To begin with a positive note, I agree with the author that it should be ‘Shu’ and not ‘Su’.  This could be a typo error which I failed to notice.

Next is the mistake that the author has pointed out, he technically separated the word  as Shukla + Ambara+ dharam.  But my purpose of sending that sloka to a few bhaktas on their request to use it in the ritual is to help them to pronounce it as it is commonly pronounced as ‘Shuklam + Bharadaram’.   

But as far as I know no one would chant this mantra as the author has rightly divided the sentence: ‘Shuklambaradaram’ as ‘Shukla + Ambara+ dharam’.  I have sent the link of one such chanting and listen to it carefully as it is pronounced as ‘Shukam + baradharam’ and not ‘Shukla Ambara Dharam’.2

Unlike the author who is privileged to have a Sanskrit Pandit as father and also got the opportunity to learn Sanskrit, I never learnt Sanskrit.  All my knowledge in Sanskrit is what I learnt while listening and chanting mantras at home.  Most of the common Hindus, while chanting, would never think or be taught to pronounce the Mantra as per the ‘Sandvichet’ viz., separating the words.  So technically he is correct but traditionally not.  He may disagree and I agree to disagree with him.  But can even ask his father to chant this mantra and send it back to him or any other Brahmin he knows to chant.  Or ask the author to chant to know whether he would chant it as: Shukla + Ambara+ dharam or Shuklam +Bharadaram.  It is interesting to note that he even searched the meaning for the word ‘bharadaram’ on the Internet being a student of Sanskrit where it is clearly taught how several words are joined or separated as per the need of grammar, metre and chanting purpose and giving it in Appendix.   But this does require a rocket science or Intel Engineering mind.  I separated the word as it is chanted by many.

As a Sanskritist the author might know that [or having a Sanskrit Pandit as his father] whether the word ‘vishnu’ in this sloka stands for a name or attribute?  As Vishnu is used as an attribute which means one who pervades, there is no need even for me to change the word ‘Vishnum’ to ‘Mukteswaram’.  That’s why some members in our mandali even question the need to replace the names of Hindu deities in certain slokas and mantras that we use for our needs.  As almost all the names of Hindu deities depict their character [like Shiva = auspicious; Krishna = dark ; Rama = pleasant one etc.] and as all these deities are part of our Indian heritage, where is any need even to replace those words and to insert Muktinath.  They question. 

As a digression, some of the members of our mandali, even went to the extent of displaying the IMAGES  of Hindu deities in Navaratri festival where nine [or seven or five] steps are arranged in the homes of Hindus [mostly in South India] where several Images of deities and other human beings, and animals are arranged.  If he calls my attempt to replace those names with Muktinath as plagiarism and even criminal in nature, then what would he say about this?  Syncretism.  But of all the religions of the world Christianity is the most syncretistic religion, outright plagiarising everything in their religion from Name, ritual, structure, theology and what not.       

For me whether Ganpathi or the Lord [thank God Mukti Veda never give details of His dress code, but at least he was wearing some clothes], I as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord has every right to use this mantra with slight modification for my need.  But this is also only a concession as some Hindu bhaktas do not feel comfortable to use the original words as it is like ‘Vishnum’ in this sloka.  But those who face no such problem are freely using the original as it is.  He may have his objection but that won’t stop me from using my own Indian symbols and terms to express my bhakti in the Lord.

As a digression, any popular sloka or mantra is used in various sampradayas to address their own deities like that of the famous Gayatri Mantra or the Arati song.  Just do some research about various Gayatri mantras assigned to various deities.  Almost in every sampradaya they have their own Arati replacing the name of Jagadesh like Om Jaya Gange Ma or various Gayatri mantras.   Our tradition gives us freedom to adopt and adapt any kind of sadhana for our needs.

Then the author says, ‘Even if we ignore the fact that “bharataram” is a non-word, the first verse in the changed version is non-sensical.  It is saying, Lord Jesus, who is white and wearing white clothes has kind arms.  I can give the author of the changed version the benefit of the doubt that he is meaning to use the word “bhajam” who could mean devotion. If that was the case, it would mean something like, “Lord Jesus, who is white and wearing white clothes, has kind devotion” which is worse.’

The author, using some typo mistakes and sandvichet [dividing the words] superimposed his own IMAGINED WORD in my version and coined ‘bhajam’.  It is like putting your words in another person’s mouth to make him confess or say ‘yes’ or ‘no’.  No.  Don’t read your own interpretation in technical details related to grammar.  Where is the word ‘bhajam’ in my changed version or in the original?

Next

To begin with, though this sloka is attributed to Ganesha who is the remover of obstacles there is no mention of his name in this sloka.  Whereas the name ‘vishnu’ is mentioned clearly.  Of course, this mantra is chanted before commencing any kind of ritual requesting ‘Vigneshwara’ actually Lord of Vigna viz., Lord of Obstacle.  Ganesha is not only a remover of ‘obstacles’ but also creates ‘obstacles’.1

Now the author might jump to say that then it adds value to his argument that as Ganpathi also creates ‘obstacle’, then I have no right to modify and use it for the Lord as the remover of ‘obstacle’ whereas Ganapthi is also the creator of obstacles.  In that case Mukti Veda also says that it is God who binds and also heals [Deut 32: 39; Job 5:18, Hosea 6:1].  He alone predestined certain people to go to eternal hell [Roman chapter 11].  If I begin to point out all the contradictions in Mukti Veda when we interpret the text out of context then there won’t be an end to it.  This being the reality with the text what to say about theology.

Having said, now the main question for me is whether the Lord would remove the obstacle or not?  The author takes two points of ‘trouble’ and ‘suffering’ and says that the Lord has never promised to remove trouble or suffering and says: 

Even if we ignore the poor and dangerous misappropriation of the first verse, from a biblical standpoint, can we apply the second verse as (it) is:  Does Jesus say that if we meditate on him, he will ward off all obstacles.(?)  On the contrary, he said that we will have many troubles (John 16:33) but his promise is that he will be there with us to carry our burdens (Matt 11:28-30).  Peter and Paul talk about the sufferings refining us with no promise of all obstacles being removed. 2 Cor 4:17, 2 Tim 3:12, Luke 14:27 to name a few.

This is nothing but a ‘dangerous misappropriation’ of theology from a biblical standpoint and trying to create his own ‘Suffering THEOLOGY’ creating OBSTACLE to God.  Let me explain:

The author conveniently quotes Jn. 16:33, but never mentions other verses in which the Lord clearly said ‘not to be troubled.’ For example, see John 14: 1; more specifically 14:27.  Take another famous verse from Matt. 11: 28-30.  He says that if we put our yoke on Him we will find rest.  Note the inconsistency in this verse: He first promises to give rest [vs. 28] and in verse 30 says ‘For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  Is His yoke really easy or light in burden?  When the disciples claim privileged position on His right and left side, He challenges them by asking, ‘Can they drink from the same cup in which He is drinking’?  Then how to interpret this verse.  Here comes what is called ‘context’, ignoring which we cannot create our own pet theology like the suffering theology by the author in which THEOLOGY IS ALSO SUFFERING.   

When John Baptist sent his disciples to enquire about Muktinath what is the answer He gave: ‘the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.’  What is the Good News here: If you come and follow me then there will be trouble for you and you will have to suffer more?  What the suffering Jews were expecting from a Messiah?  More troubles and suffering.  And if the Lord proclaims this as ‘Good News’ even before He was crucified Jews would have stoned Him to death. 

In order to prove that as Ganpathi is the remover of ‘obstacle’ and the Lord warned us about many ‘troubles’ in this world never promising to remove any ‘obstacle’ from our life the author created a pity theology.  This is the danger in creating theology to prove another person wrong, that too far-fetched interpretation of one word or verse or mantra or shloka.

Of course the Lord talks about the narrow path and the trouble and suffering for those who have to follow Him.  This is the cost of discipleship and not everyone is called for that.  But this is not the Kingdom of God that He promised or inaugurated.  The persecuted disciples later realized this and now added a new ‘suffering’ theology to console the suffering and persecution in the early period.  This is the most dangerous area in doing theology.  Several scholars have wrestled with this specific topic [read Phillip Yancy’s few books on this subject].

Just taking one word ‘obstacle’ the author has created his own theology on the most difficult topics of ‘troubles’ in this world and ‘suffering’.  Yes the Lord removes the ‘obstacles’ by giving clear guidance when there comes challenges.  This is what Sevanand says in Philippians chapter 4 ‘The peace of God that transcends all kinds of understanding will “guard” your heart and mind.’  For me here the word ‘guarding’ is to protect from so many troubles by removing obstacles.

What is the actual meaning of Jesus?  One who SAVES?  Save from what?  Only [original] Sin and not from suffering and troubles?  What does the name IMMANUEL mean?  God among us?  For what purpose, to call to follow Him to suffer more as He cannot save from troubles?  Almost every religion tells us that life on this earth is full of suffering and they promise Heaven after death.  And if Muktiveda tells the same then what is the need to preach about the Good News that the Lord came to give Mukti from Sin, suffering and troubles.  ‘One of Jesus’ main contributions, for me, has been the decisive revelation of God as “the God of all comfort”, says Philip Yancey [Reaching for the Invisible God, Secunderabad, OM Books, Reprint 2005 (2002, Indian ed. 2000 Zondervan), p. 140]. Why didn’t the Lord stop only imparting some spiritual teaching and why He should go on healing the sick, feeding the hungry and raising the dead?  He even went to the extent of saying that those who visit prisoners, give food to the hungry and water to the thirsty and cloth the naked are doing the same to Him.  Why did he waste His time and energy to do all these activities to remove the suffering of the people even temporarily?

Theology is a double edged sword.  Unless one is a [relatively good] theologian, it is better let a lay person like me keep away from it.  In order to communicate the Good News, as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord I use several technical terms, symbols and even philosophy in my Indian tradition to make others understand about my bhakti in the Lord.  And in this process I freely use them as authors of Muktiveda and several Church Fathers/Theologians have done.  If they have done, then it is under ‘inspiration’ and if I do then it is dangerous and misleading.  I don’t want to digress to talk about what this ‘inspiration’ actually means and how Canon later gave authority to few selected writings by the followers of the Lord after several centuries to give credit to them as written by INSPIRATION.  But as I write lots of poems, I know well how the same INSPIRATION works even today, though I or any one won’t give the same credit to my poems or anyone’s poem equal to the Word of God.  In their wisdom [and also by inspiration] the early mandali limited selected books to call as the Word of God.  And we accept it, recognizing the fact that even in Christianity few books from the same scripture is removed or added as per the denomination like Catholics adding more and Lutherans removing James.  

Though I oppose the so-called ‘Contextualization’, yet as there is no better word at present in English, I use it here.  When I shared about the Lord to my father [as he only asked me about my change of bhakti] instead of using ‘sin’ I used ‘karma’ and said, ‘Bhagavan Muktinath offered Himself as a Prayashchitta in the Maha Yagjna to get rid of my Karmas.  Because the word ‘sin’ never makes any sense to both a serious and common Hindu as there is no concept of ‘Sin in principle’ in Hinduism.  But most of the Hindus talk about getting rid of ‘Karma’.  So, in order to communicate my thoughts, I use the common word with which my father was very familiar. 

Of course what Hinduism talks about Karma is entirely different from what MV talks on the same subject.  Yes, even MV talks about Karma.  But if anyone asks: How the first Karma came, then the counter [theological] question would be: ‘how evil entered in the Good creation by God?  Why should He even create Human, then allow evil or sin enter, and then make that INNOCENT MAN stumble, then curse him and then promise to redeem?  Has God done this as a timepass or divine play?  There are so many other contradictory theologies in MV [and also in every other religion] to which no one can give a correct theological answer.  Recently I received the following statement from Nepal asked by one person to the bhakta of the Lord: ‘Why did God have to send himself down to earth to become his son to sacrifice himself to himself just to convince himself to forgive us?’  To be honest I have an answer to this and won’t hesitate to accept it rather than giving a dubious answer by twisting and torturing texts from MV.   

If the author had ever read the way Theology developed from the early century and continued throughout the time would have a different kind of understanding.  If my approach is Syncretistic then of all the FAITHS, Christianity is the most Syncretistic Faith on this earth adapting and adopting so many things from various cultures and traditions. I am not sure whether the author heard about the way this word ‘Lamp of God slain from the beginning of the word’ in Papini New guinea as ‘behold the Pig of God which was slain from the beginning for the sin of the world’ as they never had sheep and goat in their society.

This even began with Jews.  It is really surprising to note that without having a proper knowledge about the way Muktiveda evolved over centuries this author suddenly talks about some absolute standard of theology as if there exists one such.  Jews borrowed so many things from the RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEWS among those who lived or moved.  The Ten Commandments were the best example.  It was verbatim borrowed from Sumerian, Babylonian, Hittite and Assyrian collections.3  Their circumcision, sacrifice system, rituals, even Law etc. etc. were heavily borrowed and influenced by their surrounding cultures and civilizations.  Regarding ‘integrity and plagiarism’, Christians are the worst criminals in this area.  Beginning from the apostles [using ‘Logos’ which is the eternal mind of God for ‘Word’], all the later church fathers and church tradition outright have done plagiarism.  Their Christmas, Easter Egg, Christmas Carol, Gothic church architecture, Pagan music, the very word Elohim used for God etc. etc. are nothing but out right uncredited us of other’s work activities is nothing but plagiarism, if the author calls even my original works as plagiarism.   

Take for example of the atonement of the Lord.  This theology became prominent only later in church history. Leaving the question about to whom the sacrifice was given: to appease God or a ransom to the devil, even the very concept of the Lord as an atonement is controversial.  He is called the Passover Lamb.  But the Passover lamb is not sacrificed for atonement and that too outside the altar or tabernacle of the temple.  If the Lord were the Passover Lamb then He cannot be the lamb slain for the sin of the world.  If He was slain for the sin of the world, then He couldn’t be the Passover Lamb.4  [See my article ‘On Sacrifice’ in my blog]. 

I could give so many such other controversial theology in MV. 

I never impose my views on others.  Whatever I do or write I do only for my needs.  I never expect anyone to FOLLOW me or imitate me.  Each bhakta is free to exercise her bhakti in the Lord in the natural environment in which she is born and brought up.  If the author feels that he alone is following the Lord with Truth and in a noble way thereby honoring Him, my best wishes to him.  It is interesting to note that he mentions that ‘you will know the TRUTH which will set you free’.  But not only in this verse but nowhere MV explains what this TRUTH actually is?   

Of course this is a completely different subject.  However my point is that in the name of ‘Bible interpreting bible’, if we began to quote several verses where the same word occurs [like Truth, Sin, Salvation etc.] to prove some objective or normative view, then it will completely mislead us.  Each verse has its own limited textual, theological, historical and even sociological context and quoting one verse to support a common theme [like Truth here] won’t do justice either to that particular verse or to the overall subject.  There is limited hope and space for this kind of ‘systematic theology’ compiling various verses from Scripture to present an overall view on a particular subject.  But except with few rare exceptions [like Romans in Uttaraveda], Scriptures were never written to give any systematic teaching on any subject.  That is the work of the theologians and philosophers.  So the author’s TURTH won’t even set him free from his folly of creating his own pet theology on suffering/trouble and obstacles. 

For me this paper is nothing but a mere waste of time, even for the author.  As I don’t believe in any personal attack, I don’t want to mention this.  But like him there are several Hindu bhaktas who want to keep a double identity by remaining Hindus to their family as Hindus and ‘Christian’ to the Church.  Is this the true, noble way in honoring the Lord?  But I understand their limitations and struggle to NOT disclose their double identity to their family members.  But I remain as a Hindu need not hide my identity as a bhakta of Muktinath, however it looks dishonoring the Lord in other’s eyes.  I neither need approval or recognition from anyone.  Even left alone I would remain a Hindu bhakta of the Lord freely using my own Indian worldview both to understand and express and exercise my bhakti in Him.

In conclusion the author says:

“On the question of integrity, this is plagiarism.  It is a poor copy, deceptive and also criminal to do this.  My son recently wrote a song to Christ.  It was 100% his original work.  How low would we consider someone who stole his song, changed a few words and sang it to Allah or Krishna?  If they were in school doing such work, we would throw them out of the school.  If there was a way, we would press charges against them.”

Regarding his son writing a song 100 percent original, I congratulate him.  But the author has to read some of my songs that I have written [around 1500] in which I freely use MY OWN INDIAN TERMS  to express my bhakti.  As a Hindu I have every right to use any format that belongs to me in my tradition.  Because he knows one word ‘plagiarism’ he cannot accuse others for doing so.  Then what he is going to say about Brahmabandab Upadayaya who used: Sachidanandam, Sumukundam’, ‘Govindam’ etc.  In Tamil, even two hundred years before several Tamil bhaktas [or even if you want to call them as Christian Converts] used the word ‘Sivam’ ‘OM’ and so many other words as Shivam stands for attribute not a noun though it is used for Shiva.  I have written a few songs in Tamil copying almost verbatim keeping the same terms and tunes.  Even in my personal sadhana I sing several such songs from my own Hindu Scriptures and tradition as the meaning touches my soul expressing and experiencing my bhakti in the Lord.  At the same time I won’t use it in mandali except those bhajans which have a common name for God. Where it is required I won’t hesitate to use the name of the Lord replacing other deities’ names in those songs.  The  several bhaktas in our mandali have no issue in singing them as it is.  Those who feel uncomfortable are free not to do so.  But this is my BIRTH RIGHT and I will continue to do so.   

I can go on giving so many examples and illustrations to insist on my RIGHT to use ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING in my Indian Tradition.  Already I have written about it in several places and there is no point in repeating them here.  I don’t need others’ permission to use them, however they might find it objectionable.  If they are not happy, they are welcome not to use it.  But others have no right to question my BIRTHRIGHT.  Even if the Indian court tries to prohibit me to use my own symbols, terms and concepts to express my bhakti in the Lord I will do it and face the consequence but NEVER HIDE MY IDENTITY as a HINDU BHAKTA OF THE LORD.  While doing this I also know the limitation of every technical term and words, symbols and rituals that we use in our tradition.  For example  ‘prayashchitta’ is not atonement and avatara is not Incarnation.   But this is the way even the authors of Muktiveda communicated their understanding about God and the Lord using local and native words and terms knowing well their limitations. 

There exists no absolute Theology.  Even the so ‘biblical’ theology [or any other biblical concept] is completely UNBIBLICAL as they are nothing but our own interpretation SUPER IMPOSING our own thoughts and understanding.  And the author has created one such another BIBLICALLY UNBIBLICAL THEOLOGY of OBSTACLE and forcing me to undergo another kind of suffering to read and give this long unnecessary response wasting everybody’s time except the authors as he has the luxury to waste to have such entertainment which I won’t even call as Intellectual.

The climax of this babbling is the conclusion in which the author says:

Conclusion

The above analysis is portraying symptoms of a larger problem.  We need to have proper accountability on who we promote and what ideas we adopt.  We need to question everything and only let those things which are true, noble, honoring to Christ. The damage is extensive when we blindly follow someone and adopt methods not vetted by scripture.  As we seek to glorify Jesus in our lives, let us repent of the old ways and start afresh, it is never too late with Him.  He is faithful to forgive and restore us if we seek Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Matt 22: 37)

A person who is famous for flip flopping every few years talks about accountability.  While living in India he will remain a Hindu bhakta of the Lord and when moves outside India then will become Christian to his church. Now he talks about remaining ‘true, noble and honoring the Lord’.   At least I can honestly say before God and others I never shift my goal post and try to play according to the changing audience.  I often say with much courage that even if left ALONE I will remain a Hindu bhakta of the Lord rather than playing kabaddi kabaddi bhakti.  What ‘vetted’ by Scripture is a big question.  And everyone claims his or her own authority to proclaim that what he says or believes or interprets alone is vetted by Scripture.  Such blind followers call others not to follow blindly.  We need to start fresh everyday in our lives as God’s grace is new each day.  Let the author or anyone like him show what are the old ways which he gave up with much repentance and which one he started fresh in his life.   Those restoration is a continuous process and when one feels that he or she is already restored one should be careful so that he or she would not again stumble and fall down.

These kinds of THREATS look very childish to me.  This is neither SPIRITUALITY nor RELIGIOUS but attempts to control others.  It is like to discipline a child by threatening to call it ‘Poochandi kataradu’ [creating fear] in Tamil.  Thankfully I never succumbed to such threats even from my teenage years when I began to search for the so-called TRUTH.  My one eternal statement is this: Neither I have the fear of HELL; nor I have the fear of God; but Love it is Love ALONE that forces me to LOVE you MY Lord.  [See my Bhakti Theology Song 501and 504] 

Finally, I have decided not to respond anymore, if the author gives any kind of response to this brain storm.  I don’t want to waste my time, particularly for those who write to please their BOSSES in their Church and Mission.

Gurukulam

20-3-2024

Notes

1.. Understanding Hinduism, Ganapatam.

2.. https://youtu.be/Dlwzk7zK-KU?si=0QJKNjCXa3d-ZCpj

3. This is from:

J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu , eds. Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, New York, 2006.

Biblical laws can be compared only with the Mesopotamian codes of c.2100-1700 BCE, though details of the Hittite and Assyrian codes are also relevant.  Their statuses raise questions, of course, abut the status of biblical laws in Israel, but do not provide answers.  Generally the biblical law is much more concerned with religious life and duties than what we would consider forensic.  But comparisons do yield conclusions.  The Book of the Covenant is closest to the Mesopotamian codes.  Deuteronomy and the Priestly material are more remote.  An example: laws nos. 53-5 of the Eshnunna code deal with the goring ox and parallel Exod. 21:28-32, and in part they are identically worded.  Here the Book of the Covenant is clearly based on Near Eastern traditions.  But only Hammurabi’s laws nos. 196-203 lay down the lextalionis (‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’);  previous codes prescribe fines for bodily injury.  Hammurabi was an Amorite, and the lextalionis is more suited to desert life than urban life with courts and magistrates.  Presumably both Hammurabi and the Book of the Covenant depend on the same Amorite custom.—p. 82

               Items of wording as well as literary techniques are also shared by the Old Testament and other ancient Near Eastern literature.  In 1 Sam. 9:8 and 16:9 men in addressing King David refer to themselves as ‘a dead dog’.  Exactly the same self-deprecatory expression is used in neo-Babylonian and neo-Assyrian letters to the Assyrian king.  One could dismiss this as a common phrase on everyone’s lips, but there was of course much oral literature in circulation too.  An example of a whole (p.83)

Gilgamesh Old Babylonian                                          Ecclesiastes 9: 7-9

Vorderasiatisches Museum

+ British Museum, iii. 6-14

As for you, Gilgamesh, let your belly                        Go, eat your food with rejoicing, drink

be full,                                                                              your wine with a happy heart, for God

day and night every rejoice,                                       has already accepted your deeds.

every day have pleasure.

Day and night dance and make merry.

Let your garments be clean,                                       Let your garments be white on every

Wash your head, bath in water,                 occasion,

Look at the little one who holds                 do not spare the oil on your head.

Your hand,

Let your spouse have constant pleasure  Enjoy life with the woman you love all the

In your bosom.                                                Days of your futility

This is the task of [mankind.]                                     which God has given you under the sun.

topos shared occurs in the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic (c.1700 BCE) and Ecclesiastes (a post-exilic composition)….—pp. 83-84

…Plenty of Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hittite hymns and prayers survive, in which phraseology and sentiments similar to those of the (p.84) biblical psalms can be found.  Hebrew sacrificial terminology was also employed by the Phoenicians, and the Classical Greeks had a similar regimen.  The biblical proverbs are often similar to those of other ancient Near Eastern cultures.  What is different is the conception of the divine.  The polytheism of most of the ancient Near East expressed very well their conception of the physical universe as controlled by a host of independent superhuman powers.  Israelite monotheism is distinct.  Claims for Egyptian monotheism under Akhnaton, also a kind of Babylonian monotheism in some first-milliennium BCE theological texts have been taken into account, also the fairly common view that Israelite monotheism arose only in the Babylonian captivity; before then, it was rather a henotheism.  There may be some truth in these points, save for Akhnaton; but Israelite religion had the advantages in the concept of one all-powerful God.  There was no longer a whole pantheon of often divided and squabbling gods in control of the universe.  Thus moral standards in Israel have an intensity not found in Mesopotamia, Gilgamesh, as quoted above, is urged to a pure hedonism.  Ecclesiastes advises to enjoy the pleasures of life without forgetting God.  The Israelite God works in history with consistency to a predetermined goal.  Sumerian and Babylonian gods intervene in human affairs only qdhoc and often whimsically.—pp. 84-85

4 Atonement and Passover Lamb

1:4. atonement. … Many scholars now agree, however, that “atonement” is not the best translation for the concept on either the ritual or the theological level. Perhaps most convincing is the fact that in the ritual texts the object of “atonement” is neither the sin nor the person, but a holy object connected with God’s presence, such as the ark or the altar. A second important observation is that in a number of cases this “atonement” is necessary even though no sin has been committed (for instance, the ritual impurity of women each month). For these and other reasons recent scholars have preferred “purification” or, more technically, “purgation,” as the translation. So the altar would be purged on behalf of the offerer whose sin or impurity had ritually tarnished it. The purpose was to maintain the sanctity of God’s presence in their midst. The ritual, like a disinfectant, is normally remedial, but it can be preventative. The agent is usually blood, but not always. This decontamination of the sanctuary renders the offerer clean and paves the way for his reconciliation with God. The purging of objects (including cities, houses, temples and persons) from ritual contamination or evil influence by wiping or rubbing on a substance is also known in ancient Near Eastern practice, though these are mainly magical rites.— John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, LEVITICUS, p.120

Any clear understanding based on the Muktiveda is not going to be very simple in any doctrinal matter. For example, based on Walton’s comments, ‘substitution is not common in sacrifice’ (p. 53, 122-23), ‘redemption and Passover’ are notable exceptions (p. 53); animals killed in sacrifice is for purification and not for atonement (p. 120); sacrifice is rather seeking reconciliation than seeking pardon for punishment (p. 123); ‘scapegoat’ and annual sacrifice is to dispose the sin (and not seeking forgiveness?) (p. 123); sacrifices cleanse ways the desecration of God’s presence caused by sin and not to remove sin (p. 513); Lord’s death is not the ritual of severing an animal body in covenant (p. 668); finally as He was killed outside the temple, it does not technically represents the sacrifice done in the presence of God either in the tabernacle or temple (p. 513). But for the early bhaktas, our Lord’s death represents all of them and even goes beyond it.