|
|
|
Martin wrote on 25 January, 2015:
In the past weeks when the discussion on Islam and Islamism was erupting once again in the Western world I was wondering what you make of this. For me this was a wake-up-call. It showed us that we can't ignore politics anymore. Because that's what exactly we do in Western Europe and especially in Germany nowadays. As long as our economy is running hot on all cylinders people don't seem to bother where we are headed for as a society. And the politicians representing our government are smart: Instead of "educating" people in telling them what their rights and their duties are in a liberal society, they opportunistically follow whatever the majority of the voters seem to think and want. One very good example was the Fukushima catastrophe a few years ago. Angela Merkel's cabinet had just decided that Germany's nuclear plants would continue to operate for the forseeable future. But then Fukushima happened and she immediately took the Green Party's programme on changing Germany's energy supply through alternative energy sources and made it her own.
There is no "right", "centre", or "left" anymore --- ok, apart from some small parties at the fringes. The two large parties, the Christian Democracts and the Social Democracts, but also the Green Party, they are all "Social Democratic" in one way or another. And those three cover about 85 percent of the voter base. Now the question is: How will we be able to start a fruitful political discourse if there are no grave differences among the contenders anymore?
And the need for this kind of discourse can't be more urgent than right now. We are confronted with a very complex situation, which is asking for a lot of philosophical and theoretical knowledge and thinking from us. It's about recalibrating our common beliefs. We have to move out of our comfort zones: that's always a hard thing to do. But this process is necessary because it will decide who we will be in the 21st century and how we are going to be seen in the rest of the world. Too many people go the easy way by arguing: "Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental rights that has established and developed an open and tolerant democratic society in Europe. It provides and protects the rights of each individual to participate in public debate. "
Thus, artists, journalists, and intellectuals have the right to criticize, argue, and express their opinions upon society, the government, and others." Of course that's true --- in fact it's a given. A society without freedom of speech would not be a democracy, and resistance to injustice or oppression would be impossible. However, at least I believe that there are certain limits to the freedom of expression, which should also be respected. One of these limits concerns the religion of others, which is protected by the freedom of religion. And this [is] where it gets difficult. How can you ingrain something like decency into a secular society which is more and more about ones rights than its duties? How can you convince people that not everything which can be done also should be done? For example: Do you really have to come out with a new edition of this French satire magazine right after the Paris killings and again make fun of Mohammed?
Kushagra wrote on 26 January, 2015:
The difference between politics and religion in Europe has always been very tenuous. Further, the term religion historically has had a different connotation and meaning than in say China and India. The term religion, as understood today in Europe, is an aggregate of a few elements: one is ceremonial, one is that of general conduct, one is of doctrine & dogma, and one what for lack of better word is termed spiritual, which is related to how one's mind and being feels when one has fully penetrated the doctrine and the dogma.
Christianity, the dominant religion of Europe started of as a simple creed of aiming for the spirital. It was dogmatic and authoritative as are all creeds that are rooted in a central figure (ike Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism). However, the earlier messages of the Bible (if they can be [clearly] separated) will surely hint at the paradoxical message of detachment but with universal compassion. The Roman Catholic Church was a majorly successful attempt at adding ceremonial and dogmatic behavioural layers to what was otherwise simple but beautiful in essence. This is where religion changes its meaning and starts acquiring a political hue. After this "institutionalization" has been completed under a mono-lithic and dominating body [at least, as would appear from outside], politics and religion are hard to tell apart. Hence, it is no curiosity that the need to invent the term "secular" and to separate the temporal from the spiritual is felt most in Europe.
As a constrast, in India, Hinduism [as understood in its modern usage] has had no dominant figure. As a result of which, it is itself an aggregation of multiple [doctrines] that can all veer in different directions but seem to agree on only one thing: that religion is equal to the spiritual [of course there is considerably leeway on how the term 'spiritual' is defined]. Rest of the elements can be given the name religion but they really do not constitute the term 'religion' per se. As a result, [as per our modern understanding of] traditional ways, the mixing of religion and politics never happened in India in the manner in which it did in Europe. The term "secular" in India still evokes a curiosity, and in post-colonial India, a hostile reaction because it was always assumed that the State has no business of being in religion, and, equally importantly, a priest has no business trying to become a king, or to play power-politics.
One should be clear: this is not how history has always played out in India. [Indeed, it could be argued that the feudal history in India has certain elements of similarity with that of Europe, especially behavioural aspects]. But it [the belief of keeping religion and politics separate] is a firmly entrenched belief in the collective unconscious of the average Indian pysche. However, since late 19th and early 20th century this belief started changing and moving more towards the European understanding of religion: a result of the nationalist movement in India: to develop a point of reference around which to generate national pride and create a source of energy to draw from. Thus, today, the BJP plays the same power politics that the Church once did in the name of religion.
Islam is interesting in a different sense. It was borne in a warrior and tribal community. Thus, it was political in its conception. It did an admirable job in banding together different tribes under a single dogma with very little ceremonial aspect. As it spread, it got 'civilized' so to speak. It absorbed the Persian culture. It absorbed the Byzantine culture. It absorbed the sub-continental culture. The path of Sufism that emerged out of Islam was actually putting into Islam what it lacked 'visibly' (but not in its spiritual essence) in its inception: the emphasis on aspect of constant contemplation to reach communion with God. It was the element that resembled the teachings of the early Christian apostles. Nonetheless, Islam, once upon a time in history, did serve to unite a large contingent of men under a single dogma. It was political and will continue to have a visible political strand in future.
Buddhism (and I bring this up because it has elements that are unique in a lot of senses) was also anchored around a very dominant personality of Siddharth Gotama. It's doctrine would appear very dogmatic from the outside. But apparently, it remained apolitical for the longest time. And I believe there was a reason for that: it's morality was defined and justified in terms of development of mind and which in turn was stressed upon to reach final liberation. That is, of all the religions I have had an occassion to be acquainted with, Buddhism is intellectually the most challenging because there is no concrete external frame of reference (no God, no Soul) but only the mind that is the starting focal point. And every mind is different. The only thing stressed upon is a certain strategy to release the mind. Its doctrine would be deemed to be rigidly scientific on one hand but highly compassionate on the other. In my opinion, all religions either veer on the side of too much intellect (like the Greeks did) or too much affect (like Christianity and Hinduism do). Those like Islam and Confucianism are more in the nature of 'State' religions in the way they are practically deployed. Only in its later form does Islam start showing external behavioural spiritual elements.
The reason for the above comparison is that the term "religion" has no one meaning in any given community of minds. A lot of confusion that appears to exist in Contintental Europe, and I can take the French example, is that in the name of being secular States are imposing their own solitary definition of "religion" on all as a constitutional right and duty. If one understands religion as an aggregate of elements [ceremonial, moral conduct, doctrine & dogma, and spiritual] and also understands that religion is closely related to what one's unconscious reacts with and feels when thinking of whatever symbols or doctrine or path that one relates with one's understanding of the term "religion", no State would dare enter this territory. It is one territory, where, if a man feels he is being encroached upon, depending on his temper, conditioning and the religion he associates himself with, he will rather fight back and die than succumb. History bears adequate testimony to this.
The French do not realize it: but they have their own religion, which in olden times would be termed some kind of hedonistic materialism combined with intellectual titillation combined with the need to arouse strong emotions. This when practised under Catholicism either makes one intolerant of others or way too liberal to be neither here nor there.
What we are seeing today (and this is not only Europe) is fundamentally the collective unconscious of our whole society being perplexed, agitated and finally angry at mixing of two strong needs: one is the need to find liberation (Kant did say that this need is so innate that it denies any logic and explanation) --- that is, to find the higher plane of existence; and at the other hand the constant march of materialism. It entered our country, then our drawing room (through television), then got closer through the mobile and the computer, and now it is literally inside of us. On the one hand, the mind is getting more and more drawn towards temporary passions, sensual desires. On the other hand, it knows that it needs to rise much higher than this. What does one's mind do when it knows it needs to move up but can't let go of its basest of base emotions? It gets restless, irritated easily as it is constantly trying to find the right balance but can't. Much like a child who is sick knows that he is sick but seeing a chocolate cannot resist. Parents shout at him, he feels affronted and then guilty. And in this guilt he actually hits back and indeed eats the chocolate to make a point. What triggers this? The fact that the child knows deep down that he is sick and he is angry (indeed pissed off) at being sick. And, unfortunately, being a child he cannot go beyond that. For, an adult would ask: Why am I sick? What can I do to remove my sickness? In that way the adult would console himself that sickness is not random, abrupt. It has a cause which can be dealth with intelligence and effort. Once the adult is assured of this he feels already at peace. The temptation for that chocolate is lower. And if he is a wise adult, the temptation ceases completely.
It is a question to ask ourselves: Why do we always feel that we will never have another Dante, another Christ, another Goethe? Why does every succeeding generation feel the previous one achieved so much? Because, and this is one of the ironies of evolution, with every succeeding generation we are moving from being a wise adult to a smart adult to a dumb adult. And, now today, we are just kids. Most of us deep down we are sick. But not knowing the cause of that sickness, we are all angry. To find the real cause of the sickness is possible: but it means un-doing the harmful effects of industrial revolution, withdrawing from this material consumption culture beyond what is strictly necessary, and devoting one's self increasingly to self-reflection and contemplation.
But before that we all need to be more humane and compassionate. Which comes back to your point: freedom of expression is a duty not a right. When something is a duty, there is a simple pattern of thinking to adhere to: If I do X Y will happen to me and Z will happen to others. If Value(Y) is positive and Value(Z) is negative one needs to drop X. This is extremely logical and simple thinking. Even a child (pun intended) can get it. But you need someone to teach the child.
I am always sceptical of politics solving any problems. At best, it is a constructive channel to direct one's anger and turmoil. But at the end of the day another messiah is needed or a different set of value systems is needed. However, history shows that usually the former works better than the latter. That should logically make one sceptical were it not for the fact that at the end of the day you need to at least get rid of your own sickness. Let others sort it out for themselves. In that way, the best of selfishness may actually lie in being the most altruistic. Like Heisenberg's theory of wave and particle, this is one of those biological and evolutionary paradox. Though I am not sure politics, or for that matter, art, literature, philosophy and science gets it. Religion in its original simple form did. We just complicated it.
And if one wants to know the answer [to why we complicated religion] it is even simpler: objectification. Our mind is geared to think in terms of objects. Religion as an experience, as a feeling, as a dialogue is something the collective mind of society will never be satisfied with. It needs something to touch, feel, look at, argue about, and if necessary, change. A God is only a God if he is put in a frame, in a picture, and if it is "mine". The Gods of Others are really not Gods as is "mine". Indeed, it can also be argued that a materialistic culture increases the tendency of the mind to "objectify". Too much objectification leads to many permutations and combinations and scope for much more ill-will, distress and fights.
The simple truth that ultimately all objects, though they appear different, are different combinations of the same basic elements is missed out. Much like science moved away from talking in terms of solids, liquids and gases to atoms and molecules to electrons/neutrons/protons to quantum physics. It is simply amazing that the common man does not look at the march of physics and exclaim: I may not understand much about quantum physics but I do understand all of us are very much the same. Indeed, I will be hard-pressed to say what the difference between a rock and myself is except were it not for the element of "consciousness". But of course we don't think this way and it is unlikely we will. It takes exceptional minds to see things this way. And maybe, that is why the theory of messiah is theonly real theory of salvation. It is no co-incidence that in all cultures and in all religions there is an equivalent of eventual apocalypse and a revival.
If you ask me one cure for our sickness: it is to move away from the [tendency] of objectification and discern things as a combination of elementary aspects. If one does this consistently, there will be little room to get angry with because all the objects of anger would have dissipated into finer elements common to us all.
P.S.: The comparison of religions presented is broad, inconclusive and an impression. A deeper and an expert comparison will inevitably reveal contradictions and flaws in this kind of an 'impression'. The accuracy of an impression is proportional to the amount of time invested in generating that impression as well as the extent of landscape covered. Both the elements are of course in short supply here.
Further, the impression is an impression of the the 'term' religion as it is consumed today. It is not an impression of the association of those individuals who experience 'religion as a lived process in the moment'. An impression of Islam or the Church or the Hindu sects or Buddhists or Jains or Sikhs cannot capture the experience of those individuals who have exerted themselves and have been bold and independent enough to penetrate their respective doctrines in a way that has led to an elevated and fulfilling living experience for themselves as well as for others through the dint of their solitary efforts.
Thus, the term 'religion' as consumed by an average mind in the pages of a newspaper or biographies of the founders or scholarly critiques of the philosophies and doctrines is very different from living the term 'religion' in and of itself. The politics and philosophy of a given 'religion' is not that 'religion'. Indeed, differentiation of 'religions' by label is an exercise in hindsight. No founder of any merit caged their doctrine in a 'label'.
If there is any test of a religion it is: how close is it to the truth? With regard to this test, it is difficult to compare and contrast. For the signature of truth is only one: that of direct perception and communion. If there is any contrast, it is about how acute and irreversible that communion is. So the true evaluators of any religion are the 'real mystics'.
Further the religion of one man is different from that of the next because the experience of one man with regard to his religious endeavour cannot equal that of another. If we talk about religion in a spiritual sense it is then a mistake to group one man with another under a given 'religious order'. However, if we talk about religion in any other sense that grouping makes sense just like the grouping by nations, by communities, and any other categories that one invents.
Thus in a discourse on religion it is imperative to separate the meaning of the label 'religion' as a term of human language fabricated in hind-sight by a given society versus the real nature of that particular religion itself. The direct implication of this is that it is, in some sense, inhumane to brand an entire community as 'Hindus' or 'Muslims' or 'Christians'. Because there is no one 'experience of religious exhilaration' that can bind them all. And more critically, it is outright illogical to label that pinnacle and climax of religious exhilaration as one of 'Hinduism', 'Christianity' or 'Islam'. For that pinnacle of exhilaration, by account of all mystics, is one where the sense of perception (and hence the need to label) stands far removed. When the object that is being labelled by its very nature defies the need to label it, then why indulge in a labelling exercise?
To belabour the point: this leaves only one conclusion open. Any consumption of a 'religious' discussion is a cultural act. If we remember at all times to separate the spiritual from the cultural we can save ourselves from entering into fruitless arguments, and, endeavours based on those arguments. Sadly, however, this distinction is ignored, willfully and unwillfully, resulting in immense wastage of physical and human resources behind endeavours that claim to safeguard a religion.
Thus, those who are likely to read more than is strictly necessary in the above religious sketches should hold themselves back.
See also this.
| |
|