Why do I doubt that I am a Hindu if I follow Mukti Nath?
Question: In my conversations with Hindus who follow Mukti Nath there is a nagging question – are we really authentic Hindus, if we follow Mukti Nath?
Db’s response: First a theory
A Hindu is a member of a particular community irrespective of her faith in any deity.
What the Constitution says: Here, I mean Hindu Personal law. I never have done any deep study on it. One can easily search on the Internet and find out all the details of what Hindu Personal Law says about who is a Hindu. As far as I know, this Hindu identity is not related to faith in a particular deity.
Common view: When one meets another stranger, who is a Hindu, most of the time, after asking her name, then the inquiry turns to her native place, district, state and finally and more important CASTE. In case if she does not want to disclose it, then the general question that is asked, particularly in North India (also in several parts of South India), is the name of his or her father. Then in giving a response, most of them will say their father’s name with the caste title like Misra, Pandey, Yadev, Paswan, Reddy etc.
Rarely a Hindu asks about the faith of another Hindu, except in case if the later wants to promote her guru or particular deity.
In India one (caste) community accommodates several faiths and several faiths also accommodate various caste communities. Of course, there are few exceptions to this like Sri Vaishnavas and Lingayat. There are also strong caste divisions.
Considering all these, in general Hindu identity is based on caste and not on faith. Even if one does not want to follow any particular faith, still she will be considered as a Hindu if she follows the Hindu Personal Law. So faith is not the criteria for Hindu identity.
When my Indian worldview gives me this much freedom, then why should I doubt or give up my social identity just because of my faith in any deity or god?
Then what does Motived say about it?
The followers of Mukti Nath never identify them as Christians. It was the label first given by the outsiders to the followers of Mukti Nath. In all the three places where the term Christian is used refer to all the scholarly work in context.
If a Jew can remain a Jew and follow the Lord and if a non-Jew can remain a non-Jew (without undergoing circumcision which is the socio-religious identity of the Jews), why not a Hindu can remain a Hindu and follow the Lord?
But I understand the plight of those Hindu bhaktas who succumb to peer pressure. Particularly outside India, in a country like America, where most of the Hindu bhaktas came to know about the Lord through Evangelical Christians, there is a subtle peer pressure on them. However liberal those evangelicals might be, still when these Hindu bhaktas have fellowship with them—even attending their churches, it is quite natural to succumb to peer pressure. Living away from their Home and relatives, as they depend upon these evangelical fellowships for their social cum spiritual interaction, naturally they might face this nagging question? We face the same here in India. As we live and move with our (Hindu) family and community, though our bhakti in the Lord still raises doubts in the minds of our family members and other relatives, still as we want to keep our Hindu identity, we too come under the peer pressure not to be identified even remotely with Christianity in any form.
So the option is left with the individuals. Unless they have a clear conviction, they will be easily carried by every wind of opinion and have to face such nagging questions throughout their life.
Both Mukti Veda and Hindu (or Indian) worldview gives us the freedom and birth right to retain our identity as a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Jain etc. Then why should I trade it just for the convenience of others? But if they have any doubt about their Hindu identity while following the Lord, there is only one option left with them—become Christian and give up your Hindu identity officially. It is better to have one clear identity than to face this kind of nagging question and try to remain Hindu to their Hindu relatives and Christians to their Christian friends. Such people only want to enjoy the best of both worlds and do not want to identify with the struggle of anyone. Here a ‘Convert’, who openly renounced her birth identity as a Hindu and became Christian, is many times better than the Hindu bhaktas of the Lord who want to have dual identity. Then such people can never live in peace either with the Lord or with others or even with themselves as they will always be tossed by the opinion of others. That is why it is well said that: great people cherish conviction, but small people entertain opinions. Conviction might even demand your life whereas opinion will only give temporary suffocation.
One incident comes to my mind. Though most of the Hindu bhaktas prefers to use the name ‘Mukti Nath’ in stead of ‘Jesus’ or ‘Yesu’ [in Hindi], some affiliated with some organizations or because of their ‘Christian life partner’ or to accommodate the un comfort in using ‘Mukti Nath’ in order to show her Christian peer groups who converted her to Christianity, uses Jesus or Yesu. Of course it is their personal choice and I respect them. But this is the best example as they want to remain ‘Hindu to Hindus’ [by doing even havan in their family ceremony] still wanting to use the name ‘Yesu’ [Jesus] while chanting mantras or singing bhajans. They are not ready to openly discord anything and everything associated with the religion called Christianity or Christian community.
Just for the sake of record I would like to add two more real incidents. There is an evangelical Christian who completely agrees with us in our approach to remain as Hindu bhakta of the Lord. When a heated debate came in one conference about the issues of ‘believer’ marrying only another ‘believer’, as usual I pointed out that there is no demand for such evangelical law in Mukti Veda, particularly in UT, more specifically in 1st Corinthian where Chottu Lal talks about the marriage issue in the mandali. Though their famous verse is: ‘don’t be yoked with an unbeliever’. But I pointed out that this ‘yoking’ has nothing to do with marriage and put my points. However, the evangelist who agreed with us, though indirectly supported my view, cannot openly endorse my view, as he is affiliated with a Mission which belongs to one very Orthodox church in the West. Later I came to know that he was even called to inquire about his stand on this issue.
The other one is this: after the final manuscript was prepared for Living Water and Indian Bowl, I approached two famous evangelical leaders in Tamil Nadu. After reading the manuscript they both said to me in person, ‘I completely agree with you. But because of my affiliation with the church and mission I cannot openly come to support you’. I respected their stand. Later when I met Sri Rokhya in Kathmandu and shared about this in the course of our talk, he came forward to write the Forward and he wrote it. Very few are there like him who are ready to keep one identity clearly.
I am not against those who, under certain compulsions, need to keep both the identity. Though we should be sympathetic to them, we need not follow their example. And I dedicate this article to all those Copy Cates.
Dayanand Bharati
26-06-2019
This was my response to the question asked by one person.
When I shared this article with one Hindu bhakta of the Lord she wrote: I am comfortable only with the ones who are Hindu even if they are Christians…one who don’t impose themselves and the Hindus who act like Christians in the name of following Mukti Nath. I cannot stand such copy cats. Why lose our identity as a beautiful Hindu when the Lord never said so?
Supriya
26-06-2019
So I entitled this article ‘Copy Cat’ as I like the way she presented her view clearly
Leave a Reply