Caring/Compassion/Sensitivity/Tact vs Lying/Faking

[Steppingfeet]

Unity100,

My post to you: http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...2#pid59232

Your response:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...5#pid59255

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.

UNITY100: the key difference here is, apart from the modicum amount of extra offstandishness in my language and correspondence (which is not always constant By the way), i am in no position to spiritually be present in the room that another entity is reading these lines from, and i am by no means able to impart that much spiritual energy to their environment so they will feel loved and cared for. practically, none of us, are in that position.

1) I noticed fluctuations in your, as you say, “offstandishness”. Sometimes you lay it on thicker than others when you’re really irritated from a position of what I would call, not disrespectfully but accurately, self-righteousness.

2) If I understand you correctly, you say the key difference between your approach and Ra’s is that you cannot possibly impart the quantity/quality/type of energy that Ra imparted.

While I agree with your statement that you cannot offer the energy the way Ra did, nevertheless the fact still stands that I’ve never heard from anyone that they feel judgment from Ra the way they do your words. Ra did not throw the might of the energy against Don in an attempt to convince Don of the superiority of their point of view.

Whether everyone who lodges a complaint against your approach is justified in so doing, the fact of the matter remains that people feel the same basic set of responses to you again and again. Justified or not, it happens.

Why? Did Ra speak just like Unity100 but countered the negative impact of their words through intense radiation of love/wisdom energy? Was that intensive Ra-presence the only difference between your approach and theirs, your language and theirs, your overall energy signature and theirs?

If you do perceive a difference in ability between you and they, and *desire* to represent even in a smidgen of Ra’s love energy, the simplest, easiest means has been described to you repeatedly. Words. Positive words. Words that indicate to the recipient of your thoughts that you respect them. If you genuinely desire to help the recipient to feel what Don/Carla/Jim felt being in dialogue with Ra, why not expend that modicum of energy to adjust your approach along the lines others have suggested? It’s so simple that it doesn’t require the combined/unified energies of a planetary civilization.

GLB: 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.

UNITY100: actually i know quite an amount of people who thought that Ra's correspondence was lacking emotion/love/compassion when read from a book.

Agreed. Some people read it that way. But no one says of Ra what they say of your approach.

UNITY100: i myself personally stopped reading the material a few times and read other stuff, back in 1994-1997 period. due to the exact same reason.

Clarify please. You stopped reading the material for three years because you felt it was “lacking emotion/love/compassion”?

GLB: 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.)

UNITY100: i did not at any point deny that when i am defending something, i approach it with a single minded intensity. and, someone already should not attempt to defend anything if s/he does not believe or trust to be true/valid in front of others in the first place.

The problem isn’t you defending a thought. The problem isn’t you being true to a position. The problem isn’t you making a case for your point of view. The problem is as Yossarian stated it later on in this thread when he differentiated between you telling someone that they arer wrong, and you telling someone their wrong without respect for the person you’re speaking to.

It seems based upon the experience of multiple members, including my own observations, that you go about “defending” your point in a way which communicates:

a) Your understanding is objectively true,
b) You care more about being right than about mutual learning
c) The other is not your equal

How accurately does this describe your feeling inside? Do you feel that a, b, and c are true, or off the mark?

my reaction to this train of thought has been that, people who were not ready or wanting to engage in intense discussions, should not seek or engage intense discussions in the first place. this doesnt even encompass the spiritual aspect of this kind of necessity, which i have discussed with you and others through open and private discussions.

The problem isn’t the intense, or the advanced, nature of your understanding. If the problem were endemic to intensity and advancedness, then anyone who engaged in those energies would achieve results similar to your own: discontent among those with whom they dialogued.

I don’t know why you can’t hear this mantra of reflected critique about the way you relate to others. I don’t understand how one can receive this sort of frequent feedback from others (in all probability predating your entrance into these forums) without genuinely reflecting on the self and asking, “Is there something I can do to improve? Do these other selves have a basis for their complaints?”

While I don’t know your internal thought processes, it seems the conclusion you reach each time is that this is yet another instance of other selves being 100% wrong. And you yet have another something to defend to the teeth, that being your total innocence in these tangles with which you are so intimately involved. You it seems determine that it is others misinterpreting you, it is others not prepared for the advanced/intense nature of your discussion, it is others having their dogma challenged. It bears no reflection on you.

UNITY100: i would like to state that i still feel the love/wisdom balance or love from Ra, even after 17 years of study. i had had my infinite intelligence contact experience when i first read silver birch, and i feel it whenever i open and gaze in the book even today. but, i have not at all felt the kind of love you speak of, from Ra material.

Let’s put it in terms of what readers of Ra don’t feel from Ra. That includes: judgment, condescension, and lack of respect.

Let me make an important point here, that this critique I am providing of your style does not describe the totality of you as an entity, or your interactions on the forums. It *does* attempt to describe very predominant energies of yours that come through in the way you relate to others - aspects of yourself which appear frequently and precipitate one of the primary sources of energy blockages in the forums.

There is so much about you that I want to embrace and celebrate. I've had very happy moments reading your words sometimes because you're able to synthesize data and penetrate into certain areas of inquiry with much greater skill than I possess.

UNITY100: i didnt at any point deny that my discussion and interaction can be intense and energy harsh at times.

I’ve never known you to acknowledge a “harshness” to your energy. This is a first for me.

If I may, what percentage would you estimate your energies move into the “harsh” realm when interacting with others? And what do you mean by “harsh”?

especially at times when people ignore/invalidate the very spiritual principles they seem to be apparently advocating by contradicting them openly based on convenience, only to switch to advocating them when the convenience is accomplished. hypocrisy and turnaboutness.

Hypocrisy exists within us all. And I did see it come out in a thread a long while back when others jumped on you for not being loving while themselves failing to exhibit love.

And if you want to call someone on what you feel is hypocrisy, by all means, it’s your prerogative to do so, but you keep missing the key point: *provided that there is respect given to the speaker*. And honestly, Unity100, I feel that you lack it, not infrequently.

When we created the forums we did not build a lifeguard perch on our beach. We did not assign someone to sit up there in overview and judgment of others to strike those others down when hypocrisy or anything deemed less-than-perfect understanding was witnessed. We don’t know of anyone whose understanding is so perfected that they are capable of being the final measure against which all other understandings are evaluated.

- - - - -

So you perceive “errors” in understanding, or contradictions, or horrible misreadings of the Law of One. These things happen, within you and within me as well. Hypocrisy is unavoidable so long as any measure of separation exists within the identity of the entity.

But by whose invitation were you requested to police the streets and knock people over the head with your billy-club of judgment? What guideline sanctions your battle with those whose understanding falls short in your eyes?

We built these forums with the intention not that the entity of poor or hypocritical understanding would have an attack dog unleashed on them, but rather that we could all learn to share and to disagree in a context of mutual respect and love. Mutual respect/love does not exclude honesty.

- - - - - - -

You use multiple tracts to justify your approach, but one justification I have not seen is in terms of results.

If your goal is to illuminate another, to help them gain clearer/better/higher/less distorted understanding, what is your success rate? Do your tactics and does your approach achieve the desired goal? Do other selves tend to feel empowered and more able to accept and to know the self after this sort of conversation with you? Do other selves feel an increase in will and in faith after you have imparted your objective truth? Do other selves feel less separate and more one with all after you throw your energy into proving them wrong?

Is your approach more about consciously serving the other self, or about serving some need within to be right within yourself?

UNITY100: actually it is necessary to use it in polite settings with intense discussions with plurals - because american cultural political correctness requires it. i have given names to identify the certain occasions, however i believe the mentioned people will not mind, since the occasion requires and they already know all of these.

I’m sure that there are some cultural differences that come into play here, but the way you relate transcends the cultural differences. Members of the forums are spread all over the globe representing a great diversity of social and cognitive skills, but none are exempt from the first guideline.

There is no asterisk next to the first guideline that says, “*Unless you are from Turkey, in which case invoke cultural differences as the shield behind which you will justify active lack of respect.”

We had a Turk in Louisville for a couple of years who loved the Law of One and, despite the cultural differences, I never felt disrespected by him. Two entities of very distant cultures will find ways to show each other respect if it is within their will to do so.

as you can see, i didnt provide anything analytical. i bluntly, directly told what i have been thinking. i did not deny anything either, when it seemed inconvenient.

Among your many strengths, not all of which I know, is your capacity to intensely dig into and respond directly to a subject. I also perceive that you will dance around/evade the points of the other in order to avoid the undesirable circumstance of having to step down a notch or two from the tower of absolute rightness.

Love&Light, GLB