--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, it is a good point, and a constant reminder, lest I begin to > take my movie subtitles as gospel. :-)
*lol* Good one! >And the issue at hand isn't > whether someone is "behind" us or "ahead" of us. It is what we do > with the information. Peck's model just seems to fit so elegantly, > and the dynamics of [albeit illusory] spiritual growth can be seen > as fitting perfectly into such a model. > > So, on the one hand Peck's model may explain a situation to the > point where we can realize an A-HA experience from the clarity that > the model imposes on such dynamics. Yet to take it a step further > and condemn another for where they might be seen realistically in > Peck's model irreperably destroys the model, because its pinnacle is > the inclusive nature of unconditional love, not the exclusivity of > the prior states. Bingo! And condemning another is only (re)consigning portions of ourself to exile, to "Hell," for the time being. (Not that there's anything Wrong with that. :-) ) There may be other pinnacles beyond stage 4, including what may look like pre-stage-4 exclusivity to us. All we can really know is where we are, and where we've been -- not where another truly is, except as a perfect mirror and opportunity to love yet more aspects or particles of ourself, of the "past" we've left behind and which seeks to reintegrate with us, to grow into us, into our Love-Being. > So recognizing things for what they are, and always being cognizant > of our surrender to His and Her Creation is the important lesson. > That's what I got when you said the other person may be several > turns ahead of us. I don't believe that they are with regard to > Peck's model if they in fact are not. Perhaps. I find I don't fully trust *any* perception of the "other" unless it is crystalline-perfect, simply and utterly divine, nothing other than myself, and the heart then says "Yes! This is the Truth! I can rest here." But either way, if they are showing us (or we are showing ourself) something other than this, we/they are offering us an opportunity to heal, to grow, to expand, and so they represent our "future" as well as our "past" :-) >On the other hand if I use > such a situation for condemnation, I am no longer adhering to the > ultimate truth of Peck's model. Yes! > Its a difficult and precise pathway to take, to at once see things > for what they are, the point value, and the valid interrelatedness > of the points, and at the same time recognizing that the > relationships as they appear are sacred because they are within > Brahman. Sweet! > A similar analogy could be used for the much abused Caste system of > India, the purpose of which is to allow for quickest growth within > one's dharma. How is this then abused? By becoming a system of one > group lording their status over another. Instead of recognizing > different levels as being a natural part of life, there is our > temptation to instead use them as a means of subjugating and > negatively categorizing another. Yes. Is Violet really "superior" to Red? > The way out lies not in deciding to ignore such natural distinctions > as are made in Peck's model or the caste system, and pretend that > such a model is stood on its head, or doesn't really exist, but > rather to work to accept such a model, and not abuse the Divine > information we gain from understanding and seeing clearly such > distinctions. And remembering it's only one way to understand the self, and our various particles, and beyond this is the real treasure, the "unknowable" but fully-appreciatable :-) *L*L*L*
