|
December 2000
A monthly selection from the works of Richard Rose
|
|
Part 2 of the 1974 Kent State University WKSU Radio Interview with Richard Rose (printed in The Direct-Mind Experience; also available on audio tape): Question: In order for someone to even pick up your philosophy, he has to be willing to question some very long-held traditional thoughts or myths concerning religion? Rose: Well, we don't get into that very much, because this could go on forever. This would be a theological or a dogmatic quibble. We basically bypass that, and I think that all genuine Zen does also. It just bypasses all individual concepts and goes right back to the thinker - and asks of him, "Why do you believe this? Do you ever examine yourself to see why you believe a particular thing?" And from this you begin to understand that perhaps you were motivated by something organic or by a particular type of inherited character or nature. And if a person sees this, maybe there's a chance for him to progress from that point. So we generally just ask the person to question himself, or we will question if he can't think of the questions. "Why are you hung up on whatever it is that you're doing?" Or, "Why do you cleave to this thing that you believe in?" And it's not only religious things; it's also social convictions. These social convictions tie us to what we consider to be inhibitory complexes, which keep us from thinking clearly. See, I maintain that this is all a matter of thinking clearly. That you do not have to be a holy, ascetic-looking person - you can work in a steel mill. You can live a life like anyone else. You don't have to be a theologian - in fact, you can doubt all the theology that is ever written and still find the truth. Because as soon as you start putting limitations on it, like saying that you have to have a prayerful attitude, you are doing just that - you're building a door with that limitation that you can't go beyond. I believe that it is something any man can do. Any layman, with just plain determination and common sense, who can sit down and face himself. But he has to follow it up. Not just say, "Well yes, I agree that I have kind of tricked myself here or my head has outwitted me here." But face himself consistently over a period of let's say meditative sessions or confrontation sessions, in which he attacks and holds these up to view. He realizes that maybe he has been into twenty-five years of self-delusion, that he's been kidding himself. He puts forth a certain posture to society - first he puts it over on society - he convinces them that he fits in, that he's a nice type of fellow and all that sort of thing. Then he convinces himself that all of his thinking is correct. Then something happens of course to all of us someday - when we doubt everything that we have ever thought. The day comes when all of us come to doubt. But it's generally too late to do anything about it. So the majority of people sort of slide along on a kind of egotistical conviction that because the public doesn't complain about their social behavior they must be on the right track on all levels. They pay their taxes, they get along with the fellow next door and they're able to perform their job - this seems to be to them the sign of a good theology. But of course that to me would be the ultimate sign of a successful utilitarian theology. Question: Do you feel that existing structures which have developed in the religious/political scheme have been done so by those who wanted to control and mold other people? Rose: This is what I contend has been the downfall of Christianity. I was born and raised in the Christian faith, precisely a Catholic, and I began even as a child to see where I thought they were refusing to answer my questions. That they were refusing to allow the layman to get into deeper levels of thinking, while at the same time trying to control the thinking, by just saying, "You're going to hell if you doubt." And this is what I say is a common-sense reaction - not just myself alone but many thousands of people have said, "Well, I have had enough of that. I'm surely entitled to think. I'm surely entitled to doubt." The thing was that because of this attitude of control there was a slump in the dynamism of the Christian church. They had become powerful. They were no longer persecuted, they were left alone, they could build massive cathedrals. And it became a social institution - it became rather sleepy. They no longer exhorted. The very backbone of any religion is the continuing search for truth - not just collecting funds and building buildings or amassing a big social structure. Then when these Christian structures were threatened by the rebellion of large segments of the young people, who said many things including that God was dead to them, the church reacted by trying to placate or play politics with humanity. Posing now as a great social institution, wanting to be politically funded, indulging in things that were strictly social problems that had nothing to do with the church or with theology - much less a search for man's definition. (And when I say theology, this doesn't come close to what we are talking about.) And this is what in my belief every sentient being searches for - his cause. If that is a Creator or if it's an accident, he wants to know it. He certainly doesn't want to be silenced or placated or converted into just a politically or socially oriented group. Question: So this marriage or mutual relationship between religion and the state became its downfall? Rose: It seems to me like that. Now I could be wrong on the intentions of all good men - there may be lots of people who are trying to salvage some of this. I read recently of a priest at a meeting down in Florida who had talked quite openly of cosmic consciousness and enlightenment. And from the way he talked about it, he evidently knew what it was about. But I've never heard of any campaign on his part to bring this to the people. To show them that there is something to look for besides the old concept of a personal god who protrudes from the heavens with an ancient bewhiskered head and looks after his little ones - or damns them forever for not being able to guess what he wants them to do. When we talk about enlightenment we are talking about the knowledge of ultimates - the knowledge of the absolute state of being. This involves nearly everything in the line of knowledge, and yet it doesn't really involve knowledge. Because when you get to the absolute state of being you are dealing with absolutes, not relative things which we define as knowledge. So we have to try to bear in mind when we hear this, that we are looking for absolutes with the full knowledge that when we reach that absolute state of knowledge it may not be describable. And consequently all the time that I have been talking to these various groups about enlightenment, I have dodged the word. Because it is undefinable. Incidentally, of the men I have met who were enlightened, only one was enlightened by virtue of the Zen practice. I have met at least two who were enlightened by the Christian process. |
|
Comic philosophy, |
|
#1 WHO IS RICHARD ROSE? | #2 INSIGHTFUL QUOTES
#3 BOOKS & TAPES | #4 THE ALBIGEN SYSTEM
#5 THE TAT FOUNDATION | #6 LINKS TO OTHER SITES