unity in religion essay

Of Unity in Religion By Francis Bacon: Summary and Analysis

Of unity in religion by francis bacon.

Francis Bacon wrote the essay Of Unity in Religion during a period of religious change in England during Queen Elizabeth I’s reign. It was during this period that Protestantism was establishing itself as the predominant religion in England under the Church of England. However, the reformation and the Church of England itself were fraught with dispute. Bacon, an experienced politician, saw the importance of a unified church for the stability and advancement of the English empire, and he authored the essay to transmit the idea of protestant religion unification.

Of Unity in Religion was originally published in 1612, but was expanded to its current length in 1625. The essay receives significance primarily due to the circumstances surrounding its production. Nonetheless, it retains some relevance today. Bacon establishes religion as the primary glue that holds human society together in this essay because, at the time it was written, there were numerous theological disagreements, plots, intrigues, persecutions, and assassination attempts on rulers. He insists that pagan religion be free of strife and division due to the fact that it was based on rites and ceremonies rather than set beliefs.

The essay’s fundamental argument is that religious divisions are detrimental to religion, charity, and peace and should thus be avoided. Religion is meant to maintain the unity of human civilization. As such, it should be a unified force in and of itself. According to Bacon, Christians should remain united around their religion’s fundamental principles. He sees no damage in quarrels about little issues or irrelevant points. This allows for a range of viewpoints on non-essential issues to be permitted. For example, different forms of church government and ritual and worship are permissible, as the Bible contains no definitive rule on these subjects. However, when the Bible expressly establishes a rule or doctrine, it must be accepted without reservation. In other words, unity on essential points is compatible with disagreement on non-essential points. Christ’s clothing was seamless, consisting of a single piece; nevertheless, the Queen’s garment, which represents the church, was multicoloured. Bacon’s advise is unquestionably valuable and applicable to members of other religions as well. Not only Christians, but adherents of any religion would be wise to retain a sense of unity on their religion’s fundamentals while tolerating disagreements over small points.

Please enable JavaScript

According to Bacon, men must not violate the laws of human society or human charity in order to maintain religious unity. Christians have two swords at their disposal to defend their Church: the spiritual sword symbolised by priestly authority and the temporal sword symbolised by the secular power of the government when invited by the Church to defend it. However, Christians should abstain from using the third sword – the sword of the Prophet Mohammed – which implied resorting to bloodshed and conflict in order to convert people to a certain religion. Furthermore, persecution and rebellion are not justified in the name of the Church’s unity. Persecution infringes on the rights of others, whereas rebellion is directed against the divinely ordained and declared institution of government. Man’s obligation to God should not negate man’s obligation to man.

Bacon argues in this article that the Church’s unity is the surest method to safeguard religion. He cites three advantages of religious unity, including the ability to please God and accomplish religious objectives. Secondly, to quell mockery of the Church; and finally, through religious unity, members of the Church can bring about peace, strengthen faith, and promote charity. He has also made recommendations: the church should reject unity based on ignorance of inconsistencies, as well as patchwork unity that is artificial or false unity. He implores both church and state not to be rebellious toward one another, as this would contradict the fundamental principles of man’s duty to God and mankind. One should not act like a devil with the goal of obtaining God’s throne. He asserts categorically that those who convert people through coercion are doing so for personal gain, not for the sake of religion.

Bacon is portrayed in this essay as an insightful observer and practical thinker who was cognizant of the dangers associated with religious debates. He appears to reject prejudices in this essay and makes a strong case for tolerance and a liberal outlook on religion—attitudes that are still important in the twenty-first century.

Discover more from Smart English Notes

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Religions offer a unified vision of reality because God is one and the reality which He created must have unity and integrity. This basic postulate underlies most religious traditions from the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to the Asiatic religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. In Islam, this is expressed most clearly and forcefully by the doctrine of tawhid , the absolute oneness of God. Tawhid shapes and colors everything Islamic from theology and science to art and language. As an article of faith, it seeks to present a unified and integrated vision of reality in which God as the Creator has an intimate relationship with His creation. All deities other than God are false and must be recognized as such. Since God is the only source of reality, He alone must be worshipped.

But unity is not only a matter of theology; rather it is a framework of analysis, a context in which reality emerges as an interconnected whole. Attempts to conceive reality as a whole have a long history from the classical to the modern period. Taoist sages, Native American medicine men, Hindu gurus, Greek philosophers, Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers all have had a sense of the cosmos as an ordered whole. For them, it was inconceivable to perceive reality otherwise because our way of connecting to the world is possible only through conceptual unities. Our five senses, for instance, perceive the world as a whole. My five senses work together to have a meaningful experience of the physical world. Conceptually, our minds conceive things not as discrete and disconnected items but as an interconnected unity. Otherwise, we cannot make sense of the self and the world in which we live. It would be a mistake to take this as a purely subjective assessment. What we call ‘reality’ becomes intelligible and thus lends itself to rational analysis only when it is conceived as a whole. As a matter of fact, we have no direct or disengaged experience of reality as an atomized entity. Even the most basic elements of the physical world present themselves to us as part of a larger whole.

Furthermore, cosmos as an ordered unity is also the foundation of socio-political order. As Eric Voegelin has shown in his Order and History , there is no political order without first a cosmological order. It is the unity between heaven and earth that generates order, proportion, balance and harmony in the world. Even though we have moved, to use Koyre’s suggestive terms, from a ‘closed world’ to an ‘infinite universe’ in our modern conceptions of the cosmos, we still maintain the connection between heaven and earth, and ponder over how the two make up a unity in which we find order and meaning. Modern science has not completely destroyed this unity but changed the ways in which it can be understood. The world and the ways in which we understand it remain interconnected and “networked”. The “butterfly effect” reminds us of the underlying interconnectedness of the world of existence.

The idea of unity and interconnectedness, however, is not confined to abstract philosophical debates. Ever since we have lost the traditional sense of unity in the modern period, we have paid a heavy price and introduced fake, materialistic and inhuman distinctions into the very reality of which we are a part. The Cartesian wall of separation between res extensa (the physical-corporeal world) and res cogitans (the world of the mind) has led to a view of nature that is not only materialistic and opaque but also unintelligible and unsustainable. It has created such an abyss that the so-called endless war between nature and nurture or between what nature makes and what humans produce as culture has reached new heights with modern science and technology. The alienation of man from the rest of creation has resulted in the worst kinds of atrocities in the modern period. One should only remember the destruction we have wrought upon nature over the last two centuries, the Holocaust, countless wars, and most recently weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons, all of which are the creations of our modern humanity made possible by a very different, flat and reductionist notion of the cosmos.

Unity and Uniformity

To modern ears, such terms as unity, oneness, integrated whole, wholeness may suggest imageries of totality, closeness and oppression. From classical sophists and skeptics to modern atheists, a common argument has been made to the effect that religions advocating the absolute oneness of God has caused division and strife among people with different convictions, and that the categorical distinction between truth and falsehood in matters of religion has led to the classification of ideas and actions as good and bad, acceptable and abhorrent, and eventually lawful and unlawful. According to an argument by the prominent Egyptologist Jan Assmann in his The Mind of Egypt , the “Mosaic distinction” between true and false gods has introduced something new to the tradition of ancient religions and pitted for the first time those who followed ‘true faith’ against those who believed in ‘false deities’. Democratic belief in a plethora of deities without a moral judgment on them has been disrupted by the Abrahamic insistence of true versus false religion. This distinction, it is further claimed, continues to divide humanity and fuels religious tension and fanaticism today. A truly humanist approach to religion would abolish all such distinctions between true and false and let people devise their own pantheon of cosmopolitan deities. Unity leads to monopoly and oppression and we should forsake all such moral-ideological constructions.

This is the first conceptual correction we need to make. As the French philosopher and metaphysician Rene Guenon has pointed out, there is a difference between unity and uniformity. While uniformity denotes a state of bland sameness and oppressive homogeneity, unity points to what connects diverse things. There is no uniformity in nature but unity reigns in the natural order. We should remember that uniformity is produced by man-made machines and devices, and by the so-called ‘systems’. The unity of an animal species does not amount to uniformity. Each animal, while belonging to the same species, remains unique and maintains its particular personality. But the series of machines produced in exactly the same ways and presented to hundreds of millions of people living in fairly diverse circumstances leads to a monopolizing uniformity. Living beings have ‘identity’ whereas machines have only a ‘serial number’.

Furthermore, unity is needed for moral discernment because it entails a moral obligation to treat every being, living or not, with the respect that it deserves. The fact that I am connected to the rest of existence and that I am part of a bigger whole gives me a different perspective on things. By contrast, uniformity is a useful tool for control and management, and this is exactly what we do with the mindboggling level of uniformity and homogeneity we have reached with modern techno-science.

The second conceptual clarity we need to have concerns the relationship between unity and plurality. Just as unity does not mean uniformity, plurality does not mean division and chaos. Plurality and diversity have their own place in the great chain of being and fulfill an important function in the total economy of creation. According to Muslim theologians, God always creates something anew and His creation is never the same. The notion of “perpetual creation” or “creation anew” ( khalq jadid ) explains the dynamic nature of existence. Furthermore, plurality and diversity are an essential component of the human plane where differences among human beings contribute to the universal telos of creation. Religions have developed different ways of dealing with diversity without giving up on unity.

Unity and Diversity

In the Islamic tradition, the relationship between unity and plurality has been defined as complementary. The notion of “unity-in-diversity” ( al-wahdah fi’l-kathrah ), elaborated by such sages as Ibn Al-‘Arabi and Mulla Sadra, has been a common and powerful idea from science and theology to art and architecture. Unity in the sense defined above does not negate plurality. To the contrary, it places plurality, multiplicity and diversity within a larger context of intelligibility. Thus God’s absolute oneness and unity does not coerce or cancel out the plurality we see in the world because at the end of the day plurality is a necessary outcome of creation. Since God has decided to create and what He has created is different from Him, the world must have plurality and diversity as one of its essential traits.

This dual approach to things allows for what I call ‘metaphysical transparency’ whereby the world of existence is seen through the perspective of multiple layers of reality. The world is always more than how it appears to our eyes, and this means that we have an ontological duty to decipher the multiple layers of meaning contained in reality. Epistemology is nothing but bringing out the multi-dimensional aspects of existence and interpret their meanings that require a hermeneutical exercise. But this is also an acknowledgement of the fact that the knowing subject cannot fully encapsulate reality; it cannot exhaust its potentials. Unless we put the cart before the horse and reduce reality to our perceptions of its, reality always remains larger and bigger than our conceptual constructions can present it to be. There is always something remaining unarticulated, something waiting to be discovered.

In his Mathnawi , Mawlana Jalal al-Din Rumi makes a distinction between “meaning” ( ma’na ) and “form” ( surat ) and applies it to various areas from religion and philosophy to society. Meaning is what gives substance to things; but what hits us first in the external world is their form. Our first experience of things is mediated through their external appearance. We have a perceptual sense about a person first by looking at his/her form. It is only after we interact with that person that we develop a particular idea, a certain conception about him/her. The first is the form and it takes us so far in our grasp of things. The second is the meaning and it is here that we begin to penetrate into the reality of things. This is where we go beyond the appearance and uncover the inner meaning of things. What we discover is not necessarily Kant’s ding an sich . Nor is it something static. What lies beneath is often more dynamic and multi-layered. Understanding diversity through the eyes of unity does not lend us in a static metaphysics where the reality of things is forever frozen and stuck in some abstract mental construct. To the contrary, the goal of “unity-analysis” is to break through such misleading constructs and witness the dynamic nature of reality to the extent possible for us humans. The reason for this is that the reality of things, as Mulla Sadra says in his Four Intellectual Journeys ( al-Asfar al-arba‘ah al-‘aqliyyah) , defies conceptualization because reality precedes concepts and informs them. As a result, all of our conceptualizations must be checked against the reality of things. In order to have access to the pre-conceptual reality of things, one needs to have a different epistemology – an epistemology that goes beyond the verbal and the mental and allows for a non-discursive experience of reality.

Religion, Truth and Diversity

The point I am trying to make here must be clear by now: it is wrong to reject unity in the name of liberating us from totalitarianism and to worship multiplicity in the name of defending pluralism. Both unity and diversity have their place within the larger context of existence; creating a binary opposition between the two makes justice to neither one of them. More importantly, it is not entirely true to say that religions only speak the language of unity and do not know how to handle multiplicity. As a result of this common misconception, religions have been accused of advocating theological totalitarianism and moral exclusivism. It is argued that since religions subscribe to a notion of religious truth that is absolute and exclusivist and since they all want to impose this truth on their followers, they cannot accommodate difference and instead prefer uniformity and absolutism. Some conclude that this is a fundamental problem with all religions and that we have to secularize religious worldviews in order to create democratic and pluralistic societies in the 21st century.

There are a couple of points to be considered here. First of all, one does not need religion to advocate totalitarianism, absolutism and violence. As Talal Asad argues in his Formations of the Secular: Islam, Christianity and Modernity , non-religious ideological constructs such as nationalism or communism can be used to justify absolutism and violence. Certain trends in secular Western modernity are no less oppressive and totalitarian. Most European wars since the 18th century have been fought with very little or no religious justification. Secularism per se does not guarantee liberal credentials. In some cases, laicism and especially its militant versions as an ideology can be more oppressive. The truth-claims of traditional religions can be a source of tension but so can secular truth-claims. A case in point is the top-down imposition of state-secularism in Muslim countries in the name of modernization and development. A good part of the tension that exists between secular elites and traditional-religious masses is fed by policies of top-down modernization-cum-secularization.

Secondly, religion and secularism clash when secularism is presented as an alternative worldview to religion. Combined with positivism, scientism and naturalism, secularism has often been defended by its aggressive supporters to supplant religion and construct a pseudo-religious identity. But as Serif Mardin shows in his Religion, Society and Modernity in Turkey , militant Turkish secularism and Kamalism has failed to produce a social ethics for the Turkish public and thus fallen short of providing an alternative identity for the citizens of modern Turkish republic – an identity that would supposedly make Turkish citizens more secular than religious and traditional. Furthermore, the founding fathers of Turkish modernization have used the power of the state to impose this incomplete and unconvincing identity on the people and forced them to react. As a result, secularism has become antithetical to religion and religious faith. Given the realities on the ground, it is secularism, not religion, that is a source of division and tension in most Muslim societies today. One should also add that the militant defenders of secularism in Muslim countries have taken no critical attitude towards the failing aspects of secularism and adopted Western customs and mores at the expense of local traditional Islamic values. While accusing Muslim masses of blindly following ( taqlid ) the example of their predecessors, they themselves have fallen into the same trap vis-à-vis the Enlightenment and Western modernity. As a result, the largely westernized elites have become deeply alienated towards their own history, culture, society and its religious vocabulary.

Thirdly, we need to be more discerning about the history of religions. When we talk about religion as a source of integration or division, we should keep in mind that each religious tradition has its own unique historical experience. Christian socio-religious history is different from that of Judaism and Islam, and each offers different possibilities for different socio-political circumstances. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr has shown in his numerous works and especially in Islam in the Modern World , one of the devastating mistakes of Western modernity has been to create a general theory of religion based on the specific experience of Western Christianity in Europe and apply it to all religions in toto . This reductionist and imperialist approach has not only led to the loss of the remarkable diversity of religious history but also to the misunderstanding and misjudgment of non-Western religious traditions. Just imagine for a moment what Judaism and Christianity would look like if we had adopted the Buddhist notions of truth, salvation, morality and religious community to world’s religions. It would be impossible to make sense of any of the fundamental teachings of Judaism and Christianity, and their history would appear to be a strange collection of myths, legends, personality cults, abstruse metaphysical concepts, and social impurities.

The Spirit of Cosmopolitan Islam

This point is particularly pertinent for non-Western societies because when we talk about religion as a source of integration and/or division in modern societies, most of the discussion concentrates on the role of Islam in contemporary Muslim and Western societies. In its long history, Islam has acted both as a religion and a social imagery. The fact that Islam has emerged within a diverse religious and ethnic environment in Arabia has helped it become a fairly cosmopolitan religion early on. This is clearly seen in the ethnic composition of the first Muslim community with a number of non-Arab personalities. The Qur’an displays a frank awareness of the existence of other religious traditions especially that of Judaism and Christianity and engages in a number of theological debates with them.

The later history of Islam after the Umayyads and the Abbasids show the extent to which a truly cosmopolitan and pluralistic Muslim culture has emerged in such diverse places as Bukhara, Isfahan, Baghdad, Alexandria, Istanbul, Sarajevo, Cordoba, and Granada. While it would be anachronistic to look for examples of constitutional citizenship and liberal tolerance in the modern senses of the terms, a notable experience of Convivencia , the living together of different religious groups, has been recorded and the goal of creating a fairly global culture based on common values achieved. In its best days, Muslim societies have embraced religious and ethnic diversity to the benefit of both the majority and minority communities. Without giving up their own claim to the truth, they have recognized the reality of other traditions in their midst.

Today most Muslim societies have to a large extent lost this spirit of cosmopolitan Islam and instead adopted second-rate imitations of Western modernity. There are several reasons for this but one major reason that sums up others as well is Islam’s checkered experience with modernity and modernity’s hostile attitude towards non-Western traditions. With the legacy of colonialism leaving deep scars in the Muslim world from Africa and the Balkans to the plight of the Palestinians, Muslim societies are reacting to Western modernity in the same way modernity has positioned itself in the new world: an expansionist, exclusivist and absolutist power. They think by adopting modernity’s self-destructive methods they will overcome it and replace it with something better. Thus they build monstrous buildings, mega mosques, rocket-like minarets all in the name of modern urban development. They pollute the environment more than Western countries in the name of rapid economic development. They advocate the worst form of entertainment culture in order to compete with Western pop culture. They spend billions of dollars on arms and build atomic bombs in order to ‘boost’ the Muslim pride. The list goes on.

Such activities neither make them modern or Western nor bring them closer to their own societies. By contrast, they further alienate themselves from the core values and social imageries of Muslim masses who, disappointed and disgruntled with the exclusivist and aggressive nature of Western modernity and the double standards of Western policies, turn towards worst kinds of alternatives and entrust their future to different versions of irresponsible radicalism and extremism. Instead of addressing the pressing issues of justice and equality, Western countries and their cohorts in the Muslim world go further in their error and support authoritarianism and oppression in the name of fighting against religious radicalism, fundamentalism, violence, etc. In such circumstances, religion can act as a source of social cohesion and stability only when issues of justice are addressed and a degree of human decency is maintained in politics. Otherwise, fake religious justifications are useless and even harmful to cover up real oppression and real injustice.

Religions per se are neither the source of nor the solution for the socio-political problems of our age. Other social, political and economic issues need to be addressed to let religions play a constructive role in socio-political conflicts. Religious leaders and communities can make substantial contributions to issues of justice, immigration, xenophobia, Islamophobia, ethnic and religious hatred, discrimination, human trafficking, civil wars and other social ills. But they can do so to the extent to which other social and political resources are mobilized and the facts on the grounds are altered to allow for change for the better. Religious leaders would be deluding themselves into thinking that they have the panacea for all the problems of our world. Many of them do not pretend to have the magic wand and remain within the boundaries of religious humility and honesty. But the same moral attitude needs to be shown by political leaders, business communities, media bosses, NGOs and others to tackle the social maladies of the late modernity in which we live. What is also needed is a new attitude towards religion, one that will go beyond an instrumentalist approach to religion and respect its integrity and wholeness.

In short, religions can be a source of unity or division to the extent to which we mobilize other resources at our disposal for the same goal of achieving unity, integrity and integration. Creating chaos out of greed and ambition and then expecting religion to fix it is neither fair nor intelligent. And it will not work. It is true that religions have a moral responsibility to lead the world. But this can be possible only in a world in which religious values and moral principles are not made dysfunctional by the system in which we operate. As things stand right now in the long duree of Western modernity, this is not the case, i.e., we’re living a mode of existence that is still radically instrumentalist, pragmatist, and profit-driven in the wider sense of the term. We still want to enjoy freedom to the fullest extent without undertaking the necessary responsibilities to make it possible for all human beings. We still treat the natural environment in a way as if it did not exist but fully know that it can no longer renew and sustain itself because of the way we have been exploiting it. We want to have full dominion over the world without acknowledging the devastating consequences of such a possession. Religions cannot help such a world until and unless we change the way we relate to the world around us.

In conclusion, let me say briefly that integration needs to take place at the level of heaven and earth, the human and the universe, and what is substantial and what is instrumental before it can have any meaning and function at the social level. Muslim minority communities may or may not fully integrate into their host countries in Europe. But their integration would have no meaning as long as they integrate into a social environment which keeps producing new social ills, new forms of alienation, and new causes for friction for us all as human beings. What we need is more than just better immigration laws and labor policies (we need them too). What we need is a new sense of the cosmos, a new awareness of the great chain of being of which we are a part, a new sensitivity towards what constitutes the most essential aspects of our existence, a new concept of existence and knowledge that will overcome the epistemic hubris of modernity deeply entrenched in our modern ways. This invites us to recognize the fact that we’re part of a larger whole over which we should not vainly try to have full dominion. We should integrate into this larger reality without giving up our humanity and freedom. Only a mode of existence and a concept of will that maintains the balance between meaning and freedom will grant us an integrated and peaceful way of life.

——-

The final/definitive version of Ibrahim Kalin’s essay was published in Philosophy&Social Criticism , vol 37 number 4 May 2011, SAGE Publications Ltd, (LA, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC), all rights reserved, p. 471-478, Special Issue: “Realigning Liberalism: Pluralism, Integration, Identities”, Reset-Dialogues on Civilizations Istanbul Seminars 2010, Edited by: Alessandro Ferrara, Volker Kaul and David Rasmussen. Link to the issue http://psc.sagepub.com/content/37/4.toc

——–

Ibrahim Kalin – Currently chief foreign affairs advisor of the Prime Minister, he did his graduate studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia before receiving his Ph D from George Washington University in Washington DC. He was a faculty member at the Department of Religious Studies at the College of the Holy Cross (2002-2005), Worcester, MA. As a scholar of Islamic Studies, he worked at the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University. Prior to this, he worked at the College of the Holy Cross in the USA. Kalin is the founding-director of the SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (LINK), based in Ankara and was its general coordinator from 2006 to 2009. Besides advising the prime minister, he is currently a columnist for Sabah newspaper.

Please consider giving a tax-free donation to Reset this year

Any amount will help show your support for our activities

In Europe and elsewhere (Reset DOC)

In the US (Reset Dialogues)

• Concept of Sustainable Development
• Criticism of the Concept of Sustainable Development
• Concept of Managed Harmony
• Our Publications
• Personalities
• Economics Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Environment Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Demographics Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Health Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Food Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Migration Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Security Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Resources Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Futurophobia Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Institutions Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Economic Objectives Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Political Objectives Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Social Objectives Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Planetary Integration Statistic Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Legislative Proposals Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Research Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Problems Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Projects Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Legislation Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Events Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Planetary resources Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• World view Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Humanitarian issues Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Planetary Ethics Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Global Spiritual Synthesis Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• Cross-cultural Communication Statistics Analysis Maps and charts Technologies Solutions
• CULTURE AND SPIRITUALITY
• Global Spiritual Synthesis

Unity of religions: certainly no confusion

This view of Sarva Dharma Sambhava has become the political principle of modern India. However, other countries, in particular Pakistan and Bangladesh, did not accept it. Religions that support an exclusive or final revelation, such as Christianity and Islam, almost unanimously opposed it. The idea of ??Sarva Dharma Sambhava did not create equality of views even in Hinduism, where different sects still compete with each other. .Unity of religions or confusion Is the equality of all religions a spiritual principle that has become a fundamentally correct position designed to ensure harmony between believers of different faiths, despite the actual differences between them? And is this really the real meaning of Sarva Dharma Sambhava? Let's first consider what actually means Sarva Dharma Sambhava. This is the statement that all Dharmas are equal. But what is Dharma? Dharmas are universal, true principles and natural laws that are always true. For example, Dharma or the property of fire is its burning. Indeed, in fact, it is impossible to imagine a fire that does not burn. Similarly, there are ethical and spiritual principles or Dharmas. Such ethical Dharmas are yogic principles such as non-harm (ahiMsã- non-violence), truthfulness (satya), control over sexuality (brahmacharya), prohibition of theft (asteya), and nonproliferation (aparigraha), yama and niyama from yogic thoughts. For example, no being wants to hurt, cause suffering to others, because violence and suffering are a violation of the Dharma, while the desire to alleviate the suffering of others contributes to the Dharma. These are the principles of a righteous life, working for people and all societies. Another such dharmic principle is the law of karma, which tells us that what we do has consequences both in this and in the future life, for ourselves and for the whole world.

Does Sarva Dharma Sambhava require this level? We must be careful in associating the Dharma with religion and insisting that different religions are inherently harmonious, like different Dharmas. In fact, different religions have inherent disharmonies that will take a long time to study in attempts to identify them and to understand them. This caused many misunderstandings that exist in the world in which prayers to God were regularly accompanied by calls for war and aggression. Unity of religions or confusion The induistic supporters of Sarva Dharma Sambhava often say to a Christian and a Muslim how to be a better Christian or a Muslim, but they will not encourage them to become Hindus, as if Christianity and Islam contained the same teachings and had the same value as Hinduism . The choice of religion they consider a free will and will help everyone in their quest for God. The principle of Sarva Dharma Sambhava only reveals possible conditions and limitations for the professing of religious beliefs. Religion, which does not recognize the self-realization and realization of God, like most Western religions, can not lead people to Moksha in the Hindu sense. If someone wants to help a person find Moksha, which should be a true dharmic concern, they should better follow what is true, look for Dharma, even if it may require to go against their religion.

Of course, all religions teach us somehow to be kind, to tell the truth, to control the feelings and, somehow, profess other principles that are Dharmic. At the same time, the Dharmic principles can be shared by people without any religious beliefs. They are universal ethical principles and are largely obvious if we deeply understand the nature of the interdependence of everything. So, it turns out that apart from the Dharmic principles, religions do not have much in common. Some religions (Christianity, Islam) have a God-creator, while others (Buddhism and Taoism) do not allow such a concept. While the Dharmic traditions look at enlightenment or Moksha as a goal, for some religions the goal is salvation from sin and hell. Some religions estimate the age of the world only in five or six thousand years, others - in billions of years. Some allow images to be used in religious worship, others strongly oppose them. Some religions are tolerant and accept other beliefs, others are of extremist views . Religion is as diverse as any other cultural phenomenon, such as fashion, language or art. This is manifested at the highest level. In fact, religion is often a source of destructive superstitions and discriminatory practices that interfere in various aspects of human life. Many religions contain beliefs and dogmas that are not universally true. If we carefully consider the teachings of the religious mainstream, then we will find very different approaches. Sacred books, such as the Koran and the Bhagavad-gita, are almost not alike in either tonality or content. If the religions of the world are so different, there is no reason to believe that their founders must have been taught the same thing. The criterion for assessing the significance of religion today is the number of its true adherents, and not any mystical evidence of its truth and mission in the world. Even if we do not believe that all religions are the same, this does not mean that there is no value in different religions. We can respect religion for their historical, cultural and intellectual role, not necessarily considering them the product of divine revelation and the ultimate truth. The Bible, for example, is an unusual book with a great history, poetry and wisdom. But hardly is the Word of God, true in all respects, for all times and for all people. In this respect, all religions are part of the common heritage of humanity, so they must be explored to understand history. The presence of any aspects of truth in all religions does not mean that all religions are true or that all religions are essentially the same.Although we must be open to the truth, wherever we find it, this does not mean that we must accept all religions as true ones to reach the truth.

Consequently, religious exclusivity is a real serious obstacle to establishing harmony between different religious groups. Fortunately, not all religions insist on their exclusivity, which allows them to co-exist in peace with others. They combine some notions of exclusivity with more tolerant traditions. Although there is much adharma in the social evil that has arisen in the context of Hindu religion, there is no adharma in its basic formulation that surpasses time, place and man and emphasizes eternity over the historical property of religion. They do not require an exclusive formulation of the truth, but are open to diversity and multiplicity, in fact welcoming it. The social effect of Sarva Dharma Sambhava led to the fact that this spiritual principle became a political principle in India: in order to create social harmony, we should honor all religions as equivalent, so that religious differences do not stir up social conflicts. Unfortunately, religious conflicts continued because the agreement to treat religions as equivalent was only superficial, formal, which did not remove the problem of real differences and misunderstandings between their adherents. Hence we can urge Christian or Islamic spiritual leaders to resist this statement and agree that Hinduism, Buddhism or other dharmic traditions are as good as their religions, and therefore all attempts to disprove the teachings of the Dharmic religions are erroneous. Sarva Dharma Sambhava was used to protect the favor of various religious groups and defend votes based on religious beliefs. Often the effect of a one-way street was obtained. The Hindus were urged to accept Sarva Dharma Sambhava, which means that they should not object if Hindus convert to Christianity and Islam, and to avoid criticizing these religions, even if some of their elements are a violation of what the Hindus believe is true. On the other hand, by the same principle, Muslims and Christians should not reciprocate, stop their conversion efforts or become Hindus. As a result, Sarva Dharma Sambhava only undermined the Hindu idea of ??truth and urged the Hindus to abandon their critical abilities in matters of religion. This contradicts the spirit of yogis and spiritual Gurus , in which all sorts of disputes were encouraged to reach the truth. Please pay attention to Shad Darshana, six systems of Hindu philosophy, to such a tradition of free, lively and friendly discussion. Although we should all strive to be kind and respectful people and not interfere in the religious views of others, this does not mean that we should stop thinking about how to do this. To create social harmony, people should not refuse to defend their religion or critically examine religions that oppose them. The logical result of the consistent implementation of the principle of Sarva Dharma Sambhava may mean that Hindus should completely abandon their religion. However, whenever the Hindus try to protect their religion, which is still under siege even in India, they are accused of violating Sarva's principle of Dharma Sambhava. On the other hand, when other religious groups violate this principle - and this is, in fact, the practice of all missionary transformations - they are little criticized for it.

Actually, this requires tolerance among religions, which implies respect for diversity in the religious sphere. Members of different religious communities must recognize that other religions can preach something very different from their understanding of God, truth, salvation or liberation. Instead of pretending that these differences do not exist, we must recognize them and give people the freedom to study them. Equality of religions should not be confused with tolerance. We must endure all people, even if they do not agree with us. Tolerance to differences ensures harmony, and does not create the illusion that there is no difference between religions. In fact, if we tolerate only people, but try to make them the same as we are, we are not altogether tolerant. Similarly, the adherents of other religions must learn to tolerate Hindus and respect the fact that Hindus do not always agree with them on religion, that Hindus have their own spiritual and ethical views that other religious groups should also take into account. If Indians seek to eliminate the consequences of historical atrocities, referring to aggressive attempts to convert them to other religions, then representatives of other religious faiths should be ready to hear the Hindu viewpoint on these events and respect it, no matter how hard it is to accept it and admit its possible guilt . In a free society, religious beliefs must be a personal matter. The state should not impose any religious beliefs or dogmas. There should be political tolerance for all religious views, if they are not connected with violent or anti-popular activities. At the political level, it does not matter whether someone professes a religion, or not.

Unity of religions or confusion In the modern world, no one people can already consider their language or culture to be exceptional, the highest. Therefore, any religion in search of truth can only go deep into its own depths, like science, and not assert itself, displacing other points of view and systems of outlook. Such a position requires that, in observing the boundaries of religion and belief, we consider all religions as a worthy subject of in-depth study. In this regard, a new Hindu critique of religion is necessary for the expansion of religious views represented in the modern world. This is the real Sarva-Dharma, the monopoly possession of which no group can claim. Probably, only those religions that will be ready to undergo radical transformation will survive. They are waiting for a change in the direction of empirical spirituality, in which people independently acquire the experience of God or truth, what becomes for them the most important thing, and religious dogma and institutionalism, at best, will be in the background. A respectable but honest study of other religions by Hindus or any other believers is important for establishing a balance of views today. It is necessary to return to the Dharma or the principles of universal truth, and not just to respect all the religions that exist today, and often abuse their dogmas in order to manipulate the mass consciousness. It is necessary to strive to maintain the Dharma, even if all historically held religious constructions run the risk of being broken. It's time for religions to bow to the Dharma, and not try to fit Dharma into the narrow confines of individual religious institutions. Hinduism as a religion of Dharma, not dogma, should lead this spiritual revolution, which also means clarifying the adharma that can be found among Hindus today. Unfortunately, the superficial universalism of the new Sarva-Dharma Sambhava serves only to create a smokescreen for the religious beliefs and dogmas to perpetuate themselves. You can draw an analogy. This justice does not mean that all governments are good regardless of whether they are democratic, fascist or communist.

Philosophy Index

Philosophy Index is a site devoted to the study of philosophy and the philosophers who conduct it. The site contains a number of philosophy texts , brief biographies, and introductions to philosophers , and explanations on a number of topics. Accredited homeschooling online at Northgate Academy and Philosophy online tutoring .

Philosophy Index is a work in progress, a growing repository of knowledge. It outlines current philosophical problems and issues, as well as an overview of the history of philosophy. The goal of this site is to present a tool for those learning philosophy either casually or formally, making the concepts of philosophy accessible to anyone interested in researching them. WTI offers immigration law course online - fully accredited. ACE credits online at EES.

Philosophers

• Kierkegaard
• Wittgenstein
• All Philosophers…

Philosophy Topics

• Epistemology
• Metaphysics
• TEST PREP KIT
• All Terms & Topics…

Philosophy Texts

• Philosophy of Mind
• Existentialism
• All Philosophers

Philosophy Index, Copyright © 2002-2020 All Rights Reserved.    About | Contact | Network: Mythology

Francis Bacon

Of Unity in Religion

RELIGION being the chief band of human society, it is a happy thing, when itself is well contained within the true band of unity. The quarrels, and divisions about religion, were evils unknown to the heathen. The reason was, because the religion of the heathen, consisted rather in rites and ceremonies, than in any constant belief. For you may imagine, what kind of faith theirs was, when the chief doctors, and fathers of their church, were the poets. But the true God hath this attribute, that he is a jealous God; and therefore, his worship and religion, will endure no mixture, nor partner.We shall therefore speak a few words, concerning the unity of the church; what are the fruits thereof ; what the bounds; and what the means.

The fruits of unity (next unto the well pleasing of God, which is all in all) are two: the one, towards those that are without the church, the other, towards those that are within. For the former; it is certain, that heresies, and schisms, are of all others the greatest scandals; yea, more than corruption of manners. For as in the natural body, a wound, or solution of continuity, is worse than a corrupt humor; so in the spiritual. So that nothing, doth so much keep men out of the church, and drive men out of the church, as breach of unity. And therefore, whensoever it cometh to that pass, that one saith, Ecce in deserto, another saith, Ecce in penetralibus; that is, when some men seek Christ, in the conventicles of heretics, and others, in an outward face of a church, that voice had need continually to sound in men's ears, Nolite exire, - Go not out. The doctor of the Gentiles (the propriety of whose vocation, drew him to have a special care of those without) saith, if an heathen come in, and hear you speak with several tongues, will he not say that you are mad? And certainly it is little better, when atheists, and profane persons, do hear of so many discordant, and contrary opinions in religion; it doth avert them from the church, and maketh them, to sit down in the chair of the scorners. It is but a light thing, to be vouched in so serious a matter, but yet it expresseth well the deformity. There is a master of scoffing, that in his catalogue of books of a feigned library, sets down this title of a book, The Morris-Dance of Heretics. For indeed, every sect of them, hath a diverse posture, or cringe by themselves, which cannot but move derision in worldlings, and depraved politics, who are apt to contemn holy things.

As for the fruit towards those that are within; it is peace; which containeth infinite blessings. It establisheth faith; it kindleth charity; the outward peace of the church, distilleth into peace of conscience; and it turneth the labors of writing, and reading of controversies, into treaties of mortification and devotion.

Concerning the bounds of unity; the true placing of them, importeth exceedingly. There appear to be two extremes. For to certain zealants, all speech of pacification is odious. Is it peace, Jehu,? What hast thou to do with peace? turn thee behind me. Peace is not the matter, but following, and party. Contrariwise, certain Laodiceans, and lukewarm persons, think they may accommodate points of religion, by middle way, and taking part of both, and witty reconcilements; as if they would make an arbitrament between God and man. Both these extremes are to be avoided; which will be done, if the league of Christians, penned by our Savior himself, were in two cross clauses thereof, soundly and plainly expounded: He that is not with us, is against us; and again, He that is not against us, is with us; that is, if the points fundamental and of substance in religion, were truly discerned and distinguished, from points not merely of faith, but of opinion, order, or good intention. This is a thing may seem to many a matter trivial, and done already. But if it were done less partially, it would be embraced more generally.

Of this I may give only this advice, according to my small model. Men ought to take heed, of rending God's church, by two kinds of controversies. The one is, when the matter of the point controverted, is too small and light, not worth the heat and strife about it, kindled only by contradiction. For, as it is noted, by one of the fathers, Christ's coat indeed had no seam, but the church's vesture was of divers colors; whereupon he saith, In veste varietas sit, scissura non sit; they be two things, unity and uniformity. The other is, when the matter of the point controverted, is great, but it is driven to an over-great subtilty, and obscurity; so that it becometh a thing rather ingenious, than substantial. A man that is of judgment and understanding, shall sometimes hear ignorant men differ, and know well within himself, that those which so differ, mean one thing, and yet they themselves would never agree. And if it come so to pass, in that distance of judgment, which is between man and man, shall we not think that God above, that knows the heart, doth not discern that frail men, in some of their contradictions, intend the same thing; and accepteth of both? The nature of such controversies is excellently expressed, by St. Paul, in the warning and precept, that he giveth concerning the same, Devita profanas vocum novitates, et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae. Men create oppositions, which are not; and put them into new terms, so fixed, as whereas the meaning ought to govern the term, the term in effect governeth the meaning.There be also two false peaces, or unities: the one, when the peace is grounded, but upon an implicit ignorance; for all colors will agree in the dark: the other, when it is pieced up, upon a direct admission of contraries, in fundamental points. For truth and falsehood, in such things, are like the iron and clay, in the toes of Nebuchadnezzar's image; they may cleave, but they will not incorporate.

Concerning the means of procuring unity; men must beware, that in the procuring, or reuniting, of religious unity, they do not dissolve and deface the laws of charity, and of human society. There be two swords amongst Christians, the spiritual and temporal; and both have their due office and place, in the maintenance of religion. But we may not take up the third sword, which is Mahomet's sword, or like unto it; that is, to propagate religion by wars, or by sanguinary persecutions to force consciences; except it be in cases of overt scandal, blasphemy, or intermixture of practice against the state; much less to nourish seditions; to authorize conspiracies and rebellions; to put the sword into the people's hands; and the like; tending to the subversion of all government, which is the ordinance of God. For this is but to dash the first table against the second; and so to consider men as Christians, as we forget that they are men. Lucretius the poet, when he beheld the act of Agamemnon, that could endure the sacrificing of his own daughter, exclaimed: Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum.

What would he have said, if he had known of the massacre in France, or the powder treason of England? He would have been seven times more Epicure, and atheist, than he was. For as the temporal sword is to be drawn with great circumspection in cases of religion; so it is a thing monstrous to put it into the hands of the common people. Let that be left unto the Anabaptists, and other furies. It was great blasphemy, when the devil said, I will ascend, and be like the highest; but it is greater blasphemy, to personate God, and bring him in saying, I will descend, and be like the prince of darkness; and what is it better, to make the cause of religion to descend, to the cruel and execrable actions of murthering princes, butchery of people, and subversion of states and governments? Surely this is to bring down the Holy Ghost, instead of the likeness of a dove, in the shape of a vulture or raven; and set, out of the bark of a Christian church, a flag of a bark of pirates, and assassins. Therefore it is most necessary, that the church, by doctrine and decree, princes by their sword, and all learnings, both Christian and moral, as by their Mercury rod, do damn and send to hell for ever, those facts and opinions tending to the support of the same; as hath been already in good part done. Surely in counsels concerning religion, that counsel of the apostle would be prefixed, Ira hominis non implet justitiam Dei. And it was a notable observation of a wise father, and no less ingenuously confessed; that those which held and persuaded pressure of consciences, were commonly interested therein., themselves, for their own ends.

« Of Death

The Essays by Francis Bacon .