|
Open Page
Is there God and whose God is He?
THAT THERE is God and He is the creator is something that can neither be proved right nor proved wrong. But those who have belief in the statement that there is God enjoy
(a) "security" by constantly relating to Him through various religious rituals and nurturing the bond with time improving the feeling of security;
(b) certain discipline that all religions teach and thus gain control over one's sense organs. Following the discipline and rituals alone makes one capable of leading his life harmoniously with the rest of the creation.
Beyond proper understanding of the scriptures and the laws of karma or its equivalent, it is important to develop unshakable faith in the Lord. Faith without this knowledge will fail at times of serious adversity. It will make one question the existence of the Lord and His sense of fairness when one sees good happening to bad people and bad to good people.
It is certainly helpful for one to believe in God, constantly relate to him through religious rituals and gain a secured feeling.
The question arises: in which God should I have faith? Is there a God superior to other Gods? Is it possible to have so many Gods?
If we look at the definition of God which is common to most religions, we find that God is (a) all pervasive; (b) all knowing; (c) all powerful; (d) not governed by time and space, therefore infinite.
If this be the definition of God, certainly there will be only one God as you cannot have two infinities.
If there is only one God why is that religions try to create different Gods?
A closer and more intelligent look at what is happening along with this acceptable definition of God will tell us that we have iconised God and given him names and forms only to help us to easily "relate" to him.
Just as a child needs fingers to count and a grown-up can mentally calculate, a devotee in the beginning needs name and form to help him to focus on God. Even religions which do not accept idol worship have platforms, images and books which are considered objects of reverence and are used by them to easily relate to God by focussing on these images.
In reality what one is doing when one worships a finite form and name is invoking the infinite God in the finite form. As a God with a finite form and name is not acceptable as the infinite God who is above virtues, it is impossible for an intelligent person to appreciate the concept that God has a particular name and a particular form. An intelligent person therefore would accept any name and any form of God as long as the infinite God is invoked in the finite form.
Unacceptable
Therefore to quarrel over name and form or say that the name which I call God is the only name and the form in which I worship is the only form and everyone should follow me certainly should not appeal to an intellect. To convert a person from one unconfirmable faith to another unconfirmable faith is certainly unacceptable to the intellect.
In a pluralistic society if people have to live in harmony, one group that believes its assumed form of God is superior and tries to convert the thinking of others will not certainly help. One group trying to impose its views on others based on its unconfirmable assumptions will certainly cause social tension and should not be permitted in a secular society.
The pseudo seculars who call it religious freedom to convert, if they apply their mind will understand banning conversion, forced or otherwise, is not a Hindutva agenda; on the other hand not banning conversion is the agenda of the aggressive religions. They would highly appreciate the current initiative of the Tamil Nadu Government to prevent forced conversions.
As long as we can accept that the Infinity cannot be defined by any one form and name and at best can be invoked in a finite form to help human beings to focus and nurture the relation with the Almighty we will have no quarrel. We will be a tolerant society even while all of us retain our religious freedom and remain religious.
I would like to recall here what Bill Clinton said when he addressed a university in the U.K.: "It is the religious conversion that is the root cause of religious terrorism, mother of all terrorism."
In the context of increasing terrorism of the different religious groups a responsible society which wants to remain a pluralistic one has only one choice — ban all forms of religious conversion.
MANIKAM RAMASWAMI
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
