Uniqueness of Muktinath: Exclusivism versus Inclusivism—A Dialogue

Uniqueness of Muktinath: Exclusivism versus Inclusivism—A Dialogue

Dear Sir,

I am quite astonished to see my brothers and sisters are able to accept Yesu Krist in this country. I would be happy if you could send all the possible materials regarding Yesu Krist and the Bhagavad Gita, the sacred song of Hindus. I would like to explore more on the active spirit in the religious scripture of the Hindus, especially the Bhagavad Gita, and also kindly enlighten me with its relevance for today’s India, which is characterized by extreme poverty and religious pluralism.

Thank you,

Prem Rag

Dear Sri Prem Rag,

Shanti!

Your email was sent to me seeking my response to your inquiries on Yesu Krist and the Bhagavad Gita, etc.

Before I share further, I would like to say a few words about me. I am D. Bharati and a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath (whom Christians and others call Jesus Christ and Yesu Krist). But I remain a Hindu and have become a bhakta of the Lord Muktinath (Yesu). There are two reasons for me to remain a Hindu and follow the Lord: the first is that Hinduism, which has a pluralistic view regarding spirituality, bhakti, and Mukti, can accommodate a bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath without compromising with our socio-cultural identity as a Hindu (samajic dharma) and with our faith/bhakti in the Lord (sadhana dharma) as we get immense freedom to choose the best sadhana that suits our pravarti (nature).

Next is Muktiveda (Bible) itself. Though Muktiveda, like any other religious scriptures, demands ‘exclusive’ devotion to its doctrines (siddhanta), it never expects or encourages anyone to give up their birth identity related to social and cultural aspects (1 Cor. 7:17). Of course, this is not as easy as said in practice, as several aspects of life overlap with socio-cultural and religious views. As every scripture is a victim of ‘text torture,’ anybody could give any kind of interpretation on Muktiveda and say the opposite of what I said. The same is true with our Hindu scriptures also.

Regarding your request to send materials about Muktinath, though you can easily get a copy of Muktiveda or the second part of it, ‘Uttara Veda,’ known as the ‘New Testament,’ I am not sure whether you can understand its central teaching without getting lost in the names, terms, places, and other worldviews in which it was written. But still, you can begin from it. Or I can arrange to send one ‘Krist Gita’ written in the style of the ‘Gita,’ in which several themes like ‘bhakti, mukti, karma, and jnan,’ etc., are expounded based on the teaching of Bhagavan Muktinath. And if you are interested, please send your address to … website.

Regarding the relevance of the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita, leaving its sectarian interpretation and exclusive claims of Vaishnavas, most of its message has a universal appeal. (See my paper on Bhagavad Gita on my website: dayanandbharati.in) But as I said above, all the scriptures of the world are victims of ‘text torture’ in one form or another, and the Bhagavad Gita is no exception to this rule.

Considering the fact that there are more than 300 orthodox commentaries and more were written in the last (20th) century and continue in this (21st) century on the Gita, it is difficult to ascertain any one central theme or the teaching of the Gita. Leaving ancient acharyas like Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, and others’ commentaries, even in modern times, Sri B. G. Tilak insisted on the Karma yoga of the Gita (writing in the context of the freedom struggle in his famous ‘Gita Rahasya’) and Mahatma Gandhi found encouragement for his ahimsa in it (Gita My Mother). Nowadays, we often see Gita’s shloka quoted in obituary messages in newspapers, and the so-called ‘nishkamya karma’ of the Gita is often quoted by politicians when they lose elections but claim to serve the people without ‘seeking any fruit’ (2:47) based on the teaching of the Gita. So anyone can find any kind of teaching in the Gita by twisting the text and imposing their interpretation on it. This being the reality, extreme poverty and religious pluralism or any kind of problem can easily find a ‘theoretical’ solution not only in the Gita but in any scripture of the world.

See the recent book by Satya P. Agarwal: *The Social Role of the Gita: How and Why*, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidas, 1993. About the book, the Publisher in their newsletter MLBD, November 2012, p.6 says:

Although the Bhagavad Gita has traditionally been regarded as a poem of primarily religious significance, Dr. Agarwal shows that with the proper interpretation its message may be transformed into a set of practical ethical guidelines. This practical aspect of the Gita’s teaching, its insistence that involvement with the world is an ethically correct function of human behavior, is the focus of this book. That term ‘Lokasamgraha.’ The term covers a multitude of social and political forms of behavior and attitudes of mind and is perhaps more central to the meaning the Gita should have for modern man than its traditional other-worldly interpretation. (Italics added).

Here I stop and would like to give my response after hearing from you. Take care. God bless you. Shanti!

Yours sincerely,

D. Bharati. September 27, 2010.

Dear and Respected D. Bharati,

First and foremost, I would like to thank you for the reply. I am happy that you enlightened me with your views and experiences. It is something superb in theory and practice. Actually, it is my search to find how I, as an Indian, could make Lord Muktinath understand, infuse, contrast, and compare with Lord Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita and make it meaningful in my life. Does Lord Muktinath have a unique place in our Bhagavad Gita? Or is he superior to Lord Krishna in terms of his mukti karya (act of liberation) by his death and resurrection? How does Lord Muktinath become universal in the act of mukti (salvation) given the context of India today? Your view seems to me that Christian Syncretism is applied to your idea of belief. How do you justify this?

