How far should we claim to be from “inner peace?”

peace- Dr. wayne dyer

I generally like Dr. Dyer’s quote. Nevertheless, I think he is imprecise and even quite misleading.

Peace is not the result of any method. There is no transition required (though we may disturb ourselves with thoughts that “it takes time to eventually obtain peace“).

If we understand disturbance, then we know that there is nothing needed to calm the rippling waves of a bathtub full of water. We simply let the disturbance subside. We simply stop disturbing the water by adding motion to it.

Or we just let the disturbance be. So what? Why be paranoid by obsessively “avoiding paranoia?” Why be terrified of fear by fearing fear itself?

English: Photograph taken of Quaker meeting fo...

English: Photograph taken of Quaker meeting for business in the main hall of York University by Fran Lane (http://jasmine.19inch.net/~narflet/gallery2/main.php). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yes, there are “disturbing” thoughts about what should be and what should not be. We do not need to avoid them, which is just more agonizing about how “what should not be” is allegedly the new something that should not be. Huge amounts of “spirituality” are ramblings of utter confusion: both ironic and neurotic.

In peace, the difference between being contentious and being content are clear. In clarity, the difference between confusion and clarity are clear.

Confusion

Confusion (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To say sincerely that “confusion should never arise” is ridiculous and purely neurotic disturbed naivete. Confusions can arise!

One who is at peace may respect confusion without fearing it or pretending that there could be a permanent cure for it and eventually humanity “should” find that cure. No, confusion is just mistaking one thing for something else. It is completely normal.

Also, to say sincerely that “contentiousness should never arise” is closed-minded, terrified, and… contentious! It is a fanatical, exclusive ideal which breeds contentiousness and argumentativeness and divisiveness and conflict.

That reminds me of the old familiar chant of the new agers and Quakers and so on: “we are better than you because we are above competitiveness.” That rather common hypocrisy is the extreme of unrecognized competitiveness and arrogance. That is contentious and confused.

confusion

confusion (Photo credit: torbakhopper)

However, if one reads the actual statements of the Quaker “central bureaucracies,” they may not be as “anti-conflict” as some idealists within the masses of Quakers. The actual statements may say things like “we prefer non-violence over violence.”

They recognize that contentiousness can be risky, dangerous. They are not confusing contentiousness with safety (or non-violence with security). They prefer safety and thus they prefer non-violence.

Quaker Meeting House

Quaker Meeting House (Photo credit: Salim Virji)

I was startled one Veteran’s day by the tremendous respect that a group of Quakers had for Military Veterans and even Police Officers. I had thought all Quakers were “against violence.”

I was wrong! (I suppose that when you have been in a war zone, you may have more respect for the sacrifices of the soldiers defending your homes and families.)

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: