We cannot give up matter itself but only the materiality or attachment to matter.
Both atman and matter are considered eternal in certain worldviews—they can never be destroyed, only change forms, though not substance. The only escape for the atman is through moksha. However, my question is this: According to Muktiveda, both atman and matter are created. The former faces only two choices—eternal heaven or eternal hell. Even in these states, the atman is not destroyed. Matter, on the other hand, will ultimately be destroyed.
This raises another question: What will be the material nature of the New Heaven and New Earth? From where will the contributions of all saved people from the earth come for this New Heaven and Earth? I understand that the Heaven described in Revelation employs pictorial language. Similarly, in the Resurrection, the material body will be sown and a new form of body will emerge, as witnessed with Muktinath. Yet, the resurrected body, though transformed, was tangible—the disciples could touch and feel it.
This seems akin to the Hindu worldview, where matter changes only in form but not in its basic nature. Despite theologians’ efforts to reconcile these differences (or contradictions) using exegetical and technical terms, Muktiveda does not provide a definitive answer. Its theology and worldview were shaped by a synthesis of Greek philosophy and the Hebrew perspective.
The binary worldview of either/or often fails to address such complexities. Instead, the both/and approach of the Indian worldview seems more accommodating. I find myself with more questions than answers, but I am not seeking to resolve them—no one can offer a fully rational explanation.
Until the end, I accept this mystery, refusing to let it dictate my bhakti—my relationship with the Lord. This relationship transcends human understanding and cannot be fully articulated through language.
Post Script:
Some questions that come to my mind are as follows:
In the Resurrection, our material physical bodies will be transformed into a new form, which may or may not retain some material nature. Eternal life is described as living perpetually in the presence of the Lord in spiritual union. If this understanding is correct, then it follows that there will also be a resurrection for those who did not follow the Lord. Would their resurrected state also lack material nature? If so, then hell might be understood as an eternal separation from God, not as a physical place but as a spiritual condition.
Another thought arises: those who bring aspects of their culture and tradition into the New Heaven and New Earth—would these be devoid of material reality, existing only as psychological or spiritual experiences? Is this the correct way to understand the nature of matter both in the present world and on the “Further Shore”?
This brings me to the concept of “Reward” that Sevanand discusses in Corinthians. It is said that the reward will not be uniform for all. Does this imply graded levels of liberation, similar to those found in Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava traditions? For instance: Sālōkya (सालोक्य): Being in the same world or abode as God (e.g., Śiva or Viṣṇu); Sāmīpya (सामीप्य): Proximity or closeness to God; Sārūpya (सारूप्य): Taking or having the same form as God; Sāyujya (सायुज्य): Becoming one with God.
Hinduism, with its pluralistic inclusivism and diverse philosophies, provides a coherent framework to answer such questions, as it avoids binary “either/or” theological constructs. However, when it comes to Muktiveda, I find that these questions do not have clear, definitive answers.
Could it be that single people, including Muktinath and Sevanand, will reside in a special place reserved for the 144,000, while others occupy different realms? If so, then perhaps married people are fortunate—they will not have to endure endless theological discussions from Sevanand or lengthy articles and poems from me! In this sense, single people, who may have escaped temporary ordeals on earth, might face a permanent one: the Sāmīpya of a Taskmaster, a Theologian, and a Babbler.
But the most important issue here is this: is the resurrection limited only to human beings—in both camps (believers and unbelievers)—or does it include the entire creation? Creation, which is equally, or at times even more, groaning [Romans 8:22] for redemption and restoration, struggles to tolerate the violations we inflict upon it. This resonates with Hindu mythology, where Bhūdevī, who was restored back by Vishnu through His Varaha avatara, when she was submerged by the evil act of Hiranyaksha, which also was interpreted due to the adharma as we find in the Bhagavata Purana and Vishnu Purana, which is also depicted in the Udayagiri Cave.1
How, then, is this possible if matter will be destroyed at the end? What would be left to restore? Could it be that, like human beings, creation will also be sown in one form and redeemed in another, not retaining the same substance? Could this be another form of the cyclical theory of creation?
In all my limited reading, I have not found a convincing answer to these questions, nor do I expect to find one in the future that satisfies my supra-rational mind. However, theologians have their own exegetical tools to reconcile such differences—or contradictions—and craft a form of uniform theology in Muktiveda. Thankfully, Muktiveda was never written with systematic theology in mind. It suggests that while the current state of matter will be destroyed or purified, it will not be annihilated but restored and perfected in the new creation [2 Peter 3:10-13], aligning with the linear narrative of redemption and restoration, not a cyclical return to the old.
But what is the difference between “destroyed” and “annihilated”? I am not sure. According to Christian theology, while creation won’t be annihilated but only destroyed for purification, the unsaved souls will be permanently annihilated. In that case, annihilation might seem better for the unsaved soul, as they would not suffer in eternal hell but instead attain Nirvana through annihilation—simply “blown up.” The solution that I found for me is to understand each text in its particular context than try to create a systematic theology in the name of ‘Bible interprets Bible’. Though the authors of the Bible, particularly in the Uttara Veda [N.T.] quoted both explicitly and implicitly from Purva Veda that resonate their particular point of view, still if we strictly implement textual exegesis, then several times there is a contradiction as what told in PV does not completely agree with the context that the authors in the UV quote. However, we accept their view recognizing that this is the way they understand the PV. The best example that comes to my mind is about the sin offering and the Pascal sacrifice in the PV, which now unified in the atonement of Muktinath. Already I shared my view on this in another article: On Sacrifice.2
To help us to understand this textual exegesis several scholars like Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in The Gospels, Texas, Baylor University Press, 2016 and Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989. Books like these help us to understand how not only to understand a particular text in the given context but also related to Muktiveda in its overall context. Coming back to our discussion for me Romans focuses on the ongoing process of redemption, while 2 Peter speaks to the eschatological end, where all things are transformed. When I understand them separately in their given context, finally though completely not resolved I understand the overall theology of Redemption and Restoration, still not completely acceptable to my supra-rational mind.
I am uncertain whether the eschatological views presented in Christian theology existed historically in the same way they are projected today. This question calls for a thorough study with the guidance of scholars. Specifically, I am unsure whether the eschatology found in Christianity ever existed in Jewish tradition, where the coming of the Messiah is understood as the restoration of the Jewish nation to its former glory as God’s chosen people.
Likewise, since Greek cosmology predominantly embraces a cyclical view of creation, it seems unlikely that early Christianity adopted the concept directly from them. This leaves a key question: where did the idea originate, particularly the seemingly contradictory notions of the annihilation of unsaved souls and the restoration of destroyed matter?
As a layperson and student of scripture, I have yet to find a clear answer to this question.
Based on my limited reading of the Muktiveda and related texts, I speculate that Christianity’s linear eschatological view may have emerged through a synthesis of Jewish apocalypticism, Greek philosophical ideas, and the theological innovations of figures like Sevanand. Jewish traditions likely provided foundational themes, such as resurrection and judgment, while Greek philosophy influenced the cosmological and teleological dimensions of Christian eschatology. Sevanand’s writings appear to have played a pivotal role in organizing these diverse elements into a coherent Christian eschatological framework, which was later expanded in texts like 2 Peter and Revelation.
Personal reflection
On Dec 20th] , I listened to an engaging discussion with Dr Pierre Grimes about the influence of Greek philosophy on early Christianity. Reflecting on the conversation, numerous questions arose in my mind. During my evening walk, as is my habit, I continued meditating on this subject. Inspired by these thoughts, I composed and recorded a song on my mobile. Later, on December 21st, I wrote an article based on these reflections. You can read it here: Matter matters.
23-12-2024, Salem
Notes
1. See ‘The Archaeology and Politics of Time at Udayagiri’ in Michael Willis, The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the establishment of the Gods, Cambridge, 2009, pp. 33 ff.
2 https://dayanandbharati.in/sacrifice/
BT Song 1668 – This Is Our State
Simple English Translation:
You don’t get tired,
I don’t feel bored.
How long will
This struggle continue?
If we fight,
Saying “You or me,”
Both will lose—
You must understand this.
If we win,
We must win together.
Otherwise, we’ll both
Lose together.
About this matter,
We need to talk further.
This is the rule
Of true relationships.
The question—
“Is it there or not?
To accept or reject?”—
Is not a new one.
The answer to this,
Clearly and correctly,
No one has found,
As history shows.
By what means
Can I know you?
And how can I
Express it?
In this attempt,
As I begin,
So many philosophies
Come before me.
Yet, surpassing
All philosophies,
And transcending all
The paths of scriptures,
The question remains—
How do I know
The you
Within me?
The answer to this
I must search in you.
But until now,
No answer has come.
So, I too,
Without weariness or frustration,
Continue to strive and fight,
Yet I still don’t understand.
Beyond the mind,
Beyond reason,
Beyond the language of reason,
Even the silent answer you gave—
I cannot grasp.
Yet we both,
Without tiring or giving up,
Continue forward.
This is where we stand now.
BT Song 1668 – Thus Is Our Condition
Classical English Translation:
Thou art unwearied,
And I remain steadfast.
Yet, how long
Shall this strife endure?
If we contend,
Saying, “Thine or mine,”
Both shall surely fall—
This truth thou must apprehend.
If victory is sought,
We must triumph as one.
Else, we shall together
Meet defeat.
On this matter,
We must discourse further.
For this is the principle
Of harmonious union.
The query—
“Doth it exist, or doth it not?
To accept or to deny?”—
Is no novel inquiry.
The solution thereto,
Clearly and truly,
Hath no one discerned,
As history testifieth.
By what means
Shall I discern thee?
And how shall
That knowledge be spoken?
In the pursuit thereof,
When one embarketh,
Countless philosophies
Stand arrayed before.
Yet beyond
The bounds of all philosophy,
And transcending
The ways of holy writ,
The enduring question remaineth—
How shall I comprehend
Thee, who dwellest
Within me?
This answer,
I must seek from thee.
And yet, to this hour,
No reply hath come.
Thus, I too,
With neither weariness nor dismay,
Persist in my endeavor and struggle,
Yet comprehension eludes me still.
Beyond the mind,
Beyond reason’s confines,
Beyond reason’s tongue,
Even the silent response thou gavest—
I am unable to fathom.
Yet we both,
Unwearied and unfaltering,
Continue upon this path.
Such is our present state.
BT Song 1668 இதுதான் நம் நிலை
உனக்கும் அலுக்காது
எனக்கும் சலிக்காது
எதுவரைத் தொடரும்
இந்தப் போராட்டம்
நீயா நானா
என்று மோதினால்
இருவரும் தோற்கணும்
அதைநீ புரியணும்
வென்றால் இருவரும்
ஒன்றாக வெல்லணும்
அல்லது இருவரும்
ஒன்றாகத் தோற்கணும்
இதுபற்றி மேற்கொண்டு
நாமேன் பேசணும்
இதுதான் பக்கதிக்கு
உள்ள இலக்கணம்
உண்டா இல்லையா
ஏற்பதா மறுப்பதா
என்கிற கேள்வி
புதியதே அல்ல
இதற்கான விடையை
சரியாக எவரும்
கண்டதாய் இதுவரை
சரித்திரம் இல்லை
எதனைக் கொண்டு
உன்னை அறிவது
எப்படி அதனை
சொல்லி வைப்பது
என்கிற முயற்சியில்
இறங்கும் போது
எத்தனைத் தத்துவம்
எம்முன்னே வந்தது
ஆயினும் தத்துவம்
அனைத்திற்கும் தப்பி
மறையின் வழிகள்
அனைத்தையும் தாண்டி
எனக்குள்ளே இருக்கிற
உன்னை அறிவது
எப்படி எனபதே
எனக்கான கேள்வி
இதற்கான விடையை
உன்னிடம் தேடிணும்
ஏனோ இதுவரை
பதிலும் கிடைகலை
ஆகவே நானும்
அலுக்காமல் சலிக்காமல்
போராடிப் பார்க்கிறேன்
அதுதான் புரியலை
மனம்தாண்டி மதி தாண்டி
மதியின் மொழி தாண்டி
மவுனமாய் நீ தந்த
விடையும் புரியலை
ஆயினும் இருவரும்
அலுக்காமல் சாலிக்காமல்
தொடர்கிறோம் என்பதே
இப்போ நம்நிலை
குருகுலம், 20-12-2024, மாலை 5.00
Leave a Reply