home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

  

 

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

 

There is no such thing as authentic belief led by will power. Human beings are constitutionally unable, lack the ability, to offer credulity on demand, even if they wish to do so and try very hard. Belief arises naturally, from the evidence, or not at all, even in spite of settled opinion.

 

 

return to main-page of the 'Jesus' article

 

 

Editor's prefatory comment:

I would strongly recommend for the reader, before surveying the following, to first study the Thomas-John writing.

In my opinion, this information concerning the hegemony of Thomas ranks among the most important on WG.

The Gospel Of John was written as polemic against the Gospel Of Thomas. The ‘John Christians’ were threatened by the teachings of the ‘Thomas Christians’ and attempted to marginalize this earliest view of the nature and mission of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

 

Alice and the Queen as prologue

Lewis Carroll's highlighting of the problem of easy and unwarranted belief, portrayed by Alice and the Queen of Hearts, has often been referenced on WG - and we must do so once more as it so aptly epitomises the nettlesome issue.

 

 

"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

                                                Lewis Carroll

 

And this comment, too, from the other side, well encapsulates mankind's descent from clear thinking:

 

 

Channeled testimony via the mediumship of William W. Aber; presented in the book “The Dawn Of Another Life” by William Denton:

A spirit-entity on the other side discusses worldly belief:

“There can be no faith without freedom. It is not faith to attempt or pretend to believe the things which you are told you must believe. Even to seek to comply is to prove your fear rather than your faith, your apprehension of some dreaded consequence attendant on failure to conform.

“To say, ‘I believe,’ lest a catastrophe attend the honest denial of such belief, is to play the liar and the coward.”

 

 

'What is belief? - a state, not an act, of the mind.'  

Augustus De Morgan (1806-1871)

British mathematician, with contributions to logic, set theory, probability theory, computer science, and numerous other fields; founder, London Mathematical Society (1865)

'It is not in the power of anyone to alter his state [of mind] by will. [There is] a tendency to suppose that profession [of mental position] might be taken for belief; the dishonest wanted only profession.'

The Gospel Of John commands belief; without which, it says, one is “damned already.” But there is no such thing as authentic belief led by will power. Human beings are constitutionally unable, lack the ability, to offer credulity on demand, even if they wish to do so and try very hard. Belief arises naturally, from the evidence, or not at all, even in spite of settled opinion.

And the fact that John suggests otherwise - indeed, commands - offers clear signal, to the objective reviewer, that this writing must be counted as fraudulent, an effort to engender fear in order to gain followers - a scheme of "the dishonest," warned De Morgan - and could never represent the mind of the real Jesus.

 

 

The following is an excerpt from De Morgan's book, "From Matter To Spirit" (1863):

What is belief? A state of the mind. What is it often taken to be? An act of the mind. It is not in the power of anyone to alter his state [of mind] by will. [There is] a tendency to suppose that profession [of mental position] might be taken for belief; the dishonest wanted only profession.

The imperative future tense — I will believe, thou shalt believe, etc., which has no existence except in the grammar-book, represents a futile attempt which people make upon themselves and upon others.

We all know what a horrible chapter of human history has the second person for its heading: the only thing to be said for the actors is that they believed in the first person, which, besides making them think the means they used were competent, gave the honest among them a tendency to suppose that profession might be taken for belief; the dishonest wanted only profession.

The judge thought the jury could believe or not, as they liked: that is, he thought they could, by an act of the will, put their own minds into the state in which they would have been if they had not known of the payment [an example of inadmissible evidence]. This they could not have done: all that was in their power was to encourage that puzzle-headed — but doubtless, very honest — confusion between belief and acknowledgement which is usually in the heads of those who say, ‘I never will believe…'

The attempt to induce others to will a belief or an unbelief is exceedingly common among all sides of all questions. There is no arguing against it: for it is a lurking attempt, unsuspected by those who make it. I go on to something in which those who have thought and read about belief as belief may not be quite hopeless of exciting useful reflection.

Let the evidence tendered be what it may, it is an error to suppose it ought to produce the same effect on different persons. It is nonsense to say, Strip your mind of all bias, and make it equally ready for all impressions: you might as well tell a wrongly bent twig … to put itself straight, that you may then give it another bend in the proper way. It is evidence which must both unbend and bend: it is not in the power of anyone to alter his state by will.

A person who finds another easier to convince than himself calls the other credulous; but when the other is the harder, the first calls him unreasonable. Everyone is just at the right point; and all the initial difference between himself and others is predisposition. What right then has anybody to talk to anybody else about matters of opinion? It would seem that we are to say- that is … that right bias and wrong bias are purely relative terms.

 

Editor's comments:

De Morgan, to my view, offers one of the most insightful assessments of the nature of belief to be found anywhere.

Most people see belief as an “act of the mind,” a decision to mentally assent. This is gross error. One cannot will, command, cajole, threaten, or otherwise induce oneself to believe anything. De Morgan’s example of the judge instructing the jury highlights the illusion: “What you just heard is inadmissible evidence, and so I want you to strike it from your memories and not allow it to affect your judgment concerning the outcome of this case.” But the mind doesn’t obey commands to believe or not believe.

De Morgan is quite correct. Belief represents a “state of mind,” a level of consciousness.

Let us mentally review Dr. Hawkins’ 20 levels of consciousness – all the way from the basement level of the “shameless”, to the rarified heights of one living on the “universal oneness” strata.

On each of these levels, one finds oneself fully convinced that one’s view of the life and the world is the only way it could be. More knowledge, more content for the brain, while possibly edifying, will do nothing to change one’s metaparadigm, one’s fundamental belief-system regarding reality.

Only a ratcheting-up of one’s level of consciousness will be efficacious in terms of altering beliefs.

Now, people can repress knowledge, and, indeed, repress themselves – and they do this all the time -- in a hollow claim to believe this-or-that, but this half-hearted allegiance, to said belief, may or may not be fully supported by what’s going on down below.

What we mean here is that people can say all sorts of things, that they are true believers in whatever, but, so often, there are ulterior motives for “singing loudly in the choir.” They may be afraid – afraid of what God will do to them in the future, or afraid of Dear Leader, or their fellow acolytes, if one were to authentically express truest affirmations.

All this disingenuity might take place at the surface of personality, but one’s “higher self,” which always sees clearly, will not necessarily be impressed. To show its disdain, and veto power, it will likely send the subservient, cultish part of itself to the Dark Realms upon crossing over – and it will remain there until an honest view of life is forthcoming.

And let’s note that ominous second person imperative future tense – “thou shalt believe.” Adrian Smith calls this the "believe it or else" model.

Well, we’ve heard this before. It's the song of every tin-star dictator of history -- political, corporate, academic, religious, or maybe in your own home. We always hear this shrill command just before the shooting starts.

And the writer of the Gospel Of John, a political hit-piece, takes his place among all the wanna-be ubergods, the despotic influences, which have cursed the Earth since the beginning.

Restatement

What is it that finally leads to new mental positions? We’d like to say, it’s new evidence. This ought to be true, but to the unenlightened mind, it’s not enough, there’s more to it.

Consider once again the “20 levels of consciousness.” When a dweller on any of the levels receives new data, new information, even that which ought to be persuasive and dispositive to the issue, generally speaking, the effect will be zero.

Why is that? The new information will not be accepted due to some aspect of fear – the ego’s perceptions of “I don’t have enough” because “I am not enough.”

If such apprehension dominates the atmosphere of one’s consciousness level, then, dwellers therein will come up with all sorts of excuses why the new information is not valid and cannot serve as evidence.

Look at the great debates on the “evolution” and “quantum” pages, or the “bible” and “God” pages, or the “afterlife evidence” page. What we continually hear from detractors is “I see no evidence” or “that’s just fraud, they’re all lying.” There may be an abundance of bona fide evidence but - “none that we will accept.”

There will be no new mental positions – I don’t like the word “beliefs” because we’re not supposed to have any beliefs, but to hold the truth loosely in our minds, pending further light – no new mental positions until there’s an upward notching of consciousness.

 

Editor's last word:

It’s curious, isn’t it? – why can’t we, by an act of will, change our beliefs? But no - only new evidence, convincing and imposing, plus an elevated level of awareness, might dislodge old tenets.

And when this happens, it doesn’t matter what the foolish part of oneself at the surface of personality professes. It doesn’t get a voice in this. Only the higher self wields a stamp of approval.

Why does it work this way? I don’t know. I think this is something to ponder. But, possibly, the process indicates that our minds, linked to Universal Consciousness, which is the mind of the God, is absolutely one with a love of “the truth”. And it cannot tolerate any shade of prevarication.

The deeper self, it seems, automatically runs an assessment of one’s current view of life every time new information, new evidence, impinges upon the mind. It automatically accommodates new data, even if the surface persona is in denial. As such, we're in a constant state of flux concerning "what's real" and what ought to be accepted as true.

Again, at the surface, we may deny, foam, and bluster – like the Wizard shouting, “don’t look behind that curtain” – but the higher self ignores this expediency.

We were made to seek for, and to acknowledge, “the truth,” and when we circumvent this process, we make ourselves ill, dysfunctional, as we drift into forms of insanity.