essay on gandhi ka sarv dharm sambhav

Essay on Sarva Dharma Samabhava in English for Students

Sarva dharma samabhava.

“Sarva Dharma Samabhava” is a distinct Indian secularist notion that evolved in independent India under the influence of Gandhian ideology and is steeped in Hindu culture and history. In Hindi, India’s primary language, the phrase “Sarva Dharma Samabhava” literally means “equal respect for all religions.” It developed during the course of postcolonial India’s state building and is frequently regarded as an Indian philosophical contribution to political thinking. The concept differs greatly from the western definition of secularism, which emphasises ultimate separation of state and religion rather than treating all religions equally.

In his writings to the residents of his Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad, he used the phrase “Sarva Dharma Samabhava.” Gandhi was always drawn to the objective of Hindu-Muslim unity and peace, and he worked tirelessly to achieve it. His challenge was to create a secular social space in a society where religion was fundamental to popular belief and behaviour (Rao,1989).

Please enable JavaScript

Gandhi had conducted a comparative study of faiths during his time in South Africa, and he was struck by the underlying unity of all religions. From then on, he emphasised the importance of coexistence and tolerance among people of different religions. Religions were compared to “as many leaves of a tree”; they may appear diverse <table width="100%"><tbody><tr><td><strong style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;">diverse / diversity / to diversify / diversification</strong><strong>‘Diverse’ means ‘varied’ – in other words, including very different things. If an organisation is diverse, it has many different kinds of people in it. So, Auckland, for instance, has a diverse population. Diversity can make a society more complex and more interesting! In nature, biodiversity means a place has many different species of plants and animals. If a company wants to include more different products or markets, it diversifies. For instance, Sony started off as a manufacturer of home electronics, but has diversified into several different areas, including gaming and movies. Diversification can make a company more stable. There’s a common saying: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. However, it can also be risky if a company abandons its core business and moves into areas where it has little expertise or recognition. Enron, originally a gas producer, diversified into financial markets and broadband where important mistakes and fraud led to the downfall of the whole company.</strong><strong>Our class is very diverse with students from all over the world.</strong><strong>With its great diversity of unique birds and plants, New Zealand is an ideal place for groups of nature-lovers to visit.</strong><strong>Once a manufacturing company, Sony successfully diversified into a global entertainment giant.</strong></td></tr></tbody></table> " data-gt-translate-attributes='[{"attribute":"data-cmtooltip", "format":"html"}]' tabindex=0 role=link>diverse , yet “at the stem they are one.” God, Allah, Rama, Narayan, Ishwar, and Khuda were all names for the same Being. God’s grace and revelation did not belong to any particular race or nation; they descended equally on all who relied on God. He believed that no religion was perfect. All of them are equally flawed or more or less perfect.

Gandhi remarked in his 1927 article ‘Why I am a Hindu’ that he regarded Hinduism to be the most tolerant of all religions… Its lack of dogma allows the votary the most freedom of expression. Because it is not an exclusive religion, it allows its adherents to admire and incorporate <strong>incorporate</strong><br/><strong>Incorporate’ means ‘</strong><strong>include’ – especially to include many different features or when different things or ideas are included later on. It’s common when talking about revisions to reports or essays.</strong><br/><strong>The final draft of the report </strong><strong>incorporated</strong><strong> a number of revisions.</strong><br/> " data-gt-translate-attributes='[{"attribute":"data-cmtooltip", "format":"html"}]' tabindex=0 role=link>incorporate whatever is good in other faiths, rather than simply respecting them. Nonviolence is prevalent in all religions, but it is best expressed and applied in Hinduism… Hinduism believes in the oneness of all living things, not only all human existence (Young India 21 October 1927, quoted in Nanda, 1995, p.21). While he emphasised individual judgement and conscience, he also emphasised coexistence and tolerance in relationships with adherents of other religions.

Gandhi felt that everyone had the right to practise any religion they wanted and that the form of worship should not be determined by the state. As a devout Hindu, he believed that all faiths represented different pathways leading to the same destination, Truth. There is a religion that exists beneath all religions. In the face of conflicting counsel from other religions, Gandhi felt that Truth is greater to everything, and that anything that contradicts it should be rejected, just as anything that contradicts nonviolence should be rejected. Similarly, everything that contradicted Reason must be dismissed. As a result, Truth is the religion that underpins all religions. Gandhi valued logical thought above all else. He envisioned a nonviolent society in which all choices were reached via reasonable debate in which each person tried to see the issue from the perspective of others. This underpinned his secularism, which was founded on religious pluralism, mutual respect, and toleration. Toleration, he argued, would be the guiding principle for all organised religions in a multi-religious society. This was the core of Gandhian Indian secularism, ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava,’ which means ‘equal respect for all religions.’

Gandhi’s religious journey not only affected his personality, but also the political strategies he used to combat racism in South Africa and colonialism in India. While Gandhi’s advocacy of mutual tolerance and respect between different religions stemmed from his study of comparative religion, it also had a practical aspect that manifested itself in his leadership of struggles against racial, social, and political injustice with adherents from all major religions. Gandhi recognised the schism between Hindus and Muslims, India’s two largest communities, and the critical necessity for tolerance. However, Gandhi’s secular viewpoint has not been without controversy. He has been accused of using religion to rally the populace or of using Hindu symbols, which contributed to communal polarisation and India’s separation.

Discover more from Smart English Notes

Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava

Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava is an Indian concept embodying the equality of all religions. The concept was embraced by Ramakrishna and Vivekenanda , [1] as well as Gandhi . [2] Although commonly thought to be among the ancient Hindu vedas , the phrase is actually attributed to Gandhi, having been used first in September 1930 in his communications to his followers to quell divisions that had begun to develop between Hindus and Muslims toward the end of the British Raj . [2] The concept is one of the key tenets of secularism in India , wherein there is not a separation of church and state, but an attempt by the state to embrace all religions. [3] [4]

Sarva dharma sama bhav has been rejected by some modern Hindus who claim that religious universalism has led to the loss of many of Hinduism's rich traditions. [5] :60

References [ edit ]

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

• ↑ Long, Jeffrey (2012). "The Politicization of Hinduism and the Hinduization of Politics: Contrasting Hindu Nationalism with the Transformative Visions of Swami Vivekenanda and Mahatma Gandhi". In Ricci, Gabriel R. (ed.). Politics in Theology . Transaction. ISBN   9781412848039 . <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
• ↑ 2.0 2.1 Rakhit, Maanoj. RKM Propagating the Opposite of What Vivekananda and Ramakrishna Had Said: Call to the Rank and File at RKM! Stand Up and Uphold the Truth . Maanoj Rakhit. ISBN   9788189746490 . <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
• ↑ Smith, Donald E (2011). India as a Secular State . Princeton University Press. ISBN   9781178595253 . <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
• ↑ Larson, Gerald James (2001). Religion and Personal Law in Secular India: A Call to Judgment . Indiana University Press. ISBN   0-253-33990-1 . <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
• ↑ Long, Jeffrey D. (2007). A Vision for Hinduism: Beyond Hindu Nationalism . I.B.Tauris. ISBN   9781845112738 . <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>

. You can help Wikipedia by .

• All stub articles
• Indian culture stubs
• Religion in India

Navigation menu

Secularism and Secularisation of the State: Decoding Gandhian Philosophy in Contemporary India

• First Online: 01 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Narender Nagarwal 3  

116 Accesses

The endeavour of this chapter is to examine dichotomy surrounded on secularism and secularisation constructed through Gandhian philosophy of secular state. An attempt has been made to scrutinise Gandhi’s religious experiment with secularism and how it differs with classical description of the western bravura of tolerance, coexistence and pluralism since Gandhi was not considered as secularist in the common Western sense of term. The classical Western interpretation of “secularism” and “religion” almost negating to each other due to some historical events which created two opposing centres of power vested in the political organisation and the ecclesiastical order, respectively. Gandhian political thought on secularism and minorities’ rights are really astonishing where he paradoxically distinguishes between state and religion but insists on secularism with good blend of religion and spirituality. Gandhi believed that it is irrelevant to divorce religion from politics in Indian context as both have concomitant effects. That unique interpretation of secularism where religion plays a pivotal role in state politics puts him an illustrious philosopher of our time who described secularism virtually in a different arena. Gandhi proudly claimed that he could not see politics without spirituality and religion; nonetheless, he also pitched for the secularisation, multiculturalism and diversity of Indian society, hence stalwartly advocates the protection of religious and cultural rights of minorities. In such peculiar contradictory thoughts, it is desirable to decode the Gandhian view of secularism and the duty of the state to promote this ideal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Hindutva and Secularism

Formations of the Secular: Religion and State in Ethiopia

Rethinking Secularism and State Policies Toward Religion: The United States, France, and Turkey

Panikkar Raimundo, Myth, faith and hermeneutic: cross-cultural studies, Asian Trading Corp., Bangalore ( 1983 ).

M. K. Gandhi, What is truth. Navjeevan Publication, Ahmedabad, p. 474 ( 1984 ).

The Publication Division ( 1903 – 1905 ), The collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 4, The Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, p. 202.

Iyengar AS, All through the Gandhian era, Hind Kitab House, Bombay, p. 223 ( 1950 ).

K. N. Tiwari, World religious and Gandhi, Classical Publishing Company, New Delhi, p. 76 ( 1988 ).

SN Balagangadhara, Jakob De Roover, “The secular state and religious conflict: liberal neutrality and the Indian case of pluralism”, 15 Journal of Political Philosophy 1: 73–74 ( 2007 ).

Moin Shakir, Gandhi’s concept of secularism, In: Secular democracy, Monthly, New Delhi, p. 17 ( 1969 ).

The Publication Division, The collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 55 (April 23–Sept 15 1933 ), The Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, p. 443.

Friedrichs Jorg, Hindu-Muslim Relations: What Europe Might Learn From India, Routledge Pub, India, South Asia Edition, pp. 62–64 ( 2019 ).

Dipankar Gupta, Secularisation and Minoritization: the limits of heroic thought, In: Sheth DL and Mahajan Gurpreet (ed.), Minority identities and the nation-state, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp. 38–44 ( 1999 ).

Chandhoke Neera, “Rethinking pluralism secularism and tolerance”, Sage Publication, New Delhi, pp. 156–160 ( 2019a ).

Rajeev Bhargava, “What we owe to Gandhi” The Hindu ( 2019 ) Available at https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/what-we-owe-to-themahatma/article29955342.ece (last accessed 10 May 2020).

Kumar Arun, Cultural and educational rights of minorities under Indian constitution, Deep & Deep, New Delhi, p. 28 ( 1985 ).

Mustafa Faizan, Minorities, too, are fed up with this facade of secularism, The Indian Express ( 2020a ) Available at https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/narendra-modi-govt-6324468/ (last accessed 15 June 2020).

Chandhoke Neera, “Secularism is caught in a crisis”, The Indian Express ( 2019b ) Available at https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/discrimination-hindutva-muslims-rss-alls-not-well-with-secularism-6147422/ (last accessed 05 April 2020).

Pyarelal, Weekly letter, Harijan 10(33):321, 22 September 1946 ( 1946 ) Available at https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/journals-by-gandhiji/harijan (last accessed 26 Apr 2020).

The Publication Division, supra note 8.

Raghavan N Iyer, The moral and political thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Concord Grove Press, Santa Barbara, California, p. 83 ( 1983 ).

Arun Kumar Patnaik, Transgressing secularism, 47 Economic and Political Weekly 12 at 78 ( 2012 ).

Pantham Thomas, Indian secularism and its critics: some reflections, 59 The Review of Politics 3: 523–540 ( 1997 ).

Gandhi Rajmohan, “CAA does not carry mahatma Gandhi wishes, it brazenly defies them”, The Indian Express ( 2020 ) Available at https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/caa-secular-nrc-minorities-pakistan-narendra-modi-amit-shah-rajmohan-gandhi-6236881/ (last accessed 22 April 2020).

Bharatan Kumarappa (ed.), M K Gandhi: my religion, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, p. 29 (1955).

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Khilafat movement: Indian Muslim movement, Britannica Available at https://www.britannica.com/khilafat/movement (last accessed 22 September 2020) ( 1919 – 1924 ).

DG Tendulkar, Mahatma, vol 3 (1930–34), Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt of India, Patiala House, New Delhi, p. 244 ( 1951 ).

Gandhi, supra note 2.

Radhakrishna S, Muirhead JH (eds.), Contemporary Indian philosophy, 2nd Revised edn., Allen and Unwin, London, p. 21 ( 1952 ).

Gupta Charu, “Gandhi on cow, Ram Rajya and Hinduism”, National Herald ( 2019 ) Available at https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/gandhi-on-cow-ramrajya-and-hinduism (last accessed 15 May 2020).

M. K. Gandhi, Dharma and self-purification, Navjeevan Publication, Ahmedabad, p. 81 ( 1986 ).

Godrej Farah, Nonviolence and Gandhi’s truth: A method for moral and political arbitration, 68 Review of Politics (2): 287–317 ( 2006 ); Raghavan Iyer, The moral and political thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford University Press, London, p. 160 ( 1973 ); Chatterjee Margaret, Gandhi’s religious thought, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, p. 67 ( 1983 ).

Bipan Chandra, Communalism in modern India, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, p. 1 ( 1984 ).

Romila Thapar and Neeladri Bhattacharya, “Romila Thapar on the secular view of Indian history (and its differences with the communal one)”, Scroll.in (2019) Available at https://scroll.in/article/936085/romila-thapar-on-the-secular-view-of-indian-history-and-its-differences-with-the-communal-one (last accessed 18 August 2020).

Mukul Kesavan, “India’s embattled secularism”, 27 Wilson Quarterly 1: 61–67 ( 2003 ).

Nehru Committee Report ( 1928 ). The committee consisted of Motilal Nehru, Chairman, Sir Ali Imam, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Subhash Chandra Bose, Annie Besant, M R Jaykar and Jawaharlal Nehru was the secretary of the committee. The committee was given the charge to consider and determine the principles of the Constitution of India along with problem of communalism and issue of dominion status.

Chandhoke, supra note 14 at p. 209.

AIR 1973, SCC.

Mahmood Tahir, Minorities commission: minor role in major affairs, Pharos Media, New Delhi, p. 12 ( 2001 ).

Mustafa, supra note 14.

Akeel Bilgrami, “Gandhi the philosopher”, 38 Economic and Political Weekly 39, 2003 , pp. 4159–4165 and Uday Singh Mehta, “Gandhi on democracy, politics and the ethics of everyday life”, 7 Modern Intellectual History 2, 2010 , pp. 355–371.

Bhargava Rajeev, Indian secularism: an alternative, trans-cultural ideal, In: Mehta VR, Pantham Thomas (eds.), Political ideas in modern India: thematic explorations, Sage Publications, India ( 2006 ) and Davison Andrew, Secularism and revivalism in Turkey: a hermeneutic reconsideration, Yale University Press, New Heavan ( 1998 ).

Pyarelal, “Gandhiji’s abbottabad speech”, 7 Harijan 26, 1939 , pp. 227–228, Dt 05 August 1939 https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/journals-by-gandhiji/harijan (last accessed 26 May, 2020).

M.K. Gandhi, “Unity v. justice”, 7 Harijan 51, 1940 , p. 429, Dt 27 January 1940. Available at https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/journals-by-gandhiji/harijan (last accessed 26 April 2020).

Nehru Jawaharlal, An autobiography, Allied Publication, New Delhi, 1962 , p. 136.

Moin, supra note 8.

Kaviraj Sudipta, Languages of secularity, 48 Economic and Political Weekly 50, 2013 , pp. 93–102.

Milton JR and Milton Philip (eds.), John lock: an essay concerning toleration, Oxford University Press, 2010 , p. 140.

Bhatia Mohita, “Secularism and secularization—a bibliographical essay”, 48 Economic and Political Weekly 50, 2013 , pp. 103–110.

Crossman Ashley, What is secularization, Thought Co, 2019 Available at https://www.thoughtco.com/secularization-definition-3026575 (last accessed 22 April 2020).

Chandra Bipan, “Gandhiji, secularism and communalism”, 32 Social Scientist 1/2, 2004 , pp. 3–29.

Ansari I (1999) Minorities and the politics of constitution making in india. In: Sheth DL, Gurpreet M (eds) Minority identities and the nation state. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp 113–117

Google Scholar  

Balagangadhara SN, De Roover J (2007) The secular state and religious conflict: liberal neutrality and the indian case of pluralism. J Polit Philos 15(1):73–74

Article   Google Scholar  

Bhargava R (2006) Indian secularism: an alternative, trans-cultural ideal. In: Mehta VR, Pantham Thomas (eds) Political ideas in modern India: thematic explorations. Sage Publications, India and Davison Andrew (1998) Secularism and revivalism in turkey: a hermeneutic reconsideration. Yale University Press, New Heavan

Bhargava R (2013) Reimaging secularism - respect, domination and principled distance. Econ Pol Wkly 48(50):79–92

Bhargava R (2019) What we owe to Gandhi. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/what-we-owe-to-themahatma/article29955342.ece . Accessed 10 May 2020

Bhatia M (2013) Secularism and secularization—A bibliographical essay. Econ Pol Wkly 48(50):103–110

Bilgrami A (2003) Gandhi the philosopher. Econ Polit Weekly 38(39):4159–4165. Mehta US (2010) Gandhi on democracy, politics and the ethics of everyday life. Mod Intellect History 7(2):355–371

Chandhoke N (2019a) Rethinking pluralism secularism and tolerance. Sage Publication, New Delhi, pp 156–160

Chandhoke N (2019b) Secularism is caught in a crisis. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/discrimination-hindutva-muslims-rss-alls-not-well-with-secularism-6147422/ . Accessed 05 Apr 2020

Chandra B (1984) Communalism in modern india. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, p 1

Chandra B (2004) Gandhiji, secularism and communalism. Soc Sci 32(1/2):3–29

Crossman A (2019) What is secularization. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/secularization-definition-3026575 . Accessed 22 Apr 2020

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1919–1924) Khilafat movement: Indian Muslim movement. Britannica. https://www.Britannica.com/khilafat/movement . Accessed 22 Sept. 2020

Friedrichs J (2019) Hindu-Muslim relations: what Europe might learn from India. Routledge Pub. India, South Asia Edition, pp 62–64

Gandhi MK (1984) What is truth. Navjeevan Publication, Ahmedabad, p 474

Gandhi MK (1986) Dharma and self-purification. Navjeevan Publication, Ahmedabad, p 81

Gandhi MK (1940) Unity v. justice. Harijan 7(51):429. https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/journals-by-gandhiji/harijan . Accessed 26 Apr 2020

Gandhi R (2020) CAA does not carry mahatma Gandhi wishes, it brazenly defies them. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/caa-secular-nrc-minorities-pakistan-narendra-modi-amit-shah-rajmohan-gandhi-6236881/ . Accessed 22 Apr 2020

Godrej F (2006) Nonviolence and Gandhi’s truth: A method for moral and political arbitration. Rev Polit 68(2):287–317. Iyer (1973) The moral and political thought of mahatma Gandhi. Oxford University Press, London, p 160. Chatterjee M (1983) Gandhi’s religious thought. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, p 67

Gupta C (2019) Gandhi on cow, ram Rajya and Hinduism. National Herald. https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/gandhi-on-cow-ramrajya-and-hinduism . Accessed 15 May 2020

Gupta D (1999) Secularisation and minoritization: the limits of heroic thought. In: Sheth DL, Mahajan G (eds) Minority identities and the nation-state. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp 38–44

Iyengar AS (1950) All through the Gandhian era. Hind Kitab House, Bombay, p 223

Iyer Raghavan N (1983) The moral and political thought of Mahatma Gandhi. Concord Grove Press, Santa Barbara, California, p 83

Kaviraj S (2013) Languages of secularity. Econ Pol Wkly 48(50):93–102

Kesavan M (2003) India’s embattled secularism. Wilson Quarterly 1976 27(1):61–67

Kumar A (1985) Cultural and educational rights of minorities under Indian constitution. Deep & Deep, New Delhi, p 28

Kumar R, Sharada PHY (1999) Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, second series, vol 25. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Oxford University Press, p 226

Kumarappa B (ed) (1955) M K Gandhi: my religion. Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, p 29

Lok Sabha (1947) constitutional assembly debates (1947) vol 5, 27–28 Aug 1947. In: Lok Sabha (2014) Constituent assembly debates book 1 vol 1–6. Lok Sabha Secretariate, Government of India, pp 211–272

Mahmood T (2001) Minorities commission: minor role in major affairs. Pharos Media, New Delhi, p 12

Milton JR, Milton P (eds) (2010) John lock: an essay concerning toleration. Oxford University Press, p 140

Moin S (1969) Gandhi’s concept of secularism. In: Secular democracy, Monthly, New Delhi, p 17

Mustafa F (2020a) Minorities, too, are fed up with this facade of secularism.The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/narendra-modi-govt-6324468/ . Accessed 15 June 2020a

Mustafa F (2020b) The supreme court has overlooked the gravity of Delhi violence. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/dishonouring-a-pledge-delhi-violence-northeast-judiciary-centre-6290083/ . Accessed 21 May 2020b

Needham AD, Rajan RS (eds) (2007) The crisis of secularism in India. Duke University Press, pp 277–289

Nehru Committee Report (1928) The committee was consisting of Motilal Nehru, Chairman, Sir Ali Imam, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Subhash Chandra Bose, Annie Besant, M R Jaykar and Jawaharlal Nehru was the secretary of the committee. The committee was given the charge to consider and determine the principles of the Constitution of India along with problem of communalism and issue of dominion status.

Nehru J (1962) An autobiography. Allied Publication, New Delhi, p 136

Panikkar R (1983) Myth, faith and hermeneutic: cross cultural studies. Asian Trading Corp., Bangalore

Pantham T (1997) Indian secularism and its critics: some reflections. Rev Polit 59(3):523–540

Patnaik AK (2012) Transgressing secularism. Econ Pol Wkly 47(12):78

Pyarelal (1939) Gandhiji’s abbottabad speech. Harijan 7(26):227–228. https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/journals-by-gandhiji/harijan . Accessed 26 May 2020

Pyarelal (1946) Weekly letter. Harijan 10(33):321. https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/journals-by-gandhiji/harijan . Accessed 26 Apr 2020

Radhakrishna S, Muirhead JH (eds) (1952) Contemporary indian philosophy, 2nd revised. Allen and Unwin, London, p 21

Sen A (1993) The threat to the secular India. The Soc Sci 21(3/4):5–23

ShivaRao B (ed) (1984) The framing of Indian constitution, vol 2. Universal Law Publishing—An imprint of LexisNexis, New Delhi, p 200

Tendulkar DG (1951) Mahatma, vol 3(1930–34). Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt of India, Patiala House, New Delhi, p 244

Thapar Karan (2020) Colloquially speaking, BJP is fascist’: Karan Thapar interviews Pratap Bhanu Mehta. The wire. https://thewire.in/video/karan-thapar-pratap-bhanu-mehta-interview . Accessed 25 Apr 2020

Thapar R, Bhattacharya N (2019) Romila Thapar on the secular view of Indian history (and its differences with the communal one). Scroll.in. https://scroll.in/article/936085/romila-thapar-on-the-secular-view-of-indian-history-and-its-differences-with-the-communal-one . Accessed 18 Aug 2020

The Congress-Muslim League Pact 1916 (The Lucknow Pact 1916) It’s a reunion of moderate and radical wings of Congress and secularism was adopted as key policy of nationalist movement. http://www.Thebritanica.com/lucknowpact/1916 . Accessed 12 June 2020

The Publication Division (1903–1905) The collected works of mahatma Gandhi, vol 4. The Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, p 202

The Publication Division (1933) The collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol 55 (April 23–Sept 15, 1933). The Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, p 443

Tiwari KN (1988) World religious and Gandhi. Classical Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp76

Wilson BR (1967) Religion in secular society fifty years on. Oxford University Press 2016, pp xii–xv

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Assistant Professor, Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Narender Nagarwal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narender Nagarwal .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Raman Mittal

Kshitij Kumar Singh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Nagarwal, N. (2022). Secularism and Secularisation of the State: Decoding Gandhian Philosophy in Contemporary India. In: Mittal, R., Singh, K.K. (eds) Relevance of Duties in the Contemporary World. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1836-0_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1836-0_16

Published : 01 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-1835-3

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-1836-0

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Sign in with Email

By clicking the button, I accept the Terms of Use of the service and its Privacy Policy , as well as consent to the processing of personal data.

Don’t have an account? Signup

• लाइफ़स्टाइल

Powered by :

Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava: सर्वधर्म समभाव क्या है, जानें भारत में ये कैसे हुआ प्रचलित 

Sarva dharma sama bhava: सर्वधर्म समभाव का अर्थ है सभी धर्मों को समान रूप से सम्मान और स्वीकृति देना. यह विचार भारत की समृद्ध संस्कृति और विविधता का आधार है..

Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava( Photo Credit : social media)

Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava: सर्वधर्म समभाव (Sanskrit: सर्व धर्म सम भाव, IAST: Sarva Dharma Samabhāva) एक हिन्दू अवधारणा है जिसका अर्थ है "सभी धर्मों के प्रति समान सम्मान". यह सभी धर्मों की एकता और इस विश्वास पर बल देता है कि सत्य तक पहुंचने के सभी मार्ग मान्य हैं. यह अवधारणा अक्सर महात्मा गांधी से जोड़ी जाती है, जिन्होंने भारत में धार्मिक सहिष्णुता और समझ को बढ़ावा देने के लिए इसका इस्तेमाल किया था. हालांकि, सर्वधर्म समभाव की अवधारणा बहुत पुरानी है और इसे विभिन्न हिंदू ग्रंथों जैसे ऋग्वेद और उपनिषदों में पाया जा सकता है.

सर्वधर्म समभाव के सिद्धांत

सभी धर्मों का अपना अनूठा मूल्य और दुनिया में योगदान होता है.  कोई भी धर्म दूसरे से श्रेष्ठ नहीं है. हमें दूसरों की मान्यताओं का सम्मान करना चाहिए, भले ही हम उनसे सहमत न हों. हमें अलग-अलग धर्मों और संस्कृतियों के बारे में जानने का प्रयास करना चाहिए. हमें सभी धार्मिक समूहों के बीच संवाद और समझ को बढ़ावा देना चाहिए. सर्वधर्म समभाव एक शक्तिशाली अवधारणा है जो हमें अधिक शांतिपूर्ण और सामंजस्यपूर्ण दुनिया बनाने में मदद कर सकती है. यह याद दिलाता है कि हम सभी अपनी धार्मिक मान्यताओं की परवाह किए बिना जुड़े हुए हैं. एक-दूसरे के मतभेदों का सम्मान करके, हम समझ और सहयोग के पुलों का निर्माण कर सकते हैं.

भारत में सर्वधर्म समभाव कैसे प्रचलित है

भारत एक धर्मनिरपेक्ष देश है, जिसका अर्थ है कि सरकार किसी भी एक धर्म का पक्ष नहीं लेती है. भारत में विभिन्न धार्मिक समुदाय शांतिपूर्वक साथ-साथ रहते हैं. अलग-अलग धर्मों के लोग अक्सर एक-दूसरे के त्योहार मनाते हैं. कई अंतर-धार्मिक संगठन कई धार्मिक समूहों के बीच संवाद और समझ को बढ़ावा देने के लिए काम कर रहे हैं. सर्वधर्म समभाव एक मूल्यवान अवधारणा है जो हमें अधिक न्यायसंगत और न्यायसंगत दुनिया बनाने में मदद कर सकती है. मानव विश्वास की विविधता का सम्मान करके, हम सभी के लिए बेहतर भविष्य बनाने के लिए मिलकर काम कर सकते हैं.

Religion की ऐसी और खबरें पढ़ने के लिए आप न्यूज़ नेशन के धर्म-कर्म सेक्शन के साथ ऐसे ही जुड़े रहिए.

(Disclaimer: यहां दी गई जानकारियां धार्मिक आस्था और लोक मान्यताओं पर आधारित हैं. न्यूज नेशन इस बारे में किसी तरह की कोई पुष्टि नहीं करता है. इसे सामान्य जनरुचि को ध्यान में रखकर यहां प्रस्तुत किया गया है.)

ये भी पढ़ें: Life Lessons: जिंदगी के 20 अनमोल सबक, सीखते ही मिल जाएगी सफलता

Source : News Nation Bureau

इस लेख को साझा करें

यदि आपको यह लेख पसंद आया है, तो इसे अपने दोस्तों के साथ साझा करें। वे आपको बाद में धन्यवाद देंगे

हमारे न्यूज़लेटर की सदस्यता लें

Some men changed their times... One man changed the World for all times!

Comprehensive website on the life and works of, mahatma gandhi.

+91-23872061 +91-9022483828 [email protected]

• Peace, Nonviolence & Conflict Resolution
• Mahatma Gandhi’s views on peace education

