Have you ever thought of it this way...

No one can offend you if you do not feel offended.
No one can shame you if you do not feel ashamed.
No one can make you feel anything you do not agree with.

So whenever you are feeling bad, it is only that you are consenting, agreeing, complying.

By the same token...

No one can love you if you do not feel loved.

My thoughts:

Some partial validity in the above.

If nothing offends an individual, they cannot be offended.

A prerequisite cognitive state does not necessarily determine potential for a future cognitive state.

An individual for example might not feel ashamed, but with certain new conditions, feel ashamed at a later moment as they are still susceptible to the concept of feeling shame.

The third point - Often times many people would not consciously agree to feel a particular way - depressed, angry etc - the feelings arise without prior agreement, often in a reactionary moment.
So certainly the aspect of choice I would agree with, but there is the ability to choose, and conscious self-awareness or mindfulness to be considered as well.

Essentially an over-simplified way to view, but still somewhat valid in terms of universal reflection.

Thank you for your input, AI.

I suppose it is oversimplified, and definitely an off-the-cuff thought I had that I am grateful to receive feedback on.

What I based this idea on is that if I use my intellect to untangle things and bring myself to greater awareness/consciousness, I need not feel unpleasant emotions that others or prior conditioning suggest I feel, such as guilt.

I guess I am saying that I not let others' ideas make me feel bad, though within myself, I can allow natural shame or guilt (fleeting) to indicate areas where I have truly made a mistake, which should be very infrequent as I have no conscious intentions of hurting others.

I think it is possible to get to a point where you no longer react. I'm not there yet, though, so it is now just my belief.

I base this on letting the intellect be the decider and the emotions being the indicators. The emotions can pop up with a detected feeling of shame in a certain instance, but the logic will untangle it. At some point the emotion will no longer pop up within that condition - that is my hope. To become more and more conscious so there is little reaction left and only chosen emotions are felt. If intellect is in charge, then pleasant things can be focused on and chosen to be felt (like love) and unpleasant things can be banished.

You posed such a great challenge to my thoughts. (Thank you!!) I think my brain is kinda smokin. Please restate if I have missed the point. Or pick this apart so I can learn more.

There is always room for further consideration, though I won't add further analysis at this point.

It is the thought of the topic which is most important, even if it is over-simplified, off-the-cuff etc. You may consider the likely-hood of having such thoughts if you were preoccupied with watching television or working the daily job. So the thought is something in itself.

One need not feel a particular way based upon the actions/words of another. It is illogical in one sense. Usually there is a soul-level attempt to gain from the individual - from your reactionary response.

It is possible to 'get' to a point where one no longer reacts.
There are two ways to do this (to my knowledge of course)and both have the common ground of "mindfulness". I gather this is related to or is perhaps part of what you have stated as trying to expand your consciousness.

Progress is with both the mind and the heart. The mind is 'developed', the heart 'nurtured' for lack of better words to describe.

As an example - Shame to me does not register as a valid concept - I understand why others feel this, which is fine, but as I have analyzed the actual concept of shame, it cannot work.
Guilt, which is closely aligned with shame is similar, but when considered in depth, there needs to be some differentiation. I would feel if I were to hurt another, and act accordingly - a function of the heart, rather than mind, though I could not be pushed into guilt or shame in the commonly accepted sense. I simply used myself as an example to try to elaborate on what (I interpret) you are saying Alisa.

AI,

Is it "good" to get to a point where one no longer reacts? I feel that it is.

And would you please tell me what the two ways are to do this (with the common ground of mindfulness)?

I appreciate your explanation of progress as both with the mind and the heart. I think I needed that bit of clarification because I was seeing them as one thing.

As for shame - I think lots of people have felt this. To differentiate it from guilt, I would say shame is a state of being -- I am "bad", whereas guilt is more, I did something wrong/bad. I agree that shame is not a valid concept, and thankfully, intellect helps me untangle it and see that it is invalid and helps me overcome it.

It helped when you said, to hurt another, and act accordingly is a function of the heart, rather than mind. Because as I said, I was not seeing heart and mind as separate. It makes more sense now. So you let your heart guide you in matters of emotion or feeling, and your mind guide you in matters of logic, puzzles, math, etc.?

It is "good", lest one remain a machine.

I will not tell you, but I will share my understanding of what we are discussing.

The mindfulness is consciousness becoming aware of itself. In this one becomes progressively aware of their thoughts. Content. Frequency. Patterns. Attention. Awareness. This is both thought and emotion.
The negative path is that based essentially in control. An individual will work to control and determine what emotions and thoughts may be allowed.
The positive path is based essentially in freedom. Those thoughts and emotions not conducive to the individual are relinquished.
The polarities are of the same core; understanding why the thoughts and emotions arise is that which allows progress to be made.

The mind and heart work in tandem to the degree they are active. I do not say "I am doing math now, turn on mind, turn off heart", so to speak.

If you are willing, perhaps you could elaborate on your understanding of mind and heart, feelings, emotions - any of these in any way you like.

That was a good hint, "lest one remain a machine". And helped me hone in on the definition of emotions when I thought it through today.

And suddenly I am seeing what you mean by mindfulness! It's so helpful to have this term and definition. Because I was referring to mindfulness as consciousness, but mindfulness is more - it is refinement of consciousness, consciousness becoming conscious.

I agree with and have understood to some degree the negative and positive path to mindfulness that you have defined (thank you). I have walked on both. I have always believed in the concept of freedom for all thoughts (even if I did not practice it fully within myself). Denying or banishing thoughts is harmful, but I didn't know how I was supposed to deal with them then when they were not helpful/conducive so I've alternated between banishing them and giving them total freedom, neither of which were the answer.

However, recently I experienced emotions that were not practical for me but persisted in reaction to a scenario I kept experiencing. I did not want to deny the emotion's existence, it was strong and made me feel rushes of adrenalin, but I didn't know what to do about it. Should I avoid the experience(s) that triggers this emotion? It seemed wrong and somewhat impractical, too. I then realized that I should (to use your term) relinquish that emotion in that instance. I just told myself, Stop it, when I started experiencing it. It seems to be working. It's like I am saying, I hear you, but the answer is "no".


I understand. Thank you.

Also, thank you for inviting me to elaborate on my understanding of mind, heart, feelings and emotions. What a good exercise this was for me to sit down and sort it out on paper. For your consideration and comment:

The mind is identity, interpreter, orchestrator, collator, operating system (OS).
The heart is divination/a compass for truth.
Feelings are drives, desires, will.
Emotions are expressions/mechanisms of survival instincts or fear (they are bodily based).

From those words, it sounds more like the negative polarity is being drawn upon for the learning. Observe.



Interesting definitions. "Bodily based" I would agree with to an extent in that this level of consciousness is related to many emotions commonly felt. However the soul experiences more, rather than less in feeling than the average human has capacity for. I do not say they are incorrect by inputting the following:

The mind, is all.
The heart determines flow to source.
Feelings are aspects of percepts, with corresponding heart
Emotions - most are outward expressions of imbalance, though elaboration required - which emotion, circumstance for example.

I know what you mean. How I explain it is: I think at a basic level, the negative path (which you helped me see more clearly - thank you) is about denying the emotions. Whereas, the positive path is about acknowledging the emotions. Relinquishing is a great concept, but there is more to it than that for me at this stage. I cannot merely wish my unsuitable reactions to go. I have to set up a boundary and say "no". Maybe if I knew some way to just release it, I could, but I don't.

I think it would be negative to say, I do not have this emotion, I hate this emotion/reaction. It must go! But it is positive to say, I DO have this emotion and reaction. At which point I spend time realizing perhaps why I am having this reaction. And then I say, No, I will not allow this reaction to occur any more because it is not conducive to the whole of me.

As for the definitions, I think ours have a lot in common. Thank you for sharing yours and helping me refurbish mine. Though I wish I had written my heart definition as "Through divine will, the heart is a divinator (compass) for truth." And the same phrase to preface my definition for feelings, which is how I wrote it on my worksheet. Because I feel that I am animated by divinity who drives me and steers me. I need only flow along rather than fight/struggle.

Once when I was sick and fevered, I asked/prayed, "Why am I sick?!" I lay down in a bath of hot water and opened my mind for the answers. I'm going to paste what I received and wrote in my journal because it seems so apt in this discussion and explains where my definitions originated.

Looking to why/how an emotion arose builds the understanding.

It seems much progress presently by people is done utilizing the negative path. It is a valid choice. There is of course, considerable programming from birth to work in this manner. Hence the positive path may be inconceivable or comprehension distorted.


For the journal entry, I don't think a comment is necessary, I'll simply do this

I agree!



I think you are saying that I have chosen to use the negative path as far as you're concerned, which is okay with me, as you say it is a valid choice, so that's cool. When you say "considerable programming from birth" do you mean by parents and environment? And would you please give me an example of what this type of programming is so I can see if it fits me?

I also really want to see the positive path from your point of view if possible. In other words, can you give me any hint or explanation as to how to relinquish emotion (without using my say "no" technique)?

An individual may draw from either polarity with work done. A negatively progressing individual will naturally seek greater of the negative polarity and conversely the positive from the positive. Reality is much more 'involved' shall we say. There are influences, there are stumbles on the path tread.

Considerable programming is a generalized statement. It varies with each individual, due to choices of the individual, choices of intentional influence and receptivity, to again state a generalized overview. Those most likely to serve the larger agenda are usually groomed accordingly, those most likely to bring light to the darkness are targeted accordingly.

On types of programming, which is a complex topic in itself, we shall categorize at this point the parents and siblings; the environment; the metaphysical.

An example of programming utilizing primarily a body/mind/chemical pathway - a dietary deficiency of magnesium, potentially leading to states of irritability or depression, with all consequential results thereof.



I could give an example. For the moment however, I'll ask you to re-read the first sentence of your own quote, in particular the fourth word. Consider along with the actual question you have asked.

So you are saying that I must "want" to see the positive path of relinquishing emotions in order to see how to relinquish them. I have felt strongly that I must set up boundaries in order to overcome my emotions, but I do want to see an alternative, so I will open my mind to this. Thank you.

It is utterly fascinating what you have explained about the polarities. It has truly opened up for me new ways of seeing things. I'm less opposed to the idea of light now, as funny as that seems. There are so many people that push light down one's throat. You describe concepts well with lots of meaning hidden within your words. When I read them I often feel as though I've unzipped a zip file etherically.

Obviously I was groomed for the negative dark path. From everything from my upbringing and diet to the spirit beings that guide me. I'm not too crazy about my upbringing, but I love the beings that guide me, and I know they are dark or appear to be what people say are dark.

But doesn't there have to be a dark path as well as a light for either to exist? And so wouldn't some have to walk it anyway?

No, wanting is of the negative polarity. This is not the same as 'striving', for lack of a better term, that is the investigation, the consideration for progress.



Why the opposition?



Willing to share an example please?



"More than meets the eye".



Could the use of "obviously" be a little assumptive?
Why do you say you know they are "dark" or appear to be?



The polarities are of the one source.

I have to preface this by saying, Wow what a night I had! I got very little sleep because my pregnant dog went into labour and I could feel her anxiety and pain all night. I realized today that it was symbolic of another rebirth for me (I have had major shifts in consciousness each time she has given birth). BTW, she had 3 puppies.

As I lay awake, I drifted into an altered state. My consciousness expanded to a view of the backyard where a swirl of darkness circled and then took a masculine form (vampire). I then received a visual as if he was poised over the earth and he said something along the lines of, "Do you think I intend to split the world in two [black and white] - it is as one. Merely because I hold a blade?" And I saw him with a large blade that looked as if it could draw a line in the earth.

Then my focus shifted to view a group of white robed/hooded people standing side-by-side in tidy order, each with an arm extended horizontally to rest on the shoulder of the person standing next them. And he told me that those who think they are light (white) are those that "want" to be light - and to want [is to desire, and therefore] is not to "be".

Pretty interesting given I had not yet read your response here where you say such similar things.



Gotcha! In fact, there is similarity in the journal entry I posted where I learned that to desire is to try to control, and that is fighting flow. (I am learning so much on deeper levels, thank you!)

I am opposed to light because I have spent my life surrounded by a majority of people who want to be light (religion!), and also now so many spirit-oriented people, I would otherwise enjoy communing with, profess to be only of the light (positive), and it has created in me an irritation toward it. Particularly the insinuations and on occasion outright accusations that I am in league with evil/dark (as opposed to them being in league with good/light). But I see more clearly on a conscious level that my irritation is in reaction to the incongruity of this claim (because they want and that is actually negative). So I am not opposed to light after all, only the the desire for light.



I say this in large part due to what I related above...the light seekers outlining darkness as what I was experiencing. Because I did not have the clarity, I accepted the idea that what I experienced was darkness. But because I so loved what I experienced, I would never turn my back on it and thus decided to accept that I must be dark.

P.S. I keep saying to myself, Who are you, Al?! And now instead of A.I. I am sometimes getting the word "Owl".

P.S.S. Do you have a conscious memory of sending me a message etherically (non-physically)? I mean aside from anything I said above...I saw this as a scroll of paper that unfurled with a message...

Quite correct with the concept. It is related to the ascension thread as well - the understanding of (as much as we can or will) the concepts of spiritual growth, ascension and related topics.


You are welcome. Multi-level learning yay!



Pushing the complete opposite of the truth as the truth is one way to distort things and foster a 'shock' response in the psyche of another.
One does not "be" light. Secondly, the perception of an individual being either (of) the dark or the light is rather limited to say the least.


Reality conformation regulatory programming.



Yes I'm clearly a "hoot"!




No, nothing conscious I can think of at this moment. I might have skipped a beat somewhere.

Key: Blue is You, Red is Me

Pushing the complete opposite of the truth as the truth is one way to distort things and foster a 'shock' response in the psyche of another.
One does not "be" light. Secondly, the perception of an individual being either (of) the dark or the light is rather limited to say the least.

Well, I think I should have worded it better and said that these people I spoke of want nothing to do with anything other than perceived "light" and "goodness". I should not have said they think they are "light" only. It is that they reject my love of darkness or my lack of wanting only "light". They appear to think and profess that any percentage of darkness is bad. Even to allow a thought that is considered by them (religion) to be dark to enter one's head.

And on that note, I recall at around age 8, when my philosophical brain spoke up to me and then never shut up, I wondered how you were supposed to stop a thought from entering your brain. It had to enter first before you even knew it was there in order to act against it. And then there was the whole conflict of being told not to think of negative thoughts, which then acted as a magnet to those negative thoughts.

Now I feel more clear, thanks to Ra material, about my path as service-to-self. Ah! And that is why I feel such aversion to service to others. I have to make that 95%. I think even my complaint of people pushing "light" on me is in large part people pushing service to others on me (which I need/want to avoid).

And is this what you mean by Reality conformation regulatory programming? People trying to push their beliefs about reality in an attempt to get others to conform? Or to get their own experiences to conform? Is it a program?

Yes I'm clearly a "hoot"! And wise!

The scroll was in Latin and was a "welcome" message to me from you. It was signed "Your Brother in Light" and then your name, which I forgot upon full consciousness for the most part.

After this an entity that reminded me of a tree spirit kept telling me that we are "him", we both are.

Cryptic is spirit! But I love it.

More wanting.



STS path cloaked to be understood to be a "light path"


Programming can be heavy during childhood...


You have a better probability of winning all the worlds lottos at the same time than a successfully sufficient negative polarization in this life time.



STS reaction to STS activity, like the description in the other thread.




The reality that they understand and conform to is used encourage or insist others also conform to - regulation of others or their reality/environment which includes others. All as mental programming.




There does indeed seem to be a connection at some level.

In at least more than one!

You are right, Al.

I see it now. I also see that my example of telling myself to stop was the negative path.

This understanding emerged, thanks to your groundwork here, and from a day-long philosophical conversation with a good friend of mine today. She had said in defence of the bible, But people need something so they will know right from wrong.

All day long in my discussions the same theme kept surfacing..."rules, laws, restitution, punishment". I kept thinking back to your recent posts about harmony and freedom. Everything was pointing toward this -- to freedom!

I realized that natural consequences exist to help people learn how to behave. But more importantly, if you try to force anything, put up any kind of boundaries, eventually a reaction will occur to oppose the force.

It makes me think of when people engage in a restrictive diet. They often successfully control their food intake for a while, then they lose control. If they manage to keep control, it becomes a regiment, you can feel it with them, the lack of freedom, the rigidness about them. It works, but it is not positive.

Unless one actually knows what another "needs" then this is merely a belief or narcissistic assumption. And if it were true, and by some amazing fact it applied to all people if that is what is assumed or implied, then by what means will it be ensured that the people "get what they need" - a book that orders them how to live, enforcement by others, covert encouragement? Then what is right and wrong being defined as?
Now I gather you can probably see all of this and I have little interest in such an "argument", however my one point is that with what I have provided and what you may already know, such a conversation starts to become rather pointless. That is not to say however that it may not be had to share new insight to another or to reconsider the knowledge one already holds.


Fundamental understanding.


Well, have you met a person who would if asked, gladly be imprisoned (assuming the conditions were painful to them)? Not too common in my experience...



Remember that we currently live in a world dominated by such regiment, order and control.
They know not what they do.

Yes, this is a very rehashed argument. It did help me understand my own point of view from yet another angle or rather on a deeper level. I find I repeat and repeat the same lesson many times, oft to my consternation. But in the end I realize it is because some level of myself is still in question and wants to see it all again.

With my friend yesterday, she posed questions and allowed me to talk my way through my beliefs. It felt so intentional and a gift from her wise soul to mine, to allow me to use her as a sounding board and offer up question after question until it became very clear to me and easy to answer each time she asked.

Reinforcement, definitely. But also, I am surrounded by the negative polarity, the structure, the rules and people who are very indoctrinated. Most of the topics begin with, "Isn't the world a terrible place and aren't teenagers running rampant with no rules...did you see in the news how a woman was attacked...they should all be taught a lesson and see how they like it..."



True. Yet the concept persists. And some people end up imprisoned seemingly willingly despite painful conditions. People even self-flagellate.



Exactly. They even believe it is good. I certainly did.

There are many quite content with things at present, or more accurately they are content whilst their little world brings them sufficient satisfaction. When it does not, then there is often the demand or forcing of change to their preference - often under the guise of "better for all", yet they presume to either think for others or that others think like they do. And of course there is the facilitation of all of this which they do not recognize. So they live lies. Lies they do not see or do not want to see. They even tell themselves lies so that they do not have to see things as they are.

With that we may return to the OP. "Complicity - do you agree?".
If one considers a collective organism from the perspective of the collective, then there is no singular unit, no individual in the separate sense. So in some small part, what one does is connected to all others. In that sense, complicity to one degree or another is a given as all relations are viewed symbiotically.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but we can move on from it if you like.



Hmm, it's a tricky thing, but so interesting. I can think only of the example I gave of the aliens or of the time I had a conversation with the/a vampire in my mind whilst altered and I had said, "But you are just a part of me though, right?" And he said, "I'm a little more independent than that". Now that made me think! There is an element of complicity, in fact, now I am led to think of the times I have had to give conscious consent to entities wishing to merge with me. I understood that I had to say "yes" or invite them in whilst at a certain level of consciousness so that my consciousness could understand or agree with my complicity.

Maybe the answer is always "yes", but I needed to agree with the "yes" consciously to become stronger or learn more. Maybe it is the fighting of the inherent complicity of us all as a collective that creates distortion?

But then again (oh the paradoxes! ) no friction will mean no growth. And that's why there is free will.

Am I going in circles here, Al?

Could be.
The degree of choice is a function of knowledge.
As for the vampire, perhaps consider holographic representation if you like.

I hear what you are saying, let me see if I understand. Are you saying that the more you know the more choice you have? And conversely, the less you know the less choice.


Representation of what? Of an energy that exists, or a function of this reality simulation? And would you know its purpose or why it represents itself as a vampire?

The knowledge held, including awareness provides the ability to choose to put it simply.




I think these things are for you to consider if you wish to.
No I do not know of it's purpose if it has one or many nor why the vampire.