Again in one early morning (30-09-1986, Gonda) when I got up early, I wrote the following two songs as I heard the singing of the birds. The first one (9) is Raga Bhupala . The second one (10) is in light music.
9. போற்றின
காலைக் கதிரவன் கீழ்த்திசைத் தோன்றினான்
காகமும் குருவியும் கானங்கள் பாடின
இயற்கை அன்னையும் இன்துயில் எழுந்தாள்
இறை முக்தேசனின் மலரடி பணிந்தாள்–காலைக் கதிரவன்….
ஆவினம் புள்ளினம் ஆர்ப்பரித் தெழுந்தன
ஆயிரமாயிரம் தூதரும் பணிந்தனர்
பரிசுத்தர் யாவரும் பாடியே போற்றினர்
பரன் முக்தேசன்னின் மலரடி பணிந்தனர்–காலைக் கதிரவன்….
பூவினம் புள்ளினம் புனிதனைப் போற்றின
பொய்கையும் அருவியும் கீதங்கள் பாடின
ஆயிரமாயிரம் பக்தரும் மகிழ்ந்தனர்
அன்பன் முத்தேசனின் மலரடி பணிந்தனர்–காலைக் கதிரவன்….
கோண்டா (உ.பி) 30-09-1986
Song 9 Worship
The morning Sun appeared in the east
Birds and crows sang songs
Mother nature also got up
And worshipped at the feet of Muktesan
Cattles and birds got up with enthusiasm
Thousand and thousands of angels bowed
The Saints glorified the Lord by singing
And bowed at the feet of Muktesan
Flowers and birds hailed the Holy One
Streams and Waterfalls sang songs
Thousands and thousands of devotees rejoiced
And bowed at the feet of Loving Muktesan
10. துதி சாற்றுவோம்
காலை நேரத்தில் கீழ்வானத்தில்
கதிரவன் தன் பொற்கரத்தால்
கடவுளைப் போற்றித் துதிக்கும் நேரம்
களிப்புடன் நாமும் துதி சாற்றுவோம்
குயில்களும் காகமும் குருவியுமே
கூடி ஒன்றாய் மகிழ்வுடனே
பாடியே போற்றிப் பரவசமாய்ப்
பரமனைப் பாடியே துதிக்கின்றன
தென்றலும் மெதுவாக வீசியது
தேவனின் திருப்புகழ்ப் பாடியது
பூக்களும் நறுமணம் வீசியேநல்
புனிதனைப் போற்றியே வாழ்த்தினவே
நானிலத்தோரும் போற்றிடுவோம்
நம் முக்தேசனை வாழ்த்திடுவோம்
நல்மேய்ப்பன் இன்றைய நாள்முழுதும்
நன்மையால் நம்மையும் நடத்திடுவான்
கோண்டா (உ.பி). 30-09-1986
Song 10 Let us also Hail Him
Let us rejoice and Hail God
As Sun with his golden arms
Worships God in the early morning
in the eastern sky!
Koel, crows and sparrows
Happily joining together
Hail Him with much enthusiasm
And worship God by their songs
Wind also blowed gently
And sang the glory of God
Flowers too by giving their fragrance
Hailed the Holy one
Let the people of this earth also Hail Him
And worship our Muktesan
The Good Shepherd will lead us the whole day
With plenty of good things.
Worshipping the Lord with fellow bhaktas is one thing, but worshipping Him along with nature is a unique one. Human fellowship and corporate worship though important one in our bhakti, yet it puts so many restrictions to become one with the Lord. Whereas when we are alone with the Lord along with nature (wherever we may live), then we find no restriction —unless we create our own, to enjoy the presence of the Lord. Taking time alone with the Lord, that too tuning ourselves with the nature around us gives a healing touch to our strained atman. Several times in my life, in such surroundings I won’t pray or sing, but will try to immerse myself in the silence around me. Of course my mind will wander, but I will bring it back again and again to feel the silence around me. Those days when I spent time alone with Nature near the sea shore in North Andaman islands (Mayabunder and one time at Little Andaman) and Himalayan Hills are memorable ones in my life. Pure nature without artificial intrusions like buildings is my favourite place. Though all the time I cannot live in such a place, yet nature in any form inspires everyone.
