Do All Religions Lead to the Same Goal?

February 18, 2012 admin1 3 comments

“All religions lead to the same goal”, is a concept widely subscribed mostly by educated Hindus. I feel that this well-meaning concept needs to be enquired into and understood.

If all religions have a well-defined common goal, the difference would be purely cultural. Difference of culture is totally acceptable, to any thinking person. If the goal of various religions is the same, there will be no religious issue necessitating any discussion. But then what is the truth of the statement “All religions lead to the same goal”?

If ethical values constitute the goal of religion, certainly there is a singular goal adopted by all religions, the ethical values being universal. But, should any person be religious to be ethical? Is there a necessity to be educated by religious scriptures to know what is ethical and what is not? Is it not true that any normal human being is well informed about the universal values? An aborigine in the outback of Australia as even a pandita from Benares has the same value in not getting hurt at the hands of another. That others also do not want to get hurt from him or her is also very well known to the person. Other values like non-stealing, compassion, sharing and so on are equally known facts. In fact, they form the moral infra-structure for human interaction with one another and also with the other living organisms in the world. This value-knowledge is born of human common-sense. When there is this faculty of choice for a human being, there should be a matrix of norms known to him for making the right choices. If the human being is totally programmed, there will be no such thing as right or wrong in human behaviour. Without religious masters and religious scriptures preaching about right and wrong, one is very well informed about them. Therefore, ethical values cannot constitute the goal of any religion, for one can be ethical without being anyway religious. On the other hand, some religions take away the universality of these common-sense-born value by giving sanction to killing of those who do not conform to their beliefs and who articulate their non-conformity. That the common-sense-born ethics are better off, without any interference of religion, is really a cause for sadness. In fact, religion should confirm the universal values as most of them do. The Vedic religion adds strength to the value-structure by introducing the adrsta phala of punya and papa for actions that are right and wrong. Many other popular religions also introduce this element of reward and punishment. Suppose the goal for all religions is just reward or punishment, we may be able to say that all religions have the same goal in spite of differences in these rewards and punishments.

Theology differs from religion to religion. The concept of reality of God, world and you is again thought of differently. More often, God is looked upon as a judgemental person located in a place yonder. Reaching that place and living with him is the goal. Neither the Vedic religion nor Buddhism will accept this as a goal. Much less will a devout Christian accept a goal other than reaching the heaven promised by his scripture. Then, what does the statement that “all religions lead to the same goal” mean?

For a vaidika who accepts with total understanding that this world including one’s body-mind-sense complex is the Lord’s manifestation, any form of prayer and worship is valid. Every name and form is valid enough to invoke the Lord, the Lord being every name and form. But prayer either mental, oral or ritualistic is a karma, capable of producing a result. The given result is not the goal of religions much less the goal of any individual even if one thinks so. The goal of an informed vaidika is freedom from a sense of limitation centred on I. Can there be an ultimate goal for a human being other than this? This freedom, moksa, from this sense of limitation is the human goal.

The Veda says that the sense of limitation is due to one not knowing oneself. Then it is obvious that the human goal is Self-knowledge. The various theologies of various world religions and that of some cuts in Vedic religion as well do not have anything to do with this goal. They are committed to their own beliefs even though they are non-verifiable and more often than not, unreasonable. They have a right to have their beliefs which do not have any space for accommodating other religious goals. But these beliefs are not acceptable to any thinking person. They are not acceptable to a person who understands moksa either. So all that a vaidika can say is “all forms of prayer are valid”. Being an act, a karma, each prayer can produce a limited result. One wants a limited result too in life. But it can never be the goal of religion much less of a human being.

– Pujya Swamiji Dayananda Saraswati

Hinduism, Swamiji Dayananda saraswati, Vedanta none

#1 | Written by Sinethemba about 12 years ago. Reply

The way thoughts and ideas are fermad is often a clue to something other than the thought-content itself. For example, immediately above we have this phrase: the Church teaches . From this phrase we can learn to appreciate that some other source than my own conscience and the Divine Mystery itself, is the author of what is acceptable as the truth i.e. the Church . Yet, this Church is clearly full of folly, if we are honest about its history. Most of the above is ideas , although some of the ideas are about experiences . Most doctrines of the various religions are contained in books, that is reduced to words on a page. Yet the fact is that Reality is far larger than words on a page, if all we do is include sense experiences of Nature, for example. Do these sense experiences also contain a content or teaching which is sourced in the Divine Mystery? Does phenomenal existence also teach that which is not taught by religious doctrine, whether it is something that claims authority from Christ or a Buddha?Nature, for example, being an expression of the Creation teaches much, including change . Something so simple as the ideas of past, present and future suggests very interesting possibilities, especially if we appreciate that over the time of known history religious ideas change . Perhaps something hidden in the experience of change reveals a great deal that doctrine or texts cannot unveil. Against this tide of constant change perhaps it is a bit outrageous for any religious doctrine to try to fix the meaning of God and of human beings in any fixed or absolute ideas. Didn’t the wise men, when asked to write some eternal truth over the doors to a great king’s throne room write: and this too shall pass ?joel
- #2 | Written by Janyia about 12 years ago. Reply
  
  Hold your horses, evrenoye.1. First, the map is not quite inaccurate, in that as far as we can gather, man has always been religious (eg by analysis of burial sites etc ) so the map should not begin with a neutral’ colour as if people had been unspoiled’ as yet by religion.2. Secondly, much of the spread of all faiths, including Islam, was peacefully spread. People often saw something good in the new religion (Buddhism and Christianity in particular) which they wished to adopt for themselves. Western culture and learning came from the rise of Christian monasticism, for example.I am not disputing, of course tensions that naturally arise as the borders (these are of course not consistent with national borders but between growing groups of believers) became more defined.This is, of course, precisely what is happening now with the so-called New Atheism, which is becomming particularly agressive 3. Thirdly, the attempt of both Hitler and Stalin to manipulate believers is (hopefully) not meant to be a proof that their atrocities were motivated by a pious Christianity! (I have already commented on these villains in other posts on this site, so will refrain here).4. Fourthly, to my knowledge it was a Palestinian politician who claimed that Bush had told him to invate Iraq. Regardless, it would surely be an overstatement to argue that Bush was attempting to convert Iraq to Christianity by the invasion which would apparently be the point of linking this with the article about the timeline. Indeed many Christian leaders (including, very prominently, Pope John Paul II) condemned the war.5. Lastly, atheism produced more Christian martyrs (those unwilling to deny their faith for political expediency) in the 20th century than were martyred in the other 19 centuries combined. This is particularly astounding given the very small percentage of atheists until the latter part of the century. Perhaps State Atheism should be added to the map? At least in this case the borders are real and the wars were real wars.
  - #3 | Written by admin1 about 8 years ago. Reply
    
    Harih OM Tat Sat!

Study Hinduism

Recent Posts

Browse by Tags

Printed Resources

Related Links

Vedanta Resource Links

Do All Religions Lead to the Same Goal?

Leave a Reply to Sinethemba