A dialogue between Narayana Guru and C.V. Kunjuraman on “One Caste, One Religion and One God for man” 1
C.V. KUNJURAMAN (CVK): The slogan of ‘One Caste, One Religion and One God‘ for man is accepted as your practical philosophy by your disciples everywhere. However, certain people double the validity of this teaching, and some reject it outright. Gandhi also indicated his displeasure at this slogan when he visited your ashram at Varkala. Moreover this slogan is interpreted differently by various people. Hearing so many interpretations, Kumaran Asan prayed “Save me from the interpreters”, but he also did not offer a right interpretation. Therefore, we will only be satisfied with your explanation of this teaching.
Narayana Guru (NG): How do you interpret it?
CVK: It is not difficult to accept ‘One Caste’ for man. “Man’s humanity marks out humankind. Even as bovinity proclaims a cow”. Thus you have taught. On the basis of oneness of humanity, mankind is one species (jati). No one disagrees with it. ‘One God’ for man is acceptable to those who believe in God. However many doubt the meaning of ‘One Religion’. “The essence of all religions is the same, but like the blind who went to see the elephant, without knowing the essence, the ignorant say it is different.” Since this does not necessarily satisfy the people, there should be a proper explanation of it.
NG: Is there any quarrel on teaching that “The essence of all religions is the same”?
CVK: It could be argued that this is not so because the essence of theism and atheism are not the same.
NG: The many interpretation of the term ‘religion’ confuse people. Atheistic teachings are only the opinion of certain individuals. It has never been the religion of millions of people.
CVK: Some say that even Buddhism is atheistic.
NG: Is it true? Are you not a Buddhist?
CVK: As far as I know this is the view of certain Buddhists who are not sure of what or in whom they believe.
NG: Buddhism cannot be an atheistic religion. How has it been possible for millions to believe in such pure atheism for centuries? Have you examined your faith and made sure whether you are an atheist or one who believes in God?
CVK: I believe I am a theist.
NG: But I have heard that you have been arguing in favor of atheism.
CVK: It's no surprise at all. I have argued with those who tried to defeat atheists and with those atheists who wanted to conquer theists.
NG: Don’t argue for the sake of argument. You may argue to clear your doubts and for philosophical enlightenment. Is there any difference in the teachings of theistic religions, though they may appear differently?
CVK: It should be said that there are differences even in the essential teachings of these religions.
NG: What is the difference?
CVK: The following vital issues are disputed: the creation of the world, Soul and their relation to Brahman and , transmigration and karma. There are both positive and negative aspects on these vital issues.
NG: The doctrine may be different. However is there a difference in the ultimate goal of these religions?
CVK: Yes there is. Some attempt to gain heaven and some to attain moksha, which is far beyond the goal of heaven.
NG: He who has had heavenly experience, would he not try that which is even beyond it?
CVK: Yes he would.
NG: Those people who try for moksha do not deny heaven. Since there are various upward and downward steps in the heavenly experiences, the one who has had one of these experiences, would he not try for the other?
CVK: All religions do not necessarily agree on various stages of heavenly experience.
NG: What of that? All religions stand for higher goals in life and do not advocate downward goals.
CVK: I agree with that.
NG: The ultimate goal of all religions is the same. Once the river has joined the ocean there is nothing such as the centre of the ocean or the waves in the waves. Religion advocates a higher path that leads to the goal. Once they are on that road, they will naturally reach that goal. Religion is only the guidepost on the road to ultimate reality. One who has realized it, he is not bound to religion, but the religion is bound to him. Has Buddha learned Buddhism first and then taught the doctrine of Nirvana? First he sought and knew it and then he taught it. Then it became Buddhism. Did Buddha gain any benefit from Buddhism?
CVK: No
NG: So also Christ did not benefit at all from Christianity. This is also true for other religions. As the Buddhists are beneficiaries of Buddhism, so are Christians from Christianity. Likewise all religions are beneficial to their respective followers.
CVK: But Hindus do not say so.
NG: What do they say then?
CVK: Their foundation is on the Vedas. The Vedas are non-human but derived from Brahman. Therefore no one can be above the Vedas.
NG: What do the Christians say of their Ten Commandments? Have they not also come from God?
CVK: Yes, I think so.
NG: Did Yahweh know only Hebrew and Brahman only ancient Sanskrit? When they say Vedas are not human, it should be understood only in the sense that we are not sure of the human authors of it. The teachings contained in the Vedas may be said to be apaurusheya, not of human origin.
CVK: Buddha denied the unlimited importance of the Vedas and also the Mundakopanishad.
NG: No one should be thought of as one hundred percent perfect. They (scriptures) all help us in the search for truth. It is for those who seek knowledge. For the ordinary people these books should be the basic sources of their respective faith.
CVK: If there are contradictory teachings in these sacred scriptures, should they also believe in them>
NG: Religious teachers should correct them from such misinformation. Swami Dayanand Saraswati accepts Vedas, but doesn't he reject the inconsistencies in them as artificial?
