We  Enfold   We  Encompass   We  Include

from  Inclusiveness

Martin Exeter   October 20, 1985

"the attitude of including others is a basic evidence of participating in this spiritual body"

 

Collectively it could be said by those who are here present this evening, "I am the one who maintains in an absolute sense a totally inclusive attitude toward all people everywhere." There may be some imagination that one has assumed such an attitude. But the area of proof relates to those with whom one is in immediate association. How inclusive, actually, is the attitude with respect to these? 

There is an inclination, from the human standpoint, to exclude people: "Here is a person whom I deem to be untrustworthy. Behavior by this person has revealed this to be the fact to me. Therefore I will exclude this person from my encompassment of the whole." How inclusive, really, are we of each other?—those with whom we are associated closely. I'm not talking about some grandiose idea that we have of including "all of mankind in my encompassment." That doesn't mean anything unless what is close at hand proves the fact—one's attitude to those who are in the immediate vicinity. It is with respect to these that judgment puts in an appearance and an attitude of exclusion occurs. 

There is a whole—we ourselves are the ones who are beginning to know this—a whole which is cohesive, which is already present invisibly but which now is in the process of taking form. This wholeness includes all of mankind. No one is rightly excluded. So our attitude rightly is that all are included.

This has been very necessary from the standpoint of my own approach over the years. I am just as capable of perceiving the quality and character of the behavior of people as you are. It is conceivable that my perception might be a little more accurate. Be that as it may, obviously, if this spiritual body was to take form on earth, it was necessary that I constantly maintained an attitude of inclusiveness. No one's behavior could be allowed to dictate to me that I should exclude anyone. 

We might recall something of the Master's attitude long ago with respect to those who were called disciples, and others as well, everybody in fact, but it was exemplified by those who came closest to Him. The nature of His attitude was there exemplified and it was an inclusive attitude. He didn't exclude Judas, for instance. He didn't even exclude him at the moment when he was about to undertake the betrayal, as it has been called: "Okay, go ahead." He didn't exclude Peter because of an anticipated denial—which became fact—or any of the rest of the disciples who were waffling around. 

There was only one who stayed put, the disciple John, the only one who was present at the time of the crucifixion, apart from some of the women of course. He received his commission there in a direct sense: to occupy the place which was now being vacated by the Master Himself, placing John in the position of His relationship to His mother. There weren't many on hand who were aware of what had been done then and, in any case, the fact was not acceptable apparently to the rest of the disciples. It seemed more in line with the human view of things to follow Peter. But the Master's attitude was one of inclusion. 

Over the years I have had the opportunity to be tested repeatedly on this point, because there certainly have been those who denied and betrayed, but my attitude could not change merely because of that. Inclusiveness—each one who participates in giving form to this spiritual body carries this spirit. And the attitude of including others, particularly those who are nearby, is a basic evidence of participating in this spiritual body. This is the attitude of the One whose body it is. Necessarily it has had to be my attitude if I was to represent that One. But then we are all in the same boat, actually, because we represent that One, so that all mankind is included. The Master Himself has not been on hand personally to do this, but we are. So presumably if there is anything to us we do it. 

The attitude of inclusion is the attitude of love, isn't it? You can't have this attitude of inclusion without love; you'll find that it's impossible. But all those who are moving toward the state of absoluteness are doing so because there has been an attitude of inclusion on my part, simply because I was responsible for providing a focus for what is to happen. And I would say, having had experience of myself, that if I can do it, anybody can do it. It's very convenient sometimes to place someone in a position of supposed leadership on a pedestal and say, "Well it's all right; he can do it, but I can't." That is looked upon sometimes as humility. It isn't. 

In order to assume an attitude of inclusion it is necessary to mature, to grow up, to stop being childish anymore. I don't know anyone that I have had the opportunity of meeting, including myself, who was not childish to start with. We all came through the period of childhood somehow to get here, but most retain the state of childishness into what is looked upon as adulthood. So there always is the necessity of maturing. Presumably one of my responsibilities was to see that I did it, I let it happen in me. Here was the first person to take care of. And that gave me a certain amount of experience in handling all the rest! But it's true of each one. We have to be willing to grow up, to come out of the state of childishness, which is inevitably there as long as the human ego condition exists. 

Maturity is inclusive of spirit. The only way by which anyone can mature is on the basis of spirit, which is mature; and in the expression of that, maturity comes; otherwise a person just remains childish. And we see the world fraught with childishness everywhere. The world is a very dangerous place because of the children of all ages. We have been growing up some. The evidence of this comes very particularly in the extent of our inclusiveness. 

The matter of forgiveness came up at the time of the Master. How often shall I forgive? Seven times? The answer was "seventy times seven." Well I don't think you're going to count it up to 490: "Now I'm free not to forgive." The indication was that it's open-ended. We are not responsible for binding people; we do have the opportunity to free them. We enfold, we encompass, we include. 

All are included in this body which is taking form. They may move around in it according to the level of their trustworthiness but they are never excluded. Everybody is included. They may not have proven trustworthiness in this area, but let them prove it in some other area then. So the body can form, and we love one another. It is a most joyful thing to maintain this consistent inclusiveness, and then one day this person and that person suddenly give evidence of being freed up. It's happening! I rejoice in it. How long are you going to wait for that? In some respects I waited decades. Let people be free, and those who are willing will come on through. Include everybody! 

There are those who have tried to make what we are doing seem to be exclusive. It was merely a reflection of their own judgment, of their own state—a state of unwillingness to be included. Of course fear enters in here. But there is no reason for fear insofar as we are concerned. We know what's what and we can include everybody, receive everybody who is willing to be received. I suppose you could say there's the catch for everybody, because not everybody is willing to be received. Well that's their business, but at least they have the opportunity when we are inclusive of everybody. And "everybody," insofar as we are concerned, are those people who are right next to us. If we do it there, it's done everywhere.

© emissaries of divine light