NELSON MANDELA---YOU’VE GOT TO BE TAUGHT TO HATE AND FEAR

'Our great fear is not that we are powerless,
but that we are powerful beyond measure.'

Nelson Mandela (1918-2013).

 

That great liberator and beacon of light, Nelson Mandela [pictured above, and below centre], whose death is being mourned and life is being celebrated around the world today, is enough evidence for me---not that I needed any more---that people are … basically good.

There’s an inspiring and greatly moving song in the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical South Pacific entitled ‘You've Got to Be Carefully Taught’ (sometimes referred to as ‘You've Got to Be Taught’ or ‘Carefully Taught’). Here are the lyrics of that song:

You've got to be taught to hate and fear,

You've got to be taught from year to year,

It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear,

You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid

Of people whose eyes are oddly made,

And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,

You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,

Before you are six or seven or eight,

To hate all the people your relatives hate,

You've got to be carefully taught!

Nelson Mandela said something similar:

No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.

Yes, you have to learn to hate, and in order to learn to hate, you’ve got to be taught to hate. I reject, in its entirety, the Christian doctrine of original sin, namely, that people are born … totally depraved. Yes, the words ‘total depravity’ belong to Calvinism---even though they are derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin---and not all Christian churches have a Calvinist theology, but even the Roman Catholic Church---which is hardly Calvinist---accepts the doctrine of original sin. (Interestingly, the idea of 'original sin' is not a teaching of Judaism. Jews cannot find the idea in the Hebrew Bible ... because it isn't there.) It’s a monstrous and most silly idea, and it's done a lot of harm over the centuries, and it is an idea that has to be learned, and in order for it to be learned, it has to be taught. You know, almost all, if not all, Christian doctrines depend upon the notion of original sin. The spiel goes like this ... if there were no original sin, then there was no need for Jesus to come into the world in order to die to save us from our sins, etc, etc. No wonder I reject the lot of it---except the ideas of education, changing attitudes and perceptions, and the development of character based on following the teachings of Jesus (and other great way-showers). That’s why I am an inclusive Unitarian minister of religion. I embrace people of all religions and none, provided there is genuine love in their hearts. 

 

Now, I can hear readers say, 'Ellis-Jones, are you blind to all the evil and suffering in the world? Were not Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and so many others, evil beyond belief?’ Yes, dear readers, they were indeed evil beyond belief, and there are many like them in the world today, but they learned to be evil, and to do evil, because they were taught to be evil. My approach? I remember some words from the Bible, 'Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good' (Rom 12:21). That was also the approach and philosophy of Nelson Mandela. Non-resistance. And non-violent protest. (Yes, he did support armed struggle---against, relevantly, the grossly immoral and sinful apartheid regime (which regime was an appalling and veritable 'crime against humanity')---at times throughout, and perhaps even before, his imprisonment, and perhaps also on occasions thereafter, but only in rare situations where violence was inevitable and overwhelming in its intensity and brutality, in circumstances where governments or other instrumentalities continued to meet peaceful demands with brutal force, and even then only when 'all other forms of resistance were no longer open.')

Nelson Mandela suffered terribly beyond belief, yet he did not turn to hate. Instead, he loved … and forgave those who treated him so wrongly. Yes, he forgave---totally. Former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke today described Mandela's philosophy and acts of forgiveness as 'rational forgiveness.' I like that. It's very much consistent with the philosophy of rational humaneness to which I try to adhere. Back to the subject of forgiveness, here's another gem from Mandela: 'Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies.' Mandela was truly unique. What a noble, decent, dignified, upright, compassionate, courageous, and inspirational human being! His likes we may never see in our world again. He's irreplaceable.

One Christian minister I loved and admired greatly was the late Dr Norman Vincent Peale [pictured right]. Some say he preached a 'theology of man,' and to a considerable extent he did, although it was always in the context (sometimes more implicit than actually or fully expressed) of a spiritual worldview presided over by God and Jesus whose help was always available to those who humbly sought it and who surrendered to the Divine Will. Even the power to believe was predicated upon the surrender of one's life to God, wrote Peale. Anyway, to the extent that Peale preached a 'theology of man,' it is, in my considered view, the only theology worth preaching. Now, for that, and other, reasons, Dr Peale was, and remains for more than a few, a controversial figure in Christianity---especially for those narrow-minded, blinkered and dogma-bound conservative Christians who have been taught in their homes, schools and churches to hate and fear.

Why mention Norman Vincent Peale in this particular post? Well, it's like this. Dr Peale was once asked if people were inherently good or bad. He replied, ‘They are inherently good---the bad reactions aren’t basic. Every human being is a child of God and has more good in him than evil, but circumstances and associates can step up the bad and reduce the good. I’ve got great faith in the essential fairness and decency---you may say goodness---of the human being.’ So do I … and so did the societal and moral transformationist Nelson Mandela. Rest in peace, Madiba.

Yes, you've got to be taught to hate and fear. You've got to be carefully taught.

Postscript. Shock, horror! Today, in Roseville, New South Wales, Australia, not far from where I live, the minister of St Luke's Presbyterian Church, the Rev Cornelius P. J. Nel, an Afrikaner Australian (I assume the latter, the former is beyond doubt), stated in an address to his congregation that, despite all the good that Nelson Mandela did---Mr Nel did mention that---we gloss over the fact that he (Mandela) was a 'convicted terrorist.' OMG! Did I hear you right? You must be kidding. That's like saying Lindy Chamberlain was a 'convicted murderer,' without telling the rest of the story (namely, that, among other things, the poor woman was wrongly convicted). Yes, Rev Nel, Mr Nelson Mandela was indeed convicted of terrorism---assuming, for the moment, that it was a lawful charge and offence, which it certainly wasn't---for his strong opposition to a monstrous crime against humanity (immoral and sinful apartheid) which far too many Afrikaner South Africans (and the Dutch Reformed Church) shamefully, indeed wickedly, supported for far too long a time. (As an aside, it's amazing how many Afrikaners have left their beloved country and come to countries such as Australia---after their country became a democracy. Funny, that ... and quite unique.) Now, back to Mr Mandela, I see his purported 'conviction' as a badge of honour, Mr Nel. Yes, a veritable badge of honour. His conviction was as grossly wrong and false as the horrible, evil apartheid regime as well as the illegitimate, oppressive, brutal and violent white minority government he so rightly, morally and lawfully (yes, lawfully---under international and human rights law) opposed. Thank God Mr Mandela did what he did---and if he was a terrorist then so was George Washington and a hell of a lot of other people we remember and revere. Come, now! As I say, did I hear right? I'm afraid I did. Jeez, you've got to be taught to hate and fear. You've got to be very carefully taught, but it seems to come easier to some than others. Ian Ellis-Jones, Lawyer and Minister of Religion. Sydney, Australia, 8 December, 2013.

 

‘HMMM, ISN’T THAT A CULT?’

What is a ‘cult’? The purpose of this post is to shed some light on the meaning of this much abused and misused word ‘cult.’

Recently, I became aware that a neighbour of mine---who has little or no time for religion of any sort (which is fine with me)---was heard to say that the religious body of which I am a minister, namely, Unitarianism, was a ‘cult.’ I was quite bemused by the comment. You see, if the person in question had some definite religious convictions of their own, the comment might be understandable up to a point, but that was not the case here. The word ‘cult’ was simply being used in a pejorative sense---which is ordinarily the case---and as a weapon of some silly sort.

Well, is Unitarianism a cult? Definitely not! If anything, it's a kind of 'anti-cult.' Here’s why.

A cult almost always claims some new or special or unique revelation.  Unitarianism---also known in some places as Unitarian Universalism---does not. Also, a cult invariably invests its founders, and often its leaders as well, and their teachings and writings, with the impress of finality, if not infallibility. Unitarianism does none of those things---indeed, the whole idea of infallibility is anathema to Unitarians, not to mention bloody silly! In addition, a cult is a system of religious beliefs that replaces one’s own beliefs with its own, and gives legitimacy---sometimes blatantly, and sometimes quite subtly---only to its own teachings, such that, if a person cannot or does not conform, they are excluded whether by formal excommunication or other means. Unitarianism is and does none of the above.

Unitarianism is both a denominational and a transdenominational vehicle for all spiritual seekers, regardless of their religious affiliation or background. Unitarianism freely shares its teachings with all persons, and it has always had a broad and liberal spiritual focus.

Now, what I am about to say is very important. Unitarianism is not so much a religion per se as an approach to religion and a praxis, that is, a particular and quite distinctive way in which certain spiritual principles (such as the inherent worth and dignity of every person, a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, and the interdependent web of all existence) are engaged, applied and put into practice.

Unitarianism is not a single religion among other world religions---some scholars and commentators call it a meta-religion---but rather a way of looking at religion and spirituality, and at the many varieties of religious and spiritual experiences of the whole of humanity (including our experiences and enjoyment of music, the arts and sciences, as well as the natural world). Unitarianism is also a way of looking at life---with curiosity, openness, non-discrimination and choiceless awareness. Unitarians, being liberal-minded, like to 'think things through' in a critical, informed, disciplined, and fearless way.

Lewis B Fisher, the late 19th-century Universalist theologian, once wrote, 'Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true answer to give to this question is that we do not stand at all, we move.' I like that.

Although not a philosophy per se, Unitarianism performs a similar function to philosophy at its best in that it provides a fundamental and overall coherent apparatus for understanding and criticism, illuminating all fields of human inquiry including politics, economics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, theology, ethics, and the arts. Unitarianism provides a ‘key’---but just one key---to understanding those and other disciplines. In short, Unitarianism is a movement, a position, and an adventure in ‘continuing spiritual education’.

Unitarianism, in its more ‘modern’ form, came out of the Protestant Reformation when many people claimed the right to privately read and interpret the Bible for themselves and to set their own conscience as a test of the teachings of religion. The theological roots of Unitarianism can be found in early Judaism as well as in 16th-century Europe (in particular, Hungary, Poland and Romania) when some prominent Biblical scholars affirmed the notion that the Divine was one and indivisible, and challenged the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was uniquely and exclusively God. (Please note the important combination of those words---‘uniquely’ and ‘exclusively.’ Christian Unitarians had no problem affirming the divinity of Jesus, but his supposed deity was a different matter altogether.)

The philosophical roots of Unitarianism go back much further, and can be found in such people as the Stoics, the Epicureans, and the Skeptics, all of whom affirmed natural morality, freedom from superstition, and salvation by character.

Unitarian churches, fellowships and societies impose no particular creed, article or profession of faith upon our members and adherents. Unitarians are therefore free to explore and develop their own distinctive spirituality and are encouraged to do so in a responsible way. There is nothing to believe in Unitarianism. Indeed, most Unitarians would regard beliefs and belief-systems as impenetrable barriers to knowing truth or reality.

During the last couple of hundred years Unitarianism has expanded beyond its Christian roots with many modern day Unitarians embracing Humanism, agnosticism, atheism, various forms of theism, nontheistic forms and systems of spirituality such as Buddhism, progressive Christianity and earth-based spirituality. In short, ‘post-Christian’ Unitarianism affirms the underlying truth of open and tolerant religion---sensibly interpreted.

Unitarians boldly affirm that the sacred or holy is ordinarily made manifest in the enchantment of everyday life, and embraces all persons and things as part of an interdependent cosmic web. Unitarians seek to live together in peace and promote the highest good for all, relying upon the authority of reason, conscience and experience in order to arrive at solutions to problems in a spirit of rational humaneness.

True it is that most if not all of the mainstream Christian churches regard Unitarianism as a cult. As proof of this Unitarian churches, fellowships and societies have consistently been denied membership to the World Council of Churches and their affiliated bodies around the world. Of course, as is often said, one person's orthodoxy is another person's heresy---and vice versa. Also, please keep in mind the above mentioned definition of a cult, namely, a system of religious beliefs that replaces one’s own beliefs with its own, and a religious movement that gives legitimacy only to its own teachings, such that, if a person cannot or does not conform, they are excluded whether by formal excommunication or other means.

Now, by this definition all of the mainstream Christian churches are cults, with the Roman Catholic Church being the largest and most successful of them all. Each member has to conform and fit the denominational bed ... or else! Ditto with Sydney Anglicanism, which has become a cult within a much larger cult (the latter being the worldwide Anglican Communion). In any event, in the eyes of the law, all religions bodies are ‘sects,’ each with its own particular cultus or form of worship.

Unitarians are non-conformists in all senses of that word. They are proud to be different, and they don’t mind being called heretics. You see, the word ‘heretic’ comes from a Greek word meaning ‘one who chooses’. Unitarians choose to be different. They choose to affirm as true what, in good conscience, they are each capable of knowing and understanding.

RELATED POSTS

IS MINDFULNESS A RELIGION?

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

SO, YOU THINK YOU HAVEN'T BEEN BRAINWASHED?

THE PROBLEM WITH ORGANIZED RELIGION

'Religion is a monumental chapter in the history of human egotism.'
- Professor William James.

The following comes from the great spiritual philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti (pictured left):

‘You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organize it."’

There are many problems with organized religion---indeed, with anything that is ‘organized.’ As Krishnamurti often pointed out, Truth cannot be organized. Krishnamurti famously said:

‘I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do.’

So, the main problem with religion---all religions---is just that. They all try to organize Truth in one way or another. Some even go so far as to assert that their particular 'version' of Truth---they never actually say 'version', but that's what it is---is the one and only 'true' one. That is why most religions insist upon uniformity, conformity, fidelity---and obedience. Fortunately, more and more people are coming to realize that no one can have  a monopoly on Truth---for Truth just is.

The adherents of organized religion think that they are free, but they are not. They are in bondage. They are in prison. And most of them are oblivious to the fact of their bondage and imprisonment.

First, the adherents of organized religion are in bondage to beliefs. The Pāli word ditthi is wide enough to embrace beliefs, views, thoughts, ideas, theories, opinions, and doctrines. All of these things are thought coverings or veils (āvarnas). That is how Shakyamuni Buddha referred to them. These thought coverings or veils do not reveal reality, indeed they block and distort reality. How? Well, they prevent us from knowing and experiencing things as they really are in all their directness and immediacy. Everything gets 'filtered' down to us through our beliefs and opinions---and through the distorting prism of dogma. As I've said so many times, beliefs and dogmas are a menace to society---and a total, impenetrable barrier to true knowledge and wisdom. Beliefs and dogmas are always someone else's 'version' of reality---the result of someone else's conditioned mind, mental habits and fragmentary thinking, that is, the past. There is nothing of any value to believe, and there is nothing to be gained by believing anything or anyone. Just observe. Then you will know---and understand.  that regard, Buddha got it right. He said, 'Do not believe, for if you believe, you will never know. If you really want to know, don't believe.' (To me, the Buddhist approach to Truth or reality is so much better than Christianity's 'believe and be baptized' [Mk 16:16].)

Secondly, the adherents of organized religion are in bondage to superstition. The amount of superstition in religion varies greatly from one religion to another. Despite what I have just written about Buddhism, I have found, at least in some Buddhist sects or denominations, a lot more superstition than in most traditional forms of Christianity. That is quite disconcerting.

Why is superstition a problem? The answer is obvious. Superstition is a distorted, falsified view of reality. Superstition asserts the existence of a mechanical luck-ridden world which is said to be responsive to our own individual or collective thoughts, ideas and prayers. This is not the case in reality. For the most part, the world is indifferent---and sometimes downright hostile---to our very being. Superstition is nothing more than ‘magical thinking.’ According to anthropologist Dr Phillips Stevens, Jr (pictured right), magical thinking involves several elements, including a belief in the interconnectedness of all things through 'forces' and 'powers' that supposedly transcend both physical and spiritual connections. Magical thinking invests special powers and forces in many things that are seen as symbols. According to Stevens, ‘the vast majority of the world's peoples ... believe that there are real connections between the symbol and its referent, and that some real and potentially measurable power flows between them.’

Thirdly, the adherents of organized religion are in bondage to ‘holy books’ and ‘sacred scripture.’ Now, don’t get me wrong. I have enormous respect for the sacred texts of the world’s religions, provided those texts and their teachings are read, interpreted and applied rationally and humanely, and the underlying ‘myths’ are properly and sensibly understood. For example, much of the books comprising the Bible are written in figurative, metaphorical, allegorical, symbolical and spiritual language, and must be interpreted and applied in that manner in the light of reason and contemporary knowledge.  However, I make no claims of infallibility or inerrancy for any of those sacred texts, nor will I slavishly follow them where reason or common sense---or simply the results of my life experience---suggest they are wrong. A statement is not true merely because it is in the Bible---or in the Qur'an, or whatever. How silly to think or believe otherwise!

Fourthly, the adherents of organized religion are in bondage to ‘teachers,’ ‘saviours,’ and ‘gurus’ of various kinds. Some are guided by their Pope, their parish priest, or their pastor expounding the Word of God. Others are guided by the ‘Holy Spirit.’ Still others are guided by teachers and leaders of other kinds. To the extent that these persons accept, at face value, the views or teachings of others in authority---whether temporal or spiritual---they do not think for themselves, but simply accept another person’s version or understanding of reality. The latter can never be reality itself but only a false substitute for it---a counterfeit reality, if you like.

Fifthly, the adherents of organized religion are in bondage to rites and ceremonies of various kinds. Truth cannot be concretized in any way. If you try to do that, Truth ‘dies’ on you. Yes, rituals of various kinds can be hugely transformative---I have seen the power of that in my own life and in the lives of many others. The important thing is not to lose sight of the bigger picture. Rites and ceremonies are simply a means to an end. Ritualists and ceremonialists tend to lose the plot. (When I was in holy orders in the Liberal Catholic Church---a highly ritualistic church which is very much open to the ideas of mysticism and extra-sensory experience---we had some old members say, ‘Every word of our Liturgy has been clairvoyantly inspired, so we must not change a word or syllable of it.’ That’s one of the reasons why I am no longer a part of that church, although there is much that is wonderful in and about it.)

As a Unitarian as well as a practising Buddhist, I cherish religious naturalism and the use of reason and free thought. For me, the sacred or holy is ordinarily to be found in the ‘ordinary’ as opposed to the ‘extraordinary,’ in the ‘natural’ as opposed to the supposedly ‘supernatural.’ Truth is all around us, and is us. We can never be out of contact with Truth or reality. We are always in direct and immediate contact with Truth as it unfolds as our life’s experience from one moment to the next. Do not seek Truth afar. It is right here---now!

Note. Here is a wonderful address from Buddhadasa Bikkhu (pictured left) entitled The Prison of Life. I have derived great benefit from reading and studying it. I hope you do, too.

Acknowledgment is made, and gratitude is expressed,
to the Krishnamurti Foundation of America, Ojai, California, USA.

RELATED POSTS

YOUR MIND IS ITS OWN PRISON

KNOW THYSELF! UNCHAIN THYSELF! RIGHT NOW! RIGHT NOW!

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

BIGOTED BUDDHISTS

MINDFULNESS IS A PATHLESS LAND

KRISHNAMURTI AND THE TRUE ESSENCE OF MINDFULNESS

A SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

YOU'RE AN ATHEIST? THAT'S GOOD!

MINDFULNESS, THE "SELF" AND SERENITY

Many, especially those in Twelve-Step Programs, will be familiar with what is known as The Serenity Prayer. The prayer was written by the famous 20th century Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.

The short form of the prayer (see above) is usually employed but there is also an extended version as well, the wording of which can be found on the link above to The Serenity Prayer. Here is the form of the prayer that is most widely known and used:

Some people have trouble with the word "God". I always say to such people, "As Krishnamurti used to say, 'The word is not the thing'." The word "God" means "God as you understand [God]", and I have come to understand the word as referring not so much to a supposed "Higher Power"---for I dislike that expression as it tends to suggest that there are supposedly "higher" and "lower" levels or orders of reality (which I believe is not the case, on both philosophical and scientific grounds) - but a "power-not-oneself".

I am very grateful, as are many others, to the late Rev. Dr Dilworth Lupton (1883-1972) [pictured above] (for more on him, see here as well as here), sometime minister of the First Unitarian Church (Universalist-Unitarian) in Cleveland, Ohio, and later of Waltham, Massachusetts, who used, and perhaps coined, the phrase "a power-not-ourselves". (I am, of course, aware of Matthew Arnold's oft-quoted "definition" of God as "the enduring power, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness".) See Lupton's sermon "Mr X and Alcoholics Anonymous" delivered on 26 November 1939 when AA was in its very early years. (For those interested, see also my address "Unitarianism and Alcoholics Anonymous".) 

In any event, Step 2 (“Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity”) of The Twelve Steps refers to a "Power greater [NOTE: not necessarily "higher"] than ourselves". Also, there are only 2 places (on pp 43 and 100, respectively) in the 4th edition of the "Big Book" of AA---entitled Alcoholics Anonymous---where the actual expression "Higher Power" is used, but there are numerous other places in the book where other expressions are used to refer to the need to find a "power" or simply "Power" (to overcome the problem of "lack of power") and to the "God" of one's own understanding.

I have no difficulty in believing in a "power-not-myself" or a "power greater than myself". Why? Because there is no such thing as "self". Now, I know that is a hard concept for many to grasp, but I firmly believe it to be true. Dr John Hughlings Jackson (pictured immediately below), who was the founder of the (then known) British School of Neurology, wrote that there is something intrinsically wrong with our notion of the "self". Jackson demonstrated - yes, demonstrated - that consciousness is neither a fixed quantity or quality nor of fixed duration, but simply "something" quite intermittent in nature that undergoes change moment by moment.



The idea that there is no actual "self" at the centre of our conscious (or even unconscious) awareness comes as a great shock to many (except to Buddhists, who rightly assert not a doctrine of "no-self" but the fact of "not-self", and to various metaphysicians), but it is the view held by most, but not all, neuropsychiatrists, neuroscientists and other like professionals.

The truth is our consciousness goes through continuous fluctuations from moment to moment. As such, there is nothing to constitute, let alone sustain, a separate, transcendent "I" structure or entity. True, we have a sense of continuity of "self", but it is really an illusion. It has no "substance" in psychological reality. It is simply a mental construct composed of a continuous ever-changing process or confluence of impermanent components ("I-moments") which are cleverly synthesized by the mind in a way which appears to give them a singularity and a separate and independent existence and life of their own.

The Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote that we tend to believe that the "self" is real and one because of what we perceive to be the "felt smoothness of the transition which imagination effects between point and point", but all that we are dealing with, he said (as have many others over the years such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell), is a bundle of experiences which have the illusion of continuity about them. The truth is that the "self" is not an independent "thing" separate from the various aggregates of which we are composed as persons. Indeed, every attempt to postulate or assert the existence of a "self" is self-defeating (hmmm) as it inevitably involves an element of self-identification. (According to Buddhism, there are 5 such aggregates: form or matter, feeling or sensation, cognition or perception, volition or impulses, and consciousness or discernment.)

So what gives us this sense of mental continuity? How does it arise? Russell and others have written that our mental continuity is simply the result of habit and memory. Each one of us is a person in our own right - I am not denying that. However, the person which each one of us is recognizes that there was, yesterday, and even before then, a person whose thoughts, feelings and sensations we can remember today ... and THAT person each one of us regards as ourself of yesterday, and so on. Nevertheless, this "myself" of yesterday consists of nothing more than certain mental occurrences which are later - say,  today - recognized, interpreted and regarded, and, more importantly, remembered, as part of the person - which each one of us is - who recollects those mental occurrences.

Now, let's get back to this supposed "I" (and "me"). Actually, within each one of us there are literally thousands of "I's" and "me's" ... the "I" who wants to go to work today and the "I" who doesn't, the "I" who likes "me" and the "I" who doesn't like "me", the "I" who wants to give up smoking and the "I" who doesn't, and so forth. In his book Esoteric Mind Power Vernon Howard writes about what he calls the "self-divided man" who "consists of dozens of ‘selves’ which fight each other in taking him over for a few minutes at a time." Howard writes:

"Living in a state of psychic riot, he is thrilled one minute and dejected the next. One part of him is a danger to another part. So what can be trusted? Nothing. The self-knowing man has cleared his mental streets of these rioters, leaving him with a whole and healthy mind, which can be trusted completely."

Think about it for a moment ... how can the "self" change the "self", if self is non-existent? It can't. End of story. I love what William Temple (pictured immediately below) had to say about the matter. He said, "For the trouble is that we are self-centred, and no effort of the self can remove the self from the centre of its own endeavour." Therefore, let us free ourselves from all forms and notions of self-identification, self-absorption, self-obsession and self-centredness.

Are you familiar with the Zen koan about the goose in the bottle? The goose grew and grew until it couldn't get out of the bottle. The man didn't want to break the bottle or hurt the goose, but he did want to get the goose out of the bottle. So what did he do? Ponder on that one for a day or two ... but please do not email me for the supposed "answer"! Here's a simpler piece of Zen. A disciple asks,"Master, what is my 'self'?" The master replies, "What would you want with a self?" Indeed.

Now, if we want change - especially positive change - in our lives, we have to rely upon a "power-not-oneself" ... that is, the power of "not-self". Your such power may well be different from mine. That doesn't matter at all ... as long as we realize that the so-called "I", as Krishnamurti used to point out, is simply a habit and a series of words, memories and knowledge ... which is the past. Note that - the past. The "I" and "me" of us - and even the belief (actually, misbelief) "I am I" - are simply brought about by thought ... and thought is always a thing of the past as well.

The Serenity Prayer recognizes the importance of Mindfulness. Let me explain.

The prayer begins with the words, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change". What are those things? Without attempting to give an exhaustive list, here are some of the biggies ... there is no "self" which can change "me" ... I have no power to change myself (my "self") nor other people ... I cannot change the past, and that includes my past actions and my past intentions, as well as the accumulated results (karma, if you like) of those things ... although there is something that can be done about the latter. Thank goodness Mindfulness is all about the present.

The prayer continues with these words ... "courage to change the things I can". What are those things? Again, without attempting to give an exhaustive list, here is perhaps the most important thing of all ... my present and, as a consequence, my future. How? (I know we should never ask "how", but, be that as it may ... .) By being mindful in the present moment ... moment by moment ... and by mindfully making choices in the present ... I can, and will, gain insight and understanding into the person which I am, as well as other persons to the extent that it is possible to truly understand (that is, "get into the mind" of) others. (By the way, insight means seeing the way things really are. Understanding is "learning", which Krishnamurti described as being "movement from moment to moment".)

The short form of the prayer concludes with these words ... "and [the] wisdom to know the difference"? How do we gain that wisdom? (There's that word "how" again!) Well, by means of the regular practice of Mindfulness we gain, as already mentioned, insight and understanding into the person which each one of us is. That insight and understanding brings us wisdom ... NOT book knowledge, but true spiritual (that is, non-material) wisdom.

We are then able to know the difference between, to use some expressions commonly used in Buddhism, what is "wholesome" and "skilful", and what is "unwholesome" and "unskilful", for each of us.

Amen.

RELATED POSTS

The Person Who Used to Be You
Forget About Having a 'Transcendental' Experience!
A Spiritual Guide to Mindful Living
Famous Christians on the 'Self'
Know Thyself! Unchain Thyself! Right Now! Right Now!
Your Mind is its Own Prison
The Mindful Art of Knowing Oneself