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.

Sunday, 1 January 2012

Elena on the actualization of being in the law.


"Our constitution already makes it clear that no person may be owned by another person. Under that precedent, Wells Fargo would never have been allowed to acquire Wachovia. Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, CBS, Time Warner and GE wouldn't have been allowed to conquer the media."


From: Occupy Phase II: The Supreme Court

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News


Elena: 

Perhaps that is the most significant sentence in this article or at least the one that shed's light on the unconsciousness behind the events. "Our constitution makes it clear tha no person may be owned by another person". Again: "NO PERSON MAY BE OWNED BY ANOTHER PERSON" but the reality is that people have owned people for eons and the transposition of that status quo to the social environment is not only not a surprise, it is a "law" that the outside world is a reflection of our inner state. The "status quo" reflects the consciousness of the "overall" human being and it in turn is reflected back on the new generation that must struggle to overcome it. 

If we were to assume that the human experience is a struggle for consciousness in the individual as much as in the overall human being, meaning with that, the total sum of people on Earth, it would not be so difficult to realize that the pattern of development from monarchies to a yet unreached democracy is the "picture" for every nation even if some seem to be in more of a retrograde process reinstating a "forced" king in the dictator rather than "stating", that is, "actualizing" or "staging" the rule of the people. 

The "rule of the people" depends on the consciousness of the individual. On the objective consciousness of "life" in every individual and by "objective" I mean "an actualization of the law according to the being"

One of the things we need to come to understand is that everything that happens happens according to the being that acts or the beings that interact and by "being" I both mean the individual or individuals and the "being", the "level of being"; "state of the being" and/or the "level of consciousness within the being". It would not be difficult to understand this if we captured the fact that a person, every person, is nothing else but its being and that everything he or she does is in accordance with his or her being so in strict terms a being and his or her being are the same thing. If we deal with the terminology of "being" present in the fourth way system of knowledge, then we are talking about a person's level of consciousness but what we come to realize eventually is that a person's level of consciousness is in fact her or his being. 

And in those terms, the "being" of an individual and his or her state of consciousness pertain to a dimension of its own: the realm of the I. Of that realm we can only talk in terms of consciousness of the human being as a "sacred" being. People cannot be protected from people that do not acknowledge the sacredness of every human being and with it, the "freedom to be". To pretend to strip the human from the sacred is as absurd as to pretend to tie us to the animal. We oscillate between both and how we control either one depends on our consciousness. The "animal" is "perfect" in its own realm but the human cannot evolve itself out of the animal without actualizing the consciousness of the sacred in our social as much as our individual lives. This dichotomy between the religious and the political is a form of schizophrenia.

When we state that "no person can be owned by another" what we are acknowledging is the "freedom to be" of every individual and with that freedom AND within that sacredness, the "rights" inherent to that being. One of the problems we face today is that the way we are allowing for the "law" to be practiced is without the consciousness of every individual as a legitimate being on his and her own right and rather, allowing for the determination of people's rights according to their economic condition. In terms of consciousness we are upside down and backwards. What is determining the way we live is the instinctive, physical, materialistic reality, not the human spiritual reality.  As long as we grant personhood to those in economic power and not to each and everyone for their own sake, we cannot apply the law objectively to each and every individual in society. 

The stratification of society in hierarchies is an aspect of the process. From the consciousness of the true monarchs in their time to the consciousness of the individual in the near and far future is "history". The movement from the false monarch to the dictator, from the protection of the people by the king to the exploitation of the people by the corporation, in itself another form of dictatorship, is the struggle for consciousness and with it, the actualization of a "State" for the well being of the people. 

The "people" cannot actualize a "conscious" state without the consciousness. The people and not just the individual must acquire the necessary consciousness of their "dignity" as human beings, before they can ACT on the laws that determine their life and lives. The consciousness of our dignity cannot be stratified between the working class and the rich. Consciousness is a unifying process, it cannot separate people from people and in the rich as much as in the poor, the process does not depend on how much they have or we have but on who we are. The understanding of our selves as human beings needs to separate itself from the under estimation of our selves as human bodies with needs. The distribution of goods for our human bodies depends not in how much there is but on who and what we are conscious of. 

This does not mean that the actual struggle for economic balance is not justified. What it means is that if we are to win the battle against fascism, we must struggle for the reformulation of ourselves as human beings and not accept the economic formula or reduce our selves to formulating and reformulating it in its own sphere.  We need to introduce "our selves" in the "picture". To actualize our reality as legitimate beings with rights. 

The separation of the state and religion, necessary as it was in its times, needs to be reformulated because the law cannot function without the "being". The economy has forced the "being" out of the picture because "people" no longer matter, the "human being" no longer matters, the economy is the false calf.  

It's interesting to realize that as humans we are probably at the lowest and highest point in our development. At the lowest in as much as we realize the poverty and misery that we are capable of and highest in as much as we also realize that we are responsible for our own tragedy. That we, as people, as human beings and not as subjects to kings or masters are responsible for our own destiny. 

















Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)