As Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, it is our birthright to keep our cultural, social, and even some of our religious events as part of our identity. For example, performing life-cycle events (samskars) as per our tradition is part of that identity. However, sometimes, in order to parade our Hindu identity, we may go overboard with certain religious rituals that our own family members and community do not expect us to perform, as long as they know about our bhakti in the Lord.
In my understanding, although the Hindu worldview is multicentered and pluralistic, it equally upholds ‘exclusivism’ when it comes to bhakti to a chosen deity or sadhana. For example, a staunch Vaishnavite is never expected to venerate Siva, and the same is true for a staunch Saivite. Of course, the smarta tradition promotes the worship of all kinds of gods, yet no Hindu will have any aversion to another votary of a particular deity or sampradaya upholding her own exclusivism.
If our family or community members know about our bhakti in the Lord, though they will expect us to take part in all our family events (including religious ones), they won’t mind if we uphold our exclusive bhakti to the Lord. They may even respect our bhakti if we don’t go overboard in accommodating other religious rituals. For me, it seems very artificial and unnecessary to prove our Hindu identity excessively.
For example, a Hindu bhakta of the Lord who lives away from his parents and other relatives as a nuclear family does not need to organize major Hindu festivals and perform all the rituals to prove his Hindu identity. However, he or she has every right to celebrate them because they want to celebrate along with their neighbors, which is equally correct. My point is that one need not perform certain rituals or celebrate certain festivals just to prove one’s identity as a bhakta of Muktinath and a Hindu. There are many ways to show that we are as much Hindus as other members of our family and community. At the same time, I agree that those bhaktas who live in a joint family where such events take place need to make it clear that their bhakti is in the Lord. How they do that is left to each individual and the rapport she has with her family members.
A digression: A Hindu bhakta of the Lord needs a strong foundation for her bhakti, and the Word of God alone can provide it; there is no substitute for it. If she thinks that she can survive in her bhakti by keeping her Hindu identity and going overboard to prove it, she will eventually lose her bhakti. Though the mandali can and should provide fellowship, encouragement, and teaching, without a personal commitment to learn from Muktiveda and spend personal time with the Lord (whatever sadhana it might be), she cannot keep her bhakti in the Lord alive by reinforcing her identity.
Muktinath introduces new values in every area of our lives. If a bhakta does not recognize this, there is no point in claiming to be a bhakta. Some ‘converts’ who have returned to Hinduism need not go overboard in reasserting their identity unless they feel the need to by their own conviction. The new values that the Lord introduces in our lives will help us maintain a balance as we focus on Him.
As a case study from my own life, Christians initially failed to make a good Christian out of me. Not understanding several issues related to my bhakti and Muktiveda, I outwardly accepted some cosmetic changes, yet at my core, I remained a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, though I openly hesitated to articulate this during my time among Christians. In a true sense, there is no ‘homecoming’ for me, as I never went away. At the same time, Muktinath, through Muktiveda, introduced several new values that reoriented my views on various areas of life—including spirituality. Now my focus is Him alone, who accepted me as I am, a Hindu, to be His bhakta. In this respect, He also helps me to maintain a balance in my understanding and approach to various worldviews within Hinduism itself. In fact, this balance helps me critique my own traditions in several areas. If it doesn’t, then I cannot claim to have experienced ‘transformation by the renewal of my mind in Him’ (Romans 12:1-2).
Here is another case study. There is a member in our group who has never made a personal commitment to the Lord, as most of us have. Since he likes our fellowship and is involved in all our (ashram) activities, we never hesitate to include him in our discussions and forums. Till the end, he might remain the same, only appreciating the Lord and never making any personal commitment to be His bhakta.
In his case, I don’t expect any kind of transformation based on Muktivedic teachings—although he might benefit a lot from our discussions. Mere appreciation from a distance doesn’t bring any transformation unless one makes a personal commitment. One may even have correct knowledge about it, but unlike other sampradayas, according to my understanding, Muktiveda never promotes mere ‘knowledge’ as a means for mukti/bhakti/faith, but only a trusting, personal relationship with the Lord—even without complete understanding about Him or His teachings in Muktiveda. This differentiates a bhakta from the rest.
If we miss this then there is no point of claiming to be a bhakta of the Lord. Those who never had that trusted personal relationship will often change their goalpost, carried by every wind of opinion. I am not judging such people, as God alone knows her relationship with Him. Yet by going overboard to prove a Hindu identity, some might misunderstand.
We need bhakti – a trusted, personal relationship with the Lord; we need Muktiveda for faith (intellectual understanding of that bhakti); we need fellowship for mutual correction/learning and personal sadhana for a study and gradual growth in our spiritual life. All these are connected with each other. A break in one area might cause us to go overboard in another.
Dr. Brand’s use of his medical knowledge in connecting the idea of the Body of the Lord is worth reading. I think it highlights the need for mutual teaching and correction united together with the Head of the Body of the Lord:
Dr. Brand’s use of his medical knowledge in connecting the idea of the Body of the Lord is worth reading. I think it highlights the need for mutual teaching and correction united together with the Head of the Body of the Lord:
However, if a spinal injury has destroyed the connection between a person’s brain and leg, a tap with a hammer will produce a radically different reflex, and the doctor who taps the hammer will need fast reflexes of his own. The patient’s muscles will jerk violently, his leg shooting forward with enormous force. It may then flail back and forth, the muscles in spasm.
Such leg muscles and tendons are healthy – they are exhibiting their power spectacularly – but have lost contact with higher orders from the head. The brain normally constrains involuntary (372) reflexes (in Sherington’s words it “has civilizing influence on primitive parts”). When this vital pathway is severed, the body part can still act, but autonomously, disconnectedly, irrationally, over-reacting to local parts of the body.
Analogies to the spiritual Body apply only partially, for dysfunction there never results from brain damage. But many nervous disorders – cerebral palsy, for example – occur when synaptic channels below the level of the brain somehow clog up. Poisons, such as cocaine, botulinus, and atropine, can also jam the chemical transmission across synapses.
We have a theological word for such poisons in the Body: sin. Sin steals into the intimate channel between Head and member, interrupting communication and separating the cell from the higher authority that directs and coordinates its actions. The usefulness of a single cell requires unimpeded communication from above and an obedient response from below.
The apostle Paul, master of metaphor, gives a precise description of a person suffering from a sort of disconnection, in his letter to the Colossians. The person he describes had erred by legalistically judging other members of the Body; he had focused on his neighboring cells rather than on receiving individual orders from the Head. “Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow” (2:18-19). Once severed, new pathways linking the mind and body do not re-establish themselves easily. (p.373)
…With my reason, even as I contemplate what the Bible says, I can easily rationalize my way to other conclusions. The commands are hard; they require love and sacrifice and compassion and purity whereas I have excuses that make those seem unattainable for me at any moment.
At such times, as my own selfishness and pride surge up, I need a force more dependable than reason. Just such a force comes built into each of us: the conscience or subconscious, a law written in our hearts (see Romans 2:15). This instinctive sense of our responsibility to God can be encouraged and nurtured by the disciplines of faith. Hiding God’s Word in my heart and meditating on it help to strengthen this force and thus to renew my mind. (p.378)
When the moment of critical choice arrives, there is often little chance for conscious reflection, and all that has gone before enters into the result….(p.379)
Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey, In His Image, The Dr. Paul Brand Tribute Edition of Fearfully and Wonderfully Made and In His Image, Zondervan, 2004, pp. 235-529.
Db
4-10-16
Revised on 1-8-2024
As Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, it is our birthright to keep our cultural, social, and even some of our religious events as part of our identity. For example, performing life-cycle events (samskars) as per our tradition is part of that identity. However, sometimes, in order to parade our Hindu identity, we may go overboard with certain religious rituals that our own family members and community do not expect us to perform, as long as they know about our bhakti in the Lord.
In my understanding, although the Hindu worldview is multicentered and pluralistic, it equally upholds ‘exclusivism’ when it comes to bhakti to a chosen deity or sadhana. For example, a staunch Vaishnavite is never expected to venerate Siva, and the same is true for a staunch Saivite. Of course, the smarta tradition promotes the worship of all kinds of gods, yet no Hindu will have any aversion to another votary of a particular deity or sampradaya upholding her own exclusivism.
If our family or community members know about our bhakti in the Lord, though they will expect us to take part in all our family events (including religious ones), they won’t mind if we uphold our exclusive bhakti to the Lord. They may even respect our bhakti if we don’t go overboard in accommodating other religious rituals. For me, it seems very artificial and unnecessary to prove our Hindu identity excessively.
For example, a Hindu bhakta of the Lord who lives away from his parents and other relatives as a nuclear family does not need to organize major Hindu festivals and perform all the rituals to prove his Hindu identity. However, he or she has every right to celebrate them because they want to celebrate along with their neighbors, which is equally correct. My point is that one need not perform certain rituals or celebrate certain festivals just to prove one’s identity as a bhakta of Muktinath and a Hindu. There are many ways to show that we are as much Hindus as other members of our family and community. At the same time, I agree that those bhaktas who live in a joint family where such events take place need to make it clear that their bhakti is in the Lord. How they do that is left to each individual and the rapport she has with her family members.
A digression: A Hindu bhakta of the Lord needs a strong foundation for her bhakti, and the Word of God alone can provide it; there is no substitute for it. If she thinks that she can survive in her bhakti by keeping her Hindu identity and going overboard to prove it, she will eventually lose her bhakti. Though the mandali can and should provide fellowship, encouragement, and teaching, without a personal commitment to learn from Muktiveda and spend personal time with the Lord (whatever sadhana it might be), she cannot keep her bhakti in the Lord alive by reinforcing her identity.
Muktinath introduces new values in every area of our lives. If a bhakta does not recognize this, there is no point in claiming to be a bhakta. Some ‘converts’ who have returned to Hinduism need not go overboard in reasserting their identity unless they feel the need to by their own conviction. The new values that the Lord introduces in our lives will help us maintain a balance as we focus on Him.
As a case study from my own life, Christians initially failed to make a good Christian out of me. Not understanding several issues related to my bhakti and Muktiveda, I outwardly accepted some cosmetic changes, yet at my core, I remained a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, though I openly hesitated to articulate this during my time among Christians. In a true sense, there is no ‘homecoming’ for me, as I never went away. At the same time, Muktinath, through Muktiveda, introduced several new values that reoriented my views on various areas of life—including spirituality. Now my focus is Him alone, who accepted me as I am, a Hindu, to be His bhakta. In this respect, He also helps me to maintain a balance in my understanding and approach to various worldviews within Hinduism itself. In fact, this balance helps me critique my own traditions in several areas. If it doesn’t, then I cannot claim to have experienced ‘transformation by the renewal of my mind in Him’ (Romans 12:1-2).
Here is another case study. There is a member in our group who has never made a personal commitment to the Lord, as most of us have. Since he likes our fellowship and is involved in all our (ashram) activities, we never hesitate to include him in our discussions and forums. Till the end, he might remain the same, only appreciating the Lord and never making any personal commitment to be His bhakta.
In his case, I don’t expect any kind of transformation based on Muktivedic teachings—although he might benefit a lot from our discussions. Mere appreciation from a distance doesn’t bring any transformation unless one makes a personal commitment. One may even have correct knowledge about it, but unlike other sampradayas, according to my understanding, Muktiveda never promotes mere ‘knowledge’ as a means for mukti/bhakti/faith, but only a trusting, personal relationship with the Lord—even without complete understanding about Him or His teachings in Muktiveda. This differentiates a bhakta from the rest.
If we miss this then there is no point of claiming to be a bhakta of the Lord. Those who never had that trusted personal relationship will often change their goalpost, carried by every wind of opinion. I am not judging such people, as God alone knows her relationship with Him. Yet by going overboard to prove a Hindu identity, some might misunderstand.
We need bhakti – a trusted, personal relationship with the Lord; we need Muktiveda for faith (intellectual understanding of that bhakti); we need fellowship for mutual correction/learning and personal sadhana for a study and gradual growth in our spiritual life. All these are connected with each other. A break in one area might cause us to go overboard in another.
Dr. Brand’s use of his medical knowledge in connecting the idea of the Body of the Lord is worth reading. I think it highlights the need for mutual teaching and correction united together with the Head of the Body of the Lord:
Dr. Brand’s use of his medical knowledge in connecting the idea of the Body of the Lord is worth reading. I think it highlights the need for mutual teaching and correction united together with the Head of the Body of the Lord:
However, if a spinal injury has destroyed the connection between a person’s brain and leg, a tap with a hammer will produce a radically different reflex, and the doctor who taps the hammer will need fast reflexes of his own. The patient’s muscles will jerk violently, his leg shooting forward with enormous force. It may then flail back and forth, the muscles in spasm.
Such leg muscles and tendons are healthy – they are exhibiting their power spectacularly – but have lost contact with higher orders from the head. The brain normally constrains involuntary (372) reflexes (in Sherington’s words it “has civilizing influence on primitive parts”). When this vital pathway is severed, the body part can still act, but autonomously, disconnectedly, irrationally, over-reacting to local parts of the body.
Analogies to the spiritual Body apply only partially, for dysfunction there never results from brain damage. But many nervous disorders – cerebral palsy, for example – occur when synaptic channels below the level of the brain somehow clog up. Poisons, such as cocaine, botulinus, and atropine, can also jam the chemical transmission across synapses.
We have a theological word for such poisons in the Body: sin. Sin steals into the intimate channel between Head and member, interrupting communication and separating the cell from the higher authority that directs and coordinates its actions. The usefulness of a single cell requires unimpeded communication from above and an obedient response from below.
The apostle Paul, master of metaphor, gives a precise description of a person suffering from a sort of disconnection, in his letter to the Colossians. The person he describes had erred by legalistically judging other members of the Body; he had focused on his neighboring cells rather than on receiving individual orders from the Head. “Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow” (2:18-19). Once severed, new pathways linking the mind and body do not re-establish themselves easily. (p.373)
…With my reason, even as I contemplate what the Bible says, I can easily rationalize my way to other conclusions. The commands are hard; they require love and sacrifice and compassion and purity whereas I have excuses that make those seem unattainable for me at any moment.
At such times, as my own selfishness and pride surge up, I need a force more dependable than reason. Just such a force comes built into each of us: the conscience or subconscious, a law written in our hearts (see Romans 2:15). This instinctive sense of our responsibility to God can be encouraged and nurtured by the disciplines of faith. Hiding God’s Word in my heart and meditating on it help to strengthen this force and thus to renew my mind. (p.378)
When the moment of critical choice arrives, there is often little chance for conscious reflection, and all that has gone before enters into the result….(p.379)
Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey, In His Image, The Dr. Paul Brand Tribute Edition of Fearfully and Wonderfully Made and In His Image, Zondervan, 2004, pp. 235-529.
Db
4-10-16
Revised on 31-7-2024
Leave a Reply