CVK: Should I understand the, that all religions texts should be studies with an open mind and a careful and critical mind? Is it proper to do so?
NG: Yes, that is the core of my teaching. I have already expressed it during the conference of all religions held at Alwaye. Nations and societies will end their struggle when one of them is conquered. It is not so with religions. they can’t conquer one another. If there should be an end to religions strife, everyone should study comparative religion with an open mind. Then it will become clear that in essential teachings they are the same. The religions thus conceived it the ‘One Religion” which I advocate.
CVK: There is one more doubt?
NG: What is that?
CVK: There is an increasing tendency toward religions conversion in our society. Some accept Buddhism, others are interested in Christianity and certain others in Arya Samaj. There are also those who advocate no need for conversion to other religions.
NG: There are two sides to religion: the internal and external. Of these two which one should need conversion. If they seek for external change, then it is not conversion. It is a conversion to another social group. Inner religion is being changed and transformed every moment in the minds of human beings. This is due to the increase in knowledge and to the influence of outside factors. If any Christian or Hindu does not believe in his own religion, he should certainly discard it. One should not remain in a religion in which he does not believe. Conversion is better for him and the religion in which he does not wish to remain. No religion is well off with so many infidels in it.
CVK: Those who would like to remain in Hinduism say that modern Hinduism does not meet their needs.
NG: Then what they say is that both they and Hinduism need a change. Here is not religion as Hinduism. The residents of Hindustan were named Hindus by foreigners. If the inhabitants of India are Hindus, what about the native Christians and Muslims? Should they also be called Hindus? No one would agree to it? Present day ‘Hinduism’ is a common designation for the religions which originated in India, except foreign religions like Christianity and Islam. That is why Buddhism and Jainism are also included in Hinduism by certain scholars. If Hinduism is a common name describing Vedism, Sanatana Dharma, Samkhya, Vaiseshika, Mimamsa, Dvaita, Advaita, Visishtadvaita, Saivism, Bhakti, Sakta and Vaishnavism, it is not unreasonable if all religions that advocate the ultimate goal of salvation are called ‘one religion’. Why should one doubt its rationality?
CVK: Both Hindus and non-Hindus fight among themselves on this issue. Christianity includes the religion before Christ, the religion of Moses and Solomon, and the religion after Christ - that of Paul. All these are contained in one designation. Christianity.
NG: Many of the other religions are also as you said. If a religion which is named after one religious leader can contain many teachings of successive followers, why can’t we bring the religions founded by various leaders under one general name ‘One Religion’, the religion of man or the Manava Dharma If this seems not reasonable, most of the present day religions should also seem to be not reasonable. Those who preach incessantly about their own religion and its unity in diversity in unity, why can’ they see the religion of man and it unity in diversity and diversity in unity? Once Mahatma Gandhi during one of his speeches here pointed to a mango tree in front of the Ashram and the truth that as there are many different branches and leaves on this tree, so are people different from one another. As long as this is true, their religions will also be different. If we examine this truth more logically, we should have to admit that each man has his own religion. There there will be 200 million religions for the 200 million Hindus of India. In reality this is true, but based on certain fundamentals of belief they are said to belong to one religion. Likewise, there are certain fundamental elements in the religion of mankind: they all may be said to belong to one religion. No religion can remain as the religion of the people without basing its foundation on an eternal truth or principle. Islam emphasis brotherhood. Christianity, love but without realising that there is no brotherhood without love and vice versa. It is argued that love is often superior to brotherhood and it is a futile argument.Ancient truths are equally important. Depending on the geographical and cultural context, a particular teaching may be emphasized more than the other. When himsa or violence abounds, world religious teachers emphasize nonviolence. Violence was increasing at the time of Buddha, therefore he gave importance to nonviolence. During the days of Muhammad, brotherhood had to be given importance in Arabia. What is the need of India today? Redemption of strife between one caste and another and one religion and another. Let everyone with an open mind and without value judgement, study each other's religions and exchange ideas among themselves. Then it will become clear that enmity is not due to religion but due to misunderstandings. Thus the emphasis on religious conversion will be diminished.
CVK: If this is the case, you should allow Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus to join your flock of disciples.
NG: I have nothing against it.
CVK: However, I prefer Buddhism to any other religion.
NG: So what? You don’t dislike other religions?
CVK: Certainly not.
NG: Have you read the Buddhist texts?
CVK: I have read translations of them.
NG: Translations are sufficient enough to grasp the truth.
CVK: I have decided to study the original texts.
NG: Why do you prefer Buddhism?
CVK: To get rid of casteism and religious fights and superstitious practices. Buddhism is better than all the other religions.
NG: Do you want to join my order of Sanyasins?
CVK: Yes, if it is according to the teachings of Buddhism.
NG: I have already said this at the Alwaye conference.
CVK: Buddhists will not ordain asthmatic patients.
NG: What about rheumatic patients?
CVK: I don’t know.
NG: There are some silly restrictions among all religious peoples.
CVK: I would not take ordination as a Sanyasin unless it comes from you.