The Ivory Tower and the pursuit of knowledge

[Agua del Cielo]

@reedfish

I am about to post a thread with some meditation tips.
I hope you dont feel offended by that!

It was actually inspired by this thread here, but i guess a lot of people are having similar difficulties, at least i did have lots of them.

Maybe there is something that appeals to you!

[reedfish]

@reedfish

I am about to post a thread with some meditation tips.
I hope you dont feel offended by that!

It was actually inspired by this thread here, but i guess a lot of people are having similar difficulties, at least i did have lots of them.

Maybe there is something that appeals to you!

>> I hope you dont feel offended by that!

Of course not! That would be rather silly of me!

[kevn]

Here's a very well-known koan about all of this:

"What's the sound of one hand clapping?"


To represent that with the intellect would be impossible. Outside the intellect, though, it's easy: clap with one hand and you just made the sound of one hand clapping. Lesson: there's a big field of truth that exists outside the intellect, hence why the intellect is often considered like a limiting box. A useful box. But a box.



I agree about the map analogy. If spiritual growth is mapping the whole Earth, then mapping Asia first and then America isn't better or worse than doing the opposite, or than starting with Europe.



I see many people here saying things along the lines of: "I am the whole, I am the Creator, I am God". I would point out that the whole, the Creator, God is a lot more you than the other way around A bit like some random molecule in your elbow saying: "I'm the body" - Yes, that's right, molecule. But... the body is you, too.



In fact, if there is "I" within the whole and you remove the "I", what's left? The whole. That's the key principle of every religion I have ever read about.

Now, try removing the whole so all that's left is the "I". That's very doable, too. That's actually the state of mind of... well... Let's say "most people".

I'm not sure if there's any middle ground to that. Can I have half an ego?

[Minyatur]

"What's the sound of one hand clapping?"


To represent that with the intellect would be impossible. Outside the intellect, though, it's easy: clap with one hand and you just made the sound of one hand clapping. Lesson: there's a big field of truth that exists outside the intellect, hence why the intellect is often considered like a limiting box. A useful box. But a box.

I think part of the dilemma is restricting what the intellectual mind is rather than attempt at adding dimensions to one's perception of it.

If you hold memory of what the sound is, then that is intellect. To then share it to someone, your intellect can then either judge better to mimic this memory with your voice or simply to re-create the sound by the mecanism you intellectually know to produce it, clapping your hand. So basicly, you have not escaped in any way the intellectual mind but instead used it to share the knowledge of "what's the sound of one hand clapping" by your awareness of it. If you didn't know, analysis of the question provides you with the requirements to find out through your intellectual curiosity.  To learn this without intellect (of your own) is what the potentiator of the mind represents within the archetypes of the tarot, an external source will strike the tower of your knowledge with a new information you had no prior conscious awareness of, which then allows through distillment for the mind to transform into more than it was.

Intelligent Infinity is intelligent because it contains knowledge of all experiences of spirit, which is what makes its intellect absolute. Here we have intellect of limited perception contained within greater portions of what we are which are of greater intellect, belief and faith that there is more beyond your veil allows you to draw upon these unconscious ressources by rendering your conscious mind still so that it may listen to what is offered.

I think the notion of what intellect is to be truly narrowed down into so much less than what it is and I really doubt there is any serious seeker that work without it even if they are convinced of that to be the case. A bit like in the above example where you would've thought that the choice of clapping your hand was not an intellectual process when it really was one. The closest you'll get to non-intellectual seeking is 1D and so long you do more than a rock you're already past that stage.

---

For example Agua spoke of the path of the heart? But what is that exactly?

The heart is a portion of the spectrum of your mind and as such is one of your centers of awareness. The path of the heart then is the path of knowledge of the heart which is a portion of the wider intellect that is able to earn knowledge through both the heart center and other centers also. But everything relating to the heart remains a notion of intellect through this center of awareness.

[kevn]

"What's the sound of one hand clapping?"


To represent that with the intellect would be impossible. Outside the intellect, though, it's easy: clap with one hand and you just made the sound of one hand clapping. Lesson: there's a big field of truth that exists outside the intellect, hence why the intellect is often considered like a limiting box. A useful box. But a box.

A bit like in the above example where you would've thought that the choice of clapping your hand was not an intellectual process when it really was one.

The choice might be, but what about the clapping itself? Is that intellect too?

[kevn]

The closest you'll get to non-intellectual seeking is 1D and so long you do more than a rock you're already past that stage.

Do you know what a tesseract is?

You cannot represent it with your intellect. Einstein could not either were he alive. If all of humanity was meditating all at once together and trying to mentally represent what a tesseract is, it would fail.

And here you are trying to intellectually represent "intelligent infinity", which is like a tesseract³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³³²³

Good luck

I think I'll stick with the rocks in "non-intellectual 1D" and leave you to your "later stages"...

[Minyatur]

The choice might be, but what about the clapping itself? Is that intellect too?

Of course, how does the motion starts and happens to be directed otherwise? It is pure chaotic energy without cause or is it the manifestation of a thought and idea enabled by will in an act of intelligence?

Everything in existence derives from intelligent patterns and all things are facets of Intelligent Infinity's intelligence. Even the sound itself is beingness in the experience of being sound which grants knowledge of infinite soundness to be known by the All.

[Minyatur]

I think I'll stick with the rocks in "non-intellectual 1D" and leave you to your "later stages"...

Well are you not already failing? The rocks discuss not, eat not, walk not, nor any of the things you do.

The moment you did not leave your body to wither away at birth, you already failed.

[kevn]

The choice might be, but what about the clapping itself? Is that intellect too?

Of course

Well, if we consider that everything is intellect, then, yeah, everything is intellect. That rock from 1D is intellect too, though, in that case. So nothing is intellect anymore, because everything is intellect.

[kevn]

I think I'll stick with the rocks in "non-intellectual 1D" and leave you to your "later stages"...

Well are you not already failing? The rocks discuss not, eat not, walk not, nor any of the things you do.

The moment you did not leave your body to wither away at birth, you already failed.

I'm trying to find some sort of middle ground or partnership, but I'm not really succeeding, no. I have the humility to admit that, though. If you refer to Q'uo's quote in the original post, you will see they are trying to unentangle that exact same knot (trying to intellectually understand which can only be embodied), so I wouldn't say that I'm failing, either.

[loostudent]

I'm not sure if there's any middle ground to that. Can I have half an ego?

Not half but transformed. Some teachings (Jesus, Ramakrishna, St. Francis) mention the servant-I: I am the servant, He is the Master. I am the servant, He is the doer.

[Agua del Cielo]

Im not sure if its possible to find common ground here.
Or maybe were looking at wrong place...

Quite frankly, i believe once you experienced a state of non-intellectual awareness, as in silent meditation for example, there is no way you could possibly deny that intelligence or awareness is dependant on intellect. Quite contrary you would know that a higher intelligence arises when the intellect is being stilled ( without falling asleep!).

You could still prefer the intellectual road, for whatever reason, but any debate about that basic truth would be pointless!

When you, on the other hand and for whatever reason have not yet experienced this, you would surely be identified with the intellect so much that you would only know either intellectual activity or sleep, conscious awareness would be completely unimaginable without intellect then.
You would then automatically attritube intellect to any kind of intelligence.
In that case there would also be no point in discussing this, i guess.

If one consciously chooses that path, why not? If it fits your needs, thats perfectly fine, everybody is different.
An advantage is for example that you re always a little bit cut off from emotions. You wont get overwhelmed thateasy and a balanced state might be easierto accomplish.

I am pretty sure we can all agree so far on this!

I found two things especially difficult on the intellectual path:

One is, you always deal with an abstraction and its easy to forget this.
Reedfish gave a good example with the ocean!

Instead of swimming in the ocean, the intellect stays outside, thinks about it, imagines all kinds of things, compares the appeareance to otherthings he knows.
The intellect might perceive itself as an expert on swimming in the ocean after a while, but never actually did.
Thats the problem with intellectual understanding in my opinion.

Second problem is in exploring the self.

Almost all our blockages and issues develop extremely early.
In the firstdays and weeks, then thefirst year, then thefirst 2-3 years. After that its mostly a solidifying and reoccuring of what already happened.
In orderto really understand all these mechanisms, you have to getto the root of them.
Now the big problem is, a six week old baby does not yet have developed an intellect.
Its mind does not function by thought.
This means, the information is not stored in a way that the intellect could access or possibly understand.
A weak analogy would be, you speak chinese up to a certain age, then you start to speak english. All earlier information will be stored in chinese, but later you are an english speaking adult and dont understand chinese anymore.

You would then be left to interpretation or "inventing" explanations, but you will most likely be completely wrong.

edit:
i hope there is really a misunderstanding and not only a debate for the sake of debating!?

[Diana]

Do you know what a tesseract is?

You cannot represent it with your intellect. Einstein could not either were he alive. If all of humanity was meditating all at once together and trying to mentally represent what a tesseract is, it would fail.

And here you are trying to intellectually represent "intelligent infinity", which is like a tesseract³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³²³³²³

Good luck

I think I'll stick with the rocks in "non-intellectual 1D" and leave you to your "later stages"...

Intellectually one can extrapolate what a tesseract is. Einstein probably would have made a thought experiment to do so, but he certainly would have tried to get out of our box of 3D limitations. And he probably would have prefaced with a scene from Flatland.

I agree that experiencing 4D would certainly be different than trying to intellectually understand it. Flatland gives us an interesting take on this idea when A. Sphere pulls A. Square out of his 2-dimensional world into the 3-dimensional world, and still A. Square did not understand, though it changed him. I think the same could be said of meditation, when one gets a feeling of being beyond 3D—but we are really too bogged down here I think to really understand movement in higher existences.

As long as humans separate things, and deny the part each aspect of existence plays, there will be nonunderstanding. Ego has its place and plays an important role in 3D. 3D is not something to do while waiting for 4D. Its a layered experience, so each layer is important. It's more about balance. One doesn't want ego to take over, but I don't think it's wise to discard it either. Just as I don't think it's wise to say we are "not bodies, we are spirits." We are bodies too, while we are here experiencing 3D.

It's more about inclusion in my opinion, of everything. Instead of throwing parts out as nonessential, just keep adding things in. The parts that don't serve will naturally recede or fall away.

[Agua del Cielo]

That is well said, Diana!
That is actually what i mean. The ego has its place and function, as well as the intellect.
Just not all the time and for everything :/

[kevn]

I'm not sure if there's any middle ground to that. Can I have half an ego?

Not half but transformed. Some teachings (Jesus, Ramakrishna, St. Francis) mention the servant-I: I am the servant, He is the Master. I am the servant, He is the doer.

You remind me of something I wrote:

"Elle m'inspire, et moi j'expire"

"She inspires me and then I exhale"

It's a bit along the same lines... Trying to remember how to be like that again. Humility seems to be the key. But here's the twist: it's hard to be humble when you know that's gonna lead to being divinely inspired!

[kevn]

I am pretty sure we can all agree so far on this!

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except one thing. Being cut off from emotions, even a little bit, is not an advantage in my opinion. Emotions are useful and can provide with a lot of "drive" (especially anger when it's directed towards changing a situation that is uncomfortable).

About the intellect. I think there was mostly a misunderstanding about the definition of what the intellect is. To me, the intellect is not the entire nervous system. Let's use the left-brain / right-brain metaphor (since it's not so clear-cut anatomically). What I usually see people referring to when they use the word "intellect" is the left brain: logical, analytical, sequential, verbal, etc... The right-brain is more imaginative, synthetizing, intuitive, has to do with arts, music, motor skills, etc. Both are part of the mind and both are useful.

You can see here that the "intellectual" brain is the part that analyses (breaks the whole in pieces), while the right-brain synthetizes (creates a whole from pieces). You can easily see where that leads to in terms of separateness / globality...

[kevn]

Intellectually one can extrapolate what a tesseract is. Einstein probably would have made a thought experiment to do so, but he certainly would have tried to get out of our box of 3D limitations. And he probably would have prefaced with a scene from Flatland.

I agree that experiencing 4D would certainly be different than trying to intellectually understand it. Flatland gives us an interesting take on this idea when A. Sphere pulls A. Square out of his 2-dimensional world into the 3-dimensional world, and still A. Square did not understand, though it changed him. I think the same could be said of meditation, when one gets a feeling of being beyond 3D—but we are really too bogged down here I think to really understand movement in higher existences.

As long as humans separate things, and deny the part each aspect of existence plays, there will be nonunderstanding. Ego has its place and plays an important role in 3D. 3D is not something to do while waiting for 4D. Its a layered experience, so each layer is important. It's more about balance. One doesn't want ego to take over, but I don't think it's wise to discard it either. Just as I don't think it's wise to say we are "not bodies, we are spirits." We are bodies too, while we are here experiencing 3D.

It's more about inclusion in my opinion, of everything. Instead of throwing parts out as nonessential, just keep adding things in. The parts that don't serve will naturally recede or fall away.

Thanks for the reading suggestion

I was using the tesseract example because the sound of one hand clapping example didn't seem to work! In both cases, it's just to show that the mind cannot adequatly represent the whole truth of reality, especially when using symbols as poor as words.

There's an apple. You can call it an apple. You can picture the apple in your mind. You can calculate the weight of the apple. You can draw the apple. None of that comes remotely close to the truth of the apple. And the only thing that has the whole truth about the apple is the apple. Truth outside representation.

About adding things, well, that's one way to try. I think that not everyone here is the same, not everyone has the same goals, not everyone needs to learn the same things, not everyone wants the same, not everyone understands the same. In that perspective, I sometimes wonder if we should really strive to all go in the same direction. What's true for someone might not be true for someone else. I'm not saying route #1 is better or worse than route #2. I'm saying someone might need to go on route #1, while the next person needs to try route #2.

And even for the same person, the best road to take at age 20 is probably not the best road to take at age 30, 40, 60...

From the tao-te-ching:

"In pursuit of knowledge, every day something is added. In the practice of the Tao, every day something is dropped."

Lao-Tsu is not saying that practicing the Tao is better or worse than pursuing knowledge. He's showing the difference between the two, that's all. 2 very different routes. I have the feeling the first one goes in circles...

[Agua del Cielo]

From the tao-te-ching:

"In pursuit of knowledge, every day something is added. In the practice of the Tao, every day something is dropped."

Lao-Tsu is not saying that practicing the Tao is better or worse than pursuing knowledge. He's showing the difference between the two, that's all. 2 very different routes. I have the feeling the first one goes in circles...

Yesssss!!!

Thats it exactly!
You can add ever more knowledge, like other people accumulate money.

Or you can let go of ever more false identities and defenses and someday discover the self!

[reedfish]

Im not sure if its possible to find common ground here.
Or maybe were looking at wrong place...

Quite frankly, i believe once you experienced a state of non-intellectual awareness, as in silent meditation for example, there is no way you could possibly deny that intelligence or awareness is dependant on intellect. Quite contrary you would know that a higher intelligence arises when the intellect is being stilled ( without falling asleep!).

You could still prefer the intellectual road, for whatever reason, but any debate about that basic truth would be pointless!

When you, on the other hand and for whatever reason have not yet experienced this, you would surely be identified with the intellect so much that you would only know either intellectual activity or sleep, conscious awareness would be completely unimaginable without intellect then.
You would then automatically attritube intellect to any kind of intelligence.
In that case there would also be no point in discussing this, i guess.

If one consciously chooses that path, why not? If it fits your needs, thats perfectly fine, everybody is different.
An advantage is for example that you re always a little bit cut off from emotions. You wont get overwhelmed thateasy and a balanced state might be easierto accomplish.

I am pretty sure we can all agree so far on this!

I found two things especially difficult on the intellectual path:

One is, you always deal with an abstraction and its easy to forget this.
Reedfish gave a good example with the ocean!

Instead of swimming in the ocean, the intellect stays outside, thinks about it, imagines all kinds of things, compares the appeareance to otherthings he knows.
The intellect might perceive itself as an expert on swimming in the ocean after a while, but never actually did.
Thats the problem with intellectual understanding in my opinion.

Second problem is in exploring the self.

Almost all our blockages and issues develop extremely early.
In the firstdays and weeks, then thefirst year, then thefirst 2-3 years. After that its mostly a solidifying and reoccuring of what already happened.
In orderto really understand all these mechanisms, you have to getto the root of them.
Now the big problem is, a six week old baby does not yet have developed an intellect.
Its mind does not function by thought.
This means, the information is not stored in a way that the intellect could access or possibly understand.
A weak analogy would be, you speak chinese up to a certain age, then you start to speak english. All earlier information will be stored in chinese, but later you are an english speaking adult and dont understand chinese anymore.

You would then be left to interpretation or "inventing" explanations, but you will most likely be completely wrong.

edit:
i hope there is really a misunderstanding and not only a debate for the sake of debating!?

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

>> I found two things especially difficult on the intellectual path:
>> One is, you always deal with an abstraction and its easy to forget this.
>> Second problem is in exploring the self.

Way up on my list of favorites is the "Michael" books - edited by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro. The reason I invoke them here, is that these books lay out a detailed "blueprint" of souls. It's one of those "truth without proof" things just like the Ra material. Can't prove any of it - but I found it to be profound and extremely helpful in my journey and attempts to UNDERSTAND life and the reality I reside in. In a nutshell, there are seven different types of souls: server, artisan, warrior, scholar, sage, priest and king. More than 50% of the global population are servers, and less than 2% are kings.

Bottom line, if you happen to be a "server" type soul, you're probably going to SUCK at abstractions. If you're artisan, abstraction almost defines who you are - but you're going to SUCK in politics. The king will be competent in almost everything, but the tradeoff will be an existence of extremes, and this soul will almost certainly suffer the most, while accomplishing the most. The server will accomplish the least, but have the "smoothest ride" with the least amount of overt suffering through 3rd density. So there's trade-offs all over the place!

The scholar will of course REVEL in intellect. Good luck ever getting a scholar type to meditate. Likewise, good luck ever trying to get a priest type not to.

Exploring the self - that is what EVERYONE is doing all the time everyday in every way. But, we do it differently because the Creator has endowed us differently at a level of spirit. For servers and priests meditation is a SLAM DUNK. For scholars and warriors, "not so much".

[loostudent]

And even for the same person, the best road to take at age 20 is probably not the best road to take at age 30, 40, 60...

From the tao-te-ching:

"In pursuit of knowledge, every day something is added. In the practice of the Tao, every day something is dropped."

Maybe this are two phases of the same path. The paradox is that the goal of knowledge is ignorance. But this is not the same as the beginning ignorance. It's also known as "learned ignorance" (docta ignorantia).

[Infinite Unity]

[quote='Agua del Cielo' pid='225535' dateline='1491575343']
I am pretty sure we can all agree so far on this!

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except one thing. Being cut off from emotions, even a little bit, is not an advantage in my opinion. Emotions are useful and can provide with a lot of "drive" (especially anger when it's directed towards changing a situation that is uncomfortable).

About the intellect. I think there was mostly a misunderstanding about the definition of what the intellect is. To me, the intellect is not the entire nervous system. Let's use the left-brain / right-brain metaphor (since it's not so clear-cut anatomically). What I usually see people referring to when they use the word "intellect" is the left brain: logical, analytical, sequential, verbal, etc... The right-brain is more imaginative, synthetizing, intuitive, has to do with arts, music, motor skills, etc. Both are part of the mind and both are useful.

You can see here that the "intellectual" brain is the part that analyses (breaks the whole in pieces), while the right-brain synthetizes (creates a whole from pieces). You can easily see where that leads to in terms of separateness / globality..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is Creator (potential) and there is Logos (kinetic) The logos moves through the mover. Emotions are not to be shunned or overcome. Emotions are a dynamic of the sixth sense. That is when you can become a shepherd of your own emotions, they begin to inform in an form that which can be intellectually understood, or intuition. Emotions are a poem, a communication between you, and all your parts. Current and...technically future. Or Higher self.

The other day I was reading a thread that was asking about why love was the original thought. In my opinion love is the original because that is what the first logos saw or understood infinity to be. That was the logos perception of infinity in my opinion. In my own opinion Creator is completely emotional intelligence. or emotion. To me its like the creators emotion gives rise to all this, that can be seen. The emotions are the big potatoes.

[loostudent]

One more thought about knowledge (by Sri Ramakrishna):

"Go beyond knowledge and ignorance; only then can you realize God. To know many things is ignorance. Pride of scholarship is also ignorance. The unwavering conviction that God alone dwells in all beings is Jnāna, knowledge. To know Him intimately is vijnāna, a richer Knowledge if a thorn gets into your foot, a second thorn is needed to take it out. When it is out both thorns are thrown away. You have to procure the thorn of knowledge to remove the thorn of ignorance; then you must set aside both knowledge and ignorance. God is beyond both knowledge and ignorance."

[reedfish]

I am pretty sure we can all agree so far on this!

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except one thing. Being cut off from emotions, even a little bit, is not an advantage in my opinion. Emotions are useful and can provide with a lot of "drive" (especially anger when it's directed towards changing a situation that is uncomfortable).

About the intellect. I think there was mostly a misunderstanding about the definition of what the intellect is. To me, the intellect is not the entire nervous system. Let's use the left-brain / right-brain metaphor (since it's not so clear-cut anatomically). What I usually see people referring to when they use the word "intellect" is the left brain: logical, analytical, sequential, verbal, etc... The right-brain is more imaginative, synthetizing, intuitive, has to do with arts, music, motor skills, etc. Both are part of the mind and both are useful.

