I was reading a comparative study of Western and Eastern religions and came across the following excerpt..Hope its taken in constructive way..
_________________________________________________________________________
Understanding the Concept of 'Religion'
How is the concept of "Religion" is perceived today? The following
definitions explains some of the fundamental attributes that are
associated with the term 'Religion' and explains how it is differs from dharma:
1. Adherence to One 'Book', 'Savior', and 'means of Worship'
There is a preconceived idea that is imposed or expected when a
religion is defined based on the characteristics of Abrahamic religions.
It is based on four main connotation such as, it should have:
- a single founder (Prophet or Savior),
- a single Holy Book and
- a unified method of worship
- a centralized hierarchy
This over simplistic and crude definition undermines the reality when
it comes to defining a profound, diverse and sophisticated tradition
such as Hinduism. The Hindu tradition neither has a single founder, a
single holy book, an unified method of worship or a centralized
hierarchy therefore it defies to meet the same criterion as it is with
the Abrahamic religions. It is unfortunate that many times, attempts are
made to fit the Hindu Dharma into this model, without considering the
fact that the Hindu reality is fundamentally in contrast to these
characteristics.
2. Conclusive, Exclusionary and Separative
The word religion as used in the standard form carries three connotations as reflected in the Abrahamic religions:
- That a religion is conclusive, that is to say it is the one and only true religion;
- That a religion is exclusionary, that is to say, those who don't follow it are excluded from salvation and
- That a religion is separative, that is to say, in order to belong to it one must not belong to another.
These three notions of religion are not a universal idea and by and
large do not express the reality of what are called Eastern religions.
For instance, the conclusive and separative notion of religion implies
that one can only be a member of one religion or another. In both
Eastern and many indigenous societies, this does not hold true. In each
of these three ways the notion of dharma, which is the original Indian concept, is very different from the notion of religion.
These three notions of religion – conclusive, exclusionary and
separative, give Abrahamic religions a hard-edged identity. In Abrahamic
religions there has been a strong emphasis on the separation of
"believer" and "non-believer" and a religious imperative to move as many
people from the latter category to the former. "Truth" has been
conclusively and unquestionably revealed and captured in a book, and
those that follow it are the only ones that are on the right path. Quite
literally, this means that you are "with us or against us" – that the
believers are right and represent the good who are "with God"; and all
the others are misguided and are part of the darkness and deprived of
any direct access to what is the ultimate good.
The worldview of the dharmic traditions is that while scriptures can
be very helpful, Truth cannot be found by scripture alone but by a path
of experiential realization and Self-discovery – and in that sense
religion is not conclusive. It is also not separative and exclusive
in the sense of dividing the world into believers and non-believers.
The dharmic worldview is that there are many tribes throughout the
world, and many teachers and teachings. Each tribe has good and bad
people in a continuum; people that have a greater degree of access to
truth and "goodness" are worthy of respect; and others less so. Since
there is a continuum of "goodness" among individuals of each tribe, the
need for converting other tribes to a particular conception of God as a
religious imperative is not really there. A teacher can share his or her
understanding of the truth; and means and ways for others to access
this; but there is no underlying belief that only one such way exists.
These ideas find clear expression as far back as the Rig Veda, with its
famous quotation:
Ekam sad; vipra bahudha vadanti
while Truth is One, the wise describe it in different ways
— I.164.46 of the Rig Veda
So dharma itself does not create a religious identity. One's worldly self-identity in the dharmic model derives from one's local community, profession or ancestry, jati or kul,
but that identity is not a religious identity, fundamentally opposed to
the existence of the identity of the "other" as a manifestation of
falsehood.
3. Science as Opposed to Religion
Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and
areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For
example, David Edward's definition would seem to include cosmology and
ecology within his definition of religion — fields of investigation that
most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in
nature.
From a dharmic view, in principle there is no conflict between
science and religion. In fact, the two fields are complementary. This is
because of the understanding that the domain of each realm is
well-defined.
