I get the feeling in this last post that you are making a statement of where you are at, and like a said this is your view, and I see and like your view. If it is a comment on something worrisome you see in my view, that you say you are starting to see, maybe we should wait a while so my view sinks in a little more. In other words these points of yours are not reflecting to me an understanding of my view.
Correct. I think we should clarify the process here. You say something, I may inquire of further clarity, but I may also simply reply with automatic associations of my own view. This thread is not just about your view, it is an opportunity for any member to offer whatever insights they have. When you think I am prescribing you into some position you feel uncomfortable with, that is because you are reading my comments as a direct compartmentalisation of you. This is not the case. This thread is a discussion of shared insights, some of which are in mutual agreement, some not, and some not only due to angle of approach such as your description of the fluidity of infinity above.
Thus when I say there is a 'danger' in a view, it doesn't mean you are adopting a dangerous practice. It is a general discussion of the complexity and history of certain views that have been revealed by seers across the ages. In other words, don't take my comments personally.
In the last post of mine, I was digressing from the main inquiry I have been following with you: to understand how you see the earth's AP. I was taking time out to explain something that arises out of your post which is relevant to how people navigate the path. In other words, I was elaborating on an opportunity you offered me, to speak of something from my view.
A proper conversation on understandings, is a dynamic process. It is not just a stage for one person to explain something which they have predetermined they must 'get out'. Books and Blogs are for that. A forum conversation evolves, with a mix of new directions and some consistency of theme.
You asked me about DJ's words. I was referring to some things said, but then explaining them in my own words, from my own experience. This is something we all must do on this path. I feel somewhat tired of discussions on other forums where people throw quotes back and forth as if they are inviolable icons, instead of going deeper into one's own experience and coming back with one's own words. Anyway, for the record, here is the quote upon which I bassed my reference:
And thus he will have overcome his second enemy, and will arrive at a position where nothing can harm him anymore. This will not be a mistake. It will not be only a point before his eyes. It will be true power.
He will know at this point that the power he has been pursuing for so long is finally his. He can do with it whatever he pleases. His ally is at his command. His wish is the rule. He sees all that is around him. But he has also come across his third enemy: Power!
Power is the strongest of all enemies. And naturally the easiest thing to do is to give in; after all, the man is truly invincible. He commands; he begins by taking calculated risks, and ends in making rules, because he is a master.
A man at this stage hardly notices his third enemy closing in on him. And suddenly, without knowing, he will certainly have lost the battle. His enemy will have turned him into a cruel, capricious man, but he will never lose his clarity or his power.
A man who is defeated by power dies without really knowing how to handle it. Power is only a burden upon his fate. Such a man has no command over himself, and cannot tell when or how to use his power.
Once one of these enemies overpowers a man there is nothing he can do. It is not possible, for instance, that a man who is defeated by power may see his error and mend his ways. Once a man gives in he is through. If, however, he is temporarily blinded by power, and then refuses it, his battle is still on. That means he is still trying to become a man of knowledge. A man is defeated only when he no longer tries, and abandons himself.
He has to come to realize that the power he has seemingly conquered is in reality never his. He must keep himself in line at all times, handling carefully and faithfully all that he has learned. If he can see that clarity and power, without his control over himself, are worse than mistakes, he will reach a point where everything is held in check. He will know then when and how to use his power. And thus he will have defeated his third enemy.
But I went further than this, explaining the process of how we on the path handle the knowledge of our power, once it has been experienced. The idea of applying power in service to others has nothing to do about whether we should be involved in 'service': "not sure why you are stressing service to others". It had to do with the experience of practitioners who 'help' others in a way they would never do for themselves. It is about trust, not service.
Perhaps I could recommend something to you nemo. When you read my words, avoid any 'emotive' words which I add in for the sake of colour. And ignore any inferences you feel are an attempt to 'box' you, define you, or relegate you to some inferior position. Ignore all that, and read the post again, trying to understand that I am pointing, from out of your train carriage, at some fascinating features of the countryside through which we are passing.
However, be that all as it may. I still wish to get back to the earth's AP.
The best approach I can think of just now, which may or may not accord with what you are saying, comes from the Australian Aboriginals. They used to hold what were called 'increase ceremonies'. They held the view that these ceremonies were not just for their own personal development, but also for the benefit of the entire earth - on every land in this earth, not just the Australian continent. This implied an realisation that their spiritual progress was essential to the earth as a whole, not just themselves.
A similar view was put by Rudolf Steiner back in early last century, when it became popular to believe the earth would be better off without humanity. This view you still hear today. He disagreed. He said that humanity played a crucial role in the evolutionary path of the earth itself, and that our correct positioning in the overall scheme of earth's creatures, was our role in the earth's development.
Another example, is Gurdjieff's view that what he was setting up in his various 'Institutes', was actually a machine for the beneficial service to the earth's evolutionary path. Speaking of service, he was one to hold this very highly, and above all he believed in the role of spiritual development as a service to the earth itself. He was extremely scathing (personally) of anyone who sought any form of personal salvation. The mark of real man, as he would put it, was to devote oneself to higher attainment because it was the energy given off by that struggle which the earth fed off for it's journey. He believed one had to submit to a purpose outside oneself.
I know those examples are nothing about what you are talking about, but I offer them as my own automatic associations when you speak of "If you change yourself the world will change along with you", in the hope they might give a fillip to your own continuing explanations of what you see. (I should add that these examples I give do not accord with my own view on the matter, but I do like them.)
