We put ourselves together in different ways, accordingly to our particular needs, perhaps even style. Those who formally believe in God find themselves as members of a group who believes in some way similarly. Those who do not believe in such a way find themselves more singular and independently-minded, as it were. The non-believers have more of an independent self-identity, even if they are only defined by their refusal to join the believers. However these days, both believers and non-believers feel they are in the minority and shunned by the other.
Psychologically, the believers may possess a strong self-identity as a part of the group of believers. But the non-believers may even possess a stronger self-identity as individuals who do not possess the safety of the group-belief. I myself have believed but found that I inherently did not trust the group and could not entrust my own beliefs to those of the group or of its spokesperson or leader. I was forced to follow my own path; sometimes I believed on my own, sometimes I did not. Finally I chose a path of belief that did not believe and in which each person was responsible for discovering and following his or her own way. There were no priests to tell people what to think.
But I now find that belief is not the issue; one, follows one's path that one chooses to follow or not. The issue--and the problem--is the group, the congregation, the sangha, the belonging. One's own thinking is molded by the group. Of course, if we are a part of society, and society within a culture, our thinking has already been quite molded. And those of us who are within families have already been familiarized by and with the rules and roles we believe ourselves to be. So my little diatribe about "the group" is essentially insignificant--except that there are some people who eventually come to question rules and roles and much of which they believe and "know." Such people may be believers or not, but probably mostly not, unless of course they recreate that which they believe out of themselves, that is, their own minds and hearts, in an understanding that much of their own minds and hearts have already been quite established socially and culturally, and that they are barely scratching the surface for the most part, though they may find themselves plummeting down the rabbit-hole or stepping through the looking-glass. Now does that happen because of them or because it just does? Uh-Oh, we wonder back to belief vs. non-belief. I don't think it's one or the other; I think it is both. I think we both believe and do not believe, that existence is both heaven and hell, if you will. I do not believe in "the straight and narrow way" or really even the "middle way." I do not believe human beings are "middling" creatures but that we want to experience all and know all and be all, especially when we are young and not quite fully "adulterated" as yet. Such is the story of my life anyway. Perhaps there are many who are suppressed and molded by belief when they are young, which molds them tightly and repressively. But, from certain religious perspectives, life is only a preparation for death and the spiritual life, the real existence. I have believed such in my life and have even pretended that this physical existence is not even real but illusory, which I even still espouse at times. But it should only be espoused by old people like myself, whose youth came and lasted but eventually left. We psychologically prepare ourselves for death by taking on beliefs the encompass such notions as "the great afterlife." I do believe in reincarnation, as it's called. It is perfectly logical to me in the same sense that life regenerates in new forms after it dies. Plus I was partly raised by a ghost, and remember many past lives more vividly than my high school graduation, which I don't remember whatsoever.
Now for a closing aphorism:
Human beings are the only animals that pee in their pants.
Psychologically, the believers may possess a strong self-identity as a part of the group of believers. But the non-believers may even possess a stronger self-identity as individuals who do not possess the safety of the group-belief. I myself have believed but found that I inherently did not trust the group and could not entrust my own beliefs to those of the group or of its spokesperson or leader. I was forced to follow my own path; sometimes I believed on my own, sometimes I did not. Finally I chose a path of belief that did not believe and in which each person was responsible for discovering and following his or her own way. There were no priests to tell people what to think.
But I now find that belief is not the issue; one, follows one's path that one chooses to follow or not. The issue--and the problem--is the group, the congregation, the sangha, the belonging. One's own thinking is molded by the group. Of course, if we are a part of society, and society within a culture, our thinking has already been quite molded. And those of us who are within families have already been familiarized by and with the rules and roles we believe ourselves to be. So my little diatribe about "the group" is essentially insignificant--except that there are some people who eventually come to question rules and roles and much of which they believe and "know." Such people may be believers or not, but probably mostly not, unless of course they recreate that which they believe out of themselves, that is, their own minds and hearts, in an understanding that much of their own minds and hearts have already been quite established socially and culturally, and that they are barely scratching the surface for the most part, though they may find themselves plummeting down the rabbit-hole or stepping through the looking-glass. Now does that happen because of them or because it just does? Uh-Oh, we wonder back to belief vs. non-belief. I don't think it's one or the other; I think it is both. I think we both believe and do not believe, that existence is both heaven and hell, if you will. I do not believe in "the straight and narrow way" or really even the "middle way." I do not believe human beings are "middling" creatures but that we want to experience all and know all and be all, especially when we are young and not quite fully "adulterated" as yet. Such is the story of my life anyway. Perhaps there are many who are suppressed and molded by belief when they are young, which molds them tightly and repressively. But, from certain religious perspectives, life is only a preparation for death and the spiritual life, the real existence. I have believed such in my life and have even pretended that this physical existence is not even real but illusory, which I even still espouse at times. But it should only be espoused by old people like myself, whose youth came and lasted but eventually left. We psychologically prepare ourselves for death by taking on beliefs the encompass such notions as "the great afterlife." I do believe in reincarnation, as it's called. It is perfectly logical to me in the same sense that life regenerates in new forms after it dies. Plus I was partly raised by a ghost, and remember many past lives more vividly than my high school graduation, which I don't remember whatsoever.
Now for a closing aphorism:
Human beings are the only animals that pee in their pants.
No comments:
Post a Comment