|
Post by Angeleyes on May 7, 2007 12:44:20 GMT 1
Hi everyone, I was horrified when I first read Martins's explanation of near sightedness. I had chosen to believe from an early age that other people didn't see that I was important so Martin's theory made no sense to me. However I reckoned he was the one with the normal vision so I'd be willing to try looking at it from his point of view (even though he was wrong and I was right!). Then my aha! hit me, because I viewed that others didn't notice me or how I was as important and relevant as they and even maybe a little bit more than them I would have to make them see. I could always contribute to every conversation, point out my view and when they gave their view again point out mine in a subltle way which I thought let them know that I was right. I finished sentences for them and cut in before they got to finish what they wanted to say and say my piece so that they could be sure that I was in fact so right. And I wanted to make sure they noticed me. Then I'd apologise and ask what they wanted to say all the time believing that what they had to say wasn't as important or right as what I had to say. I cringe now when I write this and know I thought (or chose to think) at the time I was doing this for their higher good. I still find it a struggle not to interrupt others and to listen to their viewpoint which is important to them and to realise it doesn't have to be the same viewpoint as mine but that it is of equal importance and just as right as mine. I get irritated when others try to shove their viewpoint down my throat and yet I see this was what I did also. My new task for myself is to listen, listen, listen. Alice
|
|
|
Post by Maria on May 7, 2007 13:33:11 GMT 1
Very insightful Alice. It amazes me how often I have my own agenda while outwardly trying to be a good listener, support, etc. To just be there in a state of non-judgement is a skill it's taking me a little while to learn Peace, Maria
|
|
|
Post by Spirit Girl on May 8, 2007 21:27:09 GMT 1
>And how would you explain the fact that myopia is on the increase? Are people generally becoming more "me" orientated, more ego-centric and self-centered? >>More insecure - more fearful. ***** I feel the need to distinguish between being ego-centric and self love. Being ego-centric is based on fear. If we love ourselves truly then we would feel secure no matter who loves or does not love us. Even some parents cannot love their children unconditionally. I guess the flip side of self love is that others will love us to the extent we love ourselves. Just some thoughts SG
|
|
|
Post by Andrew99 on May 13, 2007 7:43:08 GMT 1
***** I feel the need to distinguish between being ego-centric and self love. Being ego-centric is based on fear. If we love ourselves truly then we would feel secure no matter who loves or does not love us. Even some parents cannot love their children unconditionally. I guess the flip side of self love is that others will love us to the extent we love ourselves. This whole area of love is something that confuses me. On the one hand i think i know what love feels like, but on the other hand i see other peoples views on love and what they seem to expect from love. Some obervations: It is said that a person is easy to love from a distance So it seems it is said we love everyone.....but some people are harder to love So then we come to unconditional love......what is that? So you say to a child i love you.....but your own parental behaviour which the child receives, implies that some behaviours are more loveable than other behaviours. Some get approved of and some are ignored for example. As adults we find that some people want attention from us and we are busy......we stop what we are doing and we give them the attention they want as best we can........later we find we want to interact with this person and we approach them and desire their attention, and we find we cannot get their attention.......this person is harder to love. They make demands upon us but they dont allow us to demand things from them. In this kind of view, love depends on the "hug/stroke equation balancing out Unconditional love? Really? Seems to me that love feels good or it does not. Then again not reacting to no love and instead being respectful and patient can allow love to build and create the love we want. It seems to me that some people are so loveable that no matter what they do we can overlook their failings because in this case the stroke bucket if overflowing with strokes and we have more strokes to give back to them. I see a cultural problem where people believe the can be unconditionally loved "Words that imply responsibility or accountability — self-criticism, self-denial, self-discipline, self-control, self-effacement, self-mastery, self-reproach, and self-sacrifice — are no longer in fashion. The language most in favor is that which exalts the self — self-expression, self-assertion, self-indulgence, self-realization, self-approval, self-acceptance, self-love, and the ubiquitous self-esteem.", I also see a cultural problem that people believe regardless of thier own behaviour that there life is going to dramatically change once they have met the right person for them. Now it is probably true that somewhere out there in the universe there are people with whom we get along with much better than others in the universe. And it is true i believe that only by being ourselves that we can be visible to another so that they can be attracted to ourself as we are. Then again we are all growing and learning to become better and better at being ourselves. In my view at the moment people confuse the romantic hollywood notion of love and the idea that unconditional love is really possible as the best form of love with a more mature form of love that recognises that "I" is not the most important part of the equation and that "you" is equally important. But for this to work "you" has to have a similar appreciation of "I" over the longer term. And of course the person who goes around beating them up to be a better person gets nowhere but depression and anxiety.........but the person who is listening to the reaction of others to their loveability does have an opportunity to respond to that and become more "unconditionally" loved. Just some more thoughts to be thrown into the mix!
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 15, 2007 7:05:57 GMT 1
There is a distinction between love and the way it is expressed - and sometimes the way love is expressed is understood on the other end as love being withdrawn.
It is also important to realize that there are some vibrations with which we are in accord, and others with which we are not - but that is a separate issue from the idea of universal or unconditional love.
An intereting question to ask yourself would be: If this other person came to me for a healing, and knowing that in order to do that I would have to see this person with unconditional love, would I like to have the willingness to say "Yes?"
Would I like to be able to say, "Yes?"
|
|
|
Post by Andrew99 on May 15, 2007 8:03:45 GMT 1
There is a distinction between love and the way it is expressed - and sometimes the way love is expressed is understood on the other end as love being withdrawn. It is also important to realize that there are some vibrations with which we are in accord, and others with which we are not - but that is a separate issue from the idea of universal or unconditional love. An interesting question to ask yourself would be: If this other person came to me for a healing, and knowing that in order to do that I would have to see this person with unconditional love, would I like to have the willingness to say "Yes?" Would I like to be able to say, "Yes?" Things seem to be making more and more sense for me. It is only a perception but it seems to be making more sense. It seems that to have unconditional love you have to have a kind of God consciousness so that you have an ability to tap into Universal truth If you know Universal truth then you know that whatever perceptions you have of people not loving you, then you know these are only distortions of their immediate area of the universe. Each person is only creating their own good reality for them or their own bad reality for them If our vibrations are good and anothers good we feel good vibrations or harmonisation and when ours our good/bad and theres are good/bad or *opposite* we can feel bad vibrations or bad resonance. So i wonder about different people having different vibrations being unrelated to the perception of unconditional love. I tend to believe still in Universal truth. I dont believe yet in different Universes having different truths. If that is true then a powerful person who is out of alignment with the Universe can distort my sub area of the Universe if I have not yet learned to prevent that from happening or i imagine they have that power over me. Similarly i can distort their sub area of the Universe with either my Universal truth or my own out of alignment if they let me do this. So that kind of reinforces the idea that lack of love or loving unconditionally only happens when the one "giving" the love is in some way out of alignment, because otherwise the love would just flow anyway and we would not need a conscious choice to love the other person But even Jesus entered the temple and ejected the money lenders, but i think it important to see that Jesus was in reaction and was not following the principals of his own teaching My 2 cents here:-)
|
|
|
Post by andrew99 on May 15, 2007 8:21:10 GMT 1
Perhaps its making more sense already.....
If I am vibrating at Universal truth frequency and another person vibrating at some other frequency is near me......there may be lack of harmony and yet i carry on vibrating at exactly my own frequency. I dont change at all and nor do i attempt to change them and that is my expression of love to them. My presence in no way alters them other than the effect the disharmony has upon them. If they can see that and learn from it then they can retune to Universal truth frequency. The disharmony has no effect upon me at all because i know i am connected to Universal truth.
Looking at it another way it becomes a war of the belief system with each believing they are right and something to fight and die for.
But rightness here is decided by the realness of the person who is not in reaction. So the "reactionometer" reveals Universal Truth bit by bit and brings us back to alignment
I like the good dog and bad dog analogy here where the good dog only exclaims their pain and hurt when they are trod on compared to the bad dog who attacks or acts dangerously.
Another few cents worth!
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 15, 2007 11:59:41 GMT 1
"It seems that to have unconditional love you have to have a kind of God consciousness so that you have an ability to tap into Universal truth"
No - because if you believe that, then you believe that if you are not yet experiencing God consciousness, you are not capable of unconditional love - and that is not true. Anyone can experience love without conditions. They just need to release old ideas of what they thought love is.
...and it's not about good guys and bad guys - it's about individual sensitivities, and what some people do to express love, others experience as love being taken away. For example, for a monogamy-minded person, non-monogamy looks like a violation of love - while for a non-monogamous person, someone else deciding (as an expression of love) what they should do with their body looks like a violation of their freedom, and therefore something quite different than love.
Those who are aligned with your intentions are seen as good, and those whose intentions are contrary to yours are seen as evil - they see themselves as right and you as wrong, even while you see yourself as right and they who are wrong - but if they came to you for a healing, you would not be right in imposing your own values or morals, but simply seeing inside them in terms of what is in balance and what is not - and you would then be seeing them from a clear space in which you would be accepting them as they are.
Acceptance is love,m and everyone is capable of it at any time.
|
|
|
Post by Maria on May 15, 2007 13:52:36 GMT 1
ok, throwing my 2 cents in now Agreed that in a situation like healing, acceptance is love, and everyone is capable of it at any time. And fairly easy to do when someone comes to you for assistance....healing, advice, whatever. It kind of puts you in the driver's seat, doesn't it? Easy to love someone who puts faith in you. A bit more difficult if you live with that person, or otherwise interact with them all the time. As humans, we tend to have expectations of other humans, which can cause conflict. If love truly is acceptance, then it must include meeting another where they are, which precludes expectations and wanting to change them. Peace, Maria
|
|
|
Post by Andrew99 on May 15, 2007 15:01:37 GMT 1
Acceptance is love,m and everyone is capable of it at any time. I already agree that acceptance is love. The issue here though is that there are different levels of acceptance.....from tolerance to what can be called loving acceptance. When a person has 'morals and values' then they have made a judgement about what is good and what is evil. The word 'evil' applied to another human being suggests to me an intolerance of human fraility and a propensity towards judgemental and none loving behaviour. On the other hand if it is not Universally true it is Evil by definition perhaps. Unconditional love to me seems like the following: A sinner is caught in the act and a crowd gathers to throw stones....a wise man observing what has happened then comes between the crowd and the sinner and says is it not true that we are all sinners and all capable of wrong thought? Truelly if there are any here who are without sin then let them be the first to cast a stone. He then helps the sinner to their feet and takes them to a place of safety and comforts them till they are able to reflect on their experiences and be wiser for the events But even so, a judgement was made that this was a sin and therefore our level of acceptance of sin is different to our level of acceptance of no sin. We can easily forgive those who sin and dont keep sinning and therefore they are more easily loved. To some degree this becomes a power and control trip, providing people grow and change then we can find it easier to accept them but when they resist us we dont accept them so easily I think this more or less describes all humans.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 15, 2007 16:51:30 GMT 1
Hi, Maria,
If you live with someone and find it difficult to love them, you have issues that need to be looked at and resolved. If you can accept a stranger with no expectations, you can certainly do it with a member of your family - or look at the possibility of no longer living with them.
I read in your post that it is easier for you when they acknowledge that you are the one in control. Otherwise,k when you have expectation, you are in your solar plexus chakra, and not in your heart.
Andrew - seeing another as yourself raises your consciousness from the solar plexus to the heart chakra, and perceptions of compassion, leading to acceptance.
Tolerance is not acceptance. Total acceptance takes one far beyond tolerance.
"But even so, a judgment was made that this was a sin and therefore our level of acceptance of sin is different to our level of acceptance of no sin. We can easily forgive those who sin and dont keep sinning and therefore they are more easily loved."
In fact, you can love those who you perceive as sinners - understanding that others may not be perceiving them in the same way.
Can you love someone who is an adulterer?
...or a soldier, who is (in the final analysis) a killer?
Can you love someone who does not respect their parents?
...or a thief?
...without wishing they would change, but rather just seeing them as having their own "good reasons" for doing what they do, even though their reasons may not make the same sense to you?
"To some degree this becomes a power and control trip, providing people grow and change then we can find it easier to accept them but when they resist us we dont accept them so easily"
As you describe it and see it, yes, this looks like a power and control trip.
"I think this more or less describes all humans."
Not all, Andrew.
Thinking like that gives you reasons to believe that you are not capable of releasing yourself from a power and control trip and experiencing true acceptance, and that is not true.
