There has often been a debate on whether there is such a thing as ‘Universal Human Values’ It may be argued that human beings have evolved a set of ‘Dos and Don’ts’ or views on what is desirable and what is anti-social behaviour that are almost invariant across societies in time and space. Murder, robbery, infidelity, lying and cheating are considered reprehensible in all societies. On the positive side truthfulness, family values, kindness, generosity, forbearance and other similar traits would be considered desirable almost anywhere. In a sense these traits or behaviour patterns may be classified as ‘Disruptive’ or ‘Cohesive’ so far as society is concerned. Society as defined as a fellowship or group of like-minded people who live, intermarry and work together demands cohesiveness and will tend to oppose disruptive behaviour.
It follows, therefore that those members of society who practice cohesive behaviour are regarded as ‘good’ and their behaviour is worthy of emulation as role models. Mahatma Gandhi would be probably the best example of such a person. While he was a deeply religious Hindu he did not hesitate to oppose some of the religion’s pernicious practices like untouchability. It is important to understand that people like Mahatma Gandhi are not religious figures in the conventional sense or ‘God Men’ in the uniquely Indian phrase. They are ‘Spiritual’ leaders and it would be useful to dwell on this thought for a while. A Spiritual person by his behaviour, sayings and deeds is someone whom society looks up to and respects. Who does not propagate a blind faith in religion but rather inculcates respect for all humanity. Someone who works tirelessly for the uplift of the human spirit and is in that sense a spiritual person.
The other end of the spectrum is a Religious person. Most religions try to define a cause and effect relationship between your deeds and the end result. If you follow the Ten Commandments you will go to heaven. Similarly you will find Moksha if you feed Brahmins or bathe in the Ganga. In most cases the kind of behaviour that religions wish to foster is broadly similar to the behaviour that a spiritual person would aspire too. In that sense there appears to be little dichotomy between Spiritualism and Religiosity. However there are a few critical differences. There is an element of coercion in religion. If you not feed Brahmins you will not attain Moksha. It is almost as if mankind has to be bribed like fractious children to do God’s bidding. The second key difference between Religiosity and Spiritualism is based on logic vs faith. Spiritualism is logical as it fosters behaviour that benefits society. It is an end in itself inasmuch that the Spiritual person is liked, respected and emulated by his fellow men. That should be motivation enough. However, religion takes a crucial step beyond mere logic. It attempts to provide answers to basic existential questions. What is the purpose of our existence? What will happen to us after we die? There are no logical answers to such questions and the answers that religions provide cannot be subjected to empirical proof. Has anyone ever seen heaven? Or does anyone know what Moksha feels like? The convoluted language and allegories that religious texts take shelter behind are really indicative of the confusion and uncertainty that prevails in this area. The unfortunate side effect of insistence on faith is religious dogma and exclusionist thinking. The conviction that ‘my way is the only way’ and that ‘my religion is the best and everyone has to conform to it’ has unfortunate consequences that we are all too familiar with.
Does it really matter whether you will go to heaven after a lifetime spent in conforming to archaic religious precepts? Does it really make a difference whether you will never be born again and that your soul will fuse with the Brahman after you die?
Is it not better to strive to be a better human being today through your own inner conviction? Is it not enough to be a good and spiritual human being without feeling it necessary to impose your beliefs on others? Surely spiritualism is all that a human being needs to have a good life himself as well as having a positive impact on others.
It follows, therefore that those members of society who practice cohesive behaviour are regarded as ‘good’ and their behaviour is worthy of emulation as role models. Mahatma Gandhi would be probably the best example of such a person. While he was a deeply religious Hindu he did not hesitate to oppose some of the religion’s pernicious practices like untouchability. It is important to understand that people like Mahatma Gandhi are not religious figures in the conventional sense or ‘God Men’ in the uniquely Indian phrase. They are ‘Spiritual’ leaders and it would be useful to dwell on this thought for a while. A Spiritual person by his behaviour, sayings and deeds is someone whom society looks up to and respects. Who does not propagate a blind faith in religion but rather inculcates respect for all humanity. Someone who works tirelessly for the uplift of the human spirit and is in that sense a spiritual person.
The other end of the spectrum is a Religious person. Most religions try to define a cause and effect relationship between your deeds and the end result. If you follow the Ten Commandments you will go to heaven. Similarly you will find Moksha if you feed Brahmins or bathe in the Ganga. In most cases the kind of behaviour that religions wish to foster is broadly similar to the behaviour that a spiritual person would aspire too. In that sense there appears to be little dichotomy between Spiritualism and Religiosity. However there are a few critical differences. There is an element of coercion in religion. If you not feed Brahmins you will not attain Moksha. It is almost as if mankind has to be bribed like fractious children to do God’s bidding. The second key difference between Religiosity and Spiritualism is based on logic vs faith. Spiritualism is logical as it fosters behaviour that benefits society. It is an end in itself inasmuch that the Spiritual person is liked, respected and emulated by his fellow men. That should be motivation enough. However, religion takes a crucial step beyond mere logic. It attempts to provide answers to basic existential questions. What is the purpose of our existence? What will happen to us after we die? There are no logical answers to such questions and the answers that religions provide cannot be subjected to empirical proof. Has anyone ever seen heaven? Or does anyone know what Moksha feels like? The convoluted language and allegories that religious texts take shelter behind are really indicative of the confusion and uncertainty that prevails in this area. The unfortunate side effect of insistence on faith is religious dogma and exclusionist thinking. The conviction that ‘my way is the only way’ and that ‘my religion is the best and everyone has to conform to it’ has unfortunate consequences that we are all too familiar with.
Does it really matter whether you will go to heaven after a lifetime spent in conforming to archaic religious precepts? Does it really make a difference whether you will never be born again and that your soul will fuse with the Brahman after you die?
Is it not better to strive to be a better human being today through your own inner conviction? Is it not enough to be a good and spiritual human being without feeling it necessary to impose your beliefs on others? Surely spiritualism is all that a human being needs to have a good life himself as well as having a positive impact on others.
