Summer 1996

2017-11-08T15:45:46+00:00

Interview: Legality, Morality, and Spirituality

Several readers responded to Samuel’s discussion on the topic of evil in the last issue with thought-provoking questions or opinions of their own. We used them to point the way as Samuel continues his conversation with the editors and Stuart Waldner.

Paula: A letter we received from Jennifer Little says, “Since there are basically only two emotions, love and fear, and the human mind must translate everything into terms it can relate to, fear is really the source of what human minds call evil. Anything that, through dogma or social teaching, we fear to do because of repercussions, real or imagined, becomes labeled as evil so that the human mind can make it finite and cope with it. In this way, a standard concept of evil (according to mass consciousness) becomes encased in any society.”

Samuel: That’s a very good statement. I like that a lot.

Paula: She goes on, “It [the idea of evil] is really a translation problem between the spirit and the form, which have no common language or perspective. In efforts to translate, we refer to anything that causes us conflict as ‘evil,’ since it keeps us from our true purpose, which is the discovery of the Source within. . . . So to the human mind, as the translation exists, there is evil in the world.”

Samuel: But that statement expresses a New Age idea that is absolutely inaccurate. It’s actually just the opposite: What the world has created as evil is anything that allows you to touch into your greatest spiritual power. It’s just the opposite of what she said.

Stuart: I think that, because of the pattern that humanity is working through, we have in the blueprint the need for a mediator between us and God.

Samuel: You have been told you need a mediator.

Stuart: Yes, we have been told, and we’re following that pattern. And because of that, the systems or the dogmas that are built up to support that define any direct access that doesn’t have that mediator in between as evil. The power of sex magic, which gives us a direct connection into our entity self through the magical use of sex, is considered totally evil.

Samuel: Much of Christian dogma is based on the assumption that things of the world are evil, but anything that allows you to reach spirit on your own is, also. So you have a paradox, don’t you? What to do, what to do? The world and spirit are both bad. The only thing left that is not bad is that which makes the rules.

Read what she said again.

Paula: “It is really a translation problem between the spirit and the form, which have no common language or perspective. . . .”

Samuel: But they do.

Paula: “In efforts to translate, we refer to anything that causes us conflict as ‘evil,’ since it keeps us from our true purpose, which is the discovery of the Source within.”

Samuel: But really, what is labeled evil is not anything that causes conflict with the true Source within; it’s anything which gets you to the true Source within: the many forms of work, the many forms of experience.

Stuart: You’ve talked about humanity needing security and you’ve often humorously referred to us as herd animals, and it makes sense that it’s too threatening to the security of the whole if individuals are able to make personal contact with Source. We have religions that are accepted ways of having contact, and are safe because there’s safety in numbers and there’s that herd, but if each person has their own contact with the Source, then that threatens the security, I assume, and that’s why it’s considered to be evil.

Paula: Well, it takes the power away from those who have made the rules and who rely on groups of people conforming.

Samuel: Somebody that does not agree with, and therefore does not follow, the local social code called morality is not evil. But more often than not, the definition of evil is based upon the local morality. Morality is an issue of form functioning in the world—the herd’s needs. The human is a herd animal. What differentiates it from the other animals, however, is the individuation that spirit gives it. Spirit consequences, however, are called karma, as opposed to morality. Very often people confuse karma with morality. It is because they label karma something other than consequences or reactions; they put it in a pigeonhole that says it is a punishment for negative behavior, instead of seeing the bigger picture.

David: And they put their local moral constructs into a universal context.

Samuel: Absolutely. Which is what causes the greatest difficulty. Morality is a necessary construct—remembering, however, that during this time of transition all constructs are falling, and therefore many people are questioning moral issues. Questioning any prevailing form of thought is going to create a backlash from those who strongly hold onto it; so you have the Moral Majority, a huge Christian Coalition, you have a whole new attitude about teaching children morality codes and basic social behaviors—bringing back integrity issues. But this backlash also increases the questioning and helps the society sort out the human issues from the spiritual issues they have been confused with.

Moral issues always have to do with security issues. The reason they are there is to allow society to have a blueprint—a construct—to move on to the next step. Morality is a whole lot like eating a good diet in order to have a vessel that will hold a greater energy. But when morality becomes a means of manipulating a society to remain at a particular level, then it’s absolutely no different than having a good diet merely as a means of amplifying form rather than of giving the spirit a better home. And amplifying form is the truest basis for the concept of evil that there is; it is around that that most of the religious constructs are built, but have of course gone way off the deep end into fanaticism.

As an example, the early Church made a very definite division between things of the body and things of spirit, and said that things of the body should not be given attention. And so you had the Black Death and Dark Ages, because to take a bath or clean your pots was not godly. It was giving too much attention to the physical. To spin fine cloth and do nice needlework—creative work—for anything other than church vestments and decoration was wrong because it was giving to the world. Even today, to take care of oneself, to make oneself physically healthy and strong inside and out, is not spiritual because it is not giving to the service of the world, whereas I would tell you indeed it is, in the bigger picture. To take a job that will pay what you need to survive is not what spiritual people should do, things of the spirit should be free, and the people who are serving God should not be paid—that whole Piscean and New Age attitude that there shouldn’t be charges for such things because then you are too much in the world is a distortion of the understanding that the physical holds, guards, is the vessel for the spiritual, but it’s not spirit.

The function of spirit in this dimension is to work in form, to synthesize with it, to learn what form can do and, in so doing, raise form up to its highest possible level.

However, spiritual action has karmic consequence, meaning reactions or results that go far beyond simply form, because the action is in form, but the response is in spirit. Spiritual karma and moral construct are two different things, because moral construct is a work strictly of form, even if somewhere down the line the original premise was that it will help the form become a better vessel for spirit. Spiritual karma, however, overrides the moral consequence. But you can have conflicting responsibilities when your moral construct forces an action that is going to have spiritual karma.

An example: You have an employee that would like you to pay them cash under the table, and you agree to that. Later you find out the karmic implications of doing that illegal thing, but you have morally agreed to do this. What do you do?

David: You would make clear your own moral dilemma to the person and ask to renegotiate a new agreement.

Samuel: Good. But that is what most don’t do, because in this world the long-term effect is less important than the immediate effect, and the moral dilemma—”I gave my word; I have to stick with it”—supersedes, creating a breakdown on the spiritual level that is evil. You see, most would rather deal with the moral complications, whereas morality changes. What does not change is that a greater law has been broken, and therefore it is your responsibility, as soon as you are aware of it, to change what’s going on. Not to change it is evil. Why is it evil?

David: Because it is a conscious variance from your highest spiritual values.

Samuel: When you are purposefully choosing to bypass a higher spiritual principle for the sake of temporal gain, the decision is evil. The result may not be, because temporarily everybody is at peace still. But in a larger picture, that’s where the evil is going to show up.

That’s with awareness—when you know you have a choice. What about those times you do not know? Is it evil if you did not know it was evil? What are the karmic consequences of ignorance?

David: Evil is defined by your intent.

Samuel: Well, one version of it certainly is.

Paula: Suppose my employer is the one making the decision to pay under the table; I’m just the recipient. If I go to them and say I need to stop doing this and they say, “Well, I don’t pay taxes on this; the government doesn’t know about this money,” does my attempt at negotiation take away the negative consequence? I have made the effort, but someone else’s free will is involved in it, too.

Samuel: And what is your choice at that point?

Paula: To leave, or to stay but accept that I am inviting karmic consequences.

Samuel: And do those consequences have an effect on others? When your consequences affect others, you’ve got a whole new ball game going. When they do not affect others, that’s different. Now, what action can you take in the world that does not affect others? Nothing, not a thing. Everything that is done by your energy has an effect, which has an effect, rippling circles further and further outward in this great lake of life.

You are required to live to the highest of your ability, the highest of your knowledge, but you’re not required to live beyond that. You can stay in a cave or a convent or an ashram, very safe, never reaching out into the world at all—and all the decisions that you make, and all the knowledge that comes to you will be extremely limited, and you’ll be there time after time after time. You’ll NEVER get off the wheel, because your ability to define, act on, and move beyond society’s construct of good and evil, of separation, of division, your ability to be in the world and not of it, is what moves you so fast from one level to another.

You are responsible for what you know. My work is to help you remember what you know. The hardest thing I run into is self-imposed stupidity—consciously behaving in a way that is not the highest and best—knowing it’s not. “I don’t get it.” Sure you do. Some of those who do the greatest evil in the world are not those who bring terrible pain and suffering to many. Of course there are too many of those on the planet, but there are many more whose much greater evil is to only accept a finite good. To only be responsible for a small amount of good, to say “This is enough” allows mass consciousness to believe that’s all. Greater harm is done in this world by the majority of good people who are not living up to their highest potential than by the many “bad,” who actually have a tendency to make people act.

And a lot of what passes for good is very evil. It is complacency, it is “understanding,” it is knowing all the answers. It is teaching that there are answers; gracious, why do you think I hate to give handouts that say this is what I think? Because then that becomes dogma.

David: When you chose that example, you more or less equated legality with spiritual principle, whereas I would think of legality, morality and spirituality as ascending in that order.

Samuel: Your society—and it is different in New Guinean society or Amazonian society—has specific standards in which one thing is legal and another is not. Yes, there are laws—I’m making a massive statement here—that are immoral and not right. Work to change them. But as long as there are laws—you will drive at sixty miles per hour—you are responsible for driving at sixty miles per hour. You follow the law of where you live, or you change the law, or you don’t live there.

David: So civil disobedience is evil?

Samuel: Civil disobedience creates a doorway for evil, but you’ve got to be careful with that one, because civil disobedience is a means of changing the law. And there is a huge difference between rebellion and consciously working to bring about change.

Paula: So viewed spiritually, breaking the speed limit because you have contempt for it and taking part in a civil rights sit-in are two different things.

Samuel: Breaking the speed limit because you do not agree with it is different from breaking the speed limit with four other people in the car whom you’ve not received permission from to do this illegal thing while they are in your presence. Because your action is going to have an effect on them. Your morality issue is, “I’m going to break the law and I don’t care because I don’t believe in it.” The spiritual issue of that law is, “I don’t believe in it; therefore I choose to go against it. But my choosing may have an effect on these people; therefore I need to ask permission.” Bigger picture: Your going beyond the speed limit may have an effect on others who are on the road from whom you cannot ask permission, and so, in the biggest picture, it’s a whole lot easier just not to go against it.

David: How about the example of worshipping within a religion that’s outlawed, the punishment for which may well be execution?

Samuel: How about a belief within a religion like Christian Science or some of the Mormons sects that says no medical intervention in the healing process? Does your right not to bring your child medical care supersede the state’s right to take your child from you because of that? Where is the evil? In the law that says a parent must go against a religious belief in order to force the child into the common idea of good? Your religious beliefs allow you to take part in acts that are deemed illegal. The difference between smoking marijuana and human or animal sacrifice is very big. And there are religions that are having a lot of difficulty because their belief system involves animal sacrifice and the local laws are not allowing them to practice.

So what do you do? Do you go against the law because you are rebelling and you don’t care and you just want to break the law? Do you go against the law with the intent, if you are arrested for it, of taking it to court to try to change consciousness in the larger picture? Do you give in to the law and let go of your greater beliefs? I would tell you that going against your greater beliefs needs careful consideration.

David: You’re saying that if you choose to go against the law in accordance with your beliefs, you are obligated to work toward changing the law?

Samuel: Spiritually speaking, you are obligated.

David: But suppose my priorities just bend me toward other work than making myself a martyr. No, I don’t want to go to prison for this—I have other work to do. Then what?

Samuel: First, be clear that I am saying this is a spiritual issue. Second, don’t break the law.

Individuals today have chosen to be in the midst of a society overrun with laws that create a standard of mediocrity; the safety of the many is taking away the individuality of the few—actually, of the many. How many of the people in this readership are voting, are trying to take part in what is ideally the political system that makes the laws that you’re too good to be a part of, but that you came into the society because of?

I am saying that you have a responsibility to be very clear in your intent when you go against law, and very aware of the possible—and because this is a time when the constructs are breaking down, I would go so far as to say probable—reactions and consequences to your action that may make you have to explain to somebody why you do what you do. Maybe who you explain it to will be a judge. You must be prepared for that. You must be aware that when you follow along you’re playing safe, and that’s fine; but if you are following along and do not believe you should be—you know that there is a higher rule (and this goes back to that earlier point), you are aware that there is a greater spiritual thing that should be done, then you are going to, by breaking that law, become responsible to that higher knowledge. And you’re either going to find out that you’re wrong—and hopefully will grow from it—or you will find out you are right, and of course grow from that, too.

A society’s morality changes. It’s a function of its growth. Your concept of right and wrong changes as you better understand a higher version of the connection between actions and results. You are responsible for what you know, as well as for what you do. And because of what you know, you may have the opportunity to be a leader in bringing about change.

So pick your legal infractions well; pick your fights well. Let go of what does not matter. Many people fight for what does not matter simply because they do not have the courage to fight for what does matter. They have all of these little issues that keep them going, keep them looking like they are active enough to make up for not handling the big issues.

Paula: Martin Downing and Jerry Cook wanted to ask, is evil inherent in earth-dimension existence?

Samuel: Separation is inherent, but to define pieces of the separation, the divisions, as evil or not evil is a socially imposed structure.

Paula: It does not exist in any other dimension than form, the earth dimension?

Samuel: The dimensions of earth are the only arenas in which separation is construed as evil, and the constructs that evil has created in mass consciousness only function in the dimensions of earth.

David: Free will is requisite for evil, and free will is not an issue in other planes.

Samuel: That’s correct.

David: There’s a question from George Beck. “Let’s discuss symbolic references like Lucifer, the first fallen angel, who led the way into the abyss. The end, as stated in Revelation, is that the angel will come down from heaven holding the key to the abyss, and the ancient serpent, devil, Satan, will be chained up for a thousand years. So how does the devil, who must be Lucifer, get all these names, like Satan, serpent, the ram, Beelzebub.”

Martin and Jerry wanted to know about the fallen angel, as well, the idea of a conscious entity working toward evil.

Samuel: Towards evil?

David: Or towards what?

Samuel: Towards knowledge for all, which is “evil” because it brings the masses to spiritual power, taking them out of control.

All right, two things. Remember my story about the angels that be and the angels that do. The angels that be, who worship around the throne, whose total work is to anchor the vibration of Source power in all dominions. The angels that do, who choose to work within one of those dominions as a representation of Source power, but who push, prod, stimulate Source awareness. They do. Angels that do are the messenger that gets killed, the pesky fly that gets slapped away, the prophet that loses his head. The angels that do are an irritant in the eye of the angels that be because the anchoring work of the angels that be is impeded—made more difficult—by a constantly shifting consciousness. But it is that constantly shifting consciousness that is going to bring about the change that will allow an evolution of and elevation of spirit so that what is being anchored is more stable.

David: The conservatives and the liberals.

Samuel: They are angels and demons.

Paula: The demons being the angels that do.

Samuel: Of course. To do something that forces change is dangerous, isn’t it?

Now, I don’t believe there is time to go into the subject of the evolution of Satan at the length I easily could. George is doing a good job in saying all societies have it and essentially evil is whatever has an adverse affect on their personal well-being—if you’re a desert dweller, evil is anything that creates a sandstorm, and so the devils are the gods that create the sandstorms. Every society has evolved it in that fashion. But it doesn’t change that the bottom line is: To sit and anchor loving energy is an important and powerful work; to get out there and serve means you’re going to tread on toes and be bad.

Evil tends—inaccurately—to be defined as anything that “gets in the way of my good.” Therefore, the world is evil, isn’t it?

Paula: Well, I’m beginning to see that what evil does is allow us to not see the beam in our own eye. When we can look out into the world and say, Ooh, that’s horrible and that’s hateful, we can kind of get around the fact that we’re breaking the speed limit or we’re not paying our taxes. We’re not living to our highest level.

Samuel: You are not working with a greater understanding of one heart, one being, one life, because you do not see that what you do affects everybody, everything. And therefore, to live to your highest level is the only answer.

Evil is a construct of the lazy human. Evil is a means of control. Ultimately, evil is that which keeps you from your highest, best action. And that doesn’t sound bad, does it? That sounds pretty reasonable. It even sounds like what everyone could agree on as a definition.

David: It sounds like something that no one can do to you.

Samuel: That, too. When you do evil to me, it only becomes evil in my life if I allow it to handicap me.

The world says what is evil is that which keeps you from knowing God. And I agree with that. Unfortunately, where we tend to differ is that I would tell you boldly that knowing God begins with yourself, and so those things that keep you from knowing yourself are evil, even if they are thousand-year-old platitudes of how to be good.

preloader