1857-What Really Happened-A Reconstruction

#64 Eklavya :
Assimilation of Gods was in the reference of India, while responding to Anil. Where it has been historical tradition, at least since Aryans. Jeus– ,Indra and the whole pantheon of Gods of Aryans were adopted by Dravidians in south India. Aryans of N. India adopted Shiva, Kali etc. of south India. Even Gandhi used magic religious formulae accepted by Indians – ‘Ishwar Allah Tero nam, Sabko sanmati dey Bhagwan’ ( and not Bhagwans).

In India with huge cultivable tracts of land, neighbours did not have to fight for resources and tried to come to terms each others faiths.

However, uou’re right about religions born in Mediterranean basin. The desert, a resources scarce region, had moving tribes where competition for resources was fierce. Only those who played the card of exclusivity, fidelity to the tribe, succeeded. Religion – a civil code, also suffered the same fate. It had to be an exclusive identity. Mohammad spent his life fighting.

Today while a Hindu will go and pray at a Dargah without any reservations. No Muslim or Christian will ever dare ask favour of a Hindu god without suffering excommunication.

Religion is an Abrahmic concept. When confronted by it, a Hindi word - ‘Dharma’ was found as it comes closest but this means duty and not affiliation to any particular set of civil laws. This is the same thing about the word ‘Hindu’. You never find it in any Indian scripture (I don’t dare call it Hindu scritpure as those who wrote them won’t even understand it). BTW, same is true in China. This is contrary to Islam or Muslim, which are repeatedly claimed as religion and the identity of the believers in Quran. The same goes for Christianity or Judaism.

Now a ‘faith’ is true or not, let us apply some basic ground rules
- What faith teaches is absolute truth and can’t be demonstrated as wrong (and not allegorically)!!
Can we find one such religious enunciation (including Buddhism which comes closest to rationality). All offer speculations with many things right but also many things found blatantly wrong since they were founded.

- What religion teaches can be considered allegorically truth and will help in founding a more balanced society!!
Here we’re starting with a set of vales, which are generally found to be good socially, and trying to find them in the religious enunciations. But if we already have them, what do we need the religion for. Especially when it requires great intellectual effort and often leads to adjustment of conveniences and misuses.

- Faithfuls are better fits in society!!
If that was really the case, why more religious societies like S. Arabia or even India or Pakistan need such a harsh civil code.

- If all population was strict Muslim or Christian or .., the society will run better!!!
It is possible if everybody behaves like robots with same set of rules. Life style defined by one person- a mullah and not even many mullahs. Stop thinking; no science, no invention, no more intelligent speculation. Of course this is a sure guarantee of having a new prophet coming up and challenging the system.

regard, in reference to your last para, a society of faithfuls is not a society of robots devoid of all variety, creativity, and innovation.

And faith can be quite reasonable, although it is not, in the least, based on reason. That's why dharma and faith are two very different things.

Anyways, it is sheer criminal neglect to compel/seduce/induce large numbers of faithless (or dharmic) and faithful people to live together, or to let them live together without honestly educating them about each other.

trail