posted May 05, 2008 10:51 PM            

******

The Higher Good Beyond Good and Bad

Is there a difference between happiness and inner peace?

Yes. Happiness depends on conditions being perceived as positive; inner peace does not.

Is it not possible to attract only positive conditions into our life? If our attitude and our thinking are always positive, we would manifest only positive events and situations, wouldn't we?

Do you truly know what is positive and what is negative? Do you have the total picture? There have been many people for whom limitation, failure, loss, illness, or pain in whatever form turned out to be their greatest teacher. It taught them to let go of false self-images and superficial ego-dictated goals and desires. It gave them depth, humility, and compassion. It made them more real.

Whenever anything negative happens to you, there is a deep lesson concealed within it, although you may not see it at the time. Even a brief illness or an accident can show you what is real and unreal in your life, what ultimately matters and what doesn't.

Seen from a higher perspective, conditions are always positive. To be more precise: they are neither positive nor negative. They are as they are. And when you live in complete acceptance of what is — which is the only sane way to live — there is no "good" or "bad" in your life anymore. There is only a higher good — which includes the "bad." Seen from the perspective of the mind, however, there is good-bad, like-dislike, love-hate. Hence, in the Book of Genesis, it is said that Adam and Eve were no longer allowed to dwell in "paradise" when they "ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

This sounds to me like denial and self-deception. When something dreadful happens to me or someone close to me — accident, illness, pain of some kind or death — I can pretend that it isn't bad, but the fact remains that it is bad, so why deny it?

You are not pretending anything. You are allowing it to be as it is, that's all. This "allowing to be" takes you beyond the mind with its resistance patterns that create the positive-negative polarities. It is an essential aspect of forgiveness. Forgiveness of the present is even more important than forgiveness of the past. If you forgive every moment — allow it to be as it is — then there will be no accumulation of resentment that needs to be forgiven at some later time.

Remember that we are not talking about happiness here. For example, when a loved one has just died, or you feel your own death approaching, you cannot be happy. It is impossible. But you can be at peace. There may be sadness and tears, but provided that you have relinquished resistance, underneath the sadness you will feel a deep serenity, a stillness, a sacred presence. This is the emanation of Being, this is inner peace, the good that has no opposite.

What if it is a situation that I can do something about? How can 1 allow it to be and change it at the same time?

Do what you have to do. In the meantime, accept what is. Since mind and resistance are synonymous, acceptance immediately frees you from mind dominance and thus reconnects you with Being. As a result, the usual ego motivations for "doing" — fear, greed, control, defending or feeding the false sense of self — will cease to operate. An intelligence much greater than the mind is now in charge, and so a different quality of consciousness will flow into your doing.

"Accept whatever comes to you woven in the pattern of your destiny, for what could more aptly fit your needs?" This was written 2000 years ago by Marcus Aurelius, one of those exceedingly rare humans who possessed worldly power as well as wisdom.

It seems that most people need to experience a great deal of suffering before they will relinquish resistance and accept — before they will forgive. As soon as they do, one of the greatest miracles happens: the awakening of Being-consciousness through what appears as evil, the transmutation of suffering into inner peace. The ultimate effect of all the evil and suffering in the world is that it will force humans into realizing who they are beyond name and form. Thus, what we perceive as evil from our limited perspective is actually part of the higher good that has no opposite. This, however, does not become true for you except through forgiveness. Until that happens, evil has not been redeemed and therefore remains evil.

Through forgiveness, which essentially means recognizing the insubstantiality of the past and allowing the present moment to be as it is, the miracle of transformation happens not only within but also without. A silent space of intense presence arises both in you and around you. Whoever or whatever enters that field of consciousness will be affected by it, sometimes visibly and immediately, sometimes at deeper levels with visible changes appearing at a later time. You dissolve discord, heal pain, dispel unconsciousness — without doing anything — simply by being and holding that frequency of intense presence.

posted May 05, 2008 10:56 PM            

I don't think that adequately covers your reasoning. If we're going to make analogies about a lion in our midst, then it seems an alternately fitting analogy would be a peaceful town with a pesky lion. Now if there's a lion threatening the townspeople, I think some would propose fences to contain the lion from threatening the people, and in the absense of that I would suppose that many would carry around their shotguns should the lion every get unruly. You and yours say, "Don't provoke the lion," when in actuality no one's doing anything to the lion. They're merely stating that the lion should be tamed or domesticated or something, so that it is no longer unfriendly towards the locals.

quote:

---

He's here, he's staying ... as I don't recall anyone admitting they want him banned ... and he's shouting from the rooftops that he's not changing until everyone changes.

---

A number of people would not require making this change in the first place if not for Jwhop's antagonism, so I believe your premise is off. Does this new person Dew need to change? What if Jwhop antagonizes him or her, and he or she fires back? Would Dew need to change in that instance as well in order to receive better treatment?

While we're on the subject of antagonism, I'd also like to point out that this premise of Jwhop's detractors "getting what they asked for" goes both ways. You can't sit there as justify his behavior as provoked, and deny the same right to those that Jwhop provokes. If Jwhop's detractors ought to expect Jwhop's behavior, then Jwhop (and the rest of his fan club) should get comfy with the idea that there will be a backlash against him. This is perhaps the biggest point of confusion for me when you guys come in to make your argument for Jwhop. How can you not expect something? You expect something from Jwhop if he gets offended, but no one else should? ...Really?

I personally offer Jwhop much more grace than he deserves, but that doesn't mean I won't step in from time to time when he's spinning (attempting to deceive). Now, if he's spinning his lines, his beliefs, and I give my opinion as to why I believe his position is wrong, am I the provoker or the provoked? I don't think anyone can claim to have started more GU threads than Jwhop, so when you assess who is communicating first I want you to think about that.

Also, the way I see it (and I'm sure others would agree), the most egregious character in GU is Jwhop. To sit and chastise those who speed 5 miles an hour over the speed limit in defense of a person who speeds 20 miles an hour over the speed limit seems a little uneven don't you think? Especially when the 5 mile an hour speeders only seem to do it in the presense of the 20 mile an hour speeder. A person shouldn't have to spend months training Jwhop how not to act as a child.

quote:

---

and as you cannot force him to change but can only change yourself, wouldn't the logical solution be to change your behavior first?

---

posted May 05, 2008 11:14 PM            

AG:

quote:

---

What I honestly think and believe is that an elder on this forum with a 10th house Saturn-affected Sun should have enough self-discipline to set an example. That's what I think is logical being a Capricorn with a significant Saturn presence myself.

---

An excellent point, but unfortunately it seems people mature at different rates that are sometimes seemingly independent of chronological age.

posted May 05, 2008 11:20 PM            

Randall is right. Look at your life and what you have done. Do you really think you are so enlightened to tell us what we should do?

In the scheme of things.. you would think you, above ALL, with your lectures and BS.. you would rememeber those we have lost here?

posted May 05, 2008 11:45 PM            

quote:

---

You can't sit there as justify his behavior as provoked, and deny the same right to those that Jwhop provokes.

---

I am NOT saying he is justified, AG. How do you still not get that? Remember that cumulative and subjective stuff I wrote about? You cannot defend your responses with "provocation". Neither can he. But that does not change that you both FEEL provoked. Feeling = subjective. Feeling provoked over long periods of time = Cumulative. Christ. On a bike.

If Jwhop says he's going to call anyone an idiot if they call the military a terrorist organization ... that's what he's going to do. Is either right? No. Are both insulting? Yes. Can we tell only one of you to stop and be fair? No.

Hey, how about not comparing yourself to someone for a minute? How about, speeding is illegal for everybody? How about, instead of whining "but officer, soandso was going faster than I was" you just say, "hey, I was speeding and I knew it was wrong but I did it anyway". Back to the Personal Responsibility issue. Record. Breaking ...

What you think and believe cannot effect a change in another alone, either. Will you change if I tell you that, imo, as a grown man, you should be more concerned with behaving like one instead of trying to force others to live by your standards? Um, no, don't think so. You see, as just one flaw in that manner of thinking ... I'd be judging you by what my standard of a 'grown man' should be like ... and I'm certain we disagree wholeheartdly on that alone. Again, what some of us are requesting ... be the change you wish to see in the world. Otherwise, we are all contributing to the problems we're complaining about in the first place. Every moment we're choosing. [I hope you didn't let the WE fly you by again.]

