The Balance Between Tradition and New Bhakti in Hinduism
[Yet to be properly edited]
In Hinduism, there has always been a unique approach to the relationship between faith, tradition, and scripture. When a Christian talks about their beliefs, they always refer to the Bible. Similarly, a Muslim will point to the Quran. However, when a Hindu converts to Christianity, they often place much greater emphasis on the Bible, sometimes abandoning their Hindu roots and scriptures in the process. This is an interesting contrast to the way Hinduism traditionally operates.
For a Hindu who remains committed to their tradition, such as myself, the approach to faith should not be solely based on any Scripture—Mukti Veda—but rather should reflect a broader understanding of what both my Hindu tradition and Muktiveda teach. Because having pluralistic inclusivism as its fundamental worldview, Hinduism accommodates all kinds of faith expressions, not expecting one to compromise on their basic doctrine, a Hindu bhakta of the Lord finds no reason to abandon her tradition, which not only shaped her life but also continues to contribute remarkably to her growth in bhakti in the Lord. However, balancing these two sources of wisdom is crucial in maintaining a stable and meaningful practice. Unlike a Christian, Muslim, or a convert to Christianity, a Hindu bhakta has to walk on a tightrope, balancing between the demands of the Scripture and her own Hindu worldview.
While Hinduism as a whole may not place significant emphasis on scriptures, the individual’s path is shaped by family, community, and social traditions. Many Hindus engage in rituals, whether at home, in temples, or through chanting mantras, without necessarily diving deeply into theological readings or sectarian scriptures. This contrasts with the expectations of those who follow the Lord Muktinath, where the Mukti Veda must be understood as foundational to both faith and practice. Without this proper understanding of Muktiveda, one cannot truly navigate the complexities of bhakti simply by following some ritual, as she used to grow in her life.
Yet, this does not mean a complete rejection of the customs and traditions one has inherited. As followers of Muktinath, we are not expected to dismiss our family or societal rituals simply because they are part of a different path. How to integrate these aspects, how to balance the old and the new, becomes a special kind of sadhana—a journey of personal growth aided by the fellowship of other bhaktas. This fellowship helps us learn from each other and navigate the complexities of faith.
One example that illustrates this balancing act is the practice of Shraddha—rituals for ancestors and parents. Many Hindus perform these rituals as part of their familial and social obligations, often invoking the names of deities they might not fully understand all the theological aspects of. So when we do such rituals like Shraddha as a mark of our respect to our parents and ancestors as well as our debt1 towards them, should we replace these deities with Muktinath, or should we continue the rituals as they are, honoring the ancestors’ beliefs? Personally, I believe it is better to use the rituals as they are, not because I believe in the deities invoked, but because performing these rites is a way to honor my commitment as a son and fulfill my familial obligations. The key point here is that, while I may not personally subscribe to the belief in certain deities, the ritual itself serves to fulfill a familial debt—something I owe to my ancestors as part of my dharma.
Of course, this is not an easy task. It can be quite challenging to balance personal beliefs with family traditions, and many questions may arise along the way. One must be deeply rooted in the foundational text of one’s faith to navigate this process effectively. At the same time, the approach to these decisions must take into account not just personal faith but also the cultural, social, and historical contexts in which one lives. It’s up to each individual to decide where to draw the line—when to preserve tradition and when to embrace new spiritual paths.
This, I believe, is the beauty of Hinduism. It is a civilization with a worldview that accommodates a vast range of faiths, worldviews, and scriptures. Rather than forcing each tradition to compromise for survival, Hinduism has allowed them to coexist, respecting the core doctrines of each without requiring complete alignment. The key is in the adjustments made in the peripheral areas, allowing for a harmonious coexistence without sacrificing the essence of individual beliefs.
When it comes to other faiths like the Abrahamic family of religions, this is not possible. There, apart from the social context of their faith, Scripture being the foundation of their faith, what it dictates and demands is much more important than what an individual follower thinks. However, it also should be accepted that most of the followers of those faiths, however much they claim to strictly follow only the guidance of their scripture, are also influenced by the social context that accommodates various other forms of religious and spiritual expressions [sadhana] that are not strictly provided or promoted by their own scripture. Anyone who has even some basic knowledge about these faiths could find how the followers of these faiths in different parts of the world integrated their own local old religious traditions, a bit refined or renamed, reframing them to best suit their new faith after their conversion. Not only this, even within their own scripture one can find how such gradual accommodation of various rituals which were not part of their own in the early time of their development were borrowed and accommodated in their tradition, later added to their scripture as part of their own precepts. Leviticus in the Bible is the best example of this. Circumcision,2 baptism,3 and even sacrifice for covenant,4 etc., found in the Bible, are borrowed from their surrounding religious culture when the Israelites moved among them. Their religion and scripture gradually evolved based on their interaction with people of other faiths rather than everything in their scripture being directly revealed by God.
Once the limits of the books included in the Bible were completed after canonization, though still they vary between Protestant and Catholic traditions, now it is easy for Christians to keep their Bible as the sole guidance to decide every part of their life. Though this is not strictly implemented, as we note in various Christian communities around the world. And the best case study would be the African Christian communities, still keeping several of their old religious practices as part of their newfound faith in Christianity.5 Even the veneration of various saints in Catholic tradition was added gradually. Interestingly, their prayer, ‘Ave Maria’ [Hail Mary],’ now without which their worship in the church or private devotion wouldn’t be complete.6 I need not mention their famous festival Christmas, with Santa Claus; Easter eggs, etc. If we make a list of all those things beginning from the Bible and all through Church history, the list will go longer than what one could find in their own Bible. This being the case, consider the evolution of ‘Christian rituals’ and ‘festivals’—not to mention the theological development and growth throughout Church history. There is an abundance of scholarly literature detailing how Christianity has consistently borrowed technical terms, theological frameworks, and practices to meet the demands of its growth and expansion across diverse regions. Not only that, but when the faith began to spread beyond Palestine, even key words and concepts like Messiah were set aside in favor of terms like The Lord (Kyrios), which resonated more with the Roman worldview. 7
The development of various creeds, for example, offers a fascinating narrative where politics and faith intersected in profound ways. A compelling resource on this topic is Philip Jenkins’ Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years (New York: Harper One, 2010). The very title of the book encapsulates the interplay of power, theology, and history that shaped Christian doctrine over centuries.
This being the reality with Abrahamic faiths keeping their respective scripture as the foundation to guide their followers, how much more does a Hindu bhakta of the Lord have to carefully negotiate, keeping Muktiveda as the foundation for his bhakti in the Lord while at the same time respecting her Hindu worldview as she still prefers to remain a Hindu rather than becoming a ‘convert’ to Christianity.
Part Two:
So my solution to this problem is: Retain all the religious rituals as per your family tradition, not changing anything in it to accommodate your bhakti in the Lord, particularly when it comes to participating in any family religious events as part of the family. But when it comes to your personal need, in case you are living as a nuclear family away from your natal home but still connected to them as a joint family, feel free to modify a few words in the slokas, mantras to best suit your bhakti/faith as well as your birthright to use them for your personal need as the bhakta of the Lord.
I can share from personal experience. When I conduct pujas or rituals for Hindus who request my assistance, I use the mantras and slokas as they traditionally recite them. However, when performing these for members of our mandali, I make slight modifications to certain words to align with our purposes. This approach has drawn criticism from some, including a Hindu convert who accused me of distorting traditions and creating a syncretistic faith that compromises our beliefs.8 After addressing his concerns with a proper explanation, I remain firm in my conviction and continue to encourage other Hindu followers of the Lord to adopt this practice.
I have often shared how I sing bhajans and songs by Hindu saints during my personal sadhana without altering the names of the deities they originally reference. For instance, every year on my mother’s death anniversary, I sing her favorite song by Manikkavasagar, “Petra Thaai Thannai Maha Marandalum”, retaining the name Namasivaya. I see no need to change the deity’s name in my private worship because I value the beauty and meaning of these songs. Even if I were to replace Siva with Muktinath, the essence of the song would remain unchanged.
At the same time, I am critical of attempts to blend incompatible religious references in public settings. For example, I objected when a Christian in a Synod Committee [In Church of South India, held at Palayamkottai] meeting prayed, ‘Jesus who is the Siva, the kind one, Allah the merciful one and Buddha the compassionate one…’9 While the intention may have been to reflect inclusivity, such substitutions can offend followers of other faiths. A Muslim, for instance, might find it blasphemous to equate Jesus—whom they regard as a Prophet—with Allah. I agree with their perspective and cannot support such practices, as they are neither consistent with the traditions in question nor sensitive to others’ religious sentiments.
This principle applies beyond prayers. For example, Hindus protested when certain Christian institutions displayed Hindu deities and symbols as art pieces in church windows. Their argument was clear: “If you want to respect our deities, place them on your altar alongside the Cross and worship them. Do not use them merely as objects of art.” Similarly, objections were raised in some Christian ashrams where the Cross was depicted inside the calligraphic symbol of Om. Critics argued, “Don’t crucify our Pranava on your Roman Cross.” Recognizing these sentiments, some sensitive ashrams later removed such symbols from their chapels.
One time, when one of our neighbors, who is a liberal Hindu, unable to find a proper priest for a small function to do a housewarming ceremony, requested me to come and help him, there I never changed even a single word and used the mantra as it is. But on another occasion, when another Hindu bhakta requested me to help him to honor his father by doing the time of an annual sraddha, I, discussing well in advance with him to his satisfaction, replaced only a few words, like ‘Narayana’ to ‘Muktinath’ and did that. One example suffices to illustrate this.
One of the Confession common mantras used in Hindu ritual is this:
Kaayena Vaacaa Manase[a-I]ndriyairvaa
Buddhy[i]-Aatmanaa Vaa Prakrteh Svabhaavaat |
Karomi Yad-Yat-Sakalam Parasmai
Naaraayannayeti Samarpayaami || (i)
Whatever I do with the Body, Speech, Mind or the Sense Organs,
Either by discrimination of the Intellect, or by the deeper feelings of the Heart, or by the existing Tendencies of the Mind,
I Do them All (i.e. Whatever work is to be done) without Ownership,
And I Surrender them at the feet of Sri Narayana. (i)10
But I, replacing Narayana with Muktinath, use the same mantra. Because if you see the meaning in Sanskrit, you can easily see how the same kind of confession is used in one’s own mother tongue during prayer time. Such confession is common among Christians in their own language during their prayer time. But as we use the traditional Sanskrit mantra having a similar thought, what is the need to replace it with our own mother tongue? Above all, as we traditionally use Sanskrit mantras and slokas for various rituals, as Latin was used in the church before, though now it is replaced by local languages like Tamil in Tamil Nadu, still as we prefer to use Sanskrit to keep connected with our tradition, I find no need to replace the Sanskrit mantra with our own mother tongue but feel free to replace only changing the name of Gods and freely use it for our need. This dual use of both vernacular and Sanskrit is not new, and the word ‘Ubhayavedanta’11 used in Srivaishnava tradition shows how both Tamil and Sanskrit played a crucial role not only in their ritual but also in theology. At the same time, I never impose Sanskrit on others who prefer to do everything in their own mother tongue.
When it comes to others, we never cheat them by replacing their deity’s name with Muktinath, as they cannot follow the Sanskrit mantra, that too while quickly chanted during a ritual. As we want to remain honest to each scripture and tradition, we never alter the original when we use it or participate in our family or other families’ rituals, but slightly alter for our personal use.
My critics might point out that what I am doing is nothing but ‘contextualization,’ which I oppose, whereas I do the same in the name of allowing the gospel to ‘Incarnate’ in every culture and tradition to transform it from within, not uprooting the several wonderful gifts of God that are already present in each tradition and culture, and are not opposed to the Kingdom’s values. Yes, one way it is correct, but with a slight difference. What I attempt in the name of the incarnational approach is not the same as contextualization. The reason is that when you draw the line for yourselves as an ‘Outsider’ or ‘Alongsider’ in the name of contextualization, you selectively use those areas that best serve your purpose while keeping your interest not to cross your Lakshman Rekha. To say it another way, you draw the line only to keep your comfort zone of thinking, ‘how far should we go,’ rather than thinking about your contacts, never considering ‘how far they should come out.’
Whereas, not allowing you to draw the line for us in the name of guarding your denominational doctrine, we draw the line in the name of the incarnational approach, not remaining as their ‘INSIDER,’ as if we are your agent, but as a son of the soil, a natural member of our own natal family, community, and society. What you do in the name of contextualization is not going to the extent with empathy to our struggle to remain as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, while giving up your security and identity as a Christian in your denominational church. On the other hand, what we do in the name of the incarnational approach is with the question, ‘how far do we have to come out,’ giving up our social security and identity to accommodate your comfort, whereas our Hinduism allows us to exercise our bhakti in the Lord without compromising our faith, but allowing us to keep our social, cultural, and even to some extent, religious identity as Hindus.
It is natural for some to fear the absorbing nature of Hinduism, which, if we fully embrace an incarnational approach, might one day blur the distinctions between a follower of the Lord and a traditional Hindu. This fear is valid to some extent, especially when viewed through the lens of Christian history. In its global expansion, Christianity often displaced native faiths entirely, leaving little to no trace of their existence.
In contrast, Hinduism, while absorbing diverse faith expressions into its civilization, has historically preserved them intact rather than erasing them. This inclusive characteristic has allowed various heterodox movements to survive in India while maintaining their unique identities. Even in the case of the śramaṇa traditions like Buddhism—which dominated Indian religious life for nearly a millennium—their decline is attributed to various factors, often debated based on differing perspectives. Yet, Buddhism continues to exist in India, and most of its scriptures and texts have been preserved.
Where texts or traditions did disappear, it was not typically due to deliberate destruction by orthodox Hindu sects. Rather, it was the result of other circumstances, including political shifts and social changes. Even in rare cases where fanatical groups aligned with kings to use religion for political purposes, many texts of heterodox traditions survived. Interestingly, these texts were often quoted by orthodox scholars in their rebuttals, helping to preserve them for posterity.
This stands in contrast to the history of Christianity, which at times destroyed not only competing religious traditions but also the secular contributions of various civilizations, as their forms of secularism were deemed incompatible with the church’s views.
As Hindu followers of the Lord, we need not fear Hinduism’s capacity to absorb other traditions, as it allows coexistence without compromising core doctrines. Ultimately, the distinction a follower of the Lord should demonstrate is not through outward symbols or rituals but through the transformation visible in their lives.
As long as we both understand what the Kingdom of God expects in each one of us—our vocation to remain in what N.T. Wright calls ‘God’s space’ within our family, community, society, nation, and world at large—our incarnational approach resonates easily with the teaching of Muktiveda.12
According to N. T. Wright, the Tabernacle in the Purva Veda was God’s space among humans where God and Men meet, later replaced by the Temple in Jerusalem. When the Jews failed in their call and vocation to implement through their vocation, after the destruction of the Temple, then in the Lord that God’s space was inaugurated by fulfilling the covenant promise of God through Messiah, breaking the barrier and making it for entire humanity, calling the Church, Community of Bhaktas, and individuals to carry that vocation beginning from the home at first. In this, the Lord, fulfilling the Covenant Promise of God, asks each and every bhakta of Him in every faith, nation, society, community, and family to have our own personal space, which allows us to celebrate our bhakti in the Lord without compromising with our fundamental faith but keeping other wonderful gifts of God in our culture and tradition.
And using our own slokas, mantras, songs, music, art, etc., are those wonderful gifts from God which we will again bring back in the New Heaven and New Earth when He will come back to dwell among us forever.
Hydrabad, 27-11-2024
Notes
- 1 Every Hindu is said to be born a debtor to the gods, to the rishis, to the fathers, and to men. He fulfills the first by sacrifices, the second by studying the Vedas, the third by having offspring, and the fourth by hospitality and kindness (Sat. Br., i, 7, 2, 1, 5).— The Teaching of the Vedas, Maurice Phillips, London Mission, Madras, Longmans, Green & Co., 1895, p. 228.
- It is worthy of note that the rite of circumcision was by no means limited to the immediate descendants of Abraham. It was also practiced by the Ishmaelites and the Edomites [cf. Jer. 9:25, 26]. It was also found among the Ammonites. All of these may well have acquired the practice from the line of Abraham, or, in the case of the Ammonites, from Lot. But the practice has also been found among the Egyptians, as is clear from the passage in Jeremiah and also from Ezekiel 31:18; 32:19, as well as from the records of secular historians. Besides, it has been evidenced by the discovery of some of the Egyptian mummies. It was also practiced among the Phoenicians and has even been discovered among various tribes in Africa, South America, and the Islands of the South Pacific. In these distant places, the practice certainly had no connection with the descendants of Abraham. Consequently, we cannot escape the conclusion that God did not establish the rite of circumcision as an entirely new practice, but rather He took over an existing practice and designated it as the sign of the covenant.— G. Ch. Aalders, Bible Student’s Commentary, Genesis, Originally Published in Dutch under the title Korte Verklaring Der Heilige Schrift. Translated by William Heynen, Zondervan Publishing House, 1981, Genesis 17:9-14, p. 308.
- For in the first century, water initiation rites were used to induct people into a number of different groups. Among these were Judaism (for proselytes), the Greek mystery religions, and the church. The function and purpose of baptism were well known to those outside as well as to those inside these groups. Perceptions of baptism, influenced by understandings of historical conflict over the mode, the theological teaching concerning the practice, and the attitude of the participants toward the church organization and personnel, etc., can also result in significant differences between how the form is seen today and how it was seen in the early church. Such factors greatly influence the meanings attached to a given cultural form.— Charles H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective, New York, Orbis Books, (1979) 16th Printing 2000, p. 68.
cutting a calf in two. The ritual of severing an animal body as part of a covenant-making ceremony is found only here and in Genesis 15:9-10 (see the comment on this passage). Ancient Near Eastern parallels from the Old Babylonian Mari letters and the eight-century Aramaic text of the Sefire Treaty between Abban and Yarimlim both describe cutting an animal in two. The symbolic aspect of this type of sacrifice is to provide a graphic picture of what would happen to the covenant-breaker. When the landowners of Judah took back their debt slaves after the Egyptian invasion had temporarily lifted the siege of Jerusalem, they broke their solemn oath to Yahweh and laid themselves open to horrendous punishment.— — John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, JEREMIAH, 34:18., p.668
5 The conditions of Africa, for instance, are taking Christian theology into new areas of life, where Western theology has no answers because it has no questions. But Christians outside Africa will need to make some response to the questions raised in the African arena. As Christian interaction proceeds with Indian culture—perhaps the most testing environment that the Christian faith has yet encountered—the theological process may reach not only new areas of discourse but resume some of those which earlier pioneers—Origen, for instance—began to enter.— Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, New York, Orbis Books, [1996], Tenth Printing 2005, p. 146. See Appendix for another illustration from Africa.
6 One can find all the information about this Catholic practice in Internet.:
- Vatican Official Website
https://www.vatican.va
The official site of the Vatican offers resources on Catholic teachings, including prayers and rituals. - Catholic Online
https://www.catholic.org
This site provides articles on various Catholic practices, prayers, and saints. - The Catholic Encyclopedia
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen
A comprehensive online resource for Catholic doctrines, practices, and history.
7 See more on this Walls, op. cit. p. 17, 33-35.
8. See: Obstacle to God: Part One and Two
9 I still have the copy of that pamphlet and the letter sent by one Christian from Nagarcoil seeking my view on such prayer in the church.
10 कायेन वाचा मनसेन्द्रियैर्वा ।
बुद्ध्यात्मना वा प्रकृतिस्वभावात् ।
करोमि यद्यत्सकलं परस्मै ।
नारायणयेति समर्पयामि ॥ (i)
कायेन वाचा मनसेन्द्रियैर्वा
बुद्ध्यात्मना वानुसृतस्वभावात् ।
करोति यद्यत्सकलं परस्मै
नारायणयेति समर्पयेत्तत् ॥ (ii)
Kaayena Vaacaa Manase[a-I]ndriyairvaa
Buddhy[i]-Aatmanaa Vaa Prakrteh Svabhaavaat |
Karomi Yad-Yat-Sakalam Parasmai
Naaraayannayeti Samarpayaami || (i)
Kaayena Vaacaa Manase[a-I]ndriyairvaa
Buddhy[i]-Aatmanaa Va-Anusrta-Svabhaavaat |
Karoti Yad-Yat-Sakalam Parasmai
Naaraayannayeti Samarpayet-Tat || (ii)
Meaning:
Whatever is done with the Body, Speech, Mind or the Sense Organs,
Either by discrimination of the Intellect, or by the deeper feelings of the Heart, or by the existing Tendencies of the Mind,
The devotee does them All (i.e. Whatever work is done) without Ownership,
And Surrenders them at the feet of Sri Narayana. (ii)
11 Visistadvaita is also called Ubhayavedanta since it refers to both (ubhaya) Vedanta doctrine written in Sanskrit and the mystical experience recorded in the Alvars songs in Tamil as its sources. ….— History of Vaisnava Traditions: An Esquisse, Gerard Colas , in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Gavin Flood (ed.), UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Indian Reprint 2003, p.247. Also note: In Srivaisnava temple processions, the position of the Vedas and the hymns of the Alvars is the reverse of the Saiva case; here the singers of the hymns walk before the image of the deity, while the Veda reciters follow after. Srivaisnavas see this as a symbolic representation of the ubhayavedanta (“two Vedas”) doctrine….— Indira Viswanathan Peterson, Poems to Siva. Hymns of the Tamil Saints, Delhni, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (Reprint:2007), First Indian Edition: Delhi, 1991, notes 30, p.58
12 https://youtu.be/8sX1uAbOqkU?si=C2sbvSQF0fvq_l5i
Appendix
During a personal meeting, Dr. Schmidt shared an intriguing story about an American missionary’s experience in Africa. When the missionary returned after a break to the community he had served and where many had converted to Christianity, he was surprised to see small toy-sized huts in front of most Christian homes. These huts contained favorite dishes of the household’s departed ancestors. Shocked, the missionary questioned this practice, dismissing it as “pagan nonsense” incompatible with their new Christian faith.
In response, the church and village elder said, “How do you celebrate All Saints’ Day in your home country? Don’t you clean and whitewash the tombs of your parents and ancestors, bringing large flower bouquets to place on them? Do you think they rise from the grave to smell the fragrance or admire the beauty of those flowers? This is what we do in our own way, following the customs of our culture and tradition. We cannot abandon these practices simply because we have become Christians.”
This perspective underscores the continuity of cultural practices even after conversion, a phenomenon observed elsewhere as well. For instance, in some South Asian countries, families keep the embalmed bodies of their deceased relatives in coffins within their homes. Once a year, they take the bodies out, dress them in new clothes, and commemorate the birth or death anniversary of the deceased. I once watched a program where family members stood beside the body of a relative, dressed in fresh clothes and holding his favorite lit cigarette, to take a commemorative photo with him.
Leave a Reply