•••
The Parks of Study and Reflection are gateways to the mental world of the Profound.
It is in the Parks that the works of School are carried out, a set of studies and practices which allow access to experiences of contact with hidden internal dimensions.
That depth cannot be captured by the language or the categories of space-time in which we believe we live. However, in particular circumstances, it becomes accessible, manifesting or erupting in experiences that move our consciousness and change our lives decisively. We experience that which has no name but does have meaning – contact with an unfathomable profundity where space is infinite and time is eternal. Although brief, these experiences are of great consequence because they give us meaning, joy, and fulfillment.
Since ancient times we human beings have perceived the trajectory of our life and its finiteness. We ask ourselves where we've come from and where we are going, and we experience the search for meaning, while also feeling the need to overcome pain and suffering. And every time human consciousness has managed to glimpse the profundity of the Mind, inspired answers have arisen and great forces have been released. The rapture of falling in love, the inspiration of artists, and the ecstasy of the mystics, all have their source in those common depths. The great religious and spiritual currents that have grown through history were also born from these “sacred” experiences.
In different historical moments, different people and cultures have translated human interiority as diverse and, on occasion, opposed poetic or mythical landscapes Nevertheless, all of them have their concealed center of gravity in the Profound. On this planet of ours, in which societies are rapidly becoming globalized, it will be precisely that renewed experience of contact with the transcendent which could foster a recognition and spiritual encounter between the peoples of the world2.
The Parks of Study and Reflection are places for meeting and for the spreading of a new spirituality that rejects all forms of violence and discrimination; a spirituality that appeals to that sacred dimension of the human mind to find freedom and meaning. Every human being, no matter their beliefs, may participate in this emotional, moving and experiential path.
For many, these Parks become places that translate a time and space loaded with meaning.
There are regions of the mind which have a special meaning, and when we connect with or access these regions, a great internal commotion is produced. They are regions with psychic charge, located at a certain height and depth in the internal space. So, for example, many legends spoke of mythical cities, places which are home to the deepest aspirations. “When they spoke of a city of the gods, which the heroes of many peoples strove to reach; when they spoke of a paradise where gods and humankind lived together in transfigured original nature...”
Every people has their allegories, and it could not be any other way, since these are translations of non-representable meanings, made with the raw material of the corresponding cultural landscape at a given time.
These internal places are related or occasionally coincide with external places that then take on sacred characteristics because of the importance they have for us, according to each person's culture. That is why we make pilgrimages to them in order to receive the psychic charge accumulated there. In these places, we want to be better, more connected with ourselves and with others.
The Parks of Study and Reflection that are appearing on all continents signal the search for, and expression of, the sacred; that is, of the best aspirations of the human being who today is preparing to awaken from a profound sleep.
A new civilization is being born and will go acquiring its representation in the world, which will be the translation of that profound reality.
Eduardo Gozalo
“At some moments in history an outcry arises, a heartrending call from individuals and from entire nations. Then, from the Profound a signal arrives. May this signal be translated with kindness in these times, may it be translated in order to overcome pain and suffering—for behind this signal are blowing the winds of great change.” Silo. Inauguration of the La Reja Park of Study and Reflection.
Silo. Collected Works, Vol. 1. The Inner Look. XX. Internal Reality. p. 46
•••
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
COMMENTS ON MEDITATION, MENTAL SILENCE AND THE GUIDE
•••
(Negro with members of the Bombay’s structure, in 1980)
Cassette’s transcription.
People meditate any way they can.
We’ll see what is not meditation. Meditation is not concentration.
What is concentration? Concentration is maintaining the attention on a fixed point. That’s the thing. I’m representing an object; this object may appear or disappear. The characteristics of the object I’m representing are brightness, permanence (the object remains or disappears) and selection.
I say that my concentration is good when the object’s three characteristics, force, permanence and correct selection are present. But these three (characteristics) are related to the object’s permanence: concentration is maintaining the attention on the object. (1)
But also concentration is the effort I make in maintaining the attention on the objects. Thus, it could happen that the object appears and disappears, but because I’m making the effort of being concentrated on the object then I’m attending to my attention, in which case I’m not longer concentrated on the object but on my attention.
In turn, concentration on the attention allows three forms. I can observe the fluctuation of my attention, which means that it does not have enough adhesion. It may happen that now I’m no longer engaged in my attention and a totally unrelated memory appears in which case the selection in the attention is lacking. And it could also happen that my thought is very weak, in which case the force in the attention upon the attention is lacking. (2)
Now, a third step, I am aware of what is happening with my attention. We are trying to distinguish between what is meditation and what is not. We have said that concentration is not meditation and we have said what concentration is. Concentration is the attention directed toward an object. We have also said that the attention on the object admits three forms.
But at the same time, the attention upon the attention also admits another three forms.
I’d like you to notice the following: One thing is the object I see, another one is the object I’m representing, and the other one is the attentional mechanism that is referring to the object I’m representing. A third thing that is related to the (degree in) depth is the attention that refers to the attention. These are the different degrees in depth of concentration. This is not meditation. (3)
When attending to an object I observe that there are three forms: brilliance, permanence and selection and all of them vary.
When I’m not concern about maintaining the object but I allow the object – without disappearing – to change and fluctuate in my consciousness, even becoming modified in its characteristics, but I keep all of this together in the consciousness, this fact of not getting out of theme even if the object changes, this is in general meditation.
But the meditation needs to have a proposal in order to work. I cannot just meditate about any thing because if I do I will lose the object. So, I must fix the limits of the meditation, that is the objective of the meditation.
What is the difference between divagation and meditation?
Divagation works by mechanical free association and it lacks direction.
Could it be a meditation that may proceed also by association? Of course it could, but it would have to hold a connective thread and an objective.
Having established the limits of the meditation – a proposed objective and a connective thread for the associations, we must also admit different forms of meditation.
For instance, I can meditate on a problem. (4)
If I were to concentrate on a problem then I won’t be able to resolve it because it would lack the dynamics.
If I concentrate on the following proposal: two by two equal… and I suspend my attention on this formula then, I won’t be able to give the response that is four, because in order to do that I will have to give dynamics to it. I will have to allow my thought to be in movement. If I concentrate on the two by two then there is no possible solution.
It is false that concentration can resolve any question because the nature of concentration is holding the attention on a motionless point. And if we fix the attention then there is no dynamics, therefore there is no solution to the problem.
What could concentration be useful for? Perhaps, it could be useful as an exercise to educate the attention.
We are talking about different forms of meditation and we are seeing several possibilities.
For instance, I can meditate on a problem by looking at the problem from different points of view, trying different solutions and making comparisons among them, etc. but I never get out of the question about such a problem.
I have fixed the subject and I do my movements within certain parameters, searching for the solution to the problem.
What is fixed and what is mobile? The objective I want to achieve is fixed, to resolve the problem, and all the procedures I use in order to look at the problem from different angles are mobile. This is one of the forms: to fix the problem and to have mobile points of view. You know this form. Empirically you do that, sometimes with a method and sometimes without it. It is a form generally known where one advances more or less like this when trying to solve a problem.
But there is a different form of meditation that we call dynamic meditation because we do not established the problem or the solution. The problem is mobile and the associations are also mobile. But, one may say, how are we going to solve the problem if we don’t even know what is it related to?
These are the characteristics pertaining to dynamic meditations and are based on the following experience. I know what internal resistance I have, but when I begin to move the images around a certain direction I detect that my images are restrained or deformed, therefore the problems show up.
Consequently, I began by knowing what the problem was and the direction (solution?), but when putting the associative chains in motion the resistance appeared, and when the resistance appeared I discovered what my problems were allowing me to work on them in a more organized way. This is the form we use in the guided experiences. (5)
Therefore the form of a dynamic meditation is very different from the first form we were investigating.
There are also other forms like those mentioned in the Inner Look: “Carefully meditate in humbled search.” There, other implications are mentioned that are not so cold or so technical as those we have been studying, instead a particular internal disposition for the meditation is mentioned.
It is a disposition that works by eliminating certain believes; it is disposition that not only does not have prejudices about things but also about oneself. It is a disposition that shrinks the I. “Carefully and in humble search.”
This third form of meditation has other implications that are not only technical. It is as if in order to do a careful work, a laboratory work I have to previously take a bath and arrange the conditions for things to go well.
This third form of meditation requires prior conditions from the person doing the meditation. It considers the state in which the meditating person finds him/herself. The interest is not directed to the object or technique that is going to be used for the meditation.
In this instance, the object proposed is a literary work. The attention is not placed on my understanding of this object but on my disposition when I go toward the object. This is a little unusual because I have this literary work and I’m not being told to study it instead I’m being told that I should take certain placement in front of this work. “Carefully and in humble search”. One is trying to place oneself in a state prior to the meditation as when we relax before doing something interesting and we place ourselves in a previous condition. Here we are talking about a similar thing but related to the field of the meditation.
THE GUIDE
If one considers the internal guide as an object, then it is an object.
One may place the object in front of oneself, in which case the consciousness refers to the object. But I can presume that there is a tendency behind my consciousness that moves my consciousness in one or another direction.
Where do I place the internal guide, behind or in front (of the consciousness)? Therefore I say: “the internal guide is the tendency that gives impulse to my consciousness.” If this is so, with what do I perceive this internal guide that impels my consciousness?
What are the conditions of this consciousness in order for this guide – situated behind – to appear?
If I say that sometimes I don’t perceive the guide because it is situated in a profound level, how do I know it is in a profound level?
Therefore, I’m no sure the guide is in a profound level. It is possible that it is there, and that due to certain conditions of the consciousness this need or search –sometimes felt as a presence - appears.
But the nature of the guide is not so clear and according to what was said, it doesn’t matter what the nature of the guide is because I don’t want to convert it into an object.
Then, one shouldn’t worry if the guide is or not in a profound level, because the guide is there when I want to be in contact with. Then the question is not about the nature of the guide.
I can feel the internal guide without seeing it. How do I do when I want to remember a particular music or the hunger I felt yesterday?
I have to lower the mental tensions and the dragging of contents in order for the meditation to proceed. Otherwise, the direction of the meditation will deviate. The lowering of mental tensions and the dragging of daily contents.
Another interesting alternative is to do a mental silence. If I am able to do a mental silence without a doubt the mental tensions will decrease. There are different techniques and one of the most interesting one is as in the work with the guide… (interruption.)
Let’s see this subject of the mental silence. How do I do a mental silence? When I want to do a mental silence how do I do it?
It is possible to do a mental silence and to lower mental tensions during the meditation as well as in daily life by resorting to the sensation, the mechanics of the mind and also to a meaningful question.
In all these instances the attention is always referring to something different than the problems that are generating tensions. I always have to work with the attention. (6)
But we also see that when I want to do a mental silence I’m not able to achieve the silence. This is because I’m applying tensions in the effort of doing a mental silence.
How can I attend without tensions? In order to do a mental silence I need not to worry about the noise in my consciousness. I need to be concerned about other objects and never say: “I have to do a mental silence.”
We have said that achieving a mental silence is related to the direction of the attention.
When I try to listen to something that is coming from far away, and which I barely hear, in order to listen to this far away thing I do a metal silence. (7)
I’m not concerned about doing a mental silence, instead I’m attending to this far away thing, and this creates the conditions for the silence to take place. And when I ask something to my guide I don’t worry about doing a mental silence. I’m concerned about to clearly listen the response that comes from my guide, and in order to listen clearly I have to do a mental silence.
Therefore, these two important works, the work with the internal silence and the work with the guide are one and the same. And if anybody were to ask me, which is the most important work? We should say that this one, the work with the guide in silence.
(The experience of calling the guide takes place)
When invoking “Oh Guide! and I pay attention to the response, then automatically the silence is produced. The more attentive I was to the response the more silence was produced. When I got distracted or when I was not waiting for the response then the noises began. So, it is understood that when trying to listen then the silence is produced.
Another issue is when the response does not come, but you felt the answer. This means that the response did no come from the guide, the response came from you yourselves.
Thus, we see two things: it is possible to do a internal silence by being attentive to the response and it is possible to have a response even if it didn’t come from outside.
Let’s study more this case, this instance of launching a question and waiting for the response, as in the ceremony for Accepted members.
The fact that I have launched a question and I’m waiting for the response and already I’m doing a mental silence. This does not guarantee that a response will come, but I’m able to do the silence because I’m waiting for the response.
When the response comes, then I say that it comes from my guide. But it happens that there are different degrees of depth. Sometimes one may recognize that the response came from one’s own thoughts. Sometimes one notice that the response had a very deep flavor of truth, that it didn’t came from the memory, the consciousness or from the noise my consciousness produces, because I was able to obtain a good internal silence.
When this happens and it has this internal flavor of truth, then I say that it came truly from my guide.
This subject of doing a mental silence by properly directing the attention and this other subject of a response with a true flavor are the best works that can be done with the internal guide. Internal guide and silence are the same mental technique.
Let’s now suppose that I do ask for a response, let’s suppose that now I am alone, let’s suppose that now I am depress and I have many problems. I concentrate on myself and I say something to my internal guide. I’m not asking for a response, for instance I asking for company or force or I ask my guide for a warm emotion or an internal smile and whatever I do I do it with attention. “Oh Guide, give my force!” “Oh Guide give me an response!” Oh Guide, accompany me!” We ask the guide in all instances. The contact with the guide is always a request. And when I do the asking I pay attention to the response to that request, and when placing the attention on the request we are doing silence, and when we are doing silence the response comes to us.
•••
(Negro with members of the Bombay’s structure, in 1980)
Cassette’s transcription.
People meditate any way they can.
We’ll see what is not meditation. Meditation is not concentration.
What is concentration? Concentration is maintaining the attention on a fixed point. That’s the thing. I’m representing an object; this object may appear or disappear. The characteristics of the object I’m representing are brightness, permanence (the object remains or disappears) and selection.
I say that my concentration is good when the object’s three characteristics, force, permanence and correct selection are present. But these three (characteristics) are related to the object’s permanence: concentration is maintaining the attention on the object. (1)
But also concentration is the effort I make in maintaining the attention on the objects. Thus, it could happen that the object appears and disappears, but because I’m making the effort of being concentrated on the object then I’m attending to my attention, in which case I’m not longer concentrated on the object but on my attention.
In turn, concentration on the attention allows three forms. I can observe the fluctuation of my attention, which means that it does not have enough adhesion. It may happen that now I’m no longer engaged in my attention and a totally unrelated memory appears in which case the selection in the attention is lacking. And it could also happen that my thought is very weak, in which case the force in the attention upon the attention is lacking. (2)
Now, a third step, I am aware of what is happening with my attention. We are trying to distinguish between what is meditation and what is not. We have said that concentration is not meditation and we have said what concentration is. Concentration is the attention directed toward an object. We have also said that the attention on the object admits three forms.
But at the same time, the attention upon the attention also admits another three forms.
I’d like you to notice the following: One thing is the object I see, another one is the object I’m representing, and the other one is the attentional mechanism that is referring to the object I’m representing. A third thing that is related to the (degree in) depth is the attention that refers to the attention. These are the different degrees in depth of concentration. This is not meditation. (3)
When attending to an object I observe that there are three forms: brilliance, permanence and selection and all of them vary.
When I’m not concern about maintaining the object but I allow the object – without disappearing – to change and fluctuate in my consciousness, even becoming modified in its characteristics, but I keep all of this together in the consciousness, this fact of not getting out of theme even if the object changes, this is in general meditation.
But the meditation needs to have a proposal in order to work. I cannot just meditate about any thing because if I do I will lose the object. So, I must fix the limits of the meditation, that is the objective of the meditation.
What is the difference between divagation and meditation?
Divagation works by mechanical free association and it lacks direction.
Could it be a meditation that may proceed also by association? Of course it could, but it would have to hold a connective thread and an objective.
Having established the limits of the meditation – a proposed objective and a connective thread for the associations, we must also admit different forms of meditation.
For instance, I can meditate on a problem. (4)
If I were to concentrate on a problem then I won’t be able to resolve it because it would lack the dynamics.
If I concentrate on the following proposal: two by two equal… and I suspend my attention on this formula then, I won’t be able to give the response that is four, because in order to do that I will have to give dynamics to it. I will have to allow my thought to be in movement. If I concentrate on the two by two then there is no possible solution.
It is false that concentration can resolve any question because the nature of concentration is holding the attention on a motionless point. And if we fix the attention then there is no dynamics, therefore there is no solution to the problem.
What could concentration be useful for? Perhaps, it could be useful as an exercise to educate the attention.
We are talking about different forms of meditation and we are seeing several possibilities.
For instance, I can meditate on a problem by looking at the problem from different points of view, trying different solutions and making comparisons among them, etc. but I never get out of the question about such a problem.
I have fixed the subject and I do my movements within certain parameters, searching for the solution to the problem.
What is fixed and what is mobile? The objective I want to achieve is fixed, to resolve the problem, and all the procedures I use in order to look at the problem from different angles are mobile. This is one of the forms: to fix the problem and to have mobile points of view. You know this form. Empirically you do that, sometimes with a method and sometimes without it. It is a form generally known where one advances more or less like this when trying to solve a problem.
But there is a different form of meditation that we call dynamic meditation because we do not established the problem or the solution. The problem is mobile and the associations are also mobile. But, one may say, how are we going to solve the problem if we don’t even know what is it related to?
These are the characteristics pertaining to dynamic meditations and are based on the following experience. I know what internal resistance I have, but when I begin to move the images around a certain direction I detect that my images are restrained or deformed, therefore the problems show up.
Consequently, I began by knowing what the problem was and the direction (solution?), but when putting the associative chains in motion the resistance appeared, and when the resistance appeared I discovered what my problems were allowing me to work on them in a more organized way. This is the form we use in the guided experiences. (5)
Therefore the form of a dynamic meditation is very different from the first form we were investigating.
There are also other forms like those mentioned in the Inner Look: “Carefully meditate in humbled search.” There, other implications are mentioned that are not so cold or so technical as those we have been studying, instead a particular internal disposition for the meditation is mentioned.
It is a disposition that works by eliminating certain believes; it is disposition that not only does not have prejudices about things but also about oneself. It is a disposition that shrinks the I. “Carefully and in humble search.”
This third form of meditation has other implications that are not only technical. It is as if in order to do a careful work, a laboratory work I have to previously take a bath and arrange the conditions for things to go well.
This third form of meditation requires prior conditions from the person doing the meditation. It considers the state in which the meditating person finds him/herself. The interest is not directed to the object or technique that is going to be used for the meditation.
In this instance, the object proposed is a literary work. The attention is not placed on my understanding of this object but on my disposition when I go toward the object. This is a little unusual because I have this literary work and I’m not being told to study it instead I’m being told that I should take certain placement in front of this work. “Carefully and in humble search”. One is trying to place oneself in a state prior to the meditation as when we relax before doing something interesting and we place ourselves in a previous condition. Here we are talking about a similar thing but related to the field of the meditation.
THE GUIDE
If one considers the internal guide as an object, then it is an object.
One may place the object in front of oneself, in which case the consciousness refers to the object. But I can presume that there is a tendency behind my consciousness that moves my consciousness in one or another direction.
Where do I place the internal guide, behind or in front (of the consciousness)? Therefore I say: “the internal guide is the tendency that gives impulse to my consciousness.” If this is so, with what do I perceive this internal guide that impels my consciousness?
What are the conditions of this consciousness in order for this guide – situated behind – to appear?
If I say that sometimes I don’t perceive the guide because it is situated in a profound level, how do I know it is in a profound level?
Therefore, I’m no sure the guide is in a profound level. It is possible that it is there, and that due to certain conditions of the consciousness this need or search –sometimes felt as a presence - appears.
But the nature of the guide is not so clear and according to what was said, it doesn’t matter what the nature of the guide is because I don’t want to convert it into an object.
Then, one shouldn’t worry if the guide is or not in a profound level, because the guide is there when I want to be in contact with. Then the question is not about the nature of the guide.
I can feel the internal guide without seeing it. How do I do when I want to remember a particular music or the hunger I felt yesterday?
I have to lower the mental tensions and the dragging of contents in order for the meditation to proceed. Otherwise, the direction of the meditation will deviate. The lowering of mental tensions and the dragging of daily contents.
Another interesting alternative is to do a mental silence. If I am able to do a mental silence without a doubt the mental tensions will decrease. There are different techniques and one of the most interesting one is as in the work with the guide… (interruption.)
Let’s see this subject of the mental silence. How do I do a mental silence? When I want to do a mental silence how do I do it?
It is possible to do a mental silence and to lower mental tensions during the meditation as well as in daily life by resorting to the sensation, the mechanics of the mind and also to a meaningful question.
In all these instances the attention is always referring to something different than the problems that are generating tensions. I always have to work with the attention. (6)
But we also see that when I want to do a mental silence I’m not able to achieve the silence. This is because I’m applying tensions in the effort of doing a mental silence.
How can I attend without tensions? In order to do a mental silence I need not to worry about the noise in my consciousness. I need to be concerned about other objects and never say: “I have to do a mental silence.”
We have said that achieving a mental silence is related to the direction of the attention.
When I try to listen to something that is coming from far away, and which I barely hear, in order to listen to this far away thing I do a metal silence. (7)
I’m not concerned about doing a mental silence, instead I’m attending to this far away thing, and this creates the conditions for the silence to take place. And when I ask something to my guide I don’t worry about doing a mental silence. I’m concerned about to clearly listen the response that comes from my guide, and in order to listen clearly I have to do a mental silence.
Therefore, these two important works, the work with the internal silence and the work with the guide are one and the same. And if anybody were to ask me, which is the most important work? We should say that this one, the work with the guide in silence.
(The experience of calling the guide takes place)
When invoking “Oh Guide! and I pay attention to the response, then automatically the silence is produced. The more attentive I was to the response the more silence was produced. When I got distracted or when I was not waiting for the response then the noises began. So, it is understood that when trying to listen then the silence is produced.
Another issue is when the response does not come, but you felt the answer. This means that the response did no come from the guide, the response came from you yourselves.
Thus, we see two things: it is possible to do a internal silence by being attentive to the response and it is possible to have a response even if it didn’t come from outside.
Let’s study more this case, this instance of launching a question and waiting for the response, as in the ceremony for Accepted members.
The fact that I have launched a question and I’m waiting for the response and already I’m doing a mental silence. This does not guarantee that a response will come, but I’m able to do the silence because I’m waiting for the response.
When the response comes, then I say that it comes from my guide. But it happens that there are different degrees of depth. Sometimes one may recognize that the response came from one’s own thoughts. Sometimes one notice that the response had a very deep flavor of truth, that it didn’t came from the memory, the consciousness or from the noise my consciousness produces, because I was able to obtain a good internal silence.
When this happens and it has this internal flavor of truth, then I say that it came truly from my guide.
