Karl Marx, the famous 19th-century economist, philosopher, and revolutionary, once remarked about religion:
“Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man — state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. [...]
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo (Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, emphasis added).”
I am not sure about the context or exact argument of this passage — Social Studies concentrators, where are you? — but it serves as a great spark to debate. Is religion primitive? Some ardent atheists come across as condescending to religion, as if casting aside religious tendency — superstitious or not — is progress. Is faith somehow inferior to cold, scientific rationality?
Dissecting semantics, is there a difference between religion and spirituality? Some people I respect have gently corrected me to say “spirituality” when I’ve mentioned the “religion” of Hinduism. Perhaps the term “religion” is tarnished by ritual, superstition, mumbo-jumbo, backwardness, while spirituality is a fresh word that unites faith and rationalism. Raise your hand if you’ve heard that Hinduism isn’t a religion, it’s Sanatana Dharma. Actually, post a comment, because I cannot see your hand right now. What is it that drives people to shun the superstitions of Hinduism?
(But maybe what we consider as superstition — adherence to a set of rules that seem ridiculous — deserves a second look. It is very interesting to take the side of “superstition,” as did the Mimamsa school of philosophers. When you are asked to defend a text, a set of rules, as inherently valid, how do you go about doing it? You might remark that a text has its own difficulties of interpretation, and suggest a more precise linguistic route. It’s interesting that this is exactly what Mimamsakas — followers of Mimamsa — did.)
So the question that Marx raises today is — what is the difference between religion and spirituality?
Related posts:
Post a Comment