Another interesting aspect related to this is the use of laws to accomplish the act of banning the individual. There’s nothing more rigid about cults than LAWS and the laws within a cult are sanctified by the member’s attitude towards the guru: divine, infallible, omni-present. Then all aspects of their lives are gradually governed by the guru’s will whether his will stands for or against their well being.
What is fascinating to realize about these relationships between people in cults is that it slowly reveals the threads of our externalizing our psychological world in our social world and what is happening in cults is the longing for “community” that people are trying to actualize only that we are doing so from our innocence instead of our maturity. We fall in love with the guru like we fall in love with our loved one and surrender to him all aspects of our selves without realizing that in THAT context, it is necessary to keep one’s individuality. That “surrendering” one’s social “self” is an act of slavery and not a spiritual sacrifice that can bring anything positive.
The pattern is not so different in romantic relationships but we should actually go all the way and look into child parent relationships to untie the knots that condition these behaviours in the different instances of our lives.
As children we are dependent on our parents. Economically or instinctively, emotionally, intellectually… To take a quick, simple and rather easy look and start exploring the issue, it is common knowledge that children who are not well embraced and protected in the family tend to turn against their social entourage in later years as if the process were simply inverted as in a lemniscate. Individuals simply project in adulthood what they received in childhood if nothing interferes to change the process in their own individuality. Wouldn’t this make of us simple reflectors? We reflect in adulthood what we received in childhood?
I’m just throwing out ideas because I am myself exploring the issues.
One that comes to mind now is the possibility of looking at situations from the point of view of their “wholeness” and their “wholeness” is no other than their “holiness” and their “holiness” is no other than their “loveness”, “friendliness”.
People judge criminals who go out and shoot other people at random convinced that it is only the criminals fault that he killed the others but this is just lack of consciousness of our mutual interdependency. Such criminals are just reflecting on us what they have received from us. This kind of crime is very important to understand the state of our “social being”, of our social “beingness” because those people are simply expressing their own suffering and disconnectedness. Of course they need to be locked up and stopped but much more than that they need to be helped and we all need to help ourselves so as not to create such criminals.
Crime is the expression of our social illness. Crime from an individual is an individual protest of a social malady and as long as people continue to isolate the criminal without dealing with the causes of the crime they will continue to unconsciously separate themselves from other human beings instead of consciously embracing them. The problem is a problem of lovelessness or consciouslessness for consciousness is nothing but the ability to grasp the whole in each of its parts.
The problem of our unconsciousness is not one for blame or judgement. We are unconscious beings and life is precisely the road towards more consciousness. But accepting our unconsciousness does not mean that we settle for it. Within that unconsciousness it is necessary for us to find the means to question each other, struggle and argue with each other without separating from each other and this is so difficult because for that to be able to happen individuals must recognize their own wholeness and the wholeness of others in themselves. The understanding that We are One is an aspect of it. We are One is simply the social expression of I am. When in their personal work individuals find their own I willing to steer their will then they can begin to say “I am” and we can say that We are One only when we can refer to that same “I am” or “The Human” within each one of us and stir our social lives from that principle of life.
The times we’ve been living in are far from human. Capitalism isn’t human, communism isn’t human, fascism is inhuman and yet within each order there are aspects of human life that need to be considered.
In Capitalism individualism is king but a selfish king that is willing to make his or her fortune at the cost of many. In Communism, the State is king but it’s willing to make his fortune at the cost of individuality. In Fascism, the Fuhrer is king and is willing to make his fortune at the cost of life.
When I say “life” I don’t only mean people’s lives but “life”. Life is the endless creation of love. Love is the endless creation of life. Love and life are endless creation in each act. Consciousness is the realization of love in life. Consciousness is the conscious aspect of love. It is the incarnation of life in an individual. Each individual has, in their short period of life, the possibility to create and recreate “life” in each act. All human beings are creators of life consciously or unconsciously. The majority of human beings are creators not only of “lives” but of “life” most of the time, most of their lives. The fact that we are sick today and perceive our selves as somewhat wretched beings does not testify for the reality of our selves but only for the reality of our times. We are entering the maturity of the human being.
In Capitalism, Communism and Fascism there are aspects of life and aspects of “life destruction”. These aspects particular to each System need to be studied carefully so as to understand where they need to be “realigned”, “corrected”. In Fascism, individuals surrender to the Fuhrer like people in cults to the guru, in Capitalism people surrender to themselves without an inkling of the whole (like people in cults) and in Communism people surrender to the “whole” without an inkling of the whole or themselves, the State replaces the Fuhrer, (like people in cults: the Arc of Humanity). What is fascinating and horrifying about cults is that they incarnate every mistake we have made in no matter what System we’ve invented, THAT is why their people end up committing suicide en masse. It is a process of self-annihilation and when they’ve all self annihilated they then commit suicide en masse in the name of love and consciousness.
In Cults people give up any form of social participation that is questionable to the guru just like in fascism in relation to the Fuhrer. They surrender to themselves convinced that as long as they work, work, work, they will awaken regardless of anyone else, they have the attitude that as long as they make effort they will get to heaven just like capitalism does: as long as people are producing and making money, there is “life” even though there is as much lifelessness in the few that “make it” than in the many that make it for them and (in Cults) everyone is treated “equal” like in communism. “Equally” unconscious, “equally” undeveloped, “equally” a beggar without rights! The “Human” ideal is used against the individual demanding their “surrender” and rendering them slaves of the cult.
I’m just exploring but connecting our individuality to our social processes is as important as connecting our social processes to our inner processes or individuality. We are not just this or that. We Are. Everything IS. The problem with our unconscious individuality is that it perceives itself separately from the whole and therefore does not connect its creativity to life. The problem with our unconscious “sociability” is that it doesn’t connect to the human and therefore designs orders that act not only against a few but against the whole. Upper classes with money are no more conscious than lower classes without it. They each have their own problems and sufferings but while the suffering in lower classes seems closer to real suffering the suffering in upper classes seems to connect more precisely with forms of unnecessary suffering. In both classes the connection with “work” or “the activity” people do to develop themselves in, has the relevant impact. To a certain extent the fact that people have to work more and more consistently in the lower classes, gives them a more direct connection with the processes taking place while in upper classes there is a tendency to a dysfunctional discontinuity without aim. That “discontinuity” is what makes powers fall and eventually be replaced by other more democratic forms of power in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment