Part three
Every scripture and theology has inner contradictions. It can be resolved through proper exegesis and doctrine. Though I am also not in favour of ‘dogmatism’ still without making some dogmatic statements [or claims] it is very difficult to explain the inner contradictions. Already we saw this in the karma doctrine in Hinduism and the Original Sin [committed by Adam] in Muktiveda. However, as I pointed out the relativistic nature in theology [philosophy] one can pick up one particular point of view to defend her position or clearing the doubts of others who question it in Hinduism. But in Muktiveda I found certain dogmatic statements which give a firm ground for further probing her need to grow in her bhakti/faith. The next thing is that Muktiveda never gives much scope to blame someone else for my failures. Though the doctrine of Original Sin can give that excuse and the devil is also blamed by many, still it is my personal responsibility to work out my own salvation.
This I found as the main doctrinal difference between Hinduism and Muktiveda. So when I began to read Uttaraveda [New Testament in Tamil] for the first time I found some kind of clue to the question with which I was struggling a lot for so many years in my youth. Though I now managed to articulate it with some precise technical terms here, still in those days when I was struggling within me not knowing the answer to the question, ‘why I cannot live a perfect life even for one day—not even for a week or month or year; not even up to the expectation of others or gods, but up to my own expectation. As I said these are not the precise words I used that time but that was my condition. That is why in one my songs which I wrote:
O Mother who is adorned with gold on the breast; I adore your holy name;
Save me, the one who took a vain birth by removing my karmas
What kinds of karmas I have done to take such a menial birth worse than a dog;
I don’t know the reason and only Brahma needs to be blamed (for creating me like this)
All the births that I have taken are more than enough; I don’t want any more birth
O merciful Sankari, save me (preventing from future births).18
So in this song though I expressed my anguish, still I blamed the creator God Brhama. Similarly when I questioned some elders and a few religious people whom I met in search of this question they gave the regular answer: your past karma, this is Kaliyug [in which dharma stands on one leg] or the divine play of god. This was well stated by Goswami Tulsidas: kalah karmah aur ishwar par mita dosh lagaye = they falsely accuse either time or karma or even god. Though Hindu apologetics might explain this well with their reasonable argument, still I was not satisfied to blame someone else or some things else for my failures.
That is why when I read Muktiveda, particularly Uttara Veda, in Romans Chapter 7, from verses 15 onwards I was shocked a bit. Because those verses clearly echoed my own inner struggle. Though Sevanand ended that portion by making the cry of dereliction (verse 24)and with a note of hope by saying, ‘Thanks be to God through Muktinath our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin (verse 25) I didn’t understand it very clearly but realized that there was another person who lived in similar condition like me.
Of course when I first read these verses in Tamil I didn’t understand all the theology behind it, particularly the hope in verses 25. However when I began to read several commentaries, particularly the book by Rev. John Stott ‘Man made New’ I clearly understood the context. At the same time I have to confess that there are so many such slokas, poems and mantras in Hinduism which echoes similar struggles. I have elaborately discussed it [Living Dialogue, ‘Early Struggle’ and ‘Sin’.].
For example when performing twilight worship (sadhyavandanam) a Brahmin has to say the following mantras as part samkalpa (resolution) and confession:
ममोपात्त-समस्त-दुरित-क्षय-द्वारा श्री परमेश्वर प्रीत्यर्थं…
mamoopaatta samasta duritakshaya dvaaraa srii parameshvara priityartham
–in order to qualify to receive the grace of god, I crush all the sins attained by me.
सूर्यश्च मा मन्युश्च मन्युपतयश्च मन्युकृतेभ्य: पापेभ्यो रक्षन्ताम्। यद्रात्रया पापमकार्षम्। मनसा वाचा हस्ताभ्याम्।
पद्भ्यामुदरेण शिश्ना। रात्रि-स्तदवलुंपतु। यत्किचं दुइरतं मयि। इदमहं माममृत-योनौ। सूर्ये ज्योतिषि जुहोमि स्वाहा॥
suuryashca maa manyushca manyupatayashca manyukrutebhya: paapebhyoo rakshantaam. yad raatrayaa paapamakaarsham. manasaa vaacaa hastaabhyaam. padbhyaam udarena shishnaa. raatristadavalumpatu. yatkincam duiiratam mayii. idamaham maamamrutayoonow. suurye jyootishi juhoomi svaahaa.
–Let Sun which activates everything and divine shaktis which controls anger save me from all the sin committed me by anger which enslaves everyone; Let the night deity remove sins committed by mind, words, hands, legs, stomach, male organ and other sins that are found in me; by this way I, one whose sins are removed offer my homa in the supreme light in the form of Sun for moksha.19
But I found similar echo of Romans 7: 15ff in another sloka from Mahabharata:
Jaanaami dharmam nache me pravrti
Jaanaami adharmam nache me nivrti
Kenaapi devene hrudayas titena
Yataa niyuktosmi tata karomi
–I know what is righteousness, but there is no progress in it
I know what is unrighteousness but there is no deliverance from it
I don’t know what kind of instinct that god has kept within me
I am doing accordingly prompted by that nature.20
However here again it is the god who is blamed for this nature within me. However Arjuna wants to know what is impelling a man to commit sin:
Atha kena prayukto’yam paapam carati puurusha
Anicchannapi vaarsneya balaadiva niyojitah
But by what is a man impelled to commit sin, as if by force, even against his will O Varsneya (Krishna)?21
This one from Tamil is enough to show how the concept of sin in principle is deeply embedded in the Hindu conscience:
Evil, all evil, my race, evil my qualities all,
Great am I only in sin, evil is even my good.
Evil my innermost self, foolish, avoiding the pure,
Beast am I not, yet the ways of the beast I can never forsake.
I can exhort with strong words, telling men what they should hate,
Yet can I never give gifts, only to beg them I know.
Ah! Wretched man that I am, whereunto came I to birth?22
Of course in theory we know that there is sin however it is explained in various ways by Hindu philosophers. But the one radical difference is that while Muktiveda points out it as ‘SIN IN PRINCIPLE’ whereas in Hinduism it is ‘Sins in work’, as atman is considered to remain pure not contaminated by the sin as it is either the very Brahman [advaita Vedanta] or part of Brahman [vishishtadvaita]. I too took sides which were convenient for me in a given time to answer this question, ‘why I cannot live a perfect life even for one day’. However the Spirit of God slowly convinced me that at the end I have to accept personal responsibility whatever I do not blaming someone or something else other than me. Of course the Origin of Sin in Uttaraveda tries to give a foundation for it. Even if I reject that story [of Adam] as part of myth, for the first time the awakening that I am a sinner not because I commit sins but I commit sin because I am a sinner within me helped me a lot.
However what a Scripture says is one thing and how we need to understand it is different. Mere reading of plain text never helps much, particularly for a lay person like me. So to know more about this main doctrinal difference that ‘Original Sin’ and ‘Atman is pure’ I sought the help of Dr. Hoefer to understand the claims of Muktiveda because the ‘Original Sin’ always remained a problem for me to understand. Though Hinduism claims that ‘atman is pure’ still it also equally recognize the sinful nature that is within us which is either implanted by god within us or because of past karma or even part of our nature as Gita says: Even a wise man acts in accordance with his own nature. Beings follow their nature. What can restraint do? (Gita 3:33). One another sloka says, ‘manasa vacha karmana dush krutam krutam’ = I commit evil deeds by mind/heart, by words and by works. However it never recognizes that we inherit it because someone has done in the past. And the following reply by Dr. Hoefer cleared this doubt to me which I would like to quote verbatim:
There needs to be some reflection on the doctrine of Original Sin. We must be clear that this is a theological concept. It is not a mechanistic concept. St. Augustine had framed it in a mechanistic way when he said Original Sin was passed down through the act of sexual intercourse. Ps. 51:5 is the singular passage that is used to prove this mechanistic viewpoint. I think that is a very flimsy basis for a very formative doctrine. I think a better way of understanding this passage and the whole doctrine is the recognition that we all were born into a fallen world, permeated by sin, “in thought and word and deed,” as we state in our liturgical Confession of Sin. This is the view that St. Paul expresses in Rom 7, as you cited. The doctrine of Original Sin as well as the doctrine of our sinful nature is a doctrine stated in regard to our standing before the holy God. In relation to His righteousness, we are unholy sinners indeed. In grace, however, He wills to see us differently, as forgiven sinners. [Personal communication]
This fundamental difference in the core doctrine alone pushed me to further search both in Hindu Scriptures and Muktiveda with the help of many commentaries when I became the disciple of Muktinath accepting Him as my Guru. It was a gradual revelation with so many questions, doubts, debate-discussion and argument within me. However, I slowly realized that this is the knowledge which helps me to understand the need and nature of mukti by my commitment in my personal relationship with Muktinath through my bhakti motivating me to continue to ‘work out my mukti with fear and trembling as this mukti is not going to some faceless-space less heaven hanging somewhere in the atmosphere in future after my death but to be realized and exercised in everyday life with clear understanding that I am saved, I am being saved and I will be saved. In this understanding all the three: knowledge, bhakti and karma complement each other not working independently which one could use according to her convenience. But this knowledge is not some esoteric understanding of the nature of my atman is Brahman but an answer to my question: why I cannot live a perfect life? As I stated early, realizing this mukti now in this mortal body does not mean that I overcome the sinful nature within me. Each day I live with this knowledge that I am a saved sinner but struggling saint. And this mukti is a sanctification process that I am saved; I am being saved and I will be saved. Though I know that nothing can separate me from the love of God still I can reject it because of my free will. Similarly as I have to ‘workout my salvation’ it is part of my karma which I need to do consciously not influenced by the residue of my past karma about which I don’t have any knowledge at present. I am not against those who strongly believe in karma doctrine as it addresses so many unresolvable questions in life, like why righteous people suffer whereas evil people flourish etc. And bhakti remains the link between knowledge and karma. To say in other words, this knowledge that I am a sinner saved by the grace of God needs to work out my mukti through my bhakti in everyday life. And all the three components of my Hindu worldview viz., jnana, karma and bhakti complement each other accepting personal responsibility not blaming someone else or some other thing other than me for my failures in life. For me this is the fundamental doctrinal difference between Muktiveda and other faiths.
In my life I never try to know who God is but due to so many early influences I always asked the question ‘Who am I’. For me self realization comes not knowing God or about Him but knowing about oneself. Somehow from the early days though I followed our family tradition of worshiping gods, still my longing was to know ‘who am I’ and ‘why I cannot attain mukti’ etc. Even when the question came about seeing God [to have his darshan] I never asked the question ‘how to find god’ but ‘why I cannot find Him’? I always began the question and search asking the question ‘what prevents me etc.
I know I need to explain a lot further. But this is not the place for it as I have already tried it in Living Dialogue which might see the light one day [or may not see].
However my reading of this book and the dialogues by Gandhi with the Missionaries and Christians Leaders helped me to think deeply further and to Thank God for the free gift of mukti in my life and to live with clear conviction as a Hindu bhakta of Muktinath without need to become a Christian and to join a denominational church to exercise that bhakti in everyday life.
Notes
18 பூண்கொங்கை அன்னையே
போற்றுதும் நின் திருநாமம்
வீண் பிறவி எடுத்தேனை
வினை நீக்கி ஆள்வாயே
நான் என் வினை செய்தேன்
நாயினும் இழி இப்பிறவிக்கு
நான் ஒன்றும் அறிகிலேன்
நான் முகனே பழிக்குறியான்
எடுத்த பிறவி போதும்
இனிப் பிறவி வேண்டிலேன்
தடுத் தென்னைக் காப்பாய்
தயாபரி நீ சங்கரியே
19 Anna, Sandhyavandanam, Chennai, Ramakrishna matt.
20 Dhrtarastra…explains his position aptly thus:
Jaanaam yadharmam na hi me nivrttih
Kenaapi devena hrdisthitena
Yathaaniyuktosmi tathaakaromi— K. Kunjunni Raja. A Note on moral Dilemmas in the Mahabharata. Pp. 49-52, in, Bimal Krishna Matilal, ed, Moral Dilemmas in the Mahabharata, Indian Institute of Advanced Study Rashtrapati Niwas, Shimla, in association with Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi, (1989) 2nd Reprint, 2014p. 51
21 Gita: 3:36, Gita Press, Ghorakpur.
22 குலம்பொல்லேன் குணம்பொல்லேன் குறியும்பொல்லேன்
குற்றமேபெரிதுடையேன் கோலமாய
நலம்பொல்லேனான்பொல்லேன் ஞானியல்லே
னல்லாரோடிசைந்திலேனடுவேனின்ற
விலங்கலேன்விலங்கலாதொழிந்தேனல்லேன்
வெறுப்பனவுமிகப் பெரிதும்பேசவல்லேன்
இலம்பொல்லேனிரப்பதல்லால் ஈயமாட்டே
னென்செய்வான்றோன்றினே னேழையேனே–
Tirunavukkarasu, F. Kingsbury, and G.E.Phillips, Hymns of the Tamil Saivite Saints, Calcutta, Association Press, 1921, song 35, p. 44
The post Gandhi Conversion and Gita Part Three appeared first on Dayanand Bharati.