Actions and consequences (1)

Saturday, March 19, 2022

6:45 a.m. Rita died March 19, 2008.

As I was sitting on the bed waiting for the coffee to brew, thoughts were going through my mind spurred by who knows what, but using as central excuse the NCIS episode I watched last night. Can we talk about the subject of evil in a little more depth than merely saying that some things look good or bad to us only because we see them that way?

That is not quite your question.

No, it isn’t. Suppose you take a monster of cruelty: someone who spends a lifetime inflicting pain because he likes to. Can he really get a “Well done” on leaving the 3D?

This is a highly charged subject, so it offers the potential for you and others to learn something, only you must be willing to stay open to instruction, or, let’s say, to inspiration. It will do you no good to read anything if you do so only on the implied precondition that you not let it affect your judgment. That would amount to saying, “I’ll listen, but I won’t listen.” Not interrupting is not the same as listening.

This must really be highly charged.

It is, and it is also complex, interrelating aspects of 3D and non-3D life you may not have associated in your mind previously. As usual, we do not attempt to persuade: That is, to pile on evidence until you have no room to object. Instead, we will try to spark a re-evaluation on the basis of new associations.

Understood. I get the feeling you are in danger of forgetting much of what you want to associate.

Believe it or not, we have our problems expositing. Meanwhile, it will help if you will remember to

Set switches, yes, for maximum focus, receptivity, clarity, presence.

Repeating the formula will help it sink in, for you, for others. For today only, you might add non-resistance, although that is implied in receptivity. You will benefit by maximizing your willingness to consider a new way of seeing things.

To truly see the subject, we must hold in mind several realms:

• In the 3D world, the soul as shaped by third-tier decisions.
• In the non-3D world, the same. After all, it is the same person, but we will be looking at him in a different way, somewhat divorced.
• The shared subjectivity the person expressed.
• The shared subjectivity he affected.

That’s enough to begin with. You see, we want to look at the soul two ways and the soul’s context two ways. Need we say even at the outset that these will only scratch the surface? Yet, at the same time, it will afford an entry for those so inclined to go deeper.

Other factors being?

Well, if we pursue the subject beyond the immediate context, there is the question of your level of experience (that is, the world as a 3D human experiences it, 3D and non-3D both).

I lost that. Try again?

We are to look at the world as you all experience it, but there is the larger question of the larger being’s affairs, and your place in it. But that would be pretty speculative, in a way, and you like things kept on a practical level.

It may not always seem like it, but yes, I do.

So let us look at the problem. State it for us both, please. The requisite centering, focusing, will help put it front and center.

Does the world really need monsters? If not, why do we see them? If so, why do we need them? And what happens to them after they die to 3D? I realize that various religions have answers to these questions, but given that the answers don’t seem to agree, I gather there’s more to be said on it.

You see the tendency to diffuse as you go along? Again, blunter.

Let’s start with one manifestation: deliberate sadistic cruelty. What happens to one practicing it?

You see the difficulty in holding the question steady. Emotion and association tend to broaden it, reduce the focus. So, re-read the four points we made. The question leads from one – the individual and his acts and motivations – to two – the individual in his larger definition, with all his threads and resonances – to three and four – the individual in each sense, considered in two contexts, or let’s say two aspects of one wider context. To examine the subject from any one point of view is to come to firm conclusions that may not have much relation to real life.

Thus:

• The soul in 3D. Whatever circumstances shaped him, be they genetic or environmental, he is what he is. His life is for him to shape. He gets choices, and they are always real Nobody has to do evil (or good); it is always a choice. Let us say that more carefully: Nobody is forced to choose one or choose another. Obviously, if he is forced, it is not a choice. Many factors may push him in one or another direction, but within the limits of choice, it is his to choose.

I think this means, his area of choice may be constricted by whatever circumstances, but he always has an area of choice.

Of course. That’s what he is in 3D to do, to shape his life by his second-tier and ultimately third-tier choices. But – and we may not have put sufficient emphasis on this before now – that isn’t all he is there to do. He is, always, in 3D to shape his future self. But his life is bigger than himself.

• The soul in non-3D. His physical actions are one thing, but their inner meaning to him may be something different. An expression of cruelty in 3D may look different to him in non-3D, or rather, may be experienced differently.

I think you’re meaning, his motivations and limitations may shape his world so that he as an individual doesn’t see himself or the world or his actions in the way others do.

Well, sort of. That’s true as far as it goes, but we mean something a bit different. His 3D actions (which include thoughts and emotions, though you might not at first think so) stem from his world. They arise out of his makeup, his genetic and environmental preparation. They are unique, always. How could any two people have identical backgrounds or compositions?

Identical twins?

Different subject. We can go into it another time, if you wish. For today let’s leave it at this: Everybody acts out of a background unique to them. Therefore, obviously – we assume obviously – no two people see the same action or even motivation the same way. One man’s cruelty is another man’s strength, a third man’s insensitivity, a fourth man’s response to necessity. Views vary.

Now, that would lead you to think, “Then, anything goes, and there is no right or wrong, only preference.” But you know better. So how can what we said be reconciled to what you know but can’t demonstrate?

Can’t, and don’t need to. We may be unsure about any particular act of cruelty – there may be extenuating circumstances or whatever – but we know that, in general, cruelty is wrong.

This leads us to the individual and the shared subjectivity, in two aspects: as cause and as effect.

Do we have time to go into it?

Not today, but next time. We didn’t do too badly today; we stayed on point. You may not think we made much progress, but we did.

So, the theme?

Call it “Actions and Consequences (1).”

Does that really express it?

It will.

Okay. Till next time, then, and thanks as always.