Love is Not "More" than Like

[Balbrae]

Joseph Murphy had a line in his book, The Power of Your Subconscious Mind, that struck me as utterly unusual. He said words to the effect that we should love others, even though we don't like them. This got me thinking. We are often conditioned to believe that love is on a continuum, way beyond like. We probably get this from our school days when a boy or girl says to the other, when sealing the fate of unrequited love: "I don't love you, but I like you" or "let's just be friends." But according to Joseph Murphy's directive, love is not always "more" than like, but can sometimes be "less" than like, if plotted on a continuum of what we give to others. In fact, "like" can be way more than love, in certain situations!

So, if we can do as Joseph Murphy says, and love people without liking them, then that completely up-ends the like-love continuum. This is good news for many, who will find it easy to forgive others and to love them, even if such persons are not liked. I can think of many applications of this principle, especially in the workplace. This should free up a lot of negative energy for a lot of people!

I love it. Wait--I like it.

[Zenn]

This is not a strange concept to me at all because since before adulthood I've often said that it is easier for me to love people than to like them. To love people is a choice, or maybe not for a loving caring person. It's completely up to me. Loving people reflects one's capacity to love, and does not require others' permission or doings. They just have to be. I feel compassion for all regardless of what they do or how little I like them. Liking somebody I find more difficult and quite conditional on them living up to my standard and behaving to my liking.

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by Zenn

This is not a strange concept to me at all because since before adulthood I've often said that it is easier for me to love people than to like them. To love people is a choice, or maybe not for a loving caring person. It's completely up to me. Loving people reflects one's capacity to love, and does not require others' permission or doings. They just have to be. I feel compassion for all regardless of what they do or how little I like them. Liking somebody I find more difficult and quite conditional on them living up to my standard and behaving to my liking.

Your statement captures it well. In essence, you have conditional like among unconditional love.

[Annaire]

Love is often confused with need. Many people need something (material or emotional) which they get from another. This gets labelled love. When the need changes or turns toxic the love goes.

You can give love unconditionally. That is a an act of giving of your highest energy to another regardless of what they may or may not give you and regardless of whether or not you like them. By training your mind to feel love and compassion rather than judgement you become more loving and peaceful. This though is an act of conscious will - you choose love over judgement.

Feeling love as a deep spiritual response to another's energy though I don't think is controllable. You cannot choose who you feel this about. You cannot choose not to feel this either (you can of course choose what you do about it). This I think is the indescribable connection people sometimes speak of. The loving bond that does not break. This is the connection of two energies irrespective of what their judgemental , rational mind might think. I don't think it is all that common and some people may never have the experience.

The more loving and giving of love you are, the higher your energy and more open you are. This I believe leads to a greater likelihood that you will experience that deep spiritual connected love.

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by Annaire

Love is often confused with need. Many people need something (material or emotional) which they get from another. This gets labelled love. When the need changes or turns toxic the love goes.

You can give love unconditionally. That is a an act of giving of your highest energy to another regardless of what they may or may not give you and regardless of whether or not you like them. By training your mind to feel love and compassion rather than judgement you become more loving and peaceful. This though is an act of conscious will - you choose love over judgement.

Feeling love as a deep spiritual response to another's energy though I don't think is controllable. You cannot choose who you feel this about. You cannot choose not to feel this either (you can of course choose what you do about it). This I think is the indescribable connection people sometimes speak of. The loving bond that does not break. This is the connection of two energies irrespective of what their judgemental , rational mind might think. I don't think it is all that common and some people may never have the experience.

The more loving and giving of love you are, the higher your energy and more open you are. This I believe leads to a greater likelihood that you will experience that deep spiritual connected love.

Hi, Annaire: You covered your thoughts on love, quite well. And where does liking someone fit along this spectrum?

[ChristsLight]

I don't think they are on the same continuum; I think they are completely different.

For one, you cannot give unconditional Love. You can only be unconditional Love; it cannot be given.

Anyway, Love is complete acceptance of another. There are no standards when we speak of Love.

Liking someone is really a very selfish act, because it can be given or taken away based on their actions.

When I find that I don't like someone, I.E. something they do bothers me, then I know it is something within myself that is being manifested as that thing in them that I dislike. I have gone from intensely disliking certain people, to really having a true Love for them, without them changing one bit.

So I really don't think you can have a true Love for someone and not like them. You may not get along very well with them, perhaps because your personalities are different, but if there is an element of annoyance, frustration, or anger in it, then it is in you, not in them.

I think to say "You have to love, you don't have to like" is just a cop out. I never understood this. I've heard this again and again in the context of my family. Growing up, there were certainly people who I did not like in the least, and whom I could not honestly admit any sense of love, though they were my family.

Now I do have Love for all of them because I have healed that part of myself that was triggered by them.

So yes, Love. Like shouldn't come into it. If you dislike, it is in you. You can choose not to associate with someone, but it is not because they bother, frustrate, or anger you, because that's just avoiding your own problems.

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I don't think they are on the same continuum; I think they are completely different.

For one, you cannot give unconditional Love. You can only be unconditional Love; it cannot be given.

Anyway, Love is complete acceptance of another. There are no standards when we speak of Love.

Liking someone is really a very selfish act, because it can be given or taken away based on their actions.

When I find that I don't like someone, I.E. something they do bothers me, then I know it is something within myself that is being manifested as that thing in them that I dislike. I have gone from intensely disliking certain people, to really having a true Love for them, without them changing one bit.

So I really don't think you can have a true Love for someone and not like them. You may not get along very well with them, perhaps because your personalities are different, but if there is an element of annoyance, frustration, or anger in it, then it is in you, not in them.

I think to say "You have to love, you don't have to like" is just a cop out. I never understood this. I've heard this again and again in the context of my family. Growing up, there were certainly people who I did not like in the least, and whom I could not honestly admit any sense of love, though they were my family.

Now I do have Love for all of them because I have healed that part of myself that was triggered by them.

So yes, Love. Like shouldn't come into it. If you dislike, it is in you. You can choose not to associate with someone, but it is not because they bother, frustrate, or anger you, because that's just avoiding your own problems.

Hi, ChristsLight. Yours is a very interesting perspective. In fact, it was the perspective that you describe: "one cannot love another without liking them" that prompted the start of this thread to begin with. It seems that loving without liking someone is a novel approach. I think one can love another without liking him or her. Seth (channeled by Jane Roberts) once commented that counterparts (separate "parts" of one's higher self, descended from the same "over soul" (often called "soul mates")) may dislike the personality of the other very much. Ouch! It doesn't hit any closer to home than that!

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Balbrae

Hi, ChristsLight. Yours is a very interesting perspective. In fact, it was the perspective that you describe: "one cannot love another without liking them" that prompted the start of this thread to begin with. It seems that loving without liking someone is a novel approach. I think one can love another without liking him or her. Seth (channeled by Jane Roberts) once commented that counterparts (separate "parts" of one's higher self, descended from the same "over soul" (often called "soul mates")) may dislike the personality of the other very much. Ouch! It doesn't hit any closer to home than that!

Hi Balbrae,

I'd love to have a discussion on this, but you didn't so much reply to my points as restate your own perspective. I don't really see the Seth channellings as an authority, so I disagree with that point. Like I said, in my own experience, when you'd dislike someone in a strong way like that, it is something within yourself. I have found that when that part in me is healed, then it no longer bothers me.

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I don't think they are on the same continuum; I think they are completely different.

I think they can be on a separate continuum. The old expression, "You choose your friends, not your family" comes to mind. What we like in another are often admirable qualities.

For one, you cannot give unconditional Love. You can only be unconditional Love; it cannot be given. Anyway, Love is complete acceptance of another. There are no standards when we speak of Love.

This makes sense. I unconditionally love my son. Regardless of what he does in this world, I will always love him. So it would seem that your point is correct, from the perspective that, one cannot give spiritually or emotionally what one cannot take away. Since I couldn't not love my son, even if I tried, it makes sense that "love" would not be characterized as a "giving" thing, but characterized instead as a "being" thing. Without gradations, there are no standards. That makes sense. It's whole and undivided.

Liking someone is really a very selfish act, because it can be given or taken away based on their actions.

Sounds reasonable. Yet, selfishness is not necessarily something that does not serve our higher good.

When I find that I don't like someone, I.E. something they do bothers me, then I know it is something within myself that is being manifested as that thing in them that I dislike. I have gone from intensely disliking certain people, to really having a true Love for them, without them changing one bit.

I think this perspective is well established in many psychological circles. It's the old "projection" argument. We project onto others what we fear or dislike about ourselves. Hence, when we "dislike" a quality in another, we dislike it in ourselves. However, I am not sure I am in complete agreement with the proposition that the disliked qualities of another always reflect qualities of ourselves (whether liked or disliked). For example, a bully could truly be mean to a saintly person. The saintly person could forgive that person, while still disapproving of the conduct of that person. I once heard it said in a Buddhist audio book: when Buddhists pray for the success of their oppressors, they are not praying for the success of oppression, but the success of their "higher self" in helping their tormentors evolve. In fact, I will go a step further, I think sometimes it does great harm to a person's psyche to absorb (rather than project) another's faults onto one's own self, under a psychobabble or guilt-driven "projection" theory. One might simply reinforce their own victimization by saying: "now that women is really mean to me, no matter how nice I am to her...Jeez...I must be responsible by operation of some mental or character flaw in me."

So I really don't think you can have a true Love for someone and not like them. You may not get along very well with them, perhaps because your personalities are different, but if there is an element of annoyance, frustration, or anger in it, then it is in you, not in them.

I have strong disagreement here. I'll use an example, which I hope does not offend reasonable sensibilities, topic-wise, which is way off base here. A Jew in the Holocaust could "love" his or her oppressor, in the spiritual sense of forgiveness and seeing one's "higher self," but at the same time, intensely dislike the tormentor. I guess one could say, what we dislike in another is actually their "personality" or "ego" or "false self." I don't think it is possible to dislike one's higher self (we're all connected at that level).

I think to say "You have to love, you don't have to like" is just a cop out. I never understood this. I've heard this again and again in the context of my family. Growing up, there were certainly people who I did not like in the least, and whom I could not honestly admit any sense of love, though they were my family.

For the reasons above stated, loving without liking someone is possible. We know that one can love one's higher self, while detesting one's ego/personality/false self. That would be the state for an evolved person who disapproved of one's behavior and mindset generating that behavior, while, at the same time, seeing the person's higher self. I am told that people like Jesus and Buddha saw only the higher, perfect self, and did not dwell in the limiting perspective of perceiving another's ego/personality/false self.

Now I do have Love for all of them because I have healed that part of myself that was triggered by them. So yes, Love. Like shouldn't come into it. If you dislike, it is in you. You can choose not to associate with someone, but it is not because they bother, frustrate, or anger you, because that's just avoiding your own problems.

I think it is great that you have love for all others. You sound quite evolved, which should be commended and modeled by us. The subject of dislike and avoidance is a very complicated one. I believe that under the LoA, one will cease to attract another who frustrates and angers one, with the correct application of mental thought. However, we need not "like" those we evolve to love. Otherwise, what function would having preferences for the company of others serve? There would be an undifferentiated world of sameness. I think your theory here is susceptible to the problem highlighted by this question: can we like some people more than others? Under your theory, like is fused with love, which is unconditional. Hence, under your theory, one cannot really like one person more than another, which seems counter-intuitive.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Balbrae

Sounds reasonable. Yet, selfishness is not necessarily something that does not serve our higher good.

I would disagree with that. There is a difference between self-love such as taking care of oneself, and selfishness

Originally Posted by Balbrae

I think this perspective is well established in many psychological circles. It's the old "projection" argument. We project onto others what we fear or dislike about ourselves. Hence, when we "dislike" a quality in another, we dislike it in ourselves. However, I am not sure I am in complete agreement with the proposition that the disliked qualities of another always reflect qualities of ourselves (whether liked or disliked). For example, a bully could truly be mean to a saintly person. The saintly person could forgive that person, while still disapproving of the conduct of that person. I once heard it said in a Buddhist audio book: when Buddhists pray for the success of their oppressors, they are not praying for the success of oppression, but the success of their "higher self" in helping their tormentors evolve. In fact, I will go a step further, I think sometimes it does great harm to a person's psyche to absorb (rather than project) another's faults onto one's own self, under a psychobabble or guilt-driven "projection" theory. One might simply reinforce their own victimization by saying: "now that women is really mean to me, no matter how nice I am to her...Jeez...I must be responsible by operation of some mental or character flaw in me."

If someone "bullies" a saint, it does not mean that it needs to bother the saint. They may be humored by it. They do not see a problem, because they are not hurt by the behavior. You cannot be hurt unless you allow yourself to be hurt.

It is not about blame; it is about responsibility. Yes, you are responsible if someone else's behavior bothers you, and it reflects something within you. You are creating that in your reality somehow.

When you say, "She shouldn't be mean to me," you will suffer, because you are trying to make things different than they appear to be. Instead, you reflect upon yourself.

There are many healing modalities that rely upon this model, and I've seen it work again and again in my own healing work with people. It is much more subjective than you believe. For instance, every single time someone says "I am angry at X because X doesn't accept me for who I am," when I ask "Do you accept yourself?", the answer is no. Every time, without fail.

So if a woman is mean to you, then my question would be, how are you mean to yourself? And, even, how are you mean to that woman, or to others? And there is always something there to explore. When you explore that and change your own behavior, then suddenly she is no longer mean, or suddenly it just doesn't bother you anymore.

Originally Posted by Balbrae

I have strong disagreement here. I'll use an example, which I hope does not offend reasonable sensibilities, topic-wise, which is way off base here. A Jew in the Holocaust could "love" his or her oppressor, in the spiritual sense of forgiveness and seeing one's "higher self," but at the same time, intensely dislike the tormentor. I guess one could say, what we dislike in another is actually their "personality" or "ego" or "false self." I don't think it is possible to dislike one's higher self (we're all connected at that level).

I don't like discussing things when the example of the Holocaust is used, because it is way too emotionally charged to be discussed objectively. And, if I may say, I think this is why people often fall back to this example, because it is too much against political correctness to say the Jew was responsible. So let's not go there.

But the example I use is this: can a saint suffer? If you believe that Jesus existed and was really crucified, though he felt physical pain, do you think he, himself, suffered? He seemed to have unconditional love and forgiveness for his tormentors. I'm sure he had the preference that this not happen, but he did not blame his tormentors in the least.

Originally Posted by Balbrae

For the reasons above stated, loving without liking someone is possible. We know that one can love one's higher self, while detesting one's ego/personality/false self. That would be the state for an evolved person who disapproved of one's behavior and mindset generating that behavior, while, at the same time, seeing the person's higher self. I am told that people like Jesus and Buddha saw only the higher, perfect self, and did not dwell in the limiting perspective of perceiving another's ego/personality/false self.

In that case, how could one detest the ego if one cannot even see the ego? That doesn't make sense. You cannot disapprove of that which you cannot see, and you can only see it if it is within you.

Originally Posted by Balbrae

I think it is great that you have love for all others. You sound quite evolved, which should be commended and modeled by us. The subject of dislike and avoidance is a very complicated one. I believe that under the LoA, one will cease to attract another who frustrates and angers one, with the correct application of mental thought. However, we need not "like" those we evolve to love. Otherwise, what function would having preferences for the company of others serve? There would be an undifferentiated world of sameness. I think your theory here is susceptible to the problem highlighted by this question: can we like some people more than others? Under your theory, like is fused with love, which is unconditional. Hence, under your theory, one cannot really like one person more than another, which seems counter-intuitive.

Who is it that is evolved? Do you see a person? Are you a person who sees?

It would not result in a world of sameness at all. You will attract the people that you need to attract. If you attract someone that makes you angry, it is because there is something within yourself you need to look at. Once there is complete acceptance and pure Love, then you can no longer attract people who make you angry. Then you will attract those who need to be in your life for some reason, or for whom you need to be in their life, perhaps to help them. For instance, I tend to attract intellectuals, or people who are spiritual searching, because around me, they tend to see the superficiality of their own beliefs and the need to drop them. I attract people who are fun, too, because I like to have fun. It works perfectly.

I like these people in the way that they work better with me, but I do not dislike people who are different. They just simply don't appear in my reality because they don't fit. If someone does appear that angers or frustrates me, then it's in me. Once that is healed, then they may stay in my reality for some purpose, or they may float out of my reality because they were here to show me that part of myself that needed to be loved.

So you will find that there's just no need to dislike anyone. If you do, then you don't need to blame them, you need to look at yourself. Then dislike just won't play into it anymore. If you need healing, your reality will appear to be in disharmony, because you are in disharmony. If you do not need healing, then it will be in harmony, because you are in harmony.

This is why I love reality, because it teaches me exactly what I need to be taught every day.

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I would disagree with that. There is a difference between self-love such as taking care of oneself, and selfishness

Oh, I see. You glossed over the part of my statement where I said, "Yet, selfishness is not necessarily something that does not serve our higher good." (Emphasis added.) Call it by any name you choose, "selfishness," "self love"--we mean the same thing: taking care of one's betterment--looking out for oneself. Sometimes looking out for one's self is petty and does not serve one's higher good, and sometimes such vigilence is not petty and does serve one's higher good. I think in this light you would agree.

If someone "bullies" a saint, it does not mean that it needs to bother the saint. They may be humored by it. They do not see a problem, because they are not hurt by the behavior. You cannot be hurt unless you allow yourself to be hurt.

You are talking about the self-actualized level, where one's life is a splendor of intended manifestations. However, there are many, many people who are "not there yet." So for the "perceived" victims, being bullied is quite bothersome. Would you tolerate a child being bullied by another? I think your response is fine on one level, but on another is not practical. Besides, spiritual authorities are somewhat divided on the question of violence. I know that Seth was a big proponent of the "Violence-is-Never-Justified" School, whereby he would not advocate self defense. In fact, he once put the onus on soldiers of all the armies, worldwide to simply refuse to fight, depriving governments of the means to wage war. The bugaboo is that we are not "there yet," and one army will always be willing to fight. Others have said, that all bets are off when one is being attacked--that one should do what one needs to protect one's self. I adhere to the second school of thought: "war is hell, but sometimes unavoidable." So depending on what level a person is actualizing their world at, it could be true or it could be false that "[y]ou cannot be hurt unless you allow yourself to be hurt." When the assassins came for Buddha, he was at such an advanced level, that they simply lay down their arms and gave up their plan. The Course in Miracles (and interpretations of it, such as The Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Reynard) would agree with your basic premise, that our being hurt is an illusion because our being here is an illusion and the classic premise: "there is nothing out there," as everything is a projection of our mind. However, if I am not mistaken (and I could be) at one part of the book, the "visitors" advised that, if one gets caught up in a dilemma of a personal attack against them, it is okay to kick butt to defend yourself. So it's debatable. [/quote]

It is not about blame; it is about responsibility. Yes, you are responsible if someone else's behavior bothers you, and it reflects something within you. You are creating that in your reality somehow.

I agree that, in a pure, intended-manifestation world you are correct. Where people have drawn to themselves all that they intended to, including peace, harmony, and abundance, then yes--they would not experience bad behavior in others. However, until one reaches that stage, one does not need to overlook co-created reality; one can indeed assign "blame" to the other for the other's misdeed. However, focusing on blame has its "unintended consequence" of prolonging the manifestation. Yet, why should one take responsibility for another's bad deeds simply because one has not evolved enough to stop manifesting it in their reality? That is the thorny question here, and it the solution is not as pat as you seem to suggest. You wouldn't let your child be bullied, and adults are often not that much better in intending what they manifest. Empathy and sympathy for such persons goes a long way.

When you say, "She shouldn't be mean to me," you will suffer, because you are trying to make things different than they appear to be. Instead, you reflect upon yourself.

This has been addressed above. On one level, the intended manifestation level, you are correct. We know that one creates their own reality. However, many people are not "there yet"--to be able to consciously intend all that they desire in their world. In the meantime, people can be mean to others, which if they were evolved, they wouldn't be.

There are many healing modalities that rely upon this model, and I've seen it work again and again in my own healing work with people. It is much more subjective than you believe. For instance, every single time someone says "I am angry at X because X doesn't accept me for who I am," when I ask "Do you accept yourself?", the answer is no. Every time, without fail.

This seems correct on one level. However, you cannot deny that, in the world of form some people exhibit bad behavior towards others with whom they co-create reality. While there is a solution of "opting out" of such undesirable worlds (by manifesting a different reality), one's inability to "opt out" because one has not yet evolved to that stage does not justify bad behavior against them, nor does it render one's own preference for the company of others unjustified. In fact, one changing one's company might be the very first step in manifesting a better reality. When you work in your ministry, you are "being nice" to another, so that polarity operates on some level as a counter-balance. If one were to take your advice, they should not only ignore the "mean" person but you, the "nice" person. That is my point: in this physical world, we still interact with the good and the bad, and we do the best we can from where we are.

So if a woman is mean to you, then my question would be, how are you mean to yourself? And, even, how are you mean to that woman, or to others? And there is always something there to explore. When you explore that and change your own behavior, then suddenly she is no longer mean, or suddenly it just doesn't bother you anymore.

One could answer that question in many, many ways. One might say, one is mean to oneself "for putting up with that crap," which would lead one to a violent confrontation, or an escape from the situation. It is not always helpful to dwell on limitless possibilities and speculation--the "what is wrong with me approach," because if one looks hard enough, one may find many things "wrong" with oneself--i.e., they will manifest things that are not necessarily even there. I refuse to be an apologist for the misdeeds of others, especially by automatically assuming that I possess the same trait. So that you don't misquote me here, I clarify: I might, and I might not , possess such a trait. So I don't automatically assume it to be so.

I don't like discussing things when the example of the Holocaust is used, because it is way too emotionally charged to be discussed objectively. And, if I may say, I think this is why people often fall back to this example, because it is too much against political correctness to say the Jew was responsible. So let's not go there.

I use the example as a classic example of a "mass event" as Seth would use that term. Just because people create an undesired "mass event," doesn't mean that they are not justified in dislike the world manifested.

But the example I use is this: can a saint suffer? If you believe that Jesus existed and was really crucified, though he felt physical pain, do you think he, himself, suffered? He seemed to have unconditional love and forgiveness for his tormentors. I'm sure he had the preference that this not happen, but he did not blame his tormentors in the least. In that case, how could one detest the ego if one cannot even see the ego? That doesn't make sense. You cannot disapprove of that which you cannot see, and you can only see it if it is within you.

Again, we're talking about different levels of manifestation. So, yes, on Jesus' level, he was AWEsome at manifesting unconditional love, notwithstanding the abuse heaped upon him. But just because someone is not at that level does not justify one doing the best one can in the situation confronted. Your whole approach seems to lack empathy or sympathy along the lines of: "here's the solution to all your problems: 'just be perfect! and if you're not, then it's your fault." I reject this all-or-nothing approach.

[TO BE CONTINUED]

[Balbrae]

[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Who is it that is evolved? Do you see a person? Are you a person who sees? It would not result in a world of sameness at all. You will attract the people that you need to attract. If you attract someone that makes you angry, it is because there is something within yourself you need to look at. Once there is complete acceptance and pure Love, then you can no longer attract people who make you angry. Then you will attract those who need to be in your life for some reason, or for whom you need to be in their life, perhaps to help them. For instance, I tend to attract intellectuals, or people who are spiritual searching, because around me, they tend to see the superficiality of their own beliefs and the need to drop them. I attract people who are fun, too, because I like to have fun. It works perfectly. I like these people in the way that they work better with me, but I do not dislike people who are different. They just simply don't appear in my reality because they don't fit. If someone does appear that angers or frustrates me, then it's in me. Once that is healed, then they may stay in my reality for some purpose, or they may float out of my reality because they were here to show me that part of myself that needed to be loved.

So you will find that there's just no need to dislike anyone. If you do, then you don't need to blame them, you need to look at yourself. Then dislike just won't play into it anymore. If you need healing, your reality will appear to be in disharmony, because you are in disharmony. If you do not need healing, then it will be in harmony, because you are in harmony.

This is why I love reality, because it teaches me exactly what I need to be taught every day.

I agree, that one attracts what one attracts. My points have been made above: in the meantime, people can be mistreated by others co-creating in their shared reality, which is not justified. I'm glad you attract people who are fun, and I suspect that you have your preferences and like some more than others. Again, you sound quite evolved in your practice, and that is great. However, others are doing what they can to get there. And one way of getting there is to love another, where one cannot find a way to "like" them.

[ChristsLight]

Balbrae,

You are quite insistent upon your belief that there are others with whom to co-create. Can you prove that to me? I do not believe in co-creation. If something is wrong in the world, it is wrong in me, so it is my responsibility. Not the woman who is mean to me, or the person who bullies me, because they simply don't exist. They are just appearances reflecting back what is in consciousness. When I clean that up, then they disappear.

As long as you believe in others who can affect you, then you can never take complete responsibility for your world, and you will never be able to manifest, because it can be someone else's fault for infringing upon your manifestations.

You also are persistent in believing in levels of manifestation. There is only ever one level. If you are experiencing it, you have attracted it.

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Balbrae,

You are quite insistent upon your belief that there are others with whom to co-create. Can you prove that to me? I do not believe in co-creation. If something is wrong in the world, it is wrong in me, so it is my responsibility. Not the woman who is mean to me, or the person who bullies me, because they simply don't exist. They are just appearances reflecting back what is in consciousness. When I clean that up, then they disappear.

As long as you believe in others who can affect you, then you can never take complete responsibility for your world, and you will never be able to manifest, because it can be someone else's fault for infringing upon your manifestations.

You also are persistent in believing in levels of manifestation. There is only ever one level. If you are experiencing it, you have attracted it.

Christ's Light: I appreciate your perspective. However, there cannot be "proof," in the matter you suggest. There can only be one's faith. For example, I ask the question back at you: Can you prove to me that we do not co-create?

I assure you that, in the world of form, I exist, independently of you. This is so, notwithstanding the fact that we are all one, at a higher level. Were it not to be true, then my thread and posts here do not have any independent existence, apart from that which you have created in your own mind. But I created my contributions, not you. You created your contributions, not I. We are co-creating--each choosing to participate in this world of form, in this forum, on this thread. Here we will simply have to agree to disagree.

However, all is not lost in the point you make. For, even though we co-create, you have many valid points regarding the fact that we draw unto ourselves the dimensions and realities we dwell upon, under the LoA. I will grant you that any person who annoys me was drawn into my "reality" as "an annoying person" on the level of form, by me. This was done, pursuant to my dominant mental state, under the LoA. However, by the same token, that other "annoying" person has also drawn me into his or her own co-reality, to be experienced by that person, in accordance with that person's dominant mental state.

On a much higher level--the level of Oneness, adherents of The Course in Miracles have much to say that may accord with what you profess herein. Specifically, The Course in Miracles belief system holds that: (1) we are really still with God in that other dimension; (2) we only think we separated from God, going on to create the ego and this world--but that is just an illusion--we have only created "seeming" separation, not real separation from each other and God; and (3) accordingly, no one can really be "hurt" in an illusory world that doesn't truly exist. (An image comes to mind: can Fred Flintstone really hurt Barney Rubble by clubbing him on the head--when they are just 2-dimensional cartoons? Of course, not!) In this regard, the cornerstone of the Course in Miracles Belief system is to "forgive" all, so as to awaken from this illusion and not create further entanglements (karma), which serve to delay our apparent awakening from this dream. As such, adherents of the Course in Miracles believe that forgiveness simply means acknowledging that nothing is real "down here," and that we could not possibly be harmed in any way. Your posts remind me of these types of beliefs, and they have great merit.

And while there may be great merit in these ideas, my points here pertain to the "level of form," not the level of infinite oneness with All That Is.

As to your suggestion that my approach disallows one to take responsibility for their actions, I would say that this is simply not true. I take responsibility for my co-creations. For example, if I want to cease experiencing a mean, barking dog, I need to change "the world within," as Joseph Hannel would say, such that I manifested no more barking dog.

If I want to create a world of no "mean" people, then I need to do a "better" job of creating an inner world where this does not exist. This might include many methods, including the ones you suggest in your Christ's Light Ministries, which may be very powerful, indeed. Once I have completed that "inner work," I will still co-create with others. However, I will simply draw into my existence, pleasant-seeming co-creators, not "mean"-seeming co-creators. While it may seem like I am creating all the other people in such a scenario, as you suggest--i.e., that the others are not co-creators, but simply figments of my own creation--I would actually be creating only my portion of the co-created reality. However, I would heartily agree with you, if what you are saying is that my experience of that co-created reality would be 100% of my own perception, belief systems, and doing. In this regard, we agree that others "affecting me" would be of my own doing. However, the others, acting out of free will would also be doing something in their own co-created reality, for which they should also accept responsibility. For example, just because the Kuwaitis created a mass event of an invasion by Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s, doesn't mean that Saddam Hussein (as a co-creator) should not have been held "responsible" for his actions, in invading that country. However, for the Kuwaitis who did not wish to participate in that experience, they did not. Rather, they created a different dimension of reality where that historical event did not take place.

Finally, on the issue of manifestations, I would simply say you misunderstand me. The LoA works as a law. It just does. It just is. It is impartial. It works all the time, no exceptions. So there is no such thing as "levels" of manifestation or "non-manifestations" under the LoA. Everything that manifests does so, according to the LoA. The only thing that ever varies is whether the manifestation was consciously intended or not. That's it. My posts simply recognize that people like you are much better at manifesting what you consciously intend to manifest, as compared to most people of the world, who manifest haphazardly, sometimes consciously intending their manifestations, and sometimes not. For those other people who possess less-developed skills, they will co-create worlds where they suffer. Seth once said "[t]he purpose of suffering is to teach you not to suffer." They need a way out. One way out, is to love others, without necessarily having to like them. It can be much easier to love a "tormentor" (i.e., to love the "tormentor's" higher self) than to "like" or approve of the "tormentor's" ego/personality/false self. If one, in such a situation, had to do both--to love another and to like that person--then they may have a much harder time bettering their skills at intentional manifestation. While the Pope can forgive his would-be assassin and love that person, he need not like the act of attempted assassination or the person/personality who hatched that plot. That is the empathy and sympathy to which I previously referred. Thank you for your ideas.

[ChristsLight]

You admit that according to A Course in Miracles, there is really no separation. But then you go on to discuss people, other creators, mean people, portions of reality, etc. How is all of this possible? If separation only seems to exist, then you're just speaking of the dream world, and it really has no reality whatsoever.

How can oneness exist on an upper level, but not on another level? If we are one, we are one. There are not two people creating different realities. There is just a reality seeming to be created in consciousness.

So tell me, how do "you" exist independently of "me"?

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

You admit that according to A Course in Miracles, there is really no separation. But then you go on to discuss people, other creators, mean people, portions of reality, etc. How is all of this possible? If separation only seems to exist, then you're just speaking of the dream world, and it really has no reality whatsoever.

How can oneness exist on an upper level, but not on another level? If we are one, we are one. There are not two people creating different realities. There is just a reality seeming to be created in consciousness.

So tell me, how do "you" exist independently of "me"?

I did not say that I subscribe to the Course in Miracles belief system. I think it is fascinating, though. I think in the end, we are all dealing with the level of form, and the "advice" given in this forum, Intention-Manifestation, aims to work with the level of form, not the spiritual/disembodied plane.

If I were truly awakened, such that I no longer "needed" to reincarnate on this earthly plane, then I would have no use for this forum or this world of "form" because I wouldn't be here. So, yes, on the highest level, I would think that most, if not all, of what you say would apply--in the realm of non-form and non-earthly dimension.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Balbrae

I did not say that I subscribe to the Course in Miracles belief system. I think it is fascinating, though. I think in the end, we are all dealing with the level of form, and the "advice" given in this forum, Intention-Manifestation, aims to work with the level of form, not the spiritual/disembodied plane.

If I were truly awakened, such that I no longer "needed" to reincarnate on this earthly plane, then I would have no use for this forum or this world of "form" because I wouldn't be here. So, yes, on the highest level, I would think that most, if not all, of what you say would apply--in the realm of non-form and non-earthly dimension.

I'm still not believing you that there's a level of form.

Also