There are a lot of organizations and individuals out there who say
they are out to save the world. Sometimes they want to save bodies,
sometimes souls, sometimes they want to bring about a new age in the
world, sometimes they say they merely predict such a change. They
generally see it as pretty im****tant that what they advocate gets
done, or that their view gets accepted.
I have a problem with that. The language of such statements is far too
loaded for any kind of fair discussion to take place at all. If you
say you want to improve some specific thing, that is fine - we can
then talk about what you wish to improve, why you feel it would be
better in your proposal than it is now, and we can then see if we
share common ground or not, why we feel about aspects of our
respective viewpoints, exchange opinions and have a meaningful
conversation.
Many people who are out to save your soul, or the world, or anything
like that are not doing you the courtesy of having an honest
discussion with you. They are stating that a) the world / your soul
needs saving and b) that they know what is best for everyone/ you.
They relegate you to the position of a child that needs teaching about
the world - and they are not even being a very good parent to you, as
a proper parent will always stimulate children to think for themselves
as much as possible. They generally do this without ascertaining what
your ideas actually are - or they use specifically designed gambit to
make you feel that you dont know what you think.
A good example of this is asking the question: Are you spiritually
free? This is essentially a meaningless question until you define what
you mean by being spiritually free, and in order to go along with such
a discussion, you generally have to allow the person initiating the
conversation to define the words - allowing them to define them in
such a way as to make their viewpoint seem more attractive. A
Christian may say that spiritual freedom means experiencing the love
of God - turning a multi-facetted question into a two-sided one, where
you are either reponding to God or not. At no point is the possibility
entertained that maybe the concepts being discussed are vague or
simply not useful.
I think any discussion about spirituality has an irrational element.
We cannot measure spirit, quantify it or check it in any way - we can
only say that we believe certain things and that we see spirit as
being a certain way. But it becomes difficult if you believe that
another person should believe something as well. If there is such a
thing as a soul, then we can only ever make statements about our own
souls. Saying anything about someone elses is unfair, since we cannot
supply proof of a soul existing, we cannot show that it has certain
qualities, and we are making a statement about someone else without
any possible proof as to its truth or falsehood.
At most a person can suggest that certain insights were helpful to
them, and benefitted them in some way. Maybe they will benefit you as
well - give it a go! This is a fair and honest exchange between human
beings. Anything else is a sign of arrogance, and possibly a sign of a
desire for power over people. Missionaries, priests, guru's, So-called
Old Souls and Wize Beings - unless they begin with the simple
statement that what they believe made them happier, and that maybe it
will make you happier too - unless they also listen to your ideas in
stead of just preaching about their own - unless there is a fair and
honest human exchange - probably just want something from you.
Usually just a rub of their ego, sometimes a lot more.
|
