One but different...

The Bhagavad-gita offers an interesting perspective on world religions. It explains how the various traditions all stem from a divine source, and all offer the potential of spiritual elevation. The differences between them are primarily in culture, ritual and expression, while the central principles remain universal. Since the same message was taught in different times, places and circumstances, the externals had to be adapted – essentially, old wine in new bottles. While many can resonate with such an idea, there are also students and practitioners who would find such a stance difficult to digest. How can we reconcile fundamental differences on philosophical points? How can we overlook striking contradictions in the various historical and cultural accounts? Could this be a naive ‘new age’ attempt to avoid confrontation and create ‘peace, love and unity’? Without a more detailed explanation, some may say it’s a case of politically correct, but theologically wrong. How do we rationalise differences between paths that supposedly stem from the same source?

Context – religious scriptures and statements must be understood in relation to the entire body of teachings, and also with due consideration of the social context within which they were presented. ‘Differences’ may be perceived because we adopt a one-dimensional approach; taking statements simplistically, without understanding the context, purpose and background behind them.

Emphasis – different traditions and teachers may stress different things. Our spiritual evolution requires complete refinement of character and consciousness, and different traditions may well work on different aspects of this. Thus, they may emphasise different points, but such ‘differences’ are a part of a broader harmony.

Interpretation – we understand the divine traditions through the representatives of that faith. While this is perfectly natural, the teachers do have to prove themselves as transparent via mediums, free from the propensity to insert their own ideas. ‘Differences’ may surface because we mistake human opinions as gospel truths.

Authority – any religious claims must be traceable back to the original texts. In today’s world much confusion ensues due to a lack of reference to authentic scripture and religious authority. People claim to speak for a tradition yet offer no reference point for their presentation. Thus, ‘differences’ may well be due to inaccurate and erroneous presentations.

This may provide some insight into why religious traditions are one, but simultaneously different...

Read more »

Its all in the mind

Excluding extreme cases, nobody really wants to die. Furthermore, we’d all like to live a happy life. These innate desires within us are ultimately frustrated in this world, since death and unhappiness are inevitable realities. Philosophers like Ludwig Feuerbach thus concluded that religion could be explained psychologically. According to them, if one is willing to buy into religion they can escape their deepest fears and live in blissful ignorance of their mortality and suffering. Spirituality or religion, he argues, has no solid divine grounding, but rather is just a response to drives from the unconscious mind. Just believe… and you will get what you always wanted – immortality and eternal happiness.

Over the centuries, different thinkers have reduced spirituality to something designed for the weak – people who are unable to deal with the anxieties and uncertainties of the ‘real world’. Philosophers like Freud built on such ideas which considered religion to be a childish delusion concocted by mankind. Atheism, on the other hand, was seen as a grown-up realism. The attractiveness of religion and the strength of its grip on the human mind was thus seen to be rooted in the psychological issues of the individual.

One may question, however, why the yearning for immortality and happiness is common to every entity in the universe? Instead of minimising our deepest and innermost desires to be simply imagination and wishful thinking, it may be worth exploring where such universal longings come from? Maybe such desires reveal to us something about our higher nature and self? The fact that we are thwarted in our attempts to fulfil such desires may also expose deficiencies in our worldviews and ways of living. Feuerbach and Freud may have done well to explore these questions first.

Another small point. While speaking of the unconscious mind pushing one to believe in an ‘imaginary God’, we should also consider how the unconscious mind may also push one to quickly reject God. Eliminating any spiritual element to life liberates us of ultimate responsibility, frees us to exercise full independence over our decisions and directions in life. In trying to remove God from the picture, maybe we are trying to become God ourselves - the autonomous, independent entity who is not answerable to anyone. Interesting how the human mind works.

Read more »