WHY PHILOSOPHY WILL ALWAYS REMAIN MORE FUNDAMENTAL?

At issue here is a question that arose in my mind when one of friends said that he thinks Spirituality is a greater discipline than Philosophy. I liked the idea of comparing the two disciplines, if we can consider spirituality a discipline, but I cannot disagree more. 

Actually, Philosophy in its own Philosophy has been the most radically meta-discipline I have known. And here is my thesis, I believe Philosophy will always remain more fundamental than spirituality, Adhyatman, Religion, Science or anything for that matter. Let's do a comparative analysis to understand why. 

Let us compare Spirituality and Philosophy. Here, I am concerned with the totality of spirituality, Adhyatman or anything. One concern I have with spiritual people is that they do not seem spiritual enough for me. In my view, Spiritual people should be as open as anyone towards any sort of view or opinion. Because Spirituality or Adhyatman deals putting an individual out of any sort of social and personal conditioning and making him comfortable with his existence without any external validation or labelling. 

But, whenever I start this debate, the most uncomfortable people are the spiritual people, and the most comfortable people are Philosophy students and learners, hence proving my point experimentally, why philosophy is more fundamental, more meta, and in a sense makes you more open to views and opinions and hence in a way more spiritual. 

I see spiritual people fearful. I have never seen a brave spiritual person. This might be because only in tragedy does a person come to spirituality. This defeats the whole purpose of Adhyatman as a discipline. 

This is my first hypothesis. Philosophy, even in its perverted form, is saved from biases and being closed as a discipline because it is not practiced by weak, needy people. 

Second, I think the methodology of Philosophy and Spirituality is the same. It is radical self-questioning or just questioning. Philosophy remains more meta because, you can here, question both yourself and the external world and even you can question the question itself and whether your question is a question at all. It is sort of like vacuum, and you can move anywhere you want. Spirituality, ideally, is a self-questioning and even in its most external questioning, again turns inward and tries to find answers in the self rather than outside. 

For instance, I cannot ask Buddha to solve a socio-political problem because the way he did the questioning was like this, from first truth (Samsaar Dukkah) to Fourth Truth (Salvation through renunciation), he did the same "Spiritual turn" that I previously mentioned, this you will see in every other spiritual seeker. No answer in spirituality lies outside of the human mind. This is ok but this limits the discipline. So, as a discipline, I think Philosophy remains more radical and fundamental since here there is no boundaries or ranges fixed for your answer. 

So, second argument is, Spiritual is closed inwards, Philosophy is open. 

A counter to these spiritualists gives that here, the Seeker can seek anything and anywhere. and Any answer that satisfies him is acceptable. To which, I say, I agree, ideally, I think spiritual seeking should be a highly private endeavor. But let me show you a fundamental contradiction here. A man, full of his social conditioning, cannot find meaningful higher concerns, that's why it is a popular hymn in Adhyatman that without Guru, no Gyan is possible. So, you get a guru. Now, the Guru is not open to all answers. No Guru, except for say, may be Osho, gave the final answer to life as money or luxury. Why? Why is Adhyatman scared of worldly answers? No adhyatmic Guru gave that final answer can be lust? Except for Osho of course. But Osho also says, Lust is the intermediate answer. Spiritualists will say because this is a common similarity of all human species that they seek something higher, and lust cannot be the answer. To which I say, shut the fuck up. This is again a Dogma. You are a seeker. You should be satisfied with whatever answer you find convincing. Why do you have a bias towards otherworldly phenomena like Nirvana. 

So, in this sense, my third argument is, Philosophy people, even in practice, practice better spirituality than the so-called spiritual people. 

My ultimate claim remains, Spiritual people are not spiritual enough. I do not see in them a love for knowledge in all forms. They love only beautiful stuff. Stuff that they have an alignment towards. And since, Beauty in its conception is highly socially conditioned, this is precisely anti-spiritual behavior.

I say, Philosophy, regardless of where it is done, Greece or India, France or Germany, is more fundamental and remains more meta than the so-called contextual Spirituality. Also, Spirituality already has a pre-determined context. The context is to search of self. To understand what is going on inside. Philosophy, in its spirits, remains non-contextual. To which, some spiritualists might say, oh philosophy has context also. 

What I mean by this is, you can always go beyond the context pre-decided in philosophy. But can you go beyond the pre-decided context of spirituality? Let's try this. Say, we start to find the self. In philosophy, I can ask, why there is a need to find a self? and this is a permissible question. But if I ask this to an Adhyatmika person, he will start an assertion that there is a self-inside you that you are unaware. Hence, there is a need to find out. Here, first of all, why do you assume that there is a self. Why not, we be poly-selves. Why we can be just blobs of flesh without self? Second, if that is inside me, why there is a need to find the self? No answers, Because, he will say, I want to. Yes, this is first honest answer an Adhyatmika person will give you. 

And that is my ultimate claim, Spirituality is there because Man wants to know himself. Philosophy is there because man just wants to know in general. Knowing in general is more superior and more fundamental than knowing yourself because it has no pre-suppositions. A Philosopher is a like a child, open to all knowledge and keen in knowing. Spiritual person is an old person, confined to knowing oneself who has a bias that everything is already inside me, and I do not need further curiosity. 

We can talk about it in more detail. Like what about Buddha? Does he fit in this? Is he also an old person? I say, yes and no. Buddha remains a spiritual accident. He is a philosopher at heart but he also, coincidently finds that all answers are within you. I can give this statement a support to the level of idea only and not truth. I think truth is more nuanced and hence unexplainable than that.

Finally, I think comparing them at the level of discipline will always make philosophy win. But, I think, we do not need to see them as exclusive as we are doing here. Like, If I have to make a Venn diagram, I will keep Philosophy as the universal set, and Spirituality will be like a dynamic bubble, which will start as a small bubble, growing big and big and at one point cover the whole universal set and then again shrinks to become a point. I don't know if there is a concept of "Dynamic Venn Diagrams" where sets and circles keep expanding and shrinking but here it is, Spirituality is a dynamic bubble which is always in motion. Philosophy is a static, ever-encompassing discipline, covering all of knowledge in the universe and also its radical negations and interrogations.