funny that you talk of "heartless" people. now ive met lot of different folk in my time and im not sure if i can honestly call any of them "soulless", though there are many people that have become very cold and twisted by the world, and there certainly are reasons to call the modern status quo heartless and all that.. but sometimes a good look in the mirror is in order
i bet that if you called any of these nightclub goers heartless, they would probably be deeply insulted, is that sign of heartlessness? everyones just lookin for happiness in their own ways.. not all have found out the same stuff u have

My intent--and I feel, too, the intent of contributors to this thread--was not to demean anybody.  Because a person is heartless doesn't imply that they're "bad."  It means they are lacking empathy. 

It means, I think, as we've used it here, that they do not, or will not, or cannot, extrapolate what others might feel.  They only hear their own feelings inside themselves.  Or, it's 80/20, or 70/30.  It might be 100/0, though.

Heartless, by definition, means devoid of compassion or feeling.  Since there are several levels of feeling, heartless can be a fluid term.  For instance, a person might be able to empathize with (the feelings) of your broken arm, but not with your broken heart.  Usually, though, the heart means higher emotions.  If a person never seems to demonstrate compassion, as long as you're around them, is it inaccurate to call them heartless?

Also, you're right, evaluating people based on their behavior in one place and in one time, may not be fair.  But at what point do you stop witholding an evaluation of a person in favor of the notion that you might not have seen every side of them?  Do you let them prove themselves hurtful two times, three times, four times?

funny that you talk of "heartless" people. now ive met lot of different folk in my time and im not sure if i can honestly call any of them "soulless", though there are many people that have become very cold and twisted by the world, and there certainly are reasons to call the modern status quo heartless and all that.. but sometimes a good look in the mirror is in order
i bet that if you called any of these nightclub goers heartless, they would probably be deeply insulted, is that sign of heartlessness? everyones just lookin for happiness in their own ways.. not all have found out the same stuff u have
oh and ya i also find the bar-environment most of the times boring as shit

I second this.  I was going to say essentially the same thing.  Once I learned that people are just trying to live their lives in the way that they know how, then it becomes clearer that these people aren't really all that bad, they're just different.  When I put myself into their point of view, I understand.  They know what they know, and I don't feel that it does any good for myself to judge them on their ignorance, or them on my ignorance, because I am just as ignorant of them and their viewpoint as they are of me and mine.  Besides, they are who they are, and I am who I am.  If I enjoyed the bar environment, that wouldn't mean I was any less of a person, and I would see what was good about it.  It's only because that I don't like it that I am motivated to explain it away as inferior, so that something isn't wrong with me.

All I know is that when I was playing that game I had convinced myself that men did not have feelings.

Several men don't.  I find the majority of men have permission for only two emotions: (1) anger; (2) more-anger.  That is to say most men only seem to be safe expressing anger.

I know this sounds ridiculous; but that was my reaction to having seen some awful things and having had awful experiences.  In order to "protect" myself I categorized all men as beings who had no feelings. So in order to deal with such beings I figured I needed to deny/get rid of my feelings. 

ANd so it was that I was able to get into terrible relationships in which I was hellbent on showing the guy that I really didn't care about him, and that I could play games too.

Silly.  Self-defeating.  Oh well.  That girl that I was is dead now and all that's left is me.

Dont we have 10 major chakras though and not 7?

After I read this post, I remembered coming info on the chakras in the C's transcripts.  I searched, but couldn't find the exact quote I was thinking of (I'll post it if I find it). 

Anyway, they suggested that there is confusion around the subject of chakras because of cross-conceptualization.

What I think that means is that there are "chakras" and then there are other types of energy centers in the energy-body.

For instance, the Asian energetic systems refer to "tan tiens" or tandens.  Usually, there are three.

I think there are New Age teachers who have included the "tan tiens" in an expanded chakra system, trying to reconcile the ancient East Indian teachings with Asian teachings.

Barbara Ann Brennan (a strong clairvoyant) wrote a couple of books--"Hands of Light" and "Light Emerging." 

She teaches the seven primary chakra system, but also teaches that there are four "levels" to the human being--the physical, the auric, the haric, and the core-star level. 

The physical is the body; the auric includes the seven chakras and seven auric bodies; the haric level includes three energy centers (that closely correspond to the tan tiens); and the core-star level is the divine spark. 

Barbara Ann Brennan doesn't discuss OPs or the possibility.  Too bad. 

Anyway, what's interesting about her work is that she distinguishes between types of energy centers.  She's also, as a clairvoyant, seen damaged, split, highly displaced, and stopped chakras.

...I once heard that the Crown chakra falls and rises (coincides with the physical head, or rises above it) depending upon whether that person's consciousness is focused in the physical or abstracted elsewhere.  ...That could account for the discrepancy about the placement of the Crown.

I had meditation classes in Chicago from a strong clairvoyant, too.  He said he had always believed that were seven major chakras, till he came across (in the same day) two people who had two "heart chakras."  He'd never seen it before, and he never saw it again.   

There's also the problem of what "vibrational level" a clairvoyant, or sensitive, is attuned to.  Perhaps Asians were attuned to a deeper level than Eastern Indians, and that's why the "tan tiens" became paramount in their system. 

Brennan also teaches that, technically, there are seven chakras for each of the seven bodies/levels of the aura.  She teaches that the emotional levels tend to glow at the colors of the rainbow--and that's why chakras are taught as being red, orange, etc.  But, the chakras at the other levels aren't color-schemed like that...Who knows...

I personally think that the chakra color scheme was put forth as an ideal, or as a master meditation, and somehow it was interpreted that the chakras ARE those colors...Which seems unlikely to me.

"Any, all, and all of the above" describes my thoughts on the chakras.  I personally see them--occasionally--as colored blobs, not as vortexes "(yet, I guess) and can't speak with certainty.  I definitely feel a root center, a genital center, a solar plexus center, a heart center, a throat center, a third eye center and a crown center. 

But I feel centers other places, too.

I think the New Age, seven chakra system--even if you don't take it literally, but only as a psychological lens--is enormously helpful.  Being able to look at my life through the lenses of survival, emotions/sexuality, vitality, affinity, communication, clairvoyance, and spirituality has helped me gain clarity.

Jen wrote:

That was my point initially, which you questioned...

Yes, I was agreeing with you in a rather roundabout way.

Guess it took you a little while to realize I was right

That was my point initially, which you questioned...

Yes, I was agreeing with you in a rather roundabout way.

Jen wrote:

And if you perceive that you are being mistreated by someone, they are reflecting back to you that lack of self-respect.  Who then is the one that needs to be changed, or indeed, can be changed?

Are you saying here that the proverbial other person is reflecting their own, personal lack of self-respect by mistreating you?  Or that the other person, through mistreating, is reflecting your lack of self-respect back to you?  (i.e., is only able to mistreat you because of your lack of self-respect).

For some reason my brain isn't wrapping around that.

Everything and everyone in our lives is reflecting us in some way, it's up to us to figure out how and why.  And yes, I do think that if, for example, someone repeatedly gets into abusive situations, it's time to take a long hard look at self-esteem issues.  It's also true that when people have little self-respect or self-love, it follows that they can't give
to others what they can't give to themselves.  Most people do have low self-esteem and most relationships are therefore dysfunctional...

I certainly agree that it's not necessary to have an opinion on everything!

By "supporting yourself" I guess you mean defending yourself, or counter-attacking. Yes, when we step out of that stance, the conflict has nowhere to go.  I would say we support ourselves best when we refuse to get caught up in all that. 

That was my point initially, which you questioned...

Either way can work, depending on the circumstances and what feels right. 

And I'm getting short-winded (kinda tired, but enjoying this nevertheless).

Sure, we are all interrelated.

Again, it all depends...and no, I don't think it's possible or desirable  for most people to be consistently neutral. 

My point exactly.

I think yes, too, in fact, I think change takes place best in an atmosphere of non-judgment.  What you resist, persists.

And if you perceive that you are being mistreated by someone, they are reflecting back to you that lack of self-respect.  Who then is the one that needs to be changed, or indeed, can be changed?

Are you saying here that the proverbial other person is reflecting their own, personal lack of self-respect by mistreating you?  Or that the other person, through mistreating, is reflecting your lack of self-respect back to you?  (i.e., is only able to mistreat you because of your lack of self-respect).

For some reason my brain isn't wrapping around that.

As far as who can be changed...  It seems like all conflict can be reduced to one party wanting a second party to change in some way to make them (the first party) more comfortable. 

Or, slightly more complicated, both parties one and two want the other party to change or to at least change their point-of-view--again, in order to make themselves feel more comfortable in the presence of the other.

Overall, more simply: people either support your reality, (or, are neutral to it) or they reject it.  ...In the overview, or in specifically recognizing the possibility of having a neutral opinion, there's a possibility of peace I feel.  Or at least of less conflict...

Yet, not everybody understands or wants to understand the concept of "No-Opinion."  A great number of people, undeniably, walk around either supporting or rejecting realities.  I think much of our education is geared at getting us to form, elaborate upon, and express opinions.  A person without an opinion is typically looked at as uneducated or stupid.

Thinking about that I think also that the answer to conflict isn't always change.  Conflict may arise because another person has taken issue with your beingness.  If your beingness--in that particular instance--is positive (if you truly know it is, in your heart) then the only change to undertake is to re-direct your thoughts and feelings from negative to positive again...if the interaction succeeded at causing you to doubt yourself or uselessly get angry, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to express is: if another person rejects you (the reality that they perceive you are), it isn't necessary to respond by supporting yourself.  If you do, you're completing the circuit of conflict--it takes two for conflict.  At least, it takes two aspects of something. 

Yet, I do believe in the old concept of "Ego Strength."  And by that I don't mean egotism, I mean development of the temporal self at least to a point wherein it isn't a weakling and is capable of participating heartily in the temporal world.

Capable of supporting a reality in opposition to another's rejection of it. 

When I talk about lack of self-respect with myself, I'm referring to my own lack of Ego Strength.  Basically, I guess, for me, Ego Strength=integrity, being capable of following your own personal code. 

A fragment of my own personal code is "I will respect the Divine in every living thing."  If I let another person, say, step on my creativity, in some way I'm not respecting the Divine in me.

If that happens once or twice, then I think the burden of change is upon me.  Upon me to defend, support my creative vision.

If my creative vision is being repeatedly squashed (and I feel--in my heart--that the vision is right), then maybe what's happening is that the other person is stuck in their vision with a delusion of superiority, and the best option is to find neutrality with them.  And, again, instead of changing myself, maybe the best option is to change my situation and find a new partner for my creative work.

Okay, this is getting long-winded...(I know, typical)...

...Life doesn't take place in a vacuum.  We are all related.  What one does affects another. 

Can all progression take place through neutrality? 

Or must some take place through daring to oppose another?

We can only change ourselves.  And when we change, we change others...in some way.

Can you attempt change without judgment?  Can you actively oppose another without judgment?  (I think yes).  ...I'm thinking of the samurai, now...

Lyra, I agree with you--without a doubt.  Calling a spade a spade is not a moral judgmental or unevolved. 

That being said, I'm not very good at it.  I have trouble calling others out for their negative behaviors--even towards me--and will often endure mistreatment in the silent belief that I'm being "the stronger one."  ...Sometimes I am being the stronger one, and sometimes...I just lack self-respect.

And if you perceive that you are being mistreated by someone, they are reflecting back to you that lack of self-respect.  Who then is the one that needs to be changed, or indeed, can be changed? 

Agree with you, that's all relative.

Yup.  What can you do?

Just a bit of advice...I've concluded that doing what is right for oneself is ultimately what is right for the other person(s) involved as well. 

My son's dad left me for another woman.  I was angry, but it was the best thing for everyone concerned.  I'm grateful now!

btw, I had no problem with the title of this thread .  Yes, colorful, and I could tell it was tongue-in-cheek. 

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with, or judgmental about seeing that people are either closed off, shut down or completely lacking their heart chakras altogether. If someone is acting heartless, then the situation is what it is...

...And that's where the confusion lies for some people, possibly yourself as well - that if what you're noticing could be deamed "unpleasant" or "negative" then it MUST be "judgmental."   Only "positive", "happy" observations are good and "non-judgmental."   That's faulty thinking though.

Lyra, I agree with you--without a doubt.  Calling a spade a spade is not a moral judgmental or unevolved. 

That being said, I'm not very good at it.  I have trouble calling others out for their negative behaviors--even towards me--and will often endure mistreatment in the silent belief that I'm being "the stronger one."  ...Sometimes I am being the stronger one, and sometimes...I just lack self-respect.

I don't think recognizing negativity is unevolved.  I do think, however, that there is no inherent right or wrongness (I think that's a relativistic illusion).  Usually, when I use the word "judgment," I mean the projection of energy that says: "wrong/bad/invalid."
     
To me, there's nothing wrong with a puppet (and I'm pretty sure you're similarly opinioned), but they can have an enormous negative effect upon a seeker.

When I said I was interested in cultivating non-judgment with puppets/robots/sleepers/OPs, all I meant (in reflection) is that I want to step out of that feeling--of mine--that they're wrong. 

I think I totally get what you're saying, too, lyra, about people thinking that only positive observations are non-judgmental.  ...I've been in that boat.  I might have a toe in it still, but I can't deny the (very positive) fruits of learning to distinguish between sleepers and seekers in my life.

What's been critical for me is not to use the terms as permanent labels, but to be able to access the knowledge (of awake/asleep) in each situation and be open to changes.  ...But you get that.

...It's no wonder that the path is described sometimes as a tightrope...   

There are people out there with no conception of spirit...It used to make me sad.  Now I guess I'm reconciled to the idea that not every will move out of the earth plane this time around.  Ah well. 

I thought some of my posts were pretty loud cries about my situation(s)! 

...I'll try harder to be more overt.

**

...And, oh yeah, I knew I'd light some people up with the term "Hoochie Mama."  ...It's just such a colorful turn-of-phrase, I couldn't resist.

Here's a male derogatory term for balance: Tail-Chaser.

I really enjoy reading your postings.   I do think some of your postings (sometimes) are a silent cry of your situation.  All of us have problems and issues and we deal (or not) with them.  Please sit down with your wife and tell her how you really feel (drinking and going to bars that is).    I sense you love your wife but you do not enjoy her lifestyle (although you have stated she is changing).  I also sense that she is not going to change in the near future.   I truly sense you are a nice person looking to enlighten yourself...........................please continue that pattern.  I would have written this privately but I have tried in the past with no response.  Perhaps your e-mail or something is not correct. 

Regards & apologies

When I am out at bars or clubs it's my off time. It's a break from the monotony of my daily life, because these places of full of spontaneity and dynamic energy. I actually find bars pretty boring; I prefer clubs because I love dancing. I spend most of my time at these places though observing other people's behavior. It's very curious. There's so much to learn about life just from observing and interacting with people, especially in the "meat-market" environment. You can see very clearly how energy is exchanged and given and taken between people.

So far it hasn't affected my spiritual path in any adverse way. For me there's no contradiction between spiritual work and going to bars/clubs. Every day my purpose is to grow and learn. I find that I learn the most lessons when I'm out in the social world. It's like speed-learning.

Interesting perspective. Certainly, if you went in with a higher spiritual perspective, there's opportunities to learn from observations. I totally agree with that and that's fair enough. You're actually using your spiritual perspective and going to these places develops these even more. Sure you can learn a lot about interaction in those sorts of environments and you can also feel the energy around you. I don't think it's for me right now, so maybe my observations were a bit biased.

I'm just not very experienced with these sort of places and so I made my own assumptions and generalisations about bars and lounges. I was just putting my thoughts together. I personally haven't been to nightclubs, but from what people tell me, the dancing there isn't that spectacular. I really enjoy dancing, and I want to be around cool dancers to observe them. That's more 'fun' for me anyway.

Absolutely...

Otherwise our theories remain untested. Our experiences inform us. Information is knowledge.