All too often, when we attempt to bring about change in our lives, we undergo a process of conversion without enlightenment. As a species we seem to be very committed to converting people, whether the conversion is religious, political, sporting, social or even gender, to mention but a few. If conversion is not possible, then we attack and ostracise. For me, the notion of conversion is largely a nonsense unless genuine enlightenment precedes it. That newly found understanding and wisdom will usually initiate a fundamental change in direction of its own accord.
Consumed by the emotion of conversion, and I am thinking here particularly of psycho-spiritual conversion - all too often confused with religious conversion - one is apt to think that all of a sudden one has been moved from one non-spiritual plane to a plane where we feel a born-again spirituality. (I admit to my inability to define the words "spiritual" and "spirituality" in ways which might find general acceptance.) In my view, such a transposition from one plane to another is very far from the truth. Any change that might occur seems to relate to a change towards a hopeful belief, to an admitting to a desire to change direction, because life has become unacceptably painful. The life changes that are required do not occur unless some understanding of the factors that have brought one to the stage where change is seen to be desirable, is gained through the process of enlightenment. Put simply, genuine change does not happen without understanding and wisdom.
What usually happens - in my own childhood experience, and observations of adults later in life - is that enthusiasm for the belatedly-realised impossibility of leading a life not grounded in denial-free understanding eventually wanes. The result is to fall back into a state of apparent failure, and the drawing of the conclusion that it was all rubbish anyway, and that if only conditions change all will be fine. The story of the "fox and the grapes" is apposite.
What I discovered was that so many traits that I had deemed to be wrong, were neither right nor wrong. They simply were! The baby simply is, and only requires a thorough cleansing. Even today, in our enlightened times, there are always people who will tell us what is right, and what is wrong; edicts based on their often blinded perceptions, but firmly rooted in egoistic selves drawing their sustenance from societal dogma rather than from truth.
As I have said elsewhere, I do not believe the ego is bad: it simply is. But then fire simply is, and I do not intent to thrust my flesh into the fire in the foreseeable future. I will, however, continue to endeavour to use things that are fit for the purposes I have in mind. And I must never intentionally, through denial or any other means, cut the taproot that links my lower, egoistic self to that source of enlightenment which feeds my inner life.
In choosing to talk about this subject I am intensely aware that it is like testing the quality of the Atlantic Ocean with a spoonful of its water taken at random. Every sentence threatened to draw me off into yet another vast subject with its own particular characteristics and interest. There are no clear-cut boundaries to the mind, or to consciousness, and I have had to pick my way carefully through my material to avoid becoming washed away on an errant wave of enthusiastic wonder.
Tom, I can say a heartfelt Amen to all you've expressed in this post.
ReplyDeleteThat baby we keep throwing out with the bathwater lies out there wet and wailing, crying and calling, until we realise it's part of ourselves and bring it in, forgive its trespasses, give it some toys to play with and get on with our enlightened lives, accompanied by its happy gurgling sounds in the background.
Hullo Natalie; Thank you for this comment. It is sometimes a hard lesson to learn that whatever the baby is, it needs our love and attention. Acceptance of that relieves us of so much that does not need to be carried.
DeleteThe idea you can still be washed away on an errant wave of enthusiastic wonder made me smile. Smiling is a good thing - especially when we can relax and enjoy our own foibles.
DeleteHullo Susan; Well one has to be careful, you know. It can be quite scary, especially if one gets on a roll(er). :)
DeleteHi Tom,
ReplyDeleteWhat you say rings a bell about life in general to me, so that at times I think a lot of what we feel is a product of the ego-which is neither good nor bad. Hence our emotions mostly tell us the truth about how we feel but not necessarily the truth.
But it seems to me our long evolutionary journey endowed us very well with the emotive feelings to be closely allied to small group dynamics when we were possibly more in tune with nature. But as populations grew we became aware of the added risk for concentrations of power and coercion and catastrophic events- a usually accompanied by a propensity at the personal and group level to adopt subjective abstract morals. But of course I agree in seeking wisdom and enlightenment one also must be careful about throwing out the baby out with the bathwater. Interestingly enough there is no reason why selfish genes adapt to become unselfish genes as the evolutionary benefits of biological altruism outweighs those of the more selfish ones.
Best wishes
Hi Lindsay; I think there is much in what you say, and maybe we as humans will never be able - in the time we have - ever be able to catch up with ourselves in overly large groupings. I suspect that is because the problem seems to be a conscious one, but it is at the unconscious level it needs to be addressed.
DeleteI agree that we need to be aware of, and respect, what our emotions tell us about our feelings. They must not be rubbished, no matter how bizarre those emotions may be. They are there to inform, but not to rule.
I have that you have mentioned "selfish genes" more than once in recent comments. This was an idea suggested by Prof. Hawkins, I believe. I have to say that I am not wildly happy with the concept, largely I suspect because I am a bit iffy about Prof. Hawkins opinions, and also because the idea of selfish genes implies an element of fate, or a condition over which we can exert no psycho-spiritual pressure. That of course may be a fact, but it makes me feel uncomfortable anyway. I note once again your opening paragraph.
Someone dear to me asked me recently for forgiveness for having been such an ar........occasionally.
ReplyDeleteMy answer was that I had nothing to forgive, that I never wished harm during the past 4 years, that I only protected myself by staying away and that I learned to accept others as they are.
Now, what was first the chicken or the egg? Why do I not accept myself as I am? Time for learning is running out.
Dear Ellena; That someone has asked for forgiveness, for whatever incidents, is an indication that they have hurt you. That is a positive and healthy thing to do. If you truly think you have nothing to forgive, that implies you have not passed judgement, learning to accept others as they are. That also is positive and spiritually healthy. But we most certainly do need to protect ourselves.
DeleteWhy you do not accept yourself as you are is more difficult to answer, particularly as I do not choose to be a counsellor. I will say, however, that when I was unable to accept myself as I was, it was because subconsciously, I was always trying to live up to false standards that others had set, or I believed they had set, for me. I strived to be perfect without having a clue what perfection was. I chased an artificial sun across an empty sea, and could never catch up!
Time for learning begins running out the day we're born. That is in the very nature of living. It is not something we can change, so why worry about it?
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeleteIndeed I am no fan of Hawkins on this matter but bear in mind the source for my comment was from a paper ….Okasha, Samir, "Biological Altruism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Sober argues there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists (see also Schulz 2011). On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism.
Hence the so called “selfish genes” maybe evolved into non selfish because survival favoured the latter , which in turn influenced brain development of the frontal lobes to be cable to act as repositories for spiritual experiences, discernible in terms of enlightenment. That spiritual dimension always existed, except we only became privy to it, maybe as recently as within the past 200,000 years in the long journey of humanity. The idea of evolution/in tandem with a spiritual dimension?
Best wishes
Thank you for that Lindsay. I will consider further.
DeleteThe one, and the ten thousand things, are not different. One spoonful of the ocean is still the ocean. All the oceans are full of spoonfuls.
ReplyDeleteHullo Zhoen; You may be correct, except where one spoonful has more CO2 in it than elsewhere, or contains an iceberg or even a humpback! :)
DeleteFull of hard-won insights, thanks Tom. I've brooded for days on what you say, & have come to conclude that conversion, and its close ally evangelism, are the curse of any religion, activist cause, political party & more besides - quite independently of the value of the beliefs & practices prescribed. There's clearly something in the human animal that's vulnerable in this way. Infatuation & mass hysteria are also similar, I think. And you see that in times of perceived threat or necessity of survival, we can join with people and causes we'd normally find repugnant, bite the hands that formerly fed us, and more.
ReplyDelete"A life grounded in denial-free understanding" is also a very big thought, and it contrasts with the concepts of conversion, evangelism, infatuation, mass hysteria, prejudice & the like, which all gain their impetus from some form of denial.
There is a temptation to be partisan, espousing one thing and trying to eliminate its opposite. And the worst thing to be is a fascist against parts of one's own self.
Hullo Vincent; I wish I could say more than simply, "I agree." The truth is that you have put any further thoughts I have on the subject in a way that I cannot improve on. Thank you for your response.
Delete