CHAPTER THREE
TWO
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS:
The inculturation of Alberionian Christology based on Jesus Christ as Master, Way, Truth and Life, in dialogue with Asian traditions of the spiritual master, cannot ignore the development of guru Christology in Indian Christianity. It has been described as the attempt—spanning several centuries—to use the Hindu concept of guru as a christological model, as a way of understanding the figure of Jesus Christ from an Asian perspective. There seems to be no equivalent attempt in Buddhism to evolve a bodhisattva Christology, although there is great respect for Christ in Buddhist circles, and he is regarded as an outstanding teacher. The Buddhist-Christian dialogue runs along other lines.
Even in Hinduism there are differences in the way of envisioning the figure of the guru. The following presentation of guru Christology owes much to M. Thomas Thangaraj;[1] his work is one of the pivotal sources for the project as a whole. Thangaraj confines his study of guru Christology to the Saiva Siddhanta concept of guru especially in Tamilnadu, with references made also to Vishnavite thought when necessary.
Thangaraj classifies his analysis into five areas: hymnology, apologetic discourse, theological discourse, narrative discourse, and pictorial representations. The focus of this presentation will be on the first four areas, since the analysis of the last area is not as developed as the others, according to Thangaraj: “it is difficult to come to any definite conclusions regarding the christologies that inform the various paintings.”[2] Aside from being dressed like a guru, Jesus exhibits various poses or gestures (mudras, taken from Indian classical dance) that recall the functions of the guru: the Abhaya mudra (refuge-giving gesture), the varada mudra (boon-conferring gesture), and the jnana mudra (wisdom-granting gesture). “The discussion of pictorial or artistic expressions leads us merely to the observation that the christological use of guru finds its place in Indian paintings as well.”[3]
The repeated use of guru as a title for Christ can be noted from the nineteenth century onwards, when Christian Tamil poets began to write indigenous hymns. These became a necessary element of Tamil Christian worship and were the Christian equivalent for bhakti, i.e. “loving devotion,” the popular, most widespread form of religiosity in India. In these hymns, free and frequent use is made of guru in respect to Christ. One example may be given:
O! Thou true guru, Christ, the true guru!
Life-giving Word, the guru!
The good guru of eternal joy!
Heavenly golden guru! Lord![4]
It must be noted, however, that the title of guru applied to Christ is but one of various other titles. The meaning of the term is not unpacked, nor is it used as an alternative to avatar by those Christians who had been converted from Vaishnavism. Moreover, it is not applied exclusively to Christ; it is also used for the Holy Spirit, and for pastors and priests.
In the area of apologetics, guru is clearly used to express and uphold the decisive importance of Jesus Christ. Apologists affirm that Jesus, not Siva, is the true guru. Thangaraj quotes from The Dawn of Wisdom, a Tamil apologetic tract, which takes the position that the Saivite understanding of guru is inadequate and that only Jesus has the genuine qualities of the real guru which are: “divinity, humanity, truth, miraculous power, generosity, meekness, patience, love, mercy, devotion to God, faithfulness to the Scriptures, omniscience, and compassion toward all living beings.”[5]
Another tract, Hinduism’s Own Witness,[6] classifies guru into two kinds: the kariya guru, who works for egoistic motives and lays stress on rituals and ceremonies, and the karana (instrumental) guru who seeks only to guide the disciple to perfection and oneness with God. “Jesus is the only karana guru who is utterly selfless, even to the extent of giving his life on the cross.”[7]
Another book, The Bazaar Book, written by an American, Henry Martyn Scudder,[8] asserts that the guru is necessary, and it is God alone who can become our real guru. Jesus then, who is “God-Guru incarnate,”[9] is obviously the only guru for humanity.
Whether the apologists are Tamil converts critical of the Saivite tradition from within, or non-Indian evangelists who take up a similar position from without, one flaw especially in the latter might be noted: a deep, well-researched understanding of the philosophical tradition of Saivism is sometimes lacking. Furthermore, the latter are not always free from an attitude of triumphalism and Western imperiallism.
It is in the theological area that one finds a deliberate attempt to examine the use of guru as a christological model. It is done by both Hindu and Christian thinkers. Some of the Hindus embraced Christianity; others did not but remained open to interreligious dialogue.
Among the non-Christian Hindu thinkers are Raja Rammohan Roy, Mahatma Gandhi, and Sri Parananda. All three of them view Jesus as Teacher. Roy and Gandhi value his teachings as eminently suitable for a reformed humanity, as a guide to peace and happiness. Both emphasized the teachings rather than the person of Jesus. Parananda wrote commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John and calls attention to Jesus as “Teacher of the Universe,” identifying him with the Logos. But he does not believe in the incarnation.
Christian theologians who use the idea of guru to explain the significance of Christ go all the way back to the seventeenth century with Roberto de Nobili, an Italian Jesuit missionary, to John Chettimattam and Xavier Irudayaraj, both Indian Jesuit theologians of more recent times. Other theologians, all of them Indian, are V. Chakkarai, A.J. Appasamy, and Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya.
De Nobili was a pioneer of guru Christology. He presents Jesus as tivviya guru (divine guru), sarguru (true guru), tevaguru (God-guru), using as starting point the incarnation according to the Christian tradtion. This unique incarnation of God in Christ is to be differentiated from the Vaishnavite idea of avatar as the manifestation of Vishnu, which is, at least in theory, endlessly repeatable. De Nobili would agree with the Saivite insistence that there is only one guru, Siva himself, acting in and through the human guru; “just as there is ultimately only one guru for the Saivite, there is only one Christ for the Christian.” [10] However, as Francis Clooney notes:
It is necessary for
many reasons to reject the temptation to equate this view with de Nobili’s view
of the Incarnation. Most immediately,
it is a fact that the general theological and anthropological terms in which
the Saivite and Christian traditions express their soteriologies are different
enough to caution us against any kind of facile equivalence. Nevertheless it is possible that de Nobili
turned to this local Saiva Siddhanta theology when looking for terms in which
to explain
what the Incarnation was all about.
Portraying Christ as a guru
helped make the Gospel intelligible.[11]
The idea of Jesus as guru, however, makes him more than an ordinary teacher. It is Jesus’ teaching that leads the way to moksha or final liberation from human sinfulness, of which ignorance is a primary aspect. But as guru, he teaches not simply by words; his whole life is an exemplification of what truly saves. Thangaraj puts the matter this way:
… de Nobili uses the
concept of incarnation when he
discusses the nature of the person of Christ, and opts for “guru” in his
discussion of the function or work of Christ in the scheme of salvation. So de Nobili’s Christology is a combination
of incarnation and guru. At the time of incarnation, God spoke to the
soul of Christ, according to de Nobili, in this manner: “With body I am sending
you to the world. There going about as
a guru, show all men clearly by your conduct and words,
that they must renounce all that is sin and that they must walk in the path of
virtue so that they may attain the shores.”[12]
Roberto de Nobili did not find the Vaishnavite concept of avatar suitable to his Christology, but two Hindu Christian theologians feel that the concept is worth some attention, though as Christians they too do not equate the Christian idea of incarnation with avatar. Chakkarai, originally of the Vaishnavite bhakti tradition before he became a Christian, finds that avatar lends itself better to the idea of “a more intimate union between God and humanity which for him is a soteriological necessity.”[13] Appasamy criticizes the Saiva Siddhanta tradition for being docetic and for not going far enough in the development of its belief in a God of Love who, “out of His boundless compassion comes to the world to help his devotees. But it does not go further. The Christian belief is that love goes further. God identified Himself entirely with men. He was born as a child.”[14]
Like Chakkarai and Appasamy,
Brahmabandhab Upadhaya thinks that the guru
concept (whether Saivite or Vishnavite) is a good starting point for Indian
Christology, but is ultimately inadequate for a well-developed complete
Christology. He focused on Christ as
the Teacher Universal, which is implicit in the concept of guru.
J.B. Chettimattam brings out yet another facet of Christ as guru. He speaks from the perspective of Advaita philosophy which stresses personal and mystical experience, and for him Christ the guru is not so much an example as a living presence:
The most significant aspect of the Guru as applies to Christ is the effective divine presence it implies. Guru is a presence, an intensely energizing personal presence, or rather a supra-personal presence. For the Sishya the Guru is identical in function with God, because he opens up a personal relationship that embraces all persons in a single mystery of the supra-personal Absolute.
Thus Chettimattam finds Christ as the one guru who is “God’s decisive, eschatological, and soteriological presence to the individual.[15]
For Thangaraj, the theologian that more than others has attempted systematically to use the Saivite concept of guru for Christological purposes is Xavier Irudhayaraj. But his guru Christology is only sketched out, not completed. In his article, “Christ—the Guru,” speaking of a theology of the guru, Irudhayaraj suggests several approaches:
The divine character of the guru can be studied and its implications, including its incarnational dimensions, examined. This would be a speculative and dogmatic approach. Or one could compare and contrast the guru title with such biblical titles of Christ as Rabbi, Rabboni, Master, Prophet, etc. This would imply a thorough analysis of both the traditions…. We intend to pursue a simpler way, and offer certain observations born of Christian reflection on the Hindu theology of the guru.[16]
Irudhararaj then points out features of such a guru theology.[17] It would take into account the following:
1. the relational dimension of the guru;
2. the function of mediation that the guru exercises in terms of a new, divine existence for the sisya, so that the guru becomes “not only revealer but diviniser;”[18]
3. the fact that the liberation communicated is not only individual but open as well to the inter-personal, in the sense that the common experience shared by all the sisyas binds them as one;
4. the link between the personal guru-sisya relationship and the personal direct experience of Jesus Christ, Son of God that is opened up to the disciple.
The apostles, in proclaiming the Word, could not pass it on simply by speaking. Since the Word is a person, and no person can be adequately expressed by words, their witness had to be the communication of a Presence and the relationship with a Person. All Christians were to participate personally in the experience of Christ in the Spirit, and in the experience of the apostles.[19]
This experience of Christ in terms of the guru-sisya relationship then becomes the ground of the life of the Church, according to Irudhayaraj.
Finally, Thangaraj points out that Irudhayaraj moves beyond other Christian theologians who use the guru concept simply as a starting point for Christology.
Unlike the metaphysical (two natures and one
person: Chalcedon) and
functional (Scholastic soteriology)
approaches to Christology, the Guru-Sisya tradition inspires us to focus on the
mystical approach to the person of Christ, based on the experience of His
personal love and grace (since Guru is the transparently divine communicator of
grace). Such a complementary approach in Christology would help us to see that the
Guru-Sisya bond symbolizes the intimate and immediate relation between Christ
and the faithful…. Indeed Christ is the
Sad-Guru and the baptized are His
chosen disciples who must
always sit and listen at the feet of the Master and Lord.[20]
This stress on the personal, relational experience of the guru is the focus of autobiographical accounts written by Western Christians who have encountered Jesus Christ as guru.
While in India, Robert Van de Weyer met different Hindu gurus and then, as he writes in Guru Jesus, he “became a follower of Jesus, by regarding him as a Guru… as a supremely wise and happy man … [to whom I] gave … my complete and unquestioning obedience so that he could show me the way to wisdom and happiness.”[21]
Van de Weyer bypasses the question of Jesus as incarnate Son of God; his experience is centered on the absolute obedience that the disciple owes to the guru, the kind of obedience often found in the popular guru movements though it is not explicitly recommended by Saiva Siddhanta.[22]
The other autobiographical narrative cited by Thangaraj is Guru and Disciple by Henri Le Saux, a Benedictine monk better known by his Hindu name Abhishiktananda. Part of Abhishiktananda’s writings are experiential, and in fact, spiritual experience is the focus of his life-long quest for union with the Absolute, which he sought through the Advaita Vedanta[a] tradition. He also dedicated a good deal of theological reflection on this experience. In Thangaraj’s opinion, guru as Christological model is not dominant in Abhishiktananda’s writings, not even in the more theological ones.[23] But another writer, Catherine Cornille, in her more extended analysis of Abhishiktananda,[24] does not totally agree with Thangaraj. Part II of her book is entitled “To Jesus Christ through the Guru: The Experience and Reflections of Abhishiktananda.” Here she affirms: “It is from the surrender of a Benedictine monk (Abhishiktananda) to gurus of the tradition of Advaita Vedanta that the most radical reflections on Christ as guru have emerged.”[25]
Abhishiktananda’s constant struggle both on the experiential and the reflective planes, to grasp Christ and the Christian tradition through the categories of Advaita Vedanta and the guru system, is a prime example of radical inculturation. Whatever one may think of the conclusions that he reached, his commitment to this journey makes him one of the pioneers of the inculturation of the Christian faith in India.
While it is outside the scope of this project to dwell at length on what is treated in Cornille’s analysis, several points are important to note.
1. Abhishiktananda’s theological reflections are not primarily systematic but experiential: his approach “was not so much an intellectual exercise as an existential struggle.”[26] The reflections bring us face to face with “the theological implications of understanding Jesus Christ through the Hindu category of the guru,”[27] keeping in mind that we are dealing here with a theology which engages the person’s whole life, based on a radical change of outlook that springs from experience.
2. Abhishiktananda’s journey involves entering into guru-sisya relationships with several Hindu gurus, not merely a study from without of the guru tradition. Only after that is he able to affirm that this experience “could become a hermeneutical key for understanding the mystery of Christ.”[28]
3. It is not only the experience of the external guru but of the inner guru or purusha that is a key to understanding Christ. It is in following this hermeneutical key that certain fundamental Christian beliefs about Christ are brought into question, including that which is the main stumbling block in the interreligious dialogue, namely, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
The rapid overview of the guru tradition and of guru Christology given above cannot be complete without a consideration of the actual guru-sisya relationship as it operates within the special community known as the ashram. The formative goal of this project requires a closer look at the structures and modes of interaction between guru and sisya, and the ashram experience provides that understanding. Cornille—the other major writer from which this doctoral project draws its ideas—has studied this reality in depth. She concentrates on Catholic ashrams as they have developed in India—on their goals and on their varied characteristics—as one of the expressions of existential cross-cultural dialogue between Christianity and Hinduism. In the process, Cornille brings up for comparison the Christian and particularly the Catholic tradition of spiritual master. The fact that Alberionian christocentric spirituality is rooted in that tradition makes Cornille’s study significant for this doctoral project. Again, one cannot enter here into all the aspects of her study; only certain affirmations pertinent to the project will be cited.
I. Just as the guru is only such in relation to a sisya that seeks him out to be enlightened and guided toward transformation, so the ashram does not truly come into being without the charismatic figure of a guru whose spiritual status is such that disciples gather around him. His spiritual authority flows from his qualities and the surrender of the disciples to him. The guru, then, is the constitutive presence and center of the ashram.
II. Every ashram, depending as it does on its spiritual master, is unique and autonomous. This is especially true of Hindu ashrams. Catholic ashrams, instead, do not enjoy absolute autonomy because they are in some measure also under ecclesiastical authority. They do not escape the tensions inherent in the relationship between charismatic authority and the institutional authority of office that have always existed in the Church.
III. In regard to the head of the Catholic ashram community, the charismatic human figure around which the disciples flock does not often adopt the title of guru as in the Hindu ashram. The prevailing idea is that the real guru is only Jesus Christ; the leader of the ashram is called acharya or teacher, master, and the term connotes a formative function. Sara Grant, the acharya of her ashram, describes her role in terms of facilitating the disciples’ spiritual quest by being herself a transparent medium of the Light.[29] The acharya’s role is not constitutive for the group but secondary and subservient to Christ the Sadguru.
Even when some Catholic ashrams call their human leader guru, the word is qualified with such terms as: karana meaning ‘instrumental’ or upa- signifying a guru who is near but submissive to the real guru, Christ. When the disciple surrenders to the human guru, the submission is not directed to him but to God who acts through him.
IV. The number of Catholic ashrams is relatively insignificant in the Indian context, and the total number of people that form the core groups of such places do not go beyond a few hundred. However. ashrams have been seen as important for the efforts to grow in the inculturation of the faith through their experiments in integrating Catholicism with Indian spiritual structures (practices, schedules, dress, food and the like), rituals and methods, and religious life-styles derived from Hinduism.
There are radical implications in the adoption of Hindu rituals within Catholic ashrams, which give rise to ambiguities, especially regarding the figure of the guru. While it is stated clearly that in Catholic ashrams the real guru is Christ, the Hindu rituals and practices adopted by these ashrams from their Indian counterparts are founded on the assumption that the human guru who heads the community has absolute status. Cornille says:
Any absolute
understanding of the status and the authority of the acharya or upaguru in
Catholic ashrams is theoretically denied, but in practice, rituals are adopted
which in the Hindu tradition presuppose belief in the absolute nature of the
guru. The Samdhyas[b]
are traditionally gatherings around a realized being. The receiving of the mantra in the initiation to yoga is based on
the belief in the extraordinary power of the guru, condensed in the mantra. Sannyasa[c]
is believed to be a state beyond all rituals and symbols, including the symbol
of
Christ. The one who initiates the
disciple to sannyasa is supposed to have already reached this state. The expressions of veneration of the guru[d],
however minor, are based upon the faith in the divinity of the guru. In
introducing these rituals within Catholic ashrams, a certain confusion may thus
arise concerning the status of the human guru.
While Christ is referred to as the only guru in Catholic ashrams, the head of the Catholic ashram
fulfills exactly the same ritual function as the guru in Hindu ashrams (Emphasis added). [30]
Catholic ashrams are aware of these ambiguities and have taken steps to modify some rituals aiming to make them more consistent with the basic principle that Christ alone is the guru, and that the human guru occupies a secondary place. The next chapter will take some of these modifications in greater detail, from the perspective of power.
V. The initiation to sannyasa, one of the rituals referred to in the passage from Cornille reported above, merits a closer examination because of its link to religious formation. Cornille points to Francisacharya, head of a Catholic ashram, who has adopted sannyasa as a way of inculturating formation in the Indian setting. The practice in religious life of structuring the formative process of gradual insertion into that life by passing through formation stages is carried out in terms of the stages of sannyasa. Worthy of note is the fact that sannyasa centers around the figure of the guru.
The one who desires to embark upon the religious life is first admitted as aspirant or sadhaka. This is a probation and preparation period of about two years. Then follows the state of brahmacharya. As opposed to the Hindu, but like the Buddhist tradition, Francisacharya views brahmacharya as a preparation for sannyasa. It Involves “austerity of life, abstinence, self-control, chastity and sanctity in a life of service of the guru, including the humble task of housework, together with the per-formance of sacred rituals.” After a period of brahmacharya which may last from six to about twelve years, the disciple may be found ripe for the final initiation to sannyasa.[31]
The Christian sannyasi needs to keep to the three observances of obedience, poverty and chastity. The vow of obedience is understood as to the Father, the Paramguru, through Christ, the Sadguru, represented by the human guru of the Catholic ashram. [32]
This chapter has tried to cover
salient points regarding two trends relevant to the theme and the goals of the
doctoral project. These two trends are:
guru Christology and the ashram experience, both within the
context of Hinduism, though parallels may be noted between Hinduism and Buddhism
regarding some aspects.
Guru Christology is the attempt—spanning several centuries—on various levels to explore the guru tradition as a way of understanding the figure of Jesus Christ using Asian categories, and as a possibility for creating an inculturated Christological model. What has been noted in the exponents of this position in the theological field, is that a number of them, Hindus as well as Christians, seem to use the guru tradition only as a starting point for an inculturated Christology rather than as the consistent framework for such a Christology. In terms of inculturation, the exploration especially in the earlier stages of Christianity in India was done with the conscious or unconscious intention of clothing Western Christian concepts with Asian garb to make it more acceptable. Only more recent theologians like Irudhayaraj and Abhishiktananda have tried the reverse process, entering into the Hindu guru tradition and then seeing what effect the categories of this tradition have upon the Christian traditional position.
Irudhayaraj has been unable to offer a truly systematic and complete guru Christology; the value of his work lies in his having sketched out areas that need to be explored for this type of Christology. Abhishiktananda’s penetration into Hindu guru traditions is profoundly experiential as well as reflective. This has generated tension and anguished soul-searching as he sees certain Christian categories shaken to the core in his mind as a result of the encounter between two world-views that in some vital aspects are radically opposed. This tension has not been resolved on the theological level and needs to be confronted through ongoing dialogue.
In regard to the ashram experience, light has been shed on the figure of Christ as guru, or more precisely, sadguru as it appears in the concrete lives and practices of the community of disciples who are drawn to him under this title. However, if the cross-cultural dialogue on the theological and reflective levels are marked by ambiguity, the same is to be said regarding the practical working out of the implications of “Christ as guru” through the adoption of guru-centered Hindu structures, rituals, methods and the attempt to adapt these to Christian categories, in the context of the ashram.
This author agrees with Cornille In the conclusion of her study, when she states:
The encounter between the Catholic and the Hindu tradition in India has given birth to the Catholic equivalent of the Hindu guru. Around these Catholic “gurus” Indian-style religious communities called ashrams have emerged. The notions “guru” and “ashram” are, however, foreign to traditional Catholicism. They are imbedded in a radically different world view, philosophical tradition and belief system, and they cannot be incorporated into Christianity without representing a fundamental challenge, both theologically and institutionally. Catholic ashrams and their gurus thus find themselves in a position of ambiguity which, however, may reveal itself as a healthy challenge and an opportunity for the church (Emphasis added). [33]
ENDNOTES
1 M. Thomas Thangaraj, The Crucified Guru: An Experiment in Cross-Cultural Christology (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1994).
2 Ibid., 85.
3 Ibid., 86.
4 Marian Upatesiyal, quoted in Thangaraj, 61.
5 The Dance of Wisdom, J.R.T.S.: General series, no. 38 (Jaffna: American Mission Press, 1841), 2nd Ed., 9 and ff. Quoted in Thangaraj, 66.
6 Hinduism’s Own Witness, part of a collection of tracts entitled Select Tracts (Madras: American Mission Press, 1842).
7 Ibid., 56 and ff. Quoted in Thangaraj, 67.
8 H.M. Scudder, The Bazaar Book or Vernacular Preacher’s Companion, trans. J.W. Scudder (Madras:Graves, Cookson and Co., 1869).
9 Ibid., 15. Quoted in Thangaraj, 67.
10 Francis X. Clooney, “Christ as the Divine Guru in the Theology of Roberto de Nobili,” Chapter 3 of One Faith, Many Cultures: Inculturation, Indigenization, Contextualization, ed. Ruy O. Costa (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 34.
11 Ibid., 33.
12 Thangaraj, 75-76.
13 Ibid., 76. Emphasis added.
14 A.J. Appasamy, The Gospel and India’s Heritage (London: S.P.C.K., 1942), 262. Quoted in Thangaraj, 78. Emphasis added.
15 J.B. Chettimattam, “Theology as Human Interiority: Search for the One Teacher,” in Unique and Universal, ed. J..B. Chettimattam (Bangalore: Dharmaram College, 1972), 186. Quoted in Thangaraj, 80. Emphasis added.
16 Xavier Irudhayaraj, “Christ—the Guru,” Jeevadhara, 2, n. 9 (May-June 1972), 245.
17 Cf ibid., 245-248.
18 Ibid., 247.
19 Ibid., 248.
20 Irudhayaraj, “Discipleship and Spiritual Direction in the Light of Tamil Saivite Tradition,” Journal of Dharma, 5, no. 3 (July-September 1980), 289 and ff. Quoted in Thangaraj, 81-82.
21 Robert Van de Weyer, Guru Jesus (London: S.P.C.K., 1975), ix. Quoted in Thangaraj, 82.
22 Cf Thangaraj, 83.
23 Cf Thangaraj, 82.
24 Catherine Cornille, The Guru
in Indian Catholicism: Ambiguity or Opportunity of Inculturation,
from the series: Louvain
Theological and Pastoral Monographs (Louvain: Peeters Press, 1991), cf 75 and
ff.
25 Ibid., 75.
26 Ibid., 76.
27 Ibid., 77.
28 Ibid., 76.
29 Cf Sara Grant, Lord of the Dance (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1987), 119.
30 Cornille, 180-181. Emphasis added.
31 Ibid., 176.
32 Ibid., 177.
33 Ibid., 197.
[a] This Hinduist philosophical school of non-dualism founded by Shankara in the ninth century focuses on the basic belief that the “ultimate and only reality is that of Brahman without qualities, nirguna Brahman… which is not different from the Self, atman… All perception of differentiation is based on maya…, illusion. “ Cornille, 206.
[b] These are spiritual peak moments of the day—just before sunrise, noon, sunset, and midnight—during which the community gathers for prayers and meditation around the guru, whose high level of spiritual experience is communicated to the disciple in those moments.
[c] Cf point no. 5 which follows this passage, for an explanation.
[d] Cf Cornille pp. 179-180 for an explanation of these signs of veneration which include guru puja or ‘worship of the guru.’
[1] M. Thomas Thangaraj, The Crucified Guru: An Experiment in Cross-Cultural Christology (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1994).
[5] The Dance of Wisdom, J.R.T.S.: General series, no. 38 (Jaffna: American Mission Press, 1841), 2nd Ed., 9 and ff. Quoted in Thangaraj, 66.
[6] Hinduism’s Own Witness, part of a collection of tracts entitled Select Tracts (Madras: American Mission Press, 1842).
[8] H.M. Scudder, The Bazaar Book or Vernacular Preacher’s Companion, trans. J.W. Scudder (Madras:Graves, Cookson and Co., 1869).
[10] Francis X. Clooney, “Christ as the Divine Guru in the Theology of Roberto de Nobili,” Chapter 3 of One Faith, Many Cultures: Inculturation, Indigenization, Contextualization, ed. Ruy O. Costa (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 34.
[14] A.J. Appasamy, The Gospel and India’s Heritage (London: S.P.C.K., 1942), 262. Quoted in Thangaraj, 78. Emphasis added.
[15] J.B. Chettimattam, “Theology as Human Interiority: Search for the One Teacher,” in Unique and Universal, ed. J..B. Chettimattam (Bangalore: Dharmaram College, 1972), 186. Quoted in Thangaraj, 80. Emphasis added.
[16] Xavier Irudhayaraj, “Christ—the Guru,” Jeevadhara, vol. 2, n. 9 (May-June 1972), 245.
[20] Irudhayaraj, “Discipleship and Spiritual Direction in the Light of Tamil Saivite Tradition,” Journal of Dharma, vol. 5, no. 3 (July-September 1980), 289 and ff. Quoted in Thangaraj, 81-82.
[22] Cf Thangaraj, 83.
[24]
Catherine Cornille, The Guru in Indian
Catholicism: Ambiguity or Opportunity of Inculturation,
from the series: Louvain
Theological and Pastoral Monographs (Louvain: Peeters Press, 1991), cf 75 and ff.
[27] Ibid., 77.
[31] Ibid., 176.
[32] Ibid., 177.
[33] Ibid., 197.