Navigating Life’s Challenges Beyond Philosophical Reflections
On 5th September 2015 in our weekly discussions, one bhakta asked, “What are the hidden social norms and values which could help a Hindu bhakta find a solution to everyday issues where the Muktiveda is silent?”
The following is my response
Community Support vs. Solitude in Spiritual Endeavors
I said that a Hindu need not to approach life’s issue based on the philosophical or theological reflections to scripture. The ‘faith’ of a bhakta of the Lord demands (or expects) that decisions in life should be endorsed by Muktivedic principles, or at least they should not oppose them. While a Christian has regular fellowship with her church where she can get help and guidance, in our mandali most of the bhaktas are scattered without any regular physical fellowship. Therefore, practical life issues can become challenging.
Challenges in Practical Life for Devotees
We should understand that while a church provides physical fellowship to its members, it cannot provide solutions to the issues of each member in every area of her life, particularly related to social relationship. Most Christians go to church to worship the Lord, not seeking solution to their life’s issues. Interestingly, at least in India, Christians also live in a dharmic society where they find their solution in the family, community and society.
The Role of Religious Leaders and Spiritual Guidance
Even if they approach the church or local leader, without understanding all her family norms, the leader can give only an artificial solution in the name of Muktiveda. This can be dangerous because the individual member of the church is controlled by the church, whereas she has to live in a society which is outside the influence of the church. A Hindu finds her solution within her family and community without often seeking it from her religious leaders or even spiritual gurus.
Social Solutions Within Family and Community
My personal view in this regard is that no religious leader or spiritual preceptor should give any ready-made solution to practical issues in life, particularly based on their respective religious Scripture. In this regard, I think Islam is only an exception though they also have separate Sharia law to address them. As I don’t know anything about Islam, I cannot say more than this here. The preceptors should always remain more of an inspiration than a guide when it comes to people’s social needs. Of course, life cannot be divided into water-tight compartments, and a Hindu may seek social answers from her guru, but the guru should be sensitive (and matured) enough to point out that she needs to seek the answer within her family and community which alone provides identity and security.
The Universal Human Challenge: ‘ADJUST MAADI’
When someone asks me for a solution to a life problem, my standard response is, “If you cannot learn from your parents, elders and relatives, I cannot give you a better answer.” From my practical experience, I can say that even if so-called gurus give a solution, most people are not going to implement it since the solution is more objective and philosophical and doesn’t apply to the specific context.
And as a joke, when someone asked the question, “What is the final solution that any Swamiji or guru can give?”, there was only a two-word solution to all relationship issues: ‘ADJUST MAADI’ [Just adjust]. Everyone knows this solution, but everyone expects the OTHER to adjust.
Finding Guidance When Muktiveda is Silent
Coming back to theologizing every issue, thankfully the Muktiveda never prescribes any ready-made solution to every issue in life, but rather left most of them open to God-given social norms. Where the Muktiveda is silent, a bhakta should not seek that solution.
Maintaining Order in Society and Spirituality
The question will then come: What if social norms go against the Muktivedic principles? From my understanding, God has created order both in society and creation. Any solution that disturbs or destroys that order will bring harm both to the individual and to the society. We shouldn’t do that. Next, anything that separates me from the Lord is a sin, and we should not do that as well. At the same time, we must be careful to never allow anyone to create a guilty conscience by giving an incorrect interpretation of a Muktivedic principle. One example that comes to my mind is the polygamy issue which several missionaries faced when ‘converting’ others, particularly in Africa. Their only ready-made solution, that too only according to them ‘Biblical’, but completely unbiblical is to get rid of the rest of the wives and keep only one. This resulted in paving the way for many deserted wives to become prostitutes to survive and in extreme cases, as I pointed out in another article about Big Hunter who hanged the rest of his wives keeping only one.1 But considering their economic need, keeping many wives is part of their economic solution and not merely a spiritual or social problem. Later, the solution that was found was, ‘continue to keep all of them, but don’t add one more’.
