Caring/Compassion/Sensitivity/Tact vs Lying/Faking

[unity100]

Goodness, you really have misunderstood the offered notions.

1) Acceptance; the understanding that each person is entitled to their own truths (free will). You do not have to accept another's truths as your own, you accept that they are their own entity, capable of making their own decisions and holding their own truths. Just as you are.

someone being entitled to their own 'truths', does not make others responsible for dodging or suppressing their opinion about that truth being wrong and HONESTLY expressing it. instead of faking.

2) Acting form compassion is not faking, it's a genuine state of being, rooted in the care of others. Actions stem from this state, not visa-versa. It is acting from integrity.

'acting from compassion' is 'acting from compassion'. you cannot make something not it is by redefining.

if you FAKE from compassion, it means you are faking, but out of compassion.

You have come to your own conclusions through your own experience. As has everyone else. Assuming that your experience correctly defines every other single human being in existence is called projection.

Projection offers a single, profound gift. A cosmic mirror. A means to see one's own reflection, to see how they view the world. A reflection of the self.

there isnt a cosmic mirror or anything grand here.

you are just basically projecting your american cultural trait, political correctness, to any/everyone you see, despite 80% of the rest of the world do not have any qualms about telling or being told they are wrong, in a honest fashion. its an american problem, an american solution.

others are not obliged to comply with american cultural expectations and traits. otherwise, you would be obliged to do the same too.

and when met with this uncomfortable situation, you are trying to redefine compassion to include dishonesty.

dishonesty is dishonesty even with compassion.

Unity, it's not just a single sentence here or there. It's much more than that. It's what is conveyed over time, including the very fact that you're even arguing about this at all! ...the sum total of interactions.

it is a single sentence here. i have gone through all my posts in this thread for over two pages to see anything that could be named incompassionate. in the end, i found out that whereas my interaction was distanced and formal, there was nothing that could be named incompassionate, leave aside rude or insulting.

and namaste's reaction had happened at the very point i have used the sentence 'this is wrong'.

yes. its precisely due to a single sentence.

You are qualifying. Of course spiritual laws apply to all entities equally. However, what I just said, and you continue to ignore, is that not all entities are at the same point of evolution, at any given point.

ra also qualifies. teachers also qualify. being more evolved does not at all release the entity from the responsibilities of the lower levels, it brings the law of responsibility more into action.

an 3d entity ignoring 'compassion' would get hit less by the law of responsibility than a 6d entity doing it.

spiritual laws, do not change.

No one said they did. However, entities change.

that does not even have RELEVANCE to the situation at hand or the subject. what does that mean ? 'entities do change'. ok, entities do change, and when in 6d, they suddenly become exempt from complying with the spiritual laws they were obliged to comply with in 3d ?

That's right. But what you are missing is that no one is suggesting that anyone lie. Choosing words more carefully, in order to convey consideration, respect and compassion, isn't lying. It's just being sensitive to the other person. That's what green ray is all about. Green cannot be excluded if one wishes to advance spiritually STO.

excuse me but that is political speech - so, we will choose words carefully in order to convey consideration and how will this happen ?

by choosing NOT to tell anyone that they are wrong, despite they are wrong directly. but instead we will mesh words and talk so that the person will NOT appear as wrong, nor we will appear to be actually saying it, but in fact, we WILL tell the entity that s/he is wrong.

there is nothing 'green ray' in this. that is practically political correctness. nothing more, nothing less.

it is complete misrepresentation of what you are actually intending to say, to the point of making the person in front of you think that you are actually saying something else, but, tell that s/he is wrong in a veiled fashion.

that is wrong. it is dishonest. it is manipulative. it is insincere. telling yourself that you are doing it out of compassion does NOT make that something right.

it is still wrong to be dishonest. and this is dishonesty, regardless of how you try to redefine it to appear it not to be so.

nothing more than american political correctness, invented to make life work in an environment where there are endless ethnicities, religions, political views, desires, agendas of people living in close proximity.

as long as you dont appear in disagreement to anyone, as long as you appear accommodating to anyone's wishes, even if you do not actually think so, makes such a problematic social environment seem to work without much problems in the surface. albeit, there is no real acceptance and harmonization down below, as evidenced by many times even in this forum when it came to serious discussions about people's biases and religions and whatnot. as long as you do not present anything to the contrary, everything seems to work. the point where you present anything that someone else do not like, and stay firm in your thought, instead of APPEARING to agree with the other person as political correctness dictates, the shizz hits the fan. and that doesnt even require refraining from politically charged keywords like 'wrong'.

it is understandable that people in america have to resort to such behavior in order to make some hodgepodge mix of everything work. it may be a necessity of life. i understand this.

that doesnt make faking things honest however. nor, trying to dishonestly equate it with compassion. you are just faking things, and appearing otherwise than you actually think, because the circumstances necessitate it. it is still dishonest. the point where 'carefully worded' has passed the threshold of 'appearing the opposite' in america seems to have gone by long ago.