Vinayak Khare
A long time ago, there was a businessman. Actually he was pioneer of the first business. The aim of his business was social welfare, or more precisely, to provide help to those who aren’t contented with the situations of their life. In order to carry through his motive, he started to promote his business so that number of beneficiaries would be more, and profit would increase gradually. But it wasn’t that easy all the way; during his struggle he had faced several difficulties which he had solved with his own conscience. He did thoroughly analyze, with the fortunate disposition, the positive and negative aspects of his business. And after the coherent laborious moves the very first business was finally entrenched in this world. The business was now fulfilling its desire by serving the mankind. One day he was struck with a pang that similar plights might knock around in the business in future also. So he decided that, being the sole founder, he must write a detailed and realistic book with which his descendants would be able to understand, or amend, the intricacies of his business. All the positive and negative steps of business to adopt or avoid defined according to the benefits and detriments he had confronted were to be mentioned in that book. So he wrote “ethos” a book ascertaining of all such aspects. As time had passed, his son started to embark on to the business. He went through the ethos thoroughly, but found that entangling with each step-instruction along with its explanation (which were the two crucial facets according to its author) is quite irksome and wastage of time. So he did a meretricious job, published a book “conclusions of ethos”, where he ingeniously blue-pencilled the explanation part from the master copy. Now the descendants of next generation found the new book easy to follow and even more auspicious, hence followed the same. Thereby this generation started to bother more about the steps to be taken (or avoided) than to understand the reasons behind them. Any retainments of the omitted explanation part were also lost in the still later generations. Because of unavailability of the reasons behind, the conclusion steps now became more stringent and less flexible, eventually forfeiting its freedom of getting amended. The business, at present, still persists but is extremely wobbled. The name of that business is ‘Spirituality’, and the creator was God itself. But the aim of philanthropy once chosen is lost somewhere meanwhile. Thereby, a severely critical problem has evolved in this world. Q1. What is the problem? Q2. Where is the problem? Q3. Why is the problem? Q4. Is there any solution?
Let’s explore the four main questions of spirituality which are of our concern in their priority order.
Looking at the case, what Nityananda did, it’s quite clear that the problem is with the superfluous faith in the name of spirituality. We are still on the safe side if we call it ‘blind-faith’, which is the answer to our foremost question. Have faith, but without being blind. Let’s move further. Nowadays, obsessed with the curiosity, when a person ask the reason for this relentless stern pace going on in the way of spirituality, the descendants of god, instead of practicing inception of the independent soul in his mind, tampers the person to some manipulated spoof by creating their own reasons as answers, and the reasons vary from descendant to descendant. Now the person has to believe the reasons told because of two things. First, he already knew the concluded outcome from the conclusions of ethos, and just wanted the reason to believe it and somebody explained him. Second, the explanation is being told by the descendants of god itself, somebody who is supposed to be closer of god. Who are these descendants? Well, they are the so-called pandits, swamis, tantriks, priests, monks, and popes, who often manipulate things to delude people into their faith. And this is the place exactly where people fall into blind-faith. This is the answer to the second question. These kinds of descendants tell things in a rather interesting and entertaining way, so as to capture more and more public, since they know that our current world demands only three things ‘entertainment-entertainment-entertainment’, hence they succeed. Still two questions left. Now third question, why does this problem exist? It seems that the problem is lying in the comprehension of the word ‘spirituality’ itself. It consists of two words?spirit and actuality. ‘Spirit’ is soul. ‘Actuality’- is defined as state of being actually and objectively existing or happening in this world, just without the grounds. But instead of actuality, it must be ‘spirit’ and ‘factuality.’ So there’s a missing letter-‘f’ in our perceptions, which is the answer to our third question. The missing f-word is the reason for why the problem exists. Things are needed to be provided with the facts, reasons, or else, effects are adversely dreadful. The missing f-word in the account of spirituality has indeed accounted for several horrifying effects. This f-word has fluffed, fuzzed and fudged the world off. You are intelligent enough to understand what I mean.
After decoding the three questions, it adds no surprise, or shock, if Nityananda persuaded his pupils. Just ask yourself, is it rational enough to implicate Nityananda alone? Is there no other partner of his crime? Every person believing in the f-less spirituality is a culprit along with Nityananda. Every person believing Nityananda (you understand very well that believing up to what extent, in case of Nityananda) is a culprit itself. Every person believing someone just because he dons a yellow colored veil is a culprit. Every person believing in ethos without knowing its respective explanatory part is a perpetrator of blind-faith, and is a culprit. For Nityananda, he is just a mask of all such culprits. Blaming him alone would be a biasing with him. If we don’t know the reasons of following something, then better we do not follow it. It is our own life and thereby we have all the rights to commit a mistake and learn from it (until it doesn’t involve some policeman’s life), instead of living predetermined lives by following the conclusions of ethos. The life is not all about ‘entertainment-entertainment-entertainment’. It has to be more than that. It is more like ‘derailment-improvement-enlightenment’, a sequential process.
An Alien asked you mean to say that all the rigorous steps taken up by our ancestors should be dumped away?
Second opinion no, it shouldn’t. They should be believed but along with the reasons behind them. If the conclusions alone could have worked, then people like Nityananda shouldn’t be existing and dwelling around. There are several such Nityananda’s still not unmasked.
But the fourth question still stands firm. Do we have any solutions? The original ethos has been lost. So, how are we supposed to get the original explanations of our beliefs. Maybe we’ll never be able to unriddle the reasons put behind around a couple of thousands years ago. But at least we are sufficiently adept for making use of the tinge of the ethos still retaining in our minds known as conscience. Solution doesn’t depend on what newspapers and media says, but it depends on your thinking. And this completes the answer. I can assure, as far in my opinion, two conclusions to be very promising. First, “It’s not how much we believe our ethos; it’s about how come we believe it.” And second, “now the time has come when we must replace that f-word to its correct position.”
Follow our WhatsApp channel