Friday, June 14, 2013



Dr. Ishanand Vempeny
Part 111


Pope Benedict XVI has declared 2013 as YEAR OF FAITH. It is fitting that as a gesture of ‘Thinking with the Church’, we are dealing with a topic like this. Christ is indeed the centre of Christian Faith “O Logos Sarx Egeneto” (= The Word became Flesh). In the past Christian theology was centred on Christ. There has not been much change in teaching theology as something Christo-centric.

What do we understand by Faith in Christ? Is it enough to pick up the Christological articles from the Nicene Creed? In the Eucharistic celebration of the Latin Rite, after the consecration there is the declaration by the priest “The Mystery of Faith”. One of the formulas through which the people respond to this declaration is the following: “Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again”. To my mind, this formula does not express many of the Christological dogmas. How then shall we express within our scope the essential elements of Faith in Christ?

One of the concepts which seems to express in a summary form, the sum total of Christ’s teachings, indeed the very personality of Christ, is that of the Kingdom of God. As we shall soon point out, this concept contains both the words and deeds of Christ. Besides, as the Fathers of the Church taught by calling Christ “Autobasilea”, Jesus Christ is the personified expression of the Kingdom ideal. Therefore, commitment to the Kingdom ideal is commitment to Christ Himself. Another reason for choosing the Kingdom ideal to express the gist of Christian Faith is that this ideal can lead to concepts and ideals in Non-Christian Religions homologically similar to it.  Another important advantage of this central concept of the NT is that it does not teach that Salvation is a once-for-all, press-button reality. The Kingdom of God ideal is partly realized here on earth and fully in the beyond. It is in a process of growth here on earth like a mustard seed.

A.      Articulating Faith in Christ through the Kingdom of God Ideal

No serious theologian or Biblical scholar seems to doubt the centrality of the KG Ideal in Christ’s preaching. This concept and its equivalents, occur in the NT more than a hundred times (106 according to George Soares Prabhu, 122 times says J. Fullenbach, and about 150 times according to a number of modern scholars). The total will increase if we add the equivalent Johanine concept “new life” to the list. The following view of one of the greatest Indian Biblical Scholars, the late George Soares, seems to me beyond serious controversy: 

But the preaching of Jesus was concerned primarily, one might even say exclusively, with the “Kingdom of God”, for everything he said and did was ultimately related to this overriding and urgent concern. The Kingdom is the referent of most of his parables (see specially Mt. 13:1-52; 18:21-35; 22:1-14; 25:1:13; Mk. 4:26-29); the subject of many of his aphoristic sayings (Mt. 7:21; 18:3; 1719:12; Mk.9:1-9:47; 10:23-25; Lk.6:20; 9:62; 13:28-29; 16:16; 17:20-21). It is also the content of the symbolic actions which form so large a part of his ministry: his table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners (Mk 2:15-17; Lk.15:12-2), and his healings and exorcisms. For in his ‘communion’ with the religious and social outcasts of his people (tax collectors and sinners) Jesus demonstrates in action the presence of the Kingdom of God, that is of God’s unconditional and wholly forgiving love for sinful mankind. He explicitly interprets his miracles as ‘signs’ that the Kingdom of God has come and has put an end to Satan’s oppressive rule (Mk. 3:23-27; Mt 11:2-6; 12:25-28).[1]

I have written rather elaborately on this topic in a number of my articles and books.[2]. Here we are interested in a few salient points of this ideal with direct relevance to our topic. “Abba-Experience” seems to be the basis of the experience of this ideal.  

B.      The ‘Abba-Experience’ 

There seems to be a general agreement to the view that the KG Ideal is based on the Abba-experience of Jesus and the consequent Abba-experience of Christ’s followers. Abba is an Aramaic word, with which little children addressed their fathers, and it is somewhat equivalent to the English word ‘daddy’. This is a revolutionary way of addressing God in the Jewish situation. Knowing fully well the sacredness and delicacy of this way of addressing God, St. Mark and the later translators retained the Aramaic word, ‘Abba’, in Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane: “Abba Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will but what thou wilt” (Mk 14:36). 

In the baptismal theophany the Father declares Jesus as His Son: “This is My Son, the Beloved my favour rests on him” (Mt. 3:17). In the first recorded words of Jesus we read, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be busy with my Father’s affairs?” (Lk. 3:49). He expresses His intimacy-relationship with the Father: “Everything has been entrusted to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, just as no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” (Mt. 11: 26-27). Later on He will express His relationship of intimacy with the Father in terms of identification, “The Father and I are one” (Jn. 10:30).

As branches to the vine (Jn. 15) as grafted branch to the trunk of a new tree (Rom. 6:5) and as members of the Body of Christ (Rom. 12 and 1 Cor.12), Christians believe that they  share His life and they  too can call God in His Spirit Abba Father. “When we cry, Abba Father it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.” (Rom. 8:15-17; Cf.Gal.4:5 ff.) John, in his Gospel (Jn 1:12) and in his epistles (e.g.1 Jn.3:1-2) keeps on insisting that we are truly God’s children. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus pointed out that we should consider God at least as loving and caring as a decent human father (Mt 7:7-11). In other words, the disciples of Christ too can have the Abba-experience similar to that of Christ.       

In this Abba-experience I usually distinguish a father-element and a mother-element. The Power and Truth aspect of the Abba, I attribute to the father-element and the unconditional love of the Abba to the mother-element, albeit with the awareness that the former elements can be very strong in the mothers and the latter aspect can be very strong in fathers. As in other human traits here too we cannot categorize them in watertight compartments. All the same this distinction is valuable as far as it goes. After all, in India God is addressed very much as father and mother (tvameva mata pita ca tvameva) as for example, in the daily prayer of the Hindus.

C.      The Kingdom Ideal as a World Family Ideal

For us of the democratic age, Kings and Kingdoms do not have much appeal. To express the rootedness of this ideal in the Old Testament (OT) Kingdom of God tradition, this concept is important. But when we analyze its characteristics we realize that it is a universal ideal of the World Family (WF). From an Indian point of view such an interpretation is of great importance as we shall soon see. The surprising thing is that this is not a forced or contrived interpretation of the NT. 

There are, however, a few misconceptions among the Non-Hindu Scholars, especially among the Western ones, about this concept. The misconceptions are based more on the context rather than on the content of the original Sanskrit text. First we shall cite this verse from Hitopadesa and then state some contextual questions.

Ayam nijah parovetti ganana laghuchetasam
Udara charitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam

According to the above verse only small minds (laghu-chetasam) think of things as mine (ayam) and yours (nija), but generous or magnanimous persons (udara charitanam) think in terms  of vasudhaiva kutumbakam [vasudha = world + iva (= as though) + kutumbakam (=family like][3].

In this part of Hitopadesa which deals with “mitra-labhah”, one of the five diplomatic policies (Panchatranta) taught by a Guru for instructing some princes who are of poor intelligence. The Guru teaches them through stories. The characters of the stories are usually animals and birds. In the Hitopadesa, verses from the original Panchatantra are quoted by these characters. Under the title mitra-labhah (gaining friends) in Part-I, there are eight stories (kathas). Our verse is taken from the 3rd story. These diplomatic principles are taught by various animals and birds among whom some are crocked and some are honest. The most crocked ‘Preacher’ in the first part, story no.3 is a cat. After cheating the birds about his evil intentions through pious, principles and stories, he began to eat up the young ones of the birds. Another crocked preacher of part-I is a fox who wanted to get a deer killed for getting a share of its dead body. He too tells pious stories and declares wise principles to realize his evil intention. Our verse was articulated by the fox (part-I, story-3, verse-71) to hide his evil intention of getting the deer killed.[4]

The Western scholars are usually aware of the devil quoting the Bible to tempt Jesus asking him to jump from the pinnacle of the temple (Mt. 4:6). He does it quoting Psalms 91: 10-11 making minor modifications to suit his interest.

          He has given his angels orders about you,
and they will carry you in their arms
in case you trip over a stone.

Is it right to say that since this verse was used by the devil, it has lost its meaning? No Biblical scholar would accept such an interpretation. If this is so why should we consider that the above verse from Hitopadesa is not very meaningful to us today? I do not see any reason to consider the verse teaching the World Family Ideal is a polluted one because it was quoted by a fox with evil intention.

In fact, there is another equally well-known sloka (verse) in the Indian tradition which gives the same meaning as that of the above verse: Atraiva vishvam bhavati ekanidam. This verse is an aspiration for all the creatures in the world (vishvam) to be so united and cooperative as though they are the members of a single nest (ekanidam). This ideal was captured by the late Indo-American astronaut, Kalpana Chawla through her photographs of the earth from the space-shuttle Columbia, and by her motto: samucha brahmand mera kutumb hai (= The whole cosmos is my family). Just before taking off for her final mission on the Space Shuttle, in her last interview to Anil Padmanabhan, she quoted  the Roman Philosopher Seneca,  “I was born not for one corner; the whole world is my native land”, and said: “I have felt that connection and stewardship …not just for Earth, but the whole Universe.”[5]

          This same ideal could be found in the South Indian vernaculars like Tamil: Yatum urai yavarum kelir, and Malayalam: Lokame Taravad. The deep-rootedness of this ideal in the Indian Ethos could be seen through the peculiar custom that exists all over India, in the North and in the South, namely the custom of addressing people with whom one has no blood-relationship or relations of affinity, as though they are one’s blood relations.  What pass in English as Mr., Mrs., Master, Miss etc., in the Indian languages become brother, sister, uncle, aunt, etc. The following common nouns from the Northern and Southern languages can be taken as examples: Bhai (=brother in Hindi, Gujarati, etc.), Annan, Thambi, Akka (elder brother, younger brother, elder sister in Tamil), Chettan, Chechi, (=elder brother, elder sister in Malayalam), Kaka (paternal uncle in Gujarati), Chacha (paternal uncle in Hindi), Masi (maternal aunty in Gujarati), Buvaji (paternal aunty in Hindi). The family, joint family, extended family in terms of teachers, guests, doctors and people of the same caste, village etc. appear to belong to one family through such appellations, though the living of this ideal in practice may be quite another thing as in the case of any other ideal in any religion.

D.      Brief Comparison between the KG Ideals and Family Ideals

          The dialogue imperatives by the Church show how she opens herself to other religions but also how she reaches out to them. This is especially so when the Church teaches her children that dialogue has been an expression of genuine Christian love which is rooted in a God who is Love itself. On the other hand, Christian faith as understood in terms of the KG ideal and as interpreted as the WF ideal is equally open and inviting. Besides when we see the WF ideal directly or indirectly is embedded in the Non-Christian Scriptures like the Bhagawad Gita, Holy Quran and Guru Granth Saheb, we realize that these religions too are open to inter-religious dialogue and cooperation. Indeed, during the past few decades I have been taking part in dialogue activities organized by the non-Christians themselves. What we have stated just above by way of introduction to this ideal, with regard to its presence in Hinduism in particular and in the Hindu Ethos and in the Indic Religions in general, are sufficient enough for our purpose. I have done more elaborate studies on this topic elsewhere[6].

          Some people wonder how valuable it is to compare the ideals of the KG with the WF. They point out that due to reasons like that of globalization, urbanization, the growth of nuclear families etc. there is almost a break-down of family values. But the truth seems to be is that when various forces are attacking the family values, in most of the families, especially of Afro-Asian countries, many of these values are kept up and cherished. Even in the families where these values are eroded, the family members begin to realize with concern that their family is not even a good one, much less an ideal one. One might even agree with the view that the percentage of good and model families is steadily and speedily decreasing. In spite of this, people by and large, know which is a good family and which is not a good one, and which is an ideal family and which is not.

          Another important value of this WF ideal is that practically all human beings long for such an ideal. One of the main reasons for this is that naturally all human beings, notwithstanding some exceptions here and there, desire affiliation to a group, affection from others, recognition by others as somebody important, and conducive atmosphere for personal growth and achievements. Affiliation to genuine and ideal families helps one to achieve all these personal goals for personality fulfillment. In this section we shall compare some of the features or characteristic of the KG ideal with WF ideal.

1. The boss of the Kingdom

          The chief executive (boss) of the Kingdom is not a King or an Emperor. He is an ‘Abba’ which means Father or better ‘Daddy Dear’. Abba is the name with which little children addressed their Fathers at the time of Jesus. The Semitic culture is Patriarchal and male-dominated. But we have briefly pointed out that this Father has also the motherly qualities of unconditional love, ever-forgiving attitude and concern for the ‘least fortunate’ of his children.

