At the level of ritual and practice, there are numerous
differences among the various faiths. Even at the
highest philosophical and spiritual levels, although
the element of commonality and similarity of concepts
and experiences is much larger, we cannot call it
absolute unanimity. Any attempt to unite the adherents
of different religions by providing proofs that they
are saying the same things is doomed to failure.
A much more productive enterprise would be to recognize
the basic fact that there are differences among the
religions that cannot be wished away, that there are
diverse ways of reaching the divine and then not merely
accept the diversity as an inevitable and incurable
evil, but to celebrate diversity as prooving the infinitness
of existence and the exuberance of creativity.
Government seems to believe that values can be taught
in the schools. Some of the faiths also apparently
think the same. The fact of the matter, however, is
that values are taught in the schools run by the Ramakrishna
Mission or the Sathya Sai Organization not because
some lectures on values are delivered in the classroom,
but because there is a pervasive culture of values
in such institutions and the students are affected
more by that atmosphere rather than by any bookish
knowledge.
Dr. Chibber referred to the goal of a global civilization.
This is not universily acceptable. Many of us feel
that globalization is a pernicious phenomenon, which
is destroying local cultures that are precious in
themselves. We consider small to be beautiful.
When
we come to the individual values, we find that there
is nothing absolute or sacrosanct about them. The
Buddha taught us that there was no such thing as the
absolute truth. All truth, howsoever deep or profound
it may appear to be, is in reality relative. Its validity
varies according to the time, place and person.
Righteous
conduct is again an area in which there are many variations
among the beliefs helds by different faiths. Rather
than trying to gloss over the differences it would
be much more sensible to learn all the rules of good
conduct and then let the teachings of one faith enrich
the doctrines of all other faiths.
When
Swmai talks of love, he is not speaking mundane love,
of the kind that a man feels for a women. His idea
is closer to the buddhist concept of karuna which
mean compassion. Love, inorder to be divine has to
be unselfish, not confined to an individual or small
group. It should have huge spaces in it, of empathy
and brotherhood for all.
The
values of Peace is often taken as referring to a calm,
relaxed and detached mind. While it is all this, it
should mean something more than a soothing state of
mind. We should be concerned enough to feel the agitation
on account of another persons suffering. That agitation
should create a strong enough impulse for engaged
action so as to be of help.
Again
while Buddha and Gandhi and others have extolled the
virtous of non-violence, they all recognize that there
are circumstances which impel you to violence, because
violence is the lesser evil, because violence is the
only way truth can be served.
All
this is being said not to imply that we should not
promote values but to indicate that we cannot triverse
a simplistic part. We have to recognize the inherit
complexities of life and bare them in mind.
The
interesting point about Buddha is that he never claim
to be anything other than an ordinary human being.
He never declared himself to be an incarnation, son
or messenger of God. He did admit that he had had
the peak experience of enlightenment, when the truth
about life became clear to him. But he did not describe
it to anything special in himself. He said that whatever
he has experienced was available to everyone else.
In that sense, we are all potential Buddhas.
What
he understood of life was not anything esoteric, misterious
or mystic. He merely grasp that the chief problem
of human beings in this world was that there was suffering.
He explored the causes of that suffering and then
devised a path by which the suffering could be assuaged.
His ethics was derived out of his attempt to overcome
human suffering. The ethics was not divinely inspired
nor was it born out of this peak experience. It was,
therefore, flexible to change with the times.
The
Dalai Lama said in some many words that Buddhism would
never accept anything that is opposed to the finding
of science. He has gone to the extent of saying if
anything propogated by Buddhism is declared to be
opposed to the findings of science, Buddhism will
immediately jettison it. This freedom is not available
to many religions which believe that there edicits
are divinely inspired or prescribed by special individuals
who had somekind of mandate to lay down the laws.
Most faiths, therefore, feel locked in because of
there tenants.
It
is interesting to note this kind of faith in what
the Masters said specially in the light of the fact
that all of them have been oral faiths. The sayings
of the Masters have been a part of an oral tradition
before these were penned down. Even later, there have
been intercolations, accretions and changes in the
original doctrines. That they should today be treated
as immutable or unchangeable is somewhat strange.
The
fundamental basis for the tenants of Buddhism is the
demonstrable fact that there is interconnectedness
and interdependence in nature and life. All beings
are equal and have an equal right to be happy. From
these fundamental postulates everything else emanates
as a necessary corollary. It straightway leads to
the premise of mutuality of respect among all beings.
The
goal is Nirvana and ethical concerned for others is
a matter of self-discipline on that path. There is
also the ideal of the bodhisattva who deliberately
refrains from enjoying the fruit of enlightenment
till all others are released from the shattels of
suffering. This self-abnagation is not confined to
the Buddhists alone. The idea is that the bodhisattva
will wait till all sentient beings attained
Nirvana.
