Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Preface
2. New Labels for Old Merchandise
3. Indigenisation: A Predatory Enterprise
4. The Patron Saint of Indigenisation
5. Mission's Volte-Face vis-a-vis Hindu Culture
6. The Ashram Movement in the Mission
7. The Trinity from Tannirpalli
8. An Imperialist Hangover
9. Catholic Ashrams
10. The J.R. Ewing Syndrome
11. Interview with Father Bruno Barnhardt
12. Returning to the Hindu Fold
13. Malaysia Hindus Protest Christian "Sadhu"
14. Missionary's Dirty Tricks
15. The First Dialogue
16. The Second Dialogue
17. The Third Dialogue
18. Bede Griffiths Drops the Mask
19. Different Paths Meeting in God
20. "Liberal" Christianity
21. The Great Command and a Cosmic Auditing
22. Christian Ashrams in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka
23. A Glimpse of Mission Finance
24. Thy Kingdom is the Third World
25. Christianity Mainly for Export
26. Proselytisation as it is Practised
27. Bibliography
28. References
Preface
Preface
I wrote to Swami Devananda and obtained from him copies of the letters
exchanged. He also supplied a letter from Dr. Teasdale that had appeared in
the Indian Express of June 1, 1987 and was a defence of Teasdale's earlier
presentation. I found the material illuminating and immediately relevant to
the subject I was planning to present for public discussion. Swami
Devananda had no objection to Voice of India publishing the
correspondence provided Fr. Bede Griffiths also gave his permission. He
wrote to Fr. Bede who agreed readily and with grace. Swami Devananda
then sent us copies of the last letters exchanged in October, 1987.
As I developed the Preface to the first edition and surveyed the mission
strategies in the history of Christianity in this country, I realized that I was
dealing with not only Catholic Ashrams but, in fact, with a whole
movement known as the Christian Ashram Movement in the Christian
Mission. Various Protestant missions were also practising the same fraud.
But it was too late to change the title of the book because its main body had
been already printed. I have retained the old title in this edition also because
it has become well-known under this name not only in this country but also
abroad, particularly in circles that control the Christian missions in this
country. But I have made the subtitle more apt.
In this second edition, while all the old material has been retained, a lot
more has been added. The earlier Preface has been expanded and
rearranged into chapters with suitable headings. It now forms Section I of
the book. In Section II which carries the earlier articles from Hinduism
Today, two more articles from the same monthly have been added as
appendices. In the earlier edition, there was only one dialogue, that between
Swami Devananda and Fr. Bede. Now there are three dialogues, two more
having been put together by Swami Devananda and brought to my
attention. The dialogues form Section III of the present edition. Another
valuable addition is Section IV which comprises letters exchanged between
Fr. Bede and Shri Ram Swarup in early 1990. Three articles written by Ram
Swarup in different papers and referred to by him in his letters to Fr. Bede
have been reproduced as appendices to this section. Section V of this
edition is more or less the same as Section III of the old one except for
some changes in the numbering of the appendices and addition of a new
appendix. The information which this section had carried earlier about
Robert De Nobili has been transferred to the appropriate chapter under
Section I. The other new features in the present edition are Bibliography
and Index.
II
The first edition of Catholic Ashrams drew two sharp but opposite
reactions from Hindu and Christian quarters.
Hindu readers by and large reacted favourably and welcomed the Hindu
view of Christian missions. Some readers whom I had known for years and
who had thought that Christian missions had undergone a change of
character, were unpleasantly surprised. The only Hindu with whom I failed
to carry weight was a noted Gandhian who refused to concede that there
was anything wrong in what the Christian mission were doing. So unlike
Mahatma Gandhi, I thought. I have found that for the Gandhians, by and
large, Muslims and Christians are always in the right, and Hindus always in
the wrong. I wonder if anyone of them has ever cared to read the Mahatma's
works, and know that, no matter what his strategy of serving Hinduism
happened to be at any time, his commitment to Hinduism was
uncompromising.
On the other hand, my Christian friends whom I had known for many
years, expressed pain and resentment at what I had written, particularly
about Swami Abhishiktananda who had met me in 19
8 and known me rather well for years till he died in 1973. In our very first
meeting I had told him in so many words that Jesus came nowhere near
even the most minor Hindu saint, and that the missionary attempts to foist
him on Hindus with the help of Western wealth, was nothing short of
wickedness. He had never mentioned Jesus again, and our discussions had
centred on Hindu philosophy of which he knew quite a bit, at least better
than I did at that time. I had never suspected that he himself was a
missionary and a part of the apparatus. It was only when I read his writings
that I learnt the truth. I happened to be Treasurer of the Abhishiktananda
Society in Delhi at the time the first edition of this book appeared. I told my
Christian friends that we were in the midst of a dialogue, and that personal
relations should not obscure ideological differences. But I have failed to
impress them. Our relations are now correct but cold. Having been a student
of Christian doctrine and history, I should have known that the post-Vatican
II talk about tolerance and dialogue was intended to be a one-way affair.
A friend (not Koenraad Elst) has sent to me the relevant pages from a
book written by a Christian lady and published from Leuven in Belgium.
She has been rather kind to me. "While there has been," she says, "much
sympathy and support from both the Hindu and Christian communities in
India, Catholic ashrams have also confronted opposition. In Catholic
Ashrams, Sita Ram Goel, a member of a fundamentalist movement within
Hinduism which seeks to return to the pure Vedic religion, severely attacks
and ridicules the phenomenon of Catholic ashrams… As long as Christians
are not prepared to question their own fundamentals of faith, more precisely
the belief in the uniqueness of Christ, Hindus, according to Goel, will
remain suspicious of Catholic motives for starting ashrams."5 I do not know
what she means by "return of the pure Vedic religion". I know of no such
movement in India at present. At any rate, I should like her to guide me to
the movement to which I am supposed to subscribe. But she has represented
me quite correctly when she says that I consider the Christian dogma of
Jesus Christ being the only saviour as a devilish doctrine which Hindus will
never accept. Readers of the two sentences I have quoted from her book can
judge for themselves as to who is a fundamentalist. In any case, I should
like to point out to this Christian enthusiast that fundamentalism is as
foreign to Hinduism as honesty is to Christian missions.
Footnotes:
1 This periodical is published by the Saiva Siddhanta Church
which has its international headquarters in Hawaii, USA. Starting as
a quarterly, The New Saivite World, on January 5, 1979 it became a
bimonthly in September 1985 and a monthly from July 1987
onwards.
New Labels for Old Merchandise
CHAPTER 1
New Labels for Old Merchandise
The Ashram Movement, in turn, is part of another and larger plan which
is known as Indigenisation or Inculturation and which has several other
planks. The plan has already produced a mass of literature1 and is being
continuously reviewed in colloquies, conferences, seminars, and spiritual
workshops on the local, provincial, regional, national, and international
levels. High-powered committees and councils and special cells have been
set up for supervising its elaboration and implementation.
"It is a remarkable fact," writes Fr. Bede, "that the Church has been
present in India for over fifteen hundred years2 and has had for the most
part everything in its favour, and yet in all this time hardly two in a hundred
of the people has been converted to the christian faith. The position is,
indeed, worse even than this figure would suggest, as the vast majority of
Christians are concentrated in a very few small areas and in the greater part
of India the mass of people remains today untouched except in a very
general way by the christian faith. It is necessary to go even further than
this and to say that for the immense majority of the Indian people
Christianity still appears as a foreign religion imported from the West and
the soul of India remains obstinately attached to its ancient religion. It is not
simply a matter of ignorance. This may have been true in the past, but in
recent times there has been a remarkable revival of Hinduism, which is
more or less consciously opposed to Christianity, and the educated Hindu
regards his religion as definitely superior to Christianity."3
The state of things described by Fr. Bede would have caused no concern
to a normal human mind. There is nothing obstinate about Hindus
remaining attached to their ancient religion which has given them a large
number of saints, sages and spiritual giants, and enriched them with an
incomparable wealth of art, architecture, music and literature. There is
nothing wrong with Hindus who find their own religion more satisfying
than an alien faith brought in by imperialist invaders. Moreover,
Christianity has yet to prove that it has something better to offer in terms of
spiritual seeking, or vision, or attainment. But the missionary mind,
unfortunately, has never been a normal human mind. It has always suffered
from the hallucination that it has a monopoly on truth and that it has a
divine command to strive for the salvation of every soul. That alone can
explain why the mission in India, instead of dismantling itself, is making
determined efforts to regroup and return for yet another assault on
Hinduism.
We shall review at a later stage the relationship which Fr. Bede envisages
as correct between his religion and that of the Hindus. The literature of
Indigenisation has a lot to say on the subject. What we must find out first is
the mistake which, according to Fr. Bede, the mission has made in
presenting the gospel. "When we consider the number of conversions to
Christianity over the last four hundred years," observes Fr. Bede, "we must
admit that the Christian mission has largely failed. As soon as we ask why, I
think we find the answer quite clear before us: the Church has always
presented herself to the eastern world in the forms of an alien culture. A
culture is the way people naturally express themselves; it embraces their
language, music, art, even their gestures, their ways of thought and feeling
and imagination. It is their whole world. In every case the Church has come
to eastern people in an alien form."4 It may be noted that Fr. Bede has
excluded religion from his definition of culture which he regards as a
people's "whole world". This is not an oversight as we shall see. It is
deliberate and calculated design.
The only alien way which does not seem to call for Indigenisation is the
finance of the mission. There is, of course, an occasional speculation
whether the mission can do without foreign finance. Off and on, some
romantics raise the protest that Christianity can never pass as an indigenous
religion so long as it does not learn to live on indigenous resources, but the
point is never permitted to be pressed home. The realists know that the
mission will collapse like nine-pins if the flow of foreign finance stops for
even a short time or is reduced in scale. The theme is brought up once in a
while in order to maintain the pretence that the mission is not unmindful of
Hindu misgivings on this score. The controversy always ends in a
compromise, namely, that "the foreign support should be maintained just for
the purpose of getting rid of it".5 In other words, Hindus should become
Christians if they wish to see the mission freed from foreign support!
In the end one finds it difficult to withhold the comment that the literature
of Indigenisation reads less like the deliberations of divines than like the
proceedings of conferences on marketing and management convened by
multinational corporations. The corporation in this case is old and
experienced. It commands colossal resources in terms of money and
manpower and prestige. It is also conversant with and employs the latest
methods of salesmanship. But the problem is that its stock-in-trade is stale
and finds few buyers in Hindu society. At the same time, the corporation is
congenitally incapable of producing anything new and more satisfying.
The solution to the problem, as the Board of Management sees it, is to
invent spurious labels which can hoodwink Hindus into believing that a
brand new product is being brought to them. That is what the Christian
theologians, historians, sociologists, artists and musicians are working at
today. It makes no difference that they pull long faces, look solemn, and
invoke the Holy Spirit whenever they come together in conference, or
deliver pep talks, or pen pompous phrases. The business remains as sordid
as ever. It is true that there are still left among them some simple souls who
believe sincerely that there is no mansion outside the Church save hell; but,
by and large, they know what they are doing and that they are doing it
because their own jobs and positions and privileges are at stake.
Footnotes:
4 Ibid., P. 179
Indigenisation: A Predatory
Enterprise
CHAPTER 2
Indigenisation: A Predatory Enterprise
In any case, Dr. Boyd has convinced himself that "there is at present a
rapid process of secularisation going on within Hinduism".3 He finds that
philosophical Hinduism in particular has become "demythologized". "It
would seem, therefore," he continues, "as though Hinduism were already
started on the path followed by Greek religion. And so we are led to the
question of whether or not it is legitimate for Christian theologians to use
and adapt categories of what still purports to be religious Hinduism, and yet
is very largely secularised. What, indeed, is the real meaning of the word
'Hindu'? Does it describe the fully mythological Hindu religion? Does it
describe certain philosophico-religious systems? Or is it simply a synonym
for 'Indian culture'? We shall find that some Indian Christian theologians,
notably Brahmabandhab, have believed that Christianity was not
incompatible with cultural, secularised Hinduism."4
The mission in India had no scruples about using force whenever and
wherever it had the opportunity. It changed over to other methods only
when it could wield the whip no more. The latest method sounds soft but is
no less sinister. "Indigenisation," say Kaj Baago, "is evangelisation. It is the
planting of the gospel inside another culture, another philosophy, another
religion."6 What happens in the process to that "another culture, another
philosophy, another religion" is not the mission's concern.
Fr. Bede give the clarion call. "In India," he says, "we need a christian
Vedanta and a christian Yoga, that is a system of theology which makes use
not only of the terms and concepts but of the whole structure of thought of
the Vedanta, as the Greek Fathers used Plato and Aristotle; and a spirituality
which will make use not merely of the practices of Hatha Yoga, by which
most people understand Yoga, but of the great systems of Karma, Bhakti
and Jnan Yoga, the way of works or action, of love or devotion, and of
knowledge or wisdom, through which the spiritual genius of India has been
revealed through the centuries."7 Mark the words, "make use". The entire
approach is instrumental and cynical. Yet Fr. Bede calls it a "vital act of
creative thought". The whole business could have been dismissed with the
contempt it deserves or laughed out as ludicrous but for the massive finance
and the giant apparatus which the Christian mission in India has at its
disposal.
As one surveys the operation mounted by the mission under the label of
Indigenisation, one is driven to an inescapable conclusion about the
character of Christianity: Christianity has been and remains a sterile
shibboleth devoid of a living spirituality and incapable of creating its own
culture. This spiritual poverty had forced Christianity into a predatory
career from the start. It survived and survives to-day by plundering the
cultures of living and prosperous spiritual traditions.
Hindu culture grew out of Hindu religion over many millennia. The once
cannot be separated from the other without doing irreparable damage to
both. The Christian mission is bent upon destroying Hindu religion. Hindu
culture will not survive for long if the mission succeeds. The plundered
Hindu plumage which Christianity will flaunt for a time is bound to fade
before long, just as the Greek and Roman cultures faded.
Let there be no mistake that the Christian mission is not only a destroyer
of living religions but also of living cultures. It promises no good to a
people, least of all to the Hindus.
Footnotes:
1 Bede Griffiths, op. cit., p. 182
2 R.H.S. Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology,
Madras, 1969, p. 4
3 Ibid., p. 5
4 Ibid., p. 6
The Patron Saint of Indigenisation
CHAPTER 3
The Patron Saint of Indigenisation
"De Nobili, in fact," observes Fr. Bede, "gives us the key to what was
wrong in the Christian approach to the Hindu and shows how the gospel
might have been presented to India in such a way as to attract its deepest
minds and its most religious men."1 He contrasts the way of De Nobili with
that of St. Francis Xavier for whom "all Hindus, but especially Brahmins,
were 'devil-worshippers'."2 And he is not alone in hailing De Nobili as the
patron saint of Indigenisation.
The Madurai Mission had been carved out towards the end of the
sixteenth century from the Jesuit missionary province on the Pearl Fishery
Coast. The province had been visited in the middle of the same century by
the Jesuit star-performer, St. Francis Xavier. He had converted thousands of
local fishermen, known as Paravas, with the help of the Portuguese navy
which threatened to burn their fishing boats unless they embraced
Christianity. The "saint" had also declared war on Brahmins who did not
approve of his mission and methods. He had concluded, after surveying the
scene, that Christianity had little chance even among the poorest Hindus so
long as Brahmins enjoyed the prestige they did in Hindu society. Ever
since, the Portuguese had been molesting, even killing Brahmins wherever
Portuguese power prevailed. But far from doing any damage to the prestige
of Brahmins, Portuguese barbarism brought Christianity into contempt
among the Hindu masses. The pejorative term "paranghi" which the local
people had used for a Portuguese came to mean a Christian as well. Fr.
Fernandes who was stationed at Madurai since 1595, had not been able to
make a single convert.
He had already learnt Tamil and Sanskrit. But he could not pass as a
Brahmin unless he wore a sacred thread and grew a kuDumî (tuft of hair) on
the back of his lead. These essential emblems of a Brahmin had been
expressly forbidden to Christians by a Church Synod. So he sought an
exemption from his immediate superior, the Archbishop of Cranganore. The
Archbishop referred the matter to the Primate and the Inquisitor at Goa.
Both of them sanctioned the masquerade, and De Nobili "declared war on
the powers of hell and set about with the torch of the Gospel to scatter the
darkness of error and bring to Christ as many souls as I could".4
The Hindus he baptised did not have the faintest notion that they were
embracing another faith, least of all Christianity which they despised. The
ritual they were required to perform was washing with water from a nearby
well, a change of clothes, muttering of mantras coined by De Nobili, and
eating of "prasâdam". They did not suspect that the new names they were
given were the names of Christian saints translated into Tamil. All they
were told and knew was that they were being initiated by a Brahmin guru
into his own sampradâya. Such initiations were at that time, as they still
are, a routine matter for most Hindus.
Some Hindus suspected that there was something fishy about this
stranger with a white skin. They asked him if he was a paranghi, that is, a
Christian. De Nobili took advantage of the double meaning which the term
had acquired. He replied that he was not a paranghi, that is, a Portuguese
but a Brahmin from Rome. In his own words, "I professed to be an Italian
Brahmin who had renounced the world, had studied wisdom at Rome (for a
Brahmin means a wise man) and rejected all the pleasures and comforts of
this world."5 He had the subjective satisfaction of being verbally correct,
though in missionary ethics even this much was not necessary. Truth has
always occupied a secondary place in missionary methods. What has stood
uppermost is the saving of souls, even if it involves practising fraud. "The
end justifies the means", is after all a Jesuit maxim.
But he had counted without other missions and missionaries in the field.
Some of his competitors for Hindu souls were becoming jealous of his
success. Most of them felt that he had gone too far in "pandering to
paganism". His own colleague at Madurai, Fr. Fernandez, sent one
memorandum after another to the mission superiors, protesting against De
Nobili's doings. The Franciscan missionaries working in a neighbouring
province spread the rumour that De Nobili had abandoned Christianity and
become a Hindu. The authorities at Goa were forced to take notice of the
storm which their protege had raised.
At last, in 1613, De Nobili received a letter from the Provincial of his
mission. It contained 34 orders and observations. The dress of a sannyasin
was declared immodest, if not indecent. Abstinence from meat and fish was
held contrary to nature and hazardous to health. The angels, apostles and
saints were to be called by their proper names used in the Church and not
by their Tamil translations. Mass was to be called Mass and not "pûjei", not
even Christian "pûjei". Sacraments like baptism and confirmation were to
be straight Christian ceremonies and not disguised as "saMskâras". In short,
De Nobili was ordered to stop the major moves in his game of deception.
Fortunately for him, the Provincial who had questioned his methods died
and the next man to take over was more sympathetic. His opponents,
however, appealed to Pope Paul V. They also marshalled telling quotations
and precedents. Christian scriptures and Church traditions abound in
sayings and doings which can be cited equally effectively for using force or
practising fraud. The Pope ordered the Inquisition at Goa to call a Council
and investigate De Nobili. The Council met in February 1619 and was
presided over by the Primate. De Nobili appeared before it and put up a still
more spirited defence. But the Council decided against him. Now it was De
Nobili's turn to appeal to the Pope.
At the end of a long letter to the Pope, De Nobili said quite truthfully
that, till his time, converts to Christianity had been made only by force. "On
all sides", he wrote, "spread before our eyes fields with ripening harvest,
and there is not one to reap them, no one to bring help to these populations,
sunk in profound ignorance. For so far it is along the Coasts of India that
the courage of the Portuguese has brought the torch of faith; the rest of the
country, the inland provinces, have not been touched, so that it may rightly
be said that the Christian faith can be found only where Portuguese arms are
respected."
Next, he told the big lie that Hindus were thirsting for Christ and would
flock to the Church if they were allowed to retain their ancestral culture and
social customs. "Nearly everybody," he said, "is full of admiration for the
Christian religion, very few if any condemn it, many embrace it; but there is
one thing which delays conversions; it is the fear of being outcast by their
own people, exiled from their country, deprived of their friends, relatives
and temporal goods, as will happen if they give up the badges of their caste
and the manners and customs of their ancestors."
After sending his appeal to the Pope at Rome, De Nobili pulled strings in
Portugal so that the King and the Inquisitor General of that country sided
with him. Pope Paul V also obliged him by dying soon after his appeal
arrived in Rome. The matter dragged on for a few years. It was only in 1623
that Pope Gregory XV decided in De Nobili's favour. The Madurai Mission
continued to spawn "sannyasins" till long after De Nobili was dead. The
records of the Mission provide a list of 122 Jesuit missionaries "who wore
the dress of Sanniyasis and followed the method of de Nobili"8 before the
Jesuit order was suppressed in 1773.
Meanwhile, the Hindus at Madurai had come to know the truth about the
"Brahmin of noble birth from Rome". The converts De Nobili had made
melted away in no time. Father Antony Proenca, a companion of De Nobili,
was soon crying for a suitable lotion which could hide the colour of
missionary skin. "Among my readers," he appealed in his Annual Letter of
1651, "there will surely be some who could procure for us some lotion of
ointment which could change the colour of our skin so that just as we have
changed our dress, language, food and customs, we may also change our
complexion and become like those around us with whom we live, thus
making ourselves 'all to all', Omnia Omnibus factus. It is not necessary that
the colour should be very dark; the most suitable would be something
between black and red or tawny. It would not matter if it could not be
removed when once applied: we would willingly remain all our lives the
'negroes' of Jesus Christ, A.M.D.G. [to the greater glory of God]." We are
told by the theologians that Fr. Proenca was inspired by the "spirit of
understanding and stooping down which St. Clement of Alexandria calls
synkatabasis and St. Augustine condescension".9 Christian scriptures and
Church traditions, as we have pointed out, provide for every exigency.
II
Mr. Ellis was able to "ascertain that the original of this work still exists
among the manuscripts in the possession of the Catholic missionaries at
Pondicherry, which are understood to have originally belonged to the
Society of Jesus". He also found "among the manuscripts, imitations of the
other three Vedas"- Rigveda, Samaveda. and Atharvaveda. There was also
an Upaveda of the Rigveda composed in "16,128 lines or 8600 stanzas"-a
work unknown to any Hindu tradition. Several other forgeries came to his
notice. On enquiries made at Pondicherry, "the more respectable native
Christians" informed him that "these books were written by Robert De
Nobilibus" who had become "well known to both Hindus and Christians
under the Sanscrit title of Tattwa-Bodh Swami".
Mr. Ellis concludes that "the mission of Madura was founded on the
principle of concealing from the natives, the country of the missionaries,
and imposing them on people as belonging to the sacred tribe of the
Brahmanas (Romaca Brahmana was the title assumed), and this deception,
probably, led to many more; at least Robert De Nobilibus is accused by
Mosheim in his Ecclesiastical History both of fraud and perjury in his
endeavour to support this assumed character."
"Nobili, who was looked upon by the Jesuits as the chief apostle of the
Indians after Francois Xavier took incredible pains to acquire a knowledge
of the religion, customs, and language of Madura, sufficient for the
purposes of his ministry. But this was not all: for to stop the mouths of his
opposers and particularly of those who treated his character of Brachman as
an imposture, he produced an old, dirty parchment in which he had forged,
in the ancient Indian characters, a deed, showing that the Brachmans of
Rome were of much older date than those of India and that the Jesuits of
Rome descended, in a direct line from the god Brama. Nay, Father
Jouvence, a learned Jesuit, tells us, in the history of his order, something yet
more remarkable; even that Robert De Nobili, when the authenticity of his
smoky parchment was called in question by some Indian unbelievers,
declared, upon oath, before the assembly of the Brachmans of Madura, that
he (Nobili) derived really and truly his origin from the god Brama. Is it not
astonishing that this Reverend Father should acknowledge, is it not
monstrous that he should applaud as a piece of pious ingenuity this
detestable instance of perjury and fraud?"
III
We also reproduce what William Hickey, "a pleader practising for several
years in the Southern Districts of India", wrote in his book, The Tanjore
Mahratta Principality in Southern India, published in 1873.
"Their success among the Brahmins was very small, and these
Missionaries soon began to see the necessity of seeking converts, from
among the lower orders. They went among the villagers, condescended to
Pariahs, and achieved great triumphs over the humblest classes of the
people. But in time these new Brahmins were discovered to be only
Feringhees in disguise, and the natives consequently rejected with contempt
their ministrations."
Footnotes:
2 Ibid., p. 58
4 Quoted in Ibid., p. 86
5 Quoted in Ibid., p. 85
6 Acts, 16.3
Mission's Volte-Face vis-a-vis
Hindu Culture
CHAPTER 4
Mission's Volte-Face vis-a-vis Hindu Culture
The formulas which the mission has been coming forward with, in the
years since independence, are not at all new. The fraud which had been
practised secretly by Robert De Nobili in the first half of the seventeenth
century, was proposed publicly by a number of noted Hindu converts in the
second half of the nineteenth. In fact, these converts had gone much farther.
They had advocated that the disguising of the gospel should not remain
confined to the dress and demeanour of missionaries, the style of mission
stations, and the language of liturgy, sacraments and sacred hymns. The
operation, they had pleaded, should be extended to the field of theology as
well. The Theology of Fulfillment which the mission flaunts at present and
which Fr. Bede Griffiths and his two predecessors at the Saccidanand
Ashram have expounded with extraordinary zeal, was formulated in the first
instance by these Hindu converts.
The Hindus converts had not made their contributions out of love for
their country or culture. They were alienated from both. It was their
fascination for European ways, including European religion, which had led
them into the Christian fold. They had become champions of Hindu culture
only when the mission turned down with contempt their claim to be treated
as more equal than the other natives. Their recommendation that
Christianity should be clothed in Hindu culture had been their way of
scoring over the foreign missionaries whom they accused of compromising
the Christian cause in India by presenting the gospel in a foreign garb. The
psychology of these converts is a fascinating subject. They were trying to
out-mission the mission itself. But that is a different story. For the present
we are dealing with the genesis of Indigenisation.
Today, the mission is holding up these half dozen Hindu converts as its
prized heroes. They are being hailed as pioneers of indigenous Christianity,
paragons of patriotism, and dogged defenders of Hindu culture. The
mission has even developed a complaint that these "great men" and their
"sterling contributions" to "Indian causes" are not getting the place they
deserve in Indian history. But in their own life-time the same mission had
scolded and snubbed these Hindu converts, even disowned and denounced
them as villains. They had been commanded by the mission to get cured of
their "nationalist malady", and told in no uncertain terms that nationalism
had no place in a universal religion like Christianity. The volte-face which
the mission has staged with regard to these men speaks volumes about the
mission's mentality and methods.
The mission had remained convinced for a long time that Christianity as
propounded, preached and practised in Europe was the since qua non for all
Hindu converts. It had tried its best to impose that model on India, first with
the help of Portugal's armed power and later on with the aid of the awe
inspired by Britain's imperial prestige. It had frowned upon every departure
from that model as tantamount to heresy or worse. The foreign missionaries
who had flocked towards India like locusts towards a green field were
hostile to Hindu culture which they rightly regarded as an expression of
Hindu religion. They had harangued Hindu converts to shed all vestiges of
their ancestral culture. Every convert was expected to ape the European
Christian in all spheres of life. Mahatma Gandhi has mentioned in his
autobiography the case "of a well-known Hindu" converted to Christianity.
"It was the talk of the town," he writes, "that when he was baptised, he had
to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes and
thenceforward he began to go about in European costume including a hat."1
Furthermore, the mission had made no secret of the low esteem in which
it held the natives of every description. A conference of foreign
missionaries held at Calcutta in, 1855 had proclaimed that the natives were
known for "their deficiency in all those qualities which constitute
manliness".2 It is true that English-educated and high-caste Hindu converts
were prized by the mission. But only for purposes of publicity. They
proved, if a proof was needed, the superiority of Christianity over
Hinduism. But if any Hindu convert acquired inflated notions about his
intrinsic worth or his standing with the mission, he had to be put in his
proper place. In 1856, Alexander Duff had denounced his own protege, Lal
Behari Dey, as the "ring leader of cabal" when the latter, along with two
other Hindu converts, requested for admission to the Committee of the
Scottish Church Mission in Calcutta.
The message which the mission had sent out to Hindu converts had gone
home. Most of them had accepted their servile role in studied silence. Some
of them had felt frustrated and expressed bitterness. But only in private.
Nehemiah Goreh, a Brahmin convert from Maharashtra, would confess at
the end of his career that he often "felt like a man who had taken poison".3
Only a few like Kali Charan Banerjea continued with open criticism of
foreign missionaries who, they said, were endangering the mission. But the
mission was not impressed by this native fervour for the faith. Another
conference of foreign missionaries held at Allahabad in 1872 noted with
concern that "many or most of the 'educated native Christians' are showing
feelings of 'bitterness, suspicion or dislike' towards the European
missionaries" and "warned these radicals that as long as the native church
was economically dependent on European funds, it would be more proper
for them to display patience with regard to independence".4
The classic case of what the mission could do to a defiant Hindu convert
was that of Brahmabandhab Upadhay. He was the one who went farthest in
advocating that Christianity should be clothed in Hindu culture. He was
also the most comprehensive and persistent in his prescriptions till he was
hounded out of the Church. At present he is given the lion's share of space
in the literature of Indigenisation. The Catholic Church is today crowning
him with posthumous laurels. The trinity from Tannirpalli-Jules
Monchanin, Henri Le Saux and Bede Griffiths-have only repeated what
Brahmabandhab had said and done long ago. His story, therefore, deserves
a detailed treatment.
But, like De Nobili before him, Brahmabandhab had counted without his
superiors in the mission. "In forming the idea of becoming a Sannyasi,"
writes his biographer, "Bhavani did not consult with the authorities. The
first day he appeared in the Church of Hyderabad in the garic gown, Fr.
Salinger took exception and had him leave the Church. Quietly he repaired
to the Presbytery and changed his dress." Brahmabandhab appealed to the
Archbishop of Bombay but the latter was not in a mood to listen till
Brahmabandhab quoted the precedent from Madurai. He was then granted a
special permission. "The ordinary people," continues his biographer, "did
not like this. They could not take the idea of a Christian in the garb of a
Sannyasi. Some saw in it nothing but a clever trick to catch the unwary
among the Hindus. Upadhay wore therefore a petty cross of ebony to
distinguish himself from the other Sannyasis. Even this did not silence their
malicious tongues."7
He revised his theology also when he learned that Advaita had become
the foundation of Vivekananda's call for revitalizing Hinduism. He quickly
dropped his earlier diatribes against Vedanta and fell back on the "deep
insights" of his Brahmo guru, Keshab Chandra Sen. The prophet of the new
Dispensation (Nababidhan) had read the Upanishdic message, aham
brahmo'smi in Christ's saying, "I and my Father are one". He had stated in a
lecture delivered in 1882 that "The Trinity of Christian Theology
corresponds strikingly with the Saccidananda of Hinduism" - Sat being the
Father, Cit being the Son, and Ananda being the Holy Spirit.
Brahmabandhab published in the Sophia of October of 1898 his hymn to
Saccidananda composed in Sanskrit and translated into English. The
transition from an opponent of Vedanta to that of its supporter was smooth,
and caused no intellectual qualms in the Catholic thinker.
The facts as they came to light in due course were revealing. The Bishop
of Nagpur had referred the scheme to the Archbishop of Bombay who in
turn had brought it to the notice of the Delegate Apostolic, the Pope's
representative and supreme authority of the Catholic Church in India. The
Delegate Apostolic strongly opposed the scheme and sent it with his critical
comments to the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda at Rome. The
Congregation agreed with him and turned it down. That was in September
1898, several months before Brahmabandhab set up his ashram on the
Narmada. But he was not informed of what was going on behind the scenes,
nor given an opportunity to defend his stand. When the facts became
known, he felt he had been stabbed in the back. He had to wind up the
ashram if he wanted to go on appeal to the Pope. This he did and travelled
to Bombay on his way to Rome. But he fell seriously ill and the voyage was
abandoned. All his dreams of clothing Catholicism in Hindu garments had
come to nought.
The Delegate Apostolic, however, was vigilant about this wayward sheep
in his flock. He wrote to the Archbishop of Calcutta, disapproving of what
Brahmabandhab was writing. The Archbishop made Brahmabandhab resign
from editorship of the magazine. But the Delegate Apostolic was not
satisfied and the next step he took was drastic. He addressed a letter to the
Archbishop of Madras objecting specifically to Brahmabandhab's
declaration that the Weekly Sophia "will supply a new garb to the religion of
Christ". Finally, he issued a public statement warning all Catholics "against
associating with and reading the said periodical Sophia".16 Brahmabandhab
became defiant and resumed as editor of the paper. The delegate Apostolic
placed the Weekly Sophia on the Index, which meant that Catholics were
forbidden to subscribe to it, or read it, or have anything to do with it without
permission from appropriate authorities in the Church. Brahmabandhab
reversed his stand and offered to submit his writings to the Censor of the
Catholic Church before publication. But the Delegate Apostolic refused to
relent and the Weekly Sophia expired in December 1900.
He sailed for England in October 1902 with the help of money raised
mostly by his Hindu friends. He went into ecstasy when he reached Rome.
"As soon as I got down from the train," he wrote to another Catholic
enthusiast in India, "I kissed the soil of Rome... I prayed at the tomb of St.
Peter, The Rock, The Holder of the Keys - for India, for you all. While
kissing the toe of St. Peter, my mind turned back to you because you had
once told Mr. Redman how you could kiss that worn out toe a thousand
times over and over again." He cherished a desire to meet the Pope but
could not muster the courage to apply for an audience. "While kneeling
down at the tomb of St. Peter," he consoled himself, "I thought of the Holy
Father, the living St. Peter. Oh! how I longed to kneel at his feet and plead
for India. I was shown from a distance the window of his apartments."21
The man who regarded Hinduism as idolatrous had succumbed to the most
abominable idolatry known to human history. There was no limit to the
depths to which this man was prepared to sink, willingly and without
remorse.
The quality of converts was poorer still. "The social and spiritual state of
converts," he continued, "made during the Portuguese ascendancy does not
present any more hopeful prospect. Three hundred years have passed away
and not a single saint has India given to the altars of God. There has not
been a single theologian, not even a philosopher, who has made any
impression on the Christian science of Divinity. In the secular line we do
not find among them leaders of thought to guide national deliberations.
There has flourished no statesman, no historian, no thinker worth the name,
to raise the status of the Indian Christian community. Strange to say even
those who have shed lustre on India in modern times, have almost all of
them, sprung from outside the Christian pale. The undesirable state of
things cannot he attributed to political environment."26 He could have
laboured a little more and given a count of the questionable characters
which Christianity had produced in this country.
His biography also fails to chart out what went on in the inner recesses of
Brahmabandhab's mind. His behaviour after his return from abroad became
stranger and stranger with the passing of time. He had set up a school,
Sarasvat Ayatan, in Calcutta in 1904. When the day for Sarasvatî Pûjâ
dawned that year, he made his students worship an icon of the Goddess
which he had installed. The Catholics were scandalised. His colleague,
Animananda, who was to write his biography and eulogise him in later
years, left the school in disgust. But the next thing which Brahmabandhab
did was still more shocking. He defended Sri Krishna as an avatâra in a
public debate with Fr. J.N. Farquhar.
Two months before his death, in August 1907, he had administered a rude
shock to the Christians in India. He had performed a prâyaSchitta
(repentance ceremony) for the sin of visiting the land of the Mlecchas and
taking food with them. He went through the prescribed rites, even to the
extent of eating a bit of cow-dung. Hindus concluded that he had ceased to
be a Christian. So when he died, they cremated him with Hindu saMskâras
at a Hindu burning ghât in Calcutta. The Catholic priest who came to claim
his body for a Christian burial arrived too late. The Church which had
hounded Brahmabandhab alive was out to save the soul of Brahmabandhab
dead.
Brahmabandhab had become a persona non grata for the Catholic Church
while he was alive, but after his death in 1907, he was forgotten completely.
It is only recently that he has been taken out of the limbo and passed as the
pioneer of indigenous Christianity. The Catholic Church now takes
considerable pains to prove that he was a believing Christian till the end.
His Sarasvatî Pûjâ, his defence of Sri Krishna and his prâyaSchitta are
being explained away as external acts which he performed in order to
demonstrate his conformity to Hindu culture but which did not affect his
deep devotion to Jesus Christ as the one and only saviour. His persecution
by the Church is being "repented" as a "mistake" made by the Church in an
atmosphere when Christianity had not yet freed itself from its "colonial
associations".
The Protestant side of the Christian mission in India has started a similar
search in its burial grounds. Hindu converts who had been ignored or
insulted in an earlier period are being raised from the dead, and hailed as
harbingers of Indigenisation. Now we hear a lot about Krishna Mohun
Banerjea, Parni Andy, Kali Charan Banerjea, J.G. Shome, A.S. Appaswami
Pillai and Sadhu Sunder Singh. All these converts are supposed to have
tried, each in his own way, "to relate Hindu culture meaningfully to the
message of Christianity".
"We have long held," proclaimed the IMC meeting under Mott's
presidentship, "that the one serious rival for the spiritual supremacy of India
that Christianity has to face is a resurgent Hinduism, and recent happenings
deepen the conviction. The spirit of new Hinduism is personified in
Mahatma Gandhi, whose amazing influence over his fellows is undoubtedly
fed by the fires of religion and patriotism. Because he is a staunch Hindu
and finds within the faith of his fathers the spiritual succour he needs, he
strongly opposes the Christian claim that Jesus Christ is the one and only
saviour. This reminds us again that unless the great Christian affirmations
are verified in Christian living, they beat ineffectively on Indian minds."29
The IMC stalwarts did not spell out the details of Christian living that the
mission was to demonstrate in days to come. But a beginning was made in
the thesis, Rethinking Christianity in India, presented to the meeting at
Tambaram by a group of native Christians led by P. Chenchiah. The Preface
to the thesis pleaded that "Christ should be related to the great Indian
religious heritage" and that "Christianity should assume an Indian
expression in Life, thought and activity".30 The thesis devoted some
chapters to such themes as Ashrams, The Christian Message in Relation to
the National Situation, and Indian Christians under Swaraj. The same group
came out with another major work in 1941, The Ashrams: Past and Present,
on the subject of Indigenisation. Ale Ashram Movement followed in due
course. The Protestant section of the mission was thus in position to launch
Indigenisation on several fronts by the time India attained independence in
1947.
The Catholic section of the mission had to wait until Rome gave
permission after the Vatican Council II held in 1965. But, in the meanwhile,
Fr. Jules Monchanin, the French missionary in Tamil Nadu had resurrected
Brahmabandhab as a model for experimentation in the field of theology and
missionary methods. He established the Saccidananda Ashram at
Tannirpalli on the Kavery in 1950 and started living like a Hindu sannyasin.
A French monk, Fr. Henri Le Saux, who was Monchanin's close
collaborator in the experiment made an indepth study of Brahmabandhab
before evolving his own strategy of undoing Hindu religion with the help of
Hindu culture. The British monk, Fr. Bede Griffiths, has gone the farthest in
aping Brahmabandhab, both in words and deeds. But without
acknowledgement. Perhaps he finds it below his British prestige to
acknowledge a debt to a mere native.
Taken together, the mission's literature on the need for adopting a new
posture vis-a-vis Hindu culture reads like communist literature evolving a
new party line. One finds in the mission's literature the same cold-blooded
appraisal of new power equations, the same deliberations on how a new
strategy should be evolved to meet a new situation, and the same trimming
of tactics on various fronts. One also comes across the same confession of
errors that had crept into the earlier theory and practice, without revealing
how the earlier strategy and tac-ties had been evolved in relation to another
political situation obtaining in another period. The slogans to be raised by
the mission in days to come are periodically revised with a view to
deceiving and disarming a new class of Hindus, as in the case of the
communist party when looking for new fellow-travellers.
Footnotes:
1 Collected Works, Volume Thirty-nine, p. 33
6 Quoted in Ibid., p. 59
12 Quoted in Ibid., p. 75
13 Quoted in ibid., p. 78
14 Ibid., p. 87
15 Quoted in Ibid., 88
16 Quoted in Ibid., p. 91
The Ashram Movement in the
Mission
CHAPTER 5
The Ashram Movement in the Mission
All Christian historians concur that the need for Christian ashrams was
felt when the spread of the gospel became more and more difficult due to
the rising tide of resurgent Hinduism. They also agree that the first cues
came from ashrams founded by some leaders of the Indian Renaissance-the
Bharat Ashram founded by Keshab Chandra Sen in 1872 at Belgharia near
Calcutta, the Ramakrishna ashrams which functioned as bases of the
Ramakrishna Mission since 1897, the Shantiniketan Ashram founded by
Rabindranath Tagore at Bolepur in 1901, and the Satyagraha Ashram which
Mahatma Gandhi started at Sabarmati after his return from South Africa in
1915. The names of Ramana Ashram at Tiruvannamalai and Sri Aurobindo
Ashram at Pondicherry are added to the list by some historians. The fashion
since Chenchiah's thesis of 1941 has been to hark back to the Brahmanical
ashrams and Buddhist and Jain monasteries, in ancient and medieval times,
as providing inspiration for Christian ashrams.
Fr. Winslow visited England in 1926 and reported the results achieved to
influential people in mission circles "with the result that in 1927 and 1928
the Sangha was reinforced by four priests and three laymen (two of whom
were afterwards ordained) from England". Dame Monica Wills, a pious and
rich lady, gave him "the munificent gift of £1000 with which we were able
to purchase a piece of land near Bhamburda station just outside Poona and
in the early months of 1928 to build at last our Ashram and permanent
headquarters".5
More money came. In 1931, the Sangha purchased "a large field
adjoining the river at Aundh, four miles to the north of Poona, as a site for
establishing a village Ashram from which work might be carried on among
villages similar to that of the early days of the C.S.S. and supplementing the
work in Poona".6 By 1934, the Sangha had so much money and manpower
that it was bifurcated into two. The new establishment at Aundh retained
the old name. The set-up at Poona was rechristened as the Christa Prema
Seva Sangha and handed over to another British missionary, W.Q. Lash. He
was to become the Bishop of Bombay in 1947.
A Christian painter at Poona plied his brush and made Jesus a native son
of India. His paintings provided frontpieces for The Ashram Review. Hindus
could now see Mary, the mother of Jesus, dressed in sârî and wearing an
elaborate Hindu coiffeur, in scenes such as her own childhood, Nativity of
Jesus, Mother of India, Our Lady of India, Annunciation, etc. Hindus could
now see Jesus in a Hindu setting, blessing the fishes held up in a plate by a
Brahmin boy, meeting and talking to a Hindu woman at Samaria, sitting in
padmâsana while his feet are anointed by Mary Magdalene dressed as a
Hindu damsel, being attended by two Hindu women at Bethany, getting tied
to a Hindu-style pillar and scourged by two whip-wielding Hindus, being
crucified while two Hindu women stand by the cross with mournful faces,
being taken down from the cross by four Hindu women, and so on. The
evening at Golgotha became crowded with Hindu men and women. St.
Thomas stood attired as a Hindu sannyasin with two similarly dressed
Hindu disciples kneeling at his feet. The design for Indian Christian
statuary showed Jesus hanging on a cross while a rishi-like figure, riding a
GaruDa-like bird, sat on its top and two Hindu women stood on both sides,
one praying with folded hands and the other offering incense. Hindus now
had no reason to reject Jesus as a Jewish rabbi who lived and died in a
distant land; he was very much of a Hindu avatâra. Hindus could only
wonder at how a historical person who appeared at a particular place and
time could be transplanted elsewhere and in another period with such
perfect ease. The mission is never tired of saying that Jesus is not a
mythological figure like Rama, Krishna and the Buddha of the Mahayana
school. Christian theology provides an explanation. Had not Tertullian, the
famous Church Father, said long ago that it is true because it is absurd, and
that it happened because it was impossible?
The Ashram Movement had gained some momentum by the time the
International Missionary Council met at Tambaram in 1938. It was given a
firm footing in the mission strategy by S. Jesudasen of the Christukula
Ashram in a chapter on Ashrams which he contributed to the joint thesis
presented by his group. He prefaced his essay by announcing that "Rishis
gave us ashrams and the ashrams gave us rishis in return".9 What he meant
by a rishi was spelled out in a subsequent section. "The first missionaries
(especially Roman Catholic missionaries)," he wrote, "were men who saw
nothing but evil in Hinduism and looked upon Hindus as people who were
debased and corrupt. Thus wrote Francis Xavier, one of the saintliest of
R.C. missionaries, to his chief Loyola in one of his letter: 'The whole race
of Hindus is barbarous and will listen to nothing that does not suit its
barbarous customs. Regarding the knowledge of what is Godlike and
virtuous it cares but little.' Since his time there have been others, both
Protestant and Roman Catholic, who have in a measure shared with Francis
Xavier the same attitude towards the religion and people of this land. A
change in attitude towards the religion and people of this land came about
1606 when Robert de Nobili and other Jesuits of a high intellectual order,
ability, culture and sacrifice Indianised themselves and their methods of
Christian work until later they incurred papal condemnation... That this
attempt at identification with people was a success is proved at least to me
by the history of my own family. My ancestor's conversion to Christianity
from Hinduism was brought about by one of these early Jesuits in AD
1690."10
We have seen what Robert De Nobili and his successors were doing at
Madurai. It is difficult to believe that Dr. Jesudasen did not know the full
story. Just because his ancestor was a victim of Jesuit wiles, it does not
follow that the Madurai missionaries were not downright crooks, and that
what they practised was not a despicable fraud. Holding them up as men of
"high intellectual order, ability, culture and sacrifice" reveals the depths to
which missionary moral standards can descend.11 Invoking Robert De
Nobili as the first inspiration for Christian ashrams tells us the truth about
the Ashram Movement, namely, that it is being promoted in order to
practise the same fraud.
Coming back to rishis, it is true that they founded and lived in ashrams.
But to say that ashrams produced rishis is ridiculous. There is no evidence
that Hindus ever accepted a man known as a rishi simply because he lived
in an ashram. The rishis known to Hindu religious tradition were first and
foremost the living embodiments of a vast spiritual vision evolved and
perfected by Sanatana Dharma. The total absence of that vision in
Christianity is a guarantee that Christian ashrams will always remain sterile
so far as rishis are concerned. At their best the Christian ashrams can
produce only hypocrites, at their worst only scheming scoundrels. In fact,
the preposterous attempt to produce rishis by the mechanical process of
aping Hindu sannyasins proves beyond doubt that Christianity is a vulgar
ideology of gross materialism disguised in religious verbiage.
This is not the occasion for probing into what the "steadfast union of the
will with His will" has meant in human history, particularly to the heathens,
in terms of death and destruction. Here we are dealing with the Ashram
Movement in the mission. By 1945 there were a score of Christian ashrams
spread over the country. The mission had promoted them "as places of
experimentation in the working out of the Gospel in the background of
Indian thought, bringing about all that is valuable in that heritage under the
power of Christ".14 But the mission was far from satisfied with their
performance in the one field which it regarded as the most important.
"Many of our Christian ashrams," observed S.V. Parekh, "are noted for their
life of piety and devotion. Some are noted for their medical and social
work, while others, are keenly interested in educational work, but it is a sad
comment to make that there are hardly any with the exception of a few that
are out for evangelism. If I am not mistaken this is one of the reasons why
the Church has fought shy of the ashrams. Let the Christian ashrams accept
this challenge and throw out a challenge to the youth to rally round the
banner of evangelism."15 The cat was out of the bag - the Christian
ashrams were expected to produce converts like the rest of the mission
stations. The talk about producing rishis was so much hogwash.
The Ashram Movement, however, kept forging ahead under the impetus
for Indigenisation about which the mission became somewhat frantic soon
after India attained independence. The Catholic Church had been hostile to
ashrams which it regarded as an attempt to infuse Hinduism into
Christianity. We have seen how it dealt with Brahmabandhab when he tried
to create an ashram in 1899. His Sindhi disciple, Rewachand who styled
himself as Swami Animananda, made another attempt by starting a Catholic
Ashram in 1940 near the Catholic Seminary at Ranchi. "Most of the
Belgian Jesuits in Ranchi," writes Dr. Taylor, "Whom I talked with in
March 1977 and who lived across the street from the Seminary did not
know that Animananda had ever lived in Ranchi." But the Catholic Church
became reconciled to the institutional innovation when it caught the fever
for Indigenisation. Speaking of the same Belgian Jesuits in 1977, Dr. Taylor
adds in a footnote: "But they were very proud of their colleague. Fr. E. De
Meulder who had put up gross and petty signs calling the Hazaribagh
Church compound an ashram and who now claims that a discussion club he
once founded in Ranchi was actually called ashram. Part of the problem
with the name 'ashram' these days is that too many irresponsible churchmen
are willing and eager to apply it to anything and every-thing."16
The Jesuit father, Henry Heras, the foremost Catholic expert on
Indigenisation "contemplated an all-embracing Christian sannyasa in his
project of Saccidananda Prema Sangha".17 Fr. Jules Monchanin, the
French missionary, gave the project a practical shape in 1950 when he,
along with another French missionary, Fr. Henri Le Saux, founded the
Saccidananda Ashram at Tannirpalli in the Tiruchirapalli district of Madras
Presidency. "They had clad themselves in Kavi robes, the traditional sign of
the great renunciation in the land of India. Round their necks they wore the
Benedictine cross and engraved in its centre the pranava, symbol of God
the Ineffable and of the Eternal word springing from His Silence, a solemn
affirmation that the Christ revealed in history is the very Brahman itself, the
object of all the contemplations of the Rishis. They had taken new names.
His own, Parama-Arubi-Anandam, bore witness to his special devotion to
the Praclete, the Supreme (Parama), Formless (a-rubi). They called their
solitude the Shanti Vanam, the wood of peace. Its formal name was
Saccidananda Ashram."18 Fr. Henri Le Saux took the name Swami
Abhishikteshwarananda, Bliss of the Lord of the Anointed Ones, that is,
Jesus Christ. His friends and followers found the full name too difficult to
pronounce. So he cut it short to Abhishiktananda. People who were fond of
him shortened the name still further and simply called him Abhishikta.
So are many other Christian ashrams in India.24 They are attracting the
attention of what Dr. Taylor describes as "a new breed of missionary
statesmen-cum-funders and a group I shall call the 'Continental Christian
Funding Organisation'".25 They are no more than normal mission stations
hiding behind a false facade. The only additional function they perform is to
prevent bewildered people from the West from wandering into Hindu
ashrams and coming under the influence of Hindu gurus. "We know very
well, of course," said Henri Le Saux in 1964, "that the word ashram has
been terribly devalorised by Christians. In some so-called Christian
ashrams, such essential conditions of Hindu sadhana as abstinence from
meat and liquor are completely neglected if not deliberately trodden upon.
Elsewhere ashrams are simply guest-house and in the States it is even
spoken of 'weekend ashrams'."26 What else did he expect from fake
swamis?
Footnotes:
1 Richard W. Taylor, 'Christian Ashrams as a Style of Mission in
India', International Review of Missions, July 1979, p. 283.
2 Ibid., p. 284
3 Ibid., p. 285
5 Ibid., p. 6
6 Ibid., p. 7
10 Ibid.
20 Ibid., P. 5
21 Ibid., p. 6
22 Ibid., p. 7
26 A Bendictine Ashram, p. 2
The Trinity from Tannirpalli
CHAPTER 6
The Trinity from Tannirpalli
The three names which have achieved celebrity in the Christian world, in
India as well as abroad, are those of Jules Monchanin, Henri Le Saux and
Bede Griffiths. All of them are associated with the Saccidananda Ashram at
Tannirpalli in the Tiruchirapalli district of Tamil Nadu. The first two came
from France and the third belongs to England. All three have become
known as Indian sages. Bede Griffiths is being hailed as a brahmavid, a
claim advanced rarely even by ancient Hindu rishis. A brief survey of the
sayings and doings of this trinity will help in determining the truth about
their drumbeating.
Jules Monchanin
He, however, did not live in the Bhakti Ashram except at brief intervals.
He went out again and again, visiting places and meeting people. He
delivered lectures on Hinduism. "A few days before the independence of
India Father Monchanin was staying in Tiruchi" when "the Bishop gave him
a letter to translate which he had received from France". The letter was
from another French missionary, Henri Le Saux, seeking permission "to
settle somewhere in the Tiruchi area and to lead there, in some hermitage,
the contemplative life in the pristine traditions of Christian monasticism and
the closest conformity to the traditions of Indian sannyasa".11 The
permission was given and Henri Le Saux reached India in 1948. We have
already seen how the two joined together in setting up the Saccidanand
Ashram at Tannirpalli.
He was all for a meeting (or dialogue as they call it these days) between
Hinduism and Christianity so that Hinduism could be purged of its errors
and perfected into Christianity. "It is the creation," he wrote in a letter in
January 1955, "which has to be rethought or rather situated anew in the
light of the revealed Christian mystery. In that mystery, Hinduism (and
especially Advaita) must die to rise up again Christian. Any theory which
does not take fully into account this necessity constitutes a lack of loyalty
both to Christianity-which we cannot mutilate from its essence-and to
Hinduism-from which we cannot hide its fundamental errors and its
essential divergence from Christianity. Hinduism must renounce its
equation 'atman-brahman' to enter in Christ."14 In simple language, Hindus
were to be asked to renounce their rishis and run after a ruse.
Henri Le Saux
He was born at St. Briac, a small town on the north coast of Brittany in
France and became a monk in the Benedictine monastery, Abbe of Sainte
Anne de Kerogonan. He came to India in 1948 on invitation from Jules
Monchanin. During 1949, he paid two visits to the Ramana Ashram at
Tiruvannamalai before preparing a plan for a Catholic ashram. The plan
was cleared by the Bishop of Tiruchirapalli and the ashram was formed in
1950. It was given a Latin name, Eremus Sanctissime Trinitatis (Hermitage
of the Most Holy Trinity). But to Hindus it was made known as
Saccidananda Ashram, Saccidananda of the Upanishads being presented as
an equivalent of the Christian Trinity. Both the founders had adopted Hindu
names. But Henri Le Saux alone succeeded in getting known as Swami
Abhishiktananda.
During his life, he was out "to show to our Hindu brethren that the
Christian experience does not fall short of the Vedanta, but that, without in
any way threatening the essential value of the Hindu experience, it reveals
within it even greater depths of the unfathomable mystery of God".16 But
in the plethora of his works, he never explained what he meant by the
"Christian experience". The only thing that does become clear, as one plods
through the pages, is that he never arrived anywhere near the "Hindu
experience" which he often described as the "advaitic experience". In fact, it
is highly doubtful whether, with all his study of the Upanishads, he ever
understood what Advaita really means. His obstinate obsession with Jesus
and the Church prevented him from breaking the barrier. He was rather fond
of the phrase "cave of the heart", but he was not prepared to see there
anything except Jesus hanging on a gibbet. He remained chained to the
Church to the end of his days. He never learnt the elementary truth that
Advaita must remain a mere word for those who refuse to rise above their
mental fixations.
"A sinful refusal of Christ," he wrote towards the end of his life,"-like
that of Lucifer or the religious leaders who, according to St. John knew
truth but refused to submit to it-is inconceivable except in the case of a man
who is still 'on the way'. He might then refuse the Lord in the name of an
Advaita of his own conceiving, one which only glorified his own ego and
puffed him up with pride. Or it might happen in the case of one who was a
jnani or yogi in appearance. In such an individual, far from his empirical
self vanishing in the supreme self, what has happened is that the ego of his
phenomenal consciousness has taken to itself the supreme and absolute
character of the 'I' of the real self. In fact, he has magnified himself after the
fashion of the devas in the Kena Upanishad-a temptation which many
unfortunately fail to resist."17 Here Hindus are asked to take lessons in
Advaita from a man whose sole occupation in life was torturing
Upanishadic texts into the dogmatic framework of a gross monolatry. It is
difficult for a Christian missionary to renounce the role of a teacher even on
subjects about which he knows next to nothing.
In the case of Henri Le Saux there was an added difficulty: he was a poet.
The flow of mellifluous phrases, particularly in his native French, was
mistaken by him for mystic experience. One has to read his writings in
order to see how he became a victim of his own word-imageries and figures
of speech. Silencing of the mind, which is a sine qua non for spiritual
experience according to all Hindu scriptures on the subject, remained a
discipline which he never learnt. Small wonder that the man ended as a
neurotic.
Bede Griffiths
Bede Griffiths wrote several books between 1954 and 1983 - The Golden
String (1954), Return to the Centre (1978), The Marriage of East and West
(1982), Christ in India (1966), The Cosmic Revelation, Vedanta and
Christian Faith (1973). Another major book, The Bhagvad Gita: A
Christian Reading, is expected to be published soon. But the clearest and
most comprehensive statement of what he is trying to achieve is contained
in his Christ in India: Essays Towards a Hindu-Christian Dialogue. This
book was first published in England in 1966 under the title Christian
Ashram, and a simultaneous edition in the USA gave it the name by which
it is now known. A Christian publishing house in India has reprinted it in
1984. In 'A New Introduction' which the author has added to the Indian
reprint, he say that "I have come, therefore, to see that the Indian Church, in
the words of the founder of our ashram, Jules Monchanin, has to be neither
Latin or Greek or Syrian but totally Indian and totally Christian".18
This book was published soon after the Second Vatican Council of the
Catholic Church had revised its view of non-Christian religions in a
declaration made on October 28, 1965. Till that date the Catholic Church
had held that all other religions were false and inspired by the Devil. Now
the Church started saying that it "rejects nothing of what is true and holy in
these religions" and that it "has a high regard for the manner of life and
conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways
from her own teaching, nevertheless, often reflect a ray of that truth which
enlightens all men". This by itself looked like a big concession. But in the
next sentence the Council restored the supremacy of Christ in whom "men
find the fullness of the religious life".19 This pronouncement from Rome
endorsed the Theology of Fulfillment which some Christian theologians in
India and elsewhere had been propounding at intervals but which the
Church had not recognised or recommended so far.
The conclusion he draws from his assertions is quite safe. Bede Griffiths
is convinced that "a meeting must take place between the different religions
of the world".23 But he lays down a condition. "For a Christian," he says,
"the meeting of religions can only take place in Christ."24 Monchanin and
Henri Le Saux had founded the Saccidananda Ashram in order "to lead
India to the fulfilment of its quest for the experience of God by showing
that it could be found in Christ".25 Now it is the turn of Bede Griffiths "to
show how Christ is, as it were, 'hidden' at the heart of Hinduism"26, and
how "Rama, Krishna, Siva, and the Buddha, all the mysteries and
sacraments in Buddhism and Hinduism, are types and shadows of the
mystery of Christ".27 Christ "is the fulfilment of all that the imagination of
the Indian soul sought to find in its gods and heroes, in its temples and
sacrifices".28 Christ is the 'goal which Vedanta has been seeking".29 The
time has come when "Hinduism itself will be seen as a Preparatio
evangelica, the path by which the people of India have been led through the
centuries of their history to their fulfilment in Christ and his Church".30
Quod erat demonstrandum !
Incidentally, the trinity from Tannirpalli also consists of white men. The
mission is not yet confident that the coloured people can lead the Ashram
Movement, howsoever devoted they may be to the Christian dogmas.
Footnotes:
1 Swami Parama Arubi Anandam: A Memorial, pp. 5-6
2 Ibid., p. 7
3 Ibid., p. 9
4 Ibid., p. 202
5 Ibid., P. 203
6 Ibid., p. 14
7 Ibid., p. 205
8 Ibid., P. 207
9 Ibid., p. 208
10 Ibid., p. 14
11 Ibid., P. 16
12 Ibid., p. 159-170
13 Ibid., P. 171-176
15 A Benedictine Ashram, p. 3
17 Ibid., p. 99
20 Christ in India, "(and that means Christ)" are Fr. Bede's words
and not an insertion, p. 196
21 Ibid., p. 111
22 Ibid., p. 177
23 Ibid., pp. 14-15
24 Ibid., p. 16
25 Ibid., p. 63
26 Ibid., P. 91
27 Ibid., p. 100
28 Ibid., P. 111
29 Ibid., p. 170
30 Ibid., p. 174
An Imperialist Hangover
CHAPTER 7
An Imperialist Hangover
Till less than two hundred years ago, the Christian mission used to
proclaim with considerable pride how many heathens it had killed or forced
into the fold, how many orphans it had collected and baptised, how many
pagan temples it had demolished, how many pagan idols it had smashed,
how many schools and seminaries of the infidels it had closed down, and so
on. The tales of the mission's brutalities were relished by the beneficiaries
of the booty it brought home. Jesus was thanked in thousands of Churches
for the bounties he had bestowed upon his beloved people. Europe,
America, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand and many islands in the
Pacific were christianised not by pious missionaries mouthing catechisms
but by armed mercenaries employed by the mission or its patron states. In
any case, no missionary ever succeeded in making mass conversions in any
place unless he was backed by the military or political power of this or the
European imperialism.
The mission had to change its methods when it came to some countries of
Asia and Africa which were not so defenceless or which had vibrant
cultures of their own. India which had been invaded successively by the
Portuguese, the Dutch and the French and conquered finally by the British,
was such a country. The British realized very soon that their empire would
be imperilled if the mission was let loose with all its fury; so they kept it on
a leash and allowed it to leap forward only in tribal areas. The mission,
however, continued to use violent and vituperative language against
everything held sacred by the Hindus, till it received a strong rebuff from
resurgent Hinduism. Meanwhile, the struggle for freedom was gathering
force. The two currents combined and reached their climax in Mahatma
Gandhi. The mission was thwarted for the time being. It had to rethink,
which it started doing from the Tambaram conference onwards.
India has become independent. But the mission is yet to admit that it has
no role to play in India, and retire. It is still suffering from an imperialist
hangover. It had once confused the superiority of Western arms with the
superiority of the Christian creed. The confusion continues and will not be
corrected so long as the mission wields the organisational weapon it had
forged when India was in bondage.
Footnotes:
1 History of Hindu-Christian Encounters by Sita Ram Goel, Voice
of India, New Delhi, 1989.
Catholic Ashrams
CHAPTER 8
Catholic Ashrams
Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma
But these impressions gradually prove false. First, the eye detects that the
courtyard shrine is for Saint Paul and that "puja" is actually, a daily Mass,
complete with incense, arati lamps, flower offerings and prasadam. Finally,
one meets the "swami", learning he is Father Bede "Dayananda" Griffiths, a
Christian "sannyasin" of impeccable British background.
This special Hinduism Today report will focus on the issue of Catholic
adoption and adaptation of those things that Hindus regard as their sacred
heritage and spirituality, a policy the Catholics have named "inculturation."
It is a complex issue involving doctrine, cultural camouflage, allegedly
deceptive conversion tactics and more. Many Catholics will be perplexed
by the issues raised in this report. They don't see what could be wrong with
their selectively embracing those parts of Hindu spiritual discipline and
culture which they find inspiring. And many Hindus, raised on decades of
uncritical acceptance of any form of religious expression, may simply not
care one way or the other.
Hindu leaders are more and more aware that the Indianization of
Christianity is a serious matter. They remember the fate of the American
Indian religion and the native spiritual traditions of Africa and South
America. More recently they recall that the Hawaiian people who numbered
nearly 500,000 a century ago, are now less than 50,000 - their culture gone,
their language spoken by a mere 500 people and their gods worshipped by a
dying handful of Kahuna priests. All this was the effective and intentional
bequest of a few dedicated Christian missionaries - good people who
thought their work necessary and divinely ordained. The purpose which
drove these early missionaries to eliminate non-Christian faiths and cultures
has not changed. It has become more subtle, more articulately argued. It is
certainly more of a problem to Africans, but India's Hindus would do well
to remain alert and informed. That is why it is essential to examine and
understand such places as Father Bede's Shantivanam.
Shantivanam
The residents of the ashram are generally Europeans, some of whom are
initiated into "sannyas" by Father Griffiths and then return to their own
countries. Others are novices of the order, sent for exposure to this way of
life. All participate fully in the Indian life style of the place.
Jeevandhara Ashram
The general attitude of the Order of the Sacred Heart toward Ishapriya is
one of deep reverence and respect. But outside the order, a Sister explained,
the mother Church remains uneasy with her Yoga teachings and Eastern
look and leanings.
Hindu Reaction
New Delhi's Sita Ram Goel wrote a book on the Catholic threat in India
full of intellectual fire. Papacy, Its Doctrine and History3 was published in
response to the Pope's 1986 visit to India. This small volume is a scathing
account of the history of Christians in India. Some excerpts: "Hindus at
large were showing great aversion to Christianity accompanied as it was by
wanton violence, loud-mouthed outpourings of the friars against everything
which the Hindus cherished, killing of Brahmins and cows wherever the
newcomers had no fear of reprisals, the extremely unhygienic habits of the
Portuguese including their 'holy men', and the drunken revelries in which
they all indulged very frequently. The only people who associated with the
paranghis were prostitutes, pimps and similar characters living on the
fringes of Hindu society," Goel explains the indifference which Hindus
showed to the Christian missionaries: "To an average Hindu, saintliness
signified a calm self-possession and contemplative silence. The paroxysms
of these strangers could only amuse him, whenever they did not leave him
dead cold." Finally Goel mentions the problem which continues to face the
Christians: "Christianity had failed to register as a religion with the masses
as well as the classes of Hindu society. They continued to look at this
imported creed as an imposition with the help of British bayonets."
Vatican II
The widespread support for these Catholic ashrams by the official Church
is one part of the vast fall-out from the Second Vatican Council (Vatican H)
held from 1962 to 1965. Vatican II was an attempt to confront the challenge
to Catholicism in the 20th century, yet it apparently precipitated, through its
decision, an even greater crisis than it intended to solve. Many new
interpretations of doctrine were set forth - one on non-Christians was a
major one. As a result of numerous fundamental changes, the Catholic
Church faces a crises within itself. In America alone the Catholic Church is
losing members at the rate of one thousand per day. In 1984 in the United
States, 1,100 new priests were ordained compared with 14,000 in 1964. The
conclusion from these figures is drawn by such persons as Bishop Jon
Diegal of the American Catholic Church of the Malabar Rite: for its very
survival, the Catholic Church must make an impact in Asia and Africa
before it dwindles in the West.
One result of Vatican II was a new attitude toward Hinduism and other
religions, released by Paul VI in 1964: "[The Church] regards with sincere
reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings
which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets
forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.
The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and
collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with
prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they
recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as
well as the socio-cultural values found among these men."
Vatican II's new Code of Canon Law offers this definition of dialogue:
"By the witness of their lives and their message, let the missionaries enter
into a sincere dialogue with those who do not yet believe in Christ.
Accommodating their approach to the mentality and culture of their
audience, they will open up the way for them to reach the point where they
are ready to accept the Good News [the Gospel of Christ]."
"The Church must make the attempt to translate the Gospel message into
the anthropological language and symbols of the culture into which it is
inserted. This is what is meant by inculturation of the Gospel. Yet the
Church ought also to regard culture with a critical eye, denouncing sin and
amending, purifying and exorcizing its counter-values and overthrowing its
idolatrous values. The Church leads people on to abandon false ideas of
God, unnatural behavior and the illegitimate manipulation of person by
person. The Church inspires local cultures to accept through faith the
lordship of Christ, without whose grace and truth, they would be unable to
reach their full stature." Translation: "Let them keep those cultural forms
we approve, but make them Catholics."
Father Podgorski's statement that "we're not talking about changing the
Church theologically" is crucial and fraught with ramifications for the
Hindu. As long as the Catholic Church continues to claim a divine
monopoly on salvation, its tolerance for other faiths will be incomplete and
its adaptation to other religions only superficial adjustments for the purpose
of expansion.
Vatican II made the Church's ultimate stance crystal clear: "[The Council]
relies on sacred Scripture and Tradition in teaching that this pilgrim Church
is necessary for salvation. Christ alone is the mediator of salvation and the
way of salvation. He presents himself to us in his body, which is the
Church. When he insisted expressly on the necessity for faith and baptism,
he asserted at the same time the necessity for the Church which men would
enter by the gateway of baptism. This means that it would be impossible for
men to be saved if they refused to enter or to remain in the Catholic Church,
unless they were unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ
made it a necessity."
Hindus who have heard these semantic posturings and seen Hindu
children slowly drawn away from their faith criticise this approach as clever
maneuvering. Ram swarup in his "Liberal" Christianity pamphlet notes:
"Their procedure is not to denounce Hinduism forthright: it is to take
different categories of Hindu thinking and after exhausting all the positive
points that Hinduism provides as solutions, proceed to show that
Christianity gives fuller and ultimate solution to those and all other
problems." He has quoted here from the book entitled Indian Interiority and
Christian Theology which is a summary of a meeting by Christian
theologians of India at Almora. Swarup recounts their evaluation of Bhakti:
"Hindu Bhakti too has more demerits than merits. Its chief defects are that
(1) 'the notion of love itself is not perfect;' (2) 'there is no integration
between knowledge and love,'- one has to choose between them; and (3) it
lacks a 'perfect concept of alterity [that God and His creation are separate]
and there is no proper concept of sin.' Nevertheless, the Bhakti of a Hindu
could still be a preparation for the final confrontation with the personal God
who manifests Himself in the Christian Revelation.''' Swarup, who
considers his religion the most enlightened known to man, is offended by
the Almora conclusions.
In this situation, would not the local Catholic leaders be offended? Would
they not point out that this preacher was making an unfair and undue impact
because of his foreign funding? They would ask why he did not simply
come forward as he was, a Muslim, and not pretend that his religion was
only an "improved" version of Christianity. They would challenge his right
to wear the vestments their community honored, to sing the hymns their
mystics composed, usurp symbols held to be holy, to draw their people
away from Christ, thereby dividing the families and pitting wife against
husband, father against son and neighbor against neighbor.
This is the situation the Hindu finds himself in, though it has developed
over several hundred years. Christian missionaries have adopted Hindu
ways of life, Hindu religious symbols, architecture, worship forms and
declared themselves as Swamis. A Catholic priest who calls himself
"swami" instantly attains the status and authority of a holy man in Hindu
society, which he can use to make converts. By using Sanskrit terminology
in his sermons he implies a close relationship of Hindu theology to Catholic
theology, a relationship which does not really exist. Such missionaries
speak authoritatively on Hindu scriptures and argue that their [Christian]
teachings are consonant with everything Hindu, but add a finishing touch, a
"fullness," to the traditional faith.
Hindus are seriously questioning whether yoga, puja, and sannyas, which
are so deeply rooted in particular Hindu theological concepts, can ethically
be adopted by Christianity. Christians don't believe in the practice of Yoga
as the means to God-Realization - as taught by Hindus. Puja is based upon
an understanding of Gods and Devas which Catholics do not share. And
finally sannyas is Hindu monasticism, rooted in Hindu beliefs, leading not
to heaven and Jesus but to moksha - the Hindu's realization of Absolute
Truth.
The Future
As the 21st century nears, Catholics are more interested than ever in
India and in Hinduism, as indicated by the Pope's January visit to the
subcontinent and by a growing number of faculty and departments in US
Catholic universities dedicated to Asian Studies. As they have drawn closer
to Hinduism, their history and motives in India and elsewhere have come
under scrutiny.
Footnotes:
1 This is not true. The slogan, sarva-dharma-samabhâva, was
coined by Mahatma Gandhi in recent times, and extended to
Christianity and Islam. The medieval and modern Hindu acharyas
have never accepted the prophetic creeds as dharmas.
The J.R. Ewing Syndrome
CHAPTER 9
The J.R. Ewing Syndrome
Second, the Church still clings to the belief that the salvation of every
soul on earth depends on Christ and on baptism in its cathedrals and by its
priests. A few good Christians might get through, but God help Buddhists,
Hindus, Shintoists, Muslims and free thinkers. This belief is so powerful, so
compelling, so tenaciously held that it, all alone, destroys every effort of the
Catholics to tolerate (I mean accept and leave alone, not merely endure)
another culture's spiritual heritage. It is the motive upon which all priests,
nuns and bishops act; it is the stone upon which all efforts at reconciliation
are built. This "there is one way" consciousness is not unique to Catholics.
Fundamental Christians hold it even more dearly, so do Muslims, There are,
at last count, 30,000 Christian and Islamic denominations each preaching a
slightly different and singularly salvific path. This belief is the "J.R. Ewing
Syndrome".
Think about it J.R. has one goal in life - to own the entire Ewing Oil
Company and dominate the industry. Everything he does and says serves
that desire. When he shakes a banker's hand, 60 million viewers know his
intent - to own Ewing Oil. When he asks his brother Bobby to cooperate in
some venture, he's after Bobby's shares. When he confesses to wifely Sue
Ellen that, yes, he used to be a dirty dealer and a poor sport but is now a
good ol'boy whom she should love and trust, he's up to something. You can
be sure.
Yet time and again family, friends, bankers and a hopeful viewer or two
get suckered by that winning smile and golden tongue. A moment's
kindness and they embrace him, say they knew he would come around one
day. Then, zap, JR. nails them when their back is turned. It's not his fault.
It's illness. JR. is driven by the need to own it all. He will do anything and
say anything (yes, even be nice) if it will get him Ewing Oil.
I know what you're thinking. "These editors are living in the past. Sure,
those things used to be so. But this is the 21st century. All men want to be
brothers. It's different today, right?" Wrong. In Madras about three years
back, local sisters were caught in a little ruse. It seems they took busloads
of Hindu children to a popular snake farm every weekend. Oddly, the bus
always broke down. The nuns would fuss and fail to get it started, and ask
the kids to pray, "First, let's pray to Ganesha, the Hindu elephant God." No
results. Poor children! They might miss the snakes. "Well, let's all kneel and
pray to Jesus for help." Lo, the bus started! Cheers, and a quiet voice
assuring them, "You see, Jesus is more powerful. He loves you all."
Last week on our island a devout banquet manager invited two neighbors
into his shrine room. One of them, a missionary immediately bellowed.
"You're going to hell. I see satan in your eyes." Turning all deity pictures to
the wall, he urged the man to accept Jesus Christ and abandon his Hindu
heresies. Also last week a correspondent sent us photographs from a
seminary in South India. They showed a giant statue of Christ, his two feet
standing upon and completely covering the Indian sub-continent as sari-and
dothi-clad devotees worshipped him. Wrote our researcher, "This is the
dream of present-day Christians, the whole of India must be Christianised."
No one wants a true brotherhood of believers more than the Hindu, but
such things must cease. Let Catholics tend their own flock as they wish. All
the Hindu asks is to be left alone to follow his dharma, to sing his holy
hymns, to raise his children as he deems fit, to seek his God in the way his
scriptures and saints have revealed. The Hindu's spiritual heritage is
priceless to him. He loves it as dearly as the Christian love his, and he
intends to protect and preserve it. He has never imposed himself in Rome;
and he doesn't want Rome to impose itself in Madras.
Will J.R. see the error of his ways and change? Will he devise a plot to
usurp Ewing Oil Company? Tune in next week...
Interview with Father Bruno
Barnhardt
CHAPTER 10
Interview with Father Bruno Barnhardt
Emmaculate Heart Hermitage
Q. Is there any reaction from the local Hindu community that you are
aware of?
A. There is quite a complacency in a sense, if not a resistance, a kind of
indifference to interreligious dialogue on the part of educated Hindus.
However, the local people see the ashram as a genuine spiritual center and
especially they admire Father Bede and esteem him as a spiritual leader.
Q. One Catholic nun, Ishapriya, claims to have actually taken the rites of
initiation of a sannyasin from a Hindu swami.
A. That's a little unusual. Father Bede confers the rite of Sannyasin himself
upon some of the people who stay at this ashram or who have become
students, but for it to be received directly from a Hindu guru is unusual.
One has to work that out in his own conscience, work out the way in which
it relates to his Christian commitment. They see the sannyasin as a
legitimate development of Christian spirituality. Consequently, Father Bede
is able to ordain Christian sannyasins. I think that the Sannyasis that he has
ordained are westerners who return to their western world and try to work
out that commitment in their own context. They are not people who are
going to infiltrate into Hinduism.
Q. The accusation is made that these priests take up the sannyas garb
and ways as a means of infiltrating into Hindu society, claiming the place of
religious authority within Hindu society which the Hindu Sannyasin holds
and then using it as a means to make converts to Catholicism.
A. That could be. That has two sides of it, one is proselytism directly and a
deceptive or improper use of the garb; however if a person really feels that
his spiritual journey has carried him to that point and if he also has in mind
that he is a witness to the gospel and really doesn't necessarily want to
convert people but wants in some way to communicate Christianity in the
form that makes sense to Hindus.
Q. Does he actually have a conversion program as far as bringing people
into Catholicism from the Indian community?
A. Oh, no I don't know if there is any effort at all of that kind. I think he
would not approve of that. What he feels is that what is needed more is a
marriage of Hinduism and Christianity rather than bringing people over
from one to the other. The conversion thing is not part of his style.
Returning to the Hindu Fold
CHAPTER 11
Returning to the Hindu Fold
A Primer
What can a person do who finds himself a Catholic and wants to rejoin
the Hindu faith of his ancestors? He need not wait until another incarnation,
for his situation admits of a fairly simple solution-formal apostacy
("abandonment" from Catholicism, and readmission to the Hindu fold).
Hindu religious leaders have always taken a liberal view of the return of
converts to other faiths.
Here are two of the official letters received by Saiva Siddhanta Church
members in response to requests for determination of apostacy: In a letter
Rev. Edwin F. O'Brien, Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of New York, states.
"…according to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, Canon 2314,
paragraph 1, as soon as the bearer [of this letter] ...makes an act of public
adherence to a religious faith other than Catholic, he is officially and
automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Faith." (Dec. 29, 1978).
On November 8th and 9th, about 1,000 Hindus gathered at the Methodist
Church in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur to protest and confront the
Pentecostal Christian, "Sadhu Chellapah," who was making his third visit to
Malaysia. An active propagator of the Christian faith in Malaysian estate
and rural areas, he wears the orange robes (kavi) of Hindu monk and styles
himself as a Sadhu (Hindu term for a wandering monk). The "Sadhu"
declined a challenge to public debate with members of the Malaysian Hindu
Sangam and the Sri Maha Mariyamman Temple over his statements on
Hindus scriptures.
The Chairman of the Maha Mariyamman Temple, Mr. V.L. Kodivel said
he will complain to the Prime Minister and the Home Affairs Minister.
Footnotes:
Missionary's Dirty Tricks
APPENDIX 2
Missionary's Dirty Tricks1
Again there was agitation in the area, and this time, on October 1st, 1985,
the villagers tore down the priest's hut and tossed away the remaining
pieces of the concrete cross. Father Parekatil only gave up when he was
arrested a week later for breaking the peace and released on bail with
instructions to behave.
Father Parekatil told the press that he had no intention of taking illegal
possession of hill.
Footnotes:
The First Dialogue
CHAPTER 12
The First Dialogue
Hinduism Today invited some interesting letters from its readers, Hindus
as well as Christians. They are reproduced as below:
Catholic Ashrams
Vijaylakshmi Jain
Kamala Nagar, Delhi
Catholic Ashrams
V. Fagiolo Seer
Rome, Italy
The J.R. Ewing Syndrome
Your editorial "The J.R. Ewing Syndrome" brings to light the methods
which today's Christian missionaries are employing to take advantage of
India's poverty, illiteracy and simple culture. The question is why do the
Christian missionaries find it so easy to dupe the Hindu masses. As you
stated, the Hindu's respect for all religions is one cause. Other causes could
be our lack of social service spirit, lack of organized religious bodies
aiming at the spiritual uplift along with the social uplift of the masses.
Anjna Gupta
Saratoga, Illinois
Hinduising Christianity
Your editorial in the January 1987 issue portrays the state of the majority
of Christian sects. In this era of enlightenment when frontiers of knowledge
are rapidly expanding, one cannot but pity their obscurantist attitude. The
"J.R. Ewing Syndrome" very appropriately describes their deluded state.
Since the establishment of the Church, due to vested interests, they have
been brainwashed into the belief of "One Way- One Saviour." Hinduising
Christianity in India seems to be their last ditch battle. We Hindus have
suffered due to our indifferent attitude. We must give up complacency and
organize ourselves to foil these "pseudo Christian Hindus" in their attempts
to increase the number of converts. In this you are rendering yeoman
service to the Hindu cause. Your paper is peerless among its kind.
A Jesuit Writes
An Apostle of Peace
(By R.R)
"Britain's appropriate gift to India is Rev. Father Bede Griffiths, the sage
of Saccidananda Ashram, Shanti Vanam, Tannirpalli. The Trinity Sat-Chit-
Ananda, is a genuine experience of the Godhead. The Christian experience
leads to personal core identity at heart of the divine unity, as in later
Hinduism, specially the Bhagavad Gita. This is the mystery of the trinity -
dynamic identity to personal communion of love. This generated cosmos
through the logos. The word 'trinitarian' is inadequate to indicate the full
significance. The primacy of the mystical - experiential - God as loving
presence has to be realised. Here, categories of immanence and
transcendence collapse - entering the core of the heart (Guha) - there is an
opening beyond all categories. All is in us and we are in God (Pantheism).
Shantivanam
L. STEPHEN,
Founder and Director,
Sachidananda Universal Brotherhood Centre,
Kulithalai - 639 104.
Religious Purity
Sir-R.R. in his interesting column on religious discourses has on March
18 given a synopsis of one Dr. Robert Wayne Teasdale's appreciation of
Father Bede Griffiths, a British priest living on the banks of the Cauvery in
Tannirpalli, Tiruchi. Having visited Griffiths and his ashram a couple of
times, permit me to offer a few comments.
Some priests of the same mentality like Griffiths tried to graft Buddhist
rites, mantras etc. in the Catholic Church in Thailand. The Buddhists
vehemently objected to this as they considered it an insult to Buddhism. In
India, Hindu tolerance is proverbial and hence men like Griffiths carry on
their questionable experiments.
It may interest readers to know that a decade ago the Catholic Bishops of
India in their National Centre in Bangalore had figures of Brahma, Vishnu,
Shiva, and dancing Nataraj prominently displayed on window grills of their
church. Hindu Astheega1 Sangham took them to court and had the figures
removed. "If you wish to honour or respect Hindu deities, place them on
your altars and not on window grills", argued Mr. Parasaran (now Attorney-
General) on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Swami Kulandaiswami,2
6 Nimmo Road,
Santhome,
Madras - 600 004
Religious Purity
They read the Vedas, Upanishads and the Gita as well as Tamil classics
and other scriptures. They sing Tamil songs (bhajans), accompanied by
drums and cymbals. Aarati is taken in solemn grandeur. At the morning
worship sandal paste is used, as it is a symbol of divinity. Its aroma stands
for Divine Grace. At noon kumkum is placed between the eyebrows as a
symbol of the Third Eye, the inner eye of wisdom, which perceives Christ.
Psalm 118/68, 95, 105 and 157 point to the discernment of Truth through
the wisdom of Christ in us.
Ignatius Absalom,
1, Venkatasami Pillai St.,
Santhome,
Madras - 4.
Not in Vatican
Sir-I am a Catholic priest who has just returned to India after three years
of higher studies in Belgium, Germany and Rome. Our Ignatius Absalom in
his letter 'Religious purity' of April 10 says that Om is universally used, it is
Cosmic Christ, it has entered Christian places of worship all over the world,
including the Vatican. This is not true. Only those Europeans who have
joined the Hare Krishna movement or T.M.3 know about Om. It is certainly
not used anywhere in Rome and by no means in the Vatican.
Some priests in India use the word Om but the Pope and bishops have not
given their permission for this. On the contrary they have said that
Christians must respect all that is holy and sacred in Hinduism. Respect for
each other's religion alone will help keep the purity of religions. Imitation
will only lead to confusion. Hindus do not imitate anything Christian. They
value their religion unlike some Christians who tamper with the purity of
religion.
OM
Your correspondent, Fr. Joseph Pullikal, states (IE April 4): "Only those
Europeans who have joined the Hare Krishna Movement or T.M. know
about Om." This is not correct. TM is the Science of Creative Intelligence.
It embraces all people, who know or do not know what Om means. All over
the world S.C.I. (T.M.) is practised. It is neither contemplation nor
meditation or concentration.
The purity of the Catholic faith is not in the least tainted or corrupted by
absorbing or adapting all that is the best, holy and sacred from non-
Christian scriptures.
IGNATIUS ABSALOM
1, V. Samy Pillai Street
Santhome, Madras-4
No Experimenter
Sir-In early March this year, I gave a talk on Father Bede Griffiths of
Shantivanam Ashram, Tannirapalli near Kulitalai to the group at Nirvan.
Ale talk was summarised by R.R. in his column on March 18. Subsequent
to the appearance of R.R.'s column and in response to it, Swami
Kulandaiswami of Madras took strong objection to Bede Griffiths and his
approach (IE, March 30). I should like to challenge Swami's contentions. In
my lecture, I spoke of Father Bede as "Britain's appropriate gift to India"
because he is the best England has to offer. The context of the remark was
India's colonial experience, a period in which Britain took from India,
giving little in return.
Bede Griffiths came to India in 1955, and from the very beginning he did
not hold himself above her people, as the English did in the colonial period,
but adopted their way of life, respecting their customs and beliefs.
Furthermore, he learned Sanskrit and studied the Vedas, the Upanishads and
the Gita as well as other texts sacred to the Hindu tradition.
OM
Ten years ago in the Vatican, I suggested to a papal nuncio that I might
don a friar's habit and preach Hinduism in the Italian countryside. I was
promptly warned that I would be charged with impersonating a cleric and
public mischief, as Roman Catholicism was the protected state religion and
in full control of Italian education.6 Hinduism is neither protected nor
India's state religion, and we find priests like Bede Griffiths in the garb of
Hindu sannyasis preaching Christianity in the Tamil countryside. As these
priests know our rites and traditions and are aware of our sensibilities, by
what right or authority do they wear the ochre robe?
I do not think any Indian opposes Bede Griffiths for earnestly saying his
prayers (except, perhaps, a few deep thinkers like Taranath Kamath and
S.M. Hussain who fancy we are only biological machines with
interchangeable parts).7 But whatever he has grasped, Bede Griffiths has no
grasp at all of the Indian psyche. It must be brought to his attention that he
is meddling with the soul of a very old and sophisticated people by
continuing his experiments at Shantivanam. This is an exceedingly
dangerous activity for even a brahmavid8 to indulge in, and it cannot be
considered as anything other than another spurious gift from stepmother
England.
Swami Devananda
RCC (Avadi) P.O.
Madras - 600 109
CC. Bede Griffiths
Sir-Swami Devananda has suggested that no one who is not a Hindu has
a right to wear the ochre robe of the sannyasi. I would like to question this
in the light of the Hindu tradition itself. The ochre robe is the sign of
sannyasa and sannyasa according to ancient Hindu tradition signifies
renunciation of all worldly ties, the transcendence of all 'dharmas', that is,
all social bonds, whether social or religious. Does not the sannyasi undergo
a funeral rite, thus marking his death to all social ties?
I may add that our ashram belongs to the Benedictine order, which is the
order of monks in the West, which corresponds as closely as possible to the
order of sannyasis in India. We see in this one way of bridging the gulf
between Hindus and Christians and working towards that unity among
religions for which the world is looking to-day.
Bede Griffiths
I also enclose a leaflet on our ashram which explains the principles which
have guided the ashram since its foundation. I may say that these principles
have received the approval of the Church both in India and abroad.
I don't see why a Hindu should object to this any more than a Christian
objects to Ramakrishna order and many other Hindu ashrams incorporating
devotions to Christ in their worship.11
Can't we get beyond mutual hostility and work together for peace?
Yours sincerely,
Bede Griffiths
OM
Sir- Hindus are very aware of the abuses perpetrated by Roman Church
in India since 1947,12 and how priests like yourself misrepresent and
exploit the Sanatana Dharma. That the Church sanctions your work is no
surprise to us, for it is in her own ideological and political interests to do so.
This misappropriation of our cherished symbols (the pranava [OM] in your
official device) and sacred traditions (sannyas) is unethical at least, and
your attempt to justify the wrong with Hindu philosophy and modes of
thought only adds insult to injury. We do not need Christian priests to
interpret and teach us our dharma. Teasdale says you don't hold yourself
above the Indian people; I say you do, with presumption. To disprove my
charge, you must seek the guidance and sanction of our representatives,
acharyas, mandaleshwaras, mahapeethadipathis, and gurus when
incorporating Hindu forms and symbols into your experiment. Indian
culture cannot be divided from Hindu religion, though the Church, working
in concert with our own boneless intellectuals, tries hard to do so. This self-
evident fact is especially true of the sannyas tradition, for the sannyasin is
the very embodiment of Sanatana Dharma.
In the Dec/Jan edition of Hinduism Today, the spokesman for the Divine
Life Society (Rishikesh) stated categorically that sannyas cannot be given
to a non-Hindu, and the peethadipathi of Kasi Math (Tirupanandal) has
unequivocally said the same. Dasanami mahamandaleshwaras, the
recognised authority for sannyas, emphatically confirm this opinion. They
assure me that the Naga Akhadas, whose sadhus police the sannyas
community, would strip you of your cloth if they had the opportunity. You
get away with this impersonation because the Tamil maths are more or less
indifferent to the unseemly drama.
Prior to sannyas, a person must have a guru and fulfil very stringent
conditions which include that he be a Hindu and recognise the authority of
the Veda. Though the viraja havana is a central rite, it is not the key act by
which a person renounces (a point you evidently don't understand). Rituals
aside, a sannyasin must be part of a linage originating with Narayana, and
be recognised by the sannyas community, whose members witnessed his
completed samskara, and, finally, his death. To insure this line of
succession of gurus and rishis, sannyas is given by an acharya
mahamandaleshwara on behalf of the candidate's guru. Theoretically one
sannyasin can make another, and there are other extenuating circumstances
that are recognised but do not apply here. It follows, as stated earlier, that a
sannyasin is implicitly a representative of Hinduism.
You cannot ignore the above facts or philosophise them into oblivion.
The Church does not recognise a priest outside of the apostolic succession
of Peter, and we do not recognise a sannyasin outside of the Hindu
paramparas. In that you are a Roman priest and Benediction monk, you
cannot possibly be a sannyasin; it is verily a contradiction in terms.
There are many other factors involved here, which I will spare you from
out of compassion.
It goes without saying that only Lord Shiva knows who is the real
sannyasin. This is a spiritual condition (truth), expounded by Lord Krishna
in the Gita, and does not apply to external forms or functions or identity. It
is true of all persons who have attained the state many of whom do not wear
ochre, call themselves sannyasins, or have the right to do so. This sannyas
is a mystery of the heart and great secret, and does not support your own
claims.
The sannyasin does not renounce dharma (however you define this
word); he enters the fourth ashrama within the Hindu dharma. Only the
avadhut stands outside of the four ashrams, and he does so by discarding
the ochre cloth or never taking it in the first place.
You sin against Hinduism by nailing the holy pranava to the Roman
cross and incorporating the same in your official device. The pranava is the
very essence of Hinduism, and identifies it to the world exactly as the cross
identifies Christianity. (This is really an issue to be taken up by the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad.) We know what the Nazis did to the divine swastika, and
we will not permit the same to happen to the pranava. Neither Francis of
Assisi nor the Bible support your conjecture about this sacred word and
amen. The Malaysian courts ordered the removal of Muslim symbols from
Satya Sai Baba's crest, as he doesn't represent that religion. And note that
the one serious complaint against Gitananda of Pondicherry was that he hurt
the Hindus' religious sentiments with his original iconography.
Christianity, from its inception to today, has subsumed and subverted the
deities, symbols, rituals, and philosophies of the peoples it wishes to
conquer. This activity, which is imperial and not spiritual, must cease before
hostilities and mistrust will die; hostilities, by the way, that we never invited
in the first place.
Swami Devananda
P.S. The Indian Express is not sympathetic to Hindu concerns, we being a
minor majority rather than a majority, and it is to your advantage to debate
in their columns. They will give you the last word, which is a psychological
if not a moral victory.
Thank you for your letter. I am interested in your view of Hinduism and
appreciate your point of view, but it is very different from that of the vast
majority of Hindus whom I have known. I have known many Hindu
sannyasis, visited many ashrams and had many Hindu friends, but no one
before has ever objected to anything that I have done. You are anxious to
establish Hinduism as a separate religion with its own unique doctrine and
symbols which differentiate it from other religions. But most Hindus hold
the opposite view and maintain with Ramakrishna and Vivekananda that all
religions are essentially the same and differ only in accidental
characteristics which can be ignored. I have myself difficulties in accepting
this position but I would have said that it is the prevailing view among
educated Hindus to-day.
Perhaps my chief quarrel with you is that you are trying to institutionalise
Hinduism, to turn it into a sectarian religion, which seems to me to be the
opposite of its true character. I feel that you do the same with Catholicism.
That Catholicism has a strong institutional character I do not deny, but I
would say that there is something in Catholicism which transcends its
institutional structure as there is in Hinduism and that is what really matters.
I would probably share many of your objections to Christian missionaries
and would certainly not defend much that has been done in India and
elsewhere in the name of the Church.13 Our search to-day is to go beyond
the institutional structure of religion and discover the hidden mystery which
is at the heart of all religion. It is this that sannyasa means to me.
As I say, I respect your position and see the value of the principles which
you defend, but I can hardly see them as representative of Hinduism as a
whole, any more than our friend Kulandaswamy's view of Catholicism is
representative of Catholicism as a whole.
With my respects,
Bede Griffiths
"We have to recover the source, and place humanity (distracted by the
devas, by religious alienation and superimposed sacredness) face to face
with itself, with its own depth. To make man discover 'that he is' at a level
deeper than any external identity or any analysis of himself, even
existential."
OM
Sir-I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt (as do many of my
brothers). I am not able to do so because the inherent tolerance and
secularism of Hinduism has been abused by your kind too long. I appreciate
that you do not want a sectarian Hinduism, for that would directly threaten
your own vested interests. But there is more to my doubt than this: Like the
prostitute who lectured young men on morals, your position is wrong where
your words are right. It is the means that are in question, not the spiritual
ideals. And because your means are in question, so are your motives.
I have read Christian history and doctrine, lived in Franciscan houses,
and faced the Jesuits in their own Roman lair. My view of Christian
ideology and practice is far less charitable than Kulandaiswami's. I am
convinced that Christianity's advent is one of the great disasters in the
history of mankind. This view does not include Christians themselves (of
whom I have many friends), but it most certainly does include that soul-
sucking, carnivorous, leviathan the Church, and, by extension, her
ideologues. Church motives are always suspect when they are not openly
vicious, and the means she employs to further her own wicked ends has
never had any relationship to the ideals she preaches at others. You have
been in India long enough to know that we idolators are more interested in
what we see than what we hear. We want action, right action, not words.
That a few of the six million sadhus in India wander into your house,
flatter you for a meal (Do you offer them the flesh and blood of Jesus too?),
use your library, or study you (as I have), is of little consequence. That
these sadhus wear ochre is fine, for the simple reason that they are Hindus
and not Roman priests. And herein lies the great contradiction of your
position: you preach the transcendence of religion but remain yourself an
official of a sectarian religion.
And not only are you a Roman priest, but the moment you get into
trouble you run to mummy Church for financial, emotional, moral,
psychological, and doctrinal aid. How is this foreign aid and first allegiance
going to bring about the Indianisation of Christianity, much less the
transcendence of religion? Yet you have the insolence to suggest that
Hinduism not organise herself in her hour of need. You will teach us
religious transcendence from the very pit of religious institutionalism, a pit
we have not fallen into in 10,000 years. I think your motives are clear;
indeed, the idea is worthy of a Jesuit! We will transcend our dharma and the
Roman Church will happily reap the benefits of our foolishness, being
already on the scene to fill in the void we leave behind us. If you were
remotely serious about the spiritual ideals expressed in your letter, you
would renounce the Church forthwith and humbly place yourself in the
hands of God.
Hinduism has always been a commonwealth of religious and spiritual
institutions, some highly sectarian, though we have avoided the curse of
centralisation. There are times when centralisation is justified, when Hindus
of conviction must work together for a common goal. This is not
sectarianism; it is common sense. I do think Dayananda and Vivekananda
would disagree with me here. Shankara himself institutionalised sannyas for
the same reasons that the institution must be revitalised to-day: to protect
dharma. We have always maintained and practised the spiritual ideal of
transcending institutional limitations, and have succeeded where others
have failed because our spiritual disciplines demand that the correct means
be employed. Ale first injunction observed by all seekers is that they do not
interfere with, bastardise, or destroy the culture, traditions, symbols, and
religion that support them on their journey, even when they have passed
beyond these institutions. And passing beyond these institutions does not
mean meddling with them on the way. God has always given us reformers
when we need them. Do you qualify, Bede Griffiths?
Westerners have great difficulty with Hinduism because they arrive with
all their religious baggage and prejudices. They see in our Gods and
religious diversity only anarchy and superstition. They think in linear
modes almost exclusively, which results in a passion for centralised order
and a desire to impose their will on history (the Church is the best example
of this egocentric fear). Being unable to penetrate our psyche, they call us
hypocrites when they don't understand us. As good pagans, we are Janus-
faced, but this natural subtlety is hardly hypocrisy. These Westerners, like
you, would like to skim the spiritual cream off the Hindu milk, put it in a
bottle of their own design, and run off with it. They feel no obligation to the
people, country, culture, or religion that produced this precious drink. There
is neither responsibility nor commitment on their part, and we forgive them
this juvenile delinquency because they know not what they do. But you
cannot be forgiven so easily, for you act with mature intent and are already
committed to Rome. You stay married to the Scarlet Woman15 when it is
the Divine Cow of Hinduism who produces the amrita you hanker after. If
your Woman were not barren and dry, you would not have come to
Hindustan in the first place. I am surely a Hindu chauvinist, but you are the
very worst kind of spiritual colonialist.
As the Americans say, you are caught between a rock and a hard place.
You may be able to resist us by crucifying the sacred Omkara, but should
we decide to swallow you up, you will never survive our catholic digestive
powers. Or so I predict. I am only a gadfly and drama critic, Father Bede,
and am rather sorry to see an old hippie get himself into such a karmic fix.
Thank you for your letter. It is clear from all you say that you are a
fundamentalist.16 Whether Hindu or Christian or Buddhist or Muslim, a
fundamentalist is one who clings to the outward forms of religion and loses
sight of the inner spirit. You think that you are defending Hinduism but you
are really defending the outer shell, while you destroy the inner spirit. It is
the same in your attitude to Christianity. You attack the outer shell of
Christianity but of its inner spirit you have no idea at all. I consider
fundamentalism in all its forms the greatest danger in the world to-day. It is
destructive of all genuine religion altogether. Nothing could be further from
the spirit of the great Hindus of the past, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda,
Mahatma Gandhi, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi or Ramalinga
Swamigal. They remained firmly Hindu in their religion but were open to
the spirit of truth in Christianity and in all other religions. I consider myself
a Christian in religion but a Hindu in spirit, just as they were Hindus in
religion while being Christian in spirit.
Your attitude to sannyasa shows the absurdity of your view. A Hindu who
may have no initiation, no discipline and no understanding of the real
meaning of sannyasa can wear the kavi and be accepted, but anyone else
who seeks to live according to the authentic values of sannyasa must be
rejected. It is the same with the Om. A Hindu who has no understanding of
its depth and uses it purely superstitiously is all right but anyone else, who
has deep reverence for its authentic meaning must be condemned.
It is obvious that we differ fundamentally in our understanding both of
Hinduism and of Christianity and indeed of religion in general, so I will not
continue this correspondence.
OM
You have not transcended religion and you have no intention of doing so,
whatever your pious declarations. You have an overriding ambition to
subvert and subsume us with our own spiritual concepts, just as Paul
subverted and subsumed the Greeks with their's. As you see parallels in
history, so do we, and we are thus forewarned and forearmed. We will not
be meekly sold down the river like Constantine!17
The Kanchi Pariaval has devoted his life to salvaging what little is left of
Vedic Brahminical orthodoxy, which is, need I tell you, concerned with
externals, with rites and rituals, with birth and caste (he will not give me
prasada because I am neither a brahmin nor orthodox). Yet he is a
brahmarshi, a living national spiritual treasure whose wisdom and
compassion are universally recognised. As a free soul above sectarian
religion, he continues to live within the strict disciplines of Vedic orthodoxy
(without meddling in the affairs of Christians and Muslims). It can only be
that this so-called outer shell of brahminical Hinduism has some value
today, and I respect but do not recommend his way of life. He would agree
that there are other equally good spiritual disciplines within Hinduism and
advises them himself. He would also censor me for quarrelling with you, as
he would invite you to drop your pretences and return to traditional
Christianity. From your point of view, he must be the most superstitious,
literal-minded fundamentalist outside of Islam (though a number of your
own people are deeply attached to him).
Yes, we have many bad sadhus, as you have spoiled priests (who, the
papers report, are busy spreading the new plague among choirboys in
America and dying of it themselves).
Malachy18 long ago prophesied Christianity's demise and the popes take
him very seriously (as they should, this rex mundi being the third to last
one). Hinduism has no such prophet of doom, knows no birth in history, and
will not die even if it loses all its outer accoutrements. But this does not
mean that your mischievous work can go unnoticed or that I should cease to
protest.
I will not answer your letter, as I said, but since you quote the Bhagavad
Gita in reference to me, perhaps you would like to look up Bhagvad Gita,
16, 4.19 and see how far it applies to you.
Yours sincerely,
Bede Griffiths
OM
My dear sir:
Your post card has been put in puja - and, please note, not malevolently
nailed to an imperial cross - with a garland of sweet smelling flowers
around it.
Narayana remembered,
OM
Father Bede:
Since the end of our correspondence (which I did not directly invite in
the first place), I have been doing some research on your ashram and its
founder, Fr. J. Monchanin. I discover that his writings directly confirm my
suspicious about your motives and activities in India (see the enclosed
clipping). You have shamelessly tried to mislead me, even drawing the red
herring of Abhishiktananda's dairy across my path, but my own conclusions
are now fully vindicated.
Narayan ki Jay,
Swami Devananda
OM
There is no evidence that the Church has changed her wicked ways in the
last forty years. On the contrary, since the checks placed on the Church by
the British were removed, she has been busy making hay in our tolerant
secular sunshine. The methods of conversion have changed, but the
Church's ancient ambition for world dominion has not changed. The pope
himself contributes over fifty million dollars a year towards missionary
work worldwide, and this does not include the vaster sums of money
available to Christian evangelists of all persuasions for their so-called
charities. What has happened in the Church is that the term 'heathen' has
been changed to 'non-Christian' (with the prayer that the 'non' will soon
disappear). There have also been some unctuous platitudes uttered about
our spiritual heritage at official functions. Rome, in her eternal conceit,
thinks we will accept the facelift at face value and not probe into the heart
of the person who wears the mask. This presumption itself is an example of
patronising Christian arrogance. If the Church had in fact changed her ways
then the dirty work of converting our poor and humble masses to
Christianity would have long ago ceased.
This review aside, I must say that the idea that Abhishiktananda had to
reconcile his advaitic experience with Christianity is absurd. If it is true,
then I postulate that he did not have the advaitic experience. Advaitic
experience is self-contained and its own proof. It does not require
reconciliation with any sectarian creed. It transcends them. Both you and
your PR man, Teasdale, imply that you are in the transcendent advaitic
state. This is of course silly. Your acts disprove your words. No man of
advaitic realisation would quarrel with me, would need to prove himself to
Rome (whose dogmas already deny the possibility of the advaitic state). I
suggest you forget advaita and look up the words 'reconcile' and 'transcend'
in the dictionary.
The truth is that you need the spiritual support of the Hindus as a bulwark
against your critics in the Church. JP-223 is a very conservative man, for all
his public clowning. The Church permits you to continue only because it
furthers her indoctrination program in India, euphemistically called
'inculturalisation' in Vatican double-speak. Read the following from Pontiff
by Gordon Thomas & Max Morgan-Witts, two authorities who have been
deep inside the Vatican's head: "They (the Chinese Catholics) are the
product of centuries of relationship between China and the Church. It began
when the Jesuits walked into Peking in the sixteenth century. They were
warmly received. Then, in a momentous blunder, Rome rejected the Jesuits'
idea of integrating Chinese and Catholic culture. Had this been allowed
China might well have become a Catholic country." The pope has been very
busy rectifying this momentous blunder, under the auspices of Vatican-II of
course.
Narayan remembered,
Swami Devananda
P.S. I have read Christ In India:24 your expressed attitudes and ambitions
for us are little different from Monchanin's. I have also read an account of
Abhishiktananda's death, though not his own works. I understand that he
separated himself from you as well as Monchanin. I do not pretend to judge
his spiritual state, but, from his actions, I gather that he was a seeker of
integrity.25 You might follow his example.
OM
Yes, why not? I suggest that you read Sri Krishnaprema,26 who, being
that rare combination of bhakta and jnani, Ramana27 identified as a very
extraordinary sadhu. He truly was one of England's great gifts to India.
Narayan remembered
Swami Devananda
OM
Yours faithfully,
Swami Devananda
Thank you for your letter. As you know, the letters which 1 have written
to you were not written for publication, but as you wish to publish them
together with your letters to me, I have no objection. I would only
emphasise that the view I have put forward is not peculiar to me in any way,
but is accepted by the Catholic Church as a whole to-day. The second
Vatican Council introduced a profound change in the attitude of the Church
to other religions. In it the Church declared that the Catholic Church rejects
nothing which is true and holy in other religions and encouraged Catholics
to 'recognise, preserve and promote the spiritual and moral values as well as
the cultural and social values' of other religions.
This has resulted in two movements, one towards dialogue and the other
towards inculturation, which have received the express approval of the Pope
in recent times. By dialogue we understand the meeting with people of
other religions in order to learn to understand one another and work
together for the good of the country and of humanity as a whole. By
inculturation we mean sharing the cultural values of another religion. I
think that it would be of great assistance towards communal harmony in
India, if we were to distinguish between culture and religion. No one will
expect a Christian or anyone of another religion to accept the Hindu
religion, that is, to worship the Hindu gods or to take part in Hindu rituals,
but Hindu culture is another matter altogether. By culture we understand the
'customs and traditions of the people, their wisdom and learning, their arts
and sciences'. Hindu culture in this sense is not confined to Hindus but is
universal. Every Indian, whether Hindu or Christian or Muslim or
unbeliever can share in the riches of Hindu culture, its philosophy and
spiritual discipline, its music and dance, its way of life.
Yours sincerely,
Bede Griffiths.
SWAMI DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS
13 October 1987 (CE)
OM
Thank you for your letter of the 7th. My letters were also not written for
publication, and therein lies the value of our debate.
I think that your peculiar utterings on transcendental unity are for the
most part hyperbole and have nothing to do with the cold realities of
integration, communal harmony, or world peace.
Many Christians would agree with me when I say that if the Church ever
got the upper hand again, the first thing she would do is dust off the rack
and reinstate the Inquisition. Certainly your own deeds don't encourage us,
for you have nailed the sacred Omkar to a Roman Cross.
Our correspondence is going to press soon and I will send you copies of
the book when it is available.
Narayan remembered,
Swami Devananda
Yours sincerely,
Fr. Bede
OM
You are repeating yourself, and it is very boring indeed. Are you trying to
teach me your curious catechism by rote? I have never learned anything by
rote, but I do see that you are teaching a cosmic catachresis and not a
catholic catechism.
Do the Vedas, Upanishads and Gita, along with the great masters named
in your post card, advocate the hanging of the Omkara on a sectarian
Christian cross or encourage sectarian Christian priests like yourself to wear
ochre cloth and call themselves sannyasins?
Think about this carefully, Father Bede, for you are the ordained
representative of one of these creeds.
And you seem to know even less about mantra than you do about
Sanatana Dharma.
Narayan remembered.
Swami Devananda
Footnotes:
1 Âstika in northern way of writing Sanskrit.
4 Dr. Teasdale does not take notice of Fr. Joseph Pullikal's letter
of 21 April 1987
5 The letter was not published by the Indian Express, but a copy
of it which he had sent to Bede Griffiths brought a reply.
6 Since then a new Concordat has been signed between Italy and
the Vatican and Roman Catholicism is no longer the state religion of
Italy.
7 The taunt is aimed at atheists and materialists
8 One who knows the Brahma, that is, the Supreme Truth. This
alludes to Bede Griffiths' pretensions.
13 It would have been more correct to say "on orders from the
Church". The orders can be documented.
20 Latin phrase which means, "Except the Lord [keep the city, the
watchman waketh] but in Vain" (Bible, Psalm cxxvii).
27 Ramana Maharshi
28 October 2
In Tamil Nadu, one Fr. Bede Griffiths runs the "Sachidananda Ashram,"
Shantivanam at Tannirpalli near Kulitalai in Trichy district. There one finds
a temple-like church with vimana and disaratchakas. Inside, Hindu poojas
are performed and Hindu scriptures recited. He has even super-imposed the
sacred word 'OM' on a cross.
Everybody knows that 'OM' has been a sacred word and symbol for
Hindus since time immemorial and its sacredness has been revealed in the
Vedas, Upanishads and Ithihasas, before the advent of Christ and
Christianity. The Hindu believes what Lord Krishna has said in the
Bhagvad Gita 3102 years before Christ: "Of all words, I am the syllable
OM" (Gita X-25), "I am the pranava OM in the Vedas" (VH-8)." The three
words 'OM, Tat and Sat' are mentioned in the scriptures to indicate
Brahman (XVH-23).
The NCLC has gone to the extent of asserting that Vatican has given
divine sanction to the use of OM and Hindu rituals, rites and scripture in
their eucharist and mass. But the Vatican-II document about dialogue with
Hinduism exposes their motivated plan, as it has clearly mentioned that it
should be declared that they (the truths contained in Hindu scriptures)
actually show the way, truth and life of Christ. People (Hindus) look for the
perfection of religious life only in Christ. In Him alone has God revealed
everything.
But one wonders what authority the Vatican or the Pope has to accord
approval or give permission to misuse or abuse Hindu symbolism and
spiritualism.
14.02.89
Unethical Methods
Dear Sir,
This refers to Shri K.V. Ramakrishna Rao's letter (I.E. dated 13.2.89) on
'Crucifying the OM'
The dirty tricks played by the Missionaries are not new. It is a way of life
for the Mission since its inception.
Shri Gibbon in his book, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, has
observed that "The conquest of Crescent was purer than that of the Cross",
for the Roman Catholic Church, in its zeal to win converts to its fold,
adopted the pre-christian modes of worship and other social system of the
people among whom they spread their new religion.
The incident is not just isolated one but is indeed only the tip of an
iceberg and a lot remains to be exposed.
Some readers may have felt that using of OM by Christian missionaries
should be welcomed as it implies that Christianity accepts the greatness of
OM and it is indeed a glory for Hinduism. But we must remember that OM
is being used to mislead the masses and not to sanctify it. Even if the
intention is to accept OM, the missionary should propagate the relevance
and reverence of the PRANAVA in the West first, starting from Rome.
The use or misuse of Hindu symbols has been tacitly approved and
abetted by Rome. Rome should remain Rome and should not become a
Babylon, as envisaged by Martin Luther.
Yours faithfully,
N. Padmanabhan
N. Srinivasan
K. Swaminathan
Dharmalayam
246 TTK Road
Alwarpet
Madras - 18.
Sir,-Mr. Ramakrishna Rao has quoted profusely from the Bhagavad Gita.
But what about the crucial (!) verse in it which says that in whatever way a
devotee of Krishna (i.e., God) approaches Him, he will be welcome? If that
is so, why should not a devotee approach Krishna through and as Christ?
If we Hindus profess universal tolerance and grow red in the face when it
comes to actual practice, are we not hypocrites?
P.S. SUNDARAM
1, Kamalabai St.,
Madras - 17
Sir, - Mr. Ramakrishna Rao has perhaps not visited the Adi Parasakthi"
temple of Melmaruvathur. There you are provided with the symbols of Holy
Cross and that of a Star and Crescent even near the main shrine and the
preaching of "three-in-one" is carried on under the auspices of "Samaya
Manadu" frequently when a few Muslims and Christians preach
"Samayam" also.
I do not think any of the Hindu heads would have given sanction for
allowing such mixtures into our temples.
M.S. SOUNDARARAJAN
34, Devadoss Reddy St.,
Vedachala Nagar,
Chengalpattu - 603 001
V.T. VASUDEVAN
118, G.S.T. Road,
Chengalpattu.
The "Church of South India" in Madras and the South, is in the forefront
of such a venture. This reckless trend on the part of some sections, is not
crucifying "Om" but Christ Himself upside down!
Christ said that his followers should worship in "spirit and truth." Those
who are phoney and bereft of "spirit and truth" in their own religion resort
to cheap gimmicks of importing from other faiths.
V.D. SPURGEON
44, Medawakkam Tank Road,
Madras- 10.
Dear Sir
But the people of Africa have a different story to tells: 'When the priests
came to Africa, we had all the land and they had the Bible. They gave each
of us a Bible and we prayed together. When we opened our eyes, we had
Bible in our hands and they had all our lands.'
Yours faithfully,
M.N. Ganesan
Room No. 11
Soukath Mansion,
4 Pillayar Koil st. (II Land),
Triplicane,
Madras - 600 005
18.02.89
Dear Sir
Philosophy, Mythology and Ritual are the three parts of a religion. Every
thought in the mind has a form as its counterpart. This is called Nama-Rupa
viz. Name and Form.
Every religion has symbols of its own and it is obvious that certain
symbols are associated with certain ideas in our mind.
It is said 'Do not hate the sinner; hate the sin'. I do not want to cast
aspersions on the Christian Missionary. But the cheating of illiterate masses
is clearly unethical, illegal and should be stopped forthwith.
Yours faithfully
R. Muralidharan
27.2.99
Highly Outrageous
Sir,
I quote some of the utterances of Fr. Bede Griffiths from his book 'Return
to the Centre' published by Collins, U.K., 1976:
"Though there may have been a historical Krishna - in fact, there were
probably two or three - he has become a 'mythical' person, that is, a person
in whom the symbolic character overshadows the historical" (p.84).
"Yet again we must remember that Krishna belongs to the world of myth,
that is, to archetypal world beyond time and history... By contrast Jesus
does belong to the world of history. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate"
(p.85).
"He is the symbol of the purest love but this is in terms of gross sexuality.
It is the same with Siva. He is the God of love, of infinite beauty and grace,
whose nature is being, knowledge and bliss, the Father, the Saviour, the
Friend. Yet his symbol is the lingam and like Krishna has many wives" (p.
76-77).
"The love of God was revealed in Christ not in poetry but in history. It
was shown not in ectasy but in self-giving for others, in surrender of his life
on the cross... not in play but in agony of blood and sweat, not in joy but in
suffering" (p.85).
"The man Jesus is a human being as real as Socrates and Confucius, yet
the divine mystery is present in his very humanity, making him one with
God" (p.77).
The person who is following the path of Sannyasi, or trying to follow the
path of Sanyasi, while comparing religions and Gods, would not have given
this type of blasphemous remarks about God of another religion as against
his own God, when his very aim should be to tell the greatness of all Gods.
None of the above Hindu leaders or religious heads ever commented like
this. A true God believer cannot even think such things about any God.
His objection to the mention of Islam in this context clearly shows his
utter ignorance about the cited Vatican II document dated 28th October,
1965 which includes Islam in its inculturation programme. This document
was supported by 2221 and opposed by 88 and this is a clear indication that
even at Vatican level there was protest. But inspite of protest, because of the
vested interests it was passed.
Yours faithfully
S. Venkatachalam
No 'divine sanctions'
Sir,-In his letter "Crucifying the "Om" (I.E. Feb. 13) Mr. K.V.
Ramakrishna Rao has stated that the National Catechetical and Liturgical
Centre, Bangalore, have gone to the extent of asserting that Vatican has
given divine sanction to the use of OM and Hindu rituals, rites and scripture
in their eucharist and mass.
S. SANTIAGO1
JOSEPH THOMAS
(Asst. Pastor)
St. Andrew's Church,
Egmore, Madras-8.
A. SELVARAJ CARVALHO
D 113 A, Sangeetha Colony,
Madras - 78
Real Inculturation
FRANCIS S. MORAIS
11, Gengaiamman Koil St.,
Choolaimedu,
Madras - 94
Sir,-Apropos of the letter of Mr. K.V. Ramakrishna Rao (I.E. Feb.13) and
Mr. Francis S. Morais (I.E. March 9) regarding the aberrations and
innovations that have crept into the postconciliar (after Vatican Council II)
Church in India, especially in Tamil Nadu, mention should be made of the
Buddhist Zen-meditation that has come to stay in Dhyana Ashram, 13,
Mada Church Road, Madras-28, an abode of the Jesuit Priests where
Catholic religious seminars, conferences and retreats are being conducted
periodically in which both the clergy, including the cloistered nuns and the
Catholic laity participate. Zen meditation teacher Fr. Amasamy S.J. is the
principal exponent of this pseudo meditation imported from Japan.
A Zen meditation hall has been erected in the "Ashram". A Buddha idol
adorns the centre of the hall and a Crucifix is placed in another corner of the
hall.
'Inculturation'
The basis of inculturation was laid by the second Vatican Council in its
'Declaration on Non-Christian religions, where it was said that "the Church
rejects nothing which is true and holy" in other religions and Catholics are
exhorted to "recognise, preserve and promote the spiritual and moral values
of other religions as well as their cultural and social values".
It was in response to this call that the National Centre was set up by the
Bishops of India in Bangalore to aid the process of inculturation. At the
same time many ashrams dedicated to the ideal of living a Christian life in
the context of the ashram tradition in India were started. All these ashrams,
contrary to what has been suggested, have the full support of the bishops
and the religious orders to which they belong.
There are many different religions in India, and many different sects in
Hinduism, each with their own distinctive ritual and doctrine, yet sharing a
common cultural tradition.
BEDE GRIFFITHS
Saccidananda Ashram,
Shanthivanam,
Tannirpalli (Po).
Kulithalai, Tiruchi - 639 107
Sir,-It is strange that Dom Bede Griffiths does not see the incongruity of
foreigners like him preaching inculturation to the Church in India (I.E.,
March 23).
But as early as 1926, Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Rerum Ecclesiae
emphatically pleaded for replacing foreign missionary societies by new
indigenous societies "such as may answer better the genius and character of
the natives and be more in keeping with the needs and spirit of the country".
R. RUBIN
12, Third Main Road,
Seethamma Colony,
Alwarpet, Madras - 18.
Pollution of Hinduism
Sir,-I was surprised to read Bede Griffiths' claim that "All these
ashrams... have the full support of the bishops and the religious orders to
which they belong" (I.E, March. 23) because he has not denied that any of
the activities pointed out by me and other readers in these columns are not
carried on!
Does he mean that the soared bishops and the religious orders to which
they belong have approved and accorded them permission to pollute
Hinduism under the guise of inculturation?
He arrogantly writes that the church rejects nothing that is true and holy
in other religions and that Catholics are exhorted to "recognise, preserve
and promote the spiritual and moral values of other religions as well as their
cultural and social values".
This is the only way for humanity today. Super God rivalry, religious
superiority, theocratic world domination and neo-spiritual globalism cannot
make "believers" live in peaceful co-existence.
K.V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO
10, Venkatachala Iyer St.,
West Mambalam,
Madras - 33
The Pope in Rome and his priests in India have no right or authority
whatsoever to meddle with Hinduism, appropriate its sacred customs, titles,
dress, symbols and rituals, and put them to uses that are at least unethical
and at most highly offensive to devout Hindus. By indulging in these
questionable experiments and devious Hinduized proselytization tactics,
Christians demean their own religion and exploit Hindu tolerance to the
limit.
Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts write in their book Pontiff: "
(The Chinese Catholics) are a product of centuries of relationship between
China and the Church. It began when the Jesuits walked into Peking in the
16th century. They were warmly received. Then, in a momentous blunder,
Rome rejected the Jesuits' idea of integrating Chinese and Catholic culture.
Had this been allowed. China might well have become a Catholic country."
25 Sarojini St.,
T.- Nagar,
Madras-600 017
28.3.89
Provocation
In this modem scientific world, we must try our best to make people
forget about their religious differences and live peacefully. Provocation in
the name of spreading one's religion at the cost of another religion should
be stopped to save humanity.
S. Venkatachalam
For us in India. Truth is one, though sages speak of it variously. The one
fault of the Semitic religions is intolerance, the untenable claim of being the
one true faith. The cure for intolerance is not intolerance.
Religions are not candles struggling for standing space. They are candle-
flames whose light and warmth merge and bring spirit nearer to mind and
matter.
K. SWAMINATRAN
Dharmalaya,
TTK Road,
Madras - 18
1 April 1989
Foreign Funds
Dear Sir,
Either Prof. Swaminathan (I.E. April 1st) does not know anything about
Semitic religions except that they are intolerant, or he is deliberately
avoiding the central issue of conversion by means of inculturation and
trying to shift the blame for intolerance onto those few Hindus who raise a
voice of protest. Certainly, there is no religious contest between Hindus and
Christians, as the latter do not have anything Hindus need or want. But it is
also true that Hindus cannot meet Christians on the level of ideology and
foreign funds. Christians spend U.S. dollars 165 million every year to
convert India's Hindus to their closed and exclusive belief-system, and
Hindus, for a variety of reasons, primarily ignorance and poverty, cannot
resist the Christian ideologue with his promises of health and wealth. Since
the 1960s, inculturation has become the preferred method of proselytizing
Hindus. Inculturation means that all Prof. Swaminathan's candle-flames
become one Christian candle-flame at the alter of Jesus, the only son of God
Jevovah. If this the kind of "human unity" we want?
Yours truly,
(Swami Devananda Saraswati)
Footnotes:
Hindus who are not conversant with the history and methods of the
Christian mission, have been taken in by the soft language adopted by the
mission strategists in recent years. Shri K. Swaminathan whose letters to the
Indian Express have been reproduced in the previous chapter, is a typical
example. It is, therefore, necessary to point out that soft language by itself
means little if it does not spring from a sincere mind, and is not good-
intentioned. There is no evidence as yet that the missionary mind has
become sincere or well-disposed towards Hindu society and culture, not to
speak of Hinduism. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that this mind
remains as deceitful and mischievous as ever before.
Thank you for sending me your review1 of the book The Myth of
Christian Uniqueness. As you know, it is very much the work of the 'avant-
garde' among christians and would not be accepted by the majority of
orthodox christians, though, as you say, it may well point to the future. In
any case they are all serious thinkers and need to be taken seriously, and
some like Panikkar are respected theologians.
But I think that you underestimate the extent of this movement in
Christianity in the past, as though it were a pure novelty. This openness to
other religions has been present in Christianity from the beginning, though
the opposite attitude of rejection has generally prevailed. The Bible itself,
though it becomes more and more exclusive, always had an opening to the
'Gentiles'. The book of Genesis begins with the creation of the world and of
man and has stories of the early history of mankind before it comes to the
beginning of Izrael in chapter 12. The God of Izrael was always conceived
as the God of all humanity, although interest centres more and more
exclusively on Izrael. In the same way Jesus in the New Testament goes out
of his way to proclaim the presence of God among other nations and
commends a Roman centurion for his faith by saying:, 'I have not found
such
faith in all Izrael.'
In the same way in the early church Justin Martyr in the 2nd century,
Clement of Alexandria in the third, both proclaimed that God made himself
known to the Greeks through their philosophy before he revealed himself in
Izrael. Of course, it is true that this tradition was obscured by the popular
view "extra ecclisiam null salvis", but it never died out. When I was
received into the Catholic Church in 1930 it was this belief in the presence
of God among all nations that I accepted. Still I admit that it was rare and it
was only at the Vatican Council in 1960 that it was officially acknowledged
by the Church. For me this was only the formal acceptance of what I have
always believed and practised.
On the other hand, I think that you tend to believe too easily that
Hinduism has always had the answer. I do not believe that there is an easy
answer to the question of how religions relate to one another. In my
experience most Hindus believe and practise a facile syncretism which
simply ignores essential differences. I don't think that anyone, Christian or
Hindu, has the final answer. We are all in search. I would be inclined to say
that Buddhists tend to be more objective and understanding than most
people. But I think we all have to learn how to be true to our own religion
while we are critical of its limitations and to be equally true to the values of
other religions while we recognize their limitations.
Your sincerely
Bede Griffiths.
Thank you for your kind letter of Feb. 17 and also for the gift of a copy
of your Hibbert Lecture 1989. I read both of them with great interest. Both
of them make observations which need our earnest attention and require
larger discussion.
In your letter, you also strike a personal note and tell me that when you
were received at the Catholic Church in 1930, you already believed "in the
presence of God among all nations". This personal history is not merely
interesting but it encourages me too to make a personal confession.
Like all or most Hindus, I too began as a believer in "all religions say the
same thing". But some academic interest took me to look at the
Encyclopaedia of Religions and Ethics a good deal in the fifties. I however
found nothing in it to support my belief. I also saw that in its twelve
volumes, it hardly saw anything good in what it regarded as pagan religions
including Hinduism. I wondered at a religion which taught its best people
(the Encyclopaedia was written by about 450 scholars of distinction) to
think so ungenerously of all religions except their own. I began to reflect
more deeply on the subject.
While reading this kind of literature, I found a studied attempt to say the
same old thing in a somewhat less offensive language. For example, it was
conceded that the pagans knew something of God and God was present
among them too in some way. Even a high-sounding and flattering
expression was used for this - cosmic revelation. But it did not avail and it
was found that it was inferior and merely preparatory to Christian
revelation. No wonder, this position is unacceptable to the pagans and also
to many other advanced thinkers of our age.
I thank you again for your letter. I believe your influence would be for the
good among your colleagues and friends.
Yours sincerely,
Ram Swarup
Enclosures:
Thank you for your letter and enclosures. I am not quite sure what your
purpose is in your attack on Christianity and Christian Missions. Is it simply
to foment communal strife in India between Christians and Hindus, or have
you some deeper purpose? If you want to attack Christianity itself, you will
have to make a far deeper study of it than you have yet done. Above all you
will have to recognise the profound wisdom and goodness to be found in it,
as all unbiased Hindus have done, just as if I were to attack Hinduism, I
have to recognise its profound spirituality which none can question.
It seem to me, though, that if you want to defend Hinduism, you have to
recognise the other side of its spirituality just as I as a Christian have to
recognise its long tradition of violence and intolerance. I suggested to Mr.
Sita Ram Goel that you should both make a study of the shady side of
Hinduism, if you want to be honest about it, just as I have to face the shady
side of Christianity. How do you account for the fact that with all its long
tradition of wisdom and spirituality, India today is generally considered one
of the most corrupt and immoral countries in the world? Of course, you can
reply that the so-called Christian countries have their own style of
immorality and corruption but this only means that we have all to face the
future of religion today.
I suggested to Mr. Goel that the Voice of India might well make a special
study of various aspects of Hinduism. I suggested as a beginning the history
of human sacrifice and temple prostitution from the earliest times to the
present day. I myself was in touch with the police who were investigating a
case of human sacrifice in a temple some years ago in Bangalore. As for
temple prostitution a sadhu who also visited our Ashram some years ago
told me that he had a child by a temple prostitute, and the institution is
known to be well established in Carnataka. I am sure that investigations
would reveal many examples.
I hope that you understand that I am not saying this in order to score off
Hinduism. I love Hinduism, not only the Vedas and the Gita and Vedanta
but popular Hindu piety and its cultured traditions but I try to get a balanced
view of it. It seems to me that religion itself is being questioned today and
those of us who profess a religion have to be honest about it and face also
the negative aspects of which people today are aware. I much hope if all of
us were honest about our own religion and tried to be honest and objective
about it, we might help to restore the dignity of true religion and enable the
rest of the world to appreciate its real values.
Yours sincerely
Bede Griffiths
Thank you for your letter of April 6. It is so different from your Hibbert
Lecture which probably presented a more formal and public face, while the
letter revealed a more conventional traditional-christian or missionary
visage. It was surprising that it took it so little to surface so readily. I was
however glad to read your letter and make acquaintance with some of your
more intimate thoughts.
You quote the authority of many "unbiased Hindus" who have found this
wisdom. I have known some of these Hindus, and they are quite a sample.
They believe in the wisdom and goodness of Christianity, not on the basis
of any study, but because they have been brought up on the Hindu idea of
respecting other peoples' creeds. But once some of them take to studying it,
they are somewhat disconcerted at its claims. They are also "unbiased
Hindus" - unless you mean that either they reach your conclusions or they
must be biased - and they have to be taken seriously.
You say that "India today is generally considered one of the most corrupt
and immoral countries in the world?" I have no means of ranking India in
the moral scale, but I can readily believe that its place in the missionary
world you inhabit must be very low, and it must also be low wherever the
missionary influence reaches. It is the country of the missionaries "where
every prospect pleases, and only man is vile". Vivekananda had spoken of
mud which missionaries have thrown on India, an amount which not all the
mud in the ocean-bed will equal. The practice continues with few
exceptions here and there. Just recently, Hinduism was described by the
spokesman of the 700 Club, Christiandom's hot TV show, seen by an
estimated 70 million viewers, claiming Pat Robertson, the US presidential
candidate in the last election as its former host, in this language: "Satans,
beasts, demons. Destruction of soul in hell. This is what Hinduism is all
about." Daysprings International did the same somewhat earlier in a 2-hour
programme on Manhattan's cable television network. It described Indians as
"without spiritual hope," and it informed Americans, quoting Mother
Teresa, how they are hungering for Jesus. The documentary as it was called
was screened in India.
I do not know what you want these studies to achieve and what is to be
their scope. Would the proposed study of human sacrifice, for example,
include religions in which human sacrifice and even cannibalism form
central part of their theology and where they celebrate them daily in their
most sacred rites? Medieval Christianity reports many cases where its more
visionary members even "saw a child being cut limb by limb", and they saw
the "chalice being filled with blood" and the "host was flesh indeed." One
boy reported: "brother Peter devoureth little children, for I have seen him
eat one on the altar." All these visions were valued and they were used to
give authenticity to the rite of the Mass, to convince the sceptics and to
deepen the faith of the believers.
Similarly, about temple prostitution. I do not know what you mean and
what is to be its scope. Will it cover temple prostitutes, male and female, at
Jerusalem often mentioned in the Bible? Will it include nunneries and
monasteries, and the whole system of "consecration of virgins," where
morals are often described not always without documentation in the
language you use for the Devadasi system?
While on this subject, I must say the missionaries have blackened a great
institution. I believe that even during the evil days that had befallen them,
the morals of most devadasis were not worse than those of most "brides of
Christ." But I have no heart in saying all this, and they are all, whether in
India or Europe, our sisters and daughters and I think of them as fellow-
pilgrims who have done their best according to their circumstances and
light. I invoke no moralists' judgement on them. We should know that some
theological virtues have been more deadly than some common vices and
some so-called saints have proved worse than many sinners.
You also want a study of" sorcery and magic," of which you have found
many cases in Madras. You of course know that this is a wide-spread
phenomenon and is by no means limited to Madras and to our own times
and neighbourhood. You must be knowing that the first Christian pastors
were known to be magicians and exorcists and that every church had its
exorcists. Even now exorcism is central to baptism and every child brought
to the church for baptism is exorcised twice or even thrice - you must
correct me here. John Wesley, the founder of Methodists, said that "giving
up witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible."
At the end, I must say that Voice of India cannot undertake studies you
have proposed. Its aim, so far as it can implement it, is a different one. It
wants to show to its own people that Hinduism is not that bad and other
religions not so wonderful as they are painted by their theologians and
televangelists. I believe that considering our situation, no fair criterion or
assessment can find anything wrong in it.
Too often the missionaries have set our agenda for us. They taught us to
look at ourselves through their eyes. What they found wrong with us, we
too found wrong with ourselves. Voice of India wants that Hindus use their
own eyes in looking at themselves and - also in looking at others.
Not that Voice of India wants Hindus to slur over their problems - they
will do that at their own peril. But those problems should be defined in the
light of their experience. They should neither borrow those problems nor
their solutions on trust from others. In fact, Voice of India has already
published a small brochure, Cultural Self-alienation and Some Problems
Hinduism Faces. But you will see that these problems do not include those
which are uppermost in your mind: human sacrifice, temple prostitution and
witchcraft.
Pardon me for anything in which I may have hurt you. With good wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Ram Swarup
Footnotes:
1 See the article, 'Different Paths Meeting in God', in Appendix 1
to this chapter.
Different Paths Meeting in God
APPENDIX 1
Different Paths Meeting in God
But due to many reasons into which we need not go here, during the last
half century, a new approach was tried. An unceremonious and soulful
denunciation of other religions became less evident. It was conceded that
they were not that depraved and that they also contained some positive
elements of moral and spiritual life. But the superiority of Christianity still
remained beyond question. Christianity is "unique", it is "absolute", its
revelation is "final and definitive", it provides the standard by which other
religions are to be judged which by themselves are not sufficient and which
truly find their fulfilment in Christianity - these still remained the premises
of Christian theologians. Arguing it out proved an interesting game for them
and they played it with enthusiasm and proficiency. In the process, they
developed the art of sounding liberal without ceasing to be diehards.
Dr. Panikkar narrates how Christian missionary work from its early
beginning has passed through various phases, the current phase being that
of Dialogue. He reminds us that this word has come into prominence after
the dismantling of the colonial order and that "were is not for the fact of the
political decolonization of the world, we would not be speaking the way we
are doing today".
But Dr. Knitter's answer was very different. "We are not saying outreach
evangelization should only consist of action of human welfare but we are
saying that working for human welfare, is an essential part of the work... It
is essential to the Gospel of Jesus Christ," he said. Missionary strategists
will have no difficulty in agreeing with this view. They already know that
"social work" is a great aid to proselytizing.
The poor of the earth, the Third World countries have no chance against
it whether it stays religious or goes secular.
Footnotes:
This new intellectual ferment has not left the Christian theologians
entirely untouched. In the past, they saw in religions other than their own
nothing but the hand of the Devil and it cost them little pang of conscience
to send even the best and wisest of the men of these religions to Hell. But in
the new intellectual and humanist climate, this will not do. The Christian
Devil and Hell have lost their terror; their old monopolistic claims have also
become laughable. In the new context, if they are to be heard at all, they
must appear somewhat more modest, and must not appear to reject
altogether or too summarily religions other than their own.
There is also another problem that the new theologians face, the problem
of finding a place in their scheme for non-Christian saints and good men.
True, they cannot yet be sent to Heaven - Christian theology precludes that -
but they cannot also be so unceremoniously sent to Hell as in the good old
days. The new intellectual climate does not countenance it.
This does not seem to say much or concede much, but considering that it
comes from a Christian theologian trained to see Devil in everything
connected with non-Christians, it is a great deal. Danielou goes on and
makes a further concession. He admits that "there are men who did not
know Christ either because they lived before Him or because knowledge of
Him did not come their way [presumably because a Christian missionary
had not reached their locality], and yet were saved; and some of these too
were saints." But that is all. For he hastens to add that "they were not saved
by the religions to which they belonged; for Buddha does not save,
Zoroaster does not save, nor does Mohomed. If they were saved, then it is
because they were saved by Christ Who alone saves, Who alone sanctifies."
Again, if they were saved, it is because "they already belonged to the
Church for there is no salvation outside the Church."
II
The new theology will not go as far as to say that the holy men of other
religions are damned, though it knows that they are not saved except
through the Church.
These holy men are not saved partly because their holiness is not holy
enough. There are three levels of holiness, the pagan holiness being the
lowest, governed as it is merely by the law of conscience and not by God's
own revealed Laws. Danielou tells us that God's will is "expressed on the
Christian plane by the law of the Gospel, on the Jewish plane by the Mosaic
law, on the cosmic plane by the law of conscience," the last being obviously
an inferior agency of holiness corresponding to the inferior religion of the
pagan which is merely natural, merely cosmic. According to Danielou, at
the lowest level, which is the pagan level, "holiness within the sphere of
cosmic religion consists in a response to the call of God made known by
conscience." At a more advanced stage, God makes His will known through
a Revelation to Moses. Finally, God comes down into the world in a human
form as Jesus Christ completing His Revelation. Hence the three degrees of
holiness and three orders of holy men. "The glory which shines from the
face of Jesus Christ overshadows, as St. Paul tells us, that which shone from
the face of Moses. In like manner, the glory shining from the face of Moses
overshadows that which shone from the face of Noe."
Man's religion, like holiness, has progressed from the natural or cosmic
to the Jewish, to the Christian. "All Christian liturgy - Easter, Pentecost,
Christmas - have at the back of their Christian significance, a Jewish
significance; and behind the latter there is a cosmic significance."
Thus a second great step is taken. The religion of Sinai creates a gulf
between God and man. No longer does Yahweh talk on easy terms with the
patriarchs. Henceforth, He dwells in the secrecy of the Holy of Holies.
Separating man from God marks an advance, for it draws attention to two
things: first, to God's transcendence, His incomprehensibility, that He is
wholly Other; no easy-going anthropomorphism any longer; second, to
man's sinfulness, his essentially fallen nature. Without this, the next and
third step was not possible.
In the next stage, the abode of Yahweh is no longer the Temple, but the
Manhood of Jesus. "The glory of the lord dwelt in the Temple until the
coming of the incarnation. But from that day it began to dwell in Jesus. 'Me
divine presence is no longer to be found in an enclosure of stone, it dwells
in Jesus Himself. With Him the Mosaic order comes to an end." There is a
qualitative leap, as the Marxists would love to call it, for Jesus is not just "a
higher kind of Moses. Moses and the Temple are figures but Jesus is the
reality."
From this to the Temple of the Church was a most natural and easy step.
In fact, it was no new step at all. It is a mode of saying the same thing. "It is
the Manhood of Jesus that is the Temple of the New Law, but this Manhood
must be taken as a whole, that is to say, it is the Mystical body in its
entirety; this is the complete and final Temple. The dwelling of God is this
Christian community whose Head is in the Heaven." God now resides in the
Church.
There are other variations but the above is the essential theme of the new
liberal theologians. For example, there is Henry de Lubac, the author of
Catholicism: A Study of Dogma in Relation to the Corporate Destiny of
Mankind (Publishers: Bums, Oates & Washbourne, London, 1950). In this
book, he says: "Outside Christianity humanity can doubtless be raised in an
exceptional manner to certain spiritual heights, but the topmost summit is
never reached, and there is the risk of being the farther off from it by
mistaking for it some other outlying peak. There is some essential factor
missing from every religious 'invention' that is not a following of Christ.
There is something lacking, for example, in Buddhist charity: it is not
Christian charity. Something is lacking in the spirituality of great Hindu
mystics; it is not the spirituality of St. John of the Cross. Outside
Christianity nothing attains its end towards which, unknowingly, all human
desires, all human endeavours, are in movement: the embrace of God in
Christ."
If this is true, then his conclusion is a fair one: "So long as the Church
does not extend and penetrate to the whole humanity, so as to give it the
form of Christ, She cannot rest."
III
In India, too, there is a group of Christian theologians working in the
direction of liberalism. These theologians have become noticeable after
India's independence. While Christian money and missions continue to
work by and large in their old style (see the Report of the Christian
Missionary Activities Enquiry Committee, Madhya Pradesh), there is a
group of Christian theologians who want an encounter with Hinduism on a
different plane.
Here their greatest difficulty is the rival slogan that is fashionable among
Hindu intellectuals that all teachers preach more or less the same things and
that different religions are just different paths to the same goal. The
problem of these new liberal Christian theologians is how to salvage their
religion from this demolishing, equalizing slogan. So they preach that every
religion is unique and that we should all meet in our individual richness in a
fruitful dialogue. While secretly hoping that this dialogue would prove that
they are unique in a superior way, they invite us all to this encounter. And
this should be welcome.
Some of them have taken Hindu names, live in Indian style and have put
on Indian dress. Some of them have even donned the habits of Hindu
Sanyasins. The motives are mixed. Some may be following St. Paul's
practice "to become all things to all men, by all means to win over some of
them" (1 Cor. 9.22); others because they find this style more informal and
under Indian conditions more comfortable; still others, as they argue, in
order to understand and enter into the Hindu psyche better. For some it may
be no more than a change of tactics and fronts, but there are genuine
elements too. They simply don't have the heart to send a whole people to
eternal perdition which their orthodox theology demands.
The late Dr. Jacques-Albert Cuttat, the Swiss Ambassador to India in the
1950s, poses the problem and invites us to this dialogue. He says in his The
Spiritual Dialogue of East and West (Max Muller Bhavan publication):
"The West inclines to exclusivism, the East to syncretism. The view that
salvation is only possible within the visible Church - a view expressly
rejected by the Catholic Church - has been sustained by missionaries and
eminent theologians even today; such blindness for the spiritual riches of
the East, for its mystical depth and intuition of the transparence of the
cosmos to higher Realities, such blindness always implies a blindness for
some basic aspects of Christianity itself. The East is tempted by the
opposite extreme, syncretism; it consists in wrongly equating biblical
values with Eastern religious categories. Such universalism is undoubtedly
more tolerant, less violent than Western Exclusivism, but equally blind to
the specific inner visage of Christianity and other biblical spiritualities." Dr.
Cuttat teaches that each religion is unique and different religions should
meet and encounter each other in their individual uniqueness. He is a
philosopher of uniqueness, encounter, dialogue, and exchange.
Just two years before his death in 1957, he was writing: "I believe more
in 'exchange'. India must give the West a keener sense of eternal, of the
primacy of Being over Becoming, and receive, in turn, from the West a
more concrete sense of the temporal, of becoming, of the person, of love (of
which India alas! knows so little)."
Fr. J. Monchanin found a good deal in Hinduism which he appreciated.
But let us see what all this 'appreciation' amounts to. All the merit Hinduism
has accumulated is only a pointer to her conversion to Christianity. We give
in his own language what he says on the subject:
"Is not the message she had to deliver to the world similar to the message
of the ancient Greece? Therefore the Christianization of Indian civilization
is to all intents and purposes an historical undertaking comparable to the
Christianization of Greece."
Hindus may have the necessary underlying spiritual qualities like a sense
of the holy in abundance, but the Church has the Truth in its possession.
Therefore, "India has to receive humbly from the Church the sound and
basic principles of true contemplation. The genuine Christian contemplation
is built on the unshakable foundation of revealed truths concerning God and
men and their mutual relations." The mystic East should be led by the
doctors of theology of the West, the forest-sages by the university men.
"In that mystery, Hinduism (and specially Advait) must die to rise up
again Christian. Any theory which does not fully take into account this
necessity constitutes a lack of loyalty both to Christianity - which we
cannot mutilate from its essence - and to Hinduism - from which we cannot
hide its fundamental error and its essential divergence from Christianity.
"Meanwhile, our task is to keep all doors open, to wait with patience and
theological hope for the hour of the advent of India into the Church in order
to realize the fullness of the Church and the fullness of India. In this age-
long vigil, let us remember that love can enter where intellect must bide at
the door."
IV
All the participants in this colloquy advocate a dialogue with Hindu India
on a deeper level. But let us see what kind of mind they bring to the
proposed dialogue.
As the Indian Interiority and Christian Theology tells us, the participants
start with the assumption that "Christianity as the one revealed religion for
all men, cannot be lacking in any truth necessary for the salvation of man; it
has the guarantee of the Divine testimony."
The intention is also not to inquire whether "Hinduism has some positive
religious values which are wanting in Christianity"; for that is "not logically
tenable", believing as they do that Christianity is "the true revealed religion
for all humanity." But they are prepared to look at particular values more
intensely realized by some Hindu sages which may direct "the Christian
back to his own religion, in which he finds the same values more naturally
embedded." This position is not without its modesty. It seems that
Christians, if not Christianity, too can learn a few things even from the
heathens, though these things are nothing but the neglected truths of their
own religion.
But the participants soon forget the learning part and assume the teaching
role, probably due to compulsion of habit. They become polemical.
According to the procedure they laid down for themselves, they take
different Hindu categories of thought and spirit and show that Christianity
offers a better answer. One such category is Teacher-Disciple or Guru-
Shishya relationship, an important spiritual institution in Hinduism. After
discussing it, the participants find that "the only person in whom the
positive values of the Hindu Guru are best verified is Christ."
The participants discuss Yoga too, its positive as well as its negative
aspects. At the end, they find that while in Christianity the negative aspects
are avoided, the positive aspects of Hindu Yoga "find their natural setting
and full meaning in Christianity. Non-dualism, and dualism, Yoga
absolutism and Bhakti personalism, Sankara and Ramanuja are in different
ways related to Christianity. The Christian worships the Absolute of
Sankara with the devotion of Ramanuja."
Hindu symbolism and idol-worship have some positive points but the
dangers are far greater. "The fundamental defect of Hindu idol-worship is
that it is purely a human attempt so to say to trans-substantiate the material
things into the divine without a prior incarnation, namely, without a-divine
guarantee which assumes the human symbol, into the divine economy of
self-communication to man. Man cannot by his own powers raise himself to
the divine level, which far transcends him. Hence the Hindu conviction that
when the priest recites the prayers over the idol it becomes inhabited by the
deity is gratuitous assumption and hence superstitious."
But now the political equation has changed and also the ideas have
changed. What was possible a hundred years ago is no longer possible now.
The Church is also less powerful now even in countries nominally
Christian. Its pretentious claims jar on the more sophisticated ears and
minds of the age. So a new liberal - or at least liberal-sounding - theology is
in the offing, which is trying to give up the old method of forthright
denunciation and taking the new method of partial praise, a grudging (and
sometimes even genuine) appreciation of the values of a religion they aim
to supplant.
Behind the praise of the neo-theologians, we can hear, if our ears are
attentive, another message expressed sometimes openly, sometimes sotto
voce. They are saying something like this: "You are too good to remain
what you are. Your destiny is to become Christians. We see in your country
spiritual things deep and uncommon. But God could not have planted these
things amongst you in vain. He must have been preparing you for
Christianity, for blessing you with the truth he blessed us with; in short, he
must have been aiming to make you as good as we are."
The neo-theologians admit that the Hindus have lived a life of dedication
and constant quest, that they have pondered over things spiritual from times
immemorial. But, in spite of that, somehow, the Truth eluded them. Why?
Because, as they seem to say, while the Hindus had the seeking, they lacked
the key. They did not know Jesus Christ. God has to be found not in God
but in Jesus Christ and the Church.
The Bible says: Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you. But to the Christian theologians,
seeking and knocking, however dedicated and sincere, are not enough. For
don't we meet the strange phenomenon that while the Hindus asked, as the
neo-theologians are ready to grant, God gave it to the Christians; while the
Hindus sought, the Christians found; while the Hindus knocked, it was
opened unto the Christians. A mystery, perhaps a Trinitarian mystery,
perplexing to the heathens but easily understood by the Christians.
The Christian theologians call pagan religions natural, while their own
they call revealed. In this they pay to pagans an unintended compliment.
The opposite of the natural is not the revealed, but the artificial, and there
is something artificial about the Christian religion. A natural religion means
that it is about things inherent and intrinsic; that it is about a seeking of the
heart which is innate; that it is about man in his deeper search, and not
about a particular person or a church; that it does not deal with the
accidental but with the universal. Its truths are not adventitious, added from
outside by a sole leader or institution; on the contrary, these reside in the
"cave of the heart," to put it in the Upanishadic phrase. These truths are also
not fortuitous, happening by a lucky chance consisting in the appearance of
a particular individual, or in the crusading labours of a church burdened
with a self-assumed role. On the contrary, these truths happen because man
in his innermost being, by nature, is a child of divine light. Man grows from
within, by an inherent law of his being, responding to That which he already
is secretly. The purusha or person within responds to the purusha without.
Tat tvam asi; tat aham asmi; sah tadasti. (You are That; I am That; he is
That.)
Footnotes:
The Great Command and a Cosmic
Auditing
APPENDIX 3
The Great Command and a Cosmic Auditing1
The book does not include all the plans, but only a fraction of them
representing merely "the tip of the iceberg." It however includes plans best
known for their global significance and, as we approach modem times, most
central plans of major Christian denominations or missions or parachurch
agencies which each has over 5,000 foreign missionary personnel. The
authors analyze these plans using 15 variables.
The biblical story that God created the world out, of Chaos proves to the
authors that He is a "God of order, of planning, of strategy." Similarly, the
biblical observation that the "very hairs of your head are numbered" proves
that God is also a great enumerator, and numberer. The authors do no more
than imitate their God's skill and audit for us how His Great Commission
has been followed by the believers.
Christianity has passed through 66 generations but for the best part of its
life the Great Command has been neglected. "Disobeying the Great
Commission: 59 Neglected Generations," has a separate chapter on it.
During this while, there were only 2.6 plans per generation. But with the
19th century began the era of "five aware generations." During this time
which also coincides with the heydays of Western Imperialism, the number
of global plans per generation rose to 28. But the most "aware" and the
richest in planning is the present century. During its first decade, the figure
was 69 plans per generation, 321 during the 1970s, and the going rate is
1,200 global plans per generation.
But while the plans have been abundant, their failures have been no less
impressive. The book includes a chapter, "A Catalogue of Woes," which
enumerates "340 reasons for 534 failed global plans." The reasons include
such items as "ecclesiastical crime", "ecclesiastical gangsterism", "offering
tempting inducements", the "use of laundered money", "mass religious
espionage", "imperialism", "terrorism", etc.
Resources
From time to time special plans have also been drawn for evangelizing
the world. On 788 of them surveyed here, 10 million worker-years and 45
billion dollars have already been expended. Right away there are 387 global
plans at work and 254 of them are making progress. One hundred fifty-five
of these plans are called "massive", defined as those which each expends
"10,000 worker-years, or over 10 million dollars a year, for an average of
10 years." There are still bigger plans, 33 of them called gigantic,
"gigaplan", "each with over 100,000 worker-years, or 100 million dollars a
year, or a total of 1 billion dollars over the years of plan's life." The biggest
current gigaplan is spending 550 million dollars a year on its missionary
work.
We are told that though the church had "always had enormous resources,"
they did not always avail. Sometimes even well-endowed plans came to
nothing. For example, in 1918, 336 million dollars were raised and then the
plan was destroyed within a week. More recently, a gigaplan which raised
150 million dollars a year collapsed (did it?) in 1988 in a sex and
management scandal which involved top evangelists. The reference is to
Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart of the Assemblies of God.
Unreached people
But in spite of this massive effort, there are still "unreached people",
places where the missionaries have not reached or where they have not
succeeded. All these people have been "segmentized" into "bite-sized
chunks" which number 3,000. They are placed under 5,000 missionaries of
special calibre and training, well versed in research, logistics, briefing,
monitoring, analyzing and coordinating, and modem communication
techniques. Considering the nature of their work, they operate from places
which are politically secure and which have modern facilities.
The greatest difficulty the missions are facing today is that they are being
denied free run in many areas and face resistance from traditional religions
or competing ideologies or nationalist sources. The authors say that uptil
AD 1900, "virtually every country was open to foreign missionaries of one
tradition or another," but at present "some 65 countries are closed… with
three more closing their doors every year." But the missionaries have risen
to the occasion and in order to overcome these difficulties, they operate a
wide-spread underhand apparatus while their theorists propound new ways
and try new strategies for penetrating these areas. That these methods
involve moral and legal objections provides no deterrence. As the authors
put it, in situations where their basic rights as Christian missionaries have
been denied, they "have not hesitated to operate illegally, or secretly," as all
history shows. The Evangelical Missionaries Quarterly justifies the
subterfuge required of covert missionaries thus: "God does not lie, but he
does keep secrets." Translated into the ethical code of his followers, this
attribute of Jehovah means: Ask no questions and you will be told no lies.
Secret Apparatus
These two groups of aliens and citizens work in unison. To illustrate, the
authors cite the example of the "Pearl Operation" of 1981. In this Operation,
200 tons of Bible, one million volumes in all, were landed illegally at night
off Swatow, China, and all quickly taken away by some 20,000 Chinese
Christians. We are told that the "Operation was masterminded by alien
Smugglers and citizen Guerrillas, using a complex network of foreign
Couriers, citizen Messengers, and Clandestine workers from different
countries to alert thousands of ordinary Chinese Christians, large number of
Unregistered pastors, and other part-time Undergrounders and Moles."
Martyrs
Weak and poor countries of the third world have hardly any chance
against these pressures and tactics. While the UNO recognizes the right of
the Missionaries to operate their highly-endowed and subversive apparatus,
it offers the weak countries no protection against it.
Cosmic Auditing
The authors give us some very interesting figures. They have no use for
the traditional biblical chronology which allows man a bare 4,000 years of
sojourn on the earth (according to a 17th century computation, man
appeared on the earth on October 23 of BC 4004 and the apostles were
already getting ready for the end of the world in their times). Our authors
however take a long stride, back and forth, and go back to 5.5 million years
when Homo appeared on the scene and they traverse 4 billion years in
future. Undeterred by the fact that the new perspective involves grave
theological problems, they boldly audit for us the missionary activity for all
this era.
By the time Jesus came, 5.5 million years had already elapsed and 118
billion men and women had already lived and died, all ipso facto destined
for hell as they did not know Christ. But new prospects opened for mankind
after AD 33 when the Kingdom of Heaven was announced and inaugurated.
Heaven, empty uptil then, began to be populated though rather
unexpectedly slowly in the beginning. But by 1990, there are already 8
billion dead believers (Church Triumphant), all qualifying for habitation in
the new region. They are however still only 5.70% of unbelievers destined
for hell, quarters across the street. But the demographic composition
continues to improve in their favour. By AD 2100, they are 8.57%, and at
the end of 4 billion years, they are fully 99.90%, the Christian heaven
holding 9 decillion (one decillion is ten followed by 33 zeros) believers.
In AD 100,000, believers are still only 85% of the total living population.
But by AD 4 billion, the gap practically closes and almost all are believers.
The Great Commission is fulfilled and Missionaries are freed from their
obligation to God and His Son.
The population figures given here take into account men whose longevity
after AD 2,500 turns gradually into immortality, and new men and human
species artificially created by mass cloning and genetic engineering
(Missionaries of the future believing, brave new world will have a different
role; they will increasingly be able to raise their own crop of believers
through genetic technology); they take into account humans increasingly
living on off-earth space colonies, then across other galaxies and universes.
In AD 4 billion, the "ultimate size of the Church of Jesus Christ," the
authors estimate, will be "1 decillion believers," not counting 9 decillion
dead by then.
Footnotes:
Christian Ashrams in India, Nepal
and Sri Lanka
APPENDIX I
Christian Ashrams in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka
India
85. Sat Tal Ashram (1929), Bhowali, Nainital District, Uttar Pradesh.
86. Sevananda Nilayam (1929), Nandikotkur. Kurnool District, Andhra
Pradesh.
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Footnotes:
We have taken the figures from Hinduism Today which cited them in its
issue of October, 1987:
Rupees
1. Anand Niketan Ashram, Gujarat 1,435,000
2. Advancing the Ministries of the Gospel, Andhra Pradesh 17,548,000
3. Bhagalpur Prefecture Association, Bihar 5,603.000
4. Christian Institute for Study of Religion, Bangalore 6,741.000
5. Church of North India Childcare Centre, New Delhi 20,568,000
6. Comprehensive Rural Operations society, Hyderabad 22,092.000
7. Indian Baptist Mission, Bangalore 5,253,000
8. Indian Evangelical Church of Christ, Hyderabad 1,558.000
9. Partnership Mission Society, Seilmet, Manipur 6,012,000
10. Rural Action in Development, Andhra Pradesh 1,008,000
11. Eight(8) Catholic Dioceses 57,709,000
.
Total 145,527,000
But can God's work really be surveyed in this fashion? Yes, seems to be
the answer if the work consists in catechizing and baptizing. Like a good
shepherd, the Church has been in the habit of counting its sheep, its new
acquisitions, its functionaries, its martyrs and its saints. In the complicated
world of today, enumeration has become even more important. Only
recently, the Pope spoke of the need for "accurate and well-studied
statistics". Dr. Barrett discusses the "theology of Christian enumeration"
and tells us how it is useful for missionary "logistics". Jesus, after he had
died and risen again, told his Apostles to go forth "and make disciples of all
nations." This divine "mandate" and "Great Commission" calls for surveys
like the present. These "help the followers of Christ to see to what extent
they have been faithful to that commission, to perceive the magnitude of
their task."
Falsification
But here and there we do get much tragic information though having no
such sense of tragedy to Christian ears. 1518 is called the year of "Cortes
and Spanish Conquistadores" in Mexico. In 1523, Cortes is ordered by the
Spanish Monarch "to enforce mass conversion of Mexican Indians." As a
result, "Franciscans baptize one million Amerindians in 12 years since
conquest, often at the rate of 7,000 a day per missionary".
World Evangelization
Dr. Barrett tell us that the professed goal of all Christian confession and
communion is "world evangelization". To achieve that end, Christians have
evolved many specialized institutions. These institutions train theologians,
print books, run Radio and TV stations. There are 3,000,000 full-time
Christian functionaries; 4,500 major Seminaries train the elite. Of these
personnel, 250,000 are Foreign Missionaries trained in 410 world-wide
"Foreign Missionary Training Centres". There are 3,100 Foreign
Missionary Societies supporting their effort.
All this labour, systematic and sustained, compels admiration. But what
supports it from behind? What is its seed-power, its psychic support? A
great lack of larger charity towards one's neighbour whose Gods are
regarded as false, who is considered damned on his own, and who has to be
saved by someone other than himself.
Conversions
The poor countries of the Third World which have been politically
dominated till recently continue to be the special targets of missionary
activities. Conversion is massive in Africa. Between 1970 and 1985,
Christianity has won here 1,470,000 converts annually, or about 4,000 daily.
In South Asia which includes countries like India and Sri Lanka, the annual
gain, during the same period, is 447,000 converts or about 1,200 daily. In
East Asia, the annual crop is 360,000, or about 1,000 a day. Strangely
enough, it is gaining converts even in the USSR - 174,182 annually, or
about 450 daily.2
But these gains are offset by losses in the rich countries of the West, the
very heartland of Christianity. In Western Europe, North America, Australia
and New Zealand, it is losing annually 1,950,000 members, or about 5,350
daily. In terms of active, professing church-going members, the loss is even
greater - 7,600 a day for Europe and North America alone.
Crypto-Christians
Religious Liberty
Hindus-Buddhists
All this may be depressing to us in the East but these tables of converts
may mean very little in the deeper analysis. These tables at best present a
political-ideological map, not a religious-spiritual picture. The Hindu-
Buddhist influence is of a different kind. It works as a leaven; it provides
Yoga, meditation, and a culture of inferiority. It tends to change people from
within, without changing their outer labels. In fact, hundreds of thousands
of people in the world, particularly in the West, are already Hindu-
Buddhist-Taoist without being so labelled. Even the agnostio-atheist
movement in the West and in the Communist countries is Hindu-Buddhist
in this deeper, spiritual sense, in so far as this movement follows intellectual
honesty and wants to take nothing for granted and rejects unproven dogmas
and pretentious claims and wants to build on "facts", though in this case
facts belong to an inner realm.
Footnotes:
1 World Christian Encyclopaedia, edited by David B. Barrett,
Oxford University Press, 1982, reviewed by Ram Swarup in The
Times of India dated 14 July 1985.
2 The USSR was a communist country when this article was
written.
Christianity Mainly for Export
APPENDIX IV
Christianity Mainly for Export
God's Legionaries
"Go into the world and preach the gospel to all creatures. He who
believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be
condemned" (Mk. 16.15-16), Jesus told his followers after he had died and
risen from the dead. Christian scholars now know this biblical passage to be
an interpolation but this fact has in no way cooled off their zeal for
proselytizing. It seems proselytizing needs little biblical inspiration but
embodies ecclesiastical aggrandizement and follows its own vested
interests, political and economic. At the beginning of this decade, there
were 249,000 missionaries in the soul-saving business.
Having been earlier in the missionary field, the Catholic Church still
continues to dominate it, but the Protestants too are coming up fast. Of the
total missionary force, their share is already 85,000 missionaries. Not long
ago, Europe was the mainstay of the Protestant missionary activities but
now America leads the field. In 1983184, North America (USA and
Canada) supported 67,000 overseas personnel. The Mission Handbook1,
sponsored by the World Vision International, an American evangelical
agency, second largest in the field of missionary activity with an annual
budget of 84 million dollars, provides useful data on the subject. The book
bears no comparison to David B. Barrett's World Christian Encyclopaedia
(1982) in comprehensiveness but in its own way and in its restricted field it
is a good supplement. It contains financial statements which the
Encyclopaedia neglects, perhaps on purpose.
Protestant Missions
On a first glance, the American role seems creditable but the zealots still
find it below the mark. They point out that while the USA sends out only
one missionary for its each 4,800 citizens, the ratio for Switzerland is
112,400, for France 112,300, for Netherlands 111,300, for Spain 111,260,
for Belgium 1/1,54, and above all 1/328 for Ireland, a country poor in
worldly wealth but rich in missionary zeal, a veritable example for richer
Western national to follow.
Multiplication
Some may regard the method of multiple labour by many countries and
denominations as inefficient and wasteful but not so the mission strategists.
They point out that the method gives Christianity many faces which helps
to confuse unfriendly elements. As Barrett puts it, it makes it "far more
difficult for hostile regimes to comprehend the phenomenon of Christianity
in order to control it, suppress it, or eradicate it".
"Tentmaking" Missionaries
Gravity-Shift
Christianity is losing its hold in Western countries but they still keep it
for export to the Third World. It was their veritable third arm and it
continues to play the same instrumental role to-day.
In the North, Islam competes and already one-thirds of the people are
Muslims. But in both cases, the indigenous peoples and cultures and
religions are at the receiving end.
In Asia too, the missions have made serious inroads. Philippines is 92%
Christian; Korea 32 per cent. In India 6,000 missionaries are labouring, of
them 3,500 are Catholic and the rest Protestant.
Now many missions are giving up their religious facade and adopting
what they call "liberation theology" - a philosophy of direct political action.
They float dubious organisations calling themselves Civil Right Groups,
Action Groups, Forums and act through local political forces and ideologies
of divisive significance. They see their chance in an India of subverted
nationalism. New forces of fundamentalist beliefs, separatist loyalties and
foreign finances, but mouthing libertarian slogans, are coming up and
forming a new axis. Happenings in the North-West are links in the same
chain.
Mission Difficulties
Though the missionaries come from wealthy countries, they have their
own difficulties, particularly back home. They do not enjoy the old prestige
and they work in an atmosphere of increasing scepticism. Missionaries from
America have their own peculiar difficulties. In that country, there are no
Tithes, no Concordats, no Governmental Appropriations for the support of
the clergy; therefore they have to raise their own money. Different
denominations have to compete with each other for attracting clients and
the "religious" have to advertise their creeds, ideas and programmes in a
truly market spirit. In order to raise money for their missionary work
abroad, the evangelists have to paint lurid pictures of the depravity of
heathen countries. For example, the Texas-based Gospel for Asia group,
while emphasizing the need of redeeming the Hindus, recently wrote: "The
Indian sub-continent, with one billion people, is a living example of what
happens when Satan rules the entire culture… India is one vast purgatory in
which millions of people… are literally living a cosmic lie! Could Satan
have devised a more perfect system for causing misery?".
Career Missionaries
In the past, too, missionary work offered a career and many joined the
mission to improve their economic and social status, but faith was not
neglected and it was a requirement in a recruit. Now, however, it is hoped
that the missionaries would acquire faith as they pursue their career. And in
many cases they really do, and quite a muscular and charity-proof one too.
"Service" Missions
Not long ago, all missionaries were white. Now a beginning has been
made to recruit others in the lower hierarchy of the mission. In 1980, out of
a total of 249,000 missionaries, 32,500 were from the Third World. Their
number is still small but it is bound to increase. For they cost considerably
less and it also gives to missionary work a "Third World look". It is also a
good strategy. Let Asians convert Asians - to put it in the language,
somewhat modified, of Mr. Dulles.
India also receives missionaries from the Third World and even from
Communist countries like Yugoslavia and Poland. Recently, missionaries
came even from Communist China. The other day, a "Japanese" Catholic
theologian also visited this author but was unlucky in him.
"Native" Missionaries
Insufficient Results
In spite of many gains in many parts of the world, missions are not
always optimistic. Their effort is vast but the results are below expectations.
In the last hundred years, there have been "at least fifty major clarion
calls… to evangelize the world by a certain date", Barrett, the compulsive
quantifier, tells us. But they all failed and those who gave the call "have
gone to be with the Lord without seeing the completion of world
evangelization".
"Resistant" People
Jesus saw the multitudes and said to his disciples: "The harvest truly is
plenteous, but the labourers are few" (Matt. 9.37). But the situation has
turned out to be different. The labourers or missionaries are many but the
harvest is small.
Christian divines had believed that once the Bible was taken to the
people and they were told of Jesus Christ, they would flock and gather
under the banner of Christianity. But now they are disappointed. Thanks to
televangelism, Bible Societies and hotgospellers, there are not many
"unreached peoples" left, yet world-conversion is not in sight. On the other
hand, puzzlingly, the Christian divines are meeting "resistant peoples",
people "who have heard of Christ and his gospel but who as a result of that
hearing show little or no inclination to become Christians".
What causes this resistance? The missionary thinkers have come to the
conclusion that major resistance comes from people who have their own
religion and culture or people like the Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims who
belong to "major culture-religions". They find they have better chance
among people whom they call "animists". John Stott, in a Foreword to
Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture (1980), clarifies the
point by observing that when Adoniram Judson died in 1850, he left 7,000
converts from animistic Karens, but a mere one hundred Burman converts
from Buddhism. "Why was this?… How are we to explain the pitifully
small 'dent' which has been made, for instance, on the 600 million Hindus
of India or the 700 million Moslems of the Islamic block?," John Stott asks.
His answer is contained in his question itself.
Counter-question
We may not agree with his answer but the animists and the heathens
themselves have some questions to ask. How long will they be able to
withstand the powerful, financially well-oiled onslaught of the
missionaries? Are they to have no safeguards? Would the world conscience
continue to sleep? Thanks to the powerful missionary lobby in the United
Nations, its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that every
individual has a right to embrace the religion or belief of his choice. But is
there to be no similar charter that declares that countries, cultures and
peoples of tolerant philosophies and religions who believe in Live and Let
Live, too, have a right of protection against aggressive, systematic
proselytising? Are its well-drilled legionaries, organised round a fanatic and
totalitarian idea, to have a free field? Should not the Missionary Apparatus
be wound up in the interest of justice and fair play?
Footnotes:
Proselytisation as it is Practised
APPENDIX V
Proselytisation as it is Practised1
I did not realise I was stirring a hornet's nest in reviewing the Mission
Handbook (March 13, 14). It invoked many rejoinders, most of them harsh.
It helps inter-faith dialogue which the church has recently invited.
Many points have been made but, quite understandably I can only deal
with a few more salient ones, and that too briefly. Mr Kuruvilla Chandy
presents a justification for Christian proselytizing which is novel in its being
so openly avowed. He compares it with proselytizing in politics where
"fraud is proverbial", and with "aggressive advertising" of the commercial
world. It is interesting that he finds nothing odious in the comparison. He
argues that "proselytizing is normal to fife."
One-Way Traffic
The same methods were employed when Christianity moved to the north
of Europe. In Great Britain and Germany, priests and monks moved about
destroying the groves and shrines of the people. The last regions to lose
their religions in Europe were Prussia and the Baltic states. In the beginning
of the thirteenth century, they were conquered and forcibly converted with
the help of two religious-military Orders of Litvonian and Teutonic
Knights.
During Medieval times, the Church taught that the Pope was "almost God
on earth"; therefore the earth's sovereignty also belonged to him. In the
capacity of a overlord, he gave away the newly-discovered Americas to the
Spanish king and the Eastern part of the world to King Alfonso of Portugal,
"the right total and absolute, to invade, conquer and subjugate all the
countries which are under the enemies of Christ, Saracene and pagan."
Space does not permit us to narrate what Christianity did in these parts.
Juan de Zumarrage, first Bishop of Mexico, writing in 1531, claimed that he
personally destroyed over 500 temples and 20,000 idols of the heathens.
From another part of the globe, St. Xavier was writing from Cochin to the
King of Portugal: "To your servants you must declare as plainly as possible
… that the only way of escaping your wrath is to make as many Christians
as possible in the countries over which you rule."
About Christian schools, the same source says that "conversion may
often be traced to the schools."
Regarding their medical ministry, it says that a "hospital is a readymade
congregation; there is no need to go into the highways and hedges and
compel them 'to come in'. They send each other."
Who pays for these services? It is Indians themselves though the money
is spent by the missionaries. For example, take education. In 1859, the
British government decided to help them by the backdoor. It offered grant-
in-aid to those "private" agencies who did work in the educational field. The
Missions flocked. In his Colonialism And Christian Missions, Bishop
Stephen Neil tells us that a "century of experience suggests that the
missions were right in their decision… In thousands of villages where there
was a Christian nucleus, the village teacher served also as a catechist,
carrying out many of the duties which in older churches rest on ordinary
ministry. About a third of the cost of educational work was borne by the
private agencies, two thirds by the Government."
Old Order
He further adds that "even in independent India… the old order has
continued in being without radical modification." It seems the Indians are
paying not only for missionary "social service", but also for their apparatus
and for their own conversion by them.
The suggestion that Europe and America are the paymasters has been
resented. One local missionary protested that he and his wife are "supported
by Christians from many parts of India". There is no intention of hurting
anybody's feelings and what he says may be true. But it is more likely that
people like him are supported by local communities and Bishops who
themselves are supported by foreign sources.
There is much financial interlocking at the top and who gives and who
receives and why can remain a mystery even after much investigation as
recent events prove. However, we have the testimony of Rev. James
Cogswell, head of the American National Council of Churches, that they
have "consciously" decided to send more cash and fewer people. "American
missionaries overseas cost a lot of, money," he explains, and it is "far better
to send support to workers in indigenous churches."
New Policy
The new policy is dictated by new political climate and new economic
factors. The local recruit costs less and his compulsion to prove his
missionary zeal is greater. Politically he causes less complications and,
rightly trained, he is no less earnest in his cause himself. A few months ago,
Rev. Abel Govender, an "Indian" Christian Minister in South Africa, wrote
to its president, P.W. Botha, that the country would lose God's divine
protection if Hinduism were allowed to flourish. "K. P. Yohannan, a native
of India", as he is introduced by the editors of American Gospel for Asia,
says the "enemy (Satan) has used Hinduism to enslave India in a system
that dooms her people to misery in this world, as well as to an eternity in
hell." Not many white missionaries could outdo their brown counterparts.
Several rejoinders invoked Mother Teresa's name to show that I did not
even "spare her" and, therefore, what I said deserved no credibility. One
could admire Mother Teresa and her work without admiring the
ecclesiastical framework to which she belongs. British Imperialism had
many conscientious officers but it did not take away from the fact that they
served an iniquitous system.
Mother Teresa is a true daughter of the Church in having her mind and
heart closed to the religions of the countries of her labour, even adoption.
Sometime back, some European Vedantists learning that she was at the
Vatican went there to pay their respects. She rebuked them for "betraying
Christ".
Let me clarify the point a little further by bringing in Sister Nivedita. She
is a lady Hindus are proud of. She helped India by helping it to rediscover
itself. No higher service could be rendered to a nation in the grip of self-
forgetfulness. She stood for national justice for India and she helped us by
giving us national pride. This explains why Sister Nivedita is Hindu India's
hero. This also explains why Western nations shower praise and money on
Mother Teresa while Sister Nivedita remained unsung in the West and there
were no contributions from that quarter even for her purely humanitarian
work, like education and child care and relief work which she did with no
less dedication, sympathy and loving care.
I had said that the missionary passage in Mark (earliest Gospel), 'Go and
preach the Gospel to all creatures', is an interpolation. They questioned this
statement. Well, my best defence is the Bible (RSV) itself which does not
even give these verses in the running text but reproduces them only in a
footnote. Similarly, the Good News Bible, while reproducing the verses,
explains in a foot-note that "some manuscripts and ancient translations do
not have this ending in Gospel," a euphemism for saying that the passage is
a later-stage interpolation.
Anna Sujata Mathai expresses a wish that I too may "like St. Paul, who
also hated Christians, one day be forced to face.... dazzling truth of Christ's
compassionate love." A similar wish was conveyed in other letters which I
received from some readers.
However, while thanking Anna Mathai, I must add that anybody who has
a social conscience will make no such wish even for an enemy. Conversion
made Paul a greater persecutor, on a larger scale, and a menace for centuries
to come for other religions of the world.
Scientists' Works
Footnotes:
Bibliography
Bibliography
The Ashram Review, January, 1942; April, 1945; July, 1947; October,
1948; July, 1955.