Truism Y factor Theory Learn about it. Name of the Game

   THE Y FACTOR
After a long thought, subsequent to many comparative studies of various incidences, this vision of thoughts is in front of you for your speculation and judgement. It is recommended that you should at least observe weekly wisdom once in a week. You have nothing to lose in observing!  you end up gaining knowledge and having an e mail-id for free.  what you would definitely like to use for every day e-mail address.
The Truism (Simplified ready reckoner log table (Ref section detail))
Know formula 7 Get, I witnessed on the Following Facts and Figures Following are the simple definition for a reason to log in, but our actual motive is to know people the truth and justification of our site and also to liberate their mind and spirit in true spirit. As everything in this world have been determined in facts and truth of digital fashion day in and day out right from morning date to earth rotation, from car to mobile to watch, so an and so forth and it seems a true value find its place with digits only people also understand the proof with this type of language of digit easily,to rightful acceptance of every thing . And why shouldn't be they, when say for example most of the algebraic function by taking factor like A,B,C etc finds a logical proof of a problem to solution for years then true definition of God, Man, World also must be set a site with this kind of method and here is an endeavor to proof truism in that mode , to satisfy the justification of people realization about god, world and man how it works and what it could be with also in support of example of compilation of various text as method of courtesy work . So in following system of realization we adopted a simple method of what we named it as truism mostly find its effect in far-off place as most live programmed comes in .T.V in from distance place thousand mile way from this place so it has no boundary to proof its mark(with players jersey no, achievement run , and their goal etc in the mode of digit) and you all could find a better proved solution before eyes , where no such thing as vague idea or half truth kind of perception that you all will live on with coz here every thing have been tried to prove live and before millions of people which is easy to understand and easy to be with it. By making sure of Weekly signing in will suggest that you all a member of truism and that would do the experiment more profitable for both.And using .www.samratvision.com for all web purpose and reading weekly findings and thoughts will definitely bring the best for you that what we claim to offer even though we have put in a disclaimer massage . . Know the following mode how it works Truism Show goes like this All the character in this live games are true and bear all resemblances to all person living live on the field as with the concept of our site but as soon as game is over no person should relate any resemblance to their personal life , all personal quarry can be made in our space as specified for different segment. The simple meaning is to see any realization of result in check out caused with the numbers 7,9,10 or not? To be more specific, let me give you all the exact idea of what are 7,9,10 and the feel of it as seventh heaven in cloud nine as ten on ten. It goes like this in all sports arena the main flag would be to watch out is to achievements of players as jersey number 7,9,10 as run, as taking wicket ,means if a player bearing some other jersey but taking wickets as 7 , or get out in 9 or scoring 99 those will be termed as the feel of result of truism also apart from main attention number other secondary concept are like any thing 17,27,47,57,77,67,87,117 ,119,19,99,210 etc could be termed as tagged line factor and primary factor will go like this say in cricket (in one day at first innings runs and events at closing of game would be termed as check in and check out would be second innings final result as exemplify how here in the following line, for test its one every day end score) would be termed as check in and check out 147/8 or 148/7 same way 149/5 or 65/7 in o or 244/9 or 7 wicket victory or 215/10 or 416/10 etc but other thing what will not be countable like in check out say jersey 28 , 21 ,15 and if it stands as 218/8 batsman at 25 and other at 82 than those will be termed as failure. In football it simple to find the goal of 7,9,10 as jersey number and on the spot that you all know on the spot means penalty , and any factor that turn out in those number factor, like a team played with 10 man due to red card that may sound different but it has its significance not with winner or loser but obviously with its realization of 10 factor. Here wining and losing not a factor here only to find the findings is a factor, when no goal will score it will mean no show or nullified result. Not finding any such factor will term failure, but their is hardly any chance of failure only 3% of it you all might find some failure. Till today in 97% it stands right for last two years of experiment and proved a right method of our claim. So this is the concept to judge in all sports arena, oh to find more of its essence you all could judge by comparing our weekly brand India set piece whether it gives the essence with live game or not?. we strongly recommend to read weekly samratvisions.co and judge it with live game . Following are this week findings from practical live arena- oh tag line factor you also could watch out for as 4 as V( V for vision, value , , very etc---and good.....to understand the meaning -mind you that live game availability  every week are very few and games like football etc result were also very few to find on board.

evil and suffering have been allowed by God are mysterious and we human beings are not able to know his entire plan. Apparently, suffering seems to be an evil, but really our ultimately that is not evil. God must have some good purpose behind that.

) and 14 as debase factor(factor how you all assume or imagine) we describe it just to symbolize good and ,evil. INTERPRETATION Although the interpretation of such studies is, now a complex and technical process, some of the general principles governing interpretation may be collected. The various rules of interpretation pronounced by the competent worktable, if properly arranged and used, will be of considerable importance. All the factor of interpretation are based on human experiences. Y factor is richer than any other factor in the rules and methods of interpretation, but these rules all center on the duty of the adjudicators to ascertain the intention of the subject matter in making use of the particular word or pharase, which is to be interpreted. And more important are the theories, which envisage" social purpose" of a law as a guide to the intentions of the adjudicators. With the social and economic purpose of the statute. Weekly review of highlights of findings from live field as we researched in with lots of observation and comparison without missing any day consistently for some years a proven concept from samratvisions.co Anyway, whoever is interested in this site must have some awareness about an elusive thing, which we can sense but cannot define. And now this Samrat Visions Dot.Com is here to express our views on the different aspects of this elusive thing, which has hitherto been inexplicable. The only thing we all need to understand is that we all have some position in society possessing different qualities. Some have extraordinary qualities inherent in them which in certain point of time finds expression to propel the individual to a higher echelon in society. This makes a huge impact on a larger part of society by producing extraordinary individuals in the form of leaders, sports persons, filmmakers etc. They are human beings with some supernatural power backing them. This power influences an individual in achieving his/her dreams. We believe that, this Dot.Com is also backed by some power to show us a vision of life, to share and fulfill our dreams and desires.

WHAT THIS DOT.COM IS ALL ABOUT
Now, let us tell you how this site helps you to achieve your goal by sharing ideas. If your dreams are realised, with the help of this dot.com, then our endeavour of making this world prosperous will be fulfilled. Some of the circumstantial evidence of many incidences for example most of us heard many songs of many singers on current problems , wherein they try to describe some of the problems of the society, which have long been ignored to a perilous effect. Likewise we just won't provide speculative solutions but will also help and get very personal with your individual problems.We believe that our vision will definitely yield a better result coz this dot.com whole heartedly wishes that you achieve your goals. We believe, these wishes will play a vital role in realization of your dream.
We also need to understand that our personal, professional dreams and desires, in fact, every aspect of life is based on wishes, ideas, concepts, efforts. The combination of these elements leads to the fulfilment of our goals. This dot.com will provide all the necessary ideas and concepts to achieve your dreams. You only need to put in the effort to realize your cherished dreams. For example, let us take some of the wonderful inventions mankind has seen, like the airplanes, train, electricity etc. All these inventions are the culmination of the following sequence of events: wish or desire-great ideas and concepts -great efforts.Ultimately, the efforts of one individual serves the society better.
As per our vision nature is changing constantly to provide us a better existence rather than to destroy us.The Intention of Nature The intention of Nature ?...Hidden in the depths , at the core of matter, there is the Divine Presence and the whole terrestrial evolution is made to prepare the return of the creation to its origin, to this Divine Presence which is at the centre of everything-that is the intention of Nature. The universe is an objectivisation of the Supreme, as if He had objectivesed himself outside of himself in order to see himself, to live himself, to know himself and so that there might be an existence and a consciousness capable of recognizing him as their origin and uniting consciously with him to manifest him in the becoming l thee is no other reason of the universe,. The earth is a kind of symbolic Crystallization (Shiv or many as 7,9,10) of universal life, a reduction, a concentration, , so that the work of evolution may be easier to do and follow. And if we see the history of the earth, we can understand why the universe has been created. It is the Supreme growing aware of himself in an eternal Becoming; and the goal is the union of the created with the Creator, a union that is conscious, wiling and free, in the Manifestation. That is the secret of nature . Nature is the executive Force, it is Nature who does the work. And nature takes up this creation. Which appears to be totally inconsistent but which contains the Supreme Consciousness and sole Reality and nature works so that all this can develop become self-aware and realise itself fully. But nature does not show it form the very beginning. it develops gradually, and that is why at the stat it is a secret which will be unveiled as it nears the end. And man has enhanced a point in the evolution high enough for this secret to be unveiled and of what was done in an apparent in conscience to be done consciously, willingly, and therefore much more rapidly and in the joy of realisation. In man one can already see that the spiritual reality is being developed and that it is going to express itself totally and freely. Formerly, in the animal and the plant, it was… it was necessary to be very clear-sighted to see it, but man is himself conscious of this spiritual reality, at least in the higher part of his human existence. Man is beginning to know what the Super Origin want is of him and is collaborating in carrying it out. Nature want the creation to become conscious of being the Creator himself in an objectivisation, that is to say, there is no difference between eh Creator and the Creation, and the goal is conscious and realise union, that is the secret of nature. Mother , what your answer to the question; "Are you God?" The Mother's Answer; This question can be asked of any human being; And the answer is ; Yes, potentially. And the task of each one is to make it a real fact. So, the changes , we believe, are happening for the better. Therefore, with some caution, everybody has to progress in life. This is where this dot.com can guide you through a better direction in every sphere of your life. Through this dot.com, would like to offer concepts and ideas which will inspire you in scaling great heights.
WE BELIEVE AS SOON AS YOU MAKE THE REGISTRATION SOME GOOD FORTUNE BEFALLS YOU.

COMPARATIVE RELIGION: NATURE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES.

(Spirituality made easy The concept made on Real live Experience )

 

The subject of Comparative Religion as a scientific study of the various features of the different religions of the world in a comparative perspective is relatively a late development It is hardly for a hundred years or so that the name 'Comparative Religion' has gained currency and studies in this direction have been taken up in right earnest. One important reason of this late beginning of the study of the subject may be attributed to the fact that most of the scientific studies of modern times have originated from the west and the western people until recently entertained such a sense of supremacy in their head and heart regarding their own religion that they hardly thought it worthwhile to compare it with the religions of the east. Consequently, they did not see the necessity of undertaking any study of religions other than their own. Even exposing the weak points of those religions so as to belittle their importance and, in contrast, to exalt their own. But this is not the right spirit in which a comparative study of the different religions can be made. Such a study requires an impartial, neutral and tolerant outlook and if at all there is any leaning or sympathy for any religion, it must be for religions other than one's own. The attitude of India has always been one of tolerance and respect for other religions and the Indian people have never regarded themselves as the "chosen people of God." Attempts at comparative study of religions have been made in India since very old days, but due to the political subjugation that India had to suffer for long, Indian voice was not recognised and cared for in the family of nations. It is not only on a theoretical level that India has recognised the value and worth of other religions, but also on the practical level it has set exemplary evidence  of its tolerant attitude by accommodating many foreign religions of the world on its soil from time to time. India has always taken the various religions of the world as nothing but the different people, leading to the same goal. As Parriender has very nobly and honestly recognised, ways to the one goal with a rare tolerance. " It is only when a few saner western thinkers have begun looking to eastern faiths as certain valuable heritages of mankind that the western people have realised the need and importance of a comparative study of religions and the science of comparative religion has consequently come about. Moreover, when the modern scientific developments have made the world, in a sense, very small such that mutual contacts among various cultures have become inevitable, the westerners have to recognise the existence and value of religions other than their own also. And thus comparative religion has now become an important subject of study and research amongst students, teachers and scholars of the world.

The name 'Comparative Religion' perhaps does not carry the full sense of the kind of study that is made under it, although it carries some sense. The name is rather synoptic. More properly, perhaps, it is to be called 'Comparative study of Religions' rather than 'Comparative Religion.' A.C. Bouquet, while making his aim of writing a book on Comparative Religion clear, asserts that it is 'a survey and comparison of the great religions of the world'. (In the form or world of sport) Comparative Religion, therefore, precisely speaking, is a comparative study of the important features of the different religions of the world in a perfectly scientific spirit. What this 'comparative study of religions in a scientific spirit actually means, requires clarification in which we will enter below. That will also clarify the precise nature, aims and objectives of the subject of Comparative Religion.

We may see through whatever we have said above regarding the subject matter of comparative religion that(1) it is a comparative study of different religions on various points and (2) it is a scientific study. As regards the first point, it may be seen that whenever we embark on such a study, we have to face the problem of selection of materials. We are in difficulty as to what to include and what to leave aside out of the vast mass of materials that we come across. But then this should not be a very serious point of difficulty. After due consideration of materials, points of importance may be marked out and comparisons of those points may be made. But again there is a difficulty regarding the comparison itself. No comparison seems possible at first sight, because each religion in its whole ness appears to have its own distinctive character with specific features of its own. How to make comparisons then? More over, in making comparison, there are always chances of over emphasis, both in respect of the similarities and differences found amongst different religions. As a matter of fact, religions of the world both agree and differ together in many important points. But over -enthusiastic persons exhibit maniac tendencies in either bringing useless and farfetched points of similarity or in exposing unnecessary, in important and artificial points of differences amongst religions. In making honest and objective comparisons, both these extremist tendencies are to be avoided. Factual comparisons with points of real similarities and differences must be brought about in making a real comparative study of the religions of the world. And this is not an easy task. The task becomes all the more difficult due to a natural and unavoidable leaning that one has towardness one’s own religion. In making comparisons. One is generally inclined towards taking one's own religion as the standard of comparison and judging other religions in the light of that. This tendency vitiates the real academic spirit of making a comparative study of religions, because the person instead of making honest comparisons begins to pass judgments which are prejudiced and unwarranted. As a precaution against such tendencies, Parriender very honestly and amply remarks, "Comparison, however to be justified seriously, must not imply judgment, and still less depreciation of any faith. And these points inevitably lead us to the consideration of the scientific nature of the study of comparative religion, i.e., to the consideration of the second point that we have made out above.

Comparative religion is a scientific study. In the foregoing paragraph we have indicated in an implied manner what a scientific study of religions would be like. It must not be UNREALISTIC AND BIASED; rather IT SHOULD BE FACTUAL AND REALISTIC(ly conceived ). No point concerning any religion, either one's own or any other is either to be overemphasised or underestimated. The comparative study of the main points of various religions must be made in a neutral and detached manner characteristic of a scientist. An attitude of objective knowledge-seeking will have to be adopted so that all sorts of preferences or prejudices for or against any religion are completely shunned. Rather to be able to carry on a really scientific study in the sphere of religions it is necessary that one is more sympathetic towards religions other than his own. Religion is very touchy and sensitive affair and therefore even in being neutral there is always a danger of leaning towards one's own faith. To avoid this, one will have to adopt here some what a special kind of scientific attitude. And that is that, instead of being completely neutral, one will have to be a bit sympathetic towards other religions. Charity towards other religions, therefore, is a necessary ingredient of the scientific study of religions.

A second precaution must also be taken in making the study of religion scientific. A scientific study, as we have said above, is a detached study. But too much of detachment in the study of religions is in a sense harmful and undesirable. Being detached sometimes means adopting a cut-and-dry attitude, confining oneself only to the externals of thing without entering into its real depth. Religions are all living faiths and their essence does not consist in their bare externals such as rituals, methods of prayer, ceremonies etc. it rather consists in the inner beliefs and convictions which they carry along with them and which give their followers a distinctive character and way of life. To understand these internals of a religion, a little of involvement, not into any particular religion, but into religion in general, is necessary. In other words, some kind of religious sensitivity is essential on the part of a man who wants to make a study of religions in a comparative perspective. A purely cut-and-dry attitude cannot be regarded as a really scientific attitude in this sphere of study. That may be helpful in studying the dead and unconscious materials of the external world, but that can hardly help in faithful study of the living faiths, which concern the inner convictions of people. In a way, the study of religions is not only a study of their objective features as found in them externally, but also of the inner faiths and commitments associated with them in reference to their followers. There fore, any scientific study in this sphere will have to be scientific in somewhat a specific sense. 

Moreover, Comparative Religion, if it is to be a real academic study (and not only a study of general interest), must not only be a comparative description of the various points in a scientific spirit, but also be to some extent evaluative and critical. Really this aspect of comparative religion is the most delicate and it is here that tolerance and sympathy towards other religions are most required. Evaluation always requires a standard and one is always naturally tempted towards making one's own faith the standard of evaluation. In making evaluations or critical estimates, therefore, one has to take utmost care of not being unfair to any faith. To make a critical appraisal of a religion other than one's own is an exceedingly difficult and delicate task. But then it has to be done .In fact, many scholars have taken up this task and have accomplished it wisely and successfully. Thus evaluations are to be made, but the important thing to see is that they are rightly made.

( say an evolution what just happen naturally would be the most accepted one. what has no teacher preacher or which has no exact  explanation of beginning-but god of sex, god of money, god of rain, god of fire, god of study so on and so forth,  like our world could be termed as right suitable evaluation to look forward to such a religion for the first criterion and if it coincidentally happens to be one's own as Hinduism then why not study it more than any other, where every one could find and live it with ) 

But the question is , how are such right evaluations to be made? In fact, there is no straight and well-knit answer to this question. In other words, no straight and well-defined path can be shown to accomplish the job. It much depends upon the personal will and worth of the appraiser. One has to combines here his genuine critical acumen with his real sense of sympathy and large-heartedness for other religions. And this is not an easy task. However, some valuable hints have been thrown by certain thinkers on this point and in our humble way of thinking, we will suggest that they are to be followed become a useful study. One such hint is that, when evaluative statements are made about other religions, it must be kept in mind that they are recognised as fair in the context of the particular  religion regarding which they are made. This clearly means that external criticisms of religions must be avoided as far as possible. Criticisms of a religion must be made within the framework of its won beliefs, ideas and practices. Their is no limit to external criticisms. They all depend upon the personal convictions, likes and dislikes of the appraiser. But such criticisms based on personal likes and dislikes, or based on criteria drawn out of one's own faith and religions are hardly justified and desirable. a very prudent and at the same time valuable hint has been thrown in this regard by Cantwell Smith when he says, "It is the business of comparative religion to construct statements about religion that are intelligible within at least two traditions simultaneously." The two traditions meant here are; (1) the tradition to which the appraiser belongs and (2) The tradition of the religion he is appraising. In a similar vein Prof. Bahm observes, "My own view is that 'Comparative religions' doesn't exist in its fullest and fairest sense until judgments are based upon standards common  to all of them and until each religion that proposes a standard of its own by which to measure other religions is also measured by standards proposed by other religions." Comparative religions' as a study cannot approach being an 'objective science' until those who study it become willing to commit themselves to comparisons based on objective standards." It is clear that the general spirit lying behind all those hints is that, in making critical appraisals of other religions, one must give up preference for the beliefs and ideas of one's own religion or of any particular religion. Evaluations must be made with an open mind such that standards derived from one's own religion are not imposed upon others.

The above may give us an idea of the nature, aims and objectives of Comparative Religion. It also gives us an ample hint of the difficult and delicate task that a writer on comparative religion may have to perform. A very balanced mind-unbiased, unprejudiced, trained in scientific neutrality and yet sensitive to the deeper convictional aspects of religion-is required to undertake and accomplish this task. Yet the task is not impossible. In fact, valuable comparisons and evaluations have been made and they can very well serve as our guides in the stupendous task that we have embarked on undertaking . let us hope and believe that in the following pages we shall be able to do justices to the claims of the various living religions of the world in so far as we will be engaged in the delicate task of comparing , contrasting and evaluating them in fruitful manner  to  satisfaction of the world .

Comparison and appraisal

 Different religions have come out of different traditions and against backgrounds. Therefore, differences are bound to be present in them. But because religion as a whole arises in human consciousness due to certain common problems that human beings have to face in the world and because people of different traditions share certain common feelings, idea and sentiments, therefore, there are bound to be certain similarities too amongst different religions( underneath basic formula). Thus it will be equally wrong to speak of similarities alone and leave out differences, as it will be to speak of differences alone and leave out similarities. A scientific study of religions, which a comparative study of them aims at, must highlight both these similarities and differences in a balanced manner. Such balanced comparisons are not totally missing from our consideration of religions so far. We have referred to the important and glaring comparisons between religions wherever context and occasion have demanded them. But they are not sufficient. We want to see them in a more manifest manner in our present chapter. In doing this, we will have occasions to make modest critical appraisals also, but such appraisals will go only to the extent, which will not adversely affect the sentiments of the followers of any particular religion. We shall take up the comparisons also in the same topic wise manner in which we have dealt with the different religions separately.

1.         God-

From our elucidation of the concept of God as present in different religious traditions, we may very well form an impression that except Buddhism and Jainism, which virtually do not believe in any God at all, and also a part of Hinduism, which is either atheistic or non-theistic, all the religions, of the world are monotheistic in character. Some of them(e.g Islam, Sikhism and also Judaism) rather emphasize their monotheistic character too much. There may be a doubt regarding the monotheistic nature of Zoroastrianism, because apparently in seems to be ditheistic. Again, one may have such doubt about Christianity also in so far as it believes in Trinity. But we have seen that these religions have grounds to claim themselves monotheistic and the grounds are not merely lame excuses. The duality or trinity in Godhood in these religions is only outward and secondary. What is basic and essential is their monotheism. Similarly, there may be a doubt regarding the monotheistic nature of Hinduism, specially in its earlier phase. But we have seen that even seen that the apparent polytheism of the Vedas, there was always an undercurrent of monotheism and even now in so doing he is fully aware that the gods or goddesses- he is worshipping are all the manifestations or expressions or aspects of the same supreme, all-powerful God. Hence it seems to be a general point of unity amongst religions that most (almost all) of them either very strictly or in somewhat a lenient form believe in only one supreme, all-powerful, all-knowing creator God, although this God may have his various manifestations or aspects. However, this point cannot be ignored that there at all(early Buddhism and Jainism and also some aspects of Hinduism), or do not believe in any creator God(as Buddhism and Jainism in their somewhat later forms) or do not believe in a personal God, i.e. God having a personality (as the Advaitic or Absolutistic aspect of Hinduism).

     Besides this general point of unity, religions of the world unite together in attributing to God some of the metaphysical qualities like infinity, all-powerfulness, all-knowingness and all- pervasiveness as well as some of the ethical qualities like mercy, benevolence, justice etc. Furthermore, God is also regarded by all religions as the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world and he is taken as both transcendent from and immanent into this world. However, there are differences too. The nature of God as conceived in the Indian tradition sometimes sharply differs from that conceived in the Semitic tradition and again religions of the latter tradition too sometimes sharply differs themselves regarding the nature of God. Of course, the difference amongst the Semitic religions is mostly one of greater or less emphasis on one or another quality of God. Although, in the Semitic religions also, God has been taken as immanent and all-present in the world, but the conception of God as Antaryami(inner dweller/dwells with symbolism of shiv) and as the inner soul of the world is distinctive of the Indian tradition only. Ramanuja has clearly taken God as such and also Nanak, the original propounder of Sikh religion. Moreover, some of he ethical and other qualities like truthfulness, bliss, etc. that Ramanuja gives to God seem specific of Indian tradition. Moreover, some of the ethical and other qualities like truthfulness, bliss, etc. that Ramanuja gives to God seem specific of Indian tradition. Moreover, God is conceived here (both in Hinduism and Sikhism) in two forms-as nirakara(attributeless) and Sakara(full of attributes). In himself he is attribute less, but in human relationship he becomes sakara. The element of mystery is emphasized in some of the Semitic religions also like Judaism and Islam, but religions of Indian tradition emphasize it in their own distinctive manner. They point out that God's nature is so mysterious and so beyond human comprehension that it can be conceived only in negative terms, such as Apar, Agochar etc. Judaism and Christianity take God, as personal but in Hinduism God is only the efficient cause of the World, and not the material cause. He has, according to them, created the world ex nihilo. But according the Hinduism, God is both the efficient and the material cause of the world. He has created the world not out of nothing, but out of the material of his own being. Hinduism has a firm belief that out of non-existence, existence cannot come( nasato vidyate Bhavo) and here its stand point seems to be more than that of the Semitic faith. The world is like a body of which God is the inner soul according to Hinduism. Sikhism also does not subscribe to the view that God creates the world out of nothing. It takes the world as God's revelation, which, more or less, amounts to the view that God creates the world out of material of his on being. Of course, some of the Sikh believers may object to any such clear statement that God has created the world out of the some material taken form his on being. They will prefer saying that the world is the product of mere God's will. But it is not clear what exactly it means. Sikhism clearly denies the view that the world has been created ex nihilo, and therefore and any viable alternative that remains seems to be that the world has been created out of materials forming God's being.

There seems to be a striking similarity between Hinduism and Christianity in point of taking God as three into one or as one in three(Trinity). In Hinduism, the trinity is formed by Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh and in Christianity it is formed by God the Father, God the son and the Holy Spirit. But then we can very well mark that there is a difference in the nature of the trinity. In the Hindu trinity Brahma represents the creative aspect, Vishnu the maintaining and sustaining aspects Mahesh (or Shiva) the destructive aspect of the supreme God, but in Christianity there is no such functional distinction in the nature of Godhead.

There is also a difference between Indian religions and the religions of the Semitic tradition regarding the nature of God's concern with the affairs of the world. Hinduism believes that whenever there is a marked regression in virtuous life and evil reigns supreme in the world, God himself incarnates on earth and annihilates evil. There have been several such incarnations in the past and they are expected in future also. Religions of Semitic tradition do not seem to believe in any incarnation of this type. According to them, at times God sends messengers to instruct people about the true lessons of religion and morality. Some of them believe that such messengers may come in future also, but according to Islam Mohammad was the last prophet and there is none to come after him.

Amongst the Semitic religions, Judaism seems to the primary source of almost all the important beliefs and conceptions of the later two. There are striking similarities between Judaism and Islam regarding their conceptions of God. Both are strictly monotheistic religions and their strict monotheistic character is depicted in their very basic creeds which every Jew or Muslim is required to remember and repeat. The Jewish creed is depicted in the very opening line of the Shema as follows-' Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one" and the Muslim creed, as it well known, runs as follows-" There is no God but Allh, and Mohammad is His Prophet." Again, both these religions much emphasis the all-powerful and masterly character of God. However, Islam's emphasis on this aspect is even greater. We have seen that the very word 'Allah' means 'The mighty' and 'The powerful' and the word 'Islam' means 'Submission'. As contrasted to this, Judaism lays greater emphasis on the ethical attributes such as mercy, justice, holiness etc. Of course, Islam also takes mercy and justice as two very important attributes of God and that is obviously due to the Judaic influence on it. On the whole , therefore, the Jewish God impresses one as a just and merciful ruler of the world, whereas the Islamic God impresses as an absolute master having absolute decree. It does not, however, mean that the Islamic God is not imbued with such soft ethical qualities as mercy, compassion etc. the very opening Surh of the quran runs as follows

"Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds,

The Compassionate, the Merciful."               

