Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies

Volume 13 Article 8

January 2000

Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. 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 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 , 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 , by virtuoso Hindu thinkers such as Ram also referred to as . 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, , 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 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 Vasu's amukta. Mukta are devas, , 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 of the neighbourhood of Christians and that Madhva universe. the doctrine of is common to all Madhvacarya proclaims himself to be forms of Vaisnavism and Christianity, the third avatara, , of , the there is considerable probability that at wind , the son of Visnu.3 , the least some of these legends grew up deity of the , and Bhima, under Christian influence. Still more striking, however, is the central article one o{the in the , 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 materials, both related and Christian God. 7 Glasenapp, the Berlin unrelated, to his translations. It is diffIcult to University Orientalist, for example, argues discern between the actual text and the extra against the orthogenetic model. In his materials and analyses. These creative Madhva's Philosophie des Vishnu-Glauben, translations provide Vasu with opportunities he states "Bei naherem Zusehen zeigt sich to offer his own theories at the cost of jedoch, dass die Vergleichspunkte zwischen distorting Madhvacarya's position. Vayu und Christus ganz minimale sind.,,8 Though he is better known for his work Vayu, after all, is neither identical with on the Mimamsa school, Vasu also Vishnu nor is he Vishnu's fIrst son. The translated several texts of the Madhva comparison is further problematized as school of Vedanta.l1 His translations of is Vishnu's fIrst son. More Madhvacarya's commentaries on the importantly, VayulMadhva remains govern­ Upanisads are found in the Sacred Books of ed by pancabheda, fIve-fold difference and the Hindus series edited by Major B. D. is therefore absolutely and incontrovertibly Basu published between 1909 and 1926.12 different from Vishnu. Grierson and others, They were published around the same time then, were Christians who misrepresented, that Grierson published his article in the misperceived, and misunderstood Madhva Encylcopaedia (1916). This chronology may Vedanta, one , tradition, of indicate that Vasu was well aware of the . issues of Christian influence that troubled these early Christian Indologists. His 4. Hindus Misrepresentations of knowledge of Grierson's work may also Christianity - the Case of S. C. Vasu account for his double misrepresentation: a The examples of Christians misrepresenting Hindu misrepresentation of a· Christian Hinduism are plentiful. As evidenced by the misrepresentation of Hinduism. "Divali; Festival of Lights, for My study of Vasu's translations Hindus" pamphlet published and distributed indicates that he addresses the issue of in Spring 2000 by the Southern Baptist influence in two places, fIrst in the Convention of the , such introductory remarks to his translation of misrepresentations continue to the present Madhvacarya's Chandogya Upanisad day.9 Not surprisingly, the reverse, Hindus Bhasya and second in his own commentary misrepresenting Christians, also proliferates. on concluding sections of the Many of my earliest memories are fIlled Brhadaranyaka Upanisad Bhasya.13 Though with misrepresentations offered by the his translation of the Chandogya was Hindu community: e.g. that eating the body published in 1910, I ,begin with the remarks and blood of Christ on Sundays was an from the Brhadaranyaka, published in 1916. enactment of cannibalism; that Christian girls intended to convert and corrupt

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2000 3 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 13 [2000], Art. 8 22 Deepak Samla

