Author Archives: A. M.

About A. M.

Teacher and Poet.

The Reality Distortion Field ?

Posted on by
1

There have been various discussions of Steve Jobs‘ “Reality Distortion Field”. Some might mean it indeed in the sense of distorting what is real. Others talk of Steve’s ability to convince one of things one did not actually believe.

But maybe – and then the name would not truly fit – it is about creating something better. For energy follows thought (cf. e.g. Mantak Chia’s advice for starting Tao Yoga), and when we live as if our vision was already manifest in the outer world, it shall be. (*)

But, actually, I believe in many cases at the very least, there was no distortion at all: Apple products simply a r e  great.

(*) We might get much more aware of that soon, I have heard yesterday in a conversation between Michelle Karen and Isbabel von Fallois on cultusanimiradio.de,  (Let us choose the optimum-vision only.).

For Steve Jobs

Posted on by
Reply

For and to Steve Jobs

You were a Light for us all on the Earth,
showing us, how to give, and to live
one bright idea – in the name of your soul
bringing more knowledge to us.

Though you have parted, we know you too well,
know that you cannot return,
but that your way shall be bright like a star
and the fires of Love, they shall burn.

“Do, what you must !” That shall be the word
that guides the youth to success.
Do, what you must ! – and that does mean – with Love;
Do, what you came to do here.

October 6th, after reading this article.

I would also like the opportunity to draw attention once more to this (for iTunes-Link click here) great speech which Steve Jobs held at Stanford.

All students at High School should hear it.

May Steve Jobs’ Soul find Enlightenment !
Love, Light and Peace !

Crystal Angel

Posted on by
Reply

When I saw this video, I wrote the following poem (in German, translation follows):

 

Engel aus Kristall,

leuchtest hell und klar und rein.

Kleiner Engel aus Kristall,

führst zur Wahrheit Du uns ein ?

 

Führst uns “nur” ins Liebeslicht,

doch die Liebe ist das Sein.

In dem Sein erkennst Du Dich,

ziehst zur Einheit dann Du ein.

 

(in English:

 

Angel made from purest crystal,

shining bright and clear,

little angel, made of crystal,

do you lead us truthful here ?

 

You are leading us to Love,

and that Love, it’s Being, still

you then realise your Self,

going to oneness yourself.)

 

Remark: The last word did not really “show up”, came more after thinking. The direct translation would be:

 

Angel made of crystal,

shining bright and clear and pure,

little angel made of crystal,

are you guiding us into Truth ?

 

You are “only” guiding us into Love’s Light,

but Love is Being.

In Being you realise yourself,

entering(*) unity then.

 

(*) moving into

Problems with Exposés

Posted on by
Reply

I just read this interview, where an author describes how, after an example of his writing, the publisher asked for an exposé. Especially when being a channel, the book is not the channel’s work – but the exposé may be. If, then, a publisher judges whether to publish the book without reading the entire book, but just the exposé, he will not really judge the right writer…

As many artists may channel to a certain extent (just a guess), but the exposé as a “condensation” of the novel may be written with their (own) “head” (mind), this might constitute a potential for misjudgement.

Judgement is not optimal anyway. May intuition rule with the lector, too !

The Question of Good and Evil – Do not have a concept

Posted on by
Reply

I have just listened to a very interesting statement by Patricia Cota Robles, while viewing the webcast of the opening ceremony of the 25th annual World Congress on Illumination [at the time of writing this, the webcast is still available here]: God said not to partake of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil, “because as long as we have no consciousness of poverty in our lives, we won’t manifest lack and limitation in the physical plane. As long as we have no concept of disease, or war, or hatred, or prejudice, we won’t be acting out from those belief-systems, and those thoughts, and feelings.”

Before, she had pointed out, that when we believe that God has the duality is good and evil, it is “the most counter-productive belief-system we can have”, because if we believe, that God created everything, including pain and suffering, then there would be some reason for this, and it would be God’s Will. As long as we believe in that duality,  we cannot experience the one without the other, abundance without poverty, health without disease, peace without war etc.

According to her, everything what comes from God is not less than infinite perfection. Everything that conflicts with that, causing pain and suffering, involving, pain, suffering is a result of our human miscreations. We have used our life-force, and “chosen through our free will to use our thoughts and feelings to create patterns that have reflected back as poverty concsiousness, as pain and suffering, and things, that we are experiencing”.

[Nevertheless, though, she sees a duality of God, a balance of the polarity of our Father and Mother God, outbreath, radiation and expansion of our Father God’s divine Power, and the inbreath, the cohesive silence, the going-within of our divine love-nature, our feminine polarity of God, our Mother God’s, seeing them as two aspects of our Father-Mother God.]

Already since Grammar School I have been thinking about the problem, and actually touched the problem in my doctorate thesis.

I would love to have a look into Yogananda’s The Second Coming of Christ, in this context, but did not have it at hand when writing this.

Master Goi once said, I think, something like (would have to search for the exact wording) that when someone sees darkness or something “bad”, it is due to the imperfection of his standpoint / view. Maybe one could say, he does not get the entire picture – this would remind of statements by Sandy Stevenson (if interested, her website is here).

[Unless I have used quotation marks, I have told what I have heard, in part, in my own words and might, also to contents, not have put it exactly as being said – but I hope to have shown the important points.]

Learning through Joy

Posted on by
Reply

I just heard the new talk (July 2011) of Eckhart Tolle, with Marianne Williamson as a guest, author of, int. al, the book “A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of  ‘A Course in Miracles‘”.

Quoting or referring to the Course in Miracles, she mentioned something, which actually, I noticed, I seem never, for my own “spiritual” life, to have considered: It is up to us, whether we learn through joy or through pain. While as a language teacher, I have always maintained that joy in learning was important, it seems that, as to the spiritual path, I had lost awareness, that we do not need to learn through pain, but that we can also learn through joy.

I hope that from now on my life will rather take that course, then the opposite – or, maybe better still, that of Peace. But, then, the Source should have been reached.

If anyone of my readers has an example of learning life lesson’s by joy, please post int he comments, if adequate. Thank you in advance !

Experiences with Google+

Posted on by
2

Google +, which had been expected as “Google Circles” or something similar already in March, may be the next successful Social Network. Thanks to an usually very helpful, well-informed mailinglist and a nice blogger, I am a member now.

Until now, I had been hesitant to have a public profile with Google (which you need for the service), but after realising you can control whether it will be shown in most search engines or not (including Google), and you can fine-tune which links will be shown to whom (be careful about the +1 in which connection, depending on how you want to “craft” your general profile on the net), I created one and was able to sign up for Google+.

It looks promising. [Update: Initially thought to be] designed by a former Mac software designer, the design is relatively clear and white, which I like. At a first glance, it appears to be a bit complicated, but opinions vary about that (I have never used Facebook, at the time of writing this, so I cannot really compare). I hope people will nevertheless consider it [if it is good for them].

You can group your contacts into “circles” (one contact into various circles is ok). A few circles are suggested (e.g. friends, family), but you can create others. Then, you can adjust with whom you would like to share what by tailoring it to the respective circles. You can also add people who are no member of Google+, they will receive the post by mail (and sort of get invited at the same time).

I have been hesitant for a long time to sign up with Facebook, simply because I felt doubtful about how they handle the privacy of my data. Whereas it may be a problem to give Google even more data than it would have otherwise, I found the way they handle cases in which data of you get online which should not be online, often helpful or ok. Also, they are aware of privacy issues, I think (You do have to have a look at them, though, in the settings of your account: It could be helpful, for example, to choose, that it should not be shown to the public when someone adds you to one of their circles, if you would like to avoid that; otherwise people may get the impression you are connected to someone else, with whom you would rather not, or not in a certain situation, appear to be connected.) – at least privacy in relationship to the public. If you say: Google should not have even more data, or if you say: they already know so much about me because of Gmail… that is your choice. I could easily argue against the latter (the real problem would begin in weighing privacy against getting more readers / sponsors / customers…), despite the sentence having resounded within my thoughts. Yet, for the moment, I find playing around with Google+ interesting. As always, of course, we need to be aware.