) literature is anathema.—db

Dialogue

Dialogue is one of my favourite topics.  I find interesting agreement both with Warren and Hooker on this topic. 

Kings: … ‘The Theological Basis of Interfaith Dialogue’²⁴ (where he {John V. Taylor} insisted that ‘every religion has its jealousies’ by which he meant ‘those points in every religion concerning which believers are inwardly compelled to claim a universal significance and finality’).—p. 120

24 John V. Taylor, ‘The Theological Basis of Interfaith Dialogue’, International Review of Mission(s), LXVIII (1979), pp. 373-84 and in J. Hick and B. Hebblethwaite, (eds), Christianity and Other Religions (London: Collins, 1980), pp. 212-33.  The quotation is from International Review of Mission(s), LXVIII (1979). p. 380—notes, 29, p. 120

DB’s Reflection: Yes. This is true.  This ‘universality’ is not only an inward compulsion but strongly propagated by the followers of every major faith.  However, interestingly when it comes to dialogue or confrontation most of the Hindus will say that each one’s religion is good for them and one need not accept the particular ‘universality’ of their tradition by others.  They strongly believe that as one is born in a particular religious tradition one need not change it and also need not impose it on others.  So even this personal ‘universality’ of their faith is only for them and not for all. Of course there are exceptions to this also—particularly when one sampradaya tries to woo the followers of others to come to their fold.²⁵  Here the sectarian rivalry is considered an inside competition among various sampradayas within Hinduism but they will oppose it when the same is claimed by other non-Hindu religions.  Here the concept of ‘choosing the ishta devata’ (god of personal choice) comes within Hindu fold.  There are several instances where few heads of Hindu sects refuse to convert the followers of non-Hindu religions but encouraged them to remain faithful in their own religion in which they born.  At the same time several gurus have huge followers of people from other religions like Christianity, who even become Hindus.  This shows how flexible Hinduism is when it accommodates others according to the need of the hour.–db 

25 …The girl who is authorised in Saivite rites by her father shall be given in marriage only to a devotee of Siva and not to a non-devotee.  If inadvertently she is given in marriage to a non-devotee she shall try to convince her husband about the Saivite faith.  If she is unable to do so she shall leave him off and perform holy rites mentally. (J. L. Shastri, 2002, p.1970)

               O Krsna, a low born, a base or a fool, or a fallen man, if he resorts to Siva is worthy of being worshipped by the gods and Asuras.—ibid. op cit. p.2011

               The verse is indicative of the proselytizing attempts of the Saivite Acaryas to allure the laity to their fold….—ibid. notes 286, p.2011

Kings: He thus outlined the basic attitude needed for genuine learning together about other faiths, profound listening to the other person with alert attention.²⁶ He developed this theme with reference to Christ:

When you and I venture to listen to another person ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ there is an unseen listener present, Jesus himself.  We have to listen to him listening. We have to know Jesus and be ready to learn all his meanings too. And in the context of this listening it may be that he will have something new to say, something we have never heard before.  And if we listen very carefully, with concentrated attention, it is likely that we will hear him speaking through the lips of a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew, a man or woman of some tribal religion – or perhaps a Marxist or humanist.  Jesus, now as always, is very full of surprises. {Warren, 1971, p. 1}

               This concept of the presence of a third ‘listener’, Jesus himself, is perceptive and moving.  Warren elucidated it with insight. We are to listen firstly to Jesus himself listening and then secondly to Jesus himself speaking.²⁷ Thirdly what (p.129) Jesus has to say may well involve something new and fourthly he is likely to speak through the lips of the other believers. It is this final step that needs the highest level of ‘attention’ and throughout there will, typically, be surprises from Jesus. Each of these steps will be analysed in more detail.

               The first and second steps are full of insight and are not particularly controversial. In the third step it is not clear whether what Jesus may say is new specifically to the Christian involved (i.e. something that was known about Christ already to others and not appreciated by that particular person) or is a radically new revelation of Christ which had not been given before in the history of the Church. It seems that Warren inferred the former, and that that is consonant with the New Testament witness to Christ. The latter is more dangerous and could lead to esoteric new Gnostic movements, which Warren would not have advocated.  The fourth step is radically invigorating: Jesus speaks not just through their lives but through their lips. This insight certainly seems to fit the pattern of God speaking wisely and prophetically to his people Israel through Gentiles who were ‘outside the Mosaic covenant’ e.g. Jethro (Exodus chapter 18) and Balaam (Numbers chapters 22-24) and the Syrophoenceian woman (Mark chapter 7).—pp. 129-30

26 ‘Mutual listening’ referred to each listening to the other, but it would have been interesting if he had gone on to make the point that ‘mutual listening’ also involves trying to listen to oneself speaking (as one imagines one may be heard by the other).—Notes, 68, p. 129

27 It is noticeable in this scenario that Jesus himself listens before speaking, and this is a model for his (p.129) followers. It may be interesting to compare this concept of the ‘third party’ to the presence of Jesus on the road to Emmaus in Luke chapter 24.—notes, 70, p. 129

DB’s Reflection:  Warren’s statement that ‘Jesus speaking through the lips of people of other faiths which will reveal new surprises of him’ is neatly interpreted by King for our understanding.  And limiting this interpretation within the frame of Muktiveda Kings also warns about the ‘esoteric new Gnostic movements’.  If we keep Muktiveda as the normative for us to understand God then Kings warning is correct.  But as God cannot be limited within the frame of Muktiveda alone, my understanding of Warren’s emphasis of listening others is to interpret Muktinath’s life and teaching through the worldview of others.  It is not any compromise to the core of Muktiveda.  For example, for me bhakti is the new way of understanding faith.  Prayaschitta, avatara though not perfect words or concepts to interpret atonement and incarnation still might help to understand them within our worldviews.  Of course there is always the danger of ‘esoteric new Gnostic movements’ when one tries to build outside the foundation of Muktiveda. Dialogue alone does not prevent or provide this danger, as the early church history clearly showed.  If Warren would not have advocated any Gnostic movements considering his strong faith in Muktiveda, then ‘the new surprises of Muktinath’ also should be understood in the same way.  Though we should be thankful to Kings for giving this neat interpretation of Warren, this is also the danger of interpreting about other’s conviction based only on such statements which were written in the context of dialogue.  Because later we read Warren’s opposition to such dialogue in strong words (see below)

However, can we compare Muktinath’s listening as the ‘third party’ on the road to Emmaus in Luke chapter 24 with any dialogue as interpreted by Kings?  This is only an innocent question from me (to Warren)

Warren: Yes, I’m sure that ‘the comparative study of Religion’ is invaluable in the scheme of showing me the way into an understanding of another man’s faith, provided one is not concerned with drawing comparisons!  One cannot study the other man’s religion enough.  One must go on studying it but primarily to understand what makes the other man tick the way he does not primarily to see when he differs from you, where you are right & he is wrong. That will emerge. But the study of the other man’s religion ought to be the study of the other man, a study based on a desire to know & love him, not to convert him!  That sounds shattering….(p.199)There are two levels at which one has to approach the other man – first to understand him (& his religion), second & in quite a different way to introduce him to Jesus Christ & see what happens. (Letter 55 19 April 1966)—pp. 199-200

DB’s Reflection: I too believe that study of another faith should be done not to compare with one’s own.  Because according to my understanding each religious faith is unique in its own right and one cannot be easily compared with another.  However to study it only to see where ‘one is right and the another is wrong’ will force only to see the wrong things in another religion according to one’s understanding based on her religious view.  Some times that kind of study also could show where one is wrong and the other is right.  Introducing Muktinath will come naturally and spontaneously if one is evangelical. But the comparative study of religion will enable one to do it with much humility and respect for the another person and her views.  Otherwise without having any  knowledge about the faith of another person one will end up only propagating one’s own religion rather than introducing Muktinath to her.—db

Warren: When I said that in dialogue ‘I do not seek to persuade’ I am not meaning that I do not want my presentation of Christ to be persuasive. Of course I do. But it is Christ who must do the persuading. If I’m too much in evidence Christ will not get a chance. If I think of myself doing the persuading I am at the centre of the picture of what is happening.

               Now all this is terribly difficult to put on paper. For at bottom it is a mood not an argument, a temper not a debate.

               You say that you want to share your experience of Christ & this is ‘surely an attempt to persuade’. Yes, in one deep sense it is, in so far as you want Christ to be persuasive. But this need not involve you being persuasive, otherwise then it is (p. 225) the Church in you who does the persuading. This sounds like a play of words.  But I don’t think it is.

               There comes a moment in one’s touch with another person when one is tempted to force the issue. I think this is the moment of danger. Only the Holy Spirit can guide me then.  Sometimes it is right to force the issue. The other man may be needing the moral challenge to decide. But often if one forces the issue one wins the argument & loses the man.  There is an acute spiritual dilemma here, & we need to pray continuously for such a sensitiveness to the Holy spirit that we’ll be guided at this point.  Somewhere in the phrase ‘being persuasive without trying to persuade’ there is a clue but I think one has got to ‘feel’ it.  No logic will get one there. (Letter 185 13 October 1968)—pp. 225-26

DB’s Reflection: –True.—db

Hooker:  Dialogue implies a distinction between I and Thou. Where that distinction is not recognised, is dialogue possible?  Can we meet if we are merged?

Now I know that according to my understanding of what is happening dialogue is possible and is happening, but I do not think this is true of his side of the conversation, indeed because he is a Hindu, it cannot be. (Hooker to Warren 21 October 1971).—p. 280

DB’s Reflection:  Finally Hooker understood the reality that a Hindu cannot understand the conversation of a Christian.  The same is with the so called ‘witnessing’ which a Christian partner thinks that she is doing in such a dialogue or in real life even. But this is not a rule and there are few exceptions.—db

Warren: …Surely the similarities are real bridges, evidence of the community of man’s religious experience, while the dissimilarities point towards a fresh appraisal of wherein lies the meaning of the ‘uniqueness’ of God’s revelation in Christ – a uniqueness which is not exclusive of other insights but interpretative of them. It is not so much the ‘unknown Christ of Hinduism’ but the unknown self of the Christian in learning more about Christ from what the Hindu discovers in his meeting. That remains a stage a long way ahead I think and poses the real challenge of this kind of genuine ‘dialogue.’ (Letter 331 18 March 1972).—p 289

DB’s Reflection:  This happens when one share’s her bhakti about the Lord with others in a dialogue or even in evangelism.  The more one shares about the Lord the more one finds her bhakti/faith goes deeper.  Someone well said that unshared faith soon gets rusty.  The same deepening of bhakti happens when one engages in deep study of other religions as it provides fresh insights to expand one’s personal faith in new ways and means.

Warren: …I have a terrible fear that all too soon you’ll begin getting invitations to high level seminars in Bangkok or Cyprus or Baghdad there to meet with top brass representatives of the different religions.  I have very little faith in the value of these excursions. They are all ‘up in the air’, and nothing that happens at them is communicated at ground level…. (Letter 379 30 December 1972).—p. 309

DB’s Reflection:  Yes. I call such conferences as ‘evangelical entertainment’ and ‘recreation’.  If they want to a break from their boredom then they will attend such ‘up in the air’ conferences which are never communicated at ground level.  Though the context is about the Mission conference, this also applicable for any dialogue meetings arranged by the Mission.

Warren: …I don’t want to see you sidetracked into the imaginary world of ‘Dialogue’ as that is understood at Geneva…. (Letter 379 30 December 1972).—p. 309

DB’s Reflection: –I too never believe in such dialogues.—db

Hooker: Over the week-end the RCs are organising a massive ‘dialogue’ session to which about for people, Hindus and Christians have been invited, myself among them. {took place in Varanasi}  Some of the more perceptive Romans say this has been organised by the bishops who feel they ought to be seen doing something about dialogue.  While these Romans rejoice that some light is at last penetrating high places, they have grave doubts as to the value of getting so many people together at once. So do I. I have been asked to take the opening act of devotion for this session. (Hooker Letter 23 February 1973).—p. 311

DB’s Reflection:  Another dialogue entertainment this time by the RCs.  Sometimes in later 1990s or early 2000s I too received an invitation for some kind of ‘ashram fellowship’ arranged somewhere in North (Rishikesh or Varanasi I don’t remember). But I never responded to it, in which several ashram heads of both Christians and Hindus were invited.  I have to hunt for the information either in my emails back in that time or in my Computer.–db

Warren: …But these big ‘get togethers’ are a waste of time. I hope that isn’t too harsh a judgement – The value to you was, of course, the making of new contacts, which is, by and large, the only value of any conference! (Letter 391 18 March 1973).—p. 315

DB’s Reflection: –a telling but real rebuke on such dialogue by Warren. I completely agree with him.  But ‘making new contacts’ sometimes become (now called as networking) a headache and nuisance as we too become such contacts to others which drains up our time and energy.  I become one such a contact to a Christian who met me with another Hindu bhakta. Later he wasted my time and even began to misuse his contact with me by posting my pictures along with him in his face book.  When I requested him not to do this he even began to abuse me. Finally I have to sever contact with him by not responding his emails anymore.—db

Hooker: …Is it in fact possible to start from a position of ‘equality of all religions’?  I think one could argue that commitment for a Christian is a precondition of openness and not a barrier to it…Yet this is a very tentative judgement. (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 323

DB’s Reflection: –I would prefer for ‘uniqueness of all religions’ as all religion cannot be equal as the followers of every religion has her own commitment for her faith.—db

Hooker:               There is another point which inhibits, or rather prevents what is commonly called dialogue. Most of what is written on this subject totally ignores the question of language. Set-piece dialogues (pundits meeting for a weekend) all, apparently, happen in English. Yet every language is based (p.327) on (or does it produce?) a weltenschaung.  Can one use a language without entering into its world-view, its mythology.  A Hindu who is at home in English has stepped outside his own mythology, at least temporarily. This means that when he goes back into it and say, talks in Hindi with his family, his own world-view can no longer be quite what it was to him before.

               I have not put that very clearly, let me offer an illustration. I could in English explain to a Hindu who knew a little about Christianity, something of what we mean by the Holy Spirit and ask him directly if there was anything like this within Hinduism. In Hindi or Sanskrit however I would be totally at a loss. One simply cannot translate the phrase ‘Holy  Spirit’ into either of those languages in a way that is even remotely intelligible….

               I hope that what I have written is not too remote from what you are after to be of any use. I ought to add that most of my experience has been and still is among people who are not at home in English, and who are still living within their own tradition…. (Hooker’s Reply to John V. Taylor’s letter, 23 September 1973).—pp. 327-28

DB’s Reflection: –very realistic and down to earth.—db

Warren: …To talk about the ‘equality of all religions’ is quite frankly a construct without meaning. To whom are they all equal? (Letter 425 25 October 1973)—p. 331

DB’s Reflection: –Yes.  That is why I prefer ‘uniqueness of every religions’.—db

Warren: …These stratospheric meetings of pundits exchanging ideas is bordering on a non–event.  They meet in artificial circumstances.  They are polite.  They  may well be absolutely genuine in their courteous respect for one another.  They may have all the right ideas about how to pay attention, how to listen, how to accept the unacceptable, but the situation is artificial…. (Letter 425 25 October 1973)—p. 331

DB’s Reflection: –excellent summary of every kind of religious dialogue.  I too have the same view.—db

Warren: …Put the two together and the Holy Spirit in his own time and way will produce the spark.  What results from the spark may not be Baptism may not be what we call conversion, but may be a sudden awareness of ‘the something more’ – even ‘the someone more’ which is a real meeting with Christ, albeit largely incognito BUT with the possibility that he will not be incognito because he has been recognised in you, in the kind of person you are, in the quality of personality of which you are totally unconscious.  ‘I come in the little things’ saith the Lord.

               I’m sure you have to search for a theology which embraces differences.  This is the vital need not only between Christians and men of other faiths, but between Christians of different ‘persuasions.  Only so can there be any kind of peace or reconciliation in a world in which God has with such extravagance made men so different! (Letter 425 25 October 1973)—p. 331

DB’s Reflection: –very true–db

Warren:               You say at one point that you find ‘much contemporary inter religious dialogue phoney….’ as you know, so do I. But I think it is also important to see in every attempt at dialogue however superficial and however shallow in its lack of awareness of what is involved, yet a genuine attempt to escape from the attitude of polemic and mere argument and trying to get the better of the other man which was for so long part of the Missionary approach to other religions. Dialogue even in its feeblest form is an attempt to make amends.

               The other point which occurs is your use of the phrase ‘intellectual level’.  Towards the bottom of p. 1 you say ‘…even when at the intellectual level we cannot (yet?) meet’. Is there not a danger that the word intellectual can too early be given a derogatory meaning in the sense that the other man is not my intellectual equal. I know you don’t mean that and the next page of the letter amply meets this by your emphasis on a common sinfulness.  Yet, nevertheless I’m inclined to think you’d be on stronger ground if you paraphrased the word intellectual with its subtle overtones, by some such phrase as ‘our minds seem to work differently and mind so often can’t meet mind’.  That is what you mean by not having ‘a set of common assumptions at the intellectual level’. But a paraphrase avoids even a hint that the other fellow’s intellect, as such, is defective. (Letter 493 9 June 1975).—p. 355

DB’s Reflection: –Very wise and nice advice.  Here the humility of Warren is displayed at its best.-db

Hooker: Raper believes that there must be an epoch²⁸ in the dialogue. I disagreed, for if I am to talk with integrity I must bring the whole of what I am to the meeting, I cannot chop bits off myself beforehand. This raises the whole question of commitment and openness. I said that if I am committed to a system or to a set of doctrines then patently I cannot be open, but if I am committed to a person who is himself utterly vulnerable it is a very different matter. Commitment to Christ demands openness. It does not preclude it.  He further agreed that the church had too much presented the uniqueness of Christ in exclusive terms, instead of in inclusive ones.( —Hooker Letter: Discussion with David Raper Feeding into Warren’s ‘I Believe in the Great Commission’ 14 September 1975).—p. 363 {Raper  a Philosopher of religion—p. 68}

28 Greek word for ‘stoppage’ or, in this context, ‘suspension of belief’.—Notes, 546, p. 363

DB’s Reflection: I like the way Hooker differentiate between ‘commitment to a set of doctrines and committed to a person (Muktinath) who is himself utterly vulnerable’.  But in dialogue one has to face such problems.  Whether any Christian comes without any ‘commitment to a set of doctrines’ or not, it is what his/her Hindu partner finds in such dialogues.  As dialogues are always initiated by the Christians a Hindu, who has had no such dialogue with other faiths in her life, easily assumes that her Christian partner in that dialogue has a pre-commitment to a set of doctrines.  Listen what Sudhakar says about it:

               The bewildering polytheism of Hinduism and the bold assertions of the advaita is bound to shake the Christian off his feet if he has no (p.268) theological charity in entering into dialogue. Yet an honest dialogue is possible only with a willingness to abandon a theological position once it is found to be inadequate. If Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and Lord, as the New Testament declares, and as the church has affirmed, then how is that to be proved to the Hindu?  The usual and traditional method is to quote the passages of the Bible in support of the claim. If scriptures are the church’s sources of authority, it will then be projecting Christian scriptures before the Hindu. Hinduism also has its scriptures in the Vedas, Upanishads and the Gita. The Christian approach to Hindus therefore is influenced by the Christian’s attitude to Hindu scriptures. Hinduism and its scriptures interpreted by its adherents must be accepted in all sincerity, and the Christian must scrupulously avoid the temptation of interpreting Hindu Scriptures to suit his own conclusions. (Sudhakar, op. Cit.  pp. 267-68)

Hooker: …I am (p.365) convinced that there is real experience of God to be found in other tradition and we have to face this humbly and seriously….(Hooker Letter 29 November 1975: Letter to John Ward: An ‘Apologia’ For His Missionary Work.) –pp 365-66.{John Ward was Education Secretary of Church Mission Society}

DB’s Reflection:  God cannot be confined with any one religious tradition.  We can introduce the gospel to the people of others faiths, but not God—particularly Hindus, however Christians might disagree with a Hindus’ understanding about God.—db

How far to go: Though I gave different title to this section, this is a continuation with Dialogue. 

Kings:     The final ‘guise’ of Christ as Leader brought the powerful challenge:

How far can anyone as set in his ways as I am, as encumbered with the experiences that God has given me, really break loose, hear the ‘follow me’ & go out into the (p.91) unknown?  I wish I thought I could. Every now & then one comes across folk who’ve managed it. But it is a rare thing. So this was very sobering. (Letter 21)

               Here we see Warren’s humility and vulnerability as he faces his Leader. He admits he is now set in his ways and finds it difficult to hear the radical call of his Cambridge.  Perhaps he feels too ‘comfortable’ at Westminster Abbey and wonders if he has missed a further, more radical, missionary call.—pp. 91-92

DB’s Reflection: –though I understand what ‘missionary call’ for people like Warren viz., leaving their country and going to other parts of the world, yet one need not be a ‘missionary’ to ‘go out into the unknown’.  Though it is very difficult, yet leaving our own ‘theological comfort zones’ if we can manage to step in the shoes of people of other faiths to understand them, then we can have the same experience of ‘unknown’.  In one Rethinking Conference (at Chennai I think it was 2010), when the topic of ‘how far one should go’ to reach out the Hindus, in my response I said, ‘you should go even to the extent of losing your faith in the Lord. Because this is what you expect a Hindu to do when you preach the gospel. Then alone you will understand her struggle. ’.  See my paper: Where to Draw the line.–db

Hooker: …in actual practice I spend a large part of my time trying to understand Hinduism and Hindus for what they are and in their own terms. When I am doing this the question of what God is doing among them – at least in the terms which I have described – gets in the way, it obscures rather than illuminates the situation.  This does not mean, as is sometimes claimed, that I have to ‘put my Christian faith in brackets’. Indeed it is my Christian faith which makes me want to understand the other man, and which demands of me (though it rarely gets!) an openness and vulnerability which takes the other man with the utmost seriousness however threatening to my own convictions his words may be…. (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 322

DB’s Reflection: –an honest struggle. But are not the evangelicals do the same to the Hindus?  When they (evangelicals) expect a Hindu to take the gospel with utmost seriousness which demands ‘openness and vulnerability’ which threatens her conviction in her faith then they too should be ready to the same vulnerability and threat to understand the people of other faiths. –db

Hooker: I said that in the contemporary western mood there are three important factors which anyone trying either to reform an old philosophy or to create a new one must take into consideration. These were:

1. The rejection of anything imposed from above, e.g. one country imposing its culture on another, teachers imposing themselves on the children at the cost of the latter’s development, a holy book dictated by God and therefore imposed on men.
2. A growing awareness of the unity of the human race, especially among the young.  Many of us are now seeing that we must no longer try to conquer other faiths but understand them and learn from them instead.  This meant coming down from our high horse of western superiority.
3. The vast increase in the range of human knowledge, and the many new disciplines which have been developed to interpret it make all previous systems, including theological ones, seem superficial and provincial.

               I went on to say that these three trends have together caused the dethronement of the clergy from their position of authority. Those who resent or fear this new situation have nothing to contribute, but the situation can and should be welcomed, e.g. a God who had merely dictated the bible would be unworthy of our worship. If God is God he surely wants the freedom and development of his creatures.(Hooker Letter 8 May 1976.  Talk on Christianity to the Follow Up Meeting on New Philosophies in India.)—p. 374

DB’s Reflection: –I welcome such approach about understanding other faiths by Hooker.  All kinds of unchecked authorities creates problem for people.  In the area of religion this becomes more dangerous as many submit to this kind of religious authority never allow people to think.  And we need to challenge such religious authority in any form in any religion. For this those who exercise such authority should be ready to go to the second mile to understand the need of lay people.—db

Christ Presence

Kings: …Warren’s fundamental stress was on showing respect for people of other faiths, and humility rather than arrogance, in relating to them….(p.123):

               Our first task is approaching another people, another culture, another religion, is to take off our shoes, for the place we are approaching is holy. Else we may find ourselves treading on men’s dreams.  More serious still, we may forget that God was here before our arrival….

….Warren did stress that ‘God was here before our arrival’ but, at this stage, the phrase ‘Christian presence’ referred to the presence of Christians amidst Islam or African Traditional Religion, rather than to the presence of Christ in the other faith or in the life of the person of another faith. (p.124)

               Warren’s use of the phrase also developed. In this series we have seen that he used the word to refer to the Christian being present; in his later thought, influenced by {Raimundo} Panikkar  he used the word presence to refer to Christ’s presence….—pp. 123-125 {Italics original}

DB’s Reflection: –Though I too will agree with the concept that God is ‘here before our arrival’.  This echoes as one tribal convert told to the second generation Christian Missionaries that ‘your forefathers only brought the gospel here, but God was already here’.  [try to give the reference—db]. But Warren’s change from ‘Christian presence’ to ‘Christ’s presence’ because of the Panniker’s influence is not acceptable to me.  Though this looks very humble and polite, yet this also shows the hegemonic attitude of the missionaries to read everything only from their view. 

Though Trinity is a mystery and we cannot explain it through any human words and terms, yet I cannot understand how theologically this view can be sustained—though I am not a theologian even to spell it out.  Though the co-essence in Trinity is understood yet their functions are different.  Seeing Christ’s presence in other’s faith and in other people’s life who we contacted them through friendship which Hooker later claims (see page 354) will question this different functions of the Triune God.  I am not sure whether I can say this using the famous English idiom: putting the cart before the horse?  As I said in ‘Witnessing What’ no Hindu will see the presence of their God in the people of other faiths, particularly when involving in dialogue or friendship.-db

One may find some contradiction here in my response as it violates the Trinitarian concept in Muktiveda.  For example one person in response to this comment wrote:

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you are saying that it is inappropriate to say that Christ was here before any Christian’s arrival. You say this for two reasons. First, because this may not be Christ’s role or function in the Trinity. Second, because the assertion that one’s god is present in other faiths is not a Hindu perspective. Am I summarizing your thoughts correctly? If so, I am unsure of how this aligns with your first statement – that you agree with the concept that God is here before our arrival. Are you saying God, the Trinitarian Father (and not the Son/Christ)? [personal communication through email]

In response to this comment this is what I wrote:

When Hindus say that there is only one ‘god’ they say it is within the understanding of polytheism and pantheism in which other god’s are accommodated still one’s own personal (or sectarian god like Vishnu or Shiva) is the Supreme god (or that one ‘god’).  Though they might welcome to include a ‘Christian’ god in their polytheism and subordinate ‘Christ’ under that one Supreme God, they won’t understand or accept it as the Trinitarian Father.  For us who believe in Muktiveda Muktinath was there before the creation as part of Trinity and naturally this includes his presence in God’s creation.  But in his mission as the redeemer that came later in history after his incarnation.  So we can say that according to our view the presence of Trinitarian Father as the Supreme God’s presence was in every culture, but claiming that that presence was ‘Christ’s presence’ is beyond my comprehension because lack proper of theological knowledge on Trinity.  -db

Kings: …If we agree that we bear witness to Jesus Christ through our behaviour and the trusting quality of our relationships by our ungrudging service and prayerful responses (as well as by our articulation of the character, message and challenges of Christ), then this unconscious witness does occur even in dialogue meetings which focus on mutual understanding (alone).  Warren seemed here to equate evangelism with witness and to limit witness to verbal witness.  In dialogue lives and silence speaks volumes.²⁹—p. 128

29.  So, while Warren’s important distinction between dialogue and evangelism can be sustained, a distinction can equally be sustained between unconscious witness through our lives, and conscious witness through articulation (reserving for the latter the term ‘evangelism’).  Perhaps we ought to admit that dialogue and (unconscious) witness to Christ do inevitably take place together (for we are ineluctably social beings and earthed in our bodies) while agreeing that our articulated witness (evangelism) should be limited to other occasions, unless specifically called for.—Notes, 62, p. 128

DB’s Reflection: –What Kings says about dialogue again is from a western missionary perspective.  But when Hindu elitists are called for any dialogue by Christian intellectuals, the former clearly understand the agenda behind it.  So they come well prepared—however politely they might applaud such efforts by the Christians to understand Hinduism and are open to re-think about their approach to Hinduism, as well as glorify the teaching and life of Muktinath, they never think that Christians are doing any ‘unconscious witness’ either through their life or evangelism.  As someone well said that all such (costly) dialogues that are arranged by the church and mission is nothing but luxurious holiday trip (that too in business class air tickets) and A.C. accommodation or in cool hill resorts at the expenses of missions.³⁰  Such luxury never reflects the simplicity of the gospel.  I believe in dialogue in the sense that we are ready to listen to each others. But when it is arranged or imagined as if providing any unconscious witness then I doubt.—db

30 …In all dialogues in India, the initiative has been with the Christians. Hindus do not ask for dialogue with Christians.  They are so confident that the essence of all religions is same and that truth is expressed in many forms, that they see in the Christian’s desire for dialogue, not only a retreat of the church from her conviction on the categorical imperatives of the Gospel and the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ, but also a victory of the Hindu view of comprehensiveness and relativeness…. (Sudhakar, op. Cit.  p. 266

 Kings:   In considering ‘dialogue’ and ‘evangelism’ above we noted Warren’s concern to suspend evangelistic witness to facilitate authentic dialogue.  Here he went further back and suggested suspending ‘dialogue’ to enable the basic grounding of ‘friendship.’  While agreeing that the general chronology of ‘friendship’, ‘dialogue’ and then ‘evangelistic witness’ is usually appropriate,³¹ it may be questioned whether one may fully disengage from the facts of religious identity while delighting in making friends.—pp. 132

31 This is not to imply that in every case friendship should lead to dialogue and dialogue should lead to evangelistic witness.  Clearly relationships do differ and for some this ‘leading on’ would be inappropriate.—Notes, 85, p. 132

DB’s Reflection: –this is the problem of any systemization not only in theology but also even one’s thought which was shared in different way in different context.  However such systematic presentation might help us to understand the overall mind of an author or scholar (here Warren and Hooker), these correspondences were written on various contexts.  And building up a systematic approach: friendship first, dialogue next and evangelical witnessing third is not the way one can live her everyday life and interaction with people of other faiths.  Of course a missionary like Hooker who came to India only for that purpose we can interpret all the activities of his life only from this systemization.  But one need not and cannot ‘engage’ her religious ‘identity’ while ‘delighting in making friends’.  Such a life would be a mess and artificial and possible only in such writings and not possible in real life—at least in India.  In secular world nobody carries her religious identity on her sleeves.—db

Kings:  Warren linked the Catholic writer on Hinduism, Panikkar, with the Anglican writer on Islam, Cragg.  By ‘discerning the Christ incognito’, Warren was referring to Panikkar’s book The Unknown Christ of Hinduism in which  the emphasis was not on bringing Christ into Hinduism but of ‘bringing him forth’ or ‘unveiling him’ already there.  Warren conceded that a main problem with this approach was that Hindus and Muslims denied its validity.  Hooker’s Hindu friend, Deshpande, was keen on Panikkar’s work because he had unearthed some new meaning in the Vedas³², not because he had recognised Christ in them.

(3) there are many  levels of spiritual awareness.  And for the vast majority the way in which Christ is found is not primarily cerebral at all. It is a matter of will and bears directly on the moral challenges of life. In this case marturia is testimony and an invitation to accept Christ. We might call this a very direct form of evangelism….I do recognise that it is possible to have such a feeling of love for Christ (I know almost nothing of this myself) that it overflows into the life of those to whom he is traduced. The sheer attraction of Christ by life and testimony and invitation is persuasive.—p. 135

32 This refers to Vedic Experience by Pannikar {The Vedic Experience – Mantramanjari, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1977} and not The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. I don’t think there is any reference in this book about Hooker giving The Unknown Christ of Hinduism to his Hindu friends in India. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964); revised and enlarged, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1981.—db

DB’s Reflection: –I also endorse with Warren that such approach by Panikkars was that Hindus and Muslims denied its validity.  However I think Warren found useful clues both in Panikkar and Cragg in approaching the people of other faiths.  But for me all such approaches of ‘Crown of Hinduism {J. N. Farquhar}; Unknown Christ; Cosmic Christ and Universal Christ only increases the resistance of people of other faiths, rather than finding such Christ in other faiths.  One can certainly find in Hinduism values and attitudes that are similar to those espoused by Christ.  However, that is not finding Christ.  I think one could say it is finding the hand of God, Who is at work in all things for good.  It is like common grace by God to all.

But for me all such approaches of ‘Crown of Hinduism {J. N. Farquhar}; Unknown Christ; Cosmic Christ and Universal Christ exposes the evangelical tension to the resistance of people of other faiths, rather than finding such Christ in other faiths. What I say here is that ‘Christ as the crown of Hinduism’ or finding a ‘cosmic etc. Christ’ only exposes the tension of the evangelicals by digging such thought in order to counter the resistance by Hindus.  It is not going to increase any tension to the Hindus as they generally ignore all such claims.

Warren:               Much more important is the fact that we are all moving into a secularized world in which 75% or more of the categories of traditional Christian philosophy & theology are going to be unintelligible….(Letter 21 16 July 1965).—p. 189

DB’s Reflection: –now also unavailable.  Unlike the past the Christian influence in secular world has also came down considerably.—db

Hooker: I may adopt a more narrow, ethical approach (which though different from is not necessarily contradictory to the first). Here I start by claiming that Christ is God’s ideal pattern for humanity, therefore wherever I find Christ-like qualities there God is at work, even though the Christ of orthodox Christianity may be unknown, misunderstood or rejected. For example, many people who knew Gandhi-ji recognised Christ-like qualities in him. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ {Matthew 7:20}. (Hooker Letter 14 August 1971)—p. 138.

DB’s Reflection: –Here I would like to correct Hooker’s statement ‘many people who knew Gandhiji recognised Christ-like qualities in him.’ To ‘many Christians or missionaries (alone) who knew Gandhiji recognised Christ-like qualities in him’.  Our P.M. Modi in his clean Indian campaign only found the quality of hygiene in Gandhiji, not even Ram Raj.  Indians will find whatever they want in their leaders that will serve their purpose and politicians are expert in it.  Only during their birth and death days and other events related to them, the (past) National Leaders are remembered for few hours in that day.  –db

Conversion

Warren; I must quote a paragraph from a letter just in from Stephen Neill. I had written to him about my analysis of the [current British theological] situation and here is the quote.

….And we do desperately need a study of conversion in the third world, very few converts say what according to these friends they ought to say – to nearly all of them the old world was a dark world, out of which they have been delivered by Christ, and not a bright world to which Christ has added just a little more brightness.

               Stephen has a point here, though it does not fairly cover all the ground. I know of converts from Islam who found Christ in the Qur’an and followed him out of it. But they do not dismiss Islam as just darkness because in fact they first found (p.384) the light of Christ in the Qur’an!  But Stephen does point to a very large amount of experience in the 3^rd world. It partly explains why so many Asians and Africans are so un-responsive to much that we westerners call ‘indigenization’. (Letter 574 30 November 1976)—pp. 384-85

–To whom did these converts say this?  To their western patrons?  Though Neill had a ‘large amount of experience in the 3^rd world’ with whom did he have this large amount of experience?  Only with Christian converts and traditional Christians?  It is nothing but over exaggeration to say that ‘all of them’ viz., converts said that the ‘old world was a dark world’.  Again this shows how the evangelicals and missionaries talk in such a way when they interact with each other about their converts and work.³³ Note the telling rebuke of Sudhakar about this:

               The nature of Hinduism is such that no Hindu can truly be representative of Hinduism. A convert’s view of Hinduism is therefore partial so on the basis of a Hindu embracing Christianity, it will not prove that his testimony of conversion can be used to attract all Hindus (p.186) to Christ. Hindus will object if the church or the converts were to pose as the sole interpreters of Hinduism. Testimonies therefore should be given in humility and love.(pp. 186-87).

…Despite Indianisation and independence, the image of Christianity is still political due to its monoliths of institutions, heavily depending on Western aid, the theological institutions looking westward for inspiration, and evangelistic methods copying uncritically the crusade methods of the western church. Words like crusades, strategy, tactics, and winning people for Christ have strong military and triumphic connotations.  Conversion in this context appears to be a conquest, and that of an alien forcing its sway on its subjects….(Sudhakar, op. Cit. p. 271)

33  The vast majority of converts to Christianity have come from the Dalits and tribals.  In the case of the Dalits, they rebelled against the centuries of social oppression in Hinduism.  In the case of the tribals, they left the fear of spirits and superstitions.  For these converts, it was leaving a dark world.  These populations were lumped together with Hindus, though they are very different from the life and practices of the caste Hindus.  When missionaries talked about Hinduism back home, they typically portrayed it as the Dalits and tribals had experienced it.  Indeed, it was an effective tack for generating funds to support the work.(anonymous)

Community

Warren: …Now {William} Temple, {Christianity and Social Order, London: Penguin, 1941) rightly, as you and I believe, categorically repudiated that a man’s Faith is a personal and private matter, with the implication that it involves only matters of individual significance.  But ‘No man is an island’.³⁴  I am never for one moment an individual except for Tax Assessment!  I am a Person in relationship  and there is no limit to the range of those relationship. As a responsible person I cannot escape from my responsibilities.  What therefore integrates me must inform my discharge of my responsibilities, it must reveal itself in my personal relationship. I cannot keep myself to myself. And if, in however minuscule a degree ‘it is not I that live but Christ that lives in me’, {Galatians 2:20} then I cannot keep Christ to myself.

               Is there any hole in this argument so far? (Letter 581 9 January 1977)—p. 387

34  ‘No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.’ John Donne, Meditation XVII. –Notes. 588, p. 387

DB’s Reflection: –No hole in such profound thought. It is complete.  This is true not only in bhakti/faith but also in life.  I often say that there is no private bhakti and private God according to Muktiveda.  Our faith is not a one man operated corporation. –db

Warren: Individuation does not mean individualism. Individuation is the preconditioning experience which makes corporateness possible. You must be yourself if you are to be human and be part of the common life of mankind.  The corporate is not the ‘collective’ of communism but the harmony of free persons who really are persons – whole persons. We today are in the gravest danger of being turned into a ‘collective’ which is not society at all. Society with its root ‘soc’ implies socius – friendship…. (Letter 583 19 January 1977)—p. 391

DB’s Reflection: –Very profound summary on society.—db

Contextualization

Warren:               One thing he {Panikker} told me which you’ll find as interesting as I did. He spoke of the way the Roman Catholic Priest (& this applied to him of course) when intending to mediate the things of God to man & represent man to God puts on special clothes. But in this Indian religious tradition the priest (in Hinduism) puts off his clothes if he is going to offer sacrifices or in other ways mediate. In Indian religious thinking to mediate involves a man being as completely naked man as possible – at the very least naked to the waist. Doesn’t this throw a new light upon the Christ naked on the Cross?  I found this a most revealing & intriguing challenge to my own thinking…. (Letter 10, 16 Apl. 1965.)—p. 180 (emphasis by db)

DB’s Reflection: –When I read this the only thing that came in my mouth was: O my God!   O my God !! What a comparison.  What the priest (not all and not possible in higher mountain regions) are required to do in ritual is compared with the punishment implemented in Roman world.  This shows the wrong understanding of religious practices in another culture.  Each ritual demands its own form of wearing cloths. For example, a Brahmin when performs sandyavandan (this is limited mostly to south India) and other rituals (puja or ancestor rituals) need to wear the dhoti in panchakacham/padarni style.  Women need to cover their head with the edge of their sari in North India but not in South India.  There is no uniformity in this also as India is a vast country having regional variations when it comes performing rituals.—db

Warren: …I’m trying to work out something on the ‘Motherhood of God’ –beginning with the loss of meaning in most traditional and Biblical symbols because the frames of reference of a scientific and technological age find not {no?} place for them.  But ‘Mother’ has symbolic meaning. I’m going to show the significance of Cybele in Asia Minor and then in the Roman World – Magna Mater – and then the Corn-Mother of Europe (p.317) and the Rice-Mother of Indonesia – and ten to the biblical evidence. I hope to end by bringing folk to see that if they can learn to take the motherhood  of God seriously they’ll perhaps recover the meaning of the Fatherhood of God, and so break out of the prison of a mechanised universe…..(Letter  396 26 April 1973)—pp. 317-18

DB’s Reflection: –When I began to use She for god several Christians became disturbed. But I continued. One requested me not to use it any more as it disturbed them.  But I continued for some more time.  See my response ‘God as She’ below.³⁵  I like to use She for God alternatively to He. A Hindu bhakta can easily understand it as she is more familiar with such narrative in which God is also a mother in Hinduism.  In fact the mother-hood of God is so prominent in Hinduism where the Fatherhood is pushed behind her, particularly in Sakta sampradayas.  But once a Hindu convert becomes a Christian she will miss this view about God.—db

35  In recent meeting held at Chennai in Raman’s house, Chakaravsarthy, jovially asked ‘how long you are going to use “She” for God.’  In response I said, ‘to provoke and irritate others I deliberately used it.  My intension is to show that as others put up with the irritation that we create for them, it is good for us to learn to live with such irritation caused by others.  The day when others are ready to accept others ‘alternative’ view and began to accept or at least ‘tolerate’ I can easily change back to ‘He’ for God.  For this he said that initially his wife was bit uncomfortable, now she used with it.  ‘We are happy that you are not using “She” for the Lord’.  Then I said, ‘Ok. Now I can change to ‘He’ for God too as everyone settled with it.

However the following points from Bailey will present my view from a scholarly perspective that through ‘Middle Eastern Eyes’:

God: Male and Female Metaphors

The Bible describes God using both male and female images.  On the one hand, he is given the title Father, a male image.  At the same time, believers are told that we are “born of God” (1 Jn 3:9).  If God gives birth, then God acts like a female.  These two are brought together in Deuteronomy 32:18: “You were unmindful of the Rock that begot you,/ and you forgot the God who gave you birth.”

               If we reject the biblical images of God as Father (because it is an exclusively male image), then we also need to reject female images such as “the new birth” (because they are exclusively female).  I stand on “Mother Earth” and eat the fruits of “Mother Nature” and serve “the church, the mother of us all” who is “the bride of Christ.”  As a man, I do not want any of these changed.  Jesus describes himself as a “mother hen” and as a woman who finds her lost coin.  Paul uses the language of human birth by longing that “Christ might be formed in you.”  Furthermore the devil is always male in the New Testament, and we will create a hornet’s nest of new problems if we try to develop “inclusive language” for our demonology.  We can all rejoice that the Scriptures use both male and female metaphors to enrich the readers’ understanding of God who is Spirit and thereby neither male nor female.  Yet God’s image contains both male and female in that both are created from that image (Gen 1:27).  To substitute neutral terms for one or the other will inevitably impoverish the richness of the biblical similes and metaphors, or lead us to abandon them.

               The Lord’s Prayer affirms the critical role of the community in which this title, Father, is used. When using the phrase “Our Father” the worshiper is obliged to look down the pew and across the world and see brothers and sisters in every land. Only in the unity of the family of God is the title “Our Father” legitimately invoked…..( Bailey, p. 101)

Hooker: …The early church ‘baptised’ Greek philosophy, made use of it to express the Gospel, and (perhaps?) saved the philosophy from decay. This is the challenge with which Hindu philosophy presents us. But for this to happen the philosophy must so to speak be desacralised, it cannot simply be added on to Christian theology, for that would be syncretism. Rather it must be used to express the Gospel…. (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 321

DB’s Reflection:–I am not a philosopher or a theologian. But I never understood Indian philosophy, forget about Greek philosophy.  But any comparison of Greek with Indian philosophy is not very easy, particularly for a lay person like me.  Particularly the way ‘philosophy’ is understood and interpreted by the West, it becomes more complicated.  Prof. Sharma’s recent book exposes such Western misconception about Indian philosophy, particularly in the context of comparing with Greek philosophy.  Maybe a deep reading of Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), and Sharma’s writing on this topic in his book (224 t0 242)³⁶ might help us to understand the comparison between them.  And Scholars’ criticism of Christian approaches to both Indian and Greek Philosophies, like that of Balagangadhara’s³⁷, is beyond my level of understanding for comment.  However what Hooker wishes will never happen to Indian philosophy. This much I can say as Indian philosophy can never be ‘desacralised’.  And Sudhakar shows the Hindu’s reservation about it:

               Christian theology is the result of the meeting of the Christian Gospel and Greek thought. Western thinking has greatly influenced Christianity, and evangelism has introduced the western system of thought through Christian theology in India.  Whereas in the west philosophy and religion after moving together for a few centuries, parted company, in India they have always been together. For a Hindu it is impossible to think of philosophy without reference to the sacred scriptures….So the Hindus see evangelism as a move to take them out of their philosophical heritage and plant them in the alien soil of western thought. —Sudhakar, op. Cit. p. 176

36  Sharma states that, ‘ancient Greeks welcomed ancient Indian contributions to philosophy—but that modern Europeans have gone to extraordinary lengths to deny it.’(Sharma, 2017, p. 241)  And he quotes McEvilley’s summary on this point:

In term so the priority issue, assuming that the chronologies conventionally used for Indian philosophies are more or less correct, the Upanisads seem to precede Parmenides in monism, and to have directly influenced Heraclitus’s view of the process of nature; Jain atmism and Carvaka materialism would seem to precede Democritus (though not by much). On the other side, Parmenides and Zeno formalized dialectic and Aristotle formalized logic well before Indian thinkers.  One might say that India established the content of philosophy, and Greece pioneered its method and form. (McEvilley, op. Cit, 653)—Sharma, op. Cit. 242.

37 S.N. Balagangadhara, The Heathen in His Blindness, Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion, New Delhi, Manohar, 2005; S.N. Balagangadhara and Sarah Claerhout, Ancient Roman Culture and Early Christianity: A Pagan Perspective from India,Ghent University Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap Apotheekstraat 5, 9000 Gent Belgium

Hooker: …I can thus say that God can use Hinduism, or part of it, but once more I am brought up against my same problem. I cannot say anything about God’s activity within Hinduism before it is so used.  I could say that in Hindu philosophy God is preparing a tool for the benefit of Christians, and thus he is indeed at work, but is not this insufferably patronising? (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 322

DB’s Reflection: Definitely it is patronising.³⁸

38  Hooker’s critique of this viewpoint is that it makes the benefit of Christians God’s only purpose:  “ I’m sure there’s some good in Hinduism, though I’m not sure what.”  We patronize someone when we know we are much better than they are but we allow that they are still alright, usually just to not hurt their feelings too much.

Hooker: …I am looking at other faiths and other men as a Christian and asking how God is at work among them, and so before I start I have already decided what kind of answers I am looking for. I have arranged the question in such a way that I am bound to arrive at the conclusion that Ramannuja is superior to Shankara. The frame of reference within which I move severely limits the range and depth of my enquiry… (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 322

DB’s Reflection:  Very true.  When we study any Indian philosophy, how the tradition further interpreted it is much more important than what a particular philosopher said.  The way Ramanuja and Sankara³⁹ were interpreted by their respective followers further complicated their philosophy. Without keeping this in mind we cannot ‘move within the frame of reference’ of any philosophy without severely restricting the range and depth of our enquiry.–db

39 Jan Gonda comments on the complexity of this idea in Shankara:

As however from the higher point of view Ishvara does not exist and any difference between creator and creation is a fallacy, how is the transformation to be explained? The answer is: Brahman manifests itself as name and form without undergoing any real change or transformation and without being touched or polluted by the association with maya (vivarta doctrine)….It is however difficult wholly to reconcile all passages in Shankara’s work exhibiting the term maya. Hence also the difference of opinion which finds expression in the works of his adherents…. Sureshvara (7th cent.?)…Vacaspati Misra (9th cent.)…Sarvajnatma Muni (9th cent.)…Prakasananda (1600).(Gonda1985, 184-185)

Olivelle gives a clear example of a disciple of Shankara rejecting his viewpoint:

That this was the view of Shankara, however, is confirmed by the fact that his pupil, Sureshvara, in his subcommentary on Shankara’s commentary on the Brhadaranyaka, clearly ascribes this position to his teacher. Sureshvara himself disagrees with Shankara and attempts to demonstrate that his teacher is wrong.(Olivelle, 1993, p. 197)

Nicholson provides a rather overwhelming example of disagreements among the advaitic successors of Shankaracharya regarding the doctrine of creation:

Appaya Diksita’s sixteenth-century catalogue of the various Advaita views, the Siddhantalesasamgraha (Brief Compendium of Doctrines), lists numerous opinions on the question of Brahman’s causality. Typically, these later Advaitins saw ignorance (avidya) or illusion (maya) themselves as having some part in creating the world. By reifying such terms and giving these entities autonomous causal power, they were likely quite far from the original position of their school’s putative founder, Shankara, with regard to the origin of the world. This was in part because Shankara himself was silent or ambiguous on certain puzzling issues regarding Brahman’s causality. Therefore these thinkers apportion the causal duties in various ways. Appaya Diksita lists a few of these alternatives:

1. According to the author of the Padarthatattvanirnaya [attributed to Anandanuhava or Gangapuri Bhattaraka], both Brahman and illusion (maya) are material causes. Brahman’s being material cause is not just a technical term, in the sense of “locus of apparent manifestation (vivarta)”. Brahman itself undergoes apparent manifestation, while illusion undergoes real transformation.

2. Some [unidentified] others say that both Brahman and illusion are material causes. But they say that being material cause simply means “having effects that are non-different from that cause.” With respect to the world’s existence, it is non-different from Brahman with regard to existence, and non-different from illusion with regard to insentience.

3. According to the author of the Samkshepasariraka [Sarvajnatman], Brahman is the material cause. However, because it is unchanging, it cannot be a cause by itself. Therefore illusion (maya) is a subordinate cause (dvarakarana).

4. According to Vacaspati Misra, Brahman alone is the material cause, and is apparently manifested into the form of the world because it is made an object by the illusion (maya) situated in the self (jiva). Illusion is merely an assistant (sahakarin), not a subordinate cause (dvarakarana).

According to the author of the Siddhantamuktavali [Prakashananda], the power of illusion (mayashakti) is the material cause, not Brahman. Brahman can only be described as material cause in a secondary sense, as it is the locus of illusion.(Nicholson, 2011, p. 61)

Hooker: …At the level of philosophy there are far more options open to a Hindu than to a Christian, the Vedanta stream for examples as indeed Saraswati@ had pointed out in his initial address. Thus Christianity appears to bear a family resemblance to just one of Hinduism’s many possible options and to insist that that one alone is the true one. How narrow, how ‘enclosed’ is Christianity?

               How does the Christian cope with this one?  It raises another question, namely the status of philosophy. For me qua Christian, philosophy is not a speculative choice between a number of equally valid options. Rather is it the discipline attempt to interpret the fact of Christ who on the one hand is the touch-stone by which all Christian philosophising must be judged, and who on the other cannot be finally contained within the bounds of any philosophy.  Christianity perpetually remains a faith in search of a philosophy.

               The answer to the implied charge of narrowness lies I think in the power of Christ to embrace and transform all philosophies, including Vedanta, bringing into captivity every human thought to his obedience. This total embrace is to be effected in and beyond history, and through mission. In this sense we ‘do not yet see all things subject to him’. {Hebrews 2:8} We need to stress the inclusive rather than the exclusive uniqueness of Christ and the open-endedness of Christian doctrine. (Hooker Letter: Lecture to Hindus on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation 2 august 1975)—p. 359

@Saraswati of the institute of Advanced Studies in Simla a very high-powered think tank.—p. 358

DB’s Reflection: As I never understand philosophy I cannot comment on this. Hooker’s comment ‘Christianity perpetually remains a faith in search of a philosophy’ looks very valid one for me.  However not knowing philosophy, I can say that considering the multi-centred-pluralistic inclusivistic nature of Hinduism (and its philosophies), one cannot search of a Hindu philosophy for Muktinath.  If I understood correctly, Muktiveda centred around the covenant promise of God which he made with Abraham (who was thankfully not a Hebrew) and the entire Muktivedic narrative is centered on it.  Still I cannot think of any such concept in Hinduism which comes closer to such covenant promise of God choosing one nation to execute it.  We can use Indian philosophical terms to express our bhakti and theology, but forming any (Indian) Christian philosophy based on them is impossible.  The ‘open-endedness of Christian doctrine’ is possible only within Christian theology, not beyond it.  Christians cannot do to Indian philosophy what they claim have done to Greek philosophy.

Hooker: …Hindus who have a nodding acquaintance with Christianity think that we do preach the total depravity of man. Indeed that is the stock in trade of most preachers in these parts.  Your comments on will and obedience may be sound but the will has no place in Hindu psychology.  The nearest you can get to it is the word for ‘desire’ – the very thing which he is seeking to eliminate. One cannot talk about will and obedience to a Hindu as pointing to man’s moral dilemma, for this is not how he thinks. I become more and more convinced that the greatest heresy in popular Christian teaching and preaching is that you must begin with sin.  But surely it is only as I begin to respond to Christ that I can even begin to understand what my sin truly is.

               I must explain further what I meant when I wrote ‘Christianity perpetually remains a faith in search of a philosophy’.  As an anti-Barthian@ I do not believe that the Gospel can exist on its own, suspended so to speak in space. I think it must ultimately be rooted in the local intellectual (and other) soil, i.e. it is always searching for the best philosophy through which it can be expressed, but at the same time it can never be finally expressed in Thomas Aquinas or anyone else.  But I entirely agree that much depends on how we define philosophy which must ultimately be judged by its adequacy for the ordinary man. (Hooker Letter  31 August 1975)—p. 362

@ I think Barthian means Karl Barth’s theology.

DB’s Reflection: I agree with Hooker that the gospel cannot be suspended in space.  But my solution for this is to allow it to ‘incarnate’ in any culture and tradition and allow it to work its own way of expression which addresses the need of ordinary man.  Neither Thomas Aquinas nor any Hindu Vedanta can finally express the gospel in their philosophical terms.  When ordinary bhaktas (and converts) live peacefully with their simple faith, only philosophers break their heads and lose their peace of mind and soul. (See my bhakti Theology Song 996, 22-10-2018).  Read the following view about Indian philosophy by Prof. Dayakrishna and further notes from Nicholson, Gavin Flood, Jan Gonda, and Olivelle, to understand the complex nature of Indian philosophy with diverse systems:

This simplistic construct of six orthodox schools of philosophy currently does more harm than good, as the philosopher and historian Daya Krishna points out:

[The schools of Indian philosophy] are treated as something finished and final. No distinction, therefore, is ever made between the thought of an individual thinker and the thought of a school. A school is, in an important sense, an abstraction. It is a logical construction springing out of the writings of a number of thinkers who share a certain similarity of outlook in tackling certain problems. Sankhya, for example, is identified too much with Isvarakrsna’s work, or Vedanta with the work of Shankara. But this is due to a confusion between the thought of an individual thinker and the style of thought which he exemplifies and to which he contributes in some manner. All that Shankara has written is not strictly Advaita Vedanta. Nor all that Isvarakrsna has written, Sankhya. Unless this is realized, writings on Indian philosophy will continuously do injustice either to the complexity of thought of the individual thinker concerned, or to the uniqueness of the style they are writing about.(Krishna, 1991, p.14)

Nicholson documents this position in various ways, including the following:

The Jain doxographer Haribhadra (eighth century), for instance, was one of the first to categorize the schools (darshanas) into six categories in his Saddarsanasamuccaya. Unlike later lists, however, Haribhadra does not mention the Yoga as a separate group apart from the Sankhya. Instead, his six schools are the Buddhists, Naiyayikas, Sankhyas, Jains, Vaisesikas, and Mimamsakas. But Haribhadra remarks in verse 35 that “Some Sankhyas are atheists, while others have Ishvara as their deity. But for all of them, there are 25 principles.” (2011, 81, quoting Haribhadra from Murty 1957, 46)

…like many texts that followed it [Cattanar’s Maṇimekalai], it lists the schools of philosophy (darshanas) as being six. Also like later doxographies, this number seems purely conventional. Although Cattanar lists six systems, he does so in the midst of a discussion of many systems and thinkers that do not find their way onto this official list. It seems that the notion of the “six systems” predated both Cattanar and Haribhadra, and both are working from an earlier template. Both thinkers are clearly aware that there are more than six schools total, but both also feel compelled to include this number. (2011, 149)

The purpose of doxography in India was clearly not the cataloging of all existing schools of philosophical thought, or all the schools that had existed throughout history. Despite Haribhadra’s assertion that “there are only six schools of philosophy” and the apparent promise of some doxographies’ titles to survey “all systems,” these doxographers knew quite well that there were other systems that fell outside their descriptive purview. (2011, 192, referencing D. Goswami 1905) Nicholson. op. Cit. Andrew J. 2011

As Gavin Flood points out:

Doctrinal issues have been discussed by Hindus throughout the ages with tenacity and with the understanding that there is always an aspect of absolute truth reflected in any particular religious doctrine. Although there has never been one central authority in Hinduism strong enough to decide the issue categorically, the numerous heads of the various Hindu churches have nevertheless established very rigorous canons from within which their understanding of orthodoxy is defined. Thus, they clearly determine which books have to be considered as revelation, which authors may be used as commentators, and which line of tradition must be followed. Students of religion in traditional institutions were not supposed to read other books or to listen to any other teacher.— An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996, p. 59

Olivelle points out how Sureshvara, an immediate disciple of Sri Shankara, disagreed with his guru in his commentary on the Brhadaranyaka and attempted to demonstrate that his teacher is wrong .(Olivelle, op. Cit. 1993, p. 197)

Theological problem:

Kings: …He taught his disciples through startling parables, which reflected the culture of his day but ended with dramatic twists: i.e. theology through stories which, when written down, became theology through literature….—p. 80

Reflection: This may be true, but this is also a theologian’s problem—at the end they have to find theology in everything.  We cannot avoid theology completely.  But theology cannot have the final say when it comes to our bhakti.—db

Kings:     The mediation of theology through both history and literature implies that revelation is intrinsic to everyday life rather than extrinsic from it: it is inherent in life and not separate ….—p. 81

DB’s Reflection: –Tatastu.–DB

Kings:     This is typical of Warren’s approach to theology, which was essentially both exploratory and committed to the movement forward in discipleship, rather than defensive and stationary….which guided the way of discovery and involved following on the way oneself.⁴⁰—p. 83

40 The technical term ‘heuristic’ may be applied to such a view of doctrine, for the heuristic method is such that the pupils are trained to discover things for themselves.—Notes, 3, p. 83

DB’s Reflection: –‘ defensive and stationary’ is nothing but another term of guarding the doctrine of a particular church from which they don’t want to depart.  Doctrines are nothing but verbalizations of the theological understanding that one arrives at in a particular time. When the Spirit of God further inspires according to the need and (new) contexts, then we must give space for ‘way of discovery’. This is possible when the natives are motivated to reinvent their bhakti according to the need of their cultural-social and religious contexts.  Warren is correct in saying that theology should never be ‘defensive and stationary’.—db

Kings: …Warren was careful in his wording: he did not use the word ‘influences’ but referred to their stimulations of this thinking. He then added Hendrik Kraemer⁴¹ who was:

… a continual source of stimulus, especially in thinking about the relation of Christianity with other religions.  Again, I have not found myself able to go all the way with him, and in some respects I found myself compelled to take a very different line. But I have the utmost reverence for his wisdom and his spirit and his passion for the Gospel.—p. 87

41  Kraemer had been Professor of Comparative Religion at Leiden, the Netherlands.—Notes. 26. p. 87

Kings: In January 1972, Warren responded enthusiastically to Hooker’s report of how a former Muslim had described the coming of the Magi in his interpretation of Christmas to Muslims:

How right you are that the unsophisticated approach may be the best. But may it not have to be done by an unsophisticated Christian. Can one be theologically precise & spiritually simple?  That is a fundamental question. It seems that theological precision is inherently divisive precisely because the Truth cannot be propositionally defined. It has to be felt & loved. This is all very depressing to those of us who try to think theologically. It ought to keep us mighty  humble.  After all the ‘inheritors of the kingdom of heaven’ are, on the highest authority, children, & that means unsophisticated. How hardly shall a man rich in theological knowledge enter (p.87) the kingdom of Heaven!  I’m sure Jesus included that kind of wealth in his staggering remark. (Letter 323).—pp. 87-88

DB’s Reflection: Hooker claims that he is a theologian when he was requested to give some talk in the Philosophical department of BHU {Letter 27 February 1977, p. 393}.  Anyhow, to remain ‘theologically precise & spiritually simple’ is possible depending upon our approach in our sharing about our bhakti. Where it is needed we should be ‘theologically precise’ but both in our personal sadhana and sharing our bhakti with others, we should also ways remember the advice of Clooney who said:

…Theology, to charaterize it in a non-technical fashion, is distinct from the study of religion (with which it overlaps in many of its procedures) because theology is an inquiry carried on by believers who allow their belief to remain an explicit and influential factor in their research, analysis and writing.  Believing theologians are (usually) members of believing communities, and have those communities as their primary audiences whether or not the bulk of their writing is addressed to them.  With their communities, they believe in some transcendent (perhaps supernatural) reality, the possibility of and (usually fact of) a normative revelation, and in the need to make practical decisions and life choices which (p.4) have a bearing on salvation.  Theologians do their work with an awareness of and concern for these beliefs, and with a desire to defend and preserve them, even if at one or another moment they may have to question, recontextualize and finally reformulate them in modes of discourse quite different from those already familiar to the community.(Clooney, 1993, pp.4-5)

Kings: …IN Warren’s first way of humility, towards God, he stressed that redemption must be seen in the context of creation and cited passages which have now become well known in ecological reflections (P 50:10-11; Ps 19:1) and in recent discussions concerning people of other faiths.⁴²  For redemption he focused on Colossians 1:15-20 and Ephesians 1:10⁴³ and raised the issue of Omnipresent Christ. By this phrase he seemed to mean the Christ who is present throughout the whole of the universe…..—p. 130

42  Amos 9:7 Did I not bring Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Capthor and the Syrians from Kir?’ and Isaiah 19:23-4 where Egypt is called ‘my people’ and Assyria ‘the work of my hands.’—Notes. 72p. 130

43 Both of these passages also refer to creation.—Notes. 73. 130

               These texts in Romans do indeed use the word ‘all’ but since a key underlying theme in that letter is the unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Christ (not between all Gentiles and all Jews) the ‘all’ refers to ‘both Jew and Gentile’ i.e. ‘all, without distinction’.  This ‘Pauline universality’ is very different from, what may be termed, ‘theological universalism’ which considers the ‘all’ to refer to ‘every human being ever created’ i.e. ‘all, without remainder’…..—p. 131

DB’s Reflection:  These kinds of biblical exegesis are beyond my level of understanding.  So I leave it to the scholars. However the terms ‘Pauline’ versus ‘Johanine’ show that the way the gospel was understood and interpreted by the immediate disciples of the Lord and later by Sevanand (Paul) has different schools of thought.  So what Muktivedic is depends upon our interpretation rather than the understanding of the plain text—which is important one.–db

Kings: We turn now finally in this chapter to consider one of the ‘further questions’, which concerns the distinction between this ‘universality’ (the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ is for everyone in the world and so is to be shared with everyone, without distinction) and ‘universalism’ In the sense that all people who have ever existed in the world, without remainder, will, in the end, be saved by God).

               There was an interesting debate between Warren and Hooker in September and October 1971. In letter 301 Warren had mentioned John Robinson’s book In the End, God {Robinson, 1968} and said that he found the arguments for universalism in it to be ‘unanswerable.’  Hooker replied (9^th October 1971) that this issue was ‘the one place where you and I part company’.  He had been left unpersuaded by Robinson’s (p.144) book and found Donald Baillie’s concept of ‘paradox’ more helpful in his book God was in Christ. { Baillie, 1948}  Hooker challenged Warren by insisting that the belief ‘only if I am free to reject God can I also be free to accept him’ was as important as ‘God’s love must triumph over all sin and evil or he will not be God’.  He then continued by saying that he wanted to do some further study on the concept of anakephalaiosis, which is the noun related to the Greek verb used in Ephesians 1:10 to describe the ‘recapitulation’ or ‘summing up’ of all things in Christ.

               Warren responded on 17 October 1971:

I am always grateful for being challenged on ‘universalism’. But with you I believe in paradox. I’m sure that two mutually inconsistent ideas may have to be held in tension in this our time of ignorance. I wholly agree that God only wants the free response of man and that must involve the possibility of a free rejection.  Yet I find myself increasingly perplexed as to what to do with the multitudes an ever increasing number who are not free to reject because they know of no one to accept. Isn’t this one of the vastest problems of today….

               This, so it seems to me, gives a dimension of depth to all one’s thinking about ‘Universalism’ and the ultimate destiny of man and the meaning of anakephalaiosis….(Letter 305)

So was Warren a universalist?  We noted above that Warren wrote clearly in his Theology of Attention: ‘Can we seriously believe that there are any men anywhere unaffected by this all-embracing redemption?’  and went on to claim ‘The cross becomes the place where all alienated mankind is brought home to God.’⁴⁴ Yet he denied that he believed in a ‘facile universalism’⁴⁵ and Pieter Meiring also stated, in his dissertation on Warren, that Warren did not support ‘an easy universalism’.⁴⁶  Warren did not elaborate on this phrase and Meiring did not probe it further (p. 495).  He could have asked what influence the adjective ‘easy’ had on the noun ‘universalism’.  It seems from these quotations that Warren did hold to a belief in ‘universalism’ and in rejecting the adjective ‘easy’ he wanted to stress two things.  Firstly, that his was a thoughtful position and not naïve; and secondly, that he did not thereby neglect the horror of the cross: the cost of all people in the end being accepted by God was the death of his beloved Son.

               The conclusion that Warren was a universalist is also backed up by a quotation we noted above from his ‘Ecumenical Horizons’, where he insisted:

There is a deep and profound sense in which we can claim that because what happened at Calvary happened once and for all, all men have been redeemed. The difference between men is that some know it and some do not know it.⁴⁷

               This implied that those who were not yet conscious that they had been redeemed would either come to that knowledge through hearing the good news of (p.145) God in Christ (which, in Warren’s theology, could perhaps be designated ‘evangelisation through conscientisation’) or through the face to face revelation of God in Christ, and joyful realisation of redemption, on the last day.—pp. 145-46

44 Max Warren, (Madras: Christian Literature Society and ISPCK, 1971,21 and 22)—notes. 133. P. 145

45 Max Warren, ‘Ecumenical Horizons: The Full Report of the Conference on Ecumenical Principles and the Christian Encounter with Other Faiths, held in Israel, 6-7 March, 1967’. (Roger Hooker Archives, Max Alexander Cunningham Warren/1/1, Ecumenical Horizons, 6-7 Mar. 1967 and also Church Mission Society/Unpublished Papers/Warren Travel Diary Israel 1967). P. 27 and Warren, Theology of Attention. P. 21)—Notes. 134, p. 145

46 Meiring, Pieter G. C.,  ‘Max Warren as Sendingwetenskapliche’ D. D. thesis (Pretoria, 1968, p. 485)—Notes. 135, p. 145

47 Warren ‘Ecumenical Horizons’, p. 14. –Notes. 136, p. 145

DB’s Reflection — This section (5.5.2. Salvation and People of Other Faiths) is an important one for our understanding of Warren and Hooker.  But this also challenges a lay person like me to have proper training in theology to know all the technical terms. I always uphold that such systematic theology, though very important and useful, inevitable creates paradoxes in understanding the teaching of Muktiveda which never tried to present such systematic ways for us to understand everything about it.  I would rather go with the textual context of any verse to understand the historical and theological context of its teaching than try to understand it in a systematic way– acknowledging its importance.  This I say as a lay person who is not trained in theology. –db

Kings:    Firstly, methods of evangelism. Warren moved from a somewhat naïve approach towards people of other faiths, using evangelistic tracts amongst Muslims in Northern Nigeria in 1927, to an endorsement and encouragement of Hooker’s approach of patient friendship.  His advice to Hooker in 1973 (letter 395), in which he commented that he would find it difficult identifying with the methods of evangelism of the Evangelical Fellowship of India, is indicative of this development {of approach}⁴⁸….—p. 151 { One should read to understand this entire section: 6.1.2 Developments in the Theology of Warren and Hooke pp. 151-161}.

48 ‘I doubt very much if the brothers of the E. F. I. are in the least bit interested in understanding Hinduism and Islam. What further worries me about their efforts is that they stir up a few people and then disappear.  They aren’t rooted in the local situation and don’t pretend to know it.’ Letter 375—Notes, 8. p. 151

Kings: It was after reading Panikkar’s book {1964) that Warren started using the phrase ‘unveiling Christ’: ‘It is still valid to say that anyone who has found the Christ of the New Testament must want to ‘unknown Christ’ to be fully encountered. This for me is the all sufficient ground of Mission.  The ‘presence’ of Christ in other religions is a challenge to Christians to take part in the unveiling, which is mission. (Letter 181).—notes. 9. P. 151

…He {Warren} considered that dialogue could degenerate into a shouting match if there were not sufficiently intense and attentive listening.⁴⁹—p. 152

49 He was not, however, fully consistent in his use of the word ‘attention’ and in later letters to Hooker continued to use the more popular word.—Notes, 13p. 152

…Generally, it may be posited that in approach Warren was more Pauline (with his rigorous, multi-directional energy all rooted in Christ and his highly situational combination of metaphors and themes) and Hooker was more Johannine (with his contemplative narrative and profound insight into the love of God in friendship)⁵⁰…..—p. 153

50 See letter 9 where Warren recommends to Hooker: ‘For every three books on John read one on Paul!’—Notes, 20. p. 153

DB’s Reflection:  These terms are very helpful for me. But I cannot understand how a bhakta can put herself in one category at the cost of the other.  Though I have my doubts about systematic theology, yet we need to understand every book in the Uttaraveda both independently (according to their contexts) and collectively in order to understand the life and mission of the Lord along with the early mandali. –db

Warren: “I’m not a Paulinist trying to woo you from John. What excites me so much is the amazing affinity of Paul & John.  Their language is different but they meet in an experience which is identical.

               I’m sure that the greatest principle of Bible Study is to see that Scripture interprets Scripture. One Scripture may be the bridge over which one marches into another man’s mind.  But behind that scripture comes the whole Bible, & the mind which thinks it can do with only a part of Scripture is in the strictest sense heretical.  Hindu eclecticism is like Gnosticism⁵¹ in its ability to take what it likes & leave the rest. Hindus aren’t the only boys like that either!  We can approach them in great humility because we share that bit of nature with them anyhow!(Letter 13 9 May 1965) —p. 182, italics original.

51 Gnosticism was a complex of religious movements, which appeared in developed from as a Christian heresy in the second century. These systems ranged from the genuinely philosophical to the extensively mythological and magical. {Oxford Dictionary of World Religions}Notes, 45.—p. 182

DB’s Reflection:  A honest confession.  But Hindu’s approach to scripture is completely different from the Christians as they have so many scriptures to consider.  Above all, ‘…the Hindu attitude to scriptures is rather less formal, and that one is not bound by them in all their complex details….(Rajah, 2017  p. 77). So they cannot take the whole Scripture in the sense the Christians think.  Above all I have my own reservation about this famous slogan ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’.  Because with my limited knowledge in Muktiveda, I never found such staments or even practice in Muktiveda.  If we read the context of the quotes or references that are used by the authors of the Utteravada (N. T) in the Purvaveda, they give their own interpretation.  This can be accepted as the whole Muktiveda is now considered as one whole scripture.  But when they wrote their books (gospels or epistles), Purvaveda was still recognized and considered as the scriptures of the Jews.  Similarly most of the books in the Uttaraveda were written in different contexts which were accepted as one unity only after the Canonization of the Muktiveda.  I am not sure whether such understanding ever existed in the early mandali before Canonization.  As I don’t know I cannot say this.  However though this is a good slogan still keeping it as the criteria with to call Hindu’s approach ‘eclecticism or Gnosticism’ is not correct.  Even now when this slogan is implemented in Muktivedic study, it is more that one’s personal interpretation rather than ‘scripture interpreting scripture’ is strictly practiced. —db

Regarding the role of canon in interpreting the scripture always remain a challenge.  The scholarly discussion about the ‘Authority, Anxiety, and Canon’: Essays in Vedic Interpretation’ (Laurie L. Patton, ed. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994) will help us to understand the complexity involved in such interpretation.  What Patton writes in the Afterword would help us to understand the same ‘Authority, Anxiety, and Canon’ when it comes our interpretation of Muktiveda also:

While this volume raises issues of authority, anxiety, and canon in the context of the cultural history of India, some of its early readers have suggested that it may raise relevant questions significant to other, larger inquiries—specifically those of the comparative study of religion, literatures, and histories.—Laurie L . Patton, Afterword, pp. 309-316, p. 309

Hooker: …Peter in the garden drew his sword to protect his Lord {John 18:10), yet he was really protecting himself and his own limited understanding of who and what his Lord was.  This he had on two occasions done verbally.  (This shall never be done to thee, and thou shalt never wash my feet) {Matthew 16:22 and John 13:8}.  When Christ goes out in weakness and helplessness beyond the range of his followers’ ‘protection’ he does his greatest work.  Our reluctance to see him ‘outside the camp’ among other men, is like Peter’s reluctance expressed in that drawn sword.  Our reluctance is often expressed in the barrenness of argument in which we try to conquer, using our words like swords. All this as you can see is very much undigested, but I hope something relevant and intelligible will emerge.  A minority community is terrified of being vulnerable but some of its members must be prepared for this if we are to get anywhere with men of other faiths. (Hooker to Warren 15 January 1972).—p. 285

DB’s Reflection:  Wonderful.  Muktinath should be delivered from the Christian captivity and protection with their doctrinal swords and denominational shields.—db

Hooker: …The proper way to understand the Bible was to see each verse in its context and in its relation to the whole of the rest of scripture.  This drew from him the interesting comment that this was not true of Quranic exegesis, where you could understand a verse on its own.  Surely there is a difference here between disembodied words and the word made flesh – the latter gives all words a context within which, and a background against which, they can alone be properly understood. In other words Christian and Muslim faiths lead to different understandings of the nature of language. (Hooker to Warren 11 February 1972).(Hooker Letter 11 February 1972)—p. 286

DB’s Reflection:  As a lay person I have one doubt here.  For me though we need to understand all the verses from Muktiveda with the rest of the scripture, is it a Muktivedic claim or our own understanding and interpretation of it?–db

Hooker: I think Taylor’s remarks in Religion and Society for March 1972 are acceptable. I am always impressed by all he writes, but I wish he would write a bit more…

               Going back to Taylor, most of CISRS {Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society (Bangalore)} writing reflects the situation in the south, where no doubt the question of baptism is a real issue. In the north this is not so. For one thing the church has no theologians and no theology.  For another the question of a ‘tertium gens’ does not arise, at least not in Varanasi. I hope and pray that one day it may.  These discussions always seem to me to be a bit unreal.( Hooker Letter 10 March 1973)—p. 314

DB’s Reflection: I don’t know how the (Indian church) is going to take this statement ‘the church has no theologians and no theology’ seriously.  I am interested to know how they reacted or responded to such statement.—db

Hooker:  Second, my own theology is provisional. None of us is omniscient. We are influenced far more than we know by our background and our experience. It is surely blasphemous to suggest that just because, according to my limited understanding, I cannot see God at work, or being responded to, neither is happening. In this respect we often smile in slightly superior fashion at our nineteenth century predecessors. This is all right provided we remember that our twenty-first century successors will similarly smile at us. Yet, while recognising this, I must continue to be loyal to such truth as God in his mercy enables me to see. (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 322

DB’s Reflection: –Yes sir, I am smiling and the future generation will laugh at me—db

Hooker: …I am used to functioning with a theology which looks for similarities, yet what I need is a theology which can embrace differences. Am I right in wanting to find one?  If I am, where do I start looking? (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 323

DB’s Reflection: Not in Scripture, theology and book, but looking at people who profess their faith.  They never live based on any theological understanding about their faith. At least this is true with most of the Hindus.  Even the elitist who can argue with other non-Hindus do so with limited understanding about the people as they argue based on their reading and interpretation of texts and theology.–db

Hooker:               It was noteworthy that while there were a few references to western philosophers – Russell and Whitehead, there was no reference to Christian theology of which I would judge the speakers@ to be wholly ignorant, nor was (p.373) there any suggestion that Christianity might have something to say on these issues. I think the Gospel has been and still is presented in India as a closed system of doctrine, which does not allow for change. (Hooker Letter 4 April 1976. New Philosophies in the Indian Tradition).—pp. 373-74

@Speakers in the four day seminar at the Sanskrit University at Varanasi.

DB’s Reflection: Yes. It was never allowed to Incarnate in the Indian worldview. All the so-called attempts of ‘Indian Christian Theology’ were done based on Western approaches using only Indian philosophical technical terms.  And the few exceptions like Brahmabandab Upadyaya was crucified on the Roman (Catholic) Cross while he was alive and latter resurrected and glorified as the Father of Indian Christian Theology.—db

Warren: Credo ut intelligam⁵² is only a valid position of credo is a translation of pistis⁵³ as a faith that is trusting (pisteuein).  I do not believe the Apostle’s Creed in order that I may understand God. I trust God, and the Apostle’s Creed becomes a more or less adequate way of formulating the nature of the God in whom I trust. (Letter 581 9 January 1977)—p. 388

52 Latin for ‘I believe in order that I may understand’—Notes, 591, p. 388

53 Greek word for ‘faith’ or ‘trust’.—Notes 592p. 388

DB’s Reflection: Yes.  As I say doctrine is nothing but verbal expression of my theological understanding through my reasoning on Scripture.—db

Hooker: …Theology’s real task is to reinterpret the tradition and retell the story in a way (p.390) which meets  the genuine points of the mood’s criticism, but also challenges it….(Hooker Letter 23 January 1977).—pp. 390-91

Warren: Then in an exciting paragraph or two about the Reformation he says:

What saved the Reformation religiously was the rise of Pietism which rescued faith both from the politicians and the theologians. {Forsyth, 1962.}(Letter 585 6 February 1977). –p. 392

DB’s Reflection: The bhaktas always not only save the Reformation but even God from theologians.—db

Warren: …Indeed very few of the classical doctrines of the Trinity convey any meaning today.  They are at best attempts to indicate a mystery. That in the most unique sense Jesus was related to God in Christian belief.  Otherwise he could not be an object of our worship. What we know of God we know through Jesus. That is what the NT insists. But the doctrine of the Trinity is an elaborate effort at metaphysics. It is a courageous attempt to define the indefinable. (Letter 609 1 July 1977).—p. 398

DB’s Reflection: In Indian tradition, when it comes to talk about god, it is told to remain silent.  There is a story in Upanishad.  Here it is:

               These passages (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad.IV.5.15; III.9.26=IV.4.22 and IV.5.15; III.8.8; IV.4.19; Chandogya Upanishad.VII.24.1; Sv.Up.VI.19; Katha Upanishad.IV.10-11) emphasize that it is impossible to describe what brahman is and that we can only say what it is not. Sankaraacaarya on V.S.III.2.17 refers to the dialogue of Baskali and Badhva declared the characteristic of brahman by his silence.  Baskali said, ‘Sir, tell me about brahma’; then Badhva remained silent; when Baskali asked a second and a third time Badhva replied `we have been telling you indeed; but you don’t understand; this self is still (without any activity)’.  J. Royce in `The world and the individual’ vol.I.p.148 is just like this episode of Baaskali and Badhva “Believe not those prattlers’ says one often quoted mystical work `who boast that they know God.’  Who knows Him is silent”…( Kane, vol. V. part. II p.1505)

Importance of Evangelism:

Kings:     Butterfield’s phrase ‘the action of God in history’ {Herbert Butterfield, Christianity and History (London: G. Bell & Sons Ltd, 1949, p. 111} refers to both God’s general providence in the historical process and to his particular engagement in the lives of humans. The former, as well as the latter, involves God’s personal presence, which in its ‘sympathetic attraction’ is essentially ‘educative’ for it ‘draws out’ the potential which is there in the person.—p. 60

…He {Warren} was wary of any position that implied that the Bible was inspired by God without mediation through the minds of the human authors….—p. 61

…Warren’s way of unveiling the presence of the hidden Christ through friendship, listening, profound attention and open questioning implies mediation through the long terms, patient presence of Christians amongst people of other faiths, rather than direct confrontation. So scriptural, theological and missionary ‘indirect’ mediations were all important to Warren. –p. 61

DB’s Reflection: Though I agree with Warren about ‘direct confrontation’ still I am sceptical about a ‘hidden Christ’ in the life of people of other faiths.  No Hindu will see any hidden ‘Rama, Krisha or Siva amongst people of other faiths’.  This is nothing but overzealous evangelical urge to view people of other faiths from the prism of one’s own faith. No amount of ‘patient Christian presence’ will bring radical change in the life amongst people of other faiths, unless there is vocal sharing of the gospel through some means.  If a bhakta is so convinced about the importance of the gospel, why shy away from sharing with others vocally also? We should not merely depend upon any ‘hidden Christ’ or ‘patient Christian presence.’ Of course how to communicate without any aggression is very important, and it is true that all are not called to be evangelists or to preach.  But there is no substitute for evangelism viz., sharing the gospel verbally and through literature.—db

Kings: …In October 1971 he wrote:

All I want to content for is that we never forget our ultimate object of so presenting Jesus Christ that men and women really meet Him and in that meeting accept or reject Him.  How this is to be accomplished in India I have no idea.  Probably friendship is the essential way. But we have to be alert lest we lose the ‘persuasiveness’ of Christ….In a word Evangelism – persuading men to give their verdict to Christ, has no single modus operandi. There are innumerable ways of presenting Christ.  Each has to find his own way. But let us be ‘persuasive’ people, persuasive precisely because we exert no pressure, but are what we are because Christ lives in us. (Letter 305)

               Warren’s emphasis was on a style of evangelism which led to a personal and decisive ‘meeting’ with the living Christ, who was the invisible third party in all evangelism. An existential and crucial encounter with Christ rather a mere ‘hearing about’ him, and rather than just a meeting with the person sharing the good news, was the aim….He expressed a similar thought in December 1974 concerning Christ’s way of persuasion (rather than of pressure), this time concerning his earthly ministry:

His parables and so much of his teaching were designed not to force men’s minds but to open them, so that in freedom they could savour the necessity of choice and do their own choosing. (Letter 465).—p. 95

DB’s Reflection: Yes and tatastu.  This is my view also.  I too believe in not diluting the gospel. Let us present the Lord in such a way that the listeners will either accept or reject  and have a clear understanding of what they are accepting or rejecting.  What to present is clear but how to present is left to us—not confrontation but, as Warren has said rightly,  through ‘persuasion’. However: I think the idea of being persuasive in a dialogue is wrong.  One must be authentic and genuine.  It should not be a debate but a sharing.  The other might find one’s position persuasive and moving, but that is not my motivation or objective. (anonymous)

Kings:     The first of Hooker’s three distinctive insights on evangelism found in his correspondence that need to be highlighted, is his distinction between haste and urgency:

Haste means trying to wrest the initiative from the Holy Spirit and take it into our own hands. The results of this are usually disastrous….Urgency means I am (p.95) sensitive to such opportunities as come my way.  Hooker letter 10 November 1974)

               He was defending himself from the charge that in his patient evangelism through long term friendships the sense of urgency may have been missing.  He maintained that this urgency was there, but more in response to the Holy Spirit’s creative work than in his own initiative and activism.

               Secondly, Hooker made a distinction between witnessing and converting. In an extraordinary to letter to John Ward, (Education Secretary of CMS) in November 1975, copied to Warren, he gave an extended, eloquent ‘apologia’ for his missionary work. Included in that was the following:

I am not in India in order to convert Hindus I am here to witness to Christ – a Christ the full range of whose significance I have barely begun to grasp. It is for Hindus to make their own response to Christ. To attempt to manipulate them into making that response would of course be imperialism, but when a Hindu tells me he wants to be baptised and that he has found in Christ a love which he does not find in Hinduism, (and this is a real example), have I any right to forbid him!—96

DB’s Reflection: Though one has to agree with Hooker with such an approach, particularly by an outsider, still I cannot understand what this ‘witnessing’ is?  This is my limitation; I as an Indian may not understand the full significance of the word “witnesses.” For me mere so called ‘personal witnessing’ is not enough.  If we believe in evangelism then we need to articulate our witnessing when the opportunity comes.  I understand the limitation of an outsider to do it in India at present. But Indian bhakta cannot do the same in the name of silence witnessing, if she believes in evangelism.  Of course how to do it is a different thing but she should be clear in what to do.  Here comes the help from Hooker—keep the urgency but not any haste.—db

Kings:     Warren’s fourth way, ‘the subtlest,’ as illustrated by the example of his son-in-law and daughter, is worthy of extended comment. He thus located his correspondents in his ‘mapping’ of approaches (and also,  interestingly, quietly included himself: ‘…as in a small way I have done myself’).  He neatly summarised his interpretation of their vocation in five parts. Firstly, the paradoxical summary, ‘undemanding friendship’, which in their own lives (in terms of time and of hospitality) was in fact very demanding;⁵⁴ secondly, the creative, visionary praying; thirdly, in that praying, imagining their Hindu and Muslim friends were already in Christ (even though they were  unaware of this ‘theological fact’); fourthly, imagining their Hindu and Muslims friends consciously enjoying the presence of Christ at some, unspecific, stage in the future; and fifthly, the general context of expectancy for ‘something new to happen’ to both the Hindu and Muslim friends and to Hookers themselves.

               Warren was using eschatological language here (‘already’ and ‘not yet’) which usually refers to the inauguration of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ ministry (‘already’) and its future consummation on the ‘Last Day’ (‘not yet’).  He was transferring this corporate and social eschatological language to the personal and individual lives of Hindus and Muslims friends of the Hookers.   Thus he implied as a theological fact (‘in the love of Christ’) that they had already ‘entered the kingdom’ (without knowing it) and would one  day come to recognise that fact. It is unclear whether Warren expected that ‘day’ to be the eschatological day of ‘the final judgement’.—pp. 136

54 The phrase ‘undemanding friendship’ implies that demands for conversion were not made on the friends.—Notes, 102, p. 136

DB’s Reflection:  Very good and clear summary of Warren’s ways in ‘friendship evangelism’.  But all these are how the missionaries and their patrons or prayer supporters interpret the life and ministry of missionaries not only in India, but everywhere in the world.  They need to find some success in their ministry and life in the Lord while working among the people of other faiths.   This is not limited only with Warren or Hooker.  I have seen the same with other (South) Indian missionaries evaluating their ministry and life when they go as missionaries among other parts of India.  There is nothing wrong in such approach as that alone will encourage evangelism in the Mission.  But the reality is completely different.  Most Hindus and Muslims are not even going to remember these missionaries except for those who finally accept the Lordship of Muktinath in their life with personal commitment by becoming his bhakta (or convert to Christianity in majority cases).  There might be some exception if long term friendship is further cultivated by the missionaries even after they leave or retire from their service.  But out of my own personal experience I can say that this has never happened, unless we keep in touch with them throughout our life.  Anyhow such ‘successful stories’ end up in further writings like this.  As I already mentioned, I never heard about Hooker and Warren through their writings and Hooker’s life in India, till I got hold of this book.  This does not diminish their life and service to the Lord.  But behind every successful life of missionaries in the evangelical world there is lots of exaggeration.–db

Kings: …We need to remember that the context of imagining the Hindu and Muslim friends of Hooker as already ‘in Christ’ was one of prayer. It is arguable that it is valid to imagine in prayer something that is not yet the case and, in the creative act of doing so, pray for it to (p.136) become the case.⁵⁵  so the fourth step, of imagining the friends consciously enjoying the presence of Christ at some stage in the future, is uncontroversial.  However, Warren’s suggestion that they are already in Christ,  and the added implication that this is consonant with Pauline usage, are questionable in the light of Paul’s descriptions of the former status of the Gentiles before they were in Christ.⁵⁶—pp. 136-37

55 In some ways this is the underlying method behind the petition in the Lord’s Prayer ‘your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven’.—Notes, 103, p. 137

56 For example in Romans chapter one.—Notes 104, p. 137

DB’s Reflection:  Such explanation is nothing but ironing out the contradiction through our interpretation of the verses of Muktiveda (however they might be favourable for such interpretation).  And Kings’ interpretation of prayer and Warren’s suggestion of Hindus ‘already’ being in Christ is one such attempt—though good one.  But it won’t solve this contradiction easily.  We need to understand Warren’s comments in the context of encouraging Hooker to continue his friendship evangelism rather than trying to explain it theologically based on Muktiveda and comparing it with what Paul has said in his context in Romans.  What Sevanand (Paul) wrote to the non-Jewish bhaktas in the mixed mandali in Rome is different from what Warren wrote to Hooker in Varanasi.—db

Kings:    It would indeed be patronising to Hindus to say that God was involved in the insights of their philosophy merely in order to help Christians,⁵⁷ for he reveals himself for the good of all. However, it would preferable to hold a ‘creative’ view of Hindu philosophy, i.e. that God was revealing part of himself and of his character through it and this should be discerned and developed in Christian theology, rather than merely just a ‘functional’ view, i.e. that Christians should make good use of what happens to be available in Hindu philosophy.

Thus, all three approaches which we have considered so far being at the same point: I am looking at other faiths and other men as a Christian and asking how God is at work among them, and so before I start I have already decided what kind of answers I am looking for….The frame of reference within which I move severely limits the range and depth of my enquiry.  However, the situation is not entirely hopeless, I can (p.139) broaden the frame of reference in three ways, or adopt a fourth approach which steps outside it altogether.

               Having described various problems inherent in each of the three approaches, Hooker then gave a general critique that they were all limited in their Christian perspective or ‘frame of reference’.  He continued by describing possible ways out.

First, I can see God at work in much of Hinduism which is of provisional value. The caste system is incompatible with the Gospel, yet it does give society a certain order; order is preferable to chaos and order is of God….

               With his phrase ‘provisional value’, Hooker seemed to be making a contrast with issues of ‘ultimate value’. This phrase allowed him to recognise God’s involvement in things which ultimately would be against God’s will but provisionally were useful: e.g. caste. This contrast may well be helpful, but the danger is that it may allow people’s consciences to be dulled, less disturbed and provoked by issues which are indeed ‘incompatible with the Gospel’.⁵⁸

Second, my own theology is provisional.  None of us is omniscient. We are influenced far more than we know by our background and our experience….

               He thus applied the concept of provisionality to himself. This implied the freedom from being responsible for having to know everything about everything, which is the prerogative of God alone, and the freedom of recognising that God may well be at work in ways that Hooker could not, and did not have to, discern.

               Third, in actual practice I spend a large part of my time trying to understand Hinduism and Hindus for what they are and in their own terms. When I am doing this the question of what God is doing among them – at least in the terms which I have described – gets in the way, it obscures rather than illuminates the situation….

               Thus when Hooker reflected on his actual friendships he was encouraged to see that he was not after all locked into only one perspective.  Hooker had another, more radical, way forward in his theorising.

Is it possible to step outside this frame of reference altogether?  Implicit in all that I have said so far is the unchallengeable uniqueness of Jesus Christ.  Since this has always been the lynch-pin of my own theology it was somewhat disconcerting to find it rejected – or at least regarded as inadequate – by Ninian Smart … While I find Smart stimulating I do not find him convincing.  Is it in fact possible to start from a position of ‘equality of all religions’?  I think one could argue that commitment for a Christian is a pre-condition of openness and not a barrier to it….

               Here Hooker considered the ‘lynch-pin’ of his own theology, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. The metaphor was well chosen for the lynch-pin is the pin which passes through the end of the axle and which keeps the wheel on: it is of (p.140) essential importance.  Ninian Smart is a leading phenomenologist of religion, and was for many years Professor of Religious Studies at Lancaster University.  Hooker had recently read his book The Yogi and the Devotee: The Interplay between the Upanishads and Catholic Theology.⁵⁹  He questioned the validity of the starting point of the ‘equality of all religions’, which in fact underlies the whole phenomenological approach to the study of religion, and applied it to his own ministry of open friendship.  There he found that his commitment to Christ, rather than so called ‘objective’ detachment, was vital and foundational.

To return to the original argument: is it possible to ask the question of what God is doing among other religions and other men in a way which somehow includes within the question those attitudes and doctrines which, form a Christian stand-point seem to ignore or deny him?  Was he at work in Shankara and if so how?  And so I end with the question to which I referred in my first paragraph.  I am used to functioning with a theology which looks for similarities, yet what I need is a theology which can embrace differences.

               Hooker thus summed up his exploratory essay with three key points: firstly about perspective; secondly about God’s specific involvement in the work of Sankara (traditionally, 788-820), who was the pre-eminent Indian philosopher and proponent of Advaita Vedanta (non-dualist philosophy)….and thirdly about the need for a theology of differences.⁶⁰  This was a courageous, wide-ranging essay….—pp. 139-141

57-67 Some Jews similarly feel patronised by, and object to, the phrase “old Testament’ rather than ‘Hebrew Scriptures’.—Notes, 111, p. 139

58 Hooker, in his writings, never did really engage with the issue of caste and of other themes which have been highlighted by contemporary ‘Dalit’ theology.—Notes, 112, p. 130

59 Ninian Smart, The Yogi and the Devotee: The Interplay between the Upanishads and Catholic Theology (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968). –Notes, 113, p. 141

60 The need for a ‘Theology of Difference’ had been mentioned in Warren’s letters 301 and 317.  Hooker developed it in his letter to Edward Hulmes, copied to Warren, 30 May 1975, p. 209: ‘In terms of the conflict between faith traditions, my hypothesis is that actual religious differences, eschatological or historical, is not a root evil. The material recognition of difference, coupled with the affirmation of diverse religious ends, allows more substantive mutual affirmation among the faiths and a firmer basis for peaceful interaction than other approaches.; (p. 209).—Notes, 114, p. 141

DB’s Response: My honest confession is that I cannot understand this section clearly.  This may be a ‘provisional confusion’ rather than an ‘Ultimate one’ as some other person can help me to understand this in perspective.  I neither believe in ‘equality of all religions’ or ‘objective’ detachment as if I can live in a no man’s land for some time and then return back when it suits me in one territory of the other (my own or others).  I also cannot understand the ‘theology of difference’.  It is good if we keep only ‘for peaceful interaction’.  But evangelism in whichever form never presupposes any ‘peaceful interaction’.  If it is so then it won’t be evangelism.  It challenges the faith of another person to reconsider it and come and accept the Lordship of Muktinath.  That is why I cannot accept the concept of ‘Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance’.  One can acknowledge the goodness of Muktinath or any other person from a distance and appreciate his or her contribution to  humanity. But the Lordship of Muktinath, as per my understanding of Muktiveda is an outright demand of loyalty to his authority and Lordship over a bhakta.  This is the case with every faith and every god(s) demands of the same.  That is why I would prefer to use the term ‘Uniqueness of every faith’.  Each faith is ‘unique’ in its own way.  When we recognize the uniqueness of another faith, then we can have peaceful interaction only when we attempt to understand it from ‘provisional theology’ or ‘ultimate theology’.  But the moment we believe in evangelism then confrontation is unavoidable—though this confrontation could be spiritual and subtle rather than physical and verbal.  At least in theory our Hindu Worldview gives space for each faith to hold its ‘ultimate theology’ not compromising with its core doctrine.  At the same time it never denies the reality of ‘confrontation’ when one involves in ‘mission’ to bring the people of other sampradaya to one’s own. (See above in Dialogue notes no. 25) This is not limited to only those so called Sanskritized sects like Srivaishnava and Saiva, but even in common religion one can see this ‘mission’ to promote one’s own chosen deity, or a particular temple, or sannyasi, guru etc.  One can hear even lay people telling someone who faces some problem in life, ‘take the vow and come and visit this temple (or guru etc.) once and then see what happens’.  The recent best example is Sri Sabarimala Aiyaappa.  Till the recent past its influence was limited only to Tamilnadu and Kerala. But now you can see millions of devotees from other regions (and religions) not only from South India but other parts of India also go there to visit the deity.  This being the reality, we need not give reference about the way Ramanuja ‘converted’ the people of other sampradaya to his Sri Vaishnavism and we have plenty of records about Sri Adi Sankara’s ‘digvijaya’ to all parts of India where he engaged in debate with people other faiths and won them for his siddhanta.  Sri Velukkudi Krishnana a staunch Sri Vaishnava preacher in one of his talks on Television on April 8, 2007 said: Ramanuja is the only acharya to be followed, and Narayana as the only god to be worshipped after giving a ‘Ten Oaths to Sri Vaishnavites’ he add the eleventh by saying: ‘I will share these oaths with at least ten persons.’ {see. SAMVAD &nbsp ::   Dialogue of Life at 6/29/2008}.  Such conversion from one sect to another is well documented in writings:

…the maharaja of Jaipur at the time, Rama Singh II (1835-1880).  After converting to Shaivism, the maharaja tried to pressurize Pradyumna Deo’s ancestor into wearing the Shaiva marks (tripundra) on his body and consequently confiscated Govindadevaji’s temple from him until he agreed to comply {Catherine Clementin-Ojha, Catherine. Le trident sur le palais: Une cabal antivishnouite dans un royaume hindou a l’epoque colonial. Paris: Presses de ‘lEcole Francaise d’Extreme-Orient, 1999}—( Ojha, 2016,p. 264.)

Of course the same Hinduism also blames fundamentalism when this ‘ultimate theology’  paves the way for fanaticism, claiming that ‘only my way is the high way’.   Though we Indians believe and promote ‘live and let live’ in theory, yet we uphold our own theology or ideology as unique thus make space for ‘confrontation’ on every level—in society (caste) and politics and religion – at the cost of the other.  Otherwise we too would have to live in a society where State sponsored fundamentalism would impose uniform ideology for all—as we witness in China.—db

Kings: …the word evangelical was used more narrowly  in India than in Britain…Warren insisted that the word ‘evangelical’ did not need qualifying adjectives (such as conservative or liberal)….

…Hooker’s letters from this period are no longer extant, but from these replies from Warren it may be inferred that Hooker had, perhaps, been a ‘literalist’ in his approach to the Bible as a young student⁶¹ but had developed in a more liberal direction since then. At the time of the correspondence he was wary of using the word Evangelical of himself, probably due to the fundamentalist associations that word had in India. This hint is backed up by Warren’s letter 395, in which he commented on a letter which the Evangelical Fellowship of India had sent to Hooker and wrote that he would find it difficult identifying with their methods of evangelism.—p.  154

61 Warren’s Letter 85 hints at the content of Hooker’s missing letter and goes on to say that he did not think he (Warren) was ever a ‘very  “rigid” literal & verbal inspirationalist’.  See Section 4.3.1. for the context of his comment about himself as a young student: ‘[a] brash, over-confident and intolerant conservative Evangelical’.  Max Warren, ‘What is Fundamentalism?’, New Fire, 4 (1977) pp. 456-59.  In that article he stressed that behind such militancy was not a rigid belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but a deep personal commitment to Jesus Christ and a dedication to evangelism, which was based on a very simple understanding of scripture.—Notes, 23. p. 154

DB’s Response: I too have my reservation about such ‘hit and run’ evangelism by anyone as I call it ‘kabadi kabadi evangelism’.—Indian or non-Indians.–db

Warren:               I’m sure that one important way of coping with the paradox [of being western missionaries living in India] besides the practice of the presence of God is reading ‘widely’  outside your subject – that is keeping in regular contact with the (p.175) world outside India.  That is not evading identification. It is, I believe, the very practice in our human situation of the incarnate life of Jesus. He lived and taught and worked in Galilee but He was often ‘all night in prayer’ – that is to say he was ‘out of Galilee’ even when in it. One’s wide reading plus prayer is our human approximation to the life of Jesus at this point. I know this is just as true for me here, and all Christians everywhere, as it will be for you and Pat.(Letter 1, 9 Feb. 1965.)—pp. 175-76

DB’s Response: I cannot understand why all our ordinary activities need to be compared with the life of the Lord and Muktiveda.  Socialising is the ordinary need of every human being, except those who voluntarily choose a life of recluse.  But I understand this tension in the life of missionaries (Indian or Western).  Particularly those now living and working in India, any acquaintance with any Indian is considered as ‘keen contact’ and prayer request is sent for them.  In the past success in ministry was calculated according to the number of ‘converts’ but now according to the number of ‘contacts’ who they managed to make.–db

Warren: I agree with you about the real danger of the ‘compound mentality’, & the way Indians sense a remoteness & aloofness about the Missionary. Partly, of course, this is the inescapable fact that the missionary has ‘another’ world than India to which he also belongs….(p.196) …You have to be ‘of the Church’ but ‘the church is the only society which exists for those who are not its members’ (William Temple { Nature, Man and God, London: Macmillan, 1934}) you must only be ‘of the Church as it is related to the world’….(Letter 37 29 November 1965)—p. 196-197

DB’s Response: This is not limited to non-Indian missionaries, but even the Indian missionaries as they rarely interact with the regular world as they live always in their ‘other’ world.—db

Warren: …It is a deep conviction of mine that I can never approach another person for Christ without being sure that Christ had already met the other person. My going to meet him is itself prompted by Christ. So in the encounter I meet Christ & the other man. (Letter 169 7 July 1968).—p. 218

DB’s Response: Such assumption and motivation is mark of evangelism.—db

Warren: I was interested to note the ‘come back’ to your talk of the presence of Christ in other Faiths – ‘Why bother to preach  the Gospel?’  I am sure we have got to find a clear & convincing answer to this….

…anyone who has found the Christ of the New Testament must want the ‘unknown Christ’ to be fully encountered. This for me is (p.224) the all sufficient ground of Mission. The ‘presence’ of Christ in other religions is a challenge to Christians to take part in the unveiling, which is mission. (Letter 181 16 September 1968)—pp. 224-225

DB’s Response: Warren who believes in Universalism also believes in mission.  But I think we should understand Universalism as his thinking and mission as his passion.–db

Warren:               So I see it. What still remains, & is perhaps the ultimately irresolvable problem, is that there is no escape for the Christian Missionary in claiming an ‘Ultimate’, a ‘uniqueness’, in Jesus Christ which must deny the ‘Ultimate’ to any other. The agony is to know how to so present Christ as not to give any hint at all of being the possessor of some kind of spiritual superiority. And the clue, as I see it, is that the real challenge is to the Christian community, the Christian group, the Christian family, to be so demonstrably a community, group, family, of LOVE that others will want to belong with us & will so come to confess Jesus as Saviour & Lord….(Letter 16 September 1968)—p. 225

DB’s Response: too idealistic.  If this is the criteria no one can come to the Lord.  God may use an individual Christians or groups to demonstrate this LOVE, but when they move closely they will demonstrate that they are in no way different from any other people.  ‘Show me that you are saved and I will believe in your Saviour’ is the constant challenge to the Christians as a group and individual.  For me our LOVE plus grace of God is not the gospel, but only the grace of God in spite of our weakness.—db

Hooker: …It seems to me as it obviously does to you that the church has traditionally thought almost exclusively in terms of redemption, i.e. of what a man in Christ must become, and of what a man ‘outside Christ’ is not.  I had never previously thought of this approach in the historical context of assumed western superiority. You seem to be stressing instead what man already is in Christ by creation.  Ultimately I am sure that the doctrines of redemption and creation cannot be separated, but clearly if we take creation seriously and take it first, as you insist that we must, then our understanding of redemption is going to profoundly modified….(Hooker Letter to Warren 23 November 1968)—p. 226

DB’s Response: Though I completely agree with this from an evangelical and Muktivedic perspective, when a Hindu reads statements such as ‘man “outside Christ”’ and ‘man already in Christ by creation’ it will irritate her.  She will think, why are Christians always thinking about others only from their religious perspective of ‘redemption’ and ‘conversion’?  She never views people of other faiths like this.  In evangelism what one thinks alone is not important but what others who listen such evangelism think about such thought by the evangelicals and how they might respond also is important.—db

–When we share the good news we think people are ‘outside Christ’ but still ‘men already in Christ by creation’.  We have every right to hold such view.  But how a Hindu will take it?  This assumes that the One Supreme God in Hindu pantheism and polytheism is none other than Christ will irritate a typical Hindu.  I think as already you raised the point I repeat the same doubt here on which I cannot think or share properly, particularly Muktinath’s role in Trinity keeping various functions of the Trinity.  Generally I heard that in Trinity Trinitarian Father was the creator, Son was the redeemer and Holy Spirit is the sanctifier.  You can help me to understand this more clearly. Thanks.–db

Warren: …God by his spirit has been at work challenging men in other Faiths.  BUT to say this in no way diminishes the uniqueness of his challenge in Jesus Christ, nor does it deny that he is the Saviour of all men. It is the relation of (I) God’s redemptive purpose for all man (II) God’s revelation in Christ (III) God’s concern for all men through his Logos (IV) God’s using of the Old & New Israel, which in the question we have to solve.  How do we relate these 4?  I think most of us are going [to have] to have a viable theology of Evangelism other than ‘I’m right, you’re wrong.  Repent and think like me’!! That is traditional. But is it true? (Letter 195 8 December 1968)—p. 227

DB’s Response: Very genuine question. But I cannot understand whether Warren ask this question (‘”Repent and think like me”! That is traditional. But is it true?’) To other evangelicals who think like this or to the people of other faiths. If Warren says that the traditional slogan of ‘repent and think like me’ is wrong, then he is correct and such approach won’t succeed.  And Jones points out such tradition:

…In the Western Christian (p.206) tradition, the overarching problem that religion and theology address is human guilt that arises from a life characterized by culpable sin. If human beings are not convinced of their sin and thereby not possessed by feelings of guilt, it is the aim of the religion to arouse within people a sense of their sin and thus create in them a sense of guilt….Without a sense of guilt arising from sin, the whole structure of Western Christian theology is rendered irrelevant. (Jones, 2017, Jones, pp. 206-07)

Warren: …And there have been men & women of real holiness of life in Islam. We have to recognise this & thank God for it. If we attribute it to the ‘unknown Christ of Islam’ we make an act of faith….—p. 236 (Letter 215 4 May 1960).—p. 236

Db’s Response:-As I repeatedly say, viewing the bhakti and faith of the people of other faiths only from one’s own religious perspective is the limitation of the evangelicals.  People of other faiths never do this.—db.

Hooker: …The universalist, it seems to me, says this: ‘In the end God’s love must triumph over all sin and evil or he will not be God, therefore in the end all men will be saved’.  Yet there is surely another statement that one must make with equal force.  ‘The only response which Holy love wants from man is one freely and willing given, only if I am free to reject God can I also be free to accept him. Only if this is true can man be truly man’. I feel one has got to hold on to both of these…. (Hooker to Warren 9 October 1971)—p. 277

…Margaret Burness indicated in her letter that dialogue and evangelism could and were both happening at the same time in Nigeria, but this is not so here.  My own feeling is that we must go in for dialogue for a long time before we can find the language in which to preach the Gospel to Hindus and Muslims. It thus seems to me to be a necessary preliminary, rather than a complement, to evangelism. Yet the conversations do and will provide opportunities of witness which one must take.(Hooker to Warren9 October 1971)—p. 278

DB’s Response: There is some truth in it, yet the ‘long time’ could be subjected to the measure of one’s ability and interest to learn that language of communication.  But, though it is necessary and important, yet one cannot eternally wait to master it.  God works in spite of our limitation.  Gospel works in spite of the situation of the people.  It is like saying ‘first reform and then preach’.  But the kind of reform or regeneration will begin once we started to share the gospel with our own limitation.  But that limitation should not be an excuse to continue to carry that limitation.  Learning from any kind of limitation (language, culture, religion, tradition etc.) one should make progress in the art of communication and be ready to address the questions and issues that will come from such sharing.  For example one cannot wait to end slavery, poverty, suppression etc., among them before sharing the gospel.  But in spite of human condition and situation gospel must be allowed to incarnate in that situation.  Mere so called ‘silence’ witnessing in any conversation is against evangelism in its spirit and aim.—db  [I am not sure whether I understood Hooker properly about his statement in page 278—db]

Warren: …Here I am not suggesting that all Hindu philosophy is a ‘veiling’. I expect some of it is as perverse in leading to nihilism as is much western philosophy. In deed with you I would expect that ‘Bhakti’ Hinduism and even the sheer animistic superstition of the unlettered conceal more of the real Christ than the elegant sophistication of learned minds. It has always taken ‘the childlike in heart’ to know God in a vital way. (Letter 305 17 October 1971)—p. 279

DB’s Response: Though there is some truth in this about any kind of philosophy (Indian or Western), this cynicism about philosophy begins when it tries to ‘un-veil’ the so called ‘Unknown Christ’ in Hinduism.  When we began to search or ‘un-veil’ any concept which is not even there in another philosophy or religious tradition, then such perversion leading to nihilism is inevitable.  Of course ‘child like heart’ is vital to know God.  But for some even a sophisticated philosophy also could help like the case of Nehemiah Ghore. {if possible give the reference about Ghore—db}

Warren: …In all my scribbling, even those published in India, have been primarily addressed to our Western confusion.  Here dialogue, i.e. listening and understanding, is mutual exercise which may, in given circumstances permit of witness but not proclamation, at least not until a tremendously deep level of dialogue has been reached. But here in the west Evangelism is only marginally concerned with open air preaching and distributing tracts – the two traditional methods in India. (Letter 305 17 October 1971)—p. 279

DB’s Response: see my above response to Hooker’s letter dt. 9 October 1971, p. 278.  Thankfully now open air preaching and distributing the tracts do not work in India.  Environmentalists will oppose such waste of paper in tract distribution and noise pollution in open air preaching.—db

               To return to the subject of understanding Hinduism. Yes, in one very important sense you could only absorb ‘Hinduism’ by living in the heart of the City {Varanasi}. But in another sense this isn’t so much true as irrelevant. The goal is not to become a Hindu, but to understand this or that Hindu or Muslim to the point where you can, to quote Ian Ramsey{Religious Language, London: SCM Press, 1967} , use the ‘model’, ‘qualifier’ or ‘story’ which may allow the Light to Dawn – may help the Unknown Christ to be recognized. What the ‘once recognized Christ’ may do with that individual is Christ’s business and not ours.  Here surely is the fundamental newness of the Christian approach today, an approach which matches the task of our day, without demanding of us that we criticize or condemn the approach of others in their day. (Letter 373 12 November 1972).—p. 304

DB’s Reflection: Another typical missionary approach.  Of course Warren is correct that those who take new approaches in evangelism always criticize the previous failures and consider the present one is relevant to the present time.–db

Warren: This went the deepest of all, as it was bound to do.

P. 1 par 3 ‘…only if I am different, only if I am holy, can I exercise a Christian presence which is healing and redemptive.’

Here you have given real theological depth to the criticism of ‘identification’ which treats this as ‘identity’. So much talk of ‘identification’ makes no reference to holiness at all.

               Oh!  What a vast subject you have raised here!  It could be a major contribution to current Missiology.—(Letter 389 2 March 1973).—p. 313

DB’s Reflection–‘The Christian presence which is healing and redemptive’ is only an ideal missiology not a ground reality, at least in India.–db

…You have set yourself to understand Hindus and Muslims though the medium of the best in their tradition, hoping that in and through such understanding you may bring some of them to understand Jesus and want to become his disciples.  I doubt very much if the brothers of the E F I {Evangelical Fellowship of India} are in the least bit interested in understanding Hinduism and Islam. What further worries me about their efforts is that they stir up a few people and then disappear.  They aren’t rooted in the local situation and don’t pretend to know it….(Letter 395 17  April 1973).—p. 317

DB’s Reflection: Stirring up few people and then disappearing often happens in every kind of evangelism both by outsiders and natives.  Such ‘hit and run’ evangelism continues in different forms in India.—db

Hooker:               Within the context of personal friendship I think it is possible to build up an area of mutual trust in which one can say things which would be impossible in the superficial atmosphere of a conference, indeed I am coming to feel that conferences are a menace in this field. It is possible to have genuine friendship and a meeting of hearts even when at the intellectual level we cannot (yet) meet. I feel that it is at this informal personal level that real progress can be made.

               I think that criticism faces another difficulty because we Christians have so much to live down. As you will know, Christian attitudes have long been and all too often still are governed by ignorance, arrogance and fear.  Hindus have a deep, and to some extent legitimate, sense of wounded pride because of this.  Any criticism made outside the context of personal friendship is assumed to spring from the same old prejudice and misunderstanding. I find the only way I can criticise is by first accepting criticism myself – at the moral rather than the intellectual level.  For instance Christians have often in the past applied the prophetic critique of idolatry direct to Hindus, and of course this implicitly puts Christians in the right. Yet when I am prepared to admit my own idolatries – my worship of something less than God – I can ask the Hindu to face his own. I am putting myself in the wrong by his side, rather than putting myself in the right over against him. This too helps to take the debate away from a barren dispute over doctrines. (Hooker Letter to Edward Hulmes, copied to Warren, 30 May 1975).—p. 354

Db’s Reflection: I even question such ‘genuine friendship’?  Every friendship in evangelism is only agenda and not genuine friendship.  Of course there are few exceptions but otherwise, what the evangelicals call ‘as true friends’ are none but mere contacts.  Some, particularly non-Indians even went to the extent of calling their ‘contacts’ as part of their family.  But they don’t understand; what does it mean to be part of their family?  When they pack and walk, they have to desert these ‘Indian family members’ back here.  Mere slogans and emotional expression won’t reflect the ground reality.–db

Warren: Propositional – Here is the root of the issue. We want people, all people to meet Jesus. And if possible we want people to meet him as a Person in his own right and not in terms of some Theological definition. It may be as Isa in the Qur’an: it may be as the Master of the art of telling stories: it may be as a paradigm of self-sacrificing love (as Tolstoy and Gandhi saw him); it may be, most miraculous of all, if he is seen in us and we are asked to introduce him.

               Surely we are not primarily concerned with any propositions, but with the Person of Jesus.  Experience will demand verbalisation, but all verbalisations are of strictly limited value. If you can’t, how on earth can you expect to verbalise what the eternal Christ means to you?  The fetishes of propositional religion have been the bane of mankind directly they are treated as adequate descriptions of reality

               So, as I see it, this attitude towards propositions needs to be attacked root and branch.  Agreed? (Letter 581 9 January 1977)—p. 388

–Yes. Tatastu.—db

Muktiveda as the Foundation

               Kings: J. R. H. O’Regan, Master of the History Sixth at Marlborough College, was Irish. Warren commented:

…For Pat O’Regan the past was the clue to the present, with signals pointing to the future. A medievalist himself, he insisted on us understanding the forces making the world into which we ourselves were to play our part.

               Warren picked up from O’Regan this ‘sheer enthusiasm’ for history, which involved imaginatively taking himself back into particular periods of the past.  This ‘movement backwards into history’ brought it to life and, having been ‘there’ and relived particular moments, it allowed those moments to be recognized as part of the wider context of his own personal  history. This movement thus provided the impetus for historical interpretation. The above quotation also shows how this led on to a sense of ‘historical interpenetration’.  He was encouraged by his schoolmaster, in a typical mentality engendered by Independent Schools in Britain at that time, that he himself had a part to play in making the ‘history’ of the future. The study of history provided the understanding for proper participation in ‘making history’….—p. 55

DB’s Reflection: This analysis by Kings helps me not only to understand Warrens’ interest in history but also playing our part making future history.  This is also true in my life.  Walking back in history is important to understand our present so that we can make not only our own future but do our part in making future history—however insignificant our part might be and may not be recognized by others.  Particularly in my understanding about the Lord, his life and mission, I walk back in history depending upon both Muktiveda and the church history⁶² to understand my bhakti in him.  Though several things remain unclear and unacceptable to me, yet it provides a strong foundation for me to construct the super structure according to my need and context.  Though I have the freedom with the super structure, yet I should be careful to construct on the foundation of Muktiveda.  This is my conviction that without Muktiveda one cannot understand anything about the Lord, though one cannot limit him within the frame of Muktiveda alone. At least one should begin from there.  Otherwise all our understanding about the Lord will become another mythology.—db

62 For me without considering Church history, only depending upon Muktiveda alone won’t help a Hindu bhakta to understand the various doctrines in proper context.  About this Sudhakar says:

               The convert is confronted with the problems of this situation. He is likely to reject outright the entire body of accumulated wisdom, gathered around Christianity historically in the West due to his rejection of Western culture, and interpret Christian faith not on its own terms but in terms of another faith and thereby syncretise Christianity by seeing it as a variant of some other approach to God. Or he will complement the wisdom of Christianity through his own insights into the body of the Christian truth by his contribution of understanding gained through his cultural heritage. —Sudhakar, op. Cit. pp. 274-75

Hooker: …For our students here the bible is still a set of divinely inspired propositions which are sufficiently obvious to be applied to life straight off usually in a moral sense. The work of God is in words and not in events interpreted by words. (Hooker to Warren 1 February 1969).—p. 230

DB’s Reflection: This is true not only to the bible college students but most of the (Indian) evangelicals also hold similar view.  They conveniently forget that history is nothing but an event record through words by people who interpreted that event in that given time. An Interpreted event is history not merely an incident that happened in the past.  That is why I always believe that the so called ‘biblical’ is nothing but our own re-interpretation of the interpreted events recorded by the disciples of the Lord according to their perspective.—db

Warren: …I take the line that there are no facts which exist outside of a particular context and that with rare exceptions a fact is never just a fact (historically speaking) but always fact plus interpretation…. (Letter 284 24 June 1971)—p. 268

–Yes.–db

Hooker: ….Indeed I think that to regard Christ as the one who transforms the O.T. is a much more fruitful line of thought than mere fulfilment. (Hooker Letter 8 February 1976).—p. 371

DB’s Reflection: I too have my own doubt about this term ‘fulfilment’ by the Lord of all that was written in the O.T.  According to my understanding fulfilling means ‘carrying forward’ ‘came to complete’ etc. in the sense which some evangelicals claim that Muktinath came to fulfil not only all that was recorded about him in the O.T. but also in Hinduism. 

Warren: …J I Packer’s Knowing God {Knowing God, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973}  which I found quite horrifying…I do so profoundly distrust a certain type of theological schematization into which schema everything has to be found. You can really only do this if you are a literalist of the most rigid fundamentalist type, and this Packer is.  And yet he has moments of tremendous insight, and he has things to say which one easily overlooks. It is quite an experience to read a book which really does, as far as I can see, accept the verbal inspiration of the whole Bible, virtually saying like the Muslim about the Qur’an, that it came down from heaven and was in no way mediated through a human mind. I’ve not met anything quite like this before, from the pen of an immensely able man….(Letter 533 28 February 1976).—p. 372

DB’s Reflection: Here comes the help from a scholar like Warren. All these years I thought that it was a great book and I read it.  But to understand it critically we need the help of such scholars like Warren.–db

Religions

Hooker: …Is it in fact possible to start from a position of ‘equality of all religions’?  I think one could argue that commitment for a Christian is a precondition of openness and not a barrier to it…Yet this is a very tentative judgement. (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 323

DB’s Reflection: I would prefer for ‘uniqueness of all religions’ as all religion cannot be equal as the followers of every religion has her own commitment for her faith.—db

Warren: …To talk about the ‘equality of all religions’ is quite frankly a construct without meaning. To whom are they all equal? (Letter 425 25 October 1973)—p. 331

DB’s Reflection:–Yes.  That is why I prefer ‘uniqueness of every religions’.—db

Cross or Evil

Warren: …I see the cross as God aggressively assaulting evil & smashing it. And the anthropomorphisms of the OT is really a crude attempt to see history, all history, as God’s assault on evil. (Letter 326 19 February 1972).—p. 287

DB’s Reflection: is this the only way to see the Cross?  Traditionally even people of other faiths, like Hindus see the cross as a symbol of love and sacrifice rather than an attack on evil by God.  Gandhiji’s favourite Christian song was ‘When I survey the wondrous cross (something like this).  Though evil is a reality, like Indian Christians who are obsessed too much with the devil, I think Christians in other countries are obsessed too much with evil alone –db

Failure of Jesus

Warren: Address III p. 2 par 4. The failure of Jesus. This is a tremendous thought to bring to the Cross.

               If we really take the Incarnation seriously then surely we must see that while Jesus was ready for failure he didn’t invite it.  It gave him no joy to be rejected by his own people. He appealed to them most dramatically in the ‘symbols’ of his life and action and speech. He wasn’t play-acting his way to crucifixion.

               I’m all the way with you in what you are saying. But I’ve not before seen it put so clearly, which is why I want to do a lot of thinking of ‘Jesus and his failure’. We with hindsight claim the victory was on the Cross. But we sometimes do it, at least I do, far too  easily.   A defeated Jesus has something very great to say to me, a so often defeated man! (Letter 389 2 March 1973).—pp. 313

DB’s Reflection: –I don’t understand this point very clearly.  However the phrase ‘defeated Jesus’ as a defeated man looks very interesting to me.–db

Just acts of God:

Kings:     Warren insisted here that God can, and does, act, in the actions of human beings: not in all actions (which would also be to equate them all), but in those which are just. An example of his was the British movement for the abolition of the slave trade, which had been led by the evangelical, William Wilberforce and others.  They agitated, researched and argued against the laws of the State, which allowed the slave trade and in the end they succeeded. Warren was insisting that God was involved in this movement, which itself was justified.—p. 64

DB’s Reflection:–What about other such ‘just’ acts done in other countries initiated not by evangelicals but people of other faiths?  I think Warren would agree that they too are the acts of God as he never accepted any split between sacred and secular history as given below p. 64.  According to Lutheran theology:

In the Lutheran analysis of God at work in both the Kingdom of the Right (church, Body of Christ) and the Kingdom of the Left (other religions, government, culture, etc.), we would understand that the allegiance to and involvement with Christ is only among those who know and follow Him (Kingdom of the Right).  In the Kingdom of the Left, God is at work for good with all people.  Of course, Christians are participants in both Kingdoms. (Anonymous)

Liberal

Kings:    In terms of particular traditions within the Church of England, he gloried in the word ‘evangelical’ and in his published work refused to qualify it, as conservative or liberal.⁶³  Yet in his correspondence with Hooker he is unashamed of being more liberal than conservative.  (Letters 21, 75 and 173) His daily devotion to a regular early quiet time of Bible study and prayer, was the foundation of all his work, yet he was also keen to use the constructive results of biblical criticism.—p. 45

63 See the excellent article by Yates, Timothy ‘evangelicalism without Hyphens: Max Warren, the Tradition and Theology of Mission’, Anvil, (1985), pp. 231-45’. See also Max Warren, The Sevenfold Secret (London: SPCK, 1962), p. 1 ‘I am an Evangelical.  I have never felt under any constraint to apologize for that designation, one of great and lofty lineage, not least within our Anglican Communion. I like the word in it simple form, unhyphenated with others whose more usual association, in Britain at any rate, is with the platforms of political parties.’(i.e. Conservative or Liberal).—Notes, 102, p. 45

DB’s Reflection: –I find no contradiction here in Warren.  One can hold a particular image in public, but when she wrestles with several issues in life she might find it difficult to remain confined within some definition based on such technical terms like ‘liberal’ ‘evangelical’ etc.  Fortunately a Hindu bhakta of the Lord need not struggle with such identity as Hinduism accepts plurality in life.  And though we have the term ‘orthodox’ in our religious traditions, hardly one can say that a Hindu is a liberal.  She will be both orthodox and liberal at the same time.  It depends upon with whom she interacts. Personally I feel that it is better to be a liberal and bhakta of the Lord than mere fanatic in the name of orthodoxy.–db

Hooker: …I think if Michael Green for instance could admit that we do not yet see all there is to be seen in Christ and that the meeting with other faiths is going to help us to see it, and if he would further agree that we must ask what God is doing ‘outside the covenant’ I could be ready to die in the ditch next to his if not quite in the same one. (Hooker Letter 6 March 1976) {After Hick’s Visit Realising His ‘Conservativism’.)—p. 372 {John Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths (London: Macmillan, 1973). See Hooker Letter 25 January 1976. Hooker’s Report on John Hick’s Visit to them, p. 369}

DB’s Reflection: –It is very difficult not only to live with fundamentalists but also die with them—in the same ditch.  I agree with Hooker.–db

Redemptive acts of God:

Kings:    From what we have already seen, it is not surprising that Warren wrote a perceptive comment underneath this passage {in Kar Lowith Meaning in History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949}:

…Our bodies, our material environments, are temples of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling spirit who fills all things also fills all history. This is a truth which is easily lost sight of if too great a distinction is made between sacred and secular in history as in life.

…The Spirit ‘fills all history’ by being ‘active within all of it’. This is not in the sense that ‘everything that happens is the will of God’ (for that would soon drift into determinism) but in the sense of ‘being creative in the good and redemptive in the wrong.’—p. 65

DB’s Reflection: –I cannot still understand this ‘being creative in the good and redemptive in the wrong’.  If I understand Warren’s view on history correctly, he endorses only what he sees as ‘good’ and ‘wrong’ in other history from his Christian perspective.  For example most of the Indians see ‘love marriage’ particularly outside caste as ‘wrong’ whereas Westerners might see ‘arranged marriage’ as wrong.  Caste is another example.  While we Indians understand that there is evil in the Caste system, it also provides some social harmony and we have yet to find an alternative system for it in India.

Some evangelicals say that they need to ‘redeem’ certain aspects and concepts with which they agree in Hinduism for the Lord.  I always question such slogan of ‘redeeming’ that which they find acceptable and rejecting the rest.  Even those aspects and concepts (including events) cannot be selectively separated from the overall socio-religious contexts.  Once the gospel incarnates in a particular culture and tradition, the transformation will come within those contexts; there is no need for any selective redemption by the outsiders.

There is a pond in Varanasi in which childless couples will take a dip with a belief that after that ritual they will get a child.  After the bath the woman has to leave the sari which she wore when she took the dip.  I know one ‘missionary’ couple in Varanasi.  They took a dip after few years of their marriage.  They told me that they have done that ritual in order ‘to redeem’ both the pond and the ritual for the Lord!  Of course they got two lovely children one after the other.  But till this day I cannot understand what actually they have redeemed.  In my worship I use Indian symbols.  But I never think that I am redeeming them for the Lord.  I am just using what already belongs to me. Do I need to redeem them exclusively for the Lord or for my bhakti?  Is this the sense in which the word ‘redemption’ is used in Muktiveda, particularly in the Uttaraveda (NT)?—db

See my article Faith and Festival in the blog under Dialogue with Christians more on redeem.

Spirituality and Social responsibility:

Kings: …Warren’s own copy of Manning’s The Making of Modern English Religion (1929)….The only passage marked is in the last chapter headed ‘The Historical Approach to Ecclesiastical Problems’. The following passage was marked with a line in the (p.57) margin and also square bracketed in the text for emphasis. It underlined, and undergirded, Warren’s own historiographical tendencies very well:

….The seed is the Word of God, but the field is the world. To know the world, to measure and use its forces, is not to dishonor the seed, but to care for it. High-minded ignorance about soils and a fine contempt for the fowls of the air may pass for evidence of a spiritual mind, but result in poor husbandry. {Bernard Lord Manning, The Making of Modern English Religion (London: SCM Press, 1929), p. 136}—pp. 57-58

DB’s Reflection: I like the sentence ‘ignorance about soils and a fine contempt for the fowls of the air may pass for evidence of a spiritual mind’.  Because spirituality is not to remain away from the world but involved in it.  As Manning rightly pointed out, the result will be ‘poor husbandry’.  We cannot measure our spirituality by ignoring the world but only by involving in it.  Rather that is the furnace to test about the purity of our spirituality.  As Kings further says, ‘This stress on the secular setting for religious history may be seen throughout Warren’s writings, especially in his book Social History and Christian Mission.  {London: SCM Press, 1967}–db

World view

Kings: …Hooker read Thomas’ book The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance⁶⁴ in 1971 (Hooker Letter 14 August 1971). His evaluation of the ‘danger’ and ‘advantage’ of this position was perceptive.

Second, I may adopt a more narrow, ethical approach (which though different from is not necessarily contradictory to the first).  Here I start by claiming that Christ is God’s ideal pattern for humanity, therefore wherever I find Christ-like qualities there God is at work, even though the Christ of orthodox Christianity may be unknown, misunderstood or rejected.  For example, many people who know Gandhi-ji recognised Christ-like qualities in him.  ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ (p.138)

               I must confess that I find this approach easier to work out in theory than to apply in practice. I see in my Hindu friends much that I find attractive and admirable, but this often co-exists with much that I cannot admire….

…Hooker implied that the identifying of such people who are well known, but not personally known, may be easier than applying the theory to friends whom he knew well.—pp. 138-39

64 The tile of Thoma’s classic book The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance (Madras: Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society Bangalore/Christian Literature Society , Chennai, India, 1970), may suggest that it could have been written as a ‘secular’ response to Panikkar’s The Unknown Christ of Hinduism.—p. 138

DB’s Reflection: I confess that I cannot understand this stament by Hooker that, ‘I see in my Hindu friends much that I find attractive and admirable, but this often co-exists with much that I cannot admire….’  Because this analysis can be applicable to anyone. Even to the so called born again Christian.  It is well said that ‘beauty is in the beholder’s view’. If his evaluation about his Hindu friends is from his Christian point of view he has to live with that tension.  The same is the case with ‘Christ-like qualities’ that one wishes to see selectively in the life of others who are not Christians.  The character of people is relative and it is subject to change according to the worldview of people.  What one society accepts as good character another society won’t accept.  Once we began to see the world only from the prism of our particular faith then such contradictions are inevitable.  All that we know about ‘Christ-like qualities’ are those that are recorded in Muktiveda.  But people living in another tradition which has different qualifies to measure should not be compared like this. For example, in India, dharma is more important than ethics.  A good person is one who upholds his/her dharma in life.  At the same time this dharma is not static but relative.  Till the end of life there will be ‘much in others’ life which we cannot admire’. This is true even with a born again Christian.–db

Imperialism

Kings: …On 29 November 1975, Hooker wrote a significant letter to John Ward of CMS setting out his vision for his work in North India: ‘Hinduism is changing and it is part of my duty to help it to change in a Christian direction.’….—p. 49

DB’s Reflection: This again shows the subtle British Imperialism (which he too agrees—see p. 96 and 320 about it).  They always came to India with a ‘white man’s burden’⁶⁵ which indeed became a burden not only to them but also for us.  Hinduism will always change. As a Civilization ‘change and continuity’ is the DNA of Hinduism.  And all those who thought that they can use it for their agenda miserably failed.  One can understand this from the Mission history of the past few centuries.  Of course we Indians can never deny their influence on us since the reformation began from Raja Ram Mohan Roy. (The last word on the ‘Raj’ will not be written for centuries.  But it played a part in Indian development.⁶⁶ (Letter 561 9 September 1976, p. 380) But to think that one can use this ‘change’ to direct it towards a Christian direction never worked in the past and won’t work in future too.  First of all Christians don’t have any clarity about which direction they have to go (in all over the world). If they bring ten ‘converts’ to the church through the front door twenty are leaving through the back door. 

Indian civilization has the capacity to observe any such approach by outsiders and make it part of our own Civilization.  Indian Civilization has the capacity to accommodate all kinds of faith expressions without expecting them to compromise with their core values.   Fundamental in core, flexibility in peripheral and charity in all is our Worldview.

Not understanding their limitation when they carry any White man’s burden it not only looks funny but also hurt Hindus.  Because Hooker thought that in a dialogue there is no possibility of meeting of heart ‘when at the intellectual level we cannot (yet) meet’ (Hooker Letter to Edward Hulmes, copied to Warren, 30 May 1975, p. 353).  This was rightly corrected by Warren who wrote back: (Letter 493, 9 June 1975) ‘Is there not a danger that the word intellectual can too early be given a derogatory meaning in the sense that the other man is not my intellectual equal…’ (P, 355).⁶⁷

When any non-Indian (even a non-Hindu) taking a ‘high intellectual ground’ thinks that they have some ‘duty’ to help Hinduism change in a Christian direction it only demonstrates their ‘hit and run’ evangelism.  While the Indian evangelicals involve in a ‘kabadi kabadi’ evangelism the White Missionaries coming to India involve in a ‘hit and run’ evangelism. No outsider can influence the insiders unless they give up their identity and mingle with the locals (or natives).  Due to various reasons this is not possible for anyone who involve in the so called ‘cross cultural evangelism’. So they should never have such ‘higher moral or spiritual burden’ to change others towards their ideology. 

The reason for me to say is this: with few exceptions, most of the Western Missionaries after spending few years of their ministry return back to the country, though they try to keep in touch with India.  Hooker returned back to England after 13 years (1965-1978) of his ministry in India.  So let them not think that there are not enough Hindu intellectuals to change Hinduism according to the need and demands of the time. Hindus are not looking to such outsiders to guide them in which direction they should take.

But in order to show some charity to Hooker’s comment we need to read the entire context of this statement which Kings quotes (on page 49).   Here is the full context of Hooker’s ‘duty to help Hinduism to change in a Christian direction’.  Hooker wrote this to John Ward in his letter 29 November 1975 after attending two lectures by a local Hindu scholar at Varanasi who stressed three particular points”

1. We now look at everything from a historical view-point. (p.366)⁶⁸
2. We stress the primacy of this world. Public benefactors nowadays build schools and hospitals instead of temples.
3. We look for social salvation e.g. the removal of malaria, rather than the traditional salvation of release from this world.(pp. 366-37)

This local Hindu scholar of Varanasi said this back in 1975.  But now it is 2018.  And no doubt that now history is also taken seriously, at least on scholarly level; but in which direction is a big subject for me to handle here (as I am not competent in it).  Definitely more schools and hospitals were built but both of them ended up in commercialization. Now both become a menace for the common people. Without insurance one cannot step into any private hospital. Government’s insurance is manipulated as usual both by the public and authorities.  Anything and everything from government is treated only this way in India.  Not only have more new temples been constructed but more and more money is spent in renovating old temples.  Temple income has increased more than before.  Now some of the famous temples like Balaji at Tirupathi are richer than the government and Ambani. (See dainikbhaskar.com for this report, 17-08-2015).  Now top Hindu leaders like Ram Baba also request people not to put their offering in the temple but to spend it for public welfare.  Such tall claims by Hindus, (the Varanasi scholar) particularly by the arm chair scholars are not new to us. Such rhetorical speeches were given on an elitist level rather than reflecting the reality on ground level.

If a missionary like Hooker thinks that it is his ‘duty’ to help to change Hinduism ‘in a Christian direction’ then the response also would be on the same elitist level without understanding the Hindu or Indian reality of ‘change and continuity’. 

Regarding Hooker’s white man’s burden of helping ‘Hinduism to change in a Christian direction’, I never heard about him, in spite of my interest to read several ‘Christian Literature’ in the early walk in my bhakti in the Lord.  He visited Delhi Brotherhood House several times to give lectures and conduct retreats for them.  But none of the members of that house ever mentioned about him in my stay in the house more than six months in 1990 or in my talk with them about my interest in ‘Contextualization’ in those days.  Even Fr. James Stuart of the Brotherhood House never mentioned about Hooker or Warren to me as he knew well that I was staying in the House to read more books on Hinduism and contextualization.  He knew them well.  Fr. Stuart wrote to Warren as mentioned by Warren in his letter 25 October 1973 (letter 425, p. 330).  Though I never interacted much with other members, I had the privilege to sit and talk so many times with Fr. Stuart who clarified several of my doubts and also told about Swami Abhishikananda.  He even gave the personal copy of Swamiji’s Upanishad to me.  But he never mentioned about Hooker to me. The reason for me to give all this autobiographical information is to show how unpopular they remain in the main line evangelicals of that time in spite of his ‘duty’ to help change ‘Hinduism in a Christian direction’.  Of course they were well known among the Anglicans but how far the Indian Missions were well aware of them is my question. I never heard about them.  Even Rev. Titus who was also interested in reading a lot on ‘Contextualization’ never mentioned about them to me during my stay in Sattal Ashram (1989-90) where he also was living at that time.

It is interesting to note that though most of the missionaries remained humble in their approach and understanding of Hindus and Hinduism, still cannot escape from their colonial mental makeup, even after the British left India.  After the East India Company’s charter was renewed in 1813 by the British parliament, ⁶⁹ the British official and missionaries got this burden and duty to help Hinduism to change towards Christianity.  Though we hear about the ‘Anglicist vs. Orientalist controversy for two decades from 1813 when the colonial government assumed responsibility for education in India’ (Annamalai 134) and finally Anglicist won in giving English education, still all their agenda was this white man’s burden to help change ‘Hinduism in a Christian direction’.  This is well stated by Annamalasi:

It was seen as logical, not ironical, that the Enlightenment ideology which sought to replace faith by reason to guide human action in Europe was to prepare the ground for Christian faith in India.  The agenda of modernization of the Indian society with Enlightenment ideology was inseparable to the colonial rulers from their perceived obligation to “civilize” Indian society with Christian knowledge. Separating these two, however, was part of negotiating the European encounter by the subjects in India. (E. Anamalai, Social Dimensions of  Modern Tamil, Chennai, Published by Cred-A, 2011, p.131)

At the same time, as Annamalai rightly observed, ‘Colonial education also had a political objectives besides the enlightening and evangelizing objectives mentioned above. The political objective as based on the belief of submissive  acceptance of the Enlightenment ideology on faith by the natives, but the process actually turned out to be one of negotiation by the Indians, which also led to the emergence of nationalism’….—(ibid.) p. 131

I wonder how Warren as a historian failed to understand this and Hooker who came to India failed to remember when he made such comments ?⁷⁰ I still remember the  evangelical slogan of early 1980s: Within ten years India will become predominantly a Christian country.  And the strategy for this was: if one Christian manages to make one convert and that convert in turn makes another non-Christian as a Christian, within a decade India will be reached for Christ!!!  Now almost four decades have gone and I need not tell the condition of Christianity in India.   Of course such haste was even declared by their predecessors as Muller only needed a blink of an eye and not even a decade:

               Muller takes upon himself the role of reforming and refining Hindus who are seen as still indulging in what Muller regards as idolatrous practices. In a letter to Bunsen, Muller speaks of his desire to go to India, to overturn Hindu priestcraft and to make room for the spread of Christian teaching (Muller, Max F. The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Muller edited by his wife.  Vol. I. London: Longman, Green and Co. 1902: 182) – a clear indication of the reforming role that he attributes to Christianity. His hermeneutical intentions become demonstrably clear in his letter to Henry Acland, where he expresses his wish to see India and Hinduism Christianized.  “If we get such men again in India as Rammohun Roy, or Keshub Chunder Sen,” Muller remarks, “India will be Christianized in all that is essential in the twinkling of an eye” (ibid. 378)….— Sharada Sugirtha Rajah, Imagining Hinduism: A Postcolonial Perspective. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Privated Limited,  Reprint, Special Indian Edition, (2003) Reprint 2017

Not understanding the dynamic nature of Hinduism, any attempt by any non-Hindus will fail to change the nature of Hinduism.

65 Modern nations have not necessarily employed ancient religious terminology and imagery to express their feelings of historic mission and destiny, but how different are the Greek attitude towards the barbaroi and Roman concept of Pax Romana from the British imperialism of Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), when he wrote:

Take up the White Man’s burden

Send forth the best ye breed –

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives; need;

To wait in heavy harness

On fluttered folk and wild –

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half-devil and half-child.(italics original)—(Sharma, 2017, Sharm quoting Jospe , p. 85)

66 Democracy, Judiciary and even English are the British contribution to India.  About this Sharma says: ‘…India’s political system of governance, one of parliamentary democracy, although happily adjusted to the Indian environment, is Western in origin and orientation.  The same is true of tis legal system (p.262)…India has thus become part and parcel of the extended Western civilization as a result of the British success in India’ (Sharma, 2017, pp. 262 and 263). But never in a Christian direction.

67 The other point which occurs is your use of the phrase ‘intelelctual level’….I know you don’t mean that and the next page of the letter amply meets this by your emphasis on a common sinfulness. Yet, nevertheless I’m inclined to think you’d be on stronger ground if you paraphrased the word intellectual with its subtle overtones, by some such phrase as ‘our minds seem to work differently and mind so often can’t meet mind’.  That is what you mean by not having ‘a set of common assumptions at the intellectual level’. But a paraphrase avoids even a hit that the other fello’s intellect, as such, is defective.—p. 355 [Hooker wrting back to Warren (Letter 6 July 1975) accepted this comments—p. 356).

68 see Arvind Sharma: Hinduism and its Sense of History and Decolonizing Indian Studies , USA, Oxford University Press, 2003. I haven’t read this book so far)

69 The missionary and anti-missionary parties in relation to the British involvement in India came to a head in the British Parliament in 1813, when the Company’s charter came up for renewal.  Charles Grant (1746-1823), the former Governor-General of Fort William in Bengal, had urged the missionary position on the Company already in 1793. As Nicholas Dirks narrates:

…Bengal had seriously deteriorated under British rule, but the causes for this were not, Grant suggested, merely political and economic.   Rather, even as the Company would take on a moral character by accepting its Christian obligations and duties, the people of India would find genuine improvement only through Christianization.( p.23)

               While the British were a trading company in India and restricted themselves to commercial interests, the divergent orientations of the Christian and secular wings were quite marked. What Percival Spear wrote, ‘The British came to trade and went into politics to preserve their trade. They eschewed religion.’^69a his statement held true, in an innocent way, only until 1813. Until then, ‘the policy of the East India Company was not to interfere in the religious beliefs of its subjects’.^69b  However, the Charter Act of 1813 not only explicitly asserted the sovereignty of the Crown over the dominions of the Company in India^69c but also:

secured the admission of Christian missionaries, a church establishment of a bishop and three archdeacons, and a resolution ‘that it is the duty of this country to promote the interest and happiness of the native inhabitants of the British dominions in India and that such measures ought to be adopted as may tend to the introduction amongst them of useful  knowledge and religious and moral improvement’.(p.25)^69d

69a  Percival Spear, ed., The Oxford History of India by the Late Vincent A. Smith, C.I.E, 4^th ed. (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004 [1958]), notes 13,  pp. 332-33.

69b  R. C. Majumdar, K.K. Datta, and V.N. Datta, ‘English Education,’ in R.C. Majumdar, ed., British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Part Ii (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1965), notes 14p. 43.

69c Spear, ed., op. cit, notes 15p. 530 note 1.

69d  Ibid., notes 16pp. 525-26

70  For more interesting information regarding the postcolonial critique of the study of Hinduism, and for an informed and critical understanding of how both Europeans and Hindus engaged with Hinduism see  Rajah, 2017; Sharma 2017 in which  he ‘examines Said’s fundamental thesis—that power invariably drives the production of cultural knowledge—in the context of India under British rule.  Prof. Sharma argues that India’s cultural subjection occurred when its traditional cast of ideas was taken over by a new one that represented a new culture and possessed it like a ghost. The Ruler’s Gaze is an attempt to exorcize the ghost so that the spirit of India’s culture can speak for itself.’ (From inside cover)

God and history:

Kings:     Warren also marked the following passage by Oman concerning God’s revelation in history:

To revelation, in one sense, there can be no limitation, for, if God deals with all men everywhere as children, everywhere and to all He is revealing himself; and especially all history, as the record of experience, is revelation, being a temple of God’s purpose, not a mere museum of antiquities. {Oman, 1917, p. 147} (Italics original)

               Warren would have appreciated at least five aspects of this short quotation. Omnan’s use of the present tense ‘…He is revealing himself’ (revelation is not limited to the past); the universal scope of revelation ‘…everywhere and to all’ (it is not limited to one group of people); the concept of God’s revelation being mediated through history, ‘history, as the record of experience, is revelation’ (it is not limited to the scriptures); this mediation is through universal history ‘…all history….’ (it is not limited to ‘religious history’) and finally that history is purposive ‘…being a temple of God’s purpose….’ (it is not limited to disclosing God’s character but includes the ultimate shape of his desires).  These five aspects may be found in many of Warren’s letters (e.g. letter 597)

               Oman summed up his belief about grace and personality in a memorable passage marked by Warren:

…grace is never a mere direct line of power, passing through us with impersonal directness, as light through window-glass, but is a curve of patient, personal wisdom, encircling and embracing us and all our concerns.  With this curve a true theology is wholly occupied. {Oman, p. 188} (italics original)—p. 62

DB’s Reflection: –Though history is taken seriously in India now, it is more to prove the past glory (of the golden age) and also to address the western criticism of lack of it in the Indian mindset.  However the line that divides history from myth is very thin and in several places does not even exists.  For example not only common people believe in the historicity of epics characters and narratives, but even the government is also spending large sums of money to prove the historic evidence of those epic narratives. For example, I heard that the government of Haryana is spending money to prove the War of Mahabharata at Kurukshetra.  ‘…In a changed political and religious climate we find some Hindus claiming historicity for particular incarnations such as Rama, and decrying myth, thus replicating earlier Western approaches to myth and history’ says  Rajah. (2017, p. 102).  And this is proved  in a Seminar by the Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas by none other than our late President Dr. Abdhul Kalam, who was also a Rocket Scientist. In his address he said:

               Dr. Vartak has taken hundreds of illustrated passages from the epic to establish dates. Valmiki records the birth of Rama as Chaitra Shuddha Navami (9^th), on Punarvasu Nakshatra and five planets were exalted then; Sun in Mesha up to 10 deg., Mars in Capricorn at 28 deg., Jupiter in Cancer at 5 deg., Venus in Pisces at 27 deg. And Saturn in Libra at 20 deg. (Bala Kanda. 18/Shloka 8,9). Dr. Vartak determines December 4, 7323 B.C. as the date of birth of Rama, when the four planets were in exalted position. As per above calculation based on four planets, Ramayana occurred over 9,300 years ago.(Kalam, 2012, 2012, p. 3)

In the preface to this book Prof. Saroj Bala says that:

 This methodology of multi disciplinary scientific research was applied in some greater detail by the Director of I-SERV E Delhi Chapter for dating the era of Lord Ram. The results were outstanding, rather amazing!  A summary of the conclusions arrived at reflecting credible and convincing correlation of archaeological, genealogical, anthropological, paleobotanical, geological, ecological, oceanographic and remote sensing evidences with the astronomical dating of important events in Lord Ram’s life is included in the form of an article in this compilation.(Saroj Bala. 2012, p. Xiii.)

But what is still confusing to me as a lay person is about the two different dates given in the same volume as given below:

The highlight of the program was the release of Seminar Memento, a Wall Clock depicting the sky view on 10^th January, 5114 BC at 12.25 PM, the date of birth of Lord Ram, which also happened to be the Shukla Paksha Navami of Chaitra month. This sky view matched exactly the planetary configurations given in Valmiki Ramayan (1/18/8,9)…..[Italics original]—(ibid. Background, Theme and Summary of the Seminar Proceedings. Pp. 9-26, p. 12)

One need not know any ‘Rocket Science’ to understand the mythological nature of Ramayana and Mahabharata, though there might be some historical points in them. But when even a famous Indian Rocket Scientist, and that too the (former) President of India and also a Muslim (however liberal he was), claims the historicity of Rama, what can a lay person like me can say further? However our National Tamil Poet Subramanya Bharatiyar outright says that Ramayana and Mahabharata are nothing but mythology which were written only to impart moral teaching to the people in his song.⁷¹  In that song Bharatiyar, after narrating a few mythological stories, finally says that they are nothing but mere imaginary stories created to impart moral teachings.  However Romila Thapar’s view on history is important for us to note here: ‘…Romila Thapar draws attention to the fact that there is more than one single category of time (both in the East and West), and therefore “categorizing societies as using either cyclic or linear time is an inadequate explanation for the centrality or otherwise of history” (1996: 44). The Hindu theory of four ygas or ages offers more than a simplistic notion of progress.  Thapar explains it thus’:

Time, as conceived in cosmology or eschatology, does not exclude the use of other categories of time and these can be simultaneous in the same society. It seems more appropriate to enquire into how a society uses a particular category and what is being intended by that use … The inclusion of cyclic time is not a characteristic of cultures which are historically stunted but an indication of historical complexity. This complexity is (p.103) reflected in the perceptions of the past in premodern times, the premises of which were different from the writing of history today. (1996: 44; emphasis by the author)—( Rajah , op. cit. pp. 103-04)

And:

All history, as I. Provan, V. P. Long, and T. Longman III argued so well, is based on testimony handed down by tradition. Without testimony and tradition no history is possible.{Iain Provan. V. Philip Long, Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History (Louisville: Westminister/John Knox, 2003) — Bruce K. Waltke and James M. Houston, with Erika Moore, The Psalms As Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010, p. 84

71

உண்மையின் பேர்தெய்வம் என்போம்

அன்றி ஓதிடும் தெய்வங்கள் பொய்யெனக் கண்டோம்

உண்மைகள் வேதங்கள் என்போம்

பிறிது உள்ள மறைகள் கதையெனக் கண்டோம்.

கடலினைத் தாவும் குரங்கும்

வெங் கனலிற் பிறந்ததோர் செவ்விதழ்ப் பெண்ணும்,

வடமலை தாழ்ந்தத னாலே

தெற்கில் வந்து சமன்செயும் குட்டை முனியும்,

நதியி னுள்ளேமுழு கிப்போய்

அந்த நாகர் உலகிலோர் பாம்பின் மகளை

விதியுற வேமணம் செய்த

திறல் வீமனும் கற்பனை என்பது கண்டோம்.

ஒன்றுமற் றொன்றைப் பழிக்கும்

ஒன்றில் உண்மையென் றோதிமற் றொன்று பொய்யென்னும்

நன்று புராணங்கள் செய்தார்

அதில் நல்ல கவிதை பலப்பல தந்தார்.

கவிதை மிகநல்ல தேனும்

அக் கதைகள் பொய்யென்று தெளிவுறக் கண்டோம்;

புவிதனில் வாழ்நெறி காட்டி

நன்மை போதிக்கும் கட்டுக் கதைகள் அவைதாம்.

உயிர் பெற்ற தமிழர் பாட்டு, ஆதாரம்: சக்தி வெளியீடு — பக்கம் 575-578. (accessed from Internet, on 5-11-2018)

Kings: …Warren could not abide any split between sacred and secular history, nor between politics and religion. His books, The Missionary Movement from Britain in Modern History { London: SCM Press, 1965 } and Social History and Christian Mission,{ London: SCM Press, 1967} made this point firmly:

…if, as a Christian, [the interpreter of missionary history] takes seriously the doctrine of the Incarnation and its implications for the understanding of history, he must take all history seriously. {Warren, 1967, p. 11}—p. 64

DB’s Reflection: The divide between secular and sacred is definitely artificial.  And Leslie Newbigin points out, ‘one can almost say that the central strand of the Old Testament story is the struggle of the prophet to speak the word of the living God in relation to the secular events of his time, and against the religion of his time’.(Newbigin, 1966, p. 95.)

Warren: …Every nation has a ‘providential history’. I’m sure this is a conviction which marches with (a) a belief in God as the Lord of history and (b) God as not having left himself without a witness anywhere or at any stage of time.(Letter 229 23 July 1969).—p. 243

DB’s Reflection:  History is not viewed like this by Hindus.  ‘Providential history’ is only a Christian history and not everybody’s history. This places too much emphasis on historicity and wrongly argues that there won’t be any tension once one has faith in the Lord and has accepted all that is documented about him in Muktiveda as historical evidence.  For me, though historicity has a pivotal role, pinning the faith only on it alone will deprive the mysticism of our bhakti in the Lord, which transcends rationality. Our bhakti helps us to anchor our faith in the Lord, yet the tension that is created by the various complexities of the recorded text and the theology and doctrine that developed on, together with the historical facts related to the church, is a real one, and one which a bhakta has to learn to live with till the end of her life—provided if she keeps her bhakti alive and is not satisfied with spoon feeding by others.

Jews and the Lord

Kings:    ‘Salvation history’ was stressed by Barth in his emphasis on the supra-historical-character of the biblical narrative. Here Warren reacts not just to Barth{ 1933) (see above [p.64] but also to Cullman ( 1946) and Lowith, (1949) against any narrowing down, or limiting, of God’s action to the religious sphere.—p. 65

               Warren reacted to Lowith’s discussion of the history of Israel with a key theological question: ‘This leaves unsolved the question of what God was doing in Asia and Africa and America. It is very serious to assume that only Israel has a history with meaning.’….{Lowith, 1949. P. 195. Warren notes} ….—p. 66

–Yes. Tatastu.  The Jewishness of the Lord is a real challenge for me.  Neither I cannot deny it nor can I digest it.  However this question of ‘history with meaning’ is important to consider who glorify the history of Israel alone. According to my understanding God’s involvement in humanity shows the limitation with which God has to work while dealing with human beings.  We become his limitation though God is not limited by anything. This has been proven by the universal nature of the gospel which transcends all human geographical boundaries. While Jewish history created a territorial god, the gospel removed that captivity of God.  At the same time, the territorial nature of gods or deities is quite common in Hindu tradition also. While the cosmic and eternal nature of Brahman or God is insisted both in philosophy and bhakti tradition, the so called popular Hinduism also created territorial deities which have jurisdiction and power within the limit of that territory.  That is why the concept of ‘kuladevata’ (family deity) is so powerful that even in the elitist Hindu homes on important family events they have to go to their particularly ‘kulave temple’ to worship it.  In few homes, they won’t even keep the photo of that deity in the family shrine but only visit to that temple—at least once in a year.  Because some of such deities are very ferocious and need to be worshipped only with animal sacrifice, they cannot be worshipped at home.  Even some Brahmins and Vellala families have such deities and they will use the service of the priest to offer such animal sacrifice.  Similarly the village deities (grama devatai) and guardian deities (yellai daivangal) at the edge of a village have only limited power within that area.

Warren: I remember years ago Norman Goodall⁷² telling me that he had been in Israel and had a long talk with  Buber( 1967) who had told him that he was a believer in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Norman asked him why he did not become a Christian explicitly. And he gave two answers:

• Seeing how my people have been treated (Auschwits, Belsen etc) I cannot publicly desert them now.
• I cannot see what the Christian Church as an Institution has to do with Jesus Christ. (Letter 292 5 August 1971).—p. 270

72 The General Secretary of the London Mission Society and secretary of the joint committee of the International Missionary Council and World Council of Churches set up to bring about integration.—notes, 296, p. 270

               Warren:  Now I know that Israel was chosen for one particular purpose – to be the channel for Man’s discovery that God is HOLY LOVE & that that discovery prepared the way for the Incarnation….(p.274) Israel is a Pattern not an Exception in the Purposes of God….(Letter 301 25 September 1971).—p. 274 (italics original)

DB’s Reflection: Though Israel as the chosen people is completely Muktivedic, yet this is a big challenge for me to comprehend, though I cannot set aside easily.  This is one thorn with which I have to live with. But Warren’s words that Israel is only a pattern⁷³ not an exception is the only consolation in it.—db

73           There is also an opposite view to retain the indigenous culture while accepting the Christian faith. In this, the Gospel is seen as distinct and separate from the Judaistic, Greek and Roman culture in which it flourished in the Mediterranean world. (Sudhakar, p. 274)

Reductionism

Kings: Universality of Jesus Christ: Jesus’ uniqueness is universal because God is not limited to particular areas of the world. Thus Jesus’ universality is rooted and grounded in his uniquely divine relationship  with his Father, who, according to the scriptures, is the God of the whole earth. This uniqueness, then, is extraordinarily good news for all the peoples of the world and it is right that all should have the chance to receive this good news. The missionary enterprise, therefore, matches up to the measures of universality in the Hebrew Scriptures (of God’s just and saving rule). {Hooker’s view}

               We move on now to consider how  in some uses of the concept of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ the objectivity of the word can be reduced to, or demoted to, subjectivity i.e. ‘unique’ becomes ‘unique for me’ (‘unique for Christians’). This thus allows some theologians to hold that other people around the world, and in former ages, justifiably have their own saviours who are unique for them.  Neither Warren nor Hooker believed in such reductionism….—p. 158

DB’s Reflection: Reductionism is the reality in every faith.  At the same time every faith claims universality as Krishna says: Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I make the faith of that devotee in that form steady. (Ramsukhadas, Gita, Vol. 1. 629 7:21) which is endorsed by Srimad Bhagavatam saying:

Just as the water which falls from the sky goes to the sea,

so the salutations offered to the various gods reach Kesava (Krishna) alone. (Fallon, 1997. P. 118)

The same claim is also made by Shivapurana: …it is enough if Siva alone is worshipped.  The root is the most important.  When the root is watered, O gods, the branches are well-cared for. (83)  O excellent sages, if the branches are taken care of, it does not necessarily meant that the root is cared for.  When the deities are propitiated, the same analogy holds good. (84) (p.230)…. O gods, if Siva is worshipped, all the gods are worshipped. (85)…. (Shastri, 2002, op. Cit. pp. 230-31)

Tamil Shaiva Siddantha says: Whichever deity you think, Shiva alone appears taking that very form (quoted from memory = யாதொரு தெய்வம் கொண்டீர் அத்தெய்வமாகி மாதொரு பாகனே வருவார்)

Work of the Holy Spirit

Kings:    Raven’s (1927)} influence (as well as Temple’s, ⁷⁴) may well lie behind Warren’s constant insistence on the work of the  Holy Spirit in the entire historical p
Mukti

Kings:    He showed that the good news is part of the whole story of human redemption: ‘God did not start loving the world at the Incarnation of our Lord’ and more controversially ‘There is deep and profound sense in which we can claim that because what happened at Calvary happened once and for all, all men have been redeemed. The difference between men is that some know it and some do not know it.’⁷⁶

               This sentence shows that Warren believed that not only all people would be saved (ultimately) but that all people were already saved (presently). The difference at the moment was one of cognisance: some knew, while others did not yet know. The phrase ‘once for all’⁷⁷ usually refers to ‘at one time in the past and for all time’ whereas Warren here used the phrase ‘once and for all’ and seemed to refer it to ‘at one time in the past (Calvary) and for all people’….—p. 126

76 Max Warren, ‘Ecumenical Horizons: The Full Report of the Conference on Ecumenical Principles and the Christian Encounter with Other Faiths, held in Israel, 6-7 March, 1967’. (Roger Hooker Archives, Max Alexander Cunningham Warren/1/1, Ecumenical Horizons, 6-7 Mar. 1967 and also Church Mission Society/Unpublished Papers/Warren Travel Diary Israel 1967).14—Notes, 53, p. 126

77 From the Greek word ‘hapax’ in Hebrews 7.27 and 10.12—Notes, 54p. 126

DB’s Reflection: Though Kings has criticised the ‘implications of this belief’ in sixth chapter section 6.2.2 in this book, I need not say further here.  However to the question about the salvation of other people my layman’s response is: leave it to God. This might look superficial and evasive not taking a firm stand based on the teaching of Muktiveda.  But my response is: I never understood about this even in Muktiveda properly.  As I often say, ‘for me mukti is the present reality in this very life and I need not worry about it life after death.  As I often say, for some reason even before I become the bhakta of the Lord, I never bothered about both ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’.  As Swami Vivekananda said it is nothing but a child’s play. As I was much influenced by Vivekananda in my College days, I too never took them very seriously.  And the mukti that I found in the Lord begins here on this life and if at all there is a life after death, then it would be nothing but an amplified version of what I am experiencing here.  I know this contradicts what Sevanand says in Corinthians (I Cor. 15: 19).  But such contradictions never affect my personal life in the Lord.  As I say all the doctrinal understanding about Muktivedic teaching is to understand the Life and mission of the Lord. If there is an Eternal life with the Lord that is fine; if not, I am not going to miss it, as already I enjoy here on earth with him.

My search for a guru to guide me in my moral crises ended in Muktinath.  For my question ‘why I cannot live a perfect life even for a single day’, I found a convincing answer in Muktiveda.  Initially God helped Tamil missionaries to encounter Muktinath. Though I was much impressed by their life, which addressed the immediate human need, I was not impressed by their approach to share the gospel.  There I thought if at all there is a God then he should be like the one whom these Christians are worshipping and if at all there is a life to live in serving others, this is the kind of life I should choose.  As I already shared my attempts to join Ramakrishna Mission failed, exactly that was the time when I met these missionaries in a remote hill village.  Then I began to read the Uttaraveda (N.T.).  Though I attended Sunday School and Church service with my Christian friends in my school days, his negative approach by calling my Hindu deities as devil and Jesus Christ as the only true God gave a negative impression in my mind from school days.  I used to collect important sayings and quotations from any book which I read.  In that I found that I also took several verses from Uttaraveda in my schools days.  But when I began to read the Muktiveda given by those missionaries, when I was reading Romans 7:15 along with the commentary by Rev. John Stott (Men made new I think), I got that the convincing answer to my question on moral responsibility.  It was not my past karma, Time (Kali yuga) or even gods but I alone responsible for my failures. 

Then my understanding about the atonement and eternal life are later understanding about the teaching of Muktiveda.  But my moral dilemma was related to my life on this earth in which I failed even to live up to my own creed.  When I got the answer, then I began to learn more about the metaphysical nature of that mukti. But that is not the driving force for me to follow the Lord.  It is the human touch, down to earth reality in dealing with the relationship between people that much attracted me to the personality of Muktinath. Particularly I was very much impressed with his verdict to the woman caught in adultery.  So as his life and teaching addressed my moral crises as related to my life on this earth, then I also believed his promise about eternal life in Him.  I will narrate this with an illustration.  Once the doctor properly diagnosed my disease, which others failed, then I trusted his treatment also.  As my Hindu tradition failed (according to my understanding of course) to address my moral crises (by blaming Karma, time and even gods and not me), as Muktinath and Muktiveda diagnosed it properly then I trusted all other teachings of it.  Even if they are not true, I won’t mind and my bhakti in the Lord will continue.  So the urgency for me to share the good news with others is to point to the same doctor who can help them to properly diagnose their crises in life—it could be anything.  This does not mean that they should only come to my doctor to get a diagnosis for their disease.  If they couldn’t find one so far, then I will request them to consider him to diagnose them.  But this he need not do only to address their metaphysical needs but very well related to this earthly reality—physical, moral, social etc.  God meets each one according to her need and level and then helps her to rise above to other levels.

But I have one question to Warren. If he believes in Universal Salvation, then why does he insist upon evangelism and mission.  May be he is like our Indian Sankaracharyas who keep ‘paramarthika’ (transcendental) for them and ‘vyavakariha’ (practical) for common people.  So personally he believes in Universalism whereas he encourages mission as well.

Kings: It may be worth developing and redirecting these terms by coining new ones to illuminate the contested concept of Jesus Christ as savior. Is he a ‘heno-saviour among many other saviours’.  ‘Mono-saviour’ would refer to ‘our particular savior among many other saviours’.  ‘Mono-saviour’ would refer to the only existing Saviour.—p.158

…The implication of Panikkar’s and Ariarajah’s⁷⁸ writing is that precisely the opposite should be the case concerning the uniqueness of Jesus Christ i.e. that (to use the above suggested terms) Jesus as the ‘mono-saviour’ should develop into Jesus as a ‘heno-saviour’.  It may be suggested that, for the reasons set out above, this would be retrograde development. It would not appear to be consonant with the scriptures and would deny the universality of the good news of god’s just and saving rule.—p. 159

78  S. Weslye Ariarajah, Hindus and Christians: a Century of Protestant Ecumenical Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991; The Bible and People of Other Faiths (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1985.—Notes, 31, p. 159    

Kings: … The foundational importance of belief in creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) could be argued to show that, if (in the light of the gift of freedom) many will  be redeemed rather than all, then those not redeemed will be condemned backwards into the nothingness out of which creation originally came.

…On the last day, when all are raised either to eternal life or eternal death, the condemnation by God of people who tragically, willfully and knowingly reject the Holy Spirit’s drawing towards God’s offer of the gift of eternal life in Christ, may take place once and for all time. Such people may return to the nothingness out of which creation first took place. As in the beginning, with nothingness and suddenness, so it may be in the end.—p. 160

               In Paul’s letters three emphases may be traced concerning the one gift of God’s salvation.  Salvation is shown to be by Christ, by the cross and by faith. For Paul, there seems to be no other way. Yet in the scriptures there are many examples of Gentiles who are outside the covenant people of God but who clearly did ‘know’ God (e.g. Melchizedek, Jethro, Baalam, rahab, Job, Corneluis)⁷⁹  It is important to ask how these two aspects of the subject can be integrated.

               One way forward may be to note that within the covenant people of God, Abraham was justified by faith before Christ died and without even knowing about him. Paul insists that Abraham’s faith in God illustrates, and is equated with, our faith in God and in his Christ (Romans 4).  Since Abraham is saved by God, then according to Paul’s three emphases, this must have been accomplished ‘by Christ’, ‘by the cross’ and ‘by faith’.  Here, then, may be an example of someone who is declared by God to be saved and who did not know of Christ, nor the message of the cross, nor had ‘specific faith’ in Christ (though he did have faith in God). By extension, we may suggest that there are many people of other faiths in the world today, and in past ages, who may be in the position of the patriarchs and died before hearing about the good  news of Christ, and whose faith in ‘God’ may be equivalent to our faith in God and in his Christ.

               As a stone dropped into a pond causes ripples in all directions, so the cross of Christ, at the epicenter of history, may have effects backwards to the patriarchs as well as forwards to us and outwards to people of  other faiths who have not yet fully heard of Christ, but are open to God as they know him.

               Jesus’ parables of the kingdom brought an eschatological crisis into the lives of his hearers and people divided in their response to him. For some the parables brought to the surface of their lives something deep within, which was either turned towards God or against him. When people of other faiths ‘hear’ the good news of Christ in an authentic (rather than in a caricatured) way, they may also experience their own eschatological crisis. Again, what is deep within may be brought to the surface (over a period of time) and people may divide in their response. If they die before experiencing this good news (as most people in the history of the world have done), then they may still be saved by God.  Salvation by faith (not by religious observances), by Christ (even if unknown) and by the cross (which challenges all claims on God) seem to be Three themes in one’ that bring the promise of God’s hope.—p.161

79 In Acts 10:34 Peter declared: ‘Truly, I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does wht is right is acceptable to him’.—Notes, 46, p. 161

DB’s Reflection: Though I understand the theological view of these people (Warren, Hooker, Kings), as they belong to a particular church denomination and tradition, I feel relief in my spirit that as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord not bound by any one particular church tradition and any doctrine affiliated with it, I can say that ‘hidden things belongs to God’ (Deu. 29.29?).  Here hidden means those doctrines which is not clear to me or not acceptable to me.  The simple answer to the salvation of other people for me is: I don’t know. All other explanations are nothing but mere rationalization of our own doubt in clever words.  All the reference about the salvation of people of other faiths in Muktiveda are, according to my understanding is context specific and I cannot bring any clear systematic presentation about it.–db 

Kings: At the beginning of the twenty-first century the real focus of debate on this issue of eternal salvation and people of other faith seems to be between those who follow the line developed by Hick and others and those who, like Warren and Hooker, hold to the finality, ultimacy, distinctiveness or uniqueness of Christ.⁸⁰—p. 162

80 John Hick and Paul Knitter (eds), The Myth of Christian Uniqueness.  The case against this so called ‘pluralism’ has been set out in Gavin D’Costa (ed.), Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, and, from a more conservative position, in Vinoth Ramachandra, The Recovery of Mission Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm.—Notes, 47, p. 162

DB’s Reflection: According to my understanding pluralism is the reality in every area of life.  Those who claim that ‘my way is the only high way’ can claim and this is not new in this world.  For me the only difference between Hinduism and Christianity is that while the former upholds ‘pluralistic inclusivism’ the latter upholds ‘pluralistic exclusivism’.  As long as each denomination in Christianity claims that they alone hold the true doctrine of Muktiveda, they have no right to question any pluralism.  The denominations are the telling rebuke to Christianity.  No ecumenical movement can solve this problem⁸¹ and we all need to live with this reality, however we wish it to brush it under the concept of criticising  pluralism.—db

81…It is ironic that when the Church of England eventually recognised the new united Church of North India, it also rejected the Anglican Methodist scheme for union in Britain.—Kings, p. 173

For the summary of this review article see ‘My Bhakti Theology’ in my blog.

Summary:

Challenges

As I am reading this book [Graham Kings, Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker, New Delhi, 2002, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017.] I realized the difficult for someone coming from outside to another religious tradition to understand all the internal dynamism and complication about that particular religious tradition.  This book is also helping me to understand my difficulty in understanding about Christianity with its own dynamism and complication because of its historical development over several centuries.  Similarly untrained in theology, I find it difficult to comprehend the discussion in this book properly.  This helped me to have a sympathetic understanding about any outsider to understand about Hinduism with its complicated theology (both Vedanta and Siddhanta).  This book presents some challenges for all about their faith as both Dr. Max Warren and Roger Hooker present their views in a remarkable way based on their deep intellect and personal experience from their respective fields. 

God is not limited; Guru as my God

All our understanding about God based on a particular scripture would never limit God in any way.  All the exclusivistic claim about God only reflects a particular understanding about God through that exclusivism based on a Scripture or (religious) tradition. For example, the exclusivism of Muktiveda about God is true for all who accept it as the Word of God.  But to say that this is the only way to understand God is not excluvisim but fanaticism.  One can say that this is the way I understand God based on my scripture or religious (theological) tradition.  But if I insist that this is the only way to understand about God it is fanaticism.  Thankfully God—if at all we need even to use this word – is not limited  by anything.⁸²  That is why I say with firm conviction that I don’t know who god is and I even don’t want to understand her (I deliberately use the word ‘her’ here).   I only want to know a guru who can guide me in my search about me in life.  And I found that guru in Muktinath. And as per my (religious) tradition, that guru becomes my God.  And I don’t want and cannot understand a God beyond that Guru and I am happy with it.

God can use any person or means to help us to know the Lord. But no one can remain in that first level alone but should make progress in her understanding about the Lord.  At least in my case my encounter with the Lord and my understanding about him was a gradual growth but never remained at the first level of encounter. I cannot claim that till this day I understood theology in its true sense. But all my readings helped me to understand both Hinduism and Muktiveda to some extent.  And as I read more about Hinduism and Hindu scriptures they helped me to understand and grow in my bhakti in the Lord.  To say in other words God never expected me to burn the bridge through which I walked to reach my guru.  In fact my Indian or Hindu worldview, particularly both the need of a guru and bhakti are the two track on which my faith runs smoothly till this day and not with any clear understanding of theology and doctrine. 

As I often say, once I met my guru in Muktinath, all my efforts to know about Him was a backward walk in history with the help of Muktiveda and church history.  While Muktiveda provided a firm foundation for me to build my bhakti in the Lord, the church history helped me not to repeat the same mistakes which several sincere people, unknowingly have done in the name of mission and ministry. They have done their best and thought they were only doing the right thing according to their understanding.   Now I may think that they were wrong and in the future others might say that I am wrong.   But I cannot throw away my Hindu tradition including their scriptures and Muktiveda.  At the same time I cannot claim that I will give the same devotion to my Hindu scriptures as I give to Muktiveda.  Muktiveda gives me the foundation for my bhakti and my Hindu scriptures help me to understand and express it within my worldviews.  To say in other words, I understood the gospel as a Hindu and still want to walk in my bhakti as a Hindu.  But I cannot claim that it will be an easy walk without challenges.  But I feel more comfort to remain as a Hindu within my Hindu Worldview than to embrace Christianity.  In fact I won’t hesitate even to say that as my Indian or Hindu worldview can accommodate my bhakti in the Lord and does not expect me to compromise with my bhakti/faith, I need not try to follow any alien tradition in which I cannot feel comfortable.  At the same time I cannot deny others freedom to change their religion or community viz., from Hinduism to Christianity.  But when they condemn Hinduism without understanding it properly I will challenge their understanding.  Similarly when any convert without understanding past mistakes and failures try to glorify Christianity/Church/Mission, I request them to have proper understanding before condemning Hinduism and glorifying Christianity.  Though my own people (Hindus) won’t accept my bhakti in the Lord easily, yet I would prefer a hostile home than a friendly but suspecting neighbour. For me Hinduism is my home and Christianity is my neighbour.  I can easily overcome the hostility at home as a natural member of it. But winning the confidence of a friendly neighbour is possible when he too tries to understand me.

Universalism versus Exclusivism

Another point that I cannot understand is the view of fundamentalism, which tries to understand the people of other faiths only from their own particularly (theological or religious) point of view.  Of course I understand the view of exclusivists according to which there is no mukti outside their particular theological point of view.  This is not limited only to Abrahamic faiths, but even within Hinduism a few sampradayas  hold this view. But they never seal the destiny of other people once for all since rebirth (samsara) gives another opportunity for them to work out their salvation in future births.  We may object to such a view about postponing mukti to some other future births.  But, ‘…If the distinct doctrines of Hinduism, like karma and transmigration of the soul at death are to be dismissed because they do not conform to Christian truth, then the Hindu also will, by the same standard reject distinct Biblical truths like the historical particularity of Christ, the cross and the resurrection because they do not conform to the Hindu understanding of truth.’ (Sudhakar, op. Cit.  p. 267). So when it comes to the question of the salvation of others, though we claim the uniqueness of the Lord and universality of the gospel, it all depends upon the human response to them.  We can claim any exclusivism based on our understanding of Muktiveda and we are correct in it.  But when we claim that Muktiveda alone should be universal then that exclusivism becomes fanaticism as per my definition.

Mukti

For me mukti is not to be received after death in the Further Shore.  But it should be realized here and now on this earth while living in this body.  I found that mukti in my guru who delivered me from so many fetters which bound my atman in various ways both in profane and sacred areas in life.  Mukti never remains static but dynamic as per my understanding and obedience to my guru—both through his words and Spirit with the help of the mandali.  Particularly the mandali helped me to realize that there is no private god or personal bhakti.  At the same time it never denied my separate need for sadhana to grow in my bhakti. The mandali provides the support but never imprisons me within it.  It provides space for me to exercise my vocation as per my nature as a recluse. When I involve they accept and when I withdraw they approved it—never questioning beyond my limitation to respond. At the end my guru helped me to re-invent my vocation in Him as part of his body (universal mandali) but continued with in a local boundary with a particularly identity which he gave to me in my birth as Hindu.

Cosmic Christ

 I can understand statements like (in this book):  God at work in Hinduism, Christ-like qualities in others, presence of God in others’ faith, ‘patronising to Hindus’ ‘functional’ view ‘provisional view’ etc. etc.  But as a Hindu, viewing people of other faith within such ‘Christian frame of reference’ surprises me a bit.  We never had such an approach in our worldview.  But I have to qualify this by saying that some bhakti traditions claim that people in other bhakti traditions, though worshiping their own chosen deity, in fact are worshipping only their God in different form.  We already noted several references about both in Saivism and Vaishnavism, above.  As I often say there is no Cosmic, hidden or unknown Muktinath in other religious traditions.  Each avatara needs to be assessed and understood within that particular tradition.  The same is with Incarnation.

All the later theological developments of a particular Scripture need to be developed within that particular tradition. And when we engage in any comparative theology, we should be careful not to read the message of one scripture in another scripture at the cost of the context and tradition.  Here the Cosmic, unknown and hidden Muktinath failed according to my understanding along with even the so called Krist Advita.  This they can do as their personal right and interest but cannot claim any sanction from Muktiveda, unless they are ready to reject several portions which will completely stand against it.  

For example some only accept the four gospels in the Uttaraveda (NT) and reject the other books. They have the right to do it.  But they conveniently forget the historical fact that the Canonical tradition which gave the authority to the gospels never rejected the rest of the NT.  That is why when some incline more towards Johanine theology, rejecting Pauline theology, Warren rightly calls it ‘heretical’(p.182,) and  advises his son-in-law to ‘ every three books on John read one on Paul!  And fertilize both with some sociology – for ‘the Word was made flesh’. (p. 179) (italics original).  If they reject the rest of the books in Uttaraveda except the four gospels, then why not they also include other gospels like ‘Gospel according to Barnabas’ etc. which was rejected by the Canonical authority?  That is why, though I never understand all that is recorded in the Purva Veda (OT), yet I know that to understand Uttaraveda (NT), I need to read it and try to understand it.  Otherwise our knowledge about Muktiveda,even that of Muktinath, will remain partial and incomplete.   It is worth noting what Waltke says about the unity of Muktiveda:

…the Bible is Scripture inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). Accordingly, for the orthodox, the Bible’s nature integrates into a holistic unity three essential components that in fact cannot be separated without destroying the whole: God, its divine author; the inspired human author; and the text. — Bruce K. Waltke and James M. Houston, with Erika Moore, The Psalms As Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010, p. 83

The same is the case with Indian tradition.  Selectively reading or quoting from any one Scripture won’t do full justice to the understanding of Hinduism. Even within a sampradaya we need to try to have a minimum understanding about the rest of the Scriptures of that particular tradition. For example reading Srimad Bhagavatam alone is not enough to understand Vaishnavism. Similarly Srimad Bhagavad Gita is not the sole representative for entire Hinduism.  At the same time we should recognize that only after reading and understanding all Hindu Scriptures we can say something about Hinduism is impossible. This is both an advantage and impediment with Hinduism.  But there is no easy solution to address this tension.  That is why whoever tries to engage in dialogue with Hinduism based on selected scripture or selected section of Hindus will produce nothing but another kind of modern Gnosticism unless they engage with various shades of Hinduism.   Considering the vastness of Hindu traditions and Scriptures dialogue with Hinduism by other religious traditions, who have mono-scripture traditions, should be careful to project any one (Hindu) view as authentic or even the best approach.  Personally I am against all kinds of such dialogues, considering the complex nature of religious tradition.  However people from outside India or Indian Christians who never can have firsthand experience with the complex nature of Hinduism should never try to promote such Cosmic, Universal or Unknown Muktiveda in Hinduism.

Limit of Scriptures

Though I have my own reservation about the statements ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’, yet there is some value in that advice.  Otherwise in rejecting the Scripture, each one will depend upon only her own personal experience to promote and uphold any kind of Muktinath that one tries to dig out from the Muktiveda.  Likewise we need to understand every scripture within its own tradition.  In this sense no Scripture can be universal in its scope, whatever the particular adherents of it can claim.  If one claims that their particular scripture alone has universal scope, then every faith can claim the same. And if one rejects this claim, then she has to recognize the same right to the followers of the other faith.

Even the universal scope of a particular scripture depends upon the response and faith of its followers.  Take for example the Muktiveda.  Only after the canonical confirmation, the Muktiveda is accepted as the Word of God. But this happened only after a few centuries.  Even after canonical authority was given to Muktiveda, still we find different versions of Muktiveda among the few major different sampradays like Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants.    Even in the Protestant version some portions of the Scripture is doubted as not original and later interpolation (e.g. Mark 16. 9ff) which several serious Muktivedic scholars reject based on the authentic MSS.  In Catholic version there are more books which we cannot find in Protestant version. Then which one is correct Christian Scripture?

So the question is asked, which one is the Word of God and who decides it?  Why should one accept the human endeavour of a few people who authorised only certain books of the Muktiveda as the inspired Word of God and rejecting the rest?  My answer to such question is that, once it is accepted as the Final authoritative Word of God, as the long tradition endorsed it, we also accept that tradition which alone preserved that Canonical authority intact.  It is worth noting here what Waltke  says about this:

            As for God, the apostle Paul argued, since God is spirit, he must be known by possessing his Spirit (1 Cor. 2:6-15). Empirical data can be known objectively, but God must be known spiritually/personally. Personal transcendence cannot be known through the lens of science, so it cannot achieve the primary purpose of exegesis: to know God and be known by him in the sense of a spiritual participation of God and the mortal.  Moreover, without God’s Spirit, the depraved human spirit is insufficient to exegete the text.

            As for the human author, he is better understood, as Meir Stenberg recognized, by sympathy with his claim to be inspired, and we should add, with his covenant faith. {Meir Sternberg. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985)} As for the text, which is experienced empirically, it must be studied scientifically. The latter reality makes it possible for the orthodox and historical Biblical critics to work together to some extent, but in truth the other two components of the Bible’s nature, whether confessed or denied, influence the interpretation of the text and safeguard it against the tyranny of reason.  {Bruce K. Waltke with Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Thematic, and Canonical Approach, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), pp. 78-92} — Waltke, op. Cit. p. 83

Though the following example may not be apt to illustrate, yet I would like to use it.  Once the Constitution has been framed and accepted as the final one, then the citizens of that country has to accept its authority.   Of course amendments are possible, but not easy. The same is the case with Muktiveda.  Respecting the spiritual authority of those people who gave the Canonical authority to Muktiveda we too accept it as the Word of God. Like amendments to a Constitution, new translation, interpretation based on the new insights in philology we can give new meaning to it.  But we cannot completely reject it.

The same is the case with every other Scripture.   That particular religious tradition gave the authority to its Scripture(s) as the Word of God.  In the case of the (Hindu) Veda, even though it is not the Word of God but is seen as co-eternal with God and only receives lip service, still it holds final authority for the orthodox people.  (Laurie L. Patton, Authority, Anxiety, and canon: Essays in Vedic Interpretation, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994, brings out this clearly) Similarly the tradition accepted Bhagavad Gita as ‘saptasata sloki’ – a book of seven hundred verses even though according to some scholars some ancient manuscripts have more than seven hundred verses.  But Gita with its present form is considered as authoritative.  (South Indian) Srivaishnavas accept the authority of Nalayira Divyapprabandam along with Veda.   For the (Tamil) Saivas (12) Tirumurais holds the same Canonical authority.  The same is the case with Quran. Though I don’t know anything about it, I read somewhere that there existed different kinds of Quran and finally keeping only one as authentic the rest of them were destroyed.  (I need to search information for this.)

So every faith assigns authority to its scripture because of its tradition.  However such authority is later challenged by many, for the faithful followers they remain authoritative.  So when we try to understand salvation, judgment etc. doctrinal views, we should keep this in mind.  According to my understanding any authority of any scripture and claiming it alone as the Word of God and thereby authenticating all the doctrinal views based on that particular scripture should be normative to judge about other people is not correct.  The authority of any Scripture depends upon the human response.  For those who reject its authority it can never remain as the Word of God, let alone the Only Word of God.

I would like to illustrate taking the example of Advaitic Vedanta, which is later promoted as universal in its nature and scope transcending all kinds of boundaries created by humans—social, culture, religious and even ethnic.  But however the Neo-Vedantians by their clever interpretation and presentation make the advaitic Vedanta as universal, it is not that simple considering the long Vedantic tradition which further interpreted and complicated in the following centuries.

Sri Adi Sankara was not the first exponent of his doctrine; tradition says that before him his acharya Gaudapada preached it.  But Sankara tried to make it the authentic one due to his scholarly efforts by writing commentaries to Vedanta Sutra, Gita and few selected Upanishads.   I am not even an elementary student in my understanding about Advaita Vedanta.  With my superficial understanding, I can say that advaita claims that ‘atman is Brahman’ (soul is the very God).  Due to our ignorance (avidya) we fail to realize this. Once that ignorance is removed then we will realize that we are that Brahman. The crucial question in advaita is that removing this ignorance is not that easy.  All are not qualified for that.  Only a twice born alone is qualified for that.  Even among the Twice born only a Brahmin alone is equipped for that.  Even among the Brahmin only those who have renounced and become a sannyasi can achieve it: neither by karma, nor by progeny, nor by wealth but only through renunciation one can attains that mukti (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22).  Because even though this realization comes through intuitive knowledge which stands beyond the Veda, yet it is possible only through proper study of Vedas which is restricted only to the Twice born.  Having such complicated theological development no one can claim a particular Scripture or doctrine alone universal.  It is universal for those who follow it.  But not for all who rejected it.  Though neo-Vedantins try to make advaita universal, the tradition is not in their favour as it limits the qualification to only a selected few.

Uniqueness of the gospel:

One needs to accept or reject the uniqueness of the gospel for its own face value.  There is no point of watering it down in order to accommodate the religious, theological views of another scripture.   By doing it we not only compromise the gospel but also show disrespect to the other religious traditions and their scriptures.  For me at least, the painful reality is that Muktinath came from the Jewish religious tradition, though he was universalized by the understanding and interpretation of His life and Mission by His immediate disciples.  But this universality of the gospel does not mean that Muktiveda alone is the only Word of God and rest of the religious scriptures are not.  As Paul Sudhakar well said:  To say that Bible is the Word of God is Biblical, but it is unbiblical to say that Bible only is the Word of God.  And he further adds:

 …The Good News to the people of the Old Testament who were brought up in a distinct cultural milieu of Messianic expectation and a particular view on human history and prophetic proclamation will not be Good New to the Hindus who are not Messianic in expectation, who hold a different view of history and who have held mysticism and spirituality as sacred.     It is becoming more and more difficult to hold the view that the Biblical truth is the truth by which all other claims to truth are to be judged and evaluated….—( Wilhelmina Sudhakar, op. Cit. p. 267)⁸³

 Bhakti theology

Gospels is a revelation initiated by God.  It was witnessed and recorded through inspiration.  It was communicated through proper interpretation for us to implement its core values through the grace of God.  However this short formula is not that simple for me to understand and communicate.  First is the language.  All the main words (revelation, initiation, inspiration, interpretation, implementation and even grace) which I used in this short formula in English are beyond my comprehension.  Without having proper knowledge in English and having Tamil as my mother tongue in which I think and understand all my attempts to understand and communicate have several limitations.

For example the (Christian) Tamil word ‘velippaduthdhal’  (வெளிப்படுத்துதல்)  actually, according to my understanding  means that now something is exposed which had remained hidden.  Similarly I don’t know what Tamil word I can use for ‘initiation’ though I can translate it as ‘mun thuvakkam’ (முன் துவக்கம்). Another word with which I often struggle is ‘inspiration’.   In Tamil it could be ‘ul unarvu undudal’ (உள் உணர்வு உந்துதல், my literal translation).  But it could mean that the inspiration is done by my own effort and not from an outside source alone.  Like this each word has its own complication in Tamil.

I hope this is not limited only with Tamil. Various other languages face a similar problem, beginning from the original languages in which gospel events were recorded and communicated.  If language alone faces such a serious problem, how much more the various categories which were used to communicate it from the origin to other cultures and traditions?

By understanding such limitations my understanding of the gospel is that it is a unique one which has no parallel in other religious traditions.  At the same time every religious tradition has its own ‘uniqueness’ which we need to accept and respect.  That is why I never believe in a hidden, cosmic and universal Christ (Muktinath) which we can dig out from other faiths.  Christ is neither fulfilment⁸⁴ nor the crown of Hinduism nor came to annihilate other faiths.  Each religious tradition should be approached on its own terms.  And a Hindu bhakta has to live with this tension to understand the uniqueness of the gospel and the inheritance of her heritage.  And my bhakti tradition helps me to resolve it to some extent to keep a balance not going to one extreme.   In this Muktiveda helps me giving clear guidance, though not limiting God to address my need through other means as Paul Sudhakar well said that, ‘…Men are unaware that no one religion can claim the monopoly of all truth.  (Sudhakar, op. Cit. p. 198)

In my efforts to understand the life and teaching of the Lord, there are so many unresolved and unresolvable questions for which so far I didn’t receive a convincing answer from anywhere—even from God.  I am thankful for it.  At the same time those questions never limit my walk along with the Lord as he is ready to teach and reveal according to my need and obedience to his initiation.  It is an ongoing journey which will end only in my death.  And bhakti which is primarily a relationship helps me to stand firm in that relationship with the Lord which is gift because of his grace. 

