I have always taken a strong stance against ritualism. I see ritualism as a rust that envelops philosophical thought and spirituality, a virus that infects every living thing. We can say that ritualism possesses both of these characteristics. That substance forms the rust by reacting with the sulfur or oxygen in the air. Similarly, that particular philosophical vision creates ritualism using contemporary social realities. Similarly, ritualism has the nature of a virus that penetrates every living thing, becomes a part of that biological process, and persists in any situation without being completely destroyed.
We should oppose ritualism for its fundamental nature of deterioration. Rituals form to integrate a specific philosophical thought or vision into everyday life. For instance, consider a scenario where a vision, like British naturalism, asserts that ‘nature is god.’ Let us suppose that a wise man representing that philosophical thought suggests that anyone who embraces it should visit a place of natural beauty every day to observe nature for five minutes or listen to the song of a nightingale or a cuckoo once daily. It becomes a way of life. Over time, it also becomes a custom and ritual.
Those who accept it will abandon the aspect of nature that is its essence. They will transform the requirement for everyone to stand in front of nature at least once a day and listen to a bird’s song into a mere condition to be in that order, reducing it to a meaningless and obstinate act. Compromises will become necessary after a certain point. They will conclude that nature is not needed; a picture of nature will suffice. Instead of nature, a single plant in a pot will suffice. Even listening to the sound of a bird on a mobile phone will suffice. Eventually no one will have any idea why they look at a plant or a leaf in the morning. They insist that everyone should do that practice, as those who do are superior and those who don’t are inferior.
Priests will eventually arise to carry out this task. It will become a business. A lot of money will start flowing into it. Then people will claim that the philosophy is unimportant and that the act alone will provide all benefits. Discussions will begin regarding the merits and demerits of that act. Astrologers will start saying that if a person with a particular zodiac sign listens to a bird’s song on a cell phone, he will get such and such benefits. Scholars will endlessly discuss how to do it ‘correctly.’ They will fight over it. They will completely abandon the underlying vision and philosophy.
Ritualism inherently destroys a philosophical vision while presenting itself as a form of it. Therefore, any thinker should look at any kind of ritualism with suspicion. I think that, except for the feelings behind the rituals, its practices and norms should not be important to him.
Ritualism is based on worldliness, so all the evil in society enters it. In India, it is evident that caste swiftly integrates with every ritualistic order, incorporating untouchability with it. Buddhism emerged as the first religion in India to challenge untouchability and caste. But caste strongly penetrated Buddhism, and untouchability prevailed. Finally, Sikhism, which promoted pure devotion, emerged against the caste system. However, Sikhism eventually developed its own strong caste system.
Ritualism classifies those who follow rituals as superior to those who do not. It somehow pulls all the superstitions of a society into itself, gives an explanation, and keeps them inside. This is why ritualism opposes critical thinking. I always swear to myself that anyone who cannot completely avoid ritualism is unfit to hold any conversation about philosophy or spiritual vision.
