I know that I really know nothing. Now, is that not a contradiction? This is like being aware that I am aware, is it not? How so? Perhaps such a matter should remain a conundrum. Indeed, in the context of believing in God, I agree with the wise words of my former rector: ‘God is a mystery. Our belief in God is a mystery. Why not leave it at that?’
I recall that, somewhere, someone wanted to vivisect the nightingale to discover its song!
Against that, I note, with great regret, the stance of some believers in the uniqueness or, worse still, the superiority, of their sectoral faith: that their sect is superior to all other sects within the same religion (look at the resulting carnage in the Middle East); and that the founder of their religion offers more than the founders of other religions. How do they know that? By personal revelation?
Would that be an expression of ego (Freudian or otherwise)? Ego satisfaction may explain why the early promoters of some religions needed to add to the alleged original utterances of the founder.
And when the guardians of an institutional religion attack other religions, could it be that faith is riding on the back of the beast denoting wealth and power? When a religion adopts a political cloak as well, would that not suggest an abdication of allegiance from its founder’s intention? Going political would normally equate to seeking a relative advantage, would it not?
Against the propensity for venality by humanity, perhaps it is best to know nothing; and to await the Cosmic Law of cause and effect to evolve into a Law of Cosmic Justice.
Then mankind may be transformed in the way a beach of rocky stones is ultimately eroded into a beach of sparkling smooth sand. That such sand is white should not bother the great majority (about 85%) of humanity who are coloured, but who co-exist peacefully (in the main), irrespective of religious faith.
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 