Blue Story

Note 1

I had the unfortunate luck of being the area literature chair [of and area in South Florida] when the 4th Edition fiasco occurred in '88. It seems that the World Lit Committee (WLC), at either the 85 or 86 WSC (can't remember for sure), put in a motion asking for permission to perform a "LIGHT EDIT" (their words, my emphasis) of the Basic Text, to correct problems of inconsistency of grammar, tense, gender, number, etc. (E.g., sentences that began in the past tense and ended in the present tense.) Obviously, nobody had a problem with that. Unfortunately, they couldn't leave it at that.

When the 4th Edition came out, there were people actually in tears, saying, "They've gutted our book!" In a classic example of "exceeding one's mandate," the WLC had changed a lot more than grammar and tense. They had rewritten whole passages, altered the meaning of many

phrases, and worst of all, totally deleted many phrases, sentences and even paragraphs.

My friends were adamant that, as lit chair, I hold a workshop. So, I sat down with both books for a couple of days and detailed the alterations. Indeed, I found out that my friends had not exaggerated; there was no rational way that a literate person could describe the changes as

merely "grammatical." I typed up my findings into a report.

At the workshop, members of the "royal family" (addicts who belonged to the sponsorship tree that has often exerted a dominant role at the WSC) came to try to shout us down and call us trouble-makers. When that didn't work, they pretty much said we were lying. Their position was that there had been no substantive changes of the Basic Text, and that we were just spreading division and distrust in the fellowship. (This was not the first or last time that the "NA Gurus" stuck their feet in their mouths, embarrassed themselves, and ended up being mad at me for bringing the meeting back to order and standing on principle.)

We carefully laid out the history of the 4th edition, the details of the changes, and the furor that was already taking place across the fellowship by mail and phone. (One of the least pleasant stories circulating was that the changes were made to appease Comp-Care and Hazelden, who were then distributing more Basic Texts than the Fellowship itself; they wanted the changes to make the book less "raw & street-wise," and more literary. Many addicts said that less

rawness reduced its realness.)

Once we held up the books and showed the changes, they could no longer claim that there were no substantive changes. So instead they admitted, yes there were changes, but they were GOOD changes! We said, one's opinion about the changes is not the point; the point is that the fellowship was lied to and the WLC exceeded its mandate in a spectacular example of self-will run riot.

The 4th edition split the fellowship that year; the 5th edition came out as a compromise which satisfied nobody, because while it restored the out-and-out deletions, it did not change back the alterations of text.

Note 2

Some addicts continued to object, and tried to bring motions through their groups, areas and regions that would stop publication of the 5^th Edition, would restore the publication of the 3rd Ed. revised (which was, after all, the last edition that had actually gone out to the groups in a

group-conscience process), and would put in place a standing rule that changes in the NA literature would not be possible in the future without strict adherence to consulting the group conscience. These motions were defeated, not by a strict democratic process, but by parliamentary maneuvers and being declared out of order.

So as you can see, many members -- including many of the most idealistic members, and including many of the people who had helped write the book -- felt disaffected, felt that their input was not merely not being considered but rather was being actively discouraged. Naturally, they objected. Ironically, those who spoke out to this steamrolling full-speed-ahead rejection of the voices of caution, were suddenly being called "rebels," "trouble-makers," and "self-willed addicts in denial." Again proving that the disease has been to so many meetings with us that it can use the

language of recovery against us. (In another age, a teacher pointed out that "The devil can quote scripture, and twist it to his purpose." Similar concept.)

Despite being a voice of moderation, caution and co-operation, I was painted with this same broad brush locally by those with strong loyalties to the WLC. I was being called a "dangerous addict!" Me, a chubby, non-violent, vegetarian, gentle jokester! I had never said a word publicly against any person, I had just called for the WLC and WSC to listen to the

objections of the members and find a path of mutual understanding consistent with our principles and the group conscience. But that fell short of total loyalty and acquiescence, so now I was being attacked and even slandered. Fortunately it didn't work. The newcomers and GSR's already knew me to be a helpful and honest person, and calling me names just bounced egg back on the faces of the NA gurus. Which of course only made them madder.

It was during this time that I made the acquaintance of a member known as "Grateful Dave." He was sick with HIV and felt he had little to lose by being brave. He was one of the members who began printing the Baby Blues, and he was pretty up-front about it; but when he explained his purpose he was not alone for long. A number of areas, and even a region or two,

bought the books and supported Dave's efforts. I neither jumped on Dave's bandwagon nor opposed him, but I did admire his guts, and understood that he was not merely motivated by self-will.

