Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is not a device of the right wrong game to accuse someone else of a violation of the Golden Rule with.

Comments

Si says
So don’t just say it, explain it. With “do as thy wilt” I fully explain how following excitement is a universal principal that always aligns all involved to the greatest possible harmony and qualify “thy wilt” as following “true” excitement, the true feeling, not just a habit of thought or a feeling of relief.

Why is the Golden Rule not a device of RWG? What makes that so? What makes it work if someone says “I want to be hurt therefore I will hurt you and that is following the golden rule”? How does this work in your model of reality?

Mark de LA says
Maybe it would be better if you can read what I have written about it already in group golden rule ; your question already having been answered. If you wanted to channel Lucifer & Ahriman you would go opposite to Christ.

Si says
I did scan the group, but did not see that exact thing addressed, even though it is the most common question about the golden rule I have ever heard from many different people. What thought is it addressed in? That could help. I don’t want to read all day just to find that one answer.

Mark de LA says
Well, just accept it & move on - Like your LOA dogma. Your heart chakra will tell you which direction you are pointing. If you are channeling Lucifer/Ahriman you get a totally different experience in that chakra. You soul is free to go either way.

Si says
Sounds like what you are calling heart chakra and following your excitement are identical then.

golden rule ~= do as thy wilt
following heart chakra ~= following excitement

Mark de LA says
Maybe … depends upon how much you haggle about those meanings. GW explained “do what thou wilt is not just anything that runs through the minds of hippie-dippies – sex, drugs & rock & roll. One also needs to grok true self and a few other distinctions before finding the truth in your equations – possibly even you.

Si says
Yes I agree. Grocking true self is essentially the same as learning to tell the difference between true excitement and many other things that you first think are excitement, like relief from pain, and habits of thinking, and a big one … doing what the rest of the mob is doing. None of those are your own true excitement. It’s a big learning process to sort all that out and really grock what true excitement is … just like your “true self”.

I love how there are 1000’s of systems in humanity but when you really distill out all the assumptions, they all boil down to the same basic elements … just with different names and different stories around them.

Si says
Holy shit! I just found a sub-sub comment gadget!

It happens when a comment appears dynamically while you are on the same page. Those comments have the extra gadget! Wow ... I am God of my verse again! Yay!

Mark de LA says
Well collapsing everything into your own point of view is not necessarily mastering the essence of others. There is something in the process of contemplating the essence/truth of a topic that is benefited by starting with an open mind for no matter whatever shows up.

Mark de LA says
Well they are (in RS) within us all in the Lucifer/Ahriman doubles – looking like us . Go for the baggage is is also you.

Seth says
Mark, i can do nothing with that waving at baggage. Is there any way you could bring that fresh into the world with a living thought of your own creation?

Si says
Yep. Agree. Always do. Sometimes I expect something to end up one way, but it comes out another way. But I have yet to find any system that cannot be represented within the super simplicity of LOA once it’s elements are uncovered. That’s why I like LOA. Not because it is “my system”, but simply because it is simple and provides a common ground that works well for all experience.

Mark de LA says
Go look it up ! Not my job to do your research. Particular with your tone above.

Mark de LA says
Like I said above do your own research. I have no scarcity of understanding & groks. Enjoy your own. Enjoy that Luciferic smugnes of being “right” about your own & the words you say about them or the feeling of intellect with a particular professorial abstract idea you publish. Grok that & you have groked the doubles.

Si says
Luceferic smugness has a rightful place. All things do when their place is understood. It places you in the stream to receive more of like vibration to that thing you are experiencing that you like. That is good. Where it is not good is when you think that makes your experience better than any other, when you use it to place yourself above others. All are equal. All realities are completely valid. All stories are true and of great value in the multiverse. It is not wrong to live your own story as fully as you are able and to milk it for all it can give. It is unwise to give your story more importance than any other ... unwise, but not wrong. There is nothing that is wrong in the multiverse ... there are only experiences that either harmonize or conflict.

Seth says
👍

Mark de LA says

Seth 2016-07-28 12:56:27 [item 21181#54897]

i think any three vector/spectrums called Lucifer/Ahirman/Christ deserves much more description than a mere wave at a name.

