Compromising ‘truth’ will deconstruct the ethos to concoct measurable facts to contest its foundation. The act of compromising carries with it the notion of temptation that we are well aware of its consequences should we choose to exercise it. This is our human challenge which we consistently face in making daunting decisions to appease the pride of the many. As it’s never an easy task, we needed to grow in appreciating, and understanding the depth in the value of ‘trust’ that must be defended should ‘trust’ be that human quality to guide us into salvation.
We often take “shortcuts” to resolve issues that can only be short lived. Political scenes today reveal opposing parties that have never been so desperate in their attempts to wrestle for power. When in power, promises would fall prey to compromise where deals are negotiated behind doors. Compromising is not entirely a bad thing. It can deliver a fair agreement for all, if not the majority. However, there are inescapable consequences when morality is violated.
Lawmakers/politicians are skillful in twisting the truth that makes them infamous for wearing many faces. It’s in man’s manipulative sway where I am certain when the act of compromise is on the cards for the taking, guilt will tarry in the conscience. And, the guilt builds up layer by layer over time.
A recently released movie called, “The Two Popes” is worth the watch. The underlying message resonates with the topic of discussion written here. Featuring Sir Anthony Hopkins as the incumbent Pope Benedict, and Jonathan Price as Cardinal Bergoglio as the next Pope to take the helm. Their confessions delineated the circumstances of the decisions they made as stewards of God that affected many innocent lives. The Pope thought the Cardinal compromised his faith by keeping his silence during the political upheaval in his country (ie. Argentina) some thirty years ago. But, the Cardinal defended his actions indicating it was not compromise, but improvise whilst his faith in God remained unchanged. Nonetheless, in desperation the Cardinal did appease the pride of his aggressors in order to hold back their murderous rampage. Even then, the thought of it was disturbing. In silence, the emotional strain took its toll on the Cardinal. Is it a case when trust was compromised?
Comparatively, Pope Benedict suffered from a certain kind of guilt too for his action of inaction which saw clerical sex abuse persisted in his Church. Pope Benedict was known to be steadfast in the faith, and unwavering devotion to the rules. On that basis, he chose not to take further action against the transgressors believing his trust in God would prevail over the predicament. In contrast to the Cardinal’s taking matters into his own hands, the Pope opted to clasp his hands in prayer to resolve imminent troubles, and threats. Ironically enough, the Pope’s uncompromising stand compromised him. The undoing was his inaction. All the same, guilt weighed heavily on him too. Is it possible to allow trust to compromise us as it did with the Pope?
Assessing the two minds, it’s worth mentioning the different views they have on God. As I see it, the Pope believed in God. The Cardinal believed in God in him which could easily suggest the God that the Pope held true to his belief is next to non-existent. That is a matter of personal interpretation. However, shouldn’t one stay resolute in God, or the idea of it just as the Pope did? No questioning, no judgement, and no doubt. Or, is blind faith a mistake? If there is such a thing as a ‘mistake’.
You may have heard of the saying, “life is an illusion”. It’s a cliche thrown into general conversations without much thought. Life is an illusion because we live in the lies that we made for ourselves. Somehow, man draws comfort from that. Realising the dishonesty is getting out hand, faith steps in to defend truth. This is an insult to humanity by introducing a third party called “God” to defend our lack in faith, or commonsense. Why do we need to create the fear in God to keep the faith in order to defend truth? Why do we often struggle to stay close to the truth? It is because we can’t handle the truth (recalling Jack Nicholson making that statement in the movie ‘A Few Good Men’, 1992).
Spiritual masters like Buddha, Jesus and Prophet Muhammad had open dialogues with their disciples to unravel the mysteries of life. We should continue to do the same today to serve soul searchers of this era. We need to intellectualise life’s mysteries to bring better meaning that is acceptable to help us reach peace of mind.
Example, the term “enlightenment” regularly crops up in spiritual talks. It’s to supposedly describe something great. So great, and powerful that only our imagination can take us to its meaning. In other words, we don’t know what it means. I certainly can’t say that I do. “Enlightenment” is the ability to analyse life’s events, and circumstances from a lighter stand, hence the name. If it’s in any other way, the opposing will weigh heavily on the emotions. Seeing life’s issues as lightly as the weightless ray of light will pave the way to a peaceful mind. Here’s another, what is the secret of life? The secret is to have none. For each secret that you hide, you lose a part of your innocence. Do you see how the answers point back to the questions? It’s because the questions were articulated to suit the answers that already existed, but yet to be known in a measurable definition. It’s with this reason that we find ourselves falling short in our admission to the truth even though the question that is engineered is the answer.
Truth is where love resides. They share the same quality. Truth, or love is not tangible. Man in his egoistic nature has given into temptation to tangibilize the intangible in order to create definitions of right and wrong, black and white, or stupid and clever, etc. We differentiate our existence to create conflict, and argue about it.
Here is another conundrum which I made up, “To understand love is to let go of it”.