These are my genuine questions. I do not pretend to know anything. Therefore, I would be happy if you could enlighten me in this area of search. Personally, I am happy that Lord Muktinath has pervaded Indian culture and society in the esteemed and noble person like you. You must have had a personal experience of Lord Muktinath and I suppose your reply proves the same.

If possible, kindly send me all the websites that deal with Lord Muktinath and Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita and a comparative view in Muktiveda.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Prem Rag,

Shanti!

I am not an academically trained person and I don’t even know proper English. So you have to keep this in mind in all our future dialogues on this subject.

From the language and some technical terms that I found in your response, my good guess is that you are a Christian. Anyhow, that is not a big issue for me.

I don’t know how to do any search or research on websites. So you have to do that and find out all the websites of your interest. But I can give the names of a few books, particularly on the Gita and Muktiveda, which I have read so far, except one by Gandhiji. I am giving the bibliography below for you to get these books to read.

Finally, to your question: ‘Your view seems to me that Christian Syncretism is applied to your idea of belief. How do you justify this?’ let me ask, ‘What do you mean by “syncretism” and what is your understanding of this word?’1 Because syncretism is more related to ‘faith’ and not to cultural and social issues. Hinduism itself allows for ‘extreme’ and ‘exclusive’ devotion to one’s own religious ‘faith’ and accommodating cultural and social issues. Having exclusive or single-minded devotion to any particular faith/theology/doctrine and accommodating various cultural and social aspects is not strange to Hinduism. To put it another way, pluralistic inclusivism is the benchmark of Hinduism. Though I don’t know much about Christianity, yet according to my limited understanding, ‘pluralistic exclusivism’ is the trademark of Christianity. While we Hindus call it ‘Unity in diversity’ (or as many souls, so many views), Christians call it ‘Unity not uniformity.’

Regarding your other questions, if I began to respond, I would have to write even a book, but I am not competent enough for that now. But many books that I listed in the bibliography could help you to get some answers to these questions.

That’s all for the time being.

Db

October 6, 2010.

1. Stephen Neill, BHAKTI HINDU AND CHRISTIAN, CLS, 1974.

2. Franklin Edgerton, The Bhagavad Gita Translated and Interpreted, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Delhi, First Published Cambridge, 1944, Reprint: Delhi, 1996.

3. Francis X. Clooney, Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, S.J., New York, Oxford University Press, 2001. [This book is not exclusively on Gita, but an interesting dialogue book]

4. Eric J. Sharpe, THE UNIVERSAL GITA: Western Images of the Bhagavadgita a bicentenary survey. London, Duckworth, 1985.

5. Cyril Veliath S.J., The Mysticism of Ramanuja, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993.

6. Yardi, M.R, Bhagavad Gita As A Synthesis, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1991.

7. Ishanand Vempeny, S.J, Krishna And Christ, Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, Anand, 1988.

8. B.G, Tilak, Tr. by A.S. Sukthankar, Srimad BhagavadGita-Rahasya, Seventh Edition, Tilak Brothers, Poona, 1986.

9. P.M, Thomas, 20th Century Indian Interpretations of BhagavadGita: Tilak, Gandhi & Aurobindo, ISPCK, Delhi, 1987.

10. Shankuntala Rao Sastri, The BhagavadGita, Fourth edition Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 1993 (1959).

11. T.G, Mainkar, A Comparative Study of The Commentaries On The BhagavadGita, 2nd ed., Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1969.

12. Gandhi Mahatma, The Message of the Gita, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977 [1959] [not yet read by me].

13. Jayadayal Goyandka, SrimadbhagavadGita Tattvavivecani, Eighth Edition, Gita press, Gorakhpur, 1992.

14. R.C. Zaehner, The Bhagavad Gita, Oxford, 1966.

15. Hans Staffner, S.J., Jesus Christ and the Hindu Community, Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, Anand, 1988, p.146.

Dear and Respected D. Bharati,

Greetings of Shanti and Prem! At the outset, I would like to extremely thank you for the speedy reply in terms of bibliography to address my concerns. You are somebody, I guess, a person of conviction, knowledge, and religious faith. It is proved by your reply to my questions. I give you all the respect that is due. Human language at any level matters little when we convey our ideas and share our faith experiences.

With regard to the practice of faith and culture, I am a full-fledged Christian and an Indian, respectively. I am proud of both, even though one can argue that India does not have any ‘particular’ culture but a ‘composite’ one. Do not mistake me for some religious fundamentalist group as is found in most religions these days. I would like to let you know that I am quite interested in knowing from you this question: On the basis of ‘pluralistic inclusivism’ in Hinduism, is Lord Muktinath superior to Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita? This is the core issue. Your answer may be negative. But on the basis of ‘pluralistic exclusivism’ of Christianity, I would uphold Lord Muktinath not as ‘one of degree’ but ‘one of kind’. In this way, though we Christians (I do not know how you refer to us Christians in Indian terms like Yesu Christ as Lord Muktinath and Bible as Mukti Veda?) believe that Lord Muktinath is the final fulfillment of God’s final revelation, you could also argue in this way with regard to Lord Krishna. Still, I have not found a systematic conclusion for the unique place you hold as a Hindu and that too in the Bhagavad Gita.

