About the dynamics of human life.

It is not a great secret that many people in western civilizations, at least in Christian circles, are not entirely content with the ideas that are presented about the purposes and dynamics of human life in general. The essential questions concern for example the origin and end of conscious human life. The Christian tradition considers that every personal human being stems from God Himself and returns back to Him after death, but a belief in Jesus and his atonement is a vital precondition for salvation. *** Among Eastern religions it is often found the idea of reincarnation, or metempsychosis. They say that sooner or later after death a personal conscience incarnates into a new body and environment. The quality of the change is based on a system of reward: the better present life the better life to come. Are there evidence enough for this kind of thinking, or could we interpret the idea in a totally different way? Very few persons have got clear memories from their previous lives, memories that can be at least to some extent verified. If the reincarnation is a law of nature, why are the memories so rare among people? Some scholars say that a person is an empty table at his birth, but why are people so different in nature, talents and many other abilities right from their beginning? Is it God that made each one of us special? But why did He in His mercy and love share the qualities so unevenly among His creatures? Or did He cast Himself somewhere into the basic being of the human soul, and not into the personal being with a material body? Everybody can see how far from perfection a common personal being stands at his present. It is also easy to notice the differences in talents and environmental qualities between people as well as in the lengths of their lives. Even the longest life is quite short for perfection. How could any right and perfect judge divide people on such grounds into two opposite categories: one entitled to heaven, the other to hell? Maybe this question has appeared so difficult that some clever people have thought that there must be a kind of a special retribution between God and people. An old Jewish tradition gave a solution in the idea of trespass offering. In the first centuries the Christian authorities linked this to the passion of Jesus and developed the peculiar idea of full retribution for all true Christian believers, past, present and coming. The idea of retribution aroused disputes among Christian believers even in the early centuries as it still does among the individuals who want to understand and interpret religious matters in a reasonable and rational way. All of us cannot bend our mind to say as Tertullus, one of the fathers of the church, that I believe because it is absurd. Many others will think to themselves that they in fact do not believe at all. They just let these difficult questions be as they are. The idea of divine mercy – even without any retribution – might satisfy some people, but there would still be many questions to solve concerning huge differences between people. *** Would it be possible to explore the issue in a far longer period, and not only focusing at the role of a short lasting personality? Then we should not understand a human being just as a single person, which is always found, sooner or later, to disappear. It is often said that behind the personal being there is the soul of a human being, which is too often messed up with the spirit or the common thoughts and feelings of a person, which in fact should be called the mind. In the bible there are notes of a soul denoting to a factor, which a person might benefit or harm with his actions (both outer and inner). The soul might be understood as an inborn, individual basis for a personality. Most of the talents and qualities might have their origin in this mysterious inner factor. Origen, one of the fathers of the church, pointed out that a human soul has a pre-existence, a far more permanent nature than a personal human being. Later on the church declared this statement void, but was it really wrong, or was the ban based just on political decisions of some convents? In the bible there are a few verses that could be interpreted in the way above. Jesus himself asked: "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" They said, "Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." (Matt. 16:13-14; Mark. 9:30). In the Psalms there is a saying: “You turn man to destruction, saying, ‘Return, you children of men.’" (Ps. 90:3), which might be interpreted in the way that a personal conscience returns after death into his inner being, the soul – or in this particular case: the individual aggregation in the soul returns to its spiritual home – uniting with the heavenly father. Are these verses talking about reincarnation? Not necessarily. We might divide a human being – as in the Genesis – into three beings: a person, soul and spirit. Spirit must be totally permanent and eternal in nature, and inseparable from its origin. The soul, instead, can be seen as a “layer”, which takes influence as well from the personal as from the spiritual level of the whole combination. The combination of these three levels is an enormous dynamic field of interaction, which has its lowest pole here in time and space and the highest pole in eternity. The soul is a citizen of two worlds, having a divine innermost essence, other layers working as merging, cleaning and storing factors for temporal experience. After physical death a personality is gradually (step by step) transferred to the subjective state or space entitled to him where he leaves all the features and qualities, gathered during his lifetime, that contain some value of spiritual nature. The personal conscience itself enters at last to some kind of heavenly sphere where he depletes all the issues that he is able to experience as good and blissful. The harvest of the temporal life is left into the soul, which in turn forms the basis to a new and different personality that is to come to the world to fetch more qualities into the ever growing and deepening individual soul. All the struggles and efforts of a person may bring some growth into the soul of which he is a vital and dynamic part and factor. These impulses also increase the range of abilities for the coming personalities, for the whole human development in time and space. The new personality is not a direct continuation of the former one, but a new formation based on the resources of the individual soul in question according to divine laws of spiritual nature. The coming personality may well have some abilities and talents of the former one, but arranged in a different way to assure that the soul will by this combination have a chance to gather new impulses and experience to contribute its purposes. The coming personality enters into a new body which contains all the genetic combinations of the parents originating from the beginning of human existence. The ultimate combination is by no means a pure chance but a result of divine wisdom with little room for mistakes. After the birth a new person comes in physical contact with his parents and environment, which will wake up in the child the kind of features that are acceptable, and will try to reduce harmful qualities in that particular culture. We could say that there is no reincarnation of the soul, either: the soul just gives a certain kind of combination of qualities to the coming new personality, staying as a steady and dynamic field of interaction, which gives no part to death. If we think this way, there is no transmigration of soul, for the sphere stands rather permanent in relation to the lives of the personalities that use it as a clearing point. This sphere might contain a huge amount more qualities than all the personalities that have given it their harvest or taken in themselves some mixture of qualities from its ripened resources. The soul might be called the inner human being, maybe even the real human being, but even that should not be defined as the ultimate goal of human life, not to talk about existence. A human being probably proves to be threefold in nature, but normally neither the personal nor the soul is fully self-conscious on all those levels. The ultimate goal of all human life might be the union of all these three parts. The soul could be called the son of man, for its content is mainly a result of human experience. The lifting up of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John might well denote to the union of soul and spirit. There are a few things that might serve as vital means for the union. It is necessary that there will become some harmony among all these factors. The measure and qualities of ripened impulses and experiences in a soul must probably be adequate and in harmony for greater purposes. The personal part should at last loosen his ties into the world as a whole, so that he can drop all the temporal contents at no time, and make it possible for the spiritual part to enter the innermost part of the soul. At the end all is depending on the spiritual spheres of existence. A personal being cannot force any real mystical things or events to happen, but he can well create better chance for it by trying to learn his lessons of life and find out which is important and which has no lasting value. By looking at the world we can see that it is quite easy to become clever, but becoming wise is a much harder and rare quality among people. Cleverness develops by mental training and learning from outer sources. It does not inquire the active presence of soul, not to talk about the spirit. It is obvious that the doors of the soul are closed if the qualities of a personal conscience were far too coarse. In Christian circle some priests say that after death a good person gets a body which is made according to the model of Jesus’ resurrection body. This is of course a matter of belief, but for many of us it sounds unfair and unnatural. A final resurrection would require a total divine self-conscience and means to act at all levels of nature, whether concrete or abstract. Very few representatives of mankind have so far gained access to that kind of ultimate states of consciousness. Resurrection, in its real meaning, is far beyond enlightenment, which denotes only to a change in consciousness, not yet in the whole sphere and means of interaction. To become enlightened is, of course, an essential step on the way to become a master or an adept. In many religious circles there are talks about awakening and conversion that might well have something to do with enlightenment. Unfortunately such events do not often have long-term and thorough effects on people’s consciousness, so that they could afterwards be called really wise and spiritual. Some people get the strength to stop their drinking or other bad habits, but the kind of changes are psychological, not divine.

