John Wolf on Evil Acts

A Message on Evil Acts

Referring to the last two postings, one might ask,“Doesn’t this lead to copping out and turning our back to our problems?” “If people are intimately involved with constructing their own experiences, and evil tendencies are built into our reality, then what keeps us from wiping our hands of other people’s problems?” What does this insight bring to a situation like a step father raping his step daughter, for example?
(My Joint Mind:)
A part of me is saying I will never make sense of the world, especially that of pain, suffering and violence if I keep looking at it from a “world should make sense point of view”. (In other words, if we insist that the objective world that we experience through our external senses and ego make sense on a stand alone basis, we are barking up the wrong tree.)

There is only one way to make sense of this physical world, and that is that it exists to create yourself as an aspect of affecting your greater self. So if you were raped, it would be appropriate to ask (internally) why, and even more important to choose your response. If you were a rapist, you could do the same. Sooner or later you will have to deal with it. The answers and the ultimate resolution are internal to you, not external.
If you are witnessing it from an external point of view and not directly involved, you’re not going to reconcile the drama of others from a stand-alone world perspective. Help each other, have compassion for them. Hold space for them. Try to love them, all of them. Those actions are worthy and will affect you also.
What does a response that labels people as victims and perpetrators do? It fuels the process for one thing. It reinforces that thought form. To formulate your response without those labels, doesn’t mean you are making yourself blind to the situation.
If the concern is that an “it’s not my business” attitude will prevail, which will lead to a justification of callousness, and an uncaring and insensitive response, then let’s ask what does action coming out of a “victim and perpetrator” perspective do? The victim gets solicited as a victim, and the perpetrator gets solidified as a perpetrator. Does it add fuel to the event, make it stronger and prolong it, or reduce it and help dissipate it?
What does help dissipate the problem? What helps dissipate any like problem? We abhor killers, and our solution is more killing? We abhor wars, which we should solve with more war?
An evil act is done, and the question should be, “How do we turn it into love?” How do we as a civilization cradle a stepfather rapist and a stepdaughter who has been raped in our arms and dissipate the hatred, the guilt, the torment and turn it into love?
Forgiveness is a big component. Can one forgive the other? Can one accept forgiveness, and forgive self? Can the family of a murdered member forgive a murderer? Is not that a choice, a very difficult choice, of love versus hate?
(John:)
How do we dissipate hatred without condoning evil acts?
(My Joint Mind:)
What we are searching for is wholeness. In wholeness there is no good or bad. No evil or hatred. How do we respond to bring wholeness where there isn’t wholeness? Granted, it’s hard to see wholeness in a time-sliced reality.
Forgiveness doesn’t turn its back to the event. It recognizes it. It doesn’t condone. It has the capacity to make whole.
(John:)
But what keeps the perpetrator from repeating the offense? What keeps the serial killer from killing again, and again, and again?
(My Greater Mind:)
Let’s ask the question another way. You are connected to everything. Everything is in you. An aspect of you is a serial killer. An aspect of you is a rapist. An aspect of you is Hitler, just as an aspect of you is Jesus and Buddha. Now how do you address the situation?
The world objectifies to you, you. How do you form your perspective with that knowledge?
It’s difficult in a short time to graduate from the old, but simple way of thinking: God will take care of it for us. He’ll make the judgements and he’ll dish out the punishments and reward the persecuted.
Now you’ve advanced to understand that kind of God doesn’t exist. And now you are learning a little of what it means to be a true “son of God” as exemplified by the person Jesus. (This meant “son” as in being a miniature version of everything and my current understanding of the concept of God as Source and All That Is). Did Jesus hate? Did he condone? Did he add fuel to the acts of evil? He was human. He forgave. He wrapped the persecuted in his arms. Killers became saints. (This was not stated from a religious point of view. It was using Jesus as a personification of behavior and internal character that exemplifies “wholeness”.)
(I was really struggling with the concept of wholeness. An unexplainable substance appeared on my laptop, and in my desk drawer was a brush. Next to the brush was the November 2014 letter written to ourselves in Guidelines. The first paragraph of that letter: “Forgetting, separating, not knowing are a crucible for a new soul that can be formed with purity and filled with emotions, and experiences and character that brings real depth and meaning to the whole. Your becoming, your becoming whole, help all of us to become and become whole as well.”)
Can you see yourself, and the world in it’s wholeness? Can you embrace wholeness? Recognize yourself for who you really are and form your perspective from that. Forming yourself in that manner will do more to dissipate evil tendencies than either allowing the external ego to dominate, or deferring to a judgmental God. Love all of yourself.
[From The Sphere and the Hologram:]
R: Mm-hmm. [long pause] People sometimes talk about collecting parts of themselves together. Sort of some aim, I suppose, of self-definition?
TGU: Becoming more whole, yes.
R: Is that a meaningful concept from your perspective?
TGU: Yes it is, but we see it not as movement but as a movement of consciousness. If a part of oneself has split off – well, even psychologically you understand that. When you bring the split-off parts back into wholeness with the rest of the bundle, the brain cells don’t move. The only thing that happens is that the consciousness wraps it back in with the rest of the bundle, and that’s pretty nearly the same thing as what happens when people bring back parts of themselves. In fact, in a larger sense that’s what you all are doing for us, or we are doing for you, whichever way you wish to look at it, in the whole scheme of things. At some point we will have brought everything back into full interactive consciousness. At that point we will have brought all of our pieces back together. We will have recovered them all. And, from your end, to the degree that you expand your interactive awareness to all of your other lives, and all of your other dimensions into which you fit, and all of your connection with us, you’re doing the same thing. It’s more than a lifetime job. But you have time.
Via John

4 thoughts on “John Wolf on Evil Acts

  1. Very interesting, and timely, thank you!

    I have been thinking about rape specifically. Was in a group a while ago where a young woman brought forth her pain about an experience of being raped. We were some 20 people in the room, and I realised it is highly likely there is also a rapist in the room. Just statistically it is likely. Of course, love is the answer. But in the spirit of CGJ: what goes unaknowledged inside will turn up on the outside. War, murder and rape are repressed and unaknowledged features of the inner landscape. And to the extent we refuse to see that inside us (&me) we will experience them outside (at an aggregate level – saying victims have caused their own experience would be wrong). I am starting to see how I have been raping myself. Sounds dreadful. But the inner relationship to oneself is a truly interesting area. What happens in the privacy of my own inner workings…paying more attention really brings forth interesting stuff. It is as if there’s a level of functioning that is on cellular or atomic level, like it was far removed from consciousness, that has all kinds of quite shady goings-on.

    Getting past the victim-perpetrator ruse: it is a drama that seems to be designed to milk all low-quality attention out of a potential consciousness. Kindergarten of consciousness. It got to me just recently that wanting to be a savior in itself is a form of perpetration. A savior needs victims just like a perpetrator. If there were no victims, saviors woould go unemployed. That is something I’d like to aim for. Victims waking up, making perpetrators and saviors without jobs.

  2. Kristiina,
    Your comments are very interesting and insightful. Re: “What happens in the privacy of my own inner workings…” I’m believing now there is a whole lot less privacy there, or for that matter anywhere, than our outer senses lead us to believe.
    John

  3. A good morning dear friends.

    John thank you for all the interesting conversations indeed.

    And here comes Krishnamurti,and quote:

    “Is it possible, living in a modern society with all the brutality [it is not just nowadays folks, only think about the brutality in the old testament] with all the tremendous violence that is on the increase, to have freedom from fear? What us fear? Humanity has put up with fear, has never been able to solve fear. Never. There are various forms of fear.
    You may have your own particular fear: fear of death, fear of gods, fear of the devil, fear of your wife, fear of your husband, fear of the politicians. God knows how many fears humanity has.”

    And further:

    “What is fear? Not the mere experience in its multiple forms, but the reality, the actuality, of fear? How is it brought about? Why has humanity, which is each one of us, accepted fear as a way of life – violence on Television [actually I have thought about it many a time in HOW on earth it is possible in “making up” all the bloody killings & violence within the movies/films? Is it the inner fears expressed outwards?], violence in our daily life, and the ultimate violence of organized killing, which is called war? Is not fear related to violence? We are inquiring into fear, the actual truth of fear, not the idea of fear.”

    “The idea of fear is different from the actuality of fear.”

    “How has it come about? What is the relationship of fear to time, to thought?”

    “And the fear of death is the ultimate fear. Is fear brought about by time? Someone has done something in the past to hurt you, and the past is time. The future is time. The present is time. So we are asking, is time a central factor of fear?
    We are asking what the ROOT if fear is; not the multiple FORMS of fear, because fear is fear. Out of fear you have invented gods, saviours. If you have absolutely no fear psychologically, then there is tremendous relief, a great sense of freedom. You have dropped all the burdens of life.”

    “So must inquire very seriously, closely, hesitantly, into this question: Is time a factor? OBVIOUSLY.”

    “Time is not only time by the clock, but psychological time, the inward time. Because if we don`t radically, psychologically bringing about a mutation, then we will be exactly what we have been in the past. In the now, all time is contained. This is a fact too, an actuality, not a theory.”

    …there is much more of course, but have to end it now (in the present moment).

    …in timelessness I am dreaming to be me…
    B & B, Inger Lise.

  4. The idea that we each create evil acts as part of creating our individual worlds bothers me as well. This is all about judgement and has a definite Christian religious flavor. If I’m only this bubbling 3D ego overwhelmed by this immensely complex world and with almost no power or wisdom to change anything, I can hardly see that we can be judged as to blame. Rather the all-powerful, all knowing, all loving, all good God that created me and tossed me out here must be brought to the dock and that he so be required to sacrifice his son to save us from him. To me, that seems to be so much incredible nonsense.

    Alternately, I think it revolves around the question “who am I?” If, as it feels to me, this “I” is one with all that vast swarm of beings who surround me when I walk in the wild world, the world that I’m experiencing is the world created of this larger “I”. This puts an ecological system color on the question.

    Take an extreme example, the Amazon rainforest. As ecologists have extensively documented, ever creature’s life in the forest impacts that of every other if in only a minuscule way. The rainforest is alive, maintains its “body” for long periods, adapts to environmental changes, and evolves. In order to perform these successfully, old life patterns must die and new ones arise. All lifeforms must continually be replaced; they must die, likely killed. Nothing must be sacred. This happens all the way down to the cell level of every organism of which the total make up the forest. The forest successfully lives thanks to organisms killing and being killed. Is that evil?

    As far as the wild Earth is concerned, we humans might be described as weeds or plague organisms who are creating with our increasing population, as economists might say, an Earth-consuming bubble. It is clearly beginning to pop, as it must if the natural Earth is going to survive in any way near its present richness. Many humans must die, it appears to me, or adapt to a barely surviving lifestyle. Plagues will likely play a big role, but humans killing humans is probably the quickest way to achieve balance – and, nature adapts efficiently. Is that evil?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *