"Surender(sic)" is NOT POSSIBLE, especially to any forces who CANNOT EVEN SPELL THE WORD!!!!!!
The Lesson (over & over) AS NO MT Student Seems Able To Cope With Passion Mode Without Disparagement Or Condemnation!
Posted by Jondalf Thrasher on April 24, 2012 at 5:11amView Blog
"Passion: Physical and emotional imbalance. Physical and emotional healing. The fourth chakra.
The negative pole of Passion is Identification, a loss of space or boundary between you and something else (ALSO THE TIME-HONORED METHODOLOGY FOR ADEPTS IN RAJVAYANA RAJAH YOGA - AKA: DIETY YOGA - J).
When you are identified, you feel the same emotions as those you are watching or listening to (also called: Empathy - J) You become attached to whom or whatever is the object of your Passion (not the case with me - J).
Here, (in the negative pole as described by the Michael) fourth chakra and second chakra are open, and the discrimination of the fifth chakra is underused or not functioning. (In Diety Yoga, the fifth chakra is utilized to reinforce the notion that Aspirant and Subject of Aspiration are one, see below. -J).
Self-actualization is the positive pole of Passion Mode. The ability to throw oneself fully into something so completely that you become one with it. Here the fourth chakra is open, but balanced by the discriminating fifth and the dynamism of the second.
The way to identify whether one is in Identification or Self-Actualization is to "Ask yourself what you are attached to. If you are attached to a person or a thing you are probably Identified. If you simply want the experience you are headed for self-actualization." - Jose Stevens, "Earth To Tao".
Recently, my Passion Mode manifested in a reply to another Michael Student (see below). Even though I personally did not feel as though I had directed any discourtesy or rancor towards the other student, knowing the inability of most MT students to NOT NOT take personally my rhetoric when in Passion Mode, I apologised in case they had taken it that way, and in that interpretation thereby, I had given offense. (Read the text for yourself and decide. My apology was accepted (or so I was told) and I thought that that.
However, the individual involved then posted a derogatory assessment (prompted, I am told, by influence from members of another site with incentive to attempt to disparage members of this site at every opportunity).
The irony of accepting an apology for supposed discourtesy, only to turn aroun and berate members for said discourtesy is so blatant one wonders if there is some overwhelming influence that would provoke this kind of offensive two-facedness.
In the future, I will no longer attempt to do the right thing, and bend over backwards to apologise for things I think need no apology, solely to display courtesy, because obviously it will not be appreciated. FTITCTAJ, then.
Supposed "offensive" post follows:
All that having been said, your "Assumption Of Benificence" on the part of Essence, and/or the Universe will just NOT stand up to the kind of rigorous "WORK" the ME is now demanding. The days of the 'hippy-dippy' Spiritual Intuitive are behind us, my friend:
The Michael: ". . . we add here that your logic is another tool but can be extended to realities outside the physical plane. Logic is Universal to all planes and All That Is. LOGIC (NOT INTUITION, THEY SAY! - J) IS THE MEANS TO ARRIVE AT A TRUTH!" - T Fontaine
"It's hard for people to be spiritual who are hungry. It's difficult to talk about Spirit to an empty belly - just irrelevant. You have to feed them something . . . and create the conditions where Spirit can grow and flourish. . . Being enlightened is taking conscious part in helping God (I say 'Tao" - J) with his Universe, saying "Well, I'd better do what I can to try and make things stretch. It seems like some folks are having trouble making things stretch." If you really understand the situation, you'd like to help. . . . Everyone should be figuring out what they can really do; what they can REALLY handle. We have so much to do; we need so much help and so much cooperation and so many people to step out and take responsibility . . . TO STEP OUT INTO IT" - S. Gaskin
Lastly, my brother, if you really believe that "divination is just getting in touch with Essence", you REALLY NEED to study this (the whole site, not just the quote) otherwise you're a danger to yourself and others, all intuitive 'goodvibes' notwithstanding.
This site PROVES, with irrefutable LOGIC, where you, and many on TLE are simply DELUDED, SORRY, NO KINDER WAY TO SAY IT. YOU HAVE NOT DILIGENTLY RESEARCHED THE TEACHINGS OR THE LOGIC OF THE PHYSICS AND MATH OF THE SITUATION. THE DAYS OF 'FEELING' YOUR WAY TO THE 'TRUTH' ARE OVER, THINGS HAVE CHANGED, SUCK IT UP, PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE ME IS SAYING THROUGH COUNTLESS, UNDENIABLY UNBIASED SOURCES, OR BE LEFT BEHIND IN ILLUSION. THE CHOICE IS YOURS - YOU CHOOSE. Jondalf
"Q24 Does many-worlds allow free-will?
Many-Worlds, whilst deterministic on the objective universal level, is indeterministic on the subjective level so the situation is certainly no better or worse for free-will than in the Copenhagen view. Traditional Copenhagen indeterministic quantum mechanics only slightly weakens the case for free-will. In quantum terms each neuron is an essentially classical object. Consequently quantum noise in the brain is at such a low level that it probably doesn't often alter, except very rarely, the critical mechanistic behaviour of sufficient neurons to cause a decision to be different than we might otherwise expect. The consensus view amongst experts is that free-will is the consequence of the mechanistic operation of our brains, the firing of neurons, discharging across synapses etc. and fully compatible with the determinism of classical physics. Free-will is the inability of an intelligent, self-aware mechanism to predict its own future actions due to the logical impossibility of any mechanism containing a complete internal model of itself rather than any inherent indeterminism in the mechanism's operation.
Nevertheless, some people find that with all possible decisions being realised in different worlds that the prima face situation for free- will looks quite difficult. Does this multiplicity of outcomes destroy free-will? If both sides of a choice are selected in different worlds why bother to spend time weighing the evidence before selecting? The answer is that whilst all decisions are realised, some are realised more often than others - or to put to more precisely each branch of a decision has its own weighting or measure which enforces the usual laws of quantum statistics.
This measure is supplied by the mathematical structure of the Hilbert spaces. Every Hilbert space has a norm, constructed from the inner product, - which we can think of as analogous to a volume - which weights each world or collection of worlds. A world of zero volume is never realised. Worlds in which the conventional statistical predictions consistently break down have zero volume and so are never realised. (See "How do probabilities emerge within many-worlds?")
Thus our actions, as expressions of our will, correlate with the weights associated with worlds. This, of course, matches our subjective experience of being able to exercise our will, form moral judgements and be held responsible for our actions."
I believe the explanation proves that the assertion "divination is simply getting in touch with Essence" is, indeed, a delusion. The assertions also to the effect that no-one affects the nature of reality and/or the shape of the future by channeling information, is also thereby shown to be delusional. Seems like anyone believing so, never heard of a guy named Heisenberg.
Harsh, perhaps. Discourteous, unbalanced or uncentered? In what fantasy universe? Bereft of facts, or logic, I guess all one can do is whine about how sombody else is "unbalanced" or "unstable". PERISH THE THOUGHT ANYONE MIGHT ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE POINT THAT IN LIGHT OF CUTTING EDGE PHYSICS, SOME STUDENT STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE. OH NO, NEVER ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENTS, ONLY, AT THE FIRST HINT OF REFUTATION BY LOGIC, AS USUAL, COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE PERSON PRESENTING THE ARGUMENT - DOES NO-ONE ELSE REALIZE WHAT 15th CENTURY INTELLECTUAL MADNESS THIS IS:
OH NO, NO MATTER HOW LOGICAL, OR BACKED BY WHAT PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE AN ARGUMENT/STATEMENT/ASSERTION IS, IF I DON'T "FEEL" THE PERSON PRESENTING IT IS ACTING FROM WHAT I CALL "LOVE", OR "COURTESY", OR "BALANCE", I AM JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING EVERYTHING THAT PROVES ME WRONG, BECAUSE I DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO ANYONE I DON'T "FEEL" IS "CENTERED" ! WHAT TOTAL BULLSHIT! IT'S CALLED: SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.
NO RATIONAL PERSON CAN DISMISS DATA BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THE ATTITUDE WITH WHICH IT IS DELIVERED!
THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE ATTITUDE ONLY IN PLACES LIKE IRAN, WHERE PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY IS ALLOWED TO PASS FOR RATIONAL THOUGHT, NOT IN THE MODERN WORLD OF EMPIRICISM AND CRITICAL THINKING.
ANYONE WANT TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON WHAT I SAY, BECAUSE OF WHO I AM, MOVE TO IRAN, YOU'LL BE RIGHT AT HOME THERE! - Jondalf Thrasher