Analysis of Mystery Man

2003-4-15 12:00:00

My Friends,

Thanks for taking the time to analyze this mystery person. I had no idea that Glenys would have reservations about this, but now action is in play I'll consummate the process with a brief analysis.

When I presented this to you for analysis I did so without having my mind made up or having examined it carefully, but did receive the impression this would be an interesting study.

It would be presumptuous to judge this person's place on the path, but we can assess his words and make a mental calculation, always realizing we could be wrong. From his words here is what I get.

Looking at this post as a whole, the main point I see stressed is that "taking sides" (in his view) is a wrong thing to do. He would probably object to me using the word "wrong" here; even so, this is indeed what he seems to be saying. He associates the "taking of sides" with the outgoing sixth ray and fanaticism. This seems to be a subtle form of attack as if saying that "he who believes in taking sides belongs to the past and not moving into the present. Furthermore, such a one is attached to fanaticism."

This causes me to wonder if he met me and learned that I believe in taking sides if he would believe me to be the fanatical sixth ray type.

Actually, I take issue with his Sixth Ray statement. While those holding on to the Sixth Ray energy can be fanatics, (actually only a few are) the power of decision making and taking a stand when a choice is called for can manifest in all the rays, but the First Ray influence produces particularly strong decision-making abilities that gives him power to pick a side and "take a stand" and declare "thus I stand."

So I see evidence of an internal philosophy that requires him to raise his consciousness above taking a stand, thus causing him to avoid a decision involving difficult matters. Even so, from my experience no one can avoid taking a stand on a multiplicity of items in life. In speaking of others I have met with this philosophy it seems that they avoid taking stands on difficult matters whereas they may be eager to take a stand on things of interest or non-controversial items.

Note that our writer does not want to take a stand on whether the war is just (controversial) but is happy to take a stand on non-controversial issues. For example: "I was against the US and Britain going in without UN sanction (Very non-controversial stand) and now that they are there I want them to win as quickly and cleanly as possible." (Another non-controversial stand).

His writing is so adamant about rising above the duality of taking a stand that I wonder if he realizes that he does indeed take many stands himself.

What this thread that runs through his writing tells me is not so much that he is mentally or emotionally polarized, but has developed a blind spot due to an illusion that has taken root in his foundation thinking. This is the illusion that he is raising himself beyond the dualities and is not affected by them.

In my opinion this illusion has directed him toward an emotional grounding much more than would be the case if the illusion were dispelled. Illusion exists on the plane of the mind and since this seems to be the core problem (as I see it in this post) his polarization could be either mental or emotional, but most probably in fluctuation.

I would take a book to cover my thoughts on the whole post in detail but instead of giving the reasons for my philosophy on taking a stand I will call upon an earned authority. DK, as we were entering World War II, quoted the words of Christ ("He who is not with me is against me") to rally his students to take a stand on the war. I do not believe he was being fanatical, clinging to the outgoing Sixth Ray.

The Post Under Examination:

Thanks to all the debate (and also the debate about what to debate) on the war issue I have been forced to ferret around inside my own head and heart to try and express a coherent view.

My head can find a pretty rational argument for basically any view that is principle based. Taking the pulse of the heart however is what T S Eliot calls 'raiding the inarticulate'.

What my heart is mainly growling about is all the 'taking sides' 'knowing where you stand' stuff. I find this to be a tired form of sixth ray fanaticism by both sides. It is the "he that is not with me is against me'' story.

It may feel good to my emotional body to choose a side and of course the mind desperately wants to be right but my heart wants to live in the uncertainty of the whole human experience, shifting according to its own special wisdom - living the question instead of knowing the answer.

And so I am going to try and speak for this wisdom - the wisdom of the heart.

It is not a passive wisdom or an indecisive fence sitting or a moral cowardice, but - a fierce voice that refuses to rest in one place for long - a dynamic voice that has an inherent sense of the justice of the whole - a radical voice that is not content with opinion but wants to find the root of the problem.

It is a voice that will speak to the polarized pacifist about the need sometimes to fight and will speak to the warrior about the need for compassion and restraint.

It is a voice that will move in support of those decisions made in accord with the heart on either side.

The heart is an organ of fire and the seat of 'straight knowledge'.

It does not need consistency because it is its very function to be true to the greatest good. It does not need to espouse principles, it is constructed out of them. It does not need to 'take a stand' because it stands up for the whole as naturally as it pumps blood to all the organs of the body.

Following the strange wisdom of the heart as well as the mind has taken me on the following journey so far.

I am in agreement with the need for a universal set of human values and I also support the need for diversity in nations as well as the recognition of different levels of development.

I support the implementation of international law as a mechanism for international justice and despair at the lack of capacity yet for the UN as a body able to do this.

I admire the USA's capacity to respond to injustice and advocate the principle of freedom at the same time as I despair about what I perceive as gung-ho arrogance and naivety.

I think the Iraqi dictatorship is outdated and tyrannical and I support the Iraqi people in finding their own solutions as much as possible

I was against the US and Britain going in without UN sanction and now that they are there I want them to win as quickly and cleanly as possible

I admire the bravery of all those who will die in this battle and grieve for all those who will be left to pick up the pieces

I believe in war AND I believe in peace

And more, much more, I believe in humanity and our capacity to overcome hatred and partisanship, to heal and move forward wiser and stronger, to forgive, to fiercely protect what is true, beautiful and good, to fight for and foster freedom. Why do I believe this? Because these are all functions of the human heart and I know about the invincibility of the heart.

And I am not alone. I am one with all those who know that their opinions do not matter much but trust in their capacity to act anyway and to move with what is happening rather than what they think ought to happen or worse, ought to have happened. And yes I know all about the need to take a stand.

And so what I would add to the debate is this:

It sometimes pays to be wary of the game that would have you take sides or be relegated to the margins. The middle does not have to be a passive fearful place where the mindless vacillate. It can be a place of fierce loving, of dynamic surrender and a fight for the whole. A place where not knowing can form a context for radical actions, a place where living with uncertainty creates a tension that can open the door to new kind of power.'