Ettela'at-e Hekmat va Ma'refat's Conversation with Dr. Aref Nazari: “Spiritual Health: The Authentic Life”

Spiritual Health: The Authentic Life

A Conversation with Dr. Aref Nazari

Specialist in Transpersonal Psychoanalysis

Interviewer: Naghmeh Parvan

Source: Ettela'at-e Hekmat va Ma'refat Magazine Issue 145

Spiritual health is one of the types of health that has gradually taken its place alongside other types of health—namely mental, physical, social, and cultural health—and has today become one of the main components of having a good and authentic life. In the present conversation, Dr. Aref Nazari, a transpersonal psychoanalyst¹, discusses the particulars and the scope of this newly arrived component in the world of psychology, namely "spiritual health," and addresses the obstacles that human beings face on the path to achieving this type of health, finally offering several strategies for removing these obstacles.

• Dear Dr. Aref Nazari, please clarify for us at the beginning of the conversation exactly what components we are referring to when we speak of spiritual health. In other words, how is a person considered spiritually healthy?

We must pay attention to the fact that each of the institutions involved in health offers a specific definition of spiritual health, and for this reason, its precise definition is not yet completely unambiguous. However, one of the definitions that is more operational and precise than the others and has more detail is the NOC² definition of spiritual health. According to this, spiritual health is: "A meaningful and healthy connection of the individual with the self, with others, with a higher power, and with the totality of life, nature, and the cosmos in a way that empowers the person and leads them to transcendence." Therefore, in general, spiritual health can be considered a kind of connection of the person with their inner and outer world, in such a way that through this connection, the person's life becomes more meaningful and richer, and the person moves towards transcendence and enjoys greater capability.

In our view, the first step to achieving such components is for the human being to think about this question: "Where did I come from? What was the purpose of my coming? And also, where am I going?" Whether the answer to these two questions has become clear to the individual, or they are in search of clarifying these two important questions, they have stepped onto the path of spiritual health. But as we said, spiritual health is realized when the person can establish a balanced connection with themselves, with those around them, with the society in which they live, and also with a higher power, which can be the Creator of existence, the wisdom of existence, the Lord, God, and generally an eternal force.

A branch of existential psychologists believes that human beings live ontologically on three levels. These three levels are being with oneself, being with others, and being with existence, which form three independent but interconnected phenomenological worlds. From this existentialist perspective, human beings who have the ability to establish a balance between these three levels enjoy health. Transpersonal psychology, while affirming this definition, adds another component for having spiritual health, namely "connection with the consciousness of existence," which is in fact a kind of awareness that encompasses all three levels like an umbrella.

• It seems that in many cases, spiritual health is confused with other concepts, and a kind of semantic conflation occurs. To avoid this, wouldn't it be better to define spiritual health apophatically as well, and in addition, to clarify exactly what the goal of spiritual health actually is?

Yes, exactly. In this discussion it is particularly important to know what spiritual health is not, because here more than in other discussions we may fall into the pitfall of conflation. John Welwood, the transpersonal psychologist, was the first to introduce a concept called spiritual bypass into the discussion of spiritual health. In medicine and in practice, a heart bypass means setting aside a blocked vessel and replacing it with a new one. In the discussion of spiritual health, we encounter this phenomenon when a person, instead of solving their problems and striving to resolve them, resorts to spiritual justifications. For example, a woman who does not enjoy a good marital life and whose rights are constantly ignored may take refuge in the hadith that “a woman’s jihad is in putting up with a bad husband.” She therefore imagines that enduring these harms somehow makes her spiritually valuable, and indeed she finds peace in this way. Or a person who does not pursue their rights and resorts to the spiritual belief that God is the upholder of rights. These individuals overlook the fact that none of these spiritual truths should prevent a person from pursuing their rights.

Thus, here we arrive at another characteristic of spiritual health, in the sense that spiritual health makes a person more dynamic, more harmonious, more serious, and more fruitful. Although we may observe differences in the behavior of an apparently spiritual person and a non-spiritual person, these differences do not necessarily signify the spiritual richness of the former.

Among other things that are mistaken for spirituality is religious belief or conviction. In the sense that a person thinks that because they perform their prayers on time, fast, pay their khums and zakat, and generally follow religious rulings, they are also at a high level of spiritual health, yet they may not possess spiritual health at all. Therefore, the circle of “spiritual health” is much smaller than the circle of “spiritual belief.” As we said, to have spiritual health, a person must necessarily possess certain qualities; they must have inner peace, be kind, be in search of meaning, must hear and follow their inner voice, must strive to enrich their moments in the present (in this time and this place). Thus, even if a person is greatly devoted to dhikr and supplication, but becomes anxious at the slightest adversity, becomes angry at the slightest frustration, and falls apart psychologically at the smallest failure, they do not possess spiritual health.

It is appropriate here to also distinguish between acquired and experiential spirituality. Experiential spirituality occurs in the direct experience of a prophet (in Western religions) or a sage (in Eastern religions), which has given them the possibility to become one with the oneness of existence, the One, or non-dual reality, and to experience it. After this transpersonal or beyond-the-individual experience, which they have directly touched themselves, these individuals return to their earthly experience and wish to speak of methods that help others toward this direct witnessing and spiritual touch. Unfortunately, however, many of these methods have formed dos and don’ts that have merely stuck to the outer shell and have forgotten the main goal. Rumi also pays great attention to this matter where he says: “We have taken the kernel from the Quran, and left the husk for the donkeys,” or: “Ascend to the Mi'raj, if you are of the Prophet’s kin.”

Therefore, the goal of the prophets was nothing other than to connect the individual’s wire to the Whole and to teach human beings the way to reach such a station. Some may possess all the components necessary to complete the circuit and turn on the light, but does everyone truly have the ability to complete the circuit in such a way that the light turns on? We believe that an individual possesses spiritual health only when they can complete the circuit in such a way that their light turns on. If your light does not turn on, it means you are merely performing religious acts, and this difference between the mere performance of rulings and the attainment of spiritual health is a very important point that must not be neglected.

• Can one be certain that a person possessing spiritual health also enjoys spiritual well-being? Or, in other words, does a person who lives a spiritually healthy life live more happily and pleasurably than others, and is their life more joyful than that of individuals lacking mental health?

It is believed that if someone possesses spiritual health, they certainly have a better and finer life, meaning they also enjoy greater health and well-being. However, whether this person also derives more pleasure from life depends on how we define pleasure. The pleasure we are concerned with in the discussion of mental health is equivalent to the English word "gratification," not "joy," and in Eastern culture, it corresponds to the term "Ananda," which is a kind of inner contentment and delight without necessarily having an outward manifestation. That is, we are not concerned here with egoistic or physiological pleasures; we are speaking of pleasures of another level that are not dependent on the satisfaction of physiological needs. For example, contentment, satisfaction, submission, harmony, and a sense of meaning and finding meaning in life's experiences bring a person to inner happiness. So, a spiritual person is certainly happier inwardly. In our own literature, this type of pleasure has also been referenced: "If you know the pleasure of forsaking pleasure, you will no longer call the pleasure of the self, pleasure."

• Therefore, the type of pleasure under discussion in spiritual health is the Epicurean ataraxia, a kind of negative pleasure that a person experiences in the absence of pain, which can be more tangibly defined as a kind of embracing of tranquility.

Yes, that is correct. Of course, Epicurus does not negate bodily pleasures either, as long as they do not lead to suffering. From the perspective of Buddhist teachings as well, the goal of attaining spiritual health is not disinterest in earthly life and its pleasures, but rather cutting the chain of suffering from life through non-attachment to these pleasures.

