Wrapping Up

1999-7-2 10:35:00

Jay, we will miss you. You are welcome any time.

CW, I am glad to finally see you make a post that is geared to our discussions. Is there anything I teach that you do agree with? I can see you disagreeing with a point or two but each line I write seems to give you a problem. Dave gave you a good run for your money however. I will attempt to initiate an era of good feeling here by pointing out something in your post I agree with.

You say:
"It is attachment to outcome either for self or other which raises the reaction of emotion.... attachment to outcome involves the projection of one person's will over another."

I agree with both you and Dave on this one. In the real world you need a certain amount of attachment to outcome or one would get nothing done. How many students would ever get an A on their report card if there was not some attachment to outcome? How many of us would go to work if we were not attached to the outcome of having a paycheck? I assume even you have this attachment problem. On the other hand, an inflexible attachment to outcome can create the negative problem that you state. The key is the quality that we discussed earlier, called discernment.

Saul writes:
"The parable of choir and example of 2+2=4 seem unfortunate because these gave the wrong impression of uniformity instead of harmony. All members in the choir sing the same notes with requirement of mathematical unchangeability. Individual variations seem buried alive: Isn't this the impression it gave? The parable of symphony would however bring out without confusion, the nature of harmony, union or unity in variety."

You seem to be giving an "unfortunate" representation of my meaning here. Let me quote my real use of 2+2=4. "When a person realizes that 2+2=4 and he cannot make these figures add to anything else then he is forced to admit it is true. This is entirely different than forcing one's will on another." I was not linking this with an idea that choir members have mathematical unchangeability - I never even hinted at this idea. I was merely making the point that pure truth is almost impossible to reject once it is understood.

You use the word "uniformity." This is not what I have ever taught. I have taught principles of union which does bring about some uniformity in some areas, but enhances individuality in others. When the choir in the parable was successful it was because of union of commitment to carrying out the original intent and to have the concentration of the group on one version of the song. No choir can sing two versions at once. No one says the choir cannot sing French or Latin if the group desires to do so.

The parable said nothing about uniformity. For all we know there were solo parts and most probably arrangements of different tonal groups. Each singer sounds a little different and has a differing quality of voice and tone. A choir has union, but far from robotic conformity.

So it is with those who sing the Song of the 144,000. Those who do it in union focus on the same Song, but sing it according to their own individuality and tone. Two singing it has a different effect than one and three different than two and so on.

The Song does not have a physical melody and would probably be difficult to put to regular music, but is a song of the soul and the music is exuded in physical silence. Each person singing it according to original intent creates a note which is a part of a great symphony that we are beginning to create in time and space. We can roughly say that 144,000 notes create the first verse. This may not be an exact correspondence, but projects the right idea.