Tuesday, July 14, 2009

No one to understand?

{I'm writing this post as a translated copy of my previous blog entry in Bengali. The post seemed very appealing which is why I decided to translate it.}

I was discussing with some issues in a Bengali forum which is when I got involved in this. I was thinking about the issue for some time and later decided to write about it.
Now coming to the point...

According to Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism), the Supreme being is many and/or one. HE can be formless and/or with form. HE can have a face and/or not. HE can be infinite and/or finite. And, I repeat, HE can be one and/or many. Otherwise, would HE be considered the Supreme being? Most powerful? Omniscient? HE is the one who can claim that position of the highest possible because HE can be what he wants to be.
Back in the days, people used to worship their deity with form. Even though it still occurs, but most people nowadays prefer to worship formless, unseen being. I want to make something clear here that the followers of Sanatan Dharma consider their deity in the same respect as Muslims' Allah or Christians' God. Because Allah or God are both formless, they (Hindus) also consider the supreme being's both formless and form-full appearance. Just like Muslims or Christians believe their Allah or God to be one and only one, they (Hindus) also know the all-powerful being to be one and only one while also can be many and infinite.
I think, my readers already got the gist of my saying the followers of Sanatan Dharma rather than Hindus. The reason for that (even though they may seem the same) is the word "Hindu" came from the ancient Persians/Greeks (westerners). When the westerners arrived in the Sindhu River, they called the locals "Shindus". But because they could not pronounce the letter "S", they opted out to say "Hindus". It is believed that the word "India" also came in a similar manner. The river valley of the ancient civilization of the area, "Indu" (Plural- Indus) was the original word. The word "India" derived from that origin. It is very similar to Christopher Columbus' calling the locals in the Americas "Red Indians", believing he reached India from Europe. Though we now know that he actually got to the Americas and the locals were never from India but from Europe long time ago, we refer to them now as "Native Americans" since that title applies to them correctly. Now if we call Hindus still today, we would be mistaking again like Columbus. Rather we can call Hindus by their Sanatan Dharma belief, "Sanatani".
Anyways, my point was not this. I want to make this clear that every religious beliefs were originated from their own point of views. But they all come together at the center of all. Just like rivers, lakes all come to the same ocean, we all Muslims, Christians, Sanatanis are also worshiping the same being. If a flood or cyclone hits an area today, just as a Muslim will pray to Allah, Sanatani will pray to Eishwar as well. Then, if the flood or cyclone ceases, will be be credited to Allah or Eishwar? Or both are the same? Isn't it true that through both Muslim's and Sanatani's prayer, the same being is called for help. Then, HE comes for aid.
If I continue, I can go for long. But I'll try to be concise.
I'm trying to explain this with an example: A Muslim had a car accident for which he needs immediate blood. Let's say, his blood group is A-negative. Now for urgent blood donation a Sanatani comes in to help. They both have the same blood type. Will Sanatani's blood not work for the Muslim? Isn't both their blood red? Or is it different based on their religious differences? Will we say that the Muslim came from Sanatani or vice-versa? Or is it that we all are part of the same human race that is our connection to everyone?
Now if humans are related scientifically and mentally, then can we not conclude that Eishwar/Allah/God are the same? Just like Eishwar has the power to stop flood/cyclone, Allah has the same strength. Then where is the difference? Or is it that we, humans, cause the difference?
Ask yourself. You'll see what I've said is turning out to be true.

[This is not intended to hurt someone's religious feelings. Just attempting to merge the difference that we all share. If it creates more divergence, then I'll consider that my writing was not only wasted but also pointless.]

No comments:

Post a Comment