Another question: When we believe in (the) Lord Muktinath, it is not only an identity one puts on to oneself but also a task (mission) that awaits us, namely, to preach Lord Muktinath to others. How do you view this in your understanding and faith-culture life?

Thank you very much for enlightening me to go deeper in my search for such identity.

Yours Sincerely,

Prem Rag (Prem Rag (Dominic Amalan)

Dear Amalan,

This might be the last mail from my end, as generally I never try to ‘convince’ Christians about my views and ideals. It has its own long story and there is no point in repeating it here. Anyhow, I would like to answer your questions:

‘…even one can argue saying that India does not have any “particular” culture but a “composite” one.’ —Prem.

My short response to this view is this: Not having any ‘particular’ culture but a ‘composite’ one is the ‘one particular’ culture of India. However diverse our civilization is, there is some basic unity that connects the entire country for more than several centuries, covering social, cultural, and religious life of people. Though we were not politically one country in the past (political nationalism), yet civilizationally we have been one country for more than 2500 years and still continue to remain a unique civilization, which I hope will continue in the future too.

On the basis of ‘pluralistic inclusivism’ in Hinduism, is Lord Muktinath superior to Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita? This is the core issue.—Prem.

In Hinduism, each sampradaya holds its particular deity as the supreme, and other deities are always considered subordinate to do the errands entrusted by that deity. This can be seen in all sectarian Puranas. In all the Puranas where Shiva is glorified as the Supreme deity, other deities, particularly his rival Vishnu, are his subordinates. The same applies to Puranas glorifying Vishnu and those glorifying Shakti. Claiming salvation only through a particular deity is also not strange in Hinduism (see: MYTHOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES OF SALVATION IN THE THEISTIC TRADITIONS OF INDIA—Klaus K. Klostermaier, Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1984).

Leaving the Puranas aside, even other major scriptures of each sampradaya hold the same view. For example, in the Gita, Krishna says: “Whoever worships whichever god with faith, they are only worshiping me through that deity” (7:21). Even Saiva scriptures claim the same. In Siva Jana Siddhiyar Arul Nandi says: “Whichever god you follow, Shiva (Ardhanaarisvara) will come in the form of the same deity.” In Tirumandiram, Periyapuram, Tiruvasagam, and Nalayira Divyaprabandam, we find similar views. The famous Vaishnavite claim is:

Aakaasaat patitam toyam yathaa gacchati saagaram, 

Sarva-deva-namaskaarah Kesavam pratigacchati. 

Just as the water which falls from the sky goes to the sea, 

So the salutations offered to the various gods reach Kesava alone.2

So, keeping a particular deity as the Supreme and others as subordinate is quite a common feature in Hindu sampradayas. But this view should be understood not merely as sectarian rivalry but also as a way of accommodating all other deities of the Hindu Pantheon with some hierarchy. However, when it comes to Muktiveda, Muktinath is never put in competition with other gods. Though in the Purva Veda (Old Testament) one can see this kind of claiming supremacy of YHWH over other deities of non-Jewish nations, it should be understood in the context of their war and survival in the Promised Land and not as competing with other gods within the same religious tradition. From the beginning, Jews believed in one God, though they often compromised this claim and faith because of their sin and weakness, but not with any theological reason.  Even this so called ‘mono-theism’ is now question in Judaism, at least in its formative period and scholars claims that it was more ‘kenotheism’ than ‘mono-theism’ which was a latter development.  For this see my article: Judaism and Hinduism: https://dayanandbharati.in/judaism-and-hinduism-2/

The same is true in the Uttara Veda (New Testament). As Muktinath is considered the fulfillment of God’s covenant promise, both the early Jewish followers of Him and later non-Jews need not compare Him with other deities within their newfound faith. Though all the theological understanding and doctrinal formation of Trinity around various heresies exist, based on the Creeds of various Councils (about which you are well aware, as they are confessed week after week in the church), faith and belief in one God is the mark of Christianity and also of the Muktiveda.

Even though the early bhaktas of the Lord from non-Jewish backgrounds had to understand this ‘unique’ claim of Muktinath as the only God and Savior, that too comparing with the various deities of their former faiths, once they became bhaktas of the Lord, they were clear in their conviction that Muktinath is their Lord and Savior. Though I have not done an in-depth study on this subject, based on my limited understanding and studies, it was not natural for them to have such conviction considering the worldview of the Romans and Greeks of their time, which was completely different from Muktiveda. God’s love for humanity, the condition of loving each other to receive forgiveness and love of God, morality associated with salvation, no appeasement but sincerely following the teaching of God, etc., made Muktivedic faith entirely different from other faiths.3

At the same time, we should not get confused with all the exclusive claims of Muktinath as the only ‘Way, Truth and Life’ etc., in Muktiveda in any context of comparative theology. For example, Acts 4:12 is quoted as proof of the unique claim about salvation only through Muktinath. Now the question that comes to my mind is this, “Is the verse addressed to the Gentiles in particular, or both to the Gentiles and the believers, or only the believers, or—as per the context—is it addressed to those who are opposing the preaching about the Lord?” As I strongly believe in scriptural exegesis, this verse, if interpreted correctly according to the context, should never be used for our exclusive claims. About this, A.T. Robinson says, “The word for ‘saved’ here (and hence ‘salvation’) is exactly the same as that rendered three verses earlier in Acts 4:9 by ‘cured’. The context is not one of comparative religion but of faith-healing. The issue is ‘by which power’ the cripple is made ‘completely well’ (3.16). Is it by some innate power or godliness of the apostles (3.12), or is it by ‘the name of Jesus, awakening faith’ (3.16)?”4 The same is the case with John 10:8, which again, according to Robinson, “has nothing to do with comparative religion.”5 The following explanation offered by Robinson on John 14:6 will further highlight this point:

Much the same must be said of another Johannine text, which is frequently put to exclusivist use: ‘Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life: no one comes to the Father but by me”’ (14:6). The context here is Thomas’s question about how the disciples can know where Jesus is going, and therefore, how they can know the way. The answer is that he is going to the Father, and since they know him, they have no need to ask further. With Philip, ‘Show us the Father’: to have seen Jesus is to have seen the Father (14:1-11). The point the evangelist is making, to use an earlier distinction, is that Jesus as the Christ is totus Deus: the Father is perfectly reflected in him; he is God ‘all through’. There is no suggestion in the context that he is claiming to be totum Dei, that outside him there is no truth or life to be found. The assurance is that in him truth and life are to be found; therefore, there is no cause for anxious fears.6

So we should keep all these important facts in mind when we try to make any comparative theology with Hindu deities and scriptures. Unlike the Greco-Roman World, the religious context of India (Hinduism) is different one (though one could find several similarities). We find many features of God that we find in Muktiveda in many Hindu scriptures like—God as a person, love of God, assurance of salvation, forgiveness of sin, etc. At the same time, one advantage in Hinduism is the pluralistic inclusivism giving space for ‘exclusive’ faith in one particular deity. This doesn’t mean that we need to revile other deities or condemn their faiths. Sectarian rivalry and condemnation of faiths among Hindu sects are known to exist. But this happens not only in the context of theology but also in claiming supremacy based on the hierarchy of one deity over the other. Whereas we never find such competition or hierarchy in Muktiveda. One God, one Faith, one form of Salvation is the uniqueness of Muktiveda. For more on my view on God see: Oh My God—Five parts in my blog.

So there is no point in comparing Muktinath with any other Hindu gods to give supremacy to one over the other. Each has a unique place in their respective faiths. Those who accept the uniqueness of Muktinath based on the revelation of Muktiveda should accept it on that basis and not compare it with other deities of any faith. As a Hindu, my understanding of Krishna, Rama, and all other deities of the Hindu pantheon is part of our common heritage. All need not give only ‘religious’ significance to such figures in our common heritage. Rama is the ‘Maryada Purushottama,’ and Krishna is a statesman, warrior, and leader. At the same time, both Rama and Krishna can also serve as an inspiration for bhakti to millions of Hindus. Similarly, Muktinath can be an inspiration of ‘love’ to many Hindus. Mahatma Gandhi found the true ‘satyagrahi’ (holder of truth) in Muktinath; Swami Vivekananda called Him the Prince of Incarnation, but they refused to give Him a ‘solitary throne.’ As M. M. Thomas wrote, Muktinath remained the ‘Acknowledged Christ of Indian Renaissance’ (CLS, Madras, 1970, repr. 1991), but they never accepted His final authority as God and Guru in their personal lives.

This freedom in ‘sadhana dharma’ of Hinduism can accommodate all kinds of faith that suit every individual. At the same time, the demand of Muktiveda is not some appreciation of the Lord based on an idealistic interpretation of a few selected texts of the Muktiveda (that too out of context) but a complete surrender to the authority of the Lord. My view is this: let a Hindu, Muslim, Christian (or anyone) accept or reject the Lordship of Muktinath with this understanding rather than twisting and bending the text to serve their own purpose. The pluralistic exclusivism of Christianity, demanding obedience to a particular doctrine of a denomination, rejects other faiths (both of Christianity and Hinduism, etc.) as false, whereas the pluralistic inclusivism of Hinduism, acknowledging the claim of uniqueness of each sect, faith, god, and doctrine, accommodates all kinds of faith within its fold for the smooth functioning of samajic dharma. Of course, ‘co-existence’ is not possible without ‘co-essence’ (Raimundo Panikkar, *The Unknown Christ of Hinduism*, Revised and Enlarged Edition, London 1981, p. 33). But Hindu civilization, giving room for ‘co-essence’ within a sampradaya, allows ‘co-existence’ side by side, upholding the pluralistic nature of life of every individual.

