The book, "Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth" by Stuart Holroyd [1] (Pub. Corgi, 1979; ISBN 10: 0552109975, ISBN 13: 9780552109970; I think republished as "The Nine: Briefing from Deep Space" - see http://www.theonlyplanetofchoice.com/newbook.htm), about the alleged contact between aliens and Andrija Puharich [1], Phyllis V. Schlemmer [1] and Sir John Whitmore [1], contains quite a few discussions , explanations and comments on a wide range of matters. One of those, or rather, a set of those of discussions, touch upon the notion of good and evil. The people these three are working with, headed by "The Nine", prefer to use the term "balanced positive", rather than "good", or "spiritual”.
This is what they have to say on the term.
Tom elaborated: 'We have negative and we have positive, and as we have explained to you many times, we must reach a balance between the two. To be all positive is not right, and to be all negative is not right, but in this universe we have those that are all positive or all negative, and this causes an imbalance. ... This planet is weighted and it is heavy and it is what you would call a negative vibration. We discovered this many of your years ago, ... Because of the unbalance in your planet the negative forces have taken on power, and this has created the problem.'
Chapter
Five, p. 147
Elsewhere in the book are the following comments:
This planet was originally created to teach a being balance between the spiritual and the physical world, but in this physical world they got involved in a material world, and so these beings never evolve beyond the belt of this planet.
Chapter
Four, p. 132
… and …
Tom had to remind him of one of the basic tenets of the philosophy of the Nine. 'Sir John, the positive and the negative must be blended to make it whole. As we have explained to you, to be positive without sense is not good. They are the balanced civilisations. When you speak of positive, Sir John, refer to it as a balanced positive.'
Tom had to remind him of one of the basic tenets of the philosophy of the Nine. 'Sir John, the positive and the negative must be blended to make it whole. As we have explained to you, to be positive without sense is not good. They are the balanced civilisations. When you speak of positive, Sir John, refer to it as a balanced positive.'
Chapter
Eight, p. 284
… and, in more length, …
Human greed, desire, jealousy and emotional imbalance are responsible both for the dire situation the planet is in ecologically and for the general cosmic crisis, and as it would require a fundamental change in human consciousness and orientation to overcome these failings it is important both for the Earth and for the universe that such a change be effected. This message, embellished with the warnings about the cunning and power of the opposition forces bent upon preventing the change, is not remarkably original in the context of traditional ideas of apocalypse and the literature of moral exhortation. But there is one rather original aspect to it, which kept coming up in the communications of October: the stress on the fact that the primary need was for balance, and the cosmology related to this idea. The prescription for success and for continuing growth, both in the individual and in the cosmos, is not to beat the devil in a dramatic final contest and thus usher in a new age of sweetness and light, but through unremitting effort to hold in balance conflicting but complementary forces.
In answer to a question of Andrija's as to what the opposition forces were like, how they operated and where they came from, Tom said: 'You ask from where they come, and we know that in your mind you wonder if they are the counterpart of us. Is this not correct?'
'Yes,' Andrija said.
'No, they are not the counterpart of us,' Tom went on. 'Remember this: that we are in the centre; and we don't wish to sound as if we are perfect or as if we are egotistical, but on either side of us there is the positive and there is the negative, and when I say this I mean there is the positive which is not balanced and there is the negative which is not balanced. We are in the centre, and we are balanced. We are trying to bring those other forces into balance. Do you understand? They are not the counterpart of us.'
...
'It is difficult for you in your physical world to truly understand the importance of both,' Tom began. 'I will try to explain. Visualise the universe as a giant scale. We are the pivot of this scale. Visualise that on one side of the universe all would be negative and that all on the other side would be positive, and as you see this you know that there is a complete out-of-balance situation. The universe actually has four sides, and within each of the sides there are many galaxies and solar systems. Now on the other two sides of the universe from this side it is in perfect balance. But on this side ... How may I explain? If you would take a stone for each of the galaxies and they would be in perfect weight and perfect proportion to those on the other three sides, then this would also be in balance. But if one of those stones was a porous substance and you placed it in oil and it absorbed the oil and became weighted with it, then it would upset the balance and pull this scale out of calibre and would upset the other side of the universe. Your planet Earth is accomplishing that. The negative is the heavy oil. Remember, the other sides are balanced, but this imbalance that we have can in turn topple the rest.'
That seemed fairly lucid, but Tom wasn't entirely happy with his analogy, for he said, with a touch of the resigned weariness that anyone who has struggled to find words for abstruse concepts would recognise, 'That is not quite correct'. Then, apparently recalling Andrija's original question, he went on: 'In actuality, there is no good and there is no bad. It is only when one becomes sour or rotten that it contaminates the rest, whether it would be good or bad.'
'We understand that you are now working with us and what we consider the positive forces,' Andrija said. 'But have you ever in the past stepped in to actively aid the negative forces when the positive has been causing the imbalance?'
'When the positive has no understanding of the negative, it is out of balance,' Tom said. 'Without being aware of the negative and being aware that it must be balanced, then that is out of balance. And the answer to your question is yes.'
'That is very important for our understanding,' Andrija said.
Tom continued: 'Because of the ignorance of the peoples of your planet, and because of their religious leaders who have taught this ignorance, the negative forces, which are not truly as you see them, manifest in that way in order to instil fear. But what is truly negative, what has created the upset, besides the desires and the greed, is the complete denial of the existence of God. Do you understand?'
'Yes,' Andrija said, 'so this is the greatest thing that has to be redressed or righted?'
'This is correct,' Tom said. 'And you must explain also to people the necessity for earth people, and for the souls and spirits that surround your earth, to release themselves from greed and desire, because that is the trap. Your religious leaders do not understand this and do not teach the people.'
Human greed, desire, jealousy and emotional imbalance are responsible both for the dire situation the planet is in ecologically and for the general cosmic crisis, and as it would require a fundamental change in human consciousness and orientation to overcome these failings it is important both for the Earth and for the universe that such a change be effected. This message, embellished with the warnings about the cunning and power of the opposition forces bent upon preventing the change, is not remarkably original in the context of traditional ideas of apocalypse and the literature of moral exhortation. But there is one rather original aspect to it, which kept coming up in the communications of October: the stress on the fact that the primary need was for balance, and the cosmology related to this idea. The prescription for success and for continuing growth, both in the individual and in the cosmos, is not to beat the devil in a dramatic final contest and thus usher in a new age of sweetness and light, but through unremitting effort to hold in balance conflicting but complementary forces.
In answer to a question of Andrija's as to what the opposition forces were like, how they operated and where they came from, Tom said: 'You ask from where they come, and we know that in your mind you wonder if they are the counterpart of us. Is this not correct?'
'Yes,' Andrija said.
'No, they are not the counterpart of us,' Tom went on. 'Remember this: that we are in the centre; and we don't wish to sound as if we are perfect or as if we are egotistical, but on either side of us there is the positive and there is the negative, and when I say this I mean there is the positive which is not balanced and there is the negative which is not balanced. We are in the centre, and we are balanced. We are trying to bring those other forces into balance. Do you understand? They are not the counterpart of us.'
...
'It is difficult for you in your physical world to truly understand the importance of both,' Tom began. 'I will try to explain. Visualise the universe as a giant scale. We are the pivot of this scale. Visualise that on one side of the universe all would be negative and that all on the other side would be positive, and as you see this you know that there is a complete out-of-balance situation. The universe actually has four sides, and within each of the sides there are many galaxies and solar systems. Now on the other two sides of the universe from this side it is in perfect balance. But on this side ... How may I explain? If you would take a stone for each of the galaxies and they would be in perfect weight and perfect proportion to those on the other three sides, then this would also be in balance. But if one of those stones was a porous substance and you placed it in oil and it absorbed the oil and became weighted with it, then it would upset the balance and pull this scale out of calibre and would upset the other side of the universe. Your planet Earth is accomplishing that. The negative is the heavy oil. Remember, the other sides are balanced, but this imbalance that we have can in turn topple the rest.'
That seemed fairly lucid, but Tom wasn't entirely happy with his analogy, for he said, with a touch of the resigned weariness that anyone who has struggled to find words for abstruse concepts would recognise, 'That is not quite correct'. Then, apparently recalling Andrija's original question, he went on: 'In actuality, there is no good and there is no bad. It is only when one becomes sour or rotten that it contaminates the rest, whether it would be good or bad.'
'We understand that you are now working with us and what we consider the positive forces,' Andrija said. 'But have you ever in the past stepped in to actively aid the negative forces when the positive has been causing the imbalance?'
'When the positive has no understanding of the negative, it is out of balance,' Tom said. 'Without being aware of the negative and being aware that it must be balanced, then that is out of balance. And the answer to your question is yes.'
'That is very important for our understanding,' Andrija said.
Tom continued: 'Because of the ignorance of the peoples of your planet, and because of their religious leaders who have taught this ignorance, the negative forces, which are not truly as you see them, manifest in that way in order to instil fear. But what is truly negative, what has created the upset, besides the desires and the greed, is the complete denial of the existence of God. Do you understand?'
'Yes,' Andrija said, 'so this is the greatest thing that has to be redressed or righted?'
'This is correct,' Tom said. 'And you must explain also to people the necessity for earth people, and for the souls and spirits that surround your earth, to release themselves from greed and desire, because that is the trap. Your religious leaders do not understand this and do not teach the people.'
Chapter
Five, pp. 164 - 166
Now, the idea of balancing or integrating various parts of our being
that may not be what we would like is a key part of some paths I have walked on
(Buddhism and
paganism, in particular), so this is not entirely a new idea to me. I do,
however, consider it important enough that I have replaced the term Divine
Light Force (DLF), which I was taught back in the 80s as a shorthand for constructive
forces, with Balanced Positive Forces (BPF).
There is another issue that comes to mind when I think of all this, though, and that is the topic of accessibility.
When I was at university, students who had been there for longer would often show off by dropping casual references to things that we hadn’t studied yet. It was pure and simple bragging, lording it over us – something which little kids do, and which I consider has as much maturity. It is a flaw that crops up in many walks of life, and always – in my opinion – shows immaturity. There are jokes about men measuring the lengths of their appendages (I haven’t put that adults only filter up, and won’t, so I have to use euphemisms), but it’s not only men who indulge in that.
As I am fed up with being on the receiving end of that sort of rubbish, I’ve tried being gentle when talking about knowledge, and a too frequent response is for others to take this as a sign of not being confident in my knowledge, and then they will try to “lord it over me”.
I’m tired of that, and all the related rubbish.
Incidentally, using “big words” is an (elitist) example of the behaviour I am talking about. At my day job, other engineers will use the word “substrate” rather than “food” (for microorganisms, which is what they mean). It (a) cuts people off and enforces an us-and-them mentality, and (b) is a status issue. As a writer, I like words, and am comfortable with words that others may not be familiar with: I will, however, try to avoid using those words if they will cut off part of the audience. I can still recall discussing a piece of writing I liked, a copy of a speech by a Native American, with my father when I was a teenager, and he pointed out that there were no “big words” in it. I checked, and he was right.
Let’s look at this more broadly, from a spiritual perspective.
One of the techniques that has worked well for me is working with karma: I am comfortable with the concept, and have learned techniques for changing energies that I created in the past (basically, cleaning up the messes I have created in the past in other people’s lives – AS HAVE YOU WHO ARE READING THIS!). However, if someone does not accept the concept, or is uncomfortable with it, there is no point in me discussing it with them, and it can be counterproductive to “drop hints” (which - "dropping hints:, I mean - is a bit like saying “I’ve got a secret – nah! Nah! Nah!").
Hmmm. Let’s think of a better example.
The concept of “good” and “bad” is one that is, in my view, relative. If someone is solely focused on living in the base chakra, they will have little concept of the damage that words can do. However, what they can grasp is the concept that physically assaulting someone can do harm. So, rather than talking to them about the harm they are doing to others by things like misogynistic jokes, I will first make sure that they have stopped assaulting or physically threatening others, and then work at getting them understand the idea that words can also be a form of assault.
You don’t try teaching a (non-genius) child calculus when they have to start learning basic mathematics first.
The examples I’ve come up with aren’t good, but I’m basically stumbling around trying to make a case that “balanced” positive also includes acting in a way that is appropriate and understandable to those one is trying to reach, and to get them to take the next step they have to, not a step that is three kilometres further along the path.
The risk here is that one could wind up “dumbing down” one’s principles.
A balancing act is required, as elsewhere in live, and – oh! hence the term “balanced positive” …
There is another issue that comes to mind when I think of all this, though, and that is the topic of accessibility.
When I was at university, students who had been there for longer would often show off by dropping casual references to things that we hadn’t studied yet. It was pure and simple bragging, lording it over us – something which little kids do, and which I consider has as much maturity. It is a flaw that crops up in many walks of life, and always – in my opinion – shows immaturity. There are jokes about men measuring the lengths of their appendages (I haven’t put that adults only filter up, and won’t, so I have to use euphemisms), but it’s not only men who indulge in that.
As I am fed up with being on the receiving end of that sort of rubbish, I’ve tried being gentle when talking about knowledge, and a too frequent response is for others to take this as a sign of not being confident in my knowledge, and then they will try to “lord it over me”.
I’m tired of that, and all the related rubbish.
Incidentally, using “big words” is an (elitist) example of the behaviour I am talking about. At my day job, other engineers will use the word “substrate” rather than “food” (for microorganisms, which is what they mean). It (a) cuts people off and enforces an us-and-them mentality, and (b) is a status issue. As a writer, I like words, and am comfortable with words that others may not be familiar with: I will, however, try to avoid using those words if they will cut off part of the audience. I can still recall discussing a piece of writing I liked, a copy of a speech by a Native American, with my father when I was a teenager, and he pointed out that there were no “big words” in it. I checked, and he was right.
Let’s look at this more broadly, from a spiritual perspective.
One of the techniques that has worked well for me is working with karma: I am comfortable with the concept, and have learned techniques for changing energies that I created in the past (basically, cleaning up the messes I have created in the past in other people’s lives – AS HAVE YOU WHO ARE READING THIS!). However, if someone does not accept the concept, or is uncomfortable with it, there is no point in me discussing it with them, and it can be counterproductive to “drop hints” (which - "dropping hints:, I mean - is a bit like saying “I’ve got a secret – nah! Nah! Nah!").
Hmmm. Let’s think of a better example.
The concept of “good” and “bad” is one that is, in my view, relative. If someone is solely focused on living in the base chakra, they will have little concept of the damage that words can do. However, what they can grasp is the concept that physically assaulting someone can do harm. So, rather than talking to them about the harm they are doing to others by things like misogynistic jokes, I will first make sure that they have stopped assaulting or physically threatening others, and then work at getting them understand the idea that words can also be a form of assault.
You don’t try teaching a (non-genius) child calculus when they have to start learning basic mathematics first.
The examples I’ve come up with aren’t good, but I’m basically stumbling around trying to make a case that “balanced” positive also includes acting in a way that is appropriate and understandable to those one is trying to reach, and to get them to take the next step they have to, not a step that is three kilometres further along the path.
The risk here is that one could wind up “dumbing down” one’s principles.
A balancing act is required, as elsewhere in live, and – oh! hence the term “balanced positive” …
[1] Please see my post "The Death of Wikipedia" for the reasons I now recommend caution when using Wikipedia.
Love, light, hugs and blessings
(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear")
My "blogiography" is here.
May the world of commerce and business be recognised to be a servant, not a master, of the lives of people.
A home is for living in, not feeling, becoming or being rich or a “better” class than others.
The International Labour Organisation's definition of "full employment" is wrong, useless and misleading.
Armageddon is alive and well and happening right now: it is a battle between the indolence of "I only ..." and/or "I just ..." on one side, and perspicacity on the other.
Like fire to the physical, emotions to the soul make a good servant, and a bad master.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing. EDMUND BURKE
Your children are not your children. ... They come through you but ... they belong not to you ... for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow KAHLIL GIBRAN
We didn't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we only borrowed it from our children ANTOINE DE SAINT-EXUPÉRY
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
Those whom we cannot stand are usually those who we cannot understand P.K.SHAW
Tags: about me, aliens, Andrija Puharich, arrogance, attitudes, balance, evolution, growth, Phyllis V Schlemmer, Stuart Holroyd,
First published: Manadgar, 3rd September, 2012
Last edited: Monday, 3rd September, 2012
