Ken on luonut ihmisraukan?

1.Moos.3:22. Ja Herra Jumala sanoi: "Katso, ihminen on tullut sellaiseksi kuin joku meistä, niin että hän tietää hyvän ja pahan. Kun ei hän nyt vain ojentaisi kättänsä ja ottaisi myös elämän puusta ja söisi ja eläisi iankaikkisesti!" Miksi tässä Herra jumala puhuu kuin olisi yksi jostakin joukosta? Olisiko mahdollista, että aineelliseen muotoon saakka ulottuvan luomisen ovatkin suorittaneet korkeat henkiset, kuitenkin vielä epätäydelliset voimat, tai voimaryhmä, jota juutalaisten Zoharissa kutsutaan Sefiroteiksi. Näitä sanotaan olevan kymmenen ”vuodatusta”, joista korkeinta kutsutaan korkeimmaksi, rajattomaksi valoksi. Sephirothien nimet ovat: Kether (Kruunu), Chokmah (Viisaus), Binah (Ymmärrys), Chesed (Armo), Geburah (Voima), Tiphereth (Kauneus), Netzach (Voitto), Hod (Loisto), Jesod (Perusta), Malkuth (valtakunta). Kirkkoisä Irenaeuksen mukaan tätä tuntemaamme psyykkis-aineellista ihmistä olivat muokkaamassa ns. keskitason aionit (enkelit). Sephirotheista niitä voisivat siten olla Geburahin, Voiman piiriin kuuluvat tietoiset voimat? Efesolaiskirjeessään (1:21) Paavali mainitsee neljä enkeliluokkaa, jotka hän kuvaa toimiviksi todellisen henkisen tason (Kristuksen ja Jumalan) alapuolella. ”korkeammalle kaikkea hallitusta ja valtaa ja voimaa ja herrautta…” (Kolossalaiskirjeessä hän mainitsee lisäksi Valtaistuimet, Thronoit). Paavalin piireissä saatettiin puhua kolmesta enkeliluokasta, joissa kussakin on kolme astetta: Serafit, Kerubit, Thoroit (Valtaistuimet); Kyrioteetit, Dynamikset (Voimat), Eksusiait; Arkai-enkelit, Arkki-enkelit, Enkelit. Näissäkin Voimat edustavat keskitason luovia olentokuntia. Ihmisen sanotaan poikkeavan muista tietoisista olennoista siinä suhteessa, että hänen tietoisuutensa alkuperä (mutta mahdollisesti vain alkuperä) on korkeimmassa jumaluudessa. Ihmisessä sanotaan olevan alkuperäinen Jumalan kuva, ja hänessä lienee myös ainekset Jumalan temppeliksi, kunhan kaikki palaset saadaan ensin istutetuiksi oikeille paikoilleen. Paavali ei tosin kerro, ovatko hänen mainitsemansa voimat jossakin tekemisessä ulkonaisen ihmisen luomisen kanssa, hän vain korostaa, että ihmisen tulisi pitää mielensä sokaistumatta ”tämän maailman jumalalta”, jolloin heille ei loistaisi Kristuksen kirkkaudesta loistava valkeus, Jumalan kuva (2. Kor. 4:4). Apostoli puhuu myös ”ilmavallan hallitsijasta”, jonka mukaan ”syntinen ihminen” himoissaan vaeltaa (Ef. 2:1). Ilmavallan hallitsija kuvataan joskus langenneeksi enkeliksi, ehkäpä yhdeksi Kerubeista, jota on usein myös Lusiferiksi nimitetty. Isä meidän -rukouksessa mainitaan käsitteet valtakunta ja voima Jumalalle (Jumalan alapuolelle?)kuuluviksi tekijöiksi. Mestari Eckhart sanoi, että Jumala loi universumin Serafeihin, korkeimpaan enkeliluokkaan, joiden hän sanoo tiedostavan kaiken yhtenä. Näistä saisi alkunsa alenevien emanaatioiden sarja, jossa ylemmät tietoiset luovat voimat – sanotaanpa vaikka yliluonto – eriyttävät itsestään alempia ja yhä karkeammanlaatuisia olemuksia. Kabbalassa Serafit kuuluvat Geburahin, eli Voimien luokkaan, keskitason aioneihin, joiden Irenaeuskin sanoi olleen tekemisissä ihmisen muotoutumisen kanssa. Jumala ei itsessään, eikä edes Sen ensimmäinen voima (vuodatus), voi luoda muuta kuin täydellistä, koska äärimmäinen jumaluus välittömine heijastumineen on kaikessa täydellinen. Jumala ajattelee, ja kaikki on, siis in principio – perimmäisessä olemuksessa, ajottomuudessa. Kaikki tuntemamme luomakunta ja luonto ovat jo arkihavainnon nojalla alati muuttuvia ja siten vielä selvästi epätäydellisiä, joten ne eivät vastanne alkuperäistä Jumalan kuvaa, eivätkä ole alkuperäisen suoranaisia heijastumia, jollainen on vain ajattomuudessa. Olisiko niin, ettei perimmäinen Jumaluus, tai edes sen heijastus (SANA) luo, vaan maailmankaikkeuden ikuisesta periaineesta, ensimmäisen heijastuksen mukaan muodostuvat ja objektiiviseen elämään herättämät ”seitsemän jumalaa” suorittavat kaiken luomisen. Ja olisiko myös niin, että Mooseksen kirjan 3. luvun Herra jumala oli yksi näistä korkeista, koko kosmoksen luovista voimista, joista yhtä juutalaiset kutsuivat nimellä JHVH? Olisiko lisäksi niin, että Jumalan seitsemän luomispäivää kuvaisivat perimmäisten ydinolemusten vuodattamista seitsemän eri tietoisen, luovan voimaryhmittymän kautta, jotka emanoivat itsestään yhä erillistyneempiä elämän muotoja ja tajuisia olentoja?

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.