It has both been said that: "that a Prophet has no Honour in his Own Country" and on a less known scale "don't discount the message because you dislike the messenger." The first was one of the many things attributed to have been said by Jesus. An "explanation" I sourced, indicated that those that had known him since his childhood might have taken issue with his teachings based on the notion "who did he think he was to be espousing this "wisdom." After all he was just that Jesus kid, from down the street (maybe it went a little like this .... come down off your high horse mister..... you son of a............. carpenter!!!) Then this same source went on to excuse the rabble for not realizing Jesus "was God" (that aspect of the theology would be where I get off the ride).
I do believe he was a highly evolved human being - but I also believe his "teaching" was to demonstrate what is possible for each and every member of humanity. Which still could raise the question within his "peers" isn't he just a regular bloke like you and me? Well, I suppose yes and no!
As for the other idea, think about whether you have ever dismissed something someone has said for no other reason than you don't like him or her. It could be "sage advice" - you might hear it again from someone else you find less objectionable and then be more receptive. Or get to a place where it occurs to you (as though you thought of it) and then it's heeded for it's validity. The fact that you have it in for this particular person might well be telling in itself. But even if you don't have any intention of hanging out with this person, doesn't mean that they don't have something of value to say.
What does it take in order for someone to go from relative obscurity to someone that is being quoted later in their life or centuries after they have gone? Will Stephen King be continually quoted as is Mark Twain? If not why not? They are both writers - that achieved public attention and acclaim.
What is it that makes some individuals seem so extraordinary that not only their lives are seen as outstanding but they are also then seen, as possessing a perspective on life itself that you wouldn't solicit from let's say for example, your plumber. (I have no particular reason for choosing the profession of plumbing to make my point). And who's to say that when the plumber isn't responding to household crisis, he or she doesn't spend a great deal of time in contemplation and might well have some significant pearls of wisdom to share. I will once again point out that much was made of the teachings of Jesus and he was a carpenter (by trade).
What I am suggesting is that nobody has the monopoly on universal wisdom nor exclusive access to it. Francis of Assisi before he embarked upon, and led the life, that posthumously had him declared a "saint" was the son of a wealthy merchant who was given to carousing and reveling around town. He then aspired to be a knight and fight in the crusades. Despite these rather pedestrian pursuits and even what might be described as skeletons in his closet, he underwent some sort of transformation which entirely changed his life trajectory. Even still what he was doing certainly wasn't embraced by his father nor did the towns people aplaud his passion for those cast away by society. So despite his non-conformity (or perhaps because of it) his word and deed are seen by many as worthy of both heeding or being seen as a model for replication. Not that fame or popularity was his aim, but there again exists the lack of recognition by the people of Assisi that there was a "prophet in their midst."
My understanding of the teaching of Jesus was that it was a path of personal transformation (certainly not as demonstrated in many churches created "in his name"). This transformation opened one through their own heart and soul to the creative intelligence of the universe (sometimes known as God) - it was not necessary to depend on an intermediary (priest etc.) This empowerment and autonomy that he advocated, might well be what got him killed (not unlike other outspoken figures throughout history that speak "subversive" ideology (a.k.a. truth) that threatens those in power.
Now while I'm suggesting all humanity has the innate "wiring" to undergo this transformation it is not everyone that dedicates themselves to it's pursuit. It is not a case of anything a kin to "holier than thou," moral or spiritual superiority that makes this possible - it is more determined by free will choice. As is fairly obvious there are no end of material world distractions. Interesting to me that religion was once called the "opiate of the masses" - I'm not sure that "it" can hold a candle to the zombie apocalypse created through mass media and the God of Consumerism. Here within each is assigned his or her "value" by their ability to continue to participate - needs are addressed rather quickly and completely in the scheme of things and yet there is no cessation. It would appear that the achieving of satiety is not possible or even seemingly desired. Now I am not speaking from some perceived high ground - it just so happens that I felt compelled to examine my life (& life itself) quite sometime ago now. I had no idea that it would take me where I have been nor did I imagine it would still be ongoing some six years later. Now I suppose I entered into this exploration with the hypothesis - I couldn't examine the life I was living - while continuing to live it. The journey has revealed for me many a flawed premise through which I was operating. Income generation became less a primary focus as I lived off other resources - therefore consuming became more and more moderated. Fast forward to now where the current status is a need to resume generating income while at the same time there is nothing in the way of surplus, so beyond food and shelter there is a complete state of "consumption interruptus."
I have a hard time imagining that a return to income generation would signal the automatic resumption of consumption - I see very little point in that being so.
Thoreau said of his retreat to the woods of Walden pond: "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately,
to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn
what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had
not lived."
I had no idea he said that - I searched on the name of the lake to get a sense of what he had gone there for - to perhaps liken his withdrawing from the society of his time in some way, to what I have made this period of my life about. I found this quote immediately. It is both fitting for my comparison and also serves to expand my query with regard to what is it that created an enduring appetite for the perspectives of this particular writer who went into solitude. Any parallel I might draw for myself might well be quickly dismissed by the "peanut gallery" as deluded or illusions of grandeur, "the life of Riley, "your a layabout" - shirking responsibility. That could only really be said if it's maintained that my responsibility is to the "economy." Who exactly is responsible to live out my heart and soul directives? If I were to completely lose myself once again in the "rat race" that would be a renunciation of my responsibility! It simply can't be justified on the basis of the number of other people doing it. I don't know about anyone else, but deepening my awareness and awakening my consciousness couldn't have happened while I was busy "keeping up with the Jones." I had to slow things down and simplify things enough, that I could even see that was what I was doing!
The irony of the quotes that are plucked from the life work (like some "greatest hits album") of those that chose to engage with life in the pursuit of their calling - is that they end up on calendars to become part of the blind consumption not so merry-go-round, and the essence of what they were trying to convey becomes a stocking stuffer! (Ho-ho-ho!!)
I sat in a circle at one time - it was a discussion group on some facet of spirituality. I forget now what I said - one women responded, "oh I like that, who said that?"
I replied, "I did"
"No really who said it?" "I know it just came out of your mouth, but who really said it?"
"I'm telling you - I said it, whether it came from my mind or the creative intelligence directly through me, you won't find that expressed anywhere else."
She laughed and still was hesitant to accept my answer.
"Alright I said, it matters not - I don't have the copyright on it, you can believe it came from elsewhere, go ahead do the research and by all means feel free to "use" it. At the time I was exasperated - the very idea, that because you have seen me a number of weeks in a particular circle not only could nothing profound come through me, but that it was also held true that if I said something inspiring I must be quoting someone else!
Apparently Buddha was verbally abused in front of some of his followers by someone in his village who demanded to know "what gave him the right to be teaching others about life?" Buddha wished him well, ignoring the barrage. Afterward one of his students was upset and asked why had he tolerated the abuse of this man? The Buddha replied - "if someone offers you a gift and you decline it, who does it belong to?" The student replied to the one who offered the gift.
So even though the Buddha had a consciousness that gave rise to both his behaviour and explanation he was challenged by someone that was unwilling to see the value of his consciousness and teachings because he knew him previously.
Am I comparing myself to Jesus, Buddha or Thoreau? Not directly, I am however questioning for myself how much can I affect change for example, in my own community - given the apparent credibility gap that these "heavy hitters" had in their own time and locale. I suppose it's all relative but it occurs to me the message of the importance of a spiritual life is difficult to qualify within a society that is so materialistically oriented. I know that the two don't need to be mutually exclusive but I have not entirely got to the place where the two are reconciled and my life embodies a non-dualistic representation.
Other questions I might ask myself are: how uncompromisingly am I willing to pursue truth, passion and soul guidance? Can I throw myself completely into my life path without concern for recognition - rather then, for the love of my work and that my work would represent both the love that I am and love of myself in the doing? What is the source of this perception of lacking credibility? (external or internal) Are there any limits when stacking a soul-guided, "self"- directed life path versus the societal paradigms with its status symbols and academic standings occupying hallowed ground and hosted upon pedestals?
Maybe it is a recognition that the work is what matters not recognition for the work!
No comments:
Post a Comment