and outer conditions needed to support the new habit or aspiration. Careful wording will prevent
the likelihood of triggering an adverse effect. For example, if you want to quit smoking, an
affirmation that contains the word smoking, such as “I am not smoking anymore,” can prompt
your mind to affirm the habit of smoking. The mind only hears “I am smoking.” A better
affirmation might be “I respect the cleanliness of my body”; this thought will help eliminate the
energy-wasting habit if you believe that smoking pollutes the body. If instead you want to quit
because smoking is an expensive habit, you could work with the affirmation “I respect money
and spend it only on promoting my well-being.” Ideal affirmations can also be used to remove
good habits in the attempt to gain freedom from all ingrained habits. When you are no longer
enslaved by good as well as bad habits, you will be freer to choose your thoughts and actions in
larger contexts.
Visual affirmations influence future events, ideally for the maximum benefit of all participants.
This type of affirmation has endless applications—from preparing for a recital or speech to
making peace with a co-worker or directing a job interview. Alternatively, it can be used to excel
in a competitive sport. The scene is visualized, after which it may or may not be put into words.
We all engage in visual affirmations spontaneously; however, when practiced deliberately and
with concentration, their power intensifies significantly. For example, before a scheduled
meeting with someone you have experienced as cantankerous, you might visualize him being
ornery and tell yourself to prepare for the worst, actually affirming that he will be in a bad mood.
The result will be that you may interpret even friendly behavior on his part as obnoxious. By
instructing your brain in how events should best unfold, persistent visualization contributes to
more positive encounters and conserves the energy otherwise squandered in reactive thinking.
Article affirmations make use of personal objects—representing such things as a positive
attitude, health, success, love for a particular person, or courage—to automatically instill in the
mind the desired point of focus. When placed in strategic locations, such objects can call forth
the corresponding affirmations in just the right circumstances and inspire calls to action or
peace and contentment. A wedding band is, at bottom, an article affirmation, as are photos of
loved ones. The most widely used religious articles for affirmation purposes include altars,
pictures of saints, beads, and phylacteries; these can be endowed with meaning in keeping with
the necessity to project universal ideals onto devotional props. To retain their special
significance, all articles need to be replaced or at least rotated from time to time. Otherwise,
those hung on walls or doors are likely to soon blend in with the wallpaper and those adorning
the body might be mistaken for everyday apparel. For instance, the yarmulke, or skullcap worn
by Jews, is an article affirmation designed primarily to promote the remembrance of one’s
personal God. If worn habitually, as is the custom among most observant Jews, this article can
eventually lose its symbolic significance and be seen as just another garment to put on in the
morning. But when intermittently alternated, its original function can be restored.
Gratitude affirmations, extended either verbally or mentally, give thanks for the good things in
life. Popular in religious traditions, frequently thanking God for the food set before you or for the
roof over your head, for example, helps to affirm the place and value of these commodities in
your mind, thus improving the odds that you are never without them. It is also possible to thank
yourself or your personal image of God for providing you things you are without. Using gratitude
affirmations in this way corrects the beggar’s mentality that has us praying for something we do
not have and thereby affirming its absence in our lives. So if you need a vehicle but do not have
the money to buy one, rather than praying for a vehicle thank the world or your ideal of God for
it, doggedly affirming its presence in your life. Your experience of the world will respond to the
mind trained in this way. Having overcome contradictions, your gratitude affirmation will free the
energy wasted on pining for a car—energy better used on securing transportation.
Though all types of affirmations are empowered by depth of concentration and perseverance,
each has an optimal practice routine. Maintenance affirmations can be practiced year round;
ideal affirmations for one week, then rotated; visual affirmations for one to three days for
isolated events, or for one week and then rotated for material desires; article affirmations for one
month, or less if an object loses its symbolic value; and gratitude affirmations spontaneously
throughout the day, to correct negative thinking and to address specific needs. All affirmations
other than maintenance affirmations need a rest period to allow the practice to take root in the
mind and environment, and to keep the affirmations fresh and thus effective.
Affirmations require little time, no money, and prove that you do not need to exclusively rely on
unpredictable external forces to secure the necessities of life. The seeds of contentment,
whether directed toward personal satisfaction or harmonious circumstances, are in the mind.
From my earliest memories as an elementary student in a Hebrew school, I never trusted
prayer. Like every child, I knew what it meant to converse with another human being, and
praying or talking to my Judaic image of God was nothing like that. I asked myself why talking to
God was so important when I needed to supply his responses with my own mind. Was God so
impotent that he’d want me to talk to him but be unable to answer? Praying to God felt
completely like talking to myself and the “answers” I was told to believe I was receiving were
unfailingly dependent on biased interpretation of events connected to the very prayers uttered.
So there I was, mumbling through prayer books while rocking back and forth (I was required to
pray in someone else’s words in a language I did not speak) but always ending with the same
question to God: Why do I have to do this? God didn’t answer, of course, and my own young
mind didn’t have an answer. But instead of denying the usefulness of talking to myself, I later
investigated how doing so might accomplish something valuable in my life.
Much of my time as an ontological theorist is devoted to thinking. I reason out ideas, I test them
using data available to my mind, I compare them with the ideas of others, and I write down my
thoughts to spark further questions and internal dialogue. Even writing a book requires, when all
is said and done, talking to oneself at length. So I found that by telling myself the things that
aided me in directing my mind, I have been generally free of all the things I might have said to
myself that would surely have wasted time and energy and brought on self-destructive
emotions. Difficulties arise in life, but a mind trained not to dwell on them is far more capable of
handling challenges than a mind that wallows in fear, self-pity, or anger. And affirmations are
the most universally accessible means of similarly conserving mental resources.
A model of the universe postulating God’s miraculous interventions conveniently relieves us of
responsibility for our actions. Indeed, it is nearly impossible to behave ethically in a world where
“good” and “bad” outcomes are determined by the guest appearances of a deity that reflects our
own beliefs. A model of the universe accounting for the laws of nature, including the power of
the mind to shape perception, on the other hand, teaches ethical living. It reminds us that the
laws of cause and effect are operative, that forces emanating from our minds have an impact on
ourselves and others, and that we therefore have an obligation to monitor our thoughts. At times
this may necessitate changing negative and fear-laden modes of thinking so we can make
beneficial things happen for ourselves and others. Ever mindful of the thoughts we project into
the world and onto others, we deepen our understanding of the seemingly endless substance of
awareness underlying the cosmos, our images of God, and our ideas of self.
Changed thoughts lead to changed actions. No longer bound by interpretations of the
miraculous—which have historically been used to divinize not only religions but also nations,
castes, ethnicities, individuals, and languages to be used for prayer—we can begin acting
respectfully toward all our brothers and sisters worldwide. Then every time we witness an event
we consider miraculous, we will know it is not God breaking the laws of nature to prove his
existence but rather our minds pressing us into action to help build a better world.
Revelation and Reason
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition
to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility
against any form of tyranny over the mind of man.
—Thomas Jefferson
Claims of revelation suffuse the landscape of religious literature. Divine truths pertaining to both
personal and societal aspects of life are received on mountaintops, in deserts, beside rivers,
and beneath giant shade trees. Their presumed purpose is to offer undeniable proof of God’s
involvement with the human race, of divine guidance, and of the existence of an absolute
authority. The problem is that acceptance of these claims cripples the human intellect.
Intrinsically, revelation is used by religious leaders to assert their right to preach uncontested
truths, as occurred with the founding of the Mormon Church, also known as the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 1829, Joseph Smith claimed that apostolic figures announced he
was to lead a new church. His statement, like all revelations, could be neither confirmed nor
denied; while a bona fide prophet would presumably have known if Joseph Smith was lying, his
listeners lacked prophets to call upon and therefore had to trust their own impressions of him.
Smith also claimed that the textual authority for his revelations was the Book of Mormon, which
he had translated from an otherwise nonexistent Egyptian hieroglyphic language that appeared
on gold plates mysteriously entrusted to his care. But his inability to produce these artifacts
shed doubt on the likelihood of their existence. Even so, in that time of religious uncertainty and
political unrest, not unlike our own, the Book of Mormon offered hundreds of people hope that
God remained active in their lives, America’s soil was hallowed by the feet of Christ, and events
transpiring in the West at the time of Jesus’s birth resembled those challenging the Hebrews.
To date, the culture and language popularly associated with the Book of Mormon remains
unsubstantiated. In fact, archaeological discoveries and secondary sources unequivocally deny
its validity as a historical document. All that can be said as of now is that the Book of Mormon
borrows heavily from the 1611 edition of the King James Bible and reflects the religious ideas of
Smith’s era through parallels and plagiarisms. Yet despite the still uncorroborated revelations
used to validate its origins, membership in the church has substantially increased due to its
proselytizing efforts, particularly in Utah and South America.
Present-day Mormons defend Smith’s claims irrefutably through circular arguments. On the one
hand, they say that use of archaeological studies to attack the authenticity of the Book of
Mormon is unfair because such studies are inherently flawed. This argument ignores the fact
that the Book of Mormon, based on flawed accounts of Jesus from the New Testament and
mythic stories from the Hebrew Bible, is yet another historical artifact; also, using descriptive
and even conflicting secondary writings of the past to get a historically accurate sense of what
really happened is standard academic practice. Mormons counter such inferences by saying
that their sacred book is revelation and so was not corrupted by historical events. The resulting
circularity keeps Smith’s revelation hidden in the haze of the indeterminable. But it is also true
that while they rejecting discoveries refuting their beliefs, Mormons actively seek scientific data
confirming them.
This example, among countless others from all religions, demonstrates that thought processes
conditioned by revelation either ignore or have difficulty penetrating the realm of probable
knowledge. In fact, in strictly subscribing to revelation religious followers surrender their inherent
capacity for questioning, doubting, rational thinking, and other powers of reasoning. Without the
relinquishment of reason, a component vital to self-reliance and an expanding sense of self,
they psychologically cannot have unquestioning faith in the revelations of organized religion.
Like the moviegoer, religionists are emotionally and intellectually pressed by revelation to
continually suspend their disbelief.
Religious leaders use revelation not only to defend their right to preach but to legitimize social
tenets, further incapacitating the human intellect—and with it, a well-functioning society. In the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many ministers preaching in the southern portion of the
United States believed that the right to own slaves was established in their holy books; some
even felt that God had instituted slavery and that Jesus would have been a slaveholder. Indeed,
the ancient texts of many religious denominations, reflecting the cultures in which they were
written, permit slavery. However, mistaking for celestial authority the cultural attitude projected
onto scriptural accounts shows poor scholarship. And perpetuating the sanctification of slavery
provides grist for the mill of social injustice.
Whenever social ideals are predicated on past revelations of divine authority, religious
adherents can easily justify not only slavery but disempowerment, discrimination based on
sexual orientation, rape, murder, war, and genocide. Prisons around the world are teeming with
religious men and women convinced that God authorized their violations; and in places where
justice is in short supply, zealots who murder in the name of God roam free. Similarly, the
Holocaust was fueled by centuries of “divinely” inspired anti-Semitic doctrines. It seems the
motivation to do serious harm often emerges from the conviction, born of revelation, that such
an act constitutes a service to God and society—an interpretation mirroring earlier cultural
projections of bigotry. In the end, though religious leaders believe that revelation inspires
exemplary conduct, and though it does furnish stories of ethical behavior when interpreted by
ethical individuals, it too often fails to support virtuous activity when we are faced with the real
challenges of life and see vice as the more attractive option.
Religious leaders today, in narrowly identifying with scriptural revelation while rationally
proposing social ideals, often compound the difficulties involved in sanctifying myths wrapped in
codifications of past prejudices. Seeking to temper revelation with reason or modern social
sensibilities too often results in pronouncements that lag decades behind the rest of society. For
example, some ministers tell their congregants that for every ethical choice in life there is a
verse of revelatory scripture to guide them, when instead there are hundreds of conflicting
verses from which their minds might choose—as well as countless alternatives in the world of
nature. But having already invested in a particular teaching, such as the sinful nature of gay
relationships, church leaders find it difficult to recant and recast their faith in a relativistic,
instead of revelatory, light. In instinctively internalizing scriptural codifications, congregants end
up bringing narrow self-interests in the form of antiquated biases and hostilities to modern-day
society. As if social progress weren’t challenged enough by politically, economically, and racially
motivated judicial interpretations of the law that sustain human prejudices, it must also contend
with small-minded interpretations of revelation that perpetuate inhuman prejudices of the past.
Since revelation did not successfully address humanity’s past need for a unifying and inclusive
truth, there is far less assurance that it can fulfill our present need for one. Nor is there a sure
way to bring revelation to the province of constructive discussion and possible refutation, or to
weigh and wrestle with the social ideals it spawns. In the spirit of investigation we can, however,
move forward by uncovering present-day appeal for this dead-end path to mutual
understanding, observing its limitations, and, like replacing burned-out lightbulbs or flat tires,
finding a tenable substitute that serves human progress.
What prompts people to accept revelation without question, and how does this conditioning
silence the intellect? One impetus for embracing revelation is the human tendency to
romanticize the past. Against the gray backdrop of today’s apparent chaos, complexity, and
cynicism, there is special allure in identifying with the heroic men and women of religious texts.
Their simpler lives appear more black and white and their days less burdened with complex
decision-making. Idealizing these epic figures, many people see them as wiser than us and their
societies as more cohesive. Adoption of their revelatory perspective follows naturally. But while
swept up in romantic illusions of the past, and having surrendered their own intellectual
faculties, these individuals often fail to consider that the stories of their scriptural heroes and
heroines, routinely shaped by social and religious forces often alien to our own, are mythic
inventions of the human imagination.
Another reason people accept revelation is to avail themselves of a behavioral code, such as
Moses’s Ten Commandments. According to the Hebrew Bible, the tablets containing them were
inscribed by God, leaving no room for argument in the minds of the Israelites—or in the minds of
their contemporary successors. A point overlooked by many is that if the Ten Commandments
are worth living by they do not require consecrated origins, and if they are not worth living by
then no measure of authority can make them useful to humanity. Though it is laudable for all
individuals to weigh the merit of the Ten Commandments, what counts is whether these
injunctions constitute an effective code of ethics, not whether they are intrinsically valuable by
virtue of their presumed origin. Nor does the belief that God wrote or inspired Moses to write the
Ten Commandments grant them any authority. In fact, this belief fails to account for superior
ethical systems that, in requiring people to attend to the root of behavior in the ideas informing
the self, override the self-serving interpretations possible when commands are believed to be
issued from on high.
Revelation also has a seductive psychological attraction for people yearning to be part of a
collective, as was observed among Smith’s followers in the early nineteenth century. Individuals
who suffer from feelings of low self-esteem find that gathering with others under the auspices of
uplifting revelation can almost instantly infuse them with feelings of belonging to something
greater than themselves. In this sense, the vulnerability to religious revelation bears a striking
resemblance to the susceptibility of depressed individuals to cult agendas.
Other people turn to revelation out of a desire to justify violent attitudes and ambitions. A
revelatory truth attached to the performance of mercenary tasks is believed to grant them
sanctity from the outside; on the inside, it allays remorse after the exacting of revenge, offering
the palliative “eye for an eye” (Deut. 19:21). Individuals striving to work for the greater glory of
God’s revelations tend not to see that they are actually working for themselves. Nor are they
likely to acknowledge that, as the history of the Roman Catholic Church demonstrates, when
claims of revelation are violently defended as if power, property, or money are at stake, in fact
one or more such elements usually are at stake.
Then, too, many people pattern themselves on revelatory examples of holiness in sincere hopes
of living an ethical life. After a while, however, they routinely mistake revelation for a special
dispensation and themselves for their heroes, whom they frequently perceive as having risen
above the laws of morality to which others must answer. Without the pressure of external
consequences, exaggerated self-importance sparked by revelation is seldom acknowledged
from within. Only in the wake of numerous pederasty scandals, for example, did it come to light
that priests may have internalized the stature of their church and pope, who, according to
revelatory dogma accepted by many devout Catholics, is at liberty to disregard human-decreed
laws.
A common cause for embracing revelation in the twenty-first century is the desire to lend
meaning to one’s existence. The popular penchant for channeling divine revelations is one such
example. In crediting their spoken or “dictated” communications to a higher source, mediums
and those that heed their messages derive an elevated sense of their own purpose in life. But
according to the cosmological structure mediums have adopted, their angelic messengers are
little more than aliens or disembodied human beings; and based on the messages themselves,
it appears that these beings may be no more evolved than their embodied transmitters.
Curiously, few mediums recognize the similarities between the messages they channel and their
own beliefs, ideals, and thoughts, or that a message is not authoritative by virtue of the manner
Dostları ilə paylaş: |