Mokshamala

Author(s): Manu Doshi
Publisher: Manu Doshi

Page 45

One may contend that a temple makes a difference because it helps in undertaking devotional worship. Such a contention, however, fails to correctly make out the supreme state and the devotion with a detached mind. But let us turn back to our subject. From the philosophical point of view the soul has been drifting in the world on account of the impurity arising from sensual indulgence. That impurity can be removed by using the water of pure mode. A disentangled Guru washes the soul-cloth by putting it on the stone of right conduct while applying the soap of omniscient Lords' words and the water of detachment. In this analogy the rest of the means would be of no use in absence of water of detachment. Detachment thus constitutes the essence of religion. Since the religion propounded by the omniscient Lords urges for cultivation of detachment, the same should be regarded as the essence of religion.
Lesson 58: Differences in religious beliefs, Part 1
There are many different religious faiths in the world. The differences in that respect, though varying from time to time, have been prevailing since the infinity. Let us examine them briefly.
Some of them are compatible to one another, while some are incompatible; there are also those which are atheist. Some treat morality as religion, some treat knowledge as religion and some treat nescience as such. Some lay emphasis on devotion, some on rituals, some on reverence, while some treat proper maintenance of body as religious.
The founders of those religions seem to have contended that what they say is truth and constitutes the words of omniscient beings and all other beliefs are false and irrational. As such, they have rightly or wrongly refuted one another's beliefs. Vedänt, Sänkhya, Vaisheshik, Nyäy, Buddhism, Vaishnavism, Shakti faith, Christianity or Islam, all of them contend that what they say can lead to all sorts of accomplishments. What should then be our approach?
The contention of a plaintiff as well as of a defendant cannot be true; neither would they be entirely wrong. It is possible that the plaintiff may be more on the right side and defendant may be more on the wrong side. or the defendant may be more on the right side and plaintiff may be more on the wrong side; both of them cannot be entirely wrong. In light of that perspective one belief could turn out to be right and others wrong.
Truth-seeker: That is perplexing; how can we treat everyone as right or wrong? If we treat everyone as wrong, we would be termed as atheist and truthfulness of any religion would be lost. It is certain that the true faith does exist and the world needs it. If we consider one religious faith as true and others as wrong, we need to prove it. Considering all of them as true would turn out to be castles in the air, because in that case there would be no justification for so many differences; why should everyone not try to set up identical faith? Such contradictions require us to pause and think over.
Let me clarify the point to the best of my ability. That clarification is based on truth and objective approach. It is neither biased nor sectarian, neither partial nor discriminating. It is topmost and worth thinking over. Prima-facie it may seem ordinary, but it would be seen highly meaningful, when deeply pondered over.
Lesson 59: Differences in religious beliefs, Part 2
It is necessary to admit that there should be one true faith in the world. Treating one faith as totally true involves treating all others as wrong, but I do not mean that. From the absolute point of view it can be termed as false, but not so from the practical point of view. What I intend to convey is that one belief is totally true, while others are imperfect and flawed. There are, of course, a few basically wrong faiths, which are atheist or irrational. But those, which point out the evils relating to sinful activities and the