I’m a member of a few online “wake up” communities and I still find it remarkable that people who claim to be “awake” engage so ruthlessly for or against other people’s spiritual expression and perspectives. What is most annoying is that it always seems to be done with an air of superiority. As in, you’re not really awake until you see things like I do. It comes up a lot when anyone uses the word God or Creator or heaven forbid quotes something from the bible or some other religious text (completely disregarding the profoundly influential pieces of cultural and historical literature they are). Let me be clear, it is your air of superiority that is the problem, not your conclusions, opinions or beliefs. Your air of superiority and demand for exclusion during a time we need to work together, is simply not helpful. You don’t want someone who believes in God to partake of your revolution? Then it isn’t actually a revolution at all and you might as well strap on your matrix seat belt because you’re not solving this problem any time soon.
This is exactly why we are still being handled, governed, restricted. You have found your enemy and it appears to be anything that is “not you”. This is a stage we all go through from what I have been able to glean but this is in no way a position that should be considered “awake”. I’d be willing to throw you a bone and call you “aware”. But let’s unpack this a little further so I don’t sound so much like an asshole. I’m really just trying to make some observations here of a continuing theme.
Accepting another person’s inherent right to believe what they wish about the invisible realms and how they choose to verbally express their inner world is extraordinarily liberating for both you and them. Being consciously aware and attentive to that feeling of liberation can lead you to a profound awakening (or expansion) and change how you interact with others which will naturally change how they interact with others. Lead by example. Allowing room for the natural development of individual human consciousness should be the fundamental principal all awakened people uphold.
Where any revolution seeking justice and peace by means of expanding consciousness tries to accomplish this through recreating or re-framing the same dynamics that caused the injustice and peace, “think this/don’t think that” you will see a failed revolution and experience continued expressions of inequality. If you want equity, you must examine and uphold the principles that foster it. And while we are fighting for the right to maintain some autonomous self-expression, be mindful of whether your attempts at promoting or limiting the self-examination or expression of another are warranted and helpful. Try stating things from a personal point of view instead of a pseudo-factual winner takes all tirade that implies the person you are talking to is less “advanced” than you simply because they may have come to other conclusions. Your assumption is they have not examined their beliefs and that is an assumption whose root resides in your ego because you want your beliefs validated and their contrary beliefs do not allow for that.
I’m all for education and sharing information (including personal interpretations and experience) but I do not believe that we should be searching for some unified or all encompassing explanation of what it means to be human. If we are to seek a unified anything it should be while holding tightly to the caveat that without diversity of thought, (the root of imagination and creativity -the two things essential for solving complex problems) we will become severely limited and evolutionarily stagnant. Look around, this is the world we are living in.
Judgment of moral or intellectual superiority is the mindset of our handlers, of those who seek to govern and also of those who seek to be governed. If you want to actually change this dynamic, you’re going to need to rise above this discourse. But yea, keep arguing over whether or not someone has a genuine relationship with God, awesome use of the communication resources in front of us which at any moment could be taken away. It seems I feel the need to write an article saying some version of this exact same thing once a month. It is frustrating to watch intelligent and compassionate people continue to miss the opportunity that is currently presenting itself.
It would be awesome if a few more people would get over this stage and commit to focusing on the need to work together to make our physical conditions a little less full of violence, pain and lack.
If you have to wait to solve the world’s war, poverty and injustice problems by solving the God question first, let me clue you in, the belief in a Higher Power is not going anywhere until we master the demands of this physical realm no matter how hard you try to publicly shame people for expressing their beliefs. It goes both ways that two-edged sword. I’m not afraid to swing it right back where it came from until you quit fucking using it. Religion is not the problem. “Religion leads to war! It is a man made lie! We must wipe it off of the face of the earth!” Are you sure religion is to blame? Are you sure it is not in fact greed, a byproduct of fear and specifically fear of mortality and suffering, that leads to war? Are you sure that getting rid of one excuse instead of the root will not leave way for another excuse to pop up in it’s place? Are you sure that this “man made lie” is not in fact an attempt to do just that? Are you sure that arguing about it’s failure to do so is going to get you one step closer to solving the problem yourself?
“But it’s cultural conditioning so we must eliminate it!” At its best, culture is the sum of a unique set of knowledge that allows people to relate and communicate with one another from one generation to the next, to form agreements that allow for some reasonable assurance of peace and continued survival of their genetics and it isn’t going anywhere either. The conditioning you speak of comes from a highly ethnocentric viewpoint and a more productive view of the situation should foremost include stopping the purposeful manipulation of emotions for the propagation of the capitalist agenda. Because I’ll tell you what, someone going to church on Sunday is no where near as devastating to our SPECIES as the planet being mined because we have been sold the story that every person should have the right to pursue the acquisition of a $50,000 car and use it every time they want to go two blocks to the store to buy some other piece of bullshit they do not need at all. They disguise it as culture precisely because most people cannot tell the difference. Conditioning, in physiology, is a behavioral process whereby a response becomes more frequent or more predictable in a given environment as a result of reinforcement, with reinforcement typically being a stimulus or reward for a desired response. Isn’t that the exact same thing you are doing while claiming to free people from cultural conditioning?
The attack on someone’s religious or spiritual views is an attempt to destroy the bonds they have used to feel a sense of community and connection, a shared description of this highly subjective experience which can be profoundly isolating. Does it really surprise you that people defend those bonds and then consider you the enemy? Do you not understand, you who questions everyone else’s belief in God (or whatever term they use to describe their spiritual perspective) that what you are trying to do is get them to let go of their sense of connection to instead form a sense of community and connection with you? You, who would question their most intimate and vulnerable aspect? That you cannot see this as a fool’s quest is disheartening. You have no more proof than them and offer nothing in the way of acceptance or connection with your criticisms.
I remember taking an anthropology course in my first year of college. At that time I gave serious consideration to making that a career. I love people. I love their differences, their similarities and the unique ways the human spirit will overcome unimaginable tragedies quite breathtaking. I have held a belief in God my whole life. Not because someone told me to, but because I had conversations with some form of intelligence that was independent of “me” at a very young age and the description of said intelligence often (but not uniformly) lined up with other people’s definition of God so that’s what I prefer to call it.
But before I had a firm grasp on this understanding, my anthropology professor made a dramatic statement that he colored in the language of scholarship, in other words, authority. He said there was no God. He implied that people who believed there was a God were not very intelligent when he chuckled at our expense. That is usually how this argument goes. “I am smart because I know there is no God therefore anyone who believes there is a God must not be smart so I have a moral responsibility to prove to them how much smarter than them I am.” Yep. He based his opinion on the fact that he had studied other cultures and that every culture had a different interpretation of God so therefore God could not be real. I remember thinking ruh roh, doesn’t he know that this in fact makes it much more likely that there is indeed an invisible nature that we all seek to understand regardless of our cultural or linguistic faculties? For him, the assumption was made that if there is a God, it must be uniformly experienced in the same way for all humans or it is not valid. He had a definition, an hypothesis regarding God, but did not recognize the irrationality of his original premise knowing what he did about the role of culture in human expression.
I see this error of logic repeated among the “nonbeliever who wants to be a preacher” types and still find it highly troubling. We experience this world uniquely, our minds and bodies are filters that constantly change and adjust in response to stimuli in our environment (both internal and external) and we can only know another’s perspective through the communication methods we have to express this. We do not need to have one unified expression of our internal dialogue with the invisible in order to work together for a common goal, do we? Can we make some morally sound agreements and decisions regarding our physical reality before we attempt to establish rules over one another’s internal one? Insert the argument here that it is people’s internal world or beliefs that cause external chaos and you’ve just given yourself the permission to encourage a form of thought police. No, thank you, I will not be participating in that atrocity. Acceptance of cultural diversity is our greatest advantage and allows an implicit “checks and balance” dynamic to occur naturally.
I’ve learned the hard way that anyone who asks me to defend my inner world, calls me ignorant for believing in my God, without humbling themselves enough to even ask what experiences have led to my conclusions while the external world yet remains this chaotic and destructive, is doing so because they do not have the courage or self-awareness to have those conversations themselves. They do not have the courage to accept the ambiguity that derives from the individually experienced truth that comes from them. As is often the case where fear is present, it is a form of violence, an attempt to destroy my inner world for their own gain or comfort.
That I, or anyone else, believes in God or follows a culturally prescribed set of religious traditions should really be of no concern to someone who actually holds the intellect they claim gives them a right to do such. They have erroneously assumed that destroying an aspect of me will give them more room to be them. You want to get at the root of the problem but you are looking at it from the perspective, need and desire to overpower and control. Look at it from the areas in which you can relate, the things that make all humans human and try to focus on supporting our species survival little miss and mr “tell me what your definition of God is so I can tell you you’re wrong”. Grow up. Focus on saving the planet from self-delusional resource hoarders and let the people with enough maturity to allow differing opinions to educate and guide the spiritual seekers.
Here is a starting point for a moral viewpoint that the vast majority of people may be able to agree on. I say this with complete understanding that there are philosophical exceptions to these rules but I encourage you to realize that with these agreements made, we will have a lot more time on our hands to address those outliers and exceptions as they arise. I’m not talking about all life here, I’m not addressing animals and plant life or the planet itself, just humans (and aliens, angels or A.I. disguising themselves as such).
Physically Supportive Moral Agreements
- Acknowledge that each person has a right to pursue life sustaining activities.
- Acknowledge that no one should be given the authority to hasten the death of another or purposely restrict another’s pursuit of life sustaining activities or destroy the physical environment needed to do so, in pursuit of their own life sustaining activities.
- Acknowledge that a person who engages in the physical destruction or violence of another should be restricted from others and not allowed to procreate.
Now ask yourself whether or not we need to have a unified understanding of God in order to accomplish this and how to accomplish it when it appears we will not be able to agree on such an understanding.
There are 4 seasons and 7 directions. You should have a full understanding of what that looks like before you start finger pointing and blaming someone else’s personal relationship with THEMSELVES for all the ills of the world! From a psychological perspective, people who believe in a Higher Power or religion have found a way to make sense of an invisible world that shows up on their physical radar but for which they have no concrete proof of beyond this feeling, this sense. Ironically, that is something we all have in common though we have no common expression of it. It is no different than trying to explain your experience of the color blue. If you think I’m wrong try to show someone the color blue and convince them it is green.