BT Song 51
Though the life of a single person will incur several losses, yet there are several blessings in it which give content in life. One among them is the freedom that we have to spend time with God and other sadhanas. When I was thinking about this, I wrote this song.
தனிமையான வாழ்க்கை பல இழப்புக்களைச் சந்தித்தாலும், அதில் உள்ள சில நன்மைகள் வேறுவிதமான மன நிறைவைத் தரும். அதில் ஒன்று இறைவனுடன் நாம் எப்போது வேண்டுமானாலும் தொடர்பு கொள்ளும் நிலை. அதைக்குறித்து எண்ணியபோது எழுதிய பாடல்:
51. இனிமை
தனிமை என்றதோர் இனிமை
என் தலைவன் தாள் பணிந்து
வணங்கும் போதெல்லாம்
அரவணைக்கும் ஓர் புதுமை
சொந்த பந்தம் நம்மைச்
சூழ்ந்து நின்ற போதும்
தேடி அவனடி பணியும்போது
நாடி வருகின்ற இன்பம்
சொல்லில் கூற முடியா
சுகமே அந்த நேரம்
சுவைத்து அறியா மூடர்
புரிந்திடாத பேரின்பம்!
26-06-1993. கோண்டா (உ.பி).
51. Sweetness
The sweetness of solitude
Which gives bliss?
When I bow at the feet of my Lord
And worship Him alone.
Though relatives and friends
Surround us
Yet when we seek His feet and worship (in solitude)
The bliss that comes to us
A joy which cannot be described?
The greatness of that joy
Cannot be understood by the fools
Who does not have that experience?
26-06-1993. Gonda. U.P.
I never regretted my life as a single person. In fact I cannot even imagine how my life would be if I did not remain a single person. One reason could be my temperament. I have a dominating nature and never accept orders from others. This evening too I thought about how I always expect others to listen and obey me rather than question and disagree with me. Knowing my nature my mother often tells, ‘good that you remained unmarried. Fortunately one girl escaped from you’. In response I say, ‘it is good that I didn’t marry. Fortunately a daughter-in-law escaped from you too’. My mother too has a similar nature like me. One time I was asked why I didn’t marry. In response I said jovially, ‘if I were married, I would have committed suicide immediately or she would have killed me within two days. Somehow, I want to live and that’s why I didn’t marry’.1
Of course I never promote ‘singlehood’. For me ‘singlehood’ is a curse and not a blessing from God. I often say, ‘single people are selfish people, as they don’t want to share their life with another person’. That is why when one of my shishyas (in Bihar) wanted to become sannyasi, I said ‘no’ to him. I said to him, ‘Don’t take such a decision based on emotion or seeing me.’
There is a wrong concept among the common people that sannyasis are holier than others, because they give up one important part of life. And I still remember the comment which passed by one old lady belonging to Kabir panth back in 1987 at Madhubani (North Bihar), ‘by closing one whole out of nine in our body, sannyasis are no way better than others’. And I agreed with her.2
As a joke I say this, ‘if you want to become holy, remain single. But if you want to become more holy, then get married. There alone you can learn what it means by “humility, love, care, concern, sharing etc.” Your character will never develop and grow if you remain a single person. A sannyasi cannot say that he never becomes upset or gets angry. But with whom he can become upset or get angry? With the trees in his ashram or animals in the forest?’
Unlike other single persons, in the mandali of Muktinath, a sannyasi is completely different. In general a sannyasi is not responsible to anyone. Whereas even a sannyasi in our mandali is answerable both to God and to the fellow bhaktas to whom he committed himself totally.
For me singlehood is a different vocation but no way better than a householder. In fact a householder life is the best according to Indian ideal:
…Manu [VI.89-90] reiterates the same sentiments under a different figure ‘just as all big and small rivers find a resting place in the ocean, so men of all asramas find support in the householder and the householder is declared to be the most excellent of all the aasramas by the precepts of the Veda and smrtis, since he supports the other three'[p.640]…Saanti {parva in Mahabharata} 12.12 holds that, ‘if weighed in the balance, the order of householders is equal to all the other three put together….’—P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Vol. II. Part. I. Ch.XVII. pp. 640-41.
That is why for Bankim Chandra Chatterji, however great both Muktinath and Buddha were yet they are not equal to Krishna:
…”If Jesus or Sakya Singha {Buddha} had been householders and yet leaders of world religions, then their systems would have been more complete. Krishna as an ideal man is a householder. Jesus or Sakys Singha are not ideal men” (Dharmatattva, Bankim 2:647)…3—‘ Imagining Hindurashtra: The Hindu and the Muslim in Bankim Chandra’s Writings, Tanika Sarkar, in Making India Hindu, Religion, Community, and the politics of Democracy in India, edited by David Ludden, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1996, p.178
However it is worth noting the alternative view of another famous Bengali:
His attacks on householders were often quite scathing. He suggested that the gulf between the householder and the sannyaasin was wide and unbridgeable and that the former are incapable of sincerity but of necessity must possess some selfish motive. He would not believe God to be sincere if he incarnated as a householder. He even spoke of the repulsive odour of householders. In this context, one must admit that Vivekananda appears as partisan as Sankara was with respect to caste. Views like these seem to contradict his declared aim of making Vedaanta a practical religion, accessible to all.4
One more point that I should add here is that however I feel close with several bhaktas families in our mandali, yet I made it clear to them that I cannot be part of their family. One time I said to one of my shishyas, ‘if your relationship with me brings some friction in your family life, better keep me away.’ That is one main reason for me to move from one family with which I stayed for a few years. As their children began to grow up, I realized that they need their own privacy which is not possible keeping another person as part of their home.
Those who voluntarily choose the life of a single person, have several advantages over the family people. But it is more of added responsibilities than mere privilege for a bhakta of Muktinath. And though she managed to share her responsibilities with others in the mandali, in enjoying certain bliss she is her own master. Because a family person, even in solitude cannot escape from thinking about her family members and wish them to have the same experience. Whereas a single person can most of the time remain a Nirajnan=one who enjoys herself or one is happy with herself. That is why next to God, sannyasis are called ‘niranjan’.
26-6-14
Notes.
1.. It may look funny for many. But one of the reasons in my youth for a desire to remain single was that I can read more books. From my teenage years I was obsessed with books. Even in school days, while eating I read books and my mother will snatch the book from my hand and throw it by telling me, ‘first eat and then read’. When I go to the office, I will keep a book and walk on the side of the road and read. Even when I rarely went to the cinema, I kept a book to read while standing in the queue to buy a ticket or during the interval in the dim light. Even as a salesman, while taking orders, when I get some gap, I will read a book. In a sense I was living, moving and my being was in books.
1. However see what Kabir says:
Monk aloof, householder large of heart,
If two fall short, then loss is very vast.—p.187
Bairraagii birakata bhayaa, girahiim citta udaara.
Duhuum cuukaam riitaa padai, taakuum vaara na paara.—p. 186
MC: A large-hearted householder and a monk detached from the world, both are boons for society.— Sushila Mahajan, Couplets of Kabir … a Vision of Beyond. New Delhi, Deep & Deep publications. 2008. p. 187
3. Bankim’s admiration for Christ was abundant, though he never accepted him as God. ‘I consider both Christ and Buddha’, wrote Bankim, ‘as great men and respect them….They are great men but not ideal men.’ Jesus is an ‘incomplete man’ and the Christian ideal represented by Christ is also incomplete. Krishna is the ideal man because in him all the faculties of man have their equal and proper growth and have achieved a harmony. The Hindu ideal, therefore, is complete by itself. Both Buddha and Christ were indifferent to the temporal world and preached asceticism. Asceticism is a negative approach to life. Krishna was not an ascetic; his attitude towards life was positive….— Sisir Kumar Das, Shadow of the Cross: Christianity and Hinduism in a Colonial Situation, New Delhi, Munshirma Manoharlal, 1974 (1973) p. 117 [no reference is given for this quotes by Bankim—db]
4.. Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture:Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas, Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi., 1995, p.52.
Somewhere I read that Vivekananda’s challenge to India at that time was a request to give few youths and he will change it completely. With this ideal that a selfless sannyasis can work and bring the change that he was dreaming for. But this critic by Das is worth reading, as it endorses my view that sannyasis are the best model to be imitated and however they wish they cannot bring a change in India through their lives and seva:
…While he {Vivekananda} deserves our admiration and respect for such work, the question remains, was he unable to reconcile with what he thought about the problems of modern India and about religion? Can religion be a substitute for political and economic forces? Can a group of Sannyasis, however noble and dedicated they are, check the rapid growth of poverty in India? Is not an independent India with her own economic plans a better guarantee of the improvement of the living conditions of her people? While Vivekananda’s love for the Indian people was deep and genuine, more deep and more genuine than most of our national leaders, he did not realise the necessity of a strong political movement with a practical economic programme which alone could provide a solution to the problem which made the monk so restless.— Sisir Kumar Das , op. cit. p. 140
According to Sankara, mukti is possible only those who renounced everything as one Upanishad says:
Kaivalyopanishad: na karmana na prajaya dhanena thyagenaike amrutatvamanashu (1:3a)— neither by sacrifice (karma), or son or wealth but only through renunciation one attains this liberation (Brahadara. Upanishad. IV, 4.22)
BT Song 52
Namavali is part of bhakti tradition in India both in south and north. By describing the name, fame, nature of God, giving a call to respond is part of worship. Particularly before starting satsangs, giving a call to the people to respond by saying ‘hail’ (Jay) is a tradition. Following this while in the North, before starting any satsang, I gave a call in Hindi to the audience by saying ‘Jay’. So as I want to create one such in Tamil, following Hindu tradition, I wrote this during one of my classes at Bangalore 08-07-1993.
நாமாவளி என்பது இந்திய பக்தி வழிபாட்டின் ஒரு அங்கம். வட இந்தியா, தென் இந்தியா என எப்பகுதியிலும் இறைவனின் நாமம், புகழ், குணம் சொல்லி மக்களை ஆராதிக்க அழைப்பது வழிபாட்டின் ஒரு பகுதி. குறிப்பாகக் கதாகாலட்சேபங்கள் நடக்கும் போது, ஆரம்பிக்கும் முன் நாமாவளி கூறுவது மரபு. அதன் அடிப்படையில், வட இந்தியாவில் சத்-சங் நடத்தும்போது ஹிந்தியில் நான் கூறும் நாமாவளியை போல் தமிழிலும் கூறவேண்டி இதை, 08-07-1993-ல் பெங்களுரில் சில வகுப்புகள் எடுத்துக் கொண்டிருந்தபோது எழுதினேன்.
52. நாமாவளி
அழைப்பு: எல்லோருக்கும் இறைவனாம் முக்தேசனே போற்றி
பதில்: எமக்கும் தலைவனாம் இறைவனே போற்றி
அழைப்பு: தந்தையாம் இறைவனின் தாளடி போற்றி
பதில்: எந்தையாம் இறைவனின் இணையடி போற்றி
அழைப்பு: அரூபியாய் இலங்கிடும் ஆவியே போற்றி
பதில்: அருளினை அளித்திடும் அண்ணலே போற்றி
அழைப்பு: மூவரில் ஒன்றாய் இலங்குவோய்ப் போற்றி
பதில்: முதல்வனே இறைவனே போற்றி போற்றி
52. Namavali
Call: O Lord of everyone hail to you
Response: you are my leader hail to you
Call: Hail to the feet of the Lord who is the Father
Response: Hail to the feet of God who is my father.
Cal: Hail to the Holy Spirit who dwells without any form
Response: Hail to the one who bestows grace
Call: Hail to the Three in one
Response: Hail to God the First!
What I have written is a replica which we can still hear in several satsangs among the Hindus, particularly among Saivites in Tamilnadu1. I don’t remember such Namavali being used in Vaishnavite sat-sangs, though ‘nama japa’ will be there. However they will use different kinds of Namavali. {The person who leads Sat-sangh will say:
Govinda Nama Sankeerthanam [singing bhajans in the name of God] and people will respond by saying: ‘Govinda, Govinda.}This shows how divorce is a practice among Hindus. As a Hindu and bhakta of the Lord I feel that it is my birth right to use my religious and cultural symbols, without distorting them by twisting which will serve my purpose. For example, I don’t agree with keeping a photo or an image of OM anywhere in our worship or as a cover picture to any books from us. Whereas, I have no hesitation to chant OM as a mystic music which helps to concentrate my thoughts. I don’t believe in using Hindu symbols by misusing or abusing them in any form. However I know that certain terms and symbols need to be qualified and explained for others to understand them.
Though few pioneers in contextualization among Tamilians used several words like ‘Siva, Bhagavan, OM etc.’ in their songs, yet I never read or heard they created such Namavali for Sat-sanghs. For those who become ‘converts’. contextualization is an ‘experiment’ whereas for us Hindu bhaktas it is part of our life. As we allow the gospel to incarnate, we need not contextualize which belongs to us as our birth right.
26-6-14
Notes
அழைப்பு: நமஹ: பார்வதி பதயே
பதில்: அரஹர மஹாதேவா
அழைப்பு: தென்நாடுடைய சிவனே போற்றி
பதில்: எந்நாட்டவர்க்கும் இறைவா போற்றி
அழைப்பு: பராய்த்துறை மேவிய பரனே போற்றி
பதில்: சிராப்பள்ளி மேவிய சிவனே போற்றி
Call: Salute to the husband of Parvathi
Response: Hara Hara Mahadeva
Call: Hail to the Siva whose land is South India
Response: Hail to the Lord who belongs to every land
Call: Hail to Siva who dwells at Parayturai (another name for Trichy)
Response: Hail to Siva who dwells at Sirappalli (another name to Trichy)
BT Song 53
Another song after morning devotion when I meditated on the beautiful creation of God in nature.
53. காணக் கண் போதுமோ?
காணக் கண் போதுமோ ஐயனே
கருணையினால் நீ எமக்குப் படைத்தளித்த
இணையில்லா இயற்கையின் மாட்சியைக் காண–காணக் கண்…..
உயர்ந்த மலையின் உச்சியின் மீது
உலவி வருகின்ற அழகிய முகில்கள்
ஓடிவருகின்ற நதியின் அலைமீது
வருடி வருகின்ற குளிர்ந்த தென்றல்
பாடிச் செல்கின்ற பல இனப்பறவை
கோடிக்கணக்கான வண்ண மலர்கள்
இத்தனை அளித்தது போதாதென்று
உன்னையே நீயளிக்க வந்தனை அன்று
சத்திய வேதத்தின் சாட்சியும் உண்டு
சரித்திர நிகழ்ச்சியைக் கண்ணாரக் கண்டு
உன்னைப் பின்தொடர்ந்த சீடரும் உண்டு
உருகாத மனம் உண்டோ அன்பினைக் கண்டு–காணக் கண்…..
30-07-1993. கோண்டா (உ.பி).
53. Is the eye enough to see?
O Lord are the eyes enough to see
The un-parallel beauty of Nature
Which you created and presented to us by your grace?
The beautiful clouds which dwell
on the peaks of high mountains
The gentle breeze which comes
By touching the waves of the running river
Several birds which fly by singing
Millions of colorful flowers
Not satisfied by giving all these
You came to give yourself for us
There is the witness for this in Truthful (Mukti)Veda
On witnessing this historical incident
Several disciples followed you
Can there be a heart which won’t melt on seeing such a love?
30-07-1993. Gonda . U. P.
For me all the gifts by God in nature become meaningful when I understand His greatest self-giving dharma through His Son our Lord. Otherwise nature will remain another creation or part of evolution. Though the word ‘gift’ is used even for the Incarnation of the Lord, yet I never consider it as a gift but the ‘dharma’ on the part of God. As His child I belong to Him which He does not want to lose. That is why He came seeking after me. That is a ‘self-giving’ act on the part of God—which is His nature, svabhava, dharma for Him. That self-giving nature of God helps me to appreciate and enjoy His other gifts which glorify Him.
For me God reveals His nature, svabhava, dharma through His creation and action. God as Nirgun Brahman helps me to experience and enjoy His love by becoming a Saguna Ishwar both through His creation and action.
The following is part of the discussion in Song 30 about ‘sagun’ and ‘nirgun’ Brahman.
God’s attributes are expressed through His creation and action in history (Romans 1:20). If we agree that in a particular time in the past (in history) God created the universe, then does He existed before that or not? If so, what were His attributes? How were they revealed and realized by others?
As a Hindu, I am comfortable in my bhakti tradition and would like to have a Saguna God rather than Nirguna. But my belief even before I became a bhakta of the Lord was that we cannot know God (1 Tim. 6:16). As the Tamil saying goes: கண்டவர் விண்டதில்லை; விண்டவர் கண்டதில்லை—those who have seen God cannot express Him and those who express God never have seen Him. As J. I. Packer said, ‘your God is too small’. The general saying among bhaktas is that God is for bhaktas and bhaktas are not for God. To say in other words He is God only to us and not to Himself.
My next question is what does the word ‘God’ mean? Is it a generic term or a personal name? We use generic names like ‘Kadavul’ ‘iraivan’ in Tamil, in every language. But when we refer to Him (also by masculine) by any name then we limit Him to a particular tradition and also make Him a Person. Of course I myself said that God is not energy or concept but a Person. But for me God as a Person is because of my understanding Him through our Lord.
I don’t know who God is. But my search for a guru finally ended in Mukti Nath. So He became my Bhagavan. I cannot understand a God beyond Him. So God in His mercy or according to Dr. Hoffer, ‘Will’ limited Himself to help me to experience Him through our Lord. But who He is I don’t know and I cannot know. Who God is not my problem. But why I need Him is my concern. How I am going to find Him was my search. But Mukti Veda showed what made God to reach me or redeem me? Not content with the 99 sheep which are still with Him, He left them and searched for the one last sheep. As I belong to Him, He does not want to miss me. When I shared this thought, I said how mother becomes restless unless she finds that one missing spoon is not content with many other spoons which are with her. Till she finds it out, she won’t find peace and allow me to remain in peace.
So the redeeming act of God through our Lord shows His love and compassion. Apart from His action we cannot understand Him. And through His gift in nature we understand His glory. But He in Himself is what He IS. But for me He is not even Nirguna. Because the Saguna aspect of God serves the need of my bhakti and Nirguna serves my need for intellectual reasoning. And I strongly believe that there exists not even a Nirgun Brahman, as this ‘Nirgun’ itself is another Gun for Him or It or She. For me, ‘No taste is a taste’ ‘no form is also a form’. But who He is beyond both these categories. I like this following point very much:
…See Erigena’s ‘God does not know what He Himself is, because He is not any what; and this ignorance surpasses all knowledge’, and the significant title of the well-known anonymous work, A Book of Contemplation the Which is Called the Cloud of Unknowing in the Which a Soul Is One with God.—‘Manas’ 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. 415-423, notes, 7, p. 417.
Notes.
…Brahman is, but it would be limiting Its infinity to say that Brahman is this or that. To know It correctly one must first resort to negation, the “neti” (not this not that) method advocated by the Upanishads.—p. ‘God in Hinduism: Brahman, Paramaatman, Iisvara and Bhagavaan’ P.Fallon in Editors R.De Smet and J. Neuner ,Religious Hinduism, Fourth Revised Edition, 1997, p. 111
…Being the sole Cause of such a complex universe, it must be all-knowing and all-powerful, which indeed it is because “It is Reality-Knowledge infinite.” (Taittiriiya Up. 2.1.1). Knowledge is not a quality (guna) of this Reality but identical with it as the term ‘infinite’ demands. There are no gunas in Brahman, it is nirguna, the perfect Being to which nothing secondary (gauna) can belong. It has nothing because instead of having, it is whatever infinite perfection we are inclined to ascribe to it as a guna. Thus it transcends our limited words and concepts: “It is That wherefrom words turn back, together with the mind, not having attained it.” (ibid.2.4.9). Is it not then an abstraction? No, because it is Real in the most excellent way (paramaarthatah Sat). But it is not concrete! It is not concrete in the manner of a physical person characterised by limited attributes but it is more objective than any such person.—ibid., p.112
Should we apply the term “person” to the nirguna Brahman? Or should we think of it as “impersonal”? There is a linguistic difficulty here. As a philosophical term, “person” is of Christian coinage and signifies the most noble way of subsisting, namely, as characterized by intelligence and free-will and thus capable of initiating interpersonal relations. In this authentic sense, the nirguna Brahman is eminently personal. However, due to a weakening of its sense in the 19th century, “person” has often been reduced to “human or humanlike individual” and it is in this sense that it has been used by translators to render saguna. Hence, a great misunderstanding has arisen: Hindus think that the Christian “personal” God is only saguna, and the non-Hindus think that the nirguna Brahman is “impersonal”, whereas both traditions coincide in asserting the same divine Essence free of composition, “one only without a second” (ekam-evaadvitiiya).—p. 113
There are not two Brahmans: nirguna Brahman ‘is’ saguna, precisely when it is, in the same way that sabda-brahman is parabrahman, precisely when it is said. — Raimundo Panikkar, Unknown Christ of Hinduism, Bangalore, F.M. Pais for Asian Trading Corporation
BT Song 54
Several times our prayer becomes a ritual. The same kind of prayer with the repeated words makes our prayer a meaningless ritual. If we don’t pray, then some kind of guilty feeling comes. At the same time no satisfaction in routine prayer. Why not our thought itself could become a prayer? What is the need for mere words?
On 18-08-1993 at Gonda, after night 11.00 pm, when I began to pray, this thought came and wrote this song immediately:
பல சமயங்களில் நம் பிரார்த்தனை என்பது ஒருவிதமான சடங்காக போய்விடுகின்றது. ஒரே மாதிரியான வார்த்தைகள், முறைகள். பலமுறை நமது பிரார்த்தனை ஒரு கடமைக்காக செய்யும் அர்த்தமற்ற சடங்காக ஆகிவிடுகின்றது. பிரார்த்தனை செய்யாவிட்டாலோ, குற்ற உணர்வு. ஆனால் வழக்கமான பிரார்த்தனையில் மனநிறைவு அற்ற தன்மை! மனதின் எண்ணங்களே ஏன் பிரார்த்தனையாக இருக்கக்கூடாது? வெறும் வார்த்தைகள் எதற்கு? 18-08-1993 (கோண்டா?) அன்று இரவு 11-மணிக்கு படுக்கும்முன் வழக்கமாகப் பிரார்த்தனை செய்ய ஆரம்பித்த போது, உடனே இப்பாடலைப் பத்து நிமிடங்களுக்குள் ஒரு பிரார்த்தனையாக எழுதினேன்:
54. தஞ்சம்
உள்ளும் புறமும் எல்லாம் அறிந்த உனக்கு
உரைப்பதற்கென்று ஒன்று உண்டோ எனக்கு?
நன்றோ தீதோ இனி நானறியேன் நானிலத்தில்
ஒன்றறிவேன் அதுஉன் பாதமன்றி வேறு இல்லை
வெறும்வார்த்தைக் கூறி “ஜெபம்” என்ற பெயராலே
புலம்புவதால் என்னபயன் புனிதனே இனிமேலே?
என்னை அறிந்து கடையேனுக்கிறங்கி
கருணையினால் வந்து ஆட்கொள்வாய்
கதறிடும் என் ஆன்மாவில் குரலே ஜெபமாகும்
தோற்றேன் போராடத் தொடங்கிய நாள்முதலே
தோல்வியின்றி வெற்றியேதும் காணேன் வாழ்வினிலே
என்பெலன் நம்பி இறங்கியதால் யுத்தமதில்
இழந்தேனே என்னையதில் இனிசக்தி இல்லைஎன்னில்
நன்கறிந்த உனக்கினி நான்கூற ஒன்றுமில்லை
நாவும் எழவில்லை நான்புலம்ப உன்னிடத்தில்
ஐயனின் அருள்மூலம் வருகின்றேன் உன்னிடத்தில்
எனக்காய் உயிரளித்த என் நாதன் எனக்குண்டு
ஏற்றபடி பரிந்துரைக்க ஆவியின் அருளுண்டு
தந்தையென நீயுண்டு தாங்கிட உன்தயவுண்டு
“தஞ்சம், தஞ்சம்” எனத் தாள்பணிந்தேன் ஜெபமாக
54. Refuge
Is there any words remain for me to tell to you
As you know me both in and out?
I don’t know good or bad on this earth
I know one thing and that is only your feet alone
What is the use of lamenting O Holy one
After uttering mere words in the name of prayer?
Knowing me, through your mercy on this wretched one
Come and save me through your grace
The voice of my soul which laments is my prayer
I faced defeat since I began to struggle
I didn’t see victory except defeat in life
As I launched the war depending upon my own strength
I lost myself in it and I don’t have strength anymore
I have nothing to say to you as you know me well
My tongue is also not rising to lament unto you.
I come unto you through the grace of the Lord
I have the Lord who gave His life for me
I have the grace of the Spirit who will intercede for me
You are there as my Father and there is your mercy to uphold me
‘refuge, refuge’ by uttering this as my prayer I come unto your feet.
God comes and dwells permanently within us through the Holy Spirit is a unique concept only in Mukti Veda. Though in Hinduism too, the spirit of God could be there, yet the Holy Spirit not as a representative but the very God dwelling within us is in-parallel one. Though the Holy Spirit remains within us as a teacher, discipliner, guide, etc., yet for me He expresses my inner being by becoming my inner voice before God. This does not mean that He represents my inner being but now recognizing my position as a bhakta of the Lord, He expresses my inner being—in its every form and feelings (my success, failures, joy, sorrow etc.). I always treat the Holy Spirit as my best personal friend to whom I don’t need to explain about me. This I often feel in prayers more than any other time.
Those who claim that all religions are the same need to understand certain uniqueness in every faith. Though prayer is part of every faith, yet the intercessory prayer for others and the role of Holy Spirit in our prayers is unique one in Mukti Veda
BT Song 55
On 24-08-1993 when I was meditating the verses in Matthew *:19-22, I wrote this song.
24-08-1993 காலை, மத்தேயு 8:19-22 வாசகங்களை தியானித்தபோது எழுதிய பாடல்:
55. பின்செல்
தலைசாய்க்க இடமே இல்லை
தரணியில் இறை மைந்தனுக்கு
அனைத்தையும் படைத்த உனக்கு
அண்டிட இடமில்லை இங்கு!
உன்பின் செல்கின்ற எமக்கு
இதுவே நீ நியமித்த கணக்கு.
“எங்கே சென்றாலும் பின்னே
ஏகிடுவேன்” என்ற போதும்
“எஞ்சிய செயல் ஒன்று உண்டு
என்னை ஈந்திட்டவர்க்கு
ஈமக்கடன் செய்யும் வரை
என்னாலாகாது உன்பின் செல்ல”
என்றுரைத்து நின்றபோது
“இறந்தோரைச் சுமந்து செல்ல
எத்தனையோபேர் உண்டு உலகில்
மரித்தோரை மரித்தோர் எரிப்பர்
மாறாத மாந்தர் செயலைச்
செய்திட உனக்கில்லை நேரம்
செல்வாய் என்பின்னே நீயும்”
சொல்லிய இறைமகன் தானும்
சென்றானே தன்கடன் செய்ய
திகைத்தே நின்றிட்ட சீடன்
செய்திட்ட தீர்மானம் என்ன?
பதிலேதும் வேதத்தில் இல்லை
பரிகாரம் அவனிடம் இல்லை
பகிர்ந்திடக் காரணம் பலவே
பாங்காய் நம்மிடம் உண்டே!
ஏர்மீது கைவைத்த பின்னே
திரும்பிட நேரமே இல்லை
விரைவோமே அவன்பின் நாமும்
வெகுதூரம் செல்லும் முன்னே!
55. Follow Me
There is no place to take rest
For the Son of God
You don’t have a place of your own
Who created everything here?
This is the reality for us too
As we follow you
‘I too will follow you
Wherever you would go’
Though I say this
‘yet I have one obligation
Of doing the final rites to my parents.
So unless I complete it
I cannot come after you’
When I said this
‘There are many to carry the dead
On this world
The dead will burn the dead
But you don’t have time to do this
Unchanging routine of humans
Therefore come after me’
By saying this the Son of God
Too went on His way to do His duty
What was the decision of that disciple?
Who was stand still with such a response?
There is no answer for this in the Veda
And he too has no remedy for this
We too have many reasons
To give for our excuses
We don’t have time to turn back
Once we put our hand on the plough
Let us follow Him
Before He goes far way
In my seva for the Lord as a ‘Full Time’ Worker in the past (thank God now I come out from such a concept completely) I felt paralysed on several occasions caught between my responsibility towards my parents on one side and the demand of the Lord on the other. Though as a sannyasi I have best excuse or explanation to run away from my responsibility towards my parents, yet my conscience as a Hindu never permitted me—particularly towards my mother.
When demanded, a Hindu sannyasi too cannot deny his responsibilities towards his Mother. Technically a sannyasi should not visit his home once he took sannyasi deeksha. One of the reasons could be that his elders even his father and others has to touch his feet and bow before him. Whereas he has to touch the feet of his mother and bow to her. So sannyasi cannot severe his relationship with his mother till the end of her life. Sri Adi Sankara, went back to see his mother on her death bed and performed her funeral rite—in spite of the opposition from his community members. Pattinatthar promised his mother that during her death time he will come back and do the final rites. That is why he carried a sugar can always with him, as his mother questioned how he will come to know about it, he said that the time when the root side of the sugar can will taste bitter he will understand that his mother is on her death bed. Because the root side of the sugar can will be the sweetest part of it. Though I read many of his poems, these few lines I can never forgot as they still move my heart:
’ஈரல் ஒதுக்கி
இடங் கொடுத்த மாதாவுக்குக்
கூந்தல் ஒதுக்கிக்
கொள்ளி வைக்க வந்த மகன்!’
பழ. கருப்பையா. பட்டினத்தார் ஒரு பார்வை. கோயம்புத்தூர், விஜயா பதிப்பகம். 2009. P. 89
Pushing the liver to a side
The mother who gave a space in her womb for me
I came to light the funeral fire for her
By removing the hair—Pzha. Karuppaiya, Pattinatthar a view, Coimbatore, Vijaya Press, 2009, p. 89
அரிசியோ நானிடுவேன் ஆத்தாள் தனக்கு
வரிசையிட்டுப் பார்த்து மகிழாமல்-உருசியுள்ள
தேனே அமிர்தமே செல்வத் திரவியப்பூ
மானே எனவழைத்த வாய்க்கு–தாயாருக்கு தகனக்கிரியை செய்கையில் பாடியது,
Can I put the rice to my mother
In her mouth which called me
‘Sweet honey, nectar, my rich, flower’
Instead of giving gifts to her?
–Periya Jnanakkovai, compiled by Saravanamuthu Pillai, Chennai, Ratina Nayakar & Sons. Year not mentioned. song 5
அள்ளி யிடுவது அரிசியோ தாய்தலைமேற்
கொள்ளிதனை வைப்பெனொ கூசாமல்–மெள்ள
முகம்மேல் முகம்வைத்து முத்தாடி என்றன்
மகனே எனவழைத்த வாய்க்கு—ibid. 6
Am I going to take rice to put in her mouth
Which keeping with my mouth and giving kiss
And calling affectionately ‘my dear son’
Can I put fire on her head without any hesitation?
–Periya Jnanakkovai, compiled by Saravanamuthu Pillai, Chennai, Ratina Nayakar & Sons. Year not mentioned. song 5
’முன்னை இட்ட தீ முப்புரத்திலே
பின்னை இட்ட தீ தென்னிலங்கையில்
அன்னை இட்ட தீ அடிவயிற்றிலே
யானும் இட்ட தீ மூள்க மூள்கவே!’-பட்டினத்தார். 395, p. 90
பழ. கருப்பையா. பட்டினத்தார் ஒரு பார்வை. கோயம்புத்தூர், விஜயா பதிப்பகம். 2009, Song 395, p. 90
The fire which Siva put was at Tiripura
The later fire by Hanuman was at Srilanka
The fire which my mother put is in my stomach (because of her death)
Therefore let the fire which I put for her also glow up quickly
By removing the hair—Pzha. Karuppaiya, Pattinatthar a view, Coimbatore, Vijaya Press, 2009, song 395, p. 90
So when I read such verses in Mukti Veda, in those days I was tormented between my responsibility towards my parents and my commitment to the Lord. Even today with much hesitation and pain alone I took the decision to move to Mathigiri from the ashram. The one reason I told to Kannan was, ‘I don’t want to regret after she passed away that for my selfishness to live in such a calm atmosphere, I failed to fulfill her wish to go and stay at Mathigiri—which alone she thinks her ‘own’ house as I named it after my parents.
‘Let the dead bury the dead and you follow me’ has a different context than what we commonly think as if our Lord has no concern for the parents or denying our duty towards them—particularly doing the final rite. The context of the ‘dead bury the dead’ is that
In the first century, the body would normally be left to rot in the tomb’s antechamber for the first year; at the end of the year, the bones would be gathered into a box, which would slide into a slot on the wall. This practice probably related to the standard Jewish hope in the resurrection of the body at the end of the age…— Craig S. Keener , BBC NEW TESTMENT, Illinois, IVP, 1993, p.129 {technically keeping the bones in a box is called burying the dead—db}
And as that disciple want to buy a long time in the name of burying the bone of his parents (till the body get rotted), the Lord gave that response and not against doing final rites as such or to shun away from any of our responsibility towards our parents. (embalming the body and keeping in the antechamber could be the immediate final rite for a Jew and collecting the bone after a year could the first year ‘sraddha’ in our context). In fact He set the model for us by arranging His beloved disciple to take care of His mother ‘even’ from the cross.
So we should be careful to form any of our own ‘theology’ not knowing the historical context or by twisting the context and giving our own interpretation that will serve our purpose.
Any children that too from Hindu families refuse to do carryout their responsibilities to their parents in the name of their bhakti/faith are not doing full justice to their faith/bhakti. Except rare exception, our parents never refuse to run away from their responsibilities for us because of our bhakti in the Lord. There is no point of saying that our Lord demands exclusive obedience to Him at the cost of everything by quoting Mt. 10:37 or Lk.14:26, which our parents cannot understand or don’t know about such (imagined or interpreted) demand on us from the Lord. I imagine how any parent would respond if any of their ‘converted’ child quote these verses to them for not doing her/his part to them? Because, they never heard or read such demands in their faiths from their deities—expecting them not to fulfill their social dharma (obligation) in their name of bhakti. Though any ideal ethical works like Tirukkural promotes not to do anything that violates dharma1, the practical dharmasastras prescribe ‘abad-dharma’2 (emergency dharma) which allows violation of normal rule. This does not mean that when it suits us, we can take help from Hindu sastras for practical life as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord and for idealism we can quote from Muktiveda. Even to understand Mukti Vedic idealism, we should know the context than quoting them literarily and imposing our own idealism by our own exegesis.
I am not a theologian, yet ‘exegesis’ and ‘hermeneutics’ are two important technics for us to understand Muktiveda.3
As far as my understanding goes, ‘we cannot take Mukti Vedic verses’ literarily without understanding three main contexts: Textual, theological and historical.
First we have to understand that Mukti Nath is addressing not only His immediate disciples but to His own community which AS A WHOLE chosen by God to be His WITNESS for Him. So anything and everything in Purva Veda (OT) is not addressed to individuals but through the individuals to the whole NATION (TRIBE). That is why when one man sins the whole family and clan was punished (see Numbers Ch. 16). So we cannot take what is said to His whole tribe for an individual cannot be taken with the face value. And ‘loving’ anything more than the Lord means, for me ‘replacing Him from the centre of our lives’. Once I keep Him at the centre of my life, then approaching any issue from God’s point of view will help me to know His mind, will and purpose for His Kingdom. For this I have to take the whole Mukti Veda in its totality, though each verse given in a particular context is also important. This is known as technically ‘Mukti Veda should interpret Mukti Veda’.
I often say that ‘commands we have to obey; suggestions/recommendations we have to see the context and apply the principle to our situation and opinions can help us to know their situation but can be ignored.
Thankfully, knowing our limitation Lord has reduced the command to one verse: Love God; Love neighbour’.
Suggestions/recommendations are like: Greet each other with a holy kiss; it is better not to give your daughter in marriage etc.
Opinion is like: Slaves obey your masters more.
Now let us see the verse: Lk. 10: 4ff. For me ‘don’t greet anyone on the road’ is more interesting. Because I have seen many non-Indians even say ‘hai’ to the strangers on the road or wave their hand to anyone just see them accidently. Do we take it as ‘greetings’? And what actually ‘greeting’ in this verse means?
There are several such verses in Mukti Veda. We cannot take them literarily.
When we do our dharma as children we are not replacing our Lord. In fact our love for the Lord should motivate us to follow His instruction in Mt. 5:20.
27-6-14
Notes
1..ஈன்றாள் பசிகாண்பான் ஆயினும் செய்யற்கச்
சான்றோர் பழிக்கும் வினை–
பெற்ற தாயே பசியோடு இருப்பதைப் பார்த்தாலும், சான்றோர்கள் பழிக்கும் படியான செயலைச் செய்யவேண்டாம்.
Even if one sees the mother in hungry, don’t do such a thing which is condemned by the noble people.—quoted from memory
2..आपत्काले तु संप्राप्ते शौचाचारं न चिन्तयेत्॥
स्वयं समुध्दरेत् पश्चात् स्वस्थो धर्मं समाचरेत्
–The Paraasarasmrti 7th chap last three verses—P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastras, 5 vols. Vol. 1, part I, Fn. 499. P. 464
– When emergency comes don’t think about rules of good conducts; first take care of yourself. When things become normal, then think about conduct.—a free translation by me.
3..The following from Dr. Hoefer will help some of us to understand this clearly:
Hermeneutics is the study of exegesis, like homiletics is the study of preaching.
Hermeneutics/Exegesis addresses the question: “What did the text mean then, and what does it mean for us now?”
It involves a knowledge of the original language (grammar, vocabulary, etc.) , the context (cultural, political, social, etc.), and literature of the time. One also studies a particular passage in the context of the author’s other writings (e.g., how he uses a particular term) and in the context of the whole Bible. It also involves a study of how the passage was understood by scholars all through church history, especially by early church fathers. A common approach to exegesis of unclear passages is stated as “interpreting dark passages in the light of clear passages.” Thus, one studies how other clear passages in Scripture speak about that same topic, and let “Scripture interpret Scripture” (another common hermeneutical principle).
Hermeneutics is generally considered the most important, difficult, complex, and controversial theological discipline since the interpretation of Scripture is the foundation for all doctrine and practice in the church. It is the foundation for the art of preaching, applying the meaning of the text to our life today.
One interesting question is if non-believers can interpret the Bible properly and authoritatively.
God bless.
Herb
(I am thankful to Dr. Hoefer for giving this explanation to my question on exegesis and hermeneutics.—db)
An afterthought:
When I was thinking about ‘don’t greet anyone on the road’, then one social custom came to my mind. When I was in Madhubani (North Bihar), we often visited villages and stayed there. So when our acquaintances come to Madhubani they will visit us. Sometimes they will come and stay and during meal time, they will ask, ‘snaan kar dum’ (can I take bath?). Actually what they ask is not some permission to use our bath room to take bath (in fact there was no bath room and we used to take bath in open courtyard). What they actually convey is ‘can we take food’? It is the way expecting hospitality from us. Similarly when I was in Keshave’s village at Kekaraha (Rewa, M.P), I noticed one Brahmin sitting under the tree very near to the house. And when the time came for meal, Sankar, (Keshave’s brother) asked that man to join. After meal when he left after receiving due honour (of receiving betel leaves with supari = regular pan), I asked Sankar who he is. In response he said, ‘I don’t know’? ‘Then why you invited him for meal’? was my question. For this Sankar said, ‘this is the custom here. When we see any Brahmin during meal time come and sit near our house with due sign (applying sandal paste on the forehead and on the lab of the ear), he took bath and expecting food from us. He won’t ask but we have to invite him to join. We cannot ignore them. This is our dharma as a family man to serve food to strangers’. When we were at Trichy during my college days, one day a Brahmin came and asked ‘Bhavati biksham dehi (O Lady give me alms)’. Immediately my mother rushed to the door and requested the Brahmin to accept food in our house. He consented and went to Kaveri to take bath. When he came my mother washed his feet and sprinkled that water on our head and with much respect served food to him.
So this ‘don’t greet anyone’ also could relate the Jewish custom of receiving guests or the strangers expecting hospitality from others. This is proved from verse 10:5. This is only my guess and others can do some research and share about it with all of us.
2-7-14
Leave a Reply