While giving an exclusive place to Muktinath as Guru and God in my life, I can also accommodate other aspects of the heritage of India (Hinduism) that could enrich my bhakti to Bhagavan Muktinath. Rama, Krishna, Siva, and even Allah can complement my bhakti in the Lord without compromising my faith theologically, while not being condescending or condemning them. This does not mean that God the Father of the Lord Muktinath is ‘Allah the Kind One,’ ‘Siva the Auspicious One,’ and ‘Buddha the Compassionate One,’ as one time they prayed in the CSI Church Synod held at Palayamkottai (in Tamil Nadu) by Christians. This is syncretism. In the name of providing ‘co-existence,’ the Christians of this group lost the ‘co-essence’ of not only Muktinath and Muktiveda but also superimposed their own theology on Allah, Siva, and Buddha. For me, the Veda, Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and various other Hindu scriptures are part of my common heritage. While I read them to understand them, I try to accept them on their own terms. Similarly, I read Muktiveda and accept it on its own terms. However, I find the teachings of Muktiveda unique in several ways and that they best suit my spiritual needs; hence, I have exclusive devotion to it. At the same time, my reading of all other scriptures helps me understand Muktiveda more deeply and adds richness to my bhakti in the Lord. This is synthesis and not syncretism. More I read in-depth Hindu scriptures, my understanding and commitment to Muktiveda grow deeper, and my reverence to Bhagavan Muktinath increases. They not only prepared me to become a bhakta of Muktinath but continue to contribute to enriching my bhakti in Him.

Though I understand your claim that ‘Lord Muktinath is the final fulfillment of God’s final revelation’ (is there any specific reference in this sense in Muktiveda?), yet these are technical terms that most of the evangelical Christians (including you) often use in their anxiety to protect their exclusivism. However, for me, no one can put any limitation on God’s revelation within any boundary. All our understanding and interpretation of Muktiveda are also an ongoing revelation of God. As some evangelicals have well said, until Indian Christian Theology (or Indian Muktivedic Theology) is written, Christian theology will remain incomplete. For this, we need God’s continuous revelation even on our understanding and interpretation of Muktiveda.

In general, most Hindus worship the gods or a particular deity either because of family tradition or ishtadevata (god of personal choice) and they rarely try to find any other kind of ‘idealism’ from their deity. Bhakti and ethics rarely clash with each other, and Hindus can even assign different functions to different gods, such as: Family god (kula daivam), gods of boundaries (ellai daivam); gods to protect (kaval daivam); god of personal choice (ishta daivam); gods of forest/desolate places (vana daivam). For example, Lakshmi should be worshipped for wealth and Saraswati for vidya, etc. At the same time, one can ask everything from only one god of their choice or family deity. Only when our bhakti or deity is condemned and criticized do we try to present all kinds of idealism from our gods and bhakti.

Coming from such a tradition, as my expectation of a Guru ended up in Muktinath, He became my Guru and God. And in this respect, He stands unique for me. Based on my understanding of both Muktiveda and Hindu scriptures/religious tradition, I need not put Muktinath and Hindu gods in competition, claiming the supremacy of one over the other, but can respect and accept them as differences in ‘kind’ and not in ‘degree.’

We should keep the uniqueness of the ‘gospel.’ In the name of comparing it with other faiths, we need not dilute it to accommodate it within the Hindu frame by reducing Muktinath as the ‘Crown of Hinduism’ (Farquar) or the ‘Fulfillment of Vedic Quest’ (The Vedic Quest Fulfilled in Lord Jesus Christ, published privately by Rev. D. P. Titus), etc. The gospel is the fulfillment of God’s Covenant Promise. It has the capacity to ‘incarnate’ in any cultural and social setup and can even be expressed through native religious terms with proper explanation. But because we use native religious/theological terms, symbols, and cultural forms to understand and communicate the uniqueness of Muktinath, should we also compare Him with other native deities and put them in competition to claim His supremacy? Such questions will arise, like whether Rama/Krishna is supreme or Muktinath. The answer is: ‘Who holds the final authority in your life?’ But even this answer won’t be that easy because, in theory, sectarian loyalty gives supremacy only to a particular deity, whereas common people give equal respect to all. However, when it comes to Muktiveda and its claim, when we accept the supremacy of Muktinath, we neither condemn the gods of other faiths as devils nor keep them all at the same level like common people. Instead, understanding His authority in a bhakta’s life, we celebrate the beauty and richness of other gods and scriptures as part of our national heritage.

Let me give an example from Vaishnavism. Sant Thyagaraja of the 19th century is a complete Rama bhakta, and he wrote and composed hundreds of Telugu Kirtanas in Carnatic music, which are sung by almost all Carnatic musicians even today. Though Thyagaraja wrote and composed many kirtans on Rama, being a Smarta Brahmin, he also wrote and composed a few kirtans on other deities like Ganesha, Siva, and Devis. A staunch Vaishnavite, though she may not condemn or criticize Thyagaraja’s kirtans or bhakti to Rama, will never use or quote his other hymns on other deities in her worship and sharing. This I have witnessed several times. Even in special programs on Thyagaraja (which DD Bharati Television broadcasts often), while other speakers will praise and quote from Thyagaraja’s kirtans, Vaishnava Acharyas will be careful only to emphasize his bhakti to Rama and will never mention even the name of Thyagaraja. To emphasize their bhakti on Rama, they will quote only from Vaishnavite scriptures like Srimad Bhagavatam or Divyaprabandam. Interestingly, they won’t even quote from Tulsiramayana, as Tulsi also wrote several songs on other deities. For a staunch Vaishnavite, it is the bhakti in Rama that is supreme and exclusive, and she can praise and follow Thyagaraja only on that aspect. It is not that Thyagaraja wrote and composed for the sake of praise and worship. His devotion to Rama is sincere and genuine. His bhakti on Rama did not exclude his devotion to other deities. This is why Thyagaraja’s Kirtanas on other deities are still included in various classical music forms, even though they do not serve the devotional purpose of the true Vaishnavite.7

I have witnessed similar trends in other sects like Lingayats and Muruga bhaktas, etc. Despite their sectarian loyalty, they are never exclusive in their bhakti but hold each deity or deity’s aspect as part of their common heritage. However, they do not give primacy to one deity over the other, nor do they condemn other sects as ‘false.’ In the same way, I have experienced the uniqueness of the Lord and his revelation in Muktiveda. I accept the importance of common Hindu scriptures in my devotional life. Muktinath does not need to compete for supremacy with any other god in my life but deserves the rightful place He has earned for Himself through His grace and revelation. If anyone wishes to understand Muktinath only in comparison with Hindu deities or to put them in competition to highlight Him as superior to others, that does not suit the spirit of the bhakti tradition of any sect. This type of attitude often leads to sectarianism or communalism. Instead, we should keep our focus on the essential teachings and the unique aspects of Muktiveda and our personal relationship with Muktinath.

In the end, the uniqueness of Muktinath and Muktiveda is best expressed and understood within the context of our bhakti and personal spiritual journey rather than through comparison and competition with other deities. Let each person find their path and faith in the Lord according to their understanding and revelation, while respecting the diverse expressions of spirituality in our shared cultural and religious heritage.

To your question on preaching the Lord to others, it is a known fact in our civilization. All the sampradayas preached their gods and doctrines and tried to bring others to their fold (see note 6 below). Though a few Hindu fundamentalists and liberals were in denial about the ‘missionary’ nature of Hinduism in the past, now they too accept that it existed and still exists. We Hindus never deny others’ rights to share their views, but only oppose the methods used by the church and missions to divide and rule. Of course, the gospel brings sword and division in a home and family, but this should be more in values and not in external forms, dividing homes and families and threatening the fundamental fabric of every society. Each community and society evolved its own form to live together. They never remain static but always remain dynamic, adjusting to the demands of time. But from time immemorial, the basic structure of a home, which is the shock absorber of every society, has not been much affected. But in the name of ‘conversion,’ when Christians try to destabilize and destroy the basic structure of community and society, it should be opposed in every way. There is no sanction for this in Muktiveda.

One can remain a Hindu and be a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath. Both Muktiveda and Hinduism give ample scope for this. The gospel has the inherent capacity to incarnate in every community and society without disturbing the basic structure that it evolved. Of course, it will challenge certain values that are opposed to Muktiveda, but it will try to regenerate from within rather than reforming from outside. In the same way, Hinduism gives ample scope for one to choose her own sadhana dharma that best suits her, at the same time expecting her to abide by the samajic dharma. Both sadhana and samajic dharma are flexible and not rigid rules of law. While they accommodate new demands, they never allow any change that will disturb the basic structure of family and society. Of course, we now face new challenges coming from outside that threaten the uniqueness of our Indian civilization. But such threats are not new, and we have always faced them in the past and emerged successfully after paying an initial cost for all the concessions and accommodations. And I hope and pray that this inherent feature of our civilization will carry forward successfully into the future too, always remaining as ‘Jagad Guru’ for other nations to learn the art of Live and Let Live.

Db. Gurukulam. October 17th, 2010.

Dear and Respected D.Bharati,

Greetings of Shanti and Prem!

I am in receipt of your last mail. As you are aware, there is no end to the ongoing search for truth in one’s religion especially given the context in India. I am greatly indebted to your views and convictions and religious faith experiences that put me in a different platform to look at the same reality in a different lens. Lord Muktinath has saturated himself in the Indian composite culture in such a way that many translations of the Bible is availed to us. At the same time we do not deny the Christian authors who took pain and spent their lives in reading, translating and assimilating the Indian literatures and their contribution to various Hindu sacred texts. It all began because of the universal and incarnating characteristics of Lord Muktinath and his values in the society.

If you do not mind, could you let me know what category of the Hindu (sect) you belong to? I am aware of the Bhakti Vedanta and the neo Hindu reformists and revivalists, Indian secularists etc.

As I have gained from your indepth knowledge, only thing I would like to emphasize is by quoting from New Testament where St. Paul writing to Galatians 5:6 says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.” This is the crux of the matter of Christianity which is also found in  1 Corinthians 13:13. Ultimately it is love in action (Prem Marg) is the yardstick with which we all would be judged here and after. 

Thank you very much for all the support and for your service (love) in action.

Yours Sincerely,

Prem Rag (Dominic Amalan)

NB: In the previous reply, you have quoted from New Testament 2 Cor 7:17 which I did not find in my translations of the Bible.

“Next is Muktiveda (Bible) itself.  Though Muktiveda, like any other religious scriptures demand ‘exclusive’ devotion to its doctrines (siddhanta) yet it never expects or encourages anyone to give up their birth identity related to social and cultural aspects. (2 Cor. 7:17).  Of course this is not that much easy as said than in practice as several aspects of life is overlapping with socio-cultural and religious views.”

At the same time, we do not deny the efforts of Christian authors who dedicated their lives to reading, translating, and assimilating Indian literature, including various Hindu sacred texts. Their work was motivated by the universal and incarnational characteristics of Lord Muktinath and his values in society. – Preme Rag

However, this also reveals the underlying agenda behind the work of many missionaries. Their seemingly thankless job often served as a means to an end—namely, advancing their missionary goals rather than genuinely seeking to understand and learn from the scriptures of other faiths. While I understand their motivation, I question whether they truly contributed to our society, as their interpretation, translation, and assimilation of sacred texts often appeared to serve their own purposes. We Hindus, on the other hand, do not approach other faiths in this way. So, while we recognize their effort, we do not give much credit to their toil, as it was ultimately driven by a different agenda.–Dayanand

Thank you for sharing this, Swami ji. I especially liked the bits where you explained about the the lack of necessity for comparing Muktinath with other deities, and reading each scripture for itself and not trying to muddle things up.

It seems as if people like to play advocates for God even in areas where God Himself doesn’t seem to mind. Indeed, God is bigger than all scriptures and theologies and explanations put together. But we keep trying to put God in a box so we can comprehend Him.

While i do believe that Muktiveda is the revealed Scripture of the God i worship, i should also remember that He is bigger even than that.

I have been following some of the Lausanne 3 articles (http://coversation.lausanne.org), particularly those on contextualization, world faiths, etc. In the midst of all the debates and questions that seem to be arising on truth, and objective truth, and proclaiming of that, all i could think of was how large truth and how small we are. Like someone i knew said, we need to learn to hold with humility that truth that’s been revealed to us.

Bungi, Oct. 21. 2010

Notes

1. ‘…Although “syncretism” in modern English usage refers to the merging of religions or philosophies that are properly separate, the original Greek term synkretismos used by Plutarch meant something different. It referred to a custom of people on the isle of Crete to overcome local feuds and to form a sacred alliance in order to withstand foreign aggression {Jan Assmann, “Translating Gods.”  In The Translatability of Cultures, edited by Sanford Budick and Wolfgang Iser, 25-36. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 1996. 34}….’— Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 190

2. See Kambaramayana Arayna Kanda, song 52 & 54 and the Comments by Sri V.M. Gopalakrishnamacharyar, Chennai, Umap Padippagam, 2006, vol.3. (Arayna Kandam,) pp. 42-43.  See Appendix for Tamil:

3.…The Christian teaching that God loves those who love him was alien to pagan beliefs.  MacMullen has noted that from the pagan perspective “what mattered was … the service that the deity could provide, since a god (as Aristotle had long taught) could feel no love in response to that offered” (MacMullen, Ramsay.  Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.1981:53).  Equally alien to paganism was the notion that because God loves humanity, Christians cannot please God unless they love one another.  Indeed, as God demonstrates his love through sacrifice, humans must demonstrate their love through sacrifice on behalf of one another.  Moreover, such responsibilities were to be extended beyond the bonds of family and tribe, indeed to “all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Cor.1:2).  These were revolutionary ideas.— Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, Harper San Francisco An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, 1977, p.86 […]

            And as we have seen [in page 84], that is precisely what most concerned Julian as he worked to reverse the rise of Christianity and restore paganism.  But for all that he urged pagan priests to match these Christian practices, there was little or no response because there were no doctrinal bases or traditional practices for them to build upon.  It was not that Romans knew nothing of charity, but that it was not based on service to the gods.  Pagan gods did not punish ethical violations because they imposed no ethical demands—humans offended the gods only through neglect or by violation of ritual standards (MacMullen, Ramsay.  Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.1981:58).  Since pagan gods required only propitiation and beyond that left human affairs in human hands, a pagan priest could not preach that those lacking in the spirit of charity risked their salvation.  Indeed, the pagan gods offered no salvation.  They might be bribed to perform various services, but the gods did not provide an escape from mortality….—ibid. p.88

… E.R. Dodds pointed out that in “popular Greek tradition a god differed from a man chiefly in being exempt from death and in the supernatural power which this exemption conferred on him” (1970. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety.  New York: Norton.  [1965] 1970:74).  Moreover, while people often appealed to various gods for help, it was not assumed that the gods truly cared about humans—Aristotle taught that gods could feel no love for mere humans.  Classical mythology abounds in stories in which the gods do wicked things to humans—often for the (p.200) sport of it.  Arthur Darby Nock noted that worship of such gods need not have inspired sincere belief (Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background, New York: Harper and Row. 1964:4)….—ibid. pp.200-01

E.R. Dodds has put this as well as anyone:

A Christian congregation was from the first a community in a much fuller sense than any corresponding group of Isiac or Mithraist devotees.  Its members were bound together not only by common rites but by a common way of life…. Love of one’s neighbour is not an exclusively Christian virtue, but in [this] period Christians appear to have practiced it much more effectively than any other group.  The Church provided the essentials of social security…. But even more important, I suspect, than these material benefits was the sense of belonging which the Christian community could give. ( Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety.  New York: Norton. [1965] 1970:136-137)—ibid. p. 207

            The simple phrase “For God so loved the world…” would have puzzled an educated pagan.  And the notion that the gods care how we treat one another would have been dismissed as patently absurd.

            From the pagan viewpoint, there was nothing new in the Jewish or Christian teachings that God makes behavioral demands upon humans—the gods have always demanded sacrifice and worship.  Nor was there anything new in the idea that God will respond to human desires—that the gods can be induced to exchange services for sacrifices.  But …the idea that God loves those who love him was entirely new.—ibid. p.211

4. John A.T. Robinson, TRUTH IS TWO EYED , SCM Press Ltd., p. 105

5. (ibid. p.106).

6. ibid. p. 107

7. Ten Vaishnavite Oaths.

In this morning (April 8, 2007) in the National Tamil T.V. channel, one famous religious speaker (Sri Velukkudi Krishnan, from Vaishnavaite sampradaya) read out ten oaths to his audience to repeat after him. A few are along sectarian lines as expected-Ramanuja is the only acharya to be followed, and Narayana as the only god to be worshipped. But what is interesting to me is two oaths. In the first he said, ‘neither by birth, or wealth or education we won’t consider ourselves as great’. But he never said ‘by birth, or wealth or education we won’t consider ourselves as great but will treat all are equal’. The eleventh one is, ‘I will share these oaths with at least ten persons.’

I wish I could have recorded them and shared all those ten oaths. I don’t want add any of my comments but anyone can read their own as per her/his perception.

Dayanand Bharati.

Appendix

52.

பனிநின்ற பெரும்பிறவிக் கடல்கடக்கும் புணைபற்றி

நனிநின்ற சமயத்தோ ரெல்லாரு நன்றென்னத்

தனிநின்ற தத்துவத்தின் றகைமூர்த்தி நீயாகின்

இனிநின்ற முதற்றேவ ரென்கொண்டென் செய்வாரே- ப. 42

     (உன்னை) அச்சந் தரும்படி நின்ற, பிறப்பாகிய பெரிய கடலை, நீந்தித் தாண்டுதற்கு உரிய, புணையாகக் கொண்டு, மிகுதியாய் நின்ற எல்லாச் சமயங்களிலுள்ளவர்களும், (தத்தம் கடவுளைப்பற்றுதலைப் பற்றி) நல்லதென்று சொல்லாநிற்க, நீ, ஒப்பற்று நின்ற (அப்பிற சமயத்தவரின் வழிபாட்டினையும் கொள்ளும்) பெரிய தத்துவ சொரூபி யானால், பின்பு, (அவ்வச் சமயங்களுக்குத்) தலைவராய் நின்ற தேவர்கள், என்ன பெருமையைக் கொண்டு, என்ன காரியங்களைச் செய்வார்கள்!–ப. 42

     பலசமயத்தோரும் தத்தந் தெய்வமே நன்றென்று கொண்டு தத்தம் இஷ்டதெய்வங்களுக்குச் செய்யும் வழிபாடுகளை யெல்லாம் நீயே பெற்றுக் கொண்டு அவரவர்க்குத் தக்கபடி பயன்களை அளிக்கின்றாயாதலால், அவ்வத்தேவர்களால் யாதுபய னென்பதாம்; ’நும்மின் கவிகொண்டு நுந்ம்மிட்டா தெய்வமேத்தினாற், செம்மின் சுடர்முடியென்திரு மாலுக்குச் சேருமே;, ’யாங்கடவுளென்றிருக்கு மெவ்வுலகிற் கடவுளர்க்கும், ஆங் கடவுள் நீயென்றா லஃதுனக்கு வியப்பாமோ’ என்பன, இங்குக் கருதத் தக்கவை.–ப. 42

54.

ஆயாத சமயமுநின் னடியவே யயலில்லை–வரி. 2. ப. 43

…ஆராய்ந்தறிதற்கு அரிய எல்லா மதங்களும், உன்னைக்காரணமாப்பற்றியவையே….–ப. 43