4.1 Vasu and the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad soul (), when she is frightened by In the final section of his Brhadaranyaka the terrors and temptations of the world, Upanisad Bhasya, Madhvacarya states that namely, of the lower nature of man. he is an avatara of Vayu and in the lineage This is the fIrst incarnation of Vayu or I,j of Bhima and Hanuman. This section is Christ in the soul of man. He where Vasu makes the controversial (and encourages her and tells her not to lose misleading) identification between Madhva­ heart. The soul, thus encouraged and hopeful, becomes stronger and assumes carya and Christ. Given his creative style, he the sterner aspects of Draupadi. 17 also adds several portions of texts that are not to be found in Madhvacarya's Bhasya in Imagine, Hanuman is Christ himself as well order to prove his theories. Examinations of as being an angel! several editions of Madhvacarya's Bhasya The fIrst function of Vayu or Christ is indicate that the extra texts are not part of that of Hanumat or wisdom. It is the the original text. 14 These extra texts are angel that brings the message of hope to the desponding soul, as Hanumat taken from sections" from the Rg Veda 18 carried the words of " to Sita. pertaining to the god Vayu. Madhvacarya, moreover, does not comment on these Bhima, on the other hand, is a more pro­ sectioris in his commentary on the Rg active Christ: Veda. 1s The second manifestation of Vayu takes Vasu locates his misrepresentations at place now. It is when the soul has 1.1 the end of his creative translation of reached the stage of Draupadi, who no Madhvacarya's Bhasya. Vasu attempts to longer is capable of being snatched II away by or , that explain the relationships between Hanuman, the second manifestation of Vayu takes Bhima, and Madhvacarya. He first reminds place. The Christ comes now, not as a

'I the reader, though, that Madhvacarya is messenger of God, but as a warrior of I I Christ: the Lord, the destroyer of the Satanic II host. 19 I The Commentator [Madhvacarya] now I shows, by quoting scriptures, that his Where could Vasu possibly have found 1 1 i coming is prophesized in the , and grounds for a Satanic host in the Ramayana ! ! i I therefore this Commentary written by and Mahabharata? Are Ravana and him is authoritative, because he is one Duryodhana Satanic hosts? in of the Aptas or" the perfect. He is, Vasu then, comments on five passages fact, an incarnation of Vayu or Christ. [sic] 16 taken from the Rg Veda to serve his own agenda, proving the identification with Surprisingly, Vasu is not saying that Christ. He offers a creative translation of Rg Madhvacarya is like Christ. Vayu/ Madhva­ Veda 1.141.2.: carya is Christ! Vasu then examines the first two His , as the destroyer of the hosts; is his second foim, rich with avataras of Vayu and their roles in his food, this eternal one sleeps in the home Christian narrative, asserting that Hanuman, of the seven measurers [sic] the monkey god of the Ramayana, and The third form of this powerful Vayu Bhima, the most ferocious of the five is assumed, in order to give the milk of brothers of the Mahabharata - wisdom to mankind. This is the ten each incarnations of Christ - save humanity. measured form, called the Pumaprajna, Hanuman is a messenger of God while which the virgins immaculately Bhima is a warrior against Satan. Vasu conceive.20 states: Then he gives his commentary: Hanumat represents the messenger of The second Avatqa of Vayu is Bhima, God, standing near his throne, ever the Temble, the destroyer of the army ready to do his commands. He brings of the Satanic host. In this form, he the message of hope to the desponding governs the Seven Worlds, called the

https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol13/iss1/8 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1228 4 "j

Sarma: Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations Is Jesus a HiIidu? 23

seven Measurers. Resting in the seven Christian theology. I have, therefore, worlds, He fights incessantly with all not hesitated in translating Vayu and the evils thereof, and keeps them fit for Prana by Chrisf3 beings to dwell. This form is called rich Perhaps realizing his identification of in food, for it nourishes the seven Madhvacarya and Christ is so radical as to bodies of man. This is the Christ as 1 provoke extreme scepticism, he tries to world-souf justify his argument by stating: Vasu turns to Madhvacarya, the third Some may think that Madhva's idea is avatara ofVayu: not the same as the Christian id,ea of. The third aspect of Vayu or Christ is Christ. Noone can expect exact that which is called Madhva or similarities in such cases, but the Purnaprajna or Ananda-. This is approach is still remarkable. the human aspect or incarnation of He further continues to defend theiden­ Christ, born of women - janayanta yosanah. This incarnation is . called tification: dasapramatim or Ten-measured or Full­ But more remarkable than this, is the measured, for it is the Perfect claim of Madhva that he is an manifestation; . for ten is the perfect incarnation of Vayu. Other authors have number. This incarnation is called the been more modest, and left it to their Vrisabha or the Bull of God, as the disciples to deify them, but Madhva, Christians call the Christ the Lamb of like Jesus, boldly lays claim to be the God.22 incarnation of Vayu, the son of God. In this way, Vasu is even able to use similar Those who believe in the doctrine of reincarnation, will fmd no difficulty in imagery in the two religions as evidence for accepting this view. his own agenda. He furthermore makes an even stronger 4.2 Vasu and the Chandogya Upanisad contention: Bhasya Mrs Besant has declared that Jesus was Vasu's iIitroduction to the Chandogya is reborn in as . May it not even more surprising than his creative be that Sri Madhva, the greatest translation of the Brhadaranyaka. In these Vaisnava reformer, in the direct line of remarks Vasu continues to misrepresent whose disciples we may count , , Nanak, Tulsi Dass, both Christianity and then Hinduism! and the great Chaitanya of Bengal, was Madhva Vedanta. His iIic1usivist theology himself the incarnation of what he has controversial and disturbing implica­ claims himself to be, namely of Vayu or tions: he takes the unusual position that Christ? HiIidus were more Christian than Christians! Finally, Vasu makes his strongest and most He peppers his remarks with Christian surprising claim: doctrine and most notably, asserts yet agaiIi May it not be that the modem Hindus that Madhvacarya is to be identified with are really Christians in its better and Christ. In the conc1usion.ofhis introduction, truer sense, and need not be ashamed to he states: call themselves Vaisnavas, the worship­ Before closing this introduction, I may pers of one True God and Christians or mention a point on which perhaps adorers of His beloved Son. [sic] Madhva is unique, namely, his claim Is Christ really a HiIidu? Vasu certainly that he is an incarnation of Vayu, called thinks so! also Prana, is the highest being next to God. He is called "the beloved son of 4.3 Mutual Misrepresentations God", the "servant of God", "the mediator between God and man", "the A curious doubliIig, of misperceptions are at saviour". The functions assigned by Sri work here. The first is a Hindu Madhva to Vayu correspond very misperception of Christianity and the closely to the Christ principle of the second, a HiIidu misperception of a Hindu

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2000 5 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 13 [2000], Art. 8 24 Deepak Sanna

schooL The most significant misperception Govindacarya ed. Bangalore: Akhila of Christianity on the part of Vasu concerns Madhwa Maharnandala, 1969-74), the fact that he ignores the martyred and 6.5.5. sacrificial nature of Christ. Though he 4. See Madhvacarya, Chandogya Upanisad ventures a superficial comparison based on Bhasya in Sarvamulagranthah. (B. the similarity that both are founders of a Govindacarya ed. Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, 1969-74), religious tradition and both claim to have 3.15.2 and 5.2. See Helmuth von Glasenapp, some supernatural relationship to the divine, Madhva's Philosophie des Vishnu-Glauben. he ignores the fact that their location in the (Bonn: Kurt Schroeder, 1923), pp. 73-74 for tradition is radically different. Madhvacarya more references. is not oppressed, never crucified, and never 5. G. A. Grierson, "Madhvas, Madhvacharis" rises from the dead. Furthermore, Vasu in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, either fails to notice or purposely Vol. 8. (Hastings, ed. NY: Charles misrepresents the complexity of the relation­ Scribner's Sons, 1916), p. 234. ship between Christ and God, a complexity 6. Grierson, "Madhvas, Madhvacharis", p. 234, n. 3, p. 235, n. 1. which has given rise to millennia of 7. Of course the relationship between Christ arguments and hypotheses. and the Christian God and the integrity of Many of these misrepresentations the Trinity is a matter of some debate among would be mitigated if Vasu had engaged in a Christians and Christian scholars, a debate comparison rather than in an identification. that I happily leave them to resolve. His worst error and the one that makes him 8. Glasenapp, Madhva's Philosophie, p. 34. most subject to criticism is his statement that 9. International Mission Board, "Divali: Madhvacarya is Christ rather than that he is Festival of Lights, Prayer for Hindus". . like Christ. Though such comparison would (Southern Baptist Convention, 1999) . still involve misrepresentations, they would 10. I am indebted to Paul Griffiths for the phrase "creative translation". be less extreme. Either way, he succeeds in 11. Vasu was not the first to publish Madhva misrepresenting Christianity as well as texts in English as S. Subba Rau published misrepresenting Madhva Vedanta as Chris­ translations of the Brahma Bhasya and tianity. These misrepresentations, moreover, Madhvacarya's commentary on the Gita in are mutuaL The misperceived is also 1904 and 1906 respectively. S. Subba Rao, misperceiving! The Vedanta- with the commentary of Sri Madhwacharya. (: Sri Press, 1904). S. Subba Rao, The 'vad Notes Gita; Translation and Commentaries in English according to Sri Madhwacharya's . (Madras: Minerva Press, 1906). 1. I am, as always, indebted to Keri Elizabeth 12. B. D. Basu (ed.), Sacred Books of the Ames for her editorial suggestions. Hindus. (Allahabad: B.D. ~asu, 1909-1926). 2. A large part of this summary is taken from 13. S. C. Vasu, Chhandogya Upanisad with the Madhvacarya, Tattvaviveka in Sarvamula­ Commentary of Iri , Sacred grantha. (B. Govindacarya ed. Banga1ore: Books of the Hindus Vol. 3. (Allahabad: Akhi1a Bharata Madhwa Maharnandala, B.D. Basu, 1910). S. C. Vasu, 1969-74). More detailed summaries can be Brihadaranyaka Upanisad with the Com~ found in B. N. K. Sharma, Philosophy ofSri mentary of Sri Madhvacharya, Sacred Books Madhvacarya. (Delhi: , of the Hindus Vol. 14. (Allahabad: B.D. 1986) and other introductory texts on Basu, 1916). Madhva Vedanta. For an excellent summary 14. See, B. Govindacarya (ed.), Sarvamula­ of Madhva epistemology, see Suzanne granthah. (Bangalore: Akhila Bharata Siauve, La Doctrine de Madhva. Madhwa Maharnandala, 1969-74),and V. (Pondichery: Institut Franyais D'Indologie, Prabhanjanacharya' (ed.), Sarvamula­ 1968). granthah. (Bangalore: Sri Vyasa Madhwa 3. Madhvacarya, Brhadaranyaka Upanisad Pratisthana, 1999). Bhasya in Sarvamulagranthah. (B. 15. See Madhvacarya, Rgbhasya in Sarvamula-

https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol13/iss1/8 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1228 6 Sarma: Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations Is Jesus a Hindu? 25 .

granthah. (B. Govindacarya ed. Bangalore: Thirdly, that they might drain the treasures Akhila Bharata Madhwa Mahamandala, of the Bull, the maidens brought forth him for 1969-74). whom the ten provide.[sic] 16. Vasu, Brihadaranyaka Upanisad, p. 708. R. T. H. Griffiths, Hymns of the Rgveda, Brackets mine. Vol. 1. (: Chowkhamba 17. Ibid.,p.709. Series Office, 1963), p. 195. Vasu provides 18. Ibid., p. 711. the translation for the reader in his 19. Ibid., p. 709. commentary. See Vasu, Brihadaranyaka 20. Ibid., p: 711. The same passage is translated Upanisad, p. 710. by R. T. H. Griffiths. Readers may note the 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. extent to which Vasu's translation is 'II creative. 23. Vasu, Chhandogya Upanisad, xiv-xv. All Wonderful, rich in nourishment, he dwells citations in this section are from Vasu, in food; next in the seven auspicious Mothers Chhandogya Upanisad, pp. xiv-xv. is his home.

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2000 7