DETAILED THEME-NOTE

DISSIDENT STREAMS IN SPIRITUALITY


Perhaps, an ex-pression like dissident spirituality might look strange, because usually the term spirituality signifies a pursuit of higher knowledge or truth. It is seen as individuals meditative engagement or preoccupation with what is felt to be supremely influential. At the level of spiritual awareness one is supposed to have a profound sense of life and the world. If it is conceived as a pious activity, in spirituality one may not find the least relevance for having a stance of dissent. Even if there are differences of some kind the spiritual ways of disagreement would not be antagonistic as in the case of social institutional affairs. When the gestures of dissent, protest, opposition, etc are viewed as involving certain amount of violence, the spiritual path in itself cannot go in tune with modes of dissidence. The ontological disjunction thus presumed to exist between spiritual and social domains is seen on par with that of individual and collective spheres of life.
Spirituality as a pursuit of self-awareness is also considered as alternative or modified level of existence in individual practitioners. It is believed that such a conditioned state of existence makes one capable of achieving salvation. As moral beings, all spiritual practitioners, in spite of their different pathways, are supposed to be preoccupied with the universal higher principle. The path of spirituality is, thus likely to be the path of reverence, instead of being argumentative and competitive for the establishment of something in terms of quantitative results. When the sociality is contrasted as the domain of worldlylife, its boundary could be drawn along the lines of claims to superiority and authenticity. Here, however, what needs to be seen is where the demarcation between the spiritual/non-spiritual exists. Is it in trans-history, trans-theory, trans-language, or trans-religion? The supposed transcendentalism would render spirituality unspeakable. If it is ineffable, the whole idea of identifying something or somebody to be spiritual would turn to be implausible. As long as the spiritual discourse being a historical situation, the very talk of spirituality as unspeakable state of being remains self-contradicting. That is, the moment spirituality is talked about it gets debunked, and so spiritual-talk itself becomes anti-spiritual in its transcendentalist sense. Hence, a thinking on spirituality as an uncontested site of individual existence (a transformation process of self-awareness), seems to be logically unviable, let apart the question whether it is a state of being conditioned or unconditioned by culture or society.
However, the history of religious and spiritual practices shows a different story altogether. The contrary situation would be notable for its privileged discourse on spirituality of one kind or other. Moreover it appears to be a history drawn out of blood-spattered wars and mutual distrust, consequent on the competing claims of superiority of spiritual path and destination. There may have attempts to defend spirituality by insulating it from the domain of religious practices. Even by distinguishing between spirituality and spiritual practices, for the said reason, spiritual life as a mode of contemplative existence does not imply any ritual performance and everyday conduct. Yet, it does not appear to be free from dispute since the silent observance of moral codes, life-styles, or the ex-pressions of behavior and opinion have been found tainted by conflict of interests.
Besides, there are various claims to truth and greatness of religions on basis of the profoundness and universality of their spiritual doctrines. The spiritual basis also includes the mystic power of their founders and prophetic exponents. Those foundational aspects go by what is often called as religious spirituality. This has also been countered by saying that the terms religious and spirituality cannot go together for they designate contradictory situations. That is, the spirituality being a transgression of all kinds of religious situation, the ex-pression religious spirituality becomes an oxymoron. Whether the notion of spirituality is religion-dependent (divine-dependent) or not, the fact that there exist varied claims on spiritual truth, makes it equally a contested domain of human awareness and pursuit. Any attempt to prioritize spirituality as an unbounded act of desiring for the spirit-hood would be leading to its essentialist discourse. Every act of differentiation in terms of privileging one over the other has also been found to be at the risk of domination and marginalisation. The argument for construing the domain of spirituality as a rarefied area of realization free from disputation or opposition, (area of no-talk) cannot hold any weight. Hence, it might be pertinent to examine under what condition those spiritual claims are made of or why certain claims are disputed over.
Though the concepts of religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, they often seem to be at loggerheads in respect of ones priority over the other. Those who argue in favor of religion consider it as a means for the realisation of spiritual truth. For them, religion does not exclude spirituality because as far as laymen are concerned, the spirituality is primarily identical with the institutionalized structures, community consciousness, and ritualistic performances. However, the spiritual transformation to a higher-order does not necessarily mean a relegation of religion to spirituality. Rather, spirituality is a matter of deep-religiosity. For some others, no gradation is to be made between them. Both are intrinsically related. The moral rigor of religion, for them consists in its intimacy with sociality and politics. The exclusivists would think that spirituality can exist independently of religion. Sometimes, religion and spirituality are even viewed as antithetical to each other. Such a radical view is often shared by transcendentalists irreligionists, atheists, and secularists. They see spirituality in contradistinction to religion. While transcendentalists see spirituality as opposed to religion, irreligionists see it as an opposition to all that is ideological, social, political and religious. Further, there is another way in which spirituality is perceived. It is a view that spirituality is a matter that should be placed in contra-distinction to what is political, social, cultural, worldly, profane, secular, material, scientific, modern, so on so forth. Perhaps, such difference of perception might remain to be a perpetual source of conflict within the discourse of religion and spirituality. They might have caused denominational or sectarian divisions within the organised religious and spiritual establishments. Consequently, they engender proliferation of internal fights on the basis of regional interests, nativity, ethnicity, sub-identity, ideology, etc, which often cause major social unrest. Thus there are spirituality-bound socio-political problems that are spearheaded by those who are reformists, conformists, moderates, natives, fundamentalists, revivalists, radicals, rebels, extremists, and terrorists.
The spiritual contestations are seen involving a process of differentiation on the basis of opposing conceptions of spiritual or divine reality. It might be taking place among inter-religious as well as intra-religious traditions. It may also be reflecting in the rivalry of religious/spiritual and non-religious ideological blocks. The differentiation in terms diverging views of the supreme would seem to be a proliferation of spiritual ontology. The plurality of spiritual ontology is generated by the competing claims for superiority of one spiritual path over another. That seems to be the exact context in which the spiritual dissent becomes problematic. Here, the basic question remains to see what is to be construed as the moment or event of dissidence from among the multiple voices of difference.
Thus, what seems to become an issue here is the decidability of dissidence. Whether or not spiritual differentiations are in terms of variations in the conceptualization of spiritual reality would be the question to be tackled. Can the point of difference in conceiving spirituality alone bear the mark of spiritual dissent? An array of differences and oppositions would be available within and among the various traditions of spirituality. And all of them need not be opposing each other on account of spirituality as such. The question of spirituality in terms of dissidence, therefore, presupposes a task of delimiting the multiple levels of spiritual differentiation. The locale of spiritual differentiation could also be found in the inter-religious divides, and sometimes, at the irreligious context of ideological divides in cultural practices. Therefore, the crucial point would be to see whether or not all spiritual/religious differentiations or alternatives invariably imply a force of protestation. There are popular religious movements, which spearhead protestations in view of some socio-political causes that do not have any direct bearing on spiritual principle. They may also imply protestations in view of some outwardly spiritual causes but still their socio-political motives become pronounced. Here the problem seems to be arising on the question whether any gesture of protestation can be treated as a necessary trait of spiritual dissent. If not, what else could be so? Is that something counter-theological? Can it be something that goes along with what is being called as liberative theology? Is it simply a reassertion of the idea of spirituality as spiritual liberation? Or is it a re-statement of the liberative potential of spirituality?
There may have different renderings of what is conceived to be spirituality, and the language of dissent could made sense only in relation to the socio-cultural context of those renderings. Attempt to make sense it in a language which has cross-cultural application might become questionable. The homogenization of human ex-pressions may find its resistance from its local contexts, if it is bent upon bringing unity at the cost of diversity. The resistance to homogenizing trends would be having its effect on essentialism in spirituality. Here we might require of being cautious enough to account the spiritual differentiations that keep harping on the scriptural essence of spirituality as against the contextualized practices. The dissenting streams, which invoke an uncompromising allegiance to some uncorrupted sources of spirituality, would require a critical assessment. The redeeming feature may be varying from context to context. Hence, what is liberative for one is likely to become orthodox and suppressive for others, and the liberative possibility of spirituality seems to be able to trace on the basis of contextualizing the respective ex-pression. As every differentiation needs not become a dissenting voice, all dissents need not be liberative. Internal variations are likely to be among the spectrum of dissenting streams of spirituality. The burden of identifying the dissident stream appears to be extended to extending on to the task of demarcating the direction to which the dissents get oriented. The specific question on the liberative kind of differentiation in spirituality, thus, would get around the problem of various sorts of power entanglements. This makes imperative the fixity of power-anchoring of spiritual dissent. Such an effort would be helpful for bringing the analytical scale further down to reveal the irreducible spheres of spiritual conceptualization.
In the case of inter-religious differences, it might be possible to see a particular religion as such being an ex-pression of dissent. In the case of intra-religious differences, the dissenting voice of spirituality could be at the level of internal divisions of a particular tradition of religion. In both the cases, it remains to be seen whether the dissent is solely in relation to any religious spirituality as such or in relation to non-religious entity. In the case of the context of irreligious ideological divide of spirituality, the strain of spiritual-dissent appears to be embedded in certain kind of critique of religion itself. When the domain of spirituality is taken separately, it is seen to have a range of significance for life outside the frame of religion. Such a perspective of spirituality has evoked the need for a reconstruction of the prevalent notions of religious spirituality from different quarters. Here religion and spirituality are seen forming distinct domains of pursuit. An exploration into such streams, sometimes, might be leading to the unsettling of conventional ways of delimiting the oppositional notions like religion and irreligion, spiritual and material, divine and diabolic, sacred and profane, secular and theocratic.
Some of the broad divides that are found at the context of different religious cultures can be enumerated as follow: theistic and non-theistic, monotheistic and polytheistic, absolutist and ritualistic, pantheistic and animistic, orthodox and heterodox, vedic and tantric, catholic and protestant, orthodox and reformist, conformist and radical, global and regional, margi and desi, greater and little, universal and territorial, cosmopolitan and tribal, fundamentalist and liberal, other-worldly and worldly, mystic and communitarian, pagan and Christian, Semitic and Zionist, divine and demonic, prophetic and magical, saintly and mythical. These divisions are neither exhaustive nor essentialist. Besides, there are oppositions, which prevail in the name of world-religions. The issue seems to be rest with the question how do we construe these divisions as involving the trait of spiritual dissent.
It appears that moments of conflict within religions or spiritual movements might require critical scrutiny and theorizing. The phenomena of intra-religious and sectarian differences are often found relegated to inter-religious differences. They assume a broader level of unity at the behest of common scriptures, prophets, preceptors, doctrines and ideals, concepts of divinity and realization, life-styles, institutional hierarchy, etc. And it is mostly in terms of the so-called world religions that the inter-religious differences are referred to. They subsume the differences of the so-called minor folk-religions under the global vision of a divinity and universal salvation. Thus, seen from the paradigm of world-religions, the phenomenon of religious diversity prevailing at the level of intra-religious denominational differences are superficial and therefore only negligible. The same would be in the case of variations existing in the form of little or minor traditions of religion. They are largely taken to be arising due to some non-substantial issues of organizational hierarchy, ritualism, and the regional adaptations, rather than being on the grounds of doctrinal divides concerning the divinity or spirituality. Such a view seems to be superficial in the sense that it undermines the conceptual strength involved in the organizational and ritualistic differences.
The conceptual differences which are informed by the phenomenon of intra-religious diversity might be requiring a different framework altogether in order to get into its intricacies. What becomes an imperative here seems to be a strategy of salvaging the conceptual and cultural conditions of uniqueness involved in the intra-religious diversity. It assumes greater importance in view of the danger, which is being posed by the assimilationism, even though it appears at the behest of inter-religious diversity. The dynamics of internal variations seems to have more significance from the point of view of cultural politics of spirituality. The differences, which are wrought by some of the intra-religious streams and regional or local traditions of spiritual and ritual practices could be seen to have put-up a strong resistance to the assimilation-trends in the spiritual traditions. If the notion of dissidence is understood in relation to such trends in differentiation of practices, it could serve the purpose of an analytical tool for bringing out conceptual strength involved in many cases of intra-religious divisions.
Viewing the demand for religious reforms as a co-option or containment strategy, spiritual radicals have called for the rejection of religion in favor of faith in the divinity. But there are sections to view these changes rather as a reflection of dynamics of social realities and other historical processes that take place in every society. The internal differences in the ways of conceiving or redefining the religious or spiritual reality could also be viewed as being shaped by non-religious considerations and conditions. However, in such cases of differentiation of beliefs and practices the involvement of any strain of dissent need not be an inherent property. In order to capture the involvement of dissent in such conceptual reorganizations from within the particular religious/spiritual tradition, identification of historical context and equation of power desires assume significant. Here, the confinement of an analysis of spiritual transformation simply in relation to the hierarchical developments within the theological and denominational divisions might be irrelevant. Instead, it would require an extension of their socio-cultural linkages, which set the vortex of spiritual dynamics.
Intra-religious differentiations that are marked by the syncretic practices, indigenous traits, and regional adaptations are yet another area of spiritual reorganization, in relation to which the articulation of dissidence is to be explored. The emergence of the so-called fundamentalist and revivalist movements in the modern era has also brought forth the problems related to redefining the spiritual bases of religions on the lines of ideals perceived in the original scriptures and prophetic exegeses. Despite their postures of political and civilizational commitments and rebellions, what is seen to be their point of differentiation is a de-contextualization of the spiritual formations. They have already been culturally and historically articulated and contextualized. Since there have been underpinnings of cultural assimilationism and imperial expansionism in spiritual identities, the intra-religious dissents of such puritan kinds need to be critically examined.
Mysticism and the similar deep-spirituality movements are often being classified as the dissenting voices within the organised religions. For they generate challenges against the dry formalism, ritualism, doctrinal absolutism and dogmatism of the established religions. However, they are said to breed attitudes like life-negation, world-denial, asceticism, austerity, other-worldliness, self-centeredness, pessimism. It might be a fact that the general forms of ascetic spirituality and the monastic practices generate values and sensibilities for withdrawing from a passionate worldly attachment. But there are exceptional models of monastic orders, which do not adhere to celibacy and indifference to worldly life. They seem to be withdrawing from not getting entangled in the clutches of power-desires. There are also many other which inspire and motivate to revolutionise the secular and non-theocratic world-orders. Deriving from the spiritual sources and authorities, they tend to promote the values of social justice as against the theocratic structures and religious clergies, which compromise with exploitative socio-political orders. The resistance seems to be aiming to counter the institutional ex-pressions of spiritual orders that stand to reinforce the same sterile and authoritarian values. Some spiritual radicals would argue that the concept of spirituality as an ex-pression of rebellion against the oppressive values and structures might be fruitless. Some others think that spirituality would be getting degenerated so long as it springs from the imagination and ideological sources of certain organized religions. For them, the liberating potential of spirituality would be in its counter-cultural thrust. It could endure un-orthodox responses to and reactions against the life-negating moments of thoughts and deeds. Spirituality as counter-cultural moorings would undermine those life-negating trends as capable of producing hurdles in the pursuit of freedom and happiness.
When spiritual ex-pressions are seen to be assuming an opposition to the established religious hierarchy, especially from within the particular tradition, it would be pertain to examine the non-spiritual, non-religious conditions, which make them possible. It is also likely see a reverse process of asserting religious and spiritual identities as a mode of posing political and ideological challenge to different forms of domination and discrimination. But what seems to be more important here is to see the ways in which such non-spiritual adaptations of spirituality are implicated in the conceptual reformulations of spirituality. Therefore, specific attentions might be required to see how such strains could be located as the efforts of recovering and reinventing certain conception of divinity, rituals, and cult practices from within the common identity of every religion. It can also be categorized as an ex-pression of spiritual consciousness of certain marginalized segment of population, in the larger sphere of society.
Perhaps, an exploration of multiple dimensions of spiritual dissent would be leading us to see those streams of spirituality tend to transgress the prevailing notions of boundary, which have been eructed in the ways of making sense the spirituality and sociality as incompetable to each other. The above given framework for understanding the dissident streams in spirituality might be able to get enlarged its scope in the light of empirical analysis of different traditions of religious and spiritual practice es in the history as well as the contemporanity of human experience.
P. K. Sasidharan, Coordinator.