Religion, Faith and Religiosity

The Meaning of the Word Religion

What is religion? Why do so many religions exist? Is Krishna consciousness a religion? These questions concern many people because a person's choice depends on the correct answer. After all, religion is related to the ultimate matters of human existence. Nevertheless, people's interest in religion is fading, and this word means more and more things. Even among Vaishnavas, we can meet different opinions. Some claim that Krishna consciousness (Vaishnava dharma) has nothing to do with religion, because religion is a cultural social phenomenon, an expression of human material religiosity. Others claim that religion is related to existence itself, and therefore does not depend on how a person lives or what they believe. What should be asked about the meaning of religion? We can let people themselves determine its meaning. Over time, the meanings of words change and they acquire different shades. When we say the word religion, should we think about what the meaning of the word was when it appeared, or the meaning it has now? Popular dictionaries provide the current meaning of the word. Here is a definition from Webster's dictionary:

These examples from everyday language only say that religion is related to the supernatural or faith. Practice and beliefs are identified here. These examples provide only a notion but do not say what religion is in its essence.

If we consider that philosophy is a branch of human knowledge that answers the main questions: what is? and why is?, we will likely want philosophy, not people's opinion, to tell us what religion is. Having received and accepted this answer from philosophy, we will be able to use it correctly elsewhere, deciding what a person's relationship with religion is, whether Krishna consciousness is a religion etc.

For a start, we present excerpts from A. Maceina's book "Philosophy of Religion", in which the word and phenomenon of religion are investigated very impartially and meaningfully.

The Notion of Religion

The more atheism spread in the world, the more passionately religion became an object of scientific inquiry. This was a clear sign that the religious consciousness of man is living through a deep crisis, because as long as religion is not doubted, it is not even investigated. Its flourishing investigation and simultaneous spreading denial of its foundations condition each other and are the most characteristic manifestation of our history.

Being a historical manifestation of humanity, religion is at the same time an evidence: one can ask about its origin, its structure, its forms and manifestations, but one cannot ask about its being. The old statement that there is no nation without religion is a conceptual expression of this evidence. At the same time, it indicates that religion is not only at all, but that it is abundantly: religion exists in many forms. The historian sees not religion, but religions and faces considerable difficulties in classifying them, because they differ so much from one another that each time they resist being united by this or that denominator.

This existence of religion in history by way of abundance raises doubts whether in such a case a generic concept of religion, that is, its logical definition, is at all possible. Is a definition possible that would find and include within itself such a principle of religions which lies in the foundations of all of them and without which each would be non-religion? Many are inclined to answer this negatively. This is said to be confirmed by the multitude of definitions of religion (about 150!), found in works of various kinds discussing religion. In other words, the multitude of religions hides the essence of religion, and there is no way to shell this essence out of the most different, often simply opposite and even contradictory manifestations of it.

This view is undoubtedly right insofar as it asserts the abundance of religions and the obstacles arising from it to orient oneself in this abundance. However, it is wrong insofar as it denies the possibility to find the essence of religion in the variety of religions; wrong because it loses sight of the notion of religion that we have. How would we know that there is an abundance of religions in history if we did not have a notion of what religion is in itself? Why would we join some historical phenomena into a unity and call them religious, distinguishing them from economic, technical, legal, scientific, artistic phenomena? What would be the measure of this connection and this distinction? If we did not have a notion of religion, how would we know that, say, sacrifice is a religious and not an aesthetic act, especially since it is almost everywhere and always clothed in forms of an artistic nature: hymns, music, dances, processions? Religion as a historical evidence naturally relies on the notion of religion present in our consciousness, without which no knowledge or investigation of religion would be possible, because it would not be perceived what is being known or investigated here. Thus, to assert the abundance of religions and at the same time to deny the possibility of perceiving the essence of religion is a contradiction, because, to say about this or that phenomenon that it is religious — the assertion of the abundance of religions is precisely such a saying — one must already have a notion of what religion itself is.

Undoubtedly, a notion is not yet a concept. A notion is a true, but logically not yet unfolded and unsubstantiated knowledge. It expresses the dialectical character of our knowledge: we ask so that we could know; but we know so that we could ask. Already Plato in "Meno" has noticed that a thing which we do not know, but which we ask what it is, has a peculiar structure, defined by the duality of notion – concept. The question connects the notion with the concept, transferring them one into another. No question could arise if we did not know what we are asking, that is, if we did not have a notion of the questioned matter. The notion lies in every question as its grounder and leader, providing it with both the object and the direction. Having logically analyzed, illuminated and substantiated this question led by the notion, a concept is formed as an answer.

The question arising in the face of the abundance of religions, what is religion in itself, precisely reveals this dialectic of knowledge mentioned by Plato. Religious abundance indeed hides the essence of religion, and we ask in order to reveal this essence. However, we can ask only because we already have a notion that this essence lies in religious phenomena, which we by no means identify with various others, thereby clearly showing that we know what religion is. True, this notional knowledge of ours asks for the form of a concept and the precision of a definition. That is why we ponder in the face of religious phenomena. And yet this pondering of ours is possible only in the case when we know around what it centers.

For example, is magic a religious phenomenon? — To answer this question is possible only when we first know what religion is. If we see the essence of religion in the animate concept of nature, then magic will be a clear religious phenomenon and will fit into the area of religion, because by magical actions man speaks to nature as to an intelligent being. The word here is a mediator between the magician and nature, therefore it clearly shows that nature in magic is experienced in the sense of a person, because only a person can be spoken to. That is why 19th-century scientists of religion considered magic a true religious phenomenon: the animistic concept of religion prevailing at that time necessarily required it. However, if we understand religion as worshipful bowing to the absolute Power or Being, then magic will by no means be a religious phenomenon, since in magic clearly comes to light man's desire to control nature. The magician's word is not worshipful, but enchanting: the magician tries to enchant nature so that it would submit to him, curing a disease, weakening an enemy, granting fertility to a woman and the soil. What a man of higher culture seeks by means of science and technology, primitive man tries to achieve by the enchanting word. The ways differ, but not the desires and goals: to bend nature to man's service. For this reason, most current scientists of religion — among them also Soviet ones — consider magic rather a technical than a religious phenomenon: in magic they see the embryo of science.

What is said here about magic applies to every other phenomenon, wanting to know if it is religious. Is prayer, say, a religious phenomenon if it is performed as a means to concentrate before work, as industrial psychologists suggest today? Is fasting a religious phenomenon if it is observed wanting to heal stomach ulcers? Is confession a religious phenomenon if it is performed wanting to remove neuroses by introspection and self-analysis? There is no doubt that we will answer all these questions negatively. But why? On what will we base our 'no', if not on the fact that we already know what a religious phenomenon is, and that in the mentioned examples we precisely miss it?

The way from notion to concept goes through the analysis of the name of the thing. And since religion without any doubt belongs to the area of the most primordial phenomena of the human condition, we can quite reasonably expect that its name will reveal to us the nature of its notion, becoming a reference also to its essence.

What then lies in the word 'religion'? What do we really mean pronouncing this word? In his time E. Husserl required that every theoretical effort seeking to know the essence, first of all would clarify the main premises on which it rests, or, in E. Husserl's own words, "the noemic content of the main concepts", that is, "what was meant in the beginning". This applies also to religion. And here, wanting to experience how the matter of religion has been understood, one needs to bring to light the initial meaning implanted in the 'noema' of religion or its name. In this way then we will try to go now, asking: what was meant in the beginning, calling certain phenomena 'religion'?

The Concept of Religion

The word 'religio' is a verbal derivative of the Latin language. From what verb it is derived is, however, unclear. On this question, we have three ancient etymological attempts, which linguistics until now has neither confirmed nor denied, namely: of Cicero, Lactantius, and Augustine.

In his writing "De natura deorum", Cicero derives the word 'religio' from the verb 'relegere', which, as is common for Latin verbs, has many meanings strongly distant from one another: to gather, to wind up a thread, to pass through, to pass by, to read through, to consider, to observe... Cicero has in mind the latter three meanings and therefore states that people who carefully consider and as if read anew everything that belongs to the worship of gods are called religious.

This is an explanation giving the word 'religion' a meaning of more formal discipline: religion being a careful consideration of cult rules and their execution.

Lactantius in the writing "Divinae institutiones" consciously denies this etymology of Cicero: the word 'religio' arises not from 'relegere', but from 'religare': to tie, to fasten, to wind (bandage), to harness... As the meaning of the first two translations indicates, religion is man's connection with God. With this explanation, Lactantius deepens the pagan purely disciplinary concept of religion, seeing its essence not in the application of cult rules, but in man's connection with God, whom alone we have known and whom therefore we must follow. Undoubtedly, Lactantius also requires that man should render unto God that which he must. However, to render something to God is already a derivative matter, arising from that deeper connection as from its primordial source.

Augustine wavers between Lactantius' etymology and his own. In the writings "De vera religione" and "Retractationes" he speaks for the origin of 'religio' from 'religare', in both places speaking in the same words, ostensibly we bind our souls with God; this connection being called by the name of religion. Meanwhile, in the work "De civitate Dei" Augustine tries to go already by another path. Here for him 'religio' arises from the verb 'reeligere': to root out, to weed out, to choose anew... Being created by God and acknowledging his creatureliness, man had chosen God from the very beginning. However, by the fall he lost him again. Now, Christ having redeemed humanity, man must choose God anew, seeking him with love and finding peace in him. Religion thus being this new choosing of God and decision for him. This is an explanation introducing into religion a new principle, namely, salvation, which every religion proclaims. In the face of this salvation enacted in history, man must choose God anew, so that by this choice he himself would join the saving process. Religion therefore is a renewed choice of God and man's own rebirth.

Comparing these three etymological explanations of the name of religion with one another, we easily notice that they differ not so much philologically, as primarily philosophically: in them is felt an ever deepening notion of the essence of religion. In Cicero's concept religion is exhausted by the execution of cult rules; therefore he derives the word 'religio' from the verb 'relegere'. For Lactantius religion is already man's connection with God; then, undoubtedly, the word 'religio' must arise from the verb 'religare'. Augustine defines that connection as a renewed man's decision for God; therefore he behaves consistently believing the word 'religio' to have arisen from the verb 'reeligere'. All these explanations do not deny one another, but rather complement, ever more deeply perceiving the essence of religion and ever more clearly revealing the role of religion, going from carefully performed cult to the fateful decision of man. However, linguistically the word 'religio' remains further unexplained. In the light of linguistics each mentioned etymology can be true and untrue, since not one of them is distinctively philological. In the essence of all of them lies nothing else but the concepts held by their authors, transferred into the word 'religio', looking afterwards for a necessary equivalent for this concept in the area of verbs.

Does this mean that the name of religion can tell us nothing about the initial notion of religion lying in it? At once it seems so. Having looked better into the word 'religio', however, we will find one characteristic feature of it, capable of being a guide to our sought primary meaning of this word: it is the prefix 're-'. Whether the noun 'religio' has arisen from the verb 'relegere', or from 'religare', or from 'reeligere', or from any other, we cannot say for sure. In every case, however, that verb from which 'religio' arose, will have to have the prefix 're-'.

If we now apply this meaning of the prefix 're-' to the word of religion, it will be clear that its syllable 're' also carries with itself the meaning of counter-action. For the philosophy of religion it is all the same from what verb the word 'religio' has arisen. Because, having the prefix 're-', this word in every case marks an action which is awakened by another pole. The name of religion says that the matter of religion is not closed and one-sided, but leaned against two poles, between which is created a return action. These poles are: God and man. This is the notion of religion, woven into its linguistic name. According to this notion, religion is neither only a divine, nor only a human, but a divine-human matter. It is a meeting of God and man in a certain space, which is usually called sacred. This is that noemic content required by E. Husserl or that which was meant in the beginning, pronouncing the word 'religion'.

Undoubtedly, this word itself says nothing yet about the meeting of God-man or the counter-action of their connection in itself. To reveal this is the task of further consideration. However, the notion of religion lying in its name points a direction for this consideration, namely: if religion is a divine-human counter-action, then its essence will not be able to be known by contemplating those two poles separately one from another. This is the main indication arising from the notion of religion, as the name of religion reveals it to us. Religion is a "two-sided magnitude" (F. Heiler), and this character of it is a guideline for the dissemination of its content. Even a methodical contemplation of each pole separately must be performed with a great and constant regard to the other pole, because only thus can the true structure of religion as a counter-action be preserved.

Religion as Relation

Having found in the initial notion of religion the counter-action as that which is meant pronouncing the word 'religio', we can now start to slowly disseminate the meaning of that notion and approach the concept of religion. The first step on this path is to establish the place of counter-action in the series of philosophical categories and thereby perceive what it truly is.

Now, if counter-action lies in the initial notion of religion and if it fits with its full area in the category of relation, then it is self-evident that religion in the broadest sense is a relation, namely: a relation between God and man.

Undertaking now to disseminate the content of this definition somewhat more explicitly, first of all arises the question, what does it mean that God and man are connected between themselves by a relation? What is this relation and how does it bind God and man?

Relation is a necessary category and therefore one of the main problems of ontology. However, in the philosophy of religion it has not been contemplated somewhat deeper — perhaps because to it was always given a moral character, explaining it in the sense of duty to God. Since the time when Thomas Aquinas arranged religion into the series of virtues, naming it the virtue of justice, requiring to render unto God that which belongs to him, the relation of God and man clearly turned towards anthropology, losing its ontological character and turning into either a sum of moral, pastoral, cultic actions (in scholasticism), or a categorical sense of duty (in Kantianism), or a psychic experience of value (in the philosophy of values). In every case this relation was looked at from the point of man , asking in which way man executes it, but almost not asking what role God has in it. In other words, religion was turned into religiosity, not noticing that religiosity by no means grounds the relation of God and man, but is itself grounded by it. Man's duties to God — worship, sacrifice, execution of commandments, fostering of holiness — acquire meaning only when they are expressions of the relation with God, that is, when they visibly execute this already existing relation. The relation itself lies significantly deeper than all its anthropological appearance. Religion is a "dimension of depth" (P. Tillich), and religiosity — only the anthropological surface of this depth. If then we want to perceive what it means that man relates to God, we must break through this anthropological surface and descend into that dimension of depth.

Religion as Ontology

In its entirety, religion can be investigated in various respects. This is shown by the rather quick appearance and development of such branches of religion research as phenomenology of religion, psychology of religion, sociology of religion, history of religions, ethnology of religions etc. After all, man can experience his relation with God in the soul, form it in society, develop it in the course of time; he can give it forms of dogma, law, rite; he can create these forms according to the spirit of his age or nation; he can critically evaluate and change them. All this is investigated by various sciences of religion. Nevertheless, not one respect of religion chosen by sciences of religion is suitable for the philosophy of religion, because not one such respect is an object of philosophizing. That or another matter — let it be even the relation with God — can become an object of philosophizing only when it is connected with the main and initial question of philosophy, namely: with the question of being. Any distinct and partial branch of philosophy is always only an unfolding of this most general question. This applies also to the philosophy of religion. And the philosophy of religion in essence disseminates nothing else but the question of being: it only highlights this question by the relation of God and man, asking how God and man relate in respect of being and what this connection is in the light of being. Because only the connection with being reveals religion as a dimension of depth and only in the face of being does it become clear what are those two poles — God and man — connected by relation as a necessary category.

The answer to the question what is religion, as a connection of God and man, turns out to be a dilemma (dilemma): God and man relate either by the relation of two beings or of being and being (entity). In the philosophy of religion there is no place to more broadly expound the so-called 'ontological difference' between being and a being (entity): this is the task of metaphysics or ontology. Therefore here we will satisfy ourselves only by reminding of it itself and the closest conclusions related to it. Every being (entity) is a being in that it is. This means: every being is a being by nothing else but being; it is being that makes a being be at all. In other words, being grounds a being in the latter's existence. However, to ground and to be grounded is by no means the same thing: the ground is not exhausted by the grounded, therefore also being is not exhausted by a being; their existences themselves are not identical, since they happen not on the same plane. Between being and a being there is an ontological difference. At the same time between them there is also an ontological connection. Being the grounding and the grounded existences, being and a being never coincide. But precisely because the grounded existence holds by the grounding existence, being and a being never separate either. Explaining further the relation of God and man, we will reveal more clearly both the difference and the connection of being and a being. And meanwhile let us return to the mentioned dilemma.

If God and man relate to one another as two beings, then they exist on the same ontological plane and are of the same ontological rank — even in the case if we perceived God as the first, highest, most perfect, final being, because no quality given to a being or abundance of these qualities raises it to another ontological plane. Already Spinoza has insightfully noticed that man cannot be discussed by attributing to him the qualities of an elephant or a donkey in the highest degree; even the most perfect elephant or donkey would not become a man, even if we turned its perfections into infinite ones. A being can be placed at the beginning or end of a series, in every case it will not step over this series, because in every case it will remain a being, ontologically equal to all other beings, since existing by the existence of a being. And existence cannot be graded. Existence is not a feature (praedicatum) or a quality (qualitas), therefore it cannot be either increased or decreased: one cannot ‘more’ or ‘less’, ‘better’ or ‘worse’ be. Existence is all at once. Beings differ one from another not by existence (that they are), but by essence (what they are). Essence, undoubtedly, can have various qualities and degrees of perfection of its expression. However, because of this variety it never steps over the dimension of essence and does not pass into a different dimension of existence. Nevertheless, the gradation of the qualities of essence often seduces us, and we are inclined to think that existence too can vary, creating ontological ranks in the category of a being. However, this is a deception arising from the confusion of existence and essence. That is why philosophically it is unjustifiable to speak about God as a being and about his difference from other beings in that he takes into himself their perfection. Even being the most perfect being, God would still remain a being and would stand with us on the same ontological plane. The relation of God and man would be in such a case only a relation of two beings, hardly to be called 'religion', in which, as we will see later, worship constitutes an essential principle. However, how could one worship a being which is ontologically equal-meaning and equal-right to us, even if surpassing us by the degree of our qualities? The first side of the mentioned dilemma therefore is religiously impossible: it destroys religion itself.

It is completely different if the relation of God and man is the relation of being and a being. Because being, as mentioned, relates to a being as the grounder with the grounded, as the carrier with the carried, as the creator with the created. Both of them, true, are. However, the existence of the grounder differs in itself from the grounded existence, so that these two do not even lend themselves to comparison, since every comparison requires identity in at least one respect. Meanwhile, the existences of being and a being have no same respect, since existence as such cannot be split into respects.

First of all, being a relation of God and man as being and a being, religion reveals itself as a primordial matter. It is not for man some quality, even if we called it essential, which would have come to him later than he himself. It is not so that man already is — even if 'natura prius' —, and only later enters into a relation with God: man's existence itself is this relation. Not man grounds his relation with God, but the relation with God grounds man in his existence.

In the plane of the connection of being and a being, a being does not enter into a relation, but is a relation and only by this relation with being does it hold in its own existence. A being exists relatively. Relation is its state. For man religion is not something that would supplement, improve, complete him, but he himself is religion, that is, an existence grounded by God. It is too little to say, as M. Scheler would want, that "man's relation with the deity" is "a constituent part of his essence (constitutivum)". Religion is not a constituent element (elementum), but the principle itself (principium, arche), that is, the very beginning of human existence and its remaining state (modus essendi): man consists religiously, just as a being consists relatively. Only in an anthropological respect (about this shortly) can one speak that man has religion or that he does not have it. Ontologically however he is always religious, because he is always in a relation with God as with the grounder of his existence. Ontologically neither man before religion nor man after religion is possible. In this sense historians of religion have correctly perceived that "the beginning of religion coincides with the beginning of humanity" and that "a stage of humanity without religion is a pure fiction".

Religion as Anthropology

Man, however, is a being to whom it is proper not only to be, but also to consciously be, that is, to turn back to himself and perceive that he is and what he is. And this turning back to oneself is performed by man in all areas of his condition. It is performed also in religion. Having turned to religion, man perceives that he is a grounded existence and that God is the grounder of this existence; that man by himself is a relation, that is, not a closed substance existing in itself and holding by itself, but an openness itself to his own ground. Now, he can contemplate this religious self-consciousness logically, disseminate it socially, shape it artistically. In other words, he can express religion or his relation with God in his everyday life or in the so-called cosmological plane, giving religion the character of religiosity. By his existence man is religious, that is, belonging to the dimension of the relation with God and never able to fall out of this dimension. By his consciousness he can make himself pious (religious), that is, by his stance correspond to that relation and visibly express it. Between 'religious' (religinis) and 'pious' (religingas) there is the same connection as between 'fruit-bearing' (vaisinis) and 'fruitful' (vaisingas). Fruit-bearing is a tree which belongs to the species of fruit-trees. Fruitful is a tree which reveals this belonging by the abundance of fruit in everyday life. So it is also with man. Religious is man, because he belongs by being to the existence grounded by God. Pious is man, when he consciously turns this belonging into the state of his everyday life.

However, man, being free, can also deny this belonging. In other words, he can remain religious, but not become pious. Since religion as an ontological relation is prior to any knowledge and decision, man can feel untouched by this relation in his everyday life and order this everyday life so, as if that relation did not exist at all. There is no need even to explain that the acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement of religion, that is, its turning into religiosity or not turning, neither creates nor destroys the ontological relation of man with God.

Even in the case of the most intense affirmation (holiness) or negation (atheism) religion as the relation of being with a being remains the same, because man's freedom does not influence the ontological plane. Freedom only makes it so that religion as an ontological matter acquires in the anthropological plane either the form of religiosity or of godlessness. Religiosity is the positive, godlessness — the negative appearance of a being's connection with being. That is why religiosity can turn into godlessness, and godlessness pass into religiosity, since that ontological relation remains in every case unmoved.

Acknowledging religion, man turns the dimension of depth into the dimension of everyday life. Religion as an ontological relation in such a case becomes a historical, national, individual form of the human condition. It settles into the proclamation of certain truths, organization of certain social forms, creation of certain rites of worship and sacrifice, petition and thanksgiving. In religion as an ontological relation the only actor is God: it is he who grounds man's existence, thereby making religion a pure gift or grace, to receive which man contributes absolutely nothing — nothing at all, since he himself exists by this grace. Meanwhile, in religion as a cosmological manifestation of everyday life the most important actor is already man — both in thinking, and in acting, and in aesthetic creation. The anthropological side of religion is man's own product. It is man's answer to that gift and grace given to him by God. In this respect the grounded existence does not remain purely receiving, as dialectical theology would want to understand it. Purely receiving it is only in the ontological plane. However, having perceived his groundedness, man becomes active in the cosmological plane and here speaks out his groundedness in various ways. Religiosity, as it manifests in history, is nothing else but the unfolding of the grounded existence in everyday life. For indeed, after all, if we are grounded in our existence and if we perceive this grounding, then our human honor itself requires to heed the consciousness of groundedness and to order our everyday life so that the groundedness of our existence would come to light. Otherwise, we would attempt to exist as if we were ungrounded, that is, existing by ourselves. In this sense it is possible and necessary to speak about religion as a duty, which turns our everyday life into truth, that is, into a correspondence between the ontological and anthropological plane of our existence. Otherwise this everyday life would be a lie. Religiosity precisely is the form of this truth, and godlessness — of this lie.

The anthropological side of religion therefore belongs to the structure of religion just so equally as the ontological side, because the former is in truth nothing else but the breakthrough of the latter into the light of consciousness and a willed expression in visible forms — first of all prayer as a constituent element of every religion, by which the grounded existence best reveals its own groundedness and its holding by God as the ground. These two sides constitute one single religious phenomenon and cannot exist separately one from another. Religiosity is the appearance of religion. Having loosened itself from religion, that is, from the ontological relation with God, religiosity turns into a ghost, as it is, let's say, in the cases of Feuerbach or the current so-called 'atheistic Christianity' (D. Solle). Religious godlessness is in truth the greatest mockery of man. But a mockery is also non-religious religion, that is, an acknowledgement of the ontological relation of man with God, not finding a visible expression in everyday life. In the first case man behaves inconsistently: denying his connection with God as non-existent, he nevertheless keeps the mask of this connection in everyday life. In the second case man behaves insincerely: acknowledging his connection with God as grounding his existence, he nevertheless shapes his everyday life so, as if that connection did not exist.

Whoever therefore loses from sight the ontological side of religion or does not properly emphasize and evaluate it, exhausts also its anthropological side: in such a case the religious state of man becomes shallow and even empty. Prayer as the most distinct expression of the anthropological side is meaningful only when it is the self-consciousness of the grounded existence, and not just a cry for help, sent to a 'stronger' being. That is why in a complete concept of religion man also in respect to God is more than just a seeker, an errant one, an unhappy one, a suffering one, an imperfect one. Man to God is a being. Therefore also in respect to man the ontological side of religion has a grounding significance, because in the face of God to be a being is incomparably more, than to be a seeking or erring, a sinning or repenting one. Precisely in the relation of being-a being lies our mentioned dimension of religion as depth. And in this dimension grow the roots also of religion as the form of everyday life- religiosity.

Srila Prabhupāda on Religion

Real religion means to know God, our relation with Him and our duties in relation with Him and to know ultimately where we shall go after leaving this material body.

"Religion was created from the chest of Brahmā, wherein resides the Supreme Personality of Godhead Nārāyaṇa, and irreligion appeared from his back, where a horrible death occurs for the living beings. (SB 3.12.25)"

"Religion is the laws and orders of the Supreme Lord. In Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā we see that religion means devotional service or Kṛṣṇa consciousness. When a person fully understands that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme enjoyer and the Supreme Lord, he acts accordingly, and that is real religion. Everything that goes against this principle is not religion."

"A virtuous man should follow the rules of religion, because these rules were established by the Lord Himself. No one can manufacture or concoct a religion. Religion means the Lord's orders or laws. In Bhagavad-gītā the Lord says that religion means surrender unto Him."

"As stated in Bhagavad-gītā, religion means to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

"Religion means God's orders: dharmam tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam [SB 6.3.19]. If in your religion there is no concept of God, can one speak about religion? Nevertheless having no idea about God, they offer various religions. How long will all this artificially continue? It will deteriorate. This ignorance about God has led to the present situation."

"Every living being is eternal, sanātana . God is also eternal and we can live with God in His sanātana-dhāma , His eternal abode. This relation is called sanātana-dharma , the eternal nature and duty of the living being. Thus, Vedic religion means this sanātana-dharma , and not "Hindu dharma". In Bhagavad-gītā (11.18) Arjuna says:

"You are the supreme primal objective. You are the ultimate resting place of all this universe. You are inexhaustible, and You are the oldest. You are the maintainer of religion, the eternal Personality of Godhead. This is my opinion."

We need such an understanding. Kṛṣṇa is eternal, we are eternal, and the place where we live and exchange our feelings with Him – is also eternal. And the system which teaches this eternal system of exchange – that is called sanātana dharma , eternal religion. It is meant for everyone."

"Thus, these mahājanas – Brahmā, Nārada, Lord Śiva and so on – they know what are the principles of religion. Religion means bhāgavata-dharma , to understand God and our relations with God. That is religion. You can call it "Hindu dharma", "Muslim religion" or "Christian religion", but in any case real religion is that which teaches how to love God. Sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokṣaje : [SB 1.2.6]: if following some religious system you achieve the position of love of God, then your religious system is perfect. Otherwise, it is simply a waste of time – a cheating religion, without a clear concept of God."

Definition of Dharma

The obvious equivalent of the word 'religion' in the Vedas is the word dharma. We will try to see if the analysis of this word in the Vedic literature will help us to look deeper into the essence of religion. Already now we will distance ourselves from the view that dharma does not mean religion, because we understood that religion is inseparable from the living being, whether he acknowledges it or denies it.

Dharma means religion. This is only a general idea. However, the meaning of the word dharma is very deep. The word dharma comes from the Sanskrit verb root " dh ṛ dhatu " – which means to hold. " Dh ṛ dhatu man pratyaya " – together with the suffix man it becomes the word dharma.

Every thing has its nature or qualities which it cannot lose. Those qualities which cannot leave the object, and by which the object is identified, are called dharma. An object which truly exists is called vastava vastu . The eternal nature of the object is called svabhāva . This svabhāva arises from the construction of the object – ghatana . Every object is constituted so that its nature naturally arises and is dependent on this construction. Vastu , the object, does not have to acquire its nature, there is no need to engage in practice or to learn something to acquire it. This nature arises spontaneously from the internal structure. For example, having placed a ball on an inclined plane, it will start to roll down. Why? Because the ball is round by structure. Therefore there is no need to teach the ball to roll. This is its nature.

What is dharma? Dharma is the nature (svabhāva) of a truly existing object (vastava vastu),  which arises from its structure (ghatana). For example a graphite pencil is very soft, and stroking a page, it crumbles leaving a trace on paper. Why? Because atoms in graphite are connected in layers in hexagonal (six-sided) forms, and between the layers there are no bonds. Drawing, one layer after another breaks off and it is easy to draw. Graphite is made of carbon, but because of its construction it is soft and one can draw with it. On the other hand a diamond is also carbon, but if we tried to draw with it, we would only cut the paper, and not only paper but also metal. Why? Because in it every carbon atom is tightly connected with four surrounding atoms and all up to one atoms are so strongly bound that they will not move from their place even pressing strongly. Thus, this softness or hardness arises from the internal structure. In the same way we must understand dharma too. What is the dharma of the jīva (living being)? CC Madhya 20.108 says:

"It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa because he is the marginal energy of Kṛṣṇa and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire."

The dharma of the living being is to serve Kṛṣṇa. This service is not something one needs to learn or acquire from somewhere else. It is the very nature of the jīva, because the jīva has a subtle spiritual form, with eyes, face, ornaments. The jīva has everything within itself. Service to Kṛṣṇa is not a religious faith. It is dharma, arising from the very structure of the soul.

Then a question arises: if there is no need to learn to serve God, because this service is natural and innate, then why does no one in the world naturally do it? Why when I try to do it, it does not seem very natural to me? And after many years of practice of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, it is still hard to understand how to serve Kṛṣṇa. How in such a case can service to Kṛṣṇa be jaiva dharma – the innate function of living beings?

Every substance has its svabhāva , nature and that is its dharma. Thus the svabhāva of the jīva is its dharma, which is called Prema dharma, Bhagavata Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Vaishnava dharma. All these names mean the same. But if a substance, vastu , comes in contact with another energy or another substance, it can naturally be that the proximity or influence of the other substance will cause a transformation (vikara). Due to this transformation or change, the substance acquires a different nature. Accordingly, its svabhāva or dharma becomes deeply hidden. For example, water is liquid. But in a freezer it undergoes a vikara – transformation. Although it is the same water, nothing added and nothing taken away, nevertheless now it is solid. If water for a long time were solid ice, we could think that the true nature of water is solid. But liquidity or the true nature of water is in it in a latent (hidden) state. As soon as water gets into a natural environment, its solidity will immediately pass, and liquidity – its dharma, its svabhāva – nature – will manifest again.

When a substance having got into an extreme situation and acquired a different nature remains in it for a long time, it thinks that this is my true nature. This is called nisarga – acquired nature. When the living being comes in contact with material nature, a vikara occurs. At that time the jīva acquires nisarga – imposed nature, and its true nature, its dharma, hides deeply.

The jīva by nature is a servant of Kṛṣṇa, but due to the influence of material energy, a transformation occurs in it. Its jaiva dharma now hides in the face of acquired nature (nisarga). In this position instead of serving Kṛṣṇa, it engages in karma (material activity), jñāna (spiritual emancipation) and yoga (effort to control nature). It engages in material activity – that is does something to get a result in return. And everyone in this world engages in this. Everyone seeks something. This is their nisarga . Having come in contact with material nature they acquired another nature. Therefore now to seek benefit and result for oneself is natural. People do not need to be taught to seek benefit for themselves. They know that "I am the doer, I am the enjoyer of the results of my activity." However this is not the true nature of the soul, this is nisarga – imposed nature. The jīva undergoes transformation, because it is very small compared to material nature.

How should one understand all the religions of the world in their plurality? The religion of the jīva is unconditional loving service to Kṛṣṇa, the most attractive Personality of Godhead. To what extent this idea of service to Kṛṣṇa manifests in any religious system, determines the value of this religious system. We see that in all religious ideas of this world there is a certain admixture of karma, jñāna and yoga. Therefore following these paths one cannot liberate oneself completely from nisarga – imposed nature.

What then is vaiṣṇava dharma ? If we gathered all religions of the world and took out from them karma (seeking of results and desire to get into heaven), jñāna (desire to be liberated and be independent), and also desires which are mixed with yoga siddhi (mystic powers and extrasensory capabilities), there will remain Vaishnavism. This is pure dharma, having no admixtures arising from nisarga (imposed nature arising from contact with the guṇas of material nature). Therefore it is called jaiva dharma – the religion of every living being or the path of loving devotion. This idea is completely universal. If we discussed it with anyone, they would easily see the defects of karma, jñāna and yoga. And if they removed these things from their religion, there would remain to them that which is called Vaishnavism.

Sanatana dharma – eternal religion

Wise people are convinced that there cannot be many religions among people. The eternal religion of humans cannot be divided into plenty of extremely opposing factions. At the source, eternal religion can only be one. Why did many religions appear? The correct answer is that religion or dharma is one, when the soul is in its pure state. When the soul becomes conditioned by material nature, dharma acquires two forms: conditioned and unconditioned. Unconditioned dharma does not depend on the country or customs. When the soul identifies itself with material designations and identifies with various places, time or body, due to variety arising in matter, conditioned dharmas also appear in various times in various countries. Conditioned dharma has different names and different forms in various countries. The dharma of the soul becomes unconditioned as much as it manages to liberate itself from material concepts. When jīvas achieve the unconditioned state, they have only one dharma.

This dharma is called sanātana dharma – the eternal religion of the soul.

Sanātana dharma and religious faith

Sanātana dharma does not mean yet another sectarian religious process. It is the eternal function of the eternal living being, connecting it with the eternal Supreme Lord. Sanātana dharma means the eternal occupation of the living being. Śrīpada Rāmānujācārya explained that the word sanātana means "that which has no beginning and end".

Religious faith differs from sanātana dharma. Religious faith (or expressions of a concrete religion or world religions) conveys the idea of faith, and faith can change. One can believe in one process, then change faith and go another path. All this we call religiosity or religious faith, which unfortunately is often called by the name of religion. However sanātana dharma means activity which cannot change. For example, one cannot take out liquidity from water or heat from fire. The eternal function of the living being cannot be taken out from the living being itself. Sanātana dharma is inseparable from the living being. That which has no beginning and end cannot be sectarian, because it cannot be limited. If we researched scientifically, we would see that sanātana dharma is the occupation of all people, and not only them, but also of all living beings in the universe.

Non sanātana dharma or religious faiths can have a beginning in the annals of human history, but sanātana dharma has no beginning, because it eternally remains with living beings. Śāstra states that living beings do not take birth and do not die. They are eternal, indestructible and live after this material body is destroyed. Just so the eternal function of the living being or that which cannot be separated from it is called sanātana dharma – the eternal religion. The inseparable or essential function of the living being is service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead (jīvera svarūpa haya kṛṣṇera nitya dāsa).

We can easily notice that every living being constantly serves other living beings. What differs is only the capacity to serve, however everyone serving enjoys life. Animals serve man, a servant serves the master, a friend serves a friend, and a mother her son, a wife serves the husband, and the husband serves the wife, a seller the buyer etc. People vote for politicians who promise to serve society, and society serves politicians. Not a single living being avoids service. We can safely state that service is an inseparable companion of the living being and therefore exactly service is the eternal religion of the living being.

However people stubbornly claim that they belong to a certain type of faith, depending on time and circumstances. Therefore they claim that they are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or followers of another sect. Such designations are not sanātana dharma. A Hindu can change faith and become a Muslim, and a Muslim can change faith and become a Hindu or a Christian can change his faith etc. But in all cases, the change of religious faith does not affect the eternal occupation – to serve others. Whether a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Christian under all circumstances serves someone. Therefore, to profess a certain faith is not the same as to profess sanātana dharma. Service is sanātana dharma. Factually we are related to the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord is the enjoyer, and we, living entities are His servants. We are created for His pleasure and if we participate in this eternal pleasure of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, we become happy. We cannot become happy otherwise. It is impossible to become happy independently from God, just as the hand cannot experience pleasure not giving food to the stomach.  A living being cannot be happy not performing loving service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Religion and love

In this world there are so many new religions, although they truly are not religions. They are not permanent or eternal religions. These religions can give us only so much information, how to maintain this material existence. For example followers of Buddha dharma do not speak at all about the relation with God, they speak only about their relation with the mortal body. Therefore their religion is not eternal. Nowadays Buddhism is spread everywhere, but they do not believe in God and generally do not believe in anything. They do not even believe in their own existence. Those who follow them can lose their existence and that is all.

If this world is false, if God is false, and if we are false, then love is also false. However without love we cannot survive even a second, therefore this theory is completely false. God is supreme, eternal and He is the embodiment of love and attraction. What religion existed 2000 years ago? Christianity is only 2000 years old, Islam even less. But love existed even before this universe. Love is our true religion and this love is called sanātana dharma or Vedic dharma.

If we throw a stone or a piece of earth or wood into the sky, it will rise a little, and then fall to the ground. Why? Because of the gravitational pull of the earth. Everything made of earth, wood or similar, will fall if nothing holds them. On the other hand, the flame of fire will rise upwards, but will not fall down. If we release an air balloon to the sky, it will rise and never return. The balloon is filled with air. Air and fire are not part of earth. When any part of the whole meets with the whole, they can exist together very happily. Otherwise, if there is no such connection, they will not be able to live. Similarly, we are parts of the Supreme Lord, therefore, until we meet Him with love and attachment, we cannot be happy. This is the philosophy of love.

Even dangerous lions, tigers, bears and venomous snakes, and even thieves have a little love. Despite the ceaseless change of bodies, only love remains with us. We all want ananda , happiness, and real happiness is nothing else but love.

Religion as Justice

One of the meanings of the word dharma is justice or sacred law. If dharma means an inseparable quality of the living being, inevitably this quality will be reflected in his morality and behavior. This reflection of sanātana dharma in human behavior we call justice or sacred law. Sacred law differs from earthly law as meaning from its shadow.

Summary

• Religion as Eternal Relation: True religion is not a temporary faith or sect, but the eternal, ontological relationship between the infinitesimal soul (jīva) and the Infinite Supreme Lord (Krishna).
• Dharma vs. Faith: Religious faiths (Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism) can change, but dharma is the immutable nature of the soul. Just as heat cannot be separated from fire, service cannot be separated from the living being.
• Service to Krishna: The constitutional position of the soul is jīvera ‘svarūpa’ haya — kṛṣṇera ‘nitya-dāsa’: eternal servant of Krishna. This intrinsic nature (Sanātana Dharma) manifests as unconditional loving service.
• Love as the Ultimate Goal: External rules and rituals are secondary. The essence of religion is pure love for God. Without reawakening this dormant love for the Supreme Person, mere religious adherence cannot satisfy the soul's longing for happiness (ananda).