Religion, as a word, is but ambiguous. It's a set of beliefs one has about the existence of an unproven identity. Isn't the last sentence ambiguous? This is how religion is and yet, it is followed religiously by the populace. While Democracy runs on the premise of all men being intelligent, Religion, on the only condition that each man should remain unintelligent. An intelligent man is never known by his religion, but his mind.
Any life form inherently dislikes restrictions. Religion - originated anywhere, at any point of time, revering single or multitude of idols - however, unfailingly professess some or other sort of restriction. The restrictions - as they should be obviously - ridiculously foolish and abhor the followers from apparel, food, procreativity, et al. How can one willingly submit to restriction when one dislikes restrictions? Simple: Give incentives. The incentive like, gratification of an inanimate idol, which, upon being followed, promises the follower a sure shot free ticket to a place called heaven. In absence of incentives, no one will naturally care to bother for restrictions. Further, if one dishonours the restrictions, he is penalised under the namesake of penance! The restrictions are practically for Social Publicity. The more are the restrictions, the greater is the greatness of the religion. As a corollary, funnier is the restriction - meaning, beyond the limits of insanely ridiculous - more is hype associated with it; e.g. celibacy. Men and women observing celibacy are usually given revered status is religious circles. What for? 'Observing celibacy is but most difficult!', is the trite - but, grave - reply. When it is difficult why do it? 'To achieve self restraint', 'To remain pure', 'Devote oneself wholeheartedly, to the God, by abstaining from from sinful deeds', are some of the pious replies. Well, I never understood this logic. Suppose everyone gets enlightened (!) and starts celebrating celibacy, will anyone be there to sing the hymns in the next generation. Or do they intend to outsource it to Orangutans?!
Some say, religion professes guiding principles for the followers, to guide them to lead a peaceful, amicable and prosperous life. But this is a blatant violation of the definition! Religion is belief in existence of God and not the way to live! The latter is Philosophy, per se. Now, Religion and Philosophy are two distinct words and should not ever be assumed synonymous.
Religion is exclusively for stupid people. If one dig into the history, mention of religions is only recent; circa two millennia. No Vedic literature mentions, propounds or prescribes of any religion. Interestingly, there is no mention of idol and idol worship in any of such pristine scriptures. As one can't teach rocket science to any Tom, Dick and Harry, so can't you teach them Philosophy. Philosophy, anyway, is best learnt on self. How else then one teach them to live, like humans, in a civilised society? One word answer: Intimidation. Device rules for the right and the wrong and provide incentives when obeyed and penance when violated. Replace magic for logic, faith for knowledge, prayers for work, rituals for processes and a book for a rational mind. Do it, and you get a Religion. Tweak a parameter and you get a new Religion. All of the formers can easily be adapted by a frivolous mind. A man of mind can never accept the,, for he understands that segregation of his own specie on such funny parameters is but a degradation to non-human status; not even wild monkeys segregate themselves on the basis of progeny or race.
Religions are not symbols of social evolution, but it's antithesis. No civilisation advocated a religion, but Philosophy. Never a civilisation was led by a religious man. Art, craft, literature, architecture all are derivatives of civilisations which exhibit the richness of the intellect of the civilisation. Religion has never created an asset and can never create any, for it requires belief in facts, not phantoms.
Any life form inherently dislikes restrictions. Religion - originated anywhere, at any point of time, revering single or multitude of idols - however, unfailingly professess some or other sort of restriction. The restrictions - as they should be obviously - ridiculously foolish and abhor the followers from apparel, food, procreativity, et al. How can one willingly submit to restriction when one dislikes restrictions? Simple: Give incentives. The incentive like, gratification of an inanimate idol, which, upon being followed, promises the follower a sure shot free ticket to a place called heaven. In absence of incentives, no one will naturally care to bother for restrictions. Further, if one dishonours the restrictions, he is penalised under the namesake of penance! The restrictions are practically for Social Publicity. The more are the restrictions, the greater is the greatness of the religion. As a corollary, funnier is the restriction - meaning, beyond the limits of insanely ridiculous - more is hype associated with it; e.g. celibacy. Men and women observing celibacy are usually given revered status is religious circles. What for? 'Observing celibacy is but most difficult!', is the trite - but, grave - reply. When it is difficult why do it? 'To achieve self restraint', 'To remain pure', 'Devote oneself wholeheartedly, to the God, by abstaining from from sinful deeds', are some of the pious replies. Well, I never understood this logic. Suppose everyone gets enlightened (!) and starts celebrating celibacy, will anyone be there to sing the hymns in the next generation. Or do they intend to outsource it to Orangutans?!
Some say, religion professes guiding principles for the followers, to guide them to lead a peaceful, amicable and prosperous life. But this is a blatant violation of the definition! Religion is belief in existence of God and not the way to live! The latter is Philosophy, per se. Now, Religion and Philosophy are two distinct words and should not ever be assumed synonymous.
Religion is exclusively for stupid people. If one dig into the history, mention of religions is only recent; circa two millennia. No Vedic literature mentions, propounds or prescribes of any religion. Interestingly, there is no mention of idol and idol worship in any of such pristine scriptures. As one can't teach rocket science to any Tom, Dick and Harry, so can't you teach them Philosophy. Philosophy, anyway, is best learnt on self. How else then one teach them to live, like humans, in a civilised society? One word answer: Intimidation. Device rules for the right and the wrong and provide incentives when obeyed and penance when violated. Replace magic for logic, faith for knowledge, prayers for work, rituals for processes and a book for a rational mind. Do it, and you get a Religion. Tweak a parameter and you get a new Religion. All of the formers can easily be adapted by a frivolous mind. A man of mind can never accept the,, for he understands that segregation of his own specie on such funny parameters is but a degradation to non-human status; not even wild monkeys segregate themselves on the basis of progeny or race.
Religions are not symbols of social evolution, but it's antithesis. No civilisation advocated a religion, but Philosophy. Never a civilisation was led by a religious man. Art, craft, literature, architecture all are derivatives of civilisations which exhibit the richness of the intellect of the civilisation. Religion has never created an asset and can never create any, for it requires belief in facts, not phantoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment