I was doing a little reading and ran across an interesting thought: We must trust our inner nature, even when we aren’t sure what that might be, because if we can’t, how can we trust our mistrust? It isn’t that we go naively into our experiences, but that after deliberation, we do what we think is the “right thingâ€. We make mistakes, and from those mistakes our understanding of both the external world and ourselves grow. But first, we have to accept ourselves as capable. We have to trust ourselves.
We’ve all been taught two things: 1. Don’t make mistakes. It is a bad thing. 2. Making a mistake is proof that you don’t know how to not make a mistake. Enter self doubt: We make mistakes every day. Some little, some large, but every day, mistakes. Every mistake reinforces the notion that we aren’t capable, that there is some ‘flaw’ in us that prevents us from knowing how to not make mistakes. I must not be very bright, or I wouldn’t keep making mistakes, would I? I can’t trust myself to even know how to not make mistakes.
And this is the motive for religion. Having made a mistake (sin), I can’t trust myself to know how to keep from sinning again, so I need external direction, someone or something to tell me how to not make mistakes. And there they are, standing in line with all the answers…… This is the beginning of being other directed, of being externally controlled. As social organization moved from nuclear family, to extended family, to clan, the shaman appeared. This is the person of visions who could penetrate the veil and explain our mistakes and how to avoid them. The progression from shaman to the rigidly structured religions of today is easily seen. Religion has brought much good and much evil into the world, but it’s power has always been derived from the common base of self doubt; the almost universal misconception that we aren’t supposed to make mistakes.
Even in the most conciliatory of spiritual instruction, there is the tacit “wood shed†experience. We are told to look for our spiritual nature within ourselves, but the judgment of that is always tested externally. I say this is what I see and am told that perhaps I’m not seeing it correctly. Off to the wood shed I go. And I repeat that experience until my external judge finds my seeing acceptable, that I am no longer making ‘mistakes’.
At what point do we come to ourselves? Is there ever a point where we accept the validity of our seeing, our knowing, without referent? When is that moment when we become more than a collection of approvals and disapprovals of others and accept ourselves as we are? When do we stand before creation in being, not as being?
Being an experiential epitome of what you have just posited, I succinctly concur.
To live correctly within one’s own nature, is to live outside the world of man made laws, to live, more in your words, processurally. To be innate being is going to put you at constant odds with, and suffering constant admonishment, from those who accept the reality of a man made universe.
Not certain if living “within” as natural being is possible, I think it requires living “without”. I see no room for any other life as you have described.
Good questions, JT. And my sense is that they’re important ones as well.
Surely you would distinguish between what I might refer to as the advisor shaman and the guru shaman, yes? There is a difference in other words between the external judge that sends you to the woodshed and the advisor who suggests an alternative.
Life starts out as a series of points, it seems to me. At each we are presented with options. Which way to go? We don’t start with an innate ability to choose, do we? We need guidance. From our parents, teachers, siblings, etc. In spiritual matters we look to influences from religion or what have you. We take these influences into account, we analyze, we contemplate, and in time we move to the next point.
Once there, we may discover it was a mistaken move. So, we reevaluate and look at other influences and begin the process anew. Perhaps the next point is not a mistake. And then we proceed from there.
Ultimately, if we live long enough, we put more trust in ourselves to sort through all of the influential information we are presented with. “Right†moves begin to have a feel to them. So do “mistaken†moves.
But of course not everybody is this way. Some I imagine never reach that point and are constantly seeking the guru to tell them what to do and where to go. Religion can play on this and gather power from it. But religion can also work in that advisory capacity, and point and suggest and act as one factor among many.
The problem, as I see it, is not so much with the prevalence of the external judges, but rather with the inability of people to trust themselves. Why do some trust themselves and others not? Why do some regard a mistake as some kind of fatal character flaw, while others regard it as just a new point from which to reevaluate so they can move on to the next point?
I’m not excusing religion nor claiming religion doesn’t sometimes take advantage of this reality. I just think religion can also act as a channel marker, a guidepost. I think it all depends on who it is that’s considering the information. Some want gurus. Others just want some advice.
Sometimes Mr. Jerry, there is an intrinsic value system that says all that is, is error, is summation of being.
For some, the words of the guru and sage offer hollow sentiments, appearing more of book bound supposition, than in the living of an original being.
For some, the societies bereft of character, or even the appearance of such if you prefer, offer little more than perfidious illusion.
For some, even greater, the absence of love. Love in the pure, inspired, and freely given form, never manifests, and mistrust continually builds in its’ absence.
For some, error is all you have, as the worst judge of all, is the one that haunts your spirit, never allowing a moments respite. For these, error is life, and no other perspective is known.
Some would know these, some would know these all, very well.
It also presupposes a future just like the past, does it not?
Do we have any real way of knowing that future possibilities will ultimately play themselves out the way things have played themselves out in the past? Absent knowledge of this, yet believing it just the same, aren’t we in danger of living lives of self-fulfilling prophecies?
Not being so comprised of wisdom, what answer can be offered?
It would appear, if recent history mirrors the deep of history, what other outcome do you propose or suppose?
All things have the appearance of a self-cannibalizing humanity.
Judgement is better left to those of infinite understanding, not one who knows less than little.
Tomorrow, we will possibly both awaken. Will it be a new world tomorrow? Will the judges cast off the masks and stand to adjudicate against only themselves? Will the error of humanness awake with sudden reckoning that error is to be overcome, and not laid in stone as the legacy of mankind’s social endeavors? Will justice and hope rain down as sunshine? Will the capacity of infinite human love bare forth with full countenance? Will the validity of one, suddenly take on the definition of validity of all?
I think it’s a mistake to assume that this direction or control is only given to us externally by society, religion, etc. They may influence it’s shape, but do not create it.
Picture a man on a deserted island. Suppose that he was left there from the cradle and somehow managed to survive to adulthood. Wouldn’t he create his own system of ethics, his own “do’s and don’ts” based on the successes and failures he experiences? I think he would.
This controlling influence is something internal and inherent, not something external. I have nobody to blame but myself for my captivity, so to speak. The control is manifested in society, certainly, and easily visible, with it’s values, laws, punishments, etc. But the root of it is in my own memories.
I think your example is the telling factor. A lone human without social contact would never be exposed to the concept of religion, or any other concept of socialization. You are right to point out that there is no pure externalization, that the heart/mind is also an influence. But I think the core of my statements are fairly accurate.
I think your comment/question is just another way of saying what many have said before, that progress will ultimately do away with a need for God. The cleverer we become, the less we doubt our abilities, and the less we need external instruction from a higher power. In fact we ourselves become God. Personally I think that’s a load of crap! Other than figuring out small things like how to toast bread evenly, man has made little progress at all. Sadly, for all our education and learning and spiritual development men are just as evil today as they were 2000 years ago. Our need for God may have increased rather than decreased.
You might have missed my point. I was talking about authority given over to religion. It had nothing to say about an individual’s spiritual understandings. Religion and spirituality aren’t the same thing, and I agree that spiritual understanding isn’t needed less, but more. I wouldn’t say the same about religion…
I find it interesting that your thoughts seem to underline a thought that I too had today. I was thinking about the differentiation between the natural and the spiritual that often drives us batty. I came to the conclusion that the spiritual is not (or no longer) natural, but that it impeaches us because the spiritual is the exception rather than the rule.
Whilst I understand what you mean, I think it would be wrong to turn to your average Joe and say, “just be yourself, that will be OK!†I think we know that there is a lot of things that are not OK, and there are millions who are centuries away from spirituality – even if they are receptive for it in the right circumstances. So I agree that the inborn spiritual receptors need to be made known for everybody, and this has to be something that becomes an open (or external) issue, but I believe that there are many people who would rather be without such receptors in the situation they are in.
I am often accused of saying we need to change the circumstances in order to change people, but I think we need a simultaneous action that reaches out to people and then gives them a place to be what they can be. I say this because I have done outreach and felt the pressure that people can be under. It is not enough to know that it is right, you have to help this assurance grow. You have to weed the ground and water it as well.
I think that the idea of Sin works the other way around – because we know what is good and actually achieve it now and again, it is proof that we do know how to achieve good although we don’t do it permanently. That is where a merciful God, who works out salvation for us, starts us off. Forgiveness gives us another chance to overcome our natural desire to survive and take up the spiritual position of being part of a collective.
Spirituality nullifies sin and the consequent mistakes. It helps us see through the mistakes, and recognise the reasons. It isn’t so much someone with all of the answers, but a starting point from which I can constantly begin anew, and one that is my own story intertwined with the story of another. It is the point of calm after a storm, it is the point of reflection after failure, it is the point of introspection after encounters with the external reality. It is the mirror that shows me who I am.
I think that we have suffered for too long under non-spiritual counsellors, been a part of their power play, their politics and their manipulation. I think that such counsellors have often started off wanting good, but achieving the opposite. And I think it is because they fell for the tricks of the natural, whilst thinking they were spiritual. They have given us a burden, rather than a yoke. They have tired us rather than quickening our spirit.
I think that the proof of the spiritual still is in the tasting. By the fruits we can tell the difference and see what is going on inside a man. In fact, this is an area that we know is still functioning in us. We see others and their internal unrest and suddenly become aware that other people can see our internal unrest too! We add paint to the façade, build a support for a wall that is about to collapse, but we remain insecure because we know that we can’t fool anyone who takes a longer look at us.
It is when we suddenly become aware of the eyes within us, looking through us, knowing us thoroughly, that we may give up the façade. But it depends on how we are able to deal with this confrontation. Can we cope with awareness, or do we drown it with alcohol, television, sports, anger, frustration? How do we know that we a loved? How do we know that there is an alternative? How do we find a Way?
I guess my focus was a bit narrow and was directed at our willingness to grant authority to our judges. It was about religion - secular and other, rather than our spiritualitIn a sense, I’m asking where is Martin Luther when we need him? Who nail’s the theses on the world’s door? I don’t really have an answer to opening the doors other than to continue being who I am. It takes courage and perhaps a stubborn streak to shuck off the authorities and begin one’s own path of realization. Perhaps the real miracle is that anyone even tries.
It is a real issue that we need to address, since many assume the role of Judges – against wiser counsel. Spirituality provides better judgement, since it is also empathetic and involved, whilst theology or any kind of theory is often distant and concerned with principles rather than real issues.
Martin Luther is a primary ignition, just as any reformer is. If you stick to that first kindling of the flame, you won’t make progress. If you stick to words, you avoid the inspiration of the spirit. I have come to the conclusion that spiritual women and men have remained in the background, because young spirituality is something tender that needs care. If you put it into the furnace of secular strife, it burns up with all of the trappings that have restricted it’s growth. To cope with secular strife and to open doors, you need people who have learnt to free themselves from those things that have no lasting value.
A Moses, a Joshua, a Gideon, a David, etc. up until a Jesus, a Peter, a Paul taking us to leading figures in church and secular history even in the modern age, if they were at all spiritual, they were independent of the trappings of “the world†and could be independent without loosing contact to the people they were leading. There is a truth in the statement that the true leader is a servant of all that politics has rarely understood. Unfortunately, those who did understand, were often those who were assassinated - which tells us something about what “being natural†is about.
Yes, but it comes back to the same thing we’ve discussed so many times. We but whisper in small groups. Perhaps that is best. Christianity is full of ‘witnessing’, and I suppose that is what it truly is all about. You’re right. It isn’t the principles, it is in empathetically acting out those principles. So what sort of television show would Jesus put on today? Sorry, I just can’t help but wonder…
I guess I don’t accept your assumption that religion and spirituality are different things. Or that we need one and not the other. Just because someone thinks of themself as spiritual does not make it so. Give me an example of something “spiritual” that does not derive from an established religious tradition.
A new-born is spiritual without any exposure to religion. There is no escaping our spirituality, although many try. Yes, those who embrace religion may be exploring their spirituality, but they may also embrace religion to avoid their spirituality as well.
From my POV, they are indeed separate issues, but please feel free to disagree with that.
I guess I don’t see how a baby is any more spiritual than an egg sandwich except in the sense that every human being has the POTENTIAL for spirituality (more than the said sandwich). I agree that our motives in adhering to any religion may be mixed and sometimes have little to do with spirituality. However, this just means that spirituality is a subset of religious practice, not a seperate grouping apart from it.
Again, I fail to see anything in life that is spiritual but not religious. Personally I think this is a viewpoint promoted by those who have some sort of beef against religion and would therefore like it to be true that one can be spiritual but not religious. But just because it is appealing, does not make it true. But you’re free to disagree. Of course that just makes you wrong (joke!).
OK. Let’s turn this thing on it’s head. Show me the causal connection between religion and spirituality. Provide me the example of those who, without religion, are also without spirituality.
I’m guessing, but I think we’re up against simply choosing a definition, aren’t we?
Well, I have a feeling you’e not going to like this. The clearest example of an unspiritual being is the devil.
James 3 says
14But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil.
My contention would be that the devil is the clearest example of the “unspiritual” and also the clearest example of someone without religion. Those who choose to follow him in this life can also be counted among the unspiritual and those without religion.
