Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Digest Number 1076

Expand Messages
  • tygerpurr
    Yes, I agree about T.C. . The word TROLL seems to come to mind. to engage with such a person would just give him the jollys I m sure. He simply talks like any
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 30, 2005
      Yes, I agree about "T.C.". The word TROLL seems to come to mind. to
      engage with such a person would just give him the jollys I'm sure. He
      simply talks like any "true cult believer" type. HIs purpose is to
      disrupt and confuse and to thus distract any detractors efforts to
      carry on in a truely meaningful discussion. Better to let these types
      be exposed for who they really are: closed minded cult relativists on
      the defensive. *smirk*


      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, ShabdaHu <shabdahu@y...> wrote:
      > Thomas Bennett <thomascbennett@y...> wrote: What you don't like in
      the other person only mirrors the same attitude in yourself.
      > shabdahu writes:
      > This is probably the most mis-used, mis-interpreted concept on the
      path; a favorite of Eckankar to keep down satsangis when they see
      anything "wrong"; a favorite as long as it's misused, at any rate.
      > The phrase doesn't mean, and I'm sure that the phrase has been
      retooled over the years, that you see your own attitude mirrored in
      the other person...it means you will become what that person is in the
      future if you hate the person for their deeds or develop toward them
      inordinate emotions and of which you will not let go.
      > Only a significantly lacking in self-esteem person, or someone who
      is being mind-screwed by someone who they've let get into an
      authoritative position over their mind, would ever believe that they
      are the poor behaviour another is exhibiting, and therefore have no
      right to react in even an intense way toward the behaviour their
      > That's the most potentially damaging and mis-used phrase on the path
      - something people pull out of their pockets when they don't want to
      take responsiblity for themselves, generally.
      > It's entirely up to you what you want to relate to in that or not,
      for yourself.
      > Other than that, TC, while what you wrote in the rest of the letter
      seems to be somewhat of a clarification of what you meant, it's just
      too jumbled and too "not on the same plane" for me to respond to. You
      seem to need to see in other's writings, or tend to interpret them, in
      a way where they're in a position of offending something you believe,
      or where they are "against" something that "you're for". People's
      detailed responses to detailed situations are effecting your overall
      bigger picture or something. You do seem to need to instruct people,
      find a reason to instruct them, and interpret anything they write as
      "offending" this larger picture or knowledge that you believe you have.
      > That just seems to be your trip.
      > It's not something I can engage with you in any further.
      > Best of luck in your ventures.
      > shabdahu.
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > http://mail.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.