Imitation, Submission, and the Spirit of Religious Inquiry

At present, there are approximately 4,300(*) distinct religions and denominations in the world. If we consider only the two Abrahamic faiths—Christianity and Islam—in the Middle East, along with Buddhism in East Asia, we see that numerous sects and offshoots have emerged within each one.

All major religions claim a unique organizational structure possessing an intellectual apparatus meant to provide answers for all human affairs; hence, each is situated within a codified system centered on pivotal figures—the prophets and saints of that religion—so that they can be distinguished from one another. In this respect, they can be called organized religions.

What is noteworthy here is that by studying the history of religions and the biographies of the individuals referred to as the founders of these faiths, one can readily discern that while these organized religions are easily distinguishable from one another, the founding figures themselves bear a great resemblance to each other.

What makes these individuals alike is a spontaneous, inner quest that, incidentally, often begins in opposition to the very frameworks of these organized religions. For example, one can point to the story of Jesus and the Pharisees and the dispute over working on the Sabbath ¹: in response to the Pharisees' objection (a group of Jews who were very legalistic and possessed an elaborate jurisprudence) as to why his disciples were gleaning grain, Jesus says: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." ²

Buddha³, Zoroaster, Nanak⁴, Mahavira⁵, Jesus, and Muhammad each pursued an inner question that arose from within them, and in search of an answer, they embarked on a journey of no return. Instead of accepting the ready-made, conventional, and official molds of society and prepackaged sets of answers, they themselves sought the truth with curiosity, consequently distancing themselves from tradition and at times rebelling against it. And since this is a characteristic of existent individuals, the religious question—which is the search for truth, and whose axis, one might say, is the matter of "what we are here for"—is inevitably an existential question.

Ready-made molds and tradition, however, stand like an iron, colossal tyrant against being Existent. Therefore, these organized religions, or the official reading of religion, are entirely opposed to the religious question, which is the personal, inner search for truth. Another point gleaned from the story of Jesus and the Pharisees is that it is the human being who holds primacy, not the commandments; in that view, religion is something that serves the person, and the person is not meant to serve religion. Whereas in the official reading of religion, religion is a mold that existed before creation, and human beings come into being to serve it. In this view, humans are perpetually under the shadow of the founding figure, after whom they are placed under the official custodians of religion—its clergy (priest, mobed, etc.)—and must see what these custodians say and decree, merely listening to what the scholars and the wise pronounce. This perspective assumes human beings are passive creatures incapable of reasoning, who must only imitate and submit in devotion—imitation itself being, in all its dimensions, contrary to the spirit of religious inquiry.

From the investigator to the imitator, what a difference there is / For this one is like David, and that other is but an echo.

In the official reading, human beings never hold any standing or significance as individuals; it is always the saints of the religion who are of importance. The religious question, however, is a personal question, and the mission of every individual is to pursue it and not abandon the surge of inner searching to the dominion of the fantasies of the official reading. And this is precisely in accordance with what Shams Tabrizi says:

"Muhammad had his own prophetic mission; I must have my own."

The existence of these individuals, however, serves as a kind of testimony for the wayfarers—that in the dark night, with fear of the wave and such a terrifying whirlpool, they bring tidings that if you knock on a door, a head will eventually emerge from that door.

On the other hand, in the official reading of religion, the individual is not free to inquire, because inquiry is the beginning of doubt and philosophical thought, whereas in the official reading you have no right to doubt. If your inquiry does not lead to doubt, you have probably halted the questions at some stage, for there is no boundary to questions; and if for any reason you stop inquiring, you are no longer an existent—that is, you do not exist in the true sense of the word, but live like a shadow within the mold of tradition, and this state means you are no longer seeking the truth. Here I am reminded of the words of the French philosopher Descartes: “If you are truly seeking the truth, a time will come when you will doubt everything.” It was he who said that nothing can be certain except that I “am,” and I know that I am when I doubt, and he uttered that historic sentence: “I think, therefore I am.”

You might argue that we are seeking the truth and we ask it of someone whom we “know has attained the truth.” This response has two flaws: first, you who have not yourself attained the truth (assuming that a truth exists), how do you know who has attained it? This creates a closed circle.

Second, religious questioning and the search for truth is not a question oriented toward an answer, but a question oriented toward a process. Religious questioning is like the work of alchemy, in which the alchemist (who is interestingly called a “philosopher” in alchemical texts) seeks the philosopher’s stone, yet it is he himself who is transformed into the philosopher’s stone. To break out of this despondency and stasis, Kant’s saying is far more akin to the spirit of religious inquiry: “Think for yourself.” Now that our discussion has brought us to Kant, I will quote his words on enlightenment (which might be better translated as “attaining clarity,” very similar to the word Bodhi⁶ or Buddhahood):

