Transient, Sustained and Eternal

[Asolsutsesvyl]

Ra: I am Ra. To give you this information would be to infringe upon the free will or confusion of some living. We can only ask each group to consider the relative effect of philosophy and your so-called specific information. It is not the specificity of the information which attracts negative influences. It is the importance placed upon it.

It can make sense that giving importance to specific information detunes a message about the infinite. The infinite is more about that any possibility/probability complex has an existence.

From experience in another community, I've come to understand this message more concretely. And basic patterns can be recognized not just "over there", but in other places, including sometimes here.

What you described sounds like a form of elitism.

Very true. That [...] can happen when people begin to think that various little specifics matter a lot spiritually, instead of general principles. The nature of souls ended up judged [in the other community] based on what people think and say about this and that when views change like transient trends both inside and outside the group.

Overconfidence in that group grew inside it, as it set itself apart from the misguided world outside itself, in more and more ways. The consensus became increasingly filled with contradictory elements. They described pattern after pattern of cognitive biases and other traps to avoid which others fall victim to, where they are smart and discerning enough to know better, only to then go right into the same traps some years later.

In ethics, they both:

1. Refined their philosophy very early to theoretically solve the problem: "There is good, there is evil, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which." Morality, ethics, good vs. evil can in principle never be reduced to any set of black and white rules. (I agree, but the problem is that they then did exactly that in practice.)

2. Redefined objectivity as honoring reality including in areas beyond the reach of materialistic science, and then viewed what opposed their group consensus as more subjective and at odds with reality, and fundamentally judged such subjectivity as supporting or being in alignment with STS. The "us vs. them" mentality grew gradually.

To mention a simple type of example of how things ended up working, there is the easy and generally divisive topic of diet and lifestyle. At first they decided that it didn't really matter spiritually what is physically eaten, and so arose the problem with those viewing vegetarianism as spiritually superior: they believe and live an illusion, thus fueling the opposite of honoring reality. Meanwhile, a different type of diet is "more efficient" and thus minimizes gluttony, and that makes it superior in reality instead of in illusion, and then the consensus grew into staunchly supporting that. Then they began to view problems people had as often being a matter of their wrong diet unless they were firmly in line with it. Conflicting spiritual "schools" do the same thing, for example sometimes viewing non-vegetarianism as the cause of all kinds of problems, unless this is disproved by having diet in order first.

The same thing with various other little lifestyle details. There's many ways to spin specifics of "healthy" spiritual living and decide what the new and better "normal" should be. It's apparently also very easy to channel messages supporting your own dogma against that of conflicting teachings. Many channelers do that, while other types of spiritual teachers rely more on e.g. scriptures or other sources of "inspiration".

A point as regards "detuning" is that the more a spiritual teaching becomes concerned with such details and begins to view all kinds of problems of life centrally in relation to that, the more materialistic the focus tends to become. Regardless of what the "spiritual" dogma concerning physical life is, all kinds of complex, existential, and other deep questions will in practice become reduced to the terms of that dogma.

(In my personal opinion, it's all bogus, a predictable "game" which many like to play but which leads nowhere, regardless of which variation is being played.)

That's all about one sub-type of transient focus, the moralizing kind. There can be other problematic patterns of transient focus, but it's particularly easy to flesh out Ra's description of the results of (possibly invisible) negative attention when it comes to moralizing about transient things. After all, moralizing is fundamental in creating divisions between people, so entries into abusing that will be especially sought after by negative influences. (Perhaps for "teachers" who start out positive, the road to hell is paved with moralization.)