Religion and Blood shed
A common question, I am sure: Why is and has been there so much bloodshed in the world on the name of religion?
People who blame religion for hatred and bloodshed in the world: Just follow the comments people post on tech news articles, and other domains which a lot of people from different parts of society are interested in and more importantly emotionally invested in, you'll realize this:
People fight. Period.
And belligerent and political leaders just need a reason. Religion just seems to be in fashion these days.
Remove religion from the equation, I guarantee this, people will still fight, perhaps people who like Microsoft vs people who swear by Apple vs people who swear by Google.
Haven't you heard of riots and violence after soccer games? What about political riots?
How about regional fights? (Ukranians vs Russians) (Telangana vs Andhra) maharastrians vs north Indians?
What about racial fights? Whites vs Blacks? Chinese vs Japanese? white supremacists Aryans vs non-Aryans?
How about tribal fights? (Hotel Rwanda)?
How about factionalism like we have in south India?
I think the list can go on for sometime.
But I hope you can see what I am getting at;
PEOPLE FIGHT. As long a human can see some thing different between himself and the next person, his group vs another group etc, and not respect each other's boundaries, PEOPLE will fight.
Having read the "Shadows of the Forgotten Ancestors", it is very clear to me and to the scientific community, that for all measurable possibilities, man is an animal evolved from apes. And apes, are territorial and get belligerent and violent to the point of extreme destruction in certain scenarios.
And as I understand it from the guru's of India, the only thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to think deeply. Think far beyond what we have evolved from. And that is why, I think we keep the ability NOT to kill and slaughter as indiscriminately as animals do.
Yet, unfortunately the more emotionally attached people are with a certain idea, the more they identify themselves with a certain idea, the more belligerent they get when there is a perception of that idea being attacked by an opposing group of people attached to an opposing idea. Remember there is always the first strike belligerents who start all this because they are bent on making EVERYONE agree to their opinion, even if it means slaughtering thousands of people, unfortunately religion is one idea that has been part of thousands of slaughters over the years. I am sure you all know what those religions are and their history in general.
Its funny if you think about it, opinions cannot be debated, because well.. they are opinions.
And facts, do not need to be debated or fought over. Because well.... they are facts.
So why do people fight again? (Abt any domain)
Coz for some reason some people become intolerant on difference of opinions.
Religion is an opinion by the way. And the problem is when a person with one opinion says, mine is the right opinion vs your opinion. My religions is the right religion, yours is not. My opinion that the iPad is better than the Surface, Samsung TVs are better than LG's.
Well; We never stop and honestly discuss/ constructively debate with emotions aside, as to why is one opinion better than the other.
Most people when they get in to disagreements on opinions NEVER lay out the reasons, no one has the time! We live in a binary world, where we expect a yes/no, true/false, agree/disagree, with you or against you world. And that is sad.
The only thing binary in the world are our computers, yet those binaries are abstracted billions of times over when we get to something meaningful. Then how and why is it that we take our opinions and get binary about them so easily?
Everything in the world is contextual. And that is what Sanatana Dharma teaches humans. There are no "ten commandments" with no context around them. "Thou shall not kill": Really? Is it that straight forward?
Adi Sankaracharya, when he came along and assumed the human form in the 6th century AD, there were about 72 different schools of thoughts prevailing in India, which had distorted the teachings of the vedas, and some having taken the ideas from the Upanishads (which were very much the explanations oft he vedas fort he common man), were rejecting the authority of the Vedas.
Now, did he build political support, build armies and start slaughtering people across the country to prove they were wrong? No.
He was a prodigy who had mastered the Vedas, the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita. He went around the country, debated them, every debate lasting many days and weeks. Debated them while providing evidence that the opposing parties could not refute. And back in the day, there was a common dharma of the land, anyone who loses a debate and agrees to it, had to become the disciple of the person winning the debate. And that way, Adi Sankaracarya, went about the country defeating group after group with their own acceptance and became the followers of Adi Sankaracarya, his teachings and his (rather the teachings of the lineage of his guru's going all the way back to Brahma, who is the creator of the world).
And that is how he won over the hearts and acceptance of the country and revived Hinduism in its current form (almost) single-handed. Of course, over these 1200 + years, it has been distorted a lot as well, especially in the last 60 years... that's a completely different matter of discussion.
Now unfortunately because we find ourselves where we are today, where no one has the time, patience, and 99.99% of the time complete/close to complete knowledge about the topic of debate.discussion, I feel the following is necessary:
Rule # 1 for this world to survive the next 100 years: Respect other opinions. Live and let live.
The only thing i haven't been able to come to a conclusion on is: So what about the atrocities committed by one group of people against another in recorded history (Crusades, Muslims against Hindus, higher caster oppression of the lower castes, extreme oppression of women by men). To answer these questions I have to take refuge in Gandhi. Its mighty difficult, but that is the only way to survive the future. I might not agree with Gandhi abt " an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind", but looking in to the future, I don't think there is another way out.
Then one might ask: OK, I will live and let live, what about others who don't play by the same rules?
To that I'd like to say: Success is my only revenge. I know this part seems way too impractical, but I wonder if there is a better/positive/constructive option than that unless in extreme cases.
In extreme cases I believe karma will handle the repulsion FOR you, you just have to let go completely (now that is the difficult part).
Is Religion still the problem?
Coming to the question of religion: I'll be blogging soon on the need for religion in the modern world. Yes its an opinion. But an opinion backed by evidence and deep thought.
People who blame religion for hatred and bloodshed in the world: Just follow the comments people post on tech news articles, and other domains which a lot of people from different parts of society are interested in and more importantly emotionally invested in, you'll realize this:
People fight. Period.
And belligerent and political leaders just need a reason. Religion just seems to be in fashion these days.
Remove religion from the equation, I guarantee this, people will still fight, perhaps people who like Microsoft vs people who swear by Apple vs people who swear by Google.
Haven't you heard of riots and violence after soccer games? What about political riots?
How about regional fights? (Ukranians vs Russians) (Telangana vs Andhra) maharastrians vs north Indians?
What about racial fights? Whites vs Blacks? Chinese vs Japanese? white supremacists Aryans vs non-Aryans?
How about tribal fights? (Hotel Rwanda)?
How about factionalism like we have in south India?
I think the list can go on for sometime.
But I hope you can see what I am getting at;
PEOPLE FIGHT. As long a human can see some thing different between himself and the next person, his group vs another group etc, and not respect each other's boundaries, PEOPLE will fight.
Having read the "Shadows of the Forgotten Ancestors", it is very clear to me and to the scientific community, that for all measurable possibilities, man is an animal evolved from apes. And apes, are territorial and get belligerent and violent to the point of extreme destruction in certain scenarios.
And as I understand it from the guru's of India, the only thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to think deeply. Think far beyond what we have evolved from. And that is why, I think we keep the ability NOT to kill and slaughter as indiscriminately as animals do.
Yet, unfortunately the more emotionally attached people are with a certain idea, the more they identify themselves with a certain idea, the more belligerent they get when there is a perception of that idea being attacked by an opposing group of people attached to an opposing idea. Remember there is always the first strike belligerents who start all this because they are bent on making EVERYONE agree to their opinion, even if it means slaughtering thousands of people, unfortunately religion is one idea that has been part of thousands of slaughters over the years. I am sure you all know what those religions are and their history in general.
Its funny if you think about it, opinions cannot be debated, because well.. they are opinions.
And facts, do not need to be debated or fought over. Because well.... they are facts.
So why do people fight again? (Abt any domain)
Coz for some reason some people become intolerant on difference of opinions.
Religion is an opinion by the way. And the problem is when a person with one opinion says, mine is the right opinion vs your opinion. My religions is the right religion, yours is not. My opinion that the iPad is better than the Surface, Samsung TVs are better than LG's.
Well; We never stop and honestly discuss/ constructively debate with emotions aside, as to why is one opinion better than the other.
Most people when they get in to disagreements on opinions NEVER lay out the reasons, no one has the time! We live in a binary world, where we expect a yes/no, true/false, agree/disagree, with you or against you world. And that is sad.
The only thing binary in the world are our computers, yet those binaries are abstracted billions of times over when we get to something meaningful. Then how and why is it that we take our opinions and get binary about them so easily?
Everything in the world is contextual. And that is what Sanatana Dharma teaches humans. There are no "ten commandments" with no context around them. "Thou shall not kill": Really? Is it that straight forward?
Adi Sankaracharya, when he came along and assumed the human form in the 6th century AD, there were about 72 different schools of thoughts prevailing in India, which had distorted the teachings of the vedas, and some having taken the ideas from the Upanishads (which were very much the explanations oft he vedas fort he common man), were rejecting the authority of the Vedas.
Now, did he build political support, build armies and start slaughtering people across the country to prove they were wrong? No.
He was a prodigy who had mastered the Vedas, the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita. He went around the country, debated them, every debate lasting many days and weeks. Debated them while providing evidence that the opposing parties could not refute. And back in the day, there was a common dharma of the land, anyone who loses a debate and agrees to it, had to become the disciple of the person winning the debate. And that way, Adi Sankaracarya, went about the country defeating group after group with their own acceptance and became the followers of Adi Sankaracarya, his teachings and his (rather the teachings of the lineage of his guru's going all the way back to Brahma, who is the creator of the world).
And that is how he won over the hearts and acceptance of the country and revived Hinduism in its current form (almost) single-handed. Of course, over these 1200 + years, it has been distorted a lot as well, especially in the last 60 years... that's a completely different matter of discussion.
Now unfortunately because we find ourselves where we are today, where no one has the time, patience, and 99.99% of the time complete/close to complete knowledge about the topic of debate.discussion, I feel the following is necessary:
Rule # 1 for this world to survive the next 100 years: Respect other opinions. Live and let live.
The only thing i haven't been able to come to a conclusion on is: So what about the atrocities committed by one group of people against another in recorded history (Crusades, Muslims against Hindus, higher caster oppression of the lower castes, extreme oppression of women by men). To answer these questions I have to take refuge in Gandhi. Its mighty difficult, but that is the only way to survive the future. I might not agree with Gandhi abt " an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind", but looking in to the future, I don't think there is another way out.
Then one might ask: OK, I will live and let live, what about others who don't play by the same rules?
To that I'd like to say: Success is my only revenge. I know this part seems way too impractical, but I wonder if there is a better/positive/constructive option than that unless in extreme cases.
In extreme cases I believe karma will handle the repulsion FOR you, you just have to let go completely (now that is the difficult part).
Is Religion still the problem?
Coming to the question of religion: I'll be blogging soon on the need for religion in the modern world. Yes its an opinion. But an opinion backed by evidence and deep thought.
Comments