Dave said that proceeds from the sales of the BT were being used to build a bureaucracy at the WSO; that because of the high cost of that office they needed more saleable "product," but that the old group-conscience process that had created the BT was "too slow;" that those members who had been the creative forces that made the Text possible, were now consistently pushed aside -- no longer welcome in world lit. because they had the annoying habit of standing on principle and demanding accountability; and because NA's best writers were discouraged and

shunted aside in this manner, all the writing projects being developed by WLC were mediocre at best, and would continue to be rejected by the fellowship.

Note 3

One had only to look at the utter failure of the "professional writer" project on It Works, which wasted over $80,000 of the fellowship's money, to see that Dave was not far off the mark. Dave believed that what the WSC and WLC needed was a wake-up call. They had gotten too caught up in money, and too out of touch with grass-roots addicts who raised the money and wrote the literature. While the BT was written by any addicts who wanted to participate, without regard to "official position" or even clean-time, the WLC was now becoming so restrictive in who could participate that even bona-fide regional lit committees were being told, "Don't call us, we won't call you."

They couldn't see that encouraging the creative urges of the fellowship would create MORE literature; they could only see that literature not created by the WLC would become harder and harder to control. Legalities had superceded principles. His sources on the WLC and WSB (trustees) told him he was right on.

Dave said that the whole problem with the set-up was that we had failed to follow AA's model. (Dave, by the way, was no anda; but he would not argue with a successful model.) In AA, literature did not fund world services. Donations by the groups (and incidentally legacies and

bestowals left by richer members before AA had the Traditions) were the primary source of revenue for AA's services and offices. AA's literature prices had consistently and deliberately stayed low; furthermore, AA was not terrified by the prospect of electronic distribution of the Big Book and other AA lit., because the wider the distribution the greater chance that that would bring in new members -- hence guaranteeing a continued fund flow through the best source, Self-Support! (7th Tradition)

In NA, the WSO had grown explosively BECAUSE of the Basic Text! When revenues began to falter, officials began to react with fear because it might mean the loss of some jobs. The 4th-edition effort to "tone down" the book to "sell more product" to treatment centers and distributors had backfired, which now had the prospect of wrecking WSO and WLC's long-range funding plans -- a major new writing project every 5 years. It was essential that the credibility and loyalty of the objectors be called into question, and the attention of the fellowship drawn away from the major blunder that had been caused by ignoring group conscience.

Dave was determined to prove that the emperor had no clothes. The Baby Blue was designed to prove that the BT could be published dirt cheap, and given free to any newcomer who needed it. Dozens of groups around the fellowship ( but especially in the eastern US) bought thousands of copies, and gave them away free -- asking only for a "donation suggested" if

possible. It said on the cover, "Fellowship Approved" -- which was not untrue per se, because in fact the 3rd Edition revised was the last version of the book that HAD been approved by the fellowship at large! (Though, certainly, the Baby Blue was never CONFERENCE approved. Nor did it say it was.) While previous versions of the BT, from grey review & input to the 3rd revised, had gone out to the groups, the 4th and 5th had never gone out to the groups. Dave had convinced quite a few thousand addicts that the Baby Blues were more authentic expressions of the group-conscience process than the official version was!

Of course, this was a challenge to be sued. Dave was awaiting the prospect with relish; he had done his homework.

Note 4

Grateful Dave wanted a test case, to challenge the WSO's claim to owning the copyrights to NA literature. He did not hide his role in the Baby Blue affair, he flaunted it. And in short order, he was awarded: with a lawsuit. He was ordered to appear in Federal Court in Philadelphia

to defend his actions, and he was ready. WSO sent its assistant director and an expensive lawyer. Dave sent Dave. He represented himself. WSO told the judge that the Basic Text had been a work-for-hire, and that Dave had infringed on the copyright.

Dave disagreed. And he had a witness, a man who could rightfully be called "Mr. Basic Text" himself. Bo S. of PA came to testify on Dave's behalf. Bo had been the first world lit. chair. He had started the process that led to the Basic Text. He had shepherded the whole process through to its conclusion, even though many had told him it couldn't (and even shouldn't) be done. Bo was a recovery hero to many addicts. Bo told the judge that the BT had never been a work-for-hire; that in fact the then-officers of the WSO had strongly objected to a book not produced within the WSO.

Bo told the judge in detail the story that is briefly outlined in the Basic Text. (In the 3rd edition it is called the foreword; in the 5th addition it's called the preface.) He described how hundreds of people contributed thousands of man-hours to create a "synthesis of the collective group consience of the Fellowship as a whole...". A few other members who had also "been

there" to witness the creation and birth of the Basic Text, also spoke to corroborate Bo's description.

Dave and his witnesses also described how the rights to the book had been given to the fellowship in trust, and that the WSO could be described as the trustee but in no way the "owner" of the book; and that in any case it was never foreseen that the WSO would protect the book from use by its members, just against copyright infringement from outsiders. From all descriptions, the judge seemed unusually hip to the unique concept of a "Spiritual Fellowship" as opposed to a corporate business. For once the meek did inherit; he dropped a bombshell on the court by announcing to the representative of the WSO that he was ready to find against WSO and in favor of Dave. However, he was offering him a chance to come to some mutually agreeable compromise with Dave, if Dave was willing to be magnanimous -- and that he STRONGLY suggested that WSO get humble and ask!

It seems that in a flash, the tables were turned. Dave had every right to gloat, but he didn't. In fact, he was actually invited out to Van Nuys and spent some time at the Office with that

official, hammering out the agreements. It appeared in the CAR.

Dave agreed to stop publishing the BBs, and WSO agreed to hold a fellowship-wide

referendum on the BT. Both sides were duty-bound to stop all finger-pointing and name-calling. The judge was satisfied. And most of this story was never broadcast to the fellowship, "in the interests of unity."

Unfortunately, the referendum was kicked out at the next WSC. Too expensive, too time-consuming, too blah-blah-blah. Dave grew much sicker, and died before he could pursue the matter further. Most of the impetus for exposing the naked emperor died with him. And the name-calling crept back.

You may have heard of the much-vaunted "4th Step" of WSC and WSO in the past three years. This largely grew out of the above problems. Yet the results of that inventory are still much in doubt. Corporate mentality still seems to rule at the world level. The only reason It Works came out at all is because the window was reopened for a short while on group-conscienced literature to let it happen.

Note 5

But people like Bo are not being asked to come back and restore the process. Rather, an atmosphere of distrust and polarization has still remained regarding all this stuff; I see no immediate solution, as both sides are absolutely convinced that they are right.

A few years ago, Bo S. and a few trusted friends decided that it was time for a new group-conscience process, to be called "the NA Way of Life." It was meant to be a broad view of the culture of recovery that develops in the lives of members as they spend many years living clean. He composed an outline, and did some writing himself; but then he turned to the workshop process. Getting "just folks," regular members, to participate in the work, he held various workshops around the country to encourage the same spark of contribution and collective creation that had led to the BT.

People who have participated in these workshops describe it as a wonderful opportunity to share the miracle that has transformed their lives. They also are amazed to see the group-conscience process in action; it works.

In the mood of distrust that has gone on ever since Jimmy K was locked out of the WSO, it is hard for some members to believe that some people serve in an independent role, not because that would be their first preference but because that is the only way they can serve. Bo S. is not trying to lead a coup, and I am confident that neither was Dave. They were trying to light a spark, and Frankenstein's monster could only respond, "Fire bad."

Despite the fact that my moderateness has been a matter of impatience to those more partisan than I, the very fact that I can view the contributions of people like Dave and Bo, not with anger and outrage but with appreciation and understanding, makes me "unreliable" and

"potentially disloyal" in the view of those who support the party line. Despite good shares at good conventions, (again one of those "independent roles" I was mentioning,) and 10 years of writing pretty good recovery articles and ideas, I consider the chance of my being considered as a WCNA speaker or WLC member as so close to nil, it would stun me for a week if I got an offer.

The party line, that all the above were merely stunts pulled by malcontents, thrives when people only know one side of the story. I do not liken the division, as one member did, to the political division between conservatives and liberals; there are lots of liberals who are very

grass-roots, and lots of conservatives who can't wait for government to get into your bedroom and tell you what to do. I think the problem is the "heady rush of power." Those at the center can be intoxicated by their position, and many say that's why they sought it. Just like "it takes one to know one," so those in power are apt to believe the motives of those who oppose them are all about power. It's hard for them to believe that it's about principle. And when it gets polarized enough, each side demonizes the other, and it's hard for both the ins and the outs to even believe

that their opponents HAVE any principles.

I am sure that all members want the best for NA, and that no-one wants to "tear NA apart." I fear that addicts on all sides of disputes fail to thoroughly consider the thoughts and the legitimate grievances of those who disagree, and in the process create enmity and division needlessly.

But our problems are not going to go away until we really LISTEN to each other, instead of jumping to conclusions and calling each other names. The fact that even highly informed and experienced members can view some of our most valuable and creative members as distant stick figures wearing "kick-me" signs, shows that we still are quick to believe the worst about each

other, rather than seeking to know the facts. I don't believe that this is really the Evil Empire vs. the Rebel Alliance, or its reverse. But if we don't back up and show love & respect, it could get a lot worse.

Love and Blessings, DH in South Fla.

Back to Main Page

Webmaster

Copyright © 1997 Beaux Art - Updated 11/11/97

The Power and Limitations of Belief

     God speaks to us and through us.  Or, there is no God.  We are
powerful beings, little lower than the angels.  Or, we are weak, sinful
beings, prisoners of our pasts, our genetics, our upbringing, perhaps our
destiny.

      All of these statements are merely beliefs.  While some of them
appeal to us more than others, and while those who hold them tend to assume
them as universal truths, they are only self-evident to those who believe
in them.  Since they depend upon other beliefs for evidence, which
themselves are not provable as axioms or laws of creation, the assumption
that everyone (or at least all the "right kind of people") shares these
beliefs is dangerous and unfounded.

     Many people who pride themselves on a rigorous mental discipline and a
vigorous intellect would be surprised if they really knew how many of their
assumptions about reality are supported by belief rather than fact.  We
humans seem to have an innate mental function which uses beliefs to model
the universe in our minds, and provides framework assumptions that help us
make sense of the unexpected or unfamiliar.  Our beliefs provide a
"temporary peg" on which to hang our reality, or to rationalize those
inconsistencies that defy our concept of reality.

     This is not to say that all beliefs are wrong; far from it.  Good
beliefs have made humane and successful societies and lives possible.
Believing in such principles as justice, equality, mercy, liberty,
responsibility, the brotherhood of man, our duty to a stewardship of
nature, etc. are signs of a healthy conscience that might permit humanity
to survive.  One might say that these beliefs can co-exist with most other
beliefs, such as religious or political views -- though not always.  For
instance, if people believe in the imminent end of history and this world,
they might consider things like preserving nature to be irrelevant.

     If human history teaches us anything, it's that human beings are
capable of believing anything.  People have believed that sacrificing
virgins or even their own children might appease the gods and guarantee a
good harvest.  They have believed that certain ethnic groups were evil,
damned, the spawn of the devil.  They have believed beautiful and wonderful
things; but they have also believed that their deities had called upon them
to do evil and heinous things.  They have believed in devils that acted
like gods and gods that acted like devils.

     Beliefs can be astonishingly powerful.  They can alter brain
chemistry.  A woman who believes that a pot of coffee is actually decaf can
drink three cups and fall asleep.  A man in a state of shock can perform
feats of superhuman strength because, for a few moments, he doesn't realize
that he can't.  People in a church service or rally can raise energy that
is palpable and unmistakable even to a non-believer.  Yet these are powers
of the mind; they can do surprising things, though they don't alter the
laws of chemistry or physics.

     Though the spiritual sense seems to be universal to humans, what
people think they see when they use their spiritual sense depends very much
on their beliefs.  (For example, the near-death experience seems utterly
similar around the world; but the deity one sees in the white light at the
end of the tunnel is a product of one's culture.)  Even people who theore-
tically subscribe to the same theology may see their god in very different
ways, (e.g. one angry, one caring,) depending on their own character,
temper and personal belief systems.  The human race is capable of adopting
whatever beliefs appeal to them, and then making a "false god" of those
beliefs.  It is as though human minds were like movie projectors, capable
of projecting a god-concept into the sky, and then worshiping or praying to
their own projection!

     In addition to their spiritual yearning, people also have a
subconscious mind.  It isn't usually apparent to them, because it operates
below the level of consciousness.  It stores our memories, beliefs, life
programs.  Like a computer, it has vast storage capacity but no ability to
judge or discern; that is left to the conscious, critical, rational mind.
The subconscious uncritically carries all our assumptions, prejudices,
myths, archetypes, and childhood tapes about the nature of social and
cosmic reality.  While at any time the ideas deposited in the subconscious
could be reprogrammed through hypnosis, meditation, religious and/or
spiritual experiences, psychedelic drugs, or high-energy therapeutic or
envisioning techniques, most folks just don't like to change very much.
They don't want to.  Most people love their beliefs and assumptions, and
most importantly they believe that their beliefs are true.  And they feel
threatened or insulted by the suggestion that their beliefs might be false,
or might not really be serving them well.  People can be so attached to a
belief that they'll hold on to it, even when it's killing them.

     Back in 1990, I attended a group hypnosis for smoking cessation.  The
hypnotist told us that we all use self-hypnosis every day.  We are always
reprogramming our subconscious; we are always giving our subconscious mind
suggestions; we're just most of us not very good at it.  He said, "You've
been telling yourself, 'Ah, I'd love to quit smoking -- but I don't think I
can; it's too hard, I feel weak, impotent, etc.'  And your subconscious
believes everything you tell it!  The reason I make a living doing this is,
I know the right suggestions."

     He used an induction designed for deep relaxation and heightened
receptivity and awareness; and offered those ideas, suggestions and beliefs
that would work practically to reprogram the mind toward non-smoking.  I
had one uncomfortable day, but I never smoked again.  I was able to absorb
new beliefs that made recovery possible.  Most of all, I stopped believing
that I was a hopeless smoker.

     I know a man who proudly insists that he doesn't believe in anything.
Yet he must believe that he is a hopeless smoker, because he won't stop.
He is certain that he can't.  He won't even fly, because that would mean
not being able to smoke.  Rarely have I witnessed such a deeply-held
belief!

     Having shared beliefs (or at least presuming that others share one's
beliefs) can have even greater reinforcing power than individual beliefs.
People seem to have a security need in "belonging."  Knowing that one is
part of a special group, and accepted as a full member, is very gratifying
to most humans.  While all groups will have certain shared values in
common, (such as the shared beliefs in freedom and the rule of law in a
constitutional democracy,) some groups depend entirely for their existence
on shared beliefs.  This is particularly true of religious groups, because
their predicates or axioms of belief are not directly or scientifically
provable.  To "buy the whole package," so to speak, one must suspend
disbelief and squelch any rational misgivings about inconsistencies or
mystic assumptions that might underpin the belief system.

     The big advantage for many members in doing so is that you get to be
"saved," or some similar rewarding idea; in many such belief systems, the
delicious sense of belonging to an exclusive club is augmented by the
belief that those who do not share it are "damned," or some similar
punishing idea.  So not only are those "in the know" favored by God, but
also those who are "dwelling in darkness" are deprived of that favor.  This
gives rise to such absurdities as the kindly old fundamentalist lady
opining, "Wasn't Mr. Gandhi a wonderful person?  Isn't it a shame that he's
burning in hell?"

     When even the saintliest people have no place in heaven because they
failed to agree with you, you are playing God, or telling God what to do.
While everyone is entitled to the God-concept (or lack of one) of their
choice, it seems that theologies do more than divide people.  They seem to
provide ways to dehumanize people.  After all, if somebody isn't "saved,"
why would you believe anything else they say?  And if you believe that you
are the chosen and they are the disposable, what's to stop you from using
them as pawns in your own little game?  Just this approach is shown by some
American fundamentalists who are supporting Israel -- but whose real agenda
is to have Israel fight the battle of Armageddon in the upcoming "end
times."  If Israel has to be sacrificed, that's just the "unfortunate price
to be paid to fulfill prophecy."  Never mind whether they share a belief in
that prophecy, or would rather live in peace than act or die in someone
else's end-of-the-world fantasy.

     Just in this century, people have believed in nazism, communism,
fascism, and some other very destructive isms.  Their fervor has been every
bit as absolute as any religionist's, but their rapaciousness is usually
not constrained as much, due to lack of a "religious moral code."  All
"true believers" are capable of heinous and inhuman acts, because they can
pretend that their victims are less than human.  Whether they shift their
responsibility to following orders, or the good of the collective, or the
fatherland, the clergy or God, people in the grip of a flawed belief system
will justify any enormity through the distorted lens of their beliefs.

     The main reason people are so easily manipulated by flawed belief
systems is that they are not on the lookout.  Most people have too little
experience in history, psychology, theology, philosophy, logic, meditative
disciplines and self-study to understand their susceptibility to "belief
control," let alone want to change it.  It frequently surprises newly-
minted psychologists and clergymen just how dead-set people can get in
their beliefs, and just how resistant to change they can be.  Not only do
people love their beliefs, but they love to be swept away by them!  It is a
socially-approved way of "living in fantasyland."  The Hamas suicide bomber
of unarmed shoppers not only knows that his village will celebrate his
sacrifice, and his cohorts will approve of his suicide and murder -- he
also has convinced himself utterly that his bloodthirsty deed has guaran-
teed him an immediate entry to heaven!  This is not the result of godly
faith, but of twisted belief.  In an environment where rigid and fanatical
beliefs are approved of, the most rigid and extreme believers set the pace.

     While common parlance doesn't make a clear distinction between
"belief" and "faith," such a distinction is sorely needed.  One could say
that "belief" is a grasping-place, a temporary hold on an invisible
handrail through shifting reality; while "faith" is a deep knowing and
alignment with a primary spiritual Force.  Some call this force God, or the
Tao, or Brahman, or the All.  It seems less important what you call it,
than that you call ON it.  Simple faith is an active act of alignment with
an unseen but deeply experienced universal power.  Belief is a series of
ideas designed to explain that power.  Faith is more a reliance on or
surrender to spirit; belief is more a game of "name it and you can have
it."  (As though having the most accurate description of God might somehow
best qualify you to know God.)  Faith empowers the soul; belief gives away
one's power of self-determination to a projection of the mind.  Faith is
built upon love, wisdom, awareness and courage.  Belief is built upon the
suspension of disbelief.  The faithful keep the faith by living upright
lives; believers defend their beliefs by defeating or at least demonizing
non-believers.  (You can already see the need for two divergent words; some
people have been called "defenders of the faith" due to their skill at
murdering infidels.)

     This distinction puts "belief" at the service of religion, and "faith"
at the service of spirituality.  Religion (from L. "ligare," to bind, same
root as ligament or ligature) is a thread of beliefs which bind together
the common values of a community.  Rather than beat up your neighbor over
what he believes, you can band together and clobber the neighboring village
over their wrong beliefs!  (And meanwhile swipe their cattle, gold and
wives.)  Great religions do become more than mere mythologies or cults,
because they begin to enable a more universal moral code and spiritual
sensibility; but religions are constructed for conformity, not self-
discovery.  At best, they define the half-way mark between superstition and
spirituality.  They marry grand belief systems with processes for inducing
thrilling hypnotic states.  They can take you to the threshold of a
spiritual awakening, but they can't carry you through.

     Genuine spirituality can be found among some adherents to religious
faiths.  But it is not dependent upon those faiths.  Religious training is
like a baby bird learning to fly.  Once the bird finds the power in
himself, he takes off and soars, and no further training is needed.  It
seems that many people find security at staying in the nest, so they remain
grounded even if they know how to fly.

     Spirituality can be likened to the metamorphosis of a butterfly.
Rather than look for more food outside oneself, the spiritual seeker turns
inward, brings the nagging and insistent mind to a stop, and seeks to
change inside.  When he discovers the presence of the universal power
within, and allows it to change him from a narrow selfish person to a
beautiful, loving and radiant being, he breaks out of the confining shell
and becomes an object of amazement and joy to those who see him fly.

     Spirituality does not depend on one set of beliefs; indeed, to become
spiritually liberated often depends much more on unlearning what one has
learned.  In particular, it seems to require the shedding of useless
beliefs.  Artificial separations and distinctions, old hates and
resentments, self-limiting and self-destructive concepts, and worn-out
childish neuroses, all have to go.  The spiritual seeker has to become
willing to forego the old and comfortable, if he is to find the awakening
and liberation he seeks.  Often, though not always, this requires the
shedding of the skin of old religion.

     Sadly, religion per se has no interest in the liberation of souls IN
THIS WORLD.  Though they might have a hard time admitting it, most
religions depend upon the dependence of the followers.  They possess both
the disease and the cure; they offer salvation, just "later."  They do not
grow or become rich from people finding their own illumination or their own
path to God; they prosper by getting their adherents to depend on a
priesthood to pass on their third- or fourth-hand revelation.  Like any
bureaucracy, a religious hierarchy eventually develops a life and momentum
of its own, a raison-d'etre of its own, and a survival instinct of its own.
It will try to suppress any activity that threatens its existence -- and
that includes liberation spirituality.  And it will develop a whole system
of beliefs, shared earnestly as vital parts of the theology, to explain why
liberation spirituality outside the religion is sinful and dangerous!

     You'll see a few people within those religions who have found their
liberation, regardless of the strictures of their hierarchy.  They are the
ones with a light on in their eyes, with beautiful smiles, uncomplicated
and unselfish lives, a friendly, wise and quiet demeanor, a good heart, and
a kind word for everybody.  They have learned the intrinsic value of
spiritual awakening, and their lives act it out through love, wisdom,
gentleness, justice, mercy and humility.  Just as "spiritual principles are
never in conflict," neither are spiritual people.  Spiritually-awake people
have more in common with spiritually-awake people of other religions than
with spiritually-asleep people of their own religion.  They will honor the
light regardless of how it got there.  It becomes less necessary for
their words to praise God -- because their deeds do so far more eloquently.
In some contexts, these are the "recognized saints" in a religion; more
often, they are the outcasts and heretics.  They tend to preach awakening
rather than obedience, and love rather than conformity.  Such people can be
regarded as dangerous by insecure church fathers.

     More often, people who seek meaning beyond mere "acceptable beliefs"
become discouraged by religion.  Rightly, their idealism is offended by the
hypocrisy and heartlessness of many clerical pronouncements and the
mindlessness of many true believers.  But rather than piercing through,
they stop; they end the search for spirit, relegating the whole subject to
the realm of delusions and ghost stories.  They come to believe that
"there's nothing there."  So they throw the baby out with the bath-water!
They conclude that if churches are not spiritual, then there is no
spirituality; all faith is merely superstition.

     They may become convinced that their atheism or agnosticism is a
product of rational thought; but since one can no more use logic or science
to prove the NON-existence of God than to prove his existence, their
construction of reality is as much a system of beliefs as the religionists'
is.  And they develop exactly the same "tricks of mind" as the religionist
does, to exalt the evidence that supports their view, and belittle the
evidence that contradicts it.  They become "devout believers in the non-
existence of God."  "And don't try to confuse me with the facts!"

     So often, people who profess atheism "lost faith," not because they
came upon a convincing proof of God's non-existence -- but rather because
they had been hurt or offended.  My father "lost his faith" when his father
was too busy running the business to come to his bar mitzvah service, when
two years earlier his older brother had been given a big party.  It's a
shame that this happened; kids are sensitive and can be so easily hurt and
depressed by parents' insensitivity.  But that doesn't mean God was to
blame.  Just as I do not blame God for religion, likewise I do not blame
God for the ungodly behavior of people.  As anonymous once pointed out,
"It is sickly faith that is shaken because some frail human goes wrong."

     When faith is not exercised, it withers.  One who angrily believes
that God no longer cares, may decide they no longer care to try to contact
God.  The longer the spiritual sense goes unused, the more it becomes a
memory rather than a present reality.  As anonymous also said, "Faith is
like a muscle, and prayer is the exercise that helps it grow."  And also,
"When you cease to use faith, you lose it."  When people start to believe
that the universe is cold and indifferent, they may see no use in
exercising their faith, and soon it becomes irrelevant.

     There are also those who refuse to be limited to religious
enthrallment, but who DON'T throw out the baby with the bath-water.  They
open-mindedly look behind the mirror of religion to see if something is
really there... and take their first few tenuous steps into a wider world
-- one where anything is possible, where some connection to the infinite is
available deep within oneself, and where the goal of raising one's
consciousness and enhancing one's awareness become more important than
proving points or pleasing others.  When discovering the nature of reality
becomes a mystery to be experienced, rather than a puzzle to be solved, the
seeker drops out of old forms and restrictions, and seeks to know God as he
seeks to know himself -- fearlessly searching wherever the quest leads him.

     The only defense against beliefs and their powers of enslavement is a
RIGOROUSLY, VIGILANTLY OPEN MIND.  Rather than rush to categorize,
alphabetize, explain and dismiss, we need to learn how to suspend BOTH
belief AND disbelief.  Just as a child observes the world with fascination
and wonder without drawing conclusions, so does a truly open mind observe
phenomena, behaviors and experiences without having to make sophisticated
analyses.  If God decides to speak to such an open mind in his dreams, then
such a mind will merely consider the information without judging it -- and
without either naming it Jesus or Buddha, or blaming it on an undigested
corned-beef sandwich.  An open mind is more apt to describe things as
"interesting or uninteresting," rather than "right or wrong."  An open mind
is bold enough to follow a train of thought or an experience wherever it
might lead, rather than smash it like a bug as soon as it smells of
unorthodoxy.  An open mind, though, ought not be amoral; i.e. it should
be constrained by the principle of harmlessness.  When our explorations
risk endangering the lives and welfare of others or ourselves, this ought
to be sufficient proof that such experiments are a dead end.  Harmfulness
ought to be seen as ipso facto evidence of a wrong belief.

     Interestingly, this is of direct concern to recovering addicts.  The
addict mentality is quite non-conformist.  There is actually a lot of
daring in someone who risks altering their consciousness.  Those of us who
experimented with mind-altering drugs in the aid of self-discovery may have
parted company with the limited beliefs and attitudes of society.  But we
did not know when to stop.  We kept chasing that high even when there was
no more revelation and transformation.  We had begun chasing a false
belief: that drug experiences were the road itself, rather than merely the
road sign.  In defense of that false belief, we ignored the signs of
harmfulness, which only made the experience more painful and desperate.
And the more we defended false beliefs that led to our harm and
degradation, the more the inconsistency drove us crazy.

     More than the average mind, the addict mind tends to be obsessive.  An
idea becomes more than a mere belief; it becomes a justification to cling
to.  Addicts also tend to be superstitious and ritualistic, and chronic
drug use deranges the clarity of the thought process.  Addicts can be vague
about cause-and-effect relationships; which is why it comes as a bombshell
revelation when you tell them, "If you don't pick up the first drug, you
won't get high."  (Non-addict says, "Duh."  Addict says, "Wow!)

     Addicts have often been rebels, and many are education drop-outs.  Not
having minds well-trained in the scientific method, it is not a given that
they will understand the principle of open-mindedness without some
carefully-guided mental training.  Writing the steps has often been fairly
compared to doing some mental exercises that will profitably pass the time
while their brains calm down.  What will really change their lives,
however, is an introduction to a new way of thinking and a new system of
beliefs -- hopefully leading to a calming of the mind and a process of
awakening and faith that depend less and less on beliefs.

     The self-destructive experience of addicts is reminiscent of the self-
denying or self-punishing antics of some monks and fakirs, who mortify the
flesh in the odd belief that this will bring them closer to God.  Going
back to the first premise, i.e. that people will believe ANYTHING, addicts
are capable of contorting their belief systems to serve the disease of
addiction.  This may include the belief that they are beyond help, that
they deserve punishment, that life is too hard to bear without sedation and
anesthesia, that life favors the "squares" but is against them, etc.  (Or
that, if they DON'T take the drug they will go mad -- when in actuality, it
would be madness to continue to use.)

     The "addict's sufficient bottom" seems to be the jarring experience
that provides a moment of clarity, that opens the mind and allows new
information in.  Whether the addict continues to fearlessly pursue open-
mindedness as an ideal depends on how seriously they take the program of
recovery, and how much they credit themselves with the ability to follow
it.  All too often, addicts merely settle into a different orthodoxy.
     Some sponsors are delighted when their sponsees slavishly adopt all
the sponsor's beliefs wholesale.  Taking on a sponsor's beliefs is proof of
mimicry, not of recovery.  While I hope I have given my sponsees some good
ideas, I hope to God that they don't mindlessly parrot what I share with
them.  It is a far greater pleasure to me that they develop an open-minded
and nimble intelligence that is able to think for themselves.

     Going through the motions of stepwork may at least keep an addict
clean; but without applying rigorous open-mindedness it is unlikely to
result in a spiritual awakening, and the liberation from addictive beliefs
and ideas that are so damaging to an addict's progress.  In clean-time,
many addicts remain "control freaks."  They continue to be afraid not to
seem to be in control at all times, lest someone take their freedom away.
I call this the "myth of competency," a false belief grounded in deep
insecurity.  We do not always need to know what we're doing!  However, we
do need to know how to ask for help rather than pretend that we're cool.

     In spirituality, psychology, recovery and service, the most unwelcome
messenger is often the one who ends up saving your skin.  That is, if you
were open-minded enough to listen.  Lots of times the unpopular geek who
got up and proclaimed that "the emperor has no clothes" got booed off the
stage.  The fixed ideas and beliefs of those who "believe that they are in
control" often are the ones that most endanger their own recovery, serenity
and sanity.  We are liberated not by getting others to agree with us, but
by admitting our powerlessness and getting help.

     Service dramas are merely the most obvious stages where an addict's
inner struggle with addiction is acted out.  Believing that we are right,
or powerful, or important, or victimized, righteous, all-knowing or
helpless, are common delusions of addicts; in service they are seen in
cinerama.  It is so easy to become sidetracked by the belief that it's "us
vs. them," when usually it's really "us vs. the disease."  Addiction is
certainly more than a series of false beliefs; but it depends on many false
beliefs to give it power.  A few years in service often strips away the
delusion that it was someone or something outside of oneself that was the
cause of all one's problems or the source of all one's solutions.  As one
wise soul pointed out, "If I am not the problem, then there is no
solution."

     Lincoln said, "People are just about as happy as they have a mind to
be."  We largely choose our mental landscape, and we color it with the
appropriate emotions.  Eventually, once all the false leads have been
tracked down and dismissed, the open mind discovers and concludes a scary
but very liberating truth: that we have a choice what to believe or not to
believe.  That revelation puts back in our own lap the decisions of life or
death, self-preservation or self-destruction, balance or extremism, harmony
or chaos.  Our mental state is very much the product of what we choose to
believe.  Those beliefs have become so deeply habitual that we come to
think of them as automatic, given, a part of our very nature.  Indeed,
those beliefs can so easily take on a life of their own, that they can seem
to fear their own destruction, and defend themselves against our efforts to
remove them.

     Real spirituality, real open-mindedness, real recovery, seem to
require a certain ruthlessness with our own beliefs, preconceptions and
preferences.  If we are to be free, we have to root out limiting and narrow
ideas, no matter how tightly their tendrils have wrapped themselves around
our neurons.  Whether we hope that a loving higher power, or the resiliency
of the human mind, will carry us safely through our rigorous search for the
truth, we can be fairly safely reassured that we don't have to attempt the
journey alone.

     Just as misery loves company, so does boldness!  Standing up to seek
the light reveals that many others are on the same path.  They may not
reach all the same conclusions, but at least they are asking themselves
many of the same right questions.  In particular, they have decided to stop
permitting sorrow, fear, anger, worry and closed-mindedness from deciding
their agenda.  Their minds are creaking open slowly, and they are
experiencing wonder, delight, imagination and hope.  They may not know what
or who reality is, but they have decided that the search is beginning
rather than ending; and that the search is worthwhile.

  They have become willing to put themselves out on a limb, and found the
courage to cross that invisible bridge of faith -- even if it means parting
with their fearful and limited beliefs.  They discover that "believing is
seeing" -- that opening to a possibility lets them perceive an alternate
reality that was closed to them when they were closed to it.

     Rather than trying to define all the attributes of God, or develop a
convincing list of justifications for non-belief, they seek out "whatever's
there," and "if there's a God, let me experience your presence and
understand your purpose for me."  Ultimately, the seeker becomes a finder.
No longer worried about what to believe, he is able to act on what he
knows.  "I work for God; God works for me."

     Sure, that's only a belief.  But in the lives of people who hold that
belief, miracles happen.

-- David H., Miami, Fla. 2/3/98

521 W. Bay Street #12 - Jacksonville, FL 32202