Caring/Compassion/Sensitivity/Tact vs Lying/Faking

[Namaste]

Unity, you have merged two threads of thought.

Firstly: acceptance; being able to accept another's truth(s), transcending the need for right and wrong
Secondly: compassion; choosing to engage with someone while caring about their mental/emotional state

you seem to be implying that because you acted out of 'compassion' (which apparently teachers are not obliged to By the way), something you FAKED, does not end up being FAKE. even though, you FAKED it.

no amount of motivation, no amount of anything, will turn a lie/fake into truth/honesty.

The last time I'll repeat this, and myself and Monica have offered this simple notion many times - it's a state of being. Faking/transmuting is not part of it. When coming from a place of compassion (STO), truth/honesty manifests in the form of caring for the other's emotions and free will. The conversation, one's creative output, will manifest within the context of STO.

Acting from compassion transcends logical thought; there is no need to think about faking, it's inherent in the thought/word/deed.

I can only echo Monica's words dear brother - move to your own heart centre to feel it. It's not the work of the intellect :¬)

[unity100]

Unity, you have merged two threads of thought.

Firstly: acceptance; being able to accept another's truth(s), transcending the need for right and wrong
Secondly: compassion; choosing to engage with someone while caring about their mental/emotional state

you cannot, and should not, accept another's truth. it is, as it is named, another's truth.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...=1&ss=1#20

41.20 Questioner: You mentioned in the last session the concept of fasting for removing unwanted thought-forms. Can you expand on this process and explain a little bit more about how this works?

Ra: I am Ra. This, as all healing techniques, must be used by a conscious being; that is, a being conscious that the ridding of excess and unwanted material from the body complex is the analogy to the ridding of mind or spirit of excess or unwanted material. Thus the one discipline or denial of the unwanted portion as an appropriate part of the self is taken through the tree of mind down through the trunk to subconscious levels where the connection is made and thus the body, mind, and spirit, then in unison, express denial of the excess or unwanted spiritual or mental material as part of the entity.

All then falls away and the entity, while understanding, if you will, and appreciating the nature of the rejected material as part of the greater self, nevertheless, through the action of the will purifies and refines the mind/body/spirit complex, bringing into manifestation the desired mind complex or spirit complex attitude.

and, there is nothing 'compassionate' about accepting someone else's 'truth'.

you accept the entity. not what it says, right or wrong.

The last time I'll repeat this, and myself and Monica have offered this simple notion many times - it's a state of being. Faking/transmuting is not part of it. When coming from a place of compassion (STO), truth/honesty manifests in the form of caring for the other's emotions and free will. The conversation, one's creative output, will manifest within the context of STO.

Acting from compassion transcends logical thought; there is no need to think about faking, it's inherent in the thought/word/deed.

regardless of how much you try to depict it otherwise, appearing NOT to be saying something, whereas actually saying it, is FAKING. truth is truth. it cannot be 'redefined' to be 'form of caring for other's emotions'.

its called truth for some reason. if it was NOT truth, but 'caring for another's emotions', it would be called 'caring for another's emotions'.

even then, faking something would remain faking.

and no it doesnt transcend 'logical thought'. for, something that is a lie, stays a lie. whether it was faked with good intentions or not. it remains fake.

I can only echo Monica's words dear brother - move to your own heart centre to feel it. It's not the work of the intellect :¬)

there is nothing 'heart'/'intellect' about faking interactions in order to appear as if you are not saying something, whereas you are saying it.

it is, faking it.

.................

let me tidy up the situation for you :

through a lot of nonsense, which went up to the point of redefining truth as to be 'caring for someone's emotions' (holy cow), you have tried to redefine faking something, as if it was not faking.

in reality, if you appear to be NOT saying something while you are actually saying it in a veiled fashion, intentionally, you are faking it. and it is dishonest. it does not matter zit, whether you have a positive intention for lying/faking. its still the same thing. it is, dishonest. and, it will harm more than the good it does, in the long run.

[Namaste]

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.

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.

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.

[Oceania]

projection is subjective though. it's not really seeing it from the other person's eyes but from your eyes through them.

[Namaste]

Exactly, one projects their own thoughts and idea's onto another.

Hence it offers the gift of reflection. You see yourself in your projected experience, as you paint (or distort) it with your own ideas and concepts.

[3DMonkey]

So, is unity100 right or wrong here? Or are we not saying it outright?

[Namaste]

LOL

[Oceania]

Unity is right in his own mind.

[Namaste]

We've offered our own truths. People will resonate with what matches their own state of being (in turn, determined by their experience). Each is valid for that person, in that particular state of being.

That's how resonance works; information is offered by entities of different vibrations (states of being). One is attracted to information and others that match their own, or a similar frequency, as such. Just as the guitar string sings with the piano key of same tune. The universe is naturally harmonic :¬)

Edit: this is one of the keys of acceptance; understanding that different truths may be relevant in different states of being, and hence, perfect for each entity.

[3DMonkey]

Sometimes I wonder if I find harmony by being out of tune.

[Oceania]

i understand.

[BrownEye]

Sometimes I wonder if I seek harmony by being out of tune.

LoL

[Monica]

it is a simple definition. at the posts namaste accused me of being incompassionate, the only thing that was different was 'that is wrong' or 'you are wrong' sentences. nothing else.

You are leaving out many of the things I have said.

namaste just did that, and you just argued with me for it for over 2 pages.

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.

there are no differentiations in between ANY entity existing in this universe, in regard to spiritual laws.

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.

spiritual laws, do not change.

No one said they did. However, entities change.

no amount of motivation, no amount of anything, will turn a lie/fake into truth/honesty.

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.

[yossarian]

We are being hypocritical by criticizing unity because he criticises others.

[Ens Entium]

We are being hypocritical by criticizing unity because he criticises others.

By the way, how does know the difference between a description and a criticism?

Disclaimer: I'm not referring to anyone specifically here. General question.

[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.

[yossarian]

We are being hypocritical by criticizing unity because he criticises others.

By the way, how does know the difference between a description and a criticism?

Disclaimer: I'm not referring to anyone specifically here. General question.

Great question. I think ultimately it comes down to intent. Trying to change someone? Trying to influence them? That's a criticism.

I also think trying to describe someone can be hurtful though by doing damage to that persons subjective experience. There is a fine metaphysical line between offering light and pushing light and it's so hard to see the line.

My description of unity, from my own subjective perspective, is that he's not interested in my descriptions of him or my subjective experience. I experience his words as indicating that he does not want my light or love. Which I completely respect. But once he communicates this it seems wrong to keep offering, and especially wrong to try and influence him or convince him.

What do you guys think?

[apeiron]

I would like to present another situation. Lets say a child (lets say his name is Pablito Picasso) shows you a drawing he just made and you think "man, what a piece of crap". Now, you see, that will be your truth; so you tell the child using your well developed blue ray, "look kid, that is a piece of crap, I am just being honest".

Are you being honest? Or just dishonest by not realizing it is just what you think, (not the truth) exposed as truth? Your honesty was just the expression of a subjective feeling or opinion that was not deep enough to realize that a balance was required.

[zenmaster]

Honesty is always available.

[unity100]

My description of unity, from my own subjective perspective, is that he's

not interested in my descriptions of him or my subjective experience. I experience his words as indicating that he does not want my light or love. Which I completely respect. But once he communicates this it seems wrong to keep offering, and especially wrong to try and influence him or convince him.

What do you guys think?

i dont mind ANYthing, as long as whatever being done is done in honesty and without hypocrisy for the sake of convenience.

I would like to present another situation. Lets say a child (lets say his name is Pablito Picasso) shows you a drawing he just made and you think "man, what a piece of crap". Now, you see, that will be your truth; so you tell the child using your well developed blue ray, "look kid, that is a piece of crap, I am just being honest".

Are you being honest? Or just dishonest by not realizing it is just what you think, (not the truth) exposed as truth? Your honesty was just the expression of a subjective feeling or opinion that was not deep enough to realize that a balance was required.

if you think that it is crap, you should tell it as such. or, if you want to exercise moderation, you can say smoothen the wordage to mean what it means, but in a less disturbing bluntness.

however, that is where 'rephrasing' and 'beautifying' wordage must stop. after that point you make it appear as if you are not actually saying you dont like it and think it is ugly at all, you are entering the realm of dishonesty. like in the current american political correctness plague that tells something while totally appearing to be saying otherwise.

as a historical side info, a lot of artists were told their stuff were crap at times in their life, and some of these occasions had good impact on their later works.

[yossarian]

I would like to present another situation. Lets say a child (lets say his name is Pablito Picasso) shows you a drawing he just made and you think "man, what a piece of crap". Now, you see, that will be your truth; so you tell the child using your well developed blue ray, "look kid, that is a piece of crap, I am just being honest".

Are you being honest? Or just dishonest by not realizing it is just what you think, (not the truth) exposed as truth? Your honesty was just the expression of a subjective feeling or opinion that was not deep enough to realize that a balance was required.

Let's go a bit further though.

What if you say,

"Kid, in my humble opinion, and this is just my subjective opinion and not the opinion of yourself or of others, in my humble opinion, it's a piece of crap."

Even making it so clear it's just your subjective truth, are these the words of someone feeling compassion? Are these the words of someone with an activated heart chakra who is both feeling and expressing the love and light of the infinite creator?

Are these words that recognize the creator in the child?

I really don't think someone acting from love and compassion would respond that it's a piece of crap. Not because they hold themself back, but instead because their mind would be elsewhere. If you're coming from love, does your mind bother to create the thought "what a piece of crap!" or does your mind automatically go somewhere else like finding something to appreciate about the painting?

Compare and contrast:

Amanda shows the following painting to two art critics, Bobby and Carrie.


  DSCN0723.JPG (Size: 487.42 KB / Downloads: 6)

Bobby looks at it, feels disgusted, and thinks to herself that it is crap, worthless, garbage.

Carrie looks at it, feels nauseous, and thinks to herself that it is challenging, confusing, and dizzying.

Bobby says, "It's crap. Just being honest."

Carrie says, "I've never seen anything like it. I feel challenged, confused, and nauseous when I look at it."

Bobby is judging the art and does not see value there. Carrie is seeing the same art but, coming from love, still sees value: the distortion of the infinite creator toward confusion and nausea, and therefore a successful painting of confusion and nausea.

I think Carrie's perspective comes from an open heart that loves without judgment while Bobby's perspective comes from a closed heart that judges without love.

Amanda's reaction is not what defines whether Carrie and Bobby are coming from the open heart. However, if Carrie and Bobby give their opinions to 100 artists, it is likely that most artists will appreciate Carrie's opinions but feel offended by Bobby's opinions.

[Monica]

I would like to present another situation. Lets say a child (lets say his name is Pablito Picasso) shows you a drawing he just made and you think "man, what a piece of crap". Now, you see, that will be your truth; so you tell the child using your well developed blue ray, "look kid, that is a piece of crap, I am just being honest".

Are you being honest? Or just dishonest by not realizing it is just what you think, (not the truth) exposed as truth? Your honesty was just the expression of a subjective feeling or opinion that was not deep enough to realize that a balance was required.

That's an excellent example! To this day, I still don't 'get' Picasso. The art just isn't appealing to me. I have tried, but still don't understand what his art is considered masterpiece.

These are obviously subjective truths. But let's say I had known Picasso as a child, and told him his art was crap, and then he got discouraged and never painted again. My 'honesty' would have deprived the world of one of it's most revered and loved artists!

This very thing happened to me as a child. At around age 10 or so, I started singing. It was one of the very few memories of child-like exuberance I can remember. I really got into it. I was singing nonstop, and really enjoying it, until I asked my mom how I sounded, and she told me I sounded terrible!

I was crushed. I never sang again. Ever.

When I was in my late teens, I had connections in the music industry and was actually invited to sing, but declined, since I knew I "didn't have a good voice." I knew this because my mom had told me so! Never mind that she probably just wanted me to shut up.

Who knows whether my voice might have improved and my entire life might have taken a different path, since music was such a love of mine. Or maybe I could have been one of those artists who took voice lessons and learned to sing properly, or maybe my voice just naturally would have gotten better as I got older...or even, I might have been one of those quirky singers who doesn't have a technically perfect voice but makes it work anyway. (There are lots of those!) Or my mom might have been totally wrong and my voice might have been really good, even at 10. I'll never know. Any number of possibilities could have manifested, if I had been allowed to blossom instead of being shot down.

My mom's 'honesty' affected me deeply, to the point of completely eradicating any possibility of pursuing music. Did she do the 'right' thing?

There are any number of things my mom could have said, that wouldn't have been lying or 'faking' but would have been less damaging.

"You sound very exuberant"

"Hey! I love your enthusiasm! Would you like voice lessons when you get older?"

"Well you know I'm not a very good judge of music, so I'm probably not a good person to ask. But anyway, if you are enjoying it, don't worry about how you sound. Just sing for fun!"

or, if I was really bothering her, she could even have said:

"You sound like a 10-year-old girl having fun singing! But I am busy so can you please go sing in the other room?"

Any of these responses would have avoided a direct lie, but at the same time, would have kept my self-esteem intact.

And I might have joined The Runaways at age 17 and then the band would have hit the big time!

[Oceania]

Ra wouldn't have told people their drawings are crap.

[yossarian]

Let's take another example, of an opinion on a forum.

Danny says, "I think the third spiral is blue and contains cubes."

Elmo replies, "Wow, I've never thought of it like that AT ALL. I always saw the third spiral as green and chock full of spinning tops. I can't even imagine where you got that unique perspective. Thanks for sharing Danny. Namaste. <3, Elmo"

Fred also chimes in, "Danny, you're wrong. Elmo is right. Gary knows more about this than any of us and he confirmed with me earlier that it's definitely blue. Danny, I highly suggest you check yourself before you wreck yourself, because you're just dead wrong. I see trouble in your future if you keep continuing on the path you're on. I know what I'm talking about, Gary does, and Elmo does too. You better get it straight."

POP QUIZ:

Question 1. Is anyone here coming from the open heart?

Question 2. Is anyone here being judgmental, closed-hearted, cold, ruthless, critical, argumentative, antagonistic, hurtful, or fear-mongering?

Question 3. Is anyone creating positive vibes here? Is anyone creating negative vibes?

[apeiron]

My description of unity, from my own subjective perspective, is that he's

not interested in my descriptions of him or my subjective experience. I experience his words as indicating that he does not want my light or love. Which I completely respect. But once he communicates this it seems wrong to keep offering, and especially wrong to try and influence him or convince him.

What do you guys think?

i dont mind ANYthing, as long as whatever being done is done in honesty and without hypocrisy for the sake of convenience.

I would like to present another situation. Lets say a child (lets say his name is Pablito Picasso) shows you a drawing he just made and you think "man, what a piece of crap". Now, you see, that will be your truth; so you tell the child using your well developed blue ray, "look kid, that is a piece of crap, I am just being honest".

Are you being honest? Or just dishonest by not realizing it is just what you think, (not the truth) exposed as truth? Your honesty was just the expression of a subjective feeling or opinion that was not deep enough to realize that a balance was required.

if you think that it is crap, you should tell it as such. or, if you want to exercise moderation, you can say smoothen the wordage to mean what it means, but in a less disturbing bluntness.

however, that is where 'rephrasing' and 'beautifying' wordage must stop. after that point you make it appear as if you are not actually saying you dont like it and think it is ugly at all, you are entering the realm of dishonesty. like in the current american political correctness plague that tells something while totally appearing to be saying otherwise.

as a historical side info, a lot of artists were told their stuff were crap at times in their life, and some of these occasions had good impact on their later works.

Could be more complicated than that. Seems that it is very easy to use the blue ray emanating inwards not outwards. OR it is just a partial truth masked as complete honesty:

" Look kid, I had a hard day at work, I probably going to be laid off, I am in a terrible mood, everything today including your drawing looks to me a piece of crap" or 'Sorry, kid I am not in the mood to look at drawings" maybe some compassion: "can you show it to me later?"

Are you making honesty available not only to others but to yourself?

Does honesty requires a balance? Green/blue?

What about you think you're using blue and it is orange/yellow in reality? Power issues, etc.

Use of blue in yellow ray density can be tricky sometimes.

[Oceania]

i'm sorry Monica. that's horrible. parents and people kids respect have a lot of influence on them, like Ra has on those who believe in them, and thus this influence is actually something that if used unwisely leads to damage. a pure soul's enthusiasm untainted by the views of others is i think the best place to be in, wellbeingly and creatively. your passion for singing was a butterfly and your mother's hands crushed it. even if unintentionally, her hand was too heavy for such a precious fairy that was your feelings toward your singing, because you were new and unguarded. it makes me so sad that happened. i've had similar experiences regarding people whose opinions have more weight than others and who use them carelessly. not everyone cares for anothers' "honesty or truth". sometimes people just need to be left alone in their own untainted unswayed beliefs. you can't put a butterfly back together and that is the biggest tragedy in that.

btw i always felt that way about Picasso too. but if others or me in the future appreciate him, then it doesn't mean he's crap.

[yossarian]

My description of unity, from my own subjective perspective, is that he's

not interested in my descriptions of him or my subjective experience. I experience his words as indicating that he does not want my light or love. Which I completely respect. But once he communicates this it seems wrong to keep offering, and especially wrong to try and influence him or convince him.

What do you guys think?

i dont mind ANYthing, as long as whatever being done is done in honesty and without hypocrisy for the sake of convenience.

I would like to present another situation. Lets say a child (lets say his name is Pablito Picasso) shows you a drawing he just made and you think "man, what a piece of crap". Now, you see, that will be your truth; so you tell the child using your well developed blue ray, "look kid, that is a piece of crap, I am just being honest".

Are you being honest? Or just dishonest by not realizing it is just what you think, (not the truth) exposed as truth? Your honesty was just the expression of a subjective feeling or opinion that was not deep enough to realize that a balance was required.

if you think that it is crap, you should tell it as such. or, if you want to exercise moderation, you can say smoothen the wordage to mean what it means, but in a less disturbing bluntness.

however, that is where 'rephrasing' and 'beautifying' wordage must stop. after that point you make it appear as if you are not actually saying you dont like it and think it is ugly at all, you are entering the realm of dishonesty. like in the current american political correctness plague that tells something while totally appearing to be saying otherwise.

as a historical side info, a lot of artists were told their stuff were crap at times in their life, and some of these occasions had good impact on their later works.

Could be more complicated than that. Seems that it is very easy to use the blue ray emanating inwards not outwards. OR it is just a partial truth masked as complete honesty:

" Look kid, I had a hard day at work, I probably going to be laid off, I am in a terrible mood, everything today including your drawing looks to me a piece of crap" or 'Sorry, kid I am not in the mood to look at drawings" maybe some compassion: "can you show it to me later?"

Are you making honesty available not only to others but to yourself?

Does honesty requires a balance? Green/blue?

What about you think you're using blue and it is orange/yellow in reality? Power issues, etc.

Use of blue in yellow ray density can be tricky sometimes.

IMO, when you communicate rationally with others, you're sending light, perhaps offering light, perhaps pushing light, but either way it's light, and light relates to vision and wisdom and understanding, and this is not the density of understanding. So it's probably the easiest thing in the world to send light that you think is enlightening but is actually not. Because the nature of 3D itself is that you can't really understand what is going on. 3D was made that way.

Those who are enlightened tend to barely even speak, and when they do speak, they tend to place little emphasis on it and do not confuse their "mental understanding" or "verbal expression" with "The Truth" which is nameless and formless and unutterable.

[Oceania]

oh and i love Carrie's views on that painting, i actually feel similar to her views on it and probably would have said something like it. artists can take it as a compliment their work had an effect on someone and challenged them. and of course Elmo is coming from an open heart.

[yossarian]

i'm sorry Monica. that's horrible. parents and people kids respect have a lot of influence on them, like Ra has on those who believe in them, and thus this influence is actually something that if used unwisely leads to damage. a pure soul's enthusiasm untainted by the views of others is i think the best place to be in, wellbeingly and creatively. your passion for singing was a butterfly and your mother's hands crushed it. even if unintentionally, her hand was too heavy for such a precious fairy that was your feelings toward your singing, because you were new and unguarded. it makes me so sad that happened. i've had similar experiences regarding people whose opinions have more weight than others and who use them carelessly. not everyone cares for anothers' "honesty or truth". sometimes people just need to be left alone in their own untainted unswayed beliefs. you can't put a butterfly back together and that is the biggest tragedy in that.

By the way i always felt that way about Picasso too. but if others or me in the future appreciate him, then it doesn't mean he's crap.

It's not just her words though, it was the thoughts and feelings behind the words. To even form the thought "that is crap!" requires some negative and judgemental thoughts and feelings behind the words.

Ra said that when a person has negative feelings and thoughts they should be withheld, but dealt with in imagination. I think this includes sending light in the form of words. Sending negatively inspired words to others is similar to sending negatively inspired fists I think. It may be honest, just like punching is an honest expression of anger, but that doesn't make it skillful as part of the spiritual path.

[Oceania]

well said.