Letters to the Editor
kenkapkk
Published Letters: 131 Editor's Choice: 13
-
To Anna
[Read the article: Oprah's ugly secret]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You don't understand. Here's Abraham on your scarcity consciousness.
"“The Universe can please all of you at the same time. "Well, how can that be? If I want to live in the mountains and she wants to live at the ocean, how could the Universe possibly please us both?" And we say, as each of you gets to the essence of why you want what you want, and are not pointing at the other and saying, "No, no, not that, please not that," the Universe can fulfill both. Be playful. Know that it's going to be alright no matter what. Have as much fun as you can. Be as easy as you can. Don't take anything very seriously, because everything blows over, good and bad. You can't stand still. So nothing lasts very long. The best of experiences you must move beyond — and the worst of experiences you must move beyond. Don't make where you are too big of a deal. Let it be what it is: It's a moment in time where you have the choice to feel good or feel bad. That's all that it ever is."
and
"Forever, physical humans are saying, "give me the truth, give me the truth." And we say, there are all kinds of truths. Choose the truths that serve you. Now, there are a lot of people that would feel great discomfort with that. But the thing that we want you to hear about it is: there is a truth of cancer, and there is a truth of wellness. Which truth serves you? You can activate either of them within you, and make it your truth. Truths are created; they aren't static. They aren't conditions that exist that then it is your obligation to identify and catalog. You are the creator of your truths--and what you are living is your truth"
What most of you don't understand is that this is a "wisdom teaching". It has great depth and enormous vastness beyond a commercial DVD introduction. Would you learn Tibetan Buddhism, or a true Native American Shamanistic spiritual path in a day? Could you even begin to comment on what it means without a true, thorough investigation?
All these opinions from people who have not one whit of understanding or willingness to look into what this means.
Example-The idea that the person who was asked not to look at heavy people was probably taken out of context. If she was obsessing continually about weight and looking with disgust at every fat person she saw, then the principle of LOA would dictate that she was continuing to keep active in her vibration the very thing that was not wanted. Therefore the advivce for her would be to turn to other thoughts, with healthy diet and good treatment of self.
You can never be sick enough to make someone well.
You can never be poor enough to make someone wealthy.
You can not get agitated enough about the political situation that will change it.
You can never push against an unwanted condition and relieve it. That's what wars try to do. Seen success lately?
You can work FOR what you want.
There is a misconception here that LOA says that action in the world has no value. Nonsense.
But action without alignment with essence of self is fruitless. You will only strengthen and keep active what you don't desire.
Well being is postulated as the natural order of things. Things go badly when the natural flow is pinched off. That's the normal state of affairs for most humans. And it takes time and attention to disconnect from the negative patterns built up. The idea that this is instantaneous is erroneous.
Hey, do what you want. LOA is like gravity. It rules the Universe as a an aspect of Source's nature. Fight it all you want.
Try to escape gravity. Unless you're a realized Master, I think you'll find it pretty tough.
Better to learn how life is constructed and flow with it.
-
Overhyped
[Read the article: Hillary vs. Obama: It's a drawl!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This woman is way overhyped. Half her assertons are inaccurate, many others ludicrous. She has been surpassed by other writers like Gary Kamiya.
Paglia?
Yawn. Yesterday's news. Sorry to see her narcissistic musings back.
Some iconoclast.
-
Rogue States?
[Read the article: Iraq: Why the media failed]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the abstact, Shannonr's comments that:
"If the alternatives being presented to a "rogue state" are "tow the UN line or face war" then it can be argued that creating doubt that the "face war" option is actually real harms the diplomatic "stance", and creates the third option, "pretend to comply because war ain't really coming". Which does bear an uncanny resemblance to Iraq's actual policy during those nine months." might have some validity.
But Kamiya's point, which has been referred to often by others of a veiled "consensus of definition" is troubling reflected even by this intelligent reader.
At the beginning of the war, I faced off with a well known reporter/journalist whoo had attacked Jonathan Schell as "not getting it" in Schell's essay "The Case Against the War". The a priori assumption that we are the "good guys" who get to declare who is a "rogue sate" and who isn't is both tragical and facical.
As I argued then, and was told "we don't do that anymore (Right!), I pointed to the long history of abuse of our country and the poisonous tree that was this administration. Therefore, although we often have been the worst "rogue state" of all, we try to dictate because of our power. China used to be defined as a "rogue state". Not anymore as they've grown in influence.
I can see the point about credible force for example in Bosnia, but the line is incredibly delicate. I would hesitate to use this argument in any way concerning Iraq do to the criminal misuse of motive involved.
No one would deny that an actual, urgent threat needs to be dealt with. But defining who is "rogue" and who isn't is a highly dangerous speculation.