From Gary... The ways of God are beautiful!!!

Today was so busy that I am just now beginning to write my daily post. Don't misunderstand- I wanted to write early, but I had things that just had to be done, and done first. So, here I am; after 6 in the evening, just starting my composition.  

I remember my morning prayer this day- one of the parts of it included a request for help in writing. But, then, what were all those delays about? Well, sometimes God answers, WAIT!!! And then I saw this beautiful picture of orange Roses.

Why did I have to wait? I guess only God knows the answer to that one, but there is a good chance that I would have never seen such beautiful flowers had I not waited.

Consider Job:

Job, Chapter 42 (WEB)

10  Yahweh turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends. Yahweh gave Job twice as much as he had before.  11 Then came there to him all his brothers, and all his sisters, and all those who had been of his acquaintance before, and ate bread with him in his house. They comforted him, and consoled him concerning all the evil that Yahweh had brought on him. Everyone also gave him a piece of money, and everyone a ring of gold. 

  12  So Yahweh blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand female donkeys.  13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.  14 He called the name of the first, Jemimah; and the name of the second, Keziah; and the name of the third, Keren Happuch.  15 In all the land were no women found so beautiful as the daughters of Job. Their father gave them an inheritance among their brothers.  16 After this Job lived one hundred forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons’ sons, to four generations. 17 So Job died, being old and full of days. 

Job endured throughout all his troubles and at the end of the book humbly turned to God in contrition. And God blessed him for this. We may never know the meaning of why God puts obstacles in our way, but then, that is not necessary.  What we need is faith enough to trust God, that in the end, HE who loves us will work things out- and do it beautifully.

And HE did!!!

ps.  Enjoy the flowers!!!!

From Jim McGuiggan... I'm bitterly disappointed in God

I'm bitterly disappointed in God

There's nothing magic in what follows and it's no "cure" for all our ills. I don't think there's anything profound in it. I'm just another person who has given some sustained thought about the God of the Bible and the suffering of the human family and feels the need to speak about it. I once heard an OT professor say we shouldn't talk about such matters; we should just get involved in the lives of people and help sustain them in their need, showing compassion and giving practical help where we can. But, bless me, most of the real sufferers I've come across in life want to talk about such matters. If speakers or authors don't bring the subject up the sufferers do and, in fact, Kushner was close to correct when he said that's all they want to talk about. The OT is filled with "why?" because people believed God had made a commitment to them and it looked like he hadn't been faithful to it. To say we shouldn't talk about it is astonishing, especially from an OT scholar.
People hanging by their thumbs don’t make good listeners and people who want to make students out of people hanging that way have their work cut out for them. So offerings like this should be modest in their expectations and they can only sensibly be addressed to people who aren’t in the throes of agony. People in agony don’t want “explanations” (good, bad or indifferent)—they just want the pain to stop or the crisis to be averted!
That makes sense but for millions it isn’t going to happen! And maybe you who are reading this will be one of those millions.

The Bible versus life’s harsh realities

If you read the Bible you have to come away thinking that God is supremely interested in the life of each one of us. Then there are those scattered but critically situated texts about prayer that seem to assure us that God hears our every prayer and that he will grant what we ask. Add to that the mass of books, written by people who say they are speaking for God, that assure us that our reading of the Bible is accurate. (“No, you haven’t misunderstood it; that is what it says.”)
So here comes Francois who wrestles with that way of reading scripture and those claims made by confident authors, because the texts and the books by cheer-filled authors don’t square with the realities he and a host of his friends and acquaintances meet in life.
The choice seems clear: believe the Bible and act blind, deaf and dumb when life crushes texts or believe pitiless life and have the courage to scrap the Bible and all these books.
Getting as much as you can of what you want
Of course, masses of us couldn’t care less. We’re off to the bars, the partying, the fishing, the travel or television re-runs in a comfortable chair with a good lie-in on Sunday mornings. We're too busy working five days a week or raising kids or both (and more) to want to bother. But there’s a host of people that work equally hard and face important responsibilities in life and they care if God exists and they care if the Bible is believable or not.
No simple answers
I’m one of those that think the Bible tells us the truth and that the harsh realities of life also tell us truth. I think our difficulties are the result—in part—from our inability to understand both life and scripture.
Our difficulties will always be with us and no one, not even God himself, can soothe our raw emotions and ease our mass of exposed nerve-endings. Bless me, if a couple of thousand years ago the psalms and the prophets are filled with protest and people asking for explanations what would make us think we’d come across simple answers?
It isn’t “explanations” we want
It isn’t that God hasn’t spoken clearly; it’s that he speaks to sinful and hurting people and it’s hard for people like us to hear even if Jesus himself is talking. People hanging by their thumbs aren’t the best students. But we’re not all in such torment that we’re incapable of reflecting and listening. As pained as Francois is he still asks questions and levels his protests. Some poor souls don’t have the time or energy to do even that. They only have the time to crawl into some hiding place before the Darfur rapists and murderers come around again; in Zimbabwe they only have the time to dig in the ground for mice and roots to feed their family and keep it alive or in some parts of Haiti they cook and eat soil. And nearer home vile people do the unspeakable to the defenseless who don’t want “answers” and wouldn’t understand them if you offered them; they just want someone to put a stop to their torment. There are some tortured souls whose experience is so extreme that we feel even to speak is obscene so we look at them—speechless. But for those whose lives are hard but not so hard that they can’t ask questions the wrestling is legitimate and warranted even though the gallant suffering of many around them makes the questioner wonder if they aren’t wimps to moan and lament.
Is the God of the Bible a heavenly sweetheart?
God has spoken clearly! He hasn’t spoken clearly on every conceivable question. He has said enough for us to work with. We don’t like the fact that God hasn’t spoken on every question we would like to ask, and that’s understandable. But I think that’s only part of a part of the problem. We don’t like it that he hasn’t said enough but we like even less much of what he has said.We go through and pick out the things that please and assure us and pay little or no attention to what he has said that we don’t want to hear.
But it’s worse than that. We who say we speak for himdon’t like a lot of what he says. What’s more, we’re not prepared to say many of the things he has said and said plainly. We come across people who don’t like much of what they hear in scripture and we hurry to assure them that that isn’t what the scriptures say. “Oh, no, God wouldn’t say something like that!” we tell them. We meet people who don’t like what they see in life and we hurry to assure them that God has nothing to do with things that are unpleasant. We who say we speak for God and scripture tell some biblical truths and rework the rest so that it suits the critics or the peeved or ourselves. We speak some truths about life and “explain” the rest in an attempt to please everyone but the God we say sent us to speak for him. We present “a biblical” picture of God and how he relates to the human race that is neither true to the whole counsel of God or life as it comes to us.
Some of the disappointment, desperation and pain (or at least their intensity) that suffering people endure rises because of the difference between their expectations and the reality they live with. We teach them to expect certain things and when they don’t arrive as promised they’re gutted. [You can see this in its most obvious form when people go to these big-wheeling “healers” and are diverted into a side tent or building and never get to see “the main man”. Or those that are bundled off the stage; assured that they’re healed when nothing’s happened and everyone concerned knows it!] I would guess that by far the bulk of the disappointment and pain that Western believers experience comes when the biblical promises fail—when God let’s you down.
Still, if we could just make sense of it
But here we go again, “explaining” why the promises aren’t fulfilled. Why doesn’t God just fulfill the promises and we wouldn’t need “explanations”? For those who have no time or interest in “explanations” the Bible has nothing to say, so you can be sure I have nothing to say and reading this is a waste of precious time. I can speak a little from my own limited experience and say that “explanation” has made some of my life much more bearable. I’ve known a little pain and disappointment down the years and even though I had explanations, now and then I’ve sobbed because the explanations didn’t remove the experience of hurt but they threw light on the hurt so that it didn’t consume me. Tens of millions experience that every day. If we can just “make sense” or get a glimpse of “purpose” it makes it easier to endure—easier but not always “easy”. If our child’s surgery is purely routine and he or she dies during it—we’re devastated, even more so than if we’d been told it was a touch and go operation. The husband or wife we love brings down the curtain on our marriage because we “cannot” behave—we’re devastated; but more so if they walked off without reason or explanation. Give us something to hold on to that makes sense and people are amazingly gallant.
I think we who talk for God and people have distorted the message in some really critical areas. I don’t believe that I have the answers for everything; I’m not even a minor verbal-messiah but I have deep convictions that enable me to work with the hurt that makes me weep; and they might be helpful to someone else. I struggle to speak to keep from saying nothing. They’re complex convictions that can’t be fully developed in a brief offering like this and you’d need to be patient even to hear them, and, then, having heard them you might well think them nonsense. But that’d be all right too; at least you would have heard them.

“Natural laws” are the will of God—don’t deny it

We speakers talk so much rubbish about prayer and create expectations that God nor Bible ever created. By the time we’re done talking God dare not say “no” or we’re sure he has proved himself faithless. That isn’t the biblical doctrine of prayer! Prayer is one of those massive and grand realities God has blessed the world with but it is one reality that functions within other larger realities.
The will of God is seen in what we call “the laws of nature”. It’d be foolish to suggest that he isn’t Lord of these laws but it’s equally foolish to suggest that they aren’t an expression of his will. The water that keeps us clean is capable of drowning us precisely because it’s capable of washing us. The fire that warms and cooks our food is capable of burning us precisely because it’s capable of warming and feeding us. Two cars meeting head on at speed results in injury or death—these are the “physics” of the matter. The “laws of nature” include the laws of personal development, including environment, relationships, neural pathways, genes and the rest. These “laws” are the expressed will of God. That God can work outside and above these is clear but that they’re his “normal” way of expressing himself is also clear; even when he answers prayer with a yes or no.
God can and does say “no” to personal requests
To say God couldn’t prevent a wreck (or a cancer or an earthquake) is nonsense but to say he must because we ask him to, that’s presumptuous. To understand a text of scripture to mean that whatever we ask for, God has already committed to give it to us is sheer nonsense.
Paul asked “three times” to have a chronic and gouging pain removed and God said no (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). Isolate the prayer from the context and we’re left with a perfectly reasonable request by a good man that a miserly and unfeeling Lord refused to grant, without offering a good reason. But look how the scene changes when we note the context that shows that a “no” to Paul’s request made perfect sense and that he was glad for the no when he finally understood. Yes, but what if we can’t see how a “no” would fit into a redemptive context? What if we view our requests as trivial compared with Paul’s and can see no good reason why they got a no? What if we’ve had “no” so often that we wonder if God knows the word “yes”?
God’s ceaseless stream of “yeses”
I find all those questions sensible and reasonable—and human. But they’re questions that come from (understandably) irritated and disappointed people who are ignorant of so much of God’s cosmic purpose. [Sometimes they come from people who care nothing for God or his purposes and who just like to hear themselves talk.] In any case, believers need to remember that we’re showered with “yeses” from God day in and day out. I’m not now speaking about people in extreme poverty and danger—even if they had the time and energy to read this—they’d fling it from them and sob for it all to stop; I have the rest of us in mind. Day in and day out God gives us blessings. Clean water, fresh air, a democratic government, health, a clear mind (with which to criticize him), friends and acquaintances, good education, decent jobs, warm clothes, homes, parents and a mass lovely things. He knows how to say “yes” but because we’ve had a lot of “no” and have to endure severe trials we tend to forget this.
The connection’s real even when we can’t stomach it
And when we say we can’t see the connection between our losses, disappointments, pains and God’s cosmic purpose we’re expressing only our ignorance—pained ignorance but ignorance just the same. But because we don’t know the connection doesn’t mean there isn’t one.  What if in bringing the human family to a glorious finale that “no” is one necessary strand of God’s way of working? What if he isn’t mad at you, what if he isn’t mad at anyone at that point? What if in the “land of the Trinity” where the redemption and glorification of a sinful humanity has been planned that “no” is as much a part of the way to life for the family as “yes”? In a wise and loving human family “no” is required for many good reasons. And “no” is required even to reasonable requests. Because children often have conflicting desires and needs, a “no” to someone is the wise and loving response. If only in this phase of living we had hope then every “no” would be magnified. If the final purpose was our being happy then every “no” could be a black hole that swallowed all.
If God was kind he would…
Yes, but if God’s kind he would prevent an injustice, a car wreck or a rape or a murder. Would he indeed? Did he prevent the injustice heaped on his own Son or the brutal murder of that Son? When the holy and obedient Son expressed his desire to avoid the cup, the Father refused to grant it. A kind Father would have exempted his Son from the cup! Would he indeed? It was precisely because he was a kind and holy Father who loved all the children he created that he wouldn’t exempt this unique Son from the cup. His “no” to the Son was part of his “yes” to all his created sons and daughters. Christ’s request was perfectly reasonable, it wasn’t that he was asking for a billion dollars in a Swiss bank account; agony was tearing him apart and he asked to be released from it. If we ignore the biblical Story as a whole, if ever there was a time when a prayer should have been given the green light it was then. If you isolate his request from the larger world and vaster purpose within which it occurredyou have a different prayer! Rip his prayer out of its cosmic, redemptive and holy context and it isn’t the prayer that was prayed in the garden. Place the prayer in the biblical context and the “no” becomes not only understandable, it becomes the only answer we can expect and the one we’re glad to hear.
What if it’s true that…
And what does all this prove? Well, for starter’s it proves that God can love supremely and say “no”. And what if it’s the case that his “no” to Jesus and his “no” to the followers of Jesus (and to his human family at large) on a host of occasions—what if they have the same nature and are part of the unfolding saving drama? What if his “no” to Christ and his no to us rise out of the same soil? What if we bear loss and pain as part of God’s redeeming agenda and method? Of course Christ is unique! But what he experienced isn’t unique—it’s because he is unique that what he shared with us in common becomes the redemption of the world. What if he continues to rehearse his suffering in those who are the body of Christ?
What if “no” to all the righteous women and men and boys and girls down the ages comes to focus and crowning glory in the no to the sinless Christ? What if it is part of the means by which God exposes sin, teaches utter dependence, bears the sin of the world and brings humanity to glory?
What if the pain and disappointment that the believers experience is nothing other than Christ filling up the cup of suffering that he is destined to suffer in and through his body? Compare Colossians 1:24 and Acts 9:4-5.

God’s “no” to a man who should have had a “yes”

Whatever Paul’s thorn in the flesh was it was causing severe distress (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). It was “to buffet” him and the word doesn’t suggest anything like “inconvenience”. The very reading of the text suggests that the distress and pain is enduring and in light of God’s response it was to last even longer.
Paul tells us he prayed to God about it and asked him three times to remove it. Three times might be literal and it might also reflect his imaging out of the Christ’s experience in Gethsemane. Imaging it; not in any slavish artificial way. And since he models his own life on that of Moses we will remember that Moses spoke to God more than once, asking God to let him into the promised land. We’ll recall that God told Moses the burden wouldn’t be lifted and that he was not to mention the matter again (Deuteronomy 3:23-27). We’ll remember too that in 1 Corinthians 9:27 Paul doesn’t wish to experience the rejection Moses experienced at the end of his life of service.
In any case, Paul prayed fervently and asked for relief. In saying he asked he used an aorist verb in the indicative. This suggests that his days of asking were decisively in the past; he did it back then and was done with it. The reason he was done with it is because the Lord (in this text probably the Lord Jesus) who knew all about being denied a request denied his request and gave him assurance.
When he tells us about the Lord’s response Paul uses a verb in the perfect tense. And if we allow it to function as a perfect tense verb then Paul hears the word of the Lord ringing in his ear even as he writes to the Corinthians. Back then Paul used to ask for relief but he put a stop to it. And he stopped it because the Lord said something to him that he hears even now as he writes.
Before we read what it was that the Lord said we need to note that for Paul it was decisive and satisfying. We need to note also that the man who was begging for relief was God’s faithful servant who was on the rack. Instead of rushing over that truth to get to another we need to feel for the depths of it.
This was such a person that we might have thought should get a “yes” to the plea for relief. We sort of feel that he “earned” it. This was the sort of person we would be especially eager to relieve and if the Lord has any compassion about him the kind of “compassion” that means something to us surely Paul’s hurt was a strong appeal.
Making it easy for God to trust us!
 But this was such a person that in some ways made it easy for the Lord to say “no”.Paul’s desire for ease was real and urgent because the pain was prolonged and severe. (Underscoring the obvious sound of the text, the lexical work and grammar make that clear.) But down below his strong desire for relief was something profoundly stronger; his hunger to serve God’s redeeming purposes. The situation here was such that relief would not have served God’s gracious purposes best and that more than he wanted relief Paul wanted God’s glory and our redemption in Christ. In this we find Paul going through his own Gethsemane. His Master too had longed for relief but below the hunger for ease there was a deeper and more pulsating hunger to do his Holy Father’s will. In this text Paul is finding part of what he longed for in Philippians 3, to enter into the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings. And listen, because Paul was that kind of man and because Jesus was that kind of Son they made it easier for God to say “no”. God knew he could trust them. They so responded to God that he knew he could trust them!
Is God heartless then?
Here is a section of scripture that urges us to believe that pain and loss delivered by the hand of some satanic messenger is made to serve the glorious purposes of God. Here is a section that urges us to believe that God looks at some among us and by the depth of their devotion to him and to the world that he loves God is free to say “no” to their fervent pleas for ease.
And it isn’t that God’s glorious purposes are heartless! The person and work of Jesus Christ bury that notion forever. God says “yes” to teeming millions of requests but he not only reserves the right to say “no,” he does it. Sometimes the no is at awful cost to the sufferer and it makes perfect sense that they would rather have a yes—how could it be otherwise? We’re dreaming if we think Paul always walked around grinning and didn’t at times double up in pain and wish the answer could be yes. Christ left the garden as faithful as he went in but you can be sure he came out trembling. No one waved a magic wand and pain and anguish vanished. There was assurance, explanation and comfort (comfort, and not mere consolation).
Job’s later word to God could have been: “You know, for a while you made it hard for me to believe in you.” God’s word to Job could have been: “Isn’t that interesting, you made it easy for me to believe in you.”

So should we just shut our mouths and obey?

So are we not to expect anything from God? Does prayer make no difference? Does what we need have no effect on God’s governing of human affairs? Does the fine print in the Bible effectively empty the more obvious words of their meaning?
Well...yes and no!
Should we expect God to provide for us? Jesus insists that God does provide for us whether we pray or not and even whether we believe in him or not. He sends the sun and the rain on both the evil and the good (Matthew 5:45 and Luke 6:35). [What about those places where he sends the rain on neither the evil nor good? It’s a good question but it’s for another time. I’m addressing those of us that have no experience of extreme poverty.] For those who are able and willing to believe what Christ said, God gives life and the things necessary to sustain life. Paul insists in Acts 14:16-17 and 17:25 that God not only gives to all nations fruitful seasons and times to be glad, he gives them “everything else”. Why this isn’t the present experience of every individual in the world is an important question but at this moment we need to settle the one we’re working with.
There are people who enjoy countless blessings of friendship, health, income, food, family, job, political freedom, education and more. Who provides these? Biblical writers insist that they come from God and Jesus, in the Lord's Prayer, urges us to believe that. It simply won’t do to look at life and say it in no way matches the biblical claims and promises. Yes, of course, there are many reasonable desires that we ask God for and don’t get. To say that is correct but to move from that to claim he gives us nothing makes no sense at all.
So, should we just be grateful for what we get and shut our mouths? We certainly should be thankful but he doesn’t speak to shut us up and neither should those that profess to speak for him. Philippians 4:6 and Ephesians 6:18 urge believers to make their requests known to God. Loving parents provide for their children and should one of them ask for something that is beyond the basics we wouldn’t expect to hear them told that they’re not to ask for anything beyond what the parents have decided to provide. It’s very clear from both scripture and life that God has blessed some people with more than others and it’s very clear that he has blessed them with a lot more than they need simply to exist. [He also expects them to share!]
God to Job: “You think you know what’s going on?”
I understand that some non-believers find that too much to swallow but then I’m not addressing non-believers at this moment. Those who are willing to give scripture a hearing will accept that claim. All right, it generates difficult questions even for believers but why should that surprise us? Just trying to figure out how to take care of the conflicting needs and wants of a small family can tax the brain and patience of loving and wise parents. As soon as you increase the size of the family, the urgency of their needs and the depth of their desire for some beyond-the-basic things everything is so much more complex and harder to assess. When it becomes a national family and you watch a government trying to satisfy the needs and wants of various sectors—if you’re fair—you begin to see the difficulty in providing. But more than that—again, if you’re fair—you know that the rank and file that are being represented by government are not able to see the difficulties involved in providing. I don’t say God sits wringing his hands wondering what to do. I do say that needy and acquisitive humans aren’t able (or always willing) to admit the complexities of the situation. Job, the wise man, knew he was hurting and so did his wise friends but they hadn’t a clue about the cosmic ramifications of what was going on.
“I want you to give me…” and “What will you give me?”
And then there’s this—and we don’t like to be reminded of this, especially when life has been hard for a long time—it just isn’t right to see our relationship with God as a one way affair where he does all the giving and we do all the taking. What if he asks us to give him something? What if he wants to use us to bless others and it means that it’ll cost us something?
He called on Joseph to serve him in Egypt and despite the boy’s pleas (Genesis 42:21) God chained him and sold into Egypt (Genesis 45:5-8a, Psalm 105:17-18). Joseph wanted to go home and God said no and sent him into slavery. If we didn’t know the whole story we could easily—and understandably—think this was another case where God shrugged at injustice and cruelty or wrung his hands in despair because he could do nothing about the evil that humans choose to do. But the Bible doesn’t see things that way. God’s no to Joseph was his yes to tens of thousands of others in time of famine and it meant the elect line was kept alive and finally led to the Messiah. God’s no to Joseph meant thirteen long years away from home but if you asked Joseph, the lord of Egypt, if he would rather that God had let him go back home instead of into Egypt he would have said “no!”
The Bible is filled with texts that believers avoid while they’re rooting out all the “assuring” texts. Amos 4 tells us explicitly that God sent drought and famine and pestilence and war on apostate Israel [in order to bring them back to him and to life] but what of the innocent children and the righteous men and women who didn’t turn from God? They suffered along with the guilty. God wasn’t punishing them but they got it in the neck just the same! What would we have said to such men, women and children? Well? When they said they just wanted the pain to stop what would we have said? When they prayed for their family to be exempted what would we have said? It was a bad request? They were just being wimps? That their pain wasn’t real and excruciating? A pox on that kind of talk! They were bearing and sharing God’s judgment on the guilty that he might bring the guilty back to life and God wouldn’t exempt them just as he wouldn’t spare his own Son (Romans 8:32).
God’s “no” to Jesus as his definitive and eternal “yes”
It’s true that in scripture prophets, psalmists, kings and peasants all cried to God in protest at the profusion of “no’s” without explicit explanation, but why should that startle us? They were just like us, bewildered and disappointed. The Bible wants us to understand that God understands our protests and feelings. But when you take the biblical narrative as a whole and have Jesus as the final “yes” to all the promises of God (2 Corinthians 1:20) then we have the normative teaching. In Christ as the “Yes” of God we hear that all that we rightly expect from God is being and will be fulfilled.
We will discover in the end that the “no” is a purposed part of the complex whole and that we to whom so many no’s were said are part of the redeeming vehicle. God eternally purposed to say no and then did say no to his own unique Son, though it led that Child to sob his heart out and feel as though he was being crushed to death (Hebrew 5:7, Matthew 26:38). If that’s true then surely we need to embrace his “no” as part of a glorious and ultimately life-bringing agenda.
And if we say he could have worked world redemption without a “no” or that he could have created a world and a humanity in which “no” had no place, just look what we’ve done! To keep us from having to come to terms with a long list of painful disappointments we want the whole universe constructed differently. And maybe that’s understandable too. But what if God has made the right choice? What if his way of dealing with humanity’s rebellion and bringing us to deathless life and unbroken peace is the best way? What if “no” really is what must be in a world of choosing, inter-dependent humans where to say “yes” to some means “no” must be said to others? What if God is honoring us by saying “no” to us and by that lays on us a burden that we carry for others? What if “no” is one of the essential elements in bringing about the final and profoundly satisfying “yes” from a generous and holy God whose agenda is infinitely more wonderful than our present complete satisfaction? Imagine him coming into your room, looking you right in the eye and telling you, “I mean you no harm. Trust me when I tell you that in a sinful world ‘no’ is only part of the final ‘yes’ to which I’m bringing you.” As sinful as I am and as selfish as I’m capable of being I’m still assured by that thought.

Simple answers to complex questions—always “wrong”

We make complex matters too simple. We feel God lets us down—in part—because we don’t really know what we’re asking or what’s involved in getting what we want. John is unemployed and prays God to get him a job. He’s thrilled when he gets an interview at Holsen’s Machine Parts factory and thanks God for answered prayer. Hmmm. Holsen is expanding at the expense of Fleet’s and they had to lay-off seventy-five of their workers. Peter worked for Fleet for twenty years and needed the job. He knew lay-offs were coming and had prayed that he would be spared. Peter and John go to the same church, pray to the same God for the same but conflicting things.
Rachel has been praying for a fine Christian husband for her daughter Mary—why wouldn’t she? And the newcomer to their church—Charles Petrie—is just that. Despite Rachel’s fervent prayers Mary isn’t interested in Charles and, anyway, Belinda Hathaway has been praying as well—why wouldn’t she?—and she and Charles hit it off. They’re planning to get married in about six months. Rachel wanted what Mary didn’t want and Belinda got a “yes”, which meant that Rachel had to get a “no”.
The national economy is on the decline, tens of thousands pray for serious improvement—why wouldn’t they? And it comes—in the exports sector. The national currency has weakened so outsiders can buy more from the home nation so all who work in that sector thank God for answered prayer. But because the national currency has weakened the imports industries have to pay more for foreign goods and materials and this rise is passed on to the rank and file in either wage cuts, job losses or price increases for the goods. Import businesses go under and the whole workforce is laid off. Huge numbers in the export trade gain and huge numbers in the import trade are squeezed.
Nations go to war. Families pray for the safety of their loved ones—why wouldn’t they? But their Tom or Ann is kept alive at the expense of someone else’s son or daughter. Those now dead sons and daughters were prayed for and while some families celebrate a homecoming other families mourn the arrival of corpses.
Raw power can’t cure everything
Yes, yes, but why does there have to be all this confusion and conflict of interests? Why doesn’t an all-powerful and all wise God work it out where no one is ever disappointed or hurt? Maybe if we were as wise as God we would know not to ask such questions! Some things can’t be fixed with just “power”. If God had a jillion times more power than he now has (and he has all power) he still couldn’t do some things. Not being able to make a square circle or a four-sided triangle has nothing to do with power! And if we had half a brain we wouldn’t set such tasks within a “power” context. God can't give a “yes” to both Rachel and Belinda about Charles and it has nothing to do with how wise or powerful he is.
Sinful and limited humans can’t be trusted with prayer as a blank cheque 
God’s wisdom and power and holy love serve an eternal agenda that takes into account our freedom to rebel against him, war against each other, be greedy and predatory. It takes into account that we are a single human family, inextricably bound one to another and who therefore affect one another for good or ill by our attitudes and behavior and desires. He has created us as one and means us to live in response to one another and he refuses to live our lives for us in a ceaseless stream of divine interventions that negate our humanity and responsibility toward each other. If he didn’t want us to live our lives he wouldn’t have given them to us!
If we don’t open our hearts to another way of looking at life we’re beat before we begin. There are tens of thousands every day and in every generation that are praying for the rich blessing and happiness of the whole human race. If all prayers got an automatic “yes” then no one would need to pray for anything because everyone would already have everything.
Don’t let anyone kid you into thinking that prayer is a simple matter. And don’t let them con you into believing that God has committed himself to say “yes” to every reasonable request. And don’t rob yourself by thinking that prayer is nothing more than asking for things. And don’t let life’s disappointment and pain lead you to be permanently angry with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Don’t let it become all about us wanting things and God being so stingy that he won’t give them to us. What if he doesn’t want to give them to us? What if he thinks it’s our turn to go without for reasons at present known only to himself? [Some of you who are suffering greatly must surely find yourself getting angry in light of such remarks. Get angry with me if you must but do your best to remember that you see him best in Jesus Christ and he would never treat your awful hurt as of no account. Trust him and believe that he will restore to you the years that the locusts have eaten—compare Joel 2:25.] What if the God who shed blood for us unto death in Jesus Christ is doing what is best for a sinful human family’s ultimate blessing? What if he came saying: “This is all too complex for you to grasp the whole. When the drama is completed you will understand and be glad that you committed to me in trust. I...will...not...let...you...down!”

What kind of God does he have to be to gain our commitment?

What kind of God must God be for us to serve him and rejoice in a relationship with him? This is a good and fundamentally important question. Whatever we say, we could not and should not worship a deity that is demonstrably worse than we are in our worst moments! If we have no good reason to believe he is good and if we have well-established reasons to believe he is cruel and capricious, we should renounce him. [We have a lot of people picking verses from here and there in the Bible to show God is cruel. We have a lot of believers who “explain” texts like that to keep God from getting bad press.]
Of course God could bludgeon us into saying worshipful things or he could turn us into automata and he’d get what he wanted. We would be afraid of him and grovel before him—if he tortured us enough he could make us do that but he could never get us to freely love and worship and enjoy him. I think the agnostic John S Mill took himself a bit too seriously but surely he was right when he said that God must be “good” in the way that good people are “good” if we are to praise him and love to be in his presence. If “good” has no meaning that we can recognize, then why would we praise him for being “good”?
So the question is a good one and an important one in the realm of moral philosophy but in the light of Jesus Christ in particular and the entire biblical witness as a unit it’s a redundant question. For those who commit to the truth about Christ the case is closed—God is good in the way that good people can understand goodness! [“If you, then, evil as you are know how to give good things to your children how much more does your Father in heaven…”] I realize that non-believers dispute that but at this moment we’re not dealing with non-believers. These remarks are addressed to disappointed and hurting believers whose questions arise precisely because they believe God is good. If they didn’t believe God existed or if they believed that he was cruel and capricious their questions about prayer and God’s behavior wouldn’t exist.
But even believers are tempted to debate about the kind of God they want to welcome into their lives. There are those who have trusted in God but because he didn’t or doesn’t respond as they think he should they have walked away from him. Oh, they’re pretty sure he’s still around; but what use is he if he doesn’t provide as they think God should provide? They too work with the question: What kind of God must God be for us to serve him and rejoice in a relationship with him? So the question remains a good one and an important one.
But the first question should be…
But it’s not the first question that should be asked! That question is asked from the creature’s standpoint and it’s asked very often from a selfish creature’s standpoint. A creature richly blessed but wanting more. The creature has become the center around which everything must revolve. Certainly it isn’t always selfishness that drives the question—sometimes it’s desperation and anguish but even then, it’s not the first question that should be asked! Even then that question comes from a human that sees him or herself as the center of reality. The hurt and anguish makes them their center!
The first question should be: “What kind of person must I be to welcome the only God there is into my life?” In light of Jesus Christ and the Hebrew-Christian scriptures God is good and has an agenda that offers fullness of life to a sinful humanity. As far as Christ and scripture is concerned it isn’t for us to make God in our image but for us to seek his image. He isn’t the one that needs to change.
So, that’s it, is it? God has all the power and we’re simply to knuckle down to him? We’re to grovel at the feet of the omnipotent bully that can out-talk and out-think us? No, that’s not it at all! We misunderstand the notion of “power” in relation to God and we certainly haven’t seen nor heard of Jesus Christ if we think God is an omnipotent bully. God help us, because we’re sad and lonely and hurt and high strung with anguish we want him to make the world work differently or we want him to change so as to give us some peace and longed-for joy. It all makes so much sense when we think we’ve taken as much as we can take. But give us some lovely days or weeks, give us some joy, some things that make us smile for a while and we know better. Ease the burden a while, give us a chance to gulp in some fresh air when we’ve been smothering, give us a few truths—especially if they’re embodied in gallant people—and we smile ruefully at God and tell him, “Don’t change. I wouldn’t want you to be unlike Jesus Christ. I’ll change.” [For a little more, click here.]

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

An Investigation of Hindu Scripture by Alden Bass, Ph.D.


An Investigation of Hindu Scripture

by Alden Bass, Ph.D.

The amorphous collection of texts that might be labeled “Hindu scripture” consists of millions of lines of text written over thousands of years in several languages. Known as the Vedas, the holy writings of India are central to contemporary religion, though their authority is in no way analogous to that of the Bible or the Qur’an in Christian and Islamic communities. Hindu scripture includes nearly every genre of literature, some hardly religious at all, and some incredibly irreligious, at least from a Christian perspective. Philosophical treatises, folk medicine, erotic poetry, and grammar tomes, as well as devotional hymns, liturgical manuals, and ethical instructions all find a niche in the immense and labyrinthine world of Hindu scripture. Most of the scripture was written by poets, priests, and philosophers, though some of the later traditional texts were composed by low-caste devotees. The oldest text, the Rig Veda, dates back to c. 1400 B.C., while the most recent authoritative works hail from the sixteenth century A.D. (though some accept as scripture the writings of gurus up to the present century). Vedic scripture includes the longest single literary work in the world, theMahābhārata, which weighs in at 110,000 couplets (seven times the length of Homer’s Iliad andOdyssey combined), as well as the sūtra literature, collections of aphorisms so brief that it is said that the author of such a text would sell his grandson to save a syllable.
Hindu scripture often is referred to collectively as the Vedas, a Sanskrit word meaning “knowledge” (from the root vid- “to know”; cognate to wit, wisdom). In one sense, Veda refers only to the most ancient writings of the Indo-Aryan community. This includes the four Vedic collections (samhitās): Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, and the Atharva Veda. The samhitās consist primarily of odes to the gods; most resemble biblical psalms. On the foundation of these four venerable collections rests the remainder of vedic literature. To each samhitā are attached inspired commentaries: the Brāhmanas, Āranyakas, and the Upanishads. Thus, there are four traditions (Rig, Yajur, Sāma, Atharva) and four categories of text (Samhitās, Brāhmanas, Āranyakas, Upanishads) in the Veda proper.
The historical origin of the Vedas is unknown. Internal evidence suggests that they were written by Brahmin priests sometime between 1500 and 1200 B.C., though the ethnic persuasion of those priests and the ideas they recorded remain a mystery. Similarities between rituals and deities in the religion of Vedic Hinduism and that of Persia and ancient Europe have led some scholars to attribute the composition of the Vedas to Aryan migrants from central Asia. Other scholars acknowledge the Aryan influence, but credit indigenous North Indians with the production of the Vedas. Theories abound, and the issue has been politicized and is hotly debated, but insufficient linguistic and archeological evidence prevents satisfactory conclusions at the present.
The hymns themselves hint at their historical source. It seems that many were composed by mercenary poet-priests for wealthy patrons: several Vedic hymns describe transactions between composers and clients. “With wisdom I present these lively praises of Bhavya dweller on the bank of Indus; For he, unconquered King, desiring glory, has furnished me a thousand sacrifices” (Rig Veda1.126.1). There are also prayers recorded for the well-being of the priests’ source of income: “O Agni, God, preserve our wealthy patrons with your succors” (Rig Veda 1.31.12). These hymns produced for individual patrons were probably then collected and edited by the Brahmin priests for use in the ritual sacrifice (Mitchell, 1897, p. 17). Over time, Vedas were assigned to different Brahminical families for preservation through memorization. The texts were transmitted orally for at least a thousand years before they were written down. Several methods of memorization were used so that the words and sounds would be preserved exactly; rote memorization was supplemented with complex mnemonic devices, such as ghanapātha (“dense text”), in which the order of words is ab, ba, abc, cba, abc, bc, cb, bcd, and so forth (Goodall, 1996, p. x). By this method, Genesis 1:1 would be memorized: in the, the in, in the beginning, beginning in the, in the beginning, the beginning, beginning the, the beginning God.
The Rig Veda is the most authoritative of all Hindu scripture, if not for its content, then for its great antiquity. The Rig Veda (“Veda of Hymns”) is among the world’s oldest literature—some scholars date its composition to 3000 B.C., though most estimate the final recension to have occurred in 1000 B.C. (Basham, et al., 1997, p. 522). Arranged in ten books, or mandalas, the Rig Veda contains 10,028 verses, and is about one and a half times the size of the New Testament. The six oldest mandalas are linked to six priestly families who composed, memorized, and handed down the hymns; books one, and eight through ten, are anthologies of hymns by various independent poet-priests, and were written later.
The Rig Veda resembles a hymnal more than a Bible. If pressed to compare the Rig Veda to Christian scripture, it would most closely parallel the Psalms, though without the historical and moralistic tenor. The Rig Veda assumes a common knowledge on the part of the reader as to the origin of the Universe and the identity of the gods (devas, cognate to divine and devotion), and, like our own church hymnals, contains no introduction or narrative framework to orient the reader. One could not pick up a copy of the Rig Veda and understand modern Hinduism or even the Vedic rituals without significant explanation.
The bulk of the songs in the Rig Veda are addressed to the chief gods Indra, Agni, and Soma as petitions for success in battle, protection, and material prosperity. This hymn addressed to the entire pantheon is typical of a vedic chant:
Not one of you, ye Gods, is small, none of you is a feeble child: all of you, verily, are great. Thus be ye lauded, you destroyers of the foe, you thirty-three Deities, the Gods of man, the Holy Ones. As such defend and succor us, with benedictions speak to us: lead us not from our fathers’ and from Manu’s path into the distance far away. You Deities who stay with us, and all you Gods of all mankind, give us your wide protection, give shelter for cattle and for steed (Rig Veda 8.30).
Though many gods are recognized (according to this passage, there are 33, but the number of names mentioned throughout the Veda exceeds that figure), each one is lauded as if it were the highest god, a phenomenon Max Müller called henotheism, and that some modern scholars call “serial monogamy” (Sarma, 2003b). These superlative descriptions inevitably overlapped, and in later passages the gods are identified with one another or with all. In time, the confusion led to the belief that the many gods and goddess were but manifestations of one indivisible transcendental Ultimate Reality. The pantheism of later texts is foreshadowed in a late Vedic passage: “To what is One, sages give many names—they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan” (Rig Veda 1.164.46).
At the heart of the Veda Samhitās lay the ritual sacrifice (yajñā). Like the Rig Veda, the Sāma Veda(“Veda of chants”) and the Yajur Veda (“Veda of sacrificial prayers”) served as liturgical manuals for the sacrifice; each of the three was used by one of the orders of Brahminic priesthood, a sacerdotal system similar in structure to the Mosaic system described in Numbers 4. The primary purpose of the collections of hymns was to “propitiate the gods by praises accompanying the offering of malted butter poured on the fire and of the juice of the Soma plant placed on the sacrificial grass” (Macdonell, 1917). The songs and chants and prayers of the Samhitās were read over the sacrifice as part of the ritual. Incidentally, the sacrifice was not performed for the atonement of sin, as was the Mosaic sacrifice, but to obtain magically the favor of the gods, and ultimately, salvation in heaven (svarga). The fourth Veda, the Atharva Veda (“Veda of the Fire Priests”), differs in content from the other three, and was not used in the sacrifice. Drawing on ancient folk material, the fourth Veda consists of spells against sickness, sorcery, snakebite, and bad dreams, as well as incantations to bring about love, good luck, rain, fertility, and a multitude of other things. It also includes instructions for wedding and funeral rites.
To each of the four Samhitās was appended a body of inspired commentary. The Brāhmanas (“exposition on the meaning of the sacred word”), the first layer of commentary composed about 900B.C., are prose descriptions and explanations of various sacrificial rites. Named for the Brahmin priests who wrote them, the Brāhmanas wax philosophical—evidence that the priests wanted not only to enact, but to understand, the rituals they performed. Unfortunately, any profundity in the Brāhmanas is undercut by rambling mythology and asinine digressions. In the introduction to his translation of the Brāhmanas, Oxford Sanskritist Max Müller railed:
No one would have supposed that at so early a period, and in so primitive a state of society, there could have risen up a literature which for pedantry and downright absurdity can hardly be matched anywhere...These works deserve to be studied as the physician studies the twaddle of idiots and the raving of madmen. They will disclose to a thoughtful eye the ruins of faded grandeur, the memories of noble aspirations. But let us only try to translate these works into our own language, and we shall feel astonished that human language and human thought should ever have been used for such purposes. (as quoted in Robson, 1905, pp. 23-24)
The Āranyakas (“forest teachings”) followed the Brāhmanas without introducing much new material. Their name derives from the esoteric nature of the texts—the mystic teachings were handed down from teacher to disciple in the seclusion of the forests. The Āranyakas reflect an increasingly abstract conception of the sacrifice—the literal fire of the sacrifice began to be internalized and symbolically represented as the “fire” of digestion and the “fire” of sexual intercourse (for the fully developed doctrine, see Chāndogya Upanishad 5.18.2 and Brhadāranyaka Upanishad 6.2.13). The Āranyakas transition almost seamlessly into the final layer of Vedic commentary, the Upanishads, between 800-600 B.C. These books are seen as the fulfillment of the Vedas, and consequently are known as the Vedānta, the “end of the Vedas.” The Upanishads are the culmination of hundreds of years of reflection, and are much more rationalistic than the Vedas and Brāhmanas. Their influence is felt even to the present.
The Upanishads supply the basis of later Hindu philosophy; they alone of the Vedic corpus are widely known and quoted by most well-educated Hindus, and their central ideas have also become a part of the spiritual arsenal of rank-and-file Hindus, while the earlier Vedic texts remain largely the special reserve stock of priests and scholars (O’Flaherty, 1988, p. 2).
Upanishads (“sitting close to a teacher”) are, like the Āranyakas, secret teachings transmitted from guru to student. Unlike the Sāmhitas (the function of which was essentially restricted to sacrificial rites) and the other two commentaries (which expounded on those rites), the Upanishads expanded speculation to the entire Universe, especially the absolute basis of reality (brahman) and the self or soul (ātman). The most famous teaching of the Upanishads is “that you are” (tat tvam asi), which means that the essence of the self is the absolute. An early Hindu sage illustrated this by pointing to a hive of bees collecting nectar. As nectar is collected from many different plants and reduced by the bees to honey, he explained, so all souls are part of the larger, indivisible essence of being (Chāndogya Upanishad 6.9). The Universe is within the self, and the self is the Universe. Those who know this essential truth possessed great cosmic power. The Upanishadic sages realized that this power of knowledge far excelled the power of the sacrifice: if the soul is identified with the Universe, then whoever controls their own soul controls the cosmos. Sacrifice affected the gods only indirectly, but esoteric knowledge was the key to omnipotence (Edgerton, 1965, p. 29). These books also contain the seeds of the doctrine of transmigration of souls (samsāra), the laws of karma that govern the transmigration process, mental training associated with Yoga, and ascetic renunciation (Olivelle, 1996, p. xxiii).
Together these sixteen branches of literature are known as śruti, meaning “what is heard” (from the root sru-, “to hear”). It was “heard” by inspired sages who received this primary revelation from Brahma, the Supreme Lord. As divine revelation, śruti literature is considered to be “eternal, intrinsically powerful, and supremely authoritative” (Coburn, 1989, p. 119).
Despite the aura of holiness ascribed to the Vedas, the majority of Hindus have little access to these writings; they are massive, technical, and written in an archaic tongue. Much more familiar to the average Hindu are the colloquial smrti writings, a secondary set of scriptures considered to be of human authorship and subordinate to divinely delivered śruti. “While the śruti texts have retained their authority as holy sources for Brahmanic ritual, philosophical speculation, and recitative mantras, the functional scriptures of the masses in India have been other texts, most of which are categorized assmrti rather than śruti” (Graham, 1989, p. 139). Smrti (“what is remembered”) explains and elaborates the śruti, making them more understandable and meaningful to the general population—it is an “easier” form of truth. A mythological story of the origin of the theatrical art describes the role of smrti:
[The gods asked:] “Since it is not proper that the Vedas be heard by those of low birth, you should create a fifth Veda for all classes of people.”
[Brahmā replied:] “I shall compose a fifth Veda, called the Theatrical Art, based on history, which will convey the meaning of all the Scriptures and give an impulse to the arts. It will give good advice and moral lessons, rich in meaning, that lead to good conduct, prosperity, and fame. It will show the line of proper conduct to the future world” (Nātya Śāstra 1.4.13-15).
Smrti texts were intended to simplify the Vedas for the masses, and to elucidate Vedic teachings in a practical way. Smrti was written for the people’s admonition, to illustrate dramatically through the lives of gods, sages, and kings the proper path of good conduct (dharma).
The Samhitās speak of salvation through ritual sacrifice, a ceremony only the wealthiest patrons could afford; the Upanishads refer to salvation through knowledge, an avenue inaccessible to all but the most educated men. Smrti offered scriptures and a means of salvation through devotion (bhakti) to people of all castes and both genders. In this category of scripture, Hinduism attained its most mature stage. Most prominent among the smrti texts are the Purānas, the Epics, the Dharma literature, and the Agamas, as well as other miscellaneous works.
Purānas (“ancient lore”) are narrative works in the itihāsa (“thus verily happened”) tradition, a mythistorical genre describing the creation of the Universe, the origin of evil, and a history of Indian civilization focusing on legendary kings, sages, and gods. Woven into the central narrative are various religious instructions concerning caste laws, customs, ceremonies, pilgrimage, and temple construction. If the Vedic samhitās are like the Psalms, then the Purānas resemble the historical books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. The Bhāgavata-Purāna is one of the most popular of the eighteen principle Purānas, describing in an entertaining and endearing fashion the childhood of Krishna, who would later become one of the most worshiped gods in the pantheon. The mythological stories of young Krishna stir feelings of adoration within the devotee, the pursuit of which can lead to salvation. There also exist eighteen lesser Purānas of basically the same narrative structure, called Upapurānas, and numerous other books called sthāla Purānas, which record legends of particular locations and temples. The eighteen most prominent Purānas alone contain about 375,000 verses—approximately the size of two World Book encyclopedias.
Also part of the itihāsa are the great epic poems, the Rāmāyana and Mahābhārata, written between 400 B.C. and A.D. 200. Together containing about 124,000 verses, the epics comprise some of the longest literary works in human history—five times as long as the Bible. The Rāmāyana tells the story of Rama, a god-king who rescues his kidnapped wife Sita with the help of the monkey king. TheMahābhārata relates a civil war between two groups of cousins that occurred in the mythical age before the present. Characters in both epics exemplify proper conduct for kings, soldiers, and persons wishing to attain rebirth. Many Hindus consider these epics to be the Veda of the masses, the books that “in all of history...have influenced the largest number of people for the longest time” (Krishnamurthy, 1999).
Book six of the Mahābhārata contains the Bhagavad Gītā, the “Song of the Lord.” This short text (about the size of John’s gospel), though technically part of the smrti literature, is popularly considered to be among the holiest revelation (Coburn, 1989, p. 116). Many compare it to the New Testament as the definitive piece of Hindu scripture. Ghandi read it once daily. Written by an unknown sage, theGītā tells the story of Arjuna, a general in the civil war on the eve of battle, and his chariot driver, Krishna, who is actually an incarnate form of God. Arjuna expresses his reservations about fighting his cousins to Krishna, who encourages him by explaining the principles of dharma and revealing himself as the celestial lord.
About the same period as the sages Vyāsa and Valmiki were composing the Epics to provide concrete examples of the dharmic code of conduct, the more formal dharma shāstras were being assembled. A shāstra is simply a systematic treatise, though dharma is more difficult to translate: the word “subsumes the English concepts of ‘religion’, ‘duty’, ‘law’, ‘right’, ‘justice’, ‘practice’, and ‘principle’ ” (Doniger and Smith, 1991, p. xvii). Dharma shāstras are thus books of law and duty. In this category, the Laws of Manu have been very influential, as have the more concise Laws of Yājñavalkya. The Laws of Manu alone is as long as the four gospel accounts, yet it is just one treatise among about 5,000. In many respects these books resemble the Levitical code, minus the consistency and ethicality. The agamas, also known as the Tantras, are sectarian manuals for the worship of particular gods. They cover the three major traditions—ŚaivismVaishnavism, and Śaktism—and are usually associated with heterodox rites involving sexual intercourse and the consumption of alcohol and meat.
These are only the most influential parts of the smrti category: there are many more. According to Coburn, “the very concept of smrti is that of an authoritative, but open-ended Word” (1989, p. 120). The size and difficulty of the current body of Hindu scripture is compounded by the fact that authoritative works are added to the canon on a regular basis. “[T]o see Hinduism in proper perspective we must remember that from the time of the Buddha till now, the composition of religious literature in India has been almost uninterrupted and that almost every century has produced works accepted by some sect as infallible scripture” (Eliot, 1968, 1:lxxiv). Surveying this vast, ever-expanding collection of Hindu sacred writings, it is no wonder that Sir William Jones remarked: “Wherever we direct our attention to Hindu literature, the notion of infinity presents itself ” (as quoted in Londhe, 2001).


While recognizing the role that sages have had in the preservation and transmission of the Vedas, Hindus generally reject the notion that the Vedas are the production of human ingenuity. Swami Vivekananda, the man credited with introducing Hinduism to the West, explained the Hindu outlook on revelation to the 1893 World Parliament of Religions:
The Hindus have received their religion through revelation, the Vedas. They hold that the Vedas are without beginning and without end. It may sound ludicrous, that a book can be without beginning or end. But by the Vedas no books are meant. They mean the accumulated treasury of spiritual laws discovered by different persons at different times. Just as the law of gravitation acted before its discovery by humanity, and would continue to act if all humanity forgot it, so is it with the laws that govern the spiritual world. The discoverers of these laws are called Rishis, and we honor them as perfected beings (as quoted in Londhe, 2001).
Vivekananda summarily stated the orthodox Hindu view of scripture: scripture is eternal, it is impersonal, and it is much more than letters written on a page. These qualities apply primarily to śrutiscripture, but depending on one’s definition of veda, they may also qualify other scripture.
The Mīmāmsā school, a sect devoted to Vedic exegesis, established these principles over two thousand years ago in the Pūrva Mīmāmsā Sūtras (c. 200 B.C.). There they affirmed the Vedas to be eternal (nitya) and impersonal (apauruseya). To understand these two propositions, insight must be gained into the Hindu conception of Veda. As Vivekananda pointed out, the Vedas are more than a mere book—they are eternal knowledge, without author, beginning, or end. The Pūrva Mīmāmsā Sūtra likewise asserts that “the sacred Sanskrit-language Scripture known as the Veda is not a ‘book’ to be read, nor a source of information about a world exterior to itself ” (Clooney, 1987, p. 660). One 18th-century pundit characterized Veda as “that which pertains to religion; books are not Veda” (Vedam est, quidquid ad religionem pertinet, vedam non sunt libri) [Graham, 1989, p. 139]. These increate truths have occasionally been perceived by humans and recorded in books, but the Vedas are much more than what is written. Vedic knowledge hangs in the atmosphere as a sort of ether exuded by the gods; the truth needs only to be grasped by enlightened disciples whose heightened senses allow them to perceive it. This is why the most sacred Vedas are called śruti—they have been heard by holy men. Hence the description of Vedas as sound vibration in the air:
I [Krishna] personally establish the Vedic sound vibration in the form of omkara within all living entities. It is thus perceived subtly, just like a single strand of fiber on a lotus stalk. Just as a spider brings forth from its heart its web and emits it through its mouth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as the reverberating primeval vital air, comprising all sacred Vedic meters and full of transcendental pleasure (Bhāgavata-Purāna11.21.38-39).
Krishna (a primary Hindu god, conceived as a manifestation of Vishnu) declares that the Vedas are within. They are the “reverberating primeval vital air” that must be heard. Many seek the truth in the hope that they might grope for it and find it, though, according to this passage, it is not far from each one of us. Though Christians believe scripture to be the complete, written record of specific truths revealed by God, Hindus consider scripture to be the whole of universal truth that may be discovered. Only fragments of this everlasting knowledge are revealed in the written Vedas (Daniélou, 1991, p. 280).
Vivekananda also stated that the Vedas are eternal, even preexisting the gods. This means something significantly different to a Hindu than it would to a Western Christian with his linear notions of time and space. To the Hindu, time and space exist only in relation to perception; when perception is altered (through religious rites such as meditation) and the Cosmos is seen as it really is, distinctions in time and space melt away into the Absolute. “Absolute time is an ever-present eternity” (Daniélou, p. 15). Thus, the Vedas and the gods both were created, but they both have also always existed. It is not inconsistent in the Hindu mind to hold that the Vedas are uncreated—that they were delivered to brahman at the dawn of creation by the “source of all beings” (Śvetāśvatara Upanishad6.18)—and to believe that they were created from fire, wind, and Sun by the god Prajāpati (Chāndogya Upanishad 4.17.2). These sophisticated beliefs developed over time, however, and some of the most ancient hymns attribute revelation to the highest god. “The RigSāmaYajur and Atharva, became manifest from the Lord, along with the Purānas and all the Devas [gods] residing in the heavens” (Atharva Veda 11.7.24). The scripture and the gods sprang from the “Lord,” Brahma, who is the manifestation of the Absolute principle of the Universe. Later passages elaborate this same theme. The influential Bhagavad Gītā grounds all things, including the Vedas, in Brahma: “From food are born (all) creatures; from rain is the production of food; rain is produced by sacrifices; sacrifices are the result of action; know that action has its source in the Vedas; the Vedas come from the Indestructible [the Supreme Being]” (3.15). Likewise, the Brahmānda Purāna depicts a four-headed Brahma emitting the four Vedic books from his four mouths (1.2.8). Ultimately, the Vedas derive from the Absolute Being, the Immense One. This Absolute god-principle did not create the scriptures, but as eternal truth they are part of his essence. They are thought to have co-existed with the Absolute, and pre-existed in the Absolute. He created the gods and manifested the truth of his presence to them; they in turn created the written books of the Veda for the humanity they also made. The eternal Vedas were thus received by the gods, who entrusted them to humans.
According to the Brhadāranyaka Upanishad, the method of transmitting the Vedas from heaven to Earth is similar to the biblical conception described in 2 Timothy 3:16, wherein Scripture is described as being “god-breathed.”
As clouds of smoke billow from a fire lit with damp fuel, so indeed this Immense Being has exhaled all this: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, the Atharva-Āngirasa, histories, ancient tales, sciences, hidden teachings (Upanishads), verses, aphorisms, explanations, and glosses – it is that Immense Being who has exhaled all this (2.4.10).
God, known here as the Immense Being, breathed out the Vedas, not into specific men, but into the Universe. There the scripture remains, as smoke lingering from an extinguished fire, waiting to be perceived by humans. Seven men served as interlocutors between the Supreme and humanity—men of extraordinary perspicacity who distinguished themselves by their asceticism and acts of renunciation (see Mitchiner, 2000). These men were not chosen to be inspired; they were gifted sages with keen insight into spiritual matters. Their sensitivity allowed them to perceive those eternal truths that permeate the fabric of space and time. The revelation they perceived was not confined to a particular time or place, and if it were to be forgotten, other sages would comprehend those truths again. The seven, called rsis, or “seers,” perceived the śruti vibrating in the Universe and recorded what they heard/saw. Coburn notes that the use of two metaphors—hearing and seeing—is intentional; it represents an attempt to “convey the holistic and supremely compelling nature of that experience” (1989, p. 109). According to Hindu tradition, the rsis recorded their experience because of the coming Age of Kali, a dispensation when men would be hardened against spiritual matters. The seven rsis, along with Vyasa, the compiler of the scripture, are generally considered to be perfected beings, greater than humans but less than divine.
The eternal Vedas came from the impersonal Absolute. They were not personally delivered from God to man, but impersonally manifested. The Veda was not received by humans, as was the Bible, but perceived by sages. Though impersonal, the Hindu philosophy of the word is not unlike that of the Bible. One of the Brahmanas states: “[In the beginning] was the only Lord of the Universe. His Word was with him. This Word was his second. He contemplated. He said, ‘I will deliver this Word so that she will produce and bring into being all this world’ ” (Tandya Maha Brahmana 20.14.2). Though written centuries before, this passage sounds remarkably like John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Just as Christ, the Word, is the ground of all that exists, so Hindus believe that the impersonal Veda is the source of the Universe. The Atharva Veda reads: “From the bosom of the sacred Word he brought forth the world” (4.1.3). A paraphrase of a modern Hindu prayer states: “Those who are versed in the Vedas know that the universe is the transformation of speech. It was out of the Vedas that this universe was first evolved” (Eickler, p. 24). Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (of transcendental mediation and Beatles fame) explained this process in more detail:
Ātmā, the Self, is the ground from where the steps of evolution begin. The first step is Śruti, the speech value of expression, Veda. The second step of evolution is from the speech level to the material level where the frequencies of sound, frequencies of speech in the Language of Natural Law, evolve into frequencies of matter which construct the whole physiology of the ever-evolving material universe, Viśva (Eichler, p.1).
The material Universe did not come into being by omnipotent fiat, or the intentional will of a purposeful Deity, but by spontaneous evolution from the eternal Veda. The sounds of the Veda (the Veda issound) became the fabric of the Cosmos. This view is not foreign to Christianity; by the Word, “all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible” (Colossians 1.16). Yet in contrast to the impersonal Hindu word, the Christian Word is a living and personal Being, Who willed the Universe into existence for His own purposes, Who delivered a temporal revelation to humanity for the express purpose of imparting saving knowledge, and Who revealed Himself to man as the ultimate divine knowledge.


It is important to remember that the majority of India’s population has been illiterate for the greater part of its history (as has been most of the world). As a result, Hindus typically have relied on the spoken word to a greater degree than any written text. “The Veda was not primarily a written text, but the powerful speech that came forth from the mouths of Brahmans” (Carpenter, p. 63). Words and sounds were very important in the Vedic tradition, and even in the earliest Vedas the smallest syllables and intonations were thought to be of divine origin. “In the actual sounded syllables of the Veda lie the points of contact with transcendent reality” (Graham, p. 138). Vāc is the female personification of speech, and might be compared to the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 4 (also perceived as feminine). The relationship between Vāc and Dame Wisdom is interesting, though perhaps a more accurate comparison from the Hindu perspective is the Word of John 1:1. Just as that passage equates the Word with God, several vedic passages divinize the Veda in the form of Vāc. Depicting Vāc as both a personification of the Vedas and as their progenitor, the Aitareya Āranyaka states: “She ‘enters into the seers.’ She gives power and intelligence to those she loves. She is the ‘mother of the Vedas,’ the consort of the lord-of-heaven (Indra), containing all the worlds within herself. ‘Hence Vāc is everything’ ” (3.1.6). Alain Daniélou defined speech (Vāc) as the ground and being of the Universe:
Speech has the power to evoke images and ideas. The process through which a thought, at first indistinct, gradually becomes definite and exteriorizes itself is similar to the process through which the divine thought becomes the universe. The difference is only one of degree. If our power of thought, our power of expression, was greater, things we speak of would actually appear. With our limited powers only their image is evoked. Speech can therefore be represented as the origin of all things. The cosmos is but the expression of an idea, a manifested utterance. Supreme Divinity can be represented as the causal word (sabda-brahman) [1991, p. 38].
The words of the Veda are intrinsically powerful. Every syllable is sacred, and the repetition of the scripture is auspicious in and of itself. Eliot notes that it “is sacred sound not a sacred book which is venerated” (1968, 1:lxxi). The books of the Veda are cherished not for their great wisdom or moral instruction, but for the holy sounds contained within. Understanding the text is unnecessary; scriptures’ value lies in its oral repetition. The Veda’s “sanctity often appears to be inversely related to comprehensibility” (Coburn, p. 112). Peculiarly, it is not the message of the Vedas that transcends time, but the words themselves, even “the particular sounds and their precise verbal order in the corpus (including the variants)” (Lipner, 1994, p. 46).
Christians may be skeptical of this oral approach to scripture, but they would do well to remember the supremacy of the spoken word in their own religion. The spoken word indicates presence, while the written word implies absence. Christ, as the Word, was present among us, and he represents the highest form of revelation. His ascension to the right hand of the Father necessitated the written words of the New Testament so that the disciples might be “guided into all truth” (John 16:13). Those written words are “living and powerful” (Hebrews 4:12), and reflect the continuing presence of God in the person of the Holy Spirit. It is not the immediacy of the Word that sets Christianity apart from Hindu scripture, however, nor the respect for the spoken word, but the content.
The Bible contains clear statements that must be affirmed prerequisite to salvation. Some are of a historical nature, such as “Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.” Others are ethical: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” There are also what might be characterized as theological or doctrinal truths, which include “Jesus is Lord” and “There will be a day of judgment.” The power of these statements of scripture derives from a comprehension of, and conformation to, those truths—not from their repetition. For instance, Jesus gave the model prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) to His disciples as an example of prayer that was pleasing to God. To repeatedly recite the exact words of that prayer today would be of little use because the effectiveness of the prayer is linked to a comprehension of the words uttered as well as compliance with certain moral requisites (such as forgiving others their trespasses, Matthew 6:14-15).


Though the Hindu scriptures are immensely significant to the tradition, they exert surprisingly little influence in the religious life of the average Hindu devotee. Deepak Sarma stated in an introductory lecture on Hinduism that “all Hindus orient themselves in relation to the Vedas” (2003). This is not to say that all Hindus accept the scriptures. It might accurately be said that atheists orient themselves in relation to the Bible, yet their position is opposite that of a Christian. Similarly, Hindus are defined by the degree to which they accept or reject the Vedic scriptures. Some renounce the holy books on principle: most notable among these is Gautama Buddha, an Indian prince who abandoned the Vedas because they reinforced the caste system. Many reject them for more pragmatic reasons; Lipner observed that “in practice most Hindus have had no direct access to the Vedas, either in written form or aurally” (p. 26). The mammoth size and obsolete script of traditional Sanskrit scriptures renders them inaccessible to the majority, and even vernacular translations are unintelligible to a predominately illiterate population. This is true among the clergy as much as the laity—some of the greatest Hindu practioners of the past centuries, such as Sri Rāmakrishna, spoke not a word of Sanskrit. “Even in the most orthodox domains, reverence to the Vedas has come to be a simple ‘tip of the hat’ made in passing to an idol with which one intends no longer to be encumbered” (Renou, as quoted in Carpenter, 1992, p. 57). Gupta lamented: “In the present age we take pride in the mere mention of the Vedas without caring to know about their contents” (1979).


Nonetheless, the majority’s abandonment of the Vedic scriptures does not diminish the significance of the Vedas to the religion. In the Laws of Manu, the Veda is held in highest regard:
The root of religion is the entire Veda, and (then) the tradition and customs of those who know (the Veda), and the conduct of virtuous people, and what is satisfactory to oneself. Whatever duty Manu proclaimed for whatever person, all of that was declared in the Veda, for it contains all knowledge. So when a learned man has looked thoroughly at all of this with the eye of knowledge, he should devote himself to his own duty in accordance with the authority of the revealed canon. For the human being who fulfils the duty declared in the revealed canon and in tradition wins renown here on earth and unsurpassable happiness after death. The Veda should be known as the revealed canon and the teachings of religion as the tradition. These two are indisputable matters, for religion arose out of the two of them. Any twice-born man who disregards these two roots (of religion) because he relies on the teachings of logic should be excommunicated by virtuous people as an atheist and a reviler of the Veda (Manusmrti 2.6-11, emp. added).
The sage Manu elaborates the hierarchy of authority in this passage: Vedas or śruti literature, secondary or smrti literature, and one’s own preferences. The Vedas are the most authoritative texts, and ought to be called the “revealed canon.”
Contemporary Western and Indian scholars also acknowledge the centrality of the Vedas to Hindu religion. Brian Smith emphasized the role of scripture when he defined Hinduism as “the religion of those humans who create, perpetuate, and transform traditions with legitimizing reference to the authority of the Veda” (as quoted in Flood, 1996, p. 226, n. 26). Lipner points out that “in theory at least, the Vedas are the source of saving knowledge” (1994, p. 26, italics in orig.). Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Hindu philosopher and first president of India, identified the Vedas as “the standard of thought and feeling for Indians” (as quoted in Sawhney, 1999). One might expect something as important as the “source of saving knowledge,” the “standard of thought and feeling,” and the “legitimizing reference” of a world religion to be well defined, yet, in the words of Wendy O’Flaherty, a revealed canon as mentioned in the Laws of Manu “is a concept with little meaning for a religion as pluralistic as Hinduism” (1988, p. xi). Lipner added that “the boundaries of the Vedic scriptures as they have come down to us are not particularly neat” (1994, p. 42). Jayaram, a Hindu scholar, admitted that Hinduism “does not rely exclusively upon any particular source” (2000), and Princeton professor Donald Lopez noted that it has “no single text that can serve as a doctrinal point of reference” (1995, p. 5).
As noted above, Hindus do not unanimously accept any single text, or group of texts, as the authoritative body of eternal truth. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam each cherish a holy book containing everything that pertains to life and godliness, but Hindus have no analogous monolithic text. According to Mahatma Gandhi, “Hinduism does not rest on the authority of one book or one prophet, nor does it possess a common creed” (1991, p. 120). As frustrating as this may be from a comparative religions standpoint, the lack of a definitive text is a source of pride for many Hindus who feel that tolerance and pluralism are the primary themes of the twenty-first century incarnation of the religion. Absolute scriptures lead to dogmatic beliefs, they reason, and dogmatic beliefs lead to strife and violence.
Nonetheless, it already has been shown that most Hindus have a high regard of the śruti texts, most broadly referred to as the Vedas. If any canonical scripture exists, it is the Vedas, which have been considered a gauge of orthodoxy (see Manusmrti 2.6-11, quoted above). During the Indian renaissance of the 19th century, various reform movements such as the Brāhmo Samāj and the Ārya Samāj sought to return to the Vedas as the ground of Hindu spirituality. Nolini Gupta, a Hindu scholar, summed up the view of one such school of Hinduism: “He who defies Veda is an atheist, a non-Hindu, an untouchable and a non-Aryan. All the various religious systems and scriptures of the Hindus look upon the Veda as the sole authority. What is inconsistent with the Veda is false and unacceptable” (1979). Veda here is used in the sense of a canon, yet that canon is left undefined.
Traditionally, the Vedas includes either the four Samhitās or all sixteen branches of texts (Sarma, 2003a). The texts themselves, however, list only the Rig Veda, Sāma Veda, and the Yajur Veda as canonical; originally, the priests rejected the Atharva Veda from the trayi vidya, or “triple veda” (Bhagavad Gītā 9.20; Manusmrti 1.23; 4.125). Limiting scripture to a few books tends to be the exception, not the rule; books are more often added to the Veda and deemed sacred. In theChāndogya Upanishad (a text within the śruti collection), the Purānas and Itihāsa are described as the “fifth veda” (7.1.2). Vallabha, a 15th-century theologian, proposed a fourfold canon embodying Veda,Brahma SūtraBhagavad Gītā, and Bhāgavata Purāna (Lipner p. 60). The Law Book of Yājñavalkya established the Vedas, the Pūranas, the philosophical system called Nyāya, the exegetical school of Mīmāmsā, treatises on moral duty (dharmaśāstras), and the six classes of work that are auxiliaries to the Veda (pronunciation, prosody, grammar, word-derivation, astronomy, and ritual) as “the fourteen bases of knowledge and moral duty” (1.3). A more contemporary interpretation of Veda comes from the International Gita Society, which considers not only Hindu texts, but also the Bible and the Qur’an as scriptures from the Supreme Being. Coburn points out that “śruti must be seen as ongoing and experientially based feature of the Hindu religious tradition” (1989, p. 112). Many other passages could be noted, each having a different opinion on what texts are sacred and should thus be listed under the name “Veda.” How does the average Hindu view this dilemma? “The average man – even the average priest—regards all these as sacred works without troubling himself with distinctions as tośruti and smriti, and the Vedas and Upanishads are hardly within his horizon” (Eliot, 1968, 1:lxxv).
Coburn, in his essay “ ‘Scripture’ in India,” expands further on the Hindu conception of scripture. He argues that Indian scripture exceeds written texts—the written word is only one revelatory medium. “[T]he holy words that are śruti must be seen alongside other transforming, sacramental activities, such as philosophical argumentation, the worship of the divine image form, and the highly nuanced moods (bhavas) of Krishna devotees” (p. 112). He also cites Diana Eck’s book, Darśan, in which she elaborates the thesis that Hindu images (which some would refer to as idols) are actually “visual scriptures” (1998). David Carpenter suggests further that the conduct and judgment of those Brahmin priests who have memorized the Vedas is considered Vedic, “even when they went beyond the known Vedic teachings” (1992, p. 62).


The corpus of Hindu scripture is enormous. A person could spend a lifetime sorting through the millions of pages of sacred and semi-sacred texts. Even the most orthodox sections of scripture are many times larger than the Bible. Clarke, in an essay on Hindu scripture, defended his limited treatment of the Vedas with this description of his subject: “How large, how difficult to understand! So vast, so complicated, so full of contradictions, so various and changeable, that its very immensity is our refuge!” (1875, p. 81). Recall that the four Veda Samhitās are about the size of the Old Testament, and the Upanishads number over 100. Among the smrti literature, the Epics are five times the length of the entire Bible, each of the 18 principle Puranās is about the size of the Old Testament, and over 5,000 texts of varying length belong to the dharmaśāstra tradition. The Bible seems concise in comparison, containing only 23,314 verses in the Old Testament and 7,959 verses in the New. An average Western library or bookstore stocks some abridged compilation of the Vedic Samhitās, the 13 principle Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gītā, but only the most specialized libraries carry full versions of even the major scriptures. A Hindu equivalent of the Gideon missionary society would have to donate an entire library of books to hotels rather than a single volume to each room. Of course, Hindus have little interest in proselytizing, so it is not really a problem.
If the size were insufficient to deter an honest seeker of truth, the incomprehensibility of the scripture certainly would. The Bible was written originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Though Bible students rarely master the original languages, sufficient lexical aids exists so that the original meaning can be understood with relatively little difficulty. Hindu students are not so fortunate. Since the Vedas were delivered from an impersonal source (the “Absolute”) there can be no original meaning. “[T]he Veda has no author, no meaning beyond the words and the sacrificial actions themselves; one cannot appeal to a pre-verbal intention to get beyond the words” (Clooney, 1987, p. 660). Incidentally, as Clooney points out in his essay, postmodernists find this approach to understanding texts refreshingly in line with their own views.
English translations are available for the primary scriptures, yet even the most careful translations are difficult to understand. Most English translations of the Bible are on the reading level of a 6-12th grader, yet the same cannot be said of the Vedas. “Many [of the Vedas] are written in a style which even educated men find very difficult to understand; and, if they have to be studied in the original, only a very small part of them can possibly be mastered by one man” (Mitchell, 1897, p. 247). Archaic Sanskrit (also called Vedic), the language of the Rig Veda, is a dead language, and inaccessible to most Hindus. Other scriptures are written in classical Sanskrit, Prakrit, Tamil, and other regional dialects. The possibility of interpretation is further hampered by the belief that the Vedas consist of sacred sound, not written text.
Were the language difficulties to be sorted out, the problem of incomprehensibility would remain. Hindu scripture contradicts itself time and time again. One might expect works separated by thousands of years to disagree (and they do), but these contradictions are found even within individual texts. There are logical contradictions, conceptual contradictions, and even factual contradictions. This may be explained partially by the Hindu conception of scripture, as explained by Eliot: “The Hindu approaches his sacred literature somewhat in the spirit in which we approach Milton and Dante. The beauty and value of such poems is clear. The question of whether they are accurate reports of facts seems irrelevant” (1968, 1:lxxi). Apparently, contradiction is not regarded as evidence against the Vedas’ divine origin. Hindu scripture confirms this suspicion, and actually embraces the contradictions. The Laws of Manu recommends that both sides of a contradiction in the Veda be accepted as authoritative: “But where the revealed canon is divided, both (views) are traditionally regarded as law; for wise men say that both of them are valid laws” (Manusmrti 2.14). Regarding the contradictions inherent in the Upanishads, the collection of texts considered by Olivelle to be the “vedic scripture par excellence of Hinduism” (1996, p. xxiii), Robson remarked: “It is hard to say what philosophical opinion might not be supported from the Upanishads, for the most contradictory statements find a place in them” (1905, p. 28). Likewise the Puranās, so holy as to be called “the fifth veda” (Chandogya Upanishad 7.1.4), are “for the most part intensely sectarian; one denounces beliefs and rites which another enjoins” (Mitchell, p. 260). Coburn stated that, when it comes to Hindu scripture, “sanctity often appears to be inversely related to comprehensibility” (p. 112).
Hindu scripture is for all practical purposes useless to the average Hindu for these and other reasons. This, of course, assumes that all Hindus have access to the scripture. Traditionally, Hindu society is divided into four castes, the Brahmin (priestly class), Kshatriya (ruling class), Vaiśya (merchant class), and Śūdra (outcastes). The first three classes are known as the twice-born, and only the males of those classes are allowed to read the Vedas. All women and males of the Śūdra class are excluded because of their “impurity” (Manusmrti 2.164-172). These restricted groups do have access to thesmrti writings and devotional literature, but the most sacred śruti texts are forbidden. The religion itself restricts to a select few the scripture that purportedly contains saving knowledge.
There is much morally reprehensible material within the Vedic literature. One 19th-century writer, speaking specifically of the Puranās, underlined the true nature of the Hindu scripture: “The instructions which it professes to give are useless, where they are not scandalous and criminal. The only things clearly to be understood, are the profane songs, the obscene ceremonies, and the other indecencies connected with the prescribed festivals” (as quoted by Goodall, 1996, p. xxxviii). The immoralities endorsed by Hindu scripture range from racial prejudices and rigid social hierarchies to rape and murder.
For instance, the earliest Vedic texts, which are traced back to the Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent, reflect the racial biases of the invaders. It seems that the Aryans were a fairer-skinned people of Persian descent, whereas the indigenous peoples (Dāsas) whom they subjugated were of a darker skin color and Negro-Australoid features. One prayer directed to the warrior god Indra petitioned him to “give protection to the Aryan color” (Rig Veda 3.34.9). Another passage lauds Indra’s victory over the dark-skinned natives: “He, much invoked, has slain Dāsas and Simūs [dark-skinned natives], according to his will, and laid them low with arrows. The mighty Thunderer [Indra] with his fair-complexioned friends won the land, the sunlight, and the waters” (Rig Veda 1.100.18). According to Mitchell, the “language in which the Vedic poets speak of these enemies is uniformly that of unmingled, vehement hatred” (1897, p. 19). Critics might observe that the Old Testament is also guilty of ethnic cleansing; however, the Israelite battles were drawn over moral lines, not ethnic or racial (see Bass, 2003). Though the historical picture is unclear, it seems that the Dāsas were incorporated into the Aryan social hierarchy as the lowest class (Rig Veda 10.90.12). Evidence for this comes from the Sanskrit word for class, varna, which means “color” (cognate to the English varnish).
More disturbing than the Vedic treatment of race are the pervasive references to sex, and the its role in the religious ritual. The Kāma Sūtra of Vatsāyayana is one of the most infamous Hindu texts. Known as the “Aphorisms on Love,” or more popularly as the “Sex Manual,” the Kāma Sūtracelebrates sexual love (Kāma is the god of love, in many ways similar to Cupid). In addition to explicit information for use between husbands and wives, there are also sections entitled “Concerning the Wives of Other People” and “Concerning Prostitutes,” both providing advice on how to procure such forbidden fruit. The Kāma Sūtra is but one text among many. One entire category of smrti literature known as Tantras is dedicated to the worship of the goddess principle, Śakti. The esoteric teachings within that body of texts describe various sexual rites that represent the spiritual union of the worshipper’s soul with the goddess. Violence and sexual perversion penetrates even the most orthodox scripture. The Brhadārankyaka Upanishad, for instance, condones rape:
Surely, a woman who has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period is the most auspicious of women. When she has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period, therefore, one should approach that splendid woman and invite her to have sex. Should she refuse to consent, he should bribe her. If she still refuses, he should beat her with a stick or with his fists and overpower her, saying: “I take away the splendor from you with my virility and splendor” (6.4.9,21).
Bestiality is likewise advocated. A particularly solemn rite for the early Vedic religion was the horse sacrifice. Though it probably was performed rarely, it is mentioned frequently in the Vedic commentaries. Note one section from the Śatapatha Brāhmana: “Then they draw out the penis of the horse and place it in the vagina of the chief queen, while she says, ‘May the vigorous virile male, the layer of seed, lay the seed’; this she says for sexual intercourse...” ( Examples such as this could be multiplied. To the list of atrocities in the Vedic scripture may be added human sacrifice (Aitaraya Brahmana 7.13-18), as if pornography, bestiality, rape, racism, inequalities were not enough.
The Bible is the authentic, authoritative, and final revelation of the true God. Though written over a period of 1,400 years by forty very diverse men on two continents, The Book is completely unified and free from error. A single theme is expanded upon throughout—the redemption of man through the Messiah. The Bible was confirmed by predictive prophecies and the miracles of the inspired men who wrote it. The moral laws contained within are more reasonable and consistent than that of any other religious or naturalistic system. By contrast, the Hindu scriptures have no final, objective authority; according to one Hindu, “all scriptural knowledge is lower knowledge” (Jayrama, 2000). Subjective religious experiences are generally preferable to written texts. Hindu scripture contains little that is noble, just, pure, lovely, virtuous, or praiseworthy. Allegedly a progressive revelation, Hindu scripture contradicts itself both within particular texts and as a body of literature. The Bible, also a progressive revelation, never corrects itself, but only compliments and fulfils that which has been written. Different Hindu scriptures present completely different paths to salvation (liberation)—karma-yoga (the path of action), jāña-yoga (path of knowledge), and bhakti-yoga (path of devotion). The Vedas contain no predictive prophecy and offer no miracles to confirm the revelation supposedly sent from God. Thus the Hindus have no accessible ground of truth, no normative written word, and no objective moral or religious instruction.


Basham, Arthur, J.A.B van Buitenen, and Wendy Doniger (1997), “Hinduism,” The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopædia Britannica), 15th edition.
Bass, Alden (2003), “The Warring Destruction of the Canaanite People,” Apologetics Press [On-line],URLhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2277.
Bishku, Tridandi and Swami Bhakti Vijnana Giri (no date), “The Supremacy of Srimad Bhagavatam over the Vedas,” Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Matha [On-line], URL: http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html.
Carpenter, David (1992), “Language, Ritual and Society: Reflections on the Authority of the Veda in India,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 60[1]:57-77.
Clarke, James Freeman (1875), Ten Great Religions: an Essay in Comparative Theology (Boston, MA: James Osgood and Company).
Clooney, Francis X. (1987), “Why the Veda has No Author: Language as Ritual in Early Mīmāmsā and Post-Modern Theology,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 55[4]:659-684, Winter.
Coburn, Thomas (1989), “ ‘Scripture’ in India,” Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective, ed. Miriam Levering (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).
Daniélou, Alain (1991) The Myths and Gods of India (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions).
Doniger, Wendy and Brian Smith (1991), The Laws of Manu (London: Penguin).
Eck, Diana (1998), Darśan: Seeing the Divine Image in India (New York: Columbia University Press).
Edgerton, Franklin (1965), The Beginnings of Indian Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Eichler, Detlef (no date) “The Churning of Vedic Knowledge,” [On-line], URL: http://sanskrit.safire.com/Knowledge.html.
Eliot, Charles (1968 reprint), Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch (New York: Barnes & Noble).
Flood, Gavin (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Gandhi, M.K. (1991), Hindu Dharma (New Delhi: South Asia Books).
Goodall, Dominic (1996), “Introduction,” Hindu Scriptures (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Graham, William (1989), “Scripture as Spoken Word,” Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective, ed. Miriam Levering (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).
Hopkins, Thomas (1971), The Hindu Religious Tradition (Encino, CA: Dickenson).
Jayaram, V. (2000), “Hinduism in the Context of Texts,” Hinduwebsite [On-line], URL: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduintrod3.htm.
Krishnamurthy, V. (1999), “Ancient Scriptures of Hinduism,” Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought, Vision, and Practice (Mumbai, India: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan), [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/profvk/itihasa.html.
Lipner, Julius (1994), Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge).
Londhe, Sushama (2001), “Hindu Scripture,” A Tribute to Hinduism, [On-line], URL: http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Hindu_Scriptures.htm.
Lopez, Donald, ed. (1995), Religions of India in Practice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Macdonell, Arthur (1917), “Excerpts from A Vedic Reader for Students,” Hinduwebsite, [On-line], URL: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/vedicreader.htm.
Mitchell, J. Murray (1897) Hinduism Past and Present (Oxford: The Religious Tract Society).
Mitchiner, John (2000) Traditions of the Seven Rsis (New Delhi: New Delhi).
O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger (1988), Textual Sources for the Study of Hinduism (Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble).
Olivelle, Patrick (1996), “Introduction,” Upanisads (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Robson, John (1905) Hinduism and Christianity (Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson, and Ferrier), 3rd edition.
Sarma, Deepak (2003a), “Hinduism(s) and the Vedic Foundation,” Yale University, September 9.
Sarma, Deepak (2003b), “The Upanisads,” Yale University, September 16.
Sawhney, Simona (1999), “Remembering the Veda: Accumulations of Interest,” The Literature and Culture of the Indian Subcontinent in the Post-Colonial Web, [On-line], URL: http://www.postcolonialweb.org/india/religion/hindu/sawhney1b.html.
Viswanathan, Ed (1999) “All Details about Hindu Culture,” Indolink Forum, [On-line], URL: http://www.indolink.com/Forum/Parents/messages/623.html.