Anyone can move their perceptions to their heart chakra.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew99 on May 15, 2007 18:07:00 GMT 1
seeing another as yourself raises your consciousness from the solar plexus to the heart chakra, and perceptions of compassion, leading to acceptance. This is probably the key for me......as i said before the "reactionometer" reveals to me when i am not doing this Tolerance is not acceptance. Total acceptance takes one far beyond tolerance. Agreed. This is what i was saying:-) Reluctant tolerance and yet obvious/subtle annoyance. The message to a child is obvious. Another way of seeing this is that a parent lives a role of unconditional love 'giver' and yet the child sees the truth. It would be easier if there was no role and the child had a wysiwyg experience. Can you love someone who is an adulterer? ...or a soldier, who is (in the final analysis) a killer? Can you love someone who does not respect their parents? ...or a thief? I find this easy to do.....*if* i am not being killed or thieved from or cheated upon! ...without wishing they would change, but rather just seeing them as having their own "good reasons" for doing what they do, even though their reasons may not make the same sense to you? If there reasons did not make sense to me if i placed myself in their position with their life experience then it would be much harder for me to be accepting of their behaviour. And here i dont see myself as so different from most people. We make sense of the universe based on what we understand, and feel secure with people if we can understand them sufficiently and can predict their behaviour up to a certain point.....for example if a guy comes at me head on and smashes into my car and is laughthing i would not feel very loving until i could figure out what on earth was going thru his mind.........drugs? or what! "I think this more or less describes all humans." Not all, Andrew. I said more or less......by that i meant that not all humans were like this.....but most were - Only exceptional humans are not like this. Thinking like that gives you reasons to believe that you are not capable of releasing yourself from a power and control trip and experiencing true acceptance, and that is not true. From my point of view you have been misunderstanding some parts of what i have been saying here. Yes, i have been in a reaction to that but "for the record" i have answered the points. Anyone can move their perceptions to their heart chakra. Easier said than done in the real world, but something for us to strive for i agree. I appreciate the dialogue and the board. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit Girl on May 15, 2007 21:28:23 GMT 1
Hello everyone Wouldn't the solar plexus/root chakra issues by their very nature be the opposite of acceptance? In other words I cannot accept what is because it creates/triggers anxiety/fear in me so I try to control the situation or person. And mostly I am trying to control the future result. So once we clear our solar plexus/root chakra issues - it will be easier to move into acceptance. I know that I can accept people at a distance but if they are staying with me then either I get annoyed or anxious after a short while and wish to be rid of them SG
|
|
|
Post by andrew99 on May 16, 2007 7:02:14 GMT 1
And mostly I am trying to control the future result. ......snip....I know that I can accept people at a distance but if they are staying with me then either I get annoyed or anxious after a short while and wish to be rid of them Perhaps you might be controlling the present because you fear the future based on past perceptions of reality? And so when you spend time with people an anxiety builds. Your past perceptions create the belief that the past will be repeated......and when this acts in an unconscious manner you find reasons to avoid repeating the past without seeing clearly that now you are free to make new decisions that balance what you want with the needs of others so that you build relationship rather than encourage isolation to avoid the pain of the past:-)
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 16, 2007 8:40:36 GMT 1
"Reluctant tolerance and yet obvious/subtle annoyance. The message to a child is obvious. Another way of seeing this is that a parent lives a role of unconditional love 'giver' and yet the child sees the truth. It would be easier if there was no role and the child had a wysiwyg experience."
Sounds like this might come from your experience - but it may not be the way that most parents relate to their children. It was not like that for me, nor in my relationship with my own children.
...and some people are easier to love at a distance - particularly when we feel threatened in some way by their way of being, or if it touches our sensitivities.
"Only exceptional humans are not like this."
When you say this, it means that only people who consider themselves exceptional can think of themselves as capable of unconditional love - and this is where we differ in our opinions. I believe that it does not have to be something "exceptional." It could be the person's new "normal."
...and it is not a difficult thing "in the real world" for people to move their perceptions from their solar plexus chakra to their heart chakra - I see it happening in every class that I teach. It is just a question of how to do it, and not considering it extraordinary - and then just doing it.
Because the solar plexus is associated with the mental body, this also means that people who have been accustomed to a very mental way of being with which they have identified would have to have the willingness to release this during those times they wish to experience heart chakra perceptions.
|
|