My bhakti theology Part One

As I am reading this book [Graham Kings, Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker, New Delhi, 2002, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017.], I realized the difficult for someone coming from outside to another religious tradition to understand all the internal dynamism and complication about that particular religious tradition.  This book is also helping me to understand my difficulty in understanding about Christianity with its own dynamism and complication because of its historical development over several centuries.  Similarly, untrained in theology, I find it difficult to comprehend the discussion in this book properly.  This helped me to have a sympathetic understanding about any outsider to understand about Hinduism with its complicated theology (both Vedanta and Siddhanta).  This book presents some challenges for all about their faith as both Dr. Max Warren and Roger Hooker have presented their views in a remarkable way based on their deep intellect and personal experience from their respective fields.
God is not limited; Guru as my God

All our understanding about God based on a particular scripture would never limit God in any way.  All the exclusivistic claims about God only reflect a particular understanding about God through that exclusivism based on a Scripture or (religious) tradition. For example, the exclusivism of Muktiveda about God is true for all who accept it as the Word of God.  But to say that this is the only way to understand God is not excluvisim but fanaticism.  One can say that this is the way I understand God based on my scripture or religious (theological) tradition.  But if I insist that this is the only way to understand about God it is fanaticism.  Thankfully God—if at all we need even to use this word – is not limited  by anything.#  That is why I say with firm conviction that I don’t know who god is and I even don’t want to understand her (I deliberately use the word ‘her’ here).   I only want to know a guru who can guide me in my search about me in life.  And I found that guru in Muktinath. And as per my (religious) tradition, that guru becomes my God.  And I don’t want and cannot understand a God beyond that Guru and I am happy with it.

God can use any person or means to help us to know the Lord.  But no one can remain in that first level alone and she should make progress in her understanding about the Lord.  At least in my case, my encounter with the Lord and my understanding about him was a gradual growth but never remained at the first level of encounter. I cannot claim that till this day I understood theology in its true sense. But all my readings helped me to understand both Hinduism and Muktiveda to some extent.  And as I read more about Hinduism and Hindu scriptures, they helped me to understand and grow in my bhakti in the Lord.  To say in other words, God never expected me to burn the bridge through which I walked to reach my guru.  In fact,  in the Indian or Hindu worldview, particularly both the need of a guru and bhakti are the two tracks on which my faith runs smoothly till this day and not with any clear understanding of theology and doctrine.

As I often say, once I met my guru in Muktinath, all my efforts to know about Him was a backward walk in history with the help of Muktiveda and church history.  While Muktiveda provided a firm foundation for me to build my bhakti in the Lord, the church history helped me not to repeat the same mistakes which several sincere people, unknowingly, have done in the name of mission and ministry. They have done their best and thought they were only doing the right thing according to their understanding.   Now I may think that they were wrong and in the future, others might say that I am wrong.   But I cannot throw away my Hindu tradition including the scriptures and Muktiveda.  At the same time, I cannot claim that I will give the same authority to my Hindu scriptures as I give to Muktiveda.  But I respect them and thank God for them to shape my bhakti.  Muktiveda gives me the foundation for my bhakti and my Hindu scriptures help me to understand and express it within my worldviews.  To say in other words, I understood the Goodnew as a Hindu and still want to walk in my bhakti as a Hindu.  But I cannot claim that it will be an easy walk without challenges.   I feel more comfortable to remain as a Hindu within my Hindu Worldview than to embrace Christianity.  In fact, I won’t hesitate even to say that as my Indian or Hindu worldview can accommodate my bhakti in the Lord and does not expect me to compromise with my bhakti/faith, I need not try to follow any alien tradition in which I cannot feel comfortable.  At the same time, I cannot deny others freedom to change their religion or community viz., from Hinduism to Christianity.  But when they condemn Hinduism without understanding it properly, I will challenge their understanding.  Similarly, when any convert without understanding past mistakes and failures try to glorify Christianity/Church/Mission, I request them to have proper understanding before condemning Hinduism and glorifying Christianity.  Though my own people (Hindus) won’t accept my bhakti in the Lord easily, yet I would prefer a hostile home than a friendly but suspecting neighbour. For me, Hinduism is my home and Christianity is my neighbour.  I can easily overcome the hostility at home as a natural member of it. But winning the confidence of a friendly neighbour is possible only when he too tries to understand me.

Universalism versus Exclusivism

Another point that I cannot understand is the view of fundamentalism, which tries to understand the people of other faiths only from their own particular (theological or religious) point of view.  Of course I understand the view of exclusivists according to which there is no mukti outside their particular theological point of view.  This is not limited only to Abrahamic faiths, but even within Hinduism a few sampradayas  hold this view. But they never seal the destiny of other people once for all since rebirth (samsara) gives another opportunity for them to work out their salvation in future births.  We may object to such a view about postponing mukti to some other future births.  But, ‘…If the distinct doctrines of Hinduism, like karma and transmigration of the soul at death, are to be dismissed because they do not conform to Christian truth, then the Hindu also will, by the same standard reject distinct Biblical truths like the historical particularity of Christ, the cross and the resurrection because they do not conform to the Hindu understanding of truth.’ (Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 2007,  p. 267). So when it comes to the question of the salvation of others, though we claim the uniqueness of the Lord and universality of the Goodnew, it all depends upon the human response to them.  We can claim any exclusivism based on our understanding of Muktiveda and we are correct in it.  But when we claim that Muktiveda alone should be universal then that exclusivism becomes fanaticism as per my definition.

Mukti

 For me mukti is not to be received after death in the Further Shore.  But it should be realized here and now on this earth while living in this body.  I found that mukti in my guru who delivered me from so many fetters which bound my atman in various ways both in profane and sacred areas in life.  Mukti never remains static but dynamic as per my understanding and obedience to my guru—both through his words and Spirit with the help of the mandali.  Particularly, the mandali helped me to realize that there is no private god or personal bhakti.  At the same time, it never denied my separate need for sadhana to grow in my bhakti to enjoy a personal relationship with God. The mandali provides the support but never imprisons me within it.  It provides space for me to exercise my vocation as per my nature as a recluse. When I involve them they accept and when I withdraw they approve it—never questioning beyond my limitation to respond. In the end, my guru helped me to re-invent my vocation in Him as part of his body (universal mandali) but continued within a local boundary with a particular identity which he gave to me in my birth as Hindu.

Cosmic Christ

I can understand phrases like  : God at work in Hinduism, Christ-like qualities in others, presence of God in others’ faith, ‘patronising to Hindus’ ‘functional’ view ‘provisional view’ etc. in the aforementioned book.   But as a Hindu, viewing people of other faith within such ‘Christian frame of reference’ surprises me a bit.  We never had such an approach in our worldview.  But I have to qualify this by saying that some bhakti traditions claim that people in other bhakti traditions, though worshiping their own chosen deity, in fact are worshipping only their God in different forms.  We already noted several references about both Saivism and Vaishnavism, above (See Disconnected Christianity).  As I often say, there is no Cosmic, hidden or unknown Muktinath in other religious traditions.  Each avatara needs to be assessed and understood within that particular tradition.  The same is with Incarnation.
All the latter theological developments of a particular Scripture developed only within particular traditions.  And when we engage in any comparative theology, we should be careful not to measure up the message of one scripture with another scripture at the cost of the context and tradition.  Here the Cosmic, unknown and hidden Muktinath failed according to my understanding along with even the so-called Krist Advita.  This they can do as their personal right and interest but cannot claim any sanction from Muktiveda, unless they are ready to reject several portions which will completely stand against it, that too after doing lots of TEXT TORTURING.
For example, some only accept the four gospels in the Uttaraveda (NT) and reject the other books. They have the right to do it.  But they conveniently forget the historical fact that the Canonical tradition which gave the authority to the gospels never rejected the rest of the NT.  That is why when some are inclined more towards Johannine theology, rejecting Pauline theology, Warren rightly calls it ‘heretical’(p.182,) and  advises his son-in-law to ‘ every three books on John read one on Paul!  And fertilize both with some sociology – for ‘the Word was made flesh’. (p. 179) If they reject the rest of the books in Uttaraveda except the four gospels, then why not they also include other gospels like ‘Gospel according to Barnabas’ etc. which was rejected by the Canonical authority?  That is why, though I never understand all that is recorded in the Purva Veda (OT), yet I know that to understand Uttaraveda (NT), I need to read it and try to understand it [In fact one has also to read ‘the inter Testament history’ to have a clear understanding of Uttaraveda].  Otherwise our knowledge about Muktiveda, even that of Muktinath, will remain partial and incomplete.   It is worth noting what Waltke says about the unity of Muktiveda:

…the Bible is Scripture inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). Accordingly, for the orthodox, the Bible’s nature integrates into a holistic unity three essential components that in fact cannot be separated without destroying the whole: God, its divine author; the inspired human author; and the text. — Bruce K. Waltke and James M. Houston, with Erika Moore, The Psalms As Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010, p. 83

The same is the case with Indian tradition.  Selectively reading or quoting from any one Scripture won’t do full justice to the understanding of Hinduism. Even within a sampradaya, we need to try to have a minimum understanding about the rest of the Scriptures of that particular tradition. For example, reading Srimad Bhagavatam alone is not enough to understand Vaishnavism. Similarly, Srimad Bhagavad Gita is not the sole representative for entire Hinduism.  At the same time, we should recognize that only after reading and understanding all the  Hindu Scriptures we can say something about Hinduism is impossible. This is both an advantage and impediment with Hinduism.  But there is no easy solution to address this tension.  That is why whoever tries to engage in dialogue with Hinduism based on selected scripture or selected section of Hindus will produce nothing but another kind of modern Gnosticism unless they engage with various shades of Hinduism.   Considering the vastness of Hindu traditions and Scriptures, dialogue with Hinduism by other religious traditions, which have mono-scripture traditions, should be careful to project any one (Hindu) view as authentic or even the best approach.  Personally I am against all kinds of such dialogues, considering the complex nature of religious tradition.  However, people from outside India or Indian Christians who never can have firsthand experience with the complex nature of Hinduism should never try to promote such Cosmic, Universal or Unknown Muktiveda in Hinduism.

Notes

As I continued to read on revelation and the dialogue followed (see previous song 492 [see below] and Gerhard Oberhammer, Revelation in Hinduism; Questions and Interventions, in Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John Mercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, pp. 87-125,) , more questions came to me than finding a clear answer from these discussions.  After the reading, I sat quietly for some time trying to recollect what I read.  Then sincerely I shared my doubts to the Lord. Though I closed the poem by saying that as I cannot convey what kind of message that I received in my atman from the Lord and also said that as no one will accept it or believe it, it is better to stop there itself.
But when I retired to bed (around 1.00 am), I continued to think on this subject.  As my own reason for refusing to accept my argument that the message that I received from the Lord is beyond communication, I debated how to express my thought in words. And the conclusion is this:

This is my comments to Bhakti Theology Song 494 about this in my blog:

God is not limited by any human categories—including this word ‘God’.  Everything that we use to convey our ‘encounter’ with God is only a ‘nimit’ (incident) alone. This includes even the Muktiveda and also the Lord.  Yes the INCARNATION is an incident for God to reveal who He is to us. In His own nature the Lord is beyond our comprehension.  For me INCARNATION shows not only the GRACE of God but His MERCY to come down to our level so that we can comprehend Him in our atman. Then what we try to experience and then express is only human agency.  But there comes the revelation.  This revelation is very personal for each individual which she cannot convey to others by any means.  At the same time as Oberhammer rightly said, ‘…Ultimately, man also needs human relations in order to maintain his religious experience, since they actually allow him to encounter transcendence’.(— Gerhard Oberhammer, Revelation in Hinduism; Questions and Interventions, in Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur )Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, pp. 87-125,  p. 102

In order to maintain this spiritual encounter which each individual experienced, we use words and thoughts to communicate to others.

Those who write poems and other kinds of writings, need to use their mind/buddhi/brain.  But the flow of thought and the arrangements of words are beyond their ability, though they have to use their mind to convey it.  Though I am not bragging or exaggerating, I wonder why everyone cannot write or talk in the same way as those who do it?  Of course each has her own talent which is a gift.  But for anyone to use that gift, mere talent is not enough. There comes the inspiration or revelation.

Though millions and millions of written works are there in the world, the way one book as Muktiveda gained some unique status and few scriptures gained as Veda and smrtis in India etc. shows that these are mere ‘nimit’ (incident) for God to use His revelation to the seekers.  Here again what Oberhammer says will help me to convey my thought: If God can create man only by allowing him to ‘reach out’ for Him, if man thus is a creature who can only be himself by reaching for God, then it is God himself who challenges him in this way…the assertion was not made that God is experienced by man as an ‘object,’ but rather as an ‘encountering’ infinity of which he expects the fullness of his existence.—p. 105

494 this is good

“Can we claim all that we do using our intellect
Are definitely from God
And what we write with the help of our knowledge
Can we say it is the word of God?

What all the things that we compiled
And recorded as the Word of God
Does God actually came and
Taught them as His words?”

Though many such questions were debated
So many times in the past
What is the final answer?
None has give that to us so far

Contemplating this many times within me
And raising so many questions about it
Finally I went to God
And asked an answer for this

In order to give an answer to me
When He came within me
All the doubts were gone
But I don’t find words to convey it

When something within me
Listened His answer
It conveyed a message
Which stands beyond words and language.

It never came within the orbit of my thinking process
And it never confined to any kind of language
However I try, beyond this
I don’t have a mind to share further about it

But none will accept it
And however I try to communicate they won’t believe it
Therefore it is better to stop here
And it good for all

26-8-16, Mathigir, 11.50 pm.