Saturday, June 18, 2016
4 a.m. All right, shall we resume our discussion of sin?
We shall, provided you realize always that we are discussing the question of that conviction of sin as a – ratio, call it.
No, I know where you’re going, and that language isn’t right. You mean, we’re connecting the question of sin to an individual’s – well, no, it isn’t that easy to state, is it?
Let it go for the moment. We could spin our wheels trying to describe what it is like to describe a duck – or we could just, describe a duck.
Describe away, then,
We looked at the most superficial aspect of a sense of sin, the thinking you have done something wrong merely because you did the prohibited thing (or, more unusually, because you did not do the mandated thing). Let’s proceed, remembering that we are stitching together two views of the All-D – that which sees your continuation as individuals, and that which sees the over-arching patterns of which you are only a part.
Which is sort of what you started to say at the beginning.
Yes, but it got tangled with a more complex association which you sensed then but have probably forgotten already.
That’s because it was an insight not buttressed by concepts you had already worked out, but just acquired by osmosis, so to speak, because it was in my mind.
That makes sense, I guess. But then how do we get flashes of insight with no logical connection, other times?
Not all buttresses are perceived, not all are logical, not all are even very definite – some may be by fleeting, transitory, analogy. But this is not what we mean to talk about. Not now.
Just as a weed may be defined as “a plant out of place” – a neutral entity in an undesired spot – so some forms of sin are merely actions or thoughts or preferences contrary to some scheme of desirability. An analogy would be traffic laws requiring you to drive on one rather than the other side of the street. In such case, it is not a question of moral turpitude but of general inconvenience and danger that is the problem; there is nothing inherently “wrong” about driving on the left side of the street (if you are in America) or the right side (if you are in England), but you do become a public nuisance and hazard if you do. So, it isn’t exactly that the laws are arbitrary for no reason. They are arbitrary, for, as I say, there is no absolute reason for a society to choose to drive on this or that side of a road, but they are chosen for a definite and mutually beneficial reason, to reduce chaos to order.
A person contravening such arbitrary rules may or may not have what seems to him (or her, of course) to be a good reason. It may be sheer cussedness, on the other hand. In such case, the why of the contravention is a different story than it would be when the contravention was an offense merely because it [the rule] existed.
I think you are saying that in this second case, a person’s guilt (call it) depends upon intention rather than upon the action itself, regardless what some outside party might say.
The difficulty with analogies is that they tend to take over, obscuring what they were meant to illuminate. Let’s begin again.
The reason we are
Interfere is the word you were looking for, not ratio.
Yes it is. Good. We are looking at the concept of sin, and the sense of sin, as an interface between two ways of explaining the world. One way looks at you as individuals and sees the non-3D as an “afterlife” that continues the individual existence. The other looks at you as part of something bigger, and attempts to provide a larger picture of reality rather than “pretending,” one might almost say, that your individual life “continues” after death. But we’re looking as this relationship manifests during your lifetime in 3D, not later.
No sense of sin in the non-3D.
Well, no sense of color or gravity, either. A sense of sin is a condition of limitation of viewpoint by time and space, as much as anything. “People” in the non-3D aren’t late for appointments, either. They don’t get hungry. You understand the point?
There are certain aspects of 3D existence that don’t carry over into non-3D because the conditions that cause them don’t exist.
And the sense of sin – like all human emotion – is one of those things that doesn’t carry over.
Whoa! That’s going to take some more exposition!
Get your refill.
You’d better believe it.
I find it interesting, as I look back, how, repeatedly, I get something and take it in stride, then a few sentences later I get the emotional impact of the same words, or the same context. You’re continually getting delayed-reaction responses from me. Anyway – human emotion doesn’t carry over into the non-3D.
You were told long ago that you would find us relatively emotionally chilly.
Yes, I remember that.
That is because you would be experiencing us while you were still in 3D conditions. When you are here, without the conscious 3D tie, you experience it differently, as you experience any 3D quality’s absence.
People expect guilt and punishment in the “afterlife.’ George Noory [host of the Coast to Coast AM radio show] asked me what happened to Hitler when he died, and I knew he wasn’t going to like it when I said there was nothing to be punished for, from the non-3D viewpoint, because he had made his choices from among the qualities he had been endowed with on his insertion into 3D.
Yes, and that is true (if unsatisfactory to some) but it is a somewhat different point than I am making here. Yes, it is true that if such judgments were made in the afterlife, no one could be found guilty. But my point here is that such judgments would not be made here because the preconditions for judgment do not exist. It was in 3D conditions that Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Perceiving Things As Good and Evil. Outside of 3D we still have duality but we are not entranced by that good / evil paradigm.
Ultimately, absolutely, there is no “good” or “evil” except in the eye of the beholder. Within 3D conditions, up or down or heat or cold or any other duality may be seen as good or evil in specific conditions, but hardly as absolute. Is “down” evil? It may be, if you are falling, but you can hardly ascribe that to the existence of “down,” only to its meaning to you on your way to the splat.
But even beyond the actions, you’re saying the feelings are not to be judged in non-3D, and don’t exist?
You mean the emotions [rather than feelings], and in fact you should mean the giving-in-to, or even more, the encouraging, of certain emotions. What is a guardrail in 3D may not be needed in non-3D.
So, take the seven deadly sins.
Well, list them and see.
Using my handy acronym I invented (LEG CAPS) to remember them. Lust, envy, gluttony, covetousness, anger, pride, sloth (or ennui).
And how do you suppose those could manifest in non-3D conditions? Assume yourself unchanged in temperament and intensity, when you move your consciousness to the non-3D dimensions (that, remember, you already inhabited, knowingly or otherwise) – how do you propose to be filled with lust, or gluttony, or sloth?
I see your point, but it seems to me there is room for pride, anger and envy, at least.
And so there would be – in 3D conditions of perceived separation.
Oh, yes. I see.
Sins are more like markers in the 3D than objectively real conditions or even emotions that exist outside the very specialized conditions of 3D existence. As concepts, they are useful. As guidelines, as guardrails, as bad examples (you could say) they are very useful. Only, do not suppose them to be what they aren’t. You might as well expect the Ten Commandments to apply to the non-3D, to stop us from coveting our neighbor’s goods, or from lying or stealing. Laws – spiritual or physical – are for the guidance or control of humans in the 3D context, and obviously don’t apply elsewhere.
And we still haven’t quite gotten here – they also serve (well, not sin, but the sense of sin, the sense of not measuring up, or of having transgressed, serves) to interface two concepts of the world of 3D and non-3D.
But we’ll have to look at that next time.
Yes, but every day’s contribution helps. Don’t think we’re wasting time here.
I don’t. I do get the sense that you changed gears about describing sin.
Perhaps. We’ll see how it works out as we go along. There could be utility in pointing out that what people lump under one name is really several varieties of thing; but it may not be necessary, or helpful, nor even quite feasible. We’ll see.
Okay. Till next time, then, thanks.