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)!