A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community Mark E. Hanshaw Abstract: The author compares the thought of the eleventh-century Hindu theologian Rāmānuja to the eighteenth-century Protestant theologian John Wesley, in particular in terms of how the two teachers examined the concept of grace. For Rāmānuja, the author shows, “Grace represented the entry of God into the life of the individual.” Wesley wrote similarly that “grace is a prerequisite for the establishment of a relationship with God.” Both men believed that grace is bestowed as a gift on people everywhere. Each were founders of important religious movements, Rāmānuja of the practice of bhakti, or salvation through devotion, and Wesley of Methodism.
T
he doctrine of divine grace serves as a fundamental concept that undergirds Christian theological understandings. Consideration of this concept is central to the thinking of the eighteenth-century Anglican priest John Wesley, who founded the Methodist movement. For Wesley, the vitality of the faith itself hinged on the doctrine of grace. His thinking can perhaps be illuminated by a consideration of the insights offered by the Indian philosopher Rāmānuja, who 700 years earlier also wrestled with the concept of grace and its role in the interplay between humankind and the divine. The question of the extent to which Rāmānuja’s understandings of divine grace may serve as enlightenment for Christians, and in particular for Wesleyans, stands in the shadow of a larger question. To what extent, we may ask, may one’s own beliefs be illuminated by an investigation of the texts, doctrinal statements and other writings of religious cultures markedly different from one’s own?
ISSUE
8, OCTOBER 2008
75
Mark E. Hanshaw
Rāmānuja’s Vision of God Rāmānuja was a philosopher and theologian, traditionally said to have lived from 1017 to 1137 C.E. While considerable scholarly controversy exists related to the precise dates of Rāmānuja’s birth and death, it is broadly accepted that he lived and taught during a key period of development of Hindu theological thought in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. He was born in a small village in the modern Indian state of Tamil Nadu and emerged as the leader of a philosophical movement that would alter the manner in which many Hindu practitioners understood the very nature of the divine. His legacy persists in the form of theological assertions presented in his writings and in iconic imagery embraced by followers of certain devotional strands of the Hindu religious system in celebration of his life. Any attempt to understand the broader ideas espoused by Rāmānuja must begin with a consideration of his concept of a personal God. That concept is rooted in one of the most important theological controversies to engulf Hindu society. Indeed, this dispute between Rāmānuja and his predecessor Śaṅkara, who lived some 300 years earlier, has persisted even into the modern era.1 At the root of this controversy lies the question of whether God is a personal deity. For Rāmānuja, this question had to be answered in the affirmative. Rāmānuja rejected Śaṅkara’s conception of Brahman as an attributeless, pervasive absolute. Such a vision of an impersonal deity was inadequate, in the view of Rāmānuja. Instead, Rāmānuja reasoned that there must exist a personal deity who was capable of hearing individual prayers of worshippers. Only such a deity could meet or even be aware of the demands of humans and respond to crises in this world. A wholly transcendent God, as envisioned by Śaṅkara, was not a deity that was capable of truly responding to human needs. Rāmānuja’s rejection of the position of Śaṅkara is clearly articulated in his own writings. For example, in Srī-Bhāsya, he writes: Brahman is not non-dual pure consciousness, but possesses infinite auspicious attributes and is bereft of all evil attributes. . . . It is the creator, preserver, and destroyer of this universe, which it pervades and of which it is the inner ruler.2 Śaṅkara had insisted that Brahman is the only true reality, and that this reality is without any attributes. Indeed, Śaṅkara reasoned, if the divine were to possess attributes, these attributes would have an existence of their own and this fact would defeat his primary assertion that there
76
RELIGION EAST & WEST
A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community
is but a single, unitary reality. Thus, Śaṅkara believed that this single absolute reality was possessed of a highly impersonal nature.3 Śaṅkara’s view of the nature of God came to be known as “nondualism.” While Rāmānuja accepted, in general, the assertion that reality consists of a single nature, he desired to modify Śaṅkara’s analysis. At the heart of Rāmānuja’s theology lay the concept of “qualified nondualism.” According to Rāmānuja, while there is a single reality, this unitary reality possesses internal distinctions. Thus, he pointed to three categories of reality: God (Brahman), ), the world ((jāgat) and souls ((jīvas). But while these three categories may be pointed to and discussed, they are interrelated, with souls and the world being dependent upon the divine.4 Indeed, both the world and souls are deemed to be the very body of God.5 Rāmānuja described Brahman as the “Supreme Person,”6 who is the “sole cause of the world” and the supporter of the universe.7 And while the world serves as the body of Brahman, this personal God is changeless. As concerns humans, Brahman is seen as their “inner ruler.” They are given their distinctive character and “power” by the very indwelling of Brahman. Thus, the personal Brahman serves to animate the soul.8 Yet, while Brahman may be said to dwell within the soul, this does not mean that the personal God dictates the actions of individuals. Rāmānuja wanted to preserve a certain degree of independence for humans. This desire appears rooted in his own embrace of the doctrine of karma. God has provided humans with the ability to make choices, and they are responsible for these choices. Rāmānuja finds evidence for this assertion in the very fact that the Hindu scriptures offer certain “definite commands.” Such commands, he reasons, would be unnecessary and even futile if the actions of the individual were wholly determined by Brahman.9 It should be recognized that Rāmānuja did not generate his image of God solely from his own personal beliefs; it is rooted in Hindu scripture. There, references can be identified, dating back to at least certain of the Upaniṣads,10 and including the Bhagavad Gītā, that describe the divine in personal terms. An example is the Svetāśvatara Upaniṣad, which states: There is only one Rudra; he has not tolerated a second who would rein over these worlds by his sovereign powers. After drawing in all beings, he stands as the protector at the end of time turning west towards men.11 Rudra is a name for the divine drawn from the Rig Veda, the earliest of the Hindu scriptural materials. The name refers to the storm god of the original Hindu pantheon, who is often thought to be a precursor to the ISSUE 8, OCTOBER 2008
77
Mark E. Hanshaw
later Hindu god Śiva, but in this instance serves to identify a universal manifestation of the divine. As well, evidence may be found in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad: Finer than the finest, larger than the largest, Is the self (ātman) that lies here hidden in the heart of a living being. Without desires and free from sorrow, A man perceives by the creator’s grace the grandeur of the self.12 Of course, in addition to these early passages, the Bhagavad Gītā itself depicts God as the incarnated Krishna, a clearly personalized deity who interacts directly in narrative fashion with the warrior Arjuna. As Krishna states in dialogue with the warrior: With me as a supervisor, material nature generates moving and unmoving creatures; that is the reason the universe goes round, son of Kunti. When I take on human form the deluded do not recognize me, ignorant of my higher state as the great lord of creatures.13 This description of God as a personal deity provides a vital foundation to Rāmānuja’s doctrine of divine grace. Indeed, only such a personal God can act in the world. Further, only such a personal God is aware of the needs of those who are part of Creation and is capable of extending a salvific hand of grace. Rāmānuja and Grace The evidence of the importance of the concept of grace to Rāmānuja lies in the frequency with which he uses the concept.14 Routinely throughout his writing one can see illuminating references to the grace of the divine. It is through grace, he states, that individuals find their own way: [By] Him the knower is favored; and then the heart, the residence of the individual self, is lighted up from above; and in this way through the grace of the Supreme Person, the individual self, having its passage illumined, distinguishes that artery.15 Further, it is through grace that God helps individuals overcome sin and the resulting retribution: What the Lord Himself aims at is to ever increase happiness to the highest degree, and to this end it is essential that He should graciously reprove and reject the infinite and intolerable mass of sins which accumulates in the course of beginning and endless eons, and thus check the tendency on the part of individual beings to transgress His laws.16
78
RELIGION EAST & WEST
A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community
As these passages reflect, grace was an integral concept for Rāmānuja and served to ground his broader philosophy. Still, what did he mean by the term grace? Agera argues that Rāmānuja understood the concept of grace to represent “a divine favor freely bestowed on man without regard for his merits or demerits.” This definition is one that corresponds well with the notion of grace communicated by many Western Christian communities. However, while this serves as a reasonable summation of Rāmānuja’s understanding of grace, it must be acknowledged that his true thoughts are more complex. In the first instance, it may be said that Rāmānuja did perceive grace to be the activity of an immanent God. Grace for Rāmānuja represented the entry of God into the life of the individual. While he believed that grace takes many forms, as will be discussed below, the highest form of grace for Rāmānuja was the actual indwelling of God in the human heart. Interestingly, this divine activity was viewed not just as an effort aimed at establishing a personal relationship between God and the individual but also as a communal act. In Rāmānuja’s view, it is the entire community that benefits from the indwelling of God in the heart of any individual.17 Of course, such community benefits may flow merely from the increased propensity of the individual to care for others due to God’s indwelling. It seems also to imply that communal salvation is potentially available. Grace is also described by Rāmānuja as a bond of “love”18 linking God with God’s followers. This is a bond so great that God is “unable to bear separation from the devotee.”19 Moreover, this love is such that God freely subjects Godself to it. As well, this love is so intense that Rāmānuja argues that God actually needs individual devotees.20 The intensity of the love that God feels toward humans prompts God to assume physical form and dwell amongst mortals.21 The incarnation of God is, in fact, considered to be a form of grace in itself. This understanding of grace as incarnation is well illustrated in the Bhagavad Gītā, as Krishna addresses Arjuna: By showing favor toward you, Arjuna, through my own power I have made manifest this supreme form of mine, lustrous, universal, infinite, primeval, which no one apart from you has ever seen.22 Such incarnations are undertaken by God, according to Rāmānuja, for the sole purpose of helping individuals to achieve release from the cycle of birth and death. By descending into the phenomenal world, God becomes more accessible. Accordingly, God assumes many different forms, appearing amongst members of every class and segment of society. As Rāmānuja states, God is “born in many ways.”23 ISSUE 8, OCTOBER 2008
79
Mark E. Hanshaw
For Rāmānuja, grace is characterized as being unmerited. In other words, no individual is capable of earning this dispensation from God. It comes in the nature of a gift. Yet, while Rāmānuja embraced this understanding of grace as freely offered, he struggled with its practical implementation. On the one hand, Rāmānuja was certain that nothing one could do individually could merit the award of grace. At the same time, Rāmānuja did not want to discount human effort altogether. Accordingly, in an almost Wesleyan fashion, he crafted a practical understanding of interaction between freely given grace and human effort. For Rāmānuja, while grace is free and unmerited, efforts of the individual still play a relevant role in relation to the bestowal of grace. In Rāmānuja’s understanding, the performance of “moral and religious duties” allows individuals to perceive and embrace the grace that is bestowed by God. One of the most important of these duties is prayer. Thus God is said to extend grace when the individual displays an eagerness to seek fellowship with God. Prayer serves to evidence such eagerness. It may, then, be argued that prayer should precede God’s bestowal of grace. Yet even this seemingly logical conclusion would be described as a misunderstanding by Rāmānuja, since prayer is possible only through God’s “fundamental grace.”24 Rāmānuja describes the process of the bestowal of grace repeatedly throughout his works. One example can be seen in his treatise on the Brahma Sūtras: Bondage is real and is the result of ignorance, which is of the nature of Karma without beginning. This bondage can be destroyed only through knowledge, i.e. through the knowledge that Brahman is the inner Ruler different from souls and matter. Such knowledge alone leads to final release or mokśa. This knowledge is obtained through the grace of the Lord pleased by the due performance of the daily duties prescribed for different castes and stages of life, duties performed not with the idea of obtaining any results, but with the idea of propitiating the Lord.25 Based upon such passages, Cyril Veliath has argued that Rāmānuja’s notion of grace is fundamentally different than that held by members of the Christian community.26 While acknowledging the existence of some apparently contradictory statements within Rāmānuja’s broader body of work, Veliath argues that grace is not something that comes unconditionally but instead has to be earned. As well, he argues that grace appears to be restricted to those “personally chosen by the Supreme Being.”27 In other words, there is a sort of predestination at work in Rāmānuja’s writings.
80
RELIGION EAST & WEST
A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community
Curiously, even while making these arguments, Veliath acknowledges that there is room for human activity even within the traditional Christian view of the doctrine of grace. The more one responds to grace, the more one receives. In general, based upon my own reading of Rāmānuja, I would propose that these arguments are misguided. Indeed, I believe Rāmānuja’s understanding of grace has considerably more in common with certain Christian understandings than Veliath might be inclined to admit. In his writings on the Bhagavad Gītā, Rāmānuja notes that nothing counts toward the award of grace other than “love and surrender.” Yet even these are rooted in God’s grace. Accordingly, even the most honest attempt to establish a relationship with God is not sufficient on its own. Individuals can have “no immediate relation to God.” God’s grace is presupposed even in one’s initial weak efforts to embrace the divine.28 Citing Rāmānuja’s Gītābhāysa, Agera notes that those who believe they can offer sacrifices, gifts and prayers without reliance upon God’s grace “are deluded by ignorant belief.” As will be argued more thoroughly below, this understanding seems to suggest that grace always precedes human action in a manner that is echoed in the theology of John Wesley. Grace, then, develops gradually, with more being bestowed as the response from the individual increases. Of course, there is also a key issue that must be considered: who has access to God’s grace? Is its availability limited to certain individuals? According to Agera, Rāmānuja believed that grace is not limited to any particular preordained group but is instead “accessible to all because it is an urge of love within God.”29 He describes grace as being a free outpouring by God prompted by God’s love alone, which is directed toward all of humankind. This universality of God’s love may be glimpsed in Rāmānuja’s discussion of the manner in which God relates to individuals who represent differing societal castes: God is equal toward all irrespective of caste, form, nature or knowledge. No one is discarded by Him on grounds of caste, form, nature or knowledge. He does not refuse one on these grounds. Nor does He favor one on these grounds. He only cares for the loving surrender of the devotee. If that all-important condition is fulfilled and the devotee feels himself incapable of living apart from worship of Him, as an end in itself, whatever the other merits or demerits from the world’s point of view, he is granted life in God on a footing of equality.30 Still, as Rāmānuja admits, there is a deterministic quality at play in this cycle of grace; however, it relates not to the selection of individuals ISSUE 8, OCTOBER 2008
81
Mark E. Hanshaw
who receive awards of grace but to self-imposed limitations upon God’s own freedom. God is described as being “overpowered” by love of all humanity. While God is free, the deity has also submitted to the bond of love. So great is this love that God is “unable to bear separation from the devotee.”31 In Rāmānuja’s view, numerous benefits flow from God’s bestowal of grace upon humans. Grace brings with it an assurance that the Lord is one’s personal refuge. As well, good actions are said to result from such a bestowal of grace. It is grace that allows the individual to overcome both sin and delusion.32 Indeed, it is through grace alone that one can receive forgiveness of sins or overcome one’s inclination toward sin.33 This grace helps individuals to overcome the suffering that is present in the world. Finally, grace prompts a new way of living based upon devotion to God. That devotion is known as bhakti. The Human Response to Grace It would be difficult to consider the theology of Rāmānuja without reference to the Hindu bhakti tradition. Indeed, Rāmānuja is considered the father of the modern bhakti movement in India. Yet what is the significance of this concept for Rāmānuja and his followers? The word bhakti has been equated with the English term devotion.34 Yet devotion may not fully represent the specific set of religious traditions embraced by many Hindus. As one Indian scholar has asserted, there is no English term that can adequately define bhakti. “Worship, prayer and even devotion are words that fall short of the full connotation of bhakti. It means standing in the presence of God, serving God, loving God, hearing God and in fact enjoying the Deity,” argues G. M. Tripathi.35 The term bhakti, then, refers to a particular way of being and a specific understanding of the nature of the divine. At its heart, the term bhakti implies much about the very nature of God. Early scriptural references to bhakti,36 particularly from the Kaṭha37 and Svetāśvatara Upaniṣads,38 paint the picture of devotees placing their trust in an active God who works on behalf of humanity and who draws individuals into such a relationship. This is also a God who exercises grace in dealing with humanity and can thus reasonably be considered an object of devotion.39 The Svetāśvatara Upaniṣad also provides what is argued to be the first use in Brahmanic literature of the term bhakti, intended to connote a loving adoration of God coupled with dependence upon God’s “salvific action” and an expectation of divine grace.40
82
RELIGION EAST & WEST
A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community
The idea of bhakti is perhaps most clearly illustrated in the Bhagavad Gītā. References to bhakti are scattered throughout but are most prevalent in the last few chapters. Here there is a clear image of a salvific relationship established between God and humanity through bhakti as devotion. Through grace, God reveals Godself to devotees41 and helps them overcome their doubts, fears and confusion.42 As the Gītā states: Through devotion he recognizes me—how great I am, and who I am in reality; and then, having known me in reality, he enters me immediately. Through continually performing all actions, his refuge is in me, and through my grace he attains the eternal, imperishable home.43 Ultimately, then, God grants what may be termed “salvation” to devotees.44 For Rāmānuja, the term bhakti did not relate merely to the state of mind present in the lives of true devotees of God. Bhakti also represented a spiritual path and, as such, served as a central element in Rāmānuja’s broader philosophy. Thus, bhakti entails both the love of God that is prompted by grace and the path the devotee follows in response to grace. For Rāmānuja, bhakti is a vital cog in the resolution of the central dilemma faced by every human. Each individual soul is said to exist in a state of “perfect knowledge.” Yet, this perfect knowledge becomes “covered up by ignorance.”45 The prime path toward recapturing this perfect knowledge is, for Rāmānuja, bhakti. This vital spiritual path referred to by Rāmānuja as bhakti may be equated with yoga, which is identified in the Bhagavad Gītā as a threetired system including karma yoga, jñāna yoga and bhakti yoga.46 Though some have argued that these three forms of yoga are separate paths to enlightenment, Rāmānuja saw them as interrelated; he believed that utilization of one would necessarily lead to the other. Bhakti, then, for Rāmānuja, relates to a collective involvement in the three forms of yoga.47 It is through such exercise that the fundamental problem of ignorance can be overcome and the individual can reach the “eternal, changeless state.” Rāmānuja recognized that not all were deemed capable of performing bhakti yoga.48 For those not able to perform bhakti yoga, Rāmānuja promoted “complete surrender” (prapatti).49 There is a continuing debate as to whether prapatti should be understood as merely a preliminary step preceding entry into the yoga system or whether it is an independent system that parallels yoga, but in any case, prapatti was deemed to be a ISSUE 8, OCTOBER 2008
83
Mark E. Hanshaw
vital form of response to the grace bestowed on an individual by God.50 As such, prapatti may reasonably be understood to act as one additional element of the broad bhakti system. A Wesleyan Vision of Grace There are dramatic and curious parallels between the thoughts of the Hindu philosopher Rāmānuja and the Anglican priest John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement, on such issues as the nature of God and the relationship between humans and the divine. Perhaps the most dramatic of these is rooted in a common dilemma that each of the two religious leaders confronted. The theologies of both Rāmānuja and Wesley were shaped, at least to a degree, by broad-based concerns regarding the role humans play in the process of establishing a relationship with God. On the one hand, both were convinced that humans were utterly dependent on God and as such had no ability to “save themselves.” Thus, neither of them perceived human works as being a legitimate means to salvation. On the other hand, they both dismissed the doctrine of predestination as being incompatible with the notion of a loving God even though such a doctrine seemed to be the inevitable result of any theology in which humans play no role in the salvific process. Further, it is apparent that while neither of these figures wanted to recognize that salvation could be obtained through human works, they both desired to encourage devotion and charitable activity. Of course, this dilemma was not one faced by Rāmānuja and Wesley alone. Indeed, such a dilemma is inescapable for any religious thinker who understands God in personal terms. Thus, the mere fact that Rāmānuja and Wesley faced much the same theological controversy is not in and of itself surprising. What is unusual, however, is the resemblance between the solutions offered by the two religious thinkers. At the heart of both solutions lies the concept of grace. Theodore Runyon has described Wesley’s understanding of grace as a “co-operant partnership.”51 This spirit of cooperation can be clearly seen in Wesley’s own writings. As he stated in an early sermon: [God] did not take away your understanding, but enlightened and strengthened it. He did not destroy any of your affections; rather they were more vigorous than before. Least of all, he did not take away your liberty; your power of choosing good or evil; he did not force you; but being assisted by his grace you, like Mary, chose the better part.52
84
RELIGION EAST & WEST
A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community
Thus Wesley recognized that God works with humans through relationship and that both parties play an active role. Yet, as Wesley makes clear, grace does not depend upon the good works of humans. Indeed, like Rāmānuja, Wesley refers to divine grace as a gift: [Divine grace] is free in all to whom it is given. It does not depend upon any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole nor in part. It does not in any wise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done or anything he is. It does not depend upon his endeavors . . . for all these flow from the free grace of God. . . . They are the fruits of free grace, not the root.53 For Rāmānuja and Wesley, then, grace is a prerequisite for the establishment of a relationship with God. However, as both would argue, this prerequisite cannot be earned. It is a gift, and it is given not once but many times, in small portions, to which humans have a responsive role to play. Wesley begins his own analysis of grace with a consideration of what he referred to as “preventing grace.” Wesley’s doctrine of “preventing grace” described God at work in the lives of humans even before any movement has been made on their part toward their Creator, even before they are aware of God’s work. The important implication is that God’s grace is continually present and accessible in the lives of humans. This preventing grace may take a number of forms. It may arise from the natural world. Individual conscience may serve as a vehicle of preventing grace.54 As well, it may arise from a spiritual infusion. An example is the “basic knowledge of God” that Wesley believed to be naturally instilled in every individual.55 Preventing grace may be manifested in other manners as well. The doctrine of preventing grace also necessarily implies that, as Wesley believed, God is at work in all places, not just Christian society. As Wesley states, “Everyone has some measure of that light, some faint glimmering ray, which sooner or later, more or less, enlightens every man.”56 Wesley considered the Holy Spirit in particular to be wide-ranging in its activity, working even in areas where Christ was unknown.57 In the age of staunch Calvinism, a system of Christian thought constructed upon the notion that only an “elect” could have access to a salvific relationship with the divine, Wesley’s views on the universality of God’s work must have sounded extreme. Still, within his own local culture, itself rooted in a deterministic system built upon the idea of caste, Rāmānuja’s discussion of the universal availability of grace must have been viewed as radical as well. In discussing the universality of God’s grace, Rāmānuja challenged ISSUE 8, OCTOBER 2008
85
Mark E. Hanshaw
the ingrained social order, a structure upon which the very economy of the civilization rested. The caste system was not relevant to God, according to Rāmānuja. However, this same God was utilized by political leaders in an effort to legitimize this economic system from which they drew sustenance. In the end, it may be argued that both Wesley and Rāmānuja have served as important visionaries on issues of class distinction and that their visions are rooted in their conceptions of grace. In order for grace to blossom into relationship, Wesley believed that humans must play a role. The interactive nature of grace is exemplified in Wesley’s discussion of “justifying grace,” which he described as the activity of God “through which sins are forgiven.”58 Justifying grace, then, marks the commencement of a potentially salvific relationship between the individual and God. While Wesley would affirm that this activity of forgiveness is one that can be accomplished only by God, Wesley and Rāmānuja humans are drawn into the process. Indeed, justification is not possible absent an active response by individuals. “Human participation and receptivity” to God’s actions are were visionaries essential ingredients. While God initiates the relationship by the bestowal of grace, it is up to the individual to reon issues of class spond. Justification is related to the concept of conversion for Wesley, but this relationship, initiated by God, is not a distinction. final resolution or completion of one’s spiritual journey.59 It is, instead, just the beginning. This process serves as the model for a continuously evolving relationship between the individual and God, mediated through faith in Christ, with salvific potential. At the same time, while God, according to Wesley, demands a human response, this response is such that it is not beyond the abilities of the human recipient of grace. As John Cobb Jr. has stated, any condition or activity demanded by God is necessarily within human reach, either by the individual on her own or with the assistance of God.60 Again, one may recognize significant similarities between the thoughts of Rāmānuja and Wesley’s doctrine of justifying grace. Rāmānuja did not use any term equivalent to justification and had a much different vision of the nature of salvation than Wesley. Still, Rāmānuja believed that God utilizes grace to prompt individuals toward initial recognition of the divine. After being prompted in this manner, it is then up to the individual to respond. Such responses could take the form of sacrifice or prayer. However, as Rāmānuja emphasized, one must be “deluded” to believe that true acts of prayer or sacrifice are possible absent assistance from God. Thus, it may be argued that Rāmānuja’s language describing the necessity of human response to God’s grace is more forceful even
86
RELIGION EAST & WEST
A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community
than that employed by Wesley. As well, Rāmānuja had a clear sense that grace precedes any human leanings toward or response to God. Thus, it is God who makes such human response possible. In addition to preventing grace and justifying grace, Wesley also recognized two additional categories of God’s graceful activity. The first of these, “sanctifying grace,” represents the continual, lifelong growth that must take place in the life of the Christian following justification. Cobb describes it as “spirituality.” Wesley, himself described it more particularly: “From the moment we are justified, there may be a gradual sanctification, a growing in grace, a daily advance in the knowledge and love of God.”61 Wesley understood sanctification as the process by which God’s grace, present in the individual life, grows “larger and larger in degrees.”62 Runyon has described the process of sanctification as involving first the divine initiative of God directed toward the human. This preventing grace is followed by the faithful response of the individual, making justification possible. Finally, these combine to form a sort of “synergism,” which he says involves the continuous working of the renewed individual in concert with the Creator to share this power with the world. The fruits of this lifelong relationship may involve virtually any sort of spiritual activity, but most particularly worship and prayer. As Wesley describes individuals who have been sanctified: They continually presented their souls and bodies as “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God”; in consequence of which, they “rejoiced evermore, prayed without ceasing, and in everything gave thanks.”63 Of course, in addition to spiritual practice, Wesley also encouraged charity. It is Wesley who called the citizenry of England to “earn all they can, save all they can and give all they can.” Curiously, however, there does not appear to be a clear long-term community focus to his doctrine of sanctification. Despite being personally interested in the fate of the community and its members, as is evidenced by his establishment of assistance centers in early industrial England, he did not explicitly connect sanctification with communal health or activity. His was an individual focus. Recently, however, it has been argued that such a focus on communal support is essential to building a world that truly reflects Christian ideals. There must be a focus on community, and this communal emphasis is in keeping with Wesley’s own personal practices, if not his stated theology.64 Further, there are clearly similarities between Wesley’s vision of the path of sanctifying grace and Rāmānuja’s emphasis upon bhakti. ISSUE 8, OCTOBER 2008
87
Mark E. Hanshaw
Both represent life-long commitments to God in the form of devotional activity. Both see such spiritual acts as worship and prayer as being key parts of the maintenance of a continual cycle of growth through devotion. The characterization of salvation as a lifelong process rather than a specific and isolated event in time stands in contrast to the beliefs of many Christian sects. Accordingly, Rāmānuja’s own thoughts can be helpful to Wesley’s followers in reinforcing this vision of a religious path and offering unique insights into how this process is experienced throughout one’s life. Rāmānuja’s willingness to comprehend the bestowal of grace as both an individual and a communal activity can provide what is perhaps his most useful insightful for the Wesleyan community. Though they may share core understandings, Wesley and Rāmānuja diverge at this point. Wesley places critical importance on the personal relationship between the human and God to the exclusion of any true communal emphasis. Wesley was not alone in this approach; many of the principle thinkers of the early development of the Protestant Reformation shared this emphasis on the individual. Conversely, Rāmānuja is comfortable viewing God as a deity capable of working through the lives of communities as well as individuals. Methodists may find in Rāmānuja a resource for the reconsideration of the importance of the collective. Finally, Wesley speaks of “perfecting grace.” It is a mistake, according to Runyon, to describe perfecting grace as an isolated state. It does not point to the attainment of a state of perfection by humans. Instead, it represents a process that is equivalent to the Eastern Christian notion of teleiotes, or “perfecting perfection.”65 In other words, it is a lifelong search through which on moves ever closer to the goal. What is this goal of perfection? It is acknowledged by Wesley that no human is capable of attaining a state of utter perfection in all actions. Instead, according to Albert Outler, perfection here refers to the love the individual expresses toward God. Perfect love is a love that fills the “whole heart, taking up the whole capacity of the soul.”66 As Wesley states, this move toward perfecting love represents a continuous activity of obedience in which “the will is entirely subject to the will of God.”67 Collins describes this as a process through which our love matures and humans are freed from self-will and “wandering thoughts.”68 Again, one can see parallels between the thoughts of Wesley and Rāmānuja. Bhakti, for Rāmānuja, represents a lifestyle rooted in love for the Divine Being. This relationship is one that is continuous and does not end. It is a bond that grows throughout one’s life. One of the aspects of Rāmānuja’s philosophy that is most useful for the Christian reader may
88
RELIGION EAST & WEST
A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community
be the emphasis he places on the dual nature of devotion. Devotion is not the independent activity of the devotee alone but is a dual activity in which God plays a role. God voluntarily submits Godself to a pattern of love that actually limits God’s own divine freedom. God meets Creation by submitting Godself to a love of humanity that is overpowering. Thus God displays a love that is so earnest and zealous that we, as humans, cannot comprehend it. In this sense, God displays devotion toward humanity. Thus devotion proves to be an essential expression of love of both the devotee and God. Conclusions and Final Thoughts This effort aimed at comparing and contrasting the insights of two religious thinkers, active within dramatically different cultures, may be vitally useful, I believe, in helping us realize the value of comparative study. Such an examination can demonstrate the often dramatic similarities lying at the core of diverse religious traditions. Through a legitimate and open engagement of these similarities, one may experience renewed excitement about and understanding of one’s own tradition. Of course, such examinations can and do also unearth broad disagreements. However, even these can serve as sources of enlightenment regarding one’s own tradition. For example, Rāmānuja’s vision of a God who utilizes grace as a tool to promote both individual and communal health and well-being has no specific counterpart in Wesley’s writings. Yet, an examination of Rāmānuja’s thoughts on this topic may prompt a healthy reexamination by Methodists of their own tradition. Rāmānuja helps to remind Christians that such a communal emphasis is not incompatible with the understanding of God as an active and personal deity who works in the lives of humans through the bestowal of grace. In addition, the investigation of the beliefs of other religious communities helps individuals to appreciate the vast diversity that exists within the world’s sacred realm. Recognition of such diversity can be useful in raising practical issues, such as inquiries into historical developments that may have played a role in shaping one’s own religious tradition. More generally, the exposure to such diverse traditions may encourage greater openness in one’s approach to the study of religion itself. Finally, examinations of other traditions may enable us to consider and critique religious doctrines in a more objective fashion. The examination of one’s own religious tradition is fraught with difficulty. It must be acknowledged that religious beliefs are peculiarly personal. Core religious doctrine occupies a sacred and foundational place in the ISSUE 8, OCTOBER 2008
89
Mark E. Hanshaw
individual psyche. As a result, close scrutiny, leading to the effective challenge of such beliefs, can result in personal anguish and a significant feeling of loss. In an effort to circumvent such pain, practitioners may find it difficult to avoid becoming apologists whenever they examine their own tradition. Yet such purposeful protective bias may serve to impede honest investigation. I would argue that such biases are not as likely to play a dominant role when individuals engage in examinations of the texts and traditions of other religious communities. We are better able to free ourselves for genuine critique when we consider traditions other than our own because such investigations are not limited by the same personal, conscious biases and attachments. We are not personally invested in the other traditions and, as a consequence, in most instances, the critique of such traditions does not carry with it the same potential for anguish and harm. This free investigation may lead to insights that ultimately affect even the manner in which we see our own religious tradition. Of course, an honest examination of the scriptures and core doctrines of other religious traditions still demands a certain degree of openness. In order to engage in a truly fruitful process of examination, we must be willing to engage other traditions seriously and to accept that the examination may be an illuminating experience. This process requires us to shed certain negative predispositions. In the end, I would argue that the open examination of other religious traditions can serve as a vital foundation for a deeper understanding of even one’s own religious tradition. Such an examination prompts individuals to recognize the vast diversity of experience that exists in this world. Exposure to this diversity can affect the very manner in which we perceive ourselves, our world and the divine. Indeed, one wonders whether it is possible for individuals to arrive at a genuine and broad understanding of their own religious experience and traditions absent such examination of the beliefs of others. Notes 1. Swami Ramakrishnananda, Life of Sri Rāmānuja (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1959), 72. 2. Srī Bhāsya I.1.10, Swami Virewarananda, trans. (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1998), 92–3. 3. A. J. Appasamy, The Theology of Hindu Bhakti (Bangalore: Christian Literature Society Press, 1970), 47. In describing God as an impersonal, transcendent deity, Śaṅkara was faced with the task of explaining the references in the Upaniṣads to the nature
90
RELIGION EAST & WEST
A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
11. 12.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
of Brahman as “existence,” “knowledge” and “bliss,” descriptions that appear to impose attributes on the attributeless deity. He ultimately reasoned that each of these terms were utilized to express the pure nature of Brahman. Thus, Brahman is pure existence, an existence that is neither dependent upon nor conditioned by anything else. Brahman exists exclusively in and for Godself. Likewise, since God is the only true reality, there is nothing that can genuinely be known apart from God. There is not a separate knowable reality. Finally, Brahman is described as pure bliss. In other words, this bliss is not derived from or dependent upon any outside source. These definitions seek to deny the reality of any true divine attributes. Such analysis allows Śaṅkara to retain his nondual understanding of the nature of God. Yet, this analysis leads, at least in part, to Rāmānuja’s own criticisms. George C. Adams, Jr., The Structure and Meaning of Badārayana’s Brahma Sūtras (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1986), 23. Rāmānuja is said to have had a broad understanding of term body, describing it as anything that the subject is capable of completely controlling. Ibid., 24. Srī Bhāsya, I.1.1. Yoshitsugu Sawai, “Rāmānuja’s Hermeneutics of the Upanishads in Comparison with Śaṅkara’s Interpretation,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 19 (1991): 89–98. Ibid., 92–3. Appasamy, The Theology of Hindu Bhakti, 67–9. The Svetāśvatara and Kaṭha Upaniṣads are estimated to date to about the late sixth or early fifth centuries B.C.E. They, along with the Muṇdaka and Praśna Upaniṣads, constitute what Richard Gotshalk refers to as the second and chronologically the last phase of Upaniṣadic literature. See Richard Gotshalk, The Beginnings of Philosophy in India (Landham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1998). Svetāśvatara Upaniṣad III.2, quoted from Upanishads, Patrick Olivelle, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). II.20, cited from Upanishads. See also Svetāśvatara Upaniṣad III.20. While some, including Rāmānuja, may interpret these passages to point to the grace exercised by God toward humanity, Śaṅkara has argued that there is no implicit message of grace contained within the passages. Mariasusai Dhavamony, Love of God According to Saiva Siddhanta (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). Bhagavad Gītā 9.10-11, quoted from The Bhagavad Gita, W. J. Johnson, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). In referring to what we might term grace, Rāmānuja most frequently used the Sanskrit term prasāda. Cyril Veliath, The Mysticism of Rāmānuja (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Pub., 1993), 139. Srī Bhāsya, 4.2.16. M. Yamunacharya, Ramanuja’s Teaching in his Own Words (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1988), citing Gītābhāysa X. 10–1. Cassian R. Agera, Faith, Prayer and Grace (Delhi: Mittal Pub., 1987), 144. Though there are many words for love in the Sanskrit language, the term implied here is bhaj, the root word for bhakti, which associates love with worship, honor and service. Agera, Faith, Prayer and Grace, 144, citing Gītābhāysa. John Brockington, Hinduism and Christianity (London: MacMillan, 1992), 27.
ISSUE 8, OCTOBER 2008
91
Mark E. Hanshaw 21. Ibid., 26. Love is said to have prompted God to assume myriad incarnations, otherwise known as avatāras. Principle incarnations recognized by members of the Hindu faith include Krishna, Vishnu and Rāma, among others. Ibid. 22. Bhagavad Gītā 11.47, cited from The Bhagavad Gita. 23. Agera, Faith, Prayer and Grace, 146–7. 24. Agera, Faith, Prayer and Grace, 153. Rāmānuja’s discussion of fundamental grace seems to prompt an inquiry into the precise role played by both human effort and grace itself. However, Rāmānuja apparently saw no particular reason to resolve this dilemma, arguing, instead that a devotee would never truly be interested in such a question because she “never opposes (herself) to God.” As well, according to Rāmānuja, there is benefit that stems from our failure to be able to resolve this dilemma because such inability promotes humility and a deeper feeling of dependence on God. Ibid. 25. Srī Bhāsya I.1.32 (emphasis added). 26. The Mysticism of Rāmānuja, 181. 27. This presumption appears based, at least in part, upon the assertion by Rāmānuja that grace comes to those who are “immeasurably dear to Brahman by reason of their bhakti.” Ibid. 28. Agera, Faith, Prayer and Grace, 158–9. 29. Ibid., 144. 30. S. S. Raghavachar, Rāmānuja on the Gītā (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1998), 108. 31. Agera, Faith, Prayer and Grace, 144, citing Rāmānuja from an unstated source. 32. Ibid., 149–52. 33. The escape from the inclination toward sin is accomplished through the overcoming of the “bondage of māyā,” or delusion, which is the very root of the nature of sin itself. Ibid., 178–9. 34. Karen Pechilis Prentiss, The Embodiment of Bhakti (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 16. 35. The Classical Poets of Gujarat, 11, as cited in Appasamy, The Theology of Hindu Bhakti. 36. The term bhakti does not appear to have come into general use until the post-vedic era. The origins of the notion of grace may be found in the Rig Veda, where the existence of a merciful God who is willing to extend grace to humankind can be seen. This vision of God appears to be implied in the words uttered by a diseased man, when he asks, “have mercy, spare me, mighty Lord.” Rig Veda 7.89. 37. Kaṭha Upaniṣad II.20. 38. The Svetāśvatara Upaniṣad, one of the last of the Upaniṣads to be penned, contains what appears to be a specific reference to role grace plays in relations between God and humans, when it states: “By the grace of God Savitri, our mind is one with Him and we strive with all our power for light.” Svetāśvatara Upanishad, part 2, Juan Mascaro, trans. (New York: Penguin Classics, 1965), 87. 39. Prentiss, The Embodiment of Bhakti, 18. As Prentiss argues, God is described in the Upaniṣads as taking the form of avatāras to personally aid humans. Thus, there are clear images of a God at work both cosmically and locally. Ibid. As well, the very grace of God is referred to specifically as the source of the vision that led to the Svetāśvatara Upaniṣad, in The Upanishads, 96–7. 40. Dhavamony, Love of God According to Saiva Siddharta, 67. The author acknowledges that this late and isolated reference to bhakti has been argued by some to be
92
RELIGION EAST & WEST
A Hindu Vision of Grace for a Western Christian Community
41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.
47. 48.
49.
50.
the work of a later editor. Dhavamony has suggested, however, that the use of this term is consistent with an attitude of trust in God that pervades the entire Upaniṣad and is particularly evident in the final sutra. Thus, there may be good reason to presume that the term actually belongs to the larger work. Ibid. Bhagavad Gītā 11.47. Bhagavad Gītā 18.58, 73. Bhagavad Gītā 18.55–6. See R. C. Zaehner, trans., Bhagavad Gita 18.62, 66 (London: Oxford University Press, 1969). These verses do not refer specifically to “salvation,” but to reaching “an eternal, changeless state” or to delivery “from all evils.” Agera, Faith, Prayer and Grace, 95. Karma yoga, the first of the three steps, represents the progression to God through action. However, the type of action implicated here is not merely ritualistic or ethical behavior. Instead, what is contemplated is a God-centered life. In other words, the individual is to offer every act she undertakes to God. Her actions do not belong to her but are available to God to be used for God’s purposes. S. S Raghavachar, “The Spiritual Vision of Rāmānuja,” in Hindu Spirituality: Vedas through Vedanta, Krishna Sivaraman, ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995), 261– 74. The second step within this spiritual system is jñāna yoga. At this stage the follower realizes that her essence is not situated within the material realm but lies in knowledge of the self, which in turn implicates knowledge of God. Ibid., 266. From this stage, one moves on to the third step, bhakti yoga, which involves the total negation of self in favor of love of or devotion to God. In order for such devotion to take root, one must have a true understanding of the self. Ibid. Sabapathy Kulandran, Grace: A Comparative Study of the Doctrine in Christianity and Hinduism (London: Lutterworth, 1964), 169. See also Ravi Ravindra, “Yoga: The Royal Path to Freedom,” in Sivaraman, Hindu Spirituality, 177–91. Those who were considered capable of performing bhakti yoga included the “gods” and the “twice born,” or those of higher caste. As well, there were seven moral qualifications for undertaking bhakti yoga enumerated, which were abstention (from certain foods), freeness of mind, repetition, works, virtuous conduct, freedom from dejection and freedom from elation (Kulandran, Grace, 170). The term prapatti is derived from the roots pad-pra, which may be directly translated as “taking refuge in.” The concept is important for Rāmānuja because every act of faith is said to begin with prapatti. It is the very essence of faith (Agera, Faith, Prayer and Grace, 23). Sometime after Rāmānuja’s death, his followers divided over their own unique understandings of the nature of prapatti and the role the doctrine plays in the lives of individuals. In the so-called Northern School, bhakti yoga was deemed to be the proper path to enlightenment. However, it was recognized that bhakti yoga was demanding and may not be suitable for commoners. Thus, in its place, one incapable of following the path of bhakti yoga could pursue prapatti. Though intended for the commoner, prapatti was still demanding (Agera, Faith, Prayer and Grace, 176). God’s grace is described, then, as being conditioned upon the faithful following of bhakti yoga or prapatti. Ibid. See also Rudolf Otto, India’s Religion of Grace and Christianity Compared and Contrasted (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1930). Meanwhile, a Southern School also arose, which denied any value in the practice of bhakti yoga and instead embraced prapatti exclusively.
ISSUE 8, OCTOBER 2008
93
Mark E. Hanshaw
51. 52. 53. 54.
55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 62. 63. 64.
65. 66. 67. 68.
94
Within this school, it was argued that the various forms of yoga suggest that humans are capable of engineering their own salvation (Kulandran, Grace, 176–7). Grace was defined by members of the Southern School as being “without price” and “irresistible” (Otto, 56–7). Grace is not seen merely as an attribute of God but is God’s power and how God acts within the world (Kulandran, 186). The New Creation: John Wesley’s Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 30. This partnership, Runyon says, is not one that can be imposed but is instead an avenue toward “greater genuine freedom.” Sermon 63, “The General Spread of the Gospel,” in The Works of John Wesley (Works), vol. 2, Albert Outler, ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), 489 (emphasis added). Sermon 110, “Free Grace,” in Works, vol. 3, 545. Runyon, The New Creation, 32. Conscience may be termed natural in that it is common to all. As Runyon points out, however, Wesley referred to it as a “supernatural” gift. In particular, he was impressed by the manner in which conscience worked in the lives of even the uneducated poor to promote moral behavior. He took this fact as being evidence of God’s personal involvement in the creation of conscience. Ibid. Kenneth Collins, The Scripture Way of Salvation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997). “On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” in Works, vol. 3, 207. Runyon, The New Creation, 34–5. Ted Campbell, Methodist Doctrine (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 56. Wesley is said to have used the terms justification and conversion interchangeably. See Runyon, The New Creation, 57. Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 84–5. “Minutes of Several Conversations,” in A Compend of Wesley’s Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1964), 182–3. Sermon 107, “On God’s Vineyard,” in Works, vol. 3, 507. “A Call to Backsliders,” in Works, vol. 6, 525–6. See Theodore Weber, Politics in the Order of Salvation: New Directions in Wesleyan Political Ethics (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2001). Weber encourages the utilization of Wesley’s thoughts to prompt “organic social growth that manifests itself through the provision of predictable support for all members of the community as a collective.” Ibid., 413–4. See also M. Douglas Meeks, “Sanctification an Economy: A Wesleyan Perspective on Stewardship,” in Rethinking Wesley’s Theology, Randy Maddox, ed. (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1998), 83–98. He argues that it would be in keeping with Wesley’s broader theology for the Methodist Church to contribute toward the creation of an alternative economy wherein the poor are not displaced and deprived. Ibid., 97–8. Runyon, The New Creation, 91. Albert Outler, ed., John Wesley (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 275. Sermon 43, “The Scripture Way of Salvation,” in Works, vol. 2. The Scripture Way of Salvation, 175.
RELIGION EAST & WEST