In writing the recent essay, "Fire and Ice," I spoke of guilt and regret and how it comes to negatively affect us in the living present. Like physical pain, the correct service of guilt is to alter our behavior. Whether we take a spiritual view of it - that "right" is something inborn - or a sociological view - that "right" is a form of social control - looked at logically, it should simply keep us from repeating a behavior that gives us uncomfortable feedback. And then we should move on. As Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more." That is, you've lived through the hard consequences, now leave it to the past and do not do it again. But guilt will not leave us be. Like a sore that will not heal, it stays at the ready to pound us in more contemplative moments, when we would be far better off expanding our understanding of existence. Guilt, then, acts as a barrier to spiritual progress.
Last week I heard a man on the radio use the expression, "Indian Giver," and I reflexively gasped. Isn't that a racist slur of some sort? And undoubtedly, there will be those who are easily offended who will call it that, but in reality, the term uses the word used for Native Americans that has been used without offense for hundreds of years, and then points to their rivals - the European -originated powers. It is they who are the "Indian Givers" , they who "gave" the right to the Indians to have Indiana, then took it away; to have Oklahoma, and then took it away; to have the Black Hills and then took it away. An Indian Giver is a liar who gives with one hand and steals with the other. It is a slur on our American government, not the Indians. But a certain part of our society would have it both ways. When I heard the term on the radio, I was first afraid for the racist content, and then reminded of the failure of our government. They are contradictory fears and regrets, but doubly effective. The word-controllers would have us feel bad about our government, as well as for the very personal choice of words that we make. They would have us conform to a foreign ideology, one that makes our collective government a source of shame (in the overall sense) and our individual thoughts a slate in dire need of self-censorship.
It is easy to see from the phase "Indian Giver" that one form of guilt is organic, stemming from a much broader sense of what is right - do not lie and steal back what you have given; while the other is a form of guilt meant as a means of control by one ideological camp over others. It is not organic, but a nearly blatant power move to control what one can think by controlling words themselves. With this we have to ask ourselves - who gave them the right? We have freedom of religion, to choose the exact nature of the moral code we wish to pursue; but we are also to have freedom of thought and expression, and yet...
It is all about control, and as in any good religion, the ends, even if they are good, do not justify the means. This is a power move that should be exposed, resisted, and rejected.
But what of our internal guilt machine, the one that invades at times when we could instead be growing in contemplative knowledge? This, too, is a power play, not by a group in society but by a part of ourselves. What is this part wishing to do? If it were only used as a reminder when we are about to morally stray, it would be one thing; but that is not what we are bothered by. Rather, it is the nag that will not shut up, one that is actually detrimental to our spiritual growth. So why is this part of ourselves?
In the human arena these days, they say to 'follow the money.' To look for the purpose of guilt, it is better to say ,"follow the power." What, that is, is gained by this internal nagging? Who gets the power? To answer that is to see what loses power, and that is spirit. While tied up with guilt or remorse, we do not grow spiritually. Who benefits?
All I can see is that the "I" benefits - that is, the tangle of memories and emotions that make up the concept of the self. The self does not like to be reminded that it is only temporary and ever-changing. The self wishes to be seen as the center of the universe even though it is abundantly clear that it is not. That, then, is the point - to tangle up free thought so that the obvious remains obscure. The obvious is that our "I," our self, is a paper thin wafer on a giant sea. This "I" will work its tail off, even to the point of killing the host, to retain the fallacy of central dominance of the greater, connected Self.
It seems so apparent and yet it is hard to avoid, the tricks of the self. As far as the politically correct crowd in our current society, I have identified it and promised myself that they would not change my freedom of expression, but I was wrong about its power. I could not help but gasp when I heard the word, "Indian Giver," even though I know its true meaning. And so it is with the battle of the self to usurp the throne of the greater Self. Expose it all you want, but as long as it is "you," it will win. Fight it and it is only the "I" fighting the "I," strengthening even as it weakens. Instead, it is the plain truth found in quiet contemplation that wins without a fight, simply because it is so clearly right. Once we get through the haze of words and manipulated emotions, nothing could be clearer. FK
Last week I heard a man on the radio use the expression, "Indian Giver," and I reflexively gasped. Isn't that a racist slur of some sort? And undoubtedly, there will be those who are easily offended who will call it that, but in reality, the term uses the word used for Native Americans that has been used without offense for hundreds of years, and then points to their rivals - the European -originated powers. It is they who are the "Indian Givers" , they who "gave" the right to the Indians to have Indiana, then took it away; to have Oklahoma, and then took it away; to have the Black Hills and then took it away. An Indian Giver is a liar who gives with one hand and steals with the other. It is a slur on our American government, not the Indians. But a certain part of our society would have it both ways. When I heard the term on the radio, I was first afraid for the racist content, and then reminded of the failure of our government. They are contradictory fears and regrets, but doubly effective. The word-controllers would have us feel bad about our government, as well as for the very personal choice of words that we make. They would have us conform to a foreign ideology, one that makes our collective government a source of shame (in the overall sense) and our individual thoughts a slate in dire need of self-censorship.
It is easy to see from the phase "Indian Giver" that one form of guilt is organic, stemming from a much broader sense of what is right - do not lie and steal back what you have given; while the other is a form of guilt meant as a means of control by one ideological camp over others. It is not organic, but a nearly blatant power move to control what one can think by controlling words themselves. With this we have to ask ourselves - who gave them the right? We have freedom of religion, to choose the exact nature of the moral code we wish to pursue; but we are also to have freedom of thought and expression, and yet...
It is all about control, and as in any good religion, the ends, even if they are good, do not justify the means. This is a power move that should be exposed, resisted, and rejected.
But what of our internal guilt machine, the one that invades at times when we could instead be growing in contemplative knowledge? This, too, is a power play, not by a group in society but by a part of ourselves. What is this part wishing to do? If it were only used as a reminder when we are about to morally stray, it would be one thing; but that is not what we are bothered by. Rather, it is the nag that will not shut up, one that is actually detrimental to our spiritual growth. So why is this part of ourselves?
In the human arena these days, they say to 'follow the money.' To look for the purpose of guilt, it is better to say ,"follow the power." What, that is, is gained by this internal nagging? Who gets the power? To answer that is to see what loses power, and that is spirit. While tied up with guilt or remorse, we do not grow spiritually. Who benefits?
All I can see is that the "I" benefits - that is, the tangle of memories and emotions that make up the concept of the self. The self does not like to be reminded that it is only temporary and ever-changing. The self wishes to be seen as the center of the universe even though it is abundantly clear that it is not. That, then, is the point - to tangle up free thought so that the obvious remains obscure. The obvious is that our "I," our self, is a paper thin wafer on a giant sea. This "I" will work its tail off, even to the point of killing the host, to retain the fallacy of central dominance of the greater, connected Self.
It seems so apparent and yet it is hard to avoid, the tricks of the self. As far as the politically correct crowd in our current society, I have identified it and promised myself that they would not change my freedom of expression, but I was wrong about its power. I could not help but gasp when I heard the word, "Indian Giver," even though I know its true meaning. And so it is with the battle of the self to usurp the throne of the greater Self. Expose it all you want, but as long as it is "you," it will win. Fight it and it is only the "I" fighting the "I," strengthening even as it weakens. Instead, it is the plain truth found in quiet contemplation that wins without a fight, simply because it is so clearly right. Once we get through the haze of words and manipulated emotions, nothing could be clearer. FK
RSS Feed