Page Content (OCR)
address a certain type of 3rd—density consciousness through his particular style of ideological limitation, by focusing only on the principles of "positive" polarization and in effect denying or bypassing the "negative". This conforms to a certain belief—pattern prevalent in Newvj\ge circles and "used" or supplemented by occasional 4th—density sources disposed to take the "see—no-evil" approach; such doctrine runs to the effect that where there is no knowledge of negativity, negativity does not exist. This in turn links to a rather bumptious corollary in the theorems of certain New Age schools and "astral" fields of inquiry, i.e. that of "you create your own reality" (see next month's T7—Bird Chronicle for the article that addresses this issue). The defect in such reasoning would be clear even to those who subscribe to it, if it wasn't put in terms of "spirituality" (which makes it still too nebulous and unreal, frankly, for those even who purport to subscribe to all sorts of "spiritual" New Age principles) but in simple, easily identifiable terms of physical existence. Thus, if it were a matter of warning against something like the formation of Hitler's Nazi Germany as a quite real stormcloud looming over the horizon, very few today would take the Chamberlain approach and imitate the proverbial ostrich. However, when it comes to negativity of a spiritual character many (including beings of the 4th density) assume some special attitude: from the physical perspective, the assumption is that "spiritual" and "physical" have different roots; from the astral perspective the assumption proceeds out of a kind of intoxication that "forgets", or never knew, the difficult ambiguity and admixture of physical life. Now, if karma were really a simplistic matter of the type popularly professed and only "negatively disposed" beings or those with blemished records were vulnerable to any potential incursion by negative forces, perhaps we could see some minor virtue in not troubling all those "good" heads over such contretemps. But this is still not the same as denying the existence of such evil outright; and in any case one could never know in the depths of one's "personal karmic record" whether there weren't some lingering mark that might compromise one's perfect dissociation from such business. But "karma" is not that simplistic; the global slate of the breath—soul upon which karmic marks are recorded, requires that blank spaces be filled in as well as existent entries balanced. Thus, vacuums of experience (especially those experiences or potentials deliberately avoided) possess a magnetic urgency to be filled; and where avoidance indeed accounts for the vacuum, there the random factor which we've previously discussed becomes an ever—more-—likely catalytic agent as opposed to any head-on initiative of personal will (which would, of course, create proportionately more "governable" \ circumstances). It is for this reason that the education of 3rd density consciousness to the existence of real negativity, to the ways of such negativity even to the characterization of its existence as far as the degree of true spiritual (because conscious) evil, is considered appropriate and even necessary by the alternative viewpoint of higher—density consciousness. Such Consciousness looks at the ostrich approach as a disservice, and as very short-sighted even where clothed in the apparent sanction of an "astral" or 4th density communication. (Even Pollyanna acknowledged the existence of negativity; she never denied it, just emphasized the positive. That's hardly the same thing as dismissing the negative in neo—Augustinian manner as a "non-entity", as a fugitive shadow definable only in the "absence of the good"— which falls to the standard liberal sop of educating all beings out of their "contrary ways" since the negative can only be sustained in the presence of ignorance. Such doctrine has no idea what to do with an evil that isn't simply "relative to cultural context" or comparative definition, and which functions not through ignorance but—to the contrary—on very conscious intent, by highly intelligent preference). 12 30 T-Bird_Vs_The_Flying_saucers.htm