To know another person entails something much more intimate than merely their outer appearance, their past history, or even their character as revealed by social contact. For all this is merely a surface effect which may be refreshing or depleting, depending on the sympathy or antipathy they invoke in us. None of us can claim the whole world as our friend because of the enormous range of character structure we show in our own lives. The fact that some people are alleged to be quite admirable in their dealings with others, need not necessarily shame us if we find them boring, sanctimonious or even religious bigots in their private lives, which spills over into their social contacts with others in the greater world around them.
This "holier-than-thou" attitude not surprisingly irritates many less pious people who do not necessarily identify personal decency, a term with which they would feel more at home, with sanctity or holiness. When one considers the terrible intolerance of some Christian and other saints, in the appalling history of international religious persecution, one can sympathize with some of the misgivings which extreme religiosity evokes, especially in those who have suffered under this tyranny when they were very young.
Religion can still blight personal relationships, even though its authority and power are greatly diminished at present, as compared with even the fairly recent past. On the other side of the fence is the dogmatic atheist who is equally sure that their general attitude to the workings of creation is quite logically the only credible one, to the extent that all religion is dismissed to the category of primitive belief and superstition.
The one feature common to devout believer and atheist alike is their intransigent attitude to life. Being assured of their correctness in their belief, they are assured of the whole truth and cannot relate to any other type of person. Humans communicate primarily on a cerebral level, but if they cannot extend their capacities of relationships, they are sure to have a very limited understanding of their peers. As Shakespeare put it so memorably in The Tempest, IV, 1, 155, "We are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little life is rounded with a sleep". To many of us, perhaps schooled in orthodox psychotherapy, a dream is little more than "the royal road to the unconscious", as Freud so memorably termed it, with the contents to be regarded as psychological more than deeply spiritual by many therapists. Enthusiasts of occult exploration would tend to give various interpretations of the essence of a dream.
We can relate also on a national level. In the not so distant past there was a shining aura of splendour around the countries of Western Europe with their magnificent tradition of art and science. Anyone educated in such an atmosphere carried with them an unconscious attitude of civilized urbanity, so that they could hardly help regarding other, non-Western nations with pity if not disdain. No doubt the state of their bank balance also played a part in establishing their self-esteem!
Only very recently has some measure of personal and social justice been accorded to various frequently degraded people, including the indigenous populations of most countries outside Europe. I personally am amazed that these people on the whole continue to behave so generously to their erstwhile white overlords, but we wait in trepidation to see for how long this state of magnanimity will persist, and how the economy will continue to thrive under a new management. Goodwill is central to national co-operation, but it should be underpinned by stern expertise if it is to effect something more than mere eloquence or feelings of affection.
When we encounter a person of high degree who comes from a distinguished background we tend to feel insecure, or even inferior, rather as the indigenous races of Africa or Australia may have felt. But, taking a leaf out of their book, we should concentrate our efforts on our own business, leaving others to follow their own devices. The work of an aboriginal community is concerned almost entirely with hunting and gathering food for the benefit of the community as a whole unit. Individual ownership is not a feature of their life.
We are wise to follow the final admonition of Candide, "This is well said, but we must cultivate our garden". This metaphor of Voltaire alludes to attending to our own affairs. The more we try to emulate others, the more frustrated and disillusioned we become, because we lose contact with our inner self. We also become more of a nuisance to others.
In addition to what has already been said, we also relate personally to a host of people whom we have known throughout our life. Knowing a person means being aware of their inner life, to the extent of being able to sympathize with their fears and aspirations and empathize with their feelings day by day. The difference between sympathy and empathy is that the former is a condition of shared emotion, mental state and feeling, whereas the latter is a power of projecting one's personality into and so comprehending the object of contemplation. The essence of empathy is full awareness of the present moment so that one's attention is riveted on the full expression of the person. This attitude of awareness would automatically go beyond the outer appearance or speech of the person but would instead see the state of soul which might belie our outer experience of satisfaction or happiness, to say nothing of faith and hope in a situation in which these qualities had little right to exist.
The more we are aware of another's state of mind, the more helpful we can be in assuaging their distress and pointing the way to faith and hope. To be sure, the fruits of the spirit, especially faith, hope, and love (1 Corinthians 13.13), come to us from another source which religious people would immediately identify with God. But we have to be open to receive these fruits, which we are then able to hand on at once to those around us, so that by collective effort the world may become a friendlier, less frightening place. As we are more ready to shed our fears and lose something of special value in itself, we instead discover that in giving ourselves unstintingly to our fellows, they come to know who they are more definitively. Therefore, when ceasing to cling to the transient, they come upon the long-lasting, and in this meeting something inside them is so changed from trivial impermanence to magnificent duration that a whole new world opens up into a place of breathtaking glory.
All real living is meeting, wrote Martin Buber in his spiritual classic I and Thou. When we meet someone else, whether known or unknown to us, something enclosed within us is unlocked and we flow out in peace, not only to that person but to the world in general. We forget about our limitations with their inevitable self-doubt as to whether we will be able to do what is required of us, and instead do the work unhesitatingly and with clear inner conviction. The encouragement of other people will become less necessary, except as a means of instruction in their particular disciplines, which will help us on our own chosen path, but we will be hindered much less by our own doubts and inhibitions.
In my own work of counselling and spiritual direction, I have learnt at first hand that when a client is desperate to find a way forward, and will apparently grasp any straw supplied, the important proceeding is under no condition to supply such a straw but to encourage the person to remain quiet and patient. If they really want to discover the way forward, it will be revealed to them at the right time. At present they are in all probability being groomed for things to come, and their immediate lesson is to learn how to remain calm and composed and to do such duties as come to them each day. These would relate primarily in caring for the state of their possessions, clothes, and general appearance. If these were in good condition a prospective employer would find them attractive members of their staff.
Personal relationships concern not only ourselves but also other people. There is not only the question of self-doubt but also of trusting the other party. This may involve a gamut of concern from a considerable financial or political group to a potentially intimate personal relationship where one reveals one's very heart to another individual. How can one ascertain the validity of such a relationship? The ultimate proof of such substantiality lies in the process of time - as the saying goes: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." All this is obviously sound common sense, but is there any other way of knowing the correctness of a personal relationship at a much earlier stage?
I believe there are inner warnings audible to those who practise the deep silence which mystics would call contemplative prayer. Let it be said at once, I do not believe in a power outside ourselves who is open to our requests if we call upon him hard enough; twisting his elbow with sufficient vigour, to use an anthropomorphism. True prayer to me is silent openness to the universe, putting the continuous clamour of fear, desire, and negative feelings of anger, lust, and gluttony in our minds, completely to one side. Whatever power may govern the universe, conveniently called God, surely knows our needs and our distress sufficiently well enough not to require a description of them before action may be anticipated.
This is in my experience the natural healing power of life itself, associated with our own personalities, body, mind, soul, and spirit, which can be easily activated if we are still and open to the love which surrounds us, were we not receptive so seldom to its thrust. In this respect, I regard the soul as our inner self, the person who we truly are and assessed by our reactions to beauty, truth, and goodness or love. Admittedly, in this respect, beauty especially lies in the eyes of the beholder. While Pilate asked "What is truth?" after Jesus had said to him "For this I was born; for this I came into the world, and all who are not deaf to truth, listen to my voice" (John 18.37-38). Goodness and love are also open to grave misinterpretation, but nevertheless, the three taken together can give us a good interpretation of the work of the spirit, which is taken by religious people to be the means within us whereby we are in contact with the source of these three qualities above, and is an aspect of God.
The spirit within us would therefore be a part of the universal Holy Spirit, by which we know, as far as we can stretch in faith to this belief, the presence of God both in ourselves and in the universe also. By this scheme, the spirit would be the "highest" part of the soul, just as the soul would be the "highest" part of the mind, which is the way of rational thought in daily living. And when I write of height or depth I am alluding to value in terms of superficiality or holiness, for in principle these four qualities are all equally important in the life of the human, from the body which generates life from itself as well as magnificent art, to the spirit which is the conveyor of inspiration from the supreme spirit of the human soul and mind.
Every part of the person is in contact with the healing power that surrounds it, as I have already affirmed. If you remain in an attitude of openness silently, you will receive healing on a very deep level. You simply have to be available. There is no need and, indeed, a considerable blockage, if you attempt to invoke the power by an act of will, somewhat like magic. To a spiritual person, what I am referring to is grace, the unmerited favour of God, but even to those who are completely agnostic, the amazingly beneficial coincidences of common life should make an impression of wonder upon those who are completely aware of the joy of the present moment.
The same train of thought can be applied to the relationships we have one with another. When we are working in a harmony that comes from a reasonable trust, we are filled with pleasure that leads us to relax our inner guard of reticence and show our heart to other people. This attitude carries with it both the doubt of the trustworthiness of those with whom we are communicating and the careless abandon of leaving our concerns with the knowledge of our acquaintances. We can attain this admirable state of self-abandonment to Divine Providence, to use a term that J. P. de Caussade uses so memorably in his spiritual classic of that name, if we have direct contact with God, which incidentally is considerably more than merely believing in God according to some theistic position. This inner knowledge comes from a soul that is open to the fullness of all relationships and is so radiant with joy that it does not need to hold on to any possessions belonging to itself, to the exclusion of anyone else.
At this stage of being, we can begin to understand some of Jesus' more extreme teachings. We start with the beatitudes: Matthew 5.3-12, and proceed to such exhortations as:
anyone who nurses anger against his brother must be brought to justice. Whoever calls his brother good for nothing deserves the sentence of the court. Whoever calls him fool deserves hellfire. So if you are presenting your gift at the altar and suddenly remember that your brother has a grievance against you, leave your gift where it is before the altar, first go and make your peace with your brother, and then come back and offer your gift. If someone sues you, come to terms with him promptly while you are on your way to the court, otherwise he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer and you will be thrown into jail. Truly I tell you, once you are there you will not be let out until you have paid the last penny. (Matthew 5.21-26)
Further teaching from Matthew 5 is contained in the final sentences,
You have heard that they were told, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". But what I tell you is this: Do not resist those who wrong you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other also. If anyone wants to sue you and takes your shirt, let him have your cloak as well. If someone in authority presses you into service for one mile, go with him two. Give to anyone who asks; and do not turn your back on anyone who wants to borrow. You have heard that they were told "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy". But what if I tell you this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors. Only so can you be children of your heavenly Father who causes the sun to rise on the good and the bad alike, and sends the rain on the innocent and the wicked. There must be no limit to your goodness as your Heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds. (Matthew 5.38-48)
This classical Christian teaching on detachment based on universal love must have been heard in innumerable churches over the last twenty centuries. But by the attitudes of the individual groups one to another, full of sectarianism, hatred, and mutual suspicion, it is obvious that inspiring words are far more easily grasped than generous deeds.
The question remains: are these teachings tractable to the broad masses? Doubt cannot simply be jettisoned, for truth is the nature of ultimate reality. The answer to this uncomfortable question is that we humans are morally weak and spiritually scarcely aware for most of our lives. There are exceptions to this depressing observation in the instances of the world's great religious geniuses, the saints of humanity, to which every denomination or religion may pay allegiance in their daily lives. But Jesus said the last word on the subject: the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26.41).
The outer form of the belief system is as likely to provide one with the means of identifying oneself with the high and mighty of the land who subscribe nominally to the same system, as to guide one along the paths of true sanctity. And furthermore, one can so easily delude oneself about the nature of one's own piety; a fall from grace like that of innocent Job can bring one down to earth very quickly, and then we discover that there is no superficial agency that is immediately available to put everything right again, rather like a loving parent kissing the bruise of their child and soothing it with the reassurance of solicitude.
The question of the cause of human frailty which on a moral level can properly be equated with selfishness, an attribute hardly applicable to Job, is obscure. The nature of selfishness is sin, the tendency to place one's own interests in front of all other people's and to their detriment. The biblical allegory attributes human selfishness to a quality inherited and personal relationships from our primal ancestor Adam, who ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil despite Divine interdiction, and was punished with his wife Eve accordingly (Genesis 3).
This "original sin" is much more probably a natural taint in the human personality, just as we are all subject to various bodily and mental diseases. If Adam and Eve were originally sinless, it seems unlikely that they would have fallen so easily into Satan's hands. It could, of course, be argued that inexperience lay at the root of their frailty, and here we are wise to leave the matter open to doubt.
In fact, only a fundamentalist would take the story of the fall literally. Its very great spiritual value lies, rather, in illuminating the necessity of obedience to the Divine Will. However we may interpret this aspect of creation, the same method of expounding spiritual truth is continually employed by Jesus in the Gospels where he frequently uses picturesque parables. The Old Testament example is seen in 2 Samuel 12.1-7. The parable is a fictitious narrative used to illustrate moral or spiritual relations, whereas an allegory is a narrative description of a subject under the guise of another subjectively similar subject. Thus, the stories of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan are both wonderful parables, whereas the three stories of Matthew 25.10 (the Ten Wedding Attendants, the Talents, and the Last Judgement) are all fine allegories. Each in its own way gives the requirements necessary to enter the Kingdom of Heaven: alertness, using one's own gifts and talents properly and, above all, being constantly aware of the needs of others less fortunate than oneself.
This is the true nature of charity, in many respects a more suitable word than love, which is open to many misinterpretations. Love tends to be of variable quality, depending on the mood of the person, whereas charity may have a more constant character. This is another good example of the cleansing effect of doubt; that we take nothing for granted. Do not stifle inspiration, or despise prophetic utterances, but test them all; keep hold to what is good and avoid all forms of evil (1 Thessalonians 5.19-22).
This is as excellent an expression of doubt as we can find anywhere, but what exactly is good? Is it my particular point of view or frank prejudice, and is evil that which offends me personally? If these were correct definitions of these moral states, there would be no stability in our personal, national, or religious relationships, especially as we all tend to be very labile emotionally. The good is best considered as that which guides us towards emotional maturity in our personal relationships, whereas evil can be seen as a state of negativity, which emanates from ourselves and others also, that tends to undermine relationships and lead to general chaos. Above all, it causes us to turn against ourselves and others also, so that greater suffering may ensue. The good is constructive, whereas what is evil breaks down and destroys with malice and cruelty.
If we look at personal relationships in this context we can see the value of doubt, in a positive way. It leads us on to greater truth both about ourselves and others also. We can shed illusion and begin to live according to our true nature, needing to please nobody in order to placate them. If only we could function according to what we are as humans with our own individual stamp, we could give so much happiness to the world without even trying to do so!
The secret of a genuinely sincere relationship is a spontaneous outflowing to the other person, so that they and we are enriched and can do our respective duties better as a result of the meeting. Indeed, all real living is meeting, as we quoted Martin Buber earlier on in this chapter. But meeting is not dominating or speaking interminably. It is also intensive listening, even when all the parties are silent in prayer. This is true relationship in depth, just as they are all in contact with a deeper and also a higher source which religious people could justifiably call God.