I can accept the ideas suggested by Bradley and Bonita that spiritual self-examination needs to be redefined in the context of religious dogma and social context and is, therefore, not required as such if we dedicate our lives to following the will of God as best we understand it. Nonetheless, if we remove the modifiers “spiritual” and “conscientious” then how does self-examination differ from the process of self-criticism?
The point I was trying to make is when studying the text, the modifiers are critical to understanding its meaning. They shouldn’t be left out when studying, otherwise self-examination and self-criticism can mean a myriad of things. For instance, self-examination can mean a monthly breast cancer self-exam, checking one’s weight, looking for new wrinkles and gray hairs. Self-criticism can mean getting angry with yourself because you forgot someone’s birthday, left the garage door open overnight, forgot to turn off the stove burner. What I’m saying is that the modifiers help determine meaning, especially given the problems of the English language. At least that’s my opinion, for what it’s worth.
I think the key to meaning is the fact that we cannot cause our own spiritual growth. Spiritual growth isn’t something that can be constructed by looking at a blueprint and following the specs (orthodoxy). All growth is unconscious (100:3.7), including spiritual growth. All we can do is provide fertile soil. The natural question then becomes, what is fertile soil? The answer is faith and development of the spiritual reflex mentioned in 100:1.8.
Let’s just say that if you’re wholeheartedly focused on developing ” . . . religious predispositions toward favorable reaction to spiritual stimuli,. . . (100:1.8)” then you’re not focused on yourself. You’re focused on the spiritual stimuli; you’re focused on your relationships and cosmic problem solving, which leads me to one of the other quotes you listed.
(549.5) 48:4.18 Humor should function as an automatic safety valve to prevent the building up of excessive pressures due to the monotony of sustained and serious self-contemplation in association with the intense struggle for developmental progress and noble achievement. Humor also functions to lessen the shock of the unexpected impact of fact or of truth, rigid unyielding fact and flexible ever-living truth. The mortal personality, never sure as to which will next be encountered, through humor swiftly grasps — sees the point and achieves insight — the unexpected nature of the situation be it fact or be it truth.
This must be taken in context as well. Self-contemplation is referring to the issues surrounding cosmic problem solving with spiritual insight. Spiritual insight is something which requires effort. Since spiritual insight is a gift, you’d think it should be free, but it isn’t. The cost is faith, which happens to be another gift. So there’s the paradox. Why aren’t God’s gifts free? Why do they take effort? The answer is because we must exercise free will. No gift can be forced upon us and the act of accepting the gift and using it is the effort God requires. It’s the willingness to be in a relationship with him, sharing with him. Doing the will of God is nothing more than sharing the inner life with him (111:5.1). He supplies everything, our job is to choose.
The concept is simple, the execution is more difficult because of choice. What to choose? This or that? The answer depends wholly upon a desire for perfection, dedication to seeking it, willingness to recognize it and the loyalty required to live it. I’d say the only thing worth examining about yourself is whether or not you’re being a loyal son.
We all stray and sometimes we’re not even aware of it until the psychic conflicts make it obvious. Those conflicts are inevitable and most, if allowed into the realm of the Father-son relationship with honest sincerity, will bring genuine growth. Why? Because the conflict will open up new meanings which require new decisions and growth is dependent upon sincere decisions. But if conflicts do nothing more than eat away at your soul and turn you into a nasty bastard, then it’s safe to say you’ve gone astray. Realignment is in order. That’s about all the self-examination, self-criticism I think one needs, recognizing mental joylessness, a discontentment with your own miserable self along with the desire for something better.
(1097.6) 100:4.2 Religious perplexities are inevitable; there can be no growth without psychic conflict and spiritual agitation. The organization of a philosophic standard of living entails considerable commotion in the philosophic realms of the mind. Loyalties are not exercised in behalf of the great, the good, the true, and the noble without a struggle. Effort is attendant upon clarification of spiritual vision and enhancement of cosmic insight. And the human intellect protests against being weaned from subsisting upon the nonspiritual energies of temporal existence. The slothful animal mind rebels at the effort required to wrestle with cosmic problem solving.
TUB describes the mortal discontent of the unspiritualized mind which causes a consuming thirst and indescribable hunger (34:6.8). It’s an uncomfortable mental state for normal folks. But there are some folks who become inured or just take longer to become unhappy with themselves. Jesus mentioned this type of person to Ganid:
(1466.1) 132:7.1 Jesus, Gonod, and Ganid made five trips away from Rome to points of interest in the surrounding territory. On their visit to the northern Italian lakes Jesus had the long talk with Ganid concerning the impossibility of teaching a man about God if the man does not desire to know God. They had casually met a thoughtless pagan while on their journey up to the lakes, and Ganid was surprised that Jesus did not follow out his usual practice of enlisting the man in conversation which would naturally lead up to the discussion of spiritual questions. When Ganid asked his teacher why he evinced so little interest in this pagan, Jesus answered:
(1466.2) 132:7.2 “Ganid, the man was not hungry for truth. He was not dissatisfied with himself. He was not ready to ask for help, and the eyes of his mind were not open to receive light for the soul. That man was not ripe for the harvest of salvation; he must be allowed more time for the trials and difficulties of life to prepare him for the reception of wisdom and higher learning. Or, if we could have him live with us, we might by our lives show him the Father in heaven, and thus would he become so attracted by our lives as sons of God that he would be constrained to inquire about our Father. You cannot reveal God to those who do not seek for him; you cannot lead unwilling souls into the joys of salvation. Man must become hungry for truth as a result of the experiences of living, or he must desire to know God as the result of contact with the lives of those who are acquainted with the divine Father before another human being can act as the means of leading such a fellow mortal to the Father in heaven. If we know God, our real business on earth is so to live as to permit the Father to reveal himself in our lives, and thus will all God-seeking persons see the Father and ask for our help in finding out more about the God who in this manner finds expression in our lives.”
Not sure if all this gibber-jabber of mine is making any sense or helping. There are many different ways to approach the discussion of this issue, which is a critical one to contemplate, in my opinion.
