Duh… really; but is there not but one God?

Duh… really; but is there not but one God?

Christian theologians are grossly myopic and mostly uneducated on other religions; if they were otherwise – they would have, by now, joined the dots from all the religions and arrived at the conclusion that all religions are the same and the God referred to in the Bible – is actually the same God in other religions. Monotheistic religions shy away from making such claims; they define themselves through exclusionary means which reiterates their separateness from other faiths and traditions. And we wonder – what tradition and faith do they come from that the believers of the monotheistic religions simply reject the Other as either being deviant or less truthful – only fit for heathens.

I, undoubtedly, occupy a place of being a heathen Other – from the perspective of the western Christian theologians – but the sad truth is that unless we join the dots, our children will inherit a world that is torn apart by religious zealotry.

To the untrained mind, there are irreconcilable differences between Hinduism and the Biblical monotheistic religions; concepts of Original Sin and Evil do not exist in the former.

Christian theologians need to be aware that there are no differences between the basic tenets being propounded in the Bible and what is also articulated in the Upanishads.

 

In the Garden of Eden, mankind was aware of the fact that they were one with God and had emerged from this spiritual Omniscient Being. This awareness made them immortal; once the Fall took place, they lost this sense of spiritual awareness. In the Mundaka Upanishad, Brahman is defined as “immortal and undecaying by nature,” “true and imperishable.” The Kena Upanishad refers to this in the following manner:

The wise ones, having realized (Brahman) in all beings, and having turned away from this world, become immortal. (part 2. Verse 5)

Expulsion from the Garden of Eden; how Sin came into the world.

The notion of Evil or Original Sin tantamounts to humankind being in a state of not recognizing God or being aware of God; this lack of spiritual awareness of God – that the whole Universe is but Brahman/ God – and humankind and the world are but an extension of It and created out of It – is being in a state of having Sinned. Hinduism calls this Maya – when we assume the corporeal parts of the world as the Real and forget that the world is but a manifestation of God.  The Mundaka Upanishad describes it as the following:

The Purusa [the Bible refers to this as the Holy Spirit] is transcendental, since S/He is formless. And since S/He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since S/He is birthless, therefore S/He is without vital force and without mind. S/He is pure and superior to the (other) superior imperishable (Máyá). [The notion of Maya is akin to the Fall and humankind’s expulsion from Eden and spiritual separation from God].

 

The whole purpose of one’s existence is to realize Brahman, or to go back to an Edenic stage and be one with God: and this is how the Kena Upanishad describes it (Part 1):

 

The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know (Brahman to be such and such); hence we are not aware of any process of instructing about It.

 

If we were told that there really is not any difference in the stories that the Bible and the Upanishads are telling us – then, we would be open to accepting that those religions which use these texts are not really different from each other. At the core, these religions are all the same; and they refer to the same God. By refusing to see these similarities, we coerce ourselves to believe in lies that enables differences to emerge when in actuality there are no differences.  

 

If we want to leave a religion-war-free world for our children, we have to be committed to ensuring that all religions are able to articulate similar narratives.

 

Lets hold hands and sing songs of peace...

Lets hold hands and sing songs of peace ...

To the untrained mind, there are irreconcilable differences between Hinduism and the Biblical monotheistic religions; concepts of Original Sin and Evil do not exist in the former.

Christian theologians need to be aware that there are no differences between the basic tenets being propounded in the Bible and what is also articulated in the Upanishads.

 

In the Garden of Eden, mankind was aware of the fact that they were one with God and had emerged from this spiritual Omniscient Being. This awareness made them immortal; once the Fall took place, they lost this sense spiritual awareness.

The Kena Upanishad says this in the following manner:

The wise ones, having realized (Brahman) in all beings, and having turned away from this world, become immortal. (part 2. Verse 5)

The notion of Evil or Original Sin tantamounts to being in a state of not recognizing God or being aware of God; this lack of spiritual awareness of God – that the whole Universe is but Brahman/ God – and humankind and the world are but an extension of It and created out of It – is being in a state of having Sinned. Hinduism calls this Maya – when we assume the corporeal parts of the world as the Real and forget that the world is but a manifestation of God.  The whole purpose of one’s existence is to realize Brahman: and this is how the Kena Upanishad describes it (Part 1):

 

3    The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know (Brahman to be such and such); hence we are not aware of any process of instructing about It.

 

4. That (Brahman) is surely different from the known; and again, It is above the unknown” – such was (the utterance) we heard of the ancient (teachers) who explained It to us.

Do they lie when they talk about differences....

The story on Creation from the Book of Genesis:

 

[1:20] And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."
[1:21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:22] God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[1:23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
[1:24] And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.
[1:25] God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

 

In the Mundaka Upanishad, a similar narrative is told: (Second Mundaka/ Canto 1)

 

2.    The Purusa is transcendental, since S/He is formless. And since S/He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since S/He is birthless, therefore S/He is without vital force and without mind.

3.    From Her/Him originates the vital force as well as the mind, all the senses, space, air, fire, water, and earth that supports everything.

5. From Her/Him emerges the fire (i.e. heaven) of which the fuel is the sun. From the moon emerges cloud, and (from cloud) the herbs and corns on the earth. A woman uses her ovum to create children/ A man sheds the semen into a woman. From the Purusa have originated many creatures. 

 

7. And from Her/Him duly emerged the gods in various groups, the Sádhyas, human beings, beasts, birds, life, rice and barley, as well as austerity, faith, truth, continence and dutifulness. 

 

If we were told that there really is not any difference in the stories that the Bible and the Upanishads are telling us – then, we would be open to accepting that those religions which use these texts are not really different from each other. At the core, these religions are all the same; and they refer to the same God. By refusing to see these similarities, we coerce ourselves to believe in lies that enables differences to emerge when in actuality there is no difference.  

The warp and woof of God.

The divisive elements that are fundamental to the monotheistic religions need to be examined. If we are able to understand that the basic premises on which all religions rest are the same – and if we are able to sift out the core episteme patterns which form the warp and woof of all religions, then we will be able to realise that all religious systems actually articulate similar thoughts.  

The following story about Creation is an extract from The Genesis (Old Testament):

Chapter 1

[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

 

A similar story is told in the Aiterya Upanishad:

 

1.              Om! In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone. There was nothing else whatsoever that winked. It thought, ‘Let Me create the worlds.’

 

2.              S/he/ It created these worlds, viz. ambhas, maríci, mara, ápah. That which is beyond heaven is ambhas. Heaven is its support. The sky is maríci. The earth is mara. The worlds that are below are the ápah.

 

What is the purpose of stating that all religions actually are the same; we can conclude that there is but one God and how we name that God is just different. Yes – this might just throw those men who run religious institutions out of business – but who gains if these men lose their jobs? What if the Vatican was made to become a defunct institution? We, the people would gain. We could reclaim God and re-read the religious texts in order to create gender parity around the world and subsequently, bring in some form of peace and stability. This reinterpretation of all religions would put an end to the Culture Wars that are being waged all around.

 

There are civilizational wars being fought in the present; these wars cost a ton of money and are being waged at the expense of the next generation. The question we all need to ask is this: what will our children inherit? – social structures that are very divisive and drawn out within very specific socio-religious systems and these are actually creating irreconcilable differences. Our children might just inherit a world that is filled with war zones.   

 

 

John Donne --Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, "Meditation XVII"

 

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. … any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."

Should we tell the world about the textual flaws? ... shhh.

The first two chapters of the Book of Genesis (in the Old Testament) do not hold together in terms of textual coherence; there is a sense of closure by the end of Chapter 1 and we do not really expect a repetition of the same story in Chapter 2. In the second chapter, the story is not only repeated but also told differently. It is clear that the first two chapters were written by two different authors.  

 

In Chapter 1, we learn that God is good; and we are told what comprises this notion of “goodness”; God also made human in its likeness and made them in an act that was simultaneous:

 

[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

 

In other words, God created both man and woman. On the other hand, in Chapter 2, we learn that God first made man and then, a rib of man was used to make woman. In other words, woman is seen as being an appendage to man and thus, she is his subordinate. The good God also becomes misogynous and this is seen as a normative behavior of God. This narrative clearly negates the story of Creation as is narrated in Chapter 1.  These two chapters, thus, contradict each other. The lack of textual cohesion makes the first two chapters of the Genesis suspect; we really are unable to say with authority that these two chapters were the products of a single author.

 

Textual chaos in the Book of Genesis.

In the Book of Genesis, in the Old Testament, we learn about Creation and how God made mankind:

 

[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

 

It is clear that humankind was created in the image of God; and God made man and woman simultaneously; yet this narrative changes in Chapter 2 and quite a different story is told about the Creation of humankind. The latter text is a kind of an illogical intervention to the sense of causality which is present in Chapter 1. In terms of textual cohesion, it is obvious to the reader that the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis do not necessarily hold together.

Should we tell the Vatican our little secret about God?

Religion is all about God; it is all about “revealed knowledge”; but and the BIG fact remains – why should the notion of a God that is good, as it is in the Biblical context, be so rabidly misogynous?

 

Now, we can all agree that the Catholic Church will not change its stance of what the Bible is; and the harrowing truth is that the Bible also affects and determines how societies and cultures behave. The Catholic Church will not allow any variants. And so, do we have to wait till the Catholic church becomes a minority religion and subsequently, a relic institution – lost to the world? Instead, we can argue, once the Bible is rewritten to erase the misogynous parts out, then there will be other variants of Christianity that will rise up, use the revised Bible and the same motifs and stories of the Bible.

 

Unless, of course, the Vatican is willing to listen; but then – one can argue – who really cares about an institution that seems to have lost its purpose? Why else would it not have signed CEDAW ( The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); it was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, and can be seen as an international bill of rights for women.