A View of Tradition
Saturday, October 12, 2013
LIFE IS
BEAUTIFUL!
(Part 1 of 2)
By
Francis William Bessler
Misguided Traditions
As I see it, the “truth” is in everything - but if you want the most direct route to it - listen to Nature - not those of us who have been “given” some so called “knowledge” by virtue of inheriting some tradition or other.
In my opinion, because of my experience with life, the greatest obstacle to finding the truth in life has been having to “overcome” some idea that I was given by virtue of a tradition I was handed. People get locked into some tradition - or within some tradition - and it is like they become blind to anything else.
I was born Catholic; and because of my “Catholic upbringing,” I was “told” from birth that all life is sinful - and, of course, needs to be redeemed. Is it sinful? NO! But I was taught that it is - and that is just one example of listening to the wrong source for any answers about life.
You may ask how I know that I was told wrong that all life is sinful? Of course, it is but personal opinion, but in thinking about sin as I was taught it is, sin is “separation from God” or the consequences of that. It stands to reason, then, that sin is entirely dependent upon “being separated from God.” Right? But if one cannot be separated from God, then one can’t be sinful - given that sin is related to separation from God. I have concluded that since Existence must be Infinite and since God must equal Infinite Existence, then nothing can be separated from God. Accordingly, all that sin that I was taught is my inheritance is not so at all. Is it?
My former tradition is just one example, though. I am not alone, however. Am I? Just look around and observe the world at large. Who among us has been born outside of some tradition or other? No one! We all have to deal with overcoming whatever it is that our various traditions have taught us; but we have to realize that tradition itself is the greatest obstacle for finding the truth.
Just look around - and observe! What Christian kid is free to think about Jesus as a kind of sage, like Socrates, rather than a Jewish Messiah? What Islamic kid is free to think about Mohammed as just one of them? What Jewish kid is really free to think about Moses as potentially only fiction - or at least, partly fiction? What North Korean kid is really free to think about life in a way different than his North Korean kindred? What American kid is really free to think about life in a way different than what “Americanism” is claimed to be about? And it goes on and on and on.
The “truth” is that we are all captive of some tradition; and in the end, that is probably why we fight among ourselves so much. We fight each other because we are upholding our various traditions; and when those traditions are probably nonsense in the end, if we are smart, we would stand up and ask - Why?
In the end, no matter what the kid, the problem with that kid knowing the “real truth” can be reduced to some tradition or other. That is the “plain truth.” It could be argued that tradition is the greatest obstacle to finding the truth. If you go to it - regardless of what that tradition is - you will not find truth. You will only find what that given tradition has determined it is - with “it” being “the truth.”
Keep in mind, too, that a tradition can be religious or irreligious, political or familial, comprised of one follower or dozen followers or a zillion followers. A tradition is really only at least one following the lead of someone else - and, for the most part, having to answer to that someone else for his or her conduct. It can be harsh or it can be kind to its adherent - or adherents.
I watched a movie recently that featured a wife being unfaithful to her husband. She asked him to forgive her, but she held out a sledge hammer to him if he chose to “punish” her. In this case, he took the sledge hammer and hit her over the head - and, of course, killed her. So much for the possibility of forgiveness; but this was tradition in practice - or a tradition in practice. One person claiming the right to command obedience of another - regardless of what that obedience might be. In this case, I would say it was a very insane tradition - but it is only one example of many absolutely insane traditions.
The Truth - Too Late
Tomorrow I may die; and today is not the time to realize I may have been following a wrong tradition all my life. By “wrong,” I mean a tradition based on a “mistaken understanding of life.”
It should be clear by virtue of the many various traditions within civilization that in all likelihood, none of those traditions have a correct sense of truth. Why? Because they all have in common needing to listen to - and perhaps obey - some other human source.
Regardless of tradition, if I have to listen to another human being - and again, perhaps obey that other human being - then my tradition is based on being “other oriented”; but in being other oriented, it can only be an interpretation of life by someone else; and who is to say that someone else is any wiser than me - or any wiser than I could be?
In my opinion, every soul should know that it can know what any other soul might know - regarding what could be called “spiritual truth” or truth related to the welfare of a soul. So, let each soul know for itself. That is the safe way to go. If I have to depend on another soul to direct me, that is to imply that I cannot know a truth of myself - or by myself. And if I cannot know a truth by myself, how can I be sure that the claim of someone else is true? If I can’t know what is true, how can I know what another claims is true is actually true? Why prance after someone else like he or she can know the truth and I can’t if he or she can’t really know more than I? If a lead cannot know more than me, why not trust myself to know what I need to know?
It is in that light that I believe relying on a tradition to lead me to the truth is a very dangerous way to go for a soul. Why do it if the truth - if it really is the truth - should be accessible to all by virtue of the same reason that led one person to the truth should also be available in one’s mind to lead another to that same truth? And, again, if I cannot know the truth of and by myself, why should I assume that you do? If you are really a fool and do not know the truth, but think you do, in following you, I have followed a fool and have become a fool myself. Why should I choose such a course in life? Why?
I think that the single greatest reason we humans have warped ideas about life is because we insist on listening to the tales of various traditions - and every single one of those traditions pay no mind whatever to the concept of INFINITY.
Moses, for example, could not have known about what he was making laws about because he was ignorant of Infinity. I am sure that Moses failed to even speculate about an Infinite Universe - and yet he made all sort of laws that all his kindred were supposed to obey because he was of the mind that Life Is Not Infinite - or Existence Is Not Infinite. He paid no mind to such a concept - and that is why his ideas about life are warped - and that is why all of those who live in his footsteps and act like he was some kind of “prophet from - or for - God” are as blind as Moses was - assuming, of course, that Moses did really live and that the story of Moses is not some fiction tale told in order to establish a tradition.
One’s view of the one we call “God” makes all the difference in the world. My view of God is that God is Infinite - and therefore inside of me as well as inside of everyone. Infinity proclaims that; but if I am of the mind that God is not equal to Infinity, then I am led to define God as an individual - and not as an All Present Reality. For Moses, God was an individual - and thus “someone” he could talk with and take direction from - and use to direct others as to what that “God” might be saying to him.
My God and I cannot have a “conversation” because My God is not an individual with whom I can communicate - being simply a presence that is everywhere; but the God of Moses was an individual - and thus Moses could conceive of one with whom he could converse. Accordingly, Moses “met” his conversational God on a mountain and that conversational God gave him tablets full of commandments which Moses was directed to give to his clan camped below the mountain.
Well, that is what Moses claimed in the Book of EXODUS as recorded in the BIBLE. But very conveniently Moses destroyed the tablets after coming down from the mountain. He claimed he broke them in anger when he saw his people worshipping some golden calf or such; but the probable truth of the matter is that he had never been given any tablets. For whatever reason, he decided that he needed to claim that his God gave him a bunch of commandments, but for practical reasons he had to destroy the tablets - lest his testimony of tablets be questioned. Without evidence of tablets, no one could review the evidence of his claim; and so Moses simply claimed he was given a bunch of tablets but those tablets were lost. How convenient to not have to “present” evidence. Right?
But apparently the clan of Moses did not question the story of Moses - and Moses went on to “present” all the supposed commandments that his God supposedly gave him - and the rest is history - or should I say, tradition. I am not sure how I would have reacted to Moses if he had claimed that story and not presented any evidence, but I suspect that I would have challenged him and told him that without evidence of tablets, I would not comply. But therein is the problem with hearsay - and believing hearsay without challenging it; it often turns into “tradition.”
Now, I don’t blame Moses for doing as he did and claiming the authority he did because he was probably only trying to institute order - and he simply used a tale of convenience to do that; but if Moses had not had that idea that God could be an individual with whom he could have communicated, then we probably would not have a tradition called Judaism today. In short, Judaism - as all traditions that claim a “conversational God” as their foundation - would not be prevalent today; but Ignorance of Infinity allows so much that would have never been allowed if people only took reality into consideration when forming their traditions.
What did Peter think about life? Was he an “apostle of Moses”? Probably - because he was a faithful Jew. What did John think about life? Was he an “apostle of Moses”? Probably - because he was a faithful Jew. What did Jesus think about life? Was he an “apostle of Moses”? Maybe - and maybe not - but in my opinion, “probably not.”
Jesus Versus Moses
My view of Jesus is that he opposed all the laws of the Jews (or at least, many of them) - and since those laws came from Moses - then Jesus had to have “opposed Moses.” That would hardly make Jesus an “apostle of Moses.” Would it?
Why would I claim that Jesus may have “opposed” Moses - or the ideas of Moses? Because Jesus was strictly an “attitude man” - and Moses was a “membership man.” What is the difference? An attitude man is strictly that - one who believes that doing what is right is a matter of attitude and it is the attitude itself that determines if one is “saved” or not. A membership man is one who claims that “salvation” is a matter of membership within some formal group.
The formal group of salvation for Moses was the Jewish Nation. To gain salvation for Moses was to be a Jew - and, of course, comply with all the Jewish Law that went with being a member of that nation. I have no such image of Jesus. Do you? Can you imagine Jesus offering that salvation is a matter of belonging to some nation - as opposed to just “being moral”? I can’t imagine any such thing - and that is why I am given to believe that Jesus probably “opposed” Mosaic Ways - and in no way, would he have agreed to be part of such a thing.
Why would have Peter and John - and their likes - have still stayed “apostles of Moses” if, in fact, their “leader” opposed the ideas of Moses? Why? Because they refused to give up their ties to their tradition - which came from Moses, regardless of whether Moses was a real person or fiction character. Jesus was willing to give up those ties, but that does not mean anyone around him was willing to follow his lead.
Did the likes of Peter and John want to risk that their Judaism could be wrong? I doubt it; and so they probably stuck with their ways in spite of hearing their friend, Jesus, tell them his way was better. What was “his way”? Being kind to all! That’s all! But could Peter and John see the light and adopt rule over law? There is NO EVIDENCE they did.
Now, assume that the likes of Peter and John were insistent on claiming to be “believers of Jesus,” what would they have likely done - given that they refused to accept that the tradition of Moses was never correct for failure to appreciate a mighty reality like Infinity? Presto - they would have included Jesus within their failed tradition - not excluded him from it.
And therein is the likely tradition of most Christians. In insisting that the tradition of the Jews - founded in part by Moses - was legitimate, they chose to include Jesus within it and make Jesus somehow an “apostle of Moses” when, in fact, Jesus may have opposed everything about Moses. But that just goes to show how absolutely crazy traditions are - or can be.
How many Christians in this world today would even consider that Jesus opposed Moses? How many Christians today are absolutely certain that Jesus followed in the footsteps of Moses - and that no one should deny Moses lest they deny Jesus too? How many? How many? How many?
Let us be honest. What did Peter and John do with what might be called Christianity? They simply extended the concept of a “chosen nation” - or a “favored people” of the Old Jews to the “New Judaism.” They did not think they were ceasing to be Jews by believing in what Jesus taught. They simply argued that their “nation” was being extended by allowing a greater “membership.” Now, it was no longer necessary to belong to the “nation” of Israel to be saved. Now, it was necessary to belong to a “nation “ of Jesus to be saved; and that “nation” was comprised of all who believe in Jesus as a “new Moses” - in general terms, a messiah.
Moses had been their messiah since the time he rescued them from Egypt and led them into a “promised land” called Israel. Now Jesus became their “new messiah” and to reach the new “promised land,” they would have to submit to Jesus like they had earlier submitted to Moses. What was the basis of the old Judaism of Moses? It was structured to contain all sort of law and regulation - exactly what Jesus probably opposed, being the “attitude man” that he was. What was the basis - and is the basis - of the new Judaism called Christianity? It is structured to contain all sort of law and regulation. In a way, there is no significant difference between the old Judaism and the new Christianity. Both are “membership” oriented - and not just attitude minded.
As I see it, Jesus taught there is but one thing necessary for salvation - and that is kindness to all for believing in the worth of all. But Peter and John went forward to claim that kindness of itself will gain you nothing. You have to belong to a membership to be saved - not just be kind to all. Am I not right?
What is the so called “Kingdom of God” about for Christians? It is about “belonging to a formal group” - a group of kindred souls who will eventually rule the world. It is about being part of a nation that is above all other nations. It is about having God as the Supreme Head of a “land of salvation” that cannot be opposed and whose members will be forever free. And it is about Power - power to rule others in the name of Jesus.
But Jesus was not about power when he lived; and he will never be about power - no matter how much we may want it so. Why? Because he did not need it to have a sense of worth; and neither does anyone else.
To Be Continued -
(End of Part 1)