UNDERSTANDING THE DISSIDENT STREAMS IN SPIRITUALITY

ICPR WORKSHOP ON "UNDERSTANDING THE DISSIDENT STREAMS IN SPIRITUALITY"
[Department of Philosophy, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady-Kerala - 683 574.7-8 April, 2010]
------------------------------
[Detailed Theme-note and new responses]

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.
---------------------------------------
New Responses:

8. Isha

Ethics function as essentially a cultural phenomenon in both contexts. The
primal innocence of the tribal society based on the concepts of mother
right and agriculture throws much light on the collective character of
thought which is reflected in the form of an ethical basis of its social
strata.

This innocence, despite its crude nature, corresponds to the communal
character of the concept of equality and justice where animals were
provided an equal share of concern. The tribal life in its earliest phases
favoured blood less sacrifice and vegetarianism.. The trend is viewed in
Jain, Buddhist and Ajivaka schools of philosophy.

The same is found in the Greek context though by about the 4th century
B.C. a lively debate emerged for and against the practice of
vegetarianism. The pioneers of the movement in keeping with the Indian
being Orpheus and Pythagoras their ideas made way for the practice of
asceticism in late antiquity.

This is the case that I see in this topic and it calls in for some
interesting queries like:

The origin of vegetarianism?
Its extension to asceticm
The relation between asceticism and ethical thought?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Swahilya Shambhavi

Dissident streams dissolve when we focus on the one water that flows through all. Whether it is Advaita, Vishishtadhwaita or Dwaita - the subject of all the topic focusses on the one ocean of consciousness which paves the way for being aware of all our thoughts, words and actions.
When the focus is just on God, Consciousness, Awareness, Truth, Reality, Tao, Zen, Being, The One, Isness or by any name we may call it - all dissidence vanishes. Only one remains. Being together with the divine oneness that is the essence of all creatures is the path shown by spirituality. All the apparent differences are simply the various ways that lead to this same goal of being one with the divine consciousness that exists in all life and non-life - along with it and beyond it too.
The only path that can lead to this is through Karma yoga - doing the work that is given to us with full enthusiasm, Bhakti Yoga - not stopping with the love we show for just the one divine form that we choose, but focussing on expanding our love to all the forms and names we see around us - human and otherwise and Gnana Yoga - realising intellectually that consciousness is the essence of all things just as water that we cannot see exists in the sky as vapour, which then becomes many things like water, river, oceans, clouds, rain, snow, ice, sleet....many forms of the one.
-------------------------

6. Prof. A. Kanthamani.

.....my feeling is that your indigenous outlook needs extremely strong support. Unfortunately your responders do not contribute much. ...You can't put all the blame on your responders. They simply respond the way you respond to the problem at hand. You have to state the in clear terms so as to evoke reactions on both sides. Your account of dissident streams need a location so as to identify the real problem. Your difficulties are more or less the same as others who write or reflect about religion but while other may cite evidences you care less about it. The way one articulates a problem requires extreme care. You seem to believe that your reflections are sufficient to locate the problem you have in mind. But they are not. So also the responders. What I miss is the intensity of social thinker which is not innate but acquired over a long and arduous period of time in response to a problem. You have to go a long way to achieve this. ..... The term 'dissident stream' requires careful definition and more clarity. Especially when you have something in mind which has not been seen in this particular way by others. My suggestion is to reflect more on this to carve a path.
---------------------------------

5. Agro Spier.

The following came to mind when I was working through the text ... and seeing how some who commented ache to have a consensus regarding the definition of the issue at hand - 'dissident spirituality'. What came to mind was something that Wittgenstein pointed out in connection with the in vacuo analysis of concepts, namely that definitions are never to be treated as singular supra entities having independent meanings, but rather as units that are 'also' determined by 'life forms' and the 'natural environment' with all its biological and psychological aspects. These external factors and 'natural aspects' have, however, no unique predominance in the search for meaning and do NOT lead to an a priori of the result. They are rather restrictions, not providing the inevitable condition for (the) meaning (of a definition). Therefore, the search for the meaning of concepts cannot be limited to how we actually use them (and 'exact definitions' cannot be determined solely by the way we effectively use them). It (meaning) only becomes 'clearer' when we also research HOW WE COULD USE mentioned concepts in all sorts of non-factual and imaginative circumstances. It is only then that the 'borders' and/or limit of the definitions become vaguely visible and we slowly start to understand what it is that a definition (of a concept) carries in itself, and what this meaning really CONTAIN. Personally I think that this is a very relevant issue in the search for a viable platform on which a discussion of dissident spirituality is to be placed into a position to flourish. It is also an important issue tout court in any discussion that wishes to pose 'final' truths 'about' religion and as spirituality feeds also on the imaginative and undefined. But there is a dialectical tention to the issue, which too encourages us to be patient, namely that the more precise our use of language is becoming (and therefore our forming of definitions), the further away we drift from the understanding of that what we are expecting from what we have come to define as 'meaning', because the clarity of our own logic is NOT the result of our investigation but it only ARISES from our priority (the point from which we departed). Is one forced to view this last as a status quo? No, it just imply that our priority IS the beginning of our growth of insight into the meaning of concepts ... and that by seeking to 'define' the concept 'dissident spirituality', we already have embarked on a journey that is slowly shifting us towards the dissidence of spirituality itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Venugopalan K.M.

1. Spirituality should, in my view, neither be limited by land nor by language.

2. It can have variant ex-pressions depending on the components
comprising all humans' lived experience albeit in varying points of
space and time. But, efforts toward finding the common threads in such
experiences nullify all those showcased notions of philosophy and
spirituality characterised by typical representations of nationality
,language and such things, except for the sake of convenience of
opening the realm of spirituality for debates.

3. One would do better to go beyond, without being confined to the
designated categories of spirituality.
One can not have a notion of spirituality without having recourse
to some or other variety of its materialistic counterpart; e.g; the
level and quality of the material life you are in; the level of
freedom you enjoy or you want to aspire in your life vis a vis your
fellow humans- that which is not just in your neighbourhood, but even
in geographically distant spots.
------------------------

3. Dr. Madhu P.

One more version may be required to streamline the ideas expressed. Idea of spirituality, I do not know, whether could be separated from essence. Spirit seems to me an essence. However, this spirit as essence could be distinguished from essentialism as essentialism reifies social conventions as if they were inevitable essences and thereby justifiable.

Idea of spirituality still remains that which represent the sublime than that which practiced in its name. Unspeakablilty is still the characteristics of spirituality. Spirituality would still mean one emerging beyond the phenomenal, thus it becomes unspeakable.

Differences among spiritual orientations need not always amount to dissents. There can be diversities of spiritual understandings as they were understood by different individuals. Say for instance, there can be Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese and Indian versions of spiritualities guided by the Buddhist way. Also, there can be agora sivism along with Kashmiri saivism. There can be Kali oriented spiritualities and Buddha oriented ones.

However, there can also be witnessed spiritualities oriented on the principles of purity and pollution also the spiritualities of the believers and infidels. Such a practice of spirituality that treats its others as unworthy should be distinguished from the practices that has no such self-reverential or other-humiliating view points. In such practices of spirituality where its others are seen with contempt or repulsion- we witness dissents as the other seen contemptuously might resist. Such a spirituality of the people who were contemptuously treated could be seen as dissenting spiritualities. However, one need not presuppose that this contempt could only be resisted through dissident spiritualities, though we have instances of such resistances in very many spiritual dissents as we could witness in the life and works of Sri Narayana Guru, Chattambi Swamigal, Dr. Ambedkar, Swami Vivekananda, founders of PRDS, Dalit Christian movements, etc., and also in the spiritual dissents of Mahatma Gandhi. Such kinds of dissents could also be observed in every day resistance, struggles and sarcasms of the dissenting persons in their everyday life. Such a resistance is not always spiritual. They are more political than spiritual. However, we can claim that real spirituality of understanding, compassion, etc., are possible may be only through such a dissenting spiritualities. Why to bring spirituality to explain this politics of dissent? The term spirituality, I think, may bring in confusions and ambiguities. Can spiritualities be so much social like politics usually is? Or, is it possible to have a socialized or massified spirituality? Looking at them as politics with spiritual claims would be better, I think. If it is seen as politics there is a lot more can be explored like- co-option, conflict of interests, etc. your writing concerned about. Is not that the context of spirituality you are trying to highlight political? May be that what we are discussion is more of the faith-politics than spiritual dissents.

---------------------------------
2. Agro Spier,

What Maslow said re 'relogion' was that it doesn't cover the 'whole' of the phenomenon as there is a tendency in non-religious people to be 'religious' too. All people have 'top-experiences of total thruths' in which intuition, 'knowing' leads to that person 'treading on his or her height', in which that person is 'transcended into a higher being'. Please note that I use inverted commas indicationg the 'looseness' of the concepts. I agree with Maslow, well, its bloody obvious anyway, and this gives a broader scope to religious experiences (not undermining or ridiculing any of the experiences being had in any religion). Now the (loaded) 'freedom concept ... what is freedom? I think a definition such as = 'it is the freedom to tread on your hight as a human being' could go a long way. This holds the 'Christian' concept of it. Freedom is the 'right, obligation, and mercy' to be in a position to exeperience the fullness of what your potentialities as a human being are (that includes the 'more' possibilities or the 'transcended thing', top- experiences as Maslow put it. (By the way Maslow is a humanist and I am a 'Christian re-born' which really are the opposites. On certains issues of in Maslows analysis I am not that hot, etc.). A lot of things enters however this 'freedom' definition portrayed here. There's the 'example issue' of it, the 'apocalyptic Offenbarung' (german concept), etc. and the fact, in Christianity, that it is the 'other' who is to define the extend of its truth-value. Many of these aspects cannot be 'discussed' as the only become visible in the transcendent mode, in the added 'more-value'. Example re the inbring of the other ... the concept of 'love they neighbor' and 'being a brother' to somebody. When you are caring and loving towards another ... well, you cannot really, be that towards people. Its them who defines whether you are 'worth it' to be called a brother and you can only pray to God (JHWH) to give you the mercy to be in a position and 'worth it' to be called a brother of the other. And this is where your 'height' (freedom to be human) comes in ... where and when you 'become' a human being. People don't excist, people become people ... as Jacques Lacan, another Phychiatrist and pupil of Freud formulated it. Its in the 'more' that the 'freedom' lies, in the 'becoming'. Christians say, it is through the Death of Christ (Jezus on the cross) that we are bought free. And they ask you 'who do you say Christ is?' Who do you say God is? It is the 'you' that determines the possibibility of appearing conditions in which the 'more' and transcended becomes possible ... the conditions that leads to 'treading on his height' of man ... of man 'having' his freedom.

Hopes this gives you a better idea of what 'the Christian' understands under the concepts of 'freedom' and 'religion'. Christians doesn't understand the word 'religion' as what they experience has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with 'becoming', hope, etc. and truths that can only be conveyed by the grasping of stories.

I send you an aricle I wrote re the relationship between a 'poet' and the 'definition of poetry' ... that'll give scope as to how I work and interpret this 'more' in definitions and phenomena.

Regards to your kids and wife ... and Kerala (they say its god's country mm - nice eh?)

Smile
-----------------------------
1. Sunilkumar k. k.


i think, spirituality has to be understood, not only in terms of religion, but also in terms of belief, ideological concert and all other for of ex-pressions. Today spirituality is a mask to hide many things under. So any enquiry about spirituality should begin by removing the mask. There is a moment or many moments in everybody's life in which he is enjoying/experiencing spirituality.

Can you think about the idea of 'spirituality in every moment'.

This search should also incorporate the role/relevance of individuality in the age of new age spirituality.
--------------------------


THE EARLIER BRIEF NOTE AND RESPONSES

[Reponses Sl. Nos.1 to 29]

See Theme-note at the end. No. 30.

1. K.P. Sasi.

I could not see adivasi spirituality in your list. Perhaps a genuine search into this area can
change the perception of politics today.

--------------------

2. Prof. Udayakumar , Delhi

. I do think that further research on this issue is very necessary in India, especially in
Kerala.

------------------------------

3. Swami Vinaya Chaitanya, Bangalore.

Dropping out from the social context withdrawing to some extent from playing the game of
life as it is played around, so that one can gain some perspective on what is going on, are
all implied in the tradition of sanyasa or tyaga. Founders of all major religions or spiritual
traditions have always seen to have rebelled against deadening/overweighing
theocratic/religious structures of their times. But it also is to be noted that the movements
started in such spirits also become equally heavy on the frail human spirit.

I would distinguish spirituality or the essential living core, as the humans natural
aspiration to be in union with the life around her; as well as the effort to visualise and
emulate the highest felicity or happiness within oneself. Religion, the, would be the
peripheral/incidental dos and donts etc. like the bark of a tree, often dead or
dying. If the life within the tree is strong, firmly rooted, open to light, life keeps growing
and death is overcome, daily. If the life force is weak within, the dying/deadening outer
conditions can kill the tree altogether.

The duality between spirit and matter is false and recent one. Happiness results only
when spirit and matter are in harmony. Since we all seek happiness, spirituality is innate
within us. Whereas, the religion has social and other factors complicating it. Also to be
noted in this specific context is that sad yet telling fact that religious spirituality as it exists
now is exclusively mans; with no place for women and children in it. And even
the women practitioners themselves become like men. The split between body and mind or
spirit is also mans. May be the question really is can there be spirituality without
the body?

Not that any of these ideas are new. Examples of counter-points to the conventional
mores are many, in mythology as well as in history. It just needs openness and willingness
to listen to deeper, smaller, stiller voices within us. I also often wonder why Kerala is being
advertised the wold over as gods own country, while we all know that actually it
is the country of the goddess! Why did our ancestors find nothing derogatory in
worshipping and celebrating the eternal coupling of Siva and Parvati, our prime parents?
-----------------------------

4. Dr. P. Madhu, Kuttippuram.

The phrase 'religious spirituality' appeared to me an oxymoron. Denominal, sectarian
divisions are typically part an parcel of religions; spirituality in that sense is neither social
nor historical.
Co-opting what may be called spirituality by religion- i do not think- one entity called
religion co-opting another entity 'spirituality'; rather religion had always wearing the mask
of spirituality. In other words, spirituality is only the 'front stage of the religious
dramaturgy.
Religion is 'ideological in Marxian sense, where as spirituality has no 'ideology'. If
spirituality is a spring that freshly springs out, religion is just a gutter that collects all
ideologies from past to present and into future. Hence I said religion is historical. Religion
forces one to be conformatory; Spirituality forces no conformity to established norms or
dogma. Religions always do 'social engineering'- spirituality has no such engineering
dimension. Religions are products and transmitters of 'power' that runs through the social
vein. Being spiritual is to transcending the gutter of power. Hence, spirituality will always be
dissenting.

Does spirituality have anything with faith in divinity? Can faitheads be spiritual? Religion
needs faith. Because religion wants its members faithfully subscribing to it. Faith indeed
de-spiritualizes. radicals of faith, are just radicals of faith- it may be a misnomer to call
them 'spiritual radicals'

Spirituality knows no 'sacredness'- religions survive by terrors of sacred claim.

I do not think spirituality has to be understood in contra distinction to religion alone.
Spirituality can be understood in contradistinction to any ideology. However, since religion
uses spirituality as its mask, religion occupies a special place in the contra distinctive
objects.

----------------------------------------------

5. A.V. G. Warier, Ernakulam.


jagrat svapna sushuptishu sphutatara
ya samvidujrumbhate
ya brahmadi pipeelikantatanushu
prota jagatsakshinee
saivaham na cha drushyavastviti
drudhaprajnapi yasyasti chet
chandalostu dvijostu
gururityesha manisha mama

Is not the gurutva envisaged by the master the central theme of spirituality?
In the name of Shankara we seem to be walking away from him. We seem to be saying -
whatever you may say about spirituality we are here not only to perpetuate divisions but
also to amplify its scope.
---------------------------------------------
6. Dr. Ajay Sekher, Thrissur.

In response to K P Sasi's comment that adivasi spirituality can also be included, we can only
say that the term dalit spirituality or subaltern spirituality incorporates all the minor and
alternative streams in terms of culture, ethnicity, gender, caste, religion and language. The
politics and purview of the term dalit/subaltern need to be comprehended before hand in a
discussion like this.
--------------------------------------

7. Dr. P. Madhu.

The 'civilized' [sarcasm intended] started talking about spirituality
only when they wanted to mask something else in that name. The
discussion/ discourse concerning spirituality becomes possible only when
something 'non-spiritual' identified/recognized/feared--- where there is
no non/anti spiritual, there exists no need to discuss spiritual though
one can be very much spiritual otherwise.... truth is necessitated only
when there exists/recognized/felt falsehood... when no falsehood is
recognized/felt there is no necessity for any discussion of truth.
What was the thing necessitated adivasi/ dalit spirituality discourse?
what was the thing masked in such a 'spirituality'? What is this
spirituality to do with dalit/adivasi religiosities? To what extension
the contradistinctions possible between dalit/adivasi religiosities and
spiritualities? Is it analytically sound to club adivasi and dalit
spiritualities/ religiosities together?--- Are dalits and adivasis share
same history- to have similar religiosities?
------------------------

8.Fr. Gasper, Kalady.

What is the role of reason in spirituality? Spirituality V/S Corporeality?
-----------------------
9. Swami. Vyasa Prasad, Ooty.

I felt I was entering a New Age book shop. I guess professors and academics
need neatly labeled categories to work with. Instead of an outsider trying
to look inside, it would help to reverse the gaze.
-----------------
10.Dr. T. Girish, Kottayam

Remember Aristotles theory of "Form and Matter"? Can we not say, that if religion is Form,
then Spirituality is the matter?
I mean, Spirituality is the reality, which requires some sort of form to exist. I do not know if
spirituality could exist just as spirituality, as matter can not exist other than through some
or the other forms. Perhaps religion is the mode for spirituaity; the yana, or soome kind of
carrier.
Nonetheless, spirituality shall be the essence, the in thing, that really distinguishes man
from not-man.
-------------------------------
11. Chindhu, Thiruvananthapuram.

I am more concerned about the social functioning of the spiritual or religious or quasi-
religious movements. It's a historically proven fact that the spiritual or religious or quasi-
religious movements have done its contribution to humanity. We can find evidence in the
renaissance history of Europe, India and Kerala.

One main characteristic of any branch of science is its predictability. We could predict a
future phenomena based on the theories and data available today. In social science also we
are doing the same in several areas like demography, economic changes etc. is it possible
to predict one spiritual or religious or quasi-religious movement using social indicators? If
it is possible what should be the indicators to be used?

We desperately need a paradigm shift in assessing the spiritual or religious or quasi-
religious movements/institutions. It will be a better contribution especially in the context of
the contemporary debates in Kerala on such movements and/or institutions and/or persons
involved in spiritual or religious or quasi-religious activities.
---------------------------------------

12. Philip George,Kottayam.

Well, you have rightly pointed out the concepts of religion and spirituality are not mutually
exclusive. Religion and Spirituality, both are embedded with a particular form of ideological
perception. It is highly notable that you have touched upon a religionless spirituality. Since
spirituality and religion are not mutually exclusive, naturally there can be a doubt why
someone should search for finding the dissident streams of spirituality.


----------------------------------------

13. Dr. P. Madhu

Here I refer to the form-matter discussion initiated by Dr. Girish. In
Aristotelian sense, it seems spirituality rather than religion would be
thought as form; for Aristotle 'form' is the primary substance- which
gives unity to the 'matter'. Form for Aristotle is more real than
matter; form is conceptualized in Aristotle as reminiscent of the sole
reality of the ideas.Aristotle's form semble more alike Plato's idea.
Seen from Aristotelian sense, hence, i suspect whether 'religion' can be
taken as 'form' . This is how i learnt the form-matter concept of
aristotle. If I am wrong I would like to be corrected.
In the modern sense of the term it can be said that what we see in the
religion-spirituality relationship is that the 'form' (external shape,
shell) annihilating 'matter' (substance, content). The beauty of the
argument of 'spirit' its is formlessness, its incorporeality! Spiritual
claims are just masks worn by religions. Spirituality is just like the
shell worn by the hermit crabs. Religion only wears the shell of
spirituality. Inside the shell what flourishes is nothing more than
narrow identities, communal separatism and the politics emerging from
such identity positions. hence i once wrote religion is historical and
social where are spirituality has no compulsion to be social or historical.
-------------------------

14.Prof. Sanil. V, Delhi.


This is a very significant topic for a workshop. You have proposed many
creative possibilities. Perhaps it is better to focus on a specific
historical era in kerala history or on a set of personalities.

Most recent discussions on spirituality try hard to distinguish or
distance spirituality from institutionalized religion. Religion is equated
with orthodoxy and spirituality is seen as a dissenting core. I doubt this
way of posing problem will lead us to any understanding of religion,
spirituality or dissent.

Another challenge lies in equating spirituality with morality. In many
recent discussions spirituality seems to be this moral work we do on
ourselves so that we can control our emotions, desires and appear and clam
and cool. I do not think ethics needs this spirital support! How can we
free spirituality from this user-friendly ethics? How can we think about
dissidence as a meeting point of politics and spirituality while
suspending the claims of ethics? These are some of the isses which
interest me. more later


15.Prof. K. Satchidanandan, Delhi.
I am interested in the interface between the spirtual and the physical on the one
hand(remember the Tamil saivites or Kannada Veerasasivas who attached great importance
to the body and labour_ Kayaka is Kailasa, Basavanna) and spiritual and the social/ethical on
the opther( Narayana, Vivekananda, Gandhi) both these being parts of a whole, the body
being the point of entry into the social/ethical as in Narayana.Look at things from below.
------------------------
16. Prof. C. P. Sivadasan, Vatakara.

You have indeed chosen a very significant topic relevant to the Kerala society.
I think that in kerala problems arise partly because religion is mistaken for ritual even by
the socalled educated people.The problem becomes all the more complicated when religion
is made an instrument for gaining power and money. I dont know whether I am off the track
with respect to the main theme.But I feel that this can also be taken into consideration
within the ambit of the discussions.
---------------------------------

17. Prof. Manjulika Ghosh, North Bengal Universiy.

Is there any family resemblance running through the different types of spirituality you have
thought up? Is there, on the contrary, any essence-spirituality, the different spiritualities
being the manifestations of the essential structure? There should have been mention of
Sufism as a dissident form of spirituality specially when Kerala is the focus, its having a
sizeable Muslim population.
-------------------------

18. A.V. G. Warrier

Often I feel that the process of thinking in this country is skewed by the obsession with
dalithood and related topics. Is not Brahma as the original dalit? He had to pull himself out
from his dalithood by tapas before the models for creation dawned in his awareness.
Dalithood is not an ideal but a state from which one should come out. Is not the focus on
dissidence an attempt to return to dalithood where ones concerns are modified
by several factors like politics, social realities etcetera?The sheer numbers of dalits is a
matter of great interest for a politician in a democracy. But should it be so for a
philosopher?!!
-------------------------------



19. Swami. Vinaya chaitanya.

Just wondering if it would help us understand the religion/spirituality
dichotomy if we look at it in terms of cosmology/psychology; that religion
is mostly about cosmological or theological explication of life/creation
etc., while spirituality is more of a psychologically biased enquiry into
one's own being.
-----------------
20. Prof. Bhagawan Dass Lahoti, Hyderabad.

proposed debate is interesting but it will be tough to manage.

----------------

21. Dr. P. Madhu.

The meaning of spirituality happens when we mean it. It can be meant as
something contrasted to the dogmatic or sectarian religiosities or it
can be dismissed as platitudinous if not nonsense. What passes in the
name of spirituality is often something of a sham, fueled by pretension
and dominated by hypocrisy. However, these do not explain what
spirituality is.
Spiritý in spirituality reminds me of being spirited being in good
spirit, being enthusiastic, passionate, shared passion, team spirit etc.
Spiritý is being socially concerned. it represents our sense of
participation and membership in a humanity and a world much larger than
our individual selves. Spiritý is the spirit of truthfulness contrasted
to the seduction into falsities. Being spiritual is being thoughtful,
inquiring, and trying to know the spirit of reality. Following Hegel it
can be said that spirituality is the passionate sense of self-awareness
in which the very distinction between selfishness and selflessness
disappears.
Spirituality need not be conceptualized as other worldly or alien from
our existence. Spirituality opens us to the new logic that liberates us
from narrow individualist essentialism..

Deferring from Prof. Sanil I hold that there is possibility of ethics and morality in this regime
too as it is possible in the regime of non-spiritual individuality. In other
words, outside and within spiritualities ethics and morality is
possible. The heart of spirituality is heartfelt activity filled with
intelligent feeling, action, reason, and passion together. Shutting
spirituality outside the regime of morality or ethics would be
synonymous to shutting wisdom from the regime of morality and ethics. It
should be observed that wisdom too is as amorphous as spirituality is!
Spirituality should not be confused with the renunciation of the
material, sensual, and social joys of life. It does not require becoming
a hermit, an eccentric, or an ascetic. It does not require the refusal
of comforts, luxuries, and erotic delights. Being spiritual is not just
being in solitude alone rather it is realizing the spirit of collective
co-existence. One need not live in sackcloth to be spiritual, as the
Buddha finally discovered in his explorations..
-----------------------------------
22. Words of late. Karunakaraguru, Santhigiri Ashramam, Thiruvananthapuram [forwarded
by Chindhu]

When you say spiritual knowledge, mostly it is a spirituality practiced by tradition.
The person who could judge on this is the one who has known all principles in detail, and
realizing the harm and damage, wishes to enlighten us. Only such a person could enlighten
us. Would it be alright to practice gender discrimination, keeping away women and making
it a men's privilege? That means we have not even thought about what rights women have.
Somebody please tell me if you believe that all mothers women who have lived as
mother, wife, daughter or sister have suffered. Only if you ask me could I explain and
help you realize. But if you say, 'No, I am a rationalist and nobody could enter my house', I
have nothing to say.ý
-------------------
22. Prasanthy Biju, Kollom.

we have to prove the spiritualism is applicable to all people, ie not only only for the high
class soicety but also for layaman .. we need that type of work
----------------

23. Dr. Marc Lambert, Paris

Sometimes the things that youre going through come
more real to you than the things you believe or
understand , Vincente Minelli, film director. The
(most important ?) problem of spirituality : at the
same time it is anchored in social life AND individual
and emotional experience ; spiritual experience being
supposedly one of the greatest emotional peaks one can
expect to reach, the will to share that experience
with others appears to be a natural human behaviour.

Can we teach spirituality through readings - we can
certainly discuss spirituality in human sciences and
philosophy -, or is it a personal evolution, a
discovery you make once you meet someone ? There are
things in the world which are neither reassuring, nor
explicable. (Alain Robbe Grillet, writer). How can
we talk and share it without hurting
everyones convictions ? Being socially organized
with(in) religions, should imply sharing some wider
basic vision or a project, instead of imposing a type
of path each spiritual master claims to be narrow.

--------------------
24. Prof. M. Gangadharan, Parappanangadi.

Spirituality is for me the values such as kindness, love, tolerance, sympathy for fellow
beings, aesthetic sense, concern and appreciation of nature in its varied manifestations,
sense of harmony wth the opposite sex, `ahimsa', etc that human social life has generated
through centuries of its existence.
-------------------
25. Prof. G. Gangadharan Nair, Atlanta.
Religious practices of the present, as the present party politics, do more harm to society
than good. Selfishness rules riot in them. When the devilish man corrupts the society in the
name of spirituality, there should be some corrective steps leading to reformation. In India ,
Valmiki, whom the present day jargon could term Adivasi, and Vyasa, son of a Dalit woman,
in the present sense of the word, could propagate the fundamentals of spiritualism among
all sections of society.
-----------------------------------
26. Dr. George Pattery
It is an interesting topic to deal with. I am interested in discussing it from various angles,
especially from the point of view of spirituality and religion. The institutionalization of
religion often weakens, at times destroys spirituality....
--------------------------------------
27. Chindhu
My concern is not about an immediate realization of the self. Let it come as it is. The
concern is about the social change as spiritual or religious movements always contributed
to some or other changes in the society.
One of the main characteristic of science is its predictability. So my attempt is to predict the
social change to be caused by a spiritual or religious movement.
Emile Durkheim points out the role of religious individualism in the increased number of
suicides among the Protestants compared to that of Catholics in his famous study 'Suicide
A Study in Sociology' (p158). The same religious individualism made its contribution to the
development of capitalism as pointed out by Max Weber (The protestant Ethics and The
Spirit of Capitalism).
So my doubt is about the concept 'Aham Brahmasmi'. Was it promoting some kind of
religious individualism in the Indian context? We could refer to Kancha Ilayya's observation
that the rate of exploitation was very high among the higher class Brahmins in Indian
society where as among the Dalits it was comparatively less. Was it because of the religious
individualism propagated through 'chathurvakyas'?
If theories of salvation really play a role in molding human personality, a theory which
promotes salvation attained only through the fulfillment of the needs of all dependent
souls, which include all living and non-living entities result in creating a more socialist
society? Is it possible to predict on the social change to be caused through a spiritual or
religious movement by analyzing the theories of salvation promoted by that particular
spiritual or religious movement?

Shall we consider the theory of salvation promoted by a particular spiritual or religious
movement as a valid indicator to predict its contribution to the social phenomena?

---------------------------------------------

28. Marc Lambert ; Paris university, Vincennes Saint-Denis
Possible tracks:

Some good entities in certain religions are considered as devilish in others. Mortification has been practised for centuries in catholic religion, especially in Middle Age, and then has been officialy denied. Torture was currently used by the Church (for the sake of the soul), meanwhile touching somebody is still one of the most codified activity in any culture.

Dissidence : sitting far away , but not being directly in opposition or involved in a social or/and political fight. Dissidence is indeed an attitude which is not inevitably steered against something, but which implies a discord or a distance taken with a power or a political authority.

In Europe, in spite of any historic legitimition, religion as an institution constitutes a safe railing for the central political power. Religion allows to question the existence in an established moral frame; therefore it strengthens and legitimises the State catholic religion, and its reforms. We can see nowadays with Moslem religion (islam as a new power and human constituent within the state), an attempt of the central political power to bring to foreground a legislated structure integrated into the functioning of the republican state.

It seems (is it the same movement ?) that the first concern of integrated Churches is the one of the moral order, less than that of the practical access into spirituality by physical or mental exercise, as it is often the case in India, where physical dimension establishes the spiritual act towards divinity. In that case, mental questionning is secondary.

I am wondering about the problem of religion, or religions in the modern Indian State. The arrival of capitalism and rationalization of human rhythms, following terms of material profitability in this geographical space. So far, It has been emptiing out the lively forces out of Kerala towards the Gulf countries. The question for the culture upholders is not the one of variation of the rites and their changes, but simply their disappearance (the case of Tiyattu ; 3 performing families in1993, only 2 performers in 2008). The economic question is quite different, it is the one of profitability the market of spirituality. Man (as a body) being situated in the center of many spiritual practices often interpreted in West as " sacred theaters ".

There is a shift between spirituality and organized religion. Religions dont have the monopole of spirituality (the case of art in the West). We should be clear about the way we use the word ritual (individual or collective, repetitive series of operations), and spirituality , which sometimes is taken for granted as for its goal and meaning ( moksha ; paradise ; energy ; God / Goddess - as a gendered entity, etc...). Does society with its political legitimate power (including Religious Bodies) really integrate the possibility for individuals (or a group of people) to derive, alter, modify the social and economical planification ? Or is the fate of dissident spirituality to work far, to exceed the goals of a modern liberal society based on democracy and free market ?

---------------------------------------------------
29. Swami. Vyasaprsad, Ooty.

I felt I was entering a New Age book shop. I guess professors and academics need neatly labeled categories to work with. Instead of an outsider trying to look inside, it would help to reverse the gaze.
--------------------------

30. UNDERSTANDING THE DISSIDENT STREAMS IN SPIRITUALITY
[Theme-note for the workshop]

[Department of Philosophy,Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, Kerala-
683574]

Though the concepts of religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, they often seem
to be at loggerheads with respect to ones priority over the other. Those who argue in
favor of religion consider it as a means for the realisation of the other. Whereas, the other
section would think the latter can exist independently of the former. This issue has
remained as a perpetual source of conflict within every religion.. However, 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 a need for the
reconstruction of, or rethinking on the dominant conceptions of religious spirituality from
different quarters. It has also caused the denominational or sectarian divisions within the
established religions, paving way for the emergence of various reform movements. 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. Instead of confining the debate
on spirituality to the developments within the theological and denominational divisions, the
present proposal is to see the very dynamics of the concept of spirituality specifically.

Mysticism and the similar kind of deep-spirituality movements are often being
understood or identified as the dissenting voices within the organised religions; for their
challenges against the dry formalism, ritualism, and doctrinal absolutism and dogmatism
etc. At the same time the attributes like life negation, world denial, asceticism, other
worldliness, self-centeredness, pessimism, etc. are also ascribed to their traits in general.

However, it is to be debated whether these characterisations are suitable in the same way
for all the kinds of spiritual practices or perspectives of different cultures? If these traits
form the paradigm of spirituality, how do we understand the beliefs and practices that are
not conforming to this? Do we need to understand the spirituality in contra distinction to
religion alone? Do the beliefs and practices only form part of sheer non-spiritual ritualism?
Do all the ritual practices really form part of religion otherwise? How do we understand the
non-conformism of spirituality other then in terms of a critique of religion? Is there any
revival or recovery of spirituality within religion based on the issues other than theological
or ritualistic reasons? What are the possibilities of demarcating spirituality independently of
ecclesiastical reasons? Does every dissident stream of spirituality transcend the frame of
religion or fall back upon religiosity? How do we account the non-religious and non-
spiritual linkages of spiritual practices?
In order to explore the questions regarding the nature of dissident streams of spirituality, it
seems we need to address the specific practices in their specific contexts.
Focus of the Workshop
This workshop is the fourth one of its kind to be conducted by the co-ordinator towards
the direction of exploring the specificity and creativity of intellectual practices [of a region],
in relation to the extent of its conversancy with life-situation of the respective population.
This is also meant for drawing a broad perspective for a UGC Major Research Project on
The conceptual Dynamics of Religious and Spiritual Practices in Kerala: Towards a
Praxiological Analysis, which is being carried out by the co-ordinator. Therefore this
workshop shall be conducted with an emphasis on the spiritual practices of Kerala.
Co-ordinator,
P. K. Sasidharan
Email: pksasidharan@yahoo..com
Mob: 09447262817

Broad Areas of Attention.

Religion-Spirituality interface.
Religion, religiosity and spirituality
Dimensions of sanyasa.
Dimensions of spirituality
Spiritual reforms.
Secular spirituality.
Political spirituality.
Feminine spirituality.
Eco-spirituality.
Earth spirituality.
Dalit Spirituality.
Ethical spirituality.
Aesthetic spirituality.
Spirituality as religion.
Freedom spirituality.
Body oriented spirituality.
Civil religion,
Humanist religion.
Politics as spirituality.
Secular theology.
Liberation theology.
Negative theology.
New age spirituality.
Spiritual fundamentalism.