Religious-Spiritual Evolution: Unlearning the Learned

In 2013, in the middle of my PhD study in the US, something happened to me that made me change the path of my dissertation. It started with deep, philosophical, questions about the purpose of what I did in my life at that time. Was it something meaningful that was worth continuing? So I started to pick up something I never really did - it was reading the Qur’an. As a kid all the way to teenage years and growing up a Muslim, I had a series of religious practices that were expected of me, including “reading the Qur’an.” By this, it means literally attemping to read the Qur’an without knowing what the reading meant. So during that questioning moment in 2013, I picked it up and started to really read (translations of) the Qur’an. As the Qur’an has been preserved in high-level Arabic, I had no knowledge of how to really understand it, except through its available (English) translation(s) and the Indonesian translation (to me) was rather suspicious - I tried to read different translations and I had different senses when reading different translations (some translations I found were even vastly different in meaning). Nevertheless, I tried what I could. Before this period, my PhD dissertation proposal was also motivated by a Qur’anic text, which pointed to the need of learning about and from people coming from different cultural backgrounds. Long story short, I dedicated to change my dissertation focus to the notion of “homo religiosus” and its links to ethics (link to dissertation). With dissertation done and more experiences gained, my religious-spiritual comprehesion has also evolved over time.

Overall, before going into details surrounding my evolution, my religious-spiritual orientation now tends to be more non-categorical while I maintain aspects of certain traditions that help me channel my thoughts. On paper, I am categorized as a “Muslim,” but it now entails to me something that is fundamentally different from how I had understood it before or what the convention often demands. Fundamentally, my orientation is not only anchored by my affection towards the Qur’an (including the ever-showing signs or symbols that are present in many corners of life), but also colored by a variety of religious-spiritual traditions that provide more meaningful and deeper comprehension and sentiments - from Muslim, Christian, Jewish to Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, and others and from the conservative to the progressive sides. While I respect religious-spiritual denominations as part of the reality of life, I do no “see” or ”feel” religiousness-spirituality in a denominational way. To me, paradoxically, my non-affiliation is something I understand to be what the Qur’an prescribes - that one’s faith or spiritual aspiration is something that connects directly with the divine. The choice for me is the way of peace-truth, or the other way. While I can be seen practicing certain ways of life that are usually thought to belong to a particular religious group, I am not engaged in certain religious-spiritual practices that most people in each of the above mentioned traditions would subscribe to practice. What I am experiencing, I believe, will also evolve in one way or another - with the deep desire towards the Divine to lead or guide me. Usually, the conservative has a more “structured” idea of what “being guided” means as a framework. While I respect the framework, I choose to simply trust the divine through the mysteries, signs, or symbols that life provides.

My Scientific Journey: A PhD Dissertation Insight

To put it simply, I went into a series of revelations during my PhD years that got me into the topic. One such relevation is that the word “religion” has been used throughout histories in different way (see my dissertation). Another revelation is that no religious scripture contains the term “religion” that can be associated with the way it has been used in our modern times, which usually distinguishes “religion” from “non-religion” and which have been influenced much by sociological studies of religion. The only scripture that contains a word that is usually translated as “religion” is the Qur’an - but then, when looking at the Qur’an, searching for the word “religion” (in English) generates three different Arabic words. And if we read the translation, we would only encounter the word “religion” while ignoring the nuances of the above different words or terms. In effect, reading the translation can fundamentally mislead readers. This should go the same way in the context of translations of other scriptures or literatures. In essence, if one reads translations, one does not necessarily know the exact (original) words used. Translations are a double-edged sword. A more complete reflection can be seen in my dissertation.

The Conservative and the Progressive: What Does It mean?

Many assume that those who are religious (i.e., regarding religious teachings to be important) tend to be conservative. Actually no, there are many individuals that can be said to be “religious” but their way of expressing their religiousness-spirituality is not based on a collective, rather conservative, conception of what it means to be religious.

As a way of life, the conservative approach has a goal to conserve what is thought to be what to believe and practice. Efforts are created by the conservative mindset to create frameworks, rules, procedures, regulations, or the likes that attempt to induce and influence understanding of or to the “followers,” which at times (for better or worse) somehow “replace” the original source. On the one hand, such attempts can help to provide easiness in understanding. On the other hand, many can get lost in translation, or the in the process of transferring the original source into such frameworks, regulations, and so on. The most extreme of the conservative mindset is the goal to ensure “everybody has the same understanding” and follow the same structure of understanding and practicing. No deviation is allowed. In the language of the knowledge of ethics, the conservative tends to use a strict deontological approach to religious-spiritual orientation, emphasizing actions above anything else. In the language of the philosophy of science, the conservative tends to use a rather positivistic approach, promoting collective understanding of practices to do. People or adherents are expected to follow what have been framed collectively and accumulatively by traditional knowledge. In the science of religiousness, the tendency can be captured by the notion of “intrinsic religiousness,” where conviction becomes a central governing mechanism of being religious-spiritual.

The progressive method, on the other hand, is generally more about self-expression, freedom, and subjective experience. There can be a collective sense as well, but the core value is individuality, thus each person’s unique characteristics and subjective experiences. People on the rather progressive end of the spectrum may not even want to call themselves “religious” as the term has been attached to the necessity to follow what are understood to be “religious” rules or regulations. To an extent, they can be very critical of such rules or regulations as they believe that such rules or regulations are man-made (even though the inspirations are divine). Nonetheless, they can be very deeply spiritual, in the sense that they have a deep sense of spiritual connection. They simply do not want to be dictated by other people for their own religiousness-spirituality. In real life, they may call themselves as part of the existing religious traditions but do not wish to be constrained by such traditions. Being liberated is a core value to the progressive method. In the language of the knowledge of ethics, they tend to use rather consequentialist approach, where knowledge of good and bad is more contextual depending on what they perceive to bring benefits or not. In the language of the philosophy of science, they may tend to use a rather interpretivist approach, where subjective experiences become deeply valued. In the science of religiousness, this tendency can be captured by the notion of “quest religiousness,” where doubt is seen as a fundamentally important part of religious-spiritual growth.

In the more conservative method, patriarchy is at times embedded within its practices. This means that religious-spiritual understanding is often seen or interpreted from the eyes of men (or male figures), where they are automatically seen as “leaders.” In fact, the most extreme conservative method see “men” and “leaders” to be the same entity; they carry the same meaning. Non-men are seen as ”below.” Nevertheless, it is also worthy of noting that some conservative approaches tend to see men and women to be equal, with their roles being simply complementary. One thing in common is that both tendencies tend to have a stricter notion of gender roles, with the roles of men and women more clearly distinguished. Conversely, in the rather progressive method, even though its basic religious-spiritual scripture can be the same as the conservative one, the notion of gender is rather dynamically understood, giving the emphasis of personal agency in understanding own role in life, with patriarchy being generally despised. Things are generally much more individualized, with the trust given between the person and the divine directly.

Categorization of Religious Groups: Its Value and Its Downside

Our modern conception of religion is very much affected by the categorization of religious groups, which is partly influenced by contacts between various so-called religious groups themselves and Western scientific-sociological tendency to induce knowledge based on categorization. The word “science” itself means fundamentally “to distinguish,” thus the categorization. This is particularly true for the positivistic scientific method, which also emphasizes structured, accumulated, knowledge. Such religious groups are identified predominantly as a result of the conservative mode of living, with the emphasis of preserving what has been understood to be important to maintain. Because of such conservative framing, it is relatively easier for (social) scientists to identify and study such groups. In this way, the sociologist Emile Durkheim’s conception of religion is tied to a group or a collective. Other follow-up studies then also speak of religion as something that is tied to a group as a collective, including some psychologists who study religion as a phenomenon. Some, however, define religion as an internal experience, regardless of whether this experience is tied to a group or not. Overall, the rather positivistic, conservative, understanding of religion has influenced so much the prevalent understanding of religion in the society at large. But this highlights the socio-cultural context in which knowledge or understanding is produced.

I have an interesting story back in 2013 when I was in the US, encountering a conversation with someone whom I helped trying to get a train ticket out of the ticket machine. After he got the ticket, he immediately said to me that I must have read the Bible (assuming that my action, to him, was in line with the Bible’s teaching) - to which I felt warmed and found it curious at the same time that he made the connection. Not long, I said to him that I belonged a different religious group (I said, “Muslim”). After having quite a discussion with him, he mentioned that I didn’t sound like someone from the religious group (“Muslim”) back in his home country. The moral of the story is that, just like in any other contexts (e.g., gender, nationality, etc.), we tend to make assumptions about characteristics tied religious groups while ignoring the diversity of the existence of religious expressions and other variables such as local cultural, national, contexts, personalities, and other potential influences. Therefore, while giving people a sense of identity, categorization of religion into religious groups has this downside.

Without necessarily understanding what it means fundamentally and deeply, any children born into a particular religious group will understand themselves to be part of that group. Without being given a chance to choose or explore around, growing up I was automatically a “Muslim” and specifically a “Sunni Muslim.” While this process is natural and commonsensical, one can logically and critically ask “why am I suddenly a Sunni Muslim?” This type of question is something that the conservative method sees as a dangerous quest - something forbidden. In my case, I had been (for example) asked to pray 5 times a day without necessarily understanding what I prayed about or what I said in my prayers - as long as they were said in Arabic. This deontological approach puts an emphasis on action / behavior as opposed to internal substance. Growing up, of course one could learn about what they pray about. This socio-cultural process is generally the same across many different contexts, whether people are Christians, Buddhist, or even people without a religious group. Bottom line, our cultural context largely influences the religious group or non-religious group we come to understand as part of our identity.

Diversity in The “Same” Religious Group

If one has a chance to go around the world and/or consciously study religious groups, one will experience the diversity of how religious fundamentals are believed and practiced - even though they are presumably under the same religious “banner,” group, or tradition. Let me give some examples from the religious group I have been associated with (and the list below is not exhaustive):

• What it means by “Muslim” attires are understood and practiced differently across and within societies. What is understood now as “the hijab” for women is understood differently around the world. The Pew Research published “How People in Muslim Countries Prefer Women to Dress in Public,” highlighting the diversity what is understood to be preferable clothing in public for women. It has also been noted that, although the archipelago of Indonesia has been predominantly Muslim for hundred of years, the Indonesian phenomenon of “the hijab” worn many Muslim women today (especially in Indonesia) has been a new, recent, phenomenon. Prominent Muslim women, such as Queen Rania of Jordan and princesses of Saudi Arabia, interestingly have their own particular way of presenting themselves when it comes to attires.

• In almost perhaps many mosques in the world, the prayer spaces for men and women are separated. Nevertheless, one major place that does not separate women from men is the Al-Harram Mosque in Mecca. This highlights that the separation of men and women in prayer spaces is largely a social convention and not necessarily a fundamental principle.

Such diversity can also be found in other religious traditions. The Latin American Christian tradition emphasizes the role of the Virgin Mary as a figure that is more central to the faith structure than in other Christian traditions (one source). The Indonesian Balinese Hindu tradition emphasizes the oneness of God more as it is situated in an Indonesian context, where the oneness of God is the first national principle of Indonesia as a country (one source). Overall, the diversity of religious practices within presumably the “same” religious tradition can be said to highlight the role of social convention is shaping belief contents and structures and associated practices.

The question is, why do we have to be strictly grouped into a specific religious group? Many would argue that it is because each religious group contains a pre-defined content and structure of belief that is not in line with other groups. It therefore makes sense for any person to simply choose a religious group or not at all. My own understanding is that our strict adherence to one’s religious group stems from our natural “inability” to see another belief system using a lens other than our own (predetermined) lens. This naturally prevents us from being able to see beyond what appears to be. To me, being able to understand the life of Jesus, the Jewish way of life, the Hindu-Buddhist traditions, and many others have allowed me to enrich my understanding of the spiritual. Each approach provides a lens for understanding the spiritual. For example, the so-called Abrahamic traditions provide a lens to transcendence (i.e., the divine being beyond all else), while the more Asian, Hindu-Buddhist, traditions provide a lens to immanence (the divine beyond embedded within everything) - both are very much expressed in the Qur’an and can be well experienced in the natural world. Consequently, there is a tendency for the Abrahamic traditions to apply a more top-down approach while the Eastern tradition applies more of a bottom-up, experiential, approach.

Plus, we as people also have our own occupations (as part of our cultural identity) which may shape our religious-spiritual conceptions. Some of us who are scientists may be affected more by the scientific approaches applied in understanding what is truthful. Some of us who are business owners, artists, and so on may have our own worldviews that affect religious-spiritual conceptions, whatever they may be. Such conceptions may include complete rejections of a particular conception of God or what is socially constructed as “God” or “Gods.” It is completely possible that when one talks about “God,” another person (even within the same religious-spiritual tradition) has a different conception of what “God” is. It is also completely possible that those rejecting “God” reject the conception of “God” that is not really how some others understand or experience “God.” One evidence is that, how come people who presumably worship the same “God” commit the act of killing others while some others completely reject it? If we look at this phenomenon through the lens of interpretivism and classical realism (not positivism), it is completely possible to witness such a phenomenon. Given the above, it is possible for Muslims, Christians, Atheists, and others to have more or less similar view of life than among Muslims, Christians, or Atheists themselves.

Influence of the Qur’an in My Life

I had been told all my life that the Qur’an was the book of the “Muslims” as a given (similar to the Bible for Christians, and so on). After understanding philosophical-scientific approaches, I understand that this conception is promoted by the rather positivistic view of how to understand realities, whose goal is to promote more structured knowledge. After a series of internal questioning around 2013, I began to pick up the Qur’an, trying to read “everything” I could, from the beginning to the end. It was accompanied by the reading of major references, particularly books and speeches by Karen Armstrong (especially on the History of God), Lezley Hazleton (especially on the biography of the Prophet Muhammad, seen through an agnostic eye - which was fundamentally revolutionary and refreshing to, allow me to see the prophet completely human), Reza Aslan (especially on the biography of Jesus), among others. At the same time, I was exposed to worldviews of various academic approaches, which enriched my internal processes. Works of the historian Wilfred Cantwell Smith (specifically on “The Meaning and End of Religion”), the sociologist Eviatar Zerubavel (specifically on the “The Seven Day Circle”), the anthropologist Clifford Geertz (specifically on “Islam Observed”) and the linguist-political commentator Noam Chomsky were especially insightful for me. The insights made conversations with each other, with the common thread being the necessity to unlearn what have been learned to see things fresh and pure.

Here are several things about the Qur’an (after reading it) that become extremely influential in the way I think and feel about things (without being too detailed):

1. From the way the Qur’an as a book is expressed as it is or it has been, I understand it to be divine. Nevertheless, every person can also understand the divine signs directly from Nature itself, as it is understood to be the “Mother” of where one can access signs. The Qur’an serves as top-down guidance, similar to Jesus is to His followers and including guidance to have bottom-up experiences in the context of natural, social, cultural explorations. Nature serves as providing endless signs (or verses) to those of us who wish to ponder.

2. The common conception that the “Qur’an” is a scripture that belongs to the “Muslims,” to me, is not really accurate. The Qur’an defines who it is for and it is (to my comprehension) more inclusive. The Qur’an never makes any prohibition from learning from other scriptures. As Wilfred Cantwell Smith points out, the Qur’an contains the word “religion” but its meaning is completely different from the sociological conception of religion, which has been largely responsible for how we as the society conceptualizes “religion.”

3. Many things I understand emerging in and from the Qur’an are not necessarily in line with many things that my own “Muslim” tradition often teaches or practices. In essence, I diverge from many of the teachings that my own religious tradition teach, exactly because of my reading of the Qur’an. Some examples include how I understand “prayer,” “sex and gender roles,” “relations among people,” “marriage,” and “sexuality,” among others.

4. The Qur’an provides necessary paradoxical statements, similar to the necessity of the yin and yang in life. They are opposites that need to be taken together. An example is that human beings are created perfect, but are also weak. This is perfectly in line with the psychological assertion of being able to accept who we are (no need to be ashamed) and the socio-psychological, scientific, results pointing to our “weaknesses” of people - specifically regarding how we can be influenced rather easily by the surroundings. Such weaknesses are not necessarily a “bad” thing as they are part of our nature.

5. One very surprising, and refreshing, verse (Al-Imran 7) for me is when it is said in the Qur’an that many of the things in the Qur’an are meant to be vague (unclear), serving as symbols. This is in line with critical realism. Yet, many of the practices in the tradition usually demand very “strict” implementation. Yet, only the divine knows. One’s spiritual interaction is directly with the divine. There are practices that if a “strict” implementation is applied, they don’t go fundamentally well with how Nature works, such as the fact that there are places in the world that don’t experience nights or days for a long period. Any argument for how prayer should work in this condition ends up merely an argument. But if we see “prayer time” in a symbolic way, to me, how prayer can be understood is way richer and inclusive. Any direction, as the Qur’an mentions, is the direction where one can experience the divine - no matter how close or far, or whichever way one sees.

In short, to me, the Qur’an (and Nature) is my guidance - but not in a conventional way, but in an inclusive way. By this, I am expected - very willingly - to investigate the nature of things or signs from various corners of the world and the universe and from within ourselves. In understanding the Qur’an and nature, I am advised and I advise people to not rely on other people’s constructions (e.g. translations, commentators) of what it says - rather treat them as references that provide some insight. Let the Qur’an or Nature speaks directly to us, without any interference.

Conclusion

The varieties of how people do their lives, spiritually, religiously, or non-religiously, give ways to understand the dynamics and richness of life. I fundamentally respect how people live their lives when it comes to the divine, or whatever they understand to be truthful or fundamental. Nevertheless, there are practices that I don’t find myself belonging. At the same time, I am continuously learning as various signs are being shown in terms of their appearance and their depth and I trust the process. At this stage of my life, I do not rely on “strict” interpretations of religious commands in living my spiritual life. I treat whatever I see, touch, or feel, as symbols or signs to something rich, whose meaning is divine or beyond comprehension. I see the conservative and progressive ways of expressing religious-spirituality to be part of what make the world colorful. They can have functions and can be potentially misused. The spiritual asserts the need to be able to see things beyond and within at the same time.

Happy exploring, and peace!

Finalized on November 3, 2024