Table Of Contents

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

It was early in 1987 that Hinduism Today1 sent to me reprints of four

articles that had been published in its issue of November/ December, 1986.2
Based on extensive research, the articles told the story of some Catholic
missionaries establishing "ashrams" in different parts of India and doing
many other things in order to look like Hindu sannyasins. They also pointed
out some glaring contradictions between Hindu spiritual perceptions on the
one hand and the basic Christian beliefs on the other. One of the articles
quoted from Vatican sources to show how Church proclamations disagreed
with the professions of Christian "sannyasins". Another asked the Christians
as to how they would look at a Muslim missionary appearing in their midst
in the dress of a Christian priest and adopting Christian rituals in a Church-
like mosque, but teaching the Quran instead of the Bible.3 I wrote to
Hinduism Today that Voice of India would like to publish the articles in the
form of a booklet for the education of Hindus, many of whom had been
hoodwinked by this form of mission strategy. The permission was readily
granted.

While these articles were getting printed, a friend in Madras informed me

that a dialogue on the subject of Christian ashrams had developed through
correspondence between Swami Devananda Saraswati and Father Bede
Griffiths. He sent to me an article and some letters to the editor which had
appeared in the Indian Express of Madras in March and April 1987, and
triggered the dialogue. The article, An Apostle of Peace, was the summary
of a talk which Dr. Robert Wayne Teasdale, a Catholic theologian from
Canada, had delivered in Madras on March 12, 1987. Fr. Bede Griffiths had
been presented by him as "Britain's appropriate gift to India".4 The letters
to the editor were reactions from readers of the Indian Express.

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.

Coming to Jesus Christ, I had written an essay on what the Christological

research in the modem West has done to this mischievous myth. The essay
was intended to be a Preface to this edition of the Catholic Ashrams. But
owing to the wealth of detail which was needed to tell the full story of the
Jesus of History yielding place to the Jesus of Fiction and finally leaving the
fast dwindling number of believing Christians with the Christ of Faith
(blind belief), the essay became too long and did not look suitable as a mere
Preface. I have had to make the essay a separate book, Jesus Christ: An
Artifice for Aggression, which is being published simultaneously with this
edition of the Catholic Ashrams. Readers may regard the two books as
companion volumes.

I end by mentioning a happy coincidence. When I sat down to write the

Preface to the first edition of Catholic Ashrams, I ran into a lot of source
material which enabled me eventually to write History of Hindu-Christian
Encounters (1989), which, in turn, brought Koenraad Elst to me in
December, 1989. This time, as I sat down to write the Preface to this
edition, I ran into another lot of material which has enabled me to write
Jesus Christ: An Artifice for Aggression. I look forward to my next book on
Christianity which I hope will enable me to write yet another.

SITA RAM GOEL

Vasantotsava
New Delhi
27 March 1994

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.

2 December 1986/January 1987 issue of the Indian Ocean Edition

published from Port Louis, Mauritius. Recently an Indian edition
has started coming out from New Delhi.

3 Christian reaction to the main article in Hinduism Today came

out in the September 1987 issue of Religion And Society, published
from Bangalore. It is one of the six most important Christian
journals in India. The editor dismisses as "conservative" those
Hindus who suspect Christian ashrams as a new strategy for
conversion. "While this attack is nonsense or worse," he concludes,
"it does show clearly how Hindus of a kind, probably on the
increase, view some Christian ashrams." Obviously, the other kind
of Hindus the editor has in mind are either "progressives" who
welcome everything hostile to Hinduism or those simple people
who know nothing about the missionary apparatus and machinations
and who, therefore, never ask any questions.

4 Dr. Teasdale's Towards A Christian Vedanta: The Encounter of

Hinduism and Christianity according to Bede Griffiths has been
published from Bangalore in 1987.
 5 Catherine Cornille, The Guru in Indian Catholicism: Ambiguity
or Opportunity of Inculturation, Louvain, 1990, pp.192-93.

   
New Labels for Old Merchandise
CHAPTER 1
New Labels for Old Merchandise

The emergence of Catholic ashrams in several parts of the country is not

an isolated development. These institutions are links in a chain which is
known as the "Ashram Movement", and which different denominations of
Christianity are promoting in concert. The Protestants and the Syrian
Orthodox have evolved similar establishments. Taken together, these
institutions are known as Christian ashrams. Several books and many
articles have already been devoted to the subject by noted Christian writers.

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.

What strikes one most as one wades through the literature of

Indigenisation is the sense of failure from which Christianity is suffering in
this country. Or, what seems more likely, this literature is being produced
with the express purpose of creating that impression. The gains made so far
by an imperialist enterprise are being concealed under a sob-story.
Whatever the truth, we find that the mission strategists are trying hard to
understand and explain why Christianity has not made the strides it should
have made by virtue of its own merits and the opportunities that came its
way.

Christianity, claim the mission strategists, possesses and proclaims the

only true prescription for spiritual salvation. It has been present in India,
they say, almost since the commencement of the Christian era. During the
last four hundred years, it has been promoted in all possible ways by a
succession of colonial powers - the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French, and
the British. The secular dispensation which has obtained in this country
since the dawn of independence has provided untrammeled freedom to the
functioning as well as the multiplication of the Christian mission. Many
Christian countries in the West have maintained for many years an
unceasing flow of finance and personnel for the spread of the gospel. The
costs of the enterprise over the years, in terms of money and manpower, are
mind-boggling. Yet Christianity has failed to reap a rich harvest among the
Hindu heathens.

"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.

Coming to the causes of Christian failure in India, one searches in vain

for a single line in the voluminous literature of Indigenisation which tries to
examine the character of Christian doctrine vis-à-vis what the Hindus
expect from a religion. In fact, the doctrine is never mentioned in this
context. It is assumed that the doctrine has been and remains perfect and
flawless. What is wrong, we are told, is the way it has been presented to
Hindus. "These facts," continues Fr. Bede after mourning the failure of the
mission, "which can scarcely be questioned, suggest that there has been
something wrong with the way in which the gospel has been presented in
India (and the same remark would apply to all the Far East) and especially
in the relation which has been established between Christianity and
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.

What is the way out? It is obvious, say the mission strategists.

Christianity has to drop its alien attire and get clothed in Hindu cultural
forms. In short, Christianity has to be presented as an indigenous faith.
Christian theology has to be conveyed through categories of Hindu
philosophy; Christian worship has to be conducted in the manner and with
the materials of Hindu pûjâ; Christian sacraments have to sound like Hindu
saMskâras; Christian Churches have to copy the architecture of Hindu
temples; Christian hymns have to be set to Hindu music; Christian themes
and personalities have to be presented in styles of Hindu painting; Christian
missionaries have to dress and live like Hindu sannyâsins; Christian
mission stations have to look like Hindu ashramas. And so on, the literature
of Indigenisation goes into all aspects of Christian thought, organisation and
activity and tries to discover how far and in what way they can be disguised
in Hindu forms. The fulfilment will be when converts to Christianity
proclaim with complete confidence that they are Hindu Christians.

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:

1 U. Meyer lists as many as 196 articles published in 8 major

Christian journals from 1938 to 1965 (Indian Church History
Review, December, 1967, pp. 114-120). Books and reports of
committees and conferences, etc. which constitute a sizable segment
of this literature, are not included in this list. The literature has
tended to become more and more prolific in years subsequent to
1965.

  2 Mercifully, Fr. Bede does not repeat the currently fashionable

Christian story that Christianity was brought to India in 52 A.D. by
St. Thomas. He opts for sober history which records that the first
Christians came to Malabar in the second half of the fifth century.

3 Bede Griffiths, Christ in India, Bangalore, 1986, p. 55.

4 Ibid., P. 179

5 U. Meyer, op. cit., p. 102

   
Indigenisation: A Predatory
Enterprise
CHAPTER 2
Indigenisation: A Predatory Enterprise

The precedent cited most frequently by the literature of Indigenisation is

that which was set by the Greek Fathers when they used Greek cultural
forms for conveying Christianity to the pagans in the Roman Empire. Fr.
Bede recommends this precedent to the mission in India. "The Church," he
says, "has a perfect model of how it should proceed today in the way it
proceeded in the early centuries. Christianity came out of Palestine as a
Jewish sect. Yet within a few centuries this Jewish sect had taken all the
forms of thought and expression of the Greco-Roman world. A Christian
theology developed in Greek modes of thought, as did a Christian liturgy in
Greek language and in Greek modes of expression; a calender also
developed according to Greek and Roman traditions. Surely all that is a
wonderful example meant for our instruction of how the Church can present
herself to an alien world, receiving forms into herself while retaining her
own Catholic message."1

Another expert on Indigenisation is more explicit about what the Church

had done in the Greco-Roman world. "As we reflect on the process," writes
R.H.S. Boyd, "by which Christianity in the earlier centuries became
acclimatised in the Greek world, and by which it made use of certain
categories of Greek thought, we are struck by the double face of its
acceptance of 'secularised' Greek philosophy and philosophical
terminology, and its complete rejection of Greek religion and mythology.
Greek religion was gradually secularised. Philosophy was separated from
what had been a religio-philosophic unity. The religious content - which
had already been deeply influenced by secularisation right from the time of
Aristophanes and Euripides - developed into a cultural, literary, artistic
entity 'incapsulated' and isolated, except in the Orphic and mystery
traditions, from that living, existential faith which transforms men's lives."2
 There is no evidence that Greek culture had become secularised before
some of its forms were taken over by the Church. The history of that period
stands thoroughly documented by renowned scholars. The record leaves no
doubt that it was the Church which forcibly secularised Greek culture by
closing pagan schools, destroying pagan temples, and prohibiting pagan
rites. In fact, the doings of the Church in the Greco-Roman world is one of
the darkest chapters in human history. Force and fraud are the only themes
in that chapter. But facts, it seems, have no role to play when it comes to
missionary make-believe.

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

Legitimate or illegitimate, compatible or incompatible, the literature of

Indigenisation provides ample proof that several Hindu philosophies are
being actively considered by the mission strategists as conveyors of
Christianity. The Advaita of Shankaracharya has been the hottest favourite
so far. The Vishistadvaita of Ramanuja, the Bhakti of the Alvar saints and
Vaishnava Acharyas, the Integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo and the Vichara of
Raman Maharshi are not far behind. For all we know, Kashmir Saivism and
Shakta Tantra may also become grist to the missionary mill before long.
Missionaries working among Harijans are advocating that the Nirguna
Bhakti of Kabir and Ravidas should also be accepted as candidates for
service to Christianity. The more enterprising mission strategists
recommend that different systems of Hindu philosophy should he used for
tackling different sections of Hindu society. In the upshot, we are
witnessing a keen contest among Indigenisation theologians for acquiring
doctorates in Hindu religion and philosophy. Christian seminaries in India
and abroad conduct crash courses in the same field. Christian publishing
houses are manufacturing learned monographs, comparing Hindu
philosophers with Christian theologians - ancient, medieval, and modern.
And the same operation is being extended to other spheres of Hindu culture.

Fr. Bede is not bothered by considerations of legitimacy or compatibility.

What concerns him most is the need of the Church. "We are faced," he says,
"with a tradition of philosophy and mysticism, of art and morality, of a
richness and depth not excelled, and perhaps not equalled, by the tradition
of Greek culture which the Church encountered in the Roman Empire.
What then is our attitude towards it to be? It is clear that we cannot simply
reject it. The attempt to impose an alien culture on the East has proved a
failure. There are no doubt elements in this tradition which we may have to
reject, just as the Church had to reject certain elements in the Greek
tradition. But what is required of us is something much more difficult. It is
an effort of discrimination, such as the Greek Fathers from Clement and
Origen to Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Aeropagite undertook, not
merely rejecting what is wrong but assimilating all that is true in a vital act
of creative thought."5

This is not the occasion for an evaluation of the philosophical calibre of

the Greek Fathers. Those who have taken the punishment of examining
their performance without wearing theological glasses, tell us that even at
their best they were no more than practitioners of petty casuistries. What
comes in for questioning in the present context is the Christian claim that
Jesus scored over Zeus simply because some theological text-twisters tried
to pass Judaic superstitions as Greek sublimities. The history of Christianity
in the Roman Empire is not an obscure subject. The careers of many
Christian emperors, popes, patriarchs, bishops, saints, and monks are proof
that the contest between paganism and Christianity was decided not by
philosophical cajoleries but by brute physical force.

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.

Christianity's predatory nature is loathsome to pagans who have inherited

and are proud of their own culture. Yet it is quite in keeping with Jehovah's
promise in the Bible. "Just as the Lord your God promised to your
ancestors, Abraham, Issac and Joseph," proclaims Jehovah, "he will give
you a land with large and prosperous cities which you did not build. The
houses will be full of good things which you did not put in them, and there
will be wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive orchards you did not
plant."8
 The Bible preserves a graphic and gory record of how the descendants of
Abraham and Issac and Joseph helped Jehovah in fulfilling this promise.
They appropriated the lands and properties of the pagans with a clean
conscience. They were convinced that they were only taking possession of
what already belonged to them by the terms of a divine pledge.

Christianity claims that Jehovah switched his patronage to the Church

militant when the latter-day progeny of his earlier prophets became
disobedient and killed his only son. It was now the turn of the Church to
redeem the divine pledge. The history of the Church in many lands and over
many centuries shows that it did far better than the preceding chosen
people. It deprived the pagans not only of their physical possessions but
also of their cultural creations. The condottieri who carried out the
operation in the field of culture are known as the Greek Fathers.

It should not be a matter of surprise, therefore, that the mission has

started singing hymns of praise to Hindu culture. That is the mission casting
covetous glances before mounting a marauding expedition. What causes
concern is the future of Hindu culture once it falls into the hands of the
Church. The fate of Greek culture after it was taken over by the Church is a
grim reminder.

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

5 Bede Griffiths, op. cit., p. 72

6 Kaj Baago, Pioneers of Indigenous Christianity, Madras, 1969,

p. 85.

7 Bede Griffiths, op. cit., p. 24.

8 Deuteronomy, 6. 10-11 (Good News Bible, Bangalore reprint, p.

177).

   
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.

In fact, the one name which the literature of Indigenisation mentions

most fondly is that of Robert De Nobili. Latter-day pioneers of the Ashram
Movement among the Catholics, such as Jules Monchanin and Henri Le
Saux, refer to him with reverence as the first Christian sannyasin and the
founder of the first Catholic ashram. A study of who this man was and what
he did is, therefore, most likely to reveal what the mission strategists are
trying to conceal.

Robert De Nobili was born at Rome in 1577 in a family which claimed

noble descent. He ran away from home at the age of nineteen and joined the
Society of Jesus (Jesuits) at Naples. Having completed his religious studies,
he was ordained a priest in 1603. The next year he was sent as a missionary
to India. He was made chief of the Madurai Mission in 1606, and worked
there till his death at Mylapore in Madras in 1656.

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.

"There I remarked," De Nobili would write in a letter to Pope Paul V,

"that all the efforts made to bring the heathens to Christ had all been in
vain. I left no stone unturned to find a way to bring them from their
superstition and the worship of idols to the faith of Christ. But my efforts
were fruitless, because with a sort of barbarous stolidity they turned away
from the manners and customs of the Portuguese and refused to put aside
the badges of their ancient nobility." He was in a fix when he "noticed that
certain Brahmins were highly praised because they led lives of great
hardship and austerity and were looked upon as if they had dropped from
the sky". So De Nobili decided to disguise himself as a Brahmin "for it
seemed to me that with divine help I could do for God's sake, what they did
with wicked cunning to win vain applause and worldly honours".3

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

He was meticulous in his methods. He left the mission house dressed as a

Hindu sannyasin and set up an "ashram" on the outskirts of Madurai, an
ancient seat of Hindu learning in South India. He wore a sacred thread and
grew a kuDumî; he painted appropriate parts of his body with sandal paste;
he took to sitting and sleeping on the floor and eating vegetarian meals
prepared by a Brahmin cook; he began washing with water in the lavatory,
brushing his teeth with a twig and bathing as many times a day as was
prescribed in the Brahmin books; he stopped riding a horse on his travels in
the interior.

Meanwhile, the ashram was coming up fast. De Nobili built a shrine

which looked like a Hindu temple. He called it "kovil", the Tamil term for a
Hindu place of worship. He celebrated Mass but described it as "pûjei". The
fruits and sweets he passed around after the "pûjei" were termed
"prasâdam". He composed Christian hymns and songs in Tamil and set
them to the tunes of Hindu devotional music. The names of angels, saints
and apostles which these compositions contained were translated into a kind
of Tamil. Similar names were given to whatever converts he made. The
hymns and songs were used for sacraments, which he called "saMskâras",
at the time of births, marriages and deaths. Festivals like Pongal were also
Christianised in the same surreptitious manner.

De Nobili composed several books and tracts. They were written in

Sanskrit or Tamil but packed with Christian lore. His most brilliant
performance pertained to the most sacred Hindu scripture-the Veda. Having
heard a folk tradition that the true Veda had been lost, he produced a book
in Sanskrit and proclaimed that it was the Yajurveda which he had
discovered in a distant land and which he had come to teach in India. Later
on, when he was found out, he would say with a straight face that what he
meant was the Yesurveda, the Veda of Jesus.

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.

De Nobili succeeded for some time and converted a number of upper

caste Hindus in the next few years. Most of his unwary victims were from
the Nayak community. The total number of converts till 1611 was a hundred
and twenty. Of the twelve Brahmins included in the count, two were women
and two children. The current Christian story credits him with the
conversion of a much larger number. The count goes up to a hundred
thousand, depending upon who is telling the story. Fr. Bede supports the
story, though he does not mention concrete numbers. What amazes is that
he regards these non-descript converts as India's "deepest minds and its
most religious men". In any case, De Nobili had started looking forward to
a larger harvest in years to come. The fraud was flourishing and he was well
on his way to becoming a famous Brahmin sannyasin.

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.

De Nobili put up a spirited and learned defence, quoting scriptures and

citing precedents set by the Greek Fathers. The most telling point he made
was when he quoted Chrysostom who, on seeing St. Paul circumcising
Timothy, had exclaimed, "Behold! this incident: he circumcises to destroy
circumcision."6 He asserted that Hindu forms like sacred thread, kuDumî,
sandal paste and ochre robe had nothing idolatrous about them and could he
detached from Hindu religion in order to destroy that religion.

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."

Finally, he came out with the fervent plea that he be permitted to

continue practising his fraud on the Hindus. He made himself "prostrate at
the feet of Your Holiness" and invoked "the tolerant practices of the
Sovereign Pontiffs". He prayed that "a Christian meaning may be given to
these emblems, since it cannot be shown, still less proved, that they are
superstitious, as is evident from certain texts and long experience".7

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.

Thus an abominable scoundrel is the patron saint of Indigenisation. He

was followed, and is being followed, by many more similar scoundrels, no
matter what high-sounding honorifics they themselves or the Church
bestows on them.

II

Transactions of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, published in its Volume

XIV (1822) an article, 'Account of a Discovery of a modem irritation of the
Vedas', by Francis Ellis. He found in what he had seen "an instance of
religious imposition without parallel". A summary of this article is given
below.

A book entitled L' Ezour Vedam was published in Paris in 1778. A

manuscript of this book had reached Voltaire, the famous French thinker, in
1761. He had thought it a genuine work on Hindus religion and philosophy
and presented it to the library of the king of France. M. Anquetil Du Perron
who had spent many years in India and who "professed a profound
knowledge of its religion, antiquities and literature" helped in getting it
published. But M. Sonnerat, who saw the publication, inferred that it was
the handiwork of Christian missionaries and must have been written in an
Indian language. The purpose of the work, pronounced Sonnerat, was "to
refute the doctrines of the Puranas and to lead, indirectly, to Christianity".

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."

Mr. Ellis quotes, in a supplementary note, a long para from Mosheim

which is reproduced below:

"These missionaries of the court of Rome, spread the fame of the

Christian religion through the greatest part of Asia during this century. To
begin with India, it is observable, that the ministerial labours of the Jesuits,
Theatins, and Augustinians contributed to introduce some trace to divine
truth, mixed, indeed, with much darkness and superstition, into those parts
of that vast region, that had been possessed by the Portuguese before their
expulsion from thence by the Dutch. But of all the missions that were
established in these distant parts of the globe, none has been more
constantly and universally applauded than that of Madura, and none is said
to have produced more abundant and permanent fruit. It was undertaken
and executed by Robert De Noble, an Italiac Jesuit, who took a very
singular method of rendering his ministry successful. Considering, on the
one hand, that the Indians beheld with an eye of prejudice and aversion all
the Europeans, and on the other, that they held in the highest veneration the
order of Brachmans as descended from the gods; and that, impatient of
other rulers, they paid an implicit and unlimited obedience to them alone,
he assumed the appearance and title of a Brachman, that had come from a
far country, and by besmearing his countenance and imitating that most
austere and painful method of living that the Sanyasis or penitents observe,
he at length persuaded the credulous people that he was in reality a member
of that venerable order. By this stratagem, he gained over to Christianity
twelve eminent Brachmans, whose example and influence engaged a
prodigious number of people to hear the instructions, and to receive the
doctrine of the famous Missionary. On the death of Robert this singular
mission was for some time at a stand, and seemed even to be neglected. But
it was afterwards renewed, by the zeal and industry of the Portuguese
Jesuits, and is still carried on by several Missionaries of that order from
France and Portugal, who have inured themselves to the terrible austerities
that were practised by Robert, and that are thus become, as it were the
appendages of that mission. These fictitious Brachmans, who boldly deny
their being Europeans or Franks, and only give themselves out for
inhabitants of the northern regions, are said to have converted a prodigious
number of Indians to Christianity; and if common report may be trusted to,
the congregations they have already founded in those countries grow large
and more numerous from year to year, Nor indeed, do these accounts
appear, in the main, unworthy of credit, though we must not be too ready to
receive, as authentic and well attested, the relations that have been given of
the intolerable hardships and sufferings that have been sustained by these
Jesuit-Brachmans in the cause of Christ. Many imagine, and not without
good foundation, that their austerities are, generally speaking, more
dreadful in appearance than in reality; and that, while they outwardly affect
an extraordinary degree of self-denial, they indulge themselves privately, in
a free and even luxurious use of the creatures, have their tables delicately
served, and their cellars exquisitely furnished, in order to refresh
themselves after their labors."

There is the following footnote to the above passage:

"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.

"The name of Robert de Nobilibus will be lastingly associated with the

first spread of Christianity in Southern India. It must be admitted, however,
that he, his associates, and successors aimed at high game... With preaching
and persuasion, these teachers adopted a questionable policy. They sought
for converts among the heaven-born of India; they addressed themselves to
the Priesthood-the Brahmins. To quote a graphic writer - 'They had studied,
and they understood the native languages; they made themselves familiar
with, and were ready to adopt the habits and customs of, the natives. They
called themselves Western Brahmins, and in the disguise of Brahmins, they
mixed themselves with the people; talking their language, following their
customs, and countenancing their superstitions. Clothed in the Sacerdotal
yellow cloth, with the mark of sandal wood on their foreheads, their long
hair streaming down their backs, their copper vessels in their hands, their
wooden-sandals on their feet, these new Brahmins found acceptance among
the people, and were welcomed by the Princes of Southern India. They
performed their ablutions with scrupulous regularity, they ate no animal
food, they drank no intoxicating liquors, but found in the simple fare of
vegetables and milk, at once a disguise and a protection against their
doubtful course of action. The Christians had appeared among the highest
castes of India eating and drinking, gluttonous and wine bibbers, and they
had paid the penalty of an addiction to these feverish stimulants under the
burning copper skies of the east.'

"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:

1 Bede Griffiths, op. cit., p. 59

2 Ibid., p. 58

3 S. Rajamanickam, 'Goa Conference of 1619', Indian Church

History Review, December, 1968, p. 85

4 Quoted in Ibid., p. 86
 
5 Quoted in Ibid., p. 85

6 Acts, 16.3

7 Ibid., pp. 95-96

8 Indian Church History Review, December, 1987, p. 130

9 Indian Church History Review, December, 1967, p. 88

   
Mission's Volte-Face vis-a-vis
Hindu Culture
CHAPTER 4
Mission's Volte-Face vis-a-vis Hindu Culture

The mission's new-found love for Hindu culture is a sham. It is neither

spontaneous nor sincere at any point. On the contrary, it remains forced,
calculated and contrived throughout. Examined closely, it is no more than a
thin veneer that cracks at the very first probe.

The language of Indigenisation indicates no change of heart on the

mission's part vis-a-vis Hindu culture. All that we learn, as we read between
the lines, is that the mission is shifting its strategy in a changed situation.
The rising tide of resistance to Christianity in the wake of the freedom
movement had frightened the mission out of its wits. The dawn of
independence drove it into a panic. The need for Indigenisation was felt by
the mission for the first time when it was gripped with fear for its future. It
soon realized that the new ruling class in India was its admirer rather than
its adversary. Yet it felt that it could still do with some cold-blooded
camouflage for furthering its designs and disarming opposition to it at the
popular level.

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.

Brahmabandhab's Hindu name was Bhawani Charan Banerjea. He was a

nephew of Kali Charan Banerjea, an early Christian convert, who exercised
a deep influence on him at his village home. In 1880, Brahmabandhab came
in contact with Narendra Nath Datta. Both of them had joined the Brahmo
Samaj (Nababidhan) of Keshab Chandra Sen and imbibed the latter's ardent
admiration for Jesus Christ. But their ways parted when Narendra Nath
came under the influence of Sri Ramakrishna and emerged as Swami
Vivekananda. The Swami became a devout Hindu and informed critic of
Christianity. Brahmabandhab, on the other hand, came more and more
under the spell of Jesus and joined the Catholic Church in 1891. Even so,
Vivekananda continued to fascinate his old friend who tried to do for
Christianity what Vivekananda had done for Hinduism.

Bhawani Charan took the name Theophilus when he was baptised at

Hyderabad in Sindh where he had gone as a school teacher and Brahmo
Samaj preacher. He translated the Greek name into Sanskrit and became
Brahmabandhab, the Friend of God. For the next few years he travelled in
Sindh and the Punjab and elsewhere, defending Christianity and attacking
Hinduism, particularly the philosophy of Advaita which he denounced as
the "deadly swamp of Vedanta" and "the Vedantic delusive poison". He
entered into public debates with Arya Samaj preachers and tried to counter
the influence which Annie Besant had come to exercise against Christianity.
He also wrote a tract in refutation of rationalism which was becoming
popular among India's intellectual elite and damaging the Christian cause
rather seriously.
 He started a monthly magazine, Sophia, in January 1894. "When the idea
was proposed to Fr. Bruder, the parish priest of Karachi," writes his devoted
disciple and biographer, "he [the priest] smiled at it. How could a layman
and a recent convert at that undertake to edit a Catholic Monthly?"5 Fr.
Bruder was being polite. He did not want to say that a native convert was
not qualified to write on philosophical or theological themes.
Brahmabandhab could start the magazine only when the Jesuit Mission at
Bombay recommended his case.

By now Brahmabandhab had heard of the impact which Vivekananda had

made at the Parliament of Religions in Chicago. Hindus all over India were
feeling elated while Christian missionaries were shocked that a native from
an enslaved country should have the audacity to address a Christian
audience and that, too, in a Christian country. Brahmabandhab decided
immediately to become a Vivekananda for the propagation of the Christian
gospel. He put on the ochre robe of a Hindu sannyasin and styled himself
Upadhay, the Teacher. "Indian bishops," he wrote in the Sophia of October
1894, "should combine together and establish a central mission... The
itinerant missionaries should be thoroughly Hindu in their mode of life.
They should, if necessary, be strict vegetarians and teetotallers, and put on
the yellow sannyasi garb. In India, a Sannyasi preacher commands the
greatest respect. The central mission should, in short, adopt the policy of the
glorious old Fathers of the South."6 The reference was to Robert De Nobili
and his successors at Madurai.

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

Vivekananda had stopped at Madras on his return from abroad early in

1897, and his speeches had left large audiences spellbound.
Brahmabandhab appealed to the Archbishop of Bombay that he be allowed
to undertake a tour of the South so that Vivekananda's spell in that area
could be broken. The Bishop of Trichinopoly played the host. At Madras,
Brahmabandhab made it a point to stay with the same gentleman who had
housed Vivekananda. He visited several places in the Madras Presidency
and made many speeches. His biographer does not tell us what impact he
made and where.

Meanwhile, he noticed that the stock of Hindu philosophy had risen in

the eyes of the people who had attended Vivekananda's lectures or read his
writings. He also realised from the Hindu response to his own lectures that
it was difficult to refute Hindu philosophy. The man had a practical mind.
He started proposing that Hindu philosophy should be made to serve
Christian theology. "Christianity", he wrote in the Sophia of July 1897, "has
again after a long period come in contact with a philosophy which, though
it may contain errors-because the Hindu mind is synthetic and speculative-
still unquestionably soars higher than her western sister. Shall we, Catholics
of India, now have it made their weapon against Christianity or shall we
look upon it in the same way as St. Thomas looked upon the Aristotelian
system? We are of the opinion that attempts should be made to win over
Hindu philosophy to the service of Christianity as Greek philosophy was
won over in the Middle Ages." He did not yet know how to do this and also
felt that the operation involved dangers for the Christian dogma. "But we
have a conviction," he continued, "and it is growing day by day that the
Catholic Church will find it hard to conquer India unless she makes Hindu
philosophy hew wood and draw water for her."8 No one could accuse
Brahmabandhab of not being frank and forthright.

Brahmabandhab reached Calcutta towards the end of 1897 in order to

feel for himself the atmosphere which Vivekananda's return from abroad
had created in Bengal. He was staggered. He learnt at the same time that
Vivekananda was planning to create a sannyasin order of Hindu
missionaries and establish a monastery in some secluded spot for
contemplation on and development of Hindu thought. He came out
immediately with the plan of a Catholic monastery. "Several bishops and
missionary priests," he proclaimed in the Sophia of May 1898, "do not only
share with us this conviction but have promised encouragement. It should
be conducted on strictly Hindu lines with two classes of monks,
contemplative and itinerant. There should not be the least trace of
Europeanism in the mode of life and living of the Hindu Catholic monks.
The Parivrajakas (itinerants) should be well versed in the Vedanta
philosophy as well as in the philosophy of St. Thomas... We intend making
an intensive tour through India and, if necessary, through Europe and
America, to appeal to the Pastors, apostolic missionaries and all the faithful
to cooperate with our humble selves in the arduous task of inaugurating the
monastic life in India. The ancient land of the Aryans is to be won over to
the Catholic Faith, and who can achieve the conquest, but the Hindu
Catholic sannyasis inspired with the spirit of the ancient monks?"9

A new note now entered in the voice of Brahmabandhab. He started

calling on the Hindu converts to retain their Hindu culture in order to prove
that Hindus culture could find its fulfilment only in Christianity. "By birth,"
he wrote in the Sophia of July 1898, "we are Hindus and shall remain
Hindus till death. But as dvija (twice-born) by virtue of our sacramental
rebirth, we are members of an indefectible communion embracing all ages
and climes... The more strictly we practise our universal faith, the better do
we grow as Hindus. All that is noblest and best in the Hindu character, is
developed in us by the genial inspiration of Narahari (God-man)10 our
pattern and guide. The more we love him, the more we love our country, the
prouder we become of our past glory." Thus a new type of Hindu was on
the anvil. "In short," concluded Brahmabandhab, "so far as our physical and
mental constitution is concerned we are Hindus, but in regard to our
immortal soul we are Catholics. We are Hindu Catholics."11

A new type of Catholicism was also in the crucible. "The European

clothes of the Catholic religion," he wrote in the Sophia of August 1898,
"should be removed as early as possible. It must put on the Hindu garment
to be acceptable to the Hindus. This transformation can be effected only by
the hands of Indian missionaries preaching the holy faith in the Vedantic
language, holding devotional meetings in the Hindu way and practising the
virtue of poverty conformably to Hindu asceticism. When the Catholic
church in India will be dressed up in Hindu garments then will our
countrymen perceive that she elevated man to the universal kingdom of
truth by stooping down to adapt herself to racial peculiarities."12 The
proposal fired other missionary minds and was discussed in the Catholic
press in India and Ceylon.

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.

It was not long before, Brahmabandhab launched his project in a

practical manner. He announced in the Sophia of January 1899 that the
Catholic Monastery or the Kastalik Matha "will be located on the Narmada"
and "placed under the protection and guidance of the Bishop of Nagpur".13
He had now very little time for his monthly and the Sophia ceased
publication after the February-March issue of 1899. Along with two other
Catholic sannyasins, Brahmabandhab set up a small ashram on the Narmada
near the Marble Rocks of Jubblepore. He had already issued an appeal in
the Sophia inviting Catholic young men to come and become inmates of the
ashram. This nucleus was to grow into a fullfledged monastery in due
course. Brahmabandhab spent the Lenten season of 1899 on a hill, fasting
and praying for the success of his enterprise. But, once again, he had
counted without his superiors. The young candidates who consulted the
mission before joining the ashram were told that the scheme had not been
granted ecclesiastical approval. The Bishop of Nagpur suddenly withdrew
his support, and the ashram collapsed before the year 1899 was out.

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.

Brahmabandhab now moved to Calcutta and set up a small and less

publicised ashram in a small house where a few disciples from Sindh joined
him. Day after day, he sat on a tiger skin spread on the floor and "chafed at
the Westernisation of Christianity and the adopting of Western ways by
Indian Christians".14 On June 16, 1900 he launched a new journalistic
venture, the Weekly Sophia. His earlier experience had made him cautious.
"Our policy precludes us," he wrote on September 8, "from making our
paper the organ of any existing religious body... It will supply a new garb to
the religion of Christ without affecting in the least the Christian tenets."15
The journal broadened its scope and devoted some space to politics,
literature and sociology.

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.

Brahmabandhab now tried a new strategy. He persuaded a Hindu friend

to become the publisher of a monthly, The Twentieth Century, which came
out in January 1901, and employed another Hindu as joint editor. As an
extra precaution, he wrote his pieces under the nom de plume, Nara Hari
Das (the slave of the God-man, that is, Jesus Christ). But once again "the
axe that had felled the Jubblepore Math and the Weekly Sophia,"17 drove
through his defences. The Delegate Apostolic was holidaying in Rome
when he was informed by a bishop in India that the Sophia had reappeared
under a new name. One June 20, 1901, he addressed an open letter to his
flock in India stating that the "prohibition regarding the periodical Sophia is
extended to the The Twentieth Century, and therefore all Catholics residing
within the limits of our Delegation are forbidden to read, to subscribe to,
and have any connection with the above said monthly review, The Twentieth
Century".18

Brahmabandhab made a pathetic appeal for reconsideration of the case. It

was published in the Catholic Examiner of Bombay on August 17, 1901.
"My writings in the Sophia," he said, "have never been found to contain any
error by the ecclesiastical authorities, but only my attempt to interpret
Catholic dogmas through the Vedanta has been considered dangerous and
misleading. If ever the ecclesiastical authorities point out errors in my
writings I shall at once make submission to them, though I may reserve to
myself the right to appeal to Rome, the final refuge of the faithful on earth,
for I do believe in the formula - Roma locuta est causa finita est [Rome has
spoken, the cause has ended]."19 The man who had boasted for years that
he had broken the bonds of the Hindu social system was kowtowing to a
totalitarian tyranny imposed from abroad. But his abject servility served no
purpose, and the appeal fell on deaf ears. The new monthly met its demise
without celebrating its first anniversary.

Yet Brahmabandhab remained undeterred in his devotion to the Catholic

Church which he now chose to serve in another capacity. Vivekananda, the
man whom Brahmabandhab had continued to ape in the service of a rival
cause, died suddenly in July 1902. Brahmabandhab persuaded himself that
the only thing which made Vivekananda rise to fame in foreign lands was
the ochre robe of a sannyasin and that he himself could use the same robe
for serving the Catholic creed. "Hearing of the death of Vivekananda in
Howrah station," he confided to a friend, "I determined there and then to go
to England and to continue his mission."20 This was a misleading
statement, but quite characteristic of the man who was trying his utmost to
mislead his countrymen regarding their religion.

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.

From Rome he went to London. One day, as he was being driven on a

street of the imperial city, he heard that King Edward VII was soon to pass
that way. "I am so fortunate," he confided to an Englishman, "I am to see
the King today. To see the King spells virtue with us."22 He saw the Hindu
Goddess of Might incarnated in the British monarch. "While thus engaged,"
he wrote to a friend in India, "behold! King Edward appeared before my
eyes. The carriage vanished out of sight in the twinkling of an eye but the
scene filled my heart with joy. Maha Maya with her lightening-like smile
had faded away. The great Shakti leaving her Himalayan lion had mounted
the British lion instead. Who can understand the sport of the Maya of
Maheshwari?"23 That was all the use he had for the great Goddess his
ancestors had worshipped for ages untold. The man had become a moron.

He visited Oxford and Cambridge, and tried to impress learned audiences

with his inimitable insight into how Hinduism had prepared the way for
Christianity. The attendance was never impressive or enthusiastic. The
ladies he addressed in London found him disappointing. The press took no
notice of him. Finally, on January 3, 1903, he wrote an article in The Tablet
of London. "Since my conversion to the Catholic Faith," he said, "my mind
has been occupied with the one sole thought of winning over India to the
Holy Catholic Church. I have worked as a layman towards that end, and we
are now a small band of converts ready to work in the vineyard of the
Lord."24 The man who had sought salvation in Christianity had ended as a
courtier to the biggest crime cartel in the world.

He presented a picture of Christianity in India which was strikingly

similar to the one which Fr. Bede Griffiths would present eighty years later.
"What strikes every observer of the missionary field of work in India," he
said, "is its frightful barrenness. It is unquestionable, and perhaps
unquestioned too, that Christianity is not at all thriving in India. There it
stand in the corner, like an exotic stunted plant with poor foliage, showing
little or no promise of blossom. Conversions are almost nil so far as the
Hindu community is concerned. There are indeed conversions of famine-
striken children, and also non-Aryans not within the pale of Hinduism, but
these acquisitions too are not on a significant scale."25 He missed the point
that Christianity was born as barren and has remained barren except
occasionally when it succeeded in becoming parasitic on the creativity of
other cultures.

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.

In another article written in the same paper on January 31, 1903, he

repeated his pet prescription for ensuring the rapid progress of Christianity
in India. "To my mind," he wrote, "the best and the most congenial way of
teaching Theism to the educated as well as to the non-educated in English
will be through Hindu thought. Hindu thought may be made to serve the
cause of Christianity in the same way in India as Greek thought was made
to do in Europe. I can testify, if my personal experience is of any value, to
the fact of some of the most educated men of our country giving up
naturalistic Theism for the right one through my exposition of Vedantic
philosophy."27 By theism he meant Christianity. Naturalistic theism, on the
other hand, stood for Hinduism.

One wonders if Brahmabandhab was aware that the house of Christianity

in Europe had been in shambles since the French Revolution. The higher
intelligentsia in the West had had its fill of the Bible and was looking for
something which made moral and spiritual sense. That was why
Vivekananda was a success and he an utter failure. His only biography
provides no guidance in this respect. In any case, he returned to Calcutta in
July 1903, deeply frustrated and bitter. His visit to England had turned out
to be a damp squib.

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.

Brahmabandhab had started a quarter anna daily paper named Sandhya.

Day after day, he poured himself out in vehement attacks on everything
Western. He saw in the British regime the rise of the Mleccha. "The
gloom," he declared in the very first issue, "darkens. But wherein lies our
emancipation? A peep into the past would give us a key to the problem. We
are as though tethered to a past by a long rope. Wheresoever we go, through
whatever vicissitudes we pass, the past remains and bound to it we stand.
The self-same Veda, the Vedanta, the Brahmanas, the Varna Dharma stand
as a rock of hope to a Hindu. There is no other way."28 He made no
mention of Catholicism or Christianity.

When the Partition of Bengal was announced in October 1905,

Brahmabandhab jumped into the fray. His Sandhya made a strong and all-
out attack not only on the British rule but also on Western imperialism as a
whole-political, economic, and cultural. He invited the attention of the
police before long. When searches made and minor cases filed failed to
silence him, the government arrested him in the Sandhya Sedition Case on
January 31, 1907. He was put in jail. Sandhya was suppressed in September
that year. He was bailed out by his Hindu friends and the case came up in
the court. But he fell ill and died on October 27, 1907.

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".

The mission has staged resurrection of those whom it had crucified

earlier simply because they wanted the mission to make Hindu culture a
vehicle of Christianity. The step is calculated to create the impression that
the mission has acquired a sincere respect for Hindu culture. But the timing
of the performance tells a different story. The mission started talking
suddenly and loudly about the merits of Hindu culture only when it became
clear to it that India was fast heading towards independence. The new
political situation called for a new mission strategy. Moreover, the mission
had reached a dead end because of resistance offered by resurgent
Hinduism. The mission literature of the period when the mission was
manoeuvering itself into the new position leaves little doubt that the
mission was forced to revise its attitude towards Hindu culture not as a
result of reflection but by compulsion of outer circumstances.

The International Missionary Council (IMC), the Protestant section of the

world-wide Christian mission, was the first to notice the change that was
taking place in the political situation in India. The coming to power of
Congress ministries in seven out of eleven provinces in the India of 1937,
had rung a bell in the minds that controlled the IMC. A meeting of the IMC
was held at Tambaram in Tamil Nadu from December 12 to 29, 1938. It was
presided over by the veteran American evangelist, J.R. Mott, a much-
travelled and fabulous fund-raiser for the mission.

Mott had looked forward to evangelisation of the whole world in one

generation when he presided over the first IMC meeting at Edinburgh in
1910. But by the time he came to Tambaram, he was a much chastened
man. Mahatma Gandhi had meanwhile emerged on the scene as an
uncompromising opponent of the Christian mission. Mott had met the
Mahatma twice in 1936 in order to fathom the latter's mind. He had found
the Mahatma unshakable. Later on, he had sounded the Mahatma through
C.F. Andrews to find out if a concession in favour of conversion could be
made in cases of sincere conviction about the superiority of Jesus Christ.
The Mahatma had ruled out conversion under any circumstances. He knew
the mission's capacity for enlarging even the smallest concession until it
covered any and every kind of mischievous liberty.

"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.

The mission's re-writing of the history of Christianity in India also bears

close resemblance to the same oft-repeated communist exercise. Christian
historians have been busy trying to salvage Christian doctrine from the
cesspool of Christian history. The wrongs heaped on Hindu society, religion
and culture by the Christian mission in alliance with Western imperialism,
are being explained away as "aberrations" arising out of "accidental
association with colonialism". It was only a coincidence, we are told, that
the Western nations which practised colonialism happened to be Christian
nations. The crimes committed by colonialism, we are warned, should not
be held against Christianity. It was not the fault of Christianity if, at times, it
was used by colonialism as a cover for its own and quite different designs.
Moreover, Christianity did not come to India for the first time in the
company of colonialism. It is as old in this country as most of the Hindu
sects in their present shape. Pandit Nehru is frequently quoted by Christian
historians in order to point out that the Christianity which was brought to
India by St. Thomas and which the Syrian Christians practise till to day, is
known for its love of Hindu culture.31

In the end one is reminded of Bertrand Russell's observation that

Communism is a Christian heresy. The close correspondence between the
two cannot he dismissed as accidental. Both of them have their source in
the Bible.

Footnotes:
 
1 Collected Works, Volume Thirty-nine, p. 33

2 Quoted by S. Immanuel David in his article on Indigenisation,

Indian Church History Review, August 1977, pp. 104-105

3 Quoted by Richard Fox Young, Resistant Hinduism, Vienna,

1981, p. 171

4 Kaj Baago, op. cit., p. 3

 5 B. Animanand, The Blade: Life and Work of Brahmabandhab
Upadhay, Calcutta 1945, p. 54

6 Quoted in Ibid., p. 59

7 Ibid., pp. 59-60

8 Quoted in Ibid., pp. 67-68. Compare this passage with Fr.

Bede's prescription, quoted above regarding the use of Hindu
philosophy in the service of Christianity.

9 Quoted in Ibid., pp. 70-71.

10 God become man or Jesus Christ.

11 Quoted in Ibid., pp. 71-72. Italics in the original.

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

17 Ibid., pp. 102-103

18 Quoted in Ibid., p. 103

19 Quoted in Ibid., p. 106

20 Quoted in Ibid., p. 108

21 Quoted in Ibid., p. 109

22 Quoted in Ibid., p. 115

 23 Quoted in Ibid., p. 116

24 Quoted in Ibid., p. 113

25 He was repeating the patent missionary propaganda that

people living in the tribal areas are not Hindus but 'pre-Aryan
animists".

26 Quoted in Ibid., p. 113

27 Quoted in Ibid., Appendix I, p.iv

28 Quoted in Ibid., p. 131

29 Tambram Series, Volume 3: Evangelism, London 1939, p. 126

30 Rethinking Christianity in India, Second Edition, Madras,

1939, first para in the Preface to the First Edition published in 1938.

31 Interestingly, while Dr. K. Latourette regards the nineteenth

century, the peak period of Western colonialism, as the Great
Century in his monumental work, A History of the Expansion of
Christianity (7 volumes, London, 1937 - 1945), Dr. M.D. David,
President of the Church History Association of India, sees in the
same century "A Great Handicap to the Growth of Christianity in
Asia" (Western Colonialism in Asia and Christianity, Bombay,
1988).

   
The Ashram Movement in the
Mission
CHAPTER 5
The Ashram Movement in the Mission

As in the case of the "pioneers of indigenous Christianity," historians of

the mission have been rummaging through the record in search of some
Christian institutions of the past which can be presented now as "pioneers
of the Ashram Movement". The pride of place in this context goes, of
course, to the "ashram" of Robert De Nobili and his successors at Madurai.
We have already dealt with it in detail. Then there is a long gap till we come
to the short-lived ashram which Brahmabandhab set up on the Narmada in
the closing years of the nineteenth century. Finally, from 1921 onwards we
are presented with some mission stations which styled themselves as
ashrams, or are named so now, simply because the inmates wore khâdî and
ate vegetarian food. The credit for placing the Ashram Movement squarely
on the map of the mission goes to P. Chenchiah and company who included
a chapter on it in their main thesis, Rethinking Christianity in India,
presented to the IMC conference in 1938. It was followed with a full-
fledged 326-page treatise, Ashrams: Past and Present, published in 1941.

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.

After Brahmabandhab, K.T. Paul, General Secretary of the National

Missionary Society (NMS) founded in 1905, was the first to propose
formation of Christian ashrams in a meetings of the NMS at New Delhi in
1912. The ashrams were expected "to attract the most spiritual Christian
youths" and provide them with "evangelical equipment to meet the best
exponents of the non-Christian religions on their own grounds".1 But the
idea did not take shape till 1921. The NMS was an organisation outside the
mission proper controlled by foreign missionaries.

The Christian poet from Maharashtra, N.V. Tilak, founded an institution

at Satara in 1917 and named it God's Darbar. He had "a vision of Christ
founding Swaraj in man's heart". Jesus was hailed as the guru. The inmates
of the Darbar were baptised and unbaptised disciples of Tilak. He
sometimes preferred to describe his creation as an ashram. "But it is
recorded that some missionaries misunderstood and opposed Tilak's attitude
and style." In any case, the "ashram" collapsed and disappeared when Tilak
died two years later. In 1920, G.S. Doraiswamy wrote in the Harvest Field,
a mission journal, that a series of ashrams should be set up by the mission.
They were to be "theological institutions-for thinking, training, study,
research and writing". The proposal was not welcomed. "In the next two
monthly numbers of the journal, foreign missionaries criticised Mr.
Doraiswamy's hopes and suggestions from the point of view of economics
and theology."2 The mission was not sure that native Christians were
capable of managing missionary institutions or competent for expounding
theological themes.

A foreign missionary had to come forward before the idea of Christian

ashrams could find favour with the Mission. That was Dr. E. Forrester Paton
of the Scottish Mission. He joined the NMS and roped in a native Christian,
Dr. S. Jesudasen of the same organisation, to start in 1921 the Christakula
(Family of Christ) Ashram at Tirupattur in the Madras Presidency. It was
patterned on Gandhian lines. The inmates were clad in khâdî, ate vegetarian
food and remained celibate. "Because both the founders were medical
doctors, the major social service activity of the ashram was medical care.
But village evangelism was a high priority with the ashram and education
and agriculture development were systematically offered." The ashram did
make some experiments in Tamil-style church architecture and Tamil
Christian hymns. But for the rest, it was a normal mission station and so it
has remained till today. In later years, it was given "grants by European
funding agencies for health, agriculture and tribal development".3

Similar Christian ashrams sprang up in different parts of the country in

the years following 1921. We shall take up only one more, the Christa Seva
Sangha, to show what they have been doing. The Sangha was also founded
by a foreign missionary, J.C. Winslow of the British Society for
Propagation of the Gospel. He had consulted Dr. Paton before the Sangha
was launched at Miri in Ahmadnagar District of Maharashtra on June 11,
1922, the feast day of St. Barnabas. Bishop Palmer in whose diocese Miri
was located came and gave his blessings at the time of inauguration. Soon
after, the inmates became known for wearing khâdî, performing sandhyâs in
Marathi and Sanskrit, and singing bhajans to the accompaniment of Indian
musical instruments. "Most of our time," reported Fr. Winslow in 1947,
"was spent in evangelistic work in the Ahmadnagar villages. Outstanding
among our experiences which will always live in our memory was the work
at Karanji, a village some twenty miles east of Ahmadnagar... We had a
wonderful reception from the people of Karanji itself and soon after, from
those of four of the surroundings villages as well. Almost the whole of the
Mahar population of these villages were received, at their earnest request,
first as catechumens and then as Christians; and Karanji has now become a
base of work for extending right out into the Nizam's Dominions."4

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.

In subsequent years, the Christa Prema Seva Sangha became more

prominent than its parent body. It built a hostel for college students-Hindu,
Muslim and Christian-who could spend their holidays there in inter-
religious dialogues.7 It became affiliated to the Society of St. Francis in
England and provided hospitality to all sorts of missionary organisations,
national and international, for holding conferences. It took over the C.S.S.
Review, which was first started in 1931, and turned it into The Ashram
Review. Before long, Poona became the clearing house for the Ashram
Movement of the mission. "The Poona Ashram has been revived in recent
years," writes Dr. Philipos Thomas, "as an ecumenical Ashram in which
Roman Catholics and Protestants work together... Inter-Ashram
Conferences are held every year and their reports, messages and prayer
circulars are sent to every Ashram. This is one way of strengthening the
fellowship between Ashrams."8

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 truth about the nature of Christianity, which has no metaphysics,

was confessed by P. Chenchiah's group in their next book. "The Hindu,"
they said, "sees only the commonplace Christianity in us. He does not find
anything in Christianity corresponding to the deeper levels of Hindu
spiritual experience... Hindu religious experience, mapped out in Yoga,
takes men from height to height. Similar heights in Christianity, the
Christian himself has not explored. There are certain valued experiences of
the Hindu in the pilgrimage of the soul to God. Of parallel experiences in
Christianity he is not aware."12
 A review of this book in The Ashram Review confirmed that Christianity
not only does not have this wealth of spiritual experience but also does not
care for it. The reviewer who remained unnamed drew a line between "the
ideal of a stoic or rishi who seeks union with the attributeless Brahman" and
the ideal of the Christian "who seeks union with God revealed in Christ
Jesus." He cited an established Christian tradition and warned Christians
against the experiences cherished by P. Chenchiah and company. "It is
indeed just this note of the cross," he wrote, "that one misses in the book.
The ideal Christian Ashrams will attract 'Christians anxious to scale higher
levels of Christian experience'-and here the 'higher levels' seems to be
'powers and illumination', 'to see visions'- although from St. Paul onwards,
mindful of the lesson of Transfiguration, the great Christian saints and
mystics have unanimously taught that such experiences may be given but
not sought, rather feared than clung to, and that the true union with God is
at the far deeper level, in the steadfast union of the will with His will."13
The reviewer was being polite. Christian missionaries, ever since their
advent in India, had been dismissing Hindu spiritual experience as delusion
inspired by the Devil. In fact, the very word "experience" has been foreign
to Christian parlance. Christianity has always aimed at inculcating or
imposing blind beliefs, the blinder the belief the better.

The reviewer, however, was looking backwards. In days to come, the

mission was going to use the word "experience" with great abandon. The
theologians and experts on Indigenisation were getting ready to hold one
"spiritual workshop" after another on the subject of "inferiority". Fr. Henri
Le Saux who became Swami Abhishiktananda one fine morning in 1950
simply by putting on the ochre robe of a Hindu sannyasin, will very soon
start talking and writing ecstatically about "Christian experience". It is a
different matter that till to-day the mission has not been able to spell out
what this "Christian experience" means. The rishis were never so dumb.
Hindus have inherited a large literature in which spiritual experience has
been described in detail, in prose and poetry, by means of similies and
metaphors. Their rishis have continued adding to it till recent times.

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.

In a small book authored jointly by the two Catholic "swamis" and

published in 1951, they stated their aims and methods. The Bishop of
Trichinapoly (now Tiruchirapalli) wrote a Foreword. "The present venture,"
said the Bishop, "is but an attempt to reconstruct the ideals of the first
missionaries like De Nobili or of their recent prototypes like Father Vincent
Lebbe of China."19 The first missionaries were following the example of
St. Paul by "becoming all things to all men that they might save all".20 The
new swamis had the full support of the Catholic Church in their "approach
which will in the long run help in assimilation of the ancient Indian culture
and in its Christianisation".21 The Bishop hoped that the new venture will
be welcomed "by those who have at heart the speedy 'illumination' of this
large subcontinent of India, which for all its glorious religious past and its
natural, and even violent, sympathy for spiritual values, is still far away
from Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life".22
 "But somehow," writes Dr. Taylor, "the ashram did not really work like
an ashram. Some came to visit them but nobody joined them... Monchanin
died, much respected in the West and, finally Abhishiktananda wandered off
to the Himalayas and became the most exciting Indian spiritual theologian
of his generation. Then Dom Bede Griffiths came to Shantivanam to make a
new foundation. Dom Bede had been in India for many years at the so-
called ashram in Kurisumala where he must have observed how to do and
how not to do things. Anyway, it seems to me that Shantivanam is now
thriving."23

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?

It is useless to tell the missionaries that Hindu sâdhanâ has nothing to do

with buying a piece of land, building some stylised houses on it, exhibiting
pretentious signboards, putting on a particular type of dress, and performing
certain rituals in a particular way. Hindu sâdhanâ has been and remains a
far deeper and difficult undertaking. It means being busy with one's own
self rather than with saving others. It means clearing the dirt and dross
within one's own self rather than calling on others to swear by a totem
trotted out as the only saviour. It has no place for abominable superstitions
like the atoning death of a so-called chirst. Above all, it is not consistent
with double-talk-harbouring one motive in the heart and mouthing another.
A counterfeit must remain a counterfeit, howsoever loudly and lavishly
advertised. It is a sacrilege that those who are out to cheat and deceive
should use the word "sâdhanâ" for their evil exercise.

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

4 The Ashramn Review, July 1947, p.5. Mahars are a community

of depressed class Hindus in Maharastra.

5 Ibid., p. 6

6 Ibid., p. 7

7 What the dialogues were intended for is reported in The Ashram

Review of October 1948: "Just now there are two other Hindu
friends staying in the Ashram, who have expressed their intention of
becoming Christians; one of them has been a Hindu pilgrim for
many years" (p. 31).

8 Indian Church History Review, December 1977, p. 220

9 Rethinking Christianity in India, p. 197

10 Ibid.

11 Full facts about De Nobili's frauds and forgeries have been

known since long.

12 P. Chenchiah et al, Ashrama: Past and Present, Madras, 194 1,

p. 267

13 The Ashram Review, January, 1942, p. 29

 14 Ibid., April 1945, p. 21

15 Ibid., July 1955, p. 17

16 Richard W. Taylor. op. cit., p. 286

17 Swami Parama Arubi Anandam: A Memorial, Saccidananda

Ashram, 1959, p. 79

18 Ibid., pp. 16-17

19 A Benedictine Ashram. Douglas (England), 1961. p. 1

20 Ibid., P. 5

21 Ibid., p. 6

22 Ibid., p. 7

23 Richard, W. Taylor, op. cit. pp. 286-287

24 A List of Christian ashrams at present is given in Appendix 1.

25 Richard W. Taylor, op. cit., p. 292

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 was born in France in 1895 and ordained a priest in the Catholic

Church in 1922. "He knew and deeply loved El Islam" and "visited North
Africa, Algeria and Morocco" where a Christian monastery "in a suburb of
Rabat, was trying to realize, in an integral contemplative life, the
blossoming of Islam in Christianity".1 It is not recorded when and why he
lost his love of El Islam. What we are told suddenly is that "beyond all else,
it was India that drew him". Perhaps he found the Muslim countries too
hostile to his work. Being in the same business, Muslim missionaries have
always been more than a match for their Christian counterparts. So his
imagination was fired when he came to know of how "Francis Xavier was
called to gather to Christ the India of the Portuguese in the XVIth century,
and de Nobili, a hundred years later, the India of the Tamils".2

He prepared himself for India "by a more thorough study of Sanskrit, of

the scriptures of Hindustan and her systems of philosophy" and "when he
was authorised by his Archbishop he entered the Society of Auxiliaries to
the Missions". He waited for an assignment in India till "he met an Indian
Jesuit of the Madura Mission" who put him in touch with the Bishop of
Trichinopoly.3 The Bishop invited him to India where he reached in 1939.
He was appointed an assistant priest in the parish of Panneipatti.

In a letter written from Panneipatti on March 3,1940, he proclaimed: "I

have come to India for no other purpose than to awaken in a few souls the
desire (the passion) to raise up a Christian India... I think the problem is of
the same magnitude as the Christianisation, in former times, of Greece... It
will take centuries, sacrificed lives, and we shall perhaps die before seeing
any realizations."4 He flew on the wings of his own fancy and continued:
"A Christian India, completely Indian and completely Christian, may be and
will be something so wonderful. To prepare it from afar, the sacrifice of our
lives is not too much to
ask."5

P.A. Antony, the Christian tahsildar of Kulittalai in Monchanin's parish,

was impressed by him. He thought of establishing Monchanin at Kulitallai
where "Brahmins, Vellalars, Naidus, Chettiars, all Hindus of good caste
form the greatest part of the population". Monchanin's knowledge of
Sanskrit, familiarity with Indian philosophers, Hindu mystic poets and
chaste Tamil "combined to assure him rare possibilities of contact and
influence". The tahsildar discussed the plan with Monchanin and then
proposed it to the Bishop. "The parish of Penneipatti was divided, and the
northern part skirting the Kavery, with a central residence at Kulittalai, was
put in charge of Father Monchanin."6

A presbytery was planned for Monchanin near the existing church at

Kulitallai. He thought of calling it an ashram and wrote to a friend in
September, 1940 that "I shall write for you some short notes about our
ashram, an heralding image of the whole of India wholly transfigured into
the Dead and Risen Christ and the Spirit he sent".7 And again in April,
1941: "The tahsildar is going to begin the work of the ashram building
(Bhakti Ashram, in Kulittalai). Two months (or three) will be enough. I
hope to be installed there for the parochial feast, St. Christine, 24th July."
Monchanin had coined a Hindu name for his contrivance. But doubts
assailed him. "I feel both hope and anxiety," he confessed, "when I think of
Kulittalai. I am wanting in so many things to be a witness of the Risen One
amidst Hindus."8
 He did not feel at ease even after he started living in the Bhakti Ashram.
"I am a strict vegetarian and I sleep on a mat. But am I truly Indian? that is
the question which torments me."9 He was dreaming of "the definitive
ashram" where "reclad in the ochre cloth of the Hindu sannyasi" he could
live "in the manner in which Upadhaya Brahmabandhav, the great Bengali
Christian, had presented the ideal to the Indian Church some fifty year
before".10

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.

In 1951, Monchanin contributed a section to An Indian Benedictine

Ashram which he had authored jointly with Henri Le Saux. The future that
he saw for India can be summarised, in his own words, as follows: The
spiritual society essentially set apart for the said end is Holy Church, the
Bride and the real Mystical Body of the Risen Christ. Christ expects from
every land and people an outburst of praise and love, which they alone can
offer him. India cannot be alien to this process of assimilation by
Christianity and transformation into it. She was for centuries the foremost
intellectual and spiritual leader of her neighbouring countries, and even of
the Far East. Is not India to Asia what Greece was to Europe? Therefore the
christianisation of Indian civilisation is to all intents and purposes an
historical undertaking comparable to the christianisation of Greece.
Besides, India has received from the Almighty an uncommon gift, an
unquenchable thirst for what is spiritual. We may rightly think that such a
marvellous seed was not planted in vain by God in the Indian soul.
Unfortunately, Indian wisdom is tainted with erroneous tendencies, and
looks as if it has not yet found its own equilibrium. So was Greek wisdom
before Greece humbly received the Paschal message of the Risen Christ.
India has to receive humbly from the Church the sound and basic principles
of true contemplation, to keep them faithfully, to stamp them with her own
seal, and to develop through them along with the other members of the
Church. Should India fail in that task, we cannot understand, humanly
speaking, how the Mystical Body of Christ could reach its quantitative and
qualitative fullness in his eschatological Advent.12 The trickster was
certainly capable of coining some tall talk in terms of that deceitful jargon
which Christian theology has hammered out during its long career.

Next year, he wrote another article, The Christian Approach to Hinduism,

in which he listed four obstacles which Christianity was facing in India: 1)
the hold of Hinduism due to a) the strength of inherited traditions, and b)
national pride in their philosophical and spiritual lore; 2) the lack of
attraction of Christianity because a) Christianity is scarcely known, and b)
owing to the foreign outlook of Christianity, Hindus are, in general, very
little attracted to it; 3) the peculiar turn of mind of most Hindus in a) Logic,
and b) Metaphysics and Psychology; and 4) the common belief in the
equality of all religions. He concluded that "Too often the dialogue between
Christian and Hindu is a colloquy between deaf men".13

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.

He was, however, not able to achieve any noticeable advance towards

this momentous meeting between Hinduism and Christianity before he died
in 1957. Missionaries who promote the myth of their great sacrifices
believe, and would like us to believe, that he died because the hard life-
eating vegetarian food and sleeping and sitting on the floor-he had imposed
upon himself in the service of the mission, told seriously on his health.
They are pretty good at manufacturing martyrs.

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.

He shared in full Monchanin's fond hope that India could be annexed to

the Catholic Church by dressing up Christian dogmas in the language of
Hindu philosophy. Only his language was more sophisticated or, in other
words, less straight-forward than that of his elder colleague. The goal was
"the Christianisation and assuming into the Pleroma of the Risen Lord that
unrivalled thirst for the Absolute which threw and still throws out to the
world, in quest of 'salvation', crowds of elect in the Hindu as well as in the
Buddhist and Jain people".15 Hindus, Buddhists and Jains could constitute
only "crowds" for him. Christians alone were a community.

He paid several more visits to the Ramana Ashram in 1952-53 and

picked up the Hindu mystic term," guhâ (cave of the heart)". It was in this
mystic corner that her tried, for the rest of his life, to stage a meeting
between what he called the "advaitic experience" and what was known to
him as the "Christian experience". He went out on a tour of Northern India
in March 1957 in search of some place where he could carry out his own
experiment in the "cave of the heart". But his trip was cut short by
Monchanin's illness. He had to rush back. After Monchanin's death, he lived
in the Saccidanand Ashram for some more years. He had planned to divide
his time between the South and the North. But the pull of the North,
particularly of the Himalayas, proved stronger. He built a place for himself
at Uttarkashi in Garhwal and left the South for good in 1968. By now he
had written several books and was being hailed by the Catholic as well as
many non-Catholic Christians as a profound theologian and a mystic
luminary. He was in great demand in all sorts of seminars and conferences
on the latest mission strategy of holding a dialogue with Hinduism. So he
could stay at Uttarkashi only for short periods. He suffered a heart attack
and died in 1973. He also, we are told, had ruined his health by leading a
hard life.

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

Born in 1910 in an Anglican family, he became a Catholic in 1931 and

was ordained a priest in 1940. He lived as monk in Prinknash Abbey and
become Prior of Farnborough Abbey in England. He came to India as a
missionary in 1955 and lived for two years in Bangalore before he joined
Francis Mahieu to found the Kurisumala Ashram, a monastery of the Syrian
rite in Kerala. In 1968 he took over the Saccidanand Ashram after Henri Le
Saux left it for good. He was operating from there till his death in May,
1993.

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 "natural light" which Christian theologians, from Ziegenbalg

onwards, had discovered in Hinduism is an old theme in Christian theology.
Heathens, we are told, have had the benefit of a Cosmic Revelation which
preceded the Mosaic and the Christian Revelations. Bede Griffiths has
published a whole book by this name in 1983. The derogatory terms-
heathen, pagan, infidel and the rest-which were used to describe a Hindu in
earlier days have been dropped. He is to be called a Cosmic Man
henceforward. Many Hindus who are not conversant with linguistic
trickeries of Christian theology feel flattered. Bede Griffiths takes full
advantage of this Hindu ignorance. He flatters the Hindus further by writing
long passages in praise of their spiritual and philosophical heritage. But his
central point is the same as announced by the Church, namely that
Hinduism can find fulfilment only by surrendering itself, body and soul, to
the Catholic Church. That, in brief, is the burden of all his books.
 Before Bede Griffiths draws the inevitable conclusion, he makes two
fanatical and fantastic assertions. The first assertion is that Jesus was, is and
will remain the only manifestation of God in history. "What we can say
with certainty", he writes, "is that at all times and in all places God (and that
means Christ) is soliciting the heart and mind of every man through his
reason and conscience, and all alike, believers and unbelievers, are to be
judged by this hidden call and their response to it."20 Again: "The
resurrection of Christ is at once a historical fact, which has changed the
course of history, and also a symbol of that ultimate truth in which human
life and history can alone find their true meaning."21 The second assertion
is that the Church is the body and bride of Christ destined to embrace the
whole world. "But we must add," he says, "that if Christ is present to all
men, then the Church is also present in all mankind. There is one movement
of the Church which is visible in history, which we can trace in its progress
from Jerusalem over the Graeco-Roman world, then over Europe and
America and now about to enter into vital contact with Asia and Africa. But
there is also a hidden movement of the Church going on in the hearts of
men drawing men to Christ without their knowing it, in Hinduism, in
Buddhism, in Islam, even in agnosticism and unbelief. It is only at the last
day that the full significance of this movement will be revealed, but even
now we can discern something of this hidden path of grace in the other
religions of the world."22

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 !

A normal human mind is insulted when it is called upon to comment on

these pompous pronouncements. Proclaiming that Hinduism will find
fulfilment in Christianity, observes an amused reader of Bede Griffiths, is
tantamount to saying that the holy Ganga will get purified by being poured
into a puddle of hogwash. The puerile nonsense could have been dismissed
with contempt but for the backing it has from a formidable apparatus which
the mission has built in this country since the days of the Portuguese
pirates. We have seen how the myth of "comrade" Stalin was sold for years
on end by a well-oiled party machine. The Christian mission is much older
and far more experienced. It will go on selling the myth of a "christ" Jesus
till its apparatus is dispersed. That process of dispersal has already gone a
long way in the West and the Church is now in a hurry to find a new hideout
in the East. Will the East give shelter to this array of the most abominable
superstitions which run roughshod over its own and superior spiritual
tradition?

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

14 Ibid., p. 222. His prescription has been discussed in some

depth by Ram Swarup in his 'Liberal' Christianity, included in
Hinduism vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam, a Voice of India
publication.

15 A Benedictine Ashram, p. 3

16 Hindu-Christian Meeting Point, Delhi, 1976., p. 9

17 Ibid., p. 99

18 Christ in India, Bangalore, 1984, p. 8. This statement does not

square with the one he made to Swami Devananda in his letter of
August 31, 1987: "Of course, if I held the same view as Father
Monchanin you would be justified in suspacting me of deception."

19 Vatican Council II: Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents,

Bombay, 1983, p. 668

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

The Christian mission equates the expansion of Christianity in different

parts of the world with the march of the Holy Spirit. The history of
Christianity helps us in understanding what the Holy Spirit really stands
for-the march of European military machines, the forcible occupation of
other people's motherlands, the massacre of heathens or their conversion at
the point of the sword, the exercise of political pressures by imperialist
establishments, the use of money and manpower and the mass media on a
large scale, and the perfection of a scholarship which excels in suppressio
veri suggestio falsi (suppressing truth and spreading falsehood). Christianity
was a state enterprise for all European countries, some of which became
imperialist powers from the sixteenth century onwards. The record of
Christianity over the last nearly two thousand years provides no evidence
that it ever prevailed over paganism by the moral or ethical or spiritual
superiority of its teachings.

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.

We have traced elsewhere the history of Hindu-Christian encounters in

the past.1 It shows that Christianity was trounced whenever it entered into a
debate with Hinduism. Christianity has survived in India not on account of
any strength or merit in its arguments but because its machine continues to
grind even when it loses the debate. Hindus have still to understand that
game and defeat it on its own grounds.2

Footnotes:
 
1 History of Hindu-Christian Encounters by Sita Ram Goel, Voice
of India, New Delhi, 1989.

2 The mission apparatus was partially discussed recently by Sri

Ram Swarup in two review articles in The Times of India. We are
reproducing them in this book, with some additions, as Appendices
2 and 3. They are a great help in understanding the working of the
 missionary machine, in which Catholic ashrams are only a cog.
Some figures on mission finance have been given in Appendix 4.

   
Catholic Ashrams
CHAPTER 8
Catholic Ashrams
Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma

The Shantivanam Ashram looks like a rishi's home transported from

Vedic times to the banks of the sacred Cauvery River at a forested place
near Trichy in South India. A pilgrim's first impressions are strong, and very
Hindu; the elaborately colourful Hindu shrine; the bearded, saffron-robed
"swami" seated cross - legged on a straw mat; devotees practising yogic
meditations, even chanting Hindu scriptures.

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 is a Christian ashram, one of more than 50 in India, which are

variously described as "experiments in cross-cultural communication,"
"contemplative hermitages that revolve around both Christian and Hindu
ideals," or (less charitably) "institutions to brainwash and convert India's
unwary masses." Are these places to be endorsed by Hindus as worthy
attempts to share each other's spirituality? Or are they a spiritual oxymoron,
a contradiction of terms, because the Christians are interested in sharing -
dialogue is the term they use - only as a means to conversions?

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

Father Bede Griffiths is widely respected among Christians and Hindus

alike. In the West the Catholics hold him in awe, a present-day saint whose
lifetime association with the great religious traditions of ancient India is
considered a courageous pioneering.

Shantivanam's brochure describes its objectives: "The aim of the ashram

remains to establish a way of contemplative life, based alike on the
traditions of Christian monasticism and of Hindu sannyasa. Hinduism has a
tradition of sannyasa - 'renunciation' of the world in order to seek God, or in
Hindu terms, 'liberation' - which goes back many centuries before the birth
of Christ and has continued to the present day. Our aim at Shantivanam is to
unite ourselves with this tradition as Christian sannyasis. Our life is based
on the Rule of Saint Benedict, the patriarch of Western monasticism [the
Ashram is an official monastery of the Camaldolese Monks, founded in the
13th century in Italy], and on the teaching of the monastic Fathers of the
Church, but we also study Hindu doctrine (Vedanta) and make use of Hindu
methods of prayer and meditation (Yoga). The ashram seeks to be a place of
meeting for Hindus and Christians and people of all religions or none, who
are genuinely seeking God."

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.

A November, 1984 article in The Hindu newspaper, published in Madras,

describes some of the ashramites: "A psychologist by profession, a young
lady from W. Germany, Maria, said she visited the ashram annually. Before
her experiencing this atmosphere here, she thought that the Bible has no
message for her and now after studying the Vedanta here she could now say
that her attitude towards the Bible and Christ had undergone total
transformation. She felt that there was nothing wrong with the Christian
religion. Mr. Desmond, a young lad from Bombay and a drug addict said
that after coming to the ashram he was a transformed man and when he
returned to Bombay after Christmas he would be a reformed man." The
article goes on to say: "Father Griffiths has so far initiated 20 to 30 persons
belonging to different nations as sannyasis and sannyasinis and all of them
were spreading the message of this peaceful coexistence of the Trinity and
non-duality in their own countries."

The limits of Father Griffiths' experiment in inculturation are apparent in

his theological stance on certain central Hindu beliefs: reincarnation,
moksha and cycles of time. He has not adopted any Hindu beliefs which
would be considered heretical by the Catholic Church. In a 1984 interview
by Renee Weber published in Revision magazine, Father Griffiths said, "I
consider reincarnation one of the most difficult doctrines to reconcile with
Christian faith. According to popular belief the individual soul passes from
body to body in a series of rebirths. I consider this entirely unacceptable
from a Christian point of view." In regard to transcendent experience, the
merging of the soul in God, the Moksha of Hindu theology, Renee Weber
asked, "Was there this extraordinary openness and capacity for self-
transcendence precisely in Jesus? Or can it happen again?" Father Griffiths
replied, "In the Christian understanding, we would say no. He was open to
the total reality of God. The rest of us have varying degrees of openness to
the divine." Another area of difficulty is time. Hinduism conceives of time
as vast cycles of creation and dissolution. Father Griffiths' concept is that
time is strictly linear, starting at one point in the past and ending at one
point in the future, never repeating itself.

Though not covered in that particular interview, Father Griffiths would

also have had to affirm his concept of God conformed with the five
anathemas against pantheism stated by Vatican I and left unaltered by
Vatican II. An anathema is a forbidden belief, a belief which contradicts the
Catholic teaching. These forbidden five are: "1) Nothing exists except
matter. 2) God and all things possess one and the same substance and
essence. 3) Finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual,
emanated from the divine substance. 4) Ale divine essence becomes all
things by a manifestation or evolution of itself. 5) God is universal or
indefinite being, which by determining itself makes up the universe, which
is diversified into genera, species and individuals." The Catholics Church
forbids its priests to believe or preach any of these concepts, several of
which are, of course, standard parts of most Hindu theologies. This shows
that on the most central issue of theology - God - there is a vast chasm
between Catholic and Hindu belief.

Father Griffiths is an anomaly - a Hindu on the outside, a Catholic on the

inside. And he's not the only one.

Jeevandhara Ashram

Jeevandhara Ashram, another Catholic ashram which is near Rishikesh in

northern India, was founded by Ishapriya (Sister Patricia Kinsey) and
Vandana of the Society of the Sacred Heart. Considered the nun's equivalent
of the Jesuits, this order has 7,000 members world-wide and deeply
involved in education. Ishapriya was born in Britain, spent her novitiacy in
London and then a year in Rome. She was sent on mission to India where
she was deeply impressed by the spiritual values of the country. She stayed
on, first at the Divine Life Society in Rishikesh, studying and eventually,
she says, taking sannyas diksha from Swami Chidananda. Vandana was
born in Bombay, ran away from home at 16 or 17, converted to Christianity
and then entered the order, eventually becoming the provencale (head) in
India. she and Ishapriya took sannyas together and founded the ashram.
Like Shantivanam, the majority of the people at the ashram are western
Christians, usually Sacred Heart nuns. They are also involved in missionary
efforts to convert Hindus in the local area. The ashram moved twenty miles
north of Rishikesh due to objections by local Hindus.

A correspondent for Hinduism Today met briefly with Ishapriya in

Carmel, California. She was conducting a six week retreat program in
Ashtanga Yoga at the Angelica Convent. The white-haired nun, about 50,
was dressed in a saffron sari and wore a large cross around her neck.
Hinduism Today inquired if there is any Christianity in her teachings. She
replied, "Of course, there is Christianity in my teachings, I am a Catholic."
We asked if she also teaches Catholicism in her ashram in India. She said
the Hindus who attend are aware that she is a Christian. "There is no
problem with that. They know that it is a Catholic ashram." Sensing that he
was asking about her motives she stated. "We are only trying to make the
Christians more aware. You are completely on the wrong track. We are only
trying to pray." When asked why she took sannyas, she replied, "Sannyas is
just where the spirit leads," and quickly excused herself.

A Catholic nun's receiving sannyas from a Hindu swami seemed

questionable, so Hinduism Today contacted Sadhaka Kartikeyan of the
Divine Life Society at Rishikesh who was visiting San Francisco. He stated,
"Our swamis would never initiate a Christian into Sannyas. Perhaps they
were just given a mantram." Other Hindu leaders, including the head of
Kasi Mutt in Tirupanandal, confirmed that it would not be possible for a
non-Hindu to take sannyas. After all, sannyas is Hindu monkhood.

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

The general Hindu reaction to these ashrams is one of tolerant, even

loving acceptance and respect. Sarvadharma samabhâva, equal respect for
all religions, has long been a fundamental principle of Hindu culture.1
Allowing another person to hold beliefs different from one's own without
attempting to change them, is dear to the Hindu's heart, and he does, in
actual practice, accept an enormous range of beliefs within his own
religion.2

Hindu History and Catholic Theology

Yet, among those at the vanguard of Hindu renaissance there is suspicion,

resistance and even outright hostility as shown by comments collected for
Hinduism Today in India on the subject of Christian ashrams. Here is a
sampling: G.M. Jagtiani of Bombay wrote: "A mischievous attempt is being
made by some Christian missionaries to wear the saffron robe, put tilak on
their forehead, recite the Gita, and convert the Hindus to Christianity." S.
Shanmukham of the Hindu Munnani, Kanyakumari, states: "Once I met an
orange-robed sannyasin. I took her to be a Hindu sannyasin. When asked,
she said 'I have put on this dress so that I can come in contact with Hindus
very easily and tell them about Christianity'." R. Chidambasaksiamma,
Kanyakumari, said, "It seems to be a sinister plan to make people accept
Christ as God, the only God. They adopt all the philosophies and practices
of Hindus but would accept only Jesus as God. It is only a development of
their original plan of Indianisation of Christianity."

At the root of these criticisms is a deep distrust of the Christians in India.

Imposed by force from the outside, Christianity is still considered an
unwelcome intrusion from the West. Even Mahatma Gandhi stated that
from the time Christianity was established in Rome in the third century, "it
became an imperialist faith as it remains to this day." This unfortunate
legacy has never been forgotten by the Hindus. Though the military backing
is no longer present, enormous sums of money are sent into India for the
use of the missionaries. A well-monied and successful missionary is
regarded as a threat to the national stability.

The official government document, Madhya Pradesh Report on Christian

Missionary Activities (1956) stated, "Evangelization in India appears to be a
part of the uniform world policy to revive Christendom for re-establishing
Western supremacy and is not prompted by spiritual motives. The objective
is apparently to create Christian minority pockets with a view to disrupt the
solidarity of the non-Christian societies. The ulterior motive is fraught with
danger to the security of the State."
 Christians are only three per cent of India's population, yet they control
25% of all schools and 40% of all social service organizations. Their
Western affiliations give them political entree and cultural clout beyond
their numbers. Christians are widely viewed as not necessarily strongly
loyal to the nation, the Catholics in particular being thought to be under the
direct rule of the Vatican. The Madhya Pradesh report also says, "Because
conversion muddles the convert's sense of unity and solidarity with his
society, there is a danger of his loyalty to his country and state being
undermined."

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."

It is against this background that any activities of the Christians are

viewed. The early missionaries were not at all above acquiring converts by
force, money or deception. And it's reported that unscrupulous tactics still
abound. The present Catholic ashrams have inherited a history of intrigue
and subterfuge. Here is a description from the Madhya Pradesh Report:
"Robert De Nobili (A Catholic Jesuit priest) appeared in Madura in 1607
clad in the saffron robes of a Sadhu with sandal paste on his forehead and
the sacred thread on his body. He gave out that he was a Brahmin from
Rome. He showed documentary evidence to prove that he belonged to a
clan that had migrated from ancient India. He declared that he was bringing
a message which had been taught in India by Indian ascetics of yore and
that he was only restoring to Hindus one of their lost sacred books, namely
the 5th Veda, called Yeshurveda (Jesus Veda). It passed for a genuine work
until the Protestant Missionaries exposed the fraud about the year 1840.
This Brahmin Sannyasi of the 'Roman Gotra', Father De Nobili, worked for
40 years and died at the ripe age of 89 in 1656. It is said that he had
converted about a lakh of persons but they all melted away after his
death."4

Critics also point to more recent examples of hidden motives in

establishing ashrams and adopting the appearance of sannyasins. Noted
Indian writer Ram Swarup in his pamphlet "Liberal" Christianity5 quoted
the intentions of one of the founders of Shantivanam, Father J. Monchanin:
"Fr. J. Monchanin himself defines his mission in these terms: 'I have come
to India for no other purpose than to awaken in a few souls the desire (the
passion) to raise up a Christian India. It will take centuries, sacrificed lives
and we shall perhaps die before seeing any realizations. A Christian India,
completely Indian and completely Christian will be something so wonderful
the sacrifice of our lives is not too much to ask."

It is precisely this goal, which can only be described as the spiritual

genocide of Hindu dharma, which motivates leaders like Swarup and
movements like VHP and RSS to protect India's religious traditions against
overt conversion efforts.

The Catholic Response

Catholic leaders Hinduism Today spoke with consider all of these

complaints to be problems of the past. Father John Keane, Ecumenical and
Interreligious Affairs officer of the Archdiocese of San Francisco said, "The
main thrust of Pope John Paul II is 'irrevocable commitment' to the unity of
the Churches [the various Christian sects] and to fostering dialogue and
cooperation amongst the religions of the world. The Church began to realise
that within non-Christian religions there is truth, there is goodness and there
is beauty and it is about time we began to recognize it. Whatever policies
were directed toward non-Christian religions before, the Church has said
[through the Second Vatican Council] are not according to what the Church
through Jesus Christ has been trying to say," In other words, the Church has
seen the errors of its ways.

When asked about militant or devious conversion tactics, he said, "Well,

you know they're called 'Rice Christians.' The Church is getting nowhere
through that. That type of missionary zeal is no longer really appreciated.
We don't make friends with anyone by doing those kind of things. What [I
have explained] is the official attitude of the Roman Catholic Church
towards the Hindu tradition. If anyone in India feels that the Hindu tradition
is pagan and has to be rubbed out, ignored or fought against violently, they
haven't understood what the Vatican Council is trying to say."

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."

In regard to Hinduism, he stated: "In Hinduism men explore the divine

mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth and the
accurately defined insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trials
of the present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation and recourse
to God in confidence and love."

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]."

Inculturation has become a very central aspect of the relation of the

Church to Asia and Africa and is the basis for the present existence of
Catholic ashrams. A thorough exposition of the idea was made by the Third
General Conference of Latin American Bishops in January of 1978. Here
are statements from their report:

"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."

In a lengthy interview with Hinduism Today, Father Frank Podgorski,

Director of Asian Area Studies at Seton Hall University, New Jersey
[USA], spoke on the subject of the new approach of the Catholic Church.
He is a noted scholar in Asian studies and the author of the popular book,
Hinduism: A Beautiful Mosaic. He said, "I don't deny that there have been
difficulties in the past, and that there are difficulties in the reality of the
present. But as part of the official Church thrust today, there is a call for
reverence, respect, a call for making the Hindu a better Hindu, allowing the
Hindu to be a better Hindu. In Africa, in recent days, after the India trip,
Pope John Paul II called for a truly African Church to emerge. An African
Church in which the African spirit would enter in and enrich the Church
and make it more Catholic and by that he talks about basic customs entering
into the tradition of the Church. Now we're talking really about adapting the
natural habits in such a way so that the teaching of Christ, so that Christ
may more fully communicate with the spirit of Africa and that means
adapting natural prayer forms and things of that nature. So just as yoga may
be adapted, so may various other ways."

Hindu/Catholic Dialogue: The Future

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."

It is difficult for the Hindu to reconcile this statement with the

declaration, on Non-Christian religions made by the same council. Clearly
while striving for true tolerance, the Church is still anchored by its
fundamental "one path, one church" dogma. On the one hand the Church
admits that there is truth and beauty in other religions. On the other it
declares the Catholic Church essential for salvation.

Practical Applications of Dialogue and Inculturation

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.

A comparison might best illustrate Hindu concerns. Let us imagine that

one day a Muslim missionary arrives in a poor section of America such as a
part of the Catholic Hispanic (Mexican Origin) section of San Francisco.
Well supplied with zeal and petrodollars from his own country, he learns
Spanish, builds a Muslim cathedral along the lines of a Catholic building,
outfitting it with pews, organs, choirs and so forth. Preaching from a
Christian Bible appropriately edited according to the Koran, he puts on the
clerical collar and black robes of a Catholic Priest and holds Sunday
services which look just like Mass, except that prayers are to Allah and
Mohammed instead of Jesus. In ministering to the local people, he tells
them that his Islamic faith is just a slight variation of Christianity, one
which puts the crowning touches on it. Their father's religion, Catholicism
was, he says, flawed but it is a good preparation for Islam. He gives loans to
those in need, which need not be repaid if one joins his Church. He opens
an orphanage and raises the children as Muslims though their parents are
Christians. When accused of deceiving the people, he says he is only
adapting his religion to the local context and expressing his Muslim charity
and divine call to evangelize.

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.

Hindu spiritual leaders and intellectuals are open to the dialogue

Catholics seek, but not if cooperation and brotherliness opens Hindu
families to unethical conversion strategies. Obviously, the Catholic Church
will legitimately adopt certain outer forms from Indian culture to serve
existing members, but these have ethical limits. Among those actions of the
Church which Hindus consider exceed these limits are the priests' and nuns'
adoption of Hindu vestments and religious titles like "swami" and
participation in non-Catholic sacraments such as sannyas. The misleading
use of Hindu scripture and yoga teachings must also be examined, as should
Catholic use of social and educational services which should not subtly
erode Hindu faith or take advantage of Indian poverty to convert. Ethical
guidelines must be crafted that allow Catholics to attend wholly to their
members' spiritual needs, but do not impinge unscrupulously on Hindus.

Hindus continue to be wary of Christian expansionism and criticism of

Hindu culture and theology. An energetic Hindu renaissance has turned
wariness into open challenge to Christian conversions, with results yet to be
seen. Still, Hindu respect all the great faiths, honor their spirituality. The
difference today is that they demand that the Sanatana Dharma be equally
respected and honored in the Vedic spirit of "Truth is one, paths are many."

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.

2 This is true if the beliefs do not lead to aggression. Hindus who

extend tolerance towards doctrines of intolerance are not aware of
their tradition vis-a-vis âsurika belief systems. They have become
victims of the motivated propaganda, now internalised by many
Hindus, that Hindus can and should tolerate, even respect, every
doctrine howsoever devilish.

3 Published by Voice of India in January, 1986

4 The Niyogi Report seems to have swallowed the missionary

propaganda about the extent of De Nobili's sucess. He had
converted only 120 Hindus.

5 Published in 1982 in Manthan, a quarterly from New Delhi, and

included in Hinduism vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam published by
Voice of India, 1982. Reprinted in 1984, this book has been enlarged
in a new edition brought out in 1993.

   
The J.R. Ewing Syndrome
CHAPTER 9
The J.R. Ewing Syndrome

Television and movies struggle mightily to be dramatic, humorous,

tragic, colorful, sexy and outrageous. Video is modern man's moving
canvas; like a painting, it can mimic but never match the real thing - life.

But perhaps it can help us interpret experience, find useful analogies,

study the human condition. In fact, it did just that last night. As we
pondered the front page story, seeking ways to explain the Hindu's profound
concerns to the global Catholic community, our analogy appeared on the
screen. It was J.R. Ewing. That's right, pardner, Dallas' powerful, scheming
oil baron came to our rescue, This deserves a little explanation.

In this issue we tackled the confrontation of Catholic doctrine and Hindu

dharma. Avoiding a temptation to replay history's horrors (high ratings, but
not family viewing), the staff focused a journalistic lens on the simple,
contemporary issue of Catholic adoption of Hindu spiritual forms and
disciplines. Research deepened and two things became clear. First Catholics
are struggling with the issue on their side, too. Almost every Catholic
university has a special faculty member or even full department dedicated
to Asian Studies; they teach Hinduism and Buddhism to students and
theologians. They told us they love India and are genuinely drawn toward
Eastern spirituality, finding its disciplines more profound, more effective.

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.

The Catholic Church suffers from a particularly virulent religious strain

of the JR. Ewing Syndrome. It wants to own the company - which in this
case is religion. Deep down, it hopes for a day when all men in all cultures
will endorse its truths, worship at its altars, accept its Savior and enter its
heaven. Catholics truly believe that they have a God-given duty to
accomplish this. Their faith is unique, it is inherently better. For the good of
humanity they do this, not for themselves; no doubt J.R. is equally certain
that the company will be better off with him at the helm. Nevermind that
Bobby will have to go, that Pam and Ray will suffer personal losses, that
even his mother. Miss Ellie, will lose her rightful legacy.

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.

Listen to a Tamil Catholic priest recently describing his Indian students,

"Some of them may never become good Catholics, but after my classes they
will never be good Hindus." Sounds like J.R.? If a real family of man is
ever to emerge on this earth (barring the terrible possibility that some
Muslim, Christian or Hindu denomination succeeds in eradicating all other
spiritual expressions), one in which all men are free to believe or doubt as
they choose, then mankind must eradicate the J.R. Ewing Syndrome from
religion. Anyone else who clings to the "my way is the only way" doctrine,
must relinquish it forever. To use our analogy, as long as J.R. wants the
whole company, his family and friends can never really trust him, never
believe the things he says. Such ingenuous trust could be their destruction.
 Christians have inherited a mischievous, peccant past. But the future
could be different. After all, actor Larry Hagman (J.R.) meditates every
morning and observes silence on Fridays! Let us see if Christian charity can
be done purely and without a motive to convert. Let us see if the sisters can
feed and clothe the poor Hindu, knowing he will be a stronger, healthier
Hindu (not silently wishing he will stop wearing a tilak and give up beliefs
in karma and reincarnation). Let us watch their schools educate our
children, knowing their intellectual powers will strengthen and enrich the
Sanatana Dharma. Let us welcome them to give selflessly, to desist from all
expansionism, all proselytizing outside their church, knowing we will never
sell them the family store. That is true charity. Anything less is business.

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

Father Barnhardt is a member of the same Catholic order-the

Camaldolese Monks-as Father Bede Griffiths and has spent time at the
Shantivanam Ashram. He shared some of his observations with Hinduism
Today:

Q. What is your observation on how Shantivanam has been successful as

a means of conveying the Catholic message to the Indian people?
A. For a long while for Catholicism to go into another country it would
mean to bring some kind of European culture and implant it on top of the
indigenous culture. Ideally Christianity can become incarnate in any
different culture Father Bede's experiment is a courageous experiment in
that direction and there has been quite a bit of resistance to it throughout the
Catholic Church within the Indian Episcopy of the church but it is gaining
favor because, effectively, the central authorities have endorsed it. Actually
on one level, it is not that far out, not that advanced. On the liturgy, for
instance, there are no radical alternations of the Eucharist. He's added on
some readings at the beginning which can come from Buddhist texts, Hindu
texts, and others and then it proceeds. The only thing that is different in the
sacramental gestures, there is use of flowers, fires, smoke, which is very
impressive. He rightly perceives that there is no problem, no contamination
of the Christian form by doing that.

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. On Father Bede himself, we understand that he looks and lives like a

Hindu swami wearing orange robes, practicing vegetarianism yoga, etc.
How does the Roman Catholic Church view this?
A. I think some of the local clergy are probably turned off by it. You know
some of the Catholic clergy in India are somewhat defensive, so anything
that looks like a reversion to what they might consider paganism would be
dangerous and threatening to them. However, there is an enlighted, broad
and opened Catholic consciousness also there among the theologians and
some of the Bishops.

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.

For example, Swami Vivekananda in 1899 gave his opinion: "Certainly

[converts to other faiths] can and ought to be taken [back]. Ceremonies of
expiation are no doubt suitable in the case of willing converts; but on those
who were alienated by conquest or strangers wishing to join us, no penance
should be imposed." And Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, former president of India,
stated: "Devala's smriti lays down rules for the simple purification of people
forcibly converted to other faiths and even of people who, for worldly
advantage, embrace other faiths."

Saiva Siddhanta Church, with international headquarters in Hawaii,

U.S.A., and missions in many countries of the world, has considerable
experience with apostacy from Catholicism (and other western religions).
This has come about in the course of its work with persons desiring to
convert to the Hindu religion. It is their experience that the Catholic
spiritual leaders consider the Namakarana Samskara (the name-giving
ceremony) and the public declaration of affiliation to Hinduism as the
specific act. Of particular relevance in Canon 2314 of the Code of Canon
Laws of the Catholic Church: "All apostates from the Christian Faith and
each and every heretic or schismatic are ipso facto excommunicated." Also
relevant is the similar Canon 1364: "An apostate from the Faith, a heretic,
or schismatic incurs a latae sententiae ['automatic'] excommunication." In
simple language this means excommunication is automatic if apostacy is
made.

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).

The Bishop John J. Ward, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar

General of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles states, "No declaration can be
given that you are an apostate. You may become an apostate if that is your
desire. You would have to perform some action which would constitute
apostacy according to the Code of Canon Law. If and when you perform
such an action, it is possible that by that act you would become an apostate.
The officials in the non-Christian religion which you propose to enter may
possibly be the witnesses to your affiliation. If they are witnesses, they
would need no further documentation of the apostacy which you intended
and accomplished by that act of affiliation... [Your apostacy] will not occur
until you go through the Hindu name-giving ceremony." (January 29, 1982).

Any competent Hindu priest may administer the name-giving ceremony,

either with or without a ceremony of purification (depending on the
circumstances). The new Hindu name and date of the event are then
published in a local newspaper. As a result of this action, the person
becomes once again fully entitled to all rites and benefits of the Hindu
religion and, at the same time, deprived of the sacraments of the Catholic
Church, including the right to be married or buried by a priest or to receive
communion.

If it becomes necessary, a person may demand an official determination

of his status within the Catholic Church through Canon Law Title I, Canon
16, Section 6, which reads in part: "When a person desires a judgment as to
his status in the Church…it shall be the duty of the Bishop…to institute an
inquiry and insure an impartial decision." A particular Catholic parish or
diocese cannot ignore these Canon laws and claim, for example, that a
person making such public allegiance to another faith remains a Catholic in
spite of his actions. But Canon Law 2314 states that excommunication is
automatic and requires no action on the part of the Catholic Church.
Though local Bishops or priests may say otherwise, it is, in fact, quite easy
to leave Catholicism and re-enter the Hindu fold. The laws are automatic-no
authority is given to override them on the local level.
Malaysia Hindus Protest Christian
"Sadhu"
APPENDIX 1
Malaysia Hindus Protest Christian "Sadhu"1

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.

In his speeches, video cassettes and cassette tapes, "Sadhu" condemns,

ridicules and misinterprets the Vedas, Upanishads and the Tirumurais to suit
and explain his Christian faith. For instance, he interprets the mantra
"Panchakaya Namaha" as "Lord with five wounds" meaning the crucified
Jesus and the Rig Vedic phrase "Ekam Tat Sat" as "the One Lord who
descends to earth only once," again implying Jesus.

At a meeting showing a video-tape by him containing his unreasonable

interpretations and interpolations of the Hindu scriptures angry Hindus
bombarded him with questions and demanded a public apology. Shaken by
the raving crowd, some of whom promised him a coffin for his next visit,
the "Sadhu" went up on stage and tendered his public apology.

However, three days later prior to his departure back to India, he

summoned a press conference and said he made his apology under duress,
hoping to avoid unwanted incidents.
 Dr. Thomas Thangaraj, a Protestant from India who was in Kuala
Lumpur as a delegate for the Second International Saiva Siddhanta Seminar
was asked for his views about Sadhu Chellapah. He said "You can't
interpret Hindu scriptures in such a way to suit Christianity, which is wrong
and unfortunate. People are so gullible that they would swallow anything
you say, it's part of psychology."

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:

  1 Hinduism Today, Indian Ocean Edition, February-March, 1987.

   
Missionary's Dirty Tricks
APPENDIX 2
Missionary's Dirty Tricks1

R.K. Deshpande, president of Kalyan Ashram in Madhya Pradesh, India,

submitted this news report translated from the Hindi newspaper Jansatta to
Hinduism Today last month, as part of a campaign by the ashram to
document and publicize the unethical conversion tactics practiced by many
Christian missionaries.

In early 1982, Father Joseph Parekatil of the Catholic Church of Parasahi,

Madhya Pradesh, destroyed the sacred murthi of the Goddess Visweshwari
Siddheswari enshrined on the nearby Nawain Tekdi hill. After also burning
a Forest Department tree plantation on the same hill, he erected a small
wooden cross. His stated intention to gain possession of the sacred hill
(presently government land) caused considerable consternation among the
village's residents.

Famine conditions in the area diverted the villagers' attention and

provided Father Parekatil an opportunity to carry out a scheme to get even a
larger cross on the hill. He initiated a campaign demanding that wheat and
gram be sent into the area. The request petitions were deceptively arranged
with two forms. The signature on the first form requested food. The
signature on the second, hidden form supported a plea to put a large cross
on the hill.

A rumor was then started by an unknown person that permission to put

up the cross had been granted. Seeing no reaction to the rumor, the father
erected a 31 - foot high concrete cross on the hill on February 18th, 1983.
Enraged villagers destroyed the cross a month later on March 17th. The
situation remained peaceful and unchanged for two years, though the
Goddess was not restored to the hill.
 On February 20th, 1985, with the intent once again of trying to gain
possession of the hill, Father Parekatil put on the orange robes of a Hindu
sannyasin, built a hut on the hill, sat on a tiger skin and began performing
worship in the Hindu style. A leaflet was distributed that claimed whoever
came to the father's worship would have all their desires fulfilled. As a
result, thousands of simple Hindus came to the hill on Fridays, unaware of
the deception they were witnessing. On May 18th, Subdivisional Officer
Jagir of the Forest Department registered a complaint at Akaltara Police
Station and served eviction papers on the father, but to no avail.

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.

The Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Shri Motilal Vora, confirmed to

M.L.A. Shri Munshilal that a complaint had been received about the illegal
placement of the cross and a case registered of trespass on government land.

In his quest to "Christianize" the village of Parasahi, Father Parekatil: 1)

destroyed a Hindu shrine; 2) burnt a government plantation; 3) illegally
placed a cross on government land; 4) took advantage of famine relief to
further his own aim; 5) illegally placed a second cross on the hill; 6)
illegally moved onto government land; 7) deceptively disguised himself as
a Hindu holy man; and 8) deceptively began worship in a Hindu manner.
The only unusual aspect of this case is that the newspaper reports gave full
attention to names, dates, places.

Footnotes:

  1 Hinduism Today, Indian Ocean Edition, December, 1988.

   
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:

HINDUISM TODAY, APRIL-MAY 1987

Catholic Ashrams

The article on the above subject in your November-December issue

exposes a fraud which Catholic missionaries have been practising upon
unwary Hindus for a long time. An average Hindu does not know that the
missionary clad in ochre robes is no sadhu, but a scheming impostor. So
long as the Catholics stick to their exclusive theology, they will remain
aliens in the land of Sanatana Dharma, no matter what disguises they don
and what strategies of conversion they design... They are turning [Jesus]
into a co-conspirator in their bid to subvert Hindu society and culture.

Vijaylakshmi Jain
Kamala Nagar, Delhi

The Preaching Balance

With reference to your long article and supporting editorial

(Nov./Dec.,1986) on the "Catholic Ashrams," you conclude: "Let Catholics
tend their own flock as they wish. All the Hindu asks is to be left alone to
follow his dharma." This seems to me either anachronistic, ill-informed or
disingenuous. If all the Hindu asks is to be left alone, why have these shores
been saturated with gurus and swamis propagating, not just following, their
dharma, especially these last decades? And as you know, their constituency
has been largely the indigenous Judeo-Christian, not the transplanted
Indian, a matter rather gleefully celebrated elsewhere in this issue.
Moreover, when I look at a charlatan like Rajneesh or a mercenary like
Maharishi (whatever their standing in India, even if deplored), opposite a
now rather benighted Bede Griffiths, I cannot help but think that you are
getting the better of the exchange.

Dr. Christopher Nugent

University of Kentucky, Lexington

Catholic Ashrams

In our ashram we work on the basis of dialogue. It is a Christian ashram,

just as other ashrams are Hindu, but we leave people...to follow any path to
which they are drawn. I think that we are moving into a new age where
people are learning to live with different religions in mutual respect. On the
sociological level the problem of conversion remains, but on the level of
prayer and meditation we transcend that level. I look on sannyasa as a state
transcending creed and caste and all dharmas. One of the two founders of
our ashram, Abhishiktananda, works very convincingly on this subject in
his book The Further Shore. He was a personal friend of Swami
Chidananda of Rishikesh. I hope that you are satisfied with this point of
view. I feel that it is initiating a new understanding of Hindu-Christian
relations.

Father Bede Griffiths

Tiruchi, S. India

Re: a "Catholic Sannyasini"

I am writing in response to your concerns which you have brought to the

attention of the Holy Father [the pope]. We are presently checking with the
proper Superiors concerning the activities of Sister Patricia Kinsey, RSCJ,
[alias Ishapriya]. It is our sincere hope that we will be able to clarify the
situation through these contacts and insure that nothing is being done to
hinder honest, open and mutually tolerant relationships between Hindus and
Catholics

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

HINDUISM TODAY, OCTOBER 1987

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.

Dr. S.G. Balani

Bombay, India

A Jesuit Writes

I am a Jesuit Catholic priest and professor of Hinduism (at Boston

College). A colleague recently pointed out to me your article (Nov./Dec.,
1986) on "Catholic Ashrams". On the whole I was quite impressed with the
article and the questions it raises. While I have visited some of the Christian
ashrams mentioned and appreciate the efforts being made, I too have
wondered about the extent to which Catholicism is being "dressed up" as
Hindu without a sufficiently deep intellectual basis and real openness to
new images and ideas not traditionally Catholic, and about how all this
appears to Hindus. Your article raises these issues quite forcefully and well.
I am curious what kinds of responses you have received, whether you think
there is a valid level on which discussion might be pursued, etc. I ask this
simply because it seems it would be a shame to let such a well-presented
argument pass by without being taken seriously by all concerned. Thank
you for the provocative piece.

Francis X. Clooney, S.J.

Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
The Second Dialogue
CHAPTER 13
The Second Dialogue

An article in praise of Fr. Bede Griffiths, published in the. Indian Express

of Madras, provoked far more interesting exchanges, notably between
Swami Devananda Saraswati and Fr. Bede Griffiths.

INDIAN EXPRESS, 18 MARCH 1987

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).

"The Shanti Vanam of Bede Griffiths is a place of dialogue,

reconciliation and experience in depth, daily reading from the scriptures of
Hinduism, Christianity, etc. This is indeed the 'peace capital' of the world"-
thus observed Dr. Robert Wayne Teasdale in an absorbing talk on the life
and thoughts of the Sage of Shanti Vanam on March 12 at 'Nirvan'.

After referring to the monastic antecedents of Rev. Father Bede Griffiths,

Dr. Teasdale recalled that the Shanti Vanam Ashram was founded in 1968.
The sage is a critic of rationalism and dualism - lowest level of
consciousness. "Scientific reason is inadequate, primordial tradition is
philosophies perennis." New Science is now converging with the mystical,
recognising the symbolic nature of myths. Reason and intuition have to be
married - east and west - masculine and feminine counterparts. There is
Advaitic experience in Christianity too - "I and the Father are, one" (Not I
am the Father). The world religions must work together in practical ways on
the concrete issues of peace, removal of hunger and poverty, ecology,
solidarity, righteousness, sharing of resources, rational development,
contemplation and action. The metaphor of the wheel (Dharma Chakra) is
significant. The church is a possible matrix of humanity - reconciliation and
unification.

INDIAN EXPRESS, 25 MARCH 1987

Shantivanam

Sir-This has reference to Dr. Wayne Teasdale's panegyric of Bede

Griffiths entitled 'An apostle of peace' (I.E. March 19). Shantivanam
Ashram was founded on March 21, 1950 by Father Jules Monchanin, a
French priest who was deeply loved and is remembered by Christians and
non-Christians in this area who had the privilege to know him. Dr. Teasdale
wrongly states that Shantivanam was founded in 1968.

The philosophy underlying the ashram was formulated by Father

Monchanin and the Father Le Saux (also from France) who assisted him.

I would recommend a beginner to start with Father Monchanin's book

'An Indian Benedictine Ashram' and to study it carefully in order to get the
true message of Shantivanam.

L. STEPHEN,
Founder and Director,
Sachidananda Universal Brotherhood Centre,
Kulithalai - 639 104.

INDIAN EXPRESS, 30 MARCH 1987

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.

Dr. Teasdale hails Griffiths as "Britain's appropriate gift to India".

Britain's most welcome gift to India is cricket for thousands to enjoy and
Shakespeare for the intellectuals. Griffiths is only an experimenter in the
realm of spiritual matrix who commits the grave error of mixing
Christianity and Hinduism to produce his own mix. This by no stretch of
imagination is a gift to India. On the contrary it pollutes the inherent
spiritual values treasured by us for centuries.

Rituals, rites, ceremonies in Hinduism have not to be changed to suit the

whims of modem innovators. Griffiths, by superimposing the sacred word
Om on a Cross imagines that he has created a new spiritual phenomenon.
On the contrary he confuses and insults both Hinduism and Christianity. He
fails to realise that by such acts he is neither enriching Christianity nor
honouring Hinduism. One has to respect the unique rites and rituals of each
religion, which placed in another context win be meaningless and
confusing.

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

INDIAN EXPRESS, 10 APRIL 1987

Religious Purity

Sir-Apropos of the letter of March 30 under the above caption, I wish to

point out that Rev. Fr. Bede Griffiths is more than a gift for India. For
centuries we have had men and women, who accepted Christianity in Indian
patterns of thinking, expressions and actions. Fr. Bede is no pretender or
experimenter. He is an international theologian of great reputation and
author of several books. He has visited Europe, Palestine, the United States,
and his talks are recorded.

The Saccidananda Ashram (Shanti Vanam) is a Christian ashram, where

the wealth of goodness, truth and beauty in religious traditions of India is
made clear through authentic forms of monastic life. These spiritual values
belong to Christ Jesus, and they are a positive help for better Christian
living. The wealth of Indian spirituality is also generously shared among all
the people who experience Christian fellowship. From 1950 this ashram has
catered to the spiritual solace of several persons belonging to different
creeds. There they study Vedanta, and make use of Indian methods of
prayer and meditation.

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.

The 'Om' is universally used. It points to Lord God Almighty. It is the

primordial sound from which the whole creation proceeds. To Christians
this word is the Cosmic Christ, made flesh on earth. Om has entered many
citadels of Christian places of worship all over the world including the
Vatican. Popes and Cardinals have not forbidden the use of Om by Indian
Christians.

Prof. S. Radhakrishnan has observed: "If Europe has interpreted

Christianity in terms of their own culture of Greek thought and Roman
organisation, there is no reason why the Indian Christian should not relate
the message of the salvation in Christ to the larger spiritual background of
India. Cannot we have Vedantic tradition in Christianity?"

Ignatius Absalom,
1, Venkatasami Pillai St.,
Santhome,
Madras - 4.

INDIAN EXPRESS, 21 APRIL 1987

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.

Fr. Joseph Pullikal,

42, Kavala Junction,
Changancherry.

INDIAN EXPRESS, 30 APRIL 1987

OM

Sir,-With reference to the letter 'Not in Vatican' of April 21, it may be

pointed out that Archbishop Lourdusamy of Bangalore (now a Cardinal)
celebrated the Holy Mass in the Indian Order before the De Propaganda
Fide - the pet child of the Pope. This was done not many years ago, and the
Om (while taking Aarthi) was visibly demonstrated thrice, while adoring
Jesus in His Divine Presence.

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

INDIAN EXPRESS, 1 JUNE 1987

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.

I think it is profoundly unjust and inaccurate to brand him an

'experimenter', as Swami Kulandaiswami does. Rather than being an
experimenter, as Swami alleges, Bede Griffiths has an extraordinary grasp
of the Hindu and Christian faiths.

Bede Griffiths' approach cannot be appreciated by two brief visits to

Shantivanam, but only by a careful study of his position, his life, practices
and actions, including exposure to him over a long period of time. Doing
so, one would discover that he is a Christian with a totally open heart to
Hindus and Hinduism, and a clear understanding of the value of the Hindu
tradition and the necessity to preserve it.

Nor is it accurate to assert, as Swami Kulandaiswami does, that Father

Bede pollutes Hinduism. For Father Bede adopts elements of Hindu ritual
and prayer not to "produce his own mix", but rather to express the Christian
faith in terms intelligible to Indians. There is never any doubt at
Shantivanam, for instance, that when mass is celebrated in the Indian rite,
using symbols, gestures and rituals borrowed from Hinduism, that it is
anything but the mass. What does pollute Hinduism, however, and really
devalues it as a spiritual path, is the failure to actualise its teachings in one's
own life, the compassion and spiritual perfection or true holiness. This goes
for Christianity as well. Father Bede has achieved the ideal in both
traditions, and so speaks as a realized master.4

Dr. Wayne Robert Teasdale,

Benedictine Priory,
1475 Pine Ave., West,
Montreal, Quebec H3G IB3
Canada.

SWAMI DEVANANDA TO INDIAN EXPRESS5

Early June, 1987

OM

Sir-Wayne Robert Teasdale has registered his holy indignation and

thrown down the Benedictine gauntlet on behalf of Bede Griffiths of
Shantivanam. As realized masters are also known by their works, Swami
Kulandaiswami has legitimately questioned the works of Bede Griffiths and
expressed his opinion, which represents the opinion of a large number of
Hindus and Christians. The Catholic Laity Congress at Bombay circulates
pamphlets denouncing Bede Griffiths for his syncretism and calls for
disciplinary action by the Church. Shantivanam was placed under the
protection of a foreign Benedictine house to escape just such an action and
it remains for Bede Griffiths to explain himself to a concerned public.

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

FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS TO INDIAN EXPRESS9

June 17th 1987

Saccidananda Ashram
Shantivanam,
Tannirpalli - 639 107,
Kulittalai, Tiruchi Dt.,
Tamil Nadu.

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?

In the light of this I would suggest that it is possible to see in sannyasa

the sign of the transcendence of all religious limitations and the opening to
the transcendent Reality, from which all religion springs. To-day we feel
more than ever the need to go beyond the limitations of the different
religions and seek for the source of unity which can unite them in the
service of humanity. This is how we understand sannyasa in our ashram and
why we feel justified in wearing the ochre robe. I may say that in all my
more than thirty years in India I have never before known a Hindu sannyasi
object to this.

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

FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS TO SWAMI DEVANANDA

July 8th 1987

Dear Swami Devananda,

I enclose a copy of a letter to the Indian Express10 which I wrote in reply

to the letter which you sent me. I am thankful that your letter was not
printed, so that my reply was not needed, as I don't think that the Indian
Express is a good platform for such debates.

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

As regards dress, the Ramakrishna monks have no hesitation in adopting

the clerical dress of a Christian clergyman in America and none objects.

Can't we get beyond mutual hostility and work together for peace?

Yours sincerely,
Bede Griffiths

SWAMI DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS

21 July 1987

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.

The Calcutta High Court has recognised sannyas as a Hindu religious

institution; declared the minimum actions, before witnesses, that must be
made before a person is renounced; and defined sannyas a 'civil death'
within the Hindu Code.

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.

The countryside is crawling with Christian missionaries in Hindu

religious garb (there are two in my own village, not counting the
Pentecostals and their loudspeakers,) and legitimate sannyasins are treated
with suspicion and hostility by the public, who rightly, are afraid of being
deceived. We are now obliged to carry identity papers from our acharyas
and maths, an absurd situation (in a Hindu country) that is almost a
contravention of the ideals of sannyas.

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.

The example of the Ramakrishna Mission is also inadmissible, as their

conduct and practices are not the standard Hindu norms are measured
against. They were an anomaly long before they left us.

The Vedanta is not a doctrine (ideology) but a darshana, a point of view,

and only one point of view among many accepted by Hinduism. It has
become the last refuge of the Christian missionary, who sees the possibility
of turning its sublime non-dualism into a monstrous monotheism. We will
never admit this perversion, believe me.

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.

There is no unity of religions on the level of religion, each being a

distinct entity. If you wish to take sannyas, first renounce your priesthood
and obtain a certificate of apostasy from the concerned Church authority.
We can then accommodate you.

By trying to justify your position as it is now, you impugn Hinduism, slur

sannyas, rout reason, ruin meaning, mutilate categories, transpose symbols,
deny sacred convention and usage, profane principles, philosophise, and
generally present an argument that is oxymoronic.

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.

FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS TO SWAMI DEVANANDA

July 23rd 1987

Dear Swami Devananda,

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.

As regards sannyasa, you maintain the strict tradition of sannyasa and I

have every respect for this, but you must know as well as I do that there are
any number of Hindu sannyasis who wear the Kavi dress but have had no
initiation or training and are often little better than beggars. There are also
Hindus who simply take the kavi when they feel the call to sannyasa; there
is one staying in our ashram at present who has done just that. You may be
interested to know that there are two other sannyasis staying with us at
present, who have both spontaneously expressed their appreciation of our
way of life. I have nearly always found that Hindus give me the same
respect as they would give to a Hindu sannyasin and I have often been
deeply touched by it. You yourself mention that there is a sannyasa of the
heart and this surely is the key to the whole subject. It is not the outer garb
or the symbols in which he believes which make the sannyasi but the
renunciation of all desires, that is of all egoism. You may be interested to
know that one of the two founders of our ashram, Swami Abhishiktananda,
wrote a book on sannyasa called The Further Shore, the contents of which
were originally published in the Divine Life of Sivananda Ashram,
Rishikesh. Many Hindus have told me that they consider it the best book on
sannyasa that they have read. In it he makes the point that the attempt to
make Sannyasa part of the Hindu dharma has been frequently questioned. It
is an attempt to institutionalise what is essentially beyond all institution. He
uses the term dharmatita and even turiytita. I think that you would find it
very revealing.

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

P.S. I enclose an extract from Abhishiktananda's diary which expresses

his (and my) point of view:

"My message has nothing to do with any dharma (religion) whatever.

That is the case with every fundamental message. The message of the
Upanishads, as regards its formulation, still depends on its Vedic-
Brahmanic roots, but it is self-luminous - svapraksa; it reveals the depth in
its proper light. It reflects it.
 "Similarly, the Gospel message is no more bound to the Jewish world in
which it was revealed. Its universal value consumes and melts the wax
vessels of the Judaeo-Greek world in which this honey was deposited. It
echoes the very depths of the human heart: the message of love, of mutual
giving, of relationship. The message that mankind's condition is divine. The
Upanishadic message has moulded the Indian mind, and the Gospel
message that of the West, though passing through channels that are further
and further removed from the Source; and with waters more and more
adulterated.

"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."

-From Abhishiktananda's Dairy, 14.12.71

SWANU DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIMTHS

30 July 1987 (C.E)14

OM

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni,

and he is the heavenly Winged Bird.
The sages speak of the One by many names:
they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.

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.

Your own Self,

Swami Devananda.

FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS TO SWAMI DEVANANDA

July 31st 1987

Dear Swami Devananda,

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.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,
Bede Griffiths.

SWANU DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIMTHS

7 August, 1987 (CE)

OM

And that work which is done with a confused mind,

without considering what may follow, or one's own powers,
or the harm done to others, or one's own loss, is work of
darkness

- Bhagvad Gita, 18.25

Sir-Thank you for a last letter, though, I confess, I am very disappointed

with its purple contents. I had hoped that when you took refuge in humbug
jargon. I would at least rate above a superstitious fundamentalist.
Chinmayananda is often dubbed a communalist, and I was looking forward
to some dramatic monotheistic curse like great satan or antichrist.

It remains that you have avoided every specific issue, with

generalisations and specious philosophising; it remains that you exploit our
tolerance, secularism, and hospitality; it remains that you abuse and pervert
our symbols and traditions to your own motivated missionary ends.

One of the uses of symbolism is to convey knowledge directly to the

psyche by bypassing the discursive, analytical mind. When your symbolism
and curious liturgy requires explanation and apology, it immediately fails in
this primary purpose. Your combination of the holy Omkara with the
unholy cross is a true bastardisation, the product of artifice; but then
Christianity itself is the product of artifice, not revelation.

As you are a Christian in religion, wear the cloth of a Christian in

religion (as the Hindu saints you name wore Hindu dress). And if you have
a Hindu spirit, then let me recommend a good Hindu exorcist.

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).

It is a moot question whether wishy-washy, self-seeking liberalism has

done more harm in this unhappy world than fundamentalism. It seems to me
that both have contributed equally to our sad predicament.

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 am not the protector of Sanatana Dharma; Narayana is the only

protector of Dharma. This is an awful truth for you to admit, Bede Griffiths,
and one that neither you nor I will escape.

Your own Self,

Swami Devananda

FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS TO SWAMI DEVANANDA

August 11th 1987

Dear Swami Devananda,

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

SWAMI DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIMTHS

14 August, 1987 (CE)

OM

My dear sir:

I say, what a very clever way for a self-styled brahmavid to tell me to go

to hell!

The quotation applies nisi Dominus, frustra.20

 I have just learned that your brilliant countryman Colin Wilson refers to
Christianity as Crosstianity. What a marvellous insight!

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,

Your own Self,

Swami Devananda.

SWAMI DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS

27 August 87 (CE)

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.

In my considered opinion, you are nothing more than another deceitful

and militant 'Crosstian' missionary, who would stand on the hoary head of
Hinduism at any cost. This being the case, you have no moral authority to
address or advise seekers of Truth.

Narayan ki Jay,
Swami Devananda

FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS TO SWAMI DEVANANDA

August 31st 1987

Dear Swami Devananda,

 Thank you for your letter and the enclosure about Father Monchanin. Of
course, if I held the same view as Father Monchanin, you would be justified
in suspecting me of deception. But you must remember that Father
Monchanin was writing forty years ago and immense changes have taken
place in the Church since then. The Vatican Council introduced a new
understanding of the relation of the Church to other religions and all of us
have been affected by this. Swami Abhishiktananda (Fr. le Saux) in
particular early separated himself from Fr. Monchanin, especially after his
profound experience with Ramana Maharshi at Tiruvanamalai. This
changed his whole outlook and he went on to develop a completely
different way of relating Hinduism and Christianity. His diaries show what
a struggle it was for him to reconcile Christianity with his advaitic
experience but in the end he came to what I consider the most profound
understanding which has been reached by any Christian, and it is his view
that I follow. This is found in his book, The Further Shore, which was the
last he wrote and gives his deepest insight. I will send you a copy of this
and I beg you to read it carefully. If you want to attack me, you must know
what I really believe; otherwise you are just shooting arrows in the dark and
can effect nothing. You must realise also that the view which I hold is not
peculiar to me. It is approved by the authorities of the Church both in India
and in Rome. Many Catholics, of course, will not agree with it, but the
understanding of the relation of the Church to other religions is only slowly
growing and there are many different views in the Church to-day.

With best wishes,

Bede Griffiths

SWAMI DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS

7th September 1987 (CE)

OM

Father Bede Griffiths:

As a public figure seeking public acclaim, you are subject to public

scrutiny and criticism. This is also true because 1) you are an official
representative of a foreign sectarian power that seeks ideological hegemony
in India and because 2) you wilfully meddle with our sacred tradition and
symbols, causing grave offence.

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.

What Christians overlook is that most Hindus don't recognise

Christianity as a religion at all, except as a public courtesy. Hindus do
recognise it as a militant ideology with sanctimonious pretensions. It is the
mother-sister of Communism, itself an heir to Abraham's ideological
patrimony. Its only true home is hell, and its violent export to Europe, Asia,
and the Americas was disastrous to those once-spiritual cultures. This is not
my opinion. The facts are recorded in every history book, and if you don't
like history then read Chaucer. In the Canterbury Tales he says in his own
special way that Roma is the very antithesis of Amor.21

There is no evidence that the vindictive and malevolent nature of

Jehovah, of his prophets, of his people, and of his son's church is divine;
there is no evidence that the worship of a dead and out-dated foreign god
purifies the heart or elevates the mind; and there is no evidence that the
superstitious belief in vicarious salvation makes a person a better person.
But there is overwhelming evidence that the belief-system of Christians
thrives on guilt and despair and panders to the id,22 the most base instincts
in mankind.

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.

You do not need Church sanction to experiment with Hindu traditions

and symbols or to call yourself a sannyasin. You do need - and refuse to
seek - the sanction of traditional Hindu authorities. Hindus do not recognise
Church decrees vis-à-vis acts that affect them and their religious culture.
Your declarations of Church approval is part bluff, part appeal. As we do
not permit you to stand on our head you seem to think we will permit the
Church to stand there instead. This is exactly the message your bastard
symbol of Omkara and cross conveys to us. We utterly reject both the
symbol and the message.

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.

Except as a psychological curiosity, I am no more interested in your

personal beliefs than I am in those held by the political commissar at the
local Russian consulate. Like him, you will argue that my beliefs compel
me to respect your beliefs and thus accept your actions, even if they are
detrimental to my traditions. I am very interested in your actions and how
they affect Hinduism, and I do not accept them. I have said this before and
it is what lies at the heart of my letters. In reply, you manifest that syndrome
the Germans call vorbeireden, translated as 'talking past-the-point'. This is a
tactic to avoid contact with relevant issues. It often involves deceit and/or
self-deceit; but it does not mean that you misunderstand the situation. It is a
verbose device to circumvent truth; and this, I concede sadly, is exactly
what you have done. I really think it is time for some serious introspection.

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.

SWAMI DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS

28 September 1987 (CE)

OM

Father Bede Griffiths:

I have read Abhishiktananda's book carefully and am not bewitched. This

man was a Christian romantic a la Rousseau camouflaged as a Hindu
existentialist. The romantic and the existentialist are forever opposed, both
within the man and within society, for, spiritually, the latter cannot
countenance the sentimental illogicality of the former.
 But, to give Abhishiktananda his due, he did try very hard, and has said
in another place: "Why do people run here and there, trying this religion,
this other religion, or trying to add to or change already existing ones,
trying this master, this other master? Why not keep to the teachings of the
Upanishads and the Rishis?"

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

SWAMI DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS

Vijaya Dasami28 1987 (CE)

OM

Dear Father Bede:

You will appreciate that, as mendicants, we do not have private lives,

and, as religious, our controversial differences must be exposed to public
criticism and review. We are both accountable to the Indian people, who
feed us, and for this reason our correspondence will be published soon. If
you wish to comment on this project or add to your opinion, please do so
now.

Yours faithfully,
Swami Devananda

FR. BEDE GRIFFTTHS TO SWAMI DEVANANDA

October 7th 1987

Dear 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.

I regard the syllable Om and the rite of sannyasa, to whose use by me

you have objected, as having this universal meaning. The syllable Om
signifies not any particular Hindu God or limited form of being but the
Infinite and Eternal, the transcendent Mystery towards which every religion
aspires. In the same way, sannyasa in my understanding signifies the
commitment to the one beyond all name and form, the ultimate Truth,
which is our common destiny. In this way I feel that using these symbols we
are assisting in that movement towards the transcendent unity of religions,
which is the hope of humanity to-day.

Yours sincerely,
Bede Griffiths.
 SWAMI DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS
13 October 1987 (CE)

OM

Dear Father Bede:

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.

As for Vatican II, most unprejudiced scholars acknowledge that the

Church is a congenital liar who has seldom suffered the smallest prickings
of conscience throughout her blood-soaked career. We in India have directly
experienced her repressive policies and evil deeds for centuries. Why
should we now believe that Rome has had a sudden change of Heart? Birth
defects are never cured, not even at Lourdes.29 W.R. Inge, the late Dean of
St. Paul's, has said that there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit has ever
been present at Church councils. This is an astonishing admission for a
leading churchman to make, and it raises issues that go back to the original
Council of Nicea.30

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.

I sometimes wonder if you have even the most superficial knowledge of

Hinduism. Om is intimately associated with all knowledge of Hinduism.
Om is intimately associated with all our Gods and very specifically with
two of them: Devi Saraswati as Vak and Vighneshwar, who is the
personification of the divine syllable.31 When Vighneshwar's body - or ear
- is abstracted it becomes the symbol Om; and again, Vighneshwar and Om
are interchangeable in rituals. Even if the symbol could be divorced from
Hinduism, of which it is the unique identifying mark, is your crucifixion of
it an edifying cultural event? When the pope can arrange fake encounters
with our sadhus for publicity purposes, why can't you go one step further
and consult our dharmacharyas about your experiments when they directly
affect Hinduism?

But my argument is best summed up by Sri Madhava Ashish: "Certain

sorts of half-baked Vedantists abuse the true teaching that good and evil are
transcended in states of being beyond space and time by applying it to the
their daily lives in justification of amoral behaviour. This is to confuse
eternity with time. In eternity, where all is one, there is neither right nor
wrong, neither order nor chaos. In time, where all is multiple, there are both
order and the choas into which order falls. Yet our of chaos we reach up
first to reestablish order in multiplicity and then to partake in the unity
which supports the whole. But before we can attain to direct perception of
the timeless truth we who live in time need a rationally acceptable guide to
behaviour which is based on our perception of the truth and its immutable
values. Because our understanding is limited, such a code of behaviour will
be but an interpretation of the truth. Nevertheless, it must be a genuine
interpretation and not a travesty. Only thus may we again find significance
in human endeavour and dignity in human life."

The distinction between culture and religion is a false distinction, and

when the division is effected the spirit of a people becomes atrophied as we
see in Russia and the West today.

Our correspondence is going to press soon and I will send you copies of
the book when it is available.

Narayan remembered,
Swami Devananda

FR. BEDE GKWFITHS TO SWAMI DEVANANDA

October 16th 1987

Dear Swami Devananda,

Thank you for your letter. Of course, Om can be used in a sectarian

setting, but I am thinking of its essential meaning. It seems to me that you
are defending sectarian Hinduism (of which I know little) while I am
concerned with the universal essence of Hinduism, as found in the Vedas,
the Upanishads, the Gita, and in modern masters like Ramakrishna,
Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi and Mahatma Gandhi. These
have always been my guides.

Of course, Om is by no means confined to Hinduism. It is found in

Buddhism as well. Would you like to write to the Dalai Lama and tell him
to stop the Tibetan people from using their most sacred mantra: Om mani
padma hum?

Yours sincerely,
Fr. Bede

SWAMI DEVANANDA TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS

21 October 1987 (CE)

OM

Dear Father Bede:

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?

Apparently you know as little about Buddhism as you do about

Hinduism, both of which are Sanatana Dharma.32 They have the same roots
and traditions and usages and a mutual spiritual ideal that goes far beyond
their differences. This is not true of the Semitic ideologies, which, by their
own definition, claim to be superior, unique and exclusive. Voltaire warned
of these closed creeds when he wrote: "The man who says to me, 'Believe
as I do or God will damn you,' will presently say to me 'Believe as I do or I
will kill you'."

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.

Perhaps you would like to write to the Shankaracharya of Sharada

Peetham at Sringeri and ask him if you can nail the Omkara to a Roman
cross, don ochre cloth on your own authority and call yourself a sannyasin?

Do let me know what he says.

Narayan remembered.
Swami Devananda

Footnotes:
 
1 Âstika in northern way of writing Sanskrit.

2 Many Hindus took Kulandaiswami to be a Hindu sannyasin. It

turned out that he was a Catholic who had written a whole book in
protest against what he regarded as pollution of Catholicism by the
likes of Bede Griffiths.

3 Transcendental Meditation of Maharshi Mahesh Yogi

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.

9 It was a reply to Swami Devananda's first letter to Indian

Express which was not published. Bede Griffith's reply, too, was not
published by the Indian Express.

10 The forgoing letter dated June 17, 1987

11 The Ramakrishna Mission denies that it represents Hinduism.

See Ramakrishna Mission in Search of a New Identity by Ram
Swarup published by Voice of India, New Delhi, 1986.

12 He could have said "since 1500" when the first Catholic

missionaries arrived in India in the company of Pedro Alvares
Cabral, a Portugues pirate who called himself captain of the second
Portuguese expedition.

13 It would have been more correct to say "on orders from the
Church". The orders can be documented.

14 Common Era. Swami Devananda prefers this abbreviation to

A.D. (anno Domini, in the year of the Lord) which was coined with
reference to die birds of Jesus whom Christians regard as the Only
True God.

15 The woman referred to in Revelation, the last book of the New

Testament. Early Christian theologians took it as a reference to
pagan Rome. But Protestants like Martin Luther interpreted it as a
reference to Papal Rome.

16 It is to be noted that the word "fundamentalist" was very much

in the air as a pejortative term at the time this dialogue took place.
All sorts of self-appointed secularists were bandying it around,
without ever explaining what it meant. A member of the Catholic
Church calling a Hindu sannyasi "fundamentalist" sounds like a
Stalinist naming Mahatma Gandhi as "fascist".

17 The Roman emperor who became a Christian in 313 and made

Christianity the state religion. The force and fraud which the
Christian Church then used for destroying all ancient religions in the
Roman Empire, is recorded history.

18 Malachy O'Morgan (1094-1148) was an Irish priest who

foretold the identities of 112 popes from Celestine II in 1143 to the
present one and beyond. According to his prophecy, the present
pope, john Pause II, is the third before the last pope. Malachy is the
first formally cononised saint of the Catholic Church. Many Roman
Catholics esteem him because his prophecies have been found
accurate. The Church, however, disowns his prophecies.

19 Ostentation, arrogance and self-conceit, anger and also

harshness and ignorance belong to one who is born, O Partha, for a
demoniac state.

20 Latin phrase which means, "Except the Lord [keep the city, the
watchman waketh] but in Vain" (Bible, Psalm cxxvii).

21 "Amor" means "love" in the Latin language but came to

signify the opposite of "Roma" (Rome), the headquarters of the
Catholic Church and the seat of the Pope. "Roma" is "Amor" spelt
backwards, conveying that "Roma" (the Church) is the very
antithesis of "Amor" (Divine Love). The tradition of using the two
terms in opposition started with the Cathars (Albigenses) of South
France who were proclaimed heretics by the Pope and against whom
the bloodiest crusade of medieval times was launched and caried out
in 1209. Chaucer in his Canterbury Tales has a character named Nun
who wears a locket with a Latin inscription which includes the word
"Amor". The great English poet is known for his making fun of the
Church.

22 It is a technical term used in the psychology of Sigmund Freud

for the "sum total of primitive instinctive forces" operating in the
Unconscious and subverting the rational and moral principles in
man.

23 John Paul II, the present Pope.

24 A book by Fr. Bede Griffiths, first published in England in

1966 and reprinted as a paperback in India (Bangalore) in 1986. We
have quoted from it in Chapter 6, and shown what Bede Griffiths
really stands for.

25 This is a wrong impression. Fr. Abhishiktananda was as much

for absorbing Hinduism into the Catholic creed as Fr. Monchanin.

26 An Englishman who became a Vaishnava sadhu and set up an

Ashrama at Mritola near Almora, Uttar Pradesh

27 Ramana Maharshi

28 October 2

29 A place in France where Virgin Mary is supposed to work

miraculous cure of disease.

30 The First of the Christian councils, held in 325 A.D., which

proclaimed the fundamental Christian creed.

31 In a subsequent letter to the author, Swamiji wants this

sentence to read, "who is the traditional personification of the divine
symbol for this Day of Brahma."

32 Christian missionaries in particular and Western scholarship in

general have done great mischief by proclaiming Buddhism,
Sikhism and Jainism as not only separate religions but also as
revolts against Brahmanism which, in its turn, has been termed
reactionary and orthodox Hinduism. There is no ground whatsoever
for this splitting of Sanatana Dharma into "revolutionary" and
"reactionary" creeds.
   
The Third Dialogue
CHAPTER 14
The Third Dialogue

This dialogue developed around a letter which K.V. Ramakrishna Rao

wrote to the Indian Express in protest against Christian missionaries
masquerading as Hindu sannyasins.

INDIAN EXPRESS, 13 FEBRUARY 1989

Crucifying the 'Om'

Sir,-Nowadays, we find several Christian missionaries putting up ashrams

at various places in India donning ochre robes, building temple-like
churches, reciting Sanskrit slokas and practising other Hindu rites in the
guise of 'inculturation' - synthesis of Hinduism and Christianity.

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.

The National Catechetical and Liturgical Centre (NCLC), Bangalore-5,

has published "An order of the Mass for India," which gives the manner in
which the traditional Hindu "pooja vidhanas" like arati, jala suddhi, sthala
suddhi, janalokha suddhi and purna suddhi are to be carried out. Typical
Sanskrit slokas to be recited between the rites are also given.

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.

Fr. Bede Griffiths' counterpart at Sangmner, Ahmedabad, one Fr. Hans

Staffner, has also clearly opened his mind unwittingly in this regard,
"Inculturation in India means that a Hindu is able to become a follower of
Christ without ceasing to be a Hindu both socially and culturally." (P.72,
"Jesus Christ and the Hindu Community: Is a synthesis of Hinduism and
Christianity possible?", Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, Anand).

So their pretension does not hold water anymore.

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.

Would they dare to conduct this type of experiment with Islam by

building mosque-type churches, nailing the crescent on the cross, and
reciting verses from the Quran so as to reach Jehovah through Islam?
Would Fr. Bede Griffiths or Fr. Hans Staffner dare to start an experiment to
synthesize Islam and Christianity?

This is nothing but blatant misuse or abuse of spiritualistic symbolism,

when the christians themselves are ideologically against symbolism, idol-
worship and ritualism. So, unless religious identity and purity are
maintained in a country like India, the spirit of spiritualism cannot be
nurtured.
 K.V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO
10, Venkatachala Iyer'St.,
West Mambalam, Madras - 33

NOT PUBLISHED BY THE INDIAN EXPRESS

9, Dr. Ramaswamy Street,

Vijayalakshmipuram,
Madras - 600053

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.

In India, the activities of the missionaries are not different. Their

unethical tactics are buoyant especially in tribal belts. During 1985,
'Janasatta' exposed Father Joseph Pareekatil of Catholic Church of Parasahi,
Madhya Pradesh. Later he was arrested. The charges include, inter-alia,
destroying of a Hindu-shrine and creating a 31 feet high concrete Cross on
that spot; deceptively disguising as a Hindu Holyman and worshipping in a
Hindu manner.

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.

Finally, it is the fundamental right of every Indian citizen to profess and

propagate any religion. But the constitution does not guarantee any right to
the christian missionaries to use unethical means for conversion of the
illiterate masses. The Government should put a check on these illicit
activities, lest the problem may snowball into a trouble of a great
magnitude.

Yours faithfully,
N. Padmanabhan
N. Srinivasan

INDIAN EXPRESS, 16 FEBRUARY 1989

The Pranava and the Cross

Sir,-The caption, contents and conclusion of Mr. K.V. Ramakrishna Rao's

protest (IE, Feb.13) against some Christians using in their worship Hindu
symbols, language and rituals betrays a perverse misunderstanding alien to
the perennial freshness of living religions.

Mr. Rao's dragging in of Islam in this context is both irrelevant and

recklessly mischievous.

Like Swami Vivekananda, Gandhiji, Ramana Maharshi and the

Paramacharya of Kanchi, earnest Christian leaders like Dom Bede Griffiths
and Swami Abhishiktananda are trying to make all believers in Higher
Power to understand, experience and practise their mother-religions better
and more fruitfully. In this endeavour Christians here try to communicate
the eternal message of Jesus through symbols and modes of worship
familiar to Indians. Why blame them for using the local language?

Why quarrel over differences or exchanges in the material, size or shape

of lamps, or over the forms and functions of instruments in an orchestra?
Why not rejoice in the greater brightness and the richer music? Harmony is
not synthesis.

Why should Christians object to a staunch Hindu meditating on the Holy

Cross as a diagram of the human life divine, holding firmly together our
inherent moksha or freedom, our paraspara Godward growth, and dharama
responsibility, the paraspara obligation to our fellow creatures?

It is too late to attempt converting sanatana into puratana dharma or the

New Testament to the Old.

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

Sir-Mr. Ramakrishna Rao has expressed a genuine apprehension about

the future of Hinduism. But the Pranava "OM" is not the monopoly of any
individual - not even of all the Hindus. It belongs to all mankind.

If "OM" is "Brahman" and "Brahman" is "Om", then nobody can crucify

or destroy "OM" because "Brahman" is indestructible

If there is no efficacy in "Om", then there is no worry as to who does

what to it. The greatness of Hinduism, the Vedas and the Upanishads is their
universality and Catholicity.

V.T. VASUDEVAN
118, G.S.T. Road,
Chengalpattu.

Sir,-Mr. Ramakrishna Rao's objections to Christians inducting orthodox

Hindu symbols and their sacred rites and traditions into Christian worship,
church architecture, Christian literature, lyrics, sermons etc., are quite valid,
and this obnoxious tendency on the part of certain sections of Christians
calls for severe condemnation by the followers of Christ.

Hinduism and Christianity are not comparable and can't be subjected to

the mockery of so-called "synthesis or fusion."

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.

They belong to "Trisanku Swargam" and not to the Biblical paradise!

V.D. SPURGEON
44, Medawakkam Tank Road,
Madras- 10.

NOT PUBLISHED BY THE INDIAN EXPRESS

11, Hanumar Koil Street

West Mambalam
Madras 600033

February 17, 1989

Ends and Means

Dear Sir

This refers to Shri K. Swaminathan's letter on usage of Hindu symbols by

the Missionaries. (IE dt. 16.12.89).

When the Missionaries started preaching Christianity in Africa, they

caused some confusion with their colour scheme of 'White' Jesus and
'Black' Devil. There was a real spurt in conversions when some genius
changed the colour scheme declaring Jesus Black and Devil White.

There is nothing wrong in speaking in the local language, says

Swaminathan. Missionaries also do not bother about the means. So does
Mao - 'Why worry about the colour of the cat, so long as it catches the
mice.'

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.'

It is indeed worthless to talk about the utterings of Mahatma Gandhi on

the importance of ends as well as means.

Yours faithfully,
M.N. Ganesan

Room No. 11
Soukath Mansion,
4 Pillayar Koil st. (II Land),
Triplicane,
Madras - 600 005

18.02.89

Cheating the Illiterate

Dear Sir

This refers to Shri K. Swaminathan's letter (I.E. dt. 16.02.89) on using of

Hindu symbols, especially the Pranava by the Christian Missionaries.

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.

Ritual (Karma) is in fact concretised philosophy. As a common man

could not comprehend the essence of the abstract philosophy, it is indeed
impossible to dispense with the symbolic method of putting things before
us.

Every religion has symbols of its own and it is obvious that certain
symbols are associated with certain ideas in our mind.

According to Swami Vivekananda (Complete Works of Swami

Vivekananda, Volume 1, Page 74), "The association of particular temples,
rituals and other concrete forms with particular religions has a tendency to
bring into the minds of the followers of those religions, the thought for
which those concrete things stand as symbols; and it is not wise to ignore
rituals and symbols altogether. The study and practise of these things form
naturally a part of Karma Yoga."

Therefore it is obvious that a common man can very easily be deceived

by the usage of Hindu symbols and rituals by the Christian Missionary.

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

25, Sarojini Street, T. Nagar,

Madras - 600 017

27.2.99

Highly Outrageous

Sir,

This has reference to K. Swaminathan's letter with the caption "The

Pranava and the Cross" (I.E., Feb. 16), wherein he has written, "Like Swami
Vivekananda, Gandhiji, Ramana Maharshi and Paramacharya of Kanchi,
earnest Christian leaders like Dom Bede Griffiths and Swami
Abhishiktananda are trying to make all believers in Higher Power to
understand, experience and practice their mother-religions better and more
fruitfully."

It is highly outrageous and objectionable to compare the above Hindu

leaders and religious heads with the Christian missionary experimentalists
like Bede Griffiths or Hans Staffner. The writer brings in another Christian
missionary Fr. le Saux, the so-called Abhishiktananda without any
reference. In any case, Swami Vivekananda, Gandhiji, Ramana Maharshi
and Paramacharya of Kanchi never resorted to such experimentation of
"cocktail religion" or "Masala or Kichidi religion" by mixing religious
symbols, donning the dress of Father or Mullah, building church-like or
mosque-like temples, fabricating Bible- or Quran- like Hindu slokas, or
asserting that Rama or Krishna or Shiva is the only God and by accepting
Him alone one can get salvation!

I quote some of the utterances of Fr. Bede Griffiths from his book 'Return
to the Centre' published by Collins, U.K., 1976:

"While Krishna is primarily a legendary character belonging to the world

of myth (with all the deep meaning the word implies), Buddha comes
before us as an historical person" (p.83).

"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).

"What is more, he (Krishna) is morally ambivalent. He is a symbol of the

highest divinity, yet as a man he is shown to be a trickster, a deceiver who
brings disaster on his people and is finally ignominiously slain" (p.76).

"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).

"It is said that Krishna came on earth to enjoy himself" (p.84).

But, what about Christ?

"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.

As Fr. Bede Griffiths in another book, 'Christ in India' (published by

Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore - 560 025) and Han Staffner in his
'Jesus Christ and the Hindu Community', have clearly expressed their views
and methods to make Hindus to accept Christ, to spread Christianity in
India and to hasten for church growth in India, anybody's secular or
universalist interpretation of their mundane activities cannot be accepted.

Yours faithfully
S. Venkatachalam

INDIAN EXPRESS, 1 MARCH 1989

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.

His Eminence Cardinal Rubin (Rome 12,8.1980) of the Sacred

Congregation for Oriental Rites had informed the Hierarchs of the Syro-
Malabar Church that "Not-withstanding the attempt made in various
quarters to offer an accommodated Christian interpretation, it (OM) remains
so strongly qualified in a Hindu sense, is charged with meaning so
unmistakably Hindu, that it simply cannot be used in Christian worship...
OM is an essential, integral part of Hindu worship." Further OM is not one
of the 12 points permitted by the Holy See.

Besides neither the Vatican, nor the Catholic Bishops's Conference of

India, nor the local Archbishop of Bangalore have ever given their approval
for "An Order of the Mass for India".

S. SANTIAGO1

No. 52, 13th Trust Cross St,

Mandavellipakkam,
Madras - 600 028.

Sir,-If the message of Jesus was exclusive, it would be impossible to

borrow a symbol of another "message" without compromising on the
exclusiveness of the former. In our effort to respect and tolerate other faiths,
it is not necessary to aim at homogeneity - that would be syncretistic.

JOSEPH THOMAS
(Asst. Pastor)
St. Andrew's Church,
Egmore, Madras-8.

Sir-The traditional Catholics have been constantly raising their voice

against these methods of 'inculturation' but there has been no response from
the Church. I hope protests from our Hindu brethren will make it realise
that this is a blatant intrusion into the territory of other faiths.
 At the National Biblical Catechetical and Liturgical Centre at Bangalore,
the grills in the prayer hall had figures of Siva, Brahma and Vishnu.
Objections raised by the Catholics were ignored and the images were
ultimately removed only when a Hindu organisation went to court.

A. SELVARAJ CARVALHO
D 113 A, Sangeetha Colony,
Madras - 78

INDIAN EXPRESS, 9 MARCH 1989

Real Inculturation

Sir,-It is no exaggeration to aver that the Roman Catholics in Tamil Nadu

are quite secular in their religious observances, especially during the
performance of marriage in the Church and the community functions that
follow at home. The entire fabric of the socio-religious and cultural
background of a Catholic Tamil is quite akin to that of his Hindu brethren.

This is real inculturation. The worship of our Lady of Health at

Veilankkanni Church is a typical example of inculturation par excellence.

Thus the time-honoured Tamil Catholic socio-religious observances have

profound relevance to the meaning of Articles 37 and 38 of the Constitution
on the Sacred Liturgy enunciated in Vatican Council-II documents. They
are as follows:

Norms for Adapting the Liturgy to the Culture and

Traditions of Peoples:

Article 37: Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to

impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate
the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does
she respect and foster the genius and talents of various
races and peoples. Anything in these people's way of fife
which is not indissolubly bound-up with superstition and
error, she studies with sympathy and if possible, preserves
 intact. Sometimes, in fact, she admits such things into her
liturgy itself so long as they harmonise with its true and
authentic spirit.

Article 38: (In similar strain with a particular stress on

mission-lands of which India also is one)

Any other innovations and aberrations of the neo-modernists like Fr.

Bede Griffiths and the Directorate of National Catechetical and Liturgical
Centre at Bangalore and the Management of Aikya Alayam at Madras do
not have any sanction under the Vatican Council-II documents or from
Rome. If Salman Rushdie, the infamous storywriter could be universally
condemned to death for his "Satanic Verses", why not these abetters of ear-
heresy perceptions in the Roman Catholic faith be atleast excommunicated
by Rome?

FRANCIS S. MORAIS
11, Gengaiamman Koil St.,
Choolaimedu,
Madras - 94

INDIAN EXPRESS, 15 MARCH 1989

Crucifying the Buddha

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.

Zen meditation was inaugurated a year ago by the Vicar General of

Madras-Mylapore Arch-Diocese, while two Buddhist monks from Japan
conducted the ceremony.

Fr. Amasamy S.J. by his adventurism has crucified Buddhism in the

Jesuit Ashram in Madras.

JUDE ANTONY ANANTH

7, Dr. Gopalamenon Street,
Kodambakkam,
Madras - 24

INDIAN EXPRESS, 23 MARCH 1989

'Inculturation'

Sir,-The subject of inculturation in the Catholic Church has come up

several times in these columns recently. As my name has been mentioned
more than once in this connection, perhaps I may be allowed to clarify the
issue.

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.

It is hoped that by sharing in this common cultural tradition the Christian

churches also may be able to enter the mainstream of Indian life, bearing
their own distinctive witness to the truth, and working together with other
religious communities for the good of country as a whole. It is an urgent
need that the different religions of the world should learn to co-operate with
one another and not be a source of division and conflict, as is so often the
case. This seems to be the only way forward for humanity to-day.

BEDE GRIFFITHS
Saccidananda Ashram,
Shanthivanam,
Tannirpalli (Po).
Kulithalai, Tiruchi - 639 107

INDIAN EXPRESS, 27 MARCH 1989

Freedom more than communion

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).

Christian Gospel must incarnate in Indian soil. This spontaneous process

is helped best by the Indian Christian community under the leadership of
Indian bishops and the priests working under the bishops.

Dom Griffiths' observation on Christian churches in India entering the

mainstream of India's life is nothing but an attempt to shift the blame for the
foreignness of the churches in India from foreign missionaries and foreign
missionary societies to the Indian Christian community.

The Catholic Church in India is still dominated by the personnel of

foreign-based missionary societies like the Jesuits, the Salesians, the
Fransiscans and so on, under the pretext of the Church in India being
'young'. It is this that presents the Church in India as the long arm of
western Christianity.

No doubt most of the members of these societies (referred to as

'religious') are now Indians. But as members of foreign-based societies they
claim exemption from the jurisdiction of the bishops in India. The new code
of Canon Law of 1983 has abolished this claim for autonomy technically
called "clerical exemption", for doctrinal reasons. But the societies still
persist in the claim for autonomy and run a parallel church, relying on the
theology that would have done credit to the age of colonisation.

In the discussion on the relation between the Catholic Bishops'

Conference of Religious, India (CRI) in Goa in 1986. Archbishop Casimir,
himself a Jesuit, said that the religious "value independence and freedom
more than communion with bishops".

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".

So long as this sound theology remains suppressed, there is no point in

talking of inculturation.

R. RUBIN
12, Third Main Road,
Seethamma Colony,
Alwarpet, Madras - 18.

INDIAN EXPRESS, 28 MARCH 1989

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?

Then what about Cardinal Rubin's say on OM (Rome 12-8-80)?

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".

Do they think Hindus are not capable of recognising, preserving and

promoting their spiritual and moral values?

It is enlightening to read Bede Griffiths' books, Return to the Centre and

Christ in India. In the former, he glorifies Christ against Hindu Gods, Siva
and Krishna, treating them in bad taste, on par with E.V.R. In the latter like
Hans Staffner, he expresses his views and outlines methods to make Hindus
accept Christ, to spread Christianity in India and to hasten Church growth.

If believers of Gods abuse Gods, seekers of Gods destroy Gods, faithful

followers of one religion question the faith of others and, against all moral
and ethical codes and universal principles, conduct pseudo-spiritual and
psychological-religious warfare against one religion, then these activities
are not "inculturation" but "outculturation", as religion and culture are
inseparable for Hindus.

Theocentric and theocratic eclectics are as dangerous as nuclear

warheads. The concept "My God is your God, but your God is no God",
does not foster understanding and cooperation. The concept should be
changed to "Your God is my God and my God is your God" and accepted
by people of all religions.

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

Sir,-With reference to Fr. Bede Griffiths' letter "Inculturation", the

attention of interested readers is directed to the book Catholic Ashrams:
Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma, published by Voice of India, 2/18
Ansari Road, New Delhi- 110002 (Rs. 40), which contains a comprehensive
over-view of the Church's inculturation (indigenisation) programme in India
and a lively debate on the issue between myself and Fr. Bede Griffiths.

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."

Inculturation is the means by which the Church seeks to correct this

"momentous blunder" in India. If this is not true and conversion of Hindus
to Christianity is not the objective of inculturation, why aren't recognised
and qualified Hindu Dharmacharyas consulted by Church authorities before
they permit their missionaries to embark on reckless religious and cultural
adventures.

It is very doubtful if the ochre-clad priests who employ a bastardized

Om-and-Cross symbol in their missionary work, as do Fr. Bede Griffiths
and his comrades throughout the country, have ever considered that God
Ganesh is known to every Hindu as Pranavaswarup - and all the sophistry in
Rome and Bangalore cannot explain away this fact.

SWAMI DEVANANDA SARASWATI

RCC (Avadi) Post
Madras - 109

NOT PUBLISHED BY THE INDIAN EXPRESS

25 Sarojini St.,
T.- Nagar,
Madras-600 017

28.3.89

Provocation

Sir-This has reference to Swami Devananda Saraswat's letter with the

caption "Pollution of Hinduism" (I.E., March 20)

He is correct in saying that the object of inculturation is to convert

Hindus to Christianity.

A simple reading of Fr. Bede Griffiths's books such as "Return to the

Centre" published by Collins (UK, 1976) and "Christ in India" (published
by Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore) will reveal that inculturation is
another method to make Hindus, particularly illiterate Hindus, to accept
Christianity.

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

INDIAN EXPRESS, 1 APRIL 1989

For human unity

 Sir,-In the letters 'Pollution of Hinduism' (I.E., March 28), Mr. K.V.
Ramakrishna Rao and Swami Devananda have condemned what many of us
welcome as well-meant steps in the world-wide, Gandhian movement for
human unity in spirit and truth through (not inspite of) our great religions.

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.

Nothing is lost and something by way of harmony is gained, when

Christians use Sanskrit, Tamil, the syllable Om and the rites of doopa and
deepa.

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

NOT PUBLISHED BY THE INDIAN EXPRESS

RCC (Avadi) Post

Madras - 600 109

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:

1 The full text of Cardinal Rubin's letter, quoted by Mr. S.

Santiago, is as follows: Report on the State of Liturgical Reform in
the Syro-Malabar Church by the Sacred Congregation for the
Oriental Churches. (Text sent to all Hierarchs of the Syro-Malabar
Church. 12.8.80)

Section 3: Observations on certain points of the 'Indian Mass' and

the 'Indianized Mass (Dharmaram CMI group)' and related
questions.

  The 'Om' according to what innumerable Passages of the

Upanishads continually and repeatedly affirm, is the synthesis of ill
the Vedas-, and of all the 'gnosis' of Hinduism. Notwithstanding the
attempt made in various quarters to offer an accommodated
Christian interpretation, it remains so strong - qualified in a Hindu
sense, is charged with meanings so unmistakably Hindu, that it
simply cannot be used in Christian worship. 'Om' is not a revealed
name of God. Besides, if even the Old Testament tetragramme itself
can no longer be used, how can this syllable, so charged with special
meanings, and charged with ambiguity, be used to invoke God?
Moreover, 'Om' is an essential, integral part of Hindu worship.
   
Bede Griffiths Drops the Mask
CHAPTER 15
Bede Griffiths Drops the Mask

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.

How negative, hostile, and aggressive the missionary mind remains

towards Hindu society and culture, was revealed by a dialogue which
developed between Ram Swarup and Fr. Bede Griffiths in 1990 in the wake
of a review-article which the former had sent to the latter. We are
reproducing the dialogue.

FROM FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS TO RAM SWARUIP

February 17th 1990

Dear Mr. Ram Swarup,

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.

FROM RAM SWARUP TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITH

31.3.1990

Dear Rev. 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.

Sometime in the early sixties, I also chanced to see the proceedings of a

Seminar held at Almora by Christians, most of them connected with
"Ashrams" and "Niketans". Most participants began by pretending that they
saw something good in Hinduism, but as they proceeded, they could not
sustain their thesis for long. At about the same time, I also saw a book by
Fr. F. Monchanin, the founder of Saccidananda Ashram, Shantivanam - the
institution over which your preside now. I would hot hide it from you - I
found him most disappointing.
 It was my first contact with "liberal" Christianity, and I thought it was the
old missionary "war with other means". After twelve years or so, I wrote an
article on "liberal" Christianity.2 I am sending a copy of this article, though
your might have already seen it. I find that it also mentions you briefly.

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.

Let us admit that Christianity is throwing up some thinkers of a different

kind who however do not belong to the mainstream. But the spirit of the age
is on their side, and they will increasingly do well. Meanwhile, we must not
neglect mainstream Christianity, the Christianity of missionaries and hot
gospellers. In this connection, I may send you an article (a review-article in
The Statesman, March 25)3 which shows how massive is missionary
Christianity and how it is still the order of the day. What the leaders of
organised Christianity need most is not phoney dialogues but a good deal of
self-reflection. I have with me twenty volumes of what may be called
"Christian Witness" brochures issued by the Lausanne Committee For
World Evangelization. They talk of studying other religions and cultures,
but these are like the studies which War-Offices make of their enemies.
They talk of "dialogues" but they are determined that their victims should
reach the same conclusions as they do. Their means are flexible, but their
aim is fixed. The situation and the truth of the matter demands that eve
look, not on their arguments but on their mind.

I thank you again for your letter. I believe your influence would be for the
good among your colleagues and friends.

With kind regards and best wishes.

Yours sincerely,
Ram Swarup
 Enclosures:

1. A brochure "Liberal" Christianity

2. The Great Command (article in The Statesman March 25, 1990)

FROM FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS TO RAM SWARUP

April 6th 1990

Dear Mr. Ram Swarup,

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.

Another institution is the practice of sorcery and magic. I have been

amused to find how many families in Madras are victims of black magic
perpetrated by people hostile to them. Above all, of course, there is the
problem of untouchability. Surely one of the greatest crimes in the history
of religion. These things should be known and faced by those who defend
Hinduism just as Christians have to face the dark side of their religion.

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

FROM RAM SWARUP TO FR. BEDE GRIFFITHS

24.4.1990

Dear Rev. 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 had in your hands three things by me besides my letter: 1) my

brochure on "liberal" Christianity; 2) and 3) my review-articles on The
Myth of Christian Uniqueness and Seven Hundred Plans to Evangelise the
World. All these discussed missionary Christianity, its theology, its
apparatus and plans. In your letter you say not a word about the subject and
simply assert that the pieces are an "attack on Christianity"; and you ask me
if the aim of my writing them is "simply to foment communal strife
between Christians and Hindus" if indeed I do not have yet a still "deeper
purpose." It is most unfair, to say the least; perhaps, you did not mean it, but
you used the language of blackmail and even threat to which Hindus are
often subjected when they show any signs of stir. As a missionary, probably
you think that the missionary apparatus is innocent and indeed we should be
thankful to it for the spiritual aid it offers. But many do not think so. Why
do you put on hurt looks if they do not take this apparatus at its Christian
face value and look at it in the light of historical evidence and their own
experience?

Your further say that if I "want to attack Christianity," I shall "have to

make a far deeper study of it than (I) have yet done," and will "have to
recognize the profound wisdom and goodness found in it." Please let me
make it clear that I have no set intention of attacking Christianity, and that
when I study a subject, it is not with the idea of attacking it. I study a
subject in the first instance mainly to understand it, though later on, I may
find that it has certain obnoxious aspects which need to be attacked. There
was a time when I studied communism in that spirit and found it had many
revolting aspects. I wrote and spoke extensively against them, much against
the intellectual fashion and dominant politics of the day. Today, events have
vindicated me and I am thankful to God that I was able to make a
contribution to an important debate.

But I must admit that to a scholar like you, my studies of Christianity

must appear to be inadequate, particularly when they have not led me to
your conclusions. But I must beg you to take into consideration scores of
others of impeccable Christian scholarship, whose scholarship was at least
as good as your own, who however failed to find that "profound wisdom
and goodness" claimed by you in Christianity. On the contrary, they found
in it arrogance, exclusive claims, contentious spirit, superstitions, lack of
charity. Other scholars found that whatever was good and true in
Christianity was found in other cultures and traditions as well but whatever
it claimed to be special and unique to it - like virgin birth, resurrection, sole
Sonship - was just make-believe and not of much worth. The more they
studied it, the less they thought of it, particularly of its uniqueness and
speciality.

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.

Not surprisingly you suggest that Voice of India, in order to "get a

balanced view" of Hinduism, should study "human sacrifice and temple
prostitution from the earliest times to the present day," and the "practice of
sorcery and magic" and the problem of untouchability. You offer your own
testimony and say that you yourself were "in touch with the police who
were investigating a case of human sacrifice in a temple some years ago in
Bangalore," and that "some years ago a sadhu told you that he had a child
by a temple prostitute".

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.

2 See the article in Appendix 2 to this chapter.

 3 See the article, 'The Great Command and Cosmic Auditing', in
Appendix 3 to this chapter.

   
Different Paths Meeting in God
APPENDIX 1
Different Paths Meeting in God

This is an anthology1 of 12 articles contributed by distinguished

theologians Catholic and Protestant, all belonging to prestigious divinity
schools and universities. Some authors speak more philosophically, others
more sociologically, but the book has a kind of unity which comes from a
shared outlook. The authors also met at the Claremont Graduate school,
California, where their first drafts were subjected to mutual criticism, thus
ensuring further unity in the final product.

The authors represent a minority view among Christian theologians,

probably the future view too. They are rendering a great service to
Christianity by trying to improve its ideological quality - they are trying to
make it think more charitably of its neighbours' religions, a quality which it
has traditionally lacked.

We in India used to a liberal religious outlook can scarcely realize the

boldness and difficulty of their venture. To us, the views they represent are
normal, but to their fellow-theologians in the Christian world, their views
are abnormal. Hindus tend to regard different religions as different paths
which eventually meet in God, but Christianity has looked upon this
plurality as wicked and as the handiwork of the devil. From its beginning,
Christianity has believed that it is the sole guardian of truth and salvation
and all outside of the Church are mere, "massa damnata, an abandoned
heap, excluded from salvation", as Fulgentius Ruspe, disciple of St.
Augustine, put it.

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.

But under a continuous pressure silently exerted by Hinduism-Buddhism,

even this approach is found to be unsustainable. Therefore, a new theology
is coming up which not only recognizes a plurality of religions, but also
accords them some sort of a rough and ready parity. Other religions are co-
valid. The authors of this anthology are spokesmen of this view. They are
doing pioneering work.

No wonder mainline theologians resist this view, which puts them in a

great dilemma. As Hans Kung puts it, "If all religions contain truth, why
should Christianity in particular be the truth?… the fate of Christianity itself
is in question." But not deterred by this difficulty, the new theologians of
pluralism and parity keep pressing on with their views.

Langdon Gilkey, Professor at the Divinity School of the University of

Chicago, argues that "the sole efficacy had even superiority of Christianity
are claims we can no longer make, or can make only with great
discomfort". John Hick of the Claremont Graduate School, California, one
of the editors of this anthology, makes an outstanding contribution. He
rejects Christian "absolutism": he shows how Christianity and imperialism
have been inseparable; he quotes the British historian, James Morris, who
says that "every aspect of (British) Empire was an aspect of Christ".

Rosemary Ruether, Professor at Garrett Evangelical Seminary, holds that

the traditional understanding of Christianity as the bearer of the only or
highest revelation has led to "an outrageous and absurd religious
chauvinism". She finds it astonishing that "even Christian liberals and
radicals fail to seriously question this assumption".

Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, Dean at Wesley Theological Seminary,

Washington, tells us of the "invidious effects that follow when one mode of
humanity is made normative for others". Writing as a feminist, she says that
Christianity's practice of absolutizing one religion, such that becomes
normative for others," has its parallel in its "sexism, whereby one gender is
established as the norm of human existence".

She thinks that much of current Christian liberalism is phoney. She

discusses the celebrated Hans Kung counted among liberal theologians, and
points out how he establishes false comparisons: according to her the
"fearsome, grimacing gods of Bali" - this is how Kung describes them -
may be no worse than "some bloody depictions of a crucified Christ".
Similarly, one is not very sure if the devadasi system of the Hindus
described as "temple prostitution" by many missionaries is very different
from Kung's "Christian consecration of virgins".

Tom F. Driver, Professor of Theology and Culture at the Union

Theological Seminary, New York, observes that from an early date
Christianity's "attitude to other religions has been shaped by the colonial
mentality"; that when "local religions could not be brought under the
Christian banner…. these religions were eradicated not infrequently by the
burning of books destruction of symbols and the torture and slaughter of
infidels".

W.C. Smith is Professor Emeritus of the Comparative History of

Religions at the Harvard University. Older generation in India will
remember him as a teacher in pre-Partition days at Forman Christian
College, Lahore, and author of an excellent book, Modern Islam in India.
He says that he has given up for good the word, idolatry, a Christian's fond
name for Hinduism. Several decades have passed since he used the word
last, for he now believes that no one has ever worshipped an idol though
"some have worshipped God in the from of an idol". He says that he came
to this realization when he read in the Yogavasishtha: "Thou art Formless.
The only from is our knowledge of Thee." He now believes that a Christian
"doctrine" too is no more than a "statue" and that for Christians to think that
"Christianity is true, or final or salvafic is a from of idolatry". He adds that
Christianity has been our idol. In the same vein, Tom Diver says that there
is "such a thing as an idolatrous devotion to God and that Christianity has a
lot of "Christodolatry".
 Raimundo Panikkar, Professor Emeritus of the University of California,
another contributor, is well known in India. Heir to two religious traditions,
he was born and brought up in Spain as a Catholic, became an ordained
priest and a celebrated Christian theologian (Martin Heidegger dedicated to
him a poem of his, perhaps his very last). But as he grew up, he also
claimed his patrimony from his father's side and became and interpreter of
Hindu thought to his fellow-theologians in their arcane language. In 1964,
he wrote a book, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. But it will not disagree
with his new thought if he now wrote a book, The Unknown Krishna of
Christianity. He has successfully crossed the theological Rubicon.

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".

Paul Knitter, Professor of Theology at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio,

writes as a liberation theologian. According to him, the essence of
Christianity is "doing the work of resolving hunger, injustice, and war -
work that God through Christ called people to do". So we are back to the
same old story and dramatic personae: a mandate communicated to the
people at large through a favoured medium. In this format too, Jesus
remains the first or e even the sole fiddle and messianism retains its full
play. The only difference is that religious messianism is replaced by a
secular one which is no less arrogant and no better as communism has
proved. But the old power-adepts know that secular-radical slogans sell
better these days; therefore, they are up-dating their packaging legends and
marketing strategy.

If the medium is also the message in some way, we have to be wary on

that account. We know how liberation theology operates in India; its work
is full of mischief. We have to remember that it has been floated by the
same old Imperialist set-up.

At a recent International Conference of Mission Work in Rome, Cardinal

Josef Tomko criticized theologians like Knitter for being more occupied
with "social work" and "inter-religious dialogue" than with announcing the
Gospel. The answer to this criticism by one truly pluralist was obvious: that
announcing the Gospel was redundant, that it was even arrogant, that other
people do not need a Christian Gospel and probably many of them have a
Gospel of their own as good as the Bible.

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.

A true pluralist would demand that Christianity liquidates its missionary

apparatus. What does it matter what theory is propounded so long as this
apparatus is intact.

The poor of the earth, the Third World countries have no chance against
it whether it stays religious or goes secular.

We cannot mention here all the contributors of the anthology but it is

thanks to their pioneering work and of others like them that a pluralist
theology is already in sight. But a fundamental question has yet to be asked:
How could Christianity live without pluralism for the last 2,000 years and
do with so much hate for other ways and other fraternities? Is it an
accidental lapse or does it arise from a serious defect in its fundamental
spiritual vision, from an inadequate view of man and deity? Has it to do
with its Semitic origin? Or, even, is it at all the spirituality of the meaning
in which the word is understood by Hinduism-Buddhism, Taoism, or
Stoicism?

Footnotes:

1 The Myth of Christian Unqueness: Towards a Pluralistic

Theology of Religions. Edited by John I-Eck and Paul F. Knitter
 
(Orbis Books $ 17.95.) reviewed by Ram Swarup in The Statesman,
Sunday Edition, January 14, 1990.
   
"Liberal" Christianity
APPENDIX 2
"Liberal" Christianity1

Whether Christianity improves the general morals of its followers is

doubtful, but it is certain that it does not widen their intellectual sympathies
and does not open their hearts to the larger spiritual wealth of different
peoples and cultures. This is also true of Islam, another revealed religion,
but in the present discussion we shall restrict ourselves to Christianity
alone.

From its early days, Christianity has claimed a monopoly of things

divine. It has held that there is no salvation outside of the Church. But the
world has considerably changed during the last two hundred years. A wave
of rationalism and humanism has reached the shores of Europe. This has
made Christian theology with its exclusive claims look pretentious. This has
also fostered a new spirit of liberalism and universalism and also a new
awareness of a wider human family, including within itself members who
are neither European nor Christian and yet are rich in the things of the
spirit.

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.

So under the changed conditions there is a new theology under

construction. This does not regard other religions as the handiwork of the
Devil. On the contrary, it says that there is a natural religious impulse which
has been at work throughout history and throughout the world giving birth
to natural religions having their own validity. But, it further adds, that this
impulse, so necessary at a particular stage, finds its culmination and
fulfilment in the revealed religion of Christianity. Other religions are
preparatory to Christianity.

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.

