Quote:
Originally Posted by JHL  If I've understood you correctly, I think your definition of evil is very limited. Lets take the other extreme: is a high-awareness lightworker also not capable of "evil"? Or do we rule the fact that they are capable of evil by virtue of the fact that they happen to be "high-awareness lightworkers"?
Everyone is human and flawed. "Evil" is merely the manifestation of those flaws (or lack of love in terms of how I see it).
In your example of Hitler, for example - let just say he suffered from an vast inferiority complex. He compensated for own feelings of inferiority by projecting them onto other certain cultures. He felt powerless so he compensated by exercising power over them. A clear overt example of "evil".
If you move towards the other end of the scale you have things like gossiping. People feel somewhat insecure in themselves and so disparage other people behind their backs to make themselves feel better.
These are expressions of the same things, just on very different scales. Its irrelevant whether the person is "darkworker" or "lightworker". The way I see it, both manifestations are "evil". But again, I prefer to look at it as both are symptoms of a lack of love. The solution is the same - they need to love themselves more. |
It wasn't my definition, I'm just trying to understand some of the people on this forum.
My own personal view is that, in a rough sense, each polarity relates to the classical story of good and evil.
Service-to-others ("good") being the type of polarity shown by Jesus. (The greatest lover in history)
Service-to-self ("evil") being the type of polarity shown by Genghis Khan. (The greatest conquerer in history)
Our culture is naturally biased towards the "good" polarity which is why we have such loaded language and cultural stereotypes and such. However, in my mind, it is perfectly OK to select the evil polarity and polarize in that direction. Evil therefore is not a "flaw" it's just another aspect of the one creation.
To me evil is extreme selfishness, and some individuals will polarize towards service-to-self and as a part of this they will sacrifice the happiness of others for their own happiness. That's part of the game for a service-to-self polarized person.
And so this is where my disagreement comes in and I've been trying to get a clear image. Is a "darkworker" ("a new concept") someone who will do this, or not? Some people are saying darkworkers will not hurt others to achieve their goals, some say they will.
From my view what people on this forum have been doing is creating a Rube Goldberg tube of rationalization so that they can simultaneously follow the negative path (which is perfectly legitimate and I would not condemn anyone for doing so) while disassociating themselves from negative acts typified by that path, and also disassociating themselves from classically negative people.
How many lightworkers are going to embrace the teachings of Jesus? Everyone.
But self-proclaimed darkworkers on this forum seem very reluctant to embrace Genghis Khan who is basically the perfect example of a powerful, competant, highly intelligent, service-to-self person. Genghis Khan created the largest and most successful Empire in history, and made himself probably the most powerful single individual in history. He lived a long life full of love and abundance. Is that not something a darkworker would strive for?
Why are they reluctant to learn from his teachings?
That's just my dispassionate take. If someone wants to be evil I think it's for the best, and it's certainly not my place to judge their behaviour, but I'm pretty distraught at how people are going about it. It seems both suboptimal and in some cases dangerous, because their true intentions seem subverted.
Shrug, I'm no expert, take me with a grain of salt.