Why the secrecy?

[Alada]

As in regard to theorizing i was surely not aware that this is not a desirable activity here :)

If that’s the way it came across then I guess I didn’t write that very well – I don’t think there’s any problem with having and discussing theories.

Theories can help us to form an idea what what might be possible, can help form our aim, give a sense of direction. We can then take steps to try and move towards this aim. But in the end it is the Facts discovered in pursuit of this aim and the gathering of practical Knowledge which can be applied that actually helps us to get there. Or so it seems.

 

[andreidita]

I think we, human beings, have as much chance of correctly reading the events and mind sets of higher level STS/STO entities as the flora and fauna of the earth have in understanding our actions and mind sets.

Also, what you said implies that you deny the possibility of Wanderers, which in the glossary are described as "This is the Ra term for a soul of 4th through 6th density who decides to incarnate in third density for a specific mission."

or the possibility of said Wanderers to become conscious of their soul density [4th through 6th] :)

Possibility of there being "wanderers" is not denied through implication of what was written. Wanderers may exist and have a sense of mission regarding what is to be done on earth. Per my understanding, individuals are rarely if at all aware of specific details regarding such missions. Such limitations appear to be part and parcel of human life and wishing or imagining that it were different would not change the reality. Certain predispositions and talents and life circumstances can act in a way that puts such an individual in a position to fulfill his/her purpose. And at the end of the day, success of such a mission would depend on what is accomplished here on earth rather than speculations about higher densities.

What is being questioned is conscious access to the higher planes of existence by which such events like "wars" and actions of denizens of these planes can be accurately expressed.

That is why i explicitly quantified that part of my response with a modal operator: "But you have to take into account the possibility that the 'War is Over'". I was just stating an abstract logical possibility, regarding the current dynamic between STO and STS polarities. I did not stated as an empirical fact, not even as a probable one, or demanded others accept it as a truth. And in my book there is a great difference between stating a logical possibility and claiming a real fact. If what i have said led to a misunderstanding in this direction, than i hope now it is cleared.

As for the conscious access i think this in itself is a problem worthy of discussion. In the sense of the tendency we all have to understand higher planes through the spatio-temporal distortion of 3rd D, which can make us think of higher planes in the fashion of 3rd density spatio-temporal reality.
But, as it is explicitly stated in the description of the Wanderers, their Soul ranges from 4 to 6 D. So following this line of reasoning, that part of oneself that is called the Soul, is of the nature of higher planes. And there are many examples in history of individuals who seemingly become conscious of their Soul. So i would not deny this possibility outright.
Otoh, i completely agree that trying to personify the Soul and the facts which pertain to higher planes, after our distorted 3 D language, can lead one into a wealth of problems. But i hope i clarified in the first part that i did not make such claim of an empirical objective fact, but just stated a logical possibility.

 

[andreidita]

If that’s the way it came across then I guess I didn’t write that very well – I don’t think there’s any problem with having and discussing theories.

Theories can help us to form an idea what what might be possible, can help form our aim, give a sense of direction. We can then take steps to try and move towards this aim. But in the end it is the Facts discovered in pursuit of this aim and the gathering of practical Knowledge which can be applied that actually helps us to get there. Or so it seems.

This concerns the relation between 'theory' and 'facts' as implied by your response and Mr. Premise (i don't know yet how or if it's possible to quote 2 different post in the same reply)

In my book understanding what are yet abstract realities is an important human activity in itself. In the long run, all essential scientific discoveries came out of such kind of thinking.
Therefore, i don't think that applying a narrow scientific view on such abstract matters is fruitful.

After all, i guess that all of us here furthered our understanding through channeled materials give by entities from higher planes. And judged through a narrow scientific view, there is no fact that could prove the theory above. Nevertheless we furthered our understanding through the coherence and inner validation of that channeled content.
Further, i think we all have experience with people with whom if we open the subject of 'truths' obtained from channeled materials, will think us outright loonies, or the most scientifically minded of them would ask us for facts to back up our claims. :)

 

[Breton]

[SNIP]....
After all, i guess that all of us here furthered our understanding through channeled materials give by entities from higher planes.

Well... I suppose it is possible to further one's understanding through channeling because we can get inspiration, ideas and clues that then must be diligently evaluated, researched deeply, networked about, and put to the scrutiny of the scientific method. This is what I have seen, anyways, in Laura's approach to the Cassiopaean experiment. Emphasis on experiment. As Laura has said many times, this experiment has been 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

And judged through a narrow scientific view, there is no fact that could prove the theory above. Nevertheless we furthered our understanding through the coherence and inner validation of that channeled content.

As I said, 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. There is a lot of work to be done with channeled material before it is useful and can actually add to one's understanding. You spoke of "inner validation", (I put in bold above) and I suppose I may not have exactly understood what you meant by that, but talking about some sort of inner process instead of research, sets off alarm bells to me, as that sort of thing would be the antithesis of doing real work and scientific investigation. Any understanding based on "inner validation" without a lot of hard work and scientific investigation is very likely to be wrong, as it can so easily be a product of biases, wishful thinking, and emotional thinking. So, I am not saying you are doing that, but just be careful.

Further, i think we all have experience with people with whom if we open the subject of 'truths' obtained from channeled materials, will think us outright loonies, or the most scientifically minded of them would ask us for facts to back up our claims. :)

If we said we found "truths" from channeled materials then they are certainly correct in calling us loonies. All channeled material has to be treated as theories and not "truths", and all need to be put to the test, and verified, as best as we can, and even when they lead us to verifiable conclusions, I have learned that these conclusions should only be assigned higher probabilities, and not be treated as "truths".

Anyways I am only relating how I have understood this STUDY going on here, and others who have been along with this process longer could probably explain it better.

 

[herondancer]

In my book understanding what are yet abstract realities is an important human activity in itself. In the long run, all essential scientific discoveries came out of such kind of thinking.
Therefore, i don't think that applying a narrow scientific view on such abstract matters is fruitful.

After all, i guess that all of us here furthered our understanding through channeled materials give by entities from higher planes. And judged through a narrow scientific view, there is no fact that could prove the theory above. Nevertheless we furthered our understanding through the coherence and inner validation of that channeled content.
Further, i think we all have experience with people with whom if we open the subject of 'truths' obtained from channeled materials, will think us outright loonies, or the most scientifically minded of them would ask us for facts to back up our claims. :)

Hi andreidita,

It might be helpful to review what might be called the mandate of the Cass experiment:

It is “critical channeling” that discourages blind devotee-ism. The Cassiopeans themselves do not demand to be worshipped or deified in any way and, in fact, admonish against such an attitude toward them. They encourage researching and networking with others to verify the information they transmit and do not demand that anything be taken at face value without questions.

So much of what the Cassiopaean source – who identify themselves as Laura in the future – have communicated HAS been verified from a wide range of sources researched, including modern, scientific sources, as well as ancient traditions and sources. There remains much that can’t be verified without more data, and some seems unlikely to be verified at our current level of understanding and “Being”. However, even those things that have not yet been verified are given a marginally higher probability of being true, based on the track record of the source, and no final conclusions are drawn until more data becomes available to make that possible.

Because blind faith and devotion are discouraged, and ongoing data gathering encouraged, how can that data be managed other than in a logical, scientific way? The demand for facts is a perfectly reasonable one, and so long as things that haven't been verified are clearly kept in the realm of "maybe, but we're not sure" and no undue weight is put on that information, it should satisfy any right-thinking scientific mind. They totally get the concept of hypothesis. :) Laura has made the utmost efforts to ground the information she receives in the here and now by the cross-referencing to what is already known, as quoted above, along with deep, ongoing research in the different directions that the "probable/possibles" indicate, which often turn up rich veins of overlooked information.

Nevertheless we furthered our understanding through the coherence and inner validation of that channeled content.

How can "inner validation of channeled content" be communicated to another, let alone be validated by them? A scientist would rightfully dismiss it. That's why the channeled information is only a starting point for the real research. And if the information is valid and applicable, there will be ways, even if some of them haven't been discovered yet, to see where and how it applies in our world. The newest research on cognitive science is a perfect example of esoteric knowledge being verified by hard scientific research. Those were very abstract concepts, but have now been grounded in this 3D world. As above, so below. Below is where we are now, and,at least to me, it is the rightful sphere of inquiry.

 

[andreidita]

I will reply to both Breton and herondancer, because they explicitate similar points. Points with which i agree with :)
Also as being new to the forum i am still in the process to adjust to your implicitly shared views on such matters.
And i find this discussion fruitful as i got a better understanding of these things, and it also produced some nice explicitation of the process of validating knowledge.
I also agree that there are many people who hold beliefs without bothering to put those beliefs through a thorough process of validation.

What i reacted though, was precisely that i was perceived almost automatically as being from the above category, label which was not warranted by my claims, which were not claims of 'truths' but only abstract possibilities to be taken into consideration (i.e. assumptions and hypothesis, not conclusions).
I chose an older thread which had not been replied for 4 years, and thus being a 'dead' thread, to initiate a communication with your community and understand more clearly what is the angle your coming from, because i considered to be more EC and to produce less noise, than to start a new thread on any subject, until i am accustomed with your communicative practice :)

As for the 'hypothesis/confirmation through facts' dynamic which i agree it is essential to furthering understanding, my point was that there are layers of abstraction which call for as validation for a more abstract kind of facts.
As in the hypothesis about the existence of higher densities beings, this can be validated by certain kinds of facts, but one can't expect to find hard empirical facts for such validation (e.g. catching on camera a 5D entity, or linking to a news article or even academic scientific article to 'prove' this hypothesis)

As for the concept of 'scientific' with its narrow and wide meanings, and also for inner/outer sources of facts, there is 4-fold classification made by Ramsey Dukes of the methods of knowing:

These are the four approaches to knowing the world. It's an abstract scheme formulated by Ramsey Dukes. You can find more info here:

http://fraterbarrabbas.blogspot.ro/2012/02/is-magick-scientific.html

Basically there are two sources of knowledge: Inner (intuition) and Outer (observation)

And there are two ways of processing knowledge: Reason (serial thinking/left brain) and Emotion (parallel thinking/right brain).

From these you get the four abstract types:

Religion = inner source + logic (serial) processing

Science = outer source + logic processing

Magic = outer source + feeling (parallel) processing

Art = inner source + feeling processing

For example, religion and science both use reason for processing, but draw their knowledge from opposed sources. That is why they can't accept each other, and also due to rational emphasis they are both dogmatic. They go in the following order: religion->science->magic->art->religion and so on Each fears the one following, looks with contempt to the one preceding it, and it is neutral to the one opposed to it.

Based upon this you can also understand the difference between subjective objectivity and objective subjectivity One who is over-identified with one type, will think that he knows for sure how reality is. More so, for the rational side (religion/science). A scientist is convinced that he has an objective view of reality, but his is just a subjective objectivity. True objectivity comes when one understands and accepts all four ways of knowing as legitimate, and rises above all. from that point of consciousness (the dot in the center) where one can understand all these four types, one understands the true objectivity, that is the objective subjectivity

From this point you can also understand how you evolved. For example i started at the threshold of religion and science. Trying to figure out which is right, i went more fully towards science. I spent around 20 years perfecting reason, until i went in the magic quadrant.
It is funny that when i was in the science quadrant i had a big problem with the religious type, while now when i moved to the magic quadrant i tend to find the scientific dogmatic type very annoying, but the religious type does not bother me so much :)


p.s. anyway this discussion went completely off from the original topic of the thread. But i assumed that is in the spirit of EC to sacrifice a page of a long dead thread, so to be able to make a living interaction with other minds, so that each of them could know better the other. Also, the noise can easily be discarded, if you consider it so :)
I hope i have made transparent enough of the fashion i think and communicate, so that you can make an informed judgment on weather our differences are greater than our similarities, or the other way around. Or whether you find potential for furthering our understanding together :)

 

[Breton]

... {SNIP}

p.s. anyway this discussion went completely off from the original topic of the thread. But i assumed that is in the spirit of EC to sacrifice a page of a long dead thread, so to be able to make a living interaction with other minds, so that each of them could know better the other. Also, the noise can easily be discarded, if you consider it so :)
I hope i have made transparent enough of the fashion i think and communicate, so that you can make an informed judgment on weather our differences are greater than our similarities, or the other way around. Or whether you find potential for furthering our understanding together :)

I suppose we are off topic, but that's ok.

As you said, we are all getting to know each other. I hope you understand I am not making assumptions about you or anyone new, but the purpose of my posting was to just help someone new get a feel for what this group is about, at least in the way I can describe it with my own words. I am so aware that this place is quite unlike any other I have encountered.

All anyone has to go on is what someone writes and then give a bit of feedback, and hope it helps.

I was new once, and there was a lot of reading that I had to do to get up to speed with the work and study that is being carried out here.

Our own lack of understanding of our own selves seems to be one of the basic hindrances to our development and our ability to be service to others, and so it is probably where our greatest work lies. A network is a place to do it, where we can get feedback, because we have so little access to our subconscious mind (see Timothy Wilson's Strangers To Ourselves, Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, and other books in Cognitive Science - there is quite a list of recommended books and readings that has been mentioned in your introduction thread).

There is so much that happens automatically in ourselves due to our past experiences, and our past traumas and whatnot that we cannot see ourselves. We struggle, and we work on ourselves, because we "cannot think with the way we think" and all that.

So, I have come to the conclusion, that for someone hungry for the Truth, for objectivity, there is nothing more valuable than to get feedback, mirrors if you like, from others that have this similar goal (finding Truth, objectivity).

I do not know if this helps, but that is what I can offer at the moment.

 

[andreidita]

I suppose we are off topic, but that's ok.

As you said, we are all getting to know each other. I hope you understand I am not making assumptions about you or anyone new, but the purpose of my posting was to just help someone new get a feel for what this group is about, at least in the way I can describe it with my own words. I am so aware that this place is quite unlike any other I have encountered.

All anyone has to go on is what someone writes and then give a bit of feedback, and hope it helps.

I was new once, and there was a lot of reading that I had to do to get up to speed with the work and study that is being carried out here.

Our own lack of understanding of our own selves seems to be one of the basic hindrances to our development and our ability to be service to others, and so it is probably where our greatest work lies. A network is a place to do it, where we can get feedback, because we have so little access to our subconscious mind (see Timothy Wilson's Strangers To Ourselves, Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, and other books in Cognitive Science - there is quite a list of recommended books and readings that has been mentioned in your introduction thread).

There is so much that happens automatically in ourselves due to our past experiences, and our past traumas and whatnot that we cannot see ourselves. We struggle, and we work on ourselves, because we "cannot think with the way we think" and all that.

So, I have come to the conclusion, that for someone hungry for the Truth, for objectivity, there is nothing more valuable than to get feedback, mirrors if you like, from others that have this similar goal (finding Truth, objectivity).

I do not know if this helps, but that is what I can offer at the moment.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I have come to the same conclusion regrading the mirroring process, which is essential in becoming aware of one's own blind-spots, so to be able to grasp glimpses of the objective Truth. Even more so, when both parties are receptive to the mirroring from outside and also make a conscious effort to mirror the blind-spots of the other

 

[Nienna]

I suppose we are off topic, but that's ok.

As you said, we are all getting to know each other. I hope you understand I am not making assumptions about you or anyone new, but the purpose of my posting was to just help someone new get a feel for what this group is about, at least in the way I can describe it with my own words. I am so aware that this place is quite unlike any other I have encountered.

All anyone has to go on is what someone writes and then give a bit of feedback, and hope it helps.

I was new once, and there was a lot of reading that I had to do to get up to speed with the work and study that is being carried out here.

Our own lack of understanding of our own selves seems to be one of the basic hindrances to our development and our ability to be service to others, and so it is probably where our greatest work lies. A network is a place to do it, where we can get feedback, because we have so little access to our subconscious mind (see Timothy Wilson's Strangers To Ourselves, Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, and other books in Cognitive Science - there is quite a list of recommended books and readings that has been mentioned in your introduction thread).

There is so much that happens automatically in ourselves due to our past experiences, and our past traumas and whatnot that we cannot see ourselves. We struggle, and we work on ourselves, because we "cannot think with the way we think" and all that.

So, I have come to the conclusion, that for someone hungry for the Truth, for objectivity, there is nothing more valuable than to get feedback, mirrors if you like, from others that have this similar goal (finding Truth, objectivity).

I do not know if this helps, but that is what I can offer at the moment.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I have come to the same conclusion regrading the mirroring process, which is essential in becoming aware of one's own blind-spots, so to be able to grasp glimpses of the objective Truth. Even more so, when both parties are receptive to the mirroring from outside and also make a conscious effort to mirror the blind-spots of the other

Yes, but the one getting the mirror has to be open enough to understand that their opinions may not be correct and take time to reflect on what has been shown to them rather than continually defending their opinions. The one getting the mirror does not give a mirror back. That would only be acting defensively instead of sitting with what has been shown them and trying to see the truth of it.

You may want to read some of the threads in our Psychology and Cognitive Science board to help you understand how our thinking works. A couple to start with would be The Adaptive Unconscious and Thinking Fast and Slow. Getting the books would be even better. :)

 

[andreidita]

Yes, but the one getting the mirror has to be open enough to understand that their opinions may not be correct and take time to reflect on what has been shown to them rather than continually defending their opinions. The one getting the mirror does not give a mirror back. That would only be acting defensively instead of sitting with what has been shown them and trying to see the truth of it.

You may want to read some of the threads in our Psychology and Cognitive Science board to help you understand how our thinking works. A couple to start with would be The Adaptive Unconscious and Thinking Fast and Slow. Getting the books would be even better. :)

also, mirroring presupposes first some 'getting to know each other' between the one playing mirror and the one playing the mirrored.
and while it is possible that i, as any other from here, have my defenses, these can be brought up in the light after they emerge through thorough conversation.
not by assuming out of the text-book that i have to do the learning, and you (as a group) have to do the teaching :)
also, not by assuming that one being a newbie in a group equals one being a newbie in the quest for Truth, and the reverse.
in my assuming of the best on the part of others, namely that they did their part on searching Truth, that they have read enough to get a firm grip on what Truth is, that they use as a standard Truth, not inner (both individual, and collective) unwarranted authority, I am doing my part on being EC.
and with all due respect, to reply to posts which fall short on EC (e.g. that what i wrote is non-sense, that is new-ageish etc, without putting due effort on reaching a common ground in understanding with the other) is not being defensive.
also to further explicate in what sense both internal and external sources of knowledge play a part in the dialectic of finding Truth, and that to plainly dismiss 'subjectivity' and to boast about being 'objective' and 'scientific' as being the yard stick of Truth, as if 'objective' would be some kind of 3d object is just to do my best in furthering a discussion.
If i would have told (which i did not) those praising 'science' to go and read Kant, Popper, Kuhn and Sneed just to get an idea of what 'science' really means, i would have been non-EC
If i would have boasted my knowledge on such matters like the relation between subjectivity and objectivity, and my writing of the BA and MA thesis on the subject, i would have been non-EC
If i would have said that i studied the work of Kahneman and his colleague Tversky (which dies in the meantime) extensively at phd level, and applied it to practical life, i would not have been non-EC :)
i mean, i could have been David himself writing these messages, and i would've got the same responses, telling me to read my own books :)

p.s. i will not post anymore on such meta-problems which have nothing to do with the thread. And please feel free to delete all this part, because i received the message, and i hope the others did their part too in this respect. :)
i will use the respective threads on matters i find to be important, and i'll express the messages in an appropriate manner, to be easily understood :)
and may it be that we will come to know each other in meaningful discussions on specific topics, so that we will help each other in furthering our understanding, and mirroring our blind-spots when we'll get to know enough of the other to be able to do a thoughtful mirroring. :)

Kind regards,
Andrei

 

[Tigersoap]

Reading the recommended threads or books would help you to better understand the purpose of this forum, otherwise it will be difficult to have a common ground for the discussions that are taking place.

You may also have a look at the Recommended Books list to further your understanding if you wish.

 

[obyvatel]

also, mirroring presupposes first some 'getting to know each other' between the one playing mirror and the one playing the mirrored.
and while it is possible that i, as any other from here, have my defenses, these can be brought up in the light after they emerge through thorough conversation.
not by assuming out of the text-book that i have to do the learning, and you (as a group) have to do the teaching :)
also, not by assuming that one being a newbie in a group equals one being a newbie in the quest for Truth, and the reverse.

Andreidita, you were called on a few things you wrote which were not clear. As far as your comment about assumptions about the level of a newbie go - if a long-term forum member wrote as you did, he/she would be called on it as well.

[quote author=andreidita]
in my assuming of the best on the part of others, namely that they did their part on searching Truth, that they have read enough to get a firm grip on what Truth is, that they use as a standard Truth, not inner (both individual, and collective) unwarranted authority, I am doing my part on being EC.
and with all due respect, to reply to posts which fall short on EC (e.g. that what i wrote is non-sense, that is new-ageish etc, without putting due effort on reaching a common ground in understanding with the other) is not being defensive.
also to further explicate in what sense both internal and external sources of knowledge play a part in the dialectic of finding Truth, and that to plainly dismiss 'subjectivity' and to boast about being 'objective' and 'scientific' as being the yard stick of Truth, as if 'objective' would be some kind of 3d object is just to do my best in furthering a discussion.
[/quote]

The forum guidelines spell out the general framework within which the forum activities are carried out. Please have a (re)read of it and see if you find it agreeable.

[quote author=andreidita]
If i would have told (which i did not) those praising 'science' to go and read Kant, Popper, Kuhn and Sneed just to get an idea of what 'science' really means, i would have been non-EC
If i would have boasted my knowledge on such matters like the relation between subjectivity and objectivity, and my writing of the BA and MA thesis on the subject, i would have been non-EC
If i would have said that i studied the work of Kahneman and his colleague Tversky (which dies in the meantime) extensively at phd level, and applied it to practical life, i would not have been non-EC :)
i mean, i could have been David himself writing these messages, and i would've got the same responses, telling me to read my own books :)
[/quote]

One of the take-away points from the works on cognitive psychology referenced here in the forum is that a human being is mostly unaware of how his mind really works and by extension he often does not have a good idea as to how he is being perceived by others. You thought you were being externally considerate - but that is not how it was perceived by others to whom you were showing this consideration. Then in the above paragraph you try to show explicitly how you were being externally considerate by telling us you did not tell us about all the things you already know about the topics touched upon in this thread.

Here is an often-quoted general message in this forum taken from 4th Way literature. Most members here, especially those posting in the Work section of the forum, would have encountered it multiple times.


[quote author=First Initiation]
You will see that in life you receive exactly what you give. Your life is the mirror of what you are. It is in your image. You are passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without feeling any obligation. Your attitude toward the world and toward life is the attitude of one who has the right to make demands and to take, who has no need to pay or to earn. You believe that all things are your due, simply because it is you! All your blindness is there! ...

You live exclusively according to "I like" or "I don't like," you have no appreciation except for yourself. You recognize nothing above you-theoretically, logically, perhaps, but actually no. That is why you are demanding and continue to believe that everything is cheap and that you have enough in your pocket to buy everything you like. You recognize nothing above you, either outside yourself or inside. That is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live passively according to your likes and dislikes.

Yes, your "appreciation of yourself" blinds you. It is the biggest obstacle to a new life. You must be able to get over this obstacle, this threshold, before going further.

This test divides men into two kinds: the "wheat" and the "chaff." No matter how intelligent, how gifted, how brilliant a man may be, if he does not change his appreciation of himself, there will be no hope for an inner development, for a work toward self-knowledge, for a true becoming. He will remain such as he is all his life.

The first requirement, the first condition, the first test for one who wishes to work on himself is to change his appreciation of himself. He must not imagine, not simply believe or think, but see things in himself which he has never seen before, see them actually. His appreciation will never be able to change as long as he sees nothing in himself. And in order to see, he must learn to see; this is the first initiation of man into self-knowledge.

... If he sees one time he can see a second time, and if that continues he will no longer be able not to see. This is the state to be looked for, it is the aim of our observation; it is from there that the true wish will be born, the irresistible wish to become: from cold we shall become warm, vibrant; we shall be touched by our reality.

Today we have nothing but the illusion of what we are. We think too highly of ourselves. We do not respect ourselves. In order to respect myself, I have to recognize a part in myself which is above the other parts, and my attitude toward this part should bear witness to the respect that I have for it. In this way I shall respect myself. And my relations with others will be governed by the same respect.

You must understand that all the other measures - talent, education, culture, genius-are changing measures, measures of detail. The only exact measure, the only unchanging, objective real measure is the measure of inner vision. I see - I see myself - by this, you have measured. With one higher real part, you have measured another lower part, also real. And this measure, defining by itself the role of each part, will lead you to respect for yourself.

But you will see that it is not easy. And it is not cheap. You must pay dearly. For bad payers, lazy people, parasites, no hope. You must pay, pay a lot, and pay immediately, pay in advance. Pay with yourself. By sincere, conscientious, disinterested efforts. The more you are prepared to pay without economizing, without cheating, without any falsification, the more you will receive. And from that time on you will become acquainted with your nature. And you will see all the tricks, all the dishonesties that your nature resorts to in order to avoid paying hard cash. Because you have to pay with your ready-made theories, with your rooted convictions, with your prejudices, your conventions, your "I like" and "I don't like." Without bargaining, honestly, without pretending. Trying "sincerely" to see as you offer your counterfeit money.

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others - lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions - lies. Your teaching - lies. Your theories, your art- lies. Your social life, your family life - lies. And what you think of yourself - lies also.

But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. Observe without preconceptions, accepting for a time this idea of lying. And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day.

You will see that you are different from what you think you are.

You will see that you are two.

One who is not, but takes the place and plays the role of the other. And one who is, yet so weak, so insubstantial, that he no sooner appears than he immediately disappears. He cannot endure lies. The least lie makes him faint away. He does not struggle, he does not resist, he is defeated in advance. Learn to look until you have seen the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the lies, the deception in yourself. When you have seen your two natures, that day, in yourself, the truth will be born.
[/quote]

 

[andreidita]

Obyvatel, i will refrain fro further commenting as i perceive the discussion as going in circles, and my reply will just continue the circling:)
you, as a group, seem to perceive me as having some resistance, which i probably do
by the same book, i perceive you (as a group) as also having some resistances
i perceive it as being so hard that it is resistant even to take into account the possibility of being the case that it exists
greater numbers does not necessarily make something right :)
but i will develop my considerations on this topic in an appropriate thread

 

[Vic]

Obyvatel, i will refrain fro further commenting as i perceive the discussion as going in circles, and my reply will just continue the circling:)
you, as a group, seem to perceive me as having some resistance, which i probably do
by the same book, i perceive you (as a group) as also having some resistances
i perceive it as being so hard that it is resistant even to take into account the possibility of being the case that it exists
greater numbers does not necessarily make something right :)
but i will develop my considerations on this topic in an appropriate thread

I found myself defending my self a lot when I first came here. That was mainly because I hadn't read the literature, and familiarised myself with the premises upon which this community is based. Once I did that much fell into place. And I realised that my Self-Importance, an affliction created by my 'programmes' (everyone has them) was preventing me from 'seeing' the true value of the knowledge available here.

It's a sort of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

I am posting this on the off-chance that you might want to consider it as possibly relating to yourself, Andreidita. I'm not saying it does - but it might.

 

[Jasmine]

Obyvatel, i will refrain fro further commenting as i perceive the discussion as going in circles, and my reply will just continue the circling:)
you, as a group, seem to perceive me as having some resistance, which i probably do

by the same book, i perceive you (as a group) as also having some resistances
i perceive it as being so hard that it is resistant even to take into account the possibility of being the case that it exists
greater numbers does not necessarily make something right :)
but i will develop my considerations on this topic in an appropriate thread

andreidita, with all due respect, perhaps you perceive this discussion as going in circles because you feel a continuous need to defend yourself, and you feel that further comments will reflect your defensiveness, (as your last comment does) hence the cycle you referred to. To go in that direction would indeed be going in circles however, it doesn't need to be the case. It appeared to me throughout the thread you were more concerned with what you had to say, than what others were saying. For example, obyvatels' reply here preceding your last comment was simply profound in informing you that your comments would have been questioned whether you were a newbie or long term member. And yet your reply was yet to reestablish again the resistance of the group. And why is it so hard for you to take into account that the resistance exists? Surely you have had the experience of wanting complete and utter validation to your own reasonings and research, are others not untitled to the same? Additionally, the quote, "First Initiation", obyvatel offered to you in her post is an extremely profound piece of work. Yet you ignored it, and didn't see the value in the quote or her EC for providing you and others reading with the quote. Or at least you didn't acknowledge the same. The remiss in that speaks for itself. I'm not making the point that you have not seen the value of other's input, you clearly stated that you did. However, from an objective viewpoint, your resistance is obvious, and made clear in your latest reply.

Yes, you were called upon to re-articulate your points, but this is important for the EC of others reading the thread, as well as for the "getting to know each other" aspect of which you highlighted yourself as an important aspect to the communication process.

This thread has been exceedingly educational for me, and may be for others as well. I'm disappointed that you would refrain from further comments here out of internal consideration of self importance, stemming from your perceived "resistance of the group". I would let the mods worry about whether things are off topic, and let them make those decisions when the time comes. In the meantime taking-on the challenge of perhaps gaining the result of a greater lesson to be learned by this thread rather then crumble in defeat; perhaps by changing gears, giving way to humility and self importance (both of which are refreshingly cleansing to our spirit) and giving others the same respect for their knowledge and opinions that you desire yourself.

my 2 cents