Part I: Distinguishing Dīkṣā from Baptism

Author’s Note

This reflection is not written to challenge Christians, question Christian belief or practice, or argue against Christian baptism. Christians are free to understand and practise their faith according to their convictions and their reading of Scripture.

My concern is with fellow Hindu bhaktas who follow Bhagavān Muktināth and who have questions about Gurudīkṣā, baptism and the relationship between the two. This is not an invitation to Christians to defend their position or to challenge Christian theology. I simply want to clarify for Hindu bhaktas why Gurudīkṣā should remain Gurudīkṣā and baptism should remain baptism, without making one a functional substitute for the other.

Following Muktināth Without Becoming a Christian

A question has increasingly occupied me: if I follow Muktināth as my chosen Lord and Guru, does that mean that I must also become a Christian in the sociological, institutional or cultural sense?

For me, the answer is no.

This is not a rejection of Christianity. It is a description of my own lived journey. Following Muktināth has not required me to abandon the Hindu social and cultural world in which I have lived. I have therefore tried to live my bhakti in a way that is natural to that world.

This conviction lies behind the question of Gurudīkṣā.

The Question of “Biblical” Practice

I have never been comfortable with the idea that everything in Hindu life must first be “contextualised” in the Bible in order to become acceptable to a Christian understanding. Nor do I want to “redeem” everything in Hinduism by interpreting it as an anticipation of Christianity. That approach can place Christianity in the position of the “crown” of Hinduism, with Hindu cultural, social and religious forms valued mainly insofar as they can be accommodated within a Christian theological framework. This tendency is associated with certain approaches to fulfilment theology.

My own approach is different. I have sometimes used the word “incarnational” for it, although I am not claiming that this is a technically precise theological term. Muktināth is encountered within the Hindu world, not outside it. I am trying to understand what it means to follow Him within that world.

Hindu traditions have historically accommodated very different forms of religious life. Śramaṇic traditions developed alongside Vedic traditions, and even the Cārvāka position found a place within the wider history of Hindu thought. I therefore find the principle “Orthodox in the central, flexible in the peripheral, and charitable to all” helpful.

There is also a prior question about the word “biblical” itself. Scripture does not interpret itself without human interpretation. I have elsewhere used the provocative expression Biblically Unbiblical to draw attention to this problem. Scripture has authority for Christians and for the Church, but that does not automatically mean that every element of later Christian ecclesial practice must be reproduced in a Hindu context in the name of being “biblical”.

A Christian may reasonably regard a Hindu practice as unbiblical according to his or her theological convictions. But that does not automatically give the Christian the right to redefine a Hindu practice so that it performs the function required by a Christian institution.

This brings us to the question of contextualisation.

Contextualisation and the Functional Substitute

Contextualisation, in Christian mission and theology, generally concerns expressing the Christian message or practice in culturally understandable forms. There is nothing objectionable about explaining baptism to a Hindu by using concepts familiar to Hindus. If I say that baptism is in some respects comparable to Gurudīkṣā, I am making a comparison that may help someone understand the Christian practice.

But something different happens when we say:

“This Hindu follower of Christ will not receive baptism. Therefore Gurudīkṣā should take the place of baptism.”

That is no longer merely comparison. It is functional substitution.

If a Hindu bhakta says, “I wish to enter into a Guru–śiṣya relationship with Muktināth,” that is one matter. But saying, “Since you cannot or do not want to receive baptism, you must therefore take Gurudīkṣā instead,” begins from the absence of baptism rather than from the meaning of Gurudīkṣā.

The reason for receiving Gurudīkṣā should be the person’s own conviction about Gurudīkṣā. The absence of baptism should not create an obligation to receive it.

Saṃskāra, Dīkṣā and Sacrament

The difficulty becomes clearer when we distinguish some of the terms involved.

The English word “sacrament” is sometimes used rather freely for Hindu practices. Rajbali Pandey’s Hindu Saṃskāras: Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments surveys rites extending from conception and birth through education, marriage and death, demonstrating the broad range of practices included under saṃskāra.¹ Axel Michaels similarly treats saṃskāra as a complex Hindu life-cycle ritual, including prenatal, birth, childhood, initiation, marriage, old age, death and ancestor rites, situated within changing social contexts.² Mary McGee’s discussion of saṃskāra in The Hindu World also considers these rites in relation to social status and identity.³

Such comparisons can be useful, but they should not make the categories identical.

Christian sacrament belongs to a particular theological and ecclesial structure. Hindu saṃskāra belongs to the varied Hindu ritual world. Dīkṣā, meanwhile, has its own range of meanings within Hindu traditions, including initiation, consecration, commitment and spiritual discipline. Jan Gonda’s study demonstrates how varied the term has been in Indian religious history.⁴

I am using Gurudīkṣā in a narrower sense: the entering into a Guru–śiṣya relationship, following the Guru, receiving teaching and discipline, and making a personal and reciprocal commitment within a spiritual tradition.

Saṃskāra and dīkṣā can overlap in some circumstances, but they are not interchangeable. Saṃskāras are often embedded in family, social and ritual life and can mark stages or transitions in a person’s place within a community. Klaus Klostermaier describes the saṃskāras in terms of membership in the socio-religious community, while Gavin Flood connects rites of passage with identity and belonging.⁵ Michaels likewise notes that such rites are not merely private events but can constitute and reaffirm socio-religious relationships and groups.⁶

Upanayana and marriage illustrate this broader social dimension.

Dīkṣā, by contrast, is more specifically concerned with entering a spiritual discipline and a Guru–disciple relationship. The disciple consciously enters into the relationship, and the Guru accepts and initiates the disciple. There is therefore a personal and reciprocal element that should not be reduced to a general social rite.

This was one reason I preferred the expression Gurudīkṣā when the question of “Jal-saṃskāra” arose for Hindu bhaktas consciously following Muktināth. But I would not call it “Jal-dīkṣā”. Water is simply a material used in a ceremony; water is not the Guru and does not establish a personal relationship with the disciple. The essential element is the Guru–śiṣya relationship.

A person may consciously seek dīkṣā, but the Guru may also discern whether that person is ready. It is therefore not simply a modern expression of individual choice. It is a reciprocal commitment. The disciple seeks to enter into a relationship of learning, discipline and guidance, while the Guru accepts the responsibility of guiding that person.

When the bhakta understands Bhagavān Muktināth Himself as the Guru, He does not physically tell the bhakta, “You are now ready.” An ācārya or spiritual mentor may therefore help the person discern readiness and facilitate Gurudīkṣā. The human ācārya does not replace Muktināth; rather, the ācārya serves the bhakta in entering more consciously into that relationship.

This also means that Gurudīkṣā cannot be understood in terms of simply increasing the number of people who can be counted as followers of a particular sampradāya. No genuine Guru would initiate someone merely to add another name to the lineage, or rush to bring a person within the fold first and only later teach that person how to become an authentic disciple. There is a very different logic in the saying, “win the winnable while they are winnable.” Such an approach may be effective for gathering people quickly, but it is quite different from the patient discernment involved in accepting someone into a Guru–śiṣya relationship.

This does not mean that only a fully mature or spiritually accomplished person is eligible for initiation. The very purpose of the Guru may be to guide a person towards maturity. But there remains a difference between welcoming someone into a spiritual relationship and seeking to increase numbers. Gurudīkṣā should not be hurried simply to bring another person within a spiritual lineage. It is the beginning—or formal recognition—of a genuine Guru–śiṣya relationship, not a means of producing more adherents.

For this reason, I resist reducing Gurudīkṣā to a ritual mechanism that accomplishes what another religion calls baptism. Gurudīkṣā has its own meaning within the Guru–śiṣya tradition, and that meaning should be allowed to remain intact.

Hindu Traditions Have Different Forms of Initiation

There is another reason to be cautious about assuming that all religious initiations are structurally identical.

In the Śrī Vaiṣṇava tradition, pañca-saṃskāra includes the marking of the body with the symbols of Viṣṇu, the śaṅkha and cakra, and can function as a public sign of belonging. Among Liṅgāyats, receiving the personal liṅga from a Guru or Swamiji is significant. These practices should not simply be described as Hindu equivalents of Christian Confirmation.

The difficulty of one-to-one comparison becomes even clearer within Christianity itself. In Catholic Christianity, Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist together form the sacraments of Christian initiation, with Confirmation understood as completing baptismal grace. The fact that Christian initiation itself contains several distinct practices should caution us against assuming that one Hindu initiation can simply be mapped onto one Christian rite.

Religious practices belong to the traditions that give them their meaning. A ritual should not be stripped from its own religious world and assigned the function of another ritual merely because their outward forms appear comparable.

How Did Baptism Itself Become What It Is?

Baptism is sometimes spoken of as though its fully developed form simply appeared from heaven. Its history is more complicated.

The New Testament presents baptism within a developing religious world that included Jewish ritual washing and immersion, the baptism of John associated with repentance, the baptism of Jesus by John, which Christians generally distinguish from baptism as an expression of personal repentance for sin, and the development of baptism as an initiation practice within the early Christian communities. Jewish proselyte immersion is relevant to this history, although scholars caution against reducing Christian baptism to a simple borrowing from Jewish practice.⁷

T. M. Taylor’s study of Jewish proselyte baptism illustrates some of the difficulties involved in dating and identifying the beginnings of these practices.⁸ Other studies of Christian initiation likewise show that baptism developed within the life of the early Christian communities rather than appearing as a completely isolated ritual.⁹

I am not suggesting that Christians simply “borrowed” baptism from the Jews. Baptism acquired its own Christian meaning as the Jesus movement developed. But it did have a history.

The New Testament itself also gives us glimpses of diversity. In 1 Corinthians 1:14–17, Paul says that he is thankful that he personally baptised only a few people and adds, “Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach the gospel.”¹⁰ This does not mean that baptism was unimportant. It does, however, show that the responsibilities associated with preaching and baptising were not necessarily identical.

The difficult passage in 1 Corinthians 15:29, concerning those who were “baptised for the dead”, is another reminder that practices and interpretations existed in the early Christian world that later Christians did not necessarily adopt as universal norms.

I am not arguing that baptism is unnecessary, nor am I defending baptism for the dead as a Christian norm. My point is narrower. The existence of a practice in Scripture does not by itself establish that every later Christian form of that practice must be reproduced in every culture, still less that a Hindu practice should be redesigned to perform its function.

Baptism belongs to the Christian tradition, while Gurudīkṣā belongs to the Guru–śiṣya traditions of Hinduism. They have different histories and meanings. Why, then, should Gurudīkṣā be treated as a substitute for baptism?

From Comparison to Christianising Hinduism

This is where contextualisation can become problematic.

A missionary may ask, “How can I explain Christ to people within their own culture?” That is one question.

A different question is, “How can I take this existing Hindu practice and make it serve the theological function I need?”

The distinction becomes important when a Christian practice is considered indispensable while the Hindu social world is retained.

The temptation is then to say:

“We will not call it baptism. We will call it Gurudīkṣā. But it will perform the same function.”

The name changes, but the function remains.

A Hindu form is retained because it is culturally familiar, while its meaning is redirected towards a Christian requirement. This can happen without bad intentions. A person may sincerely believe that he or she is helping a Hindu follower of Christ. But good intentions do not remove the conceptual problem.

If Gurudīkṣā is genuinely a Hindu Guru–śiṣya relationship, let it have that meaning.

If baptism is understood by Christians as a Christian sacrament or ordinance, let Christians understand and practise it according to their own faith.

There is no need to place the Hindu bhakta between the two and tell the person that one must become the functional equivalent of the other.

A First Conclusion

I am not arguing that baptism and Gurudīkṣā have nothing in common. Comparison can be useful, and contextual explanation can help people understand an unfamiliar religious practice.

What I question is the movement from comparison to substitution.

A similar human need does not necessarily mean an identical religious meaning. The absence of baptism does not create an automatic obligation to receive Gurudīkṣā. Nor does the Christian importance of baptism require a Hindu bhakta to reproduce baptism under another name.

The more fundamental question is: what does it mean for a Hindu bhakta to follow Muktināth?

That question takes us to the second part of this reflection.

Notes

1. Rajbali Pandey, Hindu Saṃskāras: Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments, 2nd rev. ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1969), 327.
2. Axel Michaels, “Rites of Passage: Saṃskāra,” in The Oxford History of Hinduism: Hindu Law: A New History of Dharmaśāstra, ed. Patrick Olivelle and Donald R. Davis Jr. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 86–97.
3. Mary McGee, “Saṃskāra,” in The Hindu World, ed. Sushil Mittal and Gene R. Thursby (New York: Routledge, 2005), 332–356.
4. Jan Gonda, Change and Continuity in Indian Religion (The Hague: Mouton, 1965), 444–482.
5. Klaus K. Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1990), 175; Gavin D. Flood, An Introduction to Hinduism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 200–201.
6. Michaels, “Rites of Passage: Saṃskāra,” 96.
7. Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 135, 208, 329; see also T. M. Taylor, “The Beginnings of Jewish Proselyte Baptism,” New Testament Studies 2, no. 3 (1955–56): 193–198.
8. Taylor, “The Beginnings of Jewish Proselyte Baptism,” 193–198.
9. Everett Ferguson, “Baptism,” Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies (2012); Maxwell E. Johnson, “Christian Initiation,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion (2015); David F. Wright, “The Apostolic Fathers and Infant Baptism: Any Advance on the Obscurity of the New Testament?” in Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 123–134.
10. 1 Corinthians 1:14–17, especially v. 17.

Note on “Accepted” and “Received”

I have discussed elsewhere my reservations about the way the words “accepted” and “received” are sometimes used in Christian conversion accounts, particularly in my article “Giving and Feeling”. The issue is not merely one of vocabulary. The image in Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock,” does not require us to imagine that Christ’s status depends upon the human being who opens the door and “receives” Him. If the door is not opened, it is the person who misses the fellowship being offered; Christ’s status is not diminished. The Hindu expression atithi devo bhava provides an interesting comparison, since the guest is honoured rather than imagined as acquiring value from being received.

The complete discussion is available in my article “Giving and Feeling”. https://dayanandbharati.in/giving-and-feeling/

Bibliography

Ferguson, Everett. “Baptism.” Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies. 2012.

Flood, Gavin D. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Gonda, Jan. Change and Continuity in Indian Religion. The Hague: Mouton, 1965.

Johnson, Maxwell E. “Christian Initiation.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. 2015.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Klostermaier, Klaus K. A Survey of Hinduism. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1990.

McGee, Mary. “Saṃskāra.” In The Hindu World, edited by Sushil Mittal and Gene R. Thursby, 332–356. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Michaels, Axel. “Rites of Passage: Saṃskāra.” In The Oxford History of Hinduism: Hindu Law: A New History of Dharmaśāstra, edited by Patrick Olivelle and Donald R. Davis Jr., 86–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Pandey, Rajbali. Hindu Saṃskāras: Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments. 2nd rev. ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1969.

Taylor, T. M. “The Beginnings of Jewish Proselyte Baptism.” New Testament Studies 2, no. 3 (1955–56): 193–198.

Wright, David F. “The Apostolic Fathers and Infant Baptism: Any Advance on the Obscurity of the New Testament?” In Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, edited by Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett, 123–134. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.