Life demands discipline. The essence of discipline, understood in the genius of biblical spirituality, is ‘positive,’ not ‘negative.’ In being disciplined, the significant thing is not that one says ‘no’ to certain things; like meat, fish or milk, say, during the season of Lent. It is saying ‘yes’ to life and, as Jesus said, ‘life in all its fullness.’ Merely giving up something, because it is mandated by a system, is a dissembling substitute for discipline. It is mere compliance. Compliance is, in the very nature of it, apt to be superficial.

Asceticism is common to philosophy and spirituality. The realization that a life of sensual indulgence undermines the discipline of doing philosophy existed from the early days of that discipline. Plato remained unmarried. So also did Spinoza, Leibnitz, Descartes, Kant and Schopenhauer. (Philosophy died, historically, in the wake of sex liberation). Socrates seems an exception to this pattern. But the story has it that he married Xantippe, known for her ill-temper, to perfect his fortitude, meekness and self-control! His married life was a sort of camouflaged celibacy and poverty.

Now, over to spirituality: Gautama Buddha, though married, left his home, wife and son when the call of the eternal resounded in his soul. Even before that fateful day, when the news of the birth of his son was conveyed to him, Gautama is reported to have said, “Rahula is born to me, a fetter is forged for me.” Like Tolstoy centuries later, he found freedom in leaving his home, except that Tolstoy embraced the freedom of homelessness at the close of his life. Jesus said about Himself, “The foxes have their holes, the birds in the air have their nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay His head.”

There is a difference between philosophical asceticism and spiritual asceticism. The former serves humanity by generating insights and deeper understanding. The latter, by promoting and facilitating life abundant. They have to be judged accordingly. While the merit of philosophical asceticism can be ascertained in terms of the profundity of the insights it helps to generate, spiritual asceticism must justify itself by its impact on the quality and dignity of life it promotes. A tree, Jesus said, shall be known by its fruits.

In general, asceticism has three basic ingredients: poverty, chastity and humility. They are more pronounced in spiritual asceticism than in its philosophical counterpart. What needs to be noted is that this ascetic formula has been modified under the auspices of church discipline. It is no longer poverty, chastity and humility; but ‘poverty, celibacy and obedience.’ There is a logic to this change. It points to a change in the scope and purpose of this asceticism.

The philosopher and the priest are envisaged to live and work on an exalted platform. Transcending the shackles of earthly enmeshment is deemed a precondition for it. Sensual indulgence is a soul-and-mind-deadening thing. It needs to be avoided so that the priest and the philosopher may serve the highest interests of humankind. If this purpose is side-lined, the spirituality of asceticism becomes an ornament or a facade. It gets infected with personal vanity. So, we have religious men and women who take ‘pride’ in adhering to ascetic practices! This mocks the spirit of asceticism.

Poverty is not an end in itself. Not owning anything is the shell of poverty, not its kernel. The essence of poverty is freedom from dictates of personal will, or self-denial. One may own nothing, but if one is a control-freak –say, in administration- it is anything but poverty! Or, if it is poverty, it is other people’s poverty! A complete renunciation of profit motive is basic to poverty. Profit militates against poverty.

Further, poverty needs to be not only physical but also spiritual. The willingness to suffer for righteousness’ sake is the essence of spiritual poverty. “Blessed are you when men revile you, persecute you and say all manner of evil falsely against you for my sake; rejoice, for great is your reward in heaven.” Poverty of this kind rules out vindictiveness and revenge. The willingness to suffer for the sake of justice is the best antidote to cruelty and spite.

But, whether it is physical or spiritual poverty, it does not amount to spiritual asceticism if it is not meant to enrich others. If others do not become richer because I am poor, mine is no spiritual poverty. It was because Jesus embraced true asceticism that he could say, “Come to me, all who labour and are heavy-laden; I will give you rest.” Even if you live in a mud hovel, but have no space for others in your life, you are not poor in the ascetic sense of the term. Diogenes of Sinope lived in poverty, we are richer for it to this day!

The problem is that the ‘establishment’ has no means to know if the person concerned, who seems ‘disobedient,’ is indeed humble before God and if her seeming rebelliousness stems from meekness. It is a wise thing, in that case, to err on the side of abundant caution and to walk an extra-mile in tolerance. There are serious issues pertaining to the ascetic ideal when it is institutionalized. They need to be faced, not swept under the carpet. A hammer-and-tong approach will prove counter-productive. Time will separate the chaff from the grain, inexorably. It is deaf to alibis and arguments. The ascetic ideal is basic to biblical spirituality; but it needs to be understood and nurtured aright with special reference to the principle that whatever requires the use of force for its efficacy is dubious in its spiritual mettle.