11-01-2011, 09:46 PM
Unity100,
There remains one person who can testify to how the experience of Ra’s words and Ra themselves *felt*. So I asked Jim McCarty a couple of questions.
Me: “Jim, Ra could be rather blunt and to the point, at times telling Don that he was incorrect. Would you say Ra’s responses lacked compassion? Was there love in the contact?”
Jim: “Ra’s responses did not lack compassion. Yes there was love. But it was not unrelieved compassion, it was balanced with wisdom.”
Me: “How did you perceive this love?”
Jim: “In two ways. One, there was a constant love energy present that could be felt in the vibration of the contact that went beyond the words Two, the words that they did choose indicated their care towards the contact, their friendly feelings, their gratitude for the contact, and their love/respect of us.”
Unity100, in justifying what many consider a rather cold approach to relating to others, you fall back on the Law of One, invoking it as your model for how you go about relating to others. You explain that as Ra was blunt in telling the Questioner he was mistaken, you, too, are blunt and tell others they are mistaken. And whereas no one insinuates that Ra lacked compassion, no one should see you as being loveless.
Here’s the key difference.
Those who received the Ra contact (Don, Carla, and Jim) did not feel like they were being minimized, negated, condescended down to, belittled, treated as inferiors, or their right to a point of view completely eliminated. Those who received the Ra contact have never once said about Ra what’s been said about your approach.
Further, as far as I’m aware, no seeker who has ever read and loved the Law of One has ever said of Ra’s approach what others have said of yours.
The testimony of the experience of Ra on one hand, and the experience of Unity100 on the other, are two very different things.
Being in a moderator position, I’ve been privy to a great deal of disgruntlement from those who have felt disrespected by your seeming inability/refusal to relate with sensitivity and compassion and respect to the others' point of view. (Note, this does not mean people have necessarily been upset that you have not *agreed* with them, but rather that in your disagreement you approach them as if the conversation of equals is over. You approach others with a single-minded intensity bent on one thing: proving them wrong with little concern for the validity of viewpoints other than your own.)
I add my own voice to the chorus of discontent and say that while I personally find your intellectual magnitude far beyond what I typically encounter, and am impressed to no end by the penetrating analysis you are able to at times provide (I don’t know how you juggle it all in your brain), I nevertheless seldom feel the love/wisdom balance from you that I and others feel from Ra.
The likening of your approach to Ra’s is superficial, bearing only surface resemblance. The proof of what I say is contained within the testimony of the many who repeatedly feel the harshness of your energy.
Dance around that all you want, but when the opinions remain consistent over a considerably period of time, spanning multiple people, a coherent picture begins to emerge of certain dominant/prominent aspects of your character.
It’s not that you are not loved – members certainly have great affection for you in full knowledge of your thorny ways. And it behooves those who respond with irritation to you to look into the mirror and forgive that which obscures the operation of their own heart.
But nevertheless the fact remains that there is great disparity between how you perceive (and are willing) to see yourself, and how others perceive you. It seems you find reasons to negate and discount the personal testimony of other members, as if they cannot have clear sight when it comes to you, as if any critical perception of you is distorted vision on their part.
Some critical perceptions of you have surely been motivated by personal dogmas being challenged, but when a mountain of data is assembled that testifies to what it’s like to dialogue with you on the forums, an incontrovertible conclusion and consensus emerges about your love-deficient approach, and your limited capacity to respect the right of others to generate valid perceptions of their own making.
You will of course employ your analytical acrobatics to circumvent everything I’ve written here. I expect that. But I thought I would do my best to offer a reflection in the spirit of for what it’s worth. Use it for your own spiritual evolution as you see fit, and if not, by all means continue on as you are, carrying out this same tired pattern in perpetuity.
With love and light,
GLB
There remains one person who can testify to how the experience of Ra’s words and Ra themselves *felt*. So I asked Jim McCarty a couple of questions.
Me: “Jim, Ra could be rather blunt and to the point, at times telling Don that he was incorrect. Would you say Ra’s responses lacked compassion? Was there love in the contact?”
Jim: “Ra’s responses did not lack compassion. Yes there was love. But it was not unrelieved compassion, it was balanced with wisdom.”
Me: “How did you perceive this love?”
Jim: “In two ways. One, there was a constant love energy present that could be felt in the vibration of the contact that went beyond the words Two, the words that they did choose indicated their care towards the contact, their friendly feelings, their gratitude for the contact, and their love/respect of us.”
Unity100, in justifying what many consider a rather cold approach to relating to others, you fall back on the Law of One, invoking it as your model for how you go about relating to others. You explain that as Ra was blunt in telling the Questioner he was mistaken, you, too, are blunt and tell others they are mistaken. And whereas no one insinuates that Ra lacked compassion, no one should see you as being loveless.
Here’s the key difference.
Those who received the Ra contact (Don, Carla, and Jim) did not feel like they were being minimized, negated, condescended down to, belittled, treated as inferiors, or their right to a point of view completely eliminated. Those who received the Ra contact have never once said about Ra what’s been said about your approach.
Further, as far as I’m aware, no seeker who has ever read and loved the Law of One has ever said of Ra’s approach what others have said of yours.
The testimony of the experience of Ra on one hand, and the experience of Unity100 on the other, are two very different things.
Being in a moderator position, I’ve been privy to a great deal of disgruntlement from those who have felt disrespected by your seeming inability/refusal to relate with sensitivity and compassion and respect to the others' point of view. (Note, this does not mean people have necessarily been upset that you have not *agreed* with them, but rather that in your disagreement you approach them as if the conversation of equals is over. You approach others with a single-minded intensity bent on one thing: proving them wrong with little concern for the validity of viewpoints other than your own.)
I add my own voice to the chorus of discontent and say that while I personally find your intellectual magnitude far beyond what I typically encounter, and am impressed to no end by the penetrating analysis you are able to at times provide (I don’t know how you juggle it all in your brain), I nevertheless seldom feel the love/wisdom balance from you that I and others feel from Ra.
The likening of your approach to Ra’s is superficial, bearing only surface resemblance. The proof of what I say is contained within the testimony of the many who repeatedly feel the harshness of your energy.
Dance around that all you want, but when the opinions remain consistent over a considerably period of time, spanning multiple people, a coherent picture begins to emerge of certain dominant/prominent aspects of your character.
It’s not that you are not loved – members certainly have great affection for you in full knowledge of your thorny ways. And it behooves those who respond with irritation to you to look into the mirror and forgive that which obscures the operation of their own heart.
But nevertheless the fact remains that there is great disparity between how you perceive (and are willing) to see yourself, and how others perceive you. It seems you find reasons to negate and discount the personal testimony of other members, as if they cannot have clear sight when it comes to you, as if any critical perception of you is distorted vision on their part.
Some critical perceptions of you have surely been motivated by personal dogmas being challenged, but when a mountain of data is assembled that testifies to what it’s like to dialogue with you on the forums, an incontrovertible conclusion and consensus emerges about your love-deficient approach, and your limited capacity to respect the right of others to generate valid perceptions of their own making.
You will of course employ your analytical acrobatics to circumvent everything I’ve written here. I expect that. But I thought I would do my best to offer a reflection in the spirit of for what it’s worth. Use it for your own spiritual evolution as you see fit, and if not, by all means continue on as you are, carrying out this same tired pattern in perpetuity.
With love and light,
GLB
Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)