 |
|
|
|
Respect for other religions H.
K. Kesavan Since the purpose of religion is to show the path for a
seeker to attain inner peace and enduring happiness in one's life-time by
instilling an unshakable faith in the existence of a supreme being guiding the
affairs of human beings and Nature, one would naturally expect that it would, at the
very minimum, serve as a definite means for eliminating restrictive and hostile
emotions of every kind. But, unfortunately in practice, one finds that it has
not succeeded in putting its lofty precepts into practice as is evidenced by
the rampant hate that exists in every
sphere of life. What is more alarming is that the locus of hatred encompasses
religion also, the very institution that was meant to mitigate it. Examples of
militancy in the practice of religion can be found in all parts of the world,
so much so that clashes between civilizations are deemed as a distinct
possibility in the pursuit of
resolving political conflicts. There is a widespread feeling that some religions are more militant
than others because of the prominence they give to fundamentalism with all its
attendant proclivity for violence. On the one hand we take pride in the fact
that because of the tremendous advances made in transportation and
communication, the whole world has now become a global village, but on the
other hand, we are also cognizant of the mental distances that separate the
practitioner of one faith from another. In addition, there is also the reverse
kind of hatred on the part of atheists when they view religion as the opium of
the masses.
The question of religious toleration has been
debated throughout the ages in order to fathom
the reasons why hatred creeps
into religion at all. We find that every religion preaches universal love towards
all mankind and makes it incumbent on its devotees to practice good ethical
behaviour as a matter of duty. But we
all know that there is a wide gap between precepts and practice in this regard.
Only a critical analysis can reveal
whether there is anything in the teaching of a religion that gives room for
intolerance even indirectly. After all, respect for other religions should not
come merely as a matter of good protocol, but it should arise spontaneously out
of a deeper conviction of one’s own conceptual framework about the totality of
the truth that is taught in one’s own religion. We shall now examine some of
the possible ways in which we can reconcile the truths propounded by the
various religions. One way to avoid being fanatical about one’s own
religion is to realize that the truth taught by it cannot be asserted with
complete certainty on account of its transcendental character. There is no way
of validating the transcendental truth by methods available for the
verification of truths of the secular realm
because it is beyond the pale of
human experience. This conviction should instill a degree of healthy
skepticism about one’s own understanding of religious truths. Accordingly, they
should also serve to inject a modicum of respect for teachings of other religions which also has identical
limitations. But truly speaking, this kind of skepticism does not pass for
religious toleration. If one starts from the premise that there is uncertainty
attendant on the truths proclaimed by all religions, what one is really
suggesting is that object of
intolerance is not at all present, and so the question of religious intolerance does not really exist.
Furthermore, this attitude has the
implication that those who are certain about religious truths are, by
definition, intolerant, a conclusion which we wish to avoid. A second way of encouraging religious toleration is
to grant that there could be certainty about religious truths but they can at
best be attested by only by a few highly evolved individuals and so they need
not concern the bulk of the humanity who have neither the ability nor the
desire to reach such titanic heights. But this type of toleration, while it
concedes that it is humanly possible to attest to the certainty of religious
truths, it nevertheless minimizes the role of religion itself by denying its
universal appeal for the spiritual
advancement of every human being, which is a highly cherished egalitarian
principle. Accordingly, we have to discard this argument as legitimate grounds
for religious toleration. We shall now present the viewpoint that is
prevailing within Hinduism which serves
the purpose of promoting religious
toleration. It holds that all religions are equally valid and it is
unreasonable to question the authority of any of them or to bestow preferential
treatment for one over the other. The revealed knowledge of all religions
is divinely inspired and all of them
are known to have given spiritual solace to their adherents. Consequently,
whatever the choice of the seeker, he is sure to be following the correct path.
What is implied in this understanding is that one can realize the ultimate
truth by taking recourse to one of several approaches available to him. This is
the common bond that links all human beings. The differences that exist between
religions are attributed to differences in evolution on account of
circumstances such as age and country, and race and temperament. Such differences are, however, confined only
to the externals of a religion, namely, the rituals and modes of worship; in particular, they do not suggest
differences in their inner truths. They
are conspicuously present within Hinduism itself; the manner of worship,
say in a Ramakrishna Mission, which places more emphasis on meditative
practices, is very different from the temples where the dominant mode of
worship is through rituals and Vedic chanting. An outsider to the religion
might even wonder whether it is the same religion that the two groups are
practicing. Because of such wide differences in the practice of their own
religion, Hindus are not dismayed by the unfamiliar practices of other
religions however different they are from their own. The seed of intolerance is sown when a religion asserts that its claims are true to the exclusion of the rest. It is this ill-informed conviction about exclusivity that begets bigotry and taken to its extreme it results in religious fundamentalism that can in turn give rise to militancy. If a clash of civilizations has to be avoided, it is very necessary that we should try and eliminate the feeling of exclusivity that lies dormant in most religions. Hinduism is not a proselytizing religion because of its deep-seated conviction in non-exclusivity, and religious tolerance has characterized the mainstream of its religious thinking throughout its long history. It is this dominant force that has been able to mitigate the fringe movements that have surfaced in recent years which are based on religious intolerance. A conviction should grow that tolerance with which religious truth is pursued is as important as the pursuit of the truth itself. To quote Hiriyanna [1], no divisions are so sharp as those caused by religion and it is equally true that no unity is so strong as that following a recognition of identity in religious aim which is the supreme aim of life. Reference: 1. Hiriyanna, M., “Outlines of Indian Philosophy”, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1968
|