          In Hinduism God is addressed in the daily prayer tvameva mata pita ca tvameva, tvameva bandhu sakha ca tvameva which means they addressed God as Father, Mother, Brother, Friend. In these addresses God is conceived as the source of love and power. In the Islamic addresses of God Bismillahi r-rahmani r-rahim (Allah the most merciful and most kind) and Allah ho Akbar (Allah the Greatest), these attributes are implied and these are based on the Holy Quran.  

          Apart from these three religions, with the danger of over-generalization, one might say that in all the religions the Absolute Being is considered to be the source of power and love. When Rudolf Otto explained the meaning of noumenon (the Ultimate Reality) through the words tremendum et fascinans (terrifying and fascinating), the underlying idea is that the Absolute Being is the source of power and love.

2. The Kingdom and the Familial Socio-Economic Values

The economic relationship of the Kingdom, if viewed from the standpoint of today’s interpretation of justice, is thoroughly unjust. One man works for one hour, another for five hours and another eleven hours; but all are paid equally! (Mt 20:1-16). Such a situation occurs in a harmonious family where the unemployed grandmother, the dependent little children, the bedridden adult and so on are often given even better treatment than the earning members of the family. “From each man according to his capacity and to each man according to his need” is more a family ideal than a political one. No political society which upholds commutative justice can blame the so called ‘Rich Fool’ of Lk. 12 and the ‘Heartless Rich Man’ of Lk.16. If the money earned by the father, if the gifts received by the mother, and if the income generated by the elder brother are not shared, it will cease to be an ideal family. The judgment passed by the Eternal Judge on the people who were at His left side is quite unintelligible in a political society (Mt.25:41 ff.). In which country is there the law that it is the duty of each citizen to feed his hungry and to house his homeless fellow-citizens?

The social relations upheld in the Kingdom Project too belong to the family ideals. The best expression of it is found in Christ’s reaction when He was told that His mother and brothers were waiting to see Him. Stretching out his hand towards His disciples He said: “Here are my mother and my brothers. Anyone who does the will of my Father in Heaven, he is my brother and sister and my mother” (Mt.12:50). ‘Doing the will of His Father’ can be interpreted as belonging to God’s Kingdom. If the members of the Kingdom are called mothers, brothers, sisters, then the KG Ideal is very similar to the WF Ideal. Well, Jesus Himself expressed it in these many words when He said: “You, however must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and He is in heaven” (Mt. 23: 8-9). This world family ideal is present in what St. Paul says: “This then is what I pray, kneeling before the Father, from whom every family, whether spiritual or natural takes its name” (Eph. 3:14). Elsewhere in the same epistle, Paul upholds this ideal saying: “So you are no longer aliens or foreign visitors: you are citizens like all the saints, and part of God’s household” (2:19). Because of this family ideal, in the Kingdom, the economically poor and the socially marginalized have a privileged place with special caring and sharing, as in an ideal family.

It is in this context we have to interpret Christ’s teaching about forgiveness and about loving our enemies. If the family members do not forgive each other such a family would cease to be a family. Forgiveness is part and parcel of the Kingdom ideal.

3. “Freedom of the Children of God” and the Familial Freedom

Here, our interest is to speak of freedom as something flowing from the Abba-experience, and we shall overlook other aspects of freedom. In the light of the following Pauline text, let us at least have a glimpse of this ‘freedom of the children of God’:

Now before we came of age we were as good as slaves to the elemental principles of this world, but when the appointed time came, God sent His Son… to redeem the subjects of the Law and to enable us to be adopted as sons. The proof that you are sons is that God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts: the Spirit that cries, ‘Abba’ Father’, and it is this makes you a son, you are not a slave any more: and if God has made you son, then He has made you heir (Gal.4:3-7). 

I usually explain the slavish, servile and filial interpretations of law by a parable. A land lord decided to make a foreign trip. Before his departure he called his slaves and gave the following instruction: “See that you water every day our groves and orchards so that the trees may bear abundant fruits.” Then he called his servants and asked them to irrigate the paddy fields regularly for a fixed rate as wages. Finally he called his son and told him to water the flower beds in the courtyard of his mansion. When he returned after a month he asked the slaves and the servants whether they had obeyed his orders. The slaves in fear said that they had fulfilled his instruction, and the servants requested the master for the wages for doing the job as they were told. Then he called his son and said: “Vatsal, these flower-beds look so beautiful. I am sure that you must have been watering these plants everyday.” Vatsal fearlessly said: “No daddy, I did not water the plants even for a day. From the day you left till three or four days ago it has rained almost everyday. I made these furrows to let the excess water out.” 

In this example, who obeyed the land lord truly and meaningfully? Only his son did. He obeyed by ‘disobeying’ using the freedom of a son knowing the mind and spirit of his father because of his deep love for him. His father’s interests are bound up with his own as he is heir to him.

4. Compassionate Judgement in the Familial and the Kingdom Structures

Once I was watching a teenager being accused for some mischief before his mother by their two neighbours. The mother chided the boy and gave him a slap which caused him hardly any pain. The boy was told to get out of her presence. Then the mother began to give many reasons justifying the mischievous behaviour of her son after asking pardon for the damage caused by him. The truth of the matter is that the judgement of a mother on her son is with a lot of love and understanding. When we see faults of others, if we follow the values of the Kingdom of God, we will judge him as our son, brother, nephew and so on.

Jesus unambiguously says, “Do not judge and you will not be judged” (Mt 7:1 ff). The parents, teachers, superiors, elders and so on, have the duty of correcting and guiding their wards. How is it possible without making a judgment on the actions of their wards? Here again the insistence is on compassion and love in judging and correcting. In the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee (Lk 18:9-14), the Pharisee points an accusing finger at the Publican because he has not experienced God’s unmerited grace or His forgiving love. One of the most attractive scenes in the NT is the one where Jesus forgives an adulteress woman when no sinless person remained on the scene to stone her (Jn. 8::3 ff.).

In the Mahabharata, there is a story: Lord Krishna meets Yudhishtira, the leader of the righteous group, the Pandavas, and Duryodhana, the leader of the unrighteous group, the Kauravas. He told Duryodhana, the ‘anti-hero’, to take the census of the good people; and Yudhishtira, the good character; to take the census of the evil persons of the capital, Hastinapur. After a month Duryodhana came to Lord Krishna and reported that there was not a single good person in the city. He pointed out so much evil in the so-called good people like the hermits, social workers and other do-gooders. According to Yudhistira’s report, all were good including murderers, prostitutes and robbers. The moral of the story is that an evil person sees only evil even in good people and a good person sees good even in evil persons. This will explain Christ’s love for the ‘unlovable’. The ‘Sons of the Kingdom’ are supposed to have such a compassionate and loving heart open to the ‘unlovable’. ‘Celebrating the faults and failures of others’ is far from the Kingdom Ideals.

5. Kingdom Leadership vis-à-vis Familial Leadership

In any human community there is the need of leadership. But in the Kingdom community, unlike the secular communities, the leader will be serving. “The Kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority are called benefactors. But not so with you; let the greatest among you become as the smallest, and the leader as the one who serves” (Lk 22: 26-27). While establishing the Kingdom community in a sacramental way in the cenacle, the Master and the Lord washed the feet of His disciples like a slave, and asked them to do the same (Jn. 13: 1 ff).

This Kingdom value proposed by Christ is one of its most revolutionary aspects. The power and privileges of the leader is to empower those under his/her, and to make the individuals in particular and the group as a whole to grow and to be fruitful to their fullest potential. But such a leadership happens even today in relatively good families. The leadership of the father and mother are intended by them are for the good of the other family members, though a father can be too authoritarian or a mother can be too pampering.

6. Kingdom Equality and Familial Equality

          In the democracies there is confusion as regards this concept. In what sense human beings are equal? Is there equality in a family where there are grand parents, younger ones and elders? Among other things if we look in terms of opportunities of meaningful growth and human dignity, we find real equality in both of these ideals. This aspect of the Kingdom value is very similar to what we said about leadership. Jesus emphatically taught this message of equality by word (Mt 23:8-11) and by example, especially by His table-fellowship (Cf. Mt. 9:9-13). For the Jews, table fellowship meant equality in a very special sense. Indeed, the Samaritan woman was surprised when Jesus asked her for drinking water (Jn. 4). According to Paul, in Jesus Christ, who is autobasilea (kingdom personified), “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).

