A Hindu convert wrote a paper on ‘Indian Christians’ and requested me to read and give my comments. Under the heading ‘Vedic Truths and the Bible,’ he compared several verses from Muktiveda and Hindu Scriptures. However, not agreeing with a few such comparisons, I commented, ‘distortion.’ In his response, he wrote, ‘Thank you for your review. This is about your comments on various aspects of the Vedas comparisons. I have clearly stated that both are not the same but are only similar. I would like to know your views in a little more detail, if you have the time. I find them both similar.’
So, as per his request, I wrote the following response.
Similar, Not the Same
Though I agree that there are several things that look similar, they are not the same. However, when it comes to theology, I have some questions about using these two words while comparing two different religions. My approach to theology is based on textual, theological, and historical contexts. According to my understanding, the overall theme of Muktiveda is ‘redemption,’ whereas we could say that ‘knowledge’ is the (only) means to attain mukti according to Hinduism. Of course, this is an oversimplified statement. But if this major difference is accepted, then although we can claim that there are ‘similarities’ between Muktiveda and Hindu scriptures, they are not the same. However, according to my understanding, this conclusion we can reach when we compare a verse from Muktiveda with one in Hindu Scriptures, not considering the theological, textual, and historical contexts.
Take, for example, one such comparison which you make in your article:
Selected By God
– “You did not choose me, but I chose you to bear much fruit that will last.” -John 15:16
– “The Atman cannot be attained by studying, hearing, or intellectual perception. He whom the Atma chooses – he alone can attain.” –Katha Upanishad -2:23
Let us take what Muktiveda says about God’s election here. The immediate context is bringing fruit in that chosen life and not salvation. The key to understanding this entire chapter is verse 4, in which the Lord says, ‘Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.’ As you know well about Muktiveda, I need not elaborate further on this point.
Now, let us take the Katha Upanishad. First, we have to consider what Hinduism, particularly the Upanishads, says about ‘atman.’ According to the general perception of Hindu Scriptures, ‘atman’ is ‘eternal’ and not ‘created’ by God. According to Vedanta, to which the Upanishads belong, this atman is even a ‘minute part of God/Brahman.’ In fact, salvation is not something the atman needs to achieve, as it is already part of Brahman. Due to avidya, which makes the atman falsely identify with the body, it only needs to remove this avidya through proper knowledge to realize its original status as part of Brahman or the very Brahman (aham Brahmasmi). And this is the key point in Katha as well.
Before going to the specific context of 1:2:23 in Katha, let us see what the overall context of Katha is. The following is the summary from Dr. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upanishads, Delhi, Oxford University Press (1953), Fifth Impression 1992:
…A poor and pious Brahman, Vajasravasa, performs a sacrifice and gives as presents to the priests a few old and feeble cows. His son, Naciketas, feeling disturbed by the unreality of his father’s observance of the sacrifice, proposes that he himself may be offered as offering (daksina) to a priest. When he persisted in his request, his father in rage said, ‘Unto Yama, I give thee.” Naciketas goes to the abode of Yamma and finding him absent, waits there for three days and nights unfed. Yama, on his return, offers three gifts in recompense for the delay and discomfort caused to Naciketas. For the first, Naciketas asked, ‘Let me return alive to my father.’ For the second, ‘Tell me how my good works (ista–purta) may not be exhausted’; and for the third, ‘Tell me the way to conquer re-death (punar mrtyu)’ In the Upanisad, the third request is one for enlightenment on the ‘great transition’ which is called death.—p. 593
Now, let us turn to the specific context. Dr. Radhakrishnan gives the following title to the verses in Chapter 1, Section 2, Verse 23. Note that in 1.1.29, Naciketas asks Yama: “Tell us what about which they doubt, O Death, what there is in the great passing-on….” (p.607). In his explanation, Dr. Radhakrishnan says, ‘saamparaaya: passing-on. What is the great beyond? What is there after liberation? These questions lead naturally to others. What is the nature of eternal reality? What is man’s relation to it? How can he reach it?’ (p.607). In response, Yama says what you have quoted in 1:2:23. The following are the titles given by Dr. Radhakrishnan to the verses in 1.2.1-25:
– 2:1-9: The Two Ways (of good and pleasant)
– 2:10-11: The Superiority of Wisdom to Wealth, Earthly as well as Heavenly.
– 2:12-14: Apprehension of the Supreme through Adhyatma-yoga.
– 2:15-17: The Mystic Word AUM (OM)
– 2:18-22: The Eternal Self
– 2:23-25: The Moral Preparation for Brahma-Knowledge.
And let us see how Radhakrishnan translates this verse:
This self cannot be attained by instruction, or by intellectual power, or even through much hearing. He is to be attained only by the one whom the (self) chooses. To such a one the self reveals his own nature.—1.2:23, p. 619
In explaining this he says: While the Supreme Self is difficult to know and is unknowable by unaided intellect, He is knowable through His own self-revelation to the man whom He chooses. This view looks upon the Supreme Self as personal God and teaches a doctrine of divine grace.—p. 619
However giving the interpretation of Sankara he says: Sankara, however, gives a different interpretation by an ingenious exegesis. ‘Him alone whom he chooses by that same self is his own self obtainable.’ The self reveals its true character to one that seeks it exclusively.–620
It is interesting to note that the ‘atman’ has to reveal itself through its self-revelation. However, Dr. Radhakrishnan brings in the ‘grace’ of God, which is not even in this verse (or in the entire Upanishad). That is why Sankara says that the atman does not require any outside help other than its own to reveal itself. Dr. Radhakrishnan also compares this with Philippians 2:12-13 (p.620). As Ramanuja didn’t write any commentary on any Upanishad, we don’t know what his view on this verse would have been. Of course, various other acharyas had their own interpretations according to their particular philosophical points of view.
My point here is that, as the verse in Muktiveda (Jn.15:16) talks only about the bhakta (not even the atman) bringing fruits, whereas according to Katha, it is about the self-revelation of the atman through knowledge. Note the context of ‘adhyatma-yoga’ (yoga about atman) and ‘moral preparation for Brahma-Knowledge’ in Katha. Also, note how this Upanishad ends with the following verse in 2.3.18, ‘Then Naciketas, having gained this knowledge declared by Death and the whole rule of Yoga, attained Brahman and became freed from passion and from death. And so may any other who knows this in regard to the self.’ (p.648)
Though Dr. Radhakrishnan is a reputed international scholar and philosopher, it is surprising when he asks us to compare this (1.2.23) with Philippians 2:12-13. This clearly shows that, however great his scholarship, as an outsider to Muktivedic faith, he fails to notice the context in Philippians. There, when Sevanand (Paul) says, ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,’ he does not mean that one has to work his own ‘salvation,’ as Yama says to Naciketas in 1.2.23 that ‘atman has to work out his own mukti by revealing himself to whom he chooses.’ According to Sevanand in Philippians, a bhakta has already attained salvation. Now, he has to work out her salvation with fear and trembling, not to lose it again. This is to say that, as salvation is a continuous process—we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved—what Sevanand has in mind is the second stage, ‘being saved,’ which needs to be worked out by a bhakta continuously throughout her life. But Sevanand does not mean that through proper knowledge, one has to attain salvation by working it out with fear and trembling. Otherwise, what he says in Ephesians 2:8-9, ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast,’ will become irrelevant.
One reason for Prof. Radhakrishnan to compare Katha 1.2.23 with Philippians 2:12-13 could be that Katha, in the following chapters, elaborately talks about Yoga. The way Katha uses the parable of the Chariot (1.3.3-9), and in 1.3.9, it ends this parable by saying, ‘He who has the understanding for the driver of the chariot and controls the rein of his mind, he reaches the end of the journey, that supreme abode of the all-pervading’ (p.624). Probably Radhakrishnan might have thought that, as Katha talks about a kind of ‘work out one’s own salvation through yoga,’ the same could be true with the verse in Philippians, imagining that Sevanand is also giving this kind of ‘adhyatma-yoga.’ Though I don’t agree with your comparison of Katha 1.2.23 with John 15:16, Prof. Joseph Nadin Rawson, comparing Katha with Muktiveda, gives the following summary in his book, which is worth quoting
here. His book is considered a standard textbook for Hindu Philosophy for theological students in America. He writes: Though it is claimed that one’s personality is preserved even in the state of Mukti, still there is a difficulty in differentiating the individual in mukti and Brahman. It looks like a river which loses its name, shape, and taste as it reaches the ocean.’ (Hinduism and Christianity, Madras, CLS, 1960, p.38)
Though it is considered that only when one reaches the ocean, he could lose her name, form, and taste, in fact, this is true even while the river flows towards the ocean. For example, a river, while it travels through the forest, is called a ‘forest river,’ and when it travels through the plains, it is called a ‘plain river,’ and when it travels through a town, it is called a ‘town river.’ All along, the river changes its name, shape, and taste depending upon the context through which it travels. However, in this context, even while the river travels through different geographical situations, it loses its original shape, taste, and name as it gets mixed with water from the forest, river, and town and becomes polluted.
Though the above could be one reason for me to differ with you on some of your comparisons, I find the answer to my question in your final conclusion, which reads: ‘The search for the Truth is common to all religions, even though the methodology adopted differs from religion to religion.’ Now I understand why you made those comparisons. You wanted to compare the methods that both Muktiveda and Hinduism use to reach that Truth, although both differ in various ways. Though, I don’t completely agree with your final conclusion, I can appreciate it.
Db
8-07-2020
Notes
1 It is interesting to note that, ‘the first occurrence of the word “yoga” itself is in the Katha Upanisad’.—Mark Singleton, Yoga Body: The origins of modern posture practice, New York, Oxford, 2010, p. 26.
Leave a Reply