Here is another paradox.
Ideals such as : brotherhood, love, gentleness, etc. all of that are necessary for those whose consciousness is unaware of their continuous relationship with all that exists.
Those whose “I” is strong.
However, as the realization of the self becomes deeper; those ideals have no reason to be.
Because this “study” is not related with reading books, hearing “spiritual classes” or joining a religion. It is related with the dissolution of that strong “I.”
As this dissolution occurs, then a new consciousness will emerge.
Religions and philosophies have given different “methods” to accomplish that, however; there is no “method” needed when Life already offers a very specific “method” for every individual.
It is just a matter of being aware. Life is not different from us. The “method “ is there. Some may call that “method” something like: Disease, accidents, death, disappointments, etc. and yet others may label the “method” as the complete opposite: Health, wealth, fame, etc. Life does not offer the same “method” all of the time as religions do.
That is why, when a society is utterly unaware of the intimate relationship of every being with the Totality; then a certain “method” has emerged to give those individuals an ideal to strive for: Love, brotherhood, gentleness, etc.
In that case and for those individuals, “ideals” to live by are “good.”
However, observe that those artificial “methods” cannot make a change in consciousness. Those methods are merely behavioral changes.
When someone has changed his behavior to look “saintly,” the demon inside is still hidden. The demon will come out when the “performance of sainthood” is left aside.
That is the reason why “doing something many times” have been taught in devotion or worshipping. Repetition of a certain activity deemed “holy” gives the follower, the certainty that “he is improving;” while the inner demon is safely left aside in a dark room of our unconsciousness by the means of rejection.
“This is good, that is bad. This is sinful; that is Godly.”
It is obvious that when the “method” is completely forgotten, then the inner demon will come out. The “holy” method, whatever it is, will create dependency.
That is the religious “hook.”
Why is that?
Because a change of behavior does not mean a change of consciousness. Because rejection of something, makes that “something” even stronger.
To strive for an ideal does not mean that we ARE that ideal.
“Being” is not “Doing.”
When there is no “I” doing, then there is “being.”
When there is “I” doing, then that supports the consciousness of the “I.”
Things could get complicated when beliefs and expectations are thrown into this pot.
Fear, guilt and the ideal of forgiveness come like ants looking for sugar.
Are religions “bad”?
No. Those are necessary for a certain type of consciousness. To give an “ideal” to followers, something to “work for” is needed.
As our consciousness changes, we could appreciate more Life and how that difference between Life and “I” will be closing up.
Most everyone has an “I” inside. That is the “book” to study, the teacher , the Guru and the God to “know.”
Paraphrasing Yogananda’s Guru; Sri Yukteswar, “ Only an enlightened individual can know God. “ For the rest… it is just about beliefs and dogmas.
Do we know why?
Knowing is Being. Therefore, that “being” cannot be taught to another. It needs to be discovered through the experiences of Life.
Too much “I” does not allow us to be… but in contrast, that “I” insists that we “do” things for the aggrandizement of the holy “I.”
“I” need to help “others.” “I” need to be “better.” “I” need to go to “heaven.” “I” must be one with God. “I” must become enlightened.
All that religious/spiritual “I”-ness is located in the same consciousness as the “worldly” one: “I” must become rich. “I” must become powerful. “I” must be someone in Life.
People must remember “me.”
The slide of “I-ness” from too little to too much, will give us a certain state of consciousness.
Intellectual understanding of life, is only meant to ask intellectual questions about it.
There cannot be “truth” in any answer as there cannot be falsehood. There can only be beliefs… and as we can appreciate there are many of those.
We cannot explain about ourselves by separating from life. We cannot chase our own tails thinking that “the tail” is different from “me.” That is just a thought, a belief when the reality shows that the tail is always there with “me.” Do we see that?
We separate from life itself and then we ask:
who am “i”?
what is the purpose of life? (Life being something different from “I,” of course.)
Where do I go when I die? (Question full of “I.”)
Those questions are a great starting point of philosophical musings and theories.
Then someone says: “Here are the true answers.”
Q: Why do I need to believe them?
Because they come from this great authority. End of report.
OK. I will believe.
Is it going to help that I “know” to be a spirit or a soul or whatever word I want to use?
Not a bit. When a loved one “dies,” how do we react even though we know so much intellectual information, so many beliefs?
We mostly behave just like anyone who does not “know” anything…. but our “knowledge” could allow us to “save face” to look “detached,” to look “cool.”
That lack of honesty has consequences in our own health.
Do we believe in Paradise? Do we believe that we will go to Heaven just because we have joined a religion or because we believe in someone?
Then we shouldn’t be afraid of death, of destruction, of Armageddon, etc.
That is not the case. We want to protect this “I” as much as possible AND get the other piece of the pie in the “after life.” That is a greedy “I” indeed!
Ananda shares that the very “I” that we want to protect is the one that we need to realize. All the answers will come at that point little by little; and those answers are non intellectual, they cannot be put into a religion or a dogma.
That is when to “connect to the source” to become a better “I” in the afterlife is completely unnecessary, because we realize that there is no separation in between.
Again, there is no separation in between.
Who makes that separation?
The consciousness of that “I.”
Want to be a detached observer?
May not be about being detached from “others” or the “world.” It is about being detached from that “I.”
Who am I?
I am not the “I.” 🙂
Does God exist?
The believer says “yes.” The atheist says “no.”
The thinker says: “Define what do you mean by God?”
That conceptual definition automatically makes God. Then the job of the non-believer is to deny that existence.
What is the origin of that duality?
“I exist and therefore a greater power must exist, for obviously it is not I.”
I exist, but God does not exist, for there is no proof of his “I” being around.
The consciousness is the same, full of “I,” just different polarities, different extremes.
Ananda just points out the futility of thinking, the traps of logic and the illusion of definitions and concepts. However, use those “tools” at the “office world.” Those tools are very useful there.
When we are in tune with our feelings, in appreciation of this experience which we call living, when we feel gratitude for being without words, there is no time nor space in or minds to make useless questions. Although, they are necessary questions to make in some people’s path; the realization of that uselessness could arrive in its due time.
Therefore, “yes”…those questions are useless but then “NO,” those questions are necessary for some to arrive at a different consciousness.
Affirm now just to deny later on.
Say, it is “true” now, just to find out its “falsehood” later on.
That is why dogmas and morality are necessary, to stick with one side of the story and to deny the other…until we can no longer deny it.
What a game, my friends!