Rev. Father A. Maximiadis
Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa
Chaitanya Mission
3rd Floor, Ma. Teresa Bldg,
1350 Espana Cor. Moret Sts
( Opposite UST ) Manila
Philippines.
Dear Swami,
Regarding: your booklet titled ‘Understanding Karma’, Published by Science of Identity Foundation, Sine loco, 1995.
I am writing to you in response to some comments you made in the above booklet. These comments include:
- Your excessive critical stance towards Christians.
- Imposing upon Christians generic philosophical questions, and assuming simplistic, unauthenticated replies.
- Your misuse of Christian Scripture as a springboard to project your version of ‘Orientalism’.
- Your misquoting Jesus to support the Hindu doctrine of ‘karma’, and ‘metempsychosis’.
I am curious to learn why you take such hypercritical, and judgemental stance towards Christians, whom you repeatedly refer to as: “so called Christians” (op. cit. 4, 9). This has the effect of discrediting their moral integrity in the minds of non-discerning readers. Your assumption suggests an incorrect designation of the word ‘Christian’. Are you suggesting followers of Christ have, since circa 45 AD (Acts 11. 26), been mistakenly calling themselves Christians, id est. for the past 1,955 years? Or is the term: “so-called Christians” a euphemism for those who disagree with your teachings? I would be interested to know the basis, of your assumed moral ‘authority’ in making such judgemental pronouncements. Also the criterion you employed, e.g., the ethical legal codes of Hinduism or Christianity. Furthermore, your definitive description of what, you consider, constitutes a ‘Christian’, “so-called Christians”
You pose the following generic philosophical, socio-economic question:
“Why is it that if God loves all of us – His children – we see so many disparities and disabilities?”
ibid. p. 4
You reply with the following dubious quotation, sine loco, anno, vel nomine, representing alleged replies by Christians:
“Many so-called Christian teachers who do not actually have the answer attempt to reply: ‘We can’t understand God’s dealings. It’s a test. It’s God’s will, you know’ and so on”.
ibid. p. 4.
Your quotation, after a sort, cannot be considered serious enough to warrant a response, except to acknowledge that it’s jejune, and clearly indicates that you prefer to portray Christians as intellectually incapable to take occasion, rather than seeking answers in the literature of the Church, exempli gratia: De Civitate Dei (Augustine), and Summa Theologica (Aquinas).
You denigrate Christians, by referring to them as “so-called Christians”, whilst making hotchpot use of Christian Scripture as a springboard, to advocate Hindu pantheism, to both rival Christianity, and to proselytize the unwary to your own form of ‘Orientalism’. I’m puzzled as to why you don’t rely upon the catalogue of Hindu sources, the Vedas and Upanisadic text, rather than misappropriating Judaic-Christian text.
“Προσέχετε άπὸ τϖν Ψευδοπροϕητϖν, οἵτινες ἔρχονται πρòς ὑμᾱς ἐν ἐνδύμασιν προβάτων, ἔσωθεν δέ εἱσιν λύκοι ἅρπαγες”.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves”.
Matt. 7,15 NKJV
You claim to have “disciplic succession…that began with God Himself” (ibid. p. 30). Your teacher, Bhaktivedanta, made the same claim, as well as his supposed ‘disciplic succession from the 15th-century Indian mystic Chaitanya’ . These claims by you and your teacher are extravagantly fanciful. Neither of you have been able to support these claims empirically by historic method, and unable to do so due to Hinduism’s perception of itself as independent of historic method (Weber, The Religion of India , 1958). And furthermore, aggressive, and highly commercialised missionary activities are completely foreign to the Hindu tenet of not seeking to proselytize others (Giddens, A. Sociology, 1989).
You claim to be “distinct from the (a) teacher of a particular sect, (or) religion…”(ibid. p. 30) is a gross misrepresentation. You are quite clearly not “distinct” from “a particular sect or religion” because you are “…the initiated disciple of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami” (ibid. p. 30), founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, in 1966, which is a sect linked by a few general beliefs and practices claiming to be based on classical Hinduism.
Secondly, throughout your booklet, you promote your own form of ‘Orientalism’ based loosely upon Hindu religious beliefs and doctrines you inherited from Bhaktivedanta. These include: ‘metempsychosis.’ the supposed transmigration of the soul of a human being or animal at death into a new body of the same or a different species. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English 1990, p. 746), and ‘karma’ (the sum of a person’s actions in previous states of existence, viewed as deciding his or her fate in future existences (ibid. p. 645)). These doctrines are polytheistic key features of Hinduism, and therefore quite apart from the monotheistic beliefs of Christianity. In these circumstances, how can you lay claim to be a “teacher of the whole world”, “distinct” from “a particular sect or religion”.
4. You make the following assumption regarding Christians with the following:
“They (Christians) cannot satisfactorily answer this question (transmigration),” (and) In reality, the answer is quite simple”.
ibid . p. 4
You yourself fail miserably in providing a “quite simple answer” by making an appalling sidetracking attempt by superinducing polytheistic Hindu beliefs of ‘metempsychosis’ and ‘karma’ into Christian text by your flippant, inept; and erroneous ‘quotation’ of Jesus:
“As you sow, so shall you reap”.
ibid . p. 6
Your quotation of Jesus is pure conjecture and unsupported in The New Testament. The only record of Jesus’ discourse having mentioned the theme of ‘sowing and reaping’ was on the occasion of the ‘Sermon on the Plain’ near Kefar Nahum (Matt. viii: 1, 5) where he said:
“ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τά πετεινά τοῡ ούρανοῡ ὅτι ού σπείρουσιν ούδὲ θερίζουσιν ούδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς άποθήκας, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά. Οὐχ ὑμεϊς μᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτϖν;”
“Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”
Matt. vi: 26, NKJV.
This particular metaphor is quite clearly concerned with anxiety not exceeding minimal level of existence, and is quite unrelated to your discussion on the ‘law of karma’ , and ‘metempsychosis’ to boot .
I suggest that your following proposition on human suffering is naïve, sophistical, and anti-intellectual.
“It is not God that arbitrarily chooses to make you poor and another person rich, to make your body diseased and your neighbor’s healthy, etc. It’s not God Who’s doing it but you”.
ibid. p. 5
Your proposition focuses solely upon the human endogenous factor, and omits the exogenous effects upon human life, thus placing the responsibility of poverty and suffering on the individual.
Your proposition helps to justify, maintain, and uphold the ruthless exploitative ancient Hindu social stratification system (casta). This stratification concept found other expressions off the Indian subcontinent, exempli gratia , the southern states of America where blacks and whites were segregated prior to and following the Civil War (1861-65). And in Germany during World War II (1939-45), where the concept took expression in the ‘elimination of European Jewry’ which was initialized into legislation in 1941; and resulted in the loss of 19,000,000 Gentiles, and 6,000,000 Jews.
Do you expect your readership to unquestioningly accept this inhumane system? And do you also expect them to accept that these 25,000,000 victims were responsible for what happened to them from 1939 to 1945?
You restrict the discussion to God and the individual: “It’s not God Who’s doing it but you” (ibid. p. 5), whilst muting aetiological considerations, e.g., war, droughts, famine, dictatorial and totalitarian governments, social injustice, inequitable distribution of wealth; all of which are beyond individual control.
You condemn victims for the actions of perpetrators. You condemn highly exploited victims of cheap labour. You condemn those suffering from tuberculosis, blindness, malnutrition and starvation. You condemn the harassed Harijan (the untouchables). You condemn both adults and children who die from dysentery. You condemn the intellectually and physically disabled; Is this what you expect an intelligent readership to believe?
You misappropriate Christian Scripture to make the innocent guilty. You misappropriate Christian Scripture to cruelly make the innocent guilty of “disparities and disabilities”. (ibid. p. 4) You advocate the Hindu doctrine of ‘karma’, which supports and maintains the ‘casta’ system. The doctrine of ‘dharma’ subjugates the powerless to the control, and exploitation, by the politically most powerful castes. Do you expect your readers to gullibly believe that Christian Scripture supports this exclusivistic, anti-egalitarian system?
The doctrine of ‘karma’ – the sum of a person’s actions in previous states of existence, viewed as deciding his or her fate in future existences (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 1990, p. 645), is a veiled threat to the powerless to remain subjugated to the rich and powerful (or law of ‘dharma’) to prevent successive deaths and rebirths (Meillaissoux, Economy and Society, 1973).
These are the plain facts, as I see them. ‘Metempsychosis’ is unmistakable characteristic of the Asian religions: Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. Your sophistical rhetoric, and misappropriation of Christian Scripture, is not going to change that. Quite simply, ‘metempsychosis’ is unsupported in the canons of Judaic and Christian text (and the Talmud); as well as the Vedas (1500-800 BC). In fact, the concept of ‘metempsychosis’ was unknown on the Indian subcontinent until it first appeared in the Chāndogya Upanishad (5,10); between 800 and 300 BC.
Furthermore, it is quite clearly at outs with Judaic and Christian beliefs and doctrines since it was severely opposed by Rabbinical authorities (Ausubel, N. The Book of Jewish Knowledge, 1964), and the Christian Church. It was attacked by Augustine (circa 400), and the Christian philosopher Aeneas of Gaza (circa 500). An anathematization was declare in an Pronunciamiento issued at the Second Council of Constantinople (553), as well as the Councils of Lyons (1274), and Florence (1439). The Christian position on ‘Metempsychosis’ is quite clear, and has been so for the past 1,600 years. In these circumstances it is quite evident that your propositions are totally misplaced.
In conclusion, I invite you to refute any of the arguments I have put forth. In the event of not receiving a reply to this registered letter, it will be safe for me to assume that you are unable to support any of your propositions, as outlined above; and that all my arguments are correct.
Rev. Father A. Maximiadis.
Tuesday 7 November, 2000.
NO REPLY