I can understand (according to my depth/superficiality of cognition) the Complete Works of Vivekananda, I can try to understand the same person composing prayer-songs devoted to Mother/Goddess Kali. I can understand his clarion call for all of us, with "Hindu-Muslim-Brahman-Chandal-Sudra Amar Bhai....", but I CAN'T see the pristine class swearing by Vivekananda addressing a group of people and giving lectures about Probity, turning human beings out of temples, or making a human being eat/drink/sip ornated cow-dung water because a man stepped on another man's shadow.
That's the point - Spiritualism in Religion. 'Religion' was institutionalized consciously by man for man, when man was consciously living as a member of a unit called Society, not as a member of a gang living in caves, hunting for food & progenitate.
A "group" of men staying together in a cave for existential or rather reasons ensuring "survival" of each member(vis a vis time) of a group & "survival" of such groups (vis a vis time) within a number of different groups - segregation along species - it's Instinct, not careful orientation of 'thoughts' that cross a conscious mind which is trying to rationalize instincts as identified abstracts.
Society as an institution loosely predates Organized Religion as an institution which seems to guide conduct of man inside society, rather than conduct of man as an individual inside a family.
# The *direction of thought* should have been from "for many" to "for one", and not "for many" to " for neighbouring many's".
The approach of religion as an institution inside society has unfortunately NOT been to educate people on the Goodness of unconditional fraternal love/treating women with Respect/renounce violence & intolerance while living civilian lives as an individual-a member of a unit called Family --> of another unit called Community --> of another called unit Society.
It seems to be a tool to subjugate, to dictate, to rule. It is a fallacy that was perhaps meant to survive through time.
And that basic fallacy accounts for the miseries we identify but do not address, of man by religion (Amongst the Goods man has earned by religion).
# Religion should have been an institution which guides Man towards Spiritual Evolution and Moksha.
I am nobody to impose this on another man.
But I am Me to think and practise what I have perceived.
"Ami bidrohi Bhrigu, Bhogobaner opor enke di podochinho."
Bhrigu was not born as a Rebel. He had to do "certain things" for his goal which is Not self-serving. If that is perceived as Rebellion, let Bhrigu be a Rebel. Perception is Relative.
I will fight tooth and nail any effort which seems to "encroach, impose and to bring under the fold" the freedom to be free of a single individual. Let individuals believe in Personal Gods. I might not agree with the concept of Personal Gods, but I respect the Devotion of the Devotee. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.
But I will resist the same Devotee if he tries to impose his take on "uninitiated neighbours".
I can shun everything, (and I have, a few good things but who hasn't)
but not my freedom to live as a free man. My passport says I am a Hindu.
Dr.Anirban Chaudhuri,
Consultant Physician, Mumbai,
Sent from my BlackBerry® Smartphone on Loop Mobile.
No comments:
Post a Comment