One world shared by different parts of our being
DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical
(Kindle Location 3206). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.
(A) I again encourage
all who read this to bear in mind the environment it is describing. One
world, a shared reality, a difference in environments, but still a shared
duality, experienced differently by different parts of our being. If you can remember this while we talk about
the problem of good and evil (and other topics to follow) you will find your
comprehension of many things gradually changing, integrating. But if you only read these word without making
the effort to experience them from a new place, what effect can they have?
Good and evil in non-3D
DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical
(Kindle Location 3215). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.
(A) Very well, I said
we would resume with some words on good and evil as it is experienced outside
of 3D. The one crucial difference in the
experience of the same reality is that of time experienced as a whole rather
than in slices.
You can see that if you experience anything in time-slices,
it is going to vary moment by moment, and whatever aspect it presents at any
given moment will appear dominant. Like
your experience of your lives in general, it will be always out of
proportion. The present moment always
far outweighs all others, in terms of its intensity and its - effective
importance, call it. Your lives are
never experienced in proportion until you see them from a place from which all
moments have equal weight. Again, this
is by design, to enable and enforce the process of successive change. Still, it is necessary to bear in mind that
your judgements are necessarily biased by the disproportionate importance of
any given moment.
This is what I was referring to when, at the end of our last
session, I said that duality can be experienced as orientation rather than as a
trap. It is all in the ability - or
inability - to remember other moments while experiencing any one moment.
Thus, pain. We once
asked the guys about pain and they said they know it hurts, but it is so
useful. You and I, Frank, knew enough to
know that this was not callousness on their part, just as they had also said
that we would find them some somewhat chilly, emotionally, if we could
experience them in their own element.
Now I know the meaning behind the statements, and I'll try to make it clearer
than it was to us then.
You will bear in mind that we have moved beyond that
perception of a thing as evil merely because it upholds values that may be
considered a matter of taste. We are
attempting now to look at pure evil, pure good, as best we can discuss them.
The first thing to be said is - from what starting point?
(Q) I can feel what
you mean. I can feel where you want to
go with it, but I don't have the worlds for it.
(A) Merely stay with
the feeling and the thought will clarify as I say more. That's all that ever happens; it's merely
taking long enough her for you to experience the gap.
Combining scales
DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical
(Kindle Location 3237). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.
(A) Good and evil may
be considered to be on a long line, with every possible gradation between
them. If there were only one line, it
would be simple. It would also be static and would offer little or no potential for
choice and movement. It is in the
crosscurrents created by the coexistence of different combinations of positions
that the possibilities of choice and growth and movement - and of
retrogression, of course - become possible.
... Every line of
choice may be considered a different scale.
(Q) I know. Take it by the seven deadly sins, say.
(A) That's
acceptable. Go ahead.
(Q) I take it that
you are saying that anyone may be at a different position between good and evil
along many different scales, and the result is different for each, because of
the productive complications of a more complicated system of measurement. Or, not more complicated system, more
comprehensive.
(A) Yes, close
enough.
(Q) So, we may
measure ourselves according to different scales and, for instance, one such set
of scales are the seven deadly sins as described by the church over the
years. I made an acronym to help me
remember them: LEGCAPS. Lust, envy, gluttony, covetousness, anger,
pride, sloth. That isn't the order of
importance traditionally given to them, but it was the only acronym I could
devise. (And I can imagine our readers
now sitting down and industriously looking for a better acronym. I smile to think of it. Put P first, guys: pride is supposed to be
the first deadly sin.)
(A) That serves to
illustrate the point. Not the question
of sin - that is for another time, perhaps - but the question of measurement of
different qualities of good and evil.
You see? Not, how does anyone
rate, how is anyone doing, in overcoming temptations, but, what different ways
can good and evil be experienced?
(Q) But I can feel
people's hackles rise as soon as you even mention the word sin. There's too much resistance to it.
Scaling
DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical
(Kindle Location 3265). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.
(A) Well, it was your example! I'm smiling.
Let's look at it from another direction, then, tying it to behavior. Cruelty would be one. Call the scale compassion-to-indifference. Or, a slightly different way of looking at
it, identification-to-rejection. You can
see that any one person - at any one time - is going to fit somewhere on that
scale. They are very compassionate, very
aware that "all men are brothers", and they are constitutionally
unable to deliberately hurt anyone else, for just that reason. Or they are very aware that the world is
divided between themselves (and anyone else they identify with) and the rest of
the world, and they see no objection to doing as they wish, taking what they
want or, indeed, may strongly value the sense of self-assertion they experience
in subjugating others to their will.
That is, this is a scale that ranges from compassion to indifference, or
from identification to rejection of identity, or from kindness to cruelty.
In a life in 3D time-slices you are going to experience any
given position one at a time, and it is going to be correspondingly exaggerated
in your consciousness, as any moment is exaggerated in importance.
We - yourselves outside 3D - do not experience it that
way. We experience good and evil, as
every other duality, more as a ratio than as a once-and-for-all choice, or a
situation.
And, bear in mind, any one measurement - cruelty, say - is only one measurement. Regardless
where a person may be on one scale, you cannot reliably predict where that same
person is going to be on another scale.
What does a person's cruelty or compassion tell you about his or her -
(Q) Did you get at a
loss for a concept to fill in, or did I lose the beam?
(A) A little of both,
because to continue that thought in this context would be to mislead, but you
were strongly expecting a continuation, so could not feel anything but interruption.
(Q) I keep learning
about the process as we go along.
(A) Should that
surprise you? A teaching is going to
have many strands to it, some implicit.
Let us leave that thought unfinished for the moment and
leave it that the question of good and evil has many axes, hence many positions
for people to occupy simultaneously.
Hence, you are unlikely to meet a person in body who is pure good or
pure evil - and if you don't find one in
body, you needn't expect to find one outside
the body. Compound beings cannot be expected
to be all one thing, regardless of what "thing" is in question. And we in the higher dimensions who have been
shaped by 3D experience are, inevitably, ourselves different mixtures of good
and evil.
(Q) It has been said
- I forget who said it - that the line between good and evil does not run
between us, but through us.
(A) That's
right. And so people who like to divide
others into good and evil are merely truncating their own self-perception.
No comments:
Post a Comment