Freewill and the channel wars

[StarDust]

Well stated Carmen! And yes, Bashar's presentation of parallel realities is a real eye opener that lifts the spirit for sure. I find the mechanics of consciousness to be positively fascinating. Thank you for sharing your story.

[9eagle9]

It IS a game, an elaborate one played on you well before I ever came along.

The "positive' attitudes instilled by external messages sure fail people when they come under just idle scrutiny. One wonders how they will serve you if the **** ever hits the fan.

[Carmen]

Ah yes, that is the great test. Wonder how spiritual we will be when we are 'really' hungry? That why it is vitally important to be able 'ride' this body we animate, before something dramatic happens. It cannot be in charge or we are no help to it!!

[9eagle9]

Like anything else its better to have a practice run before we get hungry. Stories only get people so far, a positive attitude only gets a person so far, getting rid of what keeps you from your internal strength , will allow you to draw on it and won't matter if anything is positive or negative.

People always get their knickers in such a wad about my statements it always makes me wonder what they'd do if confronted with something with some real teeth.

[Carmen]

Well said 9eagle9! I have been very grateful of the training I've had at Ramtha's spiritual boot camp. Stuck in a huge maze in 35 degree heat, cheek by jowel with hundreds of others, blindfolded and told to focus on the void, for seven or so hours, sort of reveals to one whether or not one can rely on spirit to guide, or crumple in an emotional victim heap. It's an amazing test. One cannot think ones way through or emote through it. And there ain't no good or bad or positive and negative.

[Anchor]

Posted by Carmen (here)
I know this is off your topic Anchor but I will answer the-vast-mystery! Thanks for the opportunity vast mystery.

Thank you both Carmen and TVM, thank you also DeDukshyn and 9eagle9 also.

I got a sense we ain't done, but at least nobody tore any new holes in eachother.

Anchor..


[ Sometimes it helps to read a post that is about you, pretending like you are actually someone else. Not that you are trying to make a habit of dissonance but it can be useful to control the way in which one appreciates, understands and reacts ]

[Fred Steeves]

Posted by Carmen (here)
I know this is off your topic Anchor but I will answer the-vast-mystery! Thanks for the opportunity vast mystery.

Right, now I have to find the words cos there is really not a short answer to your post! I guess you could call me a bit of a hermit. I love living alone in my own space to be and do exactly what I want to do. I have family and friends but I am mainly alone and for me at this stage of my life it's fabulous!

When I said about the unhelpfulness of 9eagle9s manner of posting, this is my personal response to this type of posting. Many people on Avalon are not spiritually advanced and that is not their interest, but others are! and the wisdom and quality of their posts is extremely inspiring. Spiritual advancement is my passion and I've been at it intentionally for over thirty years. We start off exploring matters spiritual and I have always insisted upon utter freedom as to how, who and what I explore. Whatever the source, it's the quality of the info that matters to me. Also I like to see others with the same sense of freedom, not curtailed and warned constantly of listening to the wrong info or being wrong all the time. I never learned much from teachers who were not encouraging. Hell, on my journey I soaked up religion, theosophy, new age, old age, ancient wisdom, miles of channelled stuff, and I wouldn't have missed out any of it. It is all grist for the mill!!

I awoke through tragedy (my daughters death) ,but the journey I started on put me offside with most of my family and friends so I had much critisizism and gossip to contend with after the time of 'sorry for your tragedy' passed. That's what I mean by saying 'what someone else thinks and says about you is none of your business'! I dislike gossip intensely and mainly do not indulge in it.

Another aspect to this reply is that with spiritual advancement/understanding comes a corresponding vibrational change. One gets to the point of realizing that thoughts do create reality and more and more the guarding of thoughts and words becomes a sacred responsibility. Also fear disappears and with that we do not attract anything to be fearful about, whether it be gossip, thieves or murderers!! And just as negative gossipy people can be like a virus that infects a place so do peaceful, happy, enlightened people infect a home, an area, a country, and that is catchy too.

The 'many worlds' idea being discussed on the thread about Bashar, is very real to me. There are no accidents, nothing that I have not created in my life. Not that I haven't had ****ty stuff in my life, but actually that's where the best learnings were. I mainly don't have to be whacked over the head with a four by two to learn stuff nowadays!! And that's quite nice!

You know, every now and then I read something here, and my jaw is literally left agape. Carmen is one such person here at Avalon, who'm I am not one bit surprised would/could share a masterpiece such as above.

Talk about someone up and owning their multi-faceted responsibilities in life folks, there you are...

[Carmen]

Oh God, now you are making me cry!! Jeeze! Talk about exploring the spectrum of emotions today! Big hugs lovely man,!

[songsfortheotherkind]

Posted by Carmen (here)
Hmm, I'm not critisizing wordiness!

heh, I didn't think you were, I was freely admitting my tendency to create Posts of Epic Size when I am interested in the topic. The thing about not understanding: I get that all the time. I am getting more forward in asking direct questions so that I *can* understand. Some people see this as a Bad Thing, because they take it that I'm questioning their integrity or experience rather than the way it's been presented, in that I don't quite 'get the picture'. (and as this internet method of communication leaves little room for telepathic picture throwing, I frequently don't get the picture. It's one of the reasons I like video phone, I can pick up the pictures even unconscious senders give off and this makes engaging with others *much* more peaceful. I get agitated around speakers that are completely blank in terms of sending- and that's a lot of individuals...). So I like to ask and clarify.

I do love the challenge at times of using words of wisdom or advice in a way that does not cause others egos to rear up in self defence.

I used to use this modus operandi- now I prefer to just write and make films. I don't have the energy to negotiate the internal frailties of others: I utterly embrace openhearted engagement and exploration, I don't have the patience for navigating another's freakout spots and clunk spaces. I find with writing and film making, I get to express what it is that I want to express and anyone that doesn't like it can complain to others about my ideas or Being, I generally don't have to deal with it. This works for everyone involved, I feel. :D

Just been reading the Toltec book 'The Voice of Knowledge'. It talks about 'our story', being unique and different to every one else's story (Ahh, Sui generis again). Also, we think we 'know' other people, but we have just made up a secondary story about them!! It's all lies and conditioning we have accepted about ourselves and others.

This is one of the subjects I absolutely love the most: I love the language of the singularity, which is the language of the sui generis, when it is spoken in a really deep way. I really can't express how much that language blisses me: it's what I'm into, discovering a way of engaging with and connecting to others in such a way that holds space for *all* the possibilities that do no harm, all the singular experiences and perspectives. *bounce* It's also splendid to see another source of the 'you're interacting with another singularity through your filter, which is why non-violent communication 'I' language is so utterly crucial, as I see it, to hold the space for the vesica pisces that happens in of all moments of connection between two different Beings: when I see the energy of the connection as a *third* element, and treat it as a new creation in itself, then I can begin to dance with and explore the connection- and the other- in a completely different way.

That's the beginning of it for me, anyway...

To let them be and love them anyway gives them self acceptance and room to be any way they wish.

I'm totally up for the absolute acceptance. :D The love part, that's a different realm for me.

[Carmen]

Posted by songsfortheotherkind (here)

Posted by Carmen (here)
Hmm, I'm not critisizing wordiness!

heh, I didn't think you were, I was freely admitting my tendency to create Posts of Epic Size when I am interested in the topic. The thing about not understanding: I get that all the time. I am getting more forward in asking direct questions so that I *can* understand. Some people see this as a Bad Thing, because they take it that I'm questioning their integrity or experience rather than the way it's been presented, in that I don't quite 'get the picture'. (and as this internet method of communication leaves little room for telepathic picture throwing, I frequently don't get the picture. It's one of the reasons I like video phone, I can pick up the pictures even unconscious senders give off and this makes engaging with others *much* more peaceful. I get agitated around speakers that are completely blank in terms of sending- and that's a lot of individuals...). So I like to ask and clarify.

I do love the challenge at times of using words of wisdom or advice in a way that does not cause others egos to rear up in self defence.

I used to use this modus operandi- now I prefer to just write and make films. I don't have the energy to negotiate the internal frailties of others: I utterly embrace openhearted engagement and exploration, I don't have the patience for navigating another's freakout spots and clunk spaces. I find with writing and film making, I get to express what it is that I want to express and anyone that doesn't like it can complain to others about my ideas or Being, I generally don't have to deal with it. This works for everyone involved, I feel. :D

Just been reading the Toltec book 'The Voice of Knowledge'. It talks about 'our story', being unique and different to every one else's story (Ahh, Sui generis again). Also, we think we 'know' other people, but we have just made up a secondary story about them!! It's all lies and conditioning we have accepted about ourselves and others.

This is one of the subjects I absolutely love the most: I love the language of the singularity, which is the language of the sui generis, when it is spoken in a really deep way. I really can't express how much that language blisses me: it's what I'm into, discovering a way of engaging with and connecting to others in such a way that holds space for *all* the possibilities that do no harm, all the singular experiences and perspectives. *bounce* It's also splendid to see another source of the 'you're interacting with another singularity through your filter, which is why non-violent communication 'I' language is so utterly crucial, as I see it, to hold the space for the vesica pisces that happens in of all moments of connection between two different Beings: when I see the energy of the connection as a *third* element, and treat it as a new creation in itself, then I can begin to dance with and explore the connection- and the other- in a completely different way.

That's the beginning of it for me, anyway...

To let them be and love them anyway gives them self acceptance and room to be any way they wish.

I'm totally up for the absolute acceptance. :D The love part, that's a different realm for me.

But, but ,but!! Writing in such a way as to not cause others' egos to rear up in self defence is using the language of the Sui generis!!?? It's honouring and allowing others unique and different perspective, their Sui Generis. No?

I don't intrude on others when their cups are full, generally. It's pointless and serves neither you or them. There has to be some sort of crack in the belief system! Some sort of openness.

Oh, and the love. I'm not talking about the sweaty, bed shaking variety s. If that's what you are talking about!!:I've been there, done that. No, a book and a cup of tea is more my line! Although! If a certain Irishman turned up at my door, I might have to reconsider!! (but that's another story!)

Filmmakers have a great opportunity to convey powerful messages. Good for you.

[songsfortheotherkind]

Posted by Carmen (here)
But, but ,but!! Writing in such a way as to not cause others' egos to rear up in self defence is using the language of the Sui generis!!?? It's honouring and allowing others unique and different perspective, their Sui Generis. No?

The language of the sui generis does not involve egos, at all, which is why it can trigger so many upon hearing it. Ego as a negative isn't used in the sui generis vocabulary- it doesn't describe anything that is encompassed by a sui generis society. If one is a singularity, what does the word ego actually describe? If one is seeking to describe an expression in another that is less than sui generis, how does 'ego' actually accurately describe this? (As an aside, I find it unsurprising that a whole negative thought system has arisen around the concept of the 'ego', which in itself describes nothing more than an element of the singularity of all sui generis Beings; all healthy Beings create an internal interface with the external world and a failure or inability to do so results in such conditions as extreme autism and catatonia. Not useful in terms of interacting with an external world. Personally, I experience the persistent tar and feather job on the 'ego' as a very interesting form of a virus based attempt at destroying the singularity of the Being, which is in harmony with many other homogenising and heteronomous tactics employed in many other ways).

In sui generis language there's an intrinsic, embedded conceptual foundation that indicates both an absolute acceptance of the other individual and an unquestioning holding of space for personal responsibility, because without absolute personal responsibility there is only a base form of sui generis that is being practiced.

There is a *vast* difference in the kind of communication that happens between two individuals that utterly embrace their personal responsibility, who hold their own and the other's sui generis in equal vibration and who embody the principle of 'do no harm': it means they're engaging on a pure essence level, with zero 'defense' mechanisms and internal contracting.

This does not happen here at this point in time. I have yet to find *anyone* that, at some point or another, does not trot out a version of the heteronomy- which is the virus. I'm living into that sui generis way of communicating and I'm nowhere near that pure essence signal; the majority, who are still embedded in the virus mind, generally have zero clue what I'm extending when I extend that energy towards them. They grab their maps and filters and apply them to me, which is part of the 'contracts' discussion we're having in the Pub. Social stroking is the way society manages its addictions and fears and the vibration and embedded signal in the way individuals communicate with one another is part of this stroking.

Now, if a Being shows up that doesn't mirror those social strokings and rituals, it can cause individuals, groups, and sometimes entire mobs, to freak out. An example: as so many new Beings were showing up with an immunity to social programming and other such rubbish, the establishment saw this as an unhealthy condition (which, from their perspective, it is) and so the diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome was spread across a far, far wider spectrum of society than the diagnosis was originally created for. We also have defiance and non-compliance disorders coming at society from all directions as by the 'authorities'. Unsurprisingly, many of the markers for highly gifted individuals fall inside the parameters of both defiance disorders and Aspergers; were Da Vinci to be born in this world now, and especially if he was born in the US, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he would be seen as problematic by the school system, be diagnosed with several 'disorders' and most likely medicated.

So I experience this 'writing in such a way-' thing as speaking very diluted sui generis in such a way that isn't going to freak the other out.

Here's the thing: I can't speak diluted anything, let alone sui generis. I know that others are really good at dilution/teaching (essentially, teaching *is* the ability to dilute something down so that it can be absorbed in gradually increasing conceptual and practical expressions) and good teachers can modulate their way of communicating so that they can keep diluting something enough until they get to the point of dilution necessary for the learner. I usually don't have the space in me to do that although to some degree I can and this post is an example of where I go with that- some individuals are brilliant pre-school teachers, or primary school teachers, or high school, or college; I have been asked to express stuff at post doctorate level. I simply can't do kindergarten.

Anyone talking at a level higher than the listener is running the risk of triggering *something* in them; the issue then isn't in the sui generis, it's in a whole bunch of perceptual glitches and psychological entrainment that go along with the social programming structure that this society creates.

Examples: someone recently posted on the forum regarding some interesting studies done around exploring how competent individuals in society generally consider themselves to be, and this highlighted the vast difference between where individuals thought their competence was (which was usually high) and where it *actually* was (which was much lower). This was posted in a thread regarding the subject of 'why intelligent government will never happen', if I recall correctly, and it was a study that I reposted in several places. Another: the inbuilt entrainment that causes individuals to automatically assume that an intelligent individual is 'trying to make them look stupid' or 'thinks they think they're better than everyone else, don't you!' because they're not talking in a way that makes the listener feel comfortable. Often, for an intelligent individual, this can mean that one's conversation level has to drop so low as to become utterly painful and like wading through neck deep molasses. It actually can cause headaches and stress, but to the listener, this distress looks like arrogance.

The following took me approx 1.6 seconds to google. There are articles like this all over the net.

Any significant difference in intelligence between two people makes deep social connection a challenge. This point annoys people on both sides of the arbitrary cutoff point, but some research points to IQ differences of more than 15 points as sufficient to bar intimate, intellectual, and emotionally mutual understanding. Friendship is possible, but a certain level of closeness will not be present. In these situations, the gifted person may feel frustrated and the normal friend may think the gifted one is weird. Normal kids sometimes label a gifted kid "dumb" because what he or she says does not seem to make sense.

source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n55503806/

What I'm saying is, sometimes, it doesn't matter how carefully one presents an idea, if it's a) too far above the understanding of the individual, b) it rocks their world too much, including about how they see themselves or c) threatens societal or personal sacred cows, there's quite likely going to be some pretty stellar 'ego' reactions. It's not my area of interest to avoid this; I'm personally interested in exploring with a group of individuals who a) have a diverse area of interests, expertise and ability and b) have a grasp of the concept of the sui generis in a solid enough way that they're able to undertake co-creation as a full on exploration of how sui generis might actually work within such diversity and c) are personally responsible enough to deal with their own freak outs.

A very simple way of describing this is: I'm a R and D Being. I utterly suck at tech support.

I don't intrude on others when their cups are full, generally. It's pointless and serves neither you or them. There has to be some sort of crack in the belief system! Some sort of openness.

Hence my interest in research and development- anyone involved in R and D is naturally questioning things already.

Oh, and the love. I'm not talking about the sweaty, bed shaking variety s. If that's what you are talking about!!:I've been there, done that. No, a book and a cup of tea is more my line!

That's interesting- you just merged physical sex and love. I wasn't expressing that at all- and individuals wonder why I am so "nitpicky" about the word love. *grinning* I was talking about the 'love for all Beings' sort of idea, which I don't personally express because, as you just so beautifully demonstrated, that language is clunky and too muddied for clear communication. In the ancient Greek, there was eros and agape, 'brotherly' love, which was based on principles and actions rather than any emotion- agape I get, it's closer to the sui generis way of treating each other than any 'love one another' concept that I've seen promoted, which often contains worlds of emotional goo.

Filmmakers have a great opportunity to convey powerful messages. Good for you.

Thanks! *grinning* Although how many would be interested in watching things I would produce, given the way I experience and express my 'Verse, I have no clue. :D

[Anchor]

@songsoftheotherkind: Post #111


Wow.

I have personal experience of the IQ difference thing. When I did a lot of research based "engineering work" about 20+ years ago, I worked with smart people. Not mentioning the job, but I was one of the dumber ones among them, and it was a new experience for me as most of the jobs I did it was the other way around and I was kind of the loner and referred to as a "geek". Anyway my takeaway from that job was that I noticed that all these people described as "socially awkward" or "geeks" were nothing of the kind. They (we) were just different - it was one of the best and most stimulating jobs I had. The company was smart enough to simply herd us all away on a campus and look after us so we could get on and invent stuff they could sell.
Over time one learns ways to lessen the impact of obvious differences.

It is not just IQ either, IQ is just one dimension. There are other dimensions of difference that can really make you stand out as "odd". Levels of experience in certain professional fields, general knowledge (being a knowall), spirituality. Just wanting to choose healthy food can be a differentiator that makes people think you think that you are better than them.

Like being from "not around here" for example - LOL

Super post, very thought provoking.

Thanks

[9eagle9]

There isn't a known language that can prevent the ego from rearing up and its no one person's responsibility to tame or balm another person's ego and this is a directly relative to channeling. Channeling is where one gets the 'idea' of who they are where there destiny lies at.

Granted one's language may be least inclined to poke a person's ego if the person's ego isn't overly dense , or doesn't have the upperhand.

I'd also see how even 'sacred' languages could piss off the ego because its not being fed or given something to react to. One's true self creates, re-acting is something entirely different.

Languages of indifference tell the ego it's not important and it's not meaningful.

The ego's programming is dependent on language.


Spiritual circles where perversely the ego is ascendant and bristling with beliefs that make people bristly is where this most noticeable because much 'spirituality' is based on non-responsibility. Someone or something else is responsible for your emotional state. Much of our junk channeling emphasizes that.

Junk channeling intrenches this notion and leverages it over and over. Someone is coming to save you, you don't have to do anything. Someone greater than yourself is coming to love you. We only speak in a language that is a balm to you. We speak only of love and daisy and butterflys. It's very dense and judgemental in its undertones and subtly undermines our ability to create circumstances for ourselves.

Dis-empowerment. Its not real obviously because the moment the message and their bearers fall apart at the seams. How can a message tell me that I am great, all powerful, and then with the other mouth tell me that they must interfer and make me better?

Self accepting people don't go there. Nor do they temporize or rationalize or excuse such opposing core values because that is doing the same thing the message is doing. It's okay to decieve one's self with banalities.

A person may be inclined to know themselves and know there is no being greater than themselves (equality) so how could a being greater than themselves come and do anything? good, bad or indifferent.

Is it better to be a superior light being whose mask falls off the moment something other than light is investigated and found lacking.. Or a plain old human that doesn't crumble the moment their 'humanity' is scrutinized. Humans are multi faceted regardless if one has found and known all those facets. Stories are not multi- faceted, and are not known, they are thought. It is very easy to see that the stories and masks that people project are easily infiltrated, because they come from infiltration. Who put the idea in your head?


Its not so easy to disprove humanity (and all that that implies). Self acceptance. Humans at least provide evidence of their existence.

In normal human language this dependence on external stories is co-dependency. Love ends up being a story.

You don't have to speak at all to crank someone's belief system, although people are less likely to attack demonstrable action, and more likely to attack language. I wonder if they attack language because some intuitive part of them understands that was their means of infiltration.

In a week I can piss off a thousand people from eating a hamburger, eating a lettuce, not loving everyone, not going to church, not having a crystal clutched in every available hands, not saaloming to the earth every fifteen minutes, not reading the Bible. I piss people off by NOT doing as much as I am doing.

There's nothing I can do without triggering someones ego even though what I do has nothing to do with them, and I'm not sure how their ego got involved in my affairs. This holds true for everyone.

People create stories in their heads, for other people to see. Projection. And then are angry because people do not see them for who they are. Watching two talking heads, unfortunately if I know you for who you are, and accept it , you would not instead preferring a story that has nothing to do with your essential nature. It has nothing to do with you, and you are self alienating people as the mask comes between everyone.

The conflict arrives when their chosen story doesn't hold water and YOU do see them for who they are behind the mask.The mask is there for a reason, and its meant to hide one's lack of self acceptance. They will not accept themselves for who they are, so one is left speaking to a mask who will inevitably react when it realizes that you know that it is not the real person.

but its their stories, one would think they had control over them. If the story or the role doesn't hold water they may have to examine that is what they are showing people. Because much modern spirituality doesn't show self-responsibility more than likely they will not. Accepting one's self is the better part of learning to control one's self.

[Carmen]

Holy Hell!! I'm going to have to take the day off to read and understand all this lot you guys!! Wow!!

[9eagle9]

You should take a day off anyway..lol.

[Anchor]

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
People always get their knickers in such a wad about my statements it always makes me wonder what they'd do if confronted with something with some real teeth.

(I am thinking out loud here, I reckon none of it will be a surprise, but if it is lemme know)

Where you said, "my statements", I suppose that literally they are yours because you uttered them for some reason.

However it is not you that puts anything like "teeth" in them - even if they are not "things with real teeth". Or is it?

Offense is never given, only taken.

I have noticed over and over when you (or someone ) who makes an exchange of this fashion, that it is always the "other" person gives effect to the teeth in them. Thus they meet up with exactly what they are able to deal with - even if it takes time and is a bloody war in the short term - and a complete pain in the eyeballs for people watching.

I'm big on stretching analogies past breaking point, and its going to happen here

So, what you seem to be able to do with your "my statements" is load a gun remove the safety and hand it over.

The reader/listener decides what to do with it.

Let's consider at this point, gun safety!

I happen to believe that we should all be responsible.

What I do with a loaded gun is my own business. You can hand me a loaded gun anytime you like, if I make a mistake with it, that is my problem, my responsibility, my path, my karma. Also, lucky for me, I was trained to handle one safely, but you may have not known that.

So what do you do, if you reasonably suspect that I don't have that training or appropriate gun safety ? Or what do you do if you just happen to think I may be going to do something dumb with it?

I think your answer would be that you don't give it a second thought - because, from your perspective, it is implicitly NOT YOUR PROBLEM what I do with that gun.

I happen to agree, but not everyone does.

Even if there was apparently some hypothetical risk of them using that gun to harm you - even if it is something as mundane as wadded knickers - but that cannot happen in your world, because you are immune. You know it and are therefore not bothered about it.

You cannot pretend you don't know what people do with those guns though, because you see it. You've been round the loop a few times.

You are involved. You can't duck the process, nor your part in it, because you decided to move from being an observer, to one who has decided to make a comment.

In doing so you still had to process your inner motives and ideas through a matrix of suitable word forms in order to materialize the thinking behind them on this forum.... and all the while when you were doing that and thus loading the magazine... working the slide.... you had an opportunity to think naaa you know what, this guy is just going to take that gun and most likely have an accidental discharge - hole in foot scenario. But we see you don't always do that.

Then usually in the cases where shots are fired, it usually goes back and forth until one of a small set of possible outcomes is achieved.

You present plenty of options for people to either engage or not. They choose.

Nothing I have said above is intended to be negatively critical of you or this process. Part of me wants to say, thanks for doing what you do; but the empathy programming holds me back. I do see the blood on the carpet, even if you don't.

Do you see, as I do, this as a service?

Did you choose it, or does it just happen?

Anyway I just wanted to see if you agreed with what I have been thinking about what you do.

And at the end of the day, we didn't come here to make people feel good did we?

Nor did this guy:

Matthew 10 KJV: "Think not that I am come to send peace on Earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Look how that worked out for him in the end.

And his truths still offend people.

Its good to be free, but it is a such a slog at times when mired in density.

Shoot!

[9eagle9]

I wouldn't know it for negative criticism because what comes from your mind no more belongs to me than it does to you.

It is perhaps NOT negative criticism because it didn't come from the mind.

Everyone be quiet and no one will get hurt.

I always wondered why bank robbers said that and now I know. It would not be funny to some to know the criminal element, the thief, knows more about resistance than the 'holy ones.' That is why the thieves of the world have held sway.

If one is quiet inside themselves they don't get hurt?

If one's mouth is quiet people still get hurt.

I see the blood on the carpet ....but.....what does one see beyond the blood.

If one begins to initiate in meditation to quiet the mind the first thing they notice is their mind is not quiet.

So they seek to quiet the mind, and after some struggle realize the mind is not easily quieted, but don't ask "If it is MY mind, and I ask it to be quiet while will it not quiet?"

If I ask my hand to pick up a cup it obeys because it is my hand.

My mind however will not quiet when asked.

"I must presume it is not my mind and therefore will not quiet at my will."

I acknowledge the minds of others will not obey them if they have no will over their own minds.

I am not compelled to accept what othesr insist I accept if it not theirs to give in the first place.

We can only give what we really have. If I am something I can give it to you if you are willing to accept it.

I am shooting blanks and still people are wounded and blood is spilled on the carpet.

Who makes the bullet real? Would the bullet be less real if were made of crushed rose petals, and pretty pose and love and light?

I am shooting blanks; the mind creates the bullet.

I see the blood on the carpet, I also see that it is not their blood.

If people do not believe what they say about themselves, I have to ask why should I when I do not believe my own mind I should believe theirs.

Do I have the authority to find out what is conveyed to me is fact or fantasy?

Yes.

Do I have the authority to find out if one is speaking from the mind or the spirit.

Yes.

If I do not have the authority to do so then I would have to accept anything regardless if it were false or not.

What and where would I be if I did not have this authority?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
People always get their knickers in such a wad about my statements it always makes me wonder what they'd do if confronted with something with some real teeth.

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
There isn't a known language that can prevent the ego from rearing up and its no one person's responsibility to tame or balm another person's ego

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
In a week I can piss off a thousand people from eating a hamburger, eating a lettuce, not loving everyone, not going to church, not having a crystal clutched in every available hands, not saaloming to the earth every fifteen minutes, not reading the Bible. I piss people off by NOT doing as much as I am doing.

Posted by Anchor (here)
You cannot pretend you don't know what people do with those guns though, because you see it. You've been round the loop a few times.

You are involved. You can't duck the process, nor your part in it, because you decided to move from being an observer, to one who has decided to make a comment.

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
I am shooting blanks; the mind creates the bullet.

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
Do I have the authority to find out what is conveyed to me is fact or fantasy?

Yes.

Do I have the authority to find out if one is speaking from the mind or the spirit.

Yes.

From the way it looks to me, 9eagle9, you are often not getting permission, clearly given either a priori or post hoc, from those to whom you administer your particular brand of "tough love healing". Nor, when it is evident from the offended reaction of another member that you did not have permission to "get in their face", are you taking that as an indicator that you should back off, much less apologize.

Never mind that some "always get their knickers in such a wad." Never mind that some will take offense at how others lead their lives, even if no contact is initiated. Never mind that an offense can not be given, unless it is taken. Never mind that it is not your responsibility to balm another person's ego or to make them feel good. Never mind that you have full authority to determine what you accept.

You do not have authority from this forum to initiate conflict with other members. Your authority to "find out" ends at the other members virtual nose.

To run a forum with a variety of members, of different temperaments, some more ready to give offense and some more ready to take offense, the forum moderation works better, in my view, if on the whole it takes a rather simple minded position that doesn't favor either the quick to offend or the easily offended. We ask members not to attack other members.

Granted, it's not that simple. Long standing members with substantial contributions tend to get more of a break than newcomers. Picking on another member that most of us have enjoyed gets more scrutiny than picking on a member who has tended to annoy some of us. Simple, low brow, crude bullying is more likely to get moderated than more subtle confrontations. Members get to critique other members' expressed views, but not other members' character, and sometimes this distinction is not clear cut.

Some members will object that these subtleties are "not fair", and they'd have a point. However no simple rule adequately captures the full intent of this forum's members, so some discretion is desirable, and given that the moderators are humans too, likely inevitable.

[StarDust]

Posted by Paul (here)
From the way it looks to me, 9eagle9, you are often not getting permission, clearly given either a priori or post hoc, from those to whom you administer your particular brand of "tough love healing". Nor, when it is evident from the offended reaction of another member that you did not have permission to "get in their face", are you taking that as an indicator that you should back off, much less apologise.

Never mind that some "always get their knickers in such a wad." Never mind that some will take offense at how others lead their lives, even if no contact is initiated. Never mind that an offense can not be given, unless it is taken. Never mind that it is not your responsibility to balm another person's ego or to make them feel good. Never mind that you have full authority to determine what you accept.

You do not have authority from this forum to initiate conflict with other members. Your authority to "find out" ends at the other members virtual nose.

To run a forum with a variety of members, of different temperaments, some more ready to give offense and some more ready to take offense, the forum moderation works better, in my view, if on the whole it takes a rather simple minded position that doesn't favor either the quick to offend or the easily offended. We ask members not to attack other members.

Granted, it's not that simple. Long standing members with substantial contributions tend to get more of a break than newcomers. Picking on another member that most of us have enjoyed gets more scrutiny than picking on a member who has tended to annoy some of us. Simple, low brow, crude bullying is more likely to get moderated than more subtle confrontations. Members get to critique other members' expressed views, but not other members' character, and sometimes this distinction is not clear cut.

Some members will object that these subtleties are "not fair", and they'd have a point. However no simple rule adequately captures the full intent of this forum's members, so some discretion is desirable, and given that the moderators are humans too, likely inevitable.

Well stated paul. Thank you for providing perspective into your process as a moderator. It is insightful.

[9eagle9]

I'm not under the illusion that I can heal anyone.

Yes yes I know we are all just supposed to accept everything that is spoonfed to us to keep the peace , Paul.

Direct insults are one thing, and it seems that those who cannot defend their belief are allowed more in terms of insult, than those who are watching another provide evidence they don't believe what they are attempting to spoonfeed everyone else.

The defensiveness begins after they've found themselves out.

I have noticed those who are unable to defend their positions after blowing themselves out of the water are granted more leeway, than those who are.

I suppose that would be fair, as I probably would not allow someone to beat up those who are unarmed either.

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
People always get their knickers in such a wad about my statements it always makes me wonder what they'd do if confronted with something with some real teeth.

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
There isn't a known language that can prevent the ego from rearing up and its no one person's responsibility to tame or balm another person's ego

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
In a week I can piss off a thousand people from eating a hamburger, eating a lettuce, not loving everyone, not going to church, not having a crystal clutched in every available hands, not saaloming to the earth every fifteen minutes, not reading the Bible. I piss people off by NOT doing as much as I am doing.

Posted by Anchor (here)
You cannot pretend you don't know what people do with those guns though, because you see it. You've been round the loop a few times.

You are involved. You can't duck the process, nor your part in it, because you decided to move from being an observer, to one who has decided to make a comment.

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
I am shooting blanks; the mind creates the bullet.

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
Do I have the authority to find out what is conveyed to me is fact or fantasy?

Yes.

Do I have the authority to find out if one is speaking from the mind or the spirit.

Yes.

From the way it looks to me, 9eagle9, you are often not getting permission, clearly given either a priori or post hoc, from those to whom you administer your particular brand of "tough love healing". Nor, when it is evident from the offended reaction of another member that you did not have permission to "get in their face", are you taking that as an indicator that you should back off, much less apologize.

Never mind that some "always get their knickers in such a wad." Never mind that some will take offense at how others lead their lives, even if no contact is initiated. Never mind that an offense can not be given, unless it is taken. Never mind that it is not your responsibility to balm another person's ego or to make them feel good. Never mind that you have full authority to determine what you accept.

You do not have authority from this forum to initiate conflict with other members. Your authority to "find out" ends at the other members virtual nose.

To run a forum with a variety of members, of different temperaments, some more ready to give offense and some more ready to take offense, the forum moderation works better, in my view, if on the whole it takes a rather simple minded position that doesn't favor either the quick to offend or the easily offended. We ask members not to attack other members.

Granted, it's not that simple. Long standing members with substantial contributions tend to get more of a break than newcomers. Picking on another member that most of us have enjoyed gets more scrutiny than picking on a member who has tended to annoy some of us. Simple, low brow, crude bullying is more likely to get moderated than more subtle confrontations. Members get to critique other members' expressed views, but not other members' character, and sometimes this distinction is not clear cut.

Some members will object that these subtleties are "not fair", and they'd have a point. However no simple rule adequately captures the full intent of this forum's members, so some discretion is desirable, and given that the moderators are humans too, likely inevitable.