reply to post by TravelerintheDark
If the message can be interpreted with purity in action and purity applied in the intent of that action, it matters not even a little to me
who gets credit for it.
Here is a real example. Driving past a man with a sign that read: Please help me. I gave him $5. Talking to a friend later, he said that the man
likely made 100's of dollars a day doing this. To this my response was, "He asked for help. Because I gave him money doesn't mean that was the
help I gave him."
And it seems to me that we agree yet again, and in a strange way it seems that we reach different conclusions.
I mention the above quote just to quickly point out something very pertinent to this thread:
As I said before, there hardly is such a thing as a "sterile" message, in the sense that it comes pure and at complete disposal of the receiver.
I think that you mention that it matters not who gets credit if the message is "interpreted" with purity in action and intent, and yet we should
know by now that this is not possible, simply because there are also no "sterile" receivers!
We are all, to some degree, conditioned by 3D, by society, by view and ideology bombardment, etc., designed to SWAY and color our perspectives. (This
is why I insist so much on work, work, work...).
A lot of times, it is only the INTENT that keeps some messages alive, for this can escape and touch more deeply than what any conditioning can muddle
and distort.
Ironically, while speaking about dangerous messages, as well as you also do, I mention that the receivers SHOULD or could be able to discern,
discriminate, and be trusted in filtering accurately and constructively ANY message, but this is still not entirely possible, at least not yet, and
therefore intent and the entanglement Conveyor-Message will continue to be important.
The levels of alarm, sensationalism, etc. that we find in may venues, as mentioned before, goes to the heart of this, because putting intent by the
"messengers" aside, the fact that people in general respond to that sort of "non-content" but only FORM (pretty food with no nutritional value,
for example...) is what makes the whole Message-Messenger issue still important and pertinent.
I like your example because we have the same modus in that particular situation.
Yet here, isn't the INTENT the real message here?
Tell me what you think.
