Are all religions same? Do all religions lead us to the same goal? These lines are given as a Vedic world-view and people quote the famous verse from the Rigveda एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति which suggests that “there is One Truth while the Wise refer to this by various names”. But while we can appreciate that there is a single Truth only, can two different religions be taken as conveying the same Truth? A standard dictionary of the word “Religion” is given as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”. There is no reference to Truth and the definition talks of belief in and worship as aspects of religion. However, the Vedic verse refer to the principle Sat meaning Truth or Real. Even at a surface level, it becomes obvious that the Vedic line cannot be extended to make a statement that all religions are one and the same. This line appears like a ‘liberal feel-good’ expression that is casual instead of a well thought-through wisdom. There may be a mindset behind such a statement that religion is seen as a cause for discord among people/ communities/ nations; therefore the statement attempts to allay such concerns by stating that all the different religions convey the same Truth – here must therefore be no cause for discord among practitioners of different religions. While such a noble intent is laudable, why not express this as-it-is – meaning that we can convey the line as “Different religions may have different practices but let us not use these differences to fight with one another. Let us stick together with love and affection despite following differing religious practices”. While such lines may be acceptable since they are clear in their intent, what I disagree with is the line that all religions are one and the same. Let me explain my challenge by use of our own भारतीय शब्दावली.

At the highest level is सत् or सत्य. Truth is One only – there cannot be multiple Truths and the expression एकम् सत् makes perfect sense. Now below this, we have what we call दर्शन which is a way of expressing the Truth. Here, we have अद्वैत, विशिष्टाद्वैत, द्वैत, बौद्ध, etc as different kinds of दर्शन. Here, we can add the atheist view of चार्वाक, the Science view that consciousness has descended from matter, or even the common set of ideas under Abrahamic faiths which see God as separate from World – all these world views can be seen as दर्शन. Thus, दर्शन may be seen as a perspective on Truth. And thus, there are different perspectives of Truth which is why we have numerous दर्शन. Now, can all दर्शन be seen as one and the same? If all religions are the same, then which दर्शन do all religions point to? Which is the One Truth that all these numerous types of दर्शन point to? Ancient Indians smartly did not use the phrase एकम् दर्शन meaning that all different kinds of दर्शन are one only. This will be an insult to the people who coined these दर्शन and spent their whole life explaining how their दर्शन differs from another. ‘God and Universe as One’ cannot be the same as ‘God and Universe are separate’ which again cannot be the same as ‘There is no God’ – also, all these lines cannot be take a as सत्य but they can certainly be seen as expressions of disparate दर्शन. Now can the followers of such diverse दर्शन reach the same सत्य? Prima facie, this appears untenable since these world views are opposing views and are not compatible with one another. Religion cannot be seen as दर्शन.

Further below दर्शन, we have a पंथ meaning a path that will help us to achieve the objective conveyed by our chosen दर्शन. Under this come specific set of beliefs or practices usually defined by a certain Saint or Prophet. Thus, Islam, Christianity, etc may be seen as पंथ under the Abrahamic faith tradition, Sikhism, Vedanta, etc under अद्वैतं, similarly, there are specific paths specified under द्वैत world view, etc. We can actually state that all पंथ aligned to a certain kind of दर्शन are same or lead us to the same outcome. But how can पंथ aligned to opposing दर्शन take us to the same outcome? At a superficial level, some of the practices seem to look the same – thus practices like त्रिकाल सन्ध्यावन्दनम् or five-times Namaz or practice of chanting thousand names of a certain name of God may look common but their end goal is certainly different. Just because Hitler is a vegetarian and did not consume alcohol or used to get up at 4am early morning daily, this does not mean that we can equate Hitler with Gandhi – both are poles apart. Thus we cannot foolishly say that all पंथ take us to the same goal. Religion cannot be seen as पंथ too.

Further, below पंथ, we have specific संप्रदाय that are coined by specific Gurus who emerge from time to time. So we have वल्लभ संप्रदाय, you have followers of Nath traditions, followers of Ramana, Kabir, specific Sufi Saints, etc. Under Christianity, we have the Luther Church, Baptist Church, Pentacoastals, etc or Islam has Groups named as Shia, Sunni, Sufi, etc. All these may be taken as संप्रदाय and do note that each संप्रदाय also aligns itself with a certain पंथ which in turn comes under a certain दर्शन. Most of us may be born in a family that has been following a certain संप्रदाय. Religion cannot be seen as संप्रदाय too.

Below संप्रदाय comes personal opinion or मत. Now this opinion is based on what we see within our family or school or friends. And we express our मत by saying that our view supports a certain दर्शन using an appropriate संप्रदाय. Religion possibly means this since belief in or worship apply to one who has a certain मत. Since one tends to opine by defending what is followed by one’s family, one is assigned the religion of the family to us. But thanks to education and exposure to other दर्शन, we often see people changing religion. However, most conversions are rarely scholarly but represent personal experiences of a much lower kind or driven by social pressure/ compulsions. And therefore this adoption of a certain religion is superficial since our मत tends to be taken on without much साधना or a genuine understanding of the दर्शन that made us choose a certain so-called religious outlook. Most of the people saddled with a certain religious category from a social convenience perspective hardly make any attempt to understand a certain दर्शन fully nor are capable of understanding a दर्शन in its entirety. I will go further to say that classifying people in terms of certain religious identity is ridiculous. Yes – the academicians, Gurus, etc who have taken on to a certain lifestyle indeed need to be tagged to a certain दर्शन but common people should not be given any tag. And the cause of the conflict is not the दर्शन itself but forcefully giving every common person a certain affiliation which they themselves do not understand. Do we categorize lay people as physicists or Chemists or History categories? Common people may have such interests but this category can only be assigned to deep academics who specialize in these fields all their lives. But lay people carrying uninformed opinions do not deserve any category. Modern India should reject such nonsensical categorization.

To conclude, to say that all religions are one and the same is not a sensible line. So what does one do next? A few centuries back, a famous अद्वैत Guru did something interesting. In the 14th Century CE, माधवाचार्य said that no matter which दर्शन one is aligned too, if pursued sincerely and with wisdom, one evolves. So one may start with a चार्वाक view of life, evolve to योग, सांख्य, Science view, etc but if one has an open mind and a genuine commitment to reach the Truth, we will reach the glorious Truth of अद्वैत. This approach thus accepts all traditions as useful though this view subordinates all दर्शन and defines the ultimate goal of अद्वैत as the highest In its subordination, one may see this as intolerant but this is not so. The Acharya has methodically listed all kinds of दर्शन and then logically made arguments as to why अद्वैत may be taken as supreme. Others can also do the same if they carry such a conviction. Acharya added that even the so-called lower दर्शन also enable us to cultivate certain values, gain in some level of intellectual maturity that will eventually help us to rise up to the highest viz अद्वैत दर्शन. This approach it may thus be seen as accepting of all the types of world views. Thus, all paths are valid provided that they ultimately conclude at अद्वैत viz an expression of सनातनः सत्य.

Why the book सर्वदर्शनसंग्रह by Madhavacharya is a fascinating text is because it is the only text which defines each type of दर्शन in detail, what merits each such world view has, what learnings we obtain under each of them, what are the missing aspects of each such view and how one needs to therefore move beyond this level one after another. Eventually, gaining a lot of gems under each of the lower दर्शन, we eventually reach the ultimate दर्शन. I am not aware of such a structured expression of all world views by anyone else anywhere in such a comprehensive manner. However, what is obviously missing is the world view of modern Science though some elements of its thought are addressed in this text too. So if another evolved person comes out with an upgrade of this book taking all the recent developments in human ways of thinking, it should help us accept all views of people and use the benefits from each such world view to reach towards the Highest.

OM TAT SAT