JÄLLEENSYNTYMÄTTÖMYYDESTÄ

Itämaisten uskontojen yhteydessä on tapana puhua jälleensyntymisestä, tai sielunvaeltamisesta. Käsitetään, että persoonallinen tajunta vaihtaa joskus ruumiillisen kuoleman jälkeen uuteen kehoon ja ympäristöön – jonkinlaisen palkkiojärjestelmän nojalla. Mutta onko tällaiseen ajattelutapaan perusteita, vai voitaisiinko asiaa tulkita aivan toisin? Tiedämme, että jotkut harvat persoonat ovat vakuuttaneet muistavansa entisen elämänsä, ja asialle on löytynyt todistusaineistoakin. Mutta jos tuo olisi laki, niin miksi vain harvoilla on näitä muistikuvia? Meille sanotaan, että ihminen on syntyessään tyhjä taulu, mutta miksi me olemme jo alusta alkaen kyvyiltämme ja muiltakin ominaisuuksiltamme niin kovin erilaisia? Jumalako meidät jokaisen erikseen luo erilaiseksi? Mutta miksi Hän, kaikessa rakkaudessaan, jakaisi synnyinlahjoja niin kovin epätasaisesti? Vai loiko Hän meidät todella itsensä kuviksi – niin että tuo kuva onkin jossakin sielumme syvyyksissä, tai jopa henkemme alkuperäisyydessä, eikä tässä selvästi puutteellisessa persoonallisessa olemuksessamme? Ja miten meitä voidaan arvostella tasapuolisesti ja oikeudenmukaisesti, kun meidän synnyinominaisuuksissamme on suuria eroja, ympäristötekijöistä puhumattakaan, ja lisäksi meidän elinaikamme ovat kovin eripituisia? Pisimmilläänkin ihmiselämä on tavattoman lyhyt. Miten muutaman vuosikymmenen elämän nojalla inhimilliset olennot ylipäänsä voidaan oikeudenmukaisesti lajitella kahteen leiriin: katoaviin ja pelastuviin? Onko tämä ollut niin visainen kysymys, että sen ratkaisemiseksi on ollut pakko kehitellä ajatus jonkin erikoistekijän suorittamasta sovituksesta ihmisen ja Jumalan välillä. Esikuvia on kristilliseen sovitusoppiin voitu saada mm. vanhoista juutalaisesta näkemyksistä, joita on sitten laajennettu koskemaan myös tulevia kristillisiä sukupolvia. Mutta ajatus sijaissovituksesta on herättänyt kysymyksiä jo alkuvuosisatoina ja herättää tänä päivänäkin etenkin sellaisten henkilöiden keskuudessa, jotka haluavat ymmärtää uskonnollisia perusasioita myös järkensä kautta. Kaikki eivät kykene sanomaan kirkkoisä Tertullianuksen tapaan: ”Uskon, koska se on järjetöntä”. Monet myös toteavat tykönään, etteivät he todellisuudessa usko , he vain antavat vaikeiden kysymysten jäädä vaille vastauksia. Ajatus Jumalan armosta – jopa ilman sovitustekoa – voisi tyydyttää joitakin ihmisiä, mutta siinäkin jää ihmisten räikeän erilaisuuden takia paljon kysymysmerkkejä. Olisiko mahdollista tarkastella asiaa paljon pidemmissä puitteissa – eikä ainoastaan persoonallisen olemuksemme lyhytaikaisten toimien kannalta? Silloin meidän pitäisi tarkastella ihmistä muunakin kuin vain persoonallisena olentona, jonka on aina havaittu ennemmin tai myöhemmin katoavan. Tämän persoonallisen puolen takana sanotaan olevan ihmisen sielullinen olemus, joka tosin usein sekoitetaan persoonallisuuden tavanomaiseen ajatteluun ja tunteisiin, mieleen. Sielullisesta tekijästä kerrotaan raamatussakin, että ihminen voi vaikuttaa siihen omilla toimillaan. Me puhumme joskus sielukkaista ihmisistä. Ehkä meidän pitäisi olla käsitteen kanssa hieman varovaisia, koska miltei kaikilla ihmisillä on sielu. Sielukkuudesta puhuttaessa viitataan useimmiten jonkinlaiseen syvällisyyden tuntuun ihmisen persoonallisuudessa, mikä saattaa aivan hyvin johtua siitä, että tämän yksilön sielullinen varanto poikkeaa jollakin lailla edukseen tavanomaisesta. Entäpä jos ihmisen persoonallisella olemuksella on synnynnäinen, yksilöllinen perusta, josta kumpuavat hänen tulevat ominaisuutensa ja kykynsä? Kirkkoisä Origenes aikoinaan puhui sielun ennalta olemisesta. Käsitys julistettiin kuitenkin muutaman sadan vuoden jälkeen vääräksi. Mutta oliko se todella väärä, kirkolliskokousten päätökset olivat vain tekijöidensä enemmistön mielipiteitä? Raamatussakin puhutaan, tosin vain vähän, tämänkaltaisesta mahdollisuudesta. Jeesus itse kyselee, kenen kansa sanoo hänen olevan. Siihen esitetään vastaukseksi mm. Eliaa. Hänen Jeesus sanoi jo tulleen (Matt. 16:13-16; Mark. 9:30). Myös psalmi 90:3, ”Sinä palautat ihmiset takaisin tomuun ja sanot: ’Palatkaa jälleen, te ihmisten lapset,’” voidaan tulkita siten, että persoonallisuudet palaavat kuoltuaan sielullisen olemuksensa helmaan, tai pikemminkin: että sielullinen ominaisuuksien koostuma palaa henkiseen kotiinsa – Isänsä yhteyteen. Puhuttiinko edellisissä ns. jälleensyntymisestä? Ei välttämättä. Me voimme ajatella ihmistä – Mooseksen kirjan tapaan – kolminaisuutena: persoona, sielu ja henki. Näistä hengen täytyy olla luonnostaan jotakin täysin pysyvää ja alkuperästään erottamatonta. Sielu voidaan käsittää olemuksena, joka saa vaikutteita niin hengestä kuin persoonallisesta olemuksestakin, pääosin, ja alkuvaiheissaan juuri persoonallisesta, jonka kokemusten kukinto kerääntyy sieluun, ”taivaalliseen aarrekammioon”. Ihminen voitaisiin nähdä valtavana vuorovaikutuskenttänä, jonka henkinen polariteetti toimii ajattomuudessa ja persoonallinen napa täällä ajassa ja tilassa. Sielullinen olemuspuoli olisi tavallaan ”kahden maan kansalainen”: sen ydin ja perusta on jumalainen, muun olemuksen ollessa sulattamo ja varasto persoonalliselle elämänkokemukselle. Persoonallinen tajunta kohoaa ruumiin kuoleman jälkeen erilaisten muunnosten kautta sielulliseen tilaansa, jonne se luovuttaa kaiken sen arvokkaan, mitä siihen on elämän aikana kerääntynyt. Sitten persoonallinen tajunta astuu mahdollisesti omaan rikkumattomaan taivastilaansa, missä se kuluttaa autuaana loppuun kaiken, minkä se hyväksi ja kauniiksi kykenee käsittämään. Elämän sisäinen sato jää sieluun, joka toimiin perustana ja varastona jollekin uudelle persoonallisuudelle, joka syntyy maan päälle noutaakseen ja kehittääkseen lisää ominaisuuksia yhä kasvavaan ja syventyvään yksilölliseen sielulliseen olemukseen. Tämä uusi persoonallisuus ei siten olisi mikään edellisen jälleensyntymä, vaan sielullisen olemuksen valtavasta koosteesta jumalallisten lainalaisuuksien nojalla rakentuva luomus. Tosin siinä saattaa löytyä joitakin edellisen piirteitä ja kykyjä, mutta siten järjestettyinä, että sielu varmasti saa tämän persoonan kautta aivan uudenlaista kokemusta sulatettavakseen. Tämä ominaisuuksien yhdistelmä saa ”verhoikseen” vanhempiensa ja heidän kaikkien esipolvien fyysisten ja psyykkisten tekijöiden geneettiset yhdistelmät. Näidenkin ominaisuuksien kooste ei liene sattumaa, vaan noudattaa erehtymättä elämän sisäisiä jumalaisia lakeja. Syntyvä persoonallisuus joutuu sitten ulkonaisesti kosketuksiin vanhempiensa ja ympäristönsä kanssa, jotka nostavat siitä kulttuurin hyväksi mieltämiä piirteitä, ja pyrkivät tyrehdyttämään haitalliseksi luonnehdittuja. Voitaneen sanoa, ettei edes sielu jälleensynny, se vain antaa tietynlaisen ominaisuuksien yhdistelmän uuden persoonallisuuden rakennusaineksiksi pysyen itse sisäisenä vuorovaikutuskenttänä, jota kuolema ei lainkaan kosketa (muuta kuin äärimmäisen poikkeuksellisissa tapauksissa). Sieluun kertynyt ominaisuuspotentiaali saattaa olla monin verroin suurempi kuin niiden persoonallisuuksien, jotka ovat rakentuneet sen pohjalta. Voidaan päätellä, että todellinen, sisäinen ihminen on juuri tämä sielu, mutta se ei sinänsä ole ihmisyyden lopullinen tavoite. Vaikka ihminen olisikin kolminainen, eivät hänen persoonallinen ja sielullinen olemuksensa tavallisesti ole niissä kaikissa itsetietoisia. Näiden kaikkien olemusten yhdistyminen itsetietoiseksi ja ajattomaksi kokonaisuudeksi saattaa olla kaiken ihmisyyden lopullinen tarkoitus. Sielullista kertymää voitaisiin kutsua myös ihmisen pojaksi, koska se on inhimillisen elämän tuotosta. Ihmisen pojan ylentäminen saattaisi näin ollen tarkoittaa sielullisen ja henkisen olemuspuolen yhdentymistä, jota myös taivaalliset häät voisivat symboloida. Yhdistymisen mahdollisuuden edellytyksiä on tietenkin vaikeata ja jopa vaarallista eritellä, mutta joitakin tekijöitä voitaneen ottaa esiin: Yhdistymisen mahdollistamiseksi lienee olennaista, että nämä kolme tekijää lähenevät aikojen ja kokemusten saatossa toisiaan. On varsin todennäköistä, että sielullisen ominaisuusvarannon tulee olla riittävä, että sitä myöhemmissä, ihmiskehityksen ylittävissä kausissa voitaisiin käyttää Paavalin mainitseman ”eläväksi tekevän hengen” luovuuden välineenä. Koska henki on luonteeltaan neutraali, pitänee myös sielun polaaristen ominaisuuksien olla melko hyvin tasapainossa yhdentymisen mahdollistamiseksi. Persoonallisuus saattaa muodostaa sen kentän, jonka on viime vaiheessa kyettävä purkamaan kaikki sellaiset varaukset, joilla se on kiinnittyneenä ulkonaiseen, maalliseen elämään, että se voisi kääntyä täydellisesti sielullisen olemuksensa suuntaan. Jossakin vaiheessa kaiken toteutuminen riippunee kuitenkin henkisestä olemuspuolesta, armosta. Sielua ei sellaisenaan voida pitää varsinaisesti feminiinisenä tai maskuliinisena. Mutta sen kokemusvaranto ei välttämättä ole kaikkina aikoina täysin tasapainossa. Lienee todennäköistä, että sen ominaisuuksista juontuvat persoonallisuudet ilmenevät eri sukupuolisina hyvinkin pitkissä sarjoissa, mutta jossakin vaiheessa täytyy tapahtua muutos, että kokemusvaranto kehittyisi monipuoliseksi ja tasapainoiseksi. Muutoksen tapahtuessa saattaa persoonallisuuteen heijastua hyvin voimakkaasti sielullisen tietoisuuden pitkän kokemuksen aiheuttama sukupuolinen suuntaus. Silloin persoonallisuus kokee, että hänen kehonsa on aivan väärää sukupuolta. Tältä kannalta katsoen poikkeava sukupuolinen suuntautuminen tulee täysin ymmärrettäväksi: se on luonnollinen tila aina, kun sielullisten kokemusten viimeisimmät muistijäljet antavat erilaista informaatiota kuin mitä persoonan fyysinen keho edellyttäisi.

