A Matter Of Knowing That Already – Spirituality Information
When my son, Jonathan, was much younger, I would try to help him with some of his tasks, whether it was his homework, chores or even just plain, simple advice. Many a time he would look at me in exasperation and say, “I know that, dad.” Even when he did solicit my help directly, he would listen, but not “hear” what I had to say.
Now, mind you, I do not claim to be a paragon of excellent advice or wisdom, but many of the things I told him would have saved him tremendous amounts of time, frustration and heartaches. As Jonathan grew older, he learned to listen a bit more, so instead of discounting most of what he heard, he would evaluate, weigh the merits or lack of, and then make choices based on what was consistent with his idea of right and wrong or good and bad.
The Universe speaks to us all the time. It doesn’t always do it in ways that we expect. Sometimes a
message comes from a friend and at other times, it may be someone we do not really care for who brings a very clear message to us. There are times when the messages are sent through dreams, or books, or radio, TV, the Internet and even the more prosaic form of the telephone.
If we close our minds and think that “we know that already,” we may miss the one little point that could have saved us a lot of trouble. Keeping an open mind gives us an opportunity to evaluate the communications we receive and then make decisions based on our own true feelings.
The story is told about some scientists who went into an apple orchard to study apples. They were busy with their notepads and pencils, measuring the dimensions of the apples they found. They observed and noted the size, weight and colors of the fruit while off to their left sat one of their fellow scientists under a large apple tree. He was quietly eating an apple.
All the other scientists knew about apples. The one who was eating the apple knew “apples.” Knowing about something does not necessarily mean knowing the thing. Knowing about God does not mean knowing God. Knowing about the secrets and laws of the Universe will not do us much good if there is not the deep knowing in our hearts and souls.
There have been hundreds of thousands of people who’ve read one or more of my books. Among the many wonderful email I receive would be one or two short, to the point comments saying something to the effect of, “I know all that already. I’ve been practicing all that stuff for years and so you haven’t told me anything new.”
My feeling is that there is really nothing new. As the Book of Ecclesiastes says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” What I think is new is the interpretation we bring to things, the different way we look at the information we receive. We can choose to see if, perhaps, there are any gems in what we hear and see or any wisdom in what we read or listen to.
By opening up our minds to new possibilities, we may find that we are being led by that glorious, higher self within us to explore possibilities that have the potential to bring us peace, joy, wealth, success — all good things.
If someone tells you that you shouldn’t do something because it doesn’t work, what that person is really saying is that it doesn’t work for him. Listen to your heart, gather all the information and let the Universe show you how to make it work.
Jonathan listens a lot more these days. He reflects and thinks about what he hears, sees or reads. He is willing to listen to points of view that are totally different from his own without getting defensive as he used to. As a result, he has become more tolerant, more compassionate and, in many ways, more successful. He has grown into a fantastic young man who, I am sure, will bring much credit to all that he chooses to do.
Let us not be like the person in the little ditty who says:
“In matters controversial, my perception’s really fine. I always see both points of view — the one that’s wrong and mine.”
Let us, instead, listen to all that comes to our notice and after reflecting on it, exhibit the qualities of tolerance, peace, understanding and compassion. And as Commander Spock would say, “Live long and prosper.”
John Harricharan
http://www.articlesbase.com/self-help-articles/a-matter-of-knowing-that-already-spirituality-information-135631.html
Why do people feel the need to accuse NA or AA of being a religion, or say it's not successful at saving lives?
Having recently been brought to my attention, I see lots on here and elsewhere about NA or AA, discouraging addicts from attending meetings. I do not speak for any fellowship, I speak only for myself. I do not promote anyone should attend a meeting. NA is a secular spiritual (not religious) program. In "It Works, How and Why," an NA book, it states the fundamental principles that no one can tell you what your higher power is (could be a chair, holds me up longer than I can hold it up), and no one can tell you how to communicate with your higher power.
My understanding of all this bashing of NA as religion is because religions hold precisely the opposite principle of dictating spirituality. I’m not big on the "g" word (god), but its simple, 3 letters, one syllable, never really meant the same thing to any two people; most members use it, its not remotely mandatory. This allows focus on how a higher power (any higher power) can save my life.
Oh, yes, omitted in all the ranting, and I don’t mind the information, just the crusade mentality and propaganda, is any reference to the fact we are talking about people destroying their lives desperately seeking to stop. Frankly, the statistic that NA has only a 5% recovery rate is misleading. If you can quit on your own, good, then you’ve done it already and are not part of the equation here. It is probably more honest, if you truly know anything about this, to say that the disease of addiction has a near 100% success rate, for those of us who were not able to quit on our own.
The "disease" is obsessive compulsive disorder, which when when mixed with alcohol, crack, heroin, etc. can break out in jails, institutions, and death, and enjoy the despair, destitution and misery in the meantime while your chasing that next hit. The disease is not the drug, it does not matter what the drug is, and it does not have to be a drug, if it makes my life unmanageable.
Any addict who fortifies themselves against NA because of what they read on the web is doing what an addict does: finding an excuse to take that next hit. While it may harm others, if someone needs to rant and vilify and propagandize against AA or NA on the web to keep a spike out of their arm, AA or NA would not kick you out for it, so what kind of religion does that make them?
Because it is not effective and psychological counseling where someone deals with their issues instead of getting another addiction is 1,000,000% more effective.
References :
NA and AA are support programs. Researching it wouldn’t harm.
Obviously, no one that never experienced with being addict don’t know any thing they go through. It’s a living hell for those who are addicts that are trying to quit.
References :
I’m a lawyer and went to AA for nine years before leaving 18 months ago. Thank you for your question.
Some people get the crazy idea that AA is religious after reading the Big Book and other AA literature, noting the constant references to God and the fact that "working" the program involves surrendering to God: "God, I offer myself to thee–to build with me and to do with me as Thou wilt…." (Step 3, Big Book, Page 63). Really, it is not a terribly huge leap of logic to read that sort of thing and conclude that there’s some religion involved.
Also, the US appellate courts which have considered the issue of the religious nature of 12 step groups are unanimous in their conclusion that forced participation in such programs violates the Establishment Clause (the constitutional provision requiring separation between church and state). I’ll quote a few of the court opinions on this point:
In Griffin vs. Coughlin, the NW Court of Appeals (the highest state court in New York) held that under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment, an atheist or agnostic inmate may not be deprived of eligibility for expanded family visitation privileges for refusing to participate in AA. To quote the court:
Doctrinally and as actually practiced in the 12-step methodology, adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization. Followers are urged to accept the existence of God as a Supreme Being, Creator, Father of Light and Spirit of the Universe. In "working" the 12 steps, participants become actively involved in seeking such a God through prayer, confessing wrongs and asking for removal of shortcomings. These expressions and practices constitute, as a matter of law, religious exercise for Establishment Clause purposes.
In Kerr vs. Farrey, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, again on establishment clause grounds, held that AA is a religious program and that inmates at a state correctional facility could not be forced to participate:
The district court thought that the NA program escaped the "religious" label because the twelve steps used phrases like "God, as we understood Him," and because the warden indicated that the concept of God could include the non-religious idea of willpower within the individual. We are unable to agree with this interpretation. A straightforward reading of the twelve steps shows clearly that the steps are based on the monotheistic idea of a single God or Supreme Being. True, that God might be known as Allah to some, or YHWH to others, or the Holy Trinity to still others, but the twelve steps consistently refer to "God, as we understood Him." Even if we expanded the steps to include polytheistic ideals, or animistic philosophies, they are still fundamentally based on a religious concept of a Higher Power.
And most recently (2007), in Inouye v. Kemna, the 9th circuit stated:
The Hobson’s choice Nanamori offered Inouye [a buddhist] — to be imprisoned or to renounce his own religious beliefs — offends the core of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
Now, let me explain to you why I do not recommend that people go to 12 step groups. First of all, and most importantly, there is no reliable evidence that they work. If you read the research showing that the programs are helpful, you inevitably find that the research design is almost laughably flawed–none of them even have a control group! The valid studies that have been done show that AA in general is about as effective as no treatment at all (and no improvement over no treatment = a 0% success rate), actually raises the level of binge drinking in some cases, and increases the death rate among dually diagnosed people (i.e. people who have mental health diagnoses in addition to addiction).
Second of all, the horrors I personally witnessed over my nine years of AA membership make it impossible for me to suggest that anyone go to those meetings. During those nine years, I saw many more people relapse and die than I ever saw get sober. Beyond the constant relapses and deaths, there were sickening tragedies including heartbreaking abuses by sexual predators and the dreadful practice of convincing dually diagnosed people to stop taking their psychiatric medications. You can’t imagine how I felt right before I left AA, holding a sick, shaking woman in my arms who’d relapsed after following her sponsor’s orders to stop taking her bipolar meds.
To be honest with you, I think the irresponsible people involved in this debate are the ones who continue to promote 12 step groups as benevolent organizations. They are not. They do more harm than good, and yet they constitute 90-95% of the treatment available in the US.
References :