“Should agonizing be your religion?” – God

Should agonizing be your religion?

Titans and other giants are imprisoned in Hell...

Titans and other giants are imprisoned in Hell in this illustration by Gustave Doré of Dante’s Divine Comedy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
Perhaps it seems a bit odd to ask a question like this. Why would anyone ever make a religion out of the practice of agonizing? Religion should promote things like happiness and clarity, right? Agonizing is a way of rejecting happiness and resisting clarity, so why would anyone make a religion out of agonizing?
 
Well, a scientific study with truly shocking implications has been published recently by the Universal Council on Infallible Superstitions. The leading priests of the religion of science dictate that you personally must focus in particular on what should be and you should focus on what should be far more than you focus on what actually is in general. Not only should you focus on what should be as your religion of fanaticism, but you should accept without question whatever models of what should be that are offered to you in your youth through programs of indoctrination and propaganda, such as “mass media” and “public schooling.”
 
For instance, there is universal agreement across all sects of fanaticism that, first, propaganda and indoctrination obviously should not exist (and therefore the most familiar systems of indoctrination must not actually be systems of indoctrination), and second, there obviously should not be so many different models of what should be. The existence of even slight variations in models of what should be not only leads to surprises, but to confusion, then to embarrassment, and then to blame (because confusion and embarrassment must be someone else’s fault rather than the natural result of worshiping an inaccurate model of what should be). From blame, we can quickly go on to resentment, animosity, argumentativeness, envy, contempt, strife, frustration, shame, agonizing, paranoia, hatred, and all of the various hells.


NYC - Brooklyn - Coney Island: Astroland Park ...

NYC – Brooklyn – Coney Island: Astroland Park – Dante’s Inferno (Photo credit: wallyg)

 
So, blame is the gate to all of the various levels of hell. That could be good to know because if that is true then the only way to stop making your own life hell is to cease from the practice of blaming
 
However, one might wonder why anyone would ever enter in to the gates of hell in the first place? Why do people seem to think that blaming others is such a good idea? 
 
We blame others to pretend that our distress is someone else’s fault. In fact, that reflexive activity of the “fight response” can work sometimes. If we want privacy, then blaming others may push them away enough that we can establish privacy and relax from our hysterical panic of idolatrous fanaticism about what should be.
 
Perhaps we have been trying to avoid the purgatory of terrified shame (to avoid humility and vulnerability). We panic in order to escape from purgatory and, in our hysterical panic, we blame others, which plunges us directly in to the depths of hell.
 
Circle 5:Wrath

Circle 5:Wrath (Photo credit: chantel beam photography)

But how does the terrified shame arise (which then naturally leads to someone blaming someone else for being the source of their terrified shame)? Notice that unless there is a presumptive expectation about what should be, there can be no violation of a fanatical model of what should be (a presumptive expectation). If there is no surprising violation of presumptive expectations of what should be (a model of sincere fanaticism), then there is nothing to blame someone else for and no justification to vilify anyone or anything. If there is no terrified rejecting of what is, then there is nothing to panic over by blaming anyone else for doing or failing to do, for producing or failing to produce, for being or failing to be.
So, in order for us to blame or vilify, we must define some specific development (some reality, some pattern of what is) as less important than some linguistic model of what should be that is violated by that particular pattern in reality (racism, saturated fats, war, polygamy, pedophilia, GMOs, government corruption, breastfeeding in public, etc…). We only make denial in to a religion when we have already made our terrified sincerity in to a religion (when our sacred model of what should be is tenaciously and passionately defended as more important than any other possible pattern in reality). In other words, we only blame others in the hysterical defense of our pre-existing idolatry (our worship of a model of what should be).

 

Full of Hell

Full of Hell (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

How do we relax our underlying tension? One method involves the linguistic unit of an Almighty, All-inclusive, Eternal Reality. In different languages and traditions, words like “reality” or “God” or “Brahman” or “the universe” may be used. 
 
With this linguistic unit called reality, we create an intellectual concept that is outside of the normal duality of contrasts that we use so often in language. Reality is not an exclusive category. There is nothing else besides reality. It is not in contrast to something else.
 
Reality is all of what is. Every language and every word and every alphabet are part of reality. Presumptive language models about what should be are part of reality. Agonizing about who to blame for confronting me with the naive, arrogant, terrified inaccuracy of my presumptive model of what should be is… also one pattern within reality.
Like it or not, reality includes all of the things that anyone has even been so disturbed by (terrified of) or distressed about (terrified of) or rejected (because of terror) or denied respect for (because of terror) that they passionately and desperately said “that just should not be!” If God is the Almighty Creative Source of all forms and patterns, then rejecting any form or pattern made by God is immature and idolatrous and a symptom of a pre-existing distress or terror. We have been clinging to one possible pattern created by God and rejected other creations of God. We have been claiming to worship an Almighty God, but then selecting some subset of God’s creation and rejecting that part as offensive to us, then blaming it on some devil.
Neptune

Neptune, shown with his magic trident or pitchfork. This ancient archetype is also called “The devil” or “Satan” in Christian mythology (Photo credit: CarbonNYC)

Of course, God created that experience for us, too. Ultimately, the worshiping of a devil as the one to blame for why reality is not how it should be is a projection (symptom) of shame, self-condemnation, self-repression, self-contempt.  If my experience of reality includes things that I allegedly should not experience (because those experiences violate the model of idolatrous fanaticism that I worship instead of worshiping God), then perhaps the problem is me. Perhaps my experience of things that I allegedly should not experience is not evidence that the models of what should be that I have been worshiping are inaccurate or at least slightly imprecise, but evidence that I should not be how I am. I may sincerely say “people should not be ___,” but I am among those people, right? All shaming is a symptom of pre-existing shame.
Shaming is a very popular practice in many religions. Should those people make shaming in to a religion? That question is rather ironic. The idea of shaming the particular forms of shaming that are practiced in other religions (besides my own favorite fanatical reflexes of shaming what disturbs me) is hypocrisy.
Neptune

Neptune (Photo credit: Matthew Sylvester)

So, should agonizing be your religion or not? Should your religion be to agonize over who to blame for the gap between your fanatical ideals of what should be and certain other patterns in reality? Should your religion be to agonize over how to make reality in to how it should be, then preserve it that way and prevent it from ever being how it should not be? Should you dedicate your life to saving some part of reality from all the rest of reality (the shameful parts)?
 
Well, you certainly might have a lot of company if you did that. It can be rather rare to cease from the ritual practice of agonizing. Note that agonizing is not just a habit for many of us, but an actual religious ritual!
 
Now, if you make agonizing in to your religion, then that raises the question of what is exactly the right way to agonize? What should you agonize about most? What should you agonize about first? What should you agonize about hardest? 
 
How will you know when you are agonizing how you should be agonizing and not how you should not be agonizing? What standard or model or fanatical ideal will you worship as a guideline for how to properly agonize your way in to a seemingly inescapable, eternal hell? What form of agonizing can you use to escape from the hell of the religious practice of agonizing? How long will it take? How much will it cost? How reliable is the method?
 
Mooji in New York

Mooji in New York (Photo credit: Loving Earth)

 
Why is hell so much different than it should be? Who is to blame for hell being so much different than it should be? 
 
If I stop worshiping a fanatical ideal of what should be, then is life still hell? If I stop blaming others for the gap between my fanatical ideals and the rest of reality, then what I am going to agonize about? If I have nothing to agonize about, then what would I do? If I have no fanatical ideal of how I should be and how I should not be, then what would I already be?
 
If this is not inherently hell, then what is it? If hell is just the inevitable experiential effect of certain religious rituals involving the worship of idolatrous models of what should be, then if I cease from such idolatry (and from agonizing over how to defend my idolatrous hell from reality), then who will I blame for not rejecting reality any longer? How will I agonize over allowing things to be whatever they are without any condemnation or terror or disturbance or panic?
 
H. W. L. Poonja.

H. W. L. Poonja. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
People should not have fanatical ideals. People should not agonize over how to properly worship the most idealistic ideals and the most fanatical fanaticism and the most naive naivetes and the most sincere sincerities and the most idolatrous idolatries. 
 
In short, people should not be such hypocrites. However, we are all hypocrites. Further, our heretical hypocrisy violates the fact that we should not be hypocrites, and thus only adds to our shameful hypocrisy.
 
By the way, if there is one thing that you should never be, that is obviously that you should never be ashamed. That is just plain wrong. Do not do it. If you ever experience shame, well then you should be ashamed of yourself!
 
Also, you should never panic hysterically. In fact, just to be safe, you probably should never use language at all, for the use of language has been explicitly vilified and forbidden by the Universal Council for Preventing Infallible Superstitions through the use of Reverse Psychology in Propaganda Rituals which either do not exist because they should not exist or should not be perceived as what they are because that would be contrary to the purposes of the Universal Council to Prevent Deception by never deceiving anyone about anything. 
 
Painted Skies- Gals

Painted Skies- Gals (Photo credit: Sonny Poonja)

 
This message has been brought to your by your government (which is obviously not a religion because it hysterically insists that it should not be a religion which conclusively proves that it cannot be). Anyone who disagrees (or even fails to agree passionately enough) will be promptly incarcerated in a mental correctional facility in order, of course, simply to promote their own happiness and best interests, such as by the involuntary provision of large doses of modern pharmaceutical inventions to remedy their severe biochemical deficiency of modern pharmaceutical inventions.
Beware of panicking. Beware of condemning. Beware of agonizing. Beware of shaming. Beware of presumptions. Beware of words.
Beware also of humans. Some of them are so foolish as to believe that they should not be how they are. Well, to put it another way, some of them have been trained to be so terrified that they pretend not to be how they are and pretend to be how they are not. Beware of pretending! 
 
 
 
 

Gandhara Buddha. 1st-2nd century. Musee Guimet...

Gandhara Buddha. 1st-2nd century. Musee Guimet, Paris. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: