Okay then - right out of the gate I'm going to violate social convention ("stay away from discussions of religion or politics.") to tell you the truth I don't know the origins of this supposition (nor do I feel inclined at this point to do the research) I suspect it might have something to do with the propensity of people to get rather passionate around these topics, next tempers flare and the neighborhood barbeque deteriorates into a turf war.
I happen to believe these discussions should be encouraged, although the rules of engagement might be reconsidered. If the discussion remains on the surface it is more likely to rapidly become polarized, time must be allowed for each to really understand the human values of the other (they could well discover they have much in common and from there, a greater likelihood of a continued dialogue).
I tend to think that one has not got all they might have from any given religion (or spiritual path) if all they can do, is use it as a platform from which, to exclude all those adherents of other paths and/or make the paths themselves wrong.
I suppose I should qualify myself on both fronts - (if for no other reason than to extend the courtesy of having done so - I don't know that any amount of verbiage will actually qualify me). I'm not a card carrying member of any particular religion - I have not spent a lifetime steeped in the principals or practices, comprehensively studied the theology or scriptures (which some might conclude "disqualifies" me). I happen to believe it gives me less preconceived dogma and prejudice to unlearn. I found it necessary in my own life to walk a spiritual path (I am guided by the wisdom of many paths but bound by none of them). Of course I have been swimming in the collective consciousness of the culture I have lived in, so I am not without mistaken beliefs to sort out (I'm just saying I haven't added to that, by further adopting the group conscious of a particular religion).
As for politics - I certainly can't claim to deem myself (what do they call themselves?) a pundit. I am astounded by those that seem to have unlimited recall of various politicians and details of their careers. To me it's somewhat like ardent sports "fans" (and their ability to recall statistics) - surprising their isn't a line of bubble gum - "politician collector cards" (on the back their stats: i.e. terms in office, number of corporate favoured legislations passed into law, # of lobbyists awarded political appointments, criminal indictments, infidelities, payola, kickbacks, backroom deals). I don't know - maybe there is some point in tracking this stuff, to me it seem like the forest is lost watching the trees.
Are "we" quite sure that sports and politics aren't the opiates for the masses?
Over time I am transitioning from a passive observer and sideline chronic critic to a more "active" participant. I actually don't know when one can accurately deem themselves an "activist" (I hesitate to don another garment of persona). I once attended a "Pipeline rally" - initially "joining ranks" with a group that had "organized" ahead of time. I am concerned about the environment - I value the interconnection of all life, I value the lives of the First Nations communities along the route of the proposed pipeline - but when one women said to me -"we're going to do this" and "we're going to do that!" I replied - "I will be guided by my heart and conscience (at all times), I will not blindly follow this group anywhere!" "I will decide at all times in what and for how long, I participate - I will also determine when the need arises to walk away!"
Of course there are innumerable worthy "causes" that affect the masses - I can't see where following a group on a misguided intervention, makes it any more appropriate because all the "activists" are doing it. I also recognize that grassroots movements have the power to bring about change.
I guess my point is that there can be some "strength" or measure of comfort, in the body politic (whether that is a "political movement" or within a "spiritual organization") on the surface it's all politics. Here's the deal for me - much of my life has been profoundly affected by "peer pressure" - if I don't grow to overcome that, it won't matter what the group calls itself (I could form the Hillside Ave. arm-chair transcendentalists or the Coalition to give the Wool from my Sweater Back to the Sheep) or join any other pre-existing group - but if I'm not clear who I am and what I'm about, I am subject to the whims of the group (like a fart in a windstorm). If and when "it hits the fan" I had better be clear about why I was there and what I believe, because the group will no longer be there, I will need to be accountable for my actions (which I would hope are in alignment with my beliefs) because I will then be living with the consequences. Either way I might not "like" the consequences but I submit, that it's preferable they come as a result of what I believe in, rather than allowing myself to become intoxicated (having "drank the Kool-aid") resulting in my acting out of my own unhealed shadow and then masqueraded as "altruism." The wrapper does not determine the contents!
I have trouble with the phrase join with "like-minded" people - by which I mean, superficially there might be a "common interest" but no one can presume from this, that I "believe as you do" nor do I expect that you believe everything I say as true. Taken to the extreme, the members of the Edelweiss Underwater Yodelers might advocate killing the Polka Revivalists, because they accordion player wasn't wearing organically sourced Leiderhosen and then played a "Weird Al Yankovich" cover at Octoberfest! Absurd - I'll grant you, but I'd be willing to bet there are people dying for equally nonsensical reasons (if the origins were to be traced) and it is being upheld by nothing more than because everyone else is doing it (or believing it).
Ideally a group would come together to harness the exponential increase in effectiveness of cooperation and collaboration (for the greater good) - this ceases to represent the higher good, if it is not beneficial across the board. The higher good is not represented by actions that lead to oppression, exclusion or death of one group ushered in by another and is not made "right" by more people believing in it.
In this respect the "finger pointing at the moon" (which I believe I read in a book influenced by Buddhism) for me, is a useful metaphor - (i.e. the finger is not the moon) "the map is not the territory" the individual needs to establish their own connection with the divine (or whatever they decide to call it) and seek their own guidance - take these religious directives and decide for themselves, what works for them. The spiritual paths of the world address the various aspects of the human condition and some specifically address a personal connection to "God." (I use the name for convenience rather than to be interpreted as representing any specific framework). - I suppose to be completely inclusive, I would need to recognize that no matter what I use the word "God" to represent, it will not, reflect the view of the atheists - so for them connect to whatever it is that guides you, as an individual, when that is what is called for (besides the other atheists -or the "atheists guide to the universe" and determine what is the right choice for yourself. I'm not advocating an everyone for themselves attitude - life I believe is an organic process - so too is the guidance of the masters. Two people could internalize a passage of scripture (at least) two different ways, or could be in seemingly similar circumstances in their life and two different spiritual messages, might be perfect in the moment for each. A one size fits all - solution is not helpful.
I believe the same to be true of "spiritual leadership" - without question there is benefit for one to have a mentor/teacher - I've never had a guru, but I would see the potential benefits as being the same (if guidance is the function). I strongly believe that the role of teachers/leaders etc. is to cultivate more leaders (not proliferate more followers). Ultimately each must come to recognize their own "inner" master (teacher/guide). To condone implication that we all are "rudderless" ships that need constant direction from religious or political leaders is to abdicate personal responsibility (not to mention the abandonment of powers of discernment) - it also completely diminishes the value and unlimited potential of each person.
Many positive changes have been brought about through political will - many religious individuals and groups, are part of making the world a better place to live. However there have been many atrocities committed by groups of all political & religious persuasions. Laws are created to uphold agendas that have nothing to do with the greater good, people are manipulated to "obey" through coercion to be "patriotic" or "law-abiding" citizens or in worse case scenarios, lives are threatened or lost for non-compliance. It cannot be presumed that the leaders of any group represent ones best interest or those of the people, they may be far more interested in power and control. It is necessary for each to develop their own powers of discernment, for the day may come, when "civil disobedience" or non-compliance/conformity are the right and perfect action - that which is perfectly aligned with their heart & soul (a "higher authority") rather than the "law of the land!"
No comments:
Post a Comment