DocM wrote on Nov 23rd, 2009 at 9:56pm:Dude,
I can not say that I agree with ES, although I haven't had discussions with deceased people from thousands of years ago.
To me, however, he is saying we have each, individually a primary love which we follow, which does not have to be evil or good. In fact if the form of love is applied in a loving manner, it may lead to spiritual growth, if it is applied toward selfish or sadistic ends, it can lead us toward a hell.
Let us say our primary love is to solve puzzling situations. One can imagine following this toward either loving ends, or unloving ones. There is nothing wrong in acknowledging that we may have a primary love to our personality that persists indefinitely. This, by no means indicates that we won't have secondary loves. Thus the person who enjoys solving puzzles - figuring out what makes things tick, may also love God and other people. However, when ES peered into the persons nature, he saw the primary love first. He would look at a Julius Caeser, and find that when he died, his love of power over others persisted for centuries in the afterlife. Or perhaps that a famous lover such as Paris from the Trojan war, persisted in following his lusts and narcissism after he died.
What ES says, is not different from what many afterlife sources say. Many sources point to the fact that spiritual growth occurs much more rapidly on earth, where we have our interior love under control and being modified by our exterior mask of society. ES is sort of saying the same thing, only he says that without our exterior masks, we stay with our primary love. But I feel that he was saying more that we follow this primary love and change it less and in different ways once we are dead.
I think I "get" his point, but don't necessarily agree with it all. I think ES does speak of people leaving hells, as I documented, as so he is inconsistent and perhaps conflicted himself.
Matthew
Hi Matthew: One of the reasons spiritual growth is not as effective in the astral is the fact that you cannot met anyone who hates you in the astral... according to Monroe/Moen... this means the clash and contrast of interaction that one encounters in the physical plane is missing in the astral...
If I have it right from Moen... the Hells are very specifically structured... thieves met other thieves and encounter thieves who are better at thieving than they are... etc... that is why it is a Hell... one is always being beaten at one's own game... in a never ending cycle... it is also the way out... when a retriever uses that frustration to turn a thief... that is the beginning of moving out of that Hell to focus 27 and another way of life....
the Hollow Heavens are closed end structures which mirror the earthly dogmas and if the individual awakens to a different concept by either retrievers or personal discoveries and is vocal in their variation in dogma... they get banished into darkness... by the arbitors of that particular Hollow Heaven... that is my take...
I haven't read ES in years so I don't know exactly what he wrote in this light... whoever is familiar with the exact ES belief might post it here...
Seraphis1