Circles in the sand

[Excerpt Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

The belief in perfection ultimately translates into the belief that we are all bastard beings, innately soiled with shame and guilt that hampers our expression of our deeply innate loving and compassionate characters.

Put simply, because we believe in the existence of perfection, we feel unworthy to freely express our energy. We feel constrained. In an analogous sense we operate our lives much like driving a motor vehicle with the hand-brake on.

Religious doctrine has it that the human race has sinned and that we need forgiveness.

It’s reasonably straight forward to recognize that this “sin” which has been committed was simply the adoption of “free choice”—the evolvement of the conscious mind. Refer Figure 7.1.

To be so consciously focused we needed to forego our reliance upon the somewhat more automated mechanism of instinct. Religious doctrine teaches that it was when Adam chose to eat of the forbidden fruit that marks the origin of sin— hence the term “Original Sin”. Note here that sin means, at least in terms of Christian belief “separation from God.” In terms of religious beliefs, we could say that when we are compelled to “atone for our sins” we are in effect being asked to join together with God, rather than go our separate chosen ways. We are being asked to abide by the community’s religious values and constraints, and not to be so independent and disagreeable of the status quo. Accordingly, we might say, at least within a religious context that:

In its wider context, to “sin” simply means to go against the prevailing cultural morals and taboos. By adopting free choice we allowed ourselves the freedom to sin—to get it wrong, to be imperfect, and to separate ourselves from Mother-Nature and Father-Spirit. Again, all of this is only valid within the context of believing in “separateness” (strict locality, limitation and fixed boundaries).

These “circles in the sand” have in the past been arbitrarily defined by cultural traditions. Cultural traditions and laws very clearly defined what was “good” and what was “bad.” Obviously, in the business of physical existence there are aspects which are harmful to physical well-being and survival. A child is often taught by parents to consider potentially harmful aspects of its physical existence (such as an open flame, or poisonous animals) as being “bad.” Children thus learn how to safely interact with the environment, avoiding those aspects of it which would clearly cause harm. We therefore need physical and mental boundaries between ourselves and those elements which could or would cause harm or physical death.

In a broader context, defining boundaries (both physical and psychological) is necessary to the evolvement of consciousness. Boundaries form the essence of individuality. Without boundaries there would be no individuals.

Boundaries are endemic to individual awareness.Without boundaries there wouldn’t be a physical objective universe or indeed a separate spiritual existence. Without boundaries there would be no “I”, “me,” “you” or “us.” Without boundaries there would be no point in writing this book, for there would be no one to read it, not even myself, for “I” wouldn’t exist.

We need boundaries to behavior (in the form of laws, rules etc.) so that members of a society can safely interact with each other without undue and burdensome conscious  thought.1

Consider what it would be like as you drove your motor vehicle towards an intersection if there were no recognized rules of road behavior. No traffic lights adjudicating traffic flow. Instead just a complete lack of rules. How well would traffic flow in those circumstances? How safe would you be? Essentially, everything about physical reality is a form of structure, with definition and boundaries.

As previously covered in Chapter Five, we also recognize that hierarchical structures with a strong incumbent chain of command is vitally important to the smooth functioning of complex organisms and social structures. We know only too well the consequences of severing the brain from the body—paralysis of the body. Without clear channels of communication in a company or social structure, we also observe a form of organizational paralysis. And religion has been part of that hierarchical chain of command throughout the last few millennia, and as such has served an important framework for structuring societies—even though they have also been responsible for countless deaths and persecutions. But on the other hand:

The more one feels separated from others, the greater the degree of disregard and violence one can commit against them. If you feel no connection with, or empathy for someone else, then it is not difficult to understand how you might be less considerate of that person’s desires, needs or welfare. In view of the fact that men lean towards the embodiment of “separateness” (locality, objectiveness, fixed boundaries) it is easy to see why men are less considerate of others than women, who lean towards the embodiment of “togetherness” (nonlocality, subjectiveness). This is the reason religious sects or ethnic groups can so easily commit atrocities against others, because they have no empathy with them; because they’re “outside the circle.” A belief in “separateness” (strict locality, determinism) forces one to consider that everything has an opposite. The belief in perfection forces the division of good and bad. Moreover it forces the division of love and hate.

Since we are not perfect we must love God and hate ourselves - hence, the frequent  examples of self-flagulation, penance and guilt by religious followers.

Given that we are inherently kind and loving creatures this idea of being bad sits rather uncomfortably deep down in our psyches. Inevitably, if because of religious indoctrination we must adopt the idea that we are bad, one can readily understand why it is perhaps more convenient to hate others. It diverts the hate away from ourselves and gives us some respite. This self-hate projected outwards is the genesis of most if not all violence in the world. We can readily observe that most of the trouble spots in the world today (e.g. Middle East) are religious factions fighting one another. A belief in “separateness” (strict locality) allows for distinct categorization of people and things, an “us versus them” mentality.

If we love those in our circle, we must do the opposite with our enemies—we must hate them. The belief in reality being strictly physical (local, finite and non-spiritual) and that perfection exists inevitably requires that we love our own kind and hate our enemies.

With the help of modern communications, we can see that the unseen evil enemy are people very much like ourselves. With instant television coverage we see the enemy being killed while we eat our evening dinner. This is a fundamental shift in our awareness. We can no longer hide behind ignorance (and immaturity) to imagine the enemy as being inhuman evil monsters. There is no longer any “outside” as our forebears would have believed. Modern technology is diminishing the freedom to hate the once unseen, but now increasingly seen enemy.

In a world now so small and together in matters of economy and culture, it becomes difficult to openly hate others so we end up openly hating ourselves. We can no longer justify hating other people and other cultures. This has occurred most significantly and transparently within fundamentalist cultures, including the United States. American fundamentalist culture is deeply locali in its perspective. The hatred that fundamentalist Americans felt was effectively channelled outwards towards other cultures. This was often quite beneficial in driving greater productivity—witness the space race against the “evil empire” and the many highly beneficial technological spin-offs which came directly out of the space program. The perception that foreign non-Western cultures are evil has been a consistent doctrine of American culture. Recently, Henry Kissinger wrote that, at the height of the cold war ..

But as a result of the breakup of the USSR American fundamentalists now no longer have the option of hating the “Evil Empire” as President Reagan once called the Soviet Union. Even if it did still exist, the luxury of hating other cultures is no longer a politically-correct option. But given their persistence in seeing reality as being LOCAL (with an in-built “us vs. them” attitude), they are becoming increasingly divided and inwardly turned.

• 1. As covered earlier, we’d need far fewer laws and regulations if we were to be more nonlocally (intuitively) aware