So, in somewhat the same way that cowardice in one circumstance can be prudence in another, or courage in one circumstance can be foolhardiness in another, my complacency in one set of circumstances can be transformed by me into equanimity.
I should, however, point out that my meditation is not saying that it is simply a case of one exact same thing being of different value or merit in different circumstances: it is more that, by hard work and application, one can choose to manifest one's flaws on a higher plane, in such a way that that aspect of oneself becomes beneficial, rather than harmful.
So ... personality characteristics, the negative (destructive) versions of which we seem to be so addicted to on this planet, can be transformed from negatives to positives, which is a way of personally evolving into what one can be, rather than holding on to things which are limiting.
Could be quite interesting to work out why one is holding onto a negative aspect and then work through the process of transforming both the attachment and the thing being held on to.
Now, films.
Recently we watched "The Astronaut Farmer" and "Closing the Ring" ... the former deals with holding on to a dream and seeing it happen despite major odds (although the dream is balanced against family responsibilities) and the latter deals with holding on to a dream for far too long, when the dream should be let go off.
The first film mentioned deals with someone who leaves his training at NASA when his family needs him, and then later works towards completing his dream of going into space, and gets his family and community caught up in the dream as well. Along the way, he gets into financial trouble, and is hauled back into line by his wife. I agree with her actions: if you have others, particularly children, who are dependent on you, you must consider their needs. If that means you stick at a hated job until the kids leave home, then so be it (although you could also consider changing your job, and I would presume that, when the kids are old enough, you would be a multiple income [1] family ... ).
The second film mentioned is about a (heterosexual) woman who loses the man she loves during the Second World War, and then holds on to the love she has for him through a life lived with another man. Unbeknown to her, her beau had briefly survived the crash of the B17, and had asked a local man to pass on a message to the woman. Eventually, through many twists and turns and delays, he does ... around 50 years late.
This woman held to her vow to the dead beau, and the local man to his promise to return the ring (which meant he had to find it first, owing to a subsequent fire, and hence spent decades digging the wreck site to try to find the ring). There are some conversations in the film which are quite poignant about whether one should hold to a promise or not.
While I agree with holding to vows where one has given one's word as long as it has meaning, there can be a limit. For instance, if you promise eternal devotion to an organisation, what are you going to do when ten, a hundred, a thousand or a million years later, that organisation not only no longer exists, but would make no sense in the context of the latter times?
More particularly to the second film, I do not believe in monogamy: a vow of exclusive love to one person is, in my mind, nonsensical.
I do, however, believe in honour. It was therefore interesting to see the Kung Fu episode "A Lamb to the Slaughter", the 14th episode of season 3. In that episode, Caine takes on a debt from his father, and seeks to repay it. This, incurring debts in another's name and without that person having a chance to say yea or nay, is also nonsensical - although some acts are so profound that there may be a case for a group of people owing another group of people for some act, such as a war or genocide. As examples of that, consider the reparations paid by Germany for the World Wars, and actions taken by governments to correct wrongs such as ... the Stolen Generation (where an apology was made, and some compensation may be paid). In the case of the Kung Fu episode, perhaps the debt is more from one family to another ...
As a final reflection, when the astronaut Farmer launches his rocket, I found that a bit of a tear jerker moment - largely because the rest of the community saw the launch and realised he was not a crack pot after all. When I looked deep within myself for the cause of that reaction, I found I was enjoying the acknowledgement he received, and that there are things I am doing for which I would like to receive acknowledgement from the people who are giving me a hard time over those actions. So ... I still have ego and selfishness, and am not putting logical acts for the betterment of all ahead of my personal egoic desires for reward for doing those acts. In other words, I'm still human.
Might work on it, though ... :) And, of course, it will help me to do so to view such flaws with equanimity ...
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr
Notes:
- I cannot say "double income", as the family may be in a poly situation, so there may be more than two parents.
This post's photo is yet to be posted.
Tags: evolution, frequencies, octaves, personal characteristics, personal responsibility, personality, transformation, family, dreams, polyamory,
First published: Sunnudagr, 30th January, 2011
Last edited: Sunday, 30th January, 2011
