I kept postponing my first blog on religion because I think I am still not knowledgeable enough to talk about it and not 'mature' enough to discuss it. I still believe so, but my friend's thoughts has evoked a few opinions of mine. Before I opine, here are a few disclaimers:
I am not categorically proving anything. These are open topics and I would be glad to agree with you if it is logical.
Let me start off on a lighter note
There was once this village, where the people performed a pooja every month. Before commencing the pooja, they frenetically search for a cat and tie it to a post and then and only then they commence the pooja. This was obviously amusing to a new comer who watched the proceedings for the first time. He knew this was odd and started to investigate and found that years before (say a generation before), when the pooja was conducted, a cat made its way into the venue. Thinking that it might disrupt the proceedings, the then priest had ordered the cat to be tied up, only to be released later. And lo, this act was included in the set of procedures from then on!!
After you have laughed at the above story, let me tell you another one
There was this another village which had a beautiful pond in its capacity. The village had its own set of rules and it was forbidden to fish in the pond during the waning cycle of the moon (Full moon to no moon). It became a tradition and after generations, another new comer was curious about this rule and argued that it was a superstitious belief and there was nothing wrong in fishing all season. The villagers 'believed' so and soon started fishing on all days. And the pond became dry (of fish) because of exploitation.
Two stories, both of customs emerging from tradition. When we had full information we saw the reason behind the tradition and when we did not have that information and broke the tradition, we paid for it. These were simple and straightforward cases. So, we could cheat and look at the solution. What about not so obvious cases? Can butterfly effect be ruled out?
And here starts my actual blog on religion
Religion to me is based on 'belief'. And this makes it abstract and makes it difficult to explain. And this is why even extremists are able to defend their extreme views. Because they 'believe' so. Why does it make it difficult to explain? Because, you don't know where to draw the line. If you believe in one step, somebody believes in 2 steps and it becomes 'complicated'. If you ask him to reason out why he believes in that extra step, it will not take much time for him to retort by asking you the same thing (Why did you believe in Step 1?). If religion is based on belief, philosophy, I would say, is based on leaders. Dwaita, Adwaita, Vishtadvaita all came about because of leaders who could think beyond a common man can. Based on debates one won over the other. There was only one winner at one instance and it was the leader who won and not the philosophy.
And as soon as I start, I realize it is becoming too big both to my comfort and your comfort. So, let me quickly answer some questions by my friend and continue the discussion 'later' :)
1. Why Abishekams (ceremonial bathing of 'God')?
Though I am not in favor of abishekams because of 'my' belief system, I would still not condemn this. Abishekams were more justifiable centuries ago when there were lavish resources. If literature evidence was to go by, a few centuries ago there was no concept of donation as there was no one seeking for a donation (now a days there is no one to give!). But why don't I condemn Abishekams today when there is shortage of resources? I see abishekam as an act of indulgence by the person who arranges it. And my question to you is don't we indulge? Right from ice cream to other 'wasteful' food to vacation time, entertainment etc etc? Why don't we donate this to the poor and live with the basic necessites? Because we want to be 'happy'. Any idea how much milk the restaurants, the cafetaria, retailers waste every day? A trivial portion of the abishekam, I would say. If that indulgence is ok, then we don't have the right to complain about Abishekams. We feel happy in our indulgence and they feel happy in theirs. If only all parties realize what they are doing, we would at least transcend one 'yuga' before. Alas, the world is not ideal. That is why, though I would not approve of it, I don't have the right to complain.
Why on a 'stone'? If you believe in God (Step 1), then you cannot question the one who believes God is in the 'stone' (2 steps). Where do you draw the line? It is 'his' belief.
2. Sat Sangh - Men and Women separated to not 'distract' each other
All my answers revolve around the belief system. The question here was if you want to link with God's message, why can't you control your emotions? Why should you be separated from the other sex? Haha, if only everybody had control over their minds. Let's take an example of a person trying to be on a diet. Will you test him by keeping his favorite foodies on the table and ask him to stay away or help him by keeping things away? Yes, control even when opportunities exist is the ultimate goal. But, to reach there it takes time and I would not blame small steps towards the goal. Is physical separation enough? Nope, but baby steps are a good beginning and they 'believe' so.
3. Disrespecting 'fertility'
Our elders had the most respect and concern for women who were in their menstrual cycle. But, sadly I think it was twisted like the cat story. They did not want them to suffer and helped them to take complete rest. So, out of kitchen, need not say prayers (or mantras) aloud, and not even undergo the pain of going to a temple. Just be at home, take complete rest and do whatever they feel like. And this I think has been misinterpreted now as a sign of stripping women off their power. What was a good old tradition, became a customary ritual that is sadly bordering on ridiculing.
So, to summarize though personally I am not for 1,2 and 3 and in fact vehemently against 3, because of 'my' belief system, I would not complain about 1 and 2 as they are relatively 'harmless', when you take it to non-religious extensions. Someone else will come and say, even 3 was acceptable to him for which I will keep arguing (endless). Any 'belief' as long as it does not directly hurt anybody is personally ok with me and that is my belief system. Or may be I should say (being an MBA) 'it depends' :P
Bonus question - Is Hinduism an example of polytheism (more than 1 God)
An often repeated question. And a simple answer is there is nothing called Hinduism which is an artificial terminology (more on this later or you can 'google'/'wiki'). Each one's religion is monotheistic and Vedas say "Ekam sath vipraaha bahudha vadanthi". There is one truth, which the learned call by multiple names. Freedom of choice has been misinterpreted as confused plurality. I can write a separate article on this.. May be some other time..
Comments most welcome.. Hope I did not hurt anybody.. Credits to all the intellectual discussions I have had with so many friends and relatives in my life.
