Cool DW Essay

[jeffreykiksit]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=tk7byfcy8otkgr8yv8gkeudouke28xddqjzbio b4l9rb3b7waapwyyusw7eqeag9eepwb_hxrhw36m9ufnzwiw), charlie <charlie@a...> wrote:
do you really believe that i am trying to ruin "it" for you?
> david is obviously is using this as catalyst as are you.
______
honestly, no i dont. but thats not to say that that might not be the
end result nonetheless. in fact i wasnt really refering to you
specifically. there have been similar incidents in the past that
display a pattern. in my opinion i think people at times in the past
may over-anylize some of davids posts, and attempt to "drag" him into
long drawn-out unessesary musings. this could be very time
consuming, and if it were to lead to less participation in the group
by david then that would be unfortunate. you just seemed to be
fulfilling that pattern. its nothing personal. there really is no
catalyst here for me personally, i just appreciate reading davids
insites. many of my comments were in regard to past events that i
read in the archives.

[Charlie]

i can understand that.

although i am not sure though who defines for the group which is an
unnecessary musing and which is necessary. anyway i wasn't after musings i
just wanted to know if the group had a agreed upon definition for the
concept of ego that in a round about way has been answered as no. i also
wanted to know if anyone knew how to more closely integrated the mind so
that it is not just working with secondary reflections of the field of
experience and that has elicited the same response.

when there is a challenge to fight the urge it would seem there is some
catalyst at work, this is not a "bad" thing.

however, if all your energy centers are balanced according to their unique
pattern then congratulations to you my friend.

aloha
charlie

> from: jeffreykiksit <jeffreykiksit@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=b0pmdzmfti7oreqmcmpnemzgbnk5mal4egjkde unkmn4hhb9rq6dwoxugemgdq3z1ggrprnhl-so3afdcfr5dz8y)>
> subject: [asc2k] cool dw essay
>
> --- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=zrjt0xeq-osizfbrkplp3buhlchv0pyyiym8ggojhnvyhqgt_mi-zun0ny4bnqg8sdxdzz5ovkiybspygg), charlie <charlie@a...> wrote:
> do you really believe that i am trying to ruin "it" for you?
>> david is obviously is using this as catalyst as are you.
> ______
> honestly, no i dont. but thats not to say that that might not be the
> end result nonetheless. in fact i wasnt really refering to you
> specifically. there have been similar incidents in the past that
> display a pattern. in my opinion i think people at times in the past
> may over-anylize some of davids posts, and attempt to "drag" him into
> long drawn-out unessesary musings. this could be very time
> consuming, and if it were to lead to less participation in the group
> by david then that would be unfortunate. you just seemed to be
> fulfilling that pattern. its nothing personal. there really is no
> catalyst here for me personally, i just appreciate reading davids
> insites. many of my comments were in regard to past events that i
> read in the archives.

[lealdragon]

i am currently re-reading the books (first read them 20 years ago) and
just the other day came upon some discussion of 'ego' - don't have
time to look it up right now but was about in the middle of the first
book. ra said don's definition of ego was not accurate, i do remember
that.


> just wanted to know if the group had a agreed upon definition for the
> concept of ego that in a round about way has been answered as no.

[Charlie]

> from: lealdragon <lealdragon@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ird4itvzixhqmarvu8s0lfdiizpsuetm8vbsnj bl-lkusaod7bx2tnym-pluyuyk4ebrgvblppl0xj4ldo8)>
> subject: [asc2k] re: cool dw essay
>
> i am currently re-reading the books (first read them 20 years ago) and
> just the other day came upon some discussion of 'ego' - don't have
> time to look it up right now but was about in the middle of the first
> book. ra said don's definition of ego was not accurate, i do remember
> that.

i posted all the ra q&as where the word ego was used in the first post i
made on this subject of ego.

ra said the term was misapplied but i am not sure if it was misapplied by
don or if the general term ego is misapplied and is actually a complex of
things.

here is a quote from southern crown teachings:

"traditional interpretation ends discussion of "ego" with its identification
as an illusion. like a mirage then, it should disappear upon approach. it's
for this reason that initiated "dissatisfaction" must be expressed toward
the traditional account of "ego". ego doesn't quaver on the air like a
passively-received impression, an hallucinatory image. "ego" is the specific
organizational function that accounts for the disposition of will in
3rd-density context. what's established by will, must be resolved through
will. therefore the disposition of "ego" is never automatic. "ego" must do
work if it would be compatible with the whole-being value to with it has
been introduced. it must engage a proper volitional mode so as to reorient
its function about another principle, if it would phase into congruence and
harmony-of-identity with the value that subtends it. the work it must do, is
always categorically the same. it must work on behalf of the whole. it
cannot just "proclaim" it. it must do it. the "ego" is the doer. the doer
must do, in order for its being to be realized in the dimension where it
dwells."

"the difference is that the positive framework recognizes the homogenous
business of life as being that of integrating the functional ego of
self-reflective cognition into balanced, congruent alignment with the
whole-being value of absolute consciousness. the negative framework of the
higher densities, on the other hand, posits the game in terms of the
ultimate aggrandizement of ego as the functional equivalent of absolute
consciousness, exalting ego to the nth degree of total creative absorption
and subordinate control/dominance. in all cases [above 3d], consciousness is
overtly identified as the common denominator, the standard and coveted
value."

this is the underlying question i was trying to ask in previous threads. how
do we go about integrating the functional ego of self-reflective cognition
into balanced, congruent alignment with the whole-being value of absolute
consciousness so we are not operating in a reflective manner?

aloha
charlie

[jeffreykiksit]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=o6wpeenpn-z-8deeiwo3ywllpaybtvrokunptbvivde25l306iunty2pw4ycqv farno52ptbnbz4qu0), charlie <charlie@a...> wrote:
> however, if all your energy centers are balanced according to their
unique pattern then congratulations to you my friend.
>
> aloha
> charlie
___________________
thank you charlie, i appeciate your congratulatory gesture.

[NEIL HADDON]

charlie wrote: "how
do we go about integrating the functional ego of self-reflective cognition
into balanced, congruent alignment with the whole-being value of absolute
consciousness so we are not operating in a reflective manner?"

why not be content to wait until you need to? i'm sure life ain't that
difficult.
love.
neil


> from: lealdragon <lealdragon@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=2mp51jg9rzbpdxsax-ocroc1hkevkegot6bxgiajtdgs27i7_ghvu6s_czmudkzv3hw8 nf84jcnyg1bs)>
> subject: [asc2k] re: cool dw essay
>
> i am currently re-reading the books (first read them 20 years ago) and
> just the other day came upon some discussion of 'ego' - don't have
> time to look it up right now but was about in the middle of the first
> book. ra said don's definition of ego was not accurate, i do remember
> that.

i posted all the ra q&as where the word ego was used in the first post i
made on this subject of ego.

aloha
charlie

[Charlie]

> from: neil haddon <wayshower@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=3r3y9t5iueaa-klwyzsp0iqhhoduhoywnoefqbvgriiwa-9mnihsrxtq1ub6atp9s85ckibno1c_xvw)>
>
> why not be content to wait until you need to? i'm sure life ain't that
> difficult.
> love.
> neil

has nothing to do with life being difficult.

you'll notice that when you are deeply involved in a subject creatively
(i.e. investigating it, testing it, analyzing it, studying it, operating it
etc.) you are taking up the slack in the energy of your identity so you are
not worrying about that object. "creativity" and "worry" are polar
opposites. by doing one, you absorb and nullify the other, whichever one
you're doing thus spiritual aspiration has to be directly and creatively
engaged as well.

uniquely with this subject of my whole-being-value, i must diametrically
shift the axis of my will from its character "ego intent", to a completely
different value of spiritual intent. this can only really happen when the
merit of spiritual awakening impresses itself upon me with such persuasive
force that i am willing to make so dramatic and decisive an exchange of
fundamental intentions. it is only then that i put the balance of my being
on a whole other basis. from such deeply assumed spiritual intent i must
will and actively engage a total creative involvement, with as much drive as
people ordinarily put into sex and as much heart as the ought put into love.

aloha
charlie


liber al vel legis

[Chris]

> you'll notice that when you are deeply involved in a subject
creatively> (i.e. investigating it, testing it, analyzing it,
studying it, operating it etc.) you are taking up the slack in the
energy of your identity so you are not worrying about that
object. "creativity" and "worry" are polar opposites. by doing one,
you absorb and nullify the other, whichever one you're doing thus
spiritual aspiration has to be directly and creatively
> engaged as well.

chris: charlie, it's a good analogy, but completely devoid of
emotion, which is the ultimate thrust towards 2012.
>
> uniquely with this subject of my whole-being-value, i must
diametrically shift the axis of my will from its character "ego
intent", to a completely different value of spiritual intent. this
can only really happen when the merit of spiritual awakening
impresses itself upon me with such persuasive force that i am
willing to make so dramatic and decisive an exchange of fundamental
intentions. it is only then that i put the balance of my being
> on a whole other basis. from such deeply assumed spiritual intent
i must will and actively engage a total creative involvement, with
as much drive as people ordinarily put into sex and as much heart as
the ought put into love.

geez, charlie, it makes me think that you don't need anyone else?
your emotions don't play any part in this? i have a problem with
people proselytizing-if your life is perfect, yeh, i will listen, so
tell me how your beliefs have made your life super special here? let
me say this...once someone starts to make themselves special around
all of us 'regular' guys trying to understand ourselves, i start to
wonder what that person is up to. if i have interpreted this wrong,
maybe it's pms :) but, you seem to be placing yourself above all of
us instead of being helpful-the difference is between preaching your
beliefs and giving helpful information. i am open to an explanation
here. chris
>

[Charlie]

> from: chris <chris.hamilton2@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=jfjqajg4chzzy0dn1vuhbqtl5cx3sulq923sp7 dhb3xw6g50ypbete-lk_k7ezknymxqieta9rkyrm0z2vetg7ed)>
> subject: [asc2k] re: cool dw essay
>
> you'll notice that when you are deeply involved in a subject
> creatively> (i.e. investigating it, testing it, analyzing it,
> studying it, operating it etc.) you are taking up the slack in the
> energy of your identity so you are not worrying about that
> object. "creativity" and "worry" are polar opposites. by doing one,
> you absorb and nullify the other, whichever one you're doing thus
> spiritual aspiration has to be directly and creatively
> engaged as well.
>
> chris: charlie, it's a good analogy, but completely devoid of
> emotion, which is the ultimate thrust towards 2012.

is it?

> uniquely with this subject of my whole-being-value, i must
> diametrically shift the axis of my will from its character "ego
> intent", to a completely different value of spiritual intent. this
> can only really happen when the merit of spiritual awakening
> impresses itself upon me with such persuasive force that i am
> willing to make so dramatic and decisive an exchange of fundamental
> intentions. it is only then that i put the balance of my being
> on a whole other basis. from such deeply assumed spiritual intent
> i must will and actively engage a total creative involvement, with
> as much drive as people ordinarily put into sex and as much heart as
> the ought put into love.
>
> geez, charlie, it makes me think that you don't need anyone else?
> your emotions don't play any part in this? i have a problem with
> people proselytizing-if your life is perfect, yeh, i will listen, so
> tell me how your beliefs have made your life super special here? let
> me say this...once someone starts to make themselves special around
> all of us 'regular' guys trying to understand ourselves, i start to
> wonder what that person is up to. if i have interpreted this wrong,
> maybe it's pms :) but, you seem to be placing yourself above all of
> us instead of being helpful-the difference is between preaching your
> beliefs and giving helpful information. i am open to an explanation
> here. chris

how did you extrapolate to me saying my life was/is perfect?

i said, "has nothing to do with life being difficult." this in no way in my
eyes says that my life is perfect, all it says that the subject matter has
nothing to do with life being difficult or easy.

the paragraph above was originally framed in third person but i thought if i
wrote it in third person people may think who is this guy. so i wrote it in
first person, hence "i must", which i feel i and you must do.

warning!! read disclaimer.

[just hypothetically speaking, imagine jesus saying, "i am the light i am
the way" and then someone saying, that jesus guy is always tooting his own
horn, not realizing that "i am the light" means you are the light, you are
your way.] not that that is the case here but just imagine.

this is no way to imply that i am jesus or any such thing.

seeing as you're one of the "'regular' guys trying to understand ourselves"
maybe you can tell me what you understand about yourself from your
statement, "i have a problem with people proselytizing"? why do you have a
problem with this? what is this i you talk of?

i am sorry that you feel i am preaching, not being helpful and am placing
myself above all of "us" but i am not here to swell your ego or mine.

having asked all of this we must realize that we are all in the right place
doing the right thing the the right time. much respect.

aloha
charlie

aloha
charlie

[Chris Hamilton]

chris: charlie, it's a good analogy, but completely devoid of emotion,
which is the ultimate thrust towards 2012.

charlie: is it?

chris: can we stay spiritually creative if we don't utilize our emotions? i
don't know. being female, emotions are a little difficult for me to throw
away. i think that by 2012, everyone will be closer to their emotional
strength, and this will indeed help us spiritually, if we can strengthen our
helpful emotions and understand and love the ones not quite so helpful.
>
charlie: uniquely with this subject of my whole-being-value, i must
diametrically shift the axis of my will from its character "ego intent", to
a completely different value of spiritual intent. this can only really
happen when the merit of spiritual awakening impresses itself upon me with
such persuasive force that i am willing to make so dramatic and decisive an
exchange of fundamental
>> intentions. it is only then that i put the balance of my being on a
>> whole other basis. from such deeply assumed spiritual intent i must will
>> and actively engage a total creative involvement, with as much drive as
>> people ordinarily put into sex and as much heart as the ought put into
>> love.

charlie: how did you extrapolate to me saying my life was/is perfect?

chris: i said if your life is perfect, then your spiritual journey speech is
within reach. however, how many of us can be so dedicated that we can have
the "merit of spiritual awakening impresse[s] itself ...with such persuasive
force that [one is] willing to make so dramatic and decisive an exchange of
fundamental intentions". very high aspirations :) maybe my speech was too
harsh...yes, it was. however, i still feel that you were philosophizing more
than actually thinking of results :)
>
charlie: seeing as you're one of the "'regular' guys trying to understand
ourselves" maybe you can tell me what you understand about yourself from
your statement, "i have a problem with people proselytizing"? why do you
have a
> problem with this? what is this i you talk of?

chris: your wording, although very poetic, felt as if you were trying to
sell me something...proselytize means to try to convert somebody to your
belief for those who don't know.....i think that is where my initial
reaction was....maybe i was indeed pms'ing :). was that your intention or
were you just daydreaming about the best-case scenario?

charlie: i am sorry that you feel i am preaching, not being helpful and am
placing myself above all of "us" but i am not here to swell your ego or
mine.

chris: good :)

charlie: having asked all of this we must realize that we are all in the
right place doing the right thing the the right time. much respect.

chris: ditto. although i sometimes disagree with your approach to
spirituality, i do understand your goals.

[Carla Rueckert]

on the value of emotions:

as it happens, i am editing some material channeled in 1991. the work is
a co-channeling between barbara brodsky channeling aaron and me
channeling the q'uo. the quote below comes from q'uo, and i personally
found it most illuminating. (i know i channeled it, but channeling
something and knowing it personally are way different, for me at least.)
here is the quote, and i am sending chris hamilton the whole weekend's
worth of channeling so you can write her if you want to read further.

"we would conclude with a comment about emotion. entities overvalue the
intellect because it seems to the intellect that one has only the
intellect with which to analyze situations. in the strict sense of
analysis and linear thinking, this is so; yet by depending upon that
analytical ability, the attention is drawn from the true intelligence of
the self, the true seat of wisdom, which is the mercy seat of purified
emotion. it is not your lack of self-acceptance, it is a lack of
self-acceptance-a quality which you now dip into and experience and use.
it is not personal to you. it is an emotion felt by you and many. in
emotion one is never alone, for the emotions run like the underground
waterways which bubble up in clear springs at their own time and season.
one who wishes to dig a well to tap this underground or subconscious
source of the water of spiritual refinement needs to go gently, to go
deep carefully, so that one rather woos or courts the earth away which
lies between it and the water of purified emotion, which is a portion of
the deep wisdom of the self. honor each emotion. look at it as you
would gaze at a gem, at a crystal. you may see it as imperfect, but it
is your truth. as you turn that crystal, flawed as it is, you may see
that though it refracts light unevenly, yet the refraction is full of
beauty and color. thusly, in honoring the emotions for the wisdom that
they truly convey, one is able to bear the pain of self-revelation,
which is the essence of conscious entrance into a safe and gentle
refining fire, a fire that does not burn away that which you still need.
"

i do not at all feel we need to go beyond emotions, but rather that we
have a personal responsibility to refine and purify the so-called
emotions experienced by our surface personality, going gradually deeper,
as we are able, into our own truth of self. the emotions are archetypal,
according to this info, and most valuable. i think it is the muddiness
and impulsivity of surface emotion that seems so bogus. follow emotions,
honor their truth, and shazzam! things open up and we indeed see further
than before, and go deeper in truth.

imho-

much l/l- carla

carla l. rueckert mccarty


*

-----original message-----
from: chris hamilton [mailto:chris.hamilton2@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=wlze85jfqrdw6bida1sr2uyz9qdusijgvn5p_d b5mns2tdhmgwhe2dttogsxlyf3egjtal47kc4_tuiflcldwcgz kk5o)]
sent: saturday, march 12, 2005 10:56 am
to: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=tlnbuut3rbe5xfjbpagvqwlqpnrft6rkm9lkcm 4jdqviybibecsyengd5aghojxbn62cuahp2qznf5aacxnsua)
subject: re: [asc2k] re: cool dw essay


chris: charlie, it's a good analogy, but completely devoid of emotion,

which is the ultimate thrust towards 2012.

charlie: is it?

chris: can we stay spiritually creative if we don't utilize our
emotions? i
don't know. being female, emotions are a little difficult for me to
throw
away. i think that by 2012, everyone will be closer to their emotional
strength, and this will indeed help us spiritually, if we can strengthen
our
helpful emotions and understand and love the ones not quite so helpful.
>
charlie: uniquely with this subject of my whole-being-value, i must
diametrically shift the axis of my will from its character "ego intent",
to
a completely different value of spiritual intent. this can only really
happen when the merit of spiritual awakening impresses itself upon me
with
such persuasive force that i am willing to make so dramatic and
decisive an
exchange of fundamental
>> intentions. it is only then that i put the balance of my being on a
>> whole other basis. from such deeply assumed spiritual intent i must
will
>> and actively engage a total creative involvement, with as much drive
as
>> people ordinarily put into sex and as much heart as the ought put
into
>> love.

charlie: how did you extrapolate to me saying my life was/is perfect?

chris: i said if your life is perfect, then your spiritual journey
speech is
within reach. however, how many of us can be so dedicated that we can
have
the "merit of spiritual awakening impresse[s] itself ...with such
persuasive
force that [one is] willing to make so dramatic and decisive an
exchange of
fundamental intentions". very high aspirations :) maybe my speech was
too
harsh...yes, it was. however, i still feel that you were philosophizing
more
than actually thinking of results :)
>
charlie: seeing as you're one of the "'regular' guys trying to
understand
ourselves" maybe you can tell me what you understand about yourself from

your statement, "i have a problem with people proselytizing"? why do
you
have a
> problem with this? what is this i you talk of?

chris: your wording, although very poetic, felt as if you were trying
to
sell me something...proselytize means to try to convert somebody to your

belief for those who don't know.....i think that is where my initial
reaction was....maybe i was indeed pms'ing :). was that your intention
or
were you just daydreaming about the best-case scenario?

charlie: i am sorry that you feel i am preaching, not being helpful and
am
placing myself above all of "us" but i am not here to swell your ego or

mine.

chris: good :)

charlie: having asked all of this we must realize that we are all in the

right place doing the right thing the the right time. much respect.

chris: ditto. although i sometimes disagree with your approach to
spirituality, i do understand your goals.






yahoo! groups links

[Tobey Wheelock]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=8ztohwcfjsw0g8ecbm0d__qtkshj_9q5aomsf4 kk6h5efdwtvgfjyu88dutxsodayb8zh-uyzyjyu-oa7ia), "chris" <chris.hamilton2@v...> wrote:
> but, you seem to be placing yourself above all of us


fwiw, i didn't read charlie's post this way. it seemed to me to be an
attempt to understand what is required on the spiritual path. i don't
think it claimed any particular aptitude or success on that path.

peace,
tobey w.

[lealdragon]

fwiw, i agree.

i belong to another discussion group, and recently this very same
thing happened - one person who was a bit skeptical or maybe asking
alot of questions was accused of being arrogant.

my response is, even if that is true, so what? it's interesting how
even here, on a group dedicated to spriritual seeking and seeing the
creator in all other-selves, even here we can push each other's buttons.

let's laugh at ourselves and see the love and beauty that each of us
has to share.


> > but, you seem to be placing yourself above all of us
>
>
> fwiw, i didn't read charlie's post this way. it seemed to me to be an
> attempt to understand what is required on the spiritual path. i don't
> think it claimed any particular aptitude or success on that path.
>
> peace,
> tobey w.

[Charlie]

> from: chris hamilton <chris.hamilton2@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=isadjjkli5r2kghycu1vnegmc5fp_tdeieoyjf xsi80j06a1evx0pnteprwnsnx19-e9x3ntbfa8b0ed-mswnysje5u-)>
>
> charlie: how did you extrapolate to me saying my life was/is perfect?
>
> chris: i said if your life is perfect, then your spiritual journey speech is
> within reach. however, how many of us can be so dedicated that we can have
> the "merit of spiritual awakening impresse[s] itself ...with such persuasive
> force that [one is] willing to make so dramatic and decisive an exchange of
> fundamental intentions". very high aspirations :) maybe my speech was too
> harsh...yes, it was. however, i still feel that you were philosophizing more
> than actually thinking of results :)

i think you should reread what i wrote. it didn't say that one must be so
dedicated to have the "merit of spiritual awakening impresse[s] itself
...with such persuasive force that [one is] willing to make so dramatic and
decisive an exchange of fundamental intentions".

it says, "this can only really happen when the merit of spiritual awakening
impresses itself upon me with such persuasive force that i am
willing to make so dramatic and decisive an exchange of fundamental
intentions."

here is a section from the ra material that kind of illustrates what i am
getting at.

questioner: how did jesus learn this during his incarnation?

ra: i am ra. this entity learned the ability by a natural kind of
remembering at a very young age. unfortunately, this entity first discovered
his ability to penetrate intelligent infinity by becoming the distortion you
call ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒ ã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â³angryãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒã ƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâ ƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã ‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â² at a playmate. this entity was touched by the entity known as
jesus and was fatally wounded. thus the one known as jesus became aware that
there dwelt in him a terrible potential. this entity determined to discover
how to use this energy for the good, not for the negative. this entity was
extremely positively polarized and remembered more than most wanderers do.

questioner: how did this aggressive action against a playmate affect jesus
in his spiritual growth? where did he go after his physical death?

ra: i am ra. the entity you call jesus was galvanized by this experience and
began a lifetime of seeking and searching. this entity studied first day and
night in its own religious constructs which you call judaism and was learned
enough to be a rabbi, as you call teach/learners of this particular rhythm
or distortion of understanding, at a very young age.

<cut>

galvanized by this experience. great words.

i think it all revolves back to the question i was asking about how to
integrate the mind so that it is not one step removed from the creative
field, this i feel will if possible give me the experience that will help me
shift the axis of my will from its character "ego intent", to a completely
different value of spiritual intent, which i feel i need to do in order to
be harvested and if it wasn't the end of a cycle i feel it would be
essential.

aloha
charlie

[Charlie]

> from: carla rueckert <rueckert@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=pqqvtpwpk1w2xmgd44aec4bypccsrhcatm5qgn 88ldgtwhs1tyshzectxvb7zgjqdlxgxw4w1pnwdx34wptwkgc)>
>
> quo:
> "we would conclude with a comment about emotion. entities overvalue the
> intellect because it seems to the intellect that one has only the
> intellect with which to analyze situations. in the strict sense of
> analysis and linear thinking, this is so; yet by depending upon that
> analytical ability, the attention is drawn from the true intelligence of
> the self, the true seat of wisdom, which is the mercy seat of purified
> emotion. "

this is the crux of the question i have been trying to get at. the intellect
works by secondary reflection which is rife to be effected by cognitive
filters, believe systems and emotions. it would seem quite obvious that
compassion, empathy and love are emotional by nature and arise from deep
within us whereas thinking seems to be much more lobe specific, not that i
think thinking occurs in the brain.

> i do not at all feel we need to go beyond emotions, but rather that we
> have a personal responsibility to refine and purify the so-called
> emotions experienced by our surface personality, going gradually deeper,
> as we are able, into our own truth of self. the emotions are archetypal,
> according to this info, and most valuable. i think it is the muddiness
> and impulsivity of surface emotion that seems so bogus. follow emotions,
> honor their truth, and shazzam! things open up and we indeed see further
> than before, and go deeper in truth.

recently i just got screwed over by someone big time, i trusted this person
then they stole all my borrowed money, tried to have me beaten up and
threatened me. i had nothing to eat, had to move house and still have to pay
off thousands of dollars. i blame myself for being too trusting but i feel
that this guy needs to be punished, my intellect tells me that karma will
work its course and that i am burning off karmic debt if i forgive him.
though emotionally i want to at very least get the borrowed money back and
give him a serious painful reminder that it is not nice to do this kind of
thing. if it was my money he stole it wouldn't be a problem but it is
borrowed and i am reminded of this constantly. as one maybe able to imagine
this is a big issue i am working with i could quite easily get on with my
life and it happened a few months ago but there is this nagging feeling to
get revenge.

i read somewhere some scientists found a revenge gene.

something here: http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2075/html/science.htm

carla,

how wonderful to see you active on the forum. it has been a number of years
since i was in contact with you, i wrote about my experiences here for the
wanderer handbook and managed to send you some of what i wrote, however, i
was going to send some more but circumstance prevented this and i guess i
just vanished. how did that project go? i see from l&l that it was published
and i look forward to getting a copy.

let me just say again how grateful i am for all the difficult and painful
work you have done through the years, this also goes for jim and don, i
don't know where i would be without the ra material it has been a burning
object in a cold lonely world, the first ray of sunshine on a cold morning
hitting me and warming my soul.

thanks again and i hope all your dreams are fulfilled.

aloha
charlie