If you approach this like an innocent trusting child, the Universe will teach you....because it needs your help. And because you ASKED.
Maybe both ''need'' each other?Balberon said:I find this rather odd:
Buddy Wrote:
If you approach this like an innocent trusting child, the Universe will teach you....because it needs your help. And because you ASKED.
Maybe I'm seeing the glass half full, instead of half empty. It's just that I thought I needed the Universes help and not the opposite.
I guess we will just do what we'll do. And perhaps the ''outcome'' of our doing could be beneficial to those around us, the Universe and ourselves (or just be natural). Who knows..Balberon said:Was that a typo or am I missing something? There are a lot of obstacles, buffers etc.. in my line of thinking, and that's a given. For example I need the Universe to teach me, and I hope to be able to share and teach others - but somehow without crossing their (other peoples) freewill. But I believe, and again I could be wrong, but believe the Universe is as it should be currently. Are we trying to fix the world or are we creating the potential to possibly change the world (moving to-ward and STO potential)?
Balberon said:I find this rather odd:
Buddy Wrote:
Maybe I'm seeing the glass half full, instead of half empty. It's just that I thought I needed the Universes help and not the opposite.If you approach this like an innocent trusting child, the Universe will teach you....because it needs your help. And because you ASKED.
Oxajil said:fwiw:
Maybe both ''need'' each other?Balberon said:I find this rather odd:
Buddy Wrote:
If you approach this like an innocent trusting child, the Universe will teach you....because it needs your help. And because you ASKED.
Maybe I'm seeing the glass half full, instead of half empty. It's just that I thought I needed the Universes help and not the opposite.
Balberon said:Was that a typo or am I missing something? There are a lot of obstacles, buffers etc.. in my line of thinking, and that's a given. For example I need the Universe to teach me, and I hope to be able to share and teach others - but somehow without crossing their (other peoples) freewill. But I believe, and again I could be wrong, but believe the Universe is as it should be currently. Are we trying to fix the world or are we creating the potential to possibly change the world (moving to-ward and STO potential)?
Laura said:Remember: meeting a jaguar can change one's way of looking at the world. And once we have met the jaguar, once we have understood that we "will do what we will do," let's remember the words from Ark's journals:
Ark said:So, let's state the hypothesis. The only reasonable hypothesis that I can state is that one which comes from the unknown system taught by Gurdjieff. This system tells us that the World has a certain purpose. It tells us that not everything works well. It tells us that there are certain "bugs" in the construction.
It is quite possible that using the meta-language one can prove that any program on that scale must have bugs. So, the Universe is a program, a program which has bugs, but which has the built-in capacity for self-improving.
There are, therefore, certain units that are brought to existence with this specific purpose: to self-evolve to a degree high enough to be able to find out the methods of debugging.
So, let's get on with Debugging the Universe, starting with our minds.
Now, imagine that you have a visitor come to see you. Maybe someone who is very smart, but doesn't know anything about Earth and how humans think and speak. This visitor only ever has two questions - he/she never says anything else. The two questions are 1) What does that mean? and 2) Why?
Every time you answer a question, your visitor asks you another. Now your job is to explain to this person what each word means all the way down to the point where you can either point to what you are referring to or you have to admit you don't know (in which case he/she will ask you why you don't know).
You must be polite to this visitor and not lose your cool, because you don't want to have to explain why you can't control your temper. If you feel stress and get emotional during this conversation, you can take a break, but you must come back and finish the conversation. You are learning something very important about mechanical thinking.
Soon, you will probably realize that you were acting like the words have meanings in themselves, when the fact is that YOU have meanings, for the words you understand, in your being - neuron patterns that decode for understanding when necessary. Whether or not the word has an objective meaning is not the point right now, because before you can use the prayer for its benefits, you must discover your hidden subjectivity.
After you have explained to your visitor, the meanings of any word that you are having a problem with...all the way down to the ground (if you can), you are free to decide if you have been believing a fraud or lie about the word.
anart said:lara4unow said:Hello to all,
I am having trouble following this thread. It seems the replies have gone way off the main topic. Maybe we should have some sub-threads that address the concerns and questions that have splintered as a result of the June 20th C's session. Obviously and respectfully, it has provoked the objective thought processes of many of us and that is good. However, I could follow and respond in a more specific and timely fashion if the thread was more specific. Maybe the Moderators could facilitate this. I just have trouble wading through it all and that does not mean I am not sensitive to the very important comments and replies. My eyes just get tired of reading all with the intent of giving some meaningful objective feedback.
Hi lara4unow, it seems to me that if you'd like to respond to anything in this thread, it is simple enough to quote the specific post and respond. Yes, there are posts in the thread that have wandered off-topic, but organically so. It's certainly possible to split certain topics off and that might very well take place for clarification, but at this point, you seem to be suggesting an action to have the thread meet your needs - as opposed to simply responding to the posts that have caught your interest. In other words, if you'd like to respond to something, perhaps it would best to just do that. fwiw.
Balberon said:I find this rather odd:
Buddy Wrote:
If you approach this like an innocent trusting child, the Universe will teach you....because it needs your help. And because you ASKED.
If you approach this like an innocent trusting child, the Universe will teach you....because it needs your help. And because you ASKED.
Patience said:Sometimes picking something apart bit by bit is important, and sometimes taking a step back is important, too. And sometimes... If you have reason to believe you have found a good influence in your life, sometimes you just have to jump off the edge of your life and give something new a try. I know we all have ample reason to distrust, so it makes experimentation all the trickier. But given there is a network here to share with, it is perhaps a little less perilous than navigating alone.
Yossarian said:In the Judeo-Christian tradition I understood "Holy" to mean "set apart" or even "ritually clean," or almost good enough for God. A more enlightened Christian definition of the word would be something like "of God" or "Divine" or even Transcendent.
Update, quoted from the Revised Edition of the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary entry for the word "holiness":
A term in Hebrew probably meaning separate from the ordinary or profane. Also in Hebrew and in Greek "holy" implies connection with God or the divine. Thus, God is holy and people, things, and actions may be holy by association with God. Holiness may also include the ideas of consecration to God and purity from what is evil or improper . . . .
The primary meaning of the word may have been ’that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated’ which would support its relationship to Old English hal whole […]
Penguin English Dictionary said:transgress: to go beyond limits set or defined by (e.g. a principle); to pass beyond or go over (a boundary)
Penguin English Dictionary said:violate: to fail to comply with (a law, etc.,); to infringe (it)
Gotogo said:When I say "Ruler of the mind", I inevitably associate "Predator's Mind"...
baroque: extravagantly intricate or recherché (recherché: obscure or rare; excessively refined or exaggeratedly self-important; pretentious or affected)
contradictory: constituting a contradiction; incompatible or inconsistent
morose: marked by or expressive of gloom; having a gloomy disposition
Balberon said:It's just that I thought I needed the Universes help and not the opposite.