So some theologians, liberal and ingenious, have been at work trying to

find a solution. One of them was the late Cardinal Jean Danielou. In his
Holy Pagans of the Old Testament, he observes that even the Bible
mentions saints who are not Biblical. Abel, Seth, Henoch, Daniel, Noe, Job,
Melchisedec, Lot, the Queen of Sheba are examples of non-Christian and
even non-Biblical saints mentioned in the Bible. Abel was anterior to
Abraham; and so were Henoch and Noe. Lot was a relative of Abraham but
was not a party to the God's Covenant. Daniel was a Phoenician and Job an
Edomite; the Queen of Sheba was a non-Jewish princess.

All these examples show that some sort of saintliness or holiness is

possible outside the Christian fold though, according to the Cardinal, that
holiness by its very nature "must always be inferior to Christian holiness."
But "nonetheless, the fact remains that holiness of that sort is possible."

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."

This three-level development is evident in all spheres and aspects

touching on religious life. For example, there is a three-level development
in the mode of worship. On the lowest level, the pagan level, there is a
cosmic temple. The house of God is the whole Cosmos, heaven His tent,
and the earth His footstool. In the Old Testament, this primitive atmosphere
still lingers. Abraham has that parrhesia with God - that freedom of speech
which in ancient Greece was the right of free citizens.

This gave way to the Temple of Moses. The establishment of the

Tabernacle, whose ultimate form is the Temple, is the fundamental mission
entrusted by God to Moses. The Covenant was Abraham's mission, the
Temple that of Moses. Up-till then, God was everywhere but from the time
of Moses till the death of Christ, when a still higher stage begins, the
Temple is the dwelling in which the glory of Yahweh abides. Up to the time
of Moses, sacrifices could be offered to God anywhere. But after that only
those sacrifices were pleasing to God that were offered in the Tabernacle.
"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall
possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and
under every green tree." (Bible, Deuteronomy 12.2)

In a divine plan, we are assured by Cardinal Danielou, this was a

necessary stage, for the great danger was polytheism; the singleness of the
sanctuary was, as it were, the sign of the Oneness of God.

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."

F. H. Hilard in his Man in Eastern Religions finds that to the question

what is man, the Christian answer is the best. According to Christians "man
is to be understood as primarily a person and not a mere manifestation." In
this view man is "an individual," while the others, "Hinduism, Buddhism
and Taoism, agree in thinking of man primarily as an aspect of ultimate
Reality."

Nicolas Berdyaev, in his Spirit and Reality (Publishers: Geoffery Bles,

Centenary Press, London, 1939) says: "Theosis makes man Divine, while at
the same time preserving his human nature. Thus instead of human
personality being annihilated, it is made in the image of God and the Divine
Trinity. The mystery of the personality is intimately related to that of
freedom and love. Love and charity can flourish only if there are personal
relationships. Monistic identity excludes love as well as freedom. Man is
not identical with the cosmos and with God; man is a microcosm and a
microtheosis."

Again, he says: "in Hindu and Platonic mysticism everything is

diametrically opposed to the dialogical and dramatic relationship between
man and God, between one personality and another. Spirituality is
interpreted as being opposed to personality and, therefore, as independent
of love, human freedom and a relation between the plural and the one. The
mystical way is that of Gnosis rather than that of Eros." According to him,
Hindu spirituality "is an austere and unloving mysticism. The absence of
love is explained by the fact that this mysticism is unconscious of
personality; it is concerned with abdicating rather than preserving the
personality."

Evelyn Underhill, the well-known author of Mysticism (Publishers:

Methuen & Co., Ltd., London, Reprint 1952), too seems to share this
scheme. She says: "In Christianity, the natural mysticism which like natural
religion is latent in humanity, and at a certain point of development breaks
out in every race, came to itself; and attributing for the first time true and
distinct personality to its object, brought into focus the confused and
unconditioned God which Neo-Platonism had constructed from the abstract
concepts of philosophy blended with the intuitions of Indian ecstatics, and
made the basis of its meditations on the Real."

She repeats similar sentiments at another place. After making the

statement that a mystic is "willing to use the map of the community in
which he finds himself," which means that mystical experience is
compatible with different theologies about it, she continues to add that "we
are bound to allow as a historical fact that mysticism, so far, has found its
best map in Christianity," and that "the Christian atmosphere is the one in
which the individual mystic has most often been able to develop his genius
in a sane and fruitful way."

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.

Another eminent name which has to be mentioned in this connection is

that of the late Fr. J. Monchanin. He was attached to India and settled in
Tiruchirapalli. He built for himself a retreat to which he gave the name
Sacchidananda Ashram. He himself assumed the name Swami Param Arubi
Anandam and put on the dress of an Indian Sanyasin. From these facts one
should not assume that he became a Hindu monk. He understood his own
mission differently. As the editors of his papers said when he died in 1957,
his "mission here was not so much to become fully an Indian or to realize in
himself the final synthesis of West and East as to bring to India in a pure
form, yet with a remarkable sympathy and understanding, the riches of a
Christian soul." He himself defines his mission in these terms: "I have come
to India for no other purpose than to awaken in a few souls the desire (the
passion) to raise up a Christian India. I think the problem is of the same
magnitude as the Christianization, in former times, of Greece (the
Hellenization of Christendom modelled on the forms of Greek sensibility,
thought and spiritual experience). It will take centuries, sacrificed lives, and
we shall perhaps die before seeing any realizations. A Christian India,
completely Indian and completely Christian will be something so
wonderful; to prepare it from afar, the sacrifice of our lives is not too much
to ask."

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:

"India has received from the Almighty an uncommon gift, an

unquenchable thirst for whatever is spiritual. From the Vedic and
Upanishadic times, a countless host of her sons have been great seekers of
God. Centuries after centuries there arose seers and poets, singing the joys
and sorrows of a soul in quest of the One, philosophers reminding every
man of the supremacy of contemplation: upward and inward movements
through knowledge to the ultimate.

"Communion with Him and liberation from whatever hinders that

realization, was for them the unique goal.

"Hundreds and thousands of men and women have consecrated

themselves entirely to that end… We may rightly think that such a
marvellous seed was not planted in vain by God in the Indian soul.
Unfortunately, Indian wisdom is tainted with erroneous tendencies and
looks as if it has not yet found its own equilibrium. So was Greek wisdom
before Greece humbly received the Paschal message of the Risen Christ.
Man, outside the unique revelation and the unique Church, is always and
everywhere unable to sift truth from falsehood, good from evil.

"But once Christianized, Greece rejected her ancestral errors; so also,

confident in the indefectible guidance of the Church, we hope that India,
once baptized to the fullness of her body and soul, will reject her pantheistic
tendencies and, discovering in the splendours of the Holy Ghost the true
mysticism.

"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.

On another occasion, he says:

"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."

He hopes that "India cannot be alien to this process of assimilation by

Christianity and transformation into it." But "should India fail in that task,
we cannot understand, humanly speaking, how the mystical body of Christ
could reach its quantitative and qualitative fullness in His eschatological
Advent."

IV

The discussion will gain in fullness if we referred to two colloquies

organized by Christian theologians of this approach. These were held at the
invitation of Dr. Cuttat who attended them both personally. The first one
was held at Almora in April, 1961; the second one at Rajpura, Dehradun, in
the same month, next year. A general and sympathetic account of the
second one is given by Bede Griffiths in his Christ in India: Essays
Towards a Hindu-Christian Dialogue (Publishers: Charles Scribner's Sons,
New York). We ourselves shall discuss here only the first colloquy at
Almora. It was attended by individuals connected with various Christian
institutions, Catholic and Protestant, like Asirvanam, Kenkeri; Snehasadan,
Poona; Santi Bhavan, Calcutta; Vrindavan, Kottagiri; Jyotiniketan, Kareli.
One Hindu, Shri Viveka Dutta, was also present at the discussion for the
first few sessions. The summary of the papers and discussion was prepared
by Fr. J. Britto C.M.I., of Dharmarain College, Bangalore, himself one of
the participants. The summary is titled Indian Interiority and Christian
Theology.

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."

But their procedure is not to be to denounce Hinduism forthright; on the

other hand, 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."

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."

Similarly, after discussing the Hindu concept of history, the colloquy

finds that the positive values found "in the Indian view of history have their
full meaning and natural setting in the Christian concept of history."

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."

The Hindu concept of Avatarhood is discussed. It is found inferior to the

Christian one. "Christ's incarnation is a unique fact, and not repeated in
every age... He is true Godhead in true humanity."

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 it is different with Christian symbolism. For example, "the Eucharist

marks the culmination of human symbolism. In it the food of man is turned
into the body and blood of God. There man's attempt to trans-substantiate
the material world into the divine is wonderfully realized - the Eucharist
may be taken as a summary and completion of all human endeavour to
grasp the divine Reality in human symbols. Hence it should form the
converging point of all religious cult."
 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 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."

Discussing jnânamârga, the colloquy finds that the Hindu doctrine of

Advaita is irreconcilable with the Christian doctrine of Trinity, but even that
could become a step to the understanding of the doctrine of the three
Persons in One. How? First, by opposing polytheism. Second, by its strong
metaphysical bias for unity: "Only against the background of the unique
and absolute of God can the doctrine of the Trinity and the immortal
personality of man be properly understood. God in his providence insisted
on the strictest monotheism, and uncompromisingly exterminated all
tendency to polytheism, in the chosen people in the Old Testament, before
revealing against the background of the monotheism the Trinity of Persons
in that one God, in the New Testament. Hence Advaita with its strong
metaphysical basis can be a proper preparatio evangelica for an
understanding of the Christian message."

Once it is admitted that Christianity is the uniquely true religion, the

summit towards which all religions are advancing, the liberal theologians
will not mind conceding certain subordinate spiritual qualities and attributes
and values to Hinduism. In this expansive mood, they generously admit that
some European Christians "have felt the wealth of India's religious past."
The deep inferiority which India has inculcated has even "led some of them
to deepen their-own Christian inferiority." Some of them have been "struck
by the vision of the spirit of poverty preached by Christ (but) so fully and
cheerfully practised by millions in India." The religious outlook in which
everything of every event is looked upon as a work of God, a manifestation
of the divine, has impressed many. Many have noted with admiration "the
so to say national aptitude for deep prayer and the contemplation of divine
things which Indians manifest."
 When the Pope came to India in 1964, he "praised" India's deep
spirituality. But it is in the fight of the above approach that this praise
should be understood. It was not anything spontaneous or genuine. It was
diplomatic and deceptive. In fact, it amounted to cheating, if cheating
includes a double-tongued approach, half-truths spoken and full aim
unstated. The Pope's "praise" concealed more than it revealed. It meant to
say: Hinduism is very good. It is a useful preparation for Christianity. The
Pope praised Hinduism for its secondaries, hiding a condemnation of its
primaries.

His deputy in India, Cardinal Gracias, could afford to be more candid in

putting forth the unstated aim. He bemoaned: "It is a matter of grave
concern for us that hardly three percent of the local population in India
could so far be drawn to receive the Grace of Christ over the last several
centuries." The strategy may change but the aim remains fixed. It may be a
soft-spoken approach now, but the goal is unaltered. Liberal Christianity is
like Euro-Communism; the tactics and the slogans have changed but the
mind remains the same.

In the past, in the heyday of British imperialism, fanatic Christians like

Carey and Wilberforce were telling their people something like this: "The
natives live in the sin and superstition and darkness of paganism. Surely
God has not granted us their charge for nothing. He wants us to bring them
to the light of the Gospel, to convert them to Christianity." But it seems the
rulers were less convinced about the benefits of Christianity to the natives.
But in a Christian country, they could not express this feeling or belief too
openly. So they took to a more equivocal course. They pretended to agree
with the crusaders but counter-argued thus: "You are very correct in your
judgement of the natives. But precisely because they are superstitious, we
must go slow with them and their religious beliefs; if we touch their
religion, it would become a law and order problem and we may lose the
Empire itself." This attitude of the British rulers saved India from the worst
ravages of Christian missionaries.

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.)

Christianity has two pillars: a narrow piety and a word-juggling theology.

What is true in it is also found in other religions which it supplanted in the
past and which it continues to do in the present as well; what it claims to be
unique to it is merely intellectual bluff.

Christian theology, as it has developed, is not a product of a tranquil and

purified heart; rather, it derives from a mind prejudiced, self-centered and
self-righteous, a mind contentious and cantankerous, out to prove the other
fellow in the wrong. It is an artificial mental construct with very little
spirituality in it. Above all, like Islam, it is inwoven with bigotry and
fanaticism and lacks charity, understanding and the deeper vision of the
spirit.

Footnotes:

1 First published in a New Delhi quarterly, Manthan, Volume 4.

No. 3 (May 1982), and subsequently reprinted as a chapter in
 
Hinduism vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam, Voice of India, New
Delhi, 1982,1984, and 1992.

   
The Great Command and a Cosmic
Auditing
APPENDIX 3
The Great Command and a Cosmic Auditing1

The volume surveys 788 most important evangelizing Plans produced by

Christianity during its career of over 19 hundred years. All these Plans
relate to the Great Commission - the command that Jehovah gave through
the mouth of His only Begotten Son, Jesus, to the believers to "go and make
disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28.19, 20). If there was also a command to
improve their morals, it was neglected, but the one to preach and recruit
more followers for their God was rather taken in earnest. They promised
Him to make "all the peoples of the earth know Him and fear Him" (2 Chr.
6.33).

The Survey is a statistical marvel, a worthy sequel to the World Christian

Encyclopaedia (reviewed by us in The Times of India, July 14, 1985), by
David Barrett, an outstanding statistician-evangelist and senior author of
this volume under review. Quite in the spirit of the book, the two authors
are introduced statistically as Missionaries who "have been involved in
some 36 (10%) of all the 358 global plans between 1953 and 1988."

The book is divided into 4 parts and 28 chapters; it includes 10

Appendices, 27 Tables and Diagrams and a Bibliography, a selection of
original and significant writings, classics, and other benchmark items on the
subject of world evangelization.

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.

In earlier centuries most global plans came from countries bordering on

the Mediterranean. Then the shift took place to Europe, Russia and North
America. Since AD 1900, the US alone has provided 247 global plans.

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.

Such reasons suggest as if these plans depended for their success on

Christians being better than they were. But this is pure assumption. In fact,
the reasons cited for their failure are often also reasons for their success.
There could easily be a chapter on "X-number of reasons for successful Y-
number of plans," and these would have rightly included imperialism,
terrorism, coups, arrogance, etc. These indeed are cited when the authors
discuss "Evolution of a global Evangelical movement" and name
individually 304 years of evangelical significance. For example, they
mention AD 323 for "attempts to spread gospel by law and authority" by
Constantine; or cite C 780 for "forced baptism of Saxon race by
Charlemagne, 4,500 executed in one day for resisting, thousands more
deported"; or AD 1523, when the "Spanish monarch orders Cortes to
enforce mass conversion of American Indians… in Mexico, Franciscans
baptize over a million in 7 years, with at times 14,000 a day… C 1550,
800,00 Peruvian Amerindians confirmed by one archbishop of Lima."

Resources

Next to political power in importance are money and propaganda. The

authors tell us about the resources at the command of Christian churches.
They tell us that today it costs "145 billion dollars to operate organized
global Christianity"; it commands 4.1 million full-time Christian workers,
runs 13,000 major libraries, publishes 22,000 periodicals, issues 4 billion
tracts a year, operates 1,800 Christian Radio/TV stations. We are also told
that there are 3 million computers and the "Christian computer specialists"
are described as "a new kind of Christian army."

Missionary activity is the major plank of organized Christianity. At

present 4,000 Mission Agencies operate a huge apparatus of Christian
world mission manned by 262,300 missionaries costing 8 billion dollars
annually. Every year, there are 10,000 new books/articles on foreign
evangelization alone. The authors give an interesting estimate and tell us
that Christianity has expended on its missionary activities a "total of 160
million worker-years on earth over these 20 centuries." But since a
missionary does not live by God alone, it has cost the church exchequer
"somewhere in the neighbourhood of 350 billion dollars", or about 2,200
dollars per year per missionary.

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

Missionaries to these areas or "target countries" are divided into various

kinds: Tentmaker, Residential, Clandestine, Mole, Tourist, Courier,
Smuggler and Non-residential. Each category has a defined status and role.
Advantage is taken of the fact that even a country most restrictive of
missionaries maintains a variety of contacts with the West - commercial,
diplomatic, technical, tourist. Thus men are sent out to these semi-closed
countries who openly work in a secular job as technicians, diplomats or
social workers but also secretly belong to a missionary agency. Such men
are called Tentmakers a la St. Paul, who earned his bread by tentmaking but
voluntarily worked as a missionary. This channel is highly organized. For
example, Tentmakers International, Seattle, Washington, a Missionary
body, runs a "tentmaker placement network", working closely with private
and social agencies. It has a list of 15,000 secular jobs for which it recruits
tentmakers. "Jobs are available world-wide. Choose your country, take your
pick," it advertises. Then everything becomes secretive. A warning is
issued: "Please use commonsense when talking about Tentmakers
International. Confidentiality is a must."

The Clandestine is a "full-time missionary who operates illegally." In the

restricted countries, "much ministry is carried in this way," the authors tell
us. The Mole, a word used in certain Intelligence Services, is another such
type. He is a "part-time Christian worker, an illegal residential alien." A
Courier is a "visitor from abroad who illegally carries messages to, from,
and between local Christians and Clandestine workers." Tourists also come
handy for this purpose. Every year more than 100 million Christian
foreigners enter those restricted countries, and hundreds of them "are
persuaded to act as couriers by Western Agencies," the authors tell us.
Another category is Smuggler, a "full-time professional and seasoned
Christian worker who operates illegally as an itinerant." One of the most
famous of them is Brother Andre, author of the best-seller, God's Smuggler.

These foreign types have their local counterparts which include

categories like Unregistered, Undergrounder, Messenger, Guerrilla. For
example, an Undergrounder is the citizen equivalent of the foreign Mole, a
Messenger of the alien Courier. "Huge underground evangelizing networks
exist operated by messengers utilizing solely word of mouth - no letters, no
writing, no telephone," the authors reveal. They also tell us that "around the
world are many thousand Guerrillas," a category parallel to foreign
Smugglers.

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

Sometimes these underhand workers are apprehended and punished; then

they join the roaster of Martyrs, who currently number 230,000 a year
according to our authors.

Two such Moles or Smugglers were apprehended in Nepal in December,

1988. They were Mervyn Budd, 22, a Canadian, and McBride, 33, an
American, both working for a US-based Missionary organization, called
"Operation Mobilization." As soon as the news of their arrest was splashed
over the world, other sentiments and forces came into play. People forgot to
inquire who these two men were and only remembered that they had their
"civil" rights. Jack Anderson wrote in his weekly column: "Imagine being
thrown in jail for selling religious literature," making McBride's activity as
innocent as that. He told us how American Congressmen like Robert
Walker and Senators Richard Lugar and Clairborne Pell took an active
interest and "put pressure on the Nepalese Government." Amnesty
International too was active.

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.

This is indeed a cosmic auditing of the evangelical movement. David

Barrett is a fitting Consultant on World Evangelism to the Vatican and to the
Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board, but one wonders whether these
figures would excite them or depress them and whether they would know
what to do with them. Figures and planning of this scale cease to be
meaningful.

The Survey is eminent in statistics but poor in philosophy and spiritual

wisdom. In fact, its psychic source is crass materialism.

Footnotes:

1 Seven Hundred Plans to Evangelize the World: The Rise of a

Global Evangelization Movement, by David B. Barrett and James
 
W. Reapsome published by The AD 2000 Series, 1989, reviewed by
Ram Swarup in The Statesman, Sunday Edition, March 25, 1990.

   
Christian Ashrams in India, Nepal
and Sri Lanka
APPENDIX I
Christian Ashrams in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka

This list has been compiled, in an alphabetical order, from several

Christian publications. The date of foundation, wherever available, has been
given in brackets.1

India

1. Aikiya Alayam, Madras, Tamil Nadu.

2. The Alwaye Fellowship House (1947), Alwaye, Kerala.

3. Anbu Vazhvu Ashram, Palani, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu.

4. Anjali Ashram, Mysore, Karnataka.

5. Anusandhan Ashram, Bhanpuri, Raipur District, Madhya Pradesh.

6. Arupa Ashram, Aruppakotai, Tamil Nadu.

7. Asha Niketan, Bangalore, Karnataka.

Asha Niketan, Calcutta, West Bengal.

8.
9. Asha Niketan, Katalur, Kerala.

10. Asha Niketan, Tiruvanmayur, Madras, Tamil Nadu.

11. The Ashram (1931), Perambavoor, Kerala.

12. Asirvanam, Kumbalgud, Bangalore District, Karnataka.

13. Bethany Ashram, Bapatla, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

Bethany Ashram (1938), Channapatna, Bangalore District,

14.
Karnataka.

15. Bethany Ashram, Lahal, Kerala.

Bethany Nature Cure and Yoga Centre, Nalanchira, Trivandrum,

16.
Kerala.

17. Bethel Ashram (1957), Gudalur, Nilgiris District, Tamil Nadu.

18. Bethel Ashram, Kattrapally, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh.

19. Bethel Ashram, Parkal, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh.

20. Bethel Ashram (1922), Tiruvalla, Kerala.

Bethel Ashram, Trichur, Kerala.

21.

22. Calcutta Samaritans, Calcutta, West Bengal.

23. Catholic Church, Garhi, Bihar.

24. Catholic Mission, Rohtak, Haryana.

25. Chayalpadi Ashram, Angamoozhi, Kerala.

Christa Krupashrama (1949), Mandagadde, Shimoga District,

26.
Karnataka.

Christa Mitra Ashram (1940), Ankola, North Kanara District,

27.
Karnataka.

28. Christa Panthi Ashram (1942), Sihora, Madhya Pradesh.

29. Christa Prema Seva Ashram (1922), Pune, Maharashtra.

Christa Sathia Veda Ashram, Boyalakantla, Kurnool District,

30.
Andhra Pradesh.

31. Christa Sevakee Ashram (1950), Karkala, Karnataka.

Christa Sisya Ashram (1936), Tadgam, Coimbatore District, Tamil

32.
Nadu.

33. Christa Yesudasi Sangha (1935), Ahmadnagar, Maharashtra.

34. Christa Yesudasi Sangha (1919), Malegaon, Nasik District,
Maharashtra.

35. Christavashram (1940), Manganam, Kottayam District, Kerala

Christian Ashram (1930), Vrindavan, Mathura District, Uttar

36.
Pradesh.

Christian Institute for the study of Religion and Society, Bangalore,

37.
Karnataka.

Christian Medical Fellowship, Oddanchatram, Madurai District,

38.
Tamil Nadu.

39. Christiya Bandhu Kulam, Satna, Madhya Pradesh.

40. Christu Dasa Ashram (1929), Palghat, Kerala.

Christukulam Ashram (1921), Tripattur, North Arcot District, Tamil

41.
Nadu.

42. Deepshikshashram, Narsingpura, Madhya Pradesh.

43. Dhyan Ashram, Manpur, Indore District, Madhya Pradesh.

44. Dhyana Ashram, Madras, Tamil Nadu.

45. Dhyana Ashram, Wynad, Kerala.

46. Dhyana Nilayam, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

47. Dilaram House, New Delhi.

48. Dilaram House, Calangute, Goa.

49. Dohnavur Fellowship, Dohnavur, Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu.

Evangelisation Centre, Paramkudi, Ramanathapuram Distict, Tamil

50.
Nadu.

Fransalian Vidya Niketan, Khamgaon, Buldana District,

51.
Maharashtra.

52. Friend's Centre, Rusulai, Hoshangabad District, Madhya Pradesh.

53. Gethesme Ashram, Muvathupuzha, Kerala.

54. Gospel House, Keonjhar, Orissa.

55. Gyan Ashram, Andheri, Bombay, Maharashtra.

56. Ishapanthi Ashram (1922), Puri, Orissa.

57. Jeevan Dhara, Rishikesh, Uttar Pradesh.

58. Jesu Christ Passid Ashram, Cochin, Kerala.

59. Jyoti Niketan Ashram, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.

60. Khrist Panthi Ashram (1947), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

61. Khrist Sevashram, Rani, Assam.

62. Kodaikanal Ashram Fellowship (1934), Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu.

63. Kurishumala Ashram, Vagamon, Kottayam District, Kerala.

Little Brothers of Jesus, Alampundi, South Arcot, Distict, Tamil

64.
Nadu.

65. Madras Gurukul, Madras, Tamil Nadu.

66. Masihi Gurukul, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

Masihi Sadhu Ashram, Maranda, Kangra District, Himachal

67.
Pradesh.

68. Meherpur Ashram, Nadia, West Bengal.

69. Menonite Central Committee, Calcutta, West Bengal.

70. Missionary Brothers of Charity, Calcutta, West Bengal.

71. Mitri Bhavan, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

72. New Life Centre, Pune, Maharashtra.

73. Nirmala Mata Ashram, Goa.

74. Om Yeshu Niketan, Bardez, Goa.

75. Prakashpuram Ashram, Udemalpet, Tamil Nadu.

76. Prarthana Ashram (1948), Neyyatinkara, Kerala.

77. Premalaya Ashram (1937), Chamrajanagar, Karnataka.

78. Prem Ashram, Kadari, Chhatarpur District, Madhya Pradesh.

79. Saccidananda Ashram, Bangalore, Karnataka.

80. Saccidananda Ashram, Coorg, Karnataka.

81. Saccidananda Ashram, Narsingpur, Madhya Pradesh.

Saccidananda Ashram, (1950), Tannirpalli, Tiruchirapalli District,

82.
Tamil Nadu.

83. Saccidananda Ashram, Thasra, Kaira District, Gurajat.

84. Sanjeevan Ashram, Nasik, Maharashtra.

85. Sat Tal Ashram (1929), Bhowali, Nainital District, Uttar Pradesh.
86. Sevananda Nilayam (1929), Nandikotkur. Kurnool District, Andhra
Pradesh.

87. Shanti Ashram, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.

88. Shanti Neer, Harendrapur, Calcutta, West Bengal.

89. Shantivanam, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh.

Snanika Arulappara Virakta Math, Deshnur, Belgaum District,

90.
Karnataka.

91. Snehalaya, Pune, Maharashtra.

92. Sneh Sadan, Pune, Maharashtra.

93. Spiritual Life Centre, Naraspur, Pune District, Maharashtra.

St. Joseph's Boys Village, Periyakulam, Dindigul District, Tamil

94.
Nadu.

95. St. Paul's Cathedral Social Services, Calcutta, West Bengal.

96. Suvartha Premi Samithi, Ranthi, Uttar Pradesh.

97. Suvisesha Ashram, Bidadi, Bangalore District, Karnataka.

98. Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, Triuchirapalli, Tamil Nadu.

99. Tapovansarai, Rishikesh, Uttar Pradesh.

100. Tirumalai Ashram, Nagarcoil, Kanya Kumari District, Tamil Nadu.

101. TRACI Community, New Delhi.

102. Vellore Ashram (1930), Vellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Vidivelli Ashram (1932), Saymalai, Tirunelveli District, Tamil

103.
Nadu.

104. Village Reconstruction Organsiation, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

105. Vishram, Bangalore. Karnataka.

106. Yeshu Ashram, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

107. Yesu Ashram, Bangalore, Karnataka.

108. Yesu Karuna Prarthanalaya, Kote, Mysore District, Karnataka.

Nepal

1. Christa Shanti Sangh (1952), Kathmandu.

2. Dilaram House, Kathmandu.

 3. Dilaram House, Pokhara.

4. St. Xavier Social Centre, Kathmandu.

Sri Lanka

1. Blessed Sacrament Fathers, Colombo.

2. Christa Illam (1950), Kalmunai, Eastern Province.

3. Christ Seva Ashram (1939), Chunnakam, Jafna District.

4. Devasadan Aramaya, Ibbagmuva, North-West Province.

5. Devia Seva Ashramaya, Urrubokka.

6. Karuna Nilayam (1955), Killinochi.

7. Satyodaya Centre, Nawdha, Kandy.

8. Tulana Kelaniya, Dalgama, Colombo District.

Footnotes:

1 This fist took into account relevant publications upto 1988.

  More Christian Ashrams must have come up in the meanwhile
(1993).
   
A Glimpse of Mission Finance
APPENDIX II
A Glimpse of Mission Finance

The following figures of foreign funds flowing to a few of the Christian

organisations in India during 1986, were provided by the Government of
India. There are several hundred such organisations spread all over the
country.

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

Note: We have not tried to collect figures for more Christian

organisations or subsequent years. We do not have to document the fact that
foreign funds flowing to Christian missions are fabulous.
Thy Kingdom is the Third World
APPENDIX III
Thy Kingdom is the Third World1

Tempted by Satan to number Israel, King David ordered a census of his

people. This angered Jehovah and He offered him three alternatives to
choose from : either three years of famine, or three months of destruction at
the hand of his enemies, or the three days of the Lord. Counting on the great
mercies of Jehovah, David chose to fall into His hand rather than into the
hand of man. Consequently, the Lord "sent a pestilence upon Israel; and
there fell seventy thousand men" (I Chron. 21).

In preparing this Survey,1 Dr. Barrett has committed "David's sin", as a

census was once considered in more orthodox Christian circles. But he is
not without rival biblical support for his immense labour. "Even the hairs of
your head are numbered," assures the Bible (Mtt. 10.30), proving Jesus's
individual concern. On another occasion, God had ordered Moses to "take
the count of the booty that was taken, both of man and of beast" (Num.
31.26). Thus biblically fortified, Dr. Berrett has taken his counting in real
earnest and, indeed, has done it with a vengeance. Every single Christian of
any sort appears as a single digit in some "760 distinct absolute numbers…
570 percentages, and in around 450 further derived figures (averages)". And
so does the unbeliever for he is only the other side of the coin.

The Encyclopaedia is comprehensive and covers a wide span both in

time and space. It begins with the death of Jesus and, covering the next 19
centuries, arrives at our own time and, without stopping here, makes
projections till the years 2,000 A.D. It is also truly ecumenical. It gives
global data of Christianity in 8 continents, 24 major regions, 223 countries.
It give the number of Christians by their skin colour (7), race (17),
ethnolinguistic family (71). It tells us how Christianity is spreading among
8,990 peoples speaking 7,010 languages and 17,000 dialects. Since the
beginning of Christianity, every soul, dead and living, has been accounted
for. And if the Church is an earthly pre-figuration of celestial realities and,
if to be baptized is also to be saved, then the Encyclopaedia also provides a
statistical picture of the Last Day of Judgement, of the souls that will be
finally saved and finally damned.

Besides figures, the Encyclopaedia contains other useful features. It gives

a Who's Who of the Christian world, names of the more important 15,000
Christian organisations, a bibliography of 1,845 major works, a Chronology
of World Evangelization (AD 27-1983), A Survey Dictionary of World
Christianity, 1,500 maps, and 31 global tables. It is compiled by 500 experts
in 190 countries; it contains 2.5 million words.

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

Dr. Barrett is a quantifier and statician par excellence, but he is not an

impartial historian or a disinterested philosopher. He unquestioningly
accepts the Christian world-view and interpretative framework and gives
them a statistical veneer. For example, the Christian establishment
propagates the view that Apostle Thomas landed in India in 52 AD; it has
no scholarly support but Dr. Barrett unhesitatingly accepts it and lends it an
exactitude that belongs to numbers. Similarly, he tells us that the population
of the two Americas was 14 millions at the time of their discovery. The new
scholarship was not unavailable to him when he was compiling his
Encyclopaedia, but he accepted the Christian-European view which wants
to believe that they occupied a relatively vacant land and the occupation
involved little genocide.

Quantification falsifies in another way. It covers up many sins. It exhibits

the process but hides the product. Can we adequately describe European
Imperialism in terms of its present wealth, figures of imports, exports and
investments? Similarly, can we describe the process of Christianization in
terms of its converts? Describing the beginnings of Christianity in China,
the Encyclopaedia's Chronology mentions 1306 A.D. as the year when
"John of Montecorvino builds 2 churches in Cambaluc"; but it forgets to
mention that Christianity started its career with the purchase of 40 Chinese
slaves who formed the first native catechists and priests. Similarly, the
Chronology mentions 1498 as the year of Vasco da Gama's voyage to the
East, but it fails to mention that when he landed in India his flagship
displayed a Cross and carried twenty canons.

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".

Whatever be Dr. Barrett's failings as a broader thinker and historian, there

is however no doubt that he is a zealous missionary. He looks at everything
from a missionary viewpoint. Christianity, for example, is now split into
20,800 denominations as he tells us. A conventional view will see in this
fact signs of disunity, but our author points out the positive side. To him,
this proliferation gives Christianity many faces and confuses the enemy. 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," to put it in his language.

He brings the same unconventional angle to bear on Christian

'Pilgrimage'. Seven per cent of the Christians are on the move as religious
tourists which also takes many of them even to "communist and anti-
Christian lands". To Dr. Barrett, these travellers are more than pilgrims.
They display Christian power and have an intimidating and overawing role.
They represent " a major form of witness," and, to potential hostile regimes,
"a disconcertingly effective demonstration of the latent power of
Christianity should they attempt to interfere with it," as Barrett puts it.

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.

Christian Establishments are very diligent in promoting scholarship in

theological subjects, linguistics and other fields. Different Christian
denominations own and control 1,300 universities. Besides, there are
Departments of Religious Studies at 1,500 universities which are significant
for the study of Christianity, where they teach theology, divinity, missiology
and Church history. The Christian denominations run 930 Research
Centres; they bring out 3,000 scholarly journals in addition to another
20,000 magazines and newspapers of a less academic type, of which 4,500
are Roma Catholic. Christians have an early history of "apologetics".
During medieval times, in their mutual debates, they found scholarship a
mighty weapon. The realization also soon dawned on them that it can also
be used with great effect for cultural aggression. Christianity has been
destroying other cultures with one hand, and has been "recreating" and
"rediscovering" them with the other. During the process, the victims learn to
look at themselves through Christian eyes. All this is the silent work
Christian scholarship.

Bible printing and distribution has also been an important Christian

activity. In 1980, the global distribution of the full Bible was 36,800,00
copies, and of only the New Testament during the same year 57,500,000
copies. By this year, the United Bible Societies' members had distributed
432 million scripture selections - one for each ten persons in the world.
 In the last decade, another media has also become very important - Radio
and Television. The churches now own 1,450 Radio and TV station. In
1975 alone, they received 4,230,360 letters from the listeners of their
programmes. Students of Christianity in India probably know that one
organisation, Vishwa Vani, alone beams daily about six and a half hours of
Radio programme in eleven languages of India. "Radio Converts" is now a
new category on the list of mission's organisations that keep accounts of all
the souls saved.

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.

The Encyclopaedia provides a good deal of this kind of important

information but omits altogether church finance, something eminently
suitable for statistical presentation. It gives no information about the
budgets of different churches, their properties, investments, the salaries of
their priests and missionaries, the Government subsidies and tie-ups,
something which would have provided important social and economic data.
Some years ago, Time Magazine wrote that the Vatican owned one-fifth of
the industrial corporate wealth of Italy.

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.

We are told that the centre of gravity of Christianity is shifting from

Europe and America to the Third World. This is a euphemism for saying
that many of the countries of the Third World have been successfully
colonized, that the people of these countries have forgotten their indigenous
roots. They have even begun to be recruited to the missionary corps and
they are taken out to countries other than their own in the Third World
region for proselytizing work. They cost less and they serve as good stool-
pigeons. Such recruits already number 32,500. In India, for example, out of
a total of 5,979 foreign missionaries, 39 came from the Communist world,
and 267 came from Third World countries like Burma, Brazil, Taiwan, Sri
Lanka, Philippines, etc. In the last three hundred years, Imperialism used its
victims themselves to subdue each other. Christianity is doing the same.

Crypto-Christians

We have heard of "underground communism" and "crypto-communists",

but the survey also makes us aware of a similar category of "underground
church" and "crypto-Christians". These cryptos are affiliated members of
the Church but this fact is kept a secret from their Government and even
from their neighbours. Globally they constitute 4.9% of the total Christian
population (1980). One would have thought that they existed probably only
in the hostile Communist and Muslim countries, but the Survey reveals that
they exist very much in India too where Christian conversion is open and
enjoys legal and social protection. In 1980, about one-third (7,637,000) of
the Christian population (3.9% of the total Indian population) was crypto-
Christian. And the ratio is rising every year. During 1970-80, the average
annual Christian converts were 175,000; of these more than half (88,000)
conversions were secret. Partly the motive may have been to take advantage
of the benefits meant for the Hindu depressed classes, but it may also be a
policy matter of the Christian establishment. Such a large chunk sailing
under false colours and probably working in different Government
departments, civil, police and army, makes them subject to secret and
continued blackmail of the missionaries. In any case, it is bad for their
morale and morals, and bad for national security. And as for the organisers
of this clandestine operation, it is not unworthy of a semi-secret society.

Religious Liberty

The UNO's Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the

principle of religious liberty and toleration. Dr. Barrett accepts this principle
but his understanding of it is exclusively Christian. He interprets it
ecumenically. To him, it only means that the Christians should show
"genuine religious toleration to, all least, all other expressions of faith in
Christ." But so far as other, non-Christian religions are concerned, religious
toleration "does not imply that Christians should deny their convictions
about Christ and his Church, or abandon proclamation, evangelism or
conversion". The Christians retain their right to believe other "religions
false and inadequate" and to "attempt to win (their adherents) to faith in
Jesus Christ".

Dr. Barrett's understanding of religious liberty is thoroughly Christio-

centric. Therefore, to him a country is not libertarian just because it gives
liberty to all religions. Such a country ranks only fifth in the order of liberty.
On the other hand, a country where the "state propagates Christianity" is at
the very top; the second in rank are countries where there is "massive state
subsidies to churches". There are 74 such countries where the state provides
massive or limited subsidies to churches. No wonder with this kind of
definition, countries like Venezuela, Guam, Gibralter, Greece, Guatemala,
Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Philippines, etc. - no examples of political or
religious liberty - stand at the top.

Hindus-Buddhists

Hindus and Buddhists are found in significant numbers in 84 countries

each, but they are losing in number in most of them. The loss is the greatest
in their own homes. Between 1970 and 1980, Hindus and Jains together lost
in India 324,500 members; this loss was offset to some extent by some
gains in North America, Europe and to a degree in Latin America. Thanks
to the take-over of China by Communism, Buddhists have registered a
massive, global loss of 910,000 a year. Different tribal religions, close to
Hinduism and Buddhism in the spirit of tolerance, too have been losing
phenomenally - 2,200,000 annually, and the spiritual and cultural life of
many countries has been badly damaged. Africa, for example, is now 45%
Christian, and 41% Muslim, and only 12% tribal religionist. And as Dr.
Barrett says, all these mass conversions under way "are accruing primarily
to missionary religions aggressively engaged in proselytizing".

Followers of Taoism, a great philosophy with many points of affinity

with higher Hinduism and Buddhism, have been doing so badly that they
have not even deserved a separate mention. Confucianism too is a declining
phenomenon according to Dr. Barrett's tables.

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.

But of course Hinduism and Buddhism should become more conscious of

their role. There is no doubt that their present discomfiture is a passing
phase. Similarly, Taoism and Confucianism too will regain their old place in
the life of China once she overcomes her crisis of identity. The spirit of the
East is rising again, not to fall prey to dubious religions and semi-religious
ideologies but to make its just contribution to the good of the world.

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

The first Protestant missions "were state enterprises," as the

Encyclopaedia Americana says. First the Dutch and then successively the
Danish and the British Governments sent out missionaries. Then came
William Carey, a Baptist missionary from England supported by local
church-bodies, to India. He gave a new impulse to missionary work. In the
language of the Handbook, the modem Protestant missionary movement
began "as a gleam in the eye of a shoe-maker (meaning Carey) as he
contemplated the implications of Great Britain's role as a global power, and
(as he) hitchhiked, as it were, on the back of international mercantilism".
Carey stressed the role of private church-bodies of imperial mother
countries in sending out and maintaining missionaries to their colonies.

This method of "corporate enterprise" was increasingly adopted by the

evangelists of the Western countries and the number of Protestant
missionaries rose fast, America outpacing them all. In 1968, North
America's 411 agencies supported 35,8000 missionaries; in 1984, 764
agencies sent out 67,000 personnel, an increase of 86% in agencies and
about the same in men. In 1985, North America was spending 1.3 billion
dollars on its missionary operations.

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

The number of career missionaries is supplemented by "tentmaking"

missionaries. They are professionals or officials of their Governments. They
are not missionaries in the strict sense but they are interested in the mission
work. A study of 1,000 such men revealed that "almost half had led some
one to Christ, and 20% were instrumental in planting a church".

Their role in countries where there are certain restriction on the

missionary activities can be important. The number in these "restricted"
countries is "veiled in secrecy, and should perhaps remain that way," the
Handbook says.

The missionaries see in this "network" an enormous but yet largely

untapped potential. Barrett, a totalist, urges that the missions should
capitalize on the 300 million Christians that travel abroad on business or
pleasure.

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.

Demographically, the centre of gravity of Christianity has shifted to the

Third World, though America and Europe still continue to be the
paymasters. Latin America lost its home and religion long ago and it is now
97% Christian. Marxism is making serious inroads but it is equally hostile
to its old culture and religions.

Africa is now 45% Christian. In certain countries like Uganda, the

conversion rate is so high that "it has been difficult to keep records up-to-
date". In Nigeria, 3,000 missionaries are at work. Both by natural increase
and conversion 6.2 million Africans are being added annually to the
Christian fold.

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.

American Protestant missionaries working in India have already created

22,000 local churches located in 90 people- groups - a way of their own in
which mission strategists divide Indian people. At present, 154 American
Church-agencies are participating in "Indian" work; they support 614
missionaries, a drop from 1,433 in 1979. This "lowering of the profile" is
due to political reasons. But it has in no way affected mission operations.
Local surrogates are found who though they lack the prestige of white skin
yet enjoy two advantages: they are cheaper to recruit and they give an
indigenous look to what has hitherto been an essentially white undertaking.

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?".

In the same vein, the Dayspring International, a Virginia-based

evangelical organisation, on a televised programme in January 1985,
described India as land of "division, despair and death". It quoted Mother
Teresa, holding that India was "in dire need of Jesus". In a country of
images and brand-names, Mother Teresa is shown in many television
programmes appealing for donations for evangelical work in India.

These televised and advertised appeals themselves cost a good deal of

money. Many times, it consumes 25% of the money raised and that is
considered normal in evangelical circles. But it has to be done and funds
have to be raised for, as the Handbook says, "it costs money to stay in
business," even if the business is evangelical. People are asked to make
wise investment in God's work after the fashion of Luke's steward who
cheats his master to win his debtors for his own future benefit (Lk. 16.1-8).
The investors in God's work are promised that every heathen child "rescued
will be there in heaven to welcome you," to quote Spiro Zodhiates,
president of the mammoth American Gospel Ministry, in its newsletter of
January, 1983.

Career Missionaries

Thanks to such pep-talks, money is easy to come but missionaries are

still difficult to recruit. Therefore, the organisers of the show have taken to
large-scale advertising. They put up billboards, advertise on TVs and in
newspapers inviting young men to sign up.

They are paid handsome salaries. In 1985, each US missionary was

costing 26,561 dollars yearly. Their terms of service entitle them to a year
of furlough; they are entitled to pensions and retirement benefits. They are
accompanied by their spouses. Some young missionaries have also been
accompanied by their girl-friends. They teach that Jesus is love.

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.

The whole concept of missionary work is changing. It is no longer a

vocation requiring life-long commitment. "Such a definition is no longer
true," the Handbook says. Mission work is a career like any other career
such as medicine, business, army or trade. "As a result, individuals move in
and out of such a career with a surprising degree of ease." There are also
many dropouts. We are told that "up to half of all new missionaries do not
last beyond their first term". Every such dropout costs the missionary
exchequer an extra ten thousand dollars.

A related phenomenon is sharp increase of short-term missionaries. In

1973, they were 10% of the total missionary force; in 1979, 32%; in 1985,
42%, or roughly 28,000 out of a total of 67,000.

"Service" Missions

There is a tendency to justify missionary activities on the ground that

some of the missions run hospitals and schools. Mahatma Gandhi thought
dimly of these services and often declared that these are not disinterested.
The Handbook describes the interconnection between "services" and
proselytising in the following words: "Through the effort of such service
missionaries, the efforts of others involved in direct evangelism are made
more effective and efficient."

Third World Missionaries

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 is becoming a good recruiting ground for overseas Christian work.

In 1973, the Catholic Church had 3,420 Indian Roman Catholic on their
roll; but they included 2,000 nuns which caused a great scandal at one time
but was soon forgotten.

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

A related phenomenon is the growth of "native" or local missionaries.

The Catholic Church also uses local missionaries, mostly from Kerala, for
work in other parts of India. Discussing the Protestant missionary work in
countries like India and Malaysia, the Handbook notes that "indigenous
missionary movements have become strong". Speaking specifically of
India, it says, "Today, the most fruitful ministries are carried by more than
100,000 pastors, evangelists and preachers." Full time Indian missionaries
from organised societies increased from 420 in 1973 to 2,941 in 83 societies
in 1983. These missionaries have seen remarkable growth in northern India,
in places such as Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Assam, Himachal Pradesh,
Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Sikkim. In Western India, Christian workers
estimate that two new worship groups are formed every week through
indigenous missionary effort. The Indian Evangelist Team has set a goal of
2,000 new churches by the year 2000. In Tamil Nadu, the India Church
Growth Mission hopes to plant 1,000 churches in "unreached villages".

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".

Meanwhile, the very meaning of the word "evangelization" is uncertain.

Its definition changes with the opportunity offered. According to one
definition, least demanding, a people are evangelized when they "have
heard of Christianity, Christ and the Church"; according to a second
definition when they "have heard the gospel with understanding"; according
to a third definition when those who have heard with understanding also act
and become converts and "a nucleus of disciples has been formed in them";
according to the fourth definition when the converts themselves become
evangelizers. Thus evangelization sets up an expanding task, and its true
goal is nothing short of world-conversion.

"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:

1 Mission Handbook: North American Ministries Overseas,

edited by Samuel Wilson and John Siewert, Monrovia, California,
 
U.S.A., 1986, reviewed by Ram Swarup in The Times of India dated
13 and 14 March, 1988.

   
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

But this 'normal-to-life' theory of proselytizing is not supported by

Christian theory or practice. The Church always regarded proselytizing as a
one-way traffic. One could join it freely but one risked excommunication
and later on even death in leaving it.

Perhaps a creed is best known by what it does when it holds political

sway. As soon as Christianity came into power, heathen temples were
defaced and closed and their revenues transferred to the Church. "We
command that all their (heathens') fanes, temples, shrines, if even now any
remain entire shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates" was
the order of the day (Theodosius Code, 380 A.D.).

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."

Thus the Christian history is itself the best contradiction of Mr Chandy's

theory that proselytizing is "normal to life" and that it "is a freedom".
Moreover, there is a more comprehensive approach beyond this one.
Considered from a deeper angle, Christian proselytizing is a bigoted idea, a
denial of God and his working in others. Mahatma Gandhi who studied
Christian proselytizing closely says that it is the "deadliest poison that ever
sapped the foundation of truth," that it is "arrogant", that it embodies a
double falsehood: he sees "no spiritual hunger" in nominal converts and "no
spiritual merit" in professional missionaries. He says that a missionary is
"like any vendor of goods", and that if he had "power to legislate", he
"should certainly stop all proselytizing."

"Social work" has been mentioned by several Christian writers as a

clincher. Mr Ishtiyaque Danish however also gave us an inside view of it
and showed us how it works in Indonesia. In India it works no differently
and the Neogy Report is full of similar facts but the report was neglected
and things have continued in the same old happy fashion.
 The advantage of "social work" as a great support to proselytizing has
been long noticed by missionaries themselves. India and Its Missions, an
official Catholic publication, issued by its American Capuchin Mission
Monks (1923), discusses the "Spiritual Advantages of Famine and Cholera"
under that very heading! It quotes the report of the Archdiocese of
Pondicherry to his superiors in Europe: "The famine has wrought miracles.
The catechumenates are filling, baptismal water flows in streams, and
starving little tots fly in masses to heaven."

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."

Certain subterfuges are described with perfect satisfaction. For example,

in an operation case, prayers are offered for the patient in the presence of
his relatives, the pagan servants or pagan pupil nurses "in language they
understand". When the cure is effected, it appears "marvelous" to them and
they "very naturally attribute the one to the 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.

Some writers have spoken of the "sacrifice" of the missionaries, their

love of Jesus and the natives in choosing their career. This image-building
may be good for enhancing the acceptability of missionaries but it is seldom
supported by facts. For most people, missions have offered a lucrative
career and they have joined it in order to improve their social and financial
status. Bishop Stephen Neil tells us that the "missionaries of the last century
were overdressed and by the standard of the time lived in luxury, their
stipend being £ 200 a year." It will help clarity if we remember in contrast
that Benjamin Jowett, the great classical scholar, was appointed as Regius
professor of Greek language at Oxford in 1855-56 at £ 54 a year.

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.

Mr T.C. Joseph advises me to avoid an "endless number of books

available with an anti-Christian view", but "read up books of a different
kind which too abound." I assure him that I read no "anti-Christian" books
and I am hardly aware of them. On the other hand, I read the Bibles, early
Christian Fathers, Christian Catechisms, Christian Encyclopaedias,
Christian directories, orthodox accounts of Christian missionary activities,
histories of Protestantism and the Catholic Church held in high esteem by
them. I find this literature consistently anti-pagan and I do not know what to
think of a religion which teaches in and through its scriptures and its other
literature written by its most devout, scholarly and pious sections such
systematic hatred of all other religions and believes in a divine injunction to
supplant them.

I must also add that Mr Joseph's division of books on Christianity into

anti and pro lacks intellectual orientation. Besides these two, there is also a
third category: the critical and historical studies of the Bible and
Christianity. These are the most durable and solid and they have proved the
most damaging to Christianity. It is works of top-notch scholars and
theologians like Strauss, Renan, Buchner, Abbe Loisy, works of highest
credibility which have proved most "anti-christian".

Scientists' Works

Similarly, it is the works of scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Linnaeus,

Buffon, Laplace, Lyell, Darwin and others which undermined the structure
of Christian thought. Astronomy, geology, natural history added immense
time and space to Europe's hitherto limited conception of the universe; it
proved most subversive of Christianity.
 The work of -subversion was complete with the West's discovery of the
East. Science brought into discredit virgin birth, resurrection, and miracles;
Eastern spirituality did the same to sole sonship, single revelation, special
Covenants, proxy atonement, exclusive salvation, chosen fraternity, single
life, authorised saviours and mediators, etc, In the religions of the East, the
deeper Western thinker and seeker found inferiority, transcendence and
universality unknown to him before; he found in them not commandments
of some arbitrary deity but truths of his own innermost being; similarly he
found in them a principle of tolerance, coexistence, benevolence and
reverence which was new to him.

Footnotes:

1 Article written by Ram Swarup in reply to a debate in The

Times of India following his review-article 'Christianity Mainly for
 
Export', and published in two installments in The Times of India on
May 23-24, 1988.

   
Bibliography
Bibliography

A Benedictine Ashram, Douglas (England), 1961.

Abhishiktananda, Swami (Henri Le Saux), Hindu-Christian Meeting

Point, Delhi, 1976.

Animanand, B., The Blade: Life and Work of Brahmabandhab Upadhay,

Calcutta, 1945.

The Ashram Review, January, 1942; April, 1945; July, 1947; October,
1948; July, 1955.

Baggo, Kaj, Pioneers of Indigenous Christianity, Madras, 1969.

Barret, David B. (ed.), World Christian Encyclopaedia, OUP, 1982.

Barret, David B. et el (ed.), Seven Hundred Plans to Evangelize the

World: Rise of Global Evangelization Movement, 1989.

Boyd, R.H.S., Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, Madras, 1969.

Chenchiah, P., et el, Ashrams: Past and Present, Madras, 1941.

David, Dr. M.D., Western Colonialism in Asia and Christianity, Bombay,

1988.

David, S. Immanuel, article on Indigenisation, Indian Church History

Review, August, 1977.

Gandhi, M.K., Collected Works, Volume Thirty-nine, Delhi.

Goel, Sita Ram, History of Hindu-Christian Encounters, Voice of India,

New Delhi, 1989.
 Goel, Sita Ram, Papacy: Its Doctrine and History, Voice of India, New
Delhi, 1986.

Good News Bible, Bangalore reprint.

Griffiths, Bede, Christ in India, Bangalore, 1986.

Hicks, John et el (ed.), The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Towards a

Pluralistic Theology, Orbis Book, USA, 1989.

Hinduism Today, Indian Ocean Edition, February/March, 1987;

December, 1988.

Indian Church History Review, December, 1967; December, 1968;

August, 1977; December, 1977; December, 1987.

International Review of Missions, July, 1979.

Latourette, Dr. K., A History of the Expansion of Christianity, 7 Volumes,

London, 1937-1945.

Meyer, U., article on the literature of Indigenisation, Indian Church

History Review, December, 1967.

Rajamanickam, S., 'Goa Conference of 1619', Indian Church History

Review, December, 1968.

Ram Swarup, Hinduism vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam, Voice of India,

New, Delhi, 1982, 1984, 1992.

Ram Swarup, Ramakrishna Mission in Search of a New Identity, Voice of

India, New Delhi, 1986.

Rethinking Christianity in India, Thesis submitted by a group of native

Indian Christians to the International Missionary Council Meeting held at
Tambaram in December, 1938.

Swami Parama Arub Anandam: A Memorial, Saccidananda Ashram,

Tannirpalli, 1959
 Tambaram Series, Volume 3: Evangelism, London, 1939.

Taylor, Richard W., 'Christian Ashrams as a style of Mission in India',

International Review of Missions, July, 1979.

Vatican Council II: Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, Bombay,

1983.

Wilson, Samuel (ed.), Mission Handbook: North American Ministries

Overseas, Monrovia, California, USA, 1986.

Young, Richard Fox, Resistant Hinduism, Vienna, 1981.

References
1. Preface (voiceofdharma.org)
2. New Labels for Old Merchandise (voiceofdharma.org)
3. Indigenisation: A Predatory Enterprise (voiceofdharma.org)
4. The Patron Saint of Indigenisation (voiceofdharma.org)
5. Mission's Volte-Face vis-a-vis Hindu Culture (voiceofdharma.org)
6. The Ashram Movement in the Mission (voiceofdharma.org)
7. The Trinity from Tannirpalli (voiceofdharma.org)
8. An Imperialist Hangover (voiceofdharma.org)
9. Catholic Ashrams (voiceofdharma.org)
10. The J.R. Ewing Syndrome (voiceofdharma.org)
11. Interview with Father Bruno Barnhardt (voiceofdharma.org)
12. Returning to the Hindu Fold (voiceofdharma.org)
13. Malaysia Hindus Protest Christian "Sadhu" (voiceofdharma.org)
14. Missionary's Dirty Tricks (voiceofdharma.org)
15. The First Dialogue (voiceofdharma.org)
16. The Second Dialogue (voiceofdharma.org)
17. The Third Dialogue (voiceofdharma.org)
18. Bede Griffiths Drops the Mask (voiceofdharma.org)
19. Different Paths Meeting in God (voiceofdharma.org)
20. "Liberal" Christianity (voiceofdharma.org)
21. The Great Command and a Cosmic Auditing (voiceofdharma.org)
22. Christian Ashrams in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka (voiceofdharma.org)
23. A Glimpse of Mission Finance (voiceofdharma.org)
24. Thy Kingdom is the Third World (voiceofdharma.org)
25. Christianity Mainly for Export (voiceofdharma.org)
26. Proselytisation as it is Practised (voiceofdharma.org)
27. Bibliography (voiceofdharma.org)