31 October 2001, 12:04am IST
Ajit Singh.
Upscale players of the game of hierology christen their yen for embracing a fad, gottbegnadet or inspired by god. god, guru, hallowed books, objects, or places happen to be the various items of their brand of religion. they can kill, maim, set ablaze, destroy, demolish, without causing a ripple in their conscience, for the sake of their so-called religion. every heinous crime becomes respectable if larded with the name of religion. the great library at alexendria was burnt down with a holy book in one hand and a burning torch in the other; the crusades were carried out to recover the holy land; and in more recent times, jim jones brought about mass suicide of 911 of his followers, as a holy duty towards the peoples temple cult, of which he was the founder priest. unfortunately, the accepted form of religion has also become a subterfuge for some sections — the worthless, the fear-ridden, the greedy and the cunning. the dregs with their limited skills and myopic grasp of the world, are always in need of a sacrosanct trademark along with a weapon to defend it, to get even with the world. it serves their inadequacy and low self-esteem very well. since they are not sure of anything, they behave menacingly and argue in terms of the absolute while a man of understanding always talks in terms of the relative. according to osho, a substantial number of humanity is composed of such fanatics because fanaticism equalises, comforts, shelters and preserves the inadequate, like an intellectual thermostat set low. there are others for whom religion, a euphemism for rites and ceremonies, is a byproduct of fear — fear of loneliness, of retribution, of the unknown. they are quite hollow from the inside. for them religion is a teddy bear to be hugged desperately for comfort, consolation and a protracted sense of security. materialist spiritualists build huge organisations and a theology and an impressive rhetoric. they convert culture into cult, spiritualism into ritualism and god into dogma. j krishnamurty has said, ‘‘religion in the accepted sense of the word, has now become a propaganda, of vested interest, with much property. we want to be entertained spiritually and so we go to the church or the temple or the mosque and that has nothing to do with our daily sorrow, confusion or hatred’’. on the contrary, sometimes these organisations work as pressure lobbies to grab sufficient clout for activities totally divorced from spirituality. do we really need to build a big organisation, a hierarchical system of spirituality and a compendium of abstruse mumbo jumbo to become religious in the true sense? says g santayana: ‘‘my religion like that of spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants of their personal interests’’. and according to albert einstein, ‘‘religion is concerned with man’s attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life and with mutual human relationship’’. seen in this light, when the first rays of the sun, from the little chink in the curtain greet us in the morning, shouldn’t we remind ourselves to return this gracious gesture with gratitude; before stamping our feet down, shouldn’t we remind ourselves of the inimitable tolerance of the earth; while filling our lungs with the crisp wintry air, of our indebtedness to it; while taking a swig of water, of the liquid notes of the bulbul ; while turning our gaze upwards, of the infinitude of the sky? if we care to be aware of the purple blush of morning, of the dew laden rose petals, of the sunshine on the sea, i think this is what religion is all about. the world outside is only an extension of the world inside. if we find ourselves closed in with hatred, misery and squalor, it is an infallible pointer to the well entrenched wasteland inside us. maybe it is time to define man not by his ability to hate but by his ability to love, not by his ability to hurt but by his ability to heal, not by his ability to destroy but by his ability to build. only an individual, that is, one not divided against oneself, can imbibe this humanising state and claim to be religious. without the stars in the sky and the sun rising behind the hills, without that woman with a child in her lap, and the man in an ancient turban passing by, without the glint of cheer in children’s eyes, there can be no religion worth the name. religion is the symbiotic relationship between man and his environs, promising a homogenised and congenial ambience.
No comments:
Post a Comment