Must We Have Religious Societies?

Anyone who has ever gone deeply into himself and come to grips with the fundamental issue in all its simplicity, all its beauty, will know that in the moment of confrontation he acts from his love of the problem–and he does not need another person to tell him how to tackle it.  The seeing of the problem obviates the asking how to solve it.  Not that it is easily solves, but even the thought whether it can be done in his lifetime does not occur to the man who is really serious.  In the first place, because he is totally un-concerned with the results; and secondly, because from the moment of seeing the fundamental issue, all his energies and all his intelligence are already fully engaged in the dissolution of the problem.  Such a person recognizes that Ignorance is a disease in which he is both patient and doctor at the same time, for no doctor can cure him but himself.

To the spiritually awakened, religious societies are utterly irrelevant, and worse: they form an enormous hindrance.  For that which he has found deep within himself has absolutely no points of contact with beliefs, doctrines, systems, worship and the like.  It is utterly beyond words.  To come to it one must be completely alone, without any form of coercion or influence.

If the spiritual aspirant has not found it yet, he is certainly not going to find it through joining any organization, however progressive and however much its doctrine may have been diluted.  There he will be exposed to various cross-currents of conceptualized thought; he will be offered comfort, moral uplift, stimulation, encouragement,, and acquire a feeling of “belonging”--all completely unspiritual, for these are essentially worldly values. He will blunt his critical faculty for lack of use; it is fashionable in these circles to accept almost any idea that is floating about, however ridiculous, as long as it lends support to existing prejudices.  (This deterioration of the critical faculty is, of course, also detrimental in a worldly sense, for in a way to be intelligent is to be skeptical, to have a sense of discrimination.)  After a while he will develop an attachment for “his” Society, which means that he has formed a liking for his crutch and can no longer walk without it.  The Society will further pander to his gregarious sense and the discussion meetings will stimulate thought, whereas what is required is not its stimulation, but the ending of thought.

Some office bearers in religious organizations will actually admit to one who can see through all this, that the above-mentioned facts are substantially correct.  They will agree that for the person who is actively inquiring, doctrines, beliefs and the like are irrelevant and Societies useless.  But, they say in justification of their existence, there are two kinds of people, the strong and the weak.  The latter need guides, help, and this the Society alone can offer them. 

But then, it may be asked, who is to ascertain who are the strong and who are the weak?  Maybe the very leaders of these organizations must be considered to belong to the latter category for telling their members, for example, of the necessity of straining their muscles to sit in a particularly tortuous position while “meditating:, before there can be any chance of so-called spiritual progress–or perhaps, that it may be advisable for students to journey to a far-away country to look up a particular teacher there who alone understands their special requirements and will put them on the so-called path?  

And is it not an insult to one’s intelligence, when Societies intentionally mislead their members in all sorts of ways and do not tell them the full, naked truth–the truth that there is no help but self-help?  Apart from the poor “junior” members who are being told lies so that one day in the future they may be mature enough to be permitted to hear the Truth, what about the members who claim they really understand?  * Do they actually see the irrelevance of doctrines, books and Societies, or are they merely repeating what they have heard from some Zen text, or possibly from a man like Krishnamurti?  Why are they then still in the Society and so personally responsible for the whole set-up?  If I know something is a lethal poison, do I still want to play with it?  

It appears to the author that, although intellectually we may be classifiable as the strong and the weak,, spiritually we are all equal, we are all weak.  To divide people into the strong and the weak, the individuals who are worthy of initiation and the “mass” who will always remain ignorant, is only another form of smug exploitation by one ignorant–albeit a little more intellectually clever–person of another ignorant person.  Yet this very form of exploitation lies at the bottom of all religious organizations, and it also sustains society as a whole. 

The saying “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing” applies especially to people who have committed themselves to a particular religious “ism”.  They pick up a slogan here and there, a few doctrinal scraps, and this unholy mixture is adapted to suit their particular predilections: that is, accepting what suits them, rejecting what appears inconvenient.  It then becomes the main excuse for the ego to go on living as it did before, and above all not to be disturbed.  Far from uncovering the self, it is now even more firmly entrenched than before.

 For those who have really caught a glimpse of the Truth, and yet persist in paying lip service to that Truth but all the time denying it (if there are any such), the position is much more serious.  For betraying the Truth is worse than killing one’s own mother.  Sooner or later Truth takes its revenge–according to the laws of Truth–and the consequences will be terrible. 

And finally, there is always the very subtle effect that religious organizations have on the mind–even with those who are fully aware of all that we have discussed above, and use their Society merely for the convenience of its facilities.  It is that consciously or unconsciously there is ever the aim to achieve, to arrive, as indeed all preoccupation with religious problems tends to foster.  For it creates a wholly unnatural sphere in which religion is seen not as Life (even to say that it is part of Life would be false, for religion is not specialization) but as a subject in itself, with its own particular laws and jargon, in other words, as a “spiritual science”.  This outlook, which sees the spiritual life as something separate from everyday life, interferes with the life of naturalness (in which there is no trace of self-improvement), which is the only mode of functioning that can lead to “wholesomeness” or “wholeness”.  The consciously religious effort, on the other hand, can only lead to “holiness” which bears absolutely no relationship to “wholeness”.  After all, the ultimate peace is only when man forgets himself completely, which surely means forgetting also how to find that peace, which is a self-ish striving,  So long as we are thinking in terms of “my” peace, “my” enlightenment, “my” progress, we are defeated from the outset. 

Reality is not to be found where there is a particular pattern of thought and behavior, however exalted and however noble it may appear to conventional society.  What has to be faced is that there is no short-cut to wisdom; that it is not to be cultivated, not to be acquired in social organizations, in study groups and so on, in the same way that we learn other things–the things that depend on memorizing facts and on particular patterns of thinning, the various disciplines, in which the mind can be trained.  

People come to rely on any of the many so-called guides, often trying one after another, and finally sticking to that “teacher” who “satisfies” them.  Thus what is nurtured is the depending mind rather than the intrepid spirit who vigorously inquires of his own,  disregarding all the pressure and influences that are out to brainwash him. Far better were it for the person to throw themselves into some fresh form of activity (if they must be active in the outgoing sense), like sports or some new social or cultural interest, or to go for long walks in the country.  While the activity per se may not do anything for them spiritually * (since as long as there is an urge for experience, there is no self-inquiry), it does fare less harm than the intentional religious pursuit (which always tends to foster superstition and hypocrisy), and it does contribute to the life of naturalness which may eventually flower into the goodness of a fresh mind, a mind that has begun to look within itself and so has forever cut its dependence on externals. 

So let people realize, how important it is to be oneself, to be human (which does not necessarily mean “do as you like” but implies complete honesty with oneself), because any effort by the mind to change itself leads to unnaturalness, a basic dichotomy which, although it may be regarded as “respectability” by society, s in reality nothing but a tragic farce, the pinnacle of self-deception; for all cultivated virtue is no-virtue.  Yet is must be perceived with equal clarity that at change is essential, not for reasons of respectability or morality, but if there is going to be any true happiness at all–and that our present condition holds only the promise of continued suffering.  When all this is clearly seen, then the mind will for the first time be in a state that it can let go of itself, and thus spontaneously couple the “be oneself’ with see oneself- ruthlessly, yet un perturbed b what is observed and without any wish to interfere–and to  bring into being something from beyond the mind–the only factor that can possibly effect its transformation.  

In summarizing, we may say then that to enter a religious Society is to get entangled with personalities, ideas, intellectual arguments–all taking one further away from that essential Silence and Aloneness, to which one must come eventually, if there is to be any true inquiry.  To get entangled in any way is to lose freedom, to lose one’s very life, spiritually.

However, it must be emphasized that any reader who is contemplating joining a religious organization, must be careful not to be influenced by the author.  Because something is so to the present writer, because it is seen to be a fact beyond dispute by him, it need not be for another.  If the reader merely accepts and repeats the statement that Societies are useless and consequently decides not to join one,, he will sooner or later get entangled in something else.  What is suggested is that he should investigate for himself–not make up his mind to do this or that, but just inquire deeply without wishing for a solution–which requires great passivity–until the whole problem is clearly seen.  Such an investigation will imply in the first place a deep self-inquiry, because before the problem can be seen the attitude of the inquirer, who is disposed either for or against Societies, must be cleared up.  Only then, when every trace of prejudice has been wiped away, can the problem be approached.  But perhaps this is then no longer necessary, because at this stage the truth may have been seen as in a flash.

What has been said in regard to religious organizations applies likewise, of course, to the solution of any other problem.  It is to be hoped that the reader will not “accept” any statement made in this book on any subject, for if he does he acts against the whole spirit of the work.  In that case he would merely add another idea to his existing store–and ideas can always be countered by other ideas.   To this process there is no end and it has absolutely nothing to do with the perception of the Truth, which only comes when the mind is empty of all ideas.  It does not matter which particular problem the reader tackles; as long as there is vigorous inquiry, he is opening himself to the Truth, and that will bring its own action.  But merely to agree or disagree is to throw away a spiritual opportunity.