Integrate or Renounce .

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

This is the thing, and this is part of the parcel of being ripe and ready and pure for use of a better word .

Authentic Love as you say is not difficult to grasp but unless one is clear and pure and self loving one is never going to grasp it, become it, realize it .

So there is the conundrum, something so simple and straightforward and yet impossible to attain unless the right conditions allow ..

Hello there Daz I hear what you're saying...for many the question is how do you polish your diamond in the rough? Yet there is a way forward -- these paradoxical commandments...and it has to do with knowing (in the biblical sense of fulling apprehending with all your being) what is right...regardless of what you see and what you're told, etc. AND having the courage to move forward from your centre.

Because ultimately it's you who make the right conditions. You who make it happen. Out of darkness, light and out of hatred and apathy, love and kindness. It may not happen today or next year or next lifetime, but what is a soul and what is a life if we don't stand for who we are and for who and what matters? And what we owe to one another is the authentic love and kindness -- the personal presence and personal support on our journeys that we give to one another as fellow souls and fellow travellers -- as we move forward on our paths.

The Paradoxical Commandments
by Dr. Kent M. Keith

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.

If you are successful, you will win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.

Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.

People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.
Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.

Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway.

Peeps don't feel full of self love or authentic love when they don't like how they perceive themselves or express themselves or reflect upon what they have become .

Some are not even ready to reflect upon how they see themselves ..

Those that do get a glimpse of what they are in all their glory can find it difficult to maintain such glory ..

Being authentic requires integrity...there is no giving or receiving authentic love without ownership and integrity. That's why the paradoxical commandments ultimately come first...and lead us to a place where we have the capacity for authentic love, kindness, forgiveness, and grace.

Those you mention find it difficult because they know -- and we all know -- damn well there is an integrity gap in our personal lives. Between who we are in spirit and this life we're living. And these choices we're making. And these words coming out of our mouths. And these intentions and concrete actions we put forth into the word. Knowing that we are the glory...that we are kind and loving and accepting and forgiving and strong and courageous and pure, whole, and morally strong in spirit...whilst being intolerant, unforgiving, judgmental, nasty, cruel, exploitative, deceptive, dehumanising or abusive to others day to day.

And for some, it's also because they have not been on the receiving end of much love and kindness...that's also for certain. But the only way these folks to fully heal is to live in community with others where they are treated with courtesy, respect, and kindnes, free from brutality, oppression, apathy, and cruelty. Then they too can close their own integrity gap...the one where they essentially have to dehumanise themselves. Where they seek to live in a place where they act as if they are not human and don't have feelings in order to bear the weight of their humanity.

We all need to work on closing our integrity gaps. And as we do so, we'll be forever amazed, over and over again, at how much easier it becomes to bear the spendour, at least in measured doses

that's why a glimpse is a glimpse .. You can't maintain Self in the mind-body and perhaps those masters that do get a little grumpy with not maintaining such splendor don't realize that they were not mean't to be the main course, they are here just to taste it .

x daz x

Yah so true. The problem you're describing here Dazzer is that those folks are seeking self-pleasure. Addicts are always grumpy when they've not had their fix and especially if it's no longer getting them the same kind of high it once did.

If they want to live in an endless buzz or orgasm, there are surely various drugs and techniques for that sort of self-fixation. But there is a deeper, more sublime, and more resplendent joy [love that word]. It is the ananda...the joy without which the universe and all that is could not exist. It is heard as the OM with which the universe reverberates. Once realised by each of us, it only grows ever more present. And they're missing out on the experience of joy and love within deriving from THIS bliss...the bliss of all that is, which we can experience singly and with one another...whilst they remain in what largely amounts to service to self.

Peace & blessings, Daz
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Molearner

davidsun.

In essence, you are articulating what can be described as a failure of progression. It is the failure to move from empathy to compassion. It is often referred to as the 'empathy trap'. It amounts to an ever-present danger for those embarked on the spiritual path.

Molearner, well said. Some very thoughtful & astute observations.
So glad to see your contributions here!

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Hi 7L

Yeah, my trousers are playing jingle bells already. Bah!! Humbug!! And the winter woollies are an admission of defeat - being cold.

I have a big nose and big ears, all the better to smell you with and hear you my dear but there is a more practical application - they make me aerodynamic. The nose cuts through the air stream and the ears are like spoilers that deflect, so when it hits the fan and comes my way it just whistles past and doesn't stick. That's the way I go through Life, sometimes it feels that guarding is another term from holding back, and I've done enough of that in my Life. The equanimity isn't always reciprocated but then that's where the aerodynamic comes into play, and allowing it to just whistle past. How I treat other people is how I'd like to be treated, does that mean I have a modicum of Christ Consciousness?

"Sizing you up socially" happens in many forms, and while the male predators can be looking for a mate sometimes the female of the species has her own agenda too. The animal instincts of our origins aren't so far away after all, but then when you know where you're come from you'll know where you're heading.

Showing someone respect when they show you disrespect, what does that say about us? Call it egotistical but sometimes I'm glad I'm me and not them, and without that I wouldn't have been able to see me so well.


There aren't many things I've tried to Live my Life by but that resonated with me at the time, and it was there when my Spiritual Journey really kicked in. Looking at some of the conversations that go on in these here forums sometimes I'm grateful it happened the way it did because it could have been very different.

I've always come from a position of authentic empowerment, or at least tried to because it's yet a work in progress, but then human frailty has its merits too. While we have eternity to be the epitome of all that is projected onto Spirit we only have three score and ten years to explore being this human. I don't worry about my own right to have my own truths because I am not beholding to anyone for anything. They can like it or lump it and if that's not with respect that's fine too because that reflects them, my equanimity regardless without condition reflects me.

Where does that put Christ Consciousness though? It's very seldom that I can take single beliefs in isolation, part of my parallel-thinking mind I suppose. I do understand what you're saying as far as a guy without that kind of experience can, but where does responding in kind and Christ Consciousness meet? Yes you do get to define who you are but then what is that definition? I've been on the receiving end of 'liberated' women for no other reason than I'm the stereotypical male that is branded first and forever more. Not pleasant and I can understand it up to a point, but often we become the monsters we fight against.

Even when someone is treating me with anger and hostility it's my choice as to what I perceive or not. Anger is an energy and if they are being angry then they're 'transmitting energy, and it's my choice of what I receive. Energy is energy, and it flows - big nose and ears come into play and I let if flow past me. I don't respond in kind because that is not what I'd prefer to have in my heart or send out. There's enough anger in the world without me reflecting it back out again and if we can transmute instead of reflecting?

Gentleness born of wisdom, the Spiritual Life and the everyday not split apart. "We have to be the changes we want to see" as Gandhi said, but what kind of changes are we?

Hey there Greenslade - well you're so right equanimity is often not returned. One day, I think it will be more often. It's a reflection of where humanity is at and we've still far to go. Yet, you must be who you are and same for me. I'd say if you strive to put out a balance of authentic love for self and others equally...and neither abuse nor subjugate yourself, then yes you've a modicum

The thing is...and especially for many emotionally and spiritually mature women...the animal instincts are not at all where we live. We are different from those who still live there. I haven't known a woman over 20 or 25 who could stomach being touched without a sincere love and commitment...though I do hear of them from dirtbag gents who prowl around for weak-minded women to prey on, overly sentimental and easily misled and used. Over 25, gents are getting the dregs of womanhood emotionally and spiritually like this...and they know it but press on because they're addicted or they are likewise weak and weak-minded. Again, it's the integrity gap and we've all got to own it. There is no agenda for a spiritually and emotionally mature woman, aside from being open to authentic love in friendship or partnership. If what is on offer is not that, it's a total turn off full stop.

I like what you said about giving respect whilst being disrespected. I think it's generally a good way to be, to take the high road. In conversation, I give courtesy and respect and use calm and I talk about the topic rationally and with honestly about my own position. Give them plenty of chances to be accepting and respectful, by example. And as you say it's reasonable to expect this from others...it's a standard of mutual lovingkindness even amongst strangers or bare acquaintances (like coffee dates). For most folks it's conversation as normal. But if I don't know them well and they press on with hostility and nastiness and loads of personal low blows, insults, and controlling behaviour, especially on repeated occasions...then we're done. They've got some stuff to learn and work through on their own and not on my back.

Calling folks on their overreaching anger or hostility or controlling ways is not responding in kind. It is a conscious response of calm and responsibility. You can say it kindly and calmly but the fact of the matter is, it needs to be picked up by its owner like dog doo and handled appropriately. They need to transmute it and bin the dross. If you don't know these folks, if they are virtual strangers, then there is nothing else for you to do except hand it back, let it go, and then move on if they do not address it. It doesn't mean you engage in anger just because someone is yelling at you. It means you note it, mention it, and move away if they do not own it and redirect themselves.

The only ones in my book where we should continually strive engage if possible, even if they are hostile or difficult, are close family and/or close soul connections. Because they are in your life and you have an opportunity to give love and kindness at deeper levels. But even here, this is only if you are able to withstand the harm or the abuse emotionally or spiritually from them...and that is totally up to the individual -- it's not my place to say or to judge. And I would never advocate interaction that endangers anyone physically, emotionally, or spiritually...according to them and not to me or anyone else.

Peace & blessings Gman
7L

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Molearner

davidsun,

Frequently on these forums we have a difficulty that revolves around definition and understanding of terms. Posters often ask: "What is enlightenment, self, Self, love, sympathy, empathy, compassion....etc.". In regards to this particular discussion, in my mind, I attribute sympathy and empathy to the category of feelings/emotions. i.e. something that we internalize. On the other hand I understand compassion as an action. e.g. I feel sympathy, I feel empathy.....but I act with compassion. These conflicts/misunderstandings can be more easily reconciled in face-to-face dialogues as opposed to written responses. The written word presents itself oftentimes for dissension. This dissension is more easily resolved in a shared dialogue where we are afforded the opportunity for a more complete understanding of how different terms are interpreted. I do not internalize compassion......only the 'other' can perceive whether or not I acted with compassion.

What you say, which is well said by the way, makes 'agreeable' sense to me, Mo. I don't think I managed to get across my distinction between (arm's-length) 'compassion' and active (intimate) loving-engagement. The difference, put in terms of examples, is simialr to that between tipping one's hat and smiling at someone in an Easter Day parade and actively inviting someone and/or accepting someone's invitation to 'dance' on a dance floor, the latter requiring that one honestly attempt to co-ordinate one's motion(s) in relation to said person which would include signaling him or her when one felt 'synched' with (with an 'embrace' and/or 'hug-n-kiss', say) and/or with an expression of 'failed'-connection i.e. signaling that one thought and felt that one was not being meaningully related to or disrespectfully (negligence and abusive being kinds of disrespect) related to.

7L speaks of only or mainly relating to 'family' members in the latter way(s) - that is, if I read what she said in a recent post right. My sense of what is 'missing' in our MYOB social-value world is the 'sense' of everyone being and so responses to everyone as 'family' members.

Not that this will just result in everything simply becoming/being 'hunky dory'. Unlike 'compassion', active 'love' is a complicated 'business' ! -Just that relationality and relationships will then become more 'real' instead of what I see as pretty much just being (ineffectual, in real terms) 'nice-nice' charades of 'good'-seeming people who basically avoid confronting as well as intimately sharing life as it really is. One has to start changing 'the world' - meaning the world beyong one's 'immediate' family somewhere!

I am 'stretching' to get at something which I think is functionally (very!) important here. Hopefully, I will get around to pinning it down at some point (not necessarily in relation to happenings in this thread, which stimulated my present clumsy attempt to do so).

Thank you for 'two-stepping' with me for the mo, Mo.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by davidsun

What you say, which is well said by the way, makes 'agreeable' sense to me, Mo. I don't think I managed to get across my distinction between (arm's-length) 'compassion' and active (intimate) loving-engagement. The difference, put in terms of examples, is simialr to that between tipping one's hat and smiling at someone in an Easter Day parade and actively inviting someone and/or accepting someone's invitation to 'dance' on a dance floor, the latter requiring that one honestly attempt to co-ordinate one's motion(s) in relation to said person which would include signaling him or her when one felt 'synched' with (with an 'embrace' and/or 'hug-n-kiss', say) and/or with an expression of 'failed'-connection i.e. signaling that one thought and felt that one was not being meaningully related to or disrespectfully (negligence and abusive being kinds of disrespect) related to.

7L speaks of only or mainly relating to 'family' members in the latter way(s) - that is, if I read what she said in a recent post right. My sense of what is 'missing' in our MYOB social-value world is the 'sense' of everyone being and so responses to everyone as 'family' members.

Not that this will just result in everything simply becoming/being 'hunky dory'. Unlike 'compassion', active 'love' is a complicated 'business' ! -Just that relationality and relationships will then become more 'real' instead of what I see as pretty much just being (ineffectual, in real terms) 'nice-nice' charades of 'good'-seeming people who basically avoid confronting as well as intimately sharing life as it really is. One has to start changing 'the world' - meaning the world beyong one's 'immediate' family somewhere!

I am 'stretching' to get at something which I think is functionally (very!) important here. Hopefully, I will get around to pinning it down at some point (not necessarily in relation to happenings in this thread, which stimulated my present clumsy attempt to do so).

Thank you for 'two-stepping' with me for the mo, Mo.

Hahaha....Davidsun...NO. You did not understand me correctly from what you said above. But that's alright...happens all the time

I have consistently advocated relating to all from a place of equanimity and lovingkindness, in balance. The balance is key. From the vantage of authentic love (lovingkindness and equanimity), we are called to seek our own highest good equally to all others, and all others, equally to ourselves. We are never required to subjugate ourselves or submit to abuse by choice. That is not authentically loving.

I have gone far beyond what most would say is authentically loving to the self (equally to others) in saying that I personally advocate for patiently bearing as much hostility and difficulty as one can manage with our close soul connections...from a place of strong equanimity undergirding the lovingkindness. Most are not yet at this place of strong equanimity and therefore it is not my call to advocate that anyone else but myself do this. It is not loving and it is harmful and destructive to take on by choice more hostility and aggression than one can manage, even in the name of close soul fam and/or close biological fam. It is for every individual to decide this for themselves.

From a place of lovingkindness and equanimity, all are family, but with those who are much more distant to any single person, we will not touch them as closely as those who are closer to them. And same for them to us. Whilst we care for all from lovingkindness and equanimity, it is not a personal relationship on the ground nor in spirit. Instead our authentic love for strangers comprises the goodwill and responsibility and compassion due all humanity...it is the love of our fellow human beings...i.e., our more distant relatives, rather than the engaged love on the ground of those we know personally. It is not lesser but rather less immediate and less personal.

This is not a judgment of the lovingkindness or the fact of how its quality or quantity may vary by each unique personal connection and/or by social distance. It is simply a description of the spiritual logistics of the connection we have to acquaintances and strangers (to whom a generalised or universal compassion and kindness are always due but never at the expense of being compassionate and kind to oneself), which is more distant (in the web of interbeing) versus those who are closer to us (in the web of interbeing) and who fall into our more immediate, daily responsibility.

This web of interbeing, and where we each are situated relative to one another, is essentially a division of spiritual labour. Some communal shared connections and responsibilities are thus common to all humanity. Whilst additionally, for each of us, there is also a smaller group of closer soul fam and actual fam (including fam by choice) that fall into our personal sphere of day-to-day interaction and responsibility. To deny the importance of the personal connection on the ground is to deny the importance of each individuated consciousness..and to undermine the soul work we are each here to engage in with one another.

If we express compassion and kindness, courtesy and respect, and it is met with aggression or hostility, then it is appropriate to equally care for the safety and integrity of our own selves and send love an blessings to those persons from a distance. This is true for anyone, even those in our close soul fam & actual fam. However it is particularly true for strangers, with whom our personal bond is more tenuous and typically would carry less weight.

However, the element of personal connection is important and must be recognised and honoured. If it is lacking between strangers, it cannot be instantly manufactured and this is where the generic form of lovingkindness (i.e., compassion shown to strangers) and where equanimity both come into play. For example, if folks are actively murderous or harmful to others, their containment is a form of authentic love here, actively seeking the highest good of all.

Authentic love does not abrogate my right to be in favour of yours, or vice versa. Nor does it mandate I must choose to receive abuse or aggression or unkindness, in order to be and do authentic love to self and others.

Peace & blessings
7L

[muffin]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Good morning Muffin.

Thank you.

Not sure what you want to hear. I've always felt as though there were two of us 'in here', as a scifi book title put it - "A Stranger in a Strange Land." I've never felt of this world, always more 'in it' than 'of it'. It's not always easy walking two Paths at the same time. My whole damned Life was goofy both inside and out but I wouldn't change a thing. Short trousers and snotty nose, and even on good days every hair on my head at right angles to the next. A manifestation of what was inside. I learned quickly that there are things people didn't want to hear or couldn't cope with, that on the surface things looked one way but energetically something different was happening.

Strangely enough the messages have stopped but then my perceptions have changed and I don't feel so much at odds with my surroundings. There are things that I just know and the synchronicities are far more 'solid' than they once were. They're less of a mystery and more of an 'always was'.

Yeah I know Christmas is coming, can't stick my tail out of the door but it's in my face. And Mrs G wants me in the loft today for the decorations. Deep deep joy and good will to all men.

Good morning Greenslade

"Not sure what you want to hear."

I don't as such, not in the way others look. It hard to explain, when talking to another, it's not something I'm looking for, I'm open I let things come to me.

As for you there a deep seated calmness, others can come across in other ways, it's one of the ways I've come to learn by.

Thanking you

I'm not into deep Philosophy, hurts the head to much

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

However, the element of personal connection is important and must be recognised and honoured. If it is lacking between strangers, it cannot be instantly manufactured and this is where the generic form of lovingkindness (i.e., compassion shown to strangers) and where equanimity both come into play. For example, if folks are actively murderous or harmful to others, their containment is a form of authentic love here, actively seeking the highest good of all.

Authentic love does not abrogate my right to be in favour of yours, or vice versa. Nor does it mandate I must choose to receive abuse or aggression or unkindness, in order to be and do authentic love to self and others.

Peace & blessings
7L

I have just copy-quoted the last part of what you spoke about, 7L, as a 'lead' for purposes of topic-continuity here.

I agree with how you frame and personally relate to the issue of our relational 'connection' to others in general. Besides what is generally understood to fall under the heading 'lovingkindness', I think there is the 'hard' (to know how, in any given case, to resolve in a 'balanced' way) issue of how best to relate to and deal with those who are, for want of better words, operationally 'perverse' and/or 'refractory'. Analogous to the question of what does/can one 'do' in relation to anti-Life (for want of a better phrase) immediate family members.

As a high-school teacher (at one point in my life), I recognized that simply 'expelling' students who violated the school's 'rules' and/or did not meet the school's 'requirements' did not actually deal with 'the problem', but simply passed it on to others for them to 'handle'.

Not that any 'school' is necessarily equipped to constructively deal with 'extremely problematic' students, but the issue remains that to whatever degree people (including 'family members') don't manage to constructively resolve issues causing and relating to 'perverse' and/or 'refractory' attitudes and behaviors of fellow family members, such 'problems' will merely get shunted 'down the line'. A prominent historical case in this regard being so-called 'criminals' being shipped to to 'prison colonies' and/or 'deported' to and 'set loose' on other continents.

So, as the above referenced 'problem' continues to pique my interest and as I think that any 'problem' that isn't 'positively' resolved in its present context, I am wondering about and experimentally playing in this 'social milieu' to (hopefully) 'tease out' what if anything (more or different) could - you might say 'should' be done - by 'healthy' members of any social group, in terms of a general hierarchy of philosophical values and behavioral stance stemming therefrom, to constructively relate to 'badly' or 'poorly' relating participants (for want of a better characterization) beyond simply doing the "tipping of one's hat and smiling as we Easter Parade pass by" thang which I am admittedly exaggeratedly caricaturing as generally 'passing' for the 'height' of 'lovingkindness' in relation to forum others.

I am not sure there is anything more to be said at this point in this regard, although I welcome anyone and everyone's thoughts along these lines. I would be satisfied if others simply registered and included in their future considerations that I personally think there is a big difference between what I think of as 'armchair' spirituality and 'real' spirituality, the latter, of course, because of the reality of everyone's interconnectedness, involving not just 'sweeping' the kinds of issues I have raised under the rug and 'ducking' the issue of personal response-ability, content to simply let the 'administrators' here just ban 'extremely problematic' individuals and/or 'shut down' threads that have 'gone of the rails', though of course their doing so is better than the alternative of just letting 'sickness' fester.

But such measures don't actually address 'the problem(s); they just punt them on, IMO.

Again, I do not have a formulated set of attitudes or behavioral measure to propose - though i may come up with some in the future - and will be happy to do so if it turns out I get the point of being able to.

Thank you, 7L, for engaging with my comment and stimulating me to clarify my thoughts in this regard and publicly present them with an eye towards engaging others in contemplating and exploring said issue likewise (which you are clearly already doing in your own right).

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by davidsun

I have just copy-quoted the last part of what you spoke about, 7L, as a 'lead' for purposes of topic-continuity here.

I agree with how you frame and personally relate to the issue of our relational 'connection' to others in general. Besides what is generally understood to fall under the heading 'lovingkindness', I think there is the 'hard' (to know how, in any given case, to resolve in a 'balanced' way) issue of how best to relate to and deal with those who are, for want of better words, operationally 'perverse' and/or 'refractory'. Analogous to the question of what does/can one 'do' in relation to anti-Life (for want of a better phrase) immediate family members.

As a high-school teacher (at one point in my life), I recognized that simply 'expelling' students who violated the school's 'rules' and/or did not meet the school's 'requirements' did not actually deal with 'the problem', but simply passed it on to others for them to 'handle'.

Hey there Davidsun ...yes, for the actively murderous and violent, containment is what is in the highest good of all, in acceptance of where the hostile and violent and predatory are in this moment. It is not a permanent solution...which as we know is also horrendous. So let's rephrase...the long-term solution is spiritual growth at all levels, including personal and collective. But some folks are actively exploring misalignment and a narcissistic indulgence of self for maybe aeons. And so containment is a reality. As is choosing non-engagement or disengagement wherever possible, for the rest of us. This strategy of non-engagement when dealing with any kind of brutality or hostility, including the non-physical kind, is the highly preferred option, IMO.

Not that any 'school' is necessarily equipped to constructively deal with 'extremely problematic' students, but the issue remains that to whatever degree people (including 'family members') don't manage to constructively resolve issues causing and relating to 'perverse' and/or 'refractory' attitudes and behaviors of fellow family members, such 'problems' will merely get shunted 'down the line'. A prominent historical case in this regard being so-called 'criminals' being shipped to to 'prison colonies' and/or 'deported' to and 'set loose' on other continents.

Yah, 'tis true. But keep in mind that the actively murderous and violent are not "so-called" anything. They are that which they are, and it is incompatible with the well-being of others at this time. Containment is the collective passing the buck back to the collective (can we heal or rehab or even medicate them to a better end in this lifetime?) and also back to the violent individuals (for their higher selves to deal with either now or later). And in this case, passing the buck in said ways to the collective and the individual is absolutely appropriate.

So, as the above referenced 'problem' continues to pique my interest and as I think that any 'problem' that isn't 'positively' resolved in its present context, I am wondering about and experimentally playing in this 'social milieu' to (hopefully) 'tease out' what if anything (more or different) could - you might say 'should' be done - by 'healthy' members of any social group, in terms of a general hierarchy of philosophical values and behavioral stance stemming therefrom, to constructively relate to 'badly' or 'poorly' relating participants (for want of a better characterization) beyond simply doing the "tipping of one's hat and smiling as we Easter Parade pass by" thang which I am admittedly exaggeratedly caricaturing as generally 'passing' for the 'height' of 'lovingkindness' in relation to forum others.

LOL....hahahahaha nice visual there.

Yes. I do agree...if we as a society are not going to advocate for the wellbeing of all, including their emotional, spiritual, and mental health...then we can and should expect to be literally overwhelmed with toxic behaviour and oppressive "power-over" violence by the physically and culturally powerful against the weak and more vulnerable amongst us. And TBH, this is absolutely by design. If we do not make our voices heard and stand for a better way, we are all only a heartbeat away from oppression and desolation, both external and internal...in addition to the degradation and indignities we already experience. The entire 20th century stands as a testament to this fact.

I am not sure there is anything more to be said at this point in this regard, although I welcome anyone and everyone's thoughts along these lines. I would be satisfied if others simply registered and included in their future considerations that I personally think there is a big difference between what I think of as 'armchair' spirituality and 'real' spirituality, the latter, of course, because of the reality of everyone's interconnectedness, involving not just 'sweeping' the kinds of issues I have raised under the rug and 'ducking' the issue of personal response-ability, content to simply let the 'administrators' here just ban 'extremely problematic' individuals and/or 'shut down' threads that have 'gone of the rails', though of course their doing so is better than the alternative of just letting 'sickness' fester.

But such measures don't actually address 'the problem(s); they just punt them on, IMO.

You're right on that. It's a two-pronged issue requiring a two-pronged approach to address it. Meaning...it's on the individual to assume ownership of his or her actions...and it's equally on society (a.k.a. the collective, in this setting) to establish and continually advocate for a healthy and viable setting within which individuals can engage and pursue their lives, their liberty, and their happiness (I'm referencing the American constitution here before it's "disappeared" entirely by the nouveau riche demagogues ).

Again, I do not have a formulated set of attitudes or behavioral measure to propose - though i may come up with some in the future - and will be happy to do so if it turns out I get the point of being able to.

Thank you, 7L, for engaging with my comment and stimulating me to clarify my thoughts in this regard and publicly present them with an eye towards engaging others in contemplating and exploring said issue likewise (which you are clearly already doing in your own right).

You're quite welcome and thanks for your thoughts as well
Peace & blessings DS,
7L

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Can you love yourself and not the body .. can you love yourself and renounce a part of yourself?

The idea of loving your 'self' is a 'trap', IMO, because any (particular) 'i'dentity is not LIFE Itself, but a form (i.e. fragment of) of IT.

Think of a body that has a 'cancer', of instance. To 'love' that 'body' (meaning including the 'cancer') means not 'loving' LIFE Itself because the 'cancer' (i.e. any [u]un[/Ubalanced, i.e. purely 'self'ish, growth) is bound to be anti-LIFE in effect.

You'd do well and really be 'holy' (that is, it would be LIFE embracing and, in effect, 'serving') if you 'renounced' 'cancer' or analog of it (i.e. any kind of imbalance-inducing factor), I think.

Forget 'renouncing'; how about 'getting rid of' or at the very least 'quarantining' whatever (in 'you') screws up and short-changes LIFE (like any 'good' anti-virus program)?

Here's a (hopefully) thought-and-feeling provoking quote in this regard:

"If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into LIFE maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into LIFE, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

[Alita]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Can you cherish the body without attachment?


x daz x

Just had a thought. If i got some play dough and make a human figure and move it with my hands, does it mean it is me and does it mean that when i dont touch it anymore and its lying there still, a part of me died? and then i thought what if its the same way with our body? what if my soul made my body with its perception or whatever and then its been moving me every single day until it doesnt? Then is my body me? or is it just the play dough that i was playing with? it certainly did what i wanted it to but when i stopped moving it I took back my power for its ability to move and i was still me with nothing less.
I seriously just thought about that now lol