🚀 go-pugleaf

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

(robi@halcyon.com) wrote:


>>>Ray, just in case you haven't noticed, we're _all_ dummies.

>>>You are no different than the rest of us.  To pretend otherwise
>>>is foolishness.

>>>This is the point that Bon is making, but you seem unwilling to
>>>acknowledge it.

>>>Have you asked yourself why?

>>>--
>>>Amobea are enlightened.  They multiply by dividing.

>>Rob,

>>   It isn't what you don't know that limits you.

>>   It is what you know that limits you.

>I guess I give you more credit than you deserve.  How does the two lines
>above relate to the fact that you are no different from anyone else in
>regard to knowledge?  Do you know something that others do not?
>You seem to write with authority, expressing what is known to you, and
>you seem to insist that no one else is capable of knowing what you know.
>Even when someone asks you a question, you state in so many words that
>they are not capable of understanding the answer.

     The difference would be that I, unlike you, am not based in
knowledge, but in the spirit of understanding.  I do not express what
I know; I express what I see and understand.  It is quite beyond
knowledge. Direct perception is always beyond knowledge and can only
be approximated when words are used to communicate that which is
beyond the ken of knowledge. This is rather self-evident to anyone who
lives life at that vibration of intelligence.  There are no "in so
many words" to it.  It is a fact.  See it or not, get it or don't.
That is the simplicity of it.

>There are several factors involved in this process.  See if you can
>read and understand what is written here:

>For there to be communication which is an exchange of information,
>preconceptions (knowledge) have to be set aside in order to listen.
>Perhaps that is what you mean by "It is what you know that limits you."
>Now I am asking you if it is possible for you to follow your own advice?

>To go further into this, I ask you if you understood my statement which
>I'll repeat, since you didn't seem to get it the first time.  Stated as
>a question, DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE, as far
>as the limitations which you speak of are concerned?  In other words,
>do you think that what you write applies to others, but not to yourself?

>Furthermore, I see a pattern here.  You seem to be promoting yourself
>at the expense of others.  Perhaps I am in error, which I'll readily
>admit if you can explain why your following statement doesn't imply it:
>  
>>   The problem which exists with others on the net is they can not let
>        ^^^^^^^                   ^^^^^^
>>go of their conditioned knowledge; therefore they feel their own
>>limitation in the mirror of unlimited, unbounded truth.

     Example:  You are upset with me. Why?  Your pride is hurt because
you feel insulted (unless you are speaking for others, in which case
you are way out of line).  I have not insulted you or anyone else.  I
have merely expressed my observations as accurately as the letter of
the words used will allow.  You can judge me all you want because of
your feeling of inadequacy; but sooner or later you will see that if
you have not linked with the spirit behind the words used,  you can
not hold another responsible for what you cannot understand.  That is
what is behind Christ's statement of "judge not lest ye be judged."
You may not  twist another's meaning of their words to suit your
agenda. That's reserved for lawyers and politicians.  To what you and
others write, I pay close attention attention--not only to the letter
of the words, but to the spirit of the words.  If it is true, I
ackowledge it and adapt.  If it does not ring with truth (and I am the
arbiter of my truth), it is let go. All of this happens in a moment
out of time.  There is no intellectual analysis that goes on.  Aside
from technical matters which require intellectual analysis, my mind is
relatively quiet. 

    Does that answer your question?  By the way, what you have said
so far in the post is nonsense, as I perceive it.  It is argumentative
and has no spirit of love attached to it.  There is no energy
exhibited of a true desire to understand. 

>Ray, you left yourself out of the problem.  Doesn't this apply to you
>also?  If not, then you are saying that "others" have a problem but
>not you, you seem to be exempt.  Don't we all share the same problems,
>or are you above it all?  Let's hear the honest truth from you, Ray.

    I can  say that I do not share your problems.  That's the honest
truth of it.  I've understood the lesson of pettiness long ago and
will not participate in any of it.

>I personally suspect that Bon is right about you after all.

>>Hence the
>>need for face-saving judgments (cheap shots).

>What cheap shot?  Are you referring to us Dummies (per the article title)?
>Did you originate that title?  It seems like a cheap-shot to me.

     No, that was based on an actual "Saturday Night Live" skit.  The
truth of it was overwhelming, and so I thought I would share that with
people on the net.  Your inability to see the clarity of something in
and of itself without twisting it is some way is indicative of your
level of consciousness.  But that's your business.

>Are you getting it yet Ray?  Is it getting clearer?

>>Link with the
>>telepathic communication of the spirit of the word by listening and/or
>>reading with a quiet mind, free of intellectual judgement (your
>>knowledgeable interpretations), and you will set yourself free from
>>your own knowledge-based limitations.

>Follow your own advice, and I shall do likewise.

     Then where does our problem lie?

>>Until then you will not have a clue of
>>what I am talking about and will more than likely resent it.

>You saying this doesn't make it so, although that is what you wish
>for, isn't it?  Do you crave resentment?

>>What is
>>being experienced in these silly pot shots  is the inertia of a
>>limited intellect resisting change. This manner of psychic linking can
>>not be technically taught to another.  The demand for a technique is
>>the ultimatum given by an ignorant mind responsible for erecting its
>>own barriers by its resistance toward adaptation.

>Yes, yes, so it is, and it is you also.

>>   Everyone operates telepathically anyway, though unknowingly;
>>otherwise they would not have the conflict they have with my
>>communications.

>Blaming someone else's inadaquacy again?  Perhaps you didn't make
>yourself clear (on purpose)?

     Again, to understand, and not to argue, requires a quiet mind
capable of seeing "What Is" unfold in the moment without adding
interpretive judgment to it.  If you can't do it, another cannot tell
you how to do it. It is like a baby learning to walk and talk.  At
that level, their intelligence guides them.  They are not subject to
the dumbing-down process until they reach school age.  I recognize
early child abuse can affect the intelligence of an infant, but the
process I am speaking of is the state of prideful ignorance based in
the acquisition of knowledge.

>Do you get it yet?

>>If they didn't at some level understand what I was
>>communicating, they wouldn't be so riled up with me.

>I do feel sorry for you.

>>At a deep level
>>they experience the vibration of truth, but it is set into conflict
>>with the grosser vibrations of their acquired, conditioned knowledge;
>>hence, they experience contradiction. Sweep out the clutter of the
>>conditioned mind and the resonance of truth is all there is. This is
>>what is experienced in my iconoclastic relationship with others on the
>>net: Their illusions are negated, and they don't like it.

>What about your illusions, don't you have any?  Let's hear the truth.  

>> This telepathic merging with the spirit of the word is how all who
>>survive the coming political/spiritual crisis will communicate in the
>>future.  Those who are unable to see beyond their present limitations
>>will act through passions fraught with  frustration and anger, fueled
>>by the urgings of  their leadership to destroy all others who do not
>>share their parochial mindset.  It will be this double-edged sword
>>(their hopeless duality) that cuts both ways which will destroy them.

>Well put!  Beware of he who speaks with forked toung!
>(Cheap-shot: I mispelled that on purpose so as not to offend anyone.)

>>The meek, the balanced, the intelligent will be all who are left to
>>inherit the earth.

>Now I see what you are getting at: World dominition.  You alone, Ray,
>inherit the Earth, since all others are dummies.  

     Rob, are you blind  to your preemptive word twisting?  Are you
unaware of the seething, angry, argumentative energy behind your
words?  How is communication possible with all of the psychological
noise going on inside of you?

>>  Future telepathic communication will commonly occur as one's
>>attention will be focused on the energy behind the words and deception
>>will no longer be an acquired taste.  That is true intelligence.  That
>>is how I presently operate in my life. I say this to you to convey its
>>reality for application in  your life, here and now, not to boast.
>>You can see the effect it has had in disturbing stubborn, dualistic
>>intellects.

>Yes, tell me about it.  Are you listening to yourself yet?

     I am aware of and take responsibility for what I have expressed
in my writings on the net, otherwise it is not sent out.

>>  Cheap shots are always a product of self-judgment based on the
>>multdimentional differing levels of contradictory energies felt, but
>>not resolved.  When the conditioned knowledge, the source of
>>psychological judgments is let go, the cheap shots will end.  Until
>>then all cheap shot artists only expose their level of  ignorance to
>>the world; i.e., themselves.

>I wholeheartedly agree.  From reading some other responses to your
>articles, I see that I'm not the only one who has difficulty
>understanding why you don't see your own reflection in the words
>you write.  You might be able to fool yourself, but you can't fool
>everyone.  Others have called you on this, and I'm just trying to
>get a little clarification.

>I know I'm not perfect, I am angry sometimes, at other times I read
>what others write and learn from them.  You are indeed a good teacher,
>Ray.  You exemplify hypocracy, reminding me that I need to be careful
>about how I view myself and others.  I only wish I could express my
>gratitude by teaching you the same.  I don't think you would listen
>to me, though, because to you I am just a dummy like everyone else.

>  Sorry, there is no other way of putting it.

>Sad, isn't it?

>--
>Amobea are enlightened.  They multiply by dividing.

    It is the spirit of the words that we use in order to express
ourselves which reveal us to all who are perceptive.  The spirit of
the words contains within itself the "vibratory ring" which
discriminates truth from deception.  The letter of the words are where
all of the word games are played.  One must examine for themselves to
determine where their attention, their awareness is drawn.  The seeker
of truth is drawn to the spirit, while the hypocrite game player is
addicted to the letter of the word, for that is where his need for
power lies.
 
   If all of us were to apply this question to all communications put
to us, whether favorable or unfavorable to our self image, our world
would change rather quickly.  What is the Question?  REGARDLESS
OF HOW I AM REACTING TO THE PRESENT INFORMATION
I AM RECEIVING, IS THE BOTTOM LINE STATEMENT TRUE?

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