Mahatma Gandhi treated his individual life in accordance with his ideas. He said, "My life is my message". Therefore Gandhism is a mixture of Gandhi's concepts and practices. The basic groundship happens to be "Non-violence". He practiced and prescribed non-violence as a remedy against all social evils. It is the most ancient eternal values and culture of India. He said on this account, "I have nothing new to teach you. Truth and non-violence are as old as hill." Non-violence and Truth are two sides of the same coin. The ultimate ideal of 'Non-violence and Truth' is unrealized and unrealizable; its value consists in pointing out the direction, not in their realization. Striving after the ideal is the very essence of practicing Gandhi's philosophy. This consciousness should make one strive to overcome imperfection. Mahatma Gandhi did not have a shadow of doubt that the world of tomorrow will be, must be, a society based on non-violence. "The world will live in peace, only when the individuals composing it make up their minds to do so".- Mahatma Gandhi (Hindu Dharma, p. 70) The above-mentioned conviction of Gandhiji endorses/precedes the Preamble to the Constitution of UNESCO "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed". Undoubtedly each and every person or we should say every citizen of the global family, ought to be committed to peace in today's human predicament, caused by conflicts due to Ideological Extremism, Religious Fundamentalism, Misguided Nationalism, Economic Injustice and Inequality. Violation of Human Rights, Suppression of Freedoms, Militarism of Power Politics, Population Explosion, Racial and Ethnic Discrimination, Egoism and uncontrolled human instincts etc. Mahatma Gandhi recognized the potentiality of these various kinds of conflict as occasions to contemplate over the confirmed problems and also as an opportunity to search peaceful means to resolve them, because of his positive attitude. He knew very well that the process of conflict resolution involved the painstaking task of restructuring the present world by liberating the human mind from the dogmatism of various kinds such as economic and political barbarism, religious bigotry etc. To achieve simultaneously the negative aim of conflict resolution and the positive aim of establishing peace, Gandhi propounded his philosophy of peace. The need of ours is to proclaim again and again the significance of Gandhian pacifism to solve crucial problems of conflicts and violence. To prevent structural violence, Gandhi proposed the theories with ideals of Satyagraha, Sarvodaya, Swaraj, Swadeshi, Buniyadi Talim, Decentralization of Power, and wealth, Trusteeship, Social Harmony & communal unity, Economic equality, Sarva Dharma Sambhava, Democracy of Enlightened Majority etc. The most fundamental principle of his philosophy of peace is "Ahimsa" or non-violence which is the law of love, life, and creation as opposed to violence or Himsa, the cause of hatred, death, and destruction. According to Gandhi, the universal human value of Ahimsa ought to be cultivated not merely at the personal level, but at the social, national and international level too if we wish to avoid personal, social, national and international conflicts. It is a very powerful means to avoid conflict since it springs from the inner realization of the equality of all human beings. Negatively it is the absence of mental intention of injuring, harming, disturbing and agonizing opponents, and positively it is good will towards all human beings. Nonviolence at interpersonal and International levels can be defined as an Altruistic approach. As a peaceful technique to resist injustice, it includes a concrete programme and leads to self-suffering and sacrifice. For Gandhi "Fasting unto death" is the last step to oppose injustice. Gandhi's approach is ethical, as he believes, that moral degeneration is the root cause of all evils including conflicts · So he recommends the acquisition of moral values such as truthfulness, non-violence or love, self-control, forgiveness, non-enmity or friendliness, compassion, mercy etc. In fact, values are the best equipment discovered by human beings to escape various types of conflict. Research also shows that the root of all problems invariably lies in the infringement of values- moral, religious, spiritual, economic and political -and moral principles· Undoubtedly conflicts are nothing but the illustration of the violation of moral laws, non-performance of duties, negligence of human values, enjoyment of freedom without caring for responsibility etc. Hence Gandhi appreciates moral solution, which is inexpensive, and a single person can initiate and undertake the task of conflict resolution by attracting worldwide attention· Gandhi, a great political thinker, therefore, recommends that politics should be a branch of ethics· Moral principles must be adhered to by politicians, ideologues, social activists as well as ordinary citizen of the world as there is no dividing line between private and public life. Assimilation of values in one's character and their expression in conduct is required to avoid conflict and this in turn is possible through awakening of "Conscience" at personal, social, national and global levels. Public awareness of those values which are conducive to peacebuilding must be evoked through exhibitions, education, public lectures, dialogues and mass communication- T.V., Radio, Newspapers etc. Gandhi proposed and adopted "Satyagraha" as a moral equivalent to war and conflict. As we all know the successful conduct of war involves two things. On the one hand, suppression of the virtues of kindness, friendliness, forgiveness and consideration for the sufferings of fellow human beings, and on the other, encouragement of the feelings of unqualified hatred, anger and hostility towards so-called enemies. Thus war leads to a total violation of the liberal democratic principles of respect for persons and the dignity of the individual. On the contrary, satyagrahi while resisting injustice, shows respect for his opponent by making moral appeals to him and expecting him to be responsive. Satyagrahi aims to conversion of the opponent's heart by making him aware of his ill will or inhuman behaviour through self-suffering. Satyagraha aims at winning over an opponent by love and gentle persuading and by arousing in him a sense of justice rather than forcing him to surrender out of fear. The method of Satyagraha is purely moral and humanistic as it involves faith in the inherent goodness and good sense of the opponent coupled with goodwill towards him and readiness to come to an understanding and compromise. In fact Satyagraha aims at settlement of issue or issues with the opponent without causing him even psychological injury but it implies soul - force, courage and determination. A well-conducted Campaign of Satyagraha absolutely untouched by violence in word and deed, made the hypocritical opponent suffer from split personality as his own moral consciousness getting alarmed by the exposure of the immorality of his action. Gandhi believed in the technique of Satyagraha, because he had faith in the goodness of human nature. The moral and humanistic grandeur of satyagraha as a method of resolving conflict and securing justice has been appreciated by several thinkers, politicians and social workers. Conflict cannot take place if we behave on Gandhian maxim that humanity (rational beings) should always be treated as an end-in-itself. If we wish to keep peace, we ought to follow the UN Charter of human rights, according to which the dignity of human life must be honoured and maintained without reference to caste, colour, creed etc. We have to redefine the concept of Development and Progress as Human Welfare and well-being by replacing the prevalent misleading concept of development and progress in terms of Economic Development and material progress. If we want peace, we have to replace the humanity negating industrial consumerist culture by idealistic humanism. Belief in the spiritual constitution of man led Gandhi to affirm the equality of all human beings and to declare the innate goodness of men. Humanism as the philosophy of Globalism or Global philosophy implies non-discrimination with regard to race, sex language, region, religion, political ideology, social and economic status, the international status of the country etc., since the basic structure and nature of human beings all over the world is same. We must rationalize our ways of thinking and think of the world in terms of maps and markets, we should think of it in terms of men, women, and children i.e. in terms of mankind. To prevent conflicts caused by religious bigotry, Gandhi suggested "Sarva Dharma Sambhav". According to him all religions are true and man cannot live without religion so he recommends an attitude of respect and tolerance towards all religions. Since the scientific and technological research aimed at material comforts is ruining human sensitivity and sentiments i.e. human feelings and relations, so scientists and technocrats must be reminded of their moral obligation to choose peaceful means and so to perform their first and prior duty towards humanity. They should not invent biological, chemical, nuclear, laser, and other kinds of sophisticated weapons, which verifies the assumption that science and technology one frequently used as instruments of exploitation, domination, and destruction rather than as means in the service of mankind and peace. Ideological extremism is also a cause of violent confrontation, as it makes the ideologues incapable of dialogue and negotiation while confrontational determination to counter force by force must be replaced by a policy of dialogues and negotiations. Democracy facilitates such policy, so Gandhi approved the democratic way of governance and life. We can say that Gandhi has been the champion not only of political democracy but also of economic and spiritual democracy as he committed to the vedantic view of Unity-in-multiplicity and was a supporter of economic equality. Mutual trust and bilateral negotiations, preparedness to discuss the problem collectively with open-mindedness, the tendency to examine and change (if necessary) our own belief i.e. flexibility is also required to escape the conflict. Total disarmament is the need of the hour but it cannot take place unless and until the hearts and minds of persons who manufacture, sale and purchase weapons are changed. Public pressure could play an important role. Organisations, in addition to individual pacifists, must pressurize the governments or the policymakers to adopt peaceful means to resolve the problems. It is very shocking to note that no serious and sustained consideration is given to human search for peace or peace studies in academic institutions and syllabi, while ours is a world of nuclear giants and moral infants. Each and every citizen of the world must be educated to escape conflict, as ultimately person himself is the insurmountable barrier in conflict resolution. Every educated person should be made aware of the fact that the issues relating to peaceful coexistence basically belong to each citizen. So every person must be trained to rise above communal pressures, religious loyalties, regional and other interests etc. The harmonious interpersonal relationship must be developed through formal and informal education ie. through audio-visual media. Hence reconstitution of the present education system by reconsidering its goal is a very urgent task. Awareness and awakening of creative qualities must be a part of education policy and curriculum. Instead of overemphasizing destructive instincts, we must try to make a person cultured by encouraging to cultivate constructive aspects of his personality, because constructive aspect is related to human values and virtues as well as their incorporation in cognitive, conative and affective dimension of our personality. The foregoing outlines of Gandhi's Philosophy of peace endorses the truism that Gandhi is one of the very relevant precursors of conflict-resolution movement with his comprehensible philosophy of peace based on the psychology of human nature, awareness of social realities and knowledge of economic and political systems and situations. Mahatma Gandhi can serve as a valuable catalyst allowing us to rethink our philosophical positions on violence, nonviolence, and education. Especially insightful are Gandhi's formulations of the multidimensionality of violence, including educational violence, and the violence of the status quo. His peace education offers many possibilities for dealing with short-term violence, but its greatest strength is its long-term preventative education and socialization. Key to Gandhi's peace education are his ethical and ontological formulations of means-ends relations; the need to uncover root causes and causal determinants and to free oneself from entrapment in escalating cycles of violence; and the dynamic complex relation between relative and absolute truth that includes analysis of situated embodied consciousness, tolerant diversity and inclusiveness, and an approach to unavoidable violence. . Susan Fountain.

Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava

Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava is a concept embodying the equality of the destination of the path's followed by all religions.

• Girilal Jain, "Limits of the Hindu Rashtra", in : Elst, Koenraad: Ayodhya and after, Appendix I
• David Frawley: Sarva Dharma Samabhav or Sarva Dharma Sambhrama? (Unity or Confusion of Religions?), in Prajna: A Journal of Indian Resurgence, January-March, 1997.
• Elst K. quoted from Londhe, S. (2008). A tribute to Hinduism: Thoughts and wisdom spanning continents and time about India and her culture p 396 (in Elst, Koenraad Bharatiya Janata Party vis-a-vis Hindu resurgence New Delhi: Voice ofIndia, 1997. )
• Quoted from Elst, Koenraad (1992). Negationism in India: Concealing the record of Islam.
• Elst K. Why I killed the Mahatma: Uncovering Godse's defence (2001) chapter Gandhi the Englishman
• My response to the responses to my critique of Islam, 2015
• Goel, S.R. Defence of Hindu Society (1983)
• Goel, S.R. The Calcutta Quran Petition (1986)
• Goel, S.R. History of Hindu-Christian Encounters (1996)
• Goel, S.R. Freedom of expression - Secular Theocracy Versus Liberal Democracy (1998)
• Goel, S.R. Vindicated by Time: The Niyogi Committee Report (1998)
• Rajneesh , Sufis, the people of the path, Vol. II.
• Ram Swarup. Ramakrishna Mission. (1986). Ramakrishna Mission: In search of a new identity.
• Koenraad Elst, On Modi Time : Merits And Flaws of Hindu Activism In Its Day Of Incumbency – 2015 Ch 27
• Arun Shourie - The World of Fatwas Or The Sharia in Action (2012, Harper Collins)
• Goel, S. R. (2003). India's secularism, new name for national subversion. Hindi edition 1985. English translation edition 1999.

External links

Navigation menu

             

), truthfulness ( ), control of sexuality ( ), non-stealing ( ), and non-hoarding ( ), the Yamas and Niyamas of Yogic thought. For example, since no creature wishes to be hurt, to cause suffering to others is a violation of Dharma, while to seek to alleviate the sufferings of others promotes Dharma. These are principles of right living valid for people of all societies and walks of life. , such as most Western religions, cannot lead people to Moksha in the Hindu sense. If one wants to help a person find Moksha, which should be one’s real Dharmic concern, it is better to tell them to follow what is true, to seek out the Dharma, even if it may require going against their religion as it is commonly understood to be. meaning a belief, view or opinion. There is no such possible statement as “Sarva Mata Samabhãva” or the equality and unity of all opinions. Opinions are as diverse as the minds of creatures. Nor need we seek to make all opinions one and the same. Diversity of opinions is necessary as part of freedom of seeking the truth.     , January-March, 1997, published by Prajna Bharati, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

Question and Answer forum for K12 Students

सर्वधर्म समभाव निबंध – All Religions Are Equal Essay In Hindi

सर्वधर्म समभाव निबंध – essay on all religions are equal in hindi, मजहब नहीं सिखाता आपस में बैर रखना – religion does not teach to hate each other.

• प्रस्तावना,
• संसार में प्रचलित धर्म,
• सच्चे धर्म के लक्षण,
• धार्मिक उन्माद,
• सर्वधर्म समभाव

साथ ही, कक्षा 1 से 10 तक के छात्र उदाहरणों के साथ इस पृष्ठ से विभिन्न हिंदी निबंध विषय पा सकते हैं।

सर्वधर्म समभाव निबंध – Sarvadharm Samabhaav Nibandh

प्रस्तावना– संसार में जब से मनुष्य ने होश सँभाला है, तभी से कुछ अलौकिक और अतिमानवीय शक्तियों में उसका विश्वास रहा है। उसने इस शक्ति को ईश्वर नाम दिया है। ईश्वर की शक्ति को चुनौती से परे माना है तथा उसे इस विश्व का नियंता कहा है। इन विषयों से सम्बन्धित विचार ही धर्म है। धर्म से मनुष्य का सम्बन्ध बहत गहरा तथा पुराना है।

संसार में प्रचलित धर्म– संसार में आज अनेक धर्म प्रचलित हैं अथवा वैदिक धर्म को प्राचीनतम माना जाता है। इसके पश्चात् ईसाई और इस्लाम धर्म आते हैं। पश्चिम में पारसी और यहूदी धर्म भी चलते हैं। हिन्दू धर्म से निकले सिख, जैन, बौद्ध धर्म भी हैं। ईसाई धर्म के मानने वालों की संख्या विश्व में सर्वाधिक है। उसके बाद क्रमशः इस्लाम, बौद्ध और हिन्दू ६ गर्म के मानने वाले आते हैं।

सच्चे धर्म के लक्षण– जिसको धारण किया जाय वह धर्म है। सच्चा धर्म वही है जो मानवता का पाठ पढ़ाए। मनुष्यों के बीच एकता, प्रेम और सद्भाव को स्थापित करने वाला धर्म ही सच्चा धर्म है। धर्म पूजा–पद्धति मात्र नहीं है। वह जीवन जीने की एक पद्धति अवश्य है। भारत में धर्म के दस लक्षण बताए गए हैं, वे हैं–धैर्य, क्षमा, आत्मसंयम, अस्तेय, पवित्रता, इन्द्रिय–निग्रह, बुद्धिमता, विद्या, सत्य और अक्रोध। ये लक्षण प्रायः प्रत्येक धर्म में मान्य हैं। ये लक्षण मानवता की पहचान हैं।

अत: मानवता को ही सच्चा धर्म कहा जा सकता है।

धार्मिक उन्माद– प्रत्येक धर्म में कुछ लोग होते हैं जो धर्म के इस रूप को नहीं मानते। उनको अपना धर्म ही सर्वश्रेष्ठ लगता है। दूसरे धर्मों की अच्छी बातें भी उनको ठीक नहीं लगती। सब मनुष्य एक ही ईश्वर की संतान हैं–

यह बात उनको ठीक नहीं लगती। गांधी जी के कथन–ईश्वर, अल्लाह एक ही नाम भी उनको प्रिय नहीं हैं। ऐसे व्यक्ति धार्मिक समभाव का समर्थन नहीं करते। वे दूसरे धर्म के अनुयायियों को सताते हैं और उनके पूजागृहों को नष्ट करते हैं। वे धार्मिक उन्माद फैलाकर समाज की शांति को भंग करते हैं और देश को संकट में डाल देते हैं।

सर्वधर्म समभाव– सच्चे धर्मात्मा सर्वधर्म समभाव में विश्वास करते हैं। उनके मत में सभी धर्म समान रूप से सम्मान के पात्र हैं। धर्म अलग होने के कारण झगड़ा करना, रक्तपात करना, हिंसा फैलाना, सम्पत्ति नष्ट करना और स्त्री–पुरुष–बच्चों की हत्या करना, न धर्म है, न यह उचित ही है।

सब से प्रेम करना और हिलमिलकर रहना ही मनुष्यता की पहचान है। अपने धर्म को मानना किन्तु अन्य धर्मों का आदर करना ही सर्वधर्म समभाव है। यही विश्व की समृद्धि का रास्ता है।

उपसंहार– शायर इकबाल ने कहा है–’मजहब नहीं सिखाता आपस में बैर रखना’। धर्म शत्रुता की नहीं प्रेम की शिक्षा देता है। हर धर्म भाईचारे की बात कहता है। धर्म के नाम पर लड़ना पागलपन है। इस पागलपन से बचना ही मानवता के लिये श्रेयष्कर है।

• HHR Australia

latest updates

• Video : A Thread On Amber Heard Turns Into Hinduphobic Racist Hate
• Far Right Christian Fundamentalists Enter Temple Calling Hanuman A 90 Foot Demon God Idol
• Neo Colonial Hinduphobic Racist Exposes The Dreaded HHR Heathens

Video : Ceremony For 90ft tall Hanuman Murthi-Deity : Third Largest In the USA

• Video Updates – Protests Spreading For Bangladeshi Hindus Across The World
• UK Protests For Hindus In Bangladesh
• Video : Islamist’s Attack Hindu Temples and Kill Hindus In Bangladesh

India : One Of the Most Hinduphobic Countries In The World ?

• Subservient Gunga Din Posts A Derogatory Image Of A Shivalinga
• Video : India – Far Right Islamists Destroy Hindu Deities In Temple
• Video : RW Christian Pastor Worried About Hindu ‘Thuggees’ In His Neighborhood’s Swimming Pool
• Yoga Teacher Happy Over Trump Supporter Killed
• Poor Hindu boy Beaten With A Baton By Local Mullah For Picking Fruit
• Video : Poor Pakistani Hindu Parents Beg For The Release Of Their Kidnapped 8-year-Old Daughter Forced To Marry An Islamist
• Video : Sarah Gates on Traditional Yoga and Its Misrepresentation in the West

Sarva Dharma Sambhava : Unity or Confusion of Religions ?

A common tenet of Hinduism is “Sarva Dharma Sambhava, which literally means that all Dharmas (truths) are equal to or harmonious with each other. In recent times this statement has been taken as meaning “all religions are the same” – that all religions are merely different paths to God or the same spiritual goal.

From this point of view whether one is Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or of another religious belief is not important. Whether one goes to a temple, church or mosque, it is all the same. Whether one prays to Jesus or Allah or meditates upon Buddha or Atman the results cannot be ultimately different. All religions are equally valid ways of knowing God or truth. The outer differences between religions are merely incidental while their inner core is one, the knowledge of the Divine or supreme reality. Therefore members of all religious groups should live happily together, recognizing that there is no real conflict in what they believe in but only superficial variations of name and form.

They do not think that their religion is just one among many but is the only, the last or the highest. They do not recognize genuine diversity in religious beliefs but divide the world into the true believers and the unbelievers. The disharmony between religion remains and in many instances has grown worse. Nor has this idea served to create an equality of views even within Hinduism where different sects still compete with one another.

Therefore, one is compelled to examine this issue further. Is the equality of all religions a spiritual principle that is fundamentally true or a wishful statement designed to try to create harmony in spite of actual differences between groups? Can such mere wishful thinking eradicate real differences and contrary beliefs? And is it the real meaning of Sarva Dharma Samabhava?

The Real Meaning of Sarva Dharma Samabhava

Such ethical Dharmas are yogic principles like non-harming (ahimsa), truthfulness (satya), control of sexuality (brahmacharya), non-stealing (asteya), and non-hoarding (aparigraha), the yamas and niyamas of yogic thought. For example, since no creature wishes to be hurt to cause suffering to others is a violation of Dharma, while to seek to alleviate the sufferings of others promotes Dharma.

These are principles of right living valid for people of all societies and walks of life. Another important Dharmic principle is the law of karma that tells us that our actions have consequences both in this and in future lives, both for ourselves individually and for our world collectively.

In fact one could argue that no real Dharmic teaching is complete if the law of karma is not accepted. Understanding the law of karma we act in such a way to promote the good of all, regardless of our outer beliefs or appearances of name and form.

An understanding of the nature of Dharma and the law of karma must go together. Otherwise Dharma, which means natural law, loses its significance. Of course, many religions do not accept the law of karma, so how can they be called Dharmas?

Generally traditions that call themselves Dharmic, like Hinduism and Buddhism, regard religion as a way of meditation designed to bring us to union with God or to enlightenment, and to release from the cycle of rebirth. This could be called the Dharmic way of spiritual development. But all religions are not of this sort.

Are All Religious Teachings Dharmic?

They are universal ethical principles which are largely self-evident if we look into the interdependence of all life. Yet beyond this, religions do not have much in common. Some religions, not only Biblical religions but also most forms of Hinduism, have a creator God, while some, like Buddhism and Taoism, do not. While Dharmic traditions, like Hinduism and Buddhism, look to enlightenment or Moksha as the goal, for other religions, particularly most forms of Christianity and Islam, salvation from sin and heaven and hell are ultimate realities.

Some religious groups regard the world as merely six thousand years old; others see it as billions of years old. Some allow the use of images in religious worship, others vehemently oppose it. Some religions are tolerant and accepting of other beliefs, others are proselytizing and prone to Religion is as varied as any other cultural phenomenon like dress, language or art. What is acceptable or laudable in one community may be unacceptable or even taboo in another. Religion is hardly of one piece only, nor does it only occur at the highest level. In fact religion can be a place where worn out superstitions and discriminatory practices are allowed to continue and often appears among the least enlightened aspects of human life.

Our God may be allowed to get a way with passion, partiality or violence that we would not tolerate in our fellow human beings. When one holds that all religions are equal and the same, this unfortunately ends any real dialogue between them. It sanctions existing religions as they are, as if anything that called itself a religion had to be valid as it is practiced today among its majority believers. Naturally this attempt to end debate between religions is hoped to end any friction between them.

Yet it merely serves to fossilize religions on the level at which they are at and does not provide further incentive for them to grow. It is like sanctioning all national boundaries as good and final, which would only make countries become more entrenched within their own separative identities.

Universal Dharma and Religion

Religions contain beliefs and dogmas that are not universally true and some that are not Dharmic at all. Otherwise separative religious identities and the whole history of religious conflict, holy wars, and the effort to convert others to a particular belief could never have occurred. There are adharmic principles in all religions and in some religions, at least at some times, adharmic principles predominate.

The question must therefore arise: Are the beliefs of all religions Dharmas or universal truths? Clearly not. Many of these are simply dogmas, things that are supposed to be true but are merely the opinion of certain people. The Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the only son of God is not a Dharmic principle, an eternal or universal truth, but a belief or imagination of certain people over a limited period of time.

It is an idea conditioned by time, place and person that cannot be acceptable to everyone. The Islamic belief that Mohammed is the last prophet is also not a Dharma, but an identification of truth with a particular person and a specific historical revelation. Nor is the belief that an historical revelation like the Bible or the Koran is the Word of God a Dharma or universal law but only the opinion of a particular community. An eternal heaven and hell are also not Dharmic principles. This idea possesses an eternal reward or punishment for transient deeds, which violates the law of karma.

While one could argue that such beliefs can be employed as a means to lead people to Dharma, instilling moral and ethical virtues on the ignorant, it is clear that these beliefs can be used for social domination as well. Even within Dharmic traditions are things that are not Dharmic. For example, a caste system determined by birth, such as many Hindus take it to be, is not Dharmic. It does not reflect the nature of individuals, of which birth is only one factor, and not necessarily the main one.

That we should respect all Dharmas should not translate into respecting all dogmas and refusing to question them, which failure to seek the truth is itself adharmic. That all Dharmas are one should not be used as an excuse for adharma to place itself beyond question. That Dharma is one does not mean that adharma should be able to hide itself in the garb of religion.

While we should respect Dharma wherever we find it, we need not accept dogma in order to do so. In fact where there is dogma there can be no Dharma. Dogma is an unquestioned belief held to be true by faith alone, even if it is irrational. Dharma is a universal law that we can discover through objective inquiry, questioning all dogmas and preconceptions. To uphold the unity of Dharma we cannot sanction and protect all dogmas.  To raise the banner of Dharma we must question dogma and the darkness of religious belief, not just in our own religion but in all religions, in ourselves and in all humanity.

Hinduism has sought to define itself through Sanatana Dharma or the universal and eternal Dharma. It does not require belief or dogma, though it does have its culturally conditioned forms and vehicles to promote Dharma. Hindu Dharma has tried to accept all Dharmic principles and to include all of these within itself.  Buddhism and Jainism also are called Dharmas and aim at Dharma, sharing the basic principles of karma, enlightenment, and yogic practices as Hinduism, though defined somewhat differently. However Western and specifically missionary religions (Christianity and Islam), with few individual exceptions, have not accepted the Dharmic traditions of India as valid.

They continue a campaign to discredit and displace Dharmic traditions under the guise of saving souls. It is not souls that they are really saving but Dharma that they are ignoring, if not degrading. Such religions generally insist that even a good person cannot gain salvation unless he or she has the proper religious belief, which naturally is their belief. A good Hindu, by this account, cannot gain Divine favor unless he converts and becomes a Christian or a Muslim. That is, the Dharma or nature of a person is not the deciding factor for missionary religions but the belief or the dogma that people accept.

Belief and Dharma

The correct term for the common Western idea of religion, which is a particular belief, in Hindu thought is not be Dharma but “mata” meaning a belief, view or opinion. There is no such possible statement as “Sarva Mata Samabhava” or the equality and unity of all opinions. Opinions are as diverse as the minds of creatures. Nor need we seek to make all opinions one and the same. A diversity of opinions is an essential part of the freedom necessary for seeking the truth.

Opinions are various and even contradictory. Some may be right, others may be wrong. They are speculative views that must be proved in practice. That fire burns is a Dharma. It is its natural quality. If some one has the opinion that fire does not burn we do not have to respect that idea in order to maintain the universality of all Dharmas. We should allow everyone to have his or her own opinion about religion, because the minds of living beings are unique and move in different paths, but we don’t have to sanction all religious opinions as true in order to do this.

Religions as we know them from the Western world are largely belief systems which state that truth belongs to a particular person, group, holy book, or name of God and that those who do not share this belief are somehow wrong or evil. There is certainly no record of any major Christian or Islamic leaders who contradict this statement and state that Hinduism or Buddhism are as good as their religions and that therefore all efforts to convert followers of these religions are misguided and should be ended! If all religions follow the same Dharma let all religious leaders say that they accept the law of karma as valid and Self-realization as the real goal of life.

Let a pope, bishop, mufti or mullah proclaim that one can find God without Jesus or Mohammed, the Bible or the Koran. If these religious leaders are not saying such things how can anyone state that all religions are the same?

Belief-centered religions are based upon time, place and person and therefore contain much that is not universal or valid. The exclusivism of their beliefs has historically led to forceful efforts to convert others that are adharmic. Hence religious exclusivism is the real bar on social harmony between religious groups. Making all religions the same has not ended this exclusivism but, on the contrary, has allowed it to continue without question, giving it a kind of religious sanction. It has placed exclusive beliefs on par with more tolerant traditions.

While there is much adharmic in the social evils, like caste, that have arisen in a misapplication of the Hindu religion, there is no adharma in its core formulation that transcends time, place and person, and emphasizes the eternal over the historical element in religion. Hinduism does not require an exclusive formulation of truth but welcomes diversity and multiplicity in religious approaches.

Religion and Truth

Yet if we do this, there may be little left over of certain religions for anyone to follow. Does it really serve the cause of truth to make all religions equally true? Look at religions and what they have done through history. They are filled with superstitions and prejudices and divide people into warring camps. Major religions have only sons of God, virgin births, last prophets, bizarre claims of miracles, and many assertions that contradict not only science but reason and common sense.

The God of many religions, like a tyrant, condemns his enemies to cruel tortures and exalts his favorites even if they commit vile deeds in his name.

If one were to take such statements as symbols or metaphors of a mystic path it would not be so bad and there are a few who attempt this. But all over the world most religionists still interpret their faiths literally and insist that their book is God’s word, which no one can challenge. Religion as we have known it is not so much a beautiful field of truth or mysticism but an abyss of negative emotions and hostile actions that have scarred the minds and lives of millions, may billions of people.

It would better to regard all religions as false because this would at least cause people to seek the truth and make them question what religions have taught. To make all religions true, with all their human imperfections, is to make people hostage to any falsehood, half-truth, or misinterpretation that happens to call itself religion. And certainly all human beings would like their opinions, beliefs and prejudices to become a religion. Nothing is more flattering to the human ego than to ascribe our biases to God and to sanction our desires and ambitions as the working out of His will.

Unity of Mysticism

There are disputes between dualistic and non-dualistic Vedanta (dvaita and advaita) within Hinduism. Christian and Islamic mystics seldom accept the law of karma and usually insist upon their particular heaven or paradise as the highest, even if they hold that there is only one God. There are many levels and stages of mystical experience between ordinary human consciousness and the highest Self-realization that can be quite varied and not free of illusion. Hence while the mystics of different religions may have more in common than the orthodox, they hardly all teach the same thing.

In fact some mystics have been missionaries or taken militant roles in crusades and jihads because their personal experiences made them more zealous in their beliefs. A mystic who does not have the proper purity of body, mind and intention can end up in an exaggerated state of mind that can lead to extreme actions. There is also a dark or Asuric mysticism. Not all mysticism is of a sattvic or selfless nature. Hence the Vedas say that even demons practice Yoga to gain occult powers in order to control the world. We will examine this issue in depth in the chapter on Devic and Asuric Forms of Mysticism.

All Religions as One at their Origin

Books like the Koran and the Gita are hardly alike either in their tone or teaching. Such main topics of the Gita as the Self, karma, the gunas, yoga and renunciation are not found in the Koran unless we insert them between the lines. Teachers like Mohammed and Buddha had very different manners, one being aggressive and assertive in his religious proselytizing, the other being passive and non-violent. The list of could go on and on.

If religions differ so much in the world, there is no reason to believe that all their founders must have originally taught the same thing, though some of them may have taught something similar. If we tell people to return to their original religion as taught by its founder, they may not find this magical unity of Sarva Dharma Samabhava but only an original zealousness and intolerance such as often exists at the early stage of religions, particularly those based upon an historical revelation.

Besides, if the majority of believers today view their religion in a certain light we cannot ignore that in favor of a mystical view of the religion that most of its believers would regard as heresy. The fact that certain religions feel compelled to convert the world to their beliefs shows something very different about the basis of their religions than that of religions which honor pluralism and have no need to make everyone think and act as they do.

To pretend that all religions are originally good is as much a mistake as to regard different cultural concepts of truth, justice or beauty as all correct. True religious inquiry does not require pretending all religions are good but discarding religious teachings that are harmful and upholding those based upon higher impulses. Naturally existent erroneous beliefs will not give up without a struggle, and as their power is mainly in the political world, the struggle will be political as well spiritual.

As false beliefs tend to militance in order to protect what are indefensible ideas, they will certainly resort to force to preserve themselves. We should have no illusions about the complications that this may create in the external world. At the same time we should have no illusions that the continued existence of false beliefs will not lead their followers to harmful behavior on various levels. False beliefs will lead to wrong actions until they are removed. The Pluralism of Paths

Therefore a variety of approaches must be offered to meet the various needs of living beings. We must respect this pluralism of paths as much as the Unity of Truth or we will turn that infinite unity into an exclusive path or rigid uniformity in which both the One truth and the many paths are denied. The pluralism of paths is the basis of religious freedom and freedom of inquiry through which alone we can discover what is real.

Yet the statement that truth has many paths does not mean that all paths, as long as they call themselves religious, must be equally good and lead to the same goal. A pluralism of spiritual paths implies that there are paths that lead to falsehood and paths that lead only to partial truths. Not all paths take us to the full truth of existence. A path can only take us as far as it goes. For example, a religion that does not teach any experiential path to Self-realization, which has no concept of karma or liberation, and no gurus or living lineages who have attained it, cannot take us there, however faithfully we may practice it.

It can only take us to the idea of God, heaven or salvation that is its stated goal. A pluralism of paths implies some plurality in the goal as well, with the true goal only coming at the end of a complete path. We should respect a diversity of paths and the freedom of people to follow them, including to follow paths that do not lead to the full truth. No one path to truth can be imposed upon all humanity. Truth is something that we can only discover in the freedom of our own inner seeking.

If it is imposed upon us externally as a belief or a concept, it becomes artificial and prevents real inner growth. Sometimes through taking a wrong path and realizing our error we can learn a great deal, perhaps more than halfheartedly following a true path. There obviously is no cosmic law preventing wrong paths to exist or stopping people from following them. A pluralism of paths encourages discrimination between paths rather than making all paths the same. If many paths are possible, some true and some not, we must be very careful about the path that we are taking.

Even a path that may be right for one person may not be right for another, so we cannot assume that what worked for someone else must work for us as well. Recognizing one truth and a diversity of paths requires that we examine each path critically, not that we blindly make all paths equal and true. Making all religions the same destroys this discrimination and allows wrong paths to be placed beyond scrutiny. It would be like saying that all so-called medicines are equally good for everyone and prescribing the same medicine for all. The result would be not healing for all but the poisoning of many.

Unity of Religions and Monotheism

Monotheism, we should note, is usually not monism. It is usually an assertion that only one formulation of God is true, rather than a unity between all formulations of Divinity. The goal of monism is usually mergence into God or the Absolute, while that of most forms of Western monotheism, is a heaven or paradise in which the soul worships God, and from which those who don’t believe in this form of God are excluded. Monotheism, particularly in Western religions, is usually an exclusive formulation that divides humanity into the believers and the unbelievers and refuses to accept truth that falls outside the boundaries of its belief.

Its One God is not a universal principle but a singularity, not a force of unification but one of separation. Monism is usually a product of pluralism, accepting the value of many paths. Monotheism usually denies pluralism, insisting upon only one true path.

The unity of truth therefore cannot limit itself to monotheism of a particular persuasion but must honor all spiritual aspiration whatever form it takes. This means that not only monotheism of all types (not only the Biblical), but polytheism, pantheism, monism and other religious formulations are have their validity. In fact what the monotheistic West calls polytheism is usually not a primitive worship of many Gods but a genuine diversity of paths and a freedom of approach to the One Truth, what is really a monistic approach.

The idea that there are many names, forms, qualities and ideas of Divinity that can be represented by various Gods and Goddesses was the basis not only of so-called Hindu polytheism but also that of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Kelts, Native Americans and perhaps most so-called polytheists all over the world. The Vedic principle of Sarva Dharma Samabhava originally arose to show the unity of the Truth, Self or Atman behind the worship of all the different Gods and Goddesses of the Hindu pantheon.

It has not created a genuine pluralism but has become an instrument for trying to remake pluralistic religions like Hinduism in a Western monotheistic mold, or rejecting them as primitive because they don’t resemble the world’s so called great religions and their model of One God, One Teacher and One Book. Modern Hindus under this idea are inclined to say that they are also monotheists, that they also have their prophets, and their Bible, rather than affirming the pluralism of their tradition which cannot be reduced along such stereoptyed lines.

In fact pluralism in religion is more important than unity. A respect for different Dharmas is more important than making all Dharmas the same. If we accept pluralism in religion – that there are many different religions which teach different and sometimes contrary things and that people should be free to follow whatever religion they wish, emphasizing the discovery of truth – this would go farther in creating religious tolerance than calling all religions the same, which they clearly are not.

Modern Sarva Dharma Samabhava, in failing to emphasize pluralism, ends up creating intolerance by trying to put all religions in the same mold, which tends to over emphasize the importance of certain monotheistic beliefs. Those who do not accept their simplistic equation of religion are rejected on principle as irreligious.

Value of Religions

That we might not regard all religions as the same, however, does not mean that there is no value in different religions. We can honor religions for what they have to offer historically, culturally, intellectually, or on whatever level, without having to make them into something Divine and not to be questioned. The Bible, for example, is an extraordinary book with much great history, poetry, and wisdom that is worthy of profound study and reflection.

But it is hardly the Word of God, true in all respects or for all time and for all people. In this regard all religions are part of our human legacy and must be understood, just as all the events and leaders of a nation must be examined to understand its history. Questioning them does not mean mindlessly discarding them but taking them for what they are worth, which in religion like in any human field of activity, from politics to art and science, has both some benefit and some imperfection.

The most that one could say about the unity of religions is that all religions represent to some degree a human seeking of the Divine and transcendent, however imperfect that may be. Just as all forms of art, however varied, high and low, primitive or sophisticated, are seekings, consciously or unconsciously, after beauty; or just as all human laws, however varied, good and bad, magnanimous or cruel, are seekings for justice; similarly, all religions, however varied, Dharmic or adharmic, represent a human seeking for something beyond time and space, death and sorrow.

That some aspect of truth exists in all religions does not mean that all aspects of all religions are true, or that all religions are essentially the same. There is an aspect of truth in art, science and non-religious aspects of human culture. Does Sarva Dharma Samabhava require equating all these as well? Should we therefore equate Einstein with Buddha, or Shakespeare with Christ? Hence we must be very careful in associating Dharma with religion and insisting that different religions are inherently as harmonious as different Dharmas. In fact different religions have inherent disharmonies that will require much time, study and communication to sort out.

They are as disharmonious or harmonious as the individuals, nations and cultures that follow them. It may be possible to eventually integrate all religions of the world into a broader religion, in which each religion of humanity has its place and its value. But it cannot ultimately give all human religions, which is a vague definition anyway, an equal place and value. This integration first requires that exclusive beliefs give up not only their exclusivism but also their aggressive attempts to convert others. When Sarva Dharma Samabhava fails to challenge the poison of conversion under the guise of respecting and tolerating all beliefs, it only ends up sanctioning religious division and intolerance.

Sarva Dharma Samabhava and Religious Conversion

This idea was intended to mean that Hindus need not convert to another religion but it came to suggest that Christians and Muslims should stick to their religion of birth as well, including that Hindus should not seek to reconvert former Hindus once they have left Hinduism for another religion. Hindus have tried to prove their sincerity in this non-conversion policy by not seeking any conversions to Hinduism. Reconversion efforts by Hindu groups like the Arya Samaj were opposed by Hindu politicians to avoid causing any conflict between religious communities in India.

Needless to say this strategy has been far more effective in preventing Hindu reconversion efforts than in stopping the missionaries, who would be strongly opposed to any unity of religions or they would have never taken up the missionary mantle in the first place.

Hindu votaries of Sarva Dharma Samabhava pride themselves in supporting other religions. They tell a Christian to be a better Christian or a Muslim to be a better Muslim, and would not encourage them to become Hindus, as if these religions contain the same teachings and have the same value as Hinduism. This they think is being liberal in religious matters and will aid everyone in their quest for God. However, it only consigns people to the limitations of their religious beliefs as these actually are, not as they are idealized to be.

A religion that does not recognize Self-realization, God-realization or have any yogic sadhana, such as most Western religions have been historically, cannot lead people to Moksha in the Hindu sense. If one wants to help a person to find Moksha, which should be one’s real Dharmic concern, it is better to tell them to follow what is true, to seek out the Dharma, even if it may require going against their religion of birth.

Political Ramifications

Naturally this may serve the politician’s urge to get elected but it does not address the real problems, which are often based on real differences between religious beliefs, particularly relative to their social manifestations. Of course, once elected the politician may do as he likes, but while seeking votes he has to appear to be on everyone’s side. It is this vulgar, self-seeking sort of all religions are good that has come to dominate modern India. Under the guise of social tolerance it is used to fuel personal and family ambitions.

Sarva Dharma Samabhava, which is a religious idea, has become a primary political principle in India – that in order to create social harmony we must honor all religions as the same, so that religious differences do not fuel social conflicts. Unfortunately the religious conflicts have continued. This is because pretending religions are the same, which is all this principle really does, cannot remove the real differences and misunderstandings between them.

Such respect for all religions is usually a one way street. Hindus are told to accept Sarva Dharma Samabhava, which means that they should not mind if Hindus are converted to Christianity and Islam and should avoid criticizing these religions even if what they believe appears to be a violation of what Hindus hold to be true. On the other hand, under the same principle, Muslims and Christians are not expected to reciprocate, stop their conversion efforts, or to become Hindus.

The result is that Sarva Dharma Samabhava has served to erode the Hindu view of truth and encouraged Hindus to give up their critical faculties in matters of religion. It is contrary to the spirit of the yogis and Rishis in which all manner of debate was encouraged in order to arrive at truth. Please note the Shad Darshanas, the six systems of Hindu philosophy, for such a tradition of free, lively, and friendly debate. When a superficial agreement is required for political harmony all real examination must come to an end. For this reason there has been a decline of intelligence in India and a diminishing of critical thinking about religion.

While we should all strive to be kind and not interfere with the religious views of others, this does not mean that we have to cease thinking in order to do so. Social tolerance should not be confused with equation of all beliefs and no longer discriminating between various religious teachings. To create social harmony Hindus need not give up defending their religion or critically examining the religions that oppose them. The logical result of this thinking would mean that Hindus should give up their religion altogether. Yet when Hindus try to defend their religion, they are accused of violating the principle of Sarva Dharma Samabhava.

On the other hand, when other religious groups violate this principle, which is what all missionary conversion efforts are doing, there is little criticism. When have Christians or Muslims in India ever been criticized for violating Sarva Dharma Samabhava? Does this mean that they have never done so? If the principle of Sarva Dharma Samabhava does not apply to them then why should we interpret it as meaning that all religions are the same?

Under the guise of religious tolerance this idea of equality of religions is used to prevent scrutiny of religious dogmas. Hindus are encouraged to accept the Bible or Koran as true like the Gita, for example, even without looking into what these books really say. Should Hindus look at other religions in a critical light, however intelligent, courteous or objective their views, they are called communal. Rather than uniting all religious groups, this principle of religious equality serves to sanction existing religions as they are.

Aggressive religions are allowed to continue to be aggressive. Passive religions are expected not to try to defend themselves. Each religion is given sanctity for what it has historically done, and religions are given the freedom to act without question under the veil of belief.

Freedom, Tolerance and Pluralism

Rather than pretending these differences do not exist we should acknowledge them and allow people the freedom to examine these. Equality of religions has been used to try to create tolerance through uniformity, but true tolerance is based upon freedom to be different, not on the assertion of some artificial sameness. We should tolerate all people, even if they do not agree with us. Tolerance of differences creates harmony, not pretending that differences do not exist. In fact if we only tolerate people if we make them the same as we are, we are not really being tolerant at all.

Similarly, members of other religions should learn to tolerate Hindus and respect the fact that Hindus do not always agree with them on matters of religion – that Hindus have their own spiritual and ethical views that other religious groups must consider as well. Should Hindus seek to redress the historical wrongs committed upon them by aggressive attempts to convert them, members of the religions involved should be willing to hear the Hindu point of view and honor it as they would their own grievances.

In a free society religious belief should be a personal matter. There should be no government enforced religious beliefs or dogmas. There should be political tolerance of all religious views as long as these do not involve violent or antinational activities. On the political level it should not matter whether one believes in any religion at all, much less what religion a person may believe in. Political tolerance of religious views, however, does not mean that individuals have to accept all religious views as right or good. In a free society one can be an atheist or agnostic or believe in any religion.

Does this mean that we have to respect atheism as equally valid as religion in order to truly practice Sarva Dharma Samabhava? In Western democracies there is a growing recognition of a multifaith and multicultural society. But there is no idea that all religions or all cultures are the same, that for example there is no difference between Christianity and Hinduism. Nor are religions, including Christianity, placed beyond question. In Islamic countries, on the contrary, there is still the attempt to impose Islam upon everyone and little respect for other religions.

A truly free and tolerant social order should be based on respect for all people and respect for all life. This means respect for the individual and not imposing any collective or politically enforced idea of religious truth upon them. We should recognize our unity as human beings, even though our religions may have as many differences as they may have commonalities. The correct principle of a truly free society is not the equality of religions but freedom from domination by religious dogmas.

This means that everyone should be free to follow or to question religion as they so choose. Hindus specifically should tolerate all religious beliefs because that is the nature of Dharmic action and respect for the Self of all beings, not to gain the political favor of minorities. And they need not accept all religious beliefs as true in order to do so. Hindus should not seek to politically enforce their beliefs, but they should not seek to politically enforce other religious beliefs either.

Hindus should act politically to defend the rights of Hindus for freedom and justice all over the world, just as they should do so to for all human beings and all creatures, regardless of their beliefs. Those who belong to other religions should know that Hindus will not attack them or interfere with their beliefs and will give them complete freedom in the religious sphere. Yet they should also know that Hindus will not stand quiet while other religious groups denigrate the Hindu tradition or when they use religious tolerance to hide political aggression and antinationalism in India.

They should know that Hindus have their own views of truth and cannot accept the missionary approach, exclusive monotheism, or any final savior or prophet as spiritually valid. They should know that in the intellectual and religious spheres Hindus will promote what they regard as truth and will not bow down to religious beliefs that are not acceptable to the principles of Sanatana Dharma. Other religious groups must learn that there is a Hindu voice, a Hindu conscience and a Hindu critique of religion that they cannot ignore.  They must learn that Hindu tolerance is a form of strength and broad mindedness, not a form of weakness, placation or appeasement.

While a government should not criticize religions, it should not prevent their critical examination in society, banning books in the name of Sarva Dharma Samabhava. True religion should be like science, a seeking of truth, not an attempt to impose a belief without any examination. This requires that we do not accept the boundaries of religion but open the field of religion, all religious, to deep examination. An honest Hindu examination of other religions is essential to bring out a genuine inquiry today.

Return to Dharma

Sarva Dharma Samabhava means the harmony of Dharma or truth-principles, not the equality of religious beliefs, dogmas or institutions. Those who use the term otherwise are misusing it. We are entering a new era in civilization today, in which religion must be radically recast, if not discarded. Only those religions willing to undergo a radical transformation are likely to survive. This change will be in the direction of experiential spirituality, in which the individual’s direct experience of God or truth becomes most important, and religious dogma and institutionalism is set aside.

This is the real Sarva Dharma that no group can claim to own or dispense. Hinduism as a religion of Dharma rather than dogma should lead the way in this revolution, which also means clearing up the adharma that can be found among Hindus today. Unfortunately the superficial universalism of political Sarva Dharma Samabhava is only creates a smoke screen for adharmic beliefs and dogmas to perpetuate themselves.

About The Author

David Frawley ( Acharya Pandit Vamadeva Shastri) is an American Hindu author, publishing on topics such as Hinduism, Yoga and Ayurveda. David Frawley is an expert in ayurveda, Vedic astrology, yoga, and tantra, all of which, he says, have their basis in Vedanta. Indeed it is the interdisciplinary approach to Vedanta that he sees as his particular contribution in demystifying eastern spirituality. David Frawley has written a number of books on all these disciplines, including Yoga and Vedanta, and Ayurveda and the Mind. His Vedic translations and historical studies on ancient India have received much acclaim, as have his journalistic works on modern India. Pandit Vamadeva Shastri was also the founder and the first president of the American Council of Vedic Astrology from 1993-2003. He is also a Patron Founder of the British Association of Vedic Astrology. http://www.vedanet.com/

Related Post

Video : Hindus Banned To Pray To Lord Shiva In India

Video : Real Hinduism In Action. Hindu Women Stop Truck Taking Cows To Slaughter House

Leave a response.

Click here to cancel reply.

Latest Reviews

Book : ‘A Hindu’s Guide to Advocacy and Activism’ By Sean Bradrick

Book Review : Reclaiming Humanity in ‘Dawn: The Warrior Princess of Kashmir’ by Rakesh K Kaul

Review : The Bhavagad Gita Comes Alive: A Radical Translation By Jeffrey Armstrong

Indigenous/pagan voice.

Video : Oil Protestors Damage Ancient Stonehenge

Two Just Stop Oil activists have been arrested after spraying Stonehenge’s stone circle, near Salisbury, with an orange substance at around 11 am on Wednesday on the eve of the summer solstice which is a [...]

Video : The Ram Temple A Victory For All Indigenous ‘Pagan’ People

Video : Native Americans Call Out Barbie White Feminist Racism

Hindu world of science.

The Hindu Concept of Time : Part One

In general, the Eastern understanding of time is very subtle, and perhaps is only matched by some of the most recent theories of modern science. That time is relative, is well recognized, and the fact [...]

Are we living inside a cosmic computer game? Elon Musk echoes the Bhagwad Gita

Harvard Yoga Scientists Find Proof of Meditation Benefit

Hindu wisdom.

Ten Dharmic Steps to making the Lockdown work in your favor

If you’re living in any one of the major countries in this world and reading this article, chances are that you’re living under a lockdown of some sorts. While the definition of a lockdown may [...]

Upholding Dharma

The Symbolism of the Churning of the Ocean

Emptying the Sea to fulfill One’s Divine Task

Divinity lies within us all

Atheist irrationalism.

The Siamese Twins of Atheism and Christianity

While atheism and Christianity may seem at polar opposites in mainstream discourse, the reality is that they are actually singing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to Hindus. The denigration of Hindu civilisation [...]

The Genius of the Hindu Mind: From Zero to Mars

Dharmic ecology.

Video : India- Bears at Mungai Mata Mandir

About 100 KM away from Raipur, exists a temple of Mata Chandi which is besieged by dense forest. What makes this temple special is that, every evening, when Aarati is over, Bears from the forest [...]

Three-eyed calf from Wales rehomed in Leicester animal sanctuary and named after Hindu god

Kashmir : Terrorist Violence and the War on Life

Video : HHR at Extinction Rebellion Rally

Meet Eco Baba who cleaned 100 miles of river all by himself

Dharma seva.

A three-eyed calf has been rehomed in Leicester and renamed after a Hindu god after an animal sanctuary bought the animal, believed to be ‘special’, from a Welsh farmer. The unusual-looking calf made headlines in [...]

Video : Wedding Held in a Animal Sanctuary To Feed Animals

Copyright © 2021 Hindu Human Rights

• Index of Shlokas
• Popular Shlokas
• Daily Shlokas
• Shlokas by Type
• Latest Updates
• Gita Home Page
• Gita Index of Verses
• Gita Dhyanam
• Chapter 1 – Arjuna Vishada Yoga
• Chapter 2 – Sankhya Yoga
• Chapter 3 – Karma Yoga
• Chapter 4 – Jnana Yoga
• Chapter 5 – Sanyasa Yoga
• Chapter 6 – Dhyana Yoga
• Chapter 7- Jnana Vijnana Yoga
• Chapter 8 – Akshara Brahma Yoga
• Chapter 9 – Raja Vidya Raja Guhya Yoga
• Chapter 10 – Vibuthi Yoga
• Chapter 11 – Viswarupa Darshana Yoga
• Chapter 12 – Bhakti Yoga
• Chapter 13 – Prarkrti Purusha Viveka Yoga
• Chapter 14 – Guna Traya Vibhaga Yoga
• Chapter 15 – Purushottama Yoga
• Chapter 16 – Daivasura Sampad Vibhaga Yoga
• Chapter 17 – Shraddha Traya Vibhaga Yoga
• Chapter 18 – Moksha Sanyasa Yoga
• Brahma Sutras

Bhagavad Gita

• Prakarana Grantha
• Adi Shankaracharya

18.66 sarvadharman parityajya

Gita chapter 18 – verse 66   «   ».

सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज । अहं त्वा सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः ॥ १८-६६॥

sarvadharmān parityajya māmekaṃ śaraṇaṃ vraja ahaṃ tvā sarvapāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ 18-66

Abandoning all DHARMAS, (of the body, mind, and intellect) , take refuge in Me alone; I will liberate thee from all sins; grieve not.

sarvadharmān = all varieties of religion; parityajya = abandoning; māṃ = unto Me; ekaṃ = only; śaraṇaṃ = for surrender; vraja = go; ahaṃ = I; tvāṃ = you; sarva = all; pāpebhyaḥ = from sinful reactions; mokṣayiṣyāmi = will deliver; mā = do not; śucaḥ = worry.;

This is the noblest of all the stanzas in the Divine Song and this is yet the most controversial. Translators, reviewers, critics and commentators have invested all their originality in commenting upon this stanza, and various philosophers, each maintaining his own point of view, has ploughed the words to plant his ideas into the ample bosom of this great verse of brilliant import. To Sri Ramanuja, this is the final verse (Charama-Shloka) of the whole Geeta.

Most often used, and yet in no two places having the same shade of suggestion, the term, ‘Dharma’has become the very heart of the Hindu culture. This explains why the religion of India was called by the people who lived in the land and enjoyed its spiritual wealth as the ‘Sanatana Dharma.’Dharma, as used in our scriptures is, to put it directly and precisely, “THE LAW OF BEING.” That because of which a THING continues to be the THING itself, without which the THING cannot continue to be that THING, is the Dharma of the THING. Heat, because of which fire maintains itself as fire, without which fire can no more be fire, is the Dharma of fire. Heat is the Dharma of fire; cold fire we have yet to come across! Sweetness is the Dharma of sugar; sour sugar is a myth!

Every object in the world has two types of properties: (a) the essential, and (b) the non-essential. A substance can remain itself, intact, when its “non-essential” qualities are absent, but it cannot remain ever for a split moment without its “essential” property. The colour of the flame, the length and width of the tongues of flame, are all the “non-essential” properties of fire, but the essential property of it is heat. This essential property of a substance is called its Dharma.

Then what exactly is the Dharma of man? The colour of the skin, the innumerable endless varieties of emotions and thoughts — the nature, the conditions and the capacities of the body, mind and intellect — are the “non-essential” factors in the human personality, as against the Touch of Life, the Divine Consciousness, expressed through them all. Without the Atman man cannot exist; it is TRUTH which is the basis of existence. Therefore, the “essential Dharma” of man is the Divine Spark of Existence, the Infinite Lord.

With this understanding of the term Dharma, we shall appreciate its difference from mere ethical and moral rules of conduct, all duties in life, all duties towards relations, friends, community, nation and the world, all our obligations to our environment, all our affections, reverence, charity, and sense of goodwill — all that have been considered as our Dharma in our books. In and through such actions, physical, mental and intellectual, a man will bring forth the expression of his true Dharma — his Divine Status as the All-pervading Self. To live truly as the Atman, and to express Its Infinite Perfection through all our actions and in all our contacts with the outer world is to rediscover our Dharma.

There are, no doubt, a few other stanzas in the Geeta wherein the Lord has almost directly commanded us to live a certain way-of-life, and has promised that if we obey His instructions, He will directly take the responsibility of guiding us towards HIS OWN BEING. But nowhere has the Lord so directly and openly expressed His divine willingness to undertake the service of His devotee as in this stanza.

He wants the meditator to accomplish three distinct adjustments in his inner personality. They are: (1) Renounce all Dharmas through meditation; (2) surrender to My refuge alone; and while in the state of meditation, (3) stop all worries. And as a reward Lord Krishna promises: “I SHALL RELEASE YOU FROM ALL SINS.” This is a promise given to all mankind. The Geeta is a universal scripture; it is the Bible of Man, the Koran of Humanity, the dynamic scripture of the Hindus.

ABANDONING ALL DHARMA (Sarva-Dharman Parityajya) — As we have said above, Dharma is “the law of being,” and we have already noted that nothing can continue its existence when once it is divorced from its Dharma. And yet, Krishna says, “COME TO MY REFUGE, AFTER RENOUNCING ALL DHARMAS.” Does it then mean that our definition of Dharma is wrong? Or is there a contradiction in this stanza? Let us see.

As a mortal, finite ego, the seeker is living, due to his identification with them, the Dharmas of his body, mind and intellect, and exists in life as a mere perceiver, feeler, and thinker. The perceiver-feeler-thinker personality in us is the “individuality” which expresses itself as the “ego.” These are not our ‘essential’ Dharmas. And since these are the ‘non-essentials,’ “RENOUNCING ALL DHARMAS” means “ENDING THE EGO.””To renounce” therefore means “not to allow ourselves to fall again and again into this state of identification with the outer envelopments of matter around us.” Extrovert tendencies of the mind are to be renounced. “Develop introspection diligently” is the deep suggestion in the phrase “RENOUNCING ALL DHARMAS.”

COME TO ME ALONE FOR SHELTER (Mam-ekam Sharanam Vraja) — Self-withdrawal from our extrovert nature will be impossible unless the mind is given a positive method of developing its introvert attention. By single-pointed, steady contemplation upon Me, the Self, which is the One-without-a-second, we can successfully accomplish our total withdrawal from the misinterpreting equipments of the body, mind and intellect.

Philosophers in India were never satisfied with a negative approach in their instructions; there are more DO’s than DONTS with them. This practical nature of our philosophy, which is native to our traditions, is amply illustrated in this stanza when Lord Krishna commands His devotees to come to His shelter whereby they can accomplish the renunciation of all their false identifications.

BE NOT GRIEVED (Maa shuchah) — When both the above conditions are accomplished, the seeker reaches a state of growing tranquillity in meditation. But it will all be a waste if this subjective peace, created after so much labour, were not to form a steady and firm platform for his personality to spring forth from, into the realms of the Divine Consciousness. The spring-board must stay under our feet, supply the required propulsion for our inward dive. But unfortunately, the very anxiety to reach the Infinite weakens the platform. Like a dream-bridge, it disappears at the withering touch of the anxieties in the meditator. During meditation, when the mind has been persuaded away from all its restless preoccupations with the outer vehicles, and brought, again and again, to contemplate upon the Self, the Infinite, Lord Krishna wants the seeker to renounce all his “ANXIETIES TO REALISE.” Even a desire to realise is a disturbing thought that can obstruct the final achievement.

I SHALL RELEASE YOU FROM ALL SINS — That which brings about agitations in the bosom and thereby causes dissipation of the energies is called “sin.” The actions themselves can cause subtle exhaustions of the human power, as no action can be undertaken without bringing our mind and intellect into it. In short, the mind and intellect will always have to come and control every action. Actions thus leave their “foot prints,” as it were, upon the mental stuff, and these marks which channelise the thought-flow and shape the psychological personality, when our mind has gone through its experiences, are called vasanas.

Good vasanas bring forth a steady stream of good thoughts as efficiently as bad vasanas erupt bad thoughts. As long as thoughts are flowing, the mind survives — whether good or bad. To erase all vasanas completely is to stop all thoughts i. e. the total cessation of thought-flow viz. “mind.” Transcending the mind-intellect-equipment is to reach the plane of Pure Consciousness, the Krishna-Reality.

As a seeker renounces more and more of his identifications with his outer envelopments through a process of steady contemplation and meditation upon the Lord of his heart, he grows in his vision. In the newly awakened sensitive consciousness, he becomes more and more poignantly aware of the number of vasanas he has to exhaust. “BE NOT GRIEVED,” assures the Lord, for, “I SHALL RELEASE YOU FROM ALL SINS” — the disturbing, thought-gurgling, action-prompting, desire-breeding, agitation-brewing vasanas, the “sins.”

The stanza is important inasmuch as it is one of the most powerfully worded verses in the Geeta wherein the Lord, the Infinite, personally undertakes to do something helpful for the seeker in case the spiritual hero in him is ready to offer his ardent co-operation and put forth his best efforts. All through the days of seeking, a Saadhaka can assure himself steady progress in spirituality only when he is able to keep within himself a salubrious mental climate of warm optimism. To despair and to weep, to feel dejected and disappointed, is to invite restlessness of the mind, and naturally, therefore, spiritual unfoldment is never in the offing. The stanza, in its deep imports and wafting suggestions, is indeed a peroration in itself of the entire philosophical poem.

HAVING CONCLUDED THE ENTIRE DOCTRINE OF THE “GEETA-SHASTRA” IN THIS DISCOURSE, AND HAVING ALSO BRIEFLY AND CONCLUSIVELY RESTATED THE DOCTRINE IN ORDER TO IMPRESS IT MORE FIRMLY, THE LORD NOW PROCEEDS TO STATE THE RULE THAT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND WHILE IMPARTING THIS KNOWLEDGE TO OTHERS:

Sarva-dharman, all forms of rites and duties: Here the word dharma (righteousness) includes adharma (unrighteousness) as well; for, what is intended is total renunciation of all actions, as is enjoined in Vedic and Smrti texts like, ‘One who has not desisted from bad actions’ (Ka. 1.2.24), ‘Give up religions and irreligion’ (Mbh. Sa. 329.40), etc. Parityajya, abandoning all rites and duties; [Being a Ksatriya, Arjuna is not qualified for steadfastness in Knowledge through monasticism in the primary sense. Still, the Gita being meant for mankind as a whole, monasticism is spoken of here by accepting Arjuna as a representative man.] saranam vraja, take refuge; mam ekam, in Me alone, the Self of all, the same in all, existing in all beings, the Lord, the Imperishable, free from being in the womb, birth, old age and death-by knowing that I am verily so. That is, know it for certain that there is nothing besides Me. By revealing My real nature, aham, I; moksayisyami, shall free; tva, you, who have this certitude of understanding; sarva-papebhyah, from all sins, from all bondages in the form of righteousness and unrighteousness. It has also been stated, ‘I, residing in their hearts, destroy the dark-ness born of ignorance with the luminous lamp of Knowledge’ (10.11). Therefore, ma, do not; sucah, grieve, i.e. do not sorrow. In this scripture, the Gita, has knowledge been established as the supreme means to Liberation, or is it action, or both? Why does the doubt arise? (Because) the passages like, ‘…by realizing which one attains Immortality’ (13.12), ‘Then, having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me) immediately after that (Knowledge)’ (55), etc. point to the attainment of Liberation through Knowledge alone. Texts like, ‘Your right is for action alone’ (2.47), ‘(you undertake) action itself (4.15), etc. show that actions have to be under-taken as a matter of compulsory duty. Since both Knowledge and action are thus enjoined as duties, therefore the doubt may arise that they, in combination as well, may become the cause of Liberation.

Objection: What, again, would be the result of this inquiry? Vedantin: Well, the resut will verily be this: The ascertainment of one of these as the cuase of the highest good. Hence this has to be investigated more extensively. Knowledge of the Self, however, is exclusively the cause of the highest good; for, through the removal of the idea of differences, it culminates in the result that is Liberation. The idea of distinction among action, agent and result is ever active with regard to the Self because of ignorance. This ignorance in the form, ‘My work; I am the agent; I shall do this work for that resut’, has been at work from time without beginning. The dispeller of this ignorance is this Knowledge regarding the Self-in the form, ‘I am the absolute, non agent, free from action and result; there is none else other than myself because, when it (Knowledge) arises it despels the idea of differences which is the cause of engagement in action. The word ‘however’ above is used for ruling out the other two alternatives. This refutes the two other alternative views by showing that the highest good cannot be attained through mere actions, nor by a combination of Knowledge and action. Besides, since Liberation is not a product, therefore it is illogical that it should have action as its means. Indeed, an eternal entity cannot be produced by either action of Knowledge.

Objection: In that case, ever exclusive Knowledge is purposeless. Vedantin: No, since Knowledge, being the destroyer of ignorance, culminates in Liberation which is directly experienced result. The fact that Knowledge, which removes the darkness of ignorance, culminates in Liberation as its result is directly perceived in the same way as is the result of the light of a lamp which removes ignorance the form of sanke etc. and darkness from objects such as rope etc. Indeed, the result of light amounts to the mere (awareness of the) rope, free from the wrong notions of snake etc. So is the case with Knowledge. As in the case of the acts like ‘cutting down’, ‘producing fire by friction’ etc., in which accessories such as the agent and others operate, and which have perceivable results, there is no possiblity of (the agent etc.) engaging in any other activity giving some other result apart from ‘splitting into two’, ‘seeing (or lighting of) fire’ etc, similarly, in the case of the agent and the other factors engaged in the ‘act’ of steadfastness in Knowledge which has a tangible result, there is no possibility of (their) engagement in any other action which has a result different from that in the form of the sole existence of the Self. Hence, steadfastness in Knowledge combined with action is not logical.

Objection: May it not be argued that this is possible like the acts of eating and Agnihotra sacrifice etc.? [As such a common action as eating can go hand in hand with such Vedic rites as the Agnihotra-sacrifice, so, actions can be combined with Knowledge.] Vedantin: No, since it is unreasonable that, when Knowledge which resutls in Liberation is attained, there can remain a hankering for results of actions. Just as there is no desire for an action or its result [Action, i.e. digging etc.; result, i.e. bathing etc.] in connection with a well, pond, etc. when there is a flood all around, similarly when Knowledge which has Liberation for its result is attained there can be no possibility of hankering for any other result or any action which leads to it. Indeed, when somebody is engaged in actions aimed at winning a kingdom, there can be no possibility of his engaging in any activity for securing a piece of land, or having a longing for it! Hence, action does not constitute the means to the highest good. Nor do Knowledge and action in combination. Further, Knowledge which has Liberation as its result can have no dependence on the assistance of action, because, being the remover of ignorance, it is opposed (to action). Verily, darkness cannot be the dispeller of darkness. Therefore Knowledge alone is the means to the highest good.

Objection: Not so, because from non-performance of nityakarmas one incurs sin. Besides, freedom (of the Self) is eternal. As for the view that Liberation is attainable through Knowledge alone, it is wrong. For, if nityakarmas [As also the occasional duties (naimittika-karmas).] which are prescribed by the Vedas are not performed, then one will incur evil in the form of going to hell etc.

Counter-objection: If this be so, then, since Liberation cannot come from action, will there not arise the contingency of there being no Liberation at all? Pseudo-Vedantin: Not so, for Liberation is eternal. as a result of performing nityakarmas there will not be incurring of evil, and as a result of not doing any prohibited action (nisiddha-karma) there will not be any possibility of birth in an undesirable body; from relinquishing actions meant for desired results (kamya-karmas) there will be no possibility of being born in some desirable body. Since there is no cause to produce another body when the present body falls after the results of actions that produced this body get exhausted by experiencing them, and since one does not have attachment etc., therefore Liberation consists in the mere continuance of the Self in Its own natural state. Thus, Liberation is attained without effort.

Objection: May it not be argued that, since in the case of actions done in many past lives-which are calculated to yield such results as attainment of heaven, hell, etc. but have not commenced bearing results-there is no possiblity of their being experienced, therefore they cannot be exhausted? Pseudo-Vedantin: No, since the suffering of pain from the effort involved in the nityakarmas can reasonably be (considered to be) the experiencing of their [i.e. of actions done in past lives, which have not commenced bearing their fruits.-Tr.] results. Or, since the nityakarmas, like expiations, may be considered as being meant for eliminating the sins incurred earlier, and since actions that have begun bearing their fruits get exhausted merely through their being experienced, therefore Liberation is attained without effort-provided no fresh actions are performed.

Vedantin: No, since there is the Upanisadic text, ‘Knowing Him alone, one goes beyond death; there is no other way to go by’ (Sv. 3.8), which states that for Liberation there is no other path but enlightenment; also because there is the Upanisadic statement that Liberation for an unenlightened person is as impossible as the rolling up of the sky like leather (Sv. 6.20); and since it is mentioned in the Puranas and the Smrtis that Liberation follows only from Knowledge. (From your view) it also follows that there is no possibility of the exhaustion of the results of virtuous deeds which have not as yet begun yielding their fruits. And, as there is the possibility of the persistence of sins which were incurred in the past but have not yet commenced yielding results, similarly there can be the possibility of the persistence of virtues which have not yet begun bearing fruits. And so, if there be no scope of their being exhausted without creating another body, then there is no possibility of Liberation. And since attachment, hatred and delusion, which are the causes of virtue and vice, cannot be eradicated through any means other than Knowledge, therefore the eradication of virtue and vice becomes impossible. Besides, since the Sruti [See Ch. .2.23.1 and Br. 1.5.16-Tr.] mentions that nityakarmas have heaven as their result, and there is the Smrti text, ‘Persons belonging to castes and stages of life, and engaged in their own duties’ [‘…attain to a high, immeasurable happiness.’-Tr.] (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.2.2.3), etc., therefore the exhaustion of (the fruits of) actions (through nityakarmas) is not possible. As for those who say, ‘The nityakarmas, being painful in themselves, must surely be the result of evil deeds done in the past; but apart from being what they are, they have no other result because this is not mentioned in the Vedas and they are enjoined on the basis of the mere fact that one is alive’-(this is) not so, because actions which have not become operative cannot yield any result. Besides, there is no ground for experiencing a particular consequence in the form of pain [Pain involved in the performance of nityakarmas.] The statement, that the pain one suffers from the effort involved in performing the nityakarmas is the result of sinful acts done in past lives, is false. Indeed, it does not stand to reason that the result of any action which did not become operative at the time of death to yield its fruit is experienced in a life produced by some other actions. Otherwise, there will be no reason why the fruit of some action that is to lead to hell should not be experienced in a life that is produced by such actions as Agnihotra etc. and is meant for enjoying the result in the form of heaven! Besides, that (pain arising from the effort in performing nityakarmas) cannot be the same as the consequence in the form of the particular suffering arising from sin. Since there can be numerous kinds of sins with results productive of various kinds of sorrows, therefore, if it be imagined that their (sins’) result will be merely in the form of pain arising from the effort in undertaking the nityakarmas, then it will certainly not be possible to suppose that they (the sins incurred in the past) are the causes of such obstacles as the pairs of opposites (heat and cold, etc.), disease etc., and that the result of sins incurred in the past will be only the pain arising from the exertion in performing nityakarmas, but not the sufferings like carrying stones on the head etc. Further, it is out of context to say this, that the pain resulting from the effort in performing nityakarmas is the result of sinful acts done in the past.

Objection: How? Vedantin: What is under discussion is that the sin committed in the past, which has not begun to bear fruit, cannot be dissipated. In that context you say that pain resulting from the effort in undertaking nityakarmas is the result of action which has begun bearing fruit, not of that which has not yet commenced yielding fruit! On the other hand, if you think that all sins committed in the past have begun yielding their results, then it is unreasonable to specify that the pain resulting from the exertion in performing the nitya-karmas is their only result. And there arises the contingency of the injunction to perform nityakarmas becoming void, because the sinful deed which has begun bearing fruit can ligically be dissipated only be experiencing its result. Further, if pain be the result of nityakarmas enjoined by the Vedas, then it is seen to arise from the very effort in undertaking nityakarmas-as in the case of excercise etc. To imagine that it is the result of something else is illogical. [The pain arising from bodily excercise is the result of the excercise itself, and not the result of any past sin! Similarly, the pain resulting from undertaking nityakarmas is the consequence of that performance itself, and need not be imagined to be the result of any past sin.] And if the nityakarmas have been enjoined simply on the basis of a person’s being alive, it is unreasonable that it should be the result of sins committed in the past, any more than expiation is. An expiation that has been enjoined following a particular sinful act is not the result of that sin! On the other hand, if the suffering arising from expiation be the reslut of that very sin which is its cause, then the pain from the effort in performing nityakarmas, though prescribed merely on the fact of one’s being alive, may become the fruit of that very fact of one’s being alive-which was itself the occasion (for enjoining the nityakarmas)-, because both the nityakarmas and expiatory duties are indistinguishable so far as their being occasioned by something is concerned. Moreover, there is the other fact: There can be no such distinction that only the pain resulting from the performance of nityakarmas is the result of past sinful deeds, but not so the pain from performing kamya-karmas (rites and duties undertaken for desired results), because the pain in performing Agnihotra-sacrifice etc. is the same when it is performed as a nityakarma or as a kamya-karma. Thus the latter also may be the result of past sinful acts. This being the case, it is untenable to assume on the ground of circumstantial inference that, since no result is enjoined in the Vedas for nityakarmas and since its prescription cannot be justified on any other ground, therefore pain from the effort in performing nityakarmas is the result of sinful past deeds. Thus, the (Vedic) injunction being unjustifiable otherwise, it can be inferred that nityakarmas have got some result other than the pain arising from the effort in undertaking them. It also involves this contradiction: It is contradictory to say that through the performance of nityakarma a result of some other action is experienced. And when this is admitted, it is again a contradiction to say that that very experience is the result of the nityakarma, and yet that niyakarma has no result! Moreover, when Agnihotra and other sacrifices are performed for desirable results (Kamya-Agnihotra), then the Agnihotra etc. which are performed as nityakarma (Nitya-Agnihotra) become accomplished simultaneously (on a account of its being a part ofthe former). Hence, since the Kamya-Agnihotra (as an act) is dependent on and not different from the Nitya-Agnihotra, therefore the result of the Agnihotra and other sacrifices performed with a desire for results will get exhausted through the suffering involved in the exertion in undertaking it (the Nitya-Agnihotra). On the other hand, if the result of Kamya-Agnihotra etc. be different, viz heaven etc., then even the suffering arising from the exertion in performing them ought to be necessarily different (from the suffering involved in the Nitya-Agnihotra). And that is not the fact, because it contradicts what is directly perceived; for the pain resulting from the effort in performing only the Nitya-(-Agnihotra) does not differ from the pain resulting from the exertion in undertaking the Kamya (-Agnihotra). Besides, there is this other consideration: Actions which have not been enjoined or prohibited (by the scriptures) produce immediate results. But those enjoined or prohibited by the scriptures do not produce immediate results; were they to do so, then there would be no effort even with regard to heaven etc. and injunctions concerning unseen results. And it cannot be imagined that only the fruit of (Nitya-) Agnihotra etc. gets exhausted through the suffering arising from the effort in performing them, but the Kamya (-Agnihotra) has exalted results like heaven etc. merely as a consequence of the fact of desire for results, though as acts there is no essential difference between them (the Nitya and the Kamya) and there is no additional subsidiary part, processes of performance, etc. (in the kamya-Agnihotra). Therefore, it can never be established that nitya-karmas have no unseen results. And hence, enlightenment alone, not the performance of nityakarmas, is the cuase of the total dissipation of actions done through ignorance, be they good or bad. For, all actions have for their origin ignorance and desire. Thus has it been established (in the following passages) that action (rites and duties) is meant for the ignorant, and steadfastness in Knowledge-after renunciation of all actions-is meant for the enlightened: ‘both of them do not know’ (2.19); ‘he who knows this One as indestructible, eternal’ (2.21); ‘through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization; through the Yoga of Action for the yogis’ (3.3); ‘the ignorant, who are attached to work’ (3.26); ‘But…the one who is a knower…does not become attached, thinking thus: “The organs rest on the objects of the organs”‘ (3.28); ‘The embodied man…having given up all actions mentally, continues’ (5.13); ‘Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower of Reality should think, “I certainly do not do anything”‘ (5.8); i.e; the unenlightened person thinks, ‘I do’; ‘For (the sage) who wishes to ascend (to Dhyana-yoga), action is said to be the means…when he has ascended (when he is established in the Yoga of Meditation), inaction alone is said to be the means’ (6.3); ‘noble indeed’ are all the three (classes of) unenlightened persons, ‘but the man of Knowledge is the very Self. (This is) My opinion’ (7.18); the unenlightened who perform their rites and duties, ‘who are desirous of pleasures, attain the state of going and returning’ (9.21); ‘becoming non-different from Me and meditative’ (9.22) and endowed with steadfast devotion, they worship (Me) the Self which has been described as comparable to space and taintless; and ‘I grant that possession of wisdom by which they reach Me’ (10.10); i.e., the unenlightened persons who perform rites and duties ‘do not reach Me.’ Those who perform works for the Lord and who, though they be the most devout, are ignorant persons performing rites and duties,-they remain involved in practices which, in a descending order, culminate in giving up the fruit of actions (cf. 12.6-11). But those who meditate on the indefinable Immutable take recourse to the disciplines stated in the passages beginning with ‘He who is not hateful towards any creature’ (12.13) and ending with that Chapter, and also resort to the path of Knowledge presented in the three chapters beginning with the Chapter on the ‘field’. The three results of actions, viz the undesirable etc. (cf. 12), do not accrue only to the mendicants belonging to the Order of Paramahamsas (the highest Order of monks)-who have renounced all actions that originate from the five causes beginning with the locus (cf. 14), who possess the knowledge of the oneness and non-agentship of the Self (17,20), who continue in the supreme steadfastness in Knowledge, who know the real nature of the Lord, and who have taken refuge in the unity of the real nature of the Lord with the Self. It does accrue to the others who are not monks, the ignorant persons who perform rites and duties. Such is this distinction made in the scripture Gita with regard to what is duty and what is not.

Objection: May it not be argued that it cannot be proved that all actions are due to ignorance?

Reply: No, (it can be proved,) as in the case of slaying a Brahmin. Although the nityakarmas are known from the scriptures, still they are meant only for the ignorant. As such an action as killing a Brahmin, even though known to be a source of evil from the scripture prohibiting it, is still perpetrated by one who has defects such as ignorance, passion, etc.-because impulsion to any action is otherwise not possible-, so also is it with regard to the nitya, naimittika and kamya actions.

Objection: May it not be held that impulsion to nityakarma etc. is not possible if the Self be not known as a distinct entity? [Unless one knows the Self to be distinct from the body etc. he will not perform the nityakarmas etc. meant for results in the other worlds, viz heaven etc. (Tr.:) In place of vyatiriktatmani, Ast. reads ‘deha-vyatiriktatmani, the Self which is distinct from the body’.]

Reply: No, since it is seen that with regard to actions which are of the nature of motion and are accomplished by the not-Self, one engages in them with the idea, ‘I do.’ [The actionless Self is not the agent of the movements of the body etc. Still agentship is superimposed on It through ignorance.]

Objection: Can it not be said that the notion of egoism with regard to the aggregate of body etc. occurs in a figurative sense; it is not false?

Reply: No, since its effects [i.e. the effects of the notion of egoism.] also will become figurative.

Objection: The notion of ‘I’ with regard to the aggregate of one’s own body etc. occurs in a figurative sense. As with regard to one’s own son it is said (in the Veda), ‘It is you yourself who is called the son’ (Sa. Br. 14.9.4.26), and in common parlance also it is said, ‘This cow is my very life’, so is the case here. [As the use of the word ‘I’ with regard to a son is figurative, so also with regard to the body.] This is certainly not a false notion. However, a false notion (of identity) occurs in the case of a stump and a man, when the distinction between them is not evident (due to darkness).

Reply: A figuratively expressed notion cannot lead to an effect in the real sense, because that (notion) is used for the eulogy of its basis with the help of a word of comparison which remains understood. As for instance, such sentences as, ‘Devadatta is a lion’, ‘The boy is a fire’-implying ‘like a lion’, ‘like a fire’, on the basis of the similarity of cruelty, the tawny colour, etc.-are meant only for eulogizing Devadatta and the boy who are the basis (i.e. the subjects of the two sentences). But no action of a lion or a fire is accomplished because of the use of the figurative words or ideas. On the contrary, one experiences the evil effects of false notions. [Therefore the idea of ‘I’ with regard to one’s body etc. does not occur in a secondary sense, but it does so falsely.] And with regard to the subjects of the figurative notions, one understands, ‘This Devadatta cannot be a lion; this boy cannot be a fire.’ Similarly, actions done by the aggregate of body etc., which is the ‘Self’ in a figurative sense, cannot be held to have been done by the Self which is the real subject of the notion of ‘I’. For, actions done by the figurative lion or fire cannot be considered to have been accomplished by the real lion or fire. Nor is any action of the real lion and fire accomplished through the (figurative) cruelty or tawnyaness; for, their purpose is fully served by being used for eulogy. And those who are praised know, ‘I am not a lion; I am not fire; and neither is the work of a lion or fire mine.’ So the more ligical notion is, ‘The action of the aggregate (of body etc.) do not belong to me who am the real Self’, and not, ‘I am the agent; it is my work.’ As for the assertion made by some that the Self acts through Its own memory, deisre and effort, which are the causes of activity-that is not so, for they are based on false knowledge. Memory, desire, effort, etc. indeed follow from the tendencies born from the experience of the desirable and the undesirable results of actions (-which actions themselves arise from the notions of the ‘desirable’ and the ‘undesirable’) caused by false knowledge. [False knowledge gives rise to the ideas of the desirable and the undesirable. From these arise desire and repulsion. Actions which follow give rise to the experience of their desirable and undesirable results. Such experiences create impressions in the mind, from which are born memory etc.] Just as in this life virtue, vice and the experience of their results are cuased by the identification (of the Self) with the aggregate of body etc. and attraction, repulsion, etc., so also was it in the previous birth, and even in the life preceding that. Thus it can be inferred that past and future mundane existence is without beginning and is a product of ignorance. And from this it becomes proved that the absolute cessation of mundane existence is caused by steadfastness in Knowledge, accompanied by renunciation of all rites and duties. Besides, since self-identification with the body is nothing but ignorance, therefore, when the (ignorance) ceases, there remains so possibility of re-birth, and so, mundane existence becomes impossible. The identification of the Self with the aggregate of body etc. is nothing but ignorance, because in common life it is not seen that anybody who knows, ‘I am different from cattle etc., and the cattle etc. are different from me’, entertains the notion of ‘I’ with regard to them. However, mistaken perceiving a stump to be a man, one may out of indiscrimination entertain the idea of ‘I’ with regard to the aggregate of body etc.; not so when perceiving them as distinct. As for that notion of considering the son to be oneself-as mentioned in, ‘It is you yourself who is called the son’ (Sa. Br. 14.9.4.26)-, that is a metaphor based on the relationship between the begotten and the begetter. And no real action like eating etc.can be accomplished through something considered metaphorically as the Self, just as actions of the real lion or fire (cannot be accomplished) by someone metaphorically thought of to be a lion or fire.

Objection: Since an injunction relating to an unseen result is valid, therefore, may it not be said that the purposes of the Self are accomplished by the body and organs which are figuratively considered to be the Self?

Reply: No, since the thinking of them as the Self is the result of ignorance. The body, organs, etc. are not the Self in a figurative sense.

Objection: How then?

Reply: Although the Self is devoid of relationship, still, by an ascription of relationship (to the Self), they (body etc.) come to be regarded as the Self, verily through a false notion. For, this identification (of body etc.) with the Self exists so long as the false notion is there, and ceases to exist when it is not there. So long as ignorance lasts, identification of the Self with the aggregate of body and organs is seen only in the case of non-discriminating, immature, ignorant poeple who say, ‘I am tall’, ‘I am fair’. But in the case of discriminating persons who possess the knowledge, ‘I am different from the aggregate of body etc.’, there does not arise the idea of egoism with regard to the body etc. at that time (i.e. simultaneously with that knowledge). Hence, since it (i.e. identification of the Self with the body etc.) ceases in the absence of the false notion, therefore it is a creation of that (false notion), and not a figurative notion. It is only when the common and the uncommon features of the lion and Devadatta, or of fire and the boy, are known distinctly, that a figurative notion or verbal expression can occur; not when the common and the uncommon features are unknown. As for the argument that (the figurative notion should be accepted) on the authority of the Vedas, we say, ‘No’, because their validity concerns unseen results. The validity of the Vedas holds good only with regard to matters concerning the relation between ends and means of Agnihotra etc., which are not known through such valid means of knowledge as direct perception; but not with regard to objects of direct perception etc., because the validity of the Vedas lies in revealing what is beyond direct perception. Therefore it is not possible to imagine that the idea of egism with regard to the aggregate of body etc., arising from an obviously of false knowledge, is a figurative notion. Surely, even a hundred Vedic texts cannot become valid if they assert that fire is cold or non-luminous! Should a Vedic text say that fire is cold or non-luminous, even then one has to assume that the intended meaning of the text is different, for otherwise (its) validity cannot be maintained; but one should not assume its meaning in a way that might contradict some other valid means of knowledge or contradict its own statement.

Objection: May it not be said that since actions are undertaken by one possessed of a false idea of agentship, therefore, when the agent ceases to be so [‘According to you (the Vedantin), an ignorant man alone can be an agent. Therefore, when he becomes illumined, he will cease to be ignorant and consequently the Vedas will cease to be valid for him.’] the Vedas will become invalid?

Reply: No, since the Vedas become logically meaningful in respect of knowledge of Brahman. [Though the Vedic injunctions about rituals etc. be inapplicable in the case of an enlightened person, still they have empirical validity before enlightenment. Besides, the Vedas have real validity with regard to the knowledge of Brahman.]

Objection: May it not be said that there arises the contingency of the Vedic texts enjoining knowledge of Brahman becoming as invalid as those texts enjoining rites and duties?

Reply: No, since there cannot possibly be any notion which can remove (the knowledge of Brahman). Unlike the manner in which the idea of egoism with regard to the aggregate of body etc. is removed after the realization of the Self from hearing the Vedic injunctions regarding the knowledge of Brahman, the realization of the Self in the Self can never be removed in any way in that manner by anything whatsoever-just as the knowledge that fire is hot and luminous is irremovable-, since (Self-) realization is inseparable from its result (i.e. cessation of ignorance). Besides, the Vedic texts enjoining rites (and duties) etc. are not invalid, because they, through the generation of successively newer tendencies by eliminating the successively preceding tendencies, are meant for creating the tendency to turn towards the indwelling Self. [The Vedic injunctions make people up rituals etc. by giving up their earlier worldly tendencies. Thereby their minds become purified. The purified mind then aspires to know the indwelling Self. Thus, since the ritualistic injunctions are meant for making a person turn towards the knowledge ofthe indwelling Self, they are not invalid.] Although the means be unreal (in itself), still it may be meaningful in relation to the truth of the purpose it serves, as are the eulogistic sentences (arthavada) [See note on p. 40.-Tr.] occuring along with injunctions. Even in the world, when it becomes necessary to make to child or a lunatic drink milk etc.

The Bhagavad Gita with the commentary of Sri Sankaracharya – Translated by Alladi Mahadeva Sastry

Holy Geeta – Commentary by Swami Chinmayananda

The Bhagavad Gita by Eknath Easwaran – Best selling translation of the Bhagavad Gita

The Bhagavad Gita – Translation and Commentary by Swami Sivananda

Bhagavad Gita – Translation and Commentary by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabupadha

Srimad Bhagavad Gita Chapter 18 – Verse 66 – 18.66 sarvadharman parityajya – All Bhagavad Gita (Geeta) Verses in Sanskrit, English, Transliteration, Word Meaning, Translation, Audio, Shankara Bhashya, Adi Sankaracharya Commentary and Links to Videos by Swami Chinmayananda and others – 18-66

सब धर्म एक समान निबन्ध sab dharm ek saman essay in hindi

सर्वधर्म समभाव निबंध.

भारत देश में कई धर्म के लोग रहते हैं और सभी अपने-अपने धर्म के हिसाब से चलते हैं । आज कई लोग धर्म के नाम पर लड़ते हैं कई लोगों ने तो धर्म के नाम पर भगवान को ही बांट दिया है । क्या ईश्वर ने हम सभी को धरती पर इसलिए भेजा है कि हम सभी धर्म के नाम पर लड़ाई करें ? ईश्वर ने जब हमें इस धरती पर भेजा है तो हम लोगों को एक दूसरे की मदद करना चाहिए और सभी धर्म के लोगों के साथ मिलकर अच्छे-अच्छे काम करना चाहिए ।

मेरा मानना है कि सभी धर्मों के ग्रंथों में एक ही बात बताई गई है की आप कभी भी किसी पर अन्याय ना करें और जितना हो सके उतना गरीब लोगों की और असहाय व्यक्तियों की मदद करें जिससे वह व्यक्ति दुखों से बाहर निकल सके और अपने जीवन को जी सके।

आज सभी लोग अपने अपने धर्म को बढ़ावा देने में लगे हुए हैं । क्या सभी धर्म एक दूसरे से अलग हैं ? नहीं , सभी धर्म के लोग इंसान होते हैं जिस व्यक्ति के अंदर इंसानियत नहीं है वह किसी भी धर्म को अपनाने के लायक नहीं है। आज हम देखते हैं कि राजनीति के लोग धर्म के नाम पर एक दूसरे को लड़बा कर चुनाव में जीतने की कोशिश करते हैं । एक दूसरे से लड़ने पर हमारा फायदा नहीं होता है जबकि वह नेता अपने फायदे के लिए धर्म के नाम पर हम लोगों को लड़ाते हैं और हम उन लोगों की बातों में आकर अपनी इंसानियत भूल जाते हैं ।

हम लोगों को धर्म के नाम पर कभी नहीं लड़ना चाहिए । अगर कोई हिंदू मस्जिद में जाकर नमाज पढ़ेगा तो क्या अल्लाह उसको आशीर्वाद नहीं देंगे , अगर मुसलमान मंदिर में जाकर भगवान की पूजा करेगा तो क्या भगवान उसको आशीर्वाद नहीं देंगे ? यह सब हमारी सोच है यह धर्म और ईश्वर के प्रति श्रद्धा रखना इंसानों के लिए बनाए गए हैं । हम इंसानों के द्वारा ही ईश्वर , अल्लाह को बांटा गया है। जो व्यक्ति अपने फायदे के लिए दूसरों का नुकसान करता है वह इंसान नहीं होता।

हमारा सबसे बड़ा धर्म होता है शिक्षा और इंसानियत। शिक्षा प्राप्त करके हम लोगों को इंसानों की मदद करनी चाहिए ,उनको सही रास्ता दिखाना चाहिए जिससे कि वो व्यक्ति अपना विकास कर सके चाहे वह किसी भी धर्म का हो । मैं आप लोगों से पूछना चाहता हूं कि क्या सूरज धर्म के हिसाब से अपनी रोशनी देता है ? नहीं, जबकि सूरज का कोई धर्म नहीं होता है वह सभी को समान रूप से रोशनी देता है ,ना तो हवा का कोई धर्म होता है और ना ही जल का कोई धर्म होता है यह सभी को समान रूप से अपना योगदान देते हैं।

अगर कोई व्यक्ति धर्म के नाम पर हम लोगों को भड़काने की कोशिश करें तो हम लोगों को कोशिश करना चाहिए कि उनके बहकावे में ना आएं और उन लोगों से दूर रहना चाहिए जिससे कि वह हमारा फायदा उठाकर धार्मिक दंगा ना करवापाएं और हम सभी एक साथ मिल कर रहे । जिससे हमारा और हमारे देश का विकास होगा । सभी धर्म का एक ही उद्देश्य होना चाहिए कि लोगों का विकास हो और सभी लोग सभी धर्मों का पालन करें।

जब हमारी आत्मा पवित्र होगी और हम सच्चाई के साथ जिएंगे तो हम लोगों को धर्म के नाम पर कोई भी लड़ाई नहीं करवाएंगे और हम सभी आराम से रह सकेंगे और अपना विकास कर सकेंगे।

• जीवन में धर्म का महत्व निबंध Hindi Essay on Jeevan me Dharm Ka Mahatva
• परहित सरिस धर्म नहिं भाई पर निबंध Essay on parhit saris dharam nahi bhai in hindi

हमारा आर्टिकल sab dharm ek saman essay in hindi आपको पसंद आए तो शेयर करें ।

Related Posts

kamlesh kushwah

Very nice eassy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Email Address: *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• अंतरराष्ट्रीय
• जल, जंगल, जमीन
• बांध और विस्‍थापन
• वन्‍य जीव एवं जैव विविधता
• स्थायी स्तम्भ
• गांधी दर्शन और विचार
• आदिवासी समाज
• कला और संस्‍कृति
• स्वैच्छिक सेवा शुल्क
• हमारे बारे में …
• साइन इन/ ज्वाइन करें
• हमारे बारे में
• संपर्क करें

मुद्दा : जाति-जनगणना की जरूरत

18वीं लोकसभा : संसद के सलीके, आम चुनाव : मोदीजी ने क्यों पूछा कि क्या इंदौर में…, क्या इन्दौर लोकसभा चुनाव में नोटा राजनैतिक प्रतिरोध का प्रतीक बनेगा, पोहे-कचोरी भूल जाइए ‘स्वच्छ’ इंदौर को अब इस ‘शर्म’ के लिए…, अंतर्राष्ट्रीय : पेयजल भी इजरायली हथियार है, उत्तराखंड और हिमाचल : आपदा की आवाजाही, आईआईटी गांधीनगर शोध : उत्तर भारत में पानी की बर्बादी का…,   प्रकृति : पीछे रह गए पेड़, मानसून की मनमर्जी, चुनावी राजनीति : मत विभाजन का रूकना 2024 में महत्वपूर्ण निर्णायक…, health : मधुमेह – कोविड की विरासत, बूस्टर डोज़ का महत्व निजी नहीं, सार्वजनिक है, विवाद में मौतें : कोविड की कहानी, विश्व भर में कोविड से मरने वालों की संख्या लगभग 1.8…, शोध : कोविड संक्रमित लाखों लोगों को हृदयाघात की संभावना अधिक, सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य प्रणाली जवाबदेह हो, स्वास्थ्य सेवाओं का निजीकरण बंद हो, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने एनजीटी को सिलिकोसिस से ग्रस्त उद्योगों के प्रभाव…, गांधीजी से प्रेरित होकर शोभनाजी ने दलितों की मदद के लिए…, सम्पूर्ण पुनर्वास की मांग, सरदार सरोवर परियोजना के प्रभावितों का धरना…, अब इंदौर को सब मिलकर बनाएं हरियाली का हब.

सद्भावना के लिए ‘सर्व धर्म समभाव’

महात्मा गांधी ने आजाद भारत के लिए कई तरह की योजनाओं, कार्यक्रमों और नीतियों की कल्पना की थीं, लेकिन दुर्भाग्य से वे आजादी के साढे पांच महीनों में ही हम से सदा के लिए विदा हो गए। बाद में उनके कुछ अनुयायियों ने अपनी तरह से गांधी के विचारों को अमली जामा पहनाने की भरसक कोशिशें कीं।

भारत की आजादी के संघर्ष के दिनों में महात्मा गांधी को महसूस होने लगा था कि यदि देश अंग्रेजों की गुलामी से मुक्त हो गया तो वह सात लाख गांवों में ‘ग्राम स्वराज्य’ का काम पूरा करेंगे। उसके लिए उन्होंने देशवासियों के समक्ष अट्ठारह रचनात्मक कार्य प्रस्तुत किए थे, जिनमें मुख्य रुप से ‘सर्व धर्म समभाव,’ ‘हरिजन सेवा’ और ‘बुनियादी शिक्षा’ को प्रमुखता दी गई थी। आजादी के आंदोलन में रात-दिन संघर्ष कर रहे नेताओं को वे कहते रहते थे कि अपने अंदर की हिंसा त्यागकर समाज और देश में अहिंसा की ताकत से प्रत्येक जाति व धर्म के लोगों का मन जीतकर गुलामी का प्रतिकार करें।

जब देश आजाद हुआ तो हिंदू-मुस्लिम के बीच भाईचारा स्थापित करने के लिए गांधीजी ने स्वयं ही निर्भीकता से सांप्रदायिक उन्माद फैलाने वालों के बीच जाकर समझाने का काम किया था। दुनिया के लोगों ने भी गांधी के सत्य, अहिंसा, शांति, करुणा, सर्वधर्म समभाव के संदेश को सर-माथे पर रखकर प्रेरणा ली है। बापू को दुनिया में प्रसिद्धि भी इसीलिए मिली कि वे हर हिंसा का जवाब अहिंसा से देते थे। इसके बावजूद यह इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता कि हिंसा और सांप्रदायिक उन्माद फैलाने वाली ऐसी ताकतें हमेशा मौजूद रही हैं जिन्हें गांधी के रास्ते पर चलना पसंद नहीं है।

हिंसा का प्रभाव कम न होने से सामाजिक सद्भावना उजड़ती रहती है। जब तक गांव के लोग मोती की तरह एक ही माला में पिरोकर रहने लग जाते हैं तो वही कुछ दिनों बाद फिर कई कारणों से बिखरती भी दिखाई देती है। नफरती हिंसा के नाम पर बयान देने वाले लोग इसके लिए दोषी हैं। हर रोज कितना भी गांधी, अंबेडकर का नाम ले लो, लेकिन उनके विचारों के अनुरूप समाज बनाने की शक्ति कमजोर होती जा रही है, जिससे अलग-अलग धर्मों के बीच समरसता बनाने वाली रस्सी भी टूट कर बिखरती रहती है।

भारत में दूसरे धर्मों के मुकाबले हिंदू धर्म के लोगों की संख्या कहीं अधिक है। हिंदुओं के बीच चार वर्ण ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय, वैश्य और शिल्पकार जाति के लोग हैं जिनके बीच छुआछूत कम नहीं हो रही है। हिंदू समाज में उच्च और निम्न वर्ग की मानसिकता के कारण असमानता बनी हुई है। जिसमें जातिवादी समाज के बीज बहुत गहरे तक बो दिए गए हैं।

समाज की इस सच्चाई को देखकर आजादी के बाद गांधी विचार से जुड़े सर्वोदय कार्यकर्ताओं ने 50- 60 के दशक में उत्तराखंड में अनुसूचित जाति के शिल्पकार, जो मंदिर में नहीं जा सकते थे उन्हें सबसे पहले चार धाम के मंदिरों में प्रवेश करवाया गया था। उस समय तक शिल्पकार अपने बेटा-बेटी की शादी डोली अथवा घोड़े में बैठाकर नहीं कर सकते थे। उस दौरान गांव में कहीं पर दलित वर्ग के लोगों ने इसका थोड़ा भी प्रयास किया तो उन पर तरह-तरह के जुल्म ढाए गए थे।

तत्कालीन समाज सुधारक जयानंद भारती, सोहनलाल भूभिक्षु, सुंदरलाल बहुगुणा, चंडीप्रसाद भट्ट, इंद्रमणि बडोनी ने सामाजिक एकता व सद्भावना के लिए प्रयास किए थे। इन नेताओं में सुंदरलाल बहुगुणा को विशेष रूप से इसलिए याद किया जाता है कि उन्होंने ब्राह्मण परिवार में जन्म लेकर शिल्पकारों को बड़ी संख्या में मंदिर प्रवेश करवाया और छुआछूत करने वालों के बीच एक भय का माहौल पैदा किया, जिसके कारण कई स्थानों पर उच्च जाति के लोगों ने शिल्पकारों के ऊपर हो रहे अन्याय के विरुद्ध संघर्ष किया।

उस दौर में जब देश को आजाद हुए कुछ ही वर्ष हुए थे तब टिहरी जनपद के थाती-बूढ़ा केदार नाथ गांव में धर्मानंद नौटियाल, बहादुर सिंह राणा, भरपुरु नगवान जो क्रमशः ब्राह्मण, ठाकुर, शिल्पकार वर्ग में आते थे, उन्होंने अपनी जवानी के दिनों में अपने बीच की रिश्तेदारी का सर्वस्व त्यागकर एक दशक से अधिक समय तक इन तीन परिवारों ने मिलकर साथ खाना खाया और एक ही मकान में रहे। खेती-बाड़ी का काम भी उन्होंने साथ-साथ किया। ये तीनों लोग गांधी के परम अनुयायी थे। सुंदरलाल बहुगुणा इनके साथ थे जिसने उन्हें छुआछूत की जलती ज्वाला के बीच छलांग लगाकर समाज को एक सूत्र में बांधने का संदेश दिया था।

दिवंगत पत्रकार और चिपको नेता कुंवर प्रसून ने इसका उदाहरण अपने कई लेखों में लिखा है। इन तीन परिवारों के संघर्ष के बीच से पैदा हुए प्रसिद्ध समाज सुधारक बिहारी लाल जी पर हाल ही में लिखी दो किताबों में इसका वर्णन भी किया गया है। वर्तमान सामाजिक परिवेश के सामने इस तरह के दुर्लभ उदाहरण प्रस्तुत करने के लिए पाठ्यक्रम में इसे स्थान मिलना चाहिए था।

देश के कई हिस्सों में आज भी छुआछूत है और डोली पर बैठकर दलित वर्ग के लोग शादी नहीं कर पाते हैं। हाल ही में अल्मोड़ा जिले के थल्ला-तडियाल गांव में अनुसूचित जाति के एक दूल्हे को घोड़े से उतारकर उसे पैदल जाने के लिए बाध्य किया गया था। ऐसी घटनाएं लगातार घट रही हैं जिस पर वोट लेने वाली पार्टियां मौन हो जाती हैं। सिर्फ मीडिया ही एक माध्यम है, जिससे खबर मिलती है, लेकिन वर्तमान में इस तरह की घटनाओं का खुलकर विरोध करने वाली शक्तियां न जाने क्यों बिखर गई है।

इस वर्ष अप्रैल-मई में हरिद्वार में हुई एक धर्म-संसद में धार्मिक भावना पर भड़काऊ टिप्पणी रोकने और मौजूदा विषय पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि इससे देश का माहौल खराब होता है। सुप्रीम अदालत ने कहा है कि यदि कोई ऐसा करता है तो उसे देश से माफी मांगनी चाहिए। सांप्रदायिक तनाव को रोकने के लिए लेखिका नयनतारा सहगल, पूर्व मुख्य सचिव एसके दास के साथ दर्जनों लोगों ने देहरादून में मिलकर मुख्यमंत्री को पत्र भी लिखा है। सामाजिक सद्भावना के लिए नवयुवकों ने ‘उत्तराखंड सर्वोदय मंडल’ के बैनर तले एक ‘सद्भावना यात्रा’ भी निकाली है। जिसका समापन 44 दिनों बाद 21-22 जून को देहरादून में किया गया है। समाज में हर वर्ग, हर जाति का व्यक्ति सर उठाकर जी सके उसके लिए जितने प्रयास हों वे भी कम हैं।  (सप्रेस)

संबंधित लेख लेखक से और अधिक

अमीरी के मापदंड : अमरीका और यूरोप में कौन बेहतर, विचार : जड़-मूल से क्रांति चाहिए, दवाइयां : डेढ़ सौ से ज़्यादा औषधि मिश्रणों पर प्रतिबंध, कोई जवाब दें जवाब कैंसिल करें.

अगली बार टिप्पणी के लिए इस ब्राउज़र में मेरा नाम, ईमेल और वेबसाइट सहेजें

Last 5 Post

वायनाड त्रासदी : पानी की भी याददाश्त होती है , संपादक की पसंद, लोकप्रिय पोस्ट, कठपुतली कला : विलुप्त होती लोक कला को पुनर्जीवित करने की..., क्‍या गौरव करने लायक बचा है, लोकतंत्र, श्राद्ध-पक्ष : कौन है ‘फूलधारी’ पौधों का पूर्वज, लोकप्रिय श्रेणी.

• समसामयिक 487
• वैश्विक पर्यावरण 192
• गांधी दर्शन और विचार 176
• शख्सियत 175
• जल, जंगल, जमीन 125
• ताजा आलेख 121
• स्‍वास्‍थ्‍य 104