Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00158)

In message <970418124943_1684429535@emout12.mail.aol.com>,
Wildefire@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 97-04-16 22:57:15 EDT, Alan wrote:
>
>(quoting me)
>> >the frequency of purely lust-driven unions is attracting a large
>>  >number of lesser evolved souls prematurely into incarnation and that it 
>> does
>>  >cause problems.
>>  
>>  I wonder why this link is necessarily made.  Might not a highly
>>  developed soul seeking incarnation choose to incarnate via a lust-driven
>>  (Aaargh!) union for reasons known only to itself?  Possible reasons:
>
>Alan,
>
>Thank you for forcing me to think this through further! As a result of your
>post, I have moderated my opinions on this. I agree with everything that you
>said.

Seemed reasonable to me to question this.
>
>I formerly agreed with Bailey on it because I believed she meant that the
>circumstances surrounding "lusty unions" were probably more attractive to
>relatively unevolved souls than to more highly evolved souls. I think that
>she was basing it possibly on a belief that souls tend to be attracted to
>parents of similar emotional and mental vibration. I think that, at the time
>she wrote this, people who engaged in sex outside of marriage were commonly
>believed to be at a lower mental and emotional vibratory state than those who
>didn't. (Though, even during her times, this may have been too sweeping a
>generalization.) Without really thinking about it, I just went along with
>this.

This is the problem, IMHO, with so many attractive teachings, Students
say, "Hey! this is good stuff" and then swallow everything that is
offered without looking into the matter closely enough.  As I have said
before on the list, my own approach to students has always been, "This
is the Teaching as I have received it. Don't believe a word of it -
check it out."
>
<Polite snip>

>Just in case
>anyone is wondering--this proposed attraction to parents of similar vibratory
>levels does not contradict statements I made in earlier posts about the my
>belief that the quality of an individual's own vehicles is not inherited from
>the parents, but resides in the soul's permanent atoms. In fact, Alan, your
>post supports that concept, too.

Maybe, but other assumptions may lie behind your remark (not necessarily
false assumptions).  Maybe it's a bit of each - like genetics will
affect the body into which the soul arrives.
>
>Yet, I still would have to question the ability of the mental and emotional
>vehicles to control the instincts of the physical vehicle in someone who
>*repeatedly* engages in purely lust-driven sex.

.. but this is a special case?

<more polite snip>

>This is the very type of thing I hoped to gain by joining this list--the
>opportunity to grow by receiving the input of others on these topics.

True for all of us, I hope.  I know I have learned things from others on
the list.

Alan