A Critique of Rev. Dr. K. P. Aleaz’s Theological Contributions
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
A Critique of Rev. Dr. K. P. Aleaz’s Theological Contributions
A Critique of Rev. Dr. K. P. Aleaz’s Theological Contributions
Introduction
As I embark on to
discuss the theological contributions of Aleaz, let me star with his insights
to the religions department, particularly highlighting his definition of religion,
preferential method to study religions, theology of religions underlying
pluralism, pluralistic inclusivism, relational convergence of religions and the
connection between religion and culture.
Following his
contributions to the religious studies, I shall focus on his contributions to
Indian philosophy by underlining his consideration of pramanas, Advaita,
Christian Response to Indian philosophy and Indian Christian Philosophy.
Next in the
order is his interpretation of theology, mainly focused on Indian Christian
theology, Eastern Christian thought and Dalit theology. His proposal for an
Indian spirituality is no less a significant contribution. Aleaz’s bent of
knowledge and commitment can further be drawn from his important constructs
like Jesus, Gospel and proclamation &mission.
1 Religions
Aleaz’s theological contribution can
in the first place be discussed under the title religions, as he is a professor
of religions. Under this heading his contribution to the definition/meaning of
the complex term religion, his proposal for a relevant integral approach to
study religions particularly in India, his contribution to theology of
religions with reasonable consideration to the principle of pluralistic
perspective and special emphasis to pluralistic inclusivism, his contribution
to the resulting relational convergence of religions and the connection between
religion and culture in India can be analyzed.
1.
1 Defining Religions
As opposed to the customary way of defining religion,
Aleaz suggests a novel and relevant approach which the modern students of
religions are expected to take into consideration. He says ‘the meaning of
religion has to be understood today in terms of an evaluation of the history of
ones own religion by its fruits’.[1]
Again he says “rather than evaluating other faiths in terms of one’s own faith
we are entering an era where we will evaluate our own faith in terms of the
positive aspects of other faiths.”[2]
His focus is that religion needs to be fruitful and needs to take into account
the positive contributions of other religions. His supplement to the existing
considerations about the definition and meaning of religion has its background
in the earlier notion that Christianity alone will be the final religion.
Added
to the above two insights are the views that all religious experiences are
authentic in their own context and plurality of religious expressions is
natural. He writes “our point is all the expressions of all the religious
experiences are authentic in their own realm. Plurality in experience and
expression is something natural to religions and we should take note of this
point in our understanding of what religion is.”[3]
Another
important lesson is that expressions of the same religious experience can also
vary. In the words of Aleaz “in our
understanding of what religion is, we should note that expressions of the same
religious experience can vary and also religious experiences are numerous, all
being authentic in their own realm.”[4]
The
contributions of Aleaz in defining religion is appropriate as it is not
concerned with the content of religion rather with the applicability and
possibility of relating one religion with the other while upholding the reality
of many religions. This proposal is put forward keeping in mind the possible
relational convergence of religions from the perspective of pluralistic
inclusivism. His contribution would have become more outstanding had it
emphasized the need for religions to focus upon life sustaining issues.
1.2
Methodology
Although there
are different approaches to study religions Aleaz suggests for an integrated
approach consisting sociological, social anthropological and philosophical
methods. In his own words “Sociological and social anthropological approaches
as well as philosophical approach together may constitute an integral Indian
approach to the study of religion.”[5] He
is also of the view that such an integrated approach can take into account even
the primal religions.[6]
The underlying authentic assumption in this attempt is harmony of religions or
relational convergence of religions. This has been stated as “the integral
Indian approach to the study of religions is conceived as dialogical in its
essence on the basis of a vision of relational convergence of religions.”[7]
The reason for
selecting sociological approach is to explain the connection between religion
and society; socio anthropological approach is to highlight the human aspect of
religion and society; and philosophical approach is to show that in India
1.3
Theology of Religions
On the basis
of dialogical existence of religions or relational convergence of religions
from the perspective of pluralistic inclusivism Aleaz has developed his
theology of religions. For him “theology of religions signifies the particular
way in which one conceives other faiths in terms of one’s own faith.”[8]
Again he writes “theology of religions enquires into how from the perspective
of one’s own religious faith, a person can account for the diversity of the
world’s religious quest and commitment.”[9]
Still further, “the issue of the relationship between one’s own religious faith
and other faiths is the focus of attention in theology of religions.”[10]
From these it
is clear that theology of religions is concerned with how one conceives other
faiths in terms of one’s own faith, how one accounts for the reality of many
religions and how one relates with the others. In fact in his definition of
religion Aleaz has given priority to other religious insights in understanding
one’s own faith-tradition. Here on the contrary he focuses how one can relate
with the other from his or her own standpoint. That is, the focus has moved
from the other to one’s own faith tradition.
Hence it may
be correct to say that, theology of religions is the study of the ways in which
a person understands faith-traditions other than his or her own and how he or
she relates his or her tradition with others.
In the pursuit
of relational convergence of religions Aleaz has missed a significant aspect of
the definition of theology of religions, that, not only faith traditions but
ideologies also contribute to the life sustaining relational convergence of
religions. Hence it may be appropriate to maintain that, theology of religions
is not just confined to religions alone. It is concerned with ideologies as
well. Its main aim is to interpret various faiths and ideologies in a way to
building up a constructive relation between them, without disregarding the
unique differences, for working towards a common goal, i.e. life sustaining
vision.
1.3.1
Pluralism
Aleaz’s own
proposal is to accept pluralistic inclusivism as the right approach to theology
of religions. Nevertheless, he is comfortable with the strand of pluralism as
well. He writes, “the Pluralist perspective maintains that other religions are
equally salvific paths to the one God.”[11]
This definition can raise a crucial question that how does pluralism accounts
for religions which do not believe in the existence of God. Another shortcoming
of the definition is that the role of other ideologies is undermined by
excluding them. The school of pluralism, no doubt, has a place for all
religions which believe in God, religions which do not believe in God and
ideologies which are constructively contributing towards life sustaining
pluralistic perspective.
Aleaz is of the view that “in the
religious history of India
Yet
Aleaz goes on to suggest that “Hindu culture accepts religious pluralism
theologically through the concepts of adikara bheda and Advaita.”[14]
This assertion needs reconsideration as the present day politicized Hinduism is
committed to a communally charged one monolithic Hindu culture.
In support of
his position Aleaz argues that “the pre-Diamper (pre1519) St. Thomas Christians
upheld Pluralism in theology of religions.”[15]
His appreciation and aspiration for the pre-Diamper days need to take in to
account the increasing intolerant attitude of some sections of Christianity
against other religions.
1.3.2
Pluralistic Inclusivism
Aleaz’s agreement
with pluralist interpretation of religions no way disturbs his unyielding
preference for pluralistic inclusivism. This is evident as he writes, “Pluralistic
Inclusivism can be conceived as a viable Indian Christian theology of religions
in the context of dialogue.”[16]
Aleaz also points out that ‘the pre-Diamper (pre1519) St. Thomas Christians
upheld the perspective of Pluralistic Inclusivism in social life.’[17]
It implies that one can be pluralist in terms of theology of religions and
pluralistic inclusivist in terms of social life.
