“Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those
in philosophy only ridiculous.” ~ David Hume
In a rapidly modernizing world it is argued that cultural
differences worldwide need to be ironed for a strife-free and rational global
society. Religion – being the “opium of masses” has been a fertile ground for
sowing hatred and is responsible for consequent bloodshed. Realizing that
religion will not simply vanish from the face of earth overnight, the myth of
all sameness of all religions has been purposefully built so that people
understand that “In essence, all religions teach the same” or “All
religions are equally bad”.
Though an oversimplification, this is more or less true of the two
important religions of the world – Christianity and Islam. Both have their own
history of brutality and going overboard and committing excesses in their zeal
to convert others to their faith.
Yet, euphemism shouldn’t constrain us from exploring what might be
politically incorrect but true nonetheless. Let us begin by examining the
categories that constitute a religion.
What constitutes
Religion?
A religion consists of two broad categories – spiritual and
societal.
The spiritual category contains the core philosophy of religion,
ethics, moral instructions, and truisms and so on. They are best experienced
mostly by insiders though others might still appreciate it.
The societal aspect contains two sub-categories: internal society
and external society. Internal society is the advice/instructions given by the
scriptures that are to be followed by the adherents of the religion.
But what constitutes the most defining aspect of any religion is
its take on “external society”. All the so-called similarities are confined to
spiritual domain. Few similarities might exist in internal society injunctions.
But the differences are most stark and the myth of similarity stands debunked
when the “external society” aspect is analyzed. Ironically, this is the most
important factor in any religion as this defines its philosophical maturity and
its tolerance of “others”.
When compared with Hinduism, it is clear that there is something
different in the theology of Christians/Muslims that drive them in pursuit of
conversions. There is something amiss in the self-containment and composure of
a Hindu mind compared with the missionary zeal that embodies passionate
Christians/Muslims.
Examples
For example, though Judaism is the first Semitic religion which
inspired Christianity and Islam, their God did not ask its followers to wage a
war against the infidels (non-believers). Jews and Christians share common
ancestry and similar philosophy (agreed that there are sharp and irreconcilable
differences too and there is a history of Jewish prosecution but they operate
in similar framework when compared to Indic religions/pagans). Yet, what
essentially differentiates them is the “external societal” aspect. Christians
are scripturally inspired to evangelize and help others see their truth. Likewise,
Muslims are duty-bound to use any means on “others” and forcefully convert
them. Jews – whatever their personal beliefs which are actually quite
comparable to Christianity & Islam– are not interested in converting
others.
Much hue and cry is made to contrast inbuilt socialism of Islam
viz. Universal Brotherhood with ingrained fascism of Hinduism viz. caste
system. But what we are not informed is that the brotherhood of Islam is for
Muslims alone and does not include infidels/non-believers. When Muslims quote
“Killing even one innocent is equal to killing humanity” it explicitly excludes
non-Muslims from its definition of “innocent” and “humanity”. Their demarcation
of world between Land-of-Islam and Lands-to-be-Islamized is very real and
clear. Their transnational loyalty towards their brotherhood, insisting on
their non-allegiance to the nation they are residing is at the core of
Islamophobia today.
Hindus have no scriptural injunctions to convert others. Just like
the thirsty comes to a pond, the inquirer of truth will come to it and realize
it his way. Which is why, there were no religious wars in pre-Islamic India.
The wars were political in nature and the conqueror had no interest to break
temples and forcefully convert the defeated kingdom.
The Myth Of Sameness
As discussed earlier, the sameness of all religions is confined to
the spiritual domain which is personal but the differences are alive and assume
monstrous proportions where “external societal” aspects are concerned.
Hence, it is a logical fallacy to say that all religions have been
equally bad/evil as the facts do not support this assumption. Also this myth is
often being sold at the cost of Hinduism. While Hindus are urged to see
similarities with Christianity and Islam, the latter group is not subjected to
reverse inflow of Hindu ideas.
Imagine how absurd it would look if Americans say “In Lord Vishnu,
we believe” – substituting God with an Indian equivalent. How absurd will a jihadi look when he
terrorizes in the name of Buddha? And if all religions are the same how can
Church justify its role in continued conversions?
The Ideal Destination
Lastly, today we can be sure that there is no neutral or God’s
voice. In any field including humanities there is nothing like “ideal” culture,
religion, beliefs or values. They merely are the undercurrent of the prevailing
culture which is universalized to all cultures. Therefore the assumption that
prevailing western culture is the ideal destination of all cultures is highly questionable.
The Western Culture as seen today is a product of its experience in the
trajectory of history which is quite specific and unique. It fails to
understand that such categories do not fit a culture which predates it for well
above two millenniums.
We need not commit the mistake of mixing Westernization with
Modernization – China has shown us how to modernize using its own cultural
ethos and mindset without westernizing i.e. blindly imitating western culture
and transplanting their setup to ours. This artificial transplantation has
resulted in inheriting the western ills alongside our own – thereby
accumulating more problems and confusion.
We must observe that this myth of sameness is sold to Hindus
specifically to weaken their resistance while at the same time strengthening
the Christians/Muslims who insist on their exclusivist claims.
So, these differences are to be noted and appreciated. Merely
parroting some utopian concepts do not offer relief from the problems that
arise precisely because of the categories that differentiate us.
These categories need not be dissolved. They are to be respected.
In this connection, India has shown the path ahead – Unity in Diversity.
After reading all your blogs on hinduism, the myths, etc. I was wondering... What is your 'intellectual' research on religions actually for...? Ur research fails to answer the objective.. It might only create rage among those who have different faiths. U may call it my intellectual laziness but
ReplyDeleteIf we seek answers for Why were religions actually created? What could have been the main objective?, the answer is most probably to attain a meaning to life, which human beings fail to get completely, how much ever they attain materially.. So religions were created according to the situations then... We shd not forget the base that religions were created was for attaining God and not vice-versa.. And this base transcends all the religious differences. A true theist believes in 'God' and in his memory finds strength and peace, be it in the religion, out of religion, or in another religion... Why to complicate things by debating about one's religions!!
Sowjee: My focus was on "non-spiritual" side of religions in this particular post. If all religions focus on their "internal" aspects alone, then there would have been no problem to any "other people" at all.
DeleteThe problem arises, because few religions do not stop at sermonizing their followers. They actually instruct them to convert others through different means - which might range from sword to more subtle means.
This missionary zeal intrudes into the privacy of "other people" who do not believe in that particular religion or do not believe at all.
Hinduism on the contrary, doesn't have much to say about "other people". While sometimes, it does criticize few as being uncivilized, it has never taken the form of physical violence.
Even if I am a non-Hindu, I do not need to be excessively critical about it, as no Hindu will knock my door to tell me that I'm an inferior person unfit for salvation. But few others, intrude into your home and inform you that you're unfit for salvation and deserve punishment for not believing in my-God, then that person is invading my privacy - which I desist.
Sowjee:
DeleteNot all followers completely follow the religion's prescriptions fully. Yet, these prescriptions form the basis of the follower's worldview.
In core Islam it is pious to kill infidels, destroy temples etc. These, you see, are *prescribed*. So apart from "finding strength and peace", people also find prescriptions of this kind which go against the freedom of other people.
Far from complicating things, I intend to understand the behaviour of various people under spell of a religion. A Hindu will never claim monopoly on truth, never seek to forcefully convert others based on his belief on Hinduism as his religion doesn't sanction that.
On the contrary, a jehadi quotes Quran when he terrorizes people. He derives his inspiration or atleast sanction by quoting Islamic scriptures. According to him, doing that is perfectly in line with his belief and such a person is promised heaven.
The matter here is NOT spirituality, but about human rights and dignity based on the religion's worldview.