🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: Who's The Dummy--Resurrected;  Was  The Miracle of Simplicity

glennl@up.edu (Glenn Laubaugh) wrote:

>There is so much stuff scattered about in so many different posts that I
>wish to write a reply to that it would take hours of cut and paste work to
>be able to even attempt to make a coherant response.  Therefore, I will
>start over with a new article entirely.

>1. Threads such as this one should not be taking place on the general
>interest news groups - those groups are for local news and information.
>This post has been cross-posted to several regional groups outside the
>specific region, and therefore it obviously does not belong in regional
>specific general interest groups.  Considering the subject matter, I would
>suggest something along the lines of an alt.oracle newsgroup or something
>like that - you may have to start your own news group for it.

>Yes, I know, at times I have posted like this also, but THAT was for
>community events that people outside the specific region might also be
>interested in and wanting to attend.  This thread has nothing to do with
>community events.

>2. Please be considerate enough to keep the same subject line.  This
>allows those of us who do not wish to read this stuff to have the article
>pre-discarded by the local kill-article file. (Yes, I still have
>subjects Tonya Harding and YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA in my kill file...)

>However, since you insist upon throwing this stuff into the newsgroup:

>1. If we are to believe what arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) is
>saying, then vast portions of what Christ says is inaccurate due to
>interferance by priests and others.  arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond
>Karczewski) then goes on to sprinkle his writings with quotes from Christ.
>If what Christ is credited to have said is inaccurate, then how can we
>know that what arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) is quoting as Christ
>is really Christ?  How do we know that isn't someone else playing around?

>As near as I can tell, arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) is doing the
>same thing he accuses all other religions of doing: picking and choosing
>that which is quoted and promoted.

>2. Due to the picking and choosing of quotes that arkent@cdsnet.net
>(Raymond Karczewski) is doing, I can't help but have reservations about
>it.  For example:

>In Re: The Miracle of Simplicity (Sat Sep 07 21:52:08 PDT 1996),
>arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) wrote:

>>    It is such a statement of projected judgement of another's
>>arrogance that is addressed by Christ's statement when He said, "Judge
>>not lest Ye be judged."  They're just too ignorant to see it, so they
>>intrigue and hide behind their prideful image based in intellectual
>>knowledge. Such is the profile of a blind believer and those who
>>manipulate them.

>[snip]

>>  I have given the answer regarding the transition from duality to
>>nonduality to millions of seekers over the net.  I have yet to get a
>>reply that it has been understood.  BE OPEN, BE QUIET, BE AWARE, BE
>>HONEST, BE AT-ONE.


>Now, let me see if I understand this properly.  arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond
>Karczewski) is promoting a system in which we are told to BE OPEN, BE
>QUIET, BE AWARE, BE HONEST, BE AT-ONE.

>On the other hand, in the first quote, ( "Judge not lest Ye be judged." )
>is taken from both Matthew 7:1-6 and Luke 6:37-38.  Read on a little and 
>find the quote "Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock
>and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks will receive,
>and anyone who seeks will find, and he door will be opened to him who
>knocks." in Matthew 7:7-8 and Luke 11:9-13.

>Now, are we to believe that "Judge not lest Ye be judged." is a quote from
>Christ, while the "Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock
>and the door will be opened to you" is not from Christ and is not
>accurate?

>If it is accurate, then who is it that we are to ask?  Where does the
>asking and receiving fit in with:

>>  I have given the answer regarding the transition from duality to
>>nonduality to millions of seekers over the net.  I have yet to get a
>>reply that it has been understood.  BE OPEN, BE QUIET, BE AWARE, BE
>>HONEST, BE AT-ONE.

>Somehow I don't think that Christ was referring to an e-mail message that
>was sent asking, and then having the reply not understood by the receiver.
>In fact, reading on in verse 11 of chapter 7 of Matthew: "As bad as you
>are, you know how to give good things to your children.  How much more,
>then, will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

>Now, it becomes clear to me that understanding is something that one can
>ask God for and receive - at least according to Christ.  Now, I certianly
>agree that BE OPEN, BE QUIET, BE AWARE, BE HONEST is something that needs
>to be done in order to listen for God's response to a request for
>understanding, but where does the request fit in to all this?  As near as
>I can tell:

>1. arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) is saying that the first part of
>Christ's quote is accurate, but the rest of the chapter is not an accurate
>representation of Christ's message.  If this is the case, then:
>     A. How do we know that the part arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond
>        Karczewski) quoted is also accurate?
>     B. arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) stated in a previous post
>        that intellectual knowledge is one of the sources of arrogance and
>        trouble (and I certainly agree!), but are we not allowed to use
>        intellectual knowledge in trying to decide what is part of
>        Christ's message and what has been added?  If not, then how do we
>        know what has been added?

>2. arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) is saying that we should pay
>attention to Christ's orders to not judge others, but then ignore the
>rest of advice from Christ about asking for knowledge from God.  If this
>is what is being said, then:
>     A. If a small part of Christ's message is important, isn't all of it
>        important?
>     B. Isn't the part about asking for items (understanding, peace,
>        patience etc.) from God important?  Or is understanding
>        unimportant?

>3. arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) is saying that we should obey
>one part of Christ's teaching but ignore the rest of it because there
>isn't a God to grant us what we ask.
>     A. If that is the case, then why did Christ command it?
>     B. If that is the case, then who is Christ and why should we listen
>        to him?

>Just a few questions for you Mr. arkent@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski)...


Glen,

    I can understand your confusion regarding my writings. Your's is
an active, logical, problem solving but linear based mind. It is
comfortable in dealing with mechanical problems through conceptual
thinking, but impotent to deal with matters beyond the "givens." As
such, one is comfortable with the conceptual definition of truth, but
hasn't a clue as to what that unnameable energy really is.

   You begin with a complaint as to where I post my articles. May I
reveal a truth which your present conditioning blocks you from seeing?
In Life, which is the realm beyond the intellectual mind, there are no
rules. There is only "What IS." Through conceptual manipulations, the
mind may invent a mechanical reality, but it will always be limited to
the fragment of the whole from whence it derives its power. The mind
is impotent in dealing with energies beyond it's limitations. This is
the reason man has screwed up this planet. It is the arrogance of a
very limited intellect which seeks to have dominion over matters of
which it has no clear understanding.   

    It is the corruption of a conditioned mind that requires a need
for rules. These rules are but an overlay of a known mechanical matrix
superimposed upon a vast unknown for the sake of control. It creates
the illusion of "pseudo" order. One merely has to see the recurrent
outcome of violence, war, starvation, poverty, etc. to see the failure
of rules in achieving their intended purpose. Yet how many really do
see it? If they did, would we persist in living in such continued
insanity?  

    Conditioned minds live in fear and contradiction. That is what
occurs when rules are made and enforced. Each rule becomes an obstacle
placed in front of the flow of an holistic intelligence that knows no
contradiction. Such holistic intelligence is incapable of harm, as the
only thing it can harm is itself. It is when the holistic energy of
intelligence is stepped down to the vibration of the dualistic mind
which causes separation and "harm" emerges.

    The simplicity of living an wholistic life has been transformed
into the complexity of a sea of fragmented minds. Our world is on the
brink of destroying itself if our present insanity is not stemmed
somehow. I post to the groups which I perceive to have the largest
numbers. My posts are directed to those "who have the eyes to see and
the ears to hear." The others who prefer to remain with their present
way of life have already made their choice. They are the ones who seem
most disturbed by my posts. 

     As to my quoting of Jesus, I do so because His statements "ring"
with plain and simple truth. If you were to tell me the truth, I would
hear the "ring" of truth in your words also; for truth is everywhere
to be found by one who is "attuned" to it. To come to this
"attunement" one must first understand his own mind. One must break
the cycle of habitual thinking that enslaves them to a life of
contradiction via the medium of rules. Jesus said that "He was in this
world, but not of it." He said something very important that only a
few could grasp. He identified himself as a "divine anarchist"; one
who lives life guided by divine intelligence, not by the corruption of
man's corrupt rule. I perceive Jesus to be my spiritual brother, my
equal, as I do you also. In such equality, where is conflict?

     My words are not founded in acquired knowledge, but in the direct
perception of the simple spirit of understanding. My words are shaped
by the holistic spirit of intelligence within. It is this simplicity
of spirit that wreaks such havoc upon the complex, conditioned mind.
I follow no man or doctrine. In that, I too consider myself to be a
"divine anarchist." I understand what Jesus understood, and I speak
from that same truth. Keep in mind, I am not professing to be at one
with the mythical image that millions worship. That illusory image is
the anchor upon which the whole of Christianity is founded. That is
the illusion that countless ignorant conditionable minds have served
for the past 2000 years. This is the source of conflict to my writings
experienced by those bound to an "illusion" of a promised saviour.  
The truth of it is that each of us is our own saviour. Simply asked,
what is it that we wish to be saved from? Is it not the conflict and
suffering of confusion? Understand your mind, and you are saved from
its illusory conflict, are you not?

     Here is a simple way of determining the truth for oneself: Look
at the momentum of energy behind one's words and actions. In the
center of such momentum, tie an imaginary string to trace the
directions it takes. Truth will naturally flow straight and steady.
When the string starts to divert from the straight line into
extraordinary twists and turns, creating a maze of confusion, truth
has been given up and the illusory "thought of truth" takes over. The
thought of truth is "confusion" as all thoughts are based in duality.
One momentum leads to a heaven of order, while the other leads to the
conflict of hell. Follow your own string. Where does it lead?

Raymond Karczewski  http://www.cdsnet.net/Business/Ark/