Further, both Islam and Judaism emphasis the mysterious and transcendent character of God, although each of them takes God as also immanent. Islam adds one more character to God, his dynamism, which if not completely absent from Judaism and Christianity are surely not explicitly mentioned in them. Iqbal, the famous Islamic poet, much emphasizes this character of dynamism, as attributed to God, in his writings on islam. Although God is eternal, his nature is dynamic and that is why we find changes in the world. Again, in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, God is regarded as personal (as contrasted from impersonal) although it always emphasized that he is not to be treated as a person in any ordinary sense, because he is of the nature of a spirit. But in islam, perhaps none will ever like to refer to God as personal, because he is treated here as having no shape or form. Of course, God is taken as having will and power and it is in this respect that establishing personal relationships with him through prayer etc. can be justified as having any significance.

Between the Judaic and Christian conceptions of God, there is hardly any difference of such a kind, which may attract the attention of a general reader. The two are essentially one, although there are certain points of difference also. Both Judaism and Christianity take God as all-powerful, all-knowing all-present, merciful, kind, just etc., but whereas Judaism emphasizes the all-powerfulness of God and lays equal emphasis utmost emphasis upon God's character of love -so much so that God is identified with Love and the overall picture of God appears before man as a loving father and as none else. There is no cause of any fear from God now; he is completely kind and loving and loves even the worst of sinners. Judaic God is some times charcterised as wrathful and revengeful also(although these do not represent his essential character), but there is no such thing in the Christian conception of God. We remember that the Jewish God  had a contract with his people that he would save them only if and in so far as they would serve him, but in Christianity, God's love for men (his children) is not based on any precondition; it is absolute and unconditional. However, it must be noted that the idea of God as loving father is not completely absent from Judaism; it is only that it does not lay that exclusive emphasis upon this character of God as Christianity does.

One very marked difference between Judaism and Christianity, which takes the former nearer to Islam than to the latter, is regarding the number of Godhead. Both Judaism and Christianity claim to be monotheistic, but the latter due to its doctrine of Trinity does not remain as strictly monotheistic in character as the former. It is due to this doctrine that islam openly criticizes the Christian conception of God. It is felt that the doctrine of Trinity breaks the strictly unitary character of Godhead and thus jeopardizes Christian claims for monotheism. Judaic monotheism is unstained and absolute, but the Christian monotheism becomes controversial.

It does not look at all necessary now to go into the details of comparison between the Islamic and Christina conception of  God. From our occasional remarks made above, it is clear by now that in spite of having almost all those attributes which the Judaic or Christian God has, Islamic God on the whole appears as an absolute master, whereas the Christian God appears as a loving father. However, the distinction must not be over emphasized, because the Islamic god also does not lack absolutely in qualities like mercy, compassion etc.

So far, we have made little reference to the Zoroastrian God. We have seen that original Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, but later on there are obvious signs in it of ditheism or even of polytheism. Various gods including Fire, Sun etc arise on the scene and one is very well reminded here of the Vedic polytheism. The dualism of Ahura Mazda and Ahriman seems to be the dominant note of Zoroastriansim. But as we have noted earlier, the overall tone of Zoroastrianism is ever taken to be monotheistic in which Ahura Mazda is recognised as the only supreme, all powerful , all-wise and all-good God. In any case, Zoroastriansim seems to have exerted  definite influence on Judaism and consequently upon Islam and Christianity. The satan present in all these semitic religions is definitely a replica of the Zorostrian Ahriman. Moreover, the characters of holiness, justice, righteousness, etc. as forming the essential attributes of Judaic God seem to be taken from Zoroastrianism itself. The quality of all powerfulness of God also which is so much emphasized in Judaism and Islam perhaps finds its origin in the Zoroastrian emphasis on the quality as forming the essential nature of God. But the most emphasized quality of God in Zoroastrianism is that of his all-goodness.  God is supremely and absolutely good and he is engaged in establishing the reign of complete good on earth. In this holy task he also expects the co-operation of men. Here in all these, Zoroastriansm seems to have influenced both Judaism and Christianity. But if the essential nature of Zoroastrian Godhead is taken as ditheistic-(the two gods Ahura  Mazda and Ahriman standing on independent footing as two contenders of supremacy and dominance), then Zoroastriansim has a distinct place amongst religions and its God or gods cannot be compared to the god of any other religion.

2.World

Religions of the world, except Buddhism and Jainism, believe that the world is the creation of God and it is also dependent upon him. They also generally believe that God brings the world to an end at his won sweet will. But they differ in details regarding the actual process of creation and the exact nature and status of the world. Although Hinduism believes in creation (at least the dominant part of it believes so), it does not seem to believe that the world was created at a definite moment of time. In it, it differs from the Semitic religions and agrees in a sense with Buddhism and Jainism, which hold that the world is somehow coming down from all eternity. Of course, Hinduism (and also Sikhism) believes in a cyclic process of creation and destruction of the world and this cycle is going on alternately from all eternity. Again, because Hinduism, in general, believes that the world has been created out of the materials constituting God's being, and not ex-nihilo, there fore, creation, according to it, means unfolding of a portion of God's being and dissolution or destruction means the return or reentry of the unfolded materials constituting Gods being, and not ex nihilo, therefore, creation, according to it, means unfolding or a portion of God's being and dissolution or destruction means the return or reentry of the unfolded material in to God in a contracted form. , Both creation and destruction, however, occur at God's sweet will. According to the Semitic religions, creation means creation out of nothing and it has been accomplished by God at a definite period of time. (Sikhism also believes that the world has been created at a definite period of time, although no body knows when). Moreover, creation and destruction do  not go on according to these religions in a cyclic order, rather the world has once been created by God and is subject to destruction by him at any time in future. Zoroastrian view also regarding the creation and destruction of the world seems to be closer to the views of Semitic religions, although it is not clear whether Zoroastrianism takes the world as created out of nothing. This seems to be the case with islam also, which forms part of the Semitic faith itself. moreover, while both Judaism and Christianity have similar creation myths, Zoroastrianism and islam do not seem to have any such mythical stories regarding the exact process of creation. Islam seems to regard the fact of world's creation a mystery and points out that it is difficult to say how exactly or through what exact process the world was created. Nevertheless, according to both these religions, as according to others also, the world is definitely a creation of God and is fully dependent upon him for its sustenance.

As to the nature and status of the world, it may generally be said that almost all the religions take it as real. Of course, some religions lay grater emphasis on the reality of the world as compared to others, but no religion, perhaps, takes the world as wholly unreal. Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Sikhism seem to lay specifically explicit emphasis upon the reality and significance of the present world, while from the overall attitude and tone of Hinduism and Buddhism it appears that they do not want to emphasize the significance of the present world, while from the over all attitude and tone of Hinduism and Buddhism it appears that they do not want to emphasize the significance and reality of the  world too much. But undoubtedly they do not regard the world as unreal. There is so often a criticism against Hinduism that its attitude is other-worldly and that it regards the present world as unreal-Dr. Radhakrishnan has considered such criticisms against Hinduism at length in his book Eastern Religions and Western Thought and has very competently come to the conclusion that they are  totally mistaken and misconceived. First of all, it is only against Advaita Vedanta, which represents only one aspect of Hinduism and not the whole of it, that such criticisms may have any relevance. This system of Hindu thought, of course, takes the world as Maya, which apparently implies that the world is unreal. But there are parallel systems, not less influential, like those of Ramanuja and others which explicitly maintain that though the world is dependent upon God, it is fully real. Critics of Hindu thought and religion totally miss these trends present in it. Secondly, even Advaita Vedanta, properly interpreted, does not regard this world as wholly unreal. From the practical standpoint it takes the world as fully real. The doctrine of Maya only indicates that the world has got a deeper significance than what on the face of it appears to us. It is spiritual out and out and unitary in its inner character. The world is, therefore, not negated here; it is only seen in its deeper, more real perspective.

Thus no religion takes this world as unreal in the sense that it is a non-entity or that moral and other activities performed here have got no real value. But then every religion in one way or other takes excessive attachment to the world as undesirable and there fore does not take this world as something, which is ultimately real. Of course, religions of Indian origin-Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism-lay much emphasis upon this aspect of the matter and therefore it seems that they possess a negative attitude towards the world. religions like Judaism and Zoroastrianism much emphasis the role of man in this world in so far as his entire future according to these religions depends upon what he does here. If he adopts good and shuns evil, he has bright future, otherwise he has to take the doom. Zoroastrianism explicitly paints the world as a ground of constant strife between the forces of good and evil in which man has to take active part. Those who take the side of the former really take the side of God and therefore they are sure to be rewarded by god. But those who take the side of the latter go against God's will and they are sure to be punished. But such ideas are not absent from the eastern religions. They also clearly maintain that only our actions in this world determine our future. The law of Karma actually stands for such ideas and beliefs. What these religions teach is not the unreality of the world, but a lower reality of it as compared to the higher and the ultimate one. And such a distinction between the higher and the lower, between the spiritual and the profane, is necessary for religion. As a matter of fact, all the religions of the world are base on such a distinction. It is not a fact that religions like  Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity take attachment to this world as desirable on the other hand, they also teach non-attachment as a virtue. Hence, all religions with greater or less emphasis take this world as real, although al of them take excessive attachment to it as undesirable.

2.         Man

Man has been given a very high status in almost all the religions. Buddhism and Jainism do not believe in God. Naturally, therefore, man becomes the highest being in them. He is potentially capable of attaining Godhood by himself. It is only due to the cloud of ignorance that his real great nature is temporarily hidden. In Hinduism and Sikhism also, man is regarded as the highest creature. The soul within him is really the divine spark and thus of all the creatures he is specially privileged. It is due to ignorance that man fails to recognise the greatness of his being and suffers within various limitations. The moment he realises his real nature, he becomes infinite and free from all limitations. Judaism and Christianity also in their own ways make man the greatest of all creatures. According to them, God made man in his own image on the final day of creation to be its final fruit. Moreover, man has been made to act as the fellow partner of God in his scheme of establishing the complete reign of good on earth by eradicating evil. Zoroastrianism also gives the same status to man. According to it, in the constant strife between the forces of good and evil on earth, man is to play the role of the fellow partner of Ahura Mazda so that he can be able to dislodge the forces of evil completely and establish the reign of perfect good on earth. It is only in Islam that man seems to have no status here. He appears to be more or less a slave whose only job is to serve God with a sense of unqualified submission to him.

Of all the religion, however, Zoroastrianism seems to give the greatest dignity to man and at the same time inflicts the greatest responsibility upon him. According to it man is completely free and unstained in his original nature. He can do what ever he like. Ahura Mazda has made him completely free to choose between good and evil and act accordingly. Of course, God wants man to choose the path of good, but it is upto him what path he chooses being wise or otherwise.  Hinduism, Buddhism etc. cannot be called deterministic, but obviously they do not grant man that amount of freedom which Zoroastrianism seems to grant Law of karma is a symbol both of determinism and freedom. Judaism and Christinity also grant freedom to man in their own ways. They point out that although God is omnipotent, he has willingly imposed a limitation upon his all-powerfulness and has granted freedom of will to man. Man can use his freedom in any way he likes. In the end it can be said that every religion, including islam, grants some amount of freedom to man because of their talk of a bright future of man by virtue of his own good deeds on earth. If freedom does not mean anything, man cannot be held responsible for his good or bad destiny.

As to the nature of man, religions of Indian origin are very clear in saying that it is essentially spiritual in nature. Man has got a soul within him which constitutes his essential nature. This soul is immortal and therefore man in his essential nature is immortal. Even Buddhism which apparently seems to deny this soul virtually accepts it in its own special manner. Judaism and Christianity also maintain this essentially spiritual character of man by maintaining that God has created man in his won image. Because God is spiritual in nature, man is also spiritual. However, we do not find in these two religions that much of emphasis upon the spiritual and immortal nature of man as we find in Hinduism, Jainism etc. Soul in man is not given that important and distinct status by these religions, which is given to it by Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. Islam hardly gives any such clear indication, which may show that according to it man's nature is essentially spiritual. Like all other religions it also believes in a life of man after death and from that, of course, one can very well guess that according to it also, there is some spiritual element in man which is immortal. But there is no clear statement about the presence of an immortal soul in man which constitutes his real and essential nature. On the other hand , the Quran explicitly maintains that God has created man from clots of blood. This gives an impression that man's essential nature is physical or physiological and there is hardly anything spiritual in his constitution. Zoroastrianism also does not seem to be so very explicit about the presence of an immortal soul within man, although it cannot be said that it denies it.

3.         Evil and Suffering

Because suffering is a burning fact of life, every religion takes care of it and considers it as a problem. But the reactions are not always the same. Religions of Indian origin generally take the problem of suffering in a practical perspective and take it as their chief burden to point our ways and means for getting rid of suffering. Of course, in his connection they also point out the cause of suffering. Religions of Semitic origin, on the other hand, react to it in, more or less, a theoretical perspective. They want to advance and explanation, a reason, of suffering. Why is suffering there at all? Or what can be its justification, when the world is taken as created and maintained by an omnipotent and benevolent God?- is the kind of problem which these religions somehow seek to answer. Zoroastrianism also seems to adopt this very perspective. Now, although in the details of such explanations, these religions differ, in essence, they all accept that evil and suffering have been allowed by God are mysterious and we human beings are not able to know his entire plan. Apparently, suffering seems to be an evil, but really our ultimately that is not evil. God must have some good purpose behind that.

As cause of evil, Zoroastriansim and all the Semitic religions tend to hold a devil with all his evil spirits responsible. In Zoroastrainsim, this devil is named Ahriman, in Judaism and Christianity Satan, and in Islam iblis. But then no religion seems disposed to take the devil as an independent force falling out of God's control. So, ultimately, it is the omnipotent and benevolent God himself who becomes responsible for all evil and suffering . So the occasion for justification remains and all the religions advance some such justification in their own ways. Zoroastrianism seems to hold that the Ahura Mazda has allowed the forces of evil to work only with a moral purpose. Judaism and Christianity also seem to share in this explanation, although they have other explanations also. Islam shares in its explanation mainly with Judaism. Amidst many other explanations, Judaism holds that evil is a mystery, the real secret of which is known to God alone. In the main, exactly this explanation is given by islam also. Further, both Judaism and Islam hold that God has allowed evil and suffering to test the intensity and sincerity of faith that man possess towards him. God rewards those who amidst all suffering do not disbelieve in him, and bear the pinch in utmost piety. Thus evil is a test of moral and religious strength of man. A more or less similar view is expressed by Sikhism also when it asks its followers to take suffering as God's gift and bear it with a sense of piety. However Sikhism extends this explanation further to point out that God has bestowed this gift upon man with a view to correct him. So the value of suffering is corrective. When man will suffer, he will give up the wrong course and adopt the right path. This reformatory or corrective character of suffering is sometimes emphasized in Judaism and Christianity also. The father-God of Christianity uses the stick of suffering to discipline his sons. Judaism and Islam also agree in taking evil and suffering as a mark of punishment to the erring man. But here as we have noted earlier, a problem arises before both of these religions as to why even those have to suffer who are innocents. Sometimes, we also find that the innocents suffer and the sinful rejoice. Here the justice of god falls in difficulty.

As Judaism and Christianity virtually from two stages of the same tradition, there is naturally much of affinity between the two regarding the explanation of evil. Besides accepting the reformatory character of evil, which we have indicated above, both take evil as good in disguise. According to both of them evil is a signal for better things to come and therefore it is to be tolerated with patience, and not to be scorned. The history of Judaism shows that whenever the Jews suffered, they suffered only to come out with greater faith and prospect. Similarly, the suffering of Christ on the Cross and then his coming out triumphant by resurrection symbolizes Christian view of suffering as a boon in disguise. The very birth of Juese Christ is an example of the fact how evil is to be followed by greater good. Had not people suffered due to the Original Sin of Adam, Christ would not have come down to earth as a redeemer. Thus evil is surely a boon in disguise. Then again, both Judaism and Christianity (Along with Zoroastrianism) emphasis the moral value of evil. God has knowingly allowed evil so that an occasion for moral progress of the world may arise and people may have an opportunity to exercise their freedom of will. If there were good alone, no occasion for moral effort on the part of man would have arisen.

Religions of the Indian tradition, as we have noted above, mainly possess a practical attitude towards suffering. Taking evil and suffering as fact their main job seems to be pointing out ways and means so that people may be saved from suffering. However, all these religions point out the cause of (although not the reason) suffering. Mainly, according to all of them, suffering is due to man's own past karmas generated out of ignorance. In Sikhism, it is due to haumai, which also virtually comes to the same. Human ignorance (lack of right knowledge) is then their root cause of suffering. Buddhism and Jainism do not believe being responsible for evils. Hinduism, in so far as it is theistic, believes in god, but then it seems it is not disposed to impose the responsibility for evil upon god. Man suffers due to his own ignorance and past karma and he has left it free work. Sikhism sometimes tends to hold god directly responsible for evils, but then as we have noted above, it takes them as the gift of god. God's non-interference in the working of the law of karma may be compared here to the Christian view of God voluntarily imposing a limitation upon his omnipotence so as to grant freedom to human beings. There may also be marked a similarity between the Hindu (also the Buddhist and the Jaina) view that man suffers due to ignorance and the Christian view that man suffers due to his Original sin. The comparison consists in the fact that men suffer due to some element present in them from their very birth. It is due to ignorance that man has to take birth and suffer. Similarly, it is due to the Original Sin that man had to take birth to suffer. Moreover, although in both the cases it seems that man himself is directly responsible for his suffering, but really speaking it is God who is responsible. The ignorance in man is said to be beginning less(Anadi) in Hinduism and thus it must have been associated with him by the creator himself. Man himself cannot be held responsible for his ignorance, because he comes to earth with ignorance attached with him form beforehand. Similarly, the original man Adam committed the sin due to the freedom of will given to him by God and so God himself becomes responsible for the sin committed by him. Gos is omniscient and so knowing full well and Adam would misuse his freedom, why did he give freedom to him? Moreover, the descendent of Adam are not or should not be responsible for the sin committed by him. Whey should they suffer for the sin committed by their forefather? Taking birth with the burden or Original sin, therefore, is not the direct responsibility of man, it is god cases, and virtually it is god who becomes directly or indirectly responsible for man's suffering. But there is an important difference also. In Hinduism man sufferers due to ignorance, i.e due to lack of knowledge, in Christianity it is just the opposite- man suffers due to knowledge. Adam committed the original Sin by eating the fruit of knowledge in the Eden Garden and it is due to that that he and his descendents suffer. But then this difference must not be emphasized too much. Christianity does not take knowledge, as the cause of suffering in the sense that ignorance will bring salvation. In Adam's eating the fruit of knowledge against God's will, what is importantly involved is not so much the acquiring of knowledge by Adam, but his disobedience of the will of God. It is this disobedience, which is the real cause of suffering, and not the attainment of knowledge.

We have noted above that Hinduism makes man, rather than God, responsible for his suffering. But in ancient Hinduism (i.e in the Vedic Hinduism) there are references that show that evils and suffering of the people in the world are due to the working of the various evil spirits (Asuras). There is also the reference of Devasura Sangrama(Fight between the gods and the demons) which is very much similar to the Zoroastrian conception of the fight between the forces of good and evil. Moreover, in the Vedas there are also references showing that suffering is the result of the displeasure of some god or goddess, who must be pleased through ritualistic acts. Even now, an average Hindu believes that happiness or suffering of a man is directly the result of the pleasure or displeasure of some gods and goddesses. However, the dominant note is that a man suffers due to his own karmas.

4.         Life After Death.

Amidst factors in which a religious outlook differs from a materialistic outlook, perhaps this one is the most important that whereas the latter takes this world to be the final world and the physical life of man to be the only story about him, the only story about him, the former does not believe like that. According to it, this material world is not the final world and the end of man's physical life is not his final end. All the religions of the world believe in a life beyond death, although in the detailed nature of that life they differ. In this again, religion of Indian origin form one set, while those of Semitic origin form another. Zoroastrianism seems to side with the latter, or more properly, the latter set seems to borrow its views regarding port-mortem life from Zoroastriansim. All religions of Indian orgin-Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism-unequivocally believe that after the end of the present physical life, man has to take rebirth by assuming another body in accordance with the deeds of his present life. Every man has got a soul within him, which does not die with the physical death and transmigrates into a fresh body after the death of th present body. The alternative to rebirth is Moksha, the nature of which we have discussed earlier. Those who exhaust the fruits of their attached actions and attains knowledge have not to be reborn after death. They attain a spiritual status of immortality and perfection. Hinduism, of course, specially the Vedic Hinduism, speaks of heaven and hell in which the souls of the dead bodies have to go for permanent abode in accordance with their good or bad actions on earth. The Puranas also believe in heaven and hell, present graphic descriptions of them as well as of the passages leading thereto, and assert that souls of the pious and virtuous go to heaven while those of the sinful to hell. There is also reference in the Purnas of someone (named Chitragupta) taking note of all the good and bad actions of men in a register in accordance with which they are rewarded or punished by being sent to heaven or hell. Yama is regarded as the god of death whose agents bring the souls of the dead before God and in accordance with the account maintained by Chitragupta about their good or bad deeds they are sent to heaven or hell. This aspect of Hinduism has affinity with the eschatology of Zoroastrianism and the Semitic religions. Such references, however, do not at all seem to be present in Buddhism and Jainism, while a part of them occurs in Sikhism.

The eschatology of the Semitic religions is, more or less, the same. Day of final judgment, resurrection of the dead, taking account of the good and bad actions of each on earth and finally sending him to heaven or hell in accordance with his deeds are the basic ingredients of the eschatology of every Semitic religion. The details differ at some points. Jewish eschatology is somewhat vague, indefinite and multisided. This is not the case with the case with the Christian or Islamic eschatology, Islamic eschatology is the most straightforward. Judaism, we have seen , sometimes seems to believe that he sinful have no after-life, they perish completely with death. It is only the virtuous who enjoy the privilege or resurrection and then of abode in heaven. Sometimes, it seems that it believes in the final day of judgment on which the whole world is brought to an end by god. On this day, all the dead resurrect and are brought before god. Their good and bad deeds are accounted there and accordingly they are sent to heaven or hell. Judaism does not seem to be clear about the fate of the dead in the intermediary periods, i.e. during the period between individual death and the final Day of Judgment. Islam and Christianity are clear about that period also. These two religions clearly believe in the final Day of Judgment, resurrection of the dead and the allotment of heaven and hell. According to Islam, the souls live in Albarzahk during the intermediary period and on the final day of judgment they all resurrect and are brought before the Allah by his angels for final assessment. According to Christianity, those whose good actions clearly balance over the bad ones are straightway received into heaven, those whose bad actions balance over the good ones are straightway sent to hell and those who come under the latter category but have repented for their sins are sent into the purgatory for purification. On the final day of judgment, all come to life again (resurrect), are brought before god and are finally allotted heaven or hell according to good or bad deeds. Islam, quite in affinity with Zoroastriansim gives a description of the passage also that leads to either heaven or hell. Before reaching heaven or hell, the soul has to cross a bridge called AI-sirat (called Chinvat in Zoroastrianism). For  the sinful, the bridge proves to be as thin as a sword's edge and consequently he falls down below in the abyss of suffering- the hell, but for the virtuous the bridge proves to be quite wide such that he crosses over it easily and goes to paradise. This story is directly taken in Islam form Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism differs in its eschatology from that of the Semitic religions in tow important respects. Firstly, according to it after physical death, the soul resides with the body for three days and meditates upon it deeds. Then it is brought before God for final assessment of its deeds and allotment of heaven or hell. Secondly, damnation to hell according to it is not eternal. It is only till the bringing of the present world to an end by Ahura Mazda that the evil should have to reside in hell. After that all souls equally become the members of the same world, which Ahura Mazda creates afresh and where there is no evil and suffering but only good and happiness. This is like the final day of judgment of the Semitic religions, but on this day, there is neither any judgment nor allocation of heaven and hell. Rather on this day, al are granted and eternal happy life. There are sometimes indications in Judaism also that the life of hell lasts only for 12 months and after that the souls are purified and all sent to heaven. But, as we have said above, the eschatology of Judaism is not very clear and definite.

6.Human destiny

In respect of the question of human destiny also, as in respect of such other questions, religions of the Indian tradition seem to share, more or less, a common belief, while religions of the Semitic tradition and Zoroastrianism seem to hold another common belief. It does not imply, however, that the two traditions have nothing-in common between them, or again that, relations belonging to one tradition have everything common amongst them. Similarities and differences are there, but generally speaking, religions of Indian origin from one set, while those of the Semitic origin form another set. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism all believe that the final destiny of main is Moksha or liberation. This Moksha according to all these religions essentially means release from the continuous cycle of birth, death and rebirth on its negative side and attainment of spiritual status of freedom, perfection, eternity and immortality on its positive side. But again these religions differ amongst themselves regarding the exact nature and contents of the positive side. In religions like Hinduism and Sikhism, which believe in God, God is regarded as the paradigm of perfection. And so, in these religions a question arises as to whether the perfection etc. attained by man in Moksha is exactly similar to that of God, or it of different nature. Then again, whether this perfection means attaining a state of identity with God or merely a state of nearness to or communion with him. On answers to these questions, Hinduism and Sikhism agree in certain respects and fifer in certain other ones. In Hinduism itself, there are different answers. Because Buddhism and Jainism do not believe in God, therefore, such questions do not at all arise in them. But again these two religions do not seem to possess exactly similar beliefs regarding the positive contents of Nirvana or Moksha, Jainism is very much explicit in maintaining unambiguously that Moksha is a state of infinity and that by the attainment of it one attains infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite faith and infinite bliss. But Buddhism is not so very explicit regarding the positive content of Nirvana. It is very much clear in maintaining that Nirvana is a state of cooling down of passions, but what positive gains actually accrue by the attainment of nirvana is not very clearly maintained by it, except that Nirvana is a state of perfect peace, equanimity and perhaps of bliss as well. Again Hinduism and Buddhism believe that liberation can be attained in this life also (jivan -Mukti) but according to Jainism, perhaps, Moksha is not possible unless pudgals are completely removed from the soul. Sikhism also believes in some sort of partial liberation is possible only after the end of the physical life. Moreover, Hinduism some times takes heaven to be the ultimate destiny of man, but Buddhism and Jainism (and perhaps Sikhism as well) do not have any such belief.

Religions of the Semitic origin generally believe that attainment of heaven or hell in accordance with one's deeds is the final fate of man. However, what man should aim at attaining as his final destiny is definitely heaven, and not hell. Heaven is a place of immortal, eternal, spiritual existence in utter nearness to God. It is a state of permanent communion with god . But again, even in this state man remains finite and never attains equality with God. In heaven although there is neither any physical existence nor any material or sensuous activity, still it is a place of perfect rejoice and happiness. (in Islamic description of the pleasures of heaven, however, there is a smell of sensuousness, although the Judaic description of the same has a clear non-sensuous spiritual touch and appeal7.9.10). All sorts of comforts are available there. In all these matters, the Semitic religions agree together with greater or less emphasis. The picture presented by Zoroastrianism of the ultimate destiny of man includes with it the above mentioned contents of the Semitic faith but it goes somewhat farther. According  to Zoroastrianism, the allotment of heaven or hell to people in accordance with their earthly deeds are not final. In the final analysis, every one, whether a sinner or otherwise, awaits a good fortune, when the purpose of Ahura Mazda of creating this world is fulfilled( i.e when the forces of evil are completely defeated), he brings this world to an end and creates a world, in which there is absolutely no evil and suffering and consequently all people live together in perfect peace and happiness. So the ultimate fate of every man according to Zoroastrianism is very bright.

From the above an impression may amply be create that there is a definite gap between the Indian and the Semitic understanding of the nature of the ultimate destiny of man. But that is not always true. Closely seen, there may be marked points of affinity too. At least there is a lot of affinity between the Christian and the Hindu understanding of the nature of man's destiny. In one sense or other, Christianity also, like Hinduism, takes the life of this world a life of suffering. The very concept of A-dam's Fall and his being sent to earth as a mark of suffering suggest that the earth is a place of suffering. And, therefore, the Christian conception of the attainment of heaven may well be taken as the attainment of liberation of salvation .These terms are actually used in Christianity. But it must not suggest that the affinity lies in the use of terms only. On the other hand, the affinity lies in spirit also. According to Christianity, salvation lies in attaining eternal nearness to God. In Hinduism also, this conception is very much present. At least the theistic brand of Hinduism as represented by Ramanuja and the Bhagavad-Gita depicts actually this conception of Moksha. Moksha according to it consists in attaining a state of eternal communion with God, a permanent nearness to God. Moreover, both Christianity and the brand of Hinduism in reference assert that by attaining communion with God, man only becomes similar in nature with God, and he never becomes as perfect and as infinite as God is. Man is always finite in relation to god. Of Course, that brand of Hinduism which takes self-realisation of self-perfection to be the nature of Moksha is nearer to Buddhism and Jainism in its belief about the destiny of man than to Christianity or any other religion. A similarity between Hindu and Christian conceptions may be marked in this respect also that just as the latter sometimes seems to believe that the Kingdom of God or the reign of heaven will be established on this earth itself, the former believes that Moksha can be attained in the present life itself. God's grace is very important factor in Christianity for salvation. Similarly, in Hinduism also it is regarded as very important, at least in the theistic conception of Moksha, Sikhism also takes God's grace as an important factor in regard.

7.Ethical and other disciplines.

Every religion consists of certain beliefs and practices. We have seen that in many respects, the different religions contain similar types of belief, but in many others they differ too. In respect of the practices, the differences seem to be more glaring than the similarities. The ways of prayer, the observance of various rituals and ceremonies and such other religious practices sometimes sharply differ from one religion to another. We can very well mark these differences out by going through the account of various religious practices carried out in different religions that we have given earlier. However, there is an underlying similarity in spirit and that is that all these practices in their own distinctive ways are directed towards the God or gods to secure their grace, so that man may find himself out of the sufferings he faces in the actual nature of these practices are bound to be there, because men coming of different geographical and cultural traditions cannot all be expected to observe exactly the same style of practices. What is to be wondered at is not that there are differences, but that there are a few striking similarities. For example, fasting is taken as a very important religious practice in all such religions as Hinduism,(  with most proper and scientific way and with logical explanation) Buddhism, Jainism and Islam. Similarly , fire-worship is regarded as very sacred in both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, Pilgrimage is given a great religious value in both Hinduism and Islam. There are striking similarities between Islam and Judaism on the one hand and Judaism and Christianity on the other in respect of many religious practices. Again, reciting of religious texts is regarded as a very important religious duty in almost all the religions. Similarly, every religion gives credence to the creation of religious temples and shrines where people go either individually or in groups to pay their respect and devotion to god. Even religious like Buddhism and Jainism, which originally did not believe in any God, have found place for such temples. Hence, even if there are not exact similarities in the various details of the various practices of different religions, there are definitely similarities of general nature in the religious behaviors of the followers of different religions.

There is, however, a very clear and definite similarity in the  nature of the ethical practices that the different religions prescribe. No religion is such which teaches enmity with others. Similarly, no religion is such which teaches excessive attachment to worldly objects as desirable. On the contrary, every religion without exception teaches the observance of such ethical virtues as liberality, humility, chastity, purity, love, kindness, truth etc. to be the sacred duty of every religious man. All religions un exceptionally teach universal brotherhood.  Similarly, all of them teach abstention from cruelty to creatures. They may be difference of emphasis, but that does no affect the inner similarity of conviction. Sometimes, the similarity is very direct and obvious. The three religions Indian tradition-Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism-assert with equal emphasis the desirability of the observance of five ethical virtues -Non-violence, truth, Celibacy, Non-stealing and Non-attachment. There is a striking similarity between these religions on the one hand and Judaism and Christianity on the other in respect of the importance of these ethical virtues. The latter five items of the famous Ten Commandments are more or less the same as the above-mentioned five ethical vows. Although islam does not explicitly expound the eminence of these virtues, nevertheless it cannot be denied that these are definitely involved in its essential spirit. An obvious similarity may be marked between the religions of Indian tradition on the one hand and Zoroastrianism on the other in as much as all of these equally emphasis the need for observing rightness of thought, speech and action all together. There is , however, a general air of difference between the Indian religions and the Semitic ones in respect of the fact that whereas the former seem to lay repeated and greater emphasis upon virtues concerning individual purity such as those of self-denial, celibacy, penance, monk hood etc, the latter seem to lay greater emphasis on virtues relating to social morality. The distinction, however, is only of degree and not of kind. Neither this is a fact that Indian religions ignore social virtues, nor this is true that Semitic religions pay no attention to virtues of individual purity.

 

The possibility of Universal Religion

We have found that religions of the world both agree and differ amongst themselves on several points. It is wrong and one-sided, therefore, to overemphasis either the similarities alone or the differences alone. People of saintly nature have so often overemphasized the similarities with the pious idea of promoting understanding and goodwill amongst the followers of different religions while fanatics have been always active in highlighting the differences. Philosophically or scientifically speaking, none of the attitudes is commendable, but with social considerations in view, the former has of course proved more healthy and desirable than the latter. The latter has been a cause of much strife and struggle amongst people of the world in the name of religion. Differences are there, but, as we have said, they are quite natural. Differences are more conspicuous on the level of practices rather than of beliefs, and such differences are quite natural in view of the various social and cultural quarrels on account of these differences. Religion in one sense is a means of satisfying the hunger of the soul for attaining a status, which is free from the strife's and strains of the mundane existence and there is no reason for quarrel if people of different tradition make efforts for satisfying this hunger in Hindu ways. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that religion has been one of the most striking causes of strain and struggle amongst different peoples of the world. It has bred no less harm than the good it has generated, or is expected to generate. Fight in the name of religion has been our history and even now there are many national and international problems, which are purely religious in character. The etymology of the word' religion' indicates religion is there to bind men together in one thread of brotherhood, but the actual experience has been something different. It has more divided than bound. The following lines of Vivekanand echo as fresh even today as when they were written-"Nothing has made the brotherhood of man more tangible than religion; nothing has made more bitter enmity between man and man than religion. Nothing has built more charitable institutions, more hospitals for man, and even or animals, than religion; nothing has deluged the world  with more blood than religion. This is why many have preached the end of all religion to be in the interest of man. But without much of argument, it can be seen that this is a foolish remedy. Saner persons have therefore sometimes foreseen another remedy and that is in the form of the bringing up of a universal religion. What exactly will be the nature of this universal religion is not very clear so far but this much seems to be obvious from the very nomenclature that it will not be one more religion besides the many existing from before hand, rather it will be the only religion prevalent allover the world which will be acceptable to and followed by all religious men alike(how about truism as universal religion with its phenomenon of 7,9,10 when it shows in all part of world-in world wide web). It will be the religion of all religious people, and not of one particular group of society. Universal religion will thus be the universally accepted religion. It is felt that once there is a universal religion, all bloodshed and enmity in the name of religion will be completely over and enmity in the name of religion will then have its real role to play-the role of binding all people together in the thread of universal brotherhood.  In one sense, such a situation may be highly beneficial for mankind and may therefore be highly desirable. But the question is, whether such a situation is really possible, i.e. whether universal religion is a real possibility. That such a religion is logically possible is undoubted, because there is no contradiction involved in the concept of(of 7,9,10) universal religion. But the real question is of its practical possibility. So we have really to discuss the question whether universal religion is practically possible.

But before seeing whether universal religion is practically possible, we will have to see what the practical possibility of a universal religion will mean, or, in other words, what the possible universal religion will possible be lie. It may be of any one of the following three possible forms:

(a)        One of the prevailing religions themselves may be taken universally by all people of the world to be their religion instead of one which they have so far been following as their own. (Hinduism very likely)

(b)        Or else, common and essential points of all prevailing religions may be drawn out(as in truism) so as to form common set of beliefs and practices to be observed and followed by all religious people of the world.

© Or again, a totally fresh religion in a fresh manner may be evolved and people allover the world accept it as their common religion. But before seeing whether universal religion in any of these forms is possible, it will, perhaps be worthwhile to see what actually the acceptance of a religion by a people means. This consideration will, as a matter of fact, bring us very near to the consideration of the problem regarding the very nature of religion.

The question 'What is religion'? May be answered differently and the theoretical discussion on the problem as to what a man has or does or becomes when he accepts a particular religion may center around various points. But seeing the entire thing on a very general and realistic plane one may very easily find that what a man as a matter of fact has with him in having a particular religion like the Hindu or Christian or any other of this kind as his own religion is that, he entertains certain specific beliefs with regard to the world-and-life as a whole and performs certain specific practices in the light of those beliefs. Religion in this light may conveniently be defined as a specific way of life based on some specific conviction or convictions with regard to the world-and-life as whole. Hinduism represents one way of life based on some specific kind of conviction or conviction with regard to the world-and-life as a whole, Buddhism another and Christianity yet another. The beliefs include belief in God, belief in a specific kind of life after death etc., and the practices include ways of prayer, various ceremonies and rituals and many ethical virtues and duties. We have seen that all the religions of the world have their own specific kind of beliefs, and all of them prescribe specific practices for their followers. Of course, there are many similarities as regards these beliefs and practices amongst different religious, but there are differences too. Every religion maintains it separate character due to the specific beliefs and practices that it imbibes and prescribes. Similarly, ever-religious man is distinctly recognised as a Hindu or Buddhist or a Christian due to the specific beliefs and practices he entertains and follows. One more thing that we may add, as forming the characteristic nature of a particular religion is the presence of certain specific religious stories or myths within it. It is Braithwaite, who while analysing the nature of religious language, has drawn our attention very significantly towards this aspect of the religions of the world. according to his analysis, every religion consists of two things-(1) a moral way of life and (2) certain stories. The first is primary and the second is only subsidiary, but the two are there in every religion. Every religion, according to him, is an attempt at setting out a moral way of life supported by certain stories. His analysis may or may not be accepted, but in pointing out the role and importance of stories in religions, he has drawn our attention to a very important aspect of prevailing religions.  .Every religion abounds in certain mythical stories, which are vary reverently read, listened and remembered by its followers. On the practical lever, these stories play a great role in religions and the specific nature and character  one religion are distinguished to a great extent from those of the others by the presence of different stories in them. Thus every religion, as its people observe and follow it, consists mainly of three things-(1) certain beliefs, (2) certain practices and (3) certain religious stories. Naturally, therefore, accepting one specific religion rather than another by a man means accepting one set of beliefs and practices and entertaining one set of religious stories in mind rather than another by him. Now let us see in this light the question of the acceptability of the so-called universal religion in any of the three possible forms mentioned above by all religious people of the world alike, because practical possibility of universal religion in any of the above forms means its acceptability by all people alike.

The practical possibility of the universal religion in its first forms means the acceptability of the beliefs, practices and religious stories of any one of the prevailing religious by all religious people of the world. for example, if Hinduism becomes universal religion, it will imply that all religious people of the world begin to believe alike in the immortality of the soul, karma and rebirth, bondage and liberation etc. and all of them adopt the Hindu way of prayer and worship, perform Hindu rituals and observe Hindu moral principles etc. Not only these, all the people of the world will begin to read, listen and remember with reverence the Hindu sacred stories relating to Rama, Krishan, and many other Hindu mythical personalities. But when will it be possible? Perhaps only then when Hindu beliefs, practices and religious stories prove to be the most religiously satisfying, i.e, when they prove that be such which satisfy the religious instinct and hunger of all the people of the world in the most efficient manner. As a matter of fact any religion which claims to be universal or which is taken as being most suitable for this purpose, will have to satisfy this condition, viz. its beliefs, practices and religious stories are most satisfying in nature. But on what(lets put it in sports ground) grounds can one prove the supremacy of the set of beliefs and practices of one can claim supremacy for the beliefs and practices of any one religion? With an implicit bias for Hinduism Dr. Radhakrishnana sometimes seems to conceive the(sure and certain) possibility of universal religion in the nature and form of Hinduism. In his book Eastern Religions and Western Thought, he argues that Hinduism by its very nature has always been very liberal and broad-hearted and its attitude towards other religions has always been one of tolerance. It has always believed that all religious refer to the same reality and they all are just like the different pathways leading to the same goal(take example of 7,9,10). History also present testimony to this universalistic outlook of Hinduism. At times, people of different religions came to India and settled here. The Hindus quite happily allowed those people to settle and observe their own religions. But in course of time, these religions could hardly maintain their identity in face of the liberal and universalistic out look of Hinduism and they ultimately merged into it. Buddhism originated in Inida, spread and survived throughout the universe, but it could hardly maintain its separate identity in India. The liberality of Hinduism absorbed it. Those religions which did not merge into Hinduism were greatly influenced by it and they have hardly been able to maintain their original rigor. All these facts amply show that Hinduism contains with it qualities of being a universal religion. It can very will accommodate other religions within it and form ground for a universalistic faith. The merger of certain religions at a certain time in some other religion or religions may be a sequel to may local factors of the time. There was a time when other religions merged into Hinduism and today three are several Hindus who are daily undergoing conversion into Christianity. Further , if Hinduism has influenced other religions, the influence of other religions upon Hinduism cannot also be denied. It is quite natural that religions flourishing together influence each other and therefore there is nothing special in Hinduism influencing other religions.

Thus the pervading of one existing religion over all others such that it is acceptable to all religious people of the world alike as their own religion does not seem practicable. The basic question is ; which particular religion is competent for the purpose and why? we have seen that all religions may have equal claims and the preference cannot amicable be decided. However, the most basic question in this regard seems to be, whether it is practically possible that the same set of beliefs practices and religions stories may be able to satisfy with equal efficiency the religious feelings of persons coming of different traditions and living at different places in different times and different situation. The answer seems to be most certain. And therefore the practical possibility of universal religion in the  form of Hinduism seems very much likely.

{ only common things are, sex, love, education, money, star, moon, rain, earth etc are accepted and practiced in all over the world, but with devotion with spiritual touch only on Hinduism)

Let us now take up the second possibility, which perhaps seems to be the most feasible alternative. If the common and essential points of all the religions are drawn out and put together so as to form a common set of beliefs and practices, perhaps that will be acceptable to all the religious people of the world ungrudgingly. But how far we can be able to form a religion in the full sense of the term on the basis of these similarities is still a matter of consideration. We have seen that accepting a religion by a man commonly means accepting a certain set of beliefs, practices and religious stories as constituting that religion. Now, the point to considered is, whether there are any similarities between the mythical stories of different religions, such that their common features may be taken out to form the religious stories of the universal religion. There is much common amongst various religions regarding the ethical virtues and duties they recognise, there is very little common amongst them regarding the various rites, ceremonies and rituals they contain. And however little importance one may be ready to give to these rituals and ceremonies from a higher religious standpoint, they possess indisputably great importance for the common religious man. Thus it is difficult to find common religious practices which may be extracted out of various religions so as to form the rites and rituals of the universal religion. And most of all, is religion something so external that certain beliefs, practices and religious stories chalked out, formulated and constructed in an artificial manner by taking points form different religions will give real satisfaction to its followers? Religion is primarily a matter of inner conviction, and nothing can be pressed upon a religious man artificially from without. 

The third alternative of the practical possibility of universal religion is no less dubious. If universal religion comes about as a new religion is no less dubious. If universal religion comes about as a new religion in any form whatsoever, it is bound to be nothing other than one more religion besides many existing from beforehand. As we have indicated earlier, no profounder or prophet of a fresh religion has ever wished his religion to be the religion of a selected group; he has rather wished it to be a religion of all the people of the world. but it is an irony of fate that every time when an attempt has been made by a prophet to give man a new religion  of universal acceptance, it has resulted merely in giving rise to one more religion besides those existing from before hand. The same will be the fate of the so-called universal religion, it comes up in the form of a totally new religion. (so it is better to accepted a religion which has no prophet no  preacher -  wants to get an answer look for Hinduism) The primary lesson of religion must be to tolerate and accommodate the ideas and sentiments of universe what keeps our life going in context of religion.(From here just follow Hindu family law book)

               The learned man takes everywhere the best from small and large books, like a bee from flowers.-Kapila