06-20-2015, 11:54 AM
it's still a haven for monkeyminds
As of Friday, August 5th, 2022, the Bring4th forums on this page have been converted to a permanent read-only archive. If you would like to continue your journey with Bring4th, the new forums are now at https://discourse.bring4th.org.
You are invited to enjoy many years worth of forum messages brought forth by our community of seekers. The site search feature remains available to discover topics of interest. (July 22, 2022)
x
06-20-2015, 11:54 AM
it's still a haven for monkeyminds
06-20-2015, 12:31 PM
06-20-2015, 12:40 PM
(06-20-2015, 10:14 AM)outerheaven Wrote:(06-20-2015, 02:46 AM)Shawnna Wrote:(06-20-2015, 02:26 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: Some people ARE more wise than others, or at least more energy-dense. This isn't a wholly egalitarian system, nor could it be. For that matter, one of the main purposes of the Wanderer system is specifically so higher-density entities can try to help others in their spiritual growth. It's another form of Service-to-Others, and plenty of people here believe they are Wanderers. I now see how my choosing those words have been misinterpreted. I was referring to the fact that I haven't dug any deeper into the philosophy embraced by this group (e.g. red, blue, green, orange rays, archetypes, etc). It wasn't in any way a reference to my self-perceived position - which is how many here have chosen to interpret it. Muttering to myself over and over "Assume good intent....... assume good intent......." :-/ It's clear there's no way I will ever be welcomed here. That's OK - I don't take it personally. It just means this isn't ever going to be the 'warm, welcoming, compassionate community of seekers' I'm searching for. Namaste ~ Shawnna
06-20-2015, 12:41 PM
have a nanner, cutie
06-20-2015, 12:46 PM
You've got to make a wanderer story for people to welcome you, else they just talk with you.
06-20-2015, 03:44 PM
(06-20-2015, 12:40 PM)Shawnna Wrote:(06-20-2015, 10:14 AM)outerheaven Wrote:(06-20-2015, 02:46 AM)Shawnna Wrote:(06-20-2015, 02:26 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: Some people ARE more wise than others, or at least more energy-dense. This isn't a wholly egalitarian system, nor could it be. For that matter, one of the main purposes of the Wanderer system is specifically so higher-density entities can try to help others in their spiritual growth. It's another form of Service-to-Others, and plenty of people here believe they are Wanderers. You do realize your last comment there is kind of snide and taking a shot at us? At least practice what you preach because you don't seem particularly 'warm and welcoming' to me either. Or maybe that's just towards people who aren't new. I just don't get why you keep trying to hint at our apparent overall lack of compassion. It just comes across as a superiority thing.
06-20-2015, 03:48 PM
Also, I don't really have any issue with you, I just see some seeming hypocrisy that I wonder about...
06-20-2015, 03:55 PM
I guess it's all just drama that is really only related to some people, but it always feels like the whole community is being blanket labeled negatively.
06-20-2015, 03:59 PM
it's projection
06-20-2015, 04:02 PM
06-20-2015, 04:07 PM
No, I am pretty clearly aware that this bothers me because it seems like a slap in the face to all those who really work hard to share openly and honestly, but that it's 'not good enough'?
Perhaps it's a manifestation of a greater feeling of not being good enough being reflected back. This is actually reflected in my work place right now too where I feel no matter how hard I work it will never be good enough and a constant feeling of having to 'prove' that I'm good enough or valuable enough. That's how this situation feels.
06-20-2015, 04:09 PM
Just because people are fed up doesn't mean the talk stops.
06-20-2015, 04:09 PM
(06-20-2015, 04:07 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: No, I am pretty clearly aware that this bothers me because it seems like a slap in the face to all those who really work hard to share openly and honestly, but that it's 'not good enough'? You are perfect friend, sincerely. All you miss is to be well with yourself.
06-20-2015, 04:18 PM
That doesn't make my job less stressful when people are breathing down my neck.
06-20-2015, 04:28 PM
06-20-2015, 06:44 PM
There seems to be this idea that the forum should be the perfect place for everyone. I, for one, think that if this forum is truly representing the ideals it strives to represent, there are plenty of people who will inevitably feel out of place here and decide the forum is not for them.
People who thrive on conflict, for example. People who prefer judgment and shaming over addressing disagreements with patience and compassion. People driven by a sense of self-superiority and entitlement. People whose fragile egos must be danced around like egg shells. To cater to these sorts of individuals is not fair to those who put actual effort into upholding a community centered around transparent honesty, humility, acceptance and love. I’ve seen plenty of people come in here, act rudely toward others, generally make a nuisance of themselves and then throw a tantrum when they are finally called out on their behavior, screaming something about hypocrisy and lack of acceptance on their way out the door. And I always tip my hat to these people. To be a part of a community is a give and take. If you want to criticize, you’ve got to be willing to accept criticism, and if you want acceptance in spite of all your flaws, you’ve got to be willing to work very hard at accepting the flaws of others. This environment is the result of constant group effort, and those who treat it as nothing more than a tool can expect disappointment when it fails to convenience them. So no, I don’t think this forum is for everyone. That doesn’t mean I look down on those who wouldn’t find this environment a suitable one. Regardless of a person’s preferences it is my goal to treat them with the respect I feel all human beings deserve. However, I’m not going to feel bad about myself if I am unable to accommodate a person insistent upon spreading negativity, and when that person inevitably gets fed up and leaves, I’m only going to wish them well. There is a huge difference in maintaining an environment of acceptance and being a doormat for anyone out there who happens to want attention.
06-20-2015, 09:32 PM
Hello Dear Plenum,
Even though this thread turned at some point to entirely different matter/topic, I would like to focus exclusively on proposed by You term “Spiritual Correctness”. First of all term “Political Correctness” is a form of censorship that prevents in most cases true and deep analysis/talks/debates of any given situation, due to treating some spheres/topics/labels as “not desirable” or simply “wrong”/”bad”. Because of that “political correctness” is creating an artificial sphere of “allowed” topics, attitudes and actions that are unable to truly deal with problems or conflicts. Mainly because due to above mentioned form of “censorship” it is “not allowed” to “touch the core” of problems/conflicts – all it offers is similarly artificial “consensus” that can only inform participants about “how things should be”, without actually working out the way to such state/point. Above is of course only my opinion. Now, regarding “Spiritual Correctness” – I think that we – in so called “western civilization” – are in very difficult situation in regards to “Spirituality”. What is currently “done” in this sphere is not “correctness” but something more basic – an attempt to define/determine what Spirituality really is. Organized religions offers quite rigid picture of what “Spirituality” is and each religion ascribe to this sphere quite specific attributes/qualities, while defining “non-spirituality” as “oppositeness” of spirituality and ascribing opposite attributes/qualities to it (classical duality). I think that APeacefulWarrior made an excellent point in His comment #4. I permit myself to quote part of His comment, but I recommend to read it in full: (06-19-2015, 05:02 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: (...) Such understanding may be achieved only when “Spirituality” is perceived as far vaster and far more flexible than rigid definitions proposed by organized religions. In fact, such perspective require an assumption, that everything is connected to Spirituality and there is nothing that lies beyond it – literally. This is also concept with which I’m currently working – concept of “material Soul” and “material reality” which is manifestation of non-material processes/phenomenon and perforce all material reality is Spirituality translated into matter/flesh. Assumption, that there’s literally no aspect of Our existence in this reality, that might be NOT-Spiritual, that everything possess a “spiritual dimension” and everything has an impact on “spiritual world”/”non-material reality”. This is extremely counter-intuitive for a Being that understands Self as a “material Creature”. Such perspective require an Idea of Oneness to be considered at least on/at general level. Without it, all we have is Our well-known “duality-approach” that require to divide and assign certain labels/actions/attitudes to two, opposite categories (spirituality and non-spirituality). I fully agree with what You wrote about unique perspective of each Being: (06-18-2015, 04:51 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: (...) To, as You wrote, “honor the variety of the Creator”, it is required of People to think for Themselves. Without that, when Beings are directly adopting point-of-view of some organized belief system and are doing so without Self-input, thoughtlessly, than They end up with “rigid simplification” of Spiritual sphere, from which They are in fact cut-off – mainly by schematic and routine nature of repetitive rituals/ceremonies. Due to that “Spiritual sphere” is dealt with within the confines of the “repetitive rituals” (for most – once a week, on Sunday), beyond which Beings are “getting back to Their lives”, sometimes without consideration for Spirituality at all. Additionally for many Other-Selves, to conduct a “spiritual ritual”, presence of “Priest” is required, as someone to whom Other-Selves assigning some “special attributes” that permits Him (far less often Her) to “work” within this sphere. What is required to change above state of being “cut-off” from actual Spirituality, is what You wrote Dear Plenum, and what I’ve bolded in above quote – to think for Self and to actually Seeking spirituality within every day, every moment, every situation. To be honest, I do not know how to reach such state, without Knowledge/Understanding that We are exploring here, on this Forum. I don’t think that I would be able to conceive on my own the depth and vastness of spirituality/non-materialness without Word of Ra. Maybe I would be able to have some general glimpses of “Greater Reality”, but I would definitely not be able to reach conclusion of “Oneness” – in my particular case – because I was so deep into materialism/atheism before I’ve met Ra. My Mind was trapped in “causality cage” that deny my Mind certain “thoughts patterns” due to their “abstractness” and “non-rational nature”. RA – literally – freed my Mind and I’m uncertain how can I offer my understanding to Other-Selves, without actually – as You wrote it – “(…)smash up their spiritually correct viewpoints(…)”. At some point You have to “let go” your old beliefs, to open Self for different take/perspective on/of sphere which those beliefs held – and in consequence were constricting/limiting. All I have Best in me for You
06-21-2015, 12:51 AM
thanks third-density-being. You've elucidated the situation with your analysis and viewpoint, and I can definitely see the distinction you've drawn between the common 'political correctness', and the defining quality that religions have in approaching their personal domains of 'spirituality'.
The term I offered was coined as an analogue; but it has potential to be misleading and be misapplied, if the distinctions that you've identified are not recognised. So thanks for offering a sharper sketch on things
06-21-2015, 01:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2015, 01:29 AM by APeacefulWarrior.)
(06-20-2015, 04:07 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: No, I am pretty clearly aware that this bothers me because it seems like a slap in the face to all those who really work hard to share openly and honestly, but that it's 'not good enough'? Yeah, don't let it get to you. No one here was attacking her that I see. I'm really not even sure why she chose such an openly self-pitying mode of response when she could have simply continued the discussion, but it doesn't really reflect on you or on the forum at large. Rather than continue a civil discussion of philosophy, she decided to get upset and storm off. That still leaves a lot of people here trying to have a loving conversation about higher matters and personal growth. Like Yera said, no forum CAN be for everyone. If that's how she handles spiritual discussions, she's probably correct about this not being the right place for her. Hopefully she'll find someplace she feels she fits in better. Or who knows, maybe she'll come back in a day or two, look at the thread again, and realize that no one was attacking her or being unloving towards her. We can hope.
06-21-2015, 10:33 AM
(06-20-2015, 06:44 PM)Yera Wrote: There is a huge difference in maintaining an environment of acceptance and being a doormat for anyone out there who happens to want attention. That reminds me of a question that was put to Carla and crews radio show last year, "what's the difference between accepting and enabling?" here. This Ra quote also seems to have a nuance of relevance. Quote:"The entity which is given constant and unremitting approval by those surrounding it suffers from the loss of the mirroring effect of those which reflect truthfully rather than unquestioningly. This is not a suggestion to reinstate judgement but merely a suggestion for all those supporting instruments; that is, support, be harmonious, share in love, joy, and thanksgiving, but find love within truth, for each instrument benefits from this support more than from the total admiration which overcomes discrimination." (06-21-2015, 01:26 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: That still leaves a lot of people here trying to have a loving conversation about higher matters and personal growth. I'm not quite sure how you perceive this to not be about personal growth. You can't get more about personal growth than this IMO. If the working of disharmony within a group isn't about growth, my whole perception of Oneness-separateness duality and the work of social memory complexes was shattered away.
It'd be hard to grow without catalysts wouldn't it?
It got to you? Rejoice! something to work upon that has been revealed to you by an external catalyst! You can either work toward being self loving about how it made you feel and place blame upon other-selves or you can work toward being other-selves loving and try to understand/love those who provided catalysts. It all boils down to what you want to be for yourself and others. No better choice, just a provided opportunity to make a choice.
06-21-2015, 01:34 PM
(06-19-2015, 11:46 PM)Splash Wrote: I feel there is a 'clique' here of people that have been interacting for a long while with each other, and it is quite difficult for others to express themselves here... i doubt anyone feels this way other than you & shawna. (06-19-2015, 11:46 PM)Splash Wrote: I know for definite that numerous people leave or deactivate their accounts with Bring4 because of this clique phenomena... i doubt anyone has done that other than you & shawna.
06-21-2015, 02:05 PM
i pucking love that song! i wish someone made a Heathers or Mean Girls video using it. i would if i had the software.
06-21-2015, 03:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2015, 04:11 PM by Berilac Sandydowns.)
I've just read Plenum's op for the third time since he posted it. And as often happens here, I feel like a dump truck full of butterflies have been deposited on my head and I have a difficult time catching a couple before they fly away.
Anyway. Colorful allegories aside... :p I believe maybe the biggest Spiritually Correct stumbling block is the use of the word "Love". It's a catch all word that is thrown about to cover a myriad of distortions. And we all think we know what it means in whatever particular context we're working with. I believe Ra's use of the word is especially egregious. I'm attracted to the Ra material because it describes quite precisely how the Creation works. Offers a very tight, scientific framework of the template of what Is. I see the patterns of energy, vibrations, harmonics and the dance of the "photon" as completely without morality of any kind. To use the word Love as a descriptor for anything other than a very specific vibration or harmonic leaves a lot of room for error IMHO. I'm not saying Love doesn't exist. It obviously does. We feel it. We act because of it. It's an important catalyst. For us. Locally. But to think of it as a foundation of Creation is not seeing The Big Picture... BIG enough. (06-21-2015, 03:54 PM)Berilac Sandydowns Wrote: I've just read Plenum's op for the third time since he posted it. And as often happens here, I feel like a dump truck full of butterflies have been deposited on my head and I have a difficult time catching a couple before they fly away. Why would Ra use the word Love and equate it with Logos if it wasn't foundational? By that measure the only thing 'before' it is freedom of will of awareness. I just find it strange that you state Ra expresses a great structure of reality, and then you kind of pass off the fact that they refer to Love/Logos as one of the fundamental aspects of the Creator.
06-22-2015, 12:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2015, 12:52 AM by Berilac Sandydowns.)
(06-21-2015, 09:38 PM)Tan.rar Wrote:(06-21-2015, 03:54 PM)Berilac Sandydowns Wrote: I've just read Plenum's op for the third time since he posted it. And as often happens here, I feel like a dump truck full of butterflies have been deposited on my head and I have a difficult time catching a couple before they fly away. That's what disturbs me about it. That Ra can be so exacting in everything. But in this particular usage, I believe that there was a very early mix up of exact definition. And for some reason it was not corrected. Carla was a very loving person. Perhaps so powerfully that it translated to Ra as the concept he was trying to get across. Ra states many times that they had trouble translating exact meanings from our limited vibratory sound complexes. Don't get me wrong. I have the highest respect for this whole project. I'm walking the talk in ways I never thought I'd actualize. I just don't see the commonly accepted definition of Love as being the utmost foundation of Creation. I'm sure it's high up there. And I'd Love to understand it's origin point. I believe the next level under formless infinity is intelligence and light. Surely Love comes into play somewhere in the hierarchy "beneath" that. I accept there may be some nuance I don't understand. But it's not from not wanting to. I didn't mean to pick on Ra anyway. The word Love can be pretty flexible in it's meaning. It's such a nice word.
06-22-2015, 02:46 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2015, 02:59 AM by Minyatur.
Edit Reason: Latwii - March 25, 1989 Wrote: The Creator is not an objective referent. This is no palpable, tangible, testable, visible Creator. Rather, the Creator
)
(06-22-2015, 12:45 AM)Berilac Sandydowns Wrote:(06-21-2015, 09:38 PM)Tan.rar Wrote:(06-21-2015, 03:54 PM)Berilac Sandydowns Wrote: I've just read Plenum's op for the third time since he posted it. And as often happens here, I feel like a dump truck full of butterflies have been deposited on my head and I have a difficult time catching a couple before they fly away. What would think of this definition of Love : Quote:Latwii - January 12, 1974 Wrote: Love, my friends, is not what you think it is. The word in your language has a meaning that has various interpretations. But it is none of these things. We use the word when we speak to you, because it is as close as we can come to the concept, using your language. Love, my friends, is that force which does all of the things that are done in the entire creation. All of the things, my friends, even those that you would interpret as being without love. Quote:Hatonn - February 22, 1976 Wrote: Quote:Latwii - March 25, 1989 Wrote: tl;dr : Love is beigness itself.
06-22-2015, 04:19 AM
11 posts were split into their own coherent thread.
([split] "frolicking in a green meadow" and the spiritual consequences of being tickled) |
|