The fact that the mind is an ever-changing landscape has been a matter of perpetual heartache for conventional spiritual thinking. The mind’s dynamism conflicts with spirituality’s cherished worldview of stability and permanence, which, throughout history, has underpinned the latter’s simmering—and at times stark—disapproval of thought and intellect. Little wonder that institutions begotten by thought and intellect also become subjects of spirituality’s soft disapproval or distancing, take logic and reasoning. But little does such an attitude do to change the fact on the ground—the reality that the mind holds the master key to the spiritual realm. To knowingly shut our eyes to the truth amounts to disingenuity. And just as every other sentiment, disingenuity breeds disingenuity.
Perhaps the biggest fallacy begotten by such disingenuity is the concept of an enduring spiritual ‘state’. Across its breadth, spiritual thinking loves to envision a perfect, idyllic spiritual state which, once achieved, becomes the permanent seat of the soul. And this should come as no surprise, for it only echoes the aspirations of the human soul, which longs for permanence in an impermanent world.
The mind, on the other hand, is subject to worldly wear and tear, while also being capable of full regeneration. And so far as spirituality is a function of our beliefs, attitudes and convictions, the truth remains that being spiritual demands consistent and lifelong effort and upkeep, which invariably renders spirituality an undulating journey full of ups and downs. Spiritual decay is real, and it is the only reason why even someone of the stature of the Buddha would take regular meditative interludes, away from his bustling daily teaching schedule.
But the biggest damage is dealt by the unrealistic expectations that emanate from such fallacies about what classifies as being spiritual and what doesn’t. Popular portrayals of how it looks to have reached a sublime spiritual state confound, and ultimately exclude, the legions of ordinary men who feel that such sublimity is divinely conferred and outside of mortal reach. It sets bogus, overly rigid standards about how an enlightened being should act or behave, and contributes to such detrimental myths as “spirituality is a later-life business”.
When it comes to genuine spirituality, therefore, it is pointless to talk of ‘states’ insofar as we expect them to be stable and enduring. Spirituality is akin to the human bipedal gait, which, unlike that of quadrupeds, is better described as an act of ‘controlled falling’ rather than walking. Where reaching any spiritual state soon initiates the process (albeit gradual) of its decay, spirituality is best described by a set of practices that comprise a way of life.
Spirituality is akin to the human bipedal gait which is better described as an act of 'controlled falling' rather than walking. Being spiritual demands consistent and lifelong efforts and upkeep.
And it is here that things get even more interesting. If spirituality can’t sidestep the mind’s dynamism, neither can spiritual practices or the ways of life they comprise. You and I may differ significantly in how far we can reach along the spiritual scale. Further, since spirituality is a function of our beliefs, attitudes and convictions, what works for one and what doesn’t can also vary widely.
For what else could have inspired the Vedas to prescribe four different kinds of yogas— namely karma, bhakti, raja and jnana—aimed at realising the supreme, non-dual Brahman? Such an implicit acceptance of the mind’s role, however, hardly helps with the straightjacketing that is pervasive in spiritual circles, let alone translating into a full-fledged conscious recognition that spirituality is an essentially mental endeavour. The corollary is that spiritual instruction ends up ignoring key psychological principles, ultimately keeping vast numbers from realising their true spiritual potential.
Another important artefact of spiritual disingenuity concerns speculation. Science, with its instruments of reasoning and experimentation, presents before us a dynamic landscape of reality. In this dynamic landscape, not only do newer realities emerge by the day, but an occasional discovery is so disruptive that it turns all our pre-existing beliefs on their heads. Clearly, this is too much to handle, where a fixation with stability and permanence prevails. Conventional spiritual thinking circumvents this by proffering metaphysical dogmas, which are defended against all attempts at empirical validation through the deployment of sentiment and faith.
But then you ask, why even bother about metaphysical niceties when all that is needed for spiritual growth is a strong intent to be free from suffering? While the desire to be free from suffering is the central ingredient of spiritual liberation, let this not minimise the immense adjunctive value that the knowledge of the truth can bring. Imagine asking someone deeply distressed over their lover’s miseries to turn attention to their own suffering. Clearly, it is easier to assuage them with universal and indubitable truths. But can’t fanciful doctrines be equally assuaging? Certainly, they can, until they eventually implode.
It does a great deal of disservice to spirituality for spiritual thinking to be at odds with the mind. And for reconciling spirituality with the mind, there could be no bigger mediator than truth, for it is the allegiance to the truth that spirituality can never forsake.