Science and philosophy speak about races, and some of this creates a sense of the vast sweep of evolution that helps take our eyes off our small personal sphere with its provincial concerns. A large history and cosmology may serve to give some perspective.
On the other hand, talk of the races and evolution, with its implications of more and less advanced types can be divisive and misleading. It helps to think toward the more subtle meaning of types but, in people’s minds, race is virtually synonymous with body. The idea of race as consciousness and race as culture is of real value, and the trend of adopting the image of a rainbow is a real insight.
Differences, diversity, variations of body, type, culture, heritage, are all OK in their evolving expressions. Differences are inherent in forms, in manifestation, and theses divisions are useful for understanding the phenomenal world. Yet, emphasis on differences creates divisions and feeds egotism and discord between individuals and various subsets of the one humanity. A wrong sense of race feeds the separative sense of them and us. Groups war and fight based on narrow self-interest and ignorant identifications. So is mapped the tragic history of egotism and cruelty based on ignorance and the stupidity of bodily identifications. The only salvation is perseverance in primary identification with the one humanity that includes all.
“Then I will tell you a great secret, Captain. Perhaps the greatest of all time. The molecules of your body are the same molecules that make up this station, and the nebula outside, that burn inside the stars themselves. We are star stuff, we are the universe, made manifest, trying to figure itself out. As we have both learned, sometimes the universe requires a change of perspective.”
—Delenn, in Babylon 5
Whenever we become obsessed with sharp divisions we engage in a sin of separateness—with the knife of intellect we try to cut things up very neatly: spirit/matter, objective/subjective, religion/science, real/unreal, inner/outer, etc. “Real” and “unreal” have a number of meanings. In a curious way, objectivity (the material world) looks relatively unreal to spiritual perception. Yet we may knock on a wooden table and say, ”This is real,” and from the personality standpoint, so it is. And if we knock too hard we become convinced that the pain is real. Here, “real” means the practical experiences that we hold in common and find it useless to question. We may agree it’s a “real” fact that our hand hurts.
We know our perception of the physically real is subjectively taking place in the senses, brain, and mind—a realm the Eastern philosopher terms “Maya.” Perhaps our deeper sense of the unreality of external things derives from the intuitive knowledge that we are, when acting as isolated personalities, Maya interacting with Maya, illusion interacting with illusion, glamor interacting with glamor. Yet, whatever measure of reality anything has, is borrowed from the Transcendent. So never mind that we act as if the world is really “out there” the way we imagine—the important point is that we are always seeking a deeper Real. And the only way to truly know what is “out there ” is by unity in which the sharp division between “out there” and “in here” disappears—in unity we find our life is both out there and in anywhere.
Modified from Timo Waltari
We know there is an interaction between language and thought. Thought shapes words, and words shape thought. For example, we may want to affirm unity, but not notice how language leads thought toward compartments and fragments. Language, with its many categories and divisions, is adapted to work with external or objective things. So, we may affirm a unified and holistic way of thinking but dress our thoughts in dualistic language that doesn’t fit what we’re trying to say. But when thought soars beyond the usual objective categories, our verbal habits may result in curious and paradoxical expressions. For example:
“The tricky word is ‘and.’ So long as we have the idea of God-AND-Man we are likely to have the feeling of separation, of duality. ‘And’ places an almost imperceptible but real cellophane veil between us and the immediacy of our existence wholly in God-consciousness. Until we have the ‘feeling,’ the realization of complete existence in God-Consciousness we are separate entities appealing to a long-distance God, and we are inclined to doubt whether our appeals can reach One who has so many sparrows to watch in their fallings.”
—Joy is an Inside Job, Don Blanding
Some measure of evil, or not Life, is born with incarnation, with the taking of form, with leaving the “father’s home,” with separation from divinity. Illusion, the virtual synonym, comes into being with this separation. And so it is said that everything external is maya, being other than the pure light of source. This formulation has a certain value, but by it alone we cannot find our place between the candle and the star because all manifestations are relative.
A flower is not as remote from divinity as the cruelty of fanatics. Yet both are manifestations other than or apart from absolute Life or divinity. We may say the flower and the cruel man are illusions, and so they are, but they are not equal. So we find that the most abstract concept of good and evil, yielding as it does a simple binary, corresponds poorly to daily life and required decisions. We must, standing somewhere between the candle and the star, bring righteous to decisions.
In love and wisdom there is movement toward life and light. This orientation is the antithesis of evil and the basis of right choice.