How Can you possibly Love Everything?

[Nahm]

Just now, SQAAD said:

@Nahm For a period of 6 months "i" observed my thoughts, actions and emotions very deliberetely. 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 an illusion.

Thoughts are fleeting and powerless.  Sensations are what you are foolishly “enduring”. I love you, that is why I say “foolishly”, to get your attention, to get you to wake up and realize you don’t have to “endure” anything. 

[SQAAD]

@Nahm That did help a lil bit . Thank you. 

Well "i" have to endure this big old fat ego that i have "in my head". Until i purify it somehow. This ego-mind is constantly anxious and obsessed about its survival. 

[MyKensho]

5 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. 

@SQAAD Try this for a second, entertain the notion that you absolutely are creating your own reality. From your personal point of view this is impossible because things aren't going your way, but this is precisely the dilemma enveloping all of spirituality. This "you" that can't seem to catch a break and that is struggling is still 100% part of the creation. Can you guess who the creator is and was the whole time? That's right, it's you. You as the absolute. 

Ego you is designed to cherry pick experiences that you as God has laid out for itself. As Leo and others have so eloquently said in the past, this is so God can experience itself from every conceivable point of view and beyond.

 

 

[Nahm]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

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

(Sorry, thought you had it there, now it just looks sarcastic ??)....

 

What is “absence”?

Who is “absence”? 

What was it like when you directly experienced “absence”?     Where were you while you weren’t there, experiencing, “absence”? 

 

“I would say absence is prior to relative”

“Prior to” - is that linguistic? Or do you really mean separate from? Is “prior to” really a separation?  Is there a process to which this ‘relative’ “arises” “from” this “absence”?  How much time passes during this process? How does that process “work”?       

Who loves this distinction, “prior to”?    But, more importantly, who Loves, vulnerably, openly, unconditionally, wildly - without distinctions?

Who is that, or, is that “absence”? 

(Not for one minute, if you’re asking me)

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I find it helpful in distingishing relative/absolute, dual/nondual. Yet those can be integrated

 

Probably to a scientist, they can “be integrated”. But, only because the scientist first separates them in his thinking. By separating himself from reality, there can be this “absence”, there can be this “distinction”, and therefore than can be this “integration”. 

A mystic though...ohhhhhhhh ohh ohh ohh ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Magic. 

The mystic is not separable from anything, he is the magic itself. 

[Nahm]

27 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

In the video, there is absence if meaning. The man added in relative meaning “horrific”.

Ya? Did he “add it in” ?    Into what? 

I hear a man stuck in a perspective which is causing his suffering....

And a woman saying something like...”that is one perspective, and yet, there are other perspectives....here’s one which could help you do something about that suffering, cause you’re useless that suffering.”

Hicks added in relative meaning “variety”.

What did she “add relative meaning into”?   (Not sure what you mean by that.) 

And in this post I am adding in relative meaning.

I’m not trying to say you’re lying, not at all  - but I don’t see this “relative meaning” you are adding, nor do I understand what you are saying you are “adding it to”.

The dog across the street looking at me type this adds in different relative meaning.        ?

Wow! Powerful dog! Where can I get one of those? Wait, nevermind. Not sure that’d be good for me. Who knows what relative meaning dogs might assert. 

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. . . 

Who would you be, without a “main issue”?   You could have 99 “main issues”, but I can gauruntee you, Love ain’t one. 

 

[Forestluv]

@Nahm I think we may be using the terms “add” and “meaning” differently. 

Perhaps the terms “arises” and “impulse” would be better in this context.

As well, the terms “absence” and “prior to” are not quite accurate, yet I don’t know better terms. By absence, the term “Mu” or “null void” may be better suited. And of course terms like “arises” and “prior to” use a framework of a timeline. Yet, a timeline can be useful to understand distinctions, ime. 

I like to be fluid with distinctions and flow back and forth between high distinction and low distinction as appropriate for context of discussion, yet at times it can be difficult to communicate that. It is a skill I’m still working on. The comment on distinctions wasn’t sarcastic. It would be the same as saying I’m happy looking at Chicago from a national map of the U.S. or a city map of Chicago. They both have value depending on context.

I think at times one person may say “Let’s speak English” and then starts speaking in Spanish. I think Hicks did some of that and it caused confusion. She starts off agreeing with the man that “these are horrific, unspeakable acts”. She goes further and says “everyone agrees with that”. She is assigning universal objective morality. The acts are horrific and every agrees. She then pivots and goes off into a rift of relativism in which “each of us creates our own reality”. At the end she goes back to universal objectivism. Each time he said the acts were horrific, she firmly corrected him that they are actually “variety”. Yet now her universal objective position differs and contradicts her original one. 

I imagine a child that is upset because his friends told him there is no Santa Claus that brings toys. His Mom clearly tells him there is a real Santa Claus that brings toys and that everyone agrees with that. There is no question about that. She then goes on saying that we create our own versions of Santa Claus and toys - and depending on what we create we can be happy or sad. This would cause confusion. Then the Mother says there actually is a real Santa Claus that brings dental floss. The child is confused and says Santa Claus brings toys. The Mother corrects him and says, "no, Santa Claus brings dental floss". There would be a lot of confusion and upset in the child.

I'm not surprised at all the guy became more confused and upset during the conversation. I think there are nuggets of value within what she said, yet overall it was delivered awkwardly with some internal contradictions. 

That’s just my take tho. I can see how it can be interpreted differently.

[Nahm]

Serotoninluv:   “Come up to meet You, tell You I'm sorry You don't know how lovely You are. I had to find You, to tell You I need You, to tell You I set     You apart.”

Abraham:          “Tell me your ‘secrets’, and ask me your ‘questions’! - Oh (♥️), let's go back to the start - you’re running in circles & coming up tails, while  heads are only “a science”  ‘apart’.”

Serotoninluv:    “Nobody said it was easy, It's such a shame for us to ‘part’, nobody said it was easy.”
Abraham:          “No one ever said it should be this hard.”

Serotoninluv:    “Oh (♥️), take me back to the start (♥️). I was just guessing, at numbers and figures, pulling the puzzles apart.”
Abraham:          “Questions of science, of science and ‘progress’, do not speak as loud as my heart.”

Serotoninluv:    “Tell me you love me, come back and haunt me! Oh (♥️) and I’ll rush to the start!”

(Running in circles. Chasing our tails. ‘Coming back’ as we are.)

Abraham:          “Nobody said it was easy.”

Serotoninluv:   “Oh(♥️), it's such a shame for us to ‘part’!”
Abraham:         “Nobody said it was easy.”
Serotoninluv:   “No one ever said it should be so hard!”

Serotoninluv:    “I'm going back to the start (♥️)”

” @Serotoninluv “

[Forestluv]

@Nahm That is one interpretation of a dynamic. I sense a different dynamic. What I sense is that Abraham was unable to emphatically connect and understand the underlying emotional dynamic in the man. This was a main cause of the confusion, tension and separation that arose in the man. I think she overemphasized intellect and tried to use emotion, yet due to an inability to connect through empathetic channels she did not connect to the emotional frequency of the man.

When I watch the video, I can feel both Abraham and the man and enter an empathetic channel with each. To me, they are on different channels. Talking about emotions is nowhere near empathetic channels of emotional connectivity.

[Nahm]

@Serotoninluv She’s aware she’s creating her own reality. She’s aware he is creating his own reality.  Why would she want to ‘connect through empathetic channels’ with a man who is creating a nightmare and relishing in the misery of it, when she can love him and offer her perspective of Truth?

I agree, they are definitly on ‘different channels’. He has no idea he is creating his reality. Why else would he be lost in stories about things he never experienced, while she is present, creating? 

11 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Talking about emotions is nowhere near empathetic channels of emotional connectivity.

What is talking about emotions then, from your perspective? 

[Nahm]

@Serotoninluv Sorry if that was too personal of a question. 

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Serotoninluv She’s aware she’s creating her own reality. She’s aware he is creating his own reality.  Why would she want to ‘connect through empathetic channels’ with a man who is creating a nightmare and relishing in the misery of it, when she can love him and offer her perspective of Truth?

I agree, they are definitly on ‘different channels’. He has no idea he is creating his reality. Why else would he be lost in stories about things he never experienced, while she is present, creating? 

What is talking about emotions then, from your perspective? 

 

4 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Serotoninluv Sorry if that was too personal of a question. 

Oh not too personal at all. I love exploring this stuff. I have a habit of over-sharing. lol

This is just my experience and sense of the video. For me, it was extremely strong in empathetic, emotional and intuitive modes. These modes dominated my experience and I was only functioning at about 20% intellectual. I had some difficulty following the intellectual line at times because my other systems were on full blast. These impressions aren't intellectual. As I watched the video, I wasn't analyzing the exchange. There was just a sense, a type of knowing, a connection. It wasn't until afterward that I tried to convert those other languages into verbal intellect. About 90% of language is nonverbal and energetic. Sometimes I pick up more of it, sometimes less. The below may seems analytical, yet I wasn't thinking this stuff at the time.

Right out of the gate, my empathetic system got turned on big time. Insecurity, anxiety and vulnerability was intense. I connected with it and "felt" it. I know this dynamic well from my own direct experience and working with many students with this dynamic. Ime, there are special skills to work well with it. It is like threading a needle with little margin of error. . . I could just tell, yet in terms of it's expression . .  it was his body language, his hat, his eyes, looking down, how he first started talking, his hesitation. He did not want to be on camera and be seen. I "knew" right away that the primary dynamic in this moment is insecurity and vulnerability. Whatever the other "issue" was was secondary. There is no way to channel to the secondary issue without first connecting to the primary issue. Even if the only output was loving him within his primary issue that would be a "success", imo. Trying to bypass the primary issue and hit the secondary issue isn't going to work, it will be counter-productive and can cause harm, such as a micro-trauma.

Right away, there was an uneasiness with the interaction. I think she sensed his uneasiness, yet did not empathetically connect with him at all. Once the empathetic system is activated, it communicates with the intuitive. Ime, if the empathetic system becomes to strong it is overwhelming and interferes with communication. I literally start to lose consciousness of who I am and who he is and whose experience is whose. Yet at a moderate empathetic level, there can be powerful communication with intuition and just knowing and acting, without thinking. He was in an extremely vulnerable position. There is a delicateness about it. It is like revealing a glass sculpture of yourself. I have experienced this many times and I felt that guy big time. The other person needs to handle that glass sculpture with a delicate love and appreciation - without "trying". It has to be genuine and that comes from one's own direct experience with it. I know how it feels when someone handles that glass sculpture of me roughly and I know how it feels when someone drops that glass structure. As soon as there is a hint of that happening, that glass sculpture goes straight back into the safe and defense mechanisms arise - different emotions such anger, frustration, avoidance arise and the intellect fires up. That's exactly what happened in this scenario. Once that glass sculpture gets threatened and put back in the safe, it aint coming back out. 

She could sense his discomfort yet was not emphatically and intuitively connected. A lot of this was her mannerisms and vibe. She called him up and pretty much directed him to take a seat. He hesitated and wanted to back out. He mentioned the camera. She insisted he come forward and take a seat. The camera issue was a big deal in his vulnerable space and she nonchalantly motioned the camera crew to stay off his face, then again told him to sit down. This made me cringe. You just don't shut the door on someone in this vulnerable space. You can encourage them to enter, yet they need to enter own their own choice and you have to leave a door open. There is a manner of being in which you extend love and let them know you love them whether they can come forward or not and you let them know they are allowed to leave the space whenever they want and you will love them no matter what. She just didn't do this. It was business as usual as she gave him instructions and nonchalantly instructed the camera crew. It was her body language, the subtle sighs, her eyes. Yet I also could emphatically feel her. I also know that dynamic. Students come to my office all the time. I advise students all day. Sometimes I get behind on time. Empathetic communication is extremely energetic draining. I know how it feels when I have to "try" to connect. When I have to put effort into it and it just isn't flowing naturally. I also know the dynamic of doing it all day with an audience in the background. It's really hard to do, especially for extended periods. I sensed that in Abraham. Sometimes it's just not "there". 

There was a sense of "Ok, next person take a seat. Oh you are uncomfortable and don't like cameras? Camera crew stay off his face. C'mon up. C'mon sit right there in the chair." She just wasn't in touch with the primary issue of insecurity and vulnerablity. He was totally exposed and reaching out to be loved". She made an attempt to emotionally connect by talking about how the emotional response to seeing others in pain. Yet that is the secondary issue. She connected with the primary issue when she told him she can sense he is a "deep feeler, much deeper than most people". The energetic dynamic changed and a channel could have been established. His demeanor changed and said "Yes, yes that's it" a few times. But it was still a weak connection. . . I knew right there if she said "BUUUUT. . . " and pivots it's game over and the glass statue is back in the safe. That glass stature is deep I Amness. Deep personal existence and it is extremely vulnerable here. And this was attached to his secondary issue of the external suffering. Any hint that that experience is "wrong", "invalid", is "unworthy" etc. is an indirect threat to the vulnerable glass statue and one needs to secure that safety first. Not through strategy or techniques. Though communicating nonverbally that I love you for you. Whatever arises you are loved in this moment. Whether you feel or think doesn't matter. I will love you know matter what. This doesn't come through the intellect. It can flow through words. Yet it can also come through gentle loving eye contact, facial expression and a gentle smile. She established weak emotional connection with very little empathetic connection and as soon as she said BUUUUUT, and pivoted to a different viewpoint, I knew it was over. That glass statue went back in the safe, defense mechanism went up and she no longer had a chance to establish connection to the primary issue. Regardless of her intention, the impact was she essentially threatened his primary issue. 

And it went all down hill from there. She was overemphasizing the secondary issue and never formed any connection. She talked over him, corrected him and at one point looked over him and asked the audience if they are ok if they go on talking more. She had no human connection with him and even talked over him to ask everyone else if this taking too much and if they are still interested. This re-enforces the whole protective energy of the man. Again, it's easy for me to sit here and critique her. I know how hard it is to do in real-time especially when tired and in front of an audience. Sometimes it's just not there and I've been disconnected many times within a similar dynamic. Yet, these types of things prevent the empathetic channel.

The last thing I want to mention was about her vibrational energies / frequencies message. Without an actual vibrational energetic connection with the man in that moment, this message comes across as abstract ideas "out there". She spoke of vibrational frequencies, yet was not in tune with the actual vibrational frequencies between her and the man in that precise moment. If there was an energetic connection they were both experiencing in that moment, the message would have been incredibly powerful. You can feel it through eyes and faces. Both people have to let their guard down and be open to it. It's extremely intimate and vulnerable. If one person tries to force it, it comes across as creepy and threatening to the guarded person. Yet she was not in tune with their energetic dynamics in the moment and he became closed down and could not receive. I think she became overly concerned about helping someone through a secondary dynamic to a place she thought would be beneficial to him. I find it much better to first connect and get in tune with what is happening between us in this moment right now. In a vulnerability dynamic, I also think its important express unconditional love in that moment regardless of whatever that person believes or feels. Then the secondary issue can be delicately addressed. I would have offered suggestions as other viewpoints and through my energetics made clear it was ok if the person wanted to hold onto their viewpoints. There would have been a safe togetherness feel. "How can we. . . ", "Let's explore together. . . ". Any hint that you have the wrong view and this is why you are upset is an indirect threat to that vulnerable glass statue. It is an indirect rejection of that person. That is not the intent, yet it is the impact. In other dynamics that do not have a strong vulnerablity component, this would not work. With someone who has a big personality and is looking for an intellectual debate, the dynamics are completely different. It's really hard to develop high intuition to just act through intuition in the flow.

 

[Joseph Maynor]

You can't love everything.  But what you can do is accept everything that has already happened.  The Ego-Mind can never be impartial and love everything, that's a load of horsesh*t.  But you can definitely become much more tolerant than you already are by work transcending the Ego-Mind, which does not mean killing or removing the Ego-Mind -- it means seeing through the Ego-Mind.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[mandyjw]

@Serotoninluv I did not read their interaction that way at all. He is heavily under the influence of a very pained ego. She made a wonderful effort to go to him and look at him face to face. Her words are full of compassion, but she is unwilling to meet him on the level of his under the influence of pain ego. That type of conversation is never helpful, not for him, not for her, not for anyone in the room. 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

@Serotoninluv I did not read their interaction that way at all. He is heavily under the influence of a very pained ego. She made a wonderful effort to go to him and look at him face to face. Her words are full of compassion, but she is unwilling to meet him on the level of his under the influence of pain ego. That type of conversation is never helpful, not for him, not for her, not for anyone in the room. 

I also see his pained ego. I also see her effort and compassion. In my experience with vulnerability dynamics, empathetic connection is critical as a foundation for working through egoic dynamics. Yet the egoic dynamics that appear are a manifestation of a deeper level. The energy of compassion, ime, is actually counter-productive in vulnerability dynamics. Within a dynamic in which a person is highly open and vulnerable, the empathetic *knowing* is crucial. Without that, the egoic dynamics you mentioned cannot be addressed. Yet those egoic dynamics are a secondary issue, covering up a deeper primary issue. In his case, a subconscious insecurity and vulnerability level much deeper than the egoic dynamics that were apparent. For me, reaching these levels within my own mind-body was by far the most terrifying experience of my life. I sensed the same dynamic in this man, yet it is covered up. I am fairly confident I could have connected empathically with him immediately. I think his deep subconscious being would sense that I've been there. 

Looking at him face to face and making an effort to reach out and speak compassionately is a completely different channel and the ego often defensive posture. Which is exactly what happened. There was a moment his guard was down and she may have picked up on a empathic frequency when she said "You feel deeper than other people". Yet she wasn't able to go in.

I felt a moderately strong empathic connection with him (not compassion) and I intuitively knew her approach would not work. I felt him and knew I would react exactly like that he did. As soon as she started talking, I knew that if she said "Buuut" with a certain tone and pivoted it was game over and it was. Any hint of judgement and rejection is leveraged 100X in a strong vulnerability dynamic. I was experiencing him and shut down the exact same moment he did in the conversation. . . Good intentions and effort do not necessarily lead to human connection. There are certain people I can connect empathetically with in a matter of seconds. In particular, other empaths, reiki masters, alcoholics and some forms of psychiatric illness. I have a sense he may also be an empath and we would have immediately connected on this level - depending on frequency. I would immediately know in person. If so, the conversation would have gone much differently. These situations are rare, yet when I encounter another empath on the same frequency it can be extremely intense. One of us can energetically burn out or freak out - depending on the strength of connection and our levels of grounding at the time. I've been on both sides of it. 

If he put his guard down with me like he briefly did with Abraham, I would have gone straight below this whole "I feel bad for other peoples' suffering" distraction and defense and gone into his deeper levels. Few words. It's mostly done through eyes and body. After a 30-60 minute "conversation" with him I would have likely had my entire energetic system drained and would have needed to recharge alone for several hours. The exchanges are exhausting. There are also people I have very unhealthy empathetic dynamics with - in particular female narcissists and BPDs. They are energy vampires to me and it's hard for me to set up energetic boundaries to protect myself. There is often a very strong energetic attraction between us - so I avoid them as much as I can. If I let down my boundary or they penetrate it, I'm in serious trouble. They can put a gaslighting spell on me. 

I've found that every two people have different energetic dynamics and imo it can take skill to open energetic channels with immature empaths because they are so scattered, ungrounded. And secondary issues siphon off there empathic potential. Yet with those that have experience it's instant. 

This is just my experience watching the video. I understand other people have different experiences. I am not saying mine is right and that it applies to everyone.

Some beings in Turquoise get to become wizards with wands. . . 

[sensori]

You don't love everything. What are you worrying about?

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, sensori said:

You don't love everything. What are you worrying about?

I love this.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[DrewNows]

3 hours ago, mandyjw said:

@Serotoninluv I did not read their interaction that way at all. He is heavily under the influence of a very pained ego. She made a wonderful effort to go to him and look at him face to face. Her words are full of compassion, but she is unwilling to meet him on the level of his under the influence of pain ego. That type of conversation is never helpful, not for him, not for her, not for anyone in the room. 

I agree with this. 

@Serotoninluv I feel that for her to create such a deep emphathetic connection with him would actually be agaianst the best interests of the group as a whole. Possibly even bad for her own well being. It’s a trap us empaths often fall into..

She had to take up another role in the interaction by helping him open up without actually meeting energy levels 

quite enjoyed the video and discussion 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

I agree with this. 

@Serotoninluv I feel that for her to create such a deep emphathetic connection with him would actually be agaianst the best interests of the group as a whole. Possibly even bad for her own well being. It’s a trap us empaths often fall into..

She had to take up another role in the interaction by helping him open up without actually meeting energy levels 

If you can’t gain the trust of someone they won’t open up. If you cannot create a safe space for someone they won’t open up.  He didn’t trust her and he did not feel safe to reveal his deeper fears and insecurities. It can be very diffucult to establish that. You’ve got to know someone deeply. Imagine establishing a knowing and trust in 5 min. that others can’t acheive in 5 years. I’d say empathic tools is one of the most powerful to do this. It blows compassion away. I’m not talking about green toys. I’m talking Turquoise wizards using wands. 

For those skilled with it, we can directly experience someone. It is a form of reading. It is a rich source of information and can establish deep trust at both conscious and subconscious levels. Entering each other and knowing / accessing deep fears, issues and blocks. And I don’t think creating a loving, supportive, healing collective conscious is bad for a group. I lived in a Turquoise level community for a bit and it’s one of healthiest communities I’ve ever been in. 

Do you really think he has hidden behind that worn-out hat his whole life, can’t show his face to others, has intense fear of being seen and of cameras because other people are suffering? C’mon. That’s just a smokescreen to avoid his deeper more painful issues. Something broke that guy and made him hide behind that hat. If his primary issue was being upset about the suffering of others he wouldn’t be at a spiritual retreat terrified that someone might see the real him behind his hat. 

How often do you see an older man wear a grungy worn-out hat indoors at a spiritual retreat and pull it down over his face so noone can see him. Never. And it’s not because he feels bad about starving kids in Africa. 

[DrewNows]

@Serotoninluvawesome dude very insightful perspective wisdom here. I can relate about feeling like I’m practically jumping into someone’s skin, or rather their state of mind/emotional state. Not sure how deep I actually get but it definitely feels like a completely new way of viewing an individual. 

 In the video she did not have the intention of gaining his trust as he didn’t show any kind of openness to be vulnerable. Instead she decided on giving him her ears and undivided attention as well as perspective 

What you describe reminds me of how Teal Swan handles her workshops (completely different type of atmosphere). From his tone it’s easy to sense his built up anger and pain but as far as his hat and identity, there are many assumptions we could make (all relating to his ego) that are probably reflecting his state of mind. I didn’t  notice the hat was “worn” or that he sounded old hahaha

Another part of me thinks she was scared to go into that deep state of mind/perspective/vibrational state to see if she could reach him because it could become quite unpleasant real fast kind of like an untrusting cornered dog you are trying to get to surrender

And again I don’t think it is her job to help him out of that unless he was ready or willing to get on board 

[Forestluv]

@DrewNows I agree that one needs to stay in the area the person is asking help in. If I wanted help for deeper issues he would ask for it or steer her there. She tried to help him and he wasn’t open to receiving. 

I just think if she got a bit more trust, connected on an emotional level and didn't take a superior position, he would have been more open to talk about his personal feelings. Instead he tried to stay in a safe zone in his head talking about stuff “out there”