I read the screenplay and watched the play one time called "Waiting for Godot". The point of the play is that the main characters come together to wait for Godot every day, and he never shows. They then part saying "well, he'll come tomorrow." Personally I think waiting for Godot is about two very naive people, but of course, there are all sorts of reactions to the story and on some level it seems pretty profound. An author of a book on Kaballah once likened the Kaballist attitude towards God to that play.
(I saw it elsewhere but Its on Broadway:http://www.godotonbroadway.com/news.htm)
Well my attitude towards society, spirituality and religion is to not wait for Godot. It may be naive, but with most "Godot" types, they will never show up unless people take some kind of action and it is in their interest to show up. Those who teach religion without real life action are asking people to wait for Godot. They are telling folks "the savior will come if you just wait long enough." And usually "give me all your money and 'Godot' will return it to you." Then they walk away with people's money and leave them even poorer than they started.
Religion that teaches denial or other-worldliness is simply religion seeking to enslave people; you almost never see the leaders of such religions practicing what they preach. They usually have an esoteric understanding that such stuff is preparation for the "real deal" which they understand and which entitles them to do what they please. It's called "antinomianism" -- which means that the old law is no good, so in comes the new law and "I am justified in doing what I please."
The idea that one has to change before tackling the big stuff is a half truth. The fact is that spiritual development is necessary to achieving anything worthwhile in society. That achieving things in society is by definition a political realm of behavior, and that nobody will ever be perfect unless they get out there and get tested in the real world. It is easy to talk about love and "metawaves" when living in a monastery (actually its not so easy -- one has to live with the other monks) or a cave. To practice love and metawaves is a matter of social activism. Transforming society as we transform ourselves is a two but not two endeaver. There is no lasting transformation in a cave. At best it can lead to some awakening, eventually the Buddha had to take a meal and leave the shade of the Pipal tree for the real world. Those who walk in his footsteps need to practice among the people. Especially if their favorite teacher is Nichiren.
The force of transformation is enlightenment. And the force that drives enlightenment is truth-force. There is no enlightenment if a person is practicing the disciplines of lying, cheating and deception. Religious literature is true, not because it is literally true, but because it is spiritually true, nevertheless most religious stories are myths, fables and legends and if we regard them as historical events or guidelines to actual material powers we are missing the point of those stories and also engaging in self-deception. Defeating Mara is an ongoing battle because even the battle itself is a figurative thing.
Not only that, but even the negative emotions have their purpose. For example; in my observation, Judgmentalism is a reaction to apparent lies. If we accept falsehoods with the same equanamity as we accept truths, then eventually we won't be able to tell the difference. At the same time, we need to hone our judgementalism to accord to what is really true, because sometimes we are judgmental based on prejudice rather than reality. Judgmentalism is a problem because one is judging things one has no real awareness of. Real awakening involves letting go of false prejudices and judging based on reality. The symbolism of the blindfold and the scale is that the scale provides measures of reality. The blindfold is intended to prevent the judge from judging things on false appearances, on prejudice. In reality you never see a judge with a blindfold on. The irony of refined judgment is to let go of judgmentalism and to judge things based on truth and measures, and to not judge things that are outside the scope of our life.
I once redefined our soul as an Acronym, SOUL; the integral (Summa) of our whole. To retain the soul we need to retain our integrity. To retain our integrity we need to stay within the boundaries of our livelihood, our family and our role in society. That means cultivating appropriate judgment, appropriate participation, and a measured approach to life, so that we can take full ownership of our lives; It is appropriate to make money, to run a business, to be charitable, and to be involved. In a Democracy it is a duty to be involved. When injustice rears its ugly head if we are not involved in doing something about it then we are risking that others will violate our boundaries and that we as a society will violate the boundaries of others.
Our property is not defined just by the law, it is also the conceptual, spiritual, and relational tools we own. Our integrity is the degree that we control our own spiritual, action space, and our own properties. Oppression is when others take ownership of what should be our property. It is a reflection of the lack of integrity of those who violate our space, and our own lack of integrity when we lose control over our own space. We have a duty to resist oppression as part of our life. If we don't resist oppression we lose our integrity and when we lose our integrity we lose our soul.
So we can't wait for Godot. We have to act out our own space, find our own salvation, and find ways to control our own life, which means owning our own property, and finding a way to redeeme those of our possessions that we've been forced to borrow from others, or that others have taken from us. Dispossession is a spiritual as well as a material issue. When we let an imaginary "other" own us, then we have sold, loaned, or given up our own possession of our own space, our own integrity, part of our own soul, to that other. This is spiritual dispossession, and we have to resist this every bit as much as we have to resist political dispossession. Resisting material dispossession is our assertion of rights, our participation in politics. The two go hand in hand.
A person who violates the rights, the boundaries of others, is also someone who lacks integrity. Whether it is political, informational, spiritual, borrowed, stolen, or given, our integrity is a matter of rights and their franchisement.
The Good news is that this matter of personal/spiritual property is self defined. For example; If the trajectory of ones life were towards being a farmer, then it would be appropriate to acquire land, but for most of us the trajectory involves acquiring skills, knowledge wisdom, and various tools to function in society. If I can take a bus I don't need a car. To function in society I need a home, but it doesn't have to be a house. Property rights is about owning ones' necessities. Defining only houses as homes is a way of violating people's rights, of violating their integrity and denying boundaries. But we can "own" our apartment even if we have a landlord, if we assert the right. That is politics. I own my house, but if I don't pay my property taxes I'll lose it. That is politics too. We are the judges of our own property lines, and those property lines are the rights and privileges that form a residue that cannot be taken away by anyone -- only infringed on.
If one thinks about it this way then one soon sees that a homeless person is someone whose ultimate rights are being infringed on. Feudalism was a system that infringed on the rights of farmers. Human rights is about human properties, and these rights impinge on one another all the time. It takes judgment to see and define agreed on boundaries. This is the true function of justice. The Homeless person is forced to stake out a corner of the commons as his own, and then forced to move place to place by the police, because he doesn't really own anything and is a definitional outlaw.
To be in the law requires agreement, and that requires that we can agree with one another. It is appropriate that I make an agreement to buy my new car (when I finally do) and then pay back that loan. In this way I transfer to my possession and virtual ownership a vehicle, and the auto company makes money off my payments. When a person walks my sidewalk they are on my property and yet not on my property because the sidewalk is public property with an easement from me on my title. The Apartment owner owns the building, the hallways, and agrees to lease the space where the apartment dweller lives. That dweller "owns" that space figuratively and ought to own it literally for the duration of that lease -- unless the person violates the trust of the contract he/she entered in.
Contracts are not sacred. Human life is. Contracts, properties, goods and services are expediences. We make things so we can trade them. We do these things so we can live. Our integrity lies in owning our lives. Politics is about negotiating life, ultimately in a way that ought to be win win for everyone. Justice is when everyone agrees the outcome is just.
We can't wait for Godot.
Chris
Posted by cholte at June 8, 2009 07:18 PM