In the Indian context, religion is commonly understood in terms of visible practices—going to a temple, performing rituals, praying to a deity, wearing marks such as kumkum or vibhūti, or practising yoga limited to physical postures. A person engaged in such activities may readily consider oneself “spiritual.”

But is that accurate?

This confusion arises when external religious practices are mistaken for spirituality itself. Unless we clearly understand what each term truly signifies—their scope, their connection, and their role in life—we risk missing their very purpose. This is not a minor issue. Clarity here leads one towards freedom (mokṣa), while confusion keeps one bound to a limited existence.

Religion, in the Indian tradition, refers to actions performed through the body, speech, or mind, with faith in a higher power, and with the expectation of a result. These results may be for oneself, one’s family, society, or even the environment. The Vedas largely deal with such actions and their results. Religion also includes customs, rituals, and value-based living that guide an individual’s conduct.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is not about action but about understanding. It concerns the recognition that I am not merely the body, mind, or intellect, but the very truth of existence itself. This knowledge is gained through enquiry (vicāra) and unfolded through a proper means of knowledge. It reveals that one is not limited, not subject to birth and death, but is in fact whole and complete.

At this point, a question naturally arises—why should one pursue such knowledge at all? Are there not more practical pursuits in life—wealth, success, recognition—that yield tangible results?

The answer is straightforward. All tangible results are, by definition, limited and temporary. They cannot provide lasting fulfillment. The Indian tradition holds that gaining knowledge of the Self alone resolves the fundamental sense of incompleteness. Therefore, it is considered the highest pursuit of human life.

This leads to another common question: can one be spiritual without being religious, or religious without being spiritual?

It is possible to pursue spirituality without religion, but one must examine the basis of such a choice. Is it born of clarity, or merely resistance? Genuine enquiry into the Self requires a prepared mind. Without sufficient mental maturity, spirituality remains only an intellectual exercise, with little transformative value.

Religion plays a crucial role in preparing the mind for this enquiry. A life guided by dharma, discipline, and devotion helps refine one’s thinking, reduce emotional disturbances, and cultivate the necessary disposition for Self-knowledge. Without this preparation, spirituality cannot be assimilated.

On the other hand, one can certainly remain religious without being spiritual. But this too comes at a cost. Religion, when disconnected from spirituality, becomes mechanical and self-centered. It remains confined to the pursuit of results and does not lead to inner growth.

Why, then, is there resistance to religion today?

Often, religion is seen as outdated, rigid, or restrictive. It appears to impose beliefs and rules that limit individual freedom. In contrast, spirituality is seen as flexible and liberating. It allows one to define one’s own path.

While this perception has some basis, it leads to an incomplete understanding. Rejecting religion altogether is not a solution. When understood properly, religion provides structure, direction, and a framework for living. It is not meant to confine, but to prepare.

In the Indian tradition, every action can become a means for growth when performed with the right attitude. When actions are done without excessive dependence on results, they contribute to inner maturity. This process of “spiritualising” one’s life is essential preparation for Self-knowledge.

Religion without spirituality leads to egoism, emotional disturbance, and a narrow outlook. Spirituality without religion, on the other hand, becomes a dry intellectual pursuit with little practical impact. Both are incomplete in isolation.

Religion must culminate in spirituality. Spirituality must be supported by a prepared mind, which religion helps to build. They are not opposed to each other, but deeply interconnected.

A further question arises: how is spirituality to be learnt? Can it be discovered independently through personal experience?

This is a widespread misconception. Experience, by itself, cannot reveal anything fundamentally new. All experiences are interpreted through one’s existing understanding. Therefore, they cannot lead to Self-knowledge.

Self-knowledge requires a valid means of knowledge, unfolded through a systematic teaching methodology. This methodology has been preserved in the tradition and must be learnt from a competent teacher. Without this, spirituality remains vague and incomplete.

When should one begin this pursuit?

The earlier, the better. A religious lifestyle naturally introduces values and attitudes that support enquiry. When the time for deeper enquiry arises, the transition becomes seamless.

In conclusion, there is no real choice between religion and spirituality in the sense of choosing one over the other. The choice lies only in the proportion, which may vary from person to person. Religion prepares; spirituality liberates. One leads to the other.

To ignore either is to remain incomplete.