Arkashean Q&A Session -- 019
SKIE: Ready?
THERRY: Yeah.
DUNCAN: I was wondering if you could expound on good illusions as they exist in Dialusion and why I've often heard of them say that [goodness or evil] exists only in the minds of man?
THERRY: Okay, you're getting into two different concepts now. The concept of good and evil implies in Dialusion as the opposite to the action felt. It often implies a value judgment implied by man. Things that build and create, man has attributed good to it. Things that destroy, tear down, man has implied evil to it. In Dialusion itself, neither exists. There is neither good nor evil. It is simply law. When you bring that concept down into man's world, man's illusions, then man has arbitrarily implied that things that build etc. are good, things that destroy are evil, hence good and evil exist only within the minds of man. Did that help you understand it?
SKIE: Well, it helped me understand that part of why, good and evil exists only in the mind of man but not why good and evil exist in Dialusion.
THERRY: It doesn't. In Dialusion, it's simply a case of opposite reaction. That's just that things that build would be opposite from things that tear down and destroy. But just because some things is torn apart or torn asunder, that does not make it evil. It becomes a necessary part of nature or recycling. Were it not for the tear down force, there would be no new matter or new Life Force to continue. Everything would be lost out to dead matter. Life itself would not exist without death and decay. It is a very intrical part of life and the life cycle. But that does not change the fact that from man's point of view, death and destruction are evil.
DUNCAN: Well, I don't understand that but the real basis for me to ask these questions is for me to try to understand the difference between what man would call "good" Karma and "bad" Karma.
THERRY: Okay. Now you have to go to the implications of "good" and "bad." Those are two words that are so misused and so misunderstood in the English language that it's sad. An individual has a type of pattern for his life. He has certain sets of goals. To the degree that his behavior or circumstances about him lend themselves toward the achievement of those goals it is said to be "good." To the extent that man's behavior or the set of circumstances lend themselves to prevent the achievement of those goals, it is said to be "bad." Man should really substitute the words "appropriate" and "inappropriate" instead of "good" and "bad." It would leave things in a better or easier way of understanding. That way the relationship between good and bad would be much better understood in any given situation. They have to refer to something else to get its real meaning. Well, historically, at least in the Western world, those two words go back to a religion. That obviously, is a pretty severe corruption when in today's world they use the terms good and bad for practically everything. It's got nothing to do with spirituality or development. Well, the terms good and bad doesn't even exist in the Universe. They exist only with reference to man.
DUNCAN: I know, that's why I'm asking you does this...
THERRY: See, the terms good and bad are meaningless by themselves. You must refer them to a classification system to determine their value.
DUNCAN: Yeah, I understand that.
THERRY: And historically, it was a religion that was the classifier. I am suggesting that we begin using Arkashean value systems as the classifier as opposed to other values. As such you would not use the words good and bad. They would be dropped from the vocabulary. In its place, you would use the terms appropriate and inappropriate. That explain it?
DUNCAN: Yeah. Now my next question. It seems to me that there must be some forces that is the determinant of good and bad independent of man's value judgments because...
THERRY: There is. It's called "Karma."
DUNCAN: Yeah, but Karma has its own set seemingly of value judgments.
THERRY: Yeah, which is independent from man.
DUNCAN: Is there any way to find out what those value judgments are? Well, I know obviously if you murdered somebody from Karma's point of view...
THERRY: That goes back to the original belief system or the path of man for having descended upon the earth.. It goes back into "What, If, But," syndrome. You're looking for a seemingly intrinsic classification of good and bad.
DUNCAN: Only because it appears to me that there is one.
THERRY: Yeah, it's Karma. Again that gets back to the original belief system as to what is man's path. Obviously, some systems use good and bad according to their own classification system on how they can control the minds of man. Many belief systems were that way. I'm suggesting that if we use the Arkashean system rather than other systems, then the words good and bad disappear entirely because they're not necessary because they're too vague.
If you use or substitute the words appropriate or inappropriate then it requires that you automatically think on a scale of reference, whereas, the words good and bad do not; hence they can be easily misused. Now according to the Arkashean system, the task of man is to free himself from the trap hence any behavior or any growth pattern or any experience that lends itself towards allowing the individual towards freeing of the species is good, even though the individual experience itself may be judged harsh or harmful towards the individual for the moment.
Also, of course, anything that is against the species as a whole would be termed inappropriate for that specific task whenever you use the terms, you have to get back to the specific term in mind. Well, if you're thinking on the level of the species, then it's the case of freeing the species from the trap of earth as opposed to behaviors, which would tend to trap the species even more so. Again, on our level you can't talk of the species without implying a different scale which is on an individual purpose level. After all, the species is made up of individuals. As an individual works for his own selfish desires, to gratify his own emotions, his own dreams, his own everything, he is obviously working for himself, not for the species, hence from that scale, it could be called bad. But it should be called inappropriate.
DUNCAN: Well, I guess what I'm more trying to understand is the workings of Karma. Cause I don't have any trouble understanding the [terms of reference]. It all depends on which frame of reference is chosen, the terms good and bad or inappropriate or appropriate.
THERRY: Well, Karma is the tallyman which keeps a record of anything you've done. Anything that you've done that is wrong or inappropriate. Karma will mark against you and will require you to come back through recycling to correct those wrongs. But it is based on the species. You've got to bear in mind that all things are governed by Recursive Dialusion [the universal set of law] and in this particular case, the Royal Steering Current is the law that states, the "Final Judgment will come against the species man, not the individual man."
DUNCAN: So what you seem to be implying as I understand it is that when man descended he was held to Karma, but that Karma judges what's right and what's wrong according to the purpose of man the species first, then against man the individual. So it carries its' seeming moral code.
THERRY: It has.
DUNCAN: But that is judged by man?
THERRY: Yeah, the "What, If, But" syndrome pretty well tells you exactly what was done and it was man's bemusement that trapped him. Karma is never bemused.
DUNCAN: So seemingly murder is neither appropriate nor inappropriate, but for man because of the way he descended, it becomes inappropriate?
THERRY: You can't make that statement because murder exists only in man. Murder does not exist extrinsically independent of man. Language limits that. Animals do not murder - they simply kill for food or for survival.
DUNCAN: Isn't there any animal that kills for pleasure?
THERRY: I don't think so.
DUNCAN: Under any circumstances?
THERRY: I don't think so.
DUNCAN: I've heard of dogs doing that.
THERRY: Well, there's also lessons about certain leopards or cats that will kill for the taste of blood, but it hasn't been proven really.
DUNCAN: Well, I mean, like wild dogs will, for example, when [those wild dogs came on the farm, they killed those chickens], they didn't eat those chickens. They killed them because they like to run after them or whatever.
THERRY: Yeah, but that... that doesn't necessarily mean that they killed for the joy of killing.
DUNCAN: So in other words, the chickens got killed, but it was really because of the fun that the dogs had running after them?
THERRY: That's possible, yeah. See there's no proof that these animals or lower life forms killed for the joy of killing. Thus far, the only ones that I know of that do that, is man for his ego, for glory. This is not to say that animals do not do that. It just seems that there's no real proof that they do that. And even if they did, it would be within that species and not within Recursive Dialusion.
DUNCAN: Yeah. But would it be correct to say that Karma has its own Mind Force? Because the Mind Force is above man's specific Mind Force or...
THERRY: Well, neither. A Mind Force as we know it, is capable of initiation. Karma is not. Karma is only a tallyman. It records only; it doesn't initiate anything.
DUNCAN: The whole thing is confusing me. Karma is just cause and effect and if you do something that is just "bad" Karma, like murder him, you go to Predestiny, it seems to me if you do something good that you could evoke Predestiny. But you told me you don't, you could evoke a possibility.
THERRY: Yeah.
DUNCAN: To me that has an implication of that there must be some kind of value judgment or some kind of plan within Karma that says "Well, this is not enough to fall under Predestiny."
THERRY: Well, see the thing is that Karma is designed so that you're not penalized by good things... even though good things will become destined to come your way.
DUNCAN: Right, but who's to decide what the good things are?
THERRY: Karma. See, you have to understand that Karma is a mechanism that forces you to return to take care of inappropriate behavior.
DUNCAN: Yeah, I can understand that.
THERRY: Therefore, "good" Karma would not force you to return to take care of "bad" Karma. The only thing it would do under that condition is give you a greater leeway towards Free Will.
DUNCAN: Yeah, I can understand that too, but the part that I have a problem with is that I realize and I want to find out about what is that code that determines what is good and what is bad and how is that independent of what man thinks or does?
THERRY: Okay, the judge would be the "Master Plan For The Earth Experience"... What ever is written in "The Alliance Of The Rule" is what you call the pseudo Mind Force within Karma... that judges what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.
DUNCAN: And the guiding force of whatever is appropriate is whatever is required for the individual to get out of Maya?
THERRY: The guiding ... yeah the guiding force is the power from which Karma gets its reaction from whatever it is. The force from which that force that powers Karma is that pseudo Mind Force that we were talking about. It's the one that makes the decisions one way or the other, being appropriate or inappropriate according to the goals of incarnates, according to what is written in The Alliance of the Rule.
DUNCAN: So I guess that would be the closest thing towards what we might want to call, for lack of a better word, the Moral Universe or the moral code in the Universe?
THERRY: Yes, that is correct.
DUNCAN: Now under those circumstances, apparently you really can't say if something's going to be "bad" Karma because you don't know the whole set of circumstances?
THERRY: Well, that's not entirely true either because to the degree that each individual holds sacred Maat, to that degree that they do know. To the degree that they dishonor Maat, to that degree can they consistently lie to themselves in which case, then what you say is correct, then they will never know. Still, on this level of the species' growth, one can never really, really know if an individual's behavior is truly theirs, or if they are simply pawns in the Affinity Factor's process of applying the needs of the New Covenant. We must remember that in our reality, things are not always what they seem to be. Everything becomes a gamble.
DUNCAN: Right, but I was thinking more along the lines of how, generally, people understand murder [to be] inappropriate Karma.
DUNCAN: Generally, I understand that murder is inappropriate Karma.
THERRY: Not everybody, 'cause there are many, many circumstances where they will just not attribute the "word" murder to "killing." As a matter of fact there are a tremendous number of people who view killing as an honorable thing. They use it to gain honor and prestige, in their society. These people obviously have mixed up priorities. They obviously, obey the ethics of earth but not the ethics of the Universe and desecrate Maat. Therefore, they will never really know until they learn better...
That's why on the one hand, the individuals who went to Canada rather than go to war were looked down upon that, but Karmically for the species, they are far better off. Although I doubt if there are any governments who would claim that. We must remember that the Alliance of the Rule has a very long list of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for the TwinSpecies:Human. When Karma makes its judgment it uses that list first; as such, it [the necessities of Karma] cares little about the needs of man, the individual or of the individual's governments.
DUNCAN: Okay, without trying to find it out now, is how unholy is this with respect to Karma? In other words, seemingly... if seemingly the same deed is performed under a different situation, it may [cause] that deed from being [considered as] appropriate or inappropriate or vice versa? Also seemingly, I guess there is unholiness that should hold true for any action, but apparently it does not.
THERRY: Yes it does.
DUNCAN: It holds true for any action?
THERRY: Yeah, again, awareness of such a division depends upon Maat.
DUNCAN: I'm not sure I understand when you say awareness extends the division.
THERRY: The division between holy and unholiness... the awareness of the presence of that division depends on Maat. Remember the law? "The level of observation is what creates the phenomenon?" The individual who finds honor in killing for his country is obviously so degraded morally that he is unaware of that division between holy and unholy. But the individual who would rather leave his country and go to Canada rather than kill, rather than commit murder, he is aware of the presence of holiness versus unholiness... again. I don't think you will find many who will agree to that.
DUNCAN: So let's say somebody decides to kill Adolph Hitler but if they don't do it, people are going to die...
THERRY: Now , you're talking about the mechanism called the Trade-Off, as those Trade-Offs interact with the Affinity Factor's needs to apply the necessities of the New Covenant.
DUNCAN: No, I'm more concerned about looking at it from the point of view of Karma... the individual [and] what he thinks is going to happen.
THERRY: But it's still just a "Trade-Off" whose value come from the individuals level of observation.
DUNCAN: Okay, so what's going to be the Karma for that? Let's say that he knows full well that if he doesn't do it, many of the people are going to die. He knows killing is wrong but he decides to do it anyway 'cause in his mind it's easier...
THERRY: But what if for the sake of conversation... what if these people's Karma, because of the Affinity Factor's needs to apply the promise of the New Covenant, were designed to die? What if it was their way of equalizing past misdeeds? What if they were the people sitting in the grandstand during the Roman Empire and watching Christians die? Or what if they were the soldiers who went throughout the land, killing and murdering the first-born for the sake of either Pharaoh or for the sake of Moses or for the sake of Herod or whatever? So would the killing of Hitler in that case, would that have not been... would that be appropriate? Is a pawn in the Affinity Factor's game responsible for what belongs to the Affinity Factor? Would you not in turn end up stealing from those individuals who were supposed to die but now will not, because you killed their tormentor? Remember, you are looking from the human point of view. Karma has its own point of view.
DUNCAN: Yeah, I suppose, that's one possibility. But that I wouldn't say that that would be the true...
THERRY: I don't think there's anybody on this planet that could say for sure that is so, or this is not so.
DUNCAN: Okay.
THERRY: So therefore, there is no-one on this planet who can truly say if the killing or the murdering of a butcher is good or bad. You can only say [that] on the basis of the situation that you're in . You can not necessarily have the wisdom of the ages to determine if the killing of such a butcher is appropriate or if it is not. No man has that power.
DUNCAN: But can you give me an example of where the behavior that would normally be considered inappropriate Karma could be appropriate?
THERRY: Right off the bat, I don't think so. It would have to depend on the set of circumstances and the behavior itself... more importantly, who or what was the real cause of the behavior.
DUNCAN: What if I'm trying to find out, is they're certain things from my understanding, that are absolute, no-nos, murder being one of them? But what I'm trying to find out is that any circumstance in which if you do those absolute no-nos, because of the circumstances, that it's not going to be inappropriate Karma. Not that you may not know it, but I'm trying to find out if that exists or not.
THERRY: I don't think so.
DUNCAN: So if it's an absolute no-no, it doesn't matter? The circumstances don't matter?
THERRY: That's correct, but the problem doesn't lie in that area. The problem lies in the situation of man's awareness of those no-nos. It is man who has said no-no, not Karma. And therefore, the situation can only be judged from that level.
DUNCAN: So what? Is it man's task to find out what Karma calls no-no?
THERRY: Yes.
DUNCAN: Why's that?
THERRY: Because it is man's bemusement when he descended that created all that inconsistency.
DUNCAN: So, what would be the best way to go find that out?
THERRY: There's no best way.
DUNCAN: (Laugh). Okay. You got me on that one. I mean, I don't know of anyway you can do that except to follow your own Maat, but if you're already caught in a certain path...
THERRY: If you honor... if you truly honor Maat, it will guide you. You may have to do many things that are thought of as inappropriate by earth ethics, but it will serve you correctly. That's why it makes it so difficult, because karmically, those who went to Canada rather than kill and enter war, are by far better off. They are the true heroes of earth. But from the individual country's point of view, they are traitors, cowards. That's not the first time such a situation has taken place. From England's point of view, every single American is a traitor. How dare they rebel against the King? But from America's point of view, they were heroes. Which set of ethics are you going to follow and which set is going to be judged by whom?
DUNCAN: Well, it would be nice to follow the Universal set whatever Karma decided that is.
THERRY: Man doesn't always do that.
DUNCAN: Well, I know that.
THERRY: The greater percentage of the time, man is totally unaware of the Universal ethics. When religion, true religion, not this crap that they have today, when true religion went down the drain, morality and ethics went down that same drain right along with it. See, true religion would never behave like the existing religions of today do. Remember, we are all God's creation. There's something lacking in the logic where an individual prays to their God to kill, murder and rape their brother creation when they ask for victory. There's something lacking in that. That's pure political. That's not spiritual.
There's something lacking in the logic when a country or a man or a group is hell bent upon murder for the sake of land or gold. There's something lacking in the logic where the mentality of a man states that it's okay to kill. There's something lacking in the mentality of the man who doesn't recognize that as he kills another, he commits suicide, for he has willfully murdered and must be murdered, which is suicide. Religions of today are pretty well corrupt. They're pretty well-empty. It must be remembered that man must use the greatness of his heart to forgive the harm done by others. Karma, however, will forgive nothing.
DUNCAN: I'm still a little confused if Karma is acting in unholiness.
THERRY: No, Karma is never acting in unholiness. Karma is always acting against unholiness. The deeds that it records will demand that the individual continue the experience or the cycle of experience until that unholiness has been washed into holiness. Basically, that's it, right there. You will continue the cycles until you have finally learned to do it right and then refuse to do it wrong.
DUNCAN: Yeah, but I still don't understand why those absolute no-nos are there?
THERRY: 'Cause you can't have it both ways.
DUNCAN: I don't get it.
THERRY: You can't have two things at one time. You can't be red and at the same time be white. You can't be appropriate and at the same time be inappropriate by the same standards.
DUNCAN: Yes, but this situation here is different.
THERRY: No, sir. If you're talking about a standard whereby it's universal aboveand independent of man, then you're talking about a thought, a deed, or a behavior, a whatever, that is designed solely to free man or any behavior that actually ends up trapping man from any degree is that, it's trapping him not freeing him. That's an absolute standard and what man thinks about it is unimportant. Karma is not ruled by man. Man may give another of his kind honor, because he has committed murder. But regardless of the situation, Karma will always place that individual in the negative.
DUNCAN: So the seeming paradox is the fact that even from the Universal point of view, that individual may get "bad" Karma, but it may bring about a better way of life, or I don't actually know if that's realistic but...
THERRY: If that were true, then we should be in paradise with all the preachers the world has had.
DUNCAN: Yeah, if somebody would've murdered Hitler, I mean, I don't know. Like you say, maybe it would've been a bad thing, inappropriate in terms of earth.
THERRY: I don't think anybody could have murdered him.
DUNCAN: Why not?
THERRY: Because that would have interrupted the cycle of Karma for too many people, their cycle of life... in sheer numbers, there were enough people who were trying to kill him. Obviously, Hitler, himself, was numbered among those who were destined to be murdered by him... Others were never able to succeed 'cause it was not his Karma to be murdered by others. It was Karma that he should murder himself.
DUNCAN: Alright, so in terms of it being an absolute no-no, there are no situations that would mitigate that? Seemingly the situation...
THERRY: See, you're trying to figure out if there is a way that man can determine what is an absolute no-no from Karma's point of view, that cannot be done.
DUNCAN: Not even if you go up to a higher level?
THERRY: If man goes up to the higher level, then deciphers it, he could not bring it back down with him, it's not within the Karma of the LifeForce for man to know this at this time... The reason why it's not in the Karma of the LifeForce as present is because man has not evolved to that state.
DUNCAN: So it's an absolute no-no if the circumstances of the situation do not override. To what degree and to what extent do the mitigating circumstances depend on Karma?
THERRY: None.
DUNCAN: Yes, they do.
THERRY: No.
DUNCAN: You told me one of the components of Karma is that...
THERRY: The role of the scenario matters there, but as far as a Universal no-no, it only affects the individual, it doesn't affect Karma on the level that we're speaking of. You got to remember, that there are levels of Karma.
DUNCAN: Yeah.
THERRY: The level that you're talking about is Universal and it has no effect on the role in the scenario.
DUNCAN: Yeah, but what about the intentions?
THERRY: That doesn't mean anything either on this level. On this level, there's only two things. You either did it or you didn't. Why is it unimportant.
DUNCAN: And yet one would be a different effect depending on one?
THERRY: No, that affect belongs on a lower level.
DUNCAN: So I'd still would be...
THERRY: Remember you're talking about intrinsic, Universal. That means you either did something or you didn't do something. If you did do it, Karma does care why you did it, you're stuck in the Commit Cycle. If you didn't do it, then obviously, you're stuck in an Omit Cycle.
DUNCAN: Okay, let me see if I understand. If you did it, from Karma's point of view, you're stuck. But from the circumstances on this plane, the reasons why you did it and all that might make a different situation and you're still going to end up paying back that Karma.
THERRY: Yeah. See the difference lies in Karma as it applies to the individual as opposed to the species.
DUNCAN: Well, in terms of the species, it doesn't matter why you do it...
THERRY: Correct.
DUNCAN: But in terms of the individual it does matter?
THERRY: Correct. There is a difference between acting of your own free will and being a pawn in a game wherein you have no free will. Another thing to remember is that man is in a difficult position when man is trying to decipher when something is "Local" or if it's "Universal".
DUNCAN: But only in terms of the circumstances surrounding that specific no-no, not the fact that you're going to have to pay that no-no back?
THERRY: Right.
DUNCAN: So , the intentions for the deed could be a much less powerful component that the deed itself.
THERRY: Correct. Bear in mind, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
DUNCAN: It gets back to... this aspect of Karma. Now if Karma tallies patterns, what is the reason behind individuals being linked together?
THERRY: Well, remember, there is Karma for individuals, for groups, a Karma for nations, so on and so forth. While Karma tallies patterns, it also tallies on all levels and for some, only specific individuals can take care of what's involved.
DUNCAN: Would that be difficult to find afterwards?
THERRY: No, very easy. Say for example, Person A is associated with Person B and Person A falls in love with Person B so much so that it is totally unreasonable. Well, that's going to create a lot of harm. That harm is specific between those two people.
DUNCAN: So what's going to happen if that Person B is not available for the next eighty two million lifetimes or whatever?
THERRY: Well, he'd have to just sit and wait, won't he?... or, accept anyone who fits that pattern.
DUNCAN: Why should that person, why should it have to be that there's nobody that can control that pattern?
THERRY: Seems to me that you're intimating that it ain't fair.
DUNCAN: No, I was just wondering why with all that multitudes and millions of individuals, why somebody else couldn't be found.
THERRY: Perhaps there's nobody with that specific set of circumstances.
DUNCAN: Okay.
THERRY: You've got to remember that in the recycles of reincarnation, the cause for reincarnation among the Free Will aspect, much of it is love and much of it is because Karma is bound between individuals. That goes under the "with" aspect of Karma. You remember that part?
DUNCAN: Yeah. Now is it the GreatForce, the higher cycles of creation and Recursive Dialusion or is it the other way around?
THERRY: No, Recursive Dialusion is the highest on earth. Dialusion comes from Premedial Force.
DUNCAN: So the GreatForce is considered below Dialusion?
THERRY: They're considered the one and the same because they are both outside of the illusion of "The Earth Experience"... While they are not really the same, they are considered to be twins.
DUNCAN: Wait a minute, they're one and the same or are they twins?
THERRY: Both. Understand that the creation of a thing also implies in the same-self moment, the creation of all possibilities of that thing. That is why Recursive Dialusion is all the possibilities of the GreatForce, and because both were created in the same-self moment, they are said to be the same, but they are said to be twins and Recursive Dialusion is said to be the" Royal Steering Current" for that which is created within the "Earth Experience."
DUNCAN: Is there a third one that was a twin?
THERRY: Not on that level.
DUNCAN: Alright. Do all forms of life have soul, mind and heart?
THERRY: Yes... the only thing that you can see is that all life forms have a MindForce. The basic difference is, the degree to which that species is individualized or scattered depends greatly upon the game they play. Man for instance, is so much under uniqueness that even the blood is different between two people. Take the life form called dog, for instance. Well, uniqueness has not claimed them totally, because most dogs have either one of two blood types. Doesn't matter if it's big, small, brown, red, doesn't matter what type of dog, it's one of a very few blood type. Their games are totally different.
DUNCAN: So what about dogs? Do they have a Mind Force?
THERRY: Yeah, all LifeForce that is said to be alive has MindForce. All LifeForms have a LifeForce/MindForce pairing. They simply occupy different points along the continuum of MindForce. That's drastically different in terms of Free Will and Predestiny. It has to do with the Pairings.
DUNCAN: If we go beyond man's point of view of what constitutes life, is it true to say that life permeates all matter?
THERRY: In a way, yeah. There are life forms that are so small, that man would never see them as having life and there are life forms that are so huge that man could never even think of life in that form. The Planet Earth, for instance, is alive but man does not recognize it as such. The solar system itself has life and how much less does man recognize it.
DUNCAN: How about something like individual atoms?
THERRY: Some have LifeForce [like a rock] and others have LifeForce/MindForce pairing.
DUNCAN: So is it then possessed by MindForce to whatever degree on its own level?
THERRY: Yeah. As we are made up of different organs, as our MindForce controls or is controlled by the eternal, the minuscule parts of our body. Such is it with the Universe and galaxies, hence all of this. Remember there are many, many, many points along the continuum of the LifeForce and the LifeForce/MindForce pairing. Man doesn't recognize nearly hardly any of it.
DUNCAN: Apparently, could a planetary life form learn how to direct and control the forces of evil on earth as is possible for man?
THERRY: No.
DUNCAN: What is it that is lacking?
THERRY: Free Will. The part along the continuum of LifeForce that they occupy is a force that can be touched but can not touch. Plants are the same way. The Plant Kingdom is a force that can be touched but cannot be touched.
DUNCAN: When you say touch, in what aspect? What do you mean?
THERRY: :It's more passive in its form. Man has gotten far more access. Man can change this planet such that out of Free Will, it is more active. The only way that the other life forms such as plants etc. can change the planet is by the biosphere; as such, or as man he is somewhat... he's not independent. Let's say that he has a greater degree of freedom within that biosphere.
DUNCAN: So as sufficient degree of Free Will would be the necessity to be able to learn how to control Universal forces?
THERRY: Yes.
DUNCAN: Well, it seems strange to me because it seems that it should be the complexity of the LifeForce that should determine that, but from what you say, it's not, it's Free Will.
THERRY: It is a complexity of the life form that determines the ability for freedom...
DUNCAN: So the planetary life form is considered less complex than a man?
THERRY: Not per se, no. It's simply on a different level.
DUNCAN: So control of the Universal forces is not all of a great thing but from man's point of view it is?
THERRY: Well, that's not exactly true. Again it depends upon the level of observation.
DUNCAN: Yeah well, for man I mean, that's gotta be the opening and close of it all, but I guess, if you can look at it from another level, from the standpoint of being, the lab of the planet which doesn't have that ability.
THERRY: Right.
DUNCAN: Maybe it's not all that important.
THERRY: In the Universal matter, it's really not all that important. Everything will come in its own time. In terms of Recursive Dialusion, each little part of creation is relatively unimportant. Understand that you're approaching the world of absurdity there.
DUNCAN: How so?
THERRY: Well, when we think of the relative unimportance of these things, then it becomes absurd for man to behave the way he does and to have self-important thoughts because it doesn't much matter what he does in the overall scheme of things of things.
DUNCAN: Well, I guess, I'll ask one more question on this. So is it possible for a man to experience his world of absurdity that and still come back as a man or is that a one-way road?
THERRY: Yeah, it's possible, but he becomes more of a man when he comes back. I guess the proper phrase would be more than a man rather than more of a man.
DUNCAN: You mean, he becomes aware of his limitations to a higher degree?
THERRY: Yes, because absurdity itself intrinsically always sits on his right shoulder and he views the absurdity which is in within all things which is an intricate part of creation. Many people are insane asylums because they brushed absurdity and are unaware of what is happening and therefore it upsets their World of Illusion to such a great degree that they can't cope. Their reference points are gone... They can seem to fit the absurdity in their reality, so they choose not to choose anything.
DUNCAN: Yeah, something tells me I know that experience but I forgot where I saw it... So if not all life forms have soul and mind apart, at what point does that come in? Does that also key in with Free Will?
THERRY: It depends upon which point along the continuum that you happen to inhabit. Each point has its different set of games which then are limited even though they may or may not be free to change their games. There is nonetheless a limited set of games within each point along the continuum.
DUNCAN: Then why doesn't all the different life forms have a soul, a mind and a heart?
THERRY: It's the nature of the game.
DUNCAN: Alright, so they all have a mind, right?
THERRY: All life forms have a degree of the LifeForce/MindForce pairing, but not necessarily individual minds.
DUNCAN: Does every life form that has an individual mind, have a soul and a heart?
THERRY: Yeah. See, when you speak of individual mind, you're speaking of the level of awareness. There are many life forms from our point of view who have only a rudimentary LifeForce/MindForce pairing in that their level of awareness is so small and at such a low state of being that it's difficult to conceive of as Mind Force. If an individual is in its basic aspects of LifeForce, where it's on nothing more than [a] survival [basis] and there is nothing else but that, who eats, sleep, runs by nothing else, its pretty difficult to imagine that life form the way you would a higher life form.
DUNCAN: But do they nonetheless?
THERRY: No. Fear is not part of them. They're governed by instincts. It's not a case of learning through experience. It's a case of learning via a different memory system.
DUNCAN: So a fly, as I understand it... a fly has a nervous system.
THERRY: All life forms have nervous systems in a different sort of way. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to control the Ka.
DUNCAN: Well, let's take an earthworm. An earth worm has an actual brain in a manner of speaking.
THERRY: All life forms have actual brains even [though] man refuses to recognize it as a brain.
DUNCAN: Does an amoeba have a brain?
THERRY: Yeah.
DUNCAN: Then why doesn't it have an individual mind?
THERRY: Because it has, [but] it's on a level that is so low that it's nothing but the due process of law. You can't really say that an amoeba sits and thinks, "I'm hungry, so I'd better go out and get something to eat." To them, it's a case of an imbalance of electrolytes which automatically triggers a behavior whereupon that bound behavior is based on a physical food. On that level, where it is nothing more than action/reaction according to law, you really can't call that a MindForce, an individual mind. That is, even though obviously, the reactions are on an individual basis, you can't truly call it a mind. It's simply a mechanism that seems to be the control house for that particular Ka and its functions' reactions based on chemical interactions. You can't truly call that an individual mind the way you would a man or a dog. On such a low level, there's hardly no intellect, it's all raw emotion, if you want to call them emotions, like chemical reactions.
DUNCAN: Alright, so in order to have a soul as far as that is concerned you have to have individual mind?
THERRY: You have to have individuality yes.
DUNCAN: And what's going to determine if the LifeForce has individuality within the purpose of that individual life form?
THERRY: The games that that life form is limited to. Free Will plays a big, big role in MindForce. There's a positive correlation within Free Will... within that individual and the mind or its individual mind. The amoeba has no Free Will at all, absolutely none. It's chart is always zero, zero, zero. It has no Free Will, therefore it has no mind, at least what we would call Mind. 'Course it has MindForce otherwise, the Ka would not be animated... the Ka could not operate. But per se, you could not say it has a mind. It's lacking freedom and intelligence. You could look on a lower life form such as a cat and a dog and you could see the MindForce at work because you could see expressions, you could see it has language. It may be radically different from what we would call the mind because our games are far greater than those of that lower life form. But an amoeba - it possess nothing, except action/reaction in each situation. I think one of the best ways of or one of the best functions to determine mind is ability to learn. An amoeba today is no different than an amoeba ... or the first amoeba that was ever in creation. They're exactly the same. There's been no change.
DUNCAN: Will it ever change or is it temporarily that there is no change?
THERRY: Any life form has potential to change... but it's position along the LifeForce, thus far, there's no difference, it has no individual MindForce. It must... if it is going to change, it's going to be through an accident or through karmic design and one of the changes might be that it will get individual MindForce. Unlikely from our scope, but I imagine at one time we were probably on a lower level too.
DUNCAN: Alright, well, here's something else that I don't understand about Karma. Karma is just cause and effect and if you leave humans out of it for a second, if you throw a rock up in the air, it's going to just come down. That's going to be it's effect or it's going to hit something along the way.
THERRY: That's not true.
DUNCAN: Okay.
THERRY: The Pairings determine that.
DUNCAN: The Pairing is what?
THERRY: What if you happen to be in a place where there is no gravity.
DUNCAN: Then the effect will be different.
THERRY: So the Pairings in fact matter therefore, your statement, "If you throw a rock up into the air," it's only going to come down is not a valid statement.
DUNCAN: Well, where, why...?
THERRY: That is valid only within the limits of Pairings.
DUNCAN: Well, I understand it's narrower than what you're given me, but I still think the Pairings of what? The Planet Earth.
THERRY: No, the Pairings of the environment of the moment. See Karma is very specifically linked to the Pairings. That's where the call of Recursive Dialusion has its full force.
DUNCAN: Well, perhaps I really don't understand the implications of the Pairings.
THERRY: Well, it's obvious that depending on what the Pairings give you, your Karma's going to be different. Since Karma is cause and effect, you can't expect that if the Pairings made you to live in water, then it's pretty difficult to achieve a situation where you're going to be drawn by coming out of open air. You are certainly not going to meet and mate and have sex and have a mad, love affair, for Karma forbids it. Fish don't operate that way, neither do water breathing mammals, even though the higher life forms come very close to it. Few mate for life that live in water. Depending on what game you play or depending on what game you are restricted to within your LifeForce/MindForce pairing, it's totally dependent upon your environment or the Pairings. The cause and effects of one level would be totally different from those of another. That's where Recursive Dialusion has its influence over Karma.
DUNCAN: Now Pairings exist throughout the Universe, not just as it applies to the life forms, right?
THERRY: Yeah. Remember it's a fabric.
DUNCAN: Pairings seemingly are inextricably linked to the fact that Creation might continue? Isn't that the Pairings?
THERRY: Through Recursive Dialusion... Remember the laws:
"The Creation Of The One is, in and of itself, the implication of the creation of the other;"
"That which exists shall exist dual in its nature, but Triune in its effects";
"That which is within The Other shall exist within the limitations of the
Repeating Patterns limits to the needs of the Moment of Creation."
If you will, recognize that the first law demands that creation create the second and the third law..., and that the third law controls or limits the possibilities of both the first and the second laws.
DUNCAN: I mean, isn't that continuum, isn't that just a Pairing of one and one to make a new one?
THERRY: That's only one aspect of Recursive Dialusion. You once asked where does Karma get most of its power from -- Recursive Dialusion. You once asked, how does Recursive Dialusion affect all the lower creations -- Karma's the writings within the Alliance of the Rule, and the Pairings.
DUNCAN: Well, I can see that in terms of the physical Karma in everything but it's a little bit harder for me to see in terms of behavioral Karma.
THERRY: Okay. Let's say that you have the brains of a magpie where you couldn't think at all... It's still social Karma, isn't it? If your environment forbids you to develop a mind, then your Walk of Freedom as opposed to your Walk of Predestiny are totally controlled by your environment, are they not? Which is therefore controlled by the Pairings, which is in turn controlled by Recursive Dialusion.
DUNCAN: So if you were to talk about a man's thought process, and the Karma therein on that mental level...
THERRY: It is the Karma that made it possible for that creation.
DUNCAN: Okay, so it still affects the Karma... the thought process with secondary effects.
THERRY: No, the fabric effects. The Pairings is a Royal Steering Current, remember? Therefore it has its effects present in all functions... in all areas under all reactions.
DUNCAN: But would this be the Pairings of the physical matter or would this be the Pairings of the...?
THERRY: All of it. The Pairings is the manifestation of Recursive Dialusion.
DUNCAN: So, now I'm becoming confused because when we originally discussed the Pairings, we were strictly limiting it to the Pairings of Physical Earth.
THERRY: That was so you could understand it.
DUNCAN: Well now we're not doing that anymore?
THERRY: No.
DUNCAN: Okay.
THERRY: We're talking about the Pairings, as they truly are in the Universe.
DUNCAN: So the Pairings affects the ability to think itself?
THERRY: Yeah, simply because the Pairings makes it possible for the mind to be in existence. In many instances, the Pairings forbids the LifeForce, therefore there is neither life nor [the] ability to think.
DUNCAN: Okay, but if there is life and the ability to think, there's going to be levels and different levels of Pairings.
THERRY: Yes.
DUNCAN: So that's why it would be a fabric?
THERRY: Yes. But from that, you can see, whereby you cannot separate them from Karma. Karma gets its power... or Karma is activated by Recursive Dialusion and the Pairings... It is not independent, even though it may not be a direct cause of that. It would still have its forces there.
DUNCAN: It's harder... it's more difficult for me to understand when you use the words activated by... If you were to say, limited by...
THERRY: Or modified by...?
DUNCAN: Yeah.
THERRY: That wouldn't really be true.
DUNCAN: Then I may not have really understood the full significance of what you were telling me.
THERRY: See activated by or modified by are accurate, but it's two different directions... There is a difference between a cause and an effect. When we say is limited by or is modified by, or is activated by, we are talking about a catalyst that causes some type of limitation.
DUNCAN: Well, I can see how the Pairings limits a whole lot of things, so right there, there's all sorts of things that will never get activated because...
THERRY: That's is correct.
DUNCAN: It's just not going to have the...
THERRY: That is correct.
DUNCAN: But in terms of Karma being activated by the Pairings...
THERRY: Well, let's say, for instance, the Pairings create nothing but a sun.
DUNCAN: Okay.
THERRY: The sun is not activated in terms of Karma as we're calling it. Now you're simply... there is no Free Will of any kind, so there is no possible way for an individual or for that situation to be inappropriate.
DUNCAN: Okay, I see what you're saying. So unless you have life forms, you're not going to have any reason to activate Karma.
THERRY: You got it. But, we must also understand that what is created is not eternal... in that, it will only exist for a limited time.
DUNCAN: But you'll still have cause and effect as long as you get some Pairings?
THERRY: That's correct.
DUNCAN: Alright.
THERRY: See, it's along a different vein.
DUNCAN: But it's also true to say that it's modified as well as activated...
THERRY: That is correct. That's the fabric of it in all directions. A little bit more complicated than when we used to talk about it, isn't it?
DUNCAN: It's always more complicated. I'm convinced I'll never figure out anything. (Laugh)
THERRY: (Laugh)
DUNCAN: (Laugh) Not in the next 100,000 life times seemingly.
THERRY: You're doing pretty well.
DUNCAN: Yeah, but...
THERRY: You've got to remember that when you're learning along the psychic lines, you can only take one step at a time and everything to come is built upon a complete understanding of the past.
DUNCAN: Yeah, I can see that.
THERRY: ....that with every step you take, some of the new wisdom seems to contradict old wisdom. But it doesn't. It just changes levels.
DUNCAN: So there's still several things in Lesson 2 that I don't really understand. Pairings is one of them. The Royal Steering Currents is another [one] which I want to go over later [as well as] some of the finer points of Karma which I'm going over it now. So in terms of my questions about Karma, if you throw a rock up, you put a cause into motion.
THERRY: Depending upon the Pairings, you're going to have different results.
DUNCAN: Right, but still, if you have a certain set of Pairings, it seems like you're going to have one effect.
THERRY: But Karma may not be activated.
DUNCAN: Well, sure on this planet...
THERRY: No, no, no, no. The original statement was, you leave man out of it.
DUNCAN: Let's put man back into it.
THERRY: Okay.
DUNCAN: Let's say everything is...
THERRY: Now you're in gravity...
DUNCAN: Yeah, it's the reality that we know.
THERRY: Now because man is placed back into it, now you have Karma, but before it wasn't necessary for Karma to be activated.
DUNCAN: Alright, let's talk about cause and effect then. Let's say a landslide starts.
THERRY: Okay, that has to do with the Pairings... and a measure of Predistiny
DUNCAN: Right and a rock falls.
THERRY: And indirectly, it may have to do with Karma.
DUNCAN: Well, this isn't really what I want to talk about...
THERRY: Okay.
DUNCAN: I understand what you're telling me, it's interesting but it's really not the point that I want to make, but I can't seem to get past this one thing to ask you the question I want to [ask].
THERRY: Then go ahead and ask the question.
DUNCAN: I really don't fully understand if a human being does [certain] behaviors, why that cycle [means the individual] must get involved with three commissions, etc. etc. I don't understand why if you do something, you just don't get one effect. I can accept it and all that, but I really don't understand why it has to be that way, what is the law is that determines that or anything.
THERRY: The law of relative motion is in effect. Things that are in motion tend to want to remain in motion. Things that are sterile, tend to want to remain sterile. That's what's in effect. That motion brought to different levels translates to "Once you do something wrong it becomes easier to continue doing something wrong" and "The more wrong you do, the easier it becomes to do wrong." By the same token, the more wrong you do, the more difficult it becomes to do what's right. Things that are in motion, tend to want to remain in motion.
DUNCAN: Yeah, that I understand. But why, let's say if you do one thing wrong, then you started something in motion [and] it's going to take three times to stop it?
THERRY: Well, you've got to read the law. The law says it takes at least ten times the force to get out of pain as it took the pleasure to get into it. It goes back to that law again.
DUNCAN: So in terms of understanding why one commission takes three omissions to balance Karma, it would be better to look at it in terms of force, the force necessary to [fight] that force?
THERRY: Yes. It would be far better to look at it from that point of view. One force fighting against another force.
DUNCAN: So in a simplistic sort of way, an omission is not as forceful as a commission, so to speak.
THERRY: That is correct. In a simplistic sort of way, look at it like... in Star Trek, for instance, you have a shield and if somebody fires at you, the shield will hold for a certain number of times and then the shield breaks down. That's what it is.
DUNCAN: How come you don't see that when you throw a rock up in the air and it just lands? Seemingly it's one cause and one effect.
THERRY: That's not true, because as you throw the rock up in the air, the initial force begins wearing down as other forces fight against it and with each onslaught of time and therefore with each onslaught of attack, that initial force wears down until finally, an opposing force has total control, in which case, it falls.
DUNCAN: Okay, so from that viewpoint, the Karma of humans seems simpler almost.
THERRY: It's always been simple. It's the mind of man which complicates things.
DUNCAN: Alright, let's see what's next. Alright, as far as the time lag involved in between a commission, when you have to be in the process of repaying it...
THERRY: That time lag is dependent upon the Pairings, Karma, resistance to change and the game that is being played and the purpose of playing the game. They're all interwoven. You can't say it's one above the other, because they're all meshed together.
DUNCAN: Alright, I can study those individual factors later on. In terms of Karma, is it true that emotions are the binding force of Karma?
THERRY: As it is stated, no. The better way of looking at it, is the emotions is the slate upon which you write you facts.
DUNCAN: I'm not sure I understood it as narrow as that.
THERRY: Well, the emotions is the seat of mobility, but it has also a memory unto itself and therefore it is the slate upon which you write your facts. It's also the impetus for decision making. Now the Pairings are also involved here because it also depends upon the emotions that are in control of the MindForce for its intellect that is in control. The Thought-Emotion Pairings or the Emotion-Thought Pairing makes a big difference between the two. Nothing's ever clear and simple because it's a fabric. There are always at least three threads of that fabric that are in direct control and everything else is in secondary control.
DUNCAN: While we're on the emotions, I'm not sure the emotions translate into the ability to feel truth inwardly without the use of symbols.
THERRY: Okay, when you have one force contradicting another force, you have a state called instability. But if you have both forces working for the same direction, you have a position that is far more stable. So if you have the force called emotion and a force called intellect, both holding something sacred, and that something is the same, you have a very strong force. That's how it starts out.
DUNCAN: How is that without the use of symbols?
THERRY: Symbol is language which is the third largest aspect. That's always present in that. You wouldn't have the emotions or the intellect if the symbol wasn't there.
DUNCAN: Well, all I know is that I wrote this down directly from one of these writings. It had to do with their Arkashean teachings or the ability to feel truth inwardly without the use of symbols.
THERRY: Yeah. Because language doesn't necessarily have to have symbols in that sense. They are deep inside the individual. There is a level whereby language is neither verbal or verbal type nor a normal process. There is a level of communication which is, I guess the best way to call it is "archetypal" where the sensations are so deep that it can be barely be called language, but it is language. I guess it's the primary difference between... well, as there is a difference between knowing and understanding, so there is a difference between those two levels of language. This would be a level whereby it is knowing and understanding without having to think about it. It's just a pure based axiom. Even language wouldn't contradict it -- it just is.
DUNCAN: Well, how do the emotions come into that?
THERRY: By nature of their creation since they are the seat of mobility and mobility in this case, would automatically bring you to that state, that's on the same level as that you ask a believer of others who know that God exists, he can't use words or language, he just knows and it's a total axiom.