When I read comments about Hinduism that twist facts to fit a particular ideology, it makes me smile and think. Attempting to explain and understand Hinduism from any singular viewpoint—whether as a way of life, a parliament of sampradayas, a worldview, or one of the world religions—will neither help one to understand Hinduism in part or whole, nor do justice to the Hindu phenomenon.
This is both a blessing and a peril. Hinduism accommodates the needs of anyone and everyone, but like a double-edged sword, it can also cut against opposing views. The Hindu reality is a ‘multi-centered pluralistic inclusivism’ with conflicting views coexisting side by side.
As a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I struggle to maintain my bhakti while integrating it with the incarnational process within the Hindu worldview. Contextualization of a few selected things doesn’t serve anyone’s purpose.
This tension challenges me more than it comforts me, especially when I read dogmatic views about God, faith, mukti, etc., from a Muktivedic perspective, which can be integrated within the Hindu worldview without causing tension to both Hinduism and the Muktiveda.
For example, creation and history are cyclical in the Hindu worldview but linear in the Muktiveda. How can we resolve this? The first option is to selectively quote Hindu scriptures about not postponing mukti to future births and references to eternal hell and bondage. This suggests a one-way traffic of ‘no more choice’.1
I could claim this as a linear viewpoint, although it’s an interpretation created by twisting the text to suit my needs. While the cyclical theory is the true Hindu worldview, one might argue that the cycle is also linear since it began and will end somehow. Or it has no beginning and no end, or each kalpa is a beginning with an end. So, several linear paths joined together become cyclical. This, of course, is bad logic: “God is love; love is blind; therefore, God is blind.”
The other option is to live with the understanding that God meets my particular needs in His own time and by His own means, not worrying too much about theological and philosophical discussions on uncertain issues that never have a final say.
To explain further: A healthy person has the freedom to eat and enjoy life as they like. A sick person, however, must follow the doctor’s instructions regarding food, medicine, and other dos and don’ts. The basic concept of the Muktiveda is that only the sick need a doctor. For a healthy person, life could be cyclical, allowing for many adventurous spiritual leaps to other births. Since they are healthy, they do not need outside help to rescue or save them.
For the sick person, the path is linear: either follow the instructions or perish. When I sought God’s grace to rescue me, a sick person, He reached me through Bhagavan Muktinath. Lacking further courage or strength, I cling to Him for salvation. Here, the choice is individual, and no theory of creation can serve that purpose.
Any philosophically minded Hindu with genuine knowledge who feels capable of handling their life both here and hereafter has an advantage. Elitist Hindus who twist texts and traditions for argument’s sake have their freedom and right. But a Hindu bhakta need not feel trapped if they realize the Lord came to seek the lost and the sick, not the healthy. For someone struggling to find guidance, the seemingly dogmatic linear path is the doctor’s prescription for the sick.
There’s no point in counter-arguing or trying to defend our bhakti within the Hindu worldview. The more I read about Hinduism and the Muktiveda, the more solace I find in my bhakti in Muktinath. My rational2 mind refuses to accept everything in the Muktiveda, but my bhakti refuses to give up due to rationalistic questions about its interpretations and claims. Some specific struggles include the linear theory of creation and history, the process by which the canonical Muktiveda was formed, and scientific questions about the birth, death, and resurrection of the Lord.
If I were to give up my bhakti in the Lord, I couldn’t return to any Hindu sampradaya due to the inconsistencies in their texts and doctrines. For example, Dr. Anandapadbanabachaya recently gave a discourse on Ramanuja, saying, “There is no God other than Narayana and Ramanuja is His only acharya.” Similarly, Sri Velukkudi Krishnan expressed the same sentiment. (For details, see [unethical interference versus spiritual obligation](https://dayanandbharati.in/unethical-interference-versus-spiritual-obligation/). Even, according to Clonney, ‘…He [Ramanuja] gives no hint of the view that Srivaisnavas have one truth, other Vaisnavas other truths, Buddhists and Jainas still other truths. All Vaisnavas adhere to the same truth; there is no other truth.’3
In this modern era, where social media challenges every precept, defending any faith as the ultimate universal truth is not possible. Postmodernism creates a ‘private world for everyone,’4 which, according to Nicholson, is ‘more medieval than we care to admit.’5 The danger of postmodernism is that when reasonable questions counter every claim, it leads us to believe that ‘everything’ is correct.
Present-day Hinduism, to me, sounds very postmodern with its elitist apologetics and situational ethics. In this scenario, it is better to have a conservative, stable ground to stand and survive rather than following any ideology or theology that becomes free for all. For me, the Lord Muktinath provides this stability, and I feel safe in it both here and hereafter.
Revised on 24-7-2024
29-9-2015. Mathigiri.
Endnotes
1-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, ibid. p. 570)
Demoniac, verily, are those worlds enveloped in blinding darkness, and to them go after death, those people who are the slayers of the self.
-“It is usually alleged that hell in Hinduism is, like heaven, a temporary state, and yet in the 16th chapter of the Gita, Krsna describes the state of those men who inherit a `devilish destiny’ in terms so strong as to make one wonder how salvation can be possible for them. Liberation, the final release from the round of birth and death, is frequently referred to as the `highest way’; it is final and definitive. Similarly in 16:20 Krsna speaks of the ‘lowest way’, and if we read this passage without any preconceptions we can scarcely avoid the conclusion that this too is final; such men have reached a point of no return. They have deliberately chosen enmity to God, and for such, Krsna makes abundantly clear, divine grace is not available.” (R. C. Zaehner. The Bhagavad-Gita, Oxford University Press, 1973, page 23-24)
All these texts can be quoted for a linear theory of one-way traffic than giving another opportunity. Of course the entire book from which we extract such quotes won’t agree with this. But there is a warning given not to postpone one’s opportunities in this human life. Considering the fragile nature of my personality, I prefer a reasonably dogmatic view about bhakti and mukti as I found in the Muktiveda than gambling depending upon a cyclical view about creation (and life) with a pluralistic relativism.
“Where modernity thought it could know things objectively about the world, post modernity has reminded us that there is no such thing as neutral knowledge. Everybody has a point of view, and that point of view distorts everybody describes things the way that suits them. There is no such thing as objective truth. Likewise, there are no such things as objective values, only preferences. The cultural symbols that encapsulate this revolution are the personal stereo and the virtual-reality system: everyone creates his or her own private world.” — N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Illinois, IVP Academic. 1999. p. 151
“…human subjectivities in the contemporary world are complex and contradictory, bearing the contemporaneous imprint of the “premodern,” “modern,” and “postmodern” … We postmoderns are more medieval than we care to admit.” — Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 20
- Though written in the context of dharma this could also be applied to all kinds of inquiry:
…Says Brihaspati, in regard to dharma: No decision should be taken by mere resort to a (letter of the) sastras; for, deliberations (vichara) devoid of rational considerations (yukti–hina) will lead to results detrimental to dharma.{No reference is given by the author—db} And the Mahabharata exhorts that in determining dharma and adharma the learned man should rely upon intelligent understanding (buddhi) of the situation. {Maha-Santi. 141.102}— Pandharinath H. Prabhu, Hindu Social Organization: A Study in Socio-Psychological and Ideological Foundations, Bombay, Popular Prakashan, [1940], Reprit 2004. p. 28
3VAISNAVA. Francis X. Clooney and Tony K. Stewart. In Sushil Mittal & and Gene Thursby, The Hindu Worl, New York, [2004] Reprint 2018, Pp. 162-184, p. 169.
- Where modernity thought it could know things objectively about the world, post modernity has reminded us that there is no such thing as neutral knowledge. Everybody has a point of view, and that point of view distorts everybody describes things the way that suits them. There is no such thing as objective truth. Likewise, there are no such things as objective values, only preferences. The cultural symbols that encapsulate this revolution are the personal stereo and the virtual-reality system: everyone creates his or her own private world. — N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Illinois, IVP Academic. 1999. p.151
…Says Brihaspati, in regard to dharma: No decision should be taken by mere resort to a (letter of the) sastras; for, deliberations (vichara) devoid of rational considerations (yukti–hina) will lead to results detrimental to dharma.{No reference is given by the author—db} And the Mahabharata exhorts that in determining dharma and adharma the learned man should rely upon intelligent understanding (buddhi) of the situation. {Maha-Santi. 141.102}— Pandharinath H. Prabhu, Hindu Social Organization: A Study in Socio-Psychological and Ideological Foundations, Bombay, Popular Prakashan, [1940], Reprit 2004. p. 28
- Where modernity thought it could know things objectively about the world, post modernity has reminded us that there is no such thing as neutral knowledge. Everybody has a point of view, and that point of view distorts everybody describes things the way that suits them. There is no such thing as objective truth. Likewise, there are no such things as objective values, only preferences. The cultural symbols that encapsulate this revolution are the personal stereo and the virtual-reality system: everyone creates his or her own private world. — N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Illinois, IVP Academic. 1999. p.151
- …human subjectivities in the contemporary world are complex and contradictory, bearing the contemporaneous imprint of the “premodern,” “modern,” and “postmodern” … We postmoderns are more medieval than we care to admit.— Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 20
When I read comments about Hinduism that twist facts to fit a particular ideology, it makes me smile and think. Attempting to explain and understand Hinduism from any singular viewpoint—whether as a way of life, a parliament of sampradayas, a worldview, or one of the world religions—will neither help one to understand Hinduism in part or whole, nor do justice to the Hindu phenomenon.
This is both a blessing and a peril. Hinduism accommodates the needs of anyone and everyone, but like a double-edged sword, it can also cut against opposing views. The Hindu reality is a ‘multi-centered pluralistic inclusivism’ with conflicting views coexisting side by side.
As a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I struggle to maintain my bhakti while integrating it with the incarnational process within the Hindu worldview. Contextualization of a few selected things doesn’t serve anyone’s purpose.
This tension challenges me more than it comforts me, especially when I read dogmatic views about God, faith, mukti, etc., from a Muktivedic perspective, which can be integrated within the Hindu worldview without causing tension to both Hinduism and the Muktiveda.
For example, creation and history are cyclical in the Hindu worldview but linear in the Muktiveda. How can we resolve this? The first option is to selectively quote Hindu scriptures about not postponing mukti to future births and references to eternal hell and bondage. This suggests a one-way traffic of ‘no more choice’.1
I could claim this as a linear viewpoint, although it’s an interpretation created by twisting the text to suit my needs. While the cyclical theory is the true Hindu worldview, one might argue that the cycle is also linear since it began and will end somehow. Or it has no beginning and no end, or each kalpa is a beginning with an end. So, several linear paths joined together become cyclical. This, of course, is bad logic: “God is love; love is blind; therefore, God is blind.”
The other option is to live with the understanding that God meets my particular needs in His own time and by His own means, not worrying too much about theological and philosophical discussions on uncertain issues that never have a final say.
To explain further: A healthy person has the freedom to eat and enjoy life as they like. A sick person, however, must follow the doctor’s instructions regarding food, medicine, and other dos and don’ts. The basic concept of the Muktiveda is that only the sick need a doctor. For a healthy person, life could be cyclical, allowing for many adventurous spiritual leaps to other births. Since they are healthy, they do not need outside help to rescue or save them.
For the sick person, the path is linear: either follow the instructions or perish. When I sought God’s grace to rescue me, a sick person, He reached me through Bhagavan Muktinath. Lacking further courage or strength, I cling to Him for salvation. Here, the choice is individual, and no theory of creation can serve that purpose.
Any philosophically minded Hindu with genuine knowledge who feels capable of handling their life both here and hereafter has an advantage. Elitist Hindus who twist texts and traditions for argument’s sake have their freedom and right. But a Hindu bhakta need not feel trapped if they realize the Lord came to seek the lost and the sick, not the healthy. For someone struggling to find guidance, the seemingly dogmatic linear path is the doctor’s prescription for the sick.
There’s no point in counter-arguing or trying to defend our bhakti within the Hindu worldview. The more I read about Hinduism and the Muktiveda, the more solace I find in my bhakti in Muktinath. My rational2 mind refuses to accept everything in the Muktiveda, but my bhakti refuses to give up due to rationalistic questions about its interpretations and claims. Some specific struggles include the linear theory of creation and history, the process by which the canonical Muktiveda was formed, and scientific questions about the birth, death, and resurrection of the Lord.
If I were to give up my bhakti in the Lord, I couldn’t return to any Hindu sampradaya due to the inconsistencies in their texts and doctrines. For example, Dr. Anandapadbanabachaya recently gave a discourse on Ramanuja, saying, “There is no God other than Narayana and Ramanuja is His only acharya.” Similarly, Sri Velukkudi Krishnan expressed the same sentiment. (For details, see [unethical interference versus spiritual obligation](https://dayanandbharati.in/unethical-interference-versus-spiritual-obligation/)).
In this modern era, where social media challenges every precept, defending any faith as the ultimate universal truth is not possible. Postmodernism creates a ‘private world for everyone,’3 which, according to Nicholson, is ‘more medieval than we care to admit.’4 The danger of postmodernism is that when reasonable questions counter every claim, it leads us to believe that ‘everything’ is correct.
Present-day Hinduism, to me, sounds very postmodern with its elitist apologetics and situational ethics. In this scenario, it is better to have a conservative, stable ground to stand and survive rather than following any ideology or theology that becomes free for all. For me, the Lord Muktinath provides this stability, and I feel safe in it both here and hereafter.
Revised on 24-7-2024
29-9-2015. Mathigiri.
Endnotes
1-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, ibid. p. 570)
Demoniac, verily, are those worlds enveloped in blinding darkness, and to them go after death, those people who are the slayers of the self.
-“It is usually alleged that hell in Hinduism is, like heaven, a temporary state, and yet in the 16th chapter of the Gita, Krsna describes the state of those men who inherit a `devilish destiny’ in terms so strong as to make one wonder how salvation can be possible for them. Liberation, the final release from the round of birth and death, is frequently referred to as the `highest way’; it is final and definitive. Similarly in 16:20 Krsna speaks of the ‘lowest way’, and if we read this passage without any preconceptions we can scarcely avoid the conclusion that this too is final; such men have reached a point of no return. They have deliberately chosen enmity to God, and for such, Krsna makes abundantly clear, divine grace is not available.” (R. C. Zaehner. The Bhagavad-Gita, Oxford University Press, 1973, page 23-24)
All these texts can be quoted for a linear theory of one-way traffic than giving another opportunity. Of course the entire book from which we extract such quotes won’t agree with this. But there is a warning given not to postpone one’s opportunities in this human life. Considering the fragile nature of my personality, I prefer a reasonably dogmatic view about bhakti and mukti as I found in the Muktiveda than gambling depending upon a cyclical view about creation (and life) with a pluralistic relativism.
“Where modernity thought it could know things objectively about the world, post modernity has reminded us that there is no such thing as neutral knowledge. Everybody has a point of view, and that point of view distorts everybody describes things the way that suits them. There is no such thing as objective truth. Likewise, there are no such things as objective values, only preferences. The cultural symbols that encapsulate this revolution are the personal stereo and the virtual-reality system: everyone creates his or her own private world.” — N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Illinois, IVP Academic. 1999. p. 151
“…human subjectivities in the contemporary world are complex and contradictory, bearing the contemporaneous imprint of the “premodern,” “modern,” and “postmodern” … We postmoderns are more medieval than we care to admit.” — Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 20
- Though written in the context of dharma this could also be applied to all kinds of inquiry:
…Says Brihaspati, in regard to dharma: No decision should be taken by mere resort to a (letter of the) sastras; for, deliberations (vichara) devoid of rational considerations (yukti–hina) will lead to results detrimental to dharma.{No reference is given by the author—db} And the Mahabharata exhorts that in determining dharma and adharma the learned man should rely upon intelligent understanding (buddhi) of the situation. {Maha-Santi. 141.102}— Pandharinath H. Prabhu, Hindu Social Organization: A Study in Socio-Psychological and Ideological Foundations, Bombay, Popular Prakashan, [1940], Reprit 2004. p. 28
- Where modernity thought it could know things objectively about the world, post modernity has reminded us that there is no such thing as neutral knowledge. Everybody has a point of view, and that point of view distorts everybody describes things the way that suits them. There is no such thing as objective truth. Likewise, there are no such things as objective values, only preferences. The cultural symbols that encapsulate this revolution are the personal stereo and the virtual-reality system: everyone creates his or her own private world. — N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Illinois, IVP Academic. 1999. p.151
- …human subjectivities in the contemporary world are complex and contradictory, bearing the contemporaneous imprint of the “premodern,” “modern,” and “postmodern” … We postmoderns are more medieval than we care to admit.— Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 20
Leave a Reply