Um, newer members respond per their own impulses. If they are insulting, chances are Jwhop will insult them back. Again, both are wrong. Though you'll never go back and find it yourself, or if you did you'd completely overlook anything you disagreed with, most of us here have tried asking nicely and politely for the rest of you to stop behaving as you do. The only one of us that repeatedly dishes back what he gets without self-censorship (and I'm sure he disagrees) is Jwhop, versus all of you who say what you want, when you want, and insult or are insultingly irreverent towards the rest of us and/or our beliefs/ideas. The rest of us try, though not always successfully, to restrain ourselves and approach you calmly and reasonably ... and always have our pleas fallen upon deaf or defensive ears.

posted May 05, 2008 11:58 PM            

One time, we were even demon possessed for daring to hold different views. That was Daf whom I understand is now gone on to greener pastures.

What possesses those who are so free with their insulting lies to believe they..themselves are somehow immune from having their icons raked over the coals..not with the same lying rhetoric but with the truth? And what is it in these leftists, because that's what they really are...that makes them believe they are not subject to attacks for their lying attacks against others?

Perhaps they think they will outlast or wear down those who oppose their ideas and their outbursts with their constant whining and finger pointing. Perhaps they believe they will finally be caved in to.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are not going to prevail. You have my word on it. If that pi$ses you off, then TS babies.

While I occupy a lot of your waking moments, you are not important enough to me to cause me the least problem. While you are obsessed, I hardly ever even give you a second thought when I'm not here.

You, like leftists everywhere, reject reality. You don't want rational debate; you shun rational, logical debate. It's just not your style. Your forte is bomb throwing inflammatory rhetoric and when that same tactic is employed against you, you suck thumbs and whine to Randall.

You really are the juvenile, arrested development pubescent preteen types I've labeled you.

My only regret is that those who agree in whole or in part with what I say here get attacked too. I know for instance these members do not like the language I employ to blast you. I know it grates on their ears like fingernails on a chalkboard. That's to their credit because they're reasonable people who would like to see the acrimony stopped.

It's been laid out straightforwardly before you. "You stop and I stop". No half measures. It's an all or nothing at all proposition and it always was just that way.

posted May 06, 2008 03:11 AM            

quote:

---

I am NOT saying he is justified, AG. How do you still not get that?

---

How do I still not get that? Quite simply because you keep showing up to defend him over chastising him yourself. If you'd like me to have another belief, if you'd like a different result, then a different action would be necessary. Making analogies to poking lions in the lion's den amongst the other things seems to suggest you're trying to protect the lion. I would think a lion could handle itself.

quote:

---

Can we tell only one of you to stop and be fair? No.

---

I wish I could agree with you. I want to agree with you. My belief, however, is that most people would indeed prioritize. If you were part of any group of people, and there were multiple troubling personalities, the one you'd want to tackle first would be the ringleader (the person with the biggest payoff in terms of keeping the peace), especially if the other troubling people become rather mild in the absense of that ringleader.

quote:

---

Hey, how about not comparing yourself to someone for a minute? How about, speeding is illegal for everybody? How about, instead of whining "but officer, soandso was going faster than I was" you just say, "hey, I was speeding and I knew it was wrong but I did it anyway". Back to the Personal Responsibility issue. Record. Breaking ...

---

I've never taken issue with taking personal responsibility. That's a wholy unfounded presumption on your part (and beyond that a Republican misconception as well).

Beyond that, however, who would you like me to compare Jwhop with? I'll be happy to do so.

quote:

---

How about, speeding is illegal for everybody?

---

How about you take the point I've made repeatedly about how tame it is in GU in Jwhop's absense? You think I'm stubborn.

posted May 06, 2008 03:12 AM            

quote:

---

What you think and believe cannot effect a change in another alone, either.

---

I believe people affect one another quite profoundly on a regular basis, and they do so by having standards. Who's your hero?

quote:

---

Again, what some of us are requesting ... be the change you wish to see in the world.

