Yep, two completely different worlds, one clear and transparent, the other 
twisted externally to satisfy an internal need. Never the twain shall meet. :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
<anartaxius@...> 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. 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. 
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> I tend to agree with this. The ego is a kind of mis-perception of experience, 
> it really is not some kind of entity, it is more like a bad habit that has to 
> be untrained, but seeing through the ego requires waking up, seeing that our 
> whole conceptual world is a fabrication, a lie we never knew existed, a lie 
> whose depth can take the breath away when exposed. One does not really 
> suspect how twisted one's thought and action is until one sees through this. 
> And seeing through this is for most just the beginning of being able to 
> unravel self-deception. Being 'spiritual' often results in one set of 
> self-deceptive lies being substituted for former ones. Not a big difference.
> 
> > --- 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.
>


Reply via email to