From: ely@tiac.net (Eric)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness.4th-way
Subject: Believing
Date: Wed Apr 16 10:59:01 1997
Eric wrote:
>
> >On 8 Apr 1997 14:33:21 GMT, Sodme@titty.com (Gordan Bennett)
> >wrote:
>
> >>Life is a gift and should not be thrown away I believe.
>
There is something I do not understand.
For as far back as I
can recall, people have believed that their individual opinions
or assumptions were truthful. (Unless a person values that
which he thinks is false, he holds onto that which he believes
is true.)
So, why does a person believe on the one hand
that ``Life is a
gift'' and then that ``...it should not be thrown away.'' If life
is a gift, is it not one's to do with as one pleases? Why does
a person believe it is true that only forces external to human
thinking have any claim on ending a human life?
Here is another example of speculation passing for truth in one's mind. As much as there is a strong urge in one to believe in something, there will always be those who take the position of understanding something that is not yet understood. In the above paragraph, someone (a human) lays claim to knowing ``definitely'' something about whether or not a certain action will lead to a place called, ``Heaven.'' Even the term ``heaven'' is suspect as it is not a proven place and those who believe it exists claim that something called ``faith'' was sufficient for them to believe. Those who believe in a ``Heaven'' have, so far, proven to be different from Heaven's Gate members, only insomuch as the way in which they believe they are supposed to die.
I really cannot perceive any difference between this statement of
beliefs and some other statement of beliefs. All simply say, ``mine are
the correct beliefs; all contradictory beliefs are either poorly
informed or simply stupid.''
Heaven may not be a place that has been proven to this one or that
one, and may be a place that is proven by faith that is not faith but
simply strong blind belief to yet another.
Or it may be a place that is very, very real to those who live
there and observe, perhaps with some compassion, those who choose to
live in Hell and claim that there is neither Heaven nor Hell, as they
writhe in torment in the flames of demons of their own creation.
My friend, there is a hell, and there are demons in that hell. The
catch is that you must make a demon before it can possess and torment
you. Those demons are called beliefs, conclusions, opinions, ideals,
standards, false i's, self-hatred, self-doubt, inferiority, insecurity,
and many other names by those in hell. In hell, one does not call demons
demon, lest one see where one is, and what's going on here, which would
be more than one could bear without some belief system that allows for a
way out. If one has such a belief system, one of course is caught up in
the struggle to make it work, and has no problems telling others that
there is a heaven and a hell. Tomorrow. When you die. Some even say now,
safe in their belief system that they are on the way out.
In heaven, the residents call those who inhabit the slums outside
of heaven that is called hell what they will, knowing that once they,
too, thought that the slums of heaven was all that there was, and that
they, too, would not admit that it is named hell by the residents of
heaven.
When hell is all that there is in one's experence, how does it
confound the imagination that some will dream of an imaginary heaven for
surcease from their torment and that others will demand that the slums
be cleaned and rebuilt for surcease from their torment? This does not
deny the reality that is heaven and hell, any more than it affirms the
beliefs of those who only claim to know what heaven and hell are.
One of the illusions is that one knows that heaven and hell are
after death when one does not even know what death is nor life. Truly,
those in hell are dead, and those in heaven are knowing life forever,
having died to something.
One cannot leave hell until one admits that one is in hell, or
every journey will end where it began: in hell.
Hell is just a word that was used for a time for the human
condition of unconscious living by those who had found a way to live
consciously. Heaven, by the way, is not hell's alternative nor its
opposite. One who leaves hell does not necessarily find themself in
heaven.
But all this crap about heaven and hell is just a side issue, isn't
it? It would be much more interesting, perhaps, to look at what I am
certain that I know, and question whether I truly know that. Speculating
on what is meant by those who speak of heaven and hell from experience
may be a waste of time until I have some experience on what I can be
knowing of the subject: hell. Enlightening others who are wasting time
while I am still wasting time is an amusing game to those who choose not
to play.
There is a very valid question in what was posed, although it was
not formed as an answerable question and pretty much ignored as a
consequence: ``Why do I believe things that are contradictory?'' ``Why''
conceals yet another presumptive assertion: that there is a cause; were
one to find that cause one could change it and have a different effect.
So the question, as formed, is more accurately a statement: ``I believe
that when I find the cause of having contradictory beliefs, then I can
change it and stop believing contradictory things. So I must search out
the cause of this, to me, ridiculous and unpleasant behavior so that I
can stop.''
This is not the case. I do not need to know what caused someone to
build a building that I do not like and wish to see torn down and
rebuilt as something more pleasing to my taste. I just tear it down and
rebuild. Even knowing why they did that in the first place does not
change anything, although it may prove quite interesting. But I still
need to go to the effort to remove and rebuild if I want my own building
in its place.
If I want to prevent all further buildings like that one from being
built, then I must search out the cause and change it in all builders so
that they never do it again. What if ``all builders'' have different
reasons for liking that particular kind of building. Will this still
work?
Being aware of the factors that allow one to build contradictory
belief systems may assist one's efforts to stop doing such a thing, if
one no longer wishes to do so. When aware of these factors, I may see
that I am in the process of doing it again, and stop before it reaches
the final stage of yet another belief. Does that undo all that was built
before I became aware of the mechanism? Only in quite rare circumstances
in this one's experience.
The effort necessary to stop building is one thing. The effort
necessary to remove what has already been built is yet another.
Both may have value if one wishes to stop building and one wishes
to remove what has already been built.
Cause and effect implies that these efforts are one and the same
effort. Thus the cause is being poorly informed or simply stupid. If one
is (luckily) poorly informed, then learning will both remove and
rebuild. THIS IS AN ILLUSION! This effort will simply build yet another
belief, leaving the previous belief in place as yet another
contradiction almost every time! The few times that this actually works
leads one to believe that it should work every time, rather than leading
one to question the belief that there is such a thing as cause and
effect!
For example, many of us believe that we are not loved, or not loved
for the right reasons. Then someone comes along who we accept loves us.
We ``change'' our belief: I am loved! We walk on air for a while,
believing that we are loved. Then they do something that shows that they
do not really love us, or that discloses that their reason for loving us
is not acceptable. And we're right back where we started: I am not
loved! Only now I have two contradictory beliefs that I must struggle to
reconcile. I am loved; I am not loved. What an inner torment these two
beliefs make. Many of us live in that inner torment.
How much of one's ``work'' is an attempt to live solely by a set of
beliefs that one has accepted from some authority who suggests to one
that someone with that very special set of beliefs will be standing in a
right and safe and secure position all of the time? Whether that right
and safe and secure position is wealthy, loved, conscious, or some other
reward that one seeks? And regardless of the fact that the ``authority''
actually is suggesting that one not regard them as an authority, but
experiement to find out for oneself whether they speak accurately or are
just full of nonsense.
If you are interested in the conditions necessary to the
construction of belief systems, contradictory or not, let me know. They
are known. If you want the cause, please don't ask me. I have no idea.
Remember: to be truly safe you must never admit that you know
anything to anyone else. If you do, you will, sooner or later,
inadvertently suggest that someone else is wrong. Then they will attack
you. Always preface everything you say with ``I think'' or ``I believe''
or ``In my opinion,'' even though you actually know and are certain that
it's right.
Alternately, you may state positively what you know and develop the
strength (this is not being inflexible or stubborn when you are right)
to stand up to all such attacks by maintaining your righteousness and
quoting your authorities to prove your righteous position (this is not
arguing, and you must be sure to tell everyone who suggests that it is
arguing that IT IS NOT); or simply bludgeon them psychologically and/or
physically until they stop attacking you.
Note: it is not actually necessary to use all of these methods to
become a true believer. They are all natural outcomes to using any other
one of these methods. Pick any one and use it for a time. You will soon
notice that you are quite naturally using them all, without even
thinking about it, and quite possibly without even noticing the fact.
Copyright © 1995-1997 by inX.![]()
Fax me a copy:
Mail me a copy:
![]()