RELIGION (1999)

RELIGION

It would probably seem awkward to hear someone counter the very concept of religion. Nevertheless, I do it considering the way it is prevalent in today’s societies. So I write not against any particular religion but against the very concept of it. I also bow in reverence to god whenever I pass by a temple, church, masjid, gurudwara etc. Tonight though, I am attempting as neutral a viewpoint as I can.

Religion has been a source of strength and inspiration to the followers, a healing balm in times of pain and agony. So often, it has brought people together. And, it continues to do so. Now if we delve into a bit of history not many would disagree that every time religion binds somewhere it divides somewhere else. The reason I believe so is that every particular religion creates duality in life. I guess most people are so deeply taken in by ‘Their Own Religion’ that they would not think of speaking against religion as a whole though they may to whatever extent disagree with all religions other than their own.

Two aspects should define a religion. Firstly, it is a system of faith and worship and secondly from it arise certain norms that form basic guidelines that people accept in their lifestyles. Lets attempt a comparative understanding of the whole issue starting with the start point in any religion. There is something common about all religions in that they all speak of a supernatural being (GOD) and propagate their own theories of the evolution of the universe. THE WORLD IS ONE. As if the separate religions weren’t sufficient to create a difference of opinion thereby dividing people in thought at least, some so called great men (priests), from time to time have emerged to make Protestants and Catholics for the Christians, Shias and Sunnis for the Muslims and for the Hindus the list seems endless. Every man with a small bell in hand (and incomplete knowledge) feels that he has the right to decide what blasphemy is. To that extent, the lesser said the better. The argument in favour remains that the Hindus are more religious which sounds absurd to analysis. Just take the example of Jainism. It is probably a difficult- to-understand coincidence that there hasn’t been a Hindu priest speaking vehemently against the Digambara lifestyle. However, the day may not be very far when such a lifestyle attracts the outrage of the RSS or the MNS chief or even maybe a Buddhist monk unable to concentrate on his meditation at the sight of a ‘Digambara Menaka’. I guess it was for this reason that Jiddu refused to accept disciples.

Anyway, often there is the talk of basic similarity in all religions the world over. Are all religions the same? They all believe in God and also that God is one. Many say that the different religions are the different ways of worshipping God, by different names. If so, then how is it that the same god preaches one thing to one person and another thing to another? If God is one then all the holy books should say the same thing. The argument that different times require different preaching may be acceptable to justify the differences but not fully. It is interesting to note that in all cases it is God’s message that has been conveyed through the holy books. Whether or not these are the words of God is debatable. In any case, the Hindu religion would say that God the Supreme Being is formless. So in effect, it is the messengers of God conveying to us through the scriptures/holy books. All these messengers of god, it is interesting to note have believed that they could decide the rights and the wrongs and in most cases punish the offenders (Christianity comes across as an exception). Muslims talk of Jihad. Now firstly the true meaning of this may also be considered debatable but it surely is being grossly misunderstood if we are to see anti- humanitarian acts being done by a few Muslims in many parts of the world. I am not saying that the messenger of God as per the Muslims would have said something wrong. I only want someone to take the responsibility for the way people are being misled into such heinous crimes in the name of religion. Did Prophet Muhammed want to make Islam the only religion? I cannot believe that. I guess we are missing something here. The Hindus find killing animals a sin whereas, this is acceptable to Christians and Muslims. But wait! Even the Hindus find killing acceptable if it is done as a sacrifice. Now whether or not such rituals were the original preaching (what is original and what duplicate anyway) is also not certain. One thing is certain though. To kill any form of life is incorrect least of all for some sacrifice aimed at providing personal gains. We find all religions differing in their own way and creating a divide in their own way. The Prophets may say that all these can coexist. If so who should be entrusted the responsibility of maintaining it that way? Who would take responsibility for any breaches in the peaceful coexistence of all religions side by side? Moreover, such a thought sounds too idealistic for the practical man to accept. Forget all talk of people trying to control their inner selves into not letting any negativity arise, the fact remains that we relate more closely to those that have something in common with us be it caste, creed, colour, sect…..anything. This human tendency has always caused religious disharmony. So, how does one prevent religious disharmony? Either fight the natural human tendency or eliminate the causes for the difference of opinion and disharmony. In today’s world, neither seems possible.

Whenever any one person tries to propagate his views the peaceful preaching has limited life. More often than not, his followers form a kind of group. At some point of time or the other, these views meet with conflicting ones of some other person and then the inevitable happens. So, whereas the bishops may continue to say that the aim of all religions is the same, I can’t help but oppose mass propagation of any one of them. All religions in due course of time lead to a kind of groupism. Each has its own set boundaries of dos and donts that cannot be compromised with. Muslims find polygamy acceptable, the Hindus oppose it and the Tibetans find polyandry acceptable. Which is right and if an orphan were to follow a lifestyle which one should it be? Nobody knows. The more strongly one follows a religion (the set of dos and donts) the closer the person moves towards fanaticism. The greatest thing that goes against religion is that almost in all cases it is a forced belief. Religion is by chance since one's birth decides it. If my Hindu parents taught me to eat ‘Halaal ka meat’ right from childbirth would I have not accepted it?
There has long been a tussle between science and religion as to which is worthy of greater respect. Not all religions can be simultaneously right since they differ somewhere or the other. Truth is universal, truth is one and there is something scientific about truth in that it has to be absolute. Subjectivity in truth is something the sane would find difficult to acknowledge. Truth is absolute and truth is one. So should be religion if it were the truth. Science is also in search of the undiscovered truth. Presently though the answers to most of our basic queries on existence of life, its purpose etc is being found in religion. However, given the present scenario in the world I would rather hold science ahead of religion than fall prey to following one religion while disregarding the other. I don’t wish to say that religion is in any way bad. Nor do I wish see the bishops/ priests lose their jobs/ respect and livelihood. However, will any of these people take individual or collective responsibility for the incessant bloodshed that continues in the name of religion? All religions maybe logical and right in their own way but since they cannot be applied universally it would be better if people did some serious introspection on the subject.

Life can be so simple and yet so complex. Just a child always likes one parent more than the other (when we grow up we learn to be diplomatic in making such choices), life also holds one thing ahead of the other. No two aspects of life can be equally important especially when we speak of absolutes. The one ahead is closer to truth and is the righteous. In the search for the absolute truth science may continue to remain behind religion but for the present we would be wiser to accept the practical and objective way of life and I feel if humanity were to be the only religion the world would be a better place to live in.
IF JOHN LENNON COULD IMAGINE SO CAN WE!