Sanathana Dharma - Part 7
The basic argument is that Every person has to adhere to Dharma to expect to live a happy life. This has been the subject of discussion earlier as well. The argument has to hold true even from the time of birth whether an individual is conscious or unconscious of it. We can look at a reasonable position that one has sufficient inputs right from the time of birth to follow Dharma. One can also take a stance that this is not the case. One can say that this happens only at some stage of life and perhaps to only some and not to all.
If we go by latter stance we must admit that we have no chance to rectify our course of action until at a certain stage in life. We must then say that some people are very lucky and some not so lucky. If we assume the birth as the "The starting point" then we must further conclude this is unfair. That universal laws can be unfair in operation. One can take an unemotional stance and say life is life and there is nothing that can be done about it. All this might suit an atheistic stance but for one who believes in god as a living active principle one must have to be forced to take recourse to the former stance that one's dharma and the opportunity to select the right path is available the moment one begins to think. In other words the Dharma a person is introduced at birth becomes his religion.
There must be in it what is the seed for all that is required for the individual to get the maximum benefit out of life. The contradictory facets and the misinterpretations looking at it this way must be the mask or the dust on top of a stainless glass. To look at an another example. A horse can be disguised as a donkey but a horse will still be a horse and can work like a horse provide you use it as a horse and not as a donkey. The same applies to religion that behind all that is seeming to be unfair or wrong about it , there is that crust which is certain to lift the individual to the highest level. Just because someone's religion is good enough for him or her does not mean it is good for another. The reason being that the principles on a day to day life are most certainly contradictory. Even if we assume the core in all religions is the same, you should be able to see the core or it is meaningless to say all religions are the same. Thus the most sensible position to take is that all religions are sufficiently meaningful , a comparison not worth the effort, and further they are actually different in common practice and quite possibly not suitable for the follower of another religion, unless the practitioner has seen what exactly is the core and has no requirement to follow any lay practices. In the advanced case indicated above it is also apparent that there is not likely to be discussion on even the statement "All religions are the same". When Ramana Maharishi was asked about his view on duality. He kept silent . It was later explained to him that when truth was one , one would not even see the need to speak of duality. This would be the advanced stage. For the rest, it is easy to see that one cannot live without following some or the other ritualistic aspects of religion which changes from religion to religion.
There can be another smart question? What about the Dharma of a person born in an atheistic family. Firstly I throw open a challenge. Is there ever more than 1-2 generation of atheistic culture in any family where all members are hard-core atheists? Even if there is , they as common people tend to believe in certain ethics and values which is derived from the majority religion of their country. These values and ethics is sufficient to percolate down to the individual from the time he eats or drinks. Further there is no ancestral religion of atheism , unless it is some from idolization of a thinker or a preacher. There are atleast one or two members in a family who carry forward nominal aspects of a certain ancestral religion. Thus grace of God is great that everyone is under his perview whether he likes it or not and everyone have been under some great influence of a particular religion from the day he or she is born which might have got hidden under the mask of an imaginary atheistic religion or concept. But the fact is one has the guidance and one must accept that!
The basic argument is that Every person has to adhere to Dharma to expect to live a happy life. This has been the subject of discussion earlier as well. The argument has to hold true even from the time of birth whether an individual is conscious or unconscious of it. We can look at a reasonable position that one has sufficient inputs right from the time of birth to follow Dharma. One can also take a stance that this is not the case. One can say that this happens only at some stage of life and perhaps to only some and not to all.
If we go by latter stance we must admit that we have no chance to rectify our course of action until at a certain stage in life. We must then say that some people are very lucky and some not so lucky. If we assume the birth as the "The starting point" then we must further conclude this is unfair. That universal laws can be unfair in operation. One can take an unemotional stance and say life is life and there is nothing that can be done about it. All this might suit an atheistic stance but for one who believes in god as a living active principle one must have to be forced to take recourse to the former stance that one's dharma and the opportunity to select the right path is available the moment one begins to think. In other words the Dharma a person is introduced at birth becomes his religion.
There must be in it what is the seed for all that is required for the individual to get the maximum benefit out of life. The contradictory facets and the misinterpretations looking at it this way must be the mask or the dust on top of a stainless glass. To look at an another example. A horse can be disguised as a donkey but a horse will still be a horse and can work like a horse provide you use it as a horse and not as a donkey. The same applies to religion that behind all that is seeming to be unfair or wrong about it , there is that crust which is certain to lift the individual to the highest level. Just because someone's religion is good enough for him or her does not mean it is good for another. The reason being that the principles on a day to day life are most certainly contradictory. Even if we assume the core in all religions is the same, you should be able to see the core or it is meaningless to say all religions are the same. Thus the most sensible position to take is that all religions are sufficiently meaningful , a comparison not worth the effort, and further they are actually different in common practice and quite possibly not suitable for the follower of another religion, unless the practitioner has seen what exactly is the core and has no requirement to follow any lay practices. In the advanced case indicated above it is also apparent that there is not likely to be discussion on even the statement "All religions are the same". When Ramana Maharishi was asked about his view on duality. He kept silent . It was later explained to him that when truth was one , one would not even see the need to speak of duality. This would be the advanced stage. For the rest, it is easy to see that one cannot live without following some or the other ritualistic aspects of religion which changes from religion to religion.
There can be another smart question? What about the Dharma of a person born in an atheistic family. Firstly I throw open a challenge. Is there ever more than 1-2 generation of atheistic culture in any family where all members are hard-core atheists? Even if there is , they as common people tend to believe in certain ethics and values which is derived from the majority religion of their country. These values and ethics is sufficient to percolate down to the individual from the time he eats or drinks. Further there is no ancestral religion of atheism , unless it is some from idolization of a thinker or a preacher. There are atleast one or two members in a family who carry forward nominal aspects of a certain ancestral religion. Thus grace of God is great that everyone is under his perview whether he likes it or not and everyone have been under some great influence of a particular religion from the day he or she is born which might have got hidden under the mask of an imaginary atheistic religion or concept. But the fact is one has the guidance and one must accept that!
