*Bhakti and its Reciprocal Nature*
The term “bhakti” originates from the root “baj,” which denotes the relationship between a devotee (bhakta) and God. This relationship is reciprocal, as the term “bhagavan” means one who shares. Thus, to save his bhakta, God would do anything for him. Similarly, once saved by God, the bhakta, due to his friendship (sakhya) bhakti, can demand anything from God.
*Questioning the Stories in Puranas*
There are stories in our Puranas where, considering other human rights and values, one might question some of the errands God has performed for his bhakta in the name of sakhya bhakti. However, the context is to glorify the concept of bhakti.
In one regional Purana, at the request of his bhakta, God arranges a second marriage for him even though he already has a wife. When the man breaks his promise to his second wife that he wouldn’t leave her, he becomes blind as per the condition set by that woman to God. Still, due to their friendship, when the bhakta earnestly prays, God restores his sight. When the first estranged wife refuses to take her husband back due to his second marriage, God goes to her house, even at midnight, to convince her to take him back. When another bhakta learns of all this, he becomes upset with the first bhakta, who is now a friend to God. To demonstrate his friend’s bhakti, God gives the latter severe stomach pain, which is only cured by the first bhakta, the friend of God.
*Modern Interpretation and Sensitivity*
I have not mentioned the names of the bhakta or the Purana, as some might feel hurt by what I have shared. My intention is not to hurt anyone, but we need to recognize that when such old stories are used among modern young people, especially women, they may question the actions of God and bhaktas, which, according to them, violate fundamental human, particularly women’s, values. When these stories were told or recorded in our scriptures, their context and worldview were entirely different. Their aim was not to degrade others or justify violations of human rights or moral principles. Every story and illustration has a main theme it wants to highlight. If we interpret them based on our present worldviews and values, we will miss the main teaching of the author.
*Male-Oriented Nature of Religious Scriptures*
However, we must agree that most mainline religious scriptures, despite theoretically glorifying women, are male-oriented and male-dominated in practice. Present-day speakers should perhaps use other stories, like that of Arjuna with Rama, to communicate their thoughts instead of using such controversial stories. In one instance, the above story was told to illustrate sakhya bhakti and explain the structure, content, and background of that Purana. The question raised was why God never considered the rights and feelings of the second wife. When the bhakta broke his promise, he temporarily lost his eyesight, but his second wife was punished permanently, living the rest of her life alone. (The story does not mention any children.)
*Celestial Context*
The response to this criticism is that both the bhakta and his two wives were celestial beings. One day, the “man” fell in love with the two girls when they came to fetch flowers, and since they fell in love with each other, they were sent to live on earth to fulfill their desire. They got married on earth, and after their time ended, they returned to their celestial world. There is no point in asking why, if gods were allowed to marry and live happily in their celestial abode, their assistants were denied this right and had to be sent to earth. Such criticism is not critical but what we call “vidanta vaad”—argument for the sake of argument.
*Modern Challenges and Interpretations*
Not all questions about the stories in the Puranas and epics can be dismissed as mere objections from women. In the past, most women were voiceless; now, being educated, they challenge certain traditional values that kept them suppressed. We cannot ignore past stories for this reason alone. But when interpreting a text, we should not impose our interpretation due to contemporary needs. Speakers using such stories need to honestly acknowledge the problems present in them.
*Objective Analysis and Exegesis*
One time, a scholar on the Ramayana, after listening to arguments about Rama’s killing of Vali, referred to all the texts in their proper context and clearly judged that what Rama did was wrong. I had never before heard such a verdict, as most speakers prioritize faith and bhakti over the text’s context. This does not mean the scholar is not a bhakta of Rama. In his analysis, he remained faithful to the text rather than the traditional view of Rama.
We need more scholars and speakers who will do proper exegesis of texts and stories rather than speaking with mere sentiment.
*Dayanand, Revised on 9-8-2024, Gurukulam*
*February 17, 2007, Mathigiri, 9:30 pm.*
*Bhakti and its Reciprocal Nature*
The term “bhakti” originates from the root “baj,” which denotes the relationship between a devotee (bhakta) and God. This relationship is reciprocal, as the term “bhagavan” means one who shares. Thus, to save his bhakta, God would do anything for him. Similarly, once saved by God, the bhakta, due to his friendship (sakhya) bhakti, can demand anything from God.
*Questioning the Stories in Puranas*
There are stories in our Puranas where, considering other human rights and values, one might question some of the errands God has performed for his bhakta in the name of sakhya bhakti. However, the context is to glorify the concept of bhakti.
In one regional Purana, at the request of his bhakta, God arranges a second marriage for him even though he already has a wife. When the man breaks his promise to his second wife that he wouldn’t leave her, he becomes blind as per the condition set by that woman to God. Still, due to their friendship, when the bhakta earnestly prays, God restores his sight. When the first estranged wife refuses to take her husband back due to his second marriage, God goes to her house, even at midnight, to convince her to take him back. When another bhakta learns of all this, he becomes upset with the first bhakta, who is now a friend to God. To demonstrate his friend’s bhakti, God gives the latter severe stomach pain, which is only cured by the first bhakta, the friend of God.
*Modern Interpretation and Sensitivity*
I have not mentioned the names of the bhakta or the Purana, as some might feel hurt by what I have shared. My intention is not to hurt anyone, but we need to recognize that when such old stories are used among modern young people, especially women, they may question the actions of God and bhaktas, which, according to them, violate fundamental human, particularly women’s, values. When these stories were told or recorded in our scriptures, their context and worldview were entirely different. Their aim was not to degrade others or justify violations of human rights or moral principles. Every story and illustration has a main theme it wants to highlight. If we interpret them based on our present worldviews and values, we will miss the main teaching of the author.
*Male-Oriented Nature of Religious Scriptures*
However, we must agree that most mainline religious scriptures, despite theoretically glorifying women, are male-oriented and male-dominated in practice. Present-day speakers should perhaps use other stories, like that of Arjuna with Rama, to communicate their thoughts instead of using such controversial stories. In one instance, the above story was told to illustrate sakhya bhakti and explain the structure, content, and background of that Purana. The question raised was why God never considered the rights and feelings of the second wife. When the bhakta broke his promise, he temporarily lost his eyesight, but his second wife was punished permanently, living the rest of her life alone. (The story does not mention any children.)
*Celestial Context*
The response to this criticism is that both the bhakta and his two wives were celestial beings. One day, the “man” fell in love with the two girls when they came to fetch flowers, and since they fell in love with each other, they were sent to live on earth to fulfill their desire. They got married on earth, and after their time ended, they returned to their celestial world. There is no point in asking why, if gods were allowed to marry and live happily in their celestial abode, their assistants were denied this right and had to be sent to earth. Such criticism is not critical but what we call “vidanta vaad”—argument for the sake of argument.
*Modern Challenges and Interpretations*
Not all questions about the stories in the Puranas and epics can be dismissed as mere objections from women. In the past, most women were voiceless; now, being educated, they challenge certain traditional values that kept them suppressed. We cannot ignore past stories for this reason alone. But when interpreting a text, we should not impose our interpretation due to contemporary needs. Speakers using such stories need to honestly acknowledge the problems present in them.
*Objective Analysis and Exegesis*
One time, a scholar on the Ramayana, after listening to arguments about Rama’s killing of Vali, referred to all the texts in their proper context and clearly judged that what Rama did was wrong. I had never before heard such a verdict, as most speakers prioritize faith and bhakti over the text’s context. This does not mean the scholar is not a bhakta of Rama. In his analysis, he remained faithful to the text rather than the traditional view of Rama.
We need more scholars and speakers who will do proper exegesis of texts and stories rather than speaking with mere sentiment.
*Dayanand, Revised on 9-8-2024, Gurukulam*
*February 17, 2007, Mathigiri, 9:30 pm.*
Leave a Reply