When I stayed at Sat-ashram (1990), one day I went for my regular evening walk. It was a full-moon day. After my walk I sat on the edge from where I could see Panna lake. As it was off season for tourists, there was no traffic on the other side road and I was the only person staying that time in the ashram. But as Tigers roam in the night, we have to return back before it becomes dark. But as I was immersed in the silence around me, I forgot that it was getting dark. As the waters in the Panna lake were still and glittering with the moon light I cannot move from that place. Finally I came out from that deep immersion in nature when I heard the sound of some animal (not tiger) in the distance. Then I realized that it had already become dark. Then I quickly walked back to my room and the night watchman, who used to come in the evening to have a cup of tea, was a bit concerned as he couldn’t find me in the room. The spell of nature is a unique one which makes us forget ourselves. Similarly when I went to Little Andaman, one day I went to Ongi settlement from where we could watch the roar of the waves. There is a small strip of beach with a background of thick forest. The sea there is very deep as it is on the top of a hill below. We should not walk in the water as it will be very deep. When I stood there alone watching the waves without anyone around me for a long time I didn’t feel any pain on my leg. Finally when one huge wave came and hit, in order to escape from it without dragging me back into the sea I pushed back further near the forest. As I was completely wet, I returned back to catch my bus to go back to my sister’s house.
In song 9 I called nature as ‘Mother’. But I know this is not acceptable to many in Christian circles because of the fear of ‘pantheism’ of the East. God can be a mother but nature cannot. But for us Indians the ‘mother’ figure is an all inclusive term—reverence, respect, love, care, concern, compassion, discipline, sacrifice etc. etc. The order of importance is known commonly as : matha, pitha, guru and daivam (mother, father, guru and God). Now being a bhakta of the Lord how this perception about the mother ‘figure’ needs to be approached? Because in other songs I call God as my Mother! Then how can I use ‘mother’ for nature too?
As I said early, some of my thoughts are not endorsed by Muktiveda. At the same time they are not completely un-muktivedic (unbiblical), as they try to explain their comments about them. I cannot quote from Muktiveda to endorse my view for nature as a ‘mother’. However I find no objection to calling nature as ‘mother’ as she continues to remain a source of giving birth to so many creatures, plants, and resources. I am taking care of my mother and for her needs I even moved out from the ashram. But her place in my life never replaces God’s place in any way. One of the great sayings in Tamil is: ‘No temple is greater than mother and no mantra is greater than the word of father.’ But if we begin to read any theology in such statements then we will miss the cultural/social worldview of India.
In India/Hinduism life is not put in water tight compartments. Several things overlap with each other and we cannot divide it with any straight line. But if we begin to approach it only with a theological frame then we will miss the inclusive ‘value’ which it tries to promote. Here I would like to quote one such ‘theological’ approach from McClaren:
…Chesterton
wisely noted how a Franciscan view of creation avoids both the profaning of creation so common in the West and the divinization of creation so common in the East:
The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother…The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister…Nature is not solemn to Francis of Assisi for George Herbert. To St. Francis, Nature is a sister, and even a younger sister: a little, dancing sister, to be laughed at as well as loved. [G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (originally published in 1908 and now available from Shaw (1994). P. 120].— Brian McClaren. A Generous Or+thodoxy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2004. p. 236
Pantheism of the East, particularly that of Hinduism viewed from Christian theological point of view will never convey its meaning of a common Hindu. First of all, I am not sure whether we Hindus ever call Hinduism ‘Pantheism’. It is a term coined by outsiders (like the word Hinduism).@ But ‘pan + theism’ for us is acknowledging the ‘sacredness’ of God’s presence in many places in many forms. This is rightly endorsed (I think so?!?) by McClaren,
For much of Western Christianity, the doctrine of creation (a biblical term) has been eaten alive by the doctrine of the fall (not a biblical term). In other words, creation’s downfall resulting from human sin has eclipsed its original glow as God’s handiwork, radiant with God’s glory. Make no mistake: Human sin is awful and reprehensible beyond words, and the whole earthly creation suffers because of it. But if, due to an exaggerated doctrine of the fall, God’s creation loses its sacredness as God’s beloved artwork, we have magnified human sin beyond sane bounds—and in fact added to its sad effects….—ibid. p. 234
When one is careful to not lose the enduring glory and continuity of creation, when one takes human sin seriously enough but no more seriously than one should, later elements in the biblical narrative (election, redemption, revelation, salvation, eschaton) are themselves understood and integrated as glorious new unfoldings of continuing creation. Creation may have been swallowed alive by a runaway, exaggerated understanding of “the fall” but, like Jonah, it’s crawling back up the beach.—ibid. p. 235
So for me, my mother too, however shares the same destiny with me as the consequence of Manu’s (Adam) fall, yet because of her ‘role’ in my life I see the ‘sacredness’ of God in her ‘motherhood’. For loving her, serving her and enjoying her seva also is a form of ‘thanks giving’ and not ‘theology’ for me. Similarly nature as a sacred work of God too can be addressed as ‘Mother Nature’. Polytheism could be dangerous and not pantheism. These terms ‘polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, monotheism and monism’ deserve a separate study compared with Muktiveda and space won’t allow me to do it here. And I am also not competent to do it knowing my limitations. However some scholarly views can help us to begin for those who are interested and in the notes I am giving some. My understanding of God’s sacred work in nature is from a bhakti point of view and not theological one.
‘Every thing is’ God could lead to polytheism. God is in everything could come closer to the Vaishnava doctrine of creation as the body of Vishnu as it emanated from Him. In this doctrine God is both ‘efficient and material cause’. This will contradict with the Muktivedic theory of creation, as God created everything out of nothing—ex nihilo. But nature revealing the Glory of God is what my bhakti tries to read His presence in nature.
Db
19-5-14
Notes
@… ‘pantheism’—a term coined by an English writer, John Toland (1670-1722) to express the idea that all is in God….— Geoffrey A. Oddie. British Protestant Missionary Constructions of Hinduism, 1793-1900. New Delhi, SAGE Publications, 2006, p.196
…pantheism—the deification of the universe as a single vast metadeity or “everything-god” (pantheos).— Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008. p. 24
…pantheism—the deification of the universe as a single vast metadeity or “everything-god” (pantheos). This preoccupation was in part a by-product of political amalgamations. When power shifted, the priests of the newly dominant group would compose a theology which elevated their god over those of the dominated groups. At such a moment, a Mesopotamian priesthood would imitate the model of the state, declaring that its god was king of the other gods; by contrast, the more metaphysically inclined Egyptians were apt to declare that the newly dominant deity had absorbed the other gods into himself or become them….—ibid. p. 24
The concept of the simultaneously immanent and transcendent pantheos is a transitional concept between mythology, which it compacts beyond recognition, and philosophy, which will unfold from it….—ibid. p.28
…The growing trend towards the impersonalization of God in modern European philosophy had (p.299) posed a serious threat to Christianity which could be counteracted only through a reiteration of faith in the Biblical God, who was personal in nature, and was different from the God of the philosophers. As a consequence of this, religion and philosophy, which had gone hand in hand till then even in the Western world, were disentangled and rendered apart. This separation of religion and philosophy was accompanied by the growth of a new mode of theology which was the result of intensive Christian intellectual activity. The Christian theologians now made it explicit, as never before, that religion was a matter of faith and emotion, and not of knowledge and reason. Acceptance of the philosophical abstractions regarding God was not to be confused with the true belief in God. Theism, therefore, was technically defined as belief in God. The differentiation between monotheism and monism was an outcome of this definition of theism, and the principle of division between religion and philosophy. Monotheism was defined as belief in One Personal God; and the philosophical explanations of the oneness of God in impersonal terms, as either pantheism or monism.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in David N. Lorenzen. Religious Movements in South Asia 600-1800. New Delhi, Oxford, 2004, pp. 299-300
…Hinduism in which religion and philosophy have always remained interconnected and wherein ‘theism’ does not necessarily imply belief in a personal God. Besides, the Hindu thinkers never thought of making any distinction between what is understood by monotheism and monism. In other words, the impersonal concept of God (as Brahman or Atman) has been as much a part of Hindu religious tradition as the worship of numerous personal deities. Disregarding these factors, when the Western scholars applied alien criteria in the analysis of Hinduism, it resulted in a number of misconceptions, including those connected with the bhakti theme.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in ibid. p. 300
…Taking into account the Hindu pantheon and the seeming Hindu polytheism, in what way can the existence and nature of Hindu monotheism be correctly determined? Is it justifiable to connect Hindu monotheism with the worship of any one personal deity of the Hindu pantheon, like Vishnu, as suggested in the Bhakti theories? Should it not be sought in the realm of Hindu speculations about the oneness of God? My inquiry into the nature of Hindu theism and monotheism is an attempt to answer these questions. Such an inquiry is very necessary to rectify the long standing errors that the modern definition of bhakti entails.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in ibid. p. 302
The Christian thinkers rejected all explanations of God offered by the philosophers and proclaimed that religion and philosophy were two separate realms. They evolved a new form of Christian theology, through modern modes of reasoning, to establish the validity of the personal concept of God. Sharpening the difference between religion and philosophy, they defined religion strictly in terms of faith in a personal God. The conceptual categories of theism, monotheism, pantheism, and monism, as they are understood today, were evolved in accordance with the pattern of Christian theology which took shape after the emergence of modern European philosophy, to serve the Christian purpose. Subsequently, they were commonly used by the Western scholars in studies of other religions as well. No doubt, these categories could be applied with equal justification in the study of revealed religions similar to Christianity. But not to Hinduism. To the extent the Bhakti theories were conceived with the aid of these categories based on alien norms and non-Hindu criteria, they were artificial and contrived.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in ibid. p. 307
Leave a Reply