Be ye like little children - 2

Nanak said, “Nanak hukme je bujhe tan haumein kahe na koe.” Indeed when we will really understand hukam or One's scheme of things we will stop saying haumein or I, me and mine for then we will come to know that religions at suitable points of time are actually the creations of One or One's scheme of things rather than of any man so that all are unique, all contain the fullness of truth, only each's truth is revealed to people according to the need of times in which they are.

If a father sends different books to read to his son when the later is in his childhood, youth, middle age and old age it does not make great sense for the son to say that one book is better/unique/more-full-of-truth than the other, more so when, thanks to the wheels-within-wheels nature of the evolutionary scheme of things he passes through childhood, youth, middle age and old age phases in each of his otherwise four main phases and so can always benefit from all of them from time to time. Humanity also passes through similar phases in a similar way and the apparent differences in different religions or religious books are there only because they were sent in or meant for different times/phases.

Manas ki jaat or humanity is ek/one like stems, branches, twigs, leaves, flowers and fruits of a tree are ek/one tree. Hukam or scheme of things of a tree is contained in its seed, Hukam or scheme of things of the mankind/earth/universe is contained in what science calls singularity at the time of Big Bang. And different religions are like different books/guideposts to show the way to stems, branches, leaves, flowers and fruits respectively of the same one tree at suitable times as to which way to go further and how. Could any be less unique at the cost of an other? Could any grow or had meaning at the cost of an other? Could any be said to contain less fullness of the truth of the tree than an other?

There could be no fruit without flowers, there could be no flowers without leaves, there could be no leaves without twigs, there could be no twigs without branches, there could be no branches without stems, there could be no stems without trunk, there could be none without the seed or the hukam or scheme of things of the tree contained in the seed. Understanding this can anybody, any religion still say that it is unique, that it is the only person/religion which contains the fullness of truth?

Nanak came when bhagti age in the East or the age of romanticism in the West was coming to an end and the age of reason and hence science was taking root. Which is in fact why he delved more on what is called his scientific vision. Christ came at the beginning of this very global cultural cycle (beginning with AD era), in culture's childhood in other words, hence his utterances were more either in the nature of a father giving commandments to a child, or of a child who felt “I and my father are one.”

Rightly his age or phase has been called the age of “Fathers and Teachers” by Bertrand Russel in his famous book A History of Western Philosophy. The comparative age in East/India is likewise called the Sutra and Scholastic period as per S. Radhakrishanan's book Indian Philosophy Vol 1 which obviously means the same thing.

Christ could not say like Nanak, “Ajj na suti kant sio..(today I could not come in contact or surrender to my Lover/Husband/Lord)” because such words could only have come in culture's youth which coincided with bhagti age or the age of romanticism in the West as Russel termed it.
Mohammad came in the early days of bhagti age, in the early youth of global culture and like any emotionally surcharged early youth devoted entirely to his father called Allah by him - the same earlier Father of Christ and later Kant (Husband) of Nanak - wanted to bring all those opposed to his Father to their knees before him. Yet the basis of this fight too was love because he thought all are his brothers only gone astray and it is his duty to bring them back to their Father's (Allah's) home. The real understanding of what I have written above can even convince the present followers of Muhammad that there is really no need of such a fight now for all are serving the same Father, One, Allah, or whosoever the name, in their own ways at their own places and as directed by the same Father, One or Allah Himself.

Even Communism was a religion and simply rebelled aginst God because it came in the age of reason as Russel called it, or in culture's adulthood and like many adults guided solely by dry reason felt completely alienated from its 'Father' and so rebelled against Him.

Nanak challenged the prevailing practices which had passed their utility as also to prepare people for the coming, scientific age and never any religion par se. Just as he may have challenged many prevailing practices in the present Sikh religion as well. Challenging prevailing practices and eulogising one's own or one's own religion in comparing it with others are two different things and are not done.

I hope we have now emptied our minds of enough prejudices to become like little children and move forth on our journey with Nanak with the like innocence and freshness. Either there is no Hindu, no Musalman, no Sikh, no Christian, no Buddhist and so on or there are all serving the same One or God at their own time, place and ways and all should be respected.