Dialogue with Hindus to be edited Part Four

Sent to Sukanya

Dear Sukanya,

Shanti!

Thanks for sending your mail and asking so many questions.  Before answering your questions I would like to share a bit about me so that you can have some kind of understanding about my responses. 

First of all the language.  I am a Tamilian and never studied in English medium school.  So if you find my English is not communicating or answering your question properly, you have to ask it again. 

I am a Hindu and a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, whom the Christians and others call Him ‘Jesus’.  It will take several pages for me to give the reason for calling Him as ‘Muktinath’ and not Jesus.  But to give some basic understanding I have to explain them a bit.  First Jesus is an Anglisized term for His name first in Hebrew as Jashua and then in Greek Yehesu (or something like that).  But His name Jesus means ‘one who saves’.  So I prefer to call Him using Indian term and I translated that meaning in Sanskrit/Hindi and use ‘Muktinath’ or ‘Mukteswar’ or ‘Taraneshwar’ etc.  In the same way I call Bible as Muktiveda etc.  So in my responses you should keep these terms in understanding them.

In giving my response to your question, I should be bit careful, as you are an IIT student, who will approach the answers more analytically.  This in fact is good for me, as I can give, some time more an academic answer than merely sharing some sentiments in the name of bhakti/faith etc.

Finally, thanks for asking such deep and wonderful questions.  This helped me to think about my own faith/bhakti in God and Satguru Muktinath.  So in my responses, I will share more of my conviction based on faith/bhakti, which several time looks more unreasonable.  However I have my own doubt about the ‘rationality of the very reason itself’, which often stands on shaky ground.

Now turning to your questions, which I have divided as follows and I will give my answer to each one separately, though there will be some overlapping and repetition.  As you are busy with your examinations and studies, I would like to post my responses one by one so that when you have some time, you can read and take time to reflect and ask further questions or clarification.

1. if we look at both their statements, it brings out the fact that the way to know more about God is just one and exclusive. If one is to be believed, the other stands wrong. I want to know which one is closer to the Truth?—Sukanya

DB response:  Exclusivism is trade mark of every religious faith.  And when we read any such exclusive claims as the only ‘way, truth life’, then we should try to understand them in the context in which they are said or quoted.  There is no point of doing any comparative theology among such claims.  All look true and relevant considering their context.  Above all, the followers of the respective faith/God take these claims literarily and believe it.  So I would like to take those sayings of both Lord Krishna and Bhagavan Muktinath in their context to clarify your doubt.

First to Gita.  Here also we have to separate 14:4 & 10:39 from 18:66.  Because what Krishna says in 10:39 & 14:4 is in the context of explaining the relation between ‘prakriti’ and Purusha’.  The entire Gita should be understood only in the context of Sankhya school of thought, which was elaborated in Mahabharata (Mbh.) to which Gita is a part.  However several acharyas have interpreted Gita to prove their particular philosophical/theological view.  Here the context is that in creation God is not only the efficient cause but also material cause.  For example, Krishna says in 14:4 clearly that ‘prakriti’ is the mother and he is the seed giving father.  And the context is not exclusivism or faith but explaining the creation.  And one should be careful to super impose one’s faith/bhakti/theology on such verses and began to compare with other such claims within Hinduism or outside Hinduism.

Next is 18:66 which is called ‘charama sloka’.  As the entire context of the Gita is to urge Arjuna to do his dharma based on Varnashramadharma (varna + ashrama+ dharma) concept, here, exhorting Arjuna after giving a long discourses and answering several of his questions, finally Krishna says, ‘if you have still any confusion and doubt regarding about your dharma as a Kshatriya’, then even surrender that dharma (duty) to me.  As your preceptor and friend I will take the responsibility (already he took by saying that Arjuna is only a ‘nimit’ as all those soldiers were already killed by Him) and therefore surrendering all your dharma carry on your duty.  Here also the context is not any exclusivism in faith.  It is important to note that however Krishna asks Arjuna to surrender even his dharma and take refuge in him, yet three verses before it in 18:63 he urges him to ‘thinking properly all the teaching that so far he parted with him and do whatever he likes’.

Having said this, I have to accept the fact that all won’t accept my interpretation and explanation of these verses.  Because from the beginning several achryas have interpreted Gita to fix for their particular school of thought like Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Davita etc. However as a student of scripture, I personally feel that keeping our personal faith and conviction, we have to approach the text in its immediate and total context.  Otherwise we will end up in doing ‘text torturing’. 

Now coming to the claim of Muktinath 14:6 of ‘I am the way, truth and life’ etc.  Here I am going to share a part of my long response to a question asked by a Christian.  Some of my answers to his question may go beyond the context of your question.  However I believe that those extra materials might help you to clear some of your doubts in over all context of all your questions that you have asked in your mail.  Now the question asked by that Christian to me is:

On the basis of ‘pluralistic inclusivism’ in Hinduism, is Lord Muktinath superior to Lord Krishna in Bhagavad Gita? This is the core issue.—

But even to understand the context of this questions itself, I have to share some of my response to the previous question asked by the same person.  But I am removing several points from my response to him, as it will confuse you at this stage than helping you to clear your doubts.  Sorry for such long responses from your short questions.   Because as an IIT student I hope you will agree with me that in order to make our response very clear, we have to use many words than giving ‘yes’ and ‘no’ kind of short answers.  Here it is.  But I am sending only a small part of my response to the above question.  Because, at this stage I am not sure whether I can send all my response to this question to you.  However it will help you to understand both the above question and my answer in the total context.  Let me to know whether you are ready for it.  In order to mark the difference of my direct response to your question from quoting from other sources I have changed the color to help me in future, in case I need to refer them back.

This is the my response to the above question:

At the same time we should not get confused with all the exclusive claims of Muktinath as the only ‘Way, Truth and Life’ etc. in Muktiveda in any context of comparative theology.  For example, Acts 4:12 is quoted as proof of the unique claim about salvation only through Muktinath.  Now the question that comes to my mind is this, “Is the verse addressed to the Gentiles in particular, or both to the Gentiles and the believers, or only the believers, or–as per the context–is it addressed to those who are opposing the preaching about the Lord?” As I strongly believe in scriptural exegesis, this verse, if interpreted correctly according to the context should never be used for our exclusive claims. About this, A.T. Robinson says, ‘The word for “saved” here (and hence “salvation”) is exactly the same as that rendered three verses earlier in Acts 4:9 by “cured”. The context is not one of comparative religion but of faith-healing.  The issue is “by which power” the cripple is made “completely well” (3.16).  Is it by some innate power or godliness of the apostles (3.12), or is it by “the name of Jesus, awakening faith”’ (3.16)?²  The same is the case with John 10:8, which again, according to Robinson, ‘ has nothing to do with comparative religion’.³   The following explanation offered by Robinson on John 14:6 will further highlight this point:

Much the same must be said of another Johannine text, which is frequently put to exclusivist use: ‘Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life: no one comes to the Father but by me”’ (14.6).  The context here is Thomas’s question about how the disciples can know where Jesus is going, and therefore, how they can know the way.  The answer is that he is going to the Father, and since they know him, they have no need to ask further.  With Philip, ‘Show us the Father’: to have seen Jesus is to have seen the Father (14.1-11).  The point the evangelist is making, to use an earlier distinction, is that Jesus as the Christ is totus Deus: the Father is perfectly reflected in him, he is God ‘all through’.  There is no suggestion in the context that he is claiming to be totum Dei, that outside him there is no truth or life to be found.  The assurance is that in him truth and life are to be found; therefore, there is no cause for anxious fears.⁴

So we should keep all these important facts when we try to make any comparative theology with Hindu deities and scriptures.  Unlike the Greco-Roman World, the religious context of India (Hinduism) is different one (though one could find several similarities).  We find so many features of God that we found in Muktiveda in many Hindu scriptures like—God as a person, love of God, assurance of salvation, forgiveness of sin etc. At the same time one advantage in Hinduism is the pluralistic inclusivism giving space for ‘exclusive’ faith in one particular deity. This doesn’t mean that we need to revile other deities or condemn their faiths.  Sectarian rivalry and condemnation of faiths among Hindu sects is known to exist.  But this happens not only in the context of theology but also claiming supremacy based on hierarchy of one deity over the other.  Whereas we never found such competition or hierarchy in Muktiveda.  One God, one Faith, one form of Salvation is the uniqueness of Muktiveda.

Notes:

2. John A.T. Robinson, TRUTH IS TWO EYED , SCM Press Ltd., p. 105

3. ibid. p.106.

4. ibid. p. 107.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, March 11, 2011.

It also then brings up the question in me that why do I need to come to Christ?—Sukanya.

–You cannot come to Muktinath, but He has to come to you.  This is fact with God.  No one can find God but She has to reveal Herself to us.  Any God whom we try to comprehend through our reason, emotion, sentiment, faith, bhakti, tradition, theology etc. will be of our own God.  That is why J. I. Packer said (in his book ‘Knowing God’) that ‘your God is too small’.  The very concept of avatara also clearly says the same fact, as the word itself means ‘coming down’.  Here I have to share again my personal experience which could speak more clearly than any of my intellectual explanation.  Before that I would like to share one thing.   While millions of people are in the world and in India, and several hundred and thousands are in your city and many hundreds are in your campous, why you alone show some interest to discuss even about Muktinath?  This is the first beginning to allow God to reach us through Sadguru Muktinath.  Here is my story how that Guru found me in the Person of Bhagavan Muktinath:

My search for a guru finally ended in Bhagavan Muktinathan  who was called as ‘Yehoshua’ in Hebrew, ‘Iasus’ in Greek, ‘Jesus’ in English, ‘Yesu’ in Tamil, ‘Jesu’ in Bengal, ‘Isa’ in Hindi; so I call him ‘Muktinathan’ as his name means one who gives salvation.  As a Tamil Brahmin boy I was searching for an answer to a simple question related with moral issues: Why can I not live a perfect life, even for a single day, up to my expectations? In those early days, without much maturity and with several limitations, I searched for the answer in my family tradition of doing pujas, rituals (like Sandyavandanam, etc.), reading and memorizing scriptures (like Abirami andadi, Sowdarya lahari, Sivapuranam to name only few) and mantras (like Gayatri and a few other mantras related to gods).  I attended satsangh (called ‘katha kalakshebam’ in Tamil), read Tamil scriptures (Sivapuram, Devaram and several sectarian scriptures).  Yet I could not find an answer to convince my simple rational mind. I also observed grownup people’s lives and asked them questions; but the answers which they gave were to justify all moral lapses by blaming the yuga (this is Kali) or Karma or even God (as Goswami Tulsidas rightly said: ‘kalahi, karmahi ishwar par mitya doshu lagayee=they falsely accuse Time [here Kali yuga], karma or even god]).  Sometimes I was encouraged to do more rituals, chant more mantras, visit more temples and observe other vows. (I was not taught in a systematic way as I present these thoughts now).

I never searched through hair splitting, mind twisting philosophical ideas. Because, being brought up in the advaitic tradition, I had often heard such philosophies which never relate to reality in life. I did come to realize (as taught by own tradition) that without a guru I would not find the right answer to such questions. So I began to search for that guru by various means.  It would take me several pages to write about all the gurus I investigated. Finally, through one of my friends (who along with his parents had recently become a ‘Christian,’ though he never told me about this) I met few Tamil missionaries who were working among the tribes in Periyamalai (the same area where later Veerappan become very active). Though these missionaries shared with me their traditional gospel message (speaking against idol worship, etc.), they also could not give answers to my questions.  But their life greatly challenged me. So when I left them after a three day visit they gave me a New Testament and asked me to read it with a sincere heart and prayerful mind. 

When I had been in high school I used to go to church and Sunday school with a Christian friend. I won most of the prizes in the Sunday school.  But after three years one of my friend’s comments made me not only stop going to the church but also created an aversion in me. He said, ‘All the gods which you are worshiping are fallen angels, but Jesus is the only True God’.  I thought, ‘If my gods are fallen angels (or ‘devil’ in their terms) and only your god is true, then I don’t want it’.

So when I later met these missionaries and received the New Testament, I began to read it with reservation. However, I said ‘I have tried several things to find my guru, so let me try this also. If I find my answer and guru in Jesus, then I am going to gain.  If not, then I am not going to lose anything, but at least will gain some knowledge about the Bible’.  To make the story short, finally I found my guru in Muktinathan through the verses in Romans 7:15-24.  But I did put one condition to him, that even though he gave the answer to my question and  I would indeed follow his path as he had become my guru, yet in the future if he ever disappointed me I would give him up.  But for the last 28 years he has never disappointed me, and I trust that he will continue to be my guru till the end of my earthly journey. 

As I found my guru in Him, he also became my god as I cannot understand a god beyond my guru. Though initially I, too, became a Christian, yet soon I realized that I need not give up my birthright as a Hindu by leaving my birth community and joining another sociological community called Christianity in India in order to follow my guru and worship him as my god.  Both theMuktiveda ( Bible)  and my Hindu tradition gave me all the freedom to be a Hindu (in every sense) and be a bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath without compromising my convictions.  Of course, this is not acceptable both to some Christians and some Hindus.  But thankfully as my guru accepted me as a Hindu as his bhakta, though I still struggle a lot with that identity (because of misunderstanding by both communities), yet he helps me to live a meaningful life as his bhakta.

The answer that I found for most of my moral struggles was related to relationship issues. The Muktiveda sets both forgiveness and reconciliation as preconditions to follow and worship my guru bhagavan.  Though Hinduism in several ways insists on both these, yet one can also keep his religious life (through all kinds of rituals) and spirituality (through various philosophies) without fulfilling those two conditions.  Here I found my answer to the question of why I cannot live a perfect life even for one day.  As god forgave me and reconciled my guru with me, if I too do this in every walk of life, I can also become perfect but this is a continuous process in life.  This may look like a philosophy, but those alone who receive that forgiveness from god and are reconciled to him can understand the simple spiritual ethics that finds solutions to all moral problems. For this one need not give up his birth right of his/her community identity or need join another community or go to any church, but can live as a bhakta of bhagavan Muktinathan without compromising his/her faith (sadhana dharma) and social identity (samajic dharma).  As I am not alone and as there are several such bhaktas in various Hindu (caste) communities we celebrate our bhakti in him through our life.  We welcome other who wishes to join us without became a ‘convert’ to join the caste based Christian communities or denominational churches.

Finally, however one tries she cannot find that guru who alone can remove the ‘darkness from us’ and ‘lead us from unthruth to truth’ and ‘from death to Mukti’.  But with sincere heart and prayerful mind when one seeks that guru S/he will come to her and then it is left to that individual to accept or reject that guru as God immensely respects individual freedom and choice.  So if one knocks the door will be opened; seeks will find and asks will get.  So unless we do our part God cannot even do Her/His part.  But any desire in any individual to seek, knock and ask is the symptom to find that Guru.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, March 14, 2011.

Dear Sukanya

Shanti!

Thanks for your mail of April 12, 2011.  As usual, I separated your questions as following for me to give my response one by one.

Creation and God are the two tracts on which the (Indian) philosophy/theology runs all through the history.  The main contention of the issue is the relationship between the two.  So some of the fundamental questions that are asked (or discussed/debated) from a lay man point of view are: Who created, why created, when created, for what purpose created etc.  And in this process various schools of thought put forth their (particular) point of view, in which, while presenting their view, they have not only oppose their opponents but also to prove why and how others are wrong and they are right.  Now, the issue is not settled finally, because we the student of philosophy/theology, while try to understand their point of view cannot go beyond what they failed to achieve as a final settlement on this issue.  The contention is not only between two rivalry (inter)schools but also within the same (intra)school, in which the later followers have to agree or disagree with their own in puts.  In this process, the explanation that they gave to disagree with their mentors complicated the issue more than their new insights with their agreement with the settle view (so called as ‘orthodoxy’ of that school).  This is a common problem to all philosophy/theology.  So all the commentaries (bashyas) and sub-commentaries (tikas) further added the burden of a lay student than help her to understand in simple terms about all the issues related with Creation and its (her?) relationship with God.¹

               Considering the complexity of creation, the best way to begin is to ask the vexed question of: Why and for What purpose God created all things.  About this Dr. Radhakrishnana says:

If we raise the question as to how the finite rises from out of the bosom of the infinite, Samkara says that it is an incomprehensible mystery, maya.  We know that there is the absolute reality, we know that there is the empirical world, we know that the empirical world rests on the Absolute, but the how of it is beyond our knowledge.  The hypothesis of (p.49) creation is a weak one, and it assumes that God lived alone for some time and then suddenly it occurred to Him to have company, when He put forth the world….²

So, if creation is an ‘incomprehensible mystery’ to a philosopher like Radhakrishnan, we have to continue with the same mystery to understand further points.  However the general view in Hinduism (including most of the Vedantic schools) is that the creation took as a divine play (lila).  And apart from the lila of God, creation also took place to provide an opportunities for the atman to attain mukti through ‘pravarti marga’ (natural {or progressive} way), opposite to ‘nivriti marga’ (which is by renunciation the atman attains mukti and need not go through these cycles.).  And as all souls cannot attain the mukti in once chance, the creation is going on eternally providing the atman to improve its chance through various means.  At the same time God alone cannot have the final say even providing these opportunities to the atmans but She too has to work along with the ‘karma’ of the atmans.³  

But if we began to understand the relationship of ‘karma’–‘atman’—‘God’, then we will be eternally trapped on this point alone not knowing where we began and where we ended.  Everything is cyclical.⁴  So one can begin from any point in that round and run and stop anywhere.  Though it won’t settle the issue once for all, yet one can have the satisfaction to realize that she completed one round at least and get ready to go for another one. Once we bean the race by picking up the question of ‘why’ of the creation, now we can turn to other issues related with Creation to complete this round—but without any assurance of finding the final answer. This does not mean that we cannot find the answer, but we don’t want to find the answer.  Otherwise all the ‘maja’ will end. So let us begin with your question

 what is efficient cause and material cause properly.–SS

The first and foremost term in defining the relationship between Creation and God is ‘karana’ which is translated as ‘cause’ in English.  Though we can begin with the two fundamental concept of ‘efficient’ and ‘material’ causes, the further (sub)divisions needs to be understand the picture in its totality—which is not going to be an easy job (for a lay student of Hinduism).⁵  There are three kinds of causes ‘material’ ‘efficient’ and ‘intelligent’ cause.  But it was translated differently by different scholars. ⁶  And as per my understanding, ‘efficient’ cause means that God using nature (prakriti) as the material, created everything.  Whereas material cause means, She herself become part of that creation.  The general view is that creation is ‘procreation’ as God/Brahmamn/ Prajapati put his seed in the womb of Prakriti (nature), about which Gita also talks, which you have mentioned in your previous mail. The efficient cause also could mean that God is the ‘intelligent cause.  As Prakriti is insentient, He (sorry here I cannot use ‘She’ for God) initiated the process of creation by putting his seed in her.⁷

Now coming to the question of how creation came in to existence, again there two fundamental thoughts known as ‘vivarta vada’ (appearance) ⁸ and ‘parinama vada’ (evolution). ⁹  Apart from this there was another school of thought known as ‘arambhavada’. ¹⁰.  However even among these (traditionally accepted five) vedantic schools there are agreements and disagreements which scholars alone can handle it clearly.¹¹  For our common understanding, the world is real and depend upon God.  Though Sankara never treats the world as illusion, yet according to him it is ‘transitory’ or ‘not-permanent’.

            Having shared all these views, my personal view is that I don’t care about all these hair splitting minute issues on creation.  For me the Word is real and I am here both to enjoy and to take care of it.  At least I like one concept of Muktiveda: God created everything and saw that it is good.  So removing the pessimistic view about the creation, I can enjoy it knowing the equal responsibility entrusted by the same God (according to Muktiveda) to take care of it.

the Christian concept of creation make God the efficient cause or it also makes Him the material cause, like in Hinduism?–SS

–I think in Muktiveda, God is only the efficient cause and not material cause.  However, if my understanding is correct, She even created everything out of nothing.  So She never used the already existing material to create things, but created every thing out of nothing.  About this Aalders says:

Gen. 1:1–…What are we now to understand by “creation”?  In the Old Testament the verb is used exclusively regarding God and His activity.  It is never ascribed to a human person.  The word is used not only to designate the activity of God which brings the world into being, but also to describe His might works in upholding or renewing the world (p.51)…It should be noted that, as a rule, it is used with activities or events that are new or unusual.  Furthermore, it is never combined with the fourth case of any material as is done with verbs such as “make,” “form,” and “manufacture.”  This would indicate that “creating” actually is more definitely an act of God.  It is God giving existence to something that did not previously exist so that it is not formed from materials already at hand.

This concept of the word “create” is confirmed by the interesting circumstance that the act of creating is ascribed to the Word of God [Pss.148:5; 33:9; Isa.48:13; and in the New Testament, Rom.4:17 and Heb. 11:3]…. ¹²

Also, once we establish the concept of creation in Hinduism
(i.e. God is the material cause + the efficient cause) and the concept
of creation in Judeo-christian view and then compare it; we find
differences, such as the fact that in the judeo christian view, God is
separate from creation and in Hinduism, creation emanates from God,
that is to say, everything is a part of God. How do we know which is
correct/to be believed?–SS

There is no way to reconcile the doctrine of creation between Hinduism and Judeo-Christian view.  Because, in some schools of thought in Hinduism (like Vishishtadvaita), where though creation emanates from God, as She (here Vishnu) already kept everything in his womb after dissolution, he only emits it back and not create out of nothing. ¹³   And school like Advaita, in which God could be said only as the efficient cause (as the creation is come under the realm of ‘maya’, it is Ishvara has some relationship with creation and not the eternal Brahman),¹⁴ yet as Hinduism believes in the cyclic nature of creation—preservation and dissolution (srishti; stithi and pralaya) ¹⁵, this creation is done by bringing forth the nature from its seed form and not created out of nothing.  So both Brahman and Prakriti (nature) is eternal.  Where as according to Muktiveda, God is eternal but She created the cosmos out of nothing.

what Lord Krishna is saying seems inconsistent, as He is asking Arjun to follow his dharma and also at the same time He is telling him he can do whatever he wants.–SS

Krishna is not inconsistent.  He respects the human free will and gives that space for Arjuna to think before taking any final decision.  If we follow the exegesis correctly, though Krishna gives that freedom in 18:63, finally in 18:66, he clearly points to the total surrender without any reservation.  I think the freedom that Arjuna granted was to think what all Krishna taught in the previous chapters to take the final step of total surrender.  So Krishna gives the freedom to think before deciding.

You said that in the context, there is no suggestion that he is claiming to be totum Dei, that outside Him there is no truth or life to be found. Do you believe this to be true? Does it imply that there other ways also to find God? I ask this as it is a common belief among the Christians that the way to God is only one which can be achieved by believing only in Jesus.–SS

To be honest I don’t know what these words ‘totum Dei’ etc. means.  I just quoted from A. T. Robinson.  My personal faith is that God cannot be limited by anything.  There are so many ways to reach God, but which one is the correct and best suitable should be decided by the individual.  So anybody can claim anything and in this respect, Christians alone are not ‘exclusivistic’ but even Muslims and stanch Vaishnavites have similar views and as I pointed out, every sectarian view is based on exclusiviem, though some accommodates a subordinate place and role to other deities.  Here I would like to quote from the book Generous Orthodoxy, quoting Bishop Newbegin:

…the biblical witness to Jesus Christ as the unique Savior and hope of the world does not demand a restrictive posture concerning salvation for those who have never heard the gospel or those in other religious traditions … (p.12) the spirit of the influential missionary theologian Lesslie Newbigin who articulated his own position concerning Christ and salvation along the following lines: exclusive in the sense of affirming the unique truth of the revelation in Jesus Christ, but not in the sense of denying the possibility of salvation to those outside the Christian faith; inclusive in the sense of refusing to limit the saving grace of God to Christians, but not in the sense of viewing other religions as salvific; pluralist in the sense of acknowledging the gracious work of God in the lives of all human beings, but not in the sense of denying the unique and decisive nature of what God has done in Jesus Christ (Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, Eerdmans, 1989, 182-83).— ¹⁶

You call yourself a follower of Muktinath, but still you are a Hindu, as you
introduced yourself. Does that mean Muktinath is a Hindu God? I just
wanted to know, that do you also worship Him the same way, by going to
the church etc. or something else?–SS

God does not belong to any particular religion. So the question of I worshipping a Hindu God never arises.  For me God stands beyond all human limitations—including understand Her through religious views.  My identity as a Hindu is based not on faith but on my birth right as a Hindu, which our Constitution also endorses.  So I worship God ( not the God or a God, but simply God) whom I understand through my Satguru and Bhagavan Muktinath, whom Others call as Jesus Christ.  As I am not a Christian, I don’t go to any church.  I have a small ashram and living here with my mother (who worships her own personal deities particularly Nataraja).  I have some shishyas (though I never claim to be their guru, yet we use these terms of guru-shishya to explain our relationship in society than I having any {spiritual or any other} authority over them and they submit to me like a Shisya in a true sense) and most of them are Hindu and bhakta of Sadguru and bhagavan Muktinath.  There are few Christians also as my shishyas.  So they visit the ashram when they have time and we worship together the Lord in our Indian way using all kinds of forms and symbols that are common in Hinduism.  So Muktinath is the Indian name for Jesus Christ, which I prefer, as there are lot of packages go along with all these Christian terms to express our faith and bhakti in Jesus Christ.

To worship Muktinath one need not become a Christian or to go to Church or to join with Christians (alone) but whoever wants to worship Him has the freedom and permission from Muktiveda (Bible) to worship Him in any form anywhere.  Thankfully God is beyond the understanding of Christians. 

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, April 15, 2011

Notes

1.. See for example the notes 3 below.

2. S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life, , New Delhi, HarperCollins Publishers India, (1927), 1998, Fourth impression, pp.49-50

3..          One observes here that Srshti and Pralaya succeed each other over and over again in an endless cycle, and when Brahman creates the world he does so in accordance with the Karman of the individual souls.  That is to say, his creative action is not totally independent.  Ramanuja makes every effort to preserve the purity of the Brahman, by attributing all the evils in creation to Karman.  This again brings out the ambiguity in his understanding of Karman. Besides, Brahman does not possess total freedom in creating, when his creative activity is hampered by the Karman of the individual souls.  One notices also that Ramanuja appears to make seemingly contradictory statements concerning the whole question of creation.  Brahman according to him is the efficient cause (nimitta) and the material cause (upadana).  He alone wills the origination, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world, and yet he creates in accordance with the Karman of the individual souls, and besides, he is not to be considered as bound by his acts such as the creation of an unequal world.  He is said to sit apart as an outsider while his Prakrti, creates the world in accordance with the law of Karma.  In his sribhashya, Ramanuja also speaks of the Brahman as the Arranger, one who arranges the diversity of creation according to the Karman of the individual souls (kshetrajna karmanugunyena-vicitrasrshtiyoga) [SB, 2.1.35, Karmarkar, R.D. ed. and trans., Sribhaashya of Ramanuja, vol. I (in three parts). Poona, University of Poona, 1962, II,p.642,11. (13-14).—p Veliath, op. cit. p.117

4.  But this thought of cyclical nature of ‘mukti’ is not limited only with Hinduism and we hear similar, not exact views in other traditions also:

…When creation was completed Prajapati relaxed, the vital airs went out of him, and the gods left him. This is the “death of god” theme, and the creation legends known to us have ended with, or led into, this theme-Utnapishtim’s gods withdrew to the heavens; the Egyptian Osiris was dismembered. The theme is of continuing importance to the human race for it seems that mankind retains some traumatic memory of a time when the gods deserted the human race. It is not only a collective experience, but can be experienced individually as, for example, in Nietzsche’s famous passage.

               Co-incident with the death of god is the end of the Golden Age; Adam and Eve were expelled form the Garden of Eden, Seth’s rule brought anarchy to Egypt, Utnapishtim’s world was destroyed by flood. Each culture then takes up those elements of creation and fall which were peculiar to it and forms a new myth of the restoration of god and the salvation of man. Utnapishtim offered sacrifice in order to tempt the gods out of heaven. Osiris’ body having been dissected and scattered to the four quarters—his wife Isis seeks out all parts of his body, puts them together, impregnates herself and gives birth to a son, Horus, who re-establishes the reign of his father. The Hebrew myth waited many centuries for the Christina conclusion in which Mary, miraculously impregnated by the spirit of god, gives birth to a son who reconciles god and man and reestablishes the reign of his father. Thus, in both Egyptian and Christian, salvation was through the birth of the son of god and the brahmanas concluded their myth in a thematically similar way. –— NAAMA DRURY, THE SACRIFICIAL RITUAL IN THE SATAPATHA BRAHMANA, Delhi, Mothilal Banarasidass, 1981 pp.69-70.

5.. …Brahman is called the World, when he has the souls and matter in their gross condition as constituting his body.  Brahman is the material cause of the world (Upaadaana), as the primary factor in the origination, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world he is the operative cause (Jagannimitta karaa), and on the basis of all Vedantic texts Ramanuja asserts that he is the Universal Cause or Supreme Cause (Parama karna). When he is in the causal state, the world and souls which form his body are in so subtle a condition that one can hardly tell them apart from Brahman himself.  Irrespective of whether they be in the causal or effected state however, the world and souls still have Brahman for their Self.

               Ramanuja understands “cause” in three different ways, Upaadaana-karaa or material cause, Nimitta-karaa or efficient cause, and (p.75) Sahakaari-karana, or assisting cause.  That which undergoes changes is the Upaadaana-karaa, the efficient cause is that which brings about the changes, while the Sahakaari-karana is the assisting factor.  The theory of Satkaaryavada says that the effect (karya) pre-exists (sat) in the cause, but there is a modification of the cause when something new arises from it.  This theory has two forms, Vivartavada which admits only an unreal change in the cause, and Parinaamavada wherein the change is real.  Ramanuja defends Parinaamavada by which he tries to explain the causation of the world.— Cyril Veliath S.J., The Mysticism of Ramanuja, New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993, pp.75-76

6.. Causes are of three kinds: material, instrumental, and efficient.  For example, clay, the pot-maker’s wheel, and the pot-maker are respectively the material cause, instrumental cause, and efficient cause.  Similarly, the noble one, like a pot-maker, makes the worlds from Maya, the material cause, with the aid of his Power, the instrumental cause. [I.i.18, p. 129, Arul Nandi, Siva Jnaana Siddhiyaar, tr. Nallaswami Pillai, Chennai: Meykandan Press, 1913,]— Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001. p. 46

7.. …If the lord of the universe had not been in existence, the whole universe would have been gloomy, since the Prakrti is insentient and the Purusa is ignorant.  Pradhaana, the atom etc. are insentient.  They never function as the makers themselves without an intelligent cause….— ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L.Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, The Siva Purana Four Volumes, VAAYAVIIYASAMHITAA, Section II, 12:13-14, p.1952

8.. As Paul Hacker (1953)@ has argued, the technical usage of ‘vivarta’ to denote an ‘illusory transformation’ does not occur in Sankara’s clearly authenticated works.  Subsequent thinkers in the Advaita tradition, however, have used the term in this sense, placing it in direct opposition to the idea of ‘parinaama’ or ‘real transformation’.  ‘Vi-varta’ then comes to imply a false ‘dis-tortion’ of Brahman.  The world appears as if it is real, but it is really nothing but a distortion, a false apprehension of the undifferentiated unity of brahman, like a rope mistake for a snake.  In the works of the later followers of Advaita Vedanta it is clear then that brahman is a static and unchanging Absolute.  The concept of maya, used by Sankara (p.220) but sparingly so, was soon pressed into service by later thinkers to establish the connection between brahman and an unreal world.  In this context maya became not only an inexplicable (anirvacaniiya) material cause that neither exists nor does not exist but also took on the role of a cosmic power (sakti).  Similarly, later followers of Sankara, even his immediate disciple Suresvara, describe ignorance (avidyaa) as the material cause (upaadaanakaarana) of the universe.  This is clearly not Sankara’s vew (Rao, 1996)&….—ibid. p.221

@ Hacker, Paul, Vivarta.  Studien zur Geschichte der illusionistischen Kosmologie und Erkenntnistheorie der Inder, Mainz: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literature. 1953

& Rao, Srinivasa, ‘Two “myths” in Advaita’, Journal of Indian Philosophy 24:265-79, 1996

               It is clear that the earliest usage of the term ‘vivarta’ implied the ‘rolling out’ or ‘unfolding’ of creation….— Richard King, Indian Philosophy, An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, ANE Book, New Delhi, 1999,  p.221

9.. The Vishishtadvaita school upheld this Parinamavada viz., God actually become modified into the universe and rules it from within as the Antaryami. The Advaita school upholds that by indefinable Maya (Sadasadanirvachaniyarups) which is neither real nor unreal created the universe. The author uses to explain this by a beautiful illustration of contemporary cenima (film)-Light is God which never change or do the action, but it is the film that prevent the light and transform it in shadows in the screen which acts.— Swami Nirvedananda, HINDUISM AT A GLANCE, Remakrishan Mission, p. ?

10.. The theory of the Nyaya–Vaisesika school of philosophers is known as arambha–vada.  According to it, at the beginning of a kalpa, invisible and intangible atoms of different orders, under the influence of the will of God and the destiny of souls, unite to form the various objects of the world, differing in their qualities from the atoms themselves.  Thus the effect is entirely different from the cause.  It comes into being anew, as a cloth comes into being anew when the threads are put together.  The atoms combine with one another and continue in combination giving rise to the various objects of the world for some time, and then they separate so that the whole effect collapses.  This process of creation and destruction goes on till the time of mahapralaya or final dissolution.  Such is their theory.— D.S. Sarma, A Primer Of Hinduism, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1984, p. 102

11.. All Vedanta traditions, with the exception of the dualistic school of Madhva, see brahman as that which creates the world (that is, its efficient cause or nimitta-kaarana) as well as that out of which the world is created (its material cause or upaadaana-kaarana, BS 1.4.23; 2.1.19-20)…(p.212)….[But] The world is an appearance of brahman but has no reality apart from brahman .  For Sankara and the Advaita Vedanta school there is really no duality whatsoever, the empirical world just happens to be the way that brahman appears to an unenlightened individual.— Richard King, Indian Philosophy, An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, ANE Book, New Delhi, 199 p.212 & 218

12. 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, pp. 51-52.

13.. …The classic scriptural source for the sat-kaarya view that the effect preexists in its cause is found in the Chaandogya Upanisad:

It is like this, son.  By means of just one lump of clay one would perceive everything made of clay—the transformation is a verbal handle, a name—while the reality is just this: ‘It’s clay.’-CU 6.1.4, trans. In Olivelle, Patrick, The Upanisads, Oxford: Oxford University Press,  1996:148

               Based upon this position, there can be no creation out of nothing in the Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta schools.  Creation is a transformation or change (parinaama) in the state of what is already there….— Richard King, Indian Philosophy, An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, ANE Book, New Delhi, 1999, p. 209

14…The Sakti concept and Sakti-worship having come, in Sankara’s times, to the fore, it is not (p.183) surprising that maya, as far as it is the ‘cause’ of the ‘pseudo-existence’ of the world, was identified with Isvara’s sakti, that is to say with the hypostasized creative power or energy of the qualified and differentiated Brahman viewed as the Highest Person or God.  Whereas Brahman is “pure light by itself”, God is “light in darkness”, Brahman ‘appearing’ through the power of maya in the phenomenal universe.  Developing this sakti idea, Sankara compares it to heat in fire, that is to say, it is God’s inherent energy, by means of which he transforms the potential into actuality.  In consequence of the Lord’s conjunction with maya the creation of the universe is even unavoidable [Cf. also SankaraBhasya 2,2,2 f.].  Sakti may also be regarded as identical with the names and forms which in their non-evolved form are in Isvara and when evolved constitute the world.  From this point of view maya may be identified with prakrti, i.e. “nature”.  Maya is substantially Isvara in multiple names and forms (cf. RV. 3,53,8 etc.).  “Name and form, the inventions of error, are neither definable as being (brahman), nor as distinct from it; they are the germs of the whole expansion of the universe, traditionally (in sruti and smrti) called maya, sakti or prakrti of the omniscient Lord”.@.  Thus maya may serve to indicate empiric reality, the individual jiivas (incarnated souls) and nature (prakrti). As however from the higher point of view Isvara does not exist and any difference between creator and creation is a fallacy, how is the transformation to be explained?  The answer is: brahman manifests itself as name and form without undergoing any real change or transformation and without being touched or polluted by the association with maya (vivarta doctrine).– Jan Gonda, Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, (1965) 1985, pp. 183-4

@. See SankaraBhasya, translated by G. Thibaut, in Sacred Books of the East, 34, Oxford 1890, p. 328 f.  It should be borne in mind that here prakrti is neither real nor absolutely independent, as it is the Samkhya system.—Notes 84, ibid. p.184

But it is important to note the role of ‘maya’ in creation is different in Vishishtadaivta:

…with maya Ramanuja concurs with other schools of thought … The prakrti underlying the world, being maya, is brahman’s prakaara; that is to say, it is ontologically speaking part of the universal whole, dependent on Brahman without being separate from it.—ibid. Gonda, p.189

15. O Brahmaa and Visnu, the permanent cycle of the five-fold duties consists of creation, maintenance, annihilation, concealment, and blessing. (2).  Saraga is the creation of the world; Sthiti is its maintenance; Samhaara is the annihilation; Tirobhaava is the removal and concealment (3).  Liberation (from the cycle of birth and death) is blessing….(4).— 10:2-3, p.64 … These activities are observed in the five elements by devotees—Saraga (creation) in the Earth, Sthiti (maintenance) in the waters, Samhaara (annihilation) in the fire, Tirobhaava (concealment) in the wind and Anugraha (liberation, the blessed state) in the firmament.  Everything is created by the Earth; everything flourishes by virtue of the waters; everything is urged by the fire, everything is removed by the wind and everything is blessed by the firmament.  Thus intelligent men must know the same.— ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L.Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, The Siva Purana Four Volumes, Vidyesvarasamhitaa, 10:6-8, p.64

Hinduism holes that the universe (Brahmanda) has no beginning in time. It comes into being, lasts for a period and then melts away. These steps are known as ‘Srishti’, ‘Sthiti’ and ‘Pralaya’. These three make one complete cycle, and repeating itself eternally.

To the individual mind in deep sleep it cease to exist. This is called ‘Nitya pralaya’.

The sum total of all mind is the cosmic mind possessed by a deity, the first born individual called Hiranyagarbha, Suturtma, Aparabrahman, Mahadbrahman, Prana. He is also called’ ‘Brahma’. When he fall asleep there is ‘naimittka Pralaya’ (occasional dissolution). When he wakes up Brahmanda becomes manifest, this is shrishti. Srishti and Sthiti is Brahma’s day and Pralaya night. At the end of a ‘Kalpa’, i.e., the 100^th year of Brahma (his day being equal to 4,320,000 human years) he merge with Praabrahman. Every thing in nature goes back to the unmanifested infinite energy (shakti) known as (‘Auyakta’ or Prakriti’). This is Prakrita Pralaya.  At the outset of the next ‘kalpa’ another being appears as Hiranyagarbha due to the outstanding merits acquired by him during the previous cycle.  (In ‘atyantika pralaya-absolute dissolution, the Brhamanda together with its root cause ‘Avidya’ disappears completely, on the attainment of full knowledge of Parabrahman). — Swami Nirvedananda, HINDUISM AT A GLANCE, Remakrishan Mission, p.?:

16. Brian McClaren. A Generous Or+hodoxy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2004. pp. 12-13.  McClaren further says: …For too many people the name Jesus has become a symbol of exclusion, as if Jesus’ statement ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me” actually means, “I am in the way of people seeking truth and life.  I won’t let anyone get to God unless he comes through me.”….—ibid. p. 70

The following is sent on May 27, 2011.

2. My mother, for instance, is a very righteous woman. She is very truthful to God and worships Him in truth and spirit. She has always believed in Krishna and literally felt Him work in her life without believing in Christ. Even some of the people, who lived before Christ was born, were good believers of other faith. Weren’t they closer to God? So, why Christ?—Sukanya.

–Closer to God is a relative term and each one can fix her own criterion and also respective scriptures give various lists.  If one reads Gita alone, about the mark of a true ‘yogi’ (sthitahprajnata) spread over several chapters from 7 onwards, no one can claim to follow them all to call oneself a ‘yogi’ or ‘righteous’ person and there by come closer to God.  So according to Muktiveda ‘no one stands righteous’ either by the standard that it given by the scripture or based on one’s own standard (Romans chapter 2 & 3).  ‘All have sinned and gone away from God’ is its universal claim: ‘janami dharmam na cheme pravrthi; janami adharmam na cheme nivriti; kenapi devena hrdayas thithena; yada niyuktosmi tata karomi’—I know what is dharma, but there is no advancement in it; I know what is adharma, but there is no deliverance from it; whatever god has put in my heart (viz. my nature, pravarti), I act accordingly.

  However, if one feels that she is righteous then it is left to her to believe and continue to live up to that righteousness.  At the same time we have to accept the fact that ‘no one ever lived above her (own) creed’.  So if you believe that your mother is a very righteous woman, I respect your opinion about your mother and I have no issue about it.  But whether your mother can declare the same is a thousand dollar question.  And if she believes so, then again I respect her faith in her and I have no issue about it.

Every one has the right to believe in any particular deity and trust Him/Her as true in her life.  That is the way faith/bhakti works in religious world and every one need not and could not believe in Muktinath.  But both God and my conscious is not going to ask account for others faith/bhakti or even righteousness but only about mine.  So according to Muktiveda faith is both personal and collective.  And each one has to stand before God for her own faith/bhakti and life and none can become an interlocutor for others to God.  That is why all the people on this earth—past, present and future first has to give account to God the way She works first through their conscience.  God has revealed Her righteousness in their conscience first and each one is accountable for that all the time.

So to the question about good believers in other faith and their closeness to God is left to them, I have no right to judge them in any way.  Here the Christians quoting from the Muktiveda could point out the eternal condemnation outside their faith/church/community and I respect their view.  However according to me, my answer is: ‘I don’t know’.  Thankfully God is not going to ask my view about it at any time, though based on Muktiveda I am have the responsibility to share the ‘subhsandesh’ in the Lord to every one.  I am first responsible to me and then I have a debt those around me and I cannot avoid it by arguing about certain issues on which I have no right or control—here about the good believers in other faiths and those who lived in the past or will in future.

Regarding my response to those who strongly believe in other deities, I would say, ‘Good.  Keep that faith and bhakti as you like.  But if any time in your life if you feel that you still lack something within you to ‘know God and also known by Her’, then give a chance to Muktinath and He will never fail you.  Or, still keeping your personal faith on your ‘ishtadevata’ give a chance to Muktinath also and if you feel that He can help you in every way in the life both for here (on earth) and hear after (eternity), then decide according to your conviction’.  One can bring the horse the pond but none can force it to drink the water.  So to the question ‘why Christ’ to such good people in other faiths of past, present and future my answer is: by giving Him a chance you are not going to loose anything in your life.  And if He proves Himself worthy to be followed you have gained a simple and a natural way to ‘know God and known by Him’.  And if He fails, the loss is not His.  This is the way I too took decision, when I came to know about the Lord.  I said, ‘well, all these days I tried various ways and let me give Him a chance.  And if He proves to be the guru whom I seek, then I gain.  And if He fails, at least I would have gained some knowledge about Muktiveda and Muktinath.’  So taking some risk for a worth and noble cause is not wrong as Jim Elliot said: He is no fools who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot loose.  And in that gamble there are only two players: God and that individual and no third person can do anything more than encouraging the individual to take that risk.  And once God gives that chance to every individual, no excuse on the part of the individual will work further.  One has to sincerely try even before gives up.  But arguing on some other issues which is not relevant to her decision on hand about the Lord won’t help.  God accepts our weakness but not excuses.  Once she is convinced about her need and commit to the Lord, then God will work slowly to reveal all Her plan not only for herself but also about others—past, present and future.  When one cannot understand about oneself completely, then where comes the question of demanding the answer for everything under the Sun.  And even if one demands the answer for everything before finding personal answer, a wise person has to say, ‘sorry I don’t know’.  And only an arrogant person will try to give all kinds of answers which will convince no one.

So, my answer to your this question, ‘I don’t know’.  But once you try to find the answer to the question of your personal need, then God will give answers to other questions.  ‘Dharm and dharmikta angan me suru hotahai’—faith (bhakti, religion, duty) and righteousness first begin at home.  Here the ‘home’ is oneself first. 

Regarding my point of ‘simple and natural way to “know God and Known by Her”’, my experience is that, in Muktinath, to know God and also to known by Her I need not do anything physically or mentally beyond within my reach.  Neither by karma (rituals, religious observances, vows, alms, pilgrims and name anything that one can do or has to do physically) nor by jnana not even by bhakti I have to do anything to find out that ‘simple and natural way’.  God in Muktinath has already done everything for me (on the cross) and I simply have to believe and accept it.  But this is the serious point of contention among faiths.  ‘If one can simply believe this and could be saved, then you people made salvation so cheap’ was my father’s response when I shared the subhasandesh to him.  Of course what looks foolish to the wise God revealed to the humble.  For those who believe this is not a religious formula but both a historical fact and personal reality.  However those who try to understand or argue over this ‘formula’ first and then ready accept it won’t get success.  But those who first accept this and then try to understand based on their need will find the ‘natural and simple’ way that God has prepared for the humble.  FAITH STANDS BEYOND REASON, but never remain UNREASONABLE for those who believe.

The relationship between parent and child, husband-wife; among friends, brothers/sisters, relatives all works well when we first accept that relationship and work it out slowly in life than after having a clear intellectual understanding about the relationship.  The same is with faith/bhakti.  Even if it is an imaginary theory that God through Muktinath reconciled us by offering Herself as a prayaschitta for my sins, then those accept it by faith and try to work it out slowly within first and then try to understand it through other scriptural, historical etc. evidence found that it was not an imaginary theory or formula but a historical fact, however it was interpreted variously throughout the history.  At least it worked that way well for my life and million others around the world.  And if others like your mother believes the same about Krishna, Rama, Siva, Allah, Buddha etc., I respect their faith and bhakti.  But the assurance of that bhakti, faith and even mukti is the final test for every individual to further proceed in her chosen faith or to seek further as per the chance given by God.  And here Muktinath gives that assurance in a different way than the claims of other faiths and deities.

This will naturally lead to another question: Krishna gives the same kind of assurance in Gita 18:66 and many other deities and scripture give the same assurance.  Then why only ‘Muktinath’?  For this I wrote a long chapter in my unpublished (and also unedited) book: Living Dialogue: Why Only Jesus?  And here I would like to share with you a part of it, again warning that one need to read not only the entire chapter (Why Only Jesus) but also the book: Living Dialogue to understand the following extract from that chapter.  As there is no hope for publishing this book in immediate future, I would like to share a part of this chapter to answer to my own question: Why Only Muktinath?

Uniqueness of the Bible for me:

Unlike the modern Hindu apologetic I do not need to explain the contradictions and shortcomings in a rationalistic and so called scientific way.  This is true with the Bible also.  I can with honesty, at least to myself, accept the contradictions, reject the shortcomings, integrate good things and wait upon Him to reveal the clarity that I need to follow Him—taking help both from the Bible and Hindu scriptures.  At the same time, if I need to give any spiritual and moral authority to one scripture, then without any hesitation, I will give it only to the Bible because of the way it is written—not as a fiction; ancient story (purana); mystical; esoteric; book on social code (dharma sastras) or even as history, but it evolved among the people with their limitations, struggles, and failures revealing god’s character and purpose for his creation.

A comparison:

But if the question is still asked seriously, why not Rama or Krishna or Siva etc., then not to condemn them or to glorify Muktinath, I have to share my view of it.  However one tries to prove the historicity of all the Hindu gods, except those deified historic gurus of a sampradaya, they are still on slippery ground with mere speculation.  Then regarding their character, I cannot selectively take those good aspects of their character, leaving out the bad side of their stories. Of course several such stories, which are immoral according to human standards, are explained differently.17 For example, all the dalliance of Krishna with Gopies is explained philosophically as portraying the relationship with jeevatman (individual soul) and paramatman (god).  I respect their right to explain them in that way or any other way.  However, my expectation of god is different.  Though the personification of various natural forces and characters serve our purpose, yet for me, they all are human endeavors and any body can do such things with any ideals.  For example, for several Neo-Hindus, Jesus is the personification of ‘ethics’, ‘love’, ‘a cosmic Christ’ etc.18  They all acknowledge Jesus as ‘Christ’ of their own expectation and understanding, but they never have accepted his authority as guru and god.

Take for example, Siva.  This adjective, which means ‘kind, auspicious’, was used for various deities in the Vedas.  Later in an attempt to incorporate a Dravidian deity, the vedic deity Rudra was superimposed on Siva and made part of the Vedic pantheon and the latter, the supreme deity in Siva sects.  Forget the historicity, but all the later claims about Siva and his plays in various Siva Puranas and Tamil Saiva scriptures have never appealed to my reason as the aspect of a god of my expectation. 

When I recently completed the Tamil Saiva Purana, ‘Periyapuranam’, the story of the 63 Saiva Saints by Sekizhar, the life of some bhaktas of Siva really shocked me.  Though everywhere in the world, in the name of religion, the religious authorities (with the help of the state) have committed several atrocities against humanity in the name of faith.  Christianity stands the worst followed by Islam.  However, the way a bhakta of Siva can do some acts in the name of his bhakti to the lord really shocked me (see in Chapter on Morality).  Of course Hindu apologetics like Dr. Sivapriya explain them in their expected line: as lila (divine play of Siva; or to test their bhakti etc. (see notes no. 5 in Chapter on Morality).  Whereas, a bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath cannot do the same kind of act, even in the name of bhakti—as it will violate the very teaching and life of his Lord (see above Julian’s words).  I need not further explain this point, as my aim is not comparison.  Therefore, each scripture needs to be evaluated in its religious, social, cultural contexts. 

In the case of Krishna, going along with the view of Gandhi, unless one has emotional and sentimental devotion to him, the rest of the stories and lilas (plays) related to him, though they entertained me, never appealed to me to accept him as my god.  Of course all the philosophizing about his lilas are correct from the sectarian and apologetic point of view, which others need not accept.  The same can be said about Muktinath and god of the Bible.

In the case of Rama, the imaginary character of the Ramayana or deification of some historic figure really attracted me.18a  Yet, being a Tamilian, my approach to Rama’s character based on Kamba Ramayana and some personal study of his acts of killing Vaali and banishing Sita to the forest based on the rumors etc., portrays him as a human being struggling with duty and morality (dharma and ethics).  However, one can learn many good lessons, and this imaginary story and the central character can be anybody’s ideal.  Though such ideals are appealing, yet I am not impressed to take him as my guru or god.

There is no point of sharing my view about all of the other major and minor deities.  Isolating any one aspect of these deities and rejecting other parts, which are against any ideals, is not acceptable to me.  For example, I cannot reject the Krishna of the Mahabharata and take only that of the Gita or a cosmic Christ and not that of the historical Jesus.19  Even if Muktinath is merely an imaginary character of the New Testament, what appeals to me is his total personality.  I would prefer to strive to reach that ideal stage with the help of god, rather than accept every deity as the representation of that one invisible, unfathomable, non-comprehendable god.

Notes:

17. The following story told by Nirad C. Chaudhuri shows how common people can easily explain such incidents against any criticism of their gods:

When I was young a neo-Hindu sadhu came to preach in my town.  He spoke of Krishna, and referring to the accusation brought forward by the Christian missionaries that he was licentious, the champion of Hinduism said something in Hindi whose equivalent I give in English: ‘That showed that Krishna was a mighty hero.  If you had to carry on with sixteen hundred lusty young women like Krishna, in one night your face would look like a baked apple’.  The roar of laughter and the approving murmur that followed showed that the Hindu crowd was satisfied that the blasphemous missionaries had been answered in the way they deserved. — The Continent of CIRCE: An Essay on the Peoples of India, Twelfth Jaico Impression,Mumbai,1999, p. 98   58

18. For a complete survey of Neo-Hindu’s view of Christ and the way it is evaluated by Christian critics see:  M.M. Thomas, THE ACKNOWLEDGED CHRIST OF THE INDIAN RENAISSANCE, S C M Press Ltd., London, 1969.

18a. …The Epic heroes, Rama, Krishna, etc., became incarnations of the god Vishnu, and the Epics, which had been essentially bardic poetry, were now given the sanctity of divine revelation.  The Epics had originally been secular and therefore had now to be revised by the brahmans with a view to using them as religious literature; thus, many interpolations were (p.133) made, the most famous being the addition of the Bhagavad Gita to the Mahabharata.— Romila Thapar, A HISTORY OF INDIA, vol. One, New Delhi, Penguin Books, (1966), Reprint, 1990. pp. 133-34

19.  See my Review on Badrinath Chaturvedi’s two books.  The following is the final part of that review:

Every perception has its own limitation, because most of the time it is bound by the experience of the person concerned with Reality or Truth etc.  If Jesus’ disciples ever understood him wrongly, then there is no hope for us to claim that we can understand Him rightly better than His disciples.  Even if we forget the importance of a Historic Jesus Christ to uphold the Church doctrines, we cannot deny the historicity of His first disciples understanding based on their personal experience with Him.  No doubt, all the Church doctrines and theologies of an organized Christianity may not help one to have that personal encounter which His disciples had with Him.  But in order to PROMOTE A COSMIC Christ, to say that His disciples personal understanding of Him based on their experience is improper is wrong.  Because they never said that He was ‘a symbol of a reality greater than his individual self or not a Person but a state of being.’  At least for them, He Himself was that Great Reality—the very God in flesh in His PERSON.  Definitely there was a progressive understanding about this among His disciples, which  was completed only after his crucifixion and resurrection.  It is equally true that ‘What Jesus was saying, was that it is truth and love, and not the satisfaction of physical appetites alone, that make man fully human.  What he was saying, was that it is love, and not the laws, that has the redeeming power.’ (pp.184-5)  But it is a wrong perception to say that, ‘Seen in this light, neither his crucifixion nor his resurrection is to be understood in its gross physical sense, although that is how they have mostly been understood.’  Because at least for the first disciples of Jesus, all that happened in gross physical sense in the life of Jesus has become a historical event for us now.  Because history is not ‘mere records of events’ (p.166), but also its interpretation.  Most of the time, the interpretation alone made an event a historic one.  For me at least, the criteria for history is not the event, but the interpretation of that event by those who have directly encountered it.  However, we agree with the author’s perception about the historic dharmic vs. ‘Christianity in history’, at least in India, it is not that ‘Christianity in history’ with its all verities of believes will help us to understand Jesus Christ as a PERSON, but the relationship which we have with Him,  because of our faith—both as a gift of god and our conscience response to that gift.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, March 16, 2011

Dear Sukanya, the following are my responses to your previous few question.

The flowing one sent to Sukanya on June 8, 2011:

3. who is He?–ss

–There is a Tamil saying, ‘Whoever has seen God cannot explain Her and whoever has explained Her, not yet seen God.’  Muktiveda says, ‘No one has seen God and no one can see God’. (I Tim. 6:16?).  As I have already shared with you ‘Our God is too small’.   To confess the truth, I don’t know who God is.  If we began to summarize all the scriptures in the world talk about God, then we have to end up in several volumes.  Some times, I think that it is good that we don’t know who God is?  Once if we have clear understanding about Her, then all our jikjasu and anxiety will come to an end.  Even those who claim to have realized God or have experience with Her, have to live with the question and anxiety whether their realization and experience is true or not?  I too believe in God, but my search is not to find Her, but know the way to begin the process of ‘Knowing God and also Known by Her’.  And I think for this we all need a guru and my search began and now ended in Muktinath.

Dayanand Bharati, March 17, 2011.

4. Where do I find the real Him? Is he Jesus? Is he Lord Krishna or someone else?–SS

–See my response to the question 4.  Even if you are sure of God someone who you choose, yet keep the search alive.  Because one who finds satisfaction about her search and need about God and spirituality is a dead person.  The day one thinks that she is satisfied, then she began to dig her own grave.  One saint in his record about his search in spirituality says that one day he told God, ‘I am not sure whether I know the truth and you.  I still have doubts about you and also my experience and I am not sure’.  For this God said to him, ‘what would you know if you are sure, then do it now’.  This is my conviction.  Regarding God and spirituality, we have to live ‘one day at time’.  But even for this we need a firm foundation which a guru alone can give.  Once we found that guru and have faith in Her, then we should begin to live ‘one day at a time’ still searching about God and growing in spiritual life. 

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, March 17, 2011

5. It has also let me to ask myself that, are God and religion different? Can it ever happen that religion might miss out some aspect of God and there might be more about God that we may never know? Do we have to follow a religion to know God?–ss

–The word ‘religion’ derived from the Latin word ‘relegare’ which means that which binds together.  Religion is invented by us to set some boundaries for our rituals and conviction.  It is like traffic rules.  It is like law.  Before we make law we have some freedom to make them and debate a lot.  Once we made it, then we are obliged to follow it.  And when they become out of date, then we bring amendments.  But in most cases, religious boundaries rather than providing security try to exclude others so that we may not feel threatened by their presence and views.  Religion always created ‘the Other’ and by comparing and contrasting with them, we either feel comfort or challenged/threatened.  Religion is the womb of fundamentalism also.

There never comes the question of ‘religion might miss out some aspect of God’.  Because no religion holds the monopoly to know all the truth about God.  As I have already said, till the end we won’t  know all about God and there will be more about God that we many never know.  If we can know all about God, then we can become greater than God.  Though religion can provide some guidance but it can never help us to know God.  At the same time we cannot live without its influence and service in one form or the other.  Most of the time, like computer, it becomes a necessary EVIL.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, March 17, 2011

Faith started in relationship with a person….

6. Does God have a humanely form? because according to the bible, human beings are the image of God while in the Gita, it seems like God exists in some metaphysical state.–ss

–Again what Muktiveda talks about we as the ‘image’ of God is completely different from what Gita talks about God in metaphysical state.  It is a big subject and to give a simple view about both is that, both believe God as a Person and also a Personal God.  Both talks about incarnation and avatara (and basically there is some difference between ‘incarnation’ and ‘avatara’, though we can use avatara to understand about incarnation).  Regarding ‘Muktiveda’s claim that we have created in the Image of God means that we can ‘Know Her’ but we never share in Her ‘essence’.  Whereas regarding Gita, from Vishishtadvaita school of thought our soul is the minute part of God and therefore the entire creation is the body of the Lord.  It is known as ‘parinamavada’, viz., God is not only the efficient

cause but also the material cause.  Whereas, according to Muktiveda, God is not the material cause, and only the efficient cause.  But this is a big subject and several volumes of books have been written.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, March 17, 2011

7. I feel that my life will make much more meaning when I get to know Him. I admit I don’t know much and maybe there might be some misconceptions about Him in my mind too.

–Already that ‘meaning’ for your life has started.  The moment one feels that she is in need of God, that is a good beginning.  But it is an ongoing process for which we have to work till the end of our life.  This is the tapasya in spirituality.  All have their own conceptions about God and so who can say whether one’s conception about God is right or wrong?  But we have to search within us to know whether we are proceeding in the right direction or not?  And for this we need mutual seva.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, March 17, 2011

@@@

Don’t study too many things, it is nothing but mere strain of words   Brh. Up. 4.4.21b.

Dear Sharmaji,                                                         October 1, 1996,

                                                                                     Delihi.

               Hope my remembrance with you.  We met briefly at M\s Munshiram Manoharlal Pub. Pvt. Ltd.  Delhi on September 28, 1996, where we had a lively discussion on, what Swami Vivekanand calls as “Text Torturing”.

               Before I bring to your kind attention about the wrong translation of few Valmiki Ramayana’s slokas by M\s Gita Press, Ghorakpur, on which we discussed, here I whole heartedly appreciate the wonderful service which they are rendering to our land by providing Scriptures on subsided rate.  I have high respect and regard for them.   At the same time, as a student I am also interested in understanding the right meaning of the text, both by correct translation and interpretation.

               The one problem with scholars is that they have the ability to mislead lay people like me, who have no easy access with various translation and interpretation along with the knowledge of the classic languages like Sanskrit and Greek.  As a student of Scriptures, I uphold one strong conviction that we must remain honest to the text, however our doctrine may contradict with the right translation and interpretation.

               Now coming to Valmike Ramayana: Sri Valmiki presents Sri Rama as a kshatriya, who upheld Dharma in all through his life.  One interesting point in Valmiki Ramayana is the word “Dharma”, which almost appears in every chapter.  We can, to some extent safely say that the main purpose of Valmiki Ramayana is to guide the people to uphold their respective dharma in their lives.   We can come across beautiful teachings on dharma of Raja, Praja (citizen), Pita (father), Putra (son), Pati (husband), Patni (wife), Mitra (friend) etc.   However one thing we should remember that the word “Dharma” in Sanskrit as well as in Pali is not “Religion”, as commonly translated.  It generally means, “…privileges, duties and obligations of a man, his standard of conduct as a member of the Aryan Community, as a member of one of  the castes, as a person in a particular stage of life.  It is in this sense that the ws, while translating those slokas of Valmiki Ramayana, where it clearly states that Sri Rama ate non-veg., food, not remaining honest to the text, wrongly translated them.  As Gita Press promotes Vaishnavism, it may find it difficult to present Rama as a non-vegitarian to the common people.  But this they could have very well explain by giving some foot notes, than wrongly translating the text to mislead common people.  However I have to take my words back that The Gita Press completely omitted those slokas.  I read a Hindi translation of Valmiki Ramayana few years before and I don’t exactly remember the Publishers.  It may be from Mathura or Lucknow Publishers and I regret for making such a statement.   However, still my point on Gita Press on wrong translation stands and two examples are suffice here:

“…The two (Rama and Lakshmana) then killed there four great beasts, including a boar, a  white-footed antelope, a spotted antelope and a great deer- and taking the flesh with them, went with all speed, since they were hungry, to the foot of the forest tree, there to spend the night”. (N. Raghunathan, Srimad Valmiki Ramayanam, Madras, Vigneswara Publishing House, 1981, Vol. I, Ayoodhyaa Kanda, Canto LII, The Crossing of the Ganga, p. 291)

               The following one from Sundara Kanda should be understood in its given context.  When Sitaji asks Hanumanji about the welfare of  Sri Rama, then the latter while telling the condition of  Sri Rama says that since Sitaji was missing Sri Rama has lost interest in eveything like eating, sleeping ect. and in that context Hanumanji says:

“Raghava eats no flesh, he drinks no mead; in the fifth watch of the day he partakes of the prescribed fare produced from forest produce.–with his mind wholly absorbed in thoughts of you,….Wholly given to brooding and grieving, and helpless in the grip of longing, he thinks of nothing else.” (Raghunathan, op.cit. Vol.II, Sundara Kaanda, Canto XXXVI,  He gives her Rama’s signet ring. p.428)

As the texts and translations themselves speak, here I have nothing to add.  I am not forcing my view on you, at the same time I am not going to bother whether you agree with me or not.

               Before closing I would briefly comment on Sri Sankara’s and Sri Ramanuja’s mutual disagreement on which also we discussed on the same day.  According to you both the acharyas never disagreed in their point of view and while Sri Sankara insisting more on knowledge (jnana) for salvation Sri Ramanuja upheld bhakti for the same.  All the disagreement that we find  in their doctrine is done only by their followers.  But a careful reader of  the commentaries written by both the acharyas on various Scriptures will clearly show how they are refuting their opponents view categorically in order to prove their own point.   And in this process, in order to press their point, both of them several times never remained honest to the text as well as to the context.  Sri Sankara in order to prove his advaitic sidhanta, superimposed his own interpretation, where there is no scope for it in that particular text and Ramanuja had done the same to prove his sidhanta (end of the truth) of  Visistadvaita.   This is an universal problem in every religion when in comes to interpreting their respective Scriptures, which led to the formation of various denominations and sects within that particular religion.     Let me take one example from Gita itself:

               Here, Sri Sankara in order to prove his advaita doctrine divide the word “Anadimatparam” as “anadimat + param”, stating that the atman (soul) is eternal.  Whereas Sri Ramanuja as “anadi + matparam” claiming Sri Krishna as eternal one.  And considering the context Sri Ramanuja’s interpretation is more authentic than of  Sri Sankara.  Like wise in Gita 3:42 while Sri Sankara interprets ”      ” as atman,  Ramanuja as “sin” and again considering the context (in way of answering Arjuna’s question in 3:36, Sri Krishna talks on the nature of sin) Ramanuja comes more close to the text than Sankara.  One moord seems to be used in the well-known exhortation to the pupil contained in the Taittiriya Upanisad (I.1.1) ‘speak the truth, practise (your own) dharma etc….’” (P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra,  Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1974, Vol. I, Part I. pp. 3-4)

               Now, Sri Rama being a Kshatriya, I find no problem if he were a Non-vegetarian.   Being a king he might have eaten non-veg., foods as Valmiki Ramayana in few places clearly shows.  This won’t disturb my respect for Sri Rama in any way.   In our country  even Brahmins ate and still are eating non-veg. food in some parts of our land like Maitili Brahmins in Bihar and Bengali Brahmins.  In our Vedas and Dharma Sastras there are plenty of reference to prove this.  According to Kane, even a Sanyasi is expected to eat meet in a sradha, where he is invited to take food where non-veg foods were offered.   If you wants to the references from various Scriptures and Dharmasastras, I am willing to give them.

               This being the case, M/s Gita Presre from Upanisad.  In Katha Upnishad I.ii.20, while Sri Sankara interprets “Dhatu Prasad” as the grace of one’s own atman, Gita Press (rightly) interprets it as:

               Of course one has to agree that Sri Sankara’s interpretation on Upanisads is more reliable as Upanisads come very close to his doctrine of advaita.  If you want more information on Sankara’s miss-leading interpretation, I am will give the details.  This does not mean that I am blaming Sri Sankara or any acharya.  They are the product of their own time as we are of our own.  Yet history will judge us not based on the circumstances of our  time which shaped our ideology but on our integrity.

               While paying reverence to the acharyas, a true disciple won’t  hesitate to point out his mistakes as Mahabharata rightly says:

“…that punishment should follow even in the case of a guru who has become conceited, who fails to distinguish between what is proper to be done or is improper and takes to a bad course of conduct”. –Shanti.,, 57. 6-7, also vide Udyogaparva 178. 47-48, Aadiparva 140. 54 and the Santi 140. 48 (Kane. op. cit. Vol.I, Part. I, Chap. 14, The Arthasaastra of Kautilya. Fn. 154k. p.161)

               Here I close.  The intention of writing all this is not to hurt your sentimental attachment towards a particular doctrine (sidhanta) or Institution (e.g. Gita Press) or acharya.  But TRUTH is too precious and we can’t see it being misused for our vested interest.

               There is an interesting story in Tiruvilayadal Puranam (The Lila of  Siva) in Tamil.  Once, in order to test the integrity and scholarship of Nakiirar a devotee of Siva, a great Tamil poet in the dharbar of Senbaga Pandiyan at Madurai, Siva himself confront him by composing a Tamil song.  When it was brought before the King in the presence of Tamil Sangam, Nakiirar as the head of that Sangam oppose it by pointing out the mistake in it.  Then an interesting argument starts between Siva and Nakiirar and finally estranged by the argument put forward by Nakiirar, Siva threatens him by showing his third eye.  That time Nakiirar says, “Even if you open your third eye and burn me, I will proclaim that you are wrong”.  Finally Nakiirar was burnt down  by Siva, but later restored to life as he was pleased by the integrity of Nakiirar as the latter come forward even to oppose his favourite deity the Siva himself in order to uphold the Truth.  Let us be proud of such a rich heritage of our country.

                                                            !!Om Shanti!!

Yours sincerely,

(DAYANAND BHARATI)

@@@

To day when I read a column in The Times of India (Bangalore, May 6, 2003,  p.8) on the occasion of the birth anniversary of  both Sankara and Ramanuja  by Sri Pranav Khullar, then I thought of writing my  thought about Sri  Sankara.  After explaining about Sankara’s advaita  and Ramanjua’s  vishistadvaita, recognizing their difference in theology, the author closed  the article saying:
                 

Both Sankara and Ramanuja were  seminal thinkers; they were also great apostles of bhakti.  Here in lay their  mass appeal.  Sankara’s devotional outpourings were meant to inspire and  arouse people to their  innate divine self while Ramanuja was already a  torch-bearer of the  Vaishnava tradition.
 
Now being a bhaktas of Mukteswar/Muktinath (Jesus)  and also a student of  theology of course in my own limited way not  clearly guided by any  theologian in particular but learning on my own  through selected readings of  various books), I have some personal reservation on  such general comments  about our great acharyas.
 
It is one thing to appreciate and write for common people about the good and great things about Great People and it is another thing to remain faithful to oneself.  I am also writing this not to any one but to myself.  Born in an advaitic home, where Sri Sankara is the only undisputed acharya I too have great respect for him.  However after my
elementary level of reading about the theology of Sankara, Ramanuja and other acharyas, if I have to  choose one acharya as my guru, I would prefer  Ramanuja to Sankara.  The reason for saying this is that I believe that on several writings Ramanuja

remain faithful both to the text and (his) theology to Sankara.  Well it is left to the scholars to prove this point more clearly.  However I will also make an attempt to share my views based on my reading later.
 

By saying this I am not ascertaining any of my own ability to judge the theology of Sankara.  God forbid.  Because I know my limitation.  And to be honest to myself I have to confess that I never ready any of Sankara’s  original writing even in English or Tamil
translation.  All my basic knowledge about Sankara’s is my reading through books about Sankara by  various authors.  Accepting my limitation, yet if some one tries to write  some thing about Sankara in order to project him as  one of the undisputable
 acharyas, then I have to question about such  writings based on my readings,
 
I will again begin with Khullar who says, ‘Sankara’s  appeal lay as much in  his erudition and dialectical skill as in his being  a child prodigy.  He lived for barely 30 years; yet he set ablaze the intellectual world of his  times, redefining, revamping and revitalizing old
concepts not only with  great strength but humility too.  From the backwaters of Kaladi in Kerala to  the northern Gangetic plains he took on all,  scholars, sages and savants,
engaging them in debates of the Yajnavalkya-Maitreyi  kind.  Equally, he was a rebel with a social cause-he insisted on  performing the last rites of his mother despite being a sanyasi and that too in the  backyard of his ancestral  house.  He authored simple but profound hymns like  the Bhaja Govindam and  Saundaryalahari which appealed to a large  cross-section of people.  Sankara  believed his mission was cosmic’.
 
Can one really find any ‘humility’ on the part of  ancient theologians  regarding their attitude, appraisal and attack about  their opponent’s  theological stand?  Because, ‘Hindu apologists did  not defend Hinduism as  such, but proponents of the great darsanas,
philosophical views or systems,  endeavored to brace their own ideas or doctrines by
exposing the fallacies  in others.. Apologetics was so much a part of  classical works on religion  and philosophy that a text without at least an  adumbration of the standard
criticisms of its rivals would surely seem incomplete..’ 1 (Richard Fox  Young, Resistant Hinduism, Vienna 1981, p.13).  And  in several cases this  criticism of the rivals never limited to their  doctrine and theology, but  went even to the extent of personal attack.  For  example,
 
it is particularly interesting to note that Sankara,  following the Upanisad, regards the various ascetic exercises as reduced to  insignificance by access  to knowledge: he does not condemn them, but the way  in which he places the  sramanas and the tapasvins in the same series as the  thief and the Candaala  suggests that the suffering they undertake is not  what brings them to  knowledge (the Buddha said nothing different). – Biardeau, p.86
 
Of course Sankara is not the only one having such  ‘humility’, and Ramanuja  called Sankara an atheist and Madhava called Sanakra  as a bastard.2 The  reason to say all this is not to settle any personal score against any of such great acharyas, but only to point to people like Khullar that all they say about such great people are not the whole truth.
Because note another point which Khullar says about Sankara as a ‘rebel  with a social cause’.  If  the story about Sankara is true, then he rebelled  not against any social
injustice done against for a sannyasi to do the  final rites of his mother.  But when the Mimamsikas of his time, opposed his Vedanta which challenged  their Vedic sacrifice, they refused to allow him to  do the final rite of his  mother, because Sankara, as a sannyasi has already renounced all forms of rites.  As he tried to violate his dharma as a
sannyasi, (who cannot perform any kind of [Vedic] ritual as he has already renounced them) they, assuming the role as the custodians of dharma opposed him.  Above all he only opposed them as a fellow Brahman and didn’t fight against any social cause.  His
dispute with his own relatives was doctrinal and not social.
 

In fact in Sankaras theological system, there is no hope and place for salvation even to the other high caste people except Brahmins that too for only a sanyasi.  There is no hope for Shudras3 and others including woman in his system for salvation.  ‘Sankara only speaks to the  “twice-born” and, if he teaches that one must reject rites and adopt the life of the sannyaasin-“renouncer”-in order to attain liberation, his very conception of sannyaasa is only meaningful within the context of the higher varnas, who have a share
in Vedic Revelation and brahmanic practice..’ (Biardeau, p.27)

Another point of Khullar with which I have to disagree is the ‘Sankara’s devotional outpourings’.  Though Sankara’s followers claim so many works of him, yet scholarly consensus is very limited.4 So many devotional works were composed by others and propagated them in the name of Sankara.  Of course no Hindu is going to accept such a scholarly consensus, particularly if it is from a westerner.   Even if it take for granted that Sankara wrote several devotional songs, yet in his theological system there is not place for God.   Claiming Sankara along with Ramanuja as ‘great apostles of bhakti’, only
again a ‘mass appeal’.  But such doctrinal dispute is immaterial for a common Hindu and that’s why the flexible orthodoxy of Sankara has till influential among the mass:

Indeed, his non-dualism makes it relatively easy to integrate the existing religious currents, since everything that is not pure and simple Brahman is illusion-maayaa-including Isvara.  This flexible orthodoxy is one of the major reasons for Sankara’s success up to the present day.  There is not a Hindu to be found, Sankarian or not, who has not learnt to distinguish the levels of reality, and who, inside a temple dedicated to a particular deity, will fail to explain to one, ad nauseam, that the deity worshipped in that
place is but a manifestation of the supreme Brahman..-( Biardeau p.75)

Later when time permits I will share in brief about Sankara’s vedantic theology and several scholars’ views on his theology, including some Indian scholars.

Dayanand Bharati, Mathigiri, May 6, 2003.

Notes

1.  All the brahmanic systems were built up against one adversary or another, and each of them constituted itself as a coherent whole offering a complete panoply of arguments and counter-arguments., and this is as true of the systems which speak of knowledge of Brahman, such as Vedaanta, as it is of the others.- Madeleine Biardeau, (Translated from the French by Richard Nice) , Hinduism: The Anthropology of a Civilization, Oxford University Press, Original edition, Paris, 1981, English edition, 1989, Oxford India
Paperbacks 1994, Sixth impression 2002, p.79

2. .the Maadhvas take advantage of this fact to pun on the name of their enemy: Sankara (“He who gives peace,” an epither of Siva given to many Saivas) becomes Sankara, a word that denotes indiscriminate mixture, particularly the breaking down of barriers between castes which is the principle sign of the advent of the Kali Age.  In keeping with this name, Sankara is said to be the bastard son of a widow; similarly, the Maadhvas
satirize Sankara’s famous monistic philosophy by stating that as a boy he was so stupid that he could only count to one. [[Grierson, G.A. “Maadhvas.” ERE(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Ed. James Hastings. 13 vols. Edinburg, 1908-26) 8: 232-235.p. 235]-Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, University of California Press, Berkeley. Paperback Edition, (1976) 1980, p.210

Sankara presents a simple, stark version of the Miimaamsaa argument that suudras are to be excluded, simply because the Veda excludes them:

The suudra has no competence, since he cannot study the Veda; for one becomes competent regarding things spoken of in the Vedas after one has studied the Vedas and known these things from them.  But there can be no study of the Veda by a suudra, for study of the Veda presupposes investiture with the sacred thread, which is restricted to the three castes.(UMS I.3.34)- Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993. p.138 (for a complete discussion on this point see pp. 137-140).

3. I will limit myself to the six works regarding whose authenticity there appears to be a scholarly consensus.  They are Samkara commentaries on the Vedaantasuutras, the Bhagavad Gita, and three Upanisads-Brhadaaranyaka, Chaandogya, and Taiitiriiya-and his independent treatise Upadesasaahasrii, See Paul Hacker’s (1978) contributions on Samkara: Nakamura 1983—Patrick Olivelle, The Aasrama system:The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, notes 17, p. 224

@@@

After mentioning a curious incident during the reign of King Candraapiida (c. 720) in which a widow in stead of committing Sati, undertook fast before the king to bring justice to the murder of her husband.  Then after mentioning the divided opinion among the modern and traditional feminists both against and for Sati,  Sharma writes, ‘The above case provides a new moral angle.  Just as the Brahmin widow refused to commit Sati to secure the rights of her husband—his right to safety of person, should not modern Hindu women not opposed to Sati follow her example, and, instead of joining the husband on the funeral pyre, devote the rest of their lives to securing the human rights of others?’.—Arvind Sharma, McGill University, Chips from an Indic Workshop, The Significance of Reference to Sati in the Rajatarangini, MLBD [Motilal Banarsidass] Newsletter, December 2005, p. 16.

Though modern Hindu scholars like Sharma can give any rationalistic interpretation for such act, yet for me this again shows only the male-dominated-Hindu-worldview.  Why he cannot also add the right of a widow to live again for her own right by remarriage?  Why, she should only to work for the human rights of others?  How about her right, as a human?

Db

The complete text of Sharma:

This famous twelfth century text mentions a curious incident during the reign of King Candraapiida (c. 720 A.D.).  It describes a woman fasting to death in front of the royal palace to induce the king to bring the murderer of her husband to justice.  The case is a complicated one, however, for she suspects that her husband was killed by a rival of his by employing black magic.  At first the king cites his helplessness in the matter as he can’t proceed against a subject without material evidence.  On seeing the widow fast, however, the king also undertakes a fast and through divine guidance manages to track down the culprit.

               The important point from our point of view emerges in the conversation the widow has with the king, in the course of which she states that she did not commit Sati out of a resolve to secure justice for her husband. (naanvagaam parinetaaram hantuh praticikiirsayaa IV.98). [italics original]

               Much has been written about Sati and the modern feminists and traditionalists are sharply divided on the issue.  Modern feminists, in righteous revulsion against the rite, refuse to concede that women could voluntarily perform Sati, even in the face of ample evidence.  Traditionalists, on the other hand, have begun to use modern rights language to defend the right to voluntary Sati.  If the right to die can be invoked in the context of euthanasia, why should the right to Sati be denied to Hindu women, they ask.  The above case provides a new moral angle.  Just as the Brahmin widow refused to commit Sati to secure the rights of her hasband—his right to safety of person, should not modern Hindu women not opposed to Sati follow her example, and, instead of joining the husband on the funeral pyre, devote the rest of their lives to securing the human rights of others?

@@@

Two days before in one discussion in Tamil channel they were talking about Diwali.  The one question asked was: why they take hot water bath on the Day of Diwali.  Then the concerned person began to give all kinds of SCIENTIFIC etc. reason for such practice.

Like wise one Medical doctor, who gives every day five minutes talk on Tirumandiram (in Tamil), as usual, began to explain all the SCIENTIFIC facts that one can find in Tirumandiram, which Tirumula, some 5,000 years before very specifically and carefully recorded in his songs.  For example, Tirumular already talking about the breaking ‘atom’ and the power that it has, in his songs, which now complete endorsed now by the scientist. 

Of course this is not new.  Since last few decades (may be even since Neo-Hinduism more than 100 years) Hindu apologetics and others are talking about the SCINTIFIC proof for so many believes, customs, traditions, scriptural records.

But as a student of scripture and literature, this instead of making me to think often irritates me.  Why we need the so called SCIENTIFIC endorsement of all the practices in life?  For example, taking hot water bath on Diwali.  One interesting fact is that taking oil bath on the morning of diwali with hot water is not a pan Indian custom.  In fact the concept of ‘Gangasnan’ (Ganga bath) is not there in North India.  They never buy new cloths or take oil bath in the early morning of Diwali.  In fact North Indians celebrate diwali only in the evening doing Lakshmi puja (while we celebrated diwali on 8 November, in North the celebrate this on 9^th evening).  Tamilnadu having a hot climate considering the rainy season in which diwali falls, it is quite normal for Tamilians to take hot water bath in the early morning of diwali. (The custom is that one should take bath before the sun raise.  And on that day it is believed that the water in which one takes bath turns as ganga and hence the enquiry of asking ‘gangasnanm aacha’ [have you took ganga bath] in Tamilnadu).  I still remember that my father never took bath in hot water or even before the sun raise.  Of course we will get up very early morning and my father will apply warm oil on our heads and after a hot water bath he will give new dress and then after receiving blessings from parents and elders we will go to play fire cracker.  By the time day will dawn and my father used to take bath in normal water.

So, the sickness of trying to define everything scientifically irritates than enlightening one.

Dayanand,

Gurukulam, November 9, 2007.

One interesting information that I got from one programme in National Geography is that Penguin mothers, after laying egg, leave it with the custody of their husbands and will leave.  All the male birds will began to incubate the eggs not moving anyway for nearly four moths in that extreme climate.  They will stand together close to each other to keep themselves warm.  Of course they will (quickly) take turn so that those in the outer ring can come inside.  All the four months they won’t eat, but keep one last meal in their mouth to feed the chick, when it comes out first.  That time exactly all the mothers will return back bring food in their mouth for the chicks.  Of course they have to persuade their male (each one will find exactly their partner) to transfer the custody of the chick to them now, which the father won’t do easily.  Another interesting fact is that those mother birds which have lost their chicks will fight to adopt the orphan chick (in which some times the chick might die due to suffocation as too many female birds will chase one orphaned chick).  At the same time, the mother bird which already has its chick won’t accept when an orphaned chick tries to join with it. 

So many interesting facts to know and also learn from nature.

Dayanad,

Gurukulam, November 9, 2007

@@@

Dear Dayanand,

Thank you very much for your last message.  I was particularly struck by your answer to question four in which you dealt with salvation from karma and the question of rebirth.  Might I have your permission to post much of your answer to question four to an email list of Christians to which I belong?  Here in America some of our people are interacting more and more with some young people who speak much about their “karma.”  Some of them also believe in many rebirths. 

The way in which you connected Christ’s work for us with relation to “karma” and to rebirth seems like a very effective way to witness to what Christ has done for us.  I am sure others might benefit from your insights.

Robert Schmidt

Dear Swamiji,

Here are the doubts one of my friends asked few months ago.  Please clarify.

1. Can we say OM having Jesus in mind?
2. What is the meaning of Gayathri Mantra?
3. Is reproduction and perpetuation of society a basic duty of man?
4. Please give your response to ‘The Rebirth and Moksha From Hindu Yesu Bhakta’s View’.

Dear Goutam and Elan,

I give my response to both of your questions.  Thanks for raising such questions.  If you have any doubt or want further explanation any point below, please ask again.  Thanks.

1. Regarding the use of OM by us I have written in the appendix of ‘Living Water and Indian Bowl’.  Please read it.  In our personal prayers and pujas (worship) we use OM at the beginning and end of the puja.  There were lots of developments regarding the meaning of OM.  However militant Hindus are opposing the way OM is (a)used by some Christian churches and Ashrams (both liberal and orthodox).  But as we are Hindu Christ bhaktas, we have every right to use our own symbols.  However I am not in favor of using OM as a symbol (both as a picture or icon)in our worship.  We just chant it (giving more importance to the sound to picture) but not keep it as a symbol to be worshipped.  Jesus is the Eternal Word which en-fleshed to become as a human being.  And to present this concept John used the Greek secular word ‘Logos’ in the preamble to his gospel.  So why cannot we also use the word ‘OM’ as that eternal Word which we see in Our Lord become like us?

• In Rig Veda several metres (notes) were used to give both music and chant the mantras.  Gayatra (not Gayatri) is one such metre in which there will be eight words [to say in other words from a lay man’s perspective, any vedic mantra which has eight words is called ‘gayatra metre’].  The Gayatri Mantra which is now become famous has only eight words [tat savitur varenyam bhargo devasya dhimahi diyoyonah prachodayat].  But now three more words (prefixed by Om): ‘bhoor bhuvah swah’, were not part of the original mantra in Rig Veda.  So originally Gayatra is only a vedic meter.  But in latter development this mantra is depicted as a goddess ‘Gayatri’ sitting on a lotus with ten hands.  However this mantra is addressed to ‘Savitur’ which is Sun.  Thus the famous gayatri mantra(Rig. III.62.10)is recited by Brahmins as a part of their everyday sandhyavandanam worship, and is directed to the Sun.  Originally it is a vedic metre (gayatra)of Samaveda along with Rathantara metre. Commenting on this mantra Prof. Kane says, ‘It literally means “we contemplate that esteemed [longed for] refulgence [glory] of the divine Savitr who may inspire our intellects [or actions]” [p.302]…Why the Gayatri verse [Rg.III.62.10] came to be famous it is difficult to say.  Its fame was probably due to its grand simplicity and to its adaptability to an idealistic conception of the world as emanating from an all-pervading Intelligence….’—History of Dharmasastras, Vol.II. Part.I. Ch. VII. Upanayana and the Gayatri. pp. 302-303.  However, later a separate goddess ‘Gayatri’ was created and the mantra was attributed to her also.
  
  3. A BIG YES.
  
  
  4.  This subject of ‘rebirth’ and ‘moksha’ is not that much a simple subject.  However I give a brief response here: the doctrine of ‘rebirth’ is one of the central and strongest Hindu worldviews.  All kinds of theories to prove or disprove is immaterial to a Hindu.  So a positive approach to such subjects will help anyone to understand such controversial doctrines rather than debating a point that is finally impossible to prove or disprove.  At least on the practical level this doctrine punarjanma (rebirth) gives a readymade answer for all the inexplicable happenings in this world – suffering, happiness, talents, inequality etc.

However from a Hindu Christ bhakta’s point of view we have to understand that Christ died not only for our sin(s) but for all the past karmas (if we still have some kind of faith in it).  The central point of this rebirth doctrine is ‘karma’.  In order to get rid of both good and bad karma(s) one has to take birth again.  But in Christ as He died for my past karmas, I need not come again to reap the consequence of my past karma.  Regarding the present karma, for which I have to take again a birth we can relax by the fact that if I confess and repent from my bad karma He remains faithful to forgive and remove my sin (bad karma).  Regarding the good karma, as I am merely a servant of my Lord, all the credit and merits belongs to him.  I simply do my duty recognizing the fact by my good karma I cannot earn any merit.  So I need not take one more birth even to enjoy the fruit of the good karma which I do now.  So a Hindu Christ bhakta, even if s/he has some kind of doubt regarding rebirth can rejoice in the fact that Christ died for her/his all kinds of karma which is the cause of rebirth.

Regarding Moksha or Mukti from a Hindu Christ bhakta’s point of view is that by His death on the Cross and because of the gift of faith in my life, I broke the chain of samsara (the cycle of birth and death).  To a Hindu mukti is breaking the cycle of samsara.  As Christ has removed all my past, present and future karmas (sanchita, prarabda and kriyamani)I come out from the cycle of samsara and this is Moksha.

—But remember that all these answers to both rebirth and Moksha is only for those Hindu Christ bhaktas, who still in her/his subconscious mind has some kind of doubts regarding these doctrines.

            Remembering our own doctrinal debate on Pre-destination, we must approach this subject very carefully.  Instead of entering into argument based on Heb.9:27, we can use our own Scripture and make them understand the danger of postponing the question of salvation to some other distant births.  A proper study of our Scriptures (e.g. Gita chap.16; Kena, Katha, Isa Upanishads and various Tamil Scriptures) will help us to have a positive approach than an out right criticism of it.

            In 1990, while I was talking with my father, after we spent nearly an hour, discussing about Upanishadic teaching, I straight away asked him a question, “do you think that salvation is possible based on what you believe?”. He remained silent for a few minutes and after quoting few mantras from the Upanishads and Bhajagovindam, he said, “even such a great saint like Sankara himself had to cry like this,¹ where do you and I stand?”  Then again, sharing the gospel to him in conclusion I said, “Jesus Christ has removed away all my past karmas on the Cross.  So no more births for me.  At the same time all the good works I now do is not to earn merits either to purify my mind or to attain higher worlds.  It is an obligation on my part now, as a niskamyakrama (Eph. 2:8-10).

            Such a positive approach will help the others to think and make them understand the need based on their own understanding first; instead of imposing our doctrinal ideas immediately.  God reveals His truth gradually and progressively.  After I met the FMPB missionaries at Periyamalai in Tamilnadu, and when I returned after three days of stay with them, I said,” I won’t forget your help even after fourteen births’.  Whereas I understood the truth behind the false doctrine of `Re-birth’ not only based on Heb.9:27, but also due to my personal studies on Upanishads.  Allow God to work out His own way rather than you running ahead of Him.  The Samaritan  woman understood Jesus first as a `Thirsty man’, then as a `Jew’, a `Rabbi’, a `prophet’ and finally as a `Messiah’.  The blind man in Jn.9th chapter–“the man called Jesus (9:11); a Prophet (9:17); a man…from God'(9:33) and `Lord’ (9:38)².  Mere haste and criticism may win the argument but not the soul for Christ.  For a clear understanding on this subject it is highly recommended to read Kane, op. cit. vol.V, part.II, Section IX, Ch. XXXV The doctrine of Karma and Punarjanma pp.1530-1612.

1.         The theory of samsara has great influence on the mind of all Hindus in every walk of life.  Even Adi-Sankara, the greatest philosopher was also disturbed by this and cried, “Born again and again, Dying over and over again, And getting into a mother’s womb over and over again.  It is hard to cross over this ocean of repeated life and death.  Save me from it, merciful Lord!”, in his Bhajagovindam.– C. Rajagopalachari, Bhaja Govindam, Bharatiya Vidya  Bhavan,  Bombay-7, Fifth edition, 1988.p. 34.( Though

this sloka is by Sankara’s disciple Sri Nityanand, yet

the whole Bajagovindam is ascribed to Sri Sankara, as we

consider the proverbs by Solomon and Psalms by David.)

2. Lewis Drummand, What the Bible says, (special edition … for use at the International Conference for itinerant

Evangelists, July 1986, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands) p.37.

@@@

Then soul through physical body and sense organs performs various deeds resulting in punya of papa, and thus bound to Law of Karma. The jiva is bound to samsara till the intellect disappears by the dawning of Self Knowledge1.

1How can the intellect disappear, which is merely an instrument in the hands of the soul. As the soul alone animates the buddhi it alone must hold responsible for its Karma. Hence it cannot be mere witness, but it is the kartha and bhokta. The buddhi will never disappear as long as the Prabrahman because of His Divine will animate it through His own reflection of soul called jiva within every being. Then the soul being the center of the stage causes shristi Stithi and pralaya and hence causing the endless cycle of Brammanda. So the Supreme Self becomes helpless in this regard. All these merely leads to confusion. Because these ideas were told by some so called seers several thousands years ago, we cannot simply take them for granted. Leave the rationality and logic, even blind faith won’t be resulted by these kind of thoughts as they leads to mere confusion. Faith-standing beyond rationality must give peace to heart and mind. Where as this kind of blind faith will remove every thing and will produce mere blind followers without any faith or atheist alone.–db [Written in early 1990s.—db]

The physical body and sense-organs which relate it to the external world and subject it to actions and their results are described as evil (papmana-Brah.Up.3.8) and death (Mrityo rupani-Bri.Up.IV.3.7)2.

2 First both body and sense organs are mere instruments. They too are animated by the jiva, then how can we call them Papmanah or Mrityorupani.

Second the jiva due to Law of Karma experiencing the fruits of its action in previous birth, then karma is the source for every act and enjoyment of body and sense organs-so we cannot blame body and sense organs. –db

@@@

Merely using the word ‘meditation’ won’t help us to develop this art.  There is no clear cut interpretation for this word.  However, as Indians, we can take help from our own tradition—yoga.  Though Yoga as a philosophy and practice is complicated.  Here with I am sending what I have written on this subject in ‘Understanding Hinduism’ and also the another paper on Yoga, which already I sent.

Before we think about how to meditate, we have to remember the important fact that ‘meditation’ that the bible talks about is ‘not emptying’ the mind, but filling it with good things (Phil. 4:8).  Two important stages in ‘meditation’ is ‘dhyana and dharana’.  Dhyana is ‘concentration’ and dharana is continuously holding that concentration.  Though it is very easy to give the meaning, yet in practice it is very difficult.  Only continuous effort and strong determination alone will help one get some benefit out of it.

In silent meditation, the main hurdle is that the moment we sit to meditate, so many thoughts will come to our mind.  So what I try to do is this:  I will begin to surrender those immediate thoughts which disturb my mind too much to the Lord.  I will say within me ‘Lord, this thing can wait a bit and now it is time for me to sit before you’.  When we talk with someone else, we will pay attention to them and to listen them.  Other wise, we cannot have a meaningful talk with them (at the same time we have to agree that while we talk with others, we do several other things—even talking with others).  Our mind can do myriad things at the same time.  So after spending few minutes to surrender those thoughts which disturb our mind one by one to the Lord, it is better to think about those blessings that we received from Him—even day to day (good sleep, health, situation etc.) life.  This may lead us to worship Him as God and our Lord.  This time we can sing some song silently in our mind (to discipline it) and concentrate the meaning of each word.  Or we can meditate some Word of God.  It left with the individual to do according to her need and taste.  One good discipline in meditation is to pray for others.  I divide the country in several zones and each day I will pray for those for whom I have to pray in that zone.

We don’t need to follow any one particular method.  Each one has to develop some order (which we should never allow to become routine) according to her need.  Once we become familiar it is better to change the order.  However the main purpose of ‘dhyana’ is to take it to ‘dharana’.   Even if the order becomes mere routine, we can make it lively and enjoy it with the realization that we are sitting at His presence.  Routine we cannot avoid in our life—same food, same dress, same people (same wife?) etc.  But we know how to enjoy them in proper way.  Several times we eat food without enjoying it.  Yet we are doing it.  The same way in silent meditation, even it becomes mere routine, we have to continue it to develop it as a spiritual discipline.

Here I stop.  I know it is very easy to write.  One small suggestion.  In stead of doing it as a group, divide your mandali in small group.  Maximum allow only three people to gather together in week days in each area and you go and join them.  Then try to practice it.  Encourage each one to do practice in their personal sadhana also.  God bless you.

I do remember Satpal in my prayers.  My regards to Ruth and the baby.  Convey my greetings to all the bhaktas in the mandali.  I remember Tutu and her husband for the wonderful seva of packing food for our travel.  We enjoyed it.  My special thanks to them.   This computer is sitting on the very table cloth which Dalvir (Tutu’s husband) presented to me.  Rest in next mail.

Dayanand

NB. I have written one article on ‘meditation’ in Tamil.  When time permits I will translate and send to you.  Better you remind me, other wise I will immerse in other works.

@@@

Where to seek and What to seek.

The following dialogue I had with Sri Jagadesh Tripati of Ranikhet (Haldwani) on August 18, 2001, evening 4.30 p.m.

After some talk Tripatiji shared about Bhutabarti Sai baba and the social work done by him.  Agreeing with him I said that I too appreciate the way he is doing lot of Social service to the poor and needy.  But, ‘the problem in such work is that as long as he lives, there won’t be any problem among the Trustee and misuse of their power and authority in handling the Trust and social work.  Though Baba claims that he will ever live, one day he too has to pass away.  Then what will happen to the Trust?  Where is the guarantee that there won’t be any fight among the Trustees to hold and control the entire Trust and do the service according to their convenience?  This I say because even at present some influential people related with Baba’s Ashram, can overlook those who wait for a long time to receive heart Operation and other treatment in Baba’s hospital.  One of my Shisya’s relative get admitted in the Hospital easily, even without applying for it through one of his other relative who has some influence in the Ashram.  While several thousands of other patience are waiting for a long period, he not only got free treatment without waiting for it but also managed to stay in the Ashram for another three months for further checkup, which is not possible for other patience.’  Then I told how I wrote a letter to Baba’s Hospital explaining the poor condition of Ashok the servant at Lallan’s house at Rewa (M.P.) who was in need of some urgent heart surgery, which they cannot afford. But no response came from there for his treatment.  Finally he passed away two years before.  ‘Even while Baba is alive, if some people can misuse the power, what would be the condition after his death?  Several such Social Service Trusts finally become the household property of few Trustees and the next generation people even completely stopped all kinds of service and misused the property for their personal use.

Tripatiji:  What you say is true.  Several years before I wrote to Baba Ashram seeking his interview and audience for five minutes.  But I received the letter that next one year it is impossible as lots of people are waiting in the list.

DB:  Even after ten years it is not possible.  Unless you are the PM of India or President or you want to donate several million Dollars, you won’t get any personal audience with Baba.  Considered being a Bhagavan, sometimes he will give his darshan to the gathering of his devotees at the Ashram in public, but to have a private audience with that bhgavan is impossible.

-Then I told about the present ‘Amma’ of Melmaruvatoor, who some twenty years before would sit and talk with you even for a gift of Rupees twenty.  But now with a property of millions rupees and having several Institute doing service to the public, one cannot easily approach him.  I won’t even blame them, as millions of people become their followers; it is not possible for them to give individual audience to everyone.

Tripatiji:  But we have to accept one fact—why only few such people become very famous and not all.

DB:  They never become famous.  Only people make them famous.  Suppose if you visit a Baba or temple and when you return back to your home, people will enquire about your visit or you yourself will share about it with others.  And definitely you will only say what kind of blessings you have received there, even though you returned empty both in mind and spirit.  No Hindu will accept that s/he was disappointed by a baba or temple, because then it will interpret by others as lack of her/his personal faith in the baba or the temple.  ‘Because of your lack of faith (or bad karma in the previous births) you didn’t receive any blessing’, will be others comment.  And to avoid any such humiliation you will exaggerate and even claim that only after visiting that baba or place, you got real shanti in your life.  By this way these baba’s and temples become famous.

Then I told about Premananda who is now in jail.  How he too become famous after few barren woman become pregnant after visiting his ashram, but how he actually raped them and gave child to them, which was hide by those women, but finally truth came when one of the inmate of the same ashram was killed.  People instead of exposing the hypocrisy in those people, will only glorify them and make a saint out of a sinner.  Just a saffron dress and a matted hair with few people to exalt them is enough for one baba to become very famous.  One time at Chidembaram when I went to buy some vegetables to my mother, some venders called me ‘Premananda’ on seeing my saffron dress, condescendingly as he was just arrested and put in jail.  Instead of getting annoyed with a smile I told them, ‘who made Pemananda famous as well as a criminal?  Only people like you have done this.  Instead of performing medical checkup or praying to God for a child, you approached a baba and he has helped the way in which he could fulfill your need.  If you give milk to snake, in return it will only give poison to you and not it’s mani (head pearl).  So don’t blame a baba, but you correct yourself.’

Tripati:  That is true.  Let me tell one real story from my own life.  It happened during 1981.  That time I was working in a factory and we got factory bus freely to go to Haridwar.  So some sixty of us went and there was our Security Officer of the factory with us.  He was addict to drunk, but he warned us that we cannot drink at Haridwar, as we were going to a pilgrimage.  So when finally all the ritual and bath were finished, we counted the money and totally we all had only around thirty or forty rupees.  But it was not enough to buy liquor to share with all outside Haridwar on our return trip.  But that Security Officer said, ‘no problem. Don’t worry I will arrange for it.’  Then he put lot of sandal paste and red tilak on his forehead, wore few rosaries (rudhrakshas) and spread the sheet under a tree and we all joined with him in singing bhajan as we also had the instruments with us.  He asked all of us to put what all the money that we had on that sheet.  Within one hour we managed to collect more than seven hundred rupees.  Because several people came and throw some money on the sheet and touched that Security baba’s feet seeking his blessing and went away.  Then with that money collected from other pilgrims and devotee of Security baba, we had a good party on our way back.

DB:  As long as people never seek true Knowledge to attain salvation—even right kind of knowledge about God and Karma, such kind of blind faith and babas will flourish in our country. If any Swamiji talk about the need of true spirituality no one will listen to him or visit him second time.  At the same time if he promises to do some miracle to cater to their need, people will throng to him. 

Then I also talked about how through Puranas and introducing other Tantric rituals the Brahmins were successful in tribalizing the Hindu Community either exploiting their need for mundane affairs at the cost of true spiritual knowledge imparted by few true Sanyasis and Acharyas.  Then I quoted the example of how the cult of Ganesha, linga and other such spirit worship of the forest people were adopted by all the Hindus through the efforts of the Brahminical Priest or some babas.

Tripatiji also said that it depends upon the individual’s perception about such a person and place.  ‘For example when I visit Shridi Sai Baba Ashram, I sit for meditation and no one come and gives any kind of blessing.  But the place itself has such a power to give you real peace.’  Then he gave some example of visiting Khajuraho temple with full of erotic sculpture and visit of Kosani to see Himalayas.  Each one may have different kind of experience according to their individual perception.

However before he left he said that by spending 45 minutes with me in talking all these things he got more than Ten points to think in coming days.

After thought:

When I moved to the present ashram where I am staying with my mother, when young people come here and seek my counsel on several issues, I say, ‘don’t go to any sannyasi seeking answer to your problem in life.  A sannyasi is not the correct person to understand your struggle in life to give proper answer.  If you cannot seek and learn from your own elders at home, you are not going to get it from a sannyasi.  A sannyasi,  to avoide such life alone try to live outside the society (of course not away from it).  So better leave him alone to do his sadhana in his own way. 

This surprised them a bit as they never hear such teaching from a sannyasi—not to seek solution to their problems in life.  When some rare visitors ask me about the program here the ashram, I say:  No program here. I don’t prescribe any program to anyone.  Already you all are living a life tightly programmed.  What is the use of coming here again to follow another such program in the name of spirituality. But this ashram is opened for all.  But they have to bring their own program.  If you want to sleep and take rest do it. Or if you want to go for a walk in the nearby forest—do that.  Or if you want to read books, we have a good library.  Or if you want to sit and meditate, we have a calm dhyanamandapa where you can sit and meditate by yourself in which I won’t guide or disturb.  So bring your own program.  But if you still want to know my program, then it is: SILENCE.  And I welcome you to practice is by joining me.

Db.  July 5, 2013

o t factory with us.  He was a called me

o t factory with us.  He was a called me @@@

Some of the questions asked at Durgapur: March 7, 1999.

Ganesh Roy: Do you believe all that is recorded in Genesis first few chapters?

Ans:  All the records that we find in the first eleven chapters are not strictly historical as we understood at present.  Remember that they all are a collection of a long oral tradition presented in an abriviated form.  Above all the intension of the author is not to give any correct historical account of what happened all through the history.  It is first an introduction to the record of the salvation events in the history of Nation Israel.  So the author wrote from that prespective alone.  Above all the style of writing in his time is different from that of ours.  We should remember that each generation has its own way of saying things and one cannot and should not judge other time writings from their own prespective.    Another important thing is the language.  If not all, at least some of the events recorded in the Genesis is limited to the language in which it was written.  We can at the best can understand the very closely the mind of the author but not completely.  (For example we have in India Sutras which are short aproxims.  Though they were written in Sanskrit, yet what we at present understand is only the interpretation of those sutras by later commentators and not strictly what the authors of those sutras intented to convey).

Finally, the author of any scripture can only give just a summary of what he understood and even intended to give, which he thought is important from his point of view.  For example when a person writes diary every day, he cannot write all that happened in one day.  So he will record what he think is important for that day.  Now after several years if anyone wants to write about him based on his personal diary, cannot even share what all he wrote on every day, not even of one year.  But they have to give some precise information from all his writings in his diary.  The same way, the author of Genesis, after collecting all the information from the Oral tradition, gave some precise record about the Origin of humanity from his point of view.  So unless we understood the mind and spirit of the author, we cannot understand any of his precise record.

Deexit: Is there is only one way to salvation or many ways? Gandhiji commenting about Ramakrishna said that he practised what he preached’, what do you think about it?  So many Gurus and Acharyas came before and after Jesus.  Did they are not relevant?

There is only one way for salvation.  But one can search for it from different sources.  Once he is convinced of the path, then that way alone can lead him to mukti.  So once must have clear conviction that the path in which he is tredding will lead to salvation definitely.  It is an unacceptable and superficial statement to say that all the ways leads to the same destination.  Without knowing where the path goes, if we travel we may even get lost permanently.  So be sure that the path which you have selected will help you to reach your goal.  Once you are convinced, then that path alone should be your way to go.

Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings are simple and several of his illustrations are beautiful.  But without knowing all that he shared simply accepting his teaching as authentic based on other’s comments about him is not correct.  Now leaving what he taught and practiced, let us approach his teaching from another point of view.  A guru or acharya’s teaching will be considered valuable and important not because on his own value but what kind of changes it will bring upon his followers.  One cannot become a true or relevant guru because of his personal life or teaching.  What kind of impact he is leaving on his followers who in turn will carryout his vision and mission remaining faithful to his teaching alone will determine whether his teaching and life is relevant or not.  Now if we carefully study the teachings of Vivekananda who is considered Ramakrishnan’s official disciple and following what happened in Ramakrishna Mission, one has to doubt how far Ramakrishna’s teachings are strictly followed there. 

Above all forget the whole world and India.  Take only Bengal.  Why Communism become so strong in a place where Ramakrishna lived and prached.  Why so much blind faith and rituals are go on in a place where Vivekananda preached his practical vedanta claiming based on the teachings of his guruji.  No where in our country so much money is wasted as done by Bengalis in Durgapuja.  Considering the lack of economic and social development (not much industries and still poverty and social discrimination) why people of Bengal can offord to waste this much money on Durgapuja throwing the idol in water at the end?  If Ramakrishna and Vivekananda’s teaching cannot change this condition, I leave the rest to you to consider.

Pravin Datta: Who is a True Guru?  If Goddess ask us in dream to built a temple for her, then what should one do? Krishna says that he will come again and again to destroy sinners—how to understand this?

Kowshik: I don’t have study mind.  I cannot concentrate on anything.  How to overcome this weakness?

Joshi: What is body-soul-mind and Spirit?

After Sat-sangh at Varanasi on 28th, March 1999.

Mataji: You shared about the two dogs fighting within us.  But you didn’t gave to solution to overcome it.  How to over come that fight?

On train from Varanasi to Lucknow on March 30, 1999.

Ganga Sagar Yadev: Is it necessary to renounce the world to attain Mukti.   As a family man does not have much time to do sadana what is the hope for him to attain mukti?  Do you agree with the Sanyasis involving in politics and misleading people in the name of religion?  A saintly person who fear god and want to lead a spiritual life is again and again is persecuted by people.  If he wants to survive in such a hostile sarrounding, he too retaliate otherwise he cannot live?  In such a situation what one should do?  Giving up spirituality behave like others or run away from the scene and try to live else where?  But one who has family and property how can even run?

Rama Sankar Srivatsava: Puuja and worship are outside activity.  Leaving them is it not necessary to go within us to know God and attain mukti?  How to control mind?

Brahmanand Mishra: Though we have everything in our home there is no peace.  There is always tension as my father often abuse my mother.  I am ready to do anything he asks me to do, but what should I do when he abuses my mother?  How to bring peace in my home?

               The most difficult human endeavour is the art of two people living together without difference of opinion.  At the same time only this difference of opinion alone makes the life worthy of living, which helps us to  

Veerender: Is God a sadgun brahman or Nirgun brahman?  Science and Religion never agree with each other.  How to resolve it?

Ans. God in His own self is Nirgun Brahman.  But the moment we think of Him, give Him a name and form, then He become Sagun.  Even the very words Nirgun itself is not applicable to a Transcendental-attribute less God.  As the word ‘Nirgun’ is only an opposite to ‘Sagun’ viz. Attributeless or Characterless.   Then the very Attibutelessness itself become an attribute.  So thinking or talking about a God without any attribute itself is a contradiction.  When the rain water comes down from the cloud it  observes all the particles in the atmosphere and become water with some taste.  But in itself it is pure like cloud.  But the very pure or tastelessness of the water in the cloud itself then is a taste.  However in order to keep the transcendental nature of God we can use the word Nirgun.  But it is because of our human limitation of reaching Him by through our mind.  So when He is reached by our mind or spirit, then He becomes Sagun.

–April 4, 1999. Madina (Rohtak), Haryana.

Science itself is based with some assumption.  So approaching spirituality or about God through Science won’t workout.  Spirituality is a different science where faith is the only criteria and not proving with any rational formulas.  Above all as a scientist has to workout to prove something which he assumes out of pure gusse, he is not inventing anything new but only try to prove something which he assumes.  Whereas we cannot prove God in this sense as if He is there out of our assumption which then we can prove by our research or rational argument.  Above all the God-science is a revelation whereas science as an art is called invention, which in true sense only a discovery which is already in different form.  For example H² + O makes water.  But a scientist can never create Hytragen and Oxygen out of vaccum and can produce water.  What he discovers are already existing matters in a different forms.  So God is under no obligation to prove Himself through any scientific process.  While the Faith can understand any revelation Reason can understand only through invention.

–April 4, 1999. Madina (Rohtak), Haryana.

@@@

Swami Nirvedananda, HINDUISM AT A GLANCE, Remakrishan Mission,

The author has given a breef at the same time in a nutshall from explanation about the basic principles of Hinduism which remains only in Tehory up to his day.

For an aveage Hindu all these princeles are mere ideological talks. He may listen read and even to some extent try to understand them, but when it comes to the practical side none of the theory holds any value to him. No one performs his duty with a aim to attain perfection. For most of them it is merely the struggle for existence.  Here I would like to bring one important matter which the Author fails to bring. The ‘Fate’ plays an important role in the life of each Hindu. Most of the time he believes that what he is at present is due to his fate. His profession, standard of life, vice and virtues, even this desire to attain perfection all are determind only by the fate which according to him was already written by God and even once written God himself cannot change it…For an average Hindu even God Himself becomes a victim of His own fate.

No one do his duty or even worship God to purify his mind so that he can attain perfection. When he worships God, he does it merely with vested inerest of getting benefits, that too limited to physical and sense pleasure. Fear or Selfishness is the driving force behind his religion. Either to appease the wrath of God, or devatas or demons he performs his religious duties. And most of the time to receive benefit and mostly material-a good life, wealth, power, position etc is the motive for his worship of the God. And for some it is an escape. To over come anxiety they take refuge in worship. In the year 1989 during May a big Yagna was performed by spending several lakhs rupees at Gogaradiya in Madhubani district of North Bihar. Lakes and lakhs of people attended it. I was talking to few who were returning form there. I asked them what their expectation after that Yagna. And the reply was, “see just we have performed the Yajan.  Let us wait and see what are the blessings that God is going to give to the people of these area”. They not only expected mere earthly blessings but also limited it only to their own area.

And a handful of them are sincers people by renouncing everything. They do their duties as a husband, wife, son etc and like wise just they worship the God considering it as a mere duty expecting nothing. My brother-in-law who is in Andamans used to say: why take the Religion so seriously. Of course most of the Hindus not expecting anything for them used to pary: “Lord keep every one happy and bless us all”

But never I have done myself (when I was a Hindu) no heard any one praying for his enemies.

So all those teachings of Shastras are still there in theorytical from, but when it comes to the practical side-THEY AREIN NO WAY DIFFERENT FROM AN ATHIEST OR ANY ONE ELSE. –db [Written in the early 90s—db]

@@@

                                             Symbolic interpretation of sex.

Prof. Sharma, thankfully admitting that ‘sex is an ingredient of it (Tantra) in a way not found in other strands of Hinduism’, explains by saying that, ‘there is more to tantra than sex’ in it.  Then giving reason for it, he shares further information that it seems to be connected with the raajasika level of the practice than with other two strands of the (so called) three gunas (taamasika and saatvika).

Now he found an interesting insight in the ‘Christian practice of Eucharist’.  After mentioning the ‘much debate in Christian circles whether the rite is a symbolical statement or whether transubstantiation occurs’, finally he concludes:

Just as eating bread and drinking wine in Eucharist takes on a totally different meaning than what ordinarily eating bread and drinking wine imply on account of the Christian context, similarly the sexual act takes on a totally different meaning than what it ordinarily implies on account of the Tantrika context.

Any reading of rituals in another sampradaya based on text and books without having some personal experience in it with commitment will motivate to justify or explain some unacceptable or strange part of rituals in one faith with another.  Technically Prof. Sharma seems to be correct.  I do not know the reality about the ‘sex’ in Tantrik context in practical way.  However, regarding maha prasad (as we call it in our circle as Hindu bhaktas of Christ), it is more than symbolism or transubstantiation, on which the church unnecessarily debated.  Because, bhagavan Muktinath (Jesus) ask his bhaktas to do it ‘in remembrance of him’ (Jn  ).  So it is more than symbolic as it celebrated not only to ‘remember’ him and what he has done on the cross, but according to the early church tradition (see I Corinthians ) it is celebrated around the Lord’s table denoting the fellowship among the bhaktas.  That’s why, though one individual bhakta can have fellowship with the Lord through his sadhanas, yet she cannot celebrate the maha prasad alone (as one single Hindu can offer prasad to her deity and also eat and share with others later).  This is the main teaching of Eucharist and not the debate over the ‘transubstantiation’ or to compare with other sadhana in Hinduism. 

If I interpret in the same line of Prof. Sharma, comparing ‘sex’ and ‘Eucharist’ the other way around, can I also say that, ‘as the Christians are celebrating Eucharist in the context of fellowship with each other and with the Lord, the Tantriks also perform “sex” to have fellowship among themselves with their deity’.  Remember, as per my knowledge goes, most of the ‘sex’ part in Tantrism is done in a group and not just between a tantrik and a woman.  What a virra¹ sadhana!

1. ‘…the saadhakas are of three kinds pasu, viira and divya corresponding to the trichotomy’ of saatvika, raajasika and taamasika.—Prof. Sharma, Sex and Tantra, Chips from an Indic Workshop, MLBD (Motilal Banarsidass)Newsletter February 2007, p.16

Dayanand,

Mathigiri, February 23, 2007, 6.00 am.

The Christian idea of marriage as a “sacrament” surely includes the area of sex.  Oneness or unity in spirit, mind, and body is the aim of marriage (and that unity between the two is a model of the unity between God and us, between Christ and the mandali).  Sex (within marriage of course) is only one expression of that unity.  Mahaprasad is another expression of that unity.  I suspect there are more expressions of this unity than we realize.  True selfless love and service among the bhaktas has to be one of them.

Chakaravarthy

The question that arises out of Prof. Sharma’s comparison maha-prasad with that of ‘tantric sex’ never raises the question about the ‘unity’, but explains very cheaply the way he compares it with maha-prasad.  The motive behind any tantric act is to acquire power of god (or goddess) whereas maha-prasad reminds the fellowship based on unity with the Lord and one another.  Comparing the ritual of one faith with that of another in order to make it more clear can be accepted.  But in order to justify some immoral ritual act in one faith should not be compared with that of another where it distort the meaning in a bad way.

dayanand

@@@

On April 9^th, 2006 I went to Amman Stores to see Srinivasan the proprietor (around 35 years old, educated and from a high caste and wealthy family) to seek his help to find a good auditor for Trust accounts.  I know him since 2002 and he is happy to receive me in his shop and to chat about some spiritual things.  One time he said to me, ‘even if you come not for purchase, but just a simply visit, it makes me happy and I find some joy’,  As I had some time, I continued to talk this time and explained about gurukulam construction work, as he already knows that we have a place there.  Then he said, ‘Swamiji, can I come and stay at your gurukulam for some time.  I want to go to some place to be quite as I am very much disturbed in my mind.  There are many questions in my mind about life.  At present we face several problems in our family, though we have everything we need.  There is no guidance in our family’.  For this I said, ‘you are welcome to stay at gurukulam, once it is completed, but at present it is under construction.’

In continuing about his idea of going to some place to find solace and peace I said, ‘we should guard ourselves seeking some peace and solution in isolation from the problem.  This is what several Yoga centers, and ashrams are promising people.  However, they go and find their peace by paying some money.  But as they seek instant and ready-made solution to their problems that too in isolation, once they return they are disappointed.  Those who are honest will accept their disappointment, and others, as per our (Indian) worldview, will keep a brave face and even began to recommend others to go there.  Control of mind etc. is not the solution.  We should neither run away from the situation nor try to overcome (or avoid) by ignoring it.  Rather we should try to understand it properly so that we can tackle it.  What one cannot learn from his parents and home, he cannot learn elsewhere (at least in India).  What we sannyasis, gurus, acharyas can do is to remind the things that people learnt in their home, as they often forget them or under value such teachings.’

Then Srinivasan requested to go with him to see his parents and other family members.  ‘My younger sister, who was a college lecturer refuse to marry as she has a pessimistic view about life.  There is lots of confusion in our home as each one tries to follow some new gurus or bhagavans, but disappointed.  By your talk, you cleared some of my doubts.  If you could come and see them, then you can also help them also, you can counsel my sisters’.  So I went to his home.  His wife and daughter yesterday left to her mother’s place for summer holiday.  But I met his elder brother, parents, and sister.  I spent nearly two hours talking to them.

After some common talk about family values, dharma etc., his sister said, ‘what is the ultimate purpose of this life?  What is the hope of mukti?  What lies after this life on earth?  Just earning, marrying, seeing T.V. enjoying the life is not all that in our life.  But when we seek guidance from gurus and others, only we are disappointed’.

Quoting various Tamil scriptures and also from Sanskrit and Hindi and also from the bible, I told her that merely seeking some help to find god or some short cut formula in spiritual life won’t help any one.  Those who promise instant and ready-made solutions to life’s problem are only doing some religious business and are not interested about the welfare of the seekers.  The one answer that I have is that unless you find the right guru, you won’t get the solution.  But however, you seek; you won’t find him/her.  But when your heart and mind is prepared then s/he will come seeking you.  And that time you need the discerning spirit to recognize him/her. 

To his father’s question about finding god, I said, ‘no one has seen god or can ever see’.  But the guru who dispels your darkness and show the right way would become your god finally.  When he talked about Vivekanand and Ramakrishna I said, ‘one cannot live based on other’s experience’.  Then he began to narrate about several mysterious and miracles happened in Ramakrishna’s life.  For this I pointed out that after the passing of a guru, it is a common practice everywhere to add several supernatural events like mystery, miracle etc., to make him more appealing to others.

Srinivasan’s sister said, ‘my mother strongly believed in gods and always prayed for healing.  When she had a serious uterus problem, she refused to see even a doctor, but strongly believed that god’s would heal her.  She saw the blessing that is depicted in the pictures of the gods and believed that from their hands some power will come and heal her.  But nothing happened and when she become serious we have to rush to her to the hospital.  Whereas several people come and tell us that they have gone to a particularly temple or see a guru or a swamiji and got healing.  But whey it never happened to my mother even though she had strong faith?

For this I said, ‘god expects me to use the mind which he has given.  Then I have to trust him through prayer that through the treatment heal me.  When nothing works, then we have to resign to the will of god.  Instead, when we go and simply put our list before god and demand it, then it is not prayer.  The bible clearly says that one should pray according to the will of god.  Even before we ask, he knows what we need.  So he will answer our prayers according to his will and purpose and not according to our whims. 

We also talked about idol worship, true bhakti etc.  But as this being the first meeting with Srinivasan’s parents, I don’t share how I found my guru in Jesus.  However finally I prayed for all.  I also advised his sister to think about marriage as remaining single is not god’s purpose for all.  When Srinivasan dropped me back in the bus stand, he asked whether I am free next Sunday also so that he can take me to his home.  ‘I strongly believe that your visit and talk might have removed some confusion in our family.  At least you have a good beginning.  I got several answer to my question and I feel some kind of relief in my mind and spirit’.  I promised to visit in future and gave my phone number.

So the modern commercialization of ashrams and yoga centers along with several new gurus and bhagavans in T.V. programme confuses sincere seekers.  Particularly the competition among the gurus and ashrams more irritate sincere seekers.  To one of her questions I told Srinivasan’s sister that a true guru would never expect people to follow him, rather after pointing the truth and the way for it, he too will join them in their pilgrimage.  ‘God expects you to think and reflect the teaching that you receive from a person.  Even don’t accept everything that I say.  After I left, think and reflect about them.  Even if you want to become my follower, I don’t want it.  I want you to find the truth and follow it.  When you hear, any new teaching don’t jump with emotion and began to follow it.  Anything that one decides based on emotion won’t last long.  But you have to use your reason and mind first.  As Kabir well said through an illustration, never get trapped in the net to pick up the corn that the hunter throws to catch the bird.  But after he left, rolling his net, then go and pick up the corn, as he cannot take them back with him.  In the same way you don’t even get trapped in my net, but think deeply what all I shared after I left.’

Continue to pray for Srinivasan and his family members.  They are from Mudaliyar community and very rich people.  He and his eldest brother are looking after the business.  His second brother is given in adaptation to his father’s sister and lives at Salem.  His sister is M.Sc. M.phil and 29 years old and refuse to marry.  Both Srinivasan and his brother have one daughter.