Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00485)

> Brenda S. Tucker wrote
>
> Maybe you are a "gentler" soul because you insist on Purity of the Heart,
> but not of the body. Our "difficult" lives have two purposes, to recognize
> our human nature and get it under control and to convey that "human" is not
> satisfactory in others.

What exactly is "purity" and "impurity" when applied to people? Are
these things absolutes? Can another person really determine these values
for you? I doubt it. As group and social constructs are they relative
and cultural? ... undoubtedly. If you set yourself up to be the personal
arbiter of what is "good" or "bad" in being "human," you assume
authority and posit a moral and ethical position that you can hardly
defend independently, beyond the scope of your personal opinion. Even
social agreements of legal and political systems depend upon some form
of consensus that does not equate with absolute values. History teaches
as much.

Who is it that "recognizes and gets the human nature under control?"
Who is it that is unconditionally fit to judge what is or is not
satisfactorily "human" in others? Dangerous questions, I say. What do
you think?

> I think you are more satisfied because you have achieved success, but many
> of us do not find success to the point that we can say strong tactics are
> unnecessary. We want to annihilate crime, poverty, ignorance, and these
> goals are not unreasonable ones. Just because we stand on the side of
> "good" and virtue happening in our world, that stand in life doesn't create
> the disintegration of all evil. Where if we do both, nourish the good and
> annihilate the wrongdoing we encounter, this is more indicative of success.

How can this be other than personal and individual work without assuming
unjust authority over others? Even in democratic societies, this
function is at best a personal responsibility. Even with value consensus
as the binding force of group activity, it is still dependent on the
continual support of sustained personal values and commitment. The
individual person is always the common denominator. This necessitates
personal responsibility.

> When the day comes that we include our "adept brethern" in the scenario, we
> are bowing out, so to speak, of the mainstream of cause and effect, and
> asking their participation to the point that we are here to serve as their
> focus of power. Even when we insist on purity of conditions in physical
> life, it is for their purpose in finding ease in their feelings and release
> of power through us. It is not because we enjoy it. It is to thank them
> for ennobling us to accomplishment great feats and not to take that
> credit upon our lowly selves.

Whatever interior symbols or figures you may embody your spiritual
values in, you are still personally responsible whenever you ensoul
these values into action. I personally do not agree with your
attribution of these values to structures independent of the SELF. To my
view, any characterization of "Masters" are only showing me qualities
and attributes of "SELF." Their relation to my personality is entirely
an individual matter.

> Maybe you have found just the right discipline for yourself in Cayce, but
> there is still a big world out there with influences that speak of
> direction beyond what Cayce has done.

In the final result, we are all basically "on our own." (alone = AL[L]
ONE).Responsibility is ours. "Masters" and "Gurus" should be taken as
symbols for unrealized SELF. Any relationship that keeps you perennially
or personally dependent on sustaining an I-and-Other relationship with
supposed "Masters" is only creating a dependency that will inhibit your
true liberation. Sit with your statues and devotional imaginations until
either you or your "Master" disappears. Statues are also good for
firewood. Sutras for cleaning up one's bottom.

Gracefully,
a blade of grass
tripped ...
a cricket.

There it is,
behind
your own
admission
of "I"

Listen,
the bird's
sweet song
has ended.

> >One of the most valuable and distinctive elements
> >of the Cayce readings is how much they emphasize balance and
> >integration of physical, mental and spiritual rather than warfare
> >and annihilation internally.
>
> Yes, I would agree that balance is necessary when we call for an end to
> wrongdoing we also must replace wrongdoing with what is right.

This is a personal and subjective call.

> If you
> haven't achieved balance everywhere it is probably because you so much want
> to claim your good work as something you have done and not see it as
> progressing through us from an exterior source (even though the
> exterior source may exist at an inner level).

Be careful to understand what you are saying here. Bring the
semi-conscious into the light of day and you might have something! The
Father works and I work. I AM THAT I AM. AUM.

> Balance is always an
> achievement so great I must pass it on to the "greater" lives around us and
> though you speak of warfare in terms of what you have read, realistically,
> calls for peace and the annihilation of war are more to my liking. Don't
> take yourself so seriously. Annihilate wrong in all cases and not anything
> you deem useful.

Does this attitude keep your consciousness in the separative
personality? Is that OK with you? Do you recognize and accept the
implications? Is it an important question to you when the integral
relationship starts?

Mirroring,
I AM Mark
--------
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
http://www.withoutwalls.com