As I am reading this book [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.] I realized the difficult for someone coming from outside to another religious tradition to understand all the internal dynamism and complication about that particular religious tradition. This book is also helping me to understand my difficulty in understanding about Christianity with its own dynamism and complication because of its historical development over several centuries. Similarly untrained in theology, I find it difficult to comprehend the discussion in this book properly. This helped me to have a sympathetic understanding about any outsider to understand about Hinduism with its complicated theology (both Vedanta and Siddhanta). This book presents some challenges for all about their faith as both Dr. Max Warren and Roger Hooker present their views in a remarkable way based on their deep intellect and personal experience from their respective fields.
God is not limited; Guru as my God
All our understanding about God based on a particular scripture would never limit God in any way. All the exclusivistic claim about God only reflects a particular understanding about God through that exclusivism based on a Scripture or (religious) tradition. For example, the exclusivism of Muktiveda about God is true for all who accept it as the Word of God. But to say that this is the only way to understand God is not excluvisim but fanaticism. One can say that this is the way I understand God based on my scripture or religious (theological) tradition. But if I insist that this is the only way to understand about God it is fanaticism. Thankfully God—if at all we need even to use this word – is not limited by anything.82 That is why I say with firm conviction that I don’t know who god is and I even don’t want to understand her (I deliberately use the word ‘her’ here). I only want to know a guru who can guide me in my search about me in life. And I found that guru in Muktinath. And as per my (religious) tradition, that guru becomes my God. And I don’t want and cannot understand a God beyond that Guru and I am happy with it.
God can use any person or means to help us to know the Lord. But no one can remain in that first level alone but should make progress in her understanding about the Lord. At least in my case my encounter with the Lord and my understanding about him was a gradual growth but never remained at the first level of encounter. I cannot claim that till this day I understood theology in its true sense. But all my readings helped me to understand both Hinduism and Muktiveda to some extent. And as I read more about Hinduism and Hindu scriptures they helped me to understand and grow in my bhakti in the Lord. To say in other words God never expected me to burn the bridge through which I walked to reach my guru. In fact my Indian or Hindu worldview, particularly both the need of a guru and bhakti are the two track on which my faith runs smoothly till this day and not with any clear understanding of theology and doctrine.
As I often say, once I met my guru in Muktinath, all my efforts to know about Him was a backward walk in history with the help of Muktiveda and church history. While Muktiveda provided a firm foundation for me to build my bhakti in the Lord, the church history helped me not to repeat the same mistakes which several sincere people, unknowingly have done in the name of mission and ministry. They have done their best and thought they were only doing the right thing according to their understanding. Now I may think that they were wrong and in the future others might say that I am wrong. But I cannot throw away my Hindu tradition including their scriptures and Muktiveda. At the same time I cannot claim that I will give the same devotion to my Hindu scriptures as I give to Muktiveda. Muktiveda gives me the foundation for my bhakti and my Hindu scriptures help me to understand and express it within my worldviews. To say in other words, I understood the gospel as a Hindu and still want to walk in my bhakti as a Hindu. But I cannot claim that it will be an easy walk without challenges. But I feel more comfort to remain as a Hindu within my Hindu Worldview than to embrace Christianity. In fact I won’t hesitate even to say that as my Indian or Hindu worldview can accommodate my bhakti in the Lord and does not expect me to compromise with my bhakti/faith, I need not try to follow any alien tradition in which I cannot feel comfortable. At the same time I cannot deny others freedom to change their religion or community viz., from Hinduism to Christianity. But when they condemn Hinduism without understanding it properly I will challenge their understanding. Similarly when any convert without understanding past mistakes and failures try to glorify Christianity/Church/Mission, I request them to have proper understanding before condemning Hinduism and glorifying Christianity. Though my own people (Hindus) won’t accept my bhakti in the Lord easily, yet I would prefer a hostile home than a friendly but suspecting neighbour. For me Hinduism is my home and Christianity is my neighbour. I can easily overcome the hostility at home as a natural member of it. But winning the confidence of a friendly neighbour is possible when he too tries to understand me.
Universalism versus Exclusivism
Another point that I cannot understand is the view of fundamentalism, which tries to understand the people of other faiths only from their own particularly (theological or religious) point of view. Of course I understand the view of exclusivists according to which there is no mukti outside their particular theological point of view. This is not limited only to Abrahamic faiths, but even within Hinduism a few sampradayas hold this view. But they never seal the destiny of other people once for all since rebirth (samsara) gives another opportunity for them to work out their salvation in future births. We may object to such a view about postponing mukti to some other future births. But, ‘…If the distinct doctrines of Hinduism, like karma and transmigration of the soul at death are to be dismissed because they do not conform to Christian truth, then the Hindu also will, by the same standard reject distinct Biblical truths like the historical particularity of Christ, the cross and the resurrection because they do not conform to the Hindu understanding of truth.’ (Sudhakar, op. Cit. p. 267). So when it comes to the question of the salvation of others, though we claim the uniqueness of the Lord and universality of the gospel, it all depends upon the human response to them. We can claim any exclusivism based on our understanding of Muktiveda and we are correct in it. But when we claim that Muktiveda alone should be universal then that exclusivism becomes fanaticism as per my definition.
Mukti
For me mukti is not to be received after death in the Further Shore. But it should be realized here and now on this earth while living in this body. I found that mukti in my guru who delivered me from so many fetters which bound my atman in various ways both in profane and sacred areas in life. Mukti never remains static but dynamic as per my understanding and obedience to my guru—both through his words and Spirit with the help of the mandali. Particularly the mandali helped me to realize that there is no private god or personal bhakti. At the same time it never denied my separate need for sadhana to grow in my bhakti. The mandali provides the support but never imprisons me within it. It provides space for me to exercise my vocation as per my nature as a recluse. When I involve they accept and when I withdraw they approved it—never questioning beyond my limitation to respond. At the end my guru helped me to re-invent my vocation in Him as part of his body (universal mandali) but continued with in a local boundary with a particularly identity which he gave to me in my birth as Hindu.
Cosmic Christ
I can understand statements like (in this book): God at work in Hinduism, Christ-like qualities in others, presence of God in others’ faith, ‘patronising to Hindus’ ‘functional’ view ‘provisional view’ etc. etc. But as a Hindu, viewing people of other faith within such ‘Christian frame of reference’ surprises me a bit. We never had such an approach in our worldview. But I have to qualify this by saying that some bhakti traditions claim that people in other bhakti traditions, though worshiping their own chosen deity, in fact are worshipping only their God in different form. We already noted several references about both in Saivism and Vaishnavism, above. As I often say there is no Cosmic, hidden or unknown Muktinath in other religious traditions. Each avatara needs to be assessed and understood within that particular tradition. The same is with Incarnation.
All the later theological developments of a particular Scripture need to be developed within that particular tradition. And when we engage in any comparative theology, we should be careful not to read the message of one scripture in another scripture at the cost of the context and tradition. Here the Cosmic, unknown and hidden Muktinath failed according to my understanding along with even the so called Krist Advita. This they can do as their personal right and interest but cannot claim any sanction from Muktiveda, unless they are ready to reject several portions which will completely stand against it.
For example some only accept the four gospels in the Uttaraveda (NT) and reject the other books. They have the right to do it. But they conveniently forget the historical fact that the Canonical tradition which gave the authority to the gospels never rejected the rest of the NT. That is why when some incline more towards Johanine theology, rejecting Pauline theology, Warren rightly calls it ‘heretical’(p.182,) and advises his son-in-law to ‘ every three books on John read one on Paul! And fertilize both with some sociology – for ‘the Word was made flesh’. (p. 179) (italics original). If they reject the rest of the books in Uttaraveda except the four gospels, then why not they also include other gospels like ‘Gospel according to Barnabas’ etc. which was rejected by the Canonical authority? That is why, though I never understand all that is recorded in the Purva Veda (OT), yet I know that to understand Uttaraveda (NT), I need to read it and try to understand it. Otherwise our knowledge about Muktiveda,even that of Muktinath, will remain partial and incomplete. It is worth noting what Waltke says about the unity of Muktiveda:
…the Bible is Scripture inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). Accordingly, for the orthodox, the Bible’s nature integrates into a holistic unity three essential components that in fact cannot be separated without destroying the whole: God, its divine author; the inspired human author; and the text. — 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. 83
The same is the case with Indian tradition. Selectively reading or quoting from any one Scripture won’t do full justice to the understanding of Hinduism. Even within a sampradaya we need to try to have a minimum understanding about the rest of the Scriptures of that particular tradition. For example reading Srimad Bhagavatam alone is not enough to understand Vaishnavism. Similarly Srimad Bhagavad Gita is not the sole representative for entire Hinduism. At the same time we should recognize that only after reading and understanding all Hindu Scriptures we can say something about Hinduism is impossible. This is both an advantage and impediment with Hinduism. But there is no easy solution to address this tension. That is why whoever tries to engage in dialogue with Hinduism based on selected scripture or selected section of Hindus will produce nothing but another kind of modern Gnosticism unless they engage with various shades of Hinduism. Considering the vastness of Hindu traditions and Scriptures dialogue with Hinduism by other religious traditions, who have mono-scripture traditions, should be careful to project any one (Hindu) view as authentic or even the best approach. Personally I am against all kinds of such dialogues, considering the complex nature of religious tradition. However people from outside India or Indian Christians who never can have firsthand experience with the complex nature of Hinduism should never try to promote such Cosmic, Universal or Unknown Muktiveda in Hinduism.