Ramana Maharishi, a Hindu mystic-guru of the 20th century, used to lead his disciples to self-realization by asking them to concentrate on a simple question: Who am I? Meditation would lead them from a focus on their physical self (body) to various layers of self-awareness like the breath (energy), the emotions, reason, intuition and the phenomenal ego till they reach the inner self – the free agent – and then transcend it to discover its non-dual identity with the (Absolute) Self or Atman. This was a traditional process of interiorization and transcendence. My quest for self-identity has not yet started on this mystic path. In a globalizing world, with easy travel and increasing inter-cultural and inter-religious contacts facilitated by the media of communications, the quest for identity seems to be going in many directions. Some become fundamentalists resisting the attempt by the dominant powers to impose a uniform consumer identity for better control and exploitation on every one. Such fundamentalism sees the others as enemies who threaten one’s identity and experiences even pluralism as conflictual. Others are looking for a mutually shared and enriched global identity across borders. They promote dialogue and interaction between different groups. A few find themselves in liminal situations on the border lines seeking to hold in tension different identities.
I am an Indian Christian and a Jesuit. I was born and grew up as an Indian. My priestly formation has been in traditional scholastic philosophy and a theology in transformation after the Second Vatican Council. I have been a student also of Hindu philosophy/theology and spirituality. I have lived through the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. I have been involved in inter-religious dialogue between Hindus and Christians and an occasional Muslim for 35 years. All this has lead me to an awareness today of being a Hindu-Christian. I am encouraged by the thought that my guru, Fr. Ignatius Hirudayam, S.J. and Swami Abhishiktananda (Henri Le Saux), whom I was privileged to know in his last years, were Hindu-Christians according to my understanding. I think that Mahatma Gandhi was a Christian-Hindu, perhaps the best Indian Christian of the 20th century, if a Christian is someone who follows the teachings and example of Christ. At an international conference on “Double Belongingness in Religion” in Bruxelles in 1999 I felt at home in a group of about 40 people who felt Hindu-, Buddhist- or Taoist-Christian. Such a double identity will seem confusing to many. Some will cry “syncretism”. I shall therefore try to explain how I arrived there and how I feel and live such a liminal identity. At the end, I shall also clarify my position by referring briefly to the experience of Swami Abhishiktananda among others.
See Dennis Gira and Jacques Scheuer (eds), Vivre de plusieurs religions. Promesse ou illusion? Paris: L’Atelier, 2000, for some of the papers read at the seminar. My own contribution: “La double appartenance religieuse”, pp. 44-53. For an English version of my paper see “Double Religious Belonging and Liminality”, Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 66 (2002) 21-34; also in East Asian Pastoral Review 39 (2002) 297-312.
My Story
I was born (1936) in a family that has been Christian for five generations. But my parents were teachers working in government schools in largely Hindu villages. So, from the age of three, I grew up in a large Hindu village with about 500 families, of whom only three (all teachers) were Christian. There was a big temple to goddess Mariamman in the village. I was familiar with their rituals and festivals, observing them with my Hindu friends. On Sundays we used to walk 3 miles to go to the Church. So I grew up surrounded by Hindus. Our different identities were clear, but we were friends and playmates, not enemies. At the age of 11 I went to a Jesuit boarding school. There too the majority of the students and many of the teachers were Hindu. In the morning and in the evening the sounds of the bells of the nearby Hindu temple and the Christian church used to mingle harmoniously. The Christian atmosphere in the school and in the boarding was clear and dominant, but not aggressive or offensive. I used to go to teach catechism to children in nearby parish centres on Sundays.
I joined the Society of Jesus at the age of 17 in 1953. During the novitiate I chanced to spend two weeks with Fr. Ignatius Hirudayam, S.J. in a parish. He was a pioneer of inculturation and inter-religious dialogue, born a little ahead of his time and living, in that period, marginalized in a small parish after teaching for a couple of years in the Seminary. I imbibed from him his love for Hinduism, Indian culture and music. He was an expert in Shaiva Siddhanta, one of the branches of Hinduism. 15 years later, after the Council, he was allowed to start an Ashram in Chennai devoted to inculturation, inter-religious dialogue and Indian Christian spirituality. When I was student of philosophy, there was a growing interest in Indian culture among the students. A small group of us joined together to study various dimensions of Indian arts and culture, the aim being to understand better our own Indian identity and also use them to proclaim the Good News in India. During my philosophical studies I used to read the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas in the original Latin and other European thomists like Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson. Side by side I also read the 5-volume history of Indian philosophy by S.N. Dasgupta and the writings of other Hindu philosophers like S. Radhakrishnan and Ananda Coomarswamy, who was also an art historian. The theme for my paper at the end of the philosophy course was a comparison between C.G. Jung and Yoga. One consequence of this plunge into Hinduism was the slow realization that there are many ‘good’ and ‘holy’ elements in Hinduism that provoke appreciation and even admiration.
After philosophy, I spent two years studying South Indian Classical Music in Chennai. I was the only Christian among about 100 students. It was another immersion into Hinduism. Many of my masters were not only musicians, but devotees. The compositions they taught us were devotional songs. Music was for them a means of sadhana (spiritual practice), searching for God-experience. I was also shocked by my Hindu companions wondering why I, a Christian, was interested in ‘their’ music – a subtle hint that I was not considered Indian culturally, that Christianity was a foreign religion.
Then I went to Kurseong, in the Himalayas, for my studies in theology (1965). My interest in Hinduism continued. My first major published paper written at this time was a comparison between Indian and Ignatian spiritualities. My second was on Gandhian spirituality. After my first year, three of us students went on a pilgrimage to Hindu centres in North India to experience Hinduism at close quarters, so to speak. We travelled as ‘Hindus’ (i.e. not revealing our Christian identity), visited their temples, spoke to the sannyasis, stayed in their ashrams meant for pilgrims. We went to Haridwar and Rishikesh in the Himalayas, Brindavan and Mathura sacred to Krishna (a Hindu Avatar or divine manifestation in human form) and Varanasi and Bodhgaya. Two memories remain engraved in my memory. At Brindavan, the birthplace of Krishna, his life story was re-enacted in the evenings as a dance drama. The emotional involvement of the audience, transforming drama into a lived experience of contemplation and prayer, was remarkable and touching. Near Mathura we met a Hindu sannyasi who had just emerged from a two-year period of total silence. I have never seen such brightness on a face either before or after anywhere. I felt humble in the presence of a person who certainly had experienced the divine. Translated into theological terms, this meant the recognition of God’s action in and through another religious tradition. At this time I was also in contact with leaders of Christian-Hindu dialogue like Raimon Panikkar, Swami Abhishiktananda (Dom Henri Le Saux) and Bede Griffiths. When I finished theology, I wanted to study Hinduism more deeply. But my superiors did not favour the idea. So I did a research degree in Paris on inculturation in the field of the sacraments. (1969-72) However my focus later has been the development of an Indian Christian theology and spirituality. Let me note in passing that already in 1975 I published an article in French with the title: “Who am I: A Catholic-Hindu?”
Research and Reflection
When I came back to India and started teaching in 1973, the orientations of the Second Vatican Council had begun to take effect. 1973, there was a seminar in Bangalore that explored the question “Can we consider the scriptures of other religions as inspired?” The answer of the theologians was affirmative. They saw the history of salvation as a progression of three covenants: a cosmic or natural one will all human beings, illustrated, for example, by God’s covenant with Noah, then God’s covenant with Israel and finally the new covenant in Jesus Christ. The other religions and their scriptures belong to the cosmic covenant and can therefore be considered inspired analogically. This means that though God is not directly speaking to us through them, what God tells the members of other religions is of interest to us, just as we acknowledge God speaking to us through the Old Testament. The theologians concluded that we can draw spiritual nourishment form the other religious scriptures. More concretely they suggested that, on a Sunday, we could have a first reading from the scripture of another religion, followed by readings from the Old and the New Testament. The readings could be around the same theme. The theological paradigm is one of “preparation – fulfilment”. The Vatican disallowed this proposal even before being formally asked. But the use of other religious scriptures continues in private devotion and in the ashrams. Various collections of passages from other religious scriptures, mostly Hindu, exist and are occasionally used in prayer services or for personal devotion and reflection. A couple of Jesuits – Frs. Sebastian Painadath and Francis D’Sa – guide retreats based on The Bhagavad Gita even today.
2. “Qui suis-je? un catholique-hindou”, Christus 86 (1975) 159-171.
Now there is a general acknowledgement that the Spirit (and the Word) of God are present and active also in other cultures and religions. This would include their scriptures too. This recognition has lead to a change of paradigm in the theology of religions. The ‘preparation – fulfilment’ paradigm sees other religions as pre-Judaic. ‘Preparation – fulfilment’ also supposes ‘partial – full’. The consequence is that, if we have the fullness of truth in Jesus Christ, we do not have to worry about the partial truths available in Judaism and other religions. But historically and experientially it is difficult to see how the New Testament fulfils, say Hinduism, as it does the Old Testament. If God is really speaking through the other religious scriptures, God seems to be speaking in a different way. We must respect God’s freedom in self-revelation. God is not bound to our paradigms. So we may have something to learn from what God is saying to the others. Inter-religious dialogue then becomes mutual and not unidirectional. I cannot go into the theological implications of all this here.
In 1973, I began teaching theology, part time at Vidyajyoti College of Theology in Delhi and part time also in St. Paul’s Seminary, Tiruchirapalli, in the South. In Tiruchirapalli, with the collaboration of Dom Bede Griffiths (a British Benedictine monk), who had his ashram nearby, I launched an inter-religious group. About 20 Hindus and Christians used to come together every month to reflect together on themes like God, prayer, salvation, etc. in Hinduism and Christianity. Once we went to Bede Griffiths’ ashram, about 20 miles away, for a whole day of reflection and prayer. We joined the mid-day prayer at the ashram, read from Hindu and Christian scriptures and sang hymns (bhajans) addressed to God in general. When there was a gesture of honouring the Blessed Sacrament at the end of the prayer, a Hindu monk who was present was the first to fall prostrate in adoration, followed by other Hindus and of course by us, the Catholics. Praying together has not been a problem for us then or later, on other occasions elsewhere. It seems even more easy and relevant when we come together on special occasions like natural disasters like theTsunami and earthquakes or human caused destructions like violence and wars. Sitting together in silence before the Absolute has also been a powerful experience.
A Shift in Approach and Identity
What led to a shift in experience and reflection on identity, at least as far as I was concerned, was the use of some symbols, like OM and gestures like arathi (waving of lights or flowers as a gesture of paying homage) in Christian worship as a consequence of attempts at inculturation. A few Christians and Hindus objected to such use. Our response to the Christians was that these symbols were not basically religious, but cultural. They were not Hindu, but Indian. So the Indian Christians are entitled to use them, but re-interpreting them in the Christian context, like the symbol OM. This was what happened in ancient Roman times in the liturgy. The response to the Hindus also was that these symbols were not Hindu, though used in Hindu ritual, but Indian, and as Indians we had a right to use it, reinterpreting it in a Christian context.
3. See John Paul II, The Mission of the Redeemer, 28-29.
4. See my articles “Other Scriptures and the Christian”, Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 49 (1985) 6-15; “Other Religions and the Salvific Mystery of Christ”, Ibid. 70 (2006) 8-23.
5. The first evolute of the Absolute is said to be sound. OM, when sung, is a symbol of this sound manifestation. The Christians reinterpret it as a non-iconic Trinitarian symbol of God: OM = A+U+M.
The next step in the reflection went this way: Even if these symbols were not purely cultural, but also religious, there is no problem is using them since Hinduism as such is not evil, since the Spirit of God is present and active in it. Of course we should avoid symbols that look superstitious. We should also keep away from mythico-historical symbols like Krishna or the Nataraja (the dancing Shiva) that belong to the Hindu tradition. This can lead to a misunderstanding with a living religion like Hinduism, can give scandal to the Christians and may end up in syncretism. But there should be no problem in using general cultural symbols, linguistic and iconic, even integrating some of the general, non-mythical, religious meaning which they may have acquired in Hinduism.
