Master Jesus is MJ.
I'm TM.
TM: Is it an addiction?
MJ: Of course it is. You cling to the old story out of comfort in the fact that it is known, while the new story isn't known. Humanity has struggled with this dilemma for eons. Always there are those who support change and those in the majority who resist it. This is built into the evolution of the species. If change was too rapid, the status quo might never reach its peak of efficacy. Remember the status quo was selected as the story to abide by at some point. When it begins to wear down in efficacy a new way is discovered. Those comfortable with the old way resist the new way while the others champion the cause of the new way. The tension is created and at some point things change. The addiction is the rationalization that something is good for you when it has passed the point of being so.
TM: So loneliness is an addiction?
MJ: Loneliness is an experience of what love isn't, which leads to a bridge experience of hope that leads to the promise of love. Back and forth it goes. It is the story that is addictive; the experience of loneliness is part of the story.
TM: Easier said than done to change it. How do we just let the old story go?
MJ: That's not easy. But consider that it starts with awareness that the new story may be true. Then gradually you begin to notice evidence of the truth. Over time as you welcome the truth the old story wears down until it no longer holds you in its grasp. The ones who understood the truth and who agitated for change usually go through this process too. The timing is different for everyone.
TM: It seems overwhelming at times, the idea that we have so much to understand in order to alter our present course. Sometimes the will to keep things the same over powers the forces of change. But you're saying it has always been that way?
MJ: Yes, and every generation thinks it's worse for them; that the stakes are higher. By the way, the forces of change challenge the bedrock of status quo. The energy of the status quo is not so fluid, having crystallized over time. I say that metaphorically to underscore how thought forms behave.
TM: May I change the subject given the subject of change?
MJ: See how easy it is?
TM: What are the greatest expressions of love that you observe in our culture of modern times?
MJ: There are expressions of love through individuals and through institutions and they are in abundance throughout the world every second. Believe it or not it is the predominate emotion.
TM: Really? It doesn't seem that way. I thought you said in our last conversation that the other energies were stronger right now and that you guys are trying to strengthen love to make it dominant.
MJ: We are strengthening the manifestations of love, so that when the force that comes in behind it comes, love will be expressed so fully that everyone will experience it. It's not what you observe so much because of the filters of observation. To many, expressions of love are signs of weakness, or at the very least non-productive. I observe the intimate moments between a parent and child, which is possibly the most intense expression of love. There is romantic love that for some is the only expression of love that they have ever known. There is the expression of love between friends; that love being rooted in loyalty and forgiveness and most closely imbibed with no conditions.
When I witness communities coming together to help one of its members through a crisis; that is an expression of love. An act of creation inspired by love can be a beautiful song, a painting, a home crafted with the hands of its inhabitants or a building 50 stories high that embraces the dreams of its residents. I find expressions of love in the works of many. You call it survival, but I say that it's love. Providing for one's survival is love. It has been distorted and made into a material quest for more, but it is nevertheless the ultimate expression of love for one's self. It doesn't matter if it is used to gratify the ego or punish one's neighbor or competitor. It is an act of love to survive.
TM: Hang on just a second. You're saying that love can be used to gratify egos and punish people and that's okay?
MJ: I'm saying that survival is an act of love, perhaps the ultimate act. The act itself is not diminished by misinterpretation.
TM: So, if someone's intent is to survive, that's love.
And if they happen to kill a few people along the way, that's okay?
MJ: Hmmm….that's a bit extreme isn't it? We're talking about love and you're mixing in attributes of what love isn't. I appreciate the confusion that exists around absolute rules and definitions. That is what humanity wants you know, precise definitions and guidelines. I'm sorry to disappoint you in that regard, but it doesn't work that way. Every time you create a black and white answer to a complex system you inevitably end up with contradictions in practice.
Let's take these one at a time. Survival is an act of self-love. Providing for one's loved ones for their survival is an act of love. The next part of your question then moves to the means of survival; how one goes about securing the provisions for survival. The means to an end debate has gone on for some time, but hasn't really been decided has it?
TM: It has for me, although it is a major struggle at times depending on how refined you make it. I wouldn't kill someone in order to get food or water.
MJ: Let's say a group of people in your community formed a militia and commandeered the food and water supplies. They are determined that only certain people are entitled to these supplies and the rest shall perish through starvation. In a sense, they are killing you and others like you. Assume you have no other outside resources. Is it self-defense for you to harm them in your quest for survival?
TM: I don't know what I would do. To do nothing means I would die and if killing them was the only means to survive myself, then that doesn't seem right either. What's the right thing to do in that case?
MJ: There isn't a right thing to do in this case. There is only what you would do and what they would do. We're assuming this scenario from your perspective of survival. But what if we peered into their perspective and discovered that their actions are necessary to the survival of the community because they have discovered that there is a lethal, communicable disease running rampant throughout the community and they are able to isolate the infected ones from the healthy members. The food and water provisions are likely to be disrupted because of this calamity and so a quarantine of the sick ones and rationing of the scarce provisions is the only way for the healthy members of the community to survive and rebuild the community. Should all the members of the community perish because they haven't the will to allow the ones with a lethal disease to die without wasting their means of survival?
TM: These are the scenarios we pray we never have to face; the stories of stranded expeditions where people resort to cannibalizing to survive. It hurts to even imagine what I would do.
MJ: We have examined an extreme case that most people never have to face. But by degrees from this, people do experience it in some form or another. That is why it is so difficult, for example, for a wealthy person who is many degrees from starvation to understand the plight of those who are inches from starvation. People don't know to whom they should attribute their good fortune to survive comfortably. Some thank themselves, some thank God and some thank others. Others don't know whom to curse for their misfortune.
TM: As of this writing, the aftermath of the tsunami that struck countries in the Indian Ocean bears witness to much suffering and at the same time much compassion by wealthier countries. What can you say to this situation?
MJ: You're right the suffering is immense and the outpouring of aid once it was realized the amount of devastation has also been immense. This is an example of what I'm talking about. The next step is to recognize the chronic suffering by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world every day. In some cases emergency aid is warranted, but for the most part it is the long-term commitment of resource sharing that is needed. The tension exists between the aggressive tendencies of humanity against the tender heart of humanity. This can be measured by the level of fear in the minds of those in control of the resources. The greater their fear, the more they rely on aggressive tendencies (even though they're couched as defensive). As fear is diminished, so they are open to loving response.
It's rare to find an individual with the capacity to share what they have with others. Sometimes their sharing is limited by their fear that maybe they won't have enough for themselves when the time arrives. Sometimes it's because they don't know where to begin. Sometimes they follow the institutional giving route that makes it easier to identify to whom to give and how much. Groups behave in a similar manner. To the government sharing add the component of strategic politics. Sharing starts with increasing individual capacity for sharing by reducing fear. For this reason individual awareness is a major focus of spiritual work.
Copyright © 2004-2005 TM
In regard to the community survival scenario.
Would it not be a greater expression of love to love your neighbors as yourself, and give up your supply that they may live? Now if everyone held that attitude we might find we had more supply than we thought. Granted, there is usually a spoiler, but someones got to set an example. I may someday have to eat my words on this comment, but if so, so be it. After all, this is passing illusion, love is eternal.
Thank you Master Jesus.
Posted by: Ted Roach | December 29, 2005 at 01:50 PM