Let's Imagine a person. He does discuss lots of things about Sanatan dharma and how it is different from Abrahamic religions. He does follow the principals of Gita in real life. He also adheres to the authority of Veda.

When someone asks if he believes in the existence of God, he says he is in search of the answer to this question. And also since he has not realized the existence of God, his current answer is No.

So my question is as per what Vedas and Upnishads he is said to be a SPIRITUAL?

Or this only do not quantify him to be a SPIRITUAL?

  • You cant get theoritical answer for this. Even if u get, it wont be satisfying. practical experience you get is different when you follow Vedas Gitas etc.. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 5:46
  • Thanks a lot , I have edited the question, Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 9:15
  • It seems Latin. Google. Question not clear.. (Nor the pain, all the offices are not accusing. Pain, and pain free. The truth headache. , However, a desire for them, and the pleasures of his free consequent to the needs of the elmo singing. For pleasure, I will open encounter with the pain of it is nothing. Truth is the main obstacle to other offices, but the pleasure is born. She consequences for us to do so. Of denouncing are being accused by some of our pleasures less pain for all. Or easy to practice law offices pleasure she was born quo.)
    – Narasimham
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 9:46
  • ohh i dont know how this question got translated into latin while editing. Let me do it again. luckily I have taken snapshot of the page ! Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 11:48
  • 1
    If they adheres the authority of Veda then they would also believe in God.
    – Pandya
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 11:53

3 Answers 3


The answer is certainly yes. Hindu scripture does not ask for blind belief in God.

...Reflecting on this entire teaching do as you think fit.

Gita 18.63

Who is a spiritual person?

A person who is trying to be morally perfect is said to be a spiritual person.

Among thousands of men, there will just be one here or there striving for spiritual perfection. From among the aspirants so striving, one perchance knows Me in truth.

Gita 7.3

It is not necessary to believe in a personal God to be spiritual. Strict Advaita Vedantists may not accept the concept of personal God. Sri Ramakrishna's Advaita Guru Totapuri did not initially accept Mother Kali.


Yes, dont believe in God mindlessly because that is the root of superstitions and hatred among today's mankind because of crammed up different teachings of different sages by local people across different regions, leading to conflicts among learned but not wise scholars of different religions. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is that knowledge is learnt from cramming experience of someone else but wisdom is gained with one's own experience. If spirituality was just a theory, God could have shown all hymns/verses of Vedas or Bible or Quran to all people in their dreams to make them spiritual. The world around us is a practical field and so is the field of spirituality which has to be pursued/seeked in real life like Buddha, Mahavir etc., did after renouncing material world.

Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 2

There was a great sage called Uddalaka, the son of Aruni. He had only one boy, his son by name Svetaketu. The boy went to a gurukula for study and he underwent the whole course of education. He was twelve years old when he went from the house of the father. When he returned after education he was twenty-four years old. So, he studied for twelve years. He studied all the Vedas, all the Shastras, all the scriptures, and there was practically nothing religious which he had not learnt. Now, this learning had some other effect also, that of swelling up the head of this boy with an immense pride. He began to feel that nobody was equal to him in learning; that he knew all things, was almost omniscient. So, when he came, at the age of twenty-four, to the father at home, he would not speak because of the learning that was in his head. He was very dignified looking and sat without uttering a word even to the father. He started behaving very conceitedly. He did not utter one word because of the so-called depth of his knowledge. The father observed what had happened to his son. He does not speak; he sits arrogantly; he is very proud; he is puffed up with learning and he thinks he knows everything. It is very strange indeed. So, having observed this, the father calls the boy one day and says: "You don't speak, you seem to be very learned and you put up a very arrogant appearance; I can't understand what it means. Have you learnt everything from your Guru, which makes you feel that you know everything and are now so full of pride? Do you know everything, have you studied everything?"

"Do you know That, by knowing which, everything is known? Do you know That, by which the unheard becomes heard, the unthought becomes thought?" Yenasrutam srutam bhavati, amatam matam, avijnatam vijnatam iti: "Has your Guru, or the preceptor from whom you have studied the four Vedas, taught you these secrets by which things which are not heard of, are heard, things which cannot be thought of, are thought of, that which cannot be understood, is understood? There is something by knowing which everything can be known. Have you heard of this? Have your teachers imparted this knowledge to you?" Very strange indeed! The boy had never heard of such things-how can an unheard thing, be heard; an unthought thing, be thought; an understood thing, be understood? This is not in the Vedas or the Shastras; nowhere is anything mentioned of it. Katham nu, bhagavah, sa adeso bhavatiti: The boy says: "What is this? I do not know. I have never been taught this thing." He is humbled a little bit. So, there is something he does not know. "If you have never heard of a thing, how can you hear of it? If you can never think of a thing, how can you think of it? And if it cannot be understood at all, how can it be understood?" "But there is a way," says the father. "There is a way by which you can execute this feat of knowing everything, even if it cannot be known normally. Supersensory things can be known and everything can be known by the knowledge of a single thing." The father puts this question to the boy, but the boy knows nothing about this. "How is it possible?" the boy queries the father. "What is the meaning of this question? How is it possible for one to know, in this manner?" "Well; I give you an example of how it is possible." Without going into the details of the subject, the father gives only an example, an analogy of how such a thing is possible.

"If you know what earth is made of, you also know at the same time what anything that is made of earth also is made of, because all the articles that are manufactured out of earth are constituted of earth essentially. So, I give you an example of how many things can be known by the knowledge of one thing. Pot, tumbler, plate, etc., and various articles of this kind manufactured out of clay are clay only, in reality. So, if you know what clay is, you know what a clay tumbler is, a clay plate is, a clay glass is, etc. Do you understand what I say? Yes! Because they are only shapes taken by that substance called clay. And, what you mean by an earthen pot is only a name that you have given to a shape taken by the earth."

"So is the case with certain other things. You take a nugget of gold, and you know a nugget of gold can be cast into various shapes of ornaments. It can be a necklace; it can be a ring; it can be anything. Now, if you know what gold is really, what gold is made of essentially, you will also know what a gold necklace is made of, what a gold ring is made of, etc., because the gold ring, gold necklace and the like are gold only in their essence. These are only shapes, forms taken by the essence which is the substance, gold.

What we call death is the departing of life from a particular body. So death is not the death of the life principle itself. Na jivo mriyata-life itself does not die. The vitality is transferred from one location to another. It is withdrawn from a particular formation. That is all. Life which is the manifestation of the general principle, the pure Being, the Reality, is withdrawn from that particular manifestation called the body. Then that particular form is said to die. It is deprived of the essence, the life-force. So is the case with everything including us. Know this. Evam eva khalu saumya viddhi.

"My dear boy, there was only a single Reality existing in the beginning. The so-called variety was not there. It was one; it was without a second. There was nothing outside it; nothing external to it, to compete with it, to equal it or to be different from it. There is no conceivable reality in this world of this nature. Whatever be the stretch of your imagination, you cannot conceive of something outside which nothing is. At least space would be there, time would be there, something would be there. But even space and time are objects, externals, effects that came afterwards in the process of creation. And, therefore, they too are negated in the case of this reality. That alone was. There was absolutely no differentiation whatsoever, originally. There was neither external differentiation nor internal variety. In scriptural language, there was neither sajatiya bheda, nor was there vijatiya bheda, nor svagata bheda."

This is only an example that I have given to you, my dear boy. From this example, this analogy, you must understand everything that follows as an implication. We are all like trees, human bodies endowed with the living principle, and we shall die only when the life principle in us in withdrawn. This Essence that is the Being is the Atman of all things. And everything in this world, everything in this creation has this as the Self. There are not many Selves. Though the bodies are many, forms are many, individuals are many, the Self is only one. So, everything reverts into this Supreme Self from where it has come and towards which it tends some way or other. "That you are, Svetaketu-Tattvam-asi, Svetaketu,"

Just like from learning A-Z and basic rules of grammar, a person can understand any english comprehension, so is the case with a spiritual person who knows the Atman/Spirit can understand the universe. A person who knows the spirit/self alone is a spiritual person in real terms and they use the designation of Swami/Self in today's time. Eventually, no one can teach you spirituality as you are already a spirit, not the body, but does not know that because of Maya Shakti, but the desire to know spirit comes to those who get saturated with repetitive material worldly cycle and sensory pleasures.

Saunaka, having asked – कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति (" Revered Sir, what is that by the knowing of which all this becomes known? "), - was told by Angiras that –

द्वे विद्ये वेदितव्ये इति ह् स्म यद्ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति परा चैवापरा च | तत्रापरा ऋग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्ववेदः शिक्षा कल्पो व्याकरणं निरुक्तं छन्दो ज्योतिषमिति | अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिग्म्यते || - (Mundaka Upanishad I.i.3-5)

there were two different kinds of knowledge to be acquired – 'the higher knowledge' or Para Vidya (Sanskrit: परा विद्या )and 'the lower knowledge' or Apara Vidya. The lower knowledge consists of all textual knowledge - the four Vedas, the science of pronunciation etc., the code of rituals, grammar, etymology, metre and astrology. The higher knowledge is by which the immutable and the imperishable Atman is realized, which knowledge brings about the direct realization of the Supreme Reality, the source of All. The knowledge of the Atman is very subtle; it cannot be obtained out of one’s own effort; the Atman cannot be intuitively apprehended by mere intellectual equipments. Thus, Angiras draws the distinction between the way of knowledge and the way of realization, as between opinion and truth. For understanding this for realizing the Reality the aspirant must seek a teacher. The teacher who has already realized his identity with the Atman alone can impart this much sought-after wisdom on the strength of his own experiences.


Questioning the existence of the Almighty God, with a view to having a practical experience of the God, amounts to Searching for the Self itself. So that person can be called seeker/agnostic, etc.

Even Swami Vivekananda questioned in the similar manner. Of Course, he got realisation once his Master Sri Ramakrishna made him realise what the God is.

In Hinduism, and in particular Jnana Yoga and Advaita Vedanta, neti neti (नेति नेति) is a Sanskrit expression which means "not this, not that", or "neither this, nor that" (neti is sandhi from na iti "not so"). It is found in the Upanishads and the Avadhuta Gita and constitutes an analytical meditation helping a person to understand the nature of Brahman by first understanding what is not Brahman.

Paul Brunton came to India, roamed length and breadth of India, finally settled at the ashram of Sri Ramana Maharshi and Realised his Self.

While interacting with Sri Ramana Maharshi he posed many questions, and Sri Maharshi answered them. Following is the excerpt from such discussions.

"I have heard many opinions, listened to many theories. Intellectual proofs of one belief or another lie piled up all around me. I am tired of them, sceptical of anything which cannot be proved by personal experience. Forgive me for saying so, but I am not religious. Is there anything beyond man's material existence. If so, how can I realize it for myself?"

"The wise men of the West, our scientists, are greatly honoured for their cleverness. Yet they have confessed that they can throw but little light upon the hidden truth behind life. It is said that there are some in your land who can give what our Western sages fail to reveal. Is this so? Can you assist me to experience enlightenment? Or is the search itself a mere delusion? "

I have now reached my conversational objective and decide to await the Maharishee's response. He continues to stare thoughtfully at me. Perhaps he is pondering over my questions. Ten minutes pass in silence.

At last his lips open and he says gently:

"You say I. 'want to know.' Tell me, who is that I?"

"I am afraid I do not understand your question," I reply blankly.

"Is it not clear. Think again!"

I puzzle over his words once more. An idea suddenly flashes into my head. I point a finger towards myself and mention my name.

"And do you know him?"

"All my life!" I smile back at him.

"But that is only your body! Again I ask, ' Who are you?'"

I cannot find a ready answer to this extraordinary query.

The Maharishee continues:

"Know first that I and then you shall know the truth."

So you are not the first one to be irreligious yet a seeker of TRUTH. Search for yourself.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .