Violence is as old as the age of the universe and religion is as old as the first human civilisation. Since time immemorial, religion has led to some of the most peaceful people (Buddha, Christ, etc) and also to some of the most violent ones (Hitler, Osama, etc). In modern times, it is usual practice to designate every instance of religious violence to a misinterpretation of scriptures of that particular religion. But is this always true? Is there any religion that is totally against all forms of violence?
Religion is neither about peace nor about violence. It is about the highest truth in its most absolute sense, much more absolute than the scientific notion of truth. And religion says that everything must be done in order to protect this absolute truth. When Krishna asked Arjuna to wage a war against the Kauravas, it was only for the protection of this truth as proclaimed by their religious (or spiritual) beliefs. The acts of violence committed by Muhammad were also for the protection of this truth as proclaimed by his religious beliefs. If their version of truth (i.e. religion) was inherently peaceful, they could have never indulged in these acts of violence. Even the scientific truths don't always lead to peaceful outcomes. Truth is sheer power like fire or electricity. It does not have any inherent qualities of peace or violence. The power of truth can be used for either purpose depending on the situation and person under question. Buddhism and Jainism are perhaps two religions that might make a reasonable claim on being inherently peaceful due to their immense stress on non-violence. But we have seen instances of buddhist groups indulging in violent acts (eg. Sri Lanka). And Jainism also allows violence if its for the purpose of self-defence.
One of the biggest security threats that the world faces is that of terrorism. And unfortunately, this threat has come to be associated with Islam. It is natural to think that we can address this problem by strongly propagating the view that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion. But if we believe in the above arguments, this is a deeply flawed approach. No religion is inherently peaceful or violent. Like other religions, Islam also has its own version of truth which people can either use for peaceful or violent purposes depending on the situation and their own personal biases. So how do we solve the problem of terrorism and other acts of communal violence? The most important thing to realise is that these problems are a result of a very complex economic-social-political process. Putting the burden on religion is a gross over-simplification. In fact, religion is actually a victim of these acts of violence and not a perpetrator. It is also important to realise that violence will always be there in this world in some form or the other. Thinkers who are working hard to promote ideas of 'world peace' will never be out of employment.
The problem with Islam is not that it supports violence but that many of its followers believe that society will be much better if we could somehow rewind time and recreate the same societal setup that existed during the times of Muhammad. But this mindset is again not unique to Islam. Many Hindus also believe in the glory of 'Vedic age' that existed several thousand years ago and are trying hard to recreate the societal setup based on their idea of those 'perfect' times. But the advantage that Hinduism has is that there is no clear definition of 'Vedic age' and it is this ambiguity that is its saving grace. Our rishis of the past were truly smart people. They perhaps knew very well that certainty in religion can lead to grave problems and they wrote all the scriptures in such a way that most of the verses have many different interpretations which are often quite contradictory. Many people get quite frustrated with Hinduism due to this reason and like to call it a huge mass of confusion. But thats only a small price to pay if it helps in controlling the destructive power that certainty can have.
This brings us to a very important question. If certainty is such a bad thing, what about science? Is not science also based on achieving a clear understanding of natural laws? Though this is partly true, we must also realise that science thrives on disagreements and discussions. Science does not believe that one day it will be able to describe all the laws of nature in their most clear forms. The search for scientific truth is a never ending one since science believes in an ever lasting refinement of knowledge based on new findings. Einstein formulated his laws based on certain assumptions and even to this day many scientists are devising experiments to test whether these assumptions and theories are correct. In the initial days of the Large Hadron Collider, scientists were quite disappointed since all the results seemed to match very well with the existing standard model of physics giving no hints for new research directions. It is this constant search for new knowledge that is the greatest strength of science and what saves it from degenerating into a mass of strong certainties. And this is an attitude that all religions can benefit from. God is infinite and infinite are his descriptions. Certainty is boring.
This brings us to a very important question. If certainty is such a bad thing, what about science? Is not science also based on achieving a clear understanding of natural laws? Though this is partly true, we must also realise that science thrives on disagreements and discussions. Science does not believe that one day it will be able to describe all the laws of nature in their most clear forms. The search for scientific truth is a never ending one since science believes in an ever lasting refinement of knowledge based on new findings. Einstein formulated his laws based on certain assumptions and even to this day many scientists are devising experiments to test whether these assumptions and theories are correct. In the initial days of the Large Hadron Collider, scientists were quite disappointed since all the results seemed to match very well with the existing standard model of physics giving no hints for new research directions. It is this constant search for new knowledge that is the greatest strength of science and what saves it from degenerating into a mass of strong certainties. And this is an attitude that all religions can benefit from. God is infinite and infinite are his descriptions. Certainty is boring.
I just read the article. The article is awesome. You have noticed (un-)correlation between religion & (violence/peace). The examples are well chosen. There will be objections, but there is something for them to rethink as well. You were also able to connect it with scientific research. You are correct, that scientific research allows revisiting the idea many times, each time, it throws new interpretations. Similarly, one can attain moksha/ultimate truth by gyan yoga, bhakti yoga, gyan yoga etc. The problem begins when the method is streamlined by a set of people. To force their proposed method, they use the words (peace/violence) and act under the cover of (religion).
ReplyDeleteI am glad you liked the article. Thanks! I really liked your last line "..they use the words (peace/violence) and act under the cover of (religion)"
DeleteYou mentioned another important thing in the article that most of the religious groups seems to recreate ancient Society/Time today. I agree.
ReplyDeleteHere one need to understand that religious beliefs/rituals should adapt to the changing society. Most of the religious literature/rituals were actually based on, ancient society setup, that were grossly different.
One major outcome, if they do not do that, is that young generation is getting away from actual religion. Because it seems mostly illogical to many.
It means that hard beliefs/fundamentalist thinking is harming the society rather than helping it.
I totally agree with what you have said. I also think cinema could be a very good medium for bringing about these changes in our attitude towards religion. I wish more movies like "Oh My God" and "Khuda Ke Liye" are made. Here is a wonderful scene from the later:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4NrkyEC0b8
Comments received from Mr. Asish Raha over email (part 1):
ReplyDeleteKushalji, here is my response to some of your thought-provoking observations:
“Religion is neither about peace nor about violence. It is about the highest truth in its most absolute sense, much more absolute than the scientific notion of truth. And religion says that everything must be done in order to protect this absolute truth.”
You have succinctly and commendably summed up the essence of religion that it ought to be. But, your last sentence suggests an innate, on-going conflict between the ideal and the real in every religion when the champions of every sectarian religion proclaim that absolute truth must be protected. The fact remains that absolute truth does not require any protection.
The trouble lies in the origin of every sectarian religion, founded on the precepts of a prophet, messiah or a spiritual master. This invariably creates two classes: believers and non-believers, and further division into conformists and non-conformists, and still further division based on interpretation one way or the other. The inter-religion and inter-sect clashes that follow have nothing to do with the ideal that religion, according to you, stands for.
There is no universally acceptable definition of religion. However, Vivekananda’s definition of religion, going by its universality, is undoubtedly quite appealing: “Religion is manifestation of the divinity already in man.” As to the question what does ‘divinity’ imply, and when does ‘manifestation’ of divinity begin, Vivekananda’s explanation is as follows: “Realization is real religion, all the rest is only preparation — hearing lectures, or reading books, or reasoning is merely preparing the ground; it is not religion.” Going by above definition, true religion can be taken as realization of the divinity that lies within all of us and not outside of us. That divinity does not admit of any hostility, strife or conflict, but peace, unity and identity.
“Buddhism and Jainism are perhaps two religions that might make a reasonable claim on being inherently peaceful due to their immense stress on non-violence. But we have seen instances of buddhist groups indulging in violent acts (eg. Sri Lanka). And Jainism also allows violence if its for the purpose of self-defence.”
Neither Buddha nor Jain Tirthankaras were against violence per se where it was absolutely necessary, such as violent punishment to a criminal or to engage in armed battle against invaders. Buddha on one occasion said: “He who deserves punishment must be punished.” The logic underlying the statement is that the criminal suffers injury not through the ill will of the judge, but owing to his evil karma. As for violent war, Buddha said: “The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is deplorable. But he does not teach that those who are involved in war to maintain peace and order after having exhausted all means to avoid conflict are blameworthy.” Although Mahavira described Ahimsa as the highest religion, his emphasis was more on the state of mind rather than on action, as pramatta or intoxicated mind provokes violence while apramatta or non-intoxicated mind promotes non-violence and peace. Tirthankaras who were born in Kshatriya families did not abolish capital punishment nor did they advocate surrender to aggressors without fight.
Reconciliation of Non-violence of mind to violent action is best demonstrated in verse 11.55 in Gita where Krishna tells Arjuna that only he who is free from enmity toward all beings can attain Him. Mind you, Krishna is all along inspiring Arjuna not to withdraw from the battle but to engage in it as his prime karma. Read conjunctively, it means that Arjuna must engage in battle without any sense of enmity toward his opponents. This precisely is the cardinal message of Giita. What Buddha and Jaina Tirthankaras said was not much different from the above message of Gita.
Comments received from Mr. Asish Raha over email (part 2):
Delete“Science does not believe that one day it will be able to describe all the laws of nature in their most clear forms.”
Didn’t Einstein strive to resolve all the mysteries of the nature by finding out ‘the theory of everything’? In fact, Stephen Hawking has authored a book under that caption, holding that ‘M’ theory is close to cracking the mystery of that elusive theory. Whether you agree or disagree with the conviction or hypotheses of those stalwarts, the fact remains that science does not rule out the probability that one day all the laws of nature will be described in their most clear forms.
“It is this constant search for new knowledge that is the greatest strength of science and what saves it from degenerating into a mass of strong certainties. And this is an attitude that all religions can benefit from. God is infinite and infinite are his descriptions. Certainty is boring.”
While I agree with your first proposition that the greatest strength of science is its constant search for new knowledge (or truth in phenomenal world of nature), I find it difficult to agree with the latter proposition that the arriving at strong certainties (or postulates) would mean degeneration. In the first place, to establish a certainty or postulate in a world of flux is by no means an easy task, if not impossibility. But if we achieve such feat at all, it cannot certainly be called degeneration. One may, however, think that absolute certainty may lead to smugness and a sense of resignation. But we have not seen such smugness in spiritual domain where men like Krishna and Buddha did not take to withdrawal mode even after realizing the absolute truth. They rather educated people about various ways and means to reach the absolute truth. It is like climbing to the peak of the mountain by following the path that suits the climber.
Reverting to the concept of absolute certainty in science, let’s take the example of the law of gravity. Is it unchangeable and absolute certainty in all circumstances and in all spheres? We do not know yet. If we assume that God or Brahman is an infinite mass of light, will laws of gravity govern such God? If not, then can a yogi (in his subtle self), who has united his soul with God and has merged in or become part of the said infinite mass of light, escape or transcend the laws of gravity? Unfortunately, quantum physics has not cared to address those questions, which essentially belong to the domain of consciousness. However, neuro-scientists have been doing extensive research on consciousness, and it is hoped that in near future, they will crack the mystery of this phenomenon called ‘consciousness’.
Asishji, thanks a lot for your comments! Here is my response:
Delete"Going by above definition, true religion can be taken as realization of the divinity that lies within all of us and not outside of us. That divinity does not admit of any hostility, strife or conflict, but peace, unity and identity."
That is certainly true in theory, but very few people actually practice religion in that sense. Even a fundamentally non-sectarian religion like Hinduism has seen many sects emerge over time which are very hostile towards each other and towards other religions.
"Didn’t Einstein strive to resolve all the mysteries of the nature by finding out ‘the theory of everything’? In fact, Stephen Hawking has authored a book under that caption, holding that ‘M’ theory is close to cracking the mystery of that elusive theory."
Yes, there are scientists who believe in the existence of such a final theory, but there are many scientists who do not believe in this. Its also party true that science does not rule out existence of such a final theory, but a discovery of such a theory will be the death knell of science itself. Also, if Indian philosophical ideas are indeed true, then such a final theory should actually not exist.
"Reverting to the concept of absolute certainty in science, let’s take the example of the law of gravity. Is it unchangeable and absolute certainty in all circumstances and in all spheres? We do not know yet."
The laws of gravity as founded by Newton and Einstein are certainly not valid under all situations. Specially for sub-atomic particles and blackholes, a clear understanding of gravity is still quite elusive.
"neuro-scientists have been doing extensive research on consciousness, and it is hoped that in near future, they will crack the mystery of this phenomenon called ‘consciousness’."
That will indeed be very interesting, but in my opinion, the chances are very bleak. Thats mainly because neuro-scientists only study the brain and its function, whereas its not clear if consciousness is purely a function of the brain.
"That will indeed be very interesting, but in my opinion, the chances are very bleak. Thats mainly because neuro-scientists only study the brain and its function, whereas its not clear if consciousness is purely a function of the brain."
DeleteIf consciousness is eventually identified as matter/sub-atomic particles whether or not these behave like wave, the question may arise whether the same are subject to laws of gravity. It also falls for determination whether there is possibility of the existence of super-consciousness with infinite mass permeating the phenomenal world. As of now it looks like a long shot, but researchers after cracking the mystery of consciousness may look beyond. Sir John Eccles, a nobel laureate, holds that consciousness is not the property of brain and that it survives the brain even after death. The day is not far off when researches into the matter and the mind shall converge, with an altogether new dimension of science and spirituality.
Lets see what the future has in store for us! :)
Delete