So I’ve just reached an astonishing realisation, for me anyway! It is that both good and evil have to be chosen voluntarily, as if it is some universal law that is hidden but still adhered to.
There is also a third part to this trilogy of choice. You may be familiar with the much popularised idea of evil telling everyone what it is going to do ahead of time, and then if you have been warned and do nothing, it is not the fault of the evil doers who perpetrate the aforementioned evil. This ties into the polarised choices, choose to act against the evil and you have chosen good. Choose to do nothing about it and to ignore it, and you have chosen evil by default.
So how does one choose? Well as I have had the decision laid before me and I chose good, I know exactly how that works. However for the other choice I am speculating through observation of those who seemingly made the opposite decision.
Choosing good then, is something that one must do voluntarily. I made the choice long ago at an early age to be non-violent, and I remember as a young boy having dreams where I was very angry with someone and I went to punch them but while I could raise a fist I couldn’t punch. It was like something was holding my arm back and preventing me from actually throwing a punch. For the longest time I was very concerned by this like it was a failing in my character, when I could see others getting in fights and being hailed for it. I’ve grown to be thankful for that experience as I have aged, and it serves as a reminder to me of my purpose in this life. It is a commitment I have maintained to this day and I’m actually quite proud of keeping my anger in check. It has certainly served me well in business and in difficult situations with others who cannot control their anger. It has always been said “The first to get angry loses” and I have seen it and reaped the rewards from being the calm one.
If I had left things like that I would have still not “chosen” good, and it was only in 2013 that I was lead to the test of my life where I voluntarily called upon the Christian God for help. In doing this I completed the voluntary bond between the source of consciousness and man, but had I not done this I would not have become “good”. It was revelatory to me yesterday that this act which I took was the pattern for choosing good over evil and I think it was while listening to Jay Dyer that I realised that what I had done was to voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement with the universe, and that this was the only way to do it. While at the time I didn’t think there was anything conformist about it, it does indeed appear to be a dimensional blueprint which I was following.
While this revelation that good must be “chosen” was awakening for me as to the underlying fairness of the universe, and probably why I was given the path of Kundalini which led to a test where I had to prove myself, I of course previously knew that choosing bad was also a decision to be taken. This is perhaps a more well known choice in our culture.
There is the popular idea of selling your soul to the devil, and also of entering into a cult, or swearing allegiance to a mafia godfather on pain of death. However there is a lesser evil in the idea of turning a blind eye to other’s wicked deeds, and this is very common in celebrity portrait photographs with the subject covering one eye as a symbolic loss of the eye of Horus from Egyptian beliefs. This lesser evil is still a choice of evil over good and while the subject may feel that they are not to blame, they have still entered into an acquiescence contract that is 180 degrees from the contract agreement I signed. This is a contract of fence sitting, and while the contracted may feel that they are not doing anything wrong in their life, they still have failed to choose “good” in any sense and therefore by default chose evil.
With this said I think from my own experience there must be a period of grace in people’s lives such that one is able to be undecided to a point where they make a choice. Children for example should not be polarised and put under either label. For me the choice came at age 38, which seems quite late in my life, but maybe it is not the same for everyone.
There is also the idea of choosing one side and then changing ones mind which seems to be historically accurate. I would say that “conversion” requires one to face their past and to confront it, and again a choice is made here to either do it or not. An evil person who is strong enough to face the wrong doing in their past and atone for it may convert to good, and likewise a superficially good person who cannot face their past will likely become evil by that very weakness and cement their fate right there.
So what is upshot of all this? I would say that this is revelatory because free will really is a thing, even if people, perhaps like author Yuval Harari, sell the other case. The universe and the source of consciousness does give a free choice to us little humans to become one thing or another. It’s like fundamental law that I have connected to my own deeds and thus my experience offers proof of it’s correctness, to me at least.
Which team are you batting for?