Religion and Spirituality

Recently during a conversation with a friend, a matter of deep interest to me came up. I was mentioning to him about a site that offers an elaborate explanation of the Gayatri Mantra when an amazing brain wave struck his mind. He was reminded of a dialogue in the very famous movie Matrix where Neo is told that even though Agent Smith, the adversary of Neo, the hero, may be smarter and more powerful, yet Neo could defeat him because the former was bound by rules ... a kind of a program, while the latter was free from any such rules. This, my friend mentioned seemed similar to what he considers a major point of departure between Spirituality and Religion. He said Religion is a codified set of rules that help in realizing God where as Spirituality - though seemingly unfettered by rules and thus appearing more ad-hoc and esoteric - is a more powerful way of reaching God.

This discussion triggered a chain of thoughts in my mind. I do not consider myself a scholar or a subject matter expert on either subject - Spirituality or Religion. Yet, I felt compelled to give an expression to the countless thoughts that immediately took possession of me when this subject was broached. I personally find it a daunting task to understand these subjects even at a very elementary level. And the most fundamental reason is the seemingly infinite number of theories that have already been advanced by scholars and nincompoops alike.

So what is Religion and what is Spirituality and is one superior than the other in the quest of realizing God? Religion is like a school, which teaches us the basics of life and survival, equipping us with tools that will help us lead a life filled with happiness and purity. It has a codified set of rules that offer a way to see beyond the mundane of life and question its nature so that we may find its true essence. To that extent, Religion is like the Primary School where we must go to study, if we ever hope to make it to College and Beyond. However, somewhere down the line, Religion seems to have gotten polluted with vested interests to sustain not the legacy of God per se, but the legacy of those propounding it. This may sound extremely vain of me to make a point-blank remark like this. Yet, even though the religious leaders wanted to perpetuate and spread their own version of God (each one does it anyway just as I am doing right now) – anything, and I reiterate, anything that talks about God is better than everything else that does not. In the Bhagwad Geeta the Lord says that even if you take my name accidentally, you will still be benefited. Spirituality on the other hand is a more personal way of communicating with the Highest Being or God. Spirituality is more internal than external and can sometimes cause a situation similar to being exposed to a naked wire connected to a million volts circuit.

Religion has its merits in that it offers a structured approach to finding God. If one is astute enough to ignore the riff raff and concentrate on the essence - Religion is a surefire way to get to God. Spirituality however is not meant for everybody. It is a stage of development. I personally feel one becomes Religious first due to the effects of positive Karma whether in this life or in one of the previous ones. Spirituality becomes the nature of that man who has already advanced beyond the stage of religion. Religion is like that little 'Walker' that children who are too young to walk by themselves are given to learn walking from. Once they know how to walk however, there is no need for it. The child can walk all by himself. So, to get to the stage of spirituality one needs to be mentored. Religion is prescriptive - it tells you to do X, Y, Z to understand God. Spirituality is practice - one is constantly engaged in and tied to the object of devotion and does not feel the need for an external aid to get him in the zone as it were.

So as far as Spirituality and Religion are concerned, on account of their respective characteristics, they cannot logically be compared because they are not at the same level; they are more chronologically linked such that one precedes the other on the path leading to the Supreme Being – the ultimate Truth – the object of the seeker and the goal of both Spirituality and Religion.

This discussion however also brought me to think more deeply about the nature of God as described in the numerous Holy Books and also about my personal understanding derived from my study of these Books. One of the key things that strikes my mind is the apparent contradiction that evinces itself quite clearly when studying the nature and characteristics of God as described in these texts. In the Bhagwad Geeta, God has unequivocally stated that He is not interested in men's good or bad karma. And, even though He is the Creator, the Provider and the Sustainer of all that does and does not exist, He holds no passion towards His work. As is mentioned in the text - He is udaseen (disinterested) towards all that He manages and controls. He further says that every human being is bound by the seeds of his karma and is bound to suffer or to reap enjoyment in accordance with the nature of the seeds he himself has sown. In technical parlance, these dualities of Pleasure and Pain are an integral part of our coming and going on Earth, and form the basis for what is known as the Samsarik Chakra. Samsara has been discussed elaborately in the Bhagwad Geeta and elsewhere. It is one of the fundamental Truths which is rivaled only by the other fundamental Truth about the existence of Atma and its non-connection with the physical body it is 'seemingly' housed in. Armed with the battery of senses, this body is destined to experience the fruits of Good and Bad Karma and act according to its own nature. In that sense, controlled by the mind and the senses, we seem eternally doomed. Desires make us run from pillar to post keeping us constantly engaged in meeting our pursuits – good or bad not just in one cycle of birth and death, but in countless,...8.4 million to be precise, as the Vedas put it.

So is there a way out of this? God is benevolent enough to offer a prescription. This is where this whole thing becomes mysterious though. I fail to understand this very simple thing - God says he has no “Asakti (attachment)” in anyone and in anything. He is impartial and treats everyone at the same level. Yet, as some scholars have expounded, He seems to become partial (or at least slightly more partial) towards those human beings who fondly take His name with all due Shraddha and Bhakti. I find this odd. How can He change his stance all of a sudden? And then people ascribe numerous other esoteric qualities to God to help Him continue with His partiality. God clearly says that while everything exists in Him alone, He exists in nothing. This is understandable; just as our physical bodies have various divisions from Head to Toe, we ourselves are none of those - neither the Head nor the Toe or anything in between. God says that He has nothing to do with anyone's karma. In one shot, God has absolved Himself of the Good or the Bad of the entire cosmos. He seems to be entirely dispassionate, unconnected and unconcerned with what goes on in the very scheme of things He has created. What then may I ask is His role or what then is our incentive for reaching such a God, whether through Religion or through Spirituality?

As the Upanishads say - there is only one reality, nothing else. Everything else is a mere appearance. Now this comes in for a lot of criticism from the critics of Advaita Vedanta. But this seems to be the only logical justification, because every other picture or description of God seems self-contradictory. He is unattached, yet caring. He shows no interest in the affairs of the cosmos and yet is partial towards His Bhaktas (devotees). He does not propagate Right or Wrong because He is free from both. Indeed the scholars have even gone to the extent of saying that this contradiction too has been deliberately created by God so that only those who persist in finding Him with the utmost faith and sincerity alone can find Him. No wonder the texts instead of giving a holistic picture of God tend to confuse people and create a phantom out of God. There are very few sources of authentic information. And they too are in a language which no one understands in the modern times. So we have to rely on commentary – again created by Humans howsoever exalted they may be. Yet these commentaries and sub-texts are our only source of understanding the Vedas and the Upanishads. And finally one has to rely on one’s own commonsense and intellect to make sense from them.

The Upanishads mention that if freedom were something to be acquired - it would not be desirable for then either it would take an infinite effort to acquire it or it would be reached by some amount of effort and thus become like any other object that can be reached through time and effort. What we desire is primordial bliss, absolute and boundless Freedom and Happiness. It can't be anything but. In a nutshell, the nature of this kind of freedom would be infinite. And to reach infinity an infinite amount of effort would be required – something which none of us mortals is capable of exerting. That being the case, Freedom or Moksha would become unattainable. And yet we do get a glimpse of that freedom even if fleetingly in deep sleep, when we leave behind all worries and troubles and sleep as though we have cast our body away. That freedom, which we obtain routinely in deep sleep, cannot therefore be unreachable. That then means that we must already have it. This is the knowledge we need to ascertain. This is the God we need to find. Yes people may call it preposterous accustomed as they are to a God with name and form; indeed people may call it a denial of the existence of God as understood by humanity. This is where the learning comes. I cannot force anyone to follow what I am saying. All this is a matter of direct experience. Efforts are directed to achieve things ... what we don't understand is that there are two kinds of achievements - achievement of that which is “not already achieved” - which is how achievement is understood generally, and the achievement of that “which is already achieved”. Now what is this second kind of effort? If something is already achieved why would one waste his time to achieve it at all? Yet this seemingly incongruous quest is what we are all engaged in when trying to achieve freedom, true happiness, moksha or God. To give an example, you may have forgotten that you are wearing your watch and in that mistaken notion you may go from one corner of the house to the other finding the 'misplaced' watch only to be reminded by your mother that you are already wearing it. Now the 'finding of the watch' is akin to an “achievement of the already achieved”. Till such time as the knowledge was not yours, you were struggling to “find” the watch. Similar is the state of all of us. We don't know that what we are looking for is verily what we are. We just need to get rid of the cobweb of Agyaan. That's all. This seemingly simple principle is I daresay at the very core of this entire drama that we see around us. This has spawned countless generation of universes and countless lives and countless sages and countless scriptures and cults ... not to mention Spirituality and Religion. It is impossible however to get to this direct fact but by winding through the maze of all that this universe has to offer. To get to this stage one has to take “Ishwara's Sharan – take refuge in His might”. Yes, I had said earlier that He is impartial. I still hold by it. Yet to the seeker He does show the way ... not because He has any special incentive for doing so but because that's the way His rules are set. He just lets the Srishti run itself by the rules He has laid down. Everything works with clockwork precision.

The foregoing discussion is now ready to snowball into a full-fledged enquiry into the nature of Existence and of God. I have shown the inherent contradictions and yet shown that these contradictions have a basis. God has set rules by which He adheres. No matter what happens, His rules are uncircumventable. The special interest He seems to evince in creatures who come to Him is not because He fancies them - but because NO CREATURE will be inspired to take refuge in Him unless he has learnt the folly of pursuing materialistic desires and in that way has cleared himself of the cobwebs of Maya.

But this would have to be a separate discussion which I intend to take some other time. For now suffice it to say that the God we so earnestly desire to find is not to be found outside of ourselves. He resides in us. Indeed there is nothing save Him. But this knowledge does not happen accidentally or by fluke. It's a culmination of years of Sadhana(contemplating on God). One needs all the tools prescribed in the texts - and to that extent confusing as they may be - one has to wade through the rigmarole and the contradictions to get to the essence. One must not get confounded. Using the same battery of senses which are normally outwardly aligned one has to turn the attention inwards and use them to cross the bridge of Samsara. Yes, the same very senses that are the cause for pain will catapult us to the path of supreme bliss. Just as the knife can be used to kill someone, it is also used by the surgeon to give life to a suffering patient. The knife in and of of itself has no intent or desire. The use to which it is put depends solely on the entity operating it. So it is with our senses. So it is with everything else. So it is with God. Blame Him or love Him - He remains unmoved and unfettered.

Hari Om!