Jesus said: Whoever possesses some will be given more. Whoever possesses virtually nothing will have what little he does possess taken away.
Saying 41 seems to us today to epitomize the economic injustice we see around us, but we know that Jesus was not critiquing society, nor was he disapproving what he described, merely describing what is. Bearing in mind that he was describing our situation in 3D and non-3D, what did this one mean? And, as we have learned to do, let’s look at it in context of the immediately preceding saying, which contrasted the inanition of literalism with what was connected to direct experience of the higher being. Again, a paraphrase, but I hope a valid one.
Yes, valid. And you can see once again that context is everything, in searching out hidden meanings. One who does not possess the key to greater life will not come to it by mere extension of days. One who does, no matter how little, will acquire more.
“Will”? Or “may”? I don’t see that there’s anything inevitable about it. Won’t it depend upon the person’s efforts and choices?
And here, you see, you enter into the roots of theological debate – faith v. works as a means to salvation. Predestination v. free will. God’s favor as manifested in one’s station in life, or his displeasure, manifested equally. Karma as the result of past actions placing you in the caste of untouchables or in the highest caste in the land. All such questions are rooted in logic, and, as such, are seductively plausible and deadly in their effect.
I see that, since you point it out, but does that answer my question?
Look to what Jesus said, as recorded by those who heard, rather than to what makes sense to you that he must have meant. The former is testimony; the latter is logic.
All right, I see that. He is recorded as saying “will,” not “may.” So what can it mean?
You really mean to ask, how can it be that some have and others do not have what is needed to acquire life more abundantly.
I suppose I do.
“It isn’t fair,” in effect.
Yes, that’s the underlying thought, I agree. I wasn’t quite aware that it amounts to that.
So then, if we work on the assumption that life is fair, ultimately, where do we come out?
I suppose we must see one’s position as the result of past choices.
No! That is, not exactly.
Call it, the fruit of one’s birth, plus the sum of one’s choices. For not all men are created equal in standing, only in worth.
Second-class citizens of the universe, then?
Don’t react out of emotional preference, but out of discernment.
Good reminder. Well –. I don’t know, you’re going to have to give us more of a clue than that.
No, we don’t need to. You just caught the spark that leaped the gap.
Perhaps I did. We keep thinking that all non-3D beings – that is, our higher selves – are identical, even if we know intellectually that they are not. And we know abstractly that each comprises its own set of values, just as is reflected in our own 3D lives.
If all non-3D beings held the same set of values, how could conflict exist in the 3D part of the world? It is precisely in the clash and interaction and alliance and melding of values that life in 3D reflects (in slowed-down and concentrated form) life in non-3D.
Therefore, no two individuals in 3D hold exactly the same set of values in exactly the same proportions as anyone else. How could they? They are there to embody those values, not to serve as mirror images of one another.
And therefore some are born into the 3D world without a clue, and some are not.
And there is nothing unjust about it, except in appearance when viewed from too constricted a 3D viewpoint.
This may be a digression, but does this mean you approve of the caste system, and dog-eat-dog economics?
We remind you that we don’t particularly concern ourselves with your economic or social arrangements except insofar as they affect your individual development. But – as a sidelight not to be pursued here at this time – if you consider the other half of Jesus’ instructions to the people, you will see that they amount to practical instruction as to the state of being that will produce a fair and just society. This was not his primary concern, we remind you: Jesus was concerned that those who could raise their state of being learn how to do so. But concomitant with that was instruction for those who could not.
A good answer, but I’d still like a more direct one.
How can there be injustice in the universe? It would be the equivalent to a five-pound weight weighing six pounds, or four. It can’t be done.
Then where is the real justice behind the very apparent injustice in the world?
Let us ask you a very simple question, then. If you could exchange your life for that of the very rich, would you?
No. Maybe when I was younger.
Would you exchange it for that of the very poor?
When I was younger I felt guilty to have some when others had nothing, or had much less, but I didn’t exchange then either.
But if it were possible for you to become somewhat richer, or somewhat poorer, what would your reaction be?
Until it reached the limits of my comfort zone, I wouldn’t care, particularly.
So are you unjustly held in your position, or did you carve it out (or fall into it, or assume it) naturally and easily?
If I had been born into a different family at a different economic level or with a different cultural background, I would not be who I am now. I might have accomplished something, or let’s say something more.
But it is sheerly an act of faith to think that any change of circumstance could bring only advantages and no disadvantages.
So do you suppose that you are uniquely placed in that your life provided you with the opportunity to work out your salvation, so to speak – that is, to display your possibilities by a succession of choices? As it is for you, it is for others, but all others are working on their own agendas, obviously, so what they need and create for themselves is different, as they themselves are different according to what they were formed of from their non-3D parent, so to speak.
Then this saying – since I cannot believe it preached either inevitability or hopelessness or “resignation to the will of God” as if to the whim of a tyrant – means what? That those who could hear it were automatically among those who did have the potential? Seems unnecessary.
You will find that logic will keep sneaking in where not desired. Logic is for critiquing, not for construction. First get the understanding, then test it.
So where am I going wrong?
You in 3D have a vital part to play in the cosmic working-out of life. We occasionally remind you, life is not play-pretend, any more than it is meaningless or pre-positioned or a matter of “walking each other home,” as someone said. You are not – we are not – merely killing time.
Thoreau said once, you can’t kill time without injuring eternity.
He was perhaps trying too hard for a smart saying. In any case, you nor we are merely killing time, but in our lives we are contending with those of other values – as we said, some opposed, some in rough agreement, some not one thing nor the other.
You didn’t say that, actually. Not in so many words.
But the sense was there. So listen when Jesus says to you, if you have something of the truth, there is the potential for you to have more, but if you do not, there is no hope for you. This isn’t meant as discouragement – nor, for that matter, exactly as encouragement – but as a description of the situation.
This time you said “potential”; earlier you said it was a given.
It is a matter of which context you apply. In absolute, it is “will.” At any given time, according to your decisions (which means, in effect, according to your effective will) it is potential.
So think on these things and we will resume another time.