When Absurdities And Idiosyncrasies Constitute Religiosity
By
Sumit Paul, New Age Islam
21 February
2024
"What's outright indecent in a social
context is always absolutely decent in a religious sphere."
Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, 1950
The
memories of studying Jainism flooded back as I read tributes to a sky-clad
(using a euphemism) Digambar Jain muni in premier dailies. He breathed his last
a few days ago.
I've always
believed that just like 'spirituality,' 'secularism' is also a very vague and
nebulous term. While studying Jainism and its various sects during my religious
studies in comparative religions at leading British and American Universities,
I focussed on the Digambar sect of Jainism. The Munis and ascetic persons
belonging to this sect roam naked like gymnosophists of ancient Greece.
I once asked
an Indian scholar of Jainism, who belonged to this sect, regarding this
'awkward' social behaviour in the name of religion. He agreed with me in toto
and said that this bizarre religious manifestation was totally unacceptable. I
quote him verbatim what he said, "When you see a person sans clothes, your
very first reaction is of embarrassment. Even the followers of Digambar Jain
community will prefer to look askance when they get to see a person minus
clothes because embarrassment to see a naked person is a natural social
reaction that's embedded in all of us. But those very people belonging to
Digambar sect will brainlessly genuflect before an ascetic from their community
who chose to shed all his clothes in the name of faith.
This
dichotomy in reaction stems from hardcore religiosity. Nakedness causes
embarrassment in the social domain but it's very much extolled when it gets
religious sanction. He further added that the very concept of roaming naked in
the name of religion and god is a blatant social nuisance and an acute national
embarrassment. The government must put a ban on it.
Now the
question is: What's so great about shedding all your clothes in the name of
religion and god? Cannot your religion and god be served by wearing all
clothes? What was the contextual necessity for Mahavir to shed his clothes? As
many as 6 Agamas, written during Mahavir's lifetime and slightly late, don't
say that Mahavir did away with all clothes. That's a later-day interpolation,
say 2200 years ago, as Jainism, like Buddhism, is 2600-yr-old.
Humans can
go to any stupid length/s to satiate their religious ego. Alfred Adler believed
that followers of different faiths indulge in all weird things just to show
that they're religiously different and also 'superior.' The Buddha realized
this extremism in religious thoughts, So, he chose the middle path that was
between the extreme austerity of Jainism and corresponding bohemianism of
Charvaka Darshan. 'Never tilt towards extreme behaviour,' (Par Beni Dhyana
Neti Inn Vikritam) was his message in Pali. So, despite being totally
non-violent, Buddha didn't stretch Ahimsa the way Jainism stretched it and made
it impractical to the point of being rank ridiculous.
All these
religions, their innumerable sects and followers are not in search of a higher
reality or consciousness. They're all trying to prove that their respective
sectarian religiosity is the best and the only way. This saddens all those who
use their reasons and brains.
But how
many people apply their brains? This is a million-dollar question. Isn't
it?
------
A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul
is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He
has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several
languages including Persian.
URL: https://newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/absurdities-idiosyncrasies-religiosity/d/131766