08-06-2017, 12:00 AM
Pixie wrote:A and M are connected, but it does look confusing if one misses the 11 letters that come between them.
yea, don't get me wrong. All I wanted is for you to clarify. It is one of the interesting concepts that you bring forth. Something 'kinda' relevant to us here
.
.
Pixie wrote:What the author spoke on regarding kindness and opposition may be a bit shifted from what I commented on. (...) Instead of that, I was developing a different branch to flush out the idea-tree you offered.
I do not mind that you shifted a little from what I saw in the article because I see it is interesting and also something I encounter myself and have to come to terms with. Is it linked to thunderbeings? I would say yes, in the sense that lightning and thunder or storms and big winds etc. are seen to be in opposition to humans in general. Plus if the thunderbeings' spirit leads us here maybe something interesting will pop out of it
.
.
Pixie wrote:Hoping that others understand us well enough to know that we're not being hormonal or passive aggressive is a very high expectation.
I realized it is not a common occurrence that people actually take in the context before deciding how to react. I find it sad. But then I am not perfect either.
.
Pixie wrote:I agree with what you said, that it's not the aim one gets destroyed so the other can be alone. Yet sometimes tearing is necessary. It's not "nice", but for some, it's preferred and the only thing that will work.
I know that sometimes tearing is necessary. I am not against tearing in those cases. What is important to me is that my self-importance does not decide when this is necessary but something else inside me that I am connected with That Spirit etc guides me in this. Why? Because I trust Spirit more than I trust my self-importance. It is quite important to me that I don't cut off a foot (just because I can) when it has a blue toe (due to bumping into something etc.).
.
Pixie wrote:Kris is a fine example of this method. He uses it on others because it's what worked for him. That method isn't your preference and thus you don't use it.
I do not know if Kris' method is what we speak of really (i have not seen him tear down anyone's ego), but let's say he tries for this. It can happen that he can do a lot of damage and stop someone flat on their path. It might take this person years to get moving again. The worst I do with my preferred method is that I do nothing. The person is, in effect, unaffected. Plus just because I prefer something doesn't mean it is the only tool in my tool box. But it is better to start gently and then if strength is needed you can always add that later. Why not allow the person to first move on their own and do as much of their own stuff as they can? Nevertheless, even with not preferring these strong forceful methods, like I said, I still have sometimes pretty strong effect on a person. Even when I do not intend to have such a strong effect. In this sense, I find that is better of my own accord. If needed, Spirit has ways.
I do not see myself as people savior. I am me, who wants can learn from me, just like I learn from you or other people.
But you see we talk about two things here as if they were one. When I was talking about how one should be moved by Spirit I speak of something specific and when I speak of me having preferences and such for my normal life interactions then I speak of another something. Your response seems to mix these two together. They are of course not completely separate, but they are by far not the same either.
.
Pixie wrote:I'm a mixed-plate and enjoy receiving and giving in all sorts of combinations. Methods should be dependent upon the personality receiving assistance. Unless one-size approaches work for everyone... but I'm highly suspicious of those because I've met numerous deviants who don't fit one-sized applications.
I agree that methods should be dependent on what the receiver needs. Though also on what the giver is comfortable with. As a person working with people, one should learn that equality and balance do not mean giving the same thing to each member of a group. It is already pretty good that the person is fair and such, but not impeccable. Of course, it might not be easy to figure out what each different individual needs. Often I see that a person, say, for example, a teacher knows some people/students of the group they teach better and can give them a bit better what they need, but many of the students are still getting stuff in the fairness principle because the teacher doesn't know them that well. This can create tension too. I wonder sometimes if it's not better to then 'just' be fair. Other than a student thinking why does the other student get what they need but not me?
.
Pixie wrote:When it comes to seeing holes in the awareness of others, you may not intend to be a catalyst for anyone, but your mere existence serves as one.
I intend to be helpful to others. I carry my general setting that is such that it allows me to be a catalyst even when I am not overtly intending to be that for the person. (Even when not overtly thinking I want to affect that and that person.... still, because I have a general setting of wanting to aid people and affect good changes for them... I affect people I dont specifically think of or focus on affecting).
Plus: I allow, I don't force. Unless I have a reason to.
.
Pixie wrote:You can either be aware of your impact or pretend you don't have one. But. You have one and your impact will be determined by the others who are perceiving and experiencing your specific AP. Understanding your impact, even if you don't intend to have one, can help limit miscommunication.
I do not understand why you mention miscommunication. Please elaborate on that point you are making
. Why would there be miscommunication? Do you mean with those people or here with you? Or?
.
Pixie wrote:Again, you don't know too little to make decisions regarding how your awareness can be utilized.
Did you mean to say I know too little to make decisions? Cause the negative in that sentence does not make as much sense hehe
.
Pixie wrote:You govern over a website that is based on magic--you of all people should have some self-awareness regarding how you want to have an impact. Haven't you already made that decision? Look at the impact you've had--if all of this had been unintended, imagine what you could with intent.
I see you ask the question of what I intend that I touched upon a few lines above. Like I said, I have a general setting. This setting helps grow and learn... helps change and evolve... helps become healthier and more balanced. it is a nurturing setting. Those around me can profit from it.
This means that things go in ways I might not have decided on before. What you suggest would basically mean I decide on something that I think is right and then go after it. Yes, then I would at some point reach that or close to that goal. But what if what is best is not that but something else? Not having a grealty decided upon thing just one that I intuit and glean off of from where I am led, means that I go in maybe other directions and areas than what I would have decided.
When I came here to the site I had a pretty clear idea what I wanted and what I would like. If I had let my self-importance decide to fight for that we would have a different site now than we do. Would it be better? Who knows. Of course, the politeness and decency of interaction would be the first thing I would fight for and remove those who cannot keep to it. This would mean that some of our regulars would not be present and many would have gone a lot sooner than they did... and they would not leave of their own accord. Not doing that allowed the regulars to shift a bit and those who couldnt to leave off their own accord. Now, I am getting something closer to what I wanted and it is a lot less intrusive. Though of course it is years later. But back then people were probably just not ready for it.
One could say that the intent or setting that I want is also respected to a big degree but it is not the only thing that is respected. Other things are taken into account that I myself at that time could not know. This is why it is better to not act out of one's own ego/self-importance but to go with Spirit.
.
Pixie wrote:Kris is a fine example of this method. He uses it on others because it's what worked for him.
I do not think Kris tore off people's ego (and I wonder if he himself is without an ego, but I do wish it for him if that was /is his aim). I mean, he went hardest on Sen. Did he tear off his ego?. He maybe tried to do that... i dunno...
Pixie wrote:My hate comments are intended in the context that sometimes helping people requires tearing off portions of their ego that people aren't ready to let go of. Kris was famous for this it's not the most tactful method, but it's efficient. People are hated when they use this method because it stings. It's like ripping off a band-aid. I appreciate a good dose of pain, so I'm not very hateful. Others though, the people who refuse to use that form of efficiency... well.... they tend to be the more hateful folk.
From what I saw the hate comes from those who the person tries to impact or 'help'. I do not mind pain of my own, but I mind the ego/self-importance in the person trying to 'help'. I mind they think they know what is best for me and what I need and that they think they are the ones who need to give it to me. I like my own choices and I choose people or circumstances that educate me and give me also pain. I can stand that to a degree that is surprising. I don't need some idiots coming by and swearing and abusing me to push me they don't even know where. And that is the problem... they really do not have control of what is happening. They are not able to cushion when needed and they are not able to maneuver properly. All they do is poke here and there to inflict some pain or bent responsiveness.
The thing I said still stands imo... if you help someone and actually help them get rid of their ego they are not hateful. If they are hateful it means you failed and just made things worse. If this is what happens then it would have been better had you left that person alone. I have not seen this process happen, this getting rid of ego, and I have seen many stalks by many stalkers who came by here. And all of them, I thought, we kinda lame (this lameness can be dicplayed on more levels, one can be the execution of the stalkd and such another can be the fact that they need to stalk. If you need to do it and cannot resist doing it then there is something bent there - hence alarm bells should go off). I saw what the shaman does to help people and how the people are stalked. But this stalking is quite different to what happens here at the site by the so called stalks here. I would not call the latter stalking because it is so different that it then gets confusing to have the same term for it. The main difference is that with the shaman there is Spirit present. Here in the 'stalks' of these passers by at our site it is not - or to such a small degree I do not really consider it around as such or at least as much.
I do not understand what gives people the audacity and the self-importance that they think they can be somebody's savior and have the right to do whatever they deem necessary to 'better' these people. Remember how you felt when Dok tried to help you? I say this because you reacted badly and he did not even go along the lines of what I write here. A shaman does not do unsolicited work, we respect the freedom of others. We do not force them into change. Of course, then there are the effects that we have so to speak on the side. Not the ones we covertly specifically intend for a specific person.
We have to be aware that nothing is black and white. I say these things as general things. I'm sure there are exceptions. For example, sometimes the spirit of a person or just spirits might come to ask for help. Or we just normally with our spirit and love hold healing settings for the country and beings in our world. The more aware I think though the more one can communicate with all sorts of beings and ask their allowance. If one cannot ask does that mean one cannot be helpful? Surely not.... but here one runs a risk of not being helpful at all or being counter-helpful.
There is a good anecdote in CC about a snail. I took away from it this: The person who takes the snail and puts it on the side of the road does so because he or she wants to help the snail - nice gesture one would think. But is one helping the snail? How does one know where the snail wants to go or would have gone? is one not hindering the snail? And what does one act out of? Often it is an act out of fear or pity and can also be that one wants to feel helpful. One probably also shocks the poor snail. If the snail asks to be helped then that would be helpful towards a decision. Snails in CC, however, do not speak haha. And sometimes even those that ask for help are better to be left to do the thing themselves, maybe with a bit of encouragement from our side.
This is the story:
CC wrote:One day when I was with him in the city, I picked up a snail that was in the middle of the sidewalk and tucked it safely under some vines. I was sure that if I had left it in the middle of the sidewalk, people would sooner or later have stepped on it. I thought that by moving it to a safe place I had saved it.
Don Juan pointed out that my assumption was a careless one, because I had not taken into consideration two important possibilities. One was that the snail might have been escaping a sure death by poison under the leaves of the vine, and the other possibility was that the snail had enough personal power to cross the sidewalk. By interfering I had not saved the snail but only made it lose whatever it had so painfully gained.
I wanted, of course, to put the snail back where I had found it, but he did not let me. He said that it was the snail's fate that an **** crossed its path and made it lose its momentum. If I left it where I had put it, it might be able again to gather enough power to go wherever it was going.
I thought I had understood his point. Obviously I had only given him a shallow agreement. The hardest thing for me was to let others be.
Indeed it is an important thing to learn to let other be. Because sometimes that is the best thing for them.
.
Pixie wrote:When it comes to seeing holes in the awareness of others, you may not intend to be a catalyst for anyone, but your mere existence serves as one. You can either be aware of your impact or pretend you don't have one.
Yes, sometimes it happens that we function as a kind of force for change... but its not the same as focusing on someone specific and forcing them to adhere to our personal standards. And here we talk of awareness and well things a bit more than just you gotta stick to your forum rules and guidelines or be polite when interacting with people etc.
Maybe it is not too easy to draw the line what is small flies and what are elephants. But say in shamanism it can be opening a person to other types of awareness (changing the fundaments of their reality) or doing an extraction or a soul retrieval for them (a changing experience that they might need to be prepared for etc) and in normal world there are things like fostering a polite space like here at the site.
.
Pixie wrote:You govern over a website that is based on magic--you of all people should have some self-awareness regarding how you want to have an impact. Haven't you already made that decision? Look at the impact you've had--if all of this had been unintended, imagine what you could with intent.
The website... actually I know what I want from the website. It is not about me having impact on others though heh. But then you could say that my intent manifesting generates a kind of impact. Plus no one here really would say I had an impact on them. They learn their things and use the space provided. The thing that is interesting to me and I understand that it can be frustrating to many but thank Spirit not to me is that say I have regular talks with someone maybe even exercise work and such and then the person at some point encompasses some knowledge and then they can even repeat my words and not realize that I said them before because it comes then from their own learning. They do not think I taught that to them. And should they? Even if it was my intention that they grow and learn about that they give credit to themselves. You can say the same words to 10 people and maybe one of them or none will actually learn anything.
In general, I am so 'normal' with my influence that the people don't even realize they have been influenced heh. Because all that happened was that I opened or showed some paths or areas and they then explored them and learned stuff. They could just as well not have gone exploring, and many don't. And I dare say this kind of interacting with people is much more successful for raising their awareness level than the type of stalking than many people coming here to the site utilize. More so probably because it is not about showing impact on others. Showoffs are indeed self-important. Plus many people are reluctant to take in the teaching of others but not so if they are the ones who realize it and teach it to themselves. Many of us are too stubborn to take in the good things that others tell us and the more forceful they are about it the more counter-force we employ.
It is not for nothing that the CC books speak of tricks. People need to be tricked. Not forced, clubbed and battered into whatever heh. In general. There is always that petty tyrant method... but that is already warrior style. A normal person would evade the petty tyrant not go head on into such a situation. Being aware, with a petty tyrant a warrior has already chosen to battle and learn and work on themselves. To me it seemed that Kris was a better petty tyrant to Sen than anything else. Petty tyrants are not teachers though they can in spite of themselves teach something to an aware person.
But... am I tricking these people I almost influence heh? Nah. If so then the trick is for the mind not for the spirit or the soul. And that is very very important. I am sincere and open. The trick is only in the fact that I might make something more attractive to their mind as well. And of course, they don't realize how far the rabbit hole goes. But there is no way to tell them that. This is just how it is. I had no idea what I was getting myself into either. But one does not do anything one doesn't want to do really. So in that sense, it doesn't matter.
yea, don't get me wrong. All I wanted is for you to clarify. It is one of the interesting concepts that you bring forth. Something 'kinda' relevant to us here
. .
Pixie wrote:What the author spoke on regarding kindness and opposition may be a bit shifted from what I commented on. (...) Instead of that, I was developing a different branch to flush out the idea-tree you offered.
I do not mind that you shifted a little from what I saw in the article because I see it is interesting and also something I encounter myself and have to come to terms with. Is it linked to thunderbeings? I would say yes, in the sense that lightning and thunder or storms and big winds etc. are seen to be in opposition to humans in general. Plus if the thunderbeings' spirit leads us here maybe something interesting will pop out of it
..
Pixie wrote:Hoping that others understand us well enough to know that we're not being hormonal or passive aggressive is a very high expectation.
I realized it is not a common occurrence that people actually take in the context before deciding how to react. I find it sad. But then I am not perfect either.
.
Pixie wrote:I agree with what you said, that it's not the aim one gets destroyed so the other can be alone. Yet sometimes tearing is necessary. It's not "nice", but for some, it's preferred and the only thing that will work.
I know that sometimes tearing is necessary. I am not against tearing in those cases. What is important to me is that my self-importance does not decide when this is necessary but something else inside me that I am connected with That Spirit etc guides me in this. Why? Because I trust Spirit more than I trust my self-importance
. It is quite important to me that I don't cut off a foot (just because I can) when it has a blue toe (due to bumping into something etc.)..
Pixie wrote:Kris is a fine example of this method. He uses it on others because it's what worked for him. That method isn't your preference and thus you don't use it.
I do not know if Kris' method is what we speak of really (i have not seen him tear down anyone's ego), but let's say he tries for this. It can happen that he can do a lot of damage and stop someone flat on their path. It might take this person years to get moving again. The worst I do with my preferred method is that I do nothing. The person is, in effect, unaffected. Plus just because I prefer something doesn't mean it is the only tool in my tool box. But it is better to start gently and then if strength is needed you can always add that later. Why not allow the person to first move on their own and do as much of their own stuff as they can? Nevertheless, even with not preferring these strong forceful methods, like I said, I still have sometimes pretty strong effect on a person. Even when I do not intend to have such a strong effect. In this sense, I find that is better of my own accord. If needed, Spirit has ways.
I do not see myself as people savior. I am me, who wants can learn from me, just like I learn from you or other people.
But you see we talk about two things here as if they were one. When I was talking about how one should be moved by Spirit I speak of something specific and when I speak of me having preferences and such for my normal life interactions then I speak of another something. Your response seems to mix these two together. They are of course not completely separate, but they are by far not the same either.
.
Pixie wrote:I'm a mixed-plate and enjoy receiving and giving in all sorts of combinations. Methods should be dependent upon the personality receiving assistance. Unless one-size approaches work for everyone... but I'm highly suspicious of those because I've met numerous deviants who don't fit one-sized applications.
I agree that methods should be dependent on what the receiver needs. Though also on what the giver is comfortable with. As a person working with people, one should learn that equality and balance do not mean giving the same thing to each member of a group. It is already pretty good that the person is fair and such, but not impeccable. Of course, it might not be easy to figure out what each different individual needs. Often I see that a person, say, for example, a teacher knows some people/students of the group they teach better and can give them a bit better what they need, but many of the students are still getting stuff in the fairness principle because the teacher doesn't know them that well. This can create tension too. I wonder sometimes if it's not better to then 'just' be fair. Other than a student thinking why does the other student get what they need but not me?
.
Pixie wrote:When it comes to seeing holes in the awareness of others, you may not intend to be a catalyst for anyone, but your mere existence serves as one.
I intend to be helpful to others. I carry my general setting that is such that it allows me to be a catalyst even when I am not overtly intending to be that for the person. (Even when not overtly thinking I want to affect that and that person.... still, because I have a general setting of wanting to aid people and affect good changes for them... I affect people I dont specifically think of or focus on affecting).
Plus: I allow, I don't force. Unless I have a reason to.
.
Pixie wrote:You can either be aware of your impact or pretend you don't have one. But. You have one and your impact will be determined by the others who are perceiving and experiencing your specific AP. Understanding your impact, even if you don't intend to have one, can help limit miscommunication.
I do not understand why you mention miscommunication. Please elaborate on that point you are making
. Why would there be miscommunication? Do you mean with those people or here with you? Or? .
Pixie wrote:Again, you don't know too little to make decisions regarding how your awareness can be utilized.
Did you mean to say I know too little to make decisions? Cause the negative in that sentence does not make as much sense hehe
.
Pixie wrote:You govern over a website that is based on magic--you of all people should have some self-awareness regarding how you want to have an impact. Haven't you already made that decision? Look at the impact you've had--if all of this had been unintended, imagine what you could with intent.
I see you ask the question of what I intend that I touched upon a few lines above. Like I said, I have a general setting. This setting helps grow and learn... helps change and evolve... helps become healthier and more balanced. it is a nurturing setting. Those around me can profit from it.
This means that things go in ways I might not have decided on before. What you suggest would basically mean I decide on something that I think is right and then go after it. Yes, then I would at some point reach that or close to that goal. But what if what is best is not that but something else? Not having a grealty decided upon thing just one that I intuit and glean off of from where I am led, means that I go in maybe other directions and areas than what I would have decided.
When I came here to the site I had a pretty clear idea what I wanted and what I would like. If I had let my self-importance decide to fight for that we would have a different site now than we do. Would it be better? Who knows
. Of course, the politeness and decency of interaction would be the first thing I would fight for and remove those who cannot keep to it. This would mean that some of our regulars would not be present and many would have gone a lot sooner than they did... and they would not leave of their own accord. Not doing that allowed the regulars to shift a bit and those who couldnt to leave off their own accord. Now, I am getting something closer to what I wanted and it is a lot less intrusive. Though of course it is years later. But back then people were probably just not ready for it.One could say that the intent or setting that I want is also respected to a big degree but it is not the only thing that is respected. Other things are taken into account that I myself at that time could not know. This is why it is better to not act out of one's own ego/self-importance but to go with Spirit.
.
Pixie wrote:Kris is a fine example of this method. He uses it on others because it's what worked for him.
I do not think Kris tore off people's ego (and I wonder if he himself is without an ego, but I do wish it for him if that was /is his aim). I mean, he went hardest on Sen. Did he tear off his ego?
. He maybe tried to do that... i dunno...Pixie wrote:My hate comments are intended in the context that sometimes helping people requires tearing off portions of their ego that people aren't ready to let go of. Kris was famous for this
it's not the most tactful method, but it's efficient. People are hated when they use this method because it stings. It's like ripping off a band-aid. I appreciate a good dose of pain, so I'm not very hateful. Others though, the people who refuse to use that form of efficiency... well.... they tend to be the more hateful folk. From what I saw the hate comes from those who the person tries to impact or 'help'. I do not mind pain of my own, but I mind the ego/self-importance in the person trying to 'help'. I mind they think they know what is best for me and what I need and that they think they are the ones who need to give it to me. I like my own choices and I choose people or circumstances that educate me and give me also pain. I can stand that to a degree that is surprising. I don't need some idiots coming by and swearing and abusing me to push me they don't even know where. And that is the problem... they really do not have control of what is happening. They are not able to cushion when needed and they are not able to maneuver properly. All they do is poke here and there to inflict some pain or bent responsiveness.
The thing I said still stands imo... if you help someone and actually help them get rid of their ego they are not hateful. If they are hateful it means you failed and just made things worse. If this is what happens then it would have been better had you left that person alone. I have not seen this process happen, this getting rid of ego, and I have seen many stalks by many stalkers who came by here. And all of them, I thought, we kinda lame (this lameness can be dicplayed on more levels, one can be the execution of the stalkd and such another can be the fact that they need to stalk. If you need to do it and cannot resist doing it then there is something bent there - hence alarm bells should go off). I saw what the shaman does to help people and how the people are stalked. But this stalking is quite different to what happens here at the site by the so called stalks here. I would not call the latter stalking because it is so different that it then gets confusing to have the same term for it. The main difference is that with the shaman there is Spirit present. Here in the 'stalks' of these passers by at our site it is not - or to such a small degree I do not really consider it around as such or at least as much
.I do not understand what gives people the audacity and the self-importance that they think they can be somebody's savior and have the right to do whatever they deem necessary to 'better' these people. Remember how you felt when Dok tried to help you? I say this because you reacted badly and he did not even go along the lines of what I write here. A shaman does not do unsolicited work, we respect the freedom of others. We do not force them into change. Of course, then there are the effects that we have so to speak on the side. Not the ones we covertly specifically intend for a specific person.
We have to be aware that nothing is black and white. I say these things as general things. I'm sure there are exceptions. For example, sometimes the spirit of a person or just spirits might come to ask for help. Or we just normally with our spirit and love hold healing settings for the country and beings in our world. The more aware I think though the more one can communicate with all sorts of beings and ask their allowance. If one cannot ask does that mean one cannot be helpful? Surely not.... but here one runs a risk of not being helpful at all or being counter-helpful.
There is a good anecdote in CC about a snail. I took away from it this: The person who takes the snail and puts it on the side of the road does so because he or she wants to help the snail - nice gesture one would think. But is one helping the snail? How does one know where the snail wants to go or would have gone? is one not hindering the snail? And what does one act out of? Often it is an act out of fear or pity and can also be that one wants to feel helpful. One probably also shocks the poor snail. If the snail asks to be helped then that would be helpful towards a decision
. Snails in CC, however, do not speak haha. And sometimes even those that ask for help are better to be left to do the thing themselves, maybe with a bit of encouragement from our side.This is the story:
CC wrote:One day when I was with him in the city, I picked up a snail that was in the middle of the sidewalk and tucked it safely under some vines. I was sure that if I had left it in the middle of the sidewalk, people would sooner or later have stepped on it. I thought that by moving it to a safe place I had saved it.
Don Juan pointed out that my assumption was a careless one, because I had not taken into consideration two important possibilities. One was that the snail might have been escaping a sure death by poison under the leaves of the vine, and the other possibility was that the snail had enough personal power to cross the sidewalk. By interfering I had not saved the snail but only made it lose whatever it had so painfully gained.
I wanted, of course, to put the snail back where I had found it, but he did not let me. He said that it was the snail's fate that an **** crossed its path and made it lose its momentum. If I left it where I had put it, it might be able again to gather enough power to go wherever it was going.
I thought I had understood his point. Obviously I had only given him a shallow agreement. The hardest thing for me was to let others be.
Indeed it is an important thing to learn to let other be
. Because sometimes that is the best thing for them..
Pixie wrote:When it comes to seeing holes in the awareness of others, you may not intend to be a catalyst for anyone, but your mere existence serves as one. You can either be aware of your impact or pretend you don't have one.
Yes, sometimes it happens that we function as a kind of force for change... but its not the same as focusing on someone specific and forcing them to adhere to our personal standards. And here we talk of awareness and well things a bit more than just you gotta stick to your forum rules and guidelines or be polite when interacting with people etc.
Maybe it is not too easy to draw the line what is small flies and what are elephants. But say in shamanism it can be opening a person to other types of awareness (changing the fundaments of their reality) or doing an extraction or a soul retrieval for them (a changing experience that they might need to be prepared for etc) and in normal world there are things like fostering a polite space like here at the site.
.
Pixie wrote:You govern over a website that is based on magic--you of all people should have some self-awareness regarding how you want to have an impact. Haven't you already made that decision? Look at the impact you've had--if all of this had been unintended, imagine what you could with intent.
The website... actually I know what I want from the website. It is not about me having impact on others though heh. But then you could say that my intent manifesting generates a kind of impact. Plus no one here really would say I had an impact on them. They learn their things and use the space provided. The thing that is interesting to me and I understand that it can be frustrating to many but thank Spirit not to me is that say I have regular talks with someone maybe even exercise work and such and then the person at some point encompasses some knowledge and then they can even repeat my words and not realize that I said them before because it comes then from their own learning. They do not think I taught that to them. And should they? Even if it was my intention that they grow and learn about that they give credit to themselves. You can say the same words to 10 people and maybe one of them or none will actually learn anything.
In general, I am so 'normal' with my influence that the people don't even realize they have been influenced heh. Because all that happened was that I opened or showed some paths or areas and they then explored them and learned stuff. They could just as well not have gone exploring, and many don't. And I dare say this kind of interacting with people is much more successful for raising their awareness level than the type of stalking than many people coming here to the site utilize. More so probably because it is not about showing impact on others. Showoffs are indeed self-important. Plus many people are reluctant to take in the teaching of others but not so if they are the ones who realize it and teach it to themselves. Many of us are too stubborn to take in the good things that others tell us and the more forceful they are about it the more counter-force we employ.
It is not for nothing that the CC books speak of tricks. People need to be tricked. Not forced, clubbed and battered into whatever heh. In general. There is always that petty tyrant method... but that is already warrior style. A normal person would evade the petty tyrant not go head on into such a situation. Being aware, with a petty tyrant a warrior has already chosen to battle and learn and work on themselves. To me it seemed that Kris was a better petty tyrant to Sen than anything else. Petty tyrants are not teachers though they can in spite of themselves teach something to an aware person.
But... am I tricking these people I almost influence heh? Nah. If so then the trick is for the mind not for the spirit or the soul. And that is very very important. I am sincere and open. The trick is only in the fact that I might make something more attractive to their mind as well. And of course, they don't realize how far the rabbit hole goes. But there is no way to tell them that. This is just how it is. I had no idea what I was getting myself into either
. But one does not do anything one doesn't want to do really. So in that sense, it doesn't matter.