7. Concern for the Last and the Lowest in the Kingdom and in the Families

The concept Anawim in Hebrew means not only the economically poor but also the socially marginalized with no human dignity. In the Indian context this term could be used for the untouchables. Apart from St. Mark’s brief, pointed, declaration of the arrival of the Kingdom (Mk 1:15) we have a sort of three ‘inaugural’ speeches of Jesus about His Project Kingdom at the beginning of His Public Life: The Sermon on the Mount in Mt. 5-7, Sermon on the plain as a counterpart of the former in Lk. 6, and Jesus’ inaugural speech in the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk. 4). In the Beatitudes, at the beginning of these sermons, Luke just says “How happy are you poor: yours is the Kingdom of God” (6:20). Whereas Mathew adds “poor in spirit” (5:3), which is a translation of the Aramaic inwanayya or anawim which means people of diminished human worth, of diminished human dignity due to socio-economic reasons, and due to diseases like leprosy and blindness. In Luke’s inaugural speech, reading Isaiah 61:1-2, Jesus affirms His stand for the economically poor and the socially oppressed and marginalized. “He has sent me to bring the good News to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives, and to the blind new sight, to set the downtrodden free” (4:18).

Why are the poor happy? Is it because they will have their pie up in heaven, as interpreted in the past? What Christ meant was that in the new socioeconomic order of the Kingdom, the economic relations would be such that the rich would share their riches with the poor. If Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom (Mt 19:24), he also declared in the house of a rich man called Zacchaeus, “Today, salvation has come to this house” (Lk 19:9). Why? Because the rich man was willing to share what he had with others (Lk 19:8). This is an example of familial economy and justice.

8. Kingdom Justice and Familial Justice

Jesus said: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness (Gk. Dikaiosyne, Justice, Sanskrit, dharma) exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt. 5:20). At the wake of Liberation Theology there is much talk on fighting for justice. Usually justice is understood as giving each person according to his/her due. If it is so, in terms of commutative justice, the ‘boss’ of KG, either as the Father of the Prodigal Son (Lk. 15) or as the Benevolent Employer (Mt. 20) is patently unjust. The justice of the KG goes far beyond this concept of justice. I prefer to call it the Kingdom Justice or Familial Justice rather than Social Justice. I would not like to substitute it by ‘love’ since it can imply that the beneficiary is benevolently treated not because he/she has a right for it but only because of the generosity of the giver. True there is a strong emphasis on justice in the Kingdom ideal. However, it is over shadowed by the teachings of economic sharing, fellowship, loving the last and the least including ones own enemies. In short the justice of the Kingdom is fit for a united and loving family.

[1] Unpublished notes on The Dharma of Jesus, pp.4-5
[2] (1) Games We Religious Play, Delhi: Media House, 1997, pp.77-116; (2) Raw Materials for an Indian Theology, Volume–I, Delhi: Media House and ISPCK, 2008, pp.111-161; (3) History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, General Editor D. P. Chattopadhyaya, Vol. VII, Part 6, Indian Christianity, New Delhi, 2009, edited by A. V. Afonso, “Christ’s Central Message in Today’s India, Chap. 21, pp.421-449
[3] Cfr. Hitopadesha, Dr. Kansara Narayan M., Ahmedabad-1: Saraswati Pustak Bhandar, 1978, p.37
[4] Hitopadesa, op.cit., p.37
[5] India Today, February 17, 2003, p.38
[6] Cfr. Ishanand, Raw Materials for an Indian Theology, “Christ’s Central Message Interpreted for Today’s India”, Delhi : Media House & ISPCK, 2008, pp.111-161 and also History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, General Editor D. P. Chattopadhyaya, Vol. VII, Part 6, Indian Christianity, New Delhi, 2009, edited by A. V. Afonso, “Christ’s Central Message in Today’s India, Chap. 21, pp.421-449

No comments:

Post a Comment