Nothing on earth can be the same.

  

Nothing on earth can be the same.

 

Unfortunately, or in reality, most religions are institutionalized social engineering tools or constructs and hence institutional dispensations, unlike Sanathan Dharma, which is not merely a way of life for the namesake but actually practices a way of life (meaning various and different ways of life). It accommodates, assimilates, and acknowledges many ways, any way, and every way of life.

 

It is too broad to be confined to the term "religion" as understood by the West (nothing wrong, every region, culture, society, civilization, and social system is entitled to their own definitions, understanding, ethnocentric pride, etc.).

But the problem is our forefathers unintentionally allowed or did not mind Sanathan Dharma to be classified as religion as per the Western label of religion because they may have ignorantly or innocently or naïvely felt let others understand through their known labels or frames of references.

 

Having said all these, all religions have many common aspects, certain unique practices, and also various traditions, beliefs, rules, social mores, and morals.

But often, being social constructs, they are too strict with certain observances (strict here is a euphemism for narrow and forced observances).

 

Sanathan Dharma is an exception to this, because it is too liberal in nurturing natural variety or variations or differences without violently punishing and hence, in many ways, is disorganized as well.

 

It does not enforce anything based on any single institution or scripture. It is in that sense too disorganized as well because the way of life of every individual preferably cannot and must not be externally organized.

The core of religion varies from religion to religion; to a hardcore Jain, even many Hindu practices are harmful.

 

But when it comes to beliefs and rituals in every social, individual, or institutional construct, there will be certain things logical and some illogical.

As for rituals of any religion, unless one knows as practitioners their intrinsic meaning or centuries of observed justifications or traditions, merely as outsiders, no religious person can or is entitled to mock or to criticize another religion.

But the civilizational culture, intrinsic humane values, and methods of nonviolent, nonharmful ways of life that enable social cohabitation as a species must be prioritized rather than creating animosities in the name of religion.

After all, all or every life is mortal; there are too many aspects to this life, some of them are more important contextually to live in the present times with cosmopolitan, sophisticated, civilized, rational living, which ensures peace (more precisely, nimadhi—inner peace), a certain amount of conscious heartfelt happiness (not to be confused with momentary pleasures, tough to clearly distinguish generically), then certain comforts and affordable enjoyments, and of course, most vitally, ensure basic needs as much as possible to as many as possible in whatever way we can to the unfortunate individuals of our species.

For our body to ensure a certain level of good health. For livelihood, a certain amount of wealth. For social cohabitation observing certain basic reciprocal or mutually beneficial rules.

 

Besides these, there are many add-ons, or additional dimensions and supplementary dynamics.

 

However, being one aspect of the many aspects of life, excessive obsession of any belief will or may unnecessarily create unwanted uneasiness.

While everyone is entitled to their own philosophical perspectives, their own cherished beliefs and concepts, everyone must remember that life is too vast to be confined to any particular/specific ideology, specific practices, beliefs, or particular system of life as per any specific preaching or sermonizing.

 

The following works through enough light, like A. Ramamurthy’s Indian philosophy of religion, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan’s philosophy of religion, Sri Aurobindu’s Synthesis of Yoga, Swami Vivekananda’s raja yoga, Neale Donald Walsch’s Conversations with God, J.K.'s philosophical questions, Osho’s vast explanations, Chinmayananda’s Logic of Spirituality, and ultimately, Bhagwan Ramamaharishi's most simple but also most difficult-to-practice prompts to proper self-realization, are a few that come to my mind.

 

Besides, I had a wonderful book titled ‘Philosophy of Religion'; it was a research work by a lady, I have forgotten the name. In Google, some other names are indicated; let me rework my memory and try to get back.

 

The problem is religions expect a particular collective realization, but realization can be only individual; discipline, following, adjusting, tolerance, etc. can be collectively promoted as collective responsibility.