logian. His writings in “church Sanskrit” reflected a “theology” of concilia-
tion, in which he sought to present Christianity as an expression of “truth”
through rational discourse. He sought to convey a “benign humanism” which
entailed empathy and scholarly knowledge of his intended audience, in this
case Hindus. In his writings, he presented the idea of “God” and “true
religion” in ways consistent with a Christian perspective.
Responses to Muir’s work were of several kinds: a moderate Maharashtrian
brahman (Somanatha), for example, concurred that moks.a(enlightenment)
is possible in non-Hindu religions so long as one follows the scripture of
that religion. A more virulent response, that of a Calcutta brahman
(Haracandra), was to castigate Muir as a prejudiced and blind infidel, and
critiqued Christianity for its newness, its sectarianism, and imperiousness, as
well as its naivete (for accepting such “legends” as those of the virgin birth
as “true”).^48
Out of the responses emerged a Hindu apologetic shaped in contra-
distinction to Christianity. The principles of this defense included the
following ideas: 1) Sana ̄tana dharmawas more ancient than Christianity,
hence more true. 2) The fundamental human problem was epistemologi-
cal (that is not knowing the truth) rather than moral. Indeed, the concept
of “original sin” was deemed illogical and unjust. 3) Hinduism was a religion
with a variously adaptable deity (rather than one confined to a single
revelatory moment) and its various viewpoints (dars ́ana) afforded flexibility
for different types of people. 4) The Hindu goal of moks.awas superior to any
idea of a literal heaven. 5) Vedic authority was beyond question and
brahmanhood was authentic inasmuch as it was rooted in karma.^49
Despite such confrontations, there were also accommodations and bor-
rowings between the communities. On the Christian side, there was
adaptation of Sanskrit and vernacular terminology to express Christian ideas;
the appropriation of such institutions as the ashram for meditation and
study; and the appropriation of local accretions in the celebration of festi-
vals and rituals, especially within Catholic circles. Not least important,
there was some reinterpretation of basic Christian ideas. Hence, one would
find some Christian thinkers expressing the nature of the Christ figure in
terms that reflected the Indian landscape: as the “bringer of a new created
order” (Chenchiah); the paradigmatic guruand true avata ̄raof the divine
(Chakkarai); and the “eternal om.” and personality who embodies ahim.sa
(S. Jesudason).^50 In addition, there were those upper-class Christians who
sought to retain caste identities after conversion (despite missionary
protests), and some who became partners with other Indians to fight for
freedom and human dignity. Some Hindus, for their part, borrowed from
Christianity. There was emulation of aspects of Christian ethics that were,
nonetheless, simultaneously rediscovered in their own ancient sources:
Streams from the “West” and their Aftermath 185