Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Jahnava Nitai Das

Catholics Consider Including Sanskrit in Prayers

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Catholics Consider Including Sanskrit in Prayers

 

PATNA, INDIA, October 21, 2002: Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church said Monday they were considering adding a Sanskrit word to liturgical prayers to make Christianity more acceptable to Hindi speakers. A synod of archbishops and bishops from India and Philippines, which began Sunday in Patina, was studying a proposal to include the word "Sachidanand" in liturgical prayers. B.J. Osta, the archbishop of Patna, stated "The word 'Sachidanand,' meaning the Trinity of Gods, also conforms to the Christian precept of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." In India, Christians generally say prayers in English or in literal translations into local languages. Osta said the church was also considering publishing a Hindi-language magazine and setting up a press to publish liturgical books in Hindi. The three-day meeting was called to find ways to make Christianity more amenable to Hindi-speakers in the wake of increasing criticism of Christian conversion activities in India. HPI adds: The word "sachidanand" or, more properly "Satchidananda" or "Sachchidananda," means literally "Existence-consciousness-bliss," a state which can be experienced in the deepest meditation. One definition is, "A synonym for Parashakti. Lord Siva's Divine Mind and simultaneously the pure superconscious mind of each individual soul. It is perfect love and omniscient, omnipotent consciousness, the fountainhead of all existence, yet containing and permeating all existence. It is also called pure consciousness, pure form, substratum of existence, and more." This Hindu concept has no relationship to the Catholic concept of the Trinity of God.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no objection if they want to make Christianity more acceptable to Hindi speakers. But, it is very bad idea to distort the meaning of a word to suit their needs.

"Sachchidananda" does not mean "Father, Son, and Holy spirit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Words are what we make them mean. The reason the use of sac-cid-ananda as a synonym for the Trinity is controversial for Catholics themselves is that it opens up an interesting avenue of Christian/Hindu dialogue.

 

Within the Hindu tradition itself, the term is a source of much fertile speculation about the Supreme. Why should Hindus not take the Christian understanding into consideration? Try this:

 

sat = Father = Brahman

chit = Ghost = Paramatman

ananda = Son = Bhagavan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since words are defined according to our use, and since sat-chit-ananda has absolutely no connection to the Christian concept of Father, Son, Holy Ghost, then why don't they use any other group of three words?

 

How about karma, jnana, and bhakti to mean Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

 

How about Shruti, Smriti and Nyaya to refer to Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

 

How about Kapha, Pita and Vayu to refer to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

 

If any word can be used for any concept, then take your choice, they are all equally meaningless.

 

Unfortunately words do have definitions. Sacchidananda is used in nearly every Indian language, and it has a meaning in all of those languages. Not in a single one of those languages does the meaning refer to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or anything remotely similar.

 

If they want to add sanskrit, or any other local language to their prayers, then choose those words which mean Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Don't try to borrow from unconnected Hindu philosophical terminology, and create new meanings for these established words, just so the words sound familiar.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I have just shown how according to Vaishnava usage, these three terms are analogous to Trinity theology in Christianity.

 

When translating, we must find words that are analogous for various concepts. This opens the door to dialogue by asking us to understand how sac-cid-ananda can be meaningful to Christians. It also invites Hindus to understand how the Christian trinity is analogous to their cherished concept. It is easy for someone who has only a superficial understanding of both terms to treat this as an affront.

 

Who knows, maybe the Vaishnavas got the Brahma-Paramatma-Bhagavan trinity concept from the Christians in the first place. I realize that the two are not perfectly similar in concept (as for Christians, the Father is not exactly impersonal Brahman, the Holy Ghost is not exactly Paramatma, and the Son is not exactly Bhagavan), but the similarities are as significant as the differences. Therefore, the door opens to dialogue and INCREASED understanding, if we are willing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New usages for old terms is as old as language itself. Look in your Monier-Williams at a word like "dharma" and see how different sects used the term differently at different times.

 

How many key words mean different things to Buddhists, Jains, Hindus or others. These usages are not artificial, and we should not think that this Christian adoption is completely artificial, either. Is the Christian God NOT eternity, knowledge and bliss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is easy for someone who has only a superficial understanding of both terms to treat this as an affront.

 

 

Oh, I wasn't aware that these Christian had undertaken an in depth study of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta.

 

Sat-chit-ananda is the nature of Brahman, it doesn't refer to personalities - neither Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan, nor Father, Son, Holy Ghost. This is the difference between an object and its nature.

