In this dissertation, the topic to be discussed is the religion of nothingness. In these paragraphs, we are preparing the topic from the books about the religion. In this topic, we have discussed how we learned about the religion in according to with the different books and study that how different religions say about the god, believes, their thoughts, motivations. The study is based from some books of different thoughts some discussed that about the piece, some of them are discussed about the heart some of them believe that only good deeds are the important one, so we tried to find out the religion for nothingness as our desires.
Religion of Nothingness
The religion is basically the natural thing something which is very near to the nature. Those who believe and those who do not believe to exactly believe in some kind of religion. The different humans believe in different things some believe that god is one, some believe God is some kind of silence, some believe that the goods have several kinds and someone believes that god is a divine they gave its powers to their humans. For the past several decades the believers on god have to raise but they all claims that on their own believe and faith and customs. The presence or existence of God has the also different kind of believe in this opinion some said that god is present some said that God is immortal so it is clear that the believers on god must present their own opinion in their own faith on the different books which leading one is Holy Quran, Holy Bible (Jochen Katz's Article).
In this dissertation, we have discussed the faith the religion according to the different books in this book of its kind the different authors tried to present their point of views that what is religion? Who is God? Does god exist? In this dissertation, we will explain the rationale for understanding the religion through the different kind of books.
The book the Buddha Mind, Buddha Body by Thich Nhat Hanh, the main arguments on this book are that the religion is not as such the thing which we interoperate it in our own style. In this book related to the Buddha he says about the peace in all senses but to some extent it is possible, but what you said to those who do not adopt peace. Evilness in the side their heart says that you do. What do you wants? This topic refers the amount of peace but how I can ménage and measures the peace in our daily life. Your heart is pure it does not mean that other people which are in front of you is taking you as a lenient person. The best argument regarding this book is that you always preach the essence of peace, and you tried to prove yourself as a mark of excellence (Thich Nhat Hanh).
The Mysticism Mind, Consciousness by Robert K.C. Forman. This book reflects the idea of the mysteriouscism which reflect that the religion is some thing beyond to some extent it is true is certain kind of religions but not all true. The religion plays an important factor in human life it reflects the idea of facts not the other or false picture. The argument about this book is the author falsely mentions the mysteriousness and wrongly connects with the religion (Robert K.C. Forman 1999).>
In the Katz article they criticized about the Muslims and the Holy Quran. The book wrongly present the idea about the Muslims the author said that the good deed only regards with those one who are only Muslims but it is false. The religion of the Muslims does not reflect that kind of thing they said that if you do some kind of good work you will be benefited in this world. The God gives you lot of things except you are Muslim or not (Katz’s Article).
In the book Contemplative Prayer by Thomas Merton. The authors miss out the concept of God and create with it own desires. The idea of Silence is God not true. How is possible that the silence becomes God. The silence is the character of God it is possible, but it is not true that the God is Silence. Basically, The author is monk and practices Christianity, so he explains with only in point of their religion and its thoughts but the concept of God, he explains never right (Thomas Merton).
All the above books are regarding the Humanity concern in which discussed the thoughts about the peace, humanity, brotherhood, so the religion is basically related about the humanity, but as we explained that the theme is different from it explains.
The book “why God won’t go away” by Andrew Newberg, Eugene D’Aquili, Vince Rause. The book explains that the concept of believers and non believers, which explains wrongly. The born after that is connected with the specific kind of religion concept, mostly never explains in other religions. You never impose the logics on the religion because on the body has seen the God in his original character, but they trust on it. Some extent it is possible in certain religions that born after death you were realized as you believe it or not (Andrew Newberg 1997)
In the book, the future of an illusion by Sigmund Freud explains the relationship between human and religion but wrongly described. How it is possible that the religion creates that relation as a child and the parents. The religion is the guidelines and human are the followers to run on those guidelines. The religion explains that how you prepared your life how you will become a good person for yourself and for others but never explains the commandments according to their own desires it is the duty of the messenger to explain that kind of guidelines. The teacher explains that kind of phrase which students cannot get it rightly so the messenger explains that kind of phrases (Sigmund Freud).
The book the meaning and end of religion by Wilfred Cantwell Smith. The author says that the religion is the combination of sciences and certain commandments, which is not true because science proves that certain elements of the religion and proved it but science is religion it is not true because religion explains and science proves. The author explains the comparison of different religions, but he forgot that point the believers of different religions adopt according to their faith and that messages which came the messenger. In Christianity the concept of God is different; In Hinduism the concept of God is different. Some said about God is only one, some of them believe in different parts of god, do that you cannot compare one religion with another because believes are different in nature (Wilfred Cantwell Smith)
All of the three books depended upon the modernity, the social and the natural sciences and gave the idea about the scientific facts about the religion and how it will be proving that the religion has to be proved. The Comparison of different religion became a false statement because religions stood on the faith of believes and commandments.
In the book essential mystics by Andrew Harvey conceived the idea about the Christianity and the philosophy, but you cannot mingle with the religion and the philosophy with the each other. The Christianity thought about the Christ, angels, part of the God, but philosophy cannot allow him to think like believers, so that you cannot merge the religion with the philosophy (Andrew Harvey 1997).
In another related The Sacred and The Profane by Mircea Eliade. The book cannot explain the spiritual blesses and the civilizations rightly. The civilization became with the people but the spiritual powers, or blesses to arise from the God or from the religion. The civilization is the part of spiritual powers but bless is not arising from the civilization it is arising from the God. The humankind that author considered is the neutral person but religion explains that he is the follower rather than the neutral one. The spiritual characters practices not for the special one but it explains the general one (Mircea Eliade 1971).
In the book, The Sacred Canopy by Peter L. Berger explains that the he is interested in the relationship between society, and the development of society, and religion. The society and its development comes for the sake of it that persons gets united their visions are clear, but religion explains how you can develop the society by the people. The religion always explains that in every part of the world you believed and lived with peace but society cannot explain the religion, nobody explains the religion where it from but society develops and implemented over the rules of the religion (Peter L. Berger 1967).
In God’s sensations of the world, the individuality and eccentricity of each feature of realism are conserved as such. (As far as humans are troubled, there is no motive for us to refuse the opportunity of some sort of slanted endurance beyond death as well as a purpose immortality in God’s own feeling.) The universality of the artistic purposiveness of the universe does not trim down the value of each individual circumstance by allowing it to be dissolved into the entirety. The universal synchronization that Dostoevski’s Ivan Karamazov reviled because of its selfishness to scrupulous anguishes is foreign to this teleological apparition. God’s compassion to the meticulous feelings of every individual is unfading even while giving it a wider meaning than it can itself understand.
However, the vision of God as responsive to and preservative of all the world’s experiences does not respond to an insurmountable question: It contracted that God sympathetically squeezes our joys and sufferings with ceaseless nearness, why would God allow distress to occur in the first place??