Sraddha (श्रद्धा): Going Mad to Get Him

A scene is described by the well-known Bengali sage, Swami Vivekananda. He asks his listeners to imagine a thief trying to sleep in a room.  He has come to know that in the very next room there is a mass of gold, essentially unguarded.

The Swami asks, "What will be the condition of that thief?"

It doesn't take much imagination for us to guess that the thief will not be getting much sleep at all that night. His mind will be racing with schemes to somehow get at the gold. He will surely not rest until it is his.

The Swami explains his meaning:

"Do you believe that a man could believe in God and not go mad to get Him?  If a man sincerely believes that there is that immense, infinite mine of Bliss, and that It can be reached, would not that man go mad in his struggle to reach it?"

The true devotee cries out, "As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for You, O God! My soul thirsts for God, for the Living God! When shall I come and appear before God?" (Bhajan 42:1-2)

And this, is the meaning of the ancient Sanskrit term "sraddha" (श्रद्धा) which is often used as the name for memorial ceremonies performed on the anniversaries of the deaths of our loved ones.  It is to have faith in God and to "go mad to get at him", which should be our attitude daily but especially in difficult times (such as the death of a family member).

Sadly, as the sage says, it seems that not "one in twenty millions in this world believes in God".  He is not wrong.  Even the most devout soul will struggle to maintain sraddha/faith.  Even the bhaktis of Prabhu Sri Yeshuji, the Mahamukteshwar, who listened daily to his pravachan and witnessed countless displays of shakti (power), often were said to have only a "little faith".

But even the answer for this dilemma is found in God.  The Ishwarprerita wrote that our moksha (liberation) would come by grace (anugraha) through faith and that this itself was a gift of God.  We do not have the faith that we need to go mad to get God.  It is foreign to us and must be given by Another.  But praise to Sureshwar, the Good God, who will give freely to all who ask.

Today, ask God to give you true "sraddha" so that you can know the joy of salvation and knowing the Living God.  

Hare Jesus, Hare Jesus: Answering a Critic

Recently, a video of mine that was long ago posted on YouTube received a concerned, yet graciously written, comment (BTW- Another visitor to my channel apparently flagged that comment as spam and I want to go on the record as saying that it wasn’t me).  Welcoming the chance to clarify any misunderstanding, I quickly responded.  I have not yet received a follow up, but thought it might be a helpful thing today to share the substance of that exchange here.  First, here is the video in question:

This is called the "TriEak Pameshwar Mahamantra" (i.e. "the great meditative prayer to the Triune God").  It has been adapted from what is called the "Mahamantra" and is especially popular among members of the ISKON or Hare Krishna movement.  The text of what I am saying is as follows:

हरे पिता हरे पिता, पिता पिता हरे हरे

हरे पुत्र हरे पुत्र, पुत्र पुत्र हरे हरे

हरे आत्मा हरे आत्म, आत्मा आत्मा हरे हरे

त्रिएक परमेश्वर हरे हरे,

त्रिएक परमेश्वर हरे हरे । 

Hare Pita Hare Pita, Pita Pita Hare Hare

Hare Putra Hare Putra, Putra Putra Hare Hare

Hare Atma Hare Atma, Atma Atma Hare Hare

TriEak Parmeshwar Hare Hare,

TriEak Parmeshwar Hare Hare.

Which may be translated as:   

Father, remove my sin

Son, remove my sin

Holy Spirit, remove my sin

Triune God, remove my sin.

Now the concern raised by my YouTube viewer seemed focused on the use of the word "Hare" (हरे).  Here is the comment:

Brother, I really admire your heart and effort. But if we are not careful about this kind of contextualization then there will be greater consequences. I do not feel comfortable while contextualization fades power of gospel. The word 'Hare' is Hindu god Bishnu and you are putting Father, Son and Holy Spirit after hindu god Bishnu in your maha mantra.

As I said, a very graciously and kindly written comment.  The above comment (with the exception of the kindly tone, which is sadly rare) is actually a pretty good representation of the kind of opposition that is leveled by Christians against the efforts of other Christians to pursue contextualization.

Vishnu's Name

The commenter's basic mistake is a misunderstanding of the word "hare" (हरे) which he incorrectly identifies as a name for the god Vishnu.  It seems that the commenter has confused the Sanskrit terms "hare" with "hari" (हरि).  The latter is a term which has the basic meaning of yellow, green or "fawn-colored".  It has come to be popularly associated with the gods Vishnu and Krishna  and is sometimes used simply as a proper name in reference to one or the other (or both) of them.  The former (hare) is a variation of the Sanskrit word हर (hara) which means "taking away" or "removing".  Connotative use in prayers by Hindus carries a meaning of "take away my sin" or "take away my evil".   In one Nepali tradition, devotees of "Mahadev" will take a ritual bath while repeating "hara-hara".  In that case, the sense of meaning is clearly "wipe away my sin".  

The popular "mahamantra" prayer contains the refrains, "hare Krishna, hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, hare hare" and "hare Rama, hare Rama, Rama Rama hare hare".  There also, the meaning is clear.  The word is हरे and should be understood to mean, "Krishna, take away my sin" and "Rama, take away my sin."  It does not mean "Vishnu Krishna" and "Vishnu Rama".  Nor does it mean "Green Krishna" and "Green Rama".  The word is not हरि (hari) but हरे (hare).  One Hare Krishna devotee explains it this way:

"The word hare has come from 'haran' which means 'to take away' or 'to end'.  So when one says 'hare Krishna', he requests the God (the supreme consciousness) to take away his sorrows, his shortcomings, his failures, and pains.  This Hare Krishna Mantra is actually a little prayer to God for taking away all the sorrows, pains and shortcomings of the chanter and provide him bliss and joy."

The above, I hope, illustrates why it is important to seek proper understanding before leveling criticism.  My experience has taught me that followers of Jesus can be very quick to condemn things that they don't understand.  This can have the effect of obscuring the message of Jesus Christ to our listeners.  They may hear us saying something like "Jesus hates you" when that isn't what we meant at all.  Again, we may look to Jesus who didn't hesitate to prophetically critique the societal sin that he saw in his day.  While his opponents sometimes reacted very strongly against him, they never accused him of not understanding.  My commenter is concerned that contextualization sometimes "fades the power of the gospel".  Setting aside for a moment that nothing can actually do that (i.e. fade the power of the gospel), what should be of a bigger concern is whether or not it is actually the gospel that is being communicated.

Billions of Names Off-Limits?

Beyond this, however, I need to highlight another element to my commenter's argument.  There is an unchecked assumption that undergirds his critique that must not be left unexposed.   That is, while we've refuted the notion that "hare" is to be understood as a name for Vishnu, there is still the underlying assumption that any name given to Vishnu by the devotees of Vishnu cannot be used by followers and devotees of Jesus in their worship of the Triune God.  Still further below this is the assumption that no name used by devotees of any other god can be used by the followers of Jesus.  This assumption however, must be rejected outright.

In the first place, my commenter is probably getting his idea of "hari" (again, not "hare") as a name for Vishnu from stanza 69 of the Shri Vishnu Sahasra-Nama Stotram (although he may have arrived at this idea in a very indirect way).  The title of this ancient Sanskrit text can be translated as "The Thousand Names of Vishnu".  Again, stanza 69 features the name "hari" (not "hare", which doesn't appear in the text) as one of the names of Vishnu.  That is, one of a thousand names for Vishnu!  What are some of the other names?  Just to mention a few: paramaatma (supreme spirit), saakshee (witness), prabhu (lord), pavitram (holy one), sharanam (refuge), satyah (truth), guru (teacher), sarva shaktiman (all mighty), and parameshwar (supreme god).  A natural question flowing from my commenter's argument would be "upon what basis do Hindi and Nepali-speaking Christians justify the use any of the above terms in their worship of Jesus Christ?"  These are all "names of Vishnu".  If we accept the premise that any name used in reference to Vishnu cannot be used in reference to Jesus (or the Father, or the Holy Spirit), then we cannot use any of the above names.  Moreover, much of South Asian hymnody, Christian theological literature, and Bible translations would need to be scrapped as they make great use of the above terms.  Once we've then cleaned up the Church from all of these names of Vishnu, we would then have to proceed to the thousand names of Shiva, Lalita, Ganesh, Lakshmi, Durga, and 330 million others.  I highly doubt that we'd be left with any language at all.

No, this assumption must be discarded.  The question is not whether or not a name has been used in reference to another deity.  It is, after all, undeniable that words like Christ, Lord, God, Adoni, El, Theos etc. have all be used in reference to other gods and did not emerge from the mysterious ooze of some primordial Christian "super-culture". The question must be whether or not a particular word can be appropriately used in reference to the Triune God of the Bible.  Is he Master (swami), Lord (prabhu), all-mighty (sarva shaktiman), the light (jyoti), savior (muktidata)? And does he remove sin (hare)? 

To the one who desires to share the hope of the Lord Jesus with the Hindu world, I would ask that you consider the following:

1. What is your Hindu friend praying?  Do you understand it?
2. Are they asking for something that they shouldn't desire?  Or is their desire legitimate and commendable (e.g. forgiveness, illumination, eternal life)?
3. Is part of the "good news" of the gospel the fact that the person and work of Jesus Christ actually offers an answer to that request?

In the case of the traditional "mahamantra", what we have done is simply to let people know that we resonate and empathize with their desire to have their sins and failures removed.  "Hare-hare" is a legitimate prayer to pray.  We then offer both the form and substance of the "TriEak Parmeshwar Mahamantra" -- pointing people to a fulfillment that can be found in Christ.  In response to our "hare-hare", Jesus, by virtue of his atonement on the cross says, "Yes!"  He has accomplished by his blood what countless Hindus pray for daily.  

Blessings!

My First Nepali Sermon (Video)

Some people were interested in seeing the video of my very first Nepali sermon.  I spoke on the Good News of the Birth of Jesus.  My focus was on the song of the Heavenly Host in Luke 2.  Translated from the Simple Nepali Version of the Bible, "May they have peace with whom God is happy." The question I reflected on was, "With whom is God happy?"

Now, the recording isn't very good. This is just house sound, so it would have been more clear in person. What is somewhat unique about my approach is my incorporation of Sanskrit chanting.  Enjoy!

Ahimsa, Nirvana, the World's Oldest Religion and Erie, PA

In an article posted on GoErie.com, I like the fact that author Joel Tuzynski considers the city of Erie fortunate for being able to welcome refugee groups like the Bhutanese-Nepalis.  Like the Buffalo author, he wants his readers to embrace their newest neighbors.  This is good and such sentiment should be applauded.  Tuzynski, who directs the Multicultural Community Resources Center in Erie (which I have seen personally), also issues in the article a firm and heartfelt call for the citizenry of Erie to band together to fight against targeted violence against the Bhutanese.  Since I know what is going on in Erie, I join in this call.  


However, I don’t appreciate the way Tuzynski talks about the Hinduism of these refugees.  There are three quick points to make.  (1) Tuzynski claims that the Bhutanese-Nepalis adhere to the concept of “ahimsa” (non-violence/injury) and are thus, “by nature”, a peaceful people.  The problem with this claim is that most Bhutanese-Nepalis haven’t the foggiest idea what “ahimsa” means.  Those that do will normally interpret primarily (even exclusively) in terms of dietary rules (vegetarianism).  What is more, a closer look at their history reveals that they are not at all averse to the use of violence, war, or revolt.  Short of that, just watch practically any Nepali film (including the ones produced by Bhutanese-Nepalis) and see how non-violent they are.  The fact of the matter is that “ahimsa” plays a negligible role in the Hinduism of most Bhutanese.  On the contrary, the Bhagavad Gita is probably the most commonly read Hindu shastra among them – hardly a text that advocates non-violence.  


(2) Tuzynski refers to “nirvana” as the Hindu’s “highest state of existence” and says that the Bhutanese view life as the ongoing quest to achieve nirvana.  While the idea of nirvana is present in Hinduism and spoken of in the Gita, Tuzynski seems to be conflating the Buddhist with the Hindu worldview.  Nirvana is a term that is essentially unknown to most Bhutanese-Nepalis.  They will instead speak of salvation using a term like “mukti” or perhaps “moksha” (which are somewhat synonymous with nirvana).  They more commonly talk of going to “baikoontha” or “swargya” (heaven) but even more than this are interested in the spirit world and trying to avoid upsetting ancestral spirits or becoming a ghost (preta).  Tuzynski fails to appreciate the folk Hinduism that is really what dominates the worldviews of the Bhutanese and instead mistakenly paints a false picture.  


(3) Tuzynski falls for the PR and repeats the notion that Hinduism is the world’s oldest religion.  There are some many problems with such a statement that it is difficult to know where to begin.  For one, the idea that Hinduism is a single and cohesive religious system is preposterous.  It is an umbrella that is more parallel to a term like “Western Civilization” than “Christianity”.  The reality is that scores of distinct religious groups exist within the cultural complex called “Hindu” (including, by the way, some Christians).  One must also point out that the term Hinduism has only been around for a couple centuries and the term Hindu isn’t much older than that.  The concept of “religion” is foreign to South Asian worldviews and arises, as a category distinct especially from government, from a particularly Western context.  To suggest that South Asians even spoke of “religion” in this way until recent days is anachronistic.  What is more, most Nepalis don’t really speak of “religion” in this way.  The term they use in Nepali is the Sanskrit word “dharma” which is hardly equivalent to what Westerners mean by “religion”.  What we are left with is a statement like, “It would seem that the Rg Veda is very old – of comparable age to the Jewish Torah,” but this is hardly the same thing as saying that “Hinduism is the world’s oldest religion” especially considering that the Vedas play at best a nominal role in the lives of most Hindus and are rejected altogether by many others.

Discipleship Triangles for Yeshu Bhaktas

Recently, I've been working on adapting the diagram that I showed you last week for use in thinking through discipleship issues, spiritual disciplines, and the like -- especially with regards to South Asian Christ-followers.  Here is what I've come up with.  Would welcome your feedback:

Instructions for teaching about the Discipleship Diagram:

This diagram is intended to help us teach several things:

1.      It provides us with a list of key spiritual disciplines and arranges the disciplines into three categories.  This isn't meant to be a comprehensive list of disciplines, but does cover the basic ones that I teach.

2.      It provides English and Nepali (Sanskrit) terms for many concepts that are very important for teaching about discipleship.

3.      It helps us to get some idea of how the spiritual disciplines are related to other vital areas of our spiritual life. And, importantly, depicts discipleship in a non-linear way rather than a typical, Western step-by-step manner.

Part A: Truth is the Core

Truth is at the center of our diagram because it is at the center of all things.  The difference between a Christ-follower and everyone else begins with their relationship to Truth.  Christ-followers are those who have heard, believe, and obey Truth (Rom. 2:8, Eph. 1:13, 1Pt. 1:22).  Others are ignorant of the truth, reject it, and even oppose and suppress it (Rom. 1:18, Eph. 4:18, 2 Tim. 3:8).  But the Bible says that freedom (Jn. 8:32), sanctification (Jn. 17:17), renewal (Rom. 12:2), and salvation (1 Tim. 2:4) all come from Truth.  Thus, Truth should be a central concern for the Christ-follower and the one who is trying to disciple others.  Also, since the Bible is God’s revelation of Truth, it must play a central role in all discipleship (2 Tim. 2:15). Disciple-makers must understand their task as essentially about the impartation of truth to others.

Part B: TriEak Parmeshwar

The Bible reveals that Truth is not a WHAT but a WHO. God is truth and all truth flows from Him.  He is the God of Truth (Isa. 65:16) who cannot lie (Heb. 6:18).  His Son, Jesus, said, “I am the Truth (Jn. 14:6).  The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of Truth” who will guide us into “all truth” (Jn. 16:13).  Clearly, our relationship to Truth is the same thing as our relationship to God.  In fact the most foundational Truth is that God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  He is TriEak Parmeshwar, the 3-in-1 God.  God is Truth and thus God is at the center of our discipleship. Thus, we may say that the disciple-maker's efforts to impart truth and her efforts to introduce someone to God are one and the same.

Part C: Regeneration

The beginning of our relationship with God is called regeneration.  This is what Jesus was talking about when he said that we must be “born again” (Jn. 3)  When this happens, our old, sinful, darkened, and shameful life passes away.  Everything becomes new in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).  Our sin and shame is taken away.  Satan and all evil spirits are rendered powerless against us. The Holy Spirit comes to live inside us. New spiritual and eternal life begins.

Key elements of regeneration from discipleship perspective include experience, sacrifice, and surrender.  Experience (anubhav) refers to a person encountering God as living and real.  Prayers are answered, God’s power is displayed through signs and wonders, God communicates through dreams and visions, the love of God is manifest in Christ-followers who serve and bless others. This also refers to the experience of regeneration – the result of the Holy Spirit indwelling a person.  Sacrifice (balidan) refers especially to the story of Jesus’ birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension.  A person experiencing God as living and real must be presented with the message of who Jesus is and what He has accomplished and promised.  Surrender (sharaana) is something of a culminating piece of regeneration.  The person God is regenerating will finally give their lives to Him in faith.  The Nepal/Sanskrit word we are using her is “sharaana” which literally means to “take shelter in”.  Surrendering to God through Christ means that a person runs into the shelter of Jesus’.  The disciple-maker must carefully consider the one(s) she is discipling. Are experiencing God as living and real? (not the same as believing God exists -- one can be a theist and ignore God, but cannot both experience and ignore God).  Are they being told the story of Christ?  Are they being meaningfully called to enter the shelter of Jesus?

Parts D & E: Discipleship Roots and Spiritual Disciplines

The regenerate person begins to experience transformation into Christ-likeness.  There is a sense in which this can be automatic.  Often the experience of regeneration will overflow in a zealous pursuit of God through worship, prayer, or other disciplines.  However, over the long-run of a Christ-follower’s life, this transformation process must be intentionally nurtured.  This may be called discipleship because it refers to the process of following Jesus as a teacher we desire to imitate (Luke 6:40). 

There are three roots for the discipleship of Christ-followers.  The first root, devotion (bhakti), is rooted in the soil of an individual’s personal relationship with God.  Growing from this root are Prayer (prarthana), Bible Reading / Study (shastra), Worship (puja), Meditation (dhyana), Fasting / Penance (uposhya), Confession (swikar), and Joy (anandena).  The second root of discipleship is spiritual fellowship (satsang).  The soil for this root is the relationship Christ-followers share together before God.  Springing forth from this are fellowship (sangati), corporate worship (upasana), the teaching ministry (shiksha), sacramental life (samskara), Body-connections (sharir-sambandha), accountability (sahadharma), giving (daana), and joy (anandena).  The final root is service (seva) which grows from the soil of Christ-followers who are engaged together with a world that needs the Truth.  From this root grows disciplines of service (seva), giving (daan), proclaiming the message of Christ (prachar), missions (prerit), intercession (antar-binti), and joy (aanandena).


-----
That's it. Again, would love your feedback and suggestions.  This is in the initial stages now and I'm sure will undergo many revisions.

Contextualization in a Hindu Setting

I have a "Google Alert" set so that I'm regularly getting emails whenever Google finds something on the internet about contextualization and Hinduism.  If I find something good, I want to be sure to blog it so that you know all about it.  Today, I want to share with you a link to an article that I find to be an excellent beginner's practical guide to contextualization and Hinduism.  It is especially written for those of us who are working among Hindus in North America.

Contextualization in a Hindu Setting

If you have a heart to develop deep, authentic relationships with your Hindu neighbors and co-workers in which friendship is real and Christ is glorified, take a look at this article.  It will help you get started.  I especially commend to you the "contextual skill set" that lists several basic to advanced skills that one should work on in order to deepen those cross-cultural relationships.  Skills listed include learning how to pronounce names correctly, learning to appreciate food, and learning about Hindu worship practices and forms.

This article has no listed author, but it appears to come from a website called "Go Network Online" which has a stated mission of "Reproducing spiritually healthy networks of God's Kingdom within Hindu communities worldwide."  I've not dug deeply into this "member's only" site, but I love the graphic that is on the home page.  


Lately, I've been wrestling with questions of discipleship among the Bhutanese-Nepalis with whom we are working and this graphic helps me to consider different realms or areas where spiritual growth is needed and helps me to ask questions of myself as to what my responsibilities are as a disciple-maker for Christ's sake.  As a matter of fact, after looking at the diagram for a few minutes, I printed it out and taped it to the inside of my Nepali Bible so that it would be handy for me to view whenever I'm with young Nepali Christ-followers.


So, I'm happy to commend these resources to you today.  Let me know if they raise any questions for you.  

Sanskrit Bhajan: Sat Guru Yeshu Namo Namaha

Today, I'd like to share another song.  This one is in Hindi/Sanskrit and is so simple yet it provides a profound meditation upon the person and work of God's unique Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.  The lyrics, translation, and chords follow.




Romanized Sanskrit:
Jeevanadata Yeshuji, namana karu main sat sat baar
Muktipradata Yeshuji, namana karu main sat sat baar
Shantipradata Yeshuji, namana karu main sat sat baar
Jeevan Jyothi Yeshuji, namana karu main sat sat baar
Iswar Sat Prabhu Yeshuji, namana karu main sat sat baar
Mrythujaya Prabhu Yeshuji, namana karu main sat sat baar

English translation:
Jesus the life giver, we reverently bow again and again
Jesus the savior, we reverently bow again and again
Jesus the peace giver, we reverently bow again and again
Jesus the light of life, we reverently bow again and again
Jesus, God the true Lord, we reverently bow again and again
Jesus, conqueror of death, we reverently bow again and again

The chord progression is simple: Em, C, D, C - I uses a capo on the first fret in this version

Maybe Nobody is Hindu

(The following post is a "blast-from-the-past" article that I'm transferring over from my old blog especially in light of some new conversation going on at the Lausanne Global Conversation as well as at Cape Town 2010.  It is intended as "food for thought" and I look forward to your discussion.)

A friend of mine recently sent me a couple articles that I thought were worth passing your way.  The first here is an article by Lisa Miller entitled "We are All Hindus Now."  It appeared in an August 2009 issue of Newsweek. Miller's basic argument is that while Americans still tend to self-identify as Christians, their worldviews are becoming much more Hindu than Biblical. Miller's position is that America is on its way to becoming Hindu in terms of the worldview shared by most of the population.

In an October article published by Break Point entitled "Are We Really Hindus?", Regis Nicoll provides a well-conceived rebuttal.  He doesn't totally dismiss Miller's contentions, but provides a balanced perspective that should give the follower of Christ pause.  In Nicoll's mind, Americans aren't really becoming more Hindu.  Rather the problem is that American Christians have traded in a belief system based on creeds for one based on personal needs.

I thought both articles were interesting.  At the end of the day, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot for my daily life as a follower of Jesus engaged full-time in God's global mission of redemption.  Lost is still lost, regardless of the label.  It is essential to understand an individual's worldview and background, sure.  But I feel that believers sometimes read these kinds of articles in a doom and gloom sort of way. Like they'd be happier if people were lost but didn't believe in reincarnation.  I don't get that.

As for the question at hand, "Is America becoming more Hindu?" I'd like to suggest a totally different option.  That is, maybe no one is really Hindu.  Now, wait, I'm actually a little serious.  The word Hindu itself has very little meaning.  It is a term that was coined, it seems, by Persians to refer to the Indus river valley and the people who lived there.  Later generations of Arabs and other foreigners to India used the appellation to refer collectively to everyone living in "Hindustan" (India) regardless of their religious beliefs. It was only in relatively recent times that Europeans started using the term as a religious label, but they did this somewhat uncritically -- lumping different religious groups together that often had little in common. 

Literally, "hindu" just means someone from India, but the Hindi / Sanskrit word for India isn't even "India".  It is Bharat.  So, if "India" is no more than what foreigners call Bharat, can we really say that anyone is from India?  Are there really any Hindus?

More seriously, "Hinduism" can claim no universal tenets, doctrines, practices, or literature that explain why Buddhists are not Hindu, BAPS devotees are, and Jains are kinda-sorta.  Just try. Just try to explain what makes a Hindu a Hindu and not a Christian, Scientologist, Taoist, or Muslim.  Try.  Really, I'm not looking to be difficult, but I'd love to get a conversation going.

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

This website is one of my best friends in ministry. Check it out.

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit