Topic
started: 10/15/2008
What part does 'hope' play, if any, in the current transition?
Hope plays an enormous part in any societal change, transition, or transformation. Hope is the only reason to try to move forward and to work toward change. If there is no optimism, no sense that things can indeed get better, then there is no motivation. In order to have the mental and emotional energy required to work for such a transformation, one must believe that there is a chance, no matter how small, that people are ready for oneness, ready to wake up and work together. I believe that a lack of hope is one of the main reasons things have stayed the way they are for so long - there weren't enough people with enough hope to get the ball rolling in the right direction. But hope is a thing that spreads - the more of it you have, the more of it you get, and you emanate it. Then it becomes contagious, more and more people become infused with it, and then you have the makings of societal and global metamorphosis.
I like it! Your response, well, gives me hope!
I read somewhere (wikipedia?) that hope was considered one of the 'sins' in old times because it let people off the hook from taking action, or it inhibited people from surrendering to "what is" in certain circumstances, thereby prolonging the problem. There was probably more to the critique as well. However, in reading your words I don't get that sense. I pick up that hope provides, or contributes to, a motivation to TAKE action!
It makes me wonder about the difference between hope and faith. I'll have to look that up..
I also wonder if hope may well be one of those "things" that isn't just black or white, but is instead relative, or contextual, important to have in some circumstances and important to let go of in others. What do you think?
I think you have a point - there is probably some blurring of the lines between hope and faith, but I believe you can still have hope even when there is a lack of faith. Faith, to me, implies a certain level of certainty, which one doesn't necessarily need to have hope.
From that, you can probably infer that I think hope is indeed a gray area at times. Absolutely it is relative and contextual.
I cannot think of any circumstance, however, in which it is advisable to give up hope. I think depending on the situation, one might need to modify or revise what one is hoping for; for example, if a loved family member is ill, one might hope for recovery, but if death becomes inevitable (and/or desirable as opposed to extreme suffering), one might shift over to hoping for that person's comfort. After the individual has passed, one might once again shift one's hope - this time, perhaps hoping for eternal peace for your family member, perhaps also for the opportunity to meet them again in another life or plane of existence.
Throughout this scenario, although the desired result changes with respect to the context, the existence of hope remains the constant.
In regards to the 'sin' issue, you're right! I certainly don't believe that hope makes people lazy in any way. I feel it's quite the opposite. On the other hand, to tie this in with another part of your post, what do you think about faith, instead of hope, letting people "off the hook from taking action?" Certain kinds of faith, perhaps not. I think what I have in mind here is more of a narrow, religious-type faith.
I'm currently reading a book (Homestead by Jane Kirkpatrick) in which the author, confronted by a threatening (as she perceives it) situation, frequently will simply pray to her god to 'fix' things, believing that he will, rather than take direct action herself. Sometimes this seems to work for her, sometimes not. In the larger scheme of the book's situation, interestingly, she seems to have little hope that she is capable of doing the things required of her to make things work out.
I think in this example, the author would benefit from a good dose of hope, and perhaps leaning a little less on the crutch of her faith.
The two can be intertwined, certainly. But I think the former inspires a more do-it-yourself attitude than the latter.
What an interesting illustration of hope and faith! You've definitely cleared things up in my mind. And, your saying "I cannot think of any circumstance...in which it is advisable to give up hope" is really compelling. Yes. I see now that hope evolves, is refined, but not abandoned. Very helpful, Elizabethmay. Thanks!
It seems to me hope simply implies possibility, whereas faith indicates something more substantial that is already starting to take form. When we say such and such is hopeless, we have given up all possibilities. It brings to mind the idea of beginners mind from zen: "In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, in the experts mind there are few." The point of course is we start off with a set of assumptions that limit possibilities. Even when someone has lost the emotion or feeling of hope, we know sometimes that is when a cathartic breakthrough can happen - perhaps an insight comes that changes the individuals perspective radically. So even in the absence of hope in the individual there is still that possibility. And that possibility is always there, it's just a matter of whether we see it or are open to it.
Hello Lisa,
Let me refer to a definition to start with, from Wikipedia:
"[Beginners Mind] refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, **even when studying at an advanced level." So this is of course not contradictory to your point. The concept of Beginners Mind does not point to someone who is completely naive, but rather even when one is advanced they have this openness, which is a quality that is present in the beginner (who has no ideas at all about the matter at hand) but could potentially be lost if one identifies with their learning to the point of excluding possibility, regardless of how much they have learned. One would be aware of anything they've learned along the way, but the openness remains without attachment to the previous view. This kind of attitude would imply a readiness to discard all preconceived notions rather than adding new adaptations to it, a potential to approach things in a completely new way.
Yes Lisa, it is essentially about not being attached, although that applies in different ways. I want to tie this back to hope, and I suppose it would be a matter of not attaching the future to the past. Much of what we learn is essentially conditioning, rather than having the learning at our disposal and applying it in new and innovative ways.
This is a bit like the question on "Mother Mind" from Credo under the Expanding Identities section of the dialogues here, which is an interesting discussion in itself. As far as Beginners Mind is concerned, I would say a lot of it has to do with the aliveness in the moment, (contrasted with a mechanistic view of what is and is not possible) and from that perspective which is always fresh there is indeed grounds for hope in the future.
Yes, the points being made here make a lot of sense.
HOPE [we, all, as One, recognizing the possibility of change] ---
Leads to FAITH [and, believing that change will occur] ---
Realize CHANGE [daring to hope, and having the faith of a grain of mustard seed, we can accomplish _ANYTHING_].
Thanks, Istiota, for clarifying the difference between hope and faith, and how together they can lead to change.
Hi Lisa,
Trust seems to have more of a passive connotation, and even in a religious context there is that passage in the book of James that says faith without works is dead. Of course, if you view trust in terms of trust in life, in our nature as consciousness itself then that includes trusting yourself, then conscious action is more likely as we are less likely to act based on a standardized mental template. I suppose that just points back to being one with the trust or faith, and not seeing it as relating to something separate.
Sign in or become a member to add a comment. It's fast and free.