You can see here that the "intellectual" brain is the part that analyses (breaks the whole in pieces), while the right-brain synthetizes (creates a whole from pieces). You can easily see where that leads to in terms of separateness / globality..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is Creator (potential) and there is Logos (kinetic) The logos moves through the mover. Emotions are not to be shunned or overcome. Emotions are a dynamic of the sixth sense. That is when you can become a shepherd of your own emotions, they begin to inform in an form that which can be intellectually understood, or intuition. Emotions are a poem, a communication between you, and all your parts. Current and...technically future. Or Higher self.

The other day I was reading a thread that was asking about why love was the original thought. In my opinion love is the original because that is what the first logos saw or understood infinity to be. That was the logos perception of infinity in my opinion. In my own opinion Creator is completely emotional intelligence. or emotion. To me its like the creators emotion gives rise to all this, that can be seen. The emotions are the big potatoes.

>> especially anger when it's directed towards changing a situation that is uncomfortable

In one of the Michael books, Michael was asked what the cause of "anger" was. "They" said "we know of only one cause - unfulfilled expectations".

Whenever you find yourself angry, ask "what was I *expecting*". Expectations don't have to be "pleasant" ones. If you park your sports car in a bad neighborhood, and it's stolen, you will almost certainly be "less" angry than if it was stolen in a "rich" neighborhood. In the bad neighborhood, you almost half "expect" it will be stolen, and as you approach where you parked, you almost brace yourself for possibly seeing it gone. You breath a HUGE sigh of relief when it's still there. But in a rich neighborhood, you are not "expecting" it to be vulnerable, and therefore when it is stolen, you are "blindsided" - and the emotion will be much MORE intense. If your car is stolen in the bad neighborhood, you will not be happy, but you won't be filled with RAGE - which is distinctly possible if it's stolen in the rich neighborhood.

Stop "expecting" and you will stop being "angry".

How can you test whether someone is "wise" or not? Answer: try SURPRISING them. The less they can be surprised (about anything) the wiser they are. Unfortunately , trying to throw them "surprise" parties is MUCH more challenging, and a lot less "fun".

[Minyatur]

Stop "expecting" and you will stop being "angry".

Saw this earlier which I think echoes well your thought while adding a dimension.

Aiming toward living a life in faith is nothing more than releasing fear, and allowing that which is to be, to be.

To not hold expectations is to allow that which is to be, to be. Easier with faith that All is well and as the Universe wills, as then you can seek meaning in catalysts and not attempt to their reject their happening.

[kevn]

"Allow which is, to be"

And what if that's anger...?
What if that is fear?

I think pure acceptance starts by accepting non-acceptance! Trying to accept everything because you refuse anger or fear might not work, in my humble understanding

Easier said than done, I agree

[reedfish]

"Allow which is, to be"

And what if that's anger...?
What if that is fear?

I think pure acceptance starts by accepting non-acceptance! Trying to accept everything because you refuse anger or fear might not work, in my humble understanding

Easier said than done, I agree

Pure acceptance means accepting non-acceptance on the part of other-selves (for we have no control over them). It also mean accepting non-acceptance within yourself when it manifests in ways you didn't "expect". The paradox, is when you drop expectation, acceptance expands. When you work on acceptance, expectation recedes.

Accepting anger and fear means forgiving yourself AFTER you have manifested these emotions in a way you didn't expect - no sense beating yourself up over spilt milk. That said, "acceptance" does not imply "acceptance" of future lapses before they manifest. "Acceptance and forgiveness of self" should only apply to the past and present - not the future. When one accepts limitation for the future of self, they are truncating their potential, and abandoning the path of the adept.

Perfectly FINE - A-OK. The Creator certainly allows this, so who am I or anyone else to "judge" anyone for this. That said however, STS is how we identify souls that REFUSE to change. They in a real "ironic" sense, accept themselves by seeing other-selves as the source of ALL their problems. All their problems are always some other-selfs FAULT. If they're sad - someone else's fault. If they're angry - someone else's fault. If they make a mistake - someone else's fault. They "ironically" accept self by NEVER examining the self and refusing to hold the self truly accountable for anything.

I don't think that's the kind of "acceptance of self" those on the STO path are after.

Anger and fear are emotions that are incompatible with love. The Course in Miracles sends this message a thousand different ways. For those who wish to experience, express and radiate love for self and other-selves, than REDUCING the effect of these emotions on the self is necessary if one wishes to become MORE "loving". It's hard - bordering on impossible, to really love that which you "fear". Same with anger. The goal is "effortless love" - and where there is EFFORT in loving, you will inevitably find it is anger and fear that is making it difficult.