Aug
26
Pleonastic, isn’t it? What about ‘Intelligent, but not stupid’? Or ‘Moral, but not immoral’? I lost count the number of times people have told me that they are spiritual, but not religious with a smile which displays their pride in knowing where to demarcate the line. Then, a lot are of the opinion I am a profoundly spiritual person, a trait which isn’t that common among atheists. I’ll agree to the first one in the sense a spiritual person can’t be religious. I’ll agree to the second one too as I know I am conscious of my own consciousness. I’ll take the compliment. But, could you please leave the second part?
The word ‘spiritual’ means relating to the soul or spirit and spirit means the life force of an individual. It means his will or enthusiasm for living. I would like you to remind yourself the fact that it was man’s material progress that makes the life we see now possible for him. It is man’s material progress which took his life expectancy many times up and brought down infant mortality rates to a level unbelievable just a few decades back. It’s ones striving for material progress that makes his life possible. It’s that struggle that manifests his enthusiasm for living. Try arguing any object which denotes his material progress hasn’t an in-depth thought process behind it. Therefore, it is well evident that the willingness to use ones mind to it’s fullest potential is what shows ones will or enthusiasm for living. It means ones desire for material progress using his mind to its utmost obviates his spirituality.
I don’t think I have to point out to you that by the phrase one’s enthusiasm to live, I don’t mean the life on a death bed. It’s not the life on a subhuman level I am trying to endorse, but a life in the best means possible-A life in which pleasure or intellectual play is not a luxury, but a necessity. It’s not a life of mediocrity, but of creative ingenuity. To live such a life, one must use his mind and reason in a manner that nothing comes in between. If anything comes in between, it means he stops using his mind. A spiritual person, thus, can never believe in God. To believe in the unproven, one must first deny his consciousness. It means he has to accept things he can by no means validate with his mind. It’s not the attribute of a spiritual person, of a man of mind.
A man who denies his mind once will have no problems doing so whenever he feels he ought to. He in fact, will make up reasons to do so. It is no coincidence that the word ‘God’, the filthiest word man has ever coined is responsible in one way or the other for anything that fits the description ‘evil’- from caste-ism to Sati system, gender inequality to witch hunt, astrology to terrorism. It is that word which is responsible for the mass slaughter of nameless, faceless millions. Isn’t it obvious from this that when man denies his mind, he engages in activities delaying his material and spiritual progress?
Spirituality, but has become a word which makes us think twice before using as it is usually associated with religion or altruism and anyone who utters that word gets lumped with it. It’s of no coincidence taking in account the pseudo-philosopher’s and religious leader’s monopoly on ‘spirituality’. The pseudo-philosopher and altruist try to break the religious leader’s monopoly while the religious leader assures them it is a wrong battle and that they are all different sides of the same coin. Ah, Ah. When Sri Sri Ravishankar was asked whether communism has anything to do with spirituality, he replied, to my embarrassment that “Only a spiritual person can be a communist.” It’s where an altruist and a religious leader differ. The religious leader at least realizes that they aren’t that different. The altruist fails there too!
Let’s hear what Mother Theresa has to say on it. “One shouldn’t be successful. One must only be faithful.” It’s the wickedest thing one can ever say. Now you know both religion and altruism blend. Both require the suspension of ones mind, ones spirituality. If no one should be successful, if no one should achieve anything, how is charity going to work? Charity presupposes achievement. Achievement of the man of mind, of course-the person they want to scoff at. Every penny given to charity is taken away from further capital investment. It is such investments which makes further material and spiritual growth possible. An act of charity, needless to say, delays material progress in the long run. To believe an act of achievement is beneath an act of charity, one must first deny his ability to think. It again, is no coincidence that many of mankind’s horrors were perpetrated in the name of altruism. Whenever man has denied his mind, he has shown a lack of enthusiasm for living and thus a delay in material progress. An achiever, the man of mind, therefore is the most spiritual of all creatures. He is the only person conscious of his own consciousness. It’s only an act of achievement which displays ones will or enthusiasm for living. It’s only such an act that displays spirituality explicitly.3 Responses to “Spiritual, but not Religious!”
Leave a Reply
Nisha Loyalka Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 pmMother Teresa Comment- one should not be sucessful but faithful,itself makes it obvious that whoever is going to practice the work assigned to him faithfully is ultimately going to be successful.Try to undrstand the intrensic meaning before writing about such great personalities.
deadmanoncampus Says:
January 26th, 2009 at 8:42 pmFaith means adherence to a set of ideas without any rational reason to provide. Faith is extremely detrimental to human life as a person would have to suspend his rationality and evade a lot many questions to hold his faith.
Ketan Says:
July 31st, 2009 at 3:21 amdeadmanoncampus,
This was a very well written article. Congratulations!
I’ve always felt such disgust the way people use the word ‘spirituality’. Also, its meaning had always evaded me. To me, it’s always looked like the next ‘in thing’ in linguistic fashion, especially when used by intellectually shallow people. I think some people use it to simply indicate they don’t believe in idolatry, and they’re monotheists or pantheists. Some also use it to sneer at those who might be more ritualistic and/or superstitious in order to claim a higher intellectal ground.
It’s for such reason that I’ve hated the term ‘spiritual’. Thanks for clarifying its meaning. But unfortunately, language is such a faculty, where meaning of words is decided by the way they’re used by the majority(!), and thus, I, an atheist, would keep on dissociating myself from that term, despite seeing it in a new light from your exposition.
Also, though no issues with it, your ideas were greatly reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s.
Take care.