I channel

[themaster]

Originally Posted by joelr

So you think that. Ok?
Maybe you tend to find negativity in someone who doesn't agree with you?

No, I read the words and I feel something.. and sometimes it seems to be wrong..

So maybe that's projection.. interestingly enough when I re-read some posts.. I don't see or feel it the next time.. it's usually a once around thing..

Sometimes when I re-read my posts.. I don't feel so joyous about it.. but lately I sometimes re-read my posts and love what I wrote.. just depends..

Originally Posted by joelr

Still on this? No, it's not right. "Pissy" is your word.

Yes, it is my word.. to describe the negativity I felt when reading your words..

Originally Posted by joelr

Wow. Yet more. Nope. Not even when you add the reflecting mirror analogy.

And this would matter how??

It does not matter.. it's just information/sharing..

Originally Posted by joelr

Oh I see, if I can't grasp that I'm angry then I "must" be unconscious. Resorting to using your sneaky insults for manipulation?

Sneaky insults?

I was just making a statement.. neutral it was..

"unconscious" is a insult??? lol

I can think of a lot worse things to say..

You tinge everything you hear from me through a filter of "negativity" it's like if you've ever felt hate or rage (and I know you have.. I have )

Doesn't matter what the person says.. you still hate them.. you have rage for them.. you still filter what they're saying through "I hate you" (in your case it may be that "EGO" filter of yours.. what did you call it "fundamentalist type"? sounds like a great word for "not listening" to me)

Originally Posted by joelr

Yes I would say "fundamentalist type" fits well.
Fundies mostly have all their knowledge already together and will not allow themselves to have 2 way discussions when it comes to their knowledge.
No learning, only preaching and "correcting" others views. Their goal when preaching is to be the one that's right and the "most ascended". New information (science and phiosophy) is brushed off and that's that.
Just looking at how quick and how many judgments, put-downs, and incorrect negative statements about me are in just this one post I feel it's all ego-related fundy junkola.

I can't say it fits literal fundamentalism, but it seems like a "type".

Really, if I was that type.. why would I respond at all?

I mean then my minds already made up.. it isn't..

If you're going to argue "judgments" "put-downs" and "incorrect negative statements about me" then you should at least back it up with quotes.. that is the goal of this discourse.. to talk about anything and everything..

Joelr, all I do is offer teachings and ideas I have taken from my teachers.. and I ask for in this "check and balance" system.. counter-points.. that I haven't thought off.. very rarely do I see anything that "I haven't thought off"

How smart or a ass do you have to be to call yourself "themaster"?

Originally Posted by joelr

Yes I know you're into new age but your strange accusation that I "only know science" is unfounded. From what I can tell I've covered much more metaphysics than you have. Reading some Abraham and Bashar seems to be your total experience.

Yes, but why be so "thorough"??

I don't disbelieve you.. 10 to 1 you may have studied as much as me.. (focusing on the provable stuff obviously) your Achilles heel if you ask me..

I think you've been so "thorough" because you discount everything they say.. without proof and maybe without experiment..

The only real question.. I've ever been asking you is.. why is "bashar" a liar? and why doesn't he resonate?

And what does resonate?

You see I look at things as all true.. this is why I have no call to call "seth" a liar.. even though you claim he's true.. see, if I were you.. I would just say.. "bashar" is not a liar.. but doesn't resonate at this time.. I'll put this piece over here and leave it and check on it later..

[themaster]

Originally Posted by joelr

So? Your saying you like to make a judgment that a lot of new agers are "stuck". Or that you feel superior to them? Because you've read Bashar or something?

It's a observation.. not judgment

I'm not superior.. were all equal even you joelr

I'm am saying however.. that I think of you that way..

Originally Posted by joelr

No....I don't want your opinion on that.

So noted

Originally Posted by joelr

Yes.

Glad we agree on something.. (emotional self active here)

Originally Posted by joelr

SoThat isn't quite right. Every false concept isn't a lie intrinsically. Some people purposely spread bad information, that's a lie.
For example the idea that we are just chemicals and atoms and when we die that is the total end of our consciousness.

Now I think this may be false. You find this true I guess. But that's why I fit your thinking into a fundamentalist type bin. You already have all the answers - everything is true. A basic truth you cannot change. A literal interpretation of the word truth.

I don't have all the answers, joelr.. there I've said it!! shh.. don't tell anyone lol

So were clear I believe consciousness or "oneness" is eternal.. so I don't subscribe to the theory of becoming nothing..

Originally Posted by joelr

I think you're saying is "your problem is you don't think like me and just let go and say Everything is True- Yay!".

This is a very cynical statement.. you know that right..??

What's cynical again..?? ohh, yah a negative emotion based in lack..

Originally Posted by joelr

But I don't see that as a problem because I like having the concept of yin/yang, truth/false, in reality.

Then your correct and I agree with you.. but I have another silly question..

If you don't see this as a problem.. why are you talking with me?

You see I automatically admonish and accept your viewpoint.. I would never argue that my truths are YOUR truths..

So the question is why are you arguing YOUR truths to me.. why are you justifying what you believe?

Interesting questions, yes..?? well remember there just questions

Originally Posted by joelr

When you encounter things like physics, Hindu, philosophy, you like to brush them off (as you've done in past posts).

I'm not brushing them off.. in the slightest.. these are all creations of our reality.. and I validate them.. more than that I acknowledge there is "good in them" there is "empowerment in them"

But I also acknowledge just as you may.. that any good idea.. often gets tarnished in "lack" "wrong ways to be" "judgment" "good vs. evil" etc.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by joelr

I would rather take on the challenge and discern what is ying and what is yang.

I think you mean "EGO" not discern..

I think you mean "intellectualize" not trust your "heart"

The real question for you joelr is why keep looking?

Why keep searching for "truth" why haven't you found that illusive "truth", yet?

What's the hold up??

Do you enjoy the search?? Do you enjoy the EGO "a ha's"?? (I know about those )

But there long and hard and require struggle.. much unhappiness, yes?

Here I am saying.. "hey, there's a shortcut.. just be happy!" lol tired and cliché' I know..

Originally Posted by joelr

But you can't just do your thing without making all sorts of judgments on others (other new agers and me as seen above).

Now that's your judgment..

Originally Posted by joelr

You say others have a "problem", are "stuck" and that YOU have the answer.

A strong urge to put others down and to raise yourself up like that is fundamentalism in action.

You sure you got me in the "right" ego box?

Doesn't sound like me at all..

I mean your saying I say.. "Go to hell believe my truths or be damned"

That doesn't sound like me.. live and let live.. I say..

Originally Posted by joelr

A strong urge to put others down and to raise yourself up like that is fundamentalism in action.

Really, joelr?

You spent a long time studying.. abraham, bashar, seth?

Maybe, you should spend time studying my words.. you might be surprised.. at what I say.. cause I don't think I fit the box.. you think I do..

Originally Posted by joelr

Nope. I do think you have it easy in the sense that you're not interested in learning lots of things about the subject you're interested in. What you're doing is fine, it's your thing. But where do you imagine I think you are? You've read some Bashar and Abraham, ok, good start. Watched the Secret. That's all I see. I don't want to be you or not be you, I don't think about you in any way. I don't pay close attention to fundamentalist types. Getting angry?? Hee, that's silly, why would I waste energy?

I'm busy learning and enjoying things.

There's a very cool post in the "akashic records" thread..

And it says.. people are drawn to your light like moths to a flame..

That's all I said to you "joelr" I think your drawn to my light.. the question I ask you is.. why? (and I have asked you that question 59 times now.. )

Originally Posted by joelr

I'm curious why you sort of seem to want me to be rattled?
But that's getting old as a response. The answer is "no" for any further inquires.

Okay, joelr I validate your truth.. but I also validate my assessment..

Joelr, I don't want to see you rattled.. just want to see you "happy"

The question is.. does a happy man get rattled? (yes and no)

The good ones never do though..

Originally Posted by joelr

No you don't. You just said the Mormans night LIE to you.

night = might?

All lies are true joelr that is what I believe.. I use multiple universe theory to say that.. I have said that to you many times..

Originally Posted by joelr

Sorry, I discern that Bashars concept of discernment is in the same boat as the Mormons.

Discernment is not a bashar concept that I'm aware off..

I'll remind you that I study multiple teachers.. Discernment is a word and idea I learned from teacher "Steve Rother" Who I also met in person..

[themaster]

Originally Posted by darksage

Why would you choose to receive his posts as posts you have to create defenses for then waste your time making defenses? See them as help and you would waste way less time, none actually.

I am just running a check and balance on myself.. and joelr is helping me out.. as you are..

It may seem pointless to drag up all the dirt and the negative things inside us.. but it's actually not.. every time we shine some light on it.. it goes away a little more..

The goal of my text is to help myself and others.. so I think we do get helped and our helped..

What I'm saying to you "darksage" is there is no pointless text.. that's a illusion.. it's all good man..

Even if it's 200 hours of talking about how good the "twilight" movie was..

Originally Posted by darksage

themaster is never going to reply again. Unless he REALLY wants to now, cause at this point I feel like were done with this thread now.

I don't think you know me that well.. darksage.. best to study/observe me first..

[themaster]

I think I posted the wrong video at the start of my thread.. this is the one about "channeling" (though I didn't watch it to double check.. )

Evolution Center

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by themaster

skepticism: The fear of being lied too.. The fear of liars and how awful there lies hurt..

I don't use "skepticism" to follow my Spiritual path.. that's a EGO word and a EGO path.. I use what resonates.. I use what.. "I like" if I like what I hear.. I use it.. if I don't.. I ignore it..

No skepticism, in there?

It's discernment.. new spiritual word for your vocabulary.. LEARN IT! (or don't )

If all truths are valid to you, then what is the "resonates with me" statement doing there? If something resonates with you, isn't that also taking one thing or idea as more valid than something else, in effect making that true and not other things or ideas outside or opposite to that?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by darksage

Yes you are, but your learning the wrong way.

Is there really a "wrong" way?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

If all truths are valid to you, then what is the "resonates with me" statement doing there? If something resonates with you, isn't that also taking one thing or idea as more valid than something else, in effect making that true and not other things or ideas outside or opposite to that?

Just because you use a perspective that all truths are valid -- or that anything anyone chooses to believe is an aspect of the truth -- doesn't mean that there aren't aspects of the truth that work better for you.

And just because an aspect of truth works really well for you (or resonates with you) doesn't invalidate, or make not-true, that aspect for others.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by themaster

I understand for the record some people have "bad" childhoods.. still my understanding is.. if you examine your memory's.. (assuming you have them) you will be able to notice you were much more "content" as a child and much more "happy" then you may be today..

"assuming you have them" is one of those underground put downs that you think you don't dish out.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by themaster

You tinge everything you hear from me through a filter of "negativity" it's like if you've ever felt hate or rage (and I know you have.. I have )

this is a subtle put down too. you have assumed someone else's state and labeled it. imagine if someone wrote this toward you? how would you feel about that?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by themaster

You see I automatically admonish and accept your viewpoint.. I would never argue that my truths are YOUR truths..

what does admonish mean?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

Just because you use a perspective that all truths are valid -- or that anything anyone chooses to believe is an aspect of the truth -- doesn't mean that there aren't aspects of the truth that work better for you.

And just because an aspect of truth works really well for you (or resonates with you) doesn't invalidate, or make not-true, that aspect for others.

then themaster should be saying: everything is true (with this qualification) for those that believe that. which amounts to saying I take what I resonate with as true for me and that which doesn't as false, for me. but meanwhile that other stuff is true for others. without qualifying it as, for others/for me - seeing all truths as true doesn't seem to make sense. I mean - it is kind of meaningless to say, "all truths (everybody's) are true, for me". after all there seems to be this idea of resonating with a certain truth or not.

and then, I think we are all lying to ourselves constantly anyway with what we resonate with and think is true. it's just a perspective of our take on what ever life/existence is as best we can make it - and not the truth.

and what is this "resonating with"? Is it not just what your conditioning can accept as a model to keep going within some framework that you built or agreed to so far? why the resonating with some aspect/perspective of truth? isn't that just agreeing to a rule set of some kind that sets up limitations?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

then themaster should be saying:

I figure themaster should be saying exactly what he says, and what he says is what he should be saying. Just like everyone else.

everything is true (with this qualification) for those that believe that. which amounts to saying I take what I resonate with as true for me and that which doesn't as false, for me. but meanwhile that other stuff is true for others. without qualifying it as, for others/for me - seeing all truths as true doesn't seem to make sense. I mean - it is kind of meaningless to say, "all truths (everybody's) are true, for me". after all there seems to be this idea of resonating with a certain truth or not.

Yes, I can see where the concept of relative truth would seem senseless if I were using a perspective of there being an absolute Truth. For it to make sense, I would have to shift my perspective.

and then, I think we are all lying to ourselves constantly anyway with what we resonate with and think is true. it's just a perspective of our take on what ever life/existence is as best we can make it - and not the truth.

That makes sense to me, yes.

and what is this "resonating with"? Is it not just what your conditioning can accept as a model to keep going within some framework that you built or agreed to so far? why the resonating with some aspect/perspective of truth? isn't that just agreeing to a rule set of some kind that sets up limitations?

Yes, that's a way of putting it that might make sense. "Resonating with" might mean: "that aspect of the truth works well for me in getting the results I want within the model of the world I'm using."

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

I figure themaster should be saying exactly what he says, and what he says is what he should be saying. Just like everyone else.

good point, thanks. I would like to rephrase that. not to say "themaster should" - what the heck was I thinking. I would take it back and say - "for it to make sense for me". and I will also, say it's probably kind of implied that taking "all truths to be true" is really "all points of view are true and equally valid". which is a gateway to peace, I'd think.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yes, that's a way of putting it that might make sense. "Resonating with" might mean: "that aspect of the truth works well for me in getting the results I want within the model of the world I'm using."

Do you see some inherent limitations in this? If we only take in stuff that fits the model we already have - isn't that just sticking to what we already think is the model? what about the unknown and ditching rule sets all together to break our conditioning? to be able to break out of our expectations? Is there a way out otherwise, it seems to me, just resonating with other things is staying in a box of some kind. but maybe everything is a box anyway.

[James81]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

"all points of view are true and equally valid".

Hmmm, is this really true?

I would say that "all points of view are worthy of consideration."

I wouldn't say that all points of view are necessarily "valid" or even true really. (One could make the argument that the creation of a point of view inherently makes that point of view true from a subjective point of view, i suppose.)

And some points of view don't even deserve respect.

I think that simple consideration of a point of view, from a perspective of fully understanding that PoV as it is expressed, is an effective way of looking at it. If you're considering a PoV, you aren't blindly believing it (you allow yourself room to ask questions) and you aren't dismissing the PoV outright either (or the person who creates that PoV).

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

and I will also, say it's probably kind of implied that taking "all truths to be true" is really "all points of view are true and equally valid". which is a gateway to peace, I'd think.

Yeah -- and I wouldn't even say that a point of view is "true" or "false" at all -- although what one sees from that point of view may be seen as true or false.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Do you see some inherent limitations in this? If we only take in stuff that fits the model we already have - isn't that just sticking to what we already think is the model? what about the unknown and ditching rule sets all together to break our conditioning? to be able to break out of our expectations? Is there a way out otherwise, it seems to me, just resonating with other things is staying in a box of some kind. but maybe everything is a box anyway.

Well, for me, it works really well to develop facility in moving between and among models of the world (and that itself is a model of the world! ). For some people, "resonating" means they're on track in getting the results they want in their lives, and for others, it means their model is right or better, and that people who don't see it that way oughtta get enlightened already. Resonance itself isn't inherently limiting -- but what we make it mean might be limiting.

[darksage]

Originally Posted by Angela

I figure themaster should be saying exactly what he says, and what he says is what he should be saying. Just like everyone else.

Originally Posted by James81

Hmmm, is this really true?

I would say that "all points of view are worthy of consideration."

I wouldn't say that all points of view are necessarily "valid" or even true really. (One could make the argument that the creation of a point of view inherently makes that point of view true from a subjective point of view, i suppose.)

And some points of view don't even deserve respect.

I think that simple consideration of a point of view, from a perspective of fully understanding that PoV as it is expressed, is an effective way of looking at it. If you're considering a PoV, you aren't blindly believing it (you allow yourself room to ask questions) and you aren't dismissing the PoV outright either (or the person who creates that PoV).

I am always learning.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by James81

And some points of view don't even deserve respect.

I used to believe that, but I don't anymore. I used to think, "Well, I respect the person, but I don't have to respect his thoughts."

And it's true - I don't have to. I find it works really well for me, though, now, in a way that it didn't used to.

The reason I think it works well to respect another person's viewpoint, even if it doesn't make sense for me, is that everyone's doing the best they can with the resources they have available, and for each person, their point of view makes sense for them right now. That's helpful for me because:

1) It gives me access to creating a space of freedom in my head for everyone to be exactly as they are and exactly as they are not -- to let go of resistance and generate Acceptance (which feels great);

2) It gives me access to making a positive difference for them, if that's there for me to do (also: wonderful-feeling);

3) It gives me tremendous access to becoming more flexible in my own fluidity in moving between and among perspectives (needless to say: feels so good); and

4) It has me feeling more and more present to Love, as I notice that that "other" perspective is a creation of One consciousness -- that is, it's an aspect of Who I Am (feels good on purpose).

[themaster]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

"assuming you have them" is one of those underground put downs that you think you don't dish out.

Nope.. this means some people remember their childhood as a awful experience.. (I was referring to the idea.. I know this.. )

Originally Posted by wolfgang

this is a subtle put down too. you have assumed someone else's state and labeled it. imagine if someone wrote this toward you? how would you feel about that?

If someone wrote this.. I would observe there observation.. and ask myself if it was true..? (neutral)

It's only a "put down" when you label it as a "bad way to be" to me even bad is good

Originally Posted by wolfgang

what does admonish mean?

It means accept in simplest terms.. (yes, I know accept is in that sentence! )

Originally Posted by Angela

I used to believe that, but I don't anymore. I used to think, "Well, I respect the person, but I don't have to respect his thoughts."

And it's true - I don't have to. I find it works really well for me, though, now, in a way that it didn't used to.

The reason I think it works well to respect another person's viewpoint, even if it doesn't make sense for me, is that everyone's doing the best they can with the resources they have available, and for each person, their point of view makes sense for them right now. That's helpful for me because:

1) It gives me access to creating a space of freedom in my head for everyone to be exactly as they are and exactly as they are not -- to let go of resistance and generate Acceptance (which feels great);

2) It gives me access to making a positive difference for them, if that's there for me to do (also: wonderful-feeling);

3) It gives me tremendous access to becoming more flexible in my own fluidity in moving between and among perspectives (needless to say: feels so good); and

4) It has me feeling more and more present to Love, as I notice that that "other" perspective is a creation of One consciousness -- that is, it's an aspect of Who I Am (feels good on purpose).

Does this mean your talking to me again?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

If all truths are valid to you, then what is the "resonates with me" statement doing there? If something resonates with you, isn't that also taking one thing or idea as more valid than something else, in effect making that true and not other things or ideas outside or opposite to that?

No, that's duality.. that's a limited way of thinking.. it's "all or nothing"

Just because something's doesn't resonate.. doesn't make it not valid..

[Angela]

Originally Posted by themaster

Does this mean your talking to me again?

I'm a bit torn about that, to be honest. I was actually talking to Wolfgang here in your thread, but I would like it if you and I could enjoy conversations together. I'm not sure, though, that you're willing to communicate with me courteously; that's the difference that would make the difference for me, as I mentioned previously.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by themaster

Nope.. this means some people remember their childhood as a awful experience.. (I was referring to the idea.. I know this.. )

I see.

If someone wrote this.. I would observe there observation.. and ask myself if it was true..? (neutral)

good for you

It's only a "put down" when you label it as a "bad way to be" to me even bad is good

ok - assuming someone else's state is a mine field. it also easily gets to be seen as judgment. of coarse, with me pointing out you are assuming someone else's state - I have trapped myself in the very thing I say you are doing!! rats.

admonish

It means accept in simplest terms.. (yes, I know accept is in that sentence! )

1. To reprove gently but earnestly.
2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
3. To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.

No, that's duality.. that's a limited way of thinking.. it's "all or nothing"

are you saying "resonating with you (or for someone)" is duality thinking?

Just because something's doesn't resonate.. doesn't make it not valid..

very well, so it can be simple after all.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

admonish

1. To reprove gently but earnestly.
2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
3. To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.

What do you think it means.. wolfgang?

Sometimes, I write things without understanding... why.. I write them?

Perhaps you can translate what I was saying.. admonish was a strange choice of a word.. yes?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

are you saying "resonating with you (or for someone)" is duality thinking?

No, I'm saying "all or nothing" is duality thinking.. it's limited thinking..

I'm saying it's polarized judgment based thinking.. that

1. There is a right way to be.. and

2. A wrong way to be..

Non-polarized is.. "there's no wrong way to be"

Let's just right out a hypothetical scenario here, all right..?? I'm going to describe the states of being for these statements too.. (negative-lack, neutral and positive)

Let's say a homeless person comes up to you on the street and says "the world will end in 8 days" (common phrase you hear me say lately.. I would say I really do a have a "nuclear holocaust" mindset )

If you say this person is "full of crap".. you are activating a "negative" lack based vibration for in essence you have called him a liar.. a small part of your emotional body will trigger and give you negative feedback "resistance" in simplest terms..

If you say.. wow, that's interesting has nothing to do with me.. I'll just put this away for later you are activating a "neutral" vibration.. you have said.. I validate your truth it's not my truth, it doesn't resonate but thanks for sharing..

It's possible to also say..

"Absolutely, your right your world will end in 8 days.. spend every minute of it loving your life" smile and walk on..

(this is my guess at the positive way )

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm a bit torn about that, to be honest. I was actually talking to Wolfgang here in your thread, but I would like it if you and I could enjoy conversations together.

As would I..

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm not sure, though, that you're willing to communicate with me courteously; that's the difference that would make the difference for me, as I mentioned previously.

I can't change "who I am" for you.. sorry, angela

I don't consider our past conversations any less wrong or bad or inconsiderate as I do this one.. But it's nice to chat with as always!

I have however gone out of my way "as promised" to not mention you (and had to re-write several of my writings to keep that promise.. ) I'm not sure that was the wisest decision on my part.. but I will keep it as of now..

I've noticed a pattern as I said before where I mention people they might find it insulting.. rei hit me on it.. and I think we fixed that.. ALG said nothing.. but sometimes it feels like a cold shoulder and you're the only one I can remember it also happening with..

I have no intention of changing my dialogue or tone in our conversation.. (besides for my promise..) I understand I could "lower my vibration" or curtail and "hold" myself back from saying certain things.. but that's just really not my way.. I hope you understand

About the only time I change my tone is when moon or others pm me.. lol

(actually no, that's not true I changed my tone on purpose in "John's" thread cause it was very special to (emotional self active here.. weird) get John unbanned (I guess my emotional self cares about John.. yah almost to tears.. nah strike that glimmer of tears.. ))

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by themaster

What do you think it means.. wolfgang?

Sometimes, I write things without understanding... why.. I write them?

Perhaps you can translate what I was saying.. admonish was a strange choice of a word.. yes?

I've taken admonish to mean "beware". So to admonish someone else's viewpoint, to me, seemed not like the validation you are speaking of. It came across to me as "you better not believe that or you'll be sorry". But no matter as I see you are no sure why that word came out.

If you say.. wow, that's interesting has nothing to do with me.. I'll just put this away for later you are activating a "neutral" vibration.. you have said.. I validate your truth it's not my truth, it doesn't resonate but thanks for sharing..

It's possible to also say..

"Absolutely, your right your world will end in 8 days.. spend every minute of it loving your life" smile and walk on..

(this is my guess at the positive way )

interesting - so in order to "validate" someone else's truth... is to provide a neutral response(?) which actually makes some sense to me in a way, like, provide no charge to the matter either way. and then likewise to anything you, me or anybody puts on their own stuff.

like if we judge what we believe or have as a point of view as negative, we are adding a charge to be stuck with it (resist/persist) .

as well as if we glorify and then get hung up on making sure the point of view is right and likewise feel the need to make sure some state of being is present for us, we are stuck again by adding a positive charge to it. and we can't go forward with either of these charges once they bind to a particular state or point of view.

and then all that is like a tail chasing, because even to make that statement of "we can't have a charge on our experience otherwise we will get stuck", is another thing to get stuck on if I judge THAT as bogus or glorious. and I glorify it, btw! oh no...

[themaster]

Originally Posted by themaster

Then your correct and I agree with you.. but I have another silly question..

If you don't see this as a problem.. why are you talking with me?

You see I automatically admonish and accept your viewpoint.. I would never argue that my truths are YOUR truths..

So the question is why are you arguing YOUR truths to me.. why are you justifying what you believe?

Interesting questions, yes..?? well remember there just questions

No.. it definitely doesn't mean "beware" on that I don't agree with you..

I think I just used admonish as another word for "accept" let me check those dictionary definitions of yours..

" To reprove gently but earnestly" this sounds like it is the closest to what I meant.. I think it's not above me to start assigning "new meaning" to words

I think if you read what I said above in a "context" clues ways.. you can also see what I meant.. I mean really what I said was powerful and true.. I believe joelr's truth and I validate them..

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I've taken admonish to mean "beware". So to admonish someone else's viewpoint, to me, seemed not like the validation you are speaking of. It came across to me as "you better not believe that or you'll be sorry". But no matter as I see you are no sure why that word came out.

Yes, exactly I'm not 100% sure.. it is not unlike me sometimes to try and change words feelings too..

Originally Posted by wolfgang

interesting - so in order to "validate" someone else's truth... is to provide a neutral response(?) which actually makes some sense to me in a way, like, provide no charge to the matter either way. and then likewise to anything you, me or anybody puts on their own stuff.

like if we judge what we believe or have as a point of view as negative, we are adding a charge to be stuck with it (resist/persist) .

Yes, sounds like you have it.. yes

Originally Posted by wolfgang

as well as if we glorify and then get hung up on making sure the point of view is right and likewise feel the need to make sure some state of being is present for us, we are stuck again by adding a positive charge to it. and we can't go forward with either of these charges once they bind to a particular state or point of view..

I think you're not exactly right about the positive charge.. the positive charge does not re-create experiences it's more a acknowledging of "who you are"

It's is smiling at "oneness" it is love of self.. it's recognizing you are the homeless man.. and you are wonderful! (emotional self is out a little on this one.. )

Originally Posted by wolfgang

and then all that is like a tail chasing, because even to make that statement of "we can't have a charge on our experience otherwise we will get stuck", is another thing to get stuck on if I judge THAT as bogus or glorious. and I glorify it, btw! oh no...

The illusion is "lack" there is no other illusion.. loving something is.. loving yourself!

Say something is "not worthy" "not good" is disconnection from self.. that's a simplest as I can put it

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by themaster

The illusion is "lack" there is no other illusion.. loving something is.. loving yourself!

Say something is "not worthy" "not good" is disconnection from self.. that's a simplest as I can put it

hey everybody!! look how simple themaster can get to!! (good for all the ADHD out there) hahaha

[Angela]

Originally Posted by themaster

I can't change "who I am" for you.. sorry, angela

I don't consider our past conversations any less wrong or bad or inconsiderate as I do this one.. But it's nice to chat with as always!

I wasn't suggesting that you change "who you are," only saying that if you continue to speak discourteously, you're not a match for engagement with me. Not every aspect of One consciousness is! (brussels sprouts, for instance, aren't; neither is elephant poop shoveling -- both wonderful things, but, like you, not matches for engagement with me.) And as it seems you're committed to speaking to me in a way I find discourteous, I don't share with you the sentiment that it's nice to chat with you, and the answer to your earlier question is "I'll pass."

Happy trails!

[darksage]

1)

[James81]

Nobody is ever really JUST shovelling elephant poop.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by James81

Nobody is ever really JUST shovelling elephant poop.

Ain't it the truth!