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.

Wednesday 22 September 2010

Objectivity

Nice compilation R, thanks. If I may add my two cents, M's question goes straight to the point: "What are objective feelings?"

First we have G. stating that they are connected with consciousness of unity of all things. If we review the System we’ll find that we can only perceive objectively with the higher emotional centre.

The sentence: “Do not love art with your feelings.” was probably directed at students at the Prieurie who tended to perceive art from the jacks of centres instead of the kings and “subjectify” the experience instead of “assimilating” it in the sphere of the I and remain in the kings. I’m using “assimilating” meaning allowing the experience to permeate one’s being without identification but at the same time with acceptance and openness. In the process of “subjectification” through identification, the individual makes his own self, his or her thoughts and emotions the focus of the experience and loses the opportunity to experience the work of art or life in general, objectively. “Life” is in the work of art and the individual can express how much HE likes it and all the things that happen to him or her while looking at it or they can let it impregnate their being. There is an objective current of impressions between the work of art and the individual, life and the individual. That objective current of impressions is what the conscious individual can take in consciously and the unconscious individual takes in unconsciously. The current is the same and people are feeding on these currents of impressions or energies all the time, knowingly or unknowingly. There are different degrees of energy or “hidrogens” in the Greek temples or other “conscious” works of architecture and a simple little house. The sacred temple is designed to place the individual within a structure of objectivity that aligns his own self with the many dimensions within his own self and the world outside. The simple little house is more in “essence” than the temple and in the modern shopping malls that have replaced the temple, the “unity” experienced in temples is lost. Each little shop attracts different parts of centres and the “separation” of life experiences is enforced. The “market” has disconnected from people’s sphere of communication in communal life, it has “objectified itself” beyond the community and strengthens individualism. Oneness arises where both the inner and outer world meet in the individual. Conscious works are designed to remind the human being of his own self in the physical as much as the spiritual dimension. The laws within the physical world coincide with the laws in the spiritual world, the “metaphor” of life is the “metaphor” of spiritual dimensions.

In the subjective state of consciousness the individual places himself in the “identification with his own self” as “centre of the universe”. In the objective state of consciousness, the individual lives both in the periphery of unity and in the central axis of his or her being. There is no difference between the periphery or the axis, these are simply “symbols” with which an idea can be expressed. In the central axis of a human being’s being is the Universe or periphery: wholeness.

Feelings in the lower emotional centre or subjective feelings are such because they are filtered through the individual’s “ego” or “false personality” (in the system). False not in terms of “bad”, simply in terms of not real. It is not real because the human being’s destiny is to develop full consciousness and in the meantime, the “persona” occupying the seat is “subjective”, “false”. False and subjective is talking about a moment in a process, not a reality, the spiritual aspects of the human being are still in this subjective human being whose is hence, no less “sacred”. To be subjective is not to not be human, it is simply to be a human being in a certain state of development. Emotions in this phase of development are not objective because impressions “die” in the superficiality of his or her being touching only the external I or the I connected and identified only with the sphere of the physical dimension and his or her own personality within that dimension. There may be “happy” emotions but not “positive” emotions. “Objective emotions” as presented in the System are emotions that cannot become negative, that are not under the law of accident. “Love” as understood in states of identification is not experienced in states of consciousness because there is no separateness between beings and therefore no desire or longing. Love is then experienced as “life” or “objective reality”. The experience of delight before conscious works is different to experiences in the lower emotional centre in that “delight” touches directly the sphere of the I and not the sphere of subjective feelings. Delight I believe is: “of light”, “from light”. Just as negative emotions tend to enforce the development of false personality, “positive” emotions in the higher emotional centre tend to enforce the development of true personality. Conscious works of art are meant to enforce the development of the human being as an individual as much as a community. Temples, cathedrals, were not meant for individualism to spread but for consciousness to evolve but individualism, like the ego and subjectivity are just a phase in the process.

I’d like to further address your posts but this is already long, maybe tomorrow. Thank you for the opportunity to share and clarify these things for our selves. Elena 

No comments:

Post a Comment