Rita, concluding on good and evil

Saturday February 7, 2015

F: 6 a.m. To resume –

R: Evil as a part of you, a touchy subject.

F: Is this not where we are forced into the subject of sin? And, you’re right, nobody likes that subject much. Say “sin” and you get a cross-eyes, perplexed reaction from people who wonder if you can really be so simple-minded and superstitious as to believe in sin. They assume then that you must be a fundamentalist. Or, another kind of person, they assume that you are wandering on your own when a good pastor could give you the word so much more professionally, competently.

R: Let’s see if we can discuss the subject of evil as part of you without provoking either of those reactions. We looked at evil as one end of various polarities – as a South Pole to the globe that is human life – and we will look at it as an attempted infringement upon the human will. Here let’s look at it as an attractive nuisance.

F: Hmm – like an unfenced swimming pool?

R: Just like that. Something that glitters in the sun but constitutes a danger for the unwary, or lies unsuspected in the dark, a danger that may be stumbled into.

Remember, human nature as we are describing it is a compound, not an element. That is, what you are is a mixture of diverse elements that may or may not come to function as a unit over time, but will never be the unitary being that an angel is, say, or a blade of grass. That is what separates humans from the rest of nature, the fact that they are compounds learning to function as though they are units, and therefore manifest what they are in very changeable ways. You know how astrologers say of Pisces that they may suddenly begin to “follow the other fish”? In other words, they may appear to be something quite other than they appeared previously, without changing their nature, merely following a contradictory – built-in contradictory – pattern. We’re not on the subject of astrology, here; that is only an example of the kinds of complexity built into human possibility.

F: I see it in myself, certainly.

R: Well, all right. You are a compound. The other thing to remember is that nobody in form is pure evil or pure good or pure anything, precisely because you are compounded of so many strands that are themselves compounds. Human life in 3D is infinitely complex, no matter how appearances may be. And, remember, if it is true for beings functioning in 3D, it does not cease to be true of those beings when they cease to function in 3D, it is only that the manifestations change with the changed terrain.

So if you concede that evil, as one end of a set of polarities, has independent existence (I don’t mean independent from its part of any given polarity, I mean independent in the sense that it is not mere perception, a sort of abstraction or illusion), and if you concede that humans are compounds rather than unchanging internally consistent elements, surely you must admit that no one is created who does not incorporate some good, some evil. As we said, the line between good and evil (a very tenuous line, sometimes, hard to discern) runs not between people – so that you have good people and bad people – but within people, so that you have a person’s good nature and evil nature.

This is not a difficult concept to see, although it may not be agreeable to everyone’s feelings. Jungians will understand it easier than most, but where is the practicing psychologist of any school who can believe that people are pure good or pure evil?

Now, Frank, you know that sin may be defined as “missing the mark” – that is, as tendencies or actions that lead a person astray. This is a more accurate (and more compassionate) view than the one that says sin is a moral failing for which the person exhibiting it must be punished. However – brief digression – both views are somewhat true. Sin may manifest because it is part of your nature and you can’t help it, but it may manifest more, or less, easily according to whether your free will assents to it or resists it. If the former, then “missing the mark” applies, much as anyone practicing a skill may be less than perfect at it; if the latter, then individual culpability cannot be escaped.

F: You can’t be blamed for having the impulses, just for giving in to them.

R: Not quite, more like just for encouraging them. You see? It is almost the difference between witnessing a bank robbery as an innocent passer-by as opposed to aiding and abetting by acting as lookout for the robbers.

F: I see.

R: It gets more complicated than that, but you will learn when you begin to function from outside 3D (or rather, without a body) that if you want to discuss anything, you are going to have to ruthlessly suppress extraneous connections that occur to you.

F: Which implies that this is what you are doing continuously, mostly silently.

R: Of course, because even mentioning that the side-trail exists is enough to tempt me, or you, into pursuing it.

All right, now we can come back to the question of sin if people want to, and you can see if anyone comes up with a better acronym than LEG CAPS for the seven major headings under which different tendencies or temptations may be categorized, but for now let us proceed to the third manifestation of evil in 3D, evil as it contends with your will as though attempting to control you and change you.

F: “As though”?

R: Like everything in life, it isn’t quite as simple, but yes, as though. How you experience it is all we can address at the moment. To try to redefine causes before effects are recognized for what they are is to lead yourself astray.

So, the third manifestation of evil appears as if separate – for it has an effective will of its own – yet appears as if an integral part of you – for it has a strong internal ally in part of what you are. An instructive analogy would be the behavior of an alcoholic whose awareness is acute enough to see his or her slavery, but whose will is not strong enough to overcome the compulsion to drink. Or substitute heroin or the substance or manifestation of any addictive tendency.

You see the difference? Whereas the second condition had the element of complicity, this has the element of compulsion. There is all the difference in the world between being tempted and being coerced.

So – now we may circle all the way back to the initial questions, and see them with new eyes.

[ “Again, if specific questions are needed:
– are there ‘bad’ Larger Selves?
– if so, do they create `bad’ people in 3D?
– can ‘bad’ people be a part of ‘good’ Larger Selves . and vice versa?
– is this sort of discussion confused by differences in what ‘bad’ means in 3D versus the non-physical?”]

Are there bad Larger Selves? Do they create bad people? Can larger beings be mixtures of good and bad? As you see, the questions are in error only in assuming uniformity where there are compounds. But, that error in the unstated assumption makes a yes or no answer equally misleading.

It is just this kind of fundamental question, or perhaps I should say just this kind of questioning of fundamentals – that leads to productive restructuring of concepts, for surely no one who has read these paragraphs over the past couple of days can still be seeing the question as they would have had we given a yes or a no or even a “yes but no.”

And the answer to the question of the cause of confusion is not so much in the difference in terrain as in the fundamental misunderstanding of the compound nature of human existence, both in 3D and afterward.

And that, even though it is not quite an hour today, is a good place to stop for the moment. Next time we can begin on another question, and any follow-up questions suggested by this discussion can come later, wherever Charles things appropriate.

F: Okay, thanks, Rita. Even though we’re stopping a few minutes early, we got quite a bit today. I look forward to whatever the next topic is, and I hope our readers do as well. Till then.