Some psychologists in this field, such as Ellison, a professor at a university in America and the creator of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale, consider the expansion of the components of spiritual health to be, in a way, spiritual well-being. They believe that only through the emergence and expansion of spiritual health within a person can one enjoy its fruits, which is spiritual well-being. To clarify his point, he gives the example that just as the effects and signs of possessing physical health are evident in the appearance and countenance of a healthy individual, the effects of possessing spiritual health also become apparent in a person's life, and he identifies tranquility, kindness, productivity, etc., as among these effects.

• In your view, what is the relationship between spirituality and ethics? Can a basis for ethics be conceived within spirituality? And does ethics play a major role in the realization of spiritual health?

Perhaps one could say that ethics and spirituality have a friendly relationship, but they do not stem from the same root. The root of morality is the social need to establish order and maintain the organization of society; good and bad, right and wrong were originally created so that society could revolve in its orbit of order and arrangement. But the basis of spirituality does not concern itself much with society. Spirituality is fundamentally for a person to purify their own self in order to reach their essence and become richer from within. Naturally, someone who is richer from within and someone who has spiritual health, by definition, has a better relationship with others, with society, and with life in general, and naturally shows greater respect for the matters that prevail in society under the title of morality. Undoubtedly, it can be said that ethics and spirituality interact with each other; sometimes in ethics we speak of things that are rooted in spirituality, and sometimes conversely, in spirituality, points are mentioned that have originated from ethics, and in this way, they overlap; but they do not spring from the same source. For example, kindness is a spiritual value but not a moral value; loving is a spiritual value but not a moral value.

• Of course, I suppose here you are looking at the issue from the perspective of consequentialist ethics and ultimately Kantian deontological ethics, which, rather than being called ethics, are considered a kind of social rules or rights. But do you not find an affinity between spirituality and ethics from the perspective of virtue ethics as well?

Yes, that is correct; the definition of spiritual health overlaps with what in psychology, particularly positive psychology, is referred to as virtues; it especially corresponds with what appears in the works of Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas under the titles of virtues and virtue ethics. Because virtue ethics also seeks to cultivate an intrinsic value within the human being. However, social ethics do not possess the capacity to manifest the intrinsic value of the human being as they should. These two ethics, namely deontological and consequentialist ethics, are primarily concerned with optimally preserving the social order.

Of course, it is true that virtue ethics of the Aristotelian type addresses intrinsic human values, and one of its virtues is even practical wisdom or prudence, which leads a person to search for meaning and discover new horizons; but in my opinion, there is still a fine line between this type of ethics and mental health that separates the two, and that is that in the Aristotelian list of virtues, there is no direct mention of the Origin and the Return, or in other words, it does not consider pre-eternity and post-eternity. Perhaps it can be likened somewhat to that existentialist discussion that we have been thrown into this world from absolute nothingness and will return to absolute nothingness, and it is we who must give meaning to the interval of our being between two absolute nothingnesses. Therefore, there are many commonalities between humanistic values and spiritual values in many instances, but as I mentioned, there is also a fine boundary, and that is that a spiritually healthy person seeks to also regulate their relationship with the wisdom of existence or the Lord of existence.

• You have certainly encountered individuals in your profession who possess all the requisites for a good life, for example, they have a good and ethical relationship with themselves, those around them, and even with nature, but they lack that final condition, namely a connection with a force superior to the self or superior to matter. From a psychological perspective, are such individuals considered to lack spiritual health, and ultimately, does psychology even consider them healthy?

It should be noted that the definition of health is a human-made construct. Despite organizations like the U.S. National Institutes of Health adding the dimension of spirituality to health, the World Health Organization's definition of health still does not include the dimension of spirituality, and its definition remains the previous one: "Health is physical health, mental health, cultural health, and social health." Moreover, here one must see what "good" means from the perspective of the person who claims to "live well." There are various perspectives in psychology. In the first perspective of psychology, which is psychoanalysis or the view of Freud and his followers, spirituality has no place, and mental health occurs for the genitally mature person; that is, Freud's ideal human is the genitally mature human. The life energy, which exists within us as libido, is concentrated in various areas of the body during the first five years of life.

Freud believes that depending on the type of upbringing and parental behavior, as well as personal and genetic characteristics, more energy remains in one of these stages than in others for each person, or in other words, the energy is blocked or locked, and the attention each person is forced to pay to these accumulated energies causes behaviors rooted in their unconscious, and in fact, this blocked energy seeks a way to be expended.

From age five until puberty, this libido is distributed throughout the body. At the stage of puberty, the person enters adulthood. Freud believes that untying these knots requires the process of psychoanalysis; therefore, in his view, all humans are ill unless proven otherwise, and the contrary can only be proven after five years of psychoanalysis. In other words, a person can only regain their health and become a healthy human being after undergoing five years of psychoanalysis, and such a healthy human being is called a genitally mature person. Now, one must see what characteristics this genitally mature person possesses. First of all, they have balance in life; their behavioral characteristics are that they can work, they can love easily, and they enjoy both. Therefore, from a psychoanalytic perspective, someone who enjoys their job and can love deeply is a healthy human being. Thus, we see that in this approach, there is no mention of transcendence at all.

The second approach in psychology is behaviorist psychology. According to this approach, mental health consists in a person being useful, productive, and well-adjusted in society. In this approach, even in its classical form, there is no such thing as the mind, let alone the spirit and the transcendence of the spirit. So, up to this point, based on these two approaches, the person you have in mind would be considered completely healthy.

But in psychology, we also encounter two other approaches. The third approach is the existential-humanistic approach, in which meaning is of importance. According to such a view, if a person is immersed in their social connections, their emotional ties with their inner self, with nature, and with the universe are not very deep or are severed. Based on this approach, such a person, no matter how happy they are and no matter how much Freud would applaud them, lives an inauthentic life, and a person who lives inauthentically and falsely cannot be considered a healthy human being.

Abraham Maslow says that people who live well and pay attention to meta-needs attain a peak experience. By definition, a peak experience occurs when consciousness is altered from its ordinary state and the person connects to the total awareness of existence, and this is the very thing that William James, the founder of American psychology, pointed to in his first book, The Varieties of Religious Experience, namely that psychology can only become a complete science when it can make altered states of consciousness a subject of study. It was only seventy years later that Maslow, in defining self-actualizing persons, reported the abundance of peak experiences in these individuals. This peak experience is, by definition, very spiritual, meaning it connects the person to the wisdom of existence or God. Which, of course, as we know, what a person observes in this experience is to a large extent related to their cultural and religious orientation; for example, if someone was born in Rome, they will probably see Jesus Christ in their spiritual experience, and a Native American, as a result of such an experience, probably feels they have attained Wakan Tanka or the Great Spirit.

So the third approach says that if a person does not reach this stage and is still captive to their first-order needs, they are not considered self-actualized or, according to Rogers' definition, a fully functioning person, and they must strive to reach this point. However, if the person feels pleasure in their situation and feels good, this approach still does not impose anything on them.

The last approach, that is, the fourth approach, which has shaped twenty-first-century psychology and is on its way to becoming the dominant paradigm, in fact originated from Maslow's research. In this definition, the human being has a relationship with the totality of existence, and health occurs when the person can perceive this connection, deepen it, and expand it. Therefore, health in the transpersonal psychology view is not a state, but rather a work in process. Some individuals, in terms of transpersonal experiences, are more evolved and complete; their consciousness is at a higher level, and conversely, some are at a lower level of consciousness. In this part of the story, I am always reminded of the hadith: "The good deeds of the righteous are the sins of those brought near to God." Therefore, from a person who is more developed in terms of their level of consciousness, more is expected. This does not mean that a specific person has expectations of them, but rather that, conceptually, more is expected of them. So, according to this approach, it can be said that all human beings are healthy and in the process of growth; that is, they are situated at various stages of development.

If the person in question were to consult a transpersonal psychologist, this psychologist would tell them that the fact they feel very good and enjoy life is excellent, but they could also peek at other horizons in life. Here, the person themselves decides whether or not to enter other domains of life. And this is the difference between psychology and religion. In religion, you often feel a duty to take people by the hand and sometimes drag them to the right path; but in psychology, if a person feels good about themselves, their relationship with others, and the meaning of their life—meaning they have provided the minimums—and has no desire to change themselves, that is respected.

• Spiritually speaking, what can be done as a first step to secure and strengthen health in society and the world?

As I mentioned, transpersonal psychology, because of its integrative perspective, focuses on the person's relationship with their inner self, with others, and with the external world. As a first step toward attaining spiritual health, we try to focus on simple questions that arise for a person entering this domain. Questions that return to the individual's sense of inner worth, such as:

Sitting under a tree and feeling at peace on a summer afternoon is a spiritual experience; empathizing with an elderly woman as we take her hand to help her cross the street is a spiritual experience. Therefore, in my view, it is far better to point to the instances of spiritual experience in life than to definitions and frameworks. For many of these definitions and frameworks are independent of spiritual experience. Many definitions turn into religions that are sometimes not spiritual at all, and this does not mean that the essence of religions is not spiritual, but rather that we sometimes mistake the shell for the content, causing the exoteric layer of religions to be conflated with their esoteric core, which can lay the groundwork for much practical confusion and turmoil in life.

• To what extent have the new religious movements and newly emerged spiritualities that have risen in the twenty-first century against institutionalized and traditional religions been successful in producing spiritual health? And what distinguishes them from traditional religions in the field of creating spiritual health and spiritual well-being in society, and in your opinion, how can one differentiate between types of spirituality and, for example, distinguish false or counterfeit spirituality from authentic and true spirituality?

You might have the most expensive phone on the market, but it might not turn on at all, whereas a very cheap phone might fulfill your purpose of talking through it. False and non-false mysticism and spirituality are like genuine and counterfeit goods, and one must see what the difference is between these two goods that leads us to call one genuine and the other fake. This difference is either in terms of quality, or in terms of being a brand or not. Some believe that brands are the sincere mysticisms and non-brands are tantamount to false mysticisms. But one must see whether this tool gets us to our intended goal or not. Mysticism of any kind, if it provides the characteristics we enumerated for the spiritual person, is a mysticism that can be trusted.

On the other hand, you might use glasses with a very precise lens, but instead of facing the sun, you face a wall, and naturally, in this case too, this precise and expensive instrument will not solve your problem. This is the same as "As it happened, the oxymel increased the bile."

Unfortunately, even Islamic mysticism itself has not been accepted or embraced in comparison to jurisprudence and religious rulings. Even Imam Khomeini pointed out in one of his letters that because he was both a philosopher and a mystic, he was viewed with disfavor by some jurists of that era. Thus, one can see that the relationship between those in charge of jurisprudential affairs and mystics has often not been a good one. Throughout history, many mystics have been, and continue to be, hanged. However, in any case, there is a type of mystical method that is also called New Age spirituality outside of Iran, which has no basis, foundation, or grounding and is full of spiritual bypassing, full of irrelevant and unanchored things, and an empty, actionless, and selfish spirituality that can truly be called false mysticism. Therefore, one must see what is meant by sincere and false mysticism. Sometimes a mysticism is called false simply because its copyright has not been paid, and in this way, many ancient esoteric methods are suppressed as false and sometimes newly emerged mysticism; whereas the attribute 'newly emerged' does not fit many of them at all, as they are even older than some classical religions.

• Considering the religious nature of Iranian society, what strategies do you propose for improving the quality of spiritual health?

Islam, by its essence, has no defect / Any defect there is, comes from our being Muslim

Religion can very quickly deviate from its path without our noticing and easily turn into a ritual for attaining something that can no longer be attained. You have surely heard the story of the cat in the Zen temple. Therefore, if religion is practiced correctly, there is a probability of more than 99 percent that individuals will attain spirituality, but unfortunately, religion is practiced selectively in our society. For example, hypocrisy, lying, slander, and spreading accusations are all considered major sins in our religion, but unfortunately, our society does not show as much sensitivity to these sins as it does to the emphasis on hijab. So, I think that in our religious society, to improve spiritual health, it is better to undertake an interdisciplinary effort. That is, a group of sociologists, psychologists, and religious scholars should come together and assess which qualities are most beneficial for improving the state of society and are also religious, and try to promote them, emphasize them, and focus on them.

The current values of our society are unfortunately sometimes inverted; hypocrisy, lying, and spreading accusations are sometimes considered values and even receive rewards, while backbiting carries no punishment. For example, in election campaigns, individuals level slanders and accusations at one another that may well be considered major sins according to religious teachings. Yet the one who slanders better, more courageously, and more loudly receives more encouragement. Therefore, to attain spiritual health, perhaps the most important task is to fine-tune the dial of religion. Everyone should be able to move towards those religious values that are applicable to them, and no imposition should occur in this regard.

Secondly, within the same official and current religion of the country, we must see which components are more aligned with individuals' mental health and spiritual health, and give importance to those that have been neglected until now. Unfortunately, religious societies have the capacity to become largely anti-spiritual, with a set of religious rites and rituals replacing spirituality. Yet I emphasize again that many religious elders also agree on this point: if the principles and branches of religion are correctly implemented, they will certainly bring spirituality to the human being.

• If we divide spirituality into religious spirituality and trans-religious spirituality, which of these two do you consider to have a more significant and progressive impact on spiritual health in society?

In my opinion, trans-religious spirituality is far more beneficial for mental health. A spirituality that can be practiced and promoted in a society regardless of race, skin color, religion, education, social class, or an individual's position in the religious hierarchy. This spirituality will be very beneficial for society because it closes the door on no human being. This spirituality will leave the door open for anyone who wishes to perform a spiritual act. For example, Catholics do not accept a person who has not been baptized and upon whom the Eucharist has not been performed for confession. So, when the view becomes religious, one can no longer say: "Come back, come back, whoever you are, come back / Even if you are an infidel, a Zoroastrian, or an idol-worshipper, come back."

Helping society, helping the poor, and helping the environment inherently possess a spiritual element. I am not saying that such acts are never performed with opportunistic and self-serving intentions—such intentions in giving can come from anyone, whether religious or non-religious. My point is that there are also humans with good intentions who perform philanthropic and inherently spiritual deeds for society without adhering to a specific religion or having their religion officially recognized, but inherently religious societies that promote a major belief view such activities with suspicion and mostly do not accept them. Here, I mean any kind of dogmatic belief and am not referring to a specific religion; even scientism (science-worship) is a type of belief, and it is quite possible that in societies where this belief prevails, the philanthropic and spiritual services of the religious are prevented. Therefore, a little kindness and distancing oneself from ideological dogmatism can bring a much sweeter spirituality to society.

.

1_ Transpersonal psychology is the latest current in psychology that studies forces beyond the person and their inner capabilities in order to examine processes of transformation and change. The word "transpersonal" is somewhat resistant to translation. Dr. Ganji has suggested "farāsū-ye shakhṣī" (beyond the personal) for this term, which is more accurate than "farā-shakhṣī" (transpersonal) but still incomplete. It seems the best equivalent proposed so far is "farā-darūn-fardī" (trans-intra-individual) psychology, but in the present text, we will mostly use the term "transpersonal."

2_Nursing outcomes classification

.

فایل PDF این مصاحبه