In Accompany With Fundamentalist, Religious, Realistic People !!

Alright, I've been thinking about this for a while...how to approach the subject.

Before I do, let me throw a few things at you, so you know where I'm coming from:

·         I'm not an atheist but believe on realistic approach towards the issue , but you knew that right? I don't like being linked with atheists because saying you're an atheist creates all sorts of connotations, the most obvious being "You're stupid for believing in god". But, many people admit that mainstream atheism (or at least the perception of it) is that it's combative and evangelical.

·         Science and reason is a starting point, and a means. It is not the endpoint, or an end in itself. So I tend not to get hung up on it, or get in arguments with people over science vs. religion. Particularly if the spiritual/atheistic person isn't intelligent enough to understand the argument. Fundamentalism, either scientific or religious, is a problem. The left has the same problem, identifying anyone on the right as stupid, uncaring, and wrong-headed.

Confirmation bias and systems-thinking orientation, I have 'rational/scientific' friends. I have conspiratorial friends. I have political, postmodern, and spiritual friends. All these friends look at the world though a set of lenses (their system of understanding), however I don't really have any friends who are able to employ more than one of these systems.

Funny thing is that all these people are convinced that they're right, and that their way of understanding the world is the one true way.

Problem is the world is full of people, with all these different knowledge systems. And those systems guide their behavior. If you want to understand why someone does something, you need to understand their motivation, and how they look at the world. Unfortunately, not many people are doing this. And for those who CAN do this, seldom have they weighed the pros and cons of the other knowledge system. They’ve only looked at it from their own knowledge system, to find the holes to attack, so they can feel confident and secure in their belief that their own knowledge system is the best knowledge system.

Ego: I Define As War Between Religion And Humanity

Did you ever wonder: what is wrong with us? I mean. . . as a species. As much as we love, and give, and aspire, we also lie, hate, and kill. These are pretty basic questions. What would it take to better ourselves morally, in ways  that  really  matter?

Spirituality is transformation. If we could understand and apply this principle, our lives would change dramatically. Transformation is how grapes become wine. Transformation is how wheat becomes bread. But what is the nature of this transformation for human beings? How does a schmuck become a saint, or at least a decent human being?

Most of us are stuck most of the time. Most of us fear real change because our egos are in control. The ego is a defence mechanism, but not necessarily a healthy or very effective one. The ego that is overbearing, self-centred, and manipulative, is actually full of self-doubt, insecurity, and fear.

Spirituality sees the ego as an instrument. It's not who we are but how we express what we are. The ego is like the saxophone of the soul. Play it well or not, it's out there on stage doing its thing.The wise harness their egos to their hearts. The lower self bows to the higher self. To use the language of religion, the ego can become "a servant of God."

But maybe we need a new language to express primordial truths. Many people seem not to find the old language of religion very convincing. It has bad associations. Religion, in many people's minds today, is associated with close-mindedness, intolerance, and even violence. But if you look at the record, religion is not primarily to blame. A closer look reveals that human egos are responsible for all this madness.

Take religion completely out of the picture and set about reforming the world, and, so far, what we have seen is Stalin or Mao. Modern secular ideological movements are actually responsible for much greater and more indiscriminate violence than any religion ever has been. Maybe that's because they mobilized greater powers than religion was able to do in the modern age. The case still stands.

This innate capacity is not so far-fetched and unverifiable as it at first sounds. The key to this spiritual sense, this perception of value, is described by the word "sacred." We don't need an explicit theology to let the sacred into our lives. Almost any human being can acknowledge that there is something sacred in the birth of a child, in nature, in an individual human life, in free will. This sense of the sacred, however, has become quite  scarce in contemporary life and that may be one of our biggest problems.

Most people have this capacity for empathy and relationship. Because this capacity is innate, believers have no monopoly on it and even atheists are not without it. It is in our nature as human beings. But are we too busy to allow this sense of the sacred into our consciousness? Is it that our consciousness is too filled with the  trivialities and banalities of modern life? Worse yet, are we filled with fear or hatred for "the other."

Spirituality, simply seen, is allowing ourselves to be transformed by all the challenges, sufferings, and joys of life. It is in the nature of our lives as human beings to emerge from states of limited consciousness into states of greater maturity and wisdom. We can change from being people obsessed with threats from a perceived "other," who need to parade with placards of hate, who even rationalize violence in a vain attempt to solve our problems and achieve our ends. What is needed today can better be achieved by cooperation, compassion, generosity, forgiveness, and love.

Beyond all the labels we apply to ourselves (Democrat, Republican, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, secular, atheist, or none of the above), we cannot afford to let the false self run our lives, or forget that all of humanity is one, and that some things are truly sacred.

Din e Elahi: Mass Peace Program

Jalal-ud-Din Akbar (1556-1605), the son of Humayun had three main phases in his life. One was firm belief in religion holding the founding tenets of Islam. The second started when he opened the doors of religious natter and dialogues in which he invited the religious scholars of different sects of Islam in the “Ibadat Khana” (the place of worship) but soon he was disillusioned with the attitudes of the Maulvies and scholars who started losing their tempers and even abused one another on petty issues.

Therefore the subsequent phase resulted in the promulgation of a new religion, din-e-Elahi. He accumulated the best practices of Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Jainism and propounded the new religion in 1581.

 There are ten virtues which the Din-e-Elahi professes.

(1) liberal-mindedness and generosity

(2) forgiveness of evil-doers and repulsion of anger with mildness

(3) abstinence from worldly desires

(4) non-attachment to the materialistic world

(5) careful weighing of pros and cons of actions to be taken

(6) performance of noble deeds with courage

(7) softness of voice and gentle speech

(8) good behaviour to others

(9) absolutely no connection with bad characters and evil-doers

(10) total dedication to God

Din-e-Elahi was more an ethical cult than a religion as it did not present any common prayers or system as all these eclectic religions offered. It was based on ethical values considering and propagating slander, lust, and pride as deadly sins whereas piety, kindness, mercy as the commonalities of the diverse religions and were appreciated. Slaughter of cow was prohibited to accommodate Hinduism and celibacy was venerated. The religion had no script or written documentations. Din-e-Elahi could triumph over only 19 adherents consisting mostly of Muslims. Hindus and other religions did not embrace it though they appreciated the religious move of Akbar.

Din-e- Elahi met with fierce criticism by the believers of Islam as he denied the foundations of religion by appreciating celibacy and the prohibition of cow. The Hindus also could not accept it as a religion. Din-e-Elahi was intended to create harmony and integrity among the different religions though it could not bring the desired fruits.I think interpretation of religious teachings according to the wishes and agenda of rulers is not a new phenomenon. This is almost as old as the religion itself. Many scholars refused to act as Qazi under Muslim rulers, just because they were afraid of to act according to ruler's wish and not according to God's law.

Do me a favour answering one question, what is most important? Fighting on basis of religion for years or accepting each other perspective and living together with peace!

What if Din-e-Elahi succeeded and there would be a no separation of South Asia? What would be the present scenario then?