A view that I come across from time to time is to the effect of “Why should I help them? They’re not family!”. In a slightly different form, it is often expressed as “Family is all that matters”.
Such views actually have a useful place – for instance, the comment about the importance of family is often about the only way people can convince greedy bosses to back off and allow them some time to have a life. In my view, however, “I need more time to spend with my friends”, or “I need some time to have a life” should be just as credible as “I need more time with my family”. That it isn’t is a sad reflection on our world.
I know that the experience of love for a family, including “add ons” to that family (e.g., parent’s new partners, fostered/adopted children – ALL of whom are as legitimately part of the family as the original members) has benefits. With respect to spiritual growth, for example, these benefits are that one begins to think of others before oneself, which is a good step along the way towards attaining the spiritual ideal of “universal love/goodwill” that many faiths espouse (albeit, in some cases, a bit nominally). I personally consider attaining a state of universal goodwill/neutrality a key part of spiritual evolution, and I see the progression as typically being something like:
- realisation (as a toddler/young child, usually) that you have a separate identity/consciousness
- self absorbance as this separateness is relished
- self love as one emotionally and/or spiritually matures (which, IF it occurs, may be at any stage between young child and venerably aged)
- love for those about oneself (family and friends – and this I by no means universal: there are families and “friends” who are abusive; this can also be a struggle where such family/friends are “not nice”, or where the love impacts - or seems to impact - on one’s earlier self absorbance/self love, possibly because there is a fear that there is a limit to such love)
- realisation (or stirrings of realisation) that we are all connected, and that the initial realisation of separateness of identity/consciousness may not be quite as clear-cut as it initially seemed
- struggles to develop some universality of love/goodwill (or at least a genuine neutrality), which will be exacerbated by inappropriate/wrong views on the Universe/Deity/the nature of our interconnectedness/basic reasons (“rewards”) for doing this, as well as where other people are “not nice” or where the universality impacts - or seems to impact - on one’s earlier self absorbance/self love/family love/love of friends, possibly because there is a fear that there is a limit to such love.
Also, just to complicate matters, things are not just a simple always moving forward matter. We backslide in the one life, and with some lives interspersed between other more clearly forward moving lives. As an example of that, one of my partners in this life (actually most of them, but I am thinking of one ex- in particular) was someone who I have known in previous lives. We’ve been marrier previously, with both of us swapping male and female genders at times, we’ve been friends, we’ve shared lives including piracy and frontier lifestyles, and we’ve also been “enemies”, in the sense of being on opposite sides of war, where we have been responsible for each other’s death. Our paths differed in the last thousand years or so in a couple of significant ways. Firstly, I am of the opinion that I probably had a life in a Tibetan “monastery” (of sorts) in about the 1200s/1300s, and had a significant reawakening of my spirituality as a result of that. I also learned a great deal about self discipline through a life in the British Navy in the early 1800s (no, I was NOT at Trafalgar, and I was NOT anyone famous in either of these lives). My ex didn’t, so wound up leading a less disciplined, more family oriented lifestyle in this incarnation, whereas I wanted to focus more on my broader family: all humanity (maybe even all sentient life?). How does this illustrate the backsliding? Well, the piracy life was after the Tibetan life. So, despite the long term reawakening and flowering of my spirituality owing to that life, that did NOT mean I was continually thereafter a “spiritual” or “good” person.
(Incidentally, if you want to ask “can I prove any of these lives?”, the answer is “most probably not”. If you’re asking that, the sort of verifiable detail you are after is such that I could probably only provide that if I had been hypnotised. I wasn’t, and cannot be bothered stuffing around with such trivialities for the sake of others’ uncertainties about such matters. I have too much to do with getting on with life and growth to waste time and energy on such. There is evidence that I am satisfied with – such as being “recognised” by a former colleague from my most recent life – but what matters about that is that it matches MY standards on veracity, NOT yours.)
Going back to family, those who fail to understand the inherent abundance of the Universe (I have always liked the definition of Deity, from Stuart Holroyd’s “Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth”, that “Deity” is to the effect of “a universal intelligence which grows on love”) may feel that it isn’t possible to care deeply about strangers. This may show in statements like:
- “Why help them? I don’t know them!” or “They’re not family”
(which I’ve heard sometimes about people overseas struck by some terrible disaster, sometimes about people who may or may not be “blameless” with respect to their conduct [such as the homeless – and the assessment of blame is in the mind of the beholder, in this case], sometimes about acquaintances who are not family by blood or relationship)
- “What matters most is the support of your family”
(which is a slightly reverse view of the topic, where one is prepared to expect to be loved by others for whom one is related, but not others)
- “How can you really care for them? They’re not blood!”
(heard, for instance, when some people comment about adopting or fostering; such people should (a) read “The Selfish Gene”, by Richard Dawkins (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene), and (b) think about how this could possibly be different to other people coming is as, for example, new partners)
- “You’re part of this family now”
(whoop-de-frickin’-do; I was always a person in my own right, with my own inherent right to exist – I don’t need someone else’s approval or validation)
I think it is high time such family-only apologists thought seriously about the lessons of exemplary people such as Mohandas K. Gandhi (“Mahatma” is an honorary title), Christ (I’m not a member of the book religions: I don’t see Christ as being any more God than the rest of us already are), Martin Luther King, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and (in his later life) Nelson Mandela. (Mother Theresa has been excluded because of her views on same sex attracted people; I don’t know what Bishop Tutu’s views on homosexuality are, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.) We’re all part of the same, big family, on the one small planet. We’re all in this together, so let’s start respecting each other equally, and pull together by AT LEAST not hating or inferring or treating as second rate anyone not in our blood/intimate relationship family.
Gnwmythr
This post's photo is yet to be posted.
Tags: arrogance, about me, control, family, growth, interpersonal interactions, judging others, life lessons, personal characteristics,
First published: Saturday 8th November, 2008
Last edited: Saturday 8th November, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment