One for all, all for many
Sweeping statements never help a cause. They sound powerful so as to evoke emotions but are generally inaccurate. The resulting margin of inaccuracy jeopardizes what was supposed to be protected in the first place. This is precisely why religion and politics should stay separate although that’s never the case; there is not one great example of a political party anywhere on this planet that is essentially free of religious influence. The Big R and the Big P are manipulators of the highest order as they are solely driven by number game but when they join hands, they push corrosion to another level. Which is also why it’s an irony how both these entities shamelessly subscribe to blankets of victimhood.
The operative word is threat. ABC is under threat from XYZ and MNO is under threat from ABC and EFG is under threat from EFG. So on. Everybody is under threat — both real and perceived — mainly for assertive reasons. Without a threat, there’s not much to fall back on. For a hero to emerge, there has to be an anti-hero, if not a swarm of anti-heroes. In romantic novels, opposites attracts. In the real world, opposites keep one other relevant.
Politics is temporary, spirituality is forever. However, let’s, for hypothetical purposes, remove politics away from religion. Various systems of faith appeal to us but an overwhelming majority doesn’t get a choice when it comes to religion. Our parents decide for us unless we hit the age of reason — hopefully, that is — and take over the logical reins. Which again, depends on how liberal our family and the immediate society is. Religion is indeed a sticky topic. There are no shortcuts here. Still, we miss out on nuances thanks to our self-imposed ignorance. We want to pontificate, not learn. We want to judge, not understand. We want to speak, not read.
As a result, we’ve become party to fueling misunderstandings about each other on the basis of religion. This could be why we’d conveniently assume that all Muslims in the country are familiar with Urdu and/or Hinduism begins and ends with idolatry and/or all desi Christians consume alcohol. Et al. Many such arbitrary assumptions are symptoms of cultural dissonance. After all, culture precedes faith, not the other way around. In the ensuing fight between religions, culture usually suffers the most. Something we can notice with the ongoing duel between organized religions and the unorganized ones. For the former, it’s a matter of dominance. For the latter, it’s a matter of presence.
As is the case with any sort of organization, efficiency is everything. Thus, it’s entertaining to witness the advertisement of fabled words like god, salvation, heaven, paradise, etc. to ensure the number of followers continue to hit north. What’s not-so-entertaining is how deprived a person in the mix can feel like. In the name of our creator, a circus is being played out by the powerful lot, who are often more political than religious. In this battle of presumed identity, it’s worth wondering who is really winning.
It’s certainly not us.
God, maybe?
Well, who knows? Particularly when the very idea of god is ambiguous. For thousands of years, we’ve been killing each other for gods’ sake and yet we don’t know what exactly the deal is. We can only guess and our guess is as good as god’s.
Isn’t that amazing?
From whatever little I know of religion, I’ve noticed major differences between organized (Abrahamic) and and unorganized (Vedic/Dharma) religions:
- the former expects you to fear god whereas the latter expects you know/experience god — this is best accentuated by the former’s call for preparing for hell if you don’t convert and save your soul and find a spot for yourself in heaven on the Day of Judgement; the latter calls for you to commit yourself to the right path because for every action there has to be a cyclical end (moksha) and most importantly, what you do matters more than you or your body
- organized religions don’t subscribe to definite forms — Jesus seems like an exception but he expects you to submit to ONLY him thus nullifying the very notion of “forms” — besides, he is just another prophet in fellow organized religions, someone to be respected, not worshiped — whereas in Hinduism, god comes in all forms from tangible to intangible, from animistic to inanimate, from land to sky, you never know
- organized religions can’t afford to have space for atheism/agnostic principles (read: apostasy) whereas in Hinduism, you can be completely godless and yet attain the higher truth because god is merely a medium, not the ultimate criteria; this intriguing aspect is often incorrectly/lazily termed as secular when in truth, ‘secular’ doesn’t even scratch the surface
All these points are best summarized by a line I heard yesterday in a well-made trailer of a Marathi documentary: “Panduranga, tu nemka kuthe aahes?” [God, where are you indeed?]
These personal thoughts don’t make unorganized religions any better than organized ones. There is no competition anyway. At an individual level, you don’t care about the number game. You are only seeking moments of solace but the bigger picture ensures that the spiritual version of Cola War continues. Which, again, boils down to the aforeasked question. Conclusion is sorely missing in this blog post and that’s the whole point. However, one can safely state that Hinduism is an incessant search for god(s) whereas Abrahamic faiths are too certain about everything. And maybe, that’s why they are constantly growing in numbers. People, at the end of the day — although the day never ends — like to be sure about some things.