Since
pluralistic inclusivism is Aleaz’s own construct, it is necessary to further
understand this principle. According to him, “Pluralistic inclusivism inspires
each religious faith to be pluralistically inclusive i.e., on the one hand each
living faith is to become truly pluralistic by other faiths contributing to its
conceptual content and on the other hand inclusivism is to transform its
meaning to witness the fulfillment of the theological and spiritual contents of
one’s own faith in and through the contributions of other living faiths.”[18]
Two important
insights emerge from the above explanation. One is that every religion should
become pluralistic with the contributions of other religions and the second is
that the inclusivistic tendencies of the religions should seek fulfillment from
the contributions of other religions. This of course is in contrast to the
traditional way of thinking that all other religions will be fulfilled in
Christianity. These are, in fact, the radical proposals of Aleaz against the
existing tendencies that if a religion is pluralistic it positively considers
other religions and if it is incluvisistic it seek the fulfillment of other
religions. In the words of Aleaz “in Pluralist Inclusivism both Inclusivism and
Pluralism undergo change in their previous meanings. It makes Pluralism
inclusive and Incluvism pluralistic.”[19]
A
major outlook of pluralistic incluvism is obvious in Aleaz’s writing from the
point of Advaita that “Pluralistic Incluvism is an attempt to make Christian
faith pluralistically inclusive i.e., the content of the revelation of God in
Jesus is to become truly pluralistic by other faiths contributing to it as per
the requirement of different places and times and it is through such pluralistic
understanding of the gospel that its true inclusivism is to shine forth. Here
pluralism transforms itself to focus on its centre which is God as God in the
universally conceived Jesus and
inclusivism transforms itself to bear witness to the fulfillment of the
Christian understanding of Christ in and through theological contributions from people of other faiths.”[20]
Aleaz’s elucidation looks speculative and unconceivable from the point of some
of the traditional claims of Christianity.
His
proposal that other faiths will contribute to the Christian faith according to
the situation is hard to digest for an ordinary mind. Similarly universal Jesus
cannot be understood except from the point of Advaita. The underlying
assumptions behind this bold proposals is stated as “the basic affirmation here
is that there is a possibility of the fulfillment of the theological and
spiritual contents of one’s own faith in and through the contributions of other
living faiths.”[21]
The doubt that may arise here is that how is it possible for Aleaz to seek a
universal Jesus while arguing for pluralistic inclusivism.
It
was already maintained that Pluralistic Inclusivism in reality is the approach
of dialogue for the simple reason that as in dialogue in pluralistic
inclusivism each religious faith receives from the other religious faiths new
insights regarding its own conceptual content.[22]
It may be asked if dialogical approach is the same as pluralistic inclusivism
what is the necessity for galvanizing for pluralistic inclusivism.
Another point
is that in Pluralistic Inclusivism ‘religious resources of the world are
conceived as the common property of humanity’.[23]
This is further explained as “all religious experiences and traditions are
simultaneously ours. We do not have any one particular religious tradition
alone as our own and other as belonging to others. All are mine as well as all
are for all others. All belong to all. It is a religious perspective in which
while remaining in one’s own religious faith-experience, one can consider other
faiths as one’s own, as the common property of humanity, for a more and more
blessed and enriched life. Here the otherness of the other is negated.”[24]
Aleaz is true in considering all the religious resources of the universe as the
common property of humanity. But this concern needs to be addressed in the
realm of freedom of religion where every individual should be entitled to
follow the religion of his or her choice.
Another aspect
is that in Pluralistic Inclusivism, “there is social justice maintained in the
realm of religious experiences by sharing with those who do not have, but this
is entirely different an attitude from that of imposing upon others forcibly
what they do not want. Pluralistic Incluvism always maintains humility to see
that others have better things than us. The superiority of others is always
affirmed in it, rather than claiming our own superiority.”[25]
Aleaz’s
unwavering commitment to Pluralistic Inclusivism draws resources not only from
Hinduism but also from the Syadvada or Anekantavada of Jainism. His assumption
is that pluralistic inclusivism contributes to the relational convergence of
religions.
1.3.3
Relational Convergence of Religions
Aleaz
envisages ‘a relational convergence of religions’[26] through pluralistic inclusivism. In other words, ‘Pluralistic Incluvism gives
birth to relational convergence of religions’.[27]
His dedication to promote pluralistic inclusivism is vivid in his declaration
that “for the last twenty five years I have been pleading for the relational
convergence of the thoughts and experiences of diverge religious faiths in
terms of a particular perspective in theology of religions which I call
pluralistic inclusivism.”[28]
What is
relational convergence of religions and its content can be deduced from his
writing that “an important aspect of relational convergence of religions is
mutual conversion. Being born in a religion does not mean that we should die in
that religion in the same way as we were born. We can get converted into the
true spirit of once own religion and in that very conversion get converted into
another religious experience as well.”[29]
Aleaz should not be misunderstood as promoting conversion from Christianity to
other religions. He always maintained that the words proselytizing and conversion
should not be confused. His priority is to see a conversion or change of
attitude in a person in the light of the contributions of other religions. This
is to say that to develop positive attitude towards others while being critical
to one’s tradition.
This aspect is
illustrated as “for example, if the gospel of God in Jesus has to emerge from
the hermeneutical context of India
Aleaz, no
doubts, allows space to consider that “inter-relation as well as relational
convergence of religion is a possibility.”[32]
That is, it is not there but we can go in that direction.
1.4
Religion and Culture
In connection with the relation between religion and culture Aleaz
argues that ‘the basic feature of Indian culture is its integral relationship
with Indian religions’.[33]
He further states “religious enlightenment constitutes the fundamental source
of creativity for Indian culture and the Indian psyche.”[34]
He is also of the opinion that “there was no imposition of Aryan culture on the
existing Indian cultures, but only a diffusion of it through an acculturation
process.”[35]
Aleaz’s respect for Indian
heritage is admirable, but it cannot be ignored that as there are many
religions, there are many cultures. Similarly the infiltration of Aryan
influence including culture in various spheres of Indian life cannot be denied.
It is true that there is a connection between religion and culture in India India
Of course, Aleaz perceives a
double gospel emerging from Indian culture. According to him “one is the gospel
of integral relation between religion and culture, resulting in cultural
symbiosis and a composite culture through an ongoing interaction between
religions. The second meaning of the gospel of Indian culture points to an
understanding of the gospel of God in Jesus emerging from the Indian culture or
rather the Indian hermeneutical context which in reality goes beyond the scope
of the previous Christian concepts like ‘indigenisation’ or ‘inculturation’.”[36]
The third gospel of Indian culture for Aleaz is ‘the gospel of interreligious
harmony and integration’.[37]
The two gospels-gospel of composite
culture and gospel of God in Jesus emerging from the Indian hermeneutical
context are limited to the outcome of the confluence of Christianity and
Hinduism. But the fact remains that India
In the view of Aleaz ‘the most
important feature of Indian culture is its integral relationship with Indian
religions’.[40]
He calls this relationship as Advaitic.[41]
And affirms Advaita cannot be tied down to the narrow boundaries of any one
particular religion. It stands for unity and universality in the midst of
diversities. As a result it can very well function as a symbol of Indian
composite culture.[42]
The possibility of this suggestion may be questioned.
Aleaz, almost
in line with the Sang Parivar, claims “it was its cultural unity based on
religion that held India India
It is a fact that
India India India
2
Philosophy
Having analyzed Aleaz’s contribution to theology from the
point of religious studies, now his theological contributions in terms of
Indian philosophy can be discussed. It is obvious that he is an ardent advocate
of Advaita Vedanta of Sankara. Before underlining some of his creative and
radical constructs in line with Advaita, his understanding of the six
pramanas(Sources of Knowledge)[45]
of Indian philosophy can be discussed.
2.1
Pramanas
Aleaz is
sentimental in using the six pramanas in Indian Christian theology. As he finds a close integration of reason and
revelation in the pramanas Aleaz considers giving total freedom to the Pramanas
of Indian Philosophy to function as Indian Christian Pramanas. His sentiments
are expressed as, “we receive the Pramanas of Indian Philosophy totally as they
are; neither do we reject them nor do we reinterpret them to suit a
pre-formulated christen epistemology.”[46]
Aleaz’s
devotion to the pramanas is understandable. At the same time we cannot
encourage uncritical application of them in Indian Christian theology. A
positive consideration of the pramanas is possible if they can serve as tools
of interpretation.
Aleaz’s
reverence for the pramanas is so serious that he maintains “one cannot add some
more pramanas just like that to the list of the six got fixed through centuries
of investigation by the best minds of India;…”[47]
This is, in fact, his reaction to A.J. Appasamy’s proposal to consider
saba(church) as a pramana and Paul Gregorios’ interpretation of sabda as
tradition. Another suggestion is experience (Anubava) cannot be confused with,
perception and it cannot be considered as a pramana.
