The Pilgrim

The Quarterly Bulletin of the Christian Society for the Study of Hinduism

Editor: Rev. Dr. R.D. IMMANUEL

Editorial

God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:6.

Theology and Life

Theology is intimately connected with our life and profoundly affects us by determining our decisions. It is not an unnecessary luxury to be enjoyed by a few intellectual aristocrats - rather it is a necessity for our very existence as human beings, for the concepts of theology, are not merely rational ideas concerning a dim distant divinity, but the basis of all our thinking willing and acting. Whether we like it or not, we are all theologians, for the man who says there is no God has as much claim to be called a theologian as the one, who claims the existence of a personal and supreme God and both of them are supremely affected in their thought, feeling and will by the type of theology they cling to.

Thus, there seems to be a difference between ordinary concepts and theological concepts. Ordinary concepts are merely intellectual. They do not demand from us supreme loyalty or implicit obedience. For instance, we say that common salt is made up of two elements, sodium and chlorine. This knowledge has very little bearing on whether I should give my vote to a certain candidate at a political election or not. On the other hand thoughts concerning the Supreme Being have a factor that compels us to change our attitudes and actions that demands from us supreme loyalty, that gives a sharp point to our conscience. Thus, if I believe that God made man in His own image, I am compelled to give a superior value to men and women and my conscience is pricked when I see these precious children of God being treated as a mere tool. Thus, as a rough rule it may be stated that concepts of science are impersonal, whereas, theological ideas are personal and affect our lives. When we think of God to be a Person, it is almost impossible for us to escape the “I and Thou” relation.

Because theological ideas have a reference to our conscience, and they exercise a determining influence upon our attitudes and actions, we can, or rather we must, accept or reject these ideas. We have to say “Yes” or “no” because there is no middle position - no halfway house wherein a compromise between these two were effected. Thus, one has to believe in religion and get all the benefits, the joy and confidence, the solace and comforts, the fortitude and strength of a believer or forego all of these. One can either believe in a God Whom he can love, trust and obey wholeheartedly and serve faithfully, or not believe. There is no question here of thinking that there might be a God. We cannot love and faithfully serve a God whose existence we doubt. In other words intellectual agnosticism leads to practical atheism. “He who is not for us is against us and he who gathereth not scattereth.”

In short our concept of God determines the nature of our ideals, and aspirations, ethics and conduct, our culture and our environment, and what we eat and drink. Let us take the Hindus and Muhammadan in our country as an example. Geographically they live in the same area. By descent, they (most of them at least) are not dissimilar. But it would be very difficult to find two sets of people who have the same political, genealogical, geographical and economic set up who differ so widely in their ethics, culture and outlook, and even the physical environments of their homes.

Almost all these differences could be traced to one and only one slight variation in their concept concerning the nature of God. The Muslim conceives of the Supreme Being as completely transcendent, the wholly other, One who is far away in the highest heaven. The Hindu on the other hand thinks that God is immanent also. Because God is the wholly other to the Muslim, in his worship place he does not like to have images or idols. So it is here. Pictures are not allowed. Music and dancing are unthinkable. On the other hand, the complete immanence of God in Hinduism makes everything divine. Every organ of sense is an elegant pathway to approach God. So, the Hindu has flower, music, dance, idols, pictures, good thing to eat, and many other sensuous, things to contribute to his worship experience vitally. Since everything is divine they think it is quite proper for beautiful damsels to sing songs in the temples.

Since God is immanent in this world everything is God to the Hindu. Every woman is a Parvati or Lakshmi. So, marriage is a religious sacrament to the Hindu. It is performed in the presence of Gods, especially the God Agni. On the other hand, the great emphasis on the transcendence of God by the Muhameddans makes woman unworthy even to attend the place of worship along with her husband. On account of this the Muslims think that marriage is only a social contract. It is almost impossible for him to think of sex relationship as a sacrament as does the Hindu. This religious significance of marriage in Hinduism makes the husband a God in the Hindu home, and it is impossible for a woman imbibed in Hindu culture even to think of divorce. In the Islamic religion no stigma is attached to divorces; without assigning any reason the marriage contract can be easily disannulled.

To take another line of thought; Every thing is divine, so man also is divine. That is, man is part of God, nay, the innermost reality of man is none other than God. Because of this, it is very difficult for Hindus to take a very serious view of sin. According to Shri Shankaracharya, the real trouble is Avidya which is only appearance (vivaria) and by nature this avidya is relative and phenomenal (vyavaharica santa). Thus, to the Advaita philosopher error (bhranti) is of the nature of the superimposition of the unreal upon the real. He calls it Adhyasa. It is seeing a snake when there is only a rope, or seeing silver when only a shining shell is there. In other words error is only metaphysical evil. It is seeing something (plurality) which is not actually in existence. On the other hand, the idea of man as a sinful creature feeling insignificant as dust and ashes, is the natural development of a theology that emphasises the transcendence of God. It is this view point of God that makes the Muslim feel as he does towards the doctrine of incarnation. To the Hindu there is no difficulty at all.

To take another example of the cow. The Hindu has no difficulty in seeing God in the cow. The cow gives milk and feeds humanity, So it is God Himself in the form of an animal feeding men women and children. So, his great emphasis upon the immanence of God makes cow worship possible. But the complete exclusion of divine immanence in the world in the theology of the Muslim makes cow worship a sacrilege to him. He sees in the cow only a beast that must be slaughtered and eaten if it is not more useful in any other way. Similarly, most of the differences between the ethical ideals of the Muhameddans and the Hindus could be traced to the disparity in the concepts regarding transcendence and immanence. Because God is supremely transcendent, the highest ethical ideal of the Muslim is implicit obedience, absolute, trust and abject humility before his Maker. Not quite that way to the Hindu. His ideal is knowledge. It is that knowledge which would liberate him from his ignorance and make him one with the Divine. If ethics is emphasised in such schools of gnanamarg, it is only as an instrument, just a stepladder that could conveniently be kicked off when the end is attained. But to be fair to them, it must be stated that they say that a liberated man rises above the level of morality and that the question of morality or lack of morality does not arise in his case. Loving devotion and intimate relationship as between a husband and a loving wife is the ideal of the Bhakti schools.

More details can be given; but that is not necessary. Theology is not an unnecessary appendage to life; rather it is the basic factor which influences and determines life. In short every problem in life whether cultural, economic, ethical, social or political, is in the ultimate analysis a theological problem.

Prayer Section

The following prayer is a selection from Rama Lingaswami, a Tamil poet of the nineteenth century. Ramalinga was a great man of deep spiritual experience and wide sympathies. His father died when the poet was only six months old and his mother was his father’s sixth wife. It is stated that he spent the first night of his married life in reading Manikkavasagar’s Tiravachskam. The prayer here is the translation made by Shri Chakkarai for Bishop Appasamy’s book Temple Bells. It is entitled Confession.

    Like the bounding stag I have sought sensual pleasures
    and fallen into the lake.

    I am the greatest sinner amongst sinners, unwilling to
    part with even a grain of rice to the noisy crow.

    Like the fly buzzing about without any rest, I seek, O
    Father, tell me what to do that I may not die and grant me
    Thy grace to support me.

    Like the bull bearing heavy burdens, I have toiled carrying
    the burden of my grief.

    Not knowing anything I have roamed like the unclean
    animal feeding upon the refuse of streets.

    I am lower than the dog which tires itself out with barking
    in utter thoughtlessness.

    Holy One what can I do to obtain Thy grace to support
    me in my distress?

    I have taken pride in regarding my darkness as light,
    and my desire as the great goal.

    I have wandered with the monkey of my mind in the darkness
    of the jungle, mistaking it for my kindred.

    Oh! Thou who dwellest in the hearts of Thy saints, I
    have not the mind to seek the great object of life.

    Father what can I do to get Thy grace? Rule me with
    Thy grace.

    I have not abandoned the toils of caste, creed and sect.

    I have not abandoned plunging into the mire of theological
    wrangling.

    I do not know the beginning nor the end, nor how to
    abide in the waveless sea of thy bliss.

    I have not walked in the way of holiness nor do I know the
    inward will of Him who abides in the assembly of Holy ones.

    How can I enter the world of my foes? To whom can
    I speak? What can I do? I know not.

¹

Articles

Extra Muros

By Rev. C.G. Diehl

When orthodox Hindus began to open the temple doors to all groups of people, the privilege thus extended to all men was not equally given to the gods. Naturally people were not invited to bring their ruder method of worship with them into the shrines of Somasundarar, Natarajar or Venkatesvarar, and the ideas embodied in the village gods were not allowed to blur the manifestation of the higher gods.

Some gods, however, are knocking at the doors of the temples. Why are they not let in? Answering this question is in a way equal to solving the vexing problem of drawing the borderline for Hinduism. It is not quite satisfactory to turn over the question to the field of sociology and formulate the answer in terms of a social system and its membership. Hinduism is a religion and has inherent ideas of the divine, which are not without characteristic features.

The big Meenakshi temple at Madurai furnishes a wealth of material for a study of the question. Its walls are high and insurmountable, but were they always so, or is there a truth in the opinion held by some that Meenakshi was originally a focal goddess of importance, who has been subjected to the impact of Hinduism? She was too important a deity to be substituted by Shiva. A contract of marriage was made, and god Shiva took his place at her side. According to the Stalapuranam, Alasya Mahatmiam, Shiva consents to marry Ma Jadathakai, the Pandyan princess born out of a Pittirahameshti Yagna (sacrifice to get children) to her childless parents. This story is taken in support of the theory of an original female deity residing at Madurai, who received into her temple a divinity of a different character representing Aryan culture. The support is doubtful as far as it is taken from literary sources. The Stalapuranam does not ascribe the origin of the temple to any goddess but to the lingam appearing in the Kadambavanam forest. It was here the god Indra finally found relief and salvation from the evil shadow of guilt, which followed him everywhere, after he had killed a Brahmin. Moreover, the origin of Meenakshi is as Aryan as can be. Her very existence originates from Vedic rites. Both the Mahatmiam and the Tiruvileyadal puranam, another version of Stalapuranamm are Sanskrit works, which makes them less likely to preserve local tradition only. Literary research may trace most of their contents to older puranas as Matsyapuranam.

A surer ground for theories on the identity of the deity of Madurai will probably be found in observing external features and functions of the deity. A significant detail is the parrot, which sits on the shoulder of the goddess. Parrots are kept in a big cage outside her shrine. The same bird can be seen in numberless small shrines to Mariamman in the streets of Madurai. On the other hand. If Somasundarar shows traces of the old Mayon or Ventan of the ancient Tamil tradition, he may be as old as the goddess and really the original god of the temple. But the temple is known as Meenakshi temple, not as the temple of Somasundarar.

Madura is not the only place where a local deity has received and conformed to the impact of Hinduism. Kamachiamman at Kanjeepuram might be a similar case. But even more significant is Subramaniam’s occupation of the seats of Murugan, or Vishnu entering into the place of the original deity at Alagarkoil outside Madurai. It is worthwhile noting that there are places where the Garbhagraham (place of the idol) is called Subramania. We may not be able to know the true story behind the existing pantheon in the S. India temples, but pondering over some features and local traditions may give us some clue to the definition of Hinduism. Does Hinduism follow the Sanskrit terminology? Does it go as far as agamic rites go? Does it stop where the temples are no longer distinguished as either Saivite or Vaishnavite?

Perhaps some light can be thrown on the matter, if we return to Meenakshi temple and look at the gods that are not allowed inside. Extra muros several gods are clinging to the walls. It is as if waves of a different religious temperament rolled up against the breakwater. The high walls of Meenakshi’s and Somasundarar’s temple form an insurmountable barrier, and no doors are opened to admit the minor deities and the ceremonies and thoughts they may bring with them.

Mariamman is far away at Teppakulam in the eastern part of Madurai but connected with Meenakshi temple. She plays an important part in Madurai. In many streets she is represented by a simple shrine containing a stone figure or a trident. While Kali in several representations finds a place inside the big temple, Mariamman does not. Her temple at Teppakulam, however, is a fairly big one and attracts crowds of worshippers. As she accepts animal sacrifices, though prohibited within the city limits, she is at once debarred from entering the big temple. Whether it is correct to draw a borderline for Hinduism where animal sacrifices begin maybe disputed, but they surely close the doors to the Meenakshi temple. The big question is, however, if not Meenakshi herself rose from the type of female deities called Mariamman - Mariatha. The parrots outside her shrine should lead to this inference among other things. Mariamman is often accompanied by that bird. If so, one would have the parallel in Madurai to Kamachi at Kanjeepuram who is the consort of Ekambarar and has her own temple as well. There only are two Ammans in the garden surrounding the temple walls. One is Rajaraja Esvari in the Northwestern corner. No animal sacrifice will be given to her, but a more ferocious deity is found under the Northern tower where Rakkai resides in company with Sanglikaruppan and Sonei. The group of gods under this tower, the “naked” tower, are of a ferocious kind. The main god is Mahamuniswarar or Mottaigopuranathar, as he is commonly called. He is by far the most important of the deities outside the walls. Sometimes padartam (offerings) are given from the big temple during his festival, but some time ago his non-right to the Meenakshi temple Maniyam (temple lands) was decided in a court case. Thus, a line of demarcation is clearly maintained.

Muniandi is here represented by a figure. In other places in Madurai a stone pillar stands for him. Up till recently sheep and fowls were sacrificed to him. He is served by non-Brahmin saivaites.

Why was this old figure never admitted? We find him as the watching deity likewise in a famous temple at Tiruvadavur, and he is the god of policemen and guards. His shrine is in the wall around what was formerly the quarters of the Governor’s bodyguard in Madras. He is not seldom found in the grounds of Police stations. One of his shrines lies north of the river Vaigai. Here he is called Pandia Muni and was according to tradition placed here as watchman to the city by Tirumalai Naikan.

Muni may mean a ferocious deity and be related to the old idea of a muni, one who was “raging through the streets with wild looks and matted hair.” The history of the word Muni is worth its own investigations. How did the seven rishis of ancient time become guards of the Amman temples in South India? As for instance of Tirumullivayal, 15 miles west of Madras, where all the seven are seated and their names are well remembered? The primitive religious force behind the word might account for his being kept outside. The common phenomenon of possession by a deity does not find room inside the big temples, and here we may find another line of demarcation, The hundreds of Kodangis, who dance at the Chitrai Festival in Madurai, do not enter the temple, at least not while the gods have them in their grip. It would amount to strange gods like Karuppan (The Black one) and Mariamman, entering the temple in human forms or using men as their vehicles.

Thus, animal sacrifice and possession seem to exclude from the big temple. We can add that mantra-reading does it also. In front of the “Naked Tower” a well known Mantravadi receives his clients into a room full of chakras (magic geometrical figures) and pictures of Yoga postures. In his inner room he worships Subramaniam. He is a reputable and good man, but he will not be allowed to establish his department inside the temple. As a rule the temple priests do not read mantram privately for set purposes, apart from the official list of archanas.

Karuppan the black god is also found outside the walls. There is a famous shrine of the 18 Steps Karuppan on the eastern side. He is a parallel to his mightier namesake at the Vishnu - Alagar temple 12 miles north of Madurai, who guards the main entrance so well that it can never be used (except once a year), and in front of whom the courts of Madurai decided oaths should be taken. The ferocious god, well known from hundreds of villages in the neighbourhood of Madurai, will punish anyone who swears false. He is in many places receiving animal sacrifices and guards the villages. In an old temple north of Vaigai he is also keeping watch over Madurai. His image is chiselled out under the basement under the southern tower as well.

Near “18 steps Karuppan” stands the god who has his name after the city, Madurai Viran. Next to Muniandi he is the most worshipped of the deities clinging to the walls of the great temple. The story of his amorous adventures and his violent death can be had in cheap copies opposite the temple in the so-called new hall (Puthumandapam). He wears armoury of silver and raises his sword to fight. A number of people come to him with their wishes as can be understood from the many “cradles” hung up in front of him by childless wives, who have sought his help. Every day a number of people will worship at his image the dhobies celebrate a festival to him once a year. Although in his lifetime he was bold and broke into the king’s castle, he has not succeeded to enter the temple. Perhaps his associates as well as his guilt of bloodshed, not atoned for as in the case of Indra, who was the first to benefit from the sacred place, cause the doors to be shut to him.

There is a statue of Gandhijii standing along the wall. Although a tendency to offer puja to his statue cannot be denied, the most interesting thing in this connection is not the fine bronze statue but a picture of him painted on the very wall of the North Tower on an insignificant spot some 20 feet above the ground. The reason for having him there can hardly be reverence or decoration. It is the north tower that must be most surely guarded. Here reigns Muniandi and any additional power to secure safety is welcome. Gandhi’s picture has almost the exact position as Muniandi in the entrance tower to Tiruvadavur temple 18 miles due east of Madurai. This gives us something to think of anyhow. People who have earned fame in one way or other - on the southern tower is a picture of Subhas Chandra Bose by the way - are likely to attract devotion and even worship from common man, but the big temples remain closed to them at least for a long time. Apart from the religious sentiment which will distinguish between hero admiration and real worship of the divine, there is one more factor to count with. The legends and myths of the temple are canonised, as we have seen in collections like Alasiya Mahatriyam and Tiruvileyadal purana, the rites are fixed and laid down for each deity in the agamas. The circle is closed, and newcomers cannot easily break it open.

Reason and Revelation in the Indian Philosophical Systems

Rev. J. Thangayya, B.D. Church of South India

The words ‘reason’ and ‘revelation’ are often taken to be contradictory terms. So it is believed that reason is the foe of revelation and that reason and revelation cannot be compromised. Besides, revelation is always associated with religion. Hence, in the West revelation finds a small and meagre place in philosophical systems. That is the Western thinkers are a bit hesitant to appreciate the philosophical system in which reason and revelation play a fair part. In a recent book on philosophy Professor W.I. Stace has made the following remarks about the Indian systems: “The reason why this Indian thought is not usually included in histories of philosophies are: Firstly, philosophers in India have never separated themselves from religious and philosophical needs … the second reason is … it seldom or never rises from sensuous to pure thought.”²

The above criticism can be met as follows. Philosophy is defined as a discipline (science) to explore ultimate reality. How far have the Western philosophers been successful in this quest? The greatest thinkers there have confessed that reality remains unknown. Professor Taylor after long discourse about reality and metaphysics writes “As individuals reality never becomes the actual content of our thought but remains a transcendent object.”³

Bradley says that thought is condemned in the face of truth. In his opinion as far as truth is concerned, thought cannot reach it but commits suicide. So also Bergson says not thought, but intuition can help him to know reality. Joachim writes that “the coherence notion of truth (which is arrived by human reason) may thus be said to suffer ship wreck at the very entrance to the harbour. It has carried us safely over the dangers and difficulties … but the voyage ends in disaster.”⁴

So pure reason fails to know reality, which means reality cannot be known unless reality reveals itself. Therefore, a search after reality ought after trying the methods of reason to wait for revelation. At least reason and revelation should go together.

Indian philosophical systems resort both to reason and revelation, and they always like to strike a balance between them. Indian philosophy sprang from the bedrock of revelation. The philosophers venerated the scriptures (vedas) as the best and most reliable authority, and built their philosophy on them. In the West philosophy was a holiday hobby just to satisfy man’s curiosity and wonder. So the systems did not relate much to life. On the other hand in India, philosophy depended on revelation, and it was the duty of the intelligent men to interpret the Vedas. In doing this they met with many critics and rival teachers. These learned men while answering such critics and heretics formulated the Indian philosophical systems. So Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that these systems happened to be an admixture of psychology, logic, metaphysics and theology. In the East people were not able to divorce religion and revelation from life.

The Indian thinkers knew well the limits of reason. Sankara expounds elaborately in his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra (S.B. II; 2:1 to 11) how the arguments of ingenious men are shown by people still more ingenious to be fallacious and how the arguments of the latter again are refuted in their turn by other men, so that on account of the diversity of men’s opinions it is impossible to accept mere reasoning as having a sure foundation.⁵ Another author, says “To the Vaisishtadvaitin as to the Advaitain … reason has no operation except in matters perceptible by the senses.”⁶

Having discovered the inefficiency of reason, the Indian philosophers depended on revelation supplementing reason to guide them to a knowledge of the ultimate existences. These men used different words to mean revelation. The Buddhistic philosophers used the word enlightenment to mean revelation. The other men never dared to question the validity of the revealed truths in the Vedas.

Dr. Emil Brunner writes that revelation includes among the rest the following factors:

1. Revelation always means something hidden is made known.

2. Revelation everywhere includes within itself a negative presupposition that is, that without it man is always in some way or other in a kind of darkness or bondage.

3. Revelation means everywhere the communication of unusual knowledge of something particular.

4. In revelation the concern is with the communication of unusual knowledge which is important for life.

5. Revelation always means a knowledge that is unexpected.

6. Revelation has always and everywhere the character of a sudden event.

⁷

If this is what is meant by revelation then we can say that the yogic and alaukika perceptions and intuitions can be grouped under the category of revelation.

Now none of the Indian systems resort to any one criterion (either to reason or revelation) exclusively, but they strike a balance between them. But some systems depend more on reason, while others on revelation.

Let us consider how far each Indian philosophical system avails each of the above criteria. The equivalent of the word ‘criterion’ in Indian Philosophy is Pramanas. The word Pramana is a compound of ‘Pra’ and ‘mana’. With ‘Pra’ meaning valid and ‘mana’ meaning knowledge so pramana means valid knowledge. In Indian philosophy there are usually six pramanas, and for our purpose we have to group them under the two main categories of reason and revelation.

Nyaya

Nyaya literally means that by which the mind is led to conclusions. Accordingly, the Nyaya philosophy was, considered to be a system of logic and came to be known as pramana Sastra. Even in early times this system has been identified with Anvikiski that is logical discourses, and modern writers compare Gautama the founder of the system with the peripatetics of the Greek philosophy, who were the founders and systematisers of Western logic.

In the Nyaya system reason plays a predominant part. They accepted four pramanas namely prathyaksha (perception) Anuman (inference) upman (comparison) and Sabda (verbal and scriptural testimony). Of these the first three pramanas can be grouped under the class reason and the last one under the category revelation.

As seen above Nyaya was essentially a logical system and reason played a greater part. It was believed that the ancient Nyaya sutras constituted an atheistic system. The later nyayaikas contended that Sabda is not an independent source of knowledge. If at all Sabda is to be taken for credible knowledge either the person who utters should be a credible one or the fact which he enunciates should be credible according to reason. They needed vedas, only to confirm their propositions. So Keith writes, “The systems (Nyaya and Vaishesikaa) are indeed orthodox and admit the authority of the sacred scriptures, but they attack the problem of existence with, human means and scripture serves for all practical purposes but to lend sanctity to results which are achieved without its aid.”⁸ The Nyaya system seems to lighten the importance of tradition and revelation, as found in the Vedas. The thinkers of this darshan tried to prove the existence of God by reason. Thus, they attempted to understand revelation through reason.

The yogic perception and alaukika insights which this system accepts refer to revelation.

Vaiseshika

This system is often coupled with Nyaya for this system agrees with Nyaya in its essentials. So like Nyaya, this system is based more on reason. The greatest contribution of Vaishesikaa to Indian philosophy is its tenets of relationship. Vaisesha means particularity and this system asserts independent existences of particular souls and atoms. Yet this system has boldly attempted to systematise or establish the relationship between the jarring particulars by introducing the samanya and samavaya relationships.

As regarding revelation this does not give as much importance as Nyaya did. This also accepts, as Nyaya, the pramanas, prathyaksha, anuman, Smriti and arasagnana. Arasagnana means intuition. The last two can be put under revelation.

Samkhya

Samkhya is considered as a notable attempt in the realm of pure philosophy which implies that this system has used reason more than revelation. The doctrine of evolution of the Prakriti is one of the earliest attempts in this direction. Like the previous systems this darshan accepts the three primary pramanas, namely perception, inference, and scriptural authority. Yogic perception is also accepted. Revelation occupies a very small place in this system. Though it believes the Vedas to be eternal and free from errors, and discrepancies, it says, that there are some false sayings, which should be tested by reason. Samkhya expresses this as follows: “Huge giants do not fall from heaven simply because an apta or competent person says so. Only sayings which are supported by reason should be believed by me and others like yourselves.”⁹ Dr. Radhakrishnan says that it discards many an old dogma and silently ignores others, and it did not openly oppose the vedas, but it adopted the more deadly process of sapping the Vedas foundations.

Yoga

Yoga is closely allied with Samkhya, and it is said that Patanjali the author of the system systematised the conceptions of yoga and set them on the background of the metaphysics of Samkhya.¹⁰ The differences are very little. Another author writes that yoga discipline is based on Samkhya rationalism.

This system accepts perception, inference and Sabda as pramanas. Since the yoga system was interested in the yoga discipline more than in the metaphysics it is not so rationalistic as the previous one. Dr. Radhakrishnan writes “The yoga holds that the knowledge gained through perception, inference and scriptural testimony is not absolutely valid.” This system believed that knowledge is the product of erroneous confusion between Purusha and Buddhi. This system believed that the truth of things can be perceived only through the practice of Yoga. Thus, a commentator writes “by Scripture, by inference, and by eager desire for practice in contemplation in three ways he furthers his insight and gains the highest yoga.”¹¹

This system believes in a personal God unlike Samkhya and pays much importance to revelation, and that God’s relation to the world is one of helpfulness and guidance, and that a devotee can by faith more than by reason hope to win from God assistance toward emancipation.¹²

Mimamsa

There are two mimamsas - the Purva and the Uttara. The Uttara Mimamsa is also called Vedanta. The two branches have two distinct systems of thought, and so they should be treated separately.

Purva Mimamsa

This system is also called Karma kanda meaning thereby that work is more important than gnana. This system emphasises rituals and duties (dharma) mentioned in the Vedas and here reason is subordinated to revelation. In this system the Vedas are supremely authoritative. Perception, inference, analogy, arthapatti, and anupalabdhi are used to interpret the mantras of the Vedas. But Sabda is the most important pramana. Arthapatti and anupalabdhi are additional criteria in this system. Arthapatti means implication, and it is explained by the following illustration. Devadutt does not eat at daytime, but he grows fatter and fatter. Therefore, he should be taking food. Since he is not taking food by daytime it is implied that he is taking food at nighttime.

Anupalabdhi means non-apprehension. This is equal to deriving conclusions from negative assertions. This is explained as follows: “I do not see any fire. I do not feel it. There is no evidence for it. Therefore, it is assumed that there is no fire.” Of the two leading exponents of this system Kumarila accepted this criterion of knowledge, while Prabhakara did not accept this. “The aim of the Mimamsa is to ascertain the nature of Dharma. Dharma is not a physical existent and so it cannot be apprehended through the senses. The other pramanas are of no use since they all presuppose the work of perception. Perception, inference and such other sources of knowledge have nothing to say on the point that the performer of the Agnisoma sacrifice will go to heaven. This knowledge is derived only from the Vedas.”¹³

Uttar Mimamsa

While the Karma Mimamsa of Jaimini investigates the duties of dharma and rites enjoined by the vedas, the Uttar mimamsa of Badrayana describes the philosophical and theological views of the Upanishads. Shri Shankaracharya is considered to be the greatest exponent of this system. It is a problem to be solved whether Sankara’s criterion was revelation or reason or both. Das Gupta says that revelation was his criterion. George Thibeau and Sri T. Rajagopalacharya confirm the above view. On the other hand, some scholars hold that Sankara was a rationalist and that he based all his arguments on formal logic. So they say that reason was the ultimate criterion to Sankara. There are some others who reject both these views and hold that swanubhava or experience was the ultimate criterion.

Those who say that Sankara’s criterion was revelation (Vedas or Scriptures) argue that Sankara’s system itself is called Vedanta which means the end of the teachings of the vedas. Sankara was esteemed more as a religious teacher than as a philosopher and that he travelled almost to every big city of India teaching the advaita Vedanta and refuting the rival philosophies and that he preached the vedas and not the philosophy, and he quoted from the scriptures to substantiate statements.

Sankara’s writings are commentaries on the Vedic Scripture and not systematised philosophical theses. As mentioned before he criticises reason as personal opinions of intelligent people which in turn are refuted by other intelligent men. Thus, they argue that Sankara’s criterion was revelation and not reason and these men consider Sankara’s system as a mere religious discourse and not as philosophical works.

On the other hand some people argue that reason was predominant in Sankara’s life, and they substantiate it by the following arguments. Unlike the Purva Mimamsa people, Sankara did not refer to the Mantras, but he based them on the Upanishads which are the highlights of Indian thinking. He never accepted blindly the Vedas, and he tested the Vedic quotations with the touch stone of reason. In all places where contradictions are found he says that reason should help to interpret those statements. So it is concluded that Sankara used reason and not revelation as a criterion.

But Sankara definitely knew that reason or thought cannot reach reality. Sankara’s conception of reality was “whole” where the subject object relationship is not felt. He knew that thought bifurcates reality into subject and object relationships. So to know reality a level must be reached where subject and object are one and the same. This state cannot be achieved by sheer thought or reason, but Paravidya can help. This is a state in which the Self realises that it is Brahma itself and that it is a state of existence, consciousness and bliss. So he calls reality as Sachhidanand.

For our purposes under what category shall we include this state of experience? Revelation involves dualism that is the object being revealed to the subject. In a monistic system there cannot be any revelation. So Sankara’s self realising experience cannot be put in the category of revelation. This state is reached by the effort of the self and with the help of a special power which is inherent in the self and which lies dormant at other times. At the time of realisation it wakes and gets to be in its natural state. So Sankara’s Svanubhava’s can be placed under reason. And we can conclude that reason plays a predominant part in Sankara’s system.

As a conclusion we may say that reason and revelation play their due parts in the six systems of Indian Philosophy.

EDITOR’S NOTE:

We are indebted to the “ASSOCIATION MEN” (Christmas 1952) for the reprint of the following article. It is included at the request of Rev. R.C. Das.

Some Misconceptions About the Hindu Caste System

By Mr. P. Chenchiah, M.L., Advocate, Madras

One chief source of misconception about Hindu Society is the use of the word ‘caste’, which really is a word of Portuguese origin. The term used in Sanskrit is varna (colour) or kula (group) or jati (class). Caste, in Hindu Society, is the brick as well as the building; it is the unit used in building the social structure of the caste system.

The chief characteristics of caste are: (1) Birth, determining social status. (2) Intermarriage and interdining restricted to the group and forbidden as between the groups. The differentia of the caste system is the arrangement of castes on a hierarchical or step-ladder pattern, with the Brahman at the top and the Sudra at the bottom.

All societies have shown a tendency to divide into four classes - priests, soldiers, traders, servants; and to arrange them as higher and lower. The tacit rejection of intermarriage and interdining is also found in many other societies; we see these all operating in South Africa. When it is said that caste is peculiar to India, it is meant that these features occur in combination, and what is social preference in other societies becomes in India a socially punishable law, with sanctions both spiritual and secular. Keeping these facts in mind, let us examine some of the prevailing misconception about caste.

1. That caste is a principle of exclusion. As a matter of fact, caste includes as much as it excludes. The basic idea is not that a brahman should not eat with or marry a Sudra, but that he should eat and marry among Brahmans only. The negative aspect arises incidentally out of the positive. Caste is endogamous, and not exogamous, in principle. This accounts for the fact that there was, till a later date, no animus or contempt in caste relations. Between ‘caste’ and ‘casteless’ there may be some amount of revulsion - a ‘looking down’ and a ‘looking up’ - but not among castes themselves. Caste is a principle of differentism within the social body, and in India it was a law enforced by courts of law and has no determined attitude towards those outside the pale. Caste integrates primarily.

2. That caste has its origin and growth in religion. Though religious meaning has been attributed to caste, it has been essentially a secular phenomenon. Of the existing castes, almost all are occupational. Thus, with the chaturvarna¹⁴, which Sri Krishna claimed as his creation, the trader and the servant are professional. The priest and the king are associated with professional functions. Early sanctions for violation of caste-fines and penalties were of a secular character. Caste can best be described as the stereotyping of trades and occupations into new community groups. The religious veneer in caste is thin and does not wear long. In South Africa, where early Indian conditions are reproduced, we are witnessing caste feeling emerge in all its intensity as a purely secular phenomenon, though religion is brought in to support one party or the other.

3. That caste is racial. The chaturvurnas of the Aryans are distinctions within the same race, the Aryans. So are the Dravidian distinctions based on locality - mountain people, forest people, shore people. The writ of caste does not run beyond caste-based society. Caste has nothing to do with the relations of the four castes and casteless people, of castes and mlechas (foreigners). That these relations run on a similar pattern all over the world in superiority and inferiority complexes and reproduce some features of the caste system does not justify any confusion between them. The relation of the Hindu with the Muslim and the Britisher, if on the one hand more exclusive than caste relation, was on the other one of admiration and imitation, - things lacking in the relation between the Brahman and the Sudra. The vital difference between caste relations and race relations is that in the former, in spite of prohibitions of interdining and intermarriage, a sense of household prevails; while in the latter, in spite of cordiality and good feeling, this feeling and fellowship is lacking.

4. That caste is rigid and incapable of expansion. Though this is true of caste in the days of Hindu degeneration, it was not true of caste during the best part of history. Even as early as the Brahmanas we have indications, preserved in the story of Vasishta and Visvamitra, that there has been an expansion of castes in India. It should not be forgotten that both the Dravidians and the Aryans had one four-fold division of priests, warriors, trader and servants. The Aryans priests and Dravidian priests have telescoped into one caste, now called Brahman; and the same has happened with regard to other castes. A closer examination of the contents of any caste in India discloses the fusion of two systems. I was shown a portrait of a Brahman bhagavatar in the Pudakotah museum which does not possess a single Aryan trait, but disclosed many Dravidian characteristics. The mass conversions of Islam and Christianity afforded another opportunity for the expansion of caste. During the Bhakti revival in Hinduism - particularly that sponsored by Sri Ramanuja - there has been elevation of lower castes into the Brahman caste.

5. That caste is universal in India. That caste and idolatry are in the blood of a Hindu and finds expression whenever the glow and fervent heat of religion settles down, should not blind us to the fact that, in the history of Hinduism, movements have arisen which have repudiated caste, though ultimately caste won. Buddhists and Jains, in their periods of initial power and glory, repudiated caste. The Sikhs and Veerasaivas also rebelled against caste. Both the Brahmo and Arya Samajas do not accept caste. The casteless, who form one-fifth of the Hindu population, are outside its jurisdiction. The aborigines are casteless society, observing a sort of social communism. The influence of Islam and Christianity have been towards repudiation of caste.

6. That caste is a divisive, restrictive pattern. Caste is a principle of integration, and though it divides in one aspect, it unites in another. Except in the case of the excommunicated and the outcastes, the caste system seeks to build a habitation for the whole society. All Hindus are sought to be included and graded within one social structure. Thus, caste builds a huge court of flats for people to live together. Here again the source of misconception is the tendency to interpret caste in the light of its relation with the casteless. A sense of a ‘household of faith’ subsists and informs the whole body of the caste system.

7. That caste is unique to Hinduism. If it is meant that caste as it obtains in India owes its rigidity and tenacity to something in the Indian soil and mind, the view is probably correct. But it should be remembered that many of its features are found in all societies, Eastern and Western. Interdining and intermarriage between classes, though not prohibited, is not common in the West. The grading of people into high and low is an equally wide phenomenon. What is unique in the caste system in India is that social taboos are converted into laws enforceable by sanctions. “Thou shalt not marry among your inferiors” is a social prejudice enforced by social exclusion in other countries.

Two observations may now be made of caste which have a bearing on its true nature, and may thus serve to clear misconceptions.

1. Caste is essentially secular.

   Religion in its white heat dissolved caste and in its hard coldness exaggerated its evils. Bhakti cults, Sikhism, Buddhism and Veerasaivism, condemned caste, and when they lost their early glow became victims of caste. Now in the twentieth century secularism, a stronger power than dead religion, is conquering caste. Railways and restaurants are dealing a more effective blow to caste than Christianity and Islam. This shows that caste is essentially secular. Caste, in the maturer wisdom of Hinduism, was intended to run in harness with ashrama.¹⁵ The failure of ashrama dharma left the bane without the antidote. True religion and ashrama may transform caste. As this happening is very doubtful, caste will meet its end in modernism of travel and intermixture rather than in the spiritual enlightenment of democracy.

2. Caste has outlived its purpose in India.

   Every society has to consolidate itself in some way or other. Hinduism consolidated itself through caste. Caste had a purpose - that of stabilising, integrating and protecting society against external shocks and internal revolutions. The verdict of impartial judges has been that it served this purpose very well. Like all institutions it has outlived its purpose, and has to yield its place to new social formations. To regard it as “sanatana” and cling to it is the evil of conservatism. To condemn it as an irredeemable evil is the evil of unenlightened enthusiasm. Like the steps in a staircase, caste was necessary for the upward march of Hindu society. We had to step on it to climb higher. Having stepped on it to progress upward, we have now to step off it to progress further. That is the way of all good institutions: to live for a purpose and, having achieved it, to die in right time, nobly.

From the “Association Men” Christmas 1952.

Story Section

The Flower That Lost Its Fragrance

The Shaivaite and Vaishnavaite sects have not been very tolerant of each other almost unto the present day. Here is a Shaivaite version, of a story, references to which might be found in the Tiruvasagam, Devaram and even much earlier. In the Vaishanvaite version, Shiva and Vishnu exchange their roles. To the Christian student of Hinduism it is immaterial whether Shiva or Vishnu is the hero in the narrative, but the fact that such stories inspire people and invoke in them feelings of reverence, awe and worship is of great interest. Without such functional values in religious experience such stories cannot live long. People are taught by this simple story that human intelligence unaided by supernatural grace is utterly incompetent to understand the transcendent nature of God. The story runs thus:

Once upon a time there appeared a mysterious pillar of fire. It was of unusual dimensions. Even the gods Brahma and Vishnu did not know what it was, and they began to examine it closely. As they stood and looked up the pillar seemed to reach the highest summit of heaven itself. Stranger than that, it seemed to extend downward also - apparently to the lowest depths of the lowest region - pathal. So, Vishnu offered to investigate and find out how deep into the earth the pillar was extending. Brahma, on his part was willing to go up and scale the heights of this fiery wonder. Vishnu took the form of a boar and digged and digged for ages and ages and at last gave up hope and in utter desperation acknowledged defeat. Brahma on the other hand flew up in the form of a swan. Up he went higher and still higher. For several million years he flew, but the summit of that pillar was not yet in view. At last one day he saw a tiny object coming down through the empty void of the highest regions. He hastened to reach it and found it to be a petal of the fragrant flower, Thazai (pandanus odaratissimus). So with great hopes he inquired of the flower whence it came. Nor was he disappointed in the answer he got which was, “I am falling from the locks of the great God Shiva.” The god without desiring to undergo any further trouble came down and claimed that he had scaled the heights of the pillar, and as a token he showed to Vishnu the petal. But Vishnu also was a god and so it was not quite so easy to deceive him. So both the gods in humble supplication fell on their knees and besought humbly the pillar of fire. It was then that Shiva - for it was none else - appeared in grace and revealed Himself to them, for not even the greatest and the wisest of men or even gods could by their own resources find out the Supreme Shiva. But to those of humble and contrite heart does He reveal Himself.

The flower Thazai that connived with Brahma in his unsuccessful attempt to know the absolute Shiva received its due punishment. It lost its sweet smelling fragrance. But when it appealed for grace, the burden of the curse was greatly reduced. It was decreed that any maiden wearing the flower will be insensible to its scent while people coming near her will enjoy its fragrance.

This naive story has very powerfully appealed, to the religious imagination of the Shaivaite people. Many poets have made reference to it and in the skilful hands even such simple stories become adequate instruments to instil that religious feeling of mysterious tremendum which Rudolf Otto speaks about. The following is a translation by Kingsbury and Phillips of a poem written by Tirunavukarassunayanar:

“Vishnu the spouse of Lakshmi, and four ways facing Brahma searched the heights and depths, but Thy feet could never see Yet Oh only Lord - who in Athihai dost dwell Formless, in Thy grace, grant the sight of them to me.”¹⁶

Book Reviews

The Yellow Robe

By CYRIL J. DAVEY (London. S.C.M. Press 1950) pp. 96.

Here is an inspiring and challenging biography of the great Indian mystic and saint Sadhu Sunder Singh, one of the most thrilling stories of the twentieth century - the narrative of a humble Christian who because he gave his heart to Jesus found abiding joy, tremendous power, radiant and abundant life. This book tells the story of the adventurous life of a strong man, who did not know what fear was and so dared to cross the mighty Himalayas time and again, and braved not only the perils of snow, storm, and beasts but also the inhuman persecutions of cruel fanatics.

It is really difficult to write a biography of Sadhu Sunder Singh, because first-hand material for this narration is not readily available. In the narration of his mystic experience the Sadhuji used indeed very simple words - but sometimes it is very difficult to say whether some of the things he says are to be taken as subjective mystic experience or occurrences which are just extraordinary and unaccountable. Under such circumstances, authors are likely to be super-critical and pay no attention to data that could not be accounted for by modern thinkers. The author tackles this problem in a masterly way. He has the sense of a sober historian and has attempted to give an unprejudiced but reliable account of the Sadhuji. However, the life of a mystic has a mystery in it which is not completely dissolved by canons of historical criticism. So if anyone raises the question could this have happened, the author should not be blamed. He has used sound methods of procedure and has exercised a severe and wholesome caution in drawing conclusions.

The story is packed with facts and the interest begins almost at the first line, and it is continued unto the very end. Events are pictured graphically and by a skilful art which hides itself the author paints the picture of the development and flowering of a great personality, and we see not only the bold picture rising on the canvas, but also feel the spirit of the hero inspiring us and exciting us to action.

We commend this book to those who want to read a religious biography. It is a book well worth the money and time of those that are interested in Indian Christian mysticism. But the chief merit of the book lies in the fact that it gives the life of a man who was affected by Christ and not Western thought or culture. His life was truly Christian and at the same time it appeals to people whose cultural background is Hindu. Without knowing it himself the Sadhuji was a pioneer in the field of constructing an indigenous theology, So we recommend this book to Hindu friends as well.

The Tree on the Hill

By REV. D. CHELLAPPA, (Madras. The New India Book House, 1953) pp. 41, price Annas 12.

In America and England many successful pastors and preachers publish their sermons. This is a very good custom, because any message that is printed has access to a larger audience. The Chinese proverb “the faintest ink remembers much better than the sharpest memory of men” is very true of such printed sermons. Unfortunately in India ministers as a rule do not print their sermons. This is a serious loss to us.

The Rev. D. Chellappa is setting a good example to his fellow ministers by publishing this valuable booklet. He has given us here his thoughtful meditations on the seven utterances of our Lord Jesus from the Cross. The message is very inspiring and challenging. The fact that this material has been used many times in different places and to various types of audience shows its abiding popularity and usefulness. A tree is known by its fruits and not its roots. Judged by this standard this booklet is a great success because it powerfully appeals to our religious feelings and stirs us to the depth of our hearts. This charming booklet is a good example of Christian Bhakti, and we commend it to our Hindu readers as well.

This book is printed in clear, bold, faultlessly correct print. The cover is attractive, and the book is moderately priced to be within the reach of all. We commend the publishers for the excellent work they have done in the production of this book and hope that they will publish many more books.

Christian Ashrams in India

By JOHN DHARMA THEERTHAN (Christava Ashram Manganam Kottayam) pp. 20, price Annas 4.

This is a timely pamphlet giving us the general characteristics and ideals of Christian, Ashrams. The opening words strike the cautious note which characterises the whole book. The author says, “Christian ashrams were heralded as a new and indigenous contribution of the Indian Church and high hopes were held out by their pioneers and the churches which encouraged the movement. So far they have not succeeded in establishing their claim to a unique status among Christian institutions and activities.”

After briefly stating the five general characteristics of the Ashrams (a guru or teacher, a gurukul or a body of students, spiritual discipline, renunciation, and simplicity) the author deals with the risks that these ashrams are running. The greatest risk “of the Christian Ashram movement is that they antagonise the non-Christians by their shocking disregard of the basic ideals of Christian life.” and again he says that “it is likely to be a distortion of one of the noblest institutions of Hinduism.”

He answers the objections usually raised by some Christian workers against the Indian conception that it does not recognise the importance of service which to the Christian is the supreme duty of all the followers of Christ. This he does by pointing out that the service of the Ashram is providing free instruction and training for ideal life and also free board and lodging with the teacher during the period of discipleship.

Then he goes on to define the Christian Ashram as a fellowship of Christ’s disciples. This according to him involves renouncing fellowship with the world, disciplining and harmonising the body mind and spirit and abiding in Christ in a life of devotion study and prayer.

The author adduces ten reasons for the fact that Christian Ashrams are not making satisfactory progress. These ought to be a challenge to every Christian. Finally, he shows an important difference between the Hindu and Christian Ashrams. The Hindu ashrams are freelancers. They owe no allegiance to any external authority. But the Christian Ashrams have to be members of the Church.

The booklet is small; but its message is inspiring and challenging. Every Christian in India ought to read and ponder deeply over the these facts. The Hindu reader will also find it interesting, and it will help him to see the Christian ideals clearly because of the Ashram background of the author.

Quintessence of the Upanishads

By C.G. DESAI (Bombay; D.B. Taraporewala Sons and Co.) pp. 197, price Rs. 3/7/-.

In this book the author deals with the twelve important Upanishads and brings out the thoughts of the ancient sages. However, this is not a critical study of the Upanishads. It does not deal with the text, date of composition, internal or external evidence, integrity, background of thought etc. Nor is it an introduction to students who do not know anything about the Upanishads and who would like to get acquainted with them.

The author has as his theological conviction that all great religions have systems of philosophy that afford light to forlorn travellers and that “they specify methods of enjoying sweet - repose in the omnipotent creator”. Shri Desai seems to have as his aim an ideal level where conflicting differences and harrowing inequalities are overcome. Many Western scholars in their treatment of even one and the same Upanishad, point out the divergent and even conflicting elements of thought contained therein. Dr. Rawson’s classical work on Katha is a typical example of such a treatment. Where others see such divergent disparities and glaring contradictions, our author sees nothing but unity or at least convergence. So as one goes through the book the reader is given to understand that not only all the Upanishads, but even the Gita and the great commentators like the great Shankaracharya speak the same words and have the same accent.

The reason for this is not difficult to find. This book is an exposition of modern new Hinduism which emphasises the unity of all religions. The question of who is right does not arise; for Shri Desai in his preface acknowledges his indebtedness to scholars like Hume who have made a critical study of the sacred books of the East. The fact remains that modern Hindu thinkers are working out a systematic theology which is true to their ancient traditions and at the same time in consonance with Western philosophical thinking at its best and with a tolerant outlook towards other religions. This spirit of neo-Hinduism breathes through the whole book.

Printed by Dr. E.M. Moffatt, at the Lucknow Publishing House, Lucknow. - (250) - 871 - 4-1953.

Patrons:

1. The Metropolitan of India, Calcutta.
2. Bishop Clement D. Rockey, Lucknow.

President:

The Rt. Rev, C.J.G. Robinson, M.A., Allahabad.

Vice-Presidents:

1. The Rt. Rev. A.J. Appasamy, M.A., Ph.D., Coimbatore.
2. The Rev. C.E. Abraham, M.A., B.D., D.D., Serampore.
3. The Rev. C.S. Thoburn, M.A., S.T.B., Jabalpur.

Secretary of Society:

Dr. A. Ralla Ram, Jamna, Allahabad.

Convener of Institutes:

Rev. R.C. Das, M.A., 129 Dashashwamedh, Banaras, U.P.

Editor of the Pilgrim:

Dr. R.D. Immanuel, Leonard Theological College, Jabalpur, M.P.

Treasurer:

Prof. P.C. Addy, M.A., Bible House, Thornhill Road, Allahabad.

Committee:

1. Prof. V.E. Devadut, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Serampore
2. The Rev. Paul Das, B.A., Allahabad.
3. The Rev. C.G. Diehl, Madura.
4. The Principal, School of Islamics, Aligarh.
5. Mr. S.J. Duraiswamy, B.A., N.M.S. Madras.
6. The Rev. R.W. Scott, M.A., Christian Council, Nagpur.

Editorial Committee:

1. Rt. Rev. Bishop A.J. Appasamy, Coimbatore.
2. Rev. C.G. Diehl, Madura.
3. Rev. R.C. Das, M.A., Benares.

Objects and Aims

The objects of the Christian Society for the Study of Hinduism are:

1. To create and maintain adequate interest in the study of Hinduism by Christians
2. To carry on the study in a sympathetic, constructive and critical way for the purpose of effective evangelism and
3. To achieve the above objects in co-operation with Church and Mission bodies.

The activities of the Society are:

1. An Institute of Hinduism in Benares,
2. ‘The Pilgrim’, a quarterly bulletin bearing on Hinduism, its relation to Christianity and for work among Hindus and
3. Organising a permanent School of Hinduism

Every member will receive THE PILGRIM free Membership fee Rs. 4 per year

Note

Donations may be sent to the Treasurer:

Prof. P.C. Addy, M.A.,
Bible House,
12, Thornhill Road,
Allahabad.

Enquiries about the Society and its work should be addressed to the Secretary:

Dr. A. Ralla Ram, Jamna, Allahabad

All communications and correspondence relating to the Pilgrim should be addressed:

Dr. R.D. Immanuel, Leonard Theological College, Jabalpur