Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00139)

In a message dated 97-04-17 15:08:51 EDT, Thoa wrote:

>  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.

Part of the "getting to know each other" process... ;-D We'll each probably
do less of that as time goes on and we have a better idea of each other's
points of view. I do appreciate your making sure!

<snip of my earlier comments>

>  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.

I wholeheartedly agree!

>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.

I agree here, too, including with the Saint Alan part. ;-D It's fascinating
that you mention this about the person from the ghetto who lacks educational
opportunies. Just last night I saw something on TV about how, in Norfolk
Virginia, they are going to the homes of disadvantaged children and teaching
the parents how to teach them long before they start elementary school. In
fact, they even visit pregnant mothers. Anyway, the program has been so
successful that, once in school, these economically disadvantaged children
are scholastically achieving above children from the wealthiest neighborhoods
in the school district. I think this strongly supports what you and I (and
many others) have been saying that there is no correlation between
evolutionary development and race/socio-economic status.

>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?

Good questions. I think that evolution *generally* follows the pattern of
first the lower three vehicles, then the increased expression of the soul's
three vehicles through them as the lower vehicles become refined enough to
permit it. However, I think that it is a rather uneven process that varies
among individuals and is often rather nonlinear. For example, an individual
may have developed a pretty robust, active lower mind. However, the emotional
vehicle (which in a purely linear scheme should develop earlier) is still too
coarse for the mind to effectively control it, so only the lower quality
emotions are expressed. To outward appearances, this person could be quite
clever but is incapable, for example, of loving only those who love him/her.
Another individual may not have a mind that appears to be quite as agile, but
has such a refined emotional body that he or she is capable of demonstrating
a more selfless quality of love and compassion. But, the relative states of
development can't be but so far out of kilter simply because of the dynamics
of the opening of the various centers/chakras and the flow of energy between
them. At least, this is my take on it. I think it is almost impossible to
judge an individual's overall point in evolution (except at the extremes at
either end of what is expressed by the majority of humanity) unless the
person doing the "judging" is so evolved that they can see the centers, the
energy flow among them, and their actual degree of unfoldment (a Third Degree
Initiate or higher maybe?). 
>  
>  
<snip of my earlier comments>

>  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.

Interesting point! I hope I understand you correctly and please let me know
if I didn't. I think that the fact that we explore the planes from the
standpoints of inferiority and superiority is because we are not fully
functioning yet in the higher mind, the lowest vehicle of the soul. The
higher mind is needed to fully realize (more than just intellectually
acknowledge) the principle of inclusiveness which counters the illusory
notions of inferiority and superiority. Without the ability to function in
the higher faculties, in other words, from the viewpoint of the soul, we
cannot sufficiently grasp the occult laws that underly events and conditions
on the lower planes. So, I agree that the lower planes need to be studied
(and mastered). But we cannot fully study and truly master them without
raising our consciousness to the higher planes. At the same time, we have to
do what we can, in our limited understanding of the principle of
inclusiveness, to put it into practice, applying it to the lower three
planes. By constantly making the effort to do that, I believe that we'll
continually refine the lower vehicles to the point that we will indeed truly
realize (as in make Real) those higher principles. I think that we have to
learn to look in both directions, plane-wise, simultaneously. ;-D

<more of my own blather snipped>
>  
>  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.

Fascinating!! It sounds to me that you are seeing more of what underlies the
illusory separateness we've been discussing. I do relate to what you're
saying. With some individuals, you can feel your own vehicles resonating at a
higher frequency merely by being in their presence. With others, you feel a
dampening down, a heaviness that needs to be purged as soon as possible
(along with the urge to escape their presence). Interesting that part of your
analogy includes *smelling* a cake because, in my mind, I associate this kind
of thing with the sense of smell, a very subtle type of smell one way or the
other that does not enter through the nose as physical smells do. ;-D

<the sound of doors slamming in the background as some say, "Now this is too
weird!" ;-D >
>  
>  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.

The empathy you describe is, what I believe to be, an inclusiveness. I see
your pushing your imagination further as an attempt to achieve more of that
inclusiveness. After all, can we really "feel with" someone we see ourselves
as totally separate from? :-)
>  
>  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.

I believe that you don't see the lower planes as a separating factor because
you aren't using the viewpoint of the lower planes. You're looking at the
lower planes but from the viewpoint of the higher planes. When I referred to
the separateness of the lower planes I meant it as the result of viewing
things only from the perspective of the lower planes, using only the lower
mind. I don't think we actually disagree here at all but are having to
wrestle with the difficulties of expressing these concepts in words and
through the lower mind --> physical brain. Now, if we could toggle on
telepathic mode... ;-D
<snip of some of my stuff>
  
> > 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.

Yessssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D

>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.

I think that, in terms of achieving enlightenment, the physical needs you
mentioned are important only up to a certain point. Once one gets past a
certain point on the Path, whether physical needs are met greatly lessens in
importance. After all, there are yogis who achieve enlightenment in
conditions that only barely sustain the physical body. (And, I'm not at all
saying that we need to ignore the physical needs of us/us. Where's that
telepathy toggle again?) As for politics, I think again that we need
fully-realized people who are consciously on the Path if we're not going to
perpetuate the same old ills (even if cloaked in different vestments). By
saying that I'm not at all ignoring the good that is being done by
individuals who are not consciously on the Path but are in fact on It, or by
those who are consciously on the Path but are not yet fully-expressing souls.
Before reaching the evolutionary point that I mentioned at the beginning of
this paragraph, having physical needs met, education, etc. are indeed
necessary if we as a group (humanity) are to be free to pursue more than
basic survival issues in life. But the sweeping changes you mentioned must
come from the subtler planes if they are to be changes that actually
accelerate our evolution as a group. I think the ultimate goal is a purely
impersonal one, that of human evolution and that of the other kingdoms.
Ooops, left out the Devas. Oh heck. Whatever the Logos wants. <now someone
asks "which Logos?"> OK, the Solar Logos to cover all bases... ;-D
>  
>  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.

OK. For now. ;-D I don't totally agree but need to think further on how to
express what's bothering me about this. I'll be baaaaaaack. ;-D

<friendly snip of our agreeing with each other>

Lynn