CAVEAT: Warning! These letters have not been edited by Carla. Expect errors.
Thank you for your greetings and the same to you and M. And to people like RH who I remember with fondness from what is now ISUS. conferences in the past. I am very sorry actually that I can no longer be in a situation to really help with the editing job, although she can do a good job by herself, but I really don’t think I am reputable enough and Don was right. That someone who is examining such a fringe area as the reception of information from an unknown source and who is channeling is really not the kind of person that you want in a respectable and increasingly successful scientific organization.
It is too bad that neither Jim nor I have any scientific background worth mentioning. Believe me, when I took my graduate record exam, I scored in the 93 percentile, but it was a miracle that I did that, and strictly because of my logic circuitry. I had a math education, if you want to call it that, that ended with algebra and plain geometry. I didn’t even get to solid geometry, much less science, co-science, tangents and physics so I am afraid that, although I apparently have extremely good instincts for scientific effort and was the kind of student who read the whole chemistry book with great fascination as if it were a novel in high school and dissected three frogs because I wanted to get one with eggs, I never became a scientist.
It is just that when you have more than one gift, it is difficult to pick out which one you are going to develop, and I was in a family whose values were strongly metaphysical, and artistic or aesthetic. It is too bad that my father, who was a competent engineer, was not more talkative on the elegance of science, but I think in the end I would have found it to be very unsatisfactory because science is full of dead ends, except, of course, for theoretical physics. I think as a theoretical physicist I might have been happy.
Other than that, the places where I am happiest are in communicating with people about ideas of lasting importance and that is why I was so happy to be able to try to help you with your book. Let’s work on some of these ideas because I don’t want you to give up on the book and I think that there is still some talking to do here.
When I talk about absolute equality, I am talking about the absolute equality of spirit. I do not see equality as anything but a come and go, always in a perfectly conceived version of equality within the framework of human justice and liberty for all. I believe that this world being an illusion is an illusion of a certain type in which one of the aspects, which is the strongest, is the aspect of unfairness. In other words, I do not buy into the, shall we say, New Age guilt of believing that each and every misery and catastrophe that happens to us in this life is the result of missteps in other lives. That would suggest that the nature of the noumenal, or divinity, or Godhead, or the greater self, or the unity, which we know is at the heart of the reciprocal system, is judgmental and expects this, this and this from us, which is, as you say, quite impossible. In physical terms, we are not equal. We are finite and unequal in all respects in which we are finite.
In the sense of trying to think of the person as a crystallized, metaphysical being, a being of light, a spirit, it is certainly easy to think of the womb of the woman as the beginning and end, or the alpha and the omega, or the infinite in symbol or metaphor. I feel perhaps that was your point-of-view from which you were standing when you began with woman instead of man. However, my reaction to that was not based on the equality between men and women in any physical or finite sense. In any physical or finite sense, we are unequal and beautifully so, precisely made to be so. We have different skills and we complement each other, or we can if we work together and pull together and do good work together.
But the idea of the womb, the person who comes forth from the safety of eternity into this difficult illusion in which there are ordeals to face, is an idea which is mythological and divine, and belongs both to the hero and the heroine, both to the God and the Goddess equally. It is in that sense that men and women are exactly equal for metaphysically speaking, this is a universe that is completely democratic. It is our ability as crystallized and illuminated beings, illuminated by some thought for which we would die and for which we live that gives us power. We all have the same chances. We all have the same choices. And each time we choose to polarize towards service-to-others, each time we recognize the unity between ourselves and others, we become a little bit stronger, a little bit more metaphysical, a little bit more aware of the true nature of ourselves, and eventually the inner universe of infinity, which we have access to through meditation, and prayer and contemplation. In some cases, the careful use of logic circuitry becomes more important to us than the outside finite, observable world, which we, as Ra said, love to examine with measure and intent.
“I hold that,” you said, “if a man is a whole divine world in himself, then a woman is a whole divine world in herself.” In this regard, I do not hold with St. Paul, who derives man’s divinity from the Creator while deriving women’s divinity from man; who says that only men should talk in Church and that women should not.
St. Paul was really forward looking for his time. In his time, Jewish women, and he was a Jew, were not allowed in the church at all. They had to stay outside of the church and kind of hang around and listen through the partition between the women’s part and the men’s part. They were not only not to talk in church, they were not to be in church except behind their partition, separate from the men. They were to cover their heads so that men would not be turned on by looking at their beautiful hair. However, St. Paul did bring women into the church, you see, and let them sit with the men.
He allowed them the Martha, if not the Mary, role in that he allowed them to support the men. His idea about women being for men is actually very helpful and accurate on a physical level because when you have a team pulling together, and one of them wants to go left and one of them wants to go right, you have got a team of horses that is basically stuck and won’t go anywhere.
There are a lot of visible, physical signals that indicate that men are intended biologically to have a leading role in the two-some. They are larger. They have been given something called testosterone, the hormone which makes them go out and hit people and have wars, but also which makes them have ambition, and drive and makes it possible for them to have the nerve to go out and do something, which they do not entirely like or, perhaps, which they do not like at all in order to provide for wife and children.
This is a very old animal behavior. Men went out and hunted; women stayed home and scratched in the dirt and planted a little something, and took care of babies. That was just the biological division.
What St. Paul did was to see this basic old animalistic division in a spiritual light and compared women to the church and men to Christ; and said that women should love their husbands as if their husbands were Christ. This is no different than saying that men should love God and his neighbor as himself. It is simply a specialized version of saying that and it is a way of showing how the calm, censored, nurturing part of the self, which is woman, the larger self, is awaiting the reaching by the active and aggressive man who reaches and is accepted by the woman.
The men, on the other hand, are given much the harder of the two tasks. The woman merely has to love and nurture the husband as if he were Christ. The man has to love and nurture the woman as if he was Christ and the woman was the church. Jesus died on the cross, gave Himself up, gave over His life, in sacrificial devotion to a kingdom, which he hoped His disciples would tell the whole world about.
Neither men nor women are given easy jobs and I don’t believe Paul meant to put down or to degrade women by describing the nature of their biological jobs. We are still acting sometimes as though women are the property of their fathers, brothers, or husbands, chattels or commodities. I believe that the answer is yes to that in some cases. In other cases, you will find actually that women’s lib has made such strides that there are men who are actually seen to be the scapegoats of the system, and men’s lib is needed just as desperately as women’s lib, in my opinion, because we all need to be aware that we fit together perfectly. That we are all perfect, each on our own in this spiritual democracy of spirit.
All of this bit about the body simply has to do with the way we live in this world in harmony and in cooperation. If women and men are going to be trying to prove their worth to each other all of the time, it simply is not acceptable as a way to live peacefully with each other. There needs to be the tolerance, and the simple truth of it is that men and women are two different species. They are not only different biologically—that is, if you take a slice of brain tissue in a woman, you see a different structure. You see that in the brain, a woman has, for instance, a much larger bridge between the left and right brain; a much greater access into the subconscious or intuitive portions of the mind. The woman, in other words, is actually a seat of archetypal knowledge, and it is the female self in men that they seek in meditation. It is the femaleness of the female, as she goes into meditation, which makes it so much more possible for her to pick up the listening to the intuition, the channeling, the intuitive thinking of all kinds: creative thinking, so much creative stuff is done by women, and men and women together are wonderful partners in seeking because of the balances between them.
Each man has some female energy. Each woman has some male energy, and it is good to get a man and a woman together whose male/female energies are pretty well balance so that they bounce off of each other really well and pull together really well. Because I think the basic nature of a man and a woman’s journey through life is that of the ordeal, in which the two become hollowed out of the self, to a certain extent, that they may function as one metaphysical being seeking together. As we seek together, we have more power to find.
You say, “If it is not true that every man has its price, and then I hold it as equally false that every woman has her price.” It is true that every man has his price. His price may be death, but a man just has so much to pay. And a woman just has so much to pay. So we all do have our price, our finity. We can pay our life for something.
In terms of money, it is true that there are both men and women who are untouchable by money. “The earth’s particular commodity of evaluation is quite unsuitable for evaluating the ultimate human value or worth of a woman or a man” Quite true.
“Human ignorance has precluded acknowledgement of the fact that a finite ticket is unfit to express an adequate measure of the worth of a man or a woman. A single human individual is equal in worth to the whole of humankind since the man or the woman is each equal in worth to the same haul.” Quite true.
You see, you and I have the same opinion. However, I do not link this opinion of the utter democracy of spirits in any way to the physical shape or form. To bring this truth to the world is probably improbable to impossible because the world, as a whole, has not yet discovered unity and is enjoying the various disharmonies and disharmonious aspects of a world in which each person appears to be an individual.
When we wrote “The Crucifixion of Esmeralda Sweetwater,” we were trying to work on the concepts of the positive path and the negative path. The complete equality or divinity of men and women in that book was simply assumed and the fact that men and women tended to work together was a large part of the way Don and I saw the invisible making an impact on the visible. So what I am saying is, when we are dealing with infinite truths, it is necessary to find a vehicle for moving this infinite truth into a finite structure, that is, a story, a plot and characters. An interesting story begins with some kind of threat usually. The threat develops, the threat is met. That is the story basically.
It is just a sad truth of fiction in general and that is why I suggested that perhaps straight philosophy was your ticket because you write philosophy extremely clearly and extremely well.
I must admit that my weak point is plot. Don always did the plot and I always did the characters. If you can think up a story in which things happen to the characters in the story, I can flush out the characters for you and make them come alive. If I don’t know what the story is, but only what the point is to be made, I will be stuck in non-fiction just as you were basically. And we might as well not disturb the genres of literature over this. If you have the skill and the wisdom to be an essayist, then I say by all means be an essayist and develop a system of philosophy, which has as many correspondences as possible with implications of a reciprocal system. I feel sure that there are many logical implications between the reciprocal system and all that it implies, and the human situation of man/woman and woman/man and all that that implies.
To men, I think, perhaps women are the river of time and men are the space. To women, they dwell more in time than in space. That is why they never know where they are. Men are the river of space and women are the great field of time. The implications go on and on simply, insofar as I know, as the reciprocal system, I see the implications as being profound.
As to your statement, “From that equal creation, they derive rights inherent and inalienable. I write the novel to bring home this truth to humankind. Our rights are not rights that must be earned by action as much as they are birth rights, which we must remember through consistent meditation.” I will have to finish this after exercise class.
With electromagnetic things, I find that I break them. I don’t mean to, obviously, but they don’t last long. A month has passed since I began this letter, a month in which I have been doing all too little in terms of not feeling at all energetic or well. I am recovering from a couple of different problems. The gall bladder is out, but the tummy problems still are there, so hopefully that is just a sensitive tummy taking a long time to quit saying, “Ouch.” I am working on exercising now to get back the body strength that allows me to sit up. It is still at the point of a question as to whether I will be able to pull that off or not. There are still some problems.
If I can’t sit up, I can’t sit up and I shall simply realize that my apparent age is not my functional age, and it hasn’t been for so long that I don’t think I will have as much trouble with it as I have been having because when I started out after the operation, I really couldn’t think. It just hurt too much and at this point, I am not on pain medication and, yes, there is a pain level, but I have dealt with a pain level every conscious moment for many years, and as long as it is so severe that I simply can’t function, then I can work for a certain amount of time and I’m just really sorry to say that with working for church, and singing and I have a prayer group at church with responsibilities that I am honored to have, these I want to put first in my life.
Then, of course, all of the work that I do with the channeling and teaching others to channel and we have been very fortunate this summer in having both the work shop and actually teaching channeling here at our home and also we get the help at the expense of spiritual (I can’t remember what the heck the name is.) It is some kind of spiritual guidance. I was familiar with it from Don’s research. The man had read about half way through my channeling handbook and just called me up and said, “I want you to give an intensive before the week of classes that we are going to be giving.” We went up and did that so those things are important. Those are the things that I guess I have the strength to give.
I just got finished doing something else for church, which was one of those things that you really do out of desire to polarize towards service-to-others because it was one of those jobs that nobody ever wants. It was one of those boring two-day meetings that somebody has to report back to the congregation on it. So I said I’d go because I can sit as long as I have my own little set-up, which I just took with me. It is just a lawn chair, but it works really well.
Excuse my hoarseness, but I just finished a rock society concert and unfortunately, not only are the allergies bad, but also I have really lost control of myself at 5:30 in the morning when my cat woke me and I yelled at him. I have a tender throat and I balanced my anger at that with my own yelling. I am going to have to go back over what I think I talked to you about in order to get a head start in the direction of what I would like to.
Well F, there may not be too much wrong with my brain. I just dumped all my water on the floor. I was attempting to fix my microphone.
I wanted to talk to you about your circular system and some of its implications and in order to get there, I think I chewed through some fairly dense material about quality vs. no quality, real vs. illusion and equal true quality to metaphysics, or one’s spiritual being or one’s infinite being. Equality, as we know it, to be a bastardized version of that which we call justice in which we, who do have ideals in the U.S. and beautiful ones, attempt to pursue true equality.
It is imperfect. We can see that it is imperfect. We can see that people are not truly given equal rights or status of equality in this society. Not one person ever is equal to another. And men and women certainly are not treated equally either by each other or by the justice system. It is because I believe that this entire manifestation is an illusion, which the theoretical system Larson worked out, to which the superficial system is the theoretical way in which the manifestation occurs.
The raising of women to true equality is not the work, I do not believe, of allowing a woman simply to become aware of her sexual polarity and the biologically mandated aspects of her role in life and death. There isn’t any question that biologically speaking, the woman is by far the more powerful. Also the more responsible. This is typical. However, my idea of women and men in their seeking for their true selves, which, indeed, is a state of true equality, has to do with releasing the male/female balance and allowing our roles within the illusion to move as smoothly and efficiently as possible.
I see the Biblical theory of woman has been created for man, man was created directly by God, which, of course, is only one of two statements in Genesis. The other one reads that “He made man and woman in His own image,” neither here nor there anyway. That idea may seem very repressive. It is very survival-oriented and it holds certain values which, I think, are a great help to children.
It is also, I think, a lot of how people if they will think of it in a spiritual way see that spiritual goals are more important than material goals, or emotional goals, or mental goals, or any other kind of goals so that what you are looking for in a mate is a good-yoke fellow. A good puller—someone who will pull with you and not against you. Someone who will be as strong as you spiritually. Someone who desires the same kind of spiritual process to take place. That process, I believe, is extremely painful and when one can find two people who pursue that path together, it is just amazing how much they can help each other. And this has little to do with the illusion and a lot to do with being male and female, simply in that I believe that men give to women a great deal of vitality in intimate relationships whereas women give to men that which often they are lacking, which is what women have so much of—mental, emotional and spiritual inspiration. Women are usually incredibly active in those areas. Bewilderingly so sometimes.
What I would like to do is run some concepts by you because I do think that the inner, or metaphysical, or spiritual, or infinite world is prior to and after this illusion, and has a lasting meaning. I believe that the language of physics, specifically that of Larson, indeed does come into play here, but I don’t believe it comes into play differently for men than for women. I believe it comes into play by the choice of the soul involved, whatever its apparent sex during that particular incarnation.
In other words, we don’t just go on being women all of the time, or men. We switch around. This is only my opinion so for heaven’s sakes, don’t listen to me if you don’t believe it. I think men and women are equally capable of being untouchable by temptation, or touchable. I do think that all men and women have their price. It is just that some men and women’s price is death. And I think it is that kind of concept that we need to look at when we look at the true quality of spirits.
Our true nature is man/woman or woman/man. What we are manifesting is in this illusion a very, very small part of this perfectly faceted gem that is ourselves. Now we are chipping it away to make it even more brilliant, and clearer, and more intense, etc. to refract the level of the idea of the Creator, which by the way, I do link with time and space: Love being prior to His manifestation of Light. In other words, Love being the logos or the original thought, which decided to know itself and therefore, called into manifestation the photon and built the universe.
I think when you apply that to human beings, to men and women in the spiritual sense, I think that instead of space/time or time/space, what we are looking at is a metaphysically reciprocal entity, which begins as free will over God will, and in the equation of transformation becomes God-self over the free will-self. In other words, as we discover who we are and what we want to do with this life, we have the opportunity of becoming less various and less a creature of our own free will choices, which may or may not have a deeper and spiritual sense to them, but we try to take in larger and larger points-of-view until eventually we are taking the most universal view we can.
At that point, unless we choose to surrender our own intellect as being that with which we will work, we cannot go further because I believe that a great deal of that which expresses itself as God-self is that which in imperfect manifestation bubbles up from the deep mind as intuition, hunches, things like that. Until one develops a way of experiencing the inner self, the God-self, and, of course, I always recommend meditation for that, one has little chance of accelerating one’s spiritual growth to a large extent. So one remains f/g or free will over God.
I believe that when the personal transformation of the hero and heroine is complete, when that hero has gone through his or her ordeal to the extent that that ordeal has been accomplished, that person begins to shift the amount of thinking that is strictly free will and the amount of thinking that is basically asking, “What is your will for me, Creator, with whom I have a relationship?”
Eventually when enough choices are made and enough polarization has occurred, that same individual is a walking equation in which the metaphysical world has overshadowed the physical. Reality has overshadowed illusion and then that person is in effect and functionally living in the kingdom of eternity.