Recently this question was sent to me by one person who wants to go ‘deep’ in understanding Vedanta to contextualize the teaching MV in that light: Pratibimbavāda sounds logical but it brings the “man becoming God” concept which is not good according to me.
In my response I said that he is trying to find the right question but in the wrong place for the answer. There is no concept of Vedanta in the MV. In order to dig out Vedanta in MV, one has to compromise both MV and Vedanta allowing them to interpret each other to contextualize them. But this is not possible.
I wonder why we need to understand MV in the light of Hinduism or Hinduism in the light of MV. Why not accept each religious tradition as they are? I never believe that all the religions are the same and every Scriptures’ teaching is the same. There is no need for Christianization of Hinduism and Hinduization of Christianity.
Each religious tradition has a different approach to various questions about life and other related subjects to life like God, atman, and creation. For example, MV clearly talks about creation out of nothing viz., ex nihilo. Whereas according to Hinduism creation is cyclical and even co-existing with God. God was either an efficient cause or material cause. But it never promotes creation out of nothing. Similarly, every other theological aspect of each tradition stands apart from each other.
Incarnation is not avatara; atonement is not prayaschitta; soul is created one and not eternal; salvation is free gift because of the grace of God not depends upon the karma of each soul; MV upholds exclusivism whereas Hinduism allows pluralistic inclusivism etc. etc.
Now coming back to Vedantic approach to MV, till Swami Vivekananda promoted Vedanta as the culmination of Hinduism in his famous Chicago Parliament of World Religion, it remained within some closed circle. Like Bhagavad Gita became popular only after the Orientalists made it known to the West first and then to India, Vedanta became the measuring rod for anyone to understand, interpret and contextualize MV in India, more specifically with Advaita Vedanta.
Knowing Sanskrit gives elitist status in India among the educated people and knowing English among the masses. Similarly, Vedantic approach to MV gives some kind of elitist approach to share the Good News and interpret MV among theological circles.
If we take each point separately, one can even write a book on this. So, I am limiting to take one example with Scriptures:
In an over simplified way, we can say that Samhita portion of Vedas is prayers for full and complete life; Brahmanas prescribes rituals through Yajna to gain the favour from gods; Aryanka helps to interiorize the ritual after one retires from active life and Upanishads teaches to go beyond all of them to know the true nature of atman. Rest of the smritis are to give practical guidance to common people to implement them in a simplified way keeping the need and interest of various people. Similarly, the central teaching of BG is to uphold varnashrama dharma [dharma based on varnas] not allowing them to mingle which might threaten the social order.
Similarly, MV talks about the Covenant Promise of God and how it was enacted by God in history as His-story. In UV the four Gospels talks about the life and teaching of MN [as the suffering servant; promised messiah; logos of God], Acts about the early history of mandali; all the epistles addressing the local issues while implementing the teaching of bhakti and Mukti in local contexts; pastoral epistles personal teaching of a guru to his shishyas; Revelation to the suffering churches amidst persecution to encourage them to hold till the end with a promise of New Heaven and New earth.
No way both Hinduism and MV promote the same kind of teaching through their Scriptures. But the question comes, then how to assimilate our bhakti in the Lord remaining as Hindu understanding the teaching of MV using our own religious terms? Here comes the art of keeping a balance, not going to one extreme of syncretism and compromise to interpret each other using their religious technical terms. One advantage we as Hindus have has been this: Our worldview accommodates all kinds of faith expression not compelling anyone to compromise with its core doctrine. Agree to disagree and live and let live is the eternal guru mantra of Indian worldview.
There are beautiful Indian/Hindu concepts that might help a Hindu bhakta to exercise her bhakti based on the teaching of MV. Even the very concept of bhakti is one such. I have written about it somewhere else [I have to hunt for it].
So better accept each religious tradition as they are and each Scriptures as they are instead of subjecting them to text torturing to have some kind of intellectual entertainment.
Finally, to return back to the question that he asked: Pratibimbavāda sounds logical but it brings the “man becoming God” concept which is not good according to me.
I am not sure what you mean ‘man becoming God’. If it refers promoting the human Yehesu as the God or we human becoming God. If it is about the former, then Pratibimba Vada is not in MV, the Son reflects the Father doesn’t mean He borrows the light from the Father, but only represents it in His life [whole body including his personality] God whom we cannot fathom. The Sanskrit word Prathibimbavada [prati + bimba viz., reflecting the original] has its own context. Brahmabandhab Upadyaya in famous Sanskrit, ‘Vande Sachitanandam’ in one line says: ‘Pitru svarupa Chinmaya rupa’ viz., Image of the Father but Himself remain as Chinmaya viz., Chit + mai[a] viz., conscious of his own divine nature and not merely reflecting the Godhood of the Father in His incarnation like moon reflecting in a pond of water. Now regarding the philosophical context of Pratimimba Lott says:
The analogy most favoured by Madhva to describe the Brahman-soul relationship was that of original and reflection (bimba-pratibimba). This may seem unexpected in a radical theist like Madhva, especially in view of Sankara’s use of the same analogy. In Sankara’s case it seems to fit neatly into his whole scheme, suggesting as it does the impermanence and even unreality of the objective universe. For a reflection obviously has no reality of its own, and exists only so long as the original continues to project its image. And the idea of ‘projection’ is precisely what Sankara used to describe the relationship of Self to non-self. Ramanuja, on the other hand, avoided the reflection metaphor in his Sri-Bhshya by interpreting this Sutra as ‘fallacious argument’.— Eric Lott, Vedantic approaches to God, London, Macmillan, 1980, p. 58
Madhva’s favourite analogy, in which the soul is a reflection (pratibimba) of the Lord, obviously can be applied in a limited sense as a way of showing their resemblance. He is generally more concerned to point out the contrast between Lord and soul. While many of the passages in which he makes this sharp contrast may be polemical in intent, there is no doubt that they do introduce us to the heart of his thought.—ibid. p. 142.
Now it is left to each bhakta of the Lord to decide whether she wants this kind of intellectual entertainment as a hobby or to understand each and every religious Scripture and tradition to have proper understanding about her bhakti in the Lord not giving up her cultural heritage at the same time integrating the best to exercise her bhakti in everyday life.
Dayanand Bharati
Gurukulam, 10-6-2023
Leave a Reply