2 TOLSTOY VIEW’S ABOUT RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN THE COFFEE HOUSE OF SURAT

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Hitherto, history is colored with disputes about religions among the people. This is irony since every religion has a concept of peace and truth. When truth faces truth it should result the greater truth, but what happen here is the inverse. People fight to force their 'truth' in the name of religion or the God toward others. People kill other people and destroy everything in the name of truth. The obvious instance of this is what has been happening between Israel and Palestine. In the narrower scope, what has happened in Jakarta on June 1, 2008 is another example. Such disputes occur in many places every time. Even recently the terrorism issue, the biggest issue of this decade, is also has got something to do with religious pluralism. How could it happen?
The dangerous of religious disputes is latent as long as there is no understanding between the people about pluralism. People, no matter their religion, nationality, gender, tribe, skin color should realize that the disputes, especially related it with religious faith, are irresponsible at any respect. They should realize that the point of having religion is not to ruin each other.
Basically every religion commands its follower to do the truth. For example Islamic doctrine basically commands its followers to uphold justice, and Christian doctrine basically commands its followers to uphold love and affection. But practically the problem occurs in the society dealing with religious pluralism. People force their concept of truth. They claim that the truly God is belong to them; the salvation is belong to them, and so on. It is not only that, the disputes often happen in various ways and involve violence. By then, solutions are not simple.
Concern with such ironical facts, here I would like to study what is behind the problems of religious in the world and how people should deal with and figure out the differences.
It is Leo Tolstoy, the remarkable author who concerns much with religious matter both in his actual life and in his literary works. Here I will analyze his view about the differences of the religious in the world through his short story The Coffee-House of Surat that is taken from The Best Stories and Tales of Leo Tolstoy, Crest Publishing House. New Delhi. 2003.
This short story is important to be studied by students in which it gives people the best example and solution to the problem dealing with the differences among religion faiths. In this story, the readers will deal with the conventional idea about possibility of the truth of religions. They are; 1) There is only one religion that is true, and the rests are wrong, 2) All religions are true, 3) All religion are wrong, and 4) There is only one religion that is true and the rests are part in the truth. Which one does Tolstoy include himself of? Or does he has his own perspective?
Tolstoy himself is the right figure to be referred in this issue. His life is a representative of a human truth-finding. He learns religions to serve his thirsty of truth. His religious life is interesting too.
Tolstoy discarded all the miracles, the ceremonial rituals, the Holy Trinity, the immortality of the soul, the eternity of life and several other principles of traditional religion…He also discarded much of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Not only this, he also wrote his 'own' corrected version of the Gospels after having studied Greek. Tolstoy called Christ as 'the man Jesus'. According to him, Christ was not the Son of God, but only a wise man who had come in this mortal world to give the true explanation of life. (The Luminous Life of Leo Tolstoy; p. 22-23)

Shortly, by analyzing this short story, I do not intend to say that Tolstoy's view is the best among others dealing with the differences about the nature of God and religious. My intention is that the reader will have broad horizon about the differences in religious faith and by then they will understood and no more have a narrow-sighted view in this issue.
1.2 Reasons for Choosing the Topic
There are several reasons why I am interested in analyzing this topic. First, religious is universal issue in which it affect people even to them who regarded themselves as atheists. Religions for a long time have influenced both social and individual life. In some countries, religions even become a weltanschauung or the way of life; the legal ideology of the countries. And the history has noted that religious disputes could be very serious like what had happened between Moslems and Christians in Crusade. The war lasts for nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Hitherto the disputes among religions are still happened in Palestine, Israel, Thailand, India and many other countries. The disputes are not necessarily among different religions, but it could be happened among religious sects within a religion like what has happened in Jakarta recently on June 1, 2008.
Second, the short story “The Coffee-House of Surat” explicitly tells the readers a story about disputes among members of religious community in Surat, India. The dispute is marked by arguing or in dialog form. It is indeed one of the characteristic of educated people to use arguments to influence others. We calls it propaganda when it deals with any particular interest to promote religious cause or point of view. It is happened in the story and through the story the author suggests the best resolution to these disputes; that is by the using of knowledge and wisdom.
Third, Tolstoy is well-known as a brilliant and outstanding author who care so much about religious issue. And he also has a great influence in the world. For example, Mohandas Charamchad Gandhi is one of those who admired him and had been influenced by his view dealing with religious pluralism. Gandhi is well-known as the great and influenced figure in history that succeeds to overcome the disputes among Moslems and Hindus in India with less violence. Instead of using violence to overcome the problem, he suggests philosophical view and wisdom as the best solution.
For those all reasons, therefore I regard that this theme is important and interesting to be analyzed.

1.3 Statement of the Problems
In this paper, I limit the discussion by stating the following problems:
1. What are the problems of religious pluralism in the short story?
2. How does Tolstoy see the religious pluralism through the short story?
1.4 Objective of the Study
In this paper, the objective of the study can be stated as follows:
1. to understand religious pluralism and to give an insight to the reader how people should deal with the differences without quarrelling, especially to avoid violence in doing that,
2. to find out the best solution to overcome the problems that occur because of the difference believe of religions,
3. finally, the best of all is to introduce Tolstoy's perspective about religious pluralism.
1.5 Significance of the Study
By conducting this study, the result of the study is expected to be able to give the following benefits:
1. The study would be able to give a relative comprehensive information about religious pluralism concept especially to those who concern with religious issues and to readers as general
2. Because it is impossible to omit the differences in this plural world, like or dislike people need to develop reconciliation among religions, therefore this study is expected to give a caution about the problem of religious pluralism to the reader and to think critically dealing with religious pluralism
3. The study is expected to give the readers a knowledge about views of religious pluralism among philosopher especially Tolstoy's view about religious pluralism as one of important figure in history.
1.6 Outline of the Study
The outline of the study is as follows:
Chapter I is an introduction. It consists of the background of the study, the reason for choosing the topic, the problem statement, the purpose of conducting the research, the significance of the study and the outline.
Chapter II is review of related literature. It discusses the literature concepts that relates to the topic of discussion.
Chapter III is method of investigation. It consists of the research that will be conducted to gather data, the object of the study, method of the data collection, method of analyzing the data.
Chapter IV is the result of the study. It discusses the analyses of the data taken from the research and provide the answers to the research problems.
Chapter V is a conclusion and suggestion. It consists of the conclusion of the study and the suggestion from the writer.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
To understand of Tolstoy's view about religious pluralism in “The Coffee House of Surat” here I provide some philosophical views about truth and religion, the biography of Tolstoy and some definition of the terms.
2.1 Philosophical Views about Truth and Religion
The question about the nature of God is often close related with the question about self authenticity, and it belongs to the most ancient question that maybe occurs with the existence of human being itself. The question such as who am I, why am I here, where do I come from, where will I go after death, what is death, etc are the basic question every human being has deep in his or her mind. It is maybe as old as the existence of human itself.
Every born human being inherits a kind of natural curiosity about those questions. They want to reveal the mystery of the life, the rule of the world, and how to manage life properly. In the pursuing to the answers of those questions, then human deal with religious concepts in which it is claims that it comes from the God himself as the guidance to human to get happiness for eternity or salvation. The problems occur here when there is not only one religion but many and they contradict each other. Those religions claim that the truly God is belong to them; the salvation is belong to them, etc. Then the truly problems occur when there are efforts to propagandize and influence people to join to the brotherhood of the religion and at the same time they claim that other religions are false and untrue.
Some people are eager to find out the truth rather than just possession and wealthy in the world; we calls them philosophers. In the short story “The Coffee House of Surat”, they are represented by a young man student of Confucius. From its terminology, philosopher means people who love wisdom or knowledge. To them the most important thing to find out in this world is the truth, and the great truth and the most ancient one is about the nature of God, human, nature, life and death. Such people do not much care about the possession and pleasure in the world. To them what many people try to pursue in this world such as power, wealthy or gold, sex, etc are all trivial and shallow things compare to the issues. I suppose that Tolstoy is one of them. He lives ascetic.
A philosopher named Voltaire says that the happiness along the human life is no more than tiresome schedule. Another philosopher exclaims to find out the truth no matter in heaven or in hell. And Tolstoy through his short story “The Coffee House of Surat” tries to teach people how to deal with religions disputes. His motto of his life is “my hero is truth”.
Philosophers question religion in various ways. In one of his literary work Kahlil Gibran asks whether God creates men or the inverse. Other philosopher like Nietzsche states that God was died after he sees that Church has lost its hegemony in Europe at the time, and Karl Mark stated that Religion is an addict.
If we analyze the tendency to find the truth, we will come to the theory of sociology of society behavior from Auguste Comte. Comte thinks that if men believes “social actions follow no law and are, in fact, arbitrary and fortuitous, they can take no concert action to ameliorate their lot. Under these circumstances men naturally clash with one another in the pursuit of their differing individual interests” (Bolender, 2004). He comes to the conclusion that men do not get along because they are different from one another, and interests vary as well as opinions. Bolender quotes Comte saying, “'We shall find that there is no chance of order and agreement but in subjecting social phenomena, like all others, to invariable natural laws, which shall, as a whole, prescribe for each period, with entire certainty, the limits and character of social action'”(Bolender, 2004).
Comte also states his theory by three stages of human development. "The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions, each branch of our knowledge, passes successively through three different theoretical conditions: the Theological, or fictitious; the Metaphysical, or abstract; and the Scientific, or positive."
1. Theological Stage
a) Fetishism
b) Polytheism
c) Monotheism
2. Metaphysical or Abstract Stage
3. Positive Stage
The higher of the stage, human is more concern with the concrete reasonable idea.
One of the most basic points of view that determines the entire life of man is the idea of whether this life is predestined or not. The belief of external versus internal locus power influences the continuity of one's life.
The connection with the religious pluralism is clear here that individual point of view is the base of the differences. For example one who believes that life is predestine wouldn't care too much about other people faith, he or she would let people do what they like as long as it doesn't disturb his or her as individual.
In “War and Peace” Tolstoy believes that everything is predestined.
"In historical events great men - so-called - are but labels serving to give a name to the event, and like labels they have the least possible connection with the event itself. Every action of theirs, that seems to them an act of their own free will, is in an historical sense not free at all, but in bondage to the whole course of previous history, and predestined from all eternity." (from War and Peace)

In The Coffee House of Surat he tries to emphasize the same idea by revealing the story about the inferiority of human knowledge toward the real untouched-truth. He praises the knowledge and wisdom by presenting a characteristic of student of Confucius as the man who mediate and resolve the quarrel of men from different countries and different religions. People quarrel because of their lack of knowledge about God and he believes that the God is one and acknowledge by different names by different people. His view maybe represents Tolstoy's view about God. This view basically is not different with Karen Amstrong's view in her book titled 'A History of God'.
Tolstoy's view is also congruent with Gandhi's. In the Gandhi Sutra, Gandhi writes that he has already learned many religion faiths from Islam, Christian, protestant, and others and eventually he concludes that God is one but people acknowledge it in many ways. He argues that the most suitable religion for India people is Hindu, he believes that no one in India who dumb enough to consider a stone sculpture as a God. It is just a representative (visualization) of the God. He writes that Hindus has three representatives of Gods those are Shiva, Visnu and Brahmana, just similar with Christian has trinity and Moslem has 100 names with different characters of the God.
Many people who believe that everything is predestined usually began to be a pacifist and believe that there is nothing to do with everything. That people do not have the right and capability to judge others since there is no different between west and east, truth and wrong, everything is nothing in the nothingness.
Each people have their own opinion about anything and no one is able and has right to judge which one is right or which one is wrong. All the same with the definition of the God, the language never have the ability to give proper description, language is human bondage.
Facing this dilemma, Tolstoy seems to be passive but he doesn't. He believes that life is predestined. But he also believes that people should try to find the truth.

2.1.1 Different Points of View
"What we see is not the reality objective of an object. Rather, it is an image that is created by 'the computer' in our brain so that we recognize it as a familiar object. (Julian Opie, a painter). Just similar with the case where painters will see one object differently and therefore will produce or result different painting, people see things in the quite similar way. So the subject here is brain or thinking. Here we come to the theory of relativity. It implies that truth is not real or at least not objective. Such idea is something to do with deconstruction in which the truth is not seen lying in the text but in the context.
As long as a man cannot free from the time and place, I can say that her/his life is predestine. Why he born in certain time, certain year, certain place, certain circumstance in which it shape their perception toward everything later and finally influence her/his decision in this life? Have anything to do with them, or do they have any choices in such things? Or even their choices have already destined before he was born?
Actually the choices seem open to every single individual in her/his life and therefore the effects or consequences of the choices will different. It is true either. So in one side a man has choice and in other side a man has no choice. There are different areas here. First, that certain thing are beyond human capability, for example, why he was born in certain situation, as a male or female, born form certain family (black, white, color), etc., in which he has no choice at all. Second, that he has free will and the consequences in natural law coverage. If he cut his finger, it bleeds, if he cut his throat, he die, etc. The conclusion is that a man cannot free from destiny. Every living being will die (Al-Quran). It is a faith. From here on I see that Tolstoy views that the big things such as born, die, truth is predestine and therefore time is predestine. So the choices are vague. A man only has choices in trivial things that basically do not change anything.
2.1.2 Religion as a Paradox
People see paradox along their life, so does Tolstoy. The difference between he and the others (common people) is that he seriously responds toward what he see. What is meant by paradox here is a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that may in fact be true. For example are the wars and evils that are caused by religion faith. All religions teach their followers to believe in destiny but at the same time they order them to uphold goodness and avoid badness and offer heaven for goodness and hell for badness. It is just one example of paradox in religion.
Xenophanes believes that it is impossible to ascertain the truth in the theological issues. “The certain truth is that no one knows or will ever know about Gods and everything I talk about. Yes, if anyone accidentally tells the truth, he himself doesn't really know that it is true-nothing but assessment”.

Julian Opie, a contemporary English painter, states that what we see is actually not an objective reality of an object but it is merely an image that is created by the 'computer' in our brain as if we recognize it. Therefore everything is depended on the subject who see the object rather that the object itself. From hereafter it can be concluded that nothing is absolute including the truth when we put it as an object since the value alters from one to another person or subject. It is also a paradox since truth should be absolute to be a truth.
Just as poststructuralism argues that a text's meaning is constantly changing because it is the product of the ever changing context of language, of the interactive play of linguistic relations between it and other texts (including the embodied textual formation and practices we identify as our reading and writing selves); so Dewey argues that the work's meaning is constantly changing (Shusterman, Richard. 1992 p.31).

From this point of view, the analysis to find the truth is simply become irrelevant. It means that truth should be absolute to be a truth but it is not (relative). For example when one asks what time is it now? The answer would be for example, it is 7 o'clock. We know that time is relative. When right now is really is? When one say now, it already the past since limit time is impossible to be known. According to Einstein people experience time differently, time run slower when one moves faster, he calls it relativity. Dealing with such paradox, in this world people pursue the truth, but they will never have one because the value will decrease or increase continuously as it is fulfilled just like the theory of decreasing value by Adam Smith. Therefore people will never satisfy with their life. Truth is like a rainbow, always there but we cannot reach it.
According to Tolstoy in “The Coffee House of Surat,” knowledge is the key and the answer of everything, but what the content of the 'knowledge' itself is no one can reach it; therefore all we need is to try to understand instead of to judge since no one knows the truth. The debate in the Coffee House of Surat about religious truth to find out which religious is truth is happened everywhere, every time even in the deep of our brain, the debate exists there and we never know the truth.
However, men are the only creatures who realize that she/he will die, and therefore every single person wants and needs to know the 'truth'. But every suggested answer that was offered by scholars and philosophers likely has failed to satisfy everyone. People doubt because basically they realize that truth is not absolute.
Kahlil Gibran restlessly asked in one of his literary works whether God creates man or man creates God. In this case Gibran learned and at the same time questioned about the religious truth, just like Tolstoy. From their works we know that they do not satisfy with the concept about religious truth that already exist.
Another philosopher like Nietzsche finally lost his faith toward God and the truth related with it. He believes that the abstract concept like God existence is not important toward people and therefore could be neglected. God and religions have become problems of human life rather than a solution, like Mark states that religion is addict. Nietzsche writes:
Perhaps the most solemn conceptions that have caused the most fighting and suffering, the conceptions 'God' and 'sin,' will one day seem to us of no more importance than a child's plaything or a child's pain seems to an old man...(Beyond Good and Evil p.86)

Their idea about truth is materialistic; something should be proved by senses or reason. Human do not need God, if he does not out of his house and kill a bird, he will not have a bird to be eaten. Basically man and animal are alike. The only thing of the real problem of man is to survive.
Another philosopher, Jacques Derrida with his concept of deconstruction tries to propose that truth is not textual but contextual. Truth depends on many aspects like custom, history, etc. So deconstruction believes in dualism in which truth is never absolute and fixedly decided. Therefore for him nothing is sacred and nothing is impossible. He exclaimes, 'go there you cannot go; to the impossible. It is indeed the only way of coming and going.'
Antisthenes, a pupil of Socrates, twenty years older than Plato, he has something in common with Tolstoy after the death of Socrates (and the lost of Athena, or loathe with the long draw out of philosophy debate), cause him to undervalue everything he valued before. He doesn't pursue anything but a simple goodness. He gathers himself to poor worker and think like them. He does not fully ascetic, but he denies the luxurious life and all effort to pursue the physical happiness that is deceitful. “I better be insane than be rejoice,” he remarks.
Tolstoy himself by the story “The Coffee House of Surat” believes that everything is predestine, just like his believe in “War and Peace,” that there is something bigger than man and his knowledge. In “The Coffee House of Surat” he described various arguments from many religion faiths and proved that all the arguments are insignificant toward the real truth 'one big thing'. I borrow the term from the fox and hedgehog story to describe Tolstoy contradict between 'one big thing' (the true knowledge, the destiny) against 'everything' (arguments, humanefforts). According to him, all of people's believe does not have impact toward the truth itself. He wants to say that the debate is useless and irrelevant because they do not know what they are really on. Human efforts toward the impact in the large scale of truth are insignificant; it can be seen in the history. So much a man has knowledge he will understand that he is less significant toward the truth. And all are predestine.
2.2 About the Author
Leo Tolstoy can be regarded as the most influential Russian author in history. His two masterpieces give us a real impression of the combination between his wisdom and cleverness. His style is original and unique since he doesn't care much about the style.
Isaiah Berlin in his book, 'Tolstoy and History' described his cunning and cleverness by differentiating between thinker and writer. He described the two kinds by expression, fox and hedgehog. 'A fox knows everything, but a hedgehog knows one big thing'. He includes Tolstoy as both fox and hedgehog although he is maybe more a hedgehog than a fox.
In War and Peace, his first masterpiece, he believes that human are less significant in forming history than what people believe. He believes that everything is predestined. In Anna Karenina, his second masterpiece and the most famous one among his other literary works, again he implies that people cannot fly away from the destiny. In the beginning of the novel he put his sentence that become famous immediately to describe Anna Karenina in a whole story. “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
It is interesting that Tolstoy is not trapped to be a nihilist. For nihilist, truth is nothing in nothingness, all the same, having no value. For Tolstoy, he worship truth above all. His motto is; my hero is truth. Maybe that's why Isaiah Berlin regarded him as both clever and wise, as both author and thinker.
In his later works, he much concerns in religious topic. At least we can find it easily in 'My Confession', 'The Kingdom of God Is Within You', 'God See the Truth but Wait', Hadji Murad, etc. But we cannot neglect that his early works are also contain some aspects of religion and humanity.
In this final project, I take one of his short story that I regarded as the most representative one in his believe about religious pluralism, how he act toward pluralism and what his view about religious generally and about truth and life.
2.3 Some Definition of Terms
Religion
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods. a particular system of faith and worship.
2 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

God
1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe; the supreme being.
2 (God) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. an image of a God; an idol.


Paradox
1 a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that may in fact be true. ? an apparently sound statement or proposition which leads to a logically unacceptable conclusion.
2 a person or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.

Pluralism
1 a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, etc., coexist. ? a political theory or system of power-sharing among a number of political parties.
2 Philosophy a theory or system that recognizes more than one ultimate principle. Compare with monism.
3 the practice of holding more than one office or Church benefice at a time.

Deconstruction
a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.

2.3.1 A description of some of the Meanings of "Religious Pluralism"
Religious pluralism equals religious diversity:
Some consider religious pluralism and religious diversity to be synonyms; That is, pluralism is a simple recognition of the fact that there are many different faith groups active in the country. Using this definition, religious pluralism is a statistical fact according to data collected by census offices and public opinion pollsters.
Examples using religious pluralism as a synonym for religious diversity are:
"The Pluralism Project was developed by Diana L. Eck at Harvard University to study and document the growing religious diversity of the United States..." From the mission of the Pluralism Project. 1
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry 2
"...the new religious pluralism [in Brazil was] created mainly by the rapid growth of Protestant Pentecostalism." 3 Kenneth P. Serbin, discussing the loss of dominance by the Roman Catholic Church in Brazil.
"Definition [of pluralism]: A condition of society in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups coexist within one nation." 4 A definition from a US Navy lecture.
"Religious pluralism: Effectively, the same as religious diversity." 5 A definition from CSA Illumina's "Religious discovery guides," at: http://www.csa.com/
Religious pluralism involves inter-religious dialogue:
Another definition relates to the most basic form of ecumenism, where individuals of different religions dialogue and learn from each other without attempting to convince each other of the correctness of their individual set of beliefs. For example:
"...pluralism is not the sheer fact of this plurality alone, but is active engagement with plurality. Pluralism and plurality are sometimes used as if they were synonymous. But plurality is just diversity, plain and simple -- splendid, colorful, maybe even threatening. Such diversity does not, however, have to affect me. I can observe diversity. I can even celebrate diversity, as the cliché goes. But I have to participate in pluralism....Pluralism requires the cultivation of public space where we all encounter one another." 1 Diana Eck
"Pluralism...holds to one's own faith, and at the same time, engages other faiths in learning about their path and how they want to be understood.... Pluralism and dialogue are the means for building bridges and relationships that create harmony and peace on our planet home." 6 M. Basye Holland-Shuey
"Fundamental to the philosophical acceptance of pluralism is the conviction that we have no self-evident, incorrigible means of establishing the truth of our assertions. This is not to say that we have no means available; however, the means at our disposal will not necessarily convince those with whom we disagree. Consequently, we must hold open the possibility that those who disagree with us do so rationally. This position implies neither relativism nor indifferentism to truth. It simply suggests that we cannot coerce others into believing as we do. We can offer our reasons for so believing, but these reasons, even if sufficient to support our claims, will not compel others to accept our beliefs." 7 Ronald Thiemann
Religious pluralism means accepting other religions' validity:
Another definition of religious pluralism involves accepting the beliefs taught by religions other that your own as valid, but not necessarily true. Some citations with slightly different meanings are listed below:
Religions are all legitimate and valid:
"The belief that multiple religions or secular world views are legitimate and valid. Each is true when viewed from within its own culture."
"...through a cynical intellectual sleight of hand, some critics have linked pluralism with a valueless relativism -- an undiscriminating twilight in which 'all cats are gray,' all perspectives equally viable, and as a result, equally uncompelling." Diana Eck 1
Religions teach multiple truths -- all valid:
"The theory that there are more than one...[kind]...of ultimate reality and/or truth - and that therefore more than one religion can be said to have the truth (way to God, salvation, etcetera)." Anton Hein, Webmaster of Apologetics Index, a counter-cult web site. 8
Religions are equally valid:
"Pluralism is an affirmation of the validity of every religion, and the refusal to choose between them, and the rejection of world evangelism...." John Stott, Anglican theologian. 9
"I think that the current notion of religious pluralism is stupid....The stupid concept is the idea that all religions are basically equally true. That is just flat out stupid." Gregory Koukl, 10
"Many people today confuse traditional Western religious tolerance with religious pluralism....the latter assumes all religions are equally valid, resulting in moral relativism and ethical chaos..." Robert E. Regier & Timothy J. Dailey 11
Religions converge on a single truth:
"...all spiritual paths are finally leading to the same sacred ground." Susan Laemmle, Rabbi and Dean of Religious Live at USC. 12
"By definition, religious pluralism is the notion that all religions constitute varying conceptions of the Ultimate Reality." Sukidi 13
"Religious Pluralism is the view that all religions are equally valid as ways to God. Pluralists often refer to the fact that, just as there are many paths up Mt. Fuji, so there are many paths to God. Differences among the religions are superficial; they all lead to the same goal. This is the epitome of tolerance and relativism." Rick Rood. 14
Religious truths are relative:
"Pluralism holds that distinct cultural beliefs are true for that culture--but not for cultures that operate out of a different 'paradigm.' Pluralists say that [religious] truth is a 'social construction.' It is created through social consensus and tradition, not discovered in reality that exists independently of our beliefs." Jim Leffel, Xenos Fellowship, a Fundamentalist Christian group. 15
Religious truths are different responses to the divine:
"...religious pluralism is the theory that the great world religions constitute varying conceptions of, and responses to, the one ultimate, mysterious divine reality." Seena Fazel, member of the Baha'i Faith. 16
"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God." Baha'u'llah, founder of the Baha'i Faith 17

Religious diversity is to be valued:
"...affirmation of a set of values beyond [one's] traditional allegiances." Rhys H. Williams 10
References used:
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay.
1. Diana L. Eck., "The challenge of pluralism," The Pluralism Project, Harvard University, at: http://www.pluralism.org/
2. Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue. Reported by the News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, 1993-AUG-16:
3. Kenneth Serbin, "The Catholic Church, religious pluralism, and democracy in Brazil," The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies," at: http://www.nd.edu/~kellogg/WPS/263.pdf **
4. "Religious Pluralism in the US Navy," at: http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Chaplain/ This file requires MicroSoft PowerPoint software to read.
5. "Religious discovery guides," CSA Illumina, at: http://www.csa.com/
6. M. Basye Holland-Shuey, "Religious Pluralism and Interfaith Dialogue," a speech given to the Unitarian Universalist Church of Florence, AL, 2002-JAN-13. http://www.uushoals.com/
7. Quoted in: Michael Ing, "Toward a Confucian Pluralism: Globalization in Dialogue," Confucian Studies, at: http://smedia.vermotion.com/ **
8. The Apologetics Index discusses religious pluralism at: http://www.gospelcom.net/
9. "Interview with Dr. John Stott," Orange County Register, 1998-OCT-3. Online at: http://www.gospelcom.net/
10. Gregory Koukl, "Religious Pluralism," Stand to Reason radio program, at: http://www.str.org/free/
11. "Religious 'Pluralism' or Tolerance?", Q&A section, Culture Facts, Family Research Council website. It was accessible to subscribers at http://www.frc.org/, but has since been deleted from the FRC web site. More details.

12. Diana Eck, "Education as transformation: From religious diversity to religious pluralism," at: http://www.wellesley.edu/
13. Sukidi, "Islamic foundations amid pluralism," at: http://mail2.factsoft.de/
14. Rick Rood, "Is Jesus the only Savior?," Mind Games, at: http://www.northave.org/
15. Jim Lefell, "Christian witness in a pluralistic age," Xenos Fellowship, at: http://www.xenos.org/
16. Seena Fazel, "Religious Pluralism," at: http://bahai-library.org/
17. Baha'u'llah, "Gleanings," Page 217.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter is divided into several parts i.e. object of the study, sources of the data, types of the data, method of data collection, and method of data analysis.
3.1 Object of the Study
The object of the study of this research is a short story entitled “The Coffee House of Surat”. The author of this short story is Leo Tolstoy. This short story is taken from The Best Stories and Tales of Leo Tolstoy, Crest Publishing House. New Delhi. 2003.
The short story is about the disputes among people with different religions that is taken place in a Coffee-House in Surat, India. Everyone argues and tries to convince the others that his own idea is true and the rest are wrong. Everyone argues and shouts except a China man, a student of Confucius. By then people ask his opinion. He wisely explains about his opinion by a story, he able to make those people realize that their dispute is unwise and useless. After listening the story, they conclude by themselves that their stand is true at any respect but wrong at any other. And finally they learn to tolerate the differences among them.
3.2 Sources of Data
The sources of data in this research are:
1) A short story entitled 'The Coffee-House of Surat' by Leo Tolstoy.
2) Internet articles about religious pluralism and other relevant articles related to the subject,
3) Books those are relevant with the subject,
4) Dictionary, Encyclopedia and other written references.
5) PC Encyclopedia: Encarta and Britannica Encyclopedia.
3.3 Types of Data
The data that is used in this research is in major written, but however it is possible to use the multimedia data such as news broadcasting, documenter films, etc.
3.4 Procedures of Collecting Data
To collect the data in this research, I use several approaches to get the reliable and valid data. Firstly, reading the short story several times to gain the comprehensive understanding about the subject. Secondly, finding out other articles related to the issue in the internet and other resources. Last but not least, it is done by conducting the library research to provide a proper analysis.
3.5 Procedures in Analyzing Data
In analyzing the data, I use historical approach and content analysis using deconstruction together since it is impossible to analyze religious faith without consult the historical event that forms the faiths. Deconstruction is a method of understanding a concept by comparing or put it in the large context. I do not use the short story 'The Coffee House of Surat' as the mere measure to find out the Tolstoy's view about religious pluralism in it, but rather I used various sources and theories and interpret the short story using content analysis method to find out Tolstoy's view about religious pluralism in the story.
3.6 Technique of Reporting the Data Analysis
I use descriptive qualitative method to describe and explain the concepts in this final project to provide the clarity and vividness of the concepts.
Based on the method, I analyze Tolstoy's view in his story “The Coffee House of Surat” and provide it with a proper supporting data of theories of the selecting issues. They are existentialism, positivism, sociology, and others concepts.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
Chapter four presents the analysis of the data to answer the research problems. There will be discussion about the interpretation of the short story, the problem of religious pluralism in “The Coffee House of Surat”, and Tolstoy's view about religious pluralism in “The Coffee House of Surat”.
4.1 The Short Story and the Interpretation
The Coffee-House of Surat
by Leo Tolstoy

(After Bernardin de Saint-Pierre)

In the town of Surat, in India, was a coffee-house where many travelers and foreigners from all parts of the world met and conversed.

One day a learned Persian theologian visited this coffee-house. He was a man who had spent his life studying the nature of the Deity, and reading and writing books upon the subject. He had thought, read, and written so much about God, that eventually he lost his wits, became quite confused, and ceased even to believe in the existence of a God. The Shah, hearing of this, had banished him from Persia.

After having argued all his life about the First Cause, this unfortunate theologian had ended by quite perplexing himself, and instead of understanding that he had lost his own reason, he began to think that there was no higher Reason controlling the universe.

This passage tells us the problem of Moslem thinkers how they perplexed themselves and different from each other. The Shah is a representative of orthodox or official Moslem authority. He regards the people who has different opinion from the “true doctrine” as a deviation and should be banned from society to not giving bad influence to them.
In Persia, now people name it Iran, there is a strict dichotomy between Sunni and Syi'ah. Each of them claims their sect as the right Islam and the other as wrong. Sunni is the follower of Abubakar, Umar, Usman While Syi'ah is the follower of Ali. The disputes among them have already begun since the death of Muhammad when the succession of leadership for Moslem is needed and now the disputes among them is getting worst.
Tolstoy highlight this issue as an example that those pursuing the truth do not always get it, instead they lead to dispute in the long run. Here we find a paradox, that the pursuing the truth sometimes and many times lead to hostility even to a “holy” war.
This man had an African slave who followed him everywhere. When the theologian entered the coffee-house, the slave remained outside, near the door, sitting on a stone in the glare of the sun, and driving away the flies that buzzed around him. The Persian having settled down on a divan in the coffee-house ordered himself a cup of opium. When he had drunk it and the opium had begun to quicken the workings of his brain, he addressed his slave through the open door:
"Tell me, wretched slave," said he, "do you think there is a God, or not?"

This passage gives us information about custom. The African slave is a portrait of lower civilization, in this case, compare to the Persian. Slavery is a custom in the past. Those who are regarded as lower race (usually black people) are slaved. It is a historical fact that the slaves are regarded as lower as animals.
The Persian theologian asked the African slave about God, it is merely a metaphor that God was regarded as a laughing stock for him in whom many people ceaselessly debated about the issue, even an animal or a slave has it's own concept. He wonders why people do not just abandon this tiresome God stuff.
"Of course there is," said the slave, and immediately drew from under his girdle a small idol of wood.

"There," said he, "that is the God who has guarded me from the day of my birth. Every one in our country worships the fetish tree, from the wood of which this God was made."

This passage tells us that almost all people agree the God existence. Even the idea of no God is terrifying for them. People should have one no matter what. For without God people feel helpless and confuse. The God for uneducated African slave is just as lower as his imagination of God. For him, God is a heathen made of fetish tree. Here Tolstoy introduces the different idea of God according to human knowledge.
Fetishism is recognized as the first stage of men effort pursuing God. It was happened when people realize the mysterious power outside of himself and he is afraid of that, therefore he worshipped it. Since people lived in different circumstance and have many things to be afraid of, then they worshipped so many different Gods in different places and cultures. This fact is historically irrefutable. The Persian theologian want to show us that God is merely an imagination or a concept.
This conversation between the theologian and his slave was listened to with surprise by the other guests in the coffee-house. They were astonished at the master's question, and yet more so at the slave's reply.
The conversation about God always draws mass attention. Here it is described how people are surprised of others' opinion about God. They feel sorry to hear such “untruth” propositions toward God. And most people cannot just let it go.
One of them, a Brahmin, on hearing the words spoken by the slave, turned to him and said:

"Miserable fool! Is it possible you believe that God can be carried under a man's girdle? There is one God--Brahma, and he is greater than the whole world, for he created it. Brahma is the One, the mighty God, and in His honour are built the temples on the Ganges' banks, where his true priests, the Brahmins, worship him. They know the true God, and none but they. A thousand score of years have passed, and yet through revolution after revolution these priests have held their sway, because Brahma, the one true God, has protected them."
A Brahmin, hearing this conversation feels sorry and need to fix the wrong idea about God. It is human nature to regard his-own idea or concept as the true. The need to feel important is behind the nature of mankind. It also close related with the existentialism idea. People need to encourage his or her existence to exist through other admission. More people admit him more he satisfied and feel exist.
The Brahmin acknowledges that the true God is Brahma and His holy place is temples on Ganges' banks and His true worshipers are Brahmins.
Brahmin belongs to Hindu. Hindu has concept of poly-theism, Brahma is the God who creates, Visnu is the God who protect, and Shiva is the God who destroy. Historically, we recognize poly-theism as the believe system of more developed culture compare to fetishism. Here Tolstoy seems purposely to put them in historical order to show the reader that resent argument is better than the previous one regarding the developing of the civilization.
So spoke the Brahmin, thinking to convince every one; but a Jewish broker who was present replied to him, and said:
"No! The temple of the true God is not in India. Neither does God protect the Brahmin caste. The true God is not the God of the Brahmins, but of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. None does He protect but His chosen people, the Israelites. From the commencement of the world, our nation has been beloved of Him, and ours alone. If we are now scattered over the whole earth, it is but to try us; for God has promised that He will one day gather His people together in Jerusalem. Then, with the Temple of Jerusalem--the wonder of the ancient world--restored to its splendor, shall Israel be established a ruler over all nations."
After introducing polytheism concept of God, here Tolstoy presents A Jew as the first acknowledge in history as people who worship one God, the concept of mono-theism. According to him the true God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (all of them are Jews) and only protect His chosen people, the Israelites. Further he asserted that Israel shall be the ruler over all nations.
It is a fact that the history of Israel involves bloodshed in upholding its believe many times. Their credo enables them to conduct “holy” war in the name of God. Then from here on the issue of God is a sensitive even dangerous issue. Many times it is more about power and politic than merely about philosophy and the way of life.
So spoke the Jew, and burst into tears. He wished to say more, but an Italian missionary who was there interrupted him.

"What you are saying is untrue," said he to the Jew. "You attribute injustice to God. He cannot love your nation above the rest. Nay rather, even if it be true that of old He favored the Israelites, it is now nineteen hundred years since they angered Him, and caused Him to destroy their nation and scatter them over the earth, so that their faith makes no converts and has died out except here and there. God shows preference to no nation, but calls all who wish to be saved to the bosom of the Catholic Church of Rome, the one outside whose borders no salvation can be found."

After presenting Jew's concept of their God and belief, then Tolstoy presents an Italian missionary to introduce Christianity, a much more humanity belief. He acknowledged that God favors no nation, He loves all nations equally. The Italian missionary referred to history that now is nineteen hundred years since Israelites angered Him. This utterance means that he acknowledged the same God with Israelites. Again the paradox occur when the Italian missionaries exclaimed that “God shows preference to no nation, but calls all who wish to be saved to the bosom of the Catholic Church of Rome, the one outside whose borders no salvation can be found”. It is a self-contradict statement.

So spoke the Italian. But a Protestant minister, who happened to be present, growing pale, turned to the Catholic missionary and exclaimed:

"How can you say that salvation belongs to your religion? Those only will be saved, who serve God according to the Gospel, in spirit and in truth, as bidden by the word of Christ."

Here the issue is no merely about the existence or the nature of God but more technically is about how to worship Him. The Protestant minister claims that they (Jews and Italian Christians) do not worship God according to the Gospel; therefore they are misled and will not get salvation. Only Protestants worship God truthfully that deserve salvation.
Then a Turk, an office-holder in the custom-house at Surat, who was sitting in the coffee-house smoking a pipe, turned with an air of superiority to both the Christians.
"Your belief in your Roman religion is vain," said he. "It was superseded twelve hundred years ago by the true faith: that of Mohammed! You cannot but observe how the true Mohammed faith continues to spread both in Europe and Asia, and even in the enlightened country of China. You say yourselves that God has rejected the Jews; and, as a proof, you quote the fact that the Jews are humiliated and their faith does not spread. Confess then the truth of Mohammedanism, for it is triumphant and spreads far and wide. None will be saved but the followers of Mohammed, God's latest prophet; and of them, only the followers of Omar, and not of Ali, for the latter are false to the faith."
Then a Turk come to “correct” previous statements from the African slave, a Brahmin, an Italian missionary and a Protestant missionary. He refers to historical event that twelve hundred years ago, a true faith (Islam) superseded Roman religion. He argue that the triumphant and spread of Islam as an omen of the truth. But here he underlines that “None will be saved but the followers of Mohammed, God's latest prophet; and of them, only the followers of Omar, and not of Ali, for the latter are false to the faith." This excerpt remarks the dispute among religion faiths and also among sects within one religion.
To this the Persian theologian, who was of the sect of Ali, wished to reply; but by this time a great dispute had arisen among all the strangers of different faiths and creeds present. There were Abyssinian Christians, Llamas from Thibet, Ismailians and Fireworshippers. They all argued about the nature of God, and how He should be worshipped. Each of them asserted that in his country alone was the true God known and rightly worshipped.

Every one argued and shouted, except a Chinaman, a student of Confucius, who sat quietly in one corner of the coffee-house, not joining in the dispute. He sat there drinking tea and listening to what the others said, but did not speak himself.

Here Tolstoy presents religious pluralism in the coffee house of Surat as a miniature of pluralism in the world. He introduce the most influential and important believe arguing to convince other ideas about the same issue. The core issue right now is which is the truth? How to know the truth? To answer the question, Tolstoy presents a Chinaman, a student of Confucius. Here he represents a figure of philosopher who has wide knowledge and do not influenced by the trivial things about life. He saw beyond the existence and understands the human nature.
The Turk noticed him sitting there, and appealed to him, saying:

"You can confirm what I say, my good Chinaman. You hold your peace, but if you spoke I know you would uphold my opinion. Traders from your country, who come to me for assistance, tell me that though many religions have been introduced into China, you Chinese consider Mohammedanism the best of all, and adopt it willingly. Confirm, then, my words, and tell us your opinion of the true God and of His prophet."

"Yes, yes," said the rest, turning to the Chinaman, "let us hear what you think on the subject."

The Chinaman, the student of Confucius, closed his eyes, and thought a while. Then he opened them again, and drawing his hands out of the wide sleeves of his garment, and folding them on his breast, he spoke as follows, in a calm and quiet voice.

Sirs, it seems to me that it is chiefly pride that prevents men agreeing with one another on matters of faith. If you care to listen to me, I will tell you a story which will explain this by an example.

I came here from China on an English steamer which had been round the world. We stopped for fresh water, and landed on the east coast of the island of Sumatra. It was midday, and some of us, having landed, sat in the shade of some cocoanut palms by the seashore, not far from a native village. We were a party of men of different nationalities.

As we sat there, a blind man approached us. We learned afterwards that he had gone blind from gazing too long and too persistently at the sun, trying to find out what it is, in order to seize its light.

He strove a long time to accomplish this, constantly looking at the sun; but the only result was that his eyes were injured by its brightness, and he became blind.

Then he said to himself:

"The light of the sun is not a liquid; for if it were a liquid it would be possible to pour it from one vessel into another, and it would be moved, like water, by the wind. Neither is it fire; for if it were fire, water would extinguish it. Neither is light a spirit, for it is seen by the eye; nor is it matter, for it cannot be moved. Therefore, as the light of the sun is neither liquid, nor fire, nor spirit, nor matter, it is--nothing!"

So he argued, and, as a result of always looking at the sun and always thinking about it, he lost both his sight and his reason. And when he went quite blind, he became fully convinced that the sun did not exist.

With this blind man came a slave, who after placing his master in the shade of a cocoanut tree, picked up a cocoanut from the ground, and began making it into a night-light. He twisted a wick from the fibre of the cocoanut: squeezed oil from the nut in the shell, and soaked the wick in it.

As the slave sat doing this, the blind man sighed and said to him:

"Well, slave, was I not right when I told you there is no sun? Do you not see how dark it is? Yet people say there is a sun. . . . But if so, what is it?"

"I do not know what the sun is," said the slave. "That is no business of mine. But I know what light is. Here I have made a night-light, by the help of which I can serve you and find anything I want in the hut."

And the slave picked up the cocoanut shell, saying:

"This is my sun."

A lame man with crutches, who was sitting near by, heard these words, and laughed:

"You have evidently been blind all your life," said he to the blind man, "not to know what the sun is. I will tell you what it is. The sun is a ball of fire, which rises every morning out of the sea and goes down again among the mountains of our island each evening. We have all seen this, and if you had had your eyesight you too would have seen it."

A fisherman, who had been listening to the conversation said:

"It is plain enough that you have never been beyond your own island. If you were not lame, and if you had been out as I have in a fishing-boat, you would know that the sun does not set among the mountains of our island, but as it rises from the ocean every morning so it sets again in the sea every night. What I am telling you is true, for I see it every day with my own eyes."

Then an Indian who was of our party, interrupted him by saying:

"I am astonished that a reasonable man should talk such nonsense. How can a ball of fire possibly descend into the water and not be extinguished? The sun is not a ball of fire at all, it is the Deity named Deva, who rides for ever in a chariot round the golden mountain, Meru. Sometimes the evil serpents Ragu and Ketu attack Deva and swallow him: and then the earth is dark. But our priests pray that the Deity may be released, and then he is set free. Only such ignorant men as you, who have never been beyond their own island, can imagine that the sun shines for their country alone."

Then the master of an Egyptian vessel, who was present, spoke in his turn.

"No," said he, "you also are wrong. The sun is not a Deity, and does not move only round India and its golden mountain. I have sailed much on the Black Sea, and along the coasts of Arabia, and have been to Madagascar and to the Philippines. The sun lights the whole earth, and not India alone. It does not circle round one mountain, but rises far in the East, beyond the Isles of Japan, and sets far, far away in the West, beyond the islands of England. That is why the Japanese call their country 'Nippon,' that is, 'the birth of the sun.' I know this well, for I have myself seen much, and heard more from my grandfather, who sailed to the very ends of the sea."

He would have gone on, but an English sailor from our ship interrupted him.

"There is no country," he said "where people know so much about the sun's movements as in England. The sun, as every one in England knows, rises nowhere and sets nowhere. It is always moving round the earth. We can be sure of this for we have just been round the world ourselves, and nowhere knocked up against the sun. Wherever we went, the sun showed itself in the morning and hid itself at night, just as it does here."

And the Englishman took a stick and, drawing circles on the sand, tried to explain how the sun moves in the heavens and goes round the world. But he was unable to explain it clearly, and pointing to the ship's pilot said:

"This man knows more about it than I do. He can explain it properly."

The pilot, who was an intelligent man, had listened in silence to the talk till he was asked to speak. Now every one turned to him, and he said:

"You are all misleading one another, and are yourselves deceived. The sun does not go round the earth, but the earth goes round the sun, revolving as it goes, and turning towards the sun in the course of each twenty-four hours, not only Japan, and the Philippines, and Sumatra where we now are, but Africa, and Europe, and America, and many lands besides. The sun does not shine for some one mountain, or for some one island, or for some one sea, nor even for one earth alone, but for other planets as well as our earth. If you would only look up at the heavens, instead of at the ground beneath your own feet, you might all understand this, and would then no longer suppose that the sun shines for you, or for your country alone."

Thus spoke the wise pilot, who had voyaged much about the world, and had gazed much upon the heavens above.

"So on matters of faith," continued the Chinaman, the student of Confucius, "it is pride that causes error and discord among men. As with the sun, so it is with God. Each man wants to have a special God of his own, or at least a special God for his native land. Each nation wishes to confine in its own temples Him, whom the world cannot contain.

"Can any temple compare with that which God Himself has built to unite all men in one faith and one religion?

"All human temples are built on the model of this temple, which is God's own world. Every temple has its fonts, its vaulted roof, its lamps, its pictures or sculptures, its inscriptions, its books of the law, its offerings, its altars and its priests. But in what temple is there such a font as the ocean; such a vault as that of the heavens; such lamps as the sun, moon, and stars; or any figures to be compared with living, loving, mutually-helpful men? Where are there any records of God's goodness so easy to understand as the blessings which God has strewn abroad for man's happiness? Where is there any book of the law so clear to each man as that written in his heart? What sacrifices equal the self-denials which loving men and women make for one another? And what altar can be compared with the heart of a good man, on which God Himself accepts the sacrifice?

"The higher a man's conception of God, the better will he know Him. And the better he knows God, the nearer will he draw to Him, imitating His goodness, His mercy, and His love of man.

"Therefore, let him who sees the sun's whole light filling the world, refrain from blaming or despising the superstitious man, who in his own
idol sees one ray of that same light. Let him not despise even the unbeliever who is blind and cannot see the sun at all."

So spoke the Chinaman, the student of Confucius; and all who were present in the coffee-house were silent, and disputed no more as to whose faith was the best.

The Chinaman succeeded to convince them that the truth is not absolute. That all believe are misled in it own way and no one know the truly truth. By his story, the Chinaman teach religious pluralism to everyone in the Coffee House of Surat.
From the whole story, Tolstoy seems to suggest toleration to other faiths and that inclusivism is the answer of religious pluralism although he didn't use the term specifically to give the direct answer. It is shown by the two paragraphs before the last paragraph.
4.2 The Problem of Religious Pluralism
From the short story 'The Coffee House of Surat' I find some problems of Religious Pluralism. Those are:
1) The existence of God
2) The different point of view among religions
4.2.1 The Existence of God
The short story is initiated by the conversation between a learned Persian theologian with his African slave about the existence of God. He asked him whether there is a God or not.
This question reveals the first problem of religious pluralism in “The Coffee House of Surat”. Actually the answer is not easy since believe should be reasonable (make sense) and sound. Actually the learned Persian theologian didn't mean that he didn't know the answer and asking for the answer to a 'wretched slave' which is of course uneducated. His intention is merely to argue or to know about the slave's opinion about the God existence. (If there is any, the next question is “what”). Tolstoy does not really questioning the existence of God in this passage. He presents the Persian as an atheist in a weak position since very beginning. This indicates that Tolstoy believes in God and therefore the question whether there is a God is insignificant in the story. Rather, he questions more about the nature of God by comparing people from different religion's concept of God. Here he also criticized philosophers or thinkers who treat religion as merely an object to be study by reason. The atheist here does not mean that he doesn't acknowledge of the god existence but he refuses the concept of god from the current religions.
Accord with Comte's theory of positivism, here we can see the applicability of the theory in the real life where the more educated people tend to favor to the more concrete things. If we referred to this theory, therefore being religious is only the beginning stage of human life. It is also means that an atheist (the Persian in the story) is better or more grown up than others since the Persian already passed the first and second stages. This theory is agreeable with some philosophers' view such as Nietsze and Karl Mark. But according to Tolstoy, physical pleasure came before and less valuable than the abstract one. Therefore we can conclude that Tolstoy's view is different to Comte's theory in one respect. That is human grow from physic to abstract concept. For the illustration, here is the example; formerly, people make a cloth to cover and protect their body (practical use, concrete idea) and by the advance of human civilization, people make cloth more for the sake of art and beauty than merely for protection (ideal use, abstract idea).
Then Tolstoy continues his critic to an atheist and describes how one became atheist.
He was a man who had spent his life studying the nature of the Deity, and reading and writing books upon the subject. He had thought, read, and written, so much about God that eventually he lost his wits, because quite confused, and ceased even to believe in the existence of a God

According to Comte, there are three stages of human development. They are:
1. Theological Stage
a) Fetishism
b) Polytheism
c) Monotheism
2. Metaphysical or Abstract Stage
3. Positive Stage
The religious stages are irrefutable since it is already proven by history. If we refer to historical events, we'll find that the sequence the stage is true. Here again, the historical facts raise our curiosity of the God concept that always change from time to time according to the advance of civilization itself or human thinking ability itself. Again we are tempted to ask whether God create men or men create God. Here Tolstoy criticize the last stage of positivism by presenting character of Persian theologian.
Karen Amsrong in her book “A History of God” try to propose her opinion,
“Today many people in the West would be dismayed if a leading theologian suggested that God was in some profound sense a product of the imagination. Yet it should be obvious that the imagination is the chief religious faculty. Human beings are the only animals who have the capacity to envisage something that is not present or something that does not yet exist but which is merely possible. The imagination has thus been the cause of our major achievements in science and technology as well as in art and religion. The idea of God, however it is defined, is perhaps the prime example of an absent reality which, despite its inbuilt problems, has continued to inspire men and women for thousands of years. As in art, the most effective religious symbols are those informed by an intelligent knowledge and understanding of the human condition.”
Tolstoy himself in this case seems too careful to reveal his opinion about the nature of God. In the story, he answer the question by another story as an example and let people to interpret by themselves as they like. Tolstoy believes that God is one and called by different names and worshiped by different ways. In the story he compares God with the sun.
This view is accord with Karen Armstrong in “A History of God” she wrote:
“The mystical experience of God has certain characteristics that are common to all faiths. It is a subjective experience that involves an interior journey, not a perception of an objective fact outside the self; it is undertaken through the image-making part of the mind--often called the imagination--rather than through the more cerebral, logical faculty.”
So, here we see that God is universal as well as personal.
“A personal God can become a grave liability. He can be a mere idol carved in our own image, a projection of our limited needs, fears and desires. We can assume that he loves what we love and hates what we hate, endorsing our prejudices instead of compelling us to transcend them. Instead of inspiring the compassion that should characterize all advanced religion, “he” can encourage us to judge, condemn and marginalize.” (Amstrong, Karen, 19--)
The Persian Theologian after passing the stages of theological stage, he become an atheist or in positive stage where one only depends on his logical thinking. He abandons the uncertainty of abstract concept of God and religion. Tolstoy presents this character and criticizes it as the example of many philosophers who abandon God and religion because of the wrong conduct of the thinking. He favors for Confucius student (metaphysical or abstract stage) as the better position. (Tolstoy hasn't come to positive stage or he regards the metaphysical or abstract stage is the highest, and therefore positive stage as the wrong conduct) Metaphysical stage still have a connection with the previous stages but positive stage is a jumping stage in which there is no connection with the previous stage (religious stages). Tolstoy stop in the metaphysical stage because he realizes of the uncertainty or relativity or limited of human ability to find the truly truth in which it has something to do with destiny for Tolstoy that everything is predestine.
4.2.2. Different point of view among religion faith in the story
Religion
None





Fetishism



Hindu


Jew



Catholic




Protestant



Islam Figure representative
Persian Theologian
(Atheist)




African Slave
(Fetishist)


A Brahmin


A Jewish



An Italian missionary




A Protestant minister



A Turk Argument
There is no higher Reason controlling the universe. there is no God since no one can prove and give a logical explanation of the God existence more than a merely personal concept

Everyone in our country (Africa) worships the fetish tree, from the wood of which this God was made

There is one God Brahma, and he is greater than the whole world, for he created it.

The true God is God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. None does he protect but his chosen people, the Israelites.

God shows preference to no nation, but calls all who wish to be saved to the bosom of the Catholic Church of Rome, the one outside whose borders no salvation can be found

Those only will be saved who serve God according to the gospel, in spirit and in truth, as bidden by the word of Christ

That of Mohammed! You cannot but observe how the true Mohammedan faith continues to spread both in Europe and Asia and even in the enlightened county of China. None will be saved but the followers of Mohammed,

Whether the truth is relative or defined? For Tolstoy it is relative for human since no one knows for sure but it defined by God (destiny). Here we see the dualism of his religious view. One side he belief that truth (and God) is relative, on other side he believes that life is predestine, that life is defined by God.
Actually we can't simplify Tolstoy's view of the truth. According to the story he regards that all religious are basically true but it is mistaken by many factors. God is beyond the religions. Since all religion limited the God toward it own possession, so all religions are wrong in its own way. Religion is an institution where God is an abstract concept in which every single person has different concept of God in his own mind. No one will have precisely identical concept of God since the different process of thinking in individual. Therefore no one has ability to judge the truth toward others.
Tolstoy seems to believe that everyone has his or her own concept of the nature of God. Whether two people has precisely the same concept it is doubted since people think differently one to another. For example two painters when they paint the same object before them, they likely will create different painting according to their own perception, ability, or personal point of view.
4.3 Tolstoy's View; Inclusivism as the answer of Religious Pluralism
From the short story 'The Coffee House of Surat', at glance we'll find that Tolstoy is presenting the problem of religious pluralism that is caused by the exclusivist views among religious faiths. Exclusivism is the belief that only one religion is true, and the others opposed to it are false. That salvation is only possible through the religion, and that all followers of false religions are bound for Hell. Only a minority of humankind will finally be saved.
From the short story we find that almost all major religions are exclusive. Every religion offer the concept of salvation but each is refuted by all others. And Tolstoy views this as wrong in their own way. We can analyze his reasons for regarding that exclucivism is morally wrong even if it's might be right. There are several reasons if we look deeper in the short story:
1) A man cannot rely merely on his logical thinking even it is the only tool to recognize the world. One should find experience as much as possible so that he can gain broader view and true knowledge,
2) No one can possibly knows what the truly true is, especially dealing with god and religions,
3) Life as reaity is merely a mirror of human thinking; none is entirely objective. People think differently in accord with their knowledge, environments, cultures, etc., therefore, diversity in all aspect of life include religions is normal and should be responded wisely.
From this point of view we recognize Tolstoy's view about religious pluralism. He favors knowledge but at the same time he acts carefully. He doesn't suggest and agree that a man to be fully in positive stage where he depends only on his logical thinking.

Glossary
Religious Pluralism..
is the belief that every religion is true. Each provides a genuine encounter with the Ultimate. One may be better than the others, but all are adequate. Pluralism does not necessarily say that all will be saved, only that all religions are capable of leading to God.
Religious exclusivism is the doctrine that only one particular religion is true.[1]
1. ^ William J. Wainwright (2005), Oxford University Press, p. 345, ISBN 9780195138092, The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion

Religious pluralism is a set of religious world views that hold that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus recognizes that some level of truth and value exists in other religions. As such, religious pluralism goes beyond religious tolerance, which is the condition of peaceful existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations. (wikipedia)

Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw once said, "There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it." In our pluralistic society an increasing number of people find Shaw's interpretation of religion appealing. The Achilles' heel of the claim that all paths lead to the same destination is the problem of internal consistency. Each religious tradition makes truth-claims which contradict the truth-claims of other religious traditions.