normal
forum

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    Posts

    • Nareshpatel
      Participant

      I was reading the book Freedom yesterday and came across the hypothesis that a ‘lack of love’ in early childhood is the primary cause autism. Jeremy goes on further to write ‘How could a mother with an autistic child possibly have been expected to cope with accepting her cold, alienated state caused the autism?’.
      My question is as a 33 year old male who is not on the autistic spectrum and whose parents did not raise any autistic children, why would I hold my ‘head in horror’ or deny the ‘truth’ that a ‘lack of love’ causes autism when the explanation does not condemn me or my parents?


    • Susy
      Participant

      You’ve grasped the fundamental point Naresh that this biological explanation of the human condition is the full compassionate and liberating understanding of ourselves, and as you say does not condemn humanity but finally provides the complete defence for and love of our upset state. So we don’t have to live in denial any more as you perfectly name the subject of this post. It’s absolutely true that with this understanding of ourselves, there aren’t any truths that condemn or hurt us now that we can understand the human condition and the magnificent and meaningful journey we have all been on. So you just hang on to and don’t move from that wonderful access that you have!

      Historically, while we didn’t have understanding, these truths, such as the importance of nurturing, have been unbearably confronting and until you realise as you have, that we no longer have to deny them but can now safely confront them, it can feel very exposing, challenging and hurtful. There certainly is a massive shock of change for most of us to have the ‘blinds drawn’, as it were, on human behaviour, and there is a lot to adjust to.

      I felt it was important also to add the context to the quote that you use from Jeremy, which is actually from ‘Freedom Expanded 1’. He writes straight after the quote you use that: “It is only now with the ability to understand that there has been a good reason why nurturing has been so compromised that the truth of the importance of nurturing becomes at all bearable, but even with that understanding the truth of the importance of nurturing is one of those truths that people won’t be able to fully confront for a few generations. The fact is that since the upset battle of the human condition emerged no child has been able to be given the amount of love that all children received before the battle imposed itself. While nurturing created an integrated humanity—gave our species its instinctive orientation to behaving unconditionally selflessly—the subsequent emergence of consciousness compelled humanity to enter into a great battle against our instinctive self or soul’s ignorance of our conscious self’s need to understand the world. That necessary consciousness-centred, ‘ego-centric’, male-led battle unavoidably intruded upon and compromised women’s ability to fully nurture their offspring.”

      Jeremy also writes beautifully about this subject in paras 1244-1245 of ‘Freedom’ which I recommend everyone read, for example he writes ‘that mother is now able to understand that autism is not the fault of parents, but of the ever-increasing upset in the human race as a whole, which in turn is due to our species’ heroic search for knowledge.’ And there is a beautiful quote by Tony Gowing where he talks about the solution to the problem of exposure which is the Transformed State.

Viewing 1 reply thread