Integrating and following.

On 16th October, three of my host’s cricket friends visited me. When asked about my spirituality, I started with a light-hearted joke: “What is spirituality?” I then shared my personal journey, which ultimately led me to Muktinath as my Guru. As this is a familiar story, I won’t repeat it here.

That evening, my host raised an interesting point. He said he had learned a new concept: that as a Hindu, I integrate the good values of Muktinath and the Muktiveda. However, in the West, there’s a distinction between integrating what is good and following the Lord.

In response, I explained that I don’t see such a distinction based on English terms like “integrating” and “following.” For me, the Hindi word anuyaayee (follower) encompasses both. My question is: how can one follow a Guru without integrating their teachings?

I continued by saying, “Tell me anything from the Muktiveda, and I can point to where a similar concept exists in Hindu philosophy. As the Mahabharata says, ‘Whatever is found elsewhere in the world can also be found in the Mahabharata, and what is not in the Mahabharata will not be found elsewhere.’”1 This applies equally to Hinduism, where one can find most of the major themes and concepts of the Muktiveda, though some teachings remain unique to each tradition.

In Hinduism, there are concepts similar to those in Muktiveda, though presented differently. Major themes such as prayaschitta (atonement), forgiveness, and grace are found in Hindu traditions. For instance, the concept of a divine body, as in Muktiveda, is present in traditions like Srivaishnavism. The story of Dasaratha reappearing to Rama after the battle at Lanka reflects this idea. Similarly, just as the Muktiveda speaks of covenant promises with God choosing a nation, Brahmins believe they are chosen as the earthly representatives of the divine.2

my host mentioned that unless one becomes a Madhava, they cannot attain mukti (liberation). If someone does not become a Madhava now, they must be born as one in their next life to attain mukti. According to Sankara, only twice-born individuals are qualified for mukti, and among them, only those who become sannyasis (renunciants) can attain it. Among the twice-born, only Brahmins can become sannyasis, so only a Brahmin who becomes a sannyasi is considered qualified for mukti.3

Does this mean I no longer need Muktiveda because similar concepts exist in my tradition? No. I was born into a tradition that allows me to incorporate Muktiveda/Muktinath into my spiritual practice without theological compromise. Hinduism accommodates coexistence without altering core theological beliefs.

Since Muktinath became my guru, I need not ‘integrate’ what already belongs to me as a Hindu into my devotion. As I allowed the Lord to be part of my worldview, He transformed my understanding, enabling me to live as His bhakta while remaining a Hindu.

The question arises: Do I selectively integrate elements from Muktiveda that suit my purposes and discard the rest? Or do I do the same with my Hindu worldview? This is a complex issue that cannot be fully addressed here.

However, as I allow the Lord to be part of my worldview, I need not embrace every aspect of Hinduism without critical evaluation, especially concerning religious practices and rituals. As discussed in ‘Going Overboard,’ each sampradaya (tradition) upholds exclusivism, but Hinduism also provides space for exclusivity in my devotion to the Lord. To prove my Hindu identity, I need not go to extremes or engage in artificial practices.

For instance, the ‘Varalakshmi Puja’ according to Smarta tradition must be performed by the mother-in-law, as it is inherited from her mother-in-law. A daughter-in-law does not need to perform it unless her mother-in-law does. My mother, whose mother did not perform it, does not carry on the practice.

Recently, my mother advised my sister to keep the Navaratri ‘golu’ (display of deities) simple due to time constraints. Similarly, my sister noted that her neighbor, invited to the golu, only came to avoid missing her TV show. This illustrates a shift in practice due to modern demands.

While celebrations like Pongal and Onam are enthusiastically observed in schools and colleges, some, like Uma Prakash (brother of late Prasad), do not follow them as part of their family tradition. Hindu identity need not be proven through exaggerated or artificial displays of ritual. Encouraging children to learn Indian arts, like music or bharatanatyam, can also affirm one’s Hindu identity.

Proving one’s identity through artificial means is unsustainable. Actions taken out of negative or reactionary attitudes cannot be maintained. Family members may show sympathy but will not remain engaged if the practices are not genuine.

In summary, to affirm one’s humanity, one must act humanely without extremes. Similarly, embracing Muktiveda as a Hindu involves accepting it as part of one’s spiritual inheritance rather than integrating selectively. Muktiveda and Hinduism can coexist within one’s worldview, enhancing understanding and devotion to Muktinath. Critical appraisal of traditions and practices helps maintain authenticity in one’s spiritual journey.

Let me give an example. Sri Ramanuja, a Smarta Brahmin, later became a Vaishnavite. It is unclear whether he successfully converted his parents to Sri Vaishnavism. Some modern Vaishnavites either conceal this fact or claim he did, but I have not found evidence to support this. Traditional biographies and hagiographies of Sri Ramanuja, such as those written by his disciples and later scholars, often focus more on his life and achievements rather than providing detailed accounts of his family’s religious status post his philosophical development  It is notable that, when discussing Ramanuja, especially his birth and upbringing, he is often depicted with the ‘Tripundra’ or ‘Namam’—the three lines on the forehead typical of Srivaishnavites—even as a child before his initiation. This depiction appears regularly in the Sri Ramanuja Vaibhavam broadcast by Dr. Sri Anandapadbanabacharay, and it often goes unchallenged.

Once Ramanuja embraced Vaishnavism, he naturally inherited the Nalayira Divya Prabandam as part of his bhakti tradition. He did not write a commentary on it himself but asked his cousin Pillan (Vasudha Narayanan, The Vernacular Veda, Columbia University of South Carolina, 1994, p. 83)4 to do so. Coming from a Smarta Brahmin background, Ramanuja was not bound to adhere to his former sampradaya, which included Shiva and Shaivite scriptures.

As a bhakta of Muktinath, I do not need to integrate only those teachings of Muktinath that align with my Hindu identity. Muktiveda is now part of my bhakti heritage, and aspects of Muktiveda that I cannot understand or accept do not alter my commitment to it. For example, I find the chapters 23 to 27 of I Chronicles not particularly useful for my spiritual growth, although they help in understanding Jewish history related to the temple. Similarly, many Hindu scriptures and spiritual writings, like the Satapata Brahmana or Tantric Agamas, may not be directly beneficial to me, but I neither despise them nor venerate them excessively. However, I find works like Sur Sagar by Surdas helpful in writing my own poems.

As a side note, despite the emphasis on experience in Neo-Hinduism and after Vivekananda, sectarian scriptures remain fundamental to every sampradaya. For example, Sri Vaishnavites cannot disregard the Divyaprabandham, and Saivites must honor the Panniruthirumurais, including Tevaram and Tiruvasagam. Kabir Panthis need Kabir’s poems, Sikhs revere the Guru Granth Sahib, and Lingayats uphold Vachanas by Basavanna and other acharyas of their tradition.

my host once used the analogy of reaching the base camp of a mountain but did not complete it. Using it as a reflection (17-10-16), I would say: In a mountain climbing scenario, reaching the base camp requires cooperation, but the climb to the peak and return is an individual achievement. Each climber is entirely responsible for herself, and in emergencies, others will not abandon their goals to help. This analogy reflects our bhakti journey: we support each other, following the command to ‘bear one another’s burdens.’ However, personal mukti and bhakti are individual responsibilities.

This analogy is limited and contrasts with the idea that ‘We don’t have a PRIVATE BHAKTI or a PRIVATE GOD.’ Our mukti/bhakti is not a solo endeavor.

In another discussion, I mentioned that God sends three types of fellow bhaktas: those who help and cooperate with us, those who challenge us, and those who warn us against certain behaviors. All three are important, but the third group is particularly significant as they often serve as warnings through strong or mature examples. I cited Rev. Theodore Williams of WEF (World Evangelical Fellowship) as an example of someone who humbly confessed his sin and repented, a rare and commendable act.

16-10-2016

Endnotes

1. ‘yad ihaasti tad anyatra yan nehaasti na tat kvacit (whatever is here is also elsewhere; whatever is not here is extant nowhere. (Adi ch. 65. )….— Mahabharata, M.N. Dutt, Delhi, Parimal Publicartions, 1988, 7 vols. Vol. 1, p. 1
2. …The Visnu Dh.S. [19.20-22] says ‘the gods are invisible deities, but braahmanas are visible deities; the worlds are supported by braahmanas; the gods stay in heaven by the favour of braahmanas; words spoken by braahmanas never come to be untrue’. Manu [I.100] declares ‘whatever wealth exists on this earth–all that belongs to the braahmana; the braahmana deserves everything on account of his superiority due to his descent [from the mouth of the Creator]’. Manu IX. 313-321 contain a hyperbolical eulogy of the power of braahmanas, two of which may be set out ‘who would prosper if he oppresses braahmanas that, when angered, might create other worlds and other guardians of the worlds and that might deprive the deities of their position as deities’ [315]; ‘a braahmana, whether learned or not, is a great deity'[v. 317]. Manu XI.84 is ‘a braahmana by the very fact of his birth is an object of honour even to the deities.’ [p.135]…Vanaparva [303.16] says ‘a braahmana is the highest light, he is the highest tapas; the sunshines in heaven on account of the salutations made by the braahmanas.’ This and similar dicta closely follow what was expressed in the Vedic period long before e.g. ‘the sun would not rise if the braahmana did not make sacrifice’ [Satapatha Brahmana II.3.1.5] [p.136]….—P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastrs, Pune, Vol. II. Part. I. Ch.III. High eulogy of braahmanas. pp.135-36
3. In his commentary on the BrhadarnyakaUpanishadiii.5.1 and iv.5.15, Sankara carries this argument one step further and insists that only Brahmins have a right to become a(n) ascetics (sannyasis), a view not shared by his disciple and sub-commentator Suresvara.  Since sannyasa is, in practical terms, a prerequisite for Brahma-knowledge, Sankara is here virtually limiting the possibility of salvation to Brahmins alone.

…The Shudra cannot have Brahma-knowledge because he is prohibited from receiving an initiation ceremony and therefore from studying the Vedas.  Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are technically eligible for Brahma-knowledge but their ineligibility for sannyasa puts it practically beyond their reach.— David N. Lorenzen, Who Invented Hinduism: Essays on Religion in History, New Delhi, Yoda Press, 2006 p. 123

It is interesting to note that even Swami Vivekanand also endorses the view that brahmajnana cab be attained only by sannyasin:

…Sankara did not challenge the orthodox position of the right of only the three upper castes to study the Vedas.  The suudras were debarred.  Vivekananda adopted the position that there was no bar of sex, race, or caste to realization.  He severely chastises Sankara for his lack of liberality in this respect and accuses him of fanatical brahmin pride (CW, &;117-118).  He seems, on the other hand, to support Sankara’s position that only the sannyaasin can attain to the fullness of brahmajnaana….— Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture:Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas, Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi., 1995, p.52

Shankara said that sannyasa is absolutely necessary, whether it be vividisha sannyasa or vidvat sannyasa.  Without perfect renunciation, it is impossible to pursue the path of Brahmajnana….— Paramahamsa Niranjanananda, Sannyasa Darshan, published by Sri Panchdashnamm Paramahamsa Alakh Bara, Deoghar, Bihar, India. p.285

But this concept of election that too a sannyasi is qualified is not exclusive property of Hinduism, as one can find similar view in Jainism also:

Mette: …Emancipation, mukti/moksa is only attainable in a life as a human, more precisely, as a man. In Jainism, but also according to early Buddhist doctrine, a monk’s way of life (not a nun’s) is the precondition. An example here may be the famous Jinist legend of the pious Princess Malli, who, after her gender was spontaneously transformed into that of a man became one of the 24 founders of salvation [Heilsstifter] of the Jains.—Man in the Cycle of Samsaric Existences, George Chemparathy, pp. 127-[149]; 189, in, Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, p. 181

• Tirukkurukai Piran Pillan (late 11^th-early 12^th c). The commentary was called the Arayirappai, or Six Thousand-patti….—ibid. p. 101