07-13-2018, 02:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2018, 02:58 PM by rva_jeremy.)
Diana, it sounds to me like your concerns orbit around the idea that acceptance is a kind of passive response to the world. I think there are times where this might serve our growth, but I agree with you that the rule of spiritual growth is probably going to look more like actively engaging with phenomena and catalyst. After all, it takes acceptance to act, too, at least to the extent that you accept that what is going on in front of you is real and not something to be escaped through dissociation or simply ignoring it. A stimulus can only provoke a response if the stimulus is granted attention and significance, i.e. accepted.
The Confederation makes clear that it is through dissatisfaction, a kind of rejection, that we grow. But they also say we must exercise acceptance to grow. How do we square those two approaches? Seems to me that it is precisely the words that are hanging us up, as you suggested. We have a language that privileges doing over being, transitive verbs over intransitive verbs. Episode 73 of the In the Now podcast dealt with the being/doing dichotomy, but I think the semantic distortions were overlooked.
What I keep coming back to when I consider your two examples, Diana, is that the passivity exemplified in the first scenario is itself a lesson; not expressing and sharing oneself can generate catalyst (frustration, stagnation, self-rejection, etc.) just as much as expressing and sharing oneself. What we run into constantly when attempting to appraise the spiritual utility of different behaviors, philosophies, etc. is the limitation of viewpoint inherent in third density. From the point of view of just this life, maybe the life exemplified by scenario 1 was wasted. But does that not simply set up a balancing in the next life?
Now, I understand that you sketched out these limited scenarios precisely to make a fine point that was something different than the "all is well" point on which we all already agree. However, I do think that issue of the limitation of viewpoint is worth considering from a different angle, because it is precisely what I found interesting about the first Latwii quote's framing of acceptance as an expansion of the viewpoint, an embrace of our accumulating experience, something that transforms our perception and by extension our behavior. Acceptance is not something that precludes action; it is something that widens our gaze, incorporates more nuances of the Creation, and allows our actions -- or lack thereof -- to meet reality more and more where it actually is.
I do think many frame acceptance as mere passivity and that is unfortunate, because it ignores the work involved in acceptance. That was what stood out to me about the card game metaphor as well: Latwii doesn't say it's just about "accepting the card", it's also about accepting the work inherent in the card. This implies to me that acceptance is far more active in their view, a sort of leap of faith we take in the import of our catalyst to impel further learning and growth.
The Confederation makes clear that it is through dissatisfaction, a kind of rejection, that we grow. But they also say we must exercise acceptance to grow. How do we square those two approaches? Seems to me that it is precisely the words that are hanging us up, as you suggested. We have a language that privileges doing over being, transitive verbs over intransitive verbs. Episode 73 of the In the Now podcast dealt with the being/doing dichotomy, but I think the semantic distortions were overlooked.
What I keep coming back to when I consider your two examples, Diana, is that the passivity exemplified in the first scenario is itself a lesson; not expressing and sharing oneself can generate catalyst (frustration, stagnation, self-rejection, etc.) just as much as expressing and sharing oneself. What we run into constantly when attempting to appraise the spiritual utility of different behaviors, philosophies, etc. is the limitation of viewpoint inherent in third density. From the point of view of just this life, maybe the life exemplified by scenario 1 was wasted. But does that not simply set up a balancing in the next life?
Now, I understand that you sketched out these limited scenarios precisely to make a fine point that was something different than the "all is well" point on which we all already agree. However, I do think that issue of the limitation of viewpoint is worth considering from a different angle, because it is precisely what I found interesting about the first Latwii quote's framing of acceptance as an expansion of the viewpoint, an embrace of our accumulating experience, something that transforms our perception and by extension our behavior. Acceptance is not something that precludes action; it is something that widens our gaze, incorporates more nuances of the Creation, and allows our actions -- or lack thereof -- to meet reality more and more where it actually is.
I do think many frame acceptance as mere passivity and that is unfortunate, because it ignores the work involved in acceptance. That was what stood out to me about the card game metaphor as well: Latwii doesn't say it's just about "accepting the card", it's also about accepting the work inherent in the card. This implies to me that acceptance is far more active in their view, a sort of leap of faith we take in the import of our catalyst to impel further learning and growth.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)