| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** Rayson and Friends |
R = Rayson the teacher, S = Students.
S: My understanding is that truth is a spiritual concept and that fact is a physical concept. Honesty can apply to either one of those concepts R: And what do you think is the difference between the physical and the spiritual? By physical do you mean material? S: Yes, material. In other words, it is a fact that I walked up the hill. R: It is also the truth. S: Yes, that is correct. Now, carrying this one step further, I remember when my children were growing up that they had a concept of “letting it all hang out”, telling the whole truth even when they didn't need to. I think the example of Jesus was that He didn't tell people any more than they needed to know. R: Because He balanced truthful utterances with kindness and goodness, but He was always aware of the full truth of any individual's complete existence. Can you imagine having that awareness yourself? S: No, I can't imagine having it myself. But I still don't think that I should go down the street and say, “hey, you're ugly” when I see an ugly person just because it's the truth. R: But perhaps what you call ugly is only a judgment based on physical configuration rather than a spiritual fact based upon the full and integrated personality of the individual in question. S: But then let's say I say “you're ugly in accordance with my concept of your physical configuration, but not spiritually.” R: If you said that, it might take the edge off the insult. There can be no truth without kindness and goodness. That should help you to understand. S: Could you please explain to me more on kindness and particularly what is tithing? Is that a valid thing, because money is material, is it not? R: God has no requirement for the offering of material substance as an accompaniment to prayer. S: Does casting your bread out on the waters mean being kind and good and truthful? R: Among other things, yes. S: That's the way I should view it then? (R: Yes.) Back to kindness, where there is no Thought Adjuster and the question of whether kindness can be wasted on someone in that state. Kindness is such a quality of universe value that I have trouble finding it wasted anytime that it is extended. I can see your caution about risk, where the person is known or perceived to be totally evil, but there are people without Thought Adjusters who simply are, whose minds have deteriorated to the extent that kindness would seem to be needed. They would still perceive their physical response to kindness, wouldn't they? R: As an animal might, however your culture may wish to question the wisdom of maintenance of life in those who are in such a state. S: We haven't evolved that much as a whole yet, but it has come to many of us that we ought to be going that way. R: The capacity to discern Thought Adjuster absence is very close, but not fully arrived yet among mortals of your world. Those of you who are more advanced in your spirit growth will have a greater sense of this in the ones you contact. But in the not-too-distant future such lack will be almost universally apparent on this planet, as would have been the case long ago had the plan been followed. S: Could you comment about the validity of being sometimes untruthful to avoid hurting other human beings feelings? R: Do you recall how Jesus handled such a situation? S: Yes, I think that He was never unkind even when He refrained from telling, quote, “the whole truth”. I guess He was always governed by kindness and consideration for the recipient, and would never say anything unkind. S2: What about the money exchangers? If you will remember, the money exchangers were in the temple, and He had a human emotion pertaining to their desecrating His Father's temple. And for a while I think it got the best of the human Jesus. And His most unkind words, I think, were toward the religious leaders. He called them vipers, at least John the Baptist called them vipers. His worst words He said against political leaders were He called Herod an ill fox, that old fox. S: But you're talking about whether He did or did not say anything derogatory, but actually I can't remember that the human Jesus ever made an untruthful flattering statement just to save somebody's feelings either. He always sought something good to say, but He didn't speak untruth, as far as I recall. R: That is correct. He exercised restraint, yet was never insincere. S2: Sincerity is the key then. If a guy is an old fox, and if it's truthful, I would be inclined to say that. R: Perhaps if you beheld a professed temple of religious worship that more resembled a combination between a carnival and a gambling village, you would be appalled, also. S: I think I would be. That - would be my vocal response to what's happened in the Temple, that in current usage with all the flair and the selling things and everything. R: When men came to the temple to procure sexual companions, Is that worshipful? (S: No.) S: Rayson, were you at the time, were you at that temple, were you present when those things took place? R: Not on Earth, but I have reviewed the records of this planet thoroughly and have beheld the details of which you speak. S: Rayson, I was wondering, we have video tapes and so on. Do you have the ability to actually do a revisiting of it as though it were on video tape or actually like in 3-D circumstance where you can actually relive that moment and see it? R: The Ancients of Days guard the records of the cosmos and may permit one to review historical features when it is deemed appropriate. It is far more than the visual record to which you allude. There are spirit qualities recorded as well. S: How far would one have to advance through the mansion worlds before one would be capable of viewing these and receiving any benefit from them? R: It all depends on need, actually; if you are needed, it can happen early. If not, it may never occur. Your unique and individual personality is known to those at high levels and if it can be useful to them they will appeal to you for service. S: Rayson, is it possible that Christ Michael was actually being kind, in a way, when He pointed out the error of the ways of the money changers to them? R: That is a good question. But I am not privy to His mind record. That is not permitted for my review. S: I'm such a believer in kindness. On the other hand, in thinking about this very same circumstance, it seems to be, at times, very appropriate and needed anger response in life. It seems to be able to free us up emotionally. In fact, many times I look on anger as just another emotion which the denial of is very painful, and can even undermine our emotional health. In fact, releasing anger at times, could almost be kind under certain circumstances. Could you comment on that? Am I making myself clear? R: Yes, I believe I understand, but let me ask you. When you yourself experience this anger, do you feel close to God? S: No, I don't feel close to God at that time, necessarily. R: That is the answer. Do you understand that? S: I understand that, but also wonder if it isn't part of our emotional makeup as human beings, that we're going to be involved in working through things which require anger as well as kindness, require multi-facets of our personality. R: The anger response is a leftover from your animal origins, and at the time that Light and Llife are attained, anger will have fallen away from the repertoire of behavioral responses to stimuli on the part of mortals. I am not saying that at this time in the development of the planet it may not be a response that is in accord with the conditions in which you live, but your response, in terms of not feeling close to God, shows that you yourself understand the limited quality of anger in terms of your own spirit growth. S: The reason I brought that up was because of a book by Theodore Rubin called The Angry Book in which he, as a psychiatrist, maintains that unless you really vent anger, it's not something that's harbored or hung on to, but it's an emotion that if it's not expressed comes out in deviant behavior sooner or later. It's saved up like in a slush account. Most of us can easily deal with kindness, or we can deal with love and caring, but it's more difficult for us to deal, at times, with anger. R: Do you recall how Jesus managed anger as He grew and developed into His ultimate role? One instance was already mentioned, but can you think of others later on? S: Well, He dealt with compassion, understanding, empathy. He had a full range of things He used. R: Do you recall His periods of meditation? S: Yes, that's right. He spent a great deal of time in communion between Father and Himself. R: After which He returned with what feelings? S: Feelings of wholeness and, I think, perspective, and love, kindness, caring R: And resolution of anger. The animal emotions that you experience in your life as a mortal being are best understood - in your current intellectual parlance - as expressions of the narcissistic ego against perceived violations of the assumed perfection of self. To make that clearer, I would say that an emotion such as anger is truly an expression of discomfort at your deep, and perhaps not conscious, realization of your own imperfection. And yet you know very well that imperfection is one of your endowments, a gift from Father that enables you to be a co-creator in this universe and others beyond. S: Is there any such thing as righteous indignation? R: What do you think? S: I think it's a code word for anger myself. R: I would agree with you. S: And an excuse for manipulation. S2: It's just the anger that you approve. The anger you disapprove of is just plain anger. It is sometimes an excuse for controlling behavior, too, I think. R: Is there not fear and pride contained within what you call anger, indignation, even righteousness? S2: Yes, but sometimes, in my experience, I have found that the only way I can get through to somebody is to use anger. When you talk nice and when you talk quietly, they don't listen. But when you yell and you jump up and down, it seems like they listen sometimes. R: Perhaps you are dealing with animals. S: But what if they learn from my anger? R: Do animals ever truly learn? S: I don't know. R: Can you think of a more teacher-like way of persuading less spiritually advanced beings? S: I think I need to do that. It's hard work being angry. R: It does not contribute much to your ultimate goal of spirit growth and development, and you are sufficiently advanced to desire that and enjoy the sensation of pleasure which results from God-directed act. S: You used the illustration of training animals. I think that far, far more animal trainers do so by rewarding desirable conduct than by punishing undesirable conduct. R: Yes, they have an understanding of the limitations of animals as well as the presence of the lower adjutant mind spirits that respond well to small reward. S: I have a question on kindness to animals. As we respond to animals we treat them in a kindly manner, we're kind to them and we project love upon them. In effect, is that a real relationship? Is that a true kind act? Is there survivor value, for instance, in God the Supreme, when you are kind to an animal, and love it, and care about it, when in fact it doesn't respond? It is not kind to you per se or it doesn't love you because it doesn't have the capacity to do those things? R: Yes, of course, because by virtue of your kindness you yourself grow, and you will retain your growth. However, I would like to caution you in only one small regard, and that is the mistaking of kindness to animals as being a substitute for kindness to your neighbor. There are some who profess that animals are better than people. They like animals better than people, and therefore animals are more deserving of kindness than people. This is a limited view that certainly can lead to some limited personal growth. But remember, my friends, that you are all agents of change and co-creators with Father. Your world will be far less uplifted by kindness to pets than by kindness to mortal beings. S: Rayson, I'm really, really happy you commented on this. That, to me, is a very important subject, and I'm glad you brought it out. I think it's good for people to understand that we, as human beings, are relating because of our Thought Adjuster relationship. And while kindness to animals is certainly pleasant and nice and so on, it's not a substitute. R: It is far easier to be kind to a fawning pet than to be kind to a sluggish employee or an angry customer or a proud neighbor. And yet you can see that the great leaps in your own growth and development come from the latter rather than the former. S: There's a proverb that says a soft answer turneth away wrath. It probably could be substituted, instead of a soft answer, a kind act. R: Yes.
| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** Rayson and Friends |
| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** tmtranscripts teamcircuits email archive June 4, 2000. Teacher Elyon T/R Ginnie |
| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** tmtranscripts teamcircuits email archive August 23, 1997. Teacher Machiventa T/R Ginny, Frosty |
| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** tmtranscripts teamcircuits email archive April 11, 1999. Teacher Elyon, Malvantra T/R Jonathan, Mark |
| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** tmtranscripts teamcircuits email archive September 12, 1999. Teacher Daniel T/R Bill |
| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** tmtranscripts teamcircuits email archive September 12, 1999. Teacher Minearisa T/R Daniel |
| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** tmtranscripts teamcircuits email archive September 12, 1999. Teacher Minearisa, Daniel T/R Nancy, Bill |
| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** tmtranscripts teamcircuits email archive March 27, 2000. Teacher Abraham |
| ||||||||
**SOURCE:** Meredith J. Sprunger |