Anand Amaladass, Sacred Heart College, Satya Nilayam, Madras, India
HINDU VIEW OF CHRIST
Paper presented at the International Conference Hinduism and Christianity: Prospects
for Inter-Religious Dialogue, Edoardo Agnelli Centre for Comparative Religious
Studies, Turin, 20th – 21st November 2003
The title ‘Hindu view of Christ’ could be understood differently. In the first part
an attempt is made to present what the well-meaning Hindus have said and written
about Christ - their admiration, their assessment and critique about Jesus. Hindu view
of Christ could also mean how Jesus assumes newer significance when He is interpreted
using the Hindu metaphors and categories. So in the second part, it is shown how Jesus
means to people of Indian cultural milieu outside the Judeo-Christian context.
Part I. The Hindu Response to Jesus
Though the Indian tradition believes that St. Thomas the apostle himself was in
India in the first century, it is strange that we have no record of any Hindu speaking
about Jesus Christ.1 Only after 1800 there is some evidence of the image of Christ in
Hinduism. So we could talk of the Hindu view of Christ only from the evidence of the
last 200 years.2
1. Among the significant Hindus who spoke about Christ the first one is Ram
Mohan Roy (1773-1833), who is known as the father of Indian Renaissance. He
studied the Christian teachings and through that teaching he wanted to reform
1
Bhavisyottarapurana, III. 3. 2. 21-32, reports Jesus appearing in a vision to the King Sāliavahana. The
Purana itself is said to belong to 12th century, though biblical references could have been interpolations,
given the nature of the Purana. Cf. “Christ in the Bhvasya Purana”, by Giorgio Bonazzoli, in Purana, vol
XXI, n° 1, pagg. 23-39.
2
Bernward H. Willeke, “Das Jesusbild im Hinduismus”, in von Heinrich Fries et al. (ed.), Jesus in den
Weltreligionen, EOS Verlag, Erzabtei St. Ottilien, 1981 (Kirche und Religionen, Bd. 1.); L. M. F. van
Bergen, “Eine indische Christologie”, in H. Bettscheider (ed.), Das Asiatische Gesicht Christi, St.
Augustin, 1976, pagg. 35-47.
Hinduism. He found in the teaching of Jesus Christ especially the Sermon on the
Mount, something new and great, which could stimulate the teaching of the sages and
thus bring about a renewal in Hinduism.
He was not just studying Christianity out of curiosity, but he took to it so
seriously that he learned Latin, Greek and Hebrew in order to read the Bible in the
originals. Though he himself never became a Christian, Jesus became for him the
greatest teacher of religion and morals. In this sense he published his book in 1820, The
Precepts of Jesus, the Guide to Peace and Happiness. In this book the historical side of
the life of Jesus does not play great role and that was not important for him. He saw the
teaching of Jesus with rational outlook. He rejected all that an enlightened Hindu would
not suit, the miracles of Jesus, the dogmas of the Church.
Jesus was for him the ideal man whom the then Hinduism needed. He said that
there was never any one who proclaimed the will of God so honestly as Jesus and there
was never anyone who was so conscious of his duty and fulfilled it up to the point of
death on the cross. He loved the Gospel and read it in the original: But he looked at it
with an Indian perspective and he saw things differently than many Christians.
2.
The second Hindu who took seriously the image of Jesus is Keshab
Chandra Sen (1838-1884). After Ram Mohan Roy, Sen was the most significant
reformer of Hinduism.
One should not think that the Hindu-Christian encounter started with the
Christians and it is all a Christian adventure only. The Hindu initiative, their openness
to Christ cannot be ignored. If one were to identify one significant Indian of the Indian
Renaissance, it is Keshub Chandra Sen, a Hindu, who for the first time talked about the
cosmic Christ hidden in the Vedas, in the Upanishads, in the Greek and Roman
Literature and in fact, in the whole universe.
“In the midst of this large assembly I deny and repudiate the little Christ of
popular theology, and stand up for a greater Christ, fuller Christ, a more eternal
Christ, a more universal Christ. I plead for the eternal Logos of the Fathers,
and I challenge the world’s assent. This is the Christ who was in Greece and
Rome, in Egypt and India. In the bards and the poets of the Rig Veda was he.
He dwelt in Confucius and in Sakya Muni. This is the true Christ whom I can
see everywhere, in all lands and in all times, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in
2
America, in ancient and modern times. He is not the monopoly of any nation
or creed. All literature, all science, all philosophy, every doctrine that is true,
every form of righteousness, every virtue that belongs to the Son, is the true
subjective Christ whom all ages glorify.”3
What is radically new in Sen’s teaching is that Jesus is not the one, whom the
Europeans are preaching in India. Again and again he emphasises that Jesus is not an
European, but an Asian and that even all his disciples were Asians. The European
understanding of Christ has gone in the questionable direction. Now the Indians must
learn to see Jesus with oriental eyes. For India Jesus is the one who saves them from
the squalor and degradation. He is not the intolerant European saviour who calls for
fight against unbelievers; he is much more the mild, the meek and renouncing Jesus,
who find the right one for the sensitive Indian heart.
Jesus became man in order to restore again the divine in the humans. He invites
the whole India to live like Christ - which is to be understood in the Indian sense- To
come together in a new community, not as a church institution as the missionaries
would like to have, which lead again to new confessions and sects, but to a spiritual
community of Christ, in which all people are one and receive universal salvation. With
Sen the image of Jesus has entered into the Indian spiritual history irrevocably.
Christianity provided him with some of the terminology used to express the
principles of the New Dispensation which he proclaimed in 1879. He refers to it as a
gospel and a church. Sen’s acceptance of the divinity of Christ, his description of
himself as Jesudas, the servant of Jesus, and remarks such as ‘Christ rules India’,
suggest that he had completely embraced the Christian faith. But for him Christ is an
Asiatic and his divinity the divinity of humanity, an essentially Hindu doctrine. His life
and character is in accordance with the ideal of Hindu life and his concept of oneness
with God is comparable with the vedåntic notion of man’ identity with the Godhead.
3. Protap Chandra Mozoomdar (1840-1905). In 1883 Mozoomdar wrote his
book The Oriental Christ. This is actually a new contribution to Christology. In fact
Mozoomdar presents a beautiful and comprehensive image of Jesus. He says: “I have
tried as best as possible to make Jesus an oriental”. This was written not as an
3
K. C. Sen, “That Marvelous Mystery – The Trinity”, in Keshub Chunder Sen’s Lectures in India, vol. 2,
Cassel & Co, London, 1904, pagg. 31-32.
3
intellectual discussion about Christ, but as a devotional book, something like the
Imitation of Christ, which brings the image of Christ closer to the Indians of that time in
an attractive way. This book tries at the same time to motivate the Hindus for a renewal
within Hinduism by juxtaposing Christianity.
Keshab Chandra Sen had felt that a Church which is merely an extension of the
Western Church could never flourish in India. So he tried to found ‘the New
Dispensation’, a Church meant to be genuinely Christian, yet genuine Hindu, a Hindu
Church of Christ. Mozoomdar whole-heartedly joined him in this effort. They felt that
Jesus ‘left alone with the Hindus’ was himself carrying on his work among them.
4. Dayānanda Sarasvati (1824-1883)
Dayānanda was one of the most influential figures in the history of modern
India. He has been described as a rugged individualist. His antipathy to idol worship
finds expression in public criticism of the superstitious beliefs and practices of
Hinduism and positive instruction in the vedic rites. He had become increasingly
concerned with the authoritative source of Hinduism and had concluded that Vedic
revelation as contained in the four vedas constituted the only true revelation and the
source of the Hindu religion, a view he defended against Keshub Chunder Sen’s more
pluralist views. The Arya Samāj founded by him in Bombay in 1875 provided him with
the organisation necessary for the propagation of reformation ideals.
His fierce attack on Christianity for its idolatry, mythology as barbarism accusations more often levelled by missionaries against Hinduism - points to the
aggressive nature of his nationalism. Dayānanda is mentioned here to show the
negative response to Christ. Somehow he did not find anything great about the
personality of Jesus. According to him, Jesus is the false prophet and he rather ridicules
several sayings of Jesus.4 Not many Hindus went back to his views about Christ.
5. Swami Vivekananda (1862-1902)
The inimitable mystic power of Ramakrishna was for Vivekananda a proof that
in Hinduism there is the divine power of such a religious depth which could stand up to
Christianity. Vivekananda brought in a new confidence in Hinduism. It is not a
4
G. P. Upadhyaya, The Light of Truth, English Translation of Svami Dayanand’s Satyartha Prakasha,
Allahabad, 1946; Yadava (ed.) Autobiography of Dayananda Sarasvati, Manohar, Delhi, 1976.
4
hopeless decadence, but a religion of universal validity, worthy to be propagated even in
Europe and America. In this Hinduism Jesus has also a place. Vivekananda considers
him one of the “giants of world history”. He learnt about him in the Gospels, but
interprets him with the help of advaita teaching of Sankara (8th Cent.). According to
that Jesus is not God in the real sense, but divine messenger, who brought us the
message of childlikeness and immortality.
There is only one real being, the Absolute. But the humans can participate in
God why they lose themselves through renunciation and meditation from all that is
worldly. Jesus has done that in almost divine way. So Vivekananda can worship him
like a God. “If I as oriental will worship Jesus, there is only one way for me. I must
worship him as God and not anything else.”5
6. Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) an artist, writer, painter, musician,
educationist, winner of the Nobel Prize for literature in 1913. There are several
references to Jesus and Christianity in the writings of Tagore, which are published in
three volumes.6 But we can take a few passages from his Christmas message. In
Santiniketan Christmas was celebrated regularly and on these occasions Tagore used to
give a talk about Christ. Some of these talks are published from his manuscripts. Some
of the titles are: The Path of Christ (25-12-1910), the Religion of Jesus (1914), the Feast
of Jesus (1923), the Divine in the human (1926), the True Christmas(1932), a Light for
the humans (1936),7 with corresponding water colour paintings.
Tagore was touched by the simplicity of Jesus and his values – Jesus’ concern
for the poor, His pointing to the Kingdom of God in the hearts of the humans, His
acceptance of the cross, and the way Christian spirit was moving the world through
service. Tagore was talking to his audience, who were not Christians, to take
inspiration from Jesus.
The path of Christ (1910)
5
Complete Works of Vivekananda, ed. Swami Buddhananda, Calcutta, 1972, vol. 4, pag. 143.
The English Writings of Rabindranath Tagore, 3 vols., ed. by Sisir Kumar Das, Sahitya Academy, 1996.
7
Victor Mendes (ed.), Rabindranath Tagore, Jesus, die Grosse Seele, Verlag Neustadt, MünschenZürich-Wien, 1995. Martin Kämpchen, Rabindranath Tagore, Reinbeck, 1992.
6
5
“When we think of the personality of Jesus it is striking that the great souls
recognise the truth with great simplicity as the basic element of the whole life.
They have not proclaimed new ways, no useless rules, no rare opinions. They
came in order to speak with genuineness; they call the father, father, the
brother, brother. They say the simple word with great power, that it is useless
to look outside of oneself what is in the hearts of the humans. They advise us
to be awake, to look ahead, to strive, to see clearly always. They invite us to
remove all blind practices from the throne of truth.”
“What is extraordinary in Jesus consists in this that he destroyed all illusions,
that he recognised clearly the truth of God’s Kingdom. He understood that this
consists not in riches, not in external honour, not in the greatness of a powerful
Kingdom, but in poverty, in the freedom from all futile elements. He explained
clearly before all people on earth that this Kingdom belongs to the simple ones.
The teaching of the Upanisads has a similar, marvellous, saying about the spirit
of man: ‘the gentle ones have the right, to possess all things.’ Jesus overcame
the borders of the visible world, of the blind appearance. In contrast to the
general view, he sees the Kingdom of God in the inner life, not based on
external elements. In this Kingdom are the despised honoured, the poor are
really the rich. One who humbles oneself in this Kingdom will be raised high
and one who takes the last place, will be called to the first. Jesus has
proclaimed this teaching not merely in words…”
“Jesus has realised God’s presence in the human beings. To his disciples he
said, ‘He who feeds the poor, feeds me; he who clothes the naked, clothes me.’
To praise God is not the only way of worshipping God.”
“The Christians call Jesus Man of Sorrow, for he has taken great suffering on
himself. And by this he has made human beings great, had shown that the
human beings stand above suffering. Is there anything greater in the life of
Jesus than this humiliation? Through his love to the humans, as he took the
burden of suffering of all people on himself, he announced the love of God.
6
The religion of love consists in this that one is ready to take the suffering of the
other freely on himself.” (Christmas Message on 25th Dec. 1910)
Divine in the human (1926)
“The idea that the service for the Father of the universe consists in serving the
children on earth, is deeply rooted in the Christian countries for long time, that
this message is also alive in people who call themselves atheists. They are also
convinced that it is proper to suffer for the other. Which plant has brought
about this fruit? Where does this power of life come from? I can answer this
question with none other than the word: Christianity.”
“Man has a great value: in the service of the neighbour is fulfilled the service
of God. Whoever in the West does not accept this message, does not make
progress. But whoever accepts this, bears much fruit. Could we also make the
great respect ours, which Christianity brings to people, while we honour the
man who proclaims this truth.” (Christmas Message, 1926)
A Light for the Humans. (1936)
“As Buddha offered people his incomparable friendship, he (Jesus) announced
not only a scripture, he awakened love in the hearts of many. And in the love
is really the salvation. Those who have really loved Jesus, were not only trying
to overcome the burdens, they have achieved also unbelievable things: they
have gone to the far distant countries, crossed the seas and mountains, in order
to announce everywhere the love to people. Thus the great men lit the light of
life. The invitation of Christ has lit in the human society many small and great
lamps. These men have communicated to the people a unique love, so that
they could bear the burden of the oppressed and the neglected.”
7. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948)
Jesus was not a stranger for Gandhi. He knew the Christians in India, South
Africa and England and interacted with the missionaries and found the discrepancies
7
between Jesus and today’s Christians. Gandhi was interested more in his teaching, less
with his historical appearance.
Hinduism is non-credal in character and Gandhi failed to see why a man’s
salvation should depend on ‘accepting Christ as one’s “personal saviour”,’ formal
‘communicant’ membership of a Christian Church and so on. His mind and heart could
not be contained in any kind of formal straight-jacket. The Indian tradition
accommodates a plurality of great souls, just as it has a room for a plurality of holy
men. It is maintained that Gandhi in line with the religious thinking of his countrymen,
does not set much store on historicity. Whether Krishna or Rāma actually lived is not a
matter which has bearing on the verdict of a religious imagination.
To a missionary audience in Bangalore he used different language:
I may suggest that God did not bear the Cross only 1900 years ago, but He
bears it today… Do not then preach the God of history, but show Him as He
lives today through you… It is better to allow our lives to speak for us than our
words.8
But the following would make a Christian think differently: Even if ‘the man
called Jesus never lived… the Sermon on the Mount would still be true for me.’ To
Gandhi God appeared in action, not as a person. This was at the core of his own
experience.
His dislike of the idea of conversion can be seen in his personal letters. But the
turning point experience in Gandhi’s life was the traumatic occasion in Maritzburg,
when he was pushed out of the train at night in South Africa. Throughout his life he
was to look upon South Africa as, ‘that God-forsaken continent where I found my God.’
For him conversion means turning away from selfishness and self-righteousness to the
spirit of service. It was a seminal idea he thought out for himself. For Gandhi, a change
of heart is seen in changed relationship, for example, between Hindu and Muslim,
between caste Hindus and the so-called untouchables. But changing one’s label, turning
one’s back on the traditions of one’s forefathers and giving intellectual assent to a set of
alien concepts were of very different kind. So Gandhi did not dwell on things in New
Testament which strike an alien note to anyone steeped in the Indian tradition. He
singles out the inacceptability of once for all atonement, of vicarious suffering, of
8
Young India, 11 August 1927.
8
conversion (in the light of following one’s own svadharma), of a single God-man, and
the belief that there is ‘none other name’ through whom man can be saved.9
Gandhi records in his autobiography that the understanding of Christianity in its
proper perspective would not be possible for him unless he knew his own religion
thoroughly. His study of the New Testament and of the Gita went on simultaneously.
He seems to have read the Old Testament up to the Book of Exodus. His first
biographer Joseph Doke remarks about Gandhi’s response to Christianity thus:10
I question whether any system of religion can absolutely hold him. His views
are too closely allied to Christianity to be entirely Hindu; and too deeply
saturated with Hinduism to be called Christian, while his sympathies are so
wide and catholic that one would imagine he has reached a point where the
formulae of sects are meaningless.
As was stressed by some of the leaders of the Bengal Renaissance, Gandhi too
saw in Jesus an Asiatic. What did Gandhi think of the person of Christ? Romain
Rolland writes in his diary11 that when Gandhi visited the Vatican Museum (1931) what
moved him very much was the 15th century Crucifix, very stiff and harsh, on the altar.
On the way home from London Gandhi gave a Christmas message during his customary
prayer hour. The message was this: When peace shone in individual and collective life,
then only could we say that Christ is born. Christ’s birth would then be a perennial
happening, illuminating the life of each man. Christianity had not yet been achieved.
When we could love each other completely and harboured no thought of retribution,
only then could our life be Christian.12
Gandhi says, ‘there is in Hinduism room enough for Jesus as for Mohammed,
Zoroaster and Moses. For me the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same
garden, or their branches of the same majestic tree.’13 This can be interpreted in many
ways. Hinduism is very hospitable and so on. But is Jesus different from Mohammed?
To this Gandhi gives no straight answer. But then he says in 1925,14
9
Margaret Chatterjee, Gandhi’s Religious Thought, The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1983, pag. 49.
10
Joseph J. Doke, M.K. Gandhi – An Indian Patriot in South Africa, reprinted by Publications Division,
Government of India, September 1967, pag. 106.
11
Romain Rolland and Gandhi Correspondence, tr. of vol. 19 of Cahiers Romain Rolland, Publications
division, Govt. of India ed., September 1976, pag. 255.
12
Margaret Chatterjee, pag. 53.
13
Harijan, 30th January 1937.
14
Desai’s Diary, vol. 7, pag. 135. As quoted by M. Chatterjee, pag. 53.
9
I do not experience spiritual consciousness in my life through that Jesus (the
historical Jesus). But if by Jesus you mean the eternal Jesus, if by Jesus you
understand the religion of universal love that dwells in the heart, then that Jesus
lives in my heart – to the same extent that Krishna lives, that Rama lives. If I
did not feel the presence of that living God, at the painful sights I see in the
world, I would be a raving maniac and my destination would be the Hooghli
(river). As, however, that Indweller shines in the heart, I have not been a
pessimist now or ever before.
What Gandhi finds in Jesus is the embodiment of universal love. He thinks in
terms of the universality of Christ, but this can mean different things. Gandhi explains
it thus:15
Jesus expressed, as no other could, the spirit and will of God. It is in this sense
that I see Him as the Son of God. And because the life of Jesus has the
significance and the transcendency to which I have alluded, I believe that He
belongs not solely to Christianity, but to the entire world, to all races and
people.
That Jesus by his death redeemed the sins of the world was not something his
reason could accept. His death on the cross was an example to the world. Christ was
the ‘Prince of Satyagrahis,’ because his only weapon was the weapon of love. So the
example of Christ’s suffering was throughout his life, as Gandhi put it, ‘a factor in the
composition of my undying faith in non-violence,’ and it was this faith which ruled all
his actions. It was our duty to multiply the bonds of love between people. The goal of
Gandhi’s life was the founding of a non-violent society. This is far closer to the
Christian idea of the Kingdom of God than it is to the moksa concept of the Hindu
tradition.16
8. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1978)
He discovers in the image of Jesus a double aspect. One is Jesus the carrier of
Judeo-national belief of Messiah, who will free his people from the burden of the
15
16
The Modern Review, October 1941, pag. 406.
Margarette Chatterjee, pag. 56.
10
oppressors, goes to Jerusalem with a small core group in order to take the temple amidst
the jubilant shouts of the crowd. Along with this there is another strong spiritual mystic
side in Jesus. When Jesus preaches: “The Kingdom of God is in you,” he preaches
interiority and non-violence which grows in him more and more till his death. This
spirituality of interiority and non-violence, according to Radhakrishnan, is not Judaic
idea, heritage. It comes from the Orient. All that Jesus possessed as actual religious
worth came from India, from Buddha. The last one is greater than Jesus who even in
the garden of Gethsamene showed personal struggle and desire and only on the cross he
reached the inner freedom of Buddha. Radhakrishnan means that the inherited images
of Jesus must be purified from all European remnants and must be painted with ester
colours – only then Jesus will be valid ideal for the whole of humanity.
Radhakrishnan was an enlightened philosopher, but had no personal relation to
Jesus as e. g K. C. Sen. He remained always an apologet of Hinduism.
9. Swami Akhilananda (1894-1962)
He belonged to the Vivekananda Mission, went to North America where he
worked till 1955 as Hindu missionary. His book, The Hindu View Of Christ (1949)
shows a Jesus, whom the simple Hindus could love and worship. He was a genuine
yogi, who did not only teach yoga, but practised also all three kinds of Yoga (Jñāna,
karma and bhakti). When Jesus says: seek first the Kingdom of God and everything
else will be given to you, this Kingdom of God is the divine interiority which reaches
its fullness in the great enlightenment, the samādhi.
For Akhilananda Jesus is an avatāra who came on earth like many before him in
order to restore the righteousness (dharma) of God again. Above all Jesus is great
leader for interiority and divine union. This Jesus the Hindus know already and so he
says that it is actually superfluous to send missionaries to India, who would force on
them an European image of Jesus.
10. Manilal C. Parekh.(1885-1967)
A Hindu’s Portrait of Christ appeared in 1953, and basically he was a
Christian, baptised in the Anglican Church. His reason for accepting baptism was that
without openly professing to be a disciple of Christ he had no right to preach Christ. In
India baptism means joining a community which stands as a distinct social and political
11
body with its own airs and aspirations which are very often antithetical and far from
Christian. So he lived as a Hindu –Christian consciously in Hindu surroundings. He
studied the Bible carefully and emphasised loving devotion (bhakti) and interiority of
Jesus. He sees the great victory of Jesus in non-violent way of accepting the cross and
he considers the Christian church as the invention of the Europeans. He said: “It is very
significant that the discovery of the true Jesus as distinguished from that of the Western
Churches and Missions is largely due to the Hindu Mind.”17
Like Manilal Parekh there were others who were Hindus who claimed to remain
Christians,18 for example, Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya19 (1861-1907), Narayan Vaman
Tilak (1861-1919), and Pandita Ramabai (1858-1922).
11.
To the above list of Hindus who have spoken about Christ and whose
writings have been evaluated by Christian thinkers already, one must add also a recent
Hindu scholar, Ravi Ravindra, (b. 1939) who took to the study on Jesus Christ out of
interest and wrote a commentary on John’s Gospel, The Yoga of Christ, (1990). It is
meant to be a commentary on the Gospel of John. Ravi writes this to affirm his love for
the Gospel and to reiterate his cross-cultural concerns. In his view a new global
consciousness is emerging which is spiritual. He tries to discover universal truths that
are at the heart of the major works of the religious traditions, a discovery that can only
be stated in global terms. This book is written with a hope of promoting religious
understanding between Christianity and Hinduism. In his view, the days of theological
exclusivism are over. The truth does not change across the border marked by a river or
a mountain range which demarcate the political boundaries. His favourite quotation
from the Gospel is: “Believe me, women, the hour is coming when you will worship
the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. The hour is coming when real
worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” (John 4, 21)
Some criticise him for being ahistorical spilling Ganges water into the Jordan. As
a Hindu, of course, he brings in parallel texts like the Gītā and the Upanisads to
elucidate the texts of the Gospel of John. Whatever may be the criticism from the
17
Thomas Ohm, “Das Christusportrait eines modernen Hindu”, in Ex Contemplatione loqui. Gesamelte
Aufsaetze von Th. Ohm, Muenster, 1960, pagg. 415-423.
18
Cf. Hans Staffner, S. J., The Significance of Jesus Christ in Asia, Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, Anand, 1985,
pagg. 89-168.
19
Cf. Julius J. Lipner, Brahmabandhab Upadhyay. The Life and Thought of a Revolutionary, Oxford
University Press, Delhi, 1999.
12
Hindu and the Christian point of view, one cannot deny the genuine interest of the
author to take the message of Christ as providing meaning for himself and other seekers
like him.
12. Hindu Poets from the South [in Tamil language]
Several Hindu writers in the South wrote on Christ. A few names are cited here
as examples. In fact the contribution of the Hindu Tamil scholars is very great from the
beginning of the 19 century. Ārumuka Nāvalar (1822-1879) of Jaffna (Sri Lanka) was a
Saiva descent. At the suggestion of Rev. Peter Percival of Methodist Misson he
translated the Bible into Tamil (1845-1850).
Subramania Bhārati (1882-1921) was a leading Tamil poet of 20th century,
acclaimed as the national poet of Tamilnadu. He has written a poem on “Jesus Christ”,
summarising the message of Jesus and the way to become his disciple as Jesus
commissioned Mary Magdalene to convey the greetings to His disciples.
