Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00122)

Lynn wrote:
>I agree with you about the term "lesser evolved
>races" which is why I preceded it with <groan> and placed it in quotes in my
>post.

I thought that might be the case, that you were just making fun of
established definitions.  I decided to give it a go, anyway, just to make
sure.


>Whenever I used the term
>"evolution" or "evolved" in that post, I specifcally meant spiritual
>evolution or, more specifically, the progress that a soul makes in expressing
>itself through its vehicles and in mastering the three worlds. "Evolution" in
>that same context could also refer to a higher turn of the spiral where the
>spirit is increasingly expressing itself through the soul itself. What I was
>trying to say was that anthropological race, socioeconomic status, etc.
>should *not* be used to judge how far an indwelling soul has progressed along
>the Path.

True, true, you cannot judge the progress of a soul just by looking at the
person in general terms.  Some may be clearly perceived, most not so.  We
would like to say that a highly evolved soul is like Saint Alan :o).
However, a highly evolved soul can be in the guise of a *primitive* who
cannot read or write, or a person from the ghetto who's learning
development was stunted but who has a wonderful heart.  There are so much
more unseen and unknown.  How do we judge that a soul is highly evolved.
Terrific intellect?  Deep compassion?  Great survival skills?  And what
about astonishing athletic ability, besides associated with the body, that
also demonstrates skill and determination?  A great dancer?


>Most of humanity has been looking mostly on the lower planes (what you say is
>"in front of our face") for answers to its problems for millenia. Have we
>solved them? I don't think so. So, what's wrong with exploring other methods,
>trying something else for a change?

I agree that we need to explore other methods and not leave out any
possibility.  However, the lower planes have, IMHO (Estrella, that's "In My
Honest Opinion"), not been adequately explored.  As in the case of the soul
exploration, the lower planes exploration have been saturated with terms
that try to point out superiority and inferiority.  Maybe what we need to
change is not the plane focus, but our attitudes and ego.


>The problems that you listed, IMHO, result from selfishness and hatred.
>Selfishness and hatred, in turn, result from our ignorance of the true nature
>of the soul and the spirit. We see ourselves as totally separate from each
>other, an illusion fostered by being consciously aware of only the lower
>worlds. These are the same worlds that you are urging to me look at for the
>source of the solution to our problems. What is the logic of looking further
>into the mists of ignorance to solve problems resulting from that same
>ignorance (including my own)?

True, the lower planes can result in separation.  However, in my
experience, when I talk to a person, I flow between my physical perception
of the person and my intuitive perception of the person.  That happens so
automatically that it appears very real and *physical.*  I don't see just
the eyes, nose , mouth, I read their movements, their condition, etc.  With
the body, I don't just see a body. I see movements that express its mental
states.  I see the shape that the body is in that expresses its health.
When I hear that person's speech, I hear how the words are spoken, what is
being said, how the words are said, and the pitch and flow of the voice.
With all that combined, I can pretty much read the person's attitude and
general either soul or ego, or combined.  Besides reading a person, my
communication flows back and forth where I can feel the person as part of
myself, that also helps in my perception.  To use a very rough analogy,
it's like looking at and smelling a cake, and then eating it.  Of course,
with that, when I encounter an almost evil person, I feel like purging
myself.  This, I'm sure you can relate to since everybody uses this in
their perception, some more sensitive than others.

When I hear or read of people in the media, I automatically imagine what
they must be feeling, and try to imagine the subtleties of emotions
associated with such a situation.  I think that anybody who has been in any
circumstance close to such a situation can easily empathize.  I may not be
in such situations, but mine is close enough that I can push the
imagination a little further.

Thus, I do not find the lower planes to be a separating factor.  I find it
to be very useful in gathering information.  It becomes very connective
when you can look at others and say, "them/self."  Of course, that is also
soul.

>This attempt to discover the inner causes of the societal ills we see around
>us is not at all an attempt to escape dealing with them. It is, IMHO, the
>only way we can find the means to effectively deal with them. Running around
>helter-skelter, born on transitory winds of emotional sentiment, slapping a
>band-aid here and there will not permanently solve anything, though it may
>give transitory comfort to a few who are suffering and to those who actually
>only need a band-aid. We cannot truly help humanity unless we truly love
>humanity (a principle that originates from above the emotional plane), IMHO,
>and that can only come by aligning the personality with the Soul. I do not
>see the utility of trying to manifest compassion for our fellow humans
>without also trying to become One with the principle of compassion itself.
>The two go hand in hand. Without this, we may do a bit of good here and
>there, but we mainly succeed in feeding our own egos, inwardly patting
>ourselves on the back for the "good" we've done.

We must also avoid the "we and them."  "We" help "them."  It's better to
think "we" are helping "we."  Perhaps that is the answer.  I analyze myself
and try to figure out what would help me be enlightened.  Certainly,
education.  Living without fear.  Physical needs being met.  Dealing with
my negative emotions.  Discipline.  Responsible to my affairs and others,
etc., etc.  Perhaps if we analyze ourselves, try to imagine ourselves
without our comforts, and then imagining ourselves with them on one at a
time, we can get at what is needed.  The answer is not to slap on a
band-aid, but sweeping changes.  That's going to involve politics,
*shudder*.  Note how many people came out from oblivion for a cause because
they became the *them* that they see in the media.


>All we need to do is look at the sorry history of so-called reformers,
>revolutionaries, etc. who may have started their movements with the best of
>intentions and ended up inflicting all types of horrors, major and minor, on
>humanity. The usual scenario, IMHO, is "this social problem exists so let's
>solve it by forcing people [often by any means necessary] to do thus and
>such". The blood begins to flow, personal freedoms (which I think are
>essential to human growth) are lost, etc. Contrast this with Ghandi's
>non-violent, non-coercive philosophy which succeeded in liberating India from
>the British Empire. Or with Martin Luther King's similar philosophy and civil
>rights victories. Both were men who were motivated by selflessness and a true
>love of humanity, illustrating the point I hope I made in the preceding
>paragraph.

We need to look at all sides and make choices.  No choice is going to be
without somebody feeling forced upon.  When Gandhi liberated India, I'm
sure there were a bunch of people feeling forced upon.  He was assassinated
by someone who felt forced upon by his policy of unification.  Same with
Martin Luther King.


>Who are we to say that any number of those who we don't see on TV haven't
>"transcended their environment"? What does that actually mean anyway? What
>about the father who joins with other fathers, for example, to stop gang
>warfare in his neighborhood, not as a leader but simply a member of the
>group? This, in itself, may be an important accomplishment for him, yet he
>stays in that horrible neighborhood until the day he dies, still poor and
>totally unnoticed. For another, simply actively participating in the local
>storefront church could be a huge step. We can't just sit here and decide who
>has or has not transcended anything, IMHO, without knowing an individual's
>dharma and karmic issues to be resolved in a particular incarnation.

Agree.  I was using just one example.  I do see more and more examples in
the media and I have read of your examples.  Either that, or the media has
wisened up and decided to post solutions instead of just problems.  Not
enough, IMO (In My Opinion).


>Yes, we need to look at the trees, but with the detachment born out of the
>realization that they are not the entire forest. We need to step back,
>transcending it, so to speak, to see it all. When you referred to "theorizing
>something to pieces", you apparently missed the main point of my message
>which was: we cannot make judgements without sufficient information. I've
>lived in the hard-core ghetto myself, BTW. I know those particular "trees"
>rather well. ;-D
>
>Being that this post has become pretty long, I'll respond to what you said
>about hemophiliacs with AIDS, group karma, etc. in another message.
>
>Lynn

Alrighto!

Thoa :o)