"Poverty is a state of consciousness"
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Yeah, I was wondering what degree of prevarication to go through..."
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent in the above message (so i wish you would improve your delivery), but as I understand it - the word "prevarication" means "lie." I took your message to be saying "yeah, I was wondering how many falsehoods like you used would work in my delivery."
-
yep, I slipped up there fer sure... I was thinking more in terms of political posturing
my bad
-
@Labyrinthus said
"yep, I slipped up there fer sure... I was thinking more in terms of political posturing
my bad
"Very well then. I understand now and I misunderstood before. No bad feelings. I'm just one who wants it understood that the so-called "political left's" notion of giving "charity" actually fosters weakness in the whole, not that "giving" itself is weakness.
Trust me - this position of mine gets misunderstood and although I spend hours in service to help the homeless and jobless and whatnot, I'm often labeled as uncharitable, unempathetical, unsympathetic by some, because I refuse to support the outright "giving" methods they prefer. Yes, like has been explained by someone elsewhere on this site , I see those types who actually in claiming "altruism" really in truth are fostering good feelings in themselves to perhaps rid themselves of bad feelings. That's not my definition of how to be altruistic, but it is the way it actually happens to be. So instead i prefer "pity be let off" as well as "my joy is to see your joy" and all that.
-
No, my system of giving and/or not giving is the morally superior one!
-
Yes, precisely (to Takamba).
As someone who already knows the ins and outs of this debate, I'm demanding more of you, Labyrinthus, than I am initially hearing. So far, I only hear the "let mercy be off" part. As I have heard the debate (and I know my hearing is under debate), I keep hearing other people who are also familiar with this debate trying to get you to admit to the other half of the equation in some form or fashion.
So, my impulse is to think that either you don't understand it, in which case I wish you would quit speaking so dismissively to your readers, or that, knowing it, you are intentionally only using half of the equation to make your immediate point, attempting to teach us, which is annoying.
Now, if you want to take up where Takamba left off, I'm game. I'm good. I'm at least listening. But the way you're currently arguing your point, it's very difficult if you've made it to that part of the discussion yet yourself.
Normally, I'm much more diplomatic, but I've yet to understand the reason to take that stance with people who are advocating severity alone. They describe it as the most palatable form of mercy to them, so I mercifully give it.
-
@Frater LA said
"But the way you're currently arguing your point, it's very difficult if you've made it to that part of the discussion yet yourself."
I have no freekin' idea what you are talking about.
I totally agree with Takamba on ... what he just said....
-
-
@Frater LA said
"Please explain to me how those masters are concretely compassionate in word and deed without being able to be accused of the dreaded weaknesses of sympathy. Also, are masters the only people capable of true compassion? Must it be stamped out and corrected in all others?"
"concretely" ?
was that an edit?
I was looking for a word like 'completely' or something like that and I could not find it. Kind of like asking if the Masters are the "only" people... another gross exaggeration that I can't meaningfully reply to.... Like "all" others....
Those who rephrase my words in such extremes in order to guarantee error in the saying never said will find my replies scarce.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Frater LA said
"But the way you're currently arguing your point, it's very difficult if you've made it to that part of the discussion yet yourself."I have no freekin' idea what you are talking about.
I totally agree with Takamba on ... what he just said...."
I'm sorry Labyrinthus, even i think I may have misunderstood your original point. I thought you said something to the effect that "even the Masters know that compassion (sympathy empathy or a rose by any other name) is a dangerous game" et al what you said. Are we now mistaken in your intent earlier?
-
And I have to quickly admit that several posts showed up prior my previous reply that didn't exist while I was writing it - so I don't want to get lost here - are we still on track in this speed replying environment?
-
I'm going out on a limb here. I've come to an observation where I may be mistaken because the cues are not always clear, but I think I'm picking up the signals now.
Labyrinthus, you're alright. You've got a heart of gold, I know it. Not fool's gold, but genuine gold. You don't enjoy watching your brother fall on his face. The images of decapitation sicken you. But slaves to laziness and disease sicken you equally. You have the right notions, just not the right words yet. You have longed to be in a place to express your understandings, but no one has been willing to try to understand you before. And you've found a forum that seems to have the capability to possibly understand you - but you are troubled because your past has told you this is not supposed to be an easy task to accomplish. You are used to being told you are wrong, so even when just a minor adjustment is asked of you, you are sure you need to defend yourself.
I think you can relax, Labyrinthus, and recognize that we aren't all as shallow as that. You might actually enjoy it. A little correction on day one usually makes the back feel uncomfortable, but on day three, the back is right and straight and the mind is working smoothly (if you haven't gone to a chiropractor, that probably didn't make sense).
Do you think I'm picking up alright?
-
@Takamba said
"(sympathy empathy or a rose by any other name) is a dangerous game"
this much, yes ( not the "even the Masters" part.... I do not think I would say "even" the Masters...)
Sympathy ( as in symbiotic... yes... that becomes dangerous for the neophytes)
I had hoped this wouldn't devolve into a game of semantics....
sympathy with a lower state of consciousness is not a good thing.
for those ready to exercise a significant degree of self discipline a hand up is a small miracle worthy of the effort on either end.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"(sympathy empathy or a rose by any other name) is a dangerous game"this much, yes ( not the "even the Masters" part.... I do not think I would say "even" the Masters...)
Sympathy ( as in symbiotic... yes... that becomes dangerous for the neophytes)
I had hoped this wouldn't devolve into a game of semantics....
sympathy with a lower state of consciousness is not a good thing.
for those ready to exercise a significant degree of self discipline a hand up is a small miracle worthy of the effort on either end."
Okay. I'm cool with your explanations so far. Excuse me if this seems unwarranted, but to explain my paraphrasing I went and found the exact quote.
"The True Initiate and accomplished Magician recognizes the value of feeling and emotion. These are not to be played with in childish fashion. Sympathy is known to be not just a wasted emotion but a dangerous game to play as well since elements of the target population in these negative states can be absorbed by those indulging in 'sympathy'.
The Masters are however deeply compassionate towards the plight of the ignorant masses of humanity."
So what you actually said was that The True (as opposed to the false) Initiate (as opposed to the non-initiate)....recognizes....Sympathy....*...not just a wasted emotion but a dangerous game.
I think the language was a dangerous game there but I think now that you think in agreement to what we all want you to think in agreement with regarding this notion of fostering Love in this World.
But you know what, Labyrinthus? And I don't want to say this to offend or suggest that one of us is superior or inferior... but all in all, all that above there said... knowing now that I think I know what you think...."how does that make you feel?"
-
So, in waiting to see if there's any reply, back to the original thread...
Poverty is a state of consciousness. So is sickness, mastery, depression, and anything else you want to label. The question is, how do you raise consciousness to correct any imbalances - or, do you feel you should not?
-
@Takamba said
"that The True (as opposed to the false) Initiate (as opposed to the non-initiate)"
no. "True Initiate" as opposed to the 'false initiate' (don't break it up inbetween).
I have seen things...
I think I know the difference. But it aint for me to say outloud beyond a certain point.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"that The True (as opposed to the false) Initiate (as opposed to the non-initiate)"no. "True Initiate" as opposed to the 'false initiate' (don't break it up inbetween).
I have seen things...
I think I know the difference. But it aint for me to say outloud beyond a certain point."
@Labyrinthus said
"I had hoped this wouldn't devolve into a game of semantics...."
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"that The True (as opposed to the false) Initiate (as opposed to the non-initiate)"no. "True Initiate" as opposed to the 'false initiate' (don't break it up inbetween).
I have seen things...
I think I know the difference. But it aint for me to say outloud beyond a certain point."
Divide it as you will or as you wont. I didn't mean any different.
Yes "true initiate" as opposed to "false initiate" is what I thought you meant - but you have still not addressed the full meaning of my post
-
@Takamba said
"The question is, how do you raise consciousness to correct any imbalances - or, do you feel you should not?"
Not only should I not but it cannot be done... consciousness cannot be raised in another -- it must be done from within according to the individual effort.
Those who pretend to be able to raise the consciousness of another are kidding themselves.
The true Initiate only raises his own consciousness and if others in his sphere of influence are the beneficiaries by virtue of resonant affinity so be it.
-
Thought, think, thunk, thou, thick, thuk. Is there not more than your rational self?
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"The question is, how do you raise consciousness to correct any imbalances - or, do you feel you should not?"Not only should I not but it cannot be done... consciousness cannot be raised in another -- it must be done from within according to the individual effort.
Those who pretend to be able to raise the consciousness of another are kidding themselves.
The true Initiate only raises his own consciousness and if others in his sphere of influence are the beneficiaries by virtue of resonant affinity so be it."
So the answer to my question, as you see it, is to raise your own consciousness and thus influence who are within your sphere of influence? Good answer. Now what?