Essay: Man, Know Thyself

[Lou Gold]

One take is that when one is ripe for the work, then one is irresistibly compelled to undertake the work, not really able to preclude it, and thus it unfolds as it should.

Yes. Yet it's worth mentioning that this unfoldment does not happen effortlessly. In fact, it is always connected with suffering and great temptations. This is especially true for beings that have important tasks for furthering the evolution of all humanity. Not one has ever been spared. The archetypal form of these events can be seen in Mathew 4, etc.

I am challenging an hierarchical model that tends to obscure that good intentions may cause bad effects more than promote actual progress.

With the risk of accusing me that I'm going back in a circle … But I must say that hierarchy of Beings has nothing to do with hierarchy of human beings where one happens to be the boss.

We can't speak at all about these things without the notion of higher stages of consciousness (sorry).
etc
etc
etc

Yes, I know the argument and I don't want to circle back endlessly. Just keep in mind that it is the mycorrhizal network and not the giant redwood that creates the forest and it is the plant intelligence of knowing how to turn light into life and not the the rule of the predator-in-chief that makes biotic life possible. The spiritual meritocracy you describe is loaded with assumptions, cultural and fictional assumptions. I have no doubt that hierarchies are present in structure. But the WHOLE can be conceived in other ways, as a network, a fractal hologram, a great mysteriousness. This does not make your story WRONG. It just makes it a story, a religion, a model, a methodology for creating forms that we perceive as objective. Again, there's nothing wrong with this unless you begin to think that it's the only way, which is how the creative tool of fiction becomes reduced to a dogma.

[Lou Gold]

PS: One might contemplate Jesus saying "the meek shall inherit the earth" in-context with the mycorrhizal foundation of a forest. Ecology is a many-splendored thing.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes, just to be clear, also part of the Light Being message is that our role is every bit as integral to their growth, as their role is integral to ours, in this inter-being Dreamscape ... just as with the inter-being of the 'lowly' fungi and the 'lofty' redwood, one not being more crucial than the other.

[Cleric K]

Yes, I know the argument and I don't want to circle back endlessly. Just keep in mind that it is the mycorrhizal network and not the giant redwood that creates the forest and it is the plant intelligence of knowing how to turn light into life and not the the rule of the predator-in-chief that makes biotic life possible. The spiritual meritocracy you describe is loaded with assumptions, cultural and fictional assumptions. I have no doubt that hierarchies are present in structure. But the WHOLE can be conceived in other ways, as a network, a fractal hologram, a great mysteriousness. This does not make your story WRONG. It just makes it a story, a religion, a model, a methodology for creating forms that we perceive as objective. Again, there's nothing wrong with this unless you begin to think that it's the only way, which is how the creative tool of fiction becomes reduced to a dogma.

You are perfectly correct that the way I presented things is nothing but a model, a fairytale.
That was the motivation for the essay - to show a direction, where things like this can be directly perceived. This is what sets apart the spiritual scientific method from intellectual speculation or religious revelation. Of course this in itself does not "prove" anything either. But at the same time one can't do anything more than this. One can only state some facts and disclose the path that led to them. Then if anyone is interested can verify the facts for himself. Or at least can see if the facts make practical sense.

So I'm leaving the circle open here As said elsewhere, it would be damaging if such things are simply believed in. It would go against the spirit of the whole spiritual-scientific endeavor. We can at least keep an open mind for the possibilities. Practical life is the final arbiter.

[David_Sundaram]

In the course of evolution both the heart and mind must be refined. It's just that in our particular point of history, souls have different predispositions and for this reason different nuances of the path should be made available for them, to make the best use of the materials they have at hand. The heart, even if more intimately connected to higher truths, must still be purified. We don't go very far if we simply assume that the heart is always in the truth. It's obvious that this is not the case, all passions and egoistic desires also live in the heart.

One path starts with Wisdom. When consciousness expands in this way we find the proper relations to Cosmic Life and this opens the path for Love. The individual, starts from the certainty of his own being and works outwards. As the horizon expands we must find our right relations to the beings that we encounters and this can only happen through Love. That's how the individual finds himself as a creative spirit within the collective Cosmic Edifice. Wisdom leading us to Love, and both begin to reveal Truth. That's one path and clearly the one that I'm focusing on here - as I said, because it's more appropriate for the thinking souls that have been drawn to this forum.

The other path starts with Love. Here we begin with the deepest heart-felt Love for the One (the poem). We simply know that we have been looking Him in the Eye before we incarnated and this memory lives in us as a certain undertone of our whole Earthly life. But this vague knowledge is insufficient in itself. We must make the paths straight for this Love to express more and more - to allow the One to express through our bodies more and more unhindered. And this is the point where contemporary humans have not yet come to the proper understanding. There's a great gap between the small me, the weakling, the sinful, and the big Me - the perfected Cosmic Man. Love leads towards Wisdom when we begin to realize that we can't simply discard the small me and become a puppet on strings for the big Me. That's duality. The puppet can never find its true relation to the big Me in this way. We cut the big Me from Itself. Instead, we set out to transform the small me, such that it becomes better and better conductor, servant of the big Me. This is how we bridge the gap between the individual and the collective. In this path we start from Love, which can only express fully through Wisdom, and both begin to reveal Truth.

In the first path, the small me rises in consciousness towards the big Me and this can only happen if Love for the Whole becomes as intrinsic as the air we breath. That's how the individual finds its proper place in the collective Cosmic Life.

In the second path, the small me rises its Love towards the big Me. If we simply stay in Loving meditation for the One all day long, we are useless for the collective Cosmic Life and the One. This Love must irrigate our being as Wisdom, so that we can know how we can serve the One. It's like asking "if I was not limited by my narrow understanding, opinions, prejudices, desires, etc., the big Me would express through my perspective unhindered. What would He do in my place? I need Wisdom so that my Love for the One can allow His Essence to express through me in its purity. I'm of no use for the big Me if I (the small me) stay as I am, limited, ignorant, erratic. The more I transform the obstacles that that dam the paths of Love, the more the Wisdom of the One flows through me and we are truly One."

Resonating with what's said above:

"Any and every soul’s developmental ‘journey’ merits ongoing introspective review and reevaluation and, when and where appropriate, the refine­ment – this is what conscious evolution is all about! – not just of the ‘content’ of what one personally thinks, feels, believes and does in relation to others and Life‑at‑Large, but also of the ‘significance’ one places on and so ‘ascribes’ to one’s self and other selves, in your case the very ‘self’ that thinks, feels, believes and does so. To possibly help expedite such process, here’s a discussion of some often overlooked (because of ‘innocent’ ignorance) but just about as often (for personal expediency) swept under the rug details and issues which, when and as overlooked and/or ignored, often result in folks who don’t yet fully grok what actually happens when a soul  transcends self hood (by whole-mind-n-heart-edly acknowledging and embracing the fact that it and others are integral aspects of The Entity of Life’s, i.e. of Christ’s, Being-n-Doing) being bamboozled by as well as bamboozling others.

For one thing, one’s selfhood doesn’t then just evaporate into insubstantial­ity or dissolve into inconsequentiality as many have historically, apparently self-effacingly and seemingly humbly, for supposedly unself ish reasons, self-deludingly imagined and other-misleadingly proclaimed. Take the words of anyone who speaks, preaches, or acts in ways which imply that he  or she (or his or her ‘kind’) is so self-abnegating as to therefore be  especially holy and (so) especially worthy of devotion, reverence, obedience, generosity, etc. with a grain of salt. A posture of personal insignificance may indeed be adopted as a result of a person’s genuinely loving and enjoying and so wishing not to in any way detract from the glorious Magnificence and mind-boggling Grandeur of Life-at-Large, in contrast to which the gestalt of his or her present self  as well as the gestalts of other selves may indeed appear – to him or her, that is – to be relatively unimportant. But obsequious, Cosmic Presence or Persona ‘adoring’ stances and corollary behaviors may also be consciously or unconsciously coat‑tail‑rider ‘gain’ motivated, and sometimes even downright wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing predatory in relation to unwitting others!

To put any self or other generated razzle-dazzle that may presently be interfering with your clearly seeing what’s really what in this regard into  perspective, let me point to and emphasize the implications of the obvious fact  that  genuinely devoted husbands and wives – ‘lovers’ of all kinds, really! – recognize that their lives are far from being insignificant in  relation to those they love and ‘espouse’. They live and act with consummate awareness of the fact, as well as experience and evince a certain degree of self-appreciation as a result of knowing, that their personal presence and relational engagement functionally complements and enriches their spouse’s lives in ways which they could not and would not be otherwise. This, even as they acknowledge and are deeply grateful for the fact that their own lives are also complemented and enriched in ways that they otherwise would not be by virtue of their having been ‘espoused’ (as a self ) themselves. Similarly, Cosmically ‘awakened’ souls continue to live and make choices as personally response-able, choice‑implementing selves who are well worth every ‘bit’ of their ‘salt’, albeit they do so so ‘sacrally’, without putting themselves on any kind of ‘pedestal’, knowing that they are vital components of Life’s Grand Being‑n‑Doing, in other words knowing that they are Love and Joy experiencing and expressing ‘buds’, ‘leaves ’, ‘flowers’ and potentially ‘seed’ bearing ‘fruit’ on ‘the Tree’ of Life Itself!"

[David_Sundaram]

PS: From a soul perspective, I came here not to go higher but to get grounded. Where we would agree, I suspect, is that the word 'humble' derives from the Greek humus and means earthly or grounded.

Relating to the 'issue' of something/someone/someview being 'higher' vs. (humbly ) 'lower' than any other thing/one/view, from my treatise:

"To progress in the ‘direction’ of soul growth, development and maturation, or ‘ascension’ as some think of it – albeit, in the latter figure-ative case, it is important that one bear in mind the fact that thinking or feeling that any aspect of Life is actually ‘higher’ or ‘lower’, in the sense of being ‘better’ or ‘worse’ in terms of inherent potential and/or value, than any other may cloud one’s perception and diminish one’s appreciation of the universality of Life’s Flow, so beware any ‘snobbish’ or ‘pauperish’  prejudices you may harbor along such lines! – one must discern and discriminatingly only continue to embrace and act on the basis of those thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc. which, after critical examination and open-minded review of the results of having done so, one concludes or at least has reason to believe have really led to one’s more deeply immersing one's self in The Flow of Life and (corollarily) more Love-and-Joy-fully co‑relating with and to others therein. This, of course, also entails choosing, at least provisionally till one collects and collates enough data to warrant making a firm decision in said regard, to  ‘let go’ of whatever thoughts, feelings, beliefs, expectations, etc. one concludes or has reason to suspect do not yield such result, especially any that strike one as being counterproductive in said (Flow of Love and Joy in relationship to and with others as well as Life Itself) regard. Repeating and refining such critical examination and selective choice operation on the basis of what one ‘sees’ and/or ‘senses’ at any given awareness-point in the course of one’s psychospiritual journey is essential for one’s ‘evolutionary’ process to move ‘forward’. (Using the analogy of gemstone cutting, some speak of this as getting ‘rid’ of one’s ‘rough’ edges or as ‘perfecting’ one’s Love and Joy constellation. Such model isn’t fluid enough to completely suit my sensibilities, but I do find it positively evocative and (so) sometimes use it to advocate what I regard to be supremely desirable, as here.)"

[Lou Gold]

Yes, I know the argument and I don't want to circle back endlessly. Just keep in mind that it is the mycorrhizal network and not the giant redwood that creates the forest and it is the plant intelligence of knowing how to turn light into life and not the the rule of the predator-in-chief that makes biotic life possible. The spiritual meritocracy you describe is loaded with assumptions, cultural and fictional assumptions. I have no doubt that hierarchies are present in structure. But the WHOLE can be conceived in other ways, as a network, a fractal hologram, a great mysteriousness. This does not make your story WRONG. It just makes it a story, a religion, a model, a methodology for creating forms that we perceive as objective. Again, there's nothing wrong with this unless you begin to think that it's the only way, which is how the creative tool of fiction becomes reduced to a dogma.

You are perfectly correct that the way I presented things is nothing but a model, a fairytale.
That was the motivation for the essay - to show a direction, where things like this can be directly perceived. This is what sets apart the spiritual scientific method from intellectual speculation or religious revelation. Of course this in itself does not "prove" anything either. But at the same time one can't do anything more than this. One can only state some facts and disclose the path that led to them. Then if anyone is interested can verify the facts for himself. Or at least can see if the facts make practical sense.

So I'm leaving the circle open here As said elsewhere, it would be damaging if such things are simply believed in. It would go against the spirit of the whole spiritual-scientific endeavor. We can at least keep an open mind for the possibilities. Practical life is the final arbiter.

Yes! We are both offering fictions and I am not arguing that mine is 'superior'. Indeed, I'm challenging the very notion of 'superior'. I am attempting to suggest a more ecological model in which a high-tech astronaut capable to going to the moon would not be considered as more advanced or evolved than a Polynesian navigator who can traverse thousands of miles of open ocean without instruments. I could go on into other specialized realms such as allopathic and shamanic and faith 'healers', etc. Perhaps, (note my weak philosophy) I am speaking of a model difference between dual-aspect and multi-aspect monism? Perhaps the latter is "more plausible" in the diversity of practical life? Perhaps, it would make us more concerned about appreciating and protecting all the children of God? Perhaps it might compel us to expand our consciousness about what constitutes 'merit'. My faith is not that one is better/worse or higher/lower but that it might be closer to the One to look with appreciation upon all. Meanwhile, I confess my prejudice toward simplicity on the material plane because it is cumulatively less extractive of the stuff and less exploitive of the peoples (human and other) of this earth where I presently (under)stand that the very hard times now unfolding require a miracle of caring and sharing.

Gosh, I truly appreciate jousting about with you. Thanks again.

[Lou Gold]

Yes, just to be clear, also part of the Light Being message is that our role is every bit as integral to their growth, as their role is integral to ours, in this inter-being Dreamscape ... just as with the inter-being of the 'lowly' fungi and the 'lofty' redwood, one not being more crucial than the other.

Do you find it interesting that the 'lowly' fungi do not need the 'lofty' redwood but the reverse is not true? It seems to give more metaphorical meaning to the phrase, "the meek shall inherit the earth." What do you think?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Do you find it interesting that the 'lowly' fungi do not need the 'lofty' redwood but the reverse is not true? It seems to give more metaphorical meaning to the phrase, "the meek shall inherit the earth." What do you think?

How so? What is it that comprises the medium in which the fungal network thrives, if not the rot of fallen leafage and tree trunks? And how crucial is the shade from above?

[Lou Gold]

Do you find it interesting that the 'lowly' fungi do not need the 'lofty' redwood but the reverse is not true? It seems to give more metaphorical meaning to the phrase, "the meek shall inherit the earth." What do you think?

How so? What is it that comprises the medium in which the fungal network thrives, if not the rot of fallen leafage and tree trunks? And how crucial is the shade from above?

Actually, fungi do require decaying organic matter but not 'lofty' redwoods. Some pretty interesting psychedelic shrooms pop forth from cow patties in open pasture.

Here's an intriguing speculation: The light beings need the 'lowly' embodied ones to maintain the garden where light is converted into life because this (the garden - not necessarily the earth) is the unique locus where this is possible. And thus we arrive at the sacred 'gardening' purpose of embodied being.