Modern role models.

[bluephoenix010]

Hey friends.

In the Law of One there is a section that states that Ra saw Jesus as
not a perfect role model because he was unable to balance love and
wisdom. I.e. had an overabundance of love that overpowered his
wisdom. When asked for a more suitable role model, they mentioned
Mahatma Gandhi.

I am reading his biography and he was indeed a great man. So great
infact, that violent people sometimes collapsed in tears infront of
him simply because of his obvious Sainthood. He was able to
communicate so well with anyone etc. The list goes on.

I've learn't a lot simply from reading: Revenge is never the answer,
how common people are melted by love and patience, power in the
brotherhood of human beings, people's inherent decency that the
Mahatma was so able to believe in and bring out in others, much
needed confirmation of the power of the spirit of truth.

But I also wonder if anyone of our rather huge group would be able to
suggest other role models of a similar stature to Gandhi. Biographies
of great people.

[M.W.]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=zEy5kTtFqLhLSm_a5Gc3yxf7s3Cd7hnlOySMMo qKHxdsyeM1a4NFLGkNBn9bo8bN2eYHceyWbkwOIC6LoA), "bluephoenix010" <1129@...> wrote:
>
> Hey friends.
>
> In the Law of One there is a section that states that Ra saw Jesus
as
> not a perfect role model because he was unable to balance love and
> wisdom. I.e. had an overabundance of love that overpowered his
> wisdom.

bill g: Hi, Blue. Interesting question and one I have
asked. There was a period -- not long ago --where I
was adamantly convinced there was no such historical
figure as Jesus -- that the entire Jesus tale was stitched
together using the whole cloth of Mystery religions which
did permeate that time and era. To "believers" that may
seem an incredible conclusion for any reasonable man
or woman to arrive at ( Hey! hasn't this guy seen the
hundreds of stirring films or read library-stuffing,
riveting books exhalting this "most historically
validated" person?..yes he has, and much more than most.)

There are so many false steps to be found in the New
Testament that it does bear investigation. A friend
of mine, "Acharya S." has written two stunning books
on this very subject. The first, "The Greatest Story
Ever Sold", followed by the scholary acclaimed work,
"The Suns of God". Another author, Earl Doherty, comes
at it from a different critique used in his devastating
"The Jesus Puzzle" Then came his second work written in
response to a best-selling book purposing to validat
the biblical claims and historicity. As a once amateur
but fervent Christian Apologist I could appreciate Earl's
skillful welding of the fabled two-edged sword as he
decapitated this hydra-headed Christian best-seller.
(One heralded as a perfect foil to confront and upset
atheists and other misled foot-draggerin deniers.

I even wrote book reviews praising their findings. Yes,
I was convinced they were right. and Ockham's Razor
agreed with me. So, I departed "the faith" post haste.

A couple of years later I ran into the Law of One.
HEY! Finally things metaphysical started falling into
place. But I sorta winced whenever the subject of Jesus
came up. (and some of my old posts at this site showed
it )

But I love Carla Rueckert, and Jesus comes with the
territory, so what do I do?

I learn to live with cognitive dissonance, that's what.

The channeled material does indicate that Satan and the
Virgin Mary are Thought Forms. In Mary's case she has
a reality than can be expressed. But her son seems to
have been actual flesh and blood...somewhere on earth
in contrast to somewhere in the mirror-like Inner Planes.

But it seems that the divinity of Jesus -- a vital
doctrine that separates true Christians from the
heretics -- is not exactly that... others of the
correct spiritual disposition also have the temporary
connection with the One Creator -- that some think of
as the Holy Spirit, or Christ Consciousness.

But be assured, that if you are a believer, and expect
Jesus to greet you on the other side, there will be a
valid entity there to pinch-hit for you-know-whom -- in
celebration of your grand entrance! (:>)

So. I'll let such facts that Nazarene wasn't even in
existance back in them there days, and that the biblical
authors had Jesus wandering off in wrong directions, etc.,
just slide.

So, for my guide I will throw out 80% of the New
Testament; I'll gingerly retain the parts that feature
love and forgiveness. In short, I'm for Jesus, the
"lamb of God" but I'm not going to get hung-up on
the avenging "Lion of Judah" persona.

The Ra does mention that Jesus came with the 4-D love
without wisdom...in fact he came with martyrdom on
his agenda. BUT there remains the question of whether
or not he would have been better served in his purpose
if he had stayed alive to continue preaching via examples.

I got the impression that the martyrdom aspect underlined
his mission much better than a longer life.

(for those who need to know. It seems the complex that
the entity Jesus belongs were responsible for the
many earlier "savior" versions appearing on earth.
The story of Krishna for example is stunningly similar
... "this variation of the story is true. Only the names
have been slightly altered to protect the innocent")

Blue, there are a number of interesting figures to help
guide our paths. Most of the Indian Yogis are difficult
to relate to. Yet, Paramahansa Yogananda's "Autobiography
of a Yogi" is engaging.

"However, as it has been aptly pointed out:
If Christ in not a living master then who is?"

A Cayce quote sticks in my mind: "God will not
be mocked."

HEY. A great person I really like is the late Omraam
Mikhael Aivanhov. For the last year or so I have been
receiving for-free daily meditations. Except for some
occasional rough edges they fit nicely into the Law of One

go to sign up at: http:www.prosveta.com



> When asked for a more suitable role model, they mentioned
> Mahatma Gandhi.

