The problem with “childlike wonder” in spirituality and religion.
It’s about keeping in mind that there are con artists out there.
Of course the con artists will never admit they are playing a con on you — I’ll open with this statement. A so-called master (in fact a cult leader out to control you like a puppet) will keep insisting, and insisting, nonstop, that you should 100% embrace the idea of carefree and childlike wonder, and ignore your concerns as if you hadn’t signalled you’re not fully onboard. Or, well, that’s what happened to me anyway. When you catch an opportunist red-handed, their tendency is to just double down on the opportunism instead of deferring so easily. It doesn’t mean you should question your judgement, it’s just that you’re dealing with an arsehole.
Liars are gonna lie, after all. And having had a lifetime’s worth of practice at lying, perhaps they know more than you about it. Hence, a word of advice: if you suspect a con, don’t call it out — just take action to protect yourself and others, while saying nothing.
Here in the West, it’s fashionable in the con artistry community to impersonate Buddhists. I’ve met my fair share of white men pretending to have Buddhist credentials when in fact they’re the worst kind of person you’ll ever come across. And for some reason, at some point, they seem to have collectively decided to make some “interesting” additions to Buddhist teachings for their Western audience; things that would definitely make a legit Lama raise his eyebrows. One of these additions is the insistence on “childlike wonder”.
It’s not in Buddhist text, ANYWHERE, regardless of tradition or lineage. The last con man I consulted was actually honest about that and said it was implied. Bullshit. But I suspect most westerners wearing a Buddhist teacher costume wouldn’t be so earnest, so… I guess, kudos to that?
It’s cult-like behaviour, in good old alternative American spirituality fashion: just like their emphasis on demonising anger (because god forbid cult members ever call anyone out), this insistence on “childlike wonder” is meant to undermine cult members’ intuition: as in, be like a child who has just come to the world! Assume you know nothing. Don’t listen to your instincts, listen only to the guru.
Uh-huh. Of course. And pigs fly, and Santa Claus is real.
Tell me you underestimate people’s intelligence without telling me, con man.
Where did this idea even come from, and why has it gained so much popularity?
Well… this takes us back to the Middle Ages, when churches all over Europe became tools of mass control (and the “mass” pun is delightfully intended). Before that, Christians were persecuted by the elites, but within their Christian communities, their cultus didn’t create this sense of strict hierarchy and fearmongering that we now associate with churches. So did the pagans! Of course they had priests and structure, but polytheism allowed for a more even distribution of clerical power — instead of it being concentrated in the hands of a homogenous group of authorities who all worship the same god.
Anyway, with mass conversion to Christianity (often enforced by authorities), the commoners started having little to no say in how they interpreted or dealt with their individual spiritual experiences. Instead, they started being indoctrinated (and sometimes coerced) into ignoring their own judgement and only listening to the priest who was giving the sermon, like obedient little sheep.
Not that this has anything to do with Christian faith ITSELF — it was a political move, and could have happened with literally any other faith — I’m not shit-talking Christianity, I’m simply pointing out that where there is wealth, corruption follows.
“But Lucy, aren’t you romanticising the pre-Christian era? Weren’t pagan leaders just as ruthless against the heretic (or hubristic, to be more precise)?”
Well, no, not exactly. Of course theocracies aren’t good news, and they existed back then, but I’m not talking about their mere existence. I’m pointing out a cultural shift, which stays in the back of our minds to this day and we don’t even notice. Of course a philosopher of old who questioned the gods’ existence or power would be punished by pagan authorities (and it happened a few times. Here’s one example), so there was some level of theocratic oppression already; But the average person who DID NOT question the gods’ existence or power, and simply engaged individually with the supernatural, wouldn’t be told off by a priest in a temple. Let’s consider people consulted oracles back then, for instance. Why would they, if they weren’t permitted the freedom to interpret the messages individually? Shouldn’t the oracle just give one sermon and go back inside? Why talk to people one by one? You see, you can’t deny that Ancient pagans had more freedom of individual discernment than Medieval Christians.
Mainstream society, today, thinks religion = blindly following ONE man preaching at an altar, and you better accept everything he says or else you’ll be ostracised (or called “difficult” and “closed off” and “not trusting enough”). This mindset isn’t new. It comes from Medieval times. Hence the History lesson.
“But America didn’t go through the Middle Ages the same way Europe did”
Indeed, but let’s take a moment to consider that we’re talking about a Colonised continent. Colonised by whom? Why, Europeans. There’s a lot to be said about modern American fundamentalism and cult-like antics. It is true that this mindset isn’t half as prevalent in Europe today (I know. I live in Europe), and that’s because during Colonial times, a lot of the “religious whackadoodles” were evicted to the Americas instead of staying in their native place. Let’s not ignore the impact of that decision. Think about it: your very founding fathers were already suffering from some degree of spiritual psychosis. Just let that sink in for a moment! This fact is not a mere footnote, it’s the whole motherfucking front cover of your History book! Do NOT turn a blind eye to it. The past influenced the present, whether you like it or not.
Okay, but… All things considered, isn’t childlike wonder an objectively GOOD thing?
Or, in other words: isn’t this whole article an elaborate way for me to display my bitterness towards specific people (you might be wondering).
Yes and no.
There’s something to be said about the feeling of wonder you get when you have a spiritual experience of your own. It’s a feeling that can’t be described in words, only felt. I’ve had it several times in life, in fact, but it’s different from what con men are describing today as “childlike wonder” — and that’s probably why even though I heard the familiar word, something in its contextual use (while talking to a con man) felt very off and made me feel on the alert.
They speak of childlike wonder as something to be practised. And no, I cannot stress enough, it should NOT. It only happens naturally and spontaneously. If it doesn’t, if you have to go after it on purpose, it ain’t it.
So, perhaps the word con men are looking for is “admiration”. The thing narcissists crave. There’s a huge, abyssal, difference between wonder (even awe) and admiration; But if they were honest and used the correct word (admiration), people would start seeing through them. And they don’t want that. They want the con to keep going, obviously.
None of what I’m saying here is novel or unusual. I’m simply unafraid of calling out bullshit, whereas the people who criticise me for that are the ones who recoil and say amen to everything fed to them. If you put your two braincells to work, you’ll see that.
Awe and wonder are not a problem. The problem is assuming you can snap your fingers and make someone feel that. You can’t. If you achieve that, both you and your victim are pretending. You, because you crave control and admiration; your victim, because of a sunk cost fallacy and “wanting to believe”.
This title was for effect. In fact, I don’t think I’m speaking to con men here (but feel free to prove me wrong). I’m probably speaking to their [potential] victims. And in that case:
Sorry. I know the truth hurts. It hurt me too when I first realised it.
Awe and wonder are like laughing. Can you predict what jokes will make you laugh? No. If you can, you’re pretending to laugh to be a good boy/girl and not make the comedian feel embarrassed. So… can you command yourself to laugh in order to achieve something else connected to that feeling of laughing? Also no. Now, replace “laugh” with “being in awe”.
Actors fake-laugh, but they KNOW they’re faking. Similarly, cult members fake a sense of awe and wonder (regardless of religion. It’s not just in Western Buddhism!), but they KNOW they’re faking. If you really bug them with questions, eventually they’ll admit that. You can’t command certain feelings into genuinely happening. You just can’t. There’s no negotiation.
…The fake versions of these feelings, however, absolutely can be commanded! But then, they become something else. Something a lot more cunning, a lot more sinister.
Maybe some people will have psychological defenses against taking in what I’m saying here. “Wanting to believe” is the foundation of the placebo effect, after all. It’s very powerful and I individually don’t stand a chance against it. So, there’s that. However, if I can help even one individual break free from their “need” to fawn over and please a cult leader like a slave needs to please his master, I’m satisfied.
