Part I: Choosing Without Denying
Ishta Devata and the Question of Exclusivism
In recent days, one person asked me something that has remained with me. He had once lived peacefully within Hindu pluralism but later embraced Christianity. In his childhood home, religion was never anxious or exclusive. Many deities were worshipped without tension. Lamps were lit before different forms. His elderly mother still continues that way. Only later did he encounter the more structured idea of Ishta Devata — choosing one guru or deity as primary.
He wondered whether such choosing narrows Hinduism. Does turning deeply toward one form mean rejecting the others? Is this compatible with broader Hindu practice? And if one becomes a bhakta of a guru like Muktinath, can moksha be attained through that devotion alone? Or must salvation follow an exclusive theological path such as the “Jesus way”?
These were not argumentative questions. They arose from sincere reflection.
In many Hindu homes, plurality is natural. Yet within that plurality, a person may feel inwardly drawn to one form. That chosen form becomes the relational center. This does not automatically erase the others. Hindu life has always held together freedom and inheritance. One may honor the Kuladevata as part of family continuity, even if daily devotion rests elsewhere.
There is a kind of exclusivity within inclusivity. Staunch Vaishnavites worship only Vishnu and His avataras. Lingayats worship only Shiva. Yet exclusive devotion need not become hostility. The difficulty begins only when devotion turns into denial.
Exclusive devotion is single-pointed love.
Exclusivism is the condemnation of other paths.
One may respect another’s devotion without adopting that theology. Respect does not require endorsement.
In comparative theology, the question of pratima often arises. The Sanskrit word suggests reflection or representation — a visible form pointing toward the invisible. In traditions such as Sri Vaishnavism, after prana pratishta, the image is regarded as archavatara, a living manifestation of the Divine. The concern in ancient Israel belonged to a different historical situation — one shaped by allegiance within a competitive religious landscape. The theological contexts differ.
Yet beneath all these discussions lies a deeper question: what is mukti?
If liberation is understood mainly as relocation to a heavenly realm, debates multiply endlessly. But if mukti is seen as inner transformation — freedom from ego, fear, and ignorance — then the center shifts. At the same time, this transformation need not remain subtle, ecstatic, or esoteric; it must become visible in concrete life, particularly in one’s relationships with others.
For me, mukti is experiential liberation while living in this body. It includes both transcendental hope and immanent life on this earth. It does not make one “other-worldly” in a stoic or indifferent sense. Rather, it calls us to take both this life and the life beyond seriously.
Though what Tiruvalluvar says in a different context does not fit neatly into a Muktivedic (Biblical) theology, it still echoes a profound truth about the interwoven reality of both worlds:
திருக்குறள் 247 – அருளுடைமை (Possession of Grace)
அருளில்லார்க்கு அவ்வுலகம் இல்லை
பொருளில்லார்க்கு இவ்வுலகம் இல்லாகி யாங்கு.
English Translation (Rev. G. U. Pope):
“As this world is not for those who are without wealth, so the world beyond is not for those who are without grace.”
Different traditions describe the human condition differently: sin, ignorance, bondage, suffering. They describe deliverance differently: redemption, enlightenment, awakening, realization. Even within the New Testament there are multiple emphases. But wherever devotion truly transforms consciousness, dissolves ego, and awakens compassion, something essential has occurred. Language differs. Transformation remains central.
A few days later, in a completely different setting and with a different person, another question came to me. It was not about choosing a path, but about knowing itself. Yet as I listened, I sensed that the two concerns were quietly touching the same deeper ground.
Part II: Knowing Without Explaining
Knowledge, Experience, and Blind Faith
This second conversation began with a challenge.
“How can one honor or respect without knowing?” he asked. “If one does not understand the mechanism, does that not become blind faith — or convenient pretense?”
The question was not about devotion this time. It was about knowledge.
What do we mean when we say we know?
If knowing requires complete intellectual comprehension, then none of us truly knows anything. A child knows her mother long before she understands motherhood. A husband and wife know each other from the beginning, yet understanding unfolds slowly across years. Relationship comes first. Comprehension deepens later.
In biblical language, when Adam “knew” Eve, the word signifies intimacy and participation, not analytical mastery.
Knowledge, in its deeper sense, is relational and experiential.
I am reminded of a line once cited by Mahatma Gandhi, where he spoke of “understanding without knowledge”1 — a way of apprehending reality that does not begin with explanation but with silence.
Tamil spiritual literature expresses this beautifully.
The Siddhar poet Sivavakkiyar writes:
என்னிலே இருந்த ஒன்றை யான் அறிந்தது இல்லையே
என்னிலே இருந்த ஒன்றை யான் அறிந்து கொண்டபின்
என்னிலே இருந்த ஒன்றை யாவர் காண வல்லரோ
என்னிலே இருந்திருந்து யான் உணர்ந்து கொண்டனே
What was within me I did not know.
When I came to know what was within me,
Who can see that which abides in me?
That One within, I realized within myself.
And again:
செய்யதெங்கிலே இளநீர் சேர்ந்த காரணங்கள் போல்
ஐயன் வந்து என்னுளம் புகுந்து கோயில் கொண்டனன்
ஐயன் வந்து என்னுளம் புகுந்து கோயில் கொண்டபின்
வையகத்தில் மாந்தர் முன்னம் வாய் திறப்பது இல்லையே
As water gathers within the tender coconut,
The Lord entered and made my heart His temple.
Once He entered and dwelt within,
Before the people of the world, I had no need to open my mouth.
And further:
அரியும் அல்ல அயனும் அல்ல அப்புறத்தில் அப்புறம்
கருமை செம்மை வெண்மையைக் கடந்து நின்ற காரணம்
பெரியதல்ல சிறியதல்ல பற்றுமின்கள் பற்றுமின்கள்
துரியமும் கடந்து நின்ற தூர தூர தூரமே
Neither Vishnu nor Brahma — beyond even the beyond,
Standing past black, red, and white,
Neither great nor small — cling not, cling not,
Far beyond even turiya.
If realization itself transcends structured consciousness, how can doctrinal mechanism be its prerequisite?
The poet Vaali once played on the Tamil word kal, meaning both “stone” and “learn.” When someone calls God “stone,” perhaps it is not an adjective but a verb — not “God is stone,” but “learn God.”
Kannadasan expressed this insight tenderly:
பிறப்பின் வருவது யாதெனக் கேட்டேன்
பிறந்து பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான் …
அனுபவித்தேதான் அறிவது வாழ்க்கையெனில்
ஆண்டவனே நீ ஏன் எனக் கேட்டேன்
ஆண்டவன் சற்றே அருகு நெருங்கி
அனுபவம் என்பதே நான்தான் என்றான்2
I asked, “What is birth?” He said, “Be born and see.”
…
“If life must be known only through experience,
Why do we need You?” I asked.
The Lord came near and whispered,
“I Myself am experience.”
Knowledge here is not mechanical explanation. It is participation.
The two conversations arose separately. One concerned choosing without denying. The other concerned knowing without explaining. Yet both seem to rest on the same quiet insight: relationship often precedes comprehension.
Depth transforms. Mechanism does not.
Ashram, February 16, 2026
1….’UNDERSTANDING WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE’
Let the reader share with me the following from Hiero-
theus which I find in the passages a friend sends me for my day
of silence:
To me it seems right to speak without words, and understand without
knowledge, that which is above words and knowledge. This I apprehend
to be nothing but the mysterious silence and mystical quiet which dis-
solves forms.
Seek, therefore, silently and mystically, that perfect and
primitive union with the Arch-Good.— Young India, 27-1-1927, Notes 18, CWMG, vol. 33, p. 22
2 பிறப்பின் வருவது யாதெனக் கேட்டேன்
பிறந்து பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
படிப்பெனச் சொல்வது யாதெனக் கேட்டேன்
படித்துப் பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
அறிவெனச் சொல்வது யாதெனக் கேட்டேன்
அறிந்து பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
அன்பெனப் படுவது என்னெனக் கேட்டேன்
அளித்துப் பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
பாசம் என்பது யாதெனக் கேட்டேன்
பகிர்ந்து பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
மனையாள் சுகமெனில் யாதெனக் கேட்டேன்
மணந்து பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
பிள்ளை என்பது யாதெனக் கேட்டேன்
பெற்றுப் பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
முதுமை என்பது யாதெனக் கேட்டேன்
முதிர்ந்து பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
வறுமை என்பது என்னெனக் கேட்டேன்
வாடிப் பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
இறப்பின் பின்னது ஏதெனக் கேட்டேன்
இறந்து பாரென இறைவன் பணித்தான்!
‘அனுபவித்தேதான் அறிவது வாழ்க்கையெனில்
ஆண்டவனே நீ ஏன்’ எனக் கேட்டேன்!
ஆண்டவன் சற்றே அருகு நெருங்கி
‘அனுபவம் என்பதே நான்தான்’ என்றான்!
Leave a Reply