A simple but sincere seeker of a higher level of spiritual development somehow came under the influence of a spiritual guru whose understanding of life seemed to be …
“What do you mean by seemed to be?”
“Perhaps I don’t yet know what the limits of my own understanding of life are.”
“How is it possible not to know your own limits?”
“Perhaps I’ve been socially conditioned to accept and expect less of myself and my capacity for thought than possibly exists.”
“Why would that have happened?”
“Not necessarily through the failure of anyone to teach me, unless ..”
“Unless what?”
“Parents and early educators likely seek to serve the best interests of the community when teaching children what to think and how to relate to their world.”
“Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the community for children to be taught as much about life as they could understand?”
“Perhaps the natural, or conditioned, limits of parents and early educators restricts what they can pass on to the younger generation in their care.”
“Yes, but there is always conscious intent to limit awareness in the minds of young children.”
“If so, then that intentional limitation could have survival value.”
“For whom? Or what? How? And why?”
“Perhaps it’s as food.”
“In what way?”
“We feed babies with very soft foods that their bodies can digest, and only gradually introduce foods that require a more developed digestive system.”
“What has that to do with intentionally limiting a child’s intellectual development?”
“Teachers and parents can only teach what they know.”
“Or what they believe is safe for the children to know?”
“How could children be endangered by knowledge?”
“Perhaps not the children, themselves.”
“Then whom? Or what?”
“Every society that exists can only maintain its present way of life by gently, or otherwise, enforcing rules on everyone within that society, including children.”
“But, societies evolve and transcend over time, as new ideas and new ways of living become available.”
“Yes, but as eager as young people, and some others, may be to adapt and change, there’s always repression of adaptation and change, by those who might lose their positions of power within society.”
“That could be a healthy condition.”
“How so?”
“Survival needs of individual societies might depend upon at least some control by leaders, teachers, and parents, of the degree and type of change that seems to be happening.”
“Yes. Thee are always reasons for suppression.”
“Is it necessarily suppression?”
“What else?”
“Suppression sounds so deliberate and intentional.”
“It is.”
“Could it not just be resistance to change that might threaten the existing rules of order of the society in question?”
“Or the power of those who benefit from the existing rules?”
“That, of course, would be part of any dynamic between the past and the desired future.”
“Yes.”
“So, what’s the solution?”
“To what?”
“A peaceful transition from what was, to what might yet be.”
“Yes. There is no peaceful solution.”
“Winner takes all?”
“Yes.”
…..
A simple seeker’s note to herself
Thinking back on the concept of a ‘winner takes all’ solution to any differences between either individuals or groups, that idea is something that I’ve always resisted. I seem to need a level playing field kind of ending to any problems between people.
“Life doesn’t usually work that way.”
“Why?”
“Conflicting visions of an ideal society can create tension between the opposing views, unless both sides choose synthesis.”
“Can’t there be accomodation, cooperation, and harmony, as an alternative to synthesis?”
“Perhaps as a short-term solution, but it wouldn’t last.”
“Why?”
“It would still be duality.”
“So, what’s wrong with duality?”
“There’s no unity in duality.”
“Why do we need unity?”
“It’s the only reality.”
“What does that mean?”
“Either we’re all in this together, or we’re not. And, we are. Case closed.”
…..
Simple Seekers 