🚀 go-pugleaf

Via E-mail, White Eagle wrote:

>Hi Raymond,
>
>Hello fellow human being.
  
R. Hello yourself, I didn't expect such a quick response.  Nice to
hear from you.

J.>   Thank you very much for your reply. Obviously, the two of us
>have different viewpoints on some core issues. It's perfectly OK,
>all people don't have to think alike. Actually, no two people can
>think exactly alike. My response below is neither to argue with
>you, nor to try change you mind - only to clarify my viewpoint.

R. Despite what appears to be peripheral differences, we are
understanding each other.

>On Mon, 11 Mar 96 23:18 PST  Raymond Karczewski wrote:

R.>> ...  I am part of a spirit that will change our world, but then
>>so are you.

R. The problem of this use of the word spirit is semantic in nature.
There is only the One, and each of our communications (yours and mine)
express it differently. It is the shared awareness spoken of.

J.>   I'm not aware of being a part of any such spirit. 

R. Not to belabor the point, but the spirit is the spirit of
awareness. If one is not aware, one is operating at the level of
thought.  Awareness = truth, nonduality, Thought =reflection of truth,
duality.  Simple distinction, yet lost to the masses.

J. >All I'm aware
>of is a very wide perspective of reality and my responsibility to
>share with others the existence of a possibility for each and every
>human being to widens one's own perspective and to operate out of
>Self-Source-Of-Authority, which is the greatest breakthrough
>humanity have faced, ever.

R. >>White Eagle, I will link with all in spirit to bring this new
>>consciousness into being, but I will not link myself to another 
>through the
>>medium of thought.  I have no force of my own to join forces with 
>you, only
>>my spirit of unconditional cooperation that renews itself moment 
>by moment
>>(or until we find ourselves no longer going in the same 
>direction).
>>Therefore I make no commitments. If there is something I can do 
>for you and
>>am in a position to do it, consider it done. (As long as I can do it out of
>>semiretirement.)

J. >   Thank you very much for your very generous and kind offer. For
>one, it sounds like I may have asked something of you - which I
>haven't. I didn't ask you to link with me. I only pointed out a
>vision of different people sharing. Second, all my basic needs are
>fulfilled for the time being. I'll remember your kind and generous
>offer, should I'll be in need.

R. Again semantic. I resonate with different levels of energy to the
phrases "sharing" and "joining forces."  Sharing is nondualistic,
while "joining forces" can be found only in the dualistic realm.

J. >   Your words above indicate that you are strongly attached to
your
>thoughts. In my viewpoint, thoughts and particular word
>formulations are secondary. What really counts is the infinite
>perspective of the eternal absolute which transcends the mind,
>thinking and all words.

R. Joshua, What caused you to sense that I am strongly attached to my
thoughts? That's quite interesting, since it is quite the opposite. I
am not a thinker per se; that is, a dweller in thought.

J. >>>Indeed. That is why it seems to me urgent that all who work in
the same
>>>direction will better join forces.

R. Yes, Joshua, this was the sentence I referred to above.

J. >   The above referred to the call of our time, probably to the
need
>of humanity, not to any personal need of mine. You seem to be aware
>of the crisis humanity is in and of the short time factor. It's up
>to you to choose whether to share with others, or to attempt to
>carry the full load on your own shoulders only. It is primarily a
>matter of frame of mind. Possible actions are the outcome of the
>basic inner stand.

R. I carry no load in fact.  I see the whole of it and realize my
verbal input is just an insignificant part of it, but a necessary part
nevertheless.

J. >>>What you (and I) speak about is far away from most people's
current
>>>experience and understanding. That is why ancient teachings speaking about
>>>it are clouded in mystical gibberish. Right now, it will echo only in very
>>>few people.

R. You are correct, but it will vibrate in each exponentially, like a
pebble dropped in a pond. From point to point to point, and so on, and
so on, and so on.  This is the peripheral difference which exists in
our expressions regarding viewing of the spirit.  Organizations
by design  are bound together  by technical energy. They are both
impotent and destructive at the same time when used in the
psychological and spiritual realm to convey truth or understanding to
another.  Joshua, you have clarity, but you cannot bring clarity to
another unless they are ready for it. When that time comes they will
have been the teacher to themselves, not you.  You can only relate to
them honestly and integrally, and they will either see it or they
won't.

R. >>  It's a start. Any other manner of approaching the problem will
only result >>in counter-conditioning which brings things full circle.

J. >   Saying that only my approach works, no other approach can
>possibly work, is as dogmatic as known religions. My own experience
>is different - I have broken conditionings by an approach and
>practices which are probably different from your's.

R. If you are saying that you have deconditioned another from their
previous mindset, that is one thing.  If you are saying you have
deconditioned another from the previous mind set, then replaced the
old with a new, you have reconditioned them, which appears
to be different from the old but is not.  That's the magic schtick of
the priestly set. (I hope I spelled that correctly.)

J. >>>Anyhow, the inner wisdom and truth you are expounding is not
likely to
>>>reach the multitudes (not now, at least). Why intentionally reject some of
>>>the few who may find an echo inside them to this wisdom, truth and
>>>reality?  My own viewpoint is to make this truth accessible to as many
>>>people as possible, without compromising even a iota with the truth of it.

R. That speaks to the peripheral differences mentioned above. I
perceive my approach to resonate with that of my brother Jesus--sow
the seed, let it be and get on with it; perhaps even closer to John,
the "voice in the wilderness," speaking to the wind and allowing the
echo to do the rest.  I am quite aware that the New Age organized
movement approach toward creating a mindset is seemingly opposite of
the old Judeo-Christian approach, but really is, in essence, the same.
It will still be the same old dualistic relationships with a new
facelift.

R. >>  I'd certainly like to know how that can be done. Knowledge
replaced by
>>knowledge on the linear intellectual plane, leaves one where they began--at
>>the same level of knowledge.

J. >   The Third Circle is expounding few possible ways to do it.
Right
>now TTC stuff is in the process of being written, so, I guess
>you'll have to wait for it to be written. Some of the basics are
>written and published in TTC Web Site. Anyhow, since you've claimed
>that only your approach can possibly work, I wonder about the
>degree you may be open to other approaches.

R. My brother, I am open to it all.  If it is true I will resonate
with its ring of truth; if it is not true, the subtle vibratory
distinction is noticeable.  That is my divine guidance in
operation.  It has served me well throughout life.
This ability to discern is, with all due humility, the grace of "A
Child of God". They, in essence are the "Truth, the Life and the Way."

J. >May your own Light and Love guide you.

>White Eagle (Joshua Gomeh).

R. Joshua, If I may ask, what is the significance of White Eagle? Why
the two different labels?

R. Joshua, this one goes to the newsgroups.  Perhaps it time for all
of "God's Children" to come out and add to the mix.  

>The Third Circle Web Site:
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/WEagle/
>
My best to you
                Ray


Raymond Karczewski  http://www.virtualplex.com/vplex/ark/