The response to the Hindus took another different turn at least in the minds of some of us. This has not been spelt out too openly yet. I am not only Indian, ethnically and culturally. My heritage is also Hindu. My ancestors were Hindu. If God has spoken to my ancestors and if the Spirit of God has been present and active in their religions, there is no reason why I should not reclaim my Hindu spiritual heritage and integrate it with my Christian heritage. I am heir to two traditions, namely Hinduism and Christianity. I feel proud of both of them and seek to integrate them in myself. This is how I become Hindu-Christian. What does this imply?
A Hindu-Christian
Hinduism and Christianity are also social institutions. I do not claim nor seek to belong to two social institutions. At this level I am a Christian. I do not look for a kind of hybrid identity that is both Hindu and Christian in a social, communitarian sense. Am I an inter-faith person or doing inter-faith theology or practicing inter-faith spirituality? I do not think so. I think that paradigms like “exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism” and “inter-faith theology” are abstract. They look at religions from the outside, as it were, having no contact with them as lived realities by the members of other religions. There is no inter-faith or universal theology. Theologians of different religions can dialogue and move towards a consensus on the defence and promotion of common human and spiritual values. Today they need to. I would then speak of dialogical theology and, even more, of dialogical spirituality. Being a Hindu-Christian is therefore an ongoing intra-personal dialogue between two poles of a complex identity within me as a person. It has more to do with attitudes and ideas than ritual practices, which have a social focus. It seems a crucial preparation for an inter-personal dialogue with Hindus at a socio-cultural, even political level.
6. I have explored this in Life in Freedom. Liberation Theologies in Asia. (Maryknoll:Orbis, 1997). It presents liberation theologies from various Asian religions.
When I am actually dialoguing with a Hindu in the contemporary socio-political context in India what seems crucial is the recognition of and respect for identities based on difference. Dialogue does not consist in looking for a common denominator but in developing an overlapping consensus that can animate, not only a search for God/the Absolute, but also common socio-political action. Religions are not something that we humans create and can play with. For a Hindu or a Christian his/her religion is a particular way through which God has reached out to him/her. It is a personal relationship. One does not compare personal relationships. They have a certain uniqueness about them. One does not seek to merge them in some way. Rather one celebrates their difference. Learning from the other, being challenged and transformed by the other, integrating the other is different from some sort of syncretism that easily mixes up symbolic worlds. I would be justified in re-interpreting a symbol like OM in a Christian context, because it is a sound symbol, more basic than even language. But I cannot borrow Hindu mythological symbols like Rama, Krishna or Shiva. They are their symbols and they will use them to define, defend and celebrate their identity. I relate to God through Christ and my Hindu friend relates to God through Krishna or Shiva. We may compare these ways. We may even consider them homologous. We may say something about the transcendent God whom both of us are trying to reach in and through our respective real-symbols. We do not experience God is some non-symbolic way in Godself. Christ and Krishna are not mere symbols for us that can be easily exchanged. They are mediations. They represent a history. We cannot mix them to produce an inter-faith ‘Krishna-Christ’!
I have explored these questions at two levels. I have developed my reflections on pluralism in Making Harmony. Living in a Pluralist World. In this book I speak of perspectives like a pluralist social democracy, multiculturalism, pluralism of truths and religions. I have discussed the more theological issues in Walking Together. The Practice of Inter-religious Dialogue and Beyond Dialogue. Pilgrims to the Absolute.
An Indian Hindu-Christian
At the cultural level, I am an Indian. I have been constantly interacting with Euro-American culture and this encounter has also shaped my thinking. But I try to keep my Indianness in the way I approach persons and things. I do not think I will be at home totally in Euro-America, even though Indian culture is Indo-European. Because of my ongoing dialogue with Hinduism and Indian culture my philosophical and theological approaches have changed over the years. I have moved away from a Greek, rational, conceptual, logical, object-focused, dichotomous (either-or) theory of knowledge to an Indian (Asian), symbolic, interpretative, narrative, subject-focused, inclusive (both-and) one. In this I have also been helped by contemporary European philosophy with its turn to the ‘subject’ and to language. I have also abandoned a physics-based Aristotelian metaphysics in favour of a person-based, non-dual, relational ontology. To ‘be’ is to ‘inter-be’. I speak no longer of things and causes, but of persons and transforming, empowering relationships. With these new approaches, I find it easier, not only to dialogue with the Asian Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist others, but also to be an Indian (Asian) Christian. My latest book is The Asian Jesus , which attempts to understand the meaningfulness of Jesus using Asian cultural and religious symbols like the Way, the Sage, the Avatar, the Satyagrahi, the Guru, the Dancer, etc., just as the Europeans saw him as shepherd and king. Of course, this is not making my work as a theologian easy, since the ‘official’ Church is still tied to neo-scholastic epistemology and metaphysics.
Starting with a positive approach to other religions as participants in God’s plan of salvation, I have a new theology of history focused on the Kingdom of God, which embraces also other religions, with the Church becoming the symbol and servant of the kingdom, called and challenged to collaborate with the other religions and ideologies in realizing it in history. The real enemies of the kingdom are Satan, as the personal principle of evil and Mammon, as the power of money, not the other religions, who also struggle against these evil principles. I also have a new spiritual vision that searches for a personal and cosmic integration. God, the Spirit, the Word and Jesus are experienced and seen in new ways. I think that it is at the level of divine-human relationship (spirituality) and my reflection on it (theology) that I am a Hindu-Christian. Here too I am basically Christian, but in interaction with Hindu theological and spiritual perspectives. For me this is a personal identity. But I can and do see it being a group identity in some of the ashrams.
7. Chennai: IDCR, 2003.
8. Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1992.
9. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2008.
Such a Hindu-Christian integration is not the same as the integration between cosmic and metacosmic religions that Aloysius Pieris speaks of. The cosmic religions search for meaning at the level of the cosmos which includes the humans, nature and the spirits that inhabit the cosmos. The metacosmic religions posit a Transcendent. Pieris suggests that as a metacosmic religion spreads across many areas it tends to integrate without abolishing the local cosmic religion, which supplies the social symbolic structures, as its base. In a way this is a natural process. When this is not allowed to happen, as in the case of the imposition of the Latin Church in the ‘mission’ countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia after the 15th century, the people either resist it or construct parallel, flourishing popular religions side by side. Both Hinduism and Christianity are metacosmic religions and any integration between them can only happen through dialogue as equals.
Being Hindu-Christian, what do I seek to integrate from Hinduism into my Christianity? I think that basically it involves four things: 1. Overcoming the dichotomous perspective that separates the divine and creation, the humans and the cosmos, the body and the spirit through the principle of advaita or non-duality. God and the world, the spirit and the body in the humans are not two distinct realities. They are not one either. They are two-in-one or non-dual. At the same time, one (the body, the world) is dependent on the other. But the dependence is not separation. The advaita takes a middle position between monism/pantheism and dualism. 2. A pluralistic perspective that is respective of difference and is inclusive as opposed to the either-or logic of the Greek-Scholastic tradition. In the official circles of the Church, theological or religious pluralism is immediately decried as relativism and subjectivism. The possibility of different perceptions of the real is not admitted. Reality is one. But perceptions of reality are conditioned by culture and history and personal perspectives and limitations. There is no reason to assert that the truth of one’s own perception negates the truth of others. What I perceive and assert is true. But it is not the whole truth. Other perceptions and affirmations of the same reality remain possible. 3. An emphasis on experience and praxis with their complexities that challenges the conceptual, abstract and ‘objective’ metaphysics. Our experience is complex. In order to understand it we abstract various concepts from it. These concepts are limited, abstract and partial perceptions. But the tendency is to universalize and objectify these concepts, while reality and its experience are forgotten. I have discovered recently that the Spanish philosopher Xavier Zubiri has protested against such abstraction and has proposed a more concrete theory of knowledge. 4. An integration of the energy field that mediates between the spirit and the body, that also links the humans to the universe. This is the field of the Yoga in the Indian, Hindu, but also Buddhist, traditions. The Greeks dichotomised the spirit from the body. Contemporary science forgets the spirit and focuses on the body, because only the body can be touched, measured and scientifically experimented upon. The energy field is neither spiritual nor corporal. But it can be experienced. One can get in touch with it through breathing and concentration. It can both heal and cause harm in the psycho-somatic area of human experience. Alternative healing techniques make use of this. It is also used in Hindu and Buddhist meditation techniques to promote inner healing and wholeness. Taken seriously and systematically these four orientations would transform Indian theology and spirituality.
10. Maryknoll; Orbis, 2006.
11. For a discussion on the challenges of inculturation see my book: Beyond Inculturation. Can the Many be One? Delhi: ISPCK, 1998.
12. See Thomas Bamat and Jean-Paul Wiest (eds), Popular Catholicism in a World Church. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999. I have written the concluding reflective paper for this collection of experiences.
Some Questions
In this process of integration how do I judge what is true and proper. Is it a relativistic attitude of ‘anything goes’ provided one feels helped by it? In the area of religion and spirituality the real criterion is not orthodoxy, but orthopraxis. (cf. Mt 25:31-45) In our approach to God, even our true affirmations, while being true, cannot claim to be the absolute truth – the last word. All that we can really say about God is neti, neti – not this, not that. It is not that we cannot say anything about God, but that all our affirmations are limited and have to be transcended. Therefore what we have to look for is not that all our affirmations about God say the same thing in different words, but that they do not contradict each other. It is convergence that leads to greater truth. In the process of divine-human encounter both God and the humans are free. They need not repeat themselves. This is a source of legitimate pluralism which is not relativistic. It is relativism if I create my truth. It is not relativism if I accept that my own experience, perception and expression of the Ultimate are conditioned by the limitations of my situation. Even God’s self-revelation is conditioned by my historical circumstances and the limitations of my language. So what we need is mutually challenging dialogue and not the pretention of any one group to possess the absolute truth. Only the Ultimate Reality is normative, not any one’s perception of it. Even Jesus’ manifestation of God was kenotic and eschatological. The One we all pursue can only be the convergent horizon of the many paths that people follow inspired by the Spirit. In the process of cosmic harmony, my Hindu-Christian integration is only one step. Asian bishops and theologians speak of the people of different religions as “co-pilgrims” towards the Reign of God. The Office of Theological Concerns of the FABC, in its document on Asian Christian Perspectives on Harmony, recognizes “in all sisters and brothers, of whatever faith-conviction and culture, fellow way-farers to God’s Reign.” On the occasion of the Asian synod, the Indian Bishops said: “God’s dialogue with Asian peoples through their religious experiences is a great mystery. We as Church enter into this mystery by dialogue through sharing and listening to the Spirit in others. Dialogue, then, becomes an experience of God’s Kingdom.” The Bishops from the Philippines said: “In the social context of the great majority of Asian peoples, even more use should be made of the model of the Church as servant, a co-pilgrim in the journey to the Kingdom of God where fullness of life is given as a gift.”
13. Cf. Kevin F. Burke, The Ground Beneath the Cross. Theology of Ignacio Ellacuria. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2000.
14. I have made a small attempt at developing such a spirituality in The Dancing Cosmos. A Way to Harmony. Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 2003.
15. See my paper “Which is the True Religion? Searching for Criteria”, in S. Painadath and Leonard Fernando (eds), Co-worker for Your Joy. Festschrift in honour of George Gispert-Sauch, S.J. Delhi: Vidyajyoti/ISPCK, 2006, pp. 45-60.
A certain perspective of ‘inculturation’ pretends to have the One which only needs to be translated into many cultures. The One that we seek to reach is not in the past but in the transcendent future. God’s Word has challenged us to respond to it. What we should do is to let this Word and other words of God challenge other people to respond in their own way and look for a convergence, because it is the same God, rather than impose our way of responding to God on every one, claiming that our way is the only true way. Inculturation is not a move from the centre to the periphery. Rather it is a movement from the periphery to the transcendent centre that will be manifest only on the last day when God will be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28)
Models
Is being a Hindu-Christian simply idiosyncratic? My contacts in Asia and Europe show that it is not unusual. I do not think that everyone is called to live it. It may be for a few. But I think that these are liminal people who are called or given the grace to attempt such a way of life that may lead to a deeper dialogue between religions. Today inter-religious dialogue seems to be in crisis because of the many religious fundamentalistic conflicts that are going on all around the world. In such a situation liminal people witness to challenges and possibilities. I would even say that they follow a special call of God.
Just as I am Hindu-Christian, some Hindus, like Keshub Chandra Sen (1858-1884) and Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) have been Christian-Hindus, deeply influenced by the example and teachings of Christ. Mahatma Gandhi said that, if a Christian were someone who followed the teachings of Christ, then he was a Christian. But he clearly distanced himself from the Christian community in a social sense. There are similar Christian-Hindus even today who consider Jesus as their Guru. To respect religions and their believers is also to respect their socio-cultural-political identities and differences.
I think that Hindu-Christians like me and Christian-Hindus like Gandhi are liminal people. We are people on the border lines, staying within our borders and yet open to the others, reaching out to them. We can be models and animators of dialogue in a special way. But any effort to have one leg on each side of the border will be a disaster. Brahmabandab Upadyaya (1861-1907) called himself a Hindu-Christian – Hindu socially and Christian religiously. But his later efforts to become a Hindu-Christian religiously ended up as a disaster because he transgressed the social borders.
16. Josef Eilers (ed), For All the Peoples of Asia, Vol II, (Manila: Claretian Press, 1997), p. 285.
17. Peter C. Phan (ed), The Asian Synod, Texts and Commentaries. (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002), pp.20-21.
18. Ibid., p.39.
It is from this point of view that Swami Abhishiktananda offers us a model. He was a French Benedictine monk, Henri Le Saux, who came to India with the aim of witnessing to Christian mysticism in order to attract Hindu mystics. He was attracted by a Hindu advaitic mystic, Ramana Maharishi. So in a first book, Saccidananda, he tried to show how the mysticism of Ramana will find fulfilment in the Christian mysticism of the Trinity. But then he himself began following the advaitic path. After many years of intense practice he claimed to have achieved the advaitic (non-dual) experience. To the end of his life he was faithful to the Eucharist and to the praying of the psalms. He tried all through life to intellectually integrate his Christian and his Hindu experience, but without success. His logical (French) rationality and his neo-scholastic theological background may have been a problem. His only disciple, Marc, was jointly initiated as a sannyasi by him and a Hindu Swami Chidananda of Rishikesh. In the last few years of his life he often said that he had gone beyond the symbols and rituals of any religion. Accordingly, his experience of the advaita or non-duality was beyond all religions, all ‘names and forms’ (namarupa). Maybe he was making a mistake seeing it as Hindu and seeking to integrate it with his Christian namarupa. At the same time he felt free to experience the Absolute through the Christian namarupa – the Eucharist. I do not think that at any time he was practicing any Hindu ritual (namarupa). He must have realized in his last days that he was experiencing God – the Absolute – in two different ways and he did not have to integrate them rationally, but just enjoy the diversity. As a matter of fact there is nothing ‘Hindu’ about the advaitic experience, socially, ritually and institutionally, though it cannot be totally detached from the Hindu spiritual tradition either. His tension seems to have disappeared after a heart attack some months before his death. My own understanding is that he accepted both experiences as valid without trying to artificially integrate them. Not everyone can lay claim to mystical experiences. But others can follow a similar path of a tensive integration.
19. Henri Le Saux, La montée au fond du coeur. Paris: O.E.I.L., 1986.
God alone is Absolute. I think that God is calling us not to absolutize the paths that God has indicated to us to seek God-experience. Ultimately it is in the world and in the humans that we encounter God. This is the lesson of Jesus and of the Advaita. In this quest cultural and religious boundaries are not sacred!
Conclusion
What happens to a Hindu-Christian when Hindu mobs are attacking and killing Christians, burning their houses and churches and driving them into the forest? It is true that only a small minority of Hindus indulge in violent action. But apart from another small minority of ‘secular’ Hindus that are supportive of the Christians, the majority seem to be silent, perhaps embarrassed, spectators. It is obvious that it is not Hinduism and Christianity that are in conflict, but communal groups that are using religion as a political weapon. A Hindu-Christian will be attacked by fundamentalists from both sides. But the dialogue between Hindus and Christians has to continue and the few Hindu-Christians have a role in it. They are not playing politics, but following God’s call. They can be witnesses for peace and communion. The Hindu-Christian conflicts in India are not merely religious. They also have economic, political and social causes. When the overall economic level in the country rises and there is social progress, the communal clashes in the name of religion will probably subside. But God, religions and spirituality will and should continue to bring people together.
Michael Amaladoss, S.J
Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions, Chennai, India.