Indian Contribution to a Spirituality of Pluralism

K.P. Aleaz ^[1]

Pluralism holds that other religions are equally salvific paths in terms of their perceptions of reality/ies, though these may vary from one�s own. Spirituality of pluralism means a religious experience of inter-faith relation built up on the perspective of pluralism. Pluralism and, consequently, a spirituality of pluralism is upheld by many of the schools within the major Indian religions and some Indian Christians are inspired by this to follow their footsteps. The first section of the paper is on a spirituality of pluralism in other religions such as Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. Spirituality of pluralism among Indian Christians is the focus in the second section. The third and final section indicates concluding observations. The purpose of the paper is to show that a spirituality of pluralism has to become the central support of theological education to make it relevant in the Indian context.

Spirituality of Pluralism in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism

The Indian religo-cultural ethos encourages a spirituality of pluralism and we can be proud of this. A spirituality of pluralism of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism provides us with many liberative resources to counter the exclusivist fundamentalism and communalism of the Sangh Parivar. It also encourages the Indian Christians to go beyond the exclusivism that is evident in Christian history.

(a) A Hindu Perspective with special reference to Sri Ramakrishna

The Hindu tradition has glorious religious resources within it to counter the evils of exclusivism propagated by the Sangh Parivar. Within Hinduism religious pluralism is theologically accepted and a spirituality of pluralism is upheld in the following ways.^[2] Already in the Rg. Veda (1.164.46), by pointing out that Sat (Truth, Being) is one but sages call it by different names, Brahmanism tried to solve the clash between one religion and another. The Bhagavadgita faced with the possibility of many margas (paths to God) suggested that those who worship other Gods in reality worship Krishna (9.23,24; 7.21; 4.11). The Orthodox Hindu argues for religious pluralism saying that plurality is rooted in the diversity of human nature itself, in the principle of adhikarabheda (difference in aptitude or competence) and therefore the question of superiority or �uniqueness� of any one dharma over others does not arise. As per our aptitude, we can have our chosen deity (istadevata). Again, the svadharma (perform one�s own duty) view of orthodox Hinduism points to an ethical system based on plurality inherent in the social system, the goal being the preservation of social and moral balance. The bhakti (devotion) tradition of Hinduism transcends all dogmatism as well as caste distinction. Further, Advaita Vedantic experience centered on the Upanishads promotes harmony of religions in terms of the One Innermost Reality, Paramatman, of all. The Neo-Vedantins Swami Vivekananda, S. Radhakrishnan and others, reinterpreting Advaita, exhort to look for the essence of religion, the Religion of the Spirit, going beyond the externals, the doctrines and practices. According to them that is the approach of Hinduism and that is the way for mutual acceptance of diverse religious faiths. Swami Vivekananda�s teacher Sri Ramakrishna above all upheld pluralism by asserting that all the diverse paths lead to the same goal. It is high time that the Sangh Parivar takes note of this affirmation of the glory of pluralism by their own religious faith.

Hinduism�s attitude toward other religions has more or less remained constant throughout its long history. There is the same divine reality that manifests itself in diverse forms. The various religious faiths are simply different receptacles of divine reality. In this recognition of other faiths as being different receptacles of divine reality and as providing different paths by which devotees may attain liberation, Hinduism sees itself as being a very open and tolerant religion. This glorious truth is what is undermined by the Fundamentalism of the Sangh Parivar.^[3]

Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886) of Bengal deserves special attention as he was a pluralist through and through and he is inspiring all Indians, specially the Bengalis and the culture of Bengal to be open today. He had deep Goddess-experience and he got initiated by one teacher after another in different ways of realizing God; in Tantrism by Bhairavi, in Vaishnavism by Jatadhari and in Advaita by Tota Puri. He practiced Islam in 1866 and he had Christ experience in 1874.^[4] His was thus a spirituality of pluralism in total practice.

Sri Ramakrishna compares God to a chameleon that changes colour, and for him those who quarrel about the doctrines of God are like those who quarrel about the colour of the chameleon. God reveals Himself/Herself to seekers in various forms and aspects. All paths lead to God. People worship God according to their tastes and temperaments and this is like different children eating different dishes cooked by mother as per one�s taste. To quote: "Don�t you know what difference in taste is? Some enjoy fish curry, some fried fish; some pickled fish; and again, some the rich dish of fish pilau."^[5]

According to Sri Ramakrishna, different religions address the same reality in different ways: it is like children addressing the same father differently; the elder ones may call him distinctly as Baba or Papa, but the babies can at best call him Ba and Pa. Surely the father will not mind. He knows that they too are calling him. Only they cannot pronounce his name well.^[6]

Sri Ramakrishna was of the following firm conviction: "God can be realized through all paths. All religions are true."^[1] He explained this through the analogy of reaching the roof through different ways either by stone stairs or wooden stairs or bamboo steps or by a rope or a bamboo pole.^[8] He expounds the same truth through another analogy: �It is like your coming to Dakshineswar by carriage, by boat, by steamer, or on foot. You have chosen the way according to your convenience and tastes; but the destination is the same. Some of you have arrived earlier than others, but all have arrived."^[9]

In the view of Sri Ramakrishna, dogmatists are those who see only one aspect of God and limit God to that aspect: they are like the blind people who examined the elephant and came to different conclusions and quarreled about their partial or limited standpoints.^[10] He further said. "He is indeed a real man who had harmonized everything. Most people are one sided. But I find that all opinions point to the One. All views�have that One for their centre. He who is formless, again, is endowed with form. The attributeless Brahman is my Father. God with attributes is my Mother�"^[11] Thus in the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna we get a taste of an exposition of a spirituality of pluralism.

(b) Syadvada of Jainism

For Jainism all objects of the world are multiform (anekanta) and each of these substances has innumerable characters (dharma), both positive and negative, essential and accidental. This contention is called relative pluralism. Jainism holds that reality can be considered from different points of view, standpoints or nayas. No judgment is absolute, all of them being relative. Perhaps the most important feature of Jaina philosophy is its respect for all opinions implied in this conception. Every object has infinite aspects judged from different points of view. Every judgment is true only in relation to a particular aspect of the thing seen from a particular point of view and hence is not the whole truth. This is Syadvada. There are seven ways of predication and this is called saptabhangi.^[12] Here is implied a spirituality of pluralism in its perfection.

Every judgment that we pass in daily life about an object is true only in reference to the standpoint occupied and the aspect of the objects considered. We quarrel and disagree because we forget this, e.g. the blind people�s idea of an elephant and the subsequent quarrel. The different systems of philosophy, according to Jainas, represent different partial aspects of reality. Accordingly they insist that every judgment should be qualified by some word like �syat� (i.e., in some respect) so that the limitation of this judgment and the possibility of other alternative judgments from other points of view may be always clearly borne in mind. Thus, instead of a judgment like �the elephant is like a pillar�, it should be said, to remove the chance of confusion, �in respect of its legs, the elephant is like a pillar�. This theory of the Jainas is called Syadvada. The principle underlying Syadvada makes Jaina thinkers catholic in their outlook; they go beyond the limitations of narrow dogmatism (ekanta-vada). Their perspective is the opposite, anekantavada. The metaphysical sides that reality has innumerable characters is called anekantavada, while the epistemological and logical side that we can know only some aspect of reality and therefore all our judgments are necessarily relative, is called syadvada.^[13]

Bhangavada is the doctrine of manifold judgment and the Jaina epistemology recognizes seven forms of judgments (saptabhangi). It has been pointed out that^[14] we can know a thing in relation to its own matter, form, space and time as a positive reality. But in relating to others� matter, form, space and time that thing becomes a negative entity. When we affirm the two different standpoints successively we get the third judgment that a thing is both real and unreal. When affirming or denying existence and non-existence simultaneously to any thing it becomes indescribable and this is the fourth judgment. The remaining three judgments are combinations of the fourth with the first, second and third, respectively. There is a possibility of seven modes only with respect to the affirmation and negation of each modification in a single entity though the groups of seven modes may be infinite because of the infinite modifications.

Vardhamana Mahavira (599-527 BCE), the twenty-fourth Tirthankar who was a contemporary of Buddha, and Buddha owed some of their conceptions to the �heretics� of the day and formulated others under the influence of the controversies which were going on with them. Thus, Hermann Jacobi thought that in opposition to the Agnosticism (Ajnanavada) of Sanjaya, Mahavira has established the Syadvada. To quote:

For as the Agnanavada declares that of a thing beyond our experience the existence, or non-existence or simultaneously existence and non-existence can neither be affirmed nor denied, so in a similar way, but one leading to contrary result, the Syadvada declares that �you can affirm the existence of a thing from one point of view (syadasti), deny it from another (syad nasti); and affirm both existence and non-existence with reference to it at different times (syad asti nasti). If you should think of affirming existence and non-existence at the same time from the same point of view, you must say that the thing cannot be spoken (syat avaktavyah). Similarly, under certain circumstances, the affirmation of existence is not possible (syad asti avaktavyah); of non-existence (syad nasti avaktavyah); and also of both (syad asti nasti avaktavyah).^[15]

Regarding the history of Syadvada^[1] we should note that reference to Syadvada occurs in the writings of Bhadrabahu who is believed to have given the following explanation: syat - may be, vada � assertion, i.e., the assertion of possibilities. There were a senior (433-357 BCE) and a junior (ca. 375 CE) Bhadrabahu and we are not sure who gave the above explanation though it is usually ascribed to the senior Bhadrabahu. There is clear mention of Syadvada in the Nyayavatara of Siddhasena Divakara (ca. 480-550 CE). Samantabhadra (ca.600CE) has given a full exposition of the seven parts of Syadvada or saptabhanginaya in his Aptamimamsa. So it is clear that Syadvada was well developed by the sixth c. CE. In the mediaeval period of Indian logic this theory received a great deal of attention. For example in the 13th c. we have a separate treatise entitled Syadvadamanjari by Mallisena. There are many later works on the subject such as Vimala Dasa�s Saptabhangitarangini.

(c) Spirituality of Pluralism in Buddhism

A claim has been made that in a thoroughly Buddhist country there is no place for violence of any kind. There will not be any violence in the relations between Buddhists and people of other faiths as well as in any other aspect. In some countries like Sri Lanka where, in the past, Buddhists have suffered from the hostility and aggression of other religions, there has sometimes developed a defensive attitude of a slightly hostile kind. But this is not characteristic of other countries like Thailand, where the king, himself a devout Buddhist, regards it as his duty to protect and support all other religions and their adherents, whether Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Christian.^[17]

The Buddhist attitude to other religions is basically the expression of following views conducive to a spirituality of pluralism.^[18] First, since no human being can know or understand everything, and there is much we do not know or understand, only the bigot or fool can claim to be so sure about things which are uncertain that he/she can condemn another person�s faith as totally wrong. The Buddhist prefers to concentrate upon what is known and what is affirmed, honouring and witnessing these things and respecting the opinion of others. This is an important reason why Buddhism has been filled with the spirit of tolerance. Second, Buddhism has the conception that all truth concerning human person and his/her nature and the spiritual dimension of his/her existence, wherever it is found, is consonant with the truth proclaimed by the Buddha and is to be welcomed since truth is one and indivisible. Third, Buddhism affirms that even where there are difficulties in reconciling one view and another, and consequently there is genuine disagreement, one thing that will not help is aggressiveness. It is unprofitable and harmful to all concerned to adopt an attitude towards another person or group of people, which is basically one of pride or hatred. As the Dhammapada says, enmity is never overcome by enmity; enmity is only overcome by love.

It is not easy to have a firm religious conviction and yet to be tolerant of those whose views are different from one�s own; but the Buddhists have on the whole achieved this kind of tolerance. It has been shown to other religions such as Hinduism, Islam and Christianity and to the Tribal religions with which Buddhism has come into contact in the course of its history. For example, in Southeast Asia, Buddhist monks did not denounce beliefs and customs of people in the countries into which they came. Not all beliefs and customs held earlier were discarded; rather, some have been incorporated into Buddhist practice in order to help ordinary village people in Thailand, Myanmar, China, Korea, Japan, Tibet, etc. to feel at home within the Buddhist religion.^[19]

The 3rd century B.C.E. Buddhist emperor, Asoka, emphatically enjoined religious toleration and included Brahmins, ascetics and followers of sects of various kinds in his unceasing benevolence. This wide tolerance shown by Asoka is characteristic of Buddhism throughout its history. Nowhere did its missionaries seek Buddhism�s progress by means other than persuasion. The missionaries claimed no privileges either for themselves or their countries, but merely promoted Buddhism�s ideals of kindness and peace, paying little or no attention to efficient organization, founding places of worship, or establishment of ecclesiastical authority. When one looks back to the history of Buddhism one cannot help but marvel at the speed in which Buddhist missionaries won over millions of people in many countries to a Buddhist way of life.^[20] Buddhism has never claimed any exclusive power to divide humankind into two groups, i.e. the saved and the lost. Its long history has no blots of persecutions or inquisitions. Buddhism has always been considerate to those outside its fold. Even within its own ranks, differences of opinion were settled by quiet adjustment and general sanction, with no heat of temper being allowed to mar the serenity of the proceedings. Buddhism has thus displayed great variety and freedom of thought.^[21]

Buddhism�s stress on compassion also provides a natural point of contact with other religions. The Buddhist approach of tolerance is based on a causal conception of nature or the theory of Dependent Origination (pratityasamutpada vada). In this causal system are physical, biological, psychological and moral and spiritual laws. Buddha discovered this law of causation as the true description of reality. He passed this on to others not to be accepted on his authority but to be tested in their own experience. Rather than proceeding by blind faith or authority, either scriptural or institutional, Buddha taught a �provisional faith� that was to be tested by the individual�s personal experience.^[22]

The Buddha�s tolerant attitude to plurality of religious views has been shaped into a rigorous philosophical approach by the Madhyamika Buddhists of the Mahayana branch. The goal of Madhyamika is the removal of ego-attachment to any religious philosophy or theology so that true spirituality can be experienced and lived. Buddha is seen as the physician who prescribes the correct medicine to cure the disease of ego-attachment to religious philosophies or theologies. If, as the Buddha discovered, the goal of religion is compassion, then, say the Madhyamika, the biggest obstacle to realizing that goal is attachment to our own religious beliefs in such a way as to make them absolute. Philosophy, theology and scripture can play the role of guides; provide contents for �provisional faith�. But as soon as such viewpoints become attached to the ego and made absolute, they destroy the capacities for tolerance, objective criticism, and compassionate action.^[23] A spirituality of pluralism emerges from detachment and compassion.

Spirituality of Pluralism among Indian Christians

A spirituality of pluralism has existed among Indian Christians from the beginning of the Christian Era and it is only further encouraged today by the spirituality of pluralism of other religious faiths.

(a) Thomas Christians� Theology of Religions

From an analysis of the Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper of 1599,^[24] imposed by Portuguese Roman Catholic intruders, we can today infer the theology of religions of the Thomas Christians who were living in India since the 1st century C.E. In theology they held pluralism and in social life they followed the perspective of pluralistic inclusivism, i.e., receiving aspects from the other. In Kerala there existed the spirit of mutual acceptance among communities of Hindus and Christians. The prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the Synod of Diamper witness to this communal harmony. Acts III, Decree 4 of the Synod says: "That everyone may be saved in his own law; all which are good, and lead men to heaven. Now this is a manifest heresy; there being no other law upon earth in which salvation is to be found, besides that of our Savior Christ�" We can infer from this that the Thomas Christians upheld pluralism in theology of religions. They had the vision that a Hindu could be saved in his/her own dharma. A spirituality of pluralism emerges from such a conviction.

The regret of the Synod was that in social life there were no external signs to distinguish Christians from the nayaras (the chivalry class of Kerala); in dress, hairstyle, in everything they followed the same pattern. The decree of the Synod that Christians desist from boring ear lobes (IXC.17) can be understood against such a background. Other prohibitions were: on the use of �non-Christian names� (IV.16, and 17); Hindu musicians singing in churches (V.14); sending children to schools run by Hindu panicars (teachers) and Christian panicars keeping Hindu idols in schools for the sake of Hindu pupils (III.12, 13); clergy eating with Hindus (VII.11), etc. The Synod recommended strongly that Christians live together remote from the �danger� of communication with non-Christians (IX.23). These only point to the social harmony that existed among Hindus and Christians of Kerala. In social life the Thomas Christians followed the perspective of pluralistic inclusivism. Local churches functioned in tune with the social and religious customs of Kerala. The government of the Hindu temples and their properties were done effectively by �Yogam� or assembly of the local people. The Thomas Christians imbibed this democratic system of government in their parishes. The local church councils (palliyogam) looked after temporal matters and ecclesiastical discipline of the community and bishops had no temporal or administrative authority over local churches. The present system of Bishops having temporal power of the church came after the arrival of the Portuguese. The Bishop had only limited ecclesiastical powers like consecrating the church, administering baptism, ordaining Cathenars and they did this on the request of the local congregation and not independently of the palliyogam. Celibacy of clergy, their transfer and giving salary by the Bishop were introduced by the Portuguese rulers. Thus, religious pluralism blessed the Thomas Christians to evolve their own ecclesiology with an emphasis on democracy and decentralization and whenever they deviate from this emphasis of a spirituality of pluralism their past will continue to inspire them for correction.^[25]

(b) S. K. George and Manilal C. Parekh

It is important to note that S. K. George (1900-1960) and Manilal C. Parekh (1885-1967) held pluralism in theology of religions since the 1920s and 1930s, respectively. S. J. Samartha joined them in the 1990s.^[26] For S. K. George, redemptive suffering love manifested in the cross of Christ is the central principle of Christianity and the manifestation of it in practice and not in preaching of any dogma is what is needed. Mahatma Gandhi�s satyagraha movement was for him cross in action and he joined in it wholeheartedly in 1932, resigning a secure teaching job at Bishop�s College, Calcutta.^[27] Even prior to this as a Bachelor of Divinity student of Bishop�s College (1924-27), he had his doubts about the exclusive divinity of Christ. As early as 1937, S. K. George helped in organizing the All Kerala Inter-religious Students Fellowship, which tried to bring together students of various religions for mutual understanding and cooperation. The first conference of the Fellowship, held at Alwaye in May 1937, adopted its Aim and Basis:

Amidst the conflicting claims made on behalf of different religions�we believe there is an urgent need for a full and free exchange of our differing religious experiences, in a spirit of mutual respect, appreciation and sympathy. We consider that for such mutual respect and sympathy to be real it is absolutely necessary that no member of the Fellowship should claim for his religion any exclusive and final possession of truth. We believe that such an interchange of experience will lead to: (a) an enrichment of one another�s religious life; (b) mutual respect, understanding and tolerance; and (c) cooperation in purifying and strengthening the religious attitude of mind� from which our�problems have to be tackled.^[28]

The Fellowship will explore fully the value of all the different religious traditions and disciplines and present them for the benefit of all. But at the same time nobody in the Fellowship is persuaded to join another�s religious belief and practice. To weaken the hold of the truth of any religion upon humankind was considered as to weaken religion itself and hence the Fellowship is to strive for the opposite. The Fellowship was to help one another to understand and to live up to the best in all religions.^[29]

S. K. George had the conviction that the hope of world unity and human fellowship lies through inter-religious cooperation. Inter-religious movement can eliminate religious conflicts and intolerance. He wanted to extend the spirit of cooperation, which he found among Christians, to include the different religions.^[30] In his view inter-religious movement faces many misunderstandings. One charge is that it is syncretistic and will but result in adding one or more new fancy religions to the crowded world of religions. The clarification given by George in this context is:

�The inter-religious movement does not aim at evolving a single universal religion for all mankind. That�is the dream of the militant missionary faiths, which would blot out all other religions. What inter-religionism stands for is the acceptance of the need and the fact of variety in religious experience, of diversity in man�s approach towards and realization of the One Eternal Reality, which is the common object of religious quest throughout the ages. It admits the limitations of all human understanding of the Divine - even unique revelations are mediated through human channels - and is, therefore, humble and willing to accept light from various sources. It accepts the revelations through the spiritual geniuses of all mankind and while it does not aim at, or believe in, evolving a uniformity of creed and conduct, it looks forward to a time when the spiritually minded of all religions will unite in the appreciation of all known truth and is welcoming fresh revelations from the unspent deep resources of God.^[31]

The Fellowship of the Friends of Truth started in 1951. S. K. George served as its secretary for the first seven years in such a spirit as an inter-religious movement.

According to George the place of Jesus Christ in the Hindu religious heritage of India is as one of the Ishta Devatas or chosen deities or favorite deities. Hinduism readily grants such a place to Jesus Christ. From the side of a disciple of Jesus what is needed is, he/she must not deny other mediators between God and humans, other experiences of God�s presence in the human heart, the validity of other Ishta Devatas. Such denials lie outside the positive experience of Christians and therefore have no validity.^[32] Such an affirmation provides the foundation for a spirituality of pluralism.

Manilal C. Parekh was born in a Jain home in Rajkot, Gujarat. He was introduced to Hindu Vaishnava Bhakti by his father. A serious illness helped him to experience theism. He came under the influence of the writings of Keshub Chunder Sen and served for some years as a pracaraka of the Church of the New Dispensation in Sindh and Bombay. The next stage in his pilgrimage was his growing interest in Christ, towards whom Keshub had so firmly pointed. The serious illness of tuberculosis gave him an opportunity for study and reflection. He studied Bible and the Vacanamrit of Swami Narayana, the famous Gujarati Vaishnava religious and social reformer of the early 19th century. The study of Vaishnava Bhakti led him beyond the rationalism of the Brahmo Samaj to the conviction that God becomes incarnate and this belief in turn pointed him to Christ of whom he read in the New Testament.^[30]

Parekh was baptized in the Anglican Church in Bombay in 1918. He considered baptism as only a spiritual matter. He became disillusioned with the Westernization of the Indian Christian Community. He wanted a �Hindu Church of Christ� free from Western influence. He now strongly felt that the new disciple of Christ should remain within his/her own community, witnessing from there. He drew a clear distinction between �evangelism� (i.e., proclamation of the gospel to individuals) and �proselytism� (i.e., mass-conversion by dubious means). Like Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya (1861-1907) of Bengal, he made a distinction between samaj dharma (social aspect of religion) and moksha dharma (spiritual aspect), saying Christianity should be moksha dharma only.^[34]

By the end of the 1930s, Parekh came to the final stage of his spiritual pilgrimage, namely Bhagavata Dharma. He conceived Bhagavata Dharma as a universal personal religion of devotion in which Christian devotion is one element among others, perhaps the central and organizing element. He used this term to describe a religion of personal Bhakti, which is seen at its clearest in Christianity and Vaishnsvism, but is also seen in all other theistic faiths. He included in it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and all the religions, which believe in God. His bitter experiences in both Brahmo Samaj and Christian Church had eventually brought him to the conclusion that change of religion is undesirable, since it tends to lead to exclusiveness and communalism. He wanted a name for the New Harmony that he was evolving, which would avoid the implication that one particular tradition had a monopoly of the truth, and this he found in Bhagavata Dharma.^[35] Bhagavata Dharma truly represents a spirituality of pluralism.

Conclusion

The following are our findings from the above discussion: (a) Pluralism is theologically accepted in Hinduism in terms of Vedic affirmation, conceptions of adhikarabheda, svadharma, many margas, Bhakti tradition, Advaita Vedantic experience and Neo-Vedantic interpretations. (b) Sri Ramakrishna�s was a spirituality of pluralism in total practice. For him God reveals to seekers in various forms and aspects. People worship the same God differently according to their tastes and temperaments. God can be realized through all the diverse paths. (c) Syadvada of Jainism implies a spirituality of pluralism in its perfection. It says that every object has infinite aspects judged from different points of view. Every judgment is true only in relation to a particular aspect of the thing seen from a particular point of view and hence it is not the whole truth. Therefore, it is desirable to qualify every judgment by some word like �Syat� (i.e., in some respect). (d) Buddhism encourages non-violent relation between religions in terms of compassion and love. Religious tolerance is based on a causal conception of nature (Pratityasamutpada vada) that is to be tested through one�s own experience. The removal of ego-attachment to any religious philosophy or theology makes it in line with a spirituality of pluralism that overcomes exclusivism.

(e) A spirituality of pluralism has existed among Indian Christians from the beginning of the Christian Era and this we can identity in terms of an analysis of the Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper of 1599. The Thomas Christians held a pluralist perspective that everyone may be saved in his/her own dharma. In social life they were in line with the Hindu community. Local churches functioned in tune with the social and religious customs of the Hindu temples. (f) According to S. K. George the place of Jesus Christ in the Hindu religious heritage of India is as one of the Ishta Devatas. From the side of the disciples of Jesus, the need is not to deny other mediators, other Ishta Devatas, other experiences of God�s presence in the human heart. The redemptive suffering love manifested in the cross has to be made the central principle of Christianity to arrive at a spirituality of pluralism. (g) Manilal C. Parekh wanted a Hindu Church of Christ and tried to present to us a Hindu portrait of Christ, explaining Christian faith as a moksha dharma. He conceived Bhagavata Dharma as a universal personal religion of devotion in which Christian devotion is one prominent element. Bhagavata Dharma represents a spirituality of pluralism. Such a spirituality of pluralism as emerging from India has to become the backbone of theological education to make theological education relevant in the Indian context.

Notes:

1. The Revd. Dr. K. P. Aleaz is professor of Religions at Bishop�s College as well as professor and dean of the Doctoral Programme of North India Institute of Post-Graduate Theological Studies, Kolkata, India.

2. K. P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion. Study, Experience and Interaction (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1995), 265-67.

3. Cf. Harold Coward, Pluralism:Challenge to World Religions (Marynoll: Orbis Books, 1985), 63-80.

4. K. P.Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1993), 33-44.

5. The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (G.R.), original in Bengali by Mahendranath Gupta (M) a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna and translated by Swami Nikhilananda, Vol. II. 8th Edn. (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1985), 910-11; Cf. G. R., Vol. I, 149, Vol. II, 559, 859.

6. G. R.. Vol. I, 112.

7. Ibid., 111.

8. Ibid., 514.

9. G. R., Vol. II, 1010.

10. G. R. Vol. I, 191.

11. Ibid., 490.

12. Cf. K. P. Aleaz, "Syadvada: An Indian Contribution to Pluralism", in Bangalore Theological Forum, Vol. XXXIII, No.1 (June 2001), 133-44.

13. Satischandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, 7th Edn. (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1968), 82; Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I (Cambridge University Press, 1922), 181.

14. Chandradhar Sharma, A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (Delhi, etc.: Motilal Banarasidass, 1964), 53-54.

15. Hermann Jacobi (trans.), Jaina Sutras, Part II, The Uttaradhyayana Sutra. The Sutrakritanga Sutra (Delhi: AVF Books distributors, 1987), S.B.E. Series Vol. 45, "Introduction", XXVII-VIII.

16. Cf. Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana, A History of Indian Logic (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1921), 167-84. For an English translation of Syadvadamanjari Cf. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore (ed.), A Source Book in Indian Philosophy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1973), 260-68.

17. Trevor Ling, Buddhism (London: Ward Lock Educational, 1971), 26-27.

18. Ibid., 27.

19. Ibid.

20. G. P. Malasekera, "Part I", in Buddhist Concepts. Old and New, ed. Buddhadasa P. Kirthisinghe (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1983), 54-57.

21. Ibid., 56.

22. Harold Coward, Pluralism: Challenge to World Religions, 81, 84-85.

23. Ibid., 88-89.

24. Scaria Zacharia (ed.), The Acts Decrees of the Synod of Diamper 1599 (Edamattam: Indian Institute of Christian Studies, 1944); Mathias Mundadan, Emergence of the Catholic Theological Consciousness. Documentation No.7 (Alwaye: St. Thomas Academy for Research [STAR], July 1985), 5-6; K. P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion. Study, Experience and interaction, Op.Cit., 219-22.

25. Cf. The Indian Journal of Theology, Vol.34, Nos. 1-3 (Jan.-Sept.1985). The whole issue is devoted to Kerala ecclesiology. Cf. 17-18, 89-98, 99.

26. Cf. S. J. Samartha, One Christ Many Religions (Bangalore: Sathri, 1992).

27. Cf. K. P. Aleaz, "S. K. George: A Pioneer Pluralist and Dalit Theologian", Bangalore Theological Forum, Vol. XXXII, No. 1 (June 2000), 91-111; S. K. George, Gandhi�s Challenge to Christianity, 2nd Edn. (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1947).

28. Ibid., 80.

29. Ibid., 80-91.

30. Ibid., 52.

31. Ibid., 53-54.

32. Ibid., 48; S. K. George, "Christianity in Independent India", in S.K. George Souvenir, The FFT Quarterly, Vol. 7, Nos. 1-2 (Oct. 1959 and Jan. 1960), 37.

33. Cf. R. H. S. Boyd (ed.), Manilal C. Parekh 1885-1967 Dhanjibhai Fakirbhai 1895-1967. A Selection (Madras: CLS, 1974).

34. K. P. Aleaz, Religions in Christian Theology (Kolkata: Punthi Pustak, 2001), 95-96.

35. Ibid., p.97. Cf. Manilal C. Parekh, A Hindu Portrait of Jesus Christ (Rajkot: Sri Bhagavata Dharma Mission, 1953); Christian Proselytism in India � a Great and Growing Menace (Rajkot, 1947).