Dear Swami Dayanand,

People are saying that one level of ‘cultural’ contextualisation is good; sitting on floor, indian clothes, taking off shoes, style of preaching, bhajans etc… but another level, the so called ‘religious’ contextualisation (meaning by some whatever is done in a hindu temple or home puja) is demonic in origon and therefore wrong.

I am of the mind that there is no difference in culture and religion as such and it stems from a poor understanding of wholistic woldview and seperation of sacred and secular (gnostic or greek thinking problems that most foriegners have). However I am unable to really convince others of this due to lack of ability to phrase it correctly.

Can you please email me as soon as possible your learned opinion on culture and religion as regards to Hindu people.
 
With thanks,

Jai & Arasi
Dear Arasi and Jai,

Shanti!  Congratulations.  My best wishes for your promotion as parents.

Your question:

People are saying that one level of ‘cultural’ contextualisation is good; sitting on floor, Indian clothes, taking off shoes, style of preaching, bhajans etc. but another level, the so called ‘religious’ contextualisation (meaning by some whatever is done in a hindu temple or home puja) is demonic in origion and therefore wrong.

I am of the mind that there is no difference in culture and religion as such and it stems from a poor understanding of wholistic worldview and separation of sacred and secular (Gnostic or Greek thinking problems that most foreigners have). However I am unable to really convince others of this due to lack of ability to phrase it correctly.

Can you please email me as soon as possible your learned opinion on culture and religion as regards to Hindu people?

My response:

Not only in India (Hinduism) but in most of the other places in the world it is very difficult to differentiate between what is culture and what is religion.  As life cannot be put in watertight compartments, in contextualization also we cannot strictly separate what is culture and what is religion.  Particularly in India, where culture and religious practices are overlapping with each other, it is difficult for any one to say which is culture and which is religion.  Considering the variety of cultures, customs and practices, what is considered as ‘religious’ practice in one part of India might be considered as ‘cultural’ in another part.  Just one example: covering the head while worshiping god(s) is almost a norm in North India, whereas in South it is considered as inauspicious practice.

Particularly in ‘contextualisation’ our aim is to communicate the gospel in manner and forms which the Hindus and Muslims (Buddhist, Jains etc.) would easily understand.  In this process we have to use the manners and forms (even to some extent their culturo-religio-ritual language as well) which will help us to communicate the gospel.  I need not point that not only the gospel was communicated according to the need of the audience (for example Peace Child, Bruchhoko (by Bruce Olson etc.) but worshiping the Lord was also (to some extent) attempted in indigenous forms in various other cultures.  Of course those Christians trained in Western tradition will find it not only to difficult to understand this but also to accept.  That’s why they easily take refuge in ‘demonic origin’ for any manners and forms with which they don’t feel comfort.

I just one incident coming in the film Gandhi.  While Gandhi was travelling all over India in train, one of his European friends accompanied him.  That gentle man, in one of the travel claim to the top of the train to meet the common people.  That time the Indians who were travelling on the top of the train after welcoming tell to their co-passengers about the European gentleman as a ‘Christian’.  Immediately one Indian pass this comment, ‘Oh.  A Christian!  Jo apane guru kaa khoon piitehain (those who drink the blood of their own guru).’  He was referring about the ‘wine’ used as ‘blood’ in Churches (of that time).  If I remember correctly, even in the first century several Christ bhaktas (particularly those living in Catacombs) were blamed as ‘cannibals’ as they were eating the flesh and blood of the Lord.  These terms (flesh and blood) are neither spiritual nor religious terms for a Hindu.  They are worst than demonic words for them.

So who has to decide whether a particular manner and form (language etc.) are demonic or cultural?  Definitely not any outsider.  If one find it difficult to accept, at least they should not pass quick judgement in other’s forms of worship.  Even those manners and forms which others find it difficult to accept, must hold their patience and observe, do proper research and also test what does those particular forms of worship mean to the people who are familiar with them.

Contextualisation is not for common missionaries.  Those who are ready to go for the second mile and become ‘all things to all men’ like Paul alone can understand these concepts.  Otherwise if we attempt to convince everyone, only we will be backfired.  Judaizers are good at Jerusalem only.  If they come to Gallatia they not only will get confused but also create problem for the new bhaktas—above all to Pauls and Peters (need not to mention about Barnabas).  So allow James to live peacefully at Jerusalem and never try to patch new cloths with old ones.

Regarding the manner and forms of worship in Hindu temples and homes in pujas various local cultural, traditional forms are integrated and localized according to the convenience of the people.  Several time new things are also accepted.  Take for example of lightning camphor (kapuur a more common practice in south and not in North) to take aarati. Before the Britishers came to India, Indians don’t know camphor and only used ghee wigs to take aarati both in the home and temple.  Seeing the commercial importance of camphor, the Britishers introduced it to Indians.  Now, because of echo-friendly attempts as well as to prevent the sanctorum becoming thick block due to the smoke from the camphor (as well as to preserve the paintings in the walls of inner sanctuary), attempts are made to stop the use of camphor in some temples in South India.  Another best example is the breaking the coconut in pujas both at home and temple.  In general in every special occasion breaking the coconut is a must in most part of South India but it is not a common practice in North, though they too know about it.  Why?  Because coconut available easily in South India.  So every so called ‘demonic’ forms and origin of other’s manners and forms are to be studied properly before one decides whether to accept or reject them.

Certain practices, which are used in temple worships, are not used at home.  For example dancing before the deity (now that too in most of the temples stopped), using auspicious instruments (shenai in North and Naadaswaram in South) during the puja in the temple are not used in home.  This because as common people cannot afford to use such practice in their every day puja at home.  Above all the deity is treated in different manner in temple and home.  At home the deity is treated as a guest and in the temple as a King.  So what are the things that are performed for a guest in the home are done for the family deity and what are the things done for a King are performed in the temple.  Unless we understand all the aspects of worship in other religions, giving our own interpretation we will reject them.

Separation of sacred from secular is purely a western concept.  That too came in the background of the conflict in sharing (rather controlling) the temporal power between the Church and State.  As the Church used the ‘religious’ sentiment and fear to control the State, the State in order to check the interference of the Church tried to separate the sacred from secular.  But in India such an artificial division of power never existed and these western concepts were wrongly imposed on our values.  This creates lot of tension than solving the problem.  Of course, in my personal opinion both religious leaders and political leaders should know their limitation as well as influence, which they could exercise to manipulate common people to achieve their vested interest.  But if they both understand that the power, which is entrusted in their hand, is to serve the people then they can work together for the welfare of the people.  After all without common people there could be neither religion nor politics.  I don’t know whether the separation of sacred from secular is a Gnostic or Greek thinking problem.  But definitely it is a western problem.

Enough for the time being.  If you were not confused by this long answer to your precise question then thank God.  If you were confused then understand that this is the trade mark of a learned person who reads too much and not only get confused but also confuses others too.

Dayanand

The following by Chenchiah writing in the context of Red-dot controversy will help us to understand the demonic origin of other’s practices:

“On the Propriety of Christian Women Wearing the Red Dot”

by P. Chenchiah

(From The Guardian, 1951, p. 429, reprinted in

Thangasamy, D. A. (ed.), The Theology of Chenchiah, YMCA/CISRS, 1966, p. 233-4.)

Sir–The red-dot controversy, started in the columns of your esteemed journal and illumined by illustrious contributors, reveals attitudes which are creditable neither to our intellect nor to our spirituality.

The simple truth of the matter is that the red-dot comes from the vanity box of women–which is as old as Eve.  To stray into theological and anthropological discussion about it is simply ridiculous.  It is just a fashion and a fashion has no reason or logic about it.

The association of the red-dot with the phallic symbol is less scientific than the association of the lip-stick and powder-box with primitive Druid ritual and worship.  If you begin to trace things to their remote origins you will find that there is hardly anything in our dress, jewels and food which has not sprung from paganism and heathenism.  The under-done meal which rejoices many a Western stomach and heart, and the tango dance are direct descendants of African customs.  Would the champions of anti-red-dot campaign lead a war against the lip-stick, the powder-box, the tango and the under-done meal?

One point more; it is not the red-dot only that has heathen associations.  More palpably and less dubiously it can be shown that Christian altars, priests’ vestments, churches [Gothic], sacraments, and festivals, have heathen ancestry.  Why shy at the red-dot only?  Of all things, I hate with my Lord the Pharisaism that strains at the gnat and swallows the camel.

@@@

CULTURAL FACTORS THAT HAVE AFFECTED HEALTH

IN THE INDIAN SCENARIO

In my response to this article, I will limit myself to the author’s understanding about the Hindu worldview.  Of course, as per my habit I will ‘hit’ the so-called ‘Christian’ values, comparing with which other cultural factors are evaluated or criticised.  I won’t touch anything related with health, medicine etc.–Dayanand

1. RELATIONALITY

In the Judeo Christian culture relationality is taken for granted.  I believe this emanates from the relationality in the God Head – the triune God – rejoicing in the threesome and wanting that relationalitiy to extend to the Church.

RELATIONALITY IN HEALING

Relationship per se is part of the healing process

Mathew 25:36 –“ …I was sick and you visited me….” 

James 5 :14, 15 –  “Is anyone sick? Let him call for the elders”

The orthodox Vedic religion Buddhism and Jainism have not emphasized the role of “relationship” in itself as a healing instrument.  Jainism in fact discourages sharing of your suffering with others.  We find there VISITING THE SICK is not done by the community at large and is confirmed to the family and extended family.  We never see Hindu or Buddhist or Jain Priests coming to pray for supporting the sick. It is not part of their job description.

–no one can clearly say what exactly is the ‘orthodox Vedic religion’.  The present day Hinduism no way stands near to any ‘orthodox vedic religion’.  Of course every Hindu claims that his/her faith and religion has vedic base and sanction.  But they themselves are not in a position to explain or trace out what those vedic sanctions are.  It is a big subject to deal here.  The main point which I would like to draw to your attention is that every academic scholars and outside learners always begin with Vedic Hinduism to learn, know and comment about the present day Hinduism.  And they end up only with mere academic exercise and it never reflects practical life of a professing Hindu.

Hinduism which is not a religion (there exists no Hindu religion as such.  The Europeans impose the very word on us.  The present day Hinduism could be defined as ‘parliament of sampradayas [sects] claiming to have common vedic root and a civilization’.)  The identity of a Hindu is not related to his faith but his identity with his caste and community.  To say in other words a Hindu is a member of a particular community irrespective of his faith.  This being the truth, family and community relationship is much stronger in India than elsewhere.  To prove this I can point one important fact that no marriage can be arranged without the help of the family and community.  It is strange to say that ‘VISITING THE SICK … is confirmed to the family and extended family’ and ‘the community at large is not involve’ in it.  Family and extended families are part of the community.  In Hindu world community involves in general in two major events—marriage and death.  I think the author tries to compare the concept of ‘Christian Community’ that too belongs to a particular denomination with other communities like Hindu, Jains and Buddhists.  In that case when a Methodist Christian become sick neither the Baptist Christian community nor the Catholic Community will visit that sick person.  And only the members of his/her church will visit.  The problem with denominational Christians is that they try to understand every concept—whether biblical or secular—only from their denominational Christian Community point of view.

In Hinduism (as well as Jainism etc.) the role of a Priest is to take care of the ritual life of the people. The author has rightly said that ‘It is not part of their job description.’  The welfare of every individual—spiritual, economic, physical, mental etc.—are entrusted with families and not with the Church or Priest.  Here I am not try to compare the merits and demerits of such care extended by a family versus a religious community [like denominational Christian communities].  But at least I have observed one thing here in Indian Christian communities.  In a church if there are fifty families and five become sick in five different families, the Pastor will visit and pray for them.  But once he gets transferred to another church, his commitment and involvement ends like that of a paid doctor who visits the same sick people for treatment.  There is neither emotional or nor any spiritual involvement is provided by the Priest.  It is a job—A PAID JOB.  And we thank that we need not PAY in our Hindu communities for anyone to visit the sick.  I have yet to come across any Pastor continues to visit the same sick people in all his previous churches where he served as a Priest.

The community at large (except in rare instances) also do not get involved with the sick.  It is only the members of the family who take time off to stay and support the sick.

Sending “get well cards”

Singing for the patient

Helping with the needs gaps in support E.g. driving the patient, or looking after the children – are not usually done by the community at large.

–Probably this author is living in metropolitan city I think.  It is true that in the initial stage the community at large (even as an exception) will get involved with the sick.  But in the long run it is only the family members who have to take the entire responsibility as each one has his own family to look after.  I don’t know about any community outside India.  But I have seen that in major sickness and natural calamity and accident the entire community gets involved to help people.  But when the need continues generally it is the immediate family that will bear the burden and not the entire community.  May be in Western Nations till the end, the entire community may involve and about this only someone from that community and Nation alone can respond to such points.  Of course we Indians never know to send signed cards or Singing for the patient.  But we have seen special prayers; pujas even interfaith prayer meetings are arranged for the healing of the sick person.

• STATUS OF MAN

The Judeo Christian understanding of man is that he is unique and special because he is made in the image of God.  He is not just quantitatively different from animals & creations but also qualitatively different.  He is valuable and irreplaceable.  Even the mentally retarded and those who are crippled have the same status as anybody else. 

However, in the Indian scenario man has a status equal to that of animals, plants and even air and the environment.  He is one of the trillions of lives who are going through the karmic cycle.    Therefore the Indian approach to caring is :

Regimented and non-personalized.

–This shows the poor understanding of the author about the Hindu Worldview.  No where Hinduism says that the status of man is equal to that of animals, plants etc.  Without know the complicated concept of karma in Indian worldview, the author just passes a comment based on what he ‘heard’ from others without having any first hand knowledge about this subject.  Hence I don’t want give all the answers to such sweeping generalization.  If he is interested I can refer books which he can study to understand this subject.

For E.g.: Most Indian health professionals will not ask the name of the patients.  They will not ask permission of the patient to examine them or to undress them.   They will lift and move the patients with a lot of energy.  No explanation before or after the examination or even after the surgery is offered to the patients unless they ask many times.

–I don’t know how to respond to such interesting medically related points.  I have seen in every hospital both run by the govt. or by private doctors that a complete record of the patient is maintained.  Even before prescribing any basic medicine the doctor will write down the name of the patient, date, age etc. on the prescription.  If you want I can send several of them which I got for my mother.  I don’t understand why a health professional needs to ask the permission of the patient to examine him.  That is why he/she has visited the doctor.  I don’t know about the West but in India if a health professional began to ask the patient, ‘would you please give me permission to put the thermometer in your mouth? Would you please allow me to measure your blood pressure?  Would you please allow me to check you pulse? Etc, then the patient will become mentally sick.  Generally all the explanations are offered to the relatives of the patients and not to him by the doctor.

• SENSE OF COMMUNITY

Sense of community is important if you have to develop social capital.  Social capital can be defined as “civil societies or organized groups that lie between the family and the state”.  An environment of trust is necessary to produce these civil societies.  In the West, large numbers of civil societies or social capital have been built. 

–again without having any kind of knowledge about Western Societies I have to give my comment.  I can say only this much: what is best for a country or nation need not be even the good for another country or nation.  I think West is famous for ‘Organizing’ everything—even human life.  In modern India also these days all these kinds of Community groups are emerging.  But merely imitating a social concept because it is successful in one place need not bring the same result in another place.  Some one who knows about the West can say in how many civil societies, how many times the same ‘trust’ is breached.  I heard that recently in USA a big Power Company (Enron?) has swindled the share of common people whereas the top executives safeguarded their future knowing what is going to happen to the Company.  Even to attract investment and to sell their shares big Companies gave false report about their Profit.  Of course I may be wrong to bring such breach of trust by business people comparing with civil societies.  But Trust is needed everywhere even to run a small family.

For E.g :

Community Centres, Women’s groups, Youth groups in churches, Girl Guides, Boy Scouts,  Retired People Association, Alcoholic anonymous, Car Pool Association etc.

Because of the social capital many business empires have been built and Multi National Organizations have come up creating a lot of wealth.  Also different specialties, different cadres of health professional have been built.  The reason why this was possible in the West is because Christianity is a community religion.  People meet week after week on Sundays as a family, worship and pray for each other and receive news about the well being of the members.    However the development of social capital did not happen in the Indian scenario.

–Christianity as a Community religion is a latter development.  Even in this community religion what matters is the interest of every denominational community interest and not the entire community and society.  Even if we take for granted that at least in Indian Churches, however they try to ape the Western Churches, have yet to show how successfully they have raised such social capital based on their weekly Sunday meetings, cottage prayer meetings etc.  If ‘Christianity as a community religion’ is successful in creating several such social capitals in the West, why the Indian Churches which are the exact replica of the Western Churches failed either to produced such social capital or to impress the larger Hindu societies by showing their successful models?

There are two kinds of support can individual can have.           

1. Family Net
2. Community Net

(Net – because it is a safety net)

The Indian scenario has strong family support.    And a family was espoused to support the family at all costs.  Even if it meant doing unethical things.  A family was the only safely net there was and if it was broken there was no further security for the person.

The Community net was very weakly developed because the social capital was not developed. 

It may be that the Hindu and Jains forms of worship were solitary phenomenon.  The sense of community in religious affairs were non-existent.  And co-operation in economic matters was restricted to the family and the extended family.  An exception would be times of festival when the whole village would come together.  However the festival tended to be disorganized without specific timings, or an agenda.  The trust levels outside the family were very low.  Therefore co-operation was thought to be risky. 

–The sense of community in religious affairs is strong enough in certain sampradayas [sects] like Srivaishanavas, Kabir Panths etc.  Mentioning festival gathering as an exception for co-operation in economic matters again shows this authors lack of understanding about Hindu worldview.  Festivals, melas etc. are more social and cultural oriented occasions using religious seasonal rituals to gather people.  They are not organized for economic co-operation.  It is true that ‘a family was the only safely net’ in Indian communities.  However, except recent time that too because of Western influence, rarely a family breaks in India.  Broken family is a strange word in India till recent time.  Trust levels not only outside the family but also within the family are very low because of lack of joint family system.  However to some extent we have co-operative societies functioning successfully.  But we all have to learn good lessons from past USSR about co-operative forming etc.

Institutions that are required for health such as:

1. Farming of ayurvedic herbs
2.  Marketing of these herbs
3. Standardization of dosages
4. Ethical committees to set down codes of conduct
5. Medical Training Centres
6. Other disciplines which should cooperate and assist the physician.
7. A widely accepted body for accreditation of  physicians.

All these require community cooperation.  Bud sadly none of these happened in a regular sustainable fashion.

–I don’t understand the need for any Institution for health service in India based on above lines.  However ‘sadly none of these happened in a regular sustainable fashion’, still all kinds of Ayurveda, Siddha and other indigenous medicines are practised, preserved and passed to next generation as family tradition.  In Tamilnadu at Salem there is a family which provide Siddha medical treatment since last six generation.  I am not an economist to deal with all these things and so let me proceed further.

Concerning the significance of the Trinity for human society, Griffiths states:

“This has two important implications.  It suggests that the idea of community is crucial to the life of society.  Any view of society, which analyses behaviour as if the individual were some form of automation, is deficient because it fails to capture the importance of relationships.  We were not created to live as Crusoe-like-figures.  As well as this, there is also the relationship which the Trinity expresses between the one and the many, unity and diversity.  In the Trinity the one God does not take precedence over the many persons, neither do the many have priority over the One.”

–though I too agree with Grffiths statement on society, in what way the Hindu society lacks ‘the idea of community’.  In fact the idea of community is very strong in Indian society either based on caste or religion.

4.           HEALTH ACCESS

 Inherent in the Christian Gospel is the compulsion to reach out to the marginalized and the poor and the afflicted – lepers, the poor, the lame, the refugees etc.  The gospel was good news because the marginalized now had a new proposition.

The strict caste system, the low status of women and the powerlessness of the disabled and the crippled (the crippled were not allowed to get into the Buddhist Sanghas or temples) meant that their health access was poor.

–no doubt in that ‘the Christian Gospel’ has the ‘compulsion to reach out the marginalized and the poor’.  But fortunately not the ‘Gospel’ of Jesus.  Such people who ‘only’ promote this kind of ‘Christian Gospel’ conveniently forget the fact that neither Jesus nor His Apostles focused only on the ‘marginalized’ in the society.  If Jesus and His Apostles were only healing the sick and reaching the marginalized by ‘social gospel’, we would never have any gospel or the entire New Testament in our hand.  Emphasizing one side of the gospel at the cost of another is always dangerous.

Those who always throw mud at the caste system has to keep in mind the Western Christian racial bias before try to remove the speck of sawdust from the Indian eye.  As a digression here I would like to point out the two programmes which I saw in National Geographic channel.  One is about the South Africa where gang fight on the street, deserted street children, HIV patience dying without any care, children abandoned by the parents, increasing crime and lack of security for one to live and serve in those situations.  The another is in Brazil or Argentina where poor people were force to live on slum and all other problem that we saw in South Africa and the way four individuals working to help for these people.  No body will deny the Christian Gospel preached in these countries.  And the result of such ‘Christian Gospel’ has yet to prove how far it will help other countries to remove their social problems.

The women were not treated by the Ayurvedic practitioners and deliveries were conducted by village dais who were from a low caste background.  The lepers were burnt or buried alive; the mentally ill chained and several suspected of demon possession were killed.

Health accessing culture was therefore absent as most people were left outside the health servicing system.  To this day there are almost 10-15% of Indians who would not visit hospitals even if they were very sick.

–what an interesting account.  So all the women in India died as Ayurvedic treatment was prohibited to them!  What the author wants to say or prove by pointing out that the village dais that help woman in delivery were from low caste?  Does it mean that all the children born in the villages become sick or died at the early age?  In India most of the profession were caste oriented.  Even for my mother (who is a Brahmin) for her last child the delivery was performed by a Harijan woman and we had no ill feeling about it.  Above all even to day in most of the villages, where primary health centres are available, because of various personal (blind) faith, families will invite only aged dais from the same family from which several deliveries were performed in their home.  Of course there is high risk in those system, yet people follow it.  Forget the villages in almost every tribal community not only the delivery but also sick people are treated by their own system and till this day they are surviving.

We never deny about the ill treatment received by the lepers and mentally ill patient.  But every country has its own evil system which affect one section of the people or the other.  I have seen in some documentary movies that even in America poor people are living on the street without any roof over their head.  I don’t know whether every one in Western countries is covered by social and other kinds of security.  Of course in India even to day more than 10-15% sick won’t go to the hospital because of various reasons.  In India traditionally, sick people were treated by the family people themselves as they have learnt ‘family medicine’ from one generation to another.  My father never went to any hospital.  Whenever he become sick, he will prepare some medicine using the things available in the house and he lived up to 93 years and died without any problem.  I myself never go to the hospital or to see a doctor for every kind of sickness and we learnt several medicine for the treatment of common sickness like cold, fever, stomach pain etc.  The author has to see the ‘Gurukulam’ programme coming every Sunday morning 8.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. (in Hindi) in Star Plus, in which several ayurvedic medicine are prescribed for sickness in home itself.  Interestingly the entire programme is run by women, to whom,  the author claims that auvedic treatment is not provided.  Hospitals are recent phenomena in India.  Almost in every village one can find a village doctor (even a quack now a days) who will treat the sick as a caste profession. In such a vast country at least 85% are going to the hospital and that is the good sign.  By saying this I am not defending all the wrongs in our Indian society. But these kinds of problems are even exist in those countries where ‘the Christian Gospel’ already converted most of the people to ‘Christian Religion’.

 

5.         SUBJECTIVITY VERSES OBJECTIVITY

Indian religions were very deeply philosophical and subjective.  The Hindu scriptures and verses had their origin in prehistory and were transmitted by word of mouth.

–this is a common western view that never had any kind of first hand knowledge about Hinduism and its philosophies.  Does Moses write all the Pentateuch?  From where the first eleven chapters of Genesis were collected?  Does not Luke say that he gathered all the information about the life and teaching of the Lord from others (as an oral tradition)?  Does Jesus write any book by Himself or His disciples kept a tape recorder to record all His sayings?  John almost wrote his account of the gospel at end of the first century.  If it were not subjective how he would have written all those accounts?  One thing should be remembered before commenting about Indian religion(s) and Scriptures.  Anything and everything could be said about them.  One can find extreme subjective, individualistic monistic view to objective, community based pluralistic view.  Hinduism never fit in to one kind of definition.  And all the following comments are true because Hinduism is a parliament of sampradayas (sects) which accommodates every kind of views.  It is multi centered pluralistic inclusivism.  Or to say in other words: Nothing is wrong and every thing is right.  Let me give one example.  One lay person asked the following question to one Advaitian Swamiji (Dayanand Saraswati, in Thuglak, Tamil Weekly, October 9, 2002, pp.16-17) that though he worship Ganesa with full of faith and trust several times lack of faith and trust in his deity also creeps in his mind and how to avoid such conflict from his mind.  In way of answer that Swamiji said that such conflict is common to every one and when unfaith and lack of trust come in his mind, then even think and worship that ‘unfaith’ and ‘lack of trust’ as Ganesa.  To say in other words, we can hear almost every Hindu saying, ‘it is God who gives faith and unfaith; it is God who binds as well as liberates; it is the same God who hurts and heals the wound.’  So it is not any shift in theology in the following list but every form of theology is accepted.  As many souls so many views is the watchword of Hinduism.

Therefore the theological emphasis kept shifting:

1. From animal sacrifices and freedom to eat meant  – Ban on animal sacrifices and vegetarianism.
2. From only  a few Gods and Goddess in the original scriptures – created more than a million Gods and Idols
3. From a non-personal God – to a personal God.
4. Emphasis more on meditation & sacrifices – devotion to a personal God.
5. Incorporated Buddha as an incarnation
6. Fused Hinduism with Islam – Sufism

Similarly though Buddha and Mahavira forbade worship of themselves, this was formalized in popular religion.

The concept of Objective reality is a Judeo Christian concept.  Knowledge in the Indian religions is derived subjectively and from sages and sadhus who “should know better”.

–knowledge in Hinduism has various dimensions and interpretation.  What is knowledge (jnana) in Advaitic philosophy is entirely different from knowledge in other fields.  I don’t understand what the author means by ‘the concept of Objective reality’ in Judeo Christian concept.  He has to explain it bit.  As an Indian for me every teaching, incidents in the Bible started from the subjective experience of individuals.  Moses encountered God in the burning bush subjectively.  Jacob wrestled with God subjectively.  Prophets received the oracles of God subjectively first.  Even the disciples of Jesus first had a subjective experience with the Lord (I John 1:1-3).  The authors ‘knowledge’ about Indian Sages and Sadhus is bookish I think.  Indian Sadhus are a different world and unless one has ‘subjective’ knowledge about them mere reading about them or some rare observation or encounter with them will only lead ‘avidya’ (lack of knowledge) about them.

The subjectivism is seen in the Ayurvedic science and there was complete absence of research. Ayurveda was a “revealed” science which did not evolve through research.

–this again shows how certain technical terms or concept in one system won’t fit in another. Let me explain this from my own experience.  Whenever I write or share anything, one of my friends (who is not an Indian) always uses the term that I have done proper ‘research’ on that subject.  But I couldn’t understand it or believe it.  Because for me how merely reading several books and collecting information and deep reflection on those point could be termed as ‘research’?  For me, because of our education system, research means doing some thing practically in the Laboratory and either inventing new things or proving certain theory.  In the same way when we Indian say that Vedas were revealed (every Veda Ayurveda, Dhanurveda, Gandharva Veda etc.) it doesn’t mean that no research were done.  Language has severe limitation in every culture.  For example Indian Philosophy is called ‘darshan’ which is not philosophy in strict European sense.  Dharma is another word, which evades any kind of precise translation in English.  When we say bible was written by ‘inspiration’ we never deny the role of human contribution in it.  Luke has done proper ‘research’ in strict academic sense.  But we still call it ‘inspired’ by the Holy Spirit.  I don’t know anything about ‘Ayurveda’.  But ‘complete absence of research’ in that science means that the author has not done ‘proper research’ about how ‘research’ is done and ‘termed’ in India way.

Though a few Indian genius made great discoveries, major discoveries were not seen.  A scientific theory did not develop as Gods were capricious and could not be governing a rational world and creation.

–I don’t understand how God could be involved or dragged in scientific and other discoveries.  For these kinds of criticism, in general Indian answer was that while European and Western world were investing their energy to conquer the world outside them, Indian turned their energy to conquer the world ‘inside’ us.  Though some kind of research were done in almost every field (like art, music, literature, warfare, medicine etc.) in India, in principle people learnt to live with contempt by not harming nature and others.  When European involved in research they were not only attempted to conquer nature and even God but also to control other people and nations.   Finally the very invention which resulted from various scientific researches become a threat for the very survival of the humanity.  The sad fact in it is that several ‘selfish’ research done by the Europeans have more affected people who were never benefited by the same research.  America refused to sign the International Treaty on Green Gas related problem.  Several scientific research are carried out denying the basic right to millions and millions people to live with minimum need in order to quest the lust for luxury for few millions in rich countries. Better to believe and worship the capricious and irrational gods than to exploit innocent people in the name of scientific theory and research done in the Name of God who care for the marginalized and suppressed people.

6.         ROLE MODELLING OF CARE BY GODS & GODDESS

The Gospel is full of Christ role modeling care and compassion. He did miracles mostly in response to human suffering.  He did not do magic to impress people or for self-aggrandizement.

So we see that Christians too are more interested in healing, caring and compassionate ministries.  The first hospital in India was mentioned during the time of Ashoka in the 2^nd Century BC.  There is reference to Ashoka being caring & compassionate. (There is a mention in Dhammepoda that helping others can help your own Karma).

However there is no further mention of a hospital in India till the 15^th Century after the advent of the Portuguese.

Indian religions did recommend helping others-specially Buddhism but it was not the cornerstone of the religions.   The central theme was destroying “karma”; and non-violence and ascetic practices were more in vogue than compassionate ministries. In fact none of the Gods role modeled compassion – caring for the sick, mentally or physically challenged etc.  was not a major theme.  The Gods were into a lot of magic and no wonder lot of Indian godmen are into magic rather than miracles of healing.

A study of 40 Hindu Gods-revealed that none of them used their supernatural powers to heal a human being of his sickness.

 –Charity is not the monopoly of Christianity and renunciation that of Hindus.  It is better to say less about the ‘Christian healing’ which is done exactly like magic ‘to impress people or for self-aggrandizement’.  Charity is an integral part of every Hindu life.  Of course it is also related with karma theory, but here too the concept have various meanings and interpretations.  This is a big subject and I don’t know the art of giving precise answers to any question (as my level of ‘research’ is deep and broad and I always cover and try to give answer to every kind of objection and doubt).

With all humility and gratitude for every kind of ‘Christian Charity’ done both in India and elsewhere in the world, yet I have to say cynically that Christian Charity is never lived up to the definition of Charity.  Some one well said that, ‘Throwing a bone to the dog is not charity, but sharing in the same bone when you are as hungry as the dog’. There is a story in Mahabharata: One old Brahmin lived with utter poverty with his wife, son and daughter-in-law.  That year there was severe famine in the country.  So in order to survive the whole family gleaned from the fields and managed to survive with little porridge which they made out of the gleaned paddy.  But they never gave up their ‘dharma’ of hospitality first.  After providing their share for the son, daughter-in-law and wife, the old man will wait to see whether any guest or needy one is arriving before he ate.  So in order to test his ‘dharma’ of hospitality Yama (the Lord of death) one day came and asked for food.  One by one every member of the family gave their food and finally the old man also gave his share.  As they gave all their savings for next few days, they soon died and were taken to heaven.  And one day a Mangoes passed the side of their hut.  That time the leftover flower from the hut deposited on the one side of the Mangoes by the wind and that side of its body immediately turned as gold.  Surprised by this when the Mangoes wanted to know the reason, another Rishi who know about the dharma of the old man told everything.  Then the Mangoes asked when the other side of its body too would become gold.  For that the Rishi said if any one give more than that the old Brahmin and if it goes to that place the other side of its body will turn as gold.

Yudhishtra [the eldest among the Pandava] after wining the Great War [Mahabharata war] in his carnation gave too much of gift.  On hearing about it the Mangoes reached the place.  After Yudhistra fed several thousands of Brahman and giving immeasurable gifts, the Mangoes rolled on the floor in which the left over food served in charity was found.  On seeing its strange action when the King inquired the reason for it, the Mangoes after telling the story said, ‘O King, hearing that you are giving a lot I came here with a hope to make the other side of my body as gold.  But none of your charity could change my body. So your charity is nothing when compare to the hospitality provided by that old poor Brahmin.  Because you gave from your abundance where as that poor man gave even his lively hood, which is the mark of real charity.’

Most of the Christian Charity in India is like that of Pharisees giving the offering in the temple.  Whereas the Lord appreciated only that poor lady who gave all her livelihood.  Though there are exceptions, yet in most cases the Christian Charity in India is: EITHER TO CONVERT OR TO THE CONVERT.  Above all in the name of Charity several Indian Christians are making a good living out of it.  If $ 1000 is received by the church or mission for any charity work in India, $990 is spent on administration, management, travel official expenditure etc. and only hardly $ 10 will reach the people.  This I have seen and experienced in my ministry in Madhubani.  When the Word Vision sent the Officer to survey and give earth quack relief work at Madhubani, I collected several local volunteers who were all Hindus.  They stayed with me in the affected area and day and night served living in the school veranda that too in rainy season.  Whereas the in-charge of that project flew from Chennai to Patna, hired a Taxi to Madhubani to come from Patna and when we arranged for his stay in a three star hotel at Dharbanga, complaining about the lack of comfort he shifted to Patna to stay in five star hotel and came every time in Taxi to supervise our service.  Where as all the volunteers and I stayed in the muddy village area, cooked our own food and slept with mosquito biting and served more than a week.  But I was embarrassed to answer to the question of the volunteers, ‘Why that Worldvision man never join us to serve the people’?  So better to serve others in Hindu way even though ‘helping others can help your own Karma’, rather parading ‘Christian Charity’ to bring shame to the Gospel.

About public schools and hospital what I already told is to be reminded here.  What is best in one system need not be the norm in another system.  Though there were no public hospitals in India in general not all the Indians died because of sickness.  We have our own system to treat sick people, educate, govern, etc.  Of course British introduced several of their system in India both for good and bad.  But the sad story to day is that even several of those Christian Hospitals and Educational Institutes now become good commercial centers.  Above all the Church and Mission are using them to blackmail the govt. and public if any of their interest is challenged.  Recently Tamilnadu govt. passed an ordinance against ‘forced conversion’.  Whether the ordinance is right or wrong is not my question.  But on October 24^th the Christian Church (Catholics mostly) decided to close all there educational institutions for one day and further to consider what kind of action should be taken if the govt. is not heeding to their voice.  If I am right, even one Bishop told that they would indefinitely close all their institutions, (which means schools and hospitals).  Whereas most of those Institutions are receiving govt. aid to provide salary for their staffs.

Regarding the magic done by Hindu god-men and gods is no way different from the miracle performed by the Christian preachers.  Several stories are told and films are made about the ‘miracle’ and ‘healing’ provided by several of their gods among Hindus.  Above all Hindus views about ‘magic’ ‘miracle’ etc. are various.  Regarding the lack of ‘role modeled compassion – caring for the sick, mentally or physically challenged etc.’ by gods, the author has to read several Upa-puranas and sthala (local) puranas where several such stories are in abundance.

‘A study of 40 Hindu Gods-revealed that none of them used their supernatural powers to heal a human being of his sickness.’

–the author who often mentions about ‘karma’ theory forgets the point that gods won’t interfere in the karma of human beings.  At the same time at least in bhakti schools of thought, even God because of His Grace can over throw the karma to show His mercy to his devotee.  Again I would like to remind that Hinduism upholds all kinds of contradictory theology side by side without giving room for any one kind of systematic theology either to appreciate or condemn it.  

7.    TIME ORIENTATION

The   Judeo Christian concept of time is that it is linear.  There is a definite beginning and there will be a definite end.  Time is a created entity and once there is no mass/space, it will cease to exist.  In other words, Christians works towards a deadline and a finite amount of time in which to achieve life’s goals including spiritual goals.

–though we have to agree with the author about the Judeo Christian concept of time and history, yet how far the biblical account of time and history allow us to compare it with other’s concept on these subjects.  Does bible anywhere says that ‘Christians ought to work towards a deadline and a finite amount of time in which to achieve life’s goals including spiritual goals’.  Is this not an extra biblical reading on the concept of time in the bible?  For example how much time one has to fix to achieve life’s goals including spiritual goals?  If one has decided to become a learned or scholarly person and once achieved his aim within ten years of time, is that the end of his persuasion to gain more knowledge?  Or, if one decided to become a Millionaire within a particular time limit and achieves it then what?  This being the case with the mundane affairs what kind of time frame one can fix for any spiritual goal?  Is not the sanctification a continuous process?  We are saved, we are being saved and we will be saved.  With my limited knowledge on the bible, even our salvation is an on going process and no one can fix any life’s goal on this matter.  Till the end of our life we have to work our salvation with fear and trembling.  In the name of criticizing other’s worldviews we cannot read anything and everything in the bible.

The Indian understanding of time is that it is a circular.  There is no beginning or end.  If you lose time, there is always more.  Since there is no creation, time is timeless.  There is no deadline.

–according to most of the Hindus this is the one best and advantageous concept in Hinduism.  According to them none can become perfect in one life and God in His mercy never close the door for those who strive to become perfect and provide further opportunities in another life.  Gita specifically says that according to one’s own effort one will born in a better way and can achieve his goal (See Gita 6:37-45).  Though rebirth is a latter development and few rare references never agrees with the concept of rebirth, yet because of latter developed Karma theory mankind is provided with an opportunity to work out their own salvation as per the karma one performs.  Of course bhakti schools of thought some time emphasis that God can get rid of any kind of karma of His devotee, yet by karma theory God kicks the ball in our court to accept our moral responsibility for what we will become.  Though Hinduism provides one more opportunity for us to work out our own salvation, yet there are several references which warns us to postpone our own salvation that too after one get the opportunity to born as a human being.

This difference had a twofold impact: –

1. Lack of history orientation
2. Lack of emphasis on quality of life.

Lack of History orientation: – The books in the Old Testament for the most part give you a time and a historical perspective.  For e.g. : “In the 14^th year of King Hezekiah….”

The gospels relate to history.  However the Indian scriptures do not relate to history.  No dates, no authorship or reference to contemporary historical events are given. 

–Of course we all agree about the historical orientation of the bible.  Yet those who criticise such view always point out that the historical orientation of the bible is so narrow that it views the entire history of the world only from the point of biblical history.  To say in other words the biblical history provides only a narrow window about the world history.  Above all the historical records and references in the bible are to be understood and accepted from the Judeo Christian historical point of view.  Whereas the entire history of the world cannot be treated from one particular point of view of the bible alone.  What about so many nations, cultures, civilization, people about which biblical history has no knowledge?  Because bible does not mention them, can we ignore them as irrelevant even for a better understanding of God’s own creation and work in other cultures, nations and civilization?

Regarding the lack of historical reference in the Indian scriptures we cannot compare their purpose and orientation from our particular perspective on Scripture.  In my encounter with several Hindus this is the one challenge they put before us: ‘by emphasizing too much on historicity you have limited God’s will, message and purpose to a limited place, people and time.  It is not universal.  According to you God in a particular time called a tribe and made them a nation.  He established them and then scattered them according to His timetable.  Again He will gather them according to His purpose and time.  And then?  Even if you trace out your historicity you can go back up to Moses and may be up to Abraham. Then what about their ancestors? What exactly the historic time of Adam and Eve?  The same is the case with Jesus.  Gospel is related to a particular history and thus cannot be universal.  Even from the first century the end time concept and timetable is fixed and prolonging.  On the other hand as our message is universal, we don’t need the support of any particular historic reference for its authencity and application.  Neither God nor His purpose can be imprisoned in any kind of history.’

Lack of emphasis on quality of life : Behavioral scientists will tell you that without targets, and deadlines (reasonable ones), humans do not accomplish much.  The development of quality of life is in part due to the linear concept of time.  The circular concept of time can kill work ethic and is not conducive for developing quality.  And one of the foremost components of quality is “health”.  A case therefore can be made that health develops better in a linear time frame.

–what I said about fixing any target for mundane as well as spiritual goal is extra biblical concept developed by ‘behavioral scientists’ and not by any sincere biblical theologian.  The problem with such emphasis on quality of life come from other secular and scientific views is that the bible does not say anything clearly about this.  There is noting wrong in fixing a target and deadlines (that too reasonable ones).  But the problem in such concepts is that reading too much of biblical view or sanction for any and every kind of behavioral values will never help us to understand and appreciate other’s view.  In record Japanese are the one who lives a long life in average when compare to others in the world.  Whereas they too have circular concept of time.  Are we going to claim or prove that those who follow a linear concept of time alone have better work ethics and quality?  If this is true then we have to accept the same linear concept of time for all kinds of ethical and moral problems exist in these countries.

8.    MAN AS THE “CEO” OF THE CREATION VERSUS MAN WITHOUT A DESIGNATION

The Judeo Christian understanding of Man is that of a Chief Executive Officer of the creation.  He is God’s regent.  He has been nominated by the Trinity to subdue (regulate, manage) the animals, fishes, plants and the environment.  He has been empowered to experiment, understand, deduce the scientific mysteries including the mysteries of the human body and the mysteries of illness and disease.  Hence the  pro-activity in the West in technology development.

–the very words ‘regent’ ‘subdue’ ‘regulate’ show the imperialistic note of the western world.  According to my understanding Man is not the Chief Executive Officer but only a Steward who has to give an account with fear and humility not only to the creator but also to the creation to which he is appointed to serve and preserve and not to ‘subdue’ and destroy.  Even if the Son of Man has come to serve and not to be served, how much more the Chief Executive Officer should realize his responsibility.  A mere word that God gave authority to Adam to control and subdue the creation does not mean that he become the Chief Executive Officer to control everything.  That privilege was given not to dominate but only to serve.  Only such a regimental mentality in west paved the way to exploit creation, environment and even other’s right to survive in the name of pro-activity.

The Indian understanding of man is that he is part of the creation; or that he is one of the trillions of others; or that he is a mystery.  There is no mandate for man vis a vis the creation.  To engineer or experiment with the creation was not really a part of his job description.  It could even be dangerous.  This lack of pro-activity was an important factor that retarded health development.

Dissection (vivisection) of both humans and animals was rare, autopsies were rare, experimenting on animals with herbs or on humans has no mention.

Instead of trying to get at the root of the problem, epidemics produced terror.  People used to run away and evacuate villages in response to the epidemics, leaving those affected to die.  Sacrifices were offered to stay the epidemics.  Scientific cause and effect and expert manipulation of the causes was not practiced or understood.

–I thing the author has yet to read so many ancient Indian writings on human anatomy and various researches done in several fields.  Because a thing is ‘rare’ doesn’t mean that it is not familiar. Even by doing certain experiment rarely one can achieve the needed result.  India tested atomic bomb ‘rarely’ or only once.  It is enough to procure needed information and we need not repeat the same test again and again to threaten others.  Recording certain experiment might not be the priority of those who done it.  And without experimenting certain medicine either herb or auyervedic nothing could be developed.

This lack of job description for “man” had therefore a 2 fold impact :-

1. Affected the “work ethic”.  There was no mandate to work, develop, sustain, harness or preserve the creation.  The emphasis was on survival.

–If Indian and Oriental work ethic is for survival and not for preservation of the creation, the Western concept of work ethics is ‘exploitation’ and ‘domination’ for self-interest’.  Who is a culprit?  One who destroys the creation for the sake of survival or the one for the sake of his own pleasure and luxury?

• Affected creativity – There was some “fear” about being too creative or too smart.  The Gods might get upset if you did something novel with the creation.

–where in Hinduism such concept is projected?  Creativity is not limited only to some scientific research and medical advancement.  It is covers every area of human activity including art, music, literature etc.  We Indians stand no way behind others in creative activity in all these areas including in science and medicine.

9. PESSIMISM/ FATE/ SUFFERING versus SUFFERING ENROUTE TO A JOYOUS DESTINY

or PARALYSIS OF HOPELESSNESS versus THE ENERGY OF HOPE

The Indian philosophical systems are suffused with pessimism.  Suffering is part of man’s destiny. It cannot be easily shaken off. Yes, it is possible to get Nirvana but it involves extraordinary determination, sacrifice and asceticism – not usually possible for the vast majority of humans. The journey to Nirvana is lonely-not even the Gods can help. Even the state of Nirvana is not joyous.  It is solitary and non-relational.  What joy can one have by oneself?  A lot f the spiritual disciplines involve “get in touch with oneself” and “peering into the soul” – the equivalent of masturbation in the spiritual realm.  It is no wonder that “passive acceptance” of suffering is so pervasive – rightly defined as “fate”.  The passive acceptance of suffering programs people into not changing their milieu and allowing ill health and diseases to take their toll.

However, this passive acceptance of suffering contrasts sharply with the Judeo Christian attitude. There is active “suffering management”, preventive and creative and alleviative.  This is because man has a destiny beyond suffering, a destiny that is rooted in joy and in wonderful relationships.

–again this shows the authors lack of proper understanding about all the various worldviews of Hindus.  All his view about Indian philosophical is based on his understanding about Buddhist and Jains philosophies I think.  The balanced common Indian view is the four aims of life: dharma, artha (wealth), Kama (pleasure) and moksha.  Nothing legitimate is denied for one to enjoy.  Even Krishna in Gita says that he remain as the Kama in human being which is not opposed to dharma (Gita 7:11).  Almost every sectarian theology promises an everlasting joyful union with the Lord and living in His presence eternally.  Of course in common understanding both heaven and hell is a temporary place and moksh is the ultimate goal.  Where the concept of Nirvana is limited to very few high philosophy and not common one.

The passive acceptance of suffering is entirely different from ‘fatalism’.  Though common people does not differentiate between karma and fatalism, at least in theological writings a clear distinction is mentioned and no where fatalism is promoted or accepted.  The theory of karma, though has its own negative aspects, yet in its positive side it helps people to accept the reality of life and suffering as it is than to become discouraged and depressed.  I would recommend the book ‘Karma and Rebirth’ by O’Flaherty to the author to read to have a proper understanding about this [Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, (ed.) Wendy Doniger, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi, (1983) Reprint 1999. Specifically see pp. xxiii, pp. 24-28, p.45,47, 51, 92,133, 71-2,].  People in general will take final refuge in ‘fatalism’ and ‘karma theory’ after all their efforts failed.  I have yet to see one Indian never accepted treatment or refused to treat sick people in the name of fatalism or karma.  Similarly though the bible promises a destiny beyond suffering after death, it never denies the suffering as part of human life.  Of course those believers who have the right understanding about ‘suffering’ will find joy even in suffering as our Lord is there to share with us, yet common Christians have almost the same worldview regarding suffering like that of Hindus.

10. THE “BODY” – HOW IMPORTANT

We have seen that the Jains view the Body as “karmic matter”.  Thus an average adult will be 150 lbs of Karma.  It envelops the soul and imprisons it.  To find Nirvanic freedom, the body needs to be karmically dissipated.  One of the fastest methods to do this is to slowly fast to death.

The Bodhisattva prior to Buddha was a prince who voluntarily sacrificed himself to feed a hungry tigress who had many cubs.  He got rid of his “vile”  body to save a hungry generation of tigers.

Hindus too have a similar poor opinion of the body.

There is sharp dichotomy between the body and the soul – one dirty and the other good.  To go to great lengths to save what is dirty and prevent and prolong the release of the good by recourse to extended healthcare would not make sense.

The Judeo Christian view would think of the person as one “whole”.  To heal the body is also to minister to the soul and indeed to the whole person.  The body had intrinsic dignity however deformed or diseased.  Even in death, the body needed to be respected.

With this “ugly” view of the body, the healing arts did not take wings.

(story of my grandfather’s servant)

    –While the author only see a negative side in the story of Bodhisattva, Buddhists and Hindus will see the real ‘sacrifice’ of Bodhisattva for the sake of saving the starving cubs.  Like this author Hindus have several ‘negative’ views about the ‘physical’ suffering of Our Lord on the Cross for our sin.  In Hinduism there are plenty of stories where people sacrifice their body and limbs to save others or accepted volunteer bodily suffering for the sake of others.  But all these stories are considered an opportunity to serve others through one’s own body.

I haven’t done proper ‘research’ on Hindu view of body.  But all the Samskaras are give a high view about the body and with some basic knowledge on this subject, I can say with confidant that Hindu view of body is not like that of Jains and Buddhist.  If it is there the author has to give specific reference.  Tirumoolar says ‘Utambai valarthen uyur valarthene’—life (soul) can be nurture only if body is taken care of.’  Of course there is a sharp dichotomy between body and soul in Hindu worldview.  But their view of the body with its relation to soul (atman) is more related to theology and not with health and this worldly affairs.  When it comes health and this worldly affairs equal importance is also given about taking care of the body and various instruction are given in dharmasastras how to nurture the body from cradle to grave, from dawn to dusk.  No other domestic rules (in dharmasastras) elaborately deals about every activity related to body.  Several instructions are given how to brush, take both, eat, sleep and even how to have sex.  Indian scriptures are so vast that only with a limited reading or knowledge arriving any final conclusion only will result in such writing like that of this author.

–Mathagiri, October 11, 2002.

Who wrote this horrible stuff you responded to, and who is this Berthoud who sent it to you? I am not enough of a saint to be able to read through all that foolishness, but what I skimmed it seemed like your response was appropriate.

Prov. 26:5 says “answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes”. That is what you have done. But Prov. 26:4 says “do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself”. The latter is what we have all asked you to practice, and not get involved with such silliness. Since you enjoy folly I will send you my correspondence with David Blank and the review of Vishal’s book on William Carey that I wrote recently. We agreed that Chakravary and I would be the fools of Prov. 26:4; you are to ignore such things.

Rajesh