When I found my guru in the Lord, did I understood the gospel clearly or was it presented to me in a way for me to understand it as it is supposed to be understood by the orthodox theology?   A BIG NO is the answer.  Of course I was searching for a guru to find the answer to the question: why I cannot live a perfect life even for a single day?  And the people whom I met first, though sharing as per their tradition (which I don’t remember exactly now), never gave the answer which I was searching for. But the way they served the poor and needy in a remote hill area much impressed and challenged me.  There I took the decision that so far I tried various gurus and let me give this guru (Muktinath) also a chance and if he proves that he is the kind of guru I need, then I will gain. Otherwise I am not going to lose anything. 

But the initial steps that I took to follow the Lord may not be correct for many. Anyhow after I made a commitment by receiving the deeksha (which others call ‘baptism’) only after several months I began to gradually understand the gospel in the true sense!  In fact when I was reading the commentary by Rev. John Stott (Men Made new) on Romans (5 to 8 I think), particularly based on the verses in Romans 7: 15 to 24 I understood the reason for my failure to live a perfect life up to my own expectation.  However what excited me is not the solution that it prescribed—that the atonement of the Lord for our sin in principle, but the clear diagnosis of my problem viz., that it is my sinful nature which prevented me to live a life of my own creed.  It is not my (past) karma, Time (Kali Yuga) or even god. 

As I began to read to understand Muktiveda (with the help of commentaries) slowly I began to understand the life and mission of the Lord.   And it is not any systematic way in which I now try to present my journey.  It was a gradual and step by step process. The more I read, understood and obeyed the more I was convinced about Muktinath as my guru.

Still it is not the atonement theory which appealed to me but the Personality of the Lord, his teachings, his actions, his life which was recorded in the gospels. This convinced me to my satisfaction that he is the kind of guru I need to overcome my sinful nature.  Does this mean that I never accepted other doctrinal aspects related to his atonement?  No.  I accepted them because that is the way his life and mission was understood and interpreted by his immediate disciples upon which the early mandali was established.  Suppose let me imagine that such doctrinal points were not recorded in Uttaraveda, what would happen to my bhakti in him?  Still I would have followed him as my guru.  As I said in another place, even if he were a mere mythological character that wouldn’t have affected my bhakti in him, as we have such a rich tradition in our Hindu worldview.  Because , ‘Hinduism did not use history for the investigation of truth, instead, for communicating religious realities freely, used mythology, legend, allegory and history without bothering to differentiate one from another….’(Sudhakar, op. Cit  p. 199.)  This Hindu tradition helped me to cling to the Lord till this day, which Sudhakar, again articulates very clearly:

            The institutionalized church does not easily fit into the Hindu mould. Discipleship to Jesus Christ appeals to the Hindu. In the modern context of cultural change and upheaval in the West, it is necessary to re-examine the New Testament meaning of the church and the Lord’s command to make disciples of all nations. The demands of discipleship that Jesus enumerated are similar to those in Hinduism and Jesus fulfils all the requirements of the one and only guru shown in the Gita.—Sudhakar, p. 270

I began to understand about the doctrinal aspect related to the life and mission of the Lord to have a clear perspective about the Lord.  But the more I read and study the more it become complicated as it raised so many questions in my mind.

Some of those questions:

Let me try to present with my limitation. If I am correct, as Adam violated God’s command, he was cursed and was thrown from God’s presence.  Though God promised to restore back that relationship, yet he delayed further and made a covenant with his descendant after a long time.  Even that covenant promised was finally fulfilled in the Lord after the lapse of several thousand (or million) years. [I never believed in the short history of the world claimed by the Christians based on the record in Geneses]

Now the question is: why didn’t god make the atonement then and there and restore the broken relationship instead of making it more complicated through a covenant and a chosen nation?  Of course the standard answer would be: GOD DOES THINGS ACCORDING TO HIS OWN WILL AND TIME.

Has this answer convinced me?  Yes and No.  Yes because this is the way it was recorded in the Muktiveda. No because my reason refuses to accept such explanation?  Because if God was so kind and merciful, instead of complicating the matter further and bring so much pain and strain on several billion people, when the problem was so small, he could have and should have addressed and resolved the crises then there.  But will this affect my bhakti (relationship) with the Lord.  No.  Here my tradition helps me.

What is the solution that my (Hindu) tradition prescribes for my question (why I cannot live perfectly even for a day up to my own expectation)?  As there is no single religious tradition, I cannot give just one standard answer like that we found in Muktiveda, recognizing the fact that even that one standard answer was interpreted variously by various denominations.

But a common view is that as atman is never created and eternally pure, the question of sin in principle never comes.  The entire struggle related to sin is neither Maya or because of my past karmas or divine play (Lila).  Various sampradayas prescribed various solutions which one can choose according to her own aptitude and need to work out slowly and gradually—if not in one birth, in several births.  Am I convinced by such responses?  Yes and No.  Yes because it sounds more rationalistic to some extent. No because the same reason refuses to pass the buck on other things like past karma, or Maya or even Lila.  Above all I don’t have the patience to work it out slowly in future births, though I would try my best in this very life itself.  As I already shared, for me mukti is to be realized in this birth itself, which I found in the Lord. Somehow I feel that accepting personal responsibility for my failures and moral lapses is somehow missing in the common worldview of Hinduism—though one can find it in some texts and doctrinal commentaries.

Whereas here I met a guru, who helped me to accept my personal responsibility for my failures in this life and with his model and teaching encouraged me to work it out slowly and steadily in this very present life itself.  Though my reason refuses to accept all the doctrinal aspects related to his mission, particularly atonement, yet I accepted it part of that tradition.  My bhakti in him is not going to stand or fall depending upon my confession it as true.  There are so many doctrinal aspects in my own Hindu tradition which the same reason refuses to accept.  But my bhakti, transcending the reason, helped me to develop such a close relationship with my guru that my bhakti in him is never based on any doctrine,  but  rather  relationship. 

Does Muktiveda endorse such understanding? I don’t know.  But as I often say Muktiveda, though foundational for me to understand about the Lord, cannot limit God to deal with me.  I like what Sudhakar says about it:

            To say that Bible is the Word of God is Biblical, but it is unbiblical to say that Bible only is the Word of God. The Biblical truth has to be seen separate from the cultural additions and even distortions of it. If God is the God revealed in the Bible, who is the Father, Creator, Redeemer and Saviour and who is also light and life, and whose name is love, then it is evident that the knowledge of Him cannot be confined to a people in one geographical area. Hindu scriptures contain deep insights on God and meaningful dialogues with Hindus will only enrich the churches’ understanding of God and Christ. (op. Cit. p. 269)

I need Muktiveda to understand about my Guru.  But I don’t need to understand all the doctrinal aspects which is understood, interpreted and communicated in various ways throughout its history till present day.⁸⁵  At the same time I won’t give the same importance to the scriptures of other faiths, including that of my own Hindu tradition.  Because they may have insights on God but I cannot find my guru in them.  If I have to choose between my guru and an unknown universal God, I would choose my guru than that God, as in the end my own guru becomes my God. 

We cannot limit God within the frame of Muktiveda.  Otherwise we will despise the very same God who created every human being in HIS OWN IMAGE, even those who never understood God as we understood and worship him in Muktinath.  God’s revelation is everywhere and he never limited it only to the territory of the chosen people or to their Scripture.  If we do, then we are doing the same what Naaman has done (2 Kings 5).  About such worldview Bailey says:

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

But when we allow the gospel to incarnate in every culture and tradition, we can help people to understand God through the Lord who will approach the people according to their need to ‘know about God and also known by him’. We should remember what one Tribal leader said to the Missionaries that ‘you only brought the gospel to us, but God was already here before your arrival’.

I am a rationalist. But I always say that even reason cannot prove its own rationality. When it comes to bhakti/faith⁸⁶/religion, reason alone cannot have the final word.  About this Pascal well said:

If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mystery and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.”…. (…Pascal; (Pensees, 4. 273) —Waltke, op. Cit. p. 82 [no reference is given and I cannot trace Pascal in Index. No bibliography in this book at the end—db]

Though I am not a mystic, still I cannot reject the mysticism when it comes to my bhakti in the Lord.  At the same time not despising my reason, I have to accept several challenges which Muktiveda presents before me to know my guru.  Just one example is sufficed here.  As I mentioned above though karma theory gives a rationalistic solution to the problem of sin or evil still its various doctrinal aspects complicate the very solution in karma (see Understanding Hinduism on this more).  Similarly evil poses serious problem for me when I deal with my own shortcomings (call it evil or sin).  How god allowed evil enter in his good creation?  I could not find a convincing answer for this in Muktiveda. But the way god confronted evil striking a balance between his justice and grace is well recorded in Muktiveda.  In confronting evil he does not even spared his own chosen people or never discriminated people outside covenant relationship with him.  While purging the evil he also showed his grace when the pruning process become beyond one’s ability to bear the consequence—provided one is ready to receive that grace.  Here he put the moral choice and obligation before us than arbitrarily imposing his justice in dealing with evil.  For me the evil or sin in me is real and the natural justice which it demanded is beyond my capacity to bear its consequence and the grace of god through my guru helped me to bear the pruning process of god in purging out this evil in me which is an ongoing process, as sanctification is a continuous process.  But god as the author and authority of creation controls everything is my consolation.  And my bhakti theology helps me to TRUST THIS GOD WHO IS MY GURU MUKTINATH.

Notes

Wright’s insight might help us to understand this:

85 …Part of the discipline of Bible study involves dictionaries and concordances; we need to check, as carefully as we can, that we really have understood what the words, the sentences and the passages actually mean, as opposed to what we might imagine they mean, or were once told that they mean, or might want them to mean. But that task, which is essentially humble, open to being taught, is completely different from the way in which some people crack a whip like a circus ring-master and make words dance on their hind legs and do things they were never meant to do….

…The inspiration of the Bible didn’t flatten out individual styles and angles of vision.  If anything, it emphasized them. — 2 Timothy, 2.14-19, p. 106, p. 120

…many people who insist that the Bible was and is ‘inspired’ presume that they know in advance what that would mean in terms of the Bible’s own content.  They presume that it means that the Bible is going to support their particular type (p.120) of theology. Again and again this has been proved wrong. Precisely because I believe the Bible (rather than anyone’s system of theology) is indeed inspired, I am set free from the prison of any human system, free to discover the larger world, the even greater framework of thought, that the Bible itself invites me to share.— 2 Timothy, 3.10-17 pp. 120-121

—Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone, The Pastoral Letter, Delhi, ISPCK, 2015,

@@@

Notes

82  This is my comments to Bhakti Theology Song 494 about this in my blog:

As I continued to read on revelation and the dialogue followed (see previous song 492 and Gerhard Oberhammer, Revelation in Hinduism; Questions and Interventions, in Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, pp. 87-125,) , more questions came to me than finding a clear answer from these discussions.  After the reading, I sat quitely for some time try to recollect what I read.  Then sincerely I shared my doubts to the Lord. Though I colsed the poem by saying that as I cannot convey what kind of message that I received in my atman from the Lord and also said that as no one will accept it or believe it, it is better stop there itself.

But when I retired to bed (around 1.00 am), I continue to think on this subject.  As my own reason refuse to accept my argument that the message that I received from the Lord is beyond communication, I debated how to express my thought in words. And the conclusion is this:

God is not limited by any human categories—including this word ‘God’.  Everything that we use to convey our ‘encounter’ with God is only a ‘nimit’ (incident) alone. This includes even the Muktiveda and also the Lord.  Yes the INCARNATION is an incident for God to reveal who He is to us. In His own nature the Lord is beyond our comprehension.  For me INCARNATION shows not only the GRACE of God but His MERCY to comedown to our level so that we can comprehend Him in our atman. Then what all we try to experience and then express is only human agencies.  But there comes the revelation.  This revelation is very personal for each individual which she cannot convey to others by any means.  At the same time as Oberhammer rightly said, ‘…Ultimately, man also needs human relations in order to maintain his religious experience, since they actually allow him to encounter transcendence’.(— Gerhard Oberhammer, Revelation in Hinduism; Questions and Interventions, in Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur )Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, pp. 87-125,  p. 102

in order to maintain this spiritual encounter which each individual experienced, we use words and thoughts to communicate to others. 

Those who write poems and other kinds of writings, need to use their mind/buddhi/brain.  But the flow of thought and the arrangements of words are beyond their ability, though they have to use their mind to convey it.  Though I am not bragging or exaggerating, I wonder why all cannot write or talk in the same way those who do it?  Of course each has her own talent which is a gift.  But for anyone to use that gift mere talent is not enough. There comes the inspiration or revelation.

Though millions and millions of written works are there in the world, the way one book as Muktiveda gained some unique status and few scriptures gained as Veda and smrtis in India etc. shows that these are mere ‘nimit’ (incident) for God to use His revelation to the seekers.  Here again what Oberhammer says will help me to convey my thought: If God can create man only by allowing him to ‘reach out’ for Him, if man thus is a creature who can only be himself by reaching for God, then it is God himself who challenges him in this way…the assertion was not made that God is experienced by man as an ‘object,’ but rather as an ‘encountering’ infinity of which he expects the fullness of his existence.—p. 105

83…Dass knows that in a religious context where there are numerous Scriptures that claim divine origin and authority, to say that the Christian Bible is the only writing from God would not really persuade anyone who does not already believe so. In other words, while for the Christian community it is not necessary to argue the case for the divine authority of the Bible, for other religious communities it is futile to do so. For Dass, the case for Christianity must be made by reasoning based on generally shared Indian assumptions about religion and the Christian lifestyle. It is these factors that persuade. The Bible is used to add force to these arguments, not to ground them. In nineteenth-century Hindu North India, it was the logic and experience of Christianity that led people to the truth of the Bible, and not the other way around, as in American Reformed theology.{ Dass, Ishwari. Lectures on Theology, Adapted to the Natives of India.  Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1860}— Arun W. Jone, Missionary Christianity and Local Religion, Waco, Texas, Baylor University Press, 2017, p. 213

84  ‘….The movement placed great emphasis upon the words of Christ: “I come not to destroy but to fulfil.’  Hinduism was not to be destroyed by the efforts of the Christians in India, but was to be fulfilled—transformed, sublimated—in union with Christ. {The movement is chronicled by Eric J. Sharpe, Not to destroy But to Fulfil: the contribution of J. N. Farquhar to Protestant missionary thought in India before 1914, Uppsala, 1965}.—Hugh Tinker, The Ordeal of Love C. F. Andrews and India, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1998, p.34

Wright’s insight might help us to understand this:

85 …Part of the discipline of Bible study involves dictionaries and concordances; we need to check, as carefully as we can, that we really have understood what the words, the sentences and the passages actually mean, as opposed to what we might imagine they mean, or were once told that they mean, or might want them to mean. But that task, which is essentially humble, open to being taught, is completely different from the way in which some people crack a whip like a circus ring-master and make words dance on their hind legs and do things they were never meant to do….

…The inspiration of the Bible didn’t flatten out individual styles and angles of vision.  If anything, it emphasized them. — 2 Timothy, 2.14-19, p. 106, p. 120

…many people who insist that the Bible was and is ‘inspired’ presume that they know in advance what that would mean in terms of the Bible’s own content.  They presume that it means that the Bible is going to support their particular type (p.120) of theology. Again and again this has been proved wrong. Precisely because I believe the Bible (rather than anyone’s system of theology) is indeed inspired, I am set free from the prison of any human system, free to discover the larger world, the even greater framework of thought, that the Bible itself invites me to share.— 2 Timothy, 3.10-17 pp. 120-121

—Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone, The Pastoral Letter, Delhi, ISPCK, 2015,

86.. …As I have grappled with these and other issues – questions about the person of Christ, trust in the Bible, etc. – I have learned it is sometimes helpful to continue accepting as a rule of life something about which I have basic intellectual uncertainties. In other words, I have learned to trust the basic skeleton and use it even when I cannot figure out how various bones fit together and why some are shaped the way they are…. …If I wait for all the evidence to be in, for everything to be settled, I‘ll never move. Often I have had to act on the basis of the bones of the Christian faith before those bones were fully formed in me and before I understood the reason for their existence.  Bone is hard, but it is alive. If the bones of faith do not continue to grow, they will soon become dead skeletons.— Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey, In the Likeness of God, The Dr. Paul Brand Tribute Edition of Fearfully and Wonderfully Made and In His Image, Zondervan, 2004, in, Paul Brand, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, Bones , Growth, pp. 31-230, pp.112-13

@@@

Bibliography

Aquil, Raziuddin & Partha Chatterjee, History in the Vernaculr, ed. Ranikhet, Permanent Black,  (2008), Third impression 2015

— Babb, Lawrence A. Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1986,

 Badrinath, Chaturvedi. Dharma, India and the World Order, Saint Andrew Press, Pahl-Rugenstein, 1993,

Badrinath, Chaturvedi.  Finding Jesus in Dharma: Christianity in India

ISPCK, Delhi, 2000. 

Baillie, Donald M. God was in Christ: an Essay on Incarnation and Atonement.  London: Faber and Faber, 1948

Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove IL, IVP Academic, 2008.

Balagangadhara, S.N. and Sarah Claerhout, Ancient Roman Culture and Early Christianity: A Pagan Perspective from India,Ghent University Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap Apotheekstraat 5, 9000 Gent Belgium

Balagangadhara, S.N.  The Heathen in His Blindness, Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion, New Delhi, Manohar, 2005,

— Bala, Saroja. Preface.  Pp. Ix to xiv, in Saroj Bala & Kulbhushan Mishra, Historicity of Vedic and Ramayan Eras: Scientific Evidences from the Depths of Oceans to the Heights of Skies. Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas I-SERVE Delhi Chapter, Hyderabad, 2012

Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), translated from the German 6^th edition (1928), not the German first edition (1918)

Basham, A.L. The Wonder that was India, New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 1999 [1967],

Bayly, Susan. Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian society 1700-1900, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, (1989), First Indian Edition, 1992.

Bece, Gwilym. (ed.) Colonialism Modernity and Religious Identities: Religious Reforms Movements in South Asia, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2008,

Berti, Daniela, Gilles Tarabout, and Raphael Voix (eds.) Filing Religion: State, Hinduism, And courts of Law, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2016

Buuber, Martin.  Kingship of God, trans. Richard Scheimann.  3^rd newly enlarged end (London: Allen and Unwin, 1967. Orginally published as Konigtum Gottes. 3^rd edn (L. Schneider, 1956)

Catherine Clementin-Ojha,  ‘ Claiming Religious Rights from a Secular Power: Judgment Regarding the Rules of Succession to the Position of Shebait in a North Indian Temple’, pp.260-281, in Daniela Berti, Gilles Tarabout, and Raphael Voix (eds.) Filing Religion: State, Hinduism, And courts of Law, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2016

CHOUDHARY, RADHAKRISHNA. Heretical sects in the Puranas. ABORI[Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute]  37.234-57.11956: 234ff

Clooney, Francis X. S.J., Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993,

Dutt, M.N.  Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimala Publications, 7 vols. Vol. I. 1988,

— Fallon, Pierre (1997). “God in Hinduism: Brahman, Paramatman, Isvara and Bhagavan”. In R. De Smet and J. Neuner (eds.), Religious Hinduism. Fourth revised ed. Mumbai: St. Paul’s, 1997.

Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996,

Forsyth, P T. Revelation Old and New: Sermons and Address, London: Independent Press, 1962)

Gaeffke , Peter and David A. Uta. Eds. IDENTITY AND DIVISION IN CULTS AND SECTS IN SOUTH ASIA Philadelphia, Department of South Asia Regional Studies, University of Pennsylvania, 1984,

Gandhi, Mohandas K. Autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, translated by Mahadev Desai, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1983,

Goldman, Robert P., tr. The Ramayana of valmiki, Vol. 1.  Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984

Gonda, Jan.  Visnuism and Sivaism: a comparison. London: Athlone Press.1970: 92ff.; ABS,{all are in German} 1926

Gonda, J. Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, (1965) 1985,

Goswami, Damodara Lal. ed. Saddarsanasamuccaya, with a Commentary Called Laghuvrtti by Manibhadra, by Haribhadra [8^th C. CE].  Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Book Depot. 1905

— Hart,  George L. III.  The Theory of Reincarnation among the Tamils. in Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty , Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (1983) Reprint 1999,

Hawley, John Stratton. A STORM OF SONGS: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement, London, Harvard University Press, 2015

Jone, Arun W. Missionary Christianity and Local Religion, Waco, Texas, Baylor University Press, 2017

Jospe , Spear from Raphael.  ‘The Concept of the Chosen People: An Interpretation,’ Judaism 43:2 (1994),  pp. 127-148, p. 129. p. 85.  In Sharm 2017, [No publisher’s information is given in Bibliography  for Jospe, p. 404—db]

Kalam A.P.J. Abdul. Dr. Past Meets the Present Leading to a Better Future, pp. 1-8, in, Saroj Bala & Kulbhushan Mishra, Historicity of Vedic and Ramayan Eras: Scientific Evidences from the Depths of Oceans to the Heights of Skies. Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas I-SERVE Delhi Chapter, Hyderabad, 2012,

Kane. P.V. History of Dharmasastra,  5 Vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1962-75, Vol. I Part. I. Ch. III. Proper Donees.

— Keener, Craig S. Bible Background Commentary NEW TESTMENT, Illinois, IVP, 1993,

— Klinger, Elmar. Historical Thinking and Creation.  in. Andreas Bsteh (ed.), Christian Faith in Dialogue with Hindu Religious Traditions [Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism 2],  Modling 2007, St Gabriel Publications, the Perspective of Bible Theology and Hermeneutics. Hans-Peter Muller. Pp. 207-252,

Khan, Benjamin. The Concept of Dharma in Valmiki Ramayana, Delhi, Munshi Ram Manoharlal, 1965,

— Klostermaier, Klaus K. Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras, 1986.

Krishna, Daya. Indian Philosophy: A Counter-Perspective. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1991,

LORENZEN, DAVID N.The  Kapalikas and Kalamukhas: two lost Saivite sects. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1972:

Lowith, Kar. Meaning in History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949.

Manikkanar,  A.Periya Puranam, Commentary, (Tamil) Chennai, Vardaman Publishers, Fifth impression, 2000

Matilal , Bimal Krishna .The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford,

— Muller, Hans-Peter, Justification of Mythos in the Perspective of Bible Theology and Hermeneutics.   in. Andreas Bsteh (ed.), Christian Faith in Dialogue with Hindu Religious Traditions [Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism 2],  Modling 2007, St Gabriel Publications, the Perspective of Bible Theology and Hermeneutics. Hans-Peter Muller.  Pp. 47-101

MURI, Original Sanskrit texts, … 3. (2^nd ed.) London: Trubner and Co.1868b:

Murty, K. Satchidananda. ed. And trans. Saddarsanasamuccaya, by Haribhadra [8^th c. CE].  Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers. 1957

Neill, Stephen The Crises of belief.

Newbigin, Leslie. Honest Religion for Secular Man, Lucknow Publishing House, Lucknow, 1966,

Nicholson, Andrew J. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. Ranikhet: Permanent Black. 2011,

— Oberhammer, Gerhard. Revelation in Hinduism, pp. 87-125, in Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston,

— Obeyesekere, Gananath. Karma and Rebirth, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass,

(2002) First Indian edition, 2006,

O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger  The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology. Berkeley: University of California. 1980,

Olivelle, Patrick. The Asrama System: The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993,

Olivelle, Patrick. Dharmasutras: The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhayana, and Vasistha.  Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 2000.

Olivelle , Patrick. Food and Dietary Rules abhaksya, abhojya. Pp. 189-196, in Patrick Olivelle and Donald R. Davis, Jr. Eds. Hindu Law: A New History of Dharmasastra, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2018,

Oman, John. Grace and Personality, Cambridge University Press, 1917,

Oscar, Cullman. Christus und die Zeit: die urchristliche Zeit und Geschichtsauffassung (Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag A.G, 1946, ), English translation Christ and Time: the primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (London: SCM Press, 1951}

Panikkar, Raimundo. The Vedic Experience, Second edition 1989, All India Books, Pondicherry.

Pannikar, Raimundo, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964); revised and enlarged, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books,

Rajah, Sharada Sugirtha, Imagining Hinduism: A Postcolonial Perspective. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Privated Limited,  Reprint, Special Indian Edition, (2003) Reprint 2017

Rajaram, M.  Thirukkural, New Delhi, Rupa & co. 2009.

Ramanujan, A.K. Speaking of Siva, London: Penguin Books, 1973,

Ramaswamy, Vijaya. (ed.) Devotion and Dissent in Indian History, New Delhi, Foundation Books, 2014,

Raven, Charles. The Creator Spirit: a Survey of Christian Doctrine in the Light of Biology, Psychology and Mysticism (London: M. Hopkinson and Co. Ltd., 1927

Robinson, John A. T. In the End God, London: Fontana Books, 1968

Russel, Betrand. The Autobiography of Betrand Russel 3 Vols. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1967-1969

Sharma, Arvind, Gandhi A Spiritual Biography, Gurgaon, Hachette India, 2013,

Sharma, Arvind. The Ruler’s Gaze: A study of British Rule over India from a Saidian Perspective, Noida, HarperCollins Publishers, 2017

Shastri, J.L. ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, The Siva Purana Four Volumes,

Smart, Ninian The Yogi and the Devotee: The Interplay between the Upanishads and Catholic Theology (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968

Stietencor, Heinrich von. Hindu Myth, Hindu History, Delhi, Permanent Black, 2005,

— Sudhakar,b Wilhelmina, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 2007.

Swami, Ramsukhadas. Sadhaka Sanjivani, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, 2 vols. First edition, year not mentioned.

Temple, William. Nature, Man and God, London: Macmillan, 1934

Temple, William, Christianity and the Social Order, London: Penguin Books, 1942.

Thapar, Romila. Time as a Metaphor of History: Early India, Delhi: Oxford University Press,  1996:

Tilak, B.G. (Tr. by A.S.Sukthankar:   Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya; Tilak Brothers; Poona; Seventh Edition, 1986.

Warren, Buffett.  Philanthropy and the Bhagavad Gita. In Sanjay Subrahmanuyam, Is ‘Indian Civilization’ a Myth? Fictions and Histories, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, 2013, Pp. 191-95

Warren, Max. The Missionary Movement from Britain in Modern History { London: SCM Press, 1965 } and Social History and Christian Mission,{ London: SCM Press, 1967

Warren, Max.  A Theology of Attention (Madras: Christian Literature Society and ISPCK, 1971,

Warren, Max.  I believe in the Great Commission: London, Hodder and Stoughton and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976

Whaling, Frank.  An Approach to Dialogue with Hinduism, Lucknow Publishing House, Lucknow,

Willis, Michael. The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the establishment of the Gods, Cambridge, 2009.

Young, Richard Fox. Resistant Hinduism: Sanskrit Sources On Anti-Christian Apologetics in Early Nineteenth-Century India, by Vienna, 1981 (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi)