You know, as soon as I asked that question and posted it I got the answer inside myself. And then people responded confirming it.
Right and wrong is not about something physical but something spiritual. So once someone knows what they are doing and why, then it can be a good thing to speak in false terms.
Someone could criticize and say that using false terms reinforces false thinking in people's minds, and there may be some truth to that claim, but that does not mean it is wrong to do it. There is a bigger picture. We can't make everything right all at once, and sometimes we do things that are not perfect because we need to do those things in pursuit of a bigger and more important goal. That is basically what all the responses were saying, it looks like.
Let me ask another question. By the way, this wasn't planned at the time I asked the first question (at least not in my mind). The question is:
What would it take for you to vote for a certain candidate in a certain babylon election?
The system is a fraud. The election is a fraud. But maybe, it might be useful to participate in a false process (comparable to using false words) for the sake of a higher objective.
You see, the system is not real, but the power wielded in the name of the system is real. Bush can really declare war and send troops, and every single office-holder has some power. Power to do good and power to make big mistakes. This is the reality we have been given, and we must ask ourselves if it is smart to boycott a process that invloves so much power. Sure, you and me voting between two fools for president is worthless. But there is more to the system that voting for a president. There is a whole world of power that we are ignoring, and it is the biggest arena.
Do you know that a commune can become a town, and elect its own sherrif? Think about it. A voting bloc has the power to barter with powerful people, the way the NRA, ACLU and other groups do in the US. There is power available for us.
To me the key question is: Can we make use of this power without contaminating ourselves? Can we control our actions to the degree where we will be confident that we are able to do good and know that we are doing good, and what good we are doing?
You see, it's just like using false words. It could be harmful if done in the wrong way. But that doesn't mean it is always a bad thing. If you know what you are doing, you can do a lot of good, using a wrong word or two in the process.
What would it take for you to support a certain candidate in any election (sherrif, representative, senator, whatever it may be)? What about making a commune into a town? What about forming a voting bloc. I mean, we don't care if Kerry wins or Bush wins, so we can strike a deal.
This is the way I have always been my whole life. Nothing is sacred for me. And I know that I am right to think this way.
After all, didn't God kill Jesus' body? Nothing is sacred, believe it. The only thing that is sacred is the heart of love, which can never be defiled. Once we do what we do in love and with consciousness of what we are doing then we are doing God's work. The fact that we are participating in a fake system does not mean that what we are doing is wrong, once we know what we are doing.
My policy is, "any means necessary". Don't forego using a tool that God has placed within your reach just because it is not a good tool, morally speaking. You have the power to put it to good use, and that's all we care about.
Money is a fraud, but we all use it, because we have to buy food and pay rent in order to live. It is not right, but it is good. I am suggesting that we apply the same principle in the political arena. I am not suggesting that we can make the system into something real, because it will always be a fraud as long as it exists. I am suggesting that we use a tool, that's all. We are not endorsing the system just because we use it, just like when we use money we are not endorsing that part of the system either.
I mentioned this idea before on this site, but you can't cross the same river twice, so this is a new reasoning.
|
|
