Introduction: In this paper we will try to see the early life of Devanandan, his education, who and how he was inspired and influenced, and try to see how he was different from the other Indian Christian theologian in His approach toward dialogue. And also try to see his understanding of the Hindu terminology, and the way in which He finds out the gap which can be filled only through Christ, Which He understand the basis of doing dialogue.
Early life and education
Paul David Devanandan was born in 1901 in Madras. His Father was Rev. Devadawson David who was a principal of the Thriruvallur high School, and His mother was Mercy David who was originally from Tanjur was fluent in Urdu, Telugu and English. Devanandan completed his undergraduate education in Triruchirapalli and graduated from Nizam College in Hyderabad. He taught in Jaffna College for some time, and then got his M.A. from the Presidency College, Madras. He became acquainted with K.T. Paul through his father who was one of the first active members of the National Missionary Society, K.T. Paul who was a National Christian leader engage him as his secretary on His visit to United States in 1924-25. Devanandan stayed back for Theological studies with the approval o K,T.Paul. He got his B.D. from Berkely and his doctorate in comparative religion from Yale and his doctoral dissertation was a historical study of the concept of Maya. It was in Yale he changed his name from Paul David to Paul D. Devanandan signifying his self awakening as a nationalist Indian Christian.
K.T. Paul was a Nationalist movement leader, who took part in the London round table conference in 1930, and a friend of Gandhi, had strongly influenced Devanandan. On his return to India after his studies he became the teacher of philosophy and the history of religions at the United Theological College, Bangalore, where he served for seventeen years, after which he moved to YMCA worked till 1956 and formed the Christian Institute for the study of Religion and Society (CISRS) in Bangalore. Where he remains till his died in 1962. He was widely known and respected in India as well as abroad as Christian thinker and Church leader. He also took leading part in the World Council of Churches particularly at the meeting in New Delhi 1961 where he delivered one of the major addresses. He had published his work “the concept of Maya” and his papers and sermons collected and printed by CISRS.
Devanandan inspiration for Dialogue
Devanandan attended the Tambaram 1938 meeting of the International mission council and Kraemer’s book “Christian Message in the Non- Christian world” made a very strong impact on Him. It help his theology to understand the Barthian neo orthodoxy and the Tambaram 1938 enabled him to gain greater understanding of the ecumenical movement and discovered that the church is the bearer of mission and prophecy. Devanandan revolt against the theological liberalism which was vogue. and found Kraemer and Barth as basis for making a new start. But after Kraemer negative approach to the “Non Christian world” and Barth approach which says non Christian religion are basically human enterprise, he reacts sharply and come to a conclusion that Kaemer and Barth had stressed too much in the fact that the revelation is from God at the expenses of the fact that it is to and for the world of men. And he feels to restore the balance because of which he want the Indian Christians to take Hinduism seriously as their cultural background for expressing the Christian Faith, and so Devanandan began to seek a post Kraemer theology of Indianisation of Christianity.
Thoughts and understanding of Orthodox Hindu Theological concepts for Dialogue:
The “newness” of Devanandan’s thought is quite different from that of the Brahmabandhab understanding of the Trinity and Chenchiah’s exposition of the “new creation” in which they tried to present the Christian doctrines in the Indian context of culture, and religious philosophy. But Devanandan is not seeking to adapt the Christian message to Hinduism but rather he is trying to understand the inner working of Hinduism, to show his Hindu friends the point in which their belief finds true meaning only in Christ. It was a time when Hinduism was finding difficult to bridge the gap between its own traditional orthodoxy and the active developing of the modern secular state, and in such a situation Hindu thinks that their theology must be rethought and reform. Where the Christian may come to the aid of his Hindu brothers in friendly dialogue, helping the Hindu brothers to reform their faith from within. And redefine the very nature of religion.
There are certain areas of thought where orthodox Hindu theology had failed to provide practical ways for one to live in a modern and developing country. They are:
1. Personality: the traditional understanding is “atman” which works against the idea of freedom and development. But Devanandan agrees that God is the ultimate Truth, but also says that He is fully personal, and points out the phrase “the Lord thy God” in effect equates Isuara with Brahman. God is hidden yet revealed himself as personal not simply in Christ but all through the Old Testament. God become known in the personal relationship, this concept of God as personal and speaking and dealing historically with man as responsible person, is a fundamental article of faith and beliefs to be the basis of Hindu-Christian dialogue. Devanandan refers the sin with ahamkara egotism or selfishness, and say the more truly a man reflect the nature of God the more he comes closer to the purpose of the image God in him, and as we are fallen in sin we can become close to the image of God only by becoming a new creation in Christ. There is an Indian word “purusa” which expresses Devanandan’s understanding of “personality” and feels that it can be transform and filled with new content as some great India thinker did like Gandhi did to the word “Ahimsa” which means non violence but gave a meaning like “Christian love”. Thus the word “purusa” commonly understood as man, but Devanandan listed three essential understanding of a true purusa. Firstly the word implies the ability of persons to stand up to one another in the mutual encounter of I-Thou, Secondly the interaction between these two in dialogue draws one another closer as person, Thirdly there is a common goal to reach out for a common purpose. So the word purusa in Sanskrit had not yet fully acquired it meaning when it mean only “man”. But it can be referred to the God head as his personality is derived from God, as his sense of being an “I” is the result of his being confronted with the “Thou” of God. And so when we say you are intended to be like what God had intended to be than purusa is not sufficient but one must go beyond that and must describe oneself as bhakta the “worshiper.”
2. Creation: Hinduism fails to acknowledge the importance of the material world and thus fails to support to plan for the better living standard. So in dialogue with the Hindus it is important to stress not only the fact that God is personal, but also that it is God who is the ultimate truth, who is the creator. It is God who created the world and he is actively involved in creation and recreation even today, and that not only Human but every creation is heading towards a common goal, and is all involved in great redemptive movement in history and has a place in God’s concerned. The world is real and good and must be used as God had intended to be. According to Devanandan Christ is the true man and man become a new creature in him by responding to Him and commitment. Man can become a new creation only by conversion, which does not necessarily mean transferring one person from one group to other, but it is in term of new birth or the born again being. A change in the very nature of man as the Bible says “no longer I that live but the Christ in me.” The Christian view of man as God’s creature and God as man’s creator resolve the issue in Christian thought where as in Hinduism to accept this doctrine of creation would be a violence to the nature of God absolute being (Brahma), who cannot be involve in the life of the world. So Devanandan see that it is the duty to help the Hindu brothers toward the reformation in the way of thinking of the created world, in order that their effort to transform and use the world may find the inner dynamic and undergirding which at present is lacking.
3. History: the positive view of the created world must also extended to the history, because the Hinduism does not give much importance to the history, as they understand that everything is following a cyclic patter and being are subjected to “maya”. But Devanandan show how modern Hinduism is gradually awakening to a sense of purpose in history (moving towards eschaton/the hope of glory) which is also an influence of Christian message. As the Christian understanding of the history and time which are all heading toward an ultimate purpose provide the new basis for action, which traditional Hinduism does not provide. (E.g. the successive five year plan for national development) once again we find the purpose, the God’s purpose in creation and history, which is his dominating element of his thought. Devanandan says for Christian the reverse is true, the present is conditioned by future because it is the future goal towards which everything are moving in present now, changing and transforming people and community to fulfill God’s purpose through Christ. As Christ through spirit is at work within the church and outside the church toward the “Hope of glory” which is the purpose of God.
4. Community: Hinduism regards religion as a private enterprise and is individual and God’s business. Whereas Devanandan stress on the need of community life, he says that man is truly man only when he or she is in network with his or her fellow human, which Bible calls people and in modern language is called “society”. Thus man is more than both manava and purusa for he must be a bkakta in satsanga or koinonia with God and His people, so for Devanandan church is the community, which should be the example of model to the world of how a community should be. (living, witnessing, worshiping, and serving fellowship)
Maya: according to Devanandan “world secular history moves in a sort of maya-world in so far as it is man-made and has not been brought into line with God’s purpose, and it gains reality and ultimate significance as it becomes conformed to the purpose. Devanandan’s new contribution here is to transfer maya from the realm of being to that of will or purpose comes to coincide with God’s. On this interpretation maya, the biblical vanity is used to describe the state of this world where the vain and self-willed activity of man in secular history claims for itself a sovereignty which can in truth belong to God alone.” So when the doctrine of maya is brought out of the realm of being and creation into that of will and history, and interprets the purpose of God in the context of new creation, produce a new meaning and new possibilities which does not possess in any current Hindu interpretation. This is what Devanandan hope would emerge from the Hindu-Christian dialogue, which would bridge the gap between the orthodoxy Hindu theology and the modern India.
Preparation for Dialogue:
Devanandan’s greatest contribution to the mission of the church is his interpretation of the task of evangelism, and the interpretation of the whole relation between the Hinduism and Christianity in terms of “dialogue.” Also at the same time he speaks about the Christian responsibilities, which he address by asking questions like is it true that Christians even today are living a secluded life, cut off from the rest of the people, having less in common with those among whom we live? Are our religious beliefs and practices, and our insistence on evangelistic activity the main cause for the gap between the Christians and the Hindus today? And he goes on to say that firstly Indianisation of the Church is very important, secondly to involve more in the national development, and thirdly to take steps to meet the charges that church is not rooted in the soil of the country.
And on the other hand His approach to Hinduism is very practical and modern. In the first place he try to understand his Hindu contemporaries, and does a serious historical and analytical studies in which he shows how far had Hinduism moved far beyond from the traditional Hinduism, secondly after this, he not only gives the Christian thoughts in conversation and the concept of New Creation in Christ but also their understanding of the high value of Hindu culture. Modern India as a developing country have a big concern for the material world, with history, value of the individual as a person, and with the society, but on the other hand the orthodox Hindu beliefs in the identity of the Atman and Paramatman, and beliefs that the world is just a Maya, which fails to provide the religious bases for practical action.
Here Devanandan say that the problem with the Hinduism can be solved to some extend by synthesizing the traditional world view with the contemporary secularism, which many Hindu leaders are doing, and to connect these two, the good news of God came in the form of Jesus Christ, which has to be considered by the Hindu. Unknowingly many developments in Hinduism owe a direct dept to Christianity which remains unacknowledged, but we as Christians we must rejoice in this creative works of the Holy Spirit because of which we find the “Hidden Christ” there at work when we enter into dialogue.
Three different stages in the “apologetic” to be kept in mind when we enter into dialogue. First is to make a detail study of different variety of modern Hinduism, which Devanandan he himself did a great contribution, secondly we should go on to clarification of terminology, of those Indian terms which are used in different shades of meaning, by both Christians and Hindus. Thirdly the most daring task of evolving an Indian Theological expression of the Christian faith. This gives an idea that effective communication of the gospel also depends on how we use the religious vocabulary in the relation to the non Christians cultural pattern. Devanandan’s approach to Christian theology is not just academic but he presents it as a living interpretation of the Christian faith, which is many a times ignored in the process of dialogue with Hindus.
Secularism is one of the subject in which Devanandan had interesting contributed. There has been secularist tendency in india sense the rationalism of Ram Mohan Roy and as there was ancient seculatist Hindu tradition, the Lokayata system, which was both world affirming and atheistic. With the coming of the independence in 1947 india emerged as a secular state and secularism got a very important place in the modern india. Devanandan describe the Nehru type of secularism very well in his words. “it recognizes material values: it gives worth and dignity to the human person: it place importance on all purposive Endeavour to realized a just social order: and above all it points to the need to take this present moment in world life seriously.”
And to achieve this aims of the secular India, needs a unifying force all over India to head towards national development and advancement, where as India is form of many heterogeneous units in terms of language, religion, and culture which might easily bring the spirit of separatism. So in order to maintain this unity there should be a unifying factor which is to be found in Hindu Culture, but here the secular Hinduism is encounter with a challenge of preserving the cultural aspect of the Hinduism on the other hand ignoring the religious aspects or at least radically transforming the religious Hinduism.
Panikkar says that Hinduism could be restored to effectiveness only by emphasizing the secular character of its social institutions, and demanded “a rethinking of social values a reorganization of institutions and a divorce between law and custom on the one hand and religion on the other hand. Devanandan thesis is that, this is the point in which Christian mission should be brought in. bring in the insight of the Christian faith on creation, history, personality and community all this theme in which secular Hinduism is trying to find deeper meaning which orthodox Hindu theology is not able to respond. But at the same time Indian Christian must claim their cultural kinship with Indian society and state, and the view in dialogue should be within their society.
Devanandan goes further that eventually the process of secularization may go further than it has already gone and Hindu society become completely secularized finally becoming Hindu only in cultural content and lost its religious significance, just as it happened to the Greek religion. And Devanandan goes further saying that the Christian theological basis gives the provision to support the structure of the Modern Indian life which orthodox traditional Hinduism cannot. Thus Hindu culture will survive and on the other hand religious Hinduism would be fulfilled in the Christian Faith.
Conclusion: Paul David Devanandan unlike other Indian Christian theologian did not try to Indianised the Christianity, but His approach was to critically study and understand the Hindu text, the principle philosophies, and the orthodox Hindu theology, so that He can help the Hindu friends to connect their Hindu religion to the rapidly developing India. Which the orthodox Hindu theology is not able to do. And the context where secular Hinduism was working hard to find a connection of the Hindu religion to the modern India, in such a context he bring in the concept that it is Christ that will bridge the gap. And it is this point where his idea of dialogue begins. He lived not for very long, but surely his method to come for a dialogue was a gateway for his contemporaries and for many, to reach out to the Hindu brothers for a religious dialogue between the Christians and Hindus.
No comments:
Post a Comment