Limit of Scriptures
Though I have my own reservation about the statements ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’, yet there is some value in that advice. Otherwise in rejecting the Scripture, each one will depend upon only her own personal experience to promote and uphold any kind of Muktinath that one tries to dig out from the Muktiveda. Likewise we need to understand every scripture within its own tradition. In this sense no Scripture can be universal in its scope, whatever the particular adherents of it can claim. If one claims that their particular scripture alone has universal scope, then every faith can claim the same. And if one rejects this claim, then she has to recognize the same right to the followers of the other faith.
Even the universal scope of a particular scripture depends upon the response and faith of its followers. Take for example the Muktiveda. Only after the canonical confirmation, the Muktiveda is accepted as the Word of God. But this happened only after a few centuries. Even after canonical authority was given to Muktiveda, still we find different versions of Muktiveda among the few major different sampradays like Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Even in the Protestant version some portions of the Scripture is doubted as not original and later interpolation (e.g. Mark 16. 9ff) which several serious Muktivedic scholars reject based on the authentic MSS. In Catholic version there are more books which we cannot find in Protestant version. Then which one is correct Christian Scripture?
So the question is asked, which one is the Word of God and who decides it? Why should one accept the human endeavour of a few people who authorised only certain books of the Muktiveda as the inspired Word of God and rejecting the rest? My answer to such question is that, once it is accepted as the Final authoritative Word of God, as the long tradition endorsed it, we also accept that tradition which alone preserved that Canonical authority intact. It is worth noting here what Waltke says about this:
As for God, the apostle Paul argued, since God is spirit, he must be known by possessing his Spirit (1 Cor. 2:6-15). Empirical data can be known objectively, but God must be known spiritually/personally. Personal transcendence cannot be known through the lens of science, so it cannot achieve the primary purpose of exegesis: to know God and be known by him in the sense of a spiritual participation of God and the mortal. Moreover, without God’s Spirit, the depraved human spirit is insufficient to exegete the text.
As for the human author, he is better understood, as Meir Stenberg recognized, by sympathy with his claim to be inspired, and we should add, with his covenant faith. {Meir Sternberg. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985)} As for the text, which is experienced empirically, it must be studied scientifically. The latter reality makes it possible for the orthodox and historical Biblical critics to work together to some extent, but in truth the other two components of the Bible’s nature, whether confessed or denied, influence the interpretation of the text and safeguard it against the tyranny of reason. {Bruce K. Waltke with Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Thematic, and Canonical Approach, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), pp. 78-92} — Waltke, op. Cit. p. 83
Though the following example may not be apt to illustrate, yet I would like to use it. Once the Constitution has been framed and accepted as the final one, then the citizens of that country has to accept its authority. Of course amendments are possible, but not easy. The same is the case with Muktiveda. Respecting the spiritual authority of those people who gave the Canonical authority to Muktiveda we too accept it as the Word of God. Like amendments to a Constitution, new translation, interpretation based on the new insights in philology we can give new meaning to it. But we cannot completely reject it.
The same is the case with every other Scripture. That particular religious tradition gave the authority to its Scripture(s) as the Word of God. In the case of the (Hindu) Veda, even though it is not the Word of God but is seen as co-eternal with God and only receives lip service, still it holds final authority for the orthodox people. (Laurie L. Patton, Authority, Anxiety, and canon: Essays in Vedic Interpretation, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994, brings out this clearly) Similarly the tradition accepted Bhagavad Gita as ‘saptasata sloki’ – a book of seven hundred verses even though according to some scholars some ancient manuscripts have more than seven hundred verses. But Gita with its present form is considered as authoritative. (South Indian) Srivaishnavas accept the authority of Nalayira Divyapprabandam along with Veda. For the (Tamil) Saivas (12) Tirumurais holds the same Canonical authority. The same is the case with Quran. Though I don’t know anything about it, I read somewhere that there existed different kinds of Quran and finally keeping only one as authentic the rest of them were destroyed. (I need to search information for this.)
So every faith assigns authority to its scripture because of its tradition. However such authority is later challenged by many, for the faithful followers they remain authoritative. So when we try to understand salvation, judgment etc. doctrinal views, we should keep this in mind. According to my understanding any authority of any scripture and claiming it alone as the Word of God and thereby authenticating all the doctrinal views based on that particular scripture should be normative to judge about other people is not correct. The authority of any Scripture depends upon the human response. For those who reject its authority it can never remain as the Word of God, let alone the Only Word of God.
I would like to illustrate taking the example of Advaitic Vedanta, which is later promoted as universal in its nature and scope transcending all kinds of boundaries created by humans—social, culture, religious and even ethnic. But however the Neo-Vedantians by their clever interpretation and presentation make the advaitic Vedanta as universal, it is not that simple considering the long Vedantic tradition which further interpreted and complicated in the following centuries.
Sri Adi Sankara was not the first exponent of his doctrine; tradition says that before him his acharya Gaudapada preached it. But Sankara tried to make it the authentic one due to his scholarly efforts by writing commentaries to Vedanta Sutra, Gita and few selected Upanishads. I am not even an elementary student in my understanding about Advaita Vedanta. With my superficial understanding, I can say that advaita claims that ‘atman is Brahman’ (soul is the very God). Due to our ignorance (avidya) we fail to realize this. Once that ignorance is removed then we will realize that we are that Brahman. The crucial question in advaita is that removing this ignorance is not that easy. All are not qualified for that. Only a twice born alone is qualified for that. Even among the Twice born only a Brahmin alone is equipped for that. Even among the Brahmin only those who have renounced and become a sannyasi can achieve it: neither by karma, nor by progeny, nor by wealth but only through renunciation one can attains that mukti (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22). Because even though this realization comes through intuitive knowledge which stands beyond the Veda, yet it is possible only through proper study of Vedas which is restricted only to the Twice born. Having such complicated theological development no one can claim a particular Scripture or doctrine alone universal. It is universal for those who follow it. But not for all who rejected it. Though neo-Vedantins try to make advaita universal, the tradition is not in their favour as it limits the qualification to only a selected few.