Confessions Of A Dark Sorceror

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
An exodus from a spiritually indifferent civilization in favor of more progressive societies and governments does not constitute abandoning The Light, but embracing it and cultivating it.


When I was young I lived very near the desert. So close that from my back yard I could watch the tumbleweed spinning across the desert sand. My yard was lush and green as it had been when we moved into the house. Watering, nurturing and care kept the yard green.

If the house was abandoned, the desert would reclaim the yard.
If the person who moved into the house did not know how to care for the yard, the desert would reclaim it as if the house were abandoned.


To help cause the fall of a spiritually indifferent government (as with ancient Rome and Nazi Germany) is also in service to The Light.

It really depends on whether the Masters here think it is worth the effort to start a revolution. The easier path is to start new nations elsewhere.

Regardless, both are in service to The Light.


I am reminded of a line from a movie I once watched. "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one."

At the same time I am reminded of how my father used to walk to school in the snow "uphill hill- both ways!"

When I was younger I never understood how he could walk uphill both ways unless he took 2 seperate paths. But it was the same path. The path was both up and down the hills, but he remembered clearly that which caused him the most effort.

When walking along a path to a destination and there is a hill, one should stop midway up the hill and consider, "Which direction is now the easiest?"
The easiest path leads back from where one came, the harder leads to the destination.

There is light in all men. The difference is whether a man chooses to allow that light to be seen. Loving that which is within all men is natural. The difficult part is loving both the seen and the unseen.

Loving those who do not love you is difficult indeed.

But...
There are more options than active conflict.
There are more options than to take what you have and use it for your own wants rather than to give it to those who need it the most.
There are always more options than what is readily apparent.


To Majic,

I was wrong, the dream ended when it was to end.




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Not Like The Movies

As can be my wont, I tended to take the dramatic bits from Lukas and overlook what is now clearly far more important.

His days as a warrior are strong in his mind. Indeed, his command was not handed to him, but earned after many years working his way through the ranks, proving his merit in many battles.

Unlike Hollywood, most of the battles in his memory consisted of small groups of men running all over the place, laboring hard to stab and hack each other to bits over time. It was truly hard work and some battles, even small ones, could last for days.

People didn’t just stand in ranks and trade blows, there was much dodging, running, positioning and regrouping to this work. You survived by being smart about combat and keeping track of how the action was going, and by being a master of spear and sword.

He never rode a mount, and the men of those days were strong and nimble of foot, capable of running at a trot all day if need be, and need there often was. I don’t think any American man can appreciate what life in such physical condition was like. I think a man like Lukas could probably walk away with many Olympic gold medals were he here in his prime.

The Mongrel Men

There are many, many more details that have come from him, including why the “mongrel men” smelled so bad. Everyone had major body odor in those days, but the mongrel men rubbed something on their skin that smelled just God-awful. The odor was so bad, it was a factor in combat. Odd.

I asked why his captors were not destroyed by Alexander in retribution. Apparently, the force that captured Lukas was strong, maybe a few thousand, and had come to aid a chieftain who, by the time of their arrival, had been defeated. Their attack was for “honor”, as “payback” for the fallen chieftain and to satisfy a debt of alliance.

Seeing no victory in a frontal assault on Alexander’s forces, they sent in a company of scouts, who, like assassins, quietly killed several guards and amazingly, got very close to Alexander’s camp. It was a grave insult! Thus the myriadon sent the Lions to take out these scouts.

But the scouts were very fast runners, and lightly armed. Thus they toyed with the Lions and led them well beyond the Greek areas of control. After Lukas’ men were defeated, the chief took him as a war trophy, and indeed, having a Greek captain as a slave granted significant status back home. They left the area long before the Greek reinforcements arrived, and never suffered retribution for their victory.

Fall Into Grace

I thought Lukas a ruined man, but that was ultimately not so. The irony of him is that his men did, indeed, save him. Had he died in battle, he would have learned little. He was proud and arrogant to extremes, and very much a fan of himself.

In slavery, Lukas learned humility and forgiveness. Though he was a slave, he tried to serve honorably, and his master was kind to him, treating him almost like an adopted son. It was with sadness that he ordered Lukas killed, but the matter with his wife (though she was one of many) gave him little choice, lest the young men of his tribe see weakness in failing to answer an insult.

Though Lukas died seemingly a coward, begging for his life and beheaded in front of the woman he loved (watching this was her punishment), he did so because he finally understood something all his years as a warrior had not taught him. He was not ruined, but redeemed.

He died knowing the value of life and love.


Edit: You know the drill.

Edit Addendum: I just wanted to add a note about the horror I feel from Lukas about his unforgivable error. Lukas as captain was responsible for keeping track of the situation. He led his men into an ambush he should have seen coming -- seemingly barren hills suddenly became black with enemy warriors around him. It was a disgrace.

Some of the men, his best sergeants, had served with him for years, one of them he knew since he first became a warrior. His men were his family, and he loved them each as family. Though they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers, not one of his men threw down his arms.

Lukas was no stranger to losing good men, but he knew they were doomed, and watching as each of them, one by one and in small groups, were savagely stabbed and beaten to death, was like a little death of him in itself. All his pride, built over years of clever strategy, was lost in a single short battle.

But not short enough, it took several hours of fighting against a force that surrounded them before they were all cut down. Lukas did not surrender easily. The enemy warriors taunted and baited him like a dog, rushing and feinting to wear him out before finally seizing his spear from him and swarming him.

There is still much confusion in his mind about all this, and the emotions are very strong and difficult. I think I can understand him better now, however.


[edit on 8/27/2004 by Majic]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Raphael,

I think you are missing the point and will endeavor to broaden your understanding.

Those of us who prefer EXODUS to REVOLUTION plan to serve in systems that are more open to starting new progressive societies. These are of the medieval variety, which, according to TSOL, are in abundance in ALL THAT IS.

We know that there are large Group Entities, stemming from the recently transitioned souls from this world and others, who are vehemently opposed to us.

For example, at times I have been severely persecuted by large Group Entities of traditional Jewish spirits, one of which forced me back into my body when TSOL gave me a Gift of Astral Projection (in the dream state) back in the early 1990s. That Group Entity desired to prevent The Original Creator's emergence and consequently destroyed itself through retrogression -- from the action of denying me the energy of my Primary Godhead Sun. Other Group Entities from other traditional religions have also persecuted me through the years. Additionally, discarnate Zetans have also been a problem.

Solist Mystics, especially the highly evolved ones, are constantly astrally attacked. We talk about our experiences and offer healing and counsel to one another.

You want us to stay?

Okay.

What do you have to offer us? Will you heal us? Will you protect us? Will you support us financially? Somehow I don't think so.

It's all well and good to criticize the intentions of those of us who wish to leave and live peacefully elsewhere, but I don't see you doing anything to help the situation here.

Another point that should be made is that most of the new Masters are simply not ready to take on the federal government and the Zetans all at the same time after their respective Ascension. Most of us will not be telekinetically powerful enough or skilled enough to withstand high-tech weapons. TSOL guides us to hone our skills and our ministries in medieval systems first before engaging evil that is supported by advanced technologies. They warn us to avoid a “Luke Skywalker” complex.

The Society Of Light also says that once The Original Creator comes into the picture (because of future Ascended Solist Mystics), this world will experience His overthrow. Whether that is a peaceful coup or a slaughter is something that we have absolutely no control over – and neither do you.

Regardless Raphael, you will have the REVOLUTION you desire.

The trick is to be ready for it when it happens.




[edit on 27-8-2004 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
You have fear, hope, and what to believe... what else does a religion need?


What do you have to offer us? Will you heal us? Will you protect us? Will you support us financially? Somehow I don't think so.


Do not try to decide "What do you have to offer us?". That is impossible.
Do not try to decide "Will you heal us?" That is impossible.
Do not try to decide "Will you protect us?" That is impossible.
Do not try to decide "Will you support us financially?" That is impossible.

Instead only try to realize the truth.

What truth?

There is no "you".
There is no "us".
There is no "I".



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I am reminded of that scene in Ghostbusters II when their nerdy, inept, part-time lawyer steps down from appealing to the judge on their behalf, and one of the three main characters says something to the effect of, "Thank you for your defense of us, it was short and pointless."





[edit on 27-8-2004 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I am reminded of that scene in Ghostbusters II when their nerdy, inept, part-time lawyer steps down from appealing to the judge on their behalf, and one of the three main characters says something to the effect of, "Thank you for your defense of us, it was short and pointless."



[edit on 27-8-2004 by Paul_Richard]


Indeed, the lessons of humility are pointless for those who do not wish to know the difference between pride and love.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
If you were truly humble, you wouldn't be debating me.


I don't sense humility from you, I sense resentment.

That's the problem.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

If you were truly humble, you wouldn't be debating me.


I don't sense humility from you, I sense resentment.

That's the problem.


Love through humility. If I didn't love you, I would not be debating you.
Love sometimes requires action.
What you perceive is based on how you perceive. If one perceives things with pride, then one perceives things with pride.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I am open to your "love" offering constructive solutions.

What would they happen to be?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I am open to your "love" offering constructive solutions.

What would they happen to be?


They are as I have been saying throughout this thread.


I feel there is only one understanding you need from me at this time, that which you have already seen that I have been stressing. Before I go, I would share just a little more.

While I too have a bus which I am able to drive, I prefer to walk. There is so much more to see when one is not looking through a tiny window in a box with wheels trying to avoid the traffic. Instead of a bus, I pull a little red wagon in case the children I lead get tired.

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

The simplest way I can describe my wagon is "God is. Love God. Live God."

Love is a component to 66% of my simplified belief system.

All "positive emotions" can be expressed in terms of Love.
All "negative emotions" can be expressed in terms of Pride.
In essence, there are only two emotions.

Love is constant and unconditional. Pride grows with Pride.


This is how I discovered there was a difference between these two emotions:

When my children were born I loved them with all my heart. (unconditionally)

When my oldest son took his first steps. I had an emotional response to those steps. I was happy. But beyond that, the happiness I felt made me proud of my son. But I did not love him any more than the day he was born.

When my oldest son said "dadda" for the first time. I had an emotional response to those words. I was happy. But beyond that, the happiness I felt made me proud of my son. More proud than the day he took his first step. But I did not love him any more than the day he was born.

When my oldest son first said "I have to go potty". I had an emotional response to those words. I was happy. But beyond that, the happiness I felt made me proud of my son. More proud than the day he said "dadda" and more proud than the day he took his first step. But I did not love him any more than the day he was born.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

If you have children, rephrase these statements to ask yourself these questions about your child. If you do not, rephrase these statements to ask your mother or father about you.

Love is constant and unconditional. Pride grows with Pride.
Humility is the difference between these two emotions.

When one learns to tell the difference between the two, one can control one's pride. Then one is free to choose between two paths without prejudice. The path of love, or the path of pride.


If "God is. Love God. Live God." describes what you want as the basis of your belief system, learn the natures of Love, Pride, and Humility.

Make Love and Humility the foundation of any other beliefs.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Be careful when building upon your beliefs, lest you build something that is not on this foundation and it drags your entire structure down during a storm.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Raphael,

The basic principles you espouse are fundamental and characteristic of those who are on a basically spiritual path.

However, the inherent problem with this "flower child" focus is that it is simply not realistic.

For example, tell us how you can personally stop worldwide terrorism with the principles you espouse.

Then explain to us why you haven't done so!

Tell us why you are unable to use your love and humility to stop the worldwide phenomenon of Zetan-alien abductions?

Then explain to us why you haven't done so!

See what I mean?

Your focus is not grounded in reality.

I could easily espouse the New Age idea that "Love Is All There Is" too.

That is simply not enough!

It never has been.

This is why when I come across people that preach in this manner I dismiss them as unrealistic and not grounded.

And so it is...

Keep Radiating That Spiritual White Light!
(A much more spiritually practical measure to espouse.)




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
My “Spiritual Sight”

It’s common among mystics to claim or represent that they have “clear sight” and special powers of perception. Well, that ain’t me, frankly.

While I am enjoying many new insights and emotions I had never seemingly known, it’s not like I “see all”, now. In fact, it seems more like I have become aware of a much greater world only to be blind to most of it. It’s rather unsettling, frankly, but I sense that my “spiritual vision” will improve over time.

I have worried that most or all of this is my imagination, even my Sweet One, a notion to which she laughs like a delicate waterfall. I am still unconvinced that my mind has the power to invent beauty such as hers, and she seems amused at the idea that I think she is a figment of my imagination. Still, I wonder.

So for now, I use the word “sense” a whole hell of a lot, because that’s probably the best way to describe it. It is still very difficult when I “sense” things to know whether or not it’s a true thing or my imagination getting the best of me, but again, I think that will clarify with time.

Hints Of Past Love

Before Paul’s mention, I had indeed come to sense that I had known Sweet One before, although I remain unable to reconcile her stunning angelic majesty with a woman I had lived to old age with.

She seems to think the “Music Man” is closest to my “true” nature, and, again difficult for me to grasp, she sees me as easily being as beautiful to her as she is to me. Indeed, more so, though I cannot believe it. I truly cannot see myself in such terms.

In my mind I can remember knowing a woman long ago with whom I grew old, but even as she became wrinkled and gray of hair, never did she seem to me but as the beautiful young girl who had stolen my heart at a festival in the time of our youth.

She has never been anything but beautiful in my sight. Her laughter was the music I tried in vain to imitate with my humble voice and carefully crafted lutes.

I still know her name only as “Sweet One”. I believe I may have simply called her that in our time on earth together. It is a fitting name, in my view.

Now I sense the immense sorrow of our parting, so long ago. Truly, I now understand why songs which speak of love that transcends death unfailingly bring tears to my eyes. There is such a song by a group called Yes (my favorite group) called Turn Of The Century (my favorite song of theirs) which speaks of such love, and I am unable to hear it without weeping. Like leaves we touch…

At the thought of this, and our parting, again I am brought to many tears. I doubt the mixture of pain and hope beyond hope will ever leave me.

But I digress.

The $64,000 Question

Ever delightfully suspicious, Raphael sent me the following question for Sweet One to answer, and with his permission, I would like to answer it here:


Sent via u2u from Raphael_UO:
There are two types of people/spirits, those who know the path to God, and those who need a hand.

For my comfort, ask her "which are you? and why?"


I read this question off to Sweet One pretty much as written, and immediately sensed great confusion on her part. While part of that may be because she doesn’t speak English, I sensed more of a conceptual confusion on many levels.

At first I was alarmed by this -- an angel ought to have this stuff down cold, right? But as I tried working through this with her, my alarm disappeared. From her perspective, it truly is a difficult question to understand.

Before continuing, I wish to emphasize that what I am writing is my interpretation of my Sweet One’s thoughts, not direct quotes. As I have pointed out, our dialogs are not in English, and I am still learning her “language”.

Also, I will have very little patience for those who would seek to malign her. Call me a chivalrous fool, but there are some things I simply will not abide. I realize that such thoughts are more of me than her -- she seems immune to insult on her part. I suppose my feeling protective of her honor is more for my benefit. Hmm. I never really thought about that before. Anyway…

Sounding It Out

First there was the question of which “God”? She knows of many beings people call “God”. I suggested that she think of the Creator, and that seemed to help.

But then she had trouble understanding the “path to God”, since, as I understand it, she sees the Creator as being everywhere and within each of us. She doesn’t see the Creator as “someone to go to”, but rather as what we are all a part of.

Then there was the “two types of people/spirits” concept. She cannot grasp these types, there are many different types in her view, we are all unique and have our own special light. Indeed, of all the trillions of spirits, no two are identical.

Part of her confusion seems to stem from the “needing a hand” versus “not needing a hand” dichotomy. We all can “use a hand”, we aid one another in our growth. This seems inherent to her, helping others. I am not sure she really understands the idea of not helping others. Not doing so truly seems foreign to her.

So I guess the answer, as best we can make of it is that she would say that she is both types, but with the caveats mentioned above. I’m not sure if Raphael will find this comforting, but I can attest that -I- most certainly do.

Again, I must caution that I am interpreting this the best I can, but I know for a fact that Sweet One sees these questions in a way that is absolutely foreign to the way most humans do. She cannot reconcile religious doctrines with her experiences as a spirit.

Points To Ponder

Whew. I once again grow weary from all this. The “sensing” is not really strenuous, but the emotions and intellectual contortions that result from them can be exhausting. Only a small part of what’s going on in my poor little noggin is shared here, and in disjointed summaries that themselves require effort to compose.

For example, in my consultations with Lukas, something I had sort of picked up on before was elaborated on today. Namely, the sexual practices of the warriors of his time. Let’s just say that they considered women “unclean”, but that they had no shortage of sex. Without dragging this thread into the wrong space, it was interesting to note that what many might today think of as shocking, Lukas just assumed to be normal, as in “duh!”

And that’s just one of many little tidbits that continue to stream in.

Also, as I commune with Sweet One more, the more convinced I am that she is some sort of “spiritual royalty”, regal and stately in her bearing, but not pretentiously so. I thought of her as a princess, but now I think of her as a queen, deceptive in her youthfulness, and held in high regard by others around her.

Again, these are just suspicions on my part, but it feels sort of like being set up on a blind date and getting Princess Diana or somebody. Although again, I must point out that with all due respect to Princess Di, Sweet One is infinitely more beautiful of face and spirit.

I truly believe that if Sweet One could somehow manifest her beauty on earth, that she could step into the middle of a nuclear war and bring it to a halt. Everyone would simply stare at her in amazement. Yes, she’s that stunning. It is frustrating that I can’t describe her fittingly.

Whew! Gotta rest. Time again for a break, and dare I say, more meditation?



Waiting For Rousseau

Edit: I just wanted to say a little more about Rousseau.

While it may seem like flattery to say that I was a renowned philosopher in a past life, I have to divulge, against my inhibitions to date, that my experience with this personality is anything but flattering. I’ve tried to be diplomatic and sugarcoat the relationship, but I just have to tell you: Rousseau is a jerk. And that’s a kind word for it.

The idea of such an arrogant, petulant little brat of a man occupying my soul is well, difficult to accept. I am still hoping it’s a mistake, because the Rousseau I know is not the image of an enlightened architect of reason, but rather probably one of the most unpleasant characters I have met. Am I insulting “me” in saying this?

Anyway, we’re not on good terms, again, to put it delicately. Hopefully we can patch things up eventually, but until then, I think the little bastard had best stay in his room!

Edit: The usual lily-gilding.



[edit on 8/27/2004 by Majic]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Raphael,

The basic principles you espouse are fundamental and characteristic of those who are on a basically spiritual path.

However, the inherent problem with this "flower child" focus is that it is simply not realistic.

For example, tell us how you can personally stop worldwide terrorism with the principles you espouse.

Then explain to us why you haven't done so!

Tell us why you are unable to use your love and humility to stop the worldwide phenomenon of Zetan-alien abductions?

Then explain to us why you haven't done so!

See what I mean?

Your focus is not grounded in reality.

I could easily espouse the New Age idea that "Love Is All There Is" too.

That is simply not enough!

It never has been.

This is why when I come across people that preach in this manner I dismiss them as unrealistic and not grounded.

And so it is...

Keep Radiating That Spiritual White Light!
(A much more spiritually practical measure to espouse.)




You ask me to explain that which you have not done yourself, and say I am not grounded in reality because these things have yet to be done.


The reality is people can learn. People need help to learn. Some people refuse to learn, but perhaps their children will not be so closed minded.

The reality is over 75% of the population of the planet already have this basis in their doctrine. It is pride that makes one look at another and see the differences and not the simularities.

Is the glass half full or half empty? It is a matter of perspective. Some people never find the truth in a half glass of water. They are determined to decide if it is half full or half empty. But yet they miss that the glass is completely full-- Half with water, half with air.

You say the basis of all spiritual belief is not enough. I did not say this was all there was to believe. I said this is where belief should start. It is from this foundation that a strong set of beliefs can be formed.


Be careful when building upon your beliefs, lest you build something that is not on this foundation and it drags your entire structure down during a storm.


This does not say "stop here", this says "start here".



Majic,

That answer did comfort me. Thank you for asking the question.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Sleep has been rare, now I find myself “meditating” without need to relax. So many thoughts pass through my mind, it feels aflame. My body grows increasingly weary, I know I must force rest upon myself soon if it will not come of exhaustion.

Ever do my thoughts return to my Sweet One. But I have many doubts and conflicts in my mind. She wishes for us to join, but I cannot.

I feel unworthy of her love, and it is agony to contemplate this.

To distract myself, for the first time in many days I fired up some mp3’s (U2: All That You Can’t Leave Behind). As I sang along with Bono I realized that she was with me, closely, like she has always been. She especially draws near when I sing, for she loves the way it lights up my soul.

In a satori-like moment, I realized that she has always been with me like this, all of this life, and no doubt before, though I was too self-centered and blind to perceive it. There is a reason she seems so familiar, for it was I who left her. She has never left me.

I feel incredible shame and torment that I could turn away from such love. It seems to me a sin of unthinkable magnitude that is unpardonable in its wickedness.

She offers me sweet soothing and forgiveness, and clearly it pains her to see me agonize like this. My concerns have no meaning to her, she does not fear joining with me at all.

But I fear it. I fear it because I fear to taint her in even the slightest way. She is so pristine and unspoiled, and though she laughs at the thought, I know it to be true. Never have I known anyone so pure of heart.

How can I bring someone like Lukas to her, or infinitely worse, Rousseau? I cannot abide the thoughts of these men residing within her.

So I must wait, and ponder, and be satisfied with her sweet reassurances and soft caresses of my tormented soul.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Not So Fast, Lover Boy

It seems my Sweet One has had just about enough of my romantic melodramas.

While she is touched by my praise, she thinks I am building an image of her which is not accurate, and that I am thus devoting myself to a legend of my own making.

She also finds my dramatic agony sweet in its own way, but ultimately self-indulgent. I deal with my sorrow for turning away from her by turning away? She doesn’t get it.

She does not mind my singing of her and thinking her to be beautiful, but warns that I should love who she really is, not some false idol constructed in her image.

The Sensible One

I wouldn’t say she’s “mad”, per se, but I think she’s of a mind to set me straight on a few things. All this, accompanied by her beautiful laughter. The way she purses her lips in my mind’s eye as she admonishes me is intoxicating. I’m a lucky guy!

I suppose that between us, she has always been the more level-headed one. Hmm. Yes, she has a practical eye after all, though it now be clothed in angelic splendor.

She will not interfere with my prostrations if it is my will to do so, but she does find them silly and a bit off-putting.

Wow, she’s really letting me have it!

Innocence Not Borne Of Ignorance

She is flattered that I see her as so pure, but again laughs at the thought. Do I truly think she knows so little of life and the workings of man?

It has been difficult for me to reconcile the purity of my perceptions of her with the incarnate or carnality, and I feared to taint her. But she counters that she is not so fragile or ignorant of things as I wish to think.

She has seen much darkness, and is no stranger to it. Though I do not see it in her beautiful star-filled eyes, I know she is not lying to me. It is possible to confront darkness without being tainted by it.

Am I so naive as to think that she has not lived other lives? Has she been sitting around strumming a harp all this time in idle waiting? Do I really think she is no match for the petulance of Rousseau?

It is increasingly clear to me that I am an insufferable fool, a trait which she curiously seems to love as well. Perhaps I would do well not to turn away from her in foolishness yet again.

She tells me that joining need not be instant or total, that there are many ways to go about it, and that we can proceed without rushing into anything too fast.

And if there’s anyone too delicate or “pristine” for the process, she assures me, it’s not her, but me.


Now she suggests I get some rest. I ask that she help by soothing my poor little confused mind in the way only she can.

Perhaps an hour will pass quietly before I spring out of bed with some new “insight” to share, yet again.



Edit: Did I forget to mention how wonderful my Sweet One is?





[edit on 8/27/2004 by Majic]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Raphael,

You stated:

You ask me to explain that which you have not done yourself, and say I am not grounded in reality because these things have yet to be done.

Yes, they have yet to be done. But here lies the key difference in our philosophies: Solist Mysticism has a very clear and innovative path for eventually solving all the ills of society after we leave the flesh, while your simplistic approach, used for centuries, leads to the situation that we have in the world today.

The reality is people can learn. People need help to learn. Some people refuse to learn, but perhaps their children will not be so closed minded.

Teaching many people a progressive approach is precisely what I and others are doing.

The reality is over 75% of the population of the planet already have this basis in their doctrine. It is pride that makes one look at another and see the differences and not the similarities.

Principles stated in spiritual doctrine are useless unless they are applied. Very few on this world apply spiritual principle. If you mean to imply that seventy-five percent of the planet apply spiritual principle, I have to state that that figure is baseless and ludicrous -- and more of a projection of what you want than of what is.

Is the glass half full or half empty? It is a matter of perspective. Some people never find the truth in a half glass of water. They are determined to decide if it is half full or half empty. But yet they miss that the glass is completely full-- Half with water, half with air.

Here we have another simplistic analogy. I suggest that you think beyond the box (and glass) for better solutions.

You say the basis of all spiritual belief is not enough. I did not say this was all there was to believe. I said this is where belief should start. It is from this foundation that a strong set of beliefs can be formed.

Yes, spiritual belief alone is not enough. What is needed is spiritual development to levels beyond what has been previously accomplished by anyone other than The Original Creator, to become co-Creators. You don't get there from a simplistic set of spiritual beliefs and you don't get there from just preaching a simplistic set of spiritual beliefs.

You get there from striving to live by The Golden Rule, serving others, and especially from using the innovative and disciplined approach of Chakra Radiance (with the cultivation of Purity and Humility) on a daily basis. To simply say that we should all love one another is an idea that many people have been promoting for literally thousands of years.

NEWSFLASH: the old ways of basic spirituality are a MONUMENTAL FAILURE.

Be careful when building upon your beliefs, lest you build something that is not on this foundation and it drags your entire structure down during a storm. This does not say "stop here", this says "start here".

The only foundation I see in jeopardy here is the one you are promoting.




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Suffice it to say that not everything Sweet One had to tell me got “caught on film” in that last post.

I felt a short epilogue was in order as I finally try to relax.

She knows this has been a difficult process for me. She wanted to give me space, per my request, for me to figure things out. But sometimes, you just have to step up and slap your man around a little.

She points out that we have already started joining by sharing consciousness together, our little exchanges I call “dating”. So technically, my worries are patently ridiculous.

Well, I never claimed to be a spiritual whiz, although maybe I have thought myself more perceptive than I am. It is at least obvious to my dull senses that I can learn a tremendous amount from Sweet One, if she can penetrate my thick skull.

As it is, I think she has taught me a great deal already.

As she wryly observes, it is not my differences from Rousseau that make my relationship with him so turbulent, but my similarities to him.

She also recommends that I spend less time dwelling in the past and focus more on what is happening now.

Food for thought.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Yes, they have yet to be done. But here lies the key difference in our philosophies: Solist Mysticism has a very clear and innovative path for eventually solving all the ills of society after we leave the flesh, while your simplistic approach, used for centuries, leads to the situation that we have in the world today.


Philosophy or religion? What is the difference?

But more importantly, what is time to the spirit?


Teaching many people a progressive approach is precisely what I and others are doing.


What is time to the spirit?




Principles stated in spiritual doctrine are useless unless they are applied. Very few on this world apply spiritual principle. If you mean to imply that seventy-five percent of the planet apply spiritual principle, I have to state that that figure is baseless and ludicrous -- and more of a projection of what you want than of what is.


How to apply doctrine they already subscribe to can also be taught.
The figure is not baseless, It is the sum of people who claim to be of one of these religions: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Although it could be off by 5% give or take.



Here we have another simplistic analogy. I suggest that you think beyond the box (and glass) for better solutions.


Pride is what creates boxes. Mine, yours, theirs, better, worse.


Yes, spiritual belief alone is not enough. What is needed is spiritual development to levels beyond what has been previously accomplished by anyone other than The Original Creator, to become co-Creators. You don't get there from a simplistic set of spiritual beliefs and you don't get there from just preaching a simplistic set of spiritual beliefs.

You get there from striving to live by The Golden Rule, serving others, and especially from using the innovative and disciplined approach of Chakra Radiance (with the cultivation of Purity and Humility) on a daily basis. To simply say that we should all love one another is an idea that many people have been promoting for literally thousands of years.


What is time to the spirit?


NEWSFLASH: the old ways of basic spirituality are a MONUMENTAL FAILURE.

The only foundation I see in jeopardy here is the one you are promoting.


Pride is what pride is. Humility is what humility is. Love is what love is.
Two are directions on the same path, the other is how to tell the directions apart.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

She also recommends that I spend less time dwelling in the past and focus more on what is happening now.



That is sound advice from her, Majique.

If I may also suggest, it is the application of Radiance, not the passive act of channeling Spirit in meditation (which you now do quite well), that makes one truly progress.

Additionally, I highly doubt that she will ever complain of your Radiance of Love to her.




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Raphael,

You stated:

The figure is not baseless, It is the sum of people who claim to be of one of these religions: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

That is a very poor argument.

Do you know the difference between conceived values and operational values?

A conceived value is what you believe.

An operational value is what you apply.

What you are saying is that approximately 75% of the people on this planet use spiritual principle operationally. That is utter nonsense. Many people are religious; very few are spiritual.

I could care less about the percentage of people that are part of organized religion, as that is largely irrelevant.

Once again, there is a world of difference between those who read about spiritual principle and those who apply it in their daily lives. This doesn't even address the issue that some "scripture," as in some texts within the Koran, promotes the murdering of "infidels" (non-Muslims).

Pride is what creates boxes. Mine, yours, theirs, better, worse.

The boxes represent paradigms. The box of basic spirituality was created by basically spiritual discarnates in Group Entities. Those boxes are antiquated and represent a failure to cure the ills of civilization.

more importantly, what is time to the spirit?

If the discarnates are indifferent to the suffering of people in the flesh, then time means little to Spirit.

But if the discarnates have developed true COMPASSION, then time is always of the essence to Spirit.

The discarnates you are referring to are not the ones that Solist Mystics and The Society Of Light value as being on a spiritual path.

Indifference to Time = Spiritually Indifferent/Primitive Souls

People on the Other Side who don't care about time also don't care about the suffering of innocents, and therefore are of the Service To Self (STS) focus and not of the Service To Others (STO) focus.


[edit on 27-8-2004 by Paul_Richard]





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join