We can indeed learn something from their example. I think if we ever did break free of our old structures--the ones that no longer work for and nurture us--we would have to move into closer relationship with the earth. (My pagan tendencies coming through here... ) I don't mean give up everything we have, although simplifying our lives is part of it. I mean that we need to recognize that the planet itself is also conscious in a subtle yet grand way, and learn to interact with that deep spirit, instead of merely using it. Instead of our gods, if you will, being out there and far away, this deep spirit is right here, responsive and listening. This is by no means a new idea, but I think it's our best hope.

Instead of being victims of the structures we have built around ourselves, we can be participants in the life of the real world, the life of the planet.

I'm not sure if we could accomplish this wholesale and worldwide in the way I was speaking about earlier, though it's a pretty dream. Our traditions and laws and social programming are immense, and people who have never known anything else are loath to look beyond them. But there are people out there (and I dare say, among us here at NR) who are already making these changes and teaching them to others. At least they're quietly giving us an option.

Thanks, everyone, for your wonderful posts!

Cheers

These people are the real deal, they are living the new communities, and the concept and vision is sound. This is the way to go imho.

You can visit first to see if you want to join the community. It is a really spiritual place (nature spiritual) and everyone chips in with the community jobs. The show is on again next week.
The community was set up by Eileen Caddy in 1962, when she heard the still small voice of God in her head, who showed her how to set up the community. The community would listen to what she said, but once the community was up and running, God told Eileen she was no longer to be the voice of God, and all the people should find God in their own personal way. She stepped aside and the people do now find God in their own way, usually in Nature, (absolutely beautiful settings there, by the sea and in the middle of a forest, streams, glades etc).
Last night, an Indian Guru had heard about the community, and considered them 'anarchists' because they had dropped out of mainstream  society,become self sufficient and had no religious order or discipline. He wanted to become thier spiritual leader, and they should only talk to God through him.

They were impeccable in listening to him and allowing him to see the community and talk to the people. But at the end they advised him that there other such communities in Australia that would be more accomodating for him, and sent him packing (with a smile).:D

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing which ever has. - Margaret Mead

Check out their web site : http://www.findhorn.org/index.php

I've never much liked the term : "anarchy" used in the same sentence as notions of freedom.   Although the word is strictly defined by purist anarchists in terms of freedom i think the average joe will never understand them because the word "anarchy" has always been used in the pejorative by TPTB.... something to be loathed and feared.   I have a friend who once tried to 'convert' me to the virtues of anarchy suggesting that without the controls of externally imposed laws and the interference of the TPTB we could all get down to the real work of creating the ideal society.  I said that we would need guidance from teachers who had learned how to govern themselves because most of humanity haven't developed a conscious conduit with the inner spirit.  Most people would most likely take their cue from the carnal mind and it's selfish desires even more than they do now.   I suggested to my friend that perhaps 'anarchists' should call 'anarchy' something else if they really want to involve the most aspiring souls in it as a movement.... notwithstanding humanity is clearly not ready for a society without the guidelines of enforceable laws anyway.  We have to be "more" [spiritually] before we can interact without societal "mores" codified in law and enforceable.

I would say ape-x that we really can transmute that 99% of unreality which you so adeptly describe.  And even the 1% which you suppose would linger as a recalcitrant residue of the internal 'matrix'can be changed. 100% of it can be cleansed from consciousness by identifying with the inner christ and yielding to the spiritual light which would flow into the matrix of anti- self and dissolve it.  That is how the energy locked in the matrix of lower- selfhood is withdrawn and transformed back into light.  To labor my favourite point, the main 'trick' in order for that to happen is to identify "more" with the higher self and less with the lower.  As we let go of the lower elements of self they can be transmuted without our suffering a sense of loss.   Before transmutation can happen we must create that 'distance' by seeing things [internal states of consciousness] for what they are... ie.  from the perspective of higher selfhood.  Contrast that with a very worldly person [disinterested in the path of self- transformation] who would justify themselves totally and, in their interior blindness, fight to retain the offensive elements of self in order to maintain their familiar identity. 

For anyone, the fear of surrender to the higher self can be very deep seated and difficult to identify.   Even when it is identified it can easily be justified as valid.  But we should never imagine that all negative elements of the 'programmed' self can not be transmuted.   We can never really be satisfied until they are.   

That's the basic process and it is achieved by percentages until one fine day the soul is all light and no darkness "or shadow of turning" is left.  That's what i look forward to because i know that the opportunities for transmuting particular elements of  karmic- selfhood are given in cycles.  So it doesn't happen all at once.  Time is needed.  Ever changing astrological configurations herald certain tests of returning karma and the concommitant opportunity to surrender another specific portion of the anti- self into the flame.  Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was our pseudo- self.  All the tools are given to gain the total satisfaction of the oneness of soul to inner- spirit.  All the flaws have to be removed one by one for that to occur.  But it really can.  Dissatisfactions simply reveal the internal aggravations demanding to be seen, from the right perspective, and let go into the interior flame.

If it were possible for a human to self sustain from infancy throughout pre-adolescence, with no "parental" interaction or *interference*, what would their view on the "world" be?

I put world in quotes because I don't think they would recognize it as such, maybe their perception wouldn't look anything like what we are used to. Maybe they could not 'create' anything either positive or negative, and I don't think they would seek deity at all. They would have no desire to idolize anything, other than to assign different values to certain things in terms of usefulness. In some people's eyes, that scale could be similar to idolatry, but I think that would be vastly different to the non-intervened.

Education has always been a double-edged sword. Without it we obviously wouldn't have conversations like this. But neither would we have all the conniving, manipulating tendencies of living in modern 'society'.

I wonder if it would be like perpetual ayahuasca visions for that person. Would they automatically be an astral traveler who never technically incarnated? Without our DNA alterations, without our vaccinations stunting any 3rd eye capabilities we may have had, would there be any use, or need, for flesh & blood, earth, wind and fire?

Without lifetimes of programming, sublims, implants, propaganda, abuse, coercion, rote, and hunger and strife, what would we look like, what would we feel like, what would we see like?

We'll never know, on this plane at least. Because if we were able to undo 99% of the above (which would be near impossible) then the 1% would still nag at us, we would see it as potentially the most important 1%, wouldn't we?

Never satisfied!!! 

   J

This book sounds like one to read, however I think Lash is misguided in his thought that our morality was natural and intrinsic and we innately knew how to get along with each other.

I'm not really sure it'd be any different than now.

In the old testament it mentions the increasing evil amongst man and our natural inclination towards evil even before the ten commandments and Moses.

Even in the New testament it talks about the Love growing cold in the end times.

What do we have in our present time, crime isn't less, even peace loving Buddhists have physical quarrels.

Those that are going to be spiritually sensitive will be with and [true more likely] without religion. Those that are not going to be spiritually sensitive will be so inclined without religion and those that use religion for the "image - yet deny it's power" will find something else to fill the void.

This is THE big IF whether religion/Faith is involved or not.

What you are Dreaming IS possible, but is it sustainable? The Essenes and I presume the Toltecs achieved a modicum of this. But to be sustainable the screening is such to set you up as elitist and it takes a continuing effort, much like creating changes within yourself. Most people don't have that perseverence and endurance.

Intended from the beginning as is espoused here in those lines, is learn from and listen from your highest self and the externals become much less significant than they are perceived to the point of being inconsequential.

I know religion gets a bad rap that it doesn't always deserve. Living in this world, there will always be a spectrum ranging between people  who are asleep and people who are conscious. Religions serve to give us a basic structure within which to grow, learn, evolve, and we need that.

I guess I wanted to see if we could imagine becoming conscious enough as a whole that we wouldn't need the structures any longer. We dream about that and wish for it, but is it even possible? Maybe not. Maybe it isn't necessary for all of us to be on the same page at the same time, especially if the 3D world as we know it is a school, as so many theorize.

And you're right, Montalk, time and human opinion would inevitably color any epiphanies just as they always have. It's probably just me wishfully wondering if we could ever grow past that tendency to pride and arrogance.

Oh, well. Just here to learn.

Cheers

Without "divine instruction" as we know it, would we just be beasts, or would we be better humans?

I think "beasts" would be worse beasts, and humans would be better humans.

Seems to me there are two types of religious people: 1) those with spirit who use their religion as an externalized mirror reflecting back to them the accumulated truths and wisdom they contain within themselves, and 2) spiritless ones who just go through the motions and maybe use the image of piousness to advance their own ego survival. With religion, those without an inner core of conscience can still be domesticated through moral programming and the threat of punishment or damnation to become good enough citizens to keep society intact. So at the very least, religion is necessary to program morality into those who lack conscience.

If you got rid of religion, you would also have to get rid of the unstated religions like Nationalism, Materialism, Hedonism, etc... otherwise you would be trading one religion that is at least infused with the potential for divine understanding for another religion is purely disintegrative to the soul. And even if you got rid of all religion and replaced it with a worldwide spirituality based on the truest of truths, within a couple generations religious distortions of this spirituality would arise and multiply into various conflicting denominations solely because there are people who lack the capacity to understand spiritual truths and only see, reformulate, and corrupt the exoteric or superficial shell of it into something that caters to their own ignorance and dysfunctions.

I personally think morality and ethics are inherent in a soul from birth - and yes, maybe partially down to upbringing as well, but mostly intrinsic. Of course, personal/spiritual growth during a lifetime could still increase one's awareness of ethical behaviour. Getting back to religion - namely Christianity because it's the one I know best: apparently the Ten Commandments were given when people were in a very low state of consciousness, so they needed direct, explicit, black-and-white rules - what to do and what not to do, for their own benefit and that of others. By the time of Jesus, people had reached a relatively higher state of consciousness, hence Jesus's expanded, more enlightened teachings - one of which is something like, "it's not enough to refrain from committing the act of adultery - you have to actually lose the desire for another's spouse". In other words, your intentions are as important as your actions. Or: your state of consciousness affects how you behave. I believe this is true of all people, whether they subscribe to a particular religious belief system or not. (By the way, please let's not turn this into another "did Jesus exist?" debate, because I've heard it all before and it's getting old.)

Anyway, supposing there were no imposed codes of behaviour, no laws or societal norms, is it realistic to think that everyone would suddenly start treating each other with respect and loving kindness? I don't think so. Many people would keep doing the bad things they did before, except their actions would now be considered acceptable; others who would previously have refrained would now act as they pleased, without restrictions on their behaviour or threat of punishment; and the rest, possibly a minority (or maybe I'm just cynical about people), would simply carry on as before, since they had intrinsic ethical values in the first place.

I see a lot of anti-religious feeling on these forums and elsewhere - a lot of people seem to think that all religion is corrupt, that the world would be a perfect place if it weren't for religion, or that there's nothing they can learn from religious teachings. They are unwilling to consider anything derived from Christianity in particular. IMO, that's just as bad as fundamentalists refusing to consider anything from a source outside of their orthodox doctrines - both attitudes are just two sides of the same coin. Some will disagree with me and that's OK. But I do think that people are too quick to demonize religion these days and someone needs to speak up with a more balanced perspective.

there would be no need for "police", people who get paid for protecting others (in theory anyway; let's forget about the corruption and abuses of power that comes with the badge and gun). we would all look out for each other; being good means not requiring payment or recognition for a good deed.
so if we are walking down the street and see some one in trouble, we would intervene without first grabbing a phone and dialing 911.

but then what? 
what does a good person do to a person that is doing bad?

it's what happens after that we need to learn to fix and deal with. 
starting a revolution is easy.
it's how to rebuild and make things better that is the challenge.

part of me doesn't understand these school shootings, especially when there is only one child/college student that is armed.  where are the athletes when these things happen?  couldn't a couple of football players grab him from behind and knock his ass down?  or teachers?  one person could hold an entire classroom hostage?  what about the classes across the hall or next door?
i'm just asking from a logical standpoint.  i'm not in anyway saying that the victims or people involved are cowards.

Mr. Lash talks about the natural state of humans before the “virus” of religion washed through us, and how we had a morality that was natural and intrinsic to us. We had no need of imposed rules of behavior, because we knew innately how to get along with each other.

I had actually been thinking about this concept for several years before I  found it in Mr. Lash's book. I think it is a timely thing to consider what kind of morality we would have—what that would look like—if we were free of all the dogma and regulations and threat of sin and retribution.

What do you think? What would our “natural morality” be without the religious and societal norms? If we could get free of all those conditioned and, frankly, arbitrary beliefs, what would we put into their place?

Would we devolve into anarchic chaos, or would we find a kinder, more benevolent way of living together? Would we be more competitive? If the brakes were off, so to speak, would we just start killing each other at will for every little thing? (As if that's not the way we're living now.) Or would we be able to find a deeper harmony? If so, what would that look like?

Without "divine instruction" as we know it, would we just be beasts, or would we be better humans?

Something to ponder.

Cheers