"Well, yes, but even among those who don't know themselves in the sense you're talking about, some are more prone to deliberate deceit than others, no?"
I see a parallel relationship between the amount of deception a person perpetuates and the cynical nature of their being. Someone who has essentially given up on any further development for themselves will practice more self deception. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" <futur.musik@> wrote: > > > > "I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely > > differences in awareness account for whether a person believes > > there is *justification* for saying something they know to be > > false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody > > ever attempts to deceive others." > > > > Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate > > deception being a reality. However, the thing I have been > > thinking about is how if someone is ignorant of their true > > nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an > > attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a > > reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. > > Maybe this is what I had in mind with regard to > justification of deceit, but in different words? > IOW, deceit may enable one to find a measure of > peace (short-lived though it may be), as long as > one is able to justify it to oneself. > > > Even though the deception appears designed for others, it > > is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of > > comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions. > > > > The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not > > primarily for the others. It is built to reflect a > > comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge. > > I can buy this. > > > This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the > > only other choice is to be what you are calling dishonest. > > Everything is done in support of the ego. It is the nature > > of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves > > they know little to nothing about? > > Well, yes, but even among those who don't know > themselves in the sense you're talking about, some > are more prone to deliberate deceit than others, no? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" <futur.musik@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice? > > > > > > > > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between > > > > the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a > > > > rested mind. > > > > > > > > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of > > > > totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I > > > > was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself > > > > (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to > > > > develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to > > > > hold onto. > > > > > > > > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in > > > > determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once > > > > the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, > > > > whether they are aware of it or not. > > > > > > > > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the > > > > former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego > > > > remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the > > > > known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable. > > > > > > > > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that > > > > person will see the world as completely different than someone with > > > > full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even > > > > though outer experience may appear similar. > > > > > > > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, > > > > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate > > > > attempt at deception or obfuscation. > > > > > > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely > > > differences in awareness account for whether a person > > > believes there is *justification* for saying something > > > they know to be false, but you really can't make much > > > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is > > > incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, > > > > > > but since you nailed it I can get off with just a: > > > > > > > > > > > > what he said. > > > > > > > > > > > > Favorite line: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield > > > > > > > Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) > > > > > > > > > > You sure that's what Buck means? > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL > > > > > would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its > > > > > discussions more interesting and productive, if we all > > > > > would refrain from personal attacks against each other, > > > > > if we could express our disagreements without being > > > > > disagreeable, in Obama's phrase. > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful > > > > > as we possibly can, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity > > > > > > > > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct > > > > > > > > as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife. > > > > > > > > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We'll miss you. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless > > > > > > > posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Negative" is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute > > > > > > > one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you > > > > > > > rail against would consider you and your "Buck" char- > > > > > > > acter more than a little negative. And, from their > > > > > > > point of view, they'd be correct, because to them > > > > > > > "negative" means anything that criticizes or goes > > > > > > > against what they believe to be true and correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought that earlier you yourself were making the > > > > > > > point that the injunction to "never entertain nega- > > > > > > > tivity and never denounce anyone" was a two-edged > > > > > > > sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest- > > > > > > > ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and > > > > > > > opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and > > > > > > > feel that what you propose above is just another > > > > > > > flavor of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who gets to decide what is "negative" and what is not? > > > > > > > You? The mysterious "we" you refer to below? Not. Gonna. > > > > > > > Happen. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right. We > > > > > > > > should do more to protect that privilege. This is a simple > > > > > > > > guideline that is very easily enforced. Coulld just revoke > > > > > > > > someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being > > > > > > > > negative like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield > > > > > > > Life be run the way the TMO is. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so > > > > > > > > it comes up every time. It's a uniform code of justice to > > > > > > > > attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. > > > > > > > > We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer > > > > > > > place to be with someone of the "Buck" mindset running it. > > > > > > > Just sayin'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; > > > > > > > > may It nourish us both together; > > > > > > > > May we work conjointly with great energy, > > > > > > > > May our study be vigorous and effective; > > > > > > > > May we not mutually dispute > > > > > > > > or may we not hate any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
