I have been blessed with a number of Gurus in my life. In the religious sense I certainly acknowledge the ten Gurus in classical Sikhism; but being ‘Fair-Sikh’ (A slow adopter) I also have a selection of my own authors which have become an integral part of my being and shaped my intellectual ideals. William James Sidis; being central to my own ideal of Christ-like tolerance and patience. But a few of these teachers may even appear to be non-religious. One of these is even female (Oh gosh a female Guru! Such blasphemy! )…haha.
I recently ordered a book from her publishing house and was pleasantly surprised to find it was not the one I had ordered. The book I had in mind was meant as a gift and so in receiving the unexpected I opted to keep it for my own study… Having recently been made a victim of a collectivist mandate to railroad my individualism into a more palatable form (On both a “mythological” front as well as in the Judaeo-Christian/religious sense); I am totally enthralled with her discourse on ‘Tribal morality vs Territorial morality’… Her tone is somewhat less critical than her other writings but her ability to pierce the tough hide of cultural stagnancy has only increased. Plus she is just so cute.
“There is nothing so ruthless as the agent of the collective which lives for no other reward in life but the exercise of power over people. “
–Celia Green, from ‘Letters From Exile’.
So far as I can see the best way to conquer a nation is through a religious system like the Bible. Since I am not very interested in power or the attainment of authority for its own sake, the proscriptive patriarchy venerated with in the Bible means little to me. In Sikhism the concept of G-d is kept singular, incorporeal and neutral so far as language allows; -there is no possibility for a living incarnation of divinity. I acknowledge the educational value of the Christian Atonement in so as it has afforded us our current level of civilized complexity, (I cannot nor will deny my maker). But I don’t think it’s something which should be taken for granted as a continuous practice. The precept that “G-d so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…” is really just an extremely polite form of child sacrifice. Arguably the most neutral and safe of its kind; it’s still only an unfortunate reflection of the human condition and not the best example of an ideal to count on.
The Atonement isn’t a feasible practice or reasonable expectation for a religion or planet to maintain forever. Our Planet needs a ‘fair’ and neutral set of ideals to /religiously/ practice and strive for. Not a religion designed to conquer and perpetuate existing human hierarchies.