Given my scholarly interests in Hinduism, I had to post a link to this story about the conversion of a Reformed Christian philosopher to a form of Hinduism.
Pictured here are Krishna and his lover Radha. I take it that in Sudduth’s form of Hinduism Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. Other Hindus consider Krishna to be the high god himself.
There is much art celebrating the love of these two.
The story for me was a bit spoiled when I watched a documentary in which a Hindu, Indian man explained that (at least on some versions) Radha is married to another, and is Krishna’s aunt. Perhaps some would object that I’m not looking at it metaphysically enough. (Update – to be fair, some Hindu sources assert them to be unrelated and married – see comment #11 below.)
In another famous episode, Krishna charms a bunch of cow-herding ladies.
I’m curious to read more about Sudduth’s conversion. How does one get from Calvin’s all-determining triune deity to Vishnu? I wonder if it is by way of fairly mainstream trinitarian modalism…
Myself, as I read Sudduth’s interesting narrative of his conversion I’m not sure where, i.e. with what sort of Christianity, he was starting from. I too have taught the Gita in an academic setting, but I have not had experiences like this:
Around 4:20am (Friday morning) September 16th, I woke suddenly from a deep sleep to the sound of the name of “Krishna” being uttered in some way, as if someone was present in my room and had spoken his name out loud. Upon waking I immediately had a most profound sense of Krishna’s actual presence in my bedroom, a presence no less real than the presence of another living person in the room, though I was alone at the time. I responded to this felt presence, first through my thoughts that repeated Krishna’s name (and inquired of his presence), and then verbally out loud by uttering Krishna’s name twice: Krishna, Krishna. I was seized at this moment with a most sweet feeling of completeness and joy. I felt as if Krishna was there with me in my room and actually heard my voice, and that my response had completed a process that began with his name within my mind. I pondered this experience for several minutes, while at the same time continuing to experience a most blissful serenity and feeling of oneness with God, not unlike I had experienced on many occasions in the past in my relationship with the Lord Jesus. It was a most profound sense of both awe and intimacy with God in the form of Lord Krishna.
I should add, and I think this is very important, that I felt I was experiencing the same God that I had experienced on many occasions throughout my Christian life. However, I felt like this being was showing me a different face, side, or aspect to Himself, or – better yet – a different mode of my relationship to Him. I felt a certain validation of my spiritual journey, both past and present. I had gone so far in my Christian faith, but it was now necessary for me to relate to God as Lord Krishna.
If I understand him, he’s saying that he conceived of Jesus as a mode of God – not uncommon among catholic Christians – and now he views Krishna as another mode of God, another way God is and appears. Well, presumably God can be and appear in uncountably many ways. As for me, since I hold that Jesus is a different self than God, I must reject that he’s a mode of God himself; Jesus isn’t a mode at all, but rather a self/person. But back to Sudduth:
After my journey to [the California ashram] Audarya… I can only describe my experience as one of being irresistibly drawn to Sri Krishna, overwhelmed with His power and beauty, convinced of his Godhead – in short overflowing with love for Him as the Supreme Personality of the Godhead, and through him love for all beings, as He resides in the hearts of all beings.
One thing I’m curious about is: does his present faith involve, as most forms of Hinduism do, worship of images? If so, how or why did he change his mind about that? I assume that as a Protestant he viewed idolatry as being forbidden by God.
Sudduth’s account is mostly positive, about his experiences and the charms of his newfound theology. But I guess his conversion must have a negative side as well. I take it he rejects the idea of Jesus as being the best, most complete revelation of the character of the one God, and as being a needed mediator between God and humankind. But if I understand him, Sudduth still believes in one God, albeit one who is related to the cosmos somewhat as a human soul is related to its body. This entails rejecting the idea of God as creator, at least in an ex nihilo sense.
Also, I’m guessing there is a sort of acceptance of mythical lore – something traditional Christianity has always eschewed. However, I do know that a good number of Hindus hold Krishna to be a historical person, as well as an avatar of Vishnu.
Update: more thoughts and a link from the Maverick Philosopher.
If you believe that Christ is a separate person from the father then you make him less than the father and therefore not equal with the father and therefore not of the same being or substance as the father. If this is the case then you confess Arianism ( Jehovah Witnesses) or Tritheism ( Mormonism) but you can’t call yourself Christian. In order to be a Christian you must confess that there is one God, YHWH, that Christ is the Messiah, and that the Messiah is God. You are not required to believe in three coeternal, consubstantial, and coequal. In fact Christ contradicted Coequality and thereby coessense and coeternality if the Trinity is true. Why? Because God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. But Christ submitted to the father ( a contradiction in coequality in omnipotence), Christ is confined to a body but The Father is omnipresent ( a contradiction in coequality in omnipresence), and finally the father knows when Christ is going to return but Christ doesn’t ( a contradiction in omniscience). However these contradiction are resolved in modalism. If you understand the Son of God to refer to YHWH in his incarnation as Christ then all of these contradiction are not contradiction because they are explained by Christ’s humanity. This is not docetism because Christ is full God and full Man. He has a divine spirit, a mind which is both Human and Divine, and a Human body. Docetism teaches that Christ is fully Spirit and not flesh at all.
@Jkc
Thank you for spreading so much falsehood. Here is the real translation of those mantras. Check out this link http://jesusinsahasranama.blogspot.in/2012/11/jesus-in-sahasranama-false-claim.html
I would agree with Krishnarao. Also, I would like to state the initial research into Hindu history, religion and mythology were done by Christian orientalists whose main job was not to unearth Hindu knowledge but use it strategically to brainwash Hindus into believing that Hindu Dharma is inferior and people should embrace Christianity.
Unfortunately the very same research became the foundation of more research and so much so that Indian orientalist themselves referred to it (after being very effectively brainwashed by their Convent school education that was spread all over India by the British clerk Rajaram Mohan Roy).
So when you quote your scholarly papers after a few google searches, we the learned Hindus know where that is coming from.
Also, even though you are least interested but the Hindu thought can be divided into three categories: historical, mythological and philosophy.
Also, I would like to point out that religion as such is not a Hindu thing. The term itself and the context were both introduced by the invaders in India (which includes both Muslims and Christians). Before the invasion, religion simply did not exist like it does now in India. Beliefs existed but nowhere were they organised as now we see them. Actually the Hindu community is still organising itself since it does not come naturally to us.
In Hindu society ideas, thoughts and knowledge existed freely and people enjoyed the freedom to subscribe to any thought that they fancied. And this, if you can see, is completely opposite to the brutal, bloody history of both Christianity and Islam.
Going back to the three categories: All these three categories are layered within one another (because of lack of facts which I also suspect the Christian orientalist twisted a little too much). Krishna and Radha’s story is mythical as best because no concrete evidence of the girl’s existence has ever been found. But it has a extremely deep philosophical meaning to it and that is of divine love. The philosophical part in Hindu Dharma is the most important and the one that need to be understood and learned for.
If like the Christians we restrict ourselves to the historical facts (and cry hoarse about Gods walking on water) then the Hindu knowledge will become limited. We will lose the natural freedom that exists in the fabric of this wonderful culture if we bounded things with time. It will simply lead to lot of lies and propaganda.
Instead what we do is, we accept that most of the popular stories are only mythological, interpret them on the basis of a sub-ideology of the greater Hindu one and explain an important philosophical aspect of it. And this is only possible if you focus is not God but human.
For that matter, even the concept of God as it is now understood universally all over the world was introduced by the invaders. Hindu Dharma itself can be thought of as theistic, agnostic, or even atheistic depending on one’s own thought process and interpretation. It is extraordinarily flexible in nature with almost no rules.
Sorry, Kirshnarao, but facts are facts, however inconvenient they may be. In comment 11 above, I’ve given the references, to both Indian and other sources. The idea is not recent, nor was it invented to trash Hinduism.
About the Gita, of course Radha does not appear there. She comes into Krishna literature, as Chaudhuri explains (p. 273) with the Brahmavaivarta Purana, which most scholars would date later than the Gita.
PhDs can and should google search; what matters is how one critically evaluates any evidence one finds there. About that, you really should at least scan the previous comments before commenting.
Hi Dale,
I’ve been Hindu all my life and was raised by religious Hindu parents. I have also read the Gita, and Vedas and many other Hindu text. And I have never ever heard of Raddha being Krishna’s Aunt. This idea was a recent one to just trash HIndus.
And seriously Dale, you talk about being a professor and you reduced yourself to some random “google searches.” That does not sound like a professor or scholarly like. You demean and reduce your profession when you say just do some “Google search.” As a professor I would have expected a lot more from you. And the profession demands better sources and better research.
All true seekers of God will desire for truth and welcome truth that leads them to the Living, Loving, Almighty and the All-powerful Creator. It is not just about religions, or sects, or faiths, nor is it a mere collection of some facts.
PURPOSE OF PRAJAPATHI (PURUSHA)
The main theme in the Rg Veda and the Upanishads is the nature and purpose of only one supreme sacrifice known as the Purush Prajapati. This name is translated from Sanskrit as “the Lord of all creation who became Man” (Sathpathbrahmana 10.2.2.1_2; Rg Ved Purushasukta 10:19). The only purpose of the Purush Prajapati is to sacrifice His life-blood to pay our penalty for sin and to impart to us eternal life. It is the only way to Heaven and the only way of escape from eternal Hell (Rg Ved 9:113.7_11; Rg Ved 4.5.5; 7.104.3).
VEDAS ACKNOWLEDGES JESUS CHRIST:
Ohm Shri Brahmaputraya namaha: Oh Lord, The Son of God, we praise you.
Ohm Shri Umathyaya namaha: Oh Lord who is born of the Spirit, we praise you.
Ohm Shri kanni sudhaya namaha: Oh Lord who is born of a virgin, we praise you.
Ohm Shri tharithra narayanaya namaha: Oh Lord who became poor for our sake, we praise you.
Ohm Shri vidhiristaya namaha: Oh Lord who is circumcised, we praise you.
Ohm Shri panchagayaya namaha: Oh Lord who bore five wounds on your body, we praise you.
Ohm Shri vruksha shul aruthaya namaha: Oh Lord who offered yourself as a sacrifice on a trishool like tree (three headed spear), we praise you.
Ohm Shri mruthyam jaya namaha: Oh Lord who got victory over death, we praise you.
Ohm Shri shibilistaya namaha: Oh Lord who willingly offered your flesh to be eaten by your saints, we praise you.
Ohm Shri thatchina moorthyaya namaha: Oh Lord who is seated by the side of the Father, we praise you.
Ohm Shri maha devayaya namaha: Oh Lord who is Lord of lords, we praise you.
Asatoma sat gamaya, Tamasoma Jyotir gamaya, Mruthyoma amrutham gamaya, which means, from untruth lead me to truth, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to eternal life.
More than this Avathar means only once its a singular term, Brahma is not the name of God but the term The creator.
1. Jesus sahasranama was composed by a christian sanskrit scholar K.U.Chacko in kerala in 1985’s. Those Mantras may got mixed into the hindu context in local kerala temples.
2. Another case could be that those articles probably written by a malayali/Tamilian , coz he/she used wrong letters such as “t” instead of “Dh”, and so on. In tamil or Malayalam there is no much importance to some sounds, they have the same letter for two sounds,like they have same letter to represent both “Pha” and “bha” . But in Sanskrit, difference between these sounds are very important. These differences in sounds may change the entire meaning of the word. Like English, Sanskrit can have two or more meaning for the same word depending upon the situation. The meaning of mantras given by them and their actual meaning are discussed below. I am not against Christianity or Christians but I just want to convey the truth.
Mantra 1:
“ om shri Brahma putraya namaha:”
Definition given by them: “ Oh lord, son of god, we praise you” (they say it was referring to jesus)
My Explanation: Brahma Putraya = son of Brahma, It actually refers to Lord Shiva. Brahma born from a lotus, He created shiva.
“ one who is the son of Brahma,We bow to thee”
Mantra 2:
”om shri umathyaya namaha:”
Definition given by them: “oh lord who is born of the spirit, we praise you”
My explanation: it is not umathya, it is umadhya = Uma + Adhya;
Uma = luminous or light
Adhya = source
Umadhyaya = source of light.( see a small mistake , they wrote ‘t’ instead of ‘d’. it changed the entire meaning)
“one who is the source of light,We bow to thee”
Mantra 3:
“om shri kanni sudhaya namaha:”
Definition given by them: “oh lord who born of a virgin we praise you”
My explanation: kanni in Tamil /Malayalam means virgin. Sanskrit word for virgin is “Kanya”
There is no “Kanni” in Sanskrit . It is “kani”. Kani = Ever. Sudha = pure.
Kani sudha = Ever Pure.
“one who is Ever Pure,We bow to thee”
Mantra 4:
“om tharithra narayanaya namaha:”
Definition given by them: “ oh lord who become poor for our sake , we praise you”
My explanation:
It is not “tharithra” but it is “Dhrithri”, which means “ the Earth” in Sanskrit.
Sanskrit word for poor is Dhaaridrah.
Narayana = First Being.
“oh First Being of the earth,We bow to thee”
Mantra 5:
“om vidhiristaya namaha:”
Definition given by them: “oh lord who is circumcised, we praise you”
My Explanation: vidhir= worshipper or worship. Istaya= favourite or favour.
There is no word for circumcision in Sanskrit.
The word “kaat” means “ to cut”.. Private parts in Sanskrit is lingam or Yoni.
“one who favors his worshipper,We bow to thee”
Mantra 6:”ohm sri panchagayaya namaha:”
Definition given by them:”oh lord who bore five wounds on your body,we praise you”
My explanation: It is not “gaya” but “gavya”.
Pancha = Five ; gavya = blend of
Blend of five elements the air, the water, the earth, the space, and the fire.
“one who is blend of five(elements),We bow to thee”
Mantra 7 : “ohm shri vruksha shul aruthaya namaha:”
Definition given by them:” oh lord who sacrificed yourself on a trishool- like tree(wooden cross),we praise you”
My Explanation: not vruksha but virupaksha meanings “mis-formed eye”; shul = tri-spear, not arutha, it is arudha , which means ” to rise”
“one who rises the tri-spear with a mis-formed eye,We bow to thee”
Mantra 8: “ohm shri mruthyum jayaya namaha:”
Definition given by them: “oh Lord who won the death, we praise you”
My explanation: Yes, God do not have death. Here Mruthyum Jaya refers to shiva.
Mantra 9:”ohm shri sibilistaya namaha:”
Definition : oh lord who willingly offered your flesh to be eaten by your saints, we praise you”
My explanation: Sibhi chakravarthy is a famous king in mahabharatha, Ramayana also in jataka tales. He is considered as a member of vishnu’s lineage.
He sacrificed his flesh to save a pigeon from an eagle, pigeon and eagle were the Agni and Indra in disguise. (Note. H is story was written centuries before Christ. Recorded circa 400 B.C in jataka tales of buddists, don’t say it a copy.!)
Sibi = name of the king sibi. Istaya = favouite.
Mantra 10:” ohm shri thatchina moothyaya namaha:”
their definition “Oh lord seated by the side of your father, we praise you”
My explanation: It is not thatchina moorthy it is “Dhakshana moorthy”
Dhakshna = south ; Moorthy = deity.
The deity of the south.. it is often used to refer “Guru”, one of the Dikhpalaka or ruler of directions and also refers to lord shiva.
“oh god of the south,We bow to thee”
Mantra 11:”ohm shri maha devayaya namaha:”
Their definition: “ oh lord of the lords, I bow to you”
My explanation: Yes but it was actually referred Lord shiva, who is also called as Maha Deva. Budda also mentioned as Maha deva sometimes.
Maha deva = Greatest amonst the devas
“one who is greatest amongst the gods, We bow to thee”
CONCLUSION:
Though i have corrected the above definitions, some of the mantras stated above are not found in the actual SAHASRANAMAM of Hinduism. The above mantras may got mixed by the local priests in kerala from the Jesus Sahasranamam written by a christian sanskrit pundit.
A religion is supposed to tell others (if they want to listen to) what is contain and how it will gain the listener.
And if one religion is using creating a false, wrong story of other religion, in order to create a disbelief among the followers of that religion. I tent to think how week is that religion which use such creating such a disinformation propaganda for it done not have any thing to offer the people.
Raddha is not Krishna’s aunt. Raddha is not related to Krishna is any sense..
Raddha does not have any relationship to Krishna other than being his divine love. And when Krishna went to Mathura Raddha comes in another form of Rukhmani to marry him.
Hi rockyrocy,
As a professor, I would not dare make up something like this. Do a quick google search for “Radha Krishna aunt*” and you will see Hindus discussing the traditional sources which say this, and various solutions to the problem, such as claiming that Radha’s husband really was the same person as Krishna.
My understanding is that some sources have them married, other unmarried by unrelated, and others have her married to another, and his aunt. I first encountered this last version spoken by Hindus in this documentary.
Here’s a statement by a well known and respected Indian Hindu writer:
(p. 276 of Niraud C. Chaudhuri, Hinduism: a religion to live by)
You are perfectly free, of course, to argue that these later sources should be rejected as unreliable.
Here’s another Indian reference, from a recent book by a major publisher.
Here’s another. (third paragraph) And another. (upper right entry)
Or from an older Indian source:
According to one “reformed apologist” its Sudduth’s being a “self-destructive modern Christian analytic philosopher” that led him down this path:
http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2012/01/27/a-few-thoughts-on-sudduths-conversion-to-hinduism/
If only he did theology ahead of philosophy…er, wait a second, thinking about that is doing philosophy.
Gentlemen,
The correction has been made.
Dale, I have a post on Dolezal. James Anderson makes an appearance in the ComBox and mentions you. I would be happy to have your take on things.
Vlastimil,
Thank you for this! I’m sure the Maverick will make the correction.
This indeed clarifies things a bit; perhaps I’ll do another post later.
As Sudduth wrote in the part I quoted:
“… the basic principles of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are logically compatible with a _number_ of fundamental Christian beliefs: the deity of Christ, virgin birth, his resurrection, and the soteriological importance (even necessity of) his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. In converting to Vaishnavism I do not relinquish these beliefs …”
Note my emphasis.
Note also the following. If one will object to Sudduth that the claim that “both Jesus and Krishna is (an incarnation of) the Lord” is incompatible with the NT or, say, the Chalcedonian Creed, then one should be also prepared to hear Sudduth’s counter-objection that such reading of the NT and the authority of the creed is spurious. (Actually, I’ve seen him to make this objections.) Not endorsing Sudduth’s position, just noticing a relevant issue. Of course, I’d like to see his reply to some intelligent, informed, and robust Christian historical apologetics, like that of Swinburne.
Finally, Sudduth explicitly acknowledges that there are conflicts btw his current position and what he calls “traditional Christianity.” Sudduth currently embraces panentheism (though not pantheism; cf. http://www.proginosko.com/2012/01/why-i-am-not-a-panentheist). And, it typical for adherents of GV to hold that Krishna, rather than Jesus, is the highest manifestation of God (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaishnavism).
As I e-mailed to Bill Vallicella (The Maverick Philosopher), his post, reproducing Dr. Sudduth letter, is missing an important pt. of sect. IV. I don’t know why. Here it is.
————-
True to its conception of God as infinite or absolute being, GV acknowledges that God is manifested in diverse ways and that God-realization (or salvation) takes on diverse forms. God is one, but we do not relate to Him in one way. Krishna means the “all attractive one.” He draws all people to himself, but in accordance with their own dispositions and tendencies. “However men try to reach me, I return their love with my love; whatever path they travel, it leads to me in the end” (Bhagavad Gita, 4:11).
Krishna is the all-attractive Absolute who is manifested in the different religious traditions of the world. There is merging into impersonal Brahman. There are also distinctly theistic experiences in which the self encounters a personal God. Some experience the personal God under the name “Yahweh,” others “Allah;” and others “Jesus.” The names are many; God is one. Of these experiences, some are awe and reverence experiences; some are more unitive experiences with varying degrees of sensed intimacy between the self and God. Some are combinations of separation and intimacy. GV acknowledges that transcendental consciousness (the aim of nearly all religious traditions) is in fact variegated in nature. There are different modes or degrees of penetration into transcendence. For Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the transcendental experience of impersonal Brahman is not the ultimate religious experience, however, it is a legitimate one and need not be discredited. It occurs when the individual spirit soul, the jiva, merges into the brahma-jyoti, (something akin to the aura or effulgence radiating from the body of Krishna himself). Similarly, those who worship Lord Jesus experience a mode of transcendence through a particular divine incarnation.
As Swami Tripurari has stated:
“Thoughtful, objective analysis reveals that all Gods are but partial manifestations of the same purusa, Sri Krsna, and all Goddesses partial expressions of the primal sakti, Sri Radha. Krsna possesses all attributes of divinity found in other incarnations as well as aspects found in him alone. There can be only one God, yet . . . he has many expressions of himself.” ~ Swami Tripurari (Rasa: Love Relationships in Transcendence, p. 71)
Just as there are different practices that produce these different experiences of God realization, GV acknowledges that how we experience God depends on different aspects of our own personalities. This seems supported by a substantial body of literature in western psychology extending back to William James. The religious impulse is deep in human nature, part of the imago dei (according to the Christian tradition), but it takes on various forms (not merely because of sin – as Christians would say), but because of features of our individual psychology and local culture. God doesn’t override this in the scheme of salvation, but works through it. Otherwise put, given human nature, it is not surprising that God should manifest Himself to human persons in diverse ways.
(5) GV maintains that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (the fons et origo of GV) is the combined manifestation of Krishna and Radharani. In the lila of the Srimad Bhagavatam, Radharani was Krishna’s consort and the highest caliber devotee. She demonstrated unparalleled, pure love for Krishna. It is said that Krishna could not begin to fathom the depths of her love for Him so he appeared in this special combined incarnation to taste the highest levels of devotion to Himself. I find this a wonderful image that complements the Christian idea of God taking on human nature to achieve righteousness for the sinner and to pay the penalty for sin for the sinner. It is most fitting that God would seek to experience the love of the devotee in much the same way that he would seek to experience the suffering of the devotee (in the person of Jesus). In Christ God suffers with us. In Chaitanya, God loves with us. In each case, there is an important identification between God and us. God tastes the suffering that distances us from Him and the love that brings us near to Him.
I think it’s important to underscore, mainly for the sake of my Christian friends, two points relevant to the relationship between my adherence to the principles outlined above and Christian theism. I do not perceive myself as worshipping a different God than I did as a Christian. It’s the same God under a different (and for me fuller) manifestation. Krishna reveals himself in diverse ways across culture and time, personality and life circumstance. Christians and Muslims are also bhaktas, though they cultivate love of God in a different way.
Secondly, the basic principles of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are logically compatible with a number of fundamental Christian beliefs: the deity of Christ, virgin birth, his resurrection, and the soteriological importance (even necessity of) his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. In converting to Vaishnavism I do not relinquish these beliefs but simply situate them in a different philosophical and theological context. That being said, I intend in the future to write on the subject of the relationship between the above aspects of GV and Christian theism.
For those who are interested in learning about the different Vaishnava traditions, I would recommend reading the online historical account here:
http://www.gaudiya.com/index.php?topic=history
“If I understand him, he’s saying that he conceived of Jesus as a mode of God – not uncommon among catholic Christians ”
I’m not sure where you are drawing this conclusion from, but every Sunday Catholics everywhere renounce modalism during the Mass:
“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.”
It’s unfortunate that you may have come across Catholics who either didn’t understand or can’t correctly formulate basic concepts of catechesis but modalism is certainly not a common belief for Catholics.
Hi Mike,
First, small-c catholics – this includes Roman Catholics as a species.
Second, yes, the catholic creedal formulas are supposed to rule out modalism – or at least Sabellian modalism, if not all kinds (this is unclear).
And yet, it is very common for theologians and somewhat sophisticated laypeople to be modalists. A common way: God is understood to be creator (Father), redeemer (Son), sanctifier (Holy Spirit). There’s no simple way to tell when someone does or doesn’t think this way, whatever they recite on Sunday. But they think, usually, that God is a single self who exists in three ways/modes.
Well, there’s East, and then there’s EAST.
I thought the move east typically landed one in Constantinople. 🙂
Comments are closed.