WE are not ourselves ultimates

1

SINCE WE are not ourselves ultimates, we cannot know ultimate Purpose.
The present purpose seems to be evolution by means of functioning. The
objective of evolution is twofold. On the one hand it is the development
of the independent individual. On the other it is the coordination of the
individuals so developed into a functioning Unity.

This dual objective is the Aim with which we must be concerned. It is the
rod by which we must measure our ambitions, activities and deeds. Are
they in furtherance of this Universal Aim? Provincial divergences of
ethics must yield to this simple criterion. So the development of
ourselves as individuals in evolution becomes our first obligation.

2

When this doctrine of self-development was first offered us by the
Invisibles we shied away. In common with most of our generation we had
been brought up on an ethic of "doing for others," of "unselfishness," of
"service." We had not lived up to that ideal. As children we had often
endured the finger of scorn and the epithet "Selfish!" And as grown-ups
we had more than once had an uncomfortable feeling we were not "doing our
duty" by others. The idea that maybe we had been at least partly right
all along looked too much like wishful thinking.

But the Invisibles persisted. A little here, a little there, they
infiltrated their subject. Finally they treated it to a full-length
discourse.

"You must," said they, "learn to understand what necessary over-emphasis
has obscured. This is that the word 'selfish' has also an obverse, a
meaning of usefulness, even a meaning of necessity. Like all ingredients
of life, it has its necessary proportion.

"Your first duty in development, not only for your own sake but for the
sake of the greater whole, is the establishment of a homogeneous,
close-knit, invulnerable core of yourself as an individual. Until you
have so established a center or nucleus, no matter how small, in which
your conviction is absolute that it is the germ center of yourself as a
separate eternal entity in cosmos, any venturing outside your boundaries
is unwarranted and will inevitably prove more or less disastrous. Even
the natural instinctive eagerness of outfling must be withheld until that
sure core of integration is assured.

"This primary central establishment is the first indispensable step in
the creation of the eternal self. Whether it takes a decade, a
half-century, a whole lifetime, or the repeated incarnations of a number
of phases, NO FORWARD MOVEMENT CAN SAFELY, EFFECTIVELY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY
BE ATTEMPTED UNTIL THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED. OUTSIDE engagements can succeed
only after this fact. Thenceforward this central self becomes a citadel
for withdrawal from mistaken or premature outgoings. Such outgoings,
before the complete and homogeneous occupation of this center, leave a
tenuosity behind your back permeable by usurping forces which a firmer
establishment would have automatically excluded. Therefore, stop AT THIS
POINT OF DEVELOPMENT until the assurance is gained, no matter what
implication even to yourself such a course may seem to have of
selfishness, self-centeredness, lack of outside response and
responsibility, or any of the other reproachful concepts of which this
use is the constructive obverse.

"Here is a truth so profound and yet so simply stated that I would have
it in a separate paragraph:

"OUTGIVNG IS NEVER CONSTRUCTIVELY EFFECTIVE UNLESS IT IS AN OVERFLOW.

From "With Folded Wings"
By Stewart Edward White

I couldn't quite take that all in,Stephen...
Forgive my ignorance but are they saying that we should be a little selfish at times?

Joan

Yes.But not in a really selfish way.You are entitled to say
No when you feel it is just to much.That is how read it.
Stephen

Thought it might be that,Stephen. Strange because reading my horoscope today (yes,I do read them...
It said 'Think of yourself today'

Joan

Stephen, White is correct in what he is saying. So Stephen how are you coming along with the establishment of a homogeneous, close-knit, invulnerable core of yourself as an individual? And just for fun, do you think that there is relationship between the above and the "die before you die" experience? John

Dear John,
Core self is for me an oxymoron.I have never
discovered either a core or a self.Yet there is a realness
that answers to the question "who am I?" with the answer
"I am that which asks the question"
This "that " is a constant and for me equates to my beingness.This beingness is not a thing nor is it an
object .It is like the space between words.It is what
defines me without being a me.It is immanent in me and
I am immanent in it.Thus my core self is this constant feeling of wholeness which is irreducible.
Function wise I would call it equanimity or balance.
With regard to this non state persisting .The proof of it
is in normal living.Does it work?Can I consistently return
to this space after the traumas and difficulties of life?
I am not completely certain.Up to now it seems reasonably consistent.
How this relates to "die before you die" I can not give you an answer.
I do know(for myself at least) that the development of a constructive and
kindly character seems to be the essential ingredient to maintain a personal
integrity at death.
None of this needs long hours of meditation but an
attentive awareness,an ability to accept less than ideal
personal behaviour in oneself ,a willingness to embrace others and a flexibility to switch attitudes.
Stephen

skfarblum wrote:Dear John,
Core self is for me an oxymoron.I have never
discovered either a core or a self.Yet there is a realness
that answers to the question "who am I?" with the answer
"I am that which asks the question"
This "that " is a constant and for me equates to my beingness.This beingness is not a thing nor is it an
object .It is like the space between words.It is what
defines me without being a me.It is immanent in me and
I am immanent in it.Thus my core self is this constant feeling of wholeness which is irreducible.
Function wise I would call it equanimity or balance.
With regard to this non state persisting .The proof of it
is in normal living.Does it work?Can I consistently return
to this space after the traumas and difficulties of life?
I am not completely certain.Up to now it seems reasonably consistent.
How this relates to "die before you die" I can not give you an answer.
I do know(for myself at least) that the development of a constructive and
kindly character seems to be the essential ingredient to maintain a personal
integrity at death.
None of this needs long hours of meditation but an
attentive awareness,an ability to accept less than ideal
personal behaviour in oneself ,a willingness to embrace others and a flexibility to switch attitudes.
Stephen

Stephen that was very well said! "Does it work?" I love that one also . The old, "Trot your dog out there and see if he will hunt." The funny thing is that that is the scariest part of all of the scariest parts. Because, if your dog won't hunt you are very vulnerable, and the fear of being vulnerable is the foundation of all fears. The fear of being vulnerable in a social sense and/or a physical sense is so fearful that it is buried deep in one's subconscious programming and classified "never to be explored" by that subconscious programming. Most people if they ever even attempted to explore the fear of being vulnerable would end up in a nervous breakdown and become very suicidal. Folks leave that one up to the professionals and do not try to do it at home . After years of being in a constant state of nervous breakdown I finally came to the conclusion that I was totally vulnerable and that anything that said that I was not totally vulnerable was delusional. Personally I think that White's suggestion to find a core place where you are not vulnerable is a very good idea, but the best that I could come up with is that I am breakable and "Oh well ." John

Thank you John for kind and sensible comments.
I am very grateful to you for haven given me the chance
to write a little on my personal philosophy.I generally
don't like to write about me.
These philosophies are really just "different strokes for different folks" and with regard to myself perhaps it more of "fools go in where angels fear to tread".
I repect immensly your strength of character to write so honestly about yourself.
I am happy I could share a little with you my ideas.I
personally feel I have more to learn from you than what
little I can offer.
Thank you for this nice exchange it has quite made my day.
Stephen

skfarblum wrote:Thank you John for kind and sensible comments.
I am very grateful to you for haven given me the chance
to write a little on my personal philosophy.I generally
don't like to write about me.
These philosophies are really just "different strokes for different folks" and with regard to myself perhaps it more of "fools go in where angels fear to tread".
I repect immensly your strength of character to write so honestly about yourself.
I am happy I could share a little with you my ideas.I
personally feel I have more to learn from you than what
little I can offer.
Thank you for this nice exchange it has quite made my day.
Stephen

And thank you also Stephen. These topics that you are posting have been helpful to me. Almost everything that I know is based on personal experience, so experiences coming from other sources (at least to what interests you ) I find interesting and informative. One example: White was considered a medium because he accessed information from what he called "the invisibles" and his source is the same one that I access information from, only I call it the "intuitive mind" or "Humm? Hey guys!?". Technically Stephen that would make me a medium, "Medium Johnny" . I have never thought of myself as a medium. And getting your slant on things is very helpful to me also. "Hey Stephen, is there anything that you would like to ask the "invisibles" ?" You are loved! John

In the teachings of the Invisibles they frequently speak of the
wisdom of explaining matters in simplicities.In fact they said
mankind in general is here to learn a few simplicities which can
be learnt in every type of human situation.
They would not reveal these simplicities as it would defeat the purpose
of human life.We have to live in order to discover them.
Without asking the Invisibles what would you think are these simplicities.
I will tell you what I think.
The first is self-awareness.The next is the knowledge of separateness.
third is the ability to learn and finally the ability to communicate.
Stephen

skfarblum wrote:In the teachings of the Invisibles they frequently speak of the
wisdom of explaining matters in simplicities.In fact they said
mankind in general is here to learn a few simplicities which can
be learnt in every type of human situation.
They would not reveal these simplicities as it would defeat the purpose
of human life.We have to live in order to discover them.
Without asking the Invisibles what would you think are these simplicities.
I will tell you what I think.
The first is self-awareness.The next is the knowledge of separateness.
third is the ability to learn and finally the ability to communicate.
Stephen

The "invisibles" (I asked them anyway ), "If it starts to get complicated, then you are going in the wrong direction." "The first is self-awareness.The next is the knowledge of separateness. Third is the ability to learn, and finally the ability to communicate." Stephen~quote. Stephen I do not have any disagreement with what you have presented. Because I was born extremely empathic and somewhat telepathic, separateness and self-awareness were a major problem for me. I have a tendency to become the people that I am around and self-awareness and separateness have a tendency to get loss in that. I have never had a problem with learning, except for the part about changing my personality programming. And because I hated school from the first day of first grade and because I am dyslexic, learning to communicate has been a real challenge for me. But, after over 14 years, day in and day out, on the internet message board circuit and reading some stuff on editing I am getting better at communicating with words (my little Spelling Ace computer is about worn out and without it I am crippled because I am a lousy speller and then if you add dyslexia to trying to spell and type a word things can become a major "argg!"). But as I am getting older I am coming to grips with my handicaps. And Stephen achieving an understanding of self-awareness and separateness fits into the "core of invulnerability" concept quite nicely . In the traditional yogi stuff the object is to eliminate self and separateness (duality) to achieve "enlightenment", but after years of studying that stuff I think that they are wrong about that. When you become "one" with something you still need to take a bit of yourself with you to anchor the experience even if your core "self present" reality is just as a pure neutral observer. Otherwise you cease to exist and you really don't learn anything. Example: When I am in a state of oneness with God, He is sharing His experience me and we are two having the same experience. When I am in a state of oneness other living things I am in a quiet state of listening/feeling, I am present, I am just not noisy about it. Otherwise I just cease to exist and there is nothing to anchor the learning experience to. Does that make any sense? John

Dear John,
Everything you wrote makes complete sense to me.
Again you impress me with your determination.
I would say without the difficulties you had to face you
probably would not be what you are today,and this I
mean in a very positive way.
Life may be a free gift,but that does mean there is not room for strength and excellence.
Stephen

You are loved! John

You too John