Aleaz also complains
that the Indian Christian theologians have not considered using all the six
pramanas. Nonetheless, in his positive declaration Aleaz maintains “it is our
conviction that the construction of a Christian epistemology has to take place
from the very use of the Indian Philosophical Pramanas.”[48]
This dedicated acceptance leaves with questions such as, can we accept the
pramanas uncritically, can’t we modify some of them, and can’t we add new
pramanas. In fact we cannot and should not blindly accept them and use them
because they are also human products and all of them are not used by all
schools of thought in India
Whereas it is
insightful to learn that even in the pramanas there is close integration of
reason and revelation, Aleaz’s contention that there cannot be any other
pramans than the accepted ones and that Indian Christian philosophy has to be
developed from within the pramanas, can be subjected to further scrutiny.
As theologies
today are down to earth realities, Aleaz needs to reconsider some of the claims.
Our approach should be from below and struggle for sustenance based. In this
connection the pramanas may not be of absolute help to us.
2.2
Advaita/Sankara
Philosophically
Aleaz is oriented towards Advaita Vedanta of Sankara. It may be because of his perception
that ‘Advaita is neither monism nor pantheism, but gives value and meaning to
jiva and the world.’[49]
It may be also because for him “the proclamation of Sankara is that the Atman
as Pure Consciousness and Witness pervades, illumines and unifies the whole
world, the whole of history and the entire human personality, giving
significance to world and history as well as meaning and purpose to human life
on earth.”[50]
The intention
behind the choice is that for Aleaz, the Advaita Vedanta is helpful to understand
God, world and life as not separate entities but one reality understood at
different levels. Another current is that Advaita Vedanta principle that the
reality is one without the second, is a convenient vehicle to emphasis
religious harmony. Of course, as Aleaz is for relational convergence of
religions, he could promote Advaita, but may not be appropriate to declare that
this is the only viable option. Although
it is not his intention, it is implied that other philosophical and theological
constructs are insignificant compared to Advaita Vedanta.
Still
further Aleaz is convinced that “Advaita Vedanta makes Christian
faith-experience new and refreshing.”[51]
This is an extraordinary claim in pursuing the good cause of religious harmony.
Not all Indian thinkers have taken up this position. At the same time it needs
to be remembered that there are constant appeal to Vedanta to be refreshed with
the light of Christianity. Hence it may be fitting to consider every religion
as a whole and explore the possibilities of working together towards a life
sustaining vision on the strength of varying spiritual resources.
From the point
of other religions and issues, Aleaz has accepted Advaita as the only
philosophical system acceptable to all Hindus and other religious communities.
He is also reflecting the notion that Advaita alone has solutions to all the
problems in theology, religion and society. This is stated as “through the
Advaita Vedantic understanding that each idea of god is but a stage in the
religious journey, tolerance and acceptance of all different religions become
natural and spontaneous for a Hindu.”[52]
The meritorious point deserving appreciation is Aleaz’s commitment in pursuing
religious harmony. At the same time there should be room to account for the different
strands of Hindu understandings, because one of the salient aspects of Hinduism
is its principle of Adiharabheda and istadevada. I am sure Aleaz will not
disagree.
Aleaz’s
faithfulness to Advaita facilitates much broader prospects to Advaita.
According to him Vedanta transcends all religious boundaries.[53]
But the fact that Advaita Vedanta has its background in the Siva tradition
cannot be forgotten. Its universalistic tinge is welcome, but it cannot be made
obligatory on all other religious communities and even on the Hindus who would
subscribe to the various other interpretations available in their own
tradition.
2.3
Christian Response to Indian Philosophy
Aleaz’s Christian Responses to Indian Philosophy is
based on his commitment to the pluralistic context of India India
According to Aleaz, Krishna Mohan Banerjea and
Nehemiah Nīlakantha Sastri Goreh have responded to all the major doctrines of
the six philosophical systems and presented Christian concepts superior to
them. Nehemiah Nīlakantha Sastri Goreh’s approach is exclusive because he has
entirely disagreed with the six systems of philosophy in the light of his
Christian understanding to the extent of suggesting that they are error.
Aleaz
emphasizes that in Christian response to Indian philosophy, the relation
between reason and revelation warrants special consideration. He also appeals
that all the scriptures should be accepted as revelations.
The growth of
Navyanyaya within the Nyaya system as presented by John Vattanky tries to
remove the blame of atheistic tendency of the original school. Along with
Aleaz, John Vattanky maintains that it is not possible to separate religion and
philosophy or reason and revelation in Indian systems of thought.
Aleaz is
concerned that some Christian thinkers have misunderstood, and confused yoga
philosophy with other general expressions of yoga. For him the main principle that ‘Yoga means
only separation of the soul from matter and not any union or communion of the
soul with God’ is often distorted in the Christian usage. While constantly pointing out this mix-up
Aleaz amply credit the number of scholars who are trying to relate Yoga with
Christian experiences.[54]
In the view of
Aleaz, Francis X. D’Sa has approached Mimamsa Philosophy without relating to
the Christian thought but highlights the eternal character of Sabdah and its
significance in life. Aleaz is perturbed to see that instead of creatively
using the Mimamsa insight of sabdah in biblical hermeneutics Francis X. D’Sa
suggests kavyasastra’s Dhvani method of interpretation.[55]
Aleaz
attempts to compare and contrast Dhvani of kavyasastra (Poetics) with sabdah
(pramana), to suggest a biblical-theological hermeneutics in India India
Coming to the
Christian thinkers who have responded only to Vedanta Aleaz is content with
those positive responses and suggests that a Christian philosophy is in the
making. His conviction, almost uncritical, without considering those who have
followed to other ways of relating and interpreting the gospel is that Advaita
is the hermeneutical context of India
Aleaz presents the Jaina principle of Syadvada as helpful
philosophical principle in the context of many religions and to pursue
religious harmony. In spite of a few
negative Christian responses to Indian philosophy, Aleaz’s aim is to cull out
resources from all the positive Christian responses to the Indian philosophical
systems to initiate Indian Christian Philosophy.
2.4
Indian Christian Philosophy
Aleaz’s
priority is to suggest a Christian philosophy based upon Indian philosophy,
specifically anchored on the six pramans (sources of valid knowledge).
The seeming possibility of this process is conveyed by highlighting the
concomitant connection present between reason and revelation in Indian
philosophy. Added to this is the accent supplemented to the sublime fact that
“Indian philosophy is an applied discipline for human transformation and not a
merely theoretical one.”[56]
His conviction is that Indian philosophy can potentially address to the plural
context of India
Although
strong advocate of Advaita, Aleaz views A.J. Apppasamy’s creative use of
Ramanuja’s philosophy to interpret Christian faith as one of the positive
resources for Indian Christian philosophy.[57]
Aleaz is very
emphatic that of all the Indian philosophical schools, it is Sankara’s Advaita
Vedanta that is found resourceful in providing support for an Indian Christian
philosophy. Aleaz has used this principle
to interpret Jesus. To site one example, “Jesus is the most beautiful
representation of the ever-existing integral relation between god and creation,
which includes humans.”[58]
The proposal
that the Sabda-Dhvani method of
biblical-theological hermeneutics can explore the possibility of having diverse
interpretation of scripture is positively educative. According to Aleaz ‘his endeavors
to bring out the significance of Sabda method of understanding and
interpretation in Biblical- theological hermeneutics stands out as though
feeble, a single-handed effort’.[59]
3
Theology
In terms of
theology Aleaz’s contributions are tinged with the theology of Eastern Church.
For him “theology primarily is not a conceptual exercise based on ‘revealed
premises’, but an expression of true Christian experience.”[60]
His definition of theology is in concomitance with the Eastern tradition is
conspicuously clear from the statement that ‘theology is the spontaneous and
thankful praise of God; it is our experiential relationship with God’. His
reliance on the Eastern tradition directly come from him as “Christian theology
for the East is always a means; a means to attain union with God or
deification.”[61]
In short,
theology for Aleaz is the expression of one’s god experience, or one’s relation
with god. He also feels that various faith experiences/expressions may be
encouraging to the faith community. That is “it is the faith experience of the
community which gives authority and validity to theological propositions.”[62]
He also reiterates that the church has given him the freedom to express his
viewpoints freely and these kinds of free expressions in the church create
theology.
3.1
Indian Christian Theology/Thought
In
continuation with his definition of
theology and taking clue from Eastern Christian tradition Aleaz defines Indian
Christian theology as “according to Indian thought theology is a mode of being,
theology is participating in being and here Eastern Christian thought comes
close to Indian thought.”[63] Unlike
the previous definition, his commitment for radical insights in theology is
reflected in his definition of Indian Christian theology that “Indian Christian
thought is a conversion of Christian thought to the Indian religio-cultural
context.”[64]
For him, this conversion is the result of one’s conversion to Jesus and he
calls it as double conversion.
In contrast to
interpreting the Christian truth using Hindu or other religious categories
Aleaz feels Christian theology should be converted to the Indian
religio-cultural context as Christians are already converted to Jesus. Of
course, in order to interpret our own faith we need not go to the extent of
professing other convictions. We can do it efficiently if we give up aggressive
and antagonistic attitude to other religions. Connected to this is developing
of a positive approach to other faith traditions.
With regard to
the sources of Indian Christian
theology Aleaz maintains that Indian Christian theology has accepted the Indian
philosophical principle of relation between reason and revelation. For him this
connection is provided by the Indian pramanas. At the same time it is to be
remembered that the present developments in the Indian theology is not
concomitance with the proposal that the insight emerging from the Indian
pramanas should be used in Indian Christian theology. In other words the newly
emerging Indian contextual theologies are not in line with Aleaz’s thinking. Against
this challenge Aleaz asserts that Advaita Vedanta best explains the Dalit
theology.
From the point of Upanishads and Advaita
Vedanta, securing the oneness of god and the rest is the main thrust of Indian Christian theology. This is explicit in
Aleaz’s presentation of God and Jesus. For example “from the Indian Christian
interaction with the Upanisadic thought, we may note that the Upanisads can
give guidance not only in the Indian Christian conceptions of God and Jesus,
but even in acquiring new insight related to the Indian Christian
understandings of human person and the world.”[65]
On
the basis of Advaita Aleaz argues, “there is an inseparable relation between
humans and Nature because the material world as well as the material body are
constituted by the same five elements (Pancabhuta) and each indria
(sense-organs) is composed of the same element, the quality of which is sensed
by it.”[66]
No doubt, the consideration of Aleaz is loaded with ecological implication, but
pursuing Indian Christian theology from Advaita is only one of the many
approaches.
Of course, Aleaz
is of the view that the Indian Christian theologians are slowly recognizing the
fact that Advaita enriches their faith-experience particularly in matters of
God, humans, creation and deeper meaning of the person and function of Jesus.
He explains the relation between God and Jesus as “according to Vedantic Christology the
central lesson of the life of Jesus to an Indian is the undermining of the
false antithesis between human person and God. Jesus had a non-dual relation
with God the Father and he is inspiring all the humans also to have the same
relation with God through the renunciation of the lower self.”[67] While
recognizing the fact that even without the aid of Advaita many theologians have
explained the relation between God and Jesus similar to Advaita, the real
question here is are we in a position to see what religious category explain
the Christian categories better or, are we in a context to gently and honorably
accept the marvel of plurality of religions.
3.2
Eastern Christian Thought
Having
analyzed Aleaz’s understanding of Indian Christian theology, now we can move on
to his perception of Eastern Christian thought. In the Eastern Church theology
is a means to attain union with God/deification.[68] Union with God or deification implies not participating
in the essence of God but the energy of God. With the insights from Advaita,
Aleaz is inclined to accept that God can be explained as essence and energy. At
the same time no one may forget that the final reality is still beyond and is
mystery.
Aleaz finds
intimate tie between Advaita and Eastern Christian theology. According to him
“both Advaita Vedanta and Eastern Christian theology proclaim that theology is
a mode of being, is participation in being. There is no theology apart from
realization”[69] In other words, theology is the experience of
divine human unity.
Besides the
connection between Advaita and Eastern Christian thought, Aleaz convincingly
states that Advaita can help develop Eastern Christian theology. He writes “the
basic contention is that Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism can dynamically enrich eastern
Christian thought in its further developments.”[70]
It is not just his statement but he takes initiatives to invite Advaita to
enrich the Eastern Christian thought. [71] It
is more interesting that he is inviting Advaita to assist Eastern Christian
theology in reformulating its theology, so that the resulting new creative
Christian theological insights will benefit the Eastern Church, Church in
general and even the other living religious faith traditions.
Whether
his conviction is right, the invitation is extendable, beneficial to the
Eastern Church, Christianity and other religions needs to be answered by the
church, although Aleaz asserts that the church has given him the freedom to
express himself freely. One pertinent
issue is, whether such an uncritical acceptance of Advaita is permissible in
the wider context of newly emerging theologies. From the point of religions as
well, the Vaishnava Bhakti tradition condemns Sankara and Advaita.
3.2.1
Eastern Christian Thought, God-Creation
Aleaz’s
earlier point that the Eastern church upholds that there is a distinction in
God between essence and energy of god is made clear as “the Orthodox Christian
tradition draws a distinction between the essence, nature or inner being of
god, on the one hand, and power, His/Her energies, operations or acts of grace,
life and power, on the other.”[72] In
other words “if the essence signifies the radical transcendence of god, the
energies points to his immanence and omnipresence.”[73]This
goes well with the Advaita view of Brahman and Isvara.
The Eastern
Christian idea of human beings is that “a human person’s very nature is truly
itself only in as much as it exists ‘in God’ or ‘in grace’.”[74] This
is to say that there is a close connection between God and humanity. In other
words, ‘while human beings can do nothing without God, God does nothing,
regarding goodness, righteousness and holiness, without human co-operation’.[75]
Although Aleaz is particular about the meeting and supporting of Eastern
Christian thought and Advaita, here a kind of Visistadvaita principle is in
operation.
In the Eastern
Christian thought, the union of human and God is further explained in terms of
deification. As stated above human union
with God or deification takes place at the level of energy of God but not in
the essence of God.[76]
This union is illustrated with the example of the union between Jesus and God.
For example ‘in Jesus there is a ‘communication’ of the divine and human
‘energies’.[77]
Again a more
Advaitic form of interpretation is echoed in the explanation of God realization
or God knowledge. Aleaz maintains “the more we are able to participate in God,
the more God becomes unknowable.”[78]
This is in line with the Vedantic notion that a fully realized person cannot
explain his experience because he has become Brahman. The same tempo is
maintained in explaining knowledge. For example it is said “the very
realization of His/Her incomprehensibility is a knowledge.”[79]
It is not the ordinary knowledge but the ultimate knowledge which is superior to
all other knowledge. For example, ‘we should remember that the goal of
apophatic theology is not God as object, but god as subject or union with God’.[80] Aleaz’s
acceptance that ‘in the Eastern Christian thought God is understood as Mystery’[81],
is much more open and conducive to theology of religions than Advaita
realization. Here Aleaz’s invitation may have to experience reconsideration.
The eastern
Christian understanding of creation is also explained in line with the Advaita
that “creation is the work of will, and consequently is not coeternal with
God.”[82]
Having said that creation is not the essence of God the principle of time is
explained as “in God’s thought eternally, creatures exist only potentially.
Their actual existence occurs in time.”[83]
In other words, creation is not fully separate from God, although it is not the
essence. The manifestation of creation was the conceptual beginning of time.
Another
surprising thought is that the human beings are mediators between the creation
and god in whatever capacity permissible. It is maintained that “Eastern
thought upholds the mediatory role of human presence in creation. Humanity’s
vocation is to be the mediator or the frontier being mediating between the
material and the spiritual between the secular and the sacred, between God and
creation.”[84]
The reason may be that “according to
Orthodox world-view God has formed two levels of created things neotic and
material. Human person alone exists in both levels at once.”[85]
Creation cannot be viewed separately from God. The integral relation between
God and creation is metaphorically stated as “Christ is symbol of the integral
relation that exists between God and creation.”[86]
Again
an Advaitic understanding is utilized to explain the image of God. For example
“it is the humanity together with the material creation that constitutes the
ultimate image of God.”[87]
Then Aleaz moves to explain the theological speculations of image and likeness
with the Eastern Christian framework. He writes, “the image of God is the
essence of human person while ‘likeness’ points to the ethical being of human
person.”[88]
This falls within the parameters of his explanation that in the fall human did
not miss the essence but the ethical aspect. In spite of the bent of Vedantic
influence Aleaz tends to accept that the Christ event has restored humanity and
creation together. It is said “human person’s restoration in Christ is
simultaneously a restoration of the cosmos to its original beauty.”[89]
The thought is comprehensive as it includes the restoration of cosmos as well.
But the difficulty is as Aleaz is averse to atonement-theories based explanation
of the Christ event, how it is possible to come to this conclusion.
Aleaz’s
conviction that the Advaita needs to be invited to help Eastern Christian
theology to formulate its theology is challenging. Certain areas are pointed as
opportunity for Advaita to assist Eastern Christian thought. One such realm is
‘the unknowability of Brahman’ which ‘helps Eastern Christian theology to go
deeper into the dimensions of apophatic theology’.[90]
Another point of help is ‘the Advaitic interpretation of Brahman/Atman as Pure
Consciousness enlightens Eastern Christian interpretation of God’.[91]
Still further Aleaz feels that ‘the Advaita Vedanta provides deeper insights
regarding the energies and operations of God in creation for the further
development of Eastern Christian thought.”[92]
This is further substantiated as “Advaita Vedantic understanding of creation
further enlightens the creation ex nihilo interpretation of Eastern
Christianity.”[93]
The difficulty
associated with Aleaz’s invitation to Advaita to assist eastern Christian
thought is that Christianity ceases to be Christianity. Of course Aleaz may be
well pleased with it. But the best possible approach may be to accept each
theologies/philosophies as they are and then explore the possibilities of
cooperation from the adherents to challenge common issues that threaten life as
a whole.
3.2.2
Eastern Christian Thought, Fall-Restoration
The main point
of emphasis here is that sin is not an inherited quality but an inherited
morality that is ‘in Greek patristic thought original sin was viewed not as
inherited quality but as inherited morality’.[94] This
means certain adjustments and disciplines can set things right.
In contrast to
the theological perception that in the fall humanity has lost God’s image Aleaz
maintains “according to it (Orthodox Theology), though the divine image in
human person was obscured, it was not obliterated.”[95]
Similarly his response to the view that after the fall humans have completely
lost the free will is “fall has not destroyed a person’s free choice, but only
restricted it.”[96]
With regard to the lose of image and free will in the fall, Aleaz is of the
view that they are not completely obliterated but obscured. This may be nearer
to the Advaitic understanding of ignorance. His explanation is in absolute
continuity with his thought that what humanity and the creation long for is
restoration of the image and will to the first level.
For Aleaz the
Eastern tradition considers that the evil has entered into the world through
the will. Therefore, ‘evil is not a nature, but a condition’.[97]
This is vividly explained as “the real source of evil in the world is the
inappropriate exercise of free will, of self-determination, causing a
separation of humans from God.”[98]
Since evil is
attempt to de-link from god the restoration means reestablishing the link.
Aleaz makes a distinction between the approach of Jesus and created beings. In
order to restore the communication Jesus descended to the earth hence the
created beings have to take the opposite direction of ascendancy. In the words
of Aleaz, “the path which Christ, the divine Person took, was that of a descent
towards created being and taking upon himself of our nature. If that is so the
path of created person has to be that of ascent, a rising up towards the divine
nature by means of union with uncreated grace communicated by the Holy Spirit.”[99]
In aleaz’s view,
human person’s restoration through Christ is effected by the involvement in the
church and sacrament. He writes “in the church and through the sacraments our
nature enters into union with the divine nature in the hypostasis of the Son,
the head of his mystical body.”[100]
It is also superficially suggested that “Eucharistic worship of the Orthodox
occurs when the Spirit transports us into the presence of the heavenly throne.”[101]
Therefore it is treated as ‘an act of freedom, love and joy’.[102]
It is not just the church and sacrament but also the church liturgy has a part
to play in this ascension. This he writes as, “Eastern liturgy is the passage
from this world into the world to come, it is a procession and ascension to the
Kingdom.”[103]
In the process
of restoration to the original status Aleaz envisages that the entire cosmos
will be restored.[104] How he will invite Advaia here is
not clear because Aleaz maintains that the church, sacraments and the liturgy
directly facilitates the upward mobility. This also may go against his
definition of pluralistic inclusivism and relational convergence of religions.
It will be worthwhile if he admits directly that other worship places,
sacraments and liturgies have similar effect.
3.2.3
Eastern Christian Thought-Deification
Eastern
Christian thought in general conceives salvation as deification.[105]
The implications of deification are stated as “Deification points to communion
with God and that communion is one’s destiny since the individual’s creation is
according to God’s ‘image and likeness.”[106]
In other words it is ‘a rising up towards the divine nature by means of union
with uncreated grace communicated by the Holy Spirit’.[107]
The theological significance of this process is pointed out as “in the theology
of the Eastern Church, the person of the Holy Spirit, the giver of grace is
always distinguished from the uncreated grace or energy which he confers.”[108]
The
deification process is engineered in the heart. According to Aleaz, “the
ascetic tradition of the Christian East considers the heart as the centre of
the human being…thus the heart is the source of all intellectual and spiritual
activity.”[109]
The functioning of the process is energized by prayer (Jesus Prayer).[110]
In the words of Aleaz, “the ceaseless prayer of the heart can lead a person out
of lusting after things of the earth. It can make a person firmly grounded in
memory of God alone.”[111]
The deification actualized by grace and prayer
does not deprive humanness from people. For example “the patristic tradition
stands for a god-centered humanism where deification does not suppress humanity
but makes human person truly human.”[112]
This is further supported by the theory that “apart from tears of repentance
there is thus another level of tears in the spiritual tradition of Eastern
Christians namely the tears of compassion…”[113]
Aleaz will be justified if only the deification goes beyond humanism to include
the entire creation, because he also has maintained that “Integral
God-human-nature relationship (cosmotheandrisam) is the gospel of both Vedic
and Vedantic dharma.”[114]
3.2.4
Eastern Christianity and Religions
According to Aleaz
Advaita helps Eastern Church to reformulate her Christian experience. This new
experience can benefit all people of all living religious faiths.[115] He
is of the view that “the St. Thomas Christians in their glorious history upto
the end of 16th c. had very positive approach to their neighbour’s
faith i.e., Hinduism, which is identified today through an analysis of the Acts
and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper of 1599.”[116]
He is also of the view that “St. Thomas Christians upheld Pluralism in the
theology of religions. They had the vision to see that a Hindu can be saved in
his/her own dharma.”[117]
It is understandable
that Aleaz is striving to usher in the church, pre Diamper attitude towards
other religions, particularly Hinduism. He also appreciates the pluralistic
stand of the pre Diamper church that Hindus could be saved in their own
religion. Earlier also it was shown that he has no problem with the pluralistic
school. If he is comfortable with pluralism what is the necessity for
pluralistic inclusivism.
3.3
Dalit Theology and Advaita Vedanta
Aleaz is often
viewed with suspicion as promoting Brahmanic worldview. But time and again he
proves the other way. He challenges the Dalit theologians to draw lessons from
the neo Vedanta of Vivekananda. His argument is that the Dailts should revolt
against the Brahmins and not against Advaita. They should take the neo vedantic
insights of One Innermost Atman, equality and justice. He writes, “if the Dalit
theologians today hold that the suffering of the Dalits should be the basis or
starting point of Dalit theology, Swami Vivekananda through his practical
Vedanta is inspiring them to add to it the basis of the One Innermost Atman
shared by all alike as well. The practical Vedanta through its message of
equality and social justice stands for the cause of the Dalits. The Dalits need
not revolt against Advaita; rather their revolt has to be against those upper
castes who are ignorant of the teaching of equality of Advaita.”[118]
It looks Aleaz suggests that the original proponents of Advaita did not
understand Advaita well.
Aleaz is not
only suggesting new lessons from Vedanta but also sees the possibility of
convergence between Advaitic theology
and Dalit theology and argues “Advaita can provide deeper foundations for Dalit
theology and Dalit theology can make Advaitic theology, a people’s theology.”[119]
Aleaz is
emphatic that this possibility was actualized in the life and work of Sri
Narayana Guru and therefore the Dalit theologians should not ignore it. He
writes “Sri Narayana Guru is specially significant for the contemporary Indian
context as in his life and thought we notice a wonderful coming together on
Dalit and Advaitic theologies, something which the Indian Dalit theologians who
project Dalit theology as a counter theology, have to carefully take note of.”[120]
Aleaz attempts
to demonstrate with the examples of Swami Vivekananda and Sri Narayana Guru
that ‘Advaita theology is not anti-Dalit theology, rather on the one hand
Advaita can provide deeper foundations for Dalit theology and on the other it
is Dalit theology that proclaims Advaita Vedanta practically’.[121]
Of course it may be a bitter pill for Dalit theologians to swallow.
4
Indian Spirituality
In the
understanding of Aleaz, “Spirituality is our recognition of the involvement of
the spirit in us and in the whole creation.”[122]
Another significant dimension of the definition of spirituality is being
available to God. In Aleaz’s phrase ‘spirituality implies being open to reality
in all its dimensions’.[123] Another
deeper dimension of spirituality is the response of the self to the rest. It is
said “spirituality represents the total response of the self to the
self-world-God trio.”[124]
Aleaz writes about the comprehensive content of spirituality as “a wholesome
spirituality has three aspects namely passion for justice, compassion for
people and communion with God.”[125]
In short spirituality includes the recognition of the involvement of the
spirit, being open to the reality, self’s response to the rest and passion for
justice, compassion for people and communion with god.
Coming to the
model spirituality Aleaz writes, “Jesus is the supreme example to show that
there is no spirituality of an exclusive vertical dimension. His was a
humanizing spirituality, a life-sustaining spirituality which has to mould and
lead us.”[126]
The life sustaining aspect left in the previous attempts of definition and
explanations is included here. Whether the life sustaining is inclusive of the
entire God’s creation is to be clarified. As poverty is the out come of all
forms of injustice no definition of spirituality will be all inclusive unless
it addresses the issue of poverty. In the words of Aleaz, ‘there can be no
spirituality without an active concern for the poor’.[127]
Again he says a “Christian spirituality is lived by one who has the spirit of
Christ.”[128]
It is a call to follow the life of Christ and not a call for christocentric
paradigm.
Aleaz is earnestly committed for a contextual Indian
Christian spirituality. He wants Christian spirituality to be inclusive and
plural. He is also talking about a Christo-centric spirituality. The content of
such spirituality, for him, should be, a life-sustaining spirituality, which is
people centered, Christ centered and pluralist in nature.
He also sees the possibility of forming a relevant
Indian Christian spirituality by culling resources from other religious
tradition as well. In his own words “a contextual Christian spirituality is the
focus, receiving insights from spiritualities of sister religious faiths.”[129]
In this direction he finds the first meeting point in Namajapa. He writes
“Namajapa or prayer of the name is a meeting point of the spiritualities of
Hindu and Christian traditions.”[130]
Aleaz also establishes Christians can glean resources form Sufiism as well. In
the words of Aleaz, “Islam has immensely contributed to spirituality through
Sufism from which Christianity can profit much. The Sufis laid stress on the
interior spiritual life, on knowledge of God by experience (kashf) rather than
by pure reasoning.”[131]
He also finds resources for a spirituality of pluralism in Jaina tradition. It
is maintained ‘Syadvada stands for a spirituality of pluralism in theology of
religions and thus contributes ideologically to the harmony of religions’.[132]
Aleaz’s intention to gather resources from Indian religious resources is a
courageous attempt to make Indian spirituality wider and inter-religious.
5
A Few Salient Constructs
Certain constructs of Aleaz deserve special mention as
they are quite radical, innovative and provocative as well. Here we shall
discuss Aleaz’s explanation of Jesus, Gospel and proclamation and Mission
5.1
Jesus
Aleaz is
convinced that “the Hindu religious experience and thought categories can
really enrich Christian faith experience and also bring out new meanings
regarding the Christian notion of God as well as the person and function of
Jesus”.[133]
Hence, in understanding and explaining Jesus Aleaz takes support from the
Advaita Vedanta. He writes, “our method is to give complete authority to the
authentic writings of Sankara in order to explain ‘who Jesus is’.”[134]
Aleaz already maintained that deeper meaning of the person and function of
Jesus are emerging from within Advaita Vedanta’.[135]
The point here is that Aleaz finds the Advaitic principles are helpful to
explain the relation between God and Jesus and the rest.
Aleaz is of
the opinion that the connection between Brahman and Jiva is helpful in
understanding and explaining Jesus, because ‘it provides the best framework in
the construction of an understanding of Jesus’.[136]
This is
further supplemented as “Jesus, the human representative is a reflection
(abhasah) of the Supreme Self like the semblance of the sun in water
(jalasuryakadivat). Jesus as reflection of the Supreme Self conforms to the
characteristics (dharmanuyayi) of the extrinsic denominators of Jesus, but
according to the supreme sense the Self does not have these characteristics.
There does not occur any change (parinamah) in the Self due to Jesus’
reflection.”[137]
More elaborately, “as representative Jiva, Jesus has no separate reality for
himself; his reality lies in sacrificing himself and finding his reality in
Brahman. Jesus in particular form is unreal (akaravisesatoanrtam); he is real
only in his own form which is the form of Being (svatah sanmatrarupataya
satyam).”[138]Like
the Jiva which has no other existence apart from Brahmaan Jesus has no
existence apart from God. This may go well with the notion that the word became
flesh or God descended in human form to rescue creation. At the same time it
will be in disagreement with the notion that God sent his only begotten son to
save the creation.
Aleaz, in
contrast to the formal Christian belief, maintains that “the symbol ‘Son’
cannot express the depth of the relation between Jesus and Brahman; name and
form (namarupa) would be a better symbol; and India
Another
insight is in ‘Aleaz’s Jesulogy, Brahman is the cause, Jesus is the effect.
Jesus, the effect existed in Brahman, the internal reality-providing
(upadanakaranam) as well as efficient cause (nimittakaranam) even before he
took birth in this world’.[141]
This idea particularly can be helpful in clearly understanding the relation
between Jesus and God.
Aleaz
disagrees with the atonement form of interpretation of Jesus. He writes “human
sacrifice was a Jewish idea and to fit the gentle and loving Jesus into Jewish
beliefs, the idea of human sacrifice in the form of atonement or as a human
scape goat, by Christianity, was really unfortunate.”[142] This
contention is elaborated as “we may have to qualify atonement theory as a
Jewish Christian interpretation of the meaning of Jesus which makes no sense to
Indians. That is the reason as an alternative understanding of the function of
Jesus, in our Jesulogy we are explaining Jesus elaborately as the expression of
the all pervasive, illuminative and unifying power of the Supreme Self; as the
expression of the eternally present human liberation. Also we are showing that
the function of Jesus is to show us the supreme Brahman which is Pure
consciousness, as the Witness and Self of all. Such an understanding, we
believe, can be a meaningful conception of the function of Jesus as far as
Indians are concerned.”[143]
Aleaz insists that in every aspect of Jesus we should recognize Brahman. This
he puts as “the person of Jesus proclaims that if we identify any aspect of his
person as Brahman, we are in ignorance; but if we identify in every aspect of
his person Brahman and Brahman alone, we have come to the experience who he
truly is.”[144]
Aleaz does not
stop with saying that we should see Brahan in every aspect of Jesus, but goes
on to suggest that “the mission of Jesus was to communicate to humanity the
uniqueness of Brahman as the only illuminative principle.”[145]
As Aleaz immerses in the current of Advaita, admits that, our hermeneutical
context is plural and Advaita is just one such hermeneutical context. His
openness to other strands of thought is clear when he says that “the resources
of God, which were available to Jesus, are open to all and if we struggle as he
did, we will develop the God in us.” [146] Aleaz
in his quest for Indian Jesus can also do justice to similar interpretations
put forth by other eminent theologians, from different perspectives.
5.2 Gospel
As Aleaz is committed to Indian
Jesuology, he also has an Indian version of Gospel. According to him, gospel emerges
from the Indian culture- one emerges from the interaction between religion and
culture, another emerges from the interaction of religions and yet another
emerges from the hermeneutical context of India India India
According to Aleaz, the
religio-cultural context, which is the hermeneutical context, of India India
He also gives
reason for this transition as “the gospel is not pre-formulated, but is in the
process of formulation through the guidance of Hindu and other religious
experiences.”[152]
Aleaz envisages a conversion to the new gospel. For Him Indian Christian
theology is this conversion.[153] It
may be appealing, if our initiatives are in the direction of addressing newly
emerging life threatening issues, rather than
compressing everything to the religio-cultural jacket.
Aleaz’s call for the gospel emerging
from the hermeneutical context of India
The full development of his thought in this
direction is found when he includes the contexts of globalization. He writes,
“Gospel has to emerge from the hermeneutical context, from the experience of
the oppressed and suffering people due to globalization on the one hand and
from the diverse enriching religious experiences of human kind on the other.”[155]
5.3
Proclamation & Mission
Aleaz
feels Pauline presentation of salvation explanation is not relevant to the
present context, because ‘today we do not find any of the atonement
theories-the conception of salvation as being brought about by Jesus’ death as
an atonement to God for human sin-as attractive or convincing’.[156]
This contention is in view of the Hindu notion that every one is responsible
his or her deeds.
His commitment
and dedication for the cause of religious harmony is clearer when he writes, “a
Christian has to proclaim the liberative elements in other religious faiths
seeking forgiveness for the damage done in the past by way of oppression,
destruction of local religions and cultures as well as misinterpretations.”[157]
Coming to Christian mission, he calls for a reconception.
This reconception is based upon his contention that Christianity also receives
insights from other religious traditions, mainly Advaita. Therefore, against
the formal superiority claims, Aleaz maintains, “this receiving aspect is
proposed today as the thrust of an Indian Christian theology of mission.”[158] It
is emphatically stated as “Christian faith in India
His commitment
to the cause of Advaita is obvious as he says ‘the Indian Christian mission in
this context is to present the gospel as Advaita Vedanta’.[160]
Here he has reduced the gospel only to proclaim that Advaita is the gospel.
It does not
deprive Aleaz’s comprehensive understanding of mission. For example, he writes
“a Christ-centered humanism has the best opening of making its impact in the
Indian dialogic social existence.”[161]
He has not failed to find a place for women. He writes “We also noted the point
that the essential values of any religion can contribute to the education and
development of women in India
Aleaz’s
understanding of proclamation and mission is quitedistinct. But they simply
reflect his commitment for inter religious relation or relational convergence
of religions from the point of pluralistic inclusivism, deriving insights from
Advaita.
Conclusion
Aleaz’s
definition/meaning of religion would be substantial had it emphasized the need
for religions to focus upon life sustaining issues. Further,the life sustaining
implications present in the methodology should become explicit. Aleaz’s
definition of theology of religions is focused on the pursuit of relational
convergence of religions. Yet it needs to have space for religions and
ideologies which believe in the nonexistence of god, yet committed for the life
sustaining relational convergence of religions.
Although
proponent of pluralistic inclusivism, Aleaz is sympathetic with the school of
pluralism. His evaluation of pluralism can also include the necessity of
considering the ideologies and atheistic religions that contribute to common
causes. In the light of the relativist school Aleaz’s view that Hinduism stands
for religious pluralism needs reconsideration. His expectation of the return of
the pre-Diamper Christianity cannot ignore the growing exclusivistic tendencies
of the churches. Other related questions are how does pluralistic inclusivism
and universal Jesus go together.
Considering the
entire religious resource of the universe as a common property of all may well
fit within the parameters of freedom of religion/human rights rather than
pluralistic inclusivism. Relational convergence of religions in the frame work
of pluralistic inclusivism is not the solution to all issues, but it is the
life sustaining vision that leads to relevant solution. Promoting one
particular thought pattern alone, for strengthening religious relations may
lead to another form of exclusivism.
Over emphasis
of the connection between religion and culture may shelter communal ideologies
and fundamentalist thinking. Pursuing a composite culture, in the place of
multi culture, may lead to mono-culture which is not Indian at all. Likewise,
promoting the assumption that there is connection between culture and politics
in India India
Aleaz’s
uncritical acceptance and application of Indian philosophical pramanas for the
construction of Indian Christian philosophy is not in consonance with the
spirit of the present theological developments. His respect for Advaita on the
basis of its world-god-life relation cannot draw the conclusion that Advaita is
the only way to relational convergence of religions. Aleaz’s overemphasis on Advaita, is not in
conjunction with his idea that ‘even within the same school of religious
experience(Swami Ram Tirtha and Sister Nivedita) there is the possibility of
divergent expressions’.
In the definition, sources and the
main thrust of Indian Christian theology, the Advaitic elements flow profusely.
It also needs to be noted that many Christians in India
Aleaz’s presentation of Eastern
Christian thought of God and creation, supposed to be from Advaita point of
view, swings among, Advaita, Visistadvaita and Eastern mystery. His invitation
to Advaita to assist Eastern Christian thought is the outcome of the concerns
that Aleaz is addressing.
In Aleaz’s presentation of fall and
restoration the proposal for descent and ascent is comprehensive as they have
space for the entire cosmos but there is no role for Advaita because church,
sacrament and liturgy are quite conclusive in their role to the members of the
church.
Whether
salvation as deification comprehends the Advaitic god-human-nature composition
is a legitimate question. Aleaz’s anticipation for the pre Diamper days, i.e.
pluralism, does not synthesis with his constant appeal for pluralistic
inclusivism. Parallel to this is the position of Aleaz that Advaita best suits
Dalit theology, in the context of Dali theologians’ protest against Advaita.
Most advanced and comprehensive form
of thought is found in Aleaz’s proposal for Indian Christian spirituality where
he ventures the life sustaining model of Jesus or Christo-centric model. Here
he comes explicitly and declares that other religions can contribute to the
Indian Christian spirituality.
Having
concluded that the Christian understanding of ‘Son’ does not explain the
meaning of Jesus, Aleaz is of the view that Hindu categories, particularly
Advaita, can explain Jesus well. He does not accept the Pauline presentation of
Jesus as the atonement on the cross. For Aleaz, the mission of Jesus is to
present Brahman as the whole.
In contrast to
the other places Aleaz’s call for the emergence of gospel from the
hermeneutical context of India
Aliaz’s
original and radical insights in relation to religious harmony or relational
convergence of religions from the perspective of pluralistic inclusivism shines
as he declares that our proclamation is not atonement theories, but the truth
in other religions. For him proclamation of the truth in other religions is not
enough but also we need to ask for forgiveness from other religious communities
for the damages we have done to them. This is what he calls as Mission
One may be
tempted to say that Aleaz has concentrated on Advaita and applied this paradigm
in all his ideas, rather than aspiring
for a systematic and gradual development of theological thinking. It may be
also alleged that rather than promoting Kingdom values Aleaz has worked for the
promotion of other religious values limiting himself to a select few concerns.
Besides the above observations there
are many constructive insights in the theological contributions of Aleaz. To
start with, his consideration that religions have to be defined on the basis of
their fruits is constructive from the point of Indian realities. Added to this
is the appeal to develop positive consideration about the positive aspects of
other religions. Aleaz’s broader perspective is clear as he states that all
religions are authentic in their own context and plurality of religions is
natural. More comprehensive is the view that expressions of the same religious
experience can vary according to the context.
The major
shift in Aleaz’s definition of religion is from content to applicability of a
religion to the texture. The underlying expectation in his integral method to
study religion is religious harmony or relational convergence of religions.
Correspondingly, in his definition of theology of religions, the focus has
moved from the other to one’s own faith tradition. The magnitude of pluralistic
inclusivism is that all religions become pluralistically inclusive and
inclusivistically pluralist.
One of the radical thoughts of Aleaz
is that Christian faith receives insights from other religions. His openness to
dialogical approach while upholding pluralistic inclusivism conveys that in the
ultimate analysis all are seeking for religious harmony.
Other new thoughts are that all the
religious resources of the universe is common property of all and others will
be viewed as superior to us, in
pluralistic inclusivism. In the relational convergence of religions there is
mutual conversion and the context will decide the content of the gospel of God
in Jesus for India
Aleaz’s
uncritical acceptance of other religious insights is the revelation of his urge
for religious harmony and respect for other religious traditions. He asserts
that no one else has attempted an Indian Christian philosophy based on pramans,
Advaita and very specially sabda-dvani method, which is relevant for biblical
interpretation.
An unselfish struggle for religious
harmony is vivid in his invitation and request to Advaita to assist Eastern
Christian thought. His hope for the pre-Diamper approach to people of other
faiths is his commitment for the church to come forward with openness in
relation to other religions.
Aleaz’s Indian Christian
spirituality based on inclusion of resources from Indian religions, his
interpretation that Jesus is the reflection of Brahman, and his view that
gospel has to emerge from the religio-cultural context of India are courageous
proposals. His ultimate dedication for religious harmony is fully embedded in
his view of proclamation and mission.
By
Dr. S.
Robertson
Principal
Andhra
Pradesh
Religion and Dialogue
[1]
K.P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian
Religions, 1995, P.2.
[2]
Ibid., P.2.
[4]
Ibid., PP.299-300.
[6]
K.P. Aleaz, Religion in Christian
Theology, 2001,P.7.
[7]K.P.
Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religions,
1995, P.299.
[8]
K.P. Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The
Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, 1993, P.233.
[9]K.P.
Aleaz, Theology of Religions: Birmingham
[11]
Ibid., P.170.
[12]K.P.
Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The
Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, 1993, P.236.
[13]
K.P. Aleaz, The Gospel of Indian Culture,
1994, P.286.
[14]
Ibid., P.286.
[15]
K.P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian
Religions, 1995,P.285.
[16]
Ibid., P.283.
[17]
Ibid., P.285.
[18]
K.P. Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The
Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, 1993,P.234.
[19]
K.P. Aleaz, Theology of Religions: Birmingham
[20]
Ibid., P.172.
[21]
Ibid., P.172.
[22]
Ibid., P.322.
[29]
K.P. Aleaz, Theology of Religions: Birmingham
[30]
Ibid., P.180.
[31]
Ibid., P.180.
[32]
K.P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian
Religions, 1995, P.2.
[33]
K.P. Aleaz, The Gospel of Indian Culture,
1994, P.1.
[34]
Ibid., P.287.
[36]
Ibid., P.2.
[37]
Ibid., P.283.
[38]
Ibid., P.283.
[39]
Ibid., P.286.
[42]
K.P. Aleaz, Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedanta, 1996, P.1.
[43]
Ibid., P.1.
[44]
K.P. Aleaz, A convergence of Advaita
Vedanta and Eastern Christian
Thought, 2000,P.Xvi-xvii.
comparison-upamana,
postulation-arthapatti, and
non-cognition-anupalabdhi.
[47]
Ibid., P.119.
[48]
Ibid., P.4.
[49]
K.P. Aleaz, Religion in Christian
Theology, 2001, P.1.
[50]
Ibid., P.2.
[51]
Ibid., P.10.
[52]
K.P. Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The
Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, 1993,P.240.
[53]
K.P. Aleaz, Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedanta, 1996, P.1.
[54]
K.P. Aleaz, Christian Responses to Indian Philosophy, 2005.
[55]
K.P. Aleaz, Christian Responses to Indian Philosophy, 2005.
[57]K.P.
Aleaz, Christian Responses to Indian Philosophy, 2005.
Lectures – 2005, 2006.
Lectures – 2005, 2006.
[60]
K.P. Aleaz, A convergence of Advaita
Vedanta and Eastern Christian Thought, 2000,P. 67.
[61]
Ibid., P.76.
[62]
Ibid., P.106.
[63]
Ibid., P.80.
[64]
K.P. Aleaz, Theology of Religions: Birmingham
[65]
K.P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian
Religions, 1995,P.286.
[66]
Ibid., P.289.
[67]
K.P. Aleaz, The Gospel of Indian Culture,
1994, P.293.
[68]
K.P. Aleaz, A convergence of Advaita
Vedanta and Eastern Christian Thought, 2000,P.76.
[69]
Ibid., P.130.
[70]
Ibid., P.xvi.
[73]
Ibid., P.4.
[74]
Ibid., P.44.
[75]
Ibid., P.45.
[79]
Ibid., P.67.
[80]
Ibid., P.78.
[81]
Ibid., P.79.
[85]
Ibid., P.38
[86]
Ibid., P.19.
[87]
Ibid., P.20.
[88]
Ibid., P.24.
[89]
Ibid., P.91.
[90]
Ibid., P.129.
[91]
Ibid., P.145.
[92]
Ibid., P.146.
[93]
Ibid., P.171.
[94]
Ibid., P.91.
[96]
Ibid., P.37.
[97]
Ibid., P. 26.
[99]
Ibid., P.11.
[102]
Ibid., P.99.
[104]
Ibid., P.19.
[106]
Ibid., P.13.
[107]
Ibid., P.11.
[109]
Ibid., P.52.
[110]
Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me/Jesus, son of god, have
mercy upon me/ Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy upon me.
[111]
K.P. Aleaz, A convergence of Advaita
Vedanta and Eastern Christian Thought, 2000,P.63
[112]
Ibid., P.68.
[113]
Ibid., P.21
[114]K.P.
Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religions,
1995, P.121.
[115]K.P.
Aleaz, A convergence of Advaita Vedanta
and Eastern Christian Thought, 2000, P.xix
[116]
Ibid., P.Xviii.
[118]
K.P. Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The
Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, 1993,P.242.
[119]
K.P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian
Religions, 1995,P.291.
[120]
K.P. Aleaz, Religion in Christian
Theology, 2001,P.2.
2006, p.151.
[122]
K. P. Aleaz, The Quest for Contextual Spirituality, 2004, P. 11.
[123]
Ibid., P. 21.
[124]
Ibid., P. 22.
[125]
Ibid., P. 26.
[126]
Ibid., P. 11.
[127]
Ibid., P. 27.
[128]
Ibid., PP. 27-28.
[129]
Ibid., P. 9.
[131]
Ibid., P. 32.
[132]
Ibid., P. 84.
[133]
K.P. Aleaz, Dialogical Theologies: Hartford
[134]
K.P. Aleaz, Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedanta, 1996,P.90.
[135]
Ibid., P.212.
[136]
Ibid., P.90.
[137]
Ibid., P.95.
[139]
Ibid., P.96.
[140]
Ibid., P.96.
[141]
Ibid., PP.96-97.
[142]
Ibid., P.99.
[143]
Ibid., P.99.
[144]
Ibid., P.98.
[145]
K.P. Aleaz, A convergence of Advaita
Vedanta and Eastern Christian Thought, 2000,P.253.
Lectures – 2005, 2006.
[147]
K.P. Aleaz, The Gospel of Indian Culture,
1994, P.2.
[148]
Ibid., P.2.
[149]
K.P. Aleaz, Theology of Religions: Birmingham
[151]
K.P. Aleaz, The Gospel of Indian Culture,
1994, P.283.
[152]
K.P. Aleaz, Theology of Religions: Birmingham
[153]
Ibid., P.180.
[155]
K.P. Aleaz, Religion in Christian
Theology, 2001,P.13.
[156]
Ibid., P.13.
[157]
Ibid., P.11.
[158]
K.P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian
Religions, 1995,P.292.
[159]
K.P. Aleaz, Theology of Religions: Birmingham
[160]K.P.
Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religions,
1995, P.294.
[161]
Ibid., P.285.
[162]
Ibid., P.290.
Comments
Post a Comment