the relinquishment of attack

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Nature Grows

false teachings like this

Be careful. That is as extreme and unhelpful a response as claiming all new age teaching is 100% accurate.

The new consciousness task is to find the balanced perspective, one that takes into account all sides of a question. This is represented in some streams as the wandering hermit carrying a lantern; peering, penetrating into the maya of existence in search of truth. It is also referred to as middle path awareness; navigating between the two philosophical extremes of religious belief and scientific theory.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Nature Grows

This is a good example of why some call the new age the new cage, because of false teachings like this, telling people they are wrong for defending themselves or others is not wise or smart, even if you did not mean it like that, some would take what you said as that and may even act accordingly.. be loving no matter what, lay down an stay down, everything is you anyway so what does it matter? It's an out of balanced teaching.

I just realised that it isn't the 'new wage'.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Nature Grows

false teachings like this

Originally Posted by Baile

Be careful. That is as extreme and unhelpful a response as claiming all new age teaching is 100% accurate.

LOL. That ol' 'mote' in the eye phenom shows itself again! Viewing things through a 'dirty' lens can be quite truth-distorting.

As far as I can see, Nature Grows was not claiming that all New Age teachings were 'inaccurate' - rather, she was 'carefully' (IMO) addressing a specific one in said 'pantheon'.

Originally Posted by Baile

The new consciousness task is to find the balanced perspective, one that takes into account all sides of a question. This is represented in some streams as the wandering hermit carrying a lantern; peering, penetrating into the maya of existence in search of truth. It is also referred to as middle path awareness; navigating between the two philosophical extremes of religious belief and scientific theory.

Aye to that! I wonder if the 'wandering hermit' with a 'lamp' allegory could be improved to include his/her wearing 'clear' 'spectacles'?

But even if it could, that in itself wouldn't completely do the trick. The only way peeps can get "depth perception", hence 'true' perspective wherein (possible) 'distortions' are seen for what they are, is by looking at things from multiple angles, i.e. through a variety, of lenses, methinks.

Please know that I very much appreciate the depth of your perspective(s), Bro Baile. Also that I am aware that I too am sometimes 'guilty' of projecting the same kind of 'distortion' that I am pointing to here.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by davidsun

LOL. That ol' 'mote' in the eye phenom shows itself again! Viewing things through a 'dirty' lens can be quite truth-distorting.

As far as I can see, Nature Grows was not claiming that all New Age teachings were 'inaccurate' - rather, she was 'carefully' (IMO) addressing a specific one in said 'pantheon'.

My use of the word was on point I would say. It doesn't get any more extreme than claiming someone's post is a "false teaching." Heck, for a minute there when I read that, I thought I had mistakenly clicked on the Christianity forum!

happy soul's "one specific" observation -- the very topic and point he was making -- is hardly a false teaching. Far from it, it oozes with conscious perspective and truth. I was simply pointing out to happy soul that there is more than one way to address situations that potentially call for some kind of strong response, possibly even an "attack."

You're taking an aspect of the conversation, re-constructing it into something it wasn't, in order to make whatever point you felt was necessary to communicate. You are free to do that; you are after all the Captain of your soul. But I contend Commander that in your Warp-9 haste to make that point, you overshot Planet Actuality by several light years.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Baile

You're taking an aspect of the conversation, re-constructing it into something it wasn't, in order to make whatever point you felt was necessary to communicate. You are free to do that; you are after all the Captain of your soul. But I contend Commander that in your Warp-9 haste to make that point, you overshot Planet Actuality by several light years.

What Natures Gows said was:

Originally Posted by Nature Grows

This is a good example of why some call the new age the new cage, because of false teachings like this,

Your reference 'accused' (?) her of referencing all said kinds of 'sayings' and 'teachings'.

I 'see' how you 'look' at what she (and now I) said and, based on what you 'see', why you arrived at the conclusions you propounded - a lot of 'sense' therein.

I hope you can 'see' how and why I 'see' what I 'see' and 'think' what I 'think' etc.

Whatever else may be 'true' about (all ? of) it, I assure you my 'point' wasn't made in 'haste', Baile.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Please know that I very much appreciate the depth of your perspective(s), Bro Baile. Also that I am aware that I too am sometimes 'guilty' of projecting the same kind of 'distortion' that I am pointing to here.

Okay Commander. But I wasn't projecting. Actually and funny thing, I think you may have intuitively picked up on some energy buzzing about here, and unintentionally misdirected your observations. I just read Nature Grow's list of thread topics. Big Foot. Mermaids. Bermuda Triangle. So there's that.

And then we have Nature Grows making his joke about new age (something people here on SF just LOVE to yuk-yuk about, and just watch the anti-new age giggles stampede, it started already in fact). After which he called happy soul's comments "false teachings". If pointing out that "To attack another is to attack and damage YOURSELF" is considered false new age teaching, what the heck do we call Bigfoot, Bermuda Triangle and the like?

[davidsun]

P.S. Believe it or not, Baile, when I read Natures Grows post, I actually thought (saw ?) (and still think) that what she said essentially said the same thing about New Age kinds of 'teachings' as what you had said earlier.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by davidsun

What Natures Gows said was...

And you got it mixed up, again. Nature Grows SPECIFICALLY made the (incorrect) claim that happy soul's post "is telling people they are wrong for defending themselves or others". happy soul said no such thing. That is Nature Grows who is projecting.

His "false teachings" claim is secondary at this point, that's just his opinion. But what is clear and definite, is he didn't do a very good job of reading the original post. He's claiming happy soul is posting false teachings about things happy soul didn't actually say!

[Baile]

Originally Posted by davidsun

P.S. Believe it or not, Baile, when I read Natures Grows post, I actually thought (saw ?) (and still think) that what she said essentially said the same thing about New Age kinds of 'teachings' as what you had said earlier.

I am avoiding addressing that obvious contradiction while I hang onto my argument-position with all my might. I can't do two things at once and need to focus.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Baile

And you got it mixed up, again. Nature Grows SPECIFICALLY made the (incorrect) claim that happy soul's post "is telling people they are wrong for defending themselves or others". happy soul said no such thing. That is Nature Grows who is projecting.

His "false teachings" claim is secondary at this point, that's just his opinion. But what is clear and definite, is he didn't do a very good job of reading the original post. He's claiming happy soul is posting false teachings about things happy soul didn't actually say!

Just saying that I could 'see' the view she shared as making (good!) 'sense' in meaningful (to me) ways as yours also do (up to a point, that is - I really have to 'stretch' to see things from that 'angle').