© 1999 Dominique Ronfet
© 1999 French-speaking Association of Readers of the Urantia Book
The idea for this study came to me following an intervention by our friend Jean Royer on the electronic discussion forum. He pointed out that certain numbers given in the Urantia Book were very surprising. For example, the approximate figure of 187 million ascenders present on Jerusem (UB 53:7.12) at the time of the rebellion. Taking as a ratio 619 inhabited worlds and the number of people who died on Earth in 1990, i.e. 90 million (source: Quid 1990), this number of 187 million may indeed seem insignificant. My aim is not to raise a useless debate on the location and percentage of survivors during their ascension as well as the success rate of fusion.
On the other hand, it seems very interesting to me to question the profound meaning of this crucial decision which is the choice to survive, and this at whatever level in evolution we place this decision.
To illustrate my thoughts, I will of course use extracts from the Urantia Papers but also from Sufi texts [^1] as I discovered them through the writer Idries Shah.
The UB reveals to us that there are only two ways that can make us miss eternity: voluntary rebellion pushed to its extreme limits or, quite simply, the decision to refuse survival.
For example :
When material life has run its course, if no choice has been made for the ascendant life, or if these children of time definitely decide against the Havona adventure, death automatically terminates their probationary careers. There is no adjudication of such cases; there is no resurrection from such a second death. They simply become as though they had not been. (UB 47:2.7)
If we don’t take rebellion into account it would simply be a matter of choice. A priori no problem, there is not a day when we don’t each make many decisions, so the one concerning a choice as vital as survival…
But what do we think of all the people we meet who, through ignorance, cannot decide?
And then how can I tell the difference between a cat’s decision to go to its meal and mine to choose an excellent restaurant? What value should I give to my decision-making power?
The UB tells us that this power of choice, our free will, is sacred. That it belongs to us uniquely thanks to the gift of personality that animals do not have.
The life bestowed upon plants and animals by the Life Carriers does not return to the Life Carriers upon the death of plant or animal. The departing life of such a living thing possesses neither identity nor personality; it does not individually survive death. During its existence and the time of its sojourn in the body of matter, it has undergone a change; it has undergone energy evolution and survives only as a part of the cosmic forces of the universe; it does not survive as individual life. The survival of mortal creatures is wholly predicated on the evolvement of an immortal soul within the mortal mind. (UB 36:6.5)
Creature personality is distinguished by two self-manifesting and characteristic phenomena of mortal reactive behavior: self-consciousness and associated relative free will. (UB 16:8.5)
As Rumi said, “the truth is free will, free will, free will” [^2]
There you have it, my decisions would be of absolute essence since they come from an absolute source, my personality.
1. Personality is that quality in reality which is bestowed by the Universal Father himself or by the Conjoint Actor, acting for the Father. (UB 112:0.3)
But then how can I explain the doubt, the mistakes… my personality could make stupid mistakes??
This naturally leads me to ask myself another question:
If I go back to the previous passage on free will (194.5) we find an adjective which may surprise: relative. The author speaks to us of a relative free will.
But relative to what?
The relative free will which characterizes the self-consciousness of human personality is involved in:
The relative free will which characterizes the self-consciousness of human personality is involved in:
The relative free will which characterizes the self-consciousness of human personality is involved in:
The relative free will which characterizes the self-consciousness of human personality is involved in:
The relative free will which characterizes the self-consciousness of human personality is involved in:
The relative free will which characterizes the self-consciousness of human personality is involved in:
The relative free will which characterizes the self-consciousness of human personality is involved in:
The relative free will which characterizes the self-consciousness of human personality is involved in: (UB 16:8.7)
Gee! So my free will, my power of choice would in fact only be engaged in such dimensions?!
But then me, who makes the most diverse decisions, from the color of my pants to the regulation of my work day, wouldn’t that be the same person?
So are we schizophrenic?
The truth is undoubtedly more nuanced.
P. 112:2.7 we can read:
The universe fact of God’s becoming man has forever changed all meanings and altered all values of human personality. In the true meaning of the word, love connotes mutual regard of whole personalities, whether human or divine or human and divine. Parts of the self may function in numerous ways—thinking, feeling, wishing—but only the co-ordinated attributes of the whole personality are focused in intelligent action; and all of these powers are associated with the spiritual endowment of the mortal mind when a human being sincerely and unselfishly loves another being, human or divine. (UB 112:2.7)
We would therefore not have several decision centers, but a volatile center, if I may say so, generating parts of our individual which seek to crystallize. To stop their questioning.
Our personality is like a point of gravity where our real self is located and towards which our decision center must stabilize over time.
But let’s listen to what Sufism can tell us on this subject:
"The tyrannical, dominant self (called in classical Sufi literature the nafs-i-ammara), manifests itself in reactions, hopes and fears, opinions and various preoccupations. When its functioning is brought to light, the individual himself and others can observe its limitations, distortions and singularities.
This self is in fact, to a large extent, what most imagine to be their own personality, their unique self. It interposes itself between objective reality and the real self (essence) of the individual, the realization of which is the objective of Sufi study." (I. Shah, Learning to Learn page 37).
The ancient phrase “Know thyself”, taken up by Socrates, can then take on another dimension. It is no longer a question of looking for one’s faults or flattering one’s qualities but literally of looking for our Personality so that our decision-making center is correctly placed. And this search goes hand in hand with the quest for its creator.
“He who knows himself, knows his Lord” (Hadith [^3] of the Quran.)
Good. It’s already a little clearer. Well almost…you have to be…sincere, not tell yourself stories, well try. Because we remain incorrigible storytellers.
We would rarely be at the level of our Personality, rather asleep to it.
The latter, however, tries to unify what I would define as nascent chaos, the evolving identity (UB 112:0.7) “While it is devoid of identity, the personality can unify the identity of any living energy system”.
But then to what extent am I held responsible for my actions? Or:
##3 How can such an absurd decision, non-existence, be accepted and recognized by our higher authorities?
Let’s put these two extracts in parallel:
Mortal man may draw near God and may repeatedly forsake the divine will so long as the power of choice remains. Man’s final doom is not sealed until he has lost the power to choose the Father’s will. There is never a closure of the Father’s heart to the need and the petition of his children. Only do his offspring close their hearts forever to the Father’s drawing power when they finally and forever lose the desire to do his divine will—to know him and to be like him. Likewise is man’s eternal destiny assured when Adjuster fusion proclaims to the universe that such an ascender has made the final and irrevocable choice to live the Father’s will. (UB 5:1.11)
That which comes from the Father is like the Father eternal, and this is just as true of personality, which God gives by his own freewill choice, as it is of the divine Thought Adjuster, an actual fragment of God. Man’s personality is eternal but with regard to identity a conditioned eternal reality. Having appeared in response to the Father’s will, personality will attain Deity destiny, but man must choose whether or not he will be present at the attainment of such destiny. In default of such choice, personality attains experiential Deity directly, becoming a part of the Supreme Being. The cycle is foreordained, but man’s participation therein is optional, personal, and experiential. (UB 112:5.2)
1st remark: it is therefore a “technical” and definitive impossibility to make the right choice. As if we had descended to a level of purely mechanical reaction. Our decision-making center is definitively beyond the control of our personality.
2nd remark: our personality ultimately never loses, it will reach Deity. It is the relationship between our evolving individuality and our personality that may not work.
Our destruction would therefore become a state of affairs. We are outside of reality since we refuse to evolve our individuality.
We must try to identify this difference between individuality and personality to understand our problem.
If the personality has no identity (UB 112:0.7) it is logical to deduce that it cannot know itself and cannot be known. As the late Mr. Henri BEGEMANN reminds us (Link 10) our personality is of an absolute level.
This is perhaps how altruism (the real one, the extremely rare one, that of the phrase let the left hand not know what the right hand has done (UB 140:8.26)) is possible: how could a personality who does not know himself know selfishness, pride? He only exists for service.
To try to perceive the various possible levels of self-realization, I will quote this passage from Seeker of Truth by Idries SHAH:
DEFINITIONS
A good man is someone who treats others as he would like to be treated.
The generous man is the one who treats others better than he hopes to be treated.
The wise man is the one who knows how he and others should be treated: in what way and to what extent.
The first exerts a civilizing influence.
The action of the generous man is in the domain of refinement and diffusion.
The influence of the wise man touches on “higher development…”.
“Believing that kindness or generosity are ends in themselves is perhaps proof of kindness or generosity. It is certainly not an attitude based on knowledge of the facts and it is what we can say is the least mean and the most generous…”
Are we not close to the concept of paternal love as it is presented in Booklet UB 140:5?
Let us accept that our individual has an ambition for the absolute.
Dominique Ronfet
Bibliography: