Given my scholarly interests in Hinduism, I had to post a link to this story about the conversion of a Reformed Christian philosopher to a form of Hinduism.
Pictured here are Krishna and his lover Radha. I take it that in Sudduth’s form of Hinduism Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. Other Hindus consider Krishna to be the high god himself.
There is much art celebrating the love of these two.
The story for me was a bit spoiled when I watched a documentary in which a Hindu, Indian man explained that (at least on some versions) Radha is married to another, and is Krishna’s aunt. Perhaps some would object that I’m not looking at it metaphysically enough.
In another famous episode, Krishna charms a bunch of cow-herding ladies.
I’m curious to read more about Sudduth’s conversion. How does one get from Calvin’s all-determining triune deity to Vishnu? I wonder if it is by way of fairly mainstream trinitarian modalism…
Myself, as I read Sudduth’s interesting narrative of his conversion I’m not sure where, i.e. with what sort of Christianity, he was starting from. I too have taught the Gita in an academic setting, but I have not had experiences like this:
Around 4:20am (Friday morning) September 16th, I woke suddenly from a deep sleep to the sound of the name of “Krishna” being uttered in some way, as if someone was present in my room and had spoken his name out loud. Upon waking I immediately had a most profound sense of Krishna’s actual presence in my bedroom, a presence no less real than the presence of another living person in the room, though I was alone at the time. I responded to this felt presence, first through my thoughts that repeated Krishna’s name (and inquired of his presence), and then verbally out loud by uttering Krishna’s name twice: Krishna, Krishna. I was seized at this moment with a most sweet feeling of completeness and joy. I felt as if Krishna was there with me in my room and actually heard my voice, and that my response had completed a process that began with his name within my mind. I pondered this experience for several minutes, while at the same time continuing to experience a most blissful serenity and feeling of oneness with God, not unlike I had experienced on many occasions in the past in my relationship with the Lord Jesus. It was a most profound sense of both awe and intimacy with God in the form of Lord Krishna.
I should add, and I think this is very important, that I felt I was experiencing the same God that I had experienced on many occasions throughout my Christian life. However, I felt like this being was showing me a different face, side, or aspect to Himself, or – better yet – a different mode of my relationship to Him. I felt a certain validation of my spiritual journey, both past and present. I had gone so far in my Christian faith, but it was now necessary for me to relate to God as Lord Krishna.
If I understand him, he’s saying that he conceived of Jesus as a mode of God – not uncommon among catholic Christians – and now he views Krishna as another mode of God, another way God is and appears. Well, presumably God can be and appear in uncountably many ways. As for me, since I hold that Jesus is a different self than God, I must reject that he’s a mode of God himself; Jesus isn’t a mode at all, but rather a self/person. But back to Sudduth:
After my journey to [the California ashram] Audarya… I can only describe my experience as one of being irresistibly drawn to Sri Krishna, overwhelmed with His power and beauty, convinced of his Godhead – in short overflowing with love for Him as the Supreme Personality of the Godhead, and through him love for all beings, as He resides in the hearts of all beings.
One thing I’m curious about is: does his present faith involve, as most forms of Hinduism do, worship of images? If so, how or why did he change his mind about that? I assume that as a Protestant he viewed idolatry as being forbidden by God.
Sudduth’s account is mostly positive, about his experiences and the charms of his newfound theology. But I guess his conversion must have a negative side as well. I take it he rejects the idea of Jesus as being the best, most complete revelation of the character of the one God, and as being a needed mediator between God and humankind. But if I understand him, Sudduth still believes in one God, albeit one who is related to the cosmos somewhat as a human soul is related to its body. This entails rejecting the idea of God as creator, at least in an ex nihilo sense.
Also, I’m guessing there is a sort of acceptance of mythical lore - something traditional Christianity has always eschewed. However, I do know that a good number of Hindus hold Krishna to be a historical person, as well as an avatar of Vishnu.
Update: more thoughts and a link from the Maverick Philosopher.
Loading ...
I thought the move east typically landed one in Constantinople.
Well, there’s East, and then there’s EAST.
“If I understand him, he’s saying that he conceived of Jesus as a mode of God – not uncommon among catholic Christians ”
I’m not sure where you are drawing this conclusion from, but every Sunday Catholics everywhere renounce modalism during the Mass:
“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.”
It’s unfortunate that you may have come across Catholics who either didn’t understand or can’t correctly formulate basic concepts of catechesis but modalism is certainly not a common belief for Catholics.
Hi Mike,
First, small-c catholics – this includes Roman Catholics as a species.
Second, yes, the catholic creedal formulas are supposed to rule out modalism – or at least Sabellian modalism, if not all kinds (this is unclear).
And yet, it is very common for theologians and somewhat sophisticated laypeople to be modalists. A common way: God is understood to be creator (Father), redeemer (Son), sanctifier (Holy Spirit). There’s no simple way to tell when someone does or doesn’t think this way, whatever they recite on Sunday. But they think, usually, that God is a single self who exists in three ways/modes.
As I e-mailed to Bill Vallicella (The Maverick Philosopher), his post, reproducing Dr. Sudduth letter, is missing an important pt. of sect. IV. I don’t know why. Here it is.
————-
True to its conception of God as infinite or absolute being, GV acknowledges that God is manifested in diverse ways and that God-realization (or salvation) takes on diverse forms. God is one, but we do not relate to Him in one way. Krishna means the “all attractive one.” He draws all people to himself, but in accordance with their own dispositions and tendencies. “However men try to reach me, I return their love with my love; whatever path they travel, it leads to me in the end” (Bhagavad Gita, 4:11).
Krishna is the all-attractive Absolute who is manifested in the different religious traditions of the world. There is merging into impersonal Brahman. There are also distinctly theistic experiences in which the self encounters a personal God. Some experience the personal God under the name “Yahweh,” others “Allah;” and others “Jesus.” The names are many; God is one. Of these experiences, some are awe and reverence experiences; some are more unitive experiences with varying degrees of sensed intimacy between the self and God. Some are combinations of separation and intimacy. GV acknowledges that transcendental consciousness (the aim of nearly all religious traditions) is in fact variegated in nature. There are different modes or degrees of penetration into transcendence. For Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the transcendental experience of impersonal Brahman is not the ultimate religious experience, however, it is a legitimate one and need not be discredited. It occurs when the individual spirit soul, the jiva, merges into the brahma-jyoti, (something akin to the aura or effulgence radiating from the body of Krishna himself). Similarly, those who worship Lord Jesus experience a mode of transcendence through a particular divine incarnation.
As Swami Tripurari has stated:
“Thoughtful, objective analysis reveals that all Gods are but partial manifestations of the same purusa, Sri Krsna, and all Goddesses partial expressions of the primal sakti, Sri Radha. Krsna possesses all attributes of divinity found in other incarnations as well as aspects found in him alone. There can be only one God, yet . . . he has many expressions of himself.” ~ Swami Tripurari (Rasa: Love Relationships in Transcendence, p. 71)
Just as there are different practices that produce these different experiences of God realization, GV acknowledges that how we experience God depends on different aspects of our own personalities. This seems supported by a substantial body of literature in western psychology extending back to William James. The religious impulse is deep in human nature, part of the imago dei (according to the Christian tradition), but it takes on various forms (not merely because of sin – as Christians would say), but because of features of our individual psychology and local culture. God doesn’t override this in the scheme of salvation, but works through it. Otherwise put, given human nature, it is not surprising that God should manifest Himself to human persons in diverse ways.
(5) GV maintains that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (the fons et origo of GV) is the combined manifestation of Krishna and Radharani. In the lila of the Srimad Bhagavatam, Radharani was Krishna’s consort and the highest caliber devotee. She demonstrated unparalleled, pure love for Krishna. It is said that Krishna could not begin to fathom the depths of her love for Him so he appeared in this special combined incarnation to taste the highest levels of devotion to Himself. I find this a wonderful image that complements the Christian idea of God taking on human nature to achieve righteousness for the sinner and to pay the penalty for sin for the sinner. It is most fitting that God would seek to experience the love of the devotee in much the same way that he would seek to experience the suffering of the devotee (in the person of Jesus). In Christ God suffers with us. In Chaitanya, God loves with us. In each case, there is an important identification between God and us. God tastes the suffering that distances us from Him and the love that brings us near to Him.
I think it’s important to underscore, mainly for the sake of my Christian friends, two points relevant to the relationship between my adherence to the principles outlined above and Christian theism. I do not perceive myself as worshipping a different God than I did as a Christian. It’s the same God under a different (and for me fuller) manifestation. Krishna reveals himself in diverse ways across culture and time, personality and life circumstance. Christians and Muslims are also bhaktas, though they cultivate love of God in a different way.
Secondly, the basic principles of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are logically compatible with a number of fundamental Christian beliefs: the deity of Christ, virgin birth, his resurrection, and the soteriological importance (even necessity of) his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. In converting to Vaishnavism I do not relinquish these beliefs but simply situate them in a different philosophical and theological context. That being said, I intend in the future to write on the subject of the relationship between the above aspects of GV and Christian theism.
For those who are interested in learning about the different Vaishnava traditions, I would recommend reading the online historical account here:
http://www.gaudiya.com/index.php?topic=history
As Sudduth wrote in the part I quoted:
“… the basic principles of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are logically compatible with a _number_ of fundamental Christian beliefs: the deity of Christ, virgin birth, his resurrection, and the soteriological importance (even necessity of) his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. In converting to Vaishnavism I do not relinquish these beliefs …”
Note my emphasis.
Note also the following. If one will object to Sudduth that the claim that “both Jesus and Krishna is (an incarnation of) the Lord” is incompatible with the NT or, say, the Chalcedonian Creed, then one should be also prepared to hear Sudduth’s counter-objection that such reading of the NT and the authority of the creed is spurious. (Actually, I’ve seen him to make this objections.) Not endorsing Sudduth’s position, just noticing a relevant issue. Of course, I’d like to see his reply to some intelligent, informed, and robust Christian historical apologetics, like that of Swinburne.
Finally, Sudduth explicitly acknowledges that there are conflicts btw his current position and what he calls “traditional Christianity.” Sudduth currently embraces panentheism (though not pantheism; cf. http://www.proginosko.com/2012/01/why-i-am-not-a-panentheist). And, it typical for adherents of GV to hold that Krishna, rather than Jesus, is the highest manifestation of God (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaishnavism).
Vlastimil,
Thank you for this! I’m sure the Maverick will make the correction.
This indeed clarifies things a bit; perhaps I’ll do another post later.
Gentlemen,
The correction has been made.
Dale, I have a post on Dolezal. James Anderson makes an appearance in the ComBox and mentions you. I would be happy to have your take on things.
According to one “reformed apologist” its Sudduth’s being a “self-destructive modern Christian analytic philosopher” that led him down this path:
http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2012/01/27/a-few-thoughts-on-sudduths-conversion-to-hinduism/
If only he did theology ahead of philosophy…er, wait a second, thinking about that is doing philosophy.