posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:42 AM
I create this thread to put on display a moral/spiritual/pragmatic dilemma that was conceived by Dostoevsky, a man some say was a prophet, some a
madman, others simply a spirited social critic. In a book of his that many claim to be an unparalleled work a genius there is a chapter some say is
the greatest thing ever written. And in this place there is a magical dilemma, an unexplainable mystery with irreconcilable contradictions that I
will display for you here.
Let's see if anyone can make sense of this in an intelligent way because I think many of you may have suffered with this question as it logically
effects those most who ask questions and seek answers.
(Quotes are the version translated by H. P. Blavatsky)
(Commentary by me, NearPerfect, purely for ATS viewing)
"Why should a soul incapable of containing such terrible gifts be punished for its weakness?"
Gifts like freedom, peering through lies, having a taste for higher truths, you would all agree that such things come at a price, one that not
everyone is willing or able to pay. Many times, perhaps at all times, we learn to rise from being held down by misfortune; it is a great suffering
that forges our most precious abilities and gives us the impetus to better ourselves. Therefore, if all spiritual gifts are strictly reserved for the
bold, those who are able to persevere, is it right to judge those too weak to meet the task?
"Didst Thou really come to, and for, the "elect" alone? If so, then the mystery will remain for ever mysterious to our finite minds. And if a
mystery, then were we right to proclaim it as one, and preach it, teaching them that neither their freely given love to Thee nor freedom of conscience
were essential, but only that incomprehensible mystery which they must blindly obey even against the dictates of their conscience."
This is an idea of a spiritual elitism, or hierarchy, that resulted from the existence of a great prophet. A common fallacy among religious and
spiritual people is that natural hierarchies formed around divinity cannot exist, that it would defeat the whole point of mass teachings as they would
be rendered diluted scraps of what is truly essential and therefore 'protected'. The protection is the very idea of a pyramid structure of
importance, the force that keeps it all together being mystery, the ultimately unattainable goal, call it perfection/godliness/nirvana/whatever.
Pragmatic truths of materialism are the exact same thing in practice, you commoditize assets or potential assets through innate worth, survival (not a
common problem in high civilization) or a process of valuation where the elite/ruling class/cultural majority decide what is and is not worthy of
protection (allocating of non-infinite resources).
I pause when speaking of the bible as that opens to door to all sorts of idiocies, but it said only 144,000, separating the wheat from the chaff..
The point is, there are obvious parallels between spirituality and pragmatism, or in other words, the infiniteness of the cosmos and the scarcity of
resources on earth.
"Thou judgest of men too highly here, again, for, though rebels they be, they are born slaves and nothing."
We all know certain people are born as Kings and Queens while others are born as slaves. To truly understand the different levels of reality one has
to be able to answer, who are slaves and who are not? Does birth or bloodline alone decide this, or is there a greater allotment to those who forge
their own destinies and can be great based on their own merits.
Would it be right to judge people based on the difficulties they have faced in life, or perhaps it's better to simply have faith that a higher power
rewards the most deserving by making their paths easy.
Genghis Khan was born the son of a Khan, sold into slavery, crowned Khan of all Mongols, then conquered half the world.
"Can he ever do that which Thou art said to have accomplished?"
Some aspire to greatness and heightened spirituality, others never sought after such, but instead were led down a certain path and achieved
effortlessly as if fortunes of wealth/knowledge/experience could just steal upon a person. No matter how it came to you, there is the question of
what obligations one has to others who are in the same area of causality yet reside at lower frequencies. Is it simply masters are meant to be
masters and servants are meant to be servants?
"Thy great prophet John records in his vision, that he saw, during the first resurrection of the chosen servants of "God—"the number of them
which were sealed" in their foreheads, "twelve thousand" of every tribe. But were they, indeed, as many? Then they must have been gods, not
A maxim for power and seduction is that you control a situation by limiting its potentials, creating an illusion that "This is for everyone" when in
reality it is not. I know from experience that the best way to control the energy of a room is to have the most people's attention, but have
obligations to the fewest. The main idea here is the few, and not the many.
"And why should the weakest be held guilty for not being able to endure what the strongest have endured?"
Should a person's eternal worth be subject to the Law of Averages? An unfortunate aspect to seeing everyone as being connected is that there is a
supreme relativity, all interesting nuances and mysteries are dulled towards the mean.