Friday, February 15, 2013

The farce called inter-religious dialogue

The wise men of this land said "Religion is an inward step". Well, they were right indeed. Religion was treated same way in this land, not as an object which was to be flaunted outside with all unnecessary pomp. But not all the cultures were as catholic as India's in their outlook towards life.

The genesis of the concept of god

Now, where and when did all this start? When man came to Earth, he saw so much of creation. He couldn't account for all the creation that was lying around. So, he created a hypothesis : Some one "up there" should have done all this. Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev jokingly says that gods created by human beings look like bigger human beings. Likewise if buffaloes were to create god, they would create bigger buffaloes. 

Xenophanes, the Greek poet and philosopher said it the best:
Ethiopians imagine their gods as black and snub-nosed; Thracians blue-eyed and red-haired. But if horses or lions had hands, or could draw and fashion works as men do, horses would draw the gods shaped like horses and lions like lions, making the gods resemble themselves.
So, then man is not the image of god but it's just the reverse. In fact, the god and the attributes given to him/her/it tells a lot about the culture which worships him/her/it. It's another story in itself. Let's save it for another day.

Some time ago, I found this statement when i was browsing for something

Religion was born to fill gaps in our understanding of the universe. Anything we could not understand was attributed to a “god”. The criminals soon realized that Priest craft was a profitable business and soon competing religions was born and each was supported by legions of “useful idiots”. What better way to assert dominance that using threats, waging war, stealing in the name of god, committing genocide. Do you understand why we have such a messy world today?
Whoever wrote this has a point. Many religions started as political doctrines which masqueraded in the garb of 'religions'. Many others started as genuine spiritual movements and went into the hands of people who had other ulterior motives and used religion as a plank in their ploy.

Religion and Politics

If there is a genuine spiritual movement, it should and will never give a damn about the head count it has. The head count is important for the forces which want to RULE not to serve. The forces which want to rule, far from being spiritual can only be political. This is how proselytizing starts. Of course these forces invoke the name of god for all atrocious, ugly things that they do.

When competing religions fight for their share of pie around the globe, inevitably there will be conflicts among them. NO deaths are more in number than the deaths that are caused by religion. In any competitive arena, sometimes there is no other option other than to 'tolerate' the other party or to strike a deal of 'compromise'. Competitive religions which have the features of both politics and business can't be an exception to this rule. So, this farce called inter-religious dialogue begins.

If you look at the history of inter-religious dialogue especially in India, it may go as far as the times of Akbar. Much before that, there were many exchanges, debates between different schools of thought but they can't be considered as inter-religious dialogues because there were hardly any religions that India had before the predatory religions invaded India. All that India had was indigenous spiritual traditions which were not as ossified as the current religions which are beyond any change.

The most famous inter-religious dialogue which is known for most of us is the one that happened in 1893 in which Swami Vivekanda took the conference by storm. You know the rest of the story. I need not elaborate it. We can concord, it was fairly successful because India's soft power was exerted very well by Vivekananda. Apart from this one, do we hear about any other conferences? No, we don't. 

The first such conference that i witnessed was the 'dailogue' between Zakir Naik of Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) and Sri Sri Ravishankar of Art of Living. It was a travesty right from the beginning. First of all, the 'dialogue' is a part of IRF's project called "Shahada". The arabic word shahada is the declaration of "lā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh, Muḥammadun rasūlu l-Lāh" which means There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Need i say more? When someone is starting with this kind of mindset both in words and in spirit, can there be any possibility of an honest debate? Not possible, not for a minute. This one turned out to be another such farce out of which nothing fruitful emerged.

"All religions are equal"

Boy, oh boy! they said it all the day and never got bored of saying it. Among many empty-talks, this one would take the cake. This thought is not alien to the people who are born in Hindu families. They are taught all religions are same and eventually leads to the same destination, god. Well, the thought which comes out of good-will is practically wrong. Else, how on this earth can one equate an Orthodox Jain and an Orthodox Muslim or for that matter Orthodox Jainism with Orthodox Islam? That's just bull. One of my twitter friends commented the biggest dope ever sold was the thought of all religions are equal one. You know what? The dope was so attractive that many bought it. But a lie can't become truth just by the number people that adhere to it.

I think Aristotle (Some dispute it) said it the best : The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.