Spirituality  vs.  intellectualization

Parimal Devnath

12B174, Valvan,

Lonavla, Pune-410403.

The great Masters unanimously opine that true spirituality means a state of ‘BEING’.  It is a state of absolute colourlessness.  Such a state is non-definable.  Had it been possible to define it, it would be defined only in a limited way since  expression through words as regards to such a state very much falls short of depicting the true picture.   It remains inexplicable (avang-manasa-gocara). 

Yet the Masters try to relate it as Shiva-hood, Brahma-hood, Spiritual Freedom, freedom from cycle of birth and death, freedom from suffering, Self-realization and so on.

Despite all such efforts to define the state of Absolute Being, on hearing, one is bound to get an impression in mind created by these terms.  This impression created on mind is certainly ‘limiting’ the limitless.  Mind has a tendency to think in boxes.  Mind has not the capability to think the ‘a-spatial and a-temporal’. 

We come across a lot of intellectual discussion on origin of creation, its beginning and end, its sustenance, purpose of creation,  aim of creation etc.  However maximum discussion is available on the nature of God; whether God is having a form or God is formless.  There is no agreed conclusion.  Both are possible or even impossible.

Theoretical or logical discussion serves a few significant purposes:

a) It creates a (false) sense of gaining knowledge;

b)  A genuine seeker of Truth pursues intellectual knowledge only to find that it is just a futile exercise.  It just creates a groove in mind.  It is a process of conditioning.  And nothing else.  Whereas realization of Truth is not a conditioning at all; if it is conditioning, it is not realization; it is just a passing experience;

c) Knowledge enhances ego.  Self-realization does not.

Theoretical knowledge offers some understanding as regards the status of a phenomenon or an object.  It does not give any experience of the phenomenon or object.  Especially in regard to the Absolute.

Theoretical knowledge offers a choice, what one should go for making an effort on out of many available options.

Mere theoretical knowledge without experience is like sitting in a restaurant and reading the menu and consuming nothing. 

So it is all about a choice to be made from the menu card. 

Further this choice or selection has to be acted upon for personal experience.  This makes an individual path to be walked on.

Since childhood we are exposed to a host of information formally (schooling) as well as informally (social inputs), more aptly known as knowledge gathering process.  It is quite strange what one is exposed to.  What controls this, luck, destiny or what force that decides the course of life due to these inputs.  Out of a vast number of streams of knowledge we just stick to one or two which we may like to pursue mainly for livelihood.  No matter how superbly genius one may be, a human being is not capable to follow more than two or three branches of knowledge in one life time.   This is how mundane (aparaa vidya) disciplines of knowledge are concerned. 

When it comes to knowledge of the Self (Para vidya, transcendental wisdom), different set of logic is to be applied.

In this field, in the beginning, one has to gather some experience through practices.

Over a period of time, this experience may be digested well.  And yet, further one, one would like to overcome the impact of experience since this creates a groove or conditioning. 

So the picture appears somewhat like this:

a)       Information or conceptual clarity, a road map is in place, siddhanta shravana,

b)        Choice to be made about the road map, contemplation, manana,

c)       Acting upon the chosen path, personal practice,

d)      Walking on the path and gaining on experience, assimilating the science.  Becoming one with it.  This may generate ego.  So---

e)      Complete transcendence of the experience since it does not set us free; rather it creates conditioning, a nice rut.

f)        Experience cannot be relied upon. They are deceptive.  They are external.  There is no consistency in experiences.  Today it is a nice experience; tomorrow it is not so nice.  No two experiences are same.  These are transitory. 

g)       One would rather go for the ‘Experiencer’.  One that experiences all that comes within its range, just like a mirror reflecting good as well as ugly, yet remaining indifferent.  It is Pure Consciousness that reflects all.

h)      Yet, ‘experiencing’ means discrimination made among the experience, object of experience and the process of experience.  It means total disintegration.  Disintegration among the three: drasta (perceiver), drishya (object of perception) and darshana (process of perception).  Unitary nature (Advaita) of life is challenged.

i)        And furthermore, this entire process may be transcended, leaving out no trace of it at all.  This is turiyatita, the non-identifiable state, known as a-naamaa, the noumenal, Para Shiva.