CHAPTER THREE, TEXT 3: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who try to realize the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service.
Religion gets a pretty bad rap.
In our modern society, the phrase "organized religion" is almost synonymous with "organized crime."
In fact, the words and phrases that come to my mind with the word religion are: strict, shallow, fanatics, meaningless rituals, sanctified violence, suppression of women, power-tripping men at the top, and ego battles. Just a few. I'm sure you could provide a few more colorful phrases to add to that list.
With so many negative connotations to the word religion that are, frankly, kind of warranted, no wonder the phrase of choice today is: "I'm spiritual but not religious."
In this verse, though, Krishna describes that on the spiritual path there are two classes of people - one class wants to understand the spirit through philosophical speculation (sankhya-yoga) and the other class by devotional service (karma-yoga / buddhi-yoga). Prabhupad translates these two principles as philosophy (or "spirituality") and religion, and both are valid approaches.
Yes, religion.
Huh?
I thought religion was strict, shallow, and fanatical?
Definitions are a great place to start. Often, we get carried away with the connotations of a word without truly examining what the word means. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, religion is: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Okay. No mention of strict, shallow fanatics. But I think what gets warped in our modern context is the word "worship" - worship then translates as practical action, which can translate as rituals that are acted upon in very shallow, fanatical ways. Unfortunately, this is common in religious circles.
Conversely, the definition of spirituality is: "the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things." So far so good. Being concerned with the spirit over material things sounds like a pretty great aspiration. That said, the "quality of being concerned" is rather vague. How does one put being "concerned" into action? I could be "concerned" all day and all night about the soul until I die, but if I never act upon or show that concern, then really my spirituality has little to no substance. It's simply that - a concern. Airy philosophy.
The key is that religion and philosophy are interdependent (133) and must be combined. Srila Prabhupad offers a famous statement: "Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation" (ibid).
This means that when religion does not have a deeper concern for the human spirit or higher understanding, it is just a shallow display of sentimental rituals and worship. An excessive attachment to those rituals and regulations shows up as fanaticism. Go figure.
The other side of the coin, though, is that when philosophy is not combined with practical action, one just speculates about truth in circles forever and never acts on those beliefs. Then there's no deep substance to those beliefs. The dreaded "armchair philosopher."
Unfortunately, it is so easy to swing to one side or the other, and the hardest practice is to balance the two. If fact, we could all introspect about our own approach and consider: Which side do I fall harder on - the religious or spiritual side? Which side do I sense I need to develop more?
That said, while both philosophy and religion are interdependent and crucial for balanced spiritual growth, Prabhupad emphasizes that practical action is easier for human beings. We sometimes have a hard time with philosophy. We need practical experience, we need activities that awaken our hearts to love and to the human spirit. I have often experienced that when I'm not "feeling it" and have no concern whatsoever into the "human spirit" and philosophy, if I can just DO some worship - offer some flower, sing some song, fold my palms, anything - my heart awakens to love and to spirituality. I have experienced this awakening during Catholic mass when I kneel as well as opening my palms during prayers in a mosque as well as singing the holy name in communal kirtan in a temple. Devotional service is not restricted to any particular religious path.
In this way, Prabhupad emphasizes that "devotional service is simultaneously easy and sublime" (133). This phrase is so perfect, devotional service, for it implies the perfect balance of spiritual and divine concern (devotional) and the practical and accessible action (service).
Religion is underrated.
Spirituality is overrated.
The balance of the two is more challenging to strike, and yet when we find that beautiful balance, when we offer devotional service, the process is truly easy and sublime.
Religion gets a pretty bad rap.
In our modern society, the phrase "organized religion" is almost synonymous with "organized crime."
In fact, the words and phrases that come to my mind with the word religion are: strict, shallow, fanatics, meaningless rituals, sanctified violence, suppression of women, power-tripping men at the top, and ego battles. Just a few. I'm sure you could provide a few more colorful phrases to add to that list.
With so many negative connotations to the word religion that are, frankly, kind of warranted, no wonder the phrase of choice today is: "I'm spiritual but not religious."
In this verse, though, Krishna describes that on the spiritual path there are two classes of people - one class wants to understand the spirit through philosophical speculation (sankhya-yoga) and the other class by devotional service (karma-yoga / buddhi-yoga). Prabhupad translates these two principles as philosophy (or "spirituality") and religion, and both are valid approaches.
Yes, religion.
Huh?
I thought religion was strict, shallow, and fanatical?
Definitions are a great place to start. Often, we get carried away with the connotations of a word without truly examining what the word means. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, religion is: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Okay. No mention of strict, shallow fanatics. But I think what gets warped in our modern context is the word "worship" - worship then translates as practical action, which can translate as rituals that are acted upon in very shallow, fanatical ways. Unfortunately, this is common in religious circles.
Conversely, the definition of spirituality is: "the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things." So far so good. Being concerned with the spirit over material things sounds like a pretty great aspiration. That said, the "quality of being concerned" is rather vague. How does one put being "concerned" into action? I could be "concerned" all day and all night about the soul until I die, but if I never act upon or show that concern, then really my spirituality has little to no substance. It's simply that - a concern. Airy philosophy.
The key is that religion and philosophy are interdependent (133) and must be combined. Srila Prabhupad offers a famous statement: "Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation" (ibid).
This means that when religion does not have a deeper concern for the human spirit or higher understanding, it is just a shallow display of sentimental rituals and worship. An excessive attachment to those rituals and regulations shows up as fanaticism. Go figure.
The other side of the coin, though, is that when philosophy is not combined with practical action, one just speculates about truth in circles forever and never acts on those beliefs. Then there's no deep substance to those beliefs. The dreaded "armchair philosopher."
Unfortunately, it is so easy to swing to one side or the other, and the hardest practice is to balance the two. If fact, we could all introspect about our own approach and consider: Which side do I fall harder on - the religious or spiritual side? Which side do I sense I need to develop more?
That said, while both philosophy and religion are interdependent and crucial for balanced spiritual growth, Prabhupad emphasizes that practical action is easier for human beings. We sometimes have a hard time with philosophy. We need practical experience, we need activities that awaken our hearts to love and to the human spirit. I have often experienced that when I'm not "feeling it" and have no concern whatsoever into the "human spirit" and philosophy, if I can just DO some worship - offer some flower, sing some song, fold my palms, anything - my heart awakens to love and to spirituality. I have experienced this awakening during Catholic mass when I kneel as well as opening my palms during prayers in a mosque as well as singing the holy name in communal kirtan in a temple. Devotional service is not restricted to any particular religious path.
In this way, Prabhupad emphasizes that "devotional service is simultaneously easy and sublime" (133). This phrase is so perfect, devotional service, for it implies the perfect balance of spiritual and divine concern (devotional) and the practical and accessible action (service).
Religion is underrated.
Spirituality is overrated.
The balance of the two is more challenging to strike, and yet when we find that beautiful balance, when we offer devotional service, the process is truly easy and sublime.
No comments:
Post a Comment