Intellect and Religions

“The more refined and intellectual our needs become, the less they are capable of satiety.”

Is that the reason why most religions advocate belief over proof and intellect? I mean, is their reasoning (I guess they don’t like that word, “reason” either because it is an output of some thought process) that if the needs of the intellect are insatiable, then surely pursuing them can never lead to a feeling of fulfilment? Or at least, that’s the attitude most religions seem to take.

I think Arthur Schopenhauer noticed the same thing when he wrote, “All religions promise a reward ... for excellences of the will or heart, but none for excellences of the head or understanding.”

But is the alternative that religions propose (abandon the intellect) a fulfilling option either? Can one truly feel happiness if one has to suppress a natural tendency: to think, to question, to analyze?

Comments

  1. It is true that often religions support blind faith. If by chance the blind faith results in a superstition, then, it only robs the reason of an individual. Even then, the harm is not so great. But when faith turns into fanaticism, making people do atrocities in the name of religion, we understand how much harm the religions are capable of. Religions make people hate, originating from the 'my religion versus your religion' debate. Religions are very often bearers of seeds of poison for the mind!! All that is agreed. Actually, I sometimes wonder if anything could be more evil than religion!

    But, I am fully aware of this aspect too. At an altogether different plane, the same human mind which was earlier indoctrinated by low grade religion, starts grasping something better. Something subtler. Religion is left behind and spirituality starts blossoming.

    In true spirituality (not half-baked one), surprisingly, neither God is a compulsory ingredient nor unquestioning obedience to God's 'dictatorial orders' expected. When the human mind feels and starts abiding (at least aspires to do so) in such qualities/states as caring and compassion, universality, equanimity etc. [i.e. simply even if crudely stated: freedom from being a slave of one's own mind, but becoming its master] then we can say one is enabled for subtler perceptions of life.

    At that level, when the wise person declares, "Knowing the Absolute (be it God or be it the Totality of Laws or be it the Meaning of Everything)is not possible. Believe it or not - Understanding is a limitation. If you really want to feel the Absolute, transcend the mind itself - both its logical component and its intuitive plus feelings component". In this quest or its result, there is no force to make one blind or superstitious. The wise man never says reject reason or ability for feelings. He or she only says transcend all limits of mind. Having transcended, one can lead a normal person with a normal mind as long as one lives no doubt. The reason for this idea of transcendence is peculiar but profound. "How will you understand something that transcends understanding?"

    Show me one teaching of Buddha which suggests blind faith, superstition, recommendation to abandon reason, encouragement for hate, loss of human values etc.

    Either we have to declare that Buddha had nothing at all to do with religion, or, completely and conveniently ignore him!
    (Note: I am not a Buddhist. I just aspire to be universal. That is all)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch