|
Who are we? Where did
we come from? The attempts of answering these questions can be
condensed into two basic schools of thought, already engaged for
decades in adversity and mutual disagreement for one another’s
theories: the creationists and the evolutionists.
The followers of the former believe in the rigid
interpretation of religious scriptures, whilst those of the latter
believe in a materialistic view of external phenomena, fundamentalists
on one side and scientists on the other.
In our century these two schools have already come
to head several times, in an ongoing battle with victories and losses
to both sides, through betrayals and desertions, conquests and
capitulations and at the end of the day it takes on the
characteristics of a war, a “Holy War” in eyes of the former and a
“Just War” through the eyes of the latter.
The creationists had hardly finished commemorating
the collapse of the unsustainable theory of spontaneous generation,
and Darwin’s ideas had already started to win the world over. What
followed was a succession of debilitating heated debates, proof and
counter-proof and there were even many lawsuits too. The most recent
chapter ended with a cloned sheep, exhibited by doctors as a trophy,
and a panoramic photo of Mars – empty and without the faintest sign of
life – proudly ridiculed by preachers.
But which of these two basic concepts would be
correct? The former claims that man was made from clay, and the
firstborn woman came from his rib? Or could the first primitive human
couple have appeared from an ape species? Are we made of clay or did
we descend from monkeys? If in case we have the misfortune to admit
that the whole of humanity had originated from incestuous
relationships between the descendants of the first family, it follows
that we should consider hanging a picture of a gorilla or chimpanzee
in our ancestral gallery, however despite this, in reality none of us
would be willing to do so. Today too, we do not see any type of
genetic traces that could prove either the followers of the Genesis
theory or of the scientific one, and neither is man born with a rib
less than a woman, nor it is noticed in the many nationalities that
live on Earth any special preference for bananas.
Nevertheless, there is something fundamental that
exists, which is common to both theories that are apparently so
opposite from each other. Both are exclusive products of the human
intellect. They were molded by the intellect. Neither are results of a
spiritual search.
So it is only the work of the intellect
interpreting metaphors of a spiritual characteristic in a literal
manner. The intellect does not have the capacity to replace the merely
terrestrial thoughts in its analyses, since it itself is already a
product of the material brain. That is why, it compresses everything
that it comes across in concepts that are far to limited, twisted and
hopelessly bound to the terrestrial sphere of space and time.
So through this distortion all the spiritual
teachings that had been passed onto to humanity suffered as time went
by. Nothing remained pure. Nothing was understood in its most profound
meaning. Parables, prayers, psalms and prophecies were all retained,
hindered, deformed and compressed into very restricted concepts. What
remained of the original teachings, after being compressed through
this intellectual sieve, were far from what they were really meant to
mean.
Here I would like to illustrate to what point the
influence of the brain has over religious topics today: A Brazilian
theologian recently made clear that “according to the evolution theory
of the universe, now we know that the body does not have a spirit”
(sic). It seems to be of a case of an apostasy (or of an alteration,
that rests on the ideology of how one see things), of a deserter that
turned coat and joined the enemy.
In fact, on the enemy’s side the situation is even
worse, for there, the adoration of the idol, the intellect, is a
pre-established condition for an aspiring applicant to be able to
receive the rank of scientist. And it is precisely one of the
exponents of this scientific army (a Nobel prize winner, at that) who
assures us that “life happened by chance, when at a certain moment
some chemical elements combined together and started to copy
themselves” (sic).
According to this idea, the billions of human
beings on Earth, the countless animal, vegetal, viral, dinosaur,
bacterial and whale species, plus all life forms that populate the
planet or had populated it already, including the polemic primordial
monkey couple, are the result of a fortuitous combination of some
chemical elements - coming from who knows where - that took place
three billion years ago that, by chance, without further ado, decided
to make copies of themselves and resulted in what we have today. On
other planets, like Mars for example, these chemical elements did not
want to reproduce, and that is why today, we do not see any Martian
scientist trying to explain how life appeared...
Such an infantile and inconsistent explanation as
to the origin of life, is capable of getting a justified burst of
laughter from an illiterate peasant, it is the best science has to
offer as the result of intellectual work. This should serve as proof
to people who are still awake, that the intellect is completely
incapable of supplying answers that question the psychic and spiritual
being of man. Science is useful in explaining and classifying
phenomena of an exclusive material nature, however it becomes
overwhelmingly frustrated when it dares try to explain things that are
well above its narrow and limited sphere.
We are not made of mud originally, simply because
we are spiritual beings that come from the spiritual sphere in
creation. Therefore, it is there that our search should be directed.
However, not with the doubts of the intellect held fast to Earth, but
with the attributes of the spirit itself. On the other hand, what
developed from the apelike animal was not man, which is a spiritual
being, but only his material body, that is nothing other than a
wrapping, a clothing that allows the spirit to live and act here on
Earth.
This simple evidence can be enriched excessively
with much more detailed explanations. But, to achieve that first of
all it is necessary for one to free one’s spirit and mind
respectively, from all types of religious and scientific dogma. For as
long as man voluntarily insists on binding himself with these two
handcuffs, he will automatically continue to exclude himself from
higher learning.
|
