Sunday, 8 March 2009

The Ascension and Moral - The Ascension Explained from My Point of View

The Ascension is the most common name for what is believed to be an evolutionary shift of the collective consciousness on Earth. As it has been talked about for very long and the belief that humankind is going from one level of existance to another is very widespread, then it would certainly be one of the biggest scams of all time if it wasn't true! The background that I have in Ken Wilber's philosophy helps me understand that consciousness does evolve just as anything else, and that there are stages humans go through individually as well as on a collective level. What follows here are some notes on the moral aspect of it all, but they are my personal speculations and not forged in stone. I have yet to encounter anyone who really seems to know what will happen. It does seem as if we're right in the middle of a transformative process, however, as chaos and confusion is all around and people appear more selfish than ever when in fact we are supposed to become more heart centred. After all, selfishness is the epitome of individuality (establishing a firm sense of self), which is what last evolutionary phase has been all about. It occurred to me, that there's a very good ontological (basic) reason why a selfishness that borders on plain narcissism is at the very centre of attention these days. Selfishness is the heightened and extreme expression of individuality, and we are hopefully leaving a stage of evolution that is mainly about the development of ego. Of course it's kicking as much as it can if change is ahead. It usually gets darker just before dawn, doesn't it.

I have observed New Age people and their thoughts for quite some time as well and have been influenced by the movement in certain ways. I have, however, sometimes been taken aback by the way that simple common sense ways of being have been twisted to suit some purpose that appears rather self-indulgent if not conceited. Many have been boldly proposing that there's going to be a "suvival of the fittest" kind of scenario with a fascist twist unless I have misunderstood it; people who are spiritual enough will according to this all heal physically and emotionally quite quickly now and so they will be superior to those who cannot keep up. Considering how many people are out there without a clue about any evolutionary shift, this seems rather supercilious and unrealistic to me. I doubt that physical illness will magically disappear. Some illnesses are also not fixable. I'm not sure how but surely people will continue to be in the need of challenges that develop the soul? Now another challenge might be that of affluence. I am personally not very keen on all the propaganda that "you can have it all because you were really meant to" since there seems to be way too many pitfalls when people start wanting and grasping. Poverty is certainly not a great state of being and it can drag you down a great deal. In short; worrying about money or thinking about it all of the time seem to me like a rather negative and extreme pursuit that takes away awareness from more "noble" and constructive ideals such as compassion and altruism. These are after all what the ascension promises to imbue the collective consciousness with. I personally try and avoid extremes and go for the middle path whenever possible.

However, if you do have money it seems to me that you would be better off thinking what good you can do with it. Not saying you can't enjoy it yourself too, only that it might be better for you if you strike a balance and really think about the ethical aspects and how this situation can help you grow as a person. It seems to me that while actively growing you automatically pay service to the rest of the world/universe - many of those things come as a biproduct that you don't need to worry too much about nor try and control. This would be one of the beautys of self-development...

I've also encountered view points according to which at this point of the ascension there's a division between the ones who have chosen their standpoint and those who haven't. The first could with good conscience leave the latter alone to wallow in their misery. Trouble is... there is never (as far as I've seen) any definition of exactly who is what. How do you know that you're on the "right side"? In my opinion this creates a lot of stress and hyped up feelings in people who think that they need to show their supremacy 24/7 so as to show everyone and the universe that they are on the ascension boat. On the other hand people are often guilt ridden because they feel they don't match up with ideals that they've read about somewhere...

Again, most people are living their lives clueless of what's happening... maybe they are going through some inner processes of re-evaluation but it's hard to know for sure since only spiritual people are vocal about these things (and have a frame of reference). Surely we can't just dismiss people callously, according to some vague definition on who would fit the bill of being the devil's advocate? I've seen too many so-called spritual aspirants show really nasty sides of themselves to believe that all this would be so black and white. I'm not even convinced that Obama, who is almost deified, is solely on the side of the good. I think in the end mistakes will be made simply because he's human and the collective is affecting everybody. On the other hand, this guy has indeed dipped into the worst kind of chaos and we can only hope that there will be a new regime with a new value system.

So how to determine if you're someone who should step up and be a leader? Well, having gone through a long training in spiritual strength could possibly qualify you as someone with enough wisdom and stamina to stand up for sound values and face the ignorant without fear. I think it's something a person should be able to do on their own, since the idea of gathering disciples or followers seems to me very "old world" like (or "3D" as opposed to 4D or 5D as people often call the levels when referring to the shift). I think a person can be a leader in a less than obvious way. Not ruling out certain situations where leading people in a very concrete way might be necessary, but only hoping that such a person is truly beyond any desire to be admired or at least able to keep such desires in check. I don't think there are any obvious external signs of who could be that sort of person. I do think that to some extent, people still need to be led and that dismissing the one's who are ill or poor as not vibrating high enough is against all common sense about compassion and the basic unity of humanity. People should at least be made aware of their choices, but how is this going to take place? In short I'm troubled that too much selfishness is still ruling people's choices but let's just hope evolution will take its natural course regardless and that all these questions will be solved in a natural manner.

I think that if I were a person suddenly compelled to step into leadership I'd hope that the tasks would come to me naturally without any forcing on my part. We can wish all we wish... ultimately I do not think that a truly wise person will be able to resist the voice of conscience and do what they are supposed to do for the good of the whole. I (as the spiritual people who believe in the ascension) assume that people are inherently good and only clouded by ignorance. Being in touch with your authenticity and goodness would compel you to be a compassionate being, because your core is of a divine nature and divine in this case is defined as equal to love. The ignorance and false beliefs about reality and self would have dissipated. This state of being is often referred to as Christ consciousness.

In my humble opinion the ascension has to do with listening to internal voices as opposed to external ones. Take for instance religion: exoteric religion that relies on dogmas and rituals seems to be making way to a more widespread interest in esoteric religion, which again relies on contemplation through inner states of being (mysticism). The New Age resembles mysticism to a large extent as presented in the world religions throughout the ages. So one would assume that moral would become something that arises from the inner self rather than the typical old world need to be told what to do (as if we were children). If we're in transition right now, then one can only assume this transition is difficult, since taking responsibility for your inner states no matter what they are is a tough thing to do.

I thus conclude that an evolved being has an innate sense of moral which is connected to a deep insight into the oneness of all beings. The sense of oneness is also one of the things that esoteric beliefs strive towards. Oneness (non-dualism or the belief and experience that we are all one on a deeper level) is what would compel an evolved person to the highest good for the whole rather than seeking self-indulgent pleasures alone. Not saying though that this person cannot experience pleasure and joy, on the contrary. It would just be different from the kind emanated from selfishness (what people refer to as the simple "ego", an illusory self).

I think that as you evolve, paradoxes become more evident. You go from an either-or kind of thinking to embracing both-and, and from there it also continues in a sort of dialectic way. Thus there may be no contradiction regarding an inherent moral that compels you to do good for the whole of existance, and an individual feeling of pleasure in doing so.

Power in my opinion is not necessarily a sign of a highly evolved being, as power can be understood in too many ways. There is a lot of talk of being empowered vs disempowered, and sure these are important aspects of the transformation of self. But to put too much emphasis on power per se can in my opinion make the whole thing tip over.

Artwork: "All the World's a Stage...", artwork on paper by author, all rights reserved 1998

No comments:

Post a Comment