Magnificence + Beneficence?

by Christopher Lovejoy on October 19, 2019

A magnificent illusion + a beneficent devotion = ….?

Is such a match possible? Is such a match desirable?

In view of my post, How Sweet Are My Days, I will attempt to be a matchmaker for a magnificent illusion and a beneficent devotion, drawing forth notions of third and fourth density consciousness in a bid to facilitate the current global transition between third and fourth density.

Let’s begin with the ways in which wealth can be calculated and calibrated in view of any philosophy of life that would have us be, to quote those so spiritually inspired, “healthy, wealthy, and wise.”

Few can argue with the desirability of being healthy; fewer still can argue with the desirability of being wise to the ways of the world (practical wisdom) or of being wise to the ways of the cosmos (spiritual wisdom), for without such wisdom, are we not vulnerable to exploitation?

For many, the sticking point in “healthy, wealthy, and wise” is found in this term: wealthy. Are you wealthy, dear reader? Do not be too quick to say “no!” Why? Because wealth might not be what you think it is. Also, because wealth can be measured in at least three different ways.

The most obvious way in which wealth can be measured is by looking at your bank accounts and comparing your bottom line with the bottom lines of those you know or love and respect. In viewing this bottom line, is it not reasonable to say that money is a very effective and potent controlling desire in view of all of the things you require and in view of all of the things you could acquire?

A rhetorical question to be sure.

A less obvious way in which wealth can be measured is by switching your focus on wealth from mere money to the accretions of worldly power. I say “mere money” because when you’re powerful beyond belief in a worldly way, the quick, thick circulation of money is such that it becomes impossible to gauge wealth with a static number. Indeed, the cash flow itself (how quick and how thick) is the gauge.

Worldly power is an interesting creature of wealth as and when social wealth is measured and measurable in terms of status and stature both, both of which speak to a wealth of connections with “very important persons.” From there, it’s a simple matter of gauging personal wealth in terms of (a) how much control you retain, (b) how much influence you exert, and (c) how much authority you project.

I spoke to these ways in a recent post entitled Control, Influence, Authority.

The third least obvious way in which wealth can be measured is one to which most world religions subscribe: the treasures of heaven. Such treasures include peace, love, joy, bliss, grace, ease; security, felicity, prosperity; contentment, freedom, fulfillment; unity, harmony, serenity; spontaneity, synchronicity, serendipity; adoration and devotion in service to the creation and to one’s fellow beings.

This list of consoling treasures is by no means exhaustive.

One obvious reaction to this list of treasures is … “but you need money for that!” … to which someone else adamantly rejoins … “No! Money is the root of all evil!” … to which someone vehemently counters … “You mean the love of money is the root of all evil!” … to which someone else responds: “all you need is love; love is all you need” … to which someone interjects: “wait, why only money or love?”

Indeed, why only money or love? Is it really as black and white as that?

In light of this dialogue, where do you care most to put your focus on wealth: resources, connections, or treasures? In view of these areas of wealth, would your central focus on wealth (say, treasures) not eventually bring all that you desire from the other two areas of wealth?

Perhaps in a manner of speaking, yes, eventually, for is this not the perennial hope of those who would give form to their “treasures”? In the kindtime, as we continue to follow what’s going on in this world, is it not fair to say that people have different priorities around wealth?

Those born into wealth might put resources at the top of the list, followed by connections and then treasures. Those keen to make a mark on the world might put connections at the top of the list, adding as follows: resources and then treasures. A religious or spiritual person might put treasures at the top of the list, followed by connections and resources. What are your priorities around wealth?

From what I learned from writing my most recent post, How Sweet Are My Days, it became increasingly apparent to me, from earthly and cosmic points of view, that these priorities of wealth serve us best, and by us, I simply mean the whole of humanity in light of the whole:

1. treasures
2. connections
3. resources

Without treasures, what would be the point of making connections?

Without connections, what would be the point of having resources?


1
being joyful is our fundamental responsibility
happiness is the fundamental aspect of life, not the ultimate aspect
if we’re not happy, who else can we be, what else can we do?
any genuine concern for this world requires that we be joyous

2
love and joy is the original nature and meaning of life
the how and why of our love and joy resides and arises from within
it matters not what we pursue; we pursue because we love what we do
everything we do, we aim to do because we love to do

3
past a certain point, social comparison is poison
those who feed on externals to be happy will never be happy
this is the time to look within for the love and the joy
this is the time to be happy on our own terms

A groundswell of support in favor of these priorities would fundamentally change this world, nudging inheritors and influencers alike into the margins. Again, we might profitably ask: a magnificent illusion + a beneficent devotion: is such a match possible and desirable?

Perhaps the answer is as simple as this … only if we think it is.

Simple, yet not easy, given the risk of getting lost in the illusion.

*

A magnificent illusion + a beneficent devotion = ________? For me, the key word in this equation is beneficent, which implies being generous and doing good or producing good. On the whole, however, this innocuous equation points to having and bearing a certain kind of world.

In my post, The Way of Huna Wisdom, I introduced its principles with the principle of Ike: the world is what you think it is. Subjectively, the world is what I think it is, and collectively, the world is what we think it is. In this section of the post, I will focus on the latter version:


Ike (ee-kay): the world is what we think it is

To wit: the world is what we think it is; this world is as we think it is; this world arises as we think it arises, in accordance with the laws of creation, with the original intent to convey the light, and not with any con-ditional intent of the current collective illusion to covet the light. I spoke to this vital distinction between covet and convey in my most recent post, How Sweet Are My Days.

Briefly, to covet the light is to serve the self most of the time; to convey the light is to serve the other more often than not. Collectively, any version of this world in harmony with the creation, one that favors “convey the light” over “covet the light” would arise as follows …


Ike (ee-kay): the world is what we think it is
Kala (kah-lah): there are no limits to what we can express and manifest
Makia (mah-key-ah): our energies flow where our attention goes

Manawa (mah-nah-wah): now is the moment of our power

Aloha (a-low-hah): to love each other is to be happy with each other
Mana (mah-nah): ultimately, all of our power comes from within us
Pono (poh-noh): our effectiveness is the measure of our truth

To wit: inter-dependence first; co-dependence second; in-dependence third. I spoke at length to this equalitarian priority set in my post, Security and Satisfaction.

An authoritarian collective would covet the light, remaining attuned to the illusion of being separate from the creation, manifesting one kind of world, whereas an equalitarian collective would convey the light, remaining attuned to the creation, manifesting yet another kind of world.

In light of this distinction, a libertarian collective would favor the freedom to do both, to both covet and convey the light of wisdom, while remaining susceptible of moving either towards an authoritarian or an equalitarian collective (“eternal vigilance is the price of freedom”).


libertarian priority set: in-dependence first; inter-dependence second; co-dependence third
equalitarian priority set: inter-dependence first; co-dependence second; in-dependence third
authoritarian priority set: co-dependence first; in-dependence second; inter-dependence third

An authoritarian world that remains in service to self is technologically capable of producing a magnificent illusion in spite of the creation, whereas an equalitarian world that remains in service to other is spiritually capable of producing a beneficent devotion to the creation.

A libertarian world would teeter either towards authoritarian control or equalitarian consensus.

The endgame of a technologically capable civilization is to remain aligned with its magnificent illusion at the expense of beneficence, whereas the endgame of a spiritually capable civilization is to remain aligned with its beneficent devotion at the expense of any magnificence.

In the end, a technologically savvy civilization will leave behind a legacy that is a cool, flashy, synthetic reminder of its illusory magnificence, whereas a spiritually savvy civilization will leave behind a legacy that is a warm, kind, organic reminder of its devotional beneficence.

Again, …

A magnificent illusion + a beneficent devotion = ________? For me, the key word in this equation is beneficent, which implies being generous and doing good or producing good. On the whole, however, this innocuous equation points to having and bearing a certain kind of world.

A true equalitarian collective is not vulnerable to authoritarian control; a true equalitarian collective is the answer to the libertarian question of whether to favor collective top-down control or collective bottom-up consensus, regardless of any staunch commitment to natural law:

1) an equalitarian collective that conveys the light and remains attuned to the original creation

2) equalitarian priority set: inter-dependence first; co-dependence second; in-dependence third

3) in service to others: spiritually capable of being generous, of doing good and producing good

4) remains aligned with beneficent devotion without being consumed by its magnificent illusions

5) leaving behind a legacy that is a warm, kind, organic reminder of its devotional beneficence

The implication here is that any magnificent illusion that might arise in the course of living remains a mere byproduct of beneficent devotion ~ not the other way around, where beneficent devotion is a mere afterthought to consuming or being consumed by magnificent illusions.

Such a world would set its priorities in this way: a healthy, vital inter-dependence first; a healthy, vital co-dependence second; and a healthy, vital in-dependence third. Any principled version of this world in harmony with the creation would arise, at least at first, as follows:


Ike (ee-kay): the world is what we think it is
Kala (kah-lah): there are no limits to what we can express and manifest
Makia (mah-key-ah): our energies flow where our attention goes

Manawa (mah-nah-wah): now is the moment of our power

Aloha (a-low-hah): to love each other is to be happy with each other
Mana (mah-nah): ultimately, all of our power comes from within us
Pono (poh-noh): our effectiveness is the measure of our truth

One World (Paul Lowe) and The Future of the World (Howard Storm) describe such worlds.

To have a loving, lasting influence on the cosmos, any harmonious version of creation would need to be internally consistent: the principles outlined above would remain in accord with each other and with a devotional beneficence at the expense of any illusory magnificence.

In other words, the power and the glory remains with creator and creation, which is not to say that no illusory magnificence whatsoever would be possible for a spiritually capable and savvy civilization, only that such a magnificence would remain a byproduct of its beneficence.

Furthermore, this would not be a self-conscious civilization. The principles of Huna would not be expressed self-consciously, in such personal terms as I or we, but would favor a lawful interpretation and expression that applies to the creation and the cosmos as a whole, thus:


Ike (ee-kay): the world is what you think it is
Kala (kah-lah): there are no limits
Makia (mah-key-ah): energy flows where attention goes

Manawa (mah-nah-wah): now is the moment of power

Aloha (a-low-hah): to love is to be happy with
Mana (mah-nah): all power comes from within
Pono (poh-noh): effectiveness is the measure of truth

From here, only two fundamental considerations are necessary to move onward and upward: (1) a fourth density vision from the point of view of someone moving through a transition from third to fourth density, and (2) a transitional strategy to approach a realization of this vision.

Where The Future of the World (Howard Storm) supplies the details of a vision, One World (Paul Lowe) supplies the outlines of a transitional strategy. I will draw on both to personalize (but not politicize) my own vision and my own strategy, moving forward, onward, and upward.

Because, well, this is just who I am.

/

References

The Future of the World (Howard Storm) is available to view for free online

One World (Paul Lowe) is available for listening through this shareable link

Previous post:

Next post: