Monday, June 11, 2007


Consider the word "gentleman". A refined man, a higher kind of man, is a man who is gentle.

In terms of what I'm studying with great pleasure this year, A Course In Miracles, every single second of our life we have a choice of only two attitudes:

1) the viewpoint of the Ego: conflict, fear, anger, attack.
2) the Higher Self: gentleness, love, reach, communication, forgiveness.

And the more often we choose the Higher Self viewpoint, the better we will feel, the stronger we will be, the more peaceful we will feel, and the sooner we will be in heaven/nirvana/source.
Terry said:
I spoke with a fellow just yesterday who told me that he gets a rush out of killing animals, a high that he apparently thrives on..........mercy is rarely ever displayed.

Pascal sitting on a cloud said...
That animal killer guy must be horribly insecure. I don't know for mercy, but he inspires me great pity. Poor soul! He's more pathetic than his animal victims.

A real confident person is he who HELPS those weaker, "why? simply because I can".

To briefly analyze the principle, the "bully" abuses his power position to get comfort from seeing himself as the powerful one in a situation. The more extreme the situation he seeks and creates, the greater his unwittingly confessed insecurity.
While the helpful one is so confident, he doesn't fear that his power will be any lessened by sharing it or employing it for others, on the contrary.

It's all about how you see yourself, the Universe and God's purpose, to put it in religious/mystical terms. Do we see our existence as destroying everything else, which we perceive as alien to us? Or as building as much as possible, because we are part of it all, and any progress is beneficial to us in one way or another?

Terry, if you seek mercy, here's a tip on the place you have the best chance of finding it: look inside yourself. And then share it, because the more you share things like love and happiness, the more you'll have. Some things ARE in unlimited supply. It's mathematically proven.


Anonymous said...

Eolake ruled: "every single second of our life we have a choice of only two attitudes"

1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111=12345678987654321

Anonymous said...

7 x 11 x 13 = 1001

Therefore, 631 x 7 x 11 x 13 = 631631, and any three-digit number gives the same diplopic oddity.

Do you know how to calculate this devious classic?


Back on topic, I think ACIM has a slightly reducing vision. There's not just the 1 and the 2, there's also the zero. Neutrality, be it transient until one decides, or final, is neither selfish nor altruistic. One can choose NOT to act either way.

For example, you find a wallet in the street.
-The Ego choice is when you pocket the money.
-The Higher Self choice is when you take it to the police.
-In the Neutral choice, you do neither and leave it there. Maybe you don't care. Or maybe you stick around to see what the NEXT person will do, because you're curious.

Incidentally, the Neutral choice is VERY wise in countries like Saudi Arabia. You're supposed to leave the wallet where it is, and seek a police officer to inform him about a lost wallet. If you pick it up yourself, you'll be assumed to intend to steal it, and risk having your right hand cut off as a thief under local Charia law.
Invaluable info to know in advance...

Anonymous said...

Nothing about Paris Hilton.

I love Paris Hilton in my own way. I think she'll end up the way Anna Smith and Monroe did, dead at a young age.
Sorry this is off the topic, but I read it on Eolakes Billboard.
There's much to say about her. Of course I'll never get that close to her I know that. But I think about her a lot.
Maybe I just need to go back and play with my "barbie dolls."

Anonymous said...

But Pascal, from the ACIM point of view even neutrality would be influenced by ego or higher self. At the core of one's being there is no neutrality. Higher guidance may actually lead one to stand back and observe, in fact. Ego may drive good actions out of an ill-intended scheme to boost its own pride and fluff its feathers. (aka "Look at me! I'M PRETTY!" syndrome.)

Not saying I agree or disagree with ACIM, I just want to clarify the subject matter. One thing I do think is that what's done is only ever the surface of the issue. It is the motivation and intent which determines the value of each action. Morality is based on the commonly held concepts of the age with a few things being mostly universal amongst different peoples due to their worth as rules for a longstanding society. (Example: don't kill without a damn good reason.) As such right and wrong are inadequate to judge whether an action is driven by higher instincts or carnal hungers. In fact doing what the heart and soul demands may well require a person to go against everything a society deems right and sensible, not for the sake of conflict but for the sake of breaking the individual's chains and opening the eyes of the masses. (Or at least giving them a good shake while they slumber away.)

Of course I'm sure you understand this, it's simply difficult to take into account every single variable while at the same time expressing them eloquently in words.

In summary (read: "Finally getting to the point...") every action or inaction has a motivator and in that respect one cannot be neutral even if morally that's where he stands.

Anonymous said...

I'ts not so hard to be gentle. After a long while, you just do it. You don't question authority, you don't study the universe, you just live your life peacefully and consciouslly.

That doesn't mean to say that you accept the assholes and the mean people. Just be conscious. Every chance you have to be conscious, it provides the opportunity for everyone who comes in contact with you to become conscious as well.

Be here now becomes a way of life after so many years. It takes time and patience. But it happens.


Anonymous said...

Maybe I just need to go back and play with my "barbie dolls."

she's a living and breathing doll that's for sure. but i think she is not happy though. most people aren't being rich or poor. this world is tainted with the blood of murder and chaoes.
you may be content but never truly 100 percent happy, it's impossible.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Pascal, please don't assume that you know what ACIM says, based on my infinitesimal splinter and what you know of other systems. It really is unique.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

FD, I am curious, apart from Paris Hilton being a child of god like everybody, what is it you like about her? (I know very little about her, given that I don't follow the "news".)

Anonymous said...

As far as I can tell, there's not much to know. Honestly, I can't figure out why people talk about her in the first place.

Anonymous said...

FD, cheer up: I just read in the news that Paris Hilton sees her jail time as "a sign from God that she shoud change her life". Who knows, maybe she will?
After all, we DID finally see fortresses fly, in 1944. The most unlikely things may still happen.

Peaceful Blade said...
"At the core of one's being there is no neutrality."

There's truth to that. The only time I've met truly neutral individuals, this "blunting of the affect" was a criterium of schizophrenia, and not one of very good prognosis.
Scary thing, when you think about it, schizophrenia. And, at the same time, a captivating enigma of the mind. (It should be noted that unlike what Hollywood displays, most schizophrens are harmless, except maybe to themselves.)

"Higher guidance may actually lead one to stand back and observe, in fact."

I do that, sometimes. :-)
Not by indifference, but by thought-out choice.
For instance, if a demonstration passes by, I don't feel compelled to either join in or throw some vegetable produce at them. :-)

"One thing I do think is that what's done is only ever the surface of the issue."

Oh, you're an introvert too? ;-)

"(Example: don't kill without a damn good reason.)"

A very colorful phrasing of the Commandment in [Deut 5:17]. :-)

"In summary [...] one cannot be neutral even if morally that's where he stands."

Yes, neutral morality is often the selfish attitude of one who simply doesn't wish to get involved because it's a hassle or a risk. I've witnessed it in a very intense way once. That was an agitated period in my life. :-/

Eolake said...
"Pascal, please don't assume that you know what ACIM says"...

Okay, so how's this instead? "YOU, Eolake, have a slightly reducing vision, based on the infinitesimal splinter you express, so no offense to Mr Acim."
Just kidding. I was only rhetorically introducing my point of view up there. You may consider that ACIM was, um, "collateral damage" because sometimes I'm trigger-happy.
"I blame Hollywood, and the Devil made me do it. Oh, and I pleade the Fifth, that can never hurt."