[…] Observe it, this mind of yours, how it often reacts illogically, even to the smallest stimuli. That's enough feel for your part to talk about religion or religiosity to get a closure in your thoughts, to already get a reaction of estrangement and disinterest.
Yet this happens mostly because your mind stops only at concepts and words.
"Religion" and "religiosity" are not the same thing, but they are indeed two very, very different things.
"Religion”, For example, is what can be considered created by man in a corporation, in order to pursue interests, most of the times selfish; a teaching that is used as a shield to ward off something corporate.
"Religiosity", Instead, it is always something that concerns the individual, which cannot be labeled with a precise term, but it is something that comes from the individual himself, not by appealing to any particular doctrine, but by feeling the meaning of life, perceiving that everything was not created by chance, feeling united with other people, listening to the song that rises from within and merges with the song of all his fellow men.
Your mind, as has been said, can create great barriers; always remaining in the field of religiosity, your mind can react differently depending on whether a person declares, for example, to be an atheist and not to believe in a God, whatever name may be given to him.
Yet, children and brothers, we tell you: respect the opinion of any person and remember that it is much better for an atheist who lives his life in a fair way, in a balanced way, trying to do everything possible for a better tomorrow and for society, which instead the religious person and, at times, bordering on bigotry - who in the name of that religion perhaps tramples on the rights of others - stands as judge of the sins of others and does not observe what he himself is doing every day continuously.
So watch your mind; if you could silence it for just a moment, you could no longer have any doubt about the existence of something that allows all that is created.
That this something then may have a name attributed by a corporation, or a name attributed individually by each of you and always different, this does not matter; the moment always comes when the presence of the Whole, of the Absolute is perceived, that universal brotherhood is perceived, the need to shake the hand of a brother of existence.
And only this close, this squeeze alone is enough to indicate the religious man, without this man thinking, or believing, or declaring to believe in a God or a religion.
Religiosity is not religion, but it is an interior condition of understanding reality and of fusion with one's own intimacy and with one's conscience.
Ananda
[…] Let us pause for a moment to observe these bad words. Strangely, for some reason, bad words are always the words that relate to sexuality of the individual. You will say: "Scifo is fixated, maybe he has some sexual problem".
No creatures, I guarantee you that this is not the case at all. It is simply that every time I observe something, I cannot help but smile, to see the world as it puts on chains that it could not have.
Why should the individual, the man, have this fear of everything related to sexuality? It would be as if the man were scandalized or afraid that his eyes see, that his ears hear, that his hands sweat, and on and on and on.
It seems to me, creatures, that in the sexual function there is nothing less spiritual than in all the other functions.
Well, the fact that this, little by little, is understood by the individual, partly terrifies the pontiff and his entire ship, because sexual repression, guilt, was one of the best weapons he possessed and therefore the the fact that people begin to understand that sexuality is not a sin, it is not a fault, it is not something to be hidden, or to be mentioned only in silent boudoirs, can lead and carries the risk that there is no longer the possibility of keeping under the masses.
The speech just made can also be valid for other words such as blasphemies, which are heard most of the time with a sense of rejection or horror. Io I don't want to seem blasphemous to those among you who are particularly, I don't say bigots because it is perhaps an offensive term, particularly - let's say - linked to a certain type of religion, but I'm sure, I tend to say that blasphemy is actually useful.
But let's see for a moment: what does blasphemy mean? Sure there is a commandment that states "do not take my name in vain", but are you convinced, creatures, that this commandment has really been promulgated by God?
Do you really think that a God would care if his name is pronounced aptly or incorrectly? But this is not God, it's just an IO, without the D in front of it, because I guarantee you, creatures, that God doesn't care in the least that his name is pronounced out of turn and then, if it were only for that, observe the religions. How many nonsense are said in his name!
But what is the function of blasphemy? Most of the time it has the function of triggering a reaction, therefore it has the function of energy balancer, drain valve, vent. But if so, then what is bad about it?
And then, if we really want to judge blasphemy, we should go and see the intention of the one who blasphemes.
Yeah, the intention. If the individual who blasphemes, in fact, is a particularly religious individual, the intention - you will say - cannot be other than that of cursing and cursing the God who created him. Agree, this may also be true. But if he is a particularly religious individual, in reality while he blasphemes he could do nothing but follow the teachings of Christ, who said he was not tepid, thus applying the teaching to the letter!
Why say: "pig cabbage", when you can avoid being tepid by letting out what you feel? And then, on the other hand, why be hypocritical by transforming words when the inner meaning of the words that come out is very different?
At this point it is much more useful to let what comes out and then eventually observe if it was really appropriate to behave in that way.
Then there are those who blaspheme only out of habit: at this point there is no need to spend many words to understand that blasphemy has no particular meaning. Find me, creatures, a true and blasphemous intention in those who blaspheme out of habit and I will deny everything I have said!
What is important to observe, in reality, is the reaction to blasphemy, not so much that of whoever pronounces it, as of whoever listens to it. In fact, more often than not, the people around the one who blasphemes react not so much because they think: "this poor God so mistreated", but simply out of a habit of education or hypocrisy or to point out to the other that bad individual both and on and on, to the point of going so far as to say of this person that he is an atheist.
And then we come to the last concept I would like to talk about, so as not to get too bored before I leave this evening: "theatheist".
Atheist, as you know, means without God and the term is usually used to define the person who does not believe in a God. But are you really sure, creatures, that there can be a person who does not believe in God? Whether he realizes it or not?
I say no.
Usually religious people, when they think of someone as atheist or anti-religious, tend to think, for example, of a certain K. Marx, considering him an atheist par excellence. It is not so. This gentleman, however, was not only not an atheist, but he was a person who had a particular inner religiosity!
Of course he perhaps did not give a precise name to God, he did not call him God, he did not call him Yahweh, he did not call him in the other thousand ways with which he is usually called, but a person who acts, believes and hopes, cannot be defined as an atheist. in order to bring good to humanity.
If his actions may have been right or wrong, that's another matter, but a person who acts in good faith and aims to improve other people, I guarantee you creatures, which can be defined as anything, but not an atheist. This is a long topic to deal with, on which I leave you to meditate, to return to it later when the opportunity arises. Scifo
Readings for the interior: every day, a short spiritual reading of the Ifior Circle and of the Florence 77 Circle, on Whatsapp.
(Read only, cannot comment) To subscribe
Aphorisms of the Ifior Circle, on Wednesday on Facebook
Privacy policy of this site to consult before commenting, or subscribing to feeds.
In the past I happened to reflect on our blasphemy and compare it with similar expressions in other languages.
As far as I can tell, Italian is the only one that combines an animal with the divinity, usually the pig and the dog.
If you look in a detached way, the matter arouses a certain tenderness, you can understand why the curses are aimed at God, but it remains difficult to explain what role the two unsuspecting animals play.
Wanting to make semantic speculations, one could say that combining an animal with God could be the legacy of a polytheistic culture or, pulling a lot, a sort of metaphor of “as above, as below”.
Let's not forget, however, that the Egyptians counted among their divinities Anubis, whose face was, in fact, that of a dog.
The distinction made by Ananda between religion and religiosity was important.
Eddy's remark on blasphemy is interesting.
I find the definition of religion simplistic. Like all generalizations of the rest, it does not take complexity into account. I agree that they have often been transformed, or even moved, by corporate interests, but I also believe that the religiosity we are talking about cannot be kept out of the genesis of religions.
On the blasphemy I agree, some are very creative (my grandfather called him "barefoot", that is, barefoot) but even here we can make a more complex analysis. It provokes and disrespects the sensitivity of some at the same time. Therefore good / evil are inadequate categories to address the question. However, the true blasphemies are others, which are no longer considered as such (offense to the dignity of life, to the planet, materialism ...), that is not to see the transcendent
The post brings back to the Unity where every manifestation becomes an expression of the constituent principle in which everything resides: the categories, the classifications are part of a dualistic vision imprinted in our culture that we must gradually shake off if we want to savor the Real. This is what is well described in the explanation of "religiosity" whose meaning is transversal and inseparable to all codified religions and which lives within everyone.