Chapter 4.1 - Concept of Universal Religion and its Possibility

There are so many religions in this universe but no universal religion. There is a plurality of faiths differing from one another but there is no religion which is universal and one, which is accepted by all the peoples of the world. A considerable section has begun to think seriously, in utter disappointment, whether it is not time to abandon the cult of religion if, instead of promoting love and sympathy, fellow–felling and concord, it sows seeds of distrust and suspicion of hatred and discord. In one sense, religion is universal and one, and the particularities, dogmas of religions, have nothing to do with the essence of religion. In each of the religions, the universal religion is working and we have only to find out the essential and the fundamental element. There is no need for any special world-faith to work as the universal religion. Religion, properly understood, is nothing if it is not universal, and our search for a world-religion should be directed to find out the truth of religion itself which, when discovered, will reveal itself to be the one universal religion, which has been the dream of many visionaries.

Religion is a thing which cannot be dismissed easily from the human mind. It is inherent in the constitution of the human being. It belongs to the psychology of human beings. It is a passion, a craving, a desire for something universal. It is a longing for the infinite which will explain the mystery of the infinite, a striving towards reaching something which will solve the riddle of having the idea of the infinite in a finite frame. According to Swami Vivekananda also religion is that which knots the finite self with the Infinite universal self. Man has been endowed with a vague sense of the infinite. He has been given a glimpse of the infinite brightness which, though he does not remember it exactly, is still in his sub-conscious mind, and which rejects everything as dark and dull, constructed with itself. Although man is baffled in his attempts and although he is disappointed in most quarters, he has been given a strange confidence and a neverfailing hope by religion, which invites him to undertake the gigantic task and solve the riddle.

The success or failure of religion cannot be judged in the ordinary way. Though the object of religion is universal, it is to be realized by each individual in the inmost recesses of his heart. And the experience is a private, a very secret attainment which is also the dearest and the most sublime possession of the individual. God is not an object like external objects. The vision of God does not benefit the seer in any way if he is seen only as an external object. God is not only in all objects of the universe but is those very objects. If the mere sight of God would have been of any avail, our daily behaviour and dealing with worldly objects would have bestowed on us the benefit of the vision of God. One who thinks that the end of religion is to see God as an external object has surely misunderstood the whole thing. If one thinks that God is to be discovered as an external fact and that the aim of religion and science is the same one has missed the essence of religion. God is the embodiment of all values; the personification of all ideals. God is the concrete presentation of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. The realization of Truth, the clear and distinct perception of it as a reality, or the realization of Goodness as a concrete presence, as a definite and distinct Reality as distinguished from a mere ideal, is something very different from the perception of an external object as a fact. The perception of values is something different from that of the perception of facts, and the realization of the Absolute value is something unique. The contention of the common man or of the scientist that it has not been possible for religion as yet to show God as a fact to all and that consequently religion has failed in its task reminds one of the story of Lallande who swept the whole heavens with his telescope and declared that there was no God after having failed to notice Him there. We should remember here that a greater astronomer looking at the starry heavens exclaimed ‘O God’. That shows the difference between science and religion. The same starry heavens reveal God to one and hid Him from another. One perceives the value, the other wants to perceive the external fact.

It is to be remembered that the success of religion can hardly be tested by external results. The existence of envy and hatred, mistrust and suspicion, the absence of love and fellow-feeling, in a large scale or in a universal measure does not prove the failure of religion. The created world is a variety. In this world everything is not of the same kind, where everything is not and cannot be good. If it is all goodness and no evil, it is not creation at all. If creation serves any purpose, it is the conquest of goodness over evil which must exist in order to be conquered. Hatred and envy must have a place in creation by the side of love and compassion. If we do not find love anywhere it only shows that the purpose of creation is being worked out. But the religious soul must be filled with love; hatred and jealousy should not have any place in his heart. In his eyes, everything is good, there is no evil. Whatever happens follows strictly the will of God, and what is ordained by God is perfectly good. Something may appear to be evil, to be contrary to our end, but our knowledge is imperfect and partial, and we know very little of the cosmic end. What seems to evil from a partial standpoint may be not only good when seen from the standpoint of the whole but may be realized to be perfectly adjusted to the scheme of the universe and to be absolutely necessary. Good and evil are terms that have reference to partial and special ends. They lose all significance when applied to the Absolute. What is part of the absolute order of things is necessary and hence is perfect. Everything, being necessarily based on the Absolute, is an object of love, is to be welcomed. Nothing that happens, nothing that appears in the order of things, can be despised and rejected. Being necessary parts of the absolute order, all are equally indispensible, all are equally worthy. There is no room for hatred, no room for attraction and repulsion, in such a view. One who finds God as the ground of all things and beings, one who realizes God as a pervading the whole universe, cannot but be filled with love. This ‘Love’ is not an ordinary emotion as is found in worldly beings, it is ‘intellectual love of God’ as Spinoza puts it. It makes no distinction between persons and persons, between birds and beasts, but views all of them as necessarily grounded in and followings from the Eternal order of things. This love which is the sublime possession of religious minds is not to be found anywhere and everywhere, but is, by the very nature of the case, bound to be rare. It implies the rising to a state of knowledge which is above the level of the intellect. And this is not to be expected amongst common men. It is only a few fortunate souls that are favoured with this high apprehension. This knowledge and this love can hardly be verified by any external creation which always falls short of the required level. It is not to be assumed that if religion is true then every man in this universe is to be filled with love and compassion, and that the lower or the baser elements in human nature are to be completely eliminated.

There never was a time in the world when this was the case, nor will ever there be one when this will happen. The world can hardly be expected to be following love and compassion, and if this ever happens, it will mean the destruction of this creation. The evil and discord, duality and difference, which characterize the universe, will disappear only for the souls who have understood the scheme of the universe. This will disappear only for those who have penetrated behind the surface and have seen the indivisible and unchanging One pervading the whole universe, but will continue to exist for others who have not been able to realize that or to attain to such knowledge. There is end of the discord and the disharmony only for the soul who has realized the Truth. The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of the Spirit become established in the heart and not in the world for the people at large. Each individual is to realize it for himself, is to feel it in the inmost depths of his heart. And if he searches for it outside he is sure to be disappointed.

The question as to whether there should be one universal religion supplanting all particular religions of the world has been drawing the attention of many thinkers. The conflict of different religions, war and bloodshed in the name of religion, impediment in the way of unity because of division into different religious folds, are the major reasons adduced in favour of the establishment of a world-faith. Universal religion may be said to be the most general concept which reveals the very unity and the unique nature of all religions of the world. The very essence underlying all religions of the world is the same. Universal religion expresses the sameness of the fundamental principles as well as the teachings of each and every religion of the world. Swami Vivekananda believes that universal religion exists. Just as universal brotherhood of man is there, so also universal religion is there. It is to be mentioned that Universal religion is neither the product of digressive understanding nor a synthesis of the vital elements of different religions. It is the realization that the different religions are expressions of one basic truth.

Different religions have come out of different traditions and against different backgrounds. Therefore, differences are bound to be present in them. But there are similarities too amongst the different religions. K.N. Tiwari says “But because religion as a whole arises in human consciousness due to certain common problems that human beings have to face in the world and because people of different traditions share certain common feelings, ideas and sentiments, therefore, there are bound to be certain similarities too amongst different religions. Thus it will be equally wrong to speak of similarities alone and leave out differences as it will be to speak of differences alone and leave out differences as alone and leave out similarities.”^[1] From this it is cleared that since religion arises in human consciousness because of some common problems of theirs as well as since people of different religious traditions share some common feelings, ideas and sentiments, therefore there must have certain agreements or similarities among the various religions of the world. So it will be partial to highlight only the similarities. Similarly it will be equally wrong to highlight the differences only. A scientific comparative study of religions must highlight both these similarities and differences in a balanced manner.

To find out whether Universal religion is possible, we have to make a comparative analysis of different religions which are present in the world. Different religions of the world do agree or disagree among themselves on several matters. Some people give more emphasis on the similarities, while the others on dissimilarities. Generally those people who stress on the similarities aim at promoting understanding and good will among the followers of different religions. Again those who give emphasis on the dissimilarities alone intend to promote sectarianism. From the philosophical or scientific point of view both the approaches are not tenable. But keeping the social benefit in view the former, i.e. the approach of giving importance on similarities is more desirable. We should always keep it in our mind that the intention of those people who give importance on the differences among the religions creates violence among the followers of different religions. Differences are quite natural among the different religions of the world. But these differences are more apparent with regard to practices than beliefs. Such differences appear only for the different social and cultural traditions in the world. But we must mention here that their differences are only with regard to their practices.

Religions of the world both agree and differ amongst themselves on several points. Therefore, it is wrong and one-sided, to give over importance either on the similarities alone or on the differences alone. People of saintly nature have overemphasized the similarities with the idea of promoting understanding and brotherhood amongst the followers of different religions. On the other hand fanatics have been always active in highlighting the difference. From the Philosophical or scientific point of view, none of the attitudes is commendable, but with social considerations in view, the former has of course proved more healthy and desirable than the latter. The latter has created much strife and struggle amongst people of the world in the name of religion. Differences among the religions are quite natural. It is already said that differences are quite more conspicuous on the level of practices rather than of beliefs. Such differences are quite natural in view of the various social and cultural traditions prevalent in the world. But there is no cause for quarrel because of these differences. Religion in one sense is a means of satisfying the hunger of the soul for attaining a status which is free from the struggles of the worldly existence and there is no reason for quarrel if people of different traditions make efforts for satisfying this hunger in their respective ways.

Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that religion has been one of the most vital causes of strain and struggle amongst the followers of different religions of the world. It has created no less harm than the good it has generated. Fight in the name of religion has been our history. Even now there are many national and international problems which are fully religious in character. The etymology of the word ‘religion’ indicates that religion is there to bind men together in one thread of love or brotherhood, but the actual experience has been something different than this. It has more divided than bound. The following lines of Vivekananda shows this fact-“The intensest love that humanity has ever known has come from religion, and the most diabolical hatred that humanity has known has also come from religion. The noblest words of peace that the world has ever heard have come from men on the religious plane, and the bitterest denunciation that the world has ever known has also been uttered by religious men.”^[2] That is why many have preached the end of all religion to be in the interest of man. But without much of argument, it can be seen that this is a foolish remedy. Persons of saintly nature have therefore sometimes prescribed another remedy and that is in the form of the bringing up of a universal religion. What exactly will be the nature of this universal religion is not very clear so far but this seems to be clear from the very nomenclature that universal religion will not be one more religion besides the existing religions from beforehand, rather it will be the only religion prevalent all over the world which will be acceptable to and followed by all religious peoples alike.

Universal religion will be the religion of all religious people, and not of one particular group or society. It will thus be the universally accepted religion. It is felt that once there is a universal religion, all conflicts in the name of religion will be completely over and religion will then play the role of binding all people together in the thread of universal brotherhood. In one sense, such a situation may be highly beneficial. But the question is, whether such a situation is really possible? There is no contradiction involved in the concept of universal religion, so the logical possibility of such a religion is undoubted. If we think of a religion which is universally accepted and followed by all religious men of the world alike, there seems to be no contradiction involved in such a thought.

But here in saying that there is no contradiction in the concept of universal religion, we must be careful about the fact that the term ‘religion’ is being used here in its social sense, i.e., in a sense in which Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity Islam etc. are all called religions. There may be a religion, which does not cover a society or a whole group under it; rather it is confined to an individual alone. ‘Religion’ is sometimes defined or understood in such a way that it becomes a purely internal affair of an individual. In this sense we can hardly say that there is no contradiction in the concept of universal religion. And there is every logical possibility of universal religion, because in this sense whatever may be universal can hardly be taken as a religion at all. Religion is an individual affair and there is hardly any point in saying that it may be universal. But here we are surely not dealing with such a religion. We are dealing with that kind of religion, which is social in character. We are dealing with a religion which is social in character in the sense that its principles and practices are observed by a whole group of individuals, more often crossing the boundaries of nations and who feel a sense of bond of unity amongst them. In this sense of ‘religion’, there is obviously no contradiction in assuming that there may be a religion, the principles and practices of which, are observable by all religious people alike.

The above discussion tells us only about the theoretical possibility of universal religion. But that does not solve our practical problem which is the real problem. In our actual or practical plans, matters do not seem to be so easy. Our real problem to be seen here will be whether persons tide to a particular religion will ever be ready to give up their own religion for the sake of some other. Religion is a sensitive affair and the bond with which one feels tied to his own religion is more internal than external. For this we need to go into the details of some of the essential elements contained in any religion to which its followers are tied up with a sense of internal piety. We need also to see whether it will be reasonably and emotionally possible for the follower of a particular religion to give up easily these essentials of his own religion and adopt the principles and practices of the newly coined religion called the ‘universal religion’. Moreover, it will also have to be seen what exactly will be the form or the nature of this universal religion which an individual may be expected to adopt in place of his own religion. Or in other words, this will have to be decided what the possible universal religion will possibly be like.

The question ‘What is religion?’ may be answered differently. Theoretical discussion on the problem as to what a man has or does or becomes when he accepts a particular religion may centre around various points. But seeing the whole thing on a very general and realistic plane one may very easily find that what a man has with him in having a particular religion like the Hindu or Christian or any other of this kind as his own religion is that, he entertains some specific beliefs with regard to the worldand-life as a whole and performs certain specific practices which we call rituals in the light of those beliefs. Religion in this light may conveniently be defined as a specific way of life based on some specific conviction or convictions with regard to the world and life as a whole. Hinduism represents one way of life based on some specific kind of conviction or convictions with regard to the world and life as a whole, Christianity another, Jainism yet another. The beliefs include belief in God, belief in specific nature or status of the world and man, beliefs in a specific kind of life after death etc., and the practices include ways of prayer, various ceremonies and rituals and many ethical virtues and duties. We know that all the religions of the world have their own specific kinds of beliefs, and all of them prescribe specific practices for their followers. Of course, there are many similarities as regard these beliefs and practices amongst different religions, but there are differences too. Every religion maintains its separate character due to the specific beliefs and practices that it imbibes and prescribes. Similarly, every religious man is distinctly recognized as a Hindu or Buddhist or a Christian due to the specific beliefs and practices he entertains and follows. One more thing that we may add as forming the characteristic nature of a particular religion is the presence of certain specific religious stories or myths within it. R.B. Braithwaite in his book ‘An Empiricist’s View of the Nature of Religious Belief’ says that every religion consists of two things-(1) a moral way of life and (2) certain stories. The first is primary and the second is only subsidiary, but the two are there in every religion. Every religion is an attempt at setting out a moral way of life supported by certain stories. His analysis may or may not be accepted, but in pointing out the role and importance of stories in religions, he has drawn out attention to a very important aspect of prevailing religions. Every religion abounds in certain mythical stories, which are very reverently read, listened and remembered by its followers. On the practical level, these stories play a great role in religions and the specific nature and character of one religion are distinguished to a great extent from those of the others by the presence of different stories in them. Thus every religion, as its people observe and follow it, consists mainly of three things- (1) certain beliefs (2) certain practices and (3) certain religious stories. Naturally, therefore, accepting one specific religion rather than another by a man means accepting one set of beliefs and practices and entertaining one set of religious stories in mind rather than another by him.

We can consider three practically possible forms of universal religion. These are discussed below. People who realize religion in its true sense never try to establish his religion as the only universal religion to be followed by the whole world. They do not try even to establish a universal religion realizing the fact that all religions are only the different ways of arriving at the same goal. But fundamentalists of each one of the great religions want to prove to the world that it alone has the greatest claim to be accepted as the universal religion. It is because according to them only it transcends narrow local limitations. Many theologians and bigoted believers understand universal religion in this sense. If all become converts to Christianity and are actuated by its noble ideal, and if all follow this religion of love, the evil arising out of a variety of faiths will end, and the world will be a fit place for the establishment of the Kingdom of God, many devout missionaries seriously think. Many sincere Muslims also think similarly that as Muhammad is the last prophet all ultimately will have to come under the banner of Islam and the sooner this is done, it will be better for the world. Buddhism thinks that as it is a religion without any dogma and is founded on universal principles, as it is a religion without God, it alone has the valid title to be regarded as the world-faith and the followers of all religions can accept Buddhism as their creed without any difficulty.

So the first possibility of universal religion is that one of the prevailing religions themselves may be taken universally by all people of the world to be their religion instead of one which they have so far been following as their own. So in its first form the practical possibility of the universal religion means the acceptability of the beliefs, practices and religious stories of any one of the prevailing religions by all religious people of the world. For example, if Hinduism becomes universal religion, it will imply that followers of other religions along with the Hindus begin to believe alike in the immortality of the soul, karma and rebirth, bondage and liberations etc. Again all of them adopt the Hindu way of prayer and worship, perform Hindu rituals and observe Hindu moral principles etc. Besides these, all the people of the world will begin to read and listen with reverence the Hindu sacred stories relating to Rama, Krishna and many other Hindu mythological personalities. But the question is when will it be possible? It will be possible perhaps only then when Hindu beliefs, practices and religious stories prove to be the most religiously satisfying. In other words, when they prove to be such which satisfy the religious instinct and hunger of all the people of the world in the most efficient way. As a matter of fact, any religion which demands to be universal will have to satisfy this condition, viz. its beliefs, practices and religious stories are most readily acceptable to all the people of the world and are most satisfying in nature. But on what grounds can one prove the supremacy of the set of beliefs and practices of one religion over others so that it can have the best right to be the universal religion? Each religion in its own way is most satisfying to its followers, such that its beliefs and practices are most agreeably and conveniently acceptable to them. What will be the grounds then on which one can claim supremacy for the beliefs and practices of anyone religion?

There have, been attempts by some thinkers to prove implicitly or explicitly the supremacy of their own religion in respect of the fact that it contains elements which make it most suitable to serve as a universal religion. We can refer here to George Galloway as for example. Galloway in his book ‘Philosophy of Religion’ views that Christianity contains within it all such elements in the most efficient manner which may make a religion universal. He opines that only that religion may be taken as universal which touches the inner soul of man and which goes beyond all distinctions of class or group such that the ways of deliverance pointed out by it are applicable to all, and not to only a few of a particular class or group. In Galloway’s opinion it is only Christianity which satisfies them in the most suitable and efficient manner. But we can see it very well that Galloway’s opinion is clearly one-sided. His view is based on an unwarranted bias for his own religion. All the religions of the world in their own way try to satisfy the inner soul of their respective followers and its principles and practices are never meant for any particular group of people only. Kedar Nath Tiwari in this regard says, “No religion in its origin is sectarian in nature. Whatever ways for man’s deliverance it deciphers are meant for all, and not for a particular few. It is a different matter that only a few people in the world become the actual followers of a particular religion and such people form a definite religious or social group.”^[3] No religion is really sectarian in its outlook. Its message is always universal, although only a few people adopt it and organize themselves under a separate religious group. Galloway’s opinion cannot make the claim of Christianity stronger than the other religions to become a universal religion. As a matter of fact every religion may claim universality and there is every likelihood of a quarrel on this score as to which religion can justify its claim most for being a universal religion.

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan with an implicit bias for Hinduism sometimes seems to conceive the possibility of universal religion in the form of Hinduism. Radhkrisnan in this book ‘Eastern Religions and Western Thought’ argues that Hinduism by its very nature has always been very liberal and broad-hearted and its attitude towards other religions has always been one of tolerance. It has always believed that all religions are struggling towards the same reality. Different religions are just like the different pathways leading to the same goal. History also gives testimony to this universalistic outlook of Hinduism. History tells us that at times, people of different religions from different countries of the world came to India and settled here. The Hindus happily allowed those peoples to settle here and observe their own religions. But in course of time, these religions could hardly maintain their identity in the face of the liberal and universalistic outlook of Hinduism and hence ultimately merged into it. Buddhism originated in India, spread and survived throughout the universe, but it could hardly maintain its separate identity in India. The liberality of Hinduism absorbed it. Those religions which did not merge into Hinduism were greatly influenced by its liberal and universalistic outlook and they have hardly been able to maintain their original vigor. All these evidences amply show that Hinduism contains within it claims of being a universal religion. It can very well accommodate other religions within it. Therefore Hinduism forms ground for a universalistic faith. But on examination we can see that grounds on which Dr. Radhakrishnan believes Hinduism to contain within it the qualities of a universal religion are not very strong. The beliefs that the God or gods and goddesses of different religions are basically one or the same, and that all the different religions are just the different paths leading to the same goal do not constitute Hindu religion. They rather constitute Hindu Philosophy of religion. Therefore the practical possibility of universal religion in the form of Hinduism does not depend upon the fact that it looks to other religions with a sense of sympathy and tolerance. Rather it depends upon the answer to the question, how far the beliefs, practices of Hinduism contain elements within them which will be efficiently able to satisfy the reason and emotion of all the religious people of the world. And it can not be said with certainty that Hinduism contains elements which will best satisfy all the people of the world. As we have mentioned above, all the religions of the world contain elements which best satisfy their followers in their own ways. The historical examples are not doubtless. The merger of a particular religion at a certain time in some other religion may be a sequel to many local factors of the time. There was a time when other religions merged into Hinduism and today there are several Hindus who are daily undergoing conversion into other religions like Christianity, Islam etc. Further, it can be said that if Hinduism has influenced other religions, the influence of other religions upon Hinduism cannot also be denied. It is quite natural that religions flourishing together influence each other and therefore there is nothing special in Hinduism influencing other religions. It is perhaps not because of the liberal and universalistic outlook of Hinduism that other religions merged into Hinduism.

Thus it has been seen that the pervading of one existing religion over all others such that it is acceptable to all religious alike as their own religion does not seem practicable. Which particular religion is competent for the purpose and why, is the basic question here. All religions may have equal claims and the preference cannot amicably be decided. However, the most basic question in this regard seems to be, whether it is practically possible that the same set of beliefs, practices and religious stories may be able to satisfy the religious feelings of persons coming of different traditions and living at different places in different times. The answer seems to be most palpably negative. And therefore the practical possibility of universal religion in the first form seems to be doubtful.

Some others think that the universal religion will be not any particular religion,-Christianity, Buddhism or Islam,-but the religion that will be free from all particularity, from all local colouring, that will have no special prophet, no special revelation, no special dogma, no particular church or particular creed, but will be a world-faith which will be acceptable to all men belonging to different religions and which will bring all men together into an indissoluble unity. So the second possibility of universal religion that, common and essential points of all prevailing religions may be drawn out so as to form common set of beliefs and practices to be observed and followed by all religious people of the world. Again such a religion will be free from local colorings as well as particularities. But religion, isolated from all particularities, from all local colorings, is not what is ordinarily understood by religion and cannot serve the purpose of the religion of the common man. Such colorless religion will hardly be able to attract people, and a religion devoid of enthusiasm and fervour, is not worth the name.

A synthesis of different religions also cannot be expected to serve the purpose. Every religion has a special form which has its own value, and a doctrine or a creed, however valuable and important it may be as a constituent element of a particular religion, losses its significance when it is dissociated from its context and is made to fit in with the doctrine of different religion. The best things in all religions when aggregated together may not only not be the best religion, but is most likely to be the worst, if it be any religion at all. What seems only the outer husk in contrast with the essence or the kernel is not really unimportant Smatter, but is the protective covering that serves the kernel from destruction. It is only in the midst of the local colouring, in the context of the historical event in which a religion has arisen, and in the surroundings in which it has grown and developed, that a religion can hope to live and has the chance of being understood and followed. When these are eliminated in the search for a universal religion or when the best elements are sought to be isolated to the neglect of these seemingly unimportant and irrelevant details, the essence is thrown away along with the refuse and what is left is only a dead phantom, an empty abstraction, an unreal shadow.

The third possibility of universal religion is that a totally fresh religion in a fresh manner may be evolved and people all over the world accept it as their common religion. If universal religion comes about as a new religion, it is bound to be nothing other than one more religion besides many existing from beforehand. No profounder or prophet of a fresh religion has ever wished his religion to be the religion of a selected group. He has rather wished it to be a religion of all the people of the world. But it is an irony of fate that every time when such an attempt has been made by any prophet to give man a new religion of universal acceptance, it has resulted in giving rise to one more religion besides those existing from beforehand. If universal religion comes up in the form of a totally new religion, it will also meet the same fate. So the third alternative of the practical possibility of universal religion is also not tenable.

Thus practical possibility of universal religion in any of its above mentioned forms seems very bleak. In fact, such a religion is not at all needed. What is needed is sympathy and tolerance on the part of the followers of every religion towards religions of others. If there is ever a religion which is universal in any of the above mentioned forms, that will mark the end of true religion. Religion will then be only a fashion, an external clothing. Then religion will be completely cut off from its essence or root. Religion is a matter of man’s inner conviction and the outer way of life is just a consequence of that. Men have the right to differ from one another in their convictions and are bound to have different ways of life in the light of their convictions. That is real privilege of man. If a universal religion is thrust upon him from outside in an artificial form, this privilege is withdrawn. Then there is neither real man nor real religion. Religion is from one point of view, a means of satisfying the hunger of one’s soul which arises due to the limitations of mundane life. There are various ways of satisfying this hunger. Since there are various ways of satisfying this hunger, there is no ground for quarrel. Every man has the right to differ from others on various points relating to life. Hence it will be total injustice to debar him from this privilege in the realm of religion. He has the right to differ from others and there is no need of evolving any universal religion. Only everyone will have to learn to accommodate and respect differences in matters of religion. Differences are quite natural and they will have to be recognized and tolerated as such. The primary lesson of religion must be to tolerate and accommodate the religious ideas and sentiments of others. If someone is unable to do it, he has no right to claim himself religious.

From the above discussion it has been seen that all the three ways of establishing universal religion are not tenable. All the great thinkers of religion are repeatedly telling us that there is no difference among the religions in their essence. Yet there is innumerable violence in the name of religion. Religion is essentially a spiritual relation which rouses in us the highest form of love, devotion, holiness and steady light of wisdom to be related with or projected upon certain object which also is not limited and finite, mundane and temporal, but a universal and abiding spiritual reality. Religion, with its stress upon union or communion with the Divine points the way to the highest philosophical position. Spiritual consciousness elevates us from narrow ego-frontier to the broad land of spirit, the positive realization of fundamental unity. This spirituality is not temporary feeling, which the poet and the artist sometimes have, or the lover and the philanthropist sometimes enjoy. It is an abiding settlement, a permanent possession. Both spiritual and rational life is universal. Spiritual life is universal because spiritual, though appears to be many, has the same nature. Rational life is universal because reason has the same objective reference. The Upanishads say that he who knows the Brahman becomes the Brahman. This can be true only when ‘to know implies to transform one’s being’ and this again can be true only upon the object to be known as one’s innermost self. Here knowledge means spiritual transformation of being.

Variation is essential for the growth of life. Similarly variety of faiths has enriched the spiritual world and made it comprehensive to all types of men. Since we are different in our natures, the same method can scarcely be applied to any two of us in the same manner. Some are very emotional in nature, some are philosophical, others cling to all sorts of ritualistic forms. All of these certainly can not have the same method. If there were only one method to arrive at truth it would be death for everyone else who is not similarly constituted. Again we can not make all conform to the same ideal. So only by following the above possibilities or any one of the possibility of universal religion, it is not possible to establish a universal religion. It is possible only when everyone understand the fact that essentially all the religions are the same because every religion leads us to the same point. This very fact is repeatedly told by Swami Vivekananda and all other religious scholars.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Tiwari, K.N., Comparative Religion, p-191.

[2]:

[Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda], VOL. 2, p-375

[3]:

Tiwari, K.N., Comparative Religion, p-272.