In Hinduism there are two categories of knowledge, para vidya (the spiritual knowledge) and apara vidya (material knowledge). Scientific knowledge is the realm of apara vidya. Spiritual knowledge — knowledge of God and life — belongs to para vidya. Hinduism points out that scientific knowledge can lead to spiritual knowledge.
4. Solely based on Belief and Faith
Religion is generally associated with a belief in something unseen,
miraculous or irrational. For many, religion is something removed from
day to day life, and it is outside of our known world and also something
supernatural. The God is sitting outside of the creation and watching
us all the time with the balance of judgement! The fruits of the
religious practice are often promised to be gained after death and
sometimes based on some kind of fear for the unknown and unseen, and
associated with the helplessness of human being. Occasionally believers
are exploited by the religious heads or those forces, which use religion
for social or political gains.
Belief is the basis of many religious traditions, especially the
non-eastern ones. The dictionary meaning of the word "belief" is 'a
state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some
person or thing' and not necessarily there exists a proof. As a matter
of fact religion in the western world is neatly and simply defined as a
"belief system" and the belief is called "truth". There is a "belief" in
one God, one prophet and one book of revelation. This is true
especially in Christianity and Islam. The right "belief" is said to
bring about salvation and the wrong "belief" is supposed to bring about
damnation. Such religions are trying to convert the entire world to
their "belief". By doing so they hope to bring about salvation for the
entire humanity!
These kinds of belief systems can state their beliefs in clear and
uncomplicated terms and they often sound more like slogans or
stereotypes. These are often appealing to an emotional need for
certainty and security.
Life is not so simple and eight or ten formulas are too inadequate to
solve life's problems! Why should belief be asserted? Why should any
truth have to be imposed as it is done by religions of the world? Does
not the truth of things speak for itself if we are open to it? We know
that if we protect the earth it will remain as our place for living - we
don't have to 'believe' it.
Do we have to 'believe' that Ahimsha or non-violence is a great
virtue? Do we have to 'believe' that vegetarianism is good for our
health, environment and economy or we know these for fact by experience?
We also frequently use another word: Faith. In the dictionary faith
has several meanings: 'allegiance to duty or person', 'belief and trust
in the loyalty of God', 'belief in the traditional doctrines of
religion', 'firm belief in something in which there is no proof' and
'complete confidence'. If faith means an openness of the heart to truth,
which looks beyond belief and the aspiration to the truth then it is
appropriate. The word faith in many cases is also associated with blind
faith. If by faith we mean "complete confidence" then it is fine to use.
Faith and truth are not the same.
5. The Dogmas of "Do's and Don'ts"
Most religions around us contain three aspects. Within all religions can be found moral principles,
which reflect universal ethic and truth. Religion tells us not to be
selfish, do good, not to harm others, not to steal, lie or cheat; common
human values that all societies require to some degree in order to
continue to exist at all.
Dogmatism is the second aspect of religion under
which certain actions as said to be wrong which may not reflect any
ethical or moral values, but only the bias of a particular belief,
particularly the belief of the founder or few followers of the founder.
For example, if a religion tells us that it is a sin not to perform
certain rituals, or only the book of a particular religion has the
so-called revelation of God is not a statement of truth but purely a
belief, which cannot but lead us to ignorance. The dogma may even tell
us that if we did not follow the scriptures or a prophet, one has to go
to a place called hell after death and has to suffer eternal punishment.
Based on the ethics, beliefs, experiences and the dogma, each such
"institutionalized system" or religion introduces of rituals and
practices. It may be simply praying in a church, performing "namaj" or
doing meditation. Sometimes the rituals may have good value and
sometimes meaningless.
Religions are said to mix the nectar of ethics with the poison of
exclusive beliefs. They add hundreds of do's and don'ts, and bar logical
or rational questioning. These dogmas create disharmony through both
the "believers" and the "non-believers". The believers avoid logic and
the non-believers stamp the believers as outdated or unscientific or
even fanatics. Do we really need such religions? Should we discard
religion altogether and follow secular and universal ethics only?
comment:
p_commentcount