Shelley,

You asked: “Who made you the boss of them? Why are you trying to “discern” them? What can you discern about them anyway?”

Very good questions.

The answer to your important and valid question of ‘why discern’ seems to be the following: No one (you or I or anyone else) is an isolated system in the Grand Design of Divine Intelligence. Anyone of us happens to be a part of a group of many interacting people.

In case you have not already watched Gary’s Q/A video on the difference between discernment and judgement (the first of his three latest postings), I request you to do so. According to Gary, discernment is simply seeing something for what it is. In answer to your important and valid question of what can be discerned I will quote the example that Gary gives in that video: “Someone abuses another person.” What is the advantage of discernment in this case? Gary’s answer is that a clear discernment (which by definition is devoid of any emotional charge) allows one to do whatever is appropriate in the moment including actions and words that originate in love. He emphasizes it is always appropriate to protect one who is being abused.

On the contrary, how does judgement work in the same above circumstance? When one is judging the above situation, one will say, to quote Gary from the video: “Look at that! He is abusing this person. How can he do that? How dare he? Why is he acting like that? Doesn’t he know that that is terrible? Doesn’t he know that that is so animal-like? Is he morally depraved? (On and on and on.)” Thus, there is an emotional charge to what one sees when one judges. When one judges, one creates painful, destructive consequences for oneself. But, as mentioned above, when one discerns, one creates joyful, constructive, wholesome consequences. According to Gary, one can thus understand how significant the difference between discernment and judgement is.

Gary adds that the above applies to any circumstance in one’s life (including the national political scene).

From the above the following also seems clear to me. “Someone abuses another person.” In such a circumstance first comes the clear discernment. Then comes the feeling of love which in turn leads to appropriate actions and words creating joyful and constructive consequences. In other words, feeling follows discernment.

And, when there is clear discernment followed by appropriate actions and words that originate from the feeling of love, the question of ‘who made you the boss?’ doesn’t seem to arise. No one is the boss of anyone else. Instead, anyone can be a spiritual partner of anyone else, as everyone is on the same boat in the Grand Design of Divine Intelligence.

I heartily welcome your thoughts. Please don’t look at it as an MM.

With love and trust,
Sundar

Dear Doug,

Your love means a lot. Thank you, Doug.

You said: “What I am learning about me is that I can think from a loving part of me and other times I can think from a fear based part of me. I can come up with completely opposite conclusions for the exact same circumstance because it matters so much “who” is doing my thinking in the moment.”

It is not that “one can come up” with completely opposite conclusions for exactly the same circumstance. It is that the conclusions ought to be opposite. Thinking from love and thinking from fear can never produce the same conclusion for the same given circumstance. As you say, yes, it completely matters who is doing the thinking – loving part or frightened part.

But, please note that one is “thinking” in both instances (given how you have worded it in the above quote). I believe the result of thinking from love is multisensory perception and the result of thinking from fear is five-sensory perception. Of course, there is also “feeling” involved (loving feeling vs frightened feeling), but that point is not at stake in this discussion. We all agree “feeling” is important. The point at stake happens to do with “thinking” or discernment. Hence my point.

I want to thank you for sharing the story narrated by Linda. Initially the thinking was controlled by a frightened part. It was important to feel that emotion inside and become aware of it. Due to that emotional awareness she was able to replace it with the feeling of love and think of initiating a conversation with the neighbor. The result was a gift from the Universe whereby she got to know the actual circumstance surrounding the neighbor.

I want to thank you for sharing it because I realize that thinking doesn’t always have to precede feeling (as I said in a previous post). It can be the other way also as in the above case. It seems to depend on the context.

You said: “but there is another perspective to consider.” I don’t understand what the difference in perspective here is. I would appreciate your help. To me it seems that the story narrated by Linda also involves both feeling and thinking (or discernment).

With love and trust,
Sundar

About Gary’s video, you said: “From the above the following also seems clear to me. “Someone abuses another person.” In such a circumstance first comes the clear discernment. Then comes the feeling of love which in turn leads to appropriate actions and words creating joyful and constructive consequences. In other words, feeling follows discernment.”

What is the clear discernment you get from the situation? That person A is abuser, abusing person B. Cool.

Then comes love for the abuser, you say. Would that not require you to be the Pope or Krishna or Buddha, to feel love for the abuser based on discernment of the other person?

Here is the end other point of disagreement with you. The focus of thinking/ discernment has to be oneself. It might be, I am being judgmental here. I am doing faulty thinking. Maybe the abusers thinking is similarly faulty. Ah, now I can feel compassion and love for him.

Or, maybe one might turn the eye inward and see, ah, I was similarly abusive when I did cuz to abc. Now I can feel love and compassion for the other person.

So, again, it is my perception from What I read of Gary’s teachings that thinking should be focused on what one can learn about oneself from any circumstance. Not on the other person.

Dear Sundar,

I believe loving discernment sees beyond the illusion of this physical world and circumstances. It does not rely on what it’s five senses can see, smell, etc. For example in the physical world this man was disheveled, smelly, and apparently moody and Linda’s past experiences told her to stay clear of him. That is all the illusion that Gary refers to. But through courage and practice Linda was able to see past the illusion and find a loving multisensory perspective that this man was a soul on his journey in the earth school and the Universe has brought them together for both to learn and grow. In this loving perspective Linda could now see that her frightened part was active and on the court.

In that moment from that loving perspective she could and did make a different choice than she did initially. She set a different intention for how their relationship in the moment could be.

With Love,

Doug

Hi Doug,

Thank you for your feedback. I could no more be angry with Sundar about this topic, than I could with myself. For at the start of my journey, and for many years thereafter, I was just as stubbornly insistent/ convinced that thinking was the main way to get through the problem.

But you are absolutely right that I wanted him to see what I was saying, and to change. I was using my sternest voice possible to make him see my pov. Because I wished for him not to take the 15-20 years it has taken me to get the little clarity I have. Control, wanting people to change is an issue for me. And the real issue underlying those issues is fear, I know.

Fear of not being heard, fear of being ignored, of opinion not being valued… female issues, oriental woman issues, or maybe universal issues.

You are so wise, thank you for perceiving and pointing out the fear. I am here to learn to love, and your pointing out these issues helps me see a new aspect of my MO.

I really appreciate your presence in the chat room, and your advice. Thank you!

And apologies, Sundar, if you too felt I was angry, though you did so generously say you could see my love.

Shelley

• This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Shelley P.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Shelley P.

Dear Shelley,

You said: “Because I wished for him not to take the 15-20 years it has taken me to get the little clarity I have.” Yes, that is where I saw your loving intentions. I could see your spiritual partnership with me.

You also said: “Control, wanting people to change is an issue for me.” Some may look at it as control and as an issue. I look at it as spiritual partnership. Thank you Shelley.

You said: ” For at the start of my journey, and for many years thereafter, I was just as stubbornly insistent/ convinced that thinking was the main way to get through the problem.” Thinking is not the main way. Feeling and thinking are both equally important.

Dear Doug,

You said: “I believe loving discernment sees beyond the illusion of this physical world and circumstances.” You use the term loving discernment. I used the term correct discernment. They are the same. And they are the same as multisensory perception.

I hope this wonderful discussion comes to a nice conclusion through the above. Thank you.

With love and trust,
Sundar

Dear Shelley, Doug and other spiritual partners,

Shelley, I don’t know when you might get a chance to come back to this community board and take a look at this post. But, if you happen to do so soon, please respond.

I am now in the following situation. A cardiologist (henceforth referred to as X) to whom I was referred to by my PCP has scheduled me for a heart catheterization procedure next week. (I am 66.) I was considering getting a second medical opinion and researched about it. I read a nice piece on it in the American Heart Assn. website, a nice article in the US News online and also a relevant announcement in the Cleveland Clinic website. Each encourages getting second opinion. I checked with another cardiologist (henceforth referred to as Y) whether he would be willing to give a second opinion and he agreed. His secretary scheduled an appointment for the beginning of next week. I had to contact X’s secretary to arrange for a copy of my records to be sent to Y.

Last week X performed certain tests on me. Early this week his secretary called me to indicate that the result is abnormal (in a sense) and scheduled me for catheterization next Friday and said that the previous day X would discuss with me the results and also do certain preop procedures. I wanted to get an apptmt. with X soon to discuss the results since I was concerned that the catheterization was the very next day after my coming to know the results of the tests with there being no time in between to think about it. So, I asked X’s secretary for an apptmt. and also asked her to send the reports to Y. She reiterated that X would discuss the results with me next Thursday. I expressed my concern. She arranged for X’s nurse to discuss the results with me on the phone yesterday evening.

When necessary, I asked questions to the nurse, and I was happy with the discussion. At the end she asked me whether I still needed the results to be faxed to Y. When I said yes, she said that if Y agrees that catheterization needs to be performed on me, then I become Y’s patient, not X’s. I said I read upon getting second opinions in the AHA website, etc. and that is not how I understood it. She said since ours is a relatively small city that is the practice followed due to the proximity of the doctors. She continued that if Y’s patient were to come to X for second opinion, the same would happen also.

I was puzzled. If that were the case, then why didn’t Y caution me about it? Why did he agree to give the second opinion without cautioning that X wouldn’t be my doctor thereafter given the practice in this small city? I told the nurse I had to think about it and would get back with her today. Later yesterday when I asked Y about it, he said he doesn’t follow such a practice.

It is the nurse who told me so, not the doctor himself. So, I am considering talking to X directly today. Hoping that the secretary would allow me to talk to him.

The above is the situation I am now in, as we speak. I am not an isolated system, as nobody is (as I said in a previous post). Interactions with others are an important, inherent part of everyone’s life. In this critical situation (having to do with my heart!) a million-dollar question appears to be: Do I just feel ONLY or do I lovingly discern ALSO and think very carefully ALSO in order to make appropriate decisions as interactions continue (for example, taking with X today)?

To quote Gary (something that I chant everyday): “My interactions form the substance of my spiritual growth since they provide me the opportunities to develop emotional awareness and to make responsible choices.” There are two parts here: (1) develop emotional awareness and (2) make responsible choices. In relation to the first one, I don’t want to judge X or his nurse; I don’t want to feel anger toward either. But, what about the second one? I have to make choices now. Is this something where discernment also plays a role along with being controlled by a loving intention (which makes the choices responsible)? Or, can we really do completely away with thinking and discernment? Is feeling alone enough?

Of course, I understand I should trust the Universe (already when I think over and analyze what all happened yesterday I can recognize the presence of the Universe). But, I wonder whether the Universe expects me only to feel and not to worry about thinking at all in this situation when I do have to make important decisions. Or, does the Universe expect me to think also and discern correctly?

Please respond. And thank you Shelley, Doug and others in advance for any response that will help me understand and apply.

With love and trust,
Sundar

I just noticed that I wrote: “(for example, taking with X today)?”

I meant to say: talking with X

With love and trust,
Sundar