Unlike the modern Hindu apologetic I do not need to explain the contradictions and shortcomings in a rationalistic and so-called scientific way. This is true with the Muktiveda also. I can with honesty, at least to myself, accept the contradictions, reject the shortcomings, integrate good things and wait upon Him to reveal the clarity that I need to follow Him—taking help both from the Muktiveda and Hindu scriptures. At the same time, if I need to give any spiritual and moral authority to one scripture, then without any hesitation, I will give it only to the Muktiveda because of the way it is written—not as a fiction; ancient story (purana); mystical; esoteric; book on social code (dharma sastras) or even as history, but it evolved among the people with their limitations, struggles, and failures revealing god’s character and purpose for his creation.
A comparison:
But if the question is still asked seriously, why not Rama or Krishna or Siva, etc., then not to condemn them or to glorify Muktinath, I have to share my view of it. However one tries to prove the historicity of all the Hindu gods, except those deified historic gurus of a sampradaya, they are still on slippery ground with mere speculation. Then regarding their character, I cannot selectively take those good aspects of their character, leaving out the bad side of their stories. Of course several such stories, which are immoral according to human standards, are explained differently.17 For example, all the dalliance of Krishna with Gopies is explained philosophically as portraying the relationship with jeevatman (individual soul) and paramatman (god). I respect their right to explain them in that way or any other way. However, my expectation of god is different. Though the personification of various natural forces and characters serve our purpose, yet for me, they all are human endeavours and anybody can do such things with any ideals. For example, for several Neo-Hindus, Muktinath is the personification of ‘ethics’, ‘love’, ‘a cosmic Christ’ etc.18 They all acknowledge Muktinath as ‘Christ’ of their own expectation and understanding, but they never have accepted His authority as guru and god.
Take for example, Siva. This adjective, which means ‘kind, auspicious’, was used for various deities in the Vedas. Later in an attempt to incorporate a Dravidian deity, the vedic deity Rudra was superimposed on Siva and made part of the Vedic pantheon and the latter, the supreme deity in Siva sects. Forget the historicity, but all the later claims about Siva and his plays in various Siva Puranas and Tamil Saiva scriptures have never appealed to my reason as the aspect of a god of my expectation.
When I recently completed the Tamil Saiva Purana, ‘Periyapuranam’, the story of the 63 Saiva Saints by Sekizhar, the life of some bhaktas of Siva really shocked me. Everywhere in the world, in the name of religion, the religious authorities (with the help of the state) have committed several atrocities against humanity in the name of faith. Christianity stands the worst followed by Islam. However, the way a bhakta of Siva can do some acts in the name of his bhakti to the lord really shocked me (see in Chapter on Morality). Of course Hindu apologetics like Dr. Sivapriya explain them in their expected line: as lila (divine play of Siva; or to test their bhakti etc. (see notes no. 5 in Chapter on Morality). Whereas, a bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath cannot do the same kind of act, even in the name of bhakti—as it will violate the very teaching and life of his Lord (see above Julian’s words). I need not further explain this point, as my aim is not comparison. Therefore, each scripture needs to be evaluated in its religious, social, cultural contexts.
In the case of Krishna, going along with the view of Gandhi, unless one has emotional and sentimental devotion to him, the rest of the stories and lilas (plays) related to him, though they entertained me, never appealed to me to accept him as my god. Of course all the philosophizing about his lilas is correct from the sectarian and apologetic point of view, which others need not accept. The same can be said about Muktinath and god of the Muktiveda.
In the case of Rama, the imaginary character of the Ramayana or deification of some historic figure really attracted me.18a Yet, being a Tamilian, my approach to Rama’s character based on Kamba Ramayana and some personal study of his acts of killing Vaali and banishing Sita to the forest based on the rumours etc., portrays him as a human being struggling with duty and morality (dharma and ethics). However, one can learn many good lessons, and this imaginary story and the central character can be anybody’s ideal. Though such ideals are appealing, yet I am not impressed to take him as my guru or god.
There is no point of sharing my view about all of the other major and minor deities. Isolating any one aspect of these deities and rejecting other parts, which are against any ideals, is not acceptable to me. For example, I cannot reject the Krishna of the Mahabharata and take only that of the Gita or a cosmic Christ and not that of the historical Muktinath.19 Even if Muktinath is merely an imaginary character of the Uttara Veda (New Testament), what appeals to me is his total personality. I would prefer to strive to reach that ideal stage with the help of god, rather than accept every deity as the representation of that one invisible, unfathomable, non-comprehendible god.
Finally I confess that the god-hood of other deities never depends upon my faith on them. They are gods or even the SUPREME, ONLY ONE BRAHMAN, the Eternal God, ‘THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BUT…..’ etc., for the faithful followers of those (or that) deity. So agreeing with their faith and bhakti, as a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I keep my exclusivism on him ‘only Muktinath’ to the question ‘why only Muktinath’?
Notes:
- The following story told by Nirad C. Chaudhuri shows how common people can easily explain such incidents against any criticism of their gods:
When I was young a neo-Hindu sadhu came to preach in my town. He spoke of Krishna, and referring to the accusation brought forward by the Christian missionaries that he was licentious, the champion of Hinduism said something in Hindi whose equivalent I give in English: ‘That showed that Krishna was a mighty hero. If you had to carry on with sixteen hundred lusty young women like Krishna, in one night your face would look like a baked apple’. The roar of laughter and the approving murmur that followed showed that the Hindu crowd was satisfied that the blasphemous missionaries had been answered in the way they deserved. — The Continent of CIRCE: An Essay on the Peoples of India, Twelfth Jaico Impression,Mumbai,1999, p. 98 58
- For a complete survey of Neo-Hindu’s view of Christ and the way it is evaluated by Christian critics see: M.M. Thomas, THE ACKNOWLEDGED CHRIST OF THE INDIAN RENAISSANCE, S C M Press Ltd., London, 1969.
18a. …The Epic heroes, Rama, Krishna, etc., became incarnations of the god Vishnu, and the Epics, which had been essentially bardic poetry, were now given the sanctity of divine revelation. The Epics had originally been secular and therefore had now to be revised by the brahmans with a view to using them as religious literature; thus, many interpolations were (p.133) made, the most famous being the addition of the Bhagavad Gita to the Mahabharata.— Romila Thapar, A HISTORY OF INDIA, vol. One, New Delhi, Penguin Books, (1966), Reprint, 1990. pp. 133-34
- See my Review on Badrinath Chaturvedi’s two books.The following is the final part of that review:
Every perception has its own limitation, because most of the time it is bound by the experience of the person concerned with Reality or Truth etc. If Jesus’ disciples ever understood him wrongly, then there is no hope for us to claim that we can understand Him rightly better than His disciples. Even if we forget the importance of a Historic Jesus Christ to uphold the Church doctrines, we cannot deny the historicity of His first disciples understanding based on their personal experience with Him. No doubt, all the Church doctrines and theologies of an organized Christianity may not help one to have that personal encounter which His disciples had with Him. But in order to PROMOTE A COSMIC Christ, to say that His disciples personal understanding of Him based on their experience is improper is wrong. Because they never said that He was ‘a symbol of a reality greater than his individual self or not a Person but a state of being.’ At least for them, He Himself was that Great Reality—the very God in flesh in His PERSON. Definitely there was a progressive understanding about this among His disciples, which was completed only after his crucifixion and resurrection. It is equally true that ‘What Jesus was saying, was that it is truth and love, and not the satisfaction of physical appetites alone, that make man fully human. What he was saying, was that it is love, and not the laws, that has the redeeming power.’ (pp.184-5) But it is a wrong perception to say that, ‘Seen in this light, neither his crucifixion nor his resurrection is to be understood in its gross physical sense, although that is how they have mostly been understood.’ Because at least for the first disciples of Jesus, all that happened in gross physical sense in the life of Jesus has become a historical event for us now. Because history is not ‘mere records of events’ (p.166), but also its interpretation. Most of the time, the interpretation alone made an event a historic one. For me at least, the criteria for history is not the event, but the interpretation of that event by those who have directly encountered it. However, we agree with the author’s perception about the historic dharmic vs. ‘Christianity in history’, at least in India, it is not that ‘Christianity in history’ with its all verities of believes will help us to understand Jesus Christ as a PERSON, but the relationship which we have with Him, because of our faith—both as a gift of god and our conscience response to that gift.