When Subhashan asked the question: If Maha Prasad is not the same as the Lord’s Supper, do we, as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, have another communion ‘ritual’? Just curious only… hope my question makes sense,
His question not only makes sense but challenges us to think about how we should use Indian or Hindu terms to express our bhakti and doctrine. Back in 1995 or 1996, I wrote a paper addressing the same issue. Let me share it again, slightly re-editing it. In our theological discussions, we often coin specific terms from Indian languages like Sanskrit or Hindi to convey our thoughts. However, we are mindful not to create a new theology but to use terms that serve our purpose effectively. Each Scripture has its own unique theology, though it adopts various forms according to the need of the time. But certain fundamentals cannot be easily changed. Then the challenge arises when we try to ‘contextualize’ the doctrine to make sense of the needs of other people who have a different worldview than the one from which the original theology emerged. In our case, Muktivedic theology emerged from the Jewish and Middle Eastern civilization. However, whether through ‘incarnational’ or ‘contextualization’ approaches, to make it sensible for our needs, we have to consider our civilizational worldview alongside that of the Muktiveda. Regarding the question of ‘Maha Prasad,’ I will address that later. But here is my previous article on this topic:
THE ROLE OF CONTEXT IN UNDERSTANDING AND USING INDIAN RELIGIOUS TERMS IN FORMING INDIAN Muktivedic THEOLOGY
Muktinath is not fully known in this world. And all our interpretations about (as well as assimilation of) Muktinath are going to fulfill only some particular demand of our own theological needs. Any amount of effort on our part to form one uniform Christology will fail to fulfill the needs of people from various backgrounds.
Perhaps the best example to understand this fact can be found in our own country. Since the Hindu Renaissance movements began in India, each generation and group has tried to form a particular Christology expressing their theological understanding of Muktinath. Anyone who carefully reads their writings side by side with critical evaluation will find that all of them are relevant according to their own understanding, conviction, and situation. And our could be the same.
The best lesson we can get from their views is a warning against departing from Muktivedic foundations or expressing extreme views. While pointing out the mistakes these reformers have made by going to one extreme, we must be careful to avoid another extreme of attempting to form one “uniform” or “universal” theology on any particular Muktivedic doctrine. Attempting to create some universal theology reflects more of our own limitations in understanding the Muktiveda than proving others’ lack of understanding of our views.
It is universally accepted that Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture, and while interpreting one verse, we must ensure that it is not contradictory to the rest of the Scripture. The same principle applies to all our doctrinal statements. Though this remains valid in theory, in practice, we cannot avoid “contradictions” while forming a particular Muktivedic theology. This is because, when we try to create systematic theology out of Scripture—which was never written with any systematic theme or theology in mind—though we often claim to adhere to the [unscriptural] slogan ‘Scripture interprets Scripture,’ we cannot strictly follow that when applying theology to our local needs and context, particularly in India. Of course, this is not limited only to the Muktiveda. As we all know, the phrase ‘Scripture interpreting Scripture’ is commonly used by other Hindu philosophies while forming a particular doctrine. This has already been discussed in various places, so there is no need to repeat it here.
In all our efforts to form Indian Muktivedic theology, we cannot avoid this tension. While borrowing Indian terms, we cannot ignore both the “particular” and “popular” contexts of those terms. By “particular,” we mean the “scriptural,” and by “popular,” we refer to the commentators as well as the common people who explain and implement these terms in their religious lives.
Theology holds value only when it becomes acceptable and applicable to the contemporary situation. After all, religion holds value only when it helps people in their struggle for existence. This demand for “existence” forces each generation to give new interpretations to their theology. Therefore, no amount of effort to form one uniform theology applicable to all people at all times will succeed in overcoming this impossible task. While taking all the help we can from our predecessors’ endeavors to form theology in their own times, we must remember the demands of the people in our time when forming theology.
One problem we face when forming Indian Muktivedic theology is the use of Indian terms. As we have already shared, we cannot avoid the contexts in which these terms are used. But the real problem lies elsewhere. In practice, the word “contexts” does not carry the same weight and importance as it does when interpreting Scripture or forming theology for common use, like Maha Prasad.
One advantage in Hinduism in such approaches, contradictions—both inter-scriptural and intra-scriptural—are often ignored. To support specific views or doctrines, technical terms like arthavada1 (laudatory explanations) and kalivarjiya2 (exceptions specific to Kaliyuga) are employed to smooth out apparent inconsistencies. It is important to note that while forming Muktivedic theology, we consider both the Purva and Uttara Vedas with the understanding that the latter fulfills the former. In this approach, we do not assert that if a contradiction arises between the Purva Veda and Uttara Veda, the Purva Veda alone holds authority, thereby dismissing the claims of the Uttara Veda. However, this principle contrasts with Hinduism. In Hinduism, if there is a discrepancy between what Smriti states and what Sruti declares, Sruti is given ultimate authority, even to the point of overriding Smriti’s claims.3
Next is that, sometimes, grammatical tools such as sandhi vicheda4 (splitting compound words) or etymological analysis are used to interpret Sanskrit texts in ways that suit doctrinal preferences. For instance, by altering a single letter or diacritical mark, scholars have derived meanings that align with their desired interpretations. More than this, to address certain contemporary issues, be it social, political or religious, certain terms in scriptures might be given new meaning as we found imposing ‘svadharma’5 in Gita 3:35 as one’s own religion to one’s own varnashrama dharma as the context clearly denotes.
Next is to universalize the core message of Hinduism even at the cost of traditional interpretation. The best example is making Vedanta as the Universal bringing all other religions outside Hinduism as promoted by Swami Vivekananda.6 But as we cannot do the same in the name of ‘Fulfilment theology’ making the aspirations of all the religion finding their fulfilment in Muktinath or Muktiveda.
The Challenge of Using Indian Religious Terminology
But when developing Indian Muktivedic Theology, numerous challenges arise due to the inherent complexities of Indian religious terms. For example, the term Advaita ([a + dvaita], literally “not-two”) is used by some to signify “Monism” (only one exists) and by others to signify “Non-dualism” (two exist, but their separation is illusory). Similar challenges have been encountered in Western Christology, often using ‘etymology,’ ‘root,’ and later findings of Mss which shed new light in giving the correct meaning to certain words.7
Despite these complexities, Indian religious terms can and should be used in forming an Indian theological framework. However, we must remain mindful of the limitations of language and context. Theology, after all, is merely a tool for articulating doctrinal truths based on personal encounters with the Divine. Since such experiences transcend words, they are better transmitted through life rather than merely transferred through words.
The Role of Context in Encountering Grace
God prepares individuals to receive His grace within the cultural and spiritual contexts of their birth and upbringing. A person’s first encounter with God often shapes their foundational understanding of Him—be it through a miracle, healing, conviction of sin, or fear of death. Such encounters may transcend reason, intuition, revelation, or even Scripture itself because they are rooted in God’s sovereign grace.
As facilitators of this grace, we must consider the context of those we guide. For Hindus, for instance, the preparation to receive grace must occur within their Hindu worldview. Attempting to transplant them into an alien religious/theological framework will not help them grasp the truths they seek.
Using Worldviews and Scriptures with Caution
When employing Indian worldviews and scriptures in theology, it is crucial to avoid two extremes:
- Claiming that everything in the Hindu worldview is fulfilled in Muktinath.
- Assuming that using Hindu concepts dilutes the core message of the Muktiveda.
Instead, these worldviews and scriptures can serve as starting points to help individuals grow in their bhakti. Theology, in this sense, becomes a bridge that connects their existing spiritual framework to a deeper understanding of Muktinath.
The Goal: Guiding, Not Converting
Our aim is not to proselytize or convert anyone to “Christianity” as a label but to help individuals follow Muktinath on their terms. This process involves using their cultural and spiritual vocabulary as a temporary scaffolding until they grasp the full counsel of God revealed in the Muktivedic teachings.
Examples of Contextual Adaptation
- Mahaprasad: In Hinduism, this term refers to food offered to a deity and received as grace. In the context of Muktinath, it can be adapted to express the ultimate grace of His atonement and sacrifice, as reflected during the Communion service. @ Regarding the reception or distribution of Maha-Prasad, as observed in Hinduism, it is left to the discretion of individual bhaktas and specific mandalis, as each follows their own convictions. However, in our context, we do not discriminate against anyone in the name of receiving deeksha to follow the Lord. What we receive as the “Saving Grace” of God, we freely share with others as the “Common Grace.” I have already shared my perspective on Prasad in general and Maha-Prasad in particular in a separate paper.8
- Purna Avatara: While “Avatara” in Hinduism generally refers to partial incarnations (amsa avatara)9 or the deity literally dwelling in the Image [archa10 avatara in Srivaishnavism], the term “Purna Avatara” (complete incarnation) is used to describe the incarnation of Muktinath, though it remains an imperfect translation.
- Christology: While “Christology” is commonly used in English, a more culturally resonant term, such as one based on “Muktinath,” might better reflect the Indian theological context.
These examples illustrate the need for continual adaptation and evolution of theological language to meet the needs of the present generation while remaining open to future refinements.
The Way Forward
Developing Indian Muktivedic Theology is an ongoing process. Future generations will need to adapt theological expressions to address their unique challenges and contexts. Theology must remain dynamic, shaped by the lived experiences of believers and the evolving needs of their spiritual communities.
This careful distinction allows us to respect and engage with Mukti Vedic concepts while interpreting them in ways that uphold the core truths of our faith.
NOTES for Theology in Context
1 In the Tantravarttika of Kumarila, we find a more elaborate dismissal or diminution of the Puranas. In this case, Kumarila (ad Jaimini, Purva Mimamsa Sutra, 1.2.7) lumps the Puranas and Itihasas together as examples of arthavada, praising or disparaging statements, found even in the Vedas themselves. Arthavadas are authoritative, according to Kumarila, insofar as and because they help, encourage, or compel people to follow the injunctions or observe the prohibitions state elsewhere in the Vedas. They thus promote good action and discourage evil acts, calling on people generally to do dharma. On the surface, this analysis gives arthavadas an authoritative, but supportive role. The category of arthavada, however, is also widely understood to connote inferior or unimportant statements. The dignity and majesty of true injunctions overwhelms all merely supportive statements.
As we might imagine, some Puranas took umbrage at this sweeping categorization, for example, the Naradiya Purana:
O Best of Brahmins, vile men who say that the Puranas are merely arthavads destroy all the merit they have acquired. The Puranas are the means to eradicate all karmas. By calling them mere arthavada, a vile man receives hell. (Naradiya Purana 1.1.57-1.1.59, quoted in Kane, P. V. History of Dharmasastra, 5 Vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1962-75, V: 927).— Social and Literary History of Dharmasastra: Commentaries and Legal Digests. Donald R. Davis, Jr. and David Brick. Pp. 30-45, in Patrick Olivelle and Donald R. Davis, Jr. Eds. Hindu Law: A New History of Dharmasastra, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 35
2…one of the several ways in which the conflict between several smrti texts was got over was to hold some of them as legislating for a bygone age (yugantra)…-Kane, op.cit. Vol.II, Part.II, Ch. XXXIV. Kalivarjya. p. 885.
3. Of course in theory they (like Sabara and Jaimani) keep the principle that while any teaching of the Smriti contradicts with the Sruti, the former must be rejected.
But this theory is not accepted by all and several orthodox writers and commentators like Kumarila and Medhatithi. “…smrtis are generally authoritative, as they must be held to be based on Veda because they are composed by men (like Manu) who were followers of the Veda, because what the Smrtis lay down has been consistently followed from generation to generation by the sistas and because it is possible to regard the Veda as their source.(p.829) … Therefore Kumarila holds that all that is meant by Jaimini and even by Sabara is that there is a great distinction between Sruti and Smrti in that the former is apauruseya and an independent authority, while the latter has a human author (liable to err), is either actually based on the Veda or is inferred to be so based, that the two therefore can never be said to be quite alike each other as regards their authoritativeness and that lastly Smrti is not in itself to be regarded as unauthoritative” (p.834). P.V.Kane; History of Dharmasastra. Vol.III. Ch. XXXII, Sadacara -Customs and Modern customary Law. (Those who are interested in this subject are recommended to Kane’s book Vol.II. Ch. XXXII. Sadacara pp.825-55.)Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute; Poona, India, 1990.
4 See Appendix for this as I quote extensively from Manikar
5 Svadharma in Gita is [mis]interpreted as one’s own religion by some Hindu apologetics by saying that ‘Hindu dharma’ is good for us and your religion is good for you. See Appendix for this: Svadharma
6 Swami Vivekananda’s Vedanta should be called ‘Practical Vedanta’ deviating from philosophical Vedanta in Hinduism. It would be an interesting study Swamiji’s Practical Vedanta to understand his legacy. Though I am tempted to compile several valuable information by other scholars, I limit by giving very few in Appendix: Vivekananda’s Vedanta.
7 Translations were also a factor in what we saw or didn’t see. We have already noted that Deuteronomy makes the remarkable assertion that Yahweh “ fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of god [literally, ‘sons of gods;%]” (Deut 32:8-9). Until relatively recently, however, the established Hebrew text of the Old Testament (the Masoretic Text, produced between the third and eleventh centuries C.E.) read “according to the number of the sons of Israel” (based on the Masoretic bene yisra’el). But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948, which contained fragments of Deuteronomy 32, has shown us that the proper reading is either bene elohim (“sons of the gods”) or bene’el (“sons of god”).$ This makes better sense of Deuteronomy 4:19 (“the host of heaven… whom Yahweh your God allotted… to all the peoples under heaven” [Mullen trans.]). It also helps explain why the Septuagint translation….and the apocryphal book of Sirach ….(Sir 17:17). All these ver-(p.51)sion and texts present a common picture: that God delegated rule of the nations to intermediate spiritual beings. But for centuries translations of the principal text, Deuteronomy 32:8-9, followed what was probably a later and therefore corrupted reading. Because the Masoretic Text followed manuscripts that were later and not original, it helped blind Bible readers to the Bible’s vision of a cosmos full of gods and spirits.—pp. 51-52
%”Sons of gods” is a Hebrew idiom for beings with the same nature of gods-in other words, gods themselves.
& E. Theodore Mullen Jr. ,The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 202-3. Biblical quotations using Mullen’s translation will be indicated in the parenthetical reference in the text.
8 All these papers need further editing, as there is a discrepancy between the title used in the blog and the one in the article. The blog refers to it as Prasad Problem, while the article titles it Prasad Dilemma.
9 Thus there can be more or less full avataaras, namely, part-avataaras (amsa-avataaras) of the deity….—p. –Julius Lipner, HINDUS Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, London 1994. P. 312
10 … the presence of the Supreme Lord in a properly consecrated image (arcaa). Later, the Sri Vaisnavas used the term arcavataara to refer to the “image-incarnation” of the Lord: the form Visnu graciously takes so that he may be worshiped by his devotees….— Diana L. Eck, Darsan, Seeing the Divine Image in INDIA, Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1996, p. 45
0
Appendix: Vivekananda’s Vedanta.
…We should also note at this point that Vivekananda’s idea and propagation of ‘practical Vedanta’, although by no means entirely unprepared, is nevertheless without any real precedent in the history of modern Indian thought….— Raghuramaraju, A., (ed.) Debating Vivekananda: A Reader, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2014 Practical Vedanta. Wilhelm Halbfass. Pp. 96-113, in, p. 105
Ramakrishna Mission movement itself can be considered a response to the missionary challenge in the late nineteenth-century India, and Vivekananda’s Practical Vedanta merely as an impassioned attempt at Westernization of Hinduism. The impact of the total movement can then be seen simply in the reaffirmation and revitalization of a dying tradition.
In fact, most analyses of the Ramakrishna Mission, irrespective of their widely divergent ideological perspectives, have not been able to go beyond this framework…..—ibid. Religious Evolution and Social Change in India: A Study of the Ramakrishna Mission Movement. Krishna Prakash Gupta. Pp. 114-146, in, Raghuramraju, ibid. p. 116-17
His uniqueness lies in the fact that he presented Vedanta to the people not as a way for achieving individual salvation, but as a religious ideology for national regeneration and reconstruction—a path to achieve national salvation. This ascension from mere concern for the individual to concern for the nation added a political dimension to his teachings which became the source of inspiration for many generations of Hindu freedom fighters….—i ‘The Political and Social Dimensions of Vivekananda’s Ideology’. Prabha Dixit. Pp. 18-44, in Raghuramaraju, A., (ed.) Debating Vivekananda: A Reader, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2014, p. 18
‘Vedanta is the rationale of all religions. Without the Vedanta every religion is superstition; with it everything becomes religion.’— The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Mayavati Memorial ed. (Calcutta: Advaita, Ashram), 1970, V. 212
‘Even if Vivekananda quite rightly appeals to the Upanishads, he also actually creates his own Vedanta and does not talk about the Vedanta philosophy, certainly not about its various systems, but wipes the slate clean, like Jesus thoroughly cleansing the Temple of all “religion”, and although he calls what is left Vedanta, it is clear that he is also distancing himself from many specifically Indian derivations. Nothing remains: no Vedas, no personal God, no divine incarnation, no holy scriptures—nothing. And yet again everything: the “worship of the Spirit through the Spirit”, the pure Advaita without colouring of “superstitions”, without any compromises.— Hans Torwestern, Ramakrishna and Christ: The Paradox of the Incarnation. The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, 1999, p.201. (italics original)
Appendix: sandhi vicheda
Gita.13:12: …But a very subtle point regarding the relation of this Highest Brahman and Krsna is raised by the commentators while commenting on `Anaadimatparam’. Samkara to whom there is nothing else higher than Brahman, divides the words as Anaadimat and Param, while Ramanuja to whom Krisna is higher than Brahman divides as Anaadi and Matparam understanding the latter as `that in relation to which I am the supreme. If only the beginning were to be negatived for Brahman, mere `Anaadi’ would have been sufficient and there is no necessity of adding a possessive `Mat’ to it. Samkara notices the difficulty and gives the excuse that it for the sake of completing the sloka…(p.24)
This is more or less a problem in textual criticism, but before Samkara the words were so divided and interpreted. Considering the spirit of the Bhagavadgita, Ramanuja appears to be nearer the truth. Samkara’s interpretation is actuated by a desire to prove that Brahman is Nirguna and Highest.
Thus Samkara, in the interpretation of passages where the word Brahman occurs, has been faithful, only where his doctrine is not involved, and when these passages seem to affected his doctrine, he does not hesitate to change the context affecting big passages, to interpret the word as Sannyaasa, or justify an archaic text by the lame excuse of slokapurana. Ramanujua’s interpretation may not appear as altogether satisfactory; but it will have to be accepted that in certain places, Samkara agrees with him, and where they differ, Samkara’s interpretations affect the text and the context, while his do not. They spirit of the poem therefore is better reflected in his comments than in those of Samkara. (p.25)–T.G.Mainkar, Comparative Study of the Commentaries on The Bhagavadgita, New Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 2nd Edition, 1969; pp.24-25
NOT BY INSTRUCTION MAY THIS SELF BE GAINED,
NOR INTELLECT, NOR BY MUCH SCRIPTURE-LEARNING:
WHOMSO HE CHOOSES, BY HIM HE MAY BE GAINED,
TO HIM THIS SELF REVEALS HIS OWN (true) PERSON.
–Katha Upanishad, I,ii,23.
“This verse teaches that while the Supreme Self is difficult to know, and indeed unknowable by the unaided intellect even though that intellect is directed to the study of the scriptures,–yet He is knowable through His own self-revelation to the man whom He chooses. Quite clearly then, if the translation we have given is correct, this verse teaches a doctrine of Divine Grace and conceives the Supreme self as Personal God.
{N.B.–With the rendering given above Max Muller, Deussen, Hume, Whitney, Geldner, Arabinda Ghose, Tattvabhusana, Ranade (C.S. 345) and Radhakrishnan (I.P. 234) substantially agree.}
Sankara, however, interprets quite differently. He changes the subject in the second half of the verse, taking “esa” (“he”) as meaning not the Self but the man who chooses, i.e. seeks and meditates on, his own inner self, and so obtains it:
“Yam eva esa vrnute, tena labhyas”–literally translated means,–“Whom this one chooses, by him he is obtainable”. Sankara comments:
“Yam eva-svam atmanam. Esa-sadhako”. `Whom’ (Yam) means `His own self’. `He’ (esa) means `the aspirant’.–“The passionless man chooses, i.e. meditates on, his own self, and so the self is obtained by the self” So he would render the second half of the verse:-
“It is obtainable by the man who chooses (i.e. seeks) it alone, To him this self shows its own real nature”.
By this inversion of subject and object Sankara turns a verse which would tell strongly against his doctrine into a means of support. It is very clever exegetical acrobatics, but we doubt whether it can be grammatically justified. (Sankara, it is true, is sometimes rather arbitrary in his interpretations, bending texts to suit his philosophy)
–Joseph Nadin Rawson, Professor of the History and Philosophy of religion in Serampore College, Katha Upanishad; published by request of the Senate of Serampore College, 1934, Appendix–`Grace’.
But Swami Sharvanand of Ramakrishna Math, which holds Advaita doctrine, commenting on this verse in his book `Katha Upanishad’ writes:
“But the Dwaitic commentators have taken just opposite view. They interpret `eas’ as `the Supreme atman (God) and `Yam’ `whomever’ i.e. “It is attained by him alone whomever God chooses”
–Swami Sharvanand, Katha Upanishad, 3ed edition, Ramakrishna Math, Madras, 1932.
Appendix Svadharma
While using or referring to the other Scriptures to support a particular view in either interpreting any Scripture or forming any theology, sometimes context is not taken seriously. The famous and often miss quoted example for this is a verse from Bagavad Gita 3:35. Personally I encountered three times hearing quoted out of context. One Swamiji from All Indian Sadhu Sammelan used in his T.V. broadcast after the Ayodhya incident and another time one Sanskrit Pandit used in the same way in our dialogue1b
But that Swamiji and Shastriji even went to the extent of quoting the next half of Gita 3:35 in this way: “…Even death in the performance of one’s own religion brings blessedness; another’s religion is fraught with fear”
But those who take context seriously know the fact that, the word ‘Svadharma’ in Gita 3:35 does not talk about one’s personal religion or even particular sectarian doctrine but varnashramadharma [Varna +ashrama + dharma = duty related to one’s caste {Varna} and stage] and here it is about the Kshatriya dharma of Arjuna. We all know well that the word ‘dharma’ is not ‘religion’ as it is popular used and translated.@
What Sri Krishna talks about here is the `varna duty (Dharma) of Arjuna. In Gita 2:32-37 Sri Krishna remains Arjuna his duty of a Ksatriya and encourages him to fight. Now as Arjuna refuses to fight (Gita. 1;27ff) and thereby renouncing his `varna dharma’ as a Ksatriya wants to become a Sanyasi even to live on alms (Gita. 2:5a) Sri Krishna says: `One’s own duty (dharma), though devoid of merit, is preferable to the duty (dharma) of another well performed. Even death in the performance of one’s own duty (dharma) brings blessedness; another’s duty (dharma) is fraught with fear’. So there never comes the question of which religion is good or better than the other. Even in Muktiveda the word `Religion’ is not coming or used, particularly in the New Testament, as we use now a days. And the word Christianity is no where comes and only the word `WAY’ is used (Acts.9:2; 22:4).
@ “The Sanskrit dharma is not religion. In Sanskrit (in Pali and Ardhamagadhi as well) dharma meant social order; (Dharayati asau sa dharma) it also meant duty, obligation; it also meant civilization and culture…The basic fact is that dharma is not religion”. Prof. G.P. Deshpande, “Seminar”, Delhi, September 1985, p.24, quoted by Hans Staffner, S.J. in his book `JESUS CHRIST and the HINDU COMMUNITY’, p.88.
Dharma: “This is one of those semantically complex Sanskrit words that defies translation. any English word–law, order, precept, duty, practice, doctrine–gives only one of its facets. Even when one of these meanings is uppermost in a given context the totality of its complex significance is always present to the mind of the reader brought up in the Indian religious tradition by way of suggestion or implication. Therefore, I have thought it advisable to leave it untranslated…”Patrick Olivelle, Vasudevasrama Yatidharmaprakasa, A treatise on World Renunciation, Part two Translation, pub. The De Nobili Research Library, Vienna, 1977, Foot note 2, p. 59.
Leave a Reply