Q: I spoke to you the last time about the civilian protests that we have here because things are very difficult now. I thought about going to be in a protest, and I wonder if it’s the right thing to do. Not taking part in things is a problem, and going into things too much is a problem, too, so I’m confused and I don’t know how to deal with these things.

John: What is going on is because of many, which makes it up to many to deal with. The difficulty when you’re inside of a situation is that your perspective will easily be formed by your immediate environment, those around you. If you are in a completely different environment, your perspective might easily change. So recognize the conditioning of your immediate environment and whatever’s going on that is out of balance is because of a deep, interior imbalance in almost everyone. So if you address the imbalance in any way that brings your deeper interior out of balance, then even though you think that you’re contributing to a balancing on the surface, you’re making it worse. So on a subtle level, you’re contributing to the same thing even though you’re trying to bring about a balance.

Q: Okay, but if I don’t give hand to all of this, is it okay? I don’t think that it’s in my power to fix things because f you fix things it’s for your self.

John: If you’re fixing something in your self so that you, deeper within, can be okay, you make it worse.

Q: Okay.

John: But if you’re fixing something on the surface because something needs fixing on the surface and you’re not doing it for a deeper beingness, then that’s just caretaking.

Q: Okay. So if I connect to people, I try to lower the flames a little bit because from both sides the flames are very high now. When I enter the conversation do I help? Do you understand what I mean?

John: Yes. It’s complex. There isn’t a right or a wrong in this. There’s a multi-levelled complexity to the whole situation. If you address one level without addressing all of the levels inherent to the situation and the deeper situation, then you contribute to an imbalance. So if you bring a balance to one level but not to all of the levels, the balance that you bring to the one level you make worse, even though it looks like you’re making it better.

Q: I see.

John: If you address only one level, you bring the other levels out of balance more.

Q: Okay. So what do you suggest me to do in this situation?

John: By first not quickly drawing conclusions. So first, being rested within and open into what may be more than what you can presently see, so that you’re open to recognize other levels that are concerned that don’t appear on the surface. The deeper levels don’t address the surface, whereas the surface levels are without the deeper levels. You’d have to have a depth perspective where you’re realizing more levels than what appear, and you’re delicately coming into a deeper level of thought and seeing that takes into consideration all of the levels. And then you start to lightly move, which could be into the situation or out of the situation. As soon as you quickly draw conclusions, you’re going to be leaving levels out.

Q: Okay. And you mean even take side in this situation is..?

John: Yes.

Q: Oh, wow. Okay.

.John: As soon as you take a side you’ll be leaving out deeper levels.

Q: Okay. I get the general idea.

John: When there are two sides, there’s an inherent imbalance on both sides. So as soon as you take a side, you’re out of balance. A depth perspective including all of the levels actually concerned holds both sides not as two different sides. A balancing to the polarity that exists on the surface isn’t going to be in the favour of either side.

With a real answer toward the situation, both sides will lose their individualistic polarity.

Q: Yeah. I understand it. I can see it.

John: Anyone invested in a side, if you come into a depth perspective, they won’t easily want to listen to you because as soon as they’ve taken a side, they’re invested in that side, so they don’t want to be interrupted in their direction.

Q: Yeah. I have noticed it already! Yeah. I get it. But anyway, if you are for, let’s say, democracy and freedom of, freedom of protest and freedom of being, it seems to be right!

John: That’s already out of balance.

Q: Okay. (laughs)

John: Every past and present world system is out of balance. What makes a democracy out of balance is that it reinforces the sense of personal rights and personal sovereignty.

Q: Yeah, and individuality.

John: Yes. Personal rights have an important place, but only on the surface. Not in regards to the heart or anything deeper.

So then you would navigate with a sense of morality, ethics, in regards to the surface, but from anything deeper than that you’re coming from levels of beingness that don’t relate to morality, to ethics, to personal rights. The deeper levels are informed by direct knowledge. The surface level is fulfilled by a direct knowledge and levels of common sense.

There are many levels of knowing and of knowledge. The deeper levels are not informational knowledge.

Q: Yeah.

John: It’s a direct knowledge that has to do with beingness. As you come closer to the surface, there’s working with knowing on the level of common sense. So knowing, awareness knowing, starts to come into a balance of how to move with common sense while holding deeper levels of non-informational knowledge. Part of knowing is being able to move with common sense, but the common sense isn’t first.

The heart knowledge is more important than common sense, and direct knowledge from within the being informing the heart and the self is worth more than heart knowledge. But the self knowledge, informational knowledge isn’t unimportant: it is just not the most important. So you’re able to work with direct knowledge on the level of the being, heart knowledge, and then also including levels of common sense which requires a development of your self and your mind.

Q: Yeah. But first you have to be, to sit very, very good in your being and in your heart..

John: Yes.

Q: ..just then deal with all the other stuff.

John: And in being all of that, then stepping into holding levels of common sense, levels of morality, ethics, personal rights, understanding that the personal rights apply only to the self, not to the heart and not to the being. So they’re very limited to their application.

Q: Thank you John.