The Helpful Mystic, Voluntary Murder, and Dreamsex

The mystic avoids the arrogance of believing herself to be the "corrector" or "parent" of any other adult. Still, she cares deeply for people-- even strangers-- and will often sacrifice widely, and exert herself, to aid anyone in distress.

Nevertheless, she holds on to "detachment" as one of her central values. This is never emotional coolness, aloofness, and certainly never apathy or complacency-- often, both demons of fear. It is never emotional irresponsivity or coldness, for her Center, Love, is an emotion. Instead, she has tender and deeply personal feelings for a friend-- and, often, for even a stranger in need of help and/or comfort. She will certainly share, often with passion, what she might believe is the best solution for the suffering person.

But she draws the line at coercion or manipulation. After sharing her best, and teaching the confused person, and gently supporting her, she knows that there is a valid time to let go and let God. She reassures and reminds herself that the troubled person has the same Godmind or Lovemind within her as the mystic herself possesses. She knows that the end of karma arises only with personal gnosis. So, while she will do everything within her power to teach and to demonstrate the Way, this is not an action that can be done by one for another.

Love compels and guides her. But she must draw the line at "over-Love." It is her assignment and delight to love those in trouble. But, as much as she truly loves them, it is not her mission to "fix" or "repair" anyone. Indeed, with the depth and scope of karma, it is beyond her (or anyone else's) capacity. And the mystic simply cannot afford, time-wise, to turn a single person's problems into a fulltime career.

She will likely run errands for the troubled. She will help her to connect with other people, especially if there are relationship-challenges. I do couples-counseling as a part of the spiritual work, serving as a more "objective third party," in aiding people to listen to each other.

She will actively support any action that she does not consider harmful-- her practical definition of "evil." She will listen non-judgmentally; she will make several phone-calls, not to "check up" on a person, but simply to offer support. She will likely write several emails. She will visit the one in need.

But she will never demand, force, impel, compel, or coerce anything. She will encourage and uplift. Mystics are usually fairly poor, but she will give money as well as time to attempt to aid.

She will do so much in response to Love that the mystic must always be careful about selfexhaustion. (Mystics have actually killed themselves this way, having failed to "love themselves as their neighbor.") So, if the cosmos has brought into her life a person with great need, she will push herself to be kind, obliging, giving, compassionate, and supportive.

But, again, we all know that some people will take outrageous advantage of such a loving approach. In fact, too much support can turn into enabling. So, the mystic is cautious of "over-supporting." She does not want to create or support an unhealthy cathexis. She does not want to reward dependency-behaviors. Since she loves herself also, she will not allow one person to eat up all her time and energy, so that she has nothing left for selfrecovery and selfenergizing. So, she does believe in limits, even in the expression of true Love. Out of reasonable selfrespect, the mystic does not want to be "used," and much less, "used up."

So, she modulates with reason the sheer quantity of aid that she is able to give. when she gives-- of time, energy, money, wisdom, or anything else-- she does so with utter sincerity and honesty. She seeks neither the rewards of God nor those of human beings. Her Love is pure, and has no "ulterior" or hidden selfmotives.

In the m-world (the maya-world), we do not always get to choose between "pure, unmitigated good" and an "obvious and horrific evil." Often, there are many shades of gray in between, and sometimes, it is difficult to impossible to define an action as "good" or "evil." Still, in many if not most cases, the "good path" or response will reveal itself. More often than not, it is the path that helps the most people-- even though "goodness" cannot be defined on an exclusively quantitative basis.

Mystics are different and very independent individual people. We emphasize freedom to the max, including freedom of faith and of conscience. We are guided by Love, not law. Many of us do not belong to official or formal organized religions. Some do not accept the Scriptures of some religions. So, the answer here might seem a bit unsatisfying, but be assured, it is not evasion. One mystic can feel that Love would allow, or compel, her to kill the killer to defend the
others, and another mystic might disagree.

At any rate, a mystic would not kill quickly, easily, or casually. Voluntarily to take a life is a huge gamble karmically. The cosmic Mind knows that, in some cases, it could be justified, and in some cases, even demanded. A mystic could take a life deliberately, but only under the very worst of all conditions. The target would have to be engaged in irreversible and inevitable murder of others.

Murder, and violence generally, are forbidden, under all normal circumstances, by the Way of Love. Some mystics are, in fact, such pacifists that they would rather die than take a life. For murder is a serious error, and dying is not a "sin" in the same way. Some mystics would allow themselves to die rather than to take a life; they would argue, with some validity, that to kill the killer forces you to stoop to her deeply flawed and unspiritual level. Some would never fight violence with violence.

A mystic who did "kill to save lives" would not ever be harshly judged by other mystics, who would show great understanding, and give any forgiveness necessary. The divine Mind would also do the same. But taking any human life violates so many codes of honor and Love that it might never be done under any circumstances. After all, most people feel that they have some "reason," or at least, some rationalization or justification, for murder. This alone can never make murder the "right thing to do."

Mystics are not absolutists in the moral realm. For example, mystics are people of honor and honesty. But if to reveal a "truth" would harm someone, it might be conscientiously witheld. If interrogated about a Jew in the attic, by an SS soldier, a mystic might lie, and say that no Jew was up there.

Moral and ethical laws are good and reliable guides for the mystic, and she respects them greatly. But no matter how vast the codex, laws must finally be interpreted by the individual conscience, an interior and God-given guide to behavior.

To be clear, I feel that I might kill if the death of friends or other innocents were inevitable. But in this very important matter, I cannot speak for mystics as a class or group, for their actions are very independent, selfgenerated, and quite varied, as each is ruled by Love-trained conscience.

Dreams are produced by the unconscious-- usually, the personal unconscious. So, the person is not responsible for the content of the dream. But, it might be argued, he is responsible for any behavior within a dream.

Psychologists still disagree about this. How responsible is a person for reactions, responses, or reactive behaviors while deeply asleep? Also, this question is complexified by the presence of powerful natural bioforces over which there might be little or no control.

You say that he is not aware that he is dreaming. But still, in the back of his mind, awareness might be actually present. If a dream is produced by the unconscious, that part of mind is likely also to realize that the dream is a dream, even if that datum is known only unconsciously.

The question boils down to exactly how responsible a person is for dream-behaviors. In sexual dreams, factors are also mitigated by exactly how sexually frustrated a man might be in his waking state: What are his relations and relationships with his wife like?

If it actually does happen, is a fait accompli, the only valid response is forgiveness, for this covers you whether or not an actual "immoral act" has been committed. Selforgiveness and forgiveness of the other are the only valid and healing responses of Love and goodness.

Is this pperson guilty of "immoral action"? If that term is defined in practical terms as the deliberate, voluntary harm of a living creature, the answer must be carefully considered: How much was controlled, or controllable? How much was voluntary or deliberate? It appears that a purely voluntary choice was made, but again, we cannot fully equate behaviors in deep sleep with those of lucid and awake consciousness. And if a sensitive wife argues that she has indeed been "harmed," this was clearly not a deliberate or voluntary act, due to the very unpredictable nature of dreams. And so, it might not come under the perhaps overly-convenient label of "immoral action."

Some mystics are more sensitive to sexuality,and thus, to sexual pecadillos, thanI am. They might define this action as "sin," and they are, of course, free to do so. And, at least for themselves, they might be right. But, in this case, I do not believe that the Lord of Love would so label this reaction.

Fundies hate the evident fact that Jesus was easier and more lenient with sexual sins than with others, including the most despised, selfrighteousness. I cannot see the Lord of Love becoming terribly upset by a creature's response, in a dream, to forces which She herself created, and which, under normal circumstances, actually are designed to express Love.

This engages the conscious mind much more as a decision-maker. Still, it might validly be concluded that, because it is a dream, it will cause no real harm. But again, it might create emotional harm, for example, to the wife; and emotional damage is prohibited by the practice of ahimsa.

Ahimsa is a necessary, indispensable aspect of the mystic's life. It is an interior and sacred vow made to cause no voluntary harm or damage to any living creature. This "harm" applies in four areas-- physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. To do emotional harm to another is to do real harm, and it is forbidden by the mystic's vow to live in impeccable honor, according to her capacity. So, to indulge in this kind of lucid dream, if it would wound the wife, would be prohibited by the principles of the mystical life. This behavior would not be guided by the mystic's individual conscience, but rather, by the principles to which she has, as a mystic, agreed to live.
*******