In The World

1999-12-22 19:37:00

Time to catch up on some questions and comments. Sterling made a good comment on humility and Saul gave some good supporting comments that I actually agreed with. What a way to start the approaching millennium!

I have to take issue with CW on the football game thing. To say that a highly evolved person will not take sides in a game because it does not matter who wins, I believe to be an illusionary statement.

I don't think one can get much enjoyment out of a game unless you do have a favorite. If you just watch the game for the game's sake and to appreciate the skill of the players then you might as well watch last year's Super bowl rather than the current one.

If I turn on a game and don't have a clue as to the background or history of the team, I just don't have enough interest to watch. Sure it's mildly interesting to watch a great play of some unknown team, but I would rather watch a bad performance of a team I know and like.

So where does this idea come from that, if we are advanced on the Path, we will just cease to feel and not give a hoot about who wins what?

The problem is that many great teachers in the East have put emphasis on the overriding, control, directing and sometimes neutralization or elimination of emotion in order to reach higher states of consciousness. Many students have interpreted this to mean that we should "kill out desire" completely, move beyond it and never experience it again. This is an extremist point of view and as Buddha taught neither extreme is the path to liberation.

What then have the teachers really meant when they taught thus about desire and feeling? Perhaps the best summation of this is the admonition of Jesus to "live in the world, but be not of the world."

The high initiate is expected to not be of the world to the extent that he is able to have power to neutralize or at least direct his feelings and change directions at the drop of a hat if the Purpose of God so requires it. It takes many lifetimes before this point is reached.

On the other hand, when desire is not out of alignment with purpose, it is good judgment to be "of the world," and let your emotions play themselves out intelligently. When the disciple is appropriately "of the world," he will love and feel passion with the best of them. If there is a contest he will be happy to cheer for a certain side. Why deny yourself of such a pleasure when there is no purpose in it?

When a question of the right or wrongness of a philosophy comes up, in addition to looking within to the soul, I also look at the great initiates of history and see if their actions confirm what I have received. Time and time again it does and this is no exception.

Two of the greatest initiates in the United States were George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Both were leaders in the most stressful game of all called war and both of them took definite sides and were extremely concerned about the outcome. One thing that really concerned Lincoln is that he often was much more concerned than his generals seemed to be. All McClellan seemed to want to do was show off rather than win and this attitude about drove Lincoln around the bend.

In more recent times Winston Churchill replaced Chamberlain who had a cavalier attitude toward Hitler that led the World into war. Churchill took a definite side and had an extreme interest in the outcome. DK, in writing through Alice A. Bailey, said that the Christ himself took the side of the Allies during the war and worked behind the scenes to assure victory.

Some have expressed irritation that I have defined the word channeling for this class. They seem to think I have arrogantly redefined a dictionary definition for the entire world. As far as the dictionaries, go they do not give a very specific definition for channeling, and many differing groups use the word with different meanings. Because of this I defined the word FOR THE CLASS, not for the world.

Let me repeat myself here. When sending or receiving it is important that we apply similar meanings to the same word. If I say the word "channel" and when I am referring to an astral entity possessing the body of a medium, and you think I am referring to mental telepathy because you define it differently, then confusion is the result.

In a class the definition of a word is what the group agrees upon. I'm sure there are other classes on the web where the word channeling is used to include mental telepathy. Does this bother me? No. It's still a free Web.

The teacher of any class has the right to define his terms in what he sees the best interest of learning. If anyone disagrees with this I would like to know the reason why? If I want to call an orange an apple to make a point while teaching then why complain about it?

By the way there is the brightest full moon in a long time at 12:38 A.M. MST 2:30 A.M. EST. The full moon opens a door that makes contact with the Brotherhood a little easier. A good time to meditate.