What's new

Purpose of This Discussion Board ESMB

For the record:

I am the least egotistical person I know.

I am the most tolerant person I have ever met.

I am more humble than I am perceived to be by most.

:eyeroll:

I know exactly what you mean, now if the rest of the world could just get it's act together and get with the program, we'd be all set.
 

Megalomaniac

Silver Meritorious Patron
Get ON PURPOSE, you guys.

For the record:

I am the least egotistical person I know.

I am the most tolerant person I have ever met.

I am more humble than I am perceived to be by most.

:eyeroll:

Yeah. I'm with you, GT. I'm the least egotistical person you know, too. :screwy: :hug:

I'm looking to buy a used mountain bicycle. :thumbsup: Can anyone name the best brands? :confused2:

:offtopic: :banned:

What was this thread about?
 

Gadfly

Crusader
OK, I think I'm starting to understand.

:D TL

Gadfly -- you have good thoughts, but other peopel have valid viewpoints and experiences too. I grew up in a family with a "people are cows" mentality. It wasn't a happy place to be.

OK, I think that I see what is happening here. There is a tremendous difference between stating an observation and making a judgment. I will give a few examples to make my point.

Take the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. It matters little whether it happened this way or not. It is the "message" that matters. Jesus gets dragged through the streets, gets rocks thrown at him along the road to the hill, has a painful crown of thorns attached to his head, gets nails hammered through his hands and feet, and has a spear stuck in his side. That's the "short" version. Too make it worse, he may have been heckled the entire time. How does anyone think he viewed this perfectly common example of his fellow man? From his viewpoint, these people were all very stupid, misguided, unaware, self-absorbed "normal" people. But, and this part is extremely important, he didn't "judge" them in any way. He didn't look "down on them" in any way.

He was not arrogant or hostile, but I have no doubt that he could see an aspect of them that WAS stupid, misguided, and quite indicative of people who were terribly trapped and immersed in their own tight little compartmented views of reality (ego). And if he did try to explain to any of them what was going on with them, he would have been labeled "hostile" and "arrogant". But, despite all of that, he still NEVER "judged" them, and continued to extend compassion, love and respect for the LIGHT within (however hidden that divine spark might have been for most of these people). Despite all that was done to Jesus, he says, "God forgive them for they know not what they do". In other words, he extends total forgiveness despite the fact that they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING (ignorance, stupidity, ego-blindness).

Take Buddha. From his perspective, and I agree, ALL human suffering, pain, disagreement, argument and sense of separation comes from the false notions and views of any conscious entity (that which is housed within or along with the body). I doubt that he looks around in any sort of admiration at the endless continuing self-created human drama, that is basically of the nature of complete idiocy, stupidity, self-delusion, self-unawareness and ignorance. He asserts correctly, that the source of the entire problem is ignorance. I call it "fucking stupidity". My bad. He is obviously more polite than me, and calls it "ignorance". But, I understand exactly what he means when he talks about ignorance being the primary culprit, or at least I feel that I do. He doesn't mean "ignorance of information or data" - he means ignorance of the true nature of self. That is all Buddha ever talked about.

Buddha also probably very much continued and still continues to empathize with, feel compassion for, and LOVE every living thing, despite the fact that he can totally notice and clearly see the endless parade of idiocy all around him. I have no doubt that if Buddha told any person what HE SEES in them, unedited and unabridged, that the receiver of the communication would take it as "judgment" or "intolerance". That's if Buddha was honest. Buddha stopped talking after awhile, as did Meher Baba and many others, because nobody could hear what they were saying - and pretty much everybody took what they said the wrong way. And realise that these were guys who very VERY intelligent, who were very well practiced in the inner arts, and who still couldn't get just about anybody to understand what any of them were saying. I suppose that I, being nowhere even remotely close to any of them, shouldn't for a second think that I should be able to make any sense to anyone either.:confused2:

In both cases, neither Jesus nor Buddha makes any JUDGMENTS of any sort, and both simply observe and describe an existing reality. Neither has any sense of "I am better" or "you are a dummy". In that I am entirely the same as them.

I do not judge, look down upon or haughtily condescend to my fellow man. It seems that some have the opinion that I do. It is true, I do not think highly of the common situation of Man on Earth. But also, that in no way interferes with my love for WHAT we each are, and my compassion for the situations we each find ourselves in (to learn from). I do harbor the opinion that all is endlessly evolving to better and better states. And, "that what" is could be no other way.

Many liberals, and some others, often make the mistake of thinking that non-judgment means simply refusing to see any differences or inequalities. That's not true. It is an incorrect thing to do. The trick is to be able to see all the inequalities, differences, pain and suffering, and NOT judge it, but to still honestly and calmly observe it just as it is. It seems some people stop observing as a way to cease judging. That doesn't work.

I admire Jesus and Buddha, because to me, each saw far more than most others, YET each still continued to love, when each probably had far more reasons than most others NOT to love. Why? Because, each could see quite clearly and succinctly the exact nature of the self-created trap each of us entirely places ourselves within.

This may or may not clarify anything for some of you.

:love8: NAMASTE! :love8:
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
That's probably a very astute and accurate analysis of yours, Gadfly. The problem is that stupid people reading it won't get it. :)

Paul
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
OK, I think that I see what is happening here. There is a tremendous difference between stating an observation and making a judgment. I will give a few examples to make my point.

Take the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. It matters little whether it happened this way or not. It is the "message" that matters. Jesus gets dragged through the streets, gets rocks thrown at him along the road to the hill, has a painful crown of thorns attached to his head, gets nails hammered through his hands and feet, and has a spear stuck in his side. That's the "short" version. Too make it worse, he may have been heckled the entire time. How does anyone think he viewed this perfectly common example of his fellow man? From his viewpoint, these people were all very stupid, misguided, unaware, self-absorbed "normal" people. But, and this part is extremely important, he didn't "judge" them in any way. He didn't look "down on them" in any way.

He was not arrogant or hostile, but I have no doubt that he could see an aspect of them that WAS stupid, misguided, and quite indicative of people who were terribly trapped and immersed in their own tight little compartmented views of reality (ego). And if he did try to explain to any of them what was going on with them, he would have been labeled "hostile" and "arrogant". But, despite all of that, he still NEVER "judged" them, and continued to extend compassion, love and respect for the LIGHT within (however hidden that divine spark might have been for most of these people). Despite all that was done to Jesus, he says, "God forgive them for they know not what they do". In other words, he extends total forgiveness despite the fact that they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING (ignorance, stupidity, ego-blindness).

Take Buddha. From his perspective, and I agree, ALL human suffering, pain, disagreement, argument and sense of separation comes from the false notions and views of any conscious entity (that which is housed within or along with the body). I doubt that he looks around in any sort of admiration at the endless continuing self-created human drama, that is basically of the nature of complete idiocy, stupidity, self-delusion, self-unawareness and ignorance. He asserts correctly, that the source of the entire problem is ignorance. I call it "fucking stupidity". My bad. He is obviously more polite than me, and calls it "ignorance". But, I understand exactly what he means when he talks about ignorance being the primary culprit, or at least I feel that I do. He doesn't mean "ignorance of information or data" - he means ignorance of the true nature of self. That is all Buddha ever talked about.

Buddha also probably very much continued and still continues to empathize with, feel compassion for, and LOVE every living thing, despite the fact that he can totally notice and clearly see the endless parade of idiocy all around him. I have no doubt that if Buddha told any person what HE SEES in them, enedited and unabridged, that the receiver of the communication would take it as "judgment" or "intolerance". That's if Buddha was honest. Buddha stopped talking after awhile, as did Meher Baba and many others, because nobody could hear what they were saying - and pretty much everybody took what they said the wrong way. And realise that these were guys who very VERY intelligent, who were very well practiced in the inner arts, and who still couldn't get just about anybody to understand what any of them were saying. I suppose that I, being nowhere even remotely close to any of them, shouldn't for a second think that I should be able to make any sense to anyone either.:confused2:

In both cases, neither Jesus nor Buddha makes any JUDGMENTS of any sort, and both simply observe and describe an existing reality. Neither has any sense of "I am better" or "you are a dummy". In that I am entirely the same as them.

I do not judge, look down upon or haughtily condescend to my fellow man. It seems that some have the opinion that I do. It is true, I do not think highly of the common situation of Man on Earth. But also, that in no way interferes with my love for WHAT we each are, and my compassion for the situations we each find ourselves in (to learn from). I do harbor the opinion that all is endlessly evolving to better and better states. And, "that what" is could be no other way.

Many liberals, and some others, often make the mistake of thinking that non-judgment means simply refusing to see any differences or inequalities. That's not true. It is an incorrect thing to do. The trick is to be able to see all the inequalities, differences, pain and suffering, and NOT judge it, but to still honestly and calmly observe it just as it is. It seems some people stop observing as a way to cease judging. That doesn't work.

I admire Jesus and Buddha, because to me, each saw far more than most others, YET each still continued to love, when each probably had far more reasons than most others NOT to love. Why? Because, each could see quite clearly and succinctly the exact nature of the self-created trap each of us entirely places ourselves within.

This may or may not clarify anything for some of you.

:love8: NAMASTE! :love8:


Gadfly, let me try condense your long post in couple of sentences:

"It is my observation that you are a schmuk, but I am not judging you, I am not looking down upon you and I still love you. I am simply stating an is-ness."

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
That's probably a very astute and accurate analysis of yours, Gadfly. The problem is that stupid people reading it won't get it. :)

Paul


Well, that is why Gadfly uses forceful language at times. And that is where it gets into a sort of dramatization.

.
 
Last edited:

Björkist

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'm happy that ESMB has evolved to a point where some of those who were once banned are now permitted and freely able to express themselves in resonance (high or low) with others...regardless of their personal viewpoints on Scientology related items or their real, imagined and/or rabidly and repeatedly propagandized status by the uninformed internet know-it-alls that slide in under your radar and consistently feed you fear, hatred, lies and secret conspiracies...

IMHO, it's a milestone in ESMB's history.


Also:

"It is notable that there is no good news or complementary remark passed on by such a person."
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
At last we now know how Jesus and Buddha really felt!

The above is a wonderful example of the requirement to occupy space with full understanding as one moves through the mill. Otherwise one creates a separation of self-identities works for me-that makes for some quite strange realities.

One is looking at oneself and getting all sorts of ideas instead of being the knowledge. I suspect that operation is what generates the torturous "logic" expressed above.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I'm happy that ESMB has evolved to a point where some of those who were once banned are now permitted and freely able to express themselves in resonance (high or low) with others...regardless of their personal viewpoints on Scientology related items or their real, imagined and/or rabidly and repeatedly propagandized status by the uninformed internet know-it-alls that slide in under your radar and consistently feed you fear, hatred, lies and secret conspiracies...

IMHO, it's a milestone in ESMB's history.


Also:

"It is notable that there is no good news or complementary remark passed on by such a person."

Since ESMB regularly re allows banned people back on the board, it's not much of a milestone. Of course, I'm sure you can get yourself banned again if you really want to. But, it won't be for expressing your opinion.

Zinj
 

Björkist

Silver Meritorious Patron
Since ESMB regularly re allows banned people back on the board, it's not much of a milestone.


I was referring to a milestone (in general) for a good policy concerning the free expression of conflicting opinions in groups as well as double standards regarding how certain individuals are treated differently for the same exact "infraction" depending on their viewpoint and if it resonates (or not) with a fictional moderator in a fictional story about a fictional message board.

I have had a post deleted for asking you, Zinjifar Boombots, if you had "no trust to a point of drunkenness" after you had claimed that you trusted no one.

Yet, I can have consistent character assassination attempts here on ESMB from OSA stooges and their repeating robot agents who are terrified of ex-Scientologists actually looking into nature and using it for one of its intended purposes.

Compare it with the Church of Scientology's (you know who that is, right?) policy on "regularly re allowing people back" and you may see that it is, in fact, a milestone...especially considering the group that many here have migrated from.


...you can get yourself banned again if you really want to. But, it won't be for expressing your opinion.


captainobvious.jpg
 
Last edited:

Vinaire

Sponsor
I was referring to a milestone (in general) for a good policy concerning the expression of conflicting opinions groups as well as double standards regarding how certain individuals are treated differently for the same exact "infraction" depending on their viewpoint and if it resonates (or not) with a fictional moderator in a fictional story about a fictional message board.

I have had a post deleted for asking you, Zinjifar Boombots, if you had "no trust to a point of drunkenness" after you had claimed that you trusted no one.

Yet, I can have consistent character assassination attempts here on ESMB from OSA stooges and their repeating robot agents who are terrified of ex-Scientologists actually looking into nature and using it for one of its intended purposes.

Compare it with the Church of Scientology's (you know who that is, right?) policy on "regularly re allowing people back" and you may see that it is, in fact, a milestone...especially considering the group that many here have migrated from.

This is a dramatization of Incident One.

.
 

Good twin

Floater
Gadfly, let me try condense your long post in couple of sentences:

"It is my observation that you are a schmuk, but I am not judging you, I am not looking down upon you and I still love you. I am simply stating an is-ness."

.

Oh thank you, Vinay. :lol:

Gadfly, I am one of the intellectually challenged who had trouble understanding your post. (Or maybe I was intolerant and didn't care to read it) I still feel that officially I should be considered more highly evolved than the average poster on ESMB. I love you unconditionally even if I disagree with your pompous assertions. No offense intended, of course. :smoochy:
 

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
Oh thank you, Vinay. :lol:

Gadfly, I am one of the intellectually challenged who had trouble understanding your post. (Or maybe I was intolerant and didn't care to read it) I still feel that officially I should be considered more highly evolved than the average poster on ESMB. I love you unconditionally even if I disagree with your pompous assertions. No offense intended, of course. :smoochy:

Meow!:cheerleader:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
OK, I think that I see what is happening here. There is a tremendous difference between stating an observation and making a judgment. I will give a few examples to make my point.

Take the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. It matters little whether it happened this way or not. It is the "message" that matters. Jesus gets dragged through the streets, gets rocks thrown at him along the road to the hill, has a painful crown of thorns attached to his head, gets nails hammered through his hands and feet, and has a spear stuck in his side. That's the "short" version. Too make it worse, he may have been heckled the entire time. How does anyone think he viewed this perfectly common example of his fellow man? From his viewpoint, these people were all very stupid, misguided, unaware, self-absorbed "normal" people. But, and this part is extremely important, he didn't "judge" them in any way. He didn't look "down on them" in any way.

He was not arrogant or hostile, but I have no doubt that he could see an aspect of them that WAS stupid, misguided, and quite indicative of people who were terribly trapped and immersed in their own tight little compartmented views of reality (ego). And if he did try to explain to any of them what was going on with them, he would have been labeled "hostile" and "arrogant". But, despite all of that, he still NEVER "judged" them, and continued to extend compassion, love and respect for the LIGHT within (however hidden that divine spark might have been for most of these people). Despite all that was done to Jesus, he says, "God forgive them for they know not what they do". In other words, he extends total forgiveness despite the fact that they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING (ignorance, stupidity, ego-blindness).

Take Buddha. From his perspective, and I agree, ALL human suffering, pain, disagreement, argument and sense of separation comes from the false notions and views of any conscious entity (that which is housed within or along with the body). I doubt that he looks around in any sort of admiration at the endless continuing self-created human drama, that is basically of the nature of complete idiocy, stupidity, self-delusion, self-unawareness and ignorance. He asserts correctly, that the source of the entire problem is ignorance. I call it "fucking stupidity". My bad. He is obviously more polite than me, and calls it "ignorance". But, I understand exactly what he means when he talks about ignorance being the primary culprit, or at least I feel that I do. He doesn't mean "ignorance of information or data" - he means ignorance of the true nature of self. That is all Buddha ever talked about.

Buddha also probably very much continued and still continues to empathize with, feel compassion for, and LOVE every living thing, despite the fact that he can totally notice and clearly see the endless parade of idiocy all around him. I have no doubt that if Buddha told any person what HE SEES in them, enedited and unabridged, that the receiver of the communication would take it as "judgment" or "intolerance". That's if Buddha was honest. Buddha stopped talking after awhile, as did Meher Baba and many others, because nobody could hear what they were saying - and pretty much everybody took what they said the wrong way. And realise that these were guys who very VERY intelligent, who were very well practiced in the inner arts, and who still couldn't get just about anybody to understand what any of them were saying. I suppose that I, being nowhere even remotely close to any of them, shouldn't for a second think that I should be able to make any sense to anyone either.:confused2:

In both cases, neither Jesus nor Buddha makes any JUDGMENTS of any sort, and both simply observe and describe an existing reality. Neither has any sense of "I am better" or "you are a dummy". In that I am entirely the same as them.

I do not judge, look down upon or haughtily condescend to my fellow man. It seems that some have the opinion that I do. It is true, I do not think highly of the common situation of Man on Earth. But also, that in no way interferes with my love for WHAT we each are, and my compassion for the situations we each find ourselves in (to learn from). I do harbor the opinion that all is endlessly evolving to better and better states. And, "that what" is could be no other way.

Many liberals, and some others, often make the mistake of thinking that non-judgment means simply refusing to see any differences or inequalities. That's not true. It is an incorrect thing to do. The trick is to be able to see all the inequalities, differences, pain and suffering, and NOT judge it, but to still honestly and calmly observe it just as it is. It seems some people stop observing as a way to cease judging. That doesn't work.

I admire Jesus and Buddha, because to me, each saw far more than most others, YET each still continued to love, when each probably had far more reasons than most others NOT to love. Why? Because, each could see quite clearly and succinctly the exact nature of the self-created trap each of us entirely places ourselves within.

This may or may not clarify anything for some of you.

:love8: NAMASTE! :love8:

Gadfly that was a great commentary on Jesus/Buddha and I would absolutely agree that the key is the love/understanding/compassion. I also agree that it's crucial that you are able to observe. I even think that there are times when it's OK to judge, in the sense of knowing if something is going to lead to a positive or negative outcome (in the sense of politics, finance, lifestyle for example).

I think there are a couple of dangers though. The first and foremost one is the trap of thinking that you see better than everyone else and therefore have a right to place yourself in a position above them; thinking yourself out of the trap looking down on those pathetic people still in. The way I see it; we're all in a trap, and to think yourself better than others (ego) is part of that trap.

Like I mentioned before; I grew up hearing total disdain for the human race. My father had disgust for their stupidity. When people were laughing or having fun he just pitied the poor souls because they were too stupid to know that the world wasn't funny. The term "people are cows" is ingrained in me so deeply. And I grew up thinking that I was better than other people becauase I could see the trap they were in. . . it was that ego that led me to becoming a Scientologist. That fed my "elitest" viewpoint perfectly.

Then I had to deal with the realization that I was the stupid one. That the "dumb wogs" were the ones with more common sense. Tough pill, that one. It changed my viewpoint completely.

Another thing to watch is in the tone of communication (not tone scale necessarily, more what I heard growing up "Don't speak to me in that tone of voice, young lady". . ) People like Jesus and Buddha radiated love. I wasn't there, but from all accounts people were drawn to them. And while Jesus preached to people about the error of the way they saw things, I'm pretty sure that he didn't belittle them while doing so -- as you said, he appealed to the "light" within them.

What I'm saying is that it's OK to observe the behavior of others, and even to comment on it. But if you give the impression that you think you are "looking down" from a superior position, people will take exception to that and your communication won't be as effective. If you belittle people and call them names, they may not be as amenable to your points.

I don't think Jesus or Buddha called anyone names. In fact, Jesus was a humble man -- he washed the feet of his disciples. He was showing love and respect and serving them. He rode in to town on a donkey. He was not a condescending ego-driven man. That's why people loved him. They saw the light inside him, not the ego.

When I first read your OP I wasn't bothered. I took it as coming from someone who just didn't get it yet (a place where I had been) and made an attempt to explain how my viewpoint (per what a discussion board is for). It wasn't until people started pointing out the condescending better-than-thou tone that I started to see why there may be such backlash.

So, in short, observation, discussion, appealing to the "light" in people is positive and productive. Ego driven condescension and placing self above others may tend to produce resistance.

Just look at your motives. Are you trying to discuss ideas for your own growth, or to "enlighten" us stupid masses? (That's a rhetorical question; only you know that for sure). I have enjoyed the posts of yours that I have read. Overall I think you are a good guy, and a spiritual seeker, and you have obviously thought about this a lot. It's an interest of mine too.

Yes, there is a difference between observation and judgment. I think it's possible to make observations without coming across as superior or judgmental. From what you wrote above I'm guessing that it isn't your intention to come across that way. Communication is tough on a message board because there aren't voice inflections or body language to help get your points across.

-TL
 
OK, I think that I see what is happening here. There is a tremendous difference between stating an observation and making a judgment. I will give a few examples to make my point.

Take the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. It matters little whether it happened this way or not. It is the "message" that matters. Jesus gets dragged through the streets, gets rocks thrown at him along the road to the hill, has a painful crown of thorns attached to his head, gets nails hammered through his hands and feet, and has a spear stuck in his side. That's the "short" version. Too make it worse, he may have been heckled the entire time. How does anyone think he viewed this perfectly common example of his fellow man? From his viewpoint, these people were all very stupid, misguided, unaware, self-absorbed "normal" people. But, and this part is extremely important, he didn't "judge" them in any way. He didn't look "down on them" in any way.

He was not arrogant or hostile, but I have no doubt that he could see an aspect of them that WAS stupid, misguided, and quite indicative of people who were terribly trapped and immersed in their own tight little compartmented views of reality (ego). And if he did try to explain to any of them what was going on with them, he would have been labeled "hostile" and "arrogant". But, despite all of that, he still NEVER "judged" them, and continued to extend compassion, love and respect for the LIGHT within (however hidden that divine spark might have been for most of these people). Despite all that was done to Jesus, he says, "God forgive them for they know not what they do". In other words, he extends total forgiveness despite the fact that they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING (ignorance, stupidity, ego-blindness).

Take Buddha. From his perspective, and I agree, ALL human suffering, pain, disagreement, argument and sense of separation comes from the false notions and views of any conscious entity (that which is housed within or along with the body). I doubt that he looks around in any sort of admiration at the endless continuing self-created human drama, that is basically of the nature of complete idiocy, stupidity, self-delusion, self-unawareness and ignorance. He asserts correctly, that the source of the entire problem is ignorance. I call it "fucking stupidity". My bad. He is obviously more polite than me, and calls it "ignorance". But, I understand exactly what he means when he talks about ignorance being the primary culprit, or at least I feel that I do. He doesn't mean "ignorance of information or data" - he means ignorance of the true nature of self. That is all Buddha ever talked about.

Buddha also probably very much continued and still continues to empathize with, feel compassion for, and LOVE every living thing, despite the fact that he can totally notice and clearly see the endless parade of idiocy all around him. I have no doubt that if Buddha told any person what HE SEES in them, unedited and unabridged, that the receiver of the communication would take it as "judgment" or "intolerance". That's if Buddha was honest. Buddha stopped talking after awhile, as did Meher Baba and many others, because nobody could hear what they were saying - and pretty much everybody took what they said the wrong way. And realise that these were guys who very VERY intelligent, who were very well practiced in the inner arts, and who still couldn't get just about anybody to understand what any of them were saying. I suppose that I, being nowhere even remotely close to any of them, shouldn't for a second think that I should be able to make any sense to anyone either.:confused2:

In both cases, neither Jesus nor Buddha makes any JUDGMENTS of any sort, and both simply observe and describe an existing reality. Neither has any sense of "I am better" or "you are a dummy". In that I am entirely the same as them.

I do not judge, look down upon or haughtily condescend to my fellow man. It seems that some have the opinion that I do. It is true, I do not think highly of the common situation of Man on Earth. But also, that in no way interferes with my love for WHAT we each are, and my compassion for the situations we each find ourselves in (to learn from). I do harbor the opinion that all is endlessly evolving to better and better states. And, "that what" is could be no other way.

Many liberals, and some others, often make the mistake of thinking that non-judgment means simply refusing to see any differences or inequalities. That's not true. It is an incorrect thing to do. The trick is to be able to see all the inequalities, differences, pain and suffering, and NOT judge it, but to still honestly and calmly observe it just as it is. It seems some people stop observing as a way to cease judging. That doesn't work.

I admire Jesus and Buddha, because to me, each saw far more than most others, YET each still continued to love, when each probably had far more reasons than most others NOT to love. Why? Because, each could see quite clearly and succinctly the exact nature of the self-created trap each of us entirely places ourselves within.

This may or may not clarify anything for some of you.

:love8: NAMASTE! :love8:

And they really, really, liked us.

I don't think you get the point.

It is not a matter of restraining yourself in a polite way to tolerate us stupid humans. That was not Jesus or Budha's message.

Their message was not "Be nice to these morons. They're good for something. Just realize you are better and don't insult them."

They trandscended the paradigm you've laid out. I doubt they graded people. I suspect the stupidity you see in others is in your eyes. I doubt it existed in Jesus' and Budha's eyes.

But I'm not surprised you've position yourself with them with the caveat that you couldn't hold back your contempt for others like they did.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Top