--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > Rory you were a bit more oblique in your answers, skirting the > > > > question. > > > --- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > > > > Odd -- I thought I was very clear! Maybe if I speak louder :-) > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > Oddly, thats often the response of people when they are told they are > > not clear -- or not being clearly understood. Just repeat the same > > obtuse thing -- just LOUDER. Repeat something often enough and > almost > > anything can start to sound true (to some). > > I actually was joking when I put it in caps, but I can certainly see > how that may not have been clear, as although I put a smiley-face > after it, I often do that, simply to attempt to convey the underlying > bliss! :-) > > And I didn't exactly repeat myself; I also amended my previous > statement to include loving what was and what shall be -- but > emphasizing most what IS, as NOW is where IT IS; NOW is where the > Work most clearly shows itself, where the most Love and Bliss and > Consciousness lies wrapped up in illusion. > > Truly, anyone can love what isn't; almost everybody in fact loves > what isn't, or what appears not to be; if this stems from a hatred or > denial of what IS, it spawns action stemming from stress and > suffering, pain and fear and anger and hatred and contempt -- rajasic > action, as it were, "acting out," instead of clearly seeing and > healing the root-cause. That's fine, but IMO & IME there is no > challenge there; one isn't facing one's own demons; one is attempting > to change one's hairstyle by combing the mirror :-)
And are you saying that you see im my writings that "this stems from a hatred or > denial of what IS, it spawns action stemming from stress and > suffering, pain and fear and anger and hatred and contempt -- rajasic > action, as it were, "acting out," instead of clearly seeing and > healing the root-cause. That's fine, but IMO & IME there is no > challenge there; one isn't facing one's own demons; one is attempting > to change one's hairstyle by combing the mirror :-)" Or are you simply continuing to talk past me. To take any opportunity to pedestalize your story. > I earlier wrote: > > > > It's not a matter of *my* choice -- it's the particle's choice, > > > always, to imagine that it's not me, to explore its denial of me > and > > > of what IS, and consequently to suffer, for just as long and as > > > intensely as it wishes :-) > > New wrote: > > > > So as Peg Leg says, "I could fulfill a desire to end the war in > Iraq, > > but its Iraq's fault for not surrendering to "MahaME"." (Or MiniMe > if > > they care to surrender to Jim instead of you, :)) > > *lol* Not exactly; I don't consider there to be a fault; it is all > perfect; it's the way my particles are choosing to play right now. If > and when they wish to end their suffering, they will tire of their > play and surrender into what IS, and that will be perfect too, even > for them/me. > > If you feel Iraq should be different than the way it IS in this > moment, I invite you to Inquire more closely :-) And I invite you to ponder deeply Steve's Mahvakya I posted adjacently. Ponder it deeply until you really GET it this time. > New wrote: > > > >Its all just Perfect as it is. Nothing needs healing. > > I wrote: > > > Not at all -- any thing that we see as a "should" outside > ourselves > > > needs healing, for it is a thought that is denying what IS and > thus > > > is a lie. The bodymind knows it's a lie because it hurts; it > creates > > > stress and suffering. > > New wrote: > > > > Funny, you see and hear should when I see "could". What is > can "could" > > always be more divine, more and expression of heaven. if you or it > > don't like that, then sure, leave it as it is. > > What makes you think I wish to leave it as it is? Nothing stays the > same. I LOVE it as it is, and based on that LOVE, I LOVE what is > constantly emerging :-) So we agree on the last 6 words. That is the essence of Wok > New wrote: > >But if vision of what > > could be has not been snuffed out within you, then seeing what could > > and helpingto enable that change is a good thing, IMO. Wallowing in > > yesterdays news (now is what was conceived yesterday) is not a huge > > virtue, IMCO, unless you want to gloriify something then worship it. > > Pesestalphelia. > > Loving what IS, is the result of doing the Work and remembering the > truth: Sat = Being = Love = Truth; it is its own reward. Remaining > outside of Love in this moment, refusing to acknowledge the > perfection of what IS, is any given particle's own choice, which I > LOVE and honor fully :-) Loving what Could Be, is the result of doing the Wok and remembering the truth: The Divine is Always on the Move Creating. See, feel and Be divine by expressing the spark of creativity within you. To enable what could be. It is its own reward. Remaining outside of Love for What Could Be, refusing to acknowledge the perfection the every changing, ever emerging, ever creative potentiality of every moment, emerging towards greater happiness, that is any given particle's own choice, which I LOVE and honor fully :-) > I wrote: > > > Genuine peace and love and bliss are reattained when we Inquire, > and > > > through Inquiry see through and give up the lies and denial and > > > external "shoulds" -- as we realize they are all projections; > we've > > > been attacking illusory demons, ourselves and others, out of the > pain > > > and anguish we've been inflicting on ourselves through our false > > > beliefs, that they all out there "should" be different. > > New wrote: > > > > And if you want to continue to talk past me, not to me, I am > certainly > > not saying you should change. Its your call. > > > > I said nothing about shoulds -- but you apparently saw "shoulds" in > > what I wrote. Projection could be an explanation. > > You wrote a great deal about how what IS is the rotting corpse of > God, and so on. If you passionately LOVE the rotting corpse of God, > excellent; then we have no argument! My error; I thought I smelled > some rejection there, some "should be different" :-) only in your projections and hopes, mon frere. Point to where I advocated "should" or cast an imperative. The Wok is the antithesis of the Imperative. > New wrote: > > But if my words are a good catalyst for you to sermonize on other > > things, wonderful. Thats your creative urge to change the topic and > > unload whats on your mind. Thats always an option. > > We've been over this point many times in the past few years; I guess > I somehow haven't been clear -- I have said many times that I have no > problem with change, with visions, with actions, with desires, with > what could be and shall be. How could I? Life is change. I LOVE it > all. Why do you think that somehow makes me want to resist change? > LOVING it all is the perfect basis for change, the perfect foundation > for change. Great. Your words appear far more inertic than that sentiment. > > > Something out there SHOULD be the same: > > > Is that really true? > > > Are we really sure that's true? > > > How does it feel to think they "should" be the same? > > > How would we feel without that thought? > > > Can we see any stress-free reason to keep that thought? > > > Are the turn-arounds on the thought equally true or truer -- are > > > those detested qualities "out there" really inside ourselves? > > > > > Anyone can react against the evil out there and act to change it, > and > > > most do. More power to them! But IME it takes real courage to > root > > > out the evil where it actually lies > > New wrote: > > > > We are sympataco up to here. > > I wrote: > > > > -- in our own beliefs, our own > > > thoughts. That's when we truly end the war. > > New wrote: > > > > I say its our resistance to use our divinely granted and enabled > spark > > of creativity and insight, inertia, stagnation in the present, that > > restrict the application of our skills to remove blockages to things > > moving towards greater fields of happiness. Now is one level of > > happiness. Feel free to worship and be stuck in that. > > What makes you think I am stuck in that? Your glibness an inertia in not rising to the wave in every moment and catching it. > >Out there is a > > greater field of happines -- and if its within my power to enable > > it, I will use apply my divine right to reflect the virtues of of > that > > creator / divinity. > > If you are exercising your divine right from a place of denial of Now > and its consequent pain and anger and fear etc., IME your results > will not be particularly divine :-) You keep seeing pain, anger and fear Rory. That has nothing to do with me. Perhaps inquire, mon frere, ma souer, where that is coming from. > > New wrote: > > I don't say everyone and everything should be happier, whole and > > radiating creativity and love. I am saying, they Could be. > > Not in this moment, they couldn't, because they aren't, and this > moment is what I am talking about Loving fully. It all starts Here, > Now. Lots of inertia there. > New wrote: > >And to the > > extent I can enable that, that is my nature. why restrict nature? > > Who is saying we are restricting nature? Why do you think that Loving > what IS implies stagnation? I have found precisely the opposite :-) Ah good. So its just your words that reflect stagnation. Good to know. > > > Right action continues, as always. And IME the actions arising > from > > > Love and Peace and Bliss are infinitely more effective than those > > > arising from pain and suffering and contempt and hatred -- i.e. > from > > > false beliefs and projections :-) > > New writes: > > > > And in your story and projections, do you see me as advocating > action > > "arising from pain and suffering and contempt and hatred". > > Not if you passionately love the "rotting corpse of God" in this > moment, with all your heart -- otherwise, yes :-) aghoras are interesting. > If so, I > > see what could be -- you enjoying a happiuer, fresher, less > > restrictive and conditioned view of things. THAT Could be. Its you > > that appears to be saying it shouldn't be -- by staying stuck in the > > quicksand of what has already happened. > > This is where we differ -- IME Loving what IS is not "quicksand"; it > is divine heartfire :-) > > *L*L*L* Whats that I hear 'blub, blub, blu..." Is heart fire like hell fire and bimestone?