 

The obvious reason for incorporating these words is just to mix up Hinduism and Christianity so it is more appealing to those with a Hindu background. It is just like the other concotions of Indian Christianity such as wearing vibhuti crosses as tilak, offering camphor lamps to jesus, etc. The missionaries have been unable to fully remove Hinduism from the converts, so they are trying to adjust their teachings to Hindu practices and terminologies.

 

Under the pretext of opening dialogues, the Christian missionaries are just trying to undermine Hinduism and convert the lower castes by bluring the distinction between the two religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.B.J. Osta, the archbishop of Patna said:

"The word 'Sachidanand,' meaning the Trinity of Gods, also conforms to the Christian precept of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

 

 

Sachidananda does not mean the "trinity of Gods", so these Christians really don't have a clue as to the meaning of words or their uses.

 

If they want to add a sanskrit word for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, use "tri-murti", which is a more common and correct term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry, I only looked at the last line of the article.

 

At any rate, I already mentionaed above how, in the Vaishnava conception, sat chit and ananda are applicable to Brahma, Paramatman and Bhagavan. Though the analogy to Father, Holy Ghost and Son is not perfect, it is far better than the Trimurti concept, which other than having "three" in it, has nothing at all to do with the three-in-one concept of Deity.

 

Though Christianity has gone through various turns, orthodoxies and heterodoxies in its Christology, the idea that the Lord takes human form and becomes a personal and intimate object of devotion thereby is definitely a historically valid understanding of Christ.

 

Though Christians generally have a "Father" concept that is somewhat more personal than the pure "Brahman" idea, it is still a thread in Christian theology, found most prominently in Tillich's "ground of being" concept. In Vrindavan I once had a conversation with a Catholic priest who was one of the purest Shankarites I had ever met.

 

The "Holy Ghost" idea is also different in many ways from the Paramatma, but nevertheless analogous.

 

But all this is really moot. Why should the Christians not refer to their deity as "being, consciousness and bliss"? Is it not the same God, after all? What is sac-cid-ananda but a kind of base-line concept that has been mined by theological speculators for generations and generations. If Christians now mine the same concept, they are in effect entering into the Upanishadic dialogue, accepting the essential insight of the rishis. Why should we object? We may argue that they misunderstand, but that is a different issue.

 

Hindus could profit from Christian history and understanding of the Deity; why should Christians not learn from Hinduism? What do you have against the possibility of dialogue that would arise from the use of common vocabulary? Indeed, what is this very discussion but an attempt to understand common ground that exists between Christian and Hindu theologies?

 

In many ways, I would say that Christians are further advanced in their understanding of "rival" traditions. Hindus (and Muslims are even worse) are usually strumming around on a superficial level based on caricatures born of ancient propaganda wars. Such superficiality exists on both sides of the fence, that is sure, but profound comparative research into other traditions has a long history in Western Christianity, whereas it exists hardly at all in Hinduism or Islam.

 

John Carman, for instance, was a committed Christian, yet a respected leading scholar of Ramanuja Vaishnavism. Rudolf Otto, one of the most influential thinkers on religion in the 20th century, was very influenced by the Gita and Ramanuja devotionalism. R. C. Zaehner, a Catholic scholar of the Bhagavad Gita and comparative mysticism, was deeply influenced by the Gita, which he considered the "closest thing to Christianity." That might be considered condescension, but it indicates that he at least entered into a serious dialogue with the Hindu theistic tradition and found the potential to inform his own Catholic faith with what he found there. Raimundo Panikkar should be mentioned as an example of another very influential Catholic theologian whose deep interaction with Hinduism is extraordinary. May I suggest the following <a href=http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/indian.htm>introductory article</a> that discusses Christian theology in the Indian context.

 

I could go on, but the point is that we should be aware that provocative articles of this kind seem meant to provoke Hindu nationalist feeling and to exacerbate anti-Christian sentiment in India, which is already far too great. The too-ready willingness to participate in this kind of sectarian quibbling is an affront to true religion. We should rather welcome the Sanskritization of Christianity, which will increasingly make it an integral part of the Indian fabric, which once adopted and assimilated foreign ideas instead of rejecting them out of petty prejudice.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

What do you have against the possibility of dialogue that would arise from the use of common vocabulary?

 

 

The problem is they wouldn't be using a common vocabulary. Without a common meaning to words a common understanding through dialogue cannot exist. In fact, they don't want a dialogue, they want conversion to Catholicism. He who controls the meaning of the words controls the terms of debate. This is simply a continuation of a long strategy the church has employed in other parts of the world, taking other peoples words and histories, to undermine the indigenous culture, supplanting it with Catholicism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often use the term sat chid ananda when speaking to Christians about the nature of the soul and the composition of God's form.

 

There is a Bible verse that says "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God".So I feel I can build on that by explaining that the soul's individual form as well as the Supreme Beings form are composed of sat chid ananda which translates as eternity knowledge and bliss, and that the bliss portion is realized by the small soul when we develop a personal loving relationship with God as His servant and friend.I don't bring up other rasas'.I have found this easy to be accepted by them.

 

 

...It is just like the other concotions of Indian Christianity such as wearing vibhuti crosses as tilak, offering camphor lamps to jesus, etc. The missionaries have been unable to fully remove Hinduism from the converts, so they are trying to adjust their teachings to Hindu practices and terminologies.

 

 

What is the problem with offering camphor lamps to Lord Jesus?This is good for the Christians as well.We should also encourage the offering of fruits flowers water etc.

 

Afterall for Christianity(as well as ourselves individually)the impulse to offer something back to God rather than just approaching Him for things, is advancment.I want to see ghee and camphor lamps being offered to Christ and the Father in Christian churches here in the West.I would love to see flower garlands drapping the murtis of Christ and Mary right next to Vishnu or Krsna.

 

It is important to remember that Krsna culture is not exactly Hindu culture.And Christians have to get past this idea that Christ was born in Los Angeles.I suspect the Jewish culture of 2,000 yrs.ago, was far more like Indian culture than present Western culture.

 

Vaisnavism is the activity of the awakened soul in relationship to Vishnu.Much more than dhotis tilak and beads.

 

Anyway that's my two cents/paisa/shillings/sheckles worth.

 

Hare Krsna all

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like Vaishnavas are trying to convert Christians, Muslims and Jews everywhere they go. If there is no market, there are no sales. Christians and Muslims promote their evangelical activities where they is a vacuum, dialogue where there is conflict. If Hindus deal with them as partners in the war against irreligion or atheism, rather than competitors, then there is a possibility of dialogue. I may remind you that Prabhupada, when he first came to America, once suggested a common theistic front of this sort.

 

Hindus think that they have some kind of monopoly on religion in India. However, there have always been animist tribals and outcastes whose religious needs were marginalized or ignored by the Hindu elites. Occasionally bhakti movements made some concessions to these people, but in general Hindus were indifferent to them except for concerns about the danger they presented to their own ritual purity.

 

Hinduism's great weakness lies in caste discrimination. Due to pressure from Christianity, it has been forced to make reforms in this area, just as it was in the cases of Suttee, widow remarriage, etc. Vivekananda was influenced by Christian missionary activity to promote welfare work and social uplift as a valid religious function of the sannyasi. This subsequently led to many other socially-oriented Hindu organizations. Surely these are positive results derived from Christian influence.

 

The VHP has made strides towards liberalizing Hindu caste attitudes, but generally, Hindus have difficulty in convincing lower castes of their bona fides in this matter. In fact, their motivation is rarely genuine concern with the spiritual welfare of the lower castes, but more with the nationalistic concerns of the dominant caste Hindus, who are afraid of the deterioration of their culture and the undermining of the nation itself, such as the threat of revolt caused by the massive Christianization of the northeast.

 

The true Hindu values are tolerance and inclusiveness. This is reflected in the fathers of Independence's choice of a secular state. The RSS's jackboot tactics only bring disrepute to the culture they propose to defend.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is the problem with offering camphor lamps to Lord Jesus?This is good for the Christians as well.We should also encourage the offering of fruits flowers water etc.

 

 

It is certainly beneficial for anyone to offer worship to the Lord and His devotees with articles such as camphor lamps, etc. My point was not that it was bad, but that there are many Hindu practices retained in Indian Christianity, which are there simply because they couldn't remove Hinduism from the converts. I believe the Catholic church in India has even received special sanction for these practices unique in India. There are practices the Catholic church follows in India that are not followed anywhere else in the world, and many of these same practices would be considered wrong by the church if performed outside of India. They have chosen to allow these practices to go on in India because it encourages Hindus to convert since the lines between the religions become blurred. This use of the term sacchidananda is another example of a clever ploy to convert Hindus. They are not trying to borrow Hindu concepts of religion as is evident of their claimed definition of sacchidananda refering to "the trinity of Gods", which is just wrong. Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha have nothing to do with the definition sacchidananda. They just want to take a common Hindu theological word, and use it in their own unique way, with no reference to the actual definition or philosophical conception associated with it.

 

All interpretations of sacchidananda must be first based on the literal meaning of eternality, consciousness and bliss. Only from that basis does one draw one's philosophical interpretation of the phrase (who it identifies, etc.) Unless the Catholic Church is willing to accept a direct connection between eternality, consciousness and bliss corresponding to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, then there is no basis for incorporating this word into their prayers. Are they willing to change their philosophical foundation (by incorporating Hindu concepts) just to make their religion more acceptable to Hindi speaking people, or are they just taking the external sound of a word, and ignoring all direct and indirect meanings? The obvious answer is that they are not going to change their philosophy, they are simply wanting to take over a Hindu theological word, while redefining it with no connection to its established meaning. They just want external similarities with Hindus, so the Hindu converts don't see them as foreign. "Oh, they are also talking about Sacchidananda, just like the Hindu Swamijis."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

you need to understand the difference between traditional catholicism, whic rejects all other religions except judaism,as being evil, the product of satan,

 

and the new catholicism of the catholic orders,like

the jesuits, maryknolls etc.

 

they have a different philosophy,in fact many are atheists

and their only agenda is a socio-political one.

They generally espouse a philosophy of universiality

of all religions to the people they are trying to influence.

In their own societies ,it's a different story, you would be shocked to know that the leading voices in these orders

are atheistic,evolutionistic,pantheistic , and

have a very set goal of putting their beliefs into

a socio-poltical reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At any rate, I already mentionaed above how, in the Vaishnava conception, sat chit and ananda are applicable to Brahma, Paramatman and Bhagavan.

 

 

This is only a Gaudiya Vaishnava position, and will be rejected by other Vaishnavas, not to mention other non-vaishnava schools of philosophy.

 

 

Though the analogy to Father, Holy Ghost and Son is not perfect, it is far better than the Trimurti concept, which other than having "three" in it, has nothing at all to do with the three-in-one concept of Deity.

 

 

If they are looking for importing philosophical conclusions, then fine, go ahead and take the teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. But they only want a translation for a word, they don't want Hindu philosophical conclusions. For a translation, tri-murti would fit nicely into their philosophical position ("the three divinities"), whereas sat-cit-ananda will not, as they do not specifically discuss and analyze God according to these three divisions. In order for sat-cit-ananda to refer to the father, son and holy ghost, they would need to import a whole lot of philosophical beliefs that are not accepted in their teachings at present. They are not at all interested in doing something like that. The Vatican has established their philosophical beliefs, and they will not import Hinduism for any reason. They simply want a common Hindi word to flash around so Hindi speaking people don't feel alienated. In that sense, it is wrong to choose sat-chit-ananda for this purpose, as the aim is only to undermine the actual use of the word by Hindus.

 

 

But all this is really moot. Why should the Christians not refer to their deity as "being, consciousness and bliss"? Is it not the same God, after all?

 

 

There is nothing wrong with it, they can also refer to God as Krishna if they want. But the fact is they will not alter their philosophy to suit Hindu conceptions. They want something external, just the sound of the word sacchidananda.

 

 

Hindus could profit from Christian history and understanding of the Deity; why should Christians not learn from Hinduism?

 

 

I don't think these Christians meeting in Patna are trying to learn from Hinduism at all.

 

 

What do you have against the possibility of dialogue that would arise from the use of common vocabulary?

 

 

As the guest pointed out, it wouldn't be a common vocabulary. If they change the meaning of the word, then dialogue is meaningless. Besides, the church's plan is not to enter dialogue with Hindus, it is simply to convert them. To do that, they feel they should make their system appear less foreign (i.e. disguise it with Hindu phrases).

 

This is no different than the Muslims who claim Mohammad was the Kalki avatara predicted in the Puranas.

 

 

But all this is really moot. Why should the Christians not refer to their deity as "being, consciousness and bliss"?

 

 

They did not even define sach-chid-ananda as being, consciousness and bliss. They think it means "the trinity of Gods". So without even having a clear understanding of the word, they want to incorporate it just because it is commonly used by Hindu Swamijis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

absolutely correct.

Although the vaticanhas very little influence

in india,in fact the vatican would never do what the orders are doing.

 

they have a very specific political agenda, although they are generally very well educated.

 

The concept of brahman is the father

The concept of paramatma is the holy spirit

the concept of bhagavan is the son

 

this is acceptable if they want to compare.

If they are interested in learning a faith

with legs.

 

Most of the preists in the orders have very little to no faith at all in God.

This is due to the simple fact that catholic dogma and biblical dogma is insufficient for an educated mind.

It is full of contradictions,holes ,and a mass of

unfullfilling philosophy.

 

Instead of trying to use Indian religion as a tool for their agenda,they have the opportunity to experience

the true nature and philosophy of the absolute truth.

 

then all of their plans will be of benefit to the world,

then they will be true servants of the highest cause,

all it takes is a submissive attitude when approaching

the devotee of the lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jagat,

 

 

What do you have against the possibility of dialogue that would arise from the use of common vocabulary?

 

 

Dialogue can arise only if both the parties are interested. Christians are NOT. Just 2 years ago, when the Pope visited India, he refused to use the word Hindu or to accept it as a bonafide path to realization. Instead he called for the evangelization of India. He would never have the guts to do so in Israel or in any Islamic country. Hindus have never been exclusive. They have always embraced everyone - even the weakest - and allowed them ultimate freedom to practice their religion in India. The Jews have been around for almost 2 millennia in Cochin in India and though a minority they have been acccorded the most freedom. The Christians have been around ever since the Syrians came to Kerala around the 5th century CE and the Hindus welcomed them. Hell, we even welcomed the Sufi spies who set up watch towers paving way for the Muslim onslaught. We haven't kicked out any ofthem, not even the ambling cossacks, though they deserve to be.

 

But when someone comes with the intention of destroying my culture, there is little room for dialogue. Did anyone suggest that the Jews should have had a dialogue with the SS officer on their way to Auschwitz? How can we have dialogue with the lumpen element [the current Pope] who canonised Pius XII, who was instrumental for the ascension of Hitler and who secured safe passage for the Nazis to South America and South Africa once the war was over?

 

 

We should rather welcome the Sanskritization of Christianity, which will increasingly make it an integral part of the Indian fabric, which once adopted and assimilated foreign ideas instead of rejecting them out of petty prejudice.

 

 

Christianity orginally targetted only Brahmins. Even till date, the Tamil Bible is called veda makam. Before the ecumenical council of the 15th century banned ethnic practices, Syrian Christians were very much Indianised. There was no cossack dancing on the streets. During the 20th century, the church in India Anglicised itself, though the process started with that gangster they call St. Xavier. It invented the Dravidian-Aryan divide and targetted the Dravidians and tribals for conversion. It is no wonder that the bulk of the Christian population in India is in Kerala, Tamilnadu, Goa and NE. Now, they want to evangelize the whole India and realize that they have to appear attractive to the Aryan north Indians too. Hence this Sanskritization gimmick, which they had after all abandoned for 100 years while busily chasing the south Indians.

 

 

Just like Vaishnavas are trying to convert Christians, Muslims and Jews everywhere they go. If there is no market, there are no sales.

 

 

I am yet to know of a Vaishnava organization that has deployed billions of dollars, exclusive TV channels, media blitz and government subsidy and funding for converting others. In case you are aware, kindly let me know. also, if you are aware of any Vaishnava organization that burnt the natives by hanging them upside down or that which ordered the soldiers to "take" the local women, please let me know. The church, under Saint my left foot Xavier did all this during Goan inquisition.

 

 

Hindus think that they have some kind of monopoly on religion in India. However, there have always been animist tribals and outcastes whose religious needs were marginalized or ignored by the Hindu elites. Occasionally bhakti movements made some concessions to these people, but in general Hindus were indifferent to them except for concerns about the danger they presented to their own ritual purity.

 

 

Not accurate. There were no outcastes until Hieun Tsang and Fahien came and went. They are not even mentioned by Al Beruni [10th century CE], though he talks of rigid caste system taking roots. If the Hindus had been intolerant towards other faiths, how do you think the Parsis, Jews, Christians etc., practised their faith in India long before the European colonisers came? If we are getting assertive and suspicious today, it is due to betrayal of faith. It is not we who have to change. It is the Pope who has to - first by apologizing for the atrocities committed by Saint my left foot Xavier.

 

Animism was a term invented by the British in the 19th century. Whichever non-Hindu tribal faith existed in the distant past, exists today. And several tribal faiths are very much Hindu. What a Hindu calls Lord Shiva, the tribals call Sudalai Maadasaamy and what a caste Hindu calls Mahavishnu, the Sangam Tamil tribals of the kurinji thinai or the hills called Maayoan.

 

 

Hinduism's great weakness lies in caste discrimination. Due to pressure from Christianity, it has been forced to make reforms in this area, just as it was in the cases of Suttee, widow remarriage, etc. Vivekananda was influenced by Christian missionary activity to promote welfare work and social uplift as a valid religious function of the sannyasi. This subsequently led to many other socially-oriented Hindu organizations. Surely these are positive results derived from Christian influence.

 

 

Another myth. Caste reforms have not been brought about as a reaction to Christianity. Church in India is the most casteist. Despite the fact that the Harijans make the bulk of their followers, virtually all the priests are high caste converts. Even recently, a big controversy broke out when Arch Bishop Arulappa, a high caste Vellaalar Christian, retired and was replaced by a Harijan. They even have seperate churches for Harijans. And above all, in the period you are mentioning, they only targetted the upper castes and Brahmins to be precise. When they converted the Brahmins of Trichy by offering them free education in St. Joseph's college, they were allowed to maintain their Brahmin practices, as an inducement. Check out any matrimonial advertisement for Christians. They all say Vellaala, Nadar, Syrian Catholic etc.. Caste is very rigid in Indian Christianity. So, the claim that the Hindus reformed as a reaction to that religion is untenable.

 

A thousand years before the Europeans came in, Ramanujacarya paved way for the temple entry of the Harijans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jagat,

 

To Indianise means to internalize Indian traditions and to have respect for the same. The Syrian Christians who dressed and prayed to Jesus just like the Hindus did to their Gods had truly Indianised. The church today is NOT Indianising. You cannot Indianise by abusing Hinduism, by building huge churches blocking the way to the ancient temples, by opening slaughter houses in front of them and by revolting against Indian values and by showing scant regard for Indian sensibilities.

 

The shadow of my left foot, the current Pope visited India 2 years ago. He was taken by the government to Gandhi samadhi on a tour. They have a guest book, which the dignitaries sign. Do you know what this senile lunatic wrote there? He wrote:

 

 

No culture can survive by being exclusive. India and her people should understand this.

 

 

Have you ever heard of any other dignitary disrespecting his amiable hosts in such a brazen manner? Oh, yes, he didn't kiss the soil of India upon getting off his plane. An act he always performs and which he promptly performed for full 2 minutes upon entering the cathedral in Delhi. So much for that rascal's regard for India. If I am a lecherous fellow who is only after your daughter, who has no regard whatsoever for your culture and the values that you cherish, will you have a dialogue with me just because I picked up 3 sentences in your language? Won't you just kick me out instead?

 

If the Christians are really keen on Indianising themselves, let them first revoke the ecumenical order that proscribes all "heathen" practices including yoga and Indian dress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your response shows that you did not understand my post very well. My point was that "sat-chit-ananda" represents a discourse about the absolute that is 3000 years old. Christians use of the term enters into that discourse. The article is obviously superficial in its treatment of the issue, and we should not take the quote as fully representative of Indian Christian debate about the use of Sanskrit terminology.

 

As you say, Gaudiya Vaishnavas interpret the term in a way that is not universal in Hinduism, but it is nevertheless true to the original meaning. There is no reason to think that Christian speculations will not have a legitimate connection to the term.

 

When we translate terms into English, do we not make use of words that have time-honored traditions of usage in Christianity. For instance "God." Are we not interpreting the word according to our biases? Does our use of the term not mean that we are participating in the eternal debate about what or who God is? When we use the term "God", does that mean we have to necessarily accept the Christian concept of God? If preaching in a Muslim country, would we say "Krishna is Allah"? Would this be a meaningless statement?

 

Obviously, if they are using the word "just because it is used by Hindu swamijis", they will be shooting themselves in the foot. If they want to convert, they will now have to show, to the Hindu conversant with his own culture, how their use of "sac-cid-ananda" is superior to the swamiji's. This is, in effect, entering the discourse.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may ask what the heck you know about Catholic theology? Christianity has been around for 2000 years. The theological literature it has produced dwarfs that of India by probably several hundred to one.

 

Have you read St. Thomas d'Aquino, Anselm, Peter Abelard, Thomas à Kempis, John of the Cross, Tillich, Barth, Otto, Hans Kung, Bornhoeffer, etc., etc. just to name a few off the top of my head. Christianity has been engaged with modernity since Hume, Hinduism has barely entered into the modern age, yet. Iskcon devotees are still trying to prove that the Bhagavatam is the last word in cosmology. The Christians dealt with these questions since the time of Galileo and Copernicus.

 

Of course they are trying to convert. They think that they have something better. They are convinced they are acting for the general good. That is their right. As someone has already said, if you want to prevent them from doing so, there are surely ways. No one changes religion unless they feel obliged to do so, unless their own religion does not provide them with meaning.

 

If Hinduism fails to provide meaning to its excluded, then that is its failure, not a Christian conspiracy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no reason to think that Christian speculations will not have a legitimate connection to the term.

 

 

How can there be a legitimate connection to the term when they fail to define the term properly in the first place. The quote provided is given by an archbishop. His understanding of the term is:

 

"The word 'Sachidanand,' meaning the Trinity of Gods, also conforms to the Christian precept of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

 

Thus it is clear he has no clue as to what he is talking about, yet he will push for this word to represent "God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost".

 

If there is no basic understanding of the meaning of the word, then any push to adopt the word is obviously for reasons as external as their understanding of the word itself.

 

 

For instance "God." Are we not interpreting the word according to our biases?

 

 

Interpretation is fine. Distortion is what is being questioned.

 

 

No one changes religion unless they feel obliged to do so, unless their own religion does not provide them with meaning.

 

 

Change of religion is not usually due to lack of meaning in life. Very few people actually get to the level of questioning meaning in life. The majority of people convert because of economic opportunities offered by the church. It is not that Hinduism does not provide them with meaning, but that it does not provide them with a job and education. Their cultural attachments to Hinduism remain, and this is why the Catholic Church adopts so many of these Hindu customs in India.

 

As far as a caste argument, this is not the real reason for conversion, as caste is equally prominent among Indian catholics, as Karthik pointed out. It is all economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, Karthik, you are very knowledgeable in your reply. Of course, I do agree with you. The current pope is known for his conservative and rather backward views. I know and admire a more liberal Christianity, and I mentioned certain names. I could mention more.

Admittedly, these are in the minority even within the Christian world, as liberals tend to abandon ship--just as they unfortunately do in Islam or Hinduism.

 

Under John Paul II, the more liberal currents of Indian theology were suppressed, as were liberal theologian like Hans Kung in Europe, as well as leading Liberation Theologians in South America. It is to be hoped that when this fellow dies, something better will come along.

 

But despite your obvious study of the issues, when it comes to caste, I don't know which Hindu apologist you have been reading. Why not read a little Vivekananda and find out where he got some of his ideas from? Was he not an ardent admirer of Europe? Are you going to tell me that the Brahmo Samaj and the other reform movements of the 19th century were not a conscious reaction to the embarrassment that learned babus like Ram Mohun Roy felt when confronted with traditions like Suttee, caste exclusion, kulin brahmin marriage, etc.

 

"Animism" is indeed a name, like so many others. It does, however, which has come to mean a kind of unsophisticated polytheism/pantheism. Hinduism is in many ways a sophisticated version of the same, so it is easy for the tribals to assimilate by the Sanskritization process through identification of their gods with the Hindu pantheon. But in general, the tribals feel little or no sense of adherence to the greater Hindu tradition. The Veda means nothing to them, nor should it, as the Brahmans have always excluded them from it. Dalits and other low-caste Hindus are also feeling increasingly marginalized, and with political empowerment, their need to identify as Hindus is weakening. Hinduism is a little more than camphor and ghee lamps. Those you can just as easily offer to a statue of Christ or the Buddha.

 

The challenges that face Hinduism are great. The resources that it has are also great, so there is no reason to think that it should not be able to meet these challenges.

 

Just one more thing, Gandhi was a great man who did indeed think "outside the box." He admired many things about Christianity and saw how many Christian concepts were true to the heart of Hinduism as well. He thus became influential, not only in India, but in the West as well, on Christianity itself. In view of this, John Paul's comment may not have been so much an insult, but an appreciation of Gandhi, who may well have said the same thing himself.

 

Too much of what passes for Hinduism is blind nationalism based on superficial understanding of history.

 

Jagat

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Christianity has been around for 2000 years.

 

 

Of course, it is debateable if Christianity has been around for 2000 years in its present form. The Bible comes into being only during the Council of Nicea - that is 325 CE. On the other hand, if we were to argue that Christianity is as old as every source from which it draws, for nothing is original in it, then it becomes as old as the Gilgamesh legend. For an impartial reader, it is a mixture that drew from all sources and evolved over time.

 

 

The theological literature it has produced dwarfs that of India by probably several hundred to one.

 

 

If a mere statement is also proof thereof, then I have nothing more to say. If not, you have to show that Christian literature dwarfs Hindu works, qualitatively and quantitatively. Interestingly, much of the Christian literature hailed by the people has been an outcome of Greek thought or Indic thought that went westward through the Arabs and Turks.

 

 

Hinduism has barely entered into the modern age, yet.

 

 

What would that mean?

 

 

Iskcon devotees are still trying to prove that the Bhagavatam is the last word in cosmology. The Christians dealt with these questions since the time of Galileo and Copernicus.

 

 

Even assuming every ISKCON devotee does so, which itself is not true, how does it taint every Hindu? In case somebody thinks that Christianity accepted the heliocentric model way back, please think twice. Vatican's acknowledgement didn't come until 1983. That is long after every sane scientist was persecuted for disproving the babblings in the Bible.

 

In contrast, those who think that the Hindus haven't yet come to terms with science would do well to read Aryabhatiyam, written in the 4th century CE. Or a host of other treatises that were written before the Moslems invaded. That was long, long before the church theologians were warning their faithful that the ship would fall off the horizon, because the earth is FLAT.

 

 

They think that they have something better. They are convinced they are acting for the general good. That is their right.

 

 

I would have believed so, but for all that money involved. Missionary game is smart business and has little spiritual basis. Those missionaries who don't convert en masse face the brunt of the church.

 

I am skeptical it is their right. Any right is reciprocal. Most western countries, including France, ban all Hindu sects, on one pretext or the other. Why should India allow a missionary from Italy or France to come home and convert when their governments won't allow an Indian Hindu or a Buddhist the same?

 

 

No one changes religion unless they feel obliged to do so, unless their own religion does not provide them with meaning.

 

 

That is not true. I would agree if it is about an individual who changes faith after studying it. But, most Christian converts in India are poor tribals induced by force and chicanery. In a country where 40% are below poverty line, you can always find gullible. Such conversions happen en masse. Those who convert haven't done so, because they have found something inadequate in their own religion, but because of inducements form the missionaries. FYKI, nobody ill treats a tribal, who often live in their own tribal areas where hardly any outsider ventures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But despite your obvious study of the issues, when it comes to caste, I don't know which Hindu apologist you have been reading. Why not read a little Vivekananda and find out where he got some of his ideas from? Was he not an ardent admirer of Europe? Are you going to tell me that the Brahmo Samaj and the other reform movements of the 19th century were not a conscious reaction to the embarrassment that learned babus like Ram Mohun Roy felt when confronted with traditions like Suttee, caste exclusion, kulin brahmin marriage, etc.

 

 

Colonial scholars always portrayed Ram Mohan Roy because that suited them. Before Vivekananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati had started the reform movement. He even converted mlecchas back to Hinduism through shuddhi. There were several evil practices like sati, which had crept into the Hindu society, but the eradication of the same had little to do with the Christians. If any, the Christians were keen on preserving the archaic laws of Hinduism, such as Manusmriti, which had never been in vogue, and even making them the law as Jones did.

 

Further, stringent attacks on casteism and mundane worship can be traced back to almost 2000 years, when the Shaivite saint Tirumuular wrote scathingly about them. He had not met one Christian in his life, unless Jesus was moving around in Tamilnadu as a ghost. Unfortunately, many have come to measure Hinduism through the interpolations, much of which happened in the medieval era and specifically in Sanskrit literature.

 

Above all, evil practices like untouchability and casteism have little religious sanction. They are an outcome of terrible land ownership and taxation policies like the zamindaari system which destroyed Indian lives. These were introduced by the Moslems and perfected by the Christian Europeans. With scarce resources and a ruthless ruler, the Hindus started preying on each other.

 

 

"Animism" is indeed a name, like so many others.

 

 

How many Christians would agree if I say that the African Americans practice marginalism [because they have always been the marginalised elements of the society] and not Christianity? How many would agree that no non-Jew could have ever been a Christian, because Jesus was a racist and called the gentiles dogs? Even though these are facts, for the sake of being politically correct, nobody says so.

 

How come calling the tribals animists okay, when it is not true?

 

 

But in general, the tribals feel little or no sense of adherence to the greater Hindu tradition. The Veda means nothing to them, nor should it, as the Brahmans have always excluded them from it. Dalits and other low-caste Hindus are also feeling increasingly marginalized, and with political empowerment, their need to identify as Hindus is weakening.

 

 

Perhaps, this is the myth the p-sec press of India is trying to create. In the recent Gujarat riots, the Muslims were lynched not by the upper caste Hindus, but by the Harijans. So much for their not feeling Hindu. The entire leadership of RSS in Tamilnadu comprises of a Harijan as its head and many lower castes as its main office bearers. This in a state that had 8 decades of anti Hindu propaganda. So much for their feeling of marginalization. I would request you to read the book "A beutiful tree" by the Gandhian historian Dharampal. It provides statistics, collected by the missionaries and the British in 1821, that clearly shows that the Harijans were not excluded from educational institutions in Tamilnadu even at such a later date.

 

 

John Paul's comment may not have been so much an insult, but an appreciation of Gandhi, who may well have said the same thing himself.

 

 

 

Gandhi also said that he listened to the missionaries without aversion but without getting convinced. He had many more scathing words for them and wanted conversion to be banned as he considered it an affront on a civilized society by barbarians. Why should we find an excuse for the insult the rascal Pope heaped on India?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...