Why is the message of God so different in different religions?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So question. Why do we have so much difference in the message of God among different religions? Answer.
There are 3 different aspects to this. First is the difference in context. Second is the difference in content.
And the third is difference in emphasis. So difference in context means that there is different times, different messengers of God they appear at different times. And because of that they have to give message according to their context.
So the way, say, assembly of sages will be instructed may be very different from the way an assembly of warriors may be instructed. Or an assembly of merchants may be instructed. Even today if we see, our essential if we have devotees who are giving talks, if they are giving talks to specific audiences, they may speak in different ways.
So the context determines to a large extent how the content will be presented. Even in the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavatam we see significant difference. The Bhagavatam primarily focuses on renunciation because it is spoken to a person who is about to die, Parikshit Maharaj.
So the consistent theme is renunciation, renunciation, renunciation, the glorification of renunciation. The Bhagavad Gita on the other hand focuses primarily on action, action, action because the context is Krishna wants Arjuna to fight the war. And renunciation itself is actually repeatedly disapproved in the Bhagavad Gita.
So is it that renunciation is bad and action is good or renunciation is good and action is bad. No, the context is determining that. So similarly just as we see diversity in today’s world and we see diversity in the Vedic scriptures also between diversity that is caused by emphasis, by stress, sorry, by context.
Similarly, there can be context where people may be in a very primitive, very low level of consciousness and accordingly the revelation may have to be given at a very preliminary level to them. That context is there. Even in content that sometimes it’s not that the full message is revealed.
According to some partial message may be revealed and we have to look at the content. If we look at the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Quran there is very little philosophy in these. The Old Testament is primarily stories of the Jews as they met various adventures and misadventures in their search for the promised land.
The New Testament is primarily an account of the life of Jesus and subsequently the epistles, the letters of Paul. So, neither of these have much philosophy per se. Now similarly, the Quran is primarily a revelation that Muhammad had at different times, in different places, in different circumstances.
And many years later it all was put together as a book. So, it is just unidirectional, unilateral insights that are given. So, there is no discussion, there is no question answer, there is no elaborate philosophical exposition.
I am not saying that Judaism, Christianity and Islam don’t have philosophy. There are subsequent philosophers, thinkers, who have derived philosophy based on whatever is given in these books and they have integrated with various existing thought systems to come up with their own philosophical systems. But the point is, the content will vary because none of these books, Old Testament, New Testament and Quran are spoken to people who are seriously seeking to philosophically understand life’s ultimate purpose.
On the other hand, if you see Bhagavatam and many of the Vedic texts, especially the Upanishads, they are spoken to, there are discussions between people who are dedicated to the transcendental purposes, transcending life’s purpose. So, in that sense, we have significant difference in content. So, positive description of the spiritual world, positive description of God, positive deep philosophical analysis of things, there is nothing like, say, the three modes of material nature.
There is no typology like that for analyzing the material world given in the scriptures of the other religions, of the Abrahamic religions especially. And lastly, difference in emphasis. So, the difference in emphasis comes from the leaders who are teaching that particular book.
So, we see that the Bhagavata also has a context of war. But none of the great thing commentators in the Bhagavata, starting from Shankaracharya down to Ramanacharya, to Vishwacharya, to Vallabhidhyabhushi, although they lived at a time when there was Islamic aggression in India, and still, they did not focus on the martial context of the Gita and interpret the Gita as a call for martial aggression against, martial retaliation against Islamic aggression. So, that was not their stress at all.
They focused on the universal, devotional, transcendental message of the Bhagavad Gita. And that’s how the Bhagavata has been understood. So, what will be stressed in a particular book depends on the leaders who are teaching that book and who are working towards administering or implementing the teaching of that book in their own society and their own lives.
So, because of these three things, in Islam, as I mentioned earlier in the class that the Kshatriya aspect of Muhammad’s life has been stressed by subsequent generation of Islamic leaders far more than the Brahmana aspect. And that is why the martial teachings of the Quran are often highlighted and that’s what has been indoctrinated to people who eventually become terrorists and machines of death. So, the differences come because of, differences in message of God come because of difference of context, content and stress.