How Can you possibly Love Everything?

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

@SQAAD https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G-yhCO76xEU

I found that to be a very interesting interaction between personality dynamics. During the first part of the conversation, I think Abraham-Hicks did a good job at trying to acknowledge the man's perceptive and to try and show she understands it. It looked like she connected for a bit. She touched upon free will and "vibrational energies" which pointed to trans-personal and trans-human levels. I also thought she did a good job at diagnosing what is occurring in his personality dynamic.

Yet, I think she made a mistake in allowing the discussion to stay in the relative personal level and play by personal level rules. He was clearly immersed within a personality dynamic and through most of the conversation she played on that level. I think she should have stayed firm in the trans-personal realm and only dip into the personal realm to pull him up. My hunch is she has not fully transcended the personal level. She spoke as if she believed there is a person with free will making choices. Several times she said things to the effect of "just change the meaning of something". Instead of pain and suffering, let's just call it "variety" and we are good to go. She also said something like "ignorance is bliss if giving it a negative meaning causes discomfort".

To me, trying to play the "good" vs "evil" game on the relative personal level comes across as bizarre and distorted. Once you allow the assumption that there is a real person with free will that makes choices, it's game over on the relative personal playing field. That means murderers and rapists have free will and are choosing to do what they do freely. And the rest of us can just choose to call things like torture and rape as simply experiences of "variety" rather than pain and misery. In doing so, won't get upset about it anymore and can be happy. . . To me, this is really lame. A few times she touched upon the trans-personal level yet kept diving back down to the personal.

To me, I think it would have been much better to stay firmly grounded on the trans-personal level and address the illusory construct of the persona, lack of free will, the relativity of personal views (from a trans-personal meta view) and the absolute. I'm not sure why Abraham-Hicks didn't do that. I understand he was immersed in the personality, yet the only way to get through his dilemma, imo,  is to get up to the trans-personal level.

[Nahm]

@Serotoninluv I love your perspective on that also, but, I don’t think she’s seeing levels, realms, rules, will, or pain, I think she’s seeing the suffering of a real being who’s lost the way, because he doesn’t know he’s creating his own reality. When I would compare her to other teachers, I would always wonder, why is she just pretending there’s no ego there?! What gives!? What is this going straight to the sensations & creating thing?! This chick is crazy!

[Forestluv]

57 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Serotoninluv I love your perspective on that also, but, I don’t think she’s seeing levels, realms, rules, will, or pain, I think she’s seeing the suffering of a real being who’s lost the way, because he doesn’t know he’s creating his own reality. When I would compare her to other teachers, I would always wonder, why is she just pretending there’s no ego there?! What gives!? What is this going straight to the sensations & creating thing?! This chick is crazy!

I agree. I don't think she is oriented toward levels, realms etc. Yet she seemed very oriented toward will and choice imo. I can see her point that the man is suffering in his mind-body and I suppose there is value in using a theme that he is creating his own reality. Yet to me, this is misleading because it suggests there is a real "me" that is driving the car and can make choices. A few times she addressed vibrational energies that arise.

So, my question would be. . . why not go straight to the vibrational energy and sensations? Why not draw awareness to energy dynamics and sensations that arise? And draw awareness to how those sensations are interconnected to thought impulses and energy dynamics in the environment? Why introduce the illusory self into the mix and suggest the illusory self has illusory power to make illusory choices? To me, it seems misleading. The guy totally anchored into the whole idea of the self and it seemed like a distraction. I'm not sure why she diidn't just stick with vibrational energy, sensations and thought impulses.

[mandyjw]

@Serotoninluv Eckhart Tolle says that there are "doers" in the world and that there are "frequency holders", (think enlightened yogi in a cave) and most people have a mix of each. Neither is morally superior to the other. A 100% enlightened frequency holder can't teach, help others, contribute and create in the world. A 100% doer does things with no guidance whatsoever and intentionally or unintentionally harms people and the earth. You find that most spiritual teachings cater to or promote being more one or the other. Abraham Hicks speaks to doers. There is a lot more value to her work once you already know how to be, but her work has so much value because some people have such busy minds that they cannot/do not have any interest in being. She does give you materialistic incentives to be. At one time I thought that was evil but that was mostly because I also thought that being a frequency holder was much more morally superior than being a doer. Trying to force yourself into being when you have a drive and a purpose to fulfill doesn't help anyone. 

[Nahm]

@Serotoninluv Because what is ‘levels, realms, orientation, choice, mind body, themes, reality’, what is not  ‘levels, realms, orientation, choice, mind body, themes, reality’ ? What is ‘real me’, what is ‘not real me’, what is  ‘making choices’, what is not ‘not making choices’, what is  ‘illusory’, what is not ‘not illusory’, what is ‘misleading’, what is  ‘not misleading’, what is ‘idea of the self’, what is not ‘idea of no self’, what is ‘to me it seems’, what is not ‘no me’, what is ‘distraction’, what is not ‘not distraction’, what is ‘vibrational energy sensations thought impulses’, what is ‘not vibrational energy sensations thought impulses’...? What’s the ‘theme’ of this paragragh? 

[Forestluv]

@Nahm To me, this seems like a lesson in relativity and absence of meaning. What I don’t understand is her insistence that there is a *you* that can create reality. She seems to be using “you” in the traditional illusory context. That there is some thing called “you” in the mind that is running the show and just needs to make better choices for the mind-body to feel better. In some contexts I think this can be helpful, like telling children there is a Santa Claus can make them feel better. Yet in the context of the video, I think a large part of his inner turmoil was attachment and identification to an illusory “you” and she fed that delusion by telling him things like “you” create reality. 

Even if we alow this assumption of a “you” that is in control, I think she gave a conflicting message. She would say things like “Yes, these are horrible, unspeaking acts - noone is arguing with you there”. Then she would say something to the effect of “Rather than believing that the child being beaten is suffering, just believe that the beaten child is experiencing variety and you will feel better”. To me, she is giving meaning by saying the acts are horrific and then pivots and says just think that the acts I just agreed are horrific are “variety”. I think this caused confusion within the exchange. Within her free choice message, I think it would have been better to say “you can see the acts as horrific or you can see them as variety. It’s your choice. You create your own reality”. 

[MyKensho]

@SQAAD You need not to try to convince your "self" that a given shitty situation should be acceptable because spirituality says so. Lol you can apply more focus to the thoughts that are struggling to find this elusive acceptance, and ask simply who is doing the speaking. For example, "wait wait wait, who is even at the center of this mental debate?"

[Forestluv]

@mandyjw That’s an interesting view regarding frequency holders and doers. I’ve never thought of it like that before.

Along these lines, I think Abraham Hicks introduces a “chooser” into the mix. I think if she stayed within the frequency and doer framework it would have been clearer. To me, adding in a chooser muddied the waters.

Also, I think there is value in honoring and experiencing emotion. The guy was experiencing deep pain for those that are suffering. I think there is a balance between experiencing that emotion as part of the human experience without labeling it as something “wrong” and also being open to becoming more aware what is occurring in one’s mind and growth that can arise from it. To me, Hicks was often balance and there was an underlying theme his emotions and perspective needed fixing. To me, Hicks had a well-intentioned subtle agenda to steer him toward a new perspective that she believes would be beneficial to him. I prefer an atmosphere that is based more on curiosity, exploration and discovery.

[SQAAD]

@Nahm I watched it.

Great content but i am skeptical about the law of attraction. I tend more to agree w/ the pont of view of the man wearing the red hat.

Edited March 28, 2019 by SQAAD

[Nahm]

26 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

To me, this seems like a lesson in relativity and absence of meaning

What’s different about these?

[Nahm]

3 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

@Nahm I watched it.

Great content but i am skeptical about the law of attraction. I tend more to agree w/ the pont of view of the man wearing the red hat.

How’s that workin out?

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Nahm said:

What’s different about these?

I would say relativity is absent in absence. Relative meaning arises from absence.

 

[SQAAD]

@Nahm Not particularly good at the momemnt 

But how can you create you own reality when you have no free will?

You just gotta endure this shitty life (from my poin of view) until its all over. Well i hope it's all over after a period of time. I don't know. 

[Nahm]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I would say relativity is absent in absence. Relative meaning arises from absence.

Is that a difference?

[mandyjw]

@SQAAD Having no free will is just another half truth because it's part of a paradox. The other part of the paradox that is true is that this world is here all for you, just for you and you have the power to make it be anything you want. 

[Nahm]

6 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

@Nahm Not particularly good at the momemnt 

But how can you create you own reality when you have no free will?

You just gotta endure this shitty life (from my poin of view) until its all over. Well i hope it's all over after a period of time. I don't know. 

How did you discover you have no free will? What was that like? Gimmy like two minutes before you answer,  to make some popcorn. Story time snuck up on me today. ??

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Is that a difference?

The term traglotive was absent a minute ago before I made it up. Relative meaning can now be assigned to it. It will have various meanings relative to different people, frogs, birds etc. . . 

 

[Nahm]

@Serotoninluv Oh ok. Gotcha. Makes sense now.  Love ya!

[SQAAD]

@Nahm For a period of 6 months "i" observed my thoughts, actions and emotions very deliberately. And i came to the conclusion that i don't control my thoughts/ actions etc. 

They just appear in my consciousness. So "i" just have to endure them and make the best choices possible. But these choices are  just illusions to make you feel better. Because noone wants to feel like they don't control their lifes.

Edited March 28, 2019 by SQAAD

[Forestluv]

@Nahm I would say absence is prior to relative. But yea, we could remove that distinction if we wanted to. I find it helpful in distingishing relative/absolute, dual/nondual. Yet those can be integrated. 

In the video, there is absence if meaning. The man added in relative meaning “horrific”. Hicks added in relative meaning “variety”. And in this post I am adding in relative meaning. The dog across the street looking at me type this adds in different relative meaning. My main issue with Hicks is the addition of a “chooser” that is choosing the meaning. Yet of course this is more meaning my mind-body is adding. . .