Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Spiritual Anarchy


Lorin Jenis

Recommended Posts

The listening exercise for this essay is the Flute Concerto in A Minor, Wq 166, by C.P.E. Bach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH-9pGaWVHs

I am a spiritual anarchist. Anarchy has a bad reputation because of its association with violence, but it need not be violent. The word “anarchy” is derived from the Greek words an, which means “without”, and archos, which means “leader” or “government”. The basic idea is that each individual can govern himself or herself and does not need a central authority. But I am aware that even though anarchy is not necessarily violent, it is often born in anger, in revolution. That is why I preceded this essay with a rather angry piece of music. The sturm und drang of C.P.E. Bach led directly to the revolutionary music of Beethoven, who was no stranger to anger. Beethoven was known for his refusal to bow to aristocrats, or indeed to allow them to pass him on a narrow path. But when Beethoven was young, the French Revolution revealed to us and to him what is dangerous about revolution. I will not gloss over its excesses of violence, because I want to have a mature conversation about anarchy. I do not wish to write a polemic---I want to discover what can make anarchy work, and why it often does not.

Jean-Paul Sartre once said something that sounds rather gloomy: “Hell is other people.” This hell is more likely to be experienced in our intimate relationships than on an over-congested freeway. There are relationships that occasionally move me to say, “If he does . . . one more time, I am going to have a C.P.E. Bach fit.” But try living without a relationship. Here is an exercise to practice: When you lie down at night---and this will work best if you are not sleepy---think in the darkness that you are completely alone, without husband or wife, parents or children, siblings, cousins, friends, guardian angels, or God. Now without trying to verbalize the experience pay attention to what it is to just exist. Maybe you are aware of your head, and nothing in particular inside of it. How long can you continue in this state? I once practiced this exercise for several nights in a row when I was suffering from insomnia. I was determined to discover who I was without the many layers of relationship that allowed other people to define my reality. In this exercise spiritual anarchy can be born.

What I mean by spiritual anarchy is the state in which the individual “soul”---the person who I am when I am most truly myself---can determine its own future and decide upon its own actions. But real anarchy is rarely attained in a moment or an hour, even though the anger of revolution might energize it in a moment. It is the rare individual who fully discovers the disposition of his soul in a moment when all his life long he has been conditioned by others. Sometimes it almost seems that the conditioning is a permanent stain in our souls. Then the anger continues, and something like a French Revolution occurs. A French Revolution in the spirit may give rise to Satanism, but Satanism can lead to a renewed captivity as surely as the Revolution of 1789 led to tyranny. The true anarchist is free from God and Satan. Another way of saying that is to say that the true anarchist is free from both duty (which is a substitute for love) and hatred.

Finally, I would like to speak to those among us who are essentially comfortable with the governance of God or the Ascended Masters. Why, they might ask, is spiritual anarchy necessary? To answer this question let me retell the myth first related by Madam Blavatsky, the founder of modern Theosophy. She said that the Lord, by whom she meant Sanat Kumara, came from Venus to this earth to bring a spiritual impulse, a “flame”. Very good, I say, but he brought many laws as well, and may have done permanent violence to the instinctual human being by making most of our sexual activity sinful. This is just a myth, but those who have studied religion, psychology, and anthropology know that myths are not merely fanciful but reveal a truth. The meaning of this myth is that “God”---but not the God in your heart---came from another world, and not our world, the earth. His strictures may have been beneficial in some ways, but because he was not human he unwittingly did harm to humanity. I offer this thought as a suggestion for further rumination on the part of my reader. In this myth my readers might find one more reason for spiritual anarchy, considering how ill-suited the world’s religions are to our common human nature.

french rev guillotine.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now this is one of the more interesting and innovative posts that I have seen for a while  Anarchy may indeed mean without leader but it does not  necessarily mean  without leadership and thus mere chaos.   For an anarchist  leadership must come from within. He or she alone is responsible for their behavior, good and bad, and for the disciplines and excesses of their behaviour  A true and complete anarchist MUST live alone  or temper their inner anarchy with obedience to the laws rules and expectations of  those 'other people"  If the y do not  than the y will be held accountable for their behaviors by those other peole.

However mental and spiritual anarchy is the most easily achieved because anything which exists only within the mind is not visible to anyone else and thus one can maintain anarchy of the mind (ie following only your own leadership beliefs etc) and of  the spirit which forms part of the mind  And no one else will ever know.

First of course you have to know your own mind and what has constructed the elements within it The one must develop the mental discipline to master your mind and become leader of it.  For me this means absolute control of mind and body by the leader ie self aware consciousness within my mind  The realisation that YOU and only you control your feelings, emotions, hopes and fears, etc  and that no one else  can control your mind  or really your behaviours.  A wise man learns from the wisdom of others and even a spiritual anarchist will learn from the wisdom of other wise men and gods  But they will APPlY what they learn, consciously and deliberately to serve their own self conscious purpose. 

No human is free from duty . Our self aware consciousness imposes on us duties and obligations by its very nature, but as long as we understand why this is so and ac t freely to  perform those duties and obligations we remain free. We are merely choosing wisely, and with consideration, the right and best behaviour for ourselves.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Duty is a substitute for love' ...... how true! And so often duty makes both the one being dutiful and the one on the receiving end, miserable and resentful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

'Duty is a substitute for love' ...... how true! And so often duty makes both the one being dutiful and the one on the receiving end, miserable and resentful.

Why?

Duty is a product of ;love. We construct a sense of duty only where we care for someone  Obligation Is slightly different, where we owe someone  something for past help etc. 

Maybe i have a different concept of duty, but I've acted from what i think of as duty, based on love or compassion/caring,  all my life and its never made me or others miserable; rather it makes us stronger, healthier and happier,  gives a sense of purpose and connection , and also sense of achievement and success in meeting self set goals.  

As a child i lived by my parent's rules because it was my duty to. As a teacher i fulfilled my roles and responsibilities  to children because that was part of my duty of care .As a husband i honour protect and am faithful to my wife because that is the duty of a husband. As a son in law we cared for my wife's parents with alzheimer's for 6 years  because we had a duty as children to do so. BUT, in every one of these cases, the duty was based on love. Love for my parents, love for the children i taught, love for my wife and love for my wife's parents. Love in itslef is not enough to motivate us in some things, however, and it is here that a sense of duty is important. 

Duty might make a person  miserable it is done unwillingly and builds resentment.  It needs to be embraced willingly and with an understanding of it's purpose and benefits.

In this age, duty is often seen in negative terms,  whereas in the past it was an honourable, positive and natural  aspect of living, which brought its own rewards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.