[In this section we seek to answer frequently asked questions, at U.L.T. meetings or during private conversations and discussions with people who seek the answers in the light of Theosophy. Answers given in this section are by no means final. Only a line of thought is being offered by applying general principles of Theosophy.]

Question: The Enlightened One says: "Trust is the best of relationships." However, we find that it is not easy or practical to trust any and everyone. Often, people betray our trust. How do we understand and live up to the Buddha's precept?

Answer: As beginners, we may keep in mind the cardinal virtue of "Prudence." Prof. C.S. Lewis writes: "Prudence means practical common sense, taking the trouble to think out what you are doing and what is likely to come of it....Christ told us to be not only 'as harmless as doves,' but also 'as wise as serpents'." In other words, we may use our discrimination. For instance, when someone gives us back the money he owed, we must count before putting it into our pocket. So also, if a person is known to be a cheat, we may think twice before dealing with him or trusting him. Then again, it is possible that some people cannot be trusted with money, but can be trusted to keep a secret, to keep their word, or to finish their work on time, and so on. In short, there may be areas in which they are perfectly trustworthy.

We must have a healthy relationship with ourselves and with others. If we lack faith in others, we find ourselves in a terrible state of mind—a mind full of suspicion. As a matter of fact the world runs on trust. We trust that the Sun will rise at a certain time and it does. It is not only nature which is trustworthy, but even man-made things and affairs run on trust. We travel by trains, buses and planes without any feeling of apprehension or doubt, as we know that the driver/pilot has taken on a job and will do his best. We trust our servants, not only to do the work they have been assigned, but also not to steal from our homes. There is the exceptional servant who will even murder for money. But have we stopped employing servants? Why not? It is because we feel that, by and large, we can put our trust in them. The murderer becomes news, the trustworthy don't.

We trust our teachers, our parents and our children. If our trust happens to be misplaced, if we get cheated, can we say it is only chance? If there is not even a misshapen day in our lives then everything comes to us under law. We must have sown some causes that have led to the present situation. In such a case let us not blame the person but only the act. We may decide not to have any future dealings with him, but we must not put him out of our heart.

"Trust is the best of relationships." This verse occurs in the chapter on "Happiness" in the Dhammapada. It seems to suggest that among other things, mutual trust in human relationship is productive of happiness. Trust begets trust. If we do not trust the law and other human beings, we cannot live in the world. Trust alone can bind humanity into one grand whole. The dictionary defines trust as (1) confidence in the honesty, integrity and reliability of a person and (2) faith.

Light on the Path describes faith as "a great engine, an enormous power, which in fact can accomplish all things. For it is the covenant or engagement between man's divine part and his lesser self" (p. 50). In other words, faith or trust in the other person, is trust/faith in his spiritual nature. We may say that it is trusting his spiritual nature to ultimately triumph, because at the base of every nature, there is faith, love and hope.

Robert Crosbie remarked about W. Q. Judge: "I trusted him then, as I trust him now and all those whom he trusted; to me it seems that 'trust' is the bond that binds, that makes the strength of the Movement, for it is of the heart" (Vernal Blooms, p. 1). Trust or faith is one of the innate ideas possessed by all human beings, that which was burnt into the minds of infant humanity and which manifested also as devotion. Infants and children have immense trust in their parents. A child holding the hand of the adult goes wherever it is taken. When man received "the spark of consciousness, the first feeling it awoke to life and activity was a sense of solidarity, of oneness with his spiritual creators—as the child's first feeling is for its mother and nurse...DEVOTION arose out of that feeling, and became the first and foremost motor in his nature; for it is the only one which is natural in our heart, which is innate in us, and which we find alike in human babe and the young of the animal." (S.D., II, 210)

We would do well to differentiate between spiritual principles on the one hand and our ability to apply them on the other hand. Just because we cannot apply them up to the hilt, does not mean that they are not practicable. We must admit—deep down in our heart—our inability to live up to a spiritual precept, but never seek to dilute, belittle or explain it away. Immanuel Kant described moral and ethical injunctions as "Categorical Imperatives," i.e., there are no "ifs" and "buts" about them. It is no use saying, "Don't expect me to be a saint," because, if we want to be spiritual, we must act as spirituality requires us to act. Often, it is also a question of how willing we are to suffer the consequences that practice of such a spiritual precept may bring. Spiritual life is never easy. Is it easy to live up to Jesus' injunction and offer our right cheek to the one who smites us on our left cheek?

However, we must keep in mind that a spiritual man trusts irrespective of the consequences, unafraid of betrayal. Just as we have to learn to love unconditionally, so too, we have to learn to trust unconditionally.

Question: If no religion teaches enmity, why then, are there wars in the name of religion?

Answer: People generally feel that religion is a matter of beliefs and emotions in which there is no scope or need for enquiry or seeking of explanation. We seldom, if ever, question. Somehow we feel that to question the scriptures or religious authorities is to be irreverent towards our religion. We prefer to follow the beaten track, blindly adopting the opinion of the majority. Mr. Crosbie defines true religion thus:

True Religion must give us a basis for thinking, and consequently, a basis for acting; it must give us an understanding of nature, of ourselves and of other beings. Religion is a bond uniting men together—not a particular set of dogmas—binding not only all Men, but also all Beings and all things in the entire Universe, into one grand whole. (The Friendly Philosopher, p. 211)

It is the prerogative of every man to find out if his religion satisfies the above definition. We find that religions and religious creeds with their rituals and dogmas are intellectual extinguishers. We accept things on blind belief. It is felt that to have blind belief is to have strong faith. H.P.B. observes that between faith on authority and faith on one's spiritual intuition there is a great difference. She quotes Tourgenyeff who said that blind faith is like the logic of some emotional people, for whom 2 plus 2 could be 5, if the priest says so. It is this kind of blind faith which leads to religious conflicts and makes one a fanatic. H.P.B. points out that "He who believes his own religion on [such a] faith, will regard that of every other man as a lie, and hate it on that same faith." Vivekananda explains it thus:

The great disadvantage of [Bhakti or devotion] is that in its lower forms it oftentimes degenerates into hideous fanaticism....The singleness of attachment (Nishtha) to a loved object, without which no genuine love can grow, is very often also the cause of denunciation of everything else....This kind of love is somewhat like the canine instinct of guarding the master's property from intrusion; only the instinct of the dog is better than the reason of man, for the dog never mistakes its master for an enemy in whatever dress he may come before it. Again the fanatic loses all power of judgement. (Bhakti-Yoga, pp. 4-5)

All religions have two aspects. The first is the spiritual and metaphysical and the second is the code of conduct. Of these, the metaphysical part is often beyond the grasp of a large number of followers and they go more by the code of conduct given by the Teacher. Sometimes the code of conduct is not so explicit. People tend to depend on purohits, pandits or priests, who may even deliberately misinterpret the teachings, add or subtract to suit their own purpose and to hold sway over the people. Neither the spiritual truths nor the code of conduct differ, in essence, between different religions, but the words used to express them naturally do differ and the interpretations certainly do, even more. For instance, the Mosaic law, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," was interpreted to mean one could take revenge, though originally it probably only referred to the way the law of Karma operates in nature. Also, the original or early disciples, in every religion, are serious practitioners; but with the passing away of the Teacher, the inspiration wanes. A large majority just uses the code of conduct that gradually degenerates into customs and traditions. They get bogged down by rituals and ceremonies. Morality does get thrown to the winds.

Then again, most people desire to possess material goods in abundance and it is easy to covet the wealth of another, especially, if they can be designated as belonging to another faith and therefore counted as enemies. Call someone an enemy and some people feel they have a license to loot, kill or even to rape. Commandments are misinterpreted to mean that if you can convert a person to your religion or even kill someone belonging to another faith you will have an assured place in heaven! Calling another a kafir (infidel) or a mleccha (one belonging to a religion other than Hindu/a foreigner) is a sure way of considering him an enemy who deserves no quarter.

In some religions, people belonging to the same faith but not the same cult were burnt at the stake, on the pretext of sending them thus to heaven. Some maintained that the founder had given them permission to spread the religious teachings by force. Religious wars were deemed holy wars.

He who knows others is wise; he who knows himself is enlightened.

—Tao Te Ching