Anyway those names have way way too much baggage attached. These beings/ directions need to updated to modern human life.

From Book Chameleon : Pride is Lucifer’s Less-than-Human Shape! Hex #5 Gives a bit of the double idea. Besides Your doubles won’t let you go until death anyway. Enjoy them they are You! You know what Bashir is worth by what he encourages. You know what Christ encouraged (see sermon on the mount). Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Si says
Bashar says all hearts are connected together by a literal stream of energy and that when you love you are tapping into and strengthening that energy. Is this the wonderful message you are referring to?

He has much of his own on it on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NPwmafgZGA

and he also suggests reading this book in which another human wrote about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Hearts-Code-Tapping-Wisdom-Energy/dp/0767900952

Seth says
anyway i have these associations which are hard for me to deny:

1, freedom, ego, Lucifer, (air, water ?)

2, restraint, objective, Ahirman, (Earth ?)

3, transcend, n/a, Christ. (fire?)

I was just curious how much of that was already confirmed in the literature of occultism, from which mostly i got it. Or even, perchance, what more in that literature would inform and put more meet on those associations without snaying with it too much unnecessary story.

Mark de LA says
So far #MakeShitUp is ahead of the game here. Some decry external authority (Ethos) yet channel UFO believers & other extra earthly powers, & then others , choosing not to comprehend what has gone before or just too lazy to effort the paths & use the tools extant prefer to munge stuff together in abstractia & ...

Si says
Why do you think things are being made up? Why can’t things just be what they are, simple and easy? Sure, people can intentionally misrepresent something (a lie), but how often does that really happen? I don’t think it happens much. The rest is just someone’s experience, why is that not valid? #MakeShitUpImage

Si says
The golden rule should be followed for one reason, it makes you feel good to follow it. Following it for any other reason is a good way to end up not feeling good even though you followed it. The GR is a positive statement about what you can do to feel good, not a negative statement about what you must do to avoid feeling bad. The distinction is very important to where you end up.

The golden rule has nothing to do with RWG. You break it Mark, because you don’t understand that it is there simply for you to feel good with … you are thinking it is a universal law you must follow for some reason, and I won’t even try and guess what reason.

Mark de LA says
crap!

Si says
👍

Si says
What is crap? What do you think? … or, do you actually know, in detail, why you follow the golden rule other than people you trusted told you to do it? Why is it a rule? What does it actually do in your experience to make it worth following?

Si says
Every time I see this I smile. It’s true! We have to make things up for something to exist to experience. There is nothing out there until someone makes it up … that’s what physical existence is all about, making up the verses as we go along, and experiencing them.

The only question is, do you make the stuff up that others experience, or do you mainly experience what others make up? Everyone is somewhere on that scale.

Mark de LA says
see (private thought)

Seth says
👍

Seth says
except you don’t really need the word “physical” in there

Si says
Nope. Apparently in Mark’s verse, the golden rule is his bully hammer.

To each their own. It’s your experience, design it how you want it to be.

Mark de LA says
I think you need to take your meds or do something to keep from RWG & lying about others, especially me.

Mark de LA says
Seems to me we have with Nate (private thought) without the intellectual part.

Si says
No intentional mis-representation (lies) of what I know to be true about you here. I am very straight forward about my intentions and fully explain them for everyone to see. I stand by what I say 100%.

The only possible lying is your hiding stuff you said that you are not so proud of.

Mark de LA says
I hide stuff that only attracts your RWG crap.

Apparently something I said hit a truth target that your selfie is reeling uncontrolled about.

– go for the meds.

Mark de LA says
This somewhat proves the automaticity of the RWG. Can Nate shut-up or not. Can he stop calling someone else names or not? I say it is automatic – hence I hide his temptations. (RWG pogey bait)

Mark de LA says
Conversation forked to thought 21309

Si says
I don’t stand for bullying Mark. You know that. When you start with your bullying and shitting on others ideas and thoughts you are dealt with. It’s not RWG, it is preference for a harmonious space.

Mark de LA says
Yep he can’t shut up – still think he’s right – a classic!

Si says
Here is where you are mis-guided about rwg. If I respondend to that content, it would be rwg. I stated something else, as I am also doing in this comment, expanding, forking, learning, growing. That is not rwg.

Mark de LA says
Yep, denying, contradicting in the sense “I’m right” – “Your’s wrong (misguided)” – samo-samo. Take the meds dude!

Seth says
incidentally that something happened, does not prove that it always happens, nor does it even prove that it usually happens. but noticing it happening several times, will frequently entice us to expect it to happen again and again. ← which may well be a side effect of LOA.

← just saying for its objective logical value (type #1). please ignore any other dialogue meanings of this comment that you may anticipate … i assure you that they are not intended. sorry for any you may anticipitate … i have been wanting to read that logical objective fact into our awareness of rwg for a very long time.

Si says
👍

Mark de LA says
Yep, it happens & unhappens as well.

Seth says
i expect that might have some deep meaning in this context … but i can’t grock it @mark. i’d like to laugh about it, but i don’t get the joke. oh well.

Mark de LA says
Yep, every time you use the word happens I think of that phrase “happens & unhappens” because happens seems to denude itself from someone doing something & the consequences … it just happens. Sort of like shows up – magic – like the big bang.

.. to me that is funny. Happens is rather passive.

Si says
Well yes @mark. Happens would be passive. Because as all the great thinkers and channelers have indicated, what is happening is only a reflection … the playing out of what the preponderance of your thoughts has created. The good old Zen concept.

Si says
Conversation forked to thought 21311

Mark de LA says
The vernacular is “shit happens” – maybe zen maybe not.

Si says
I’m talking about the Zen concept that reality is a mirror, not the real thing.

But I have always loved Forest Gump’s “shit happens” too!

Mark de LA says
Whtvevar – I don’t associate it with Forrest Gump.

Si says
Well, if you watched the movie, then you will see how he is the one who actually came up with the saying … while running from coast to coast, after stepping in some shit, and that one of the hippies running with him copyrighted it because it was a great saying.

Mark de LA says
Waethver – watched the movie – don’t have the asoscaition . Mostly used these days by politicians to account for what goes on in spite of them being “in charge”.

Si says
But somehow you seem to have gotten de-railed from my agreement with you that “happening” is passive and my explanation why. Is it because you can’t stand to be in agreement with me? Puts your rainbow panties in a twist or something?

Si says
Well of course they are not in charge. For them, shit does just happen. We are in charge, each of us, creating our own realities with them inside catering to our whims.

Seth says
whether “happens” refers to something in active or passive voice is dependent on the context of the sentence. for example, “it just happened” ← passive … or “i made it happen” ← active … or “linda is causing that to happen over there” ← active …. same word … different context … some passive, some active. if you always read into “happen” your own bias against passivity, that is just you misinterpreting the authors words. another less biased reader will not pick up such a connotation.

When people glorify their own biases, and unwillingness to listen, and then turn around and accuse an author of saying something that they specifically did not, i laugh my ass off

… that does happen over here … or i experience that happening over here … or i create that mirth to rise up and happen in my being to defend my ego against your stupidity … or it happens that i cause an image of you to get flushed down the toilet.

fact is, “happens” is a perfect word to talk about an occurrence without specifying it’s agency … which agency, if it is pertinent to the authors meaning, can be specified elsewhere within the sentences.

Seth says
Then too, since the word “happens” implies nothing about who made it happen, i can use it to truthfully refer to those things that happen to people who think they have their control slider switches turned to 100%.

Si says
Yes, that makes sense in respect to language, and well answers Mark’s question. It is also true that experiencing a happening is passive. All action has been done already to change state of being. What our senses are telling us is being played to them … much like a movie or in a mirror … but a lot more HD so that it feels like it is in really happening then … but it is not.

Seth says
Well what can hang true over here is “that experiencing a happening is passive. All action has been done already to change state of being.” … except, of course, for feeling of personal energy being expended at the moment when a change of state is actually being made – that makes what is happening feel active rather than passive. Timings of those changes of state don’t always happen before the deed, or in the same way, or in the same way in different people. You might always do it the same way, but i do not. For example frequently my state of being changes simultaneously with me doing a deed. I can even honestly say, that is why i did it.

But your story about sensing seems just your story (and the story of other gurus), and does not follow from any truth above, or from my experience. When i sense, i actually receive information from outside my being … it is not always “a reflection like a movie or in a mirror”. That sensed information (sans my own filters) becomes me knowing what is actually happening outside my being.

the toothless foodie mixing something up with you

Mark de LA says
While strangely enough I understand what you have said I say it still fails the PR test for critical thinking previously mentioned in some other train. Meh to you. Here it is in memes: (2 in 1 & rewording)

Mark de LA says
Conversation forked to thought 21314

Seth says
Conversation forked to thought 21315

Seth says
PR’s “critical thinking podcast” which you “previously mentioned in some other train” (maybe now privatized) was the one i recently referred to as being about “gossip”.

Mark de LA says
Yep, it wasn’t though. Mostly about careful consciousness of what was being communicated. Particularly (my interpretation) did it say anything? or was it a pile of words – maybe even word salad.
Was there something in it or just more automatic RWG & mismatching ?
Was it just (private thought) ?

Mark de LA says
Meh – urban dictionary 4th sub-definition is funny:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Meh&defid=640485
Here is the 2nd half of a pseudo-conversation trying to elicit how it was used:
...when it was never explained how it was actually used...

"you wanna come round mine?"
"meh"
"whats that mean"
(told all of the definitions above)
"so which one? yes or no?"
"meh"
"that a yes?"
"meh"
"a no??"
"meh"
"a maybe???"
"meh?"
"maybe???"
"meh"
"look please tell me"
"meh"......

Seth says
👍

Seth says
thing is, i do believe that i clarified at least my usage of “happen”.

if your response to that clarification is “meh”, that tells me that you have no intention of hearing what i mean when i use that word.

it’s like if someone extends their finger and points to Mt Ranier and says “Mt Ranier”, you would insist on taking that as a sign to smell their finger.

Mark de LA says
I am using my sense of language. You are imagining things above. I can tell the difference. Happen is a mungy word without actors or consequences causes & effects. Go ahead & use it & you will continue to have fuzzy ideas & cloudy logic. Happen points to a surprise that you may be about to pontificate about. I speculate you like to use it so that your material (in your mind) is immune from the rwg. Good luck with that!

Seth says
well fact is i am pointing at what happens, without even knowing or caring about “actors or consequences and causes & effects”. i don’t want those being presumed in what i am saying. if i want to say something about the contingencies or contexts surrounding an event, then i want to talk about those specifically … er, not have them implied in a catch all word.

i discovered this word usage about a year ago and it has clarified some thoughts which I can represent in the English language and communicated to others. But as usual, when i discover some clarity which you have not yourself heard from one of your authorities in the same words, you complain about my use of the language, rather than taking it for what it is and listening for a new perspective. You have done that with almost every word usage that i have discovered (or invented) from sources that you expect are alien to your thinking. The word “we” is a grand example, but there have been several others. It sure seems over here like you are using the old strategy of killing the messenger, so that the message does not need to be heard.

Mark de LA says
Keep on using it. That is your story. Enjoy the Egooo! Meh! I suggested somewhere now lost that you folks try out some of this kind of material on FB & see how many people get your drift.
Didn’t know it was a actual product.

(***) ← adv

Seth says
incidentally, both “events” and “experiences” happen. but “experince” implies an experiencier and “event” usually implies a publicly observable happening. i like to talk about those spirits without those implications … unless, of course, my thought specifically intends to imply them.

For example try asking the question: “if it happens and no being observes it happening, did it happen at all?” without using the word “happen” … or just one specific example like the famous “tree falling in a forest”.

Mark de LA says
Content-free was crisped up in the notion of a “sleeve-job” (distinct from the tattoo) …. just saying.

Seth says
whatever .. meh to you too … but you did not meet the challenge.

Mark de LA says
Strange while you were challenging I was mentioning the congruency of your weird sentences with a sleeve job. How

. See if you can find someone on fb (not N) that can explain what you are talking about ← that’s my challenge.

Seth says
Conversation forked to thought 21498

Mark de LA says
Can this be resolved within the Golden Rule (the problem of the Golden Cudgel) & my answer just showed up as: yes
Neither I nor anyone else want to be accused of anything see etymology & thesaurus below for meaning:

Golden Rule

Tags

Comments

See Also