Pathways to Hindu-Christian Dialogue

Anantanand Rambachan

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN: 9781506474601
• eBook ISBN: 9781506474618
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christianity

Hindus and Christians have a long history of interaction on the Indian subcontinent. Since the latter half of the twentieth century, with the increased possibilities for immigration, Hindus and Christians live side by side in many parts of the Western world and there are growing numbers of Hindu-Christian marriages and families. In North America, for example, the population of Hindus is approaching three million. Hindu students are attending many colleges with a Christian history and ideals. To avoid the dangers of these communities sharing geographical space but not understanding each other, Pathways to Hindu-Christian Dialogue offers dialogue that fosters mutual understanding, respect, and learning in both communities.

Chapter One

Starting Points for Hindu-Christian Dialogue

In 2006, I was a participant in a consultation in Lariano, Italy (May 12–16), convened by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Office of Interreligious Relations and Dialogue of the World Council of Churches. The conference was titled “Conversion-Assessing the Reality,” and with participants of different traditions (Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Yoruban), we offered our reflections on the matter of conversion.1 A second meeting, an intra-Christian consultation, was held in Toulouse, France (2007), and a final intra-Christian meeting took place in Bangkok, Thailand (2011). This is the meeting that finalized the document “Christian Witness in a Multi-religious World: Recommendations for Conduct” (CWMW).2 I am delighted to note that several of our recommendations from Lariano appeared in the final document.

At Lariano, we affirmed the right to freedom of religion, which includes the freedom to practice one’s own faith, to share one’s faith with people of one’s own and other faiths, and to embrace another faith. At the same time, we noted that the sharing of faiths must be done in ways that do not violate the rights and religious sensibilities of others. We asked that conversion by unethical means be rejected and for transparency in the practice of inviting others to one’s faith. We invited traditions to move away from the exclusive focus on converting others. We called upon faiths to reject and discourage unethical methods of conversion that include taking advantage of human beings in vulnerable situations and offering humanitarian aid as incentives for conversion. We concluded our report with a call for continuing interreligious dialogue on conversion.

The matter of mission and conversion continues to be a prominent cause of division and tension between Christians and Hindus. Several Indian states have enacted legislation to prohibit conversions through coercion, allurement, and fraud. There are also calls for national anticonversion laws.

The state of Odisha (formerly Orissa) was the first to enact anticonversion legislation: the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967.3 In the words of this act, “No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.” Conversion is defined as “renouncing one religion and adopting another,” and the meaning of force includes “a show of force or a threat of injury of any kind, including the threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication.” Inducement includes “the offer of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind, and shall also include the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise.” Finally, fraud is defined to include “misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance.” The provisions of the laws in other states are quite similar to the Odisha legislation. Although this bill and others like it do not make the act of converting from one religion to another illegal, consensus on the meaning of terms like force, inducement, and fraudulent is impossible. The threat of “divine displeasure,” for example, is included in the definition of force, highlighting the deep differences over this matter.

Mission and the Sharing of Traditions

Hindus, on the whole, have the perception that mission is the single and most important concern of Christianity. They understand it to be a compulsion that is driven by the nature of exclusive Christian theological claims. The preamble to the CWMW begins with the affirmation that “mission belongs to the very being of the church. Proclaiming the word of God and witnessing to the world is essential for every Christian.” Of course, the purpose of the document is to stipulate and describe the proper and appropriate ways in which such a mission may be conducted. The opening words of the CWMW, however, do not change the widespread Hindu view of mission as the primary concern of Christianity.

The Hindu tradition is not averse to the sharing of religious teaching and, in fact, commends such sharing. The often-cited Ṛg Veda (1.89.1) text, “Let noble truths come to us from all sides,” expresses the deep and ancient Hindu value for sharing and receiving wisdom. At the conclusion of the Bhagavadgītā (18:67–71), the teacher, Krishna, commends the sharing of his teachings. He characterizes the sharing of wisdom as the dearest form of service and the teacher as dearest to him among human beings (18:69).

One who reveals this supreme secret to those who have offered me their love,

Enacting the highest offering of love for me—that one shall certainly come to me, without doubt.

And among humans, there is no one whose acts are more dearly loved by me than that one,

Nor shall there be any other on earth who is more dearly loved by me than such a person.4

The motivation for such sharing is the conviction that these teachings are universally relevant and conducive to human well-being. The sharer hopes that the consequence of such sharing is that others are persuaded to embrace these teachings by awakening to their truth and beauty. Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902) undertook the hazardous and pioneering journey from India to the United States in the late nineteenth century, inspired by the conviction that the message of the Vedānta tradition was needed by and good for persons in the West. His path continues to be followed by a line of distinguished Hindu teachers. Hindu traditions, therefore, are not unfamiliar with the religious motive of sharing one’s conviction, debating, and persuading others about its validity.

Sharing in the Hindu tradition, however, occurred generally in response to a request for religious teaching made by a student to a teacher. It was always felt that this teaching spoke meaningfully to the person who had examined life’s experiences and discovered that finite or created ends such as power, wealth, fame, or pleasure are ultimately unfulfilling. A religious need, in other words, must be established and not presumed. It is the function of the teacher to validate this need and to impart wisdom through words and personal examples. The qualified teacher is one who knows the sacred texts and methods of imparting wisdom and whose life is firmly rooted in what she teaches. Hindus regard religious teachers with profound respect and honor as exemplars of sacred teaching.

Religious teaching is liberating when shared by a qualified teacher to a receptive student who is devoted to ethical values, who practices self-control, and whose mind is focused. The dissemination and receipt of religious teaching is a demanding and transformative process that requires commitment and dedication as a disciple. Debates occurred among leaders of theological traditions, but the absence of institutionalization and centralization meant that there were no systematic efforts to supplant different viewpoints. Today, Hindus become uneasy and suspicious of grand plans, programs, and resources aimed at conversion and of the development of missionary strategies targeting particular religious communities. Such planned and programmatic efforts at conversion cause Hindus to feel under attack and lead to defensive attitudes.

A Different Starting Point?

Could we consider a starting point different from the preamble’s affirmation of the centrality of mission for Christian identity?

The CWMW speaks importantly about mission being conducted with gentleness and respect in the context of dialogue: “Christians are called to conduct themselves with integrity, charity, compassion and humility, to overcome all arrogance, condescension and disparagement.”5 In the conduct of mission, Christians are advised that “this should be done ecumenically, and in consultation with representatives of other religions.”6 Bearing false witness against other religions is denounced, and appreciation for “what is true and good in them” is commended.7

Hindus would welcome these recommendations. I believe that practitioners of both traditions would not rest content with a passive tolerance that excluded engagement. We do not wish our traditions to be fortresses in which we live in isolation from our neighbors of other faiths. The CWMW assumes active engagement between Hindus and Christians characterized by mutual respect, learning in dialogue, and cooperation in the pursuit of justice, peace, and the common good.

Could there be a different starting point? Instead of mission, we may start, as Hindus and Christians, with the truth of the one divine reality who is the source of all life. The Upaniṣads—that is, the wisdom section of the Vedas—speak of God as “that from which all beings originate, by which they are sustained and to which they return” (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1.1).8 The Upaniṣads contest the existence of anything but the One God before creation and the emergence of the world from anything other than God. The Bhagavadgītā (9:17–18) speaks of God as father and mother of the universe and as its nourisher, lord, goal, and friend. God is not the national, tribal, or exclusive deity of a particular religious or ethnic community but the source of all life and existence. God is not Hindu or Christian.

In 1998, I was invited by the World Council of Churches to participate as a Hindu guest at its eighth assembly in Harare, Zimbabwe (December 3–14).9 With guests of other faiths, we presented at a series of “padares.”10 One “padare” at which I spoke had the provocative title “My God, Your God, Our God, No God?” Speaking from a Hindu perspective, I suggested that “unless our understanding of the absolute is specifically tribal, ethnic or national in nature, we hold it to be the source, support and destiny of all beings. Where the absolute is understood as a personal God, God is understood as the creator of all beings and not just of a specific group. Our understanding of the absolute is such that it would be contradictory to propose that it could be anything other than one. God is clearly our God. The absolute One is not yours or mine, but ours. It does not belong to us; we belong to it.”11 The danger of overlooking the universal God of our traditions is tribalizing our understanding of God and limiting God to the boundaries of our communities and our concerns.

The Hindu affirmation of the truth of a universal divine one who is the source of all existence is not a theological footnote. For Mahatma Gandhi, the implication is unity and identity with the other. “I believe,” wrote Gandhi, “in the absolute oneness of God and, therefore, of humanity.”12 With a common origin in the divine, human beings constitute a single family. According to the Maha Upaniṣad (6:71–72), only those with small minds distinguish between the relative and the stranger. For those who live generously, the entire world constitutes one family.13

Like the Upaniṣads, the Bible also begins with the origin of all from God. In the words of the Christian theologian S. Wesley Ariarajah, “Significantly it is the story not of the creation of the church, or of Christians, not even of Israel, but of the cosmos. ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.’ This belief that God is the creator of everything and everybody is basic to the Bible. There is nothing that is outside God’s providence; there is no life, no experience, no worship, no liberation, no salvation that can happen outside of the scope of God’s love and knowledge.”14 From God’s side, according to Ariarajah, echoing the beautiful Maha Upaniṣad text cited above, there can only be one family—the human family. The Īśa Upaniṣad (1) speaks of the universe as enfolded in God. Nothing and no one are outside of God; nothing exists separate from God. Enfolding is a form of embracing and suggests care and love. In the words of Rowan Williams, “God is the unique source of everything.”15

The Upaniṣads, however, do not stop there. They teach that after bringing forth this wondrous diversity, the divine is present equally in every being; everyone and everything is enfolded most intimately in God. Nothing exists outside of God, and nothing exists but for the fact that it receives the gift of moment-to-moment sustenance from God.

Psalm 139 instructs about the encompassing divine reality rhetorically: “Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there” (7–8 NRSV). In Acts 17:27–28, Paul reflects on the paradox of the human quest for God and cites a text some attribute to a Greek philosopher, Epimenides: “They would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’” (NRSV). Rowan Williams speaks of divine immanence in the language of divine action: “It means that within every circumstance, every object, every person, God’s action is going on, a sort of white heat at the centre of everything.”16 In his version of the Rāmāyaṇa, the religious poet, Tulasidās, beautifully meditates on the paradox of God’s immanence. In Ayodhyākāṇḍa (in the chapter on Ayodhya), Rama, God-incarnate for millions of Hindus, who is exiled in the forest, approaches the sage Valmiki, inquiring about a suitable place to construct a new home. Valmiki’s rhetorical reply is not unlike the question in Psalm 139: “You ask me, ‘Where should I stay?’ I ask you humbly to tell me where you do not exist; then I will show you a place.”17

This truth of divinity abiding in all hearts is the most fundamental source and ground of the intrinsic dignity and equal worth of every human being. It is our theological antibody to the instrumentalization of human beings and the denial of their personhood. The implication, I want to suggest, for both Hindus and Christians, is that we cannot honor and value God and devalue human beings. We cannot give our assent or support to any social or cultural system that is founded on human inequality and indignity.

The positive implications of divine immanence are just as important as the rejection of inequality and injustice in structures such as casteism, racism, and sexism. The single value and practice that expresses best the meaning of Hindu spirituality is compassion (dayā). In Bhagavadgītā 12:13, Krishna describes the religious person who is dear to him as one who is free from hate and who is friendly, compassionate, and forgiving. It is important to underline that he speaks not just of freedom from hate (adveṣtā) but, positively, of friendship (maitraḥ) and compassion (dayā). The saint-poet Tulasidās also gives pride of place to compassion as the expression of the religious life and describes it as being one with the other in suffering and happiness (para duḥkha duḥkha sukha sukha). He identifies the essence of ethics (dharma) with working for the well-being of others and its opposite (adharma) with oppression.18

For the great Protestant reformer Martin Luther, the religious life is a life of service. The meaning of service is enriched immeasurably by understanding that the “recipients of service are Christ incarnate within human need.”19 He invites Chr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Introduction
• 1 Starting Points for Hindu-Christian Dialogue
• 2 Theological Resources and Challenges to Hindu-Christian Dialogue
• 3 Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva) and Hindu-Christian Dialogue
• 4 Caste and Hindu-Christian Dialogue
• 5 What Can Hindus Learn from Christianity?
• 6 What Can Christians Learn from Hinduism?
• 7 The Political and the Theological: Why Hindu-Christian Dialogue?
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index