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

Tuesday 29 March 2011

Ton on We are One

8. Ton


on the one hand you can barely tolerate the fact that i continue to exist:
e: “why don’t you find yourself another blog to participate in?”
and on the other hand you say: “I sincerely thank you for your participation.”
you’ve got me segregated away safely in a box where i can’t ‘ruin’ your monoblog…. although you attempt to cover up the fact with a mountain of words it’s apparent to me that you are confused elena… i’m not going to get involved in the tit-for-tat quibbling which is so typical of this exchange with you, it leads only in circles within circles and it resolves nothing… it’s simply not worth the painstaking effort required to sort through the barrage of words with which you attempt to bury the fact of the matter… but i will respond to a couple of issues here in order to illustrate my point and hopefully (for your sake), some of your confusion can begin to clear through stimulating a process of your own self-examination.
e: “We are One and I thank you for the friction with which you enter my world so that I learn to better acknowledge and impregnate my self with your suffering.”
you see elena, if you could truly “be the words” of your favorite slogan, then you would realize and acknowledge that if “we are one” then it’s your own suffering you are talking about… but instead you project this ‘suffering’ onto me which is just another attempt on your part to separate yourself from, and elevate yourself above my supposedly ‘poor and sad state’ which you look down upon in judgment from your imagined superiority, and identify as my ‘lowly’ condition of “suffering” — while you rise above it and in the process use the suffering of another to inflate yourself (‘impregnate my self ‘ is the phrase you used). you see elena, if you truly and deeply knew and truly lived that favorite slogan of yours (“we are one”), then there would be no use for this silly game of superiority/inferiority one-upmanship that you are so fond of playing.
e: “If I treat you anything else than a monarch, that is, a legitimate human being, then I am myself far from achieving the consciousness that I am after.”
the question for you is not “IF” — it’s a question of how often, how, when and where do you treat another as anything less than… obviously it’s quite a bit more often than you are aware of and that’s what you should REALISTICALLY be looking at elena. look elena, i certainly don’t expect or necessarily want to be treated like a “monarch” (what world are you living in anyway?)… what i would expect is to be treated as an equal, which is something you are apprently still learning about. you don’t even realize when you are trying to put me down in order to step on me in order to give credence to your own inflated ego. why the inflated ego? see the wiki article below as a place to start your researches. no elena it’s not a question of “IF” — the question is one of discovering how, where, and when you treat me (and others) as inferiors in the playing out of a superiority complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex
“Democracy is the social realization of our selves as human beings, each monarchs in a society in which no one enslaves or mistreats anyone else.”
in the real world elena, democracy is the antithesis of monarchy… please don’t continue to confuse the monarch who prefers to speak for her subjects (“we are one”), with the ideal of democracy which implies the individual speaking for herself as an individual…. two different things entirely.
leave it to an egoist (or should i say a someone who likes to call herself a “monarch”), to confuse egoism with her own narcissistic tendencies… egoism is an ethical theory that treats (enlightened) self-interest as the foundation of morality. on the other hand egotism is the practice of talking and thinking about oneself excessively because of an undue sense of self-importance…
elena, unlike you in your preaching of “oneness” i don’t think we (that’s you and i), stand so far apart on certain issues… (although when you attempt to insult or belittle me that does tend to widen the divide). what you don’t seem to recognize or acknowledge is that it’s all a matter of perspective, you don’t recognize or acknowledge the validity of different perspectives because you have a certain deeply felt need to always be right and to always have the final word on any given topic. if you examine the situation i’m sure you can agree… and that if you take a stand for “we are one” which merely represents one point of view and not the absolute and final word…. it’s incredibly stupid and narrow minded to think that this is the final word and that another perspective cannot shed some more light… you act as if another perspective must necessarily be rejected out of hand because it doesn’t issue from you, the “monarch.”
sure, from 200 kilometers up the earth looks like a single luminous egg floating alone in space…. the planet is an organism and in that sense every discrete form of life on her is part of the whole…. this is nothing new, it’s as old as the earth herself. but seen from another perspective that is just as valid and just as ‘true’ — the ‘reality’ of the situation here on the ground is that the earth is formed of ‘we’, that means all of ‘us’ as individual organisms and this fact, this reality is responsible for much of the strife and turmoil which plagues the planet…. in that sense we are not just ONE, it is more accurate to say we are many who are interconnected and interdependent. it is this later condition which gives rise to conflict.
speaking of conflict, what i object to in your soapbox diatribe is the myopic insistence that you are right while anyone who takes another perspective is wrong. what i also object to is that when using the ‘royal we’ you would be so arrogant and presumptuous to think that you can speak for me as an individual…. i don’t know where you get the idea that this is o.k. to do… i have a feeling it issues from the same source as does this formulation of yourself as a “monarch” — maybe you spent too much time on the imaginary top of the follyship pyramid scheme ? you will never speak for me elena, that is what i object to… it is the arrogance that makes you think you can do so that i’ve objected to all along…. when you speak for yourself then you’ll have my attention and my respect. what i object to is that you think you can presume to sit on your high horse and to speak for “we” for “us” as if you were a “monarch.” inserting your perspective in place of my own individuality, and your unaware habits of presuming to be able to speak for others, that’s what i will always object to… in any form…. in your case as a petty “monarch” and in the case of politicos and the more influential and grandiose variety of petty despots… you see it’s the same mentality, your own circle of influence is thankfully more limited and that’s the only difference between you and those like you who have the audacity and the arrogance to throw slogans around like “we are one” and presume to speak for ‘the masses.’ maybe another difference would be that you’re less clever than the professional politicos who are able to use these types of slogans to further their narcissism and their own egoistic motives…. the fact that you’re not so clever as to manipulate others with this sort of nonsense, is probably to your benefit and to “ours” — you see, i don’t need another petty ‘monarch’ to speak or to think for me.
e: “The puffed up world in which you seem to limit your existence to might no be aware of the abundant crime that is happening today but if you only dared to look beyond the charismatic prism that you seem to enjoy to stand up and demeanor the few people that you do interact with without ever seriously putting an effort to add something of value, you might actually begin to live your life out with love.”
when you attack me like this, i know i’ve hit a nerve… you might want to examine this elena, it sounds like you are projecting something of yourself into your idea of me (the other)…. you really have no idea of what my world is like or the nature of my interactions in it…. withdraw projections elena.
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)