Shruti and Smriti

The entire scriptures and religious texts in all religions in the world can be traced as a mixture or amalgamation of ideas coming from two sources viz. Shruti and Smriti. The former refers to what is termed as eternal truth and the latter refers to their application or adaptation in a contemporary context. In fact all the conflicts between the various religious ideologies will go away if their respective scholars realise this simple truth and not waste theirs’ and others’ time by harping on Only My God (OMG) and Only My Scripture (OMS) theories. Many of the so-called experts in comparative religious studies are highly skewed towards their own religion and display complete ignorance when it comes to the fundamentals of other religions. They lack the basic understanding of Shruti and Smriti, and display absolute hatred towards other faiths.

As the word Shruti itself means, it is what has come to us by word of mouth and is seen spread all over the religious texts. The Shruti elements are easily identifiable to the impartial seekers. Shruti always refers to the eternally sustainable aspects of existence. It will have no connection whatsoever to the contemporary and will have no reference to contemporary characters or incidents in history. In stark contrast, Smriti elements will always be contextual and will have to be understood in the context. If taken out of context and applied as such, Smriti will spell disaster for mankind. I am afraid this is happening very much in our present day world. The root causes of many of our current conflicts is due to this wrong interpretation of Smriti elements from the sacred texts. What was perfectly logical in a tribal society centuries back (Smriti) is definitely illogical and out of place at present.

The best way to understand Shruti is by putting it to a simple test. All Shruti elements must necessarily relate to sustainability of mankind. For example, if some God had said Satyameva Jayathe (Truth alone triumphs), it is quite possible that we take it as Shruti. But that is the mistake we make. The Shruti element must be something like “Dharma shall always triumph” because we know very well that Truth is not always the one that will sustain us. The best example of Smriti is nothing but Manusmriti. The text also contains Shruti elements, but most of it is acknowledged to be Smriti. And we all know the debate and confusion it creates when some of the fanatics interpret it as Shruti. The same problem persists for many of the texts in the Semitic religions and the world is paying a heavy price for the human fallacy. 

Ishwar and God

It is hard to imagine a world without Gods but very much possible without an Ishwar. This is because of the essential difference between the believers of the two concepts. For its believers, God is someone who exists outside of us, whereas Ishwar is an integral part of its believers’ being. There is a big difference between the two. For the God believers, each of them have been created for a purpose and the Creator (God) is constantly watching them from outside. Each one of them are answerable for their deeds on the Judgement Day and will go to Heaven or Hell depending on the results of God’s judgement. Thus for the believers of God, everything they do in their lives is for a good judgement after their death and a world without God is simply unimaginable. This is entirely different from the Ishwar believers who spent their life after life trying to realise the spirit within them and finally to be one with it.

One of the main faith problems of India is to do with this extremely different concepts of Ishwar and God. Hindu Sanatana Dharma (HSD) that propagates the concept of Ishwar had gone through its God phase ages back. But being the one and only religious faith that was freely allowed to evolve and develop, the faith itself has realised Ishwar at least a few thousand years ago. There are still strains of God worshippers within HSD, but they do not represent the vast majority. As of now, due to this conceptual difference about the Almighty, HSD is in strong conflict with the Semitic religions coming from the Only My God (OMG) nations. Ever since the advent and development of Science as a widely accepted and convincing tool for objective assessment for mankind, the future and glory of HSD has started looking up once again after centuries of subjugation. If Science and Religion shall eventually meet at one point, it will only be in Hindu Sanatana Dharma.

It is then obvious that the truth about Ishwar is much more strong and powerful than the one of God. Nothing illustrates this point than a funny story about a cross-connection that happened to a simpleton living in one of the OMG nations. The accidental remote connection on his phone got him Heaven’s lady secretary on the other end. Quite naturally the simpleton was flabbergasted and wanted to speak with his one and only God. But promptly came the question from the secretary “Which one of the Gods do you want?”  He was shocked because he was always taught that there is only one. So he told her that there must be only one and asked rather angrily whether she is joking. But the last laugh was hers when she said that during all the weekly meeting of Gods, they always laugh about the foolishness of their believers in Earth and how they are effectively deceiving them, before they offer their prayers to the one and only Ishwar.

Faith Formulations

It was an eye-opener when someone told me that I am in a world of my own creation. Though he was taking me to task for a questionable doing, I realised that he was cent percent true. All tangible and intangible items in my world are my own which I have acquired through my own five senses and same is the case with all living beings. Anything can make sense to me only if I am aware of it in the first place. And everything in my world cease for me when I am no more. The tangibles include the entire physical world around me including my own possessions, relatives etc. And my own knowledge, concepts, languages and thoughts make up the intangibles. The crux of this irrefutable argument is that each and every one of us is living in a different world, each of our own making. And we make sense to each other only when the commonalities amongst us are substantially high. We should be happy that such commonalities do exist and are increased over a period of time due to accumulation of knowledge from the surrounding environment. If a new born child could be brought up in a completely isolated environment, the world that it will progressively develop will be highly revealing to all of us who take many things for granted.

The isolated child (let it be a male) will survive only if it is cared for till it can manage of its own and let us assume that it shall be arranged. The first impression that he will develop about the world will be his self-primacy - that everything else exist for his use. He seeks no further explanation about why it is so. He feels superior, intelligent and happy. He becomes a truly atheistic Marxist communist. In the next stage he starts bothering about the other things around him, especially the living ones. Invariably he sticks to his own primacy and concludes that other living beings are something lesser and everything is created for him by some unknown Creator. He feels no qualms about harming and even killing others. He becomes a true follower of an all powerful but formless and merciful Creator who rewards and reprimands. He attributes more qualities like compassion and forgiveness to the Creator who can also speak and instruct in human languages. He develops the concept of sin and starts to believe in pleasing his Creator for achievements. But as he grows into more wisdom, he realizes that there is nothing else other than what is already within him and surrounding him that makes his own world. His irrepressible urge to understand the omnipresent God (not Creator) overpowers him. He begins to indulge in faith formulations to achieve the same and becomes worthy of being a human being. My own faith formulations may be of interest to some.

My God

If we are alone in this world we need no culture and no God. When we have one more to share this world with, we need to confront, adjust and compromise in order to live on. Our culture begins at this point and the need arises for a formless, indifferent and an all powerful, super intelligent impersonal entity (God) that can explain everything and for us to fall back on. Though many of our saintly leaders claim to have seen, heard and even talked to God, nobody could ever demonstrate it convincingly to another person. The nearest we have heard of is arranging a feel of God, like what Ramakrishna Paramahansa did for Swami Vivekanand. The underlying truth is that God is not someone who is compassionate, merciful etc., who is directing our actions, keeping a log of everyone’s activities and ever vigilant about what all of us are doing. God has no rewarding mechanism for sending us to heaven or hell after our death. God is something that exists among everything in this entire universe which neither cares nor bothers about what we do. But its very existence must definitely mean something to each one of us. It is entirely upto each individual to reach out and realize God.

Our failure to clearly define something which cannot be defined is not a failure at all. The nearest we can reach in terms of defining God is by analogies. One such wonderful analogy is that of God with Electricity. In today’s world, there is nowhere that is out of reach for electrical and electromagnetic energy. It is invisible, all powerful, but only when used or misused, to each according to their intentions. To me, God is something like this. An all pervasive and all powerful energy that can be used for our own good (misused for our own bad). It is estimated that the number of electric impulses generated in a human body on a single day is much more than those in entire telephone network in the world. In a similar fashion, the energy or logic of God is all pervasive and all our actions call for a reaction that fits into the overall logic of the universe. We are all born with a piece of that logic and what we achieve individually and collectively are based on the fuzzy logical results of all those in interaction. I believe that we are all like metal tops rotating on a magnetized environment. It can collide and fall off or it can rotate till the starting energy gets exhausted.

My Religion

Religions have already been defined as paths to reach God. Having agreed on the existence of God and its nearest analogies it is inevitable to look for a way to understand and reach it if possible. If we analyze the available world history, we can find several ideas, suggestions and concepts for approaching God - some rational and some others purely irrational based on the perceived notions of few individuals. There are those who claim to have heard from God and given us revelations that makes no meaning to ordinary folks. And that bred a set of interpreters who are attempting newer and newer versions of their interpretations of these words, each suiting their own private agenda. The do’s and dont’s in these commentaries exposes their real intentions most of the time. The political and powerful aspirations hidden in these interpretations are making today’s world a very dangerous place to live in. It is time we ignored these doubtful interpretations and each one of us attempted to define a path of our own. The desire to know God is instinctive in every living being, but as humans who are endowed with more intelligence we should create our own paths.

God has always been there and will continue to be there. Given such a nature of God, how can we approve of any suggested paths that contain gibberish words from some olden days making no meaning to many of us. If God can utter words, it must be meaningful, never ending and must continue at all times. It should be theoretically possible for any living being to interact with God at any time without any mediators and agencies. This is exactly what happens in the case of those who demonstrate miracles and unexplained capabilities. Those who desire and strive to establish such contacts with the immense energy reservoir can always look forward to success at some time. The techniques of praying, sacrifices, rituals and practices forming part of the established religions are nothing but some of the ‘proven’ methods to achieve this contact. All may not work for all and it is upto each of us to select the methods best suited to one’s character.

During these long years of attempting formulations about God and Religion, one thing became crystal clear to me – that there is no easy way. Those who are selling easy formulae of just believing in a few words, doing a few rituals, living in particular ways etc., to reach or realize God are only taking themselves and their followers for a ride. Making contact with the vast resource of (God) energy, that is least concerned about us and our affairs, is a rigorous, skilful and intelligent one-way act. Only intense, systematic and sincere efforts (termed ‘upasana’ in Sanatana Dharma) can take anyone nearer to God. And only by a progressive process of approaching God can anyone achieve anything of their needs. All other happenings in our lives are purely on account of the fuzzy logic of constant interactions with others (living and non-living) surrounding us, which we believe as our own destinies. Only a miniscule percentage among us can establish the contact with God and dissolve in it by realization. If the contact can indeed be made, the advantage of divine outpours can be enormous. But those who are unsuccessful continue to be born and re-born again.

Democratic Faiths

General elections, whether rigged, manipulated or impartial, are the most vital and visible signs of life in any functioning democracy. Be it presidential or parliamentary, democracy has been widely accepted as the nearest form to minimum acceptable governance embodying the vital elements of liberty, human rights and equality that are ‘beyond-bargain’ parameters for dignified human existence. The harsh reality that many world nations are still suffering from greedy monarchies, military dictatorships and religious theocracies makes a mockery of all our claims of progress in this 21st century. There are several reasons for the flourishing or floundering of democratic institutions in different parts of the world. The latest elections in India and Iran provide a very good opportunity to look at some of the reasons for the sustainability of democracy in the current world.

Though various forms of democracy are under trial in different nations, we can easily notice that it is showing signs of survival only in certain environments. The very spirit of democracy, especially in countries offering universal adult franchise, seems to be compatible only with certain types of people and faiths. The strengthening or weakening of democracy as a form of government among 200 odd nations with 6 billion people gives some clear indications about the real faith of democracy. One can also draw very good conclusions about the thought process, mentality and behavior of the people, nation and faith of those who prefer essentially democratic arrangements for governance. In contrast we can also get glimpses about why certain faiths are incompatible with democracy. There must be underlying reasons for both.

Conceding Spirit

Enough and more clues about the reasons for success or failure of democracy in different nations can be obtained by analyzing the happenings in their recent elections. In the last one decade we have seen presidential elections in USA (2000, 2004, 2008), general elections in India (2004, 2009) and different types of elections in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan and Nepal. It will not take much effort to prove that the 2000 election in USA, 2009 elections in India and Iran were neither impartial nor fair. All these elections have been rigged in one form or another. Rigging of elections need not always be in the form of duplicate voting or over printing of ballots or even false counting of votes. It can be in the form of manipulating the tools for elections, including the election commissions that conduct the elections, or even by hijacking of mandate obtained in any election. In India the popular mandate in 2009 elections in favour of a particular political formation has been hijacked by installing an ‘unelected’ leader.

No election is perfect and the success of any democratic arrangement emanates from the spirit and willingness of contesting parties to accept defeat. Only if equanimity exists to accept defeat or victory on the part of each and every contesting party, prior to any election, can the democratic process end conclusively. Extreme contrasts in this regard are provided by the reactions of an erstwhile Indian Prime Minister as against the current stance of the ‘defeated’ Iranian leaders in the recent elections. “Our party may have been defeated but India has won” were the famous words of a statesman like Vajpayee when he got defeated in 2004. And Al-Gore and Advani went many steps further when they conceded defeat in elections which they have morally won for furthering democracy in their own nations. The fact that these leaders had the support of their followers (in India it is in hundreds of millions) shows the general characteristics of their faith. However, the unhealthy trend of certain families hijacking the rule under the guise of electoral victory in successful democracies is another factor that merits the attention of all those who value genuine democracy.

Basic Incompatibilities

There are certain basic incompatibilities between some dominant faiths and the essential spirit of democracy. The bare minimum belief that is needed for any favorable thought on democracy is the concept of equality of human beings. To accept anyone becoming the nation’s ruler, its majority must strongly believe that all of them have equal rights (even if they are not equals in every sense) and hence eligible to rule. In the case of genuine communism and theocracy, this concept of equality is non-existent. If workers are more equal than others in a communist setup, it is the rights of clergy to be more than others in a theocratic arrangement. No wonder that democracy does not find any foothold in nations that discriminates between believers and non-believers, men and women, masters and slaves and even slaves white, brown and black. The exhibition of universal brotherhood by hugging, singing, praying and preying together are only skin deep rituals in such societies.

Conceding equality to others is easy to preach but difficult to practice. It needs a strong underlying principle to accept equality as a natural concept. In Hinduism it is easily available in their belief of having the very same God present in everything animate and inanimate. And in Christianity it is provided by the belief that all are born as sinners. But having the very same starting point does not provide a good reason for considering other competitors as equal in the subsequent race for living. The belief that all are made by the same God does not automatically confer equality on everyone. Products can be of different value even if they are manufactured in the one and only producing company. It is difficult to consider them equal but there is no harm in having brotherly feelings that can subsidize, promote or confront the enemies together.

In very general terms it is easy to conclude that democratic process succeeds only amidst some of the world’s dominant faiths, and fails miserably in the case of others. The current turbulence in Iran and successful transformation from monarchy to a democratic republic in Nepal provide living examples for this argument. And in Pakistan, democracy has failed to make any foothold even after 60 odd years of free rule. In Iraq and Afganistan it has miles to go before we can conclude that it is acceptable. There is a great message to humanity coming out of all these. It is about the misery and turbulence that awaits us if one of those undemocratic faiths comes to dominate the world. Silence of graveyards will be the only sign of equality that will be present among all nations then. Only by considering and respecting all others as our equals can we nurture democratic principles and that requires nothing less than the acceptance of same God’s presence in everything.