02-25-2009, 12:36 AM
For me, I don't get hung up so much on trying to qualify someone as to whether or not their message is relevant or as close to truth as possible. However the message comes across--whether insight, opinion, or regurgitation, I try to feel what the text says and treat the messenger as the catalyst/tool for getting the message in front of me. I think the "bull s*** detectors" in each of us tend to be biased based on our own individualized perceptions of truth, which Ayadew points out will always boil down to a paradox anyway! So to add on another paradox, how can something be truth if someone believes it isn't and I believe it is? Even if something is empirically proven, how can you qualify the method that validates the empirical data, and so on.
I read HH's material a month or two ago and immediately dismissed it because of the way the material presented itself; Love and Light up front, with a nice back-hand to the face when you're lured in by the false sense of love and righteousness. But my lack of resonance with the material and its nonchalant agenda could totally be overlooked or not even noticed at all by someone who does happen to resonate with the material.
What's my point? That trying to validate sources is pointless when it's the message itself that is the fruit of our discernment and potential growth. Whether something is truth or not, it's put in your way for a reason. I can personally attest that I would not have landed at LLResearch and latched on to Ra had I not innocently built my spiritual path amidst messages and text that ultimately ended up being farcical when I grew enough to see that our reality is full of illusions.
So what benefits are there in studying the messenger instead of studying the message?
Peace homies...
I read HH's material a month or two ago and immediately dismissed it because of the way the material presented itself; Love and Light up front, with a nice back-hand to the face when you're lured in by the false sense of love and righteousness. But my lack of resonance with the material and its nonchalant agenda could totally be overlooked or not even noticed at all by someone who does happen to resonate with the material.
What's my point? That trying to validate sources is pointless when it's the message itself that is the fruit of our discernment and potential growth. Whether something is truth or not, it's put in your way for a reason. I can personally attest that I would not have landed at LLResearch and latched on to Ra had I not innocently built my spiritual path amidst messages and text that ultimately ended up being farcical when I grew enough to see that our reality is full of illusions.
So what benefits are there in studying the messenger instead of studying the message?
Peace homies...