!All Beings Have An Agenda!

Yes, in truth this community is abundant with "conspiracy theory," by its basic definition; for example, any discussion about "the ego" is technically conspiracy talk. No one even needs to utter a word about "reptilians."

HUGS, friend.

Originally Posted by Sourcerer

Yes, my friend. There are indeed "holes" to be perceived in anything that appears in terms of duality and separation. Yes, of course there are holes in this sense. But such a perception of "holes" is often one that largely stems from a belief that the thing that is perceived to be hole-y is not a perfect reflection of the mind that created it. My point is simply that all "holes" to be seen are those that are perceived, imagined. Myself, when I point out apparent "lacks" in anything, it is not done so in a sense that lack is real, but only to remind that there is often something essential that is being overlooked, not clearly seen. Lack is never truly REAL; it is only imagined to be so.

This is simply semantics. In your posts there are contradictions. I cannot say from reading, if you have over-looked them or not. Only you know this. Likewise, you cannot see whether others have overlooked something or not. You may point out the contradiction that you can observe in their words...but to imagine you see further is folly.

Originally Posted by Sourcerer

In this sense, understanding this, one can perceive and sense the great beauty in oneself/others/all-of-creation, even when offering a teaching (a demonstration) in which apparent "lacks" are pointed out. I AM highly aware that the lack I perceive is imaginary. My own mind manifests what "Sourcerer" sees. This is why I operate from a core understanding that all is perfect just as it is ("perfect" here meaning that there are no mistakes at all in creation). I very often remind people in a number of the threads I began that all words are opinion, and that my words are but opinion, which is a personal interpretation. This is the same as admitting "holes" in my personal understanding. This is an example of what I meant when I suggested to you not to be so quick to come to such conclusions, without first investigating deeper. Speaking in a broad, general sense, ALL back-and-forth conversations are "tit-for-tat." Yes. You are titting-for-tatting as much as anyone else here. It's all good.

I don't judge mis-takes to be bad, so there is no reason for me to choose a different word. You imagined me being quick to draw conclusions, and whilst you were mistaken in your perception of me, as you say, you understand it was your imagination. But that personal view is beautiful because it shows me the I of you. It is only a small step in getting to getting to understand the person. And I hope there will be many more small steps.

Originally Posted by Sourcerer

The "only reason I test things out" is not really the reason that you stated. Go deeper. Actually, the only reason why anyone chooses ANYTHING is because they believe that they will personally benefit from the choosing of it.

Ofcourse, the benefit that I get from testing things out is to get to know the human attributes you carry, that don't come across so easily in your chosen style of writing. It is these that I am able to learn from and connect to.

Originally Posted by Sourcerer

All choices are made from an inner understanding--a core desire--for LOVE. Of course, not realizing this, this is how one may "unconsciously" distort this understanding, so to speak, and make a choice that appears to be distanced from love. Yet the spiritual fact remains that love is at the core of all intentions, as the Inner Essence, metaphorically speaking. Understanding this, you may then be more honest with yourself and see that ALL your choices (and everyone's choices) are really because you inherently on a Higher Self level want to give and receive love.

Originally Posted by Sourcerer

I would agree that our core desire is to connect as one. I associate love with the need od children for parents. However, we all choose different words to talk of the essence etc. So fundamentally, when I replace the word love with connection, I agree with what you are saying. Although I may to connect is all encompassing - whereas, as your words suggest, love is something that maintains the separation that necessitates giving and receiving.

Let me show you something in your language though. Compare these two statements: "I AM highly aware that the lack I perceive is imaginary." and "The "only reason I test things out" is not really the reason that you stated. Go deeper."

The words and action contradict themselves. We all do it, but these are the 'holes' that we work with. They are a tool of development. Not always an imagined perception, as they appear in language. But that language is there as a tool for self-reflection.

My own refusal to use the word love is often picked up on by love-ites as a negative. yet my reflections upon love go deep into my psychological make up. I don't share the deeper reflection everytime I speak, because it's not something that I need to do for myself. But sometimes when someones connection to me is poor, I have shared it, with the desire that a mutual connection will become easier to find. Again, it is that inner purpose or desire to connect as one, that drives me.

Before you even posted anything in this thread, I already admitted in a recent thread on Spiritual Forums (if not in the original post in this thread) that there are contradictions to be found in my words. "Contradictions" may be found in ANYTHING. That is the nature of words. You are not giving any new information, here, Meadows. You are not exposing anything about "Sourcerer." You are merely showing yourself to be someone who is bent on "proving" or publically pointing out something which I have already stated publically. Semantics has nothing to do with anything. The fact remains, you are merely AGREEING with what I have already honestly admitted about myself. In fact, I have admitted these very things you point out MANY TIMES on this forum. And I remain confident with my basic premise of this thread, that all beings have an agenda, for each belief is an agenda. But go ahead, keep on trying to "test" and "expose" Sourcerer, if you so desire, my love. You simply cannot do so, for everything you expose is old news to me and to those who actually read my prior admissions.

I appreciate you and your questioning of my material/motives in such a manner, my friend, as you are one who is brave enough to do so. I love you, too! Do not expect any more responses from "Sourcerer" at this website. This shall suffice. It's been a great journey. Bless you.

I've written down my intentions quite clearly, that I find it difficult to connect in the way you originally speak (not a criticism, just me). And here you ignore that and twist it into 'exposing'. That is a word with very negative connotations - and perhaps this is how you have taken it.

But it is not a concise, accurate or even a fairly balanced judgement of the conversation I've engaged in with you here.

I wrote another post that was more in line with the topic of the thread, as did others...and you chose of all those replies to respond to the post that connected to the human side.

I appreciate the personalised or the human being that is shared, but you have turned it round into something negative. It's not, in my perception. And the negativity that you see is not my problem to put it bluntly.

Originally Posted by Mr Interesting

Within meditation I have been practising non desire though it might be called something else. When I first became able to quiet the mind for relatively long periods I did notice the underlying intentive response... I could feel it underneath, a kind of actioning consciousness, but recently I've been able to sit within a non actioning that somehow sits above the intention and it's still somewhat difficult to stay within.

So while I agree that it's not above most to state they are desireless it's quite possibly another thing altogether for it to be an actual truth... but it is a necessary part of the process which leads to finer and finer degrees of action being dropped, or risen above, and this by degrees redefines the concept of action within coarser consciousness.

Excellent, brother! You've been able to "sit within a non-actioning," a subtler, more refined state of self-awareness.