NB-This is a didactical thread.

Now, this matter of justice is important. It is clear that there are two types of justice, and that is, first of all, what has to be classified, because one thing is subjective justice, and another is objective justice. One thing is the justice of this world, the subjective courts, and another is the Courts of Celestial Justice. They are different.

Thus, one has to fully differentiate between this subjective justice, that is bought and sold, and the objective justice, where it is not possible to bribe the judge.
The Courts of Celestial Justice are completely different. This matter of Justice is worth comprehending.
But, well, what can ordinary people know about justice?

Continues...

Well, what can ordinary peiple know about justice?
Absolutely nothing.
What do they know about justice? What can people with an asleep Consciousness know about what is just, about what is unjust? About what is good and about what is bad?
They do not know anything.

One thing is good when it suits them and bad when it doesn’t suit them. This is how the concepts of good and evil are among people with subjective psyche, among people of subjective justice.

But to have consciousness of good and evil, they do not have any consciousness about that. They do not know anything about what is good nor what bad. They sleep profoundly.

They are machines, machines that act and move by forces that they do not know.

Continues

If, for example, a catastrophe happens in the cosmos, the type of vibratory waves that reach and touch the human machines do terrible things, and millions of these human machines then launch themselves into war against millions of other machines.

Machines against machines, what are they going to know about good and evil? They raise flags, slogans, they say that they are going to fight for freedom, for justice, for democracy. They do not know that it is the cosmic forces of a catastrophe at the cosmic level that set it off.

Could these people know about what is good, what is evil?
Undoubtedly, in everything that is good there is some evil and in everything that is evil there is some good. There is much virtue in the wicked and there is much evil in the virtuous. Could the ones asleep know that?

Yes, even with virtues you can harm others! Do you want to know a case of evil that I could have done?

Yes, even with virtues you can harm others! Do you want to know a case of evil that I could have done?

Someone, whose name I do not mention, printed some of my books, not with his own printer but with the government’s printer. He did not do it for evil, but for good; but it happened that the government found out.
Since that someone was the administrator of that printer, obviously, the government protested and he was called to trial, but a charge and a witness were required.
The accused named a former juror as a witness. He said he could assert that this so-and-so had sent him to print those books. Those books were financed by this so-and-so, therefore, it was not the government who ended up paying the bill for the printing of such books.
But it happened that that so-and-so, the supposed witness, did not have anything to do with it. However, being a lover of truth and justice and rectitude, the man said to me:

"What should I do? I believe this gentleman has unjustly appointed me as a witness. He has said that I asked him to print the books in order to defend himself, but I did not ask him to print them. Now, if I say no, he goes to jail! If I say yes, he will not go to jail. But how can I lie if I am used to telling the truth and nothing but the truth? How can I say that I did ask him to print such or such books if I had never asked them to be printed? It would be a farce, a lie. I am a Gnostic and I am on the path of rectitude, therefore, I am not going to lie." Unquestionably, with the virtue of sincerity and that of truth, this man, in fact, was going to condemn an unfortunate person to jail, who knows for how many years, right? He asked me for advice.

What did I tell him?

I told him:

"Man! A lot of harm can be done with virtues as well.

Do not harm with virtues! A virtue out of place becomes unjust."

"Then, what?"
"Say yes, that you ask for those books to be printed".
They were books that were for the Great Cause, for the good of humanity. Books, our books...
Well, he heard the advice. Here he already admitted, that no one is harmed by this lie, well whom would he harm? Instead, he prevents someone from going to jail and leaving a wife and a few children abandoned.

So, with virtues evil can be done as well, of course. It is unjust to use virtues badly because one can harm others with virtues.

Do you think that, perhaps, the executioners of history were not honorable?
Do you think that, for example, the executioners of the guillotine in France did not do it in full compliance with their duty? They were men who complied with their duty fully. And some of them, even with a horrible sacrifice, fulfilled their duty: letting the "Guillotine" blade fall on the heads of the noble.....

Continues

But they were fulfilling their duty, their virtue was impeccable, of course. And how much damage did they do with that virtue of fulfilling their duty?

How many apparently righteous judges, in fulfilling their duty as judges, have put many innocent people in jail?

Good, is everything that is in its place; bad, is that which is out of place; just, is that which is in its place; unjust, is that which is out of place.

Fire, for example, is just and good, where? In the kitchen. But how about a fire in the room, burning our curtains? That is no longer just or good, right? It is evil and unjust.
The water in the sink is just, it is good; but outside the sink, flooding the rooms, out of its place, is unjust, is bad. That is how virtues are.

Being tolerant, for example, with the ideas of others is correct, but tolerance out of its place makes one an accomplice to crime.

Continues...

Being tolerant, for example, with the ideas of others is correct, but tolerance out of its place makes one an accomplice to crime.

What would you say about a father of a family, one hundred percent gnostic, who has his wife and daughters, and who is fulfilling his duties to his wife and his daughters? Tolerant up to the maximum, he became accustomed to complying with the words of the Gospel
that say: "If you get hit on the right cheek, put out the left for them to hit harder."

Well, suppose a disaster is provoked and a group of bandits raid that house to kill his wife and rape the daughters and all.

But, in the Gospel, he was taught to turn the right cheek and to bless those who hurt you, to love those who hate you.
Then, instead of de-fending the woman and the daughters, he blesses the thieves, the bandits: "Oh, thieves! Oh, bandits! Do not do that, never do it again, because with that you will get a lot of karma upon you, I forgive you!" and the bandits rape his daughters or kill the poor wife.
What would you say about a man like that?

He is complying, apparently, with the Gospel, with tolerance and forgiveness of offences, right? It is a virtue that is out of place.

So, what to do in that case?

Continues....

The same question was asked to Krishnamurti; he was unable to give the correct answer. They said to him:
"Well, and if you are with a sister and they try to rape your sister, what would you do?"

He said:

"I am not in that circumstance."
"And if you were to be in such a circumstance later?"
"Then I would already know what to do in that moment."

He went off on a tangent, but he did not give the answer as he should have.
The harsh reality of the facts is that if a man, at that moment, does not act with energy, if he does not draw the sword, if he does not resort to arms and fight to death with the
assailants, obviously, he does not only become an accomplice to the crime and looks bad up there, but also looks bad down here in front of the judges on Earth, because there are laws that punish him in the penal codes.

For example, here in Mexico, it is already stipulated in the penal code. I do not know about your country, but for here there is an article where one is considered an accomplice and goes to jail for complicity with the crime. I don't know about there, in your country, but for here it is a crime.

Well, then, what has to be done there? Well, to die fighting even if we have to die, right? It is better to die fighting there to defend your family, to fall in the fight, than to become an accomplice of the crime. Thus, a virtue that is out of place is unjust and bad; and it is a virtue! But it is bad.

Continues..

Learning to live justly; that is what is important. The majority does not know how to live justly. They do what they should not, wanting to be just.

Claiming one's rights is correct. Not to claim them is to become an accomplice of the crime.

If a person so-and-so, for example, owes us a large sum of money, that we are in need of, and he owes us. He has with what to pay, we are sure that he does, but suppose that he does not want to pay, that he does not feel like paying. We have then the responsibility to ask, to claim our rights before the justice, before the courts, before the law.

Any person could say: "But that is absurd. Being a Gnostic, how will you bring charges to him?" It is not about bringing charges, it is about claiming one's rights which is different.

So you can see what justice is. A Gnostic could say: "I forgive." Who are they forgiving? A gentleman who has sufficient money and does not want to pay? It is a forgiveness out of its place.

But if we are sure that he does not have it, then things change: one should perhaps forgive that debt. But, having it and being in very good conditions and not wanting to pay? Then it is a duty to claim your rights.

Continues..