Glenys writes quoting me:
"The mental person will answer yes or no when a yes or no is specifically requested because he will be willing to see where the logic takes him.
"The emotional person will only answer yes or no when the answer agrees with his feelings. If the answer does not agree, he will not answer, often resisting if the question is repeated a dozen times."
Then she responds:
I do not think that a sure sign of a mental person is that he or she would always answer 'Yes' or 'No'. There is a third option - 'I don't know'.
Notice I did not use the word "always" as there are always exceptions. I perhaps should have phrased it as "The mental person will 'generally' answer yes or no..."
I think it is more likely that an emotional person would feel constrained to give Yes or No answers because of the need of the lower self to be seen to be certain and an inability of the lower mind to deal with paradox and ambiguity. On the other hand, mental people do not have the same needs and have an innate humility that is more ready to admit a lack of knowledge or certainty.
The emotional (or mental) person is not more or less inclined to give a yes or no because of a need (or lack of) to be certain or right. The mental person is more inclined to give a straight answer because of mental honesty, a totally different thing that the need to be right.
The emotional person is less inclined because he does not examine his own thoughts and is thus often incapable of honestly expressing them. When a definite yes or no is requested to a question to which the basic information is readily available and the person gives a nebulous answer it is usually because he is avoiding examining his thoughts for emotional reasons because of lower attachments, not because he is free of lower attachments.
In certain teaching circumstances, as with the case of John in the book, the answer may be "yes and no" because the one asking the question would be misled by a direct yes or no with no additional explanation. For instance, John was asked if the doctrine of reincarnation is true. That would seem to demand a simple yes or no.
But note John's answer, especially what he did not do. He did not say that asking for a yes or no was unfair or biased. He did not avoid answering the question. He did not change the subject. He did not say he did not like the question. He did not accuse me of being in delusion for asking the question. He did not say the question could not be answered. He did not say I should have asked some other question instead.
From my experience these are the type of escape mechanisms used by emotional types with me when they seek to defend their attachments.
If you want proof of this, go through the archives and tabulate the dozens of times I have asked those making an emotional argument a yes or no question. I do not recall even one straight answer, but without exception they avoided a "yes" or "no" with a nebulous off-the-subject lecture.
There is no greater proof than experience and experience bears this teaching out with almost 100% accuracy.
So, instead of avoiding the answer with distraction techniques, John actually led to a definite yes or no with further enlightenment. He said that as far as the individual identity having many lives the answer is yes, but as far as the entity being the same personality in each life the answer is no. He pointed out that we have different ray influences in each life causing us to have a different personality in each life. The personality does not reincarnate but the individual does. Instead of giving a yes or no to a limited question he expanded the question and gave a definite yes to one and a definite no to the other. The emotional person will very rarely do this, for John's method is one used by an advanced mind who understands the answer.
There are many worthy mentally polarized disciples who feel uneasy about the Iraqi conflict, for example. Are we to dismiss them as being emotionally polarized because of that?
To be against this war when there has been so much information available to justify it would indicate a judgment from an emotional base.
(1) The information has been readily available for years that Iraq has been torturing and suppressing its people.
(2) The information has been readily available that Saddam Hussein has been starving his own people while having the financial means to feed them.
(3) The testimony of thousands of free Iraqis who have fled Iraqi have, almost without exception, indicated that the common people would rejoice at a war that would free the people, even if there were some civilian casualties.
(4) The many testimonies that have been presented by Iraqis who were close to Saddam Hussein who escaped and warned that he was seeking weapons of mass destruction to revenge himself on the United States and other nations.
(5) The testimony given to the world when Saddam Hussein lit the oil fields in Kuwait (First Gulf War) when scientists warned that such an act could create a nuclear winter that could destroy the crops of the earth. (This may have materialized if oil companies had not figured out ingenious methods of putting them out) In other words, Saddam Hussein was insane enough to attempt to destroy the earth for the sake of vengeance. This act of insanity made him a greater threat than any dictator on the earth.
(6) The correspondences to the dangers the 1930's before World War II.
The only excuse for a mental person to not side with the war would be an ignorance of facts which have been readily available. If a mental person does not have the facts he will usually reserve judgment, but on important matters such as this he will usually look into the information available from both sides of the spectrum.
A point to call attention to is this. There are many people interested in New Age and metaphysical philosophy, some with great learning, who are not yet polarized on the plane of the mind or higher. I have met many of them who are on a similar level of progression as a typical religious zealot, but just on the opposite side of the belief system. I would guess there are more mental types who operate a business as their main focus than among metaphysical students. Even so, if a person is mentally polarized and at the same time a student of the Ancient Wisdom, he can indeed be of great use to the Brotherhood of Light.
DK says disciples come from every walk of life and represent every point of view. Undoubtedly, this means there is a percentage that display uncertainty with respect to some issues.
I do not believe he specifically said that disciples come from every point of view. If he did then he was technically incorrect.
Do you think there were any disciples who were zealous Nazis, or current believers in Saddam Hussein?
Do you think there are any disciples chanting "death to Israel" or calling the United States "the great Satan?"
There are quite a few points of view that true disciples avoid like the plague. The philosophy of the Dark Brotherhood is certainly one of them.
He did correctly say that disciples are to be found in a wide variety of belief systems, but perhaps avoided stating that there are certain illogical systems that will be avoided by them.
Now if we speak of aspirants, it is true that some of them can be deluded into buying into harmful belief systems.
Does that mean they are to be judged as emotionally polarized?
To take the facts and come to an incorrect conclusion is a sign of emotional polarization or being in transition at best. This can also happen to a mental person but not as often. The difference is that the emotional person will be deceived by his feelings whereas the mental person will make a mistake in putting the pieces of the puzzle together.
To demand or expect people to take a stand or choose a side on issues is a feature of the outgoing 6th ray.
To demand a stand is lower sixth ray, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a request, not a demand. To request information so an issue can be resolved is more Third or Fifth Ray - sometimes even Second Ray.
Sometimes the terrain of uncertainty is rich with blessings as we are more open to receive revelation from the Spirit of God. Uncertainty creates a point of tension that precedes all White Magic whereas certainty can block creative forces in our lives.
Uncertainty exists for both emotional and mental types, but for different reasons.
The mental person is uncertain at times because he realizes he does not have all the facts. In this case he must use his power of judgment to come to the best possible conclusion. Because he does not have all the data, he realizes he may be wrong and will be open to change. He will also realize that some of his data could be wrong and will calculate the probability of this. If he has only anecdotal evidence then he will give it less credibility than massive evidence. On the other hand, if soul contact affirms a point of view he will trust in it as far as his understanding will allow.
The emotional person will sometimes be uncertain because of a lack of facts, but a greater cause is from having two conflicting emotions.
Taking the war as an example, he may have an emotional attachment to "peace at any price" yet also be emotionally involved in human rights and desire to see the Iraqis liberated. In this case the question for him is which emotion will prevail.
Sometimes the logical answer is not the right answer because it does not involve 'straight knowledge' or the wisdom of the soul.
Sometimes that which seems the most logical is not the most correct because pieces of the puzzle are missing. Soul contact can take the seeker beyond the facts that can be discovered through normal means and supply the missing information. When this happens then the final conclusion will be seen to be most logical of all. Why? Truth is always logical.
The Star Trek series gave a great example of this. Captain James Kirk was a mental/intuitive for he possessed something that no one else on the Enterprise had to a significant degree. And what is that? What is it that he has that puts him even above Spock? He explained it while in a conversation with Spock in which the two disagreed because Kirk was not being entirely logical. Jim said: "One of the criteria in the selection of a Starship commander is the possession of intuition, and ability to make accurate decisions and come to correct conclusions beyond the ability of the normal powers of logic and reason. I know the choice I am making does not seem logical to you, but when all the facts are in you will then know I am correct." At this point Spock thought reflectively and seemed satisfied that Kirk had a logical reason for being illogical. Spock had a great admiration for Kirk for he had witnessed the accuracy of his intuition time and time again and even his superhuman Vulcan brain capacity, fantastic reserve of accumulated knowledge, and calculating logic were no match for the intuition of his captain.
Spock basically used his mind to come to this conclusion. "The captain is not being logical, but because his intuition has been proven right and saved our lives so many times then it is logical to conclude his course will prove to be the most logical action when all the facts are in."
On the other hand, if Kirk did indeed receive an intuitive flash he could see the logic of the matter from the beginning. Higher contact (with rare exceptions) reveals the whole picture of the revelation to the mind.
Francis Bacon who is now know as Master R said, 'If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
This is true when speaking of dogmatism, but the point of certainty I am presenting has to do with the honesty of knowing ourselves and acknowledging our true thoughts on a matter. Why do we believe what we believe and what do we really believe and think? If we know these things we can usually answer yes or know to simple questions.
Glenys quote continued:
"...but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties'.
Agreed, but note that the end product of mental application is certainty.
Sometimes it is not shameful or, in the context of this discussion, emotional, to say, 'I do not know. I am seeking an answer and will tell you when I know'.
Nothing wrong with this. This may be the result of honest mental reflection.
There are many questions to which anything but a yes or no is avoiding the question leading to dishonesty. For instance a spouse may ask, "Are you having an affair?"
He either is or he is not. If he is guilty and does not want to answer he will respond with great emotion saying something like:
"How dare you think such thoughts? I am disappointed in your lack of trust."
Let me repeat an interesting yes or no situation I recently asked:
Let us suppose that you and your family lived in Iraq. You have no freedom of speech. You live in fear that on a whim your spouse and children could be raped or tortured and you could be forced to watch. You could be tortured and killed if you do not conform. Your family cannot eat if you do not conform. You have little or no economic hope. You realize you must praise Saddam Hussein at every opportunity or you (and your family) may face torture and death. You even have to be careful of not saying anything negative about him in front of your children for if they let something slip at school your family may face torture.
Before are two buttons, one green and one red.
If you press the green button then nations will come forth to a war of liberation for your country. Your leader will be disposed of and soon you will have freedom of speech and freedom from fear. The downside is that there is a 10% chance that you or a family member may be injured or killed.
If you press the red button there will be no war and the situation will continue as is.
Which button will you press?
Comment: Some answered the question; some made excuses to not answer.
I would hope that the recent events have brought enough confirmation to our feeling nature that we can all press the obvious button.
Copyright 2003 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved