Skip to main content

The Myth Of Similarities Between Different Religions


“Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.” ~ David Hume

In a rapidly modernizing world it is argued that cultural differences worldwide need to be ironed for a strife-free and rational global society. Religion – being the “opium of masses” has been a fertile ground for sowing hatred and is responsible for consequent bloodshed. Realizing that religion will not simply vanish from the face of earth overnight, the myth of all sameness of all religions has been purposefully built so that people understand that “In essence, all religions teach the same” or “All religions are equally bad”.

Though an oversimplification, this is more or less true of the two important religions of the world – Christianity and Islam. Both have their own history of brutality and going overboard and committing excesses in their zeal to convert others to their faith.

Yet, euphemism shouldn’t constrain us from exploring what might be politically incorrect but true nonetheless. Let us begin by examining the categories that constitute a religion.

What constitutes Religion?

A religion consists of two broad categories – spiritual and societal.

The spiritual category contains the core philosophy of religion, ethics, moral instructions, and truisms and so on. They are best experienced mostly by insiders though others might still appreciate it.

The societal aspect contains two sub-categories: internal society and external society. Internal society is the advice/instructions given by the scriptures that are to be followed by the adherents of the religion.

But what constitutes the most defining aspect of any religion is its take on “external society”. All the so-called similarities are confined to spiritual domain. Few similarities might exist in internal society injunctions. But the differences are most stark and the myth of similarity stands debunked when the “external society” aspect is analyzed. Ironically, this is the most important factor in any religion as this defines its philosophical maturity and its tolerance of “others”.

When compared with Hinduism, it is clear that there is something different in the theology of Christians/Muslims that drive them in pursuit of conversions. There is something amiss in the self-containment and composure of a Hindu mind compared with the missionary zeal that embodies passionate Christians/Muslims.

Examples

For example, though Judaism is the first Semitic religion which inspired Christianity and Islam, their God did not ask its followers to wage a war against the infidels (non-believers). Jews and Christians share common ancestry and similar philosophy (agreed that there are sharp and irreconcilable differences too and there is a history of Jewish prosecution but they operate in similar framework when compared to Indic religions/pagans). Yet, what essentially differentiates them is the “external societal” aspect. Christians are scripturally inspired to evangelize and help others see their truth. Likewise, Muslims are duty-bound to use any means on “others” and forcefully convert them. Jews – whatever their personal beliefs which are actually quite comparable to Christianity & Islam– are not interested in converting others.

Much hue and cry is made to contrast inbuilt socialism of Islam viz. Universal Brotherhood with ingrained fascism of Hinduism viz. caste system. But what we are not informed is that the brotherhood of Islam is for Muslims alone and does not include infidels/non-believers. When Muslims quote “Killing even one innocent is equal to killing humanity” it explicitly excludes non-Muslims from its definition of “innocent” and “humanity”. Their demarcation of world between Land-of-Islam and Lands-to-be-Islamized is very real and clear. Their transnational loyalty towards their brotherhood, insisting on their non-allegiance to the nation they are residing is at the core of Islamophobia today.

Hindus have no scriptural injunctions to convert others. Just like the thirsty comes to a pond, the inquirer of truth will come to it and realize it his way. Which is why, there were no religious wars in pre-Islamic India. The wars were political in nature and the conqueror had no interest to break temples and forcefully convert the defeated kingdom.  


The Myth Of Sameness

As discussed earlier, the sameness of all religions is confined to the spiritual domain which is personal but the differences are alive and assume monstrous proportions where “external societal” aspects are concerned.

Hence, it is a logical fallacy to say that all religions have been equally bad/evil as the facts do not support this assumption. Also this myth is often being sold at the cost of Hinduism. While Hindus are urged to see similarities with Christianity and Islam, the latter group is not subjected to reverse inflow of Hindu ideas.

When Hindus persist on their cultural distinctness, they’re often labeled fundamentalist. Yet, the categories of Western civilization and Christian ethos are not being dissolved – they are in fact growing stronger. Naïve Indians often argue that Christianity is in decline in West while overlooking that the pillars which support Western Civilization are still Christian. While the role of Church is decidedly in decline, more and more people are engaged in home based prayer groups that do not necessarily have any formal membership to any church. So Christianity as a whole is not losing its members though it is to be admitted that they do not accept miracles/irrational claims. Few people go even to the extent of being agnostic of Jesus’ historicity and still accept Christianity.

Imagine how absurd it would look if Americans say “In Lord Vishnu, we believe” – substituting God with an Indian equivalent. How absurd will a jihadi look when he terrorizes in the name of Buddha? And if all religions are the same how can Church justify its role in continued conversions?

The Ideal Destination

Lastly, today we can be sure that there is no neutral or God’s voice. In any field including humanities there is nothing like “ideal” culture, religion, beliefs or values. They merely are the undercurrent of the prevailing culture which is universalized to all cultures. Therefore the assumption that prevailing western culture is the ideal destination of all cultures is highly questionable. The Western Culture as seen today is a product of its experience in the trajectory of history which is quite specific and unique. It fails to understand that such categories do not fit a culture which predates it for well above two millenniums.

We need not commit the mistake of mixing Westernization with Modernization – China has shown us how to modernize using its own cultural ethos and mindset without westernizing i.e. blindly imitating western culture and transplanting their setup to ours. This artificial transplantation has resulted in inheriting the western ills alongside our own – thereby accumulating more problems and confusion.

We must observe that this myth of sameness is sold to Hindus specifically to weaken their resistance while at the same time strengthening the Christians/Muslims who insist on their exclusivist claims.

So, these differences are to be noted and appreciated. Merely parroting some utopian concepts do not offer relief from the problems that arise precisely because of the categories that differentiate us.

These categories need not be dissolved. They are to be respected. In this connection, India has shown the path ahead – Unity in Diversity.


Comments

  1. After reading all your blogs on hinduism, the myths, etc. I was wondering... What is your 'intellectual' research on religions actually for...? Ur research fails to answer the objective.. It might only create rage among those who have different faiths. U may call it my intellectual laziness but
    If we seek answers for Why were religions actually created? What could have been the main objective?, the answer is most probably to attain a meaning to life, which human beings fail to get completely, how much ever they attain materially.. So religions were created according to the situations then... We shd not forget the base that religions were created was for attaining God and not vice-versa.. And this base transcends all the religious differences. A true theist believes in 'God' and in his memory finds strength and peace, be it in the religion, out of religion, or in another religion... Why to complicate things by debating about one's religions!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sowjee: My focus was on "non-spiritual" side of religions in this particular post. If all religions focus on their "internal" aspects alone, then there would have been no problem to any "other people" at all.

      The problem arises, because few religions do not stop at sermonizing their followers. They actually instruct them to convert others through different means - which might range from sword to more subtle means.

      This missionary zeal intrudes into the privacy of "other people" who do not believe in that particular religion or do not believe at all.

      Hinduism on the contrary, doesn't have much to say about "other people". While sometimes, it does criticize few as being uncivilized, it has never taken the form of physical violence.

      Even if I am a non-Hindu, I do not need to be excessively critical about it, as no Hindu will knock my door to tell me that I'm an inferior person unfit for salvation. But few others, intrude into your home and inform you that you're unfit for salvation and deserve punishment for not believing in my-God, then that person is invading my privacy - which I desist.

      Delete
    2. Sowjee:

      Not all followers completely follow the religion's prescriptions fully. Yet, these prescriptions form the basis of the follower's worldview.

      In core Islam it is pious to kill infidels, destroy temples etc. These, you see, are *prescribed*. So apart from "finding strength and peace", people also find prescriptions of this kind which go against the freedom of other people.

      Far from complicating things, I intend to understand the behaviour of various people under spell of a religion. A Hindu will never claim monopoly on truth, never seek to forcefully convert others based on his belief on Hinduism as his religion doesn't sanction that.

      On the contrary, a jehadi quotes Quran when he terrorizes people. He derives his inspiration or atleast sanction by quoting Islamic scriptures. According to him, doing that is perfectly in line with his belief and such a person is promised heaven.

      The matter here is NOT spirituality, but about human rights and dignity based on the religion's worldview.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The concept of Dharma in Ramayana

The concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable?
Few words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short of fully grasping the essence of Dharma.
Every language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose thei…

How Linguistic States strengthened Indian Unity

Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata
[It asks the king to preserve and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.]
Unification of Germany and Italy populated by similar people was achieved by huge armies spanning across decades. In sharp contrast, India under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel managed to unite a much larger area divided by culture & languages within few years.
The European experience where new nations were carved over little differences in identity, made the Indian experiment appear poised for a breakup sooner than later. Yet, India managed to stay united though the journey wa…

Chetan Bhagat : His Literary Style and Criticism

Chetan Bhagat’s (CB) recent column created a furore, chiefly because of his audacity to speak for Muslim community and what many people conflate with his support for Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.  
But what interested me most - and what this post would focus on - is questioning of his literary merit (or lack of it). Many journalists ridicule CB’s style of writing and his oversimplistic portrayals of characters sans nuance or sophistication. But I suspect this has more to do with the fact that his readers alone far outnumber the combined readers of many journalists - a point that many don’t appear capable of digesting.
No takers for layman’s language!
When Tulsidas rewrote Ramayana in Avadhi (a local contemporary dialect then), many conservative sections of society came down heavily upon him for defiling the sanctity of a much revered epic (originally written in Sanskrit). When Quran was first translated in Urdu (by Shah Abdul Qadir in 1798), it faced intense opposition by …