THERE are certain concepts, like over and under, above and below, inside and outside, empty and full, endless and finite, brief and prolonged, small and gigantic, purpose and obsolete; and these concepts, all of them, are matched because they insinuate a measure, a measure without prejudice, a measure of proportioning space.
Interestingly enough, these concepts give more of a picture of something else to that they refer to, rather than just the concept itself. For example: if I am considering something above or something below, it is the something which I consider in relation to it being positioned. The land is below the clouds on high. I am seeing land and clouds.
The concepts above are spatial verbs. They are used to set our bearings, to find our place within the inward space of our imagined planes... to position our selves in relation to that which we consider, to chart and to find.
And they are not intended to be anything more than general thoughts within ourselves - how high or low, how deep inside or far outside, how empty or how full, how endless or how finite, how brief or how prolonged, how small and how gigantic, how much purpose or lack thereof - the 'hows' are mathematically inconsequential to the task of this positioning.
Is it hot or is it cold? Far or near? Wide or narrow? Our thinking references these dual plural contrasts in a multitude of positioning tasks daily. And although we may go on to ask how cold, how far, how narrow, it is by the very basic action of citing preference in dual extreme, that we ascertain ourselves amongst it all.
That is one way of thinking. And inevitably amongst its mix becomes also the determiners of:
• Is it good or bad?• Wrong or right?• Ugly or beautiful?• Just or unjust?• Dangerous or safe?• Appealing or disdaining?
And the task of asking the above is really not within the mode of the question in its asking, but to find our own position literally, in relation to that which we are considering. If we are making an internal judgment about our neighbor for example, we are asking ourselves to decide more about how we feel about them and who we are in relation to them, rather than really judging are they good or bad, wrong or right, etc. It is not just about relativity, but finding ourselves in relation to our new bearings when they are put before our consideration.
This is important to cite because a lot of such discerning is under the guise of pragmatically understanding and judging that person or situation with some authority to do so, and meaningful deciding, whereas the true meaning is specific to ourselves and our own bearings and what it may mean to us in the future. There is very little truth to be had in the external reality we are trying assess.
As small a point as this may be, it is a stepping stone into recognizing just how thinking can misrepresent the truth of a person or a matter quite easily, and also if we cite these processes within ourselves, we have an opportunity to make many changes within our thinking, that are decidedly more difficult if we do not.
Discernment of itself is both necessary and practical.
In all life there is one Heart that beats, and that one Heart knows all. What is truly good and that which is not so good, is known by this Heart for what it is. For what it is, in relation to that which it is, is evident. And there is no question or debate about the quality or nature of any act within this reality, for the one Divine Heart that is, has named it for that which it is. This is independent of us, of our conscious questioning and deciding, it just is.
There is no persuading or hesitation in this knowing. No weighing, deliberating or changing this Heart. Assumption in its true and glorious context is most wonderful. The divine state of Assumption is when the individual knows the mind of the Heart, and further ascertains through that.
When folk speak of knowing their own hearts, it can be that it is the heart that can recognize the greater Heart's deciding. By the coordination and alignment of our heart to the Heart, we can experience Assumption.
One of the odd things here is, that over time there have been moral and philosophical arguments contending that there is no exact wrong or right in any situation. But in point of fact there is - and The Heart knows it. In the overall picture, individual entities and their commodities are all with a given space. They have a place and a quota and a size and a coordinate that is entirely knowable, measurable and fixed. It would be nonsense to imagine a reality where there was no fixed reality. It might not be known to us, for this whole, and the positioning within the whole, is too large to comprehend. Yet nonetheless it exists and is, and in truth, has place, space, bearing and measurability.
And isn't it exciting to know this? One of the fundamental most frightening misconcepts of this age has been that everything within the Cosmos and beyond is undefinable, unknowable, not only to ourselves but in general existence. What a relief it is to say out loud that everything does have its place, space and bearing, and even the wrong and the right of each and every situation also has its exactitude!
If you can possibly acknowledge that everything really does have its place, you can begin to appreciate it and see it, at least in some aspects, for what it is. Your relationship between it and yourself, is more measurable than by generalities - and depth perception can ensue.
Individuals who rest with fundamental religious tenets do so because they have experienced Assumption and the reality of The Heart's deciding, and put that experience into laws and behaviors that are meant to signify the Divine. And with a dedicated zeal, all attempts at new or original thinking are inhibited, for it is determined that there can be no individualistic deciding outside of The Heart and subsequent Divine Law.
Such a sense of correctness can be a comfort - particularly when all in daily life has proven to be unreliable. Yet the contention that The Heart is ever aggressive or reciprocatory is unproven - it can be savory or sweet, but it is not retaliatory.
Within perfect place - i.e. that space infilled truly and exactly - everything literally has its place. What this means is that no action or judgment on behalf of a man for example, will alter the place, positioning or lot, of that which is being judged.
You can lock a criminal up to stop him doing harm to others, or if you have charity you might try to help encourage him out of his ways. But do not lock up a criminal to punish him, for there is no worse or more apt punishment, that by which he has already become and is.
A man's soul concedes to Karma because he seeks betterment. He seeks betterment because he seeks a better place to be within and without himself. Our higher instincts command that we improve our conduct until we can rise again to that place which we formerly knew (another chapter), and there is no punishment or law that could coerce a man more effectively than what he already has in place in acknowledgment of where and who he is currently.
If we reprimand a child it is with a view in mind to discourage that which he has done in bad behavior. We do not reprimand for the sake of punishment alone. Would you punish a child who has learnt their error, or repented their problem? Would you punish a child too young too know?
Equally still it is the same for a man. When we view a man with venomous criticism or damning judgment, we are invoking a punishment that is aggressive and unhelpful. It is not the place for a man to judge or punish another, by thought or by action, ever.