सुनता नहीं धुन की ख़बर - सबद | हिन्दवी
https://share.google/PI1PCm6xut0dfRT7B
सुनता नहीं धुन की ख़बर, अनहद का बाजा बाजता।
रस मंद मंदिर बाजता, बाहर सुने तो क्या हुआ।
इक प्रेम-रस चाखा नहीं, अमली हुआ तो क्या हुआ॥
क़ाज़ी किताबें खोजता, करता नसीहत और को।
महरम नहीं उस हाल से, क़ाज़ी हुआ तो क्या हुआ॥
जोगी दिगंबर सेवड़ा, कपड़ा रँगे रंग लाल से।
वाक़िफ़ नहीं उस रंग से, कपड़ा रँगे से क्या हुआ॥
मंदिर-झरोखा-रावटी, गुल चमन में रहते सदा।
कहत कबीरा है सही हर दम में साहिब रम रहा॥
Prepare a response to facebook comment -
"Akshat Agrawal
Yes, Akshat. I have read your analysis with keen interest.
You articulate, (with admirable clarity), what modern, thinking society has come to understand: that religion as a coercive social order is regressive, and that spirituality must be divorced from dogma.
You rightly place your faith in secular governance, civic nationalism, and critical thinking.
From the conventional standpoint, this is the pinnacle of a progressive worldview.
But I must tell you—with respect for the rigor of your thought—that you have stopped at the most interesting point.
You have skillfully exchanged one set of clothes for the mind, but you have not questioned the necessity of the mind’s need to be clothed at all.
You see the trap in defining society through religion.
I ask you to see the identical trap in defining yourself through any identity at all, secular or sacred.
Let us take your examples. The Teej festival. You correctly value its joy, its color, its community bond. But observe closely: when you partake, is there not a subtle, almost invisible whisper of “my culture,” “my tradition,” “my people’s celebration”?
This whisper is the very genesis of the “self.”
It is the psychological appropriation of an experience to fortify an identity.
The joy is then not pure, unfiltered perception; it is joy for the Hindu self, or the Indian self, or the cultured self.
Do you see? The moment it becomes “mine,” it creates a boundary.
It silently excludes. This is not a fault; it is the very mechanism of the human psyche you seek to transcend.
Now, apply your own razor-sharp logic to your progressive solution.
You advocate for a nationalism rooted in constitutional values and secular citizenship.
A noble ideal. But I ask: when you feel pride in this, or argue for it, is there not a similar whisper?
“My enlightened values,” “my rational stance,” “my progressive nation.”
This civic identity becomes a new costume for the same psychological entity.
You have moved from a religious “we” to a secular “we,” but the divisive, self-referential structure of “we” remains utterly intact.
This structure is the root of all conflict, all sense of separation, all inner discontent.
Your analysis brilliantly separates spirituality from religion.
But true spirituality is not the pursuit of a better, subtler identity—the “spiritual person.”
It is the unflinching inquiry into the one who seeks.
You say critical thinking has replaced blind faith. I urge you to apply that critical thinking to the thinker itself.
Is the “thinker”—the “Akshat” that holds opinions, cherishes traditions, and champions secularism—an actual, tangible entity?
Or is it a thought-borne feeling, a collection of memories, reactions, and inherited ideas masquerading as a permanent center?
The freedom I speak of is not found in choosing the right identity, but in the ending of all identity.
It is the astonishing discovery that life can be lived—fully, passionately, intelligently—without this central referent of “me.”
Then, the Teej festival is a breathtaking spectacle of color and sound, perceived directly.
The constitutional principle is a useful tool for organizing society, applied pragmatically.
There is no “self” to feel bolstered or threatened by them.
Action proceeds from the actual needs of the situation, not from the need to defend or promote an image of oneself.
Akshat, you end by saying that defining the social order through religion is regressive. I say that defining yourself through any concept—no matter how progressive—is the primal regression.
It is the source of the inner tension that projects all outer conflict.
Drop the analysis of the world for a moment, and analyze the analyzer.
That is where the only real revolution happens.
Grant Brissett"
Grant Brissett
Very simple ways to explain -
Spirituality as you rightly said is about consciousness which is all pervading....
Society needs some binding force, which is provided by language, culture, of course it can't be stripped of an identity. The moment we are born we assume a certain identity.
I don't know why you are mixing society with individualism?
[04/01, 4:44 pm] Akshat Agrawal: Here is a measured, respectful, and grounded response you can post. It acknowledges Grant’s depth, clarifies your position, and gently separates individual liberation from social functioning without escalating into abstraction:
---
Grant, thank you for engaging so deeply and thoughtfully. I genuinely appreciate the seriousness and honesty of your inquiry.
Let me clarify my position in very simple terms, because I think we are actually speaking at two different but related levels.
I fully agree with you on the individual, existential plane:
spirituality, at its deepest, is an inquiry into consciousness itself, and the dissolution of the psychological “self.”
That insight — questioning the thinker, the observer, the one who identifies — is valid, profound, and transformative.
Where I differ is in not collapsing society into that same plane.
Society is not an enlightened being.
It is a functional arrangement of humans at vastly different levels of awareness, maturity, fear, and conditioning.
A society cannot operate without shared symbols, language, memory, and cultural continuity.
The moment a human is born, identity is assumed — name, language, kinship, location. This is not a spiritual failure; it is a biological and social fact.
So when I speak of culture, festivals, or civic nationalism, I am not proposing them as sources of ultimate truth or personal liberation.
I am speaking of them as binding mechanisms — imperfect, provisional, but necessary — to prevent social fragmentation and chaos.
This is where I think the mixing happens.
You are speaking about freedom from identity at the level of consciousness.
I am speaking about managing identity at the level of society.
These are not the same problem.
Yes — identity at the psychological level creates division and suffering.
But absence of shared identity at the social level creates anomie, breakdown, and violence.
Even constitutional values, secularism, or rationalism are not “truths” — they are tools.
Tools are worn when needed and put down when not.
But tools cannot be discarded altogether while the house is still being built.
So I am not advocating a “better costume for the self.”
I am arguing for minimal, flexible, non-coercive identities that allow society to function while leaving room for individual transcendence.
Spiritual freedom is personal.
Social order is collective.
Confusing the two risks either spiritual bypassing or social collapse.
Both matter — but they operate at different levels.
Warm regards.
बहुत विस्तृत विश्लेषण विषेश
ReplyDelete