Importance of Moral Evolution prior to recognition of Absolute Love

[Scholar]

I have been contemplating the structure of morality and the evolution of compassion in individual human beings and society as a whole.

There is a very important dynamic that I have not yet heard anyone talk about.

 

Firstly, the expansion of compassion for different individuals and groups by egoic structures, such as yourself and society as a whole, happens by virtue of:

1. The potential of expansion due to the loss of threats against egoic structures.

2. The functional similarity of any group or individual that will be included in the circle of compassion, which has yet not been included.

 

An example is the historical expansion of identity.

Individual -> Family -> Tribal Groups -> City-states -> Religious Structures -> Nation-states -> Ethnicities -> Species (homo sapiens) -> Biological classes -> Life itself -> and so forth (very simplified linear, which is not the case in reality)

These expansions happen step by step. The inclusion of different races for example was necessary for us to ever develope structural compassion for a group less similar than other races, namely for us to structurally care about different mammals on a level of included identity, we first will require, as a tendency, to include more similar groups first.

 

We can observe different functions of resistance towards this kind of moral evolution, which I keep observing in the spiritual community:

"But plants are sentient, how can we stop exploiting animals if plants are exploited too? That's hypocritical, therefore I will exploit both plants and animals."

Notice that this is a very important argument for upholding ones own identity in regards of what creatures and beyond one will include in their circle of compassion. This type of argument is problematic because it pretends to care, or love, a group further away from our current circle of compassion, when it in fact does not care about neither the closer group nor the less similar group.

By this dynamic it allows the identity to uphold itself and halt moral evolution.

 

This is very obvious when we put this in an example which we have already transitioned through:

The enslaving of different races.

"But animals are sentient, how can we stop exploiting black people if we are still exploiting animals? That's hypocritical, therefore I will exploit both people and animals."

The reason why this type of argument feels so obviously flawed to us is because we know that, even if it is hypocritical from a certain point of view, the adopting and expansion of ones identity and circle of compassion has to happen this way. Evolution does not work by attaining absolute Love for all Being instantly, especially not on a societal level. How moral evolution works is like this:

We have groups from A to F. A is most different to F.

A expands towards and includes B

AB expands towards and includes C

ABC  expands towards and includes D

ABCD expands towards and includes E

ABCDE expands towards and includes F

ABCDEF is achieved, a cosmic Identity is created.

 

AB will resist expansion by the following means:

"ABC is invalid, because to be truly moral would require ABCD!"

 

Additionally, a structure which goes instantly from A to ABCDEF will actually not have evolved it's egoic identity structures, but instead will remain at that level. Because egoic structures do not dissolve even after complete enlightenment (as these egoic structures are what gives rise to desires and so forth) it leads to people who will act like A despite having expanded to ABCDEF as far as their identity goes.

 

 

What is important to realize is that there is a difference between egoic structure and egoic identification. The structure can only change in a health way if it expands identity step by step, as each new stage of identity requires time for the egoic structure to adapt itself to that new identity. If identity is expanded instantly in an individual, moral evolution has not taken place and will actually be halted at the level of structure that was previously achieved.

 

Leo can recognize absolute Love in All there is. He can accept the suffering he is causing because there is no structure which keeps him from doing so. His structure is not evolved, only his identity is.

If Leo was a rapist and instantly expanded identity to all Being, he would continue to be a rapist because there would be a recognition of it being Pure Love. However, if Leo step by step expanded his identity, he would have stopped being a rapist long ago, he would have stopped being racist long ago, he would have stopped being speciesist long ago and so forth. And then, once the identity was fully expanded, the egoic structure would have had time to develope and evolve into the highest level of moral evolution.

 

The end stage is structural behaviour that even despite the recognition of Maya and Selflessness in Totality, also acts selflessly within the framework of reality which is emerging in consciousness. It would mean behaviour like Christ, and even beyond Christ, not merely the same recognition.

 

 

There can be Full Love and enlightenment of Identity in someone who shows complete apathy towards all other creatures. But there can also be a Structural Evolution, the change of egoic psychology to such a degree that it effortlessly flows with the greater realization. This cannot be achieved through instant Identity expansion. This takes time.

 

Veganism, even if it is limited and hypocritical, is the next step in moral evolution and identity expansion. It will be necessary if we want to achieve full Enlightenment of civilization itself. Once we include animals, we can worry about plants and other aspects of Being. But skipping it will halt the evolution of collective identity.

 

And identity does not work by merely intellectual acceptance. Identity expansion means that killing that which you identity means killing you. True expansion of identity is only achieved when the threat towards another is perceived as a threat toward oneself.

 

Once that has been achieved, and many other steps on the path of expansion of identity, we can worry about total dissolution and surrender of existence. It will not happen prior to that.

 

This means going against veganism for example, even if it is recognized as dogmatic (much like the abolishment of slavery was dogmatic), is going against Divine Intelligence itself, as this expansion is the next step towards Total Identity. Dogmatism is necessary for evolution.

We are speaking strictly about identity here, identifying with other species, not the dietary dogmas surrounding it.

 

In my view an integral teacher will encourage the expansion of identity. It is deliberate building of identity structures which is necessary for us to eventually dissolve all identity structure, especially on the level of the collective. But we have to be careful to let people fully integrate each stage of identity.

 

 

The ingenius design of all of this is that without compassion, in this context of biological creatures, it seems to not be possible to evolve towards Truth on a collective level. The expansion of identity is a necessity for the emergence of an enlightened civilization. Dysfunctional teachings which do not adapt themselves to the current identity of it's society will be rejected by the collective ego. It is not possible to skip a stage, the structure is as important as the identity.

It must be this way. The perception of egoic structures being a problem (especially collective ones) only emerges from the inability to see the grander workings of these dynamics.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Scholar

[mandyjw]

Love is beyond and also including survival, and morality exists only because of survival. You can evolve so far on the scale of morality that you will no longer survive, literally. Love transcends and can make one aware that they do not have a separate self without killing the body. I believe the goal of the evolution of consciousness is to kill the separate self, not to kill creation physically. But who can say? A plant doesn't care if it lives or dies from one perspective, from another it cares greatly. The perspective is an illusion just like our own, and that oneness ultimately dissolves morality completely. At whatever point morality stops working or makes one suffer, they will desire to move beyond it.  It think we all have different tolerances for it. 

 

[Scholar]

7 hours ago, mandyjw said:

Love is beyond and also including survival, and morality exists only because of survival. You can evolve so far on the scale of morality that you will no longer survive, literally. Love transcends and can make one aware that they do not have a separate self without killing the body. I believe the goal of the evolution of consciousness is to kill the separate self, not to kill creation physically. But who can say? A plant doesn't care if it lives or dies from one perspective, from another it cares greatly. The perspective is an illusion just like our own, and that oneness ultimately dissolves morality completely. At whatever point morality stops working or makes one suffer, they will desire to move beyond it.  It think we all have different tolerances for it. 

 

 

Morality is not seperate from process of the discovery of Oneness, especially on the scale and workings of the greater super-structures of societies and civilizations.

The egoic structure of society will not allow the expansion of identity if the structure itself does not support it. This is why Ultimate Identity on the scale of civilizations cannot be achieved before the structure has not evolved.

 

The beautiful thing that is being evolved towards is structure that can uphold Ultimate Identity, or Non-Identity. A perfect balance between survival and No-self identity. Structures which do not evolve towards this goal are being dissolved.

To the greater egoic structure, individual enlightenment can be a threat to it's eventual evolution towards collective enlightenment. The dissolution of identity cannot happen too quickly, because if it does Survival Structures more robust than it will simply take over and take it's place.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Scholar