There is no ‘unknown’ or ‘hidden’ or ‘cosmic’ Christ in Hinduism. Trying to dig them up from various scriptures, particularly from the Vedas is doing injustice both to the Vedas and Muktinath. This same old question again came and one bhakta requested me to refute it. But there is no point of refuting those who try to do this—because they do it deliberately (to make a living) or out of ignorance. If they are sincere student of scriptures (of any faith), they cannot distort them like this.
This does not mean that we cannot engage with followers of other faiths in dialogue (in which I never had any faith or interest) or use various common ground like sin, grace, mukti, etc. But when we try to understand them, we need not only consider the textual context but also the theological context. Just superimposing our own imagination and interpretation on other’s scripture might give some satisfaction to them and fun to others, but a serious and sincere student of scriptures should be careful to do that.
As we all know well, Hinduism is a ‘multi-centred pluralistic inclusivism’ giving room and scope for exclusivism at the same time to each sampradaya. So if one wants to engage in dialogue with them, then she has to do it separately with each sampradaya—though they all might have a common scripture like the Vedas as their authority (or even foundation). But how they interpret those texts according to their doctrinal point of view is more important than the texts themselves. This we can understand by various schools of thought in Vedanta like advaita, vishitadvaita, dvaita etc., to mention a few.
In principle, Muktiveda is based on the ‘Covenant Promise’ of God made with one individual and through him with a nation and how he enacted it through the events in history is vital for us to understand Muktiveda. Even the story before it is also about the Commandment given by God to an individual (Adam) and the punishment that he received (poor him, mere victim than an original culprit). So to say in another way disobedience to God is the origin of sin according to Muktiveda. But there is no such concept in most of the Hindu sampradayas and karma and dharma of (though later development) both individual and collective plays a vital role in the Hindu (religious) worldview.
Even the way God made the covenant with Abraham and further fulfilled with the atonement of the Lord (though we can use the word prayaschitta, still it is not one hundred percent correct considering various shades of meaning to it) has no parallel in Hinduism. To say in clear terms: there is no Muktinath in Hinduism—both mythically, historically and even ideologically.
For me, Muktinath is unique and the message of gospel is unique—which if properly understood and interpreted has a Universal scope—provided we allow it to incarnate in each culture and (religious) tradition of every faith. While this uniqueness is maintained (and also insisted), the accommodating nature of the gospel should be presented carefully using the worldview(s) and (religious) terms which are used in the local faiths. Where there is no scope, with much humbleness we should point out this uniqueness of the Lord rather than diluting the gospel in the name of dialogue digging out a ‘unknown’ or ‘hidden’ or ‘cosmic’ Christ –or creating a Niceanity (nice to everyone) by claiming that all the religions are the same.
This ‘narahari’ God-man, according to my understanding is the lowest expression of God and highest aspiration of human. Even if this ‘narahari’ is a mythological character or a scheme movement from the Jewish tradition which later cleverly and craftily (as claimed by some) by Sevanand (Paul) spread among the non-Jews, still this is a unique ‘myth and scheme’. { N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997}
Personally I also struggle and even stumble to accept the Jewishness of the Lord and try my best to accommodate him within the frame of my Hindu worldview—my need for a guru and how I met him in Muktinath, etc. But it is there before me and my wishful thinking is not going to undo the Jewishness of the Lord. At the same time I never allow it to bother my bhakti in the Lord, as I accept that God in His mercy helped me to meet my guru even outside my tradition. Then accepting him or rejecting is my personal choice and for this I cannot distort the uniqueness of the gospel.
Of course in order to address my rational mind and nationalistic sentiment, I justifying it by saying that as I accepted all kinds of foreign inventions like electricity, radio, TV, and electronic gadgets for my physical and mental needs, for my spiritual need I accept Muktinath though he is outside to my Indian tradition. Anyhow however I justify by all kinds of arguments, yet till the end of my life this will remain a tension in my bhakti. But in order to address I need not dig out a ‘hidden or unknown Muktinath’ in Hinduism.
Already others have written about Prajapati—which is the main word used and misused by some Christians to dig out a ‘hidden—unknown’ Christ in Vedas. So I need not further elaborate on it as they have done an excellent job on it.
Similarly I have written about the sacrifice done by the Lord which is the main point which some evangelicals try to dig out from the (Rig) Veda. But if we carefully read all about sacrifice in Hinduism and in Muktiveda there is less similarity and more complication. In my article ‘On Sacrifice’ what I wrote in my conclusion I would like to quote again here:
What is my take in understanding sacrifice both in Hindu traditions and the Muktiveda? My bhakti in the Lord does not depend upon this. In fact, born in a Brahmin family, any act of bloodletting is abhorrence for me. What I cannot understand is the ‘single window’ gospel that is presented before the Hindus about the Lord and Mukti based on the atonement of the Lord alone. Of course it is important for us to understand it clearly as it is the central teaching in Muktiveda. But it need not be the starting point for God to interfere in our life through Muktinath or for us to grow in our bhakti in the Lord. Even if I studied all these details, still it is not very clear what is presented in the Uttara Veda (NT) about the sacrifice of the Lord as atonement for us and the role of various sacrifices that is explained in the Purvaveda (OT). And which one is replaced by the Lord? Sin-offering, substitution, redemption, ransom, propitiation, appeasement of the wrath of God (for His righteous indignation) and prayaschiita are some terms which won’t neatly fit with the death of the Lord for our substitute. All these have different context and meaning in the sacrificial institution of the Israel.33 How the disciples and the early bhaktas (particularly in Hebrew) understood and interpreted becomes important for our understanding. The following points which I gleaned randomly from Walton will help us to understand this complexity in the sacrificial institution of the Israel:
Finally, can we convince that evangelical who tries to dig out an ‘unknown, hidden and cosmic’ Christ in Hinduism in general and in particular from the Rig Veda is not there? No is my answer. Because once they made up their mind they are not going to listen to us. So it is a waste of our time to confront them. For many it is part of their agenda and make a living out of it. They will go to church after church to preach this message, but will they call Hindu scholars to present their view?
Even if they call Hindus to have any dialogue about this (forget the scholars who will simply laugh at them and ignore), they are neither interested nor find any need. In fact all the dialogues are initiated and done by church and missions and no Hindu is interested though sometimes they come and participate to enjoy costly hospitality and holidays at the cost of Missions.1 Personally I don’t believe in such dialogues or confrontations—either with the Hindus or with the evangelicals. It is one thing to preach the gospel but arranging any dialogue or confrontation with hegemonic attitude about other’s faith is against my principle. What Paul Sudhakar says about this could be the best conclusion to this article with a note that any such dialogue with Hindus should be conducted only to ‘enrich the churches’ understanding of God and Christ’:
To say that Bible is the Word of God is Biblical, but it is unbiblical to say that Bible only is the Word of God. The Biblical truth has to be seen separate from the cultural additions and even distortions of it. If God is the God revealed in the Bible, who is the Father, Creator, Redeemer and Saviour and who is also light and life, and whose name is love, then it is evident that the knowledge of Him cannot be confined to a people in one geographical area. Hindu scriptures contain deep insights on God and meaningful dialogues with Hindus will only enrich the church’s understanding of God and Christ.—Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, p. 269
2-4-18
- The foremost problem in any meaningful dialogue with Hindus is the Christian’s attitude to Hindus, who know only too well that Christians firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and Lord and that dialogue is only another method to present the exclusive claims of Christ. In all dialogues in India, the initiative has been with the Christians. Hindus do not ask for dialogue with Christians. They are so confident that the essence of all religions is same and that truth is expressed in many forms, that they see in the Christian’s desire for dialogue, not only a retreat of the church from her conviction on the categorical imperatives of the Gospel and the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ, but also a victory of the Hindu view of comprehensiveness and relativeness.—Wilhelmina, op. Cit. P. 266