Today's Considerations
On a noisy street named the “10th Lane” in the Khetwadi neighborhood
of the Girgaon region which is now a part of the Bombay / Mumbai metro area in
the state of Maharashtra in India, a man converted a small loft above his flat
into a room where he would originally attract local worshippers by conducting Hindu
bhajans and meditation sessions along with a sprinkling of non-dual pointers
which he interspersed. Often during those heady days early on when he undertook to follow his guru’s
orders and began inviting Hindu worshippers to his loft, he felt enough enthusiasm to conduct
sessions up to five times a day.
Later, after the publication of a book containing transcripts
of some of his talks of a "spiritual nature," he began attracting Westerners who were interested in “spirituality”
rather than in Hindu dogma. For a time, those “spiritual talks” became “his cup of
tea” because he found it more interesting, and far easier, to squeeze non-dual pointers
into "spiritual” talks than into “religious” activities. Yet after a
couple of decades of first conducting “religious-oriented” gatherings and then arranging "spiritual-type" gatherings which focused much of the time on introducing
Westerners to the Indian “Self-Inquiry” process, his enthusiasm seemingly waned
somewhat and he reduced the number of session offered to two per day.
At one point after transitioning to the “spiritual” mode, Maharaj
said something that would have likely sent his earliest audiences out the door
but which most of the Westerners accepted, whether they grasped its full import
or not. He said,
"Only that person will visit this place whose virtue
and sin have come to an end."
He encouraged seekers to abandon personality identification
because, among other things, each assigned or assumed personas brings with it
both fear and desire (both of which he said contribute to humankind’s misery
and suffering). Ironically, his statement that "Only that person will
visit this place whose virtue and sin have come to an end” proved on many occasions
to be a case of “wishful thinking” by one who spoke of the peace which comes
with desirelessness.
More factually, he might have said, "Only that person should visit this place
whose virtue and sin have come to an end because if both of those have not come to an end, then you will
likely be booted (ok, “sandaled” or “barefooted”) out the door.”
So what happened with those whose attachment to dualistic beliefs
about “what is virtuous” and “what is sinful” had not come to an end but who showed
up anyway in their holy garb and with their narcissistic desire to put on display the
accumulation of spiritual knowledge which they had amassed? Often, they were soon sent
down the stairs and out the door and onto the noisy and dirty 10th Lane in the
wadi / subdivision of Girgaon called “Khet.”
Later, Maharaj, modeled the
abandonment of organized religion, just as did a fellow named Yeshu'a (“Jesus”)
much earlier who shared non-dual pointers during the final years of the manifestation
of that speck of consciousness. Eventually Maharaj would not only abandon any use of religion as a version of the Ultimate Medicine but would also abandon the use of spirituality as a version of the Ultimate Medicine, advising people
to stop reading the book I AM THAT, and to “give up spirituality,” and to conduct
a “self-inquiry” and "find out what you are not,” and to realize that understanding what you are not is enough, and then to “just abide naturally.”
Why? Because of what he understood early on but did not promote
as enthusiastically as he did later on, namely, that there are two concepts which
might well generate more dualistic thinking and talking and behaving and conflict
and misery and suffering than any other pair of concepts. What are they, specifically?
“Sin” and “virtue.”
And what are the roots of those two concepts? Ironically, the
roots of those two concepts which contribute to and sustain the Ultimate Sickness
can be traced to the very entities which Maharaj endorsed early on but which he
rejected later on: (1) religion and its far-closer-relative-than-many-want-to-admit (2) spirituality.
“Sin” became defined by the self-appointed leaders in the
early pagan sky cults, and then the early pagan sky cults evolved into the major religions which are still around today. The definition of sin became codified when self-appointed people assumed the role
of “spokesperson” for the gods and goddesses or for God and then wrote what was reported to
be “holy texts” which the "Powers That Be" supposedly ordered them to write and which contain what is claimed to be “the unquestionable and infallible word of the gods
and goddesses” and later reported by some to be “the unquestionable and
infallible word of ‘The One, True God'.”
[Because sin involves the act of violating God's will, then people
had to be told – and still have to told, it is believed by billions – exactly what
God’s will is. Too, God’s will had to be given even far great weight be being
written down in “unquestionable and infallible holy texts” which supposedly contain
not only God’s word but also God’s laws. And what follows when persons violate laws?
Scorn. Shame. And punishment, either mental,
emotional, corporal, or capital.]
Last Sunday on the fifth season finale of an HBO series entitled Game of Thrones, there was
a lengthy scene involving the sexually promiscuous character named Cersei. (By
the way, that shaming scene was based on an actual incident involving “Jane” Shore – actually
Elizabeth Shore – who was one of the mistresses of King Edward IV and of
several other noblemen as well.)
Shorn and stripped, the fallen queen was made to walk naked
through the streets of King's Landing, after confessing to adultery with her
cousin Lancel (but keeping quiet about her adultery with her brother.) Along
the way, she was followed by a woman who was a member of King’s Landing’s ruling religious class who
repeatedly rang a bell, followed by a chant of “Shame. Shame. Shame." Along the
walk, the “Shamee” was pelted with stones and spittle and rotten food and excrement
by the “Shamers,” as was Elizabeth Shore in England.
As were men and women who were pilloried in the “American colonies”
when the colonies were ruled by a theocratic form of government - which many today
would return to - and who were pelted with rocks and filth during their confinement
in village squares.
As were women who lived under the rule of a U.S. theocracy who were
made to wear on the front of their clothes large scarlet letters which identified
their sin, such as a “T” for “thief,” a “I” for “illegitimate,” or an “A” for
adulterer.”
As are women today who are living in many nations being ruled
by theocracies and who are stoned to death around the globe.
As were the women who lived in Florida when some citizens followed
the recommendation of then-governor Jeb Bush (now a candidate for the office of
the President of the United States, an office which his father and brother both
held in the past). Jeb Bush wrote in his book “Profiles in Character” about “community,
religiosity and integrity” and about the need to revive shame. He wrote:
“Society needs to relearn the art of public and private
disapproval and how to make those who engage in undesirable behavior feel some
sense of shame.”
Journalist Catherine Rampell wrote: “The book argues that
the diminishment of dishonor has contributed to all sorts of depravity. If only
we as a populace were a bit more judgmental, the poor would stop being so poor,
the promiscuous would learn restraint, deadbeats would pay their bills,
criminals would keep to the straight and narrow, school shooters would lay down
their arms and bastard children would finally start getting ‘legitimize[d]’
(their term, not mine) through marriage.”
Bush continued while idolizing the “good old days” (as do so many who are trying to impress that segment of the U.S. populous who present themselves as “virtuous fundamentalists"). He wrote:
“There was a time
when neighbors and communities would frown on out-of-wedlock births and when
public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful. Infamous
shotgun weddings and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter are reminders that
public condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong historical
roots.”
Why would Maharaj dare rebuke and reject the concept of “sin”?
Because he saw the global, multi-thousand-year effects of that concept which was
dreamed up by would-be controllers and the self-appointed guardians of the
faith who for thousands of years have spread their message about sin and wickedness
and the need for “public condemnation“ which Bush endorsed;
and who have continuously pumped life
into a concept which generates harsh judgment and perfectionism and divisiveness; and
who defined sin and who codified it and who have ever since adopted it as the
proper and extreme and fanatical (and yes, even militant) fashion by which "the virtuous" should deal with "the sinful" - a fashion which almost guarantees
that any chance of a widespread understanding of the unicity will be forever
blocked.
Next: Why Maharaj was not impressed by “the virtuous,” either.
Please enter the silence of contemplation.
[NOTE:
The four most recent posts follow. You may access all of the posts in
this series and in the previous series and several thousand other posts as well by clicking on the links in the "Recent Posts and Archives" section.]
