Living Dialogues

https://dayanandbharati.in/what-is-the-purpose-of-life-i

Living Dialogue

This yet to be revised and properly edited updating each chapter. 

I added new points to the notes 12 in the Chapter Four: Morality from Dr. Hoefer on God’s free will.

I added new notes no 31 in Chapter Seven Canon.

Chapter One. Introduction.

Chapter. Two Early Struggle.

Chapter Three. Sin.

Chapter Four. Morality.

Chapter Five. Scripture as the foundation.

Chapter Six. Faith and Scripture.

Chapter Seven. Canon.

Chapter Eight. Theology.

Chapter Nine. Doctrine.

Chapter Ten. Why Apologetics.

Chapter Eleven. Contextualization.

Chapter Twelve. Dialogue.

Chapter Thirteen. Guru.

Chapter. Fourteen.  Worship and Symbols.

Chapter Fifteen Why Only Muktinath.

Chapter Sixteen Conclusion.

Living Dialogue New Revision

Around ten years before I began to write on this topic.  Then it went various revisions.  Few went through the drafts and gave various suggestions and one or two even helped me in editing.  I incorporated those suggestions.  But considering the subject there won’t be any end to this ‘Living Dialogue’ as it is an ongoing event in my life.  Considering the nature of the subject I don’t see any hope to bring this Dialogue in a book form.  At the same time I don’t want to keep it within my computer.  So I have decided to post in my blog with a hope that at lease few will read and find it useful in their journey as Hindu bhakta of the Lord.  I may continue to revise the chapters in future too when I get new information to update as well as new insights to share.  Many chapters need to be properly edited.  So I share the unedited chapters in the blog.

Preface—2020

Revelation, faith and reason could be viewed as the Trinity of theology.  By faith we respond to the revelation  and by reason we reflect upon that response to revelation with faith.  While the revelation of god is universal (as one could witness various proofs for this in creation) and the faith response is subjective (personal), yet the reflection of that faith response with reason is always based on one’s worldview which is shaped by various aspects (like cultural, religious, historical and social etc.).  But when a Hindu ‘convert’ is denied such reflection based on her worldview, then her faith becomes more of a borrowed idea from others than of her personal experience.  Such converts are more ‘programmed’ to imitate the Christians and confess certain creeds than to live naturally as a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath (Jesus).  Naturally, then her theology is more based on the church dogma and particular denominational doctrine than her own reflection based on the word of god.  Tragically this is the story of many ‘converts’ to Christianity in the past and present.  Of course there are several exceptions in the past and present, but they are unwanted and unrecognized minority within the body of Muktinath (Christ)—most of the time crucified by the (their own) church when they were alive and latter glorified as pioneers.  E.g. Brahmabandab Upadhyay.  Additionally the reality is that irrespective of the present appreciation of their thankless efforts, most of their writings and thinking are still remain frozen in scholarly writing than implemented by the common people in the church. 

Thanks to god for his mercy that he showed on me.  Though not a theologian or a scholar or a pioneer, I am one such unwanted and unrecognized minority [in every sense to every faith community].  But as a reader and listener, this ‘Living Dialogue’ is my personal reflection of my faith on the revelation that I received from god through the Lord Muktinath.  Though I too was influenced in the early walk of my faith by some church dogmas and doctrines, my strong tradition and personal reason helped to reflect my faith more based on my Hindu worldview.  This happened with several ups and downs.  In this process I too committed several mistakes.  But both the grace of god and my strong faith in the Lord, who first became my guru to teach, helped me to walk along with Him in this pilgrimage.  This is not merely a one man’s endeavor.  But for the help of several sincere bhaktas of the Lord Muktinath, well-wishers and friends, I would have never grown in my faith.  Along with these friends, some other Hindu bhaktas of the Lord also struggled with me to reflect our common faith in the Lord from our Hindu worldview.  So I merely compiled that collective reflection and presenting them in this book.

Considering the vastness of subjects that we collectively reflected and formed our own bhakti theology, it is not possible to present all of them in a systematic way here.  I took several common Hindu worldviews and reflected my faith based upon them.  Because when I took the first step by faith, it was not easy for my reason to accept it without some challenge.  While revelation demands obedience, reason demands conviction.  Before I offer to my fellow Hindus about my bhakti to the Lord, I have to convince my reason first.  Because, borrowed ideas and information based on others’ reflection that too based upon their particular worldview, may help a convert to survive for some time (within the church and Christian community to which she joined), but never bring personal conviction to share with her own people spontaneously and joyfully.  So this Living Dialogue is only a beginning of a continuously transforming dialogue in community.

Apart from my and others’ personal reflection of our bhakti, I also had several meaningful dialogues with few fellow Hindus with various walks of life.  Several times these dialogues not only challenged but also strengthened my faith.  My obedience to the revelation gave some advantage to me over my fellow Hindus.  Because even though they too have some kind of information about the Muktiveda (bible) and Christianity,  those information could not help them to get that knowledge ‘of’ god (according to my expectation), which I received by that obedience .  This does not mean that they have no obedience to the particular revelation or intuition that they received within Hindu religious/spiritual tradition.  Almost every (religious) Hindu knows obedience both in religious rituals and spiritual aspirations.1  In this my Hindu tradition has been a great help.  It demands obedience to the guru first, promising later to explain everything. But the difference in the conviction based on reason is not in degree but in kind.  My conviction is different, though we share in the same common tradition.  I feel that I received some extra grace to allow the word of god to regenerate me adding new values to my tradition, than merely reformed with the same old tradition (about which I will share later).

Several of my reflections are more my response (reaction) to the criticism that was leveled against me from some Christians. Agreeing with Corie Ten Boom, they are my ‘unpaid guardians of my atman’.  So, naturally I have included some of my responses (actually reactions) in this Living Dialogue.  I thank them, though I disagree with them and also have irritated them by my response. 

The reason for the title ‘Living Dialogue’ is that this is not some abstract, academic, intellectual theological writings removed from the concrete life situation. Both my friends and I who involved in such dialogue, first wrestled with the practical issues of life based on our bhakti in the Lord.  This struggle helped us to go back to the word of god as well as intellectual reflection based on reason within us first.  We individually and collectively tried to articulate such reflection to help each other to encourage and grow in our bhakti.  Thankfully to most of us our own particular (Hindu) tradition also helped a lot to resolve the issues and tensions remaining faithful both to the Lord and to our tradition.  Then such reflection never remained as absolute dogmas or creeds merely to confess in some gatherings but began as an ongoing process, a never ending process of further reflection and new insights.  So as long as we are going to live, this inner dialogue will continue.  That is why this is a LIVING DIALOGUE and not some frozen creeds or dogmas to be repeated endlessly, but lived out in every day concrete life.

One reason for writing this book is not only to share my reflection on my bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath by remaining a Hindu, but also help those converts from Hinduism to Christianity to seriously reconsider their identity within their family, community and society in India.  In the name of ‘conversion’ what the church and mission (though there are few exceptions to this rule) are doing is to expand their particular denominational Christianity.  And in this process the damage that they do not only to the pluralistic fabric of our county but also to the individual converts is serious issue.  Several converts, not having minimum understanding about the teaching of Muktiveda, accepting the interpretation given by their Christian mentors (church or mission) remain alienated from their birth family, causing pain and suffering both for them and also to their family.  But they are encouraged to do this in the name of ‘witnessing’ for the Lord and persecution.  Whereas, what they do has no sanction in Muktiveda.  As they don’t have that much time and knowledge to understand the teaching of Muktiveda, which never encourages such alienation of individuals from their birth family and community, they continue to remain as mere victim of the church and mission agendas of converting other community people to ‘Christian communities’.

My aim is not any hidden agenda either to converts naïve Hindus using contextualization or destroy the church and mission as an agent of Right wing Hindus.  I was accused by some fanatic Hindus using my dress and life to convert Hindus indirectly to Christianity.  Similarly few Christians accuse me as a secret agent of Right Wing Hindus to destroy the church and Mission by my method. 

But my only sincere purpose of this book is to help those Hindu converts to reconsider their changed identity as Christian and to return back to their birth identity as Hindus which the Muktiveda completely endorses.  Also to encourage the church and mission not to target other communities for their ‘enterprise’.  Of course most of them may not listen.  But there are several sincere people among them who can influence the church and mission by reading this book.  One another purpose of this book is to the Hindu bhaktas of the Lord to influence their family and community to remove the wrong impression that one need not become a Christian to worship and follow the Lord as His bhakta.  For this they too need to have some understanding about various Hindu worldviews and also Muktiveda on these issues.  As they may not have time and resource to do such studies, through this elementary work, I want to do my seva to them to be a natural witness for their bhakti in the Lord.

So I thank to all my friends, other Hindu bhaktas of the Lord and my critics for helping me to compile this book. 

1.  ‘…the disciple should possess certain qualifications such as implicit faith in the guru, respect for matters spiritual, some knowledge of the tenets and the basic scriptures and readiness to devote time and energy to the study and practice of the teachings of the guru….’—P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Five volumes,  Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1968-77 (1930-62) vol. V, part II, p. 1454

The following is the comment from a by a Hindu bhakta of the Lord

This is very true not only of Hindu ‘converts’ but also of most people that come to have faith. What happens in most cases of ‘conversion’ is they hear an idea, it appeals to them and they ‘borrow’ that idea. This is not a bad thing really. However, many choose to live with the borrowed idea and do not work towards drawing from their own thinking process and drawing from the Scriptures and personalizing the idea. The result is they are always dependent on others to interpret the Scripture for them and are susceptible to any teaching that is given to them.

The reason this could be is because there is no conducive atmosphere prevalent in most churches where they are encouraged to ‘go back and check the Scriptures.’ Also, may be because many are content as they are spoon-fed.

This more so a problem for ‘converts’ from other faith as they are not encouraged to explore following Jesus in their own religious and cultural settings. 

 Chapter One

Introduction 2020

Writing an apologetic is relatively straight forward, if you want to defend your favourite ideology to its opponents.  In a similar way, being involved in a religious dialogue with others is also easy if you only have to convince the opponents how your beliefs are equally true and reasonable as theirs.  For an apologist who adheres to her original faith, she knows the strengths and shortcomings of her faith and is able to defend the shortcomings and present the strengths when involved in a religious dialogue.  But for a person who has changed her religious faith, becoming an apologete or dialogist is considerably difficult.     Because, when they begin to defend their new found faith, they have to criticize their old faith or say why it failed them.  Also, they have to work hard to convince their own mind about the shortcomings of their new faith while at the same time, not giving up the good qualities and strengths of their old faith. In this process, it will, not only hurt their previous religious partners but will also create some inner tension, as they know that not everything they defend in their new faith is right and all those which they criticize in the old faith are wrong.  However, being involved in a ‘living dialogue’ with yourself through the transformation of your beliefs over time is the most difficult because here the same person is both the apologete and dialogist. 

For a person like me, who calls himself a Hindu bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath (popularly called Jesus), the challenge becomes even more complex.  Firstly, I am not understood, nor fully accepted by either the Hindus or the Christians.  But this is only a small problem of which I am not too concerned.  Although,  I am convinced that being a Hindu is my `birth’ and `death’ right and following one’s isthadevatha (god of personal choice) does not make me any less a Hindu than others, who may have differing faiths within Hinduism.  However, I owe an explanation to both of them and will come later to it.  Secondly, the challenge is in my own mind. Even though in my mind and spirit I am convinced about my bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath, the serious challenge is how to live out my faith in my relationship with my own people on the one side and the questions that my mind raises about several issues related with my life on daily basis as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord on the other side.

Regarding my fellow Hindus both in my immediately family (my mother and siblings and others) and wider society, I do not expect that  my writing is going to necessarily convince them about my identity as a Hindu and bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.  Although, I do sincerely hope that I would make a reasonable case not just for myself, but also for similar Hindu bhaktas all over the world.  I am sure, as I have stated earlier, that there is a place for us within the many folds of Hinduism for that is our birth right. Our lives should ultimately speak for itself although that will be a long process.  So, through this book I am not primarily addressing my fellow Hindus.  And if any of them should read this book, I would welcome further insights and questions on my identity,  convictions, and life as a Hindu  bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.

On the other hand the challenge of being misunderstood by Christians is twofold, and I will try to respond to these challenges.  First, there are several sincere well-wishers who agree with my conviction to live out my faith as a Hindu bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.  Yet they are also seriously concerned about my understanding of the Muktiveda (Bible) and the Lord on several theological issues.  I do not want to discourage their concern and love for me. So I will involve in a ‘living dialogue’ with them.  But the larger challenge often comes from other ‘converts’ who have become ‘Christians’ in every sense of the word—socially, culturally, religiously etc.  Many times, I find these ‘converts’ are more suspicious about my convictions than my own people (Hindus) and my friends in Christian circles.  I often become involved in dialogue with them, keeping my fingers crossed to explain myself well and not to offend them.  However, the purpose of writing this book is not even to address both these groups among Christians.  But they are welcome to read and enter into dialogue with me.

I am writing this book, Living Dialogue, to mainly addressing the unique struggles and needs of those who share my convictions—my fellow Hindu bhaktas of the Lord.  Though our numbers are very few and insignificant, our need is in no way less than any other people who have personal religious convictions. This aim of this book is very limited in every sense.  Most of the Hindus, Christians and ‘Converts’ may not agree with many issues that I am going to discuss in this book; however, I am writing this as a journey in self-reflection, and perhaps it will resonate with other Hindus bhaktas of Muktinath who share similar struggles in the matters of identity and are living out their faith in their day-to-day life. Therefore, I seek the generous tolerance of others who do not share my convictions, as several issues may be unsettling.  If one is open, and desire to sympathetically try to understand our struggles and are ready to be challenged , then I welcome them to read my writings.

Sharing an inner dialogue

Is a genuine dialogue possible considering the facts of pluralism and relativism of concepts and ideologies of our time (the post-modern scenario)?¹  There are various meanings and interpretations of the word ‘Dialogue’, depending on the particular context in which it is used.  For example, Dialogue between two rival nations does not mean the same as it would between two political parties of the same country.  Therefore, when we talk about any Dialogue between religions like that of ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Christianity’, we have to understand what we do mean by Dialogue among various religions.

Considering the historical background of such Dialogues between religions, we have to reexamine the very purpose of such an enterprise between religions.  Because if proselytizing is viewed as the hidden agenda in any dialogue, then a genuine dialogue between religious scholars is viewed as a platform used to propagate one’s own religion.  That’s why I have my own personal reservation about being involved in any kind of ‘dialogue’ with others in religious or spiritual matters because no Hindu is interested in having a serious dialogue to learn ‘new’ things to add to their faith. And any attempt to hold a dialogue with Hindus by the Christians (or in our case as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord too) is viewed as another ‘mission’ agenda to push the gospel on them.

For me, dialogue between two religions is impossible if it is only on a ‘doctrinal/ theological level’ because every religion is all inclusive of socio-cultural-ritualistic-doctrinal matters.   And those who are involved in any kind of academic dialogue have to do it in isolation of the rest of the facts as we mentioned above.  At the same time, it is my personal conviction that one cannot avoid the concept of ‘dialogue’ in life—as dialogue (for me) always involves two minds dealing with various issues of life.  Interestingly, at least in my life, the ‘two’ minds are within me.  Yes, ever since I began to think rationally, I have often questioned myself about various concepts, beliefs, etc. in my mind (though I have my reservation on the very ‘rationality’ of my reason itself)².  And when I asked certain genuine questions challenging my own religious tradition and social heritage, the ‘other’ mind refused to accept any kind of solution that I tried to arrive at to uphold as well as to justify certain aspects of my own tradition and heritage.  Thus for me, ‘living dialogue’ is an ongoing process within me and not an exclusive intellectual endeavor involving with doctrinal issues alone—at the same time not at the cost of it.  Furthermore, ever since I became a bhakta of the Lord, this dialogue has become serious. 

The following scholarly view by Prof. Matilal will highlight this point.  Though bit long, still it is worth reading as I found a clear presentation of my view:

               Is inter-faith dialogue really possible?  It is awkward to put the question in this manner.  For it appears to be only a rhetorical question, and the obvious answer would be no.  Let me try to formulate the thesis of those who disbelieve in the possibility of inter-faith dialogue.  The word ‘dialogue’ has been very popular in ecumenical circles.  But I myself am not very clear about its exact meaning…..The basic principles of great religions of the world, that is, of Eastern and Western religions, are so different from each other that it is practically impossible for one who understands and believes one even to understand the other.  Each religion is a whole new world, and it is impossible to move between such worlds.  One may, of course, try, so the argument goes, to read the texts and scriptures of another religion, with an academic interest, but he will never be able to ‘catch its inner spirit’ (whatever the phrase means). [Italics original]

…One, in order to understand (and ‘catch the inner spirit’, if you like) a particular religion one has to believe in its ultimacy or in the truth that it advocates.  Two, one who has no religious experience of, or does not practice, a particular religion, is incompetent to study or understand that religion.  In support of the second proposition it is often asserted that it is impossible to understand what ‘drunkenness’ is unless you have yourself been drunk….(p. 162)

…To transform two monologues into a dialogue we need a common ground, some common thought patterns between the participants, as well as a willingness to listen to each other.  And such common factors (which include both comparable and contrasting features) are, fortunately, not far to seek in the great religions of the world…. Fortunately also, it is possible, though difficult, to study and understand even one’s own religious tradition from an academic point of view with a fair amount of objectivity.³

Therefore, what I am going to share in the following pages are such dialogues within me.  Of course, several times I engage in discussions or arguments with others either to challenge their views or assert my position.  However, I do not call these discussions and arguments genuine dialogue if dialogue means remaining ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ to accept the other’s view as true as your own. (More on this in a separate chapter ‘Dialogue’.)  Because, in the name of respecting others’ experience, facts are set aside, which may challenge that experience and even go against it.  However, one tries to exalt ‘experience’ as the authentic ‘pramana’ (evidence) for faith/conviction, yet all the traditional philosophies/theologies insist the importance of correct understanding and interpretation of the text (scripture) to have genuine faith. We find a helpful insight on this point from Rambachan⁴:

…When scripture was upheld as an authoritative source of knowledge, reason had a valued and integral function in clarifying, interpreting, (p. 272) and applying the claims of the canon. When individual intuition is upheld as sacrosanct, reasoning and intellectual processes become more obstructive in character and scholarship is divorced from spirituality.  Exegesis becomes an indulgence…..For Sankara, knowledge gained through right understanding of the Upanisads, which constituted the knowledge section (jnana–kanda) of the Vedas, led directly to liberation….With the triumph of intuition, the Vedas were no longer seen as an immediate source of liberating knowledge; the poverty of exegesis in modern Hinduism is a direct consequence. […]

…The {Brahmo} Samaj itself completed a full paradoxical circle.  Founded in the name of rationalism, it ended up with a denial of the role of reason and the intellect in the religious quest and the upholding of individual experience as supreme.⁵

So, according to me, however one may respect an other’s faith, it is still difficult to accept other’s views as true as one’s own.  Having such a perspective, I don’t consider these discussions as necessarily dialoguing with others, especially with those who do not agree with me.

A Living Dialogue

The word ‘living’ in the title of this book needs to be properly described.  While many dialogues are arranged at an academic level by intellectuals, most of the time they are not directly related to the needs on the existential level of the people whom they (claim or think) represent.  I have found many interesting papers and articles written by scholars that have been presented in several ‘Workshops’, ‘Seminars’ and ‘Conferences.’ Nothing is wrong with such papers and articles.  But the way the subject is presented and discussed is so abstract that only fellow academics can read, reflect and understand.  However, such dialogue at an intellectual level is a necessary exercise for common people to perhaps understand their experiences articulated in an objective, precise, intellectual and technical manner.  It is also necessary to communicate the material of these academic dialogues to a broad lay audience. Such attempts in my opinion are `living’ rather than academic (perhaps `dead’).

One of the best examples of an ‘academic’ rather than ‘living’ dialogue’ is Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, by Francis X. Clooney, S.J.⁶  I have high respect for him and admire his scholarship.  I am benefited very much by reading several of his books.  However what the author says will endorse my view about such academic dialogue:

This book is not filled with accounts of firsthand theological conversations, although I have engaged in more than a few over the years.  Rather, it reflects the interior dialogue, more common in theological circles, that occurs when theologians read and ponder what they read….⁷

Further, note the response given by Parimal G. Patil, (Emory University) concerning this book

…Of the innumerable points of possible theological contact between Hinduism and Christianity, it is with a particular form of religious reasoning that Hindu God, Christian God chooses to begin.  This form of religious reasoning results from years of academic training in institutional contexts in which highly abstract thinking is valued and often privileged. It is not for everyone, and, as Clooney has noted, it is certainly not the only way to theologize.  For those of us who are Hindu and interested in practicing theology, however, such a beginning must be celebrated…. (emphasis added)⁸

Therefore, if it is to be ‘living’, then no dialogue can take place, even on an intellectual level, without the theory being tested in the lives of those who are professing the principle on which the dialogue takes place. Remember what Prof. Matilal says about this which is quoted above, ‘one who has no religious experience of, or does not practice, a particular religion, is incompetent to study or understand that religion.’ As a result, scholars should try to simplify and articulate as well as address the needs of the common people rather than simply sharing their abstracted ideas at an academic level only. Similarly, the common people cannot have a firm faith and dedication to the principle which they try to live out in day-to-day life without having some minimum intellectual understanding of it.  Therefore, the best way to promote any principle is to encourage  common people to be involved in a ‘living dialogue’ with others with whom they rub shoulders in day-to-day life.

This is not felt as an important need among common Hindus. Though scripture too has some importance in their faith, yet for them following particular (family) tradition is enough to keep that faith alive.  But for those whose faith is based on scripture this is an essential need.  Therefore, the best way to promote any principle is to encourage the common people to be involved in a ‘living dialogue’ with others with whom they rub shoulders in day-to-day life and become resource persons for the academicians to have more issues to deal with.

Finally, the word ‘dialogue’ presupposes the involvement of more than one person. For our purposes in ‘living dialogue,’ that could take place even in a single person, because in my life, several times I have asked questions about  my own convictions and experiences to which I tried to find out the proper answer to satisfy myself.  So unlike an academic discipline, a living dialogues could happen within a person, and in some sense this book represents the exploration of this inner journey.

No concept seems to be universal because it is often conditioned by various factors like time, place, values, need, etc. And if any particular concept claims to be universal in its scope, then it should be free from any such (human) conditions; however, the origin of the concept might be related to a particular time, place, value and need etc.  Though any subject can be discussed under this framework like economics, society, politics etc., here I would like to limit myself to the spiritual experience of human beings and its capacity to be claimed as a Universal Concept—however this is explained based on my experience only.  I personally feel that no thinking person can avoid some kind of dialogue in life with herself or others on spirituality.  I often say that there can be no monologue as we often question ourselves about various things in our lives and try to find or give an answer using our reason and emotion as well.  So this ‘living dialogues’ is the outcome of such long dialogues within me in my search for spirituality.  This is in one sense a kind of autobiography about my journey of searching for spiritual answers to various questions that arose within me since I began to think ‘logically’.

Few who do not accept this term ‘spirituality’ can replace with any other word in which they feel comfort. Because I understand the limitation of the word ‘spiritual’.  For me, as life cannot be put in water tight compartments, even this so called ‘spiritual’ as if it is beyond the material need of the body and life looks very artificial.  So I use ‘spiritual’ not in any sense of non-material need or reality in life.  Similarly I don’t accept the dichotomy between ‘secular’ and ‘spiritual’⁹.  At least in India secularism is not anti-religion or opposite to secularism.¹⁰  As life cannot be put in water tight compartments, secularism is also an integral part of life without which we cannot have a meaningful and holistic life.  As we cannot neatly separate religion from secular (or church from the state as claimed in the West¹¹) the so called spiritual is an all inclusive term for me.  I would prefer to use the word ‘mysticism’ to express my experience and need. But it also sounds too esoteric and other than worldly.  So as ‘spirituality’ has gained some kind of a common understanding which never reject religion or god (like that of atheism), I prefer retain the word ‘spiritual’ to share my search in life.

Most of the dialogues which I have had with myself were/are mostly based on my own reasoning within myself on various issues in life in which I have asked questions to myself, and I try to find proper answers with my ‘mind’ alone.  My dialogues with others are not limited to my conversations, but also include substantial reading, listening (radio) and viewing (TV) and my response to them.

Search for a beginning

My first struggle in this endeavor is where to begin.  If I begin by tracing my struggles from the time that I claim to have begun thinking reasonably, this will have serious limitations. Because out of my experience, I can say that what looks reasonable at one time, changes over time.  Next, all the present reasonable explanations are only my presentation and interpretation of my struggles, which are based on the past experience in different context. For example, in the past, when I faced some spiritual crises, at that time, it was resolved mostly based by faith.  But later, when I began to read or refer to scripture, then the way I resolved that crises, which was based on faith, is now also reshaped by reasoning based on scriptural understanding.  So whatever I say or write about my past experiences is naturally some kind of present interpretation based on the experience I have gained all these years as well as terms and words which I learnt to explain those experiences.  Whereas in the past I might have struggled even to articulate those questions in proper terms to myself. 

Now standing in the last phase of my life, I will begin from where I am today and try to build from the past to the present based on some criteria—time or subject. But fixing the time as the criteria looks a bit artificial as I have to use my present understanding to interpret some of my past experiences.  The reason for saying this is that several times throughout our lives we have had some feelings, thoughts, etc. with which we have had to struggle a lot to express in proper terms to make sense not only to others but also to ourselves.  However, as time has passed, not only have the semantics changed but the way we learnt from various sources to articulate those feelings and thoughts in terms and concepts that shaped them has also changed.

However, as I learnt in my life through various sources, the process of thinking and reflection definitely get changed.  But the conviction that I found my guru and Bhagavan in and through Muktinath never gets changed.  So what I am sharing through this ‘living dialogue’ is a process of thinking and reflection on this conviction.  As long as we respect  god’s gift of reason, such a living dialogue will only strengthen further our conviction. However, we must always keep ourselves open to fresh and new insights and learnings.  As I shared my conviction with you through various process of thinking and reflection in this book, I look forward to learn from you more to live that conviction meaningfully in life.  So I thank those who are going to read and enter into dialogue with me.

Notes

1 ‘…Postmodernism challenges the modernist Enlightenment ideal of universal true knowledge achieved through the exercise of human reason.  It suggests that truth, knowledge and reality are all culturally relative and that human subjectivity and human rationality are heterogeneous and diverse, i.e. not universal.²⁶  In turn, it problematizes the modernist idea that the advance of reason with material and scientific progress necessarily makes things better, that humans become more civilized, and that a dispensation with myths, superstitions, and religion automatically follows, or indeed is desirable, as its revelatory light spreads over more topics of human concern….(p.12)…. …This postmodern celebration of a plurality of perspectives and the stipulated impossibility of complete knowledge has engendered nihilism, pessimistic fatalism, and a “crisis of representation” in some social science subjects….(p.14)— Werner F. Menski, Hindu Law, Beyond Tradition and Modernity, Oxford, (2003), Second impression, 2005, pp.12 & 14

26. These ‘truth statements’ were made by Upanisadic thinkers thousands of years ago. It is therefore possible to argue that the ideas of postmodernism are perhaps nothing new in principle, but continue to re-manifest themselves at particular historical times.—ibid. p.12

2 I like what Pascal says  about reason:

…Pascal; (Pensees, 4. 273) reasoned: “If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mystery and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.”…— Bruce K. Waltke and James M. Houston, with Erika Moore, The Psalms As Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010, p. 82 [no reference is given and I cannot trace Pascal in Index. No bibliography in this book at the end—db]

But Srinivas is more articulate to give expression to rationality (particularly in a traditional Indian society):

…It is relevant to point out in this connection that the conception of rationality which seems to be common among middle-class intellectuals, is very odd, to say the least.  Rationality cannot be viewed except in the context of the position which an individual occupies in the economic and social structure, the values which he socially inherits as a member of a culture and sub-culture, and the manner in which his culture defines for him any situation which he may have to handle. His culture and sub-culture have ensured the survival of his group and to expect an individual in a traditional society to set aside all his customary norms and to behave as an academic in his laboratory or class room is absurd.  Thieving, for instance, is irrational for a man who earns enough but for a starving man it is rational in the sense that it gets him into a jail where he is fed and clothed.— THE DUAL CULTURES OF INDEPENDENT INDIA. Pp. 429-442, in, M. N. Srinivas, Collected Essays, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, (2002) Paperbacks 2004. p. 438

3 The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002, pp. 162-3

4 Rambachan’s remarkable scholarly book ‘Limits of Scripture’{Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas, Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi., 1995} will help us to understand this subject more in depth.  And Hatcher gives a short summary of Rambachan’s view:

               Rambachan’s problem with this is that quite apart from the strategic quality of Vivekananda’s pronouncements on the Vedas, he has diverged radically from the position of Advaita Vedanta, which he is himself supposed to have helped to revive in the modern era. The most obvious point of this divergence is in Vivekananda’s elevation of experience (anubhava) to a status of authority higher than scripture.  That such an interpretive move could be attempted in the name of Sankara, who is as ardent a scripturalist as Jaimini, is ironic, surely….In Hinduism, we are told, experience is the reigning concept, with revelation reduced to the status of a provisional guide.( p. 68)

…for Vivekananda (and Radhakrishnan after him), experience, or anubhava, was the essentialistic canon by which one could proceed to select truths from among the world’s religions.  The aristocratic character of their eclecticism is ensured by the fact that for them, as for many Neo-Vedantins subsequently, anubhava is defined ultimately in Vedantic terms: it is the self-validating and blissful experience of brahman.— — Brian A. Hatcher, Eclecticism and Modern Hindu Discourse, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.  pp. 68 and117

5 Redefining the Authority of Scripture: The Rejection of Vedic Infallibility by the Brahmo Samaj. Anantanand Rambachan. Pp. 253-279, in, Laurie L. Patton, ed. Authority, Anxiety, and CANON: Essays in Vedic Interpretation, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994, pp. 272-3

6 … ‘comparative religion’ is either mistrusted as a piece of clever statesmanship and hence not a proper subject for a dedicated academic (R.C. Zaehner, Foolishness to the Greeks, University of Oxford Inaugural Lecture, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), or branded as a fashionable mark of some (pseudo-) liberalism which allows believers to see how other believers believe but wrongly…

…an exclusively philological understanding of an alien’s scriptures may be faultless in itself, but still barren or counter-productive if it is not tempered with impartiality, openness, empathy and lack of personal or culturally-conditioned prejudices….—Matilal. Op. cit. p. 176

7 Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, by Francis X. Clooney, S.J., New York, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.10

8 ibid. pp.185-86

9 …While religion is said to permeate the whole of society, a secular domain is carved out by establishing the ‘essential practice’ doctrine: What is secular is what is not essential for a religion….the extent of what is recognized as essential religious practices has been steadily shrinking.—Introduction, Daniela Berti, Gilles Tarabout and Raphael Voli x, pp. Xv-xlvi, in Daniela Berti, Gilles Tarabout, and Raphael Voix (eds.) Filing Religion: State, Hinduism, And courts of Law, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2016,in p. xxix

10  …Secularism in India means only that the members of each religion will be allowed to profess, practice, and propagate their faith, and that citizens will not be discriminated against in any way because of their religion….—NATION-BUILDING IN INDEPENDENT INDIA. Pp. 388-413 [First published in Oxford University Press Delhi, 1978], in, M. N. Srinivas, Collected Essays, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, (2002) Paperbacks 2004. p. 411

11 Religious identities need not be exclusive in Indian culture, as they have been in the west, so Indian solutions to religious friction and tensions are themselves religious, while in the West, on account of the exclusive nature of religious identities, the solution found for religious friction was secular in nature.

One wonders if this is the reason underlying Ashis Nandy’s comment, cited by T.N. Madan, which states, ‘There is now a peculiar double-bind in Indian politics: the ills of religion have found political expression but the strengths of it have not been available for checking corruption and violence in public life.’{T.N. Madan, ‘Secularism in its Place,’ in Rajeev Bhargava, ed., Secularism and its Critics (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998) p. 314} leading T.N. Madan to ask, ‘Is everything lost irretrievably?’{Ibid.}— Arvind Sharma, The Ruler’s Gaze: A study of British Rule over India from a Saidian Perspective, Noida, HarperCollins Publishers, 2017, p. 329

                                                            Chapter Two                    

The early struggles

                                             Or

                              The Issues that I wrestled with

From the Muktiveda, I found a clear answer for my inner struggle. But my pilgrimage in the faith and other struggles related in understanding the Muktiveda and trying to live as a Hindu bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath continued.  Someone well said that, ‘god never promises a safe journey, but safe landing’. Living with that blessed hope of landing in the Lord safely in eternity, I accepted the challenges and struggles in my journey as He promised to be with me through all those struggles.  Though my early struggle to understand ‘Christianity’ never affected me much, my identity as a Hindu and bhakta of the Lord continues to challenge me every day—even today.

Who is right or are others wrong?

One question that I have often asked is: can we claim that others’ spiritual-cum-religious experience is wrong, whether we agree, disagree or accept that experience?  Of course one has no right to judge another’s experience as such.  However, when their experience and claims are treated as the guidelines or criteria to direct others’ spiritual lives, then we have every right to objectively evaluate such claims, recognizing that others have the same right to question ours.  The reason for saying this is that our Hindu tradition, in principle, expects implicit obedience to one’s own tradition without questioning much about it.  However, when I began to question, then it was viewed as rebellious by others. Let me illustrate this by one example.

In my life and conviction I am a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, who is popularly known as Jesus.  Later, I will explain why I don’t use the word ‘Jesus’.  But my life as a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath naturally brings up certain genuine questions in the minds of my immediate relatives and friends who knew me before I became a bhakta to this Bhagavan.  Take my mother for example.  She knew how I often went along with her to sat–sanghs at Trichy, how sincerely I performed my sandhyavandanam (twilight worship), and how I memorized several Tamil scriptures as well as Sanskrit slokas like Soundaryalahari etc.  I even wrote Tamil songs for her bhajan mandali.  During a small housewarming ceremony held before my relatives and friends (for the house at Mathigiri in April second week 2002, my mother announced that she was going to sing the very same song that ‘Swamiji had written for her bhajan mandali, on Akilandeswari [consort of Siva])’.  Again and again she repeated that the song was written by ‘Swamiji’ and not by her. I understood clearly what she was trying to communicate to the others.  She was showing how my faith has evolved from my previous bhakti tradition of Hinduism. 

Now the natural questions that might arise in her mind are: do you want to deny this learning and these experiences, or do you claim that those experiences and your faith in our gods, scriptures, rituals etc. were wrong?  Of course she never directly asked me these questions.  Nevertheless, in my dialogue within myself, I often wonder what she might be thinking about me in my present life as a bhakta of Muktinath.

Even though she stays with me, I never discuss these things with her because she is equally or more argumentative than me.  Even if I try to raise some natural question about spirituality or religion, she begins to argue and attack Christianity.  During her school days, she studied in a Catholic school where she was compelled to say prayers and memorize verses from Muktiveda which she did not like. Therefore, except for this small level of learning during her school days, I feel her knowledge about Christianity is nil.  So she never likes to relate my life to have any connection with any form or version of Christianity because my bhakti in Muktinath is still in her view related with Christianity.   While staying with me in our ashram at Maruppalli, though she is happy to know that I still remain a Hindu, yet she finds it difficult to accept my bhakti in the Lord.  To remove her frustration she will often say, ‘You neither remain a sannyasi nor a Father (Catholic father in her mind) but become a butler to cook and feed everyone visiting the ashram’.

In other words, my mother’s question would be, ‘were your faith and beliefs in those days about our gods, scriptures, and religious cum spiritual leaders wrong?  Whether or not my mother openly asks this question to me, yet my question about certain aspects of our Hindu tradition looks rebellious to her (and to other Hindus).  Though I too struggled with my own question early, yet my bhakti and commitment based on proper study of both Muktiveda and Hinduism helped me a lot to answer that question.

I believe that god kindly bears with our ignorance.  God, who does not belong to any religion or sect, always helps and respects those ‘ignorant’ initial steps to guide us towards Him.  The ‘ignorant initial steps’ does not mean that what I learnt from our traditions was wrong, but it was my ‘ignorance’ to understand them correctly to seek answer to my inquiries that suits to my nature. God begins from where we are and step-by-step guides us to His knowledge, so that He can give His grace to know Him and be known by Him.  Until we are ready to receive this knowledge from god as a gift from Him through His grace, we have to live with our limitations.  Of course god gives us every opportunity to overcome such limitations, but it depends upon the individual’s ‘response’ towards god’s grace to overcome the limitations and to be able to live in the ordinary circumstances in which we are forced to live.  God wants to bless our heritage when we follow Him. It is not to be discarded and disrespected.  Remaining thankful to god’s gift in our tradition can be part of our bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath.

Knowledge is a must

But my struggle in the formative days of my bhakti was not only with my identity as a Hindu and bhakta of the Lord, but was also with my own ‘understanding’ of this faith to make it meaningful to me.  Apart from all outward rituals and customs, one important aspect in our brahminical Hindu tradition is a right knowledge for all kinds of metaphysical persuasions.  My brother Sri Radhakrishnan, though do all kinds of ritual required for a Brahmin, still seriously and sincerely reads, that too in Sanskrit several samhitas and Upanishads along with scholarly commentaries to understand them.  When he visits us, to any of my question on ritual, he immediately will quote the correct Vedic mantra and also will mention how it was interpreted by latter acharyas and commentators like Appya Dixidar (Siddhaantalesasamgrah (Brief Compendiusm of Doctrines of 16^th century).  And my struggle in this area was more intense compared to other areas of my faith and identity. 

Whether others accept it or not, following the Indian tradition, I too strongly believe that without proper KNOWLEDGE no one can attain true spiritual life.  For me, salvation is that spiritual life, which we try to live out here on earth.  In addition, the purpose of knowledge is not merely to gain a ‘mukti’ beyond this world, but it is to help us lead a normal life with clear spiritual rules.  Because, ‘Knowledge can be fully physically manifested.  We can know all that is Godly only when it is realised on the plane of the body….’¹

This knowledge will help us to recognize several ‘blind’ faiths and beliefs that so far have not only guided but have also controlled us by various means and forms and give ‘mukti’ from them. By ‘knowledge’ we need not immediately relate it to some kind of mysterious or esoteric one. For me knowledge means the capacity to understand the superficiality and artificiality in religious life, which controls one.  This control is created by some fear—fear of family tradition, society, supernatural forces etc.  At the same time this knowledge is not an end in itself and will become the eternal Truth.  As Jhabwala rightly says, ‘…Knowledge merely broadens out the scope; it does not impart the whole truth….Knowledge is both analysis and synthesis; and when it reaches the pitch of wisdom, it assumes a synthetic form by which to convey to our mind conclusions of progress, of reason, and of joy….²

Of course the real challenge that will come in any normal life as a human being is the tension and problem in our day-to-day life because of our relationships as well as responses to others.  Various things that happen in our day-to-day life in disposing our regular duty and responsibility towards others; in handling our time and money, etc. will be the real testing ground to know whether we are guided by the spiritual life or not.  So, the true mark of spirituality is not decided by our religious activities but how we live the day-to-day life.

People who are merely satisfied with rituals and religious activities won’t understand this aspect of salvation because, often for a Hindu, ethics can be separated from religious activities, and ‘mukti’ is something to be achieved in the future, either in this life or the next ones.  This can be attained by proper rituals by oneself or through progeny while living or after death.  Whereas, according to the Muktiveda, ‘mukti’ has already begun for a bhakta which is to be lived out ethically. Living everyday life with this understanding is true knowledge.  This knowledge is not learning some ‘self-improvement’ principles (as promised by modern gurus), but it is recognizing god’s demand on ethical life based on His moral principles.  So, my faith in the Lord not only insists on the importance of ‘faith’ but also on ‘knowledge’ to live in Him and for Him and with Him.  As a digression I have to mention here that for many Christians this mukti is also going to some spacelss, time less, matter less heaven after death and the world in which we live at present is in the grip of satan corrupted and fallen because of the original sin of Adam.  Though they can prove this by quoting various verses from Muktiveda, the overall teaching of Muktiveda is against such kind of mukti and also understanding of ‘heaven’ and approach to matter, power of satan³ and present life on this earth. It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with all of them. But mukti is not going to some spaceless, timeless heaven⁴ and we need not give more power and recognition to devil more than what it deserves and god never despises matter⁵ so our material need life and our present physical life on this earth.

Thus, relating the knowledge to the right kind of living brought several struggles in my life.  The Muktiveda never allows one to separate the practical life without affecting the spiritual life.  Several times this very knowledge of god and the Muktiveda brought several inner struggles causing me to question my own faith in the Lord.

Longing for darshan:

The average Indian (Hindu) has the longing to have the ‘darshan’ of god in one form or the other in her life.  This longing is an integral part of our Indian worldview.  As we are born and brought up as well as shaped by our family, community and society, this longing is considered as the beginning of that spirituality.  But unfortunately, in the majority of Hindus’ lives this longing is often limited by the same worldview substituting religion and ritual for spirituality.  Therefore, in most cases, this longing is fulfilled by a visit to the temple and having a ‘darshan’ of the deity there.

However, this darshan is not limited to the bhakta seeing their deity, but that the deity also in turn sees its bhakta. That’s why in almost all of the murthies the eyes remain open.  Thus from my teenage years, I too had that longing in my life to have the ‘darshan’ of god.  Following the family tradition and influence of the community and society, I too performed most of the religious rituals and observances as ‘sadhana’ to attain that vision.  Before proceeding, I want to remind you that what I am going to share next is more of my present reflection of my past life.  Naturally, I am using lot of technical terms and sophisticated words and sentences to express those experiences.  But in those days, I never contemplated or reflected about what I was doing.  Again I was simply following the traditions as sincerely as I could by performing certain religious rituals to have that ‘darshan’.

In that process, I did small pujas, visited temples, attended sat–sangs (called kathakaalshebam in Tamil), but above all, I read the scriptures as they were and even memorized several songs by heart.  Though I neither contemplated nor reflected seriously those rituals and other activities, a small subtle reflective thinking began to grow in my mind as I read Tamil scriptures, particularly that of Siddhas (called ‘Sittar’) and Tiruvasagam by Manikkavasagar.  Of course I was not even aware of it at that time, but now I understand the gradual change that started within me.

Though most of the scriptures I was reading centered around bhakti and encouraged me to do religious rituals as a part of bhakti, certain songs, particularly those that pointed to human weaknesses and problems in the name and form of SIN often forced me to withdraw as well as discontinue my religious activities.  Several times I retreated, thinking that because of my Sinful works (sins in work) and lack of perfection in disposing the religious rituals I would never have the ‘darshan’ of Bhagavan. I would do the sandhyavandanam sincerely for several days and then again give it up for a long time, but only to begin it again in remorse for not having done my Brahminical religious duty. Eventually, I continued either out of hope or some fear that born as a Brahmin I must at least do the minimum rituals to avoid misery.  This is a part of our worldview.  For example, I often heard my mother say that the reason for most of our financial and family problems was because we did not perform annual sraddha (rites) for our ancestors, remembering them. So in most of the Hindu families, religious rituals and family traditions are carried on to avoid miseries and curses from ancestors and gods, particularly ‘family deity’ (kul devata/devi).  As a digression here I have to point out that one can even avoid other deities, but one should never estrange the family deity.  Without his or her consent even other deities can depart their blessings.  When one ignores and get estranged from the family deity, he or she will take revenge which can be neutralized only by doing proper appeasement rituals (including animal sacrifice). Consequently, what began as a spiritual sadhana to have the darshan of god, finally ended up as me performing some rituals, and those not too regularly.

Having such a background, when I began to live as a bhakta of the lord, I too had the longing to have the ‘darshan’ of the Lord.  And when I failed to receive it, naturally I began to relate with my old experience of failing in rituals and outward forms of certain observances as the cause for not receiving the darshan of the Lord.  I still remember the way I spent several hours in a day when I got the opportunity to stay alone in 1981 by doing even the nama japa of the Lord.  I went some remote part to hide from others and spent not less than four or five hours in Saturday sitting calmly closing my eyes and repeating the mantra which I coined for that purpose: OM namo Yesudevaya namah.  But I never shared about my personal sadhana with anyone because of the fear being misunderstood as I was very new to ‘Christian world’ that time.  However, it took several years for me to understand the Muktivedic understanding of ‘darshan’.  But the inner struggle that I went through till I understood is beyond words.  Before I come to it, I need to explain the importance of outward observance in the Hindu world to explain my struggle in this area.

Ritual versus Spiritual:

The reason for sharing this is not to ridicule those who still believe in those forms of performing rituals, but to explain how ‘forms’ begin to control people rather than the substance for which it is performed.  The following example will sufficiently illustrate my point.  After lighting the oil lamp in the puja room, it is important to extinguish the flame, but you should never allow it to go out on its own by burning down the entire oil so that the wick get burned down creating smoke.  You should not even blow on the flame with the wind from your mouth because the wind coming from our mouth is ceremonially impure (echil in Tamil and jutta in Hindi; sullied ).  These ways of putting out the flame are considered ‘abasagunam’ (inauspicious sakun/sagun), so one drop of milk, or a few grains of sugar are placed on both sides of the wick and then the flame is extinguished by fanning the wind by (right) hand. 

Someone would like to read a ‘scientific’ message in this by saying, ‘not to pollute the atmosphere with smoke our tradition already created such ritual with eco-friendly needs’.  As now everything is interpreted as scientific, I say this. However, later I found that in the North, the wick is allowed to burn out and every day a new wick is used.  There using the same old wick is considered improper. (So reading scientific meaning in our tradition won’t hold true on pan-Indian level.)

As you can see, small and minute details are followed with much fear and faith in carrying out rituals.  As children, we are taught and trained more about the ‘form’ than the meaning of the ritual because it is believed that by not performing certain rituals—either at a day-to-day level or occasional ones—with a particular form with proper mantras (that too with correct pronunciation), is the cause of all the miseries and tragedies that have happened after not performing the ritual correctly. (This could be the continuation of Vedic ritual need to be performed with all details without any omission or mistake) or tantric influence.⁶ Thus most of the rituals are done because of ‘fear’ rather than ‘bhakti’.  Of course when one fails in carrying out certain ‘forms’ some remedies will be prescribed immediately or sometimes later, yet often there will remain a subtle tension and fear for not having performed the rituals in the prescribed traditional ‘forms’. 

When I sometimes gently point out such traditions, the general answer that is given is that we do all these rituals with correct forms only for our own emotional and mental satisfaction. Sometimes this is also considered as a sadhana giving concentration. When enough flowers are not available to offer to her deities, my mother becomes upset.  But later she will say, ‘Bhagavan does not demand flowers or incense.  All these are only for us.  When we do the “abishika” (pouring liquid substance on the idol) and do all other rituals and puja, at least it helps us to divert our minds from other activities of the day and helps us to concentrate on god.  If Bhagavan began to take the flowers or eat the prasad, no one would offer them to Her.’  Here again, I now began to think about why are the meanings not taught along with the forms?  To my understanding, several forms are done without any meaning or by mere tradition and that’s why no proper meaning is given for them (of course in Tantric ritual every form has a particular meaning).  And few rituals have meaning but people have no time to learn or interest to know.  But what is assured is that by doing the rituals in a prescribed form will automatically bring desired results.  And not doing will cause misery. 

Now several books are published giving meaning and explaining the forms—that too with a scientific interpretation.  Now religious/spiritual magazines are coming giving all the details about the rituals with correct form, meaning, purpose and fruit of doing them.  Weekly supplementary issues for Daily Newspaper will have separate issue known as ‘Aanmiha malar’ (spiritual issue e.g. Dinamalar in Tamil) in which there will be a question and answer section in which the doubts of the readers about the rituals are answered by leading Priest.  Providing information about performing rituals, instruction also will be given how one should not perform and what all the things needs to be avoided to avert any misery of not performing the ritual in the prescribed traditional form.  Of course there are some good points also in such responses encouraging people to avoid certain blind faiths and superstition. But the line that divides between what is superstition and what is not will always remain gray and zigzag. Of course we should also remember that what looks superstition to one might be meaningful to another person and there is no normative criterion to decide which are superstitious and which are not.  It all depends upon the individual and particular family and community.  All the tribal ritual might look superstitions to others and all the so called sophisticated rituals might look meaningless to the tribes.

But in Hindu tradition, any failure to perform rituals with prescribed forms won’t affect them much in having the ‘darshan’ of their god.  Because irrespective of all their limitations and failures, by bhakti when they look upon their deity, either at the puja room in the home or at the temple, they get the ‘darshan’ of their god.  Even when certain songs or bhajans are performed in a music consort, one can hear the audience saying that the singer actually brought that particular deity about which the singer sang in front of them.  When certain abisheka (pouring liquid items like milk etc.) or poured on the deity, few will say that they have seen the smile of that deity that time.  Even my second cousin said to me that while his guruji perform certain pujas to the goddess he will practically bring that goddess alive before you.  What I write here in English won’t bring the true spirit in which such experiences are expressed in Tamil.⁷ However, now, abandoning such ‘symbols’ (call it idol or image) of the Lord (not even keeping or believing in keeping a picture of Him), when I failed to receive His darshan as claimed by several other believers, my struggle became unbearable.

Muktivedic vision

However, according to the Muktiveda, though both of these aspects of ‘darshan’ are present, viz., our longing to see god and He also watching us, it does not work the same way in the Hindu world.  In the Hindu world, symbols are used to visualize various aspects related to rituals and religion.  However, as a Hindu is trained to worship god even without symbols, it was not that difficult to avoid any kinds of symbol in my worship.  This area was a challenge for me in the early days.  Once I began to understand the Muktiveda, I slowly realized the true meaning of ‘darshan’ (vision).  Apart from ‘walking by faith and not by sight’ (Jn. 20:29), its true meaning is to ‘know’ and ‘understand’ the mind of god both for my life as well as that of others.  Such an understanding allowed me to see life entirely through the eyes of the Lord: ‘let each one of you have the mind of the Lord’ (Phil. 2:4).

A struggle within me:

In this chapter, I have tried to give a summary of few struggles in my religious and spiritual life.  None of these summaries are in chronological order nor are the subjects discussed or arranged systematically.  This in one way reflects the ‘living dialogue’ that I have in my life.  But the center for all these dialogues is the inner struggle both in the past and the present.

Faith in tradition, need of knowledge and longing for the darshan of god is a kind of triangle (pyramid) in which I have been running.  Though the life of a Hindu (or to anyone) is an integrated whole, not divided into watertight compartments, they have the art to live out each part independent of the other.  When knowledge challenges certain traditions, faith (or fear) helps a Hindu to walk in both.  It is like a tightrope walk, where both tradition and knowledge help keep the balance to enable the walk on the rope of faith. While the whole world is marveling at our art of living, as an insider, I often realized that in practical life, when I came down from the tightrope walk and landed on the ground, my life went on as usual without any change.

Then I began to search seriously for the reason for lack of growth and somehow realized that the problem was within me.  Now as the bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I understand that the Knowledge, which god gives us first, is to understand and accept our true nature on an existential level.  Whatever may be the average theological position of Indian philosophies about SIN, I now believe that ‘the first step in spirituality is both to recognize and accept our sinful nature’ as the beginning of that knowledge.  That’s why I often say ‘before seeking god, it is better that you seek yourself’.  Here seeking yourself doesn’t mean the average theological or philosophical sense of ‘knowing yourself as god or part of god’.  But instead, for me, that seeking is to ask the genuine question, ‘why cannot I have the darshan of Bhagavan’?  And the answer is: SIN within me.  Though I will further share elaborately on Sin (Chapter 2), here, in the context of my early struggle, I need to say more about this.

Indian spirituality as well as the religious world accepts the concept of sin, yet the average theological/philosophical worldview is that this sin is more what we do or have done to us than what I am.  I use the ‘average’ theological/philosophical worldview because in most cases an average Hindu never takes her respective sectarian theology seriously.  Whereas, the general Hindu worldview is that as atman we are either the minute part of god or god Himself, so there is no sin is attached to it in any form.  All the sins which we do by our work (manasa, vaca, karmana—by mind/thought, word and work), though affect the atman, yet that sins in work can be removed by due prayascittas.⁸ In the bhakti worldview, sin can be removed by true bhakti, as through our bhakti we can even bend god to bless us through His grace.

I know it is not a good beginning for any dialogue to fix any criteria to understand one first.  However, as I am sharing my own experience, I would prefer to keep a base from where I can be further involved in this dialogue.  Particularly sin is not the best starting point for two reasons.  For common people it is an everyday problem and hence there is nothing new for us to discuss.  And for philosophers it is not even a criteria as they have every (intellectual) means at their disposal to keep it aside to understand about oneself.

However, the longing for spirituality began in my early teens.  In spite of doing rituals sincerely and following several (family and community) traditions faithfully, I struggled to overcome my sinful nature within me.  Of course in those days, I didn’t have any kind of theological understanding about ‘sinful nature within me’, but I still struggled a lot.⁹  Why could I not keep those resolutions, which I took, to lead a perfect life (perfection not in any abstract sense but relatively ‘better than others’)?  For example, if telling a lie was inevitable to survive, let me try to avoid telling a lie even if I cannot survive in the struggle for the fittest.  But those thoughts and resolutions remained only as an ideal in my mind, particularly while I was performing puja.  But after puja, when I entered in the real world, I had to set aside those ideologies and resolutions as the reality of the life blinded my vision to those ideologies.  My resolution to become perfect couldn’t be carried out in isolation as I had to live in a family in which I had several responsibilities.  As a student, I had to study and come out successful.  As a young man, I had to earn money to look after my family members etc.  I always gave all kinds of excuses as to why I could not implement my personal resolution to achieve my own ideology.

I think the main reason for that struggle, at least in a typical Hindu family, is the lack of teaching or understanding about the ‘sinful nature within oneself’.  In an average Hindu family, sin is not at all a problem but karma is.  Of course the word ‘sin’ is often used in verbal communication either to blame others or about oneself for all the miseries in life, but it is never entered in at a reflective level or stage in the form of teaching or understanding.  As Goswami Tulsidas well said, (‘kaalahi karmahi Iswar par mitya doshu lagayee’—quoting from memory), ‘Either we blame time (kali yug) or karma or even god.’ I have heard it said often by others and I too have said it myself.  One time, I even wrote a poem addressing the consort of Siva blaming Brahma for such a birth as a sinner and pleading for her grace to overcome my karma to get rid of such repeating births hereafter:

பூண்கொங்கை அன்னையே

போற்றுதும் நின் திருநாமம்

வீண் பிறவி எடுத்தேனை

வினை நீக்கி ஆள்வாயே

நான் என் வினை செய்தேன்

நாயினும் இழி இப்பிறவிக்கு

நான் ஒன்றும் அறிகிலேன்

நான் முகனே பழிக்குறியான்

எடுத்த பிறவி போதும்

இனிப் பிறவி வேண்டிலேன்

தடுத் தென்னைக் காப்பாய்

தயாபரி நீ சங்கரியே

[O Mother who is adorned with gold on the breast; I adore your holy name;

Save me, the one who took a vain birth by removing my karmas

What kinds of karmas I have done to take such a menial birth worse than a dog;

I don’t know the reason and only Brahma needs to be blamed (for creating me like this)

All the births that I have taken are more than enough; I don’t want any more birth

O merciful Sankari, save me (preventing from future births).]

Though an explicit and open teaching or discussion on sin is absent in an average Hindu family; however, as my poem shows, there were personal reflections about one’s struggle both in external life and within.  In several sat–sangs and religious discourses such thoughts were shared but not at any serious theological level but mostly emphasizing the grace of god based on our bhakti.

It is a big subject to go in to depth here on bhakti and grace.  However, in the context of sin, it was often believed that sin is not a serious problem because it can easily be gotten rid of by either performing prayascitta or earning some punya (merit the antidote for paap).  The common idiomatic saying for this was ‘konna pavam tinna pochu’—if killing is sin, eating the killed one removes it.  And bhakti and grace are the easiest means available for those who cannot perform any kind of prayascittas or earn merit as Sivavaakiyar says:

அஞ்சுமூணு மெட்டதா யநாதியான மந்திரம்

நெஞ்சிலே நினைந்துகொண்டு நீருருச் செப்பிரேல்

பஞ்சமான பாதகங்க ணூறுகோடி செய்யினும்

பஞ்சுபோல் பறக்குமென்று நான்மறைகள் பன்னுமே.¹⁰

–The four Vedas say that even if you have done the great five-fold¹¹ sins, all will be gone like cotton in the wind, if you repeat the ancient mantra of ‘Namah Sivaya and Narayanaya Namaha’.

Poems like these and proverbial sayings reflecting such ideas are familiar in our families and communities.  You don’t need to read any scripture to know this because we often hear such sayings in the forms of poems, slokas, and proverbs in our common conversations within and outside of our families.  (However it will be good for us to read some of them.  See appendix on the Chapter 2. ‘Sin’.) The concept of sin etc. are not discussed or thought about on a theological level, yet we can safely say that a ‘philosophical’ level of talk and discussion and even argument is common in an average Hindu family.  The word ‘philosophy’ also needs to be qualified here.  If anyone either seriously or jovially openly reflects on anything about life, then it is termed ‘philosophy’ (tattuvam in Tamil) in an average Hindu term.  In general, those reflections are not taken seriously on a spiritual level, but they are sometimes on a ritual level.  If any one goes beyond their normal level and begins to talk or discuss on a ‘spiritual’ level then they will be rebuked not to become a ‘philosopher’ and will be advised to return to normal life.  Even if a speaker discusses philosophical or religious topics at a sat–sangh, then on the way back home the normal conversation will be about the eloquence, oratory and memory of the speaker and about his/her knowledge and other talents like music etc., and if the speaker is a lady, the conversation by the ladies will definitely be about her dress and jewels. In most cases, nothing will be discussed on a personal, reflective level.  (The same is true in every religion.  How many Christian seriously reflect the message they ‘heard’ [not listened] in the church, week after week, after the service?).

Others may disagree, but as I have already stated, I am sharing my own experience as an average Hindu, and there are exceptions on every level.  This is the environment I was born and brought up in and lived my early teen years where my struggles within me first began.  For the first time, I found the correct diagnose in the Muktiveda in Romans 7:15-24:

¹⁵I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.  ¹⁶And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.  ¹⁷As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.  ¹⁸I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. ¹⁹ For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.  ²⁰Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.  ²¹So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.  ²²For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; ²³but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.  ²⁴What a wretched man I am!  Who will rescue me from this body of death?  ²⁵Thanks be to God—through Muktinath our Lord!  So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. (NIV).

These verses gave me the answer to why I could not live a perfect life, even for a single day, week, month or year, but at least I could work on it one day at a time.  It also explained why I could not live up to the expectations of others or up to the standards of god or even up to my own personal creed.  Particularly later, when I read Rev. John Stott’s book ‘Men made New’ on Romans chapters 6-8 (I think), it gave me the clear understanding of all the struggles and the answer in the Lord.  In closing this section on early struggle, I would like to summarize that point and the few slokas from Indian scriptures that endorse such a view. The rest of the book shares my ongoing ‘living dialogue’ within me.

For me the key verse in the passage above is 7:24, ‘wretched sinner I am and who shall deliver me from the body of death’.  Here the ‘body of death’ does not mean our physical body but the ‘sinful nature’, which is tied like a dead body on my back.  In the Romans context, the worst way to punish a person is not crucifixion, but by tying a dead body on the person’s back and he had to carry it till he slowly died.  (As a concession, I don’t want use ‘she’ here.)  In the same way, my sinful nature is tied on my back from which I cannot be released by any means.  And if I remember the Roman context correctly (which I read somewhere) the dead body was actually locked behind me and the key is left with the authorities. So even if someone wants to release him that is not possible.  Day after the day as the dead body began to rotten and swells he cannot even walk carrying it along with him.  People will also chase him out to escape from the bad odder.  And he will end up dying a slow death. Here in Indian context most of the Hindus will argue that one can get rid of the burden by his own efforts.  But there is no point of arguing about such illustration based on mere imagination.  The point is that one has to suffer without finding any means to escape unless the authority release him.

Theologically, it is the Lord, who through His death as atonement delivered me from that dead body of sinful nature by his authority.  However, as I was struggling within me, this revelation came as the ‘knowledge’ that opened my eyes.  Several Hindu scriptures can echo a similar thought, yet the purity of atman is the common view.  For example one sloka says:

Jaanaami dharmam nache me pravrti

Jaanaami adharmam nache me nivrti

Kenaapi devene hrudayas titena

Yataa niyuktosmi tata karomi

–I know what is righteousness, but there is no progress in it

I know what is unrighteousness but there is no deliverance from it

I don’t know what kind of instinct that god has kept within me

I am doing accordingly prompted by that nature.¹²

Gita echoes similar thought:

Atha kena prayukto’yam paapam carati puurusha

Anicchannapi vaarsneya balaadiva niyojitah

But by what is a man impelled to commit sin, as if by force, even against his will O Varsneya (Krishna)?¹³

We can quote several similar verses from many sources.  Of course each verse will be interpreted according to their doctrinal point of view.  However when I read Romans 7:15-24, it gave the appropriate interpretation which revealed the true cause of my inner struggle.  Like a good doctor, the Muktiveda diagnosed my sickness first.  Moreover, as far as I understand the Muktiveda, the first step towards the treatment of a sickness is the acceptance of the sickness, rather than blaming some other things for it.  Then what follows is not an instant and readymade solution, but with the grace of god, it is a continuous process of sanctification—not by ritual, sadhana, virtue, good works etc., but by living in obedience to god following His moral principles which are set in relationship with others and the world.  For more than 40 years, I have been trying my level best to live such a life.  However, like Sevanand (Paul), I too will say:

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Bhagavan Muktinath took hold of me. (Phil. 3:12)

And

I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.  (2 Tim, 2:12)

But this conviction did not come that easily, because almost every metaphysical thought in the world agrees that struggle and suffering is part of life.  ‘Sansaram saagarma dukham’ (this earthly life is full of misery) says Hinduism.  Endorsing this view, Kabir says, ‘No one is exempted from struggle and suffering’.¹⁴  Muktivedic view about struggle and suffering is not blaming others (karma, god, time, and even devil).  However, tracing the reason for struggle and suffering, while Hinduism in general points to one’s own karma, in Christianity, it is mostly Satan who bears the responsibility and in my bhakti theology, personal responsibility.

Who to be blamed:

Coming from a Karmic worldview background, in which most of the time one’s own personal responsibility is insisted, in the early days, when I heard from the Christians pointing to Satan for all the cause of struggle and suffering, I was quite surprised.  I tried to understand many of the Muktivedic teachings with reason, yet every doctrinal teaching cannot be rationalized.  As we walk by faith, where reason fails, personal experience based on faith explains several facts related with the spiritual realm.

In general, though the evil forces are accepted and recognized in Hinduism, the average high caste people never pay much attention to it.  They too believe in black magic, evil spirits, possession and exorcism, yet they are rarely involved with those things.  So, in my life, I have never had any personal experience in these matters.  Above all, chanting some mantras, particularly repeating the name of one’s own personal god (Istadevata), will keep the evil spirits away.  Particularly for Brahmins, gayatr^-15 is all sufficient both for protection and achieving.  So, when any talk occurs about Satan, evil spirits and forces, it never gained much importance in my thinking as my bhakti in the Lord was all sufficient for me. 

Along with other important Muktivedic doctrines, I too accepted the Muktiveda’s teaching about Satan.¹⁶  But I was not ready to blame him alone for all of the struggles and failures in my life.  Of course, ‘The Devil’s greatest trick was to convince you that he did not exist.’¹⁷  But being created in the Image of god, who gave me a free will to make decisions, I want to accept equal or even first responsibility for many of my struggle and problems.  At the same time, every person who aims to make progress in her spiritual life has to accept that beyond her own will and responsibility, there are some dark forces which hinder that progress.  An enemy attacks the weakest part to defeat his opponent.  God is ready to protect us and strengthen us to face such attacks.  However, as He respects our free will, He won’t do it unless we allow Him to take charge of every area of our lives.  The main difference between a bhakta of the Lord and the devil is that while the former gets wisdom the latter is only shrewd.  So in every power encounter, god expects us to use the wisdom that He gives us to analyze the struggle before we act.  Blaming the devil for every struggle will deprive us of using that god-given wisdom to overcome the hurdles in life.  The devil can use all his shrewdness to fool us, but he has neither the authority nor the power to defeat a bhakta. Several times we end up giving more importance to this devil which he (or it) has or deserves to have.  Saranagati or total surrender is the first wisdom that a bhakta learns in their bhakti.  This is the area where the devil fails. 

Keeping a balance in life—including the spiritual life, is also part of god-given wisdom.  Going to any extreme of being too pre-occupied with the devil and his plan will deprive us of learning through the struggles about god’s plan for our lives.  Whatever might be our struggle, the ultimate purpose behind all of them is to achieve the goal that god has set for us.  At the same time, denying the existence of evil forces will cause us to become self-sufficient on our own strength and not depend upon god and His grace for the progress in our spiritual lives.

The main difference between a power encounter and the grace of god for me is this.  While the evil forces will take any forms and means to defeat us, the grace of god works openly and directly in our life.  This we can understand from our real life.  Those who love and have concern for us need not use any crafty means to help us.  Whereas those who want to defeat, can use any means—even friendship.  Those who use their discerning power soon will realize who is a friend and who the foe.  However, the wise person will shun away from the evil person, without even thinking about teaching him/her a lesson.  But those who, out of anger, use other kinds of means to teach or expose the evil plans of the foe will end up in the trap of the foe itself.  But true bhaktas will allow god to fight their battle minding their own spiritual life.

As we are already the conquerors in the Lord and nothing can separate us from Him, ‘neither angels nor demons’ (Romans. 8:38), we too can say along with Sevanand (Paul):  Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Muktinath took hold of me… Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which god has called me for mukti in Muktinath. (Phil. 3:12-14)

So, as god promises a safe landing, though we struggle a lot in the journey, hope to reach the destiny helps me to face them rather than to grumble or complain about it.

Notes

1  S. H. Jhabwala, Gita and Its Commentators, Bombay, Popular Prakashan. 1991. [There is no bibliography or references in the entire book—db] p. 25

2 ibid. p. 139

3  Christopher J. H. Wright in his book God I DON’T UNDERSTAND’’ (Zondervan, 2008), writing in the context of Satan says:

What, then, is the devil or Satan?

First of all, he (or it) is not God.  Nor even just some other god.  The Bible makes it very clear that we are not to fall into any kind of dualism—a good god (who made the world all nice and friendly) and an evil god (who messed it all up).  Some kinds of popular folk Christianity do slide in that direction and give to Satan far more assumed power and far more obsessive attention than is warranted by the Bible. And such dualism is the meat and drink of a large amount of quasi-religious fictions.  Which sadly many Christians read with more frequency and more faith than their Bibles….

…We should take Satan seriously, but we should not dignify him with greater reality and power than is proper for a creature. (p.36) 

4 On heaven:

The defining phrase on earth as it is in heaven is critically important and often forgotten. This phrase obliges the disciple of Jesus to care about the earth and what happens to it and to the people who live on it.  The Christian faith is not just a methodology for preparing disembodied souls for the next world.  The well-known Christmas carol “Away in a Manbger” includes:

And fit us for heaven to live with Thee there.

The unspoken assumption of this language is that the (sole?) purpose of the Christian faith is to “fit us for heaven.”  Ecology, peace among peoples and nations, economic justice, racial equality, and refugees and land rights are all political issues that have to do with this world and are thus beyond the scope of the concerns of the Christian faith. But such is not the case if we pray “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth.”  The oft quoted saying of Jesus “My kingdom is not of this world” (KJV) is better translated “My kingdom is not from this world.  If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting” (Jn 18:36 NRSV, italics added).  The origins and inner dynamics of the kingdom of God do not evolve out of the culture and politics of this world. But the kingdom is on earth and thereby is deeply concerned for the earth and all that happens to the people who live on it—even though we never absolutize place and nation because we have no abiding city here (Heb 13:14).— Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, Illinois, IVP Academic, 2008, p. 118

…This idea of ‘heaven’ has been used to back up exploitation on the one hand and dry-as-dust moralism on the other: because this strange distant place exists, and because you might want to go there yourself some day, you’d better behave nicely here – which often means, you’d better sit down, shut up and don’t be a nuisance….— N T Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. (England, SPCK, 1994) New Delhi, ISPCK, Indian edition 2015,  Heaven and Power, p. 84

               ‘Heaven’ is, in fact, one of the most misused religious words around today, with the possible exception of the word ‘God’ itself.  The biblical notion of heaven is not of a place far away ‘way beyond the blue’.  Nor is it simply, as some have said in reaction to that older notion, a state of mind or heart which some people can attain here and now.  Heaven is God’s space, which intersects with our space but transcends it.  It is, if you like, a further dimension of our world, not a place far removed at one extreme of our world….—ibid.  Heaven and Power, p. 85

Mt. 6: 16-24

…As with other references to heaven and earth, we shouldn’t imagine he means ‘don’t worry about this life – get ready for the next one.’  ‘Heaven’ here is where God is right now, and where, if you learn to love and serve God right now, you will have treasure in the present, not just in the future.  Of course Jesus (like almost all Jews of his day) believed that after death God would have a wonderful future in store for his faithful people; but they didn’t normally refer to that future as ‘heaven’….— Tom Wright, London, SPCK (2004), Indian Edition, Delhi, ISPCK, 2015 Matthew, Part 1, p. 63.  See more on this by Tom Wright in Mark 10. 17-31, p. 135, 12. 18-27, pp. 166-168 [in the context of resurrection], Luke, 15.11-24 pp. 184-185, John volume 218.33-40, pp. 114-115,  Acts, part one,  1.9-14, p. 12, 2.1-4, pp. 22-23, 2.37-41. p. 43, Acts part 2 16.25-34, pp. 66-67 and many other places in his commentary on the epistles.

5  About matter and materiality L T Jayachandran says: The resurrection of Jesus is of immense significance; we consider it only as His victory over death. We do often not realise that His glorified body guarantees a glorified materiality. Materiality is part of culture. It is very pertinent to mention here that it was God’s purpose in Christ through the latter’s work on the cross to ensure that all things would be reconciled to Him (Eph.1:9,10; Col.1:19,20).– Culture – The Art of Understanding and Engagement, p. 1.

See his full talk in Youtube in Traci Lecture—Christianity and Culture, The annual lecture of TRACI https://youtu.be/rqlZzgllAGQ.

6  The following points will highlight the importance of ‘forms’ over meaning in ritual:

The Sankaraacaarya of Kanci Kaamakoti Pitham, in this regard, comments: “The wear and tear of words in use in literature as well as the spoken language does not apply to Vedic words…. The reason why the Vedic sounds have been maintained in their pristine purity is because, only by the correct intonation of words, would the mantras attain their power.  Lest any mistake should creep in, a separate dedicated section of the community had made it its business to hand it down safely from one generation to the next, unsullied and in its original form” (Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, The Vedas. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. 1988, 20).—quoted by  Edwin Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition,  p. 317

…the question: WHY a ritual of sacrifice? One simple answer must be that it obtained satisfactory result. The ritual had worked in the past; the same actions performed in the present must gain similar results. One can observe the priests labouring, action by action, precisely placing a blade of grass this way, facing a piece of wood that way, almost in a state of terror lest a detail be altered or overlooked, and it is necessary to assume from this overwhelming preoccupation with detail and a sort of an “eye for an eye” philosophy about it, that the majority of the priests were dogmatic ritualists. The dogma of the ritual was also its doom because fear of an error in the tedious, infinitestimal action led to legends of unfortunate sacrificers whose ritual went wrong (Cf. XI, 8.4, 1&2) …Ritual performed with such concern for correctness shows a neurotic concern with maintaining the correctness of outward signs. When ritual reaches this stage, it must perish or renew itself. I believe this climax was faced by the brahmanas at the time of the Satapatha Brahamana.— NAAMA DRURY, THE SACRIFICIAL RITUAL IN THE SATAPATHA BRAHMANA, Delhi, Mothilal Banarasidass, 1981,  Pp. 9-10. {For more on ritual see my paper ‘Problem with Prasad’, yet to be edited and posted in the blog—db}

…The term apuurva denotes the mysterious, transcendent power produced by correct performance of a rite (or any component part of it)….— J. L. Brockington, Sacred Thread, A Short history of Hinduism, Oxford, 1996 (1981, Edinburgh University Press). p.104

…Entry to the otherworld is dependent on the performance of the correct ritual, rather than on the moral nature of one’s this-worldly actions.— ‘The Rebirth Eschatology and Its Transformations: A Contribution to the Sociology of Early Buddhism,’  Gananath Obeyesekere, in Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty , Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (1983) Reprint 1999,  p. 157

….Not the grace of a god or the inner disposition of the sacrificer determines salvation, but the objectively correct performance of rites in accordance with traditional ritual.— Klaus K. Klostermaier, MYTHOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES OF SALVATION IN THE THEISTIC TRADITIONS OF INDIA, Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984, .p.41

7. இராமான பத்தி அவர் பாடின போது சாக்க்ஷாத் இராமனையே கண்முன் கொண்டுவந்து நிறுத்திட்டார்.  அபிஷேகம் பண்ணினபோது என்னமா அம்பாள் சிரிச்சா. என் குருஜி அம்மனுக்கு பூஜ பண்ணி  சாக்ஷாத் அம்மாள நேர கொண்டுவந்து நிறுத்திடுவார்

8   However, without a change of heart and turning from, mere prayascittas won’t remove sin.  ‘…Penances and purificatory rites are prescribed only for those who have turned away from sin.  They come in only after the change of heart.  They are like external applications which only supplement, but can never supplant obedience to the general laws of health….

               They are the mark that the man is retracing his false steps.  They serve to show his repentance and his public confession.  The very word prayaschitta applied to such rites connotes a determination to change one’s heart and to atone for the sin….’— D.S. Sarma, A Primer Of Hinduism, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,  1984, p.47

9 What Rev. John Stott wrote about his struggle on this issue will help me express my struggle in those days:

…I was defeated.  I knew the kind of person I was, and also the kind of person I longed to be. Between the ideal and the reality there was a great gulf fixed. I had high ideas but a weak will’. {JRWS MS ‘The Four Questions’, November, 1979}

               Something of those high ideals has been illustrated already in John’s story.  There was a desire to be the best, a wish to serve, an active if uneducated social conscience; and perhaps too a personal pride which was sounded when the gulf between the ideal and the reality became too plain. A faith which would satisfy continued to elude him: religion there was in plenty; but not a religion which could meet his needs…. Timothy Dudley-Smith, John Stott, The Making of a Leader, England, Inter-varsity Press, [1999], Reprinted (with corrections), 2002, p. 89

10. சிவவாக்கியர், பாடல், 18, பெரிய ஞானக்கோவை, தொகுப்பு: வா. சரவணமுத்துப் பிள்ளை. சென்னை. B. இரத்தின நாயகர் அண்ட் சன்ஸ், P. 6 (Year not mentioned) [Sivavakkiyar, song 18, Periya Jnanakkovai, Compiled by V. Saravana Mutthup Pillai, Chennai, B. Ratna Nayakar and Sons, (year not mentioned), p. 6

11           Sins are classified into five categories: mahapataka (mortal sins), atipataka (highest sins), pataka (great sins), prasangika (due to contact with sinners), upapataka (minor sins).— India Mystica, p. 2

The five mahapatakas are Brahmanahatya-murder of a Brahmin, Surpan-drinking liquor, Svarna-sneya- theft of gold, Guru talpa gamana-sexual intercourse with the wife of one’s guru, and Shishu hatya-destruction of an unborn child.  Perpetrators of the above became social outcastes or patita.—ibid. p. 2 [It should be noted here that even this five great sins are enumerated focusing mostly the Brahmins by dharmashastras, though it also could cover all others. For example drinking is restricted only to the Brahmins and it is part of life style to the kings who is a kshatriya.]

12 Dhrtarastra…explains his position aptly thus:

Jaanaam yadharmam na hi me nivrttih

Kenaapi devena hrdisthitena

Yathaaniyuktosmi tathaakaromi— K. Kunjunni Raja. A Note on moral Dilemmas in the Mahabharata.  Pp. 49-52, in, Bimal Krishna Matilal, ed, Moral Dilemmas in the Mahabharata, Indian Institute of Advanced Study Rashtrapati Niwas, Shimla, in association with Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi, (1989) 2^nd Reprint, 2014p. 51

13  Gita: 3:36, Gita Press, Ghorakpur.

14  Kabir says:

तन धरि सुखिया कोऊ न देखा जो देखा सो दुखिया हो

राजा पराजा रंक धनी नर आधमाधम औ मुंखिया हो

घाटि बाढ़ि हैं सब जग धुखिया क्या गृहि क्या त्यागी हो

सुखिया या जग नहीं  कुटुम्बी सुखिया नहीं बैरागी हो

जोगी दुखिया जंगम दुखिया तपसी को दुख दूना हो

आषा तृष्णा सब घट ब्यापै कोई महल नहीं सूना हो

सांच कहो तो कोई न मानि झूठ कहा नहीं जाई हो

ब्रह्मा बिष्णु महेष बड़ दुखिया जिन यह राह चलाई हो

अबधू दुखिया भूपति दुखिया रंक दुखि बिपरीते हो

कहैं कबीर सुनो भाई साधौ मानुष सुखि मन जीते हो॥

Of all that wear this flesh, are none found happy; all that thou seest are wretched. 

Rulers and ruled, the poor, the rich; the lowest of the low, the headman of the village. 

In greater or in less degree the whole would is in grief; the house –holder and the hermit alike. 

Happy in this world is no father of sons; happy no lonely recluse.

The Jogi is troubled, the Jangam is troubled; to him who seeks out penances is two-fold trouble. 

The thirst of desire sparings up in all; there is no palace but contains it.

I speak thruth, yet no one heeds; lies I may not utter. 

Brahma, Visnu, Mahesa are troubled, who have traced out this path. 

The solitary is troubled, the king is troubled; the poor is troubled for his crippled lot. 

Kabir says, hear, O brother Sadhus, that man wins happiness who over comes his mind. 

[As I forgot to take the reference, I cannot give it here].

15 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.²²  This mantra literally means, “we contemplate that esteemed (longed for) refulgence (glory) of the divine Savitr who may inspire our intellects (or actions)”.²³  However, later a separate goddess “Gayatri” was created and the mantra was attributed to her also.  According to India Mystica(CD): “gayatri: literally ‘protector of whoever speaks or sings it’”.  Or according to Siva Purana, “The word gayatri means that which saves the reciter from downfall”. — 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, vol. I, Vidyesvarasamhitaa, 15:16, p.93

16  On this point Dr. Sharma says:

…Hindu monothelism, which allows for the inclusion of gods in God, as opposed to Abrahamic monotheism which is built on the denial of gods in God.  An interesting feature of Hinduism consists of the fact that it does not identify a single principle of evil in opposition to God; it contains devils but not a Devil.  It is remarkable that, even in the sixteenth chapter of the Bhagavadgita, the evil elements are spoken of in the plural.  Thus one may say that Hinduism has God but no Devil….The discourse on angels and demons, or God and Devil, is a polarizing discourse.  Such duality can create tension when the context in a tradition emphasizes unity or plurality.  The unitary context tends to assimilate the duality, as when Satan is recognized as a ‘fallen’ angel, while the plural context tends to soften the duality, as in Hinduism. — Arvind Sharma, McGill University, MLBD Newsletter September 2007, p. 16

I think, as the Muktiveda talks about god as a ‘PERSON’, evil is personified as Devil.  Whereas in Hinduism various views about god exists (Person, Impersonal, abstract, power, energy, personification of natural forces, not separate from atman etc.), this pluralism helps one to understand both good and evil; god and devil in any form that suits one.

17  Bishop. Bruce Wilson; The Human Journey, p.95

                                                            Chapter Three

Sin New Revision 2020

My question:

It is best if I begin this topic with the question that plagued me as a teenager. Please remember that the coherent manner in which I share these ideas now, is a culmination of the thought processes that I went through to come to these conclusions. Therefore, the question I struggled with is: why can’t I live a perfect life for even a single day? I wasn’t even reaching for a week, month or year…..I was simply desiring to live one day of my life perfectly (not in abstract sense but relatively, ‘better than others’). There was a longing within me to at least live up to my own creed, but I often failed. Of course I could not live up to the expectation of god(s) because that is beyond my reach, I could not even live up to the expectation of others, because then I have to dance according to the tune of everybody’s expectation. But there was a strong longing in my heart for such a life, and I was wondering why I often failed to live up to it.

Constant failures:

One common remedy that I found to overcome this struggle in those days was to genuinely and sincerely do pujas. In this process, I memorized several Tamil poems and Sanskrit slokas (like Tiruvachagam, Abirami andadi, Soundaryalahari etc.) which I chanted in my puja before a Tulsi (Basil) plant or in the family puja room. But after the puja, when I went back to my normal everyday life, I saw that I was miserably failing in several small things. Telling lies or hiding the truth, quarreling, cheating etc. never bothered me. I knew that most of my fellow Hindus would still accept me with these shortcomings because they never bother most of us since we saw our parents, elders and neighbors do the same thing. Even though we were never encouraged to tell lie, our elders often told us, ‘We cannot tell truth in every matter and in all the time to everyone’ or ‘We have to tell lies for certain matters’ (சில காரியங்களுக்கு பொய் சொல்லித்தான் ஆகணும்). What surprises me now is that while our parents and elders expected their children to tell the truth and nothing but the truth to them, they were not disturbed when we told lies to others. They even defended our lies by saying that if one remains true and honest with every one (and on everything), then no one can survive. Please remember that what I am sharing here is in the context of my dialogue within myself.

Not ‘I’

Or

Who is responsible:

In general, most of the time, Hindus do not take personal responsibility for the sins they commit. So moral lapses never bother an average Hindu in their day-to-day life. When confronted on such matters, circumstances will be blamed rather than the person. For example, the first thing to be blamed is this evil age viz. Kaliyuga, where no one can be perfect. Even gods were allowed or forced to sin. Secondly, karma would be blamed for certain sins that were not intentionally committed but because of the effect of the past karmas. Time is also a fact—bad or unlucky time would also be blamed. By chance, if someone tried to live righteously, then they would be criticized as a ‘successor to Harishchandra’, who paid a heavy cost to live an upright life till the end of his life. But when that person is called a ‘successor’ to Harishchandra, it is not to commend them, but it is said sarcastically.

In summation of this point, this one important Hindu worldview proposes that though one can accept personal responsibility for sin, the person alone cannot be blamed. It could be the bad yuga (Kali) or past karmas or even god. As Goswami Tulsidas says, ‘kaalahi kaarmahi ishwar par mitya doshu lagayee’—they falsely accuse either time (yuga) or karma or even god. Though Tulsidass and several scriptures point out that no one can pass the bug, average Hindus think that though they have committed sin, they alone are not responsible for it.

Lack of teaching:

Rather than modeling the correct moral standard that is desired, our elders punished us for our mistakes or errors. Many times, I saw my seniors and elders committing errors, but of course no one openly told us or encouraged us to violate ethics. It is surprising to note that while rituals were carefully taught to perform in a particular way, according to the family tradition regular moral teachings were not given. For example, when we were caught stealing something, then we were beaten and told, ‘don’t steal’. The same is the case with lying and for any other mistakes. When we were punished, we heard the words, ‘don’t lie; don’t steal; don’t cheat’ etc. Similarly, when we told a lie, then we were rebuked with, ‘The mouth which told the lie won’t receive food’ (பொய் சொன்ன வாய்க்கு போஜனம் கிடைக்காது). However, in our day-to-day living with our families, our parents did not sit with us and gently teach moral and ethical values in order to mould our character.

Rarely were ethical and moral issues ever even discussed, but the elders placed the emphasis on very carefully teaching about the particular family traditions in performing religious rituals and carrying out social duties (dharma). Religious and moral teachings were taught through stories, but ethics were not taught as a part of life. Therefore, when you faced any serious crisis in those areas of morals or ethics, it was not openly discussed. I should qualify what I mean by morality here. I’m not talking about a crime but what would be termed a ‘social offense’. Of course this is a serious subject, and what I am writing is from my point of view and observance and does not represent the all Hindu families. However, what I have shared are the common situations that have existed here with some exceptions. There is no point of quoting how Gandhiji was brought up with upright moral teaching by his parents particularly by his mother.  As a Mahatma what he told about his childhood life, we have to accept by his words as he strongly believed in telling only the truth and nothing but truth.  But I am talking about an average Indian family here—irrespective of community

Fear of retribution:

Retribution is the prevailing fear that keeps us from sinning. We were told that if you cheat someone, you too would be cheated. I still remember as a young boy hearing that if you kill an ant, in next life you will be born an ant, and that the ant will be born as a human being and will in turn kill you. In the same way, when some misfortune befell you, it was blamed on your past life experiences. For example, when the questions were asked why a particular person cheated you or why you were punished for something for which you are not responsible at present, the answer was that it is a punishment for something that you have done in a previous life.

Ritual not ethics as sadhana:

Most of the time morality, spirituality and rituality were never associated with each other. I grew up in these kinds of circumstances, yet I never had a guilty conscience or felt condemned. However, with these moral lapses, I often wondered why our bhakti, worship, ritual etc. never seemed to help us to overcome them? Most of the spiritual or ritual activities were never connected with personal morality, particularly in relationship with others. All the sadhanas (spiritual disciplines) that were performed (mostly in ritual form) were for personal gain to earn more merit (punya) or to get rid of sins. In general, religious life and ethics stood poles apart from each other. If a person was more pious, more devoted to ritual (like going to the temple every day, performing puja sincerely in the home) etc. then she was considered a good religious person; however, if she failed in her ethical and moral life particularly related with others, she was still a very spiritual person. Moreover, all the moral lapses were justified by saying that, ‘In this is Kali yuga no one could be perfect’.

Lack of satisfaction:

However, as I grew up, mere religious ritual was not satisfying to me, but I never gave up completely either, so life went on with several ups and downs. Of course I have to confess one truth that I never seriously asked any questions to my parents or elders about such issues or lack of satisfaction. This so-called individualism is a strange concept to us because the respective dharma (duty) of each member of Hindu family stands unique-I mean as father, mother, brother, sister etc.  That is why even strangers are addressed as ‘uncle, aunty, bhaiya, didhi’ etc. and not as ‘sir and madam’, though the latter usage is also quite common now a days.  So we all learnt how to do our duty (dharma) and fulfill our responsibility, particularly the collective responsibility towards family. In general, in most of the average Hindu homes moral and ethical issues or lapses were never dealt with. The focus was on the family and each member fulfilling their responsibility. Mostly we learnt from their lives and not through actual teaching as such. Therefore, my questions went unanswered and my longing continued. My conscience continually accused me, even if nobody else did – even if my religion didn’t.  I couldn’t escape that persistent inner voice.

My search:

Coming back to my story, not satisfied within myself and at the same time not knowing where to turn, the limited knowledge that I gained by reading the scriptures never gave me an answer to my question. Subsequently, life continued as usual with me finishing my studies. However, after my college studies were finished and I began working as a salesman in the medical field, the interest to know the answer to my long-standing question began to resurface. Unseen tension prevailed in my mind all the time, but my responsibility towards my family never gave me the availability to research or enquires on a deeper level. Several times I did not even recognize what was actually my problem, and I tried to find solutions in other activities like reading and travel. As a salesman in medical field, I had a lot of opportunity to travel.  And as I was actually living like a bookworm, I took many books to read in my travels.

In search of an answer to such contradiction, I began to read Tamil scriptures. In those early days, without knowing how to study the scripture or interpret them and without much help and resources, I merely read the scriptures I got and memorized several songs. I still remember how I bought books and even got some from the local library and read them. Of course I didn’t just read the religious scriptures. I was also interested in reading storybooks, historical books etc.

So, like any other normal Hindu lad, I too grew up without taking moral lapses seriously. But when I began to listen religious discourses (known as pravachanam, katha kaalashebam etc. in Tamil), the stories told about our religious heroes like Rama, Krishna and other characters, I was very attracted. However, I was attracted to the stories for the sake of the story and not for the teaching that it conveyed. Most of my fellow Hindus would object to such statements because they would say that ‘the beauty is in the beholder’s eyes’. They would even point to people like Gandhiji and others who learnt ethical and moral teachings from these stories. But I am talking about the common people like me. For us, most of the time such religious discourses and other religious activities are just another form of entertainment or ritual, but of course with a motive to earn some merit. Sometimes such activities were done with a pharisaic attitude: I am better than others or not like others.

Meanwhile, there were several crisis in my family that added fuel to my inner crisis. The first was the sudden death of my eldest brother at the age of 28, leaving his wife and daughter after only three years of marriage. Secondly, a marriage issue happened with my sister and then there was a financial crisis etc. All of these combined to make me become depressed. Like an average Indian of those days, all the entertainment and recreation that I enjoyed (reading more books, occasionally going to film and fellowship with friends etc.) helped me to relax a bit, yet the inner crisis continued. Then I began to seriously seek the answer to my question of why I could not lead a perfect life at least for one day.

Then I began to visit few ashrams and meet a few religious teachers—like Ramana Ashram at Tiruvannamalai (though Sri Ramana Maharishi already passed away, still several people visited seeking his blessing), Jnananda Mat at Tirukkoilur, Ramakrishna Kutil at Tirupparaiturai and some religious leaders, whose names I don’t remember now. Still, the few things that I learnt and many things that I observed in those places didn’t answer my question. I even applied to become a novice at Ramakrishna mutt at Mylapore, Chennai. I received letter asking me to come and see them, so I went and stayed one evening. There, I was interviewed by one sannyasi, but I don’t know what his position was in the ashram. I left next day and I don’t remember what kind of answer they gave for me. However, now I realize that in such traditional order, they cannot accept a young man at the age of 25 or 26 as a novice. I don’t blame them. But god had a different purpose for me, and He allowed things to happen in that direction, which is a story to be told elsewhere.

I will now turn to the subject of my crisis, the question, which I had continued to ask, and the answer that I finally found.

Sin in Hindu worldview:

The concept of sin is a bit complicated in the Hindu worldview. I’m not sharing points from scripture or ideas from books alone. What I am sharing from is the popular, average understanding of sin from a common Hindu’s perspective. Average Hindus would never deny the influence of sin in their life. But this sin is what they do than what they are. In other words, the common people agree that human beings do sin by work, but in their essence, they are sinless. It means that while we do sin, our soul remains pure because it is a minute part of god.¹ This is not in reference to theology here. No average Hindu ever seriously talks about or discusses her respective sectarian doctrine in such matters. In an average Hindu’s mind, our soul or atman is a minute part of god or god (Brahman) now trapped or embodied. But ultimately, sin never affects it.

Of course sin will never go unpunished either here or after death—either in hell or in another birth. God will punish, or sin/karma itself will punish, viz., not only we will be punished for sin/karma but ‘by’ sin/karma itself. I will later explain what all the sectarian, scriptural and other scholars have to say about sin. (This topic on ‘sin/evil’ is so vast and it cannot be discussed in one chapter or in this book as part of any chapter. See Appendix to this chapter.) Now first sharing the mind of average Hindus, though sin exists and it affects their destiny both here and in the afterlife, it is not a serious matter because they can work out their own life and destiny through several means. The common saying for this in Tamil is: கொன்னா பாவம் தின்னா போச்சு. (The sin incurred by killing will be gone by eating what is killed). Of course, the general context of this proverb is not about ahimsa and eating non-vegetarian food. But this reflects the common attitude towards all kinds of sin. The context could be that by doing some prayaschitta, one can get rid of any sin.

At the same time if anyone talk about the sin in principle viz. man is a sinner by his nature, this ideas will be ridiculed. I still remember one big board that was displayed at Rasipuram bus-stand (in Salem district) that I saw several times, when I traveled as a sales man. It read: ‘The wages of sin is death.’ Of course as you know, that board could have displayed by some evangelical Christian/church. But, not knowing that it is a verse from Muktiveda, I used to smile and say to myself, ‘If the wages of sin is death, then all who died are sinners’. Yes, these are the exact words that I thought to myself not one time, but every time I saw that board.

Hindus in general never accept sin in principle, while accepting sin in works. Humans by nature or their very atman are sinless, though they commit various sins by works. Though personal, moral responsibility is not denied, they alone are not responsible for all the sins they have committed. This is the one good thing about the Hindu worldview which always emphasizes the collective responsibility. No individual is ‘alone’ in their existence or identity. A person is valued, respected or accepted not for her sake, but always in relationship with others. That’s why I mentioned before that the so-called individualism is not very strong in our worldview. A person is viewed always in relationship with someone else. You are a father, mother, husband, wife, child, brother and sister to someone and not an individual—both while living and even after death!    Yes relationship never dies when one dies but continues even after his or her death.  Doing sraddha in one form or the other depicts this. Thus, though ‘sin in principle’ is never denied in theory (or in scriptures) yet sin in works is understood and recognized in the context of collective (social) responsibility: what we have done to others and done by others to us. If a wife commits any sin, naturally her husband, whether he personally involved in it or not, shares part of the consequence of her sin. Children will be affected by the sin of their parents etc. In Vedic yajna the sacrificers wife is asked to confess her extra marital relationship in order to save the yajna from any kind of calamity on the whole family². Similarly there are several stories in puranas where by violating the chastity of a wife the enemy can be easily killed as it happened in the story of Jalandhara.³  [I am not sure whether this entire point on woman about collective responsibility regarding sin is relevant or not.  We can delete this if not required—db]

Ritual remedies:

The simple solution to sin that is within the reach of people is to do prayaschitta for the sins of commission and omissions. So when I raised the question of why couldn’t I lead a perfect life, I knew that sin was one of the reasons for that. Most of the prescription to get rid of sins is doing rituals, giving alms, fasting, going on a pilgrimage, bathing in holy places etc. But these will never make you perfect because as you continue to live, you are prone to commit sins. Then theoretically and practically, what is the answer to the question about sin?

Sin is relative:

Hindus pay very little attention to scriptural information about a topic when it is a practical issue of living. Unlike other faiths, in Hinduism scriptures play a limited role when it comes to dealing with practical issues of life. This doesn’t mean that scriptures have no role to play. While giving a great deal of importance and reverence to the scriptures, particularly that of their own sectarian ones, for life crises, people never turn to scriptures or even look in to them to find guidance or solutions. Like Gandhi they won’t say that they found solace in their scripture when they face any crises in life.⁴Most of the time, it is both oral tradition and tradition learnt from family, elders, gurus etc. that are referred to and not scriptures as such. All the modern talks and writings about the importance of scripture are in response to outside criticism from the West (mostly by missionaries) and not an inherent feature among common people.  Now with Internet and social media like Youtube we can find lots of discourse by famous teachers, orators and scholars on various topics, which were not available in our time as young person.  But how far it reaches the youths is also a great question and grave concern.

So when an individual thinks about sin, no Hindu would deny the fact that we commit sin by mind, word and deed (manasa vacha karmana dush kritam kritam). But strictly speaking, what is sin and what is not sin is very relative. For example Kural, the highest ethical poems of Tamil literature says that telling a lie is equal to telling the truth, provided that it produces good results without any blemish.

பொய்ம்மையும் வாய்மை இடத்த புரைதீர்ந்த

நன்மை பயக்கும் எனின்.

Even untruth has the stamp of truthfulness; if it brings good sans harmfulness. (292)⁵

My response to this kind of teaching is that telling a lie is sinful and selfish; therefore, no lie can produce a good result. For the time being, it may solve the problem and allow the person to feel good, but in the long run, nothing good will come out of any evil. For example, in order to protect or a save an innocent person we may tell lie. But in the long run, in future, the same person will not trust us because she knows that we lied to save her. Of course Valluvar is not encouraging one to tell lie in order to bring benevolent results. In implies that as no benevolent results will come out lie as other Kural in this chapter (Truthfulness) insists, we can say that indirectly Valluvar discourages telling lie.

On the practical side, in order to protect yourself, you can even kill a cow even though killing a cow is heinous sin. Even Mahabharata gives exemptions to lie on certain occasions.⁶  Similarly, not performing one’s own duty (dharma) is also sin, yet all the sin are not adharma. In several contexts, adharma is more serious than sin because there is prayaschitta (propitiation) for sin, where as one has to face the consequence of adharma both here and hereafter.

But the strongest point that Hinduism projects is that each one has to reap the consequences of their own sin, and no one can share in unloading the burden of sin for anyone else. That’s why, it is meaningless to an average Hindu when the message is shared that Muktinath died for the sins of the world, took our sin on Himself and was punished for our sin. They see punishing someone else for their sin, or making someone else receive the punishment for their sin is a sinful act. Because of the concept of prayaschitta, which helps each one to get rid of their own sin and also that you can earn merit, the effects of sin can be reduced, so consequently they do not to take sin seriously. Similarly, as no one can work out all of their sin in one life, god graciously gives further opportunity in the next and further lives to workout one’s sin. These are some of the common practical points of a Hindu’s view of sin. (There is no absolute standard or accountability.  There is no Absolute Person Who observes and judges.)⁷

In a sense all are relative depends upon the need, place and time.  Even the absolute dharma which is pivot of Hindu worldview is also relative and the claim of any kind of absolute Truth, value or means is often if not condemned at least questioned and critiqued.  As a thorn is used to remove another thorn (which pierced in the body) using adharmic ways and means to remove another adharma is justified as we note in the case of Krishna’s response to Duryodhana when the later questioned the means used by Bhima by the instigation of Krishna to defeat him in the final combat in Mahabharata’.  See Matilal, 2014.⁸

Its reality:

Though excuses are offered to explain why one has committed sin, it is wrong to say that Hindus never accept personal moral responsibility for it. Though collective responsibility is accepted in life, still personal responsibility for moral lapses is not denied. When it comes to any doctrinal or philosophical issues the Hindu answer is not either/or but both/all. As Hindu scriptures are vast and there is also a long and multi-dimensional religious tradition, when challenged in one area, a Hindu can easily quote another point of reference to counter balance the challenge. That is why on this point of sin (telling lie etc.) all the teachings are relative and bound by that particular context and not applicable uniformly. As this is bit complicated subject, we will see further in the chapter on ‘Morality’.

Bhakti overcomes sin:

So sin is real among the common people and it is not like the claim of the neo-vedantians that say the only sin is to call man as a sinner.⁹ Because sin is true and a part of every-day life and the way to escape sin is also within our reach. At the same, time seeking forgiveness from god—both through proper ritual (sometimes even appeasement) or bhakti is also a common feature in the Hindu worldview. It is interesting to note that sometimes bhakti can overcome all kinds of problems in life, and god has every power and grace to nullify the effects of sin in a bhakta’s life.

So, like any other average Hindu, I too know that it is my sins, which are the main reasons for me to remain imperfect. But all the solutions that are prescribed by the family tradition and religious worldviews have never satisfied me nor convinced me that I could overcome my sins by following those solutions. However, I found the answer to my question in an unexpected source. Yes, the Muktiveda for the first time gave me a clear-cut answer to the question.

Lack of satisfaction:

Even though there was these practical understanding when I was seeking the answer to my question, I was still not satisfied with these answers. I felt conflicted and consoled with the common understanding that atman is sinless and yet the same atman has to face the consequence of sin in one form or the other. This left me confused. And much has been written by modern apologetics in Hinduism to resolve such contradictions.  When it comes to theology, there is contradiction in every faith and it is the job of the respective apologete to defend her faith. But like any other average Hindu, in those days I continued to struggle to find the correct answer to my question.

So, like any other average Hindu, I too know that it is my sins, which are the main reason for me to remain imperfect. But all the solutions that are prescribed by the family tradition and religious worldviews have never satisfied me nor convinced me that I could overcome my sins by following those solutions. However, I found the answer to my question in an unexpected source. Yes, the Muktiveda for the first time gave me a clear-cut answer to the question.

A new understanding:

So when I read Romans 7:15-24, with a clear and deep understanding, it suddenly dawned to me why I could not lead a perfect life. (See the chapter, Early Struggle on this). It is not the sins I do, but it is my sinful nature that will never allow me to WORK OUT my own problems in the right perspective. But the interesting fact is that when I read several poems and slokas clearly pointing out the sinful nature in me not merely the sins in work but sin in principle, it never dawned on me. The main reason I never realized this before was because the prevailing Hindu worldview is that atman is pure and all the sins that we do never affect its purity, however it has to reap the fruit of it. The other worldview principle that blinded me is that no one can take my burden. But when I understood the point that GOD in Muktinath took my burden, was punished for my sin and paid for my sin, it opened up a new perspective in my understanding about the concept of sin that is entirely different from our Hindu perspective.¹⁰

Let me explain a little. Our own worldview always seems plausible in answering our questions, and so we don’t seek alternative views. Even when alternative views are presented, they don’t appear as credible answers for our questions. Therefore, my Hindu worldview, which held that no one could share or be punished for my sin, completely closed my mind to even think that it might be a possibility. Even when that new possibility is presented, we don’t give it serious thought, until we begin to comprehend the deep impact it would have if it were true. This is what happens when we share that Muktinath died for our sin. It becomes the point of a joke and mockery among our own people. Of course, out of my personal experience, I can now confidently say that until god revealed this through His grace, no one can even understand it. But this should not deter us from presenting the alternative view to the prevailing worldview of our own people.

Sin in principle

I must confess that the concept of another person sharing or taking away sin is not entirely new in Hindu worldview. When I later began to do some study on Hinduism, to my surprise, this view already existed.¹¹ But it has never been accepted as the norm among the people. As I pointed out, the grace of god can remove any kind of burden and problem in a bhakta’s life. For example, when no one can overcome the effect of karma, the grace of god can even nullify the effect of any karma. But instead of emphasizing more about the atonement of the Lord, we have to help an average Hindu to understand that while sins in work can be tackled by ritual and merits, the sin in principle needs to be addressed seriously. That’s why in my sharing, I never begin from what god has done through the Lord for us, but instead, begin with why we need it.

Locating the problem:

The easiest way to irritate a Hindus is to call them sinners and bombard them with doctrinal points about atonement etc. No one wants to accept that they are sick, though they know it. The first and best remedy for a problem is not prescribing the solution, but helping that person to accept that there is a problem. Let me explain this. When we suggest that one needs to consult a psychiatrist, she feels hurt because she thinks that we believe that she is not mentally stable. On the other hand the average Indians love to hear someone ask why they look so weak or pale. Most of the time when people meet and enquire about health, they will say that they have this or that problem. Earning sympathy in this area is part of our Indian worldview. However, a same person will resent it when if we suggest that she has to see a psychiatrist for her health issue. Because it touches the core of the person. Instead of calling a person a sinner, it is better to bring the point home in her conscious. The same is true when we tell Hindus that they are sinners to their face. We need to make the effort to communicate this truth in a more sophisticated way. For example, when I share the gospel, I often tell the following story:

Two dogs:

One day a shishya went tearfully to her guru humbly bowing before her and asked the question: Two dogs are always fighting in my mind. One is black dog and the other is white. Now I have become tired of this fight, so please tell me the ways and means to stop this fight.

Then the guru, with a smile, asked her shishya, ‘Tell me which one is winning and which one is loosing because in the fight both cannot win or loose’.

Continuing to cry and bowing her head she answered, ‘Whichever dog I feed wins, but the tragedy is that knowingly I often feed the black dog’.  So she got the answer to her own question, and the guru has nothing to tell her further. As Siva Purana says:

I know what is virtuous, but I am not inclined to work it up. I know what is unrighteous but I am unable to desist from it. O Mahaadeva, I do everything as prompted by you, stationed in my heart.¹²

What scriptures say:

Anyone can derive any kind of message from the Gita, so it is interesting to note even the Gita talks about the sin of commission: prompted by which the atman is committing sin against its will (Gita.3:36 ). In another context is about sin of omission: whoever cooks only to eat is incurring sin (3:13). So the Gita, in a sense talks about both sin in principle and sin in work. Of course the main thrust of the Gita is about dharma and adharma, which is more serious than committing both the sin of commission and omission. However, the point is that even famous Hindu scriptures also talk about this struggle related with sin in principle. But the sloka from Hitopadesh is the most interesting to me:

Not because one does not read Veda or dharmasastras that one is a sinner. But as the milk is sweet by its nature, human is a sinner by her nature. (quoted from memory).

[na dharma shastram patatiti karanam; na vedhatyamana ca duraathmanaha; shubavavatre tatoruchate, yada prakrute maduram gavaam payaha]

This one from Tamil is enough to show how the concept of sin in principle is deeply embedded in the Hindu conscience:

Evil, all evil, my race, evil my qualities all,

Great am I only in sin, evil is even my good.

Evil my innermost self, foolish, avoiding the pure,

Beast am I not, yet the ways of the beast I can never forsake.

I can exhort with strong words, telling men what they should hate,

Yet can I never give gifts, only to beg them I know.

Ah! Wretched man that I am, whereunto came I to birth?¹³

There are various sources that I can quote from to prove this point. It is not only the scriptures but even the common man’s experience is the same.   Already we saw one from Mahabharata on this point in the chapter Early Struggle (see notes 12)(See appendix).

Changing nature:

To illustrate the point of changing our nature, let’s look at the following example. We all know the neem leaves taste very bitter. But a fool like me, in order to change its nature, dug a pit around the tree and poured lots of sugar and milk on it every day. But will it change the nature of the neem? In the same way, all the good deeds that we do, that too with the motive of getting rid of karma and sin (most of the time either to avoid the consequence or to reduced the effect) is like pouring milk and adding sugar to the neem tree. As we have sin within us, all the work that we do is not going to change that nature.

Like grafting:

Then is there any hope for humans to change and get rid of their sin? Yes. Again grafting is the best example. When a bitter mango is grafted with a good mango, the outcome is a sweeter a mango tree. Here the process is twofold. The bitter sap not only gives up its bitterness, but also takes the sweet nature of the good branch. In the same way, by surrendering to god, acknowledging our helplessness, we not only surrender our sin but also accept His grace to change our nature. This is what god has done for us through our Lord Muktinath. When we confess our sins and surrender before god, we also have to receive and accept the grace that He gives. Then the new life that god gives will help us to ‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling’. Here, god does not altogether reject what we have to do, but the regenerated person will not resist the work the Holy Spirit of God is doing in her reflecting the mukti that He gave.

Confession—different views:

Another aspect of the Hindu religious worldview that is similar is confessing sin and resolving not to repeat it again. But the major difference between the Muktiveda and Hindu view is that while confession and repentance, according to the Muktiveda, is by recognizing that as the Lord removed the curse of sin by His death on the cross, recognizing our need for grace we do it. On the other hand, in Hinduism, bhakti to the personal deity with a mental resolution (samkalpa) is more than enough to confess and seek god’s grace than accepting any atonement theory. (See the appendix more on this). However, as the punishment meted out by the Lord for my sin, pricked my guilty conscience I confess. Whereas, a Hindu would confess not because of a guilty conscience or remorse, but often as part of a ritual because most of the time they believe it is someone or something else—like time (Yuga or kala), or karma rather than their personal responsibility that has caused the moral lapses. And even when it is accepted on personal level, the contribution of other (like karma, time etc.) factors of one’s failure are still not rejected. Of course in Christianity many times Satan is blamed similarly to karma and kala in Hinduism (as we noted in Chapter 1 ‘Early Struggle’.) by temptation and misleading a bhakta, drawing on the inclinations of our fallen human state. (See Prof. Kane’s comment on this point in Appendix)

Opposite views:

On the one hand Hinduism acknowledges the principle of sin and removing it by earning merit by doing good deeds, giving alms, going pilgrimage, taking dip at holy rivers and tanks, even confession etc. which are within the reach of every Hindu. At the same time, the opposite is also included in the Hindu scriptures. For example, there is a sloka (I think in Skandapurana in Kashi kanda) which says, ‘by merely washing the body (viz. bathing at the holy rivers [na sharira mala tyakto naro bhavanti sunirmalaha; manasu tu male tyakto naro bhavanti sunirmalaha]) man never becomes pure but only by purifying the heart/mind man becomes pure.’ Furthermore, writing in the context that salvation is possible only by knowledge Bhajagovindam says, ‘They go pilgrimage to Gangasagar, keep lots of vows and offer alms. But all the sects say that without knowledge no one could attain mukti even after hundreds of births.’ The same points are told in the Vivekachudamani by Sankara, ‘All the works are done only to cleanse the mind and not to attain salvation; salvation is possible only by proper enquiry (of scriptures) and not by doing crores of works (good deeds).’  Of course Sankara’s view is based on the doctrine of advaita Vedanta where the avidya which hides the truth for one to realize that atman is Brahman can be removed by proper enquire of Scripture, here particularly Veda.

चित्तस्य शुध्दये कर्म न तु वस्तूपलब्धये। वस्तुसिध्दि-विचारेण न किंचित् कर्मकोटिभि:॥

Chittasya suddhaye karma na tu vastu upalabdhaye; vastu siddhir vicharena, na kinchit karma kotibhi.¹⁴

And Pattinattar says:¹⁵

நீற்றைப் புனைந்தென்ன நீராடப்போயென்ன நீமனமே

மாற்றிப் பிறக்க வகையறிந் தாயில்லை மாமறைநூல்

ஏற்றிக் கிடக்கும் எழகோடி மந்திர மென்ன கண்டாய்

ஆற்றிற் கிடந்தும் துறையறி யாமல் அலைகின்றயே.

–what the use of applying holy ash on the body; taking holy dip in rivers oh my mind; you don’t know how to born again. What you found in thousands of mantras in Vedas; you are wandering, dragged by river, you don’t know the shore.

While performing twilight worship (sadhyavandanam) a Brahmin has to say the following mantras as part samkalpa (resolution) and confession:

ममोपात्त-समस्त-दुरित-क्षय-द्वारा श्री परमेश्वर प्रीत्यर्थं…

mamoopaatta samasta duritakshaya dvaaraa srii parameshvara priityartham

–in order to qualify to receive the grace of god, I crush all the sins attained by me.

सूर्यश्च मा मन्युश्च मन्युपतयश्च मन्युकृतेभ्य: पापेभ्यो रक्षन्ताम्। यद्रात्रया पापमकार्षम्। मनसा वाचा हस्ताभ्याम्।

पद्भ्यामुदरेण शिश्ना। रात्रि-स्तदवलुंपतु। यत्किचं दुइरतं मयि। इदमहं माममृत-योनौ। सूर्ये ज्योतिषि जुहोमि स्वाहा॥

suuryashca maa manyushca manyupatayashca manyukrutebhya: paapebhyoo rakshantaam. yad raatrayaa paapamakaarsham. manasaa vaacaa hastaabhyaam. padbhyaam udarena shishnaa. raatristadavalumpatu. yatkincam duiiratam mayii. idamaham maamamrutayoonow. suurye jyootishi juhoomi svaahaa.

–Let Sun which activates everything and divine shaktis which controls anger save me from all the sin committed me by anger which enslaves everyone; Let the night deity remove sins committed by mind, words, hands, legs, stomach, male organ and other sins that are found in me; by this way I, one whose sins are removed offer my homa in the supreme light in the form of Sun for moksha.¹⁶

Existential not philosophical:

We realize that we are sinners not because we have committed sins but because we are sinners and therefore we commit sins. Then we will also realize that by mere rituals or good works we cannot overcome this core problem within us. Most of the time, both (sectarian) scriptures and religious traditions prescribe rituals and good works to get rid of the evil and sin that one acquires. It is also true that, as we noted above, the same scriptures are also talking about sin in principle and clearly point out that mere ritual and good works won’t get rid of it. But the common people, living more on an existential level, rarely consider thinking deeply on philosophical levels to try to understand the core issue of sin in principle and seek a remedy for it. So they naturally cling to the ritual remedies which each sect and particular religious (and family) tradition prescribes as they are easier to follow.

Need to be diagnosed:

A good doctor is one who not merely treats the symptom but first diagnoses the disease.  All the treatment given to the symptoms gives only temporary remedy and never cures the person totally. For example, if one has cough, by giving cough medicine, only the cough is controlled temporarily, but because the root of the cough is not treated, it will come again. However, once diagnosed the decease and is treated, then the symptom also disappears.  We see a doctor not merely to get the prescription of some medicine but to diagnose the decease properly. For example, if we have fever, a good doctor will diagnose what kind of fever it is: malaria, dinge, kalajar, typhoid; swine flu (now Naval Korana) etc. They won’t merely give some medicine for a fever. The same way, unless we allow the scriptures to diagnose our disease first, all of the remedies that we take for the symptoms are not going to cure us.

Not treat symptom:

Of course all these are mere illustrations, and a rationalistic mind can turn the same illustration as proof against the theory. What I am sharing here is based on my personal experience. Without realizing the sinful nature within me, all that I attempted were remedies only for my symptoms. Several times I painfully tried to change my nature (prakriti) by making certain decisions. But all the decisions that I took, didn’t even last for a few days (and in few cases even few hours), and again and again I fell back to the same old nature. Here I have to point out that by ‘nature’ (prakriti) I mean my total personality—including my temperament, character, emotions etc. I find it difficult to explain the meaning of ‘nature’ (prakriti) with any equivalent English term.  However, all of my attempts to change myself with my own efforts based on the rituals and good works, didn’t lasted long. Without knowing what was wrong with me or not knowing how to change my ‘nature,’ I became frustrated and several times I threw up my hands and came to the conclusion that no one could lead a perfect life—even for a single day. Even that very desire (or claim) itself is hypocritical, I thought.

God’s revelation:

But god never leaves a sincere seeker without a solution. God is, after all, god for the entire humanity and He does not favor some and leave the rest to be lost. Though I will tell the other part of my story (in another place), how I searched and found the remedy in Bhagavan Muktinath, here I am limiting myself to the topic of the book. (See the article ‘I found my guru’ in my blog.). I found the answer that I got from the Muktiveda was more convincing me at that time when the words of god confronted me.  I then realized: when we search with a sincere heart and prayerful mind, god reveals His nature and our nature to us.

Sin in principle:

There is no need for me to summarize and give all the Muktiveda says about sin. Various theological books brings this out more clearly than what I could write with few words. But what I understood from the Muktiveda, when I read Romans 7:15-24, was that because of the sinful nature within me, I failed again and again in all my attempts and decisions that I made to lead a perfect life. This does not mean that now, after becoming a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I am leading a perfect life—even for one day! No! god forbid. But, this realization of why I am failing and what god has done to get rid of that failure and work with Him each second of my life to attain that goal is the PERFECTION that I found in the Lord.  The truth that we are saved, we are being saved and we will be saved is the fact that helps one to recognize their sinful nature and limitations to overcome (both in their ‘nature’, religious systems and particular tradition) it and the grace given by god through our Lord to run the race towards that PERFECTION. As He become my prayaschita, paying the penalty which I can never pay before my guilty conscience, taking away the penalty and paying the cost for it are the new truths that dawned when I realized first to myself and also before god that I needed help from outside to overcome my sinful nature.

Not an easy journey:

But it was not an easy solution or free journey without any problems to accept what the Muktiveda says. Thankfully god never expected me to obey blindly but to reflect on the revelation which He gave through the scripture using my mind which is also a gift from Him. So what I thought was the answer to my question from Romans 7:15-24 didn’t immediately become clear. It took several years to slowly understand its implications.  As I mentioned before, by reasoning, we reflect upon the response to the revelation by faith. However, this response is based more on our worldview that shapes our total personality. So, when I responded to that revelation coming from the Muktiveda, naturally all my reflection to the many doctrinal claims of the Muktiveda first started from what I already believed as a Hindu. Born and brought up as a Hindu, my religious life was shaped both by many scriptures and even more by my Hindu religious tradition. So when I first understood from the Muktiveda that the reason for my failure to live a perfect life even for a single day, that too up to my own expectation, is my sinful nature. But when I began to think more deeply I went back to my Hindu religious worldview about this concept of sin in principle or sinful nature within me.

Substitution:

Now I needed to reconcile my Hindu worldview which contradicts the Muktivedic perspective that had been offered to me by revelation from god. To be honest with myself, I was able to reconcile the two only through reading several books after I became a bhakta of the Lord Muktinath. I found the concept of scapegoat,¹⁷which is mentioned in Vedic ritual. The alingana dhana¹⁸that I read in a book helped me to understand that transferring one’s own sin onto someone else is not entirely strange to the Hindu scriptural worldview. However, the common people don’t have any knowledge of this, so now I struggled with how to relate this to them.

Then I thought about various animal sacrifices that are still carried on among the popular religion and this helped me a bit in this direction. Though in most of these sacrifices, appeasing a ferocious god/goddess or family deity is the main objective, it could also be for removing the sin of a person. However, I cannot think of any particular scriptural evidence of reference to prove that animal sacrifices were carried out only or mainly to remove the sinful nature within us. In most cases, I think it is a part of the ritual to get rid of the consequences of sin. But being born in a Brahmin family, such thought is anathema to me. However, can I bridge a concept that by offering an animal as my substitute I cannot get rid of both my sins in work and also sin in principle.

Sinless sacrifice:

This led me to come to the conclusion that even if one sacrifices an animal for her sins in work or sin in principle, that is done only as a temporary remedy to console the guilty conscience rather than as a permanent solution. However, in my satsangh, to bring the point that by mere animal sacrifice one cannot get rid of sin and its consequence, I used to say: ‘We all know that traditionally animals were sacrificed to get rid of our sin and its consequence. But can the blood of any animal remove our sin? If not, then what is the means for us to get rid of our sin? Can we sacrifice another human for our sin? This won’t be the substitute for any animal? Why? How can a sinner become a substitute for another sinner? The person whom I would like to sacrifice for my sin is equally a sinner like me. Then how is her blood or sacrifice going to get rid of my sin? A sinner can never become a remover of another sinner’s sins.’ To illustrate this point, I often said that to release a thief another thief can never become her security. Only a good person’s security will be accepted to relieve her. In the same way, one sinner can never remove the sin of another person. That is why god came as a human being without sin and offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sin. This is simply said rather than accepted. Some would argue that like so many other myths, this too is nothing but a myth. But for me, even if it is a myth, it addresses my need. About this I will come later about it in another Chapter on ‘Why only Muktinath’? 

Bloodletting is barbaric:

Yes. It is simply said rather than accepted. What I tried to explain with a bit of reason, linking the concept of animal sacrifice and the sacrifice of the Lord Muktinath on the cross neither seems rational nor convincing to an average Hindu. Particularly for most of the high caste and educated Hindus, bloodletting—either of animals or humans-, is an animistic and barbaric ritual. And when we relate such concepts with the sacrifice of Muktinath, then it makes no sense to them or looks very barbaric. ‘Can god be made bound by the blood of Muktinath to save us’, was the question asked by some.

With this in mind, I often wondered is it necessary to always insist on the bloodletting of Muktinath as part of the gospel when we want to share it with others? Because in evangelical circle, unless we tell about the sin and shedding of blood by the Lord, the gospel is not complete. And naturally, not offending or making it look irrational, I have used several illustrations (like the ones which I have already mentioned above) to convince my audience about the death of the Lord on the cross. Yet, though not reacting strongly, most of my listeners were not very convinced nor did they accept what I was saying because this view didn’t apply to their religious worldview. However, I continued my sharing in the same line though I didn’t start with this, somehow will end the sharing only with the doctrine of sin and death of the Lord.

But recently help came to me from a theologian. Dr. Hoefer’s presentation on this point helped me to deal with this issue of blood and sacrifice orientation of the evangelical world with that of my struggle to understand this clearly. Here I have to confess one thing that now I am theologically convinced about the death and substitution theory. But the question remains, is it necessary for us to emphasize this doctrine at the initial level of sharing the gospel? Like god did for me, I believe that we should begin from where people are and not from where we stand in our understanding about all the doctrinal aspects of the gospel. In the name of sharing the complete gospel, instead of alienating our audience, we should be more sensitive to their (religious) worldviews and try to begin from there. We would do well to use some of the other non-violent metaphors in the Muktivea expressing the meaning of the maha–yajna of Muktinath on the cross.

Alternative presentation:

The death of the Lord as a prayaschitta for the sin of the world is not the entire good news about Him. For most of the western Christians it could be the center or even the climax. But as someone well said, ‘our faith starts not from the foot of the cross but from the empty grave’. Yes in the totality of god’s plan for the entire creation, cross could be the end of one part leading for the glorious work continuing beyond that event. In fact the living presence of the Lord could be possible as universal one after His resurrection. Though the mahayajna of the Lord on the cross pouring His own body as the ahudi is important  one, it could only work back in a bhakta’s life as she comes to Him as the Living Lord overcoming death and curse. At least in my life, when god confronted me through the Lord, I found my guru in and through Him. Then that guru as a living Person helped me to understand that concept of prayaschitta through His maha–yajna much later once I entrusted my life to Him. When I heard the gospel and began to read Uttaraveda (New Testament), my thought was, ‘well I tried various means. I searched few scriptures, went after few gurus. Now here I found another one. Let me also try to know and follow Him. If He proves to be the guru to guide me,–to lead from untruth to truth; darkness to light and mukti from death–then my search for a guru will end in Him. If not, at least I will gain some knowledge about this scripture too.’  But once I began to read and continued my fellowship with other bhaktas of the Lord, I realized that my long search for a guru finally came to an end in Him. But my understanding of His maha–yajna and the concept of prayaschitta came later in my pilgrimage with Him. To say in other words the Living Lord who overcame all the ‘defeats, failures, evil’ etc. was the one whom I encountered and not the one who was hanging on the cross as a prayaschitta for me. I think this would be the experience in most of other followers of the Lord beginning from the life of Sevanand (Paul) in Uttaraveda and in the centuries that followed all over the world.

And Dr. Hoefer’s presentation will give a scholarly perspective:₁₉

… The view of Jesus as the triumphant Lord, rather than merely the suffering Savior, inspires faith and hope, whether for a tribal person struggling with fear of spirits or a social activist struggling for justice or a pious person struggling with pangs of conscience or a person shamed and afraid in his community.

For the Muslim also, this view places the saving work of God in Christ in a much broader and more comprehensible perspective. The Muslim can resonate with the concept of God in battle (“jihad”) against evil. However, when we focus immediately on Jesus‟ suffering and death we are brought into immediate conflict with the teachings of the Qur‟an about the crucifixion. In the context of divine “jihad,” the crucifixion can make much more sense. […]

Such an understanding of the work of Christ in past history brings continuity with His work for us in current history. This saving work of Christ answers the searchings of their soul that their current religious life has raised and left unanswered. The Lord Who triumphed is the One Who continues to triumph, and He invites all to the Life and Light that is available only in Him, both now and for all eternity.

Here I would like to point out what L T Jayachandran says that the Lord shed the blood not to save the souls but the redemption of the materiality of the creation.²⁰

What I am:

After writing all these various thoughts that came to my mind on Sin and how to present the gospel to others, now I am convinced that relating my Hindu religious worldview and the demand of Muktivedic doctrine about it is not as simple as we think. However, let me again share how I try to convey this Muktivedic doctrine relating it to Hindu worldview.  When I come to your house on your invitation for a meal, you have prepared a wonderful meal according to my desire and taste. But when you are about to serve, the place is not clean. Added to this, the plate on which you serve the food is not clean and not properly washed. Then do you think that I will accept the food, irrespective of the filth surrounding me and the dirt on the plate? However, if you provide even a simple meal in a clean and neat place and plate, I will happily accept it. The same is with god. For god, what we serve on the plate is not important but the plate itself is important. It is the same way with our sinful nature within us. Whatever kind of rituals that we do to satisfy is not acceptable to god²¹ What I am is much more important than what I do for Him. But however we try we cannot cleanse ourselves in our mind and spirit. Therefore, god in His mercy, knowing our wretched condition, came down like us to set us free from the bondage of sin by dying on the cross for us. Of course this doctrinal truth will become more relevant once we confess our sin and acknowledge our helplessness to become perfect by all our efforts. But the moment we try to argue over it with our rationalistic mind it becomes very difficult to convince ourselves or others. He came to save the sinner and not the righteous. Only a sick person needs the doctor not the one who feels that they are healthy.

Need of awakening:

So, regarding the concept of sin, though accepted in the Hindu worldview, yet it is easily handled by various means of ritual, grace and bhakti. Whereas, according to the Uttaraveda (New Testament) doctrine, it is the core issue to be recognized and dealt with by the grace of god. Unless one is awakened to the reality about the seriousness of the sinful nature, she won’t seek any remedy to deal with it, except to remove its effect rather than to know the cause. And unless one feels the need of some help in this area, no one can help—not even god, as He never imposes on us.  It is like someone try to pull herself by her own hair or ear.   Several times in life to come out from the any kind of pit outside support is necessary and dealing with sin is one such.

Notes

1             According to Vivekananda the impersonal God is a source of strength.  “What a mine of strength is in this impersonal God, when all superstitions have been thrown overboard, and man stands on his feet with the knowledge—I am the Impersonal Being of the world.  What can make me afraid?  I care not even for nature’s laws, Death is a joke to me. Man stands on the glory of his own soul, the infinite, the eternal, the deathless….’ { Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, 8 vols., Calcutta, 1970, III. P. 130}  Thus he asserts that Vedanta is a religion of hope and optimism, of strength and affirmation.  In his Paper on Hinduism he wrote: (p. 147)

Ye are the children of God, the sharers of immortal bliss, holy and perfect beings. Ye divinities on earth—sinners. It is a sin to call a man so; it is a standing libel on human nature.  Come up; o lions, and shake off the delusion that you are sheep, you are souls immortal, spirits free, blest and eternal; ye are not matters, ye are not bodies; matter is your servant, not you the servant of matter. { Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, 8 vols., Calcutta, 1970, I P. II}— Sisir Kumar Das, Shadow of the Cross: Christianity and Hinduism in a Colonial Situation, New Delhi, Munshirma Manoharlal,  1974 (1973)pp.147-48

2 See  Stephanie W. Jamison, Sacrificed Wife; Sacrificer’s Wife: Women, Ritual, and Hospitality in Ancient India.  Delhi, Oxford, 1996 for this concept from various scholarly perspective . Here I should to quote expensively from Jamison to show that this practice should be understood in the context of ritual and not as a normal practice to clear any misunderstanding for me use this example to point out the collective responsibility in Hindu Society:

The confession is extracted with a certain amount of threat: some member or members of her family will die or be harmed if she does not answer truthfully:

Manava Srauta Sutra I.7.4.11: (The priest says) ‘If you speak falsely, someone very dear to you will die.’(p. 89)

               The usual interpretation of the interrogation of the wife is that it represents a need for confession and purification before embarking on important religious duties.  This explanation in fact goes back to the earliest texts, where the importance of speaking truth and the doctrine that ‘confession is good for the soul’ hold sway. We cannot blame this interpretation on Western scholars misled by their Christian heritage,….(p. 90)

In any case, under the explanation of the confession given above, one would assume that the best state of affairs would be a complete (and honest) denial.  Though a sin confessed is better than one unadmitted, no sin at all should be better still.  Why is the question so phrased that no well-formed answer allows the wife to affirm her innocence?  It is the ancient equivalent of the old trick question ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’

               One could try to counter by asserting that women regularly took lovers, that this was the socially expected situation.  But there is absolutely no evidence for this.  Nothing in the legal system or in the narrative literature suggests that wifely unchastity was the norm. (p. 92)

If one of the reasons for the wife’s confession is to purify the entire ritual, then she is operating as a sort of ritual-internal scapegoat.  Just as she is the locus of active sexuality, she also serves as the symbol of impure behaviour, and she then represents the transgression of all the ritual participants, particularly her husband, when she ‘confesses’ a misdeed supposedly committed by herself alone.  Her confession allows her husband to expiate his own misdeeds without implicating himself…..(p.94)—Ibid. Jamison, 1996, pp. 89, 90, 92 and 94

3[Parvati said] …At my bidding, make the chastity of his [Jalandhara] wife [Vrndaa] violated.(50)  O Visnu, that great Daitya cannot be killed otherwise.  In the earth there is no other virtue equal to chastity.— 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,Rudra-Samhita, Section V, Yuddha Khanda  22:50-1, p.904.

4 ‘…I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being and I find a solace in the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads that miss even in the Sermon on the Mount.  Not that I do not prize the ideal presented therein, not that some of the precious teachings in the Sermon on the Mount have not left a deep impression upon me, but I must confess to you that when doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately being to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow….’ [The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi, 1968, Vol. 27, p. 435]….—Sitaram Goel, HISTORY OF HINDU-CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTERS, New Delhi, Voice of India, (1986) Enlarged second edition, 1996, p.139

5  Thirukkural, Translated by M. Rajaram, Rupa & Co. New Delhi, 2009, p. 60. ).

6  33. In a question of danger to life and in marriage untruth may be uttered. Where one’s entire fortunes are at stake untruth becomes utterable. 34. At a marriage, or in the enjoyment of lust, or when one’s life is at stake, or when one’s entire fortunes are about to be lost, or in the cause of a Brahmin untruth may be uttered. It is said that there is no sin in uttering these five sorts of falsehood. 35.  On these occasions untruth becomes truth and truth untruth. 36. He who is bent upon always practicing truth alone is a fool and takes truth to be as it is. Indeed it is not a very easy thing to become righteous. He who can distinguish between the niceties of truth and untruth can alone become conversant with morality. [Krishna to Arjuna]. —— M.N.[Manmatha Nath]  Dutt, Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimala Publications, 7 vols. 1988, Karna Parva. Vol. 4 Ch. XLIX. P. 511

7 Though Varuna looks that Peson who observes and judges in Rg Veda, he soon disappeared from that position in later development in Hinduism.  See more on Varuna in Appendix on Sin.  Also Jonardon Ganeri, ed. The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002

8 Bimal Krishna Matilal, ed, Moral Dilemmas in the Mahabharata, Indian Institute of Advanced Study Rashtrapati Niwas, Shima, in association with Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi, (1989) 2^nd Reprint, 2014 further on this point. Also Sri Suki Sivam’s talk about the question of Duryodhana to Krishna in youtubea; https//youtu.be/00GIRad7VAo.

9  One can also find many seminal sayings of Ramakrishna, which later blossomed forth in Vivekananda’s mind.  From the small theme: ‘Anyone who is always saying he is a sinner, eventually becomes a sinner’, which sounds so brief in Ramakrishna’s mouth, Vivekananda created a whole symphony.  He liked to shock his Western audiences with the saying that there was really only one sin, namely to call a man a sinner….

This is to be found in a more rousing and aggressive form in Vivekananda: ‘There are many who feel horrified when they hear these teachings.  They do not like to be told that they are not just little pig bodies, created by a tyrant God.  I tell them, “Come up!”  They say they are born in sin—they cannot come up except through someone’s grace.  I say, “You are Divine!”  They answer, “You blasphemer, how dare you speak so?  How can a miserable creature be god?  We are sinners!”  I get very much discouraged at times, you know…’ (Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,VII, p. 130).— Hans Torwestern, Ramakrishna and Christ: The Paradox of the Incarnation. The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, 1999p.206

10 However what Torwestern writes should be understand with the context of a dialogue perspective from which he shares:

I can of course completely ignore the historical perspective and stress only the purely personal side: Christ died for me, for my sins.  Yet one will also be able to understand that such a subjective faith, which may certainly transform a man, can also say: Ramakrishna suffered for me, my sins caused the sore in his throat.  So that in the end we come back to faith again and have to admit that nothing can be prove….One must of course also add that suffering does not play such an outstanding part in the whole Ramakrishna cult…. He also did not want to stir up the people with a passion drama that perhaps found its final expression in Christ, even though Ramakrishna’s suffering offers an important later commentary.—ibid. pp.216-17

11  ‘His Highness Martanda Varma was indeed sinking and the Court physician saw his recovery as hopeless, so at the chosen hour and with due preparation the touching ceremony was carried to completion. The mantras were said, the rituals performed, and Subbaiyar embraced the dying Maharajah. Addressing him man-to-man in the face of Death (and the precise words have been preserved for us), “O great King”, he said, “I undertake to bear away upon myself all your sins and all your diseases”. And then, in one last cry from the heart, “May Your Highness live long and reign happily”’!– Venkatesvara Thyagarajan, A New Motive for Living, Kent, 1997, p. 60.

12  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, Rudrasamhitaa Section I, 13:4, p. 231

13Those who know Tamil can understand the real spirit of this song which any English translation cannot give:

குலம்பொல்லேன் குணம்பொல்லேன் குறியும்பொல்லேன்

               குற்றமேபெரிதுடையேன் கோலமாய

நலம்பொல்லேனான்பொல்லேன் ஞானியல்லே

               னல்லாரோடிசைந்திலேனடுவேனின்ற

விலங்கலேன்விலங்கலாதொழிந்தேனல்லேன்

               வெறுப்பனவுமிகப் பெரிதும்பேசவல்லேன்

இலம்பொல்லேனிரப்பதல்லால் ஈயமாட்டே

               னென்செய்வான்றோன்றினே னேழையேனே–

Tirunavukkarasu, F. Kingsbury, and G.E.Phillips, Hymns of the Tamil Saivite Saints, Calcutta, Association Press, 1921, song 35, p. 44

14 Vivekasudamani. 11

15 Pattinattar, podu, song 40, p. 111, in Periya Jnanakkovai, compiled by V. Saravanamuthuppillai, Chennai, B. Ratna Nayakar and Sons, year not mentioned.

16  Anna, Sandhyavandanam, Chennai, Ramakrishna matt.

17The concept of the scapegoat appears in ancient Indian sources.  In one ritual, the accumulated sins of the sacrificer are placed on the head of a man who is then chased away at the end of the ritual….[Sata 13.3.6.5. Cf. Taandya 17.1.16 and RV 10.155.3] — Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, University of California Press, Berkeley. Paperback Edition, (1976) 1980,  p.141

18 See notes 11 above.  There are plenty of reference about this concept of transferring one’s karma in the scholarly works by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, Karma and Rebirth in the Vedas and Puraanas, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology,University of California Press, Berkeley. Paperback Edition, (1976) 1980, The Hindus An Alternative History, New Delhi, Penguin/Viking. 2009.  There are several references on this point from other scholarly works like Prof. Kane, etc.  This is not limited only with Hinduism, as McEvilley observes:

               This karmic transfer is the opposite of a more famous later idea of transferring karma, that philanthropic “transfer of the other and the self” (paratma–parivartana) formulated by the Mahayana Buddhist author Santideva in the Bodhicaryavatara.  In that theory, one can transfer one’s good karma to another and take on the other’s bad karma, in a saintly act of self-sacrifice (Bodhicaryavatara {The Way of the Bodhisattva)} VIII.120)….— Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008.  p. 228

19 ‘Gospel Proclamation of the Ascended Lord’, Dr. H.Hoeffer’s paper.

20 Traci Lectures—Christianity and Culture: Part 1. https://youtu.be?rqlZZgllAGQ

For an alternative Franciscan view of atonement see https://cac.org/conspire-2020/. I thank Subhasan Bhattarai of Kathnamdu for sharing this important alternative view on Atonement.  See the appendix to this Chapter titled: Appendix to the Chapter on Sin

21  Of course Sri Krishna says in Gita that if a bhakta offers with true bhakti even leaf, flower, fruit or water, he will accept it.  Though this particular sloka highlights both the grace of god and true bhakti of a bhakta, yet Gita never denies the demand of morality, as we found in later chapters a long list of ethical demand of Gita:

Patram pushpam phalam toyam yo me bhaktya prayacchati

Tadaham bhaktyupahrtamasnaami prayataatmanah

–Whoever offers Me with devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit or even water, I accept the pious offering offered by him with love.—9:26. Gita Press.

Appendix A

I lost most of the scholarly points on Sin as my previous computer broke down.  So I need to do it again.

Appendix B

Atonement by Franciscan

At-one-ment, Not Atonement
Wednesday, February 5, 2020

The Franciscan view of atonement theory is a prime example of our alternative orthodoxy. The Franciscan School was dissatisfied with the popular theological idea that Jesus came to Earth as a necessary sacrifice to appease an angry God. As human consciousness advances, more and more people cannot believe that God would demand Jesus’ blood as payment for our sins. It seems to be inevitable that our old logic needs to break up before we can begin to grow up.  

The most common reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (generally believed in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century and holding sway for most of the second millennium). But even in the 13th century, Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266–1308) agreed with neither of these understandings. 

Duns Scotus was not guided by the Temple language of debt, atonement, and blood sacrifice, which was understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul. Instead, he was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18). While the Church has never rejected the Franciscan position, it has remained a minority view. 

The terrible and un-critiqued premise of many “substitutionary atonement theories” is that God demanded Jesus to be a blood sacrifice to “atone” for our sin-drenched humanity. As if God could need payment, and even a very violent transaction, to be able to love and accept God’s own children! These theories are based on retributive justice rather than the restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught. 

For Duns Scotus, the incarnation of God and the redemption of the world could never be a mere Plan B or mop-up exercise in response to human sinfulness; Jesus’ birth, life, and death had to be Plan A, the proactive work of God from the very beginning. We were “chosen in Christ before the world was made” (Ephesians 1:4). Our sin could not possibly be the motive for the incarnation! Only perfect love and divine self-revelation could inspire God to come in human form. God never merely reacts, but supremely and freely acts—out of love. 

Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. It did not need changing. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God! God is not someone to be afraid of but is the Ground of Being and on our side. [1] 

The Franciscan minority position, our alternative orthodoxy, is basically saying that no atonement is necessary. Some call it “at-one-ment” instead of atonement. There is no bill to be paid; there is simply a union to be named. Jesus didn’t come to solve a problem; he came to reveal the true nature of God as Love.  

Gateway to Action & Contemplation:
What word or phrase resonates with or challenges me? What sensations do I notice in my body? What is mine to do?

Prayer for Our Community:
O Great Love, thank you for living and loving in us and through us. May all that we do flow from our deep connection with you and all beings. Help us become a community that vulnerably shares each other’s burdens and the weight of glory. Listen to our hearts’ longings for the healing of our world. [Please add your own intentions.] . . . Knowing you are hearing us better than we are speaking, we offer these prayers in all the holy names of God, amen.

Listen to Fr. Richard read the prayer.

[1] This is one of the Center for Action and Contemplation’s Seven Themes of an Alternative Orthodoxy. Join the CONSPIRE 2020 webcast to learn more about this and other themes: https://cac.org/conspire-2020/. 

Adapted from Richard Rohr, Returning to Essentials: Teaching an Alternative Orthodoxy, disc 2 (Center for Action and Contemplation: 2015), CD, MP3 download; 

Eager to Love: The Alternative Way of Francis of Assisi (Franciscan Media: 2014), 183-188;   

Richard Rohr with Tim Scorer, Embracing an Alternative Orthodoxy: Richard Rohr on the Legacy of St. Francis, session 1 (Morehouse Education Resources: 2014), Participants’ Workbook and DVD. 

Image credit: St. Francis of Assisi (detail), Jusepe de Ribera, 1642, El Escorial. 

                                                            Chapter Four

Morality:

With much caution and confusion I approach this topic.  Because I still clearly don’t understand the difference between ‘moral’ and ‘ethics’.  Anyhow for my own sake I understand ethics as normative for all and moral as personal—like duty and responsibility.  I think when we make a personal commitment to our duty then it becomes responsibility.¹ In the same way when we apply the normative ethics in our personal life then it becomes moral or morality.  But my confusion is about these terms in English.  However I try I cannot translate in Tamil for my understanding.  The words which we use in Tamil as ‘needi, nermai, sanmargam’ etc. do not convey the English meaning.  So in a sense without having proper understanding on these terms ‘moral’ and ‘ethics’ I share my view.  I will thank others who can help me to understand these terms with proper words in Tamil.  As usual I gave lots of notes to substantiate my points in the notes.  Many of them should be in the text. But considering the length of this chapter I pushed them in the notes.  In general though many won’t the notes, it will be helpful if they can read to understand the scholarly perspective.

Morality:

My bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath not only brought a radical change in my understanding about god, but also in the area of ethical and moral issues, which are closely related with god (particularly in the discussion about god).

A serious matter

Hindus take ethical and moral issues very seriously.¹ Most of the bhakti literature endorses the view in which the poets seek god’s favor, (shakti, mercy, grace etc.) to uphold ethics and also seek His forgiveness for any violation in this area. ‘Lead me not into temptation’, is often referred to in many of their poems.  Vallalar, in his Arutpa, seeks his deities protection from so many temptations, particularly that of womanizing in poem after poem.³ 

Role of god:

However, the demand for righteousness, justice, and keeping ethical and moral laws is not part of a Hindu god’s character, but like cosmic order, they all work independently outside god.  In fact, considering the character traits of the gods, particularly depicted in the Puranas, one cannot expect the gods to live any differently than humans in areas of morality.  As kala (time) and karma (most of the time vidhi or fate) have independent powers to exercise on human destiny, dharma too has its own role to play, under which the ethical and moral issues come.  Though a devotee can seek god’s forgiveness for all kinds of sins, and seek His power for protection from any kind of temptation, god need not and in most cases cannot punish anyone for any lapse in this area.  As I have said, (under the discussion on karma in Understanding Hinduism) we need not be punished by any god for ethical and moral lapses, but our lapses, which could be described in one term: adharma, itself will seek and punish us both here and in next births.

Though gods need not be involved in implementing morality in the world, it is the duty of the King, who is said to be endowed with authority by god to see that people are not violating moral laws.  In fact,

…The authors on Dharmasastra had a very low estimate of human nature, They believed that ordinarily men were depraved, that it was difficult to find a man pure by nature and that men were kept in the straight path by the fear of punishment (Manu VII.22=Santiparva [in Mahabharata] 15.34).  Yajnavalkyasmrti. I.361 requires the king to punish and bring to the proper path castes and guilds when they swerve from their dharma.⁴ The ancient writers did not rely on the natural moral impulses of man or on his will to do the right thing.  The same ideas are expressed by some Western writers on law and politics….⁵

Bhakti and ethics:

So, Hindus do not link ethical and moral issues with that of god’s character seriously.  They would even say that if they take these seriously, they don’t want them connected with a god, who could function above and beyond human ethics.  Because bhakti focuses more on the relationship of the bhakta with the deities and not on the character of gods. This does not mean that god will overlook immorality among His bhaktas.  But, bhakti can transcend conventional morality both of gods and bhaktas.  God overlooks any breach of ethics in His devotees when things are done with a single-minded devotion to god and bhakta’s focus is more on the bhakti than on god’s character. 

For example, Kotpuli Nayanar, one among the 63 Saiva saints, killed all his relatives including his parents, when they used the paddy which he reserved as a daily offering to the Lord (as prasadam after cooking the rice).  Being the commander of the army, before he left for war, he warned his relatives not to use the consecrated paddy.  However, when there a severe drought and resulting famine, his relatives used it justifying their action by saying, ‘It is better to use that paddy than to die from starvation. Because, in an emergency, it is not wrong to use that consecrated paddy, which we will return when we get plenty of harvest.’  After returning from war, when the Nayanar came to know this, he was outraged and decided to kill his relatives who have done such a heinous crime.  So, he sent word to his relatives that he was going to distribute cloth and money and asked them to gather at his palace.  Once they had all gathered, he killed every one, including his parents and wives.  When one baby escaped from his hand, some people came to plead him to spare that boy, as he had never eaten any food cooked out of that grain.  Above all of this, the boy was the only successor to the entire family, so the people pleaded with him not to kill the baby.  But Nayanar refused to listen, explaining that even though the baby didn’t consume the food, he had drunk the milk of his mother, who had eaten the food.  He threw the baby into the air, and when he fell, he cut him in two.⁶

Of course, for an ordinary reader, the Nayanar’s ethics is completely against the norm and even can go against moral law of dharma.  However, his devotion and zeal for his god is more important than any ethical consideration.  Like any other story of this kind in Hinduism, this story also has a happy ending.  On seeing his devotion and his willingness to allow nothing to stand between him and his bhakti, even by cutting his filial love (paasam—both filial love and bondage or snare that binds both his and his relatives atman) Siva appears and applauds his action.  And he immediately sends all his relatives to the higher region than that of gods (devas), and promises to receive them later.  Whereas, he took the Nayanar as he was, with his physical body to his abode’.⁷

In a similar way, another Nayanar named Serunthunai, cut off the nose of queen Perundevi, wife of Kosingar, king of Pallava, when she was visiting the temple along with her husband and smelled a flower that was to be offered to Siva.  (The queen followed Jainism). But the king went even further to prove his devotion to god, and cut her hand because it was her hand which first picked the flower and brought it near her nose.⁸ In another instance, Idangazhi Nayanar, stole the paddy from the royal granary in order to feed the Saiva saints.  And when the king came to know this, instead of punishing him, praised him as his ‘true treasure’.⁹   Many stories like these illustrate the point that bhakti can overcome conventional morality, and gods reward the bhakta though they may also take care of the victims with other blessings (as we saw in the case of Kotpuli Nayanar’s relatives). Such devotion is not restricted with Saiva saints.  Even Tirumangai Azhavar, constructed the walls of a Vishnu temple by robbery and Thondaradippodi Azhavar threatens (if he gets a chance) to cut the heads of people of rival sects such as the Jains, Buddhist and Saivas.¹⁰ Of course such sectarian rivalry and violence is common among the followers of every religion—though Jains and Buddhists can be an exception to this rule (except some modern Buddhists).¹¹

Free will and morality:

One explanation of this could be that free will plays an important role in Hinduism. Sometimes it is argued that in other faiths (particularly in Christianity and Islam¹²), humans are treated like slaves, nay even like animals without any freedom of their own choice, but are ruled by some code of conduct listed in the forms of Law given by god.  All required in those faiths is to obey few sets of laws, rules and regulations (both religious and social).  Whereas in Hinduism, it is the free will that decides the choice and not obeying some laws given by god(s) out of fear.  And such independence could even help an atheist to take ethics seriously.  However, one problem in the case of the atheist is that though they can fight against evil, they have to depend upon their own moral standards, as conventionally, in most societies, morality is linked with religion—if not with god all the time.  Some could argue that because karma decides the course of life, Hindus too have limited free will.  However, the way you handle your present karma (kriyamani), can decide your future karmas (both sanchita and prarabda).  Still, one can choose what they want to be by their own choice.  (But in most cases, the way one handles the present karma viz., free will is also decided by the past karma, as it provides the mind, body, circumstances etc. according to the result of sanchita and prarabdha karmas).¹³

Situational ethics:

However, we have to point out that the present trend of secularism tries to create some moral ideals independent of religion or traditional convention.¹⁴ Like an atheist; they have to create their own ethics and moral authority to make them acceptable to others according to their understanding of evil.  This could be one reason for the rise of situation ethics, which anyone can justify.  Such (situation) ethics even leads to the worship of ‘sin’ in the name of relativism of ethics, where evil is defined according to personal interest.  It would be relevant to quote what Dr. Radhakrishnan says in this context:

…We have had sin with us from the beginning of our history, but we have recently begun to worship it.  It is not very modern for a man or woman who is sick of his or her partner to take to another, but what is really modern is the new philosophy in the justification of it.  Disguised feeling is masquerading as advanced thought.  The woman who gives up her husband for another is idealized as a heroine who has had the courage to give up the hypocritical moral codes and false sentiments, while she who clings to her husband through good report and bad is a cowardly victim of conventions.  Sex irregularities are becoming less shocking and more popular.¹⁵

Most of the time, relativistic situational ethics creates some kind of ‘self-righteousness’, which addresses the self-interest of a person or group rather than providing a normal standard to check one’s own ethics and moral authorities.  Particularly, several of the New Age movements have created their own self-discipline in the name of seeking spiritual experiences (mostly based on emotions); mind-control, personal improvement; self-culture etc. (mostly promoted by modern gurus). They have created several cult groups (like that of ‘worshiping sin’) which threaten the basic fabric of any civilized society.  The modern trend of fighting for recognition in religious communities for deviant sexual behavior is an example of this.¹⁶ Though such un-natural¹⁷ sexual behavior was there from the beginning of time in the world, almost in every society, yet the growing trend in situational ethics began to fight for some kind of religious sanction from the very religious tradition which opposes it—e.g., gay marriages in the church and appointing gay pastors and bishops in the west. They seek to change accepted norms in this regard. Further, those who fight for such religious sanction, never shares with the basic religious conviction of the same religion from which they expect such sanction.  They expect the Church to recognize their right, but they do not want to be true Christians, at least to the expectation of the church.¹⁸

Indian view and Dharmic checks:

While Indian pluralism accepts the relativity of morality, yet it is derived from both (religious) philosophic and dharmic (social) tradition and has some kind of moral authority over an individual or group.  This could be one reason that in spite of constant outside pressure (in the form of invasions), Indian civilization still thrives,¹⁹ while  ‘Nineteen of the world’s twenty-two great civilizations have collapsed not from outside pressure but from the moral decay within’.²⁰  The fear of society, losing (caste) identity, excommunication, family honor etc., are forces that keep most Indians from openly indulging in immoral activities rather than refraining from them because of a personal choice or fear of god.  So this social (samajic) dharma provides an alternative check for moral lapses to a large extent in India.  However, now our fear is that slowly India is moving in this direction of ‘moral decay within’ due to several modern norms like right to same-sex relationships, sex outside of marriage, etc.²¹ Adding fuel to the fire, modern child pornography forced our government to create a separate law (Paso?) to deal with sexual violence against minor girls and even small children.  Several young women were brutally killed after gang rapped by men.  On 15^th February 2020 I watched a program in B.B.C. (9.00 pm) in which one married woman openly shared her extra marital relationship with other men with the consent of her husband who do the same with other women.  For an old person like me this is unimaginable.  But this becomes Indian reality now which we have to face.

Morality is related to philosophy and not theology in India.  Though morality belongs to metaphysics, it could function independent of theology in the sense that gods can be kept outside.  Echoing ‘…in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you….’ (Matthew 7:12 ) what Hindu morality says in a simplistic and down to earth way is that ‘one should not do to others what would be disliked by one’s self’.²² While according to the Muktiveda, this principle works because it is god’s demand, in India it belongs to ‘samanya dharma’ or common (dharma) duty belongs to everyone.  But when one violates this golden rule, then all kinds of explanations are given starting from dharma, karma, time etc. Until finally, no one is responsible for anything, many times even excusing the exercise of their own free will because it is controlled by past karma.

Let me explain it.  Upholding morality is a standard expectation. Yet there are exceptions to this rule, which could be twisted to fit into anybody’s demand.  For example, ‘if a man takes another’s gold, believing it to be iron or takes what is another’s believing (in good faith) that it is his own [then] … he is not guilty of theft’.²³ In the same way, in order to rule his people, in the name of Rajadharma, a king can adopt any means ‘entirely divorced from all rules of fair dealing and morality’.²⁴  In the way that Rajadharma allows a king to violate moral laws, apadharma (dharma of emergency) allows people to change moral principles.

But one important aspect regarding this morality in Hinduism is that it is not bound only to ethics, but it covers so many areas, as life cannot be divided into watertight compartments.  So, though morality is related to philosophy and not theology, as philosophy is inclusive of theology in India, it covers all the areas.  So the violation of any order of things (rta²⁵) is immoral.  This being the truth, strict adherence to all of the codes of conduct is impossible for anyone.  So exceptions are given mostly in instances of extreme cases of emergency, and when normalcy returns, things could be amended by doing prayaschitta.  For example, one dharmasastra says:

Parasara….exhorts his readers to save their bodies first in invasions, journeys, diseases, calamities and then care for dharma.  He recommends the non-observance of rules of purity in times of difficulty and adherence to the strict rules of dharma when one is at ease.²⁶

Such a practical oriented view of life ties morality with the reality of life, and it is not bound to some absolute unbreakable laws.  But this concession, instead of making us more loyal and accountable, is often abused by people to very easily explain away moral lapses—to the extent of blaming other causes rather than oneself for it.

For example, Tirukkural, one of the best ethical Tamil works, under the topic Truthfulness (292) says: ‘Even untruth has the stamp of truthfulness; if it brings good sans harmfulness. (Even a harmless lie can be considered as truth when it brings benevolent results)’²⁷   But as a joke, I used to say, ‘to whose good’?  Because for personal good, ‘telling a lie is good’. But as we have already seen in Chapter on Sin, Valluvar is not encouraging one to tell lie in order to bring benevolent results. In implies that as no benevolent results will come out lie as other Kural in this chapter (Truthfulness) insists, we can say that indirectly Valluvar discourages telling lie. For example, killing a cow is a serious sin, but the common proverb is, ‘even killing a cow, which attempts to kill one, is not sin’.  So here, the personal good overrules falsehood.  And according to Tilak:

…it is clearly stated in our religious treatises, that when a saint is thus compelled to perform some unsaintly action, the responsibility of such unsaintly action does not fall on the pure-minded saint, but that the evil-doer must be held responsible for it, as it is the result of his evil doings (Manu.8.19 & 351).²⁸

Though morality is relative, yet it is also absolute in the sense that everyone is bound by their social duty (samajic dharma) and to their atman to achieve moksha.  Therefore, a Hindu is conscious of any violation of morality, as it will affect both their relationship in the society and the process of emancipation of their atman.  However, there are various views about attaining salvation, so upholding morality is never a means to attain salvation.  At the same time, immorality will hinder the process of salvation (through bhakti, karma or jnana).  Anyhow as most of the (doctrinal) concepts are centered on karma, morality both in its positive and negative side is going to bind the atman through its fruit.  And one way to escape from it is to have an inner detachment.  However, like a true jnani, one can have inner detachment in virtues.  No one can justify doing unethical things with the same spirit of inner detachment.  For example, one can do charity expecting no reward in any form, but one cannot steal with the same claim of doing it with inner detachment.  So, virtues done with inner detachment, resulting in no fruit (even merit) may not affect the process of salvation.  Whereas immorality, (read as adharma) done in any form will affect the process of mukti.  No doctrine works independently in Hinduism (or in any religion).  Whether vice or virtue, no one can escape from the consequence of it.

That’s why the claim that a perfect man, jnani stands beyond the realm of morality, should not be taken literarily (see bellow quoted from Edgerton). It should be understood in the context of (jnan) knowledge leading to mukti, while (avidya) ignorance leads to bondage in a metaphysical sense and is not applicable to practical morality which is essential for spiritualism in Hinduism too (See Gita chapter16 for a long list of practical morality).

Muktivedic approach:

When it comes to ethics, the Muktiveda is very clear that no excuses are allowed when it comes to upholding morality.  ‘Say yes to yes and no to no.  The rest comes from the evil one’. (Matthew 5:37)  According to the Muktiveda no ‘unmixed good’ can come out by any falsehood and cannot become ‘the nature of truth’.  Because, though ethics is to guide people to live proper lives socially, yet it is centered on god:

God-centered motivation: This aspect of Old Testament ethics is an expansion of the last (God-centered content).  It is not simply that ‘this is what God is like; follow his example’.  Rather, ‘this is what God has done for you.  Therefore, out of gratitude you should do the same for others’.  Personal experience of God is turned into motivation for consistent ethical behaviour… (italics original)

So the ethical teaching of the Old Testament is first and foremost God-centered.  It presupposes God’s initiative in grace and redemption; it is framed by what he has done and will do in history; it is shaped by his character and action; and it is motivated by personal experience of God’s dealing with his people.²⁹

However, it was not very simple for me to understand such ‘(god-centered) motivation’ for ethics.  In fact, when I first read this verse (say ‘yes’ to ‘yes’…) in the Muktiveda, I immediately remembered the above Kural alone and thought ‘How more practical and realistic the Kural is than the Muktiveda, which gives practical ethics’!  And after seeing my own life as a bhakta of Muktinath and that of several ‘born again believers’, I came to the conclusion that no one can live up to the expectations of the Muktiveda.  But as years passed, when I began to understand the teachings of the Muktiveda in its total context, then I realized that what the Muktiveda expects of one is not absolute holiness once and for all, but rather to walk in the path of the continuous process of sanctification.  Sanctification is a continuous process which one should attempt without giving excuses, other than personal failures.  Even a matured bhakta of Muktinath could never claim that she became perfect and never commit any kind of error/sin.  From my life experience I can say with much confidence that I often fail when it comes to personal ethics.  However, what I learnt from Muktiveda is not to blame anything or anyone other than me first for this.  And in this respect with much confidence I can say that the teaching of Muktiveda stands unique. 

The biggest blessing that I found in the Muktiveda is that I do not need give any excuses or claim any exemptions to any breach of moral laws, but I can confess my sin, seek forgiveness from the Lord (and also from others whom I have offended) and resolve not to repeat the same error again.  One interesting fact that I found as a bhakta of Muktinath is that: god never accepts my excuses but always accepts my weakness; whereas, people (easily) accept my excuses but never my weakness.  Of course, the real meaning of prayaschitta is not to merely do some penance, but it is resolving ‘to turn back and never do it again’, which has been reduced to a mere ritual in Hinduism, but it was the equivalent of ‘confession’ in the Muktiveda.

What differences then have I found between Hinduism and the Muktiveda on moral and ethics?  In the Muktiveda morality never functions independently from god, and it works within the total plan of god for the entire creation.  Also, morality is not limited to ethics, but it extends to all the areas of my responsibility towards god’s creation.  So, in this respect it is like a part of dharma, but not a separate entity to work out its own principles apart from god. It is related to god in every way.  As the Muktiveda says, ‘For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.’ (Matthew 6:14-15 ‘Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another.  Forgive as the Lord forgave you’ (Colossians 3:13)  

Both the Muktiveda and Hindu scriptures portray several characters that violated ethical and moral principles.  Abram told a lie, Jacob cheated his brother, Moses showed partiality by killing an Egyptian in order to do a favor and also win his people’s favor, David committed both adultery and murder, Judas betrayed his own guru etc.  Leaving all the gods, whose acts cannot be judged according to human standard of morality, Hindu scriptures portray the life of many bhaktas, whose un-ethical activities are justified in the name of their bhakti.  One of the twelve Azhvars (Tirumangai) in order to construct the outer wall of Srirangam Temple, robbed people;³⁰ Moorka Nayanar, fed the Saiva saints out of the money which he earned by gambling (in this process he killed his opponents in gambling)³¹; When Yudhisthira lost his four brothers and wife, she challenged his moral authority to gamble her away;³² When Sita was banished to forest by Rama the act was questioned by Sita;³³  In order to escape from the plots of their cousin Dhuriyodana to kill them, the Pandavas, cheated and trapped five sons and their mother of Nishadas (tribes) and made them to die in their place when their wax palace was set fire by Dhuriyodana’s plan;³⁴ Krishna used unfair means to win the war for his Pandava friends.³⁵ 

The relativistic nature of ethics in Hinduism justifies all these acts, as there is no one absolute universal Truth to measure all the activities of human beings.  And the interesting fact is that in most cases though their acts (in Hinduism) are justified according to their respective dharma (duty), often people justify their ethical failures by blaming other factors like time, yuga karma (sometimes bhakti even?!?) rather than accepting personal responsibility for the violation.  Whereas, in Muktiveda Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and Juda were rebuked and punished and no excuse is accepted for their failure, whatever their situation might be.  As they violated god’s ethics, they have sinned against god first then alone against others.

Dharmic vs. Muktivedic:

However, what is bound with dharma in India is bound with the covenant that the god has made with people in the Muktiveda.  The main difference in this is that while god punishes when people violate the moral code, god can forgive when they are repentant and give strength to uphold the morality if they seek earnestly from god.  Whereas in Hinduism, though god can do all these things like the god of the Muktiveda, yet humans can find several loopholes to excuse themselves for all the failures in upholding morality.  Several times the failure in ethics is viewed not as unspiritual activity, but a violation of dharma, which could be rectified by prayaschitta through religious rituals or personal compensation.  Because ethics is not some absolute Laws given by god, but dharmic principles which are relative in their nature.  As in a higher level, spiritual persons have already transcended conventional morality, that their atman is not affected by any breach in ethics.  Though this is a bit long, yet it is better to quote in verbatim from, as paraphrasing would limit the strength of the discussion:

Even good deeds are still deeds, and must have their fruit, according to the doctrine of ‘karma.’  And to attain the summum bonum man must get rid of all deeds, of all karma.  Therefore, while most if not all Hindu systems teach a practical morality, they also teach that no degree of morality, however perfect, can lead to final salvation.  In this, too, they are anticipated by the Upanisads. The perfect soul is ‘beyond good and evil.’ (Kausiitaki Upanisad, I.4; cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, 4.3.22, etc.)  Neither good nor evil can affect him.  At times the Upanisads seem even to say or imply that when a man has attained enlightenment, he can do what he likes without fear of results.  This somewhat dangerous doctrine is, however, not typical, and is probably to be regarded only as a strained and exaggerated manner of saying that the truly enlightened soul cannot, in the very nature of things, do an evil deed.  If he could, he would not be truly enlightened; for ‘he who has not ceased from evil conduct cannot attain Him (the atman) by intelligence.’ (Katha Upanisad, 2.24)  This is similar to the Socratic notion that the truly wise man must inevitably be virtuous.  The difference is that the Upanisads regard even virtue, as well as vice, as transcended by perfect knowledge; the possessor thereof passes beyond both, and rises to a plane on which moral terms simply have no meaning.  Morality applies only in the world of karma, the world of ordinary empiric existence, which the enlightened man has left behind him.  In the final state of the perfected man, as we have seen, there can be, strictly speaking, no action; so how can there be either moral or immoral action?  The attitude of the Upanisads, and following them of most later Hindu systems, is then that morality has only a negative importance, and in the last analysis none whatever, in man’s struggle for salvation.  Immorality is a sign of imperfection; it can only be due to the prevalence in the soul of ignorance, causing desire, leading to action and rebirth.  It must be got rid of.  But it will fall away of itself with the attainment of true wisdom.  And no amount of good deeds will bring that wisdom which alone can lead to release.  Good deeds result in less unhappy existences, but that is all; salvation is release from all empiric existence.  This does not prevent the teaching of a system of practical ethics, for the guidance of those who have not yet attained enlightenment.  In actual practice, most Hindu sects inculcate very lofty moral principles; and many of them devote much attention thereto.  But theoretically, at least, such things do not concern their fundamental aims.³⁶

However, morality in the above discussion is viewed as negative.  Hinduism emphasizes that any immoral person can qualify for salvation.  At the same time, the failure is not accepted as personal.  One of the main excuses is the present Kali Yuga, in which dharma stands on only one leg.  So adharma having main sway, puts too much limitation on the part of mankind itself to live perfectly, and when the satya yuga comes, all things will fall back into its normal order.  This golden age conception has helped Indians to always point to the bygone glorious ages in which everyone lived perfectly.  But my rational mind does not accept this golden age theory. What the Muktiveda demands is that you accept the personal responsibility for all of your failures even though it is uncomfortable.  Furthermore, not anyone, not even the devil, which is an easy scapegoat for many Christians, as Kaliyuga is for the Hindus is responsible for the failure of a person to live up to the moral standard proclaimed by the Muktiveda except that individual.  While failure leads to frustration, the Muktiveda gives hope if you turn to god, accepting your personal responsibility and not passing the ball to some other court—like kala (time), karma etc.

Like the golden age theory of Hinduism, the Muktiveda also talks about a perfect world in the garden of Eden.  Whether one takes it literally or as the record of a long held oral tradition (in the first eleven chapters of Genesis), there too Adam was responsible, even though he tries to blame others.  Though the muktivedic theology talks about the origin of sin, which was collectively inherited by humanity, yet no excuse is accepted where personal responsibility is denied.  All are responsible for the falleness in a fallen world, yet my personal responsibility cannot be denied by blaming the collective inheritance of Adam’s sin.  This is clearly reflected regarding our free will to choose to receive the grace of god and personal repentance.

No religion talks only in metaphysical terms when it comes to faith.  And every religion always relates its metaphysical principles with life on earth.  In fact, how one lives, reflects the validity of the teaching of a particular faith.  Even philosophies like Vedanta, which pushes the life on earth to maya vada, emphasizes the importance of morality to achieve knowledge that will remove avidya (ignorance) to realize the unity of atman with Brahman.  So both in the Muktiveda and Hinduism, one could find lots of teaching on ethics.  However, in Hinduism, considering pluralism and diversity in its approach to reality and life, ethics is interpreted in various ways, accommodating it to the need and demand of the people, time, place and birth.³⁷ This could be termed as relativism.  On the other hand, the muktivedic teaching never supports relativism and situational ethics—however others find it regimental in nature.  Of course this absolute muktivedic ethics has often received various interpretations, but the basic principle almost always remains the same.  In principle, situation ethics are not acceptable to anyone who believes in the absolute moral principles of the Muktiveda.

Though practical morality is essential for spiritualism in Hinduism (See Gita chapter. 16 for a long list of practical morality), god is not seen as the one who gives the reward.  Each one decides their own destination.  However, when it comes to the Muktiveda, though the same concept of heaven and hell is a reality and each one will be rewarded according to their work (I Corinthians 3:14), and the apostle urges the believer to ‘work out their salvation with fear and trembling’, (Philippians 2:12) yet god is at the center.  In both the traditions, though god can forgive and restore all kinds of moral violations, according to the Muktiveda, when a bhakta violates the moral principles by her actions, then she grieves god first.  That is why any kind of moral violation brings shame to their faith and god first, which will warn their conscience.  But, though the bhakti in Hinduism emphasis a personal relationship with god, our moral failures never affect god.  Living according to the will of god is part of the ethics in the Muktiveda.  God will not answer the prayers of anyone who acts against His will.  In this sense, god cannot be bribed but needs to be obeyed.   So unlike heaven and hell as a reward for one’s ethical actions in Hinduism (independent of god), according to the Muktiveda, it is the acceptance or rejection of both god and His purpose for oneself.  We can freely accept and confess our failings because we know god will always forgive and help.  We won’t be rejected and punished.  He knows anyway!

Irrespective of the hair splitting analysis of dharmic principles, particularly related with morality and ethics, the influence of evil both in the personal and social life in India still disturbs a person who thinks about it seriously.  Of course Christians and the followers of other faiths, fail to live up to the expectations of their scriptures.  However, the amazing difference that one can find is the honest acceptance of failures on the part of the followers of the Muktiveda. This is a significant difference from the Hindus. 

This is the one area, which brought a visible change within me.  As a Hindu, my conscience was never disturbed when I breached morality, as I can justify it by giving all kinds of excuses (yuga in particular).  But once I became a bhakta of Muktinath, my conscience itself refused to accept any kind of excuses because it began to function under the moral insight given by god.  In fact, one can easily see the difference in the guilty conscience oriented West from the shame conscience of the East.  I don’t want to repeat what already I shared briefly in Understanding Hinduism (pp. 253-56).³⁸ This doesn’t mean that now I have become a perfect person upholding all the muktivedic principles when it comes to moral and ethics.  But whether others notice it or not, I find a difference in my life in this area, for which I can only give credit to the Muktiveda.

An analysis:

Those who want to challenge my view should read Pavan Kumar Varma’s Being Indian:

…Over the years the Indian leadership, and the educated Indian, have deliberately projected and embellished an image about Indians that they know to be untrue, and have willfully encouraged the well-meaning but credulous foreign observer (and even more the foreign scholar) to accept it.  What is worse, they have fallen in love with this image, and can no longer accept that it is untrue.

               The image has been created by a quantum leap of logic, an ideological sleight of hand that derives an untenable ought from an undeniable is…. (emphasis original) ³⁹

After reading this book I feel that Varma has stripped me naked and paraded openly before the entire world as an Indian.  All the talk about India to become the world guru to teach spirituality, promoted from Vivekananda on wards will appeal only those who seek emotional new experiences in the spiritual East to overcome their boredom of too much materialism.  But the reality is, again in the words of Varma

… Their [Indian’s] spiritualism, although lofty in its metaphysics, is in religious practice mostly a means to harness divine support for power and self…. Most Indians are ‘other-worldly’ only in their indifference to anything in the external milieu that is not of direct benefit to their immediate and personal world (p.7) [and] There is no notion of ultimate sin in Hinduism.  Any action is justified in certain contexts, and gods are routinely bribed.  Corruption⁴⁰ has grown endemically because it is not really considered wrong, so long as it yields the desired result.  If discovered, it provokes great moral outrage, in inverse proportion to the degree to which it is accepted.  The concept of morality, and of high-minded principle, is dear to Indians as a theoretical construct, but largely ignored in real life as impractical. (p.8) (Italic original) ⁴¹

Ideology versus Reality is a human struggle in every society, irrespective of their religious faith.  Yet the way both remain as a parallel track—never meeting together, but always helping the wheel of life to go smoothly on, is a unique struggle in India.  Spiritualism upholding high moral and ethical principles is always promoted in religious life, but reality of real life, completely contradicts it on every sphere of life, and they can co-exist without any disturbance in the conscience of a Hindu.⁴² ‘Survival’ is the only guru mantra that the Indian tradition teaches to every Indian (irrespective of their faith, even that of non-Hindus), for which one can sacrifice anything and everything as Mahabharata says:

…The wise say that, for the sake of the family, one can be abandoned, the family may be abandoned for that sake of the sake of the village, the village for the sake of the community; and everything even the world, may be abandoned for the sake of saving the soul…(Vidura to Dhritarashtra on the birth of Duryodhana).⁴³

Of course the context of this advice by Vidura to Dhritarashtra is to get rid of Duryodhana predicting all the evil that will result because of him.  Yet it is also implies mukti for atman. But in reality, even this soul is sacrificed for the sake of SURVIVAL, as the Indian worldview gives the hope that one has many lives to work out the salvation of the soul.  Salvation is an important and ultimate aim of life, yet those who persuade mukti at the cost of others’ welfare will be lost.  One of the main teachings of the Indian scriptures is: sarvabhuta hita, lokasamgraha,–for the good of living being and welfare of the world.  But in practical life what is motivating an average Indian is ‘personal interest’ and not the welfare of the world or for salvation.  Writing in the context of making public laws what Varma says will paint the true picture about Indians, where survival decides everything:

…Policies based on false assumptions about the character and traits of a people are likely to be subverted in practice, and will fail to achieve desired national goals.  A basic mistake by policy makers in India was to assume an underlying idealism in the people, a commitment to some larger ‘public good’.  Lawmakers sought to construct, and act upon, a transcendent set of desired goals, without focusing on the intricate web of narrow personal interests that actually motivate Indian society….⁴⁴

In this survival mechanism, the end justifies the means.  Tirukkural says, ‘Do no deeds that noble souls do not approve; Even on seeing mother starve (656).’⁴⁵ But this idealism need not be practiced in order to do the duty (dharma) to take care of oneself or others, as the Mahabharata says:

…In the Mahabharata frequent reference is made to the permission to speak untruth in ordinary life when one’s own life or another’s life is in imminent danger.  Vide Santi. {Parva in Mahabharata} 45.35, 109.19.  It is stated in Santi 165.30 that speaking falsely is not a sin in five cases viz. in jest, to women [to get pleasure], at the time of (i.e. in bringing about) a marriage, for the preservation of great wealth and for one’s life….⁴⁶ [And]

…A verse quoted by Medhatithi on Manu III.72 and IV.251, by the Mitaksara on Yajnavalkyasmrti. I. 224 and II.175 and occurring in some mss. of the Manusmrti after XI.10 provides, ‘Manu declares that one must maintain one’s aged parents, a virtuous wife and a minor son by doing even a hundred bad acts’….⁴⁷

Comparison not to condemn but to evaluate:

The main purpose of this book is to share my personal dialogue within me in many areas both as a Hindu and bhakta of Muktinath.  So, my aim is not to compare India with the rest of the world.  By pointing out several failures in my Indian tradition, in which I am sometimes forced to compare it with other parts of the world, does not mean that a perfect country exists with a perfect society with a perfect worldview.  Even the so-called Christian West is tainted with many vices, irrespective of their claim to hold the Truth.⁴⁸ So, here I will not spend time to expose all their evils because this is not my goal.  My intension is to share how the muktivedic values changed my life in several areas.  This is not to parade myself as a perfect person, but it is to show how the Muktiveda introduced new values which are either missing in my Indian worldview or remain only as an ideology.  Whereas, the muktivedic value is ‘do and preach’ (Matthew. 5:19-20) compels me to guard myself from violating god’s Law, which represents Her character and never works independently like dharma in a relative way.  This is not an easy thing to accomplish, but a very challenging one.  And god promises to walk with me while I try to walk in Her ways.

One illustration:

In a worldview (like Hinduism) where most of the time relativism decides (or even judges) the motive of every action—particularly in relation to morality, situation ethics seems to be a norm for survival.  However judging a society for some aspects of its worldview and ignoring the context, will mislead anyone.  Particularly in Hinduism with its complex (and also contradictory) values set side by side and claiming both as correct, common people are often confused.  Here I would like to show one example to highlight this point.

Ahimsa paramo dharmah: Non-violence is the highest virtue (dharma).  This non-violence as the main identity of Hinduism gained more promotion once Gandhi⁴⁹ practiced it in his life.  However, Varma challenges this view also by pointing out that:

…In general, Indians are opposed to violence if it creates a degree of instability or disorder that threatens the social system.  However, in a controlled milieu, such as the enforcement of caste hierarchy or purity, when violence has social sanction or is backed by numerical strength, they can be as violent as any other race.⁵⁰

This might help one to understand the seeming contradiction of the Mahabharata, which applauds ahimsa, and at the same time, Krishna challenges Arjuna to take arms to fight.  This led even Gandhi to treat the Bharata War in the Gita symbolically, as he cannot accept that Krishna could urge Arjuna to fight.  However, the overall context of the Mahabharata is to uphold ‘dharma’ and not merely promote (Gadhian⁵¹) ahimsa.  Ahimsa in the Mahabharata is ‘one should not do to others what would be disliked by one’s self’ (as quoted above).  Further see below (Indian point of view) how in the Mahabharata war is not just a war but ‘just-war’.  However we Indians are tolerant, yet we are equally violent as pointed out by Varma.⁵²  The same is also true with the Muktiveda.  How do we justify all the violence that is recorded in the Muktiveda against others by the Jews in the Purvaveda (Old Testament), also Muktinath taking the whip against money lenders in the Uttaraveda (New Testament) (see below), as well as the Crusades by the Church in the Middle ages (the last one is a shame and more political than religious).⁵³

Indian point of view:

To do some justice to the relativism of (Indian) ethics, we need to listen to our point of view to clarify any unnecessary criticism of Indian worldview.  This book being a Living Dialogue, I feel compelled by my spirit to share the Indian point of view.  One of the modern Hindu apologist, Prof. Arvind Sharma (McGill University, Canada) (and the author of Hinduism for our Times, Delhi, Oxford India Paperbacks, 2001 and Hinduism and Human Rights, A Conceptual Approach, New Deli, Oxford, 2004.) wrote about this in MLBD Newsletter, which is worth reading⁵⁴:

   It is easy to see how the Bhagavadgita may give rise to such an impression.  First of all, it’s setting points in that direction.  It is revealed while the opposing forces are poised, ready for battle.  Second, Arjuna does not want to engage in combat but is ultimately persuaded to do so.  The  Bhagavadgita starts with Arjuna too dejected to fight and ends as soon as Arjuna’s spirits have been revived.  Third, one of the arguments which Krsna uses to urge Arjuna to fight appeals to the fact that Arjuna is a ksatriya, and it is his duty to fight.  And finally, when Krsna displays his cosmic form, not only a violent apocalypse is disclosed, but Krsna therein also tells Arjuna that he has himself made short work of Arjuna’s enemies, who have in effect had already been killed by Krsna (XI.33).  That is, he should formally finish the job.  Obviously then, the Bhagavadgita seems to advocate war and violence.

    If one examines the context closely, one realizes that war has almost commenced.  So the real issue is not whether war is good or bad, but what is the duty of the warrior when war has as good as commenced.  It is this question which the Bhagavadgita answers.  It does not sit in judgment on whether war is right or wrong.  That question does not fit its case.  And its answer is that once the battle has commenced, it is the duty of a soldier to fight.  One cannot become a conscientious objector after one has been mobilized.  So to ask whether the Gita advocates war or not is to ask the wrong question about it.

    It is well known that Krsna himself went on a peace mission to the Kauravas, in a one last-ditch effort to avoid the war.  He went as an ambassador whose person was held inviolable, otherwise it is impossible to negotiate.  And what did Duryodhana do?  Duryodhana tried to apprehend  Krsna; Krishna assumed his cosmic form and broke loose.  Many are aware of Krsna’s theophany in the Bhagavadita, fewer are aware of Krsna’s theophany in the Kuru court.  Let it be remembered that the first theophany of Krsna is in the context of a peace mission; when that mission fails and war breaks out, then the occasion for the better-known but second theophany presents itself.

    Finally, the Mahabharata was not just a war; it was a just-war.  It was when Duryodhana ‘needled’ the Pandavas, and challenged the Pandavas that he would not let them have even as much land as the point of a needle without a fight, that the Pandavas had to join issue with the Kauravas, to assert their legitimate right to the throne.  The choice one was left with was that of letting injustice triumph over justice. If the Bhagavadgita, one insists, advocates war despite the evidence adduced above, then let it be remembered that a just war is involved.  The Bhagavadgita does advocate that we fight for our right, and even then, fighting alone is our right!

The following is my response:

Added to this, if Arjuna refuses to fight for a just case, then he would set a bad example for people not to do their legitimate duty.  Above all, his refusal to fight that just-war would justify the wrong done by Duryodhana. If Arjuna had allowed the ruler (king) to not uphold dharma, naturally it would lead people to follow the ruler’s way (அரசன் எவ்வழி குடிகள் அவ்வழி-citizens follow the path of the ruler– as the Tamil proverb says); thereby, he would incur the sin of misleading common people not to uphold dharma in their life.

However, I do not agree with the author’s view that ‘The Bhagavadgita does advocate that we fight for our right, and even then fighting alone is our right!’  Because sometimes in life, we have to give up our right of fighting our enemy and resign to the will of god or to the law of the land. Tirukkural, the famous Tamil poem says ‘Punish those who have done great evils; By shaming them with good deeds. (314)’.⁵⁵  The Muktiveda also endorses this view by saying; ‘don’t do evil to evil but overcome evil by doing good’ (Romans 12:21).   In the life of Muktinath we see an example of this.  When He was arrested and falsely accused, He refused to fight for His right, and resigned Himself to the will of god (1 Peter. 2:23).  That’s why He could even forgive His offenders while hanging on the Cross (Luke. 23:34).

We also see the same example in the life of Pandavas.  King Dhritarashtra, father of Duriyodana, refused to do justice and kept silent when his son refused to give the Pandava’s their kingdom back as per the condition; then the Pandavas first tried to settle the issue through peaceful negotiations.  And Krishna himself became the mediator.  But when because of his love for his son, the king closed his eyes (already he was blind by birth) and his son refused to listen to the counsel of his elders, then alone did the Pandavas resolve to fight for the just cause.  When the ruler (law) of the land refuses to do justice, then it is the duty of the masses to rise against such tyrannical rule (of law).⁵⁶  Because here it is not any ‘personal right’ of the Pandavas that is at stake, but it is truly dharma itself, which everyone should adhere to for the smooth functioning of society.  Again we see the same in the life of Muktinath. While He refused to fight for His ‘right’, He was not hesitant to take the whip and chase the moneylenders and illegal merchants from the courtyard of the Jerusalem temple, as they were corrupting the worship of god and denying the rights of non-Jews to worship god from the outer courtyard.⁵⁷  

The reason for these comments is that ‘we fight for our right, and even then fighting alone is our right!’ might be misinterpreted and may promote personal ‘violence’ to fight for one’s own right. This kind of wrong interpretation of ‘fighting for one’s own right’ is the main cause of fundamentalism and terrorism in this world. And I think that neither the Gita nor the Mahabharata or any other Scripture would support such violence.  So the Pandavas fought not for their right, but in reality it was to uphold the dharma of doing justice and promoting the rule of law even at the cost of fighting against their own kith and kin and even the king.

It is better to give up one’s right for the sake of peace and common good. But if such passive ahimsa gives hope for the promotion of adharma and injustice, then one has to fight for her right.  Otherwise it will set a wrong example for people to follow the dictum of miscreants who will uphold their law of ‘might is right’.  So, fighting all the time for one’s own right will only promote disharmony and disunity among people.  And even our right should come under the scrutiny of dharma, law and justice.   Otherwise even a wrong cause might be promoted as right, instigating ‘fighting alone is our right’.

Dharmic vs. situation ethics: some stories

 Apart from this discussion on the Indian view on (relativistic) ethics there are some interesting accounts from scriptures that will further enlighten this point of how relativism is not like that of situation ethics.  In the former, one has dharmic (moral) authority, whereas in the latter, each one (or a group) is its own authority.

First, again from Sharma

…The Mahabharata mentions an ascetic, Kausika by name, who was known for his veracity, but finally had to go to hell under the following circumstances.  While he was engaged in penance in the forest, some robbers came upon him in hot pursuit of their would-be victims.  When asked, Kausika, truthfully pointed out the direction in which they had gone.  The robbers caught up with their intended victims and killed them, and the bad karma of the killing fell to Kausika’s share.  So in the end, Kausika was thrown into hell.  This story was narrated to Arjuna by Krsna as a warning against a purely formal approach to ethics.  I would like to use it here to illustrate the point of how general good (lokasangraha) may require the sacrifice of personal morality, narrowly conceived.⁵⁸ 

               On the other hand, the story of Sibu Chakaravarthy (a Chola king of South India), sacrificed his own flesh, in order to give protection to the dove who took refuge with him while being hunted by an eagle.  When the eagle argued with him that he could not protect his prey, as it is its nature to hunt to eat, the king, cut his own flesh for justice to all—to uphold his dharma of protecting someone who took refuge with him even at the cost of giving his life; to feed the eagle which will be deprived its food because of his personal ethics.  As the weight of the dove was too heavy, finally the king himself has to sit on the balance.  Of course, this again was to test his righteousness as the dove and eagle were only gods came in disguise.

And another interesting story from Mahabharata will highlight the Indian view of ethics belonging to dharma or social dharmic (samajic dharma) rather than being god-centered:

When the Pandavas were in their exile period, in order to test righteousness (as he is the very embodiment of dharma), Yama (in the form of a Yaksha) himself kills all four of Yudhisthira’s brothers, when they went to drink water in a pond.  When Yudhisthira finally reaches the pond, the Yaksha who is guarding the pond, promises to bring his brothers to life, provided Yudhisthira gives the right answer to his question.  A long dialogue between the two ensues with Yudhisthira answering all the questions of Yaksha.  Pleased with the answers, he asks Yudhisthira to choose only one of his four brothers to bring back life, and Yudhisthira chooses Sakadeva, the last one.  This surprises the Yaksha, and he asks Yudhisthira why he chose the last one, when Yudhisthira desperately needs Arjuna to win the war against his cousins.  For this Yudhisthira says, ‘my father had two wives.  At least my mother has me as a son.  And the last two are borne to my stepmother, so I need to get one of her sons.  I would prefer to see my stepmother’s son is alive rather than asking selfishly for my valiant brother.’  Pleased by this, Yaksha returns four all of his brothers.⁵⁹

Still a paradox:

We cannot brush aside all these as mere stories, but they were told to teach ethics to people in the complex reality of life, where no absolute conventional morality can help one to make a crucial decision.  So, however the Muktiveda has changed my views about ethics and morality, yet I cannot claim that I have overcome my past Hindu worldview of the relative nature of ethics.  However, the one main change that I found within me is accepting PERSONAL responsibility rather than blaming other causes. However, when I too, like in the situation of Arjuna, am forced to ask: to be; or not to be, it would be more the situation and not the ethics that would decide my action too.  Because…

…the ethical is the realm of generalization, of common rule and order.  Ethical rules will serve as a useful general guide for conduct, but no ethical rule will ever be exactly applicable to the particular situation of an individual man.  Any man is likely to find himself in a situation where the ordinary rules of ethics simply do not apply.  Convention and human formulations no longer help, and he finds himself driven to act in a way for which the only appropriate term is paradox…The individual cannot truly rise to the point of being an individual, unless he is prepared, at whatever cost, to raise himself above the level of the universal, the general rules to act at that particular point of time.  Conventional rules will guide us up to a certain point but at any moment we may reach a situation that is not covered by any conventional rules.⁶⁰

However the situation may decide my action at a given time, yet my conviction in muktivedic values will guard me to go the other extreme of following situation ethics.  Because in all of our struggles between ‘ideal’ verses ‘reality’, however reality tries to overcome us, yet ‘ideal’ based on clear conviction promoted by an absolute value will set the path to grow in spirituality.  And when we are not sure what to do in a strange situation, then trusting god we need to take decision even if it looks wrong to us and others.  And those who understand the will of god in their life will be corrected by god to act according to His purpose.  He will arrange the events and send help not to use unethical means to achieve our goal.  Of course there are several gray areas on such situation which can be judged by one’s individual ‘idealism’ alone.  Here a bhakta of Muktinath is assured the good counsel of god’s children in the mandali than trusting her own idealism.⁶¹

IDEALISM VERSUS REALITY:

Morality becomes a serious issue when ‘idealism’ clashes with the ‘reality’ in life.  Many times survival forces one to compromise with idealism.  But very few (like Gandhiji), have kept their heads above the water, trying to live ‘up to their idealism’.⁶²  Of course other factors also helped them.  If they were recognized as the ‘leader’, then sometimes they were forced to ‘live up to their idealism’.  However, whatever may be the circumstance a person who has clear ‘conviction’ alone can keep her head above the water when ‘morality’ becomes an issue in the struggle between ‘idealism’ and ‘reality’. 

While individuals can choose their own idealism, for a Hindu, apart from their personal choice, their worldview (society) itself sets an idealism viz. dharma.  Doing one’s own duty (dharma) with or without the help of god will be termed as the primary ‘idealism’ for a Hindu.

Dharma as (social) idealism:

But in real life, the challenge comes when one is forced to become asatya (untrue) in order to uphold their ‘dharma’ (according to their varnashramadharma), then it is easily explained away making ‘karma, yuga and even god’ as the scope goat.

Because of their struggle on various levels, without having one central scriptural and spiritual authority, allowing evolution rather than revelation to guide them, the pluralism in life has made the morality also ‘relative’ in the Hindu society.  Becoming a strong tradition, this evolution began to guide and gave license to adapting and adopting to survive.  So in order to uphold ‘dharma’, if one should break ‘satya’, then it is not considered wrong because now ‘dharma’ has become a collective, social ‘idealism’ which binds everyone as ‘the ethics’ of its own nature.  Then upholding this social and collective ‘idealism’ is the mark of ‘morality’ first. 

A father is expected to uphold his dharma.   Since he is not merely an individual but is also a father.  If he violates some personal ‘ethics’ to uphold the ‘collective’ ‘idealism’ of ‘dharma’, then he can correct it by doing several prayaschittas.  On the other hand, if he refuses to do his duty as a father, then the society in the name of its collective idealism viz., dharma can punish him. 

For example, as a father, a man has to look after the needs of his children.  But in order to do his dharma as a father, can he use any means to meet the needs of his children?  No is the answer that the ethics and morals of the society and his conscience says to him.  But the ground reality is that, though a father won’t go to the extent of using any crime to meet the needs of his children (to do his duty as a father), several times, we will see that there are many gray areas in which a typical Hindu father never lives up to the creed of an ideal father in his personal ethics.  When he violates certain rules, not seriously, but which are accepted within the norm in the society, then it is easily explained away.  For example, when a father tells a lie or takes a bribe to meet the extra needs of his family, and this comes to the knowledge of his immediate family or relatives, it is explained that in this world or age (of Kali) no one can live like Harischandra.  In the struggle of life, survival is the question and not ideology or morality.

Religion and ideology:

Of course scriptures, particularly those that give good ethical and moral teachings, never encourage even the slightest violation of morality.  However, such ideals clash with the reality of life.  Then what is the role of religion in helping an individual who is struggling to survive on the one side and trying to uphold ideology on the other?

I think, using my own personal experience, the Hindu religious tradition has failed to some extent.  When rituals replace spirituality, for instance, where several rituals and prayaschittas are prescribed for the violation of any kind of moral principles, the failure is justified in several areas.  I am not blaming the gods or the scripture, but it is the tradition that has blinded the eyes of the common people in this area. 

Of course Hindu scriptures strongly emphasize on moral principles and never accept any kind of ritual remedy to replace those principles.  But the problem lies with the tradition. Though our Hindu scriptures set high spiritual ideals (that too catering according to the need of the mental capacity of individuals), yet the religious tradition that developed out of it never demanded from the individual that they uphold the ideology, of course at the same time, not preventing anyone from striving for it.

A struggling saint:

But when it comes to the Muktiveda, I find a different story.  Here the demands of the Muktiveda and god are not accepting of one’s position based on the worldview, but instead are accepting of the progress towards the ideal set by the conscience (personal creed) and that of god.  Of course god reaches a person where she is.  Then with the help of the Holy Spirit, with personal faith and commitment, when she slowly works out to live up to the expectation of personal creed (dharma), then god helps her to make progress slowly.  Here, god, with much patience, accepts all kinds of failures on the part of His struggling saint, but He never accepts any kind of excuses or lack of interest to justify personal failures.  He never accepts or prescribes any kind of ritual to appease either His demands or the guilty conscience of the person.  A bhakta of the Lord has to work with the help of the Holy Spirit or give up her faith.  Of course god will accept all the failures and will send all kinds of help to her to press forward to attain the goal— beginning with the personal creed set by the conscience then progressing toward the higher spiritual level set by god.  However, no bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath will ever claim that they have reached that stage.

No excuses are accepted in the name of karma, time (Kali yuga) or even blaming

god.  At the same time, the Muktiveda never prescribes any kind of ritual to replace the personal struggle to achieve the ideal.  For me, interestingly, all demands of the Muktiveda to achieve personal ideology are in the context of relationships with one another along with god.

Personally for me, all the rituals try to bend the will of god to fulfill their immediate mundane needs rather than compelling them to strive for the achievement of personal ideology through spirituality.  When I worshipped various deities, it was not to know the will of god or even to know the rich spiritual teachings of the scriptures, but it was only to receive some favors from them by doing certain rituals according to the prescribed rules.  Whereas, in my worship of Muktinath, though I can demand the same needs for this life, it is not possible first without knowing His will, mind and plan for my life to achieve my personal ideals and then make progress towards god’s ideal.  SEEK FIRST THE KINGDOM (DHARMA) OF GOD AND ITS RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THEN ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU—is the mahavakya (great saying) to achieve to live up to my creed first and then to make progress towards god’s righteousness.  But, ‘in Scripture, the term “saint” is not an achievement but a gift.  We are declared holy because God’s forgiveness in Christ (I Cor 1:2).   We are declared saints struggling to be saintly.’⁶³

An after thought

Ethical idealism and moral dilemma

The Indian answer to moral dilemma is not only relativistic but also realistic. No absolute, regimental ethical idealism will help anyone to resolve moral dilemmas in life. Of course scriptures give absolute, idealistic ethics to encourage everyone to follow. But in real life, the same ethics is interpreted according to the situation and not in a regimental way.

The one Indian word that would define both the absolute, idealistic ethics and its realistic nature is ‘dharma’. The famous Upanishad mantra which is given for every brahmachari (bachelor) after completion of his studies at Gurukulam is ‘Satyam Vada; Dharmam chara’ (Taitiryoupanishad). But in real life this convocation address is never expected to be implemented both in letter and spirit.

It is true that irrespective of the scriptural teachings (of any faith), no human being could ever uphold and practice any idealistic ethical values in her life. All the ethical idealism is like the Law of a land. In the court the verdict is not given based on the statuary law to its letter, but interpreted based on the witness, circumstance, intention etc. of the crime. So the verdict is more on the spirit (interpretation) of the Law than based on the letter. In most cases the judgments always refer the past verdict than absolutely implementing the Law as per the letter.⁶⁴

Then what is the purpose of giving such absolute ethical values through scriptures? For me they are to remind us not to become self-righteous and also to realize the fallen nature of us and the world.  We need to seek the grace of god to reform ourselves to make progress at least to satisfy one’s own conscience and not sit on judgment about other’s failures in upholding the absolute, idealistic ethical values—that too according to our expectation and interpretation. In addition, such unattainable ethical principles provide each devotee the highest goal/challenge to strive for, some attaining more than others.

If my understanding is correct, then the main thrust of Mahabharata and also Indian ethics is bring maximum happiness to maximum people. ⁶⁵ So the suffering and sacrifice of some are inevitable in such approach.  However—though looking a bit idealistic, for me doing justice to weak and suppressed, irrespective of their shortcomings should be the practical solution to moral dilemma. Interestingly Mahabharata promoting the idealism of ‘maximum happiness to maximum people’ give a practical solution of doing justice to the victim. Such paradox in the landmark of Indian solution to every life issues.

There are a few things that to be considered about arriving to such conclusion on any moral dilemma based on idealistic ethics—particularly based on Hindu scriptures. For example Mahabharata is not a single work by a single author. As lot of interpolation is there, arriving any overarching conclusion based on such vast encyclopedic scripture is difficult one. The next is that contradictory doctrine playing side by side is not a philosophical problem for a common man. For example, the acts done both by Kauravas and Pandavas already set the action in motion to arrive its own logical conclusion—whether Krishna is a god or a friend of Pandavas or a statesman trying to do justice to the victim could change it, even if he wished. The confession of Krishna that he himself cannot stop the war and the destruction not only shows him as a human but also the power of karma theory in which gods cannot interfere nor do anything.⁶⁶

For me the central issue in deciding any moral dilemma in Indian (Hindu) worldview finally rests with the doctrine of karma and kala before which even gods are helpless. Once we keep this in mind, understanding any moral dilemma and the solution that Hindu ethics subscribe will be easy to understand. On the two tracts of KALA and KARMA Hindu worldview moves. And this is the only unchanging absolute principle for anyone to Understand Indian (Hindu) worldview.⁶⁷ And both maya (for Vedanta) and divine lila (for bhakti vedantas) could add values to these kala and karma for a philosophical minded Hindu.

However relativistic and realistic could be Hindu ethical solution to all moral dilemma, yet they are finally decided by the ‘absolute, arbitrary, objective, dogmatic’ criterion of Kala and Karma added with Fate for majority of Hindus. And the pluralistic Hinduism has room for both ‘objective’ and ‘relativistic’ approach in life. Then finally no one is responsible for anything as ‘apad dharma’ permits all kinds of lapses to make survival important as the Tamil saying goes, ‘Aapaddukku paavam illa’= nothing is wrong in emergency. And every situation is an ‘emergency’ for an individual, however it is viewed by others.⁶⁸

Whereas, ‘ethics is a challenging area of Christian theology.  It is much simpler in Islam where the rules are set forth and obedience is required.  In Islam, one is judged only for one’s actions, but in Christianity even one’s thoughts are judged (Mt 5:22, 27-28).  An ethic of love requires ongoing moral decision-making, with the call to love as God loves, even one’s enemies (Mt 5:44).  Christian ethics requires a change of heart, not just a change of outward behavior.  And yet, the high demands are smothered by the grace of God.  He challenges us but does not punish us for our failures.  He respects our potentiality as one created in His image (Gen 1:27), with the “upward call” (Phi. 3:14), to be “perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt 5:48).’⁶⁹

Notes for Morality

1 …It should therefore not be surprising that no Indian language had an equivalent for the word ‘responsibility’ in its vocabulary, until words like honegarike, javabadari, uttaravadittvam, cumatala, zimmedari, and so on were coined or appropriated in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries to signify it.²¹¹— Manu V. Devadevan, A Prehistory of Hinduism, Berlin, De Gruyter Open Ltd, 2016, p. 66

211 Here, we make a conceptual distinction between duty and responsibility.  Duty is enforced by an external agency like state, community, family, convention, law etc., whereas responsibility emerges from within, and is governed by one’s conscience.—p. 66

2 For a detailed study on this see Prof. P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Pune, Five volumes, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1968-77 (1930-62).Vol. I, Part I, p. 7; Part II, 594; Vol. II, p. 10-13; 134; 208-210; 238; 242; 252-256; 318; 353; 386; 391; 473; 477; 480; 507-08; 513-14; 524; 528; 542; 803; 816.  [Merely giving reference won’t help as many won’t have access to such books as well time to read them all.  So in Appendix at the end of this chapter I am giving some important points from scholars.]

3 Out of 570 poems in the first volume (total 10 volumes), I come across 102 poems on this subject alone.  Of course, the common explanation on such poems is that Vallalar, imposing the sins of others on him, plead with god to overcome such evil.  Whereas as, a saint he was above such evils in his personal life. Though Vallalar seek god’s grace to overcome several temptations, I am giving few songs related to womanizing, as representative of such temptations in the appendix at the end of this chapter.  Womanizing is one among the three great temptations, the other two being: lust for land (power) and gold/wealth, known in Tamil and other Indian languages as: mannasai, pennaasai, ponnasai.

4 Otherwise the king has to do prayaschitta by observing a fast for not punishing the guilty or punishing the innocent along with his purohita (personal priest).—P.V. Kane, op. cit. Vol. II. Part. I p. 242

5 Kane, ibid. Vol. II, part. I p. 238

6 

கோட்புலி நாயனார்

எல்லாரும் புகுந்ததற்பின் இருநிதியம் அளிப்பார்போல்

நல்லார்தம் பேரோன்முன் கடைகாக் நாதன்றன்

வல்லாணை மறுத்துமுது படிஅழித்த மறக்கிளையைக்

கொல்லாதே விடுவேனோ எனக்கனன்று கொலைபுரிவார்-4141. P. 292

தந்தையார் தாயார்மற் றுடன்பிறந்தார் தாரங்கள்

பந்தமார் சுற்றத்தார் பதியடியார் மதியணியும்

எந்தையார் திருப்படிமற் றுண்ண இசைந் தார்களையும்

சிந்தவாள் கொடுதுணிந்தார் தீயவினைப் பவந்துணிப்பார்.-4142. P. 292

பின்னங்குப் பிழைத்ததொரு பிள்ளையைத்தம் பெயரோன் அவ்

வன்னந்துய்த் திலது குடிக் கொருபுதல்வன் அருளும் என

இந்நெல்லுண் டாள்முலைப்பால் உண்ட தென எடுத்தெறிந்து

மின்னல்ல வடிவாளால் இருதுணியாய் விழவேற்றார்.—4143. P. 292

அந்திலையே சிவபெருமான் அன்பரெதிர் வெளியேநின்று

உன்னுடைய கைவாளால் உறுபாசம் அறுத்தகிளை

பொன்னுலகின் மேலுலகம் புக்கணையப் புகழோய்நீ

இந்நிலைநம் முடன் அணை கென் றேவிஎழுந் தருளினார்.—4144. p. 292.

— A. Manaikkanar, by Sekkizhar (Tamil), Chennai, Vardamans, Fifth impression, 2000.Vol. 6.

Dr. Sivap Priya, in her book ‘Sundarar Potriya Arubathu Moovar’ (the 63 Nayanars, who were praised by Sundarar), New Delhi, Tennavar Tiruneri Press, pp. 596-97), writes in an expected direction as a Hindu apologetic.  She says, ‘It happened either as a test by god (a common future in bhakti stories); or due to the lack of devotion of the relatives.  As crime has been done against god, the Nayanar decided to kill himself after killing all his relatives.  However, god, who “considers even the crime of his devotes as virtue”, bring them all back to life and take them all together to his abode (where as the original says, that while his relatives were sent to heaven higher than that of devas, Siva took only Kotpuliyr Nayanar with him to his abode.). 

7 A. Manikkanar, Periya Puranam by Sekkizhar (Tamil),Chennai, Vertaman Press, vol. VI, pp. 291-94.

8 Manikkanar, Ibid, p.271 & 273

9 ibid. 279.

10 V. Kamalakkannan, Nalayira Divyaprabhandam, Chennai, Vardaman, 8 volumes. (year not mentioned) Vol. 3, p.1298.  We read about physical violence used by Azhavars against the revilers of Vishnu.  In the following poem by Thondaradipoti azhavar says that if he will get a chance, he will cut the head of Jains, Buddhist and Saivas, who revile Vishnu.  But the interesting point is the apologetic by the author, who says, ‘as Veda itself sanctioned killing of animals for the benefit of many, in the same way for the sake of good of those revilers of Vishnu the Azhavar says like this’.  Similar songs we can find in Divyaprabandham by some other Azhvaras.

879.

வெறுப்பொடு சமணர் முண்டர் விதியில் சாக்கியர்கள் நின்பால்

பொறுப்பரி யனகள் பேசில் போவதே நோயதாகிக்

குறிப்பெனக் கடையுமாகில் கூடுமேல் தலையை ஆங்கே

அறுப்பதே கருமம் கண்டாய் அரங்க மாநகருளானே.–ப. 1198. திருமாலை, தொண்டரடிப்பொடியாழ்வார்

பொருள்: அரங்கமாநகருளானே! (பகவத் விஷயத்தைக் கேட்கப் பொறாத) வெறுப்புடன் கூடிய சமணர்களும், சைவர்களும், (பகவத் தொடர்பு எனும்) பாக்கியம் இல்லாத பொளத்தர்களும் (சர்வேஸ்வரனான) உன் விஷயத்தில் பொறுக்க முடியாத விஷயங்களைச் சொல்வராகில், அந்தநிந்தையே நோயாகி, முடிந்து போவது (சிறந்தது) (அவ்வாறின்றி) (பகவத் தூஷணம் பொறாத) எனக்கு சமயம் வாய்க்குமாகில் (சக்தியும்) இருக்குமாகில், (பதவந்நிந்தை செய்த) அவ்விடத்திலேயே அவர் தலையை அறுத்துத் தள்ளுவதே செய்யத்தக்க காரியமாகும்.–ப. 1198

சிறப்புப் பொருள்: முண்டர்–சைவர்….பரம கருணையுடையவராய், பரம சாந்தரான இவ்வாழ்வார் ’கொல்ல வேண்டும்’-என்று கூறலாமோ? வேதமும் பிற உயிர்களைக் (ப. 1198) கொல்வதைத் தடுத்துள்ளதே எனில், அவ்வேதமே சிலபாகங்களில் அனைவருக்கும் நன்மையைக் கருதி யாகபசுவைக் கொல்லலாம் என்று விதித்தது போல, இவரும் நிந்திப்பவர்க்கும் நன்மை உண்டாகக் கருதி கூறுகிறார் ஆகையால் குறையில்லை. பகவானை எப்போதும் நிந்திக்கிறவர்களுக்கும் அவர்களிடம் ஈடுபட்டிருப்பவர்களுக்கும் நட்புறவு என்றும் கிடையாது. ’எண்ணாத மானிடத்தை எண்ணாத போதெல்லாம் இனியவாறே’ (பெரிய திரு–11-6-7) என்றார் திருமங்கை மன்னரும்.–மூன்றாம் தொகுதி, ப. 1198-99

Further Devadevan notes that, ‘…The representation of the acts of the sarana as lila was governed by the idea that the saranas were members of Siva’s entourage (sivagana) who had incarnated on earth to carry out a predestined mission, or play. The poet Bhima considered even killing Jaina saints, breaking up their heads, and the destruction of Jaina shrines by the Virasaivas as acts of lila.{Basavapurana, 50.72-73}’— Manu V. Devadevan, A Prehistory of Hinduism, Berlin, De Gruyter Open Ltd, 2016, p. 76

11 However Singh notes that ‘…The fifth century Mahavamsa presents the Sri Lankan king Dutthagamani’s war against the Tamil king Elara as a religious war aimed at bringing glory to the Buddha’s doctrine.  Dutthagamani is described as having marched toward Anuradhapura with a relic in his spear, accompanied by a powerful army and five hundred monks. A group of arhats assured him that he had committed no wrong in waging this war, because killing evil unbelievers was morally no worse than killing animals.

               Later Buddhist traditions justified the violence of war with greater vigor. In the early twentieth century, Zen Buddhism provided an ideology for Japanese military expansion, arguing that (p. 469) taking another’s life is an attempt to bring to life the latter’s Buddha nature…. Interestingly, among the many violent episodes in Asian history where Buddhism has directly justified either state violence or the violence of rebels, none come from India. The nature of the relationship between the state, society, and sangha seems to be the reason….’— Upinder Singh, Political violence in ancient India, London, Harvard University Press, 2017, pp. 469-70

12 In Islam, nothing happens except that God has willed it.  Therefore, they have a real problem with free will and with accountability.  Christian theology does not go that far.  Scripture speaks of God foreknowing things but not determining things.  Free will and accountability are strong themes.—Dr. Hoefer, Personal communication, 26-3-2020.  Relating free will and predestination Hoefer further says: According to our reading of Scripture in the Lutheran tradition, it is God’s will that all be saved (I Tim 2:3).  All the passages that speak of predestination only present it as a word of assurance to believers, never as a threat of condemnation (cf. Eph 1:5 & 11, I Thes 5:9, I Pet 1:2, Rom 9:23).  We do not move to the “logical” conclusion, however, that some must be predestined to hell if others are assured that they are safe for eternity.  We will only say what Scripture says, and we will speak of predestination only in the way that Scripture does.  In addition, the word used in conjunction with predestination is foreknowledge (Rom 8:29, 11:2), not fore-willing.  It is a mystery, but it is not a frightening and foreboding mystery, but a word of assurance and certainty for us.—17-09-2020. Also see Bhakti Theology Song 1212 for Sukumari Bhattacharji’s point on this from her book: Fate and Fortune in the Indian scriptures, New Delhi, Foundations Books, 2014, pp. 100-101

13 The close link between ethics, karma and ritual is overlapping with each other in Hindu (religious) worldview.  For example:

               The Vedic emphasis on ritual underlies and pervades these texts to the extent that the doctrine of karma is conceived in its terms.  “[T]he almost purely ritual character of (p.113) goodness in the view of the Brahmanas,” says Keith, “is [shown by the fact that] their concept of torment is inextricably bound up with the correct practice … of the ritual.” {Arthur B. Keith, The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanisads, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1925, p. 407} “[A]t death,” says Obeyesekere, “a man is weighed in a balance to test the good and the bad, but this is not based on a social morality … It is based on violations of taboo and on ritual interdictions. {“The Rebirth Eschatology and Its Transformations: A Contribution to the Sociology of Early Buddhism.”  In Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions.  Edited by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty.  Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1980, pp. 137-164,” p. 157} Good [is] equated with the correct performance of the rite, bad with the incorrect performance.”{Herman W. Tull, The Vedic Origins of Karma: Cosmos as Man in Ancient Indian Myth and Ritual, SUNY Series in Hindu Studies (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1989), p.2} The afterlife, in other words, works out “the merit (the ‘good’) or demerit (the ‘bad’) accumulated through a lifetime of sacrificial activity.”{Ibid. p. 31} For instance: “When the Agnihotra is being offered, what he does mistakenly, either by word or deed, that cuts off his vigor, his own self, or his children” (Satapatha Brahmana II.3.4.18).{Quoted ibid., p. 29} … But in fact, the matter is not that clear.  The ritual emphasis does not mean that the system in question was still unethicized, but that it used a different understanding of what types of behavior lead to reward and punishment; as Tull puts it: “Although the idea … may not reflect morality in a general sense, within the limits of a well-defined system it yet expresses a notion of ethics.”{Tull, The Vedic Origins of Karma, p. 29} The point is that the idea of karmic accumulation with a positive or negative polarity based on past behavior—the structural framework—is in place regardless.⁶⁴ – Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008. pp. 113-114

64. Chapple quotes Agehananda Bharati to the effect that the karma-reincarnation linkage “is a recent use, probably originating with the theosophists and Madama Blavatsky … this is not the traditional Indian use in any statistical sense, since in most places it means ritualistic action and only that …” (“Speaking About ‘That Which Shows Itself’: The Language of Mysticism and the Mystics,” pp. 234-235, in Religious Experience and Scientific Paradigms, comp. Christopher Chapple [Stony Brook, New York: The Institute for Advanced Studies of World Religions, 1985, pp. 210-243]; cited in Chapple, Karma and Creativity [Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1986], p. 115, n.1)  Bharati, in other words, feels that the purely ritual meaning of karma obtained not only in the Vedic period but throughout Hindu textual history.  Chapple himself takes a broader view and emphasizes the positive incentive offered by karma: “The doctrine of bondage due to past actions was for many a call for action in the present” (Chapple, ibid., p.4).  He demonstrates through analysis of several Hindu and Buddhist texts that “karma and creativity may work in tandem in order to produce a world that is not dissonant with liberation: (ibid. p. 81).  “Through the mode of creativity, one is allowed to continue leading an active life without the bondage of attachment” (ibid. p. 82).—p. 147

14           There has been a tendency within modern western philosophy to revere innovation and individual creativity at the expense of continuity and tradition.  This is rooted in European Romanticism and the myth of the autonomous and creative genius.  Standard histories of philosophy tend to focus upon individual thinkers as initiators of cultural change rather than as manifestations or representatives of those changes themselves.  Such elitist historiography has been further enhanced by modern individualism which not only underplays the role of tradition and community in all creative and critical thought, but also perpetuates what might be called “the trickle down the theory of knowledge”….— Richard King, Indian Philosophy, An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, ANE Book, New Delhi, 1999. p.7

15 The Hindu View of Life, New Delhi, HarperCollins Publishers India, (1927), 1998, Fourth impression, p.68

16 …Marriage and family are the means used by society to control promiseuous expression of sex and dissipation of man’s energy which could be directed and used in many other useful channels, without, at the same time, entirely suppressing the sex.  In fact, they make sex a more meaningful, a more enriching experience.  “All other things being equal”, says Nimkoff, “sex expression in marriage proves to be more satisfying than sex expression apart from marriage.  Psychology has made the reason for this fact clear.  For civilized human beings, satisfaction in the expression of any fundamental drive depends not merely upon the act of the expression alone, but also upon the factors associated with it.  For example, a civilized human being is not satisfied to eat just anything at all. His pleasure varies with the nature of food, the way it is prepared, and the conditions under which it is consumed.  Sex is in no way different, unless it be that satisfaction here depends even more upon attending circumstances.  Marriage (and family, we may add) makes possible such a conditioning of the sexual relationship as to give to it the greatest significance of which it is capable. In marriage, sex may become enriched by all the sentiments which associ-(p.209)ation in an enterprise affords.    Sex acquires a depth and breadth of meaning which it otherwise lacks. Thus marriage regulates sex in order to make it more meaningful” {Nimkoff, M. F.: The Family,  Houghton Mifflin, New York, 1934, pp. 55-56}.— Pandharinath H. Prabhu, Hindu Social Organization: A Study in Socio-Psychological and Indeological Foundations, Bombay, Popular Prakashan,  [1940], Reprint 2004, pp.209-10  And it is worth note what Yancey says about the role of religion in it: … ‘Evil’s greatest triumph may be its success in portraying religion as an enemy of pleasure when, in fact, religion accounts for its source: every good and enjoyable thing is the invention of a Creator who lavished gifts on the world….The ancients turned good things into idols; we moderns call them addictions. In either case, what ceases to be a servant becomes a tyrant….’—Philip Yancey, Soul Survivor, New York, Galilee Doubleday, 2001, p.  55

17  Now this word ‘un-natural’ is challenged.  Because for gay people, their alternative sexual behavior is ‘natural’ for them, they began to question the criteria for any sexual behavior.  Though I am not an expert in this discussion, for a common person like me, sex is not merely to quench some physical or mental urge but for reproduction.  As same sex relationship won’t have this ‘natural’ process, for us, such alternative behavior is ‘un-natural’.  At the same time I have to agree with Yancey that ‘Reproduction surely does not require {sexual} pleasure: some animals simply split in half to reproduce, and even humans use methods of artificial insemination that involve no pleasure….(p.54) On the issue of pleasure, Christians can breathe easier. A good and loving God would naturally want his creatures to experience delight, joy, and personal fulfillment.  Christians start from that assumption and then look for ways to explain the origin of suffering. But should not atheists have an equal obligation to explain the origin of pleasure in a world of randomness and meaninglessness?’—Yancey, op. cit, pp. 54-55

18 On the issue of homosexuality, in historic theology and historical churches (such as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) the practice of homosexuality is considered a sin.  Therefore, I think a proper term for those who disagree with that historic position would not be “not a true Christian” but “not a historically orthodox Christian.”—Dr. Hoefer, Personal communication, 26-3-2020

19 …According to Hinduism, the guide of right conduct are the scripture, usage, the example of saints and the inner self or conscience.  For Manu says: ‘The Vedas are the source of the sacred law, next the Smrti and the conduct of those who understand the scriptures, and also the customs of holy men, and finally the satisfaction of the inner self.’  And Kalidasa, in a well-known and oft-quoted verse, says that the promptings of a pure heart are a sure guide in matters of doubt.  Thus, by making the example of saints an authority, and by regarding the Vedic ideal of divine perfection as the standard of reference, Hinduism keeps its Dharma alive and its moral code flexible.— D.S. Sarma, A Primer Of Hinduism, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1984 p.43

20 Arnold Toynbee-Historian. (Cannot be document)

21  Still I cannot understand the right for ‘gay’ marriage.  Marriage traditionally is not an institution to give social sanctions for sex between two people but establish a ‘home’ to produce children and for the continuity of society.  As gay relationship is not fulfilling  this criterion, then why do they want any legal or social sanction for their relationship as ‘marriage’?  Let them too live like ‘live in relationship’.  It is still beyond my comprehension to understand such right.  Though I am not criticizing their different kind of sexual orientation, yet all their demand for certain rights based on traditional values like marriage is bit confusing me.  Until their behavior is not termed as ‘crime’ and legally harassed, their demands based on traditional values are questionable to me.  Same sex is there in India too like any other part in the world.  But it is never considered as normal life in a society.  But suddenly now their demand to have recognition as part of normal society, won’t get easy approval in India.  Like prostitution, it has to survive based on personal choice not demanding social sanction. And ‘in the West, the movement on gay marriage had to do with legal rights. The argument was that gay couples should have the same civil rights as others, e.g., inheritance.  The alternative was to recognize their right to partner but call it a “civil union,” having the same legal rights as marriage.  However, that was rejected as prejudicial.’—Dr. Personal communication, 26-3-2020

22 P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. I. Part. I. p.7

23 Kane, vol. I, part II, p. 594.

24 For example, ‘for replenishing a depleted treasury’ a king can ‘derive the temples in the kingdom of their wealth through the superintendent of religious endowments’.—Kane, vol. II, pp.12-13 [the vol. numbers needs to be referred]—db  However, what is allowed for a King in his dharma to rule the people need not be the norm for everyone to follow.  Under Raja dharma, which demands subjugating people any means, what is commonly considered as immoral is not applicable.  For example see what Mahabharata says:

You [king] should first gain the confidence of men (your enemies); and then you should spring upon them like a wolf.  It is said that in earning wealth, hypocrisy is a cheap means.  As a hooked staff is used to bend down a bough of a tree to pluck the ripe fruits, so this method should be adopted in destroying one’s own enemies.(19-20)  Carry your enemy on your shoulder till the time comes when you can throw him down and break him into pieces as an earthen vessel is broken being thrown on stones. (21).(I.142:19-21) (p.204) …If kings act in this way, they can always be happy.  Thus should the timid, by exciting their fears, the courageous by the arts of conciliation, the covetous by gift of wealth and the inferiors and the equals by the exhibition of prowess, be brought into subjugation….(I.142:48-49)…Vrihaspati has said that the usage of kings are different from those of common people.  Therefore, kings should always look to their interest with vigilance. (6)  …the character of a Kshatriya is to be known from (his) success.  Whether sinful or virtuous, what scruples can there be in performing the duties of one’s won (caste) (2.55:6-7)— M.N. Dutt, Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimal Publicartions, 1988, 7 vols, Vol. 1  Adi Parva and Sabha Parva, p.205 and 394.  Also see Vidura Neeti for Kings, in, Kamala Subramanian, Mahabharata, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1985, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1985, p. 353. See also my website about Kings from Mahabharata.

25  Law eternal.  The word used to denote the conception of the order of the world is rta.  Everything in the universe which is conceived as showing regularity of action may be said to have the rta for its principle.  In its most general application the conception expressed by the word occupied to some extent the place of natural and moral law, fate, or the will of a supreme God….–, Ralph T.H. Griffith, The hymns of the Rgveda, edited by Prof. J. L. Shastri, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, New Revised Edition, 1973, Reprint, 1986. Rv. I.1.8. p. 1.

26           देशभग्ङे प्रवासे वा व्याधिषु व्यसनेष्वपि।

रक्षेदेव स्वदेहादि पश्चाध्दर्म समाचरेत्॥

आपत्काले तु संप्राप्ते शौचाचारं न चिन्तयेत्।

स्वयं समुध्दरेत् पश्चात् स्व्स्थो धर्मं समाचरेत्॥

Deshabhange pravaase vaa vyaadhishu vyasaneshvapi

rakshedeva svadehaadi pashcaadhdharma samaacaret

aapatkaale tu sampraapte showcaacaaram na cintayeth

svayam smudharet pashcaat swasto dharmam smaacareth.

— The Parasarasmrti 7th chap last three verses, Kane, op. cit. Vol. Part I. Fn. 499. P. 464 And also:

…Manu XI.16-17 says that when a person has had no food for three days he may take away (by theft even) from one who is lower than himself in class as much corn as will be enough for one day, either from the threshing floor or from the field or from his house or from whatever place he can get it, but he should announce his action when the owner asks….—ibid. Vol. II. Part. I, p. 134.   Such exception to the rule in an emergency is mostly related to ritual and caste identity and not necessarily related to all of the unethical practices.

27   பொய்ம்மையும் வாய்மை இடத்த புரைதீர்ந்த

நன்மை பயக்கும் எனின்

Translated by M. Rajaram, New Delhi, Rupa & Co. 2009, p. 60

28 B.G.Tilak, (Tr. by A.S.Sukthankar) Srimad BhagavadGita-Rahasya; Tilak Brothers; Poona; Seventh Edition, 1986. p.554

29 Christopher JH Wright, Living as the people of God. (The relevance of O.T. ethics), IVP, 1983,p.29 & p.31.  And the following points from Stark will further highlight this point:

…The Christian teaching that God loves those who love him was alien to pagan beliefs.  MacMullen has noted that from the pagan perspective “what mattered was … the service that the deity could provide, since a god (as Aristotle had long taught) could feel no love in response to that offered” (MacMullen, Ramsay.  Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.1981:53).  Equally alien to paganism was the notion that because God loves humanity, Christians cannot please God unless they love one another.  Indeed, as God demonstrates his love through sacrifice, humans must demonstrate their love through sacrifice on behalf of one another.  Moreover, such responsibilities were to be extended beyond the bonds of family and tribe, indeed to “all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Cor.1:2).  These were revolutionary ideas.— Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, Harper San Francisco An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, 1977, p.86

               And as we have seen [in page 84], that is precisely what most concerned Julian as he worked to reverse the rise of Christianity and restore paganism.  But for all that he urged pagan priests to match these Christian practices, there was little or no response because there were no doctrinal bases or traditional practices for them to build upon.  It was not that Romans knew nothing of charity, but that it was not based on service to the gods.  Pagan gods did not punish ethical violations because they imposed no ethical demands—humans offended the gods only through neglect or by violation of ritual standards (MacMullen, Ramsay.  Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.1981:58).  Since pagan gods required only propitiation and beyond that left human affairs in human hands, a pagan priest could not preach that those lacking in the spirit of charity risked their salvation.  Indeed, the pagan gods offered no salvation.  They might be bribed to perform various services, but the gods did not provide an escape from mortality….—ibid.  p.88

Commenting on this notes Dr. Hoefer says, ‘it is not accurate to state that “God loves those who love Him.”  God loves all (Jn 3:16), whether they love Him or not.’—Personal communication, 26-3-2020

30 See the notes above 10

31 A. Manikkanar, Periya Puranam by Sekkizhar (Tamil), Chennai, Vertaman Press, vol. v, p. 337

32 According to the popular stories and even by Bhartiyar in his Panchali Sabadam (vow by Panchali) in Tamil, though Draupadi (also known as Krishna and Panchali) challenges her husband’s right to gamble her away:

நாயகர் தாந் தம்மைத் தோற்ற பின்–என்னை

நல்கு முரிமை அவர்க் கில்லை–புலைத்

தாயத்திலே விலைப் பட்டபின்–என்ன

சாத்திரத்தா லென்னைத் தோற் றிட்டார்? அவர்

தாயத்திலே விலைப் பட்டவர்–புவி

தாங்குந் துருபதன் கன்னி நான்–நிலை

சாய்ப் புலைத் தொண்டு சார்ந் திட்டால்–பின்பு

தார முடைமை யவர்க் குண்டோ–

Once the husband lost himself in the gamble, he has no right to gamble upon me.  Once he lost himself, according to which rule (sastra) he could lost me in gamble?  They are sold themselves in the gamble, but I am the daughter of king Durubadan.  Once they become slaves (due to gamble) do they have any right to have wife?—My translation.  Bharathiyar, (ed. Seeni. Viswanathan), Bharathiyar Kavidaigal (Poems of Bharatiyar), Chennai, Pungodi Padippagam, Year not mentioned, Panchali Sabadam, p. 436

According to Dutt’s translation it was Vidura (Yudhisthira’s uncle) and not Draupadi, where she refuses to question her husband’s right.  Such contradiction in the popular stories as various manuscript and oral and regional traditions are used in telling popular stories:

[Vidura said] In my opinion the slavery cannot attach to Krishna (Draupadi), as she was staked by the king (Yudhisthira) after he lost himself and ceased to be his own master. (2.66:4)…. [Draupadi said]The high-souled son of Dharma (Yudhisthira) is (now) bound by the obligation of the rules of morality.  The ways of Dharma is subtle.  Those only can ascertain them who possess great clearness of vision.  Forgetting his virtue, I am unwilling to admit even an atom of fault in my husband (Yudhisthira.) (2.67:37)—Dutt, op. cit. p.406 and 408

33 Popular stories. Also see a different story of Rama banishing Sita in Velcheru. Narayana Rao. A Ramayana of their Own: Women’s Oral Tradition in Telugu.  In Paula Richman (ed.), Many Ramayanas: The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition is South Asia, 114-36.  Delhi: Oxford University Press.1992:126-7. 

34           For some reasons a Nishada woman came to the house of lac and though (she was) innocent, she was burnt to death with her five sons. (I. 143:10) — M.N. [Manmatha Nath] Dutt, Op. cit. Vol. I, Jatugriha Parva, p.207. In other version of the same story, the Nishada woman and her sons were invited by the Pandavas to eat and were given excess drink so that they cannot escape from the fire to die in their place to cheat Kurus.

35 ‘…First, he [Krishna] admitted that he had resorted to unfair means.  The Kauravas, who were warriors of great prowess, could not have been killed by fair means.  Deception, Krishna argued, is acceptable when the enemy is stronger.  ‘The gods themselves are not above it; we have only followed their example’, he said.  The Kauravas symbolized adharma.  They had to be defeated.  In such a situation, the end justifies the means….’— Pavan K Varma, Being Indian, New Delhi, Penguin Books, 2004, p.28

The following from Mahabharata, though bit long, will help us to under this in its context:

 In a question of danger to life and in marriage untruth may be uttered. Where one’s entire fortunes are at stake untruth becomes utterable.33 At a marriage, or in the enjoyment of lust, or when one’s life is at stake, or when one’s entire fortunes are about to be lost, or in the cause of a Brahmin untruth may be uttered. It is said that there is no sin in uttering these five sorts of falsehood. 34.  On these occasions untruth becomes truth and truth untruth. 35. He who is bent upon always practicing truth alone is a fool and takes truth to be as it is. Indeed it is not a very easy thing to become righteous. He who can distinguish between the niceties of truth and untruth can alone become conversant with morality.36 [Krishna to Arjuna].—Dutt, op. cit. Vol. 4. Karna Parva, Ch. XLIX. P. 511

 As a foolish man, ill-read in the Scriptures, unacquainted with the details of morality, is fit to fall into an awful hell for not asking aged men to set his doubts at rest. 54.  Your definition of morality must be then something like that.  Some people attempt at attaining that high and difficult knowledge by the exercise of reasoning. 55. Many persons maintain, on the other hand, that morality can be learned from the Scriptures alone.  I do not find fault with the latter, but then everything is not provided for there.  56. The moral precepts have been made for the well-being of the creatures. 57. All that is free from any motive of injury to any being is surely morality.  For, indeed, the moral precepts have been made to free the creatures from all injuries.  58. Dharma (morality) is so-called because it protects all.  Indeed, morality saves all creatures.  Surely then that is morality which is capable of keeping off a creature from all injuries. 59. Those who try to stick to them logically, have scarcely a mind to acquire morality. If you can get rid of them without a word do on no account have any intercourse with them.  60. If he must be spoken to or if he takes offence on not being talked with, in that case better speak a falsehood; verily that untruth is truth.  61. He who, having taken a vow on some set purpose, cannot redeem the same by acts, attains not the rewards of that vow.  62. When one’s life is endangered, at marriage, at the risk of destruction of one’s kith and kin or in the course of business, all that is uttered will not be regarded as falsehood.  63. To those who are well-versed in the real secrets of morality, there appear no immorality in all this.  64. There even, where one cuts of his connections with robbers after having taken an oath, it is better to swear falsely, for surely that falsehood would be truth. On (p.512) no account should one’s wealth be given to the robbers, if that could be helped.  65.  Wealth when given to the sinful afflicts even the donor.  Therefore, an untruth spoken in the cause of morality does not amount to a falsehood.66 [Krishna to Arjuna].—ibid. Ch. LXIX. Pp. 512-13

36 Franklin Edgerton, The Bhagavad Gita, Translated and Interpreted, Delhi, Mothilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.  First Published Cambridge, 1944, Reprint: 1996. pp. 24-25

37 This is not limited only to India, but applied everywhere.  For example, ‘…A breach that is held to be a crime at one time may not even be held as a crime at another time or in another country.  For example, adultery is a crime under the Indian Penal Code [sec.497], while it is not a crime but a civil wrong in English Law.’—Kane, op. cit. Vol. II, part. I p. 386.

38 Not accepting personal responsibility but blaming others is a common trait of Indian worldview.  Sometimes this lead to justify moral lapses by blaming some other objective principles like time (kaal—‘this is Kaliyuga you see’), karma of past life, or even God Himself since ‘everything is His lila’.  Guilty people are never punished (e.g. politicians involved with various scams), human responsibility is never accepted (for violence; accidents) which force common people resign to the theory of ‘fate’ to suffer silently.  Particularly the theory of yuga with all its concepts of both good and bad, according to Prof. Kane, ‘appears unreal, bizarre and called up by sheer fancy’, and he calls upon the modern men ‘not assess the actions and ideals of past ages by the same yardstick that is applied to contemporary actions and ideals’, as ‘the four ages are not water-tight specific periods of time, but that the ruler or government can produce conditions of krta age in what is popularly called Kali [also means dark] by appropriate conduct or measures…’ (Kane, op. cit. Vol. V, Part I, pp. 695-96) Whatever might be our interpretation on time (yuga), karma and lila of gods, by accepting personal responsibility for every action will be the first step towards reformation of any society.—Dayanand Bharati, Understanding Hinduism, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2005, pp. 253-56

39 Pavan Kumar Varma, Being Indian, New Delhi, Penguin Books, 2004 p.4

40 The common explanation for the bribe demanded by the govt. official to do any job is this: Govt. only pays salary for us to come to the office, but you have to pay for us to do your work (both legal and illegal).  And we charge according to the nature of your work.  Then why you call it a bribe?

41 P. K. Verma., op. cit.  pp. 7 & 8. 

42 The essential point is that Hindu tradition has always allowed for a conveniently fractured response to the moral imperative.  There are no uncontested definitions of right and wrong.  The only consistent concern is the end result.  In the pursuit of the desired goal, morality is not so much disowned, as it is pragmatically devalued.  ‘Hindu ethics has its public face—Dharma, or normative rules—and its private wisdom, or pragmatic rules, to distinguish between the principles men espouse and the tactics they adopt.’ [Prof. F.H. Bailey, cited in Lannoy, The Speaking Tree, : A Study of Indian Culture and Society, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 294]  The consequence is a down-to-earth relativism, a flexibility of approach, a willingness to prune absolutisms in the interests of a larger purpose….—ibid. pp.29-30

43 Mahabharata, Kamala Subramanian, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1985, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1985, p.29. Also see Dutt, op. cit., (2.62.11), p. 401

44 Varma, op. cit. p.15  The following incident will illustrate this point more clearly.  I approached one young man, to enquire the cost of the submersible pump for my need.  After receiving all the details when I asked from where he bought his pump, he said, ‘in block.’  Then he said, ‘in every Panchayat Union, they will buy new submersible pump to pump water from bore well to supply water to the people.  Then the Panchayat President with the co-operation of the mechanic and clerk will sell it in block for half rate and will install a second hand pump which the mechanic got it from someone else.  Sometime the influential village head will exchange it for his old pump which needs to be repaired’.  This he said without any guilt or shame conscience but with a spirit of triumph.  The shocking fact for me is that he is the local leader of the leading National party which claims ‘a party with a difference’ and also a member of a right wing Organization which promotes nationalism.

45           ஈன்றாள் பசிகாண்பான் ஆயினும் செய்யற்க

சான்றோர் பழிக்கும் வினை.

M. Rajaram, op. cit. p. 135.

46 Kane, op. cit. Part II, Vol. I. p. 353.

47 ibid. Vol. III. Maintenance And Other Topics. p. 803.

48  This is well attested by Yancey: …As I travel around the world, I see that Christianity brings many improvements to culture.  Education, science, medicine, human rights, democracy, art, charity—all these grew most vigorously from Christian roots, and are stunted in some of the non-Christian countries I visit, Yet when I talk with devout Muslims or Hindus, they bring up the many wars that beset Europe during its most Christian era, and the crime, decadence, and family breakdown that mark the Christian west today. I have no defense against their arguments.—Soul Survivor, op. cit. p. 119

49   Though Gandhiji practiced non-violence in his personal life, the way all his principles failed in India, particularly by his followers, proves how an exception like him to the general rule cannot change the established worldviews that easily even by example.  Above this, Varma says:  Even those who believed in him [Gandhiji] could hardly be expected to be as austere, or as utopian, or as self-denying as him.  But considering the massive following he commanded, why were his values betrayed so easily and almost immediately?—Verma., op. cit. p.18

50 Varma, ibid. p.8.  Further, ‘…In their ambivalent attitude to violence, the Hindus are no different from the rest of us, but they are perhaps unique in the intensity of their ongoing debate about it.’— Wendy Doniger, The Hindus An Alternative History, New Delhi, Penguin/Viking. 2009, p. 11

51  Gandhian ahimsa can be understood by the following account:

…Mr. Gandhi translates ahimsa by ‘love,’ thereby making the idea positive.  It is a spirit or temper like the love that ‘suffereth long and is kind’ (I Cor. 13:4).  And it is to be rationally applied, not in the letter, but in the spirit.  Accordingly, we see Mr. Gandhi agreeing to put a severely wounded calf out if its misery by the administration of an opiate poison, thereby scandalizing the extreme conservatives.  Under the circumstances it was a manifestation of ahimsa.  The implications of this interpretation are frankly faced by Mr. Gandhi, and so he admits that there might conceivably be circumstances when a similar method would be justified in the case of human beings.  In other words, mere non-killing is not ahimsa. True ahimsa is ‘love.’— Hervey De Witt Griswold, Insights into Modern Hinduism, New Delhi, Aryan Books International, op. cit. p. 258

52 Endorsing this view Singh says: By the middle of the first millennium, an Indian cultural package, incorporating political ideas, was on the move. But the idea of nonviolence was not an important part of it. In any case, as has been shown in this book, it is not nonviolence that is the striking feature of ancient Indian political discourse, but a recognition of the tension between violence and nonviolence. This recognition, which emerged from a social ethic that cut across sectarian divides and an engagement, rumination, and debate over more than a thousand years, could not be easily replicated in or transplanted to other lands. It is this tension between violence and nonviolence, reduced to a greatly simplified form by Gandhi and Nehru, that has been central to Indian political thought and civilization from ancient times right down to the present.— Upinder Singh, Political violence in ancient India, London, Harvard University Press, 2017p. 480

53 See Philip Jenkins. Jesus Wars. How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years. New York, Harper One. 2010 for a more historical perspective on this topic.

54 Prof. Arvind Sarma, Chips From An Indic Workshop, Does the Bhagavad Gita advocate war and violence?- McGill University, Motilal Banarsidass Newsletter, December 2002, p.16.

55      இன்னாசெய் தாரை ஒறுத்தல் அவர்நாண

      நன்னயம் செய்து விடல். –M. Rajaram, op. cit. p. 64

56 The subjects should arm themselves for killing that king who does not protect them, who simply plunders their riches….[Bhishma Yudhisthira].— Dutt, Mahabharata, op. cit. Vol. VII,  ANUSHASANA PARVA, Volume VII. Ch. LXI, v. 32. p. 142.  One can find great insight on this subject from Prof. Matilal’s book: The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002

Particularly chapter 3 ‘Moral Dilemmas: Insights from Indian Epics’ in which he says:

To sum up Krsna’s argument:

It is true that truth-telling is the highest virtue but there are mitigating circumstances such as destruction of innocent lives and loss of all possessions under which to tell a lie may be a duty (‘where telling a lie may be as good as “truth” and truth-telling may be as good as lying’). [The Mahabharata (critical edn., various editor, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1928-70, i.49.29] (p. 28) .…It was said by Krsna that, according to him, saving the lives of the creatures should get the highest priority (praaninaam avadhas taata sarvajyaay perjuraan mato mama, Mahabharata, 8.249.20 cr. Ed.).  He clearly ranked the value of saving a life higher than telling the truth.  Here Krsna clearly deviated from Kant, or even from the ideal that was sometimes upheld by Rama in the Ramayana.   In other words, anachronistically speaking, Rama was more Kantian.  But I  believe Krsna’s ethics had a concern for a richer scheme of values, moral or non-moral, presupposing a very complex societal and familial structure.  It also envisions a society when saving innocent lives has a higher priority.(p. 30)

57 …Merchants and money changer set up their booths in the court of the Gentiles in the temple, crowding out the Gentiles who had come from all over the civilized world to worship God.  The merchants sold sacrificial animals at high price, taking advantage of those who had come long distances.  The money changers exchanged all international currency for the special temple coins—the only money the merchants would accept.  They often deceived foreigners who don’t know the exchange rates.  Their commercialism in God’s house frustrated people’s attempts at worship.  This of course, greatly angered Jesus.  Any practice that interferes with worshiping God should be stopped.—Life Application Bible, New International Version, Wheaton, Tyndale House Publishers, 1991. Matthew 21:12. P. 1696

Further, ‘it also should be noted that the whipping was not to punish the merchants but to drive them and their animals out of the outer courtyard.  Jesus” main concern is indicated in His quotation of Is 56:7c, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”  The outer court was as far as foreigners could go in the temple.  How were they to worship there when all the noise and commotion of sales was taking place?  The Father wants all to come to Him and be welcomed to His house.’—Dr. Hoefer, personal communication 26-3-2020

58 Arvind Sharma, Hinduism for our Times, Delhi, Oxford India Paperbacks, 2001, p.28  This reminds me the, ‘simple sophisms aimed at forcing the interlocutor to answer both yes and no to the same question, thus breaching the Law of Contradiction.  The most famous is the Liar: “If you say that you are lying and tell the truth, you are lying; if you say that you are lying and lie, you are telling the truth,”  “Here the speaker concedes both that he is lying and that he is not lying”. [Emile Brehier, The Hellenistic and Roman Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p.4]— McEvilley, Op. cit. p. 435.  It is worth reading what Prof. Matilal says about Kausika episode comparing with Kant:

When Kant asserted that truth-telling should unconditionally get the highest priority, it is interesting to note that an example was cited which was similar to the Kausika story of Krsna.  A contemporary French philosopher criticized it and said that if a murderer had been chasing a person who had taken shelter in the house of a moral agent, it would not be the obligation of the agent to tell the truth to the murderer.  Kant, in reply, argued that truth-telling would be an unconditional obligation, and, therefore, the contingency of the situation should not affect it at all.  Kant, however, made some comments in the appendix of his Critique of Practical Reason which are worth mentioning.  Kant argued that truth-telling, in that case, would not necessarily lead to murder.  For it might not have been easy for the murderer to locate the person who was hiding.  Or the victim might have fled by the back door.  Or, when the murderer would be searching for the victim, the police or other neighbors might rush in as a group to stop the murderer and arrest him.  These remarks of Kant are of interest to us, for they show that even a great philosopher like Kant was trying to find a way out of the tight corner which had arisen as the combined result of his rigid ethical principle and sound logical reason.

               …Kausika had actually four choices open to him.  He could (i) tell a lie, (ii) remain silent, (iii), courageously tell the bandits that he would not help them; and (iv) tell the truth (which he did).  He would have saved an innocent life, if he followed any one of the first three choices… …For, according to some philosophers today, the moral claim is a claim that cannot be avoided even by eliminating desires.  If he had eliminated his desire for heaven, he would have lied to save innocent lives, for that would then have been his moral obligation.—Matilal, Ethics and Epics, op. cit. p. 31

59 Dutt, op. cit. Vol. 2, Vanaparva, pp.450

60 Stephen Neill, The Crises of Belief. pp. 227-228

61 God the Holy Spirit guides us through our sanctified conscience, Scripture, and mandali.  “God is love” (I Jn 4:8), so as we grow closer to Him we become more like Him, for “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 14:10, cf. I Jn 4:19, Jn 15:39) —Dr. Hoefer, Personal communication, 26-3-2020.

62 For a best critic on Gandhi see Josephy Lelyveld, GREAT SOUL: Mahatma Gandhi and His struggle with India, New Delhi, HarperCollins Publishers India, 2011, I never come across such a best critic on Gandhiji’s life and mission.  No one has evaluated the life of Gandhi in totality like Lelyveld. Though in the post independent India many of us who consider Mahatma Gandhi as our model and guru, lament that Gandhism died along with Gandhi, Lelyveld clearly shows that Gandhism died while he was still alive and defeated one other than by Gandhi himself.  It is very difficult disagree with Lelyveld, though difficult to digest such critic against the Father of our nation.

63 Dr. Hoefer, personal communication 26-3-2020

64 ‘Such an approach to scriptural norms as adaptable is in contrast to the Muslim approach to the Quran.  For Muslims, the laws given in the Quran are absolute and to be followed to the letter, for fear of accountability on Judgment Day.’—Dr. Hoefer, personal communication

65 …For a consequentialist opts even for a little bit of well-being or happiness (that is, utility) when he violates a well-established moral principle. For the consequentialist, the consequence must produce more well-being or more happiness. One can obviously produce an argument by which it will be shown that Krsna as a moral agent gave up the principle of moral integrity (assuming that moral integrity is an excellence or value) in order to ensure victory for the right side, that was the Pandavas… So one may say that Krsna as a moral agent gave up moral integrity to avoid a total miscarriage of justice in the end. But this consequence can hardly be measured in terms of happiness or even wellbeing. Anybody who has read the Mahabharata can testify to the fact that the conclusion of the war contributed to nobody’s happiness in particular. The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002, p. 104

66 …Sometimes it is possible for a leader to transcend or breach the rigid code of conduct valued in the society, with the sole idea of creating a new paradigm that will also be acknowledged and esteemed within that order. Our Krsna might be looked upon as a leader of that sort. It may be that he created new paradigms for showing limitations of such a generally accepted moral code of truth-telling and promise-keeping. Sometimes situational constraints and the risk of the loss of the greater good might influence a rational agent to transgress certain valued principles. In this case one might say that a threat posed by Duryodhana’s victory and the consequential loss of the chance of the restoration of justice, might have (p.106) influenced Krsna’s decision to follow the devious course. All these are speculations, but I claim that they are not entirely absent from the moral concerns of the Indian people….—ibid. pp. 106-07

67  O fowler, as the priests officiating at a sacrifice do not gain the merit of the act by offering oblations of clarified butter to the fire, so should I be considered in this (MATTER).48 [The serpent who killed an infant to the Fowler Arjunaka]. (p. 3) …67-68. Everything is done under the influence o Kala. I have said it before. O fowler, the Kala is the cause of all and therefore we both [Mritya and serpent], acting under the influence of Kala, do our appointed work and, therefore, O fowler, we two should not be blamed by you [for the
death of the infant who was killed by the serpent]….67-68. Neither Mrityu, nor this serpent, nor I, O fowler, am guilty of the death of any creature. We are merely the immediate causes of the event. O Arjunaka, the Karma of this child was the exciting cause of our action in this matter….70 As men make from a lump of clay whatever they wish to make, so do men come by various results out of Karma. [Kala to the Fowler].74— M.N.[Manmatha Nath] Dutt, Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimala Publications, 7 vols. 1988, ANUSHASANA PARVA, Volume VII. Ch. I, pp. 3-4

68 See my website for more on this topic.  Particularly in my Review article ‘Disconnected Christianity’.

69 Untrained in theology when I sought the help of Dr. Hoefer to read and comment on this topic on Morality, he gave various insights which helped me a lot.  So I thought of closing this chapter with his theological comments on this topic thanking him for taking time to read and give his valuable comments and insights.

Appendix : Morality

1. For a detailed study on this see Prof. P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Pune, Five volumes,  Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1968-77 (1930-62).

time may even be held not to be aFThis is the highest point reached in Indian metaphysics and combines morality and metaphysics.  That doctrine requires us to regard the goodness or badness of one’s actions from the standpoint of other individuals who will be affected by such actions.  Daksa [III.22] declares `one who desires happiness should look upon another just as he looks upon himself.  Happiness and misery affect one’s self and others in the same way’.  Devala says that the quintessence of dharma is that one should not do to others what would be disliked by one’s self…–P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra,  Vol. I. Part. I. Ch. I. p.7.

…The Dayabhaga says that, if a man takes another’s gold believing it to be iron or takes what is another’s believing [in good faith] that it is his own, Jitendriya held in his remarks on the section of prayascitta that he is not guilty of theft… Vol.I. Part II., 67. Jitendriya, p. 594.

  Though Arthasastra is in theory for keeping to the path of dharma, one cannot blink one’s eyes to the fact that the Mahabharata and the Chattily both support in several places the adoption of means entirely divorced from all rules of fair dealing and morality…- Vol.II. Part I. Ch.I. Rajadharma. p.10.

…So it is clear that the Mahabharata was prepared to give up in certain circumstances the strict rules of dharmasastra for kings and to allow them to pursue devious modes of action that were far from moral i.e. it tries to effect a synthesis of dharmasastra and arthasastra. (sf. Santiparva. Ch.140).–ibid. p. 12.

  The Chattily also discloses how arthasastra writers did not shrink from giving advice which, to say the least, was most cruel, selfish and immoral [p.12]…In V.2 for replenishing a depleted treasury Chattily coolly asks the king to deprive the temples in the kingdom of their wealth through the superintendent of religious endowments.–ibid. pp.12-13.

…Manu XI.16-17 says that when a person has had no food for three days he may take away [by theft even] from one who is lower than himself in class as much corn as will be enough for one day, either from the threshing floor or from the field or from his house or from whatever place he can get it, but he should announce his action when the owner asks… ibid. Vol.II. Part.I, Ch.III. The duties, disabilities and privileges of the Varnas.[ Brahmanas and low avocations] p. 134.

…Though Chattily recommends all sorts of tricks and treachery for securing a victory, the [p.208] Mahabharata holds up a high ideal.  The Bhismaparva 21.10 remarks that conquerors do not secure victory so much by their armies and prowess as by truthfulness, freedom from cruelty, the observance of dharma and energetic actions.  The Santiparva [95.17-18] states that it is better to die while fighting according to the rules of dharma rather than obtain a victory by wicked actions.

  In the Bhismaparva [I.27-32] certain rules of war agreed upon between the Kauravas and the Pandavas are set out, such as one should fight only with one similarly equipped [i.e. a foot-soldier with a foot-soldier and so on], one should not kill a soldier who is already in combat with another, or who has turned back from fight or is without armour…Yuddha-kanda 18.27-28 contain rules of war dictated by noble sentiments of humanity and chivalry.  Some of these [that will bear comparison with the conventions of the Geneva and Hague Conferences] are setout here…Manu [VII.90-93] declares “one should not fight with treacherous [p.209]  (or concealed) weapons, or with barbed or poisoned weapons or with weapons the points of which are blazing with fire.  Let a fighter not strike one who has climbed on an eminence, nor a eunuch, nor one who joins the palms of his hand [in supplication], nor one with flying hair [in flight], nor one who sits down or says `I am thine’, nor one who is asleep, nor one who has lost armour, nor one who is naked or disarmed, nor one who is merely looking on without taking part in the fight, nor one who is fighting with another foe, nor one whose weapons are broken, nor one who is afflicted with sorrow, nor one seriously wounded, nor one who is in fear, nor one who has turned to flee.  Sankha adds that a soldier should not kill another while the later is drinking water or taking his meals or is taking off his shoes, nor should one kill a woman, a female elephant, nor a charioteer, nor a bard nor a brahmana nor should one who is not a king [or noble] kill one who is a king…These rules, though probably ideal and not strictly followed in every case, are far more humane as compared with the practice in modern warfare when non-combatants are killed from the air even at night without warning.  In ancient times non-combatants went generally unmolested, to which Megasthenes bears testimony when he says [Frag I.p.32] `Tillers of the soil even when battle is raging in the neighborhood are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested.’..–ibid. Ch.VIII. The Army. pp.208-10.

…The authors on Dharmasastra had a very low estimate of human nature, they believed that ordinarily men were depraved, that it was difficult to find a man pure by nature and that men were kept in the straight path by the fear of punishment [Manu VII.22=Santi 15.34].  Yaj.I.361 requires the king to punish and bring to the proper path castes and guilds when they swerve from their dharma.  Kam. [II.40 and 42-43] says the same thing and adds that in the absence of danda the world will revert to the state of matsya-nyaya [the strong devouring the weak].  Sukra I.23 says the same thing.  The ancient writers did not rely on the natural moral impulses of man and on his will to do the right thing.  The same ideas are expressed by some Western writers on law and politics…–ibid. Ch.X The Purpose of the Study of Rajadharma. p.238

…Vas. [19.40-43] prescribes one day’s fast for the king and three days’ fast for the purohita when the king lets off those that deserve punishment and three days’ fast for the king and the krcchra penance for the purohita when the king punishes the innocent…–ibid. Ch. XI. Vyavahara [Law and administration of Justice] p. 242.

…a physician, who undertook the medical treatment of a patient without informing [government officers] of the dangerous nature of the disease, was to be punished with the first amercement if the patient died and with the middling fine if the patient died through the carelessness of the physician and if the patient suffered some vital injury, the matter was to be dealt with as assault [dandaparusya]…In IV.2 Kautilya prescribes fines against merchants…that raise the prices beyond those fixed by the superintendent of commerce for local commodities and for foreign produce…-ibid. Ch. Ch.XI. Law and administration of justice. p. 253.

…In this chapter [IV] Kaut. states that one who charges an innocent man with being a thief or who conceals a thief is to be punished like a thief and that even one who is not a thief may for fear of torture admit that he is a thief… Kaut in IV in IV.9…provides punishment for judges that threaten, browbeat, send out or unjustly silence or abuse litigants or that do not ask proper questions or ask improper questions, that cause unnecessary delay, unjustly rehear causes that have been heard or disposed of, and porridges heavy punishments [p.255] for releasing persons jailed or for rape on a woman in a lock-up…-ibid. Ch.KS. Law and administration of justice/Chattily on punishment. pp. 255-56.

…Nar. [IV.86-87] declares that one who pleads mere possession and no title at all should be considered a thief on account of his putting forward the deceptive plea of possession [which even a thief can assert] and that the king should punish as a thief one who enjoys a property even for hundreds of years without title.  All that this last verse means is that the person in possession must prove legal origin or such a long possession that there is no possibility of an inference that the possession of his ancestor originated is wrong…-ibid. VII. Bhoga  [possession]/ Title and possession. p. 318.

…In the Mahabharata frequent reference is made to the permission to speak untruth in ordinary life when one’s own life or another’s life is in imminent danger.  Vide Santi. 45.35, 109.19.  It is stated in Santi 165.30 that speaking falsely is not a sin in five cases viz. in jest, to women, at the time of [i.e. in bringing about] a marriage, for the preservation of great wealth and for one’s life…–ibid.Ch.XIII. Witnesses/When false evidence was not condemned. p. 353.

…A breach that is held to be a crime at one time may even be held not to be a crime at another time or in another country.  For example, adultery is a crime under the Indian Penal Code [sec.497], while it is not a crime but a civil wrong in English Law.–ibid. Ch.XV. Decision/Evolution of the idea of crime. p. 386.

…Br. lays down that preceptors, purohitas and sons should be sentenced to the punishment of wordy admonition, other persons who engage in disputes should be punished with reproof or fines and those guilty of mahapatakas should be punished with corporal punishment.  That admonition and reproof were two modes of punishment shows that ancient writers were alive to the notion that among very sensitive persons or in a very sensitive society verbal condemnation would be enough to achieve the main purposes of punishment …-ibid.Ch.XV. Decision/Methods of punishment. p. 391.

…a person offering the bribe should not be fined, but the intermediary may be fined and if the perosn accepting the bribe has been appointed to an office bythe king he should be made to return the bribe and pay a fine eleven times as much to the king [Kaut. 650-51]…-ibid. Ch.XIX. Dattanapakarma [resumption of gift]/Invalid gifts. p. 473

…If a hired servant, after receiving his wages, does not do the work agreed to be done though able to do so, he should be made to repay to the employer the wages received and a fine equal to double of the wages and if he had not received wages but left the work without cause he should be made to pay to the employer an amount equal to the wages [Yaj.II.193,Nar.IX.5,Br.in S.B.E. vol.33 p. 345 verse 15]…-ibid. Ch.XX.Non-payment of wages, non-rendition of service, dispute between master and herdsman. pp. 477.

…Kat. 9660] provides that a master deserting on a journey his servant that is tired or falls ill should be fined the first amercement if he does not wait for three days in the village…-ibid. Ch. XX. p. 480.

…one should not open a window [so as to command a view] in the interior of another’s house or open a spout [that will drain off water] on to another’s house.  One should construct places [pits] for depositing ordure, urine and filthy water, a fireplace and a pit at a distance of at least two cubits from the walls of other people [his neighbours] and should not construct these very near to another’s house [vide also Br. S.B.E. vol.33 p. 354 verses 25-26. -ibid. Ch.XXII. Boundary disputes/Nuisance on public road or near building. pp. 507-08.

…Manu IX.282 prescribes the fine of two karsapanas for voiding or dropping ordure on the public road in the absence of distress and requires the wrongdoer to clean the road, but Manu [IX.283] makes an exception in the case of persons diseased, very old men, a pregnant woman and a child, who are not to be fined but only reproved for voiding ordure on the road…-ibid. Ch.XXII. Boundary disputes/Nuisance on public road or near building. p. 508.

…Ironic praise of a man [such as describing one who is blind of one eye as one endowed with a beautiful eye] is made punishable by Kaut. [III.18]…-ibid. Ch.XXIII. Abuse and defamation; assault/Punishment for abuse. p. 513.

…The Mit. on Yaj.II.212 following Nr.XVIII.7-12 lays down certain propositions about both abuse and assault.  A person who does not return abuse or does not assault when abused or assaulted, deserves to be commended; if he returns the abuse or assaults in return, the person who began the quarrel is to be dealt with more severely than the other…-ibid. Ch.XXIII. p. 514

…Vyasa quoted by Sm. C.I. p. 175 allows a man to commit even theft, when he is in distress for food, first from a person of a lower caste, then from one of the same caste and then from one of a higher caste…-ibid. Ch.XXIV. Theft/Views on punishment of thieves. p. 524

…The smrtis made a distinction as regards punishments between crimes of violence and crimes due to negligence or mistake.  for example, Manu VIII.264 [Matsya 227.30] prescribes a fine of 500 panas for depriving a man of his house, garden or field by threats of violence, but only prescribes a fine of two hundred if a man deprives another of his house etc. by mistake.–ibid. Ch.XXIV. Theft. p. 528

…Conceding for the sake of argument that indulgence in gambling even on the part of such a virtuous, noble and philosophic warrior as Yudhisthira was justified or at least excusable, there is nothing to show that the code of ksatriya chivalry permitted him to gamble away his own spirited, devoted and virtuous queen and his four valiant brothers.  It appears that the real aim of the great author of the Mahabharata is to emphasize that gambling is such a reprehensible pastime and so ruinous and degrading that even the greatest and the best, when once they indulge in it, lose all sense of duty, morality and of the claims of love and affection…-ibid. Ch.XXVI. Gambling and prize-fighting. p. 542

…A verse quoted by Medhatithi on Manu III.72 and IV.251, by the Mit. on Yaj.I.224 and II.175 and occurring in some mss. of the Manusmrti after XI.10 provides, `Manu declares that one must maintain one’s aged parents, a virtuous wife and a minor son by doing even a hundred bad acts’…-ibid. Vol.III. Ch.XXXI. Maintenance And Other Topics. p. 803.

…Ancient Hindu Law attached the highest spiritual importance to the payment of debts.  Therefore debts contracted by a Hindu are held by the Courts to take precedence over the right of maintenance of a man’s wife, his infant child or his widow after his death.  Similarly debts contracted by the manager of the joint family of which the widow’s husband was a member would take precedence over the widow’s right of maintenance, provided the debts were for the benefit of the family or were for legal necessity.–ibid. Ch.XXXI. Maintenance and Other Topics. p. 816.

2. Out of 570 poems in the first volume (total 10 volumes), I come across 102 poems on this subject alone.  Of course, the common explanation on such poems is that Vallalar, imposing the sins of others on him, plead with god to overcome such evil.  Whereas as, a saint he was above such evils in his personal life. Though Vallalar seek god’s grace to overcome several temptations, I am giving few songs related to womanizing, as representative of such temptations in the appendix 2.  Womanizing is one among the three great temptations, the other two being: lust for land (power) and gold/wealth, known in Tamil and other Indian languages as: mannasai, pennaasai, ponnasai.

                                                            Chapter Five

Scriptures as the foundation

No other religion in the world is based more on books than Hinduism.  In general, both Christianity and Islam are thought to be religions of the `book’; whereas, Hinduism is the religion of experience (anubhava).  But the fact is that the importance of scriptures in most of the sectarian faiths in Hinduism is vast (see Gita. 4:28; 16:24).¹  Of course on the popular level, people never pay much attention to any  scripture,  and mere ritual and family tradition guides them in their religious life.  But in general, among the mainline sects of Hinduism, scripture(s) is the foundation of their faith. 

So in my case too, being born in a Brahmin family and following the smarta (smrti based) tradition² I too was familiar with various scriptures from my boyhood.  Of course it is wrong to compare the role of the Muktiveda or the Quran among Christians and Muslims with the scriptures of any particular sect within Hinduism.  However high and educated a Hindu might be, unless they have special leaning to learn the scriptures, most of the time their faith is guided by their particular family tradition and not by the scripture of their sampradaya (sect).  At the same time, the average Hindu cannot escape from the influence of at least some scriptures in their lives from childhood.  The slokas chanted, mantras learnt, bhajans sung and learned etc. are often from scripture.  Even in several important cultural and family functions in families like ours, only songs related to gods (about some events in the life of gods) will be sung. 

For example, most of the time in the marriage ceremony during ‘unjal ‘Nalungu’³ etc., the women will only sing songs related to the marriage of Sita-Rama or Meenakshi-Sundaresa, entertaining and teasing the newly married couple.  Even on the first evening when the bride and groom are prepared and sent to begin their married life, after leaving them in the room, two elderly ladies will stand outside the door and sing Vallik Kalyanam (the marriage of Valli by lord Murugan).  Of course nowadays such colorful and joyful events are fast disappearing.  However, music and songs from the religious world are still in use in childbirth, in any life event ceremonies (sanskaras) and even in death (in a few castes).

Muktiveda and Faith

So from my boyhood, I also grew up listening and learning many bhajans, songs, slokas and mantras.  Many poems and songs (bhajans) that I still remember are those that I learned by hearing and not by reading.  Naturally, when I became a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, the Muktiveda was brought to the center of my faith.  Sometimes even the Muktiveda pushed the Lord from the center in some extreme cases. I do continue to read and meditate on the Muktiveda daily.  Of course, (even today) its prose form has never appealed to me, and I cannot remember many verses by heart; though, I can quote them in paraphrase.

Faith vs. bhakti

Though I learnt the Hindu scriptures in my teens by reading them as they were, I rarely had any opportunity to interpret them using a commentary.  Of course in several sat-sanghs, which I attended, the Hindu scripture was explained, illustrated and narrated, but they were done not from the point of theology or doctrine but to promote bhakti.  This clashed with my understanding of the Muktiveda.  In the churches too, the Muktiveda is preached more to help the believers to grow in their faith rather than for theological or doctrinal purposes.  However, the importance of the Muktiveda for a believer is more to understand it intellectually than to read it like any sectarian scripture.  At the same time it needs to be acknowledged that I have seen several Christians reading Muktiveda exactly like the sectarian scriptures read by the Hindus.  Even one can find ‘Golden Verses’ calendar in several Christian houses where one verse from Muktiveda, that too full of blessings and promises of the Lord will be printed for each day for every month, which is used by many Christians to substitute to read Muktiveda separately as part of everyday sadhana.

Muktiveda only:

From day one, in my encounter with the Lord, I was given the Muktiveda with the suggestion to read and reread it again and again for everything.  Even I had heard the slogan that one can read the Muktiveda without prayer, but one cannot pray without reading the Muktiveda.  Furthermore, the warning that we often heard is that the Muktiveda will keep you away from the devil or the devil will keep you away from the Muktiveda.⁴ So, I sincerely began to read it. 

Muktiveda in my life:

I was introduced to the Muktiveda during my school days. I used to go to Sunday school along with my Christian friend to a neighbourhood church.  In the competition, I won most of the prizes and certificates for memorizing Muktiveda verses and songs.  After Sunday school, I also participated in the church service.  Though I remember those incidents, I never understood much about the Muktiveda at that time.  When I became a teenager and began to read many books, I must have also read the Uttara Veda (NT) because as per my custom, I recorded important verses in my quotation notebooks in those days.  But I don’t clearly remember very much about it, except that after I became a bhakta of the Lord, when I saw one of my oldest quotation notebooks, I found that I recorded several Muktiveda verses in it.

Muktiveda and other scriptures

But what I was missing in the early formation days of my faith in the Lord were the songs (poems, bhajans) which alone appealed to my heart and mind, like my Hindu scriptures.  Though hundreds and thousands of songs are there, yet in my formative days, what I heard and learnt mostly were what we call ‘gospel’ songs.  Of course I sung and learnt several songs to worship praise and give thanks, yet I felt that I was missing something, which I couldn’t articulate or share with anyone at that time.  However, because I was interested in writing poems, I also began to write poems (bhajans) of various kinds.  Initially, I wrote them to fulfill my longing to sing in my traditional form, since those gospel songs were only sung with non-classical music. 

The reason for saying this is that I couldn’t easily forget most of the songs that I had learnt from the Hindu scriptures.  Now the question that came to me is what to do with them because whenever I read the Muktiveda or wanted to share its message from my heart, those bhajans, poems and songs spontaneously came to my mind.    Apart from this, I spent my time learning the Muktiveda in depth and reading commentaries along with it.  And in this process, several slokas, poems, bhajans from Hindu scriptures helped me to understand my bhakti in the Lord in a deeper way.  Of course, now the Lord has completely liberated me from all kinds of narrow perspectives about our Hindu scriptural heritage, I am using them a lot in my writing and personal discussion about our bhakti with other bhaktas. Of course in the churches, they have several hymns, but because I was not familiar with church I rarely heard such songs.  Even when I heard them, sometimes I still missed something within me, as some kind of ‘Christian music’ spoiled the pure carnatic format in those songs.

Inspiration and scriptures

Though I never read commentaries on Hindu scriptures while I was reading them, when I began to read the Muktiveda with the commentaries, several comparisons came to my mind.  For example, the question of inspiration comes up.  If we claim that the Muktiveda is written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then how can we explain many of the devotional songs in Hindu Scriptures?  Particularly the Tiruvasagam and some of the Alvar’s poems are so moving that they bring tears when one sings with the spirit of those saints.  It is often said that while the Muktivedic writings are inspired by god and therefore revealed, the Hindu scriptures, however sincere they are, only expresses the longing of the human heart and mind and are not a revelation from god. Furthermore, when I began to read other Sanskrit works (of course with the help of translation), particularly the Upanishads and Gita and other Hindi works by Kabir, Tulsidas, Meerabai etc., I was deeply moved by the in-depth reach of them about the need of spirituality, bhakti, grace, sin, salvation etc.  How anyone could write such deep thoughts without some kind of inspiration from god, was the question that often came to my mind.

Muktiveda vs. other scriptures

I wondered how to use those Hindu scriptures which helped and shaped my spiritual and religious life?  Can I reject them totally or should I incorporate them to express my devotion and faith in the Lord?  Of course I am not the only person who has struggled in this area, and there were several pioneers in this field like Brahmabandab Upadhyaya, Narayan Vaman Tilak, and Vedanayagam Sastriyar to list only a few.  While reading, understanding, using and applying Hindu scriptures various views were emerging. In the liberal circle and even several sincere evangelicals compared them to that of the Purva Veda (Old Testament); whereas, several hard-core evangelicals outright rejected them as the devil’s work.  But for a person like me, it is hard to go to one extreme, yet at the same time, taking a middle path is not easy, because it not only involves ‘use’ and ‘abuse’, ‘compromise’ and ‘syncretism’ but it also challenges the theological field as well. How to remain faithful to the Muktiveda and at the same time appreciate the role played by the Hindu scriptures in my search and growth in spiritual life was the challenge before me.

Faith and Scripture

One major difference between Hinduism (and its allied branches like Buddhism, Jainism etc.) and other religions (here mainly Christianity and Islam) is that though innumerable scriptures shaped the course of Hinduism, yet for a practicing Hindu the scriptures never have had the same importance like that of the Muktiveda or Quran for a Christian and Muslim.⁵ Of course, when it comes to the popular level, all the people remain on the same board.  However, while in Christianity and Islam the faith and orthodoxy are decided by their respective scriptures, in Hinduism it is decided more by the family tradition.  Now, once they become a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, at least for every new bhakta, suddenly the Muktiveda becomes very important.  Then they have to reorient their religious-cum-spiritual life from their old ways to accommodate the new demand of the Muktiveda based faith and practice.  But, as I already liked reading the scriptures, I easily adjusted to this new way, though initially (and even now) I found it difficult to read a scripture in prose from the poetic form of Hindu scriptures (which is very easy to memorize and remember).  At the same time, I challenged the protestant Christian’s overemphasis on the Muktiveda by pointing out that only in the last two to three centuries has the Muktiveda been moved to the center of the protestant Christian faith.  Until the Muktiveda was translated and printing was invented, it was within the closed circles of the priests and theologians, whereas lay people, like Hindus, kept their faith alive by clinging to their tradition, based as well on their personal experience.

One time in a meeting held at Hyderabad, in our small group discussion (after the combined meeting, we were divided in small group with two or three to discuss) when one person told that ‘Bible holds the final authority’ with a smile I asked him ‘where in the Muktiveda one can find such verse’?  Taken back by my question, though he tried to give various explanations quoting few verses in which the importance of Muktiveda as the inspired Word of god were used, finally asked me ‘then what is your stand in this?’  Later in my response (but not in the group discussion or in the meeting) in the afternoon I told that how sometimes because of over zeal evangelicals coin several such (unbiblical) slogans and terms and super impose in the Muktiveda.  After a long sharing I said, ‘for me the Lord holds the final authority. But to know and understand this I need the help and guidance of the Word of god and other bhaktas (or mandali)’.⁶ 

Regarding Muslims, they believe that the Quran is eternal book that was transmitted to earth intact through Prophet Mohammad.⁷ Therefore, Muslims allow only revered scholars to interpret and apply it.  Ordinary Muslims must memorize certain verses for their prayers because on hearing His own words respectfully recited, god listens.⁸ In regard, its use may be similar to the way some Hindus use their Sanskrit mantras.

Muktiveda as the resource of experience

However, my point is that though we cannot limit god’s revelation only to the Muktiveda, yet when it comes to Muktinath, there is no other resource except the Muktiveda from which we can begin even our experience.  But the big problem is that in the first few centuries no ‘Muktiveda’ existed in the sense in which we now use it to reveal many things about the Lord.  The life that touched and transformed the lives of the immediate shishyas of the Lord were transmitted (orally) ⁹ through personal experience as well as with the limited epistles and other sayings of the Lord that were known among the mandali .  In such contexts what they ‘know’ and ‘understood’ was less, but what they ‘experienced’ was sufficient to keep their faith alive in the Lord.¹⁰

Faith vs. Muktiveda?

Having said this, if I’m asked the question, ‘Which one is important?  Faith based on personal experience or (clear) understanding of the Muktiveda’? I would respond that for us or me, who are living in 21^st century, faith in the Lord is not possible without the help of the Muktiveda.  I personally feel that there is no point in defending ‘experience’ against the ‘Word of god’ by quoting the bhaktas of the Lord before the Muktiveda was canonized or printing was invented.  If we cannot limit god’s revelation only within the Word of god, then equally or more than that we cannot limit god’s revelation only within personal experience.  God deals with people where they are.  Even today in several places in the world, many uneducated people come to know the Lord and even grow in their faith without any deep understanding of the Muktiveda. Anyway, none of us can claim that we really know and understand the Muktiveda, we know so little.  .  

Understanding part of experience:

When I become a bhakta of the Lord, I never had much knowledge about the Muktiveda (except what I learnt in the Sunday classes in my school days).  But the few things which I read from the Muktiveda and the sharing of the other bhaktas encouraged me to give Him a chance to prove what I was seeking in my life.  Then the growth was both ‘experience’ and ‘understanding’ of the Muktiveda.  Even in the early days, I wrote poems to express my devotion not with any proper understanding of the Muktiveda.  But god does not expect me to be stranded within my ‘experience’ alone.  As I began to understand the Muktiveda, I even made several corrections in some of the songs, which I found not agreeing with Muktivedic truth, but only an expression of my own ‘wishful’ thinking.  At the same time I still keep certain poems which neither the Muktiveda endorses nor opposes. They express the cultural and religious background of me as a Hindu.¹¹ I don’t know what to do with those kinds of poems.  But I won’t use them for worship with the mandali.  Because, public worship is an occasion for building up bhakti, not discussing controversial and divisive topics.

Muktiveda as the source of faith

Now god wants me to grow more in my experience in all the areas of my life, but where do learn about it?  Do I learn from the world, my own experience, or Indian scriptures, which some will claim equal to the revelation of god?  Now should I turn back to my past experience as well as what other Hindus are doing?  As far as my knowledge goes, no Hindu is going to read their (sectarian) scripture to know what is the will/mind of god for their life or how to respond to life’s situations, problems etc.  They are mostly living based on their values, worldview and dharmic ideals.  Though the Christians claim that they get direction, correction etc. from the Muktiveda, as far as my observation goes, each bhakta in the Lord, most of the times lives as per the worldview of their society.  Maybe they would use different terms like ‘will of god’, ‘purpose of god’ etc.; whereas, the Hindus would use ‘fate’ ‘karma’ etc.  Now amidst all this influence, as a bhakta of Muktinath, where do I turn to get help to grow in my faith?  I believe it is definitely the Muktiveda.¹² Because ‘All Scripture (here the context is definitely Muktiveda and not other scriptures) is god-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (read as dharma), so that the bhakta of god may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (action).’ (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Whenever any issue comes in my life, often the guidance and rebuke that comes to my mind is only from the Muktiveda—though many times I might not follow it.  So god expects me to know what He has revealed to me through the Muktiveda and not to ignore it by giving more preference to experience.  God knows how to deal with each one of us.  He knows how to guide an uneducated person, who cannot read or write but has faith in the Lord.  However, His expectation of me is not the same.  Because He gave me the opportunity to read and understand the Muktiveda, I cannot now ‘bury’ it at the excuse of ‘experience’.  As our emotions also are sin-ridden and corrupted, we can easily project our own desire as god’s will and call.  That is why the objective revelation of Scripture is much more reliable and authoritative than our experience.

An academic view of salvation:

The Lord is the center of our Bhakti not the Muktiveda. This may seem trivial, but often it seems some people tend to substitute one for the other to their own loss.   Like the mysterious concept of the Trinity that emerges from the Muktiveda, the relationship between the Written Word (the Muktiveda) and the Living Word (the Lord) is very difficult and looks artificial to explain.  However, as the Holy Spirit points to and reveals the Lord, the purpose of the Muktiveda is to point to the Lord and not to replace him.  Means never becomes an end.  In eternity, we will be with the Lord, the Living Word and not the written word, as we have here.  Insistence on reading Muktiveda as part of everyday sadhana will impose a uniform discipline for everyone.  But God and a bhakta knows what kind of sadhana is best for one.  So celebrating pluralism, we should leave it to the choice of every bhakta, at the same time highlighting the importance of scripture in our bhakti.

The Importance of the Muktiveda:

This subject of scripture is a very big topic on which one could write a separate book, so I am limiting myself in this Living Dialogue.  Once I became the bhakta of the Lord, my entire religious-cum-spiritual orientation completely changed.  Naturally not only in my bhakti but in my sharing, writing, thinking etc. scripture has played a dominant role.  When I wrote poems on various gods before I became a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I didn’t need to worry too much about (my) theology or other scriptures in Hinduism.  What I wrote was my experience, and it did not need to agree with any of the scriptures, and I could even contradict and go against any of the theology of any scripture.  Of course when I wrote poems in those days, I never knew theology or doctrine existed.  But when I began to write poems after I became a bhakta of the Lord, I now had to wrestle within myself on these issues.  Not all of my poems are Muktivedically sound and so I do not share all of those with everyone.¹³ I share the ones that I know are theologically correct with others, but the ones that I am not sure of being theologically correct, I keep only for my personal enjoyment.  (See my website for many such poems)

Muktiveda and a bhakta’s struggle:

Every new bhakta of the Lord coming from any other background other than that of a Christian has to wrestle with several issues related to the Muktiveda at one time or another in their life.  Many new ‘converts’ try to live by faith and carry on their bhakti not allowing these issues to disturb them. Yet when the Muktiveda is brought up as a point of reference, either to control or guide them in their struggle with their continuous relationship with their natural family and community, then they face the challenge.  A list of do’s and don’ts will be there for them to follow.  Many in the list won’t be Muktivedic.  Not knowing much about the Muktiveda, most of the converts would take the list and interpretation as Muktivedic and will struggle on both sides (in the church and natural family) for their identity.  Though I too had similar identity crises, fortunately I found time and resources to reflect seriously on those issues. [see more on this ‘Conversion Question’ in the blog]

Faith and Hindu scriptures

The most difficult part of the struggle was the question of what to do with my Hindu scriptures because I cannot avoid their influence in my life on various levels.  It would be easy for any convert, who rejects their Hindu roots and becomes a Christian to take any position.  But, when remaining a Hindu and bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I cannot and will not disown my heritage. 

At the same time, I don’t want to use the term preparatio evangelica—that Hindu scriptures prepared me to follow Muktinath or led me to Him.  And once they served their purpose, now I can discard them once and for all.  Likewise, I never agree that Muktinath fulfilled all that the Hindu scriptures say.  As some fulfill-mentalists (those who believed in Fulfillment theory that Muktinath fulfilled many things in Hinduism) claim, Muktinath and the Muktiveda is not the ‘Crown of Hinduism’, as Farquhar claimed in His book: ‘Crown of Hinduism’.

All Scriptures part of Common grace?

One way of resolving this issue is to give less authority to the Hindu scriptures than what the Muktiveda has for us. However, we still do recognize them as the witness of god’s revelation because He has never left any one without a witness for Himself in their heart, mind, culture and tradition.  Though they are not the inspired Word of god, as we believe and claim about Muktiveda, yet they witness for the common revelation of god.  I have said several times that they express the human longing to reach and understand god.  In other words, though they are not ‘from’ god, they are ‘about’ god, of course seeking with their own limitation not receiving the saving grace but only common grace, which He shows to everyone, are His own creation.  But here I have to confess that this view about Hindu scriptures that they are not ‘from’ god and do not have saving grace will irritate a sincere Hindu who believes her scripture is also ‘from’ God and have ‘saving’ grace.  Respecting such view and acknowledging their reverence for their scriptures, what I stated here is my understanding about both Muktiveda and Hindu scripture, particularly related to my bhakti in Muktinath.  It is a reflection of a single-minded devotion to a chosen deity it is not a mark of fanaticism but expression of personal conviction.  It does not condemn or disrespect others’ faith, convictions and scriptures.

Muktiveda’s authority

Can we say that the Hindu Scriptures can play the same role as the Purva Veda for the Jews—showing or preparing to receive the saving grace of god in Muktinath?  This will create problems because the Uttara Veda (New Testament) is not a separate revelation from god, but it is a continuation of the Purva Veda in every sense not only theologically but historically too.  So personally, I find it difficult to replace the Purva Veda with Hindu Scriptures or to even give them equal place with the Purva Veda.¹⁴  I have never reached a conclusion on this subject and hope god will one day enlighten me on this issue. After reading some books, particularly by N.T. Write,¹⁵ now I am convinced that I cannot discard Purva Veda and Uttara Veda is a continuous part of the whole Muktiveda.¹⁶   For now, I read Hindu scriptures (even memorize them), use them and enjoy them with all the respect that I should give to any scripture of other faiths.  But for my personal faith and guidance for my day-to-day life in the Lord, I only trust the Muktiveda.  For me, in my need, god speaks to me through His Word from the Muktiveda.  Of course Gandhiji said the same thing that he turns to Bhagavad Gita for guidance and comfort amidst disappointments.¹⁷

Muktiveda a Covenant Scripture

For me, one main reason that the Hindu scriptures cannot replace the Purva Veda is that the Uttara Veda is written in the same context of covenant promise and fulfillment of god to His people (not only to Jews).  If we can say in a simple way that while the gospels are the biographical sketch of the Lord, the epistles are the theological work, particularly in the Sevanand’s (Pauline) epistles, where he faithfully demonstrates that the covenant promise of god is now fulfilled in the Lord.  Though Sevanand was sensitive to the local context while addressing the ethical, moral, social and cultural issues, yet when it comes to the theology, he was uncompromising and with strong conviction proved the covenant fulfillment by the Lord.  Nowhere can we find any glimpse of any covenant-related thought in any Hindu scriptures.  Of course as I said above, we can see in the Hindu scriptures a universal witness for god, yet neither are they the prototype to the Uttara Veda nor a continuation of the Purva Veda.  Liberal Christians may challenge this view and Hindu scholars can object to such an attitude towards their scriptures.  But unless I am convinced otherwise, I will remain true to this present position.

Thus, although the Muktiveda as the scripture for building up our bhakti is vital, at the same time, a Hindu bhakta of the Lord Muktinath cannot run away from the (Hindu) worldview, which shaped her spirituality through its sectarian and popular scriptures.  However, experience is upheld as center in Hinduism and rejected in some Christian circles, a balanced view of scripture(s), experience and our understanding of it alone can help us to grow more in the Lord. 

                       NOTES

1 ‘Others again offer as sacrifice their wealth or their austerities or their yoga (spiritual exercises) while others of self restraint and rigid vows offer study of the scriptures and knowledge as sacrifice. (4:28) ‘Therefore, let the scripture be the authority in determining what ought to be done and what ought not to be done.  Having known what is said in the ordinance of the scripture, though shouldst act there in this world. (16:24)—Gita Press, Gorakhpur.

2 …The King desires to participate in the sacred level of the Brahman, but through performing rituals for the King the Brahman becomes entangled in the world and moves away from the ideal of transcendence.  The marvellous myths of the Puranas can be seen as reflecting attempts by a group of Brahmans called Smartas, the followers of secondary revelation (smrti), to bring diversity under a single, overarching and controlling system during the Gupta and post-Gupta period (300-700 CE).— Introduction: Establishing the Boundaries, Gavin Flood, in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Gavin Flood (ed.), UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Indian Reprint 2003, p.8.  Generally the smarta Brahmans (also called as Vadama in Tamilnadu) are considered superior to other divisions as noted by Champakalakshmi:

…That the Smarta brahmanas (Vedic scholars and performers of Vedic sacrifices) are treated as being superior to the Adi Saivas or the Saiva brahmanas and gurukkals or temple priests is a well known fact of Tamil society….— Champakalakshmi, ‘From Devotion and Dissent to Dominance: The Bhakti of the Tamil Alvars and Nayanars’, in Religion, Tradition, and Ideology: Pre-colonial South India, Oxford, New Delhi (2011), 2012, p. 62

3 In the morning before tying the mangalyam, the couple will be made to sit on a swing and women will sing songs to bless them with few rituals.  Nalungu is done after the marriage to tease both the bride and groom ask them to play various games with coconut, putting ring in a pot full of water and ask them to take first etc.  These are mostly limited to South Indian marriages.

4 In one Youtube message one person (from the West) explains how reading the bible four times in a week will help to overcome so many hardships, vices, evil etc. See Bible Matters at https://youtu.be/wNWvxexMri0.

5  However Dr. Hoefer points out that ‘the original language of the Bible is not crucial in Christianity, as it is for the Quran and the Vedas.  The Bible is not the source for chanting or ritual.  Its prime purpose is to bring us in relationship with Him and edify us to become like Him (II Tim 3:16-17).—Personal communication, 3-5-2020

6The authority of the Bible arose at the time of the Reformation as the alternative to the authority of the Church and the papacy.  The Bible becomes authoritative for those who have come into relationship with Jesus.  Our faith is in Him, and then the Bible becomes authoritative because it brings us Him.—Dr. Hoefer, Personal communication, 3-5-2020.

7 …For Muslims the Quran is the word of God—His very word.  It is more central to Islamic theology than the Bible is for Christians or the Torah is for Jews. It is the divine presence.  It is the mediator of divine will and grace. For instance, as Christian theological discussion might focus on the virgin birth of Christ as the proof of his divine nature, so Islamic theological discussion might focus on the Quran, on its matchlessness, as the guarantee of its divine character ‘Quran’ itself means ‘recitation’, al-Quran, the recitation or the reading out aloud.  It is through being read out aloud that the Quran is realized and received as divine.¹⁰  Pious Muslims strive to learn as much of it as possible by heart….

               The Quran was always transmitted orally.   This was how the Prophet transmitted the messages he had received from God to his followers.  When, a few years after the Prophet’s death, these messages came to be written down, it was only as an aid to memory and oral transmission.  This has been the function of the written Quran ever since.  Telling evidence for the essential orality of the Quran and its transmission is that in the 1920s the Egyptian standard edition was produced not from a study of variant manuscript versions but from a study of the fourteen different traditions of recitation.—ibid. Islam and the Impact of Print in South Asia, Francis Robinson. Pp. 62-97, in, Nigel Crook, ed. The Transmission of Knowledge in South Asia: Essays on Education, Religion, History, and Politics, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 65

10. An outstanding analysis of the essential orality of the Quran is to be found in William A. Grahmam, Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 79-115.

8 I am thankful to Dr. Hoefer for sharing this point.  He further adds, ‘In the Islamic view, the Quran is an eternal book, totally perfect.  They would say, “If you can find any untruth in the Quran, our faith is a lie.

9 As a digression here I need to bring out the importance of oral tradition in various religious traditions which played a vital place in transmitting the faith to the followers by their acharyas and gurus.  See my Secular song 543 more on my view. 

10  Of course it was not based only on experience that Christians kept their faith alive.  The church used to teach them using different methods, particularly using symbols.  For example,

…when books were still the rare and costly possessions of the privileged because printing had not as yet been invented, walls and windows were used to embody the Christian message.  This use of Christian symbolism flowered forth at its maximum in medieval Europe.   We read much of church walls forming the Bible of the Poor, and of priests leading bands of pilgrims to some stained-glass window to explain a biblical theme or to recount the heroism of some saint…

               By the thirteenth century man had come to believe that God intended every created thing to be a symbol of his purposes, and hence churches built by man to his glory could be no less eloquent.  Almost every stone or feature of a cathedral had or was given its symbolic meaning—three portals stood for the Trinity; double door-ways, for the two natures of our Lord; a church resting on twelve pillars recalled the twelve apostles; a bell rope stood for humility because it hung downward.  This result came partly through the conscious use of well-known symbolism, but also as the result of interpretations of what originally were free, artistic impulses following their own bent.

…It is true that this medieval symbolism had its dangerous aspects, some of which will be mentioned in a later chapter.  But the (p.13) underlying supposition was that avenues to the soul need not be limited to the ear or to the printed pages.— Daniel Johnson Fleming, Christian Symbols, In A World Community, Friendship Press, New York, 1940

p. 13-14

11  For example, for our need I wrote and composed an Arati song, similar one that is used by most of the Hindus in North India.  In this song I called the Lord as ‘Kaliyuga daivam’, which means Lord of the Kali Yuga, which is the present yuga.  However all that the word Kali Yuga means in Hindu worldview is not compatible with the Muktiveda.  However as the word and tune sets nicely with the song, we still use.

12…The advice of a modern Buddhist teacher is very similar.  “A Mahayana Sutra or a Ch’an text,” he writes, “should never be read in a hurry once or twice and then placed in the book-case like a novel or ordinary book.  It should be read again and again …until the reader understands its profound meaning … The more he reads it the more he will comprehend its aim until he will forget all about the printed words and will confront only its deep meaning, which will loom before him to the exclusion of everything else.  He will notice his gradual embodiment of the doctrine taught in it, although he may be unprepared for the startling experience.” {Charles Luk (Lu K’uan-yu), ed. And trans., Ch’an and Zen Teaching, First Series (Berkeley, California: Shambala Publications, 1970, p. 157}— Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008. p. 179

13 As it is very difficult to translate the following Tamil poem, I give as it is, however with my own translation for the benefit of those who cannot understand Tamil:

One who is not bound by thought or known by words

The ancient one, who pervades everywhere without any boundary

How am I going to describe him, he knows me

And I know him in the same way.

One who is not bound by time or reached by any idea

Who cannot be explained by any worldly knowledge

How am I going to describe him, he knows me

And I know him in the same way.

Neither he is a male nor a female; nor has a form or without any form

He is not this world but he is not out of this world

How am I going to describe him, he knows me

And I know him in the same way.

As I become one with him like song and music;

Does there exist any difference between us

How am I going to describe him, he knows me

And I know him in the same way.

எப்படி எடுத்துறைப்பேன்

சிந்தைக்கு அடங்கோனை சொல்லினால் அறியோனை

எல்லைக்கு எட்டாது எங்கும் நிறைந்தோனை-தொல்லோனை

ஏதுமொழி கொண்டு எடுத்துரைப்பேன்–என்னை அவன்

அறிவான், அறிவேன் நானும் அவனை அவ்வண்ணமே

காலத்திற்கடங்கோனை கருத்திற்கு எட்டோனை

ஞாலத்தின் ஞானத்தால் நவின்ற இயலோனை–ஏதுமொழி கொண்டு….

ஆண் அல்ல பெண் அல்ல அருவல்ல உருவல்ல

அவனியும் அவனல்ல அவனிக்குப் புறம்பல்ல–ஏதுமொழி கொண்டு….

நானே அவனாகி நாதமும் கீதமும்போல்

ஒன்றியபின் உண்டோ ஒருபேதமுமே–ஏதுமொழி கொண்டு….

14. See the enthusiasm of Dr. Radhakrishnan supporting such view by quoting Milburn:

In an article onChristianVedaantism, Mr.R.Gordon Milburn writes, `Christianity in India needs the Vedaanta.  We missionaries have not realised this with half the clearness that we should.  We cannot move freely and joyfully in our own religion; because we have not sufficient terms and modes of expression wherewith to express the more immanental aspects of Christianity.  A very useful step would be the recognition of certain books or passages in the literature of the Vedaanta as constituting what might be called an Ethnic Old Testament.  The permission of ecclesiastical authorities could then be asked for reading passages found in such a canon of Ethnic Old Testament at divine service along with passages from the New Testament as alternative to the Old Testament lessons,’ IndianInterpreter. 1913– S.Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upanisads, Oxford University Press, 5th impression 1992, Delhi,  Introduction, Fn.1, p.19

15. N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997; The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Illinois, IVP Academic. 1999.

16 In fact, the Old Testament was the scripture of the early church, before the New Testament canon was established in the 4th century.  Christ was understood as the fulfillment and continuation of that divine revelation.  The early church knew the facts of Jesus life.  But what was the meaning?  The Old Testament scriptures were the authoritative source of explaining why He came and what He did.—Dr. Hoefer, personal communication, 3-5-2020

17. ‘…I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being and I find a solace in the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads that miss even in the Sermon on the Mount.  Not that I do not prize the ideal presented therein, not that some of the precious teachings in the Sermon on the Mount have not left a deep impression upon me, but I must confess to you that when doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately being to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow.  My life has been full of external tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita.’ [The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi, The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, (1968), Reprint 1994 Vol. 27, p. 435]….— Remembering U.G. Krishnamurti, Compiled from conversations in India and Switzerland, 1973 to 1976 (author name, publisher, year is not mentioned.  This is from website I think.  As I read in the Computer, the page number is based on the format in the Computer.), p. 139

Chapter Six

Bhakti and Hindu Scripture 2020

When I began to read the Muktiveda as a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath to learn more about my bhakti, I could not avoid comparing it with the Hindu scriptures, which I had read in a limited way.  However, these comparisons were on a mere textual level and not on a theological level, as I had never learned to interpret Hindu scriptures before.  Like most of the common Hindus, I too read scriptures just for the sake of them and also as a part of my religious ritual.  However, in spite of reading popular/common scriptures (like Kandasasti kavasam, Abirami andadi, Sowdarya lahari etc.), I also read some mainline scriptures in order to gain more knowledge (Thevaram, Divyaprabhandam, Tiruvasagam etc.).  However, most of the time I limited my reading to the original and did not attempt to read any commentaries, or books that dealt with any particular Hindu scriptures.

In the beginning when I read the Muktiveda I only compared the Hindu scriptures that I could remember.  Later, when I began to read a few theological and spiritual books related to the Muktiveda, I began to read Hindu scriptures again, but now with commentaries and interpretations.  I still remember that I began with the Gita using a Tamil commentary.  This new endeavor not only broadened my understanding of both the Muktiveda and the Hindu scriptures, but it also challenged me in several ways.

New Understanding and Integration

However, the more I read the Hindu scriptures with an aim to understand them, the more I realized that there came some kind of new understanding about Muktiveda which is not very explicit in our Hindu scriptures. At the same time, the values that the Muktiveda introduced were not entirely new or different from the Hindu scriptures, but the difference is how the Muktiveda applies those values in life, with more of an emphasis on human relationships.  The Muktivedic bhakti is more (human-oriented and relationship-centered) around the Lord than (god-oriented) doctrines.  Salvation, spirituality, ethics, morality and even religious rituals, are not for personal gain but are for everyday life in our relationship with others.  Of course Hinduism also emphasizes the duty (dharma) in everyday life in every sphere, yet when it comes to spirituality and salvation, they are more on an individual level.  It is interesting to note that extreme individualism is the Western worldview when it comes to social (samajic) life, each one minding their own life and not interfering in another’s life, but the Muktivedic worldview is more about corporate life in every sphere.  And in India, while extreme individualism is scorned relative to the spirit of social (samajic) life, when it comes to spiritual life, it looks more inwards in an individualistic way with each one working out her own salvation.  So finally, it is not what is missing in Hinduism that comes to my mind, but how my bhakti in the Lord helps me to integrate the valuable things in Hinduism both for my personal spiritual life and apply it in my relationship with others. The best of Hinduism enriches my bhakti in Muktinath as guru.

Dharma as sadhana:

I was very impressed by my new understanding of Hinduism based on its scriptural point of view, which my bhakti in the Lord helped to integrate naturally.   For example the Muktivedic emphasis of spirituality centered on human relationship now helped me to integrate the concept of ‘dharma’ based on Hindu scriptures in honoring and celebrating my relationship with others both as spirituality and sadhana than mere duty.  The individualistic nature of spirituality in Hinduism now becomes complete centered around relationship with others as emphasized by Muktiveda.  Now dharma does not remain mere duty in disposing my responsibility to others but becomes a spiritual endeavor.  So when I do my part in serving others, I no more need to do it as disposing my responsibility or debt¹ but doing it as part of my spiritual discipline.  When I had the privilege to take care of my mother, I have done it not as mere duty or responsibility (though technically a sannyasi is not bound by such responsibility in Hindu society) but as a practical expression of my spirituality in the Lord.²

 A New beginning:

So, the new beginning of reading Hindu scriptures in their total contexts often brought so many questions not only about our Hindu scriptures but also about Muktiveda.  Unlike some hard core evangelicals or overzealous ‘converts’ I never believed in condemning our Hindu scriptures in order to defend my bhakti in the Lord. At the same time as suggested by some evangelicals I cannot give up reading or using our scriptures.  At least for my own personal need I cannot run away from that challenge. So I continue to read Hindu scriptures, commentaries on them along with one or two ‘Christian books’, interpreting Hinduism and its scriptures.  But when I saw that those books, particularly in Tamil were an outright attack on Hinduism and its deities and scriptures I threw them away and refuse to keep these kinds of books in my personal library.  Those were not scholarly books written with an aim to understand Hinduism, but they are written in an (hyper) evangelical approach to find fault and to attack Hinduism.

Lack of help and guidance:

So with a new aim to understand Hindu scriptures in their total context, I began to get scholarly books and commentaries on them.  But there was no one around me in those days in my life to discuss these readings and compare them with the Muktiveda.  However, when I began to quote few Hindu scriptures in my sharing I was very cautious not to offend or to use those portions only for my own advantage.  Without receiving much help I made very little progress in my endeavor to understand Hindu scriptures comparing with Muktiveda.  In those days, I was very surprised to see that those who were trained as missionaries to go and preach the gospel were never told or encouraged to read Hindu scriptures.  I never saw any of them showing any interest on their own to read and know about Hinduism and Hindu scriptures.  A few theological graduates, with whom I initiated some discussion on this subject, could not help me much, as no systematic training or course was offered in their curriculum.  From some theological graduates I learnt that Hinduism was taught as part of comparative religion that too in one semester.  This means even in one semester Hinduism was not taught as a separate subject but it remained part of their study about non-Christian religions. 

Lack of study on Hinduism:

This is true even in some Missionary Training Centers where students were trained to preach the gospel among the Hindus.  Out of curiosity one time on this topic I calculated the total time that a Seminary student will spent in learning something on Hinduism.  Out of the three years course, in one semester of three months there will be one subject on comparative religion.  So in a week there will be five classes on non-Christian religions, which mean 5 hours in a week.  And in a month they will have classes of around 20 hours and in three months 60 hours.  By giving concession even if they allot half of this time to teach on Hinduism, a theological college student, in India will study something about Hinduism around 30 hours in her whole three years course.   After writing the examination they will forget all that they studied and there won’t be any further study on their own in future after they left the Seminary.  Of course there are few exceptions to the rule, but in general in the evangelical world no proper study is conducted exclusively on Hinduism.  Of course in few (Missionary) conferences and meetings some resolutions were passed to start separate Institute or course focusing on Hinduism.  But all remained as mere resolution and nothing was done practically.  As I don’t know much about evangelical world I don’t know about any development in this direction. One time I was invited to teach on Hinduism to some Missionary Training Center.  So I went to their library to refer a sloka from Bhagavadgita.  But to my surprise I could not found one copy.  And when I asked about it to the Librarian, he said that they don’t keep Hindu scriptures in their Library.  Then I asked him, ‘then how your students are going to read and learn on Hinduism’?  And I told him that he could get a copy of Gita even for just two rupees at local shops subsidized by Gita Press Gorakhpur.  I still wonder how many evangelicals ever read even Gita one time in their life (in English or in their own language) which has only 18 chapters (with 700 slokas).  Whereas they expect Hindus and others to read Muktiveda when they distribute it to them!

Remaining faithful to the Text:

But my problem is neither in comparison nor in contrasting my bhakti and the Muktiveda with Hinduism and its scripture, but instead, it is how to remain faithful to both without compromising one with the other.  As my understanding of Hinduism has broadened, my attitude towards the Hindu scriptures has changed.  Therefore, I cannot follow either of the two traditional evangelical approaches to Hindu scriptures.  The first approach claims that Hindu scriptures prepares people to receive the gospel and the second one claims that in Hindu scriptures are fulfilled by the Lord Muktinath.  However the third view of Hindu scriptures as devil’s work is not acceptable to me.  So I need not dwell more about it.  Similarly, I am not ready to accept the theory that while the Muktiveda is the complete revelation from god, Hindu (and any other) Scriptures express human longing for god, salvation and spirituality.  Though for me Muktiveda provides the foundation for my bhakti in the Lord as the revealed Word of God, I acknowledge other’s right to have the same right for their respective religious or sectarian Scripture(s).

Having this kind of understanding about Hindu scriptures I continue to read both the original scriptures and commentaries and books related to them.  I enjoy the reading of Hindu scriptures and the books about them, and while they add richness to my faith in the Lord, yet because of my critical mind and dialogical approach, I wonder when contradictions are easily explained away by Hindu apologetics.  It will take several pages to give an example and illustrate them here.  At the same time we need to remember that as pluralism and relativism is part of Hindu worldview all kinds of contradiction is accepted as part of life.  So ‘we’ who live such life of contradiction naturally end up finding it in Scriptures also which never threaten the basic unity that one could found in Hindu worldview.  However it is good to remember that every Scripture has its own contradiction, including Muktiveda which is explained in different ways by different apologetics. 

For critical approach:

To create an Indian Muktivedic theology we need to read Hindu scriptures.  For personal spiritual sadhana as well as corporate worship one can receive a lot of benefit from the Hindu scriptures like composing bhajans, in using Indian terms, in prayer, talking, and sharing.  We also need especially to read Hindu scriptures for ourselves to be able to be enriched by its rich tradition.  Our own reading will also help us to critically evaluate so many extreme claims about the origin, date and theology/philosophy of Hindu Scriptures than accepting the information provided by several apologetics among Hindu scholars.  Few claims about the origin and date about some scriptures will help us to understand their zeal to defend them at the cost of historical evidence, though what ‘historical’³ always remained a challenging question in Indian context.  This is already warned by some scholars.  The following comments by K.G. Sesha Aiyar will precisely present this particularly in the conflict between traditional and Western criticism on Indian literature:

It seems to be almost an understood rule or law that the tendency for the Indian scholar is to assign the great names that have enriched his literature to as early a period as well he can; and perhaps the reason for this may be sought in the general belief among us, not unnaturally induced by the glory and glamour of our ancient civilization, that worth and antiquity go hand in hand. The tendency, on the other hand, of the European scholar is just reverse….As a natural result of these conflicting tendencies, the dates arrived at by Indians only serve in the eyes of the European to point the moral that the Indians are deficient in the historic sense; while the conclusions arrived at by Europeans are regarded by the Indian as only demonstrating their inborn distrust and intolerance of his ancient civilization. Neither has confidence in the results arrived at by the other, though both avowedly pursue “historical” methods. There should certainly be vital differences in the very fundamentals on which these “historical” inquiries are based to render such hopelessly irreconcilable results possible. To what extent faulty methods of investigation and the inevitable personal idiosyncracies are severally responsible for the divergent results that stare the student of South Indian literary history in the face, I do not pretend to be able to say; but to whatever cause the divergence may be due, the position thus created is extremely puzzling.⁴

This puzzle becomes more complicated considering G. U. Pope’s insight that:

Multitudes of spurious writings, in India (as indeed elsewhere), are attributed to nearly every person of historic repute; and interpolations too are always to be suspected. The rivalry between opposing sects has greatly tended to this result; for each guru must be represented as having left greater works than those of the Gurus of rival systems; and also his writings must be brought up to date, so as to lend unequivocal support to the most recent development of the tenets of the sect.⁵

The problem became more complicated when we sought the endorsement from the Western scholars about origin, date etc. about our (Hindu) scriptures or when we get irritated by their idiosyncratic investigation about our scriptures.  In their approach to understand ‘the other’ the West keeping its own category based on its history brought so many problem not only in their understanding about ‘the others’ but also complicated our efforts for self understanding and present it to them using our categories.⁶  Though various scholars from the West and East now began to recognize it and talk about it which if not change their approach about us, at least it will help us to understand their limitation⁷:

…Western studies of South Asia in general use, explicitly or implicitly, a comparative framework in which “the West” is contrasted to “the rest.”  This is exemplified in studies of South Asian democracy and politics in general as a “failed experiment” in contrast to an idealized western reality….⁸

Refrain from abuse Scripture:

Reading and understanding Hindu scriptures to locate  my bhakti culturally  in the Lord using Hindu terms and forms is not limited only in the areas of concepts like Dharma and some symbols like Purna–kumbam⁹, flowers, and oil lamps, but it is also not misusing them according to one’s own purpose.  Of course I have seen Hindus using their scriptures out of context, (half-quoting and misquoting), but these they do several times not knowing all the importance of the textual, theological and historical context.¹⁰ We use proverbs as part of the Indian worldview either to communicate our thoughts or explain a situation. Quoting scriptures (both religious or secular) to explain one’s thoughts is quite common in India.  I myself know how my father quoted Tirukkural or some other scripture when he rebuked or taught some values.  Using scriptures in those times is not to claim its authority for one’s personal view, but it is a common way of communication in India to explain an idea or concept.  It is not even to convince others or to make them accept your point of view, but it is used to effectively and several times precisely communicate one’s thoughts.

At the same time here we need to note another important aspect in Hindu worldview. Unlike Christians, more specifically evangelicals, a typical Hindu won’t say ‘what God says, what Gita or Ramayana says etc’ often punctuating their conversation.  For example often one can hear evangelicals saying, ‘the Lord said this, the bible asks us to do’ etc.  But no Hindu would drag god or her (sectarian) scripture when talk about important things in life.  Of course she will quote from both Secular literature and religious scriptures when need comes, but she won’t seek endorsement either from (her) god or scriptures what to do or not to do; to say or not to say.  This over importance given to Scripture for guidance from god is part of evangelical worldview which often might irritate or confuse a Hindu.

However a Hindu bhakta of the Lord needs to study Hindu scriptures properly, not merely to derive benefit from it or to communicate one’s bhakti meaningfully, but also to refrain from misusing the scriptures even unintentionally.   For example, using a particular sloka out of context to support one’s point of view from Hindu scripture.  Several times, we do this to impress others by parading our learning (not necessarily knowledge) in front of those who might not have the same level of knowledge.  But a proper study of the Hindu scriptures should caution a bhakta of the Lord to use it properly, often explaining that the particular reference is not in the same context from which we quote to explain our point of view.

For example quoting any poem or sloka talking about sin, salvation, bhakti or grace is very impressive.  I myself often quote from Bhajagovindam about the need of knowledge to attain mukti (Jnana vahiina sarvamathena; muktim bhajata janma satena—all sects agree that without proper knowledge one cannot attain salvation even after (hundreds of births).  However when Sankara talks here about jnana, it is to be understood within his advaitic tradition not in the sense of knowledge in common sense.  Of course listeners are not aware of such a hair-splitting analysis of the text and never mind about it.  But on our part, we should be honest and we need to explain in which sense a particular quote is used and in which sense we are using (which I always do).  But the sad thing in evangelical circles is that such honesty does not prevail while quoting and using Hindu scriptures.  The worst scenario is even twisting and turning the text to fulfill one’s particular purpose like dig out some Universal, Cosmic, Unkown or Hidden Muktinath in Hinduism.  Or claiming that the Vedic Quest is now fulfilled in the Lord etc and making the Lord as the Prajapati comparing the sacrifice of him with the Lord. All these look nonsense to me.  One example is sufficed here.  The sacrifice of Prajapati is for creation and that of the Lord is for atonement.  Even the sacrifice of the Lord is not that much simple for us to understand in the context of atonement.¹¹  This being the reality abusing Hindu Scriptures through text torturing to achieve personal purpose is not only a mistake but according to me a moral crime.

To assimilate faith:

An important question that needs to be addressed is how much will reading the Hindu scriptures help Hindu bhaktas of Bhagavan Muktinath to use their religious worldview to assimilate their faith in the Lord in a more natural way.  Take for example the concept of bhakti, which could be claimed as one of the central doctrines of Hinduism, and let us see how this could enrich the bhakti of a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.

Bhakti is the atmosphere in which a Hindu lives, moves and finds her being.  It is not a spiritual or religious entertainment just once in a week in the name of worship. The root of the word `baj’ suggests bhakti, denoting a personal relationship with the deity which one worships.  KNOWING GOD is the nearest Muktivedic term for it which also means to have a personal experience based on the Knowledge of God and not about God.  Knowing God in the Muktiveda, particularly in the Purva Veda, stands in the context of covenant relationship as a family of god’s people.  And in the Uttara Veda, it is the indwelling presence (antaryamin) of Muktinath who becomes–a Mother, Father, Brother, Friend and even Husband to the soul.¹²

My experience:

To keep my own bhakti heritage, I have composed songs the way we used to worship god in our home, even using the `singular’ form in Tamil (nee in Tamil like Tum in Hindi), and used them in my personal devotion.  I also used to talk with the Lord in the singular form in my personal prayers, generally not using plural form which is used by Christians (avar in Tamil, aap in Hindi).¹³ Now I do it with much freedom in our fellowship with Hindu bhaktas of the Lord.  I have written several devotional songs in which I called the Lord Mother, Friend, Brother etc. and we now sing those bhajans with freedom.   I also wrote poems using ‘viraha bhakti’¹⁴ (love in separation) which is part of bhakti tradition in Hinduism but I am not sure whether any such songs exists in hymns and lyrics used in the church.  Above all, I have even used several beautiful Indian bhajans (both in Tamil and Sanskrit) as they are, of course remembering my Lord Muktinath in my worship.  Oh, how I enjoy my bhakti in the Lord, who accepted me as I am and allowed me to worship as I like.   The Lord has set us free to worship Him as Hindus we enjoy such natural forms in our worship as the following poem that I wrote reveals:

    You are my Mother, You are my Father

    You are my Leader You are my Refuge                                                                                                                                                 

    You are my close Friend and You are

    My Elder brother who gives Comfort.

    You are the center for my Love

    You are my Husband who steals all

    My heart’s Emotional feelings….

    Oh My Mother I came as a Refugee as

    I couldn’t find any other place than your

    Your Holy feet in this entire world.

In this song I gave both the alternative to the Lord as my Master and Mother

When I wrote the above poem, then I remembered Bharatiyar’s Kannan Songs in which he portrays Kannan as his friend (song 1); mother (2); father (3); servant (4); king (5) disciple (6) Sad-guru (7) child (8) playful child (9) lover (10,11,12,13,14,); enticer (15); lady love (16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,); Master (22) family deity (23).¹⁵  In his poems one can feel the closeness that a bhakta has with her Lord.  To feel that kind of closeness one should read all these poems which reflect the long bhakti tradition of India.

Here I would like to give the translation from Kannan as servant¹⁶:

I suffered a lot because of servants

Without servant no work is accomplished

As I suffered a lot because of this

He came from somewhere and said he is a ‘shepherd’

‘I will tender the cattle and look after the children’ 11-15

Knowing that he is qualified, with much happy

‘you talk a lot and parade your quality

What wage you demand’ I asked. ‘Master,

I have no wife or children

I am single though I look young      31-36

I am very old—Lord

If you take care of me that is enough—love in your heart

Is great and not money’ he replied

He is one of the old foolish persons

Knowing this, with much great joy I 36-40

Accepted him.  From that day onwards

Day by day Kannan

shows great love on me; and

The benefits that I got from him is beyond words

As the eye lids take care of the eyes, he take care of my family 41-45

I never heard him murmur

He sweeps the street and cleans the house     46-47

He takes care of women flock with love like a mother,

As a friend, counselor, good teacher

Divine in his character and servant in appearance

He came from somewhere and told that he is a shepherd           51-55

What kind of tapas (austerity) I have done to have him here.    -61

New understanding:

After I became a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, when I was reading John 13: 1ff, immediately I remembered Bharatiyar song.  And one time in explaining this passage I shared, ‘as the Lord rose up and prepared to wash the feet of His disciples, no one except Peter objected to it.  But, in our Indian tradition, no disciple will approve it.  In fact a disciple will never allow his guru to do any errands or work.  But here the disciples of the Lord kept quiet and no one stopped Him doing it.  One reason for this could be that all these years with His disciples, our Lord might have done several menial jobs while staying with them.  He might have brought water, cut vegetables and washed vessels.  As His disciples were familiar with such work done by the Lord, they didn’t stop.  Of course when the Lord went to wash the feet of Peter, he objected.  But he never done this before the Lord began to wash the feet of other disciples.  The reason could be that he did not want to be treated as one among the equals.  He wanted to show to the other disciples that he is someone special and therefore like them need not get his feet washed.  Our Hindu tradition with bhakti orientation helps us to develop our relationship with the Lord according to our need in crisis—as a father, mother, friend, companion and even as a servant.

Bhakti Unites:

In my personal journey as a bhakta of the Lord, I have no problem in enjoying even the bhakti songs and bhajans song by fellow Hindus to worship their deity.  When I participate in any of their functions, I enjoy their spirit of bhakti without compromising my faith in the Lord.  This gives a natural rapport with my own people without having any hidden agenda in my life.  I can appreciate god’s best gift in every form in others’ lives too.  When I listen to any kind of bhajans (both of North and South), even without understanding the complete meaning (Purandaradasa, Kanakadasa, Anamaya, Thyagarajas lyrics in Kannada and Telugu respectively), my heart melts along with the singer, and I enjoy the presence of my Lord in those bhajans (see in the notes some of my favorite such Tamil songs).¹⁷  While doctrine divides, bhakti unites without the need to compromise my personal faith, as I will elaborate below. 

Bhakti environment:

Those who have some sense and spirit to see as well as learn can observe one thing in the Hindu world.  Religion is not imposed on them from the top.  It is nurtured in the family garden by the family members and blossoms naturally, spreading aroma everywhere.  This is not some old story as the following example explains.  In June 1995, when my sister from Andaman visited my parents, every day she asked her son, just a five year old boy, after his bath to chant the slokas and mantras that he had learnt (from his mother) before the family shrine in the pooja room.  Later, with much pride, she would also ask him to go and chant the slokas to her father to show how her children were growing as `bhaktas’.

               Thus in the Hindu world bhakti is the property of the laity and not of the Theologians.  One can come across number of examples where, while the top theologians were fighting on Ontological and Theological interpretation based on Reason and Logic, simple people with personal experience with god were spreading the movement among the people and enjoying as well expressing their bhakti, which automatically attracted both the people and Theologians.

Help of Hindu scriptures:

               Real bhakti will make one humble before god and men.  This will create some kind of respect towards others’ faith and Scripture.  While theologians with much arrogance and pride were arguing with each other to establish the superiority of their cults, simple bhaktas were mingling with each other, enjoying True bhakti in such fellowship.  So, to keep our rich bhakti tradition to grow in our faith in the Lord as well as to have natural fellowship with our own people, though they do not share kind of conviction that we have, we need to know our own Hindu Scripture better than the way we knew it before.  So bhakti in our Lord and our respect and appreciation of our own scriptural heritage need not contradict but can complement each other.  Our scripture will help us to keep our bhakti in our traditional way and to grow in that bhakti.  In the same way our faith in the Lord will help us to understand our scriptures and the Muktiveda in proper context to learn properly from them.  At least in my life, my faith in the Lord and my study of Hindu scriptures helps me to understand my faith within my cultural and spiritual heritage.  And I always remain thankful to god for my birth in such rich cultural heritage.  Above all I am thankful to the Lord for giving every opportunity to read and learn Hindu scriptures as they too are part of god’s common grace to humanity.

Taking the risk of repetition, finally I want to share my personal conviction regarding my attitude and approach to our Hindu scriptures.  I don’t believe in the general view that all the religions are one and the same.  Every sampradaya (religious sect) is unique on its own merit.  There is no point of comparing one faith with another.  Though Hinduism too gained the status as a religion (thanks to the initiation and contribution of the Orientalists) like that of other religions like Christianity, except the term ‘religion’ (which itself a questionable term) there is no similarity between Hinduism and other religions. Though both apple and orange are fruits still they are different.  They might share several common things but fundamentally they are different.

So in our approach to read, understand and use Hindu Scriptures we should have the same respect and attitude that one has for her own (sectarian) scripture.  In the name of inculturaion, contextualization etc. however one tries one cannot and should not abuse and misuse any scripture.  For example, as I have pointed out above one cannot dig out any ‘Universal, Unknown, Hidden or Cosmic’ Christ (Muktinath) in Hindu Scriptures.  Those who try to dig out one can do not only disrespecting Hindu Scriptures but also distorting Muktivedic theology.  Even in using several Indian or Hindu terms to express one’s bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath one should be aware of the limitation of those terms related to the particular contexts in various Scriptures.¹⁸ At the same time, as a Hindu and bhakta of the Lord I strongly feel that I have my birth right to use them keeping my need in my mind and not to misuse or abuse them.  Though this topic deserves its own separate chapter, still I want to close this chapter with this thought though I might repeat it again in other chapters as well.

Notes

1 This concept of debt is both textual and practical.  Hindu scripture points out the debts (three or five etc.) with each one is born.  And no one (particularly a male) can escape from paying it back.  On the practical side one can often hear the word ‘debt’ as a moral duty with responsibility to others particularly to the immediate family members.  So if one is not doing her duty joyfully yet she has to do it to dispose her debt.

‘…The inhabitants of this world— including gods, ancestors, seers, and other human and non-human beings—live in a web of interdependent relationships which create reciprocal rights and obligations.  The obligations of twice-born adult males, who are the principal actors in the social world, are here singled out and defined as debts.’— Olivelle, Patrick, The Asrama System, The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, p. 50.  For details on the doctrine of debt see Olivelle pages 27, 44, 46-53, 55, 91, 99, 113, 146-47, 176-182, 238.  Among points discussed are debt and asrama, etymology of debt, debt to father, to mother, five, four and three debts, freedom from debts, debt and great sacrifices, debt passed to son.  Note also that ,“the argument from debts would remain a powerful weapon against asceticism throughout the history of Brahminical theology”. –p. 89

Cf. “He who renounces the world desiring salvation, without repaying the three debts and departs from the house forsaking his parents surely courts downfall”.— Shastri, J.L. (ed.), Ancient Indian Tradition & Mythology, Volume I—The Siva Purana, Part One, Delhi, Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd., (1970) 2002. I, Rudrasamhitaa, Section II, 13:36, p. 331

2  Though I face so many challenges in taking care of my mother as a single person still I do it not only because of my love and responsibility towards her as a son but also because of my spiritual value which I found in Muktiveda.  As a sannyasi I can excuse and shun away from my responsibility towards my mother.  Even as a single man I can excuse to run away from my responsibility as she needs the help of another woman at the present stage in her life.  But even I don’t hesitate to even do those works in which she needs the help of another woman (to take her for toilet and help her to take bath etc).    My other siblings (my brother and sister) are willing to take care of her, provided if she is ready to come and stay with them—which she does not like.  In order to accommodate her desire and need giving up my desire to stay in our ashram, leaving my responsibility towards it now I come and stay with her to take care of her.  This I say not to brag or to compare me with my siblings.  But as my guru expects me to my dharma as a son than as a sannyai (to stay in an ashram of my choice) I obey him.  Sometimes I was also criticized by few bhaktas that forgetting my commitment to serve the Lord first (let the dead bury the dead and you follow me) I serve only my mother.  But somehow I feel in my spirit that at present my responsibility is to take care of my mother as god has so many others to do my part for Him. Above all she suffered a lot in her life and I strongly feel that now at the end of her life she deserves a life of her choice as she feels comfortable only with me. [See my article Boredom in life about a short biographical sketch  about my mother.—yet to be posted].

3             Europeans believed that the world, animate and inanimate, had an absolute and datable origin. They had developed the idea of chronology in which time was conceived of in a linear fashion, which enabled them to order by date the reigns of kings, the lives of saints, and the events that affected polities.  They also developed a distinction between what they thought of as true history and fables, which were untrue or fictitious…. Everything for Europeans has a history, and to discover the history of something is to explain it.—  Anthropology and History in the 1980s: Towards a Rapprochement. Pp. 50-77, in, Bernard S. Cohn, An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays, New Delhi, (1987), 2012, p. 51

4 Aiyar, K. G. Sesha (1986 [1907]). Manikka Vacagar and His Date. The Tamilian Antiquary, vol. I no. IV. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.

1986, 9-10

5 Pope, G. U. (1979 [1900]). Tiruvacagam. Third ed. Madras: University of Madras, 1979, xviii

6 …Western civilization, partially rooted in the prophetic traditions, has a linear style with brittle breaks with the past: as Abraham left Ur, so Moses, Jesus, Paul and Augustine, and Muhammad broke away too; the Protestant Reformation and the French and American Revolutions also mark sharp breaks with the past.  By comparison, Hinduism seems more organic and continuous, content to carry along older strata instead of denying them, preserving the old while absorbing the new….— William J. Jackson. Songs of Three Great South Indian Saints, New Delhi, (1998) Indian Paperbacks 2002, p. 2. Further see Thomas R. Trautmann, The Clash of Chronologies: Ancient India in the Modern World, New Delhi, Yoda Press, 2002.

7             While on this subject, I would like to make the point that when a Third World scholar writes about some aspects of the life and culture of a Western country, he may expect to be accused of having missed the ‘subtle nuances’, the ‘hidden implications’, etc., of the situation.  That this kind of criticism finds expression more in the informal circles of concerned scholars rather than in print should not lead to the ignoring of its existence. Further, its implications need to be spell out. The advantages which the outsider enjoys seems to be confined to Western scholars when studying non-Western societies but does not seem to work in the reverse direction!—ibid. STUDYING ONE’S OWN CULTURE: SOME THOUGHTS. PP. 571-587, in, M. N. Srinivas, Collected Essays, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, (2002) Paperbacks 2004, p. 576

8 Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament. Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer. Pp. 1-19, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, eds. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament. Philadelphi, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993, p. 2

9..A copper or braze vessel with water will be decorated with coconut on top of it surrounded by mango leaves.  On special occasion some threads will be rolled around the vessel.  This Purna–kumbam is used both in religious and social occasion as a sign of fullness of life. See more on this in the chapter ‘Worship and Symbols’.

10… But these scriptures proved to be flexible, sometimes to the point that they seemed to have meant whatever their interpreters chose to make them mean.  Furthermore, even when the literal text of the scriptures was taken seriously, the interpreters of the Mimamsa school undertook to make a rational examination (mimamsa means rational examination) of the meaning of the Vedic (scriptural) statements. — The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002, p. 51

11 See my article ‘On Sacrifice’ in the blog.

12. பக்தர்க்குத் தஞ்சமே

தாயும் நீ தந்தை நீ

தலைவன் நீ தஞ்சம் நீ

ஆருயிர் நண்பன் நீ

அணைத்திடும் தமையன் நீ

நேசத்து மையம் நீ

நெஞ்சத்து உணர்வையெல்லாம்

பாசமாய்க் கொள்ளை கொள்ளும்

பதியும் நீ என்னுயிர்க்கே

[See the text for the meaning in English. See my website for the full song in Tamil]

பக்தி ஒன்றே முக்திக் குகந்து

பாரில் நம் சக்திக் குகந்தது

தாயாகி, தந்தையாகி நம்மையும் காப்பான்

தனயனாய், தோழனாய் கூடவே இருப்பான்

காதல் கொண்டுமே கரம்பற்றி காப்பான்

கடைசி மட்டும் துணையாக இருப்பான்

 Bhakti is the best means for mukti

That is within our reach in this world

He will protect us by become a mother and father

He will be with us like a brother and friend

He will take care of us by holding our hand with love (like a husband)

Till the end He will be our companion.  [See my website for the full song in Tamil]

13 Jesus used the intimate term “abba” in addressing the heavenly Father (Mk 14:36, cf. Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6).  In the German Bible and prayers, they use “Du,” in addressing God, the German term for “you” used only for family and close friends.—Dr. Hoefer, personal communication, 3-5-2020

14 For Viraha–bhakti songs see Bhakti Theology Songs 179, 214, 393, 411, 462, 473, 591, 682, 752, 780, 791, 801, 807, 830, 846, 868, 927, 961, 963, 1036, 1066, 1075, 1101, 1132, 1133

15 சீனி. விசுவநாதன், பாரதியார் கவிதைகள், சென்னை, பூங்கொடி பதிப்பகம்,(1998), Second edition, 2001, pp. 312-354

16 Ibid. pp. 320-22

கண்ணன்–என் சேவகன்

சேவகராற் பட்ட சிரமமிக வுண்டு கண்டீர்;

சேவகரில் லாவிடிலோ செய்கை நடக்கவில்லை

இங்கிதனால் யானும் இடர்மிகுந்து வாடுகையில்

எங்கிருந்தோ வந்தான், இடைச்சாதி நானென்றான்;

’மாடுகன்று மேய்த்திடுவேன், மக்களை நான் காத்திடுவேன்;  (ப. 320) 11-15

தக்கவனென் றுள்ளத்தே சார்ந்த மகிழ்ச்சியுடன்,

’மிக்கவுரை பலசொல்லி விருதுபல சாற்றுகிறாய்;

கூலியென்ன கேட்கின்றாய்? கூறு’ கென்றேன். ’ஐயனே,

தாலிகட்டும் பெண்டாட்டி சந்ததிக ளேதுமில்லை

நானோர் தனியாள், நரை திரை தோன் றாவிடினும்—31-35

ஆன வயதிற் களவில்லை–தேவரீ

ஆதரித்தாற் போதும் அடியேனை; நெஞ்கிலுள்ள

காதல் பெரிதெனக்குக் காசு பெரிதில்லை’ யென்றான்

பண்டைக் காலத்துப் பயித்தியத்தில் லொன்றெனெவே

கண்டு, மிகவும் களிப்புடனே நானவனை  –36-40

ஆளாகக் கொண்டுவிட்டேன். அன்று முதற்கொண்டு

நாளாக நாளாக நம்மிடத்தே கண்ணனுக்குப்

பற்று மிகுந்துவரல் பார்க்கின்றேன்; கண்ணனால்

பெற்றுவரு நன்மையெல்லா பேசி முடியாது,

கண்ணை யிமை யிரண்டும் காப்பதுபோல், என் குடும்பம்            41-45

வண்ணமுறக் காக்கின்றான். வாய்முணுத்தல் கண்டறியேன்.

வீதி பெருக்குகிறான்; வீடுசுத்த மாக்குகிறான்.       46-47

பெண்டுகளைத் தாய்போற் பிரியமுற ஆதரித்து,

நண்பனாய் மந்திரியாய் நல்லா சிரியனுமாய்

பண்பிலே தெய்வமாய்ப் பார்வையிலே சேவகனாய்

எங்கிருந்தோ வந்தான், இடைச்சாதி யென்று சொன்னான்.51-55 (ப.321)

இங்கிவனை யான் பெறவே என்ன தவஞ் செய்துவிட்டேன்        -56 (ப. 322)

சீனி. விசுவநாதன், பாரதியார் கவிதைகள், சென்னை, பூங்கொடி பதிப்பகம்,(1998), 2001, , கண்ணன் பாட்டு, 4. ப. 320-322

17 In Hindi: Tu paayruka sagaru hai; itini shakti hame dena dhatha; jyoti se se jalathe chalo; romu romume basunae waale raam etc.

…ஊரிலேன் காணி இல்லை உறவு மற்றொருவரில்லை

பாரில் நின் பாதமூலம் பற்றிலேன் பரம மூர்த்தி

காரொளி வண்ணனே! கண்ணனே! கதறுகின்றேன்

ஆருளர் களைகண்? அம்மா! அரங்கமா நகருளானே!–தொண்டரடிப் பொடி ஆழ்வார், திருமாலை, பாடல், 26 (900) நாலாயிர திவ்வியப் பிரபந்தம். உரையாசிரியர்: இரா. வ. கமலக்கண்ணன். சென்னை, வர்த்தமானன் பதிப்பகம். வருடம் குறிப்பிடவில்லை. மூன்றாம் பாகம், p. 1224

..

உற்றாரை யான்வேண்டேன் ஊர்வேண்டேன் பேர்வேண்டேன்

கற்றாரை யான்வேண்டேன் கற்பனவும் இனியமையுஞ்

குற்றாலத் தமர்ந்துறையுங் கூத்தான் உன் குரைகழற்கே

கற்றாவின் மனம்போலக் கசிந்துருக வேண்டுவனே–ஜி. வரதராஜன், திருவாசகம்–விரிவுரை, பழனியப்பா பிரதர்ஸ், சென்னை, நான்காம் பதிப்பு, (1971) 1995, திருப்புலம்பல், ப. 564

காதலாகிக் கசிந்து கண்ணீர் மல்கி

ஓதுவார் தம்மை நன்நெறிக்குய்ப்பது

வேதம் நான்கிலும் மெய்ப்பொருளாவது

நாதன் நாமம் நமச்சிவாயவே!–ஞானசம்மந்தர்.

–quoted from memory.

18 When one bhakta of the Lord requested me to suggest a proper Hindu (Indian) term for Easter, I suggested ‘Mrutunjay puja’. Then he pointed out that this name is used even for Siva?  So is it correct to use the same name for the Lord not hurting the sentiment of Hindus?  In response I wrote, ‘Regarding the word “Mrutunjay” it is the name for Siva. But Siva as the god of destruction is called Kala Bairava.  He can destroy and also bless his bhakta to overcome death like that we found in the story of Markandeya.  So his bhaktas worship this particular form of Siva as Murutunjay to overcome (premature) death viz. to have a normal long and healthy life.  But they never do the puja thinking that Siva has won victory over death as we found in Muktiveda.  It is important to note that Siva never faced death or took any avatara like that of Vishnu.  As we recognize that the Lord has overcome death by the resurrection I use the same term Mrutunjay to celebrate his VICTORY OVER DEATH.  This shows how subtle and difficult is it in using Indian and Hindu terms to express our bhakti in the Lord.  So while we can use Indian or Hindu terms to express our bhakti and theology, we should be very careful remembering the various contexts in which those terms are used.

@@@

@ Though more emphasis is given on ‘experience’ to the Scripture(s) as resource of faith or bhakti in Hinduism, still the role of the Scripture(s) is not completely denied.  For Yoga Sutra of Patanjali is important for anyone to teach on Yoga. Manu (Dharmasastra) is important to explain the various duties based on varna. Prasthanatrayi is important for any acharya to establish his particular school of thought like advaita.  Of course the importance of Veda is well known as the final authority, particularly on Dharma.  Similarly each sampradaya has its own sectarian scripture as the final source of authority like ubhayavedanta among Srivaishnavas (in Tamilnadu)

…neither in Buddhism nor in Jainism, or even in Hinduism, was God cited as the authority on dharma.  Hence the search for a rational basis of dharma is often compatible with these religious traditions.  There were, of course, the Hindu scriptures.  But these scriptures proved to be flexible, sometimes to the point that they seemed to have meant whatever their interpreters chose to make them mean.  Furthermore, even when the literal text of the scriptures was taken seriously, the interpreters of the Mimamsa school undertook to make a rational examination (mimamsa means rational examination) of the meaning of the Vedic (scriptural) statements. – The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002, p. 51

  Chapter Seven Canon

Though I gave the title ‘Canon’ to this chapter, it is part of the chapter ‘Scripture as the foundation’.  As that chapter became too long, I divided it into another chapter under the title ‘Canon’.  So this chapter is not mainly focused on ‘Canon’ but my struggle to understand that issue and wrestle with the issue of scripture’s role in my bhakti.

The canon or authoritative list of books that make up scripture has been a vexing issue for me.  I had never heard about any canon that recognizes the Hindu scriptures till I heard the term ‘Prasthanatraiyi’ (the so called canon for Hindu philosophical schools viz., Upanishads, Brahmasutra and Bhagavadgita).¹  Even this Prasthanatraiyi is not applicable on pan-Hindu level as only orthodox acharyas like Sankara, Ramanuja etc. alone wrote commentary  as per the requirement of Prasthanatrayi. For sampradayas like Saiva Siddhanta (particularly in Tamilnadu) ever worried about writing commentary as per the requirement of Prasthanatraiyi. Though the Veda holds the highest place of reverence, it remained only a point of orthodoxy.   Since most Hindus are primarily concerned with social and not religious or philosophical issues, I realized that many Hindus do not give any importance to it.  No scripture is rejected among Hindus,² though sectarian affiliation may be rejected, or condemned or subordinated to other sects’ scriptures.  As a result I realized that the idea of canonizing scripture (recognizing that certain books are authoritative and rejecting others) really does not appeal to the Hindu mind.

A vexed question:

However, the Vedas still claims the final authority in Hindu orthodoxy, despite the fact that the Upanishads were written much later.  According to Prof. Daya Krishna ‘In fact, the Upanishads continued to be written till almost the 13^th century.  But, if this is true, how can this be regarded as sruti.  For, if something, is a sruti, or if something is regarded as sruti, we cannot add to it. The whole idea of what is sruti, what is accepted an authority, is a vexed question’³ in all religions.

Unresolved tension:

It is well known that in Christianity, the church came first and authorized the canon of the Muktiveda through a tedious process that took many centuries of contestation, conflict and agreement. The canonizing process rejected texts that did not share similar orthodox beliefs that were historically attested.⁴  I am glad that a set of books were defined as scripture at the end of this process, however limited that may be.  Otherwise, like the sectarian scriptures in Hinduism, anything written as commentary or a spiritual book by the founder would have become the scripture for the respective splinter groups in Christianity.  However, there are dangers in over emphasizing one’s interpretation of scriptures or hanging on to tradition. Giving undue authority to the (church) tradition (as with the Catholics) will tend to diminish the influence of scripture over the bhaktas.  On the other hand, in the Protestant circles, though all claim the authority of the Muktiveda, most of the time it is a particular interpretation that decides even that authority and has caused so many divisions to develop, what is generally called denominations.    This led me to come to the conclusion that for a bhakta of the Lord, both canon and authority remains, but it will remain an unresolved issue.  And bhakti based on personal relationship with the Lord that is revealed by scripture and anubhava will help us to overcome several confusions in this regard.  Here I think my Hindu tradition helps me to ‘walk by faith’ and reason and not stumble over either.

Inspiration cum revelation: 

I would like to discuss what I think is a crucial issue for me: what is the difference between inspiration and revelation?  Are they not just different terms used for similar human experiences of the divine?  If the Muktiveda is written by the inspiration from the divine, then what is revelation?  Of course, as I reflected on this subject I come to the conclusion that it works both ways.  While god reveals concepts, ideas and thoughts in our spirit, we use our mind (reason) to express it with our language; however, we cannot completely articulate that revelation in our spirit.  This is what has also happened with the Muktiveda.  As I write (Bhakti) poems I understand this from my personal experience.⁵

Inspiration and interpretation:

God’s revelation is everywhere (I am not talking about pantheism that god is in everything).  When we respond to this revelation of god, we get the inspiration.  Then, when we share that inspiration with others, we use our (mind) reason with all its limitations—particular cultural, social, religious, spiritual, language to express it.  This also happened to the authors of the Muktiveda.  So not only the language, but also the very form in which it was written is inspired.  But I wonder, is it the meaning or the language that is inspired? If the Muktiveda was written only because of inspiration, then everything in it—language, form etc. are important.  Therefore they cannot be changed.  But because of Canonization, which recognized only certain books as god’s revelation, then the meaning is inspired but not the language and form.  Otherwise we have to hold the same view about the Veda upheld by Hindus.  As Veda is eternal, nothing can be changed.  And remaining faithful to this tradition, the Vedic scholars preserved the original form till today.  Gavin Flood shows how it was possible:

Indeed the Veda was not written down until some thousand years after its composition and the very act of writing was itself regarded as a polluting activity (Aitareya Aranyaka 5.5.3). (p.35)

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Vedic literature is that it has been orally transmitted with little change to its contents for up to 3,000 years.  This accuracy has been enabled by a system of double checking.  The texts were learned at least twice: as a continuous recitation, called the samhitapatha, in which the Sanskrit rules for combining words (sandhi) operated, and as the recitation of words without the rules of euphonic combination, called the padapatha(p.39).⁶

So extra care is taken when Vedic mantras were used in performing yajna.  Even a small mistake will nullify the entire yajna if mantras are not chanted in the original form.⁷  Thankfully we need not give the same kind of interpretation about the revelation of Muktiveda, as it is the meaning and not the form which is inspired.

Another difference in this regard is that in our obedience to Muktiveda, we never treated the language of the original as sacred.  Even Christianity does not have a sacred language, though Latin remained a special ritual language among some denominations like Catholics.  In Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, the language of revelation is one authoritative language for scriptures and worship.⁸

Reasoning with revelation:

Some of these questions may appear frivolous, but in those formative days, I really struggled with all of these issues because I wrestled with accepting the authority of the Muktiveda as the authoritative word of god.  However, nothing could replace my relationship with the Lord as I never put the Muktiveda in the Lord’s place. At the same time, I cannot claim that I would have come to know more about the Lord without having the Muktiveda for more information. Though I responded by faith to the revelation from the Lord, my reasoning needed more of the scripture to reflect upon my response to the revelation.  Scripture only becomes authoritative for a person after she has come to faith in that religion.  So for me, both the revelation from the Lord and the inspiration is a two-way process.  While god reveals, our faith/bhakti inspires us.  But we need not limit this inspiration to those who authored the Muktiveda.  When we read god’s words, god continues to reveal His message through inspiration that is relevant to our situation.  Otherwise, the Muktiveda becomes merely an idol for us to worship with the ritual of merely reading without understanding (or need to understand). 

Commentary tradition:

Being a Hindu and a follower of the Lord, such theory about scripture is not easy to comprehend.  Because in Hinduism, at least the Veda, which has gained the authority as the scripture, was neither a revelation nor written through inspiration, but it was seen/heard by the sages of the past. It was more realized than revealed.  But this realization was later interpreted and explained which led to the development of various philosophies.⁹  Those who want to wrestle with the realization of the Vedic revelation can get help from various standard books written both by Indian and Western scholars on Indian Philosophy.  Here I deliberately use the word ‘wrestle’ because though I am a student of Indian Scripture, yet when it comes to Indian Philosophy, it is beyond my mind to comprehend any of them properly.  I am not well versed in Sanskrit and depend upon the English translation, where I struggle with several technical terms like: ontology, cognitive, causation, epistemology and many more complex terms.   Mere dictionary meanings don’t help a layman like me to understand them.  That’s why the study of (Indian) Philosophy has always remained a privilege of specialized people.  There are many commentaries on the Muktiveda also, but having one Scripture as the central authority has helped my understanding.  At the same time it should be recognized that what the commentarial tradition has done in Hinduism, creating various sampradayas based on their philosophies, the denominational churches based on particular doctrine is resulted by the same commentary on Muktiveda by various theologians.  To say in other word, each denomination is a commentary on Muktiveda.

As a digression we need to note the important role played by the commentaries in shaping the faith of the followers of a particular sampradaya in Hinduism like Srivaishnava. It will be an interesting study to do the role of commentaries on faith not only in Hindu sampradaya but even among other faiths like Christianity and Islam.  Similarly regarding the authority of Muktiveda claiming it as the only Word of god, note what Sudhakar says:

               To say that Bible is the Word of God is Biblical, but it is unbiblical to say that Bible only is the Word of God. The Biblical truth has to be seen separate from the cultural additions and even distortions of it. If God is the God revealed in the Bible, who is the Father, Creator, Redeemer and Saviour and who is also light and life, and whose name is love, then it is evident that the knowledge of Him cannot be confined to a people in one geographical area. Hindu scriptures contain deep insights on God and meaningful dialogues with Hindus will only enrich the churches’ understanding of God and Christ.¹⁰

Space won’t allow me to go in detail but I will give all the scholarly information in Appendix [Commentary and scriptures].  Note that ‘commentators are more important than the text’¹¹  but a student of any scripture should go beyond it.¹²But orthodox put even some restriction in this.¹³  For exegetical purpose commentators even ignored the original.¹⁴  However note what Hopkins says in such criticism on commentarial tradition:

               {A.K} Ramanuja’s and { Friedhelm }Hardy’s misgivings about commentary and concern with  the integrity of the poetic genres of religious discourse are well-taken and in great measure true….Too often scholars give commentaries, secondary elaborations, privileged status over primary poetic texts in the comparative study of religion…. Poets do speak differently than theologians writing in prose, though poets also theologize poetically.  The study of the poetry of philosopher/theologians is far from common in the study of religion and is crucial to an understanding of a poet-philosopher like Desika.

               It is an important fact that the Acaryas have a sectarian agenda and work in a religious idiom that is quite different from the Alvars.  Yet too extreme a characterization of the Acarya-commentators as out of touch with their poetic source-texts can create, as with the language issue, an artificially monolithic tradition.  Such a position reinforces stereotypes of literal minded, logic-chopping scholastics that downplays the poetic riches of the later Acarya tradition, and with it, the contributions of post-Alvar poet-philosopher/Acaryas like Desika.¹⁵

Reading ritual

In India, the sectarian scripture gained more prominence among the common people.  They never came under the category of revelation or inspiration because most of them were direct teachings which were transmitted by the guru to the shishya, which after several successive generations (of guru shishya teaching) were finally recorded.  For example, most of the Puranas and sectarian Agamas were told by gods to others, which then came down to us.  Another example, Brahma taught his sons first, who in turn taught their disciples.  Or, Siva taught Parvati (his consort), who in turn taught Her devotees etc. Therefore, a typical Hindu is never concerned with the questions of ‘revelation’ and ‘inspiration’ when it comes to the authority of scriptures.  It is the word of their ‘guru’ or guru tradition that is enough to carry its own authority.  Most of the time, Hindus don’t read their scripture to understand the mind, will, purpose of god or to get instruction to live their daily lives in relationship with others.  My mother, who still reads several of her slokas and bhakti poems, only reads them as an act of devotion or to earn some merit or at the very least to get rid of some sins.  Most of the time, the votaries read sectarian scriptures only as a part of their rituals.

In Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism interpretation and application of scripture is left to scholars.  They alone know the sacred language well enough to interpret it.  Others simply memorize and use some part of it for worship and prayer.  Popular piety is that god pays special attention to prayers when they are preceded by verses in the sacred language, god’s own word of revelation.  In few tantric sects, extreme importance is given not only to the language but chanting the mantras exactly in the same form and with meter as imparted to a votary during deeksha.  Particularly with Vedic mantras, apart from the language, it was the sound which holds the true power.¹⁶  On popular level, even a secular Hindu will be satisfied if important ceremonies like marriage are completed with chanting vedic mantras.

Coming from this kind of background, when the Muktiveda was pushed as the only Word of god, a revelation, written by inspiration, to be read daily both to know about god and also to receive instruction for daily living, it was a completely novel idea to me.  At the same time, reverence to the scripture (even as lip service), respect for (guru) tradition, and a predisposition to listen and quickly learn new things helped me adjust to the demands of my new faith.  However, my tradition and the new approach towards scripture helped me to keep a balance and not to go to one extreme.  When I didn’t understand something, then I merely trusted the word of god (Due. 29:29). At the same time, I never blindly followed the Muktiveda to earn merit.  My common approach to ‘revelation’ is that god will reveal Himself and His truths according to my maturity and understanding.  The more I obey and walk faithfully with Him, the more He will reveal from scripture.  When I cannot even live up to the minimum which is already revealed, how can I expect god to reveal more?  Where reason ends, Trust leads one.

Apart from this, however my bhakti insists on a personal relationship with god and my understanding of His Words, yet my ‘faith’ does not depend only upon my personal relationship and ‘interpretation’ of the Word of god.  Because, ‘there is a difference between inspiring and inspired; between subjective and objective revelation; between personal and corporate authority’¹⁷ as I am part of the visible mandali and my faith is not ‘one man operated corporation’.  As a member of the body of the Lord, I am accountable and answerable to the mandali both in my social (samajic) and ‘spiritual’ (sadhana) life.  As I often repeated, no one can grow in her bhakti and even enjoy mukti all alone in her walk with Bhagavan Muktinath.

Theology as the test:

Of course, it is difficult for a layperson like me to talk about the difference between ‘revelation’, ‘inspiration’ and all of the ideas that go with them.  I know there are several muktivedic scholars who claim that god’s revelation in history is completed in Muktinath and there is no scope or need for further revelation. But, can we freeze god’s revelation in a particular historic event alone?  Being born as a Hindu, such restriction, challenges my reasoning.  I have no easy solution for this.  Of course we can say that god continues to explain His mind and purpose to us, which He revealed in the Muktiveda.  But when it comes to the question of the other religious scriptures, in which category can we put them?  Does the Muktiveda itself not endorse what god has revealed about Himself outside the muktivedic world (Acts. 14) and believers have also learnt from outside the Scriptures (Romans 1; Acts 17)?  Well for me, as I am still reading Hindu scriptures (while writing this I am reading Tirumandiram in Tamil), the main difference between the Muktiveda and the other scriptures is more in their respective theological claims and not the category of revelation.  Of course it is a big subject to deal with here and I will address it in more detail on the chapter on theology. However the following points by a theologian helped me to understand it in perspective:

In the initial gospel accounts, however, no theological explanation is imposed.  We just have a story that is told, and the hearer must do her/his own reflecting, self-discovery, and self-convincing.

What we do find in all three of these instances (in the gospels, the early church sermons, and the creeds) is that two effects of Jesus suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension are included in the proclamation:  forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit.  In the creeds, these blessings are confessed in the third article:  “I believe in the Holy Spirit… in the forgiveness of sins.” 

The creeds and the evangelistic sermons also clearly call for recognition that this Jesus is Messiah and Lord, and repentance and allegiance to Him are expected.  Once again, this call is made, but strikingly no theological explanation of why this is necessary is provided.  We are mandated by Scripture and the church’s historical profession, then, to affirm the basic truths of the faith, but how they are theologized may be determined by each culture’s worldview. (emphasis added)¹⁸

Suffice it to say, that theologizing in each culture’s worldview that communicates to the contemporary issues makes the Muktiveda as a revelation from god for me.  Of course in Hinduism too every scripture is explained and interpreted according to the need of that time.  Now we hear all kinds of scientific explanation on many Hindu scriptures.  But in most cases it is at the cost of the core doctrine of that particular scripture.  In few cases the details were explained on scientific terms completely ignoring the central theology.  For example Gandhiji made ahmisa as a universal concept based on Bhagavad Gita by giving his own interpretation.  Following his example, several concepts like ‘karma’, ‘dharma’ ‘bhakti’ are explained in detailed scientific method from Gita. Interestingly giving space for all kinds of such interpretation Gita still remains evasive theologically to claim which is its central teaching.  But when it comes to Muktiveda, one central theological theme: ‘redemption’ as an initiation from god remains unchanged, however this act of god done through the Lord is interpreted to the respective worldview of every culture.  For me this scope for theologizing the gospel according to the worldview of every culture makes it universal.  Whereas in Hinduism, according to me, in order to make certain doctrines universal, theology needs to be compromised.  For example however we try to make ‘dharma’ as a universal concept yet this dharma is based on ‘varnashrama–dharma’ which is the central concern (for example for  Arjuna in Gita).  However when we try to explain this ‘varnashrama–dharma’ ¹⁹ it would make complete sense only in the Indian social context that too based on birth.  However some modern Hindu apologist tries to claim some universal dharmic nature for Hindu or Indian civilization is over simplification brushing the importance of varnashrama-dharma under the carpet of making Hinduism, particularly its Vedanta as if having universal scope.

Similarly the disqualification of certain people because of their birth in certain caste to attain mukti based on Veda and Vedanta cannot be universal for me.  And to get rid of this limitation the Neo-Vedantians like Dr. Radhakrishnan²⁰ had to work hard philosophically outwitting the traditional theological claims by great acharyas. And Hatcher helps us to understand this in perspective:

…To make a long story short, debates over Vedanta continued through the century.  The creative eclecticism of Vivekananda, which we have already had occasion to consider, did wonders for giving Vedanta a central place in the emerging discourse of apologetic Hinduism and Indian nationalism. The movement founded by Vivekananda in his master’s name became as it were the institutional proof of the moral, social, and philosophical viability of Vedanta.  Vivekananda’s mantle was inherited in turn by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. Indeed, Radhakrishnan was to recall how as a young man he had been greatly moved by the writings of Vivekananda. As an erudite philosopher and international statesman, Radhakrishnan was able to address in numerous books the lingering suspicions and renewed accusations of Vedanta’s opponents.  Thanks to the work of Radhakrishnan, the twentieth-century Hindu apologist was equipped with what could finally claim to be (adopting the title of his most popular book) “the Hindu view of life.”

               This brief overview of the emergence of Neo-Vedanta serves to illustrate the complex interrelationship that exists between what we might call the democratic eclecticism of the Brahmos and the aristocratic²¹ eclecticism of Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan….{it is worth note what he further says about this aristocratic eclecticism.  See notes 20}.²²

So the theological scope of the gospel to accommodate the need of every worldview makes it a revelation from god for me.  And here I think the concept of revelation about scriptures differ between Muktiveda and rest.

Exclusion and Universal

While Hindus claim respective sectarian (Puranas, Divyaprabandham, Thevaram etc.) and common scriptures (like Veda, Gita) as the Word of god to them, when it comes to theology this word of god won’t and cannot be useful to all.  To say in other words, while their word(s) of god is common for all, their respective theological claim/interpretation excludes certain people to derive or enjoy the same right over their scriptures. 

For example, Sankara excluded Shudras from his scheme of mukti as they are disqualified to the study of sruti, which alone can guide one to attain mukti.²³  Even in this exclusivism, among the twice born only the Brahmins and among the Brahmins only a sannyasi is qualified to attain his kind of mukti.  Similarly, though Ramanuja is claimed to have accommodated Shudra’s in his scheme of mukti, strictly speaking this is not the case.²⁴  So through the exclusion of certain people (vedic rituals are denied to certain people, similarly Agama also exclude others, even Tantra holds value by disqualifying uninitiated) through their theology or ritual their claim that their scriptures are the Word of god for all could be challenged.  Whereas, however diverse are the theological interpretation, the muktivedic theology never excludes anyone and in fact as the ‘Good News’ can be incarnated (and there by theology too) in every worldview in each culture in the world, Muktiveda, both as the Word of god (both as common grace and saving grace) through its theology could be universal in its nature and scope.   Of course the denominationalism in Christianity could maintain their doctrine only through the principle of exclusion.  But thank god, it is not going to put Muktiveda in any kind of doctrinal captivity of a particular denomination.

Gandhiji, Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan in their writings reinterpreted Hinduism to broaden its scope and gave it universal appeal. Gandhiji for example emphasized the idea of `ahimsa’, while Vivekananda²⁵ and Radhakrishnan elevated Vedanta. However when it comes to faith/bhakti oriented theology, not only their theology/philosophy/siddhanta but neither can scriptures can be the authoritative word of god for all.

Of course Muktiveda excludes people as it clearly says that all are not going to be saved, as the way to mukti is a narrow path and those who deny the Lord are going to be doomed eternally.  Whereas Hinduism at least gives the scope of chance in future births. Though Muktiveda says in clear terms that those who reject the Lord are not going to be saved, yet this choice is left to each individual.  When a person hears the Good News or reads or listens finally the choice of accepting or rejection is left to her freedom.  However, in Hinduism several section of the people (like Shudras, Dalits etc.) this exclusion is decided by others and not by them, and it remained in theory only.²⁶ So I cannot accept the view that exclusion equates Muktiveda with the other scriptures. The exclusion of Muktiveda could be explained this way, ‘the word of God (Muktiveda) is for all, but it is authoritative and normative only among those who come to faith in the Lord.’²⁷

Revelation ‘of’ god:

The main contrast that I found between the Hindu Scriptures and that of the Muktiveda is that it is a relationship between ‘god’ and people.  Whereas, in the Muktiveda, it is the complete revelation of god Himself—His mind, purpose etc.  It is not a revelation ‘about’ god or ‘from’ god but it is more ‘of’ god in His completeness.  Furthermore, this revelation is not given in some objective philosophical terms or statements, but it is given first in relationship with human beings and next in the concrete reality of life—whether you call it history or not. For example, when we read Leviticus, it looks odd to read all kinds of ritualistic details.  But a careful reading and understanding of those details will help us to know that all those details were not given just for the sake of some ritual, but closely linked with the day-to-day life of the people.  It is part of their social life, from which those ritual parts cannot be separated.

Even though we can find similar ritualistic details that too in social context among Hindu scriptures (dharmasastras are the best example for this) yet their emphasis on the importance of ritual which needs to be done in a prescribed manner to achieve its goal.  And in few cases they can even be separated from their social context and also from god, as the ritual is an end in itself.  Whereas as everything is centered on god, every detail in Muktiveda can be understood and implemented in relationship with god and fellow human beings. ²⁸

Enlightenment challenge:

I think the Enlightenment period brought a lot of challenges to the Christian world to wrestle with their many claims about the Muktiveda and god.  As Orientalism gave a new phase for the study of Hinduism, the Enlightenment created a challenge for many evangelicals to give new meaning, understanding and explanation to topics like revelation.  And now the Catholics’ new inputs into theology (I have never read those theologies, but have read about them in several books) have also forced the Protestant theologians to defend their position in clear-cut terms.  This has further complicated subjects like revelation.

Not a private book:

Another main contrast between the revelation in Hinduism (through the Veda) and in the Muktiveda is that without a response from the followers, the revelation has no meaning and purpose.  Furthermore, this response needs first to be reflected in human relationships and not in private intellectual thinking.  This is demonstrated by the collective reading, listening, reflection and responding to the Muktivedic message recorded in the Muktiveda, as a nation in the Purva Vedic time and by the mandalis in Uttara Veda.  God revealed Himself not for the private spirituality and salvation for some individuals, but for humanity as a whole first and through a selected group of people next.  That’s why the role of scripture in a Hindu life is personal and private.  While we can find corporate worship in few sampradayas like Chaitanyas, yet understanding their scriptures as a group is not very important.  Of course, scripture is read, explained in groups (like reading Bhagavatam or Ramayana in special religious functions), but its purpose is more part of ritual to earn merit than to understand the respective theology of any sampradaya. On the other hand, faith as a member of the body of Muktinath and salvation is enjoyed as part of the universal mandali.  So Muktiveda is not exclusively for personal sadhana but for collective reading, listening, reflection and responding to its message as a `community’ of the Lord.

Uniqueness of the Muktiveda:

For a Christian, the words ‘revelation’ and ‘inspiration’ are very easy to understand and accept because they are familiar with these words in their church.  However for me, they were a bit confusing in the early days of my faith because I couldn’t find any difference between ‘revelation’ ‘inspiration’ ‘speculation’ etc.  How could I know that the words recorded in the Muktiveda were not mere ‘speculation’ or were ‘inspired’ human words and why they should be ‘revealed’ by god?  In general, several Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, hold the view that while the Muktiveda is a revelation from god, the Hindu scriptures express the longing of the human heart. 

But how far would a typical Hindu believe such a theory about her religious scripture?  Though most of the Hindus have no knowledge about the Veda, most of the educated Hindus still believe that it is the Word of god or god Himself.  Though in theory, the Veda was not authored by god Himself, yet sectarian scriptures claim that the Veda was revealed by their respective god viz., Siva or Vishnu.  Apart from the Veda, rest of the Hindu scriptures, particularly most of the agamas and Puranas were treated as the word of god in the sense that they were taught by god to others.  Then our claim that Hindu scriptures are only the longing of human hearts, whereas the Muktiveda alone is the word of god revealed by Her, holds no meaning for them. In the early days of my faith, I had this same confusion.

Muktiveda-a special revelation

As the Enlightenment brought new challenges to Christianity by questioning several of its claims, the Muktiveda as the only and final authority of the revelation from god was also challenged.  Then in order to defend their position and also to accommodate the common view that god’s revelation cannot be limited either to Muktinath or the Muktiveda, Christian theologians began to explain away others’ claim as ‘speculation’ and their claim about the Muktiveda as ‘revelation’.  Also, the concept of ‘common grace’ and ‘saving grace’ viz., god shows His common grace to everyone, and saving grace to the believers.  Similarly, to make concession to the challenge to their claim of revelation only through the Muktiveda and in the Lord, god’s revelation in nature as well in the conscience of humans is also accepted.  But the special and final revelation through the Muktiveda and in Muktinath was also insisted upon.  Though followers of other faiths may not accept, at least according to Muktiveda, there is only one grace, one promise and love from god to all. (see John 3:16; I Timothy. 2-4).

A holistic book:

The difference that I found between the Hindu scriptures and the Muktiveda is their appeal to my mind.  Though I still struggle in understanding and accepting many verses and portions of the Muktiveda, I am convinced by the overall theme, history, teaching, theology and the continuity between the Purva Veda and Uttara Veda.  For example, when I read any Hindu scriptures, I begin to question different aspects of it. Though the central theme and teaching are appealing, the details are very confusing.  One can see several contradictions in theology (doctrine) within Hinduism.  For example, karma²⁹ and bhakti; experience and scriptures often clash with each other when we take them together as part of theology.  When later sectarian scriptures clashed with the traditional authority of the Veda, then it was easily explained that those sanctions in the Vedas belong to another age in the past, or they are treated as laudatory (arthavada).³⁰  Such contradictions and conflicts have never been resolved satisfactorily for me. Whereas, when I read the Muktiveda, though questions about certain details of the narratives still remain, I am very convinced by the continuity of the theme, theology, teaching and claims of the Muktiveda. 

Muktivedic orthodoxy:

I am moved by the spirit of devotion and the depth of the poems of Meera, Tulsidas, Kabir, Surdas and several Tamil saints like Sundarar, Manikavasagar. However, when it comes to the theology of their respective writings, they are not consistent, and appear to contradict each other.  They give a lot of importance to their personal experience at the cost of the accepted scriptural authority of their respective sectarian faiths, so all the claim about continuity with orthodoxy (in theology) is not satisfying.  Whereas, when I look at the lives and the teachings of the first disciples of the Lord and the successive leaders and disciples there is minimum contradiction in their writings from the normative muktivedic theology.  Across time and space there has been a volitional acceptance of the Muktiveda as the central authority of orthodoxy for theology, and the consequent rejection of extra muktivedic explanation and interpretation as unorthodox.³¹  In other words, the Muktiveda continues to remain as the authority though diversity in theology is accepted.  On the other hand, in Hinduism new interpretations, explanations and experiences could claim new authority referring various scriptures according to the need for the orthodoxy. ³² Sometimes, as noted above, commentaries, replacing the very scripture, become the authority in deciding the theological orthodoxy.  For example, the Upanishads replace the Veda, several smirtis (non-vedic scriptures) and sectarian scriptures replace the authority of the Upanishads.  Even sectarian Puranas were replaced by regional vernacular scriptures for the orthodoxy.

Sectarianism and the Muktiveda: (Unity not uniformity)

In general, for the Hindus, the Vedas hold the final authority.  The great acharyas like Sri Ramanuja and Sri Sankara accepted the authority of the Veda and commented and quoted from it in their commentaries.  Yet in their respective tradition, apart from their commentaries (like Sri bhashya by Ramanuja) the smirits like Gita, Puranas and regional scriptures (like Divya Prabandham; Sivagamas, Periya Puranam etc.) are more important than Veda.  And like any other philosopher/theologian disagreeing with their opponents’ interpretation on Scripture, they established their doctrine.  Of course to the followers of the respective schools of philosophy this is not a problem.  But the champions of Neo-Hinduism, in order to emphasis ‘unity in diversity’ will set aside such contradictions regarding the authority of the scripture and will claim that irrespective of such diversity there is unity.  For example, writing on the occasion of the birth anniversary of both Sankara and Ramanuja, Sri Pranav Khullar claims that ‘they were … great apostles of bhakti’.  But a sincere and serious student of Hinduism will question such a claim of ‘unity’ among these two ‘great apostles of Hinduism’.  Forgetting all the diversity and rivalry between the two great acharyas, claiming some kind of unity in (bhakti) theology is a common trend among the Neo-Hindus.³³ Though ‘unity in diversity’ is acceptable in culture, tradition, rituals and faiths; when it comes to the authority of the scripture, there is no unity. Whereas doctrinal diversity is accepted, the Muktiveda holds the central authority for the followers of the Lord Muktinath.  This is termed as ‘Unity not uniformity’.  The Historic church creeds are best example for this, which are accepted by almost all (Christians) as authoritative summarizes of the revelation though the controversies related to the formation those creeds have to be questioned. (See ‘Jesus Wars’ in notes ³⁴).

Convincing revelation:

Of course this is the very same area in which a typical Hindu could challenge my view.  I still remember a Brahmin in Gonda (U.P.), in 1985, telling me that the Muktiveda could not be the word of god because it is the record of human history limited to a nation, and the Hindu scriptures, particularly the Vedas are actually the pure Word of god and the highest philosophy in its True form. If I were not the bhakta of the Lord, I too would have argued in similar way.  However, I feel more convinced in my mind and spirit that the Muktiveda is the word of god (for me).  Furthermore, my mental and spiritual satisfaction comes because of the convincing aspect of the Muktiveda which affirms to me that it is the revelation from god.  When reading the Hindu scriptures I was not convicted, comforted or satisfied.  However, when I became a bhakta of the Lord, I felt comfort and satisfaction, irrespective of my limitations to understand the Muktiveda in its totality, and this aspect of my mental faculty is the revelation for me. At the same time I recognize that this is true to the followers of every other faith as Gandhi rightly said that

…I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being and I find a solace in the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads that miss even in the Sermon on the Mount.  Not that I do not prize the ideal presented therein, not that some of the precious teachings in the Sermon on the Mount have not left a deep impression upon me, but I must confess to you that when doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately being to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow…. [The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi, 1968, Vol. 27, p. 435]….³⁵

Redeeming act of god:

If my understanding of the Muktiveda is correct, then it is not the theology, philosophy, teaching etc., alone that makes it a revealed work.  But it is the redeeming acts of god both in the life of an individual and nation(s) through historical events alone that could confirm the revelation of god because any philosophy and teaching could come from the contemplative mind of individual(s).  Whereas, the teaching and theology of the Muktiveda follows the events of that redemption that is enacted by god through a chosen nation and then through His Son.  Of course such historical act is not acceptable to many and they have every right to question about it.  However  it is the act of redemption, whether historical, fictional or real is crucial for many people.  As I feel that redemption in my life, then I have to see it as part of His cosmic act, in which I am also a part as His creation.  Of course several saints’ lives could be pointed out as part of god’s redeeming act in history beyond His chosen nation.  However, this is not the main theme and purpose of Hindu Scriptures.

Message of continuity:

At the same time, we have to recognize that the form(s) of god’s revelation is not limited only through historical events both in the chosen individuals and other nations.  God used several forms according to the need and limitation of the individual/group and time.  He used dreams, visions, events, oracles, written words etc.  But in all these forms, what important is the message and not the mere incidents that took place.  Because without a message, events are mere happenings in human life.  And the beauty with the Muktiveda is that the message continues until it is completed in the Lord, which will come to the final conclusion in His second coming.  And even after the completed work of the Lord, the message continues for each individual who responds to it.

In relationship with:

One advantage in being an Indian and also a Hindu is that of our respect for tradition.  Not to question the authority of the scripture is part of our tradition.  We never enter into a hair-splitting analysis on the question about revelation.  For example, when I became a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I read the Muktiveda more for my personal, spiritual life, as well as to understand my relationship with rest of the fellow bhaktas and the world.  At that time, the question of revelation did not even come up.  But once I began to read more books about the Muktiveda, I became very confused about several complicated subjects related to the Muktiveda. It is too lengthy for details here.  However, suffice it to say, for me, the Muktiveda is more a work manual dealing with the relationship between god and human, between human beings, and between human beings and the created world.  And the purpose for me to read is to understand that relationship and live it out.  If reading the Muktiveda helps me in this area, that is much more important for me than to understand all the technicalities about the Muktiveda.  Though Hindus never reads their scriptures to seek this kind of guidance, yet my experience and emphasis on relationships first with the Lord and then with others, has helped me to cope with those technicalities of the Muktiveda.

Unique revelation?

The one challenge with which a Hindu bhakta of the Lord has to reconcile with is ‘the uniqueness’ of muktivedic revelation.  Most Christians will agree that revelation about god’s greatness and sovereignty is there in every religion, whereas god revealing Himself in and through Muktinath is entirely adequate, unique and final.  Anyone from a Christian background would find no problem in accepting this to be true.  Sometimes a believer from a Muslim or Jewish background also could easily agree with this.  But for me, having read only a few Hindu scriptures as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, this is not an easy thing to reconcile.  It is particularly difficult if we believe that one way god reveals Himself is through human language, and if the inspiration that a saint received as a part of His revelation began with Hindu scriptures, can we throw out the Hindu scriptures as not being a part of god’s general revelation?  I haven’t reconciled this question yet for myself, but I plan to explore it further by discussing it with other bhaktas of the Lord.

Muktivedic revelation with new perspective

Apart from the revelation of god in the muktivedic records, then what about new truths that we can find in other religious traditions which have no parallel in the muktivedic records?  Take, for example, the concept of bhakti.  Though one can trace the ‘devotional’ aspect in the Muktiveda, yet bhakti that we find in Hinduism is different from it.  In my mind, the word that comes closer is ‘knowing god’ in the Muktiveda.    Though faith can be equated with bhakti, bhakti including faith goes beyond it.  For example, how to translate the words ‘faith, trust and belief’ in Hindi or in Tamil.³⁶ What is the difference between them? If ‘faith’ in Tamil is ‘visvasam’ then trust could be ‘aazhnda visvasam’ (deep faith).  This shows that a person can have shallow faith and deep/strong faith.  I don’t know how the word ‘belief’ is translated in Tamil?  If it is ‘nambikkai’ then it could also mean ‘hope’.  Suppose the word ‘belief’ is used for theological purpose, hope is also used in theology.  For me the word ‘bhakti’ includes them all.  Bhakti depicting the personal relationship with the Lord in includes ‘Trust and faith’.  Suppose if anyone asks the question to me ‘Do you have faith in the Lord’ my response would be ‘I have bhakti in the Lord’. 

Bhakti coming from the root word ‘bhaj’ means standing in personal relationship with god.  In this personal relationship, one can go to the extent of becoming familiar with god.  One can argue, fight, question, demand, get angry and even doubt god.  In one’s relationship, they can view god as parent, friend, husband, and even as a child.  Though scattered references for these feelings are also found in the Muktiveda, the church tradition emphasizes a faith-based reverence for god.  In the Purva Veda, ‘fear’ of god is emphasized more than ‘love’ for god.  No Jew would dare to call god ‘father’.  In the Uttara Veda, both the love ‘of’ god and love ‘for’ god is prominent, yet because of the influence of doctrine, more is emphasized on the rationalization of faith and devotion.  Bhakti as a personal relationship with god, with or without any understanding of all the doctrinal aspect of it, can help a bhakta to go even beyond the scripture to trust her god.  Though nothing can separate us from the love of god (as said by Sevanand), it emphasizes what god has done for us rather than what a bhakta can do by bhakti (in the Muktiveda).³⁷  Whereas like Abirami battar, a bhakta can say, ‘either you do good to me or evil, I am not bothered about it because I have already surrendered everything of mine to you’.  Total surrender without any reservation can be summarized as the climax of bhakti (prapati or saranagathi in vaishnava tradition).

In the Hindu tradition, bhakti begins as a relationship and most of the time, remains the same without ever worrying much about learning more about god to grow in faith.  However, to know the mind, will, purpose of god in a bhakta’s life, the importance of the Muktiveda is emphasized.  Furthermore, much of the time, this overemphasis on the knowledge of the scripture, gradually deprives the bhaktas of their ‘first love’ for god.  Here, my Hindu tradition puts more emphasis on bhakti as relationship, and this helps bring me back to that ‘first love’.  Thus bhakti as it is in the Hindu religious tradition, helps one to understand the muktivedic revelation about the love ‘of’ god in a new perspective.

New scopes in revelation:

Of course for me it is easy to accommodate bhakti, as one finds it in the Hindu tradition within muktivedic revelation because it helps me to have a closer relationship with the Lord.  At least bhakti in its other form as ‘faith’ and ‘devotion’ is present in the Muktiveda.  But what do we do with some of the other concepts that are not in the Muktiveda?  Do such concepts come under god’s common revelation?  Can we call it revelation first?  This is an easy question but difficult to answer.  For example, several (liberal) Indian Christian theologians can easily recognize advaita as an equal revelation from god.  Similarly, Indian philosophical traditions can give several theological terms to form Indian Muktivedic Theology which could even contribute to the entire Church.  For example, K. P. Aleaz’s, Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedanta,³⁸ is the best attempt to accommodate Christian thought through advaita Vedanta.  But theologians exclusively working along these lines and ignoring the lay people will remain mere theory.  Furthermore, without learning from such theologians, lay people will limit their experience in the Lord captivated by their particular church’s Western theology.  Mutual contribution could break new ground in this field.

Reasoning with revelation:

Theology, whether Hindu or muktivedic, is simply reasoning by humans so that she can understand what has been revealed to her.  Revelation by itself cannot illuminate any unreasoning mind and mere reasoning, as an academic activity without responding to that revelation by faith, will not help.  When someone reasons intellectually without any kind of faith commitment towards the revelation, then it will not accomplish much in that person’s life.  For many theologians, writing about revelation is only an academic activity because there is no personal response to the revelation through faith. Whereas, a believing theologian’s contribution to the believing community happens more through her inspiration and not mere reasoning, which makes the inspiration pure response to god’s revelation through faith.  And in the Hindu world, thankfully most of the Hindu religious writings were inspired records to that general revelation of god’s grace more than a mere intellectual activity.  Therefore, I cannot brush them aside as a mere longing of the human heart to find god or truth.  In this respect, a Hindu bhakta of the Lord has more of an advantage here.

Pluralistic perception:

As a Hindu my response to such traditional dogmas of faith is quite different.  Therefore, revelation is faith-based inspiration to me and not mere reason based academic discipline.  In the same way, the composite cultural and various traditional approaches to the Hindu scripture also help me understand the cultural boundary of muktivedic revelation in the Muktiveda.  This helps me not to limit my understanding of the Muktiveda only within a limited interpretive framework of western theological thought.  No one can understand god’s revelation above one’s perception, which is conditioned by several factors like experience, culture, community, geography, tradition, etc.  The pluralistic approach to reality in Indian worldview helped me to recognize that the  muktivedic record is also bound by pluralistic human perception.

Not a frozen revelation:

Limited human perception need not limit god’s final truth.  However, when god inspired the authors to record His revelation, He allowed them to use their limited perspective to reveal His plan for humanity as a whole.  And when we read, then we have to go the main message and not get entangled with the limitation of the authors.  For example, there is vast difference between the Purva Veda and Uttara Veda records as each is conditioned by its respective limitation like language, culture, and tradition.  While the Uttara Veda used more of Greek philosophical categories (Logos, etc.), worldviews (`we are living, moving and our being in Him’) the Purva Veda used more of Hebrew worldview (covenant, law, sacrifice, etc.) which borrows many forms from the neighbouring cultures.  Similarly while the Purva Veda is more focused on the Jewish nation, the Uttara Veda broadened its scope to all of humanity. Of course we do see glimpses of the universal nature of the Purva Veda as well, but it is still limited. The muktivedic revelation is not only limited to the respective human perspective of both Purva and Uttara Veda world, but also to the issues related to every worldview, it addressed.  Though sin, forgiveness and salvation could be universal issue for all the time, yet several of the issues which the Muktiveda deals in their respective time (prophetic fulfillment; messiah; church, second coming), is irrelevant for us now, as they are fulfilled now in the Lord, yet several issues with which we struggle (caste, democracy, religious fundamentalism) there is no direct recorded revelation from god in the Muktiveda.  So we need to work out a new kind of interpretation about muktivedic revelation to address our needs at present.

Information vs. communication:

When both theology and translation became mere academic disciplines without a faith responding to them, the art of communication also becomes a commercial activity of selling information to people.  Vidya (study, education, and learning) is different from jnana (wisdom, knowledge) in India and this is true also in the Muktiveda.  Though the Hindus pay lip service to the Vedic literatures, when it comes to their respective regional and sectarian scripture, they never read it for mere learning but to have bhakti, which is mainly a relationship with god.  Coming from this kind of tradition, uncommunicative translation and theology have never helped me to develop my bhakti in the Lord.  Muktivedic revelation is also an act of communicative knowledge and not commercial information like TV advertisements, which we can ignore by changing the channel.  Mere information might never inspire the spirit to respond.

Re-enacting the revelation:

If god’s revelation is not mere information but events in history recorded in the Muktiveda, which are to be interpreted for our understanding, then in the same way god has to re-enact His message of those events in our contemporary situation.  And in this sense muktivedic events as revelation alone cannot be the final one from god.  The message which god wants to communicate to us needs to be re-enacted or interpreted in our contemporary events and needs.  And in this sense, god continues to reveal Himself and does not limit Himself within the Muktivedic cultural boundaries.  The message creates a response through inspiration by faith for us to be a part of god’s master plan for the entire humanity.  And each individual through their faith, bhakti, mandali, fellowship, seva is re-enacting that muktivedic revelation. 

Two way revelation:

Of course an individual’s response in no way is going to limit the muktivedic revelation both in events and message.  But it is the way in which god continues to illuminate by inspiring the spirit and mind of a bhakta because of her faith.  Without an individual response and communication to each other, god’s revelation is mere objective theory.  Without god’s objective revelation in the muktivedic records and message, the individual’s response, even with some inspiration, could be mere imagination and wishful thinking or longing.  So the revelation works both ways—god revealing, the human responding and god re-enacting that revelation, which would be meaningful to the receiving audience.  God’s revelation cannot remain frozen in some particular events and record of them in the Muktiveda.  It is alive! As the entire world is His creation and all the inhabitants of this earth are His children, then He cannot remain inactive and indifferent to those people who lived, are living and will live outside the muktivedic world and its message.  And to make them receptive to the muktivedic message, He needs to reveal to them His purpose for them in such a way that they can receive the ‘Good News’ with proper understanding.

God’s accommodation:

God’s revelation has various forms.  He has fundamentally accommodated Himself to the limitation of people so they can understand Him.  Though His revelation is the same all the time, yet peoples’ understanding (illumination, inspiration) never remains uniform.  Otherwise, god in the Purva Veda will look like a blood thirsty Tribal warring god, fighting for a particular tribe or nation called Hebrews.  And as people progressed in their mind and maturity, god too began to reveal to them according to their level of spiritual maturity and receptivity and it culminated in a more complete form in the Uttara Veda.  Now as we continue to progress scientifically and also in technology, he will continue to re-enact his revelation according to the demands of our time.  The unchanging god never changes His, but He merely accommodates that revelation according to the need of the people in different times and in different places.  And in this process of His self-revelation, initiated by Him, He seems to take pleasure in working with our limitation.  But, in my mind our limitation never limits Him in any way. ‘We see the hand of god in world and personal history as it confirms to the purpose and character we see revealed in biblical history’, says Dr. Hoefer.³⁹

Authority: in letter or in spirit?

For me the spirit/meaning and authority of Muktiveda is not in its texts but in its theology (not in respective denominational doctrines) which is based on conviction, communication and culture. And the authorized list of books, with all its complication in one way helps to provide some fundamental framework for one to have a solid foundation in understanding the scripture.  All other aspects such as revelation, inspiration, illumination etc., are the super structure on that foundation, which needs to be worked with the help of a living theology to have personal bhakti and faith to progress more in spirituality.

Thus the importance of the Muktiveda as the SCRIPTURE for a bhakta is not limited merely to accepting it by faith alone.  But god expects me to understand His revelation in its totality, with various facets of ‘revelation’; ‘inspiration’ ‘illumination’etc.⁴⁰  So muktivedic canon does not accept a tradition without reasoning with it.  In this respect, unlike the Hindu tradition of implicit obedience to the tradition (or guru’s word or authority), the muktivedic canon gives more scope for us to wrestle with god to make His revelation relevant to my need and situation.  Dalit theology, liberal theology etc. are the best examples for this.  However, as usual, several times our reasoning itself sets limitations for us to understand god’s revelation, leading the muktivedic revelation to various conditionalities.  We will explore this further in the chapter on theology.

I would like to close this chapter with one burning question: We often hear that Muktiveda holds final authority.  Does Muktiveda claims this authority in any place in Muktiveda or it is just another slogan of orthodoxy?  According to my limited understanding of Muktiveda, no where it says that ‘Muktiveda holds the final authority’.  But nothing wrong to hold such views based on personal orthodoxy and reverence to scripture.  But merely superimposing certain slogan—however good it might be, we make the authority of Muktiveda to become captivated to such slogans and not God.  For me the Lord holds the final authority.  And how we know about it?  It is through the mandali which alone can help us to understand the need of that authority in our life by proper understanding of Muktiveda in perspective addressing to the present and contemporary issues and needs than through some frozen doctrine or theory of canon.  Unless a fellow bhakta helps us to understand the need and importance of Muktiveda through proper study, meditation, prayer and interpretation, mere letters can never help us to understand and accept that authority.

Notes

1 “When Gita along with Upanishads and Vedantasutras became the Canon called ‘prasthanatrayi’  (the Trinity of Systems)…all religious opinions or cults which were inconsistent with these three works or which could not find a place in them, came to be considered as inferior and unacceptable by the followers of the Vedic religion.  The net result of this was that the protagonist acharyas of each of the various cults which came into existence in India after the extinction of the Buddhistic religion had to write commentaries on all the three parts of the prasthanatrayi (and, necessarily on the Bhagavadgita also)”.— B.G. Tilak, Tr. by A. S. Sukthankar: Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya,seventh edn., Poona, 1986. p. 17

2 The Veda is like a mine of gold, and the later scriptures are like the gold coins of the various ages.  When you want to procure things that would make you comfortable, you should have ready money and not a piece of rock with veins of gold in it straight from the mine.  Of course, every gold coin that is in the country is ultimately derived from the mine.  But it has undergone various processes that make it useful to us at once.  The ore has been smelted, the dross has been removed, the true metal has been refined, put into moulds and stamped.  Similarly, the golden truths of the Veda have been refined by the wisdom of the ages and presented to us in a useful form in our later scriptures.  That is why I recommend to you the Gita, rather than the Upanishads.— A Primer Of Hinduism,  D.S. Sarma, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,  1984  p.21

3 Prof. Daya Krishna, Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 200. p.53

4  I think Martin Luther rejected both James and Jude in the Uttaraveda [check what Dr. Hoefer wrote about this in the email].

5 I wrote several poems (bhajans) only out of some inspiration/revelation.  When I go for walk, read, meditate and sometimes even while sleeping, suddenly some kind of inspiration will come and immediately I will write few lines.  In most cases I will complete the entire poem in one sitting.  But sometimes I will struggle to find proper words to express that inspiration.  I always keep a note and pencil next to me when I retire to bed and when I get some inspiration, immediately write the lines on the note without getting up or using light.  Later I will develop it as a complete poem.  I have still several such incomplete poems with me.  I have read and also heard about the same kind of experience in several poets’ life, though I cannot call me as poet. When one person seriously asked me whether I am mystic or a poet?  In response I said ‘a mad person’. 

6 Gavin Flood, An introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge,1996, p. 35

7 However Prof. Kane holds different scholarly view on this subject:

…There are two theories about mantras; one is the vibration theory, viz. that the letters of the mantra are charged with certain powers by the original composer and user of it and when the mantra is repeated certain imperceptible vibrations are set up which help in securing the purpose for which the mantra is repeated.  The other theory is that the mantra comes down from antiquity and from (p.1453) a great sage and its power of suggestion is great.  But the real effective power of a mantra seems to the present author to depend far more on the knowledge, the responsiveness and the high spiritual level which the person who repeats it brings to bear on its use.  No scientific tests have been employed and different works emphasize with exaggeration one of the two theories about mantras.  All is speculation.  The present author believes that the 2nd theory has greater elements of trustworthiness than the first, as it relies on human psychology, while the first degenerated so much that the famous mantra `om mani padme hum‘ (dedicated to Avalokitesvara) written on some material and pasted on a wheel which was turned round and round hundreds of times was supposed to yield great results.  The 2nd theory led to the importance of guru and diksa (initiation) and here also extravagant claims were made.  This latter theory, however, required that the disciple should possess certain qualifications such as implicit faith in the guru, respect for matters spiritual, some knowledge of the tenets and the basic scriptures and readiness to devote time and energy to the study and practice of the teachings of the guru….—P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Five volumes,  Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1968-77 (1930-62) vol. V, part I, Ch. XXXI. pp. 1453-54

8 I am thankful to Dr. Hoefer for this information.  He further says, ‘the original language of the Bible is not crucial in Christianity’, [see notes 5 in the Chapter ‘Scripture as the Foundation’]

9 … The Veda is the main source.  It is the fountain-head of all Indian culture.  Its rituals and sacrifices lead to Karma–Mimamsa.  Its Upasanas lead to the Bhakti–doctrine. Its metaphysical disquisitions lead to the logic of Nyaya.  Its accounts of creation lead to Samkhya.  Its descriptions of religious ecstasy lead to Yoga.  Its conception of the cosmic law of Rta leads to that of the moral law of Karma.  And its kings and Rishis are the starting point of our Itihasas and Puranas.  We may even say that its occasional protests against sacrifice lead to Buddhism and Jainism.  Thus all our secondary scriptures namely the Smritis, the Itihasas the Puranas, the Agamas and the Darsanas only develop this or that aspect of the Veda. — D.S. Sarma, A Primer Of Hinduism  Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,  1984  p. 20 [Though serious scholars might question such conclusion, still this is the way a typical Hindu apologetic would respond].

 10 Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 2007, p. 269

11 ..Really speaking the commentators are more important than the texts, as the Hindus of the different provinces follow the particular commentary prevalent in them.  Modern Pandits reject even sacred authorities if they are not quoted by the commentators.— Rajbali Pandey, Hindu Samskaras:  Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (Second Revised Edition, 1969), Reprint, 1987 p.10.  Also see Social and Literary History of Dharmasastra: Commentaries and Legal Digests.  Donald R. Davis, Jr. and David Brick. Pp. 30-45, in Patrick Olivelle and Donald R. Davis, Jr. Eds. Hindu Law: A New History of Dharmasastra, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2018, where Davis and Brick help us to understand about the role played by the commentators:

…In fact, in some cases, it appears that commentators could create new root-texts and cite them as authoritative in their argumentation, so long as the position represented conformed to an accepted view. For example, several citations in the centuries-long debate over widow-burning (sahagamana) do not appear except in the commentaries that use them.  To us, this fact suggests that commentators could “invent” traditions that condensed prevailing opinions (and possible practice) on the topic.  In other cases, however, commentators described forged or fabricated rules that supported unacceptable opinions or practices….—ibid. Social and Literary History of Dharmasastra: Commentaries and Legal Digests.  Donald R. Davis, Jr. and David Brick. Pp. 30-45, in p. 33

12 …About these several learned commentators Manikar gives the cautious suggestions to the beginners, ‘A student of Sutras of Badarayana must take the help of many commentaries, available, to understand them but having done this must also make an effort to forget them if he has a mind to understand the real’. This is Manikar….— A Homage, Nalinee Chapekar, pp. xv to xx, in,  A Homage to Dr. Manikar, ed. C. R. Deshpande and Nalinee Chapekar, Bombay, by editors, 1982, p. Xix.

13…But orthodoxies never grant such freedom to any of its followers except interpreters who cleverly camouflage all their deviant views and just parade them all as conforming to tradition, consequently rendering that tradition lifeless.  As pointed out before, it will be only thought to be a very living tradition by its ardent, orthodox followers although it is no more truly living.— Srinivasa Rao  Advaita: A Contemporary Critique, , New Delhi, Oxford, 2012.p. 13 

14.. …Glancing at the references in the commentaries to poems like the Tiruviruttam amply demonstrates that the Srivaisnava commentators were well aware of the literary past, but that they simply chose not to turn to it for their exegetical purposes. Instead, they adroitly employ both Tamil and Sanskrit sources to elucidate Alvar poetry to fulfill newly emergent theological and aesthetic imperatives…..— Archana Venkatesan, Nammalvar: A Hundred Measures of Time.  Tiruviruttam.  Translated from the Tamil by Penguin Books India, 2014 p. 143

…the (p.244) commentaries are written on the doctrinal premises of Visistadvaita, which makes them impose on the poems conceptual categories alien to their original spirit. Thus here again a critical evaluation of Alvar poetry has to take the limitations of the commentaries into account in order to avoid misjudgements and distortions.  On the other hand, these commentaries are extremely valuable and interesting documents in their own right; a comprehensive history of Srivaisnavism could be written by utilizing these neatly laid out layers of the his development of this religious tradition⁹….— Friedhelm Hardy, Viraha-Bhakti.  The Early History of Krsna Devotion in South India, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, (1983), Oxford India Paperbacks 2001. pp. 244-45

9 This will not be an easy undertaking.  I myself have translated most of the available commentaries on one song by Nammalvar (TVM I, 4), which translation runs to almost two hundred pages. I hope to publish this material in some form, to give an idea of this important branch of Srivaisnava literature….—ibid. p. 245

…(the classical commentaries on the Thiruvaimozhi were written from the twelfth to the sixteenth century) illustrate a reverse process: they progressively moved away from the actual poetic content and lost themselves in esoteric speculations and scholastic subtleties….—ibid. p. 558

See Dr. K. R. Vittal Doss, Alwars and the Indian Vaishnavite Literatures, New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal Pvt. Ltd. 2017 for ‘Aarayirappadi’ (6000) by Tirukurukkai Piranpillai, ‘Vonbadayirappadi’ (9000) by Namjeer, ‘Muppadayirappadi’(30000) also known as ‘Eedu’ by Nampillai, ‘Erupatthi Nalayirappadi’(74000) by Periavachanpillai, ‘Pannirendayirappadi’(12000) by Alakiya Manavala Jeer, ‘Elupattarayirappai’(76000) or ‘Nigamparimala’ by Vedanta Desikacharya.  Some other commentaries on ‘Tirupavai’ by Andal were ‘Muvayirappadi’(3000)  by Periavachanpillai, ‘Aarayirappai’ (6000) by Alakiamanavala Perumal and also ‘Eerayirappadi’(7000)  and ‘Nalayirappadi’ (4000) by unknown authors.—pp. 25-26

15   Steven Paul Hopkins, Singing the Body of God, New York, Oxford, 2002, p. 42

16 Keeping a balance: …We may, however, say that, depending on texts and circumstances, mantras are seen either as deities or powers, or as powerful formulas, formulas which exist empirically as linguistic or metalinguistic elements, but which are divine in essence, and this is why they are powerful. But they can also be seen and manipulated as both formula and deity -a deity that is a mantra. This ambiguity probably results from the fact that Tantric conceptions of mantras unsystematically combine notions of Vedic origin on the power of vaac with agamic rites and theological beliefs….In India, today, apart from ritual, it is the magical use of mantras that is the most in evidence.—Mantra.  Andre Padoux, in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Gavin Flood (ed.), UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Indian Reprint 2003, p.489

17 I am thankful for this information to Dr. Hoefer.

18. HERBERT HOEFER, “PROCLAIMING A ‘THEOLOGYLESS’ CHRIST,” P. 98.  INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOREIGN MISSIONS, JULY-SEPTEMBER, 2005.  But this view is objected by another person who wrote:

Perhaps it can be defended that “no theological explanation is imposed” but I do not think it is true that “we just have a story that is told.” True, it is a story, but it is a highly motivated story and the motive clearly is to point people to Jesus as more than just another teacher/wonder worker. There is clearly theology behind the story and theology motivating what aspects of the story are told; to claim it is just an innocent un-motivated story is not valid. One of the interesting questions in studying the gospels is the double situation involved; the situation in the life of Jesus which is described, but also the situation among the early disciples of Jesus that led to this particular story being told for the instruction/remembrance of those early disciples.  It is too easy to move into fanciful speculation on this point, but it is clearly a valid perspective to keep in mind.’ [From DD, personal communication].

19 Perhaps you have to state that the Vedas were concerned about racial purity and boundaries and theology served that intent. That was the context for the varnashrama dharma. I think we all have to work hard philosophically. I think Apostle Paul worked out an inclusive theology as he wrote a lot in the context of including the non Jews (gentiles) within a very parochial Jewish message and narrative.—I think this point is communicated by Dr. Hoefer.—Personal communication.

I have to agree that we have to work hardly philosophically to understand this ‘varnashrama dharma’. However the way certain Hindu apologetics tries to defend Hinduism as if only a ‘dharmic’ civilization forgetting the core issue of ‘varnasharama’ is not presenting the real picture at least in India. Not to criticize or condemn their tradition, superficially I can argue that, though racialism is very strong in several Western Churches, at least in theory they won’t object to appoint a ‘African’ as the pastor or even a Bishop to a ‘white’ church.  Whereas in India, because of the varnashrama dharma in several ‘Mutts’ and ‘Ashrams’ a non-Brahmin can never become a pontiff there.  In few Saiva Mutts in Tamilnadu only a person from a particular (high caste) community alone can become the successor and not a dalit or even Shudra, however they claim to work hard for the emancipation and welfare of the Dalits. 

20  …While determined to vindicate Vedanta, he approached the study of Hindu philosophy without possessing either the full Sanskrit learning or the traditional Hindu training necessary for an objective understanding of the classical Indian darsanas.  The result has often been a near-identification of Hinduism and Vedaanta with naturalistic religion and rationalistic (p.366) idealism; according to Radhakrishnan’s  interpretation, the traditional ‘tolerance’ of the religious-minded Hindus is to be identified with 19^th century agnosticism and the religious indifferentism of Christian modernists.  As Vivekaananda’s Vedaanta, is, to a large extent, Comtist Positivism in a Hindu garb, so Radhakrishnan’s Vedaanta is, on the whole, but a brilliant transposition of Western Idealism and Liberal Protestantism, metaphysically poor and religiously relativistic.

               Of Radhakrishnan, and of Neo-Hinduism as a whole, it can be said that Hinduism, Christianity and secular Western Thought meet here in a syncretistic attempt to find an answer to the challenge presented by Western Philosophy and Christian Religion to the traditional thought and spirituality of India.  Syncretism is no synthesis; this attempt, however brilliant and no doubt sincere, is at present more and more severely criticised both by Hindu scholars and by Western Indologists.— Editors R.De Smet and J. Neuner ,Religious Hinduism, Fourth Revised Edition, 1997, Chapter 27 (P.Fallon) p. 368.  And, ‘…Religiously a spokesman of “neo-Hinduism,” Radhakrishnan’s outlook sought to mediate precariously between India’s classical past and the democratic present, between ancient beliefs and contemporary understandings (a procedure that was likely to displease both staunch traditionalists and radical modernizers).….’— Fred Dallmayr, Beyond Orientalism: Essays on Cross-Cultural Encounter. New Delhi, Rawat Publications. 2001. p. 64

21. …the path of aristocratic eclecticism, whose other name is inclusivism.  This has been the path of the Neo-Vedantis since the Time of Vivekananda….like the later Greeks, the Neo-Vedantins choose to take the experiential evidence of “immediate consciousness” as their sole criterion of philosophic truth.  Each group claims to discover the key for reconciling difference in the experience of the soul’s union with God.  Where such an interpretive decision leads is made all too clear if we examine the bold and inclusive eclecticism of Radhakrishnan: “We do not then so much think reality as live it, do not so much know it as become it. Such an extreme monism…we meet with in some Upanisads, Nagarjuna and Samkara in his ultra-philosophical moods, Sri Harsa and the Advaita Vedantins, and echoes of it are heard in Parmenides and Plato, Spinoza and Plotinus, Bradley and Bergson, not to speak of the mystics, in the West” (Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. Radhakrishnan: Selected Writings on Philosophy.  Religion, and Culture. Edited by Robert A. McDermott.  New York: E. P. Dutton.  1970: 81).

…Radhakrishnan apparently has no compunction against taking a bulldozer to intellectual history; he levels the world’s philosophy down to a neat, Neo-Vedantic playing field…are we really prepared to abandon the particulars of history in favour of the commodious inclusive ism of such universalism?

…Do we really want to say that what Plotinus did in late antiquity is what Emerson did in nineteenth-century America and is what Radhakrishnan did in twentieth-century India?  If we do, we run the risk of sounding every bit as inclusivist as Radhakrishnan himself. We run the risk of reifying eclecticism, of forgetting about difference.

               A better option is …to help us identify and characterize moments of eclecticism in religious history, but then to abandon them when we detect our categories beginning to gobble up the phenomena we wish to explain….— Brian A. Hatcher, Eclecticism and Modern Hindu Discourse, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999. p. 119

22.  ibid. p. 115

23  …Though Advaita on occasion presents itself as Vedanta, thoroughly and nonideologically available in self-knowledge, it is always also Mimamsa, available only to a privileged group of educated upper-caste men: (p.120) the elitism of Advaita which often discomforts the modern student is essential to it as the practical discipline which it fundamentally is.—Francis X. Clooney, S.J , Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993, pp.120-21

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

The sudra 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 sudra, for study of the Veda presupposes investiture with the sacred thread, which is restricted to the three castes. (UMS I.3.34)—ibid. p.138

…Drawing on several Mimamsa siddhantas as examples, Vacaspati’s purvapaksin argues that the intelligent appropriation of texts can have the desired result, even if none is explicitly mentioned.  It should therefore be recognized as a practice distinct from ritually—and caste-inscribed approved study, and even if sudras are deprived of the right to the approved form of study, the intelligent practice of reading will still be available to them…

Moreover

Proper study is possible only for him who has been prepared by investiture, and this person can come only from among the twice-born.  Without investiture, that proper preparation (p.140) which constitutes proper study cannot occur; therefore that understanding which sudras get by studying books, etc., cannot be fruitful.  It is therefore proven that because the sudra lacks the scripturally authorized capacity, he is not competent for meditation on Brahman.

Though intending a universally pertinent domain, Brahman, salvific knowledge is nevertheless mediated by the Text, and access to the Text is mediated by the approved set of Textually articulated preparations and refinements.  As in the Mimamsa argument, the exclusion of the sudra is argued entirely in terms of an argument about the Veda; nothing is said about the natural abilities of the sudra, nor about knowledge “in itself”—ibid. pp.139-40

24 When Ramanuja sat to write commentary on Brahmasutra, he forgot that he was a Vaishnav.  Take the rights of a Shudra.  Ramanuja goes ten steps ahead of Sankaracharya.  Against Shudras he says, ‘if moksha is possible through knowledge then it will be dangerous one, because both women and Shudras also can attain moksha.’  It is right to accept that mukti is possible only by bhakti.  Then Shudras and women cannot stand in that line.  [but] Ramanuja gives teaching to do bhakti according to the vedic tradition.  First you know the swarup [essence] of Brahman and then learn the rules and regulations to perform puja. Then alone you can do bhakti.  As long as you have no right to say mantras you also cannot do bhakti.  Women and Shudras are unqualified.  According to Sankaracarya, among all the advaitians who are reading and writing in English they have no right to read or understand [Vedas].  Ramanujacharya goes two steps ahead of Sankaracharya and says that when there is no right to [read] sruti what will happen. Manu also says:

Nishekadishmashanananto mantraryaistooditoo vidhi; tasya shastre’dhikaroosmin jenyo nanyasya kasyacit.

               Manu Smirit was not written by Manu or Brugu.  Some Pandit has written much later.  He says that one who has the right to perform pumsavan [putting the seed] sanskar to final rite with vedic mantras, he alone has the right to read the Sastras.  Others don’t have that right.  [Coming] in that tradition Ramanuja says that you understand what is Brahman, then alone you have right to perform religion.  Brahman is bound by Upanishads.  But if you do not have the right to read the Upanishads then how you will get the right to upasana [meditate] of Brahman?  In such a bhakti all are not qualified.—Dr. K.N. Misra, in Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 2000.

pp. 205

               Ramanuja’s approach, however, is quite conservative.  In the process of Vedanticisation bhakti no longer emphasized the casting off of all social inequalities, but required the performance of the various social and religious obligations that are appropriate to one’s station in life (sva-dharma).  For Ramanuja it was only male members of the twice-born castes who could attain liberation.  Others must wait for a suitable rebirth for such an opportunity to arise.  The way of bhakti then became the path of a select few within society, despite its originally egalitarian aspects.  In this manner Ramanuja made bhakti an orthodox Vedantic approach to religion….—— Richard King, Indian Philosophy, An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, ANE Book, New Delhi, 1999. p.223

25 For a scholarly critic on Vivekanand see Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas, Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi., 1995.

26  This exclusion of others by the Brahmins is an attempt by them to insulate their ritual/spiritual purity.  How far they were successful in practice is a big question, as the excluded people have their own ritual and spiritual means to have their religious life, not minding or depending the Brahmins’ approval or support. When the acculturation process began for economic and political reasons by the kings with the co-operation of the Brahmins, then in order to safe guard their interest all these process of exclusion began as they had to cooperate with the ruling class for their survival at the same time not compromising their ritual purity.  This is a big subject and we don’t have scope here for this.  However the scholarly book by Michael Willis: The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the establishment of the Gods, Cambridge, 2009, will help us to understand this clearly.

27  Dr. Hoefer, personal communication.

28 See notes 29 in Chapter ‘Morality’.

29 The best example is Karma theory which is later linked with re-birth.  ‘Though the theory of Karman has an appearance of scientific regularity; what it led to in society, metaphysics and theology was a belief in fate’, says Sukumari Bhattacharji in Fate and Fortune in the Indian Scriptures, New Delhi, Foundation Books, Cambridge University Press, India, 2014,  p. 44

30 Even several writers of smrti when contradictions came simply suggested that “it is arthavada” or laudatory or applicable to some other age like krta, treta, dvapara.  The term “kalivarjya” came in handy for them to dispose of those ideologies or practices which were not agreeable to them (like leviratical marriage; widow remarriage etc.), as Kane notes: “one of the several ways in which the conflict between several smrti texts was got over was to hold some of them as legislating for a bygone age (yugantra)”.— Kane, op. cit. Vol. III, p. 885.

31 Several time such ‘unorthdox’ interpretation were branded even as heresy.  However, without understanding the cultural, social etc. need of another people’s worldview, though new interpretation were rejected as heresy, later they were accommodate as part of what is now famously called as ‘contextualization’.  See more on this in the chapter on ‘Contextualization’.

32  Regarding orthodoxy it is worth to note that, ‘…when people become too busy or too lazy to think for themselves, orthodoxy jumps in and takes the driver’s seat….religion and philosophy are never sharply separated in Indian tradition.  When the two do not stand very clearly separated, as a rule, the religious aspects usually exert far greater control on people’s minds than the philosophical aspects of a way of thinking.  In such a situation, the philosophers viewing themselves as very faithful, strict followers of a sampradaya can never be an exception to the above rule and thus they also invariably fall in line with every demand of orthodoxy.— Advaita: A Contemporary Critique, Srinivasa Rao, New Delhi, Oxford, 2012. p. 6

33 See Appendix

34 …Councils represented the voice of the church as guided by the Holy Spirit, and once an assembly had spoken definitively on given issues, it pronouncements claimed absolute authority.

               In reality, councils rarely bore much resemblance to the intended pattern of collective holiness and usually looked more like the very worst of American political-party conventions.  In studying the church councils of this era, certain themes come to mind, including Christian charity; restraint; common human decency; a willingness to forgive old injuries, to turn the other cheek.  None of these featured in any of the main debates.  Instead, the councils were marked by name-calling and backstabbing (both figurative and literal), by ruthless plotting and backstairs cabals, and by a pervasive threat of intimidation.— Philip Jenkins. Jesus Wars. How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years. (New York, Harper One. 2010). p. 22

35   Sitaram Goel,              HISTORY OF HINDU-CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTERS, New Delhi, Voice of India, (1986) Enlarged second edition, 1996. p.139  [better check with the original in CWMG –db]

36 The Greek word ‘pistos’ basically means ‘Trust,’ though it is generally translated as ‘faith’.—Dr. Hoefer, personal correspondence.

37  The doctrine of fall, several time stretched to another extreme that because of our sinful nature even that surrender through bhakti cannot be done by us, unless we receive the grace of god.  Of course this is true in one sense when we contemplate only about our sinful nature.  But as we are redeemed by the same grace, now god both equips and gives freedom for us to decide that total surrender based on our bhakti.  This is a big subject which demands a separate chapter of its own.

38 ISPCK, Delhi, 1996

39 Personal communication

40 I am much helped both to understand the terms ‘revelation’; ‘inspiration’ ‘illumination’ etc. as well as to share my reflection on them by reading the following books:

Charles H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective, New York, Orbis Books, (1979) 16^th Printing, 2000,

Rev. Dr. D. C. Scoot, `The Challenge of Revelation’ in The Bhagavadgita and the Bible

Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001

Graham, Cooke, Hiddenness & Manifestation, What is really happening when god doesn’t seem to be present?, Tonbridge, England, Sovereign World Ltd., 2003, p.30

Gerald R. McDermott, Can Evangelicals Learn From World Religions: Jesus, Revelation & Religious Traditions, Illinois, Inter Varsity Press, 2000,

John Stott; Christ the Controversialist.

John Stott; Understanding the Bible.

The Bhagavadgita and the Bible

N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997,

Sitaram Goel, HISTORY OF HINDU-MUKTINATHIAN ENCOUNTERS, New Delhi, Voice of India, (1986) Enlarged second edition, 1996,

Maurice Phillips, The Teaching of the Vedas, London Mission, Madras, Longmans, Green And Co, 1895,

Appendix

When Neo-Hindu apologetics write about Hinduism, they take all the pain to establish a uniform, non-contradicting and universal Hinduism.  All the contradictions are explained away as different approaches to one same Truth/Reality, catering to the needs of individual, as their nature (pravarti) is different.

If someone tries to point out the very core difference in their tradition, particularly that of various faiths even about that Truth/Reality, generally they rebuke them by saying, ‘why always try to score a point (further) divide than to unite’?

For example such apologetics while take the authority of the scriptures and acharyas to prove their particular point of view as the only (or the best) way to understand Hinduism, they deny the same authority of the scripture and acharyas, when their particular apologetic view is challenged.

Selectively quoting, interpreting and promoting only those points of scripture and acharyas which will help them and conveniently ignoring the rest which do not help them is the land mark of every Neo Hindu apologetics work.  The best example is ‘Essentials of Hinduism’, by Dr. P. Nagaraja Rao (published by Sudakshina Trust, Bombay, 1978) and the recent one by Cho Ramaswami in Tugluk (Hindu Maha Samudiram).

Take for example of the article that appeared 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.  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 bhakta of Muktinath 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 anyone 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 is: I believe on several writings Ramanuja remained 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 someone tries to write  something 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 is taken for granted that Sankara wrote several devotional songs, yet in his theological system there is no 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.


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 Mimamsa argument that sudras are to be excluded, simply because the Veda excludes them:

The sudra 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 sudra, 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

Chapter Eighth

Theology

I don’t know why and how I wrote this chapter.  For me this looks more babbling than any consistent thought on Theology.  I think in order to counter the argument by some Hindu bhaktas that they don’t want waste their time in theology, I wrote this chapter.  I am not sure whether I should share this with others. So kindly give your views about sharing this with others.

db

Theology as a sadhana:

If faith is the inner response to the revelation through intuition, theology is the outer expression of that faith through reason.  And knowledge links both faith and theology, helping the mind to understand that faith intellectually and expressing it reasonably through doctrines.  In this process, naturally the person who responds by faith has to use the categories with which she is familiar to express her theology.  However, considering the Indian philosophical tradition and a Hindu’s approach to scriptures, this is not going to be simple for a Hindu bhakta of the Lord to express her faith in the Lord.  Also in this chapter, I will try to highlight, how theology, not as a mere academic discipline but as part of a sadhana, has helped me to overcome certain traits in our Indian (religious) worldview, where ritual, forms and pluralism have different purposes than we find in the Muktiveda. 

Need of practical theology:

               Or

Theology: not as ‘fact’ but in ‘spirit’:

Theology is not merely an intellectual discipline, but it should reflect the total life of a bhakta.  Particularly for a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, this is very important.  Because in Hinduism, philosophy can work independently from practical life.   Whereas in the Muktiveda, personal life should both reflect and demonstrate one’s faith.  Tragically, for the most part, the theological tradition in the Western Church has remained like the Indian Philosophy as an ‘intellectual’ tradition of the elitist and the ‘property of the professionals’.¹  This is true in the Indian church too.  However, the main difference between the Indian Christians and their Western counterpart is that being part of the Indian society, they are more influenced by the Hindu worldview even in their faith.  As bhakti has kept the mainline of Hinduism intact, so the devotional aspect of Christian faith, personal bhakti, and clinging to the tradition has kept the Indian church alive.  But their failure to make a visible impact in the India society is because their Christian life reflects the ‘facts’ of Christianity more than its ‘spirit’, and their theology like their worship, uses Western forms.

Accommodating theology?

In order to accommodate to the criticism and challenges of Enlightenment, the church in the West made changes to accommodate any new demands like science, socialism, evolution, secularism etc.  In this endeavor, they often failed either to cater to the need of faith or to accommodate new disciplines which challenged their faith.  For example,

…the representatives of our modern theology, when they speak of  ‘evolution’, sometimes fail adequately to realize how entirely they have departed from the evolution of a Darwin, or Huxley, or even Spencer, under whose names they shelter themselves.²

Theology is not to accommodate every demand made by the society, but it is to reflect the inner faith.  Of course it will be challenged by every new trend, and a true theology should address those issues correctly.  But in the name of accommodation, one cannot compromise personal faith.  The ultimate purpose of theology is to help one to increase and enact one’s faith.  But when it is used to form some kind of social, cultural, political and religious ‘opinions’, then it will become some policy to defend and promote those ‘policies’ rather than a sadhana (spiritual discipline) to enhance the faith. 

Indian tradition helps me in this area.  Except for a small minority, most of the Hindus still keep their religious faith intact.³  But the interesting fact in it is that instead of accommodating their faith to new challenges, they make use of new challenges to their service.  For example, many Hindu beliefs are now explained as scientific and secularism is explained as part of their darmic society etc. Whereas the dalit theology, liberation theology (Latin American?), social theology, comparative theology etc. bend and twist the Muktiveda to accommodate the demand for existence and survival.  In the long run, such theology, replacing god, will become a system or policy to be achieved through physical strength and struggles.  ***For example, in the name of recognizing gay rights, as a human right, the church went to the extent of what I prefer to call a ‘gay (lesbian) theology’, even accepting a gay Bishop demonstrates this.  By this theology not reflecting the life of a believer based on the Muktiveda, this makes the faith of the believer have to adjust itself to the new demand.   Though I agree that the  LGBT people have their right to have their choice and even have the right to legal protection to them,⁴ still making it part of faith or church life, particularly in ordination bit surprises me.  Though gay life is part in Indian society, as far as my knowledge goes no gay is appointed as the priest in any temple. Even in Kuthandavarkoil in Tamilnadhu where the gays gather once in a year to have their religious festival (of tying thali/mangalyam and breaking it next day to become widow), still the traditional temple priest will do the ritual and not the gay people.***

My personal view:

In this regard, I have to make my position clear.  I have no problem if any individual or group fights for the right of the gay/lesbian in their society.  This is what some have tried to do in India by challenging the law ‘criminalizing’ gay sex-behavior under the Indian law.  But if the church, in the name of human rights, tries to do it, then it questions the fundamental teachings and claims of the Muktiveda.  If sex is merely to quench some physical/mental urge, then god does not need to create the opposite sex to procreate.  The purpose of sex, according to my understanding, is to continue god’s act of creation through procreation.  However, 10 per cent of the animals have the same sexual behavior.  They never consciously choose this behavior against the law of nature.  Perversion as a part of the fall, cannot become a rule or right, at least for those who believe in god and Muktiveda. (see more on this in the chapter ‘Morality’).

Theology is to advance faith:

               Or

Perversion in theology:

But the worst aspect of theology accommodating every demand, physical, social, cultural, political or intellectual, is that it will never help a new bhakta to grow in her faith.  Take for example the idea of liberal theology.  In order to entertain their intellectual quest, what they attempt is another form of perversion in theology.  I think the Unitarian Church came into existence in India denying the Trinity to accommodate the challenges from Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s criticism against the Trinity.  Now liberal theologians are talking about a Cosmic Christ or Hidden Christ and even criticizing the fundamental Muktivedic theology.  For example:

Our Jesulogy basically agrees with the contention of the Neo-Vedantins that unfortunately the universal message of Jesus which comprises the ideas of the indwelling divinity, of divine grace, universal ethics, and spiritual realization was distorted by the Christian Church through fettering it in cast-iron dogmas of innate vileness of human nature, the ‘scapegoat’ and the ‘atonement’, physical resurrection and the second advent, earthly kingdom and imminence of the Day of judgment which are purely sectarian in their scope.  Human sacrifice was a Jewish idea and to fit the gentle and loving Jesus into Jewish beliefs, the idea of human sacrifice in the form of atonement or as a human scapegoat, by Christianity, was really unfortunate.⁵

In order to ‘make sense to Indians’, Aleaz has re-crucified Jesus on the cross of Sankara’s Advaita.  One cannot resist concluding that ‘Christianity is really unfortunate’ to have these kinds of theologians.  The Muktiveda and faith are based on revelation.  But theology, though not rationalistic, uses reason to make sense of that revelation to the enquiring mind.  But both mind and reason have their limitations, and faith always works on trust and not reason.  Furthermore, the purpose of theology is to advance that faith and not to destroy it. ***I agree that all that Aleaz has mentioned ‘atonement’, ‘resurrection’, etc. has its own theological problem with which every Hindu bhakta has to wrestle with.  However considering all kinds of extra-reason doctrines in Hindu  theology and stories related to gods in mythology might help a Hindu bhakta to have a different approach to them than purely based on reason alone. 

The theory of ‘karma’ alone comes to my mind.  However modern Hindu apologetics try to defend karma theory based on scientific explanation, still the inner contradiction cannot be easily explained.  However this never put any limitation for any Hindu to believe the karma theory and accept her life based on it which several times becomes fatalism.  It is worth reading what Bhattacharji⁶ explains it well:

               The supreme mystery regarding karman and its effect is that although scholars have attempted to give it an appearance of causality like clouds bringing showers or seeds sprouting into plants, such a theory clearly holds no water because karman and its result do not belong to nature and therefore do not function naturally. This is the theory of Karmuvipaka, fruition of karman. Many texts especially the Purans, have long passages with catalogues of ‘which karman bears which fruit’,⁷ 92  Despite these lists, the appearance of causality in a non-physical level requires an intelligent and efficient arbiter, whose discretion is above all suspicion and whose judgment can thus be relied upon. The fallacy of such an assumption lies in the absence of a true (p. 67) Indian surrogate for Christian Providence, Judaic Jehovah or Islamic Allah.93⁸  A polytheistic religion like Brahmanism has no one divinity who disburses results of karman, whose judgment is indisputable and therefore, acceptable to all…. In Indian theology, Brahmanical, Buddhistic and Jain, there is no such dispensing authority. Texts are full of contradictions, discrepancies, anomalies, inequalities and imbalance between reprievals, aggravations and nullifications of karmans and fruits. In other words, there is no parity between cause and effect so that this lack of uniformity creates problems of credibility. We have a divine clerk, in later mythology, viz., Citragupta, but no judge. So, man’s inherent expectation of a just retribution of his actions—past, present and future meets a void or a chaos of multiplicity of standards and authorities. This chaos constitutes the happy hunting ground for both the upholders of fate and the subscribers to the karman theory.***

Accommodating faith?

It is true that as the world has become a global village, the ‘problems facing the human race are increasingly global.’ Therefore, ‘it is unconvincing to propose that only one religion’ can claim to have the solution for all these problems or that the ‘religions [can] best make their contribution in isolation from one another’.  So, ‘Identities preserved, people of diverse religious backgrounds still do best to cooperate in the responsible practice of the contemporary situation, the advantages of a theological discourse enriched by a series of particular contextualizations in multiple Textual traditions cannot be overlooked.’⁹  But ignoring other traditions in which religious text does not have much value (like that of tribes and Dalits), engaging the people as a partner can alone help them to make their faith reasonable.  Oral tribal tradition and Hinduism’s (ritualistic) family tradition poses a serious challenge in this endeavor.  But accommodating theology to every demand will hinder the faith.  On the other hand, a theology which helps the faith to grow will help that believer to address the issues and demands in a better way with some personal conviction rather than changing the faith to accommodate every opinion.

Comparative theology should not be the norm:

Faith is not merely a fact or information¹⁰  about some events, even an historical one, but it is the essence of the very religion or scripture.  So while attempts are made to make Muktivedic theology indigenous, neither should we make Muktivedic faith as mere information, nor should we use others’ theology to accommodate our faith within their religious system.  While exclusivism will close the door on contextualization (rather incarnation) inclusivism will dilute the faith to mere fact.  Therefore, in order to make the faith reasonable to the lay person, the theologians should not merely teach them, but should also make them partners in theologizing the Muktivedic faith so it is relevant for a particular group.  That is why any comparative theology on higher a level (e.g., Vedanta and the Muktiveda) should not be the normative for everyone to follow within a faith community. 

If the dalits need their own theology, which is not wrong in any way, then we have to think about an OBC, Sanatani and tribal theology as well.  ‘But where it will end’, might be a genuine question.  Here the worldview of a particular group and its relationship with the larger society needs to be studied and adopted properly.  For example, bhakti can be called the key element in Hinduism, and its influence is widespread in the Indian society irrespective of their group or personal faith.  However, the tribal faith is more centered in animism than bhakti.  Therefore, a proper Indian Muktivedic theology should accommodate both their needs.  Any theology done in the name of human rights or intellectual needs won’t help a bhakta to grow in their faith.

The Indian challenge:

In the long tradition of theology, (taking for granted that all the people will understand the Muktiveda as a text), there has never been an attempt to accommodate other frames, other than those which the church inherited from the past.  But in India, where tradition and not text has a strong hold on the religious beliefs of people, theology has faced more of a challenge.  At least as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I realized this.  But Muktivedic faith giving much importance to the Word of God and its proper understanding, I realized the importance of theology per se in my pilgrimage in the Lord.  But the demand of theology on the one hand and the grip of following (religious/faith) tradition on the other hand and the lack of proper guidance by the Indian church in this process to guide a lay person did not provide an easy solution.  Even the theological education in the Indian Christian communities through their (denominational) seminaries never addressed this core issue, about which I need not say anything new (see Living Water on this point).

An uphill task for a new bhakta:

When a Hindu leads a normal life, most of the life events are done keeping the social need and not the religious or theological question in mind.  But this is not the case with Muktivedic faith.  For example, when it comes to the marriage, for a Hindu it is more a social issue not a religious or spiritual one.  Whereas for a Hindu (or any) bhakta of the Lord, marriage is not exclusively a social issue, but it also has theological implications.  Moreover, the failure of the Indian church is that, following its wider influence of the Hindu society, it has also allowed its members to separate most of the life events from the theological questions.  Therefore, when the church, particularly the evangelicals, suddenly expects every new believer’s life to fall in line with the theological expectations of the Muktiveda, then the new believers see it as a double standard of the church—demanding more than what they are practicing.  At the same time, knowing the demand of the Muktiveda on the one hand and the lack of practical guidance in life towards the theological understanding in life on the other, every new believer has an uphill task to walk with the Lord.

Not mere textual theology: (or this paragraph can come under the same title of the previous one: An Uphill task for a new bhakta)

This uphill task in life, is also complicated when a new believer has to accommodate several of her family and community’s demands on her as a member of the community and still uphold her bhakti in the Lord.  Thus, a proper Muktivedic theology alone could help her to lead a meaningful life in the Lord.  At the same time, theology in the academic and Western sense, in which it has developed in the (Indian) church won’t help a new believer to wrestle with the practical issues in life.  Without a proper understanding of the Muktiveda in its textual, historical and theological context, a bhakta cannot claim to understand the mind, will and plan of god for her life.  Taking every word of God literarily and tracing out spiritual meaning from every verse will make one a fanatic or a fool.  At the same time, reading the Muktiveda like any other sectarian Hindu scripture, thinking that such reading itself will bring some blessing, is self-deception.¹¹  This is not ‘textualizng’¹² our faith based on some ‘Western presuppositions about the nature of religion’, but the minimum expectation of the Muktiveda itself.  And in this process God expects us to use the reason properly.¹³

 Learning ‘new’ things:

               Or

The ‘spirit’ of theology:

The basic thing in theology is to learn the Muktiveda in a way that it will make sense to one’s own reason.  Our reason, being trained by our own particular religious (and other) tradition, will help us to understand the Muktiveda in a different way from that of the Western church theological tradition, which developed in their particular context.  Because, as someone well said, ‘Theology was born in Germany, corrupted in USA corrected in Scotland, and bottled for infant feeding in India.’  But a new bhakta cannot survive just on the bottle-feeding by the church.  They need to learn ‘new’ things from the Muktiveda using their own religio-socio-cultural categories that will bring the relevant message from the Muktiveda that is applicable to their need.  Their need is not the same as another believer in another place.   This new ‘learning is a matter not of seeing entirely new things but of seeing old things in new ways.’¹⁴  Those who oppose such learning in the name of orthodoxy and safe-guarding (a particular church) doctrine will protect the letter and not the spirit of theology and doctrines.  On the other hand, such learning will help a believer to learn new insights not only in the Muktiveda but also in their native scriptures. 

Of course since the time of Krishna Mohan Banarjee (his famous book, Aryan Witness), followed by Farquhar such learning of Hindu scriptures, led to the theory of ‘fulfilmentalims’ to the extent of claiming ‘Christ’ as the ‘Crown of Hinduism’.  But my thought is not to continue this theory.  For example, if bhakti helps me to understand faith in a different way, theology helps me to understand the Hindu scriptures in a new way, though Muktivedic theology and Hindu philosophy have their own distinct features.  The study of both is not to highlight the contradictions between the Muktiveda and the Hindu scriptures but to understand their mutual complements which can enrich a new Hindu bhkata’s faith.  For example the ‘nishkamya karma’ (desireless work) of the Gita is helpful in understanding Eph. 2:8-10 with a new perspective of renunciation ‘in’ action and not ‘of’ action.  In a sense, my limited understanding of theology as a discipline based on reason, has helped me to de-mythologize the Hindu scriptures to enhance my faith in the Lord.  Of course, Indian philosophy could also do the same—viz., de-mythologize Indian scriptures.  But such philosophical de-mythologizing looks like very ‘abstract’ and ‘dry intellectualism’ to me—like that of advaita.  Whereas, Muktivedic theology centered around revelation enables me to contemplate the mystery of god leading to the bhakti (relationship) with faith.¹⁵  ***But de-mythologizing Hindu scriptures should be considered as digesting them to lose their unique identity as Hindu scriptures in order to accommodate my personal bhakti in the Lord or to accommodate an Indian Muktivedic theology.   While respecting them as they are, still taking guidance from them I can further enhance my bhakti in the Lord as a Hindu than straining my mind to understand Western Theology or Westernized Indian Christian Theology.***

Scientific theology?

In the West if enlightenment looked down on theology, then in the East, the so-called ‘scientific’ Hinduism deprived itself of its essence by claiming everything ‘scientific’ to make it more ‘rational’.  And for me, theology in its true sense (viz., theo + logy) helps me to understand both the Muktiveda and Hindu scriptures the way it was intended to be understood, rather than accommodating itself to every demand of the times.  Though the message needs to address the need of the hour, yet the content of the scripture should be respected for its own sake, which theology alone can bring to the longing mind of a bhakta.  It is artificial to dig a more Western rationalistic philosophy and scientific idea from Hindu scriptures to make their message universal.   For example, borrowing the (Greek¹⁶) based category from the West, several Hindu apologetics began to read a (dry) philosophy of a Western kind in the (six) ‘darshan sastras’,¹⁷ which are termed (wrongly) as ‘Indian philosophy’.  Whereas, theology in its original sense can restore back the traditional discipline of ‘darshan sastras’ to understand Hindu scriptures—however limited the term theology is in its (Christian) origin¹⁸ to cover all the aspects of Indian Darshan.

Need of layman’s theology:

Philosophical Hindus have a long history of intense rationalization¹⁹ in their Indian darshan tradition, even without Bhakti. On the other extreme, clinging to ritualistic bhakti tradition, reason is completely rejected among the common people.  And those who strive to achieve a balance to please both the groups, introduce the ‘scientific’ category to explain Hindu scriptures accommodating both reason in a ‘rationalistic’ way and ‘bhakti’ in a sentimental way.  Though such a tightrope walk entertains the audience sometimes, it deprives a common person of understanding both her (religious/spiritual) traditions based on scripture and personal bhakti as it is.  At least in my life, my limited personal, theological (not academic) studies helped me to reason with scripture to have a better understanding of it.  Thus, theology not understood as a (threatening) academic (and seminary-based) discipline, should be a part of a bhakta’s sadhana to make progress in her spiritual life.  Such a layman’s theology alone will contribute to help evolve even an Indian Muktivedic theology.  Otherwise, it will continue to remain as an intellectual and elitist entertainment in the religious world.

My intention is not to talk about how to form an Indian Muktivedic theology using Indian terms, categories and complementary truths from Hindu scriptures.  However, if a Hindu bhakta of the Lord understands the value of theology as a sadhana and not as a subject to study, then they can make a larger contribution towards this endeavor, also.  Though it is tempting to try my hand to write some on an elementary level, considering the scope of this book and also my lack of experience in theological writing, I dare not try this adventure.  However, based on my experience, I would like to highlight certain points which would be a hindrance in forming an Indian Muktivedic theology.

Theology is not indoctrination:

An ‘absolutized’ Western theology with ‘ethnocentrism’ hampers the innovative attempts to form an Indian Muktivedic theology.²⁰   Instead of labeling the Indian endeavors as ‘heresy’, if they are viewed as ‘improvements over previous understandings’, it will encourage new insights which are relevant to our need in India.  Because, ‘Jesus in his day, Paul in his, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and others in their days reinterpreted theological data in ways that have come to be seen as improvements over previous understandings, even though they often opposed the orthodoxy of their times.’²¹  For this, one needs to come out from the ‘cultural determinism’ as ‘we were conditioned linguistically, socially, attitudinally, and in every other way to such an extent that we can never function without reference to that early conditioning.’²²  Moreover, ‘All theologizing is culture-bound interpretation and communication of God’s revelation.  Good theologizing is Spirit-led, even though culture-bound.  In spite of the impression often given that theology is an absolute, once-for-all theologies are dead theologies.’²³  And accepting of such absolutized Western theology is nothing but ‘indoctrination’²⁴ viz., ‘a passive acceptance of a doctrinal product “once for all delivered”’.²⁵

Bhakti theology:

Any conservatism which refuses to study new religious tradition and culture to help the new bhaktas will soon, ‘run the risk of being drowned by that very culture.’²⁶ Instead of ‘contextualizing’ the existing Western theology, we ‘must start ever anew from the focal point of the faith …in a way which is both faithful to the inner thrust of the “biblical” revelation and also in harmony with the mentality of the person who formulates it.  There is no short cut to be found by simply adapting an existing theology to contemporary or local taste.’²⁷  Because, ‘Theology that is merely passed from one cultural context to another, rather than being developed within that context, is … irrelevant.’²⁸ For example if America’s student generation needs a ‘one or more behavioral-sciences-based theologies rather than simply philosophy-based theologies,’²⁹ we in India need a bhakti-oriented theology.  This is only possible by a Hindu bhakta as they live in a ‘culture similar to those of biblical times’,³⁰ rather than by any outsider living in an ‘library’ culture.  The non-involvement of every lay believer in a particular culture-socio-religious context will be a great loss to the Muktivedic theology at large and to the faith of that particular individual.  When the church in India and a bhakta of the Lord awaken to this reality, then the scope to form an Indian Muktivedic theology won’t be a distant dream.

My longing:

               Or

My need:

As long as theologizing continues to remain an academic discipline, forming Indian Muktivedic theology will remain an uphill task.  Any theology that is not going to help the believers to practice their faith in day-to-day life will remain like an abstract Indian philosophy.  At least in my life, as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I realized the need of theology to make sense of my faith in my practical life.  Not as an academic discipline, but just within me, this process of a comparative theology with my own Indian scriptures helps me a lot (though it should not be a norm for everyone).  Because my faith in the Lord and the demand of the Muktiveda will not allow me to compromise or be syncretistic, the longing of my mind to make sense of my faith forces me to search for terms and categories within my Indian tradition and scripture.  Though this looks very costly and risky, the richness and complementary aspects of my personal faith in understanding Hindu scriptures and Indian Scriptures’ contribution to a better expression of my faith motivates me to continue to think of theology as an inter-scriptural discipline.  The one advantage that I have as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord is that unlike the dialogue partners in an inter-religious dialogue on theology, I can freely criticize both my Hindu tradition and newfound faith in the Lord and the Muktiveda without any prejudice.  Above all, as this is done as a sadhana and not as an academic discipline, I will lose or gain according to my prejudice and approach. 

Not to repeat past mistakes:

Of course I am not the first one to attempt such a study.  In the past, several Indian bhaktas of the Lord have also attempted it.  Having given up their identities as Hindus and became Christians, they needed to be cautious in their criticism of Indian scripture and traditions, just as I must also be cautious.   Two other problems arose. First even though their criticism of Indian traditions and scriptures were genuine, they were attacked for ‘betrayal’ by other Hindus.  Secondly, their attempts to Indigenize the Muktivedic theology never materialized because their church saw it as a threat against the church’s authority.  However, I feel that God has given some extra grace for me to learn from their mistakes and not to repeat or mimic them.

The challenge:

At the same time, theology in its true sense (theo + logy), poses a real challenge to me. Like any Hindu apologetics, I cannot have this ‘Living Dialogue’ as a mere academic discipline because an average Hindu can easily separate their philosophy/theology without any tension from their faith and practical life.³¹  Similarly, borrowing certain facts from one’s own or from other traditions from its non-philosophical/theological context, they can simply use them to win an argument.  The best example that comes to my mind is again the famous saying, ‘Truth/God is one and sages call it by different names’.  The Hindus would use this statement to prove that all the religions, faith etc. are one, but they are just named differently.  But a serious theologian cannot use any ‘fact’ to fit them neatly into their theology.  For example, when Muktinath says, ‘I and the Father are one’, the Muktiveda never meant it as an advaitic concept.  But this is the way Swami Vivekanand read it.  So theology in its true sense also guards me from using every category from Indian tradition to press them into the service of forming an Indian Muktivedic theology,³² because theologizing without faith is mere intellectual entertainment.  Theology, as Clooney often insists, is basically is confessional.³³  Either in interreligous or intrareligious (in my case as a Hindu), ‘Neither theological comparison nor confession can flourish in separation from the other, and each constantly transforms the other.”³⁴  And for this one should not merely talk ‘about’ other faith, scripture etc. but also talk ‘to’ them.³⁵

A sadhana not an entertainment:

Theology as a sadhana, like any other sadhana, is only a means to enhance our understanding, obedience, love to serve the Lord.  It is good servant but a bad master.  The movement when it becomes an end in itself, then it will parade only the intellectual arrogance and will end up as a mere academic system to defend the very system rather than helping a believer to know more about God.  On the other hand, as a sadhana it will become life-centered and life-oriented rather than remaining mere academic endeavor.  Wright’s words will help explain this:

Addressing these questions is not, of course, a mere matter of getting answers right.  Theologies, at this point, determine the way people live, the way they organize the world, the way they treat one another.  It could only be within a predominantly Deist culture that the word ‘theology’ could become, as it has in some quarters of public life, a sneering word for irrelevant theory.  If we are claiming, with the Pauline gospel, the high ground of speaking for the one true God, made known in Jesus and the Spirit, then we must be prepared to show how the language of theology relates intimately and vitally to the whole of life, culture, love, art, politics and even religion.  This could even mean challenging the academic world in a new way by showing how the study of theology is vitally linked to all other disciplines….³⁶

Notes for Theology 2020

Notes

1. ‘…whenever theology leaves the ground floor and moves exclusively into the ivory tower, the great truths of the Word become the property of the professionals all over again.— Michael S. Horton, ‘The Subject of Contemporary Relevance’, in, Michael Scott Horton, Editor , Power Religion, The Selling Out Of The Evangelical Church?, Moody Press, Chicago,1992, p.339.  And, ‘…Like the medieval Christians, we are all too willing in our day to let the “professionals” do our thinking for us.— Alister E. McGrath, ‘A Better Way: The Priesthood of All Believers’, in ibid. .  p.303

2. James Orr, GOD’S IMAGE in MAN, Michigan,WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY, 1948.p.120

3.  See Hindustan Times, Chennai, India, January 26, 2007.  According to a nationwide survey conducted in January for the Hindustan Times and the CNN-IBN television channel by the Center for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) 90 percent of Indians believe in God and more than half pray every day.

4 …If we believe homosexual practice to be immoral, should we make it illegal?  Not so long ago the Church of England debated an issue with close parallels: divorce. The Bible has far more to say about the sanctity of marriage and the wrongness of divorce than it says about homosexuality. C. S. Lewis shocked many people in his day when he came out in favor of making divorce legal, on the grounds that we Christians have no right to impose our morality on society at large. Although he would preach against it, and oppose it on moral grounds, he recognized the distinction between morality and legality.

               Of course, we will have to exercise the skill of ethical surgeons in deciding which moral principles apply to society at large.  If we fail to exercise that skill, once again we will risk confusing the two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and that of this world.  Old Testament prophets used a double standard in their pronouncements. Their own nation of Israel, they held accountable for keeping every part of God’s covenant, including Sabbath-keeping and the rituals of Temple sacrifice.  Secular nations around them, they critiqued on more “common law” grounds, such as war crimes, injustice, and decadence….— Philip Yancey, Soul Survivor, New York, Galilee Doubleday, 2001, p. 200

5 Aleaz, K. P., Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedanta, ISPCK, Delhi, 1996, p. 99.

6 Sukumari Bhattachari, Fate and Fortune in the Indian scriptures, New Delhi, Foundations Books, 2014, pp. 67-68.

7 cf Vayu Purana. 101: 115-45, 175-12. Brahmanda Purana . pt III: 4:2: 145-191, Visnu Purana . II: 6: 1-10m, 32. Agi Purana . 352; Markandeya Purana . 11: 22-25; the whole of ch. 12; 14: 16-18; 23-31; 39-95; the whole of chapter 15. Garuda Purana . II: 32; 72-80; 125-26; Bhagavata Purana . 3: 30; 4:5, 20-27. 32 Brahmavaivarta Purana . 26: 11; 31- 39: 1-16. Vamana Purana . chapter 12 et al.—ibid. notes, 92, p. 67

8 Not even the Christian concept of Providence has solved all theological problems, or that of Jehovah  in Judaism and Allah  in Islam.—ibid. Notes, 93, p. 68

9 Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993, p.203

10 ibid. pp. 5-6

11I met one Brahmin ‘convert’ family at Vellore in Tamilnadu.  They printed a small booklet selecting few songs and other verses from Muktiveda to be chanted to get some mundane needs like getting married, passing examination, getting proper (if possible government) jot etc. like that we find in Hinduism.  Without knowing anything about the importance of theology, they simply re-produced a booklet of Muktiveda for religious ritual.  Though they were sincere in contextualizing the text of the Muktiveda, they ended up in self-deception.  Their church also failed to educate them properly about the need to understand Muktiveda.

12 …In particular, modern Western presuppositions about the nature of religion need to be examined critically if one is to avoid textualizng, Westernizing and, to some degree, Christianizing ‘other’ cultures….— Richard King, Orientalism and Religion, Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘The Mystic East,’ New Delhi, Oxford, 1999, p.67

13 In every cultural context, theology must distill guiding principles from scripture, rather than look for specific directives.  In this, Christian hermeneutics differs from Islam, for example, where every verse is understood to be a command from God for all time and place.—Dr. Hoefer, Personal correspondence.

14 Gerald R. McDermott, Can Evangelicals Learn From World Religions: Jesus, Revelation & Religious Traditions, Illinois, Inter Varsity Press, 2000, p.14

15  When Indian Philosophy de-mythologizes the myths, then the emotional aspect of bhakti (relationship) with gods are also interpreted abstractly.  For example Radha’s romance with Krishna interpreted as the relationship atman with paramatman.  There bhakti, which is personal relationship is changed to an abstract advaitic philosophy.  But the very purpose of this myth, whether it is historical or not, is to promote the kanta bhava (treating god as the husband) bhakti and not to teach advaita.

16 …Daya Krishna, argues against the view that Indian philosophy is indissolubly bound up with spiritual practice…. (p.177)… The only reason to believe in the claimed spirituality, he argues, is because it has been traditional for Indian philosophers to say that the goal of their philosophy is moksa.  But “there is hardly any pursuit or study or discipline,” he points out, “which does not make the same claim.  Whether it be painting, poetry, music or dance, each is supposed to lead to moksa … This claim … is a generalized feature of every systematic study in India.” { Daya Krishna, Indian Philosophy: A Counterperspective (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991) p. 30) … It would be better, he proposes, to think “of Indian philosophy as philosophy proper and not as something radically different from what goes under that name in the western tradition.”{ibid. p. 29}… On the contrary, “the Indian spiritual tradition confirms … the essential irrelevance of philosophy to the pursuit of liberation,” for which it “would only be a hindrance rather than a help.”{ibid. p. 26}

               On the Greek side, too, there are powerful objections to the view that philosophy was purely speculative … Pythagorean or the Platonic schools, both of which seem to say that for them the practice of philosophy is valued as a means to escape from reincarnation.  This of course is the same stated goal many Indian schools….— Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008. pp. 177-78

17 ‘… the term darsana was used to describe the systems of philosophy which developed in the Indian tradition.  However, it is misleading to think of these as “systems” or “schools” of philosophical thought.  Rather, they are “points of view” which represent the varied phases of the truth viewed from different angles of vision.” [Jan Gonda, The Vision of the Vedic Poets (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1963), p. 25]’.— Diana L. Eck, Darsan, Seeing the Divine Image in INDIA, Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1996, p.10

18 ‘…Christian theology has come down to us in the thought-form of Greek philosophy.  The central ideas of Greek philosophy are of the importance of the individual, the importance of reason, and the importance of logic.  Along with them, we may include the Logos theology, and the Roman insistence upon unity.  These are the garments with which the body of Christian theology has been clothed….…in place of the Greek ideas, the Oriental stress is upon community rather than the individual, upon being rather than knowing, upon the keeping together of opposites rather than analyzing everything out into logical parts.  Therefore, the Indian theologian is working against a background of different ideas compared with his counterpart in the West.’— FRANK  WHALING. An Approach to Dialogue with Hinduism, Lucknow, Lucknow Publishing House, p.21

19  ‘The thesis of this book is that between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries CE, certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachings of the Upanisads, epics, Puranas, and the schools known retrospectively as the “six systems” (saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.  The Indian and European thinkers in the nineteenth century who developed the term “Hinduism” under the pressure of the new explanatory category of “world religions” were influenced by these earlier philosophers and doxographers, primarily Vedantins, who had their own reasons for arguing the unity of Indian philosophical traditions.  Before the late medieval period, there was little or no systematic attempt by the thinkers we now describe as Hindu to put aside their differences in order to depict themselves as a single unified tradition.  After this late (p.2) medieval period, it became almost universally accepted that there was a fixed group of Indian philosophies in basic agreement with one another and standing together against Buddhism and Jainism.— Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. ,  Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. pp. 2-3

20 See Charles H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective, (New York, Orbis Books, (1979) 16^th Printing, 2000), for a critical appraisal on this subject.

21 Kraft, p.16

22 ibid. p. 62

23 ibid. p.291

24 ibid. 294

25 ibid. 294

26 von Allmen, Daniel. “The Birth of Theology,” International Review of Mission. 44:37-55. 1975:49, quoted by Kraft, ibid. p. 295

27 ibid. p.295

28 ibid. pp.296-97

29 ibid. p.299

30 ibid. 302

31 See notes no. 3 (by Arvind Sharm’s) in chapter ‘Why apologetics’.

32 ‘…One can criticize theological positions developed in other traditions, but first one has to engage them seriously in an inter-religious, comparative, and dialogical context.  For this to happen, a theologian’s encounter with other religious traditions has to be theological right from the start and at every stage, as one learns how to study those traditions theologically and to interpret what one learns from them.  It does not make sense to borrow data from philosophers and historians of religion who worked without theological interests and then to assess that data theologically, only to find it theologically lacking….’—…Hindu God, Christian God , ibid. p.24

33 ‘…Indeed, a theologian who sees that theology is inter-religious, comparative, and dialogical is more able to speak and write convincingly and fruitfully confessional again, since that scholar is more accurately aware of what is common to multiple traditions and what really needs to be said to make a convincing case before a complex theological audience. In an inter-religious context, one can (and should) still be a confessional theologian, but the cost of a confessional theology is now higher.’—ibid. p.11

34 ibid. p.26

35 …If a theologian merely ignores other theologians or merely talks about them rather than to them, those other theologians will not be persuaded, and one’s own theology will appear even weaker than before.—ibid. p.176

36 N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997, p.163

Chapter Nine: Doctrines

Importance of Theology:

For me theology is reasoning to make the Muktivedic revelation sensible to human understanding.  But the real challenge that every Hindu bhakta of the Lord will face is how to understand ‘theology’ both for their personal benefit as well as in their verbal witness for the Lord.  Because among the converts, except those who have gone for theological studies for ministry, the common opinion is that theology is nothing but elitist intellectual entertainment.  Therefore, they pay no attention to this subject.  One time, one highly educated Hindu (Brahmin) convert, after having a long discussion, told us (Rajesh too was there, when we were talking) that he is not interested in theology.  In answer to this, Rajesh said, ‘All we have been about talking so far about the Lord, the Muktiveda and our faith is nothing but theology’.   This problem is not limited to just new converts, but also most of the lay Christians in the church have similar views.  Because as no teaching is given, proper theological understanding of the Muktiveda and the faith is lacking in the church life too. 

Importance of Academic discipline:

Like any other religion, Hinduism also has two sets of people: specialized and common.  Just as the common Hindus are living with simple bhakti and paying more attention to the ritual part of their religious life (that too inherited as the family tradition), a Hindu bhakta of the Lord has also inherited the same kind of orientation.  Though I too am no exception in any way, yet my personal interest in reading and analyzing scripture has pushed me to develop some interest in theology.  But my interest in theology was not academic in its nature.  One reason could be that the theology taught in those Seminaries was more western-oriented, about which I need not dwell here.  My method is mostly based on Indian tradition, though I have never known exactly what Indian philosophical discipline is, as there is no one method of learning or teaching that prevails in India. Because I never had an opportunity to learn from any learned Hindu guru about scriptures, and most of my reading was mostly the scriptures themselves and not from any commentary about them, I developed a method of ‘reflection’ on every point related to my faith and the Muktiveda.  Now, I feel that it is good to have some kind of systematic theological learning from proper theologians, as it will give some academic discipline to learn the subject properly.

Before proceeding I have to explain that though I often interplay ‘philosophy’ and ‘theology’ for Indian thought, yet there is some difference between these two words.  At the same time this difference is based on one’s understanding about philosophy as only a ‘rationalistic’ discipline.  As it will take too much pages to bring out all the points about ‘theology’ and ‘philosophy’, I will give some points by the scholars in Appendix to this chapter.

My need

One need not be a theologian to be a bhakta of the Lord. And my intention to learn about the Muktiveda and my faith is to answer my own questions that have challenged my newfound faith because of my past learning of Hindu scriptures.  Based on my personal experience of living with my mother and moving mostly among lay Hindus, I know that any kind of theological discussion or terms that one would use is not going to help our Hindu family members and friends to understand our bhakti in the Lord.  So my interest in theology is really a personal one as I too several times could not understand most of the theological technical terms used by the church.

Unlike my experience with the Hindu scriptures, I read both the Muktiveda and several scholarly commentaries about the Muktiveda because in those formative years, I read many informative books that helped me to learn more about the Lord, the Muktiveda, church and Christianity.  So my learning is not limited only to the area of theology, but is more comprehensive including many other areas.

My method of learning:

One of the methods of Indian philosophical studies is to raise questions by oneself of which you believe your opponent would like to challenge your view, but you give the response to it.¹ Here, both the question and answers are given by the same person.  But this need not be the case all the time.  In several cases, a proper response was given to the original question of the opponents.  However, this method of raising the question of the opponent (by oneself) and the response given to it helped me to ask several serious and sincere questions which I would raise as a Hindu about my own new faith in the Lord.  I never claim that I found all the correct answers to my own questions.  However, my deep reflection on several theological topics gave me a conviction that what I found in the Muktiveda satisfies my need more in the spiritual and social areas.  If I began to write all that I think on various topics on theology, then it would end up in several pages.  I neither have the ability nor find any need to share all of my views here, as there are many volumes available on these topics by scholars.  But this book being a ‘Living Dialogue,’ I would like to share a minimum on a few topics.

In this regard, I chose the following three important topics of the atman, god and the world because their relationship with each other primarily decides the fundamental basis of theology as a sample of how I do theology.

Atman:

Longing for darshan

In my entire search, most of the time I began from me rather than from god.  The common Indian view is how to find god or have his ‘darshan’.  But, since I began to read religious scriptures, my question was not ‘How to find god.’, but ‘Why can’t I find Him?’  The bhakti-oriented Tamil scriptures, particularly, always challenged me that if those saints could have such a close relationship with god, to whom god would do anything to honor their devotion, then why did I fail?

My question:

I was a lonely traveler in this area too because my refection was often based on my experience rather than being based on my studies.  Of course as I attended various religious discourses, in those formative periods, they never shaped my thinking in this area.  Unlike Ramana Maharishi asking ‘Who am I’?² in a non-dualistic term (advaita) my question was based more on my relationship with god: Why can I not be like other saints in bhakti tradition (commonly known as ‘Nayanmar’ is Saivism and ‘Azhvar’ in Vaishnavism, as I read both Saivite and Vaishnavite bhakti scriptures in Tamil).

What is atman:

So, like any other Hindu, I too believed that god created me.  But this simple belief never remained unchallenged, as I began to read and reflect on this subject.  The basic question in Hinduism about atman is this: “Is atman created by god like any other creation, or is it part of god Himself?”  This is the origin of so many schools of thought in Indian Philosophy.  However, a common Hindu has no problem in holding all the views correct because they will relate with each school of thought according to the need that arises.  In my case as I was born in smartha Brahmin family where all deities are respected and venerated equally, for me (us) the deep divide (about atman) among mainline schools of Saivam and Vaishnavism is not that much important, though in our family tradition we too accepted Sankara Vedanta that atman is Brahman.

The common precept (view):

The common view about atman among Hindus is that it is minute part of god.  At the same time comes to bhakti, a Hindu always recognizes that they or their atman is created by god, according to His grace and desire (lila) in which one’s own karma, too, plays a prominent role.  Or the changeless atman takes birth as per the karma as well as the grace of god.³  As a devotee, they think only about their relationship with god and all that they should do to earn His favor.  And when they are in the mood for philosophical talk—whether in time of tragedy or joy, they won’t hesitate to point out that ‘jeevatma (individual soul) and paramatma (Supreme Soul) are one’.  Except for some strict sampradayas like Vaishnavites (both Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita schools), the rest of the common Hindus find no problem in shifting their views regarding any philosophical view.  Most of the time it is their mood and need that decides their answer and not any particular doctrinal point of view.  I too was no exception to this general rule.

My understanding (or conclusion):

However once I began to read the Muktiveda, then my interest grew in learning more about the Indian philosophical traditional view on this subject of atman.  As I began to read and collect information, I was amazed by the vast and deep reflection of the Indian thinkers on this topic of atman.  Being untrained in theology/philosophy, I am not qualified to write either a Hindu view or muktivedic or comparison, but the conclusion that I arrived at for my personal need is this:

Being created in His OWN IMAGE, I am not like other created beings nor co-equivalent with god Himself.  Whether or not I inherit Manu’s (Adam’s) sin in my atman, there is something wrong in my atman.  Like Adimata (Eve), I cannot blame others—god, time or karma for this ‘problem’ in my atman.  Of course as the ‘original sin’ remains a problem to many Hindus (particularly the apologetics), the karma theory remains a problem for most of the followers of Muktiveda.⁴ As my atman bears god’s Image, I too have a conscience (cit) which forces me to accept moral responsibility for all that I do.  This ‘Image of god’ is to separate me from the rest of creation and not to claim ‘co-essence’ with Him.  Though I will be transformed like the Lord in resurrection, it is more to claim the ‘lost’ status than becoming ONE with Him in His essence.

Not that simple:

But this small summary does not resolve all the issues that theology will naturally raise, because we cannot have an independent theology for any concept like atman, god etc., without considering its relationship with other areas.  In fact, any concept about atman would be abstract unless it is explained in relationship with other branches of theology (philosophy).  Because the core issue in theology is not the doctrine about atman, but atman’s relationship with the other two basic concepts of theology viz. god and world. 

In fact this relationship between ‘atman’, ‘god’ and ‘world’ is an important subject in Indian philosophy but their relationship with god is completely different in Muktivedic theology. 

Atman does not exist in isolation:

Without relationship, the atman has no existence, unless we, taking help from advaita, claim that the atman is Brahman and hence need not relate with anyone or anything in its/his/her true nature.  However, because atman is basically identified with the human soul/spirit, it ought to have relationship.  That is the very purpose of creating human beings in god’s image.  As I already said, this image is sharing the conscience and not the essence of god.  Being ‘conscience’ atman needs relationships with both god and the world otherwise we too will have only animal instinct.  Thus, this relationship naturally complicates the doctrine and any simplified statements about atman (as I shared above).

Considering the depth of this subject and the vast material available from the long tradition of (Indian) philosophy and (Christian) theology no one can arrive at a universal, conclusive doctrine on this subject.

Hindu vs. Muktivedic source:

As Hinduism has a gradual development starting from Vedic literature down to various schools of thoughts (not in a chronological order), it could easily accommodate any kind of doctrines.  Whereas the Muktiveda has only one kind of creation account of human beings, any attempt to compare (accommodate) Muktivedic theology of atman within the frame of Hindu philosophies [theology] is almost impossible.  However, attempts have been made and still several scholars, particularly Christian theologians, are attempting this.  But being untrained in (proper, systematic) theology, it became very difficult for me to understand such studies, irrespective of my elementary level of understanding on this subject.

One basic difference:

For example, according the Muktivedic account, being created out of earth, god breathed His spirit to give life.  Now the basic question is, then (using the Sankhyan dualism viz., Purusha [soul] and prakriti [matter]) can we divide the human being as matter and spirit.  But such dichotomy seems unmuktivedic as the human soul represents the total personality with body, soul, mind and spirit not separating one from the other.⁵  Whereas, almost every branch of Hindu theology agrees (mostly based on Sankhyan dualism) that a human has both subtle and gross parts.  At death, the subtle part alone departs, leaving the gross part to be merged with elements (of prakriti or matter).  Without considering such basic differences from the Muktivedic and non-Muktivedic theological differences, any attempt to merely accommodate certain technical terms from Indian philosophies never does justice to either system.

My struggle:

This is the challenge I often faced in the early days of my faith.  On the one hand, I found it difficult to come out from Indian frame of mind about atman from a layman’s perspective.  At the same time, I found it difficult to comprehend the Muktivedic view in a proper theological perspective, as both Purva and Uttara Vedas and further Church theology were influenced by various thoughts of their respective contemporary world.

This point needs to be explained a bit here.  Several non-Indian Muktivedic scholars, in the name of dialogue, tried to arrive at some kind of synthesis based on their book knowledge.  Whereas an average Hindu, not knowing all the debates in their or any other school of thought, live, carrying the common view about atman: created by god; imperishable; not different from god; at the same time not god etc.  And I am one of these average Hindus.  Of course, holding this view and believing the Muktivedic view, won’t be a conflict if I too remain a simple bhakta of the Lord.  But as my interest to learn about the Muktiveda increased, so further studies have complicated this issue for me.

The common perception:

For an average Hindu, not knowing all about Sankhyan dualism and all it related to atman, in general, holds the view that the atman is not affected by any of the activities of the gross body, which includes buddhi (mind), aham (ego), though it sustains the gross body. To realize this and attempt to live with proper knowledge about atman with an ‘ego’-free life is the main mark of spirituality.  This atman, which is the minute part of god or Brahman Himself, when it falsely identifies itself with the gross body due to avidya (ignorance) and shifts its center of conscience to the egocentric gross body, then it suffers.  And the aim of release is to bring back this conscience to its original place of subtle atman realizing its oneness with god or true nature as Brhman Himself.⁶ But as far as my understanding goes, the Muktiveda does not allow such a dichotomy between the subtle and gross body of human beings.

No blame game:

This sankhyan dualism gave a comfortable zone to blame the gross body for all the problems, keeping the hope alive for the subtle atman to work out its own salvation both here and hereafter.  This dualism also helped one to live with moral lapses, as it is not going to affect the atman in anyway, though it has to pay the price of postponing the mukti and also complicating the karma which would result in repeated births and also experience suffering now in this life.  But, once one follows Bhagavan Muktinath, suddenly morality and ethics become the center of everyday life in all the areas.  No blame game is accepted accusing either the time (kala or yuga) or karma or even god (as part of His lila)

Of course a Christian, who is born and brought with a Muktivedic world view on atman won’t recognize the tension a Hindu bhakta of the Lord naturally faces. In general (most of the time) a Hindu’s conscience is disturbed very little when they breach some moral or ethical principles.  Of course to the (traditional) Christians ‘the devil’ easily bears the entire burden for the breach of moral and ethical principles as he deceived them.  But for a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, now added to the already sankhyan dualism, is the role of the devil to further complicate the struggle in their newfound faith.

Human vs. animal atman:

Leaving aside my personal struggle with atman and ethics, I also faced challenges while sharing the Good News with others.  At Bihar in Mahdubani, one educated Hindu challenged me that if I am so concerned about saving the atman of humans, how am I going to do it for the animals, which too have their own atmans.  Because most of the Hindus believe that the animals too, like human beings have a ‘soul’ (atman), though some rare views do differentiate the human atman from animal soul.⁷ However, the common view is that as the atman takes various births, including various animal lives, they too have atman like us, of course trapped with animal instinct because of past karma.  When its period of suffering ends, then according to the karma, it will take another birth to work out its own salvation.  Based on my personal experience, I know that there is no point in proving that we human beings are different from animals etc.  Therefore, I handled this situation by saying, ‘I don’t know what I was in the past life and don’t know what I would be in future (if at all I will again take a birth).  But now, god has given me this human birth, which I don’t want to miss.  To prove the precious opportunity given us through human birth to strive for mukti, I have often quoted several Hindu scriptures which warn us not to miss this opportunity.⁸

Atman: Soul or spirit

Coming back to atman’s problem, this became further complicated when I began to read most of the books related to the Muktiveda in English and mostly written by Western scholars.  Because of sankhyan dualism, while atman could be translated as ‘spirit’ and anatman is associated with all the gross body, which includes mind, intellect, senses (man, buddhi and indriyam) as soul.  But soul and spirit are often interchangeable in the Western and muktivedic view, so comprehending a clear muktivedic view about atman with a Hindu worldview often confused me.⁹

A blessing and burden:

If Atman is the center of my ‘BEING’, then it not only sustains the gross body (including mind, budhi etc.) but also should accept the moral responsibility for failures in my life.  There is no point of blaming the gross body by taking help from the karma theory or the devil by using the story of the fall.¹⁰  Here I found the new help by receiving the Holy Spirit as the inner witness to guide my atman.  When I fail, my conscience is pricked.  Therefore, I now have no excuse to blame any other thing except myself.  When I didn’t know the Lord in the past, then also, when I failed, my conscience was pricked.  But then, sankhyan dualism (not knowing technically but because of common view) came to help, and I could easily blame the time (kali yuga where dharma stands on only one leg, so it is natural for us to fail in ethical and moral areas), karma etc.  There were other remedies available in the form of ritual and prayaschitta (the real purpose of prayaschitta¹¹ is not merely doing the penance, but resolving not to do it again) or making a vow to god(s) etc.  Whereas now as the bhakta of the Lord, when my conscience is pricked, I am also grieving Him. So my pilgrimage on this earth becomes both a burden and a blessing.  It is a burden because I have to continue to live in this body with both subtle and gross body sustained by atman.  It is a continuous cry like that of Sevanand (Paul) in Romans 7:24 ‘wretched sinner I am who shall deliver me from the body of death’.  A blessing because the presence of god as antaryami (inner ruler), a sakshin (witness) and a guru to forgive, encourage, warn guide and save me as Sevanand proclaims in Romans 7:25, ‘Thanks be to god—through Muktinath our Lord!  So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to god’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.’ (NIV)

A new experience: born again

A Hindu, who also has similar concepts of having a pricking conscience, inner witness, forgiveness, grace, guidance etc. cannot easily understand this.  Though every common Hindu lives a bhakti-oriented life, at least in some part, they can mentally separate the atman from ethical/moral responsibility and can blame or take refuge in karma-based theories.  But as a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, for any kind of failures in any area of life, no excuse other than accepting personal responsibility is the only option left for the atman to take the cross to walk daily behind the Lord.  Even those failures that a bhakta could feel are allowed by god, there is no excuse to remain as a principle of passivity.  For example, my faith always taught me to ask the questions: ‘Why did You allowed it, Lord?  What do You want me to learn from this failure, tragedy, loss, pain, sickness etc.?’  This in one way comforted me that I did need not search in any theory (like karma etc.) other than myself to find the answer.  This experience is what is called ‘born again’ which others cannot understand.  Even if I use many more words, this is one unique experience that each ‘born again’ bhakta of the Bhagavan Muktinath experiences in their life, which cannot be explained in human terms.

Atman and flesh:

The muktivedic view about atman gave me new insight about accepting personal responsibility as a total person and not blaming either the gross body or external factors outside me like time, karma etc.  However, the Hindu worldview of the soul being different from the body (based on sankhyan dualism) helps me to understand the struggle between ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh’ which the Muktiveda talks about.¹²  Though no one can clearly explain what a soul, mind, buddhi, ego etc., is, for me, the ‘spirit’ stands for the atman created in the Image of god and ‘flesh’ to the ‘gross’ body of Hinduism, which is easily pulled to a lower level.  At the same time, as atman is the one which sustains the gross body, it has to accept the moral responsibility for the failure.  Here, mere knowledge that it is created in the Image of god alone won’t help, but taking the help from god, it ought to train the gross body not to conform to the images of the world, but allow it to be transformed by its constant walk with god to offer itself as a living sacrifice to Him. (ROM. 12:1-2) Though a similar view can be traced in a few sampradhayas of Hinduism (like Saivism viz. pasu [atman]; pati [Lord] and pasam [fetters]¹³), the main criterion which differentiates the Muktiveda view from the rest is that atman should accept personal responsibility for the failures of the ‘flesh’.  So as it sustains, it has to train the flesh too, so that it won’t allow the flesh to ‘wither its essence’, as portrayed by Corelli:

The body is nourished, as we know, by air and light and food, the Soul is nourished and trained by the exercise of interior thought.  As the body is kept in a state of health and activity by wholesome occupation, so every noble thought or wish expands the Soul and gives it new vitality.  Every mean desire, every sensual craving, withers its delicate essence. It is the only thing we possess of pure god-head in us, and its very nature is to shrink from the very contact of evil.¹⁴

World

The atman, at times, can forget god, but it can never do away with its relationship with the world, as its survival depends upon its relationship with it.

Muktiveda’s attitude:

Furthermore, when I began to read the Muktiveda from the beginning, I was shocked to see the forthright, affirming attitude of “material”.¹⁵  The very first chapter of the Purva Veda talks about god seeing His material creation as ‘good’ (Gen. 1:31).  As we saw above, the sankhyan dualism of ‘matter’ and ‘spirit’ is alien to the muktivedic view, and in fact, when I read the commentary for Psalm 103: 1 ‘blessed the O my soul’, it actually says, ‘blessed the Lord O my soul, body, mind and spirit’ etc., including the total person in which body and matter is equally important.

It is negative

One common Hindu worldview about the world is that it is ‘maya’ ‘evil’ and a ‘snare’, and everyone should try to escape from its grip as much as possible if their aim is both for spiritual life and mukti.  Of course scholars talk about a ‘healthy Vedic attitude about life on earth’ and also about the ‘world-confirming’ and not ‘world-denying’ claims of Hinduism based on four ‘purushatras’ (aims of life viz. dharma, artha, kama and moksha).  I too talked along the same line in Understanding Hinduism (Chapter Five, ‘Spirit of Hinduism’).  But the common Hindu view is still that the world is ‘maya’ which is an all-inclusive term for all its negative meanings.

Many views:

As there is no single creation theory in Hinduism, some schools of thought, like Vishishtadvaita talk about ‘prakriti’ (matter, world) being emanated from god, which has to some extent made it divine as it is the body of god.¹⁶  But when the purpose of the creation is questioned, then it is answered as ‘divine play’ (lila) of god, still pushing this materialism as serving god’s purpose rather than mankind’s.  Of course it is too simple to talk about the Hindu view on any subject from one particular point of view because holding two opposite views together without worrying about analyzing with some logic is a common trait in Hinduism.  But what I am talking about in this book is the common people’s view, which never seeks scriptural answers for their survival mechanism in this world. 

Renunciation:

The negative attitude towards the world has led not only to renounce the material world, but has also developed a detachment in human relationships.  In theory, at least if a man (sorry I cannot use ‘woman’ here—still a privilege and [only] escape for man) feels that he has relatively fulfilled his dharma (social duty) towards his family, he can renounce his responsibility.  One of my school time friends met me recently.  He wanted to leave his home, as his sons are grown up and earning.  But I said to him, ‘But your wife still needs her husband, and your future grandchildren might love to see their grandfather.  Your responsibility to your home never ends once your children begin to earn’.  Of course to renounce the world needs lots of spiritual and moral inner strength, but doing it out of frustration or personal gain, at the cost of responsibility needs to be addressed here.  Actually the word ‘samnyasa’ has two parts= sam + nyasa.  ‘Nyasa’ means giving up or renunciation.  But it should be done positively as the word ‘sam’ (good) points and not out of frustration or to run away from responsibility, which will further frustrate the person as he will still miss what he has renounced.

Muktivedic renunciation:

There is a commonality between the Hindu worldview and the Muktiveda with certain terms like ‘self-denial’, ‘detachment’ and ‘renunciation’ etc., when they are related to the relationship of atman and world.  Though there is similarity of the words, their interpretation is completely different because of their attitude toward matter.  Though we hear about the famous theme of the Gita, ‘nishkamya karma’ (though this exact word is not in the Gita text, like Trinity in the Muktiveda) which claims to represent the Hindu view that renunciation ‘not’ of action but ‘in’ action, the common view about ‘self-denial’ and ‘detachment’ is from a negative view about the world.  Whereas the muktivedic view is not subjecting the mind to the senses, but allowing it to be transformed by the Spirit of God, and giving priority when it comes even to the legitimate right with a positive attitude towards the world.  Those who want to criticize this interpretation can quote books like Ecclesiastes to show the negative attitude of the Muktiveda to the world and matter.  But this does not go with the main teaching of this book as the NIV Study on Muktiveda says:

But faith teaches him that God has ordered all things according to his own purposes (3:1-15; 5:19; 6:1-2; 9:1) and that man’s role is to accept these, including his own limitations, as God’s appointments.  Man, therefore, should be patient and enjoy life as God gives it.  He should know his own limitations and not vex himself with unrealistic expectations.  He should be prudent in everything, living carefully before God and the king and, above all, fearing God and keeping his commandments (12:13).¹⁷

Lack of involvement:

Full involvement of spiritual people in the world affairs is part of the muktivedic view.  Whereas, detachment with worldly affairs for personal mukti is one of the strong views of Hinduism.  Much of the time, this is reflected in their attitude towards their social (common) responsibility in their life. Particularly, most of the educated people shun away from politics, to the extent of not exercising their rights with an attitude of ‘Raman aandal yenna; Ravanan aandal yenna’ (who cares if Rama rules or Ravana).  That’s why mobilizing support for common causes never comes spontaneously in the Indian society, unless it personally affects the person.  Of course there are several exceptions to this general rule.  But in general, people’s attitude towards matter and world are negative. Unless they are personally affected, they won’t become involved in common causes.  And even in those few cases where people come to the street to fight for their collective right and for the common cause—that too is organized by some political parties keeping an eye on the vote bank or by the media, keeping the commercial interest to draw more viewers, so that they get more commercials¹⁸ and it is never done spontaneously by the people because of public interest.  That is why what should be part of our civic sense is implemented now by law—like the rainwater harvest implemented by Tamilnadu government through law.

Illustrations:

Here is an example from my own personal experience. When I moved to a new neighborhood, even before the government made ‘rainwater harvest’ compulsory, I did it for my new house and also encouraged the neighbors to do it to preserve and increase the ground water level.  But none heeded my voice.  And once the government passed the law that the water connection would be terminated for those who didn’t do simple rainwater harvest arrangement, then all the neighbors were running pillar to post to collect stones and broken bricks, even to the extent of fighting among them to collect them from my new building to make a sock pit.  The same is true with throwing garbage.  I am the only person who throws garbage in the place for which the box is kept.  Other neighbors, in spite of my repeated requests, threw trash around their houses and make our entire neighborhood look ugly.  In our ashram, I sent all the plastic bags and waste to city for recycling and never throw just outside the ashram, which in the long run will spoil the soil.  I never allow anyone to burn them here as it will add problem to the carbon level in the air.  Only a law will force us to take action, not any feelings of moral responsibility towards the world—including our own future need.  Most of the time, we think about the present convenience at the cost of our future generation.

Contrary to this negative view the muktivedic view, according to Wright is:

…Man, his image, was created to live in the harmony of personal equality but with social organization that required functional structures of authority.  The ordering of social relationships and structures, locally, nationally and globally, is of direct concern to our Creator God, then.  But that is precisely the stuff of politics.  The Bible, therefore, makes no unnatural separation between `politics’ and `religion’, though neither does it identify them.  Both are essential dimensions of what it is to be human.  Man the worshipper is also man the political animal, for God made him so.¹⁹

I should not compare the West with India, though when a young man who was helping to work on the computer saw a few photos from the West, he marveled by saying, ‘How clean their streets and surroundings are’.  When this topic comes in TV debate, Singapore will be mentioned for the way people keep cleanliness.  But few will criticize it by pointing out that it is a ‘police state’ where people are controlled by the fear of ‘law’ whereas here in India we are led by ‘dharma’ which is one’s natural duty in every sphere, including nature.  But in practice we become more ‘adharmic’ particularly towards nature because of our attitude towards matter.  For example, in India, irrespective of the written request in the toilets on trains not to use them while stopped at stations, most of the people use it, to avoid the personal inconvenience of using it while the train is moving.  The way litters are thrown on highways and railway tracks throughout India shows our civic sense.  In spite of the ‘Clean India’ scheme inaugurated by our Prime Minister Sri Modi and even after spending several million rupees for this purpose, it never became a people movement and still our streets are in a pathetic condition, though there is considerable improvement.  There is no need to give more examples to show our attitude towards world, material and our responsibility. 

Our stewardship:

One important muktivedic view, which attracted me, is that though god created the world, it is not to provide an opportunity to give to the atman to work out its salvation but to enjoy it properly.  As every muktivedic promise presupposes a demand (command), here also the human being is called to enjoy god’s creation with responsibility.  So we have to reap the consequence for every kind of harm that we do to god’s creation.  Of course, no other scripture talks about giving reverence to prakriti (matter) like that of Hinduism.²⁰  Yet the cyclical aspect of creation—creation, preservation and dissolution—and re-creation sometimes gives the impression that ‘nature will take care of itself’ (like ‘law will take its own course for politicians in India, which never happens).  Such an attitude could give consolation when we face a natural calamity on a mass scale like a Tsunami.  But this view sometimes provides excuses for our stewardship.  By calling man to name His creation (Geneses2:19-20), god not only allowed us to be part of His creative activity, but He also gave us the responsibility to continue His creation by maintaining it.  It is like creating a garden of our own with the help of others, but the very purpose of its creation is tied to its maintenance.  Otherwise, god didn’t need to create us in His own image. 

HUMAN-CENTERED:

But atman’s relationship with the world should not be limited only to the material aspect of god’s creation, but the relationship should be towards His entire creation including human beings.  This is more beautifully demonstrated by the laws in the Purva Veda which are human-oriented rather than ritual-oriented.²¹ The most shocking truth that I first encountered in the muktivedic view was to pray for others.  Of course we have ‘universal prayer’ in Hinduism in which we wish happiness, joy, wealth, health, auspiciousness, etc. to everyone (sarve bhavantu sukinah).²²  But as a layman, I never witnessed  Hindus praying for others, for our neighbors and unknown people as the bhaktas of the Lord do.  The very first thing that shocked me was to see the tears of the missionaries while praying for me in my first encounter with Christians as a grownup man.  This was not artificial or an act to impress me.  Those words and tears came from their hearts, which forced me to accept their invitation to stay with them three more days, which god has arranged according to His pre-planned purpose for me.  However I have to recognize the present trend for corporate prayers by Hindus and even call and request to pray for others.  Likewise doing ‘archana’²³ for the close relative (in the temple) is another form of praying for them to god.  But praying for others both as one’s responsibility as a child of god and a sadhana is unique to Muktivedic value.

Redemption:

Whereas being involved with the entire life of the people is the muktivedic view in which the dichotomy between the ‘mundane’ and the ‘spiritual’/‘religion’ is absent.  This can be seen from the fact that the prophets prophesized in the secular events of the people and not in isolation just to give spiritual teaching.²⁴  The life of the Lord and His immediate disciples were the best example.  That’s why, though slavery was still a part of the Christian world, Christians also fought against it.  This could be one reason for most of the Reformation and inventions coming from the West, where people were influenced by a healthy muktivedic attitude towards matter.  Several social reforms (abolition of sati [burning the widow along with her husband]; child marriage, temple prostitutes etc.) were initiated because of the ‘Christian’ influence in India.  Redemption, being the pivot of salvation, we are redeemed in the world and not from the world.  And this makes sense for the spiritual people to take interest in the affairs of the world to work with god to redeem the societies on every level.  This involvement is spiritualism and not materialism.  As Sir Fredrick Catherwood says, ‘To try to improve society is not worldliness but love.  To wash your hands of society is not love but worldliness.’²⁵

Not materialism:

But this affirmation of ‘matter’ should not be considered the ‘materialism’ that we commonly find, unfortunately again, in the same Christian world.  Too much materialistic indulgence in the West, even among the Christians, is a shocking thing to the Oriental people.  Legitimate use and enjoyment of material is the muktivedic norm which could be seen as part of the ‘dharmic’ worldview of Hinduism viz., as Krishna says in the Gita ‘I remain as the pleasure in every being which is not opposed to dharma’ (7:11).  But such scriptural positive affirmation of dharmic pleasure, if possible, should be avoided because even legitimate rights are equally a snare to the atman.²⁶  Whereas the muktivedic view holds that this legitimate right is also viewed from the perspective of stewardship.  Maintaining the body, looking after the family, earning to look after the family, involvement in the society in all its activities, etc. are a part of the spiritual activity.  Of course these are not done for merit or mukti, but they are the results of the mukti given by god through Bhagavan Muktinath.  Mukti never comes by good work but good work from Mukti is the Muktivedic view.  Here, the world is not treated like a snare but like money, as a humble servant to serve and not to distract and lose the goal.  This could be termed, what the Gita (2:56) calls ‘stitap prajanata’ or a stable mind neither drowned in sorrow not jumping in pleasure, which is achieved only by a yogi.  Whereas the muktivedic demand is that each bhakta should be that yogi.  And the yoga which the Muktiveda talks about to attain such a state of mind is to allow god to regain His place at the center of our life and not to be pushed in one corner to use Him when we need, through rituals.

Individualism unmuktivedic:

Of course one of the strengths of Hinduism (India) is that when it comes to life on earth, it is centered around family/community and not on the individual.  But when it comes to working out our salvation, then it is more ‘individual’-oriented, though one cannot avoid the influence and involvement of others in it.  Yet Christiandom/ or the Western world has gone in the opposite direction in promoting individualism.²⁷ However, according to the Muktiveda, both family and community are very much important, not only for our earthly life, but also for salvation.  The emphasis of anti-individualism can be seen from the fact that faith in the Lord is not ‘a one-man operated corporation’ and the mandali (church) as the body of the Lord always insists on the collective life in the world for the Lord as a witness and not a ‘ritual oriented’, ‘pulpit centred’ weekly worship meeting.  This is more clearly demonstrated in celebrating ‘maha prasad’ (communion) of the Lord.

Involvement is muktivedic:

Being involved in and with the lives of others is a muktivedic view against the common, modern trend of ‘mind you own business’.  Of course, this involvement is not invading the privacy of others, but it is a moral commitment to accept a responsibility towards god’s creation in its totality.  Being involved in politics, promoting human rights, and taking care of the environment, also are parts of atman’s responsibility in this world.  That’s why even several values about which the Muktiveda is silent are upheld as part of Kingdom values.  Democracy, Human Rights, Freedom of Press are some of the best examples. 

In the beginning of my new faith, my Hindu worldview caused a clash in my mind when it came to helping others.  Previously, helping others was a ‘duty’ or a ‘means’ to earn merit.  Hindus believe in charity, but the common view is that you perform charitable works with the idea in mind of personal gain or earning ‘punya’ (merit) to get rid of your own karma/sin.  This does not mean that all the charity done by Hindus is selfish in its scope.  But the common view, as expressed in Tamil is: pora vazhikku punniyam kidaikkum—earning some merit when (one) dies.  Sometimes helping others is believed to postpone their karmic residue to be burnt in this life.  Then it not allows others to suffer (by doing the charitable work to them) to get rid of their sin/karma, which is part of the Hindu worldview, though it is not promoted in any sense.²⁸  Of helping others gives one a psychological consolation without being involved with the others’ suffering.  In the Muktiveda, it is our moral duty to be involved with others’ suffering and is a mark of one’s mukti. 

A healthy attitude of atman

A part of our human nature is compassion because we are all created in god’s image, and it is true that many people around the world, without any religious or spiritual conviction, often serve others without any motivation other than human compassion. When it comes to suffering, Hindus tend to take refuge in the Karma theory of Hinduism and Christians will sometimes blame the suffering on ‘god’s will’.  I feel the karma theory gives a Hindu more inner courage and strength to accept tragedy more graciously than Christians. On the other hand, faith in the Lord will help a bhakta to overcome the struggle with the help of His grace and strength—though at that time, they may not understand the reason for the suffering.  We must remember that the muktivedic view of suffering is that it is neither a punishment nor god’s will but part of a fallen world. 

Being involved in others’ suffering as part of our responsibility without having any ulterior motives like conversion, earning merit, pleasing god or getting rid of a guilty conscience is a Kingdom value.  This responsibility will come naturally and spontaneously with a transformed mind when atman engages itself with a healthy attitude towards the world.  Furthermore, this healthy attitude towards the world will enable a bhakta of the Lord to face certain realities of life more courageously and compels a bhakta to help others to escape from their suffering and enjoy their god-given life legitimately.  For me, this is quite different from the Hindu worldview.

God

Beyond our understanding:

The one topic that no one dares to talk about, using human criterion, is god.  The subject of god can never be subjected to thinking, sharing, writing or even worship. The only way to understand the essence god is to wait upon Him till He reveals Himself  ‘within’ our atman.—not even ‘to’ our atman.  Any understanding about god by an individual is definitely conditioned by her culture and various traditions.  So even any thinking about god by using our mind cannot give a real picture about Him.  Anything that claims to be revealed ‘to’ our atman is also colored by the same limitations because the atman cannot comprehend that revelation without the aid of the mind etc., which again is influenced by the respective culture and the tradition of the respective individual.  This is beautifully explained by Tirunavukkarasar: ‘the one who cannot be explained by any word like god has this color, this nature….’²⁹  Whereas when god reveals Himself, ‘within’ our atman, then like a new born baby, our atman develops a personal relationship with Him, which is communicated by feelings, expression, smile, cries, babblings and gigglings (which a mother alone could understand) etc., like when the baby sucks her mother.  There, what is communicated between the mother and the baby goes beyond any human criteria, which only those two can understand and enjoy with each other.

Our limited expression:

This being my understanding of god, then bhakti is the only means by which our atman can develop that relationship with god, which goes beyond any kind of human expressions.  The rest is the outward limited expression of a grown up child (according to their understanding and maturity) about god, through scriptures, worship, theology, rituals, etc.

Any attempt to write anything about god is like a child trying to drain sea by pouring it with their palm into a small pit she dug in the shore.  Trying to find the origin of the creation both outside ourselves and inside has forced humanity to arrive at various conclusions about god.  One could even say with some confidence that no other subject would have produced this much work in art, music, literature etc. like that of god. 

My journey:

But after I became a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, my understanding about god became more complicated than it looked to others, who adhere to a particular point of view of their religious tradition—as a Hindu, Christian, Muslim etc.  Born in a smartha Brahmin family, any view about god—pantheism, polytheism, monotheism—is correct.  So like any other typical Hindus, I too believed in every form of god.  But the exclusivism of the Muktiveda about god and the Lord, has often challenged my rationalistic mind. The concept of the Trinity is particularly challenging because it is so profound that any study or illustration of the Trinity has never thoroughly explained it for me. 

Continuing my journey of faith and trust, I began to walk by the revelation which god had given me, and I believed that He would further reveal Himself to me.  As I began to read the Muktiveda and books related to the Muktiveda, my mind was filled with new insights and information, but I still could not grasp the entire understanding about god.  After several years of my studies and efforts to walk according to His precepts, I came to the conclusion that I am not going to understand everything about god even with the minimum level that He had revealed to me.  Finally I arrived to this conclusion:

My conviction:

I don’t know who god is.  I cannot understand Him and won’t try to understand Him.  But the Lord Muktinath, who became my guru, removed the darkness in my atman and showed me the path to walk as His disciple.  Once I found my guru who removed my darkness, I did not need to search for god because no god exists beyond my guru.  But this does not promote any theology of ‘Muktinath only’.  I strongly believe in the doctrine of TRINITY, but what I understand about it in my atman is beyond me to express.  It is not merely a feeling, but it is impossible for me to express exactly what my rationalistic mind endorses about the experience of my atman. 

This is not mysticism or personal experience (which cannot be communicated) but a relationship which each one should have personally as Tirumular rightly says, ‘How it is possible for a mother to explain the relationship that she has with her husband even asked by her own daughter’?³⁰ This personal relationship never becomes private one according to  Muktiveda. Whereas in Hinduism the personal relationship could even become private one as one Tamil scholar explained: According to him (Sri Arumuganar³¹) when one chooses a god of her choice (ishtadevata) that deity even becomes a private god for her. Even another person (Hindu) chooses the same deity as her ishtadevata, both their relationship won’t be the  same with that deity.  Though this highlights the importance of each bhakta’s relationship with her god, in Hinduism the same deity could be approached for two rivalries.  For example two Hindus worshiping the same deity can go to the temple and appeal to give a court verdict in their favour or even request the deity to take revenge on the enemy.  Whereas according to Muktiveda, at least in theory this is not possible. This doesn’t mean that all the followers of the Lord have only cordial relationship with each other and they never approach Him for justice against their enemy who happens to be a fellow bhakta (that too belongs to the same mandali).  Here the Muktivedic dictum is ‘taking revenge and doing justice’ (Romans 12:19) belongs to God but every bhakta should maintain harmony in their relationship as much as possible as they both worship the same god.(Romans 12:18)  Of course in real life we are no way different from anyone else.

Sometimes in my attempt to explain about my guru I say, ‘Muktinath is the lowest expression of god and the highest expression of humanity.’  If at all god could come down to our level to reveal Himself, He cannot do more than what our Lord has done in His flesh.  If at all any human being could go upward in their godly nature, they cannot go beyond our Lord.  This does not mean that Muktinath is the meeting point of god and humanity.  But He is the center from which and in which god came down to meet His creation and humanity rose to meet their creator. 

Role of experience:

Of course such simple statements have their own problems.  But this is the most articulation in human language about my experience with god that I am able to express.  This naturally would raise the question about ‘experience’ itself.  If anyone asks me, ‘What is important:  Faith or Experience?’  My sincere answer would be ‘Experience’.  ‘Then’, they may say, ‘walk by faith and not by sight’ is wrong according to you’.  ‘Well, it depends upon your interpretation on both the words “faith” and “sight” here’, I will respond.

               Being a `rationalist’, I appreciate the value of god-given `Reason’.  At the same time, I believe in the experience that transcends even this reasoning.  For me, reason is not mere `abstract intellectualism’ and `experience’ is not mere `emotionalism’ based on sentiments.  Furthermore, if doctrines like `faith’, `resurrection’ `heaven’ `hell’ etc. are mere abstract theories without some personal experience, then I would question the validity of such doctrines for the growth of my spirituality here on this earth.  For me, `immortality’ is disclosed in this `earthly Reality’ of personal experience.  Of course god is not bound by my experience, but I am.

               Take resurrection for example.  If I am asked whether I believe in it or not, then I will say ‘Ask this question after “my” resurrection’.  The resurrection of Muktinath is a `fact’ and it doesn’t depend upon my `experience’ to prove its authenticity.  Likewise, it would also be a fact that ‘if Muktinath is not raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain’. (I COR. 15:14)  Though valuable and true, for me, this physical resurrection is not that important while I am still living this life on earth.  At the same time, I don’t want to simply make it a `philosophy of spiritual resurrection’.  What is more important for me is the `earthly Reality’ which will help me to attain that experience one day. 

As I said above, this experience with god and a bhakta is like the relationship between a newborn baby and its mother.  While the baby enjoys its relationship with its mother, it does not need and cannot express in any ‘absolute’ human standards.  The baby has its own way of experiencing and expressing itself and the mother knows it.  But certain common traits like smiling, chuckling, talking to itself, after the mother has left the room, are the marks that show the baby expressing its joy with the mother.

If we can further use this illustration, then all the bhakti literature, arts, music, rituals etc. could be termed that outward expression of our inner experience with god.  But like any other illustration, it has its limited meanings which we should not stretch beyond the meaning which it is intend to express.

New Understanding:

Many of my views about god changed after I became a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath. One view in particular that changed was in relation to offending god.  In general if any tragedy happens in a Hindu home, it will immediately be blamed on Karma or god.  We have explored this idea of the relationship of tragedy to Karma, but how does a Hindu view a tragedy in relationship to ‘offending’ god, particularly that of family deity (kula daivam)?  This is generally known as ‘daiva kuttram’ in Tamil, which could be translated as ‘offence against God’, though the word ‘offence’ is not be taken in a moral sense but only in ritual sense.

Here is an example of a tragedy that happened to one Iyanger family.  They were traveling and touring the nine planets temple in (Navagraha koil) Tamilnadu.  They were involved in a car accident and three of them were killed.  In a case like this, apart from karma, they would attribute the cause of the tragedy to the possibility that the family might have offended the nine deities or their family deity.  Then the tragedy is not interpreted as punishment from god, though this could be implied in indirect way. If they had failed by not performing certain rituals according to the (prescribed) tradition or there was some kind of defilement during the puja/ritual, then this could have brought the tragedy on them, for which god would not be blamed.  If the question is asked, ‘Wouldn’t the same god have the power to protect them from this tragedy because of some lapses in ritual?’ The answer would be, ‘We are punished not for the lapse but by the lapse itself’.

The lapse is not related with ethical/moral lapse in most cases though this is also not neglected.  But in most cases, the lapses and mistakes are related to the ritual.  For example, if a person who went to Sabarimalai to see the deity Iyappan met with accident, then it would be thought that some kind of ritual impurity or lapses of some ritual had defiled his vow (period).  Perhaps some female member of his family was present within the vicinity of the puja during her menstrual period, or he might have consumed some prohibited things during the vow period etc., but the offense is not related to moral lapses. 

On the other hand, the Lord Muktinath is offended in ethical and moral issues in relationship with others but not because of ritual lapses.  He asks us to leave the things at temple and go and reconcile with those who we have offended—not that they have offended us. (Matthew 5:24)  Of course those Hindus who want to criticize this view could argue from various scriptural sources and saints’ lives about the demand of ethical and moral imperatives in bhakti.³²  But they all remain academic, and what I am talking is about the common people’s view.

In much of the bhakti literature in any Indian language (particularly in Tamil), one can see the way the author talks about all of his(her) lapses, which are mostly in ethical and moral areas.  For example, when I read ‘Aruttpaa’ (grace poems) by Ramalinga Adigalar of Vadalur (Tamilnadu, belongs to 19^th century) I see the way he expresses his anguish about his moral lapses in poem after poem and pleads to his personal deity (Murugan at Tirutanigai) to show his grace upon him. He rarely mentions any ritual lapses for his failures in his bhakti.  I have also memorized many Tamil (later in Hindi too) poems like these.  Furthermore, when the average Hindu faces problems and they turn to god seeking help, most of the time, their vow will be to fulfill certain rituals, but it will not be repentance for any of the moral lapses.  Whereas, when I sit to pray to god now that I have become a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, it is only my failures in ethical and moral issues which prick my conscience, and I seek to amend them with god’s help—in particular with my relationship with others.  This could happen to anyone having any kind of religious faith.  However, I found this remarkable change within me once I found my guru Muktinath.

Deliverance from superstitions:

This kind of understanding about God has also brought a remarkable change in my attitude towards other areas that affect a normal Hindu.  The fear of unknown forces, karma, (bad) time etc., are attributed to bringing tragedy in life.  In general, when any tragedy strikes a person or family, immediately an astrologer is consulted and sometimes an exorcist’s help is sought to remove the evil effect of the karma, time or black magic happening to the person or family.  Remedial rituals are performed on various levels.  Certain changes may be made in the house—re-arranging the furniture by changing the doors and windows as per vastu, or even changing the spelling of one’s name according to ‘numerology’ etc. are prescribed.  Other rituals like following several dos and don’ts in normal life activities, tying amulets, keeping certain things and removing some others etc. may be tried.  Whereas, my bhakti taught me to trust god and turn to Him either to help me to come out of the problem or bear the burden with His grace.  A big business is thriving based on the superstition of the people, whereas their own bhakti literatures teach them to trust god and seek His grace. 

We know poems in which the writer says that what a (good or bad) day, time, karma, planets and even Yama (deity of death) etc. could do to her, as the hands and feet of her deity will come before her with full armor.³³  Also we know Jnasambandar’s ‘kolaru padigam’ in which he sings to ward off the influence of the nine planets in the life of a devotee.³⁴  We sing these songs in our puja and worship, but after the puja is finished, when we began the day’s work, we immediately consult all the bad omens, good and bad times, astrology etc. By this, we are telling our god that though I have faith in you, yet I cannot trust that you will protect me, as these songs claim which I have just recited in puja.  Believing in such writings, but by not implementing them, we are proving that either our bhakti is false or god is false.

Total surrender:

I am not saying this because I am a samnyasi.  I am saying this because the fear about death, unseen forces or any other things (adyatmika, adibhoutika and adidaivika—caused by oneself, by external forces other than oneself or even by gods) disappeared once I trusted god.  This change did not come because the Muktiveda prohibits them. Instead once my relationship with my Bhagavan Muktinath grew with proper understanding about Him, then it is complete trust in Him—nothing more nothing less that changed my life completely.  Like Abirami Battar, I too say, ‘I don’t mind whether good or bad things come to me, as I have surrendered all of mine to you already’.³⁵  As Appar says, I too pray, ‘my duty is to serve you and your duty is to uphold me’.³⁶  So my faith in my guru Muktinath helps me to trust him completely.  And here, the Hindu devotional songs help me to pray with those saints who composed them.

Exclusivism:

We often hear Hindus saying that ‘all the gods are same’.  To prove this point they will quote several illustrations like all roads lead to the same goal (maarg anek; mangil yek), or though people take a bath in different places, it is the same river everywhere (nadi yek ghat anek) etc.  Being brought up with this worldview, reading the Muktiveda and the exclusivism of god’s claim in the Muktiveda forced me to read Hindu scriptures and several books.  Several scholarly books, mostly written by Christian scholars, are available for us to read on this topic that explores it more thoroughly than I can attempt here.  Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions by Francis X. Clooney, S.J. and TRUTH IS TWO EYED by John A.T. Robinson, are two examples.³⁷

After reading many books, I came to the conclusion that the exclusivism of the muktivedic claim is not made in the context of comparative religion but it is mostly addressed to a believing community.  Such exclusivism is common in the respective sectarian claims about their gods.  So when several evangelicals ask me how to convince a Hindu about the uniqueness of the Lord and exclusivism about god in the Muktiveda, my usual answer is that no one can convince anyone on this matter.  However, instead of irritating a Hindu by imposing such exclusivism on them, it is better to begin where they stand—from their understanding and expectation of god in their worldview.  Then allow god to work to bring the conviction about, which only a believer can receive.  No rationalistic argument can convince them about certain fundamentals of faith related to god, unless it is revealed by god Himself.

Pluralistic view:

God is not offended by the pluralistic view of the people when they approach Him both for their need and also to understand Him.  He has more compassion and patience than us.  As the Samaritan woman understood gradually—a Jew, Rabi, Prophet, Messiah and finally god–, god will work out in the heart and mind of the people once we allow Him to work.  Even after I received deeksha, my understanding about god was not totally muktivedic.  However, it took several years for me to get a glimpse about what the Muktiveda says about god.  Even if one spends whole life, yet she cannot understand all about god that the Muktiveda conveys.  Therefore, we cannot expect our listeners to accept our particular view about god, which in itself is not complete.

Having said this, it is appropriate that I share the areas in which my view on god received new light.

Sovereign god:

A Hindu will declare many high philosophical claims about god in their dialogue (or in discussion or argument), yet for the average Hindu, there is not much difference between ‘fatalism’ and ‘god’.   It is strange to note that among the several Sanskrit words which are in use for ‘fate’ ‘daivam’ ³⁸is one, which in common understanding means ‘god’.  Though scholars write distinguishing ‘karma’ from ‘fate’, for the common people both still mean the same.  Therefore, when it comes to the role of god in dealing with the karma of the people, various views are expressed.  However, the common view is that even god is helpless before fate, and even He too has to dance according to Her own fate.³⁹  In a few common stories, even gods cannot escape from the (evil) influence of planets, particularly that of Saturn. 

On the other hand, I was really encouraged to see that god in the Muktiveda is in control over everything.  Though He has a perfect plan for His creation, when certain unexpected things happen in a bhakta’s life, it is part of our fallen nature.  Saints have to suffer with sinners in this fallen world.  Of course this presupposes about the acceptance of muktivedic theory of our fall, which a Hindu is not ready to accept.⁴⁰  It is true that we modern people trace back natural and human causes first and then mention god.  But in the muktivedic world (ancient Near East) everything is attributed to god.⁴¹ Though similar view is part of Hinduism too, here fate and god go hand in hand, and most of the time fate has the upper hand, even controlling god. 

Time:

This can also be understood by another familiar word that often comes from the lips of every Hindu: TIME.  When things go wrong then apart from the rest of the reasons, it happened because of a BAD TIME.  And when the RIGHT TIME comes, then things will become normal.  Of course, Muktiveda also talks about ‘GOD’S (RIGHT) TIME, and we bhaktas of the Lord always believe that we have to wait upon the Lord for His time.  But the difference here is that in the Hindu worldview this TIME has equal or sometimes more power than god, which He Himself cannot change (as it is conditioned by the karma of the individual).  Whereas, according to the Muktiveda, god controls everything including TIME.  Some elitist will argue by pointing out that this is the strength of Hinduism, where creation can work independent of god working along with humans.  Furthermore, they would claim such view as scientific, which will neatly fit into everybody’s conviction, even accommodating an atheist, who does not believe in god.  Whereas, the muktivedic view of everything under god’s control limits god Himself.  However, god does stand beyond our rationalistic argument the muktivedic view of god helps me to live with a healthy attitude towards life, the world and god.

GOD-CENTRIC:

According to the muktivedic view, everything in this world (creation) is god-centered. Whereas according to Hinduism, things can work on its own independent of god.  For example, ethics, morality, charity etc. according to muktivedic view is possible because of god’s nature.  Whereas though god can be referred for these things, yet in Hinduism all these things are possible even without any reference to god.  So one needs to be confirmed or controlled by some limited view and interpretation of muktivedic views and values.  Thus Hindu view of life could be universal.

This is true in several ways.  However my view is that such a view about life, creation, ethics, morality and duty could lead to the situation ethics⁴² and multicentered authority to decide what is ethics and what is duty.  There won’t be any normative values and views to refer and test whether one’s view of life is acceptable and applicable to all situations. Though the muktivedic view is limited because of its god centered nature, yet the minimum normative values which it sets can be applied anywhere in the world to measure and compare their own view about the universal nature of its own values.  The one best example could be that while in Hinduism, in spite of its universal nature of values, who is to be excluded based on birth and ritual pollution decides the right of one individual to implement that universal value.  Though in the Purva Veda, the concept of god’s chosen nation theory comes close to this, yet in the Uttara Veda onwards such barriers were broken and the god-centered views of the Muktiveda now could become universal one.

This view that god is in control came as a great relief to me in spite of all the debate about human’s free will in the Muktiveda too.  Whether this helped me to have a clear understanding about god or not, it never gave me any excuses to blame some other force (like karma and fate) other than myself for my mistakes.  Hence, accepting moral responsibility for what I have done has forced me to seek god’s help to live according to His (planned) will for me.  As everything is in His control, ‘in all things god works for the good of those who love god’ (Romans 8:28) became a maha mantra in my life.  It is like a common saying about the Muktiveda: god never promises a safe journey but safe landing.  In the end, we are going to be victorious with Him both here and hereafter is the muktivedic view which promises a happy ending. But this final victory never promises only success in all we do in life.  As long as we live in a fallen world, the sinless and righteous too will suffer along with sinners.  Therefore, the victory is not success but to see the perfect plan of god both for an individual and the entire creation.

Earthly reality and need:

Another great consolation that I received from the Muktiveda is that all of my understanding and relationship with god is not only for the life on the further shore.  As god is in control, I need not seek any other cause (like karma etc.), remedy (appeasing god, ritual etc.) and source for the strength (astrology, vastu etc.) to face the reality of this life.  Of course every Hindu too has a similar faith in god, but most of the time the eternal force of karma forces them to ride on two horses simultaneously.  Whereas for me as salvation has already begun here on earth, what eternity promises will be a continuation of what has already began here.  It is an amplified version of bhakti here on earth.  In this bhakti, if I cannot completely trust god, but I also seek other sources for remedy and strength, then that kind of bhakti is incomplete and even my faith is nothing but a blind faith.

Optimistic view:

This view about god also changed my pessimistic attitude about life on earth (because of the negative Hindu worldview about matter and world).  This does not mean that I never complain, murmur, and always rejoice in life.  There are times that I also feel frustrated and think that god has failed me.  But if I see my life microcosmically keeping myself at the center (including god’s perfect plan for me), the Muktiveda again and again teaches me to see macrocosmically from god’s point of view.  Then, in spite of my struggles and failures, god never disappoints me, provided I remind myself within His total plan for all of US.

As a body:

Thus, according to the Muktiveda, god’s purpose for the world is not for one ‘individual’ at a time, but His purpose is for the entire creation.  In addition to limiting this to humanity, all that He reveals is not to one individual but for a community of bhaktas.  Though every individual has to seek that mukti as a PERSON individually, yet they cannot live it out INDIVIDUALLY.  Though Hinduism’s emphasis is on community when it comes to sociological aspect, it is extremely individualistic (WHEN) it comes to dharma,⁴³ bhakti and mukti.  Whereas, in spite of the failures of the Western Christian countries, the muktivedic view is that ‘WE are living, moving and OUR being is in him’ (ACTS 17:28) —collectively.  This is reflected in the emphasis of the church as a living community and not a club meeting three hours a week.

Avatara and Incarnation:

One aim of a Hindu’s life is to find god or have His darshan in this very life itself.  This simple desire is expressed in various ways and means of bhakti, yoga, knowledge, scripture, pilgrimage etc.  Even those who talk of oneness with god also talk about realizing that oneness from our point of view viz., we humans realize the oneness of our atman with Brahman.  But the one interesting aspect of the Muktiveda is that god sought after us and found where we are—irrespective of our status and condition.  For me, here lies the difference between avatara and incarnation.  Though for communications sake, we sometimes use the word ‘avatara’ for incarnation, there is a wide gap both in meaning and purpose between the two.

In general, most of the avataras are taken in order to rescue the world from the evil desires of ausras when the cry reaches the abode of god (here Vishnu, as avataras are only related to him).  Even in Saivism, where the avatara concept is absent, the theophany is mostly to save the bhakta from a particular wretched condition or again to save the world when the cry reaches His abode.  In general all the avataras is not to save human but gods.⁴⁴ However, some philosophical minded Hindus try to interpret them in a cosmic way, yet common Hindus are not concerned with this kind of interpretation, unless they too are seeking some kind of sophisticated explanation.  Considering the sectarian aspect, in most cases, these missions by god(s) are done at the command of another god, who is given a superior position to the rivalry god in that particular sect.  For example, in most of the Vaishnavite puranas, Siva does the job as per the command of Vishnu vice versa.

God’s election:

If god incarnated in a particular time, in a particular place among a particular people with a particular history and worldview, then how can the rest of the humanity be accommodated with that particular scheme?  Of course several scholarly answers were given pointing out that god chose and prepared a particular nation, place, time etc. keeping in mind the entire creation. However, I have often found it challenging to relate this to my Hindu worldview.  But in the long run, a proper historical study of the Muktiveda helped me to understand that god never showed any special favoritism to the Jews at the cost of the rest of His creation.  In fact, according to my understanding, this selection at times became more of a burden than a blessing to them, as they had to pay the cost when they failed god’s purpose.  But the real test came when I clearly understood the fact, whether or not god came in search of me, was I ready to be found by Him?  Because all of the longing to find god for a Hindu is according to their terms and desires and not what god has in mind for His entire creation.  As my search for a guru ended in finding Muktinath, then several times I didn’t want to be found by Him, because my expectation of a god was not compatible with that of the Muktiveda.

The cyclical nature of cosmology gave me excuses for not being found by god on His terms and conditions but allowed me to search for a god of my own convenience.  It helped me to seek and use god according to my convenience and blame my karma for the rest of problems—particularly failures on the part of god or me.  But for the first time in my life, my view of god is completely changed, including that of history and cosmology.  Of course it cannot be explained that simply if questions are asked from another’s perspective.  But as usual, when I started from me first and then move outward, what the Muktiveda says about god and the world is more convincing at the present.  He sought me, though I didn’t want to be found; once I was found by Him, I don’t want to get lost because of my own foolishness.  Of course, what He found, no one can snatch—including my foolishness.  Yet the cost that I have to pay will be a personal spiritual loss in this life.  God unfolds the mystery about Himself through the events both in the world and in my life, to the extent that I am ready to understand them as His doing.

God and Cosmology:

While the cyclical theory of cosmology gives various interpretations of creation (whether god is only an efficient cause or also a material cause; whether the matter [prakriti] is co-eternal with god etc.), the linier theory of the Muktiveda begins with the assurance that ‘In the beginning God’ and rest follows as His effect.  This may not be acceptable to all, but I found comfort in the muktivedic theory, which Tozer summarizes here:

               ‘In the beginning God.’ (GEN. 1:1)  Not ‘matter’, for matter is not self-causing.  It requires an antecedent cause, and God is that cause.  Not law, for law is but a name for the course which all creation follows.  That course had to be planed, and the planner is God.  Not mind, for mind also is a created thing and must have a creator back of it.  In the beginning God, the uncaused CAUSE of matter, mind and law.  There we must begin.⁴⁵

Such a view of god comforts me as He accepts me as I am as He alone sought and found where I was.  Such bhakti pleases Him though He is not satisfied with my (spiritual) life.

Immanence of god:

The realism of the Muktiveda, when it talks about god, is something which an elitist Hindu would find difficult to accept.  Though in all the bhakti traditions of Hinduism talk about god with realism—as a person with attributes, involved with His creation, takes avatara to save both the world and His bhaktas etc.—yet a god of transcendence without attributes many times appeals to the elitist mind among Hindus.  Even the bhakti traditional scriptures, while talking joyfully about a god of immanence, in equal and sometimes more, talks about the god of transcendence.  Such a view of god accommodates everyone’s expectation and according to their maturity.  Though the Muktiveda too talks in clear terms about the transcendence of god, in reality, yet the overall emphasis about god in the Muktiveda is not to glorify such a transcendent god but to understand His involvement with the affairs of the world with our limitation first.

Exclusivism:

So when I began to read and contemplate about god, some of god’s attribute or behaviors, particularly that of His anger, wrath, revenge, zeal, jealousy etc. and also demanding exclusive worship of Him, I was very disturbed.  Though the Hindu puranas tell about the rivalry among gods and each sect putting their own god as supreme, the muktivedic level of exclusivism came as a difficult point for a new bhakta to defend their faith in an Only One god theory.  However, as I began to read the Muktiveda, particularly the Purva Veda with some commentaries, then I slowly began to understand all the context of exclusivism related to the election and expectation of His chosen people to be a witness for Him among other nations.  Here I don’t dare to tread the dangerous path of explaining all of these, as scholarly books are available for anyone to read and understand on this particularly aspect of god.⁴⁶

However, what the Muktiveda taught me about god is not to understand Him from some technical terms of attributes but exclusively from His acts.  Yes, what god does, speaks much more clearly about Him than all the attributes which we use to describe Him abstractly.  For example, if I think god is ‘love’ then all that I understand about the word ‘love’ very much limits my understanding about god’s love and about Him.  Most of the time, we are able to understand some (human) attributes only by understanding its opposite.  For us, love many times is the opposite of ‘hate’; patience the opposite of ‘anger’ etc.  As our character and temperament don’t remain stable and are often decided by another’s response to our relationship, our understanding about any attribute is not holistic.  But god does not behave this way.  His attributes are not opposite to some other character or decided by our response.  God’s anger can be understood from His point of justice and His love from his point of suffering.  Like a common Hindu’s understanding of god which is mostly decided by the puranic mythology, unless they understand the muktivedic view about god in its total context—particularly through His acts, then the god of the Muktiveda will stand one among the several gods of the Hindu pantheism.  Regarding the attributes of God I have to say only this: God without attribute looks bit strange for me.  For me even this nirgun = without attribute is, according to me is another attribute to God.  Every food has its own taste. There exists no tasteless food.  What we call tasteless food is that we don’t like that taste or not familiar with that taste.  Similarly nirgun is nothing but another gun for God.  For me there exists no tasteless taste, colorless color, formless form, attribute less god.

A small digression here.  All the attempts to prove the monotheism in Hinduism is only an attempt to counter argue about polytheism and pantheism.  In fact all attempts to prove a monotheism in Hinduism is nothing but an elitist twisted interpretation of certain text like :ekam sad vipra bhahuda vadanti.(Rigveda V. I. 164.46) [One alone exists, sages call it by many names]⁴⁷  Whereas the Hindu reality, both of the scriptures and common practice (with a clear understanding) is the acceptance and celebration of polytheism.  As I often insist, pluralism and relativism is the main mark of Hindu/Indian worldview, which according to me is also a human reality.  Any attempt to prove one’s doctrine (of monotheism) or religious/spiritual (or even secular/political) ideal to bring any uniformity will never succeed, as it will never address the human reality of pluralism in every sphere of life. Monotheism makes sense if we understand it as a single-minded devotion to the (chosen) deity of a particular sampradaya (sect) by its votaries not giving space for the ‘worship’ of other deities, however they are accommodated as the subordinate to the deity of that sect.  According to my understanding this is also true in Muktiveda, which recognizes the reality of many gods. (DT. 10:17, PS. 135:5, 136:2-3, DAN. 2:47)

Indian terms to understand god:

What have I shared here is bit abstract and needs to be explained with several examples.  However, taking isolated verses from the Muktiveda that talk about a transcendent god and try to compare them with some philosophical terms (like sat-cit-anand) in Hinduism looks very artificial to me.  In order to have a dialogue or to convince a philosophically minded Hindu about their expectation of a transcendent Nirgun Brahman, we cannot reduce the muktivedic god to our own terms.  At the same, time it is too simple to say that we can understand god only through His acts and not by mere absolute terms.  The sagun (attribute) and nrgun (attribute-less) philosophy can help us to understand god in a different way, but considering the theological context in which such terms are used in Hindu scriptures, we cannot give the correct muktivedic perspective about god exclusively using those (Indian) terms divorcing god from His acts in history.

Let me try to explain this by one important muktivedic term ‘covenant’.  God is a god of covenant.  Unless a bhakta understands all about this covenant in the Muktiveda—including its legal aspect, any of their understanding about the god of the Muktiveda will be incomplete.  Now which Hindu or new believer is going to take this seriously to talk about god?  We often talk about god’s love, compassion, grace, mercy, sacrifice, suffering, power etc.  But if we understand all these at the cost of this ‘covenant (better “testament”)’, then that god is not the god of the Muktiveda.  And if anyone goes and talks to a Hindu about this covenant, they might smile sarcastically with sympathy for such a poor business-like god.  But, though the word ‘covenant’ in the Muktiveda has various levels of expression, even that of business, its significance talks more clearly about the total attribute of god, particularly in the context of redemption.  Whereas, a Hindu in their relationship with god is down-to-earth and deals on business terms of rituals and vows.  But when it comes to philosophy, they will use all kinds of sophisticated terms like sat-cit-ananda.  Also, the god of the Muktiveda does not expect us to come to His with a business mind of vows and rituals, but He expects us to take His business (redemptive acts) seriously to understand Him.

Bhakti vs. theology:

I often say that I have never seen god.  But when I found my guru, my search for god also ended, because I cannot understand a god other than my guru.  This statement won’t be refuted by a Hindu because most of the gurus were deified after his/her death and have become one of the gods.  In a country where deification of gurus, ancestors, martyrs, elders etc. is a common feature, Muktinath being recognized as god after His death and resurrection won’t sound strange.  But understanding god via a deified Muktinath is a gross violation of muktivedic teaching.  The first century’s controversies and heresies about the god-hood and man-hood of the Lord and all the writing about Trinity, beginning from John’s gospel, followed by church fathers, continued down to the centuries is a witness for the complicated theological aspect of understanding god.

But I was fortunate to be born a Hindu.  Because the bhakti-oriented faith in god always helped me to TRUST even when I could not understand many things about god—particularly all the doctrinal aspects related to it.  So in our dialogue with Hindus, all of our efforts to explain theologically about god to appeal to their rational mind have not much impacted them.  Though theology is vital for our understanding about muktivedic doctrines, in our ‘LIVING DIALOGUE’ with our Hindu family, community and society, our bhakti towards our Lord speaks much more to them. 

(GOD-CENTRIC) life:

Nevertheless, what should mark the difference from the Muktiveda and rest of the world’s understanding about god is how we allow god to be the center of our lives in all its aspects rather than try to use or appease Him the way most of the Hindus do through their rituals for their gods.  It is true that in a Hindu’s life, too, god is the center.  However, the difference is that when things go wrong, then the same god can be questioned, doubted, bribed, abused, appeased and every alternative means (astrology etc.) along with god will be applied to set the things right.  In a sense, god is expected to dance according to their tunes.  But according to the Muktiveda, we have to change in order to understand the mind, will and purpose of god not only in/for our life, but through us in others’ lives too.  And no alternative means is useful to change the mind, will and purpose of god, except that we obey Him implicitly to accomplish His purpose in this world.  THY KINGDOM COME means a lot to a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.  When things go wrong, we too can ask question, but not of WHY but of WHAT?  Instead of asking why this happened?  Why god allowed this etc. we have to ask WHAT god wants us to learn, do, or obey in this trial.   It is well said that we kneel down to know the will of god and arise to fulfill it.

Not a private god:

This is the radical change that I experienced about god in my life.  When we don’t understand certain things that happen in our lives, then unlike Hindus we don’t blame kala (time), karma or even god, but we TRUST HIM as He has a greater purpose than our self-focused life, which we don’t understand at the present.  Though He is god to every person, He is not a private god to me alone, however PERSONAL is my relationship with Him.  The strength of Hinduism is society, the strength of the Kingdom of god is His living body, which is the true mandali (church).  Being a member of that living body, we too have to understand such a god who cares for His entire creation.  This understanding about god brought a radical change in my prayer life.  When I hear about the suffering of others, even in a distant country, I earnestly pray for them, which I have never done as a Hindu.  When innocent people suffer my hearts bleeds for them sincerely, which I never experienced before. 

Of course we hear such things like ‘vasudevaka kutumbakam’ the entire world is god’s family, ‘sarve bhavantu sukinah’ let everyone be happy etc. in Hinduism too.  But on the existential level, who is to be ‘excluded’ based on caste, ritual, purity, bad time, inauspiciousness of a person or time, etc. (this list will go very long) decides the reality of their understanding of god.  Discriminating certain people based on their birth, faith, race etc., is a norm in society.  But this is also a reality in Hindu religious (ritual) world.  Though such discrimination is a shameful reality in the Christian world, yet it is an aberration never sanctioned by Muktiveda.  However, this is even demanded in Hindu religious worldview in order to defend the ritual purity of their puja, yajna and even in some extreme cases their normal life.  For example, (respecting their religious sentiment) we can see how non-Hindus are not allowed inside the temple.  We all heard about the recent controversy of Sabari Aiyappa, where women between 10-50 were not allowed to visit the temple etc. and the cleaning of Guruvayur temple, after Kerala minister’s son’s visit to it, as his mother was a Christian (for which later the temple authorities expressed their regret as he is a practicing Hindu).  Of course all these are based on their limited understanding of god, who is controlled by their Tantric worship.  But when I became the bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I marveled to see that He never casts out anyone who comes to Him—as s/he is.  Irrespective of my reservation against the organized church, it is the only place one can go to worship god as a human—without communal, caste, ritual and gender discriminations, though there are several exceptions to this.  Our Lord welcomes everyone, without setting any precondition to us to worship Him.  Even a Hindu without changing her faith can go and worship the Lord in a church or a roadside shrine for the Lord (and His mother).  But a non-Hindu even if she changed her faith is not allowed in every temple, though there are lots of exceptions now.

***Regarding discriminating certain people inside the temple or certain ritual we have to understand that this is not a pan-Hindu practice.  Only in certain temples or certain (private) rituals or pujas they put such restrictions.  As a Hindu I accept that in the name of secularism we cannot push uniformity when it comes to certain traditions which are upheld for a long time.  Even any legal solution won’t bring the required result that much easily.  So private freedom for any individual or group should be respected, till it is not bring any communal disharmony.  Of course there is always a counter argument to this thought which needs to be heard.  Better leave these matter to be dealt locally with mutual consent and talk than try to bring some uniform solution to such discrimination in the name of secularism.****

Truthful worship:

Once our search for god ends in the Lord and receiving mukti as a gift from god through the Lord, then worshipping god becomes a fruit of that mukti and not to seeking it.  Then our worship always motivates us to SEEK HIS KINGDOM AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS and not mere personal needs (alone, which, of course, He promises to give, even without asking).  Of course any Hindus can refute this, and can quote many references from various scriptures to support similar views in Hinduism too.  But, quoting scripture portions out of context will always serve anybody’s purpose to prove a particular point of view.  But, as we insist on taking the whole context, the overall view about god in Hinduism, particularly among the common people, is completely different from what Muktiveda talks about god.   The whole view of god is beautifully summarized by Rev. John Stott:

…the revelation of God leads to worship, the warnings of God to repentance, the promises of God to faith, the commands of God to obedience and the truth of God to witness….⁴⁸

Such understanding of god helps me to live totally resigned to His will, not only for my life but also that of others and the world.  Hindus have similar views, but when cornered by circumstances, trusting god, they will seek other remedies that will betray the very same trust.  Of course many Christians do the same thing.  But, in my life at least, the sovereignty of god assures that nothing works outside His will, as He planned and enacted them according to His purpose.  It is not only in His bhaktas’ life but everything is planned by Him, whether His crown of creation, viz., humanity recognizes and obeys Him or not.

Thus these three major themes: atman, world and God as an example helped me to understand the difference between Muktiveda and Hinduism on various other doctrinal issues which one needs to take seriously to have a clear understanding about her bhakti in the Lord. While Hindu Scriptures and various philosophical technical terms might help a Hindu bhakta of the Lord to express her limited understanding of Muktiveda, she should not fall into the trap of finding a Universal, Unknown and Cosmic Muktinath in Hinduism by distorting Scriptures of both faiths.  Considering the various differences in the textual, theological and historical contexts one should try to remain faithful to each Scriptures while one may not agree with them than involving in text torturing to derive her own particular doctrine.  Thus doing theology is not that much easy task for anyone. While welcoming noble thought to come from everywhere (Rig Veda 1.89.1) we should remember that even God can help only those who help themselves. And the art of doing theology, of course with the help of others is one such self-help for a bhakta to have a meaningful bhakti in her life.

Notes

1 …it is not uncommon for authors to provide fair (p.142) summaries of their opponents’ theses….— Frits Staal, Discovering the Vedas,: Origins, Mantras, Rituals, Insights,  New Delhi, Penguin Books, 2008. pp. 142-43  And, ‘The purva paksha tradition required any debater first to argue fromm the perspective of his opponent in order to test the validity of his understanding of the opposing position, and from there to realize his own shortcomings.  Only after perfecting his understanding of opposing iews would he be qualified to refute them. Such dbates encourage individuals to maintain flexibility of perspective and honesty rather than seek victory egotistically. In this way, the dialectial process ensures a genuine and far-reaching shift in the individual…In purva paksha one does not look away, so to speak, from real differences but attempts to clarify tem, without anxiety but also without the pretence of sameness….’—Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to  Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011, p. 48

2. The thought “who am I?” will destroy all other thoughts and, like the stick used for stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then there will arise self-realization.{The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi (Berkeley, California: Shambhala Publications, 1972), p. 6}— Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008. p. 470

3 For more on Atman see Understanding Hinduism, pp. 260-266

4 ‘The scriptural foundation for original sin as inherited at birth is weak.  Augustine popularized the idea that our corrupt nature is passed on from Adam through the sex act and present in the fetus.  In my view, these rather preposterous views are unnecessary.  I think it is enough to recognize that we all are born into a fallen world and inherit sin in that way.  We recognize that all living things have a drive for self-preservation.  We humans do too. In that way, we have what the Reformers called inherent “curvatus in se” (turned in unto ourselves).  To me, it is enough to recognize that existential reality, with no need for speculating further’.—Dr. Hoefer, Personal communication, 27-07-2020

5‘ …man is a compound being—related to nature and the lower organic world though his body, and to God and the higher spiritual world through his spirit. We are accustomed to express this by saying that man has a body and a soul. This is substantially the Biblical view also; but the Biblical standpoint is nevertheless different from ours. We emphasis the distinction of the sides of man’s nature—the material and the spiritual; the Bible regards man rather in the unity of his person as made up of these two elements. We shall see this best by looking at the meaning of the term “soul” (nephesh,) in its relation to the term “spirit” (ruah) with the connected terms “flesh” (basar,) and “body” the Old Testament has not here a proper equivalent….– James Orr, GOD’S IMAGE in MAN, WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY; Grand Rapids Michigan-1948, p. 49

…Bible sanctions a doctrine of ‘trichotomy’, or of three separable parts of man’s nature: body, soul, and spirit. Spirit, we have just seen, is not something distinct from soul as a third separable element but denotes the higher, self conscious activities of the soul—to which also, in Biblical speech, special names are given. The usage indicated may not be carried through quite uniformly in Scripture—what verbal usage is?—but examination will show, I think, that it is the prevailing one.—ibid. p.53  [page numbers might be different—db]

6 …As understood by Sankara, moksa is identical with the nature of the self (aatman), which is free from all limitations.  Through ignorance (avidyaa), however, this self is erroneously identified with the finite characteristics of mind and body.  A valid source of knowledge is needed, not to create or produce the ever-existent self, but to remove erroneous knowledge and unfold its true nature.  Such a source, for Sankara, can be found in the words of the sruti.— Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vdas, Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi., 1995, p.9

7 So the Aitareya Aranyaka says:

The spirit is most manifest in the human being (puruse tvevavistaraam atma), for he is best endowed with intelligence.  He speaks…he recognises…he knows the future, he knows the visible and the invisible; being mortal he desires the immortal.  But these others, the animals, they know only hunger and thirst.  They don’t speak what they have known…they don’t know the future…they exist only within the scope of their [empirical-] knowledge (ta etaavanto bhavanti yathaaprajnaam hi sambhavaah; II.3.2).– Julius Lipner, HINDUS Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, London 1994. Fn.30 p. 348

8 Indeed the soul is deceived by that man who does not strive for welfare despite attaining human form in this land of Bharata Varsa.— 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, Siva Purana, UMAASAMHITAA  20:37, p.1536. 

Iha ced avedid atha satyam asti n aced ihaavedin mahati vinastih…–S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upanishads. Delhi, Oxford University Press, (1953),  1974.Kena Upanishad, II.5a. p. 587

–If here (a person) knows it, then there is truth, and if here he knows it not, there is great loss….

Asuryaa naama te lokaa andhena tamasaa vrtaah

Taams te pretyaabhigacchanti ye ke caatmahano janaah.—Isa Upanishad. 3.

–Demoniac, verily, are those worlds enveloped in blinding darkness, and to them go after death, those people who are the slayers of the self.—ibid. p. 570

9 “And man became a living being.”  The word which our translation has rendered “being” has traditionally been translated “soul”.  Thereupon all kinds of deductions have been drawn from this reading.  The word, however, does not mean soul as we usually understand that term.  It is better, therefore, to avoid the use of this term altogether.  Here it is combined with “living”–“living being”–and in this form it appears various times in the Old Testament.  In most instances it refers to animals [Gen.1:20,21,24; 2:19; 9:10, 12,15; Lev.11:10,46; Ezek.47:9].  In Genesis 9:16 it is used of human beings and animals together.  This does not mean, of course, that human life is placed on a level with animal life…. — 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,  p.85

See,  James Orr, GOD’S IMAGE in MAN, op. cit. pp. 49-53 for analysis of the two terms ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’

10 For much of Western Christianity, the doctrine of creation (a biblical term) has been eaten alive by the doctrine of the fall (not a biblical term).  In other words, creation’s downfall resulting from human sin has eclipsed its original glow as God’s handiwork, radiant with God’s glory.  Make no mistake: Human sin is awful and reprehensible beyond words, and the whole earthly creation suffers because of it.  But if, due to an exaggerated doctrine of the fall, God’s creation loses its sacredness as God’s beloved artwork, we have magnified human sin beyond sane bounds—and in fact added to its sad effects….(p. 234) Creation may have been swallowed alive by a runaway, exaggerated understanding of “the fall” but, like Jonah, it’s crawling back up the beach.— Brian McClaren. A Generous Or+hodoxy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2004. pp. 234-35

11 See note 8 in chapter ‘Early Struggles’.

12 The contrast between ‘spirit’ and ‘body’ [in Mark 14:38] is not meant in the later Gnostic or Neo-Platonic [or as in Hinduism] sense (the soul is good and the body is evil); rather that though one may mean well on impulses (14:31; cf. the use of ‘spirit’ in many cases in Proverbs), the body is susceptible to exhaustion.—Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, USA, 1993, p.176

13 …The three elements on which the theology {of Saiva Siddhaanta} is based are the beast or soul (pasu), the snare or bond (paasa), and the Lord (pati) [Mrgendra Aagama 2.2; Dhavamony, Mariasusai, Love of God in Saiva Siddhaanta, Oxford, 1971, p. 347].  The soul is called pasu because it is bound by snares (paasas), which bind it to sin (aanava, “atomization,” the separation of the soul from god), which is impurity (mala). Sivajnaanacittiyaar 4.20; Dhavamony,  p. 232]. The snares are threefold, for the impurities threefold: sin, karma, and illusion [Tirukkal  irrèuppatiyaar of Yuvanta, v. 4.3; (cited in Dhavamony, p.187].  The original impurity grows into the creeper of desire, and then into the creeper of delusion; this leads man to commit faults or evil [ibid., 59.3-4; 93.1; 95.1; 42.3].  Sometimes the sin is said to be fivefold: unconscious impurity, ignorance, the root of evil, the original impurity, and the very condition of beasthood (pasutva) [Dhavamony, p.265].  As this sin is often identified with the snare, the snare is also divided fivefold: impurity, karma, illusion, the world that is a product of illusion, and the binding power [Sriikumaara’s commentary on Bhoja’s Tattvaprakaasa 1.163; Dasgupta, V, 164]. Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, University of California Press, Berkeley. Paperback Edition, (1976) 1980, p. 169

14 Marie Corelli; A Romance of Two Worlds.  Of course in Patanjali yoga, the first three steps of yama, niyama and pratyahara too talk about this.  But here the context is help the atman to attain samadhi, separating it from the prakrati based on Sankyan theory.

15 About matter and materiality L T Jayachandran’s talk: Culture – The Art of Understanding and Engagement, p. 1. See his full talk in Youtube in Traci Lecture—Christianity and Culture, The annual lecture of TRACI https://youtu.be/rqlZzgllAGQ.

16 …according to Ramanuja, the cit and acit, which form the body of the Brahman, are regarded as its attributes (visesana or prakaaraa), and hence, the name Visistadvaita, which is explained as `the unity of Brahman qualified by cit and acit’ (cidacidvisistaparamesvaraadvaita)….– V.S.Ghate, The Vedanta (A Study of The Brahma-Sutras with the Bhasyas of Samkara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, and Vallabha). (3rd ed.). Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1981,.p.30

Material Prakrti is the gross body of the Lord, the transmigrating souls his subtle body, the liberated souls his blissful body.  He evolves them freely by self-modification (parinama), rules them internally as their antaryamin (inner ruler), and thus uses them for his own purpose, the perfect worship of his own glory.—‘Ramanuja and Madhva’,R. De Smet, in Editors R.De Smet and J. Neuner ,Religious Hinduism, Fourth Revised Edition, 1997,p.100

17. NIV Study Bible, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985,p.991.  And this is more clearly explained by Christopher JH Wright, pointing the ‘corrupt’ nature of work because of muktivedic view of fall:

…work is corrupted.  On the one hand this means that work in itself became toilsome and frustrating because of the curse on the earth, and the fact that work was no longer simply part of our human nature, but a necessity for survival: `By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food’ (Gen.3:19)…. (p.71)

The book of Ecclesiastics has some of the sharpest insights in the Old Testament into the paradoxical nature of human work: On the one hand, it is still the gift of God, and there is no better alternative for a man than to find satisfaction in his work (Ec.2:24f; 5:18; 9:10).  But on the other hand, it can be fruitless and frustrating (2:4-11), wasted in the end (2:18-23), riddled with evil motives (4:4), or empty of any purpose (4:8), and finally reduced to vanity by death (9:10).  There is no more perceptive exposition of the outworking of God’s curse upon the earth and the lot of fallen man upon it than these observation of Ecclesiastics. (chapter) 10 – Christopher JH Wright, Living as the people of God, (The relevance of O.T. ethics),  IVP, 1983 pp.71-72

18.  NDTV, of course sincerely ‘organized’ rallies to seek justice in Jesikalal and Priya Darshini Matoo cases.  I am not saying that they have done it only keeping commercial interest (activism) but surely for public interest (journalism) and for human right.  However, ‘sting’ operations carried by several T.V. channels are done only to draw attention of the people without accepting moral responsibility and accountability to anyone.  They all had their opinion without any responsibility.  On this subject a wonderful discussion was led by Sri Pranap Roy, on NDTV with leading editors like Sri Raman of Hindu, Sri Vinod Mahato of Out Look and others on 13-10-06 evening and on 17-10-06 evening in CNN-IBN (Face the Nation). [The dates may be wrong—db]

19 Christopher JH Wright, Living as the people of God, op. cit. p.105

20. For example giving advise to Yudhisthira, who along with his brothers and wife live in exile in the forest, Vyasa gives the following advise: O son of Kunti, … think of going from this forest to another (forest) that may be fit for your abode….As you support numerous Brahmanas, learned in the Vedas, your continued residence here (in this forest) may exhaust the deer of the forest and may be destructive of the creepers and plant.—M.N. Dutt, Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimal Publicartions, 1988, vol.2.,  p.55. Vana Parva,, 3:36 & 37, p. 55

21.  See Christopher JH Wright, op. cit. 

22.  UNIVERSAL PRAYER:

Om, Sarveshaam svastirbhavatu.  Sarveshaam shaantirbhavatu.  Sarveshaam puurnam bhavatu.  Sarveshaam mangalam bhavatu.  Sarve  bhavantu sukhinaha.  Sarve santu niraamayaaha.  Sarve bhadranii pashyantu.  Ma kascid dhukhabhag bhavet.

May all be blessed.  May all have peace.  May all be full.  May all be good.  May all be happy.  May all be healthy.  May all see Goodness.  May no one be unhappy.

23  In this ‘archana’ special puja is performed by the request of the devotee for oneself or for others, to the priest in which flowers, coconut etc., to offer before the deity, which will be returned as a ‘prasad’ back.  And a separate charge will be collected by the temple for this and devotes will also pay some cash to the priest voluntarily.  And this practice is more predominant in South Indian temple and in few North Indian temple, like Kedar and Badrinath influenced by this South Indian tradition.  I heard that Catholics conduct some special mass exactly like doing ‘archana’ by paying a fee.

24 It is no surprise at all, therefore, that the prophets felt their deepest concern over, and directed their most vehement protest at, the breakdown of moral conventions in the political and economic life of the nation (cf. especially Hosia.4:1-13). Without their protective framework; the freedom that was the hallmark of the redeemed people was being destroyed internally.  Israel was becoming socio-politically no less oppressive and unjust than her unredeemed neighbours.— Christopher JH Wright, Living as the people of God, op. cit. p.115.  Adding to this view Dr. Hoefer says: ‘in the muktiveda, we have prophets, not shamans or seers or mystics.  The prophets’ message is almost always about the national situation.  It is a call from god to get involved politically.’ (Personal communication).

25. Cannot document,

26 ‘By supreme moral elevation and untiring and patient search one can come in touch with Brahman and can enter into Him, but one must abandon all his mundane desires by which he is bound to earthly things.’-S.N. Dasgupta, Hindu Mysticism, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (1927), 1992,p.56

27 Of course there is lot of difference between ‘individualism’ and ‘individuality’.  Some time we Indians, in the name of family, culture, tradition and nation and ‘common good’ (loka-samgraha ) promote hierarchy.  So though I am against ‘individualism’, I support for the promotion of individual’s right.  Writing in the context of ‘honor killing’ among the Muslim Immigrants  in Norway what Unni Wikan says will help us to know the difference between the two:

Saying “I” is not to celebrate individualism as the unbridled exercise of selfish ends.  Individuality must be distinguished from individualism (Cohen, Anthony P. Self-Consciousness: An Alternative Anthropology of Identity. London: Routledge. 1994)….  Respect for the individual integrity of the human being was born of the modern period in Europe…. No longer were human collectivities conceived as totalities that assign to individuals unchangeable identities; they were now thought of as associations of independent persons having both the right and the ability to choose affiliations … Replace “culture” by “roots” or “rank” or “class,” and the message is the same.

               It is this right that enables a poor man’s child to rise in the social hierarchy or an “untouchable” in India to discard an otherwise stigmatized position.  Unfortunately, respect for individuality prompts some members of the upper class, by the Norwegians or Somalis or Iranians, to expect esteem simply by virtue of who they are.  In a liberal democracy, however, “who they are” depends not on “where they came from” but on “what they do.”  Hence the political economy of a capitalist welfare state exacts a price in the form of requiring each individual to prove his or her worth by doing, not jus being.  Respect for individuality is thus not an unmitigated God, any more than are most other noble principles.  But it has shown itself of superior value for the exercise of democracy and human rights.  And that is why Drakulic, Finkielkraut, and other humanists deplore the grand “we” that parades as solidarity while suppressing individual liberty.—Generous Betrayal: Politics of Culture in the New Europe, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 2002, p.142

28 Daughter: If a man is suffering now for his bad karma in the past, why should we interfere and lessen his suffering?

Father: If it is his bad karma that brought on the suffering, it is his good karma that brings him help.  We are the instruments of one another’s destiny.  And if we should fail to help the suffering man, somebody else would help him, and we should have to suffer for our hard-heartedness.— D.S. Sarma, A Primer Of Hinduism,Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,  1984, p.55

29 இப்படியன் இந்நிறத்தன் இவ்வண் ணத்தன்

இவனிறைவன் என்றெழுதிக் காட்டொ ணாதே.—திருநாவுக்கரசர் தேவாரம், ஆறாம் திருமுறை இரண்டாம் பகுதி— திருவினாத் – திருத்தாண்டகம், 6.97.10, Song 960,

30 முகத்தில் கண்கொண்டு பார்க்கின்ற மூடர்காள்

  அகத்திற் கண்கொண்டு பார்ப்பதே ஆனந்தம்

  மகட்குத் தாய்தன்  மணாளனோ டாடிய

  சுகத்தைச் சொல்லென்றாற் சொல்லுமா றெங்ஙனே– திருமந்திரம், மூலமும் தெளிவுரையும், அ. மாணிக்கம், சென்னை, வர்தமான் பதிப்பகம், ௨003, ஆறாம்பதிப்பு,  பாடல், 1739, , ப. 2944,

You fool who see with your naked eyes

The joy is only in seeing through your inner eyes

Even if requested how can a mother utter the joy

that she had with her husband to her own daughter—song 1739, p. 2944. My own translation

1. Manikkam, Tirumandiram, original with commentary, Chennai, Vardaman Pub. 6^th impression, 2003, [my own translation]

31 Neeya Nana, Vijay TV by Gopinath, Episode 451 on Thirukkural.

32. … the end of man’s life is to become divine, and that all our religious activities should be directed with reference to that end.  Therefore, the first ascent of the soul’s upward path consists is acquiring ethical purity….— D.S. Sarma, A Primer Of Hinduism, op. cit. p.28

33 நாள் என்செயும் வினைதான் என்செயும்

  எனை நாடிவந்த கோள் என்செயும்

கொடுங் கூற்றென் செயும்

  குமரேசன் இருதாளும், தோளும்

சதங்கையும்,  சண்முகமும்   கடம்பும்

  எனக்குமுன் வந்து தோன்றிடினே?

–quoted from memory.

34ஞாயிறு திங்கள் செவ்வாய்

புதன் வியாழன் வெள்ளி

சனி பாம்பிரண்டுமுடனே

ஆசறு நல்ல நல்ல

அவை நல்ல நல்ல

அடியார் அவைக்கு மிகவே.–சம்பந்தர்.  கோளறுப்பதிகம்.

–quoted from memory.  But according to Dr. R. Selva Ganapathi this particular poems was written by Jnana Sambandar when Thirunavukkarasar requested him not to go to Madurai to confront the Jains as per the request of the queen Mangayarkkarasi as the planats and stars are not conducive to such visit.  Then to encourage Tirunavukkarasar Sambadar wrote this song.  This explanation was given by Dr. Ganapathi in his exposition on Periyapuranam where Sekizhar (the author of Periyapuranam) gives this reason for Sambandar to write this poem.

35 நன்றே வறினும் தீதேசெயினும்

நானறிவது ஒன்றுமில்லை

அன்றே எனக்குள்ளதெல்லாம்

உனக்கென்று அளித்துவிட்டேன்.–அபிராமி அந்தாதி.

–quoted from memory.

36 தன் கடன் அடியேனையும் தாங்குதல்

என்கடன் பணிசெய்து கிடப்பதே. –quoted from memory.

37 Clooney, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001 and Robinson, SCM Press Ltd. (year?).

38 …Ancient India knew it {fate} as Daiva, Bhaagya, Niyati, Kaala, Vidhi, Vidhaana, Vidhilipi, Dista, Bhaagadheya, Bhavitavya (taa), Krtaarita, Acintya, Adrsta, Yadrcchaa and Bhaavii Give other terms from Sukumari’s book: Fate and Forutne in the Indian Scriptures…. Sukumari Bhattachari, Fate and Fortune in the Indian scriptures, New Delhi, Foundations Books, 2014, p. 22

39 … The whole universe moves at the will of its Creator, but (it moves) under the controlling influence of Fate.  It is not free. (2.57:4)— M.N. Dutt, Mahabharata, SABHA PARVA, Delhi, Parimal Publicartions, 1988, vol.1.,  p.396.also see 2.58:14 for the same view.

40.  It really surprised me when I (for the first time) read similar thought written by one leading Hindu astrologer recently.  He wrote:

Before creation, when we were dwelling in God’s kingdom as noble souls (atman), in an argument (debate) as we failed to take proper decision between ‘god’ or ‘devil’ because of our pride, in order to take decision based on trials, god created this earth for us to dwell.—S.A. P. Varadhan, Thuglak, Tamil Weekly, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 24,27/06/07, p.2

In my limited reading on Hinduism, nowhere I found such concept of ‘debated in choosing god or devil’ that too because of our pride.  Though I may be wrong, I find some kind of influence from the Muktiveda related with the story of human fall.

41 John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas,The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament,  Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, p. 277, on Ruth 1:1-6.  Dr. Hoefer adding further says:

When Moses insisted that God give His name, god said it is ‘YAHWEH’. Usually it is translated ‘I AM THAT I AM.’  However, the Hebrew is the present continuous tense.  It is probably better translated ‘I will be what I will be.’  Basically, god was saying to Moses, ‘you want to know who I am?  Watch what I do in history then you will know.  You will know my character and intentions—and expectations.’—Personal communication.

42 It is always claimed by the Hindu apologetics that there are ‘safeguards’ against moral laxity and relativism.  However as these safeguards against moral laxity again remain relativistic, moral relativism finally becomes the dogma in dharmic tradition.  It is interesting to note considering the moral relativism of dharmic tradition, now India borrowed British legal system to have a dogmatic laws to deal with moral lapses which become crime and never accept the relativistic dharmasastras to deal with them.

43 Dharma is both for collective and for individual.  When it comes to varnashrama dharma, then it becomes collective like dharma of Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.  Whereas as dharma is relativistic, what dharma to an individual need not be applicable to all.

44 …அரக்கர்களிடமிருந்து தேவர்களைக் காக்க இராமனாய் அவதரித்தார்….

               திருமால் தேவர்களைக் காக்க அவதரித்திருக்கிறார். வேதத்தைக்காக்க அவதரித்திருக்கிறார். வேள்விகளைக் காக்க அவதரித்திருக்கிறார். எளிய மக்களைக் காக்க அவதரித்ததில்லை. ஆகவே அவருடைய கடைசிக் கல்கி அவதாரம் இப்போது நிகழாமல் போனால் அவதார நோக்கம் காலப்பிழைக்கு ஆட்படும்; மக்கள் என்னும் வகைப்பாடு அவதாரக் காப்பில் விடுபட்டுப் போகும்!-பழ. கருப்பையா,எல்லைகள் நீத்த இராம காதை, கோயமுத்தூர், விஜயா பதிப்பகம்,2008, p. 206

Rama took avatara to save devas from rakshasas.  Tirumal took avatara to protect devas, Veda and yajnas but never took avatara to protect simple people.  Therefore his last avatara Kalki does not happen now, the purpose of avatara will get lost.  The category of human to be saved will be get lost in avatara.—PL. Karuppaiya, Yellaihal kata Rama kadai (Story of Rama without boundary), Coimbatore, Vijaya Press, 2008, p. 206

45Tozer; The Pursuit of God.

46  ‘The term “jealous” god derives from god’s love and concern for His people.  He knows that following any other god will only lead to disappointment and danger for them.  He is jealous for their sake, not for His own sake’.—Dr. Hoefer.  Personal communication.

47  The following points by scholars will help us to understand this.

“The rectilineal development of religion proceeding in an orderly sequence from animism through polytheism to monotheism which was, in the last decades of the XIXth century, adopted by many scholars has since proved to be untenable”.^— Jan Gonda, Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, (1965) 1985, p. 131

“It is indeed in itself a normal historical process for one or another god of a polytheistic pantheon to obtain greater importance in certain circles.  Without resulting, in the subsequent period, in a fully crystallized conception of a Supreme God, this tendency aimed, in Vedic India, rather at the discovery of the common power that works behind them all, or of the principles immanent in all of them.  Compare such statements as RV. 1, 164,6…. 1, 164, 46 … 10, 114, 5…..”—Op. Cit.p.136

The Rigveda contains several hymns and verses to the effect that the original Principle is only one, that it creates the world out of itself, enters into it and inspires it.  Rig [Veda]. I. 164.46…  VIII. 58.2;….  X.90.2;….  II.1.3-7…. All these verses establish that ultimately all plurality is only a play of words, a mere name (“vaacaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam” as the Chandogya Upanisad  VI. 1.4. states) and that unity is the only Reality and that the fundamental teaching of the Upanishads appears in germ in the Rigveda.– Kane, P. V, History of Dharmasastra, Five volumes,  Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1968-77 (1930-62), Vol. V, Part II, p. 1487.

But Selvanayagam, after presenting the most important observation of Fr. Gispert-Sauch’s exegetical note for Rigveda. V. I.164.46 in the appendix of his article on “Sounding”, says, “One Reality belongs to the Vedic pantheon … is identified with a variety of powers of which the most important ones are the power of speech [vak] in a ritual and the ritual sacrifice itself.  Interestingly, the concerned Vedic verse has been popularised in the context of the exclusive claims of Islam and Christianity, which were challenging to Hinduism”.— Israel Selvanayagam, The Dynamics of Hindu Traditions, ATC, Bangalore, 1996, p. 100.

48 John Stott, Understanding The Bible , p.192

Appendix: Philosophy

…Do you know what `philosophical’ means?  It comes from the Greek words phileein, to love, and sophia, wisdom.  A philosopher is a lover of wisdom.-The Great Indian Novel by Shashi Tharoor; Picador 1994.176

…Seekers generally think that philosophers are irrelevant and philosophers think that other are irrelevant.— Prof. Daya Krishna, in Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 2000,p.74

It has become commonplace in the modern era to consider mystics, their writings and the phenomenon of mysticism in general as being in some sense antithetical to rationality…. Western philosophers (especially in the Anglo-American analytic tradition) have tended to construct a secularized image of their discipline as the exercise of ‘pure rationality’.  In contrast, Indian forms of ‘systematic thought’ have usually been excluded from the realm of philosophical debate on the grounds that they are tainted with ‘theological’ assumptions that are culture-specific (as if this were not the case in the West).  Indian philosophy, we are frequently told, tends towards (p.28) the mystical and the otherworldly and thus does not maintain the high standards expected of Western philosophy as the pursuit of truth through the exercise of pure rationality.  One hardly need point to the political consequences of such attitudes towards non-Western philosophies and cultures.— — Richard King, Orientalism and Religion, Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘The Mystic East,’ New Delhi, Oxford, 1999. pp.28-29

…Surely the relationship between ancient Greek and Indian traditions of thought is the foundational level of the comparative philosophy.  These two ancient peoples were the first to recognize philosophy as a defining trait of humanity, as in the following doggerel (which a philosopher once told to me): (p. xxxi)

                                             Fish gotta swim

                                             Bird gotta fly

                                             Man gotta sit and say

                                             Why why why—pp. xxxi-xxxii.

Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Thomas McEvilley, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008.

…In An Essay on Philosophical Method philosophy is described as ‘a form of human thought, subject to change, liable to error, capable of progress’.  ‘The philosopher therefore’, Collingwood continues, ‘like every student, must sum up his progress from time to time, and express his conclusions in a systematic form, if progress is to continue’ (p.180)….— The Idea of History, Revised Edition.  R. G. Collingwood. Edited with an Introduction by Jan Van Der Dussen. New York.  Oxford University. (1946), 1994.

p.xliii.

…for Voltaire, philosophy meant independent and critical thinking; for Hegel, it meant thinking about the world as a whole; for nineteenth-century positivism, it meant the discovery of uniform laws.—p.1

               Philosophy is reflective.  The philosophizing mind never simply thinks about an object, it always, while thinking about any object, thinks also about its own thought about that object.  Philosophy may thus be called thought of the second degree, thought about thought.  For example, to discover the distance of the earth from the sun is a task for thought of the first degree, in this case for astronomy; to discover what it is exactly that we are doing when we discover the distance of the earth from the sun is a task for thought of the second degree, in this instance for logic or the theory of science.

               This is not to say that philosophy is the science of mind, or (p.1) psychology.  Psychology is thought of the first degree; it treats mind in just the same way in which biology treats life.  It does not deal with the relation between thought and its object, it deals directly with thought as something quite separate from its object, something that simply happens in the world, as a special kind of phenomenon, one that can be discussed by itself.  Philosophy is never concerned with thought by itself; it is always concerned with its relation to its object, and is therefore concerned with the object just as much as with the thought.—pp.1-2

Chapter Ten Apologetic

Apologetic is both an art and part of theology. It is not mere apologizing to give reasons for chaning one’s faith.  This is well stated by Dr. Hoefer as he said, ‘“apologetics” is a technical theological term that many people would misunderstand, thinking perhaps that it is connected with apologizing.’¹

Of course no apologist writes with an aim to win others to their point of view, but to demonstrate their view in a reasonable way.  However considering the sources available and new evidences coming out, no apologist could write without paying a cost for it.  What Clooney says about this clearly conveys the point:

…Strong arguments in favor of one’s own tradition often go along with critiques of others’ theological positions, and theologies are often confessional and apologetic at the same time, testifying and criticizing, explaining and arguing, persuading and disproving.  But even criticism need not be a problem if it is offered respectfully and professionally.  That is, the theologian must actually know something about the theological tradition being criticized, become engaged in a receptive dialogue with theologians of that other tradition, admit that areas of disagreement are probably far fewer than areas of consensus, and concede that one’s own theology is not beyond criticism.  Such is the high price for a useful apologetics today.²

Why apologetics?

Apologetics is the one subject that deserves all the credit for my interest in reading many books both on Hinduism and those related to the Muktiveda and church. It is not an easy thing for me to follow the Lord and accept the Muktivedic claims without any inner conflict.  ‘What is lacking in Hinduism that has caused you to become a “Christian?’, is the question addressed to me by many Hindus.  Many times, I have asked myself this same question.  Even after becoming convinced that I do not need to become a ‘Christian’ to be a bhakta of Muktinath, yet the question still remains within me because I am now forced to defend my faith in the Lord and still be identified as a Hindu, which is not acceptable either to the Christians or to the Hindus.

Guidance:

In order to have the proper perspective both of my faith and identity, I continue to read books on Hinduism and those related to the Muktiveda.  Without any proper academic discipline or a learned person to guide and help, I often have a tightrope to walk. Because most Hindu and Christian apologetic words were written from a particular point of view by the author, I have a difficult time finding clear answers. Of course there are several impartial secular authors, who wrote objectively, but they answer the questions logically, and they do not guide my spirit.  Thankfully, I have found a good guide in later years in Rajesh, who has deep knowledge in the Muktiveda and Hinduism and a clear conviction and personal faith in the Lord. He has helped me to read the appropriate books which have given me some guidance, if not the answers related to apologetics.

Beware of Poor Scholarship

On the other hand, there are Hindu and Christian writers who do not carry out sincere, accurate research, but instead, they come up with their own theories and ideas.  This is a pitfall we must be aware of as we read commentaries and apologetics. As a layman of the Hindu faith, when I first began to read scriptures, I read them in their original text, and I rarely got the opportunity to read any commentaries or apologetics by Hindu scholars.  But when I began to read the Muktiveda and along with it several books related to it, my interest also turned to reading books related to the Indian (religious) literature.  Those books written by scholars really opened my eyes in my understanding of Hinduism and India.  At the same time, a few books were written to prove several un-logical claims about the antiquity, content and purpose of scriptures.  The attitude of these writings is not convincing because they often look like fiction or mythological writings.  Some were written keeping some extreme (rightwing) ideology to prove one’s theory or condemn opponents’ claim and faith.  This is done by both Hindus and Christians.

Some of these writers place the Gita 5,000 years ago and the Vedas several thousands of years before it, claiming that certain Tamil literature is even older than the Vedas and further stating that the worship of Siva existed for several million years, etc. This is the type of writing that amuses and irritates me.  If they are merely hyperbole to emphasis the antiquity of some aspects of these works, then I can accept it, but claiming that all historical and scientific evidence proves these points is embarrassing rather than scoring any points for the credibility of Hinduism.  Of course no sincere student of any religious literature is going to take this kind of work seriously.  However, these kinds of writings often affect the common people who begin to believe it, and it also affects the general perception about Hindu apologetic work. I’ll use the well-known work Periyapuranam to explain what I mean.

One illustration:

When I completed the original work Periyapuranam (total six volumes), I marveled at the way Sekizhar could compose the story of 63 Saiva Saints in such beautiful Tamil poetic form.  Except for a few poems, most of them were written in simple but elegant Tamil, and I could easily understand the meaning without any commentary, (however I read it with an explanation from the meaning in prose form of the songs by Dr. Manikkanar).

In my teens and subsequent years, I heard several presentations on Periyapuranam.  I still remember one recent debate (known as Patti Mandram) on some theme in Periyapuranam on TV by Tamil Scholars.  However, when I read all the volumes, then I realized how important it is to read any literature in its totality to understand the main theme of that work.  Later, I saw an advertisement by Dr. Sivapriya for her book on Periyapuranam (Sundarar Potriya Arubatumoovar), and I bought the book.  But when I began to read it, I was shocked at the way she had written several things not with a spirit of apologetics but it was more like the spirit of a religious fanatic.  In her introduction she claims that (Tamil) Saivism is the only true and universal religion from the beginning of time, that the lives of some Nayanmars like Tirumoolar  are historical and she criticizes other faiths and gods without having accurate information about those faiths.  For example, she says,

Since billion years in every country in the world the only universal faith and way to know god is the Tamil Saiva Siddhanta.  But in the Kali yuga, including North India, forgetting the Lord of the Universe (Sarvesvaran, i.e., Siva), they invented new gods in humans who were born and die in a particular place with three impurities (aanavam=ego, kanmam=karma and mayai=fetter—the basic three things that defiles a soul in Saiva Siddhanta).  In North India, Vaishnavism rose, claiming the Siva’s devotees like Rama and Krishna as gods.  Similarly Buddhism which claims Buddha the atheist, as god; Jainism worships Jain who is an atheist and Sikhism which worships Nanak and several similar other religions emerged.  In other countries, Christianity began to worship Jesus, who was an atheist and born to an unmarried woman (her Tamil word is derogative); Islam created by Mohamed who denied god; Judaism which Juda created against Christianity came into existent.³ 

Extreme dogmatic views:

I need not further quote from her book about her knowledge on other faiths.  If she writes that Sikhs worship Nanak, Jesus and Mohamed were atheist and Judaism was found by Juda who opposed Christianity, there is no point in discussing the writings of such writers because it is obvious that they lack scholarship and research.  At the same time there are few good books which relatively present a scholarly research on their subject.  However their extreme claims on certain facts like Aryan migration (from outside in or inside to out from India) and the antiquity of Vedas and the certainty of Indus Valley Civilization religious life and script etc., as a proven historical fact not tentative assumption makes them unreliable.  ‘Thamizhaga Anthanar Varalaaru’ (History of Tamil Brahmins, Chennai, LKM Publication, 2004) by Sri K. C. Lakshminarayanan a reputed senior journalist is the best example for this.  With limited evidence available instead of giving tentative views which might have high level of probability what they try to present is some dogmatic truths.

Shallow arguments:

In similar a vain, I have read a few Christian books claiming Tiruvalluvar was at least influenced by the Gospel brought by Thomas to South India; the Gita borrowed its bhakti concept from the Uttara Veda (NT), Adamic faith was started in India, and the worst was one author trying to prove that Adam was Tamilian.  In the early years of my faith, some Christians highly recommended a book in Tamil (I think named ‘Mukti vazhi’), which was tried to score points by comparing and pointing out all the immoral activities of some Hindu deities.  There is another group in the name of Tamil Samayam claiming that both Saivam and Vaishnavism is the off shoot of Tahomasic Christianity.  They have their own website and those who are interested to learn more about them can find information there.  The following points by them are enough to show their agenda:

Saivism and Vaishnavism were emerged and evolved in Tamil land due to the mission of St.Thomas, who worked and martyred in Tamil land and Christianity that developed in Tamil land, in Tamil culture and in Tamil language from 1^stc.A.D. is now known as ‘Tamilar Samayam’.

Vedavyasa had compiled and classified the nomadic worship songs of the Aryans as Rig,Yajur,Sama and Atharva Veda. He is not an Aryan but Dravidian /Tamilian (the term ‘Dravidian’ is the twisted form of the term ‘Tamilian’). He belongs to Vedantic concept i.e. St.Thomas Christianity. He compiled and classified the Vedas in order to proclaim Vedantic concept i.e., St.Thomas Christianity to the Indians.⁴

How a Dravidian Vyasa understood the language of the nomadic Aryans is enough to show the shallowness of such arguments.

Challenges to Hindu Apologetics

Of course giving lot of space to such authors like Sivapriay and Tamil Samayam is not credible.  But the purpose of this chapter is to expose such incredible accounts by the Hindu and Christian apologetics from which we need to keep away.  Because most of the lay people in every faith have not time, resource and interest to study scholarly work.  These kinds of shallow un-credible writers easily influence lay people as their presentations appeal more to the emotional need than challenge to the intellectual understanding.  The influence of western-oriented studies on Hinduism has created a new trend of apologetic writings by Hindu scholars to face the challenge of the criticism.  Of course the so-called apologetic writings of one’s point of view, particularly related with the doctrinal aspect of one’s faith, is not new to India.  However, they were more theological in nature.  But the so-called scientific studies of texts (linguistic, historical, comparative etc.) have put a new challenge to the Hindu scholars as they have to defend their views from various kinds of criticism.⁵  In this endeavor, several sincere scholars have emerged, accepting the problems in several areas and at the same time pointing out the differences between Indian and Western methods of writing and preserving texts.  Here we need not dwell on this subject, as several such studies are available for us to read.  Pfof. Kane’s monumental work, The History of Dharmasastra is the best example.

If Eastern Religions contributed to the Enlightenment movement in the West, Orientalism has greatly influenced Hindu apologetics.  In order to prove the ‘scientific’ ‘rationalistic’ and ‘universalistic’ nature of Hinduism, several Hindu apologetists were quick to write borrowing a Western frame of reference (influenced by Enlightenment movement).  The so called Neo-Hinduism has its origin from this.  Championed by Swami Vivekananda, followed by Dr. Radhakrishnan several modern day scholars, in order to make Hinduism sensible to everyone, used everything that came in to their disposal invented by Westerners like archaeology, etymology, philology, theology etc.(see appendix at the end in the chapter ‘Canon’.). I still remember how the late Kanchi Sankarachariay, Jagadguru (teacher of the world) Sri Chandrasekara Saraswati Swamiji, claimed the universality of Siva worship in several parts of the world, by using some archeological evidence which superficially provided some similarities based on strange evidences.  At the same time the scholarly works like: The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies by Thomas McEvilley (Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass,  (2002) 2008 help us to understand the diffusion theory and commonality of certain thoughts and practices in the ancient world.

Universal Hinduism:

In the post-Enlightenment Europe when the scientific and rationalistic questions arose challenging the ‘muktivedic version of history’ tracing a common ancestry in Noah and the idea of ‘one human race speaking one language’ before the construction the city of Babel, led to the ‘Indo-Aryan Migration Debate.’⁶  Then the Indian apologetic writers were ready to take advantage of a similar claim to prove the universality of Hinduism in other forms everywhere in the world.  I still remember as a young man how many in our circle would enthusiastically share how the Europeans borrowed (actually stole) several of our Vedic theories to invent modern scientific things like electricity, radio, airplane etc. I also remember how my brother would explain to us that even before the Wright brothers invented the airplane, how Rama took Sita back to Ayodhya in ‘Pushpa Vimanam’.  The word ‘Vimanam’ in Tamil now means airplane.  That was enough for us to believe that Westerners had secretly stolen our Vedic technique to easily invent things because they had the other facilities to make them.  Even today, we can hear such things among common people with which my inquiring mind refuses to agree.  The Sri Lankan Government actually initiated an archeological survey and excavation to prove that Ravana actually flew outside Lanka by using an airplane.  A new kind of Territorial Nationalism is emerging everywhere in the world, particularly in the South Asian counties to prove some of their old myths were not only historical but also scientific.

Nowadays this trend to universalize Hinduism claiming everything in its scripture, particularly in Veda is nothing but science and Mathematics has again became popular (like Vedic science, Vedic Mathematics etc.).  For example, as our ancient ‘Rishis were great scientists’⁷ they didn’t write the Ramayana just to tell a story about Rama or impart moral teachings, but it was written to preserve their scientific knowledge in a coded language.  ‘Thus the title Raamaayanah itself holds the possibility of acquiring an altogether different meaning other than that of the story of Raama and Raavanah!⁸   For example,

‘Raa’ in Sanskrit means, ‘heat, speed or sun’, (Incidentally, ‘Raa’ is the name of the Sun God in Egypt!).  ‘Maa’ means ‘measurement’.  ‘Ayana’ means ‘lateral motion’ as indicated by the words ‘Utthara-ayana’ and ‘Dhakshina-ayana’.  Together, ‘Raamaayana’ may thus mean ‘measurement of sun’s later motions’.⁹

And there is no need to wonder about the single race theory of Europe based on the muktivedic version of history, but we have our Indian version of it too viz.,‘ the Bharathiya people were of one single race’.  And you want any proof for this?  Here it is:

The ancient heritage of the Tamizhs [Tamil] dates back to around 8000 years before today.  Those days our brave forefathers colonized lands in far away Mesopotamia, Egypt, South Africa and parts of Western Europe and further extended their cultural contacts in South East Asian islands and in the East up to China and Japan.

There is evidence that the ancient Cholhas [The Tamil kings] discovered South America, long before Columbus did and that the Inca Sun Worshippers of Peru are none but the descendants of our Cholha ancestors (vide Neelakanta Sastri—History of South India, and M. Monohan’s Cholhas in America).  The Incas have their temple of Sun god in Cizo (Peru) much like the one in Konaarak in Orissa built by the Holhas.  The Cholha chieftains (Incas) of America styled themselves as ‘Raghukula Maanickam’.  This shows that they belonged to the Raghuvamsa of Sri Rama whose ancestor Sibi Chakravarthi is well described in ancient Thamizh literature as the Cholha king Chembian.  This takes us to the very significant inference that the ancestors of Dhasaratha were the ancestors of the Thamizhs.  One other ancestor of Sri Rama, Musu Kunthan, is none other than the Musa Kuntha Cholha in ancient Thamizh history.  Musa Kunthan’s reign was during the 2^nd Thamizh Sangam period.

The Matsya and Vishnupuranhas refer to Sri Rama as belonging to the Thamizh clan of Cholahs who in fact belonged to the Surya Kula dynasty.  Sri Rama knew both the languages Thamizh and Sanskrit. (Ancient India edited by Dr. N. Mahalingam, 1998, pp. 35-36).¹⁰

This does not mean that Rama was a Thamizhan and lived in South India, but he ‘lived and ruled Ayodhya in North India’. But ‘he belonged to the Cholha dynasty.  All of these demonstrably strengthen our dictum that the Bharathiya people were of one single race.’¹¹

Scientific Hinduism:

Sri PVN Murthy, the author of this book told me in person that Valmiki, the author of Sanskrit Ramayana, was the world’s pioneer astronomer and the entire Ramayana is nothing but a work on astronomy in a coded language.  It is not only Sanskrit, but also almost every script in Tamil is also written in a coded language, full of science and astronomy.  Once his Vedic Science Institute is established, he will open a new University, including special subjects to decode the Vedic and Tamil languages to show to the world all the scientific and astronomical knowledge in Indian scripture.  But don’t think that he is a narrow-minded Indian only referring to the Veda and Sanskrit works or a fanatic Tamilian mentioning Tamil works to prove his theory.  His horizon covers the entire world because he has a fervent desire, in his own words,

to thoroughly investigate the ancient literature—not only Indian but also of other nations—like Vaedhic Scriptures, Thamizh Sangam Literature, The Holy Bible, The Holy Koraan, Confucianism, Thaosim, etc.  I felt that it was possible that all of them might have references to ancient history, ethical codes, and science and technology if interpreted properly.  If decoded, the results would enlighten us about the knowledge existing in the associated periods and possibly an entirely new face of science.¹²

Evidence or entertainment:

If anyone thinks that I have merely cooked up some story to prove my view, then read the following accounts from a scholar like Edwin Bryant from his book. [The entire point from Bryant with all the foots from him could be moved either to notes or to  appendix—db]

There are southern Tamil-centric myths of origin that are just as creative as some of the Aryan-centered ones from the North.  Thus, Purnalingam Pillai (1963) describes the original land of Tamilaham, which included the lost continent of Le Muria, the “cradle of civilization.”” This was submerged after a deluge, rending asunder Australia, China, and Africa (all supposedly proven by geological science).  The survivors fled in crafts or on foot to North India, Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and other regions.  Accordingly, “in its widest sense, Tamilaham at present lies all the world over, wherever the enterprising Tamils have found their home” (5).  Pillai finds evidence of this everywhere.  According to him, there are lingas in Saint Paul’s Cathedral; indeed, due to the “many semblences and traces of Saivism … in every nook and corner of England, it is impossible to think of England as anything else except a Saivite country.”  As for the Tamils, they “were the sons of Tamilaham itself.  They were indigenous” (18-19).  In fact, “history finds the Tamils in their present abode long before the Romans conquered Egypt or Christ was born in Bethlehem, before Porus met the Greek or Darius lost his crown; before Plato wrote his Dialogues and Solomon made his songs” (33).¹³

… Self-styled historian and ardent Hindu P.N. Oak, *for example, has his own unique way of resolving the Hindutva problem as it relates to the Muslims.  According to Oak (1984):

Allah is a Hindu God and the Kaba a Hindu temple.  Evidence is also available indicating that prophet Mohammed Himself was born a Hindu and that when He chose to break away from the family’s Hindu tradition and heritage and declare himself a prophet, the joint Hindu family broke up in an internecine feud and Hazrat Mohammad’s own uncle had to lay down his life fighting to save Hinduism…. That means that like Buddha, Mahavira, Jaina and the ten Sikh Gurus, Hazrat Mohommad was yet another prophet which Hinduism gave to the world.  Like the other reformers, Mohammad reiterated some of the basic values of Hinduism. (Oak, 1984, 310-313)

….there are many serious and sober scholars who sincerely feel that the Aryan migration theory is not supported by the available data.  Their input on this issue should not be stereotyped or cursorily dismissed by associating it with positions, often encountered in India, such as that of Oak.¹⁴

*. Oak is best known, perhaps, for his continued efforts to prove that the Taj Mahal was originally a Siva temple.  Oak’s books attempt to argue that everything of value in the world originally came from India or was part of a greater India.  His etymologizing and general level of scholarship are astounding, even in the context of this genre of literature; for example, (Oak, p.343) England was originally pronounced as Angulisthan, since “ancient Hindu explorers and administrators who fanned over a virgin Europe looked across the English channel and called the British isles ‘Anguli’ (‘sthan’ or ‘desh’) i.e. a finger-size, finger-length land.  If one imagines Europe to be a palm-size, palm-shaped continent Great Britain appears to be ‘anguli’ namely the (extended) finger” (Oak 1984, 842).  I was informed by a professor of history at Jawarhal Lal Nehru University that even the RSS, which previously had cultivated Oak, has since completely distanced itself from his views.  Oak’s insistence that all other cultures from all over the world in all historical epochs ultimately originated in Vedic India, however, does parallel some of the scholarship of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Europe.  Attempts were made to accommodate the newly discovered Eastern traditions within a muktivedic narrative by suggesting etymologies such as Brahman being the Sanskrit for Abraham and Sarasvati for Sarah.¹⁵

 Common Hindus have no time or access to enjoy the entertainment of reading such accounts as those above.  However, if someone tells them these things with some seriousness, they will believe it and will proudly use it in their discussions without any need to check for accurate evidence.¹⁶  In most cases, on such accounts, mere hear say (‘sun suni ki bath ‘in Hindi)  is more than enough.  Particularly if these views have come from some Swamijis like Kanchi Sankaracharya, then it is proof of the authenticity of the information (in fact the book which contains all of his speeches is titled ‘Daivattin Kural’—The voice of god).  All of these discussions and debates have nothing to do with their (personal) faith of their respective gods.  So while serious scholars like P.V. Kane have made considerable contributions to Hindu apologetics, writers like the Purnalingams, Oaks and Murthys are also taken seriously.  Of course similar kinds of writings both scholarly and amusing are common in Christianity too.  I need not quote from such works as most of the readers of this book might be familiar with them.  At the  same time there are serious and sincere Hindu apologetics like Sri Rajiv Malhotra,  Arun Shourei and others, who put lots of challenges to other faiths comparing with Hindu Scriptures and worldview.  Other might see mere propaganda in their writings, but those who wants to know their view should personally read and pounder their views.  I am not competent enough to share my personal views about them, but when I read their books (Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to  Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011; Arun Shourie, Religion in Politics, New Delhi, Roli Books Pvt. Ltd.,  1987, 3^rd impression (enlarged), 1989) I was immensely benefited by their views.

The Application of Apologetics

Changing one’s faith is not an easy thing.  We human beings are conservative in many areas, particularly in faith.  When one changes one’s religious faith, others demand considerable explanation for reason of such change.  Of course, like a first love, sometimes feelings, experiences, and emotions will overcome reasoning at the initial level.  But sooner or later, one has to make the newfound faith sensible at least to oneself.   About this Clooney says:

…People know what they know on religious topics and rarely if ever change their minds significantly.  Studying a different theological tradition is not likely to change anything.  Apologetics then is for the most part merely preaching and poor preaching at that.  Even more than the arguments aimed at demonstrating God’s existence, these arguments may seem to satisfy only believers and have little compelling force for outsiders. …The point of apologetics is in part to demonstrate the plausibility of one’s beliefs in a way that is comprehensible even to persons who do not share those beliefs.  Reasonable believers are inclined toward apologetics, since they think that a good case can be made for believing some fairly specific things about God.  The divine character and likely mode of behavior can be described in certain ways, and other ways can be ruled out as not true.  The theologian who puts forward theological arguments seriously is also seriously proposing that his or her beliefs are reasonable.  In turn, it is this serious reasonability that saves the beliefs from a splendid isolation in which they are immune to the questions and critiques of outsiders….¹⁷ 

Of course, though reason plays an important role in this effort of making faith sensible, yet mostly religious faith need not be rationalistic. 

Though I am not rationalistic in the Western sense, I strongly believe that unless one reasonably understands the basic tenets of faith, it will end up in superstition and blind faith.  My inquiring mind (yukti = practical reasoning) alone questions several of the Hindu religious systems and faith claims.  But as tradition has a strong hold on every Hindu, remaining faithful to one’s particular (family) religious tradition is more important than trying to understand every aspect of that faith properly.

My journey in apologetic:

Though I was not well-versed in Hinduism and in our family following smarta (smrti based) tradition, my interest to read scriptures from the early age, motivated me to think about several claims of my tradition.  Because I never had any scholarly books on scripture, I didn’t receive any guidance in this discipline.  Most of the sat–sanghs (called pravachanam/kathakalashebam in Tamil, more a religious discourse) that I attended centered on bhakti rather than being academic in nature.  In fact, such discipline was rare, almost nil, in those days, but nowadays proper discourses are organized on important scriptures like the Gita.  Vellukkudi Sri Krishnan’s discourse on Bhagavadgita is the recent best example.  However, the minimum information that I gathered by reading the scriptures, (puranic) stories, etc., helped me to compare my newfound faith in the Lord Muktinath.

Later, when I began to read some serious books both on Hinduism and the Muktiveda, it was not easy for me to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between the two.  Though I read only a few books on dialogue and comparative theology, as a layperson without any academic discipline, I didn’t receive much help from them to make my faith in the Lord more understandable.  Though I walked by faith and trusted that the more I obeyed, the more god would reveal to me according to my need, yet it was not easy for me to explain my personal understanding of my faith.

Not easy one for me:

Apologetics are a part of the Indian philosophical tradition.  In order to defend one’s faith as well as make it sensible to the followers the acharyas of Indian philosophical tradition (like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhava, to name few) not only explain their position, but in this endeavor they have to criticize their opponent’s view as well.  This was easy in one sense for them as they used almost the same categories because they shared a common religious tradition, irrespective of their difference in faith and doctrine.  For example, in the most major philosophical religious traditions in India debate was over the relationship between atman, Brahman and world.  While they agreed and disagreed among themselves on various interpretations, they used most of the same categories (mostly Sankhyan).  So it is easy for a Hindu to follow the discussion (if not understood completely) because they are familiar with these terms.

But when I began to deeply think about my faith in the Lord and Muktiveda and tried to make it sensible to me, I was eager to know how to relate the muktivedic categories to the Indian philosophical terms.  So, when I got hold of books by Upadhyaya, Chenchiah, Chakkarai, Nehemiah Goreh, Krishna Mohan Banarji, Prof. Alieaz, Fr. Clooney, Kolistairmaire etc. to name only few, I was overwhelmed by the Himalayan task for a lay person like me to understand my muktivedic faith using the Indian categories. 

I decided that it is artificial to try to relate the muktivedic categories with Indian categories without having a minimum understanding of both theological/philosophical traditions.  I was quite amused when some ‘converts’, out of enthusiasm, began to use ‘Sachidananda’ for Trinity, and went on to use several other Indian philosophical terms without having studied their theological meanings.  For example, to this day, understanding Thomas Acquinas is almost impossible for me because of the language and terms that are so important in it.  In the same way, though, as a Hindu, I too was familiar with several Indian philosophical terms like atman, Brahman, prakriti etc., but without having any proper systematic study on Indian philosophy (and a proper Sanskrit knowledge), my understanding is more superficial than technical. 

Apologetic of bhakti not theology:

So when I began to read the Muktiveda in depth and began to compare it with Hinduism, I was careful not to do it on a theological level, but for the most part, I have used bhakti categories.  The concepts that I tried to draw relationships with on a theological level, I kept private.  When I need to use Hindu scriptures and categories I use them mostly to communicate my bhakti; the burden of sin, need of mukti, god’s grace and need of personal faith etc.  The muktivedic tradition is different from that of Hindu traditions.  Because of its relativistic and pluralistic worldview, the major doctrinal aspects in one religious/philosophical tradition, can be set aside easily to emphasize the same concept in Hinduism.  Take for example mukti.  According to Advaita Vedanta, jnana (knowledge) alone is essential to attain mukti as it removes avidya (ignorance).  Of course there is a place for god, but He is not the core.  Whereas in Vishishtadvaita, knowledge though important, god is the center as only through bhakti one can attain mukti.  In Yoga, god can be used as an object for meditation.  So each of these philosophical traditions has its own independent approach (to attain mukti); however, they are related with each other with a common (religious) tradition.  What is so center/core in one system is not so important in another system.  So a Hindu has freedom to follow any philosophical system that suits their nature, not minding the differences among the philosophies.¹⁸  This kind of multicentred pluralistic approach to reality is alien to the Muktiveda.  Of course there exists no uniform theology in Christianity either.  However, taking any Hindu philosophical/ religious categories to explain any muktivedic concept is not that easy.  Though every effort should be made to form an ‘Indian Muktivedic Theology’, it is too simplistic to explain my faith to other Hindus by using Indian categories in order to make it understandable to them or to me.

This doesn’t mean that we should not use any of Indian philosophical terms, replacing Hebrew, Aramic, Greek and English technical terms.  For example, we use ‘avatara’ for incarnation, sing the bhajan by Upadhyaya on Trinity (Vande Sachitanadam, Upacita….) and also use OM in our worship. But we never try to defend these words as correct equivalents for muktivedic or theological words.  When we are challenged by anyone, then we humbly accept the limitation of all the terms replaced from one tradition to another and also our limitations on theology.  We use these terms to worship the Lord as Indians and not to explain our doctrinal position.

Universality of Muktiveda:

Though I still read Hindu scriptures, what attracts me to the Muktiveda is its down-to-earth nature, and that it is a book of common people.  It is not a book that has come out of one person or a group of individuals who shared some of their personal vision, convictions or mission by their contemplation and meditation on human issues or philosophical questions.  Of course some of the wisdom literature like Proverbs has some of these features.  But overall, it is of the people, for the people and by the people who collectively struggled in practical life with several spiritual, religious and social issues.  Particularly the Uttara Veda, though authored by few individuals, it reflects more of the collective aspirations of the people than reflecting the author’s mind. And, if I understood the main teaching of the Uttara Veda correctly, then its aim is ‘to accept the whole of humanity’,¹⁹ which Prof. Arvind Sharma uses to point to the aspiration of Hinduism.  Though he says this in the context of comparing (criticizing) that,

 ‘…While the proselytizing religions of the world aspire to be accepted by the whole of humanity, the aspiration of Hinduism, by contrast, (p.93) is much more modest; instead of aspiring to be accepted by the whole of humanity, it merely aspires to accept the whole of humanity.’²⁰ 

Though the Neo-Hinduism of Prof. Sharma with its all modern interpretation can claim to ‘accept the whole of humanity’, yet the Hinduism as it is practiced by the people here in India is defined by its ‘exclusion’ of several people by birth (caste), gender, ritual and tradition.  Whereas breaking the barriers that exists among human based on race, class and gender (neither Jew nor Roman, master nor slave, male nor female) what the Uttara Veda aims is ‘to accept the whole of humanity’ as child of god.²¹

In particular, I was more attracted to the writings of Sevanand (Paul) in this area.  The way he remains faithful to the claims of the Purva Veda (OT), at the same time liberates the gospel from the Jewish captivity and thanklessly toils to make it universal was a great eye-opener for me to understand the muktivedic teaching both by faith and reason.  Sevanand ‘has not been a slavish repeater of tradition so much as a faithful rethinker of the rich material he has heard, using it in fresh ways for his own very different context,’ says Wright.²²   And,

When Paul announced ‘the gospel’ to the Gentile world, therefore, he was deliberately and consciously implementing the achievement of Jesus.  He was, as he himself said, building on the foundation, not laying another one (I Cor. 3:11).  He was not ‘founding a separate religion’.  He was not inventing a new ethical system.  He was not perpetrating a timeless scheme of salvation, a new mystery-religion divorced from the real, human Jesus of Nazareth.  He was calling the world to allegiance to its rightful Lord, the Jewish Messiah now exalted as the Jewish Messiah was always supposed to be.  A new mystery religion, focused on a mythical ‘lord’, would not have threatened anyone in the Greek or Roman world.  ‘Another king’, the human Jesus who claims cut directly across those of Caesar, did.²³

Of course any Hindus who might read this book would wonder what caused me to accept this Jewish Messiah.  Well, thankfully for me, god is not a Jew or only for the Jews.  Of course those who believe in the Muktiveda have to accept the fact that it originated in the Jewish context, but god’s purpose is not only for the Jews.  He could have chosen any nation for His purpose.  However, a careful reading of the Purva Veda would reveal that because god chose Jewish people to reveal Himself through His acts in history, He never shows any special favor to them in His plan for the entire world.  Anyone who carefully reads all of Sevanand’s writings with the same sense in which he wrote can understand god’s mind and purpose for His entire creation. 

My conviction:

As my own Hindu tradition teaches, I am ready to welcome any noble thought coming from any part of the world.²⁴  In fact, I thank god that I was born a Hindu.  Hindu tradition teaches me to obey the guru whom god sends in my life for me to walk in His ways.  When my search for that guru ended in Muktinath, though I obeyed Him immediately by faith, I did not follow Him blindly.  As a sincere disciple, I tried to understand His teachings and mission both for me and rest of the world.  Somehow, beyond my understanding, Muktinath’s teachings, life and seva—leaving all the supernatural part of His atonement, death, resurrection etc. convinced my reason more than any other or Hindu scripture or gods and acharyas.  What appealed to me the most were His disciples whose accounts about their guru and their life as His disciples reflected not their superior minds but humble spirits.

Considering Sevanand’s nature and caliber, he could have written a highly sophisticated philosophical treaty on the life and death of the Lord.  But, because his concern was to serve the people and not to parade his intellect, the way he shares his conviction with passion, compassion, emotion, reason and in time with frustration, appealed to my mind and spirit.  Rarely, have I come across a book like Uttara Veda. 

My advantage as a Hindu:

Even if anyone proves that Muktinath was a myth and Sevanand invented Christianity based on some pagan cult, my faith in the Lord and the Muktiveda won’t go.  Because being familiar with several mythological stories in Hinduism, I often wondered why our Hinduism had failed to create a myth that could bring about the change in my spirit.  This is one advantage to being a Hindu.  I don’t need mere historical evidences but I do need an inner experience—through revelation, intuition or encounter with god.  However, this inner experience is not mere emotion, but it appeals to my reason, though it is not completely rational.  God’s revelation of Himself in creation, history or scripture has no meaning or purpose unless He reveals it personally to the individual (according to their need and capacity).  That’s why for me the Muktiveda would also have remained like any other book, except that god revealed Himself to the seeker.

Apologetic cost:

God prepared me as a Hindu to receive His grace through the Lord Muktinath.  I can’t say that all that I know as a Hindu is now fulfilled in the Lord.  He came in a time, in a place in a history in a particular socio-religious context, but He was not limited by them.  Those who come to Him by faith, He causes them to worship god both in ‘Truth and Spirit’.  While the Truth is explained to the mind, my spirit expresses that understanding through worship.  I can write on and on about this subject from various points of view, but the conviction, which I now have in my mind and spirit, is beyond any human words.  This is not an excuse to explain, but my own limitation to express in words. 

Notes

1 Personal communication, 18-08-2020

2 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. 11

3 Dr. Sivap Priya, Sundarar Potriya Arubatu Moovar, (Tamil), New Delhi, Tennavar Tirunerip Padippagam, 2005, pp. 91-92

4 Personal email.

5 Prof. Arvind Sharma’s writings in MLBD, ‘Chips from an Indic Workshop’ are the best recent examples.  For example, the explaining away of some Upanisadic passages, which sanction the husband to beat his wife, he after explaining the ‘moksa or spiritual dharma’ and ‘saadhaarana dharmas’ says:

               Thus the Upanisadic passages cited above fall out the Vedantic ken.  It is important for readers to realize that unlike the Western religions, revelation in the Hindu scriptures is only to be held revealing in relation to moksa and dharma.  To paraphrase Sankara: Even if a hundred Vedic scriptural passages stated that one should beat one’s wife they will have to be disregarded, for they would be dealing with social practices and not metaphysical reality and its moral universe, the proper domain of scripture. (italics original).— Chips from an Indic Workshop,  On Wife-Beating and Ordeals in the Upanisads, Arvind Sharma, MLBD Newsletter, July 2006, p. 16,

6 A favorable, ‘theme, even when stripped of its biblical trappings, was to remain thoroughly imprinted in European consciousness until well into the twentieth century’, Edwin Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition.p.16

7 PVN Murthy, Raamaayanha Rahasya, First book of the series “The Original Secrets”, A VEDSRI Publication, Hosur, 2004, p. 47.  While questing such ‘extravagant claims’, the way Hinduism ‘asserts its own scientific truth’ cannot be ignored as noted by Smith:

More than any other religion, Hinduism welcomes science with open arms, and asserts its own scientific truth…. Without giving credence to the many extravagant claims that have been made about advanced Hindu science revealed in the Veda, there is an intuitive correctness in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain ideas concerning the scale of life-forms and the size of the universe that is light years in advance of other religions….—David Smith, Hinduism and Modernity, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 2003. p. 201

8 PVN Murthy, op. cit. p.48

9 ibid. p.48

10 ibid. pp.50-51, the author, though mentions others books from which he quotes, yet not giving the publishing details.

11 ibid. p.52

12 ibid. p.225

13 Bryant, op. cit, notes, 5, p. 343

14 ibid. p.273

15 ibid. notes 6, pp.343-44

16 One Vishnu Sankar is highly educated and works in the IT profession in the Central govt. service.  When he sent Oak’s theory on Taj Mahal as a Siva Temple also proved by the BBC, then I have to explain other problems related with such theories.  If a highly educated person like Sankar can be influenced by such theories, we need not talk about common people with less education.

17 Clooney, S.J. op. cit. pp.90-91

18 After giving the differences among Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, Sarma says:

But; … these are rather subtle differences, which are bound to arise in the bosom of a religion which is singularly free from rigid dogmas and which encourages rather than discourages freedom of opinion.  They are of little practical importance.  They do not stand in the way of men perfecting their lives through righteousness, love and worship in accordance with the main teaching of our (p.119) scriptures.  It is therefore enough for you to confine yourself to matters on which all our teachers are agreed. — A Primer Of Hinduism,  D.S. Sarma, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,  1984  pp.119-120

19 Arvind Sharma, Hinduism for our Times, Delhi, Oxford india Paperbacks, 2001, pp.94.

20 ibid. pp. 93-94

21 …For the Christian, all men are equal in the sight of God: there is no chosen people, no privileged race or class, no one community whose fortunes are more important than those of another.  All persons and all peoples are involved in the working out of God’s purpose, and therefore the historical process is everywhere and always of the same kind, and every part of it is a part of the same whole.  The Christian cannot be content with Roman history or Jewish history or any other partial and particularistic history: he demands a history of the world, a universal history whose theme shall be the general development of God’s s purposes for human life.  The infusion of Christian ideas overcomes not only the characteristic humanism and the substantialism of Greco-Roman history, but also its particularism.— R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, Revised Edition. Edited with an Introduction by Jan Van Der Dussen. New York.  Oxford University. (1946), 1994. p.49

22 N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997. p. 182

23 ibid. p. 181

24 … ‘Let noble thoughts come to us form very side’-Rig-Veda. 1.89.1.  Another translation reads like this: Many powers auspicious come to us from every side….–. Ralph T. H. Griffith, translation with a popular commentary, The Hymns of the Rgveda, edited by Prof. J. L. Shastri, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, New Revised Edition (1973), Repint, 1986, p.56

Chapter Eleven

Contextualization [I used She for God.  I need to change it as He and also from Herself to Himself—db]

Functional substitute

After I became a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, in the early days of my bhakti, I did not hear the term ‘contextualization’, but instead, I heard the term ‘functional substitute’.  After conversion, when certain symbols are removed which have a connection with their past faith, new ones are introduced as a ‘functional substitute’ because people cannot live in vacuum.  For example, when the wooden post is removed from a tribal village, which was used to tie the animal to sacrifice, then a cross is erected in its place.  Another example is the pendant in the wedding chain (thaali or mangalyam) that is replaced with a cross pendant.  (However, most of the Hindu convert women, particularly in Tamilnadu refused to replace it even after conversion because of the sentiment attached to the thaali).

Christianization:

But in all of these exercises, mostly Christianization of the symbols was aimed at and not the contextualization of them.  For the most part, this was done to retain the identity and security of the traditional Christian members who are already in the church rather than for the benefit of the new believers. On the issue of the bindi (pottu), one evangelical leader wrote that until the new convert totally integrates into the church, she could be allowed to keep the ‘bindi’ (pottu).  But once she is integrated, she should be encouraged to remove it, so that she does not cause offense to the Christians in the church.  Here again, it was the needs of the fourth or fifth generation Christians that were kept in mind rather than the needs of the new believer.  Who is causing the offense to whom and who needs to have maturity, should be addressed seriously on such cultural issues like bindi (pottu). 

A new convert cannot become matured in a fast phase not to offend the cultural sensitivity of a traditional Christian of four and fifth generation.  Whereas these Christians need to be sensitive to the cultural need of a new believer, on those issues which has nothing to do with her faith and bhakti in the Lord.  Well, if not offending the ‘weak’ brother and sister in the church is the main issue, then let them remain weak. Because if five generations of their faith cannot make them strong, no amount of adjustments by any convert is going to remove their weakness.  Instead of blackmailing a new convert in the name of ‘weak’ sister, let them use positive method to make the traditional Christian become strong to receive a new convert as she is.

Of course contextualization is not a new thing in the field of missions.  At least in India, since the time of de Nobili, attempts were made to contextualize the gospel, worship, church activities etc.  But all of these were only a means to the end viz., to convert others to Christianity, rather than helping the converts to exercise their faith in a way that would make more sense to them.

Some pioneers:

In the early days of my faith, I was interested in reading the Muktiveda and ‘thinking’ over the various issues, so I read many books and commentaries related to the Muktiveda and evangelism.  To my surprise I discovered that after de Nobili, there was a long period of silence on contextualization, and in Protestant circle until the early part of 20^th century this idea was not even recognized.  However, some Indian pioneers like Upadhyaya (in Catholic circle), Sundar Singh, Narayan Vaman Tilak, in limited ways attempted contextulization, yet they made little progress breaking any new ground in this endeavor.  There are well documented materials available about their attempts, so we’ll not dwell on them.¹

Without knowing what contextualization actually means, but with some familiarity with the term ‘functional substitution’, I also began to think along those lines.  However, without recognizing it, what I was slowly attempting, some of my Christian friends termed contextualization, and they sympathetically supported my cause.

Incarnation or Contextualization?

In order to communicate the gospel, an outsider needs to contextualize it by using native words, symbols, and mediums.  But for a native to understand the gospel, they must be allowed to comprehend the gospel as they are within their worldview—including that of their religious one.  In this process, the native should allow the gospel to become ‘incarnate’ to communicate itself in a better way for them to understand and profess their faith in a meaningful way. 

This is exactly what I attempted from the early days of my faith in the Lord.  I began to incarnate many things with some limitations to make the gospel meaningful, to exercise my faith in a meaningful way, to worship the Lord in a way that would make sense to my need and spirit, and to communicate the gospel to my own people in a way that would make sense to them.  Thus, according to me, though there is some basic difference between ‘contextualization’ and ‘incarnation’ of the gospel, for the sake of communication, I often use the former term.  However, in some places, I specifically use the word ‘incarnation’ to explain the subject a bit more clearly.

But there are times when I am not sure whether I should even use the word ‘contextualization’ for anything that I do to exercise my faith as a Hindu in the Lord because at least in my case, I understood the gospel as a Hindu. Though outwardly I was encouraged to become a Christian for some time yet in my spirit, I remained a Hindu and a bhakta of the Lord, and I resented any attempt to Christianize me.  Therefore, with some confidence, I can say that we Hindu bhaktas of Bhagavan Muktinath do not need to contextualize very many things.  With that in mind, what we Hindu bhaktas of the Lord need to do is to incorporate many things that are Hindu without compromising our faith in the Lord.  Whether we call it contextualization or incarnation is only a matter of the terms and not of the heart or intent.

The inner freedom:

Though several limitations slowed down the process of incarnating the gospel, they never killed that spirit.  One of the main limitations was a lack of proper theological/academic training.  Though it was a limitation, in the long run, it became a blessing because I was not restricted to think only within the frame of any ‘training’ which still remain as a westernized theological educational system. In a sense, the lack of a theological education in a seminar and proper academic discipline liberated me.  At the same time, all that I attempted as a layperson gave me considerable freedom to attempt things by trial and error.  Because someone with an academic discipline is not allowed to make the same mistakes as a layperson is allowed.  Next is that a lay person has the inner freedom to accept correction for their mistakes with little prejudice or pride in getting in the way, so their limitations help them to be humble to learn more. 

Teachability:

For example, in many of my poems I shared my bhakti using terms which the Muktiveda doesn’t endorse (see notes 13 in Chapter ‘Scripture as the foundation’.).  But as a layperson, my spirit was never restricted by any theological training, so I was able to spontaneously express my experience in those terms.  However, later when I realized or it was pointed out to me by some others about the un- muktivedic aspect in the terms, I accepted the correction.  A trained academic theologian cannot enjoy this kind of freedom.  At another time, while writing a paper on atman, I wrote that ‘as created in the Image of god, atman becoming a minute part of god, etc…..’  When one concerned person pointed out the difference between ‘created in the image of god’ from ‘atman becoming a minute part of god’, I humbly accepted the correction and removed the latter part of the sentence.   Because if the atman becomes a minute part of god, then it shares with the very essence of god, yet a created being cannot share with the essence of the creator. On the other hand, created in the image of god means that god gave us free will to decide on many things.  That’s why creation is different from procreation by human beings.  Bringing things out of nothing can be termed “creation”, which we cannot do.  But, we do have a creative mind which endorses the image of god within us.  We can reproduce something using other materials, but we can never create anything out of nothing. But when I was writing that paper from my Hindu worldview, I spontaneously used that term without thinking about its implication in the light of the Muktiveda, but when it was pointed out to me, I was willing to correct my error.

God’s gift

When I allowed the Lord to incarnate Himself within my Hindu worldview, with this inner freedom, I used many of my Hindu materials—symbols, terms, forms etc.  I don’t need to redeem anything for the Lord, as a person who attempts to contextualize has to do.  Because every good thing comes from god, all the good things that He gifted me through my culture, tradition and civilization do not need to be redeemed from the devil or from any evil nature.  Any sincere bhakta of the Lord will stay away from things that will separate her from the Lord.  As nothing can separate me from the Lord, I need not be afraid of god’s gifts in my worldview.  At the same time, though all are permissible, all are not profitable to grow in spiritual life.  It is left to the individual’s discerning spirit to follow any list of dos and don’ts with the help of the Holy Spirit.

My endeavors:

Contextualization needs to address the three crucial areas: worship, fellowship and understanding the Muktiveda. The first incarnational attempt I did was to write my own songs and bhajans to worship the Lord in my personal devotion.  The next attempt was to understand several muktivedic doctrines within my own Hindu terms to make them meaningful to me.  The many other things became by products of the first two efforts. Some of these were outward forms in attire, worship, communication etc. In the early days, I struggled privately with my own personal concepts of worship, fellowship and understanding the Muktiveda.  I was not only limited by a lack of academic discipline, but the way Indian terms are ‘contextualized’ by the pioneers in this field and also the complexity of the Indian philosophical tradition posed a great challenge for me. Because theology is an important aspect for me and using Hindu terms for theological purpose is a Himalayan task for me, I struggled with whether to worship through composing new bhajans, reasoning on doctrine by using Hindu terms, and enjoying the fellowship with other bhaktas of the Lord by participating in the Lord’s Supper etc. My reasoning and thinking in these areas was without help from others.

My struggle:

My struggle became multifaceted.  First, what I had learned about Indian philosophies was based on books on the subject rather than by actually reading the subjects themselves.  Next, the lack of Sanskrit knowledge became an impediment.  My struggle was complicated further because I was not only struggling with the theological context but also other important issues related to it.  For example, to use or not to use advaitic terms to contextualize Muktivedic theology was an immediate problem, but what Sankara had excluded when championing the Advaita was as important as what he had included.

But without taking the advaita in its total context, and selectively using certain terms didn’t serve my purpose.  I deliberately say ‘my’ purpose because my early struggle was not only to communicate with others, but it was also how to understand the Muktiveda and doctrine as a Hindu.

The challenge:

If my understanding is correct, the gospel is for all—because it never excludes anyone based on any category—sex, economic status, race, class, caste etc.  For me, any spirituality that is not universal in scope is not from god, but is manmade.  I began to ponder the points of the limitations and the claims of universal truth when the Neo-vedantians tried to reduce Hinduism to advaita and also Sankara’s advaita.² For example, in Sankara’s scheme of mukti, only a samnyasi or a Brahmin (or at least the twice born ones), who are qualified to become a samnyasi, can attain this advaitic jeevan mukti.  There is no scope for woman, Sudras or outcastes.  Of course these limitations are carefully explained and set aside by all the champions of Neo-vedantians.³  So these limitations and the universal scope presented in the Indian philosophies makes it difficult to contextualize the gospel, as it never excludes any one.

Another point is that in order to contextualize Muktivedic theology, if we use Hindu terms, we cannot use them directly from the Hindu scriptures, but instead, we would have to use the terms the way those terms were handled by the Indian philosophers like Sankara, Ramanuja etc.⁴ Even though the ‘transformation of certain terms from a pagan context to a Christian context happened in the early church history (like agape, kurios, ekklesia etc.)’4-⁵, most of those (Greek) philosophies are not in use now, so we cannot imitate the same process with Hindu philosophies because, unlike many counterparts to the early church, Hinduism is still alive and very active. Next, we can’t just use selective parts of their ideologies for the sake of contextualization and ignore the rest because it clashes with the muktivedic idealism of salvation for all.  For instance, Ramanuja, who brought bhakti Vedanta to the forefront and also had a Sudra as his guru, yet when it comes to his scheme of salvation, some are excluded, particularly Sudra and women.⁶ 

I believe the one strength of the Muktiveda is to take the present life as it is and work from it.  I do not need to blame a past karma or the play of god for my present conditions.  Whereas, in Hindu philosophies, though the present life on earth is so crucial for you to workout your own salvation, their doctrinal debates are not based on the present life alone.  In addition, most of their philosophical categories (jnana, karma, maya, creation etc.) are used in the context of such doctrinal debates.  So however the Neo-Hindus’ attempt to construct Hindu Philosophies, particularly that of Sankara’s advaita as a universal one, the doctrinal issues set so many limitations based on karma (leading to rebirth), caste, vocation (only samnyasis are qualified) that my mind refuses to accept the universal nature of such philosophies.  On the other hand, the gospel never excludes any one based on any category.  Muktivedic theology can easily be incarnated in any worldview leaving the bhaktas to workout those principles exercising their cultural and social aspects without compromising their faith in the Lord.  Because the Muktiveda addresses only the spiritual needs of people based on the universal categories of sin, grace and salvation, it doesn’t prescribes any social laws for everyone to obey (like Quran)⁷ or limit the theology based on sociological discrimination of exclusion as we find in Hindu philosophies (Sudras and women are excluded).  This fact helps the three crucial areas of worship, fellowship and theology (understanding the Muktiveda) to easily be incarnated in any worldview making the gospel universal.

One important fact that needs to be kept in mind regarding the point of excluding certain people is that it is not considered as wrong because of the purity rules based on dharmasastras in Hinduism.  Several aspects of Hinduism are limited only for certain people and also within certain geographical boundaries.  For example,

Let the Brahmin remain only in this country [of Aryavarta].  Shudras can go ashtray anywhere in the land in search of a living.  This is the view of Manusmrti about half of our country.  It was told about the other places, where different kinds of opinion was emerging, where the thinkers before Buddha were contemplating, where Mahaveer was contemplating:

 Angabangkalingascha sowraashtramaghadaamstata; tiirthayaatram bina gatva punah: sanskaaramarhati [if you go to pligrime to Angam, Vangam, Kalingam, Sowrashtrasm, Magadam, then you have to under go initiatory rite of thread [to take back in the caste].  Again you have to take holy thread.  Otherwise you will become an outcaste. By legs one do sin if he goes to Kalingam.  Whoever goes to Kalinga country is doing sin by legs.  More than half portion of our land was impure—this was the opinion held by us.  And what was the opinion of the people [living in those impure lands] that you all know.⁸

The problems:

Another important consideration in using Hindu terms in contextualization is that when we use any particular term, we have to consider its relationship with other branches of Hindu philosophy.  For example if we use some advaitic categories like maya, jnana, avidya etc. they are to be related to other parts of advaitic philosophy related to creation, god, karma etc.  For example, though god as Ishvara has a role to play in Sankara’s philosophy, considering the core of his philosophy, He is a non-existing one.  In Sankara’s scheme, god, creation etc. are for practical (vyavaharika) understanding of the world only.  Whereas advaitic experience is purely metaphysical (paramartika) one. However, some of his categories could be valuable for us to form an Indian muktivedic theology, yet we need to address such crucial issues because we cannot divide muktivedic theology on these levels.⁹

We often hear the term ‘Kristadvaita’ (Christ + advaita).  But when we hear the term ‘advaita’, because of Neo-Hindus’ propagation, we only think of Sankara’s advaita.  Whereas, Richard King points out, ‘there were a variety of non-dualistic philosophies within ancient India’.¹⁰  Indian philosophy is not only influenced by Sankara’s advaita or of his categories alone.  Considering the organic nature of Indian philosophy, a particular philosophical category is influenced and evolved because of various contributions, even from outside India like Greek philosophy.¹¹  If theologians, without keeping the need of the believers who profess their faith in practical life, simply use those categories on a higher level, then we too would have to divide such contextualization as paramartika vs. vyavaharika. So contextualization of Muktivedic Theology using Hindu categories, borrowing them from one particular school of thought, like that of advaita, will never do full justice to either the Muktiveda or the Hindu philosophies.  Therefore, the best way to begin is to use incarnation method rather than contextualization.

One more problem crops up when we have to consider other aspects in borrowing Hindu categories and technical terms while attempting to contextualize the muktivedic theology. Sankara is known as srutivaadin.  He is believed to be accepted the authority of the Veda at least.  However, if one closely follows his commentaries, only the Upanishad is important for him.  But even with the Upanishads, he was very selective in using them to interpret according to his need.  Such approach to scripture is not limited only to Sankara.¹²  Other acharyas have also selectively used the scriptures, which they claim to have final authority to form their particular theology.  Next, in order to present a systematic theology, they twisted the text of scriptures (e.g. Upanishads), which never aimed to give any systematic theology or teaching on a particular subject.  About this Dasgupta says:

[Upanishad] Passages have often been twisted and perverted, and many new connections and contexts have been introduced or imposed upon the texts to suit the fancy or the creed of the individual commentator.  I think all these interpretations are biased and one-sided, and therefore inexact.  The Upanishads reveal to us different phases of thought and experience, not a consistent dogmatic philosophy.  The apparent inconsistency of the different phases of thought is removed if we take a psychological point of view and consider them as different stages of development in the experience of minds seeking to grasp a sublime, ultimate but inexpressible truth….¹³

We have to keep this fact in mind while using Hindu terms to contextualize muktivedic theology.  Of course a similar approach of selectively using the Muktiveda and also twisting the text to form a particular doctrine (through the process of systematic theology) was a common feature in church doctrines.  This resulted in various views on the same doctrine, paving the way for new denominations, which was a common thing in the church history.¹⁴

Incarnation as the solution:

Such complications in both of the religious traditions, should caution us not to use any category at random to contextualize the theology.  When several church fathers, high theologians and muktivedic scholars have stumbled in this area, as a layman and non-theologian, I am not competent to give any suggestion on how to do the right kind of contextual theology.  When we point out certain difficulties and errors, it doesn’t mean that we have all the solutions.  Only the scholars and theologians who created such problems should find the solutions.  However, if we allow the gospel to be incarnated in every worldview, a slow but gradual process will evolve from the lay people to form an indigenous theology that will address their spiritual and social needs without compromising their faith.  So let’s begin with a small survey of the history of contextualization and with that of our present efforts as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, our struggle will be shown more clearly.

Muktivedic contextualization:

As the Muktiveda is the source of our faith, let us also begin from here to understand the contextualization process.  The very word which was used for god in both Purva Veda (OT) and Uttara Veda (NT), like El and theos have a pagan influence.¹⁵  Several symbols like covenant, baptism, circumcision etc. in the Muktiveda, particularly in the Purva Veda are borrowed from the non-Jewish cultures.  The best example is god’s covenant with Abraham in which He adapted Himself to the familiar worldview of the Canaanite covenant process (see Gen.15:17 and Jer. 34:18-19).¹⁶  Scholars believe that even the Ten Commandments have a similarity with the Canaanite King’s Commands and several of the Proverbs have a verbatim resemblance to ancient Near Easter literature style and wordings.¹⁷         

Muktivedic terms:

In all of these, not only the language and terms but also the concepts and symbols which god used in the Muktiveda are rooted in the culture and worldview of the people with whom He was dealing to reveal His plan for humanity.  This is the contextualization process from god’s side to communicate His mind, purpose and will to His people.  If we carefully study the Muktiveda, god never used unknown words, concepts and symbols or introduced (coined) new terms with any special way (as if a divine word or language) to interact with people. The same is the case with the authors of the Muktiveda.  

Transformation of words:

Of course every terms and concept has a particular cultural, social and religious (ritual) meaning.  In most cases, while the original meaning was retained, most of the time a new interpretation was given.  In this process, several times the original meaning also gets transformed to convey the intended meaning (or message) which god or the author of the Muktiveda wants to communicate. (see notes 5)

No name or form retains its original meaning forever because language and forms are not static but dynamic.  Their meanings become transformed for various reasons.  Take for example the word ‘yoga’.  Originating from the Sankhya-yoga school of Indian philosophy, the way it gained various meanings on an international level is familiar to us.  Similarly the words  ‘astika’ and ‘nastika’ translated as ‘theiest’ and  ‘atheist’ has its own history.¹⁸ Another one is ‘cross’. What was a symbol of crime in the Roman world, not only became a religious symbol, but in the long run, it became a symbol of political power.  Now the way it is used is as a pendent by any one on their neck or ear and looks very odd.  So whether we like it or not, names, forms and labels evolve.  But what is important for us is to know how far they are communicating the original meaning and intended meaning to the people.  So it is important to use terms that will communicate the intended meaning rather than insisting on our particular traditions and points of view, however orthodox it looks to us.  It is important to keep the need of the people in mind in this process.  That’s why I prefer to use the already existing terms like Bhagavan, mandali, deeksha, prasad etc. and forms with which the locals are familiar with rather than to use borrowed terms or to coin new terms or transliterating them in Hebrew or Greek forms to insist on some so-called muktivedic tradition or orthodoxy, which never exists according to me.¹⁹

So, the terms for god, church, names in the Muktiveda and theological terms need to be localized.²⁰  There will be initial problems, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, opposition and what not to such an endeavor.²¹  But leave it to god and to the need of the local people to test and prove what is correct or not rather than upholding some terms in the name of ‘unity’.²² One time a Hindu convert did not agree with me (us) and argued that even though the word ‘Christian’ had deteriorated, it was better to call ourselves ‘Christians’ because it would strengthen the unity among the followers of Christ.  But he was not ready to accept that by labeling a convert a ‘Christian’ that it would ever create any kind of unity.  What he was insisting upon is ‘uniformity’.  ‘Unity’ in spirit as the followers of Muktinath can be achieved without insisting upon ‘uniformity’ by a common label for everyone.²³

Contextual translation

The contextualization is not limited to using local names, terms and forms, but it is also involved in translating the Muktiveda.  In order to make the message relevant to the contemporary need, one cannot forget the historical context of both the text and event which is recorded in the Muktiveda.  At the same time, if the message of the author is not conveyed to the contemporary people, there is no use of translating the original words in another language.  The very purpose of translation, according to Kraft, is transculturation of the muktivedic events in ‘today’s cultural context’.  For this, other ‘communicational vehicles’ like ‘drama, film, storytelling, musical presentation’ etc. are to be use rather than sticking to the ‘monologue preaching’ in a western form:

Whenever and however the biblical meanings are abstracted from the Scriptures and recreated as original events in new places and times (even when stimulated from outside), there we have transculturation.  Translation is a limited form of transculturation …can be an important first step toward effective, vital transculturation. Poor translation can block effective transculturation.²⁴

In Muktiveda translation, using a borrowed term or transliterating Hebrew or Greek terms never communicates the intended meaning of the Muktiveda.  Let me give one practical example from my experience.  The word ‘Passover sacrifice’ is translated as ‘paska bali’.  I don’t know the reason for translating the word ‘Passover’ as ‘Pasca’.  However, one time a few Hindu bhaktas of the Lord from the North were participating with me in worship at a Catholic Ashram in the North.  The acharya was sharing about the ‘Pasca bali’.  He is a Malayali so the same word could be there in the Malayalam Muktiveda also.  But till the end of the worship, none of the new bhaktas could understand the word ‘Pasca bali’; however, the achrya later explained it in Hindi.  Instead, I prefer to refer to the Passover sacrifice as ‘aahudi’ a Hindu term which refers to things offered in a sacrifice.  So, ‘Muktinath offered His body as aahudi in the maha yagjana on the cross’, is the Indian (Hindu) version of the Passover sacrifice.  But I never insist on any uniform application of such terms for every Indian context.²⁵

Contextual communication:

Mere contextualized translation of the Muktiveda is not enough, but attempts need to be made to communicate the message. Thankfully, there is no one model to communicate the gospel, even in the Muktiveda.  Whichever is relevant to a particular worldview should be used rather than insisting on some uniform model.  For example, instead of using a ‘legal model for grace (forgiveness granted by a judge because the debt has been paid)’ a ‘medical model’ of Augustinian in which grace as ‘medicine for a sick soul’ could appeal to the mystical oriented Asian societies.²⁶  The emphasis in sharing the gospel in its totality often forces the evangelicals to impose what they have come to understand from within their cultural context to be the rule.²⁷   Where ‘God wants to seek to understand and, in love, to accept people within their cultural context’,²⁸  why should we insist on our form of cultural context to be the rule for everyone?

Contextualized communication always demands a relativistic approach.  Sevananda’s mantra of ‘becoming all things to all men’ is muktivedic relativism to the culture needs of the people, without compromising with the muktivedic principle.²⁹ (see Kraft, 127-28):

While the Koran attempts to fix for all time the behavior of Muslims, the Bible clearly establishes the principle of relative relativism, which permits growth, adaptation, and freedom, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  The Bible presents realistically the facts of culture and the plan of God, by which He continues to work in the hearts of men…The Christian position is not one of static conformance to dead rules, but of dynamic obedience to a living God…³⁰

In such contextualized communication god Herself ‘worked in terms of culturally conditioned human perception.’³¹   For example, though Sevanand was busy sharing the gospel, he addressed those issues which are important for his audience, which he perceived to be important to his audience—viz., slavery, division in the church etc.  In the same way, every culturally conditioned contemporary human perception needs to be addressed while sharing the gospel—like castism, terrorism, corruption, and all kinds of fundamentalism in the present generation.

Contextualization and interpretation:

However through the process of canonization, scriptural authority was finalized, and in reality, it is the interpretation of the Scripture that decides the understanding and not the mere authority of the scripture.  This is true in every religion.  So the crucial fact that needs to be addressed in contextualization is the interpretation of the text.  Of course ‘textual, historical and theological’ context are important in the interpretation of any part of the scripture.  However, no plain meaning exists of any text.  Every text, even while recorded, is a kind of author’s interpretation of god’s revelation, where the author’s worldview plays a crucial role. 

               But in the name of contextualization, how far one can go?  Particularly in our country where scripture is interpreted according to a preconceived meaning (ignoring the context) of the interpreter, it is not an easy thing to remain faithful to the text and to meet the need of the people.  As relativism and pluralism become part of our Indian worldview twisting and torturing the text will allow for any kind of message in any given text.  Giving one classic example of Dr. Radhakrishnan’s interpretation on Acts. 17:26 (of A.V. version) Nirad C. Chaudhuri says,

…obviously taking the passage to mean that God had made all the different nations really bloodkins and intended them to live as such on earth.  On the strength of this interpretation he found in this scriptural passage a Christian proclamation of the brotherhood of man, as a creation of God himself….in actual fact, what was uppermost in St Paul’s mind was the diversity of mankind rather than its unity, except in worshipping one God.³²

So, reading one’s own message into the text needs to be addressed seriously.  Particularly in the name of contextualization, in order to accommodate Indian religious terms, some scholar’s have gone to the extreme of giving a new twist to the theology itself.  In order to accommodate an ontological place within the concept of avatara Klostermaier says:

Where is the ontological place of Christ in this system? —So far the answer usually was: he is on the level of avatara, the only real avatara.  If we consider the five-fold procession the most natural Kristvidya would look like this: para is the procession of the Son from the Father, vyuha is the proceeding of the Spirit (ex Patre Filioque) Vibhava is the divine mission of the Word into the world, antaryamin is the real presence of God in man through faith and sacrament, Arcavatara is the Eucharistic presence.³³

Though there is lots of information to learn from such scholars, a close analysis of these Hindu religious terms won’t easily accommodate such an ontological place for Christ.  Take for example the lost term ‘arcavatara’.  After consecration, god (mostly Vishnu as these terms [vyuha, arcavatara etc.] is used in Vaishnavism) literarily dwells in the image of the Lord according to the Sri Vaishnava tradition.  However closely this term arcavatara comes to the (Catholic) interpretation of Eucharist (Klostermaier is a Catholic), the very purpose of Eucharistic (which means thanksgiving) is not merely to worship the Lord but also to gather around His table to have fellowship.  Even discounting the difference among the Catholic and Protestant about transubstantiation, these five forms of the Lord of Pancaratras (or Bhagavatas) cannot easily accommodate muktivedic concept in Indian terms.³⁴

Similarly ‘the particularity of our situation makes any notion of an objective and value-free interpretation inherently problematic’ says King. Because, ‘understanding is conditioned by the past (our ‘tradition’) as well as by our own present circumstances and agendas (our prejudices).’³⁵

And such interpretation becomes a hurdle in contextualization by the ‘academicization’ and ‘informationalizing’ of revelation.  Because considering the 

‘down-to-earth’ nature of the Scriptures, it is often the unschooled interpreter who can best interpret them, in spite of the difficulty that one may have in understanding the more culture-specific passages…. The Scriptures are life-related, not merely ‘religious discourse … couched in technical language’ (Taber, Charles R. 1978a  ‘Hermeneutics and Culture.’  Prepublication draft of paper presented at the Willowbank Consultation on the Gospel and Culture, Jan. 1978. p.12), as Western exegetes have tended to assume.³⁶

Finally, preserving some (religious) tradition against change and innovation is, sometimes, considered as orthodoxy.³⁷ But what contextualization intends is to present the message and content of the text relevant to the contemporaries rather than to preserve the (muktivedic or church) tradition for the sake of tradition. 

Church:

Contextualization in the early church:

Apart from the muktivedic record (particularly by Sevanand), the contextualization process began from the very early days in the church history.  For example, ‘In Justin [and other apologetics work] the oneness, transcendence and creative role of God are asserted in language strongly coloured by the Platonizing Stoicism of the day.  It was apparently his sincere belief that the Greek thinkers had had access to the works of Moses…’ says Kelly.³⁸ 

The spread of the church is not telling the story about the spread of the gospel alone but also the incarnation, contextualization and inculturation process along with it.  It never hesitated to borrow older cultural and religious traditions of the other people.  Several pagan festivals were Christianized, including the ancient places of pilgrimage.  For example, Pope Gregory instructed Augustine, ‘the Bishop of England not to destroy “pagan” temples, but “that these should be sprinkled with holy water, altars built and holy relics placed in them…”’³⁹

There are records about contextualization on various levels some minor details of both positive and negative approaches to the culture needs were also recorded.  For example, ‘Most [early] churches banned the use of instruments because of their prominence in pagan sacrifices and entertainment.  Christian singing was responsorial: the congregational response was a word (e.g., “Hallelujah” or “Amen”) or a verse (e.g. “His mercy endures forever”).’⁴⁰  The prohibition against wearing caps by the priests during ‘services of worship as a symbol of reverence’ was changed by Pope Nicholas IV in 1289, for Scotland monks because of cold climate.⁴¹  Similarly church in its expansion ‘into the Western world took to itself national, racial and cultural modes of expression and that without such adaptation it nowhere exists in the West.’⁴² 

The lesson to learn:

Of course the way the church fathers handled the Greek philosophy and Roman religious traditions are now seriously questioned and challenged by scholars .⁴³  However, for our understanding, whatever might be their failure or mistakes, we have something to learn in our attempts to incarnate the gospel within Indian civilization.  Whatever might be the challenge the Indian civilization poses to the gospel, yet, ‘Modern studies affirm that early Christianity’s adaptation to its culture was essential to its success.  Adaptation was a risky business—the early Christians had no flawless guidelines, just as we have none today.’ ⁴⁴  So however the church was blamed for using the imperial power for the spread of Christianity, it could never have succeeded only because of it.⁴⁵ Like every other movement (political, social, cultural, etc.), the church also failed as a religious movement.  But we have every right and reason to separate the gospel from the church and Christendom and not to repeat the past mistakes.

The Indian challenge:

Whatever might be the historical context in which the church could easily Christianize several pagan rituals, traditions, symbols and festivals, it cannot do the same with Hinduism.  In the process of Christianization, the church not only transformed pagan forms of every kind but also completely replaced what it thought was evil and unmuktivedic.  But the ability of the Indian civilization to observe and to make new trends a part of it posed a serious challenge to the church and mission—till today.  The right wing Hindus warn against the disappearance of the Indian civilization, pointing out to the destination of Roman, Greek, European and several Latin American civilizations because of the church expansion and mission.⁴⁶  Whereas, the fact is the way our civilization accommodates new things in it, can enrich them by adding new cultural, religious, philosophical and social forms.  This is what incarnation will do with the gospel too, provided we learn the process in its proper context.

Hindu accommodation:

Hinduism never expects any of its faith to compromise the faith for the sake of survival within its fold.  Not allowing it to be defined by any one category (like culture, social, religious etc.), Hinduism allows peaceful co-existence of all sampradayas, even allowing healthy debate among the sects about the nature of their faith.  It never says no even to the ‘conversion’ of faiths, not communities, provided if it is understood by the convert and presented by the propagator.  But in the name of adaptation and adaptation (or contextualization) when a sect begins to compromise in its basic principles, then the same Hinduism never comes to its rescue, by allowing such a weak faith to face its own destination by its own process of syncretism and compromise. 

Not Christianization:

So instead of Christianizing Hindu terms, forms, symbols, rituals, philosophies, etc. the church can allow their members to incarnate the gospel within Hindu communities to celebrate its uniqueness.  For example, most of the Hindu festivals can be celebrated by the bhaktas of the Lord keeping their faith in the Lord, as those festivals have several stories to celebrate them.  For example, Diwali is celebrated to welcome Rama back from exile or to remember Narakasura’s death at the hand of Krishna.  Pongal or Sankaranti marks the beginning of the New Year, or celebrating the harvest can be a harvest festival within the church.  No Hindu would object even if the Christian celebrates them worshiping their own god.  So without denying its historical development, the Church doesn’t need to compromise its faith to be accommodated within the Indian civilization.  As Indian civilization (even if it is only a Hindu civilization) allows the legitimate right of every faith, it has room for the gospel too.  But without understanding this nature of our civilization, if the church tries to Christianize Hinduism, it will fail. Not only in India, but wherever the church has attempted to Christianize any civilization (religious, cultural, social etc.), it failed.  Such attempts, instead of Christianizing the pagan civilization, resulted in paganizing the Christianity, as we can see in most of the Western countries today.⁴⁷

Two extremes:

This lack of understanding the nature of the Indian civilization on the one hand and the nature of the gospel that can be incarnated within any worldview will make the church fall between the two extremes of the fanatic missionary approach of Christianization of a culture on the one hand and diluting the gospel by liberalizing (secularizing) it on the other.⁴⁸ However, the Christians love to shout the slogan—‘within….years India will become predominantly a Christian country’. Not every Indian (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh etc.) is going to follow the Lord.  This is not to accept the failure of the gospel, or lack of faith—but a fact, and we need to accept it and work based on it.  Therefore, the contextualization process is not a process of preparation for evangelization.  Considering the nature of the Indian church, people like me are not promoting contextualization even to change the westernized Indian church.  But to help and encourage every new bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath from Hindu community (or any other community), not to give up their gift from god in Indian civilization, we insist on incarnation.  This process is not even to appease Hindu fundamentalists or to accommodate the liberals’ view that finally every faith is the same.  It is our birthright to be a Hindu and to be a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.  Contextualization, if rightly implemented as an incarnation process of the gospel, will help us to live as one without going to any extreme end of becoming a westernized Christian or syncretistic Hindu follower of Jesus.

Hierarchy hindrance:

Unless the church hierarchy changes its view, all of the attempts by the church and missions in contextualization (or Christianization) will continue to remain a top to down process ending only as a means to the end.  If the church, in the name of guarding the faith of the converts or the orthodoxy of its particular tradition, holds the final authority⁴⁹ in this matter, every sincere attempt by the natives will be questioned, doubted and challenged resulting in going back to its old method of proselytizing.  But the only way the church can learn is to listen to those who attempt the incarnation of the gospel in their respective cultures.  In the end, it will be the church that loses if it brushes aside such attempts as mere ‘heresy’ in the name of upholding church orthodoxy and to protect the church authority.  But, ‘by one knowledgeable estimate, at least half of the early church controversies labeled “heresies” by the “Orthodox” ought rather to be seen as valid cultural adaptations (like those of Jesus and Paul)’.⁵⁰

Indigenous church:

Thus, the contextualization process will not only help the church as a whole by the rich contribution of various cultures to make the body of the Lord Muktinath universal in nature but also to form an indigenous church.  Only an indigenous church can reflect the universal nature of the gospel.⁵¹  This will help the natives to ‘feel that their church is an original work within their own culture.  A dynamically equivalent church, then is’⁵²:

A group of believers who live out their life, including their socialized Christian activity, in the patterns of the local society, and for whom any transformation of that society comes out of their felt needs under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures (Smalley, William A. “Cultural Implications of an Indigenous Church,” Practical Anthropology 5:61-65. 1958:55).⁵³

Early Indian endeavors:

Previously, incarnation began on a small level, but it was not carried on by the church in India.  However, if those early endeavors had been encouraged and continued, the Indian church might tell a different story altogether today.  For example, Dr. Savarirayan of Kristukula Ashram of Tirupathu (Tamilnadu) says that as early as the 1860s even his father wrote about criticizing the Western forms of music being used in the churches, which never appealed to the Indians who love (classic) music.⁵⁴  He further shares, ‘However the foreign missionaries spent money to import their musical instruments to teach their music to our people, but those tunes will never impress our people.  It may give some satisfaction because of habit to us.’⁵⁵

In the same vain, after giving the meaning for OM, he says that it could be used for the word Logos in John. 1:1 and also for Exodus. 3:14 (I Am who I Am).  He also says that using ‘OM Shanti! Shanti! Shanti!’ is equal to worshiping God with the words ‘Holy, Holy Holy’.⁵⁶   He also points out how Vedanayagam Sastri and Rev. Samuel used the word OM only in this sense in their (Tamil) songs.  He also talks about a ‘Hindu Christian’ church in Prakasapuram founded by one Sattampallai.⁵⁷

Asian contribution:

Though the church needs to protect the muktivedic orthodoxy in theology, the contextualization process can help it to understand the Muktiveda in a new perspective which might correct some of its wrong perceptions in the past.  For example, the Greek and Western cultures have influenced theology for a long time.  However, the muktivedic worldview is based more on the Eastern worldview, particularly the Asian culture. Though the church brought the gospel to the Asian countries through its various captivities of the past, the Asian cultures were never allowed to contribute to the understanding of the Muktiveda.⁵⁸  Now, contextualization can correct this record by giving a new perception for various theologies.  I have already spoken about the need of an Indian muktivedic theology even to complete the muktivedic theology to enrich the entire universal church, and I believe that contextualization has already begun that process in India.

As noted above, contextualization can introduce new values to the church as it encounters new cultures.  Particularly in India, one of the ways that the church can become enriched is to recognize the vocation of a samnyasa order within it.  Though celibacy is not a new concept to the church, it is different from the samnyasa order.  As the celibacy order functioned within the church administration and authority, the samnyasa order, can introduce new kinds of roles in the believing community of bhaktas of the Lord (in the church).  Highlighting this point Klostermaier says:

…In our time of overdeveloped propaganda (even in religious matters), of mass-rallies and money-actions, of success and business mentality, a Christian samnyasa may be a corrective for the whole church in order not to forget that ultimately only one thing matters, God.  We have identified Christian charity too much with well-organized social work, Christian faith with a certain philosophy, and Christian hope with belief in progress.  We must learn again to love God, to hope in God, to believe in God, as He is.  The monk does attempt this.  He tries to surrender to God, to forget himself, fully aware that he is not perfect and not better than other people.  That is not his problem.  India’s way to God leads through Hinduism and the custodian’s of Hinduism are the samnyasis.  Christian samnyasa is a risk, for the individual and for the Church.  It demands faith and hope and love in an ultimate, radical sense…. A Christian samnyasi would bring forth new flowers on the old trees of Hinduism and the Church.  It would prove that Christ has come to fulfill and not to destroy.  It would save samnyasa itself and with it much of India.  Exactly because Christianity will not be completely free to take or not to take up samnyasa….( pp.151-2)—it will be important for the Indian Christians not only to imitate certain forms of Hindu culture, to steal it as it were, with a bad conscience, but to understand what they are doing and to do it for the right (‘Christian’) reasons.(ibid. p. 249).⁵⁹

Mission:

As much as the gospel is a universal message, it needs to be communicated within the worldview of every culture.  This is done by god, our Lord, the prophets and the apostles.  Every muktivedic record is bound by the culture of not only the Jews in general but by the cultural settings of the author who recorded them.  The main work of any servant of the Lord is to convey the message of the gospel that will be relevant to the people group in their own culture setting. For example Sevanand, to communicate to the outsiders used the ‘table of the Lord’, as per the custom at Corinth, where ‘religious associations were … eat a meal whose meat had been offered to their patron deity’.⁶⁰ 

The apostles like Sevanand began to communicate the message and this has been carried on at various levels by the church throughout its history—both positively and negatively.  

A case study:

Robertde Nobili’s attempt to contextualize is an apt case for us to learn both his success and failures, deception and sincerity in the history of Indian church.  He (along with Antonio Vico) worked hard for contextualization on every level.  He dressed like a Hindu samnyasi, applied tilak, wore a thread, observed ‘Brahminical purity and pollution rules’,⁶¹  ‘proposed rewriting and re-translating the Christian Tamil catechism by eliminating Portuguese and Latin words,’⁶² and allowed his converts to celebrate local festivals (like Pongal). He avoided confrontation with his Hindu dialogue partners, but introduced muktivedic doctrine in a subtle manner.⁶³  However, his attempts were opposed by his colleague and church authorities.  No matter how sincere he was in all of his attempts, they were still only a means to the end of converting (high caste) Hindus to the Catholic faith.⁶⁴

The lesson that one can learn from de Nobili’s attempts is that as long as  contextualization is done as an agenda of a mission it will fail once the mission disappears.  This is a historic fact of de Nobilie’s Madurai Mission.  When it was tried within the hierarchical set up of the church, looking at the church authority for approval, which could not understand the culture setting of such an experiment, it failed.⁶⁵  Above all, the new converts, were never allowed to think and initiate any contextual process.  Most of the contextualization was imposed on them from top and in few cases which they try to initiate first need to make sense to their mentors and approved by their church hierarchy.  One question which always threatened the Missionaries is ‘where to draw the line and how far one can go (in case of missionaries) or allow to go (for the converts)’ to decide which one is muktivedic and which one is not.  But they never thought ‘who to draw the line and how far one has to come out from one’s social, cultural and even religious worldview to become a bhakta of the Lord’?  Above all the converts were pragmatic in their approach, keeping their earthly needs in mind rather than catching the vision of their missionary mentor.

Where to draw the line:

And To the question ‘how far we have to go’ my answer is: ‘you need to go to the extent of losing your faith.  Then alone you will understand the problem of the converts’.  Because when the gospel is shared the minimum thing required is that a Hindu should not only confess her faith in Muktinath but also to give up her faith in her other gods.  However evangelicals are ready to go any extent to reach her, yet they expect her to come where they are. And to come to their place she needs to give up so many things.  And in order to understand all her struggles, they should go to the extent of losing their faith (as they expect a Hindu convert to do) to understand all her struggles. Or to understand this the counter question should be ‘how far they (converts/bhaktas) should come out’ from their community, culture, tradition etc. to follow the Lord? (See Appendix ‘How far to come out’?)

So to the question: ‘Where to draw the line and how far one should go’ we need to ask the counter question ‘who will draw the line’ both for themselves and others.  All these years in the name of protecting the purity of doctrine it is the church and mission draw the line to every convert.  Here the purity of the doctrine is not exclusively (minimum) muktivedic doctrines but their own respective denominational doctrines, their own traditions, views, administration etc. (See Appendix at the end of this chapter ‘Where to draw the line’?).

Not an ideology:

As I have already said, contextualization is more a process by the outsider to communicate their message to the natives in their terms, forms, symbols and culture.  However, in the name of contextualization what is imposed is ‘a particular ideal’,⁶⁶ which several times absolutizes the forms for the benefit of the outsider.    About this Kraft says:

There are, then, such things as principles, functions, and meanings that are constant.  The expression of these, however, takes place through relative cultural forms…. We suffer from the tendency to absolutize the forms in terms of which important meanings have come to us, and to seek, as the Pharisees did, to impose these forms on others for our benefit rather than theirs.  Though there are absolutes, universals, and constants, it is extremely important to distinguish them from the relative forms in which they must be packaged.⁶⁷

Need of commitment:

Contextualization demands involvement of the missionaries in the cross-culture worldview and not to isolate themselves from it. They even have the need to go to the extent of losing their very identity as an outsider.  Whereas, the tragedy on the mission field has been that instead of identifying with the culture of the people, they have encouraged the new believers to distance themselves away from their own culture.  Furthermore, their maturity in faith was measured according to the distance they moved away.  However this giving up of culture is impossible both for an outsider and a native.  As culture is a part of us, neither an outsider not a native can completely give up all that has shaped them.  Even those who try to give up their cultural roots for whatever reasons, can never completely accomplish it because it remains a part of them and continues to influence them on a conscious or subconscious level. [See my paper ‘Hit and Run Evangelism’ in my blog].

Not mere theory:

The next important aspect in contextualization is to remember that god’s revelation is more in action.  However, the recorded message is important for reflecting and making it relevant to the contemporary need.  A better way to communicate that revelation is again through some outward forms rather than presenting some theoretical documents in doctrinal statements.  In the words of Kraft: 

The message of a saving faith relationship centered around covenant, tradition, and tribe expressed ceremonially looks very different to us from that same message centered around grace and freedom interpreted philosophically.  Yet in many ways tradition (“law”), tribe, and ceremony in Hebrew culture were the functional equivalents of grace, freedom, and philosophizing in Greek culture.  The latter are not necessarily superior ways of expressing the Gospel, just different culturally.⁶⁸

In certain cultures in India, even though the philosophy holds an elitist status, ceremonies and rituals have more of the final say in the religious and spiritual areas.  Having such rich cultural expression, creating ceremonies and rituals based on Indian tradition will enable the contextualization process to be more effective.⁶⁹ (See Chapter Use of Symbols)

Not in isolation

Asian need/context:

Contextualization is not limited to terms, forms and symbols along with theologizing using indigenous terms but it is also related to the social aspect of life.  Particularly in South Asian countries where family relationships and responsibilities are a part of ethics, disturbing the natural relationship in the name of conversion makes the very gospel look immoral.  In countries like China and India, filial piety is even related to national identity, as Chuck Lowe says, ‘…in Confucian ethics and in Chinese culture as a whole, filial piety is indisputably the core ethical value, and is expressed toward deceased ancestors no less than toward living parents and grandparents.  To neglect the veneration of ancestors is to be unfilial; to be unfilial is to be immoral and un-Chinese.’⁷⁰

In Indian context this is termed as ‘adharma’ which is more serious than committing sin.(See the chapter ‘Morality’ on this point).

All social ethics have both good and bad aspects.  But people living within those ethical values adjust and address those evils and disadvantages through some mechanism which is part of their system.  However unacceptable to others, judging, condemning and even attempting to change them in the name of conversion and the gospel will close the door among the natives.  Sensing this, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1659 from Vatican proclaims:

Do not try to persuade the Chinese to change their rites, their customs, their ways, as long as these are not openly opposed to religion and good morals.  What would be sillier than to import France, Spain, Italy, or any other country of Europe into China?  Don’t import these, but the faith.  The faith does not reject or crush the rites and customs of any race, as long as these are not evil.  Rather, it wants to preserve them.

Generally speaking, men prize and love their own ways, and especially their own nations, more than others.  That is the way they are built.  There is no more effective cause of hatred and estrangement than to change a country’s customs, especially those people have been used to from time immemorial.  This is particularly true if, in place of the customs that have (p.55) been suppressed, you substitute the practices of your own country.  Do not disdain Chinese ways because they are different from European ways.  Rather, do everything you can to get used to them.

Admire and praise what is deserving of praise.  What is not praiseworthy need not be heralded with flattery.  The prudent thing would be either to withhold judgment, or at least not to condemn hastily and rashly.  What is evidently evil should be removed more by signs of disapproval than by words.  Eliminate evils gradually, seizing the opportunity when minds are ready to receive the truth.⁷¹

The tension between the filial loyalties, social identity and faith commitment based on the muktivedic demand is not an easy thing to be resolved either by the outsiders or exclusively by the natives.  While the outsiders’ objective suggestions need to be accepted, the local sensitivity needs to be respected.  However, faith demands a personal commitment, as all kinds of filial relationships are also a gift from god, He never expects a believer to damage that relationship in a violent way.

Not a pattern but principle:

In the beginning of this chapter, I said that though I use the word ‘contextualization’ and ‘incarnation’ alternatively, there is a subtle difference between them.  Most of the time, in the name of contextualization, the old methods, patterns, forms, symbols, terms and expressions were reintroduced according to the need of the local context.  This process is termed “functional substitute”.  However, such endeavor, in which the same old things were slightly altered to fit in to the local context, restricted the natives to create new functional substitutes from their own culture with inner freedom.  One reason could be that if the natives were allowed to do things based on their choice, they might go to the other extreme and compromise the gospel.  Such fear shows the insecurity of the missionaries and lack of faith in the natives.  In the name of protecting the faith of the natives and also the muktivedic orthodoxy, the same old patterns were repeated again.  Any pattern, even that from the Muktiveda should not be repeated, no matter they are successful in some places and times.  Even in the name of contextualization, a local version of old patterns will cause the principle become lost. Thankfully, the Muktiveda never promotes patterns but only principles.  So, unless contextualization becomes an incarnation process initiated by the natives, both the muktivedic principle and the past, old (even successful) patterns will get lost.

Thus, learning from the Muktiveda, church and mission history, allowing the natives to incarnate the muktivedic principles to grow in faith and be a witness in every community alone is the need of the hour.  When the church and mission realize this, a true Living Dialogue can take place all over the world, irrespective of the diversity in human cultural and social identity.

Notes

1 Eric Sharp., The Riddle of Sadhu Sundar Singh. New Delhi, Intercultural Publications. (Publisher and Year?); Julius J. Lipner, Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya, the Life and Thought of a Revolutionary, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999; H. L. Richard (ed.), R.C. Das; Evangelical Prophet for Contextual Christianity, with an Introductory Essay,  Delhi, ISPCK, 1995? H. L. Richard, Christ bhakti, Bangalore, ATC, 1991?

2 ‘Once Advaita was established by exponents of neo-Hinduism and Western Orientalists alike as the connecting theological thread that united Hinduism into a single religious tradition, a great deal of popular authority has become invested in the Sankaracarya sampradaayas in modern India.  This cultural power is not so much because modern Hindus see themselves as adherents of the advaita position, but rather because, even at a popular level, Hindus have been educated to believe that Sankara was a central figure in their cultural and intellectual history.  Thus, Advaita has gained a significant degree of generalized cultural power in modern India as an iconic representation of Hindu religion and culture without necessarily being able to depend upon widespread adoption of or adherence to its fundamental belief system or traditions by Hindus.’— Richard King, Orientalism and Religion, Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘The Mystic East,’ New Delhi, Oxford, 1999, pp.129-30

This importance even this name ‘Sankaracarya’ can be understood by the fact that now a days so many samnyasis claim this title and began to establish their own ‘Sankara Mutt’ to claim this authority within Hindu fold insisting a continuation the tradition of Adi Sankara also denouncing the same claim by other samnyasis.

3 See on this point in ‘Canon’ and notes 22 and 23

4 The entire chapter ‘Non-translatable Sanskrit versus Digestion’ (pp.220-306) by Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to  Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011 demonstrates the complication in such endeavor.

5 Just one example is enough to highlight the point from Kraft:

Thus, likewise, was ekklesia transformed from meaning simply “the lawful assembly of a Greek city state, comprised of those with full citizenship rights” (Tippett, Alan R. “The Integrating Gospel.”  Unpublished manuscript.  Pasadena, Calif.: School of World Mission, Fuller Theological Seminary. 1958:12) customarily “summoned and called together by the herald” (Schmidt, Karl Ludwig, Ekklesia Kittle (ed.), Bromiley (trans. And ed.) 1932-1967, vol. III, pp. 501-36. 1965:513), into the distinctive designation for the church of Christ in its local sense (I Cor. 1:2), in regard to the Church Universal (1 Cor. 10:32), and, later, in reference to “one of the household Churches (1 Cor. 16:19) which were springing up throughout the Greco-Roman world” (Tippett, op. cit. 1958:14).  The same type of transformation took place for term after term, concept after concept in Greek as a result of the birth and development of Christianity and the commitment of considerable numbers of Greek-speaking people to it.—Kraft, p.357.  Cf. pp. 356-57 for the transformation of meaning of other words.

6 See notes 23 in chapter on ‘Canon’: ‘When Ramanuja sat to write commentary on Brahmasuutra… In such a bhakti all are not qualified.’—Dr. K.N. Misra, in Bhakti a contemporary discussion, pp. 204-05 .  Regarding Ramanuja as reformer and the champion for the upliftment of Shudras note what  shares:

…Ramanuja is said to have shouted out the Dvaya mantra, exclusively meant for brahmanas, from the top of the temple tower at Tirukottiyur so that everyone, irrespective of caste status, could hear, learn, and recite it.28  Though censured by the Srivaisnava brahmana community, which included his own guru, Ramanuja was undeterred.29  This account, along with such other narratives accepted as historical reality, has been documented as a radical step taken by Ramanuja, who the writings have felt deserve to be upheld as a ‘social reformer’—a point that is overstressed considering that this narrative was not so dramatic as the modern representations would like us to believe. Interestingly, in two of the hagiographies, viz., the Divyasuricaritam, which has two long chapters on Ramanuja, and the Yatiraja Vaibhavam, which deals exclusively with Ramanuja’s life, it is not the Dvaya mantra, but the Carama sloka that Ramanuja learnt from his guru and revealed to everybody. Further, the stotras dedicated to him and the Ramanuja Nurrandadi {Nurratndadi?}, a hymnal composition that (p.15) forms a part of the Nalayira Divya Prabandham, do not mention this famous incident.

               Therefore, it becomes crucial to understand the ways Ramanuja has been received in modern times.  Clearly, the variations in the hagiographies have been ignored and a fixed image of Ramanuja as a social reformer has been presented. Such an orientation can be traced back to the discursive domain of nineteenth-century India in which the discussions on social reforms influenced by the nationalist perspective was a response to the perceptions of religion, in this case, what came to be regarded as Hinduism….— Ranjeeta Dutta, From Hagiographies to Biographies: Ramanuja in Tradition and History, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 15-16

28. Garuda Vahana Pandita.  Divyasuricaritam. (trans. From Hindi by Pandita madhavacharya) Sampathakumaracharya and Venkatachari (eds).  1978.  Bombay: Ananthacharya Research Institute,Chapter 18, sloka 2; The Yatirajavaibhavam of Andhrapurna (Life of Ramanuja) in The Indian Antiquary, A Journal of Oriental Research (1909 [1985])(, Vol. XXXVII, Sir Richard Carnac Temple (ed.), 1872-1933, Delhi: Swati Publication, sloka 58.

29 Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar.  Arayirappati Guruparamparaprabhavam.  Tiru Krishnaswami Ayyangar (ed.), (1968), pp. 192-8; Muayirappati Guruparamparaprabhavam (Vatakalai) of Tritiya Brahmatantrasvatantra Parkala Svami,  Chennai: Lifco, 1968, pp. 95-6.

7 ‘While the Koran attempts to fix for all time the behavior of Muslims, the Bible clearly establishes the principle of relative relativism, which permits growth, adaptation, and freedom, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.’–(Nida, Eugene A.1954. Customs and Cultures.  New York: Harper & Row (reprinted 1975 by Wm. Carey Library, South Pasadena, Calif.) p.52), quoted in Kraft, p. 128  [Emphasis added by Kraft]

8 Dr. K.N. Misra, in Prof. Dayakrishna, op. cit. p. 200. 

9 ‘…Sankra admits three levels of Reality, and not three degrees.  At the transcendent Paramarthika level, Brahman alone is (p.119) real.  In the practical day-to-day Vyavaharika level the world and the jives (souls) and Isvara are all real.  The Pratibhasika stage is the dream world.  Most criticisms of Advaita ignore the differences in standpoints and confuse the issues and describe Sankara’s Advaita as illusionism (maya-vada).’ — P. Nagaraja Rao, Essentials of Hinduism, Mumbai, Sudakshina Trust, 1978, pp.119-20

10 ‘…We should bear in mind also that there were a variety of non-dualistic philosophies within ancient India ranging from the linguistic non-dualism (sabdaadvaita) of the grammarian Bhartrhari, the non-dualistic philosophy of the Recognition (pratyabhijnaa) school of Saivism in Kashmir and the devotional non-dualism of the Bhagavata Purana, though these are often forgotten in the rush to pay homage to Sankara.’— Richard King, Indian Philosophy, op. cit. p.55 Auvai S. Duraiswami Pillai, in his commentary (in Tamil) on Arutpa by Ramalina Adigalar, mentions, Parakevaladvaita (of Sankara); Parasivadvaita (of Nilakanda); Parama Visistadvaita (of Ramanuja) and Saiva Sidhanta Sudadvaita.—Tiruvarutpa, Annamalai University, 1984, Reprint by Sudda Sanmarga Nilayam, Vadalur (Tamilnadu), 2004, Vol. IV, p.270

11 See Thomas McEvilley, The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass,  (2002) 2008

12 ‘…He [Sankara] does not accept the entire Vedas as authoritative and as dealing with spiritual truths…According to Sankara the Upanishads embody the spiritual truths and deal with Brahman.  Authority is not claimed for all the statements in the Upanishads; only the purportful scriptures disclose the import.  It is reasoning that has to determine which statement is meaningful.— P. Nagaraja Rao, op. cit. pp.111-12

13   S.N. Dasgupta, HINDU MYSTICISM, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (1927), 1992, pp.53-54

14  Philip Jenkins. Jesus Wars. How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years. (New York, Harper One. 2010) will give a graphic picture about this.  See notes 33in  chapter on ‘Canon’.

15 Deuteronomy. 32:8. Most High (Elyon).  In the Old Testament, the term Elyon is usually used as an epithet for Yahweh (see comments on Gen 14:17-24).  There is no convincing evidence thus far of Elyon as the name of a deity in the ancient Near East, but it is fairly common as an epithet for various Gods, particularly El and Baal, the principal Gods in the Canaanite pantheon.— The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas,  Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, p.205.  Also see p. 604  See more on this in the Appendix to this chapter.

16 Jeremiah. 34:18:‘In ancient times, the parties solemnized a covenant by walking down an aisle flanked by the pieces of slaughtered animals.  The practice signified a self-valedictory oath: “May it be so done to me if I do not keep my oath and pledge”.—Kenneth Barker (ed.), NIV Study Bible, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985, p.29.  And, ‘Ancient Near Eastern parallels from the Old Babylonian Mari letters and the eight-century Aramaic text of the Sefire Treaty between Abban and Yarimlim both describe cutting an animal in two.  The symbolic aspect of this type of sacrifice is to provide a graphic picture of what would happen to the covenant-breaker.  When the landowners of Judah took back their debt slaves after the Egyptian invasion had temporarily lifted the siege of Jerusalem, they broke their solemn oath to Yahweh and laid themselves open to horrendous punishment.—ibid. p.668

17  Several pieces of Egyptian and Mesopotamian wisdom literature contain parallels (linguistic, stylistic and content) with the book of Proverbs [for e.g. 1:12; 6:16-19; 6:23-29; 7:24-27; 16:8; 21:9; 21:17-24:22; 22:22; 23:10; 31:27-31]. —ibid. p. 560. 

18 …astika and nastika … These Sanskrit terms have been translated variously, and the arbitrariness of these translations is an indication of how unsophisticated Indologists have been on heresiological matters in general.  The pair of terms does not mean “theist” and “atheist,” although some have translated them this way, perhaps under the influence of the modern Hindi words astik and nastik… The most common translations of astika and nastika are “orthodox” and “heterodox.”  Although this is an improvement, use of these two terms transposes Indian discourses of the Other into a Christian heresiological context that inevitably obscures as much as it elucidates.  Because of the different heresiological presuppositions in Indian doxography and in Christian heresiography, it is best to avoid as much as possible such terms drawn from Christian traditions.— Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History ,  Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 166

19  Kraft gives an interest account of wrong communication on borrowed terms for God in Cameroun:

               Thus, at least for Christians of the Kaka and Bulu tribes of southern Cameroun, the indigenous term chosen to translate the word “God” is undergoing radical transformation.  The term Ndjambie referred indigenously to an impersonal, mythical cosmic spider.  It is, however, being invested with meaning-transforming denotations and connotations because of its adoption by the Christian church as the designation of the Christian God (see Reyburn, William D. “The Transformation of God and the Conversion of Man,” Practical Anthropology 4:185-94. 1957).  This term was chosen, according to Reyburn, because “there is no better native term … and a foreign word would be lacking entirely in the few equivalences which do exist” (ibid.:192).  Some translators in an attempt to avoid syncretism, have (according to Nida) employed a borrowed term for “God” on the assumption “that the native people will automatically come to understand by the borrowed word … exactly what we understand by the same term” (Nida, Eugene A. Bible Translating.  New York: American Bible Society.1947:205).  This approach is not usually successful, however, since “in almost every case the native will immediately try to equate this new (p.357) name of God with one of the gods of his own religious system” (ibid.).  The result is usually some sort of understanding like that of the Aztecs who equate Dios with the sun, the Virgin Mary with the moon, and consider Jesus the offspring of the two.  “Before the translator realizes it, instead of being able to fill an empty word with the proper meaning, he has a name which has already been given a content from the pagan religion” (ibid.).—Kraft, op. cit. pp.357-58

20  ‘…Biblical languages, like all others, show great strengths in certain areas and great liabilities in other areas.  Furthermore, as is true of all languages, the Greek and Hebrew vocabulary, idiom, and grammar that we see employed in the Bible participate fully in and have their intended meaning only in terms of their interaction with the culture in which these languages were used.  The authors did not invent unknown words or use them in unknown ways except as anyone is allowed by his or her culture to innovate on occasion to convey new insight….’—Kraft, ibid. p.274

21 Some who agrees with me on many things, yet find it difficult for the words which I use ‘Muktinath for Jesus; Muktiveda for Bible, Purva Veda for Old Testament, Uttara Veda for New Testament.  Similarly slowly I am working to give Indian (Tamil) equivalent for the names in Muktiveda like Sevanand for Pual (I use ‘Siru Thondan in Tamil), Adimata for Eve, Manu for Adam, Arulanandan for John, Dev Mitra for David etc.

22  See notes 2 and also Kraft for the linguistic transformation of the terms ‘ekklesia’ from ‘the lawful assembly of a Greek city state’ to Church later (p.357) and for ‘agapao’ whose “etymology is uncertain, and its meaning weak and variable,” into the distinctively word of ‘love’ (p.356) and about the transformation of the word Yahewh in Greek as ‘kurios’ to ‘despotes’ (356-57).

23 ‘However, in the centuries since 300 AD, the word “Christian” has been long associated with burning people at the stake, torturing heretics, the crusades, Western countries exploiting conquered colonial peoples, selling indulgences, wars between Catholics and Protestants, and praying to Mary and other saints.

               When we ministered in Beirut, Lebanon, we discovered that it was the “Christians” (Maronites) who were the “Mafia”.  They ran the casinos, brothels, and drug trade, often murdering people who opposed them.  Thus, the true followers of the Lord Jesus were forced to create a different identity—“renewed ones”.  The word “Christian” had been ruined.  In Turkey, “the Christians” are either the Westerners (including the Crusaders) or worse, the Greeks and Armenians who have been their enemies for centuries.  Is it reasonable or wise, then, to ask Turks who “turn to the Lord Jesus” to call themselves “Christians”?  Similar obstacles exist (p.164) in India, Indonesia, and even in Africa where the hated neighbouring tribe may be “Christians”.

               Note that, although in verse 26 Luke mentions that the disciples were called “ Christians”, in verse 29, he reverts to calling them “disciples”.  “Disciples” implies we are people who are pro-active in our lifestyles, following the orders of a certain person.  We are followers of the Christ, not representatives of “Christendom”.’ — Greg Livingstone, The Book of Acts: A Commentary/Workbook for Christian Workers doing Pioneer Work, Secundrabad, OM Books, 2005, pp. 164-65

24 Kraft, op. cit., p.281

25 Every yajna comprises three things: a devata (god) to whom the yajna is performed; the drivya (material(s)) to be offered in the yajna and a tyagi one who (here jajamana, the sacrificer) who offers.  Here god Herself became that sacrificer, and offered Her own body (material, through incarnation) to meet Her own requirement of a propitiation.  God Herself is the devata, and drivya and tyagi.  Of course this is to be qualified with various interpretations. Of course the priest to both to chant mantras and to perform the yajna is also very important in a typical vedic sacrifice.  However I use only the concept and not the details. See also Klostermaier, 1984, p. 42 [See the appendix at the end of this chapter].

26 Gerald R. McDermott, Can Evangelicals Learn From World Religions: Jesus, revelation & Religious Traditions, Illinois, Inter Varsity Press, 2000, pp. 148-49. 

27 Kraft, p.10

28 Kraft, p. 10.  italics original

29 ‘Far from being a threat to a Christian perspective (even a conservative one), the development of an understanding of biblical cultural relativism should be regarded as a part of the leading “into all truth” (Jn.16:13), which is one of the important functions of the Holy Spirit today.’—Kraft, p.128

30 Nida, Eugene A.1954. Customs and Cultures.  New York: Harper & Row (reprinted 1975 by Wm. Carey Library, South Pasadena, Calif.) p.52.–quoted by Kraft, p. 128. Emphasis added by author.

31 Kraft, p. 130

32 Nirad C. Chaudhuri, The Continent of CIRCE; An Essay on the Peoples of India, Jaico Publishing House, Mumbai, (1966) Twelfth Jaico Impression:1999, pp. 324-5

33  Klaus K. Klostermaier, Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras, 1986. p. 104

34 ‘In the early theistic traditions of the Bhagavatas or Paancaraatras, who emphasized devotional worship (puja) rather than the Vedic sacrifice (yajna), the image was considered to be one of the five forms of the Lord.  The five are the Supreme form (para), the emanations or powers of the Supreme (vyuuha), the immanence of the Supreme in the heart of the individual and in the heart of the universe (antaryaamin), the incarnations of the Supreme (vibhava), and, finally, the presence of the Supreme Lord in a properly consecrated image (arcaa).  Later, the Sri Vaisnavas used the term arcavataara to refer to the “image-incarnation” of the Lord: the form Visnu graciously takes so that he may be worshiped by his devotees. Indeed, the very theology of the Sri Vaisnava community, as articulated by Ramanuja in the 11^th century, is based on the faith that the Lord is characterized both by his utter Supremacy (paratva) and his gracious Accessibility (saulabhya)’.— Diana L. Eck, Darsan, Seeing the Divine Image in INDIA, Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1996,pp.45-6

35 Richard King, Orientalism and Religion, Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘The Mystic East,’ New Delhi, Oxford, 1999, p. 73  See further pp.73-75 the importance of tradition in to any ‘study and understand cultures other than their own’.

36 Kraft, p.145

37 Olivelle is talking in the context of the Ashrama system ‘…these dharma works were exegetical treatises intent more on preserving and explaining the ancient rules than on merely presenting matters “relevant” to people of the time…’— Patrick Olivelle, The¡ôÞsrama system  The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution  New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.174 (see further p. 244)

Strategies for legitimating the inherited world—strategies in which religious doctrines and institutions play a central role—therefore, are found in every human culture.  These strategies, no doubt, are primarily intended to defend the inherited world, to render it more plausible especially to new generations, and to guard it against novelty and change.  An important outcome of the same strategies, especially those relating to exegesis and hermeneutics, is to create a perception—even if it is an illusory perception—of the immutability of that world.  These strategies and the illusion of immutability they create are as essential for the continuity of human society and culture as are change and innovation.—ibid. p.244

38 J.N.D. Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, Second Edition, 1960; Harper & Row, Pub. New York, p.84

39  Ines G. Zupanov, Disputed Mission: Jesuit Experiments and Brahminical Knowledge in Seventeenth-century India, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999,  pp.99

40 E. Glenny Hinson, Ordinary Saints At First Church, Christian History, Issue 57 (Vol. XVII, No.1), p.20

41 Daniel Johnson Fleming, Christian Symbols, In A World Community, Friendship Press, New York, 1940, p. 26

42 ibid. pp. 33-34. More sweepingly the Catholic Encyclopedia can say:

In the matter of baptisms and washings, of genuflections and other acts of reverence, of lights and sweet-smelling incense, of flowers and white vestures, of unction and the imposing of hands, of sacrifice and the rite of the communion banquet, the church has borrowed without hesitation from the common stock of significant actions known to all periods and to all nations.—ibid. p. 33

43 Balagangadhara, Malhotra, Op. cit.

44 Worshiping Like Pagans? E.Glenn Hinson, Christian History, Issue 37, (vol. X, No.1), p.20.

45  see: Robert Eric Frykenberg: Christians and Missionaries in India, London, RoutledgeCurzon, 2003

46 ‘The Indianisation of Christianity is a serious matter’ (p.4) says Sri Sita Ram Goel, as the mission is ‘casting covetous glance before mounting a marauding expedition.  What causes concern is the future of the Hindu culture once it falls into the hands of the church. The fate of Greek culture after it was taken over by the church is a grim reminder’— Catholic Ashrams Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma, With a preface by Sita Ram Goel,Voice of India, New Delhi, 1988, P. 4 & P. xv. At present Rajiv Malhotra literarily launched a ‘crusade’ against ‘Indianisation’ of Christianity.  Watch his Youtube discussions.

47  It is beyond the scope of this chapter to bring even some important points from the paper ‘Pagan Christianity’.  So I give the entire paper in the Appendix to this chapter.  I don’t know who sent it to me.  But I got it from someone else and hence I cannot document the original source of this paper.

48 ‘…apart from some minor practices (the thali, for instance, instead of the marriage rings), it does not seem likely that the future of Christianity in India can be promoted by an integration of the popular customs of this land.   Rather, what is required is an overall effort to situate Hinduism in relation to, and within, the universal economy of salvation. Christianity, which today tries to disengage itself from its strong links with a particular (namely, Western) culture, cannot intend thus to strip itself in order to reparticularise itself by taking on the features of this or any other traditional culture.  On the contrary, it tends to become ever more universal in relation to the problems of the world of today and of the united mankind of the future’. — Editors R.De Smet and J. Neuner ,Religious Hinduism, Fourth Revised Edition, 1997, Chapter 8. The Religion of the Hindu Village (G.Deleury),pp.146-147.  Also see Nostra aetate, pkromulgated in October 1965: ‘The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.’ —Nostra aetate 2. Quoted in Mario I. Auguilar, Christian Ashrams, Hindu Caves and Sacred Rivers: Christian-Hindu Monastic Dialogue in India 1950-1993, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2016, p. 18.  However see Malhotra’s scatting attack on such attempts by the Church in  Malhotra, op. cit. ‘The Audacity of Difference’, pp. 11-53

49 ‘We cannot innovate without the sanction of the hierarchy, and the Church is very wise in not allowing any individual to tamper with the liturgy.  But the Holy Spirit is present in every Christian heart.  Christians fully aware of their faith must never avoid the problems which christianisation is bound to raise, under the pretext that the hierarchy is there to think them out.  It is the prayerful and submissive initiative of the faithful which alone can give the hierarchy the necessary data for their authoritative decisions.’— De Smet and J Neuner, op. cit., pp.208-209

50 Kraft, p.287

51 ‘The indigenous people of a community think of the Lord as their own, not a foreign Christ: when they do things as unto the Lord meeting the cultural needs around them, worshipping in patterns they understand; when their congregations function in participation in a body, which is structurally indigenous; then you have an indigenous Church (Tippett, Alan R. Verdict Theology in Missionary Theory, 2^nd ed. South Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey (1969 ed. Lincoln, Ill.: Lincoln Christian College,  1973:158)’.—Quoted by Kraft, p. 321

52 Kraft, p. 321

53 Kraft, p. 321

54 Ashram Songbook, Tirupathur, 1961, 8^th impression, p. ii

55 ibid. p. iii

56 See comments for the song 3 ibid

57 ibid. p. 106  The book :Vethanayaga Sasthiriyar Padaippugal-Oru Thiranaivy (A research on the works of Vedanayaga Sasthiriyar) by Dr. Y. Packia Moni, (Nagarcoil, Sudan Press, [1999], 2001)in Tamil will help us to understand the attempts by Vedanayaga Sasthri in contextualization of his bhakti in the Lord in the early part of 19^th century.

58 An Asian, particularly an Indian, can sympathetically identify with the man who said, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’ (Lk.9:59) as it is, like in India too, ‘one of an eldest son’s most basic responsibilities (in both Greek and Jewish cultures) was his father’s burial….’ –Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, Illinois, IVP, 1993, p.68.  Whereas, a Christian from the West would read the hesitation on the part of that man to follow the Lord.

59  Klaus K. Klostermaier, Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras, 1986. pp.151-52 & 249

60           ‘Also notice Paul’s cultural sensitivity regarding his teaching about the Lord’s Supper.  Paul had not forgotten the significance of the Old Testament Passover for understanding Jesus’ mission (I Cor.5:7), but he also understood how outsiders would see the Lord’s Supper in Corinth.  Business guilds, like many religious associations, would meet once a month (often in homes) to eat a meal whose meat had been offered to their patron deity.  To outsiders, there was little difference between the meal of cult associations and the meal of house churches, except that the Christian’s patron God claimed to be the only true God.  Paul readily adapted the language of the outsiders: instead of the “table of Serapis,” the Christians celebrated at the “table of the Lord” (I Cor. 11:20).’–Craig Keener; Subversive Conservative; Christian History, Issue 47 (Vol. XIV, No.3). p. 36

61 Ines G. Zupanov, Disputed Mission: Jesuit Experiments and Brahminical Knowledge in Seventeenth-century India, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999,p. 149

62 ibid. pp.78-79

63 ibid. p.158

64 ‘All a missionary had to do, according to Nobili, was to change the finis (an end, a goal) of a given social custom or cultural expression.  That is what Nobili did, henceforth turning every “pagan” custom into Christian practice’.—ibid. p.219.  And:

Nobili’s case and his missionary experience and method provided a basic blueprint for the new wave of missionary activity to be launched from Rome.  The founders of the Sacra Congregation ‘de Propagands Fide’ saw in Nobili a model of the apostolic worker.  In the first circular announcing the creation of the Congregation (15 January, 1622), Monsignor Francesco Ingoli, its famous Secretary emphasized that the intention was ‘to seek the conversion of infidels along smooth paths (per le vie soavi)’, without violence or through ecclesiastical tribunals, through ‘preaching, teaching and discussion’.  The gentiles were to be ‘attracted’ without noise, ‘in gentle silence’.—ibid. pp. 243

65 ‘The conversion theatre set up and described by Roberto de Nobili and Antonio Vico during the first half of 17^th century in the Madurai mission reveals itself as a model of Jesuit cultural experimentation.  Shrouded in the Indian ascetic cavi (kaavi) dress, and observing Brahmanical purity and pollution rules, from vegetarian diet to avoidance of contact with the impure castes, de Nobili and Vico were involved in a life-long “theatrical” and “dramatic” controversy with other Jesuits, ecclesiastical authorities in Rome and Portuguese colonial officials in Goa, over the method of accommodation.—ibid. p. 149

66 Kraft. Op. cit. P.10

67 ibid. p.96

68 ibid. p.232

69 ‘…And as to the form and order of the service a study of non-Christian practices in India may be undertaken with much profit.’ –— H. L. Richard (ed.), R.C. Das; Evangelical Prophet for Contextual Christianity, with an Introductory Essay,  ISPCK, Year? p.66 p.67

70 Chuck Lowe, Honoring God and Family: A Christian Response to Idol Food in Chinese Popular Religion, Bangalore, Theological Book Trust, 2001, p.2

71 (Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1659; cited in Noll [Ray, 100 Roman Documents concerning the Chinese Rites Controversy (1645-1941). San Franscisco: Ricci Institute for Chinese-Western Cultural History.], ed. 1992: 6-7).—Chuck Lowel, ibid. Endnotes, 30, pp.55-56

Appendix

               Some may say that only the Hebrew name Yahweh can be used for God.  The ancient Hebrews and even the apostle Paul showed no such prejudice.  The name of the One Creator God of the Canaanites was El.  When Abraham was victorious over his enemies in Genesis 14, a Canaanite Priest named Melchizedek, king of Salem, came to meet him.  Genesis 14:19-20 says “And he blessed him (Abraham), and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God (El Elyon-El most high) possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God (El most high), which hath delivered thine enemies into they hand.  And he (Abraham) gave him tithes of (p.24) all.”  Abraham did not say, “Just wait a minute, you heathen priest!  Don’t you dare bless me in the name of your heathen god and claim that my victory was caused by your heathen god, El!”  Abraham instead acknowledged Melchizedek and his God, El, by giving the first recorded tithe to him!  Is it also sacrilegious when the Bible says that Jesus is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, that heathen Canaanite, and of his heathen God, El (Hebrews 7)?

               The word for God, Elohim, mentioned earlier, is the plural form of El.  God Himself confirmed that He was El, Exodus 6:2-3 says, “And God ( Elohim) speak unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord (YAWH): And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai–El Almighty), but by my name Jehovah (YHWH) was I not known to them.”  This scripture says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew God by the name El.  The Hebrew name Elijah means El is Yahweh.  El and his various names were incorporated into the Hebrew language as it was being formed (Abraham spoke chaldee.  Hebrew was formed some time after 1400 B.C.[ Gribetz,J.  The Timetables of Jewish History, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1993,p. 8]).  It is found in the Hebrew words Elohim (El plural), El Elyon (El most high), El Roi (El who sees me), El Shaddai (El Almighty), etc. and in names like Elijah (El is Yahweh), Michael (Who is like El?), Gabriel (Man of El), and the author’s good Jewish name, Daniel (My Judge is El).

               Who was this God, El?  El was the highest God in the Canaanite pantheon.  The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says that “The name ‘El’ is a very ancient Semitic term.  It is also the most widely distributed name among Semitic-speaking peoples for the deity, occurring in some form in every Semitic language except Ethiopic… the term El (p.25) was used in reference to a personal god and not merely as a generic term in the ancient Semitic world.”[ Harris, R; Archer, G. & Waltke, B. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol.I, Chicago: Moody Press, p.42] (emphasis-the author’s)….— Daniel I. Kikawa, Perpetuated in Righteousness, Hawai, Aloha Ke Akua Publishing, 1994, pp.24-26

               However, the knowledge of El, like the creation God of Babylon, experienced much corruption.  El was said in some texts to have created other gods by procreation.  One text even describes El copulating with two women in order to procreate the gods Shahar and Shalem and then a series of other gods![ De Vaux, The Early History of Israel. Trans. Smith, D. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978, p. 281]  Because the knowledge of El was corrupted, should we now throw words like Elohim, El shaddai, Daniel and Michael out of the Bible?  Should we throw YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah) out of the Bible because He said himself that He was El?  Should we throw YHWH out of the Bible because, at one time, YHWH worship was corrupted to the point that the Hebrews worshipped Yahweh, Baal, Tammuz, Ashtoreth, Molech and other gods at the same time? (2 Kings 17:16-17, 1 Kings 11:5-7, Ezekiel 8:14).  In fact, the Hebrews, at one time, worshipped a pantheon of gods in the very temple of YHWH. (2 Kings 23:4).

               It is time that Christians reclaimed [reclaim?] the many beautiful names of the One Creator God in native languages….—ibid. p.26

…Christians should cease representing Jesus as the Son of the foreign God of a foreign people, especially if these foreigners had never shown concern for nor had any involvement in the lives or culture of the natives.  We should instead introduce Jesus as the Son of their creator God….—ibid. p.27

…Paul [in Acts 17:23] then proceeded to quote a poem written by Aratus whose (p.29) poem, Phaenomena, was the most popular and famous poem in Grece after Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey

[Kennedy, The Real Meaning of the Zodiac, p. 15 Shore, ed., Cassell’s Biographical Dictionary, p. 114]. He said, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”… This poem by Aratus which Paul used attributes what he quoted to Zeus!  This poem also speaks of all the signs of the Zodiac!  The Encyclopedia Britannica says, “The opening invocation to Zeus has become famous because it was quoted by Saint Paul.”[ vol. 1, p. 518]  This same Zeus saw women he desired and had sex with them.  He also displayed all of the negative human emotions!  Yet Paul used this poem without fear in order to find common ground to relate to the Athenians….—ibid. p.30

               The Korean Church is a good modern example of the effect of these two diverse methods of evangelism.  The Catholics arrived in Korea first and preached in the name of their “foreign” God.  They received very little response.  In 1884, Protestant missionaries, after researching the Korean Supreme Being, began using the name of the benevolent Creator God, Hananim, in their preaching.  They taught that Jesus Christ was the Son of Hananim and that Hananim had sent Jesus to bring the Koreans into new relationship with Himself.  Thousands of Koreans listened in awe, these missionaries knew so much about their God, Hananim!  The news began to shake Korea.[ Richardson,D. Eternity in Their Hearts, Ventura, CA: Regal, 1981, pp. 62-71]—ibid. p.31

…To speak the word aloha [in Hawai] to someone, then, is to say, “The spirit of the One True God be with you.”  This explains why aloha is used to greet someone and to say farewell also; it is a blessing.  This is the same way the Hebrews used the word, Shalom, which means divine peace.  To greet someone with “Shalom” means, “The Peace of God be with you.”—ibid. p.134

How far one has to come out?

Let us fix some criterion for anyone to become a bhakta of the Lord, irrespective of her cultural, social and religious backgrounds (including for a nominal Christian to become a ‘born again Christian’).  To make it more understandable let us divide those criterion to some section of our life:

Social

Cultural

Sadhanas (disciplines)

Religious

Rituals

Spiritual

Ethical/Moral

Other areas: Hobbies; entertainment; social fellowship; etc.

In all this we should note the difference between ‘muktivedicl’ views from ‘Christian views’.  Because, though most of the Christians views are based on the Muktiveda, not all Christians views are muktivedic.  Most of the so called Christians views snow balled adding various western worldviews where it grew after the gospel spread to European countries.  So we should understand the clear distinction between ‘muktivedic’ from ‘Christian’ views.

To illustrate this point let me take one so called ‘Christian’ ritual of ‘burial’.  I often heard about ‘Christian’ burial as if the Muktiveda talks about it.  In fact the confession in most of the Creeds about the ‘burial’ of our Lord on the third day, according to me is not correct.  Because our Lord was not actually ‘buried’ on the third day.  In fact according to His Jewish custom He was never buried. 

Because Muktinath was never buried the way as the Christians bury their dead these days.  First they embalm the body and cover with cloths and keep in a cave.  After a year or two when the body was complete rotten, then they will collect the bones and put them in a small stone box specially made for this purpose then burry it (actually) keep it in a small chamber specially cutout for this purpose.  In fact Lord’s body was ‘put’ inside the cave after embalmed and not ‘buried’.  I am not a Greek expert and I don’t know what exact word is used in the Uttara Veda when it talks about ‘putting’ His body in the cave.

In fact even this embalming and putting inside a cave (mostly family owned caves) and collecting the bones after a year also might have been borrowed from different culture.  Before the Hebrews moved to Egypt they might have simply buried the body as we read about Abraham and Isaac burring their relatives.  Now translating the word ‘putting’ the body as ‘burial’ and then translating in other languages (Tamil ‘adakkam’) then claiming it as ‘Christian’ burial based on the Muktiveda is not correct.

In fact Muktiveda never talks about the ritual related with ‘birth, marriage and death’ and each community has its own socio-cultural method of performing them.  And try to bring them under one narrow umbrella of ‘Christian rituals’ in the name of ‘muktivedic’ is wrong.

Now let us try to analysis and try to understand the criterion for any one after becoming a bhakta of the Lord:

Social: Now if a Hindu hear the gospel and ready to become a bhakta of the Lord what is Muktiveda’s view about her social life?  Does she need to leave her birth community (severing her relationship with them) and join another sociological Community?  And if the Christians claim that their ‘Christian’ community is purely a spiritual entity and above other communities how many Christians themselves are ready to accept it?  And what Muktiveda talks about this issue?

Cultural: No one can born in a cultural free vacuum.  Even our sociological identity is heavily marked by our particular cultural identity.  Is there any ‘Christian culture’ which a new bhakta needs to follow leaving her cultural background, views and values?  Of course all the aspect in a particular culture cannot be followed once a person becomes the bhakta of the Lord.  At the same time most of the cultural views and values has nothing to with Muktiveda’s value.  There are positive, negative and neutral values.  Now who to decide what is what and draw the line in this area?

Sadhanas: Though atheism is as old as religious faith, yet even an atheist has her own sadhanas to exercise her atheistic faith.  So, if ‘sadhana’ is interpreted and accepted as some kind of ‘discipline’ to focus through a particular (mental, moral, spiritual, ritual and religious) channel, then what kind of ‘sdhana’ could be allowed for a new bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath?

Religious: It will take lot of space and time for us to understand the very concept of ‘religion’—its origin and development.  To have some good understanding (as well as challenge) on this subject one should read ‘Heathen in His blindness’ by Balagangadhara.  Now whether it is true or not we have various ‘religions’ under different names: Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc. to mention only a few.  Though most of the adherents in each religion never bothers to question about their faith as ‘religion’, yet when confronted they might say: ours is not a religion but way of life.  Even if a religion is accepted not as a way of life but related with ‘religious faith’, then what is Christian Religion?  And if Hinduism, even as a ‘Religion’ gives room for one to exercise her faith in Muktinath without leaving the label what is the necessary for one to follow ‘Christian Religion’ because of her bhakti in the Lord?  If syncretism and compromise is the main factor, does Hinduism allow ‘exclusivism’ for one to have faith in her chosen deity, scripture and doctrine? Is ‘pluralism’ a pitfall or strength in Hinduism?  If ‘inclusivism’ add with ‘pluralism’ in Hinduism will swallow the ‘exclusivsim’ of Muktiveda’s claim, then how for the reality of ‘exclusivistic pluralism’ in Christianity in any way provide a stable foundation for one to be a bhakta of the Lord?

Ritual: Though ritual is exclusively related with religion, yet all the rituals are not ‘religious’ however they are given only in the name of religion.  Every religion developed its own religious rituals heavily borrowing from other traditions and assimilating them as part of it in the long run.  So in this area no religion can stand on its own without influencing and influenced by others.  Thankfully Muktiveda never prescribes any set of rituals to be followed uniformly everywhere like that of Islam.  Regarding  the ‘sacraments’ in the Muktiveda, which also differs according to the church (seven for Catholics and two for Protestants), it never prescribes a particular ‘form’ of ritual to celebrate them.  As I often say, Muktiveda never prescribes a ‘pattern’ for us to imitate but ‘principles’ for us to ‘adopt’ and ‘adapt’ according to our need and situation.  Try to impose ‘uniformity’ to avoid confusion and lack of direction (thereby become free for all) will create more ‘division’ damaging the spirit of unity that we should have in the Lord as the members of His body.  Who to decide and how to decide based on which criteria for a new bhakta to follow the Lord?

Spiritual: Thankfully we cannot exercise our faith in the Lord in isolation and no bhakta is an island.  That is why I strongly believe that we cannot celebrate ‘maha–prasad’ in isolation and minimum two bhaktas should be there to celebrate it.  Either we sail together or sing together when it comes to our faith in the Lord.  At the same time, ‘every saint must learn to walk alone with the Lord’.  While we need to carry one another’s burden, we also should learn that ‘each one should carry her own burden’.  Though there is accountability to each other in the body of the Lord, yet finally we are answerable only the Lord for everything we do.  This need not be a contradiction but definitely a complement to strengthen each other.  Hinduism which insists ‘individualism’ in the area of ‘spirituality’ but not in social life can be a best antidote for the modern western concept of ‘individualism’ which unfortunately associated with Christianity.  How to approach this view in our faith in the Lord?

Ethical/Moral: In between created in the ‘image’ of god and redeemed to take part in His divine ‘nature’ is the fall.  The one important debate about fall is whether the ‘image’ in which we were created was lost or just marred.  However I took the position that it was marred and not completely lost. Otherwise we won’t even respond to the gospel.  One important evidences of this fact is also the universal nature of some basic ethics in all human beings.  Like conscience ethics is common to everyone as we were created in His image.

Though I am not an expert to point the difference between ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’, for me the former is the principle (theory) and the latter is the practice.  However these terms can be interchangeable (like ‘when’ and ‘while’) and could mean the same.

Though we all share a common moral conscience because of god’s image in which we were created, yet in application ethics also depends upon the socio-cultural cum religious facts in a society.  Here alone I struggle a lot.  The Muktiveda’s moral idealism based on either/or and the relativistic pluralism of Indian (Hindu) worldview which allows the ethics be adjusted according to the time, place and need.  If it remains only a personal struggle then it is left between me and god. But the way Indian Christians keep the Muktiveda’s moral idealism in theory while adhering to our Indian worldview in practice often confuses every new bhakta and convert.  However, we can struggle with clear understanding by remaining as a Hindu at the same time to uphold Muktiveda’s moral expectation than confused and discouraged by learning from Indian Christians.  For me several of our lapses are more a ‘concession’ than a ‘permission’.

Other areas:

In all these criterion, we should keep one thing in mind that contextualization is not selectively use Hindu worldviews and symbols which are convenient for Christians and reject rest as unmuktivedic.  Of course there are several things in every worldview which are unmuktivedic.  But there is a different between what is unmuktivedic from un-Christian. 

For me a Hindu need not even attempt to contextualize the gospel.  Contextualization is a need for Christians to present the gospel both for them to understand Hindu worldview and also communicate to the Hindus.  But according to me, a Hindu should be allowed to comprehend the gospel as a Hindu and then to understand muktivedic views and values as a Hindu.  In this process she need not contextualize the gospel, but use her own terms, symbols and worldviews both to understand her bhakti and also express it outwardly.  Her entire context will be Hindu and not Christian.

Klostermaier

The present arrangement of the world, so several Vedic hymns tell us (especially the division of castes, the place of the heavenly bodies and the elements), goes bake to the primeval sacrifice of a purusa—to a yajna.²²⁷¹. Yajna become hypostatized; an “it” is the source of being and want something which they do not have. Sacrifice in this sense had always four components; dravya devata, tyaga, and mantra. Sometimes the elements of mantra is emphasized, sometimes that of tyaga. Every desired object has its specified sacrifice: there is a strict cause-effect relationship between a certain kind of yajna and a specified object.— Klaus K. Klostermaier. MYTHOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES OF SALVATION IN THE THEISTIC TRADITIONS OF INDIA, Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984. P. 42

                                             Chapter Twelve

Dialogue

Brain storms:

It is a general custom to begin a book, by discussing the topic of it in the early part of it.  Most of the time, even the first chapter will discuss the meaning, purpose, course of the subject etc.  Or this is done in the introduction or even in the preface.  Nevertheless I would prefer to save it for the last part of the book with a purpose.  Not a writer by profession or even by instinct, what I have attempted throughout the book is some kind of brainstorm. Though I have done my part, this book is not going to end here, but I hope to continue to engage with people in a Living Dialogue on various levels.

Authorities challenged:

The present generation of youngsters is blessed in several ways.  Apart from the technological advantage that they have, many key issues (like sex, caste, corruption etc.), are openly discussed thanks to the contribution of the media, particularly that of TV, Social media, Internet etc.,  In these discussions, many terms forms and symbols are not only interchanged but are also used in their context.  Above all, no one, not even any religious teacher has any more absolute authority to ‘impose’ whatever they want because of their position.  People have also begun to engage those authorities in dialogue because no one wants to just accept another’s view as absolute—as has been the case in the past.

Reading as a part of entertainment:

When I was a young man, books on serious subjects were rarely available for us to read.  In most of the middle class or lower middle class homes, sometimes a weekly magazine in vernacular language was a luxury.  Even those books were read for the sake of entertainment.  Those who had a desire to read about a serious subject had to go to the local library.  Even if we got an opportunity to read an important book, it always remained a monologue with the author sharing their view because rarely we had an opportunity to know the mind and personality of the author other than what they shared through that book.  Furthermore, if we read mere fictional stories, then that opportunity also got lost because the authors imaginary stories seldom reflected the personality of the author.  But the most serious limitation was the opportunity to discuss the book one reads with any like-minded people.  Most of our peer group on the social level rarely provided such an opportunity.

Apart from such general limitations, in our time, most of the writings were more of a stereotyped work.  Of course new endeavors did appear, but they were rarely welcomed.  People in our peer group in most of the middle and lower middle class did extracurricular activities as entertainment.  You cannot blame us because opportunities for entertainment were very limited and costly.  So reading, listening, etc. were generally forms of entertainment rather than forms of education.  Of course, there were several exceptions to this general rule. 

Our limitations:

Therefore, when I read books, mostly fiction and stories that were also related to history and religion, those ideas that I learnt were used within a limited sense.  For example, we were never taught to consider the ‘context’.  When I read books, I never thought of nor was told the importance of considering the ‘context’ to understand the book and subject.  Particularly when we listened to (mostly religious) discourses, even though I noticed, I was never surprised the way the same story, point or illustration was explained in a different way by different people.  As we didn’t have much opportunity to think and discuss, we too never bothered about the seeming contradiction.  I rarely heard or read about it, as contradiction is considered different perspective and not necessarily a deviation from the main subject.  At least in religious matters everything was right and nothing was wrong.  The general trend of our time was: listen to everything and take only those point which are useful and beneficial to you.  So ‘context’ or ‘contradiction’ or any other terms never played an important role.

Media’s role:

Now not only the subject is important, but even the words, terms and forms that are used communicate are also became important now.  You cannot simply say or write something and freely walk away.¹  It really amuses me when the politicians use the word ‘I was wrongly quoted or interpreted’ when the media caught them over some statements or interview.  The recent example is from Sri George Fernandes.  When he told the media that our former P.M. Sri Vajpayjee told him ‘not to touch’ Bofor’s files, the next day he had to say that the PM had said it as a joke.  Thanks to the electronic media, every opinion on any concept is immediately sent back through SMS or e-mail.  Now in 2020, Whatsapp, Face book, Instagram etc. spreads the news within few seconds all over the globe!  In our days, we could not reach the author of a book or article that easily.  But now, no one can escape.  Particularly, the website blogs provide the opportunity for anyone and everyone, to share their view.  Sometimes, this also becomes a problem because so many views are shared a deeper level of thinking and reflection becomes a luxury.  Before you have even finished reading, many hundreds of views have begun to pour in, rarely giving you an opportunity for reflection.  In this scenario, a Living Dialogue might become some kind of ‘intellectual’ entertainment because people have no time to take anything seriously. 

Recently I got an opportunity to read the postings on a website.  Views and counterviews were exchanged with lots of emotions then suddenly, everything stopped as if all were exhausted with their subject and had nothing more to share.  However, I feel that it was not a serious dialogue.  I think most of the people who posted their view had already made up their mind and used that blog to express their view with firm conviction, but they were never engaged in a dialogue.  Next I think that after their intellectual entertainment amused them, they had just returned back to their routine life.  These kinds of people are like those who change the TV channel constantly and never finishing one program completely. They will change their subject for entertainment, but a true dialogue cannot do that.  That is why I now completely stopped reading any group message like Whatsapp etc. as they provide mere ‘intellectual entertainment’ to some but not useful in real life for many.

Therefore, I feel that the present generation has several advantages as well as disadvantages.  In spite of the problems, the way the present technological revolution has developed is a great blessing not in disguise but in the open.  Of course, it depends upon how we use it.  So, when I began to write my ‘living dialogues’, all the modern opportunities posed a serious challenge.  Now having an old mental attitude or mind set and at the same time not knowing how to escape from the present trend in every field in life, people like me are caught between a rock and a hard place.  Like old generation writers, I cannot just write anything that comes into my mind and escape from the readers.  Beginning with book reviews (whether bought or live critics), even getting rates (three, two and one star in web companies like Amazon) anyone can share their view publicly and should be ready to engage in ‘dialogue’ with anyone and anywhere. 

Dialogue becomes a norm:

As I have mentioned above, like the words ‘context’ and ‘contradiction’, I had never heard about the idea of ‘dialogue’.  I can with some conviction say that we mostly obeyed our elders and authorities without questioning much.  But the modern freedom to question everyone, even though it may create conflict, opens the avenue for dialogue.  In the near past, even ‘negotiated’ settlements (with labors etc.) were not dialogues.  Those who had power (men, money or muscle) in the name of negotiation successfully imposed their view.  Because negotiation was to settle the dispute between two parties who were not equal on several grounds, the weaker side sought the help of a third party to intervene.  Unless a sincere and neutral third party intervened, these negotiations also failed.  Even in negotiation, before any settlement, (with or without the help of a third party), lots of dialogue between the two is now the norm.  So unlike in the past, dialogue is now pressed into service in every field—religion, economic, politics, to name only few.   

Opportunity to learn through dialogue:

So dialogue has broken new ground in our human lives. At least for me, dialogue has helped me to come out from stereotypical thinking within the traditional framework.  Where I need to change or rephrase a concept without having any feeling of compromise, dialogue has helped me to do so.  Where negations close the door for further engagement of minds, dialogue keeps the door open.  In those areas where I am not yet convinced, I keep my mind open to receive new insights through dialogue.  At least in the matter related with spirituality, dialogue has liberated people to come out from a kind of mental slavery with tradition and authority.²  This does not mean that all have benefited from dialogue.  But for those who sincerely and seriously search for a truth, concept—you name it by any term, will keep their minds open only through dialogue.  But those who have no time or are lazy in using their minds or live only to survive won’t benefit much from dialogue.  They will be happy to accept instruction in most of the areas of life and do it at their best for the sake of survival.  This I say not to blame these people, but to remind those who have an opportunity to be involved in dialogue should not take it lightly.

In dialogue all are equal

               or

Equality in dialogue

Accordingly, a reflective mind is a pre-requisite for every dialogue.  Next is respect for the others’ view.  However one disagrees or gets irritated both by the view and or the method of presentation, mutual respect must be maintained in a dialogue.  But an important aspect of dialogue is being ready and willing to change one’s view based on the reflection.  This does not mean that dialogue will easily change one’s conviction or will lead to syncretism, whereas obedience to authority and tradition will safeguard the orthodoxy and identity of a group.  On the other hand, like any sincere Truth, dialogue will set people free from the mental slavery.  Also, dialogue will even help those who are happy to remain in their old mindset to engage with others without feeling threatened.  Without having any guilty conscience, they can return back to their old identity and orthodoxy.  In other words, no one partner feels any kind of humiliation and closes the door for further dialogue, which sometimes negotiations can do.  Because in a dialogue both the partners are equal—irrespective of their position and advantage.  Even a learned scholar when involved in dialogue with any layperson needs to treat the latter as her equal.

Even though the term dialogue has been around for a long time, it has now taken on new meaning with the capabilities provided by technology.  A multitude of information is available at one’s fingertips through search option on websites, so the advantages are many.  While technology has made some aspects relatively easy like gathering information, nothing can replace hard work.  One thing that needs to be considered irrespective of the many advantages that humanity accomplished through science is that millions of peoples’ lives are still in a miserable condition.  Not all people have the advantage of reaping the benefit of technology.  There are millions of people struggling just to survive, so in their world, neither dialogue nor negotiations help much.  Struggling for existence decides many things for them.  Therefore, those who have the advantage should now voluntarily engage in dialogue with the deprived people.  The privileged should not sit and wait for the deprived people to come for dialogue.  Of course it is not going to be easy.  However, blaming others and not understanding their disadvantage will make the dialogue a monologue once again—the privileged engaging with the privileged.  The present struggle by some farmers not ready to surrender their land for the Special Economic Zones is the best example.  Who is right and who is wrong is not my point.  The point is to dialogue first before the initial damage is done by the privileged taking the advantage and causing hardship, so that no one wants to listen.  This is true in every field—religion, economic, politics, etc. Dialogue is hard work, but the results bring meaning and sense—giving an avenue for humanity to engage on an equal status, irrespective of the many limitations.  ‘By dealing with contrary views we deepen, correct and refine our views even if they are not substantially changed.’³

What is true between the privileged and deprived could be extended to religion also.  Every man is on the same ground and level when it comes to physical and mental needs.  Mere sophisticated technical terms can never put one above the other.  For example, the common division in religion is the artificial divide between the so-called ‘philosophical’ from the ‘popular’ faith.  Certain practices, which are not acceptable to some are called ‘superstition’, and are branded as ‘popular faith’.  What looks like ‘superstition’ might be very true and even philosophical for those who are practicing them.  In other words, the so-called philosophical thinking and talking might look like intellectual superstitions to those who were branded as popular by the philosopher (see the notes 25). Terming certain practices as ‘superstition’ and ‘blind faith’ may give mental satisfaction to the so-called philosophical thinking people.  Such division among the people is inevitable because no one can live in isolation by the influence of the society.  I too use such a division in my own thinking to make certain points clear to me; however, I resent the use of such terms to divide people into groups.  (See Chapter One, ‘Introduction’ in Understanding Hinduism).  But in dialogue, such an artificial division, however useful in understanding a concept, should/would disappear.

Technical terms help to define:

Our respective worldview is influenced by various (economic, social, cultural, religious etc.) facts in the course of its development.  However critical (even cynical) one may be (like Balagangadhara) about the false, artificial and one-sided development of terms (like religion as he powerfully demonstrates⁴), yet a person (like me or even Gangadhara) could think from where she stands and go back in history to analyze her identity (as a Heathen, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc.).  But this going back in history to understand a particular ‘identity’ (in any field) is not possible without accepting the present terms which names that identity.⁵  In other words, what is the “context” of the term for that identity? For example ‘poverty’ is explained by having wealth, comfort and basic needs that are denied to people (the so called below poverty line) etc.  But such criteria are not applicable to people (Jerawas, Sentinels ) living in remote places like the Andaman Islands (the so-called primitive people by our modern term) to decide ‘poor’ from ‘rich’. We may feel sorry for their ‘plight’, yet they do not even understand it, because they are living (happily or unhappily) according to their condition, which we try to name by our present terms (like ‘poverty’, ‘primitive’, ‘and unhappy’ etc.).⁶ As a result, dialogue is not merely defining and redefining certain technical terms, but it is trying to understand our present identity, need, struggle etc. through those terms.  Therefore, dialogue should help to address the existential need rather than defining certain concepts using some technical terms.

My search:

This is what my ‘Living dialogue’ has done to me.  Though my ‘identity’ was decided by several (historical?) facts, my reading habits questioned many of those facts. How I wish I could just be satisfied and live as one among the ‘Heathen’ of popular Hinduism by simply following certain family traditions and rituals, but my enquiring mind with its many limitations during different eras of my life (as a teen age boy, as an young man, etc.) refused to accept many things as they were.  I often questioned myself, and if possible others about certain views, traditions, opinions and practices.  When I was convinced by the answers, then I accepted them.  But when I was not convinced, I began to search for the answer in my limitation from the people, tradition and scriptures.  Those searches began to influence me.  Particularly the reading affected my thinking pattern.  When I began a book, I never let it go from my hand until I understood the core of it (as much as possible) even if I had to read the same book several times.  I collected books.  When I read, I took notes and recorded them by writing in small notebooks by hand.  When I lost most of them in a fire accident (in 1970) though discouraged for sometimes I still didn’t give up.  So I began to collect information and arrange them according to topics which I termed as ‘Kotation Diary’. 

The reason to give a small biographical sketch about my passion for reading is to point out that my readings have affected my thinking pattern, and now I never easily accept anything.  I never accepted anything easily, however the subject is very interesting to me (like history and religious) or authoritative (as scripture).[What I mean here is that irrespective of the interest in the book or the authority that the scriptures holds like that of Muktiveda, I simply never accept what all they say.–db]  Such passions for books led me to seriously study many topics.  Due to my natural inclination (or because of tradition or you call it by any name), I am very attracted to scriptures.  When scriptures were read as part of the rituals in my family, community and peer group (regional and sectarian), I began to reflect on many of the points that they spoke about.  As I mentioned earlier, most of the time, scriptures, rather regional and vernacular scriptures are read either to earn some merit or to get rid of some sins, so studying them in depth and reflecting on them are very rare at our level in those days.

Freedom and limitation:

Without repeating what I have already written about under “guru”, when I found my guru in Bhagavan Muktinath, you can call it a strange co-incident or divine providence or grace of god, the real dialogue began in my mind.  One advantage that I had in my life (thank god for it) was that I born into a religious tradition which never set any restrictions in the name of orthodoxy to search more.  At the same time, in the name of society, it put some restrictions on not going outside its boundaries.  To borrow the terms of Brahmabandab Upadhyaya (whether he was right or wrong was a different issue), which help here to explain the point is that sometimes one has freedom in ‘sadhana dharma’ (spiritual disciplines) yet is limited by ‘samajic dharma’ (social order).  When one has the freedom to choose any sadhana (spiritual discipline) in the matter of religion, yet, as life is not divided in watertight compartments for a Hindu, there is restriction crossing the Lakshman reka (line) in the samajic dharma.  In times, this is extended in sadhana by drawing the boundary which should be a sadhana for the samajic group based on caste or birth.⁷ 

A blessing in disguise:

In a tradition, where one’s birth as a woman and Sudhra restricts one’s right to read scriptures from one’s own tradition, there is no scope for reading the scriptures of other faiths, which is beyond the boundaries of Hinduism.  There might be several exceptions, but I had never heard or come across anyone in my peer group ever reading the Muktiveda or Quran.  Though I got the privilege to be born a Hindu, when I began to read the Muktiveda, in the early days, I didn’t feel the freedom I had as a Hindu in my sadhanas.  I’m not blaming anyone. Now, having faith in god’s plan for everyone, I see that He ordained even the early days of my discipleship to Bhagavan Muktinath to steer my thinking rather than allowing me to drift in many directions.  In other words, as a Hindu, I had a lot of freedom to change my scriptures, but my bhakti in Muktinath set some restriction to that freedom.  Though my freedom in spiritual discipline is restricted in the name of faith, I got immense opportunity to learn things through proper study of the scriptures which I didn’t get before as a Hindu.  What I mean here is that unlike Muktiveda, though I don’t give same kind of authority to other Scriptures, still I have complete freedom to read and receive blessings from them in many ways.

Because I was nurtured in the evangelical circle in the early days of my faith, I had little opportunity to have any kind of dialogue with people or books of other faiths.  I too, with an aim to know some basic things about the Muktiveda, with single-minded devotion and purpose read only the Muktiveda and books related to it—historical, theological and spiritual.  God in His providence, after allowing me to have my Arabian desert experience, like that of Sevanand (Paul), set me free from the Christian samajic dharma to become all things to all men, yet giving the privilege to keep my birth identity as a Hindu.  I began my dialogue with the Muktiveda as a Hindu.  Then my fellowship with some Christian groups allowed me to understand the Muktiveda from their perspective.  Finally, god allowed me to remain among my own people as a Hind bhakta of Muktinath to continue my dialogue with my own tradition with a better understanding than what I had before.

Opportunity to lean:

My fellowship with the evangelicals gave me every opportunity not only to know more about the Muktiveda but also about the church and Christianity closely.  In order to understand Christianity with all its form—church, community, theology etc., god arranged a minimum of ten years of fellowship with them.  However, as I have repeatedly shared, my inner rebellious nature never allowed Christianity to make me a ‘convert’ to that religion.  But that first decade of my discipleship to the Lord, through my fellowship with evangelicals laid a foundation for me to begin my inner dialogue within me. 

Help from a friend:

When god set me free from the Christian captivity (not social, to which I never became a part of it, but as a religious tradition), I began some serious study of Hindu scriptures.  Thank god for the friendship of Rajesh.  His passion to read Hindu scriptures, and his deep knowledge in the Muktiveda helped me to find the right kind of books on Hinduism.  Before I met him, most of my readings on Hinduism were restricted to the very scriptures and few books related to them.  However, he suggested appropriate books and also lent them to me to read from his personal library.  For example, he loaned me History of Dharmasastra by Prof. P.V. Kane.  This kind of reading and discussion and study with Rajesh, further deepened my interest in my dialogue within me that had been based on my readings and also my limited discussion with many Hindus.  When I began to reflect on those reading, I began to slowly record them in writing.⁸  Of course before I met Rajesh, I had already begun to record my reflections, but I had never shared them with anyone because of the fear of being misunderstood among the Christians.  However, when he read some of my writings, he encouraged me to share them with others.  The result was that some of my articles, book reviews and two books were printed, for which, next to god all the credit goes to him.

Brain Storms:

Before going further it is worth here the nature of my writings.  They are mere ‘brainstorms’.  After reading some of my postings in my blog one person wrote that, ‘Generally speaking about your other papers,  I’m grateful that they broaden our horizon, yet sometimes it is hard to “pinpoint” what is the main takeaway.   So, I really suggest a 5-6 lines concluding paragraph in “long” papers.  But …then I also understand that most of your work is brainstorms. So perhaps, help of a good writer/editor can be taken in the future’.⁹

In response I wrote:

I completely agree with you.  Anyone who reads my ‘brainstorms’ will go away with much confusion than clarity.  The main reason is that I am writing my thoughts at random.  When I read or think about any topic then so many questions come in my mind.  In order to address them I immediately began to record my responses before I forgot both the question and my reflection. Then without properly editing them I began to write a particular chapter. 

The major impediment with me is that I am writing only for me. That is why I am not sharing my thoughts with others quickly.  Several of my brainstorms remain buried in my computer.  Unless someone edits them properly others cannot understand my thought.  However without any arrogant spirit I say that I am not bother whether others read or not. That is why when there are no comments or response to my postings in my blog I least bothered about it. In fact I don’t want to receive comments which will force me to respond. 

I am a recluse both in my spirit and life.  I am happy to remain as a recluse. I don’t want anyone to talk about me.  But due to some compulsions I write—even my poems.  For a long time I never shared any of my writings with anyone.  Even I never shared my Tamil poems with my close Tamil friends Kannan and Saradha.  Only when I met Rajesh I slowly began to share some of my thoughts and writings with him and others

A student:

Though I read very few books, the challenge in my mind was too huge for me to handle.  Untrained in any kind of academic discipline, many limitations began causing hurdles in my dialogue.  I had never had any serious dialogues with any true Hindu scholars, so when some of my Christians friends encouraged me to do that, I said ‘no’, because I am in no way equal to any Hindu scholar.  Because I am interested in learning more, I am comfortable to remain a student and to be involved in this dialogue within myself and with books rather than with scholars.  My definition of scholar is one who can (to some extent) think originally and can read the books, scriptures etc. in the original language (like Prof Kane).  I, on the other hand, gather information from the scholarly works and begin to think, reflect and assimilate.  So, I am happy to remain a student continuing to learn from scholars through their writings. 

The vicious circle of interpretation:

One thing that struck me after my reading and thinking was that we are caught in a vicious cycle of interpretation and re-interpretation and re-re-interpretation.  In this process our particular identity is decided and defined by others rather than ourselves.  In the long history of time, such identity is accepted and becomes the norm deciding that very identity.  For example, Hinduism is not a religion.  Accepted.  But this is our present identity even by our constitution.  All kinds of scholarly discussions, debates, interpretations and explanations against it are not going to change the common perception that Hindus themselves have accepted as true.  So, instead of redefining Hinduism by any other term, however correct they are, and appealing to the very spirit of (the so called) Hinduism, we have to work out our present identity and existence both here in India and elsewhere as Hindus belonging to a religion called ‘Hinduism’.  However, dialogue, as a discipline to guide the mind has often helped me to resolve several tensions between the Hindu identity and my bhakti in the Lord.  Here I would like to quote another example.  At present three familiar terms are used among the evangelicals: Insider, Outsider and Alongsider.  We Hindu bhaktas are called ‘insiders’.  This label is given by an ‘outsider’ or ‘alongsider’ not by us.  When they (outsider and alongside) call me as an ‘insider’ then I feel as if I am appointed by them within my family or community or society as their agents.  While the ‘outsiders’ watch from a distance, the ‘alongsider’ walks along with me to see whether we are doing their job as per their expectation and step in to correct us when we do mistake or support when we need it’.  Such labeling might help them to explain ‘THEIR’ role but it amuses me when I am labeled like this by others.  Because when someone calls me that I am an ‘insdier’ in my family, I have to tell her that I never penetrated in my family from outside like a refuge to become an ‘insider’. As I born in my family I always remain a part of it and there is no need for separate label to have a separate identity in order to define their role as ‘outsider’ or ‘along sider’.

But this is not a problem for us, because we Indians (or read as Hindus) easily accommodate anything in order to survive.  This has helped us all through several centuries.  Our relativistic pluralism has helped us in many ways.  If the scholarly works remained on an elitist level, without affecting the common people both were happy.  But when our present identity is challenged which threatens the very survival to which scholarly research and debate are quoted in panels, commissions (appointed by govt.), litigations etc. then the existential needs of the public clashes with the scholarly definition.  Reservation based on caste, special reservation for religious minorities, excluding creamy layer from OBC reservation etc. are good examples, only mentioning a few.¹⁰ 

Native Invasion:

Adding fuel to the fire now several Hindu Diaspora scholars began to defend and define our identity here in India as a Hindu to have their identity in the countries where they live.  If there aim is only scholar ship then we can appreciate. But clearly keeping some agenda they try to invade from outside to define our identity here in India.  Of course they too are Hindus like us, but the context in which they live is completely different from us.  Mere religious identity as fellow Hindus alone is not enough for them to become spoke person for us.  The legal system under which they live might give some leverage and favors for them to say anything that they like. But we have different Constitution which defines our religious identity and also put several limitations in our freedom to make any kind of remarks about any faith.  So we cannot make any kind of remarks only based on their views about any faith to define and defend our identity as Hindus. Already I wrote about this. See ‘Native Invasion’ in my blog further for this. 

Clarity not compromise:

The reason for me to share this is that when I became a bhakta of Muktinath as a simple Hindu, only ‘conversion’ from one community (Hindu) to another (Christianity) was the main issue.  But when I began to read scholarly work related to Hinduism and Christianity on various issues (sociology, cultural, theology etc.) and began to reflect on them, then that simplicity in my mind disappeared and on every issue my bhakti in the Lord was challenged.  I cannot simply set them aside and say ‘walk by faith’.  On the one hand, my birth as an Indian (or Hindu) and my bhakti in Muktinath on the other hand, began to clash with each other.  What I thought as one (Hindu identity) complementing the other (bhakti in the Lord) now began to contradict and conflict with each other.  However, the same scholarship helped me to resolve such issue by allowing me to think independently rather than accepting anything in the name of faith and authority or even scholarship through my living dialogue.  The Spirit of god who leads us in all truth also helped me to learn patiently rather than compromise either my faith or my Hindu identity.¹¹

A Hindu bhakta:

The one important thing that one needs in dialogue is firm conviction, but this conviction is not mere fanaticism.  Conviction lays down a firm foundation; whereas, dialogue allows for making alterations.¹²  But when in the name of dialogue, the alteration goes beyond the foundation, then it creates problem.  I strongly believe that god never abandons a sincere seeker.  So when my search for a guru ended up in Muktinath, god arranged all the things that followed only for my good.  There were several ups and downs because of my mistakes, yet He never abandoned me.  When I obeyed and surrendered, He revealed more about Himself.  When I rebelled with disobedience, He waited patiently for me to return.  This was possible because I had the strong conviction that while I had found my guru in the Lord, I still could be a Hindu.

Self critique:

Nevertheless, this is more easily said than done because this conviction that I am Hindu and a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath is not acceptable to anyone, except for those few who share the same kind of conviction.  I don’t need to repeat what both Hindus and Christians comment about such a conviction.  However, if it remains only as an intellectual dialogue or elitist entertainment, then I too can take it lightly. But when it is challenged by counter views, then to resolve the contradiction in such claim and make it make sense to myself, I need to become a critic of my own view.

Muktivedic foundation:

To begin with, at least the Muktiveda, irrespective of its ethno-theological exclusivism gives a firm ground for me to begin my dialogue.  Whereas, the relativistic pluralism of the Hindu worldview, though satisfying every need, demands an interpretation, yet when it comes to conviction allows one to change according to convenience and demands of the situation.  Here I limit my dialogue with that of the Muktiveda and not subsequent development in various fields from church history.  Of course no one can easily get rid of such a long history of the Christian church and its influence. Even the very Muktiveda is what the early church decided through canonization.  However, after the infant church, following her first love and simple bhakti, developed a ‘Christian Religion’, all the complications entered in it.  I think this problem needs to be addressed by a ‘convert’ who changes their social identity from Hindu to Christian. But, for a person like me, beginning from the Muktiveda is more acceptable, as it helps me to incarnate most of the muktivedic teaching within my culture and tradition.  Where muktivedic teachings clash with my Hindu worldview, a proper understanding of both the Muktiveda and Hindu worldview will give the right perspective to work out a solution without compromising my faith and social identity as a bhakta of Muktinath and also as a Hindu.¹³

We are teachable:

I did not reach this conclusion independently.  My readings and reflection on scholarly work helped me a lot.  At the same time, I won’t claim that I have resolved all the tension in this identity.  Thankfully, I am not alone and we as a group—as Hindu bhaktas of Muktinath–also receiving guidance from god and help from likeminded people among Christians who are slowly working to resolve several tensions.  Where we need correction, we accept it.  But we know that convincing both the Hindus and Christians (or any other group) is not going to be easy.  They might have their genuine questions and doubt about our claim to be Hindu bhaktas of Bhagavan Muktinath.  Again it all depends upon the interpretation and perspective with which one approaches this issue.

Christian and Hindu challenges:

For example, one time, I was compelled to share my view among a few ‘converts’.  In general I tried to avoid such meetings.  After I shared my view and answered a few questions, one ‘convert’ said that what have I shared was nothing but ‘syncretism’.¹⁴  When I challenged him to explain what is the very meaning of the word ‘syncretism’, the coordinator, though a ‘convert’ but shares my view on many issues, said, ‘most of the time we simply use certain terms because we know them, without knowing what it stands for.  Before you blame others as syncretistic, you need to write what it means to be syncretistic.’  Then I pointed out to that ‘convert’ that all the things that he feels that I am compromising are not muktivedic views, but they are his particular cultural perception as a Christian which he has borrowed from his Western denomination.  Well I have already had my elementary level of dialogue with (Indian) Christian through ‘Living Water and Indian Bowl’, and I need not repeat them here again.

But when it comes to Hindus, this is not going to be that simple.  The issue here is not that they are not going to accept my view, but as there are so many views, even contradicting each other, to which Hindu I can speak?  Apart from my own people here in India, as I said above a lot of NRI Hindus, have begun to write and try to influence the Hindu worldview to resolve their identity crises in those countries to which they have migrated.¹⁵  Whether or not they resolved their identity crises through such writings, Hindus living in India take refuge in their views to answer the domestic questions.  This is an altogether different issue on which I need not dwell, except to point out that dialogue with Hindus either on an intellectual or personal level is not easy because our Hindu traditions never give a firm ground in religious and spiritual matters.  In fact, it cannot give a firm ground because various views accommodate everyone’s interpretation. This relativistic pluralism gives scope to claim our right place within our birth communities.  So the only dialogue that will communicate our conviction is through life and not academic one.

Monological dialogues:

Having said this, I do learn a lot through life while living with my own people, yet I have benefited more from the academic dialogues that I have had with authors when I read their books.  These academic dialogues help me to learn proper terms to articulate my conviction to communicate properly. However, it should be recognized that Hindus are not interested any kind of dialogue because they don’t find a need for it.  Dialogue, for the Christians remained another means to share the gospel with Hindus.  Soon Hindus realized this and they began to ignore it or used the opportunity to attack Christianity on its weak points (like denominationalism, racialism, imperialism etc.).  So, what the Christians wrote from a dialogue point of view is not dialogue in nature, but more a monologue, imagining that they are actually having a dialogue with Hindus.¹⁶

A problem and a blessing:

The main problem as well as blessing in dialogue is that viewing others’ faith from one’s own religious perspective one can comment on religions without being religious.  So an objective study of any religion on an academic level is also possible. But Inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue is not very easy to keep on an objective level. However one tries to understand others’ faith objectively, in a dialogue, they cannot do it without their own tradition’s help, which provides terms, forms and symbols to understand that objectivity.  For example, a Hindu can understand the concept of incarnation only from the point of avatara.  However, we know that avatara, though a useful term does not completely help us to understand incarnation, so a Hindu cannot objectively understand the concept of incarnation.  But the blessing is that as they have some kind of understanding about avatara, they are in a better position to understand incarnation.  This doesn’t mean that everyone can understand about other religion based upon some common points that might be there.  Because it is not the common point that alone is important but the way the respective tradition developed that concept through its own inner process.  ‘One’s cultural lens can also lead to distortions, presumptions, and misconceptions of the other’s worldview/faith,’ says Dr. Hoefer.¹⁷

For example, though Hinduism and the Muktiveda talk about god, both of the traditions’ views have vast differences rather than similarities. However, the muktivedic tradition borrowed terms from other faiths to talk about god (see notes 15 in ‘Contextualization’ and also the appendix on ‘El’ in the same chapter.), yet it has a monotheistic view about god.  On the other hand, however Hindus claim about one god (monotheism) both polytheism and pantheism contributed a lot to the doctrine about god, which alone is true when it comes to Hinduism.  So a Hindu, though they cannot understand all that the Muktiveda says about god objectively, they are able to see what a Christian also cannot see about god in Hinduism from their own muktivedic tradition.¹⁸

The Three ‘isms’:

One crucial concept that complicates dialogue is the three familiar concepts of ‘exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism’.  While exclusivism rejects other means for salvation, the pluralism acknowledges every means as true.  Whereas, the inclusivism, talks about a hidden (or Cosmic) Muktinath whose subtle presence through god’s revelation in a different form in other religious traditions (other than muktivedic) can help one to reach god through their particular tradition.¹⁹ However,

Neither does pluralism cohere, because it is crypto-inclusivist. It claims to believe in many goals but actually believes in only one…. While real believers say very different things about the divine and how to reach it, pluralists insist they are all talking about the same thing.  In effect, then, pluralists deny any pluralism of real consequence.  Like inclusivists, they say there is only pluralism of real consequence.  Like inclusivists, they say there is only one end for all.²⁰

But I think these terms are coined to explain one’s view rather than establish the nature of other’s theology.²¹  In whatever way a Christian tries to explain their perception about Hinduism in these terms, this is not the way Hindu understands their religion. What I mean is this: exclusivism rejects salvation in Hinduism; the pluralism acknowledges Hinduism is as genuine means for salvation like any other religion and inclusivism talks about the ‘Unknown Christ of Hinduism’ or ‘Christ as the Crown of Hinduism,’ as He fulfills all that is in Hinduism. 

But if one still wants to use these terms to explain about Hinduism, then each sampradaya is exclusivistic.  All its pluralism is not a genuine recognition of other faiths as equal but tolerable.  Of course all the talk about religious pluralism should not be viewed as equal respect for all forms of expression, but unavoidable toleration.  Though such toleration exists in our Indian tradition in the past, all of the modern attempts to create one uniform Hinduism which acknowledges an equal place for all sampradaya should be understood in the context of the challenge that began from the Christian missionary enterprise in India.  But even today, apart from their scriptural records, exclusivism is the mark of several sampradayas.  For example, Velukkudi Krishnan, who talks every day about the Gita in a Television program, on April 8^th 2007, read out ten oaths to his audience to repeat after him.  In one of his oaths he said, ‘Ramanuja is the only acharya to be followed and Narayana is the only god to be worshipped.’  The eleventh one, is ‘I will share these oaths with at least another ten persons’.  I need not point out the exclusivistic nature in this oath and also the missionary nature in the eleventh one. 

Christian approach:

However, the traditional Christian approach in dialogue (which most of the time remains one-sided) is engaging other religions in their own terms.  For example, ‘Hindus in Britain,…are very ecumenical, placing the Saiva and Vaishnava gods together in their sanctuaries which cannot normally happen in India.  Being a minority in a strange atmosphere they try to assert their common identity and defend their faith,” says Dr. Israel Selvanayagam.²²  What Selvanayagam says ‘which cannot normally happen in India’, actually happens, happened and will happen in India forever.  In many Hindu temples, one can see the sanctuaries for various deities, including rival ones.  In Chidembaram one can see both the Govindaraja (of Vaishnavism) and Nataraja (of Saivam) sanctuaries next to each other.  The smarta Brahmins, mostly the followers of Sankara though Saivaites, will have Vishnu (in one of his forms) as their family deity.  Even Sankaracharya popularized worship of five important deities called ‘pancayatanapuja’.²³  It is wrong to say that Sankara’s attempt was  an ‘accommodation or assimilation or adjustment or synthesis or syncretism’ by using our modern terms.  The common explanation about the introduction of ‘pancayatanapuja’ by Sankara is that while allowing vyavaharika (practical) oriented puja for common people, he kept the paramarthika (metaphysical) view for samnyasis.  He is not promoting some kind of pluralism by this but to use a wrong term he was an ‘exclusivist’ in his philosophy of advaita. 

Similarly, we cannot use the word ‘ecumenism’ for Hinduism, particularly criticizing the accommodation of various deities either in the temple, ritual or even in theology.  Though the sectarian faiths never recognize the other deities as equal to one’s own god, they recognize the reality of other gods, though they assign a lower place to them.²⁴ Whereas, the modern ecumenical movement among various denominations in Christianity is to come together on common issues keeping the differences in theology at a minimum or in the background.  Even if we use the term ‘ecumenism’, for Hindu pantheons, it is a natural one.  Whereas, coming together superficially and brushing the differences under the carpet looks very artificial in Christianity. 

I am benefited:

Whether Christians through their dialogical approach will help the Hindu to ‘weigh’ the ‘value in truth, holiness and universality’ of Hinduism or not, or the Christians in turn particularly the Indian Church will learn by the writings of those dialogians (like Clooney) or not, does benefit me personally. Though the Christians dialogical approach still remains elitist and a one-way road, yet that helped me to ‘weigh’ several claims of both Hindus and Christians about their respective scripture and tradition. [‘the Christians dialogical approach, however remains elitist and (ONE-WAY) traffic, helped me to ‘weigh’ several claims of both Hindus and Christians about their respective scripture and tradition.’–db]One example of a Hindu’s response to a Christian’s dialogue will point out what I learnt from such dialogues.  Dr. Nirakari, after mentioning about the disappearance of bringing Samidhaa²⁵ (grass) ‘before the Gurus or Risis for the performance of the rituals by them at the start of the teaching’ says, ‘yet the sacrament is surviving in the present form; even the tradition of interviews for higher education is a revival of the Upanisadic inquiries made by the ancient sages.’²⁶ I need not highlight further the way Hindus (or a Sikh, as Dr. Nirakari’s name suggests) can twist and interpret any concepts to make their values universal.  The present day higher education persuasion for jobs has nothing to do with the Upanisadic inquiries by the students in the past, which was allowed only to the twice born, and very particularly to the Brahmins.  It is important to note here that Dr. Nirakari has presented his paper in another dialogue arranged by Christians on ‘Rituals and Sacraments’. 

One-way road:

The reason for Christians to use several ‘Christian’ technical terms to interpret Hinduism (or any other faith) is that their dialogue approach remains a one-way road.  Of course we cannot blame them for this, as their missionary approach to spread ‘Christianity’ among Hindus was either resisted²⁷ or ignored without paving any hope for dialogue by the Hindus from whom Christians can learn.  Christian might have a ‘duty’ to help Hindus to ‘deepen their understanding of their ancient tradition and weigh its value in truth, holiness and universality’ (emphasis added).²⁸  But no Hindu finds any need for it.  In all my readings I have rarely come across any dialogical approach from Hindus to learn from Christians that they thought worthwhile.  There is no point of quoting Gandhi inspired by the Sermon on the Mountain.  He, like many other Hindus, learnt some from Muktinath (or from the gospel), but opposed all kinds of Christian activity.  This does not mean that Hindus never participate in any form of dialogue arranged by Christians.  Yes several marginalized liberals and right wing Hindus participate (at the expense of Missions), but the common people are in no way influenced by them.  However, Christians can learn a lot from their dialogical approach to chasten their manner of approach to other faiths, as pointed by Clooney:

Von Balthasar’s approach may seem to bring theological dialogue with the theologians of other religious traditions to a dead halt…. There may indeed be a convincing and rationally cogent path from von Balthasar’s understanding of Christ as God’s self-revelation to his judgments on religions.  But his manner of explaining this revelation and the form, Christ, needs to be chastened in an inter-religious, comparative, and dialogical conversation with theologians whose writings will call into question his reading of their theological views and who offer a different theological portrayal of the divine-human relationship.²⁹

Non-academic approach in dialogue:

The Indian mind is to see harmony rather than contradiction.  Even if there is contradiction it is part of natural order.³⁰  That is why when we quote a scripture to support a point, we never engage in any exegesis of the text.  For a layperson, not questioning but accepting the scripture is one aspect of faith expression.  So any dialogical approach based on the study of scriptures is not going to attract a Hindu.  On the other hand, listening to a discourse based on the scripture, particularly in the form of ‘katha’ or ‘pravachan’ could help to open their mind to listen to the gospel.  One time in a place, knowing my faith in Muktinath, a Hindu sat-sang group invited me to talk about ‘Krishna tatva (principle)’ and ‘Krist tatva’.  So, I first spoke on ‘Krishna tatva’ based on the Gita without criticizing any part of it.  Next, I spoke about the Lord, sharing the gospel.  To my surprise, in the end, the leader, while summarizing my talk, shared more about Muktinath rather than talking about the Gita or Krishna.  Of course any right wing Hindu, reading this will say, ‘this is the way the Christians, church and mission exploit the naïve sensibility of the Hindus to convert them to Christianity by all means.’  My intention was not to convert any one, but to help them understand the core of the two important scriptures in their context.  Such dialogue with non-academicians helped me to understand the gospel from the existential need of the people.

Opening the edges to strengthen the centre:

Dialogue, is not to debate or even to discuss, but it is more of a conversation—even a gossip.³¹ But in such conversation, unlike a gossip, our aim is not to convince or satisfy the other partner, but it is to share our view, keeping our firm conviction.  Having one’s own commitment to one’s faith is not a weakness, but it is strength.  But this commitment is not paraded through personal knowledge about one’s own religious tradition or about the tradition of the dialogue partner, but it is done with a spirit to learn from others, opening the edges to strengthen the one’s centre of that conviction; even from one who is not an equal:

…dia-logue.  This is to be distinguished from de-bate, which comes from a root meaning to batter down, to defeat.  In dialogue, it is never part of the purpose to beat the other party, to oust him from his position.  Each respects the center from which the other is speaking.  But there is an important difference between centers and edges.  Each of us, if we are in any way integrated, has a center from which our lives are lived, and our ‘world’ is what is enclosed within the circumference of that circle.  Yet often we are more conscious of the edges than the centers, corresponding to the bounds of an animal’s territory that it stakes all to defend.  The edges may be hard, the boundaries barricaded, while the centers are relatively unformed.  The effect of dialogue is to bring to consciousness, and therefore to strengthen, our centers-so that where we stand will often in the process become clearer and firmer.  But we do that by being prepared to soften our edges, to open up the frontiers, and let down our defences.³²

Hindu perception:

Having a rhetoric point that all the religions are the same and all the roads lead to the same place etc., a Hindu mind is programmed to believe that there exists no essential difference among the religions.³³  All the differences are the mere perception of the individual who approaches the religion with some prejudice.  At the same time, a Hindu will easily accept that all the gods are not the same.³⁴  Because each god is assigned with a power and so that god acts according to his/her designed role.  So, keeping Muktinath along with other gods of the Hindu pantheon, they have no problem even accepting some exclusive claims on Him—He died for the sin of the world etc.  But the problem comes when the differences are rejected and the exclusivism of Muktinath is insisted upon.  Of course educated Hindus are aware of some differences in theology/philosophy among various sects, but theology and philosophy are not essential for them to keep the faith alive.  Even those sectarian debates, rejecting the other faith/sect as heretical never bothers a common Hindu.  In fact, till I became a bhakta of Muktinath, I never knew about the existence of various conflicting philosophies in Hinduism.  As sin is awakened when the law came, in the same way, my study of the Muktiveda and interest in theology alone helped me to learn all the doctrinal differences among various sampradayas in Hinduism.  For example, Kumarila of Purva Mimamsa school considered Samkhya, Yoga, the Vaisnava Pancaratra and the Saiva Pasupata as heterodox systems; however, these systems ‘mixed with a bit of Vedic orthodoxy so as to appear reputable’.³⁵   But for an average Hindu like me, Kumarila and Purva Mimamsa were unknown words and there existed no difference among various schools of thoughts like Samkhya, Yoga, Vaisnava and Saiva systems. 

‘All the roads lead to the same destiny’ should be understood in the context of following the given tradition in worshiping gods and performing life cycle rituals (samskaras) according to the family customs that too based on the caste system.  So all the doctrinal and theological (the words which should not be used to define Hindu beliefs) differences among various sampradayas are not an issue at all to Hindus.  Even without having any faith in those traditions and customs, still one can participate in those rituals, as part of dharma fulfilling the duty towards family and community.  Therefore, any dialogical approach highlighting the contradictions on doctrinal issues among the intra-religious and inter-religious context holds no meaning to a Hindu. 

Hindu orthodoxy is not doctrine:

Without understanding this a Christian dialogist could criticize that Hindus thinkers ‘were concerned more about countering the exclusive claims of others than presenting their own distinctive positions’.³⁶But presenting distinctive positions in doctrinal statements was introduced by the Christians into our system.  All the debates among the intra-religious sects in Hinduism were based on the new interpretation of the already existing views about god, world and soul etc. and performance of rituals and following of certain customs and traditions.  So orthodoxy in Hinduism is more related with orthopraxy than right belief based on some doctrines.³⁷  And when some modern Hindu scholars decries Hindu practices like animal sacrifices as ‘inauthentic Hinduism’,³⁸ when confronted by some Christian dialogue partners, we should not take their stand as the authentic view of Hinduism.  For example, animal sacrifice, even that of buffalo is still in practice in some parts of India like Bengal and Assam.  Furthermore, these were done not by some uneducated, rural Hindus belonging to the so-called popular Hinduism.  Even highly educated Hindus perform this.  Without having any real dialogue with their people, all their views are mere academic statements and never reflect the Hindu reality.

Academic dialogue is artificial:

This could be true also about Christians.  When a Christian divides Hinduism under various artificial divisions like: popular vs. philosophical; doctrine vs. tradition, their understanding about another faiths has already begun from their religious point of view——viz., doctrine and belief deciding the custom and tradition.  In other words, doctrinal orthodoxy (based on the texts) decides the orthopraxy for them.  Whereas, in Hinduism, both orthodoxy and orthopraxy can co-exist with genuine contradictions. (see the notes 37 from Nicholson)  Without understanding this Hindu reality, merely being involved in academic dialogue, which too based on some study and exposition of texts, will make the academic dialogue artificial.  Take for example of Dr. Selvanayagam who says:

…Relatedly, I was invited to a conference on inter-religious relations in Swanick in April 1989 where I was asked to expound a few verses of the Gita.  I tried to do full justice to the texts with an awareness of not superimposing my Christian pre-supposition.  At the end, one among the group asked an embarrassing question.  With this kind of involvement with the Hindu texts how steady is your Christian commitment?  Unreservedly I answered: I seem to stand in between two extremes.  On the one hand I am tempted to become a Hindu while on the other hand I am inclined to preach the gospel to the Hindus.³⁹

Selvanayagams’ position never represents the Christian or better to say muktivedic reality to preach the gospel to others.  The Church in its encounter with other traditions, compares and contrasts other’s worldviews through their doctrinal/theological position.⁴⁰  Whereas people all over the world have different forms of faith expression. The muktivedic approach is addressing the human reality of various struggles and not some religious issues of doctrinal orthodoxy based on scriptures.  And when Christians, particularly the dialogists engage people of other faiths based only on textual exposition and doctrinal orthodoxy, that too in an academic setup, then such statements like that of Selvanayagam become the natural outcome.  Agreeing with some Hindu texts and faithful exegesis of them need not tempt a Christian to become a Hindu.  Here I don’t want to enter into the debate about the Hindu identity.⁴¹  But remaining faithful to any scripture, one can share the gospel with everyone, as the gospel addresses the need of human struggle on every level—including the scriptures.

Dialogue guards the temptation:

Using one’s own religious categories (like faith, doctrine etc.) to study other religions is not now limited only to the Christians.  Of course, we cannot blame the Hindu scholars for following a similar approach because Christians alone put such terms in their mouth. So a genuine contribution that dialogue could make is to guard the temptation of interpreting another’s faith on one’s own terms.⁴²  Hindu scholars attempted to interpret muktivedic concepts in advaitic terms.  For example, the often quoted advaitic experience of Muktinath when he said, ‘I and the father are one’.  However advaitic or any other philosophical categories are pressed in to service to form an Indian muktivedic theology by the Christians, yet it is too much on the part of the Hindus to read an advaitic experience in such claims by the Lord.⁴³  Similarly, in order to address the criticism on the historicity of the muktivedic events, particularly that of the Lord, creating a ‘cosmic Christ’, ‘a hidden Christ in Vedas’ who can transcend all kinds of historical limitation by the Christians is not going to accommodate anybody’s need.  Whereas a sincere academic dialogue can guard one’s conviction against any kind of syncretism.  Certain distinctive claims on the uniqueness of the gospel, however challenged, cannot be compromised.  How to communicate the uniqueness is a different issue on which any dialogue can hardly help.  As noted above, the purpose of the dialogue is to soften the edges to learn from each other but not to compromise the core issue just for the sake of communication or accommodation.  A genuine dialogue respect others as they are and helps one to learn from them.⁴⁴

No one is self-sufficient:

Those who do not want to learn from others, particularly a Hindu bhakta of the Lord from their own tradition, will refuse to be involved in any kind of dialogue—both with books and people.  The fear of syncretism or the pride about the all-sufficiency of the gospel hampers the very purpose of dialogue.  I have come across several incidents in which I was sincerely advised and seriously criticized not to spend (or waste) my precious time by reading all kinds of books.  One Hindu convert at Delhi, even said that he reads nothing but the Muktiveda—not even the Newspaper, let alone other secular magazines or any other books.  He emphatically said, ‘The Muktiveda is sufficient for me to Know the Lord and make him known to others’.  He can verbatim quote from the Muktiveda several passages and verses.  His sermons and prayers will be punctuated with the reference to the chapter and verses.  But such people are not new as we could find these kinds of people even in Tertullian, who said, ‘After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research.’⁴⁵

Though iron sharpens iron, the very purpose of dialogue is not to make one more intellectual but humble.  A Hindu may not see any need to learn more by being involved in dialogue with followers of Muktinath, but we should not miss any opportunity to learn from them to deepen our conviction.  One personal benefit that I derived from all kinds of my Living Dialogue is that when my faith and conviction is seriously challenged, it helped me to be humble to learn more rather than be irritated or disturbed by them.⁴⁶

Dialogue helps to make progress:

The aim of any dialogue in religion is not to reach any negotiated settlement to resolve any tension or disagreement.⁴⁷  It is not like appointing peace committees after some communal disturbance for the sake of peaceful existence.  It is to understand each other, accepting the differences and appreciating the conviction.  Particularly this truth helps when I am involved in any kind of dialogue with books and texts.  Because when a dialogue becomes a debate, then we can withdraw or throw away the book, but what do we do with oneself, as the mind continues to engage with oneself?  I write down the thoughts that come in my mind as ‘brainstorms’ immediately after any debate, discussion or reading which ‘irritates’ me. Then when I reflect back, the ‘spirit’ of dialogue helps me to accept the differences as a part of life and to learn from others, which any debate would never allow. Debate and disagreement will end up in toleration for the sake of survival; whereas, only dialogue alone helps one to learn to make progress.

Dialogue helps the incarnation of the gospel:

The purpose of dialogue is not to refine certain technical terms in the existing ‘Christian’ doctrines to accommodate the church within the Indian thought pattern.⁴⁸  It is true that ‘by accepting a word, we incorporate, to some extent, the whole spiritual and intellectual tradition of a people into the Church….’⁴⁹  This again is a process to bring ‘converts’ into the church tradition.  But how do we help people to incorporate the gospel within their own spiritual and intellectual tradition without compromising their faith in the Lord needs to be addressed, and in this endeavor, dialogue can help.  Because, incorporating the gospel in the Indian tradition and culture is not to form some ‘doctrines’ (or Indian Muktivedic Theology), but to know God through the life and teaching of Bhagavan Muktinath as recorded in the Muktiveda.  So a LIVING DIALOGUE for me is to engage both with the TEXT (in the given context) and PEOPLE (in their identity context) keeping god at the centre and not to try to ‘convert’ others in one’s own image.⁵⁰

Because we want people to agree with us and become like us so we can feel more justified and confident in who we are and what we promote.  And a genuine dialogue can guard us from such temptation.

Notes for Dialogue New Revision

1 The recent dialogue I had with some on ‘equality’ the best example for this. See my blog ‘Equality versus Charity’.  Similarly one word ‘propaganda’ triggered another debate with another person. See ‘BJP and BBC’ in my blog.

2 At the same time, we cannot deny the hold of tradition also on Indians, as Smith says, ‘…The term ‘juggernaut’ {Jagannath at Puri} came to mean unstoppable vehicle, and as such eventually became applicable to modernity, whose progress is supposed to be unstoppable, and indeed to crush all those who oppose it.  Yet at the same time, tradition, at least in India, is also showing itself to be unstoppable; so great is its momentum.— David Smith, Hinduism and Modernity, Blackwell, Indian edition, 2003, p. 21

3 I thank Dr. Hoefer for this insight.

4 S.N. Balagangadhara, The Heathen in His Blindness, Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion, New Delhi, Manohar, 2005.

5 “When I raised this issue with Sri Jayendra Saraswati, the Sankaracharya of Kanchi, he said: ‘I agree that the words “Hindu” and “Hinduism” are not our words.  But they have been in usage now for a very long time and cannot be abandoned overnight, without inviting confusion…. The common people, the masses, now call their religion as Hindu dharma’”.— Chaturvedi Badrinath, Dharma, India and the World Order, Pahl-Rugenstein, 1993. p.21

6 I think this is the point of argument by Gangadhara in 5.2.1 Angst, Nature and Man, cf. p. 155ff.

7 Apart from the traditional view that the study of the Veda is not for Women and Shudra, in common life too certain rituals and practices are not for all.  Even among the high caste people, certain festivals, rituals, etc. are only for women and not for men.  Certain books or part of book cannot be read at home and certain rituals cannot be conducted at home etc.

8 I have recorded my dialogue with Hindus and Christians in writing and also my reflection of the books through reviews, synopsis etc., which cannot be part of this book.  Actually they are the ‘Living Dialogues’.  Now I have posted some of them in my blog but I didn’t share many which remain buried in my computer.

9 Subhasan Bhattarai, Kathmandu, personal communication, 22-08-202.

10 Here Chuyen’s conclusion on this point is worth noting:

…Caste-based reservation policies in favour of underprivileged classes have only served to strengthen the institution of caste and its inherent inequalities.  A political system based on caste affiliations cannot but lead to the crystallization of caste identities and, even if there is a certain amount of reconfiguration, to the continuation of social differences that these policies are meant to eradicate.  Those who deprecate the use of caste in politics also point out that political awareness is not synonymous with an improvement in living conditions.—p. 235

…The well-researched article on this subject by N.B. Dirks recounts the intellectual debates in several newspapers with a profusion of anti-Mandal diatribes.  Apart from Andre Beteille and Veena Das who saw in this reservation policy a return to the colonial strategy of ‘divide and rule’, other scholars like M.N. Srinivas,  A.M. Shah and B.S. Baviskar pointed out that they would widen social rifts.— Gilles Chuyen.  Who is a Brahmin? The Politics of Identity in India.   New Delhi, Manohar,  2004. p. 236

11 The best one is the book by Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to  Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011.  When I completed reading I was overwhelmed by so many challenge that he puts before me.  I am not competent to respond to him.  However I have some reflection which I might share later.

12 ‘A hesitancy to enter open, honest dialogue reveals to me that a person is unsure of her faith.  She has an insecure foundation and fear losing her footing’, says Dr. Hoefer.  Personal communication.

13 Gandhara, 2005, p.378 It is true that that ‘Indian culture could know neither religions nor worldviews’ because of ‘the metaphysical impossibility and the sociological impossibility’, But as I pointed early in this chapter, we have to begin from where we are based on the terms through which our existential identity is explained by terms like ‘religion’ ‘worldview’ etc.

14 Nicholson makes an interesting point related to the meaning of syncretism:

Although “syncretism” in modern English usage refers to the merging of religions or philosophies that are properly separate, the original Greek term synkretismos used by Plutarch meant something different. It referred to a custom of people on the isle of Crete to overcome local feuds and to form a sacred alliance in order to withstand foreign aggression.—p. Andrew Nicholson, J, Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2011, p. 190

15 For example, Prof. Arvind Sharma, McGill Universtiy, wring ‘on Making Sense of the Dvija’ (twice born, viz. the three upper high castes in Hinduism brahmins, ksatriya and vaisya) says:

This concept of the dvija or dvijaati, which seems like an archaic and obsolete construct, however comes to life when placed alongside the category of WASP in American society.  This acronym for White Anglo–Saxon Protestant as the dominant group in American society matches the category of the dvija or dvijaati inasmuch as both represent the dominant grouping in their respective societies…. (Chips from an Indic Workshop, Mothilal Banarsidas Newsletter, April 2007, p.16)

No comment needed further here to understand such views from Hindus living under the ‘domination’ of WASP.  At least they can understand the plight of Shudras living under the ‘domination’ of dvija in India, better than their counter parts in India.  For more on the struggle Hindu diaspora and their identity crisis see: Hindu Diaspora Global Perspectives, T.S. Rukmani, ed. Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2001

16  See more on this in ‘Disconnected Christianity’ (in my blog) where is shared my view in response to Warren and Hooker.  See also  Appendix

17 Personal communication.

18 ‘…So while my own commitments prevent me from seeing a large part of the inner dynamics of another faith, I may also be able to understand something of that faith that its own devotees do not.’— Gerald R. McDermott, Can Evangelicals Learn From World Religions: Jesus, Revelation & Religious Traditions, Illinois, Inter Varsity Press, 2000, p.19  One example that comes in my mind is about the wrath of god in the Muktiveda from that of other gods.  About  this Edwyn Bevan says:

               In its idea of the Deity as capable of anger the Old Testament seems altogether on the same level as Greek (p.207) paganism. A large number of characteristics which belonged to the heathen deities are eliminated from the Old Testament conception of Jehovah—He has no physical body, is without beginning, has no other being akin to Him, but in respect to His capacity for anger Jehovah seems to go even beyond the gods of Greece. Ezekiel vii.8….And the same two things which especially provoke the gods of Greece, a fault in the offering of sacrifice and proud words, are also spoken of in the Old Testament as provoking Jehovah….Levt. x.1,2; Psm. Xii.3. Isaiah ii.12 (p.207)… But while the prophetic religion repudiated the idea that Jehovah could be provoked to anger by a ritual omission or mistake, it by no means repudiated the idea that Jehovah could be angry.  It asserted the wrath of God as strongly as ever primitive religion had asserted.  The things conceived to make God angry were now moral wrong-doing, injustice between man and man, oppression of the weak, but the anger was depicted as vividly as ever….(p.209) — Edwyn Bevan, Symbolism and Belief, London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1938, pp. 206-207 & 209

The same is true in Hinduism too.  We often hear about the wrath of god, mostly goddess for not doing certain rituals (animal sacrifices) or doing it improperly with so many physical defilement. 

19 ‘Inclusivists say that Jesus is ontologically but not epistemologically (p.40) necessary for salvation.  That is, no one is saved apart from Jesus’ work and person, but one does not have to know Jesus during this life to be saved by Him.  Salvation is, therefore, available to those who profess other religions but only by means of the hidden Christ.  If a Chinese peasant who has never heard of Jesus nevertheless knows from nature and conscience that there is a moral God whose law he finds in his heart, and realizes that this law condemns him, and throws himself upon this God’s mercy, he is really casting himself upon Christ, Who is the mercy of God.  Jesus saves him not because he is a good man but because he is among the elect whom He has chosen to save through His life, death and resurrection.  Jesus has given this man faith and repentance as gifts.  Not all inclusivists state their schemes in precisely this manner, but the following have embraced some version of what has just been outlined: Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, J. N.D. Anderson and Millard Erickson.— Gerald R. McDermott, op. cit. p.41

20 ibid. pp.42-43

21 ‘While not denying the point which all of these theories tried to make, all of them are deeply flawed.  Fundamentalist exclusivism is blind to the pluralistic human reality.  Universalism does not account for the histories of the different religious traditions. The fulfillment theory suffers under the odium that it appears to ‘the other side’ as unwarranted arrogance.  On top of it all, these three groups of people operate with theological categories that come from within a specific religious tradition, presupposing thus in fact that this particular theology is the one and only norm, by which all others must be measured.’ — Klaus K. Klostermaier, Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras, 1986, p. 268

22 The Dynamics of Hindu Traditions, Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, 1996, p.20

23Among the gods popularly worshipped the principle ones are Visnu under various names and in various avataras.  Siva in his various forms, Durga, Ganesa and the Sun.  The [p.716] worship of these deities (called pancayatanapuja) is said to have been popularised by the great Samkaracarya…-History of Dharmasastras, P.V.Kane. Vol. II. Part.II. Ch.XIX. Devapuja. pp.714-17.

24 ‘…Arul Nandi [the fourteenth century Tamil Saiva Siddhanta scholar] does not extend his generosity toward religions other than those warranted by the Vedic and Saiva Traditional Texts.  Vaisnavism, for example, is relegated to a low position in his calculus of true religion.— Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Hindu God, Christian God:How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, New York, Oxford University Press, 200, p.154.  Also see Dayanand Bharati, Hindu Sampradays, chapter Nine, in Understanding Hinduism (Revised edition).

25 In ancient time when a disciple approaches any guru to become his student, should approach the guru with ‘samidha’ (grass).  According to Dr. Nirakari, though now students are not doing the same but interview has replaced the ‘samidha’ grass.

26 R.D. Nirakari, ‘Rituals and Sacraments in Hinduism: A Historical Perspective’, in .  Clarence O. McMullen, (ed.), RITUALS  and SAC RAMENTS in Indian religions, Delhi, ISPCK, 1979, p. 22

27  See: R.F.Young and S. Jebanesan, THE BIBLE TREMBLED: THE HINDU-CHRISTIAN CONTROVERSIES OF NINETEENT-CENTURY CEYLON, Vienna 1995.  Publications of the De Nobili Research Library, Edited by Gerhard Oberhammer, Institute of Indology, University of Vienna, Volume XXII.

28 ‘Christian teachers have no authority (adhikaara) to teach Hinduism to their Hindu students but they have a duty to help them deepen their understanding ….’- Editors R.De Smet and J. Neuner, Religious Hinduism, Fourth Revised Edition, 1997, Introduction:  A Christian Approach to Religious Hinduism (P.Fallon), p.24

29 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.68.  To understand Clooney’s critic about von Balthasar, it is essential to read the whole text:

…von Balthasar directly evaluates religions in light of Christ, the sole form. (The Glory of the Lord. Vol. I. Seeing the Form.  Tr. by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis. San Francisco.: St. Ignatius Press, 1982,pp. 481-525)…. Jesus is the perfect event of divine communication, God come down and speaking to humans; but the Buddha, the saints of India, and other such figures represent only the human effort to ascend to the divine.  Other founders point the way, but Jesus is the way.  Others have decisive conversion experiences and life journeys, but for Jesus none of that is needed, and we have only the narrative of his redemptive death.  Their stories are recounted in naturalistic and cosmological myths; whereas, the story of Jesus is historical.  The others offer schemes for salvation in order to resolve the tension between the One and the many, by either abolishing the many (as happens in “all forms of non-Christian mysticism”) or incorporating the One into the many (as happens in polytheism and pantheism) or standing in between the One and the many (as does Mohammed)…. (p66)               …Comparisons [between Christianity and other religions] must therefore always be cautious lest superficial similarities gain undue importance.  Benevolent comparisons that stress fulfillment but neglect judgment do great harm.  Yet neither should religions be trivialized nor treated with contempt, since this attitude might thereafter cause contempt to be heaped upon Christianity itself.^*—ibid. pp.66-67

* Such problems arise even when “the gods” are ignored or dismissed as unreal, since the same reductionist method may hurt the Church too.  Moreover, we will lose sight of elements of genuine worth.  It can be put positively: the Church (and before it Christ) inherit “the interior realities of the religions of all peoples, in so far as these contain theophanies and not demonologies” (von. Balthasar, Hans Urs. ibid. p. 502) —ibid. notes 14, p. 67

30 ‘Dharmic traditions, as a result of their foundational texts, epics, archetypes and values, depict order and chaos as belonging to the same family and weave multiple narratives around this idea of cooperative rivalry….(p. 8)…

               The pluralistic ethos of the Mahabharata, for instance, is grounded in a non-exclusivist framework including multiplicity of beliefs, concepts and ideas. This is so deeply ingrained as to make Indians psychologically comfortable with relative truths, uncertainty, ambiguity, disorder and pluralism of all kinds….(p. 140)— Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to  Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011, pp. 8 and 140

31 ‘“Dialogue” comes from the Greek “dia” + “logo”‘ (through + word = words across) and it is more or less equivalent to the Sanskrit “sam” + “vada-vadat”‘ (together + talk = talking together, conversation)…’ –Krsna And Christ, Ishanand Vempeny, S.J. Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, Anand,1988, p.357

32 John A.T. Robinson,TRUTH IS TWO EYED , SCM Press Ltd., pp.3-4

33 ‘More than 90% of them would start with their usual preamble that all religions are essentially the same.’  — Israel Selvanayagam,The Dynamics of Hindu Traditions,  The Teape Lectures of Sacrifice, Gita and Dialogue, Bangalore, Asian Trading Corporation, 1996, p.13. 

34  ‘…Despite the oft-quoted liberal Hindu’s opinion that ‘all religions are equal, all leading to the same goal’, the average Hindu (also the theologian!) will insist that religions are not equal, that there is only one true religion, one revelation, one divine law, one God.  For him Krishna and Siva and Mohammed and Christ are not the same and their teaching does not say the same.  And that will be the real crux of Indian Christian theology; to meet another faith.’ — Klaus K. Klostermaier, Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras, 1986. pp. 77-8

35 Clooney, S.J., Hindu God, Christian God: p.144).

36 Selvanayagam, op. cit. p.13

37  However the following point by Nicholson will help us to understand even the gradual change between orthodoxy and orthopraxy:

               The earlier meaning of nastika, the reviler of the Veda, was primarily an issue of orthopraxy (correct ritual performance) instead of orthodoxy (correct opinion).  Over time, however, the second issue displaced the first.  This coincided, I believe, with the gradual rise of the Vedanta school and decline of the Purva Mimamsa….

…When Vedanta was acknowledged, it was not Sankara’s Vedanta but often some pre-Advaita version of Vedanta that subscribed to the theory of real transformation (parinamavada) to explain the nature of reality.  By the late medieval period, this situation had changed completely. (p.171)  The Mimamsa weakened and lost influence, although it never lost its fundamental interpretive importance.  To the extent that it did survive, it took on theistic ideas from the other schools.  However, the Vedantic understanding of the Veda as imparting information about ultimate truths became the primary model for scriptural interpretation, just as Nyaya logical principles became common currency for any school that sought to engage in rigorous logical argumentation.  By this period, the word nastika was understood in terms of orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy.  Thus, a reviler of the Veda was someone who denied that the Vedas’ depiction of ultimate reality was accurate.— Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011, pp. 171-72

This also shows how there is no one level of philosophical development in Indian tradition.

38 “A host of witch doctors, horoscopers, vendors and beggars fill an area of around five square miles.  Interestingly, once I took Dr. Gangadaran to this place and with a great reluctance he looked at the sacrifice.  He decried it saying it was inauthentic Hinduism.  Since then whether more Hindus adhere to this type of Hinduism has been a question in our discussion” – Selvanayagam, op. cit. p.17

39 ibid. p.21

40 ‘… “Religion”, I claim, is how Christianity (to speak only of this tradition) described itself when demarcating itself from the traditions of other peoples and cultures.  It is a self-description of Christianity but one directed against the others. It is the outer-boundary of Christian self-consciousness and not its internal core.  Christians, when they talk to each other, may or may not talk in terms of their religion.  Externally when they talk to the “others,” it is their self-identity….’—Gangadhara, op. cit.  p.225

41 If Indian Christians want to become Hindus without giving up their faith in Muktinath, that needs to be welcomed.  However, this should not be done with any ulterior motive to use as a means to convert to Christianity through backdoors.  ‘Tracing the Hindu roots’ as Dr. Chakaravarthy of Bangalore says, for his claim to become a Hindu is a welcome trend among Christians.  Of course people like Chakaravarthy won’t be understood easily both by Hindus and Christians. But those who understand his conviction both as a bhakta of Muktinath and Indian know his commitment without compromising one for the other.  It is true, because of the legal system, he still remains as a ‘Christian’ in all official papers.  But in his mind and spirit, he has already become a Hindu bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.  Anugrah Kumar Sharma is another one best example, who even went to the extent of changing his Christian name and identity to become a Hindu bhakta of Muktinath.

42 ‘Securing a Hindu’s Understanding:-…Gandhi advocated the study of other scriptures. In fact, what he did was not to study other scriptures as they are in themselves.  He interpreted other scriptures according to the standards of his own faith. This was Gandhi’s criterion. But it is unfair to expect Christianity to interpret its own ethos, faith and life according to what Gandhi felt, just as it is unfair to ask Hinduism to interpret its own ethos, faith and life according to what Christians feel. Each religion is an entity in itself, Men of faith look at the fundamentals of their creed, the axioms of their beliefs, from within the circumference of their creed (P.D. Devanandan). It is important, to not only understand what Hinduism is to a Hindu, but also to convey to the Hindu what Christianity is from the inside to a Christian.  So far, India has not really seen Christ, she has seen a Hinduized version of Christ. It is the function of this dialogue to present Christ as He really is so that He may be judged for what He is, and seen for what He is.— FRANK  WHALING. An Approach to Dialogue with Hinduism, Lucknow, (Lucknow Publishing House. pp. 91-92

43 However, one has to agree with Klostermaier that,

The interpretation which Hindus give to the New Testament may sometimes be very unorthodox—almost all the early Christian heresies seem to rise again; Monaphysitism, Docetism, Monarchianism—but probably today far more Hindus propagate the message of Christ among Hindus than Christians. — Klaus K. Klostermaier, Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras, 1986.. p. 71

44 ‘…Quite contrary to the opinions of many an “orthodox” Hindu and Christian, who refuses to enter into dialogue because they are both convicted to have the whole and sole truth and they fear that such dialogues may contaminate their pure faith and result in heretical deviations, real dialogues result in a much greater appreciation of the genuine traditions from which the partners come.  Respect for my fellow man does not necessarily imply lack of self-respect.  Nor does self-respect have to be expressed in contempt of all others.  On the contrary, the more I am able to truly appreciate Truth as such, the more I will cherish whatever little reflection of truth I have in my own mind, passed on to me by thinkers and seekers after Truth in former generations….’— Klaus K. Klostermaier, Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras, 1986. p. 31

45 ‘…Tertullian, a convert into Christianity.  A lawyer by profession, a believer by conversion, and a heretic at death, Tertullian was a tireless defender of Christianity and a valiant battler of heresies like Gnosticism.  In a tract titled The Prescription Against Heretics, he exclaimed:

What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy, the Christian with the heretic?

What Indeed?  Nothing at all, affirmed Tertullian (full text in an old translation in Roberts and Donaldson, Eds., n.d., Vol. III):

Our principles come from the Porch of Solomon…I have no use for a Stoic or a Platonic or a dialectic Christianity.  After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research. (Alternate translation cited in Dulles 1971:43)’— S.N. Balagangadhara, The Heathen in His Blindness, Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion, New Delhi, Manohar, 2005, pp.89-90

46 The best example that comes to my mind is Rajiv Malhotra’s book: Being Different: An Indian Challenge to  Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011.  All the challenges that he puts in this book to Christianity is very serious. But a Hindu bhakta of the Lord can learn a lot about our own tradition from a Hindu apologetic who fiercely defending dharmic tradition by launching a vehement attack on Christianity. 

47 ‘…Dialogue … is not a mere comparison of two traditions, not an academic play with concepts nor an attempt to reconcile conflicting views in a Hegelian synthesis but a means to lead to a realization and to an encounter with Reality as such.’ —— Klaus K. Klostermaier, Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras, 1986, p. 238

48 ‘…The really fascinating result of real dialogue, however, is not a merely interesting addition of some exotic colours to certain weathered Christian dogmas but the discovery of a different basic approach, the revelation of unknown ground, the possibility of a new vision, the restructuring of the whole edifice of Christian theology….’—ibid. p. 239

49  Klaus K. Klostermaier, Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras, 1986. p. 90.

50  ‘As far as living religion and religious practices go India is far more ‘religious’ than the ‘secularized’ West and one could safely say that Hindu-Christian dialogue would have more religious implications for the contemporary (Western) Christian partner than for the Hindu partner, not excluding the basic implication of the irreplaceable value of religion over and against a purely secular and demythologized understanding of the world.  Hindu-Christian dialogue should not (and does not) aim at either ‘secularising’ the Hindu in the contemporary ‘Christian’ sense nor at ‘religionising’ the Christian in the traditional Hindu sense….’—ibid. p. 248

Appendix

Here I am sharing my reflection to Warner and Hooker not quoting them (in Graham Kings, Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker, New Delhi, 2002, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017).  For those who want to their views to which I gave my reflection see: Disconnected Christianity’ in my blog under ‘Dialogue’.

DB’s Reflection: Yes. This is true.  This ‘universality’{King, p. 120} is not only an inward compulsion but strongly propagated by the followers of every major faith.  However, interestingly when it comes to dialogue or confrontation most of the Hindus will say that each one’s religion is good for them and one need not accept the particular ‘universality’ of their tradition by others.  They strongly believe that as one is born in a particular religious tradition one need not change it and also need not impose it on others.  So even this personal ‘universality’ of their faith is only for them and not for all. Of course there are exceptions to this also—particularly when one sampradaya tries to woo the followers of others to come to their fold.²⁵  Here the sectarian rivalry is considered an inside competition among various sampradayas within Hinduism but they will oppose it when the same is claimed by other non-Hindu religions.  Here the concept of ‘choosing the ishta devata’ (god of personal choice) comes within Hindu fold.  There are several instances where few heads of Hindu sects refuse to convert the followers of non-Hindu religions but encouraged them to remain faithful in their own religion in which they born.  At the same time several gurus have huge followers of people from other religions like Christianity, who even become Hindus.  This shows how flexible Hinduism is when it accommodates others according to the need of the hour.–db 

25 …The girl who is authorised in Saivite rites by her father shall be given in marriage only to a devotee of Siva and not to a non-devotee.  If inadvertently she is given in marriage to a non-devotee she shall try to convince her husband about the Saivite faith.  If she is unable to do so she shall leave him off and perform holy rites mentally. (J. L. Shastri, 2002, p.1970)

               O Krsna, a low born, a base or a fool, or a fallen man, if he resorts to Siva is worthy of being worshipped by the gods and Asuras.—ibid. op cit. p.2011

               The verse is indicative of the proselytizing attempts of the Saivite Acaryas to allure the laity to their fold….—ibid. notes 286, p.2011

DB’s Reflection:  Warren’s statement that ‘Jesus speaking through the lips of people of other faiths which will reveal new surprises of him’ {King, 120}is neatly interpreted by King for our understanding.  And limiting this interpretation within the frame of Muktiveda Kings also warns about the ‘esoteric new Gnostic movements’.  If we keep Muktiveda as the normative for us to understand God then Kings warning is correct.  But as God cannot be limited within the frame of Muktiveda alone, my understanding of Warren’s emphasis of listening others is to interpret Muktinath’s life and teaching through the worldview of others.  It is not any compromise to the core of Muktiveda.  For example, for me bhakti is the new way of understanding faith.  Prayaschitta, avatara though not perfect words or concepts to interpret atonement and incarnation still might help to understand them within our worldviews.  Of course there is always the danger of ‘esoteric new Gnostic movements’ when one tries to build outside the foundation of Muktiveda. Dialogue alone does not prevent or provide this danger, as the early church history clearly showed.  If Warren would not have advocated any Gnostic movements considering his strong faith in Muktiveda, then ‘the new surprises of Muktinath’ also should be understood in the same way.  Though we should be thankful to Kings for giving this neat interpretation of Warren, this is also the danger of interpreting about other’s conviction based only on such statements which were written in the context of dialogue.  Because later we read Warren’s opposition to such dialogue in strong words (see below)

DB’s Reflection: I too believe that study of another faith should be done not to compare with one’s own.  Because according to my understanding each religious faith is unique in its own right and one cannot be easily compared with another.  However to study it only to see where ‘one is right and the another is wrong’ will force only to see the wrong things in another religion according to one’s understanding based on her religious view.  Some times that kind of study also could show where one is wrong and the other is right.  Introducing Muktinath will come naturally and spontaneously if one is evangelical. But the comparative study of religion will enable one to do it with much humility and respect for the another person and her views.  Otherwise without having any  knowledge about the faith of another person one will end up only propagating one’s own religion rather than introducing Muktinath to her.

The more one shares about the Lord the more one finds her bhakti/faith goes deeper.  Someone well said that unshared faith soon gets rusty.  The same deepening of bhakti happens when one engages in deep study of other religions as it provides fresh insights to expand one’s personal faith in new ways and means.

Warren: …But these big ‘get togethers’ are a waste of time. I hope that isn’t too harsh a judgement – The value to you was, of course, the making of new contacts, which is, by and large, the only value of any conference! (Letter 391 18 March 1973).—p. 315

DB’s Reflection: –a telling but real rebuke on such dialogue by Warren. I completely agree with him.  But ‘making new contacts’ {King, 315}sometimes become (now called as networking) a headache and nuisance as we too become such contacts to others which drains up our time and energy.  I become one such a contact to a Christian who met me with another Hindu bhakta. Later he wasted my time and even began to misuse his contact with me by posting my pictures along with him in his face book.  When I requested him not to do this he even began to abuse me. Finally I have to sever contact with him by not responding his emails anymore.—db

DB’s Reflection: I like the way Hooker differentiate between ‘commitment to a set of doctrines and committed to a person (Muktinath) who is himself utterly vulnerable’.{King, 363}  But in dialogue one has to face such problems.  Whether any Christian comes without any ‘commitment to a set of doctrines’ or not, it is what his/her Hindu partner finds in such dialogues.  As dialogues are always initiated by the Christians a Hindu, who has had no such dialogue with other faiths in her life, easily assumes that her Christian partner in that dialogue has a pre-commitment to a set of doctrines.  Listen what Sudhakar says about it:

               The bewildering polytheism of Hinduism and the bold assertions of the advaita is bound to shake the Christian off his feet if he has no (p.268) theological charity in entering into dialogue. Yet an honest dialogue is possible only with a willingness to abandon a theological position once it is found to be inadequate. If Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and Lord, as the New Testament declares, and as the church has affirmed, then how is that to be proved to the Hindu?  The usual and traditional method is to quote the passages of the Bible in support of the claim. If scriptures are the church’s sources of authority, it will then be projecting Christian scriptures before the Hindu. Hinduism also has its scriptures in the Vedas, Upanishads and the Gita. The Christian approach to Hindus therefore is influenced by the Christian’s attitude to Hindu scriptures. Hinduism and its scriptures interpreted by its adherents must be accepted in all sincerity, and the Christian must scrupulously avoid the temptation of interpreting Hindu Scriptures to suit his own conclusions. (Sudhakar, op. Cit.  pp. 267-68)

DB’s Reflection: –I welcome such approach about understanding other faiths by Hooker. {King 374} All kinds of unchecked authorities creates problem for people.  In the area of religion this becomes more dangerous as many submit to this kind of religious authority never allow people to think.  And we need to challenge such religious authority in any form in any religion. For this those who exercise such authority should be ready to go to the second mile to understand the need of lay people.—db

                                             Chapter Thirteen

Guru New Revision 2020

In general, the term guru is all-inclusive.  Technically a guru is different from an acharya, or upadhyay.¹  A guru is a spiritual preceptor; whereas, the acharya is the one who teaches scripture as well as defends the theology of that sect.²  For example, we are familiar with the names ‘Sankaracharya and Ramanujacharya’, that indicate that they are acharyas and not gurus by this definition. So in this dialogue we will explore the various meanings of the term guru and its various connotations.

Though a guru is commonly sought for spiritual guidance, the term has other meanings as well.  Anyone learning something from another person, whether it is fine arts or even stealing or other criminal activities, will be addressed as ‘guru’.  For example, in several parts of North India, the common word used by the kalasi (cleaner) to address the bus and jeep drivers is ‘guru’. Though some terms originate with a spiritual or religious background, they begin to gain a new meaning during the history of its usage in India.  The common meaning for the word guru is ‘one who removes darkness’; whereas it literarily means ‘weighty’, ‘heavy’.³ and also ‘one who wards off bad qualities’.⁴

According to Prof. Kane:

…The word guru is often used in the sense of any elderly person, male or female, who is entitled to respect.  Visnudharmasutra [32.1-2] says that the father, the mother and the acarya are the three highest gurus of a person and Manu II.227-237 contains the most sublime glorification of these three.  Devala says that ‘among gurus five deserve special honour, viz. father, mother, acarya, eldest brother and husband (in the case of women)’.  Manu [II.149] says that whoever confers on another the benefit of knowledge, whether great or small, is the latter’s guru.⁵

With the above ideas and terms of guru in mind, a guru appears to be highly venerated and in most cases they are.  However, 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’⁶, they are punishable by the king because it is the duty of a king to uphold dharma, seeing that all his citizens are following their duties that belong to their respective varna (caste) and asrama (stage) dharma.

In general, a guru is a person, but our tradition doesn’t limit this role to only human beings, but as noted above, ‘whoever confers the benefit of knowledge’, is a guru. The Guru Grandsahib (the Sikh religious scripture) is the best example of this.  Similarly, the influence of the guru is not limited to their lifetime.  Even after they leave their body, they are venerated and followed by their disciples.  That’s why a guru is compared and even saluted as a god (as the famous Sanskrit sloka says: guru brahma, guru Vishnu….⁷  In the long run, the guru’s tomb (samadhi) becomes an object of worship complete with rituals, and then the teaching is generally neglected!  In most cases such veneration to a guru usually becomes blind faith and a part of superstition. Of course, this idea of following or worshiping someone after they are dead is not limited only to Hinduism, and J. Gonda provides an interesting account:

…Gregory of Tours reports how, when in the VIth century the tomb of the apostle Peter was arranged, a small wicket was inserted, allowing people to put their heads in and pray.  Those who wished to procure a relic for themselves threw some fragment of clothing, which had first been weighed, onto the tomb.  If prayer and faith were strong enough, the fragment weighed more when it was carried away again, because it was possessed of ‘strength’ (virtus).  Remarkably enough the Latin gravis, which is etymologically related to Skt. guru….⁸

We often claim that Hinduism is not an organized religion like that of Christianity but only a way of life.  This is true in every sense.  However the institutionalization of a movement with proper organizational efforts is not lacking in Hindu world either.  The guru movements are the best example of this.  The long history of India has shown that the gurus have not always remained as some spiritual preceptors, but they have also played some roles in the local social and political events as well.  Time immemorial several gurus (both a sannyasi and a family person) have exercised great influence on the rulers.  Ramdas’ influence on Shivaji and the Goswami’s role in the Mughal period are just a few examples.⁹  However, what is interesting to note is that several caste people have gathered around a guru and even called themselves ‘guru bhai’ (guru brother viz. as the follower of the same guru, they are now brothers and sisters).  Though this gave a temporary enhancement of status¹⁰ outside the society, yet rarely has the influence of a guru ever made any inroads to bring a change to the social character of the Indian society (for example removing the caste-based discrimination as such).

Modern Gurus

Moving on to recent history, after Vivekananda’s famous visit to West, the 20^th century witnessed a new turn where the word guru become a global word.  Though it earned Indian civilization a special kind of respect, Badrinath reports that it has also become a ‘highly sophisticated business’.  It is important to note his comments further:

…Disenchanted by Christianity and secularism alike, and equally by materialistic prosperity, a great many Western men and women, moved by the deepest stirrings of mind and spirit, have looked to India for guru—and found him or her.  In response to an unprecedented demand, that commodity has materialized in abundance.  The selling of a guru has become a highly sophisticated business.  You can see for example, in the subway of Frankfurt’s railway station a poster of a famous guru, with his telephone numbers, promising instant nirvana. On either side of it are two other attractive posters. One promises instant ecstasy to women who will use a particular brand of perfume, and the other promises men the satisfaction of the male need to control something powerful if they will own a particular make of a car.¹¹

Moreover, Badrinath warns us about the unquestioned submission to an external authority in ‘deciding the subjective meanings of one’s individuality’¹² as exercised by gurus. While we exported gurus to the West to cater to their needs, the ‘guru tourism’ from the West, seeking a proper guru here in India, made the very concept of guruism a new order of spiritual authority to parade and show the greatness of a person (as a guru) without having any personal relationship with the guru.  This is similar to dynastic politics where the children of the political parties are venerated and obeyed. These gurus have created such a ‘guru cult’ in India that the very concept of guru as a spiritual preceptor is replaced by empty pomp and show. The lavishness of their establishment and even the so called social, welfare and educational activities are only to ‘control’ their followers through any means rather than inspiring them to think forthemselves.¹³

Recently one of my shishyas called and told that they are going to organize a yoga class conducted by the student of the direct disciple who learned yoga from the famous Iyangar school of Yoga from late Yoga teacher Iyangar.  Note the person who is going to take yoga class is a student of another person who learnt yoga from Iyangar.  But the mere name of ‘Iyangar school of Yoga’ carries more weight and some people attach more importance to the name of that famous person than the ability of the new guide. 

Here the role played by the seekers from the West (because of ‘guru tourism’) has made the very institution of guru–shishya tradition a mockery.  In a few places, wealth and Westerners control the entire show, and common people do not have any access to the gurus.  When I was in Ranikhet, one Indian even lamented that his guru’s ashram is now completely dominated by Westerners.¹⁴ 

These and other dubious activities that are done in the name of spirituality and guruism are very distressing to most people.  This happens in every society which seeks instant and ready-made solutions to life’s problems.  Fortunately, when I was young, though ‘guru export’ and ‘guru tourism’ existed, it had not become so commercial and artificial.  That’s why when I was searching for a guru, I was seeking a teacher (acharya) who would guide me rather than control me.  Now a lot of change has come in Indian society.  Aping the Christian Monk traditions, so many Guru Movements are now well organized in the same line like an Organized Religion and Christian Monastic orders.  But one major difference that we should note is that unlike the Christian Monastic orders, though some Hindu Monastic orders like Ramakrishna Mission thrives well, most of the ashrams failed within one generation after the guru passed away.  The main reason for this is that:

Ashrams are individual-led rather than institution-led, and therefore they depend on the leadership of somebody who believes in the need for such communities.  Therefore ashrams tend to flourish when a leader is in the foundational years and show a decline when disciples take ashrams over….¹⁵

And, ‘…The continuance of the new movement, however, requires the successful evolution of stable forms of leadership and organization, a process Weber¹⁶ calls “the routinization of charisma” further says Minor. And taking the case study of Aurobindo at Auroville (Pondicherry in South India) he further says:

The disappearance or death of the charismatic leader can produce a crisis of continuity or succession. How this crisis develops is solved, Weber says, is of crucial importance for the character of relationship both within and outside the movement. But the nature of that process depends upon the interests of the followers of the charismatic figure, particularly the leaders among them….For whatever personal, religious, or social reasons, certain individuals have gathered followers about them who perceive their work as authoritative, appealing, and inspiring. Their success in convincing their followers that successors or consequent institutions are similarly authoritative, appealing, and inspiring, is the issue here….¹⁷

On the other hand few Christian monks (like Fr Jules Monchanin, Fr Henri Le Saux, Fr Bede Griffiths, Fr Francis Mahieu and Fr (?) Raimon Panikkar) came to India seeking Indian Spirituality and thought that founding some ‘Christian ashram’ will not only serve that purpose but also facilitate ‘Hindu-Christian’ dialogue.  Though few of their followers like to project a successful story about their efforts¹⁸ (or better ‘mission’) most of their institution which they created in the name and form of Hindu ashram remained ‘of the church for the church and by the church’ as they cannot completely breakaway from their (Catholic) church hierarchical authority.  The failure of the so called ‘Christian Ashram’ is an open secret and telling rebuke to Christian efforts to ape dharmic models which cannot be confined within the Institution (called church).  Though some of their ashrams continue to thrive successfully today (thanks to the Institutional control of the Catholic church), most of them are not only remain under the control of the church but also under the authority of the local Bishops without whose approval none of their activities or new ventures will be ever allowed.  Writing about Christian ashrams and their endeavor to reach out Hindus deserves separate book and as so many books, article and reviews were written about them, I need not add anything new here.  However rarely any Hindu goes to these Christian ashram seeking any guru or spirituality.  And most of them continue to serve as Retreat Centers for the Christian Nuns and Fathers and also some theological seminary students to do further research to write some papers as part of their study. 

Finding a guru

Seeking a guru for educational purposes is entirely different than seeking a preceptor for spiritual growth.  Of course the gurus have more of a role to play before accepting shishyas.  They have to think about the competence and sincerity of their shishyas before deciding to accept them.  The following incident in the life of Swami Abhishiktananda {Henri Le Saux the French monk} will highlight this well:

…The first meeting between {Ramana} Maharshi and Abhishiktananda took place in a large open shelter, where Maharshi used to sit at his frail age of 70, while disciples and seekers sat in silence around them….The Western monk {Henri Le Saux} used to the liturgical offices sung in choir and the manual community activities that are so much part of the directions given to monastic communities by the Rule of St Benedict searches for holiness and Christian fulfillment in the context of a monastic community….(49)

…Most of the Eastern masters have required their disciples to wait for some time until they could join their masters for their learning and such learning. Teaching and learning are bestowed in silence over years of retreat, study and renunciation, rather than through a set of lectures and practices that in a short period of time gives public recognition and personal satisfaction to the person who wants to learn.

               Abhishiktananda was a restless soul and a person who wanted to talk for hours in order to progress in his spiritual life. When he mentioned to Ethel Merston, an English woman who had known several Indian gurus, that he had been disappointed in his first meeting with Sri Ramana {Ramana Maharishi}….(p.50)¹⁹

I often say that no matter how sincerely we seek a guru, unless our hearts and minds are prepared properly, we will not find the right one.  In other words, when we are ready, then god will send the right guru into our lives.  Then the option before us is whether to receive that guru or not.  Then we need a discerning spirit within us to decide to follow the guru when he enters into our lives.  The follow story explains this very well.

One man who was looking for a guru tried his level best to find one.  Every year he would try, but in the end, would give up because he couldn’t find one.  However, his desire was so great that he decided to continue his search.  One a hot summer day after travelling a long time, he found a person sitting under a tree.  He approached the person and asked him to help him find a guru.  But the man, whose body was covered with a cloth to protect him from the heat, said, ‘Don’t disturb me’.  When the man continued to persuade him, then the man under the tree said, ‘the guru whom you are seeking will stay alone under a tree and his face will shine’.  Once again that man continued to travel in search of such a guru.  After a long gap, one day he again found a person sitting again under a tree in the hot summer covering her body with a cloth to protect himself from the heat.  He again approached that person and said, ‘I have been searching for my guru for a long time.  One person told me about the mark and sign of the guru I should find, but I still cannot find him.  Do you know such and such person?  Please help me.’  But the person sitting under the tree told him not to disturb him and to go away.  So the man who was searching for the guru with much disappointment walked further, but then stopped and thought, ‘I have heard that voice somewhere’, and he returned to the same tree and asked the person to show his face.  When he removed the cloth from his face, the man said, ‘you are the person sitting under the tree alone and your face is also shining.  So you must be the guru that I am seeking’.  For that the guru said, ‘you foolish man, I was seeking you for a long time, but you alone have no discerning spirit to find me’.

As you can see, in the Hindu world, though the word ‘guru’ is used in a variety of ways, a guru for the purpose of being a preceptor is based more on a spiritual longing and seeking.  The interesting fact about the relationship between a shishya and a guru in the Hindu world is that it is very unique and unparalleled in other societies and religions.  The shishya is implicitly obedient without questioning, totally surrendered to the guru and to his guidance, trusting that in whatever the guru thinks and commands to do the shishya will do, taking the guru’s every word as the very mantra for his spiritual progress (even for salvation).²⁰ I still remember a young man telling me about his experience with his guru in North India. He said that one day his guru gave him something to eat, and after consuming it, he realized that it was some kind of an herbal narcotic.  But he said, ‘I never questioned or doubted the motive of my guru.  I thought there must be some reason for him to give me a drug.  Perhaps he was testing me as to whether I would become addicted to it, or maybe to see what way I would respond to him when I realized what he had given me.  However, I kept quiet, and for the next few hours I was under the influence of that drug.  Sometimes he just asks me to go and get water from a very deep spring to the top of the hill where his ashram is situated. Sometimes he asks me to accompany him for a walk and asks me to collect firewood or do several errands, and without any question I obeyed him’.²¹  

Interestingly, that boy was highly educated, but his guru, whom I also know, was illiterate.  However, a disciple would never think about their education, wealth or family when totally surrender to a guru.  Of course while applauding the concept of a guru– disciple relationships, I have to confess the fact that the strong grip of caste also plays an important role.  Though there are few exceptions, in general, a high caste person will rarely accept someone lower than their caste as their guru.  Several historical examples like Ramanuja accepting a shudra as his guru are easily explained away and have never become the norm for anyone to follow.

My search for a guru

The reason for me to share all these points has some relationship to my search for a guru.  It is necessary for one to understand the strength of the guru tradition as well as its limitations due to the changing circumstances of gurus in the Indian society. My search was more for a preceptor who would enable me to think and to guide me rather than merely demand some obedience, with a promise to reveal more without questioning.  Also the same Indian tradition, which venerates the role of a guru, warns the seeker to be careful about selecting their guru.  As the Muktiveda says, “One who is blind cannot lead another blind”, ²² and in the same way, an unworthy guru cannot help the seeker.  In relation to this, Kabir says:

               Do select your preceptor with care/ As you skim your drinking water

               If carelessly you select him/ You face the birth-death eddy, be sure.²³

And Pandey also gives a graphic picture of this, ‘A man was asked not to make a person his teacher who was not firm in his character, for “hands besmeared with fat cannot be purified with blood.”’²⁴

Though I was asking the question of why I could not live a perfect life for even a single day, initially I was not seeking the solution outside of myself because of my religious tradition.  But to help to find that solution within me, I needed guidance.  Because, according to Hindu (religions and spiritual) tradition, no one can find the answer to the questions related to their spiritual struggle by her though the answer to the problem lies within her.  In fact, without the guidance of a guru, no sacred rite can ever be fruitful.²⁵ So, while I was struggling within me and trying to find the solution within my reach (by reading scriptures, doing rituals, attending sat–sanghs, etc.), I too was sincerely seeking a guru to enlighten me. 

Please remember that the way I present my search for a guru in precise terms now is not how I would have articulated it during the time I was searching. However, as I read several religious books besides the scriptures, I was very attracted to the personality of Vivekananda.  I don’t remember the exact title, but I think it was in the Tamil weekly magazine Kalki, in which Sri Baraneedaran was writing the biography of Ramakirshna Paramahamsa, and also it also included Vivekananda’s relationship with him.  Another of his writings that were about Saradha Devi (Amma Vandal, ‘Mother Came’) attracted me.  In the same way, I was drawn to read about Gandhiji, in his autobiography, My Experiment with Truth in Tamil as Satiya Sodanai.  When I read these books, I was motivated by them to fulfill my longing to find a guru to give some kind of answers to my questions as well as understanding to my struggle.

As usual, several limitations including work and family left me little opportunity or time to seek a guru more vigorously.  However, I still remember visiting Ramakrishna Kutil near Trichy to meet the Swamiji of that Ashram.  Though I stayed with a friend of mine there for few days, I did not get the opportunity to see him.  So my early readings about Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Vivekananda and also my visit to Vivekananda Rock and Vivekananda Kendra, in a sense, sowed the seeds that I too would one day become a sanyasi like Vivekananda.  This further motivated me to have some kind of mental affection towards Ramakrishna Mission.  It also became my dream to join that order and become a sanyasi.

Muktinath my guru

Just as the man in the story above was searching for a guru, the same thing happened in my life.  I too was searching for a guru, but god in his mercy showed my guru in Bhagavan Muktinath.  Because I had tried out several other gurus, I thought that I should give Him an opportunity, too.  If He proves that He is the guru whom I am seeking, then I will be satisfied, but if He too disappoints me, then I have not lost anything.  However, in the last 40 years and more, He has never disappointed me and I have found my guru in Him.

Nevertheless, my walk in obedience to Him was harder than the effort it took to find my guru because I found this guru to be more demanding than the others.  This does not mean that other gurus are in any way less than Muktinath.  But knowing my need and personality, god sent the right guru into my life.  What first attracted me to Muktinath more than to other gurus is that He is not a mere mythological character.  His teachings are universal in their scope, and I will explain this in more depth and detail later.

However, the most attractive thing in the life of Muktinath is the way He humbled Himself unto the point of washing the feet of His disciples.  This is unheard of anywhere in the world; a guru washing the feet of his disciples!  The next thing is that He never expected or demanded that which He Himself had never put into practice.  His approach to human problems and struggles is more down to earth.  His teachings are more pragmatic and people-oriented than any objective philosophy.  Of course some of His explanations about His mission are in the context of fulfilling the prophesy told about Him in the past (in Purva veda).  But irrespective of His cultural, social and even religious identity and context, His personality, teaching, and approach are universal for anyone to follow.²⁶

When I started to read the Muktiveda and sincerely began to pray to god, he accepted my limitations and began to gradually reveal himself according to my needs and expectations.  I did not suddenly surrender all to the Lord, though things happened very quickly for me to follow Him (this is a different story to be told elsewhere). The more I began to read the Muktiveda and particularly Muktinath’s teaching, somehow in my spirit, I realized that He is the kind of guru that I was looking for.  The more I obeyed and developed my personal relationship with Him, the more strongly His life and teaching appealed to my need.  One thing I should add here.  However I try to explain my search for a guru and its end in Muktinath in a rationalistic way, yet my relationship with Him developed with a mystical nature, which stands beyond words, though I tried to express them through my songs.  Though romance between husband and wife and friendship between friends is universal in nature, yet each romance and friendship has its own mystical nature which stands beyond words.  The same is my dasatva (servanthood) to my swami (Lord).

For example, the way He forgave the woman caught in adultery and pointed out the hypocrisy of His opponents whose aim was not to punish the woman, but was only to trap Him, helped me to accept my hypocrisy and also not to throw the first stone on anyone or try to trap god himself with my philosophical questions about life or god.  One may find similar incidents in the lives of other great people, but until I found my guru in the Lord, I had never heard such stories.  There are many more examples of why He became my guru instead of other great acharyas, religious and spiritual personalities of India.  The way both divine and human nature combined in Him, each glorifying the other not only convinced me but also humbled me to obey, follow and worship Him.  He is, for me the highest expression of human being and the lowest expression of god.  If human can grow higher and higher in moral and spiritual life, then no one can grow taller than Him.  He is the culmination of all (human) virtues.  If god can come down to reach human beings, he cannot comedown lower than Him to reveal his true nature.  He is the embodiment of divine humility.  He is the end where the grace and peace; authority and humility of god culminate. 

Not merely the divine/human combination but also the easy access to Muktinath without any pre-requirement of fulfilling any rituals helped me to submit to Him as my guru.  One practice that drove me away from the Indian personalities and towards Muktinath is the Hindu tradition that, to be accepted as the shishya of a particular guru you must perform certain rituals.  For example, when you go to any particular Hindu ashram, most of the time, the first thing that is expected from the seeker is to participate in the rituals done to worship the guru—like singing bhajans, taking part in arati, paduka puja (worshiping the wooden sandals of that guru) and of course listening to some talk given either by the guru or by his disciples (in case the guru is no longer alive).  In two places in South (rather four actually) when I went with some inner longing to talk with someone about my struggles, no one was there to listen.  They all expected me to participate in the pujas and rituals first.  I had to forget about seeing the guru himself or even seeing any of the shishyas and talking to them about the inner struggle and spiritual longing.  Of course now things may have changed, but during the time I was searching, I was not allowed to talk to the guru or the disciples about my concerns. 

Being a Brahmin, I am familiar with all kinds of rituals both at home and in the temple similar to what I was being asked to perform at the ashrams.  They had never appealed to me before and sometimes looked too artificial, so I had no desire to do them at the ashrams.  Of course others could criticize this view and say that I was demanding a readymade and instant solution for my struggle, and no guru or ashram in India would ever provide such a packaged solution.²⁷   As noted above in the case of Abhishiktananda, a sincere seeker needs more patience, obedience and time invested to grow gradually, step by step beginning with rituality, showing real desire to learn and obey. Only after such a gradual phase, after the guru carefully observes you and according to your needs and personality, would he impart spiritual knowledge to you. I am not blaming our Indian tradition or the way our gurus and ashrams function, but my need was different and my struggle had reached a peak.  Realizing my situation, god, in his mercy, sent a different guru who was completely different in His approach from my tradition.  Maybe even this difference in approach could be another reason for me to be more attracted to Muktinath.

Fellow shishyas and their influence on my life

I was influenced by the personal care, concern and even time that other shishyas of Muktinath gave me. This care will impact the seekers of spirituality.  In my experience, it was hard to find such care by the shishyas of Indian gurus.  In most of the ashrams and other guru movements each person comes to seek her personal spiritual need and sadhana.  Of course community service is provided to take care of the other needs of the participants. But the main purpose is to seek spirituality ‘individually’.  In most cases, the guru alone is the person who can impart spiritual knowledge and even the shishyas of a particular guru do not command the same kind of rapport with a seeker.  Whereas in several cases these people have become bhaktas of the Lord because of the time and sincere care given to them by other bhaktas of the Lord. Though I cannot generalize this, based on my experience, I think several of the ‘converts’ as well as bhaktas from the educated and so called high caste people will agree with me. 

This down-to-earth attitude of service needs to improve among Hindu gurus and ashrams.  After visiting a few ashrams and even being disappointed with my interview at Ramakrishna Mission²⁸, I met two Indian followers of Christ.  The way they showed concern and were ready to listen (rather than to talk much initially) and pray for me greatly surprised me.  No ritual was prescribed or mantra was given to mutter or yogic technique was taught (after collecting some admission fee for the stay and class in the ashram), but instead, one-to-one talk as person to person was offered.  The overall Muktivedic value of respecting each individual as a person created in the IMAGE of god is the main motive behind this.  Of course, there are other kinds of sadhanas—like prayer, reading the Muktiveda, listening to teaching, singing bhajans, etc., but they are done as follow up to help the seeker become more rooted in his bhakti.

This is what happened in my life.  I was greatly attracted to learn more about Muktinath, because I met two followers of Christ whose desire was to listen to me first and even without understanding much of the struggle that I had within me (because I couldn’t communicate very well at that time), they prayed sincerely (that too with many tears—not a mere act, but that the tears came deep from within their hearts and not from their eyes), and they insisted that I stay with them, and they spent even more time with me (in an ashram-like situation in a remote mountain amidst the forest) sharing the message of Muktinath with me. So when I began to read the Uttara Veda (New Testament), I experienced the same spirit of care, concern and personal encounter on the basis of one-to-one between god and me and I was captivated.  This was further strengthened when I began to pray to Muktinath.  I felt that He was there to listen and was even speaking with me in my mind and spirit.  Of course Hindus have their own way and method of listening to god—through ritual, sagunam (sings), casting lots, observing signs (of birds, sounds, etc.) Of course Hindus also pray to god, but listening to god in the way to know the mind of god and reading the scriptures to know god’s purpose both for humanity and the individual does not exist in the Hindu world.²⁹ 

After my encounter with my Lord, I realized that I could approach Him at any time, without any formality, purification rite or ritual.  Though Hindus are also able to approach their particular god at any time in their mind and spirit, their communication with their guru in such an open approach is uncommon. However, such an approach is common in the great Hindu Bhakti traditions of India.  Anyway, god’s approach to me as my guru in the Lord greatly appealed to me.  In response to the question: have you seen god or encountered god my answer is, ‘I have never seen god or I can ever see god’. But the guru who leads me from untruth to truth, darkness to light and death to life is my god as I cannot understand a god beyond him.   Even now, my personal theology is that Muktinath is god, not because He is the Son of God, but He is my guru.  If He were not a human first, then He could never be a god at any time for me.  Though in English, Muktinath is translated god-man, yet I like the Sanskrit word ‘narahari’-man-god.  Interestingly, it will look very strange if you try to say harinara in Sanskrit, but you can naturally say narahari.  This nara—man guru alone showed me hari-god in my life.

Notes

1 Gonda, Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, (1965) 1985,  241 & 262

2 …Sankara, as described in the Digvijaya, “the conquest of space,” conformed to the current idea of the acarya, the “master” who had to be able to defend his own position against all objections and to defeat his opponents in public debate.–Klaus K. Klostermaier,  A Survey of Hinduism, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1990, p.56

3 …Literally, `guru’ means `weighty’, `heavy’….— Julius Lipner, HINDUS Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, London 1994. p.190  And:

The (etymological) meaning of ‘guru’ is as follows: he praises (grnati), i.e. teaches, the acquisition of what is beneficial and the abandonment of what is harmful.  The very same person is called acarya (teacher), whose definition is given in the Puranas, ‘He who gathers (acinoti) the sacred treatises, establishes (others) in the right conduct (acara) and practices it (acarate) himself is called a teacher (acarya) by the wise.’—Patric Olivelle, Yatidharma Prakasha, A Treatise on World Renunciation, Critically edited with Introduction, Annotated translation and Appendices, Part two Translation.  Publications of THE DE NOBILI RESEARCH LIBRARY, Vienna, 1977, p.173

4 …The word Guru (Preceptor) signifies a person who wards off bad qualities. — ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L.Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, 18:83, p.125

5 P.V. Kane. History of Dharmasastra, Vol. II. Part. I. p. 324.

6 …In Santiparva a verse is quoted from Brhaspati’s work as recited by Marutta in the section on kings [Santi. 57.6-7]—ibid.  Vol. I. Part. I. 14, p. 161 and also see p. 372

 According to the scriptural injunction, there is punishment for even the preceptor if he becomes haughty and disregardful of his duty, and if he transgresses all restrictions…. [Bhishma to Yudhisthira].— ibid. Vol. 6. Shanti Parva Ch. LVII. p. 80

48. The very preceptor, if he is haughty, ignorant of what should be done and what should not, and an impious person, should be restrained by Punishment. [Rishi Bharadwaja to king Shatrunjaya]— ibid. Vol. 6. Shanti Parva. Ch. CXI. P. 212

7 gurur brhama gurur visnu gurur devo mahesvarah/

guruh saksat param brahma tasmaisrigurave namah//

‘Guru is Brhama, guru is Visnu, guru is Siva; guru indeed is the supreme Brahman. Salutations to that guru’.—Swami Sivananda, Guru Gita {Sarva-Gita Sara}, Tehri-Garhwal, The Divine Life Society, 2012 (fourth edition), p. 58

8 J. Gonda, Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, (1965) 1985, p.238

9 …The six Gosvaamis … were also involved in the game of power and politics, ‘real’ politics, and they played it very successfully.  In North India, if Hindu history took a different course after the 15^th century, the credit should go to two sets of Gosvaamis the Vallabhaites and the Caitanyaites who were very good at philosophy and literature, but even better in the game  of politics.  This pushed us through those dark periods.—Shri Shrivatsa, in Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna (eds.), Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 2000, p. 209

10 …A guru in Hinduism is not merely a withdrawn religious specialist, but one of the foci of the local political network.  Depending on his power to attract followers and distribute honours and gifts, a guru may ritually and juridically extend his control over a whole cluster of castes.  His principal attraction is his ability to integrate local communities into a larger, galactic Hindu polity.  For castes such as the one to which Amator belonged, considered ritually low, connections with a guru who claimed such supra-local ties meant an enhancement of status.— Ines G. Zupanov, Disputed Mission: Jesuit Experiments and Brahminical Knowledge in Seventeenth-century India, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 220.  Even now several gurus exercise tremendous influence among his followers as we noted in the case of Ram-Rahim Baba in Haryana (now in Jail) and also Asharam Babu (again Jail along with his son).  During elections these gurus will command their followers to give vote to a particular party to which they favour.  Now few gurus not only became members of Parliament but even the present Chief Minister of Utter Pradesh is Sri Yogi Adit, who exercises lots of (political) influence among his followers. 

11 Chaturvedi Badrinath,Dharma, India and the World Order, Saint Andrew Press, Pahl-Rugenstein, 1993, p.44

12 ibid. p.45

13 After the recent appoint as next successor to Madhurai adeenam, Nityananda (addressed by Tamil media as ‘Niti’ to show disrespect to him after all the sexual scandal around him) declared so many welfare schemes through the Madurai adeenam and in one place, where the locals first opposed his visit to their temple, finally gave a good reception as he declared so many welfare scheme.  The recent update is that now he is absconding from India and even declared that he established separate ‘the only Hindu’ country in the world called ‘Kailash’ hiding somewhere releasing so many videos (even challenging the authorities that they cannot catch him) about his country. The recent one (August 2020) is that he released his own coins for his country.

Now it become a norm in India media exposing such gurus where brainwashed youths remain captivated there and the parents lodging complaints against such ashram requesting the authorities to rescue their children from there. 

14 ‘Not only our priests in the temple, but several immediate shishyas are easily influenced by the power of the money of these foreigners.  Furthermore, the worst aspect is that all kinds of vices are introduced by these people’.  He  said this with much concern to me.  Recently at Tiruvannamalai, where Ramana Maharisi’s ashram and several other ashrams are flourishing, the police raided it to find several Westerners staying there after their visas had expired, and they were also questioned about drugs and other abuses.  This happens even in some Christian ashrams, however they are controlled by the local church authorities.

15  Mario. I. Aguilar, Christian Ashrams, Hindu Caves and sacred Rivers: Christian-Hindu Monastic Dialogue in India 1950-1993, London Jesica Kingsley Publishers, 2016, p. 38

16 Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Development, trans. By A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1947, pp. 358-9, quoted in ‘Routinized Charisma: The Case of Aurobindo and Auroville’, by Robert K. Minor (University of Kansas), pp. 130-148, in Keith E. Yandell and John J. Paul, Religion and Public Culture: Encounters and Identities in Modern South India, London, Routledge, 2017, p. 130

17 ibid p. 130.  And concluding this paper Minor says, ‘…While the Aurobindo Ashram continued with the bureaucracy the Mother established, in the experimental community the charisma of Aurobindo and the Mother was, as Weber would say, not routinized.’—p. 146.

18  The recent best example is: Mario. I. Aguilar, Christian Ashrams, Hindu Caves and sacred Rivers: Christian-Hindu Monastic Dialogue in India 1950-1993, London Jesica Kingsley Publishers, 2016.  For a critical view of Christian ashrams see: Catholic Ashrams Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma. With a preface by Sita Ram Goel,Voice of India, New Delhi, 1988.

19 To understand Abhishiktananda’s frustration we need to note that, ‘This community recognizes the central authority of a prior or an abbot, and traditions within the monastic tradition are learned through the chanting of liturgical offices, the celebration of the Eucharist, some exploratory lectures and a direct personal relationship with their novice master and with their God.  This Western tradition, particularly in the case of the Benedictines, (p.49) is a written tradition in which the copying of texts and their studies provides a deeper relationship with the divine through intellectual understanding and a communal life….’—Mario. I. Aguilar  op. cit, pp. 49-50. 

20 …the guru was elevated to the place assigned to God, as can be seen from many Tantric texts.  It produced, at one end, devotees seeking relief from the troubles of their daily existence, and at the other end, the guru dispensing it.  That made independent thinking of little value.

The value of rational thinking lowered, the force of external authority was reinforced.  Authority being regarded as the criterion of truth, and custom of good conduct, they turned into something very much more than functional arrangements of a well-ordered society.  Rather, they were invested with a touch almost of the divine.  In brief, the guru became the apotheosis of those absolutist trends in Indian society that had also existed beside the essentially relativistic temper of the Dharmic mind (p.46) …All the anti-intellect trends in Indian society converged, finally, on the institution of the guru.  Together they became the source of the authoritarianism always latent in India.— Badrinath, op. cit. pp. 46-47

21 One should not transgress the bounds set by the guru, for obedience to the guru is declared to be the highest dharma. One should never do an unkind thing to the guru, whether he is a pundit or an abject sinner neither should one mimic his speech or treat him with disrespect.  One should do what is favourable to one’s teacher in thought, word and deed-even with his life and wealth.  One who does so attains the highest goal. — Olivelle, Yatidharma Prakasha,  op. cit. p.173

Vedic scholars know and affirm that the advice of a preceptor is wholesome.(58)  Those who firmly believe that the advice of the preceptor is true will experience great happiness here and hereafter.  They will have no unhappiness anywhere. (59) Those who distrust the maxim in their heart of hearts that the advice of preceptors is true will experience nothing but misery here and hereafter, no happiness anywhere.(60)  O brahmins, the advice of the preceptors is not to be eschewed at all….(61)— J. L. Shastri, op. cit.  25:58-61, p.576

22 One himself bonded gets bonded guide/ How can he get the clue? Let him seek who has earned salvation/ In moments he can free him too. (224)— G.N.Das, COUPLETS FROM KABIR ,Edited, Translated and Compiled by Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass,1991, p.93

23 ibid. p. 4.

24 Rajbali Pandey, Hindu Samskaras:  Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (Second Revised Edition, 1969), Reprint, 1987, p.125

25 No sacred rite will ever fructify without a good preceptor.  Truly this eternal statement of the Vedas was heard by me before.—ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J. L. Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, 21:32, p.553

26 The book :Jesus I never Knew by Philip Yancey, (1995) is a good book to understand the uniqueness of Muktinath.

27  However now several such ashrams with certain assured package for readymade and instant solution to one’s problem in the name of art of living with a price is a common ‘corporate guru trade’ in India.  Spiritual and yoga camps are organized for a week or two with several packages (costs according to the accommodation etc.) where training is given. 

28  I applied to join the Ramakrishna Mission as a novice and I received a letter to come and meet them in person. So I went to Ramakrishna Mission in Mylapore at Chennai and one Swamiji also interviewed.  But I never received any kind of response from them. But I later came to know that they won’t accept a grown up person like me (at that time around 27 years old) as a novice.  They have their own rules and regulation in recruiting novice. So I won’t blame them for this.

29 Of course people like Gandhi have clearly told that how reading Gita has helped him to get clear guidance in several crises in his life. See Notes 4, in Chapter on Sin in Living Dialogue.

Appendix

I strongly believe in the historicity of Muktinath.  Even if he never lived and was merely an imaginary character, still I believe in him. Because in all other mythological characters one would hardly found such teachings which he imparted to his disciples.  If he were not in real life, no one could imagine or invent this kind of teachings.  He never wrote anything in life.  All his teachings were later collected by his followers.  That is why, though the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) tried to present some kind of systematic teachings events still one can find lots of contradiction if she apply the present textual criticism.  This proves that no one ever created an imaginary character like Muktinath and through his mouth imparted such teachings.  Of course one can say that we can say the same about several Indian scriptures like Upanishads and Mahabharata.  But Upanishads never gives importance to any individual.  Mahabharata is an encyclopedic works in which so many authors contributed so many teachings through the characters of Mahabharata.  So the very personality and teachings of Muktinath is a proof that he was a historical person.  The following extracts might highlight about the Personality of Muktinath

               Philosophers try to solve the mysteries of the universe by their empty dissertations; fools they are like the infant that cries to have the moon for a plaything.  Christ never hesitates.  He speaks with authority.  His religion is a mystery; but it subsists by its own force.  He seeks and absolutely (REQUIRES THE) love of men, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain.  Alexander, Caasar, Hannibal, Charlemagne and myself founded empires; but upon what-FORCE.  Jesus founded His empire on Love; and at this hour (MILLIONS) would die for Him.  I myself have inspired multitude with such affection, that they would die for me.  But my presence was necessary.  Now that I am in St.Helena, where are my friends?  I am forgotten; soon to return to the earth and become food for worms.  What an abyss between my misery and the eternal Kingdom of Christ who is proclaimed, loved, adored and which is extending over all the earth.  In this death I tell you, the death of Christ is the death of God.  I tell you Jesus CHRIST IS GOD.–Napoleon.

Jesus I never Knew, Philip Yancey, (1995), Reprint 2004, Secundrabad, O.M. Books

 “More than 1900 years later,” said H.G. Wells, “ a historian like myself, who doesn’t even call himself a Christian, finds the picture centering irresistibly around the life and character of this most significant man… The historian’s test of an individual’s greatness is ‘What did he leave to grow?’  Did he start men to thinking along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him?  By this test Jesus stands first.”  [H.G.Wells: Quoted from The Greatest Men in History in Mark Link, S.J., He Is the Still Point of the Turning World. Chicago: Arugs Communications, 1971, p.111]You can gauge the size of a ship that has passed out of sight by the huge wake it leaves behind.—p.17

J.B. Phillips wrote, after translating and paraphrasing the Gospels, “I have read, in Greek and Latin, scores of myth, but I did not find the slightest flavour of myth here…. No man could have set down such artless and vulnerable accounts as these unless some real Event lay behind them”. [Ring of Truth. Wheaton, Ill.: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1977, p. 79]—p.20

…Walter Wink has said, if Jesus had never lived, we would not have been able to invent him.—p.23

            Before Jesus, almost no pagan author had used “humble” as a compliment [to God]….—p.36

Everything in Christ astonishes me. His spirit overawes me, and his will confounds me. Between him and whoever else in the world, there is no possible term of comparison.  He is truly a being by himself…. I search in vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the gospel.  Neither history, nor humanity, not the ages, nor nature, offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or to explain it.  Here everything is extraordinary.—Napoleon.—p.83

…After ten years he [Fyodor Dostoevsky] emerged from exile with unshakable Christian convictions, as expressed in one famous passage, “If anyone proved to me that Christ was outside the truth… then I would prefer to remain with Christ than with the truth.’[See Joseph Frank: Dostoevsky, The Years of Ordeal, 1850-1859, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983]—p.141

                                             Chapter Fourteen

Worship ceremonies rituals and Symbols

Importance of ceremony, ritual and worship:

No community in the world survives without performing some kind of ceremonies (samskars) for various stages in human life.  Similarly any bhakti without having some form of worship (puja) with some ritual is unimaginable.  In general, samskars and rituals related to the psychological needs which the so called religion accommodates.  Reading too much ‘spirituality’ or ‘non-spiritual’ looks bit artificial to me. At least in India where life is never divided in watertight compartment viewing rituals merely psychological or social or spiritual or non-spiritual are various statements which one uses to express her opinion about them.

No uniformity:

I do not impose any uniformity in the form of puja.  However, most of the time, I try to localize it according to the culture, context, and needs.  In general, I start the puja by giving a call to remain silent for a few minutes to concentrate or focus our entire being on God through silence.¹ Then, I begin chanting OM together three times.  The rhythm and the way it unites our mind and spirit within us and also with each other is very special.  It is a beautiful call to a collective and personal worship of God. 

Then we do Namavali, in which I give a call followed by a response by the participants.  I use both Tamil and Hindi, so the response varies.  After Namavali, I chant a Sanskrit sloka or mantra for one or three times, followed by bhajans, pravachan, maha prasad and prayers.  In these, there is no definite order to follow.  Sometimes, immediately after the bhajans, I will serve the maha prasad and will allow the children to go and play, and then we will first pray for various things and then there will be a study or discussion grounded in the Muktiveda.  I often change the order in order to break the monotony and the danger of becoming so familiar with the form that it becomes routine.  I often encourage people to be innovative and alive in worship and puja rather than insisting on some kind of a set pattern or order in the name of discipline.  At the end, we sing the Universal Prayer from Upanishad together and give a blessing by throwing yellow rice on the head of the participants.  Sometimes, I send small packets of yellow rice with the visitors from other places to take back to their homes to bless others who could not come to the puja.  In this way, we convey that we remember them in our prayers.  It is a typical part of the Hindu puja to take some prasad back home to give others symbolizing distributing the ‘prasad’ (grace) of god.   Most of the time puja is followed by a simple vegetarian meal.

As a family:

Generally, I do not encourage the children to be separated from the adults, but instead I include them by involving them in the puja by asking them to arrange items and by asking them to pray.  Though some feel that children may disturb the puja, I am against sending the children away. They are part of our family, so they should be part of our worship and puja along with the entire family. When they grow up, our way of puja will leave a deep impression in their mind.  Above all, they sometimes help us to refrain from long discussions when explaining a point.  Children add more richness to our worship than hindrance.  I often say to the adults, ‘Tune your mind and spirit to listen to me and also to the worship, and then the children won’t be a bother.  Even if they shout and cry, consider it background music.’

Various forms:

Related to worship, there are some special pujas (worships) for different functions.  For example, we inaugurated our Gurukulam by arranging a typical ‘land puja’ (boomi puja), in which we also performed a havan (offering in fire).    Of course I don’t recommend this form of (special) worship (puja) for everyone.  But in our case, knowing what we are doing, we used a typical Indian (Hindu) form to dedicate the place for god’s service.  In a similar way, I have performed housewarming ceremonies in which the use of fire is optional.  Remember, all the Hindus do not use offering in fire.  In a simple ‘shanti puja’ we will use mantras that I have written with a few simple words like let there be peace on earth, family, town etc., and we use an oil lamp.  In these occasions instead of breaking the coconut, I will ask the family to keep it as a reminder of that special occasion.

But all these forms of worship cannot be done without using several Indian symbols.  But as the meaning, nature and function of symbols in India differ vastly, unless one understands them in their proper context, they will be more of a hindrance rather than being helpful in worship. 

No confrontation but accommodation

Or

Life cycle rituals and the Bhakta

In general, we perform birth and marriage rituals and so far we haven’t had an opportunity to perform final rites for any of the Hindu bhakta of the Lord.  In most cases, where the new believers live with their family, we encourage them to go along with the ceremony arranged in accordance with the family tradition.  We also encourage the bhakta to talk to the family members to re-adjust certain rituals in order to keep her faith and also the demand of the family in a balance.  But if our demand is too difficult for their people to accept, instead of confronting them, we let them do things according to their comfort.  Most of the ceremonies in Hindu communities are more social-oriented and people-oriented in which ritual plays only a small part.  We do not want to deprive our people of their joy to happily celebrate the event with our relatives and friends.

Form and not meaning is important:

The right kind of behavior and not what you believe is most important in many Hindu ceremonies and rituals.  Almost no one pays any attention to what the priest is doing, except for following some of his instruction. 

Tightrope walk:

However, we have observed that there are more (religious) ceremonies and rituals in the `higher’ castes, particularly the Brahmin than other communities.  In most cases, particularly in the marriage ceremony, ritual receives less significance and entertaining the guests, welcoming them, decoration, makeup etc., receive more attention.  Even in some worship like Navaratri (nine-day celebration) decoration and talents are more important than the actual rituals and worship.  This does not mean that ritual is not important.  But those who attend a typical Hindu ceremonies and worship will see the wide differences between ritual and cultural importance of these events.

All of these explanations will never justify a bhakta participating in rituals that are related to the worship of any deity.  More than anyone, they know about it well.  At the same time, being a part of the family and community, not deserting and becoming a ‘convert’, she has to walk a tightrope.  So understanding the situation of that particular individual, we accommodate and make adjustments without anything or anyone come in the way of our bhakti to our Lord Muktinath.

Use of Sanskrit

I use Sanskrit where necessary to celebrate the richness of this ancient language in ceremonies and rituals.  But we neither use Sanskrit to impress others or to impose it on others (with any hegemonic attitude).  But in our personal sadhana, ceremonies, rituals and satsanghs we do use some Sanskrit and that too after giving the entire meaning of those slokas.  I too agree that if our Lord ‘came to India in our day, He wouldn’t be speaking Sanskrit;’ certainly also He would not be speaking in English, and definitely He wouldn’t use any Greek words!

We find that, as a musical language, some use of Sanskrit adds richness in a wedding (or in some other) ceremony.  Using Sanskrit in a death-related ceremony is purely traditional.  Sanskrit is the acceptable language of ritual in most Hindu castes. It should also be noted that in any ceremony, particularly in a marriage the use of Sanskrit is less.  Of course, it is best that the mantras and the rituals are explained to enrich meaningful participation.   However using Sanskrit is also heavily criticized and condemned which led to some controversy. 

Considering the limitation of this chapter I don’t want to go in detail on this issue.  But see my response to one such controversy in my blog, ‘Bride and Brahmin Priest’.

I don’t know much Sanskrit, but even from childhood, I heard and learnt many slokas and mantras taught to me by my parents.  Even today I remember most of them.  I always read my Muktiveda either in Tamil or Hindi, so I cannot say even one verse properly in English.  But if I read the same verses in Sanskrit, it seems to automatically be recorded in my mind.  That is the way my mind was disciplined.  Give anything in poetic form, and we remember it, but in prose form, we cannot memorize.  At the same time, among my friends in Tamilnadu, we seldom use Sanskrit, but only vernacular Tamil.  Some relatives of these Muktinath bhaktas, who participated in our satsangh and worship, could even join in and sing most of our songs in Tamil.

Using symbols:

Form needs to communicate the ‘content’:

In order to communicate a concept, it should be presented not only with the familiar language of the people, but also in forms that will communicate the concept in a more meaningful way.  Particularly this is important, as simple, un-lettered common people, though they can understand their language, yet may not comprehend the complete meaning of any special words, as their level of understanding of the language might be different in their life situation from the person who shares a particular thought.  But this not only limited to un-lettered people but even any lay person cannot understand all the sophisticated and technical terms that one uses while sharing a message.  For example when we use the word bhakti, for a common person, it is not necessarily in the sense of a personal relationship with their chosen deity, but most of the time doing the ritual sincerely in a prescribed traditional way.  So it is not only the ‘content’ but also ‘form’ is also important to communicate a concept. No better symbol comes to my mind than the ‘cross’ itself. [This is the original by DB]

                                                            Or

In order to communicate a concept, it should be presented not only with the familiar language of the people, but also in forms that will communicate the concept in a more meaningful way. 

For the lay person, the form represented by a symbol powerfully communicates much more than words.  The ‘form’ also plays an important role passing the content through to the future generation without compromise and confusion.  Here a symbol plays an important role because just one symbol can easily communicate the whole concept rather than using many words to explain the concept.  No better symbol comes to my mind than the ‘cross’ itself. 

This one symbol, which originated in a cruel context of punishing criminals in the Roman world, not only gained a new meaning after the death of our Lord on it, but now it has become a universal symbol to communicate ‘suffering’ and ‘sacrifice’.  Of course in every generation, many such symbols are misused and abused, but this cannot minimize the importance of the role played by the symbol in communication.

Role of a symbol:

Just as a picture is worth a thousand words, a symbol can help communicate difficult concepts to common people that would otherwise need to be read.  Though rituals help to some extent, the inherent problem in rituals is that they become routine and the person becomes more concerned about doing it correctly with the right form according to the traditional way rather than what the ritual actually means. On the other hand, symbols can play a unique role.  For example, most of the orthodox Hindus sip a little water from their palm after a bath or some rituals.  After becoming a bhakta of the Lord, one old woman at Erode (in Tamilnadu), who is illiterate, didn’t abandoned this practice or ritual of sipping water.  Instead, after a bath, she will still sip the water from her palm and say, ‘This is the blood of the Lord’ and then sprinkle the rest on her head praying to god to protect her from all kinds of dangers.  Similarly when she applies her tilak (with red line) she will say ‘this is the blood mark of my Lord’.  There is no point in confronting her to give up such old practices because they are not mere rituals or religious practices, but they have deep spiritual meaning to her.   In medieval Europe, the stained-glass windows of the churches were used to explain muktivedic themes to the common people because printing was not yet invented and the Muktiveda was a rare thing.²  During this period, every part of the church like the door, bell, pillars etc. was symbolically interpreted.³

Symbols are not universal:

Every religion has its own particular symbols to communicate basic concepts.  But there are no universally accept symbols which can easily communicate concepts within a religion or sect.  Our worldview, culture, life experiences, social setting, etc. affect our understanding and approach to a symbol and these all differ to other people.  For example, though a ‘cross’ is a universal symbol in the Christian world, for many it is merely a religious symbol, for others it is a ritual symbol, for a few it has magical power to confront evil forces as we saw in the film Dracula, and for some its theological meaning is more important than any other meaning.  In several places, a cross pendent is worn as a necklace to protect people.  This is a common practice in several European countries when soldiers go in war.⁴

Hinduism’s long tradition of not holding one central event or meaning for any one symbol complicates both the understanding and use of a particular symbol.  Take for example the common symbol of an ‘oil lamp’.  Its usage and meaning is varied.  Though it is usually used in religious rituals, its function is not limited.  It is also used for decorative purposes in various performances of fine arts like music and dance.  Recently, it has replaced the ribbon cutting ceremony used to inaugurate public events.  At the same time, it is also used as the main symbol, even going so far as to replace the image of a deity and the lamp itself becomes the deity in worship known as ‘vilakku pujai’ (puja to oil lamp).  When one dies, in few communities, they will light one oil lamp and place near the head of the body till it was taken away for cremation or burial.

Those who warn against the danger involved with the use of symbols should also remember that there is no inherent weakness or evil in the symbol itself.  It depends upon how it is used, interpreted and understood by a votary to go beyond it to understand the true meaning.  Just as merely reading the Muktiveda (or book) or singing a bhajan or listening to a presentation are not ends in themselves but they carry us forward to understand the meaning in them, the symbols themselves are not an end in themselves.  Likewise, promoting any uniform symbol(ism) in the name of unity or uniformity is also dangerous.  That’s why when one sincere evangelical encouraged me to produce a CD with proper explanations of a puja with Indian symbols, I cautioned him against such an endeavor.  Though some symbols are common to a wider culture and religious world (like Hinduism), their meaning may not be universal because people are influenced by their local customs.  So before using and promoting any symbol, its relevance to a particular place or context needs to be studied properly.  For example, breaking the coconut is mostly a South Indian symbol.  Though North Indians know about it, it is not a common practice there.  Though we can introduce this in North, we should be careful not to introduce new symbols, however effective they might be in one place or context.

Importance of native symbols:

Now being a follower of Bhagavan Muktinath and being a Hindu, we too cannot escape from the importance of symbols in our faith in the Lord.  While several muktivedic symbols like a ‘cross’ are unique ones and cannot be replaced, there are several areas in which using native symbols can help Indians in both worshipping and understanding their faith.  At the same time, symbols do not need to be limited in their use only to India or an Indian context.  But like the cross, which has become a universal symbol for suffering and sacrifice, certain Hindu symbols can also be used in a universal context for communicating the gospel message.  Using milk and bananas as prasad, and the coconut to demonstrate the offering of the Lord etc. (about which I will share later) are some Indian symbols.  In the same way I introduce the ‘feet of the Lord’ with dot on them to mark the piercing of the nail.  I use the same symbol that we have in Hinduism viz., ‘paduka’ (generally made out of wood) the feet of guru or god.  When Rama refused to return back to Ajodhya as per the request and persuasion of his brother Bharata, then the latter requested Rama to give his wooden chapels to represent his reign on Ayodhya.  Till Rama returned Bharata kept Rama’s padukas on the throne and ruled the kingdom.  In the same way in several ashrams, after the death of the guru, his padukas will be kept and worshipped by his devotees.  But in our context, instead of keeping a cross, I introduced the ‘paduka’ of the Lord with two red dot, depicting the blood on them as they were pierced by nails, for us to remember His sacrifice for us.

In the early days of my faith in the Lord, though I used Hindu words like bhakti, puja, prasad etc. to understand the muktivedic meaning, most of them were limited to a verbal understanding and communication.  In my personal worship, I never used any kind of symbols because I never felt any need for it.  However, when it comes to the corporate worship, we cannot completely avoid the use of symbols, so I began to contemplate replacing the traditional Christian symbols to express our form of worship so it would be meaningful for Indians.

Even though several churches and Christian groups were already using some Indian/Hindu symbols in their worship like replacing candles with the oil lamp, I hesitated to venture into this area.  Some Hindu fundamentalists were already criticizing this practice as well as the way certain Hindu symbols were being misused by the Christians.  Therefore, while using certain Hindu symbols, the religious sensitivity of the Hindus should be respected.  (see Living Water and Indian Bowl, Appendix B on the use of OM).  For instance, that some Hindu deities were being used on the window grills of a church in South India. The Hindus went to court to have them removed saying, ‘if you want to exhibit our deities, keep next to the cross in your altar, but never use them as a mere art piece to decorate your window grills’.  I agree with this point.

Another cause for hesitancy in using symbols came when I began to wear saffron-colored clothes.  Though I never used any symbols in my personal worship of the Lord, the very first symbol that I did adopt in my life in the Lord was the color of my clothes.  Because I had decided to remain single, and as already had a desire to become a samnyasi, I began to wear saffron-colored clothes. So this symbol of color just seemed natural for me to wear. However one Christian suggested me to use blue symbolizing ‘love’ rather than saffron because Hindus use it.  Then some of my friends thought that I was using that color in order to have an easy access to the Hindu audience to share the gospel, as people will easily listen to a samnyasi, as well as ask him questions related to religion.  Similarly, the use of saffron-color clothes by some Catholic clergies and Fathers in their ashrams has also created some controversy.⁵ Thus, you can see that the use of symbols sends very mixed symbols to a variety of people!

As a new bhakta in the Lord, not knowing how to explain to my Christians friends as well as how to defend my conviction against any criticism for using saffron, I simply carried on since I was not the first person to use this kind of cloth in religious world, including in Christianity. But this initial controversy has forced me to keep the use of any symbols to minimum.⁶

It is our birthright:

But slowly, I began to realize that I do not need to give up my birthright as an Indian nor joy of using various symbols in my personal worship as well in corporate worship. And I need not give up my right as a Hindu because it is not acceptable to others—both in Christian and Hindu circle.  I am not the pioneer in this area.  In the past, several Christians attempted to use Indian symbols.  We learn that Robert de Nobili went to the extent of wearing saffron cloth, keeping the tuft, using a holy thread (janup), sandal paste, accommodating local festivals (like Pongal) both as an evangelical means and to cater to the need of new local (Tamil) converts.⁷

Symbol and interpretation:

               Or

Symbol and controversy:

As soon as I began to use Indian symbols, controversy erupted.  For example, in one village in Bihar where there were a few bhaktas, we visited and worshiped the Lord with them, during which we used to celebrate maha prasad (the Lord’s Supper). I would caution against the use of ‘Lord’s supper’ for Mahaprasad, and I’ll explain below. Already in few churches in North India, they have contextualized by using chappatis and grape juice or black tea to replace the wafer and wine.  But when we gathered to worship, I never excluded the other Hindus, who had not yet received deeksha in the Mahaprasad.  My friends insisted that we should conduct the Mahaprasad exclusively for the ‘converts’ after sending the others away.  But I insisted that we do not need to exclude the others, creating some kind of suspension or impression that a tantric ritual is being performed separately for those who have taken deeksha.

Though many Hindus are not aware of it, in Hindu world, most of the pujas and rituals are based on tantric tradition.  So those initiated in a particular tantric tradition have some exclusive separate rituals that are performed.  Even in some pujas, certain things are not distributed to male members of the family etc.  Though we too have a similar concept that those who have confessed their faith in the Lord and received deeksha are to celebrate the Mahaprasad, we need not exclude others in the sense of ‘excluding’ others from some ritual.

The danger of exclusion:

To further explain, in Hinduism, ritual exclusivism is common and most of the time it is based on tantric tradition.  While claiming universalism and inclusivism in their religious ideology, religious exclusion based on caste, gender and ritual purity is a common practice in Hinduism.  Keeping this in mind, if we too begin to exclude some who participate in our worship, who have not yet received deeksha, we are not going to impart any theological meaning in excluding others, but only give the impression that another kind of tantric ritual of exclusivism is being performed based on caste, gender and ritual purity.

Difference in celebration:

My approach was different and also controversial to many evangelicals for two reasons.  First, in order to avoid misgivings to the Hindu participants, I did not want to exclude anyone. Second, to demonstrate that Muktinath never ‘rejects’ anyone who comes to Him, I felt that everyone who came should be included. There appears to be differences within the Christian church itself and also within Catholicism. Generally, only Christians gather to celebrate the ‘Lord’s Supper’ in the church, so the question of excluding any non-Christian (sorry for the word ‘non-Christian’) seldom arises.  However, it should be noted that all those who receive ‘Lord’s Supper’ in the church are not believers in a strict sense. At the same time, a few churches strictly prohibit non-baptized participants from taking communion and also non-members of that particular church or strangers are not allowed.  I have witnessed this happening in my own experience too.  Furthermore, I still remember the day when I received communion in a Catholic Church along with my Catholic friend even as early as 1975, without knowing anything about the gospel or church.  As he walked to the queue, I joined him, and he didn’t object.  In some Catholic ashrams, they give communion to all, like in Shantivanam, near Trichy in Tamilnadu.  However, at Madtridham, they give batasa (sugar balls, which is a common North Indian prasad for Hindus) to the non- bhaktas.  As you can see, there is little uniformity among Christians.

Grace is for all:

Initially, I asked the bhaktas to keep both banana and milk as elements for the Lord’s Supper and some laddus (common Indian sweet, which are what is usually offered as Prasad and later distributed to others).  After the worship, first I gave the laddus to those who have not yet received deeksha and then I gave milk and bananas to the bhaktas.   But later, I felt that even this discrimination is not good and does not convey the real meaning of celebrating the Mahaprasad.

If Mahaprasad is celebrated to ‘remember’ what the Lord has done for us, then why should I deny anyone to participate to ‘remember’ what the Lord has done for them too, as He died for all, not only for those who believe in Him?  Prasad means ‘grace’ and maha prasad (the term which we used for communion) means ‘greater grace’.  And when a Hindu goes to the temple and offers something to god they receive it back as the ‘prasad’ viz. the grace of god, which they have no right to keep for themselves, but must share with others.  That’s why we see that in most cases, Hindus will immediately begin to distribute the prasad to others, without enquiring about their faith and conviction about a particular deity to which the prasad was offered.  Of course all Hindus won’t accept every prasad offered to them by others, but in principle while distributing prasad no one is discriminated.  The following information by Shah will help us to understand this clearly:

…A staunch member of a sect might attend a ritual or ceremony in the home of a relative, friend or neighbour belonging to another sect, or in the home of a non-sectarian, but s/he is more likely to be an onlooker rather than a participant.  S/he might accept prasad in her/his hand at the end of the ritual, but will not eat it; giving it away rather to another person, usually a child or a servant, or to a cow.⁸  The leaders of almost every sect instruct its members to show respect to gods and goddesses of other sects, but never to seek refuge (aashraya, sharana) in any of them.⁹

Case studies:

However, in celebrating communion with Hindus and bhaktas present, I have to think about what kind of message I am communicating.  Am I saying the ‘greater grace’ is only for bhaktas and not for everyone?  This could be true for our understanding, but what kind of message are we communicating to our Hindu participants? I need to be careful of what kind of impression I give to both the new bhaktas, who have openly confessed their faith in the Lord by receiving deeksha, and also to the Hindu participants. [this entire paragraph was removed by chakaravarthy]

I share this next story as an example of the controversy or harm or good that can come when sharing ‘communion’ for all.  One time when I was in West Bengal with Anand (name changed)  in his village, he arranged one satsangh in which both bhaktas and many Hindus participated.  At the end, when we celebrated maha prasad, he and his friends announced in Bengali that those who had received deeksha alone could receive prasad.  Then one young man who has not yet received deeksha began to challenge them by asking, how they can stop others from receiving ‘prasad’.  Because what ‘communion’ conveys to an average Hindu— is that they are receiving god’s grace. [this entire paragraph was removed by chakaravarthy]

Then a big debate and discussion ensued.  They were debating in Bengali, so I could not understand every point, but I followed the discussion.  However, as they could not reach a conclusion because the young man did not accept their explanation and he continued to challenge that they could not stop him or others from receiving ‘prasad’.  Thus, they turned to me for a decision.  Many understood Hindi (as I was sharing in Hindi which was translated to Bengali), I asked that young man, ‘Do you understand from the discussion that you had with the others what it means to receive this maha prasad?’  And he said, ‘yes’.  Then to be sure that it was clear to him I asked, ‘Do you mean to confirm that you have decided to follow the Lord Muktinath as your god and savior?’  For this, he also said, ‘yes’.  Then I turned to the bhaktas and said, ‘Now he has openly confessed his faith in the Lord before his friends and other relatives who have not yet received deeksha, do you think that after we leave, he can deny that he openly confessed his faith in the Lord?’  They said, ‘No’.  But I didn’t want to take any chance of creating any kind of confusion or misunderstanding among the bhaktas, so again I asked them, ‘Suppose if he has done this as a joke or to mock us and our worship and faith, by confessing his faith in the Lord and tomorrow makes a joke of it, then who is responsible for his act?  They said in one voice, ‘He himself’.  [this entire paragraph was removed by chakaravarthy]

Then I said to the young man and also to all those who participated, ‘I don’t know the intention of this young man’s challenge this evening.  But god alone knows his heart and sincerity about his confession.  Even if he has done it as a joke or to mock the Lord or us, then it is left with him and god, so I have no objection in giving “maha prasad” to him.’  And I also told the young man that before he comes forward to receive ‘maha prasad’ I would give him few minutes to think and make his decision because he cannot escape criticism, condemnation and mockery from his family and community for his act—in both ways.  That is, if he is sincerely received as a bhakta, then he has to acknowledge it before others, as he has to live with his family and community.  Or if he has done it as a joke, the same people will question and doubt his integrity and honesty on such religious things, particularly related with rituals.  Hindus in general never take rituals and things related with it very lightly. [this entire paragraph was removed by chakaravarthy]

Symbol and communication:

With these thoughts in mind, I began another method.  After worship, when it is time to give ‘maha prasad’ I say, ‘for those who have received deeksha this is to demonstrate our Lord’s great sacrifice (yajna) done for us on the cross (I never use the words ‘blood’ and ‘flesh’).  And for the rest, this simply represents the common grace of god, which He bestows on everyone, like sending sun shine and rain to all’. So the same celebration conveys two kinds of meaning to two kinds of people.  Not everyone will be satisfied with this explanation, but as we have mentioned that symbols are local, this works for our purposes.  It preserves our friendship with the Hindus by offering god’s grace and honors our bhaktas’ desire for communion with the Lord. [this entire paragraph was removed by chakaravarthy]

Not a strategy:

I think the incident above of the young man could also help us to understand the importance of symbols both in our religious and spiritual life. [if the above case study is removed then this sentence also should be removed] So I slowly started to integrate many symbols with which Hindus are familiar in our pujas.  Here I was as cautious as possible not to offend my Hindu community or to confuse Christians about the use of these symbols without knowing their limitation as a separate community from Hindus.  Being part of the Hindu community, we have a right to use some of our symbols, though some Hindu fundamentalists may object to it.  They are going to object anything and everything that we do because of our faith in Bhagavan Muktinath.  They might even argue that this is another form to trick Hindus into a trap to become Christians.  Knowing my conviction, I don’t need to use many words to show that I never use my Hindu identity, culture, tradition, worldview, scriptures, symbols as preparatio evangelica—as a ‘strategy’ to convert others.  However here I have to acknowledge that there might be some sensible people even among the right wing Hindus who will agree with me about my birthright to remain a Hindu and worship the Lord.  Because, most of the time their objection is to convert Hindus from one community to another community, viz., Hindu to Christian and not other’s right to choose their own sadhana for their spiritual life, however they might find it difficult to accept the claims of Muktiveda.  As they now began to claim that their ‘nationalism’ is ‘cultural nationalism’ and not ‘religious’, I too accept such ‘cultural nationalism’ and reject any kind of conversion where one has to change her birth community.

Meaning and purpose:

However, because some of the participants in our pujas are Christians who agree with our principles, I need to explain the symbols in depth that we use, so that they can understand their original meanings and also the way we give new meanings to the symbols for our purpose because no symbol holds any absolute and permanent meaning.  Among them, few have decided to become ‘Hindus’ at least in spirit if not legally, as they agree with my principle that every individual has the right to worship the Lord by remaining in her birth community and culture.  And tracing back their Hindu roots few already have ‘become’ Hindus in their spirit, even to the extent of changing their name through Gazette.  At the same time, this explanation is for the many Hindus who have become the bhaktas of the Lord as well those who have just come as our friends and relatives.  Now days, I perform a full fledged  puja using most of the things which are commonly used in any Hindu puja.  However, some are used only on special occasions and some are very simple.

I use lots of flowers, oil lamps, rangoli (pattern made out of color powder), coconut (to break), sandal paste, sindur (vermilion powder used by married woman in general), yellow rice (to bless), incense sticks (sometimes avoided if anyone is allergic to it), added to it a book stand to keep the Muktiveda.  I also arrange purna kumbam for special occasions.

Kumbam:

The purna kumbam is a typical Hindu symbol, which is used from time immorial.  It has various meanings, according to the context in which it is used.  In general, it symbolizes fullness of life and on some occasions it replaces any particular deity, and puja may be offered to it. However, its purpose is not limited to religious ritual alone.  It has its own secular use as well.  When any dignitary or religious head visits a town, they are welcomed with purna kumbam.  It was a common scene in every election campaign in Tamilnadu, where ladies stand in a row to welcome their party leader with purna kumbam.  But in our worship, we never do puja to purna kumbam, but it simply symbolizes fullness of life.  Even after explaining this one time at Ranikhet during the puja, one elderly Hindu lady, bowed before it to seek its blessing.  Being a typical Hindu, well educated and knowing a lot about Christianity and the Muktiveda, yet her attitude to it is that it was being used in puja, even though no ‘archana’ (offering flower and akshada viz. yellow rice which is offered chanting some mantras) is done to it she needs to bow before it.

In general, the vessel used for kumbam is either copper or silver and sometimes made out of other metals (like brass).  A typical kumbam is covered with white thread on which tamarind (yellow) powder is applied.  It is placed on a plantain leaf on white rice, with water in it.  When it is used for special rituals like kumbabishegam (dedication of a temple after renovation or a new one is built) or for 60^th and 80^th birthday, then it is filled with holy river water which will be poured on the head of the people or on the pinnacle of the temple.  On top of it, a coconut with tuft will be placed with mango leaves under it.  Most of the time, the coconut will be smeared with yellow powder and sandal paste, and kumkum (sindru, vermilion powder) is also applied on both the coconut and kumbam.  It generally occupies the central place in any puja.

Akshada:

The yellow rice is used to bless the people after the puja.  Yellow represents auspiciousness and rice represents prosperity.  That is why in every auspicious occasion yellow rice is always prepared.  It is known as ‘akshada’ which is ‘a + kshada’ ‘unbroken’.  In the past, people used only unbroken rice by carefully selecting the whole rice.  Nowadays, special rice for this purpose is available in the market.  However, some people still select unbroken rice to prepare the yellow rice as part of the ritual.  Then a very small amount of yellow powder (tamarind only, not any chemical or artificial powder) is mixed with either ghee or water.  In Hindu homes, when they invite people for a marriage or any special occasion, in the olden days, they would give the yellow rice and kumkum to the people who were invited and those people would keep the yellow rice in a special place where it would remind them of the event.  In India in Hindu marriages, just before tying the wedding knot, some will distribute yellow rice to everyone, and when the bridegroom ties the knot, all will stand and throw the rice on them to bless them.  I also heard that in some European countries there is a similar practice of throwing (not yellow) rice on the newly married couple.  Of course in some places they throw plastic rice, as real rice causes some problem for the birds as they eat too much.  At the same time these plastic rice might create environment problem in the long run for the ground.

Coconut:

In our pujas, on special occasions I break the coconut by symbolizing the breaking the body of the Lord for our sins.  I will pour the coconut water in the milk that I will use to give maha prasad.  When I break the coconut, I will say, ‘His body was broken for our sin and his blood was poured out for our redemption.  Even though our sin is as red as blood, he made it as white as the coconut.’  This is clearly a functional substitution because when a Hindu breaks the coconut, mostly only in South India, various meanings are given.  Even though I have witnessed this ever since my childhood, no meaning was explained, but breaking the coconut was part of a ritual both at home and at the temple.  Sometimes, I have even seen my aunt break the coconut when it is to be used for cooking before the deity. 

To be honest, I have never made any in-depth study about the origin and purpose of breaking a coconut in Hindu rituals and pujas either at home or the temple.  I assume that it might have been introduced at one time to replace animal sacrifice abandoned because of sramanas (Buddhist and Jains) influence.  On some occasions, it is also broken to ward off the evil eye and omen.  Many times a special vow is taken, particularly for Ganpati to break 11 or 108 coconuts if a particular prayer is sanctioned by him.  In general, the broken coconut is used for cooking and in the temple half of the broken coconut is returned to the devotee along with a flower, kumkum etc. as prasad of the deity.  In some temples, where plenty of coconuts are broken it is known as ‘chatur tengai’ (by the devotees themselves and not by the priest, in fulfillment of the vow, either outside the temple or in a special tank constructed for this purpose), which are collected by some contractors (taken in action from the temple) and sold to big hotels to use for making chatni.  In general, those who broke the coconut in fulfillment of any vow will leave it for others to collect the broken pieces.¹⁰

So in Hindu society, things that are used for ritual purpose are also integrated into common use as part of the blessing from god.  That is why I too often, after the puja, cut the coconut into small pieces and distributes it to the participants.  When someone in our group prefers to take a piece of coconut and its water as maha prasad instead of milk and banana, I give it the way they like.  I also heard that in the Russian Orthodox Churches, after the service, the rest of the bread that was brought for communion service is left for the poor people to take back to their homes as food.   However, on some occasions, particularly for any puja done for the new houses or shanti puja, I recommend that the family keep the coconut either in their puja room or in some special place.  In one wedding that I performed, I recommended that the couple take and keep it as a witness for their marriage, which could be passed to the future generations.  I got his idea when I saw a full coconut decorated with some silver and gold coins in a house at Ranikhet which they got from some of their forefathers.  So while I have integrated the coconut as a symbol of demonstrating what the Lord has done for us, yet I also use it in different ways.  For example, keeping the unbroken coconut which is used in the puja is not a common practice in South India, but I got this idea from North India.

Two incidents are worth sharing in this discussion about the use of coconut in our puja.  One of my friends, after attending the puja, used the coconut in his small mandali.  There was one South India Christian (from Kerala) participating in the puja.  When my friend broke the coconut and explained about the breaking the body of our Lord, that Indian broke down and wept. Later he told my friend, ‘Being an Indian, I never realized that we have a wonderful symbol in our tradition which can be used to demonstrate the pain and sacrifice done by our Lord’.

Another incident was told by a girl who attended my meeting.  She had very close Brahmin friends, who loved her, but they were not ready to listen and hear the gospel even though she tried her level best to share.  After she returned from the meeting to Pune, she told them that she would like to do a puja in their house for which they were surprised that a Christian was requesting to do a puja.  However, when she broke the coconut and explained about the sacrifice of the Lord, the head of that family broke down and told her with tears, ‘If this is what Jesus has done for us, I have no objection of worshipping him’.  I am not saying that he immediately became a believer, but using one Indian symbol broke the hard ground to communicate the gospel in a meaningful way. At the same time I have my own reservation for some evangelicals using it only as a strategy. 

Sandal Paste and Tilak:

Because we have decided to remain Hindus culturally and socially, then our identity with our society is crucial.  While our faith will make us different in our way of life in our bhakti in the Lord the same bhakti does not separate us from identifying with the cultural and social areas with our people.  This we do as our birthright as Hindus and not to create an opportunity to share the gospel to convert others.

Some of the strange things that we do in the name of faith and the Muktiveda, not only estrange us with our own people, but also deprive us of something which is part of our being.  When the Indian or Hindu symbols are denied us in the name of faith and the Muktiveda, we are not going to die, but we definitely miss something that others cannot understand.  Most of the time in order to survive among their newfound Christian community, a Hindu convert will adjust without minding those losses. 

When a Hindu worships or does puja, they cannot do it with a bare forehead.  Applying ‘tilak’ is part of the ritual as well as cultural.  There is nothing unmuktivedic about applying tilak and it does not separate us from our Lord.  Of course this ‘tilak’ that a Hindu applies on their forehead is based on the sectarian line.  Mostly Saivite devotees use ash and a Vaishnavite a white and red paste to make ‘tripundara’ (three vertical lines, with a red line at the center).  Some other sects use only kumkum, mostly in trantrick and Sakta (goddess) worship.  In a few sects only sandal paste is used, but it is also marked in different ways to differentiate one from the others—for example, the Madhavas.

But among all these sects, sandal paste has a special place—most of the time crossing all of these sectarian claims.  In the early days, as bhakta of the Lord, I was very strict about not using any kind of ‘tilak’ in my personal use and or in worship.  But as a mandali, we began to use all kinds of Hindu symbols, and I began to use sandal paste to decorate our forehead in worship.  One bhakta told me, ‘After you (re-) introduced sandal paste, it gave immense satisfaction to my spirit’.  In the same way, when our Hindu friends and relatives also participated in our worship, it looked very strange for them to see that all of the Hindu bhaktas of the Lord do puja and worship him with an empty forehead, while they come with some kind of tilak or bindi (in case of woman) on their own foreheads.  At the same time, they were not concerned because they well know that we give more importance to study and discussion than to rituals.  But when I began to use sandal paste, they joyfully and naturally participated in our worship.

Sandal paste is not used only in religious rituals in India.  It is used in other ceremonies like marriage.  In fact no marriage will be conducted without having sandal paste offered to the guests.  I have seen sandal paste in Tamilnadu at a Christian wedding too.  They use sandal paste to give to the guests.  In the same way, in several parts of India, sandal paste is used as caste mark.  Particularly in North India, red sandal paste is used both on the forehead and also on the earlobe as a sign of the Brahmins.  It is ‘pandint ka chinh’, (it is the mark of the Brahmins) one Brahmin told me in North, when I asked about its significance.  And a non-Brahmin, even for the sake of decoration, won’t use it, especially on the earlobe in North India, particularly in villages.

So, when sandal paste is used in puja and worship, it not necessarily a mark of any sectarian identity, though in the Madhava community it is used for this purpose.  But the Madhavas also used it in a different way by putting it on twelve places on the body.  In general, when one applies sandal paste on the forehead, it conveys that they are interested in religion (and ritual) and are not merely a secular person (though in India the word secular need not mean non-religious or atheist).

Banana and Milk:

In India, milk is considered auspicious and is often used in all kinds of rituals.  Doing ‘abisheka’ (pouring things on the head) to a deity with milk is a daily ritual performed both in the temple and at home.  Bananas are a cheap, available fruit and also often commonly used when nothing is available to offer to a deity in a Hindu puja.  So I often use both banana and milk as elements in Mahaprasad, but I never insist on any uniformity in this either, and we are free to use whatever is relevant to the local context.  For example, in the North we can use rotti and milk rather than bananas and milk.  In some Bihar tribal areas they use black tea and chappati etc.  When some participants insist on taking only a piece of coconut that was broken along with its water, I give it because we don’t want to impose any uniformity.  It is not the form but the content and message that are more important for us.

The rest of the symbols like the oil lamp, rangoli, (‘kolam’ in Tamil) and flowers are mostly used for decoration and an aesthetic purpose.  We often sit on the floor to worship, so we keep the Muktiveda on a book stand to give respect to it.  At the same time, we never do puja to it or worship it.

Taking Arati:

Arati is the waving of a lamp and colored water. (One might note that the water is prepared in different ways in different parts of India.  In Tamilnadu they will mix tamarind powder in the water and add a bit of lime to make it red, but in the north Sindur (kumkum) powder is used to prepare this red coloured water).  This practice of waving the lamp and water has different purposes and meanings according to the context in which it is undertaken.  It has even been shown on TV news that when ‘non-Indian’ cricket teams arrive India, a few women will do ‘arati ‘ viz., waving the plate with colored water in front of them and applying the tilak (i.e. taking a bit of the coloured water and putting on the forehead of the team members-yes, even on the foreheads of ‘non-Indians’).  By doing this they say to them, ‘We wish success and victory for your team and welcome you to this land’.  But when the same arati is done before an idol in a temple, usually with camphor or a wick burning in ghee, then the grace and power of the idol is considered to be transformed to the flame, which the devotees will take on their hands and then apply on their face and eyes, symbolizing receiving the grace and the power of the deity.  In marriages arati is done on various occasions, each with a different meaning-sometimes to ward of the evil eye, other times to welcome the new couple inside the home, etc., etc.  So using arati in order to welcome the newly married couple as a cultural event is no problem for us.  Nowadays it has become a part of the tourist ritual.  Yes, in order to impress the foreign tourists when they land, people will take arati to them and garland them.  Like purana kumbam, arati also has different functions.  Recently Ganga arati is introduced in important pilgrim centers like Varanasi and Haridwar.

On special occasions, I take arati too, but I use it to symbolize that the puja is taking place. However, I never do it to either the purna kumbam or to the broken coconut.  In Hindu rituals, arati is taken for the deity and then it is passed to the devotees to receive its grace or power.  In Hindu homes and temples, those people who cannot participate in all parts of the ritual will rush to the puja room or to the temple (those who cannot go, will just close their eyes and join in spirit) when they hear the bell, conch and arati song.  In North India, one can hear the sound of the conch and bell when arati is performed in a home.  So, we too have adapted that part to convey to others that our puja is also going on.  After arati, I never bring or pass it to others to receive it.

Diversity:

In using symbols, there is no uniformity in India.  For example, a conch is often used in North India in puja.  Whereas in South India, though it is used in some temples to pour water and milk on the deity, it will be never used to make sound.  Because in South India, if you blow the conch, it means someone died in your family.  Even though the conch is exported from South India to the North, its use in South India is very limited in puja.

What a symbol is:

Symbols neither represent god nor interpret Him.  They are mostly outward expressions of our inner devotion as well as understanding (in the case of an idol, symbolizing god) about god.  Symbols give physical expression to our thoughts, words and feelings.  That’s why we should be careful not to use some symbols that have no equal concepts to communicate to others.  For example, when I first heard the word ‘Jeeva appam’ (in Tamil, for Living Bread) I immediately remembered a kind of sweet made out of flour in our home because that sweet is known as ‘appam’, whereas the translators used it for ‘food’.  Unless a symbol can communicate the concept, it might even become an idol for people to worship with rituals without any real understanding to grow in their spiritual life.¹¹  In such a scenario, the symbol itself becomes an end.  Of course all the symbols are not related to spirituality or any particular religious (here muktivedic) concept, but could be more related with a particular culture and tradition.  For example, ‘purna kumbam’ is purely a cultural symbol of India without any equivalent in muktivedic world.  By not using it, a new bhakta is not going to miss anything in their life.  At the same time, by using it, they can add cultural richness to the outward expression of their devotion.  But the important thing is that instead of painfully explaining an uncommunicative symbol in the name of a particular religious tradition, it is better to use symbols with which people are familiar, so they can grasp the concept more easily.  Any concept that could be related with people’s physical experience will have more impact on the mind to think deeply later, once the symbol is even removed after serving it purpose.  For example, we need not use breaking coconut in North India, as they are not familiar with it.

Giving an apt definition for symbol Fleming says,

When a thing is made or done, not with the aim of producing resemblance to something but rather of suggesting an affinity or spiritual relationship to what is not shown, it is called a symbol.  As used here a symbol means something presented to the senses that stands for and reminds us of something else.  It is an outward and visible sign of an inner and spiritual reality.¹²

And to illustrate this point he further gives a list of muktivedic symbols:

The Bible is constantly using the material and tangible to stimulate us to grasp some great insight.  Numerous symbolic actions were employed by the Hebrew prophets as a means of attracting attention and impressing their teachings upon their hearers—Samuel’s robe accidentally torn by Saul, Elijah’s garment divided into twelve pieces, the horns worn by Zedekiah, the broken staff of Zechariah, Isaiah walking barefoot for three years, Jeremiah’s shattered earthen vessel and linen girdle hidden in a rock, Ezekiel’s shaved head and the removal of all his household goods.  A much more inclusive list could be made.  Our Lord’s teaching was generally clothed in figurative and symbolic form—the pearl of great price, the lost and wandering sheep, the working leaven, the house founded upon a rock, the sewer of the seed, the laborers in the vineyard, the unjust judge, and the beautiful story of the prodigal son.  Parables are symbols—stories pointing beyond themselves.¹³

And he further adds how early ‘Christian use in disguising one’s connection with a persecuted group.’  The best example is the sign of ‘fish’ used by them with which we too are familiar.¹⁴

A thorough study of Church history will tell us about the way she borrowed several local symbols as well as changed old religious symbols for her use.  In the Uttara Veda period, Purva Veda symbols were used giving new meaning.  Even baptism, the mahaprasad (Lord’s Supper) etc. are old symbols with a new meaning for us.  Some church Fathers went even to the extent of reading Christian meaning into other symbols in secular life.  Justin Martyr (died 165 CE) saw a cross in the plough, ax, etc.  He went to the extent of saying that, ‘Human shape differs from that of irrational animals in nothing except this, and it both is upright and can have hands extended,’¹⁵ like a cross.

Some challenges:

The main reason for saying this is that in some denominations, like (extreme) Pentecostals, they oppose using of any symbol thinking that it is nothing but ‘idol’ worship.  When we challenge them about certain symbols they use, then they quote from the Muktiveda and argue that all that is said in the Muktiveda is from god, which we alone should use, and we have no right to add to it or remove from it.  But other groups, because of fear of syncretism, insist on using only the familiar so called ‘Christian’ symbols with which they are familiar in their particular church tradition.  As I said in Living Water and Indian Bowl, any kind of new venture in the incarnation of the gospel is always a challenge.  In every new endeavor there is always an initial risk to be taken, which can later be corrected.  Over caution is equally dangerous as over enthusiasm.  The former with research and analysis will kill the very spirit of new endeavor and the latter will end up in compromise and confusion.

As said earlier, though symbols neither express nor interpret god or spirituality, when its meaning is not understood or explained, then it becomes nothing but an idol, both for the educated and illiterate.  Then a symbol would become a burden rather than a blessing.  In the same way, if the symbols are used only as a means to an end—as a preparatio evangelica, then it might even become a sin.  Without any hidden agenda and motive, when local symbols are used (after proper study about them) spontaneously and naturally by the local people, they would be more effective like local music and art forms.  Those who completely reject the use of any symbol, particularly related with their past faith and culture, will soon end up borrowing from some other tradition alien to them (from the West).  And, as usual, though several new converts will learn to survive in this environment, still their faith and form will remain alien to their own people, rejecting their newfound faith in the Lord.  Above all not using any symbol itself is a symbol.  There exist no ‘tasteless’ food.  As we not familiar with a particular taste, then we might say it is tasteless.  But every food has its own taste.  Similarly every symbol has its own meaning and purpose.

As long as we remain human, we cannot avoid symbols.  Not using any symbol itself is a symbol in every way.  So the meaning and use of any symbol rests with the way we understand and use them and not in themselves.¹⁶

Life events and faith

Like symbols ceremonies too are physical communication of certain views and values.  Like symbols and rituals, we cannot avoid some kind of ceremonies in a society where life is overlapping with religious, cultural and social values.  Particularly in India from cradle to grave, the life of an Indian, irrespective of her faith is punctuated with various kinds of ceremonies about which now we will see briefly.

Important ceremonies:

If I begin to write elaborately about some events and parts of ritual, it would take too many pages.  Above all, because there is no uniformity in these functions, it is difficult to give a detailed account with all kinds of variations.  We simply adopt most of our Hindu events and rituals keeping the Lord at the center in performing them.  The following are few such samskars.¹⁷

Mundan:

Shaving the head of the child.  In general the hair with which the child is born is considered impure, so it is shaved.  But in most cases, the concept of impurity is not even remembered or mentioned.  As a young boy, I remember when mundan was performed it was said that in order to make the hair grow thick and quickly (particularly for girls) the first hair of the child need to be shaved.  In this we see how even a religious ritual became a secular one.  In a few cases, this samskar is only performed in a temple, where their family deity viz. kul devata dwells or in a pilgrimage center.   But in most cases, this rule is not strictly followed and at least in South India, this samskar is performed in the home.  Few people whenever they visit the temple of their family deity or important pilgrim center (like Tiruppati and Palani) will shave their head without any previous vow.  As part of the ritual they do it.  One time when we arranged our Family gathering for the North Indian bhaktas of the Lord, one of the bhaktas’s daughters’ mundan was performed in one of the ghats of Ganga, where we prayed for the long life of the children and the local barber shaved the head.  But the child’s grandmother was very particular about making a small cup with the dough of wheat to collect the hair and throw it in to the Ganga.  As a typical Hindu, she believes that the shaven hair should not be thrown down where someone could walk on it or collect the hair and use it for doing black magic.  Thus, we didn’t argue or challenge her faith but we allowed her to do this because it wasn’t going to affect our faith in the Lord.

Generally after shaving the head, sandal paste is applied and new dress is given to the child, followed by prayer and blessing for the parents and the child.  This is not a big ceremony.

Naming (Namakaran):

In general, the naming ceremony is a small family function; however, in a few communities in South India it is celebrated elaborately by inviting all the relatives and friends.  In this function, most of the elders will come and touch the lip of the child with honey in a small gold ring and say her/his name loudly three times.  After everyone has blessed the child, she/he will be placed in a cradle and some person will sing a song (lullaby).  In few cases, the parents will perform a small puja, and the function ends with a feast.  The people invited will bring lots of gifts for the child.

Jenup:

This thread ceremony is performed mostly for certain caste male children.  In ancient times, it was done within stipulated age (seven for Brahmin, nine for Kshatriya and eleven for Vysya) according to the cast now the age limit is not strictly followed.  However in most of the Brahmin family, they do it at a relatively young age to the boy.  But, occasionally it was done to the youth and in few cases just before the marriage.  And once the first ceremony is done, every year thread changing ceremony is performed in the month of August for the Brahmins.  We have done this regularly for my shishyas from communities that require this ceremony at  our mandali since past few years and I have prepared few mantras for this occasion.  Whereas in a typical Brahmin house, they will go to a temple or religious centre and participate with others to change the thread.  In few cases they will do it at home by inviting the priest to come and perform this ceremony.  But this yearly changing the thread is not practiced in North India.  However, in most cases, when any important samskar is performed, the old thread is removed and replaced with a new one.  So when I give deeksha, or do a housewarming ceremony etc. I change the old thread for a new one.

Marriage:

Most of the time, we follow the respective family tradition of the bhakta of the Lord.  However, where we can incorporate some changes in order to accommodate our faith and their tradition we negotiate.  For example, in case of one of my shishya , his parents graciously accepted his request that I will perform the Junup (thread) ceremony.  However, in the case of another shishya, there was no need to change much because the family members paid more attention to the cultural and other social events, leaving the priests to do the ritual part.  Of course there are a few rituals like bowing before their family deity, visiting the local temple etc., and in those areas, the boys or girls are in a situation like Naaman.  When Raju (name changed) had to go to the local temple along with Preme (name changed), the latter was very disturbed.  At the same time, he could not do anything, so Raju and Preme merely stood there not worshiping the deity.  Their parents knew about it, but none of the other relatives.  Taking a stand for the Lord in such socially sensitive issues doesn’t help a new believer to witness for the Lord.  Remember, I mentioned that it is more of a socially sensitive issue and not religious.

Generally, Hindus are very naïve on most areas related to religion and ritual.  Hindus never pay any attention to the rituals or the meaning of the marriage ceremony.  It is an occasion of joy and happiness where relatives gather to be witnesses to the marriage.  For them the real meaning lies not in the rituals or all that happens on the marriage day, but the way the young couple live after that event.  However as the marriage is an important event in life, they will see to it that they perform it at the best, even to the extent of incurring debt.

               There is no uniformity among the Hindus about the way they celebrate life events.  Particularly with wedding not only there is vast difference between regions, but even within a region, there is difference based on the caste line.  However in our Hindu bhakta wedding we will retain all those events which are important to that particular family tradition.  And we will negotiate, as mentioned above, with only those areas where we feel uncomfortable.  However where we cannot negotiate honoring our parents and other family members we will allow them to do whatever they want than worrying too much about our uncomforting.

However a typical Hindu (Indian) wedding will include a marriage procession in which the bridegroom will be taken in an open car or chariot or on horseback with lots of music and dance by the relatives.  Then he and his parents and other relatives will be welcomed.  In many cases the bride’s parents will wash the feet of the boy and then they will be taken to the marriage hall, after served refreshments, followed by a grand dinner.  This part is mostly done the previous evening of the marriage.

On the wedding day, irrespective of various differences, some common things done will be ‘calling back the bridegroom by the girl’s father when he will going to Kashi (Varanasi) to become a samnyasi (known as “Kasi yaatra).  The girl’s father will persuade him not to do that with a promise to give his daughter in marriage.  Then the boy will return back with his maternal uncle and both the boy and girl will exchange garlands (known as jaya mala).  After due rituals, the boy will tie the knot or apply sindur according to the tradition.  The most important aspect of marriage is going seven rounds (either around the fire, or mandap [canopy] or lamp, which varies according to the caste line) known as ‘sapta pati’ without which the marriage is incomplete.

In the evening of the marriage day there will be a teasing time in which both the newly married couple will be asked to sing song, and pick up ring from a pot etc. (known as nalungu) will be performed.  But this is not a common practice.

Deifying Elders

One important event in all ceremonies is touching the feet of the elders, particularly parents as a mark of showing respect as well as receiving blessing from them. 
Indians still know what it means to respect our elders. Unless one is a Hindu, perhaps they cannot understand what our attitude of respect is to our elders and parents, particularly when we show our respect to them in an Indian manner.  For example, we certainly know that touching the feet of elders is the way we salute and show respect to our elders.  It doesn’t mean that by this act we are giving reverence to them which is due to god alone.

In the Hindu tradition, everything that is noble, honorable and respectful is compared and equated with god.  This does not mean that Hindus have thrown away their (respective) gods and worship only the human beings to whom they show their respect.  For example, the famous sloka which says, ‘Guru is Brahma, Guru is Vishnu and Guru is the very Maheswara (Siva) therefore worship Guru (alone)’.¹⁸  But Hindus continue to worship Vishnu, Siva and other gods.  Though this guru movement forced external authority over rational thinking,¹⁹ hardly any guru replaced the role of gods in Hindus’ lives.

Each tradition has its own way of showing respect to elders.  I have heard that in high Anglican churches they address their bishops as ‘Lord God’.  But they don’t mean that that Bishop becomes their Lord or god.  In Exodus 18:7 of the Muktiveda we read, ‘So Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him’.  Does this mean that Moses actually worshipped his father-in-law or was it an Egyptian custom in which he was born and brought up?  I believe that  in the Muktiveda there are more than fifty places where bowing down before human beings is referred to, but all of them do not have the same meaning for us to give some uniform interpretation of our own choice.

Washing the feet:

One important aspect in marriage and some other auspicious occasions are washing the feet of the elders.  But this ‘washing the feet’ is not a functional substitute for touching the feet. Washing feet is not exclusively a practice of the Muktiveda.  Even in India, we do it as Hindus.  But the difference here is that in some contexts when we wash the feet of elders and gurus, it is not merely showing respect but actually worshipping them seeking their blessing like that from god.  I still remember when I was a boy, how my mother would welcome any Brahmin guest by washing his feet and taking the water to sprinkle on our heads as a blessing from god.  In every major Hindu ceremony, at the end the couples (either in a marriage or in any other ritual function) finally have to wash the feet of their parents and elders, thanking them for coming and blessing them on that occasion.  Even in the marriage the father of the bride washed the feet of the bridegroom to welcome him.  This is not worship of the bridegroom, but showing respect to him as he is going to marry his daughter.  Washing the feet of the guest is a common practice many tribe in India.

Death:

There is no uniformity in performing ceremonies in the Hindu society, and each community performs them according to their particular manner (that too is based on a particular family tradition).  So our policy is that, where we can have a say and influence, we will make some changes.  Otherwise, we will allow the family to act according to their family tradition.  So far we haven’t had an opportunity to perform any funeral rites for a Hindu bhakta of the Lord. 

What we would do:

Suppose a Hindu bhakta of the Lord dies, what would we do?  If the things are in our control, then we will follow all the traditional ceremonies like washing the body, putting on new clothes, tying the toe, placing a coin on the fore head, and even applying sandal paste on the forehead etc.  Then we will sing some bhajans and thank god for the wonderful life of that bhakta and will pray for the family members.  Then, we will take to the cremation ground and will burn or bury, according to the particular family tradition.   If he has son, then according to their tradition we will ask him to light the pyre, even if he doesn’t share the faith of his father.  But the most important thing in death ceremonies is not how we dispose of the body, but how we carry out the rest of the 11th day rituals.  In a Brahmin house, every day there will be meticulous and elaborate ceremonies.  Whereas, in other communities, mostly there will be a 10^th day ceremony in a common place and an 11^th day ceremony at home.  In a joint family as we cannot interfere in such matters we can only participate in certain rituals where we are allowed and rest the family has to do as per their family tradition.  Remember in most ceremonies related to death, particularly in a Brahmin family, outsiders are not allowed either to witness or to participate except the priest who are invited to perform the rituals.  Here we should respect their private space not imposing our views and ideologies on them because of our bhakti in the Lord.

But the real challenge for a bhakta is when the eldest son has to do the final rites for his parents and others in the family if they should pass away.  This is not the time to say ‘no’ to one’s  parents, as that would hurt them deeply.   In such situations we go along with our family and community not alienating them in the name of our faith. But we have one strong conviction that our Lord knows our situation better than we do, and He won’t allow us to do something which will force us to deny our faith in Him.

Cremation and burial

 Burying the dead is not merely a sematic practice.  People everywhere dispose of their dead according to their convenience.  At present, in countries like England, they have begun to cremate, since if everyone buries their dead, soon for lack of space the entire country will become a complete graveyard!  There are several Hindu communities in India who bury their dead.  If the Christians still insist about the so-called ‘Christian’ burial and began to quote our Lord’s word, ‘let the dead bury the dead’, then they should follow the practice of the Jews, who did not bury their dead but put them in a family tomb mostly carved in a cave.²⁰  I have heard that now in the Philippines burial is such a costly matter that one can rent a chamber to keep the dead body of her/his relative for a period of time, say 10 or 20 years, and then it will cleaned to rent to some others.

No muktivedic rituals:

The Muktiveda is silent about birth, marriage and death rituals.  Moses, who took so much pain and time to give all kinds of laws and minute details, never said anything about the rituals for marriage.  When Abraham’s slave brought Rebecca for Isaac, nothing is mentioned about any marriage rituals.  Thankfully, the Muktiveda never gives any pattern for us to imitate but principles which we need to adopt according to our situation.  We need not greet each other by giving a holy kiss, but we have our own way of greeting each other in India.  Similarly, several rituals and customs in Indian traditions and particularly in Hindu civilization are social and cultural, yet they are given in the name of religion.  But what is cultural and what is religious is not for an outsider to decide.  Leave it to the new bhaktas to decide.  Don’t rush to stop any of their customs and rituals in the name of teaching.  One quick step in the wrong direction, then a lifetime must be invested in correction.  Even if new bhaktas do make some mistakes, before trying to correct them try to understand what a particular ritual, custom, tradition and value really means to them. 

One another point need to me mentioned here.  Sadly most of the ritual in Hindu world is male oriented.  Though few samskars like naming, mundan etc. are done even to a girl child, generally samskar are male centric.  The only official samskar for a girl is marriage in that too her role is very limited.  Of course when they attain puberty a function is done but it varies according to the family and community.  Now a day’s such function is even challenged to have any relevance and discarded completely by many families, particularly living in urban areas.  However in some community this function is done with lots of pomp and show and recently one father brought his daughter in helicopter from his home to the hall where the function was held by seeking permission from the govt. and making a heli-pad specially for this occasion, because in their community not performing this ceremony with pomp and show will be criticized.  Of course though all don’t expect it to be done with pomp and how, it should be done in a grand manner.

Building and not burning the bridges:

In all these samskars, because our family members know where we stand in our faith, what we do is more of an accommodation to their feelings, sentiment and honor in the community.  By accommodating them, we are not dishonoring the Lord, but not burning the bridge we are trying to live as a witness carrying a ‘LIVING DIALOGUE’ through our words and deeds with our own people.

Our bhakti in the Lord is never exercised in isolation.  Thankfully, He is with us along with other bhaktas of the Lord.  Whether we stand or fall, He is able to keep and restore us, as we know whom we are trusting.

Notes

1I am very talkative.  But I like silence very much and always enjoy the quiet place not polluted by any kind of noise except in nature.  I am blessed to have it in our ashram as it is located outside village near forest.  When visitors come to the ashram, the first question that they ask is about our (my) program here.  And my uniform response is: ‘Silence’.  Then I tell them, ‘I don’t have any particular program to conduct for others.  The visitors have to come here with their program.  They can read, walk, meditate, sleep, take rest etc.  But if they ask me to conduct any program for them, then I will take them to dhyanamandapa and ask them to keep silence as long as they can keep.  Among all other sadhana, this is my most favorite one—about which I don’t even like to talk or write, as it will disturb that ‘silence’.   At the same time I have many questions about keeping this so called ‘silence’ by not talking while our mind shouts loudly even when we try to keep that silence.

2 Daniel Johnson Fleming, Christian Symbols, In A World Community, Friendship Press, New York, 1940, p.13

3 ibid. p.13

4 I read about this practice in ‘War and Peace’ by Tolstoy.

5 see Sita Ram Goael, Catholic Ashram Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma. With a preface by Sita Ram Goel, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1988.

6 There came a heated debate between Fr. Bede Grifith and Devananda on this issue in: Catholic Ashram…–ibid.  This is what I wrote in my review on this book:

The dialogue between Swami Devananda and Fr. Bede Griffiths reflects their respective ‘sectarian’ views.  But the beauty of it is that Devananda, himself an American (this fact is concealed in the book), challenges Fr. Bede’s right to become a samnyasi.  An American took all the authority in his hand to challenge a British and we poor Indians are ‘caught between the rock and hard place’!  To understand the context of this controversy regarding Fr Bede notes what says:

               Fr Bede was also challenged on his use of the saffron robes, a use that he justified in order to foster understanding and interfaith dialogue. Thus, some Hindus remarked that if a Hindu were to go to Rome, would that person have to wear a Benedictine habit in order to foster interreligious dialogue. They suggested that Hindus would wear (p.96) their own robes if they visited Europe, and therefore Fr Bede should wear his Benedictine habit rather than the saffron robes. This criticism arose in the case of Fr Bede, because he didn’t rely on Hindu swami or gurus to develop his knowledge of India but always maintained that it was good to meet others. However, he never spent time at the feet of a guru as Abhishiktananda did, for example. The fact is that, with Fr Bede, Shantivanam became alive with visitors, and these triggered curiosity and challenges by some Indian clergy and Hindu practitioners. The local bishop knew that Fr Bede was no longer a member of the Benedictine Order, and therefore the activities at Shantivanam relied on his permission to take place. Fr Bede ignored these criticisms and received the support of national commissions on liturgy and certainly from other bishops nationwide.— Mario. I. Aguilar, Christian Ashrams, Hindu Caves and sacred Rivers: Christian-Hindu Monastic Dialogue in India 1950-1993, London Jesica Kingsley Publishers, 2016, pp. 96-97

7 Fr. A. Sauliere S.J., Revised and Re-edited by Fr S. Rajamanickam S. J., His Star in the East and also for a different and critical perspective, ‘Disputed Mission’, by Ines G. Zupanov, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999.

8 While referring to the distinction between Shaivism and Vaishnavism in his Coorg book, [M.N.] Srinivas (Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India.  Oxford: Clarendon Press.1952:184, n1) notes that the orthodox followers of the one do not generally go to the temples of the other.  Similarly, Beteille (Andre, Social Organisation of Temples in a Tanjore Village.  History of Religions 5 (1): 74-92. 1965) reports how, in the Tamil village of his study, the orthodox Shri Vaishnava Brahmans worship Vishnu alone, and do not associate themselves with the worship of Shiva and Kali.  However, they seem to show some courtesy to the latter.  [Milton] Singer (When a Great Tradition Modernizes: An Anthropological Approach to Indian Civilization.  Delhi: Vikas. 1972:48) reports how his Brahman friend’s mother in Madras did not allow a ‘non-dualist’ Brahman into her kitchen, since her own family belonged to a ‘qualified dualist’ sect.  [Saurabh] Dube and [Ishita Banerjee] Dube (‘Specters of conversion: Transformation of Caste and Sect in India’, in Rowena Robinson and Sathianathan Clarke (eds). Religious Conversion in India, pp. 195-202. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 2003:238) report at some length the case of Nirmalprabha, daughter of a family belonging to the Mahima sect in Orissa: when she refused to accept the prasad brought by her mother-in-law from the Jagannath temple in Puri, she faced serious consequences.— A. M. Shah, The Structure of Indian Society: then and now. New Delhi, Routledge, 2010.Notes, 4, in, p. 82

9 Shah, ibid. p. 82

10  One common meaning given is that when we broke coconut we broke our ego before god.  Recently I heard another explanation in a TV show: Shiva removed the head of Ganesh when he refused to allow him to go in when his wife Parvathy was taking bath, as Parvathy put Ganesha to guard the entrance not allowing anyone.  Later though Shiva replaced the original head with the head of an elephant as per the request of his wife, in order to take vengeance Ganeha demanded the head of Shiva.  So coconut was used to break, particularly as ‘chatur tengai ’ (called in Tamil) where the devotees will smash the coconut in front of the Ganesh temple for people collect the broken parts, as coconut also has three eyes like that of Shiva.  But I never heard this story anywhere else and the person who shared never told from where he got the story or in which Purana it is mentioned. 

11 I agree with van der Veer that, ‘The spiritual as a modern category emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century as part of the Great Transformation.3  As such it is part of nineteenth-century globalization, a thoroughgoing political, economic, and cultural integration of the world… The modern categories of “religion,’ (p.36) ‘secularism,” and “spirituality” were universalized in the age of imperialism and produced different effects in different societies. Again, these terms themselves were not new, but they were put to new uses….— Petter van der Veer, The Modern Spirit of Asia: the spiritual and the Secular in China and India, Hyderabad, Orient Blackswan Pvt. Ltd., 2014, pp. 36-37.  It is worth reading the full context of the text which I give in the Appendix.

12 Daniel Johnson Fleming, Christian Symbols, In A World Community, Friendship Press, New York, 1940, p. 10 ‘Liturgical gestures in worship both express and evoke pious emotions’, adds Dr. Hoefer. (Personal communication).

13 ibid. pp.10-11

14 ibid. p. 12

15 Richard King, quoting from Robert Doran, Birth of a Worldview: Early Christianity in its Jewish and Pagan Context, Boulder and Oxford, University Press, 1995, p. 75.] in Orientalism and Religion, Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘The Mystic East,’ New Delhi, Oxford, 1999, pp.15-16

16 One time in a discussion when one person said that they never use any kind of symbol in their worship in the church.  Inside our church buildings we won’t keep any kind of picture or symbol but our wall remain white without any decoration. Then with a smile I said, ‘then you have a biggest symbol, the white wall.  For me even that white wall without any other decoration or symbol is also a symbol.’

17 For more on Samskaras see ‘Hindu Rituals’ in Understanding Hinduism, pp. 227ff. 

18 See notes 7 in the Chapter on Guru.

19 See notes no 19 in the chapter ‘Guru’.

20  ‘ In the first century, the body would normally be left to rot in the tomb’s antechamber for the first year; at the end of the year, the bones would be gathered into a box, which would slide into a slot on the wall.  This practice probably related to the standard Jewish hope in the resurrection of the body at the end of the age…’— Craig S. Keener , BBC NEW TESTMENT, Illinois, IVP, 1993, p.129

Appendix

Petter van der Veer, The Modern Spirit of Asia: the spiritual and the Secular in China and India, Hyderabad, Orient Blackswan Pvt. Ltd., 2014,

..What is the “spiritual”?  Scholars would like to avoid this as much as possible because of its vagueness.  This is most easily done by treating it as a marginal term, used only at the fringes of intellectual life, as in our period, for instance, in the New Age Movement. Iwantt to suggest that that is not a correct approach and that spirituality is in fact a crucial term in our understanding of modern society. At the same time it is necessary to reflect on the nature of this kind of concept. Certainly, it does conjure up all the conceptual difficulties that one also encounters with terms like “religion” and ‘Belief,’ and perhaps even more so. Obviously, its very conceptual unclarity and undefinability make it so useful for those who want to use it. It suggests more than it defines. Spirituality takes the universalization of the concept of religion a crucial step further by completely severing the ties with religious institutions….—p. 7

…The term ‘Religion” has developed in modern European thought as a cross-cultural, global concept that captures a great variety of traditions and practives. The universalizing deployment of the concept of religion has its roots in notions of Natural Religion and Rational Religion that arose in the aftermath of the religious wars in Europe and in conjunction with European expansion in other parts of the world….—p. 7

..In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the concept of spirituality had radical overtones, critical of imperialism and materialism, but also of established religion….—p. 35

               The term “spirituality: vaguely alludes to German Geist (“spirit”) and to mysticism. It is a modern Western concept, like “religion,” “magic,” and “secularity.”  There is no equivalent term either in Sanskrit or in Chinese.1  With translation in both Modern Hindi and Chinese one immediately gets in troubling confusion with the terms for “gods” and “souls” or in a mix-up with “mind” (aatmik, maansik, lingxing, jingshen)….I would merely point out that despite the ubiquitous reference to India and China (and indeed Asia) as “spiritual,” spirituality is a modern, Western term. This raises intricate problems about how indigenous traditions are translated into a universal category in ways similar to that of “religion,” but with different effects and connotations.—p. 35

…Spirituality is notoriously hard to define, and I want to suggest that its very vagueness as the opposite of materiality, as distinctive from the body, as distinctive from both the religious and the secular has made it productive as a concept that bridges many discursive traditions across the globe.  My argument is that the spiritual and the secular are produced simultaneously as two connected alternatives to institutionalized religion in Euro-American modernity. I also argue that a central contradiction in the concept of spirituality is that it is at the same time seen as universal and as tied to conceptions of national identity.  Moreover, while the concept travels globally, its trajectory differs from place to place as it is inserted in different historical developments.—p. 36

The spiritual as a modern category emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century as part of the Great Transformation.3  As such it is part of nineteenth-century globalization, a thoroughgoing political, economic, and cultural integration of the world…

The modern categories of “religion,’ (p.36) ‘secularism,” and “spirituality” were universalized in the age of imperialism and produced different effects in different societies. Again, these terms themselves were not new, but they were put to new uses….pp. 36-37

…In the West spirituality formed an alternative to church Christianity. Together with the so-called secularization of the mind in nineteenth-century liberalism, socialism, as well as science (especially Darwin’s evolution theory), one can find widespread movements in different parts of the world that search for a universal spirituality that is not bound to any specific tradition.  Good examples in the (p.38) United States are the transcendentalists from Emerson to Whitman as well as Mary Baker’s Christian Science.  Theosophy is another product of spirit-searching America and Western Europe….—pp. 38-39

For religious thinkers spirituality suggests something of higher value in distinction to the baser aspects of social life, including organized religion.  That is a perception that connects German (p. 40) philosophers of the early nineteenth century with the twentieth-century influential Harvard philosopher and poet George Santayana, who has it that “this aspiring side of religion may be called Spirituality.”13  For romantic nationalists spirituality suggests the essence of the people, their collective spirit, which calls our attention to the fertile connection of spirituality and nationalism…. Finally, spirituality suggests a transcending of the body or, alternatively, the use of the body to gain spiritual experiences. It is these oppositions of experience versus representation, of spirituality versus materialism, of the spirit of the nation versus the concrete individual, of the spirit versus the body that are salient in the term spirituality. Most importantly, spirituality is used as an oppositional term against materialism, and thus as a critique of modern, industrial capitalism.—p. 40-41

               The term “Spirituality” has a kind of global bridge function, connecting several conceptual universes that are increasingly in contact.  Connecting is different from translating in the sense that translation always strives for correctness. As I have mentioned, (p.44) there is no term equivalent to “spirituality” in Sanskrit or Mandarin Chinese (although, obviously, there are words for “spirit), but this term is increasingly used to connect discursive traditions that come to be called Hinduism or Confucianism or Daosim, none of which were ‘isms” before the imperial encounter….—pp. 44-45

                                             Chapter Fifteen

WHY ONLY Muktinath New Revision 2020

The principle tension:

The question we struggle along with our fellow Hindus is what is the need for an ‘imported’ god from outside, when we have several gods which we can choose from, according to our personal desires as well as mental/emotional/intellectual/ needs?  Specifically, the concept of ‘god’ in the Indian religious tradition easily accommodates anybody’s expectation and demand.  Whereas, according to the Muktiveda we find God revealing Himself in a particular culture during a particular period of time. We are then expected to align our concept and ‘understanding’ about ‘god’ with that of the Muktiveda and try to understand Bagvan as revealed there.  Suddenly, I felt a bit of suffocation with such a demand.  Instead of ‘god’ accommodating Himself to our need/demand, we now have to ‘accommodate’ ourselves to the ‘revelation’ in and through the Muktiveda.  A sincere seeker about god, desiring to know and develop a relationship with Him (I believe that God transcends both the female and male gender, he is neither male nor female. However, working within the constraints of human language, god is always represented as a `male’ in the Muktiveda so I also will use the masculine gender reluctantly) through bhakti cannot avoid some tension in this area.  It is a constant and ongoing struggle and challenge try to resolve the tension between my bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath and still deeply respect my tradition. The latter shaped my understanding about god, bhakti, and responsibility to other human beings.

A different perspective on the importance of History

One deciding factor that differentiates the Hindu gods from that of the Muktiveda is the claim of authentic ‘historicity’ of not only Muktinath but also the acts of god in Purva Veda who acted in history in a tangible way.¹   But for us in India, history is not the ‘deciding’ factor in our faith and devotion to god.² Instead, our personal faith in the given tradition and relationship with gods are important.  If I have to summarise the Indian mind in my own words: truth is important and not the event, principle is important and not the person.  What is said is important and not ‘who’ said it and why it was said is important and not how or when.

So ‘truth’ given by anyone in spite of the event is important.   Whether god came down to die on the cross to take away the sin of the world, or he took several avataras to destroy the adharma (unrighteousness) is not important.  The truth behind all these ‘histories’ or ‘stories’ is that god came down to deal with us.  Whether he has done this by dying on the cross or teaching in the battleground is not important.  What is important is that god has concern towards his creation.  He never remained a distant spectator once he created the cosmos, but is involved in the affairs of his creation.  Of course within the Indian religious tradition various sampradayas (sects) have different views regarding this very concept of god and his involvement with creation.³

The principle is that god has concern towards his creation whether that god came down in the form of Muktinath or Krishna as a person is not significant.  What they both said and did according to the need of the time and demand of the people is important and not when they did it.  Why they acted in a particular way, dying on the cross or giving spiritual teaching in a crucial movement in life (like that of Krishna to Arjuna), is important and not how.  In other words, the need of the people in a particular part of the world in a particular time was such that god had to come down in human form to die on the cross to teach the people the truth about god and man.  Whereas, in another part of the world he had to come down to give teaching about the same truth in a different form.  The principle behind both events is that god ‘came down’ and not in a particular form (as Muktinath or Rama or Krishna) or event (dying on the cross or going to the forest).  Therefore, according to your spiritual need, you take what they have done or said and not who; how; when and why they have done it in a particular way.

Change and continuity:

Of course this very concept of ‘avatara’ is absent in the Vedic scripture, but it comes later. Yet chronology of thought and event, though used in discussion and argument to prove a point, yet for common people it holds no value. For example, though the Vedas alone hold the final authority, and when other scriptures contradict to the Vedas, they must be set aside.  However, this principle is there only in theory and not in practice. So, though the avatara concept was introduced by later Puranas, the absence of avatara in the Vedas never nullified the Puranic claims.⁴ When new thoughts were added, old ones were not rejected.  Though several religious, philosophical thoughts are not strictly practiced, yet when needed, they are referred to as various others means to attain the same (religious/spiritual) goal.   However, the Vedas were placed as the head of the Hindu scriptures (chronologically), yet the new concepts like avatara were not rejected.  At the same time as the avataras addressed the need of people, the importance of Vedas as another means for salvation was never rejected.  Change and continuity is one central event in Hinduism.  So any claim that the incarnation of Muktinath fulfilled all that is in Purva Veda, every other longing of humanity through their religious traditions (either in Vedas or in Puranas) also came to an end in him is not  accepted in the Hindu worldview.

The challenge of exclusiveness

Now, if a view is suddenly challenged by saying that what god has done through Muktinath in a particular historic event within a timeframe is alone the ‘truth’ and rest of the stories about various avataras of gods are mere mythologies, then any such a claim about truth is questioned or even ridiculed. The response to such a claim is that no one holds the monopoly on truth.  If anyone says that their particular claim about the truth is alone correct and the rest of them are false or man’s imagination, then such a claim is considered false because it restricts the very sovereignty of god to act as he wishes anywhere at any time in any manner—as per the need and demand of his creation.⁵  Now, any claim that Muktinath ‘alone’ is truth and the rest of the stories and even histories about other gods are false or myth, then proving or convincing those who reject such claims is a big challenge before a follower of the Lord.  And in this context, they are often guided by the Muktivedic claims about the ‘unique’ and ‘only one’ event of the Lord from the Uttara Veda.

The context of exclusive claims:

For example, Acts 4:12 : ‘Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved’, (NIV)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 Muktivedic 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)?⁶  The same is the case with John 10:8, which again, according to Robinson, ‘ has nothing to do with comparative religion’.⁷   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.⁸

Limitation on God?

In my view the uniqueness of Muktinath is applicable only to those who received the ‘faith’ in him from god.  God, in his grace, reveals himself through Muktinath to any sincere seekers about him.  And for us, as we found god in and through Muktinath, this grace is given.  Now the question that comes is what about others who also sincerely seek after god, but claim to have found him in and through Rama or Kirshna or Allah or Buddha, etc.  When we say ‘NO’ to their claim, then according to them, we not only deny their experience but also doubt their sincerity and also limit god to our own personal experience and revelation.

A universal sincere longing for god:

I personally feel that most of the stories, mythologies and experiences recorded in the others’ scriptures about god are the record of their sincere longing to know about god.  They have expressed their anguish and desire about god in beautiful stories and mythologies.  Instead of rejecting them, we have to respect their sincere search. Most of the Hindus believe that every sincere seeker, in their bhakti tradition, can find god through their istadevata (god of personal choice) through whom the same god (of the Muktiveda) reveals himself.  Then, how can one say that such an experience is only mere longing or an authentic one?

Of course I said that we cannot brush aside their spiritual/religious experiences as mere ‘human longing’ (see chapter ‘Canon’).  At the same time, however, I respect others experience in spirituality, yet I cannot accept all the mythologies, particularly related with avataras as historical events.  At the same time I do not minimize their longing as merely being  recorded in the form of stories.  But for me they are a vehicle used to communicate their teaching about god to common people.⁹  This topic on mythology and avatara is a rather complex and much is written about it elsewhere.  I have included a brief review in Appendix.

An average Hindu never expects others to recognize their bhakti and faith.  Though the sectarian Hindus can claim exclusivism of their faith, yet they are not under any obligation or compulsion to propagate their form of faith to convert others to their sampradaya.  However, this does not mean that conversion from one faith to another within Hinduism never happens. This has happened, and continues to occur within Hinduism.   The point that we need to note is that in spite of sectarian fighting and factionalism, an average Hindu has deep respect for others’ faith and god.  And a sad fact is that while members of the semitic religions have no respect for the Hindu’s faith, experience or gods, Hindus have respect not only for their claims of truth, but they also respect their gods.  Of course extreme fundamentalism in every faith always reviles the gods of other faiths and challenge the conviction of the followers.    I do not feel it is important to even give reference about such fundamentalism and fanaticism as it goes against the principle of ignoring them.

My view:

Now as a Hindu and bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, many times I have continued to wonder about this.  After several years of study, my rational mind refuses to accept the historicity of Hindu gods.  However, several modern Hindu scholars and apologetics have tried to prove the historicity of at least several major deities like Rama, Krishna etc. My inner spirit refuses to accept them.  At the same time I respect their claim about any historical evidence about Hindu gods.

My understanding towards all Hindu deities is that various historic persons were deified and several mythological and epic characters were later elevated to the pedestal of deity.  Considering the prevailing worldview of ancestral worship, several clan chiefs, and common ancestors were deified and worshiped by the following generations.¹⁰ There is ample evidence for this in Indian religious histories.¹¹ However, several Hindus believe the antiquity of several major deities back in the Veda and claim, therefore, that they are not mere clan chiefs or common ancestors but ‘expressions’ of the one deity which they believed in spirit but worshipped in various forms, which have been  revealed in several avataras.  Scholars may not agree with such belief, but common Hindus never mind about scholarly evidence for their faith. While I respect their explanation, I still refuse to accept it in my rational mind.  This happened before my search for a guru not after I became the bhakta of Bhagavan muktinath.  Maybe my advaitic background (from a smartha family) could be one reason, where though reverence to all deities are part of religious life, yet going beyond them is the evidence of spiritual maturity.

End of my search:

But the deciding moment in my life is not rejecting the claims of the Hindus or accepting the claims of the Muktiveda.  It goes far beyond these.  The deciding factor for me to follow Muktinath as my guru and god is not all the historical proof, but what I ‘want’ to find in a god or guru.

I was longing for a god in his totality as a perfect being—at least as perfect as I could imagine and expect.  But I could not found that perfection in any of the Hindu deities.  The challenging question from Hindus might be, in my own words (as purvapaksha):

Then go beyond to that truth which transcends all names and forms—even that of Muktinath.  Why need of any god?  We have several higher philosophies that can help you become perfect or the very Being Herself.  In whichever way or form you want to find god or salvation, there are several ways, each accommodating to one’s desire, nature, temperament, efforts and longing.  You explain your expectation about god or salvation, and we will give the exact answer from our own religious tradition.¹² We have enough scriptures, gurus, achariyas, gods, philosophies, teachings, methods, sadhanas which can easily accommodate every individual born in this country without deceiving and depriving them to give up their civilization or heritage.  Even if you try to explain your pilgrimage in Muktinath, you cannot exclude or throw away all that helped you from our religious and spiritual heritage.  If this is true, then how much more the same heritage will help you to find god/truth within our religious tradition.

After I found my god and guru in Muktinath, I asked myself the above question.

The answer did not come through my rational mind or enquiry, but the answer only came through bhakti – faith and trust.  With several limitations to that time and age in which I was searching for the guru, I was not satisfied with the answer that I found within my reach in Hinduism.  All the gods that I knew and worshipped never met my expectations that I wanted to find in a god.  I am not going into depth to prove this point.  I can only say that like Gandhi I don’t believe in rejecting the Krishna of the Mahabharata and Purana and only worship that of the Gita.¹³ Such statements are made in the context of criticism from others questing about the ‘acts’ of gods from their ‘character’.  Whereas, I cannot separate the truth from the event, the principle from the person, the what, from the when, nor the how from the why.  The way several (or almost all) Hindu gods and deities evolved from various backgrounds of mythology and stories through a process of accommodation and acculturation is also important for my understanding and expectation about god.¹⁴   As one Hindu scholar said, ‘Stories came first and gods came later’, can be established by several scholarly writings by Hindu authors.¹⁵  And my purpose is not to score some points on this subject; I am not going to highlight this point other than to tell my understanding.

I strongly believe that however one strives, they cannot find their guru.  But when their atman is prepared, and if they search sincerely, then god will send the guru to them.  This is what I believe happened in my life.  When god confronted me through Muktinath, I said to myself, ‘Ok, let me try Him also for some time.  If He fulfills my expectations, then I gain, and if not, then I am not going to lose anything.  On the other hand, I will gain some more knowledge about the Muktiveda and Muktinath.’  This faith and trust in god began to reveal more about the Lord in my life.  This went to the extent that even if I set aside several things which others would challenge about the muktivedic claims (like Virgin birth, resurrection, second coming etc.), I would still find that Muktinath, as a Person, appeals to my mind and spirit.  I can even go to the extent that if He is merely an imaginary and mythological god like those we have in Hinduism, I still have no problem with it because all the events centered around Him are a matter of faith and revelation and not based on reason and mere historical records.  But what appealing about Him is His character, life, and teaching which set a model for His followers, even though they will never be able to live like Him.  He didn’t just give some teachings or prescribed some rituals to follow and that was the end of it.  Even more, I strive to live like Him according to His teaching.  The more I strive, the more I realize how distant the goal is.  But I don’t need to give up because He always stands as a model for me and with me.  This I cannot find in Hindu gods or gurus. 

Three reasons why Muktinath is Unique for me:

First, many disciples gathered around contemporary gurus who were later elevated as gods to be worshipped. I found that these were not the best examples for me to imitate.  In fact, their followers might claim that no one can imitate their guru’s life, as s/he is an avatara of god.  Whereas, even though Muktinath is the very incarnation of god, His followers are expected to imitate His life and teaching in their lives.  It is not only a promise that we will be like Him in the resurrection, but we are expected to strive to be like Him while we are living.  But none of the gods whom I worshipped before can be imitated.  Not because they are god and therefore we cannot imitate them, but their acts are such that we don’t want imitate them.¹⁶  Leaving these gods of mythology, even those historical peoples, who were later deified by the followers were sincerely worshiped with rituals.  Rarely were they imitated in life. The Lord Muktinath is not interested in the forms through which we need to worship Him only as a god, but He is interested in us following His teaching and imitating the model He has provided for His followers’ lives even though we will not be able to reach the perfection He has modeled.  

The next is the teaching of the Muktiveda.  Though the Veda falls in a different category for a common Hindu, it serves as a reference  for practicing orthodoxy.  Even within the Veda, though the Upanishads have a different role, they feel too elitist, dry and intellectual for me.  I know that all the Puranas and great epics and other scripture (all the smrtis) that we have in Hinduism were written in story form to teach dharma that is related with the spiritual, ethical and social needs of the people. The authors used either imaginary characters or familiar ones from other scriptures.  Those gods never lived and taught these teachings that were later recorded.  And anybody can write anything and share it with others to educate them in the name of any god or guru. 

Though the same can be said about the Muktiveda, yet as I understand, the muktivedic teachings evolved from the people, for the people and by the people using the authority and revelation of god.  Sevanand (Paul) never sat and wrote those letters in the Arabian Desert to some imagined audience in some provinces in Asia and other parts.  The disciples of the Lord never wrote a mythological story to impart some spiritual or moral teachings using a character called Muktinath.  Even the teachings in the Purva Veda, however ethnocentric in their nature, were not the wishful writings of a person or persons, but they slowly evolved through historic events that these people believed happen according to god’s purpose.¹⁷

Next is the early church history.  However after Constantine, the church became an institution with the help of state, the first three hundred years of its life and witness is unique one in any known religious history.  All that Christians claim about the so-called ‘blood of the martyrs’ as the seed of church is exaggerated one.¹⁸  It is not the ‘blood’ either of Muktinath or of the martyrs but LOVE, which the bhaktas of Muktinath learnt to imitate and execute that became the seed of the church growth.  The bhaktas of the Lord, made a difference through their life which caused the ‘Rise of Christianity’, as Rodney Stark entitled in his book:

…the emperor Julian launched a campaign to institute pagan charities in an effort to match the Christians.  Julian complained in a letter to the high priest of Galatia in 362 that the pagans needed to equal the virtues of Christians, for recent Christian growth was caused by their “moral character, even if pretended,” and by (p.83) their “benevolence toward strangers and care for the graves of the dead.”  In a letter to another priest, Julian wrote, “I think that when the poor happened to be neglected and overlooked by the priests, the impious Galileans observed this and devoted themselves to benevolence.”  And he also wrote, “The impious Galileans support not only their poor, but ours as well, everyone can see that our people lack aid from us”(p.84)¹⁹

…The Christian teaching that God loves those who love him was alien to pagan beliefs.  MacMullen has noted that from the pagan perspective “what mattered was … the service that the deity could provide, since a god (as Aristotle had long taught) could feel no love in response to that offered.”²⁰  Equally alien to paganism was the notion that because God loves humanity, Christians cannot please God unless they love one another.  Indeed, as God demonstrates his love through sacrifice, humans must demonstrate their love through sacrifice on behalf of one another.  Moreover, such responsibilities were to be extended beyond the bonds of family and tribe, indeed to “all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Cor.1:2).  These were revolutionary ideas.(p.86)

               When the New Testament was new, these were the norms of the Christian communities.  Tertullian claimed: “It is our care of the helpless, our practice of loving kindness that brands us in the eyes of many of our opponents. ‘Only look,’ they say, ‘look how they love one another!’”²¹ (p.87)

               And as we have seen [in page 84], that is precisely what most concerned Julian as he worked to reverse the rise of Christianity and restore paganism.  But for all that he urged pagan priests to match these Christian practices, there was little or no response because there were no doctrinal bases or traditional practices for them to build upon.  It was not that Romans knew nothing of charity, but that it was not based on service to the gods.  Pagan gods did not punish ethical violations because they imposed no ethical demands—humans offended the gods only through neglect or by violation of ritual standards.²²  Since pagan gods required only propitiation and beyond that left human affairs in human hands, a pagan priest could not preach that those lacking in the spirit of charity risked their salvation.  Indeed, the pagan gods offered no salvation.  They might be bribed to perform various services, but the gods did not provide an escape from mortality….(p.88)²³

The life of the bhaktas of the Lord, however they failed the expectation of god, yet surpassed in the common human standard of their time (or in the words of Julian, ‘even if pretended,’) was their effort to imitate their guru, from whose life and their teaching they learnt.  In this respect Muktinath is unique for me to follow.

Apart from these three factors mentioned above, next to god, my mind is to be blamed for my bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath.  After I became a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, when I began to study seriously both the Hindu scriptures and the Muktiveda, I could hardly stop comparing them.  This I have done not with any prejudice or colored eyes (mind) influenced by my faith in the Lord.  Even after I became a bhakta, I struggled a lot and still struggle with the Muktiveda.  However, the systematic study with the help of commentaries and books on Hinduism and the Muktiveda have convinced me that Muktinath is the guru and god for whom I searched through my own Hindu scriptures.  This conviction helped me to read my own scriptures as part of god’s revelation to prepare me.  This doesn’t mean that Muktinath has now fulfilled all that we find in Hinduism.  My Indian tradition, scriptures and civilization still continue to help me to understand my guru and His teaching in a more authentic way.

The role of the Muktiveda in knowing Muktinath

Unlike the modern Hindu apologetic I do not need to explain the contradictions and shortcomings in the scriptures in a rationalistic and so-called scientific way.  This is true with the Muktiveda also.  I can with honesty, at least to myself, accept the contradictions, reject the shortcomings, integrate good things and wait upon god to reveal the clarity that I need to follow him—taking help both from the Muktiveda 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 Muktiveda because of the way it is written from within the evolving life of a group of people, the Jews (it could have been any group of people, but god chose them for his own purposes) 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 them.  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.²⁴ 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.  At the same time we cannot both claim that the accounts of the avataras are historical and then philosophize away their actions as only symbolic. 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 anybody can do such things with any ideals.  For example, for several Neo-Hindus, Muktinath is the personification of ‘ethics’, ‘love’, ‘a cosmic Christ’ etc.²⁵  They all acknowledge Muktinath 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 apologetes explained them in their own way.²⁶  hereas, 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 the Lord (see above Julian’s words).    Therefore, each scripture needs to be evaluated in its religious, social, cultural contexts. 

In the case of Rama, the imaginary character of the Ramayana or deification of some historic figure really attracted me.²⁷  Yet, being a Tamilian, my approach to Rama’s character based on Kamba Ramayana and some personal study of his acts of killing Vali 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.²⁸  Though such ideals are appealing, yet I am not sufficiently motivated 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 Abhishikit (Christ) and not that of the historical Muktinath (Jesus).²⁹  Even if Muktinath is merely an imaginary character of the Uttara Veda, 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-comprehensible god.

Finally I confess that the god-hood of other deities never depends upon my faith on them.  They are gods or even the SUPREME, ONLY ONE BRAHMAN, the Eternal God, ‘THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BUT…..’ etc., for the faithful followers of those (or that) deity.  So agreeing with their faith and bhakti, as a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I keep my exclusivism on him ‘only Muktinath’ to the question ‘why only Muktinath’?

I am benefited:

Having said this, I still enjoy art, music, dances, stories and other forms that are based on the various deities of Hinduism.  Several devotional songs composed by the followers of these deities even cater to my need to express my bhakti in the Lord.  When I sing them, I need not even change the name of those deities, because for me, those names are not important, but the spirit in which those bhajans and songs were written and sung is of importance.  Meera’s and Surdas’ bhajans, Tukaram’s abangas, several Tamil poems by Alvars and Saiva saints help me to focus my bhakti to my Lord.  But I will use them only in personal devotion, as I have a clear conviction and understanding what I am doing.  In the same way, the artistic presentation of some events of the life of these deities appeal to my aesthetic need.  For example, the childhood lilas (plays) of Krishna are very beautifully composed, and when they are performed in dance, I’m very attracted.  These are the kinds of things I really miss in the Muktiveda.

My Pilgrimage:

So, why Muktinath only and why not other gods or our gods, is not an easy question for a Hindu bhakta of the Lord to give a convincing answer.  Faith, reason, revelation and study combined together have given me this conviction.  I don’t expect either the Hindus or the Christians to accept my explanation without reservations.  But I thank god for allowing me to born as a Hindu and worship him through Muktinath.  I don’t make this claim based on experience alone, but as a process in my pilgrimage in which I have worked along with god using my mind, scriptures and tradition.  In this pilgrimage, it is not merely some ‘revelation’ in a special way that is enough to cause me to blindly believe based on faith.  But god expects us to use our ‘perception’ to know about his ‘revelation’ because perception and revelation can be said to be two ways to know the absolute supracultural reality of god.  While the former is a human effort, the latter is an initiation by god himself.  If we understand this, then accepting the concept that ‘only’ Muktinath based on the muktivedic revelation is not exclusivism, closing the door for one to understand god’s Truth via their background, tradition, worldview etc. but it is another way of god to continue his revelation about himself through Muktinath.  But when Christianity claims that Muktinath is the only way to god limiting that way within the parameter of Jewishness of the Muktiveda or the western hegemony of Christianity, then we are limiting the very revelation of god through his creation in which every other social, cultural and religious traditions are a part.  Because, according to Kraft:

… any monocultural perspective on truth is not true even if we are dealing with revealed truth, and even if the perspective be that of Hebrew, Greek, or western culture.(p.292) …God’s truth … transcends the capacity of any single individual, or group, or discipline or culture to grasp fully even that portion of it that has been revealed to us.  Every individual, group, discipline, and culture has much to offer the rest by way of insight and specialized understanding…(p.298)…We assume that there is a reality “out there” but it is the mental constructs (models) of that reality inside our heads that are the most real to us.  God, the author of reality, exists outside any culture.  Human beings on the other hand, are always bound by cultural, subcultural (including disciplinary), and psychological conditioning to perceive and interpret what they see of reality in ways appropriate to these conditionings.  Neither the absolute God nor the reality he created is perceived absolutely by culture-bound human beings.(p.300)³⁰

Typical Hindus would argue that, ‘if the ultimate truth about the supracultural reality of god is once and finally revealed in Muktinath, which needs to be communicated according to the need of every culture, then we believe that even the supracultural reality needs to be revealed according to the need of every generation not just to be frozen in a onetime historical event in and through Muktinath.  In this way, we give freedom to every individual and culture and community to look forward to on-going revelations in and through some avataras, acharyas and gurus who are sent according to the needs of the time.’  If we need a new perception for that ultimate revelation, they too say the same thing in a different form: we need a new revelation to have the proper perception about the ultimate reality (of god).³¹

Such a question is a challenge to me personally; however, I asked the question to myself as a Hindu and found a convincing answer for myself as a Hindu bhakta of Muktinath.  For me, the endorsement comes from the Muktiveda itself.  God never left Himself without any witness (or revelation) about himself in his creation and conscience of human beings (Romans. 2:12-16).  He gave His eternal law in the conscience of man.  Even if we take it for the sake of argument that (according to a typical Hindu) god needs to reveal that truth about himself in every generation through a new avatara, acharya or guru.  However, these new revelations try to communicate in emic³²  perspectives, yet there will be some continuity of basic or fundamental unity in human understanding about that supracultural reality—either revealed or perceived from the beginning of human creation.  What the successive avataras etc. are doing is nothing but communicating the eternal truth in such a way so that the contemporaries can understand them more clearly in their language and culture.

For example, accepting the argument that god’s revelation about himself is not closed once and for all in Muktinath, but he continues to reveal himself (or supracultural reality about himself) in every generation, ultimately the same one Reality alone could be revealed in different forms.

But the problem for me is why irrespective of repeated avataras, humanity continues to fail so that gods needs to send again and again someone to reveal himself (truth/reality) to every generation.   The answer for this question could be, ‘as humanity again and again fails to live up to or grasp that supracultural truth about himself, he has to send his avatara or prophet time and again. As each generation needs to understand the old revelation in their terms, god sends new gurus, acharyas to communicate his truth to the people.’

One thing that I found different in the on-going revelation of god through avataras etc. is that while a particular avatara or acharya or guru tries to communicate the eternal supracultural truth about god, yet after sometime, that revelation or teaching becomes frozen in a book or sectarian scripture, and the followers merely began to worship those avataras or even gurus as gods (with some rituals), forgetting to implement their teaching in day-to-day life to make progress in their spiritual life.  Gradually, rituality replaces spirituality and only brings people back to the same place from which they started.  All the teachings are kept aside, if not completely ignored, but used often only as a point of reference about the glory of that particular avatara or guru who came to reveal the supracultural truth of god.

Whereas in the Muktiveda, I see a difference—at least based on my personal experience, one has to come to terms with their failures which prevent them from understanding the revelation of god.  The Muktiveda has never become frozen as a mere religious book to follow or refer to for mere orthodoxy (about that revelation).  And it has never prescribed some ritual to continue to worship Muktinath as god, though the successive church traditions have created several rituals which make the Christians no different from anyone else.  Whereas, if one chooses Muktinath as their guru, then He never accepts any form of ritual substitution for His revelation about god.  Whether or not Muktinath is the final revelation of god, yet a faithful (even an emic) perception of His teachings and life—beginning with His immediate disciples and the successive generations by His body (which are his genuine disciples not any institution or organization) at least testifies to the world that faith in Him demands a different kind of commitment than of revelation.  Here, god in and through Muktinath first accepts my position (emic perspectives) and then gradually helps me to make progress to understand his revelation for the entire creation according to the degree of my obedience to him. 

A typical Hindu could say that the same is true with Rama, Krishna or Siva, but my tradition failed me in translating this in my practical life.  All those absolute claims by the Hindu scriptures about the truth either in teaching or in life, remain only as a point of reference or for scoring a point in an argument or dialogue in that particular context, but are generally not reflected in real life.  Whereas, at least in my personal life, since I found my guru in Muktinath and began to understand His mind through His teaching for my life, I see a gradual transformation within me, helping me to make progress towards that revelation.  The same God, who revealed to every sincere seeker throughout the world when He revealed Himself through Muktinath, continues to do so to anyone who faithfully seeks Him in and through Muktinath.  So the answer to the question: ‘Why only Muktinath’ is not to limit god’s revelation in one historic event, but it is to give an entirely new perspective about Him, in human terms, beyond rituals through every religious tradition to understand his original supracultural truth about him.

So my response to my fellow Hindus is that if you feel that you cannot understand god though your religious teachings, then give a chance to Muktinath, and if He fails, then continue your search.  But never excuse yourself to listen to what god wants to say to you through Satguru Muktinath.  He does not want anyone to get lost, as He has already started the process of revealing Himself through every human tradition. For those who say that they need not search for god anymore outside their sampradaya, tradition and faith, I respect their conviction.  God never imposes Himself on others but leaves it to the individual to decide her own choice.  At least in my life, my search finally ended in Bhagavan Muktinath as He never forsakes anyone who comes to Him.  Though god initiated the search, He left the responsibility of ‘responding’ to me.  In the same way I have done my part sharing my journey in the Lord leaving rest with you.

Notes

1 As Lesslie Newbigin remarks,:

               The care which is taken in the New Testament to place the events recorded in the continuum of secular history is in striking contrast to the indifference which is generally shown with regard to the historicity of the events which Hindu piety love to remember in connection with the character of the gods.  There is no serious attempt to relate them to events in secular history, nor is it felt that there would be any advantage to be gained from trying to do so even if it could be done. Their value is that they illustrate truths about God which would remain true even if these particular events had not happened (The Finality of Christ, pp.52  f. )  (p.47). –quoted in John A.T. Robinson, TRUTH IS TWO EYED , SCM Press Ltd., year  p. 4

2 If we read the commentaries on some Hindu scriptures we can often read the word ‘this is the history of this event’ while describing or interpreting some mythology from Purana.  For example V. M. Gopalakrishnamacharya, a Tamil and Sanskrit scholar who has written a scholarly commentary on Kambaramayanam in Tamil (Chennai, Uma Padippagam, 2006, seven volumes.  See for example, in Kishkanda Kandam, vol. 5, p. 114 about the avatara of bore [varaha] by Vishnu. ), often will explain several stories in Ramayana that too related with Raman’s fight against ‘Rakshasas’ as the ‘varalaru’ which in Tamil means ‘history’.  This I often heard in several religious discourses in TV by Hindu speakers.  Though few scholars would like to bring the stories of puranas to the sphere of ‘mythology’, yet for most of the Hindus they are authentic historical events happened in by gone ages (yugas), for which one need not and cannot trace physical evidence.  Of course the concept of ‘history’ in the west is linear and in India is cyclical.  So there is no point of comparing or understanding history in the western sense.  Many scholarly books and papers were written on this subject.  Mere mention of some references could run several pages.  See Richard King in appendix more on this.

3 See the Chapter on Doctrines under the heading ‘world’ more on this.

4  In fact the later puranic and epic events like that of avatara is traced back to some events in Veda.  For example, there is some reference about Vishnu taking three steps to measure the universe in Veda(See Ralph T.H. Griffith, The Hymns of the Rgveda, edited by Prof. J.L. Shastri, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, New Revised Edition, 1973, Reprint 1986. 1.154.1 and 3b, p. 103^@).  But Vishnu was not recognized as Supreme god in Veda.  However later puranic Hinduism will quote this vedic evidence as authentic information of such avatara of Vishnu.  About this Panikar says:

Visnu who is so dearly beloved and who has inspired, and indeed still inspires, in his devotees such fervent worship either of his own person or of his earthly manifestations Rama and Krsna, is not a major divinity in the Rg Veda [Though his name occurs about a hundred times, only five and a half hymns are dedicated to him].  It is the Sama Veda and Satpatha Brahmana, where Visnu is constantly identified with sacrifice, which accord him an important place, while at a later date the prolific literature of the Puranas, of which the myths concerning Visnu from the basis, made him immensely popular [About Visnu, cf. RV VI, 69; SB I,9,3,9-15; TB III,1,2,6].  This prominence has been maintained and indeed enhance right up to modern times.–R. Panikkar, The Vedic Experience, Visnu, Measurer of the Three Worlds. p. 150.

@ ‘I will declare the mighty deeds Visnu, of him who measured out earthly regions, Who propped the highest place of congregation, thrice setting down his footstep, widely striding. (1)…Him who alone with triple step hath measured this common dwelling-place, long, far extended. Also see 1.22. 16-21, pp. 12-13.— Prof. J.L.Shastri, ed. The Hymns of the Rgveda, Translated with a Popular Commentary by Ralph T.H. Griffith. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, New Revised Edition 1973, Reprint. 1986.

5 The fundamental Reality is not exhausted in any one manifestation.  It has a multi-personal manifestation.  It is never exclusively and completely exhausted in any one form, as claimed by the Semitic religions.  It is the doctrine that Reality has multi-personal manifestations that is behind Hindu tolerance….(p.3)

               There is a popular verse in Sanskrit which approves of varied approaches to the Lord. ‘Whom the Saivas worship as Siva, the Vedantins as Brahman, the Buddhists as Buddha, the logician (Naiyyayikas) who specialize in canons of knowledge as the Chief Agent, the followers of the jaina code as the Ever Free, the Ritualists as the Principle of Law, may that Hari, the (p.4) Lord of the three worlds, grant our prayers’.

               Yam saivah samupasate siva iti,/ brameti vedantinah/ Bauddhah Buddha iti pramanapatavah/karteti naiyyayikah/Arhanniyatha jainasasanaratah karmeti/mimamsakah/so yam vo vidadhatu vanchitaphala/ trailokyanatho harih|

               Dr. Radhakrishnan points out that if the poet was writing in our age he would have added ‘whom the Christians devoted to work call Christ and Mohammedans call Allah.

Kraistavah krstur iti kriyaparathah alleti mahammadah.(pp.4-5)

 — P. Nagaraja Rao, Essentials of Hinduism, Mumbai, Sudakshina Trust, 1978, pp 3 &4-5.

6 Robinson, op. cit. p. 105

7 ibid. p.106

8 ibid. p. 107      

9 ‘The gods of primitive religion represent a semi-poetical way of expressing the social structure of the people who invented them.  Thus, in Greco-Roman mythology, Vico saw a representation of the domestic, economic, and political life of the ancients.  These myths were the way in which a primitive and imaginative mind expressed to itself what a more reflective mind would have stated in codes of law and morality.’— R. G. Collingwood. The Idea of History, Revised Edition.  Edited with an Introduction by Jan Van Der Dussen. New York.  Oxford University. (1946), 1994.  p. 70

10The fact that Krishna was looked upon as a God confirms the belief that there had been a historical person of that name, who was not only a great warrior but must have had something to do with the religious development of the race. Such widespread and abiding belief does not rest in a vacuum. There must have been some historical basis for the popular worship of Krishna. Some person of that name by virtue of his extraordinary abilities or substantial service appealed to the popular imagination which gradually encircled his memory with a mysterious hallow culminating in deification…. The life-story of Krishna is found in Harivansha Parva (the latter part of Mahabharata) and in Vishnu Purana and Bhagwat Purana. Chapters 1-98 of Harivansha are dated 300 A.D. by scholars like P.L.Vaidya of Pune. The last 20 chapters of the Harivansha, 99 to 118, are dated 1050 A.D. Vishnu Purana is dated approx 300-500 A.D. and the Bhagvat Purana 10^th century A-D.  — THE PERSONALITY OF KRISHNA: Dr. Sakuntala Rao Sastri, from her book Bhagavad Gita, by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.  It is in the Library—refer for page number.–db

11 R. G. Bhandarkar’s, Vaishnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1995, pp. 49-54 for the various phases of the Krishna cult and its antiquity.

12 ‘Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I make the faith of that devotee in that form steadily.’ (Gita. 7:21).  Also read the commentary for this verse in Gitapress Commentary.

13           Mahatma Gandhi, of his book “Gita my mother”, observes as follows:-

“I have no knowledge if the Krishna of the Mahabharata ever lived. My Krishna means Krishna of the Gita. My Krishna has nothing to do with any historical person. I would refuse to bow my head to Krishna who would kill because his pride is hurt or Krishna whom the non-Hindus portray as a dissolute youth. We should not mix up the historical Krishna of the Mahabharata with the Krishna of the Gita”. — The Message of the Gita,  Ahmedabad, 1977, pp 47-48.

14  See, Vijay Nath, Puraanas and Acculturation: A Historico-Anthropological Perspective, Munshirma Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2001.  Further what Klostermaier says about Mythology will highlight this point:

Myths have a tendency to develop their anthropomorphisms into figures with lives of their own, and often they hypostatize the abstraction of the philosophies. Thus we see, for instance, in the development of the Indra-Vrtra myth through the ages, a clear tendency to combine the essential features of the myth with the prevailing doctrines of the philosophical schools. Similarly, the various later sects adapt the mythology of rival sects for their own purposes, shaping the figures and events in such a way as to prove their own claims. Philosophies allegorize concrete figures and events of a myth—sometimes in opposite ways. They see in all myths the description of purely spiritual, mystical, interior events. The Brahmanas already declared that Indra had in reality no enemy, nor had he ever fought a battle. For the Mimanmsakas it is clear that Indra is only an allegorical mythical device to illustrate the power of yajna and mantra. The Upanisads allegorize the asvamedha into a spiritual meditation; myths are mere parables for spiritual realities.— Klaus K. Klostermaier, MYTHOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES OF SALVATION IN THE THEISTIC TRADITIONS OF INDIA, Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984. p.239 [In order to reduce the page, this quote can be deleted—db]

15 Most of the Rgvedic gods, he (R.N.Dandekar [God in Hindu Thought, Poona, 1968 (publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit Class A, No. 21, University of Poona.]) contends are created for the myths and not  the myths for the gods. Mythology seems to be primary and the gods secondary, that is, the Vedic rsis had a message which they conveyed in images for which they created the concrete figures of the gods. Thus it becomes understandable that Vedic mythology is essentially evolutionary. The character of a certain god in a certain environment undergoes a change in the course of the change of environment….— Klaus K. Klostermaier, MYTHOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES OF SALVATION IN THE THEISTIC TRADITIONS OF INDIA, Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984.p.11

16 Here we have to know that the general Hindu attitude towards the ‘acts’ of god is not for us to imitate.  In fact, no human can imitate the acts of any god.  Not only do they stand above the realm of the human standard of moral and ethics, but also as they are divine beings, we mortals cannot imitate any of their acts.  

17 Simply from the literary point of view, from Genesis 12 on, the historical books read as history.  The characters and events are not potrayed idealistically or symbolically, but as real reports of customs and vagaries of the times.—Dr. Hoefer, personal communication.

18 ‘I reject claims that the state did perceive early Christianity in political terms.  It is far from clear to me that Christianity could have survived a truly comprehensive effort by the state to root it out during its early days.  When the Roman state did perceive political threats, its repressive measures were not only brutal but unrelenting and extremely thorough—Masada comes immediately to mind.  Yet even the most brutal persecutions of Christians were haphazard and limited, and the state ignored thousands of persons who openly professed the new religion…. If, as is now believed, the Christians were not a mass of degraded outsiders but from early days had members, friends, and relatives in high places—often within the imperial family—this would have greatly mitigated repression and persecution.  Hence, the many instances when Christians were pardoned….’— Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, Harper San Francisco An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, 1977, p.46  The following from Malhotra highlights this further:

…In fact, the Church encouraged its followers to become martyrs by putting themselves in harm’s way in order to provoke violence against themselves.  Most of the thousands of saints formally acknowledged and canonized by the church were such martyrs.

               Jonathan Kirsch, a scholar of religion, has shown that since the fourth century, Christians have been encouraged to act aggressively toward others for the purpose of inducing violence which could then be twisted so as to claim persecution. In God Against the Gods, Kirsch explains this process of glorifying martyrs:

The most zealous among them saw it as their solemn duty to make a public display of their faith even if it meant arrest, torture and death … A few of the Soldiers of Christ actively sought martyrdom by charging into the shrines and temples of the pagans, smashing the statuary, and overturning the altars, as they were instructed to do by their own scriptures: ‘You shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, for the Lord is a jealous God.’{Kirsch, Jonathan.  God Against the Gods. New York: Viking Compass, 2004,  2004, 108-09}

For example, a confessor who endured and survived the persecutions of pagan Rome was lionized by his fellow Christians. He was regarded as a veteran of the Holy War against paganism, a living example of what it meant to be a Soldier of Christ, and his wounds and scars were badges of honour.

               What is interesting is that the pagan magistrates often pleaded with Christians to show some symbolic respect toward non-Christians as this would save the magistrate from giving the mandatory punishment: (p. 288)

Indeed, the spectacle of men and women who went willingly and even ardently to their deaths – and, long afterward, the memory of these martyrdoms and the relics of the martyrs themselves – only stirred the fires of true belief and inspired ever greater acts of zealotry. Sometimes the pagan magistrates literally begged the Christians to make some gesture of compromise in order to save their own lives. {Kirsch, Jonathan.  God Against the Gods. New York: Viking Compass, 2004,  2004, 15-16}

…Christian chronicles of subsequent periods greatly exaggerated the persecutions. Kirsch writes that ‘the most bloodcurdling examples of torture originated in the imaginations of monks who sat safely in their cells and entertained themselves by inventing extravagant and indecent fictions.’{ibid. 113}— Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to  Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011, pp. 288-89

…While Hinduism has had its share of militant wars, immolations and sacrifices, it has nothing like the violent history of martyrdom which we see in early Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nor does martyrdom offer the ticket to salvation or entry into paradise. Arjuna’s liberation would depend, the Gita makes clear, on a lifelong treading on the path of dharma and not on a single act of self-immolation, no matter how worthy and defensible the cause.—ibid. Notes, 92, pp. 429-30

19 quoted in : Paul Johnson,  A History of Christianity. New York: Atheneum, 1976, p.75; Johnson 1976:75; Ayerst, David, and A.S.T. Fisher. 1971.  Records of Christianity.  Vol. 1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971:179-181.—in Rodney Stark

20 MacMullen, Ramsay, Paganism in the Roman Empire, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981, p. 53.—in Rodney Stark

21 Tertullian [Ca. 200]1959.  Disciplinary, Moral and Ascetical Works.  New York: Fathers of the Church, Apology 39, 1989, ed..–in Rodney Stark

22 MacMullen, op. cit., 1981, p. 58.—Rodney Stark

23 Rodney Stark, op. cit. pp. 83-88

24 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

25 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.

26  Regarding Kotpuliyur Nayanar who killed even an infant as it drank the milk of its mother who consumed the rice which was preserved only for the service of Siva, Hindu apologetes like Dr. Sivap Priya would say that here the bhakti of that Saiva saints overcomes the philial love and affection. And Dr. Selvaganapathy in his exposition on Periyapuranam (in ‘Arue Anandame, in Podigai Channel) said that though he is not defending that act of that Nayanar, he told that such acts are recorded in Periya Puranam.  See notes 6 in chapter Morality.

27 …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

28 Pzha. Karuppaya’s book ‘Yellaihal neetha Rama kaadai’ (The story of Rama beyond boundaries; Coimbatore, Vijaya Publications, 2008) is a good example, in which the author beautifully brings so many noble truths and incidents from Ramayana.  It is beyond the scope of this chapter even to give translation few points from this book.  At the same time he is honest to accept the reasons given by Rama about killing Vali is not completely acceptable.  Sri Nellai Kannan, the famous Tamil scholar, particularly on Kambaramayanam, in one TV debated held several years before skillfully demonstrated that killing of Vali by Rama is wrong.  The way he convinces by quoting from the very same Kamba Ramayana, for me is beyond dispute.  Similarly banishing Sita to the forest by Rama due to the rumor of a washer man explained for him to give priority over his raja dharma as a king than the pati dharma as a husband.  However the counter view (by some feminists) to this is that when Rama was banished to forest Sita went with him as a faithful wife. Similarly Rama could have handed over his raja dharma to his brothers and should have accompanied his wife to the forest as he already tested her purity and innocence publically through fire ordeal when he rescued her from her captivity in Lanka after killing Ravana. Well my point is not to high light the negative side of these characters, but to say that there is counter view to the traditional view. Of course some other Hindu apologete like Rajiv Malhotra see the strength of Hinduism as it accommodate ‘disorder’ along with ‘order’ as part of its worldview than aiming for any idealistic perfection and order.  See Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to  Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011.  I give some important points from Malhotra in the appendix which will help us to understand this in context.

29  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 criterion 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 varieties of beliefs 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.

@ In I Corinthian 15:14 St. Paul (Sevanand) asserts that our faith is useless if Christ is not physically and historically raised from the dead.  He is analyzing that our confidence in being physically and factually raised from the dead is founded on the fact of Jesus’ resurrection.  If Jesus’ resurrection was not historical, our resurrection becomes a selfish wish, not a sure confidence.—Dr. Hoefer, personal communication.

30  Charles H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective, New York, Orbis Books, (1979) 16^th Printing, 2000, pp. 292, 298 & 300.

31 We are on fragile ground when we speculate on what might be possible, rather than standing on what is and has been.  We should lead people to keep looking for a new authoritative revelation, with all the uncertainty and controversy that it would bring.  Instead, we ground people’s faith and hope on the facts that we know are true.—Dr. Hoefer, personal communication.

32 ‘An emic perspective is the “folk perspective” (Hunter, David and Mary Ann Foley. Doing Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row. 1976:52ff) of inside participants in a given culture.  An etic perspective is that of outside analysts of many cultures.’—Kraft, op. cit. p.293

Appendix: Mythology

…These myths do not constitute a creed; none of them, strictly speaking, is an object of belief.  The goddess who killed the demons, the god who saved the world by drinking the poison, or the one whose heavenly liilaa (play) enraptures the devotee, are no fairytale personages; yet, their reality is not that of a historical fact,  Mythology is a search rather than a discovery; poetic invention is at work in the creation of every myth.  Myths are not meant objectively to represent reality but they purport to interpret it symbolically.  The gods of mythology do not move in our everyday world; neither are they held to be mere illusions.  Projections of man’s inner longings, personifications of his ideals, symbolic expressions of the mysteries which encompass his existence, these myths possess a reality of their own, a combination of searching sincerity and inventive make believe, religious adoration and artistic creation, faith and fancy….– Editors R.De Smet and J. Neuner ,Religious Hinduism, Fourth Revised Edition, 1997,  Chapter 7. The Gods of Hinduism (P.Fallon) p.117

…My commonsense tells me today that Harishchandra could not have been a historical character.  Still both Harishchandra and Shravana are living realities for me….— Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, translated by Mahadev Desai, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1983. p.5

…modern incarnation of the mythos-logos distinction in the establishment of a rigid distinction between ‘myth’ and ‘history’.  The polarization of ‘myth’ and ‘history’ is a characteristic feature of western modernity.  It seems to have derived from the Judaeo-Christian sense of the importance of the ‘historical truth’ of God’s covenant with humanity and an understanding of history as the linear unfolding of God’s plan in the light of this.  Thus the early Christians explicitly contrasted what they saw as the ‘historical truth’ of the life of Jesus Christ with the ‘mythological’ accounts of gods adhered to by the pagans.  Modern notions of history, however, also reflect the secular distinction between ‘facts’ (and science) and ‘fiction’ (and literature) that increasingly predominated in Europe from the seventeenth century.— Richard King, Indian Philosophy, An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, ANE Book, New Delhi, 1999, p.198

MYTHOLOGY:- Mythology aims at inspiring one, through precepts and laudable examples, to strive to pitch up one’s life to the higher ideal. It consists of stories, parables and legends, with or without any historical basis. Through them all however, the abstract and highly subtle ideas of Hinduism are successfully conveyed to the mass mind. The abstract teachings are made concrete, as it were, and rendered highly interesting and impressive through the garb of stories.

Another highly interesting and instructive feature of the Mythological stories is that through them one gets wonderful solutions of puzzling situations arising out of an apparent conflict of duties.— Swami Nirvedananda, HINDUISM AT A GLANCE, Remakrishan Mission, pp.200-220

               As SP [Skanda Purana] states, the victory of Kumara over the Asura Taaraka is a factual happening (vrttam), while V.S.Agrawal insists on the symbolic interpretation of the legend.  According to him Taaraka is the Aasuric form in the individual which remains in contact with the matter and is soiled by it.  This form is suppressed and sublimated by Kumara who is the symbol of Sakti quickened by Siva.— 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, notes 162, p.760

               Can we then after all so readily assert that history is true and myth is false?  Must we not rather say: History records what did happen; Myth describes what is true?  Adam and Eve, … are myths because they describe what is true.— A.T. Robinson, But That I cannot Believe, John, Collins, Fontana Books, (1967), 1974. p.21

… The Christian story, to be sure, functions as ‘myth’ in the sense that it is the story told by the community to explain and sustain its common life.  But, unlike the myths of Greece and Rome, the story told by Paul and the others only made sense insofar as it was the true story, the story of things that actually happened in recent history in the real world.  Paul was inviting his hearers to come to terms with reality: not just a ‘spiritual’ reality in the sense of an otherworldly, invisible reality, or a private ‘spiritual’ experience, but with the earthly reality, the flesh-and-blood reality, of Jesus of Nazareth and his death and resurrection…..— N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997, p.89

…in India, an incredible multiplicity of stories claims about the world.  I hesitate to use the word ‘mythology’ because ‘myth’ is contrasted with ‘reason’ or ‘fact’, and is most often mapped onto the predicate ‘false’.  The Indian epics (or the Jataka tales, or whatever) are not fictions; neither are they facts.  To ask whether they are true or false is to exhibit a profound ignorance of the culture whose stories they are.  To question their truth status is to assume that they are knowledge items, which they are not.— S.N. Balagangadhara, The Heathen in His Blindness, Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion, New Delhi, Manohar, 2005, p.366

..The “history” represented in myth is not chronological but exemplary; that is, myths reflect those events in the history of community which it considers its central fact, its spiritual foundation….— Klaus K. Klostermaier, MYTHOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES OF SALVATION IN THE THEISTIC TRADITIONS OF INDIA, Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984, p.2

               The great salvation myth is-beginning with Indra killing Vrtra, continued in the various salvation myths connected with Visnu and his avataras, and especially clear in the salvation mythology of Saivas and Saktas—represent and objective, universal cosmic salvation, a salvation that is wholly the work of God, coming ‘ab extra’, a new event that saves from an evil that has cosmic proportions, is objective and universal, concrete and absolute. The evil which the myths describe affects the entire cosmos…The process of salvation extends as far as the evil: it includes gods, men, animals, plants the entire universe. The final stage is the return of the primeval harmony, the restoration of order and peace, the pristine goodness of creation.—ibid. pp.237-38

               The darsanas and individual bhaktas very often derive their basic teachings from the myths, but they  describe salvation as subjective, individual, spiritual, as (at least partly) the work of man, an abstract, meta-historical happening, coming ‘ab intra’ not new event but a discovery of a forgotten truth, a reactivation of a dormant principle immanent in man from the very beginning…Though all the philosophies too recognize the universality of evil—be it described as avidya, klesa, maya, upandhi, samsara, pasutva, anava, mala, karman, kancukas, sakti—the evil consists precisely in the individuality of the individual, in its being separated from its source and origin, and thus, logically, the way of salvation has to begin with the individual reducing its individuality. The final stage again is reached alone: it is individual fulfillment, not cosmic salvation. A very significant difference between salvation mythology and the salvation philosophies becomes visible in the role accorded to creation. The myths accept the visible universe as intrinsically good and enjoyable; the philosophies view it as illusory, as deceptive and dangerous. For the myths, all is good if the universe is saved if the natural order of things is restored. In the philosophies, ultimate salvation is not possible unless the whole universe is destroyed, be it spiritually in the mind of the sadhaka, or really in a mahapralaya.—ibid. pp.238-39

Myths have in their own way a definite historical perspective: they maintain that what they describe really happened in history….Mythologies recognize the time factor in salvation: there are certain times in history that are more propitious for salvation, others that are less. Philosophical systems, however, generally do not consider history as a factory in salvation: man’s situation remains basically the same; evil is “beginningless”, and so is the potential divinity inherent in the jiva. Circumstances of time hardly matter. In mythology the very process of salvation may be radically changed through the intervention of a saviour; in philosophy “way” remains “eternal.”—ibid. p.240

…myths generally describe the work of God as Saviour…describing the failure of all other beings to achieve liberation from evil. The philosophies stress man’s part in it—sometimes so much so that they seem to exclude the role of the Saviour-God, as in Sankara’s  Advaita. For the myths, evil is substantial and real; for some philosophies, it is illusory and imaginary, an “error”. But, again, we see in the religious philosophical systems an attempt to reconcile the extremes of mythology and philosophy, and attempt to work out systems of salvation in which both God and man co-operate, in which grace and work are co-ordinated, in which the salvific deeds of the saviour are applied to the individual. Mythology and philosophy are not necessarily antagonistic towards one another, as the most popular systems of Vaisnavism and Saivism prove. They are complementary despite, or perhaps because of, their polarity: they represent two, basic, different, human faculties, two, basic, different approaches to reality, which at best combine and fertilize one another.—ibid. p.240-41

…To sum up myths and philosophical systems in the Hindu tradition represent man as in needs of salvation but also as capable of salvation. Though man may be exposed to dangers from superhuman powers, though his very nature and existence may spell un-happiness, he can be redeemed and he is capable of regaining the bliss of the Absolute from which he originates.—ibid. p.252

               The core of the salvation myths is the description of the drama of liberation…The various darsana (philosophical systems) interiorize this drama in their sadhanas (way to realization)….—ibid. p.252

Since the main body of Hindu mythology—the medieval Puraanas—was compiled by Brahmins with a considerable knowledge of theology, some of these texts degenerate into little more than the narrow-minded diatribes….  Other texts, however, rise to the true level of myth, and these provide a more “candid and childlike” response to the problem of evil. — Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, University of California Press, Berkeley. Paperback Edition, (1976) 1980, p. 8

… Sir James George Frazer once remarked that no country has been so “prolific of human gods” as India; [Frazer, Sir James George, The Golden Bough, 13 vols., (London, 1915) I, 402] the demons are even more human, and are explicitly said to represent human impulses.  The specific, factual, human nature of myth has been well defended by Jung: “Myth is not fiction: it consists of facts that are continually repeated and can be observed over and over again.  It is something that happens to man, and men have mythical fates just as much as the Greek heroes do.” [Jung, C.G. “I: Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype,” from “Die pschologischen Aspekete des Mutter-Archetypus,” Von den Wurzeln des Bewusstseins (Aurich,1954), p.75].

               The myths of evil appear to be about origins, but implicit in them is a concern for the way things are.  The pseudo-historical framework is merely a manner of speaking, a metaphor for theoretical ideas about the relation of good to evil, gods to men, the individual to society.  The myth elucidates the nature of evil by means of an invented story of its origin.  The techniques of philosophy are necessary but not sufficient; they are presupposed, and often rejected, by the myths.  Philosophy supplies the vocabulary with which the problems can be stated; myth begins from the premises of philosophy but is then driven by a commonsense logic which discards the more elaborate solutions of the Vedaantins and seeks a more direct answer, an answer illuminated by the “coarse” ritual imagery which philosophy scorns. Myth is a two-way mirror in which ritual and philosophy may regard one another.  It is the moment when people normally caught up in everyday banalities are suddenly (perhaps because of some personal upheaval) confronted with problems that they have hitherto left to the bickerings of the philosophers; and it is the moment when philosophers, too, come to terms with the darker, flesh-and-blood aspects of their abstract inquiries.—ibid. p. 9

…The final objection to the historical method arises from the fact that there is no clear-cut development in Hindu mythology.  Archaic concepts emerge again in late texts, often in direct conjunction with contradictory later concepts.  This is due in part to the Indian habit of retaining everything old and simply adding new ideas….—ibid. pp. 11-12

…the Western theologian cannot bear to blame God and therefore persists in blaming the devil.  In India, however, tragedy is very thinkable indeed, and yet the Indian system of myths of evil develops in a manner …. [that] The myths of chaos and the drama of creation (Vedic myths persisting in the Puraanas) lead to myths of the “Adamic” types, but—and herein lies the crucial difference—both of these myths are quickly superseded by the tragic myth, which remains the dominant Indian myth, in restless coexistence with its many enduring predecessors.—ibid. p.373

…I would define a myth as a story that a group of people believe for a long time despite massive evidence that it is not actually true; the spirit of myth is the spirit of Oz: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. When we read a text that says that a Hindu king impaled eight thousand Jainas, we need to use history to understand myth—that is, we need to understand why such a text was composed and retold many times; that means knowing the reasons for the tensions between Hindus and Jainas at that time (such as the competition for royal patronage). But we cannot use the myth to reconstruct the actual history behind the text; we cannot say that the text is evidence that a Hindu king actually did impale Jainas….myths reveal to us the history of sentiments rather than events, motivations rather than movements.— Wendy Doniger, The Hindus An Alternative History, New Delhi, Penguin/Viking. 2009, p.23

…Real events and sentiments produce symbols, symbols produce real events and sentiments, and real and symbolic levels may be simultaneously present in a single text.  Myth has been called “the smoke of history,” and my intention is to balance the smoke of myth with the fire of historical events, as well as to demonstrate how myths too become fires when they do not merely respond to historical events (as smoke arises from fire) but drive them (as fire gives rise to smoke).  Ideas are facts too; the belief, whether true or false, that the British were greasing cartridges with animal fat started a revolution in India. For we are what we imagine, as much as what we do.—ibid. p.24

…though legend is not history, the historian can never afford altogether to neglect the memory of races which often takes these fascinating if enigmatic shapes.— K. A. Nilakanta Sastri. A History of South India, From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar. With a new introduction by R. Champakalakshmi. Oxford India Paperbacks (1955), 26^th impression, 2007. p. 20

…Myths are associated with providing socializing effects to its carriers.  Myths seem to teach, consciously and subconsciously, from childhood to adulthood, to the members of a community about the forms of accepting laws and constraints, which may again appear in the patriarchal authority and so on.  The tension between the opposite norms needs to be contained: this seems to be the core content of the myths.  In the process the smart normas are to be transformed into proper norms.  Smartness belongs to space, the world of nature and objects, and properness pertains to time, that is the culture, thought and concepts: (M. Mani Meitei, ‘Structural Analysis of a Manipuri Myth: Konthoujam Lairembi’, in Folklore and Discourse, Jawaharlal Handoo and Anna-Leena Siikala (eds.), Mysore: Zooni Publications, 1999. p.197].— G. Rajagopal. Beyond Bhakti. Steps Ahead….  Delhi. B. R. Publishing Corporation. 2007. p.73

Appendix B

On order and chaos

Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to  Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011

               Dharmic traditions, as a result of their foundational texts, epics, archetypes and values, depict order and chaos as belonging to the same family and weave multiple narratives around this idea of cooperative rivalry….—p. 8

               The pluralistic ethos of the Mahabharata, for instance, is grounded in a non-exclusivist framework including multiplicity of beliefs, concepts and ideas. This is so deeply ingrained as to make Indians psychologically comfortable with relative truths, uncertainty, ambiguity, disorder and pluralism of all kinds….—p. 140

…in the early Christian era the worldview of an external God controlling the universe through fixed laws was overlaid onto Greek metaphysics, and both were merged to formulate a salvation narrative catering to the Western concern for order and history. Later, European secularism continued down the same path, this time with reason, or Logos, as the universal principle.  Reason leads to truth, and truth is singular, clear, fully apparent, completely explicable and demonstrable – free of ambiguity. Those who do not reason in this way or do not reach the same conclusions are a threat, for they invite chaos and confusion. They are ‘the other’.  These non-westerners are believed to be irrational, and whatever explanations they offer for their beliefs, rituals and customs are dismissed as such. This belief in the superiority of Western reasoning is related to the control of epistemologies based on categories of knowledge which in turn reflect the West’s own peculiar history. It has had the effect of promoting exclusivism and simplistic binary categories of true/false, good/evil, self/other, and so on – leaving little room for diversity or creative growth.—p. 164

‘People from dharmic cultures tend to be more accepting of difference, unpredictability and uncertainty than westerners. The dharmic view is that so-called ‘chaos’ is natural and normal; it needs, of course, to be balanced by order, but there is no compelling need to control or eliminate it entirely nor to force cohesion from outside. The West, conversely, sees chaos as a profound threat that needs to be eradicated either by destruction or by complete assimilation. […]

Indians tend to be more relaxed in unpredictable situations than westerners.  Indians indeed find it natural to engage in non-linear thinking, juxtaposing opposites and tackling complexities that cannot be reduced to simple concepts or terms.  They may be said even to thrive on ambiguity, doubt, uncertainty, multitasking, and in the absence of centralized authority and normative codes. Westerners, by contrast, tend by and large to be fearful of unpredictable or decentralized situations. They regard these situations as ‘problems’ to be ‘fixed’….—p. 167

               Chaos arises when one experiences phenomena which do not lie within one’s psychological and cultural comfort zones, resulting in a breakdown of cognition. The breaking point varies among individuals and cultures, but a few consistent patterns are discernible.  People from dharmic cultures tend to be more accepting of difference, unpredictability and uncertainty than westerners….—p. 168

In Vedic literature, numerous myths recount the creator Prajapati’s efforts to beget a universe that would hold the two forces of order and chaos in equilibrium. His first attempt results in a creation which is insufficiently differentiated (‘mami’), as it possess too much order.  This precludes integral unity because there are no sufficiently distinct components to cohere in the first place.  They are undifferentiated and simply merge into each other, a state the Pancavimsa Brahmana (24:11.2) refers to as a ‘nightmare’.  The second attempt at creation yields a universe which is too fragmented or chaotic (‘prthak’, ‘nanatva’).  When entities in the universe are too individualistic, scattered, separated or different from each other (prthak); they cannot connect.  What is desired is a creation which possesses a measure of distinction and individuality but avoids the quality of jami – i.e., it would be interconnected yet circumventing the equally undesirable state of prthak. ⁴⁴(p.183)

               Prajapati recognizes that all life should be situated between these opposing excesses of too much identity difference and too much homogeneity.  Ultimately, he succeeds in producing just such a universe.  He does so through the power of resemblance, known as ‘bandhuta’ or bandhu….—pp. 183-84

44. This analysis is based on B. K. Smith, Reflections on Resemblance, Ritual and Religion.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1989: 51-54.

..The milky ocean is the ocean of consciousness and creativity, which is to be churned in order to obtain amrita, or the nectar of eternal life. Two opposing sides are needed for churning. Curiously, both sides have a common father: Kashyapa (literally ‘vision’).  The asuras’ mother is Diti (divided, limited), and so the asuras are the offspring of limited vision. The devas spring from Aditi (limitless), and they thus embody higher vision. The asuras usually have more brute strength, but both the power and strength of the asuras as well as the higher vision of the devas are needed for the churning. The to-ing and fro-ing between these archetypes is never-ending and also symbolizes the spiritual struggles within the individual.

…They engage in a tug of war, pulling back and forth to churn the primordial ocean. The dualism is between knowledge and ignorance, though the latter should not be mistaken for sin or damnation. Asuric tendencies are not considered permanent essences but inner qualities that emerge at a given point in time….—p. 184

…In the co-operative rivalry between devas and asuras, the asuras often seem to be winning; there are frequent indications that the deepest knowledge and most exceptional powers are safeguarded by extremely ambivalent figures belonging to the camp of the asuras.  Such recurrent crossovers, collusions, and reversals serve to overturn and undermine the Western attitude towards chaos, which is dualistic and exclusivist: order versus chaos, insider or outsider, and so on….—p. 185

…Yajna, in a sense, represents the integration of chaos into order.  Again, the epistemology of Vedic thought is nicely summed up in the Rig Veda (10:130:3): ‘What was the archetype (rupas), what was the manifestation (pratirupas), and what was the connection (bandhuta) between them?’

               The Vedic quest for links between archetypes and their manifestations holds a key to understanding the relationship between order and chaos.  The rituals of the creation yajna are a metaphor for transforming the chaotic unknown by re-categorizing it and making it function as a prototype for all subsequent texts, practices and institutions.  Bandhus are the bonds of interdependence.—p. 186

               The dharmic mind sees the cosmos as an integrated whole, one which is self-organized rather than administered by an externally imposed law….—p. 186

The notion of dynamic equilibrium between poles of opposites is found throughout the Vedic texts. The Rig Veda describes the ancient rishis as looking within their own hearts to discover the hidden connection or relationship (bandhu) between existence (sat) and non-existence (asat).  Existence not only rests upon non-existence; these two poles are bound together intimately and dynamically.

               Lord Krishna also shows two different personalities.  One is his aishvarya (organized) side, which allows for confidence, self-reliance and achievement. The other is his madhurya-bhava (sweet emotion), which is about love as opposed to orderly discipline. Hence, order is offset by love that supersedes intellect.—p. 187

…Krishna, on the other hand, deviates from the accepted norms when required in order to achieve his goals, which are for the overall good of humanity.  For instance, he suggests killing Drona, Karna and Duryodhana by means that would be unjust under normal circumstances and indeed kills Bhisma himself – all because the Kauravas have to be defeated for the larger good of humanity. In order to build a new order where dharma prevails, methods must be used that would ordinarily be considered unjust.

               This is not a case, however, of the end justifying any means.  Krishna makes it clear that a non-normative or exceptional course can be followed only if one is untainted by ego and thus selfless and sattvic enough to know and act for the wider good.—p 196

…Worldly morality may be transgressed by spiritual adepts in order to achieve the goal of spiritual liberation in a different, more effective and quicker mode. The tantric practitioners who pursue spiritual liberation through the disciplined use of transgressions must observe rigorous precepts such as not harming others, chastity, freedom from hedonistic cravings, truthfulness and so on. The intensity of their self-denial would surprise the most stringent Protestant moralist.  But in the end, tantra defies analysis in Western moral terms and is intelligible only from an Indian spiritual point of view. Western morality sees all transgression as immoral and thus worthy of rejection.—pp. 202-203

…Ever since Plato, the West has seen the three basic values of goodness, truth and beauty as inextricably connected.  A judgement about one of these values tends to implicate the other two; each part of the triad is mapped unilaterally onto the rest, so that what is ‘beautiful’ must also be ‘good’ which in turn makes it ‘true’.

               In the Indian mind, by contrast, the domains of truth, goodness and beauty are quite distinct, and each operates relatively independently from the others. In the Sanskrit verse ‘satyam-shivam-sundaram’ (truth-goodness-beauty), truth (satyam) is primary, and it prevails over the good (shivam) and the beautiful (sundaram).  Neither beauty nor goodness (p. 203) necessarily implies the presence of truth, nor, for that matter, does lack of beauty imply untruth or moral turpitude.—pp. 203-04

                                                            Chapter Sixteen

      CONCLUSION

Thankfully God gave me my identity in birth.  But god never created this identity as if He created the rest of the things in this universe.  My present identity as an Indian or Hindu and then Hindu bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath are created by the need of the society.  Or, as I said in one article, ‘We are what we are because of what our society has made us.  Our society is what it is because of what we make it.  The main force behind this making and re-making is the search for IDENTITY.’¹  India is not Hindu, Hindu is not religious identity etc. is true.  We don’t have an Indian identity as a nation and Hindu identity as religion in our text and tradition, but it is there in our Constitution, law, (legal) and records and above all in our relationship with ‘others’.  Even the caste identity by birth was ‘created’ by us however we have this system in our tradition from time in memorial.  And when I came to this world, my identity was not merely ‘human’ but what we created and accepted with all its flaws and limitation.  But unlike animals, I am not eternally bound by this man made identity alone.  Being created in His Image, god allows me to work out my identity with new categories, and in my case, as Hindu bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.  Of course ‘others’ are not going to accept it easily and immediately.  But as I said in Living Water and Indian Bowl, it will take time for others to recognize this identity.  We may not be here to see that recognition in the future.  Anyhow, we sowed the seed, and it will give its own fruit in its own course like any other human thought:

Ours is a struggle for existence.  As we have pointed out, every system started somewhere only at a small level and it took several hundred years to get recognition.  Similarly our claim as ‘bhaktas of Muktinath and still Hindus’ may take several hundred years to get proper recognition both in India and elsewhere.  Unlike others, we have to struggle on both ends – with Christians on one side and Hindus on the other.  Now this struggle becomes more complicated because of the fight between the ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘pseudo-secularists’ to achieve their political ends. But conviction is not a small affair and one has to count the cost that must be paid for it.  So learning from their experiences, all of the bhaktas of Muktinath in India should persevere with much patience, and accepting all the criticisms from every corner must be prepared to pay the cost for following Him as Hindus.2

     God prepares a person to receive His grace within the background in which they were born and brought up.  That person, in their encounter with god, can understand Him from that “point of view.”  In that particular encounter, god doesn’t reveal His whole counsel or will for them.  Though that person, in the process of their personal growth in the knowledge of god, may know

various theological aspects of her faith based on some concrete doctrinal statements, yet in her personal relationship with god as well as in sharing her faith with others, she will always stand on that first encounter with god–because that was her personal experience (e.g. through miracle, healing, fear of death, conviction of sin etc.). And this personal experience as bhakti will grow when we further engage dialogue in practical life and not mere intellectual understanding of our bhakti based on Scripture(s)

  And this Living Dialogue is just a process of preparing the soil to sow the seed in every birth community in this beloved country of India.  Thankfully this principle can, like the gospel, be incarnate anywhere in the world.  And if this ‘brain storm’ in the name of LIVING DIALOGUE will help people to engage in a dialogue beginning from them first, then it will continue to remain as a LIVING DIALOGUE among people rather than frozen as a book.

Notes

1. My Culture and My Identity.  See the blog for this article

2. Dayanand Bharati, Living Water and Indian Bowl, Delhi, ISPCK, (1997), 2001, p 169.  I changed the words ‘Yesu, Christ and Jesus’ as Muktinath in this quote.

Appendix

                        My Culture and My Identity

       Dayanand Bharati

(Paper presented at the First Generation Christian Conference held at Nagpur 1998, July 24.)

Identity:

We are what we are because of what our society made us.  Our society is what it is because of what we make it.  The main force behind this making and re-making is the search for IDENTITY.  

Culture:

Thankfully god never created human beings in a vacuum.  Before creation She prepared a place for them to live and after creation, She gave an occupation first and a purpose next.  Above all as god has created us in Her image, She gave a mind to think creatively to make the place, occupation and purpose more interesting.  Otherwise our life would be monotonous like that of animals.  And god never gave any particular pattern for us to do all these things.  She gave us freedom to do things in our own way.  And this creativity in doing things is the cradle for our culture.

Thankfully again, god never gave any particular culture for us to adopt.  The culture that we have is the result of our creative minds, which god accepts and respects.  Human cultures, though the result of our creative thinking, yet they are not mere imagination, but the product of the life which we are living.  That is why culture plays an important role in human identity.  Deprive a human from her culture and she will face initial suffocation, which we call cultural shock.  She may survive in any alien culture, but she cannot actively contribute to it until she finds her identity in it again.  It will take time for her to assimilate the new environment so that she can actively contribute to it.  However much she assimilates, yet all her assimilation of the new culture will have a touch of her old identity.  This we can see in the past in several civilizations which have now disappeared.  Though they disappeared, yet they left a permanent mark for their culture in the form of art, literature, monuments, etc.  As all those cultural forms in one way express their personal identity, the old civilization paved the way for new civilizations to emerge from their past cultural values.

Culture and Identity:

As we saw above, culture is the natural outcome of a process of making and remaking.¹ And the role of cultures in the quest for identity is comparable to law.  We make law to govern us.  Once we made the law we are under a moral as well as legal obligation to obey it.  Of course amendments are always there, but even for that we need some consensus.  The same way, culture is not static but dynamic, and like law there will be always amendments; of course with the same law of consensus, this time by the society.

We cannot overthrow the law at our will as it will paralyze both the government and society.  The same way we cannot overthrow our culture which provides a base for our identity.  Culture is the product of our creative minds.  Annihilate the mind and you become a yogi or a pagal (mad man). The same is the case with culture, as “cultural impoverishment is the symptom of a profound moral and spiritual perversion and disintegration.”²

Where we are:

For example we all have gathered here in search for a new identity as “First Generation Christians”, and thereby are in the process of creating a New Community within Christianity, blending both Hindu and Christian cultural values (not necessarily theological values).  Thus (for good or bad, as viewed by outsiders) a New Identity with a new Culture and even with a New Community in the future may be the outcome of this conference.³

Both to relate to this new identity with a new culture as well as to struggle to get recognition in the broader Indian Christian Community and finally in the Indian Society will be the natural challenge that we all have to face.  Such struggles cannot be avoided as we are under an obligation to carry the gospel within our own families first and through them into our own respective communities next.  Those who are afraid of such struggles may take refuge in the existing Christian Communities in the name of fellowship and the body of Christ and practically ignore their own people.  But those who take their privilege and responsibility seriously to witness for the gospel within their communities have to struggle with the issues of culture and identity, for which I think we all can become individual case studies.

Conviction versus convenience:

A person who has a strong conviction needs a personal commitment towards it.  Otherwise she will be tossed easily by any passing winds of opinion.  Someone has well said that “Great people cherish convictions and small people entertain opinions.”  Adverse opinions may create some kind of suffocation and such “Opinions cost us only breath, but convictions often cost life itself.” ⁴

As first generation Muktinath bhaktas, unless we keep a strong conviction regarding our identity, we too will often be easily carried away by every passing wind of opinion.  For example inside the church and Christian community one is not even a FGC.  Quoting a few Bible verses (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal 3: 26-27) out of context one can easily be influenced to merge with the Christian community, who have their own cultural and even separate social identity.  On the other hand, as we have to relate to our own family and community, some will be forced to remain secret believers, suffering with a guilty conscience of violating the Muktivedic principle of witnessing.  [Note that often witnessing is not of our faith in Muktinath but of our loyalty to the Christian Community (like removing the signs of married women, etc.), which merely indicates changing allegiance from one (Hindu/Muslim) community to another (Christian).]  But a Muktinath bhakta who has strong convictions will not only face all these struggles; she will swim across currents and keep a balance between her responsibility to her family and community on the one side and her relationship with believers (of one faith, one church in the body of Christ) on the other; following Sevanand (Paul) she will become all things to all human.

But in the process of becoming all things to all human (where the principle is incarnational witness by an outsider like Sevanand in the non-Jewish world and certainly like a Christian in the Hindu world), a person without personal conviction will become a Christian in the Church and a Hindu/Muslim in her family and neither one nor the other when confronted by people like me who are Hindu Muktinath Bhaktas.  Note the following case study:

Pavan (name changed, and I deliberately give the name Pavan which means ‘wind’) is my senior both in age and experience in Muktinath.  He came to see me along with another common friend, who is a traditional Christian, during my recent visit to Pune on July 10th.  Most of the time Pavan (who is an FGC) listened to all that I shared in the course of our talk.  Finally when I asked him to pray, he prayed this way, “Lord I am not a Hindu or a Christian.  I thank you that my only identity is in you as I know you and am known by you, etc. etc.”

Instead of appreciating his new position, I felt sorry for him after that prayer.  Because these kinds of people become philosophers living in their own no-man’s land of imagination, even more so than the Hindu philosophers, who can talk in absolute terms without any relevance to day to day life.

When Pavan first talked to me, he himself introduced him as a HINDU CONVERT.  But now he, after listening to me, he became neither a Hindu nor a Christian but a true advaitin, who attained jeevan mukti without any phenomenal identity, and became one with God, “knowing” Him and “known” by Him!  In his advaitic trance or transfiguration he may be none, but when he has to walk and live in this real world he should be either a Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Sikh etc.  If anyone asks him who he is, he cannot say that “I am a human being, knowing God and known by Him”.  (Those who could understand him may recommend his name for a Nobel Prize for the invention of a new philosophy; other normal human beings will ask him to see a psychiatrist or will look on him as a strange creature.) 

Knowing God and known by Her – like “No more I but Muktinath who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20) – is a theological comprehension of our position before god.  But not only to relate but even to live this life of “No more I but Muktinath in me”, we need an identity.  But when people like Pavan pray or pretend (to educate me) that they have attained a new identity other than the phenomenal reality, then I have to question their claim, as I am a normal human being TRYING to know Her, at the same time living with the assurance of being known by Her.

I am indeed a normal human being.  I need my identity to live this life and not mere theological trances.  After they left I asked Neha, a Hindu girl from Mumbai, a few questions about identity.  She is doing her second year B. Com. and is a modern girl.  When I specifically asked her, after several general questions about her religion/faith, which she is, she responded, “I am first an Indian and then a Hindu”.

“Suppose if a person says to you that she is neither a Hindu nor a Christian nor Muslim etc., what you would think about him,” I further asked.

“She is a good person”, she replied.

“But what would be her identity to common people who cannot understand such sophisticated words?”, I again asked.

“Of course common people won’t understand her easily.  And she needs to WORK OUT her identity then,” was Neha’s answer.

Who we are:

Now coming to “My culture and my identity“; who are we in our identity in society as we are in a process of making a new identity, community and even new culture?  Are we Hindus or Christians or First Generation Christians?  This question I raise not on the basis of theology but with the burden to make Him known to our own people who have an identity based on a culture.  The purpose of theology, I think, is to help a common man to live her faith in day to day life.  So keeping away theological discussion, I want to consider our role in the society which gives our identity.  That is why in the course of my sharing in this paper I changed from identifying myself as an FGC to First Generation Muktinath Bhakta and finally to Hindu Muktinath Bhakta as I (after long struggles and experiences and mistakes), have realized my responsibility to my own people to keep my original identity which god has assigned for me (1 Cor. 7:17-24).  As outsiders named the early bhaktas of Muktinath as “Christians” at Antioch, now a new name has been given by some concerned theologians to as “Churchless Christians/Christianity”.  However this very term “Churchless Christianity” looks contradictory to me—particularly if it is meant for us ‘Hindu Muktinath bhaktas’.  Because we are not Christians by birth, conversion or membership in the church.  At the same time we are not without ‘the church’ as we belong to the body of Muktinath, as well as being related and committed to other (Hindu and other) Muktinath bhaktas. In fact, no Christian who belongs to Christianity can live without some (denominational) church (at least in India).  Individual Christians may not attend church services, but they depend upon the church not only for their identity but also for survival–I mean for birth, marriage and death they need their church.  So those individual Christians who do not attend regular church services give subscriptions to have membership in their church.  And some mainline church members who think that their church is ‘dead’ and therefore go to charismatic churches, yet hold membership in their respective churches (for the above purpose of hatch, match and dispatch).  So in every sense the term ‘churchless Christianity’⁵ is contradictory and it no way applies to us.

Sevanand, who is our best model in ministry (recognizing several of his weakness) can help us to resolve the tension between identity and culture.  His incarnational approach of “becoming all things to all human” (1 Cor. 9:22) should guide us.   As we saw above, I personally think that what Sevanand talks of here is an incarnational principle and not a set pattern for us to follow.  In India when a traditional evangelical Christian needs to become a Hindu to Hindus, it does not mean that she needs to become a Hindu socially (though they can culturally).  But in her understanding and approach to her Hindu/Muslim contacts she should have the spirit of becoming all things to all (wo)men.  On the other hand, being a Hindu/Muslim I/we should not become a Christian to a Christian, as becoming Christian most of the time means (particularly in the eyes of our own people in our respective communities) changing communal allegiance (rather than becoming a Muktinath bhakta).   We can very well remain as a Hindu/Muslim culturally and socially within our respective communities as followers of Muktinath, as a Jew remained a Jew and followed the Lord and a non-Jew remained as a non-Jew culturally, socially, and economically and followed the Him (1 Cor. 7:17-24).  [It is interesting to read what the NIV study notes say on verse 17: “retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him.  Each Christian [bhakta of Christ] is to live contentedly for the Lord in whatever economic, social and religious station in life God has placed him.  See v. 18 for example”.]⁶

Conclusion:

To conclude, leaving the rest for discussion in our open forum, I would like to give my definition on Hinduism and Christianity based on which we can continue our ongoing dialogue about our identity, culture, and responsibility:

What is Hinduism can best be understood by asking the question who is a Hindu.  A Hindu is a member of a particular community (in a given society, which gives his existential identity) irrespective of the personal religious faith.  In this sense even an atheist can be a Hindu.⁷

(At least in India) a Christian is a member of a particular (denominational) Church or a Christian family just as she is born in it, irrespective of her faith in Muktinath.

My Identity:

Hinduism is thus more a cultural phenomenon, and I am a Hindu Muktinath bhakta.  This is my IDENTITY in my CULTURE.  On the other hand, Christianity, which is always identified with Christendom, is also a culture and is not the kingdom of god.  Christian identity, in a non-theological way, is more related with Christendom⁷ and not necessarily with Muktinath and His kingdom.  As someone has well said, “Faith which started as a relationship with a Person in Palestine, became an administration when moved into the Roman world, became a philosophy in Greek world, a culture in Europe and when it went to America became an enterprise.”  And it came to India as European Imperialism and now in this 20th century became a personality cult.  Ultimately where you stand in your relationship with Muktinath will decide your identity within these cultures.

NOTES

1.  “A culture cannot be consciously created.  It is an available source of ideas that are imbedded in a complete and homogeneous society…”, Allen Tate, “New England Culture and Emily Dickinson”, in The Recognition of Emily Dickinson, Selected Criticism Since 1890, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1964, by Blake, Caesar Robert, Ed. Wells Carlton, p. 163.

2.  D. R. Davies, 30 Minutes to Raise the Dead, p. 117

3.  “Collectivism doesn’t create culture, but only the conditions for culture….The greatest achievement of civilization is culture, which, in its turn, is the fruit of the individual personality.”-ibid. pp.105-06

4.  J. Oswald Sanders, Paul the Leader, Kingsway Publications, Eastbourne, 1983, p. 105.

5 I agree that the term “Churchless Christianity” and also “non-baptized believers in Christ” that I used in that original book are

theologically inadequate and inaccurate.  As with so many titles, it was chosen to be catchy and memorable, not accurate.  I do

affirm in the book that these believers are members of the Body of Christ, though not in an institutional church.  And that is

alright theologically (with which several Western theologians strongly disagreed).

6.  NIV Study Bible, Barker, Kenneth (general editor), “I Corinthians”, W. Harold Mare, Michigan, The Zondervan Corporation, p. 1742).  For a wider discussion please see my book Living Water and Indian Bowl (ISPCK, Delhi, (1997) Revised edition 2000), specifically chapter IV: “Christ’s Bhaktas in Modern India” (pp. 159-169).

7.  “…A man may be a monotheist, or a polytheist or an image-worshipper, an agnostic, or atheist or an idealist philosopher holding `nirguna brahma’ as the only reality, yet he may nevertheless be held to be a full Hindu, if he conforms to the general attitude towards Veda and social usages.  A more radical tolerance than what our people showed throughout the ages is almost unthinkable…”-P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, vol.V, part.II, Ch.XXXIII, pp. 1475-76.

     “…For the overwhelming majority of Hindus, in the history of the subcontinent, having a caste status of some kind has been probably the distinguishing feature of individual Hindu identity.  But as in other aspects of the Hindu phenomenon, the matter does not end here…”- Julius Lipner, HINDUS Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, London 1994, p. 10.

     “…one can be a Hindu without being religious in any obvious sense of the term.  To be a Hindu is to be culturally, not necessarily religiously, marked in some way…-ibid., p. 13.

     “…Eventually `Hindu’ became virtually equivalent to an `Indian’ who was not a Muslim, Sikh, Jain or Christian, thereby encompassing a range of religious beliefs and practices.  The `ism’ was added to `Hindu’ in around 1830 to denote the culture and religion of the high-caste Brahmans in contrast to other religions, and the term was soon appropriated by Indians themselves in the context of establishing a national identity opposed to colonialism, though the term `Hindu’ was used in Sanskrit and Bengali hagiographic texts in contrast to `Yavana’ or Muslim, as early as the sixteenth century.”- Gavin Flood, An introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 6.

8.  “But Christendom was a cultural phenomenon, not simply a spiritual one.  The death of Christendom is not the death of Christianity.  Christendom was not the church; it was a generally friendly cultural setting for the church.  What we are seeing now is only the death of a culture with a mixture of Christian and pagan assumptions.  In fact, one could argue that the death of Christendom (or the death of a supposed “Christian America”) is an opportunity to preach Christ clearly without the confusion of cultural assumptions.  However, that means that the church has lost a long-time friend whose tutelage was repaid with defense and an honored seat at the head of the cultural table.  It is sad, but not fatal.”- Kenneth A. Myers, “A Better Way: Proclamation Instead of Protest”, in Michael Scott Horton, (ed.), Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church?, Moody Press, Chicago,1992, p. 54-55.