Blockage fallacy

[Adonai One]

Person A says they don't like X but would prefer Y.

Person B responds by saying that Person A has a blockage in one of their metaphysical rays.

Person A further states while they don't like X, they still accept its existence and will live it, but will still state their clear preference for Y.

Person B states in finality that Person A should just be quiet, forget about their preference and work on their blockages and maybe they will not want Y anymore. Person B further explains their desires are subject to certain "lessons," and that Person A should simply take what is given to them and never ask for something else.

[Plenum]

how do you understand what a blockage is?

[Adonai One]

An inability to be aware of a certain part of the self which includes all things. For instance, if one is willing to live under authority and not falsify it by the infringement of free will nor by falsifying the desire for civilization within the self, there is no blockage in regards to authority. There may only remain natural stable distortions within the self including political and societal preferences.

A blockage is symbolized by a desire for unconsciousness of some element of the self/reality. If one can still face something while holding oneself satisfied, there is no blockage in that regard.

---

We all technically face a blockage of not being able to see all things as the self tangibly (one can still move their perception towards such) but our veiling gives us an idea of reasonable normality.

[Plenum]

I know this is tangential to your original statement, but what is the best way, in your view, for someone to approach another person who is suffering from a blockage? or is it hubristic to make that assessment (of the other person's blockage) without further dialogue and interaction with an open ear and a receptive mind?

[Nicholas]

I try to love and accept x in a continuous attempt to become less distorted in my mind. However I love, accept and 'resonate' with y.
When I settle back to old ways of reacting to the same thing mentally, whether it be a political or social context, I recognise that self work is still where I am at. That's where I am at now.

"No more runnin' down the wrong road
Dancin to a diffrent drum
Can't you see whats goin' on Deep inside your heart
Always searchin for the real thing
Livin like its far away
Just leave all the madness in yesterday
Youre holdin' the key When you believe it

Shine sweet freedom Shine your light on me
You are the magic You're right where I wanna be
Oh sweet freedom carry me along We'll keep the
spirit alive on and on"

Lyrics from Sweet Freedom by Michael McDonald.

[Adonai One]

Imagine throwing dice and using those numbers to guide your life.

That is what it is like to just assume somebody has a blockage in the first place. We cannot directly look into one's mind and see they are trying to falsify a part of themselves/reality. We can only throw dice at their words and project our assumptions according to stereotypes based on an idea of a person's desires. That is if they are not saying they have a blockage directly.

When somebody directly says they cannot accept a part of themselves and/or reality, then propose they have a blockage. If somebody says they don't like fruits, they do not like fruits. That's all. No blockage is necessarily implied. If somebody says they want to destroy the fruit industry, you can reasonably assume they have a blockage regarding the fruit industry.

---

In regards to helping somebody with a blockage... That is your honor/duty to discern and another discussion entirely.

[xise]

I know this is tangential to your original statement, but what is the best way, in your view, for someone to approach another person who is suffering from a blockage? or is it hubristic to make that assessment (of the other person's blockage) without further dialogue and interaction with an open ear and a receptive mind?

Blockage is a strong term, but it's pretty easy to detect other's imbalances via emotion discomfort/reactivity. Online it's harder because mere words convey so much less than in real life, but less so when a person has posted for months/years such that emotive word use can be seen and understood. Narrowing down the exact ray-level issue can be more difficult, but frankly it's not hard at all to notice when a person is in some level of emotional discomfort/reactivity/turmoil on a broad level.


However, I'm not sure it's always useful to point out catalyst, but when one is clearly going through something emotionally troubling I always try to help in some way. I'm sure I could learn more wisdom in how to best help, or even if I should be thinking in terms of "help". After all, suggestions not asked for can actually cause someone to reject another's suggestions because they don't want someone else to be "right" and themselves to be "wrong" on how they think of their own issue. Or at least I've personally felt that way when given unsolicited advice in the past.


Then again, saying a given thought/suggestion in a slightly different way can help an idea or teaching be understood, so I think there is real merit in saying the same but slightly tweaked message. At least personally, I've had revelations when someone (or I) changed the wording of a suggestion-teaching slightly so that suddenly the concept clicked for me. You also actually see this phenomenon taking place in this forum where an OP inquires about a concept, the concept then is discussed at length, and basically described in the same manner for pages, then sudden the inquiring member will say "aha" and post that they get "it" after reading a slightly different worded version of the exact same message.


Language is such a poor medium to communicate spiritual concepts that there is merit to repetition of a message/suggestion in slightly tweaked forms. All in all, definitely an interesting line of inquiry Plenum.

[Plenum]

When somebody directly says they cannot accept a part of themselves and/or reality, then propose they have a blockage.

so it is a dialogue, rather than just a flat out 'accusation' of the blockage you mean.

If somebody says they don't like fruits, they do not like fruits. That's all. No blockage is necessarily implied.

If somebody says they want to destroy the fruit industry, you can reasonably assume they have a blockage regarding the fruit industry.

so proposed 'destruction' = deletion from reality = non-acceptance of that aspect of self?

[Adonai One]

If one wants something absolutely removed from the self/reality without possibility of revisitation of the thing, it is unequivocally a blockage. Permanent falsification of a thing and its properties is the founding enabler of a depolarized and negatively polarizing state.

Permanence is the key quality in depolarization/negative polarization as one can desire one possibility and not seek to destroy opposing possibilities in faith that all is well in all cases.

[Plenum]

Then again, saying a given thought/suggestion in a slightly different way can help an idea or teaching be understood, so I think there is real merit in saying the same but slightly tweaked message. At least personally, I've had revelations when someone (or I) changed the wording of a suggestion-teaching slightly so that suddenly the concept clicked for me. You also actually see this phenomenon taking place in this forum where an OP inquires about a concept, the concept then is discussed at length, and basically described in the same manner for pages, then sudden the inquiring member will say "aha" and post that they get "it" after reading a slightly different worded version of the exact same message.

thanks for all the thoughts xise; and I especially thought this quoted part above was well expressed. I've definitely had that experience myself of starting the OP with an open-minded question, fully unaware of how to grasp the issue or to get a handle on it. But as you say, given a few (or many!) replies, and seeing how others 'interpreted' your question can lead to that magicial Tanner-moment of 'aha!', and suddenly all the bricks fall into place like a Tetris game, and two or three rows of misunderstanding are erased in a single moment

- -

If one wants something absolutely removed from the self/reality without possibility of revisitation of the thing, it is unequivocally a blockage. Permanent falsification of a thing and its properties is the founding enabler of a depolarized and negatively polarizing state.

the denial of reality, huh?

[Adonai One]

A denial of the self's reality which encompasses the relevant desires. Falsification entails the erasure of a desire of the self, other or the creation that would otherwise be expressed and fulfilled.

[Unbound]

Well, in actual healing practice I have found that the subject of "blockages" is often less effective than discussing in terms of "unexpressed" energies or emotion which become cyclic within the self.

It could be argued, however, in the unity sense that any distortion is ultimately a blockage of unity and therefore all preference is some form of distortion and blockage of unity, but that isn't particularly practical.

[Patrick]

Tanner, this is exactly why I do not personally find the concept of blockages very useful. What we feel is the self is actually a poem of blockages.

[AnthroHeart]

I've felt blockages in all my chakras, but I sometimes don't know how to interpret them.

[BrownEye]

An actual blockage held long enough becomes a physical concern. And some (well most) will fiercely defend their blockages.

When they get old enough they may be so set in their ways that they have "missed the boat", and no amount of energy work can undo the damage.

---

I might call that the "human fallacy" ha!