Yes, you read it right: blind faith is not spirituality!
This may be one of the most counter-intuitive and unconventional statements you have ever read! Haven’t we always been told that we should have faith and belief that cannot be shaken by trivialities of life? Isn’t the spiritual beyond the temporal and spatial, and therefore beyond empiricism and invariably linked to faith, and selfless devotion and faith at that? Isn’t questioning or doubting the knowledge and revelations given to us by spiritual leaders usually the precursor to scepticism and atheistic tendencies?
Yes and no!
If instead of looking at this as a statement simply in negation, we look at it from the perspective that seers and sages, maulvis and priests, over the years have seen: a quest to realise the ultimate reality and the truth thereof, we can reconcile this with the way things are or should be, when it comes to spirituality. The spiritual may not be temporal and spatial, and therefore not empirical, but that does not make it inaccessible. On the contrary, spiritual experiences have come to all and sundry, from the leather-maker saint Nandanar to the Sudanese-Italian Canossian religious sister – Saint Josephine Bakhita.
The natural question then is:
Why are there so many daunting structures and layers of access to ‘God’ in contemporary religions? If God exists, is accessing the grace of God only primarily a concern of a few?
The simple answer is no, but historically, it has been otherwise, and the reason for that lies in the intersection of society and spirituality and relates to historical movements of ideas and people associated with them. It was not necessarily in ancient scriptures and formulations that religion became about the customs and rituals, the belief sets, and the rigidities that lead to the other-ing of ‘non-believers’, as it is in many places today.
It was not preconceived notions about God that the ancient civilisations were obsessed about as much as acknowledging the truth, the Satya, of everything there is in the universe. In fact, Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism is the way of life (also categorised as a modern religion) that actively moves away from fixed ideas of Satya, and is probably the only religion with an atheistic system of philosophy – Carvaka, as part of it! I would go so far as to say that: Spirituality must be founded on the truth of experience and the experience of the ruth, and not be overtly reliant on belief or faith.
Unlike an election or a business operation, spirituality is a very personal domain. There is no end result in this, and the only motive for embarking on a spiritual journey is purely the pursuit of truth and understanding the purpose of existence. To show you that the ancient Dharmic seers thought similarly, let me quote a few of my favourite verses from the Rig Veda – the Nasadiya Sukta:
नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत् |
किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद्गहनं गभीरम् ॥ १॥
न मृत्युरासीदमृतं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः |
आनीदवातं स्वधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन्न परः किञ्चनास ॥२॥
तम आसीत्तमसा गूहळमग्रे प्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वाऽइदम् |
तुच्छ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत्तपसस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम् ॥३॥
कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः प्रथमं यदासीत् |
सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयो मनीषा ॥४॥
तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः स्विदासीदुपरि स्विदासीत् |
रेतोधा आसन्महिमान आसन्त्स्वधा अवस्तात्प्रयतिः परस्तात् ॥५॥
को अद्धा वेद क इह प्र वोचत्कुत आजाता कुत इयं विसृष्टिः |
अर्वाग्देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यत आबभूव ॥६॥
इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न |
यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.
In the beginning desire descended on it –
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is, is kin to that which is not.
And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.
These are the first few verses of the Rig Veda, an ancient Indian collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns and one of the four sacred canonical texts (śruti) of Sanatana Dharma. These verses hold a lot of profundity and insight into the thoughts of the seers who composed them. They also happen to hold the essence of the Dharmic way.
A legitimate question in this regard is: were the seers confused or deliberately misleading people when it came to discussing God and the universe? Neither and yet both! They were neither confused, for their reflections have universal truths scattered all across the Vedas, nor deliberately misleading since they believed in the value of truth.
However, there is another layer of meaning in these verses. Brahman, or the supreme essence of the Universe, as per the seers, was beyond conception, beyond description, beyond empiricism. Therefore, even though they had obtained insights by experiencing an aspect of the higher Truth, there was little that could be said about the experience in words. In that respect, the seers were ‘confused’ as to how to describe it. And this is where the paradoxical verses came handy: they made the reader not just accept or believe or even get to know the indescribable Brahman, but rather to seek it themselves. To experience it. To realise Satya, the absolute truth.
In this age, if we live with a healthy dose of scepticism, rationality and a scientific temper, why must we not be balanced in spirituality? Not disbelieving the possibility and presence of absolute truth, and yet not believing everything told to us unless we experience it. The degree and nature of the belief formed by oneself, not based on what others say, can be variable for every individual.
In the Dharmic way, there is the Saguna (endowed with attributes) and Nirguna (devoid of attributes) form of God; there is the Sakar (with form) and Nirakar (without form) aspect of God; more importantly there is an Astika (with faith) and Nastika (without faith) form of seeking Satya, the truth. Dharma is that which follows Ṛta, the order of the universe, and in doing so, makes the Dharmic way respect the laws of nature and yet transcend them.
In understanding and acknowledging this, Dharmic spirituality liberates man from the burden of history, his/her thoughts and expectations of faith, and makes it a free-flowing and independent exploration, a quest towards Satya (Truth). It brings to the fore that sweetest of secrets that are embedded in the Upanishads, in the Vedantic way: decentralisation of the quest for truth and divinity to the individual, the seeker, the Atman. And this is where the famous words तत्त्वमसि or ‘You are that‘ is illustrative of a profound truth: you are in essence the same truth that pervades the Universe.
You may ask: is there no space for faith in spirituality and religion?
Of course, there is! A fundamental part. But not as a prerequisite necessarily. Yes, your family and community may orient you to a particular religion from your childhood and devotion is important to pursuing Satya (Truth). But it is devotion to the quest to seek the truth that is important. When we speak of Bhakti or devotion associated with Dharma, we can speak of a number of things: It may refer to devotion towards a spiritual teacher, to a personal god, or for spirituality without form in what is known as ‘Nirguna Bhakti‘.
The term Bhakti, in Vedic Sanskrit literature, has a general meaning of “mutual attachment, devotion, fondness for, devotion to”. The Dharmic path would associate the same as an active adjunct to a more primary and active path to seeking Satya (truth) as best suits the individual.
Evolution Of The Faith And Accessibility Of The Spiritual
Every system of spirituality, philosophy and thought arises in a certain time and context. Proto-Indo-European cultures and civilisations, from the Neolithic period, had some interesting elements in their faith: *Dyḗus Pḥatḗr (the god of the daylit skies), *Dʰéǵʰōm (the earth mother), *Haéusōs (the goddess of the dawn), the storm god *Perkwunos (the storm god), *Péh2usōn (a pastoral god) and *Seh2ul (a female solar deity). These gods are seen in derivative cultures as well. For instance, *Dyḗus Pḥatḗr is seen as Dyaus in the Vedic culture, as seen in Mandala 1 Hymn 89:
तन नो वातो मयोभु वातु भेषजं तन माता पर्थिवी तत्पिता दयौः
तद गरावाणः सोमसुतो मयोभुवस्तदश्विना शर्णुतं धिष्ण्या युवम
May Earth our Mother, and our Father Heaven give it to us &, may the Wind waft to us that pleasant medicine.
In Rig Veda Mandala 4 Hymn 1, Dyauṣ is said to showers true blessings
स तू नो अग्निर नयतु परजानन्न अछा रत्नं देवभक्तं यद अस्य
धिया यद विश्वे अम्र्ता अक्र्ण्वन दयौष पिता जनिता सत्यम उक्षन
Thee Agni, have the Gods, ever of one accord, sent hither down, a God, appointed messenger, yea, with their wisdom sent thee down. The Immortal, O thou Holy One, mid mortal men, the God-devoted God, the wise, have they brought forth, brought forth the omnipresent God-devoted Sage.
In western mythology, *Dyḗus Pḥatḗr is the precursor to Zeus. Similar is the case with other gods and goddesses. Also of note, is the association of some of the gods with the social activities and norms of the age, including a pastoral god. This, however, evolved over time, as it must, with the essence still intact: that of Truth and certain universal values. Be it Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism or any other religion, there are elements of the faith that are age-specific and contextual and then there are elements that are fairly universal. I think the idea always has been to extract the essence of all these elements and evolve with time. That is what Dharma, nay simple sensibilities, would say.
The key to this evolution is the accessibility of the spiritual. Just like by using a set of procedures and apparatus in a scientific experiment, one can confirm or negate a certain concept or theory or idea in science, one can similarly access spiritual truths in one’s own idiosyncratic ways, with a suitable path, teacher and training, and associated process.
The Futility Of Conversions And Standing Up For Satya
The concept of conversions, in the light of what was discussed above, is futile and meaningless. If there is no ‘other-ing‘ of any human being due to their innate humanity and associated with the underlying essence and oneness of the universe, then there cannot be a separation of a ‘good faith‘ and a ‘bad faith‘.
While one can sometimes not know what connection or even realisation of truth is, one can definitely point out what a true path to Satya would not be. It can never be exclusivist or parochial in its definition, and yet is righteous and just in standing up against forces that destabilise or cause harm. Much like the modern secular state secures and safe keeps the space for all ways to the truth, for all religions, to prosper and to be practised, the Dharmic way is all about tolerance and allowing that space not just on paper but in practice. It endorses pluralism, cosmopolitanism and tolerance. In that sense, Dharma, inherently, is secular.
We all need to stand up for secularism and religious tolerance, not because of rules and norms, but rather from the realisation that the ultimate truth is beyond all binaries, dualities and even multiplicities.
Dharma is not a belief system or dogma, and is definitely not just limited to the system of religion and philosophy that have been practised by Hindus. Dharma is neither a religion nor is it based on one, but a religious, philosophical or social system can be based on Dharma.
I feel this is an important point to highlight. Dharma is ‘non-partisan’ in nature, and while modern secularism may just be about non-discrimination against particular religions, Dharma is about active and equal respect for all faiths, ideas, realities, identities and people. Dharma is not co-terminus with religion and transcends it, in being beyond the binaries of (modern) definitions of secular or communal, of this and that. It is both, and yet beyond.
In a Dharmic society a non-religious person cannot sideline or be sidelined by a religious person, just as a person of one faith cannot sideline or be sidelined by anybody else from a different faith.
There cannot be any coercive or conceited ways to convert people in a Dharmic society. It is because of the fundamental place of Dharma in the modern Indian state, particularly in never having had a sustained period of state acceptance of exclusivism, that secularism in the modern times is so fundamental to the Indian constitution and so reflective of the thoughts and views of the Indian people as well as the conception of ‘India’ as a state.
I would like to conclude this piece with the ever-green words from the Vedas:
एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति, which means that the Absolute Truth is one but it is manifest differently.