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.

If Buddha was born in Saudi Arabia!

Just imagine! A rebel like Buddha having born in Saudi Arabia post 622 A.D! Being a rebel doesn’t mean that one has to go against the establishment through an armed rebellion or though violence. One can go bereft of them as well. Buddha proved to the world it can be done.

At the time when Buddha got enlightened (he never claimed that he was the chosen one as some later sectarian prophets did), the great spiritual truths were not accessible to common public. It was in the besieged castle of the priestly class. The first thing Buddha did was that he made them available for the public. Sanskrit was a priestly language even then. Prakrit was the common language of the people. So, he preached to the people in Prakrit. Buddha never had any intention of starting a religion but later it was nevertheless started in his name. As they say if Christ and Buddha come back now and see what’s being done in their name they will be crying seeing the ignorance of people. 

Buddha was against established believes, dogmas, doctrines of his day. He declared there was no god. That was a big blow for the established religion of the time. He said ‘Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.’ They said everything was ‘atman’ (the soul). Buddha declared all are ‘anatman’ (no-soul). There was no god, no soul. That was a death blow for the religion of his time because most of the doctrines were banked on these two concepts. Still, people did not kill him. They invited him for debates and knowledge was expounded. They worshiped him as god incarnate though he mocked at their customs and belief systems. 

If Buddha was born in some Arab nation and if he was vociferous enough to declare there was no god and if he had mocked at their belief in prophet-hood, we would never have known who the Buddha was because he would have been killed. It requires a great maturity to listen to the critics and counter-argument to the established belief system. Indians always had that maturity. Take Jesus Christ for example. He did not tell any revolutionary truths in the beginning at all. He said some simple truths for common people. But people saw him as a threat to their established religion and they exterminated him. If Jesus had been born in India he would have been worshipped as the god incarnate.

India’s religion was never organized. It had many systems and sub-systems. So, it gave a great freedom like no-where else. One could believe in god, one could believe in no-god, one could believe in nothing and still be a Hindu (though the word ‘Hindu’ was coined much later than the time of Buddha). There were idol worshippers, there were advaitins (who believed in the self and god are the same), there were charvakas (downright materialists who believed in nothing they could not see and for whom sensual enjoyment was everything).There was no action which was considered sacrilegious. In fact, in most of the Indian languages there is no exact word which matches with the meaning of the word sacrilege or blasphemy because the freedom given was such that there was no act which was blasphemous in this nation.

The Indian culture had an incredible assimilation power which was unprecedented. If anyone looks at the ethnicity of Indian population, there is all possible kind of races, religions in this country and all are assimilated so well. Swami Vivekananda while delivering the speech in the World's Parliament of Religions in Chicago said “I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to Southern India and took refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was shattered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the grand Zoroastrian nation.” That’s the uniqueness and strength of this culture. The very factor that this culture is living despite of various severe assaults from different people starting from Alexander to the Muslim invaders to the British is a testimony to the fact.

There have been many great civilizations but the Indian civilization is the only civilization which has not withered away with time. There should be something immense in this civilization which has made it to stand the test of time. Tolerance to other people and assimilation power are natural traits of Indian culture. So, if anyone comes to me and say Hindus have to learn tolerance, I just throw him a smile and with all contempt possible I’ll say ‘buddy! You don’t know what you are talking about’!!

My Books Review: June '11

1) My India- The India Eternal: This book is a collection of exhortations by none other than Swami Vivekananda. From the past few days my mind is completely occupied from Vivekananda. That is what Swami Vivekananda's literature does to anyone. So powerful are the words that come from him that if taken with the right spirit, they have the ability to change the very core of the person and put him into action. No wonder he was able to inspire millions of youths for many generations and he continues to inspire even now. 

The book dwells on the glory of our past, the possibility of the future and as Indians our duties, the value of education, problems of women, the way to national integration. Any Indian even with zero patriotism if reads this book, will definitely be not the same as before. Some amount of love for the country, its heritage, its culture, its tradition, the spiritual giants it has produced time and again, would definitely be instilled.

2) Emotional Intelligence: Probably the first book to introduce that there is something called as emotional intelligence to a wide audience. The author of the book is Daniel Goleman. The book talks about the nature of the brain, especially the part that controls emotions, different kinds of emotions, the relevance of emotions to one’s development as an individual and also to socialize and the possible cures for emotional aberrations. The author argues how EQ (emotional quotient) is more important than IQ (Intelligent Quotient). The book is very well written, the use of language is lucid and it is easily one of the best books I've ever read.