Spirituality and Governance

Master Jesus addresses the delicate balance between secular life as regulated by governments and unfettered religious freedoms.
What he says about the role of the ascended masters in the affairs of Earth,

"We coordinate very much in the same way you on the physical plane would coordinate such an effort, but without the politics of egos and fear.  We meet on a regular basis to discuss our respective plans and we identify areas that we can focus on together to bring about specific results that accomplish our respective goals. Please remember that we follow a plan that has been created by beings who are the creators of this world.  So, in that sense we are working within a general framework that has anticipated many of the variables that exist today and has also provided many of the solutions for us to follow.  There is a range of experimentation though and that is how we learn."

He also touches on the nature of the human ego from an individual and group perspective.

TM: Neither of you have ever taken much interest in politics and government in our conversations.  And yet both of those activities have such a major impact on humanity that I wonder why you have stayed away from those areas.

MJ: There are Masters who work directly with those institutions and we coordinate with them of course.  Religion and spirituality must be transcendent, from the perspective of teaching, while incorporated as a matter of practical application.  Humans must be free to explore their personal spiritual nature without encumbrance.  If the process of spiritual self-discovery is intertwined with politics and government there is no way to allow complete freedom to the individual and control the many variables of a society.

Governments must be able to curb freedoms of its members to the extent that it is necessary to preserve peace and remove violence from their daily lives.  But spiritual freedom is absolutely necessary to the individual if he is to reach his pinnacle of potential.  He will in turn contribute mightily to society through his daily activities, like work and governance.  It's a mistake to think that spiritual understanding is a code for social governance at the group level, especially as diverse as are the populations of Earth.

TM: Yes, but governments are made up of spiritual and non-spiritual people who have to draw upon some code that is embodied in the laws of the land.  Are you saying that the spiritual people shouldn't suggest using spiritual understandings to guide the creating, enforcing and regulation of laws?

MJ: I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between an individual understanding spiritual realities and a society choosing a code of conduct for its members.  One is based upon complete freedom to explore and delve deeply into personal matters, while the other is dedicated to finding the most superficial level of engagement across a diverse array of personalities that must live together in peace and harmony.  Without peace and harmony there is no point to governance because there is no point to living in a community.  Humans congregate because it serves them to do so.  Governance preserves the value of the community from a social perspective, not a spiritual one.  By its nature, governance will have spiritual overtones if it consists of spiritual individuals.  But it shouldn't consciously strive to integrate spiritual codes into legal codes.

TM: I'm not sure I'm grasping this concept.  Let me state it and you tell me.  So if the members of a society tend to be spiritual themselves, even though they may not consciously try to mirror their internal spiritual nature in devising laws, it inevitably will mirror their spiritual nature.  Is that what you mean?

MJ: That's close.  But let me put it another way that may help you to understand.  If I am a member of a society, I am also an individual.  I accept that my social freedoms intersect with other members of my society and I accept that I may not express all of who I am all the time in the context of society.  There is a governor so to speak on my actions in order to preserve the peace of my society just as others are doing the same.  We agree to blunt our expressions to the degree that it is in the best interest for us to do so.

I am an individual who is permitted complete freedom to explore my spiritual nature and so are the other members.  I can choose my beliefs and can worship whatever or whomever I choose in whatever way I choose.  Now the big qualifier is that I can do this so long as it doesn't involve me violating anyone else's right to enjoy the same freedom.  This means that my personal spiritual experience serves me individually and others who consent of their free will.  But it shall not be imposed upon others.

The US and Canada have the closest approximation of this arrangement, as do some European nations and other democracies throughout the world.  It requires a general sense of overall freedom in order to allow freedom for religious or spiritual pursuit. Governments that are authoritarian will not permit those freedoms because there will be an imbalance between the secular and the spiritual and eventually human nature will push for freedoms in the secular.  Dictators know this and thus control religious freedom to a level equal to or slightly less than the secular freedoms.

The measure of a government's willingness to permit spiritual freedom for its members can be seen in how it treats secular freedoms. Presumably in the freer societies, members openly participate in the adoption of codes of governance.  More and more in your country have the leaders and powerful influences begun to strip away secular freedoms under the guise of security for all.  You can see how this is working out and they understand that they must maintain the balance with religious freedom, i.e. religious freedom cannot expand beyond the secular boundaries.  It will be a matter of time before small efforts will be made to curb religious freedoms.  Without an adjustment in this way, they risk losing the ground they have gained in reducing the secular freedoms.

TM: I can see why you stay out of politics.  So, I do understand the balance required.  But it seems like a difficult thing to measure when changes are subtle.

MJ: It's a difficult thing to measure under any circumstances because of the complexities of modern society.  But you do have a baseline of freedom from which any deviation can be marked.  Just as there is a political outcry against reduction of personal freedoms, so too will there be a rejection of loss of religious freedom when that moment arrives.  It is less subtle to those affected and they will signal the deviation from the baseline.  Just listen.

TM: Will you speculate on a motive for reduction of freedom by those in power?

MJ: I think that it is a mix of motivations, some are consciously aware of what they are doing and others' motivations are so ancient that they are operating on automatic reactions of fear and greed.  In modern societies, at least the past 2500 years, there has been recognition of this balance required between the secular and the religious, even when the religious right and might is used to govern the secular, and even when the secular powers have tried to extinguish or marginalize religious power.  Politicians and rulers have learned that there must be balance even when it is slightly skewed to one side or the other.  That may sound like a contradiction, but balance doesn't always mean equal portions or weights; it isn't needed to govern if your intent is to control others for your purposes.  There is point at which one can push his agenda to achieve his goals while permitting just enough freedom to keep the whole system from falling over.  The above statements, notwithstanding, the thing that cannot happen is that religious freedom cannot be greater than the secular freedom without the system toppling.

TM: Why not?

MJ: There are two reasons.  The first is that religious leaders can be prone to the same corruption spurred by power and vanity as secular leaders.  If they are too much in a position of power because of an imbalance in freedoms it is more likely they will grab for the secular domain to pull under their power, which will force a reduction in the religious freedoms that helped them gain their power in the first place.

The second reason is that individuals are who free to pursue their spiritual life and spiritual understanding will eventually recognize the injustice in a system that too strictly rules their secular life and they will rise up against it.

So you can have a system whereby the secular freedom is equal to or slightly greater than the religious freedom and there can be balance. But the opposite is not true.  There must be a relative balance up or down the scale in the ratio of permissiveness to restriction.

TM: Well, wouldn't the result then be a balance, i.e. secular freedoms would rise slightly and religious freedoms might stay the same, but drop relatively?

MJ: Yes, that is the point of my statement.  A system whereby the religious freedoms are greater than secular freedoms cannot be sustained.  There will inevitably be an adjustment.

TM: So, how do you coordinate then with the Masters who work in the area of government?

MJ: We coordinate very much in the same way you on the physical plane would coordinate such an effort, but without the politics of egos and fear.  We meet on a regular basis to discuss our respective plans and we identify areas that we can focus on together to bring about specific results that accomplish our respective goals. Please remember that we follow a plan that has been created by beings who are the creators of this world.  So, in that sense we are working within a general framework that has anticipated many of the variables that exist today and has also provided many of the solutions for us to follow.  There is a range of experimentation though and that is how we learn.

TM: I followed that, but want to know what you mean by "beings who are the creators of this world."  That sounds like we're back to the aliens' discussion when you phrase it that way.

MJ: I won't repeat ground that has been covered in that conversation.  But let me say that it takes awhile for you to accept the concept that there are other beings in the universe and that they just might have something to do with this planet and all its inhabitants.  When I use the term beings I am of course referring to beings of a spiritual existence who have created all the worlds in this universe.  You cannot yet accept that this is true, yet you can't offer an alternate explanation for how all this came to be.  This assumes an acceptance that there is more than just the physical existence of what one can identify through the five known human senses.  There is a great body of human scientific work to explain the purely physical part, and there is only religious work to explain what is behind it all.  And that work is antiquated for the times and is now being updated through release of new information.

TM: You're right, repetition is needed to help me get to some of the larger ideas.  But I think I represent a lot of folks who have heard the same story for so long that it is difficult to let go of it even if we want to.  Most of us struggle with balancing our checkbooks and finding quality time with our kids and friends, or just quiet time to contemplate these matters.  I know you and the other Masters have compassion for us, but every once in awhile I feel I have to defend the difficulties of human life.

MJ: All of the Masters who are in a position to lead humanity at this time have all served at one time or another in human form and well know the rigors of daily living.  We also know the stubbornness of the human ego and how it clings to beliefs and attachments to desires of the flesh for comfort and a sense of security.  We are reminded of our time in human form and what a struggle it was to go to sleep with the worries of the day upon one's mind and how difficult it was to wake up and start the day when those worries had not receded through the night.

But don't mistake our compassion as an excuse for the inherent laziness of the ego.  We appeal to the soul of humanity to rise above the petty grievances of the ego and recognize your true selves.  It is your ego that frets over the checkbook and whether or not your hair is clean enough, thick enough or pretty enough.  It is your ego that wastes time and energy fretting over the million and one things that have to do with your self-image and how others see you that make you attractive to one another.  There are deeper issues that will satisfy the soul's longing for connection with each other, but you must drop your infatuation with the appetite of the ego and embrace what is important to your spirit.  That is the role of the Masters, to bring you to that realization.

TM: Is it laziness of the ego or just ignorance?  I know that when my ego runs on mind energy it tirelessly pursues its agenda; there's nothing lazy about it.

MJ: Yes, perhaps you are correct on this point under certain circumstances like worry or anxiety.  But then there are the states of contentment for creature comforts that bring a wave of self-satisfaction to the ego and create an attachment to its comfort zone.  This is more to my point of laziness.

TM: Would you say that the ego is the biggest problem in getting to the realization you're referring to?

MJ: The ego was born with the endowment of mind and elevated mental capabilities of humans.  It has grown in proportion to those capabilities.  Therefore, you see magnificent sized egos who also possess great powers of creation.  Likewise you see powerful creators with virtually little egos.  The ego is the primary impediment to realization of the true self, but it is not a permanent barrier.  Nor is it in most cases absolute.  That makes our work possible to succeed.  For you as an individual to determine your success, it is a matter of allocation of personal energy, i.e. how much goes to ego manufacturing and maintenance and how much goes to integration of the self and higher creativity?

The ego is a creation of the personal self, meaning the corporeal-self.  It is, in and of itself an amazing creation, except that it also insane and that negates the ingenuity of its creation. What human has not confused the ego for the true self?  That is its power.  It supplants the identity of the self and runs the show so to speak.  The problem of course is that, since it isn't real it requires enormous energy to create the illusion that it is real.  It enlists the emotional nature because this allows it to manipulate the desire aspect, which it needs to preserve its own control.  The physical body, to the extent it is capable is the servant to the ego and emotional desires.  Thus one can see the corporeal-self and its identity as the ego.

TM: Okay, that's a lot to absorb.  One piece at a time.  If the ego has been created by the corporeal-self, then it exists and is real, right?

MJ: We have covered reality versus illusion, but can do it again if you wish.

TM: Maybe the lite-version to help with this.

MJ: If I write a novel and create a character, is that character real or imagined (an illusion)?  Would you expect to encounter that character on the street in front of your house?

TM: I could argue that the character is real within the context it was created.  But for me walking down the street, no it is not real.

MJ: Your ego and everyone's personal ego are the characters created by you and everyone else.  Your ego seems real to you as you live within the context that you have created for the ego and it will furnish you with other characters that it will script into your story for the purpose of maintaining the profile it wishes to maintain.  In this vein, everyone is living within the context of a script written by her ego, who starts out as the character but transforms into the author.  It is the filter through which you and everyone else lives. This is a personal reality in the way the novel is a personal reality of its creator the author.  But from an objective observer outside that personal reality it is seen for the fiction that it is.

To summarize, the ego is your personal illusion, which all humans share and collectively create an entire field of illusion.  Your true self lies hid behind the curtain of this performance waiting for reality to take the stage.  The soul must make the recognition that the ego is not the real, true self and begin to dissemble the illusionary world created by the ego.  The ego of course believes that it is the real self and has already built in defense mechanisms for this attack on its existence.  This is a great period of time of tension between the soul and the ego as the soul struggles to let go of the ego and the ego struggles to maintain its place of reality.  The spirit is ever planting clues for the soul to recognize the truth in order to keep its appointment with reality and throw off the ego as imposter.  Maybe this goes for thousands of lifetimes until finally the soul breaks free of the illusion and embraces the spirit, which begins the phase of integration.

TM: So, we're all insane and live in an illusion because you and other spirits are our objective observes and tell us so.  And your work is to teach us how to escape our illusion and arrive at the reality that you show is reality.  How do I know that's not just another illusion and one a damn sight worse than the one I'm in?

MJ: As a teacher I don't define reality for you, but I help you reach your true self who will inform you about reality.  I can witness for you the truth, which I present and you can decide.  And yes, at some level there is a truth, beyond which, we are incapable of knowing reality.  That of course means that we are by some measure, in an illusion, but that point is so far beyond where we are today that it isn't worth much to ponder.

TM: Damn, this system requires a lot of trust doesn't it?

MJ: Yes, that or fearlessness.

Copyright © 2004-2005 TM

Comments

[Eva C.]

Comment and question: Years ago I was in an MVA (motor vehicle accident) and came up and out of body while in the ER. I saw my human body, but did not recognize it as being "mine." Only later when I was back in my human body, looking up at the ceiling/wall, did I realize that that had been "me" (my soul / energy / source / whatever term you wish to use) looking down on my human body. Why did my soul not recognize my human body, but my human body recognized where my soul had been? Is it because my human body is an illusion and the soul didn't recognize my human body as being real?
Thank you so very much for sharing your conversations and insights contained in this Web site. Quite thought provoking. --Eva

T. Michael responds,
An intriguing question arises as to which consciousness are "you" in a state of being separated and one of being united? From your description you experienced two distinct awarenesses. One interpretation may be that your spirit was your point of reference (consciousness) when separated from your body and remained so as it reunited, but also included the conscious awareness of being in the body and of the body at that moment. We all experience that duality, don't we? And then at times we experience the unity.
You pose a wonderful question that I'll present in a future conversation, which is, what is our relationship between human form and our spirit?