This is an interesting passage in terms of balancing love with wisdom.
Jim
I have a question concerning the message we just received from the contact Monka. It was a very interesting message and one statement was made that we should look into the mirror without sympathy for the reflection of ourselves that we see. I was wondering if it was possible for you to explain that or shed a little more light on that? I’m thinking in the realm of having affection for ourselves and accepting ourselves also as we look into the mirror. I’m having some difficulty balancing looking into the mirror without sympathy but also looking with affection.
Latwii
I am Latwii. We are glad you speak of balance. The one known to you as Monka was attempting in the way of your world to give you some idea of the eye of the Creator as it is filtered through the tree of life, which is the tree of duality. When there abounds too much sympathy, when sympathy becomes too sentimental, when sympathy becomes self-pity, when sympathy becomes denial of a part of oneself, it is then that the surgeon’s knife must come out. You must cut away that part of yourself that cannot be merciless in accepting all that there is in yourself. When you deal with that which has no sympathy, with that which is indeed merciless, with the murderer, with the rapist, with the terrorizer, then, my brother, balance with sympathy.
The one known as Monka spoke of a cosmic mirror and the eye as the symbol of all that there is. If you look into the mirror, you see yourself as you really are. But most cannot look into that mirror, even into their own eyes, for they become quite frightened. Therefore, it is a very strong allegory for the great oneness of mankind. To love oneself fully is to know without mercy the folly of the depths of one’s heart. It is to know and accept without mercy the deepest and most degrading parts of one’s being.
For they are not fantasies, my brother. They are all being acted out against the stage of this experience on your sphere of existence at this time. As we speak to you in cosmic gentleness, many terrible things occur. At this very moment, can you cry mercy? No, my brother. You must stand without sympathy and accept the totality of your being, and then pour love from the Creator into that world, into that merciless darkness, with every iota of your being.
For only when you know total mercilessness, in your estimation of the situation of your being, can you be truly a channel for love. Spirits are lovely but the sturdy who stand astride the world of illusion, of pain, of limitations of all kinds, and against that illusion take up the sword of love. Ah, my brother, there is the soldier that shall conquer in the name of love. We hope that this elucidates the theme of our brother of Monka.
May we answer you further?
Jim
No, Latwii, that was very beautiful. Thank you very much.
[A dog is howling outside.]
Latwii
We thank you and the dog thanks you.
This passage points to the limitation of personal caring, as compared to the mercy and caring of spirit which may flow through us. When we stand on that edge of discriminating observation and witness the deep suffering of our people and planet, we may then release a flow of divine compassion through us to that which is in need.
It occurred to me, immediately after posting the above, that this sort of reasoning has been used to justify horribly merciless actions throughout history, and probably before that. So, I want to emphasize, first, that this is an attitude best applied to the self, less so to others, at least in the near term. Second, where there is merciless actions–as mentioned above–this is exactly where the mercy should be turned on. Again, coming not from us so much as through us. And that “through us” part is a conversation for another time.
But is not “that part of myself that cannot be merciless” also part of myself? Why cut it away, or, deny it? My understanding of this passage is “that part of myself that cannot be merciless” is, despite being part of myself, nonetheless non-being, or , that which is not. I.e. we are comprised of being and non-being, surprisingly, another duality, though a duality on a whole new level. So, contrary to people’s thought that everything beautiful, pleasurable is being and everything horrible and disgusting is not-being; the self that does not accept itself is not-being, the self that accepts itself is being. This is consistent within the Confederation philosophy because the self is everything, so the self that deny itself is self-annahilation, i.e. nothingness, not-being. And what’s more, that which is infinitely horrible is just as much being as that which is infinitely beautiful. What is this acceptance anyway? And I always have a hard time accepting the darkest part of myself and others, e.g. Epstein, the Epstein stuff just opened for me a new dimension of possible horror. I presume there will be much worse, infinitely much, in the being.
So, this is, in a word, counter-natural. Because every human has no problem accepting that which is beautiful, so the maxim “accept yourself” is basically saying: TRY to accept that which is horrible(to you at least).
My reading of other sources gives me a glimpse of what a possible highly technologically-advanced society could look like: their planet has a super-AI that will automatically intervene in a conflict about to happen between two persons and teleport them to two distant places so that they will not meet one another. I think it could be called a quasi-peace because the violent tendency is there all along. And what’s more, they have 4-D video games that satisfy every perverted tendencies without hurting another. I take this example to illusatrate that we, for some reason, live under a passion, and under a tension. Why are we as we are now? I am trying to figure out, from some books I found.
