Salvation Outside Muktiveda: A Comparative Perspective

Introduction

The concept of salvation in the Muktiveda has evolved significantly between the Purva and Uttara Vedas. While both Vedas reveal God’s power and love, they present salvation in different ways, focusing on collective deliverance in the Purva Veda and individual redemption in the Uttara Veda. This progression leads us to explore the question: How do we understand God’s salvation for the Jews, especially in relation to the non-Jews, as revealed in the Purva Veda?

Salvation in the Purva Veda: Collective Deliverance

In the Purva Veda, salvation is often portrayed as God’s deliverance of the Jewish people from physical harm, oppression, or national destruction. The Hebrew word “Yeshua” (יֵשׁוּעַ), meaning “to save” or “to deliver,” refers mostly to God’s intervention in history, rescuing Israel from its enemies or preserving them as a nation. This concept is somewhat similar to El, the Phoenician warrior god.1
The most prominent examples of Purva Veda salvation are God’s actions during the Exodus and in battles fought for Israel’s survival. This form of salvation was predominantly national, focusing on the collective fate of the Israelites, the chosen people of God.

Salvation in the Uttara Veda: Individual Redemption

In contrast, the Uttara Veda shifts the focus of salvation from national deliverance to individual spiritual redemption. The Greek word “Soteria” (σωτηρία) points to salvation not just from external threats, but primarily from the internal, spiritual consequences of sin and death. Salvation in the Uttara Veda is about personal redemption through the death and resurrection of  Muktinath. This deliverance, available to all people (Jew and Others alike), offers the gift of eternal life and reconciliation with God through faith.

Non-Jews and Salvation in the Purva Veda

The question arises: What about the salvation of the non-Jews in the Purva Veda? While the Purva Veda focuses on Israel’s salvation, it is also clear that God’s glory and power were revealed to the others (non-Jews). For instance, in Exodus 14:4, God says, “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and his army, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord.”

Here, God’s actions against Pharaoh and Egypt reveal His power and glory but do not speak directly to the salvation of the Egyptians. The non-Jews experienced God’s glory but not His salvation in the same way the Israelites did.

God’s Glory and the Non-Jews

This tension raises a profound theological question: If God’s salvation in the Purva Veda is focused on delivering Israel, how are we to understand the salvation of the non-Jews? The answer may lie in recognizing that God’s glory—His power and majesty—was made evident to the non-Jews, even though their salvation was not the primary focus. Events surrounding Israel’s salvation allowed the Non-Jews to witness God’s greatness. The Muktiveda suggests that the Non-Jews were meant to see God’s works and come to understand His nature.

Salvation for All in the Uttara Veda

The Uttara Veda expands salvation to include all, regardless of ethnicity or background. Through  Muktinath, the salvation once centered on Israel becomes available to all humanity. It fulfills God’s ultimate purpose: not just to save a nation, but to invite all people into a relationship with Him.

Comparing Salvation in the Purva and Uttara Vedas

The difference in salvation narratives can be summarized as follows:

• Purva Veda: Salvation was national, focusing on Israel’s deliverance from external threats. God’s glory was revealed to the nations, but salvation was primarily for the Jews.
• Uttara Veda: Salvation is personal and individual, emphasizing spiritual redemption from sin through faith in Muktinath. This shift reflects God’s plan to bring salvation to all humanity.

Salvation in Muktiveda and Hinduism

For a Hindu reader, the contrast between the Purva and Uttara Vedas might seem profound. In Hinduism, salvation or Moksha is liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth, often through self-realization or union with the divine. In contrast, Muktivedic salvation in the Uttara Veda emphasizes personal deliverance from sin, granted through grace. This difference highlights the diverse ways cultures approach salvation and deliverance.

Sin and Salvation in Muktiveda

This naturally leads to another important question: What is sin? Salvation, in principle, is deliverance from sin in the Uttara Veda  through the Lord’s atonement to redeem humanity. While the concept of sin is also present in the Purva Veda, it primarily refers to actions—missing the mark or violating God’s commandments—rather than the deeper principle of sin addressed in the Uttara Veda.

Sin is a profound and complex topic. Each religious tradition offers its unique perspective, shaped by its foundational texts and cultural developments. Numerous scholars have undertaken in-depth studies of sin, both exclusively within the framework of Muktiveda  and through comparisons with other faiths, particularly Hinduism. While the term “sin” appears uniform in English, its original meanings vary significantly across religious traditions, both in their early and later developments. This diversity warrants a detailed, well-researched study. [See Appendix]

Acknowledging my limitations as a layperson, I offer a basic understanding by focusing on three aspects:

1. Sin as missing the mark: Failure to uphold personal and social ethics, which can be understood in Hindu terms as dharma (righteousness) and adharma (unrighteousness).
2. Sins of commission and omission: Acts committed or omitted, which violate divine expectations.
3. Sin as an internal evil nature: A tendency within that inclines humanity toward wrongdoing.

Sin in the Purva Veda

In the Purva Veda, sin is often defined as a violation of God’s commandments and unfaithfulness to the covenant. Key dimensions include:

• Disobedience to God’s Commandments: Defying God’s explicit laws.
• Rebellion Against God: Acts of defiance against His authority.
• Failure to Uphold Covenant Obligations: Neglecting responsibilities within the divine covenant.
• Ritual Lapses Leading to Impurity: Violations that result in separation from God.
• Judgment and Punishment: Consequences that extend beyond individuals to the entire community.
• Atonement for Sin: Provided through sacrifices, which address sin collectively and individually.

Sin in the Purva Veda affects not just the individual but the entire nation, emphasizing the communal nature of accountability.

Sin in the Uttara Veda

In contrast, the Uttara Veda presents sin as universal and personal, emphasizing its profound impact on humanity’s relationship with God, fellow humans, and creation itself. Key aspects include:

• Universal Sinfulness: All humans are inherently sinful and unable to achieve righteousness on their own.
• Bondage to Sin: Sin enslaves individuals, leading to separation from God.
• Disruption of Relationships: Sin alienates humans from one another and from creation, reflecting a failure in stewardship.
• Forgiveness and Atonement: Redemption is made possible through the Lord’s atonement, offered as a free gift of grace.

Salvation in the Uttara Veda is not earned but received by faith as a result of God’s grace, through the life, death, and resurrection of Muktinath.

Though this paper does not delve deeply into comparing sin and salvation between Hinduism and Abrahamic faiths, particularly Muktiveda, one fundamental distinction stands out. In Hinduism, we not punished ‘for’ our sin but ‘by’ our sin, For both moral lapses and salvation, individuals must actively work out their own path, with or without divine assistance, as the doctrine of karma assumes a pivotal role over divine intervention. In contrast, Muktiveda views salvation as a process initiated and completed by God’s grace—whether through His covenant with Israel in the Purva Veda or through individual redemption in the Uttara Veda.

Pluralism and Exclusivism in Salvation

Evangelicals like McDermott argue that non-Jews lacked the “saving knowledge” of God. He states, “What they [non-Jews] knew was not part of general revelation, since it was not given to all, nor was it special revelation, since it usually did not point to salvation” (p. 33).

This claim raises important questions: If the “saving knowledge” was never given to non-Jews, how can it be said that they lacked it? Furthermore, what constitutes “saving knowledge” in the context of the Purva and Uttara Vedas? How did people of other faiths—both during the Purva Veda and Uttara Veda periods—perceive salvation according to their Scriptures and religious doctrines? Without addressing these questions, imposing the Uttara Veda’s concept of salvation onto the Purva Veda, that too comparing with non-Jews of that time, risks conflating two distinct narratives.

When we compare the Muktiveda  with other faith traditions, such as Hinduism, we encounter the tension between pluralism and exclusivism. Hinduism, for instance, exhibits exclusivist claims through doctrines like moksha (liberation), yet it also embraces pluralism in its diverse paths to achieving spiritual goals—be it through devotion, knowledge, or disciplined practice. Similarly, every religious tradition has elements of exclusivism, but pluralism often surfaces in their varied doctrines, practices, and understandings of life.

Conclusion

The Purva Veda primarily emphasizes God’s deliverance of Israel and His revelation to the Non-Jews, focusing on external acts of disobedience addressed through rituals and sacrifices. The Uttara Veda broadens this perspective, offering salvation to all through Muktinath. This transition from national deliverance to personal redemption marks a significant transformation in understanding salvation.

It not only highlights the internal and spiritual dimensions of sin but also presents Muktinath as the final and complete remedy, fulfilling the reconciliation between humanity and God that the Purva Veda foreshadows. By doing so, it invites all humanity into a personal relationship with God, transcending the boundaries of ritual and law. This shift reflects both a continuity with the Purva Veda narrative and a fulfillment that expands its scope to encompass all peoples and traditions, encouraging dialogue and reflection across religious boundaries.

When studying concepts like salvation or exclusivism, it is essential to consider what ‘saving knowledge’ or ‘salvation’ signifies in each tradition. For instance, Hindu philosophy describes God as Niranjan—a term that conveys the idea of a divine being who is “stainless,” “pure,” and self-sufficient, needing nothing external to complete or validate His essence. This perspective suggests that God, being perfect and blissful in Himself, has no rivals because divine rivalry arises only when multiple gods are conceived within a polytheistic framework.

In contrast, when monotheistic traditions claim exclusivity, the rivalry is not among gods but among their followers, who often frame their interpretations of God as competing for legitimacy. This competition among religions reflects human tendencies rather than divine will. As such, the study of pluralism and exclusivism invites us to transcend these human constructs, fostering a deeper understanding of the divine that respects the diversity of religious experiences and narratives.

Erode, 2-1-2025

Notes

1 The El of the sixth-century B.C.E. history of Phoenicia by Sanchuniathon was a fierce warrior god—in most respects unlike Yahweh, but like Yahweh a god of (p. 35) battles. {Patrick D. Miller Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973).]— Gerald R. McDermott. God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007, pp. 35-36

Appendix: Sin

…It is truly, as the terms used to describe it teach, a missing of the mark, or turning aside of man from his true end—the glory of God; transgression of a law; a falling away, or defection; lawlessness….— James Orr, GOD’S IMAGE in MAN, WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY; Grand Rapids Michigan-1948 p.225

The Aryans’ infantile notion of sin is forcibly expressed in the terms which they used to denote it.  Those terms are papa, form root pat, to “fall”, to “fall down”; aghast, Greek. agos, enas and amchas, from roots signifying first to “go”, and then to “go astray”, “miss the mark”.  Nirriti, another word for sin, which was afterwards personified as a power of evil or destruction, is derived from (p.142) the same root which yields rita in the sense of right; and nor-prita means not right, or a deviation from the right path. Sin, therefore, according to the earliest conception of the Aryan mind is fall from a higher to a lower moral state, a deviation from the path of duty, a missing of the mark of moral excellence once set before the mental vision….— The Teaching of the Vedas, Maurice Phillips, London Mission, Madras, Longmans, Green And Co, 1895 pp.142-43

…According to Christian doctrine, it is inevitable that man should act in the dark without knowing what will come of his action.  That inability to achieve ends clearly conceived in advance, which in Greek is called amartia {amartia}, missing one’s mark, is no longer regarded as accidental but as a permanent element in human nature, arising out of the condition of man as man.  This is the original sin upon which St. Augustine laid such stress, and which he connected psychologically with the force of natural desire….— R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, Revised Edition. Edited with an Introduction by Jan Van Der Dussen. New York.  Oxford University. (1946), 1994.  p. 46

               For satyam (rtam) and anrtam our words ‘truth’ and ‘untruth’ have a too definitely  ethical and empirical significance to be entirely adequate; just as our word ‘sin’ is too ethical to represent what is implied by Sanskrit and Greek terms meaning ‘incorrect’, or more literally, ‘missing the mark’.  Properly speaking, ‘sin’, as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, is ‘any departure from the order to the end’, and not merely moral error.  Stayam and anrtam are nearer to ‘correct’ (integer) and ‘incorrect’.  In the same way, virtue (kausalam, Pali kusalam), kike wisdom (sojia), is radically ‘skill’; and the beautiful (kalyaana, kaloV) not what we like, but whatever is appropriate or ‘in good form (pratiruupa)’, as opposed to what is ugly, improper, or more literally ‘informal (apratiruupa)’; nor are these merely ‘aesthetic’ values, for kalyaana and kausala, kusala, (p.396) are both opposed to paapa, ‘evil’, or ‘foul’, as in Scholastic philosophy pulcher is opposed to turpis, whether as ‘ugly’ or as ‘disgraceful’…..— Atmayajna: Self-Sacrifice, in Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Perception of The Vedas, edited by Vidya Nivas Misra, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the arts, New Delhi, Manohar, 2000. pp. 396-97

…If sin is committed, against whom is it committed?…God Himself, the Supreme, can be grieved or wounded by the sins of men. He is far above any world in which he could be involved in pollution or in any kind of affliction from the wrong-doings of men. If a man sins, he sins ultimately and finally against himself alone. My sin is in reality only against myself; it binds me to the wheel, it keeps me in the vale of avidya, ignorance, and so delays my day of deliverance. For this reason I should attempt to flee form sin, from the fruits of ancient deeds; at no points is my pursuit of virtue wholly free form this self-regarding element.— Stephen Neill, BHAKTI HINDU AND CHRISTIAN, CLS, 1974, p.80

Paapa (henceforth to be translated as evil) in the Rg Veda often has a moral sense: people are evil-minded; adultery is evil; incest is evil. [RV 4.5 and 10.10]  People can “do” (karoti) evil, and this we might translate as “commit a sin.”  But even sin may occur without the will of the sinner in Indian thought, so that a sense of personal repentance is rare, and one may pray for deliverance from sins committed by others in the same way as for those committed by oneself [Rodhe, Sten, Deliver Us From Evil: Studies on the Vedic Ideas of Salvation, Swedish Society for Missionary Research, Lund, Copenhagen, 1946 pp. 146-147]….— Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, University of California Press, Berkeley. Paperback Edition, (1976) 1980,p. 7