---

What I'm requesting is that you direct that at a certain other individual (where the impact of such a change would be dramatic).

quote:

---

I am please asking you to read the excerpt I posted and try to open yourselves, even if for just a moment, to what it's saying. Maybe you'll disagree and that's fine. But you might at least begin to have a different perspective about where some of the rest of us are coming from.

---

Consider this. If I was so concerned about GU, and exerting my own sense of control on it wouldn't I back off when the Webmaster got involved? Wouldn't I be afraid of getting banned, and losing this place altogether forever thwarting my goals? I've never called for Jwhop's banning a single time since I've been here. Not once. Earlier in this thread I commented regarding my position on who could be installed as Moderators here, and why it essentially doesn't matter to me, because I don't believe it will change anything. If I don't believe the presense of Moderators is going to change anything, then it would seem I'm pretty comfortable with things as they exist.

You may ask yourself, "How did I get here?" No, just kidding. ( Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down )

You may ask yourself why I would bother making this argument over and over again, and I can tell you why. It's a principle I believe in. I believe it is in the best interest of the community to point out very specific things with regard to this issue for the community's benefit. Well, nobody asked me to, did they? No, they didn't, but just because someone doesn't ask you to report that their arm is on fire, doesn't mean you won't tell them. (Astrologically, Libra is my strongest sign, followed by Sag, and then Scorpio [justice, justice, and more justice]. My strongest planet is Pluto. Jwhop and my composite has Moon conjunct Pluto in the 1st sextile a conjunction of Neptune, Sun, and Venus in Scorpio in the 3rd. Our composite Mercury is in Libra in the 3rd. I personally believe transformation and communication are resounding themes in our composite.)

posted May 06, 2008 03:17 AM            

quote:

---

While I occupy a lot of your waking moments, you are not important enough to me to cause me the least problem. While you are obsessed, I hardly ever even give you a second thought when I'm not here.

---

I wish I could believe you, too.

quote:

---

It's been laid out straightforwardly before you. "You stop and I stop". No half measures. It's an all or nothing at all proposition and it always was just that way.

---

posted May 06, 2008 07:47 AM              

from BR to Pidaua:

quote:

---

Wait, so you've learned your lesson Pid but then you're ripping into and cursing at Steve. This doesn't make any sense. We are all fragile and could die at any moment, so you ripping into Steve is the same as anything else, right?
So basically you're trying to tell HSC about the lesson you learned but then you're showing us you haven't learned the lesson by doing the same thing to him that he's doing to everyone else?

---

when she will understand your point, she will be the one needing the point of view of the more sensitive people, because they can see in the dark, whereas she can only see in day light.

BR, HSC, AG thank you!

posted May 06, 2008 09:32 AM            

"Juni, btw, has a strong mind and she takes her own counsel. She won't "go along" with me anywhere"

I would walk beside you because I know you wouldn`t ask me to climb a birch you wouldn`t be willing to climb.

Eleanore, "frighteningly strong"

Hmmm, I was taught the wise councel to never bring a knife to a "gun" fight

juni

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted May 06, 2008 10:00 AM              

quote:

---

If Jwhop says he's going to call anyone an idiot if they call the military a terrorist organization ... that's what he's going to do. Is either right? No. Are both insulting? Yes. Can we tell only one of you to stop and be fair? No.

---

Um, Eleanore, Don't the rules here at LL apply to everyone? And didn't Jwhop agree to those rules along with every other member here at LL when he signed on to be a member?

So why not tell everyone, from the top on down to stop just becuase the rules say so and they all agreed to those rules? That would be fair.

I hate to point this out but some people have been banned for calling other people names. So yes, it seems at LL it is the case where one person is told to stop while others carry it on.

All of this would stop if the rules applied to everyone, no matter who they are. And yes, that would be fair.

The rules only apply to our conduct towards other knowflakes, not the military or the President or anyone who is not a knowflake. So some call the President an idiot and say the military is a terrorist organization. But others call fellow knowflakes an idiot. So you tell me, which people are actually breaking the rules?

The rules should apply to everyone or they shouldn't apply to anyone. We should just do away with the rules and let chaos rule. Or we should actually start applying the rules to everyone, from the top on down. That is the only thing that would be fair.

edited to add: There are well over 200 posts on this thread so it doesn't seem that AG is the only person who feeds on the drama. In fact, AG wasn't even involved in this until insults were hurled at him for just a very short post he made. Go back and read both threads from the beginning when he came on here.

For a while from March to April when BR, AG, HSC and the so called "Fab Four" weren't posting here at LL much Board Reader showed the posting as flat lining across the bottom. I am betting that since HSC started these two threads at GU the posting has gone up on a daily basis.

The simple reason for this is not so much that people like conflict or what you call "drama" but that conflict of any kind does make us think and does make us all want to share our thoughts on the subject.

posted May 06, 2008 10:32 AM              

However, people should not be attacked personally just because they respond with a differing viewpoint.

Conflict, if it doesn't get out of hand, is necessary in life. It is also unavoidable in life. But saying that one person's conflict starting posts are "just his way of expressing himself" and is not drama while on the other hand telling those who respond to what is said that are the ones who like to start dramas and are only responding for that reason alone is not fair at all.

Funny how some people say that war ( which is conflict ) is necessary but on the other hand say that how some people react to war is not necessary and should be silenced because it causes conflict. Does that way of thinking seem logical to others here? Because it doesn't seem at all logical to me.

I just want to clarify that Jwhop is also one of those who cause people to think and for that reason it does get boring around LL at GU when he is gone as AG said. But it gets just as boring when AG, HSC, BR and others around LL who provoke people to think are gone. I don't like Jwhop calling me and others names and his obsession with labels but I do respect his intelligence and his viewpoint, even if I don't agree with that viewpoint. He has a lot to say and a lot to present to provoke thought. I just get weary at times of wading through all the insults to find the point he is making so I gave up posting on a daily basis at GU. People are discouraged from posting whenever their viewpoints cause them to be personally attacked instead of listened to and responded to by just presenting where you disagree without attacking them personally.

posted May 06, 2008 10:39 AM            

You Mirandee, are one of the reasons I decided to just hold leftists heads under in their own piles of poop.

Polite discourse to you means calling the President of the United States a liar and a thief and to continue to do so when there isn't and never was a particle of proof he is and mountains of evidence he isn't. Polite discourse to you, means no one can call you on your lying bullshiit.

You're one of the lying leftists whose butt I've enjoyed kicking. Now that you've come back to GU to suck your thumb and rejoin the "Whiners Brigade" I'll try to work you back into the rotation.

posted May 06, 2008 10:43 AM              

Regarding the poop comment, yeah, I noticed that you do react very strongly against logic. And you have yet to "kick my butt." LOL

posted May 06, 2008 10:56 AM            

quote:

---

why waste your words and hours of typing?

---

I already answered this. It's a matter of principle.

quote:

---

Oh yes, I forgot for a moment--you feed off of the drama. That appears to be your true motivation.

---

My motivation has already been defined, and it's quite far from "drama." I'm doing what I think is best for the community, because some people refuse to.

quote:

---

Then you would starve. This is further reiterated by your notation that GU becomes rather tame in Jwhop's absence.

---

So you're saying that when Jwhop's gone I go looking for drama elsewhere? Do you believe you have any means of justifying your position? I don't.

quote:

---

I just wanted you to know that I'm on to you.

---

posted May 06, 2008 11:06 AM            

Thanks for illustrating your personality for us once again.

This is where things get tricky.

quote:

---

It's been laid out straightforwardly before you. "You stop and I stop". No half measures. It's an all or nothing at all proposition and it always was just that way.

---

So can a person say that Bush lied, and not be crossing that line? I know I've defined "lie" for you numerous times. I know that "lie" is a reasonable characterization even if it's not one you would prefer.

Can someone criticize a President who's had months of approval ratings in the 30's? Is it unreasonable to say anything about such a President?

How about Global Warming? You alternately believe it's true (and meaningless), and that it's not true, but you sure do seem to take offense when people bring it up. It's not like the issue (however imaginary you want to make it out to be) is going away any time soon. Would that be off limits by your "You stop and I stop" philosophy?

posted May 06, 2008 11:09 AM            

quote:

---

All of this would stop if the rules applied to everyone, no matter who they are. And yes, that would be fair. -Mirandee

---