Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies Volume 13 Article 8 January 2000 Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations Deepak Sarma Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Sarma, Deepak (2000) "Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations," Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies: Vol. 13, Article 8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7825/2164-6279.1228 The Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies is a publication of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies. The digital version is made available by Digital Commons @ Butler University. For questions about the Journal or the Society, please contact [email protected]. For more information about Digital Commons @ Butler University, please contact [email protected]. Sarma: Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations Is Jesus a Hindu? S. C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations Deepak Sarma University of Chicago 1. Introductory Remarks 2. Madhva Vedanta in a Nutshell Misperceptions and misrepresentations are Many readers will be familiar with frequently linked to complicated dynamics Madhvacarya's position. However, for those between those who are misperceived and readers who are suffering from ajnana, those who do the misperceiving. Oftentimes ignorance (or even mumuksu!), I offer a such dynamics are manifestations of under­ brief introduction to Madhva theology. This lying social, political, or, in the cases synopsis is not to be considered exhaustive. described in this issue of the Hindu­ For the purposes of this limited discussion I Christian Studies Bulletin, religious appeal to several texts from the Madhva differences. The Hindu and the Christian corpus. 2 traditions share a long history of mutual Madhva Vedanta supports a dualist misrepresentations and misperceptions. position in that it separates all that is real, Many of the authors in this issue of the tattva, into independent, svatantra, and Bulletin may offer detailed analyses of such dependent, paratantra, entities. The only misperceptions as they have been described completely independent entity is Vishnu, by virtuoso Hindu thinkers such as Ram also referred to as brahman. Dependent Mohan Roy, Gandhi-ji, and, in more recent entities are further subdivided into negation, times, BJP activists. In contrast, I will or non~existents, abhava, and non.;.negation, explore a case where mutual misperceptions existents, bhava. The former concerns epis­ have established a peculiar dynamic by temological-ontological categories, while focusing on the misperceptions that the the latter is divided into non-sentients, Madhva school of Vedanta has been acetana, and sentients, cetana. Sentients influenced by Christian beliefs. There is a alone possess agency. Sentients are also theory that the Christian influence in subdivided in a hierarchical fashion. Their Madhva Vedanta has resulted in a lively and hierarchization concerns' "proximity" to provocative dialogue, one that is not only Vishnu. Proximity, moreover, is consonant based on mutual misrepresentations by with moksa, or release. Madhva ontology, Christians and Hindus of one another but then, is inextricably linked to its eschato­ that actually serves to reinforce such logy. Sentients, cetana, are either eternally misrepresentations. saved, or living in pain. The former set is I begin by summarizing the Madhva comprised only of the goddess Sri, Vishnu's position. Then I turn to a brief account of the consort. The latter set, those living in pain, Christian misperceptions of their position. are either saved, mukta, or not saved, Next, I examine Srisa Chandra Vasu's amukta. Mukta are devas, gods, rsis, sages, misrepresentation of the misrepresentations. and the like. Those' not saved fall in three Finally, I draw conclusions from this categories. This tripartite distinction, complex dynamic. 1 jivatraividhya, is Madhva's doctrine of pre- Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 13 (2000) 19-25 Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2000 1 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 13 [2000], Art. 8 20 Deepak Sarma destination, svarupatraividhya. The highest school. These disputes inspired the group, ucca, those fit for or qualified for philosophical dialogue between the schools release, muktiyogyah, can achieve salvation. of Vedanta - a dialogue that still continues Those sentients unable to achieve salvation today in contemporary discussions between are either madhya, middling, and nitya­ scholars of each tradition. The Madhva vartah, bound to. the cycle of birth and position summarized here is distorted. by rebirth, or nica, lowest, tamoyogyah, fit for some Christian scholars. darkness .. This hierarchy, then, strictly correlates ontology with eschatology. That 3. Christian Misperceptions is, the ability, or lack thereof, to attain ... considering the fact that Madhva fnoksa, proximity to Vishnu, for all sentients was born and brought up in the is part of the predetermined nature of the neighbourhood of Christians and that Madhva universe. the doctrine of bhakti is common to all Madhvacarya proclaims himself to be forms of Vaisnavism and Christianity, the third avatara, incarnation, of Vayu, the there is considerable probability that at wind God, the son of Visnu.3 Hanuman, the least some of these legends grew up monkey deity of the Ramayana, and Bhima, under Christian influence. Still more striking, however, is the central article one o{the Pandavas in the Mahabharata, are of Madhva belief that Vayu is the son of the first and second. Vayu, namely the Supreme God, Vishnu, and that Madhvacarya, has a dynamic position as a salvation can be obtained only through 4 mediator between devotees and Visnu. He him. This is evidently an idea borrowed guides bhaktas, devotees, on their journey from Christianity, quite possibly towards Vishnu. Muktiyogyah devotees must promulgated as a rival to the central rely on Vayu/Madhvacarya to -serve as doctrine of that faith.s intermediary. To what degree they must rely G. A. Grierson makes this strong statement upon him, though, is a matter of debate in section three, "Influence of Christianity" among Madhva scholars. Not surprisingly, of his 1916 article "Madhvas, Madhva­ the fact that Madhvacarya claims to be the charis" published in Hastings' Ency­ son of Vishnu is the crux of the mutual clopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Grierson misperceptions and misrepresentations summarizes a debate whose origins lay in between Madhvas and Christians. earlier ·speculations of A. Burnell and Madhvacarya holds that the universe is Collins, who wrote about this topic in The governed by pancabheda, five-fold dif­ Indian Antiquary beginning in 1873.6 ference. First, there is a difference between Clearly it was important for some Christian brahman, the Highest, and the atman, the thinkers to posit influences and to sub­ self. Second, there is a difference between ordinate Madhva Vedanta to Christianity. the atman and jada, material things. Third, Madhvacarya's doctrine certainly made there is a difference between each jada. itself vulnerable to such claims. The issue is Fourth, there is a difference between jada, focused centrally around the declaration material things, and brahman, the Highest. made by Madhvacarya that he is the avatara Finally, there is a difference between each of Vayu, the son of Vishnu, and that he is atman, self. These five differences are the the mediator between devotees and God. It fundamental bases for arguments regarding is tangentially related to the possible link ontological, epistemological, and soterio­ between Madhvacarya' s unusual doctrine of logical matters between the Madhva school predestination and similar doctrines found in and all other schools of Vedanta. For Christianity, as well as to speculation about example, the Advaita school of Vedanta the location of Christian settlements in holds that in moksa, liberation, there is no South Asia. Though some may hold that difference between the atman, the self, and such influences are possible or even brahman. This position conflicts with all probable, the search for such influences is five of the pancabheda tenets of the Madhva clearly linked to misunderstandings and https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol13/iss1/8 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1228 2 1 Sarma: Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations Is Jesus a Hindu? 21 misrepresentations of both Christians of innocent brahmacaris such as myself; and Madhvas and vice versa. that Santa Claus is a symbol of market The way in which Grierson's misrepre­ economy mechanics and Christian capital­ sentative speculation is based on a misper­ ism. Such misrepresentations are not solely ception of Madhva doctrine and issues of the domain of Hindu communities but have orthogenesis is quite obvious. Grierson is a long history among Hindu thinkers. One simply part of a group of Christian scholars such thinker was Srisa Chandra Vasu ... who misrepresent Madhva Vedanta by S. C. Vasu (1861-1918 CE) was a vOIcmg and publishing such tenuous highly prolifIc translator who published conclusions. Thankfully, later scholars, both more than twenty-fIve creative translations Christian and Hindu, sought to correct the in the late nineteenth and early twentieth misrepresentation that the relationship centuries. His translations are "creative" between Madhvacarya and Vishnu is because tliey are very far from literal ones. 10 identical to the one between Christ and the Vasu adds