ABOUT UTOPIAS

We could state right away that it is not wrong to create and develop new ideas and fantasies but that a perfect utopia is a difficult task to accomplish. People and their expectations are far too different for that. If there were a total consensus in a community, it would be difficult to find well developed individuals to take care of all necessary, common affairs. Maybe we must admit that utopias do not belong to this worldly life, and that is why all attempts seem to fail. Life in general serves primarily as a school for human consciousness, so that the standards of a school must be strong enough to ensure a continuous development. All problems with their solutions are just power for the growth of a human mind. An attempt to make the circumstances of life as easy as possible will fail in time. People still need more ruthless and coarse im-pulses to support their natural process of learning. It is beneficial, and even essential to aim at a balanced state in a society. In that purpose, it would be nec-essary to take into account a few basic things concerning a human being: A human being is a combination of mind, soul and spirit – a psychophysical part being a revelation of the soul, which in turn dwells within and has its origin in one’s spiritual essence or source. This view could be proposed even to schoolchildren in order to create an understanding that life is not just for passing by but that it bears in itself a spiritual meaning for the lives all creatures. There are always young and enthusiastic people as well as old and protective ones in a society. That is why it is essential that there is a common understanding or consensus about the most significant aims of life in general. The over anxious people often have too little experience on which to base their views and actions. The older people in turn have too much negative experience so that they often end up resisting all sudden changes. There are no other means but common values among these groups that can keep them together in fruitful cooperation. There must also be a clear view of the role of the community in realizing the common aims. It should be evident that every healthy adult takes responsibility at least of himself, but a certain standard of security or welfare state may serve quite well in taking care of actions and functions that people themselves cannot do or do not want to do. This should not lead to the belief that life is just for fun and amusements. A so called welfare state must be based on the profitable work of people, not on printing more money or taking more and more loans for living and consumption. For politicians, it is often extremely difficult to see and acknowledge the economic limits as they are trying to fulfil the endless wishes of their voters and supporters. In order to maintain and encourage all kinds of work the sharing of wealth through taxation should be kept in a reasonable level. Democratic systems an acting trough political party is often considered the best way of government. It has come to common usage from ancient Creek – the country that today shows a very sad example to the world. Plato was not devoted to a democratic system for even in bright things there always arouses resis-tance. Maybe we should someday start to think whether the political parties are necessary for proper managing of common things. Parties are a sure way of arousing arguments and quarrels, sometimes even civil wars. It should not be impossible to create a system without preconditioned blocks – so that it acts directly on the basis of sound reason and common interest. Many people would say that a system without parties cannot work in a large scale, but is this true. Certainly we cannot arrange referendum in all possible affairs, so we must elect our best representatives to do the job. Could this be done on a pure basis of individual qualities – that is the question worth thinking? A totalitarian regime in all forms has but extremely few outstanding examples. Attempt to press people into a strict modes or patterns end up to a highly unnatural society with insincere, suspicious and often corrupted ways of behaviour. Progress needs a fair portion of freedom and liberty even if its blossom does not always look out beautiful. It is comforting to remember that the human expressions here in this world are seldom perfect but that they in time can cultivate the mind in bringing forth excellent results. It is always better encourage beneficial behaviour than to try to stop defiant one by ever growing legisla-tion. The more laws the more criminals, quarrels and lawyers. To avoid overprotective systems, a growing awareness of responsibility should be an essential issue in upbringing children.

A few notices about confessions

What is the aim of a confession in general? To strengthen cohesion and fellowship among people, and to give people something concrete to identify themselves. A confession is, in fact, an oath, a promise to think in a certain way especially about religious issues. There are confessions in many other affairs, too. Almost all bureaucrats and officers have their own laws and rules which to follow. It is easy to accept that policemen and all other officers have strict regulations to be able to act somewhat similarly for all citizens. Here, too, rules are sometimes lifted in a too dominant position, so that the voice of reason is forgotten. Rules and regulations should be the aid for right actions, not a substitute for responsibility and sound thinking. Political parties have confessions of their own which contain in written form the main aims of their activities. Sometimes these declarations lose their touch to the ever changing reality, but it is often difficult to make fundamental alterations to the statements with a long history. If we look at the history of religions, it is quite easy to find out that confessions have often caused severe struggles – even wars. We could also notice that the differences between confessions concern the ideas that are difficult to be testified with concrete facts. Religious arguments are often based on old scriptures and tradition, but how can we be sure that this text contain the original ideas in their right forms? The confessions attained on any convent are usually compromises, thoughts of the majority, which does not guarantee their degree of truth. Why do people often think that men in the past were much wiser in religious thinking than we are today? Is it because they were closer to the original impulse? Consider that they had all gone wrong! It is no wonder that some mystic intervention of the Holy Ghost has been used to sanctify situations where fundamental decisions have been made. In Christian Church, most quarrels have been raised up from diverging interpretation of Holy Scriptures and old confessions. It should be understood that there has never been verbal expressions of which different people could get just the same mental image. Individual mental images are based on personal experience, and every living creature has a history of his own. There are similarities in thoughts, but total alikeness is a rare quality. In most democracies, a freedom of speech, writing and a meeting is self-evidence, in spite of that, in affairs of religion; people tend to restrict their thinking into the frames of some old confession. In Christian countries, this was understandable a few centuries ago when diverging ideas often led into serious consequences. Today we should have no reason to accommodate ourselves to any idea without thorough consideration. Some people would probably tell us that it is dangerous for a soul to take liberties like this. All ideas in religious matters are perfected long ago by holy men, for us there is nothing new to be thought. It is hard to run over any of the religious boundaries, which are proposed as common and eternal truths. Most people keep silent if they have ideas of their own in these delicate affairs. They do not voluntarily want to face the pressure of masses. It is enough that they can get along with their own conscience, which often brings up the accusations that are born in the environment since one’s childhood. Many people would say that it is easier to drive together on well-signed roads and highways than to walk alone in unknown forest and deserts. Maybe that suits most individuals but are those well-signed ways leading people into an advanced mental or even spiritual goal? Are they but practical means for leaders in keeping their own flog under control and together as payers? Very few people dare to have confidence in their own thinking. It is more common to let religious matters be untouched and focus totally on ordinary and safe things. There are people who are not satisfied in common fixed ideas but who want to break all questionable barriers to see, what is behind them. They will soon find out that one can search one’s ways without confessions and other crutches. A confession may be taken as hypothesis on which it is appealing to find an experiential ground. In doing so one often gets a label of pride and arrogance, but that is not a high price for freedom of thinking – or is it? A social pressure might work as a maturity test for those who want to remove the curtains of mysteries. Most people are quite satisfied with mysteries in their literal forms, and there is nothing wrong in that. A few individuals cannot confess anything unless they experience it by and in themselves. They think that all mysticism must reveal its extreme nature as a person manages to rise above all his mental limitations. This means the same as the old expression of “losing oneself”. A limited way of perception finds all things and phenomenon as ever changing, separate objects. The mystic aims at the state where the extreme essence of any object can be experienced, in fact, even the extreme essence without any object, life itself, becomes known. Maybe we could say that it is the highest time to leave behind the belief, “there is no salvation outside the church or parish”. The statement comes from Cyprian of Antioch, who derived it from a poorly grounded and justified belief that only bishops had right to forgive sins – and there were no bishops outside the church. It is not difficult to see in what purpose this devious idea has been awoken – it gives the clergy the means and power to keep their folks regimented. In conclusion, it is possible to live in or outside any church while maintaining one’s inner liberty and freedom of thought. Even for many theologians, uniting into traditional confessions causes some trouble. They must search allegorical interpretations in order to let themselves take part in literal confessions. It is the highest time to lower the value of words coming from the misleading rendering of a Creech word ‘logos’ into Latin ‘verbum’. We should understand that it is much more crucial what one is in his heart than what words one is thinking to believe in.

Is my conscience really mine?

It is often said that conscience is a voice of god, or at least a universal voice which is loudly or quietly whispering the right kind of advice and warnings that no outsider can experience. But what is the origin of that voice, or most often thoughts that come up without invitation to interfere one’s behavior? Is it an inborn quality in all people, or just a result of upbringing and education within a certain environment? Also are these inner messages always right?

By looking at the behavior of people in a districted environment we could make a conclusion that there are really some common patterns in people’s ways of thinking: what they for example consider as good or bad. So, we could take that as a token of universal, even divine quality in human beings. But it is easy to see that the ways of thinking differ much among nations. Furthermore, the ways tend to change in time even in a community, so we have a reason to drop divinity with its unchangeable qualities aside. 

Now, if the conscience is but a result of culture: why is its role often emphasized in religious life? Is the role of religion merely to stand by the common behavioral patterns of a community? Unfortunately the situation sometimes looks like that, because strict religious rules have proved to be excellent tools for rulers – whether spiritual or secular. In combining religious and secular administration it is necessary to effect on people’s ways of thinking. 

The most useful tool is to claim that a certain pattern comes directly from god. If somebody has courage to propose counter-arguments they are ruled over with Holy Scriptures. Very few people dare to stand against that sort of evidence by claiming that all written texts have certainly come forth through human brains and hands, clean or dirty – who can judge and tell us for sure?

This is by no means to be understood as a request to throw away all scriptures and religious and social rules based or not based on them, but to think carefully about all the ideas that are given us as ultimate truths, and even rethink all one’s own thoughts about things that are vital in understanding the meaning and function of life in general. 

We might find out that many ideas aim just at social stability, they are a result of practical experience in human communities. Such regulations can make social life more stable and safe; they give some predictability which is important both for politicians as well as for common people.

It is also seen that there are individuals who in their thinking and ideas differ very much from ordinary ways although they have probably in their youth been given the same values as the majority. These people are often considered as apostates or troublemakers who are not willing to accept necessary boundaries. Others may say that they have got a weak and unsettled conscience that they ignore or silence if it causes trouble or inconvenience. Of course this is the case among many criminals – their mind is unable or unwilling to adapt to social standards. But in time they will certainly learn by doing, by bearing all the consequences of their doings.

But not all renegades stand below the common moral and ethical rules. There are also some people whose conscience and even consciousness lies far beyond the average. They seem to know for sure which part of common rules are but human inventions with very little value to the development and evolution of mankind and its single individuals.

Somehow a conscience is like all other human skills – it develops in practice. Some of you might say that this is not the case – it becomes worse if a person conceives a multitude of means to ignore it. Exceptions confirm the rule, in most cases the conscience of an adult tells much more than that of a child. 

But how is it that some little children seem to be very sensitive in moral affairs before they really have come in touch to their social environment? Have they inherited their qualities from their parents? We know that sometimes talented parents have talented children, but that cannot be taken as a law even in common skills, not to talk about innermost qualities.

It is very hard to determine what qualities a human being brings along in birth. Some scholars say that a child is a tabula rasa, an empty table, on which life writes its whole story. But this kind of theory does not stand even in the light of common human experience. People are different even at the beginning of their journey. 

Some people might claim that god himself makes us all different. We know very well that every single snowflake is different – why not every one of us humans? But is this the final truth, or is there a secret resource of ripened experience hidden in some unseen layers of human consciousness? The answer here depends upon what kind of period we understand the human life to consist of – of just a short run of few decades or of a much further period: starting from a living soul and ending up as a life-giving spirit, as St. Paul once wrote!

In conclusion we could say that a conscience seems to be a mixture of inborn, learnt and individually developed qualities which very seldom can be defined and testified as ultimate truths. Anyway they serve as useful means of guidance and help to maintain a peace of mind in relation to the community or to oneself.

In most cases the conscience blames and accuses us for breaking the common rules of our community, especially those that are defined as divine. In these cases, it often cries out very loud for somehow it certainly is the voice of masses.

Very seldom it reminds us of all forms of mental uncleanliness and selfish ideas that we are not even going to realize. This sort of highly sophisticated conscience is evidently presented in the so called Sermon on the Mount. It depicts a mind where any sort of unclean ideas are impossible to arise. It is not a question of self-discipline anymore, but a firm state due to a very long process – “a restricted way that leads to life” – if we once again choose to use a biblical expression.

Some of us might think how a person can be led from life to life? The biblical message evidently talks about the kind change in one’s consciousness that leads to an everlasting unbreakable knowledge of one’s ultimate spiritual being which has a clear and sound continuance even after one’s physical death. This kind of consciousness must of course stand above all those things that are dependent on dissolving layers of a human being such as physical body and lower mental activities: common automatic feelings and everyday thinking.

You might say that it is not possible for a human being to exceed one’s feelings and thinking without totally losing one’s mental health. But think again! Maybe a human being is just a bridge which must sooner or later be crossed over – into a far more brilliant way of consciousness and conscience that never again fails for it has found the roots and essence of all. Until then, let us gently watch our conscience so that it brings or shouts us not just the obvious fixed ideas based on our culture but also gives an intuition or a whisper of some deeper knowledge that is to be searched and found from the innermost layers of our soul.

Whoever seeks to save his life loses it, but whoever loses his life preserves it.

Nearly always there are some kind of filters between perception and observation. These factors tend to modify and even distort the original mental image. The set of filters gathered in a person could well be called his self-image. These are compounded of a mixture of feelings, thoughts and recollections, which instantly and automatically place themselves between perception and observation.

For the most part these self-images are developed in childhood by observing and imitating the behavior of one’s environment, especially that of one’s own parents. The images are affected by all the remarks that one has to face, “for strong is the power of thanks and reproach”, as Nietzsche wrote in his Zarathustra.

Soon there are fears and hopes in the mind of a child, that gain some extra coloring from defense mechanisms: aggression and denial etc. In time a person begins to identify himself with a varying combination of all these factors.

Maintaining and strengthening this self-image or ego becomes a continuing inner and outer process, which could well be called a mission in life. One must by all means gain approval for it both from oneself and from other people as well.

Very often people choose their friends according to their ability to maintain and nourish their egos. The most common mode for interaction might be defined as: I shall praise you if you in turn will praise me.

The internal process contains usually more falsehood than that which comes from other people. It is quite easy to be a little insincere in explaining things in one’s own favor. Some people use reverse means by taking the position of the victim, but that is just a peculiar way to overcome a crisis of self-image.

What is wrong in this? Nothing, it is just a normal temporal state of the human mind. It is the most common result of human culture with both harmful and beneficial effects. This tendency of mind keeps the consciousness restless and in continuous movement, so that it must grow in one direction or another.

One day a human gets tired of everlasting changes in his mind and begins to search for an exit from this vicious circle. In a common case, a person ends up with the conflict of two beings within himself: in the depths of his mind there is a silent knowledge of peace and understanding behind ever changing thoughts and feelings.

There will be a premonition of a different kind of self, which in facing life does not need any old patterns and images as masks. Everything in this new state of consciousness seems much clearer and simpler than earlier, and the inner views can easily be opened and unwrapped into thoughts that are needed. There is no need to seek grounds for them from former experiences.

Bringing forth the inner self is not usually a short event but a long process, the speed of which depends on how soon a person is willing and able to dissolve most of the mental bonds to temporal things in life. This will by no means be an easy job to do for an old and familiar prison is often safer than a strange way of freedom. Gradually also the subconscious content of the mind tends to catch up. There is no reason to be afraid, for it is just ‘one’s own phantoms that are haunting’.

How can we contribute to our inner process? Just by watching carefully and in peace, for forcing oneself to a certain mode causes nothing but falsehood and despair. It is often said that one has to learn to love oneself before one can really love one’s neighbor. This does not mean any kind of selfishness, but a sound acceptance of oneself, which leads to an honest view of oneself. A fierce fight with one’s own mind seldom leads to permanent results, for the human mind is much more devious and complex than we can imagine. 

It is best to watch how our images or views of ourselves come up and see them as pure complex compilations of thoughts, feelings and recollections, and let them pass away. Some day we may think, as St. Paul did, that I am strong when I am weak: so that my real inner being is rising forth and becoming an active factor as soon as my personal masks are removed.

WHOEVER FINDS THE WORLD AND BECOMES RICH, LET HIM RENOUNCE THE WORLD

The Gospel of Thomas, found in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, contains 114 sayings inscribed to Jesus. Below we have two examples related closely to Luke 17:33 (33. Whoever seeks to save his life loses it, but whoever loses his life preserves it).

• Become passers-by (the Gospel of Thomas, 42)

• Whoever finds the world and becomes rich, let him renounce the world (the Gospel of Thomas, 110)

Many of us get tired with the struggle of daily life and think that we are quite ready to renounce the world. But what do we then mean by the world? And do we have a clear understanding of the basic meaning and function of this world? 

For most schoolchildren summer recess is certainly the best period of the year, but leisure cannot serve much in their actual process of learning. At school we learn some basic things that are needed in civilized life. But the school is over for us as soon as the required measurable standards are reached. 

Then schoolchildren are “passers-by” in relation to the school that they have passed. The school is not anymore important to them, just the abilities that they have achieved are now vital for their future possibilities to realize themselves.

We can relate school to this world – our life in the world to be precise. All that happens here in or outside of us is just learning material for our mind or consciousness. Very often we are concerned with what is happening to us, not caring as much as what is happening within us. It is easy to see if our wealth is in some respect increasing, or that we have learned to use a new program on our computer. But can we notice the changes in our understanding of human existence, in our real qualities? Do we know why we are here?

For many people this kind of thinking is fruitless. They might admit the gospel that life is for passing-by, for living as easily as possible. But what does this gospel actually mean by passing? It is telling about passers – people that are no longer internally tied by the outer world even if they are still living in it. This world has given them all that it has to offer. First they have become rich in all things that life can give: money, wealth, status etc. It must be understood that renouncing a state like this usually takes a lot of time. There are no shortcuts in life, and if there were they would probably appear to be too steep and hard for most of us. 

Some people might force themselves to renounce all the benefits that they have got, but that kind of concrete action would not cause any permanent changes in their minds. We often take Mathew’s words, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven”, too literally – as if doing so would right away open up the gates of Heaven. We do not see that a mere outer action does not cause a change in us as long as we want to gain some benefits or reward for ourselves. 

By so doing we were no better than the men who sold doves in the Gospel of John, to whom Jesus said, “don't make my Father's house a marketplace!” This verse is not meant just for a temple, but for the soul of a human being. Temples are just hand-made buildings for human usage which stand only a limited time. A soul is not made by hand or even a result of the evolution (the innermost part of it). Our mind with its senses and abilities to feel and think might be called a result of the evolution, but the mind is just a means for producing more permanent results into our “father’s house”, our soul, the changeable principle in our spirit. Unfortunately there is some confusion in the usage of terms: mind, soul and spirit. 

Some schools say that soul is more fundamental than spirit, or that spirits are people who have lost their body (dead people). Of course these are just definitions, but to avoid misunderstandings it would (at least to my mind) be convenient to use the word spirit in the meaning of something eternal and unchangeable in nature – as in John’s gospel, “God is spirit”, not a ghost or a phantom. Ghosts are often bodiless persons that some people can sense (right or wrong). The souls of people in their present state of development cannot express their entire individual contents because a personal human consciousness is not normally ready to interpret all that is hidden in its innermost layers (Matt. “Treasures laid up in heaven”).

A personal human being is just a limited reflection of his soul – of his inner self. It might be difficult to think that there could be much more in us than we know of. But if we for example think how different abilities our children bring forth in spite of quite similar environments we might see that children bear from the beginning of their lives different kind of potentialities all of which are by no means connected with their genetic inheritance. Of course skeptical people find these kinds of ideas impossible to accept. For many scientists all conscious life is just chemical phenomenon in brains caused by myriads of random events in the universe. 

The intention here is not to deny evolution, but to propose that consciousness acts before and behind all phenomenal things giving patterns and directions to all that happens in both macro and micro cosmoses. Of course there is much space for coincidence, especially in the short term, in this enormous play of life, but something keeps the vast system moving towards some reasonable targets. We can talk about the powers and laws of nature, but how could a law that guides all phenomenon, come out of nothing? The laws must exist before all movement, and the laws of nature are but consciousness in action as a primary principle – even primary to the so called “big bang”.

In this writing we are not going to the area of spirit, the ultimate and unchangeable source of all. Too many confusing scriptures have been written of this unchangeable and eternal factor which must be behind all temporal forms of life. Some wise people have said that words cannot describe eternal and unlimited principles for words are just limited symbols for expressing human thoughts, which in turn are but highly limited reflections of human perception and consciousness. Defining the ultimate source or God will easily lead us to empty and groundless forms of imagination – to beliefs that are not based on any kind of real experience. 

Some of us need a strong figure to lean on and worship – and there is nothing wrong in that. But for all of us it would be good to know the purpose of our existence and life in general. It is an old request that people should ‘know themselves’, but it is not enough to know one’s personal self, the mind and character. Of that sort of knowing one very wise man, master Eckhart has said that if you find yourself so let it go! Here we are coming back to the beginning idea of renouncing the world – to renounce all that bears but temporal value – and that includes the personal aspect which is based on nothing but conditional ways of earthly life. This personal mind must be passed so that it gives way to something more permanent and fundamental being which can be found in the depths of one’s own being - not in the outside world.

But while thinking the idea of renouncing we must check very carefully are we ready for that kind of inner action, or has the world still something valuable to offer to our inner self? The world is neither bad nor good – it is a wonderful academy for all conscious life – and until now very few individuals have passed the whole course. So be patient and merciful to yourselves and all others.

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matt. 6:21)

A statement like this seems a little indefinite partly because of the symbolic language. It would be easier to take the expression ‘our treasure’ as the focus of our consciousness, or the dominating things that we are concentrating on in our everyday life - things that we value, if we are completely earnest. But when asked, most people present such things that they believe to be highly appreciated in their society. They do not admit that fancy things, travelling, and pleasure would fill most part of their own list. Some might say that a respected status among other people could be called a part of their treasure. Of course there are things that get their value right from the circumstances: if you are very hungry or thirsty, food and water are filling your entire mind.

The previous sentence may well express the meaning of the gospel: as long as we hunger for worldly things, our treasure is temporal in nature. The heart depicts the long-lasting or main direction of our consciousness or mind. It does not mean that people should entirely turn their backs to the world and other people, but that priority must be given to the most fundamental things. It is an obligation and a privilege to know what this life of ours is meant for – not just for easy living, but for revealing all richness and wisdom which is hidden in the depths of human existence.

Seek, and you will find, wrote Mathew, but unfortunately he did not show us the direction. But it is not difficult to see that the target of seeking could here be found in the inner world – by finding and knowing the real being of oneself. Philosopher Nietzsche said (in Zarathustra) that the last thing that people are searching or seeking is in fact really ones own closest thing – the inside essence of all. This does not mean that we should force ourselves to become totally strange to the world and other people, but that we should always try to see what is worth taking in and what is worth passing by. Usually we take care what kind of food we nourish our body with, but we should also give some consideration to the quality of our mental food.

In the Gospel of Thomas there is a parable of a wise fisherman who caught plenty of fish, but found only one large fish among them. He threw away all the small ones and kept only this large one (logion 8). This is a good example to show that we had better watch what kind of things we allow to make a permanent nest in our consciousness. It is by no means the question of avoiding the world which could easily lead to a very narrow understanding of life and other people.

Some people might think that it would be best to go to a desert or at least enter a monastery in order to become a good person. A peaceful place may well offer temporal help when a person needs to get some distance from daily things, but we must remember that goodness is not based just on an acceptable learned behavior, but on a constant quality of mind. Establishing that kind of state evidently requires a long and thorough experience with conflicting ideas, people and forms of real life.

Fixed ideas of goodness are but patterns with little value if they have no permanent roots in one’s character. A strictly limited understanding of goodness often leads to intolerance against all that seems or dares to go beyond those boundaries. It is a very old human discovery that goodness of a person must be well tested before we have a right to call him a really good person – not to talk about calling him a saint. It is quite sure that most of the figures that people call saints are not worthy of their high status. The signs of holiness are based on evidence that satisfy the practical needs of the Church – very seldom the requirements of the ultimate reality.

The saints must really “go marching in” – reach the ultimate inside essence of life and manage to bring it down to this world before they earn their high status. This would be the kind of miracle that had something to offer to all living things. Relics and remnants do not help us for all important things are present in this very moment. It is no use looking back (as the wife of Lot in Gen. 19:26) or forward, because the past is just a huge pile of memories and the future does not yet exist anywhere else but in one’s imagination.

Human beings have a peculiar habit of avoiding the present, or at least to give it only a minor portion of his consciousness. He thinks that his life is really beginning some day in the future, but very often he is afraid of the future, because the past has not gone well enough – so he projects his ideas of the past into his future – and the vicious circle is ready and active! Some people advise to break this circle by forcing oneself to think positively, but this does not work for very long. If one is trying to be good and expecting blessings one will sooner or later face serious troubles, and disappointments are often in proportion to one’s hopes and wishes. One would be better to concentrate on living fully at this moment without painting unrealistic fantasies for tomorrow. Of course there are things that need planning and preparing, but the most part of forthcoming things is just best to let them come. Life is not one’s enemy but a partner who is meant to make a human being strong and wise in the long run. So it is better to take even misery and pain as a possibility to grow beyond one’s former limits. Life without any challenges might seem like heaven, but usually it would not lead anywhere in the long journey of humanity towards its fulfillment.

BECOMING LIKE CHILDREN

In the Gospel of Matthew (18:3-4) there is the well known story, in which Jesus says that a real spirituality requires a mental state, which little children have:

… and said, Most assuredly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

The gospel does not explain what this likeness of children actually means. It is no won-der, if the message is often understood too concretely – so that it would have something to do with being childish.

In a childish meaning being like children is found both from Matthew and Luke:

Matt. 11:16 But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like child-ren sitting in the marketplaces, who call to their companions

Luke 7:31-32 To what then will I liken the people of this generation? What are they like? They are like children who sit in the marketplace, and call one to another, saying, 'We piped to you, and you didn't dance. We mourned, and you didn't weep.'

St. Paul, as well, gives some light to the issue in his 1th Corinthians (13:11): 

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things.

But turning to the spiritual sense of the symbolic use of the word child we can take a fine example from the Gospel of Thomas (log 46):

Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lo-wered (before him). Yet I have said whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the kingdom and will become superior to John.

Here, too, we find a promise of seeing the kingdom, but without any degrees among those who enter the state. There is no real disagreement between Matthew’s and Thomas’, for these differences are due to the characters of the authors. Matthew had a habit to colour his stories more than most other gospel writers.

In Thomas’ the role of John is probably an allegory of the kind of person who has grown up in a spiritual sense up to the point where a human being at his best is able to develop by his own efforts.

Becoming like children, however, requires in addition a clearly different kind of factor to come along into the process. This we can get an idea of from John’s Gospel (17:21):

Most assuredly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can't see the Kingdom of God.

This rebirth (not reincarnation) is certainly very close to becoming like a child, a mystical meeting of human and divine nature – and not only a temporary occurrence (being ‘caught up’), but a permanent union in consciousness. 

To ‘see’ in a state like this does not mean a sensory perception, not even a feeling or thought, but a perfect consciousness and knowledge of the essence of all.

The final aim is deferred to in John 17:21

... that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us,…

Being one here does not mean a ‘holy simplicity’, or even being together, but a ‘holy one-ness’ – a unified being and consciousness.

We can find a fine example of the becoming like children from the ‘godless’ philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who in his Zarathustra wrote of three stages in human develop-ment: becoming like a camel, a lion, and finally a child.

But what is it that a child can do but not a lion? Why must he now be-come like a child? A child is innocence and oblivion, a new beginning, a play, a wheel rolling by itself, a first movement, and a holy optimism.

A lion denotes to the same state of mind as ‘John the Baptist’ in the Gospel of Thomas, an ability to stand on one’s own feet in all affairs – certainly not on one’s selfishness, which should now be a totally lost quality.

Innocence, of course, means a total purity of mind from all forms of selfishness. Oblivion denotes to a mental change that prevents one’s mind from reflecting past experiences as automatic patterns for future situations. 

A new beginning tells something of the unique nature of the consciousness at this point – the nature, of which the gospels of Mark and Matthew defer as writing of ‘new wine and old wineskins’ (Mk. 2:22)

No one puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and the wine pours out, and the skins will be destroyed; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins.

A self rotating wheel could symbolize the united, highly advanced state, where personal motives have no effect on one’s actions and functions any more. At its utmost state this might bear the same idea as Jesus’ saying of his own origin in John 8:38

I say the things which I have seen with my Father; and you also do the things which you have seen with your father.

In this connection we may take a peculiar claim of St. Paul from his Cor. 12:10

… For when I am weak, then am I strong.

This sentence, as well, has much to do with becoming like a child: one’s personal will has stood aside handing its place over to the universal, divine will, which has the only real right to be called strong.

Nietzsche uses a very beautiful verbal image – holy optimism – to depict the reached mental state. This is by no means a common state of positivism, forcing one’s mind to positive thinking and feelings, but a love that dwells from deep and unknown levels, love, that cannot any more turn into its opposite if the circumstances are changing.

From this statement we may easily move and identify the likeness of children into the famous definition of love in St. Paul’s cor. 13:4-7

Love is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag, is not proud, doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Even if the previous sentences are often quoted in wedding ceremonies, it is hardly meant to define common love between people, but a universal, divine love that embraces equally all living things. Human love is very seldom capable to fulfil and realize these high requirements, for a human mind is based on mutual benefit and a very limited idea of the truth.

As a result of these fragments we could say that the likeness of a child must be in spiri-tual sense interpreted as a state of mind that clearly excels the common idea of adulthood. 

To be a child requires naturally the event of birth. A human child is born from a human being - from a human being to a human being. If we try to derive from this an analogy up to divine things, we could say that it is not possible to become a child of God by joining some congregation, or being baptized. 

A hermeneutic principle for deriving an analogy here could be that a child of God is born from God, in God to God (according to Master Eckhart)! 

Elämänarvoista ja vuorovaikutuksesta

Jo Platon aikoinaan esitti, että hyvän valtionhallinnon perustana tulisi olla riittävän yhtäläinen näkemys elämän perusarvoista eri väestöryhmissä – erityisesti eri ikäpolvien kesken. Tällaisin edellytyksin voidaan asioiden hoidossa hyödyntää sekä rohkeaa uutta luovuutta, että kokemuksen tuomaa varovaisuutta ilman, että asenteet pyrkivät kiivaasti torjumaan toisensa.

Yleisessä mielessä on jopa vaarallista nimitellä ilmeneviä asenteita konservatiivisiksi, liberaaleiksi tai edistyksellisiksi, koska nimitysten sinänsä uskotaan helposti kannattelevan itsessään arvoja. Silloin todellisen asian pohtiminen jää usein sivuseikaksi.

Tietenkin pitkä elämänkokemus saattaa kaavoittaa ihmisten ajattelua aivan liian paljon. Vanhat ratkaisut eivät ehkä enää sovellu muuttuneisiin olosuhteisiin.

Toisaalta myös nuoret haluavat usein etsiä täysin uusia ratkaisuja puhtaasti periaatteellisesta syystä – niin, että uutuudella on itseisarvo, ja vanhojen käsitykset täysin käyttökelvottomia. 

On kuitenkin hyvä muistaa, etteivät nuoret aivot sinänsä takaa ajatusten erinomaisuutta, koska niiden käyttömateriaalien määrä ja laatu ovat vielä kovin vaatimatonta ja testaamatonta. 

Mitä sitten tarkoittaisi yhtäläinen käsitys elämän perusarvoista? Sitä, että inhimillisen elämän tarkoituksesta ja toteuttamisen tavoista ja puitteista vallitsee jonkinasteinen konsensus. Se ei tarkoita täysin samanlaisia ajatuksia kaikista asioista, mutta edellyttää riittävää ajatuksellista joustavuutta, joka nojaa selkeään järjen käyttöön eikä enää tunteenomaiseen omien kiintoajatusten puolustamiseen. 

Sellainen on saavutettavissa ainoastaan kasvatuksen ja esikuvien avulla. 

Suuret ikäluokkamme omaksuivat vielä varsin yhtäläisiä arvoja sota-ajan vanhemmiltaan – tosin varmaan turhan ahtaita, sillä juuri heihin pääsi kritiikittömästi vaikuttamaan 70-luvun asennemyllerrys, jonka tarkoituksena oli kääntää kaikki vanha ylösalaisin ja rakentaa tilalle joka suhteessa säännelty ”ihanneyhteiskunta” suuren naapurimme mallin mukaan. Kasvattaminen aikaisempiin malleihin leimattiin lähes rikokseksi uutta ihmisyyttä kohtaan. Päädyttiin usein lähes holtittomuuteen – niin, että lapset alkoivatkin kasvattaa vanhempiaan. 

Arvojen nopean muuttumisen seurana oli hyvin nopea yleinen vaurastuminen, mikä johti siihen, että uudelle sukupolvelle voitiin antaa valmiina kaikki, mitä se vain osasi uneksia ja pyytää.

Nyt ollaan tilanteessa, että nuorille kaikki pitää olla ilmaista, mukavaa ja miellyttävää, muussa tapauksessa heillä on oikeus ”hepuliin”. 

Vanhempi ikäluokka tietää kokemuksesta, että elämä ei aina ole mukavaa, eikä sellaiseksi edes tarkoitettu, koska ihmismieli tarvitsee vaikeitakin kokemuksia kasvaakseen ”iässä, viisaudessa ja vahvuudessa”. 

Ulkonaiset olosuhteet voivat muuttua varsin nopeasti huonommiksi, etenkin kun kansamme ikärakenne vinoutuu voimakkaasti, eikä tilannetta kovin kivuttomasti voitane korjata pelkällä ”työperäisellä maahanmuutolla” – mitä se sitten sisältääkin.

Me saatamme kuvitella, että saavutetut edut ja tarjotut palvelut säilyvät hamaan ikuisuuteen saakka, mutta meidän tulisi muistaa, että julma todellisuus saattaa jossakin vaiheessa pyyhkäistä ne pois. 

John Meynard Keynes oli varmaan Nobelinsa arvoinen talousmies, mutta hänen näkemyksiään ei ehkä olisi saanut esittää julkisesti, ainakaan demokraattisesti valittaville poliitikoille, joille niistä on tullut oiva peruste valtioiden liian runsaalle lainanotolle: äänestäjien ostamiseen toisten rahoilla!

1800-luvulla vain muutama suurmies kykeni rakentamaan suomalaisen arvomaailman perustukset. Kaikki heidän ajatuksensa eivät luonnollisesti enää ole sovellettavissa, tai uudelleen lämmitettävissä, eikä nykyinen nuori väestö ota enää vastaan kovinkaan paljon ns. auktoriteeteilta, vaikka se kokemattomuuttaan omaksuukin monia hetken ilmiöitä vaivaamatta juuri lainkaan nuoria aivosolujaan. 

Arvoja ei enää voida rakentaa ylhäältä käsin samoin kuin Runebergin, Topeliuksen ja Alkion aikaan. Viestintävälineistä ei tänä päivänä ole pulaa - ennemminkin runsauden pulaa - niin että lukuisat kanavat suoltavat kevyttä, psyykkistä ”roskaruokaa”, jota ei ole tarkoitettukaan pureksittavaksi – saati ravinnoksi! Niin sanottu viihde näyttää usein esipuberteetti-ikäisten luomukselta. Monet voisivat sanoa, että parempaa sekin kuin muinaiset gladiaattoritaistelut ja ihmisten teurastuksen areenoilla kansan huviksi. Tietenkin, mutta kyseiset julmat huvitukset liittyivät kulttuurin rappeutumiseen: siihen, että ihmiset janosivat yhä vain voimakkaampia elämyksiä turhauttavaksi käyneeseen, mukavaan elämäänsä. Moraalin ja eettisen ajattelun rapautuminen on yleensä toiminut selkeänä alkusoittona mahtavienkin kulttuurien tuhoutumisessa. 

”Mitä on hyve, kyselee viimeinen ihminen silmiään räpytellen” kirjoitti 1800-luvulla Friedrich Nietzsche Zarathustrassaan viitaten juuri kulttuurin, ja erityisesti syvien elämänarvojen katoamiseen, tai korvautumiseen ”viheliäisellä mukavuudella”. 

Kun tarkastelemme tämän päivän Iranin, Egyptin, Kreikan, tai monien arabimaiden oloja, on meidän vaikeata nähdä, että niissä on joskus vallinnut hyvin hienostunut kulttuuri. Vielä ristiretkien aikaan Damaskoksen viisaat pohtivat, kuinka paljon energiaa saataisiin atomin särkemisestä; Egyptin sulttaani Saladin näytti ristiretkeläisille elävää esimerkkiä todellisesta ritarillisuudesta, jonka nämä sitten toivat ja sovelsivat varsin karkeassa muodossa Eurooppaan. Itämaisessa kulttuurissa oli tuolloin vielä jäljellä yleviä piirteitä, vaikka sekin oli jo pitkään ollut laskusuunnassa. 

Länsi-Euroopan kulttuurin nousu oli vasta lähtökuopissa – ja lienee monissa tärkeissä suhteissa vieläkin. Kehitys on täällä tapahtunut voittopuolisesti aineellisissa asioissa, ulkoisen tieteen ja tekniikan saroilla. Arvojen suhteen kulttuurimme lepää liiaksikin ns. hellenistisen sivistyksen rippeiden ja kopioinnin varassa, johon kristillinen uskomusjärjestelmä on sekoittanut hieman omaa lisäväriänsä. 

Monet haikailevat uskontoja arvojen uudelleen rakentajiksi, mutta niiden pitäisi muuttua todella paljon, mikäli ne voisivat tarjota yleispätevää apua tilanteeseen. Jäykät ajatusmuodot eivät sovellu yhä paremmin koulutetun, omaehtoiseen ajatteluun tottuneen väestön tarpeisiin muuten kuin tilapäisinä annoksina: häiden ja hautajaisten oivallisina puitteina! Tunteittensa kautta elämään orientoituvat ihmisyksilöt saavat toki sisäistä tyydytystä seremonioiden ja dogmien myötä, mutta itsenäisesti pohdiskeleva ihminen ei useinkaan halua kahlita mieltään pakonomaisiin kaavoihin, vaan etsii järkiperäisempiä selitysmalleja käyttökelpoisiksi hypoteeseiksi omalle ajattelulleen.

On valitettavaa, että uskonsuuntien parissa pienetkin ajatukselliset erot ovat korostuneet niin paljon, että ne ovat muodostuneet kanssakäymistä estäviksi, ylitsepääsemättömiksi muureiksi. Toisaalla tutkimus on tuonut yhä enemmän esiin käsityksellisiä yhtäläisyyksiä, jotka usein juontavat hyvin samankaltaisiin alkuideoihin. 

Uskonnot ja filosofiat eivät ole syntyneet tyhjästä, vaan ammentavat aineksia edeltäneistä käsityssuunnista – vaikka tällainen usein halutaankin kieltää. Myös ihmisten yleisten elämänarvojen piirissä voidaan löytää sellaisia yhtäläisiä tekijöitä, jotka käyvät rakennusaineksiksi yhteiselle kosketuspinnalle, jossa hedelmällinen vuorovaikutus erilaisten yksilöiden välillä on mahdollista.

Thoughts about thoughts

Years ago an idea was imprinted on my mind, that even I could become wise by just living old enough and going through human experiences, my own and those loaned from others, as many times as necessary. But being wise encloses apparently a further demand, that I then should understand the true meaning of life at least in regard to myself.

Of course some ideas have already found home in me, become familiar and manageable, even somehow understandable. But could that be called wisdom or just a pile of thoughts, seeds of wisdom, mostly even non germinative?

The human mind is all the time trying to reach some object, whether a concrete or an abstract one, to which it can identify its thoughts and feelings in order to find itself useful or acceptable. To the mind empty or silent means the same as to become stupid and vain – a threat of losing itself!

The mind believes that thoughts, feelings, forms and sensory perceptions as a whole are a person himself, an individual identity worth holding on by all powers in order to maintain so called mental health!

But can the human mind ever be fully sane, if by sanity we mean seeing things really as they are? The history of mankind offers a convincing evidence of the collective madness of mankind, a history, which is entirely based on the unreliable functions of the human mind.

The common word man comes from the Sanskrit word manas, which in a broad sense means a principle of reason. The capability for reasoning is often said to separate us humans from other species of this earth in our favour. But is it really a sublime skill in the form and usage it appears among us today? Can it for example make us permanently happy? Or is it the thing that holds us imprisoned into continuous thinking, feeling and sensory processes with no peace and lasting happiness. Of course there are huge differences in the quality of human reasoning – from rude automatic reactions to highest inspirations.

Am I suggesting that we should entirely stop thinking and feeling so as to avoid going astray? Thinking with all its limitations is really a good tool in this material world. It can solve many practical issues, but it cannot give proper answers to any fundamental questions of life. What is life, why are we here on earth a little while and then in turn seem to disappear – who knows where? Can there be life after life, and what would it be like? If life is really eternal, so the previous question would evidently become a contradictory one – for in that case life is not either coming or going - it just is! This kind of view could even suggest that in some fundamental level every being is always alive, but not knowing ones basic state because of the identification to the functions of the mind.

At least one thing I have learnt. Digging up ones life does not lead anywhere – or why not – it could lead to fear of tomorrow, in the way that yesterday’s unpleasant events turn into shadowing threats for ones future. On the other hand waiting for better might become a reason to move the starting point of ones living from this moment to some distant period in the future.

I have come to the conclusion that all of us are mentally writing an autobiography, ones own story called ‘me and the others’. In that story I am usually a secret hero whom the world has not yet recognized, or in different circumstances an ill-treated martyr who is waiting for a great compensation sometimes in the future.

Secret authors, that is what we are, continuously interpreting ourselves to ourselves, sometimes even believing our sophisticated explanations.

But only a few have courage to make ones ideas public. Maybe we are afraid that others do not necessarily recognize us on the basis of our story. They could say that the story is a fake or even a quotation of some better author. It is often difficult to tell myself what part of me represents the real me, and what part is just an infection caused by other people.

To our little mind, the one that we call our self, this world of ours is an enormous mixer. How is it possible to separate good grain from husk, considering that a human mind hardly knows itself? The old request, that a man should know himself, does not help much, for even the greatest ideas tend finally to lead us to a dead end.

A common conclusion that everything in life is relative does not solve anything, especially if a human being wants to find something absolute and permanent.

A history of stupidity – that could be a name for the rambling of mankind. But history in itself is but dead words, and the future is just a huge pile of ideas based on yesterday. It is sure that we can live only at this very moment – not yesterday or today. For us humans this fact has always been utmostly difficult to accept, because we think we have a history. On the basis of the past we create an image of our future in which all our ideas should gain their fulfilment. This moment is just an ever open door to all the goals of our lives.

All the possibilities are waiting in the future, where we also can perform such fine works as the greatest figures of the human history. But we should see that history is often but a coloured story written by winners. Could we but ask about the greatness of Alexander the Great of the thousands who were crucified by his command during his famous works? And what would say about the idea of loving ones neighbour the numerous people who had to meet with the opposite of the principle, an extremely cruel religious intolerance?

I am fairly convinced that thinking, even stretched at its utmost, cannot ever reach anything absolute, free of the limits of time. Thinking should be stretched far beyond its breaking point so that it would by itself see its own limitations and would realize at last to be quiet.

But being entirely quiet seems to the human mind as its worst enemy; for it assures a person that he might end up as nothing or in a state where all his fears and feelings of guilt suddenly step forth. The human mind demands that the identity of a human being as a separate individual, would remain above all else.

It may well be, that in old women we could find the wisdom welling forth out of the depths of their souls from which all the self-centred feelings have been cried out and which is totally lacking the common manly illusion, that thinking can solve all things.

Many of the people that are considered the wisest of all have ensured us that life basically is sacred and divine. An everyday observation would certainly lead to a very different kind of conclusion. Perhaps all those wise men and women looked at life from a different angle leaving totally aside the perspective based on time. Maybe they saw everything from the eternal, timeless ground of all that exists.

One of the wisest advised us first and foremost to seek the kingdom of heaven. Only after finding this unchangeable realm or state all things can be experienced in the right light. But we human beings want to understand our heaven as a place where all our senses and other needs get a full satisfaction. And as we usually cannot get hold of heaven without time and other temporal concepts, we rather start seeking the warm and sunny beaches of this world than try to concentrate on something that lies beyond the ability of our everyday power of comprehension.

Our scientists are talking about the ‘big bang’ as the beginning of all that there exists. But in reality they cannot tell us anything about the state in where and what way this fundamental event of all events happened, because it was only then that time and space appear, giving the fundamentals of the thinking of our wise men and women.

Of course we could have a look at the Eastern ideas of how the universe comes into existence and how it in due course again returns to rest. Wise men in the East have said thousands of years ago that all forms are temporal, and that there is an interchange from formless to form even in the level of the universe. Eastern scriptures talk about manvantaras and pralayas, the former of which means the emanation in time and space the latter meaning a huge period of rest or non-existence from a material point of view. But do they say that life itself is a completely vanishing thing? No, in fact life is all that really is, an eternal life on which everything has its being – sometimes coming forth in time and space, but always being in the timeless and formless essence.

For our materialistic scientists all this is usually pure nonsense, for they rely on our senses not taking account that human consciousness could have some deeper abilities of knowing the things that cannot be explored by five senses or by any mechanical equipment.

Two thousand years ago this kind of knowing was called gnosis. It is very likely that not all the so called Gnostics were able to stretch their conscience into the basis of life, but it is also likely that some of them were much more aware of reality than the spokesmen of the Catholic Church declared.

It seems that I now have come to a dead end, because I am assuming that human ability of thinking for its conditional character never can explain the most important issues of life. Should I now accept the words of Tertullus, “I believe, because it is absurd”, and take more seriously all the so called sacred scriptures? Or is there for a human being available a completely different way of approaching these unresolved questions? Is it probable that beyond the entire thinkable things one could find an entire and total knowledge reachable to the human consciousness that can overstep all the limits of its ordinary mental processes?

I am pretty sure, that some of the finest individuals in human history really have found and experienced the essence of life and have tried to transmit something of it at least to their disciples. It is quite obvious that some of the followers have merely imagined having reached the ultimate goal, whereas they in fact had just taken the first step on the path leading to the realization.

A further conclusion of my thinking is that the ground of all must rather be found inside than outside of a conscious being, because all external things are but results and consequences of temporary nature.

The outcomes of mental imagination may seem lively and interesting, but to a great extent they are based on past thought forms, not on the essence beyond all.

One of the wise men said that all good things come from above, where there exists no change – in other words no time. If this is to be taken as a right conclusion so I should by all means try to lead my consciousness into a state where it could be able to draw directly from the ultimate source – being one with it.

This is what I believe, but unfortunately my belief has not reached this final goal and made me wise – not to talk about turning me blessed! And if I am not blessed in this very moment, so I have no reason to wait for illumination in the future, for future is but a pile of thoughts based on my past.

So the only thing for me is to avoid coming and going, so that I simply could be alive, in the timeless here and now – in eternal life.

Three stages of spiritual growth

Dear reader. When reading this text it is necessary to consider the fact that it is not meant to be taken as an absolute truth, but merely as a stimulus to your thinking. No human word, whether spoken or written, can tell you the truth. Words are just references to some possible directions to seek for paths to be proceeded. Let your own truth grow naturally in relation to the accessibility of the depths of your innermost being.

Where are you now?

Your starting point means your inner state at present, your personal being as it really is – not as you or your neighbors think of you. Our ideas of ourselves and others are usually much too shallow, at least when we are still young. It is, in order to get a firm ground for climbing, useful to produce a thorough inventory of ourselves before entering the first step on our spiritual path. This you can do by observing yourself a long time as an outsider:

-What is it that you appreciate in other people: knowledge, skills, degrees, status, or understanding.

-What is it that you cannot stand in them?

-What is it that you value in yourself: your looks, knowledge, skills, career, attitude towards others or to life in general, your diligence, discretion, impulsiveness, strength of feelings, etc.

-What is it that you cannot stand in yourself – and why?

-How do you react to the situations that you face: with feelings, thoughts, or actions.

-How do you see your own character: calm, inpatient, introvert, extrovert, helpful, guiding, fighting, leading figure, etc.

-Do you consider yourself honest and fair in all occasions?

-How do you think you have become such as you are: on the basis of your inborn qualities, because of circumstances, by mere chance.

-Why do you want to promote your inner growth: you want to step above other people, have strong feelings and experiences, want to escape from the dullness of your everyday life, your life in general does not give you any lasting satisfaction or peace of mind.

Those questions above are just a few of all the possible things that you can immerse yourself in trying to learn something about the contents of your mind. When analyzing yourself, write down your ideas and return to them as soon as you have got a new perspective or information on the subject in question. Of course it is not necessary to introduce your ideas to anybody else, especially if that kind of openness is not part of your nature. If you, however, want to share your ideas, be aware not to promote the growth of your ego, your personal self.

A fairly firm starting point is the view, that this world of ours is an immerse school for souls, individual units of consciousness, not just a pointless formation of countless accidents. And just as the world once got its form, so is your soul to be formed and shaped out of the fruits of this vast play of relative life. Life as it appears to us is relative in nature, even if it were based on the spiritual absoluteness.

It might be fruitful if you would try to go through your whole life for as long a period as you are able to remember, letting all feelings rise up freely without attempts to interpret them. Feelings in general are psychic energy. By letting the energy enter the light of your clear consciousness you can release the tension they have produced for example in your nervous system. 

Do not accuse anybody or anything of unpleasant feelings or memories, for those are meant to be surpassed and used to strengthen your mind and will. Even the most traumatic things are not worth invigorating, for they have no real life in them. The human mind has a tendency to wrap itself around unpleasant things so that it starts to reflect them as dark shadows over future expectations. Your failure today does not automatically lead to the same kind of failure tomorrow.

Before falling asleep it might be a good habit to go through your daily events, and then let them go by. Certainly you can always ask for more strength and wisdom for your coming challenges. All that you need is hidden in the depths of your being. From them can come forth, as you have experienced all that is meant for you, and cleared all futile things from the vast collection of your temporal mind. It is good to see that most of our prayers are full of selfish ideas, containing something favourable to us or people that are dear to us. A wise man has said that we humans often pray for the Highest Will to happen, but as it happens, we seem to become very angry and upset.

Maybe you are ready to face the demands of the first step?

THE FIRST STEP

You have now gathered enough courage and self-understanding that you can face a bit more demanding inner challenges. You should keep in mind here that it is not a question of creating your career, but cleaning and deepening your consciousness so that no external attractions can hold it in chains. 

In principle you can ascend to the height of consciousness, where the temptation of this worldly life is in balance with your longing for spiritual life – which you in this state cannot know anything real about. One thing is quite certain: nobody can do the inner work for you nor carry you or your burdens. It is just the contents of your own mind that can be formed to your steps.

Do not be afraid, for in reality there is nothing to be afraid of. Your judge is living in your depths, knowing all your possibilities and impossibilities. If you do your best, nobody has the right to ask more of you.

If thinking is the natural way for you, give it a lot of your time, but let as well your thoughts ripen in peace and silence to the state of understanding that you are able to reach at the time. Never fail to think that you by your reasoning could find the ultimate truth. Experiencing the truth takes place far beyond human perception, feelings and thoughts.

Do not be hasty or afraid even if days and years pass away. Let temporal things do their work in ripening you until they begin to push you out of their circle towards your inner self. Find the fears that are hiding in the depths of your mind and in the nodal points of your nerves. It is fear that forces people to lean to other people and fixed ways of thinking – the so called truths! Raise all those onto the table of your mind and to see whether they can stand the fire of your own consciousness. If you become fully satisfied with some of your conclusions, be careful to not at once try to convert others to your ideas. The value of your thoughts comes into light in your state of understanding, the amount of ideas as such does not tell much about the quality of your mind.

In this stage you should stop talking about fate – good or bad – for you probably have an intuition – as an old prophet in the Old Testament: that all things turn out well in due course. All the essence of life is meant for the growth of one’s inner self – soul, if that is the word you are accustomed to use – could gather proper nutrition to enable it to blossom.

It is impossible for you to live the life of somebody else. All your chances are hidden in your own life. Your only duty is to dig them up. If you in any respect find some personal progress, please do not ask for reward from any direction, for such expectations make you right away a kind of merchant. Be calm and satisfied when you are facing the things that are meant for you – those are your chances to ascend to higher stages of understanding.

Maybe feelings form the strongest element in your mind? In that case you should be careful not to identify too much in ugly things and events around you, trying desperately to change everything for better. It is an old psychological heresy that spiritual life is possible only in very pleasant and beneficial circumstances.

You can rely on the view that once your consciousness and will become so strong and firm that no temporal thing can affect your stability. Be careful when interpreting your possible inner visions. Remember that your mind is full of old thought patterns which will easily be mixed in your imagination with vague reflections from some inner levels. Striving at psychic visions has not necessarily anything to do with one’s spiritual growth – it could in fact prove to become a hindrance. All formal things in your mind may turn out to be illusory, so be careful not to overestimate them.

If you belong to those people to whom strong feelings are alien, it would be better not even to try to reach them. Your way is probably through mental processes – by clearing all your thoughts and striving to ever deepening understanding – ending finally at intuitive perception of the essence of things.

Some people rather practice their will for spirituality for the benefit of other people. For them it is essential to do all that from their hearts. Devotion is the name of their path, helping in all occasions where their help is needed and natural. In doing this one should be careful not to let one’s mind to become proud of anything, for in the end all the best worldly achievements prove to be rather insignificant. 

If you now - voluntarily and even gladly - are prepared to carry all the tasks that life is setting afore you, you may well be entitled to enter the second stage of spiritual growth.

THE SECOND STEP

To be able to stay and act on this stage requires that you can stand firmly on your own feet in both outer and inner things of life. Taking the whole responsibility of our own affairs should now be obvious, as well as honesty, which does not mean the right to be arrogant or even proud. The most important thing is to find one’s mental feet. 

You should have courage enough to examine all things in the light of your own consciousness and pick up the kind of content in which you find some permanent value. This of course does not mean that you would not listen to anybody else or read any books on matters that you are dealing with. But simply that you are boiling all things in your own kettle before accepting them to enter into your stock of thoughts. 

The growth of higher mental resolution should not lead to intolerance of any kind, even though it often causes dramatic changes in your circle of friends. Friendship is mostly based on the same kind of values concerning life – and if there is a huge change in your own attitudes, it often weakens the foundations of ordinary friendships. You may feel that you have lost touch with social life, even feel some guilt, but it seems to be evident, that there is no way back.

The paths of mental and spiritual growth are lonely; many disciples seek support and guidance – ending often in disappointment. In your moments of weakness you may have serious doubts that there is no love left in you anymore. But be sure that love has not gone anywhere – only the ordinary ways of mutual affection has become weaker in order to let a real love grow and ripen in the depths of your mind – the love that does not look at a person, for in its light you can see and understand the deep purposes of life concerning every individual you are facing. 

Be peaceful and merry even in your sadness, so you will pass over it in no time. The weakening attraction of temporary things naturally causes temporal sadness and melancholy, and some difficulties to motivate one’s everyday activities. Let all those dark clouds fade away and keep your mind clear and awake, for it is but your unconscious mind that reflects your old reactions to be wiped away.

You begin to understand, what the meaning of the saying “poor in spirit” might be: that material and psychic welfare is not worth striving for, until the peace and harmony of mind is achieved. You also know that mere literal renouncing of any kind of worldly things does not lead to any real advancement, for it is impossible to do business with spiritual realities. Your inner and outer wealth serves as means to learn how to use them wisely – so that spirituality in general gets an opportunity to rise up among human beings.

If the greatest spiritual messengers had worried, whether they will be accepted by masses, they would have certainly become just poor village politicians.

This stage regards strength and courage of mind, throwing away all crutches and railings, accepting oneself such as one appears at the moment, and utmost striving to realms, which are said to stand far beyond human reach.

Too many have spoken about losing oneself long before they have even found their own true nature! On this stage a feeling of the meaning of your personal self is becoming clear: what role of your inner self it is meant to realize, and in what way and reservations; which are its worst stumbling blocks and weaknesses of character, rooting out what by sound observation must belong to your everyday routines.

Remember that your personal self is to a great extent a formation of your experiences and circumstances, a historical compilation lacking all independent permanent being. Many of your qualities tend to give their own colour and distortion to your perceptions, so you must be careful in watching your actions and leisure.

There is nothing to be afraid of but your own weaknesses, but even they can in time be mended. Be merciful to yourself that you do not become hard towards other people, or that you do not hide your faults behind curtains, from where they surprise you as soon as your consciousness becomes exhausted for a moment. Remember that you can still make bad mistakes, and that our will is not as strong as it should become, for it is still leaning on human understanding.

It may well be that you are ready to try the third step in the growth of human consciousness. 

THE THIRD STEP

Have a glance at the path behind you. Is there still something left of your personal self? Are you going to stick to it? Do your worldly duties still hold you tight? Do you feel that you have completely drifted away from all attractions of common life? Is it now very unpleasant for you to be dishonest?

Have you lost all your desire for power and honour? Do not long for them to give motivation to your life. You should be quite sure that they cannot satisfy you anymore.

Maybe you have learnt to understand, what St. Paul meant in his peculiar claim, that he was strong every time he was weak? 

Are you waiting for something not knowing what it might be? Be patient, for life itself really knows, what you need, and gives you everything as soon as you are ready and free to receive.

Have you any idea what it is to become and be like a child? It means a state of mind which contains no hidden selfish terms or reservations, readiness to act right from one’s innermost necessity with creative powers of life. Very few of us people have become like children – instead, far too many have become childish.

The real likeness of children requires that one realizes in all actions the impersonal will – the very will that has become strong as your own personal will has weakened!

You can be sure that there is no external essence to replace the space that your personal will has left empty. All that is great is hidden in your depths, and to be found as soon as you are able to throw away all you personal restrictions. 

Your personality is just a womb, where your real being has had one of his opportunities to grow and ripen in all those things that human existence ever contains. And as your child is ready to be born, so shall it take place from the necessity of the eternal spirit. A pure consciousness in your depths is always ready and to be given to you requiring that you have experienced all necessary things in human life and that all your desires have faded away.

Be patient and happy, not waiting for anything, for there is nothing that the eternal reality would not know about you. You must take into account the fact that a process of spiritual growth is always a very complex one. Experiences in life usually grind many features of mind at the same time. A spiral like complexity is to be found in spiritual steps, too. Life is not like a normal school with fixed schedules for life continually alternates between lectures of different steps, so that it in the short run it might seem almost chaotic. So do not be hasty in charging where you, yourself, or somebody else is standing – it is not even human business to make such conclusions.

There is not much to be said about the third step: the more you learn of reality the less you can tell about it in words. Remember that real things are not feelings or thoughts, but pure consciousness without any means.

BEST LUCK ON YOUR JOURNEY