Spiritual Traditions Are Meant To Build Bridges
When i was a little boy i often accompanied my grandmother to a temple of Lord Hanuman. he would go there every Saturday and end half an hour or so in front of the Oland mutter something. I paid no tention to what she said. I assumed it as a prayer, a recitation perhaps of anzas from the Marathi version of the Anumana Chalisa. On one occasion, owever, i noticed that she was berating e idol. Apparently she had sought a vour from the Lord and despite many reminders He had failed to deliver. Her conduct perplexed me. I was undying at a school run by Jesuits and ring what were called 'moral science' asses, the good fathers had inculcated ame the belief that one should look up the Almighty with unflinching respect and devotion. But my grandmother, Tho was deeply religious. quarrelled with the Lord using words that sounded blasphemous. I asked her: 'Why do you go to the temple if this is how you want to demonstrate your devotion to the deity?" She thought for a moment and said to me: 'I quarrel with Him because of my love for Him. I know He does not mind. He is compassionate. And, unlike us human beings, he is able to take everything in His stride-praise and blame alike. Years later i came across a sentence of an ancient Greek sage which echoed my grandmother's remarks. 'All great truths, ‘he wrote, 'begin as blasphemies.' For the faithful, religious texts are beyond criticism, dispute or dissent. To challenge them is to invite the charge of apostasy or worse. And the punishment for this grave misdemeanour ranges from social ostracism to death. But here is the rub. What if this literal understanding of religious texts clashes with one of humankind's greatest gift: freedom of speech and expression which provides space for irony and metaphor, humour and satire? To be sure, such freedom must not descend to the level of abuse or insult. But who is to define these terms? And on what basis? Should this beleft to the doctors of a given faith? Or should the matter be settled in accordance with the laws of the land? As a rule, the courts are not expected to deliberate on issues of faith. They go by what is on the statute books. That, however, does not quite tide over the dilemma. This is where reference to the finest spiritual traditions of humankind may help. They seek to build bridges-not erect barriers-between races and eultures,nations and religions. Unlithe literalists, they do not subscribethe view that there is only one truth,that there is only one path to discovethis truth, that there is only one guidtake you to this destination. Truth, aone Upanishad says, lies everywhere and partially even in error. The word 'partially' is sublime: igives us a chance to use our freedomexplore the wondrous mystery of human existence without getting trapрin the debilitating binaries that bigoof every stripe seek to impose on us.are thus able to see that the distinctibetween Us and the Other-the Us m ing the faithful and the Other meanithe infidel-that is sought to be madethe guardians of a religious faith, thproponents of a spiritual school of thought or by the dispensers of ideocal rectitude is no more than a chim
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in the Article above are Dileep Padgaonkar kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it.
Courtesy : Dileep Padgaonkar Speaking Tree,Times of India
Spiritual Traditions Are Meant To Build Bridges
When i was a little boy i often accompanied my grandmother to a temple of Lord Hanuman. he would go there every Saturday and end half an hour or so in front of the Oland mutter something. I paid no tention to what she said. I assumed it as a prayer, a recitation perhaps of anzas from the Marathi version of the Anumana Chalisa. On one occasion, owever, i noticed that she was berating e idol. Apparently she had sought a vour from the Lord and despite many reminders He had failed to deliver. Her conduct perplexed me. I was undying at a school run by Jesuits and ring what were called 'moral science' asses, the good fathers had inculcated ame the belief that one should look up the Almighty with unflinching respect and devotion. But my grandmother, Tho was deeply religious. quarrelled with the Lord using words that sounded blasphemous. I asked her: 'Why do you go to the temple if this is how you want to demonstrate your devotion to the deity?" She thought for a moment and said to me: 'I quarrel with Him because of my love for Him. I know He does not mind. He is compassionate. And, unlike us human beings, he is able to take everything in His stride-praise and blame alike. Years later i came across a sentence of an ancient Greek sage which echoed my grandmother's remarks. 'All great truths, ‘he wrote, 'begin as blasphemies.' For the faithful, religious texts are beyond criticism, dispute or dissent. To challenge them is to invite the charge of apostasy or worse. And the punishment for this grave misdemeanour ranges from social ostracism to death. But here is the rub. What if this literal understanding of religious texts clashes with one of humankind's greatest gift: freedom of speech and expression which provides space for irony and metaphor, humour and satire? To be sure, such freedom must not descend to the level of abuse or insult. But who is to define these terms? And on what basis? Should this beleft to the doctors of a given faith? Or should the matter be settled in accordance with the laws of the land? As a rule, the courts are not expected to deliberate on issues of faith. They go by what is on the statute books. That, however, does not quite tide over the dilemma. This is where reference to the finest spiritual traditions of humankind may help. They seek to build bridges-not erect barriers-between races and eultures,nations and religions. Unlithe literalists, they do not subscribethe view that there is only one truth,that there is only one path to discovethis truth, that there is only one guidtake you to this destination. Truth, aone Upanishad says, lies everywhere and partially even in error. The word 'partially' is sublime: igives us a chance to use our freedomexplore the wondrous mystery of human existence without getting trapрin the debilitating binaries that bigoof every stripe seek to impose on us.are thus able to see that the distinctibetween Us and the Other-the Us m ing the faithful and the Other meanithe infidel-that is sought to be madethe guardians of a religious faith, thproponents of a spiritual school of thought or by the dispensers of ideocal rectitude is no more than a chim
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in the Article above are Dileep Padgaonkar kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it.
Courtesy : Dileep Padgaonkar Speaking Tree,Times of India