Bhāratidāsan (Kanaka Subburattinam, 1891-1964) is another great of Tamil poet
of 20 century, playwright, prose writer from Pondicherry. He was brought up in the
French cultural atmosphere and was Tamil teacher at Pondicherry Government college.
His works range from lyrical and narrative poems on classical themes and intimate
lyrics to radical political songs. He became also violently anti-religious prophet of antibrahmin, and separatist trends. In one of his narrative poems “Nectar-like words of
Jesus”, he narrates why Jesus has not found a place among the Hindus. It is in dialogue
form. “Who has profited by the path shown by Jesus?”, “All people except the
Indians”. “Why?” They accept the laws of Manu who proclaimed the four varnas with
4000 sub-castes. Jesus said all are equal and all are brothers. But his own followers
praise the rich and put down the poor, dividing the people into high and low castes.
“Who can become his disciple?” Those who do not speak in terms of ours and
outsiders.”
th
Tesikavināyakam Pillai (1876-1954) a poet, translator, scholar in epigraphy and
journalist wrote a long poetic piece on life and teaching of Jesus (Iratsakar), which is
included in the collection of poems entitled Malarum Mālaiyum (Blossoms and
Garland).
Tiru Vi. Kalyanasundaram (1883- ), was a poet and politician and the author of
about 70 volumes - on Tamil literature, political pamphlets, on emancipation of women,
13
Saivism and Christianity. He has two long works on the essential of Christian
philosophy: Kristuvin Arul Vettal (Yearning for the Grace of Christ) in 70 stanzas in
different meters (1945) and Kristu Molikural (the Sayings of Christ in Kural verse form)
325 couplets(1947). In the preface to the first work he says that he studied the Bible as
a student, but was not baptised and did not become a Christian, since he believes in
Equality of all Religions. But then he says: my mind goes back to Chrsit again and
again in prayer; turning to God in conversion, asking forgivenss, praying for my needsall have become part of my experience. And they have taken the form of this poem.
About the second work, he says that he had the desire to write on Christ for a long time.
But it did not meterialise, till he was under house arrest for a month in Madras as a
senior leader of the Trade Union in 1947 during a strike called by the Union.
Kannadāsan (A.L. Mutthaiya. 1926-1981) was a very popular and immesely
prolific lyrical and narrative poet, essayist, novelist and playwright, author of more than
6000 poems –including film songs. In 1971 he transcribed the Bible into Tamil verse,
Yesukāvyam.
13. The Hindu Artists on Christ
The artists have their own perception of Christ which is different from that of the
philosophers and national leaders in India. It is significant to note that practically all
the Hindu artists of the 20th century have painted or sculptured at least one picture or
image of Christ. The cross or the agony has been an appealing theme to many wellmeaning Indians. Jamini Roy (1887-1972), Khanna, Hebbar, K. C. S. Paniker, (19111977), Nandalal Bose (1883-1966), Arup Das (1927-), Nikhil Biswas, M. Reddeppa
Naidu, Shiavax D. Chavda,(a Parsi from Bomay) S.M. Malak (Muslim from Nagpur),
P. V. Janakiram (1939-), S. Dhanapal (1919-), T.K. Chelladurai, S.P.Jayakar,
Venerable Uttarananda (Sri Lanka) (1954-). A recent publication, Contemporary Indian
Sculpture: The Madras Metaphor edited by Josef James (1993) presents biographical
presentation of seven sculptors who form a distinctive school. Out of these visuals,
several illustrations have a biblical theme: The Prodigal Son (1961) by A.P.
Santhanaraj, Man of Sorrows (1964) by K.C.S. Panikar, Mother and Child (1950), Mary
and Christ (1987), Christ (1961), Mother and Child (1957) by Dhanapal, Christ (1966),
Christ (1971), Madona and Christ (1964) by Janakiram, Agony (1971) by Paramasivam.
Suffering and Agony of Jesus seems to inspire the non-Christian artists more than the
glorious or royal portrayal of Christ preferred by many Christian painters. It highlights
14
the Christian presence in the contemporary art world and their portrayal of Jesus
provides a new horizon of understanding to the Christian community. In an interview
K. C. S. Paniker remarked that it is easier for us Indians to identify with the son of a
carpenter than with a prince like Buddha.
It is significant that the Hindu artists understand the agony of Christ differently
than the Hindu Philosophers like Radhakrishnan, who could not understand the
suffering Christ. How can God die on the cross? was his question. But the artists are
moved by the image of the cross. They seem to think that the Christians have somehow
integrated the suffering humanity with the Divine through Christ.
Christian response to these thinkers
All these Hindus mention Jesus as the great teacher of religion and ethics. In
particular Jesus is praised for his sermon on the mount. He teaches a God who takes the
humans duty bound, trains them to responsibility. Jesus is the original image of the
pure and innocent man. He is man of increasing interiority and goodness who appeals
to the core of human hearts.
Whether Jesus is true God is differently answered. That depends on the
traditional image of God. Often Jesus is called the avatāra of God like Krishna and
others rejected this idea. No one appreciates the earthly Jesus in his life-time as true
God. Only after his death Jesus is divinised, raised, because the great lively power, on
whom the humans can take shelter.
For all Hindus Jesus is the great Yogi. He practised renunciation and meditation
and reached a vision of God which is the same as Indian notion of samādhi. So has he
become a religious teacher, spiritual leader, Indian Guru. Jesus wants from his
followers that they should devote themselves to the inner life and strive for perfection.
He wanted a community of believers, not a big church as the missionaries want.
For many Hindus the true Jesus is discovered only by the Hindus. The West has
lost the real orientation of the image of Jesus through their activism and their fighting
attitude. It could be again discovered by Hinduism. Therefore Jesus belongs to
Hinduism today where he is really loved an understood. The work of missionaries is
therefore superfluous.
If such ideas lead further in India, it is to be seen earnestly that this has for the
future greater consequences for the church and mission. Basically it means Jesus, yes,
15
Church and mission, no. In fact Swami Abhedananda in his book Why a Hindu accepts
Christ and rejects Churchianity (Calcutta, 1965)says: “Though the Hindus are not
ready to accept the teachings and dogmas of the official Church, they do not hesitate to
believe in Jesus Christ as son of God, as an incarnation of the godhead in human form
on earth. The Hindu understanding of the incarnation of God contains a more rational
and deeper meaning than that of the Christians. Whether Jesus, the Christ, was a
historical personality or not, is not discussed by the Hindus. By the term Christ they
understand that highest state of God-consciousness, where all dualities disappear, every
thought of being separated disappears forever, and where the powerful entry of the
divine essence of the universal god breaks down all barriers and limitations of the
human consciousness and lets us recognise our eternal oneness with the heavenly Father
on the spiritual realm. Whoever reaches this state becomes a Christ, whether he is
Krishna or Buddha or Jesus of Nazareth.”20
How did the Christian theologians respond to and interacted with these
questions? It is clear that till now such discussion was carried out mostly by the
Western theologians and scholars of religious studies. Among the European scholars
some names could be mentioned: Thomas Ohm, Klaus Klostermaier21, Otto Wolff22,
Horst Buerkle23 and J. Clifford Hindley24. It is obvious that the criteria of Western
theology were used. One of the few Indian Indians who responded to this image of
Christ by the Hindus is the protestant theologian Stanley J. Samartha.25 Very few
Indian theologians went into this question of Jesus interpretation by the Hindus. It does
not mean that this interpretation was unknown to the theologians in India. But still they
have not gone into this question explicitly. The Indian theology is still busy with
raising general questions like the necessity of Indian theology and their task, how and
why of it. One comes across often brief remarks on the image of Jesus in the Indian
context. It is true that much more is written by the protestant writers than by the
Catholics.
20
As quoted in Christentum im Spiegel der Weltreligionen, ed. by Loth, Mildenberger, Tworuschka,
Stuttgart, 1978, pag. 94.
21
Klaus Klostermaier, Kristvidya. A Sketch of an Indian Christology. Indian Thought Series n° 8,
Bangalore, 1967.
22
Otto Wolff, Christus unter den Hindus, Guetersloh, 1965.
23
Horst Buerkle, “Die Frage nach dem Kosmischen Christus”, in H. Buerkle (ed.), Indische Beitraege zur
Theologie der Gegenwart, Stuttgart, 1966, pagg. 248-265.
24
J. Clifford Hindley, “Der historische Jesus in indischer Sicht”, in Indische Beitraege, pagg. 23-58.
25
Stanley J. Samartha, Hindus vor dem universalen Christus, Stuttgart, 1970, pagg. 34-54.
16
J. Dupuis evaluates the Hindu View of Christ by summing up into six
Christological models of interpretations: Gandhi’s ethical model of Jesus, the devotional
model of Keshub Chander Sen, the philosophical model of Radhkrishnan, the
theological model of Akhilananda, the ascetical Jesus-yogi model as developed by
M.C.Parekh, the mystical model of Brahmabandha Upadhyaya and raises several
questions as challenges: Can or cannot the Christian message accommodate itself to all
cultures? Or do there exist in cultures certain elements, perhaps essential ones, that are
hermetically sealed and impenetrable to the Christian message?.26
Otto Wolff presents a thoughtful evaluation of the Hindu View of Christ.27 Ram
Mohan Roy, Keshub, Mozoomdar and Gandhi are positive about Christ. Dayanand
Sarasvati is an exception with his antagonistic attitude to Christ. Vivakandna distances
himself from such naive criticism. Radhakrishanna takes up again Dayananda’s
standard arguments partly in a different context. There is thus a blend of perspectives
about Christ among the Hindus.
It is not true that these thinkers used the Christian elements purposely and solely
to enrich the Hindu syncretism. Acceptance of Christ among the Hindus can be summed
up in threefold positive ways: 1. Acceptance of Christ in a devotional- existential sense:
Ram Mohan was moved by the uniqueness of Jesus. Keshub becomes the devotee
(bhakta) of Jesus. Mozoomdar remained life long loyal to Christ through his deep
experience of Christ. Gandhi’s satyāgraha, which gives the credit to the non-violent
Prince of Peace of the New Testament, becomes a Christian version of karmayoga for
universal application.
The Christian truth was not only discussed in Hinduism, but believed and
practised; the Hindu tongues chanted the glory of Christ. Therefore one has to see
Hinduism not only as opponent and the Christian mission as a “conquering enterprise”
as G.C. Oosthuizen says, if we perceive the sort of discussions around the Christian
truth in Asia have been raised. He could still say: “God will take possession of what is
His in Hinduism and use it for the spread of His Kingdom. To show this is the task to
26
Jacques Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions (1989 in French), Intercultural
Publications (Indian edition), New Delhi, 1996, pagg. 42-45.
27
Otto Wolff, Christus unter den Hindus, Guetersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1965, pagg. 210-222.
17
which the Indian theologians are called”.28 But then even the Hindu witness of Christ
belongs to what is God’s own in a specific sense. Here we are confronted with the
Hindus, to whom Christ himself has done something.
Secondly, acceptance of Christ among the Hindus is positive in a theological
sense: First of all, they have contributed greatly and decisively to all basic questions of
Indian theology- Hindu heritage and the rootedness of Indian Christianity, avatāra
concept and Christology, pantheism and Biblical revelation, being distanced and
accomodation, exclusivism or universality of the Gospels, kerygma and religions etc- to
which the theology of the mission today misses the central meaning, are taken into
account.
The theological achievements of the above mentioned development could also
be concretely described. The father of the modern India begins with the three highly
surprising aspects – his rejection of avatāra notion in the name of uniqueness of Jesus,
his juxtaposition of religion of sacrifice and Gospel and his pushing ahead to a Gospel
oriented understanding of the passive justice of God- are significant contribution of
Ram Mohan Roy. In the case of Sen the following are to be highlighted: his view of the
real Hindu pantheism, the power of the Biblical personalism which breaks through
every pantheism, as also his intention of a Christocentric universalism- are the two
theological achievements of a Hindu. His wrestling with the divinity of Christ with his
thesis of Jesus the Indian brother are really christological contributions.
In Mozoomdar above all the new place of suffering is theologically significant;
it is on principle a break-through of the karma-idea on the part of a Hindu, which comes
closer to the basic idea of the theology of the cross of Paul and Luther. Gandhi’s
theological contribution consists in this that he forces us to reflect on the realm of
relationship between violence, war and the people as the core of the Gospel, i.e. in his
satyāgraha philosophy which is not to be named directly Christocentric, but still
basically Christ oriented. Akhilananda’s basic meaning is to be seen in the basic idea of
his integration philosophy.
Thirdly, acceptance of Christ among the Hindus is positive in socio-ethical
sense. The modern ideas of reform of neo-Hinduism are not thinkable without the
Christian motive operating in it. The Christian elements influence the reformers and
28
G. C. Oosthuizen, Theological Discussions and Confessional Developments in the Churches of Asia
and Africa, Franeker, 1958, pag. 66, as quoted by Otto Wolff, pag. 211.
18
modern thinkers directly or they allow them to see the impetuses, which are in their
scriptures in a new light.
This process obviously takes place in a manifold way. For example what the
Indians saw in Gandhi’s satyāgraha was that the whole thing is new, even if the words
were partly old, it is to be said of social ethics arising from Hinduism. The whole
Hindu reform is not only a reconstruction, but a new creation.
The much better known text of the New Testament in Hinduism is significantly
the parable of the good Samaritan. This text has found entry into the various official
text books of schools and colleges. People learn the lesson of social ethics to see the
neighbours responsibly and as brothers. Some say that India will be able to find its
rebirth only through its own strength. Even granting this, the impulse from outside is
not ruled out. Only when one is challenged from outside or confronted with another
culture, reform and renewal takes place.
Keshub threw the challenge of universal Christology to us as he rejected the
small Christ of the West, and proclaimed the universal Christ and thus expressed the
basic idea to a Christocentric universalism in the theology of history of religions. The
days of missionary movements towards conversion, of old pious or Methodist style
appear to be over, given the present day Hinduism in general. So what the Hindus
themselves think of Christ and discover and experience about him have in the future a
greater significance. It was pointed out that in our Churches we have very little
understanding for the wisdom, love and power, which God has given to people of other
religions and of those without religions as also of the changes which have taken place in
other religions through its constant touch with Christianity. “We must take up the
dialogue about Christ with them in the awareness that Christ speaks to them through us
and through them to us”.29
Part II. Understanding Christ with Indian metaphors and categories
In the first half of the 20th century there were Indian theologians whose image of
Jesus had the Indian flavour. A. J. Appasamy (1891-1975), Pandipetty Chenchia (18861959) and Vengal Chakkarai (1880-1958) worked consciously with the image of Jesus
29
Neu-Delhi spricht, Das Wort der Volksversammlung des Oekumenischen Rates, Stuttgart, 1962, pag.
16.
19
in mind. After them came Paul Devanandam (1901-1962), J. Russel Chandran, M.M.
Thomas30(1916-1996) and Stanley J. Samartha.
Appasamy was Bishop of the Church of South India and a prolific writer. He
uses consciously the Indian Bhakti tradition because it is at best to be integrated with
the teaching of Christian faith. Christianity is basically for him a way to union with
God. Here Jesus is our leader and model. Appasamy takes the historical Jesus
earnestly. Already in his earthy life Jesus is our ideal teacher of inner life. Though
prayer and his union with God, especially through his surrender till death has Jesus
shown us the way to mystic union with the father and himself has found in his
exaltation the ultimate mystic union. So the unity of Christians with the raised Jesus
must be most important thing. Of course he was criticised as having overlooked certain
aspects etc.
Chenchia proceeds in his theology from the general evolution and sees Jesus as
important movement of development, which has brought a new spirit and new power
into the history. Chakkarai teaches a mystical theology of experience whose central
point is the pneumatic Christ. To be a Christian is for him life in unity wit the
pneumatic Christ.
The theology of the catholic church in India was dominated by the Western
Roman idea. There were a few who tried to formulate an Indian catholic theology like
Brahmobandhab Upadhyaya (1861-1907), who proclaimed Jesus as the Logos of the
Word and the eternal wisdom but was ignored by the official church. The Indian
catholic theologians have not gone deep into the study of the Christ image as such.31
Raimon Panikkar in his The Unknown Christ of Hinduism (1964), interprets the
Brahmasūtra and comes to the conclusion that finally it is Christ that Hinduism is in
search of. He comes in the tradition of K.C. Sen’s idea of cosmic Christ hidden in the
Vedas and Upanishads etc. The title does not mean that the Christ is known to the
Christians and unknown to the Hindus; he is hidden and is to be discovered by all.
Later he developed this idea of recognising the universal Christ in the historical Jesus as
the symbol of the mystery of God-within-us.32
30
M. M. Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of Indian Renaissance, London, 1970.
I do not go into the writings of Henri Le Saux, Raimon Panikkar and Sebastian Kappan, since J. Dupuis
is dealing with these thinkers in his paper separately.
31
32
Raimon Panikkar, “Nine Sutra on the ‘Asian Christ’”, in Jeevadhara, XXX, 2000, pagg. 330-334.
20
There is already a publication from the subaltern perspective showing Christ as the
drum.33 The drum which is again a Hindu symbol, already known for example in the
hymns of Āntāl (Tiruppāvai),- one of the12 poet-saints (ālvārs) of the Srivaisnava
tradition- is taken over with all its theological significance. The drum represents the
dimensions of religion that are aggregatively integrative of the interiority of subaltern
communities; participatory through closeness to the context; and eclectic and
multisensory. The drum is a tangible reminder of that dimension in Divine-human
relationality that is cryptic, incomprehensible and indescribable and incommunicable in
human language. It is again shown that the effective role of the drum during the funeral
processions and sacrifices had to do with its ability to resist and overcome the demons
that threaten the well-being of the community. In addition, the drum is associated with
the call to resist invading human powers: the call of the drum was a call to war. Here
the drum is taken to be symbolic to gather the community together in order to prepare
them to resist invading groups of enemies. Finally, the drum keeps the multi-sensory
and multidimensionality of sound-based (subaltern orality) religious reflection alive
within a predominantly sight-based (dominant literacy) milieu.34 These aspects are
taken over in the Christological framework of Indian theology- Christ as Drum: Faith
imaginatively and daringly seeking resonance.
Many Indians criticised the Christians of the Western world that their religious
life is superficial and have little credibility. They are men of activism and less men of
interiority and religious depth. That is to be seen in their theology. This leads to the
question: is this image of Jesus also culturally conditioned and so the interpretation is
one-sided.? In fact there has been also in the West many images of Jesus. The image of
Jesus in Hinduism is also one-sided and it contradicts the known data of biblical
knowledge of Jesus. Still India points out repeatedly that Jesus is the actual revelation
of the perfect interiority and unique union with God and thus shows humanity the way
to perfect union with God which means the highest fulfilment.
33
Cf. Sathianathan Clarke, Dalits and Christianity: Subaltern Religion and Liberation Theology in India.
Oxford, 1999. Cf. also M. R. Arulraja, Jesus the Dalit: Liberation Theology by Victims of Untouchability,
An Indian version of Apartheid, Hyderabad, 1996.
34
Ibidem, pagg. 164-167.
21
Ways of communicating Christ to the world of Hindus
It is one thing to analyse how the well-meaning enlightened Hindus understood
Christ and interpreted him in their own way. Obviously they cannot look at Christ as the
Christian theologians would do and it is not expected of them either. There is no point
of getting disappointed if their interpretation leaves out certain doctrinal formulations of
the Church about Christ. What is to be appreciated is the fact that they met Christ, were
inspired by his message and incorporated some of it in their traditions and life-styles.
This has to be appreciated. But this is one line of treating this subject.
Granting that the message of Christ has to find an Asian expression and
interpretation, which implies that the interpretation has to take into account the existing
cultural backgrounds and religious categories in order to make the message of Christ
intelligible to them. Is it possible to communicate the basic mysteries of Christ like the
death on the cross and resurrection for the sake of saving the humanity in a way that the
Hindus would find it easy to understand? First of all, are there such religious categories
in the Hindu tradition? Will it be possible to make use of those categories in explaining
the Christian message meaningfully? Will it not be another way of doing Christology in
the Indian context? Obviously it would mean using certain Hindu mythological terms
in the Christian context. The purpose is to mediate the message of Christ to people of
other cultural and religious traditions, granting its limitations and ambiguities at times.
That has happened even within the Christian tradition and led to further discussions and
clarifications.
Jesus the Natarāja.(The Lord of the Dance)
In the Hindu tradition the Divine is portrayed as dancer. All the functions
attributed to the divinity (creation, sustenance, destruction, hiding and granting favour)
are explained in terms of the dance metaphor. God Śiva is the dancer par excellence,
the King of Dance (Natarāja) and the power of his dance is what creates and sustains
and grants salvation to all.
One of the central concept of Christianity is resurrection of Christ. The artists
found the dance motive is best suited to explain the meaning of resurrection, dancing
out the joy and glory of the risen life, celebrating the conquest of death. The
theological significance of dance in the Hindu context is also the combination of all the
divine functions like creation, maintenance, destruction, mysteriously fascinating and
22
favouring. Jyoti Sahi has already depicted Christ as the divine artist, the dancer by his
paintings- Jesus’ dance on the cross, dance of the Risen Lord, calming the sea by his
dance etc. They are not mere illustration of an idea or a picture depicting what could be
explained in narratives. But the dance form reveals by itself the mystery which cannot
be explained or circumscribed in words. It evokes the mystery that surrounds the divine
power. This is thinking in terms of Hindu view of the Divine.
Jesus as Nīlakantha ( the Blue-throated One)
After presenting Jesus as the Natarāja, the King of Dance, it is one more step to
call Jesus as the Nīlakantha. Some Hindus like Radhakrishnan had difficulty to accept
the idea of Jesus dying on the cross: how can God die on the cross? The idea is that
God suffers and dies for the sake of saving the world, because he loved the world and
his love implies suffering. But this idea is not unknown to the Hindus. That is, it is said
that Śiva swallowed the poison in order to save the world. This is mythologicaly
portrayed as conflict between good and evil (or the ādityas and daityas, gods and
demons). The gods and the demons came together in order to find a way of being
immortal. It was suggested that they churn the ocean to get the ambrosia. They used
the snake as the cord and the mountain as the churning stick. As they churned the
ocean, the snake vāsuki emitted the poison which enveloped the entire universe,
paralysing the triple world with the smell of its fumes. In order to save the world, Śiva
drank that poison. And the poison got stuck in his throat which made the throat appear
blue. Hence the title: the blue-throated one. So could one call Jesus the Nīlakantha,
since it is he who took the sins of the world on himself?
Jesus, the Nacchiketa
As narrated in the Kathopanishad, Nacchiketa went to the world of death and
waited patiently at the door of the god of death (Yama) for three days. The god of death
came back after his tour and found the boy waiting patiently. Pleased with him the God
of death granted him three favours. One of the favours was his desire to know what
happens after death. Being instructed by the God of death, Nacchiketa came back to
this world with the new knowledge of life after death.
Jesus descended into the underworld – the world of death- and came back to this
world again. If Jesus is called Nacchiketa, will it evoke anything to the Indian listeners?
23
There is a tradition of chanting the thousand names of Siva or Vishnu. The
Christians have adopted this tradition and composed a litany of thousand names
imitating the thousand names of Vishnu –Jesusahasranāmāni- in which several names
of Hindu divinity are taken over- e.g. Ādipurusa, Purushottama, the Yogi, the Guru,
Avatāra, Prajāpati (Lord of beings), Viśvakarman (Creator of the universe), Anuttama (
the Unexcelled), the Mārga (the path), the Prāna (the life energy of all beings), Prānada
( Life–giver), the Lokanātha ( Lord of the Universe), Parameśvara, Bhaktavatsala
(merciful to all his devotees),Saccidānanda (being-consciousness-bliss), etc.
Theologising does not mean simply writing books, but living the faith and
experiencing it in one’s living context. The context is the Hindu worldview. The goal
of Christian presence is to discover the mystery of God at work in this religio-cultural
tradition of the Hindus and to proclaim the mystery as it is revealed in Christ. In this
process the metaphors and images and the concepts of God in the Hindu tradition will
play major role.
Any one attempt at interpreting the Christ event in Asia will not be adequate or
comprehensive. Several attempts may have to go into it, depending on the context and
the people for whom it is meant. Secondly, bringing in such comparison does not
equate simply Christ with Śiva or any other name. It is an attempt to look for
homeomorphic equivalents to express a reality as understood in one cultural context
into another cultural milieu. There are nuances that are not exactly the same when
transported to another cultural context through homeomorphic equivalents. But then
they gain further nuances and reveal something which was not noticed earlier. This is
true of any juxtaposition of texts from its familiar context to an unfamiliar context.
Thus the task of understanding the Christ-event is an ongoing process at all
times. No one Christology could exhaust the mystery of that Christ-event and hence the
Hindu view of Christ- what the Hindu thinkers and artists have formulated through their
metaphors and world-views- has a significant contribution to make in one’s
understanding of the mystery of God, revealed in Jesus Christ.
24