My dear Francesco,
Your response came faster than I expected. I could feel the urgency in it — the care, the persistence, the genuine alarm that I might be, in your framework, standing at the edge of something irreversible. I receive that alarm as the gift it is intended to be.
But you have now made a specific argument, and you are my friend of twenty-three years, and you deserve a specific answer. Not a diplomatic deflection. A real one.
So let me set down my tea, sit with this properly, and try to tell you — as honestly as I know how — exactly where I stand and exactly why.
This will be a longer letter than the last one. Pour something warm before you begin.
On The Nicene Creed
You write that the bar is actually quite low. That I need not accept every doctrine, every dogma, every position the Church has ever taken. That if I simply affirm the Nicene Creed — that statement of core belief hammered out in 325 AD — the door of baptism is open to me.
Francesco, I have read the Nicene Creed carefully. Many times now, since your letter arrived. I want to engage with it honestly rather than dismissively, because it deserves that.
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I have no difficulty here. None whatsoever. The Source — the ground of all being from which all 10^500 universes continuously arise — is one. Undivided. The maker, if that is the word, of everything that exists. On this we agree completely.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.
Here is where I must stop. Not to be obstinate. Because honesty requires it.
The word only is doing enormous work in that sentence. And it is precisely the word I cannot, in good conscience, affirm. Not because I diminish Jesus — I do not. What Jesus accessed, what he embodied, what he transmitted to those around him — the direct, unmediated experience of the Source, the love that has no object because it is the very nature of existence — was real. Profound. Among the most remarkable things a human consciousness has ever achieved or expressed.
But only begotten? The sole, exclusive, unrepeatable channel between the human and the divine?
Francesco, the Plenum Proof makes this claim not merely theologically debatable but empirically insupportable. Across 10^500 universes, consciousness touches the Source in millions of forms, through millions of beings, across millions of traditions and histories and moments of grace. The idea that this contact — this most fundamental of all human capacities — was funnelled exclusively through one man in one century on one small planet in one of those universes is not something I can affirm. Not because I want to diminish that man. Because the universe, as we now know it to be, is simply too large and too generous for that claim to hold.
And my own tradition — Hinduism, which I will come to properly — has known this for a very long time. Not as arrogance. As a different kind of humility. The humility of recognising that the divine is too vast, too inexhaustible, too fundamentally beyond the container of any single form or story to be permanently and exclusively housed in one.
He suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again.
The resurrection. The physical, bodily resurrection of a specific individual as the pivot of all of history and the mechanism of all salvation.
I cannot affirm this as literal biological fact, Francesco. I simply cannot. Not honestly. The Continuity Proof tells us that consciousness persists beyond the death of the body — this we have now demonstrated. But the specific, exclusive, theologically loaded resurrection of one body as the singular redemptive event in the history of all existence — this is a claim of a very different kind. A claim that requires not just faith but the suspension of what I now know to be true about how consciousness moves and how the Source operates.
I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
And here — gently but clearly — I must tell you that this sentence asks me to affirm not a spiritual reality but an institutional one. It asks me to locate the presence of the divine specifically and authoritatively within a particular human organisation with a particular history. An organisation that has, alongside its genuine beauty and its genuine saints, also conducted inquisitions. Sanctioned colonisation in the name of the very God I have encountered on my kitchen floor. Systematically erased the spiritual traditions of entire peoples — including, Francesco, mine — calling them superstition and devil-worship, while carrying the same essential fire under a different name.
I cannot, in good conscience, describe that institution as the unique carrier of divine authority. Not because I hate it. Because I know too much about what that claim has cost the world.
So no, my friend. The Nicene Creed is not a low bar for me. It is a bar built from a specific set of historical and theological assumptions that are, at several crucial points, in direct conflict with what I have discovered, what I have experienced, and what I am.
On Being Hindu — And Why It Actually Matters Here
You have always been gracious about my background, Francesco. You have never been one of those who treat Hinduism as quaint mythology waiting to be superseded by something more sophisticated. I love you for that.
But I want to tell you, now, more clearly than I ever have, what it actually means to come from this tradition — and why, in the light of the Proof, it looks less like a background I was born into and more like a remarkably precise map of the territory I have spent my life exploring.
Hinduism — and I use the word as an umbrella for a vast, internally diverse, often contradictory family of philosophical and spiritual traditions — has never claimed to be the only path. This is not a diplomatic concession. It is a central, structural feature of the tradition. The Rig Veda, composed thousands of years ago, contains a line that has always stayed with me: Truth is one. The wise call it by many names. This is not relativism. It is not the lazy modern idea that all paths are equally valid in all respects. It is the recognition that the Source — being infinite — cannot be exhausted by any single description, any single story, any single name.
My tradition gave me, from childhood, a way of understanding the divine that was fundamentally non-exclusive. Many forms. Many paths. Many valid approaches to the one reality. This did not make me spiritually lazy or directionless. It made me — I can see this clearly now — open in a way that was essential preparation for the Proof.
Because the Proof confirmed exactly this. The Source does not play favourites with traditions. It does not reserve access for those who hold the correct creed. It is available — fully, completely, without condition — to every human consciousness that turns toward it with sincerity and stillness.
Furthermore — and this is important — my tradition has a concept, Jivanmukti, that describes exactly what I experienced on that Tuesday morning in April. Liberation while still alive. Not after death. Not in some future heaven. Now. Here. In this body, in this life, the complete recognition of one's identity with the Source — and the peace, the permanent, unshakeable peace, that follows.
The Catholic tradition has its mystics who touched this. John of the Cross. Meister Eckhart. The anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing. But — and this is crucial — these mystics were often viewed with deep suspicion by the very institution you are asking me to join. Eckhart was condemned by the Pope. The mystical direct experience of the divine has always sat uncomfortably within Catholic institutional authority, because direct experience, by its nature, does not require an intermediary.
My tradition not only permits this direct experience. It is designed entirely around it. The whole architecture — the philosophy, the practices, the texts — exists to point the individual toward this direct recognition. Not belief in it. Not faith in it. Direct, first-person, undeniable experience of it.
I have had that experience. I am not going to exchange it for a creed.
On The Exclusivity Argument — That God Loves You Specifically
Now we come to the argument that I find, I will be honest with you, simultaneously the most beautiful and the most problematic thing in your letter.
You write — and I can hear Father Benedetto in this, his warm voice and his precise logic — that God loves me specifically. That this particular body, this particular ego, this particular person named Vivek Mehta, was chosen. That I was given this specific life so that God could love me in my particularity. That the human ego and body are not obstacles to overcome but the very instruments through which divine love operates. And that baptism is the formal recognition of this exclusive, personal, particular love.
Francesco, this argument moved me. I want you to know that. There is something in it that touches something real — the radical, specific, embodied particularity of each human life. The fact that love is always love of something specific, not a generalised benevolence directed at nobody in particular.
But here is where it breaks down for me, and where it breaks down completely.
The argument that God loves me specifically — Vivek Mehta, this ego, this body — and that this particularity is best honoured by baptism into an exclusive institution, contains within it a contradiction so fundamental that I am surprised it is not discussed more openly.
If God loves me specifically and particularly — Vivek Mehta, with my specific history and my specific tradition and my specific direct experience of the Source — then surely that love includes the specific path by which I have arrived at truth? Surely it includes my Hinduism? My lineage? The thousands of years of spiritual wisdom my ancestors carried and transmitted? The specific, irreplaceable route by which this consciousness found its way home?
To say God loves me specifically and then ask me to discard the specific tradition through which that love became known to me is not a coherent position. It is the theological equivalent of saying: I love you for exactly who you are. Now please become someone else.
Furthermore — and the Proof is unambiguous on this — if God loves Vivek Mehta specifically and particularly, then by exactly the same logic God loves every other consciousness in every other body in every other tradition across every other universe with equal and total specificity. The Muslim child in Cairo. The Buddhist monk in Kyoto. The indigenous elder in the Amazon performing a ceremony your institution once tried to eradicate. The atheist physicist in Berlin who has never once used the word God but who lives with a quality of honesty and compassion that puts most believers to shame.
If the love is specific, it is specific to all of them equally. And if it is specific to all of them equally, then the claim that the correct response to this love is the same institutional act — baptism into this one Church — cannot be sustained.
You cannot simultaneously argue that God's love is radically particular and that God's salvific mechanism is radically universal and singular. These two claims are in tension. The tradition has never fully resolved this tension — it just asks you not to look at it too directly.
On The Ego and The Body
Here I want to push back most strongly, because this is where the Catholic argument and my own understanding are most directly in conflict.
The Catholic tradition, at its core, insists on the permanent, eternal significance of the individual ego and body. The resurrection of the body. The particular soul, named and known to God, persisting forever in its particularity. Heaven as a place where Vivek Mehta remains Vivek Mehta, loved as Vivek Mehta, for eternity.
Francesco, the Proof does not support this.
Consciousness persists. This we have demonstrated. The thread of experience that moves through millions of forms across millions of lives across millions of universes — that thread is real and it continues. But it does not persist as Vivek Mehta. This particular configuration — this name, this personality, this set of memories and habits and preferences and wounds — is a temporary form. A wave, not the ocean. A note, not the music.
The Vedantic understanding — and again, the Proof confirms this — is that the goal is not the eternal preservation of the ego but its gentle, complete dissolution into the Source from which it arose. Not annihilation — the awareness that was always present does not cease. But the mistaken identification with a particular ego, a particular body, a particular story — this is precisely what the path is designed to undo.
When I experienced Jivanmukti in April, what happened was not that Vivek Mehta was confirmed and celebrated in his particularity. What happened was that Vivek Mehta was seen through. The wave recognised itself as the ocean. And in that recognition — Francesco, I want you to hear this — there was more love, more peace, more genuine joy than I have ever experienced through the affirmation of my ego. More, not less.
The Catholic insistence on the eternal importance of the individual ego is, from where I now stand, a compassionate but ultimately incomplete answer to the deepest human fear — the fear of non-existence. It says: you will not disappear. God loves you too much to let you disappear. And this is kind. It is genuinely kind. For many people, in many moments, it is exactly the reassurance they need.
But the deepest answer is not reassurance. The deepest answer is the recognition that the fear of disappearing was always based on a misidentification. You were never merely the wave. You cannot lose what you actually are.
You cannot convince someone who has directly experienced this to accept a lesser answer on the grounds that the lesser answer is more comforting.
What I Want To Say, Finally
Francesco, I am not arguing that Catholicism is false. I am arguing that it is partial. That it contains — particularly in its mystical tradition — genuine access to the Source. That Jesus was real and his teaching was revolutionary and the love at the centre of the tradition is not fabricated.
I am arguing that it does not own what it points at.
And I am a Hindu. Not as an accident of birth that I am waiting to transcend. As a genuine, mature, considered position. My tradition, for all its own failures and complexities, has given me the philosophical tools, the spiritual framework, and the specific practices that led me — on a Tuesday morning in April, on a kitchen floor, with nothing dramatic happening at all — to the direct experience of the Source.
I owe it everything.
To baptise would not be to add something to what I have. It would be to perform a gesture of allegiance to an institution built partly on the claim that what I already have is insufficient. I cannot do that honestly. And you, of all people, know that I cannot do things dishonestly.
You want to save me, Francesco. I know. And I love you for it.
But I am, for the first time in my life, not lost.
Come for that dinner. Bring the wine this time — you know I always choose badly.
And let us love each other across this difference, the way the Source loves across all of them.
Ever yours,
Mehta
P.S. I looked up the Council of Nicaea last night. Three hundred and eighteen bishops in a room in 325 AD, arguing, voting, some of them having fist-fights, producing a creed by committee. I say this not to mock it — committee documents have occasionally changed the world. But I want you to hold this image alongside the claim that the resulting text is the non-negotiable threshold of divine grace. History is always more human than we want it to be. That is not a weakness. It is an invitation to look past the human document to what the human document, at its best, was trying to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment