christian
4th July 2012, 12:18
It's also "The Art of Dealing with Conflicts with other People". Once again (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?44637-Humanity-vs.-The-Cabal) I pulled a few lines out of Sun Tzu's classic "The Art of War" (http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html) to explain some things about human interactions, virtual and physical.
In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Simply slamming someone and his opinion is not the most skillful thing to do.
Finding anything of value, even if only between the lines, in the other's opinion and commending and encouraging that may help in winning a new friend and ally.
Perceived flaws in someone's opinion can still be pointed out, the important thing is not to attack someone personally, as this always builds resentment and unnecessary conflict.
In my opinion a lot of those conflicts are due to the fact, that even many of the "lightworkers" are sometimes easily triggered into reptilian reactonary fight behaviour when they perceive it's for the "good cause". - But in fact giving in to such behaviour means perpetuating this behavioural paradigm here on earth.
It has to be noted, that debates in opposite to physical conflicts are much more unreal in the way, that one is always free to state just about anything and claiming it is true. Such behaviour in others can be discerned and then it's best to not allow oneself to be dragged in a "debate" with someone who doesn't really wanna debate and stop adding fuel to a divertion.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
"Without fighting" is so subtle and important. "Choose your battles wisely", not every argument is worth participating in, especially not in a way, where we just "besiege walled cities", i.e. have an argument that is all about throwing biases at each other. Do we really wanna spend our time and energy on engaging in such a way? Think about the energetic ripple effect this creates and about how we can spend our time in a more creative way.
Deciding how we spend your time and energy is where we really exert our free will. It's not so much about which decision is right or can be justified, because it is all a matter of perspective and anything can be justified. It's just about what do you really want to choose to do? What is the behavioural paradigm we want to establish?
To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength; to see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear.
What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.
Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage.
Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success.
This means in a way, that more important than laying out and exerting plans is to cultivate one's conduct and one will shape oneself in a way, that one will win, wherever one goes and whatever one undertakes.
Really putting this into practice means to take on problems when they are still small, seeing problems before they really arise and getting no recognition for this by the average men, because he doesn't recognize things, that are being done this way.
Once again, it has to be noted, that a debate other than a physical conflict is much less tangible. Someone voicing some opinion loud and often does not mean those of another opinion are defeated or are needed to respond loudly and numerously. Actually responding in this manner would mean being lured into a moot fight. This doesn't mean allowing others to spread lies, but to moderate and purposefully direct one's counter measures.
I'm pretty sure, that most all of us here are willing to make an effort in one way or the other for the good cause, so I figure, what is important for us to cultivate is how we utilize our resolve. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. Whether or not we are awakened or enlightened is tested by how we deal with just about anything. It's not (just) about what we know, but about what we do. Especially the people and situations, that are uncomfortable, are the real litmus test.
My appeal to you is:
Don't get suckered into unnecessary conflicts. Someone voices something, that portrays you or something you hold dear in a bad light? If you are really on the moral highground, then show it. Be compassionate and forbearing, but not meek. Don't provide someone with a target, be aware of how you deal with energies and words directed at you. You can make them come to nothing, if you want. Discern, when there is no point in beleaguering something or someone.
Now, responding in such a way is not so much an "open victory" as calling someone out on every little thing. But in my opinion, this existence is not about impressively slamming others verbally or physically, but about empowering others and oneself (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46514-How-to-wake-up-the-sheeple).
In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Simply slamming someone and his opinion is not the most skillful thing to do.
Finding anything of value, even if only between the lines, in the other's opinion and commending and encouraging that may help in winning a new friend and ally.
Perceived flaws in someone's opinion can still be pointed out, the important thing is not to attack someone personally, as this always builds resentment and unnecessary conflict.
In my opinion a lot of those conflicts are due to the fact, that even many of the "lightworkers" are sometimes easily triggered into reptilian reactonary fight behaviour when they perceive it's for the "good cause". - But in fact giving in to such behaviour means perpetuating this behavioural paradigm here on earth.
It has to be noted, that debates in opposite to physical conflicts are much more unreal in the way, that one is always free to state just about anything and claiming it is true. Such behaviour in others can be discerned and then it's best to not allow oneself to be dragged in a "debate" with someone who doesn't really wanna debate and stop adding fuel to a divertion.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
"Without fighting" is so subtle and important. "Choose your battles wisely", not every argument is worth participating in, especially not in a way, where we just "besiege walled cities", i.e. have an argument that is all about throwing biases at each other. Do we really wanna spend our time and energy on engaging in such a way? Think about the energetic ripple effect this creates and about how we can spend our time in a more creative way.
Deciding how we spend your time and energy is where we really exert our free will. It's not so much about which decision is right or can be justified, because it is all a matter of perspective and anything can be justified. It's just about what do you really want to choose to do? What is the behavioural paradigm we want to establish?
To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength; to see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear.
What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.
Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage.
Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success.
This means in a way, that more important than laying out and exerting plans is to cultivate one's conduct and one will shape oneself in a way, that one will win, wherever one goes and whatever one undertakes.
Really putting this into practice means to take on problems when they are still small, seeing problems before they really arise and getting no recognition for this by the average men, because he doesn't recognize things, that are being done this way.
Once again, it has to be noted, that a debate other than a physical conflict is much less tangible. Someone voicing some opinion loud and often does not mean those of another opinion are defeated or are needed to respond loudly and numerously. Actually responding in this manner would mean being lured into a moot fight. This doesn't mean allowing others to spread lies, but to moderate and purposefully direct one's counter measures.
I'm pretty sure, that most all of us here are willing to make an effort in one way or the other for the good cause, so I figure, what is important for us to cultivate is how we utilize our resolve. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. Whether or not we are awakened or enlightened is tested by how we deal with just about anything. It's not (just) about what we know, but about what we do. Especially the people and situations, that are uncomfortable, are the real litmus test.
My appeal to you is:
Don't get suckered into unnecessary conflicts. Someone voices something, that portrays you or something you hold dear in a bad light? If you are really on the moral highground, then show it. Be compassionate and forbearing, but not meek. Don't provide someone with a target, be aware of how you deal with energies and words directed at you. You can make them come to nothing, if you want. Discern, when there is no point in beleaguering something or someone.
Now, responding in such a way is not so much an "open victory" as calling someone out on every little thing. But in my opinion, this existence is not about impressively slamming others verbally or physically, but about empowering others and oneself (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46514-How-to-wake-up-the-sheeple).