The Separation between State and Religion

In time we will realize that Democracy is the entitlement of individuals to every right that was in its times alloted to kings. The right to speak and decide, to be treated with decency, to serve and be served by people in a State of “love” that is, to serve with one’s work for the development of ‘life’. To belong to the Kingdom of Human Beings without racial, national, social or academic separations. To love and be loved. To die at the service of the whole and be honored in one’s death, for one’s life and work was legitimately valued. To be graceful and grateful. To have the pride and the humility of being One with the Universe, One with every realm of Existence, One with every living and deceased soul. To treat with dignity and be treated with dignity for One is dignified together with All others and Life itself. To walk the path of compassion, not in the sorrow of guilt but in the pride of being. To take responsability for one’s mistakes and sufferings and stand up again and again like a hero and a heroine and face the struggle that is put at one’s feet and in one’s hands. Millions of people, millions and millions of people might take many generations to realize the consciousness of our humaneness but there is no other dignified path for the human being.

The “work” as I conceive it is psychological and political. Psychology is the connection between the different dimensions within one’s self and Politics is the actualization of that consciousness in our practical lives. Religion is the ceremony that binds the connectedness between the individual and the Universe. The separation between religion, politics and science, the arts and sports is, in the sphere of the social, the reflection of the schizophrenia within the individual and the masses. The dialogue between individuality and the "human" belongs to consciousness. The tendency to develop cults resides in the shortcomings we’are finding in life as it is structured today. “Life” has become the private property of a few priviledged who cannot profit from it because as soon as it is appropriated it stops to be “life” or “life-giving”.

We are all the victims of our own invention and each one is called upon to find solutions. The only problem is believing our selves incapable of finding them. We are now free to use all Systems of knowledge objectively, sharing them without imposing our will on each other. To become objective about our lives means to understand that the institutions that govern its experience are critically important. That we are one with the governments, one with the religious activities that mark its pace, that the arena’s in which we move our bodies and the laboratories in which we explore our possibilities are ALL part and parcel of our own personal responsibility. That WE ARE ONE WITH EACH OTHER AND EVERYTHING AROUND US and acknowledge for ourselves a bond of love in conscious responsibility. That we human beings know ourselves part of each other and are willing and able to act on our behalf for the benefit of each and every individual. That we no longer allow governments, industries, universities or any other institution to run along unchecked by the objective principles of humaneness. That we do not allow gurus to abuse their power or governors to steal the taxes and use them to their personal advantage in detriment of the whole. That we do not allow abuse from anyone anywhere because life is too beautiful to do so and that we are willing to stop the rampant crime with the necessary compassion Conscious knowledge is every individual's right. Conscious action is every individual's duty.

Blog Archive

Sunday 27 June 2010

Questions on the Individual and Society- Elena

“There are two areas I continue to wonder about. One is the road between knowledge and being and the other, related to this one, the mechanism with which people justify what they do after they’ve done it. I mean both of these aspects in a big way.”

Thinking about the mechanism with which people justify what we do after we’ve done it, something that bewilders me is that we don’t stand a chance against our selves if we are not confronted by others. Or do we? Is suffering enough?

To do something like set up and hold a cult against thousands of people’s well being and then justify it with all of one’s being and turn every truth around to fit one’s imaginary picture of reality and justify each of one’s acts is an amazing process to watch. We couldn’t have looked at it more clearly in the Fellowship and the Fellowship blog in the discussions that took place. Everyone was full of reasons that justified no matter what.

Perhaps what concerns me about the process is that a great deal of what happened and happens continues to be justified by the belief in the freedom of individuals to decide their own destiny but I wonder if such freedom is truly conducive to positive results for the individual as much as society. Or whether there is no such a thing as individual freedom without social consciousness or social freedom without individual consciousness. That anyone who still thinks that they are independent particles of the human being is like a cell that thinks it can survive without the body.  What other part but the ego, the false ego of no matter what individual could possibly think THAT founded on its own vanity?

This so called “individual freedom” so rampant today wasn’t in fact used by the Capitalist model to justify every violation of the social benefit and run over it without shame? Or enough of it to cover the damages up with the welfare state in a society of slaves dressed up with individual freedom and jeans as if there were any freedom in having to stay in a company for the whole of a lifetime to have basic economic security?

Can we measure individual freedom in terms of how economically free people are? There is that impression that well to do people are more free than the rest but of course their freedom is as illusory as that of the rest for they are so often so much more psychologically disconnected that the benefit of having enough money is spent in disconnecting even more deeply from the rest without that necessarily giving them greater well being as societies like Sweden well prove.

So what is freedom?
The amount of time people have for themselves?
The goods their economy provides?
Their ability to get away with whatever they do?
The amount of abuse they can exercise over others without being checked?
It sounds like power but not freedom and is that not precisely the question? Isn’t the ego addicted to THAT kind of power and isn’t precisely IT what feels so vulnerable when it’s freedoms are questioned?

Is power the other side of the coin of freedom then?
And in their positive aspect would the balance between them give the foundation for individual freedom with social cohesion? Does the authority in charge not need to be coherent enough in him or herself to incorporate the cell without strangling its might?
Does the same not apply to the governments in charge and in our times does it not seem like the economic power is in charge without a head or a heart to stand up for the balance of the rest?


Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)