Mankind is known to have always feared and sometimes even worship
what it could not control. The thought finds explanation in the emergence of deities
in the form of forces of nature in some of the earliest civilisations. It
invokes utmost curiosity when, one starts to think of the origin of religions
in their current form. How did the practice of worshipping start? Was it
respect for the unfathomable power of these forces of nature, which made
mankind worship them, or it was fear of their fury, which drove it to
submission and surrender? While in both the cases, these forces of nature were
subjects of unquestionable reverence, the underlying emotion that pushed them
to that pedestal is extremely critical to identify-the former driven by respect
and inspiration while the other is hinged upon fear as the driving force. The
ancient civilisations and their traditions seem to suggest towards the latter.
As the human brain started to think outside the day to day
needs of food and shelter, presumably
the questions of existence, life and death would have started to frequent the
more evolved human brains leading to the birth of modern day religions. The
knowledge that these evolved thinkers acquired during their quest were passed
on to generations in form of religious scriptures or practices.
The common link between all modern day religions is that, while
they eulogise the spiritual faculty of the preacher, they also establish the
essence of thought mediocrity of its followers. The religious doctrines were
documented or formalized as rules of life, bearing in mind, the basic premise
that most of the followers of these, would lack the capacity to comprehend the
magnanimity of knowledge that supports or rationalizes these doctrines.
The fact that prophets or religious preachers had to prescribe
rules, has led to the tendency of its followers not to further probe or improve
the school of thought. To be fair to them, this does ensure order as long as there is homogeneity in the follower group. While the
patrons/gods/preachers of these religions do deserve unconditional
reverence, that they could think ahead
of time and actually chose to pass on the awakening they achieved for the
benefit of mankind, a religious preacher should pre-empt whether the teachings
would lose relevance in times to come and build in that space to accommodate with
changing times. It becomes the
responsibility of the followers to take the awakening to the next level and
refine them further by asking relevant questions, challenging some of them and
reaching to a better answer till another question comes up.
For instance, in Hinduism, in the epic called Ramayan, Ram was a principled and brave prince, who
fought bravely against all odds to get his wife back from the clutches of Ravan.
But his own principles let him down, when he had to humiliate his wife and
finally abandon her, setting a disappointing example for the society. As a
society, we could have looked at imbibing some of the good qualities of him
while condemning and discarding the imperfections. But in our euphoria to eulogize the man, we turned him into the “The perfect man, who
could not err (Maryada Purushottam) raising him to a level of unquestionable authority.
As a society, why do we fail to take an objective view of the life of Ram, is
something which needs to be given a serious thought. A similar thought
provoking discussion needs to happen in other religions as well.
It is often seen that attempts to challenge the practices are
often met by responses like“ Because the
Quran/Bible/Vedas say that”. Have we ever gone a step further and questioned,
as to why do these scriptures say what they say? What were the conditions which
made the religious preachers, formulate such a rule? Do those conditions still
exist? If not, why can’t we change that? If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it is
bound to collapse, and it should collapse. Why can’t we apply as much
objectivity in religious matters as we do when making amendments in our
Constitution?
Following something, without much thought and questioning,
assuming that this is how it used to work for our ancestors, is a natural
inclination for most as questioning requires effort and not many would want to
put that. Any society consists of 3 categories of individuals. The first
category i.e the staunch believers
who have un-deterring faith in what the scriptures say and can go to any extent
to defend, even if they fail logic, the second category i.e the confused identity ( majority of the
population) who would be in a confused state torn between rationality and fear,
would maintain status quo unless pushed hard, and the third category i.e the thought leaders (handful) would
have the courage to pursue difficult questions with an objective mind.
The success of any revolutionary change depends on the critical
mass which is the second category of people. It is their judgment of choosing
between the staunch believers and thought leaders, which would define the
evolution of a society. Hence it becomes extremely critical for the thought
leaders to consistently speak their minds with authority despite efforts of
criticism or maligning from the staunch believers.
Borrowing lines from the famous essay by Bhagat Singh, the
legendary freedom fighter titled “Why I am an atheist”, written in Oct’1930.
“You go against popular feelings; you criticise a
hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What
happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will
be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless
criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of
revolutionary thinking. As Mahatmaji is great, he is above criticism; as he has
risen above, all that he says in the field of politics, religion, ethics is
right. You agree or not, it is binding upon you to take it as truth. This is
not constructive thinking. We do not take a leap forward; we go many steps
back”.
Religion was meant to seek mental peace and happiness. Unfortunately,
in its current form, it looks like mocking mankind of the prevalent mediocrity
on which it thrives, threatening to become one of the strongest catalysts
towards the annihilation of mankind.
Comments