An interesting aside concerning Gandhi. He and his
followers desperatly tried to follow Vegan diets.
Such darn near killed them. Eventually and reluctantly
Ghandi admitted his one defeat.

If it don't fit, don't be convixed ...Billyapostanato

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=m1a6Lwol7zAaLshX99Zryl7UoXxJN-SFeokroTmP-vhxQ7JZRb3JA5AG7wleg5xy97ztBtH4b1oOEqsZ8QQ), "bluephoenix010" <1129@...> wrote:
>
> Hey friends.
> But I also wonder if anyone of our rather huge group would be able to
> suggest other role models of a similar stature to Gandhi. Biographies
> of great people.
>

Like Bill said the autobiography of a yogi by paramahansa yogananda is
really a great book. Also fun to read is Paul Brunton his book "A
search in Secret India", his other book "A Hermit in the Himalayas" is
also very fun. Stuff by Thich Nhat Hanh is also very good, it's a
vietnamese zen buddhist monk who is in exile...
The dalai lama his stuff is also very inspirational.
Also the poetry of Rabindranath Tagore is really really amazing.
I personally found the biography of uri geller also an intresting read.

Which book about mahatma ghandi did you read?

Greets,
Filip

[Ed]

Billybob said (post about Jesus and Gandhi, all snipped but
this...)

An interesting aside concerning Gandhi. He and his
followers desperatly tried to follow Vegan diets.
Such darn near killed them. Eventually and reluctantly
Ghandi admitted his one defeat.

If it don't fit, don't be convixed ...Billyapostanato
---------

My reply: First, about Gandhi, we all know he was quite a dude. A
lesser known aspect goes like so, and my sincere apolgies if I am
violating anyone's sensibilities...:

Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which
produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very
little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered
from bad breath. This made him...

(obligatory space for contemplation here...)






A super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

-----

Anyway: returning to the subject of Jesus... IMHO anyone trying
to prove anything using ancient parchment fragments or all the much
later historical hearsay and theory (never mind all the dark agendas
and translation problems) is really just trying to find "facts" which
support their own point of view on whatever really happened back then.
And IMHO it is true of historians that, if you're moved to get into
studying and writing about history, it is because you have some
inkling of familiarity with a good past life, one where you were
positively involved with key events and came away with a nice feeling
about the lifetime after passing.

So I figure that some of the Jesus-historians had actual lifetimes
back then where they were tremendously moved and excited, while others
later on had very strong religious experiences (astral manifested
visitation/presence of Jesus, for example. This is what has driven
interest in Jesus over the years. There has to be major positive
substance there underneath all the distortions that the Church
compounded over the centuries.

I can't imagine how anyone could have invented a Jesus character (with
all his power and glory) out of thin air back then because they had no
concept of the possibility of such, any more than they could dream of
computers and airplanes.

My favorite of everything I've read about Jesus is "Life and Teachings
of the Masters of the Far East", in Vol. 2, where Jesus manifests an
appearance with a body solid to the touch, in a temple hollowed out
inside a mountain, and for several chapters explains his activity
since back then and teaches basically what Christians and others of a
circa 1900 world needed to know about the misunderstandings of what
happened or what he said. Buddha also appears at one point and the two
of them preside over a spectacular healing scene. The L & T books are
not only very, very good, they are very cheap, something like $6 each.
The first two are the key ones.

I agree with you on Yogananda, and he seems to be the only 20th
century guru who lived in the U.S. who didn't eventually get into
distractions of greed, control issues, sex scandals, or the propensity
of enthusiastic followers to get carried away in bringing the
spiritual teachings to the general public. And of course, once the
guru died, the words solidify over the years into dogmas. Yogananda as
far as I know had a higher level of purity (as per the accounts of how
his body stayed intact and unspoiled) and I'm not aware of anyone
successfully or even unsuccessfully debunking his life and work.

All the best, Ed

[Michael Abrient]

On 12/29/06, M.W. (Bill )Gieskieng <skykieng@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=OESprnJYB0buubgNnQajUlMgDzRgbLdlvf-ADEy5rfIi8KM_GCgrwwc3o1KvIhlwqRmzyPqz_3nAEFP1)> wrote:
>
>
> The channeled material does indicate that Satan and the
> Virgin Mary are Thought Forms. In Mary's case she has
> a reality than can be expressed. But her son seems to
> have been actual flesh and blood...somewhere on earth
> in contrast to somewhere in the mirror-like Inner Planes.


.A : But! The Cayce material said Jesus was reincarnated Adam (a.k.a.
Amilius, who later became Thoth/ Hermes, Joseph ben Jacob, Zend who was
father of Zoroaster, and others, and ultimately a bearer of the planetary
Logos as Jesus), and Mary was Eve, and that the two of them were Essenes,
and assumedly inheritors of the Law of One.

Of Amilius it must be said he was a high 4th density entity, as many of the
original Atlantean Children of the Law of One who initially incarnated with
him were 4th density, therefore possessing the sensibilities and dimensions
of Love, prominent characteristics that would endure in all his other
incarnations, but were stereotypically more emphasised than other
personality qualities (blue ray Wisdom, indigo ray Love-and-Wisdom, etc.)
that could be accrued during, say, a Wanderer's or straight up human's
incarnation in the great soul distillery of Earthling 3D experiences. So
Gandhiji's actions were more tempered and colored with other elements
besides hardcore altruism?

/theories


And depending on who you talk to... thought form or not, Old Scratch is very
real. But most people find the idea of people turning into lizardmen and
vice versa "unlikely", at worst. But STS operates as a hierarchy, and
somebody's got to be at the top, somewhere...

Hey-- Thanks for the discussion Billybob. Again, it's an honor.

Be well,
A


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Gene Martin]

Hi Bill,

Several weeks ago I purchased and read "Talmud of Immanuel". Throws
the NT Gospels (and the NT for that matter) into a different arena,
one that most of us have suspected/known for some time.

It was worth the read, and I intend to read it again, this time
more "thoughtfully".

Take care,

Gene



--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=JphLsGpBqOVYoX9Fn-XYJ_GDVZs8rkSJFC6_T9kRqoMsWwTvDepj40Dg9KUKInsT_XfB v7-OkaF941Tv0Q), "M.W. (Bill )Gieskieng" <skykieng@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=JphLsGpBqOVYoX9Fn-XYJ_GDVZs8rkSJFC6_T9kRqoMsWwTvDepj40Dg9KUKInsT_XfB v7-OkaF941Tv0Q), "bluephoenix010" <1129@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey friends.
> >
> > In the Law of One there is a section that states that Ra saw
Jesus
> as
> > not a perfect role model because he was unable to balance love
and
> > wisdom. I.e. had an overabundance of love that overpowered his
> > wisdom.
>
> bill g: Hi, Blue. Interesting question and one I have
> asked. There was a period -- not long ago --where I
> was adamantly convinced there was no such historical
> figure as Jesus -- that the entire Jesus tale was stitched
> together using the whole cloth of Mystery religions which
> did permeate that time and era. To "believers" that may
> seem an incredible conclusion for any reasonable man
> or woman to arrive at ( Hey! hasn't this guy seen the
> hundreds of stirring films or read library-stuffing,
> riveting books exhalting this "most historically
> validated" person?..yes he has, and much more than most.)
>
SNIP

[Gene Martin]

Hi,

Sometime this weekend, try taking a hand held mirror and go sit
comfortably somewhere so you are not going to be disturbed. Look
into the mirror, and stare continually into your eyes... till your
facial features blur,and keep asking yourself the question.


Take care,

Gene


>>>>>>SNIP

> But I also wonder if anyone of our rather huge group would be able
to
> suggest other role models of a similar stature to Gandhi.
Biographies
> of great people.
>

[M.W.]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=8YdPizGo8HY01hncRgWMV7TY8mWpTUBZNCF28l tYR8gBRHzhDXcU1E8Ci7OYJnh8Y6gzqLE-kJvjMlVNpddq), Ed <metasyn@...> wrote:


>
> A super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
>
AAAAGHHH! (:>)))

lots of snippity snips
>
Ed: > Anyway: returning to the subject of Jesus... IMHO anyone
>
> I can't imagine how anyone could have invented a Jesus character
(with
> all his power and glory) out of thin air back then because they had
no
> concept of the possibility of such, any more than they could dream
of
> computers and airplanes.

Bill says: That ain't necessarily so. There is a
remarkable "computer" recovered from an ancient
shipwreck of that era, albeit of a mechanical nature
rather than electronic... and batteries were not
unknown. Of course the concept of aircraft can
be found mentioned ages before in Hindu literature.

A defense used by Christian's concerning the charge
of the Jesus figure and story being a mythological
construction is that there was not the needed time
to construct such. The fly in the ointment of that
bit of apologetics is that the Myths were already
established to be grafted upon. The main rival of
early Christianity was that of a similar saviour
figure, Mithra. It is no secret that much of
Mithraism has been "borrowed by the early church...
heck, even the term, Pope, was snatched from them,
and of course much also in the way of panoply
and rituals. Keep in mind that some scholars
date the accounts in the Bible as coming
some hundreds of years after the events described.

Much of the spiritual philosophy expounded can be
found in the works of Philo of Alexandra, who was
a time contemporary of Jesus. The argument goes that
Philo would certainly have known of similar ideas
being expounded in nearbye Jerusalem. The fact
is that there is NO support of the bible accounts
from other sources. (the historian Josephus'account
was determined to be bogus nearly two hundred
years ago)

Virtually all religions can be traced back to
roots feeding on nourishment from Astrotheology.
That seeming fact gave Acharya her title for
her massive work, "The Suns of God."

If you are curious, check out www.truthbeknown.com.
Acharya has just finished a work that concentrates
on the figure of Jesus. Whatever, Jesus does make
a good role model, especially for women. As a man
I find it awkward to relate to another man, divine
or otherwise.

In the LLResearch channelings there seem to be hints
directed towards the difficulty of accurately addressing
so-called historicities. It may be that the past is
not firmly fixed in a manner that we in 3-D assume it
should be. Time is so that everything doesn't happen
at once ... so go figure!

If one's faith revolves around Jesus, then stick with
that path. How can I advise otherwise? I use Jesus as
an inspirational role model myself. I think that because
of the need to honor our "freewill" that nothing of
a spiritual nature can be proven to the point of
compelling belief through confrontation by the brute
force of intellectually overwhelming evidence.

snip


Ed says: Yogananda as
> far as I know had a higher level of purity (as per the accounts of
how
> his body stayed intact and unspoiled) and I'm not aware of anyone
> successfully or even unsuccessfully debunking his life and work.

Bill says: Well, there have been attempts. Google,
Stripping the Gurus.

Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov has been accused of
being boring, with some of his advice suspect.
Yet I find his daily meditations of great help
in stimulating my awarness of spiritual values.

My apologies to any who might think I have gone
to far afield. I'm struggling to put things in
workable order, so i find it helpful to me to
mention some points that I wrestle with.

My love to all (women, that is) Men will
have to suffice with a hearty handshake.

billlyouiyhgosjp

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Hed-c0PebVx0PyxwATEw8fuuspV6xMpn9KfZIf1qJw-6dIPApLPrmg2fx4q1_PZTzn-upT1s_iyDpWA9lgiC), Ed <metasyn@...> wrote:
> A super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

Pi: When i envision the wisdom of Gandhi, i see his starting point as
a key. He seemed prepared to welcome, accept, learn from, & embrace
each stranger & each strange group or doctrine he was introduced to,
without having any need to know, any fear of, or distrust for their
antecedents, their virtue, or the moral value of their way of life.
Jesus started with a philosophy grounded by Judaism & a hierarchical
bent in the organization of Jewish religious sects he 'ministered' to.

Unlike Jesus, Gandhi, disavowed any allegiance to a single religious
sect. Most may be unaware that Gandhi actually reached a decision to
accept teachings of Christ & convert to Christianity. He attended a
Christian worship service in South Africa with this purpose in mind;
but he was told that due to skin color, he would have to leave go to
a nearby church for colored people. He immediately dropped & never
reconsidered the prospect of converting to Christianity.

In reflecting on the above, i gather that Jesus & Gandhi differed in
attitude about the level of allegiance that each thought appropriate
with respect to religious faith. The devotion of each to doing what
i would describe as 'the will of the Creator' was the same. Indeed,
Gandhi appears to have embraced the teachings of Jesus but not the
religion of Jesus as instututionalized by Christian churches. That's
also the way that Jesus seemed to feel about the teachings of Moses,
Melchizedic, et.al. i surmise that Jesus also would have embraced the
teachings of Gandhi, if the latter had been the predecessor.

Now by leap of faithful intuition, i surmise that the distinction Ra
alludes to with respect to the balance of love & wisdom by Gandhi &
the polarized love of Jesus may be portrayed by differences in their
stance toward religious institutions. Jesus seems to advise people to
create a new structure. Gandhi seems more focused on harmonizing the
energy vibrations that affect attitudes of followers to each other &
the British. Even if Jesus' followers succeed in creating a perfect
church of lovw, the activity needed to establish autonomy will lead
them to resist those in their former faith who want them under their
own jurisdiction.

Unfinished....

Peace & Love, pi
>
> -----
>
> Anyway: returning to the subject of Jesus... IMHO anyone
trying
> to prove anything using ancient parchment fragments or all the much
> later historical hearsay and theory (never mind all the dark agendas
> and translation problems) is really just trying to find "facts"
which
> support their own point of view on whatever really happened back
then.
> And IMHO it is true of historians that, if you're moved to get into
> studying and writing about history, it is because you have some
> inkling of familiarity with a good past life, one where you were
> positively involved with key events and came away with a nice
feeling
> about the lifetime after passing.
>
> So I figure that some of the Jesus-historians had actual lifetimes
> back then where they were tremendously moved and excited, while
others
> later on had very strong religious experiences (astral manifested
> visitation/presence of Jesus, for example. This is what has driven
> interest in Jesus over the years. There has to be major positive
> substance there underneath all the distortions that the Church
> compounded over the centuries.
>
> I can't imagine how anyone could have invented a Jesus character
(with
> all his power and glory) out of thin air back then because they had
no
> concept of the possibility of such, any more than they could dream
of
> computers and airplanes.
>
> My favorite of everything I've read about Jesus is "Life and
Teachings
> of the Masters of the Far East", in Vol. 2, where Jesus manifests an
> appearance with a body solid to the touch, in a temple hollowed out
> inside a mountain, and for several chapters explains his activity
> since back then and teaches basically what Christians and others of
a
> circa 1900 world needed to know about the misunderstandings of what
> happened or what he said. Buddha also appears at one point and the
two
> of them preside over a spectacular healing scene. The L & T books
are
> not only very, very good, they are very cheap, something like $6
each.
> The first two are the key ones.
>
> I agree with you on Yogananda, and he seems to be the only 20th
> century guru who lived in the U.S. who didn't eventually get into
> distractions of greed, control issues, sex scandals, or the
propensity
> of enthusiastic followers to get carried away in bringing the
> spiritual teachings to the general public. And of course, once the
> guru died, the words solidify over the years into dogmas. Yogananda
as
> far as I know had a higher level of purity (as per the accounts of
how
> his body stayed intact and unspoiled) and I'm not aware of anyone
> successfully or even unsuccessfully debunking his life and work.
>
> All the best, Ed
>

[Petrus]

>wisdom. I.e. had an overabundance of love that overpowered his
>wisdom. When asked for a more suitable role model, they mentioned
>Mahatma Gandhi.

I'm going to be extremely controversial here and state for the record that I
consider Gandhi to have been a hypocrite. The reason why is because he
advocated non-violence, but then basically exercised a form of psychological
warfare. His tone in at least one of his letters that I read was what I
considered self-righteous...he was aware of how deeply enlightened others
considered him, and I suspect it went to his head.

Criticise Jesus for being a martyr if you want, but realise that Jesus'
martyrdom was done with no strings attached; what Gandhi did was done for
the benefit of an audience...he was essentially trying (and ultimately
succeeded) to induce a sufficiently high degree of guilt and shame in the
English that they relented. They also would have known at the time that
other countries were watching what was going on, and how bad continuing
would have made them look.

Psychological and/or moral warfare is still warfare...you might not be
committing physical violence, but you *are* in many instances doing
psychological harm to the enemy. That is not pacifism, if we seek to define
that as a total refrain from harming an assailant...and it is not martyrdom.

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

> I'm going to be extremely controversial here and state for the
> record that I consider Gandhi to have been a hypocrite. The reason
> why is because he advocated non-violence, but then basically
> exercised a form of psychological warfare.


It all depends on the intention in my view.
Behavior is never black or white. Gandhi was a human being like all of
us and he clearly had anger and frustration but he had an amazing way
to deal with that. But I don't know enough off him. The only thing I
do know is that Gandhi is the only one that I know that had a major
influence in ending colonisation based on a non violence way and never
turned to that.
Anywayz could somebody tell me in which session this statement is made
by Ra? I can't find it anywhere...

greets,
Filip

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=m5EoVn7sWxO9UuZ3r-ja3DWuWk-U_LRIW6MFsC91FjPUdTszMeTwQYBYnrqsM6GoqmVZXFbpHOd7s sWr), "Filip Van Droogenbroeck" wrote:
> Anywayz could somebody tell me in which session this statement is made
> by Ra? I can't find it anywhere...

PI: Just uploaded document to Files section that contains references to
Gandhi that i found. Bad news is, statements actually are attributed to
Q'uo et.al. rather than to Ra. Good news is, a close study of Gandhi
will offer insight on ways one can follow a path of service to others.

Peace & Love & a healthy & prosperous 2007 to All! pi

[bluephoenix010]

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=w8kRv2EqGcG1n_RKuDSNRxbXHLEtw6dL81OyUD jEO6cttEQ6A_jbTuZJS26lUFtuRatyfNGpTPoQRF1wq0Q), "M.W. (Bill )Gieskieng" <skykieng@...>
wrote:

> But I love Carla Rueckert, and Jesus comes with the
> territory, so what do I do?
>
> I learn to live with cognitive dissonance, that's what.

lol, yeah, I sorta get what you mean. Some of the Ra things you have
to let sit for a while. So you're sticking with Jesus 'superfraud'
then. Funny thing is that since it was two thousand years in the past
we'll never really know, or I dunno, maybe when we die.

Petrus said: Something along the lines of Mahatma Gandhi using
psychological warfare.

Ah, I don't agree. Well, yes, it is a form of psychological warfare.
But what Mahatma explained he was doing was appealing to all that is
good in man and amplifying it. Violence breeds violence, but he was
using 'Love power'. If the man gets guilty then that's an improvement.

I might try that mirror thing. Something along those lines I have
found quite a fright is when you get into a real state of how
powerful people are, and how there is a story behind everyone going
past several lives etc. Really think on that and get into that state
and when you look in someone's eyes. It's like your gobsmacked by the
depth of them

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=dGrUShXwsLiGvVWMB2qsK8fuKkZ_0pBgZAO6C7 U6DGkXhuMC7z7YfxetmHykO7YxldlEveHrmXXij20PRqMmGQ), "Petrus" <petrus4@...> wrote:
> > Criticise Jesus for being a martyr if you want, but realise that
Jesus' martyrdom was done with no strings attached...

Pi: Not sure what the phrase "no strings attached" is referring to. It
certainly appears that Jesus began a ministry with intent to overturn
what he considered to be wayward revisions of teachings & practices by a
number of Judaic sects. He expanded that ministry to include so-called
Gentiles, but never wavered in his determination to restore basic tenets
of "Love God..." & "Love thy neighbor..." as cornerstones of faith for
adherents of Judaism.

Petrus--> "what Gandhi did was done for the benefit of an audience...he
was essentially trying (& ultimately succeeded) to induce a sufficiently
high degree of guilt and shame in the English that they relented. They
also would have known at the time that other countries were watching
what was going on, and how bad continuing would have made them look. >

Pi: There's no doubt that Jesus also sought to be a model for benefit of
an audience. This was in fact the purpose for recruiting disciples as a
core of support, much the same way that Gandhi organized early adherents
to form an ashram.

Petrus--> Psychological and/or moral warfare is still warfare...you
might not be committing physical violence, but you *are* in many
instances doing psychological harm to the enemy. That is not pacifism,
if we seek to define that as a total refrain from harming an
assailant...and it is not martyrdom. >

Pi: If we change the meaning of pacifism (as is being done here) to
be "a total refrain from harming an assailant" then you are absolutely
correct! (i guess that would make Gandhi a warmonger, right?) The caveat
is, we can't find such a definition for 'pacifism' in any dictionary.
Pacifism is distinguished by refusal to participate in military action &
is defined as "belief that disputes should & can be settled peacefully"
or by "opposition to war or violence as means of resolving disputes."

Jesus and Gandhi were indubitably involved in psychological & moral
warfare. i see no problem with this. Do you? A wise lady once pointed
out to yt, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
A second reason i have no problem with this is based on a quotation by
Frederick Douglass i posted in a previous exchange. In part, he said:

"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to
favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation?want crops without plowing up
the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the
ocean without the awful roar of its many waters?. Power concedes nothing
without a demand. It never did and it never will." (1857 speech)

Peace & Love & Health & Prosperity to all in 2007 & eternity... pi

[Michael Abrient]

ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚ÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚°A : I just want to say, this discussion has taken a turn where another
discussion like this came up almost exactly a year ago, started by some of
the same people. The core issue was, and is, a bias of interpreting a victim
complex as being the same as superficial, STO behavior. Aaand... it's not,
because the intention within the victim complex still falls under the STS
hierarchy structure (some call it "the game") of taking and abuse. The
bleeding martyr case was necessary for Jesus to heal the karma he had
wrought as Adam during the Fall, which was something the Cayce sessions
admitted. Jesus is a beloved brother of ours and was bearer of the planetary
Logos for a time. The act of self-sacrifice was vital for fulfilling his
destiny, but the method doesn't work a) for everybody, and b) across the
board. Search the forums-- David's talked about this, none of this is any
news. Ra talks about healing and balancing on all levels, and ultimate
polarization, via learning the lessons of grounding, self-power,
self-control, love, wisdom, love-and-wisdom, etc., and how (I say, not Ra)
this takes precedence over any attempts to influence or serve others, though
we are free to do as we will.


On 1/1/07, Pi <johnnypi@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=1qIiH8c-XktR2vSFp6gFW5OdtoDTax18k73IPMyT28Gd3dHA-tyykNm_LhuyThaaJknYR9Clnclajw)> wrote:

Jesus and Gandhi were indubitably involved in psychological & moral
> warfare. i see no problem with this.



ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚ÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚°A : Agreed.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come
to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household'."
Matthew 10:34-36

(Pulling out the Matthew quote, like last year.) That Jesus and Gandhiji
were involved in a warfare of a non-physical nature is beyond debate. It
must be remembered, Earth was engineered as a jungle gym for all these
different races, factions, and polarizations on purpose-- there are groups
out there who are benign, groups that are indifferent, and groups that are
working diligently across the world and beyond who would either want the
rest of us either dead or enslaved. Just the facts of life. What is
admirable is how these two beings were able to navigate these tribulations
and still maintain their humanity. This is the difference between a warrior
and a murderer.

Be well,
ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚ÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚°A


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shelly Pinnell]

Dear Group,

I kept hoping with each new e-mail I opened on this thread, that someone would
mention other modern role models The most interesting aspect of this thread, is
that there have been no role models other than Jesus and Ghandi (neither who
are contemporary) mentioned. The one person I am aware of that I deem
mentioning is not allowed to be named according to the rules of the website
since he has been classified as a "channeler". That raised an interesting
question to my mind. Would there be any living modern role models worthy of
mention that would not be channeling energy from the Creator?

Happy Holy Days,

Shelly Pinnell




Michael Abrient <abrient@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=nL9qgQFtKqVXxF1wIu3BNDlR1dj6hz1lxHFZ_l FD3Kzun9qDLuG0tlxopNzXfCsYl-qDK-HCXCfzpfU)> wrote:
Jesus is a beloved brother of ours and was bearer of the planetary
Logos for a time. The act of self-sacrifice was vital for fulfilling his
destiny, Ra talks about healing and balancing on all levels, and ultimate
polarization, via learning the lessons of grounding, self-power,self-control,
love, wisdom, love-and-wisdom, etc., and how (I say, not Ra)this takes
precedence over any attempts to influence or serve others, though we are free to
do as we will.

On 1/1/07, Pi <johnnypi@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=y1D4eDSnnCEU2Ysfj70kffO5OoWSbMH7BIPocV YYr5zyrPRNgqrPNKH5Wm62fRqhhkTseGhYF8qeGP_3)> wrote:

Jesus and Gandhi were indubitably involved in psychological & moral
> warfare. i see no problem with this.

[Michael Abrient]

On 1/1/07, Shelly Pinnell <pinnellshelly@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Wphaytg2gW5-tPIA1Tp-q1k0HFCfV_pDEVybj8jYFim6-qp8O6dpo69o6i5by6fxj5pEzaX7h5Rfc6YQ77IW3rg)> wrote:
>
>
> I kept hoping with each new e-mail I opened on this thread, that someone
> would mention other modern role models



ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚ÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚°A : We see in others what we see of ourselves. Our heroes are a patchwork
of who we are and what we desire to become. Of certain people, there are
certain characteristics I could admire, but I wouldn't put them on a
pedestal; but for each of the seven rays, I could choose somebody to emulate
whom I felt was exemplary in a particular way, insofar as worthy of pursuing
as an example of a desirable ideal-- I could admire Christ's courage and
compassion, Buddha's insight, etc. (not modern examples, I know, sorry),
without suspending the disbelief they are going to be human, too, no matter
what, blemishes and all. Idolization is an orange ray complex inappropriate
for creatures like us.

Ra talked about some individuals who were part of the Mayan harvest that
opted to remain on Earth in service to others, one of them later becoming
the person known as Mother Teresa. I'm sure the people most worthy of renown
are never given it, but I'm always skeptical of whom history chooses to
remember. So I can't say who a good modern role model would be or not...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jason Wharton]

And according to a man I spent quite a long time in conversation with on a
train between Amsterdam and Bern had a lot to say that he wished people knew
but because Ghandi has become so put on a pedestal there is a lot that can't
be said. In short, India has suffered in many ways due to what he produced.

Where is India now compared to other British Protectorates?

I'm no expert, but I'm just letting people know there are successful,
goodhearted people from India who can see through Ghandi and who don't want
to keep eating the bologna.

Regards,
Jason L Wharton

On Behalf Of > Petrus
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:03 PM
>
> >wisdom. I.e. had an overabundance of love that overpowered his
> >wisdom. When asked for a more suitable role model, they mentioned
> >Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> I'm going to be extremely controversial here and state for the record that
> I
> consider Gandhi to have been a hypocrite. > Psychological and/or moral warfare
is still warfare...you might not be
> committing physical violence, but you *are* in many instances doing
> psychological harm to the enemy. That is not pacifism, if we seek to
> define
> that as a total refrain from harming an assailant...and it is not
> martyrdom.

[Petrus]

>(Pulling out the Matthew quote, like last year.) That Jesus and Gandhiji
>were involved in a warfare of a non-physical nature is beyond debate. It

My only real point was that I felt as though Jesus acknowledged that, while
Gandhi didn't...from what I saw anyway, Gandhi tried to describe what he was
doing as completely refraining from causing harm...and as people are
agreeing here, it wasn't. ;-)

I hope I didn't offend people too deeply, then...I have a tendency not only
to hold unpopular opinions, but also at times to express them in a less than
subtle manner, I will confess.

[Pi]

> > On 1/1/07, Shelly Pinnell <pinnellshelly@...> wrote:
> > I kept hoping with each new e-mail I opened on this thread,
that someone would mention other modern role models...

Pi: i thunk it implausible to identify contemporary role models w/o a
focus on specifics of the characteristics or particular behavioral
issues that interest you.
As evidence, i want to note that Q'uo mentioned Gandhi when asked
this: "Is there any example of someone known to us in third density
who has balanced love & wisdom?" Q'uo advised "Sorting through this
instrument's mind to see the characters on the world stage of whom
she is aware, we would choose two entities about whom to speak with
you this day. The first is the [one known as] Lao-Tzu...."

The other character was Gandhi. What this tells us is that from the
time that Lao-Tzu lived to Gandhi, Q'uo could identify no one "on the
world stage" who had balanced love and wisdom and was known to Carla.
There may be others on the world stage who've balanced love & wisdom
but were historical figures unknown to Carla. And of course, there
may be numerous others on a provincial or local stage who've done the
same & are unknown to us. But i doubt there's anyone else who has
balanced love & wisdom, is known "on the world stage", & is known to
us.

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=I9dqeHLE8bwGOd03UbRDd9vau2b17XW4OifkT7 j6GVCBDPN0a6CSGJi7Y8MLPiwXOeIu4I0Hwbyo01r0pnLE), "Michael Abrient" <abrient@...> wrote:
> We see in others what we see of ourselves. Our heroes are a
patchwork of who we are and what we desire to become. Of certain
people, there are certain characteristics I could admire, but I
wouldn't put them on a pedestal; but for each of the seven rays, I
could choose somebody to emulate whom I felt was exemplary in a
particular way, insofar as worthy of pursuing as an example of a
desirable ideal-- I could admire Christ's courage and compassion,
Buddha's insight, etc. (not modern examples, I know, sorry), without
suspending the disbelief they are going to be human, too, no matter
what, blemishes and all. Idolization is an orange ray complex
inappropriate for creatures like us. >

Pi: You hit the (7) nail(s) on the head, Michael! We need to narrow
our scope of the role we want to find a model for.

Until recently, i had thought that Ra seems to unfairly limit Jesus'
stature in relation to LoO. In mulling over this, i now realize the
basis & appropriateness of Ra's perspective. The first consideration
is that sts-minded sources will seize knowledge of teachings & feats
by persons who were furthering the LoO & use them for sts purposes.
That was in fact done with respect to pyramids that Ra helped create
& the churches that Jesus' disciples formed. Instead of having a role
model, Ra often expounds on charting a unique path that serves unique
needs & goals that each one of us has in 3-d. So i see Ra limiting
attention to highlight the message & style of a messenger rather than
suggesting that we focus on a (single) special messenger like Jesus.

Peace & Love, pi

[M.W.]

One might google something like, "who killed Ghandi" and
read what one of those behind his assasination had to say
about their reasons for doing so. For what its worth
they felt that he had gone back on his promises
concerning the partition of India and by doing so
he had gravely misled and betrayed his followers.

best, etc. billious g

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=P3-nUaIrJ7MaR9UnGozf5YY4LOEkH-Vn4dl5FRe9SbY4Uo5uevdbmbOOjQV-iLICv4WS_jrxBzQgfD_0Yxa0), "Jason Wharton" <lists@...> wrote:
>
> And according to a man I spent quite a long time in conversation
with on a
> train between Amsterdam and Bern had a lot to say that he wished
people knew
> but because Ghandi has become so put on a pedestal there is a lot
that can't
> be said. In short, India has suffered in many ways due to what he
produced.

[M.W.]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=oRaWP3gpzirk6tzwOvz0UU_RN0Ac-eMDtezZZ3qj5m-2YJrCwTjh__KLOkKdzNu-IWcvvULFvftz5vavvJ1_bQ), "bluephoenix010" <1129@...> wrote:
So you're sticking with Jesus 'superfraud'
> then. Funny thing is that since it was two
> thousand years in the past
> we'll never really know, or I
> dunno, maybe when we die.

Hi. My 'puter has been down so I'm trying to play catch
up.

A very interesting take on the Jesus reality
question can be found revolving around the so-called
Talmud of Jmmanuel ... proposed as the source for
the Gospel of Mathew.(the "J" instead of an expected
"I" may be because the German typeface for "I" has a
similar hook on the bottom...anyway,it is pronounced
the same as if it were an "I".

"Hawai Charlie" brought up the TJ subject in a posting
a year or so ago. I followed up on it but brushed it
off since the circumstances of its discovery seemed
too weird.

I'm now taking it much more seriously.


The book of Mathew has some serious problems in
literary structure that has baffled scholars.
Voila! The Talmud of Jmmanuel fills in the missing
gaps. A certain professor Deardorff (sp?) has done
a bang-up job in presenting the case for the TJ. as
Seems it might be the hypothetical "Q" document
speculated as the mysterious source behind the
synoptic gospels.

To get a start on investigating just google "theyfly"
then start following links. It kept me busy for a couple
of days ... my head swirling around with Plejarens,
UFOs, Indiana Jone types and literary detective work.

I might add that I use the Ra material as a lodestone
whenever I delve into such things. Couldn't survive
without it!

PS Judas Iscariot wrote the TJ ...Juda Ihariot --
son of a temple priest -- was the sound-a-like-named-
guy who was the actual silver suicide.

bill g

[Pi]

PI: Just to experience 'it', i choose to broadblast along with you.

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=xrVsKbbesZhECjoQPobSZ0iEn4qZZADnZFuqGk vFJETeqHM6QK_Hu28RYcIDQY_GdJtQBeHDHGlmgiA), Bill wrote:
> One might google something like, "who killed Ghandi" and read what
one of those behind his assasination had to say about their reasons
for doing so. For what its worth they felt that he had gone back on
his promises concerning the partition of India and by doing so he had
gravely misled and betrayed his followers.

Pi: "he [Ghandi] had gravely misled..." Great choice of wording here,
Bill! Isn't it odd, for someone who's justifying an assassination to
happen to be one who is behind it? Is it assuring to know a murderer
feels justified? Well, maybe not this time, not without faith in the
power of Beelzebub, since this justification is like saying that "the
Devil (aka Ghandi the traitor) made me do it".

Yet it's sure antithetical to LoO for Ghandi to partition India, huh?
Or is separation what the assassin wanted? This is a bit confusing...

> --- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=xrVsKbbesZhECjoQPobSZ0iEn4qZZADnZFuqGk vFJETeqHM6QK_Hu28RYcIDQY_GdJtQBeHDHGlmgiA), Jason wrote:
> > And according to a man I spent quite a long time in conversation
with on a train between Amsterdam and Bern had a lot to say that he
wished people knew but because Ghandi has become so put on a pedestal
there is a lot that can't be said. In short, India has suffered in
many ways due to what he produced. >

Pi: i wanna say it & stand up NOW for Mother India! Let her suffer no
further due to what Ghandi produced! Restore colonialism. Relieve her
suffering! Or use a USA model of 'republican government' Have a Civil
War with one battle that brings death to more soldiers than all other
American conflicts combined. Whatever -- just be real on how Ghandi
brought much suffering to India.

Feeling like fish out of water, wishing all Love & Peace. pi

[M.W.]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=gwRxr1mWRQTMNxADL2It1Hmt14LzHo7RSaRDEW L4SHe93MSbHRWcEqTG4VT4qs4bVAPMvAnvC7gjBDMw), "Pi" <johnnypi@...> wrote:
>

SNIP

> PI: Just to experience 'it', i choose to broadblast along with you.
> >
> Pi: "he [Ghandi] had gravely misled..." Great choice of wording here,
> Bill! Isn't it odd, for someone who's justifying an assassination to
> happen to be one who is behind it? Is it assuring to know a murderer
> feels justified?

SNIP

Dear PI, I had no idea of why Ghandi was murdered. The usual
caption attached to the act was that he was done in by
a singular religious fanantic....Muslem, Hindu, deranged
Christian -- which, what, was not clear. I did not know,
until I did a search, that there was an organized group
involved, seemingly more concerned with politics
than religious doctrines per se ... or at least that is
the impression I got from a short read.

As far as you poking fun at my lapses in writing style
I can only retort that, "God will get you for that."

billybob ... Idly wondering just how many "servings"
can be sliced out of a particular PI. (:>)

[Pi]

> billybob ... Idly wondering just how many "servings"
> can be sliced out of a particular PI. (:>)>

Pi: Great idle pasttime! For the record, it's precisely 22 over 7.... :)

[Nina]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=OyKoyclzqG-_8hv5dACjega6dPk0GuL7QnwxhNi-g1Xd9s6hhRZ3w3B75CVlnTbmJkZwLZMngZ7yuQU), "M.W. (Bill )Gieskieng" <skykieng@...>
wrote:
> The book of Matthew has some serious problems in
> literary structure that has baffled scholars.
Dear Bill,
Have become more aware of the vast complexity of Bible interpretation
since discovery of Rudolf Steiner's Gospel commentaries. He gave, "In
perhaps the most important words of all the Scriptures, Matthew shows
clearly that although Christ incarnated only once in a physical human
body, this unique event was also a beginning, an impulse that will
continue to work in the future. Through the life of Christ Jesus, the
Sun Word that Zarathustra described as existing outside the Earth was
wedded to the Earth. Prior to the life of Christ, this element was not
united with the Earth; now it is and will remain so." (fr "According
to Matthew: The Gospel of Christ's Humanity")NINA