Saturday, September 9, 2017
6 a.m. Rita, two interesting questions that I have even less idea than usual how you will answer.
[Jim Austin: My question: how does Rita sees evil manifesting here in 3D, and does she have ideas about dealing with “the problem of evil?”]
[Cat’s Paw: Can or does a Sam experience and act from fear? Not, mind you, some delimited quantity of a Sam, like me for example, but the whole being of a Sam?]
[Rita:] Jim’s question must be partly rhetorical – he knows fully as well as anybody else how evil manifests in 3D. That was my first, unconsidered, reaction. (Yes, we can still go off half-cocked here, with your assistance.)
I think I’ve just been slandered!
Only by implication. Implacably moving present-moments have to enter in to situations in which an initial reaction is unconsidered. [Typing that up, I see it is confusingly phrased. She meant, in any unconsidered reaction, 3D conditions enter into it somehow.]
Maybe we should talk about that sometime. Don’t all reactions have initial forms that may later be reconsidered?
You might say all of our existence is the leisurely processing of considered revisions of previous thoughts and beliefs.
In any case, Jim’s questions –
How do I see evil manifesting in 3D? Remember, all compound beings – or, not all, but all we are concerned with – have experience with the restrictions of the 3D world. We remember how it is to function not really remembering who we are, not really knowing what to trust, not really knowing even good from evil, except in extreme cases, for much of what we called evil was mostly something opposed to our values but not necessarily inherently evil at all. We’ve been through this here.
Yes, hunting as an example of different values providing different standpoints.
That’s right. We remember the difficulties, and I have barely begun to list them. So, it inclines us a little more toward tolerance and even what you might see as leniency. (That doesn’t mean your view is correct.)
However, that doesn’t mean we can define away the existence of evil, any more than you can (in practice, if not in theory). Evil exists. It is one of the poles of a bipolar universe. By definition, what is evil to you is going to seem an intrusion, a flaw in creation, because it goes against the grain of what is good in you. I’m not going to repeat the argument; we went into it extensively, and anybody reading this may consult their experience as opposed to their theories, to know the truth of the matter. Just because not everything is evil which bears the name, that doesn’t mean that nothing is evil.
Or, as we’ve said, are you now in favor of torturing cats.
Or children. Yes, exactly. Evil exists. Evil in people exists. As a compound being capable of choice, it exists within you, to a lesser or greater extent, and how you cope with it determines what you are and what you will be.
I hope this isn’t a side-issue, but that’s what Jung meant about making darkness light, isn’t it? That’s the battle.
And it is a battle that will not be won, nor lost, but must be waged, just in the nature of things. No one can be pure good or pure evil in nature; the best you can do is encourage the good and discourage the evil from manifesting in thought or deed (recognizing that thoughts are a form of deed).
“Thoughts are things,” Edgar Cayce, or his guidance, said.
So we move to the related question of how to deal with evil. The short answer is, don’t go off on crusades to oppose it in other people. Your true struggle is in your own life, day by day, moment by moment. You’ll find it enough to maintain your values in your own manifest and secret life (for that is how it seems to you, “external and internal”), without having to go out and slay dragons.
I know we are going to hear accusations of quietism.
Didn’t Jesus say “resist not evil”? What do you suppose that meant?
I don’t think he meant, don’t resist what evil you encounter in the course of your normal life, just don’t go looking for trouble elsewhere, thinking you are fighting for the right.
I don’t think that’s it, and I’d be surprised if, upon reconsideration, you accept that as a fair representation of your views on the subject. Instead it is the nearest available thought to where you are in this dialogue.
That’s very interesting. That’s worth more, some time, isn’t it? That’s a new light on the process of communication.
Your Emerson quote is appropriate here.
So it is, and I ought to be able to find it, about paying attention to our thoughts. [“Look sharply after your thoughts. They come unlooked for, like a new bird seen on your trees, and, if you turn to your usual tasks, disappear; and you shall never find that perception again; never, I say — but perhaps years, ages, and I know not what events and worlds may lie between you and its return!”] In a way, that’s why thoughts seem to be one-time opportunities sometimes, isn’t it?
In any case, reconsider, from this new slightly different place, your understanding of Jesus’ thought.
I see your point. What I really think – momentary diversions aside – is, resisting something alienates you from it; isolates it (relative to yourself) and in a way gives it more autonomy, effectively gives it power over you. but to tell you the truth, Rita, I don’t think this is what I usually believe either. It feels true, but not familiar.
And that is the advantage and the disorienting effect of working with guidance consciously: You begin to realize, you know less about who you are and what you believe than you thought you did.
So let me see, what would I have said about “resist not evil”? You know, that understanding I just came to seems to have erased whatever I used to think. It seems obviously true now. I can’t swear that it still will twenty minutes from now.
All right, so you see the relevance to the accusation of quietism.
Yes. It is the difference between really dealing with evil and pretending to deal with it.
How many crusades have really improved things? Yet those same crusades, if undertaken in a spirt of humility and acceptance, might have achieved great things – only, what kind of crusade would that have been?
America in World War II had something of that feel.
Something, but all the other less creditable and less acknowledged motives were mixed in as well, and they produced their Dead Sea fruits in due time.
Thank you. Do we have time to deal with the question of fear among Sams?
We can at least begin, because the very short answer is that fear is mostly a product of certain forces manifesting in 3D conditions. These same forces outside of 3D do not manifest in fear but as, let’s say, an intensity, an urgency. But as we describe it, it will likely sound like fear if you allow 3D assumptions to sneak in unobserved.
Always a problem.
Yes it is.
In 3D, fear is a product of perceived isolation, perceived randomness, and perceived injustice. You can see that someone who knew (which is more than “believed”) that all is one, all is part of one thing, all is well, could not easily be susceptible to fear, because, literally, that leaves nothing to fear. Well, once beyond the 3D constrictions of awareness, no one doubts any of those things. We live “all is one, all is well.” How are we to fall into fear?
But yet there is polarity.
There is, but how to put it? If you were a member of a football team, striving your best to win a game, would you necessarily feel fear?
God preserve me from ever being on a football team, but I get your point. I hope life is more meaningful than a football game, or season of games.
Oh, it is. But the trick here as everywhere is (to change sports) keep your eye on the ball. You may think you are standing against evil when you are actually standing against (your idea of) external evil as a way of not recognizing and dealing with the evil that is a part of your being.
And that’s enough for today.
Okay, thanks as always.