Arkashean Q&A Session -- 090
MAAT AND COMMANDMENTS
PETER: Ready to discuss?
PETER: This was put in the Bear and the person involved wanted to know if we could discuss what's on this tape. What's on this tape is -- I have to get my glasses - Maat, the Mirror Within. So, I'd like someone to read this instead of me and we'll comment on what is being said here. Anyone care to read?
CLARE: I'll read. It's in large print.
PETER: Large print! [Laugh]
CLARE: I'll keep it away from me though.
PETER: And you can stop at any time and uhh ask questions, if you want something explained.
CLARE: Okay, it starts with "Maat, the Mirror within. In an ever-changing world, under ever-changing conditions and within an ever-changing self, there exists a part of self that is forever unchanging, it is seldom affected or modified by an individual belief system, belief systems of the planet, nor the needs of the scenario within time. This unchanging moment is what we call Maat. It is viewed in the individual's third chakra, the seat of mobility and also stability. Maat is earned and therefore is a part of the development of the Soul of Man. As part of the Soul of Man, Maat is part of the divine nature of man. It is a system of signposts that help an individual to meet his destiny, not unlike airport runways and highway lines that keep vehicles on a straight and clear path. Maat can be said to be the angel on an individual's shoulder. Those whose Maat is negotiable are untrustworthy.
PETER: Okay, that goes into?
CLARE: Well, this is the part that I was more interested in too, the Arkashean Commandments.
JORGE: Can I raise a question?
JORGE: You just said those whose Maat is changeable and untrustworthy or something along those lines and earlier it said ...
CLARE: Yeah, it keeps...
JORGE: ..."is seldom changed, seldom changed."
CLARE: Changed. That's what I don't get either.
PETER: Well, it's different...obviously he's referring to different levels of the changeable Maat versus the core part of the personality that is very difficult to change.
JORGE: Is there a segue there that I missed or something?
PETER: Yeah. No, there's nothing.
JAY: It doesn't say for...hard to change, it says "forever unchanging."
JAY: You know, it just sounds like it's...
JORGE: No, it says "seldom changed by the belief systems of the planet, groups" that we're talking about.
JAY: Oh right, right, right. "This unchanging moment is what we call Maat."
PETER: We're talking about Maat and we're talking about...one's uhmm Maat which is the Master Truth and we're talking about one's personal Maat which is not necessarily the Master Truth. It is the truth that you decided re ...in relationship to your illusions that you're operating under.
JORGE: So how close is that to your value systems?
PETER: Very close. Close to the vest.
SUZANNE: What are you talking about?
PETER: So the object...the object here is to match your personal Maat to the Master Maat, so you got to know what the Master Maat is, right?
PETER: And that's determined by one's overall belief systems and the philosophy in what they think the truth really is universally, okay, creation-wise, laws of creation, whatever, and then you have a sub-level of that, which is your personal Maat that you strive to synchronize with the Master Maat.
JORGE: Well, what you just described as the Master Maat was your personal belief systems. It seems to me, that the Master Maat is above your personal belief systems.
PETER: Yes, it is.
PETER: But it doesn't have to be...
JORGE: Right, it doesn't have to be if you're aligned with it.
PETER: Right, the object is to align with it
PETER: ...and then they both can be the same. So that's why it seems like there is a discrepancy there, a contradiction, but I don't think there is...
CLARE: And if it's...
JORGE: Later on, it said, it's seldom changeable. It didn't say...it said unchanged but it also said seldom changeable.
CLARE: Affected or modified, uh-hmmm.
JORGE: Can you read that again?
CLARE: "It is seldom affected or modified by an individual belief system, belief systems of the planet nor the needs of the scenario within time."
JORGE: So how could the Master Maat be modified by something like that?
PETER: It's not. It won't.
JORGE: It said "seldom." It didn't say "never."
JAY: Well, the part above it says ah that, there's a part of an individual that exists or a part of a self that is forever unchanging. So there's a part of the Soul of Man that's forever unchanging and then it goes on to say "that it is seldom affected, modified..."
JORGE: But we were talking about the part that's unchanging, so apparently occasionally it must be modified or it would cause such modification.
PETER: It doesn't say it never changes is what you're saying, right? It says "seldom."
CLARE: But then it goes on to say "this unchanging moment is what we call Maat" in other words. It sounds like he's saying it's unchanging, period, yeah...
JORGE: Virtually, not totally.
PETER: So what was the question again?
JORGE: What would cause such a change of the Master Maat, an oblivion or something like that?
PETER: I believe it would be on a planetary scale as opposed to personal scale and... 'cause you have to remember, the planet itself and then this physical Universe operates under, you know, certain physical laws which aren't exactly ...they're not the same as physical laws on the next level up, for instance. So uhm, when there's a raising in consciousness or planetary-wise, galaxy-wise or whatever-wise, you're moving into a different Maat, that all beings will operate under or strive for or will be accurate as opposed to the Maat that you're presently living in, which is this physical world, because everything's...truth is relative. There really is no intrinsic Master Truth, absolute truth, unless you're way back, you know, up in all planets or beyond, until that point where the species or the individual operates on that level, truth is relative. So it seldom changes, which I believe what it's referring to, but it can, depending on the development of the species and their ability, for instance, to move from one level to the next as a species like in those days of Atlantis and Lemuria, when they had that ability. So, there was more doors opened back then, about being able to move from one reality to the next.
SUZANNE: How do you know if your inner Maat is the same as the Universal one?
PETER: You generally...it's sort of like how you know you're in love. It's like you just know and if you're wrong, well, you're wrong. But you never...there's no-one that can really tell you outside of yourself that you are in sync with Maat except you know, intelligently-wise, you know that, for instance, killing is wrong...
PETER:...and you feel it on a galaxy level, you know.
PETER: And so because of that, you don't try to kill or murder or whatever. So, you know, there's no absolute proof about anything except proving physical laws and one's physical beliefs via experience.
CLARE: Can Maat at our level also be considered honor? I mean you could call it honor because you can lose it and you can regain it?
CLARE: You can earn it back?
PETER: Well, truth is not necessarily honor. There's a variance there, they're not exactly the same thing. The word "honor" is effectively an action...is more of a verb as opposed to Maat being a subject or a noun. One is actionable and the other is a passive object, if I remember my grammar correctly from grade school. So you want to get into the other part of it then, which are the commandments of Arkashea as it's listed in the Dawning? Is that right?
CLARE: Yes, because Therry had labeled them commandments a few months back.
PETER: Go ahead and read a couple of them.
CLARE: Let's go down to the...
PETER: Can't hear you! [Laugh]
CLARE: I'm just trying...You want me to read the whole thing? Because it's got a lot about Maat in it too and I'm not sure in what context they mean. It says, "Homage to thee Maat, Master of All Inner Truths. I come to you, Great Force of All Forces. I have brought myself hither that I may become conscious of thy decrees and I may come to know the laws of my creation."
PETER: Okay, that's saying that I've brought my truths before you and you're hoping that it's in synchronization with the Universal Maat. You're presenting your truth as you believe...believed it to be true. And you're asking for acceptance that it is indeed matching what the Universal Truth is.
CLARE: Uh-hmmm. It says, "I wish to know thee and I wish to attune with thee, Maat."
CLARE: So Maat is like...you're calling it, almost like, you said a noun or an entity...
PETER: No, not...
CLARE: Not an entity, but an object.
PETER: Well, it's not really an object.
JAY: It's like a standard.
PETER: Yeah, right.
JAY: It's a gold standard.
PETER: You're trying to align your truths with what you think the Universal Truths are. So you're presenting yourself before the Universe as "I'm bringing my truths here. I believe them to be in sync and if they're not, I'm here to, you know, try to reach that goal" is kind of what that's saying.
CLARE: Uh-hmm, uh-hmmm.
PETER: Next one? Anybody have a comment or something?
SUZANNE: I thought that was a prayer as opposed to...uhm a commandment...
PETER: Well, this is a meditation and prayer, you know, you can call it what you will, but it's effectively your...
SUZANNE: I thought she said it was a commandment?
CLARE: Well, that's what Therry labeled it, not me. But...now it's going to start into one-lines, that you might see it more that way. It says, "I strive to destroy within myself wickedness for thee."
PETER: Any questions about that one?
CLARE: Okay, "I strive not to intentionally oppress members of my family." [Laugh]
PETER: So all these things that she's going to mention are things that one is striving for, okay, so you are...towards an identification of some truth that one believes in and that you're hoping or that you're directing oneself to synchronize and align with these truths.
CLARE: Uh-hmmm. "I strive not to do evil to mankind."
PETER: And effectively they talk about the commandments that he has listed there, they are effectively our commandments for ourself and as we see it, commandments for Universal Law. Go ahead.
CLARE: Well, the word "evil" in these next two, "I strive not to do evil to mankind," "I strive not to wrought evil in the place of right and good." "Evil." Is that a word we...? Evil...
PETER: Yeah, we use it in a limited fashion to indicate that which is unholy as it were, temporary, you know, based on a broader definition, including negative...including the negative side of unholy. Because you can have unholy things that are not negative, they're just temporary, 'cause that's what unholy means temporary, versus the Universal or permanent, which is the holy things. But there is a negative umbrella to what he's directed that...that statement...that line is saying.
JORGE: Isn't evil also the absence of love?
PETER: Yes, yes, that's correct. That's correct.
JAY: It goes beyond just being negative. I mean, it's saying you're trying not to alter the bigger picture of humanity, 'cause evil is different than...
PETER: ...as you see it.
SUZANNE: But can you really have the absence of love though? Everybody loves something whether it's something bad or what. I mean you love money. That's not necessarily a great thing, but you know...or you love doing evil, so you love something, you know what I'm saying?
PETER: Well, they both can't take up the same space at the same time, so if you have an absence of love about something or someone does something to you and you hate them for it, well at that moment, you're doing evil.
SUZANNE: Oh, okay.
PAUL: What does that mean?
PETER: What does that mean? What, doing evil?
PETER: That means that you are not aligning...you're misaligning yourself with the Maat that you believe to be true.
PAUL: So, it's only evil for you.
PAUL: So there's no...in other words, if I say,"It's wrong to murder, so it's evil" and Person "B" says, "Well, I like killing people so for me it's not evil," who's correct? Or are they both correct?
PETER: They're both correct.
PETER: 'Cuz that person's, let's say, much lower on the development scale of humanity than an another person who wouldn't say something like that or believe that.
SUZANNE: But you wouldn't say that generally...
PETER: It's good for them for the moment.
SUZANNE: But wouldn't you say generally people know that killing is bad...is not a good thing?
PETER: No, that's not. It all depends on what society you're living in, like for instance, there are times in history where wars are fought over religious belief systems. In those countries, murdering the enemy is acceptable. In our country we have the inconsistency of it's okay to kill thousands in war but it's forbidden one on the streets.
SUZANNE: Well, they do it anyway, I mean.
PAUL: Exactly, they do it anyway. So well then how...people typically don't do something that they recognize they shouldn't do.
SUZANNE: Oh gosh, I totally disagree with that. Then we'd be all angels here, you know at this table...
PAUL: I've never killed anybody.
SUZANNE: Yeah, I know that.
PAUL: There's a lot of people who kill people.
SUZANNE: Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that on a lesser scale they're things that collectively...individually everybody at this table has probably done something that they know is not right, you know...
PAUL: Yeah, but it's acceptable to them.
SUZANNE:... it's not like on the scale of murdering somebody.
PAUL: Yeah, it's the same thing.
SUZANNE: But they know it's not a good thing but they still do it.
PAUL: That's what happens when people kill each other. They know it's not a good thing, but they gotta do it, because you know, you can't let these people step all over you.
CLARE: Go whack 'em!
PAUL: Yeah. That's the same thing. It's the same for them as it is for you when you do something you shouldn't do.
JAY: I mean everybody goes through a process of rationalization, you know.
PAUL: Just a little bit evil...
JAY: Yeah, they rationalize why it's okay.
PETER: Remember, there are degrees of everything including evil.
PETER: Yeah, because uh... like if we're going to use the definition that if you're not following your own Maat and you're going against it, you're effectively doing evil against yourself.
JAY: I don't know if we...
PETER: I know we don't use it in that exact definition but...
PAUL: When you get involved in a discussion of evil you open up one of the egregious cans of worms that exists in understanding the Universe altogether because you bring up primarily the question of, "Is there an objective standard of evil?" For instance, does evil exist in the Universe and if it does is...is there an enumeration of acts that are evil. Right there that could take you a whole lifetime, if you get involved with a Christian and a Jew or somebody else like that. There's no end to that conversation, right there.
MARLON: Is there a relationship with evil and unholy and holy? I think I had heard...
MARLON: ...Therry describe holy and unholy as the paths.
PETER:< No, no. Our specific definition of holy and unholy is things that remain permanent and things that remain temporary.
MARLON: I had heard something negative, maybe it's...I'm referring to the wrong thing but that holy were the things that helped the whole and unholy were those things that were used to benefit yourself, against the whole.
PETER: There may be subsets to that but the...the overriding definition for all our writings and beliefs is permanent versus non-permanent.
JORGE: If one had a visibility into Karma, then perhaps a definition of "evil" would be something that causes negative Karma, incurs a karmic debt.
PAUL: Yeah, but the problem with that is, that negative Karma is relative to he who seeks the Karma. If your goal is to stay on the Planet Earth, then it isn't negative for you, it's just Karma. The negative and positive of Karma is only when you apply value judgments to it.
JORGE: Well, if it incurs negative, absolutely if that's all, I agree with you, it is a value judgment...
PAUL: Well, see then, that therein lies the problem. So in other words, there...what...because by that statement you're saying, there is no evil. If you say that, I might agree with that, I might not. But if you say that evil is a value judgment then you're saying that there is no objective standard in the Universe.
JORGE: No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that the term evil, because it has a lot of different connotations and because of the way it's been used over time, there might be a better word than evil to use...
JORGE:...because that word's muddy. But if you get that word from Karma and something that causes negative Karma, even though it might not really bad because it causes learning, that might be one objective standard.
JAY: I was going to say the opposite. I don't even think that when you do negative things, such as murder and any of those, you can still do extremely negative things and it's still not evil...
JAY:... right along those lines. 'Cuz...a real subset...
PAUL: If there's anything that's evil, it has to be extremely, extremely a limited number of behaviors. Because clearly, you can do whatever you want. You have the free will to do whatever you want. And clearly, the Universe doesn't punish anybody.