The Kingdom of God on Earth
anna_m...@my-dejanews.com
(from the work of Djwhal Khul and Alice A. Bailey
...the Kingdom of God on earth, or the kingdom, of souls
...is precipitating on earth and will be composed of those who are becoming
group-conscious, and who can work in group formation. This will be possible,
because people will have achieved a self-initiated perfection (even if
relative in nature) and will be identified with certain group expansions in
consciousness. It will also be because they have arrived at love of their
fellow men, just as they have loved themselves in the past...
Their work will largely be to summarize and make effective the work of those
two great Sons of God, the Buddha and the Christ. As you know, One of them
brought illumination to the world and embodied the principle of Wisdom--- the
Other brought love to the world and embodied in himself the principle of Love.
(1)
Christ taught that the Kingdom of God was on Earth and told us to seek that
Kingdom first and let all other things be of secondary importance for its
sake.
That Kingdom has ever been with us, composed of all those who down the ages,
have sought spiritual goals, liberated themselves from the limitations of the
physical body, emotional controls and the obstructive mind. Its citizens are
those who today (unknown to the majority) live in physical bodies, work for
the welfare of humanity, use love instead of emotion as their general
technique, and compose that great body of "illumined Minds" which guides the
destiny of the world.
The Kingdom of God is not something which will descend on Earth when man is
good enough! It is something which is functioning efficiently today and
demanding recognition. It is an organized body which is already evoking
recognition from those who do seek first the Kingdom of God, and discover
thereby that the Kingdom they seek is already here. Christ and His disciples
are known to be physically present on Earth, and the Kingdom which they rule,
with its laws and modes of activity, is familiar to many and has been
throughout the centuries.
Christ is the world Healer and Savior. He works because He is the embodied
soul of all Reality. He works today, as He worked in Palestine two thousand
years ago, through groups. There He worked through the three beloved
disciples, through the twelve apostles, through the chosen seventy and the
interested five hundred.
Now He works through His Masters and Their groups, and thereby greatly
intensifies His efforts. He can and will work through all groups just insofar
as they fit themselves for planned service, for the distribution of love, and
come into conscious alignment with the great potency of the inner groups. (2)
Excerpted as indicated from the following books by the Tibetan, through Alice
A. Bailey, Lucis Publishing Company:
1. Discipleship in the New Age, Vol. I
2. 'The Reappearance of the Christ'
These and several other books can be freely downloaded or read online:
<http://www.netnews.org/bk/toc.html>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Very soon the whole world will see the Master of all the Masters and
the Teacher alike of angels and men. <http://www.shareintl.org>
Check it out and don't be taken by surprise!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jo...@ix.netcom.com
anna_m...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snipped claptrap from the wild imagination of a parlor room
dilettante]
> Very soon the whole world will see the Master of all the Masters and
> the Teacher alike of angels and men. <http://www.shareintl.org>
> Check it out and don't be taken by surprise!
Will you please just can it. There will be no "Master of all Masters".
This isn't how the universe works. Diversity is the way our Mother
manifests. She certainly wouldn't expect us all to believe in one
single being as her sole rep here.
Your wishful thinking belies your lack of faith in yourself. The
world doesn't need nor does it want a "World Teacher", despite your
wishes and beliefs to the contrary.
You have attached as an attribute to yourself your association with
this "spiritual government", which in reality does not exist. It may
exist in astral form, but this is even more illusory than what we have
here in the physical realm.
--jodyr.
seelite
<snip>
>There will be no "Master of all Masters".
>This isn't how the universe works. Diversity is the way our Mother
>manifests. She certainly wouldn't expect us all to believe in one
>single being as her sole rep here.
<snip>
That was not and is not said or implied. The idea of a 'sole rep' comes
from your imagination. The rest of your reply is also based upon incorrect
assumptions, and is therefore without any basis in reality.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
Listen dude, my critique is sound despite my taking liberties.
1. There is no hierarchy of masters that we need pay *ANY* attention to.
2. There can be no world teacher. It will not happen. There will be
heroes perhaps, international heroes maybe, but nobody is going to
have everyone's ear.
3. It is a mistake to fall for "channeled" teachings, no matter
how wise you think they sound.
If you want to discuss it let's start with these issues. Isn't this
the whole foundation of what you believe?
--jodyr.
seelite
>Actually, Jody's got it
>pretty much correct other
>than that one detail -- the
>Universe is diverse, and not
>even remotely hierarchical.
The universe is very diverse. If the line saying that the universe is 'not even
remotely hierarchical' then, it must also be true that Bruce is half of a one
armed, one eyed Siamese twin midget who lives in a cave 44.8 miles below the
earths surface...and has never traveled outside, because they are allergic to
natural light and fresh air. This is also as true about Bruce as is the
nonsense he is saying about Creme.
-------------------
Fairly soon most people will know that all of the planets have hierarchies and
that there is a hierarchy for each solar system, and one for each galaxy too.
These are not artificial hierarchies set up by unbalanced, power seeking fools,
like most of the governments of the world. The Hierarchy is a perfect aspect of
'the Kingdom of God on Earth' (also called by some the Church invisible, the
Great White Brotherhood, etc.). What people think has absolutely no bearing upon
the truth.
--------------
"The cause of all sorrow and woes is desire -- desire for that which is
material. ... 'No man liveth unto himself", and no nation either, and ...the
goal of all human effort is loving understanding, prompted by a love for the
whole." Djwhal Khul
----------------
"In Hindustan, as in England, there are doctrines for the learned, and dogmas
for the unlearned; strong meat for men and milk for babes; facts for the few,
and fictions for the many, realities for the wise, and romances for the simple;
esoteric truth for the philosopher, and exoteric fable for the fool."
Hurrychund Chintamon
------------
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected
are as outraged as those who are." Benjamin Franklin
jo...@ix.netcom.com
> >world doesn't need nor does it want a "World Teacher", despite your
> >wishes and beliefs to the contrary.
>
> to live in peace and ti share resources more equitably and to stop
> raping the Earth, would you welcome him (or her)? I know you don't
> believe he will come, but would you welcome him?
>
> Mark Gerard
To stop the rape of the Earth basically means stopping capitalism
as the current economic regime. How will you manage this? Despite
its apparent failings, capitalism is simply an outgrowth of
nature. Capitalism *evolved* from natural processes of ecological
exchange and interaction. This isn't to say that it is all
good and shouldn't be adjusted if possible, but you certainly
aren't going to make it go away in one fell swoop.
The raping of the planet is slowing. We need remain vigilant but
there are signs that we as a planet are starting to get our act
together.
If divine power was demonstrated to me in a direct fashion, allowing
me to verify empirically these powers, then I would have to adjust
my beliefs about a world teacher.
There has never been a figure in history like the one you are
waiting for, and your beliefs are based on the teachings of
European parlor dilettantes who have been "channeling" these
"masters" for the last 100 years, to the elite for the most part.
I mean, what about Krishnamurti? He saw right through this
BS and renounced the whole lot of them.
Listen, despite my tone I truly mean no harm to you as fellow
children of God, and it certainly is good to attempt to help
the less fortunate. However, you are chasing a fantasy that
simply will not manifest as you expect. There may be some
kind of big change coming, but *none* of us really knows exactly
how and when it will manifest.
--jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:10:05 GMT, edi...@juno.com (Bruce Morgen) wrote:
>
> >Actually, Jody's got it
> >pretty much correct other
> >than that one detail -- the
> >Universe is diverse, and not
> >even remotely hierarchical.
>
> The universe is very diverse. If the line saying that the universe is 'not even
> remotely hierarchical' then, it must also be true that Bruce is half of a one
> armed, one eyed Siamese twin midget who lives in a cave 44.8 miles below the
> earths surface...and has never traveled outside, because they are allergic to
> natural light and fresh air. This is also as true about Bruce as is the
> nonsense he is saying about Creme.
> -------------------
What nonsense are *you* pulling here? Have you heard of vaporware? I'd
call that vapor logic.
> Fairly soon most people will know that all of the planets have hierarchies and
> that there is a hierarchy for each solar system, and one for each galaxy too.
> These are not artificial hierarchies set up by unbalanced, power seeking fools,
> like most of the governments of the world. The Hierarchy is a perfect aspect of
> 'the Kingdom of God on Earth' (also called by some the Church invisible, the
> Great White Brotherhood, etc.). What people think has absolutely no bearing upon
> the truth.
> --------------
Well, this person thinks it's all a bunch of made up claptrap. "Fairly soon"
sounds like you are hedging your bet by the way.
*We* are the kingdom of God on Earth, in all its wild and crazy manifestation.
We're living in perfection, it's just that perfection don't fit your ideas
about what it should look like. Your idea of perfect has *never* existed,
not *once* in this damn Universe.
> "The cause of all sorrow and woes is desire -- desire for that which is
> material. ... 'No man liveth unto himself", and no nation either, and ...the
> goal of all human effort is loving understanding, prompted by a love for the
> whole." Djwhal Khul
> ----------------
This guy was a fiction of Alice Bailey's vivid imagination and arose out of
her need to be seen as wise by her elite friends.
> "In Hindustan, as in England, there are doctrines for the learned, and dogmas
> for the unlearned; strong meat for men and milk for babes; facts for the few,
> and fictions for the many, realities for the wise, and romances for the simple;
> esoteric truth for the philosopher, and exoteric fable for the fool."
> Hurrychund Chintamon
> ------------
Sounds like this guy was on to you.
> "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected
> are as outraged as those who are." Benjamin Franklin
Good ole Ben was thinking of colonial America, not the whole damn planet
across hundreds of cultures.
--jodyr.
Allen Crider
seelite wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:10:05 GMT, edi...@juno.com (Bruce Morgen) wrote:
>
> >Actually, Jody's got it
> >pretty much correct other
> >than that one detail -- the
> >Universe is diverse, and not
> >even remotely hierarchical.
>
> The universe is very diverse. If the line saying that the universe is 'not even
> remotely hierarchical' then, it must also be true that Bruce is half of a one
> armed, one eyed Siamese twin midget who lives in a cave 44.8 miles below the
> earths surface...and has never traveled outside, because they are allergic to
> natural light and fresh air. This is also as true about Bruce as is the
> nonsense he is saying about Creme.
Bruce is being quite kind about that old spittle-spewing, overly dramatic,
perversely dogmatic, falsely emphatic, denture chomping, fame seeking, donation
collecting, money laundering, wife sponging old coot.
[dogma snipped]
Mark Gerard Miller
>Your wishful thinking belies your lack of faith in yourself. The
>world doesn't need nor does it want a "World Teacher", despite your
>wishes and beliefs to the contrary.
Hi. If there could be a teacher filled with divine power who helped us
to live in peace and ti share resources more equitably and to stop
raping the Earth, would you welcome him (or her)? I know you don't
believe he will come, but would you welcome him?
Mark Gerard
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
---------== Over 72,000 Groups, Plus Dedicated Binaries Servers ==--------
Bruce Morgen
>On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:30:13 GMT, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>>There will be no "Master of all Masters".
>>This isn't how the universe works. Diversity is the way our Mother
>>manifests. She certainly wouldn't expect us all to believe in one
>>single being as her sole rep here.
><snip>
>
>That was not and is not said or implied. The idea of a 'sole rep' comes
>from your imagination.
Yeah, Jody -- there's no "sole
rep," just a Lord High PooBah
"rep" and a veritable gaggle
of (slightly) less "evolved"
mythological "Masters"
comprising a "Hierarchy" of
"reps." :-)
>The rest of your reply is also based upon incorrect
>assumptions, and is therefore without any basis in reality.
>
Actually, Jody's got it
pretty much correct other
than that one detail -- the
Universe is diverse, and not
even remotely hierarchical.
__________________________________________________
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm
m(_ _)m
Mark Gerard Miller
>seelite wrote:
>Listen dude, my critique is sound despite my taking liberties.
>
>1. There is no hierarchy of masters that we need pay *ANY* attention to.
True. If they're so evolved and wonderful, they wouldn't care if you
paid them heed or worshipped them or not.
>2. There can be no world teacher. It will not happen. There will be
> heroes perhaps, international heroes maybe, but nobody is going to
> have everyone's ear.
There is a lot of wisdom in this. Jesus walked around performing
wonderful miracles and was crucified for it. If you can raise people
from the dead and still get sent to hell, you better believe our next
hero will face some opposition when he or she comes.
Wouldn't it be cool if the next hero were a she? It seems in all the
mythologies, however, that the messiah is male. Why is that? (I am not
saying that all avatars have been male.)
>3. It is a mistake to fall for "channeled" teachings, no matter
> how wise you think they sound.
This is true. "Channeler" is a New Age term for prophet, and if you
believe the Muslims, Mohammed was the Seal of Prophets. In other
words, the last one. I'm not sure I believe it, but I would need to
see some true darshan on this newsgroup before I believed any one of
these "channelers" were being visited by angels.
Bruce Morgen
>
>
>seelite wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:10:05 GMT, edi...@juno.com (Bruce Morgen) wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, Jody's got it
>> >pretty much correct other
>> >than that one detail -- the
>> >Universe is diverse, and not
>> >even remotely hierarchical.
>>
>> The universe is very diverse. If the line saying that the universe is 'not even
>> remotely hierarchical' then, it must also be true that Bruce is half of a one
>> armed, one eyed Siamese twin midget who lives in a cave 44.8 miles below the
>> earths surface...and has never traveled outside, because they are allergic to
>> natural light and fresh air. This is also as true about Bruce as is the
>> nonsense he is saying about Creme.
>
>Bruce is being quite kind about that old spittle-spewing, overly dramatic,
>perversely dogmatic, falsely emphatic, denture chomping, fame seeking, donation
>collecting, money laundering, wife sponging old coot.
>
>[dogma snipped]
But Allen, how do you *feel*
about him? :-)
Rev. Dave 0:o)
Thanks for your set of opinions. I like boxed sets like these, so elegant
and defining. But they are just *your* opinions. I found that the Angels
know a heck of a lot more than I do or you or anyone. There are different
levels of the Astral Plane. I'm talking about the highest vibrational levels
possible. In order even to reach that which is indwelling in me, my Spirit,
my higher source, my God Within, I find it good to attune myself to the
higher spiritual plane, wherein resides all knowledge. I never said it
wasn't within. In fact if you read my posts I always tell people it is
within. It can't be located outside one's self. What you are talking about
is channeling "dead people" who may or may not have ascended to a higher or
descended to a lower vibrational state. In which case they may or may not
know more than I do physically. I would think however the spirit of
say...Nikolai Tesla, could tell me an awful lot about electricity that I
don't know off hand...
I don't want to argue esoterics here. The whole phenomenon of the Astral or
Spiritual Plane is more complex than we can know physically anyway.
As far as the Bible not being accurate in prophecy...well that is an opinion
indeed. A lot of BT's and Fundys would beg to differ. I am neither. All I
was saying to Mark, who professes Christianity, is that it is ill-advised
for a fundy Christian to promote Muslim doctrine to New Agers on an Angel
NG! LOL! It muddies the already mucked up waters...I think. There are and
have been plenty of prophets from lots of religious and spiritual schools of
thought. One cannot dismiss what exists with statements from Mohammedans
(not the Prophet himself...) from 1400 years ago...
jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <372A7FDE...@ix.netcom.com>...
>"Rev. Dave 0:o)" wrote:
>>
>> Great, Mark,
>> You believe the Muslims, but not the Christians? Didn't Jesus say he
would
>> send many to show the way? Aren't there at least two prophets mentioned
in
>> the end days? Sheesh...What is this Islamic Fundamental Christianity???
>
>Biblical prophecy is not a reliable source of data on the future.
>
>> I'm a New Ager. Channeler does NOT mean prophet. All it means is that
people
>> are opened channels to the Spiritual world.
>
>It is not a "Spiritual world," it is an astral world. They don't know
>anything more there than we know here. Plus, you don't really know
>who you're talking to anyway. And finally, you don't need them, they
>are superfluous. The kingdom of God is within.
>
>[snip]
>
>--jodyr.
Rev. Dave 0:o)
jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <372A8003...@ix.netcom.com>...
>"Rev. Dave 0:o)" wrote:
>>
>> But what other being in "Nature" exchanges and profits by exchange of
goods
>> and services??? Do Whales collect beads? Do Horses buy mirrors so they
can
>> see themselves looking good? Heck, even pack rats and crows just
generally
>> steal whatever they take a fancy too...
>
>A complex ecosystem is *based* on exchange. One animal eats a certain leaf
>and shits it out, and an insect eats the shit and acquires defense
capabilities
>because of it. We could fill gigabytes with text files with examples like
this.
>
Yes. But this is not conscious exchange agreed upon consciously by conscious
entities. A cat may give us the exchange of affection by bartering with us
for it's food...but this is not capitalism. In capitalism the cat would be
considered a free agent, who has the right to exchange its affection (which
is neither a goods nor a service per se,) to anyone willing to give it the
highest quality attention and food. In this system of ours however, the cat
is "owned" by the first person who feeds, grooms, vets and cares for and
names or licenses the cat. The cat becomes an object rather than a free
agent. Therefore the Capitalistic approach to economics is not a "natural"
one. It is thoroughly unnatural for one animal to "own" or "purchase"
another. The concepts do not exist in nature. Even slavery induced by ants
and their warfare over territories, aphid herds or fungus farms is only an
instinctual reaction from them to defend that which they have assumed
control over...the concept of ownership, goods and services, and Lazzeis
Faire (sp?) are more intellectual. They are applied concepts which are
abstractions of natural systems...but since they are not fully functioning
systems that apply naturally to all, they are, in that sense, unnatural.
>> I've never seen a contract signed between a Tasmanian Devil and a wombat!
I
>> think you should stick to what you know...whatever that is.
>
>There *is* a contract between animals who exist within the same ecosystem.
>It's not a written one silly, but it exists nonetheless.
Unwritten contracts which are only perceived by us and not even by the
animals involved are not a contract per se. Contracts involve free
negotiations among the purchasers and suppliers. Free agency is the key
here, to the theory of Capitalism. Almost nowhere else in the world except
N. America and parts of Western Europe practices true free trade and
Capitalism. Since all evidence is not yet in, we cannot presume to say
Capitalism is the "best" or most "natural" way of consciously systematizing
an ecological balance. In fact. Capitalism has gone a long way towards
completey ruining every ecosystem it touches upon. Again, this makes it more
unnatural than natural.
Some animals
>get the raw end of the deal sometimes, but nature makes up for that
>in other ways.
This is nature balancing itself. Capitalism is an unnatural non-balanced
abstract construction pplied by humans on humans only. It is a system which
barely works towards making those which live under that system happy, equal,
functioning members of society. Capitalism is, in it's very nature, a cruel
and Darwinian social construct which makes slaves of those who are more
intelligent and capable to those who manipulate the system, who keep
changing the rules, rewriting the terms and as such have an advantage over
those who are kept in the dark.
>> Capitalism is a completely human economic system. It is based on desire
to
>> have one's needs and desires filled. Animals and nature do not have their
>> needs and desires filled in this way. When your cat brings you a mouse
or a
>> bird, do you really think it expects some reciprocation? Why the heck
>> doesn't my parakeet go out and get a job and stop leaching off of me for
his
>> seed! The Little twerp!
>
>Capitalism is the cultural manifestation of the process of exchange within
>an ecosystem.
Wrong. Human life on this planet does not march in line with any
traditionally know, true ecosystem. You are refering to a closed economic
system. Not an ecological system. Ecology and capitalism do not necessarily
mix. Cultures have nothing to do with ecology. Ecological systems are fully
functional, self preserving systems, unconscious and promoted by nature in
order to maintain balance. Human systems are conscious abstractions placed
upon an ecosystem, meant to disrupt and exploit that system until there is
nothing left. Such as the Mayans did with slash and burn farming. The only
ecology they finally destroyed was their own. Until they had to come to
terms with and live with nature on nature's terms. Now we exploit the Mayans
with capitalism. Which will bring the same results to us.
Capitalism is the natural product of social evolution.
The theory of social evolution is just that, theory. We do not have full
access to our social past, nor do we even hav all the info we need to make
vital determinations on today's various social structures. One thing is
sure. Social structures vary in humans to an amazing degree,even from one
local community to the next. We often think that by imposing certain social
structures by force, as we did with the Amerinds...that, that makes our
Society better than the one it replaced. Instead of looking at the Amerind
structure and taking all it's best and offering them all our best, we became
impatient with the slowness of their social structure and sought to
deradicate it for being "primitive." Hence Capitalism is an unnatural
organizational system which does not take into account either balance or
possible bad outcomes. It is a social "force" which takes over other
systems, then tries to cover up the evidence by rewriting history.
Contracts, treaties and compacts signed by Amerinds with Whites should all
be made null and void and thWhites bereft of their recent and historical
acquisitions, if Capitalism and American Social institutions were naturally
applied and just. They are not, Not to outsiders nor insiders. People can
and do work outside Nature and God, as they are now recognized by social
science.
>Social evolution was accelerated with the invention of symbolic
communication.
>It evolved to the point where capitalism arose.
It evolved to a point where *many different and varied socio-economic
systems* arose. You speak as if Capitalism is the only system available. 1
billion Chinese would beg to differ. In fact their numbers alone prove that
the only viable alternative for world economics is Communism...if you go by
stats and numbers! There are more people in the world living under
communist, fascist or despotic/theocratic regimes than their are living
under Capitalism.
Capitalism exists because
>it is the best system nature has devised up until this point.
Totally wrong. Capitalism exists as an on-going intellectual experiment in
several countries, whose inhabitants now tentitavely agree on living under
the experimental, abstract concept, until which time it is proven to be
viable or non-viable. Apparently you've never heard the term "revolution."
Capitalism has been overthrown in places like Cuba. Communism has been
overthrown in places like Russia and Germany, Poland, etc. But their
replacement systems are not Lazzeis Faire Capitalism. Usually they are a
mix, as in Canada, Great Britain, and elsewhere like France and Germany of
Socialist and Democratic/Capitalistic concepts.
>
>> Jesus said it best...again...See the birds of the air, they neither sow
nor
>> reap, yet their Father in heaven feeds them. See the lilies of the field,
>> they neither work nor toil, yet Solomon in all his glory was never
arrayed
>> such as these..." Get it. GOD WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU. When Mankind get's
that
>> message through their thick skulls, then capitalism will cease to exist.
So
>> will Communism and every other ism.
>
>Jesus was talking about an individual's condition of surrender to God.
You've
>got to work for at least your bread in this world, no matter how
surrendered
>you are.
Jesus didn't *work* for a living. I know several millionaires and
billionaires who no longer work for a living. I know several street people
who no longer work for a living either. I know farmers who are paid NOT to
work or plant. I know entire societies, like those in the oil rich Arab
nations who receive such good government stipends that none of them need to
work a all, but rather choose to do so. I also know whole societies who do
back breaking daily labor that would kill you or I in a few months..like an
east Indian working a water wheel pump while getting a handful of rice per
day, who receive so little for their work we would call it slavery. I know
of true slaves who are made to work for their food or are killed. There are
many, many ways to gain food and services. I could show you some yogis and
ascetics who have never lifted a finger in common labor and yet are regailed
with food,clothing, places to live and worship, etc. You are generalizing.
And by generalizing you miss the point. God finds the way for those who seek
it, to make the best desired progress. Jesus was telling people to not worry
but rather to turn to God in their daily lives and like loaves and fishes,
miracles could occur...We make our own reality. There is no generalizing
personal realities. Each one is manifestly different from the other.
>
>God *will* take care of us, but She takes care of *each* of us
individually.
So? You've made my point. Generalized "social" abstractions which we call
"economies" are not driven by God or Goddess, but by mankind's blind
disobedience to both nature and God/ddess. It is our turning away from
spirit which makes things like Capitalism. It is our turning away from the
Goddess Nature, which destroys us and reduces us to abject slaves to one
another and to capitalism or communism, etc.
>You're just not going to get everyone on the same page about these things.
Right. Which means Capitalism and all the other isms would disappear
naturally, if we turned to the Spirit. And this will be done, each
individual will do it.
>There will always be some folk who want to go and do their own thing.
Fine with me...unless they all get together and through force of arms or
economics, try to take away from me what God has given. Then, I fight.
>
>> Capitalism is based on the illusions of ownership and of bartering of
owned
>> items or services to be paid with owned items or representations thereof
>> (money, honey...) Nature knows that one thing does not own another in any
>> sense of the word. The abundance of nature is used by nature for whatever
>> purpose nature provides. We think because we sow the seed andown the
field,
>> we own the wheat...looks good on paper. But what do the birds care? And
what
>> happened to the old law that a farmer should give his leftovers to the
poor
>> and needy. And that he should leave his fields fallow for a year? Man
>> doesn't want to do things natures way or God's way, it seems. When he
does
>> finally get the message, your isms will be blown away...
>>
>> Rev. Dave
>
>Man cannot escape doing things nature's or God's way. It is the only
>way things *can* be.
Yes? well, man sure keeps TRYING to escape God/ddess and Nature! And
eventually the truth (i. e. What is...Whais Natural...) will reel us in like
fish and then set us free to be who we were trully meant to be.
>
>I'm not out to boost capitalism, but I do believe that nature came up
>with it, and we both know who pulls the strings with nature. . .
Sounds like you are boosting Capitalism big-time, to me. Which is your
divine right. But my belief is that if we recognize the God Within us we can
pull the strings of nature ourselves, but gently and wonderfully, like
playing the guitar, to make beautiful, divine music together...not like
playing nature for a marionette. We are partially nature's creation, her
puppets, not totally free, until we begin to live with the laws of nature
instead of fighting against them.
You are a very intelligent and worthy debater! I salute you Judyr.! But I do
disagree...Still I say,
Namaste'
David St. Albans 0:-)
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Thanks for your set of opinions. I like boxed sets like these, so elegant
> and defining. But they are just *your* opinions. I found that the Angels
> know a heck of a lot more than I do or you or anyone. There are different
> levels of the Astral Plane. I'm talking about the highest vibrational levels
> possible.
Here's how I see it Dave. There is the manifest Universe, or in vedantic
terms Maya, and there is the transcendent Universe--comprised of nothing
other than pure being--known as Brahman.
Brahman is the very essence of each and every one of our beings; plants,
animals, human, angels or whatever. Angels don't have *anything* on
humans when it comes to connection with God however.
Any "vibrational level" is in the realm of Maya. As such it tends to
take away the ability to perceive the Self, or Brahman. What I'm
saying is that angelic realms are every bit as distracting as physical
realms when it comes to knowing the Self.
> In order even to reach that which is indwelling in me, my Spirit,
> my higher source, my God Within, I find it good to attune myself to the
> higher spiritual plane, wherein resides all knowledge. I never said it
> wasn't within. In fact if you read my posts I always tell people it is
> within.
When you say "to reach that which is indwelling. . ." you've *already*
distanced yourself from It. Again, the connection is direct to pure
being. *Anything* other than Itself distracts from It. Why bother
with the BS, no matter how high the vibration of the plane it comes
from, when each and every one of us has access to pure being?
> It can't be located outside one's self. What you are talking about
> is channeling "dead people" who may or may not have ascended to a higher or
> descended to a lower vibrational state. In which case they may or may not
> know more than I do physically. I would think however the spirit of
> say...Nikolai Tesla, could tell me an awful lot about electricity that I
> don't know off hand...
I will admit that we can communicate with beings beyond this realm
through ourselves. However, this happens on the astral level. You
can go up and down in the astral, but you're still in the astral,
and not much closer to knowing yourself as pure being.
> I don't want to argue esoterics here. The whole phenomenon of the Astral or
> Spiritual Plane is more complex than we can know physically anyway.
I would say its existence is at best superfluous.
> As far as the Bible not being accurate in prophecy...well that is an opinion
> indeed. A lot of BT's and Fundys would beg to differ. I am neither. All I
> was saying to Mark, who professes Christianity, is that it is ill-advised
> for a fundy Christian to promote Muslim doctrine to New Agers on an Angel
> NG! LOL! It muddies the already mucked up waters...I think. There are and
> have been plenty of prophets from lots of religious and spiritual schools of
> thought. One cannot dismiss what exists with statements from Mohammedans
> (not the Prophet himself...) from 1400 years ago...
Well, I'd contend that the phenomenon of "prophecy" is culturally relative,
and this includes historically relative. Just because someone apparently
said it 1000 years ago doesn't mean it holds any water today.
One can be a devoted christian and have nothing to do with the bible.
True spirituality happens wholly outside of *all* doctrines.
--jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Dear Jodyr,
> jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <372A8003...@ix.netcom.com>...
[snip]
> >A complex ecosystem is *based* on exchange. One animal eats a certain
> >leaf and shits it out, and an insect eats the shit and acquires defense
> >capabilities because of it. We could fill gigabytes with text files
> >with examples like this.
> >
>
> Yes. But this is not conscious exchange agreed upon consciously by conscious
> entities.
Conscious or not, it is *always* an exchange. It is all *about* exchange.
The web of life is a collection of *exchange* relationships between
species.
> A cat may give us the exchange of affection by bartering with us
> for it's food...but this is not capitalism. In capitalism the cat would be
> considered a free agent, who has the right to exchange its affection (which
> is neither a goods nor a service per se,) to anyone willing to give it the
> highest quality attention and food. In this system of ours however, the cat
> is "owned" by the first person who feeds, grooms, vets and cares for and
> names or licenses the cat. The cat becomes an object rather than a free
> agent. Therefore the Capitalistic approach to economics is not a "natural"
> one. It is thoroughly unnatural for one animal to "own" or "purchase"
> another.
Alpha males own their harems. Social groups of animals own their
territory. The concept of ownership evolved from territoriality.
> The concepts do not exist in nature. Even slavery induced by ants
> and their warfare over territories, aphid herds or fungus farms is only an
> instinctual reaction from them to defend that which they have assumed
> control over...the concept of ownership, goods and services, and Lazzeis
> Faire (sp?) are more intellectual. They are applied concepts which are
> abstractions of natural systems...but since they are not fully functioning
> systems that apply naturally to all, they are, in that sense, unnatural.
What you are saying is that the map *is* the territory, that the cultural
record on Capitalism defines it. No, the cultural record is just that,
a rendering of what was going on at the time through the people that
were noticing it.
[snip]
> >There *is* a contract between animals who exist within the same ecosystem.
> >It's not a written one silly, but it exists nonetheless.
>
> Unwritten contracts which are only perceived by us and not even by the
> animals involved are not a contract per se.
This is hair splitting Dave. If you as an insect are wholly dependent
on that bird's shit, you've got a contract with that bird. The ants
that protect rainforest trees from other insects have a contract with
that tree. If one or the other reneges on the deal, they're both
going to be in big trouble.
> Contracts involve free
> negotiations among the purchasers and suppliers. Free agency is the key
> here, to the theory of Capitalism. Almost nowhere else in the world except
> N. America and parts of Western Europe practices true free trade and
> Capitalism. Since all evidence is not yet in, we cannot presume to say
> Capitalism is the "best" or most "natural" way of consciously systematizing
> an ecological balance. In fact. Capitalism has gone a long way towards
> completey ruining every ecosystem it touches upon. Again, this makes it more
> unnatural than natural.
It is *wholly* natural. Alien species get into new niches and completely
destroy the diversity there. It's been happening since the dawn of life
on earth.
> >Some animals
> >get the raw end of the deal sometimes, but nature makes up for that
> >in other ways.
>
> This is nature balancing itself. Capitalism is an unnatural non-balanced
> abstract construction pplied by humans on humans only. It is a system which
> barely works towards making those which live under that system happy, equal,
> functioning members of society. Capitalism is, in it's very nature, a cruel
> and Darwinian social construct which makes slaves of those who are more
> intelligent and capable to those who manipulate the system, who keep
> changing the rules, rewriting the terms and as such have an advantage over
> those who are kept in the dark.
Well, I think I've a more adequate view, as stated above.
[snip]
> >Capitalism is the cultural manifestation of the process of exchange within
> >an ecosystem.
>
> Wrong. Human life on this planet does not march in line with any
> traditionally know, true ecosystem. You are refering to a closed economic
> system. Not an ecological system. Ecology and capitalism do not necessarily
> mix. Cultures have nothing to do with ecology. Ecological systems are fully
> functional, self preserving systems, unconscious and promoted by nature in
> order to maintain balance. Human systems are conscious abstractions placed
> upon an ecosystem, meant to disrupt and exploit that system until there is
> nothing left.
Oh please! Like there was a conspiracy of assholes that wanted to rape
and pillage the earth?
This is a very simplistic view IMO.
> Such as the Mayans did with slash and burn farming. The only
> ecology they finally destroyed was their own. Until they had to come to
> terms with and live with nature on nature's terms. Now we exploit the Mayans
> with capitalism. Which will bring the same results to us.
>
> >Capitalism is the natural product of social evolution.
>
> The theory of social evolution is just that, theory. We do not have full
> access to our social past, nor do we even hav all the info we need to make
> vital determinations on today's various social structures. One thing is
> sure. Social structures vary in humans to an amazing degree,even from one
> local community to the next. We often think that by imposing certain social
> structures by force, as we did with the Amerinds...that, that makes our
> Society better than the one it replaced. Instead of looking at the Amerind
> structure and taking all it's best and offering them all our best, we became
> impatient with the slowness of their social structure and sought to
> deradicate it for being "primitive." Hence Capitalism is an unnatural
> organizational system which does not take into account either balance or
> possible bad outcomes. It is a social "force" which takes over other
> systems, then tries to cover up the evidence by rewriting history.
> Contracts, treaties and compacts signed by Amerinds with Whites should all
> be made null and void and thWhites bereft of their recent and historical
> acquisitions, if Capitalism and American Social institutions were naturally
> applied and just. They are not, Not to outsiders nor insiders. People can
> and do work outside Nature and God, as they are now recognized by social
> science.
I'm not saying that capitalism doesn't suck, I'm saying it's natural.
Things suck in the animal world too.
> >Social evolution was accelerated with the invention of symbolic
> >communication. It evolved to the point where capitalism arose.
>
> It evolved to a point where *many different and varied socio-economic
> systems* arose. You speak as if Capitalism is the only system available. 1
> billion Chinese would beg to differ. In fact their numbers alone prove that
> the only viable alternative for world economics is Communism...if you go by
> stats and numbers! There are more people in the world living under
> communist, fascist or despotic/theocratic regimes than their are living
> under Capitalism.
Those chinese would be capitalists if the folk who ran that country
would let them.
> Capitalism exists because
> >it is the best system nature has devised up until this point.
>
> Totally wrong. Capitalism exists as an on-going intellectual experiment in
> several countries, whose inhabitants now tentitavely agree on living under
> the experimental, abstract concept, until which time it is proven to be
> viable or non-viable. Apparently you've never heard the term "revolution."
> Capitalism has been overthrown in places like Cuba. Communism has been
> overthrown in places like Russia and Germany, Poland, etc. But their
> replacement systems are not Lazzeis Faire Capitalism. Usually they are a
> mix, as in Canada, Great Britain, and elsewhere like France and Germany of
> Socialist and Democratic/Capitalistic concepts.
I'm saying the science of capitalism best describes the natural global
economic engine. My definition is much broader than yours.
Listen, I think the corporate elite sucks too, but that isn't going
to make them go away. The corporate elite have to get enlightened
before they might start cutting things loose a bit.
[snip]
> Jesus didn't *work* for a living. I know several millionaires and
> billionaires who no longer work for a living. I know several street people
> who no longer work for a living either. I know farmers who are paid NOT to
> work or plant. I know entire societies, like those in the oil rich Arab
> nations who receive such good government stipends that none of them need to
> work a all, but rather choose to do so. I also know whole societies who do
> back breaking daily labor that would kill you or I in a few months..like an
> east Indian working a water wheel pump while getting a handful of rice per
> day, who receive so little for their work we would call it slavery. I know
> of true slaves who are made to work for their food or are killed. There are
> many, many ways to gain food and services. I could show you some yogis and
> ascetics who have never lifted a finger in common labor and yet are regailed
> with food,clothing, places to live and worship, etc. You are generalizing.
> And by generalizing you miss the point. God finds the way for those who seek
> it, to make the best desired progress. Jesus was telling people to not worry
> but rather to turn to God in their daily lives and like loaves and fishes,
> miracles could occur...We make our own reality. There is no generalizing
> personal realities. Each one is manifestly different from the other.\
More simplistic thinking. God helps those who help themselves, and
if we don't get out there and make our daily bread, things are going
to suck.
> >God *will* take care of us, but She takes care of *each* of us
> individually.
>
> So? You've made my point. Generalized "social" abstractions which we call
> "economies" are not driven by God or Goddess, but by mankind's blind
> disobedience to both nature and God/ddess. It is our turning away from
> spirit which makes things like Capitalism. It is our turning away from the
> Goddess Nature, which destroys us and reduces us to abject slaves to one
> another and to capitalism or communism, etc.
Turning away from the Goddess Nature? Not possible. She *contains* us.
> >You're just not going to get everyone on the same page about these things.
>
> Right. Which means Capitalism and all the other isms would disappear
> naturally, if we turned to the Spirit. And this will be done, each
> individual will do it.
Now here I agree. If we get the rich folk enlightened, then we could
change things. Telling them to go talk to angels is not the best
way to help manifest this however.
> >There will always be some folk who want to go and do their own thing.
>
> Fine with me...unless they all get together and through force of arms or
> economics, try to take away from me what God has given. Then, I fight.
You have every right to fight for what God gave you, although you've
now admitted to a desire to protect ownership.
[snip]
> >Man cannot escape doing things nature's or God's way. It is the only
> >way things *can* be.
>
> Yes? well, man sure keeps TRYING to escape God/ddess and Nature! And
> eventually the truth (i. e. What is...Whais Natural...) will reel us in like
> fish and then set us free to be who we were trully meant to be.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
> >I'm not out to boost capitalism, but I do believe that nature came up
> >with it, and we both know who pulls the strings with nature. . .
>
> Sounds like you are boosting Capitalism big-time, to me.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm boosting
capitalism. I'm boosting the concept that capitalism is a natural
outgrowth of cultural evolution, which is the natural outgrowth of
being able to use symbols.
I'd love to be able to change the system too. It's not going to
happen all at once. Things rarely do in the real world. Getting
folks to turn to Spirit is the key, and there are better ways to
do this than talking to angels.
> Which is your
> divine right. But my belief is that if we recognize the God Within us we can
> pull the strings of nature ourselves, but gently and wonderfully, like
> playing the guitar, to make beautiful, divine music together...not like
> playing nature for a marionette. We are partially nature's creation, her
> puppets, not totally free, until we begin to live with the laws of nature
> instead of fighting against them.
I pray to *always* be my Mother's little puppet. I can think of *no*
better fate than that.
> You are a very intelligent and worthy debater! I salute you Judyr.! But I do
> disagree...Still I say,
> Namaste'
>
> David St. Albans 0:-)
You're very kind to complement me so. Thanx for the opportunity to
discuss these things with you. The view you hold is natural too, in
that when we recognize how much we as a species have f*cked up the
planet it's easy to hate the thing we deem responsible.
takecare--jodyr.
Rev. Dave 0:o)
do, which is evident. I do not see the Spiritual as superfluous, but I do
see this conversation as such. We don't see eye to eye, but barking at each
other about religious dogma doesn't bring us any closer to our true
beingness either. You look over there and I'll look over here and maybe one
of will find it. It is evident you haven't found it yet...otherwise you
would be acting on it...instead of arguing with the Divine Aspect in me.
More...
>Here's how I see it Dave. There is the manifest Universe, or in vedantic
>terms Maya, and there is the transcendent Universe--comprised of nothing
>other than pure being--known as Brahman.
>
>Brahman is the very essence of each and every one of our beings; plants,
>animals, human, angels or whatever. Angels don't have *anything* on
>humans when it comes to connection with God however.
No one said that, Jody...I said they "knew" more about both the Vedic and
Maya than I embody or have access to right now, being trapped in the
Illusion of Maya. But once in awhile, with the angels' help, I get nearer my
God in me.
>
>Any "vibrational level" is in the realm of Maya. As such it tends to
>take away the ability to perceive the Self, or Brahman. What I'm
>saying is that angelic realms are every bit as distracting as physical
>realms when it comes to knowing the Self.
That may or may not be so. I wouldn't know. Since I am not fully Self
Realized. But then neither are you.
>
>> In order even to reach that which is indwelling in me, my Spirit,
>> my higher source, my God Within, I find it good to attune myself to the
>> higher spiritual plane, wherein resides all knowledge. I never said it
>> wasn't within. In fact if you read my posts I always tell people it is
>> within.
>
>When you say "to reach that which is indwelling. . ." you've *already*
>distanced yourself from It.
No, I am expressing a feeling I have. I only distance myself when I perceive
and act on distancing. What you are doing is kind of spiritually putting me
down for not being fully realized. But you cannot do that with any real
strength if you yourself are not fully self realized.
Again, the connection is direct to pure
>being. *Anything* other than Itself distracts from It. Why bother
>with the BS, no matter how high the vibration of the plane it comes
>from, when each and every one of us has access to pure being?
I'd rather not call my spiritual journey or that of others,"BS." I call
everything a magnificent miracle of self realization and knowingness. Sorry
to have disturbed your meditations as yet another manifested argumentative
entity on the NG. But you are not all you are cracking yourself up to
be...If we all had direct access to pure being, we would all be there and
not be dilly dallying with this nonsense...
>
>> It can't be located outside one's self. What you are talking about
>> is channeling "dead people" who may or may not have ascended to a higher
or
>> descended to a lower vibrational state. In which case they may or may not
>> know more than I do physically. I would think however the spirit of
>> say...Nikolai Tesla, could tell me an awful lot about electricity that I
>> don't know off hand...
>
>I will admit that we can communicate with beings beyond this realm
>through ourselves. However, this happens on the astral level. You
>can go up and down in the astral, but you're still in the astral,
>and not much closer to knowing yourself as pure being.
When did the Spiritual Quest become an "either/or" proposition??? It
wouldn't be much of a quest if you arrived to your destination without any
work or distraction or living at all. Have you never heard it is the journey
which counts, not the destination?
Look, you can be the Buddha if you want to be. You can think everything is a
distraction. I like distraction. I like the distraction of a beautiful
sunset, a tidal pool, the gardens of heaven, the choirs of angels...If you
think angels are just BS and a distraction, I suggest you find a place of
more peaceful self-realization to post on...this place will distract you all
to heck!
>
>> I don't want to argue esoterics here. The whole phenomenon of the Astral
or
>> Spiritual Plane is more complex than we can know physically anyway.
>
>I would say its existence is at best superfluous.
I wouldn't.
>
>> As far as the Bible not being accurate in prophecy...well that is an
opinion
>> indeed. A lot of BT's and Fundys would beg to differ. I am neither. All I
>> was saying to Mark, who professes Christianity, is that it is
ill-advised
>> for a fundy Christian to promote Muslim doctrine to New Agers on an Angel
>> NG! LOL! It muddies the already mucked up waters...I think. There are and
>> have been plenty of prophets from lots of religious and spiritual schools
of
>> thought. One cannot dismiss what exists with statements from Mohammedans
>> (not the Prophet himself...) from 1400 years ago...
>
>Well, I'd contend that the phenomenon of "prophecy" is culturally relative,
>and this includes historically relative.
And your point is??? Do you not live in history or a culture? Or are you
purely outside and not affected by anything so guache?
Just because someone apparently
>said it 1000 years ago doesn't mean it holds any water today.
It would have if someone had listened 1000 years ago and used their minds to
overcome some catastrophe or another. Or taught us how to do it. And if we
look back at a prophecy of 1000 years ago and see that it came true, it
might hold a lot of water, since it would show that people can and often do
accurately predict coming events...it would shed a new light on our
universe. You sound so high minded and above it all. What's wrong with a bit
of prophecy now and then? Sounds like you and Mark just want to bag the
whole show and get out of town...
>
>One can be a devoted christian and have nothing to do with the bible.
>True spirituality happens wholly outside of *all* doctrines.
Yes, thank you, Jody...I knew that. But we are in the Maya of
alt.religion.angels here. If you don't like it, change your mindset or
redirect your energies. I won't mind!
>
>--jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> do, which is evident. I do not see the Spiritual as superfluous, but I do
> see this conversation as such. We don't see eye to eye, but barking at each
> other about religious dogma doesn't bring us any closer to our true
> beingness either. You look over there and I'll look over here and maybe one
> of will find it. It is evident you haven't found it yet...otherwise you
> would be acting on it...instead of arguing with the Divine Aspect in me.
> More...
I guess you have me there.
> >Here's how I see it Dave. There is the manifest Universe, or in vedantic
> >terms Maya, and there is the transcendent Universe--comprised of nothing
> >other than pure being--known as Brahman.
> >
> >Brahman is the very essence of each and every one of our beings; plants,
> >animals, human, angels or whatever. Angels don't have *anything* on
> >humans when it comes to connection with God however.
>
> No one said that, Jody...I said they "knew" more about both the Vedic and
> Maya than I embody or have access to right now, being trapped in the
> Illusion of Maya. But once in awhile, with the angels' help, I get nearer my
> God in me.
I would say, once in awhile you get nearer your God in you by *believing*
the angels are helping you. What I believe is that you have just helped
*yourself*, using the angel thing as a way to focus your intent.
> >Any "vibrational level" is in the realm of Maya. As such it tends to
> >take away the ability to perceive the Self, or Brahman. What I'm
> >saying is that angelic realms are every bit as distracting as physical
> >realms when it comes to knowing the Self.
>
> That may or may not be so. I wouldn't know. Since I am not fully Self
> Realized. But then neither are you.
Once again you've got me.
> >> In order even to reach that which is indwelling in me, my Spirit,
> >> my higher source, my God Within, I find it good to attune myself to the
> >> higher spiritual plane, wherein resides all knowledge. I never said it
> >> wasn't within. In fact if you read my posts I always tell people it is
> >> within.
> >
> >When you say "to reach that which is indwelling. . ." you've *already*
> >distanced yourself from It.
>
> No, I am expressing a feeling I have. I only distance myself when I perceive
> and act on distancing. What you are doing is kind of spiritually putting me
> down for not being fully realized. But you cannot do that with any real
> strength if you yourself are not fully self realized.
I'm not putting you down, and I'm sorry you see it that way. :(
The way I see it, we're comparing ideas. You and I *aren't* these ideas,
but you and I *use* these ideas, and we're trying to make them more
useful by rubbing them against one another to see what sticks and what
falls off.
I do believe that some ways of engaging spirit are better than
others. I also believe that *all* ways of engaging spirit can
be more than adequate when applied sincerely.
> Again, the connection is direct to pure
> >being. *Anything* other than Itself distracts from It. Why bother
> >with the BS, no matter how high the vibration of the plane it comes
> >from, when each and every one of us has access to pure being?
>
> I'd rather not call my spiritual journey or that of others,"BS." I call
> everything a magnificent miracle of self realization and knowingness. Sorry
> to have disturbed your meditations as yet another manifested argumentative
> entity on the NG. But you are not all you are cracking yourself up to
> be...If we all had direct access to pure being, we would all be there and
> not be dilly dallying with this nonsense...
I didn't think I was cracking myself up to be anything more save another
asshole with an opinion. Nobody's spiritual journey is BS, and that
wasn't what I was implying. To put it another way, it is *all* BS,
but we find it very helpful sometimes and so continue to use it.
We *do* all have access to pure being, *all* of us right now. We *are*
pure being having the experience of a being a human individual.
[snip]
> >I will admit that we can communicate with beings beyond this realm
> >through ourselves. However, this happens on the astral level. You
> >can go up and down in the astral, but you're still in the astral,
> >and not much closer to knowing yourself as pure being.
>
> When did the Spiritual Quest become an "either/or" proposition??? It
> wouldn't be much of a quest if you arrived to your destination without any
> work or distraction or living at all. Have you never heard it is the journey
> which counts, not the destination?
> Look, you can be the Buddha if you want to be. You can think everything is a
> distraction. I like distraction. I like the distraction of a beautiful
> sunset, a tidal pool, the gardens of heaven, the choirs of angels...If you
> think angels are just BS and a distraction, I suggest you find a place of
> more peaceful self-realization to post on...this place will distract you all
> to heck!
And therein lies the real problem. We're cross-posting to groups
we don't normally survey.
[snip]
> >Well, I'd contend that the phenomenon of "prophecy" is culturally relative,
> >and this includes historically relative.
>
> And your point is??? Do you not live in history or a culture? Or are you
> purely outside and not affected by anything so guache?
The point is to make your own prophecy. We are all microcultures
onto ourselves, so we really can do this for ourselves.
> Just because someone apparently
> >said it 1000 years ago doesn't mean it holds any water today.
>
> It would have if someone had listened 1000 years ago and used their minds to
> overcome some catastrophe or another. Or taught us how to do it. And if we
> look back at a prophecy of 1000 years ago and see that it came true, it
> might hold a lot of water, since it would show that people can and often do
> accurately predict coming events...it would shed a new light on our
> universe. You sound so high minded and above it all. What's wrong with a bit
> of prophecy now and then? Sounds like you and Mark just want to bag the
> whole show and get out of town...
Nah. I want to know the joy of playful engagement, which is why I put
up with the distractions on USENET. This engagement has been especially
joyful, thank you Dave.
> >One can be a devoted christian and have nothing to do with the bible.
> >True spirituality happens wholly outside of *all* doctrines.
>
> Yes, thank you, Jody...I knew that. But we are in the Maya of
> alt.religion.angels here. If you don't like it, change your mindset or
> redirect your energies. I won't mind!
I'm sorry for disturbing you folk on alt.religion.angels, and thanks
again Dave for the discussion.
takecare--jodyr.
Mark Gerard Miller
<whispe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Yes, thank you, Jody...I knew that. But we are in the Maya of
>alt.religion.angels here. If you don't like it, change your mindset or
>redirect your energies. I won't mind!
David, Jodyr was having an intelligent discussion with you. In
response, throughout your lengthy reply, you invited him at least
twice to quit posting here on alt.religion.angels. Why do you so
frequently invite people to leave the newsgroup?
David H. Ellison
"Rev. Dave 0:o)" wrote:
> No one said that, Jody...I said they "knew" more about both the Vedic and
> Maya than I embody or have access to right now, being trapped in the
> Illusion of Maya. But once in awhile, with the angels' help, I get nearer my
> God in me.
Actually Dave, you're just compounding illusion with a lie, since you are not in
contact with angels, either.
> No, I am expressing a feeling I have. I only distance myself when I perceive
> and act on distancing. What you are doing is kind of spiritually putting me
> down for not being fully realized. But you cannot do that with any real
> strength if you yourself are not fully self realized.
Get defensive next time LOL, you really didn't understand the post at all, did
you? What's fully realized?
> I'd rather not call my spiritual journey or that of others,"BS." I call
> everything a magnificent miracle of self realization and knowingness.
More B.S. like your so-called Angels, which first you adamantly claimed to
channel, but now admit that was a lie. It bothers you that you to be so
transparent, doesn't it?
> Sorry
> to have disturbed your meditations as yet another manifested argumentative
> entity on the NG. But you are not all you are cracking yourself up to
> be...If we all had direct access to pure being, we would all be there and
> not be dilly dallying with this nonsense...
There is no difference.
> When did the Spiritual Quest become an "either/or" proposition??? It
> wouldn't be much of a quest if you arrived to your destination without any
> work or distraction or living at all. Have you never heard it is the journey
> which counts, not the destination?
What makes you think there is no 'work' involved?
> Look, you can be the Buddha if you want to be.
Which only illustrates your ignorance.... LOL, you be happy if you could just
convince someone you weren't a liar... too late.
> You can think everything is a
> distraction. I like distraction.
Here, I must agree, I like distraction too.
> I like the distraction of a beautiful
> sunset, a tidal pool, the gardens of heaven, the choirs of angels...
Stop the record, we're talking distraction, not sham.
> If you
> think angels are just BS and a distraction, I suggest you find a place of
> more peaceful self-realization to post on...this place will distract you all
> to heck!
LOL, considering the message is cross posted, you whining, lying, ignorant,
delusional, wannabe Angel cult leader; the post could be coming from a more
peaceful. Just because you've spent your time disrupting things over here with
your character assassinations, and poison emails, and lies... does not mean it
is indicative of other ngs.
> >> I don't want to argue esoterics here. The whole phenomenon of the Astral
> or
> >> Spiritual Plane is more complex than we can know physically anyway.
> >
> >I would say its existence is at best superfluous.
>
> I wouldn't.
That's because you didn't understand the post you replied too.
>
> >
> >> As far as the Bible not being accurate in prophecy...well that is an
> opinion
> >> indeed. A lot of BT's and Fundys would beg to differ. I am neither. All I
> >> was saying to Mark, who professes Christianity, is that it is
> ill-advised
> >> for a fundy Christian to promote Muslim doctrine to New Agers on an Angel
> >> NG! LOL! It muddies the already mucked up waters...I think. There are and
> >> have been plenty of prophets from lots of religious and spiritual schools
> of
> >> thought. One cannot dismiss what exists with statements from Mohammedans
> >> (not the Prophet himself...) from 1400 years ago...
> >
> >Well, I'd contend that the phenomenon of "prophecy" is culturally relative,
> >and this includes historically relative.
>
> And your point is??? Do you not live in history or a culture? Or are you
> purely outside and not affected by anything so guache?
>
> Just because someone apparently
> >said it 1000 years ago doesn't mean it holds any water today.
>
> It would have if
pretty much says it right there.
> Yes, thank you, Jody...I knew that. But we are in the Maya of
> alt.religion.angels here. If you don't like it, change your mindset or
> redirect your energies. I won't mind!
Of course you won't mind, you'd like everyone to go away, that you feel
threatened by. You don't mind dissenting opinions LOL as long as they are
yours.... Take your own advice.
> >--jodyr.
Good post jodyr.
David H. Ellison
jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> "Rev. Dave 0:o)" wrote:
> >
> > Right. Which means Capitalism and all the other isms would disappear
> > naturally, if we turned to the Spirit. And this will be done, each
> > individual will do it.
>
> Now here I agree. If we get the rich folk enlightened, then we could
> change things. Telling them to go talk to angels is not the best
> way to help manifest this however.
But it's how Reviled Dave is trying to make a buck.
> takecare--jodyr.
Mark Gerard Miller
<whispe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> All I
>was saying to Mark, who professes Christianity, is that it is ill-advised
>for a fundy Christian to promote Muslim doctrine to New Agers on an Angel
>NG! LOL! It muddies the already mucked up waters...I think. There are and
>have been plenty of prophets from lots of religious and spiritual schools of
>thought. One cannot dismiss what exists with statements from Mohammedans
>(not the Prophet himself...) from 1400 years ago...
David, I have said this before and I will say it again. The way I
choose to worship God is the way I was taught as a child: as a
Catholic. But I have no problem whatsoever with how anyone chooses to
worship God or Goddess or rock spirit or Plumed Serpent ... the list
goes on and on and on. For that matter, I really don't care if people
worship at all. It just doesn't matter to me.
Quoting Muslim doctrine is not necessarily promoting it. How does it
muddy the waters? Shouldn't we look to all systems of belief for clues
about the divine? Or would you rather have us just sit here and listen
to your alleged angels give insights into the divine instead of
seeking insight wherever we may find it? I for one won't do this, and
it's asinine and arrogant and stupid of you to suggest that I should.
Just out of curiosity, what traditions, in your view, would it be OK
for me to quote from on alt.religion.angels?
And I still don't think you are channeling angels or whatever it is
you claim to do with them. I'm still waiting for one of the people on
this group who either claims to be an angel or a messiah to visit me
with the spirit. It hasn't happened yet.
Raine
Mark Gerard Miller wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 May 1999 23:49:02 -0700, "Rev. Dave 0:o)"
> <whispe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Rev.Oh Oh
> >Yes, thank you, Jody...I knew that. But we are in the Maya of
> >alt.religion.angels here. If you don't like it, change your mindset or
> >redirect your energies. I won't mind!
Me:
Can't stand hearing the truth about yourself and how much you DON'T
know, can you Rev.? As soon as someone comes along and states facts or
tries to be real with you, you go off like a dud firecracker. If you
would post reasonably, and quit sniping at anything that won't make you
a penny or two, you might learn what you only pretend to know. Then
again, if it's something you can use, you chase people away and then
repeat them when they're gone. You are a real upstanding and reliable
guy, Rev. We can always count on you to disrupt anything that makes you
look as unintelligent as you are.
Maya of ARA, indeed! As if you knew anything at all about what you
speak.
Sorry, Jody. Please continue posting. It is interesting and there are
people here who wish to continue dialogue regardless of Rev. Oh Oh's
netherworldly non-experiences.
>Mark:
> David, Jodyr was having an intelligent discussion with you. In
> response, throughout your lengthy reply, you invited him at least
> twice to quit posting here on alt.religion.angels. Why do you so
> frequently invite people to leave the newsgroup?
>
> Mark Gerard
Me:
Jody was posting intelligently. Rev.OHOH did not reply as such. Mark, he
dispises anyone who reveals him to be the phoney that he is. That is it,
pure and simple. And if no one listens to him, he goes on a rampage.
Does your PC have a sprinkler system?
>
Rev. Dave 0:o)
thinks angels are BS and just another way of hiding from the Self
Realization of the Vedic World. She called herself "an asshole with an
opinion." She said that my belief in angels was self motivated and was in
fact "nothing," but me talking to myself. This is Hindu/Buddhist thought
and dogma. She seemed to be saying she did not believe in what I believe in.
So, why is she posting to me? Why are we arguing? If you are unhappy here,
there are other places to post where you would be happier...I want her to be
happy. I thought she was angry and upset. I thought it was maybe because she
cross-posted to people she did not only disagree with, but was entirely
different from...When people argue with me, I don't generally assume that
they are having a rollicking good time. If you are, you might mention it. If
not, then I might ask if you would not rather post elsewhere? I wasn't
"inviting" her to do so. I just am tired of being the focus of people's
arguments against the angelic in my life...I don't want to argue about that.
I want to learn and share information and discuss varying viewpoints,
without having a war about it.
As it turns out, jodyr's viewpoints and mine are actually quite similar in a
cosmic sort of way...whereas yours and mine are very different.
If she's happy here, discussing with me or anyone, I hope she will stay.
But one more unhappy, self effacing, low self-esteem individual wanting to
prove to me that what I believe is hogwash, is definitely not what I need
today...
Rev. Dave 0:o)
Don't leave on my account. I just thought you were very unhappy with me, my
beliefs and my arguments. Please stick around and post all you like. I enjoy
discussion. I just don't enjoy put downs. I may use them, but that doesn't
mean I like them. I certainly don't consider you another asshole with an
opinion!!! All people to me are fabulous jewels of God's creation. You
yourself are erudite, intelligent, intellectual and your beliefs are well
thought out. It has been a joy for me to discuss with you. I thought you
sounded unhappy with the whole alt.angels thing is all. Now people are
accusing me of making you leave! Not a bit of it! I invite you to stay...In
fact I think you have a lot to offer the dogmatically entrenched hereabouts!
Sorry if I was sound like you should leave...Stay, and be happy!
Namaste'
David St. Albans 0:-)
jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <372C35D2...@ix.netcom.com>...
Rev. Dave 0:o)
Maya is the Hindu world of Illusion. This NG is the Illusion of a discussion
group about angels, which you continually disrupt.
You will never give up this war, will you?
I don't recall you posting a thing to Jodyr.
I don't recall me "despising" anything but your rudeness, your meddlesome
ways and your consistently cruel attacks on people.
I certainly don't recall telling Jodyr about any commercial ventures.
I'm sorry that you don't want me to make a living. The feeling is mutual.
I'm sorry you think I'm a liar and a disrupter, but as usual you are wrong.
I'm sorry you don't want to give up the war. But you are wrong in that as
well.
I'm sorry you are such a miserable, screwed up person. But you were that
long before I came along. There are such things as anger workshops, grief
therapy, groups for people who have lost loved ones. They are good things to
attend. I suggest you do so, for your own sake.
I am sorry, very very sorry, especially at mother's day, that you lost a
son. But you are not the only one and it does not give you special
dispensation to hate me and malign me and oppose me in every post you write.
I did not say anything bad about your deceased son. I said, that I didn't
believe you were either a mother or had any children. The reason I believed
that is because you swear and bitch like a drunken sailor...your swaggering
and throwing about of oaths is very mannish and abusive. You started doing
this the moment you first posted to me. You continue of course to tell
people that is a lie. Well, look it up. It is the truth. You seem to have a
psychological dilemma that I cannot solve for you. Annex bid you to soften
your heart and warm up to people you don't know...Instead you called them
Anus. You did, not Shiva, not Ellison, you. And now you are in denial about
it. Well. I did not take my posts about you, from you, apart and re-edit
them. They are singular examples of a bad temper, an uneasy spirit, and a
hard heart.
I do not like you Raine. I keep trying vainly to end this conflict. Yet,
because I even had the "nerve" to speak of your deceased son, you have gone
on a rampage! I don't know and can't tell if you are an alien entity, an
angel in human clothes, a channeler, a medium, a spiritual guru of some sort
of esoteric belief system unknown to me...I know what my angels tell
me...but I reserve telling you that information, because it would possibly
worsen this warfare you are goading us into. Whenever I speak directly to
you all I hear back is Ellison and his gargoyle's defense of you...Well to
believe him I would have to have a hole in my head. He is a deceitful man
and I don't like him either.
So go on with your petty conflict. You are having no effect upon me
whatsoever. The truth will always be the truth. I have told the truth since
I have been here and it is your deceitful and denying mind which calls it a
lie. You have supporters, Noor, Ellison, Shiva, Jana...why don't you just
post to them privately what a terrible person I am? I'll tell you why,
because you and Ellison wanted war, fomented war, continue the war and will
never stop fighting...you believe "might makes right," and the more you
curse, cajole and stir up trouble, the more everyone will be on your side.
Big Deal. I don't care...get it??? You are nothing but words on a screen.
And they are becoming increasingly boring, repetitious and nonsensical as
the days go by...I don't believe in you. You are nothing to me. Nothing. You
don't exist. I am posting to the air, just to vent. I rename you MayaRaine.
Me.
Paine wrote in message <372CD4C5...@usaor.net>...
>Msg follows------->
>
>Mark Gerard Miller wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 1 May 1999 23:49:02 -0700, "Rev. Dave 0:o)"
>> <whispe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Rev.Oh Oh
>> >Yes, thank you, Jody...I knew that. But we are in the Maya of
>> >alt.religion.angels here. If you don't like it, change your mindset or
>> >redirect your energies. I won't mind!
David H. Ellison
jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> We *are* pure being having the experience of a being a human individual.
That sums it up.
> I want to know the joy of playful engagement, which is why I put
> up with the distractions on USENET.
Actually, I like the play everywhere.
> I'm sorry for disturbing you folk on alt.religion.angels, and thanks
> again Dave for the discussion.
The original message (if you could it that) gets cross posted to various groups
from time to time... needless to say, 'anna_mcdonald' never posts anything, save
this same message... non profit spam, for any number of possible reasons.... as
far as I can tell, it could've been worst... we could've gotten some die hard
fundamentalists in here... as for the poster you are replying to.... LOL pay no
attention to the 'angels' he's hiding behind... and vice versa.
> takecare--jodyr.
om shantih shantih shantih
jo...@ix.netcom.com
[snip]
> But one more unhappy, self effacing, low self-esteem individual wanting to
> prove to me that what I believe is hogwash, is definitely not what I need
> today...
> Namaste'
>
> David St. Albans 0:-)
Well, I've a ton of self esteem, and I *still* think what you believe is
claptrap.
;)
--jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Look, Jodyr...
> Don't leave on my account. I just thought you were very unhappy with me, my
> beliefs and my arguments. Please stick around and post all you like. I enjoy
> discussion. I just don't enjoy put downs. I may use them, but that doesn't
> mean I like them. I certainly don't consider you another asshole with an
> opinion!!! All people to me are fabulous jewels of God's creation. You
> yourself are erudite, intelligent, intellectual and your beliefs are well
> thought out. It has been a joy for me to discuss with you. I thought you
> sounded unhappy with the whole alt.angels thing is all. Now people are
> accusing me of making you leave! Not a bit of it! I invite you to stay...In
> fact I think you have a lot to offer the dogmatically entrenched hereabouts!
> Sorry if I was sound like you should leave...Stay, and be happy!
> Namaste'
>
> David St. Albans 0:-)
Well, to be honest I never wanted to post to alt.religion.angels anyway.
Originally I was critiquing Share International and the concept of the
world teacher. You replied to one of those posts, challenging my
points against their ideology. Hence our discussion.
I don't think I have anything to offer you or alt.religion.angels
as I think angels are superfluous and redundant. Not to say that
they aren't really nice beings and all, but I will always
maintain that contact with them is a waste of time if one is
sincerely interested in knowing who they *really* are.
Your opinion differs, and it seems your whole world view revolves
around the angel thing, so we're just going to keep butting
heads.
At any rate, have fun and take care.
--jodyr.
Rev. Dave 0:o)
Looking to make waves. I never said once that I was not ever going to
"vibrate on a lower level..." And I also said if that is what anyone chooses
to do, let them do it. There is no good and bad in the vibrational sense.You
are the judge, not me. But try to get my words right. And stop looking for
trouble...otherwise you'll be the one vibrating on a lower wave length,
chum...
Rev. Dave
Mark Gerard Miller wrote in message <372cecff...@206.171.12.203>...
>On Sun, 02 May 1999 15:42:13 -0700, Raine <jmt...@usaor.net> wrote:
>
>>Me:
>>Jody was posting intelligently. Rev.OHOH did not reply as such. Mark, he
>>dispises anyone who reveals him to be the phoney that he is. That is it,
>>pure and simple. And if no one listens to him, he goes on a rampage.
>>Does your PC have a sprinkler system?
>
>Hi, Raine. The thought occurred to me today that David St. Albans is a
>troller. He keeps saying he's not going to vibrate on lower levels,
>and then he goes right ahead and stirs up as much low vibration as he
>possibly can. He gets attention this way. He sees that he upsets
>people, and he likes to see people upset. It's the only thing I can
>figure about the guy.
>
>Question:
>
>Is David St. Albans a troller?
Rev. Dave 0:o)
on this NG...I think I might as well get gone and leave the communists and
socialists to their little games...It's been real!
I am so glad I don't know these people in Real Life!
Thanks, Phillip, though, for at least being objective...
Rev. Dave
angel...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7gitiv$qst$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <372C8BC5...@one.net>,
> "David H. Ellison" <rRmi...@one.net> wrote:
>
>> But it's how Reviled Dave is trying to make a buck.
>>
>
>Oh god. Here we go again.
>
>;-)
>
>--
>Philip Lynx: GC v3.12 GS d- s-:- a--- C+>$ U P L E W+>W++$ N++ o? K
>w--(---) O? M V? PS(+) PE Y PGP- t-- 5- X+ R- tv-- b+ DI+++>DI++++ D G
>e* h-- r y?
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Clap-Trap or no, I wasn't referring to you in that sentence. What I meant
> was that I didn't like arguing with people who have low-self esteem, are
> unhappy or see my view of the world as useless or weird, etc. That goes for
> a lot of people who already post here. I don't need another one of those in
> my life. Is what I meant. You say you're happy and have high self-esteem,
> that's O.K. with me.
>
> However, I think a person who defines other's beliefs as BS, clap-trap and
> superfluous, is looking for their Self Realized Being in all the WRONG
> places...
I'm not looking for the Self in these exchanges. I'm looking to respond
to your responses, and I'm looking to express my opinions. You can
infer whatever you want about my status as a knower of the Self from
your evaluation of my style, approach and content.
> I can't recall any of the noted Masters ever coming off like that.
> Hence this idea I have of you cracking yourself up to be something you
> ain't. Is it just me or what? I didn't tell you your belief system was
> useless...but it is, if this is how you act upon it.
> Sorry, just observing.
>
> Rev. Dave
I'm attacking what you believe, I'm not attacking you. You can express
whatever opinion you'd like about my beliefs. I welcome the opportunity
to respond, thereby either honing my ideas or finding better ones to
hold.
There have been many so called masters who have stood up against what
they saw as lame spirituality. Swami Vivekananda comes to mind. He
toured the US and Europe at the turn of the century taking on the
likes of Alice Bailey, Blatvatsky and a host of fundamentalist
ministers.
I'm sorry you take my critique personally. I'd say it shows a bit
of attachment to what you believe. This may be just fine in your
book. It's not up to me to tell you what you should believe.
However, in USENET we all can have our say, and some come to
listen to it. If I can discourage *one* person from believing
that talking to angels is the best way to find the very core
of their own Self then I've done good in my book.
--jodyr.
angel...@my-dejanews.com
Mark Gerard Miller
Mark Gerard Miller
Mark Gerard
On Sun, 2 May 1999 18:46:43 -0700, "Rev. Dave 0:o)"
<whispe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Mark, A troller is somebody looking for a fight.
>Looking to make waves. I never said once that I was not ever going to
>"vibrate on a lower level..." And I also said if that is what anyone chooses
>to do, let them do it. There is no good and bad in the vibrational sense.You
>are the judge, not me. But try to get my words right. And stop looking for
>trouble...otherwise you'll be the one vibrating on a lower wave length,
>chum...
>
>Rev. Dave
>Mark Gerard Miller wrote in message <372cecff...@206.171.12.203>...
Rev. Dave 0:o)
"Are you threatening me? I am cornholio! I need buttwipes for my cornhole!"
hehehehehehehe!"
Lay off the sugar, Beavis!
What would I be threatening you with? I'm no magician. I don't have much
power that I know of...What I'm saying...and try to follow me on this...when
you seek to judge others and attack them and be mean to them and call them
retards, stupid, etc. etc. for no other reason but that you are pissed off,
you are ALREADY VIBRATING AT ALOW RATE. Hell, I do it all the time. I just
don't want to!. Whereas most people seem to revel in it.
See?
"Stop threatening me! I am Cornholio!" You are a riot!
Namaste'
David St. Albans 0:-)
Mark Gerard Miller wrote in message <372d14d2...@206.171.12.203>...
Marc Zienkiewicz
> One can be a devoted christian and have nothing to do with the bible.
> True spirituality happens wholly outside of *all* doctrines.
Yes! I couldn't agree more. Religion (doctrine) is like a tree; all the
major religions are just leaves on that tree, but they all share the
same root, the root being the core of spirituality. Unfortunately, when
you take to one of the leaves, you give up your chance for
self-realization. Not to say religion is bad, religion is a wonderful
thing that can enrich anyone's life, but religion in itself is not the
path to realization. In order to realize the self, one must bypass the
leaves and go right to the root, the true center of all spirituality.
Just my 2 cents.
Marc
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
[snip]
> >I'm not looking for the Self in these exchanges.
>
> You should be looking for the Self in every exchange, if you are a true
> seeker. Buddha could have told you that one...
I'm not a buddhist, and the Self exists outside of all communication.
I'm not seeking anything except a rational exchange of ideas.
> >I'm looking to respond
> >to your responses, and I'm looking to express my opinions.
>
> You cannot respond to a response or express and opinion without revealing
> your true self. If I can see it, why can't you?
The true Self exists prior to all communication and is untouched by
the activity of the jiva. What you are terming "true self" I'm calling
personality. I'm revealing my personality in my posts. True Self is
never revealed, except to Itself.
> >You can
> >infer whatever you want about my status as a knower of the Self from
> >your evaluation of my style, approach and content.
>
> I just have. It's fairly low level, with a high degree of learned knowledge
> and not much inate wisdom. A true seeker would never feel the need to
> "attack" someone else's beliefs.
Ok.
> >> I can't recall any of the noted Masters ever coming off like that.
> >> Hence this idea I have of you cracking yourself up to be something you
> >> ain't. Is it just me or what? I didn't tell you your belief system was
> >> useless...but it is, if this is how you act upon it.
> >> Sorry, just observing.
> >>
> >> Rev. Dave
> >
> >I'm attacking what you believe, I'm not attacking you.
>
> I feel you are attacking me. For the soul behind the beliefs is that which
> manifests those beliefs into reality. If you don't like the beliefs, you
> don't like the reality and you certainly cannot appreciate fully the Creator
> behind the reality.
This is newage claptrap.
> >You can express
> >whatever opinion you'd like about my beliefs. I welcome the opportunity
> >to respond, thereby either honing my ideas or finding better ones to
> >hold.
>
> I have no trouble with what you believe. I understand Maya and Vedic
> realities. I've been to both. You are correct, in the root of it, that much
> of what we see and do is distraction from the Truth of our Being. Where we
> differ is I believe there is a purpose behind the Maya. That it is there to
> help us remember our Selves. I believe that we must travel at the rate of
> speed and within the confines of the Maya which will best aid us in Self
> discovery. But I also believe that all things of the Maya must be cherished,
> blessed and released with love. This is the true love of the God within. For
> if I am truly One with God,then I have created Maya for my purposes and my
> good reason and should respect myself for that. Your belief seems to express
> the ascetic personality, one who wishes to rid ones self of the illusion by
> shattering it and/or controlling it. Hence your terms, BS, superfluous,
> attack, etc. etc.
You can't "go" to Maya or Vedic realities. We are already there.
I *love* Maya. She is my Mother. Only Maya can free us from the ignorance
She imposes. She has shown me that *everything* is a distraction, but
some things are insidiously distracting. For example believing that we
need contact sources *outside* of us to connect with that which is
*inside* us.
> >There have been many so called masters who have stood up against what
> >they saw as lame spirituality. Swami Vivekananda comes to mind. He
> >toured the US and Europe at the turn of the century taking on the
> >likes of Alice Bailey, Blatvatsky and a host of fundamentalist
> >ministers.
>
> If that was his path, then he has my blessing. If it your path, you have my
> blessing. But you cannot attack or destroy my belief, many have tried and
> failed. That is because my belief has become faith bred from seeing
> results...healing, reattachment to the eternal, end to abuses and other
> evils...etc. I see miracles and I respond to them. I see myself as a
> miracle. I see you as a miracle. If you try to see things as useless
> misfunctions and things to be tossed away, you are digging a hole downwards,
> not ascending upwards.
I'm not trying to destroy anything. I'm stating my opinion and defending
it. It's called discussion.
The process of realization is *not* an ascension or descension. It is
a simple uncovering. If we believe we must "ascend" to realization
we're not going to find it.
> >I'm sorry you take my critique personally. I'd say it shows a bit
> >of attachment to what you believe.
>
> Should I be attached to what YOU believe? Or do you think a person can exist
> unattached to any belief? Even Buddha loved roasted pork...I would rather
> follow the Eight Fold path. Everything in moderation, but sample it
> all...especially the Good.
Attachment to anything hinders realization. Not that we aren't all
attached to stuff, but just that we are *all* hindered by the attachment.
> This may be just fine in your
> >book. It's not up to me to tell you what you should believe.
> >However, in USENET we all can have our say, and some come to
> >listen to it. If I can discourage *one* person from believing
> >that talking to angels is the best way to find the very core
> >of their own Self then I've done good in my book.
>
> Well, that's good for you. Disabusing people of their belief system may or
> may not work. If the person is barely on the Spiritual path, your way of
> doing things could send them reeling back towards Maya. You are asking
> people who don't even know what spirituality is, to relinquish all, to
> become Self. That is not your duty. That is your Path. Inviting people to
> tread your path because it will serve them should be done with grace and
> kindness...You seem to have a minor mean streak. As if you are just really
> tired and put-off by people not self realizing as quickly as you think they
> should. Be that as it may. tread your path, and I will tread mine. Why, when
> we meet upon the road, we have to distract and upset one another and parry
> and thrust, I do not know. Someday I will know why. Then I will be at peace.
>
> Rev. Dave
I aim to discourage people from accepting newage claptrap as spirituality.
That's all. It's only my opinion. All can choose to accept it or reject
for whatever reason they can apply.
I'm put off by people who claim that we need beings outside ourselves to
help us on our path. Living teachers are certainly a blessing, but angels
and ascended masters are unnecessary and dubious at best, and I bet if we
could *really* talk to them they would tell us the very same thing.
--jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
>
> >
> >> >I'm not looking for the Self in these exchanges.
> >>
> >> You should be looking for the Self in every exchange, if you are a true
> >> seeker. Buddha could have told you that one...
> >
> >I'm not a buddhist, and the Self exists outside of all communication.
> >I'm not seeking anything except a rational exchange of ideas.
>
> subject? You are not a self-realized individual, a yogi, a buddha, a
> boddhisatva, a reverend of some church or another, an author, etc.
In the marketplace of ideas, the only qualification necessary is the
strength of one's reasoning. The readers of these forums can make
their own decisions about the veracity of my or your posts based on
this alone.
You really have no idea as to my status as a knower of the Self.
You only have assumptions based on an evaluation of my writing as
seen through the tint of your ideology.
> You have
> propsed nothing about yourself that speaks of authority in these subject
> matters except a very high handed opinion of yourself as recognizing
> yourself as an authority on whatever the heck it is you are talking about. I
> am a published author, a reverend and Reiki Master. And I say that what
> youare talking is Hindu clap-trap. It is not true Hinduism, or spiritualism.
> New agers have as much right to speak their beliefs as you do. So without
> authority of any kind, and with this attitude of yours of trying to disabuse
> people of their beliefs I would say you're all talk and no action...
Ok.
> >> >I'm looking to respond
> >> >to your responses, and I'm looking to express my opinions.
> >>
> >> You cannot respond to a response or express and opinion without revealing
> >> your true self. If I can see it, why can't you?
> >
> >The true Self exists prior to all communication and is untouched by
> >the activity of the jiva. What you are terming "true self" I'm calling
> >personality. I'm revealing my personality in my posts. True Self is
> >never revealed, except to Itself.
>
> This is high falutin' nonsense. Your True Self manifests your personality.
> There are links between all realms. A Master can look up or down those links
> and see the Truth at any time. Because there is only One Self. However,
> let's talk personality...you seem to want me to believe something about your
> personality and it's greatness, which I do not see. I don't agree that you
> have a great personality. In fact you seem to be mean tempered and rather
> curmudgeonly. Sorry, that's my observation. This type of personality may be
> comforting to you, but it is in no way comforting or helpful to me. So you
> are right, we willonly be butting heads on these issues...
For me there are two realms and two realms only: Maya and Brahman. Any and
all of the realms you speak of exist in Maya. Only Brahman exists in the
realm of Brahman.
I don't want you to believe anything about me except that which you choose
to believe about me. I'm not attempting to present anything about my self
to you or anyone else on these groups. I'm merely posting my opinions and
waiting to see them knocked down. You have challenged my opinions but have
done a poor job attempting to knock them down, at least so far.
[snip]
> >> I feel you are attacking me. For the soul behind the beliefs is that
> >> which manifests those beliefs into reality. If you don't like the
> >> beliefs, you don't like the reality and you certainly cannot appreciate
> >> fully the Creator behind the reality.
> >
> >This is newage claptrap.
>
> Prove it. What you are saying is "I don't believe you." For no reason at
> all. You are looking at yourself in a mirror and pronouncing your self to be
> BS. You refuse to see the many paths to Self Realization. You find my words
> unacceptable to your personality. But the words are nevertheless true. There
> is one Creator. This Creator has created many individual aspects of Self.
I see many paths, and I see some are better than others. Again I will
state that *any* path will work when applied sincerely, even the lousy
ones like talking to angels. I maintain that to spend time in this
way is a waste of time as you're going to get past it anyway. You may
as well jump right to where you're going to end up rather than slogging
through the newage mystification.
> You are only one. I am only one. When we fight one another or dislike one
> another we are fighting the Self which created us...which is Illusory
> behavior a best. Stating something is "New Age clap-trap" is meant to be an
> authoritative statement, yet you have no back up. Two people can forever go
> on arguing by spewing mini-statements of disbelief..."You're full of crap!"
> "No, you're full of crap!" "You're insane, what you say is nonsense," "No
> you're the one who's crazy!" But if there is no proof of any of these
> statements, where is their truth?
My backup is the lack of challenge to my posts. Only you have challenged
me and you have done little to succeed in that challenge. If I am so wrong
then others would let me know as you are attempting.
[snip]
> >You can't "go" to Maya or Vedic realities. We are already there.
>
> Then let me say I have "experienced" both.
Perhaps.
> >I *love* Maya. She is my Mother. Only Maya can free us from the ignorance
> >She imposes. She has shown me that *everything* is a distraction, but
> >some things are insidiously distracting.
>
> If Maya is showing you things, she is showing you illusions...
> "insidiously distracting???" Highly doubtful. Nothing the Creator has made
> is insidious. You only view it as such. You are adrift in your own
> prceptions, which are tainted with the idea that one thing is better than
> another. This perception in itself is at the very seat of Illusion.
So you say. If this was true we'd have to abandon discrimination, which
is the cornerstone of vedantic practice.
> For example believing that we
> >need contact sources *outside* of us to connect with that which is
> >*inside* us.
>
> I never once said myself, you or anyone else *needed* anything outside of
> ourselves to realize the Self. There is in fact, no inside or outside. There
> is only being. Whether a person prays to a phallus stone or a statue of the
> Virgin Mary is of no concern to a true seeker of the Self. Whether I believe
> in angelic guidance or you do not, is not a concern of yours. What you are
> trying to do is spread a little bit of Jodyr philosophy around the NG's,
> while not explaining what the philosophy is, what one needs to do to
> understand and follow it and what the eventual outcome will be. You're using
> words like clap-trap and BS when all that is, is ego aggrandizement. You
> proove those statements and I might be inclined to see things your way. If
> youdon't care if I see things your way, then you are on a selfish path and
> all these arguments are moot...unless you are just trying to convince
> yourself of something. I think you are. I think you've picked up some
> traditionalist Hindu dogma somewhere and you are trying to make it real by
> using people like me as sounding boards. That is not how it works.
Sure Dave.
[snip]
> >I'm not trying to destroy anything. I'm stating my opinion and defending
> >it. It's called discussion.
>
> It is no longer discussion when you do not respond to the issues and only
> keep defending your right not to respond to the issues! That is a whirlpool
> of circular logic which leads nowhere. If you are trying to tell me what I
> believe is crap,then you are either #1. trying to hurt my feelings for no
> good reason. Or #2. Trying to get me to see mybeliefs are wrong and
> therefore unreal and therefore should be disassembled and new beliefs put in
> their place.This is destruction. Especially since you are not giving me a
> new set of honest beliefs to cling to. You are trying then only to "blow me
> out of the water." A frankly, bad American habit used by personalities who
> think they are above other people.
Please list the issues and I will respond to them in order. But post it
on USENET so we can both benefit from the participation of others.
I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, and I'm sorry this is the effect
of my opinion. I'm not trying to change your beliefs, I'm just
presenting an opinion that may or may not be of use to others who
are beginning the exploration of spirituality for the first time
in this life.
> >The process of realization is *not* an ascension or descension. It is
> >a simple uncovering. If we believe we must "ascend" to realization
> >we're not going to find it.
>
> Well, you haven't found it yet going the way you are going. The Masters talk
> of descent and ascent. The "experience" of Spiritual Realization for me is
> one of uplift to a higher experience, or a going down into a more cellular,
> physical manifestation. Since I don't live in the gravityless bounds of
> outerspace, I suppose that's the way I will always see things. Up or down,
> left or right. Until somebody shows me another way. You're not doing it. So
> I cannot depend upon your judgment of what I or others should experience.
> Again you are talking some sort of dogmatic structure which you are not
> fully revealing. A Catholic would tell you that since you haven't converted
> and had communion that you will never see God. So what? They have told you
> nothing of what any of that actually means! So they are simply repeating
> something they were told. Either bring me into your mysteries gently, with
> compassion or leave me alone.
You're the one who keeps replying to my replies. Why don't you just leave
it alone? I certainly need not continue, and only do so because you do so.
[snip]
> >Attachment to anything hinders realization. Not that we aren't all
> >attached to stuff, but just that we are *all* hindered by the attachment.
>
> What you call a hindrence, I call a blessing of experience.
Ok.
[snip]
> >I aim to discourage people from accepting newage claptrap as spirituality.
>
> Then you had better offer some specific replacement. You calling anything
> clap-trap is not making you an inviting or spiritually ascended looking
> personality. There are about fifteen people on the ARA alone who act and
> talk just as you do. Everything you know is right, everything someone like
> me knows is wrong, and I just have tolive with it!? We call what you are
> doing "flaming." It is no longer agrgument or discussion or even airing
> viewpoints. It is the attack of someone else's belief system for absolutely
> no reason at all. Except that you think you are right and they are wrong.
> I'd like to see proof of all this highhanded Vedic/Maya clap-trap. This
> wonderful Hindu knowledge that has virtually destroyed the entire Indian
> subcontinent and enslaved the people there to a regimented Caste system, and
> constant war between religious factions...Tell me are you a Sikh? Is that
> what this is all about? Just what are you into?
People can find their own paths. All I'm saying is that talking to angels
is less than ideal. In fact it's *way* off compared to any number of other
paths.
> >That's all. It's only my opinion. All can choose to accept it or reject
> >for whatever reason they can apply.
>
> I choose to reject it as dogma which has not been adequately presented to me
> so that I could make a real choice. I'll stick to my beliefs, which I
> promote to aid others in their quest, not keep them in the dark.
Fine. I'll do the same.
> >I'm put off by people who claim that we need beings outside ourselves to
> >help us on our path. Living teachers are certainly a blessing, but angels
> >and ascended masters are unnecessary and dubious at best, and I bet if we
> >could *really* talk to them they would tell us the very same thing.
>
> There's another negatory word, "Dubious."I talk to them all the time, and
> yes, they tell me that one must take what one can use from them and the
> whole world and throw away the rest. But when they speak they are gentle,
> loving, understanding and in accordance with both the Divine and one
> another. Whatever it is you have against ascended masters, anscestors,
> angels, whatever you call them, is fine, but it sounds to me as if it's
> making you lonely, temperamental and crotchety. You sound like my
> Grandfather! "Hogwash! Clap-Trap! BS!" I'll tell you what I told
> him..."Prove it! Say it! Don't spray it! You mean old man!" In the end, he
> died without even giving me a consolation of love. He died a lonely,
> unhappy, scared individual. I've died like that myself several times. I
> don't choose to do so again. Which is why I say...
> Namaste'
>
> Rev. David St. Albans
> >--jodyr.
Raine
"Rev. Dave 0:o)" wrote:
>
> Maya is the Hindu world of Illusion. This NG is the Illusion of a discussion
> group about angels,
Yep. Ever since you got here.
> which you continually disrupt.
I don't think so. But you are more than welcome to your opinion...as
long as it's yours.
>
> the days go by...I don't believe in you. You are nothing to me. Nothing. You
> don't exist.
You only wish that, Rev. Hush. Listen. Better get out the nitro.
> I am posting to the air, just to vent.
Hmmm. Flames and air. You need a vent for that....unless of course, you
just want hot air. LOL I love your illusions and really intensely
dislike your allusions. But they are yours. Everything that makes you so
beloved everywhere you post.
> I rename you MayaRaine.
Hmmm. MayaRaine. I sort of like that. Gee, thanks, Rev. And here, I
thought you were just being your usual ungracious self.
PS:
I didn't need to post to Jodyr. The discussion was going along nicely
and it was interesting. Very, very nice to see intelligent discussion on
the NG again...save for you. Don't you get it, Rev.? I don't need to
post to every single post to be interested and/or learning. I also don't
need to flame everyone and everything I don't agree with either. People
are entitled to their spirituality. Because their's and mine may not be
exactly alike, does not automatically entitle me to insult them. It
doesn't entitle you to either.
This is ARA and it is a usenet DISCUSSION group. If you don't like the
discussion, discuss something else. That's all there is to it.
Thanks again,
MayaRaine
oooooo. I DO like that. It's pretty.
sh...@my-dejanews.com
Marc Zienkiewicz <mzie...@callisto.uwinnipeg.ca> wrote:
> jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > One can be a devoted christian and have nothing to do with the bible.
> > True spirituality happens wholly outside of *all* doctrines.
True Spirituality happens when we have perfect love and faith in a Living
Master.
>
> Yes! I couldn't agree more. Religion (doctrine) is like a tree; all the
> major religions are just leaves on that tree, but they all share the
> same root, the root being the core of spirituality.
Religions are generally started after a True Master has left this world. The
Master was the root or core of the spirituality.
Unfortunately, when
> you take to one of the leaves, you give up your chance for
> self-realization. Not to say religion is bad, religion is a wonderful
> thing that can enrich anyone's life, but religion in itself is not the
> path to realization. In order to realize the self, one must bypass the
> leaves and go right to the root, the true center of all spirituality.
In order to get to the root, we need a True Master to take us there.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Marc
Michael Martin
Teaching the Truth
[kenneth]
wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:30:13 GMT, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>Your wishful thinking belies your lack of faith in yourself. The
>>world doesn't need nor does it want a "World Teacher", despite your
>>wishes and beliefs to the contrary.
>
>Hi. If there could be a teacher filled with divine power who helped us
>to live in peace and ti share resources more equitably and to stop
>raping the Earth, would you welcome him (or her)? I know you don't
>believe he will come, but would you welcome him?
Many have come and tried this..... none of them succeeded.
Even your beloved maitreya would fail, mankind never will change. Why
should we because some so called master wants it?
What about our free will? etc etc etc
Kenneth
seelite
>On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 00:38:51 GMT, mg...@msn.com (Mark Gerard Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:30:13 GMT, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>>Your wishful thinking belies your lack of faith in yourself. The
>>>world doesn't need nor does it want a "World Teacher", despite your
>>>wishes and beliefs to the contrary.
>>Hi. If there could be a teacher filled with divine power who helped us
>>to live in peace and ti share resources more equitably and to stop
>>raping the Earth, would you welcome him (or her)? I know you don't
>>believe he will come, but would you welcome him?
>
>Many have come and tried this..... none of them succeeded.
They were doing work in preparation for the coming time. They succeeded,
in disseminating certain teachings, but after they left, their followers
misinterpreted many of the original teachings and created dogma and
other sorts of foolishness. Still, there have been thousands of people who
saw beyond the nonsense, and managed to grasp, aspects of the
teachings.
>Even your beloved maitreya would fail, mankind never will change.
Right. We haven't changed we're still like apes? No evolution has taken
place at all? Need I remind you that only yesterday, most people thought that
the world was flat? That women and blacks were bought and sold? That
the churches used to control 99% of the people?
> Why
>should we because some so called master wants it?
It's all a part of a Plan. We don't have to get involved if we don't want to.
>
>What about our free will? etc etc etc
Our free will is always respected, but still it has limits...after all, we're
like pre-k children who are asleep most of the time. The idea of
human rights for blacks and women, was in opposition to many
people's free will, at first.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that never before has an
Avatar been on the world stage while we've had the communications
technology that we have today. The ideas for the technology, were not invented
by the inventors alone. The ideas were impressed on their minds. The
technology was give to us, to fulfill aspects of the Plan for our evolution.
Someone can be seen and heard all over the world, live. As you will soon see,
that will make a very significant difference...to the whole world community.
Also, don't forget that what people believe or disbelieve has absolutely no
impact on that which is and will always be: perfect order, perfect plans, and
perfect beings who are administering same. Most people are not in touch with
reality. During the next several hundred years, that will change. Also, the
changes of the past 100 years will pale in comparison to the changes of the
next 100 years. The changes in the future will be mostly take place in
humanity's hearts and minds.
About the World Teacher: www.shareintl.org
A Course in Miracles www.acim.org
Esoteric topics/articles: www.inetport.com/~one/direso.html
Mark Gerard Miller
Hi, seelite. I don't think we have perfect order and perfect plans. As for
the perfection of the beings who are supposedly guiding us ... perhaps.
The way this works is that God doesn't meddle at all in the grand scheme of
things until he sends a messiah. That's why we have the holocausts, murder
and rapine, such horribly destructive pollution and agriculture. That's why
we have so much wealth concentrated in the hands of such a tiny minority of
human beings. If this is the perfect order of these perfect beings of yours,
you can have them. I will await a true messiah who will storm onto the world
stage and establish peace and justice for all of the peoples of mankind,
redistribute the wealth and stop the rape of Mother Earth. Peace.
Mark Gerard
anna_m...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >seelite wrote:
>
> >Listen dude, my critique is sound despite my taking liberties.
> >
> >1. There is no hierarchy of masters that we need pay *ANY* attention to.
>
> True. If they're so evolved and wonderful, they wouldn't care if you
> paid them heed or worshipped them or not.
None of them want to be worshipped.
They have for countless centuries, guided our evolution
from behind the scenes. A part of the plan for our evolution
involves them externalizing...working openly from the world
stage and offering us advice which will help us get our act together.
Many people think that without some radical changes in the near future,
that we will destroy the life support systems on earth...so we need
some guidance.
Right now, 99% of the people are *out* of touch with reality, and only
partially aware of the physical plane. There are no true 'leaders' on the
world stage with ample light in their heads. The Masters of Wisdom will
teach mankind to get in touch with our true nature and lead us from the
unreal and to the real. Most won't believe this until they've seen these
amazing people in person or on TV... that will be very soon.
Suggest that you try to keep an open mind about it and avoid making
*assumptions*.
More info:
http://www.shareint.org
http://www.inetport.com/~one/direso.html
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Bruce Morgen
>In article <3729938b...@206.171.12.203>,
> mg...@msn.com (Mark Gerard Miller) wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:38:45 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> >seelite wrote:
>>
>> >Listen dude, my critique is sound despite my taking liberties.
>> >
>> >1. There is no hierarchy of masters that we need pay *ANY* attention to.
>>
>> True. If they're so evolved and wonderful, they wouldn't care if you
>> paid them heed or worshipped them or not.
>
>
>None of them want to be worshipped.
>
Since they are fictions born
of the imaginations of
Blavatsky, Bailey, and Creme,
the are incapable of wanting
anything other than what
their spokes(wo)man writes
about.
>They have for countless centuries, guided our evolution
>from behind the scenes.
What a comforting image!
>A part of the plan for our evolution
>involves them externalizing...working openly from the world
>stage and offering us advice which will help us get our act together.
Kind of like "Dear Abby"
and "Ann Landers" with auras,
and similarly effective.
>Many people think that without some radical changes in the near future,
>that we will destroy the life support systems on earth...so we need
>some guidance.
>
The guidance is already
available -- there's a balance,
an equilibrium between greed
and liberty on one end of the
spectrum and generosity and
community on the other. This
balance is constantly
readjusting itself.
>Right now, 99% of the people are *out* of touch with reality, and only
>partially aware of the physical plane.
There is the ego prize for
Anna and her fellow quaffers
of Bailey's Creme -- they are
comforted and bolstered in
their entirely unlikely
belief system by the thought
of being among the elite 1%
that is supposedly in "touch
with reality." The currency
of fealty to Creme's vision
is good old-fashioned ego
jollies.
>There are no true 'leaders' on the
>world stage with ample light in their heads.
Note that "ample light in
their heads" does not imply
an open mind so much as an
empty skull -- one wonders
whether a flashlight shone in
a 'treyabot's left ear will
will yield "ample light" from
the right ear! That said,
one is hard put to find *any*
time in human history when
there were "true 'leaders' on
the world stage," the current
crop of politicians and
priests is surely no better
and no worse than at any other
point in human history.
>The Masters of Wisdom will
>teach mankind to get in touch with our true nature and lead us from the
>unreal and to the real.
Keep in mind that according to
Bailey's Creme "the real"
includes (among many fanciful
notions) "Space Brothers."
>Most won't believe this until they've seen these
>amazing people in person or on TV... that will be very soon.
>
With all due respect, my
advice is not to hold your
breath for this event -- but
of course suit yourself!
>Suggest that you try to keep an open mind about it and avoid making
>*assumptions*.
>
I agree, take *nothing*
Bailey's Creme *or* his
opponents assert at face
value, look into it for
yourself. Remember, to "keep
an open mind" (to stay
receptive) is not the same as
to have an empty head (to be
a gullible dupe of those who
tell us glamorous stories
that appeal to the childish,
wishful aspect of human
nature).
__________________________________________________
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm
m(_ _)m
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> In article <3729938b...@206.171.12.203>,
> mg...@msn.com (Mark Gerard Miller) wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:38:45 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > >seelite wrote:
> >
> > >Listen dude, my critique is sound despite my taking liberties.
> > >
> > >1. There is no hierarchy of masters that we need pay *ANY* attention to.
> >
> > True. If they're so evolved and wonderful, they wouldn't care if you
> > paid them heed or worshipped them or not.
>
> None of them want to be worshipped.
But they *do* want to be *followed*, don't they? There isn't much of
a difference, is there? And the worst part about it is that in order
to "follow" them we have to listen to the likes of Creme and whatever
other guru wannabes he appoints. No thanks lady. You can count on
me to be dead set against you, at least until one of these "Masters"
comes knocking at my door, and even then I'm going to put him or her
through the third degree.
> They have for countless centuries, guided our evolution
> from behind the scenes. A part of the plan for our evolution
> involves them externalizing...working openly from the world
> stage and offering us advice which will help us get our act together.
> Many people think that without some radical changes in the near future,
> that we will destroy the life support systems on earth...so we need
> some guidance.
Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure. Whatever. What do you mean by "working openly"?
I cannot see these so called "Masters", where are they?
> Right now, 99% of the people are *out* of touch with reality, and only
> partially aware of the physical plane. There are no true 'leaders' on the
> world stage with ample light in their heads. The Masters of Wisdom will
> teach mankind to get in touch with our true nature and lead us from the
> unreal and to the real. Most won't believe this until they've seen these
> amazing people in person or on TV... that will be very soon.\
Very soon, huh? Seelite says "fairly soon". I say *never*. We'll see
who's right at some kind of "soon", won't we?
Because I don't believe in your "Masters of Wisdom" I'm out of touch
with reality? Yeah right! I'd take a look at the statement and reconsider
*who* is out of touch.
> Suggest that you try to keep an open mind about it and avoid making
> *assumptions*.
There is absolutely no reason to keep an open mind about the existence
of a fantasy "spiritual government" promoted by guru wannabe dilettantes
in the mold of Alice Bailey.
--jodyr
Allen Crider
anna_m...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <3729938b...@206.171.12.203>,
> mg...@msn.com (Mark Gerard Miller) wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:38:45 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > >seelite wrote:
> >
> > >Listen dude, my critique is sound despite my taking liberties.
> > >
> > >1. There is no hierarchy of masters that we need pay *ANY* attention to.
> >
> > True. If they're so evolved and wonderful, they wouldn't care if you
> > paid them heed or worshipped them or not.
>
> None of them want to be worshipped.
Makes sense, since dead guys are dead guys, and although Creme channels
countless 'follow me' tearjerkers claiming Maya-treya overshadowing, this thing,
this picture, this astral double (of Creme's) doesn't exist.
>
> They have for countless centuries, guided our evolution
> from behind the scenes.
Can you try and put it in your own words? What scenes? Are you watching a movie?
> A part of the plan for our evolution
> involves them externalizing...working openly from the world
> stage and offering us advice which will help us get our act together.
Oh, I see... a stage bigger than Broadway, yet still just a play.
> Many people think that without some radical changes in the near future,
> that we will destroy the life support systems on earth...so we need
> some guidance.
What do you think?
> Right now, 99% of the people are *out* of touch with reality,
Is that what the audio tape says right before you do your 2-hour Transmission Meditation?
> and only
> partially aware of the physical plane.
The physical plane keeping your attention in the wrong place, that is, if you
are striving to live a spiritual life.
> There are no true 'leaders' on the
> world stage with ample light in their heads.
This is a wonderful world. There are many human beings who love this world, love
humanity and work to make a better life for all.
> The Masters of Wisdom will
> teach mankind to get in touch with our true nature and lead us from the
> unreal and to the real. Most won't believe this until they've seen these
> amazing people in person or on TV... that will be very soon.
Santa-Treya is NOT coming to town. You are NOT going to get the toy you wanted.
No matter how much you demand it be so.
> Suggest that you try to keep an open mind about it and avoid making
> *assumptions*.
>
Allen Crider
anna_m...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <3738CC6F...@ix.netcom.com>,
> jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > But they *do* want to be *followed*, don't they? There isn't much of
>
> "The only real hope of people today . . . is a renewal of our certainty
> that we are rooted in Earth and, at the same time, in the cosmos. This
> awareness endows us with the capacity for self-trans-cendence . . .
> Transcendence as a hand reached out to those close to us, to foreigners,
> to the human community, to all living creatures, to nature, to the
> universe; transcendence as a deeply and joyously experienced need to be
> in harmony even with what we ourselves are not, what we do not
> understand, what seems distant from us in time and space, but with which
> we are nevertheless mysteriously linked because, together with us, all
> this constitutes a single world." Vaclav Havel
In your previous posting you said, "There are no true 'leaders' on the world
stage with ample light in their heads.
Can you accept that Mr. Havel has light in his head? Or you looking for a leader
to put light in YOUR head?
anna_m...@my-dejanews.com
> But they *do* want to be *followed*, don't they? There isn't much of
No they do **not** want to be followed. We're talking about people who
have evolved quite far ahead of most people... so far that they no
longer have to concern themselves with our dark planet/civilization.
They have voluntarily stayed behind, to help us get out of our self
created hell. You seem to be anxious to put them in a folder in your
mind, where you put all the false gurus who want followers, their money
and all that.
> a difference, is there? And the worst part about it is that in order
> to "follow" them we have to listen to the likes of Creme and whatever
<snip>
Just forget it! If it's true you'll realize it soon enough...and you'll
never have to listen to Creme or anyone else if you don't want to.
There is no penalty for not believing him or other like-minded people.
You will always be free. You might want to work at understanding the
meaning of the word "unassuming" and work at including that into your
attitude towards people and concepts which you are not familiar with.
:-)
Best regards,
Anna
"The only real hope of people today . . . is a renewal of our certainty
that we are rooted in Earth and, at the same time, in the cosmos. This
awareness endows us with the capacity for self-trans-cendence . . .
Transcendence as a hand reached out to those close to us, to foreigners,
to the human community, to all living creatures, to nature, to the
universe; transcendence as a deeply and joyously experienced need to be
in harmony even with what we ourselves are not, what we do not
understand, what seems distant from us in time and space, but with which
we are nevertheless mysteriously linked because, together with us, all
this constitutes a single world." Vaclav Havel
Anyone reading this who wants to read an brief essay on the Masters of
Wisdom, visit: http://www.inetport.com/~one/ajmasts.html
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> In article <3738CC6F...@ix.netcom.com>,
> jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > But they *do* want to be *followed*, don't they? There isn't much of
>
> No they do **not** want to be followed. We're talking about people who
> have evolved quite far ahead of most people... so far that they no
> longer have to concern themselves with our dark planet/civilization.
> They have voluntarily stayed behind, to help us get out of our self
> created hell. You seem to be anxious to put them in a folder in your
> mind, where you put all the false gurus who want followers, their money
> and all that.
Where is that folder Anna? I can't seem to find the one you are talking
about. And what's the deal with this light/dark dichotomy? Haven't the
"Masters" told you that they *both* come with the deal?
> > a difference, is there? And the worst part about it is that in order
> > to "follow" them we have to listen to the likes of Creme and whatever
> <snip>
>
> Just forget it! If it's true you'll realize it soon enough...and you'll
> never have to listen to Creme or anyone else if you don't want to.
> There is no penalty for not believing him or other like-minded people.
> You will always be free. You might want to work at understanding the
> meaning of the word "unassuming" and work at including that into your
> attitude towards people and concepts which you are not familiar with.
I prefer to cuddle with the sword of discrimination, and it sure sings
to me when this ascended "Masters" crap gets thrown around.
> :-)
> Best regards,
> Anna
>
> "The only real hope of people today . . . is a renewal of our certainty
> that we are rooted in Earth and, at the same time, in the cosmos. This
> awareness endows us with the capacity for self-trans-cendence . . .
> Transcendence as a hand reached out to those close to us, to foreigners,
> to the human community, to all living creatures, to nature, to the
> universe; transcendence as a deeply and joyously experienced need to be
> in harmony even with what we ourselves are not, what we do not
> understand, what seems distant from us in time and space, but with which
> we are nevertheless mysteriously linked because, together with us, all
> this constitutes a single world." Vaclav Havel
>
> Anyone reading this who wants to read an brief essay on the Masters of
> Wisdom, visit: http://www.inetport.com/~one/ajmasts.html
Interesting how you use Havel to pimp your "Masters" BS. I wonder if he
is on board yet?
--jodyr.
Tim Harris
Allen Crider wrote:
> In your previous posting you said, "There are no true 'leaders' on the world
> stage with ample light in their heads.
>
> Can you accept that Mr. Havel has light in his head? Or you looking for a leader
> to put light in YOUR head?
It is more like looking for a true master with 'my' light in 'his' head....
Gentle Peace.
Tim Harris
seelite
>anna_m...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<snip>
>> They have for countless centuries, guided our evolution
>> from behind the scenes.
>
>Can you try and put it in your own words? What scenes? Are you watching a movie?
In case you don't know what 'behind the scenes' means,' it means outside of the
limelight; activities taking place which most people don't know about.
>
>> A part of the plan for our evolution
>> involves them externalizing...working openly from the world
>> stage and offering us advice which will help us get our act together.
>
>Oh, I see... a stage bigger than Broadway, yet still just a play.
People who are 'on the world stage' are people who are frequently
in the news and known by most people who pay attention to the news.
Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, etc.
<snip>
seelite
>In your previous posting you said, "There are no true 'leaders' on the world
>stage with ample light in their heads.
>
>Can you accept that Mr. Havel has light in his head? Or you looking for a leader
>to put light in YOUR head?
While I think that Mr. Havel is very bright, and brighter than 99% of the famous
people, I think that he is dim when compared to those who'll soon be on the
world stage. It's been around 80,000 years since there have been Masters of
Wisdom on the world stage...and as I've said before, I would rather clean public
toilets than try to argue that this is true.
Allen Crider
seelite wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 May 1999 22:55:38 -0700, Allen Crider <caps...@sirius.com> wrote:
>
> >In your previous posting you said, "There are no true 'leaders' on the world
> >stage with ample light in their heads.
> >
> >Can you accept that Mr. Havel has light in his head? Or you looking for a leader
> >to put light in YOUR head?
>
> While I think that Mr. Havel is very bright, and brighter than 99% of the famous
> people, I think that he is dim when compared to those who'll soon be on the
> world stage.
Mr. Havel exists and is working here, now! 'Those who will soon be on the world
stage' is nothing more than a picture. I hint that a kind radiance toward
actual, existing human beings who do well also does well for this world at
large. This is a tired cliché, but is the glass half empty, or half full?
> It's been around 80,000 years since there have been Masters of
> Wisdom on the world stage...
That is just a story. Just a story. Try and acclimate your consciousness to what
you imagine a master of wisdom would do... and act as if you were they. Nothing
is supernatural. You are the hope of the world, Dottie, not they.
> and as I've said before, I would rather clean public
> toilets than try to argue that this is true.
Somebody has to clean public toilets. This is a "doing" in the real world.
Tim Harris
Allen Crider wrote:
> This is a tired cliché, but is the glass half empty, or half full?
>
Neither. The contents of the glass have nothing to do with the glass itself. The glass
is the glass. The water in the glass is 'whole' unto itself. Only when we put the glass
and water together then try to determine their relation together do we get confused.
Thus, the glass is full AND the water is full.
Gentle Peace.
Tim Harris
jo...@ix.netcom.com
seelite @ concentric . net wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 1999 22:55:38 -0700, Allen Crider <caps...@sirius.com>
wrote:
>
> >In your previous posting you said, "There are no true 'leaders' on
the world
> >stage with ample light in their heads.
> >
> >Can you accept that Mr. Havel has light in his head? Or you looking
for a leader
> >to put light in YOUR head?
>
> While I think that Mr. Havel is very bright, and brighter than 99% of
the famous
> people, I think that he is dim when compared to those who'll soon be
on the
Masters of
> Wisdom on the world stage...and as I've said before, I would rather
clean public
> toilets than try to argue that this is true.
You'll have a lot more luck with the toilets too! ;)
--jodyr.
[Kenneth]
>>Even your beloved maitreya would fail, mankind never will change.
>
>Right. We haven't changed we're still like apes? No evolution has taken
>place at all? Need I remind you that only yesterday, most people thought that
>the world was flat? That women and blacks were bought and sold? That
>the churches used to control 99% of the people?
Evolution is *not* spiritual growth.
Man did not evolve from apes. This has not been proved beyond doubt. If
you believe God created man, then how did we evolve from apes?
If you had said that apes *de-evolved* from man, I would say yes,
correct. Science should be looking at this rather.
Thought changes, ie the earth is flat theory, is not *evolution*. It is
a change in thinking, brought about by a change in perception.
Woman and blacks being sold is not evolution, it is economics. If you
think this is no longer done in 1999, think again.
The churches controlling 99% of the people is not based on evolution. It
is based on free will.... either you allow yourself to be controlled by
churches or not. You wish to be controlled by maitreya and creme.... you
are allowing yourself to be controlled by another form of church.
Nothing has changed in allowing ourselves to be controlled by others.
This is not evolution.
Mankind has not changed. All the above are not indications of spiritual
growth, or of Self Realization.
God created us in His Image. You cannot ever change this. We are God's
and God's alone, not designed to follow others, or to be controlled by
others. Only God.
Any one who trys to control you, or make you follow them in God's name,
is a liar and a cheat. They are anti-God. They believe they are superior
to God.
Kenneth
[Kenneth]
>You seem to be overlooking the fact that never before has an
>Avatar been on the world stage while we've had the communications
>technology that we have today. The ideas for the technology, were not invented
>by the inventors alone. The ideas were impressed on their minds. The
>technology was give to us, to fulfill aspects of the Plan for our evolution.
>Someone can be seen and heard all over the world, live. As you will soon see,
>that will make a very significant difference...to the whole world community.
Nothing will change mankind, except those who wish to change. You
confuse the body/ego with God. God did not create the body/ego. He is
Perfection, Perfection cannot create imperfection.
God is Love... how can Love create hate, death, punishment and all the
other cruelties? It cannot.
We are created in God's image. The body/ego is not God's image. To
realize God's image, we have to look within, Self Realize that GOD IS, I
AM.
No maitreya will come and further the evolution of something that God
did not create. Impossible. No master will teach of the value of the
human body, except to say it is a learning tool. A tool that teaches one
that the body is not of God.
No one can create the kingdom of heaven on earth, because we are already
in God's Kingdom. We refuse to see this.
>Also, don't forget that what people believe or disbelieve has absolutely no
>impact on that which is and will always be: perfect order, perfect plans, and
>perfect beings who are administering same.
Here you speak of perfection. Perfection is of God. The earth and
humanity can never be perfection. You confuse God's Perfection with the
earths/humankinds imperfections.
>Most people are not in touch with
>reality.
Define reality. Does it mean reality on earth as humankind sees it, or
as the Reality of God? The first would mean we all are in touch with
reality, only it will be perceived differently by each person. This will
always lead to conflict, as my perception of this reality will always be
different to yours.
However, God's Reality is the Truth. Nothing else can exist except God's
Reality. All else is nothing. No thing.
>During the next several hundred years, that will change. Also, the
>changes of the past 100 years will pale in comparison to the changes of the
>next 100 years. The changes in the future will be mostly take place in
>humanity's hearts and minds.
This is true. Why do I agree with you? Because you said in humanity's
hearts and minds. The body/ego will not change, will not evolve. Nor
will heart/mind. But changes will take place in technology etc, more
bombs, more death destruction and decay. So yes the earth can experience
change. But God's Reality cannot change.
As our reality is not of God, then this reality can change according to
our perception of it. God's Reality can never change.
This is where creme is incorrect. He and his followers follow the
body/ego and it's problems. Not God's Reality. creme does not teach you
how to find God.
Kenneth
[Kenneth]
<mg...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>seelite wrote in message <37382693...@news.concentric.net>...
>>On Mon, 10 May 1999 17:42:53 GMT, [kenneth] se...@nine.ten wrote:
>
>
>>Also, don't forget that what people believe or disbelieve has absolutely no
>>impact on that which is and will always be: perfect order, perfect plans,
>and
>>perfect beings who are administering same. Most people are not in touch
>with
>>reality. During the next several hundred years, that will change. Also,
>the
>>changes of the past 100 years will pale in comparison to the changes of the
>>next 100 years. The changes in the future will be mostly take place in
>>humanity's hearts and minds.
>
>
>Hi, seelite. I don't think we have perfect order and perfect plans. As for
>the perfection of the beings who are supposedly guiding us ... perhaps.
>
>The way this works is that God doesn't meddle at all in the grand scheme of
>things until he sends a messiah. That's why we have the holocausts, murder
>and rapine, such horribly destructive pollution and agriculture. That's why
>we have so much wealth concentrated in the hands of such a tiny minority of
>human beings. If this is the perfect order of these perfect beings of yours,
>you can have them. I will await a true messiah who will storm onto the world
>stage and establish peace and justice for all of the peoples of mankind,
>redistribute the wealth and stop the rape of Mother Earth. Peace.
>
>Mark Gerard
These things Mark speaks of are the exact opposite of God. Earth and
humanity are the exact opposite of God. No way can any messiah change
this. A messiah can point out these opposites, and make you realize that
God can only be found within yourself, and not in this world of
opposites.
A messiah cannot, and will not change something that is the opposite of
God.
So no maitreya awaiting in London chaps. Tuff luck. See to your own Self
Realization. Forget living in hope of something that cannot happen.
Kenneth
[Kenneth]
>They have for countless centuries, guided our evolution
>from behind the scenes.
They have failed miserably. Even though they supposedly have Divine
help, this makes it even more miserable. What hope for humanity now??
>A part of the plan for our evolution
>involves them externalizing...working openly from the world
>stage and offering us advice which will help us get our act together.
>Many people think that without some radical changes in the near future,
>that we will destroy the life support systems on earth...so we need
>some guidance.
Which will not come. Ever. No master/God can change the world/humanity.
Kenneth
[Kenneth]
>The Masters of Wisdom will
>teach mankind to get in touch with our true nature and lead us from the
>unreal and to the real.
I wonder Anna, if you realize what you say here?
The unreal is this earth. The Real is God. Two opposites. Only one can
be experienced at a time. God is our Real Nature, the Real Us.
So you are correct in this. But it cannot take place on earth, I am
afraid, except by looking within.
Kenneth
[Kenneth]
>Suggest that you try to keep an open mind about it and avoid making
>*assumptions*.
And so should you, and us all. Truth is Truth, and can only be
experienced.
Kenneth
Tim Harris
[Kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> So no maitreya awaiting in London chaps. Tuff luck. See to your own Self
> Realization. Forget living in hope of something that cannot happen.
>
> Kenneth
>
> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
Hahaha... besides if the Maitreya is waiting in London, he has enough trouble on
his hands trying to figure out how to take over the the world...
The truth will be apparent... no additional information required... trust what
you know and you will know the Maitreya....
Gentle Peace.
Tim Harris
Allen Crider
It's about where you put devotion.
>
> Gentle Peace.
>
> Tim Harris
Tim Harris
Allen Crider wrote:
> > Neither. The contents of the glass have nothing to do with the glass itself. The glass
> > is the glass. The water in the glass is 'whole' unto itself. Only when we put the glass
> > and water together then try to determine their relation together do we get confused.
> > Thus, the glass is full AND the water is full.
>
> It's about where you put devotion.
Yes.
You can only have one master... water or glass....
My humble advice?
Be like water.
;o)
Gentle Peace.
Tim Harris
john patton
i agree with you, whatever you said
love
jp
--
===================================
John Pat Patton
Southwest-USA
http://www.southwest-usa.com/central
==========================================
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> On 10 May 1999 11:48:56 PDT, see...@concentric.net (seelite) wrote:
>
> >
> >Right. We haven't changed we're still like apes? No evolution has taken
> >place at all? Need I remind you that only yesterday, most people thought that
> >the world was flat? That women and blacks were bought and sold? That
> >the churches used to control 99% of the people?
>
> Evolution is *not* spiritual growth.
But evolution is the primary activity of Shakti. Manifestation of
diversity is what it is *all* about.
> Man did not evolve from apes. This has not been proved beyond doubt. If
> you believe God created man, then how did we evolve from apes?
Being created by God does not exclude being a product of evolution.
Evolution is the process whereby God does the creating. How could
this be any other way?
> If you had said that apes *de-evolved* from man, I would say yes,
> correct. Science should be looking at this rather.
Hardly.
> Thought changes, ie the earth is flat theory, is not *evolution*. It is
> a change in thinking, brought about by a change in perception.
>
> Woman and blacks being sold is not evolution, it is economics. If you
> think this is no longer done in 1999, think again.
>
> The churches controlling 99% of the people is not based on evolution. It
> is based on free will.... either you allow yourself to be controlled by
> churches or not. You wish to be controlled by maitreya and creme.... you
> are allowing yourself to be controlled by another form of church.
> Nothing has changed in allowing ourselves to be controlled by others.
>
> This is not evolution.
>
> Mankind has not changed. All the above are not indications of spiritual
> growth, or of Self Realization.
>
> God created us in His Image. You cannot ever change this. We are God's
> and God's alone, not designed to follow others, or to be controlled by
> others. Only God.
>
> Any one who trys to control you, or make you follow them in God's name,
> is a liar and a cheat. They are anti-God. They believe they are superior
> to God.
>
> Kenneth
>
> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
While I agree with the gist of what you are saying, your specifics are
*way* out of line. I'm sure it won't be hard to find people who agree
with me on this.
--jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
[snip]
> These things Mark speaks of are the exact opposite of God. Earth and
> humanity are the exact opposite of God. No way can any messiah change
> this. A messiah can point out these opposites, and make you realize that
> God can only be found within yourself, and not in this world of
> opposites.
>
> A messiah cannot, and will not change something that is the opposite of
> God.
>
> So no maitreya awaiting in London chaps. Tuff luck. See to your own Self
> Realization. Forget living in hope of something that cannot happen.
>
> Kenneth
>
> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
God exists. God is Omnipotent. Omnipotence means *all* powerful. "All"
means perfectly inclusive. Therefore, how can an omnipotent Being have an
opposite if that opposite is included in the realm of His power?
--jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> On 10 May 1999 11:48:56 PDT, see...@concentric.net (seelite) wrote:
>
> >Avatar been on the world stage while we've had the communications
> >technology that we have today. The ideas for the technology, were not invented
> >by the inventors alone. The ideas were impressed on their minds. The
> >technology was give to us, to fulfill aspects of the Plan for our evolution.
> >Someone can be seen and heard all over the world, live. As you will soon see,
> >that will make a very significant difference...to the whole world community.
>
> Nothing will change mankind, except those who wish to change. You
> confuse the body/ego with God. God did not create the body/ego. He is
> Perfection, Perfection cannot create imperfection.
You're definition of perfection is limited to concepts culled from your
thinking, which developed in the context of your life experience. Maybe
there is more to perfection than you are presently seeing.
>
> God is Love... how can Love create hate, death, punishment and all the
> other cruelties? It cannot.
Who did create the bad stuff then?
> We are created in God's image. The body/ego is not God's image. To
> realize God's image, we have to look within, Self Realize that GOD IS, I
> AM.
>
> No maitreya will come and further the evolution of something that God
> did not create. Impossible. No master will teach of the value of the
> human body, except to say it is a learning tool. A tool that teaches one
> that the body is not of God.
Ok, if God didn't create it, who did?
> No one can create the kingdom of heaven on earth, because we are already
> in God's Kingdom. We refuse to see this.
No, I see this and am in total and complete agreement with the statement.
> >Also, don't forget that what people believe or disbelieve has absolutely no
> >impact on that which is and will always be: perfect order, perfect plans, and
> >perfect beings who are administering same.
>
> Here you speak of perfection. Perfection is of God. The earth and
> humanity can never be perfection. You confuse God's Perfection with the
> earths/humankinds imperfections.
>
> >Most people are not in touch with
> >reality.
>
> Define reality. Does it mean reality on earth as humankind sees it, or
> as the Reality of God? The first would mean we all are in touch with
> reality, only it will be perceived differently by each person. This will
> always lead to conflict, as my perception of this reality will always be
> different to yours.
>
> However, God's Reality is the Truth. Nothing else can exist except God's
> Reality. All else is nothing. No thing.
Wishful thinking, back to our overpass illustration.
> >During the next several hundred years, that will change. Also, the
> >changes of the past 100 years will pale in comparison to the changes of the
> >next 100 years. The changes in the future will be mostly take place in
> >humanity's hearts and minds.
>
> This is true. Why do I agree with you? Because you said in humanity's
> hearts and minds. The body/ego will not change, will not evolve. Nor
> will heart/mind. But changes will take place in technology etc, more
> bombs, more death destruction and decay. So yes the earth can experience
> change. But God's Reality cannot change.
Brahman, or the Absolute, or Satchitananda is certainly changeless. However,
God has a manifest side, known as Maya. You seek to divorce Brahman from
Shakti. It ain't going to happen. They're in love, gaga over each other
even.
> As our reality is not of God, then this reality can change according to
> our perception of it. God's Reality can never change.
>
> This is where creme is incorrect. He and his followers follow the
> body/ego and it's problems. Not God's Reality. creme does not teach you
> how to find God.
>
> Kenneth
>
> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
--jodyr.
The Authentic Maitreya Rik
: On Tue, 11 May 1999 22:07:44 -0700, Allen Crider <caps...@sirius.com> wrote:
: In case you don't know what 'behind the scenes' means,' it means outside of the
: limelight; activities taking place which most people don't know about.
Also behind the scenes means, I guess, spamming the NG with your
Share Int. bullshit.....
Wonder if that Santa-Treya is in on it and all for spam too!.
: >
: >> A part of the plan for our evolution
: >> involves them externalizing...working openly from the world
: >> stage and offering us advice which will help us get our act together.
: >
: >Oh, I see... a stage bigger than Broadway, yet still just a play.
: People who are 'on the world stage' are people who are frequently
: in the news and known by most people who pay attention to the news.
: Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, etc.
: <snip>
: >> Suggest that you try to keep an open mind about it and avoid making
: >> *assumptions*.
: >>
: >> More info:
: >> http://www.shareint.org
: >> http://www.inetport.com/~one/direso.html
The Authentic Maitreya Rik
: On Tue, 11 May 1999 22:55:38 -0700, Allen Crider <caps...@sirius.com> wrote:
:
: >In your previous posting you said, "There are no true 'leaders' on the world
: >stage with ample light in their heads.
: >
: >Can you accept that Mr. Havel has light in his head? Or you looking for a leader
: >to put light in YOUR head?
: While I think that Mr. Havel is very bright, and brighter than 99% of the famous
: people, I think that he is dim when compared to those who'll soon be on the
: world stage. It's been around 80,000 years since there have been Masters of
: Wisdom on the world stage...and as I've said before, I would rather clean public
: toilets than try to argue that this is true.
Was there any doubt pollylite that indeed you were born a toilet cleaner ?.
We didn't have a single doubt about that!.
Now that you have agreed in person that you'd rather clean toilets, I guess
you should start ASAP since you'll be cleaning the treyapoos for very long time
whilst waiting for santa-banta-treya's to arrive from pearly gated planets!.
Later PollyLite : Clean the toilets very well ok!.
We don't want any smell of treyabots there..
Tarjei Straume
jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
It does not make sense. God is love. Power and wisdom, knowledge, is
something he has shared with his adversaries. Otherwise, he would be
responsible for everything that happens, and there would be no human freedom.
And if he nad all knowledge, he would be doing all our thinking for us, and
there would be no freedom and creativity and initiative. God is love.
If God were almighty, he should be able to create a rock too heavy for
himself to lift. If he could create such a rock, he wouldn't be almighty, and
if he couldn't, he wouldn't be almighty either. So God is not almighty, pure
and simple. There is no lonesome metaphysical dictator or junta. The universe
is teeming with life, and the gods are innumerable. Monotheism does not make
sense.
Cheers
--
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
[kenneth]
"As it was in the beginning, so shall it be at the end".
In the beginning, 'we' were all created by God, in his image, perfect,
with all of God's attributes.
Some how, and do not ask me why, the 'fall' took place. It was
not organized by God, it was done in an attempt to see if there was an
opposite to God.
Now, I do not know if God created the universe or not, but 'we', who
fell, definitely created this world, as I said, opposite to God.
We created flesh and blood, opposite of spirit. We created fear, the
'opposite' of love. We created hate, punishment, hell, fire, brimstone,
volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, all these, and other
horrors, like war. And finally death itself, the opposite of eternity.
Anything that would create fear in our selves, [the 'opposite' of love].
We created time, opposite of eternity. We created space and distance,
the opposite of infinity.
We created individualism, the opposite of God's 'we are one'. You
probably know this, but individual, means one divided dual. God's one
into two, ego and God's Spirit. [opposites]
We created the concept of karma, which is a device designed to prevent
return to God. [Our main fear, and of course a delaying tactic, to put
off facing a vengeful God]. Karma is always placing atonement into a
future life.
We teach that even 'masters' are still paying off karma. We invented the
process of re-incarnation, to reinforce the belief in karma, but
reincarnation is the opposite of immortality.
Regrettably, this experiment, for want of a better term, backfired, and
we became trapped in this illusion, maya, the opposite of God's Reality.
This world is maya, illusion. Another fear took place, the fear of God's
retribution, for us 'falling and not returning'.
So much so, that steps were taken in an attempt to block out God, remove
His knowledge from our egos. We deny God. So we 'look' for Him outside
of ourselves, in other people, teachers, lovers, banks and money etc..
Places that we know we will not find Him. Like in karma, masters,
messiahs and other writings.
And so most of all religions teach of a God that is vengeful, and who
will have the Last Judgement.
Fortunately, two events took place.
1. We could not separate ourselves from God, as we live and move and
have our being in God. Our mind is always part of God's. We have a split
mind, but as God is infinite, we only believe that we are separate from
God's Mind. We refuse to accept this fact, that we are God's mind
already. We cannot be anything else, or become anything else, as we are
already God.
This is our saving grace. This is the spark that we all search for.
Found only within Our Selves, no where else. God's grace.
2. The instant the separation [fall] took place, God created the Holy
Spirit, to help us return to Him. The Holy Spirit [God's Voice], is of
heaven who understands the creation of the fallen ones, and He is the
final guide who will guide us home. [the home we actually never left,
because that is impossible as we live and move and have our being in
God].
The Final Judgement is the responsibility of the Holy Spirit... the
Final Judgement is not as portrayed by fundamentalists and others, as
God sitting on a throne, judging our bad deeds and sins. This is a man
made concept, based on our fears of God, of a God who judges, finds
guilty, and sentences you to hell and other awful stuff.
No, the judgement here is a final evaluation, [which is the meaning of
judgement] of what you are not, i.e., not a body, not a split mind, not
an ego, not a 'sinner'. The HS [Holy Spirit] evaluates what we think we
are, and what we think are errors, and kindly and gentle helps you to
see this, removes the errors of your perceptions, and helps you realize
Self Awareness. GENTLY. Atonement, as you know, means at one ment, with
God. Atone, means to make good. So we make good our oneness with God,
via the teachings and help of the HS.
It is not required to fully know about, and to fully improve [evolve]
the ego, as this is impossible. The HS teaches you about Self
Realization, and as this takes place, automatic healing of your mind
takes place, gentleness, humbleness etc are automatically recognized in
your self, as well as the other attributes of God.
So "as it was in the beginning, so shall it be at the end": that is we
shall all be once more aware of God, and back in 'heaven'.
During this period of assistance by the HS, we experience 'visions of
God': holy instances where we perceive, and experience, who God IS.
This experience can only be described as I AM, God IS. We can only
experience short bursts of this, because it will be too traumatic for
most people, and cause untold trauma in some.
It cannot be described in the English language, the language of man is
very coarse, opposite of God's method, which is a 'knowing', without
thought or noise.
As we only use God's mind, God's spirit continuously, it is very easy
for us to experience this oneness with God.
During these holy instants of enlightenment,
you are fully conscious of *who* you are, a Son of God, you *see*
(without eyes), that you are infinite, eternal, love, peace, and joy.
You realize that you are abundant, but the most important
characteristic, is that you are safe. Totally safe.
So, yes, a full knowing of God is not only possible, but experienced.
Everything, everything, in this world is created by us, man, ego, or
whatever we think we are. Nothing is of God. Even my writings, even your
own writings are of this world. It cannot be any other way, because we
do not remember God, of His Love, and His power.
Which is why ego always teaches fear, punishment, teaches that it is
impossible to know God until you have evolved. What evolves? Not the
body, as you know the body always dies, and does not 'go to heaven.'
Spirit cannot evolve, as it is God's. He is perfect. So spirit/soul or
whatever, cannot evolve. We only need to look within, to find the true
mind of God, and realize your true Self. No punishment, no Final
judgement, just a God of pure Love.
Do not forget 'we are God 's, meaning we belong to God.
With love and blessings to you and yours
Kenneth
iam...@globalnet.co.uk
My perceptions of God and Reality, are from the book,
A Course in Miracles.
visit these urls for more info.
http://www.facim.org/
http://nen.sedona.net/circleofa/
Kenneth
[kenneth]
>[Kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> These things Mark speaks of are the exact opposite of God. Earth and
>> humanity are the exact opposite of God. No way can any messiah change
>> this. A messiah can point out these opposites, and make you realize that
>> God can only be found within yourself, and not in this world of
>> opposites.
We are created in God's image, with God's attributes. Spirit
Man was created by us to be opposite of God. flesh/blood/ego
We have the choice of which one we want to be.
Opposites to God:
man is born, lives and dies.
God is eternal, ie never was born, never dies.
man is finite, we have height, width and size
God is infinite, without beginning and without end.
man thinks he loves
God IS Love
man is imperfect.
God is Perfection
man is wimpish, weak and useless, unworthy
God is all Powerful.
man thinks he sins
God IS Love, therefore cannot sin
man created time.
God is infinite, time does not exist in Infinity, it is always 'now'.
man created the past, the present and the future
God IS now. no past, no present [except now] and no future
man created pain and suffering
God cannot suffer anything, except Love
man is flesh/blood
God is Spirit
man is hate
God is Love
man is evil,
God is Love
man is destructive
God created Infinity, all non destructive.
man created individualism
God is One.
man created fear
God is Love. Love cannot fear.
man created karma
God cannot sin.
man created reincarnation
God is immortal and has no need for rebirth and death
man created satan
God created Perfection
man created punishment
God forgiveness
man created control by fear
God made us in His image. No control at all.
man created the idea of a vengeful god
God is all Love all Forgiveness.
etc etc etc.
Kenneth
[kenneth]
>[Kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> These things Mark speaks of are the exact opposite of God. Earth and
>> humanity are the exact opposite of God. No way can any messiah change
>> this. A messiah can point out these opposites, and make you realize that
>> God can only be found within yourself, and not in this world of
>> opposites.
>>
>> A messiah cannot, and will not change something that is the opposite of
>> God.
>>
>> So no maitreya awaiting in London chaps. Tuff luck. See to your own Self
>> Realization. Forget living in hope of something that cannot happen.
>>
>> Kenneth
>>
>> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
>
>God exists. God is Omnipotent. Omnipotence means *all* powerful. "All"
>means perfectly inclusive. Therefore, how can an omnipotent Being have an
>opposite if that opposite is included in the realm of His power?
>
>--jodyr.
Good question, Jodyr. It is one of the difficulties of the spiritual
path that people cannot get to grips with.
The answer actually is simple: God did not create the earth and the
human body.
Heard of the 'fall'?
Long before time was, God created us in His image, and we were all
happily 'living' in that place we refer to as heaven. Somehow, do not
ask me why or how, someone wondered if there could be an opposite to
God. This flashed through heaven instantly, as we are all One.
As we are created in God's image, we too have the power to create. You
said yourself above "God is Omnipotent. Omnipotence means *all*
powerful." [we had this discussion previously]. So we too are all
powerful. {aside: I guess this is why you do not wish to have this
power, you may be afraid of making a similar error again}.
And so the earth came into being, not created by God, but by us and the
'fall' took place. Created the exact opposite to God, with our own
powers of creation.
That is why we are all desperate to get back to God. We realize that the
"Truth" is clear: we are all created in God's image, ie Spirit or
whatever one wants to call it. This is why we try all these spiritual
paths etc.
We are told the way back is to look within to obtain Self Realization.
Why is it during the process called enlightenment [another recent
discussion] that we become aware *only* of God, and the earth/flesh/ego
disappears? Because enlightenment is our true state.
All the great teachers of the past/present talk of the 'illusion'. Why,
and what is the illusion? The earth and all in it. As God did not create
it, in God's view, and those who have experienced enlightenment, it does
not exist.
We live and move and have our being in God. We cannot leave Him, because
God is infinite, and is therefore where ever we are. This is our saving
*Grace*. The Grace of God that ensures our return, our Self Realization
of who we are.
At the instant of the fall, God created the Holy Spirit to assist us
'back' to God. Which is why all the religions and teachings have a Holy
Spirit in one form or another.
God Himself created us Perfect, it is us that made this flesh/ego
imperfection. God as creator therefore knows of our True State. He knows
we have never left him. We think we have, but we have not. We need to
Self Realize this.
God will not interfere with us, He will not make us come home, why:
because our True Selves have never left. The Holy Spirit's function is
to gently guide us, to make us Self Realize who we really are.
Jodry, this is the main reason why spiritual paths and searches all
fail: people will not accept that this earth/flesh/ego was *not* created
by God. If you can get your head around this and accept it, you are
'home and dry'.
Kenneth
[kenneth]
>
>> Man did not evolve from apes. This has not been proved beyond doubt. If
>> you believe God created man, then how did we evolve from apes?
>
>Being created by God does not exclude being a product of evolution.
>Evolution is the process whereby God does the creating. How could
>this be any other way?
See my other posts about creation of the earth.
Please take some time to think about this post, it may answer many of
your questions about suffering etc.
namaste
Kenneth
[kenneth]
>While I agree with the gist of what you are saying, your specifics are
>*way* out of line. I'm sure it won't be hard to find people who agree
>with me on this.
The herd instinct. Interesting. More does not make it correct.
Get away from thinking like the herd, acting like the herd.
The herd consciousness cannot give you Self Realization, enlightenment
or atonement.
Enlightened people are considered 'nutty'. That is because they do not
have the herd consciousness, they reject the thinking of the herd
[mankind] as false, an error to be gently corrected by the Holy Spirit.
Peace
Kenneth
[kenneth]
>>
>> Any one who trys to control you, or make you follow them in God's name,
>> is a liar and a cheat. They are anti-God. They believe they are superior
>> to God.
>>
>> Kenneth
>>
>> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
These people have been 'more successful' at creating themselves more
opposite to God than the average person.
They therefore fear the vengeful God more than the average person, they
want others to believe them and so teach of fear, punishment and
hellfire and brimstone.
The more followers they have, the stronger and more convinced they are
that they are correct, and that God is awful etc.
They are anti-God, liars and cheats.
Kenneth
[kenneth]
>> Evolution is *not* spiritual growth.
>
>But evolution is the primary activity of Shakti. Manifestation of
>diversity is what it is *all* about.
I do not know what 'shakti' is. ??
Help please.
Kenneth
[kenneth]
>[Kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> On 10 May 1999 11:48:56 PDT, see...@concentric.net (seelite) wrote:
>>
>> >You seem to be overlooking the fact that never before has an
>> >Avatar been on the world stage while we've had the communications
>> >technology that we have today. The ideas for the technology, were not invented
>> >by the inventors alone. The ideas were impressed on their minds. The
>> >technology was give to us, to fulfill aspects of the Plan for our evolution.
>> >Someone can be seen and heard all over the world, live. As you will soon see,
>> >that will make a very significant difference...to the whole world community.
>>
>> Nothing will change mankind, except those who wish to change. You
>> confuse the body/ego with God. God did not create the body/ego. He is
>> Perfection, Perfection cannot create imperfection.
>
>You're definition of perfection is limited to concepts culled from your
>thinking, which developed in the context of your life experience. Maybe
>there is more to perfection than you are presently seeing.
Perfection is God. I know you agree with me on this. This perfection is
not fully recognized by us at our stage of enlightenment. However this
perfection that we perceive can only be used as a yardstick by which we
judge ourselves.
If there is more to perfection than I currently realize, it makes return
to God even more exciting. :-)
Hell fire brimstone volcanoes murder and war etc are not of perfection!
>>
>> God is Love... how can Love create hate, death, punishment and all the
>> other cruelties? It cannot.
>
>Who did create the bad stuff then?
See my other posts.
>> We are created in God's image. The body/ego is not God's image. To
>> realize God's image, we have to look within, Self Realize that GOD IS, I
>> AM.
>>
>> No maitreya will come and further the evolution of something that God
>> did not create. Impossible. No master will teach of the value of the
>> human body, except to say it is a learning tool. A tool that teaches one
>> that the body is not of God.
>
>Ok, if God didn't create it, who did?
See my other posts.
>> No one can create the kingdom of heaven on earth, because we are already
>> in God's Kingdom. We refuse to see this.
>
>No, I see this and am in total and complete agreement with the statement.
Excellent. Do you agree then that we need to Self Realize this Kingdom
of God? And in your periods of enlightenment, you are aware of God and
His attributes, but your awareness of the world has disappeared? That is
because the world does not exist. We only think it does.
>> >Also, don't forget that what people believe or disbelieve has absolutely no
>> >impact on that which is and will always be: perfect order, perfect plans, and
>> >perfect beings who are administering same.
>>
>> Here you speak of perfection. Perfection is of God. The earth and
>> humanity can never be perfection. You confuse God's Perfection with the
>> earths/humankinds imperfections.
>>
>> >Most people are not in touch with
>> >reality.
>>
>> Define reality. Does it mean reality on earth as humankind sees it, or
>> as the Reality of God? The first would mean we all are in touch with
>> reality, only it will be perceived differently by each person. This will
>> always lead to conflict, as my perception of this reality will always be
>> different to yours.
>>
>> However, God's Reality is the Truth. Nothing else can exist except God's
>> Reality. All else is nothing. No thing.
>
>Wishful thinking, back to our overpass illustration.
Back to my request to read my other posts!!
>> >During the next several hundred years, that will change. Also, the
>> >changes of the past 100 years will pale in comparison to the changes of the
>> >next 100 years. The changes in the future will be mostly take place in
>> >humanity's hearts and minds.
>>
>> This is true. Why do I agree with you? Because you said in humanity's
>> hearts and minds. The body/ego will not change, will not evolve. Nor
>> will heart/mind. But changes will take place in technology etc, more
>> bombs, more death destruction and decay. So yes the earth can experience
>> change. But God's Reality cannot change.
>
>Brahman, or the Absolute, or Satchitananda is certainly changeless. However,
>God has a manifest side, known as Maya. You seek to divorce Brahman from
>Shakti. It ain't going to happen. They're in love, gaga over each other
>even.
Please use English terms. I do not know of what you speak. Except for
maya. God cannot be maya, as maya is illusion. How can God have/be
illusion? Illusion means not there. It means What you perceive is not
real.
>> As our reality is not of God, then this reality can change according to
>> our perception of it. God's Reality can never change.
>>
>> This is where creme is incorrect. He and his followers follow the
>> body/ego and it's problems. Not God's Reality. creme does not teach you
>> how to find God.
>>
>> Kenneth
>>
>> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
>
>--jodyr.
Kenneth
seelite
>> No one can create the kingdom of heaven on earth, because we are already
>> in God's Kingdom. We refuse to see this.
>
>No, I see this and am in total and complete agreement with the statement.
Since all the millions who die each day of hunger are 'unreal', just ignore them
and follow our own bliss?!! Ignore all of the injustices in the world and focus
on our own salvation & fun?!! I think that those who think that are massively
out of touch with reality...and I understand where they are...they'll move
forward when they're ready.
Apparently any teachings about compassion are thrown out the window in this
popular new age teaching, which seems to suggest that realizing the kingdom of
heaven involves indulging in self -centered hedonism. Boy that must be a
popular teaching. Just what many surely would want to believe...in their
home-made realities.
Much progress has been made in the 'human rights' arena in the past 200 years,
much more will be made in the next 100....and eventually 'the kingdom will
come'...*not* because a bunch of self centered New Agers are into
narcissistically following their own bliss, but because hundreds of millions of
good intelligent people have worked for it.
If you believe that version of reality, then it would logically follow that you
also believe that the allied forces were mistake to have battled the Nazis.
They should have sat back and followed their own bliss. Same with the people
who have successfully fought for human civil rights. Women and blacks should
all be treated like property... etc. etc. Such a philosophy is in my view, a
philosophy by and for *lost souls* ...who think that they have found the
kingdom. Those who preach hedonism and self-centered narcissistic bullshit are
while doing so, blind leaders of the blind. I'm glad to know that eventually,
they'll wake up...to the fact that evolution involves service to others... that
begins when they approach the end of a phase of self-love and
self-centeredness.
:-)
So use if you can, don't if not. But you're starting to know better now.
=============================================================
'We have the potential for a better world, as long as we are willing to
consciously intervene...People who believe in the potential of our
species have to get out of the new age personal growth sandbox
and intervene in key areas of the society.' Riane Eisler
" When humanity is assured of divinity and immortality, and has entered into a
state of knowledge as to the nature of the soul and of the kingdom in which
that soul functions, its attitude to daily life and to current affairs will
undergo such a transformation that we shall verily and indeed see the emergence
of a new heaven and a new earth..." Djwhal Khul/Alice Bailey in "Esoteric
Psychology Vol. 1, 94/6"
Tim Harris
Gentle Peace.
Tim Harris
Marc Zienkiewicz
> Please use English terms. I do not know of what you speak. Except for
> maya. God cannot be maya, as maya is illusion. How can God have/be
> illusion? Illusion means not there. It means What you perceive is not
> real.
I agree with you, Kenneth. Putting names to various aspects of
spirituality is fine if you're in a heated debate and must use names to
get your point across, but in the end, names will not help us to self
realize. Even the word "God" is, ultimately, meaningless. God is pure
being, pure existence, and measly words will not help us understand this
better. God is formless, nameless, and unlimited; only when we bypass
all words, emotions, thoughts, etc... can we self-realize.
Marc
Annex/St. Albans
I am wondering why you all have brought this argument to the A.R.A., not
that it's off-topic or anything, but you seem to be in the middle of a
discussion which just suddenly appeared here for no apparent reason...Are
you looking for discourse from people on this N.G.? Or are you just
cross-posting to everyone at random? I for one would be interested to know
what or whom Mayatreiya is and Who Mr. Creme is and what in heaven's name a
"Zort" is and what this all has to do with Angels??? Clouds of dim green/red
smelly auras doesn't sound at all pleasant!
Please advise.
Namaste'
David St. Albans 0:-) P.S.
>If God were almighty, he should be able to create a rock too heavy for
>himself to lift. If he could create such a rock, he wouldn't be almighty,
and
>if he couldn't, he wouldn't be almighty either. So God is not almighty,
pure
>and simple.
Interesting argument, but you assume the GodHead exists in a place where
things need to be lifted and assume a personage for God which is human, with
muscles, sinews and joints made for lifting. God created Man. God invested
God's self within Man. And I can show you a million, million, million rocks
which Man cannot lift by sheer strength, yet can lift with divine power and
energy...God is One. God has created the problem and the solution. God has
given you the power to philosophize and to think and to make a choice. If
you choose to believe in many gods, fine. If not, fine. In fact, whatever
you think is fine. No one will attempt to change you, except those who are
eager to attempt to change you. You have a bit of a ways to go to find your
"simple dollop of logic." The Universe does not work in tune with what man
calls logic. It is up to man to come to an understanding of God's logic. If
he/she wants to become enlightened. if you want to give up on humanity and
it's starving minions, that is your choice. Follow your bliss. No one has
the right to punish you. Certainly not God,who has put you in the position
to make a choice. If you want to help and succor the starving minions, that
is your choice, follow your bliss. But God will not raise you above others
or put you in some sort of position to rule others. You have done nothing
more by aiding another than to aid yourself. The point of the New Age
Philosophy is most of us no longer believe in the "right and wrong" of a
thing. But rather that The Indwelling presence of God puts us in the place
we belong and at the necessary moment to do what is most important, because
we have chosen to have this happen. Not everyone is in an immediate position
to help starving people. However New Agers, like anyone else with a soul and
heart, are often very large donators to causes like feeding starving people.
You make a mistake in saying that because someone follows their bliss in a
New Age manner, they are somehow bereft of human feelings. In fact, that
harsh judgment puts you in the position of needlessly causing another person
to suffer under your dictates and prejudices. Open your minds to the fact
that God is everywhere all at once. God is the starving person, the person
who wants to help and the person who stands by and does nothing. Who will
win? The answer is in what YOU CHOOSE to do in that position. New Age and
New Thought does not dogmatically tell people to follow their bliss at the
disregard of other's suffering. In fact it is Hinduism in it's strictest
sense, which asks others to disregard wholesale human suffering because all
those who suffer deserve to suffer, being it is their Karma. Whereas a New
Age adherent, seeing a suffering person, will invariably say, "It is my
Karma to help this person." Which, strictly speaking brings forth the Dharma
or "duty" of the human soul to other human souls. It is called "New Age"
because it is a philosophy which encompasses Spiritual Evolution. Which has
occurred during the so-called New Age of Spirituality. And it is, like all
spiritually evolutionary events, a blessed event filled with the Grace and
Presence of God
Namaste'
Rev. David St. Albans 0:-)
[kenneth]
>??wrote:
Kenneth [me] actually wrote the originial.
It is such a shame that you reacted with such anger at my post. Is it
because you fear the truth?
Anyway, be that as it may, the answer to your questions: ignore them
etc, the answer is a definite YES.
Such a shame seelite, just when I thought you had seen some truth, esp.
when you spoke of ACIM.
Never mind.
Kenneth
iam...@globalnet.co.uk
Kenneth
Allen Crider
Tim Harris wrote:
>
> Allen Crider wrote:
>
> > > Neither. The contents of the glass have nothing to do with the glass itself. The glass
> > > is the glass. The water in the glass is 'whole' unto itself. Only when we put the glass
> > > and water together then try to determine their relation together do we get confused.
> > > Thus, the glass is full AND the water is full.
> >
> > It's about where you put devotion.
>
> Yes.
>
> You can only have one master... water or glass....
>
> My humble advice?
>
> Be like water.
>
> ;o)
>
> Gentle Peace.
>
> Tim Harris
The sun shines equally on both of these 'masters'.
Thus, The highest act of devotion is to devote oneself to loving all of
manifested existence. And this devotion can only be generated from the only true
master, you.
Now, back to the glass half-full, half-empty business.
These 'Treyabots, when not posting pre-fab spam, express a hatred of this world
here, now, the way it is (glass half-empty). They hint that love and
appreciation may be forthcoming, but only if the world changes to conform to
their pictures of fair and equitable. And only if Maya-treya comes and makes the
world change for them.
Loving the bad helps make it good. So, to include what is 'bad' within one's own
radiatory outpouring of love—along with the good that one is naturally inclined
to love—is more in line with what I perceive deity itself practices.
Is the discriminatory practice of devotion to that which we believe is 'good'
the best we can do? How can we be sure what is good and what is bad? Devotion to
love eliminates that messy guesswork. True love is blind to good and bad.
Allen Crider
seelite wrote:
>
> ??wrote:
> >> No one can create the kingdom of heaven on earth, because we are already
> >> in God's Kingdom. We refuse to see this.
> >
> >No, I see this and am in total and complete agreement with the statement.
>
> Since all the millions who die each day of hunger are 'unreal', just ignore them
> and follow our own bliss?!!
Or in Share Intl's case, use them as a prop to hook more followers!
> Ignore all of the injustices in the world and focus
> on our own salvation & fun?!!
And hook people of goodwill into thinking that the world will change because a
mysterious Magic King will walk the earth! Share Intl. doesn't share. Shame on them!
> I think that those who think that are massively
> out of touch with reality...and I understand where they are...they'll move
> forward when they're ready.
Inner peace leads to outer peace which leads to world peace. DO YOU HEAR ME,
GODAMMIT!! ;-)
> Apparently any teachings about compassion are thrown out the window in this
> popular new age teaching, which seems to suggest that realizing the kingdom of
> heaven involves indulging in self -centered hedonism.
You sound like a Christian fundamentalist. The kingdom of heaven can only be
manifested from within. It is not on TV, not on the movies, not something you
can pick up at the store, not something you can vote for, not something the
mystery Magic King will hand you on a silver plate. If you don't like this
world, then you are lost. This world doesn't need an auto mechanic who hates cars!
> Boy that must be a
> popular teaching. Just what many surely would want to believe...in their
> home-made realities.
How incredible that you profess the appearance of a Magic King (real soon now),
yet can't abide by the very existence you inhabit here, now.
> Much progress has been made in the 'human rights' arena in the past 200 years,
> much more will be made in the next 100....
Seems reasonable.
> and eventually 'the kingdom will
> come'...
Not necessarily. This is a place where new problems keep coming up. It is the
nature of physical life. Grow up and approach your problems with love.
> *not* because a bunch of self centered New Agers are into
> narcissistically following their own bliss, but because hundreds of millions of
> good intelligent people have worked for it.
I'd rather hire a happy person that a sourpuss. I wouldn't vote for a sourpuss.
I wouldn't donate a cent to a sourpuss. I'd laugh if a sourpuss came on the
internet and attempted to sell a spiritual path. And I do laugh, don't I? ;-)
> If you believe that version of reality, then it would logically follow that you
> also believe that the allied forces were mistake to have battled the Nazis.
translation:
If you don't believe my armchair quasi-spiritual neo-soviet politics, you
support the Nazis.
> They should have sat back and followed their own bliss.
Anyone who isn't following their own bliss is a prisoner, Dottie. What is taking
your bliss away, your cult... or you yourself?
> Same with the people
> who have successfully fought for human civil rights.
Don't pretend to make claims that the people in the Civil Rights movement
weren't spiritual in a very high way. And don't pretend that you speak for them.
They were not like you.
> Women and blacks should
> all be treated like property... etc. etc.
> Such a philosophy is in my view, a
> philosophy by and for *lost souls* ...who think that they have found the
> kingdom.
The kingdom isn't gonna come through Maya-treya's redistribution of consumer
goods. By the way, there is no such thing as a lost soul. Someday, you may make contact.
> Those who preach hedonism and self-centered narcissistic bullshit are
> while doing so, blind leaders of the blind. I'm glad to know that eventually,
> they'll wake up...to the fact that evolution involves service to others...
Who wants your so-called service with a frown? And what makes you think you are
performing a service by parroting your cult's pre-fab spam?
> that
> begins when they approach the end of a phase of self-love and
> self-centeredness.
If you don't love yourself, then what kind of trash are you giving to this
world?
> :-)
> So use if you can, don't if not. But you're starting to know better now.
Haa haa haa.
Annex/St. Albans
God. Go try to lift anything over, let's say, 200 lbs. over your head. In
the form of say, large boulder. God has thus created a form or image of
God's self which cannot even lift a tiny fragment of the world over its
head. Also,since you are not privy to everything God does, can you
truthfully say God has never preformed this particular experiment in
private?LOL! The whole point is moot. God does not promote exercises in
futility and uselessness.
In essence God has created the entire universe. Its weight is inestimable.
No entity could lift it. Yet it need not be lifted, it simply exists
floating in a void. If you personally can either lift it or even estimate
its total weight. I would call you Almighty. However I will reserve that
title for the One who manifested the entire ball of wax.
Namaste'
Rev. David St. Albans 0:-)
Tarjei Straume wrote in message <373B6539...@online.no>...
>
>I wrote:
>
>> >If God were almighty, he should be able to create a rock too heavy for
>> >himself to lift. If he could create such a rock, he wouldn't be
almighty,
>> and
>> >if he couldn't, he wouldn't be almighty either. So God is not almighty,
>> pure
>> >and simple.
>>
>> Interesting argument, but you assume the GodHead exists in a place where
>> things need to be lifted and assume a personage for God which is human,
with
>> muscles, sinews and joints made for lifting.
>
>"Annex/St. Albans" wrote:
>
>Not necessarily. If God were almighty, he should be able to create a place
>where things need to be lifted - if only for this experiment - and create
for
>himself any physical body of his choosing with muscles and so on - again,
for
>this experiment, and fulfill the requirements in question to prove himself
>almighty. It is an impossibility either way, just like the concept of
almight
>is.
Tim Harris
Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> If God were almighty, he should be able to create a rock too heavy for
> himself to lift. If he could create such a rock, he wouldn't be almighty, and
> if he couldn't, he wouldn't be almighty either. So God is not almighty, pure
> and simple. There is no lonesome metaphysical dictator or junta. The universe
> is teeming with life, and the gods are innumerable. Monotheism does not make
> sense.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Tarjei Straume
>
>
The answer is simple....
Can he make the rock so big he can't lift it? Yes. He made us in his image didn't
he?
Gentle Peace.
Tim Harris
The Authentic Maitreya Rik
We'll it all gets likened to : Maitreya - ?Brain and Creme as Pinky of the'
cartoons!.
Tim Harris (har...@cyberlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: [Kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
: > So no maitreya awaiting in London chaps. Tuff luck. See to your own Self
: > Realization. Forget living in hope of something that cannot happen.
: >
: > Kenneth
: >
: > iam...@globalnet.co.uk
: Hahaha... besides if the Maitreya is waiting in London, he has enough trouble on
: his hands trying to figure out how to take over the the world...
: The truth will be apparent... no additional information required... trust what
: you know and you will know the Maitreya....
: Gentle Peace.
: Tim Harris
Tarjei Straume
I wrote:
> >If God were almighty, he should be able to create a rock too heavy for
> >himself to lift. If he could create such a rock, he wouldn't be almighty,
> and
> >if he couldn't, he wouldn't be almighty either. So God is not almighty,
> pure
> >and simple.
>
Tarjei Straume
Tim Harris wrote:
> Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> >
> > If God were almighty, he should be able to create a rock too heavy for
> > himself to lift. If he could create such a rock, he wouldn't be almighty, and
> > if he couldn't, he wouldn't be almighty either. So God is not almighty, pure
> > and simple. There is no lonesome metaphysical dictator or junta. The universe
> > is teeming with life, and the gods are innumerable. Monotheism does not make
> > sense.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > Tarjei Straume
> >
> >
>
> The answer is simple....
>
> Can he make the rock so big he can't lift it? Yes. He made us in his image didn't
> he?
The point is that if God is not only a deity among deities, but also a circus
magician and many other entertaining things in addition to being omnipotent and
omniscient, he would have no problem lifting anything, including all of humanity at
once, or any mountain of his choosing. The point is still, using plain logic of
course, that to be omnipotent, or almighty, this deity would have to be able to
create something that he could not do certain things with. And as soon as this being
or person or god or whatever cannot do anything he wants to do if he wants to do it,
he is not almighty. It's that simple.
The idea of an almighty god is hereby dismissed because it is illogical, an
impracticality, a total impossibility. Period.
Cheers
Tim Harris
Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> > The answer is simple....
> >
> > Can he make the rock so big he can't lift it? Yes. He made us in his image didn't
> > he?
>
> The point is that if God is not only a deity among deities, but also a circus
> magician and many other entertaining things in addition to being omnipotent and
> omniscient, he would have no problem lifting anything, including all of humanity at
> once, or any mountain of his choosing. The point is still, using plain logic of
> course, that to be omnipotent, or almighty, this deity would have to be able to
> create something that he could not do certain things with. And as soon as this being
> or person or god or whatever cannot do anything he wants to do if he wants to do it,
> he is not almighty. It's that simple.
>
> The idea of an almighty god is hereby dismissed because it is illogical, an
> impracticality, a total impossibility. Period.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Tarjei Straume
>
Yes. It is simple. The almighty God made you in his image and it looks like you have
gotten so big that he can no longer lift you. Like a father 'child' thing. How many
fathers do you know that carry their full grown children? Tarjei, I can appreciate your
limited perspective however, I suggest in the furure that you consider the fact that
paradox is the language you seek.
The first law of paradox is that any one can make em' but not anyone can solve them. Any
answer if it fits. Works. To say it can't be done is the words of a quitter which is
what you are. It is so much easier to quit then use that 'stone' that God put on your
shoulders. Don't believe me? Try this one. It is 'exactly' the same paradox as the one
above but I have changed the flavour so that you might be able to understand... but
then... your a quitter so I will not hold my breath.
I cannon ball that can not be stopped is fired at a wall that can not be penertrated.
What happens when they meet?
The key to 'all' paradoxes lies in the dynamic and not the words. It is Yin vs. Yang....
Alimighty God vs. Almighty Act.... Light vs. dark... get it now? It is 'all' yin vs.
yang which is what makes the world go round (figuratively speaking).
Learn it now... learn it later... makes no difference.
Gentle Peace.
Tim Harris
[kenneth]
<whispe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
There is one main aspect here that has been overlooked.
This is that God is infinite. That means, as you know without beginning
and without end, no boundaries.
Therefore nothing, no thing can exist outside of God. Not even a
boulder, or the smallest grain of sand.
So it would be impossible for God to lift anything :-)
Kenneth
>And as I said. God has already done this. God is in you. You are part of
>God. Go try to lift anything over, let's say, 200 lbs. over your head. In
>the form of say, large boulder. God has thus created a form or image of
>God's self which cannot even lift a tiny fragment of the world over its
>head. Also,since you are not privy to everything God does, can you
>truthfully say God has never preformed this particular experiment in
>private?LOL! The whole point is moot. God does not promote exercises in
>futility and uselessness.
>In essence God has created the entire universe. Its weight is inestimable.
>No entity could lift it. Yet it need not be lifted, it simply exists
>floating in a void. If you personally can either lift it or even estimate
>its total weight. I would call you Almighty. However I will reserve that
>title for the One who manifested the entire ball of wax.
>
>Namaste'
>
>Rev. David St. Albans 0:-)
>
>Tarjei Straume wrote in message <373B6539...@online.no>...
>>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>> >If God were almighty, he should be able to create a rock too heavy for
>>> >himself to lift. If he could create such a rock, he wouldn't be
>almighty,
>>> and
>>> >if he couldn't, he wouldn't be almighty either. So God is not almighty,
>>> pure
>>> >and simple.
>>>
>>> Interesting argument, but you assume the GodHead exists in a place where
>>> things need to be lifted and assume a personage for God which is human,
>with
>>> muscles, sinews and joints made for lifting.
>>
>>"Annex/St. Albans" wrote:
>>
>>Not necessarily. If God were almighty, he should be able to create a place
>>where things need to be lifted - if only for this experiment - and create
>for
>>himself any physical body of his choosing with muscles and so on - again,
>for
>>this experiment, and fulfill the requirements in question to prove himself
>>almighty. It is an impossibility either way, just like the concept of
>almight
>>is.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Tarjei Straume
>>
>>Greetings from Uncle Taz
>>
>>http://www.uncletaz.com/
>>
>>Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
>plays,
>>library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
>skeletons,
>>banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
>>
>>
>
Kenneth
Annex/St. Albans
Strength. Strength can mean several things, strength of character, strength
of brawn or muscle, strength of mind, strength of compassion. Etc. Here you
are using the word "might" as in muscular strength. You are saying God as a
"deity" should be so absolutely strong as to be able to lift anything. Then
you conjecture if this deity is "all mighty" it should then be able to
"create" a rock too big for itself to lift.
At what point in your conjectural argument have you said this very
physically strong deity, can *create* anything? You never called it a
creator, only an immensely strong individual. To most people, the idea of an
"All Mighty God" has nothing to do with physical strength. An all mighty
deity, is one which can do all the things even the strongest individual in
the universe cannot do. As in CREATING an entire universe. And bearing up
that Universe, and making it work in harmony and balance. The idea of a
creative being of such capacity not being able to do anything within the
realm of its creativity it likes is unimaginable. Of course your whole
concept is based on a deity as an individual thing or object or being which
can only do one thing act on it's muscular abilities. True Deity does what
it does. It creates. It's creative mind is "All Mighty" not it's sinews, for
it has none. To make itself bow to physical law and physical mightiness,
precludes it from creating a better or more effective Self. God cannot be
stopped, God's creation cannot be limited, God's creativity cannot be
limited. This is what most people think of in terms of All Mightiness. God
is the creator of the concept of "might." God embodies the concept of
"might" in all of its aspects and connotations.
You are picking at philosophical nits, which are limiting your concept of
what an All Mighty God can be and is. If God is limited in any way, God
cannot ergo be "all mighty" i.e. containing or embodying all concepts of and
all true *strengths.* Creativity has absolutely nothing to do with muscular
strength, which proves that you are designing your own God based on your own
ideals and this God is not full nor complete. Only an unlimited Deity is All
Mighty. Contains all strengths, all creativity, all knowledge, all design,
all creation, it is complete, whole and perfect in its Self. God does not
live by the rules of your vain philosophies. You live by God's design. To
you God is All Mighty, for your might is useless before Creation and the
Creator. God does not dance for you. God is not and cannot be your puppet.
No matter how many ill-formed conjectures you come up with. Because you are
not totally enlightened and One with the Deity, you are unable to utilize
the true strength of God or God's Logic.
Back to the drawing board for you.
Remember, God is Limitless. Think outside of your god-box.
Namaste'
Rev. David St. Albans 0:-)
Tarjei Straume wrote in message <373C0025...@online.no>...
>
>
>Tim Harris wrote:
>
>> Tarjei Straume wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > If God were almighty, he should be able to create a rock too heavy for
>> > himself to lift. If he could create such a rock, he wouldn't be
almighty, and
>> > if he couldn't, he wouldn't be almighty either. So God is not almighty,
pure
>> > and simple. There is no lonesome metaphysical dictator or junta. The
universe
>> > is teeming with life, and the gods are innumerable. Monotheism does not
make
>> > sense.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tarjei Straume
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The answer is simple....
>>
>> Can he make the rock so big he can't lift it? Yes. He made us in his
image didn't
>> he?
>
>The point is that if God is not only a deity among deities, but also a
circus
>magician and many other entertaining things in addition to being omnipotent
and
>omniscient, he would have no problem lifting anything, including all of
humanity at
>once, or any mountain of his choosing. The point is still, using plain
logic of
>course, that to be omnipotent, or almighty, this deity would have to be
able to
>create something that he could not do certain things with. And as soon as
this being
>or person or god or whatever cannot do anything he wants to do if he wants
to do it,
>he is not almighty. It's that simple.
>
>The idea of an almighty god is hereby dismissed because it is illogical, an
>impracticality, a total impossibility. Period.
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>
Tim Harris
[kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 1999 20:11:59 -0700, "Annex/St. Albans"
> <whispe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> There is one main aspect here that has been overlooked.
>
> This is that God is infinite. That means, as you know without beginning
> and without end, no boundaries.
>
> Therefore nothing, no thing can exist outside of God. Not even a
> boulder, or the smallest grain of sand.
>
> So it would be impossible for God to lift anything :-)
>
> Kenneth
>
Exactly but not with certainty... hahaha... the point being can the spirit lift,
or even move, the spirit? No. And yet the spirit moves. Wadda ya know about
that???!!!
Gentle Peace.
Tim Harris
seelite
>seelite wrote:
>
>> If you believe that version of reality, then it would logically follow that you
>> also believe that the allied forces were mistaken to have battled the Nazis.
>
>translation:
>
>If you don't believe my armchair quasi-spiritual neo-soviet politics, you
>support the Nazis.
That is not what I meant. :-)
This is: Some people have worked for the good of humanity, rather than for
their own bliss. Without their work, the world would be much worse off than it
is now. Those who defeated the Nazis did us all much good. Thankfully they
weren't a bunch of selfish children who said: " Just ignore Hitler man. Follow
your own bliss dude." or whatever. The 25,000 who starve to death daily, who
some new agers are saying should be ignored will be helped by more mature
groups with more developed consciences.
Some years ago, I was into following my bliss...and enjoyed it. Eventually
however, believe it or not, we all outgrow it. It's a form of childishness.
Following one's own bliss, does some good..it's a stage in our spiritual
childhood, but eventually and gradually, we put away childish things, ignore our
own desires, and try to be useful to the group. As we become aware of the
Hierarchy, we become aware of a great body of workers, who are very much into:
work. Many of the initiates (highly evolved people) of the world are
distinguishable from the masses by their contributions to our civilization
(work in service to humanity), not by their ability to sit at home, ignoring the
misery of the world and work which needs to be done.
seelite
<snip>
>It is such a shame that you reacted with such anger at my post. Is it
>because you fear the truth?
Wrong. There was no anger here...but I can understand why you thought so.
Those darn assumptions lead to lots of misunderstandings!
Annex/St. Albans
lifting. Or something. God is allmighty, because God is limitless in might.
No idea of might can exist outside of God.
Namaste'
Rev. David St. Albans 0:-)
[kenneth] iam...@globalnet.co.uk <[kenneth] iam...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in
message <373e2384...@read.news.globalnet.co.uk>...
>On Thu, 13 May 1999 20:11:59 -0700, "Annex/St. Albans"
><whispe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>There is one main aspect here that has been overlooked.
>
>This is that God is infinite. That means, as you know without beginning
>and without end, no boundaries.
>
>Therefore nothing, no thing can exist outside of God. Not even a
>boulder, or the smallest grain of sand.
>
>So it would be impossible for God to lift anything :-)
>
>Kenneth
>
>>And as I said. God has already done this. God is in you. You are part of
>>God. Go try to lift anything over, let's say, 200 lbs. over your head. In
>>the form of say, large boulder. God has thus created a form or image of
>>God's self which cannot even lift a tiny fragment of the world over its
>>head. Also,since you are not privy to everything God does, can you
>>truthfully say God has never preformed this particular experiment in
>>private?LOL! The whole point is moot. God does not promote exercises in
>>futility and uselessness.
>>In essence God has created the entire universe. Its weight is inestimable.
>>No entity could lift it. Yet it need not be lifted, it simply exists
>>floating in a void. If you personally can either lift it or even estimate
>>its total weight. I would call you Almighty. However I will reserve that
>>title for the One who manifested the entire ball of wax.
>>
>>Namaste'
>>
>>Rev. David St. Albans 0:-)
>>
>>Tarjei Straume wrote in message <373B6539...@online.no>...
>>>
>>>I wrote:
>>>
>>>> >If God were almighty, he should be able to create a rock too heavy for
>>>> >himself to lift. If he could create such a rock, he wouldn't be
>>almighty,
>>>> and
>>>> >if he couldn't, he wouldn't be almighty either. So God is not
almighty,
>>>> pure
>>>> >and simple.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting argument, but you assume the GodHead exists in a place
where
>>>> things need to be lifted and assume a personage for God which is human,
>>with
>>>> muscles, sinews and joints made for lifting.
>>>
>>>"Annex/St. Albans" wrote:
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. If God were almighty, he should be able to create a
place
>>>where things need to be lifted - if only for this experiment - and create
>>for
>>>himself any physical body of his choosing with muscles and so on - again,
>>for
>>>this experiment, and fulfill the requirements in question to prove
himself
>>>almighty. It is an impossibility either way, just like the concept of
>>almight
>>>is.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Tarjei Straume
>>>
>>>Greetings from Uncle Taz
>>>
>>>http://www.uncletaz.com/
>>>
>>>Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
>>plays,
>>>library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
>>skeletons,
>>>banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>Kenneth
>
>iam...@globalnet.co.uk