The search for meaning

Dear Family of the Heart & Friends,

IT IS QUITE INTERESTING how Dr Abrar Hasan has been lured by Dr Khalid Sohail to discuss Sohail's four stages of human growth – 1. blind faith and cultural conditioning; 2. questioning and challenging traditional values; 3. confusion, isolation and alienation; and, 4. enlightenment.

He asks Abrar if he has attained enlightenment, and, if so, to share with us how his newfound values differ from his earlier views, and if his newfound values have affected his lifestyle and/or dealings with friends and relatives clinging steadfastly to their conservative beliefs and traditions.

Sohail poses some ponderous questions – “What is your philosophical position now about Religion, Scriptures, Prophets and Life after Death? What are your views about Time? Do you think human mind can capture the bigger Truth? Do you still believe in God? If not, what do you think of the billions who do? Do you consider yourself an atheist, humanist, agnostic or free thinker? And, finally, What do you think of religious fundamentalists?”

Abrar's essay “Confessions of a Fundamentalist” – originally written Feb. 15, 2008, which was published Aug. 5, 2009, on the popular Indian website Chowk.com – doesn't address any of Sohail's questions specifically, yet it sets the stage for a lively exchange of ideas.

From a conceptual point of view, Abrar's “wonderful piece of writing” is “as clear as mud,” says Sohail, adding: “Since I am . . . interested in your poetry as well as philosophy, I would like to initiate a philosophical dialogue with you [in order to] learn from your experience, knowledge and wisdom. This letter [therefore] is not to criticize, rather to understand your point of view [. . . concerning] Religion, Fundamentalism, Communism, Secularism, Humanism.”

I find the premise of “Rethinking Religiosity and Fundamentalism” a little askew, if not wholly out of line, because I see spread out before us an intellectual smorgasbord of so many debatable issues and wanton theories that many of us will not be able to digest at all.

Moreover, given the fact – and a full-frontal fact it is – that the word is not the thing it represents, it would have been prudent to abstain from dabbling in defining words that have for thousands of years prevented both Believer and Skeptic alike from understanding the truth about ourselves.

Instead of uniting us in singular clarity and understanding, every itsy-bitsy difference of definition or opinion breeds more and more disunity all around us, even when we think we agree. Instead, we are faced with a paradox: The very word that unites us is also the word that divides us.

Look around and see what's happening in the Middle East, Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, America, Canuckistan, and in every little tribal village you can think of; and, while you're at it, also take a good look at the fabled playboy penthouse called Paradise which is reserved for pious fools, soldiers of God and lovers of supernatural fairy-tales and pure humbug.

More importantly, search your soul to see what's cooking inside your own head and heart.

In a debate of this nature, the operative words are faith, religiosity, fundamentalism, and so on. But the word faith is not faith, nor religion religion, and neither do the words blind faith have anything to do with faith or blindness. Yet we seem to understand what is meant. This understanding comes when the word – whatever it is – drops into a perfectly still mind, like a pebble in the pond.

While the monkey in the mind keeps indulging in its own chatter and noise, mischief and egotistical idiosyncrasies, we cannot truly listen to what is being said. In other words, we essentially listen only to ourselves, not to what another is saying.

“Deep down, we are all religious and all fundamentalists,” says Abrar, and “Capitalism is the most important of modern-day religions.” Right or wrong, he's “highlight[ing] the contrast between the 'fundamentalism' in thinking and its avowed denial by most ideologues of all persuasions.” To his way of thinking, “religious fundamentalism [. . .] pervades all ideologies.”

He is implying that all “isms” are equally bad, something we can all concede. But let me say that labelling is a function of the monkey in the mind. The little devil sits in judgment and labels everything using binary terms and dichotomies – good, bad; day, night; right, wrong; accept, reject; condemn, justify; yes, no; and so on, causing the Us-and-Them divide in which unity, that at-one-ness with our spiritual core, is impossible.

We become non-judgmental only when we succeed in silencing the monkey in order to listen and learn.

Abrar's ruminations concerning Religion, its definition, values, and conditioned behaviour are likely to take us to different planets of thought, from the mumbo-jumbo of Middle Eastern monotheism to the one supreme g-o-d (governor, operator, destroyer) of Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and back to what he calls “the Western ethnocentric Judeo-Christian approach [that] confuses faith and spiritualism with a revealed book.” That, I must say, is a dense hotchpotch, thick as mud.

“Over the centuries, we have acquired religious, spiritual and scientific traditions,” says Sohail. “Abrar's definitions blur the differences by [labelling] these traditions as religions.”

So the labelling is going on, whether you're aware of it or not. Abrar is doing it, Sohail is doing it, and Rashid Mughal is doing it – yes, the monkey part of the mind is doing its work!

Enter Peter Joyce, who counters Abrar's claim that we are all religious beings. He distrusts the word “intellectual” and refuses to accept “the series of parallels outlined by Abrar.” He also rejects Abrar's claim that “all beliefs ultimately are based on faith.”

Peter contends that Abrar attacks all “isms,” including “secularism” as if secularism is a belief. “[Secularists] do not replace religious belief, but discard it as useless.” Peter cautions us not to manipulate “the word 'religion' out of useful existence.”

At least Peter is honest. As a humble speaker of English, he finds Abrar's use of terms like “religion,” “faith,” “fundamental,” and “ism” rather misleading. “I do not like the meanings of useful words being diluted or manhandled for persuasive ends,” says Peter. “I consider that most of what you have written here is nonsense.”

Diluting the meaning of common English words would impede clear communication, Abrar is quick to concede. “The purpose of my article was not to tinker with the word religion but to clarify . . . that mankind . . . is condemned to adopt some first principles that have to be taken on faith.”

As soon as Abrar introduced the idea of “rational criteria” to compare, say, Secularism, the Baha'i religion, Capitalism and Islam, he lost me completely; however, I believe he'll come out of the woods when we stop dragging Ghalib's name into this discussion.

Rashid Mughal