Introduction:
Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya
is the first Indian Christian theologian to enter into a positive dialogue with
the indigenous theological and philosophical tradition of Hinduism; indeed, he
is the first Indian Christian to understand the essential role of building
Christianity on an indigenous philosophical basis. Just as St. Thomas Aquinas
used Aristotle as the starting point for articulating Christian theology in the
west, so Upadhyaya believed that the Vedas and Sankara should be used as the
starting points for articulating Christian theology in India. Let us look at
some of Upadhyay's contributions on Indian Christian theology and in the person
and work of Jesus Christ.
Life of Upadhyaya:
Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya was born Bhavani Charan Banerjea on 11 February 1861 in Khanyan, a small village about thirty-six miles north of Calcutta. He was born into an orthodox Bengali Brahmin family, although his family had early links with both Christianity and the British. His father was a police inspector employed by the British and his uncle K.C. (Kalicharan) Banerjea was a Protestant Christian, converted under Alexander Duff in the Free Church institution. Bhavani's mother died when he was twelve, and he was raised by his paternal grandmother named Chandramoni, who was a devout Hindu. Nevertheless, through his father's influence, he was educated in various Protestant schools in Culcutta.
By the time he was thirteen, he had "read the Bengali versions of the Hindu epics the Ramayana thirteen times and the Mahabharata seven times." (sic) During his early life he thus became acquainted with popular Hinduism and also with Sanskrit. He later became a Christian monk and maintained himself as fully Hindu and fully Christian at the same time.[1]
Christianity and Hinduism: He was a great admirer of Keshaba Chandra Sen from his youth. He believed that the Dream was truly Christ-centered, but thought that his successors in the New Dispensation had abandoned his teachings. Upadhyaya similarly felt that not all religions are equal, but that in Christ and in Him alone all religions must find their fulfillment and thus reconcile with each other. An important question is his view of the relationship of Hindu culture to Hindu religion. He believed that it was possible to be a Hindu and a Christian at the same time, but he did not imply a process of syncretism, but rather a separation of religious from cultural Hinduism. He expresses his opinion very clearly:
We are Hindus in our physical and mental constitution, but in our immortal souls we are Catholics. We are Hindu Catholics... So the test of our being Hindus cannot lie in religious views.
Upadhyaya was deeply
involved in the national struggle and felt the need to identify himself as
fully as possible with his country, Hindustan, the land of the Hindus. Yet
there is a very important point here because what he is actually saying is that
it is possible to accept cultural Hinduism without accepting Hinduism as religious
truth. There is also a clear parallel in the development of Greek culture, in
another sense it is closely connected with Greek religion. Gradually the ties
loosened, philosophy became a separate discipline, mythology became a part of
literature rather than religion, and finally Greek religion died, while
cultural Hellenism, philosophical, scientific, literary and artistic, merged
with the Christian tradition and is still very much alive. today.[2]
Saccidananda Brahman:
The concept of God was
greatly developed by Keshab Chandra Sen, who was convinced that in Jesus of
Nazareth we see the God-Man, the divine humanity, and as a result he took the
only attempt of Vedanta to describe Brahman, the concept of Sat, Cit, Ananda,
and found in it an inspired interpretation of the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity. For Upadhyaya, he was eagerly captivated by this concept, which was
the key to the fulfillment of his great desire to reconcile Hinduism and
Christianity in the person of Christ.
Much of the language has scriptural echoes, although the vocabulary does not match the vocabulary of most Bible translations Father, Supreme LORD (Paramesvara), Word, Begotten, Breath, Purifier, Revealer of the Word, Giver of Life. Where the terminology is derived from Hinduism, Sat, Cit, Ananda, "the seedless seed of the tree of becoming," "perfect bliss," is fully expressive and indeed more alive than the Greek or Latin-derived words that might have stood instead. Greek and Hindu sources seem definitively to provide Hindus with a "stepping stone" to a full understanding of Christian doctrine. In fact, it sheds new light on the doctrine for those who have been raised in a purely Western theological tradition. .
Upadhyaya did not find it impossible to combine the Thomistic idea of God as pure Being with the Vedantic conception of Brahman. He accepted the utility of traditions of theistic arguments for the existence of God and held that logically one must become a theist before becoming a Christian, and that for all theists a common foundation of natural theology can be laid upon which the supernatural superstructure of the Christian faith can be built later. “We agree with the Vedantas that there is an eternal essence within everything.
The Secret of the Godhead, the true meaning of Brahman from the perspective of the Trinitarian Saccidananda. This mystery can only be known through revelation. Shankara did understand something of the Trinity in Unity, but the true meaning of Saccidananda is given only in Christian revelation. The fundamental problem that Upadhyaya has to face is that of the origin of the second and third persons of the Trinity. How can a God who is 'unrelated' (nirguna) have a Son? What is the inner meaning of the traditional expression "eternal generation"? It finds its solution, like the Dream, in the nature of Brahman as Feeling, Thinking, and in the fact that though God is "not related without," yet He may be "related within." God, existing from eternity, has self-knowledge, and the origin of the Cit-Logos, which is also eternal, is to be found in this self-knowledge of God. He feels that the Vedantic teaching of God as Saccidananda is true and useful as far as it goes, but that it reaches its culmination, its 'ultimate', only in the full Christian doctrine of the Trinity given to the Church by revelation. [3]
Christ the God-man and Logos/ his teachings about the person of Christ: Christ is the image of God (Brahman) and in Him dwells the eternal Word (intelligence, Feeling), the fullness of the Godhead. In the refrain, victory (jai) or glory is attributed to Him who is the true God Nara-Hari ("Man-God"). He is infinite, bearer of the universe, and yet born of a virgin; though 'infinite in being' (nirguna), yet it is also 'with relations' (saguna) and thus personal and knowable.
His work is also described. His deeds are holy, showing the essential connection between God and morality, and here perhaps the contrast with the deeds of Krishna is implied. He pours out his life for others, in agony of soul he gives himself as a sacrifice, one who is both priest and victim. In language reminiscent of the Saiva story of Shiva drinking poison to save the world, we are told how Christ destroys the poison of sin, himself drinking the bitter cup to the bottom so that he can win the victory over death, destroy fear and overcome Satan, the spirit of evil . And in all this we see only His love 'Tender, beloved, comforter of the human heart'.
When Upadhyaya attempts
a closer definition, he is perhaps less successful, but his way of describing
how the divine and human are related in Christ is completely God and all
people, "transcendent image of Brahman" and "son of purity".
Virgin' and to express this fact of two natures united in one Christ he often
uses the name Nara Hari or 'Man-God' for himself. The second element of the
word, Hari, is actually a proper name used for the god Vishnu, and for this
reason many Christians have taken exception to the Brahmanbanhab using it in
this way.[4]
Creation and Maya:
The problem of Creation, the relation of the created world to God, the many to the One, is perhaps the most difficult in Indian philosophy. The Mahavakya of Vedanta, tat tvam asi, with its statement "thou art that," postulates the identity of the believer and ultimately of all creation with God, Brahman. We ourselves, like the world, are a part of Brahman, and the goal of religion is to get rid of our ignorance, Avidya, which is a product of Maya, through knowledge, Jnana, and thus realize our true identity. with Brahman.
In his early days, Upadhyaya felt that it was impossible to use Sankara's Advaita as a tool of Christian theology. However, later realizing that Sankara's system represented Hindu thought at the highest level, at least in the minds of most Hindus, he decided to make an effort to use Adviata as the philosophical basis of the system he felt called to establish. The greatest problem he faced was that of creation, and he tackled it boldly by giving a new and original interpretation of Sankara's teachings on Maya.
Maya is something more
dynamic than mere illusion. It is the divine power through which the finite,
created world comes into existence. Upadhayaya thus goes a step further in line
with traditional Hindu terminology and characterizes maya by the name shakti or
force. He wrote: “Maya. . . It is a divine power that causes many people.
. He is eternal but his
work is not necessary for God to exist. Thus non-being becomes being... it is
indeed Maya.”[5]
Avatara or Incarnation:
The word Avatara comes from a root meaning "to descend" and according to Vishnu tradition, Vishnu descends as an avatara like Rama and Krishna. The Upadhayaya view is that there is only one incarnation, that is Christ, because he is unique and God Himself is in him. He further said that Krishna appears only in time and space, apart from that He has no incarnation. In other words, he belongs to the realm of maya and Christ is outside of maya. Upadhayaya said 'Christ is like the sun and Krishna... the juicy ball.'
There is no doubt that
the Upadhayaya gives Hindu theism both Advaita and personal theism—considerable
validity in its own field. He fears that the reality of the religious
experience of millions of Hindus over hundreds of years should not be denied.
Yet for him, Hinduism is at best a stage on the way to something more ultimate,
and he finds the final stage only in Christ.[6]
Conclusion:
The Brahmabandhab uses
Hindu terminologies to explain the person and work of Christ. He was one of the
first Indian Christians to redefine what was meant by the term Hinduism. He
also did not vaporize the concepts, but tried to show that if Sat, Cit, Ananda
is the highest level to which reason or revelation can lead us, then it is only
there, and not at any lower level, that God is seen. and worshiped in Christ.
He also wrote extensively on almost every aspect of the Christian message.
0 Comments