“That such a great part of humanity, though nature has long since brought them to natural maturity, should nevertheless willingly remain children all their lives, and that others should so easily set themselves up as their guardians, has no cause other than laziness and cowardice. Truly, how easy it is to be a child! If I have a book that takes the place of my understanding, and a guide who does the work of my conscience, and so on, I need not trouble myself. As long as I can pay money, I have no need to think; others will undertake this irksome task for me. Those who take it upon themselves to guard the understanding of others ensure that the majority of people find the step toward maturity, which is in itself difficult, also dangerous. These guardians first render their flock empty-headed and reassure themselves that these harmless creatures would not dare take a single step beyond the pasture in which they are imprisoned; then they warn them of the dangers of going it alone! These dangers are not really so great, for after falling a few times, the fledgling eventually learns to walk; but the prospect of such an accident (the expectation of falling) frightens a person and may well deter any thought of a new attempt. Hence, for many people it is difficult to emerge alone from this state of childhood, which has become almost natural to them. They even grow fond of this state and are truly incapable of using their own understanding, for they have never been allowed to do so. Rules, formulas, these instruments of the use, or rather misuse, of natural talents, are the chains that perpetuate childhood; and even one who breaks free from these chains can scarcely leap over a small ditch without trembling legs, for he is unaccustomed to such freedom of movement. Thus it is that only a small number have managed, through great effort, to free their spirit (mind)⁷ from the bonds of childhood and walk with a steady gait.”⁸

Man's migration from this spiritual infancy to maturity begins with standing on his own two feet. The masses, however, absolve themselves of responsibility and in every age find an authority to lean on, an authority that "decides" for their thoughts and all their existential and inner issues and issues decrees, because decision-making requires responsibility, and the masses detest accepting responsibility for their own lives and find a sense of security and peace by nestling in the embrace of an authority, just as they had security and peace in the mother's womb. But at what price is this sense of security and peace, which is nothing more than a lie, obtained? At the price of submitting one's neck to the yoke of such authorities and spending the precious gem of "freedom" for just a few more moments of sleep; it is here that the culture of "submission" and "imitation" fully takes shape and is founded, and the authority, having depicted an embrace, swallows man like a monster. This mystery is revealed in myths and symbolic allegories, such as the sea monster that the hero must overcome on the night journey, and the allegory of Jonah in the belly of the giant fish can also be seen as a symbol of this truth that "the very truth is the critique of our own state."

In Jungian psychology⁹, this concept is discussed under the term mother complex: the mother complex signifies the desire to return to childhood, to be cared for, and to evade the responsibilities one faces. It is as if the person, out of fear of confronting life's dangers, takes refuge in the mother's womb, because in the mother's womb, the fetus bears no responsibility, and the responsibility for facing the dangers of the outside world lies with the "mother."¹⁰ At the beginning of my speech, I said that organized religions form around the personality of these truth-seeking individuals and, over time, each turns into an institution. It is as if these institutions are the product of what might better be called the "womb complex"; we want these institutions to envelop us like a womb. Therefore, we want them to have a ready-made answer for all our questions, from the most trivial matters to our existential issues.

By fleeing into the embrace of these custodians and authorities, man submits to "authority" and bows his neck to the dominion of the "Leviathan."¹¹ It is for this reason that a "tyrant" rules over immature peoples, and their form of political governance becomes tyranny and despotism. On this matter, Erich Fromm writes: "Man fears absolute freedom; because if man has absolute freedom, he feels responsible for every action and holds himself accountable for it. But if he considers himself subject to the command of an individual, group, or set of religious and ritual instructions, he shifts the responsibilities onto the commander and prohibitor, freeing himself from responsibilities and accountabilities for various issues. Man flees from freedom because he does not want to fall into the trap of responsibility, which is a requisite of freedom. Since man always seeks a focal point of allegiance and belonging, the market for the dictatorship of rulers is very prosperous."¹²

One can neither provide a formal definition for religion nor confine it within a framework. Religion is an inner yearning. In the words of Rumi: "There is in man a love, a pain, an itch, and a demand such that if a hundred thousand worlds became his possession, he would not rest or find peace. These people, in detail, engage in every trade, craft, position, and the study of astronomy, medicine, and the like, and find no peace, because that which is intended has not been attained."¹³ This inner ferment is the religious question itself, and perhaps this question is the primary existential issue of man, and since it pertains to each of us, we are personally responsible for answering it, and everyone finds their own answer. There is no common answer. Whoever sets out on the journey, takes the risk, and shatters the Leviathan of imitation and submission finds their own treasure, the treasure of truth. In the words of Osho¹⁴: "Truth is not something ready-made and at hand. Truth cannot be found in customs, traditions, and books. Truth must be sought, and everyone must do this themselves. Perhaps I have found the truth, but I cannot place it at your disposal. Not that I do not want to place it at your disposal, but truth is not transferable. Truth cannot be given to anyone; there is no way to give truth to others. If you place truth at someone's disposal, it turns into a lie."

For this inner journey, one must be free. The first stage is freedom, and the journey begins with asking "Why?" One must ask why, that is, possess critical thinking; this journey is impossible with the assertion "This is it and there is nothing else" and "The truth is what we say and have attained; do nothing but submit." One must first cast off the chains of dogmatism. This task is more difficult under the ominous shadow of totalitarian governments, for the totalitarian state dictates how individuals should think and sets boundaries and limits for it. Independent thinking is the greatest enemy of the totalitarian state. The totalitarian state says: "This is what we say, and there is nothing else," and defines everything from environmental issues to human life based on its ideology. Hence, people living under the shadow of totalitarianism must doubt everything; if the totalitarian state says it is daytime, stick your head out the window to be sure!¹⁵ , Kant continues: "For this enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom, and indeed the most harmless of all freedoms, namely, the freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. But I hear from all sides the cry: 'Do not reason!' ¹⁶

In any case, neither religious questioning nor its obstacles are specific to a particular era or society. This is indeed the story of humanity that Plato presented in the allegory of the cave.¹⁷ As long as one is bound by traditions and one's knowledge is transmitted, these transmissions drag one wherever the transmitters benefit, so the journey begins with doubt. Doubt in everything one hears. Every utterance is merely an opinion that must be critiqued, and for critique, one must first hear all utterances. The official reading of religion says: read this book and do not read that one. Lend your ear to the words of so-and-so, but turn away from the deviant words of that other one. Thus, it blocks the path of speech for others, but "Give good tidings to My servants who listen to speech and follow the best of it... Those are the ones endowed with reason." ¹⁸

In this context, perhaps one can distinguish the individual in search of truth from the person trapped in the prison of fear, seeking childish security, by whether they pursue questions or pseudo-questions. The importance of fundamental, existential questions lies in the fact that they cannot be 'eliminated' at all. We do not pose those questions; rather, we find them (a priori) 'present and ready' in the ground of our Dasein. ¹⁹ The religious question is not about where our hands should be during prayer; the religious question is the inner journey of a person in search of their wholeness; the religious question is indeed the pain of human longing.

From this longing, the servant reached Your street Mary's pain drew her to the palm tree trunk

.

---

.

Notes

* Quoted from the website adherent.com

(1) The Hebrew equivalent of the word Saturday in the Hebrew language is the word Shabbat (שַבָּת). Observing the sanctity of the Sabbath day and refraining from worldly affairs was among the commandments strongly emphasized in the Old Testament. According to the Torah, God commanded that this law be an eternal statute and remain in effect forever.

(2) "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he (Jesus) said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." - Mark 2: 23 – 28. Matthew mentions that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for taking the uppermost rooms at feasts, wearing expensive clothing, and having people call them 'Rabbi.' Jesus's criticisms relate to the difference between inner and outer faith. Jesus says that the Pharisees only want to appear pious and righteous but do not attend to their inner selves.

(3) A prince originally named Siddhartha Gautama from ancient India who left behind life in the palace and all his possessions to answer his inner questions...

(4) The founder of Jainism

(5) The founder of Sikhism who was born into every religion and was always searching; in truth, he was the founder of no religion, and Sikhism bears little relation to the life and thought of Nanak.

6- "Bodhi" means enlightenment. In Buddhism, anyone who has attained enlightenment or awakening is given the title "Buddha." Buddha means the awakened one or the one who has attained enlightenment. Hence, Siddhartha Gautama himself was given the title Buddha. In Buddhism, everyone must attain Buddhahood for themselves.

7- Translation of the German word Geist, meaning spirit, soul, or mind

8- The essay "What is Enlightenment?" by Immanuel Kant

9- Jung, the Swiss psychologist, founder of analytical psychology

10- Robert Johnson, The Mother Complex and Relations Between Men and Women, The Archetypal Psychology of Modern Man

11- Leviathan in the Old Testament is a sea monster that overcomes all creatures; also the title of a book by Thomas Hobbes in which he envisions the state for people in the state of nature as a Leviathan...

12- Erich Fromm, the book "Escape from Freedom"

13- Mawlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi, Fihi Ma Fihi

14- Osho, the Indian mystic

15- For a better understanding of the concept of totalitarianism, refer to the book "Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt and also "Escape from Freedom" by Fromm. One of the prominent examples of such a state in the present era is North Korea.

16- Kant, ibid.

17- Plato asks us to imagine an underground cave that has an opening towards the light. In this cave live people who, from childhood, have had their legs and necks chained so that they face the back wall of the cave with their backs to the opening and have never seen the sunlight. Behind them, that is, between the prisoners and the cave opening, on a raised area, there is a fire, and between them and the fire, there is a raised path and a low wall like a screen. Along this raised path, people carrying statues and figures of animals and other things pass by, so that what they carry appears above that low wall. The prisoners, whose faces are turned toward the inner wall of the cave, cannot see each other or the things behind them, but they see their own shadows and the shadows of these objects cast upon the wall; they see only the shadows. These prisoners represent the majority of humankind, that is, the mass of people who spend their lives in a state of imagination and conjecture (eikones) and see only shadows of reality and hear only echoes of the true voice. Their view of the world is very incomplete and "has been distorted and perverted by their own passions and prejudices and those of others transmitted to them through language and rhetoric," and although their condition is no better than that of children, they are firmly attached to their distorted notions and do not wish to be freed from the prison – A History of Western Philosophy, Copleston, Volume I

18- Quran, Az-Zumar/18

19- Adapted from A Prophetic Reading of the World, Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari

.

---

.

Imitation, Submission, and the Spirit of Religious Inquiry

Author: Siavash Raadparsa

.

---

.