This subject of doing a mental silence by properly directing the attention and this other subject of a response with a true flavor are the best works that can be done with the internal guide. Internal guide and silence are the same mental technique.
Let’s now suppose that I do ask for a response, let’s suppose that now I am alone, let’s suppose that now I am depress and I have many problems. I concentrate on myself and I say something to my internal guide. I’m not asking for a response, for instance I asking for company or force or I ask my guide for a warm emotion or an internal smile and whatever I do I do it with attention. “Oh Guide, give my force!” “Oh Guide give me an response!” Oh Guide, accompany me!” We ask the guide in all instances. The contact with the guide is always a request. And when I do the asking I pay attention to the response to that request, and when placing the attention on the request we are doing silence, and when we are doing silence the response comes to us.
•••
SILO'S COMMENTS ON THE GOLDEN RULE
•••
Lately, the statement "treat others as you would have them treat you" has promoted good communication with many people who are lost in their own contradictions, people who are also continuously increasing the amount of contradiction in those around them. Current people's behavior is becoming ever more erratic and they don't know how to relate to each other; at the same time, they don't know what to expect from you.
At times we have alluded to a "morality". Today, such a word sounds fake. This has often happened with words that are manipulated and utilized with the worst intentions. What is today's "morality" *but* an obsolete skeletal structure that nobody believes in? Our morality has nothing to do with the established farce. We are supported by a great principle of behavior called "the Golden Rule". Obviously, for those who are familiar with Humanist thinking, "the Golden Rule" presents no problems. It fits our vision of the human being perfectly. Nevertheless, some remarks may help *promote* a type of behavior which affirms and justifies the effort needed to eradicate pain and suffering in our society. When we talk about anti-discrimination, respect for diversity and choosing the conditions of life which we aspire *to* for ourselves and for others, this morality resounds!
In Humanist Vocabulary, we define the Golden Rule as "A moral principle which is very widespread in many peoples and which reveals the Humanist stance". Some examples: Rabbi Hiller, 'Whatever you don't want for yourself, don't do to others'. Plato, 'May I do onto others as I would have others do onto me'. Confucius, 'Do not do to another what you would not like to be done to you'. A Jain maxim, 'Man must strive to treat all creatures as he would like to be treated'. In Christianity, 'Everything you would like others to do to you, do to them as well'. Among Sikhs, 'Treat others as you would like to be treated'. The existence of the Golden Rule in several ancient peoples was proven by Herodotus.
In Humanism it is said: 'treat others as you would have them treat you'. In the Humanist Movement many understand, practice and/or try to practice this principle of behavior. These people have a sensitivity, an appreciation of others which is different from what has been imposed in this period of destructurization of human relations. In order to clearly understand this principle, we must begin with a singular comprehension: the comprehension of human life as a whole. In the Movement, we are skeptical of the sincerity of others who claim to share our beliefs since their vision of the human being is often the opposite of ours. If people don't normally treat their neighbors according to this principle, what can be said about those who talk about changing society and the world? What is the real basis of their *struggle* for improving the conditions of life for the human being?
Let's see the difficulties.
"Treat others as you would have them treat you". In this relationship of behavior, there are two parts: what you request from others and what you are willing to give others.
A. The treatment you request from others.
It is a common wish to be treated without violence and to ask for help in improving your own existence. This is true even among the most violent and exploitative people, who demand collaboration from others in upholding an unjust social order. The treatment requested is independent from what you're willing to give.
B. The treatment you are willing to give others.
We are used to treating others in a utilitarian way, as you would treat other objects, plants or animals. We're not talking about the extreme of cruelty because, after all, you don't destroy something you want to use. We tend to take care of others as long as their existence pleases us, or may be useful to us in the present or future. Nevertheless, there are "others" who somewhat disturb us: the so-called "loved ones", whose suffering and joy moves us very much. We recognize something of ourselves in them and we tend to treat them the same way we would like to be treated. There's a big difference between our loved ones and others in whom we don't recognize anything of ourselves.
C. The exceptions.
Regarding the "loved ones", we tend to treat them with help and cooperation. This also happens with strangers. Perhaps we recognize something of ourselves in them, or the situation in which the other person finds him/herself reminds us of our own situation. Perhaps we can imagine a future situation in which this person might turn out to be of help to us. These cases are all unique and are not the same as with our "loved ones". This does not occur with all strangers.
D. Words alone support nothing.
You would like to receive help, but why should you give it to others? Words like "solidarity" or "justice" are not enough; they are spoken with an underlying falseness, spoken without conviction. They are "tactical" words that are often used to get collaboration from others without giving it to them. This can be taken even further, for example with other tactical words, such as "love", "kindness", etc. Why should we love someone who is not one of our loved ones? The statement "I love someone I don't love" is contradictory. It's redundant to say "I love someone I love". On the other hand, the feelings that would appear to back up these words are constantly changing, and I come to realize that I love more, or I love less, the same loved one. Lastly, the layers of this love are many and complex.
This is evident in phrases such as: "I love X, but I can't stand *him/her* when *he/she* doesn't do what I want".
E. Applying the Golden Rule from other positions.
If you say "Love your neighbor as yourself, for the love of God", at least two problems arise: 1. - We must assume that you can love God and admit that this "love" is human; therefore, the word is inadequate. Or, that we love God, but with a love that is not human; in which case the word is still inadequate. 2. - You don't love your neighbor, except indirectly, by way of your love for God. Double problem: using a word that doesn't truly represent this relationship with God, we must translate it into human feelings.
From other positions, we say things such as "We struggle for class solidarity",
"we struggle for human solidarity", "we struggle against injustice to free the human being". We *still have* nothing to back us up. Why should I struggle for solidarity *or* in order to liberate others? If solidarity is a necessity, it's not something I can choose. Therefore, choosing is irrelevant since it doesn't depend on me. If, on the other hand, it is a choice, why should I opt for it?
Others say things even more extraordinary, such as, "loving my neighbor, I fulfill myself", or "loving my neighbor, I sublimate the death instincts in me". What can be said about this, when the word "fulfillment" is not clear until the aim is clarified? When the words "instinct" and "sublimation" are metaphors from mechanistic psychology which, in any case, nowadays is insufficient?
And then there are always those fools who preach: "You cannot operate outside established Justice, which exists so that we are all mutually protected". In this case, you cannot demand any moral standing higher than this "Justice".
Then there are some who talk about a Natural zoological Morality. There are even others who, defining the human being as a "rational animal", expect this morality to derive from said animal's reasoning.
In all the cases mentioned above, the Golden Rule doesn't fit very well. We cannot agree with them even when they tell us that we are saying the same thing, but with different words. It is clear that we're not saying the same thing.
What must have those people felt who, among the various populations in different times in history, made the golden rule their highest moral principle? This simple formula, from which an entire morality can be derived, springs from modest and sincere human depth. By way of this formula, it is through others that we are unveiled to ourselves. The Golden Rule doesn't impose any type of behavior, it offers an ideal and a model to be followed at the same time that it allows us to progress in understanding our own life. Nor should the Golden Rule become a new tool for the hypocritical lesser morality, useful for measuring the behavior of others. When a "morality" tablet serves to control instead of helping, to oppress in place of liberating, it must be broken. Beyond any morality tablet, beyond the values of "good" and "bad", the human being along with his destiny rises above, ever unfinished and ever growing.
Mendoza, Dec. 17, 1995
Lately, the statement "treat others as you would have them treat you" has promoted good communication with many people who are lost in their own contradictions, people who are also continuously increasing the amount of contradiction in those around them. Current people's behavior is becoming ever more erratic and they don't know how to relate to each other; at the same time, they don't know what to expect from you.
At times we have alluded to a "morality". Today, such a word sounds fake. This has often happened with words that are manipulated and utilized with the worst intentions. What is today's "morality" *but* an obsolete skeletal structure that nobody believes in? Our morality has nothing to do with the established farce. We are supported by a great principle of behavior called "the Golden Rule". Obviously, for those who are familiar with Humanist thinking, "the Golden Rule" presents no problems. It fits our vision of the human being perfectly. Nevertheless, some remarks may help *promote* a type of behavior which affirms and justifies the effort needed to eradicate pain and suffering in our society. When we talk about anti-discrimination, respect for diversity and choosing the conditions of life which we aspire *to* for ourselves and for others, this morality resounds!
In Humanist Vocabulary, we define the Golden Rule as "A moral principle which is very widespread in many peoples and which reveals the Humanist stance". Some examples: Rabbi Hiller, 'Whatever you don't want for yourself, don't do to others'. Plato, 'May I do onto others as I would have others do onto me'. Confucius, 'Do not do to another what you would not like to be done to you'. A Jain maxim, 'Man must strive to treat all creatures as he would like to be treated'. In Christianity, 'Everything you would like others to do to you, do to them as well'. Among Sikhs, 'Treat others as you would like to be treated'. The existence of the Golden Rule in several ancient peoples was proven by Herodotus.
In Humanism it is said: 'treat others as you would have them treat you'. In the Humanist Movement many understand, practice and/or try to practice this principle of behavior. These people have a sensitivity, an appreciation of others which is different from what has been imposed in this period of destructurization of human relations. In order to clearly understand this principle, we must begin with a singular comprehension: the comprehension of human life as a whole. In the Movement, we are skeptical of the sincerity of others who claim to share our beliefs since their vision of the human being is often the opposite of ours. If people don't normally treat their neighbors according to this principle, what can be said about those who talk about changing society and the world? What is the real basis of their *struggle* for improving the conditions of life for the human being?
Let's see the difficulties.
"Treat others as you would have them treat you". In this relationship of behavior, there are two parts: what you request from others and what you are willing to give others.
A. The treatment you request from others.
It is a common wish to be treated without violence and to ask for help in improving your own existence. This is true even among the most violent and exploitative people, who demand collaboration from others in upholding an unjust social order. The treatment requested is independent from what you're willing to give.
B. The treatment you are willing to give others.
We are used to treating others in a utilitarian way, as you would treat other objects, plants or animals. We're not talking about the extreme of cruelty because, after all, you don't destroy something you want to use. We tend to take care of others as long as their existence pleases us, or may be useful to us in the present or future. Nevertheless, there are "others" who somewhat disturb us: the so-called "loved ones", whose suffering and joy moves us very much. We recognize something of ourselves in them and we tend to treat them the same way we would like to be treated. There's a big difference between our loved ones and others in whom we don't recognize anything of ourselves.
C. The exceptions.
Regarding the "loved ones", we tend to treat them with help and cooperation. This also happens with strangers. Perhaps we recognize something of ourselves in them, or the situation in which the other person finds him/herself reminds us of our own situation. Perhaps we can imagine a future situation in which this person might turn out to be of help to us. These cases are all unique and are not the same as with our "loved ones". This does not occur with all strangers.
D. Words alone support nothing.
You would like to receive help, but why should you give it to others? Words like "solidarity" or "justice" are not enough; they are spoken with an underlying falseness, spoken without conviction. They are "tactical" words that are often used to get collaboration from others without giving it to them. This can be taken even further, for example with other tactical words, such as "love", "kindness", etc. Why should we love someone who is not one of our loved ones? The statement "I love someone I don't love" is contradictory. It's redundant to say "I love someone I love". On the other hand, the feelings that would appear to back up these words are constantly changing, and I come to realize that I love more, or I love less, the same loved one. Lastly, the layers of this love are many and complex.
This is evident in phrases such as: "I love X, but I can't stand *him/her* when *he/she* doesn't do what I want".
E. Applying the Golden Rule from other positions.
If you say "Love your neighbor as yourself, for the love of God", at least two problems arise: 1. - We must assume that you can love God and admit that this "love" is human; therefore, the word is inadequate. Or, that we love God, but with a love that is not human; in which case the word is still inadequate. 2. - You don't love your neighbor, except indirectly, by way of your love for God. Double problem: using a word that doesn't truly represent this relationship with God, we must translate it into human feelings.
From other positions, we say things such as "We struggle for class solidarity",
"we struggle for human solidarity", "we struggle against injustice to free the human being". We *still have* nothing to back us up. Why should I struggle for solidarity *or* in order to liberate others? If solidarity is a necessity, it's not something I can choose. Therefore, choosing is irrelevant since it doesn't depend on me. If, on the other hand, it is a choice, why should I opt for it?
Others say things even more extraordinary, such as, "loving my neighbor, I fulfill myself", or "loving my neighbor, I sublimate the death instincts in me". What can be said about this, when the word "fulfillment" is not clear until the aim is clarified? When the words "instinct" and "sublimation" are metaphors from mechanistic psychology which, in any case, nowadays is insufficient?
And then there are always those fools who preach: "You cannot operate outside established Justice, which exists so that we are all mutually protected". In this case, you cannot demand any moral standing higher than this "Justice".
Then there are some who talk about a Natural zoological Morality. There are even others who, defining the human being as a "rational animal", expect this morality to derive from said animal's reasoning.
In all the cases mentioned above, the Golden Rule doesn't fit very well. We cannot agree with them even when they tell us that we are saying the same thing, but with different words. It is clear that we're not saying the same thing.
What must have those people felt who, among the various populations in different times in history, made the golden rule their highest moral principle? This simple formula, from which an entire morality can be derived, springs from modest and sincere human depth. By way of this formula, it is through others that we are unveiled to ourselves. The Golden Rule doesn't impose any type of behavior, it offers an ideal and a model to be followed at the same time that it allows us to progress in understanding our own life. Nor should the Golden Rule become a new tool for the hypocritical lesser morality, useful for measuring the behavior of others. When a "morality" tablet serves to control instead of helping, to oppress in place of liberating, it must be broken. Beyond any morality tablet, beyond the values of "good" and "bad", the human being along with his destiny rises above, ever unfinished and ever growing.
Mendoza, Dec. 17, 1995
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