Influence of Social Pressure on Religious Practices
Though not strictly related to social issues, life cannot be compartmentalized into watertight categories, illustrating how social pressures can influence a bhakta (devotee) to seek answers to individual or familial problems. An example from Africa illustrates this well. Despite objections to shamanism by several churches, some converts attend church services during the day while secretly seeking the assistance of local shamans for health-related issues.2
I encountered a similar scenario in Bruce Olson’s book, For the Sake of the Cross I Will Kill You.3 Missionaries successfully converted numerous tribes to Christianity, yet they still relied on local shamans for medical assistance. During a severe eye epidemic, despite the missionaries’ efforts, the tribes rejected the allopathic treatments offered. Wisely, the missionaries sought the help of local shamans who administered eye drops and ointments that effectively treated both converts and non-converts alike.
Similar practices occur worldwide. Many Christians consult astrologers to predict the future or solve current problems. They may even wear specific colored stones recommended by astrologers to counteract perceived malevolent planetary influences causing present crises. Some Christians adjust their names based on numerological advice, altering English spellings akin to late Jayalalitha’s change to Jayalalithaa.
Additionally, Christians often consult vastu experts before constructing or modifying homes to address life crises, despite teachings against such practices by their respective churches. Even if objected to, these practices may continue clandestinely through third parties. This underscores how religious institutions or leaders cannot exert ultimate control over individuals and families. Social pressures compel individuals to adjust according to family demands to maintain household harmony. The social pressure will force even an individual to ‘ADJUST’ according to the demand and need of the family, in order to maintain ‘PEACE’ in home.
This is not limited only to Christianity. In other major religions as well, despite strict orthodoxy in both teaching and practice, several laypeople will do the same, either openly or secretly. In the end, when it comes to the ‘felt’ needs of people, it is not religious idealism and doctrines that will have the final say, but rather social pressure and a practical approach to life’s problems. It is well said that, ‘whatever one’s religion preaches, when it comes to practical issues, everybody has the same religion’.
Conscience as the Ultimate Guide
When a bhakta is not sure, she should approach her mentor, well-wishers and preceptors. If she is still not clear, then the mandali can be approached. In a few cases, the majority’s decision may not be correct and then the individual should do as per the guidance of her conscience.4 According to the Hindu scriptures, when ‘scriptures, dharma, achara (right conduct of noble people) fails, then conscience is the best pramana (criteria) to take a decision on any moral issue.5
Comparative Insights: Hindu vs. Convert Experiences
Here a Hindu bhakta has an advantage over converts and other Hindus. Most converts remain victims because of the Christian solutions to her social problems. A Hindu, for whom the life is not divided into water-tight compartments, can set aside her scriptural solution without a guilty conscience as she has her dharmic solution. But for us, our approach is ‘God-centered’, but sometimes we need to look beyond the Muktivedic principle as God has given the social order for us to find the solution. Let me again insist this: THE MUKTIVEDA NEVER GIVES (Ready-Made) SOLUTIONS TO ALL ISSUES IN LIFE. I think this is called Two Kingdoms of God one left and another right [by the Lutherans]6. According to this every social order is created by God not extreme immoral and criminal activities. But here also what is ‘illegal’ and what is ‘crime’ depends upon each society. But there is a universal norm which is in the conscious of every individual and each society also keeps a collective such norm as normative for all. Whereas one society’s normative could look like barbaric for another. However here alone the challenge comes to a bhakta of the Lord. However, the Reformation that was brought by early Hindu Reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy was influenced by the Muktivedic value in this by abolishing sati and infanticide.
Interpreting Muktiveda in Modern Context
As usual, marriage is a good example. Family came first and marriage rituals (including marriage as a samskara/ceremony) came very late. Converts are wrongly guided by the wrong interpretation of the verse ‘don’t be yoked unequally’ (2 Cor 6:14). According to my understanding, the Muktiveda is silent on this issue. And the God-given social order is: don’t do anything that will disturb or destroy that social order, which may vary according to place and time. In other words, in the name of ‘theologizing’ don’t bring ‘faith’ as the criteria into it.
[6-9-15] 21-6-2024
Db. Gurukulam, Revised
[September 6, 2015] June 21, 2024
Endnotes
1 ..Take, for instance, the case of Big Hunter. Big Hunter was a chief among the Sioux who fled from the States into Canada and put themselves under the protection of the Canadian government. Presbyterian missionaries visited them and taught them, and many of them embraced the Christian teaching, and amongst these Big Hunter. He wished to become a Christian, and was told that he must put away all his wives except one. After a long struggle he at last determined to obey, but not knowing how to obey because he did not know how to arrange for his wives, he hanged them. Then he came to the missionaries and told them that he had done what they demanded. Thereupon they drove him away as a murderer, and in despair the man abandoned all hope of ever becoming a Christian, returned to his heathen gods, married two new brides, and lived as a heathen till the day of his death, in spite of the fact that his children became Christians….— Roland Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church and the Causes Which Hinder It and Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours, WS Publishers, 1997pp. 65-66
2 …If the Christian was to trust Christ and not entreat the old Powers, should he not trust for all the things for which he once entreated the Powers? But there is again nothing here that is incompatible with the life of the older churches. What the independents have done time and again is to challenge the half-Christian who goes to church respectably, but then in secret and with guilty feelings, goes off to the diviner to seek the cause of sickness and the way of healing. The earthiness of Arican life demands that African salvation shall be as solidly material as biblical salvation.— Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, New York, Orbis Books, [1996], Tenth Printing 2005, p. 117
3 The book “For This Cross I’ll Kill You” by Bruce Olson, later republished as “Bruchko,” was originally published in 1973 by Creation House. This book tells the story of Olson’s experiences with the Motilone tribe in South America. It provides a detailed account of his missionary work and the challenges he faced. The revised edition, “Bruchko,” came out in 1978.
For the specific edition titled “For This Cross I’ll Kill You,” the ISBN is 0884190382, and it was published in paperback by HarperCollins Distribution Services in 1977 [[❞]](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL5433941M/For_this_cross_I’ll_kill_you.) [[❞]](https://www.abebooks.com/9780551007802/Cross-Kill-Olsen-Bruce-055100780X/plp).
For more information, you can refer to listings on [AbeBooks](https://www.abebooks.com) and [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org).–From Chatgpt
4 Democracy, which works based on concessions, arrived with the majority decision’s, is un-Muktivedic. Sometimes our moral obligation will force us to go against the majority view. Taking the personal risk, for which the individual should accept all the responsibility (and the majority may or may not come to her rescue, if she ends up disaster) is the only option left. Though this cannot be a universal principle, it should be decided case-by-case. In a home or mandali, ‘who is right and who is wrong’ is not the question, but ‘what is correct what is not’. Outside the home and mandali, both ‘who’ and ‘what’ can be the issue.
5 Another point we must note is that in these very perplexing moral situations, Rama and Sita do not take refuge in the ‘authority’ but use their reason and try to do what is best under the given circumstances, i.e., when the voice of authority failed to guide them, they found conscience to be the best guide.— Benjamin Khan, The Concept of Dharma in Valmiki Ramayana, Delhi, Munshi Ram Manoharlal, 1965, p. 143.
…The authorities enumerated are as follows: (1) Scriptures, (2) dharmasastras, (3) Virtues cultivated by the (Vedic) scholars, (4) The good conduct of the honest, and (5) Satisfaction of the heart, or own conscience. Here, the intended rational basis of dharma is clearly endorsed. The commentator Kulluka quotes the view of Garga, another author of dharmasastra: Satisfaction of the conscience is the only authority in cases of (unresolvable) conflicting alternatives. The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002, p. 76
6 The concept of the “Two Kingdoms” in Lutheran theology, as advocated by Martin Luther, differentiates between God’s governance in two distinct realms: the right-hand kingdom and the left-hand kingdom.
1. *Right-hand Kingdom*:
– This represents God’s spiritual reign.
– It pertains to matters of faith, the gospel, and the church.
– In this kingdom, God rules through His word and sacraments, guiding Christians towards salvation and eternal life.
– It emphasizes grace, forgiveness, and the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.
2. *Left-hand Kingdom*:
– This represents God’s temporal governance.
– It encompasses secular authority and societal institutions.
– In this realm, God maintains order, justice, and peace through laws and governing authorities.
– It deals with the practical aspects of life, such as justice, morality, and public order.
Luther’s doctrine underscores that both kingdoms are under God’s authority, yet they function differently. The right-hand kingdom operates through grace and the gospel, while the left-hand kingdom operates through law and authority. Christians are called to live faithfully in both realms, acknowledging God’s sovereignty over all aspects of life.
For more detailed information, you can refer to sources like the [Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS)](https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doctrine/two-kingdoms) and historical analyses of Luther’s works.–From Chatgpt
Leave a Reply