It never ceases to amaze me when I read all that is written about spirituality in books and on the internet. I suppose people would express equally diverse and obtuse views to each other directly were it not for the cultural taboos that prevent such conversations from being common. Thank goodness.
Most of these so-called ’spiritual’ writings in one way or another address the question, “what does it mean to ‘be spiritual’ in today’s world?” Often, this question is disguised in other language, using exalted and confusing terminology, but invariably it essentially boils down to the same game of “seeking to become enlightened” (i.e. that which one is not). If you ask me, it’s a foolish game to be playing, and the wrong question to be asking. Like many other questions we encounter on a daily basis, such as “how do we keep the economy growing?”, or “how do we defeat the terrorists?”, the question makes an assumption which itself should be seriously doubted.
In the case of the economy, the assumptions that exponential growth is sustainable and/or would be beneficial are rarely questioned. And yet, even a simple-minded understanding of what exponential growth is exactly makes it clear that the goal is foolhardy in the long run. Similarly, in the case of terrorism, there is an assumption that a person can be labeled “terrorist” or “non-terrorist”, as if it’s a fixed and true classification. And yet, sociology has proven time and again that people’s behavior is largely a function of their environment; and thus, absent a fixed environment, the classification falls apart upon examination.
Similarly, the goal of “being spiritual”, much as in the case of “defeating a terrorist”, is an ideal that when pursued, can do a better job of keeping one away from how one really wants to live more so than most people realize. I assert that there is no such thing as a “spiritual person”, and anyone who claims to be is still struggling with some significant attachments.
If you don’t believe me, here is a simple experiment you can conduct to test this assertion. If you are certain that such people exist, then go find the five most spiritual people you can, and ask them if they consider themselves “more spiritual” than any other man or woman. If even one says “yes”, I would be quite surprised. I would also recommend running away, and then re-examining your reasons for choosing this person as an exemplar.
Perhaps more meaningful questions than, “how can I become more spiritual?” that one could ask oneself are, “who or what am I?” and, “what actions shall I take at this moment?” Or simply, one could inquire into what it is to be, period. The questions are far more important than the answers. And in our deeds we may find that there are “answers”, but not in the conventional sense.
There is no doubt that something happens to us when we embark on the long journey of spiritual awakening that is brought on by Grace, or by intense desire and practice. What it is that happens exactly, is a mystery that one can never resolve in commonly held human terms. I suspect that for most people struggling to come to grips with it, the most difficult aspect to accept is the stark simplicity of it all. Our cultures have become so complex in today’s world that we have a very difficult time stepping back to see what is right in front of our noses.
There is a famous story, an urban legend of sorts, for which there is no apparent agreement as to the origin. Nonetheless, stories like these are often worthwhile. This version appears in Stephen Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”
Is the scientist really wiser than the old lady? Or vice versa? Maybe it doesn’t matter. In either case, the argument is based on a lot of assumptions. What is left when assumptions are removed? Or is it assumptions all the way down? Hmm …
Post a Comment