I was not intending to come back and post here when I said goodbye yesterday. But, reading Shri Nara's posts and the various reactions to it, emanating from the Super Moderator even, I feel the contents of the following longish excerpt may be of use to many here.
The people of this world are of two ever
antagonistic and opposing classes, the majority
and the minority. From the unstoried days of
a forgotten past, through all the long ages to
the ever-present now, these two classes have
ever been and doubtless ever will be. In the
affairs of everyday life, the majority is called
the wise, and the minority, the foolish. In
politics, the majority is usually called the
conservative, and the minority, the radical. In
religion, the majority is called the orthodox,
and the minority, the unorthodox, heretics, free-
thinkers, infidels. In the last analysis, orthodoxy
means majority, nothing more; unorthodoxy
or infidelity means minority, nothing else.
The majority, the conservative, the orthodox
are those who uphold or defend the existing
order of things. They maintain that our present
system of government is the best one ; that
our modern conception of science is the correct
one; that our present belief in religion is the
true one. With this class the only hope of progress
lies in conforming more closely to their
present ideals. The minority, the unorthodox,
the freethinkers, the infidels are those who
believe that our present system of government,
our present conception of science, and our present
beliefs in religion are not the best that can
or will be. It is the constant endeavor of this
class to make our institutions conform to our
ever-growing ideals. The laws, customs, beliefs,
and religions of his ancestors the unorthodox
may accept as good for them and their day, but
he refuses to be bound by them, hoping by the
lessons they have taught that he may build more
grandly for the future. The essence of unor-
thodoxy is that we prove all things and hold
fast only that which is true.
There are varying degrees of unorthodoxy.
There are those who tell us confidentially that
their party platform is not as good as it should
be; that our government is not just what it
might be; that the creed of their church they
cannot altogether accept; but, they add, they
are willing to let the existing order of things
prevail, willing to let the old majority rule,
rather than to disturb the confidence of the
people in their party, their government, or their
religion. Such people are of little value to
the world; at best they are but brakes on the
wheels of progress. The brakes may at times
be of service but they never moved a load or
turned a wheel.
Then there is another class of unorthodoxy.
They have outgrown the old beliefs, but still
cling to the old institutions and vainly try to
reinterpret the old creeds and doctrines to con-
form to modern truths. These are they who
would put the new wine in the old bottles.
These are they who would build the new tem-
ple of truth on the ancient foundation of super-
stition. Such people constitute a large and
growing part of the professedly orthodox.
Could they only throw off their allegiance to
the past, they would be of much service in
building this temple. As it is, they cannot
build; they can only remodel and repair the
old and tottering structure.
Then there is a class of unorthodox who em-
phactically differ from the majority. They
think they see the glorious ideals of better
things ahead, and they boldly proclaim it from
the house top. They are filled with a burning
desire to point out the way to the unprogressive
and unthinking majority. This class furnishes
the world with its prophets, its philosophers,
its reformers, its heroes, and its martyrs.
Note: Most of our revered Acaaryas like Sankara,
Ramanuja, Madhwa and many others, including whoever wrote the Bhagavadgeetha, also would have belonged to the minority or infidel category for the majority conservatives of their days.
Jesus also was one such heretic for which he was punished by the Sanhedrin and Jewish Priests; they accused Jesus of blasphemy.
And now Swami Sandeepananda Giri of Chinmaya Mission categorically asserts that the Mahabharata War never happened; Gita never happened. Swami Udit Chaitanya says there is no need for any pitru karma because sastras say the jeevatma gets absorbed with the Paramatma on physical death. That is Mukti for one and all! Are these Swamis to be hounded out too?
Whether the unorthodox be mild or radical,
whether they still cherish the old faiths or have
discarded the ancient forms, they are all tending
in the same general direction — away from
the authority of the past. By different routes
and at different rates of speed, they are all
sailing upon the rough sea of progress, while
the orthodox majority float serenely in the
shallow and placid waters of antiquity. Ortho-
doxy means stagnation; unorthodoxy means
progress. Orthodoxy is a call from the past, a
voice from the grave, bidding us stand still.
Orthodoxy is always dying. Unorthodoxy is a
voice from the future, a call from the infinite,
bidding us onward. Unorthodoxy is an eternal
birth.
All history is but the record of the successes
and failures of the unorthodox. Every
advancement that has been made in the world has
started with the minority, with the infidel.
Every man who has risen above his fellowmen
has done so by virtue of his heresy. Nor could
it be otherwise ; for only those who are
dissatisfied with the present can improve the future;
only those who differ from the majority can
command attention; only those who are ahead
of the procession can lead the procession.
In considering the work of the unorthodox,
we must remember that that which is orthodox
in one country may be very unorthodox in an-
other. Christianity is orthodoxy in America,
but in Turkey the Christian is a dog of an
infidel. Catholicism is orthodoxy in Spain, and there
the Protestant is a heretic. We must also re-
member that that which is unorthodox in one
age may be orthodox in another. A century
ago to doubt that God so loved the world that
he would ultimately burn the majority of its
inhabitants in a hell of eternal fire was to
forfeit one's right to be called a Christian. Today
such doubt does not of itself make one an
infidel. Nor must we forget that one may be very
orthodox in one line of thought and yet very
unorthodox in another. Columbus may have
been orthodox on the Fall of Man and the Atonement ,
but he was very unorthodox concerning
the teachings of the Church as to the contour of
the earth. It was in the line of his unorthodoxy
that he was of value to the world. Copernicus
and Galileo may have been orthodox concern-
ing God and the Trinity, but they were very
unorthodox about Genesis and astronomy. It
was their unorthodoxy, their infidelity, that
made their names immortal.
— Extract from “The evolution of religion” by William A. Hinckle, M.D.