Can We Agree?
|"The Truth Will Set You Free"|
1. Can we agree that there are two factors or developments that underlie any or every thing meaningful, and that these two things are the sustenance and enhancement of life?
2. Can we agree that all are worthy of being treated humanely, without imputing equality in any physical or mental dimension?
3. Can we agree that we have been born into a world of billions of homo sapiens with a multiplicity of competing and mutually exclusive belief systems, each claiming to be the way, or the truth? Can we agree that not one of these ideologies, religions, denominations, organizations, groups or individuals is in a majority, but that every one of these is in a minority? Can we agree the inescapable logic is that at least a majority of these are significantly flawed, and a direct implication of what we see is that almost all, and possibly ALL, are wrong or false to some degree. In this context can we agree that we should be primarily challenging our belief system rather than defending it?
4. Can we agree that the foundation/paradigm behind existing systems usually is:
b. Inadequate, unsound, confused and muddled?
c. Dark, negative, and psychologically twisted?
d. Structurally and organizationally deficient?
5. Can we agree that the major conclusions of these systems usually are:
a. Irrational (non-factual), illogical, and unreasonable?
b. Unworthy of our idealism?
c. Hopelessly unworkable, unproductive in terms of resolving the human condition?
6. Can we agree that the prevailing belief systems are at best coping mechanisms for the "human condition?
7. Can we agree that we are all born into a dirty, messy, pathogenic, dangerous, troubled, insane world under a sentence of death? And that we did not ask for or design this?
8. Can we agree that our belief system should deliver us, "set us free" from the "human condition"?
9. Can we agree that we will eschew dogmatism in our discussion?
10. Even though it may entail our utmost exertions, is it possible by dint of excruciating effort for us to come into essential intellectual consonance so that we eschew expositing and explaining our beliefs, dogmas, tenets, doctrines, and positions with obscurant, mystical or obfuscating terminology?
11. Can we agree that truth or lack thereof in our belief is more important than the intensity of belief? Can we not see that many and various individuals have been willing to be burned at the stake or willing to commit suicide for their barbaric beliefs?
12. Can we agree that "the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr"?
13. Can we agree that when we verbally discuss we are always sharing limited perspectives, concepts or feelings, not necessarily the last word of truth on the issue?
14. Can we agree that knowledge and belief, though different, are inextricably linked?
15. Can we agree that there is a culturally transcendent set of values that we would call human or humane?
16. Can we agree that spiritual reality (intelligence) is primary, that the ground of being for physical reality is the spiritual and not the other way around?
17. Can we agree that one necessary accomplishment of a spiritually mature person is to internalize authority and take full personal responsibility for what he may believe?
18. Can we agree that one must first have faith in oneself before one can legitimately put faith in any external source?
19. Can we agree that the value of the individual is supreme and that organizations acquire value only insofar as they serve the individuals, and not the other way around?
20. Can we agree that the truth is not something that can be "spread" like peanut butter or mayonnaise, nor is it something that can be injected into another person, but that it can only be inspired?
21. Can we agree that the “no-belief belief system”, the "no-concept concept", and the "no-doctrine doctrine" are oxymoronic, and that it is NOT an option to have a belief system, concepts, and "positions", but the best option is to be careful and responsible in what we believe?
22. Can we agree that no sound person desires to die except because of suffering, be it physical or psychological?
23. Can we agree that we should elevate substance over style in our discussion?
24. Can we agree that one earmark of everything meaningful is organization?
25. Can we agree, given that the word "love" is so nebulous, used so widely in range of meaning, that it is more meaningful for a person to say, "You know, you make me feel well loved" than it is to say "I love you"?
26. Can we agree, given that rationality pertains to apprehending the facts, and logic pertains to assembling the facts into structure and conclusion, and that reason incorporates both of these and adds purpose, that the truth never violates valid rationality, logic, nor reason?
27. Can we agree that we will show up for our discussions primarily as learners and sharers, not as teachers?
28. Can we agree that leadership is always a temporary service, never should be sought for itself, is legitimate only through inspiration rather than through domination, and is only as valid as long as it is serving the right purpose and values?
29. Can we agree that being a responsible human being firstly means being responsible for what we believe and promulgate?
30. Can we agree that that which is moral is that which ultimately enhances life and increases morale?
31. Can we agree that it is at least as noble to change one's position in or concept of the truth as it is to propose or hold a correct precept or concept?
32. Can we agree that it is more difficult to know that which is the right thing to do, than it is to do that which we think is right?
33. Can we agree that a lie fed to a receptive mind can become a great "truth" to that mind?
34. Can we agree to refrain from promoting defeatism in our discussion?
35. Can we agree that significant aspects of the phenomenological world, i.e., ontology, cosmology, physical science, mythology, geology, history, anthropology, psychology, biology, etc., should condition our belief system?
36. Can we agree that mankind needs spiritual healing as a prerequisite to full and complete healing?
37. Can we agree that what we ultimately desire is the complete "" package , i.e., Imminent Fulfillment, Immortality, Safety, Equality, Empowerment, Unity, and Society?
38. Can we agree that in our discussion we should maximize our unity by focusing on and increasing our agreements rather than focusing on and hammering out our differences?
39. Can we agree that the bottom-line end-result that we universally desire is to feel good?
40. Can we agree to gather in good will to reason together toward unity rather than to argue or triumph?
41. Can we agree that gurus, preachers, teachers, and lecturers−outside of any tangible service they might perform−are assets or liabilities solely on the basis of whether their message content is true or false?
42. Can we agree that no substantive value is derived from gurus, preachers, teachers, and lecturers because of their intensity, style, charisma, charm, enthusiasm, formal authority, credentials, popularity or sincerity?