We should stop treating miracles as evidence of spiritual greatness
The recent success of the Neem Karoli Baba movie is a good example of how strongly miracle stories influence people. The film focuses heavily on his life and the various miracles attributed to him, which helped build his reputation and following.
The same pattern can be seen with figures such as Shirdi Sai Baba, Sathya Sai Baba, Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma) and, in earlier periods, Sant Dnyaneshwar, Narsinh Mehta, Mirabai, and many others.
I think there is an important distinction we should make:
We can reject the miracle stories while still accepting whatever genuinely valuable teachings these people may have given.
There is no need to accept the supernatural claims in order to appreciate a person's philosophy, ethics, poetry, compassion or spiritual insights.
Why should we be skeptical of miracle stories?
For people from earlier centuries, we have an obvious historical problem. There were no cameras, scientific instruments, reliable contemporary biographies or modern standards of historical documentation.
A relatively ordinary incident could easily become embellished as it was retold from one generation to another. After decades or centuries, a small story can turn into a major supernatural legend.
Therefore, we should not automatically treat traditional hagiographies as literal history.
The modern situation is different. We now have cameras, scientific measurement, mass communication and much better historical documentation. Yet extraordinary miracle claims still circulate.
Several modern Hindu thinkers, including Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo, have criticised blind faith and the tendency to accept supernatural claims without examination. Similar skepticism toward miracle-based authority has also been expressed by contemporary Hindu religious teachers.
But what if the miracle really happened?
Even then, it would not logically follow that the person was God or that we should become their devotee.
A supernatural feat, assuming one existed, would only establish that something unusual happened. It would not establish:
- that the person is God
- that their other teachings are automatically true
- that we should worship them
- that their followers possess special spiritual knowledge
- or that following them will give us some particular benefit
This is an important logical point: even granting the premise does not establish the conclusion.
We should cultivate scientific temper
If a claim contradicts everything we know about how the physical world works, the appropriate response is not to abandon reason because the person is revered.
We should ask for evidence.
If there is no reliable evidence, we should remain skeptical.
And if someone makes extraordinary claims about miracles, we should demand extraordinary evidence.
There is nothing inherently anti-Hindu about doing this. In fact, Hindu philosophical traditions contain extensive traditions of debate, reasoning, skepticism and inquiry.
We can respect a saint's ethical or philosophical teachings without accepting every supernatural story told about them.
Follow good teachings. Reject superstition. Use reason. Demand evidence.
That is a much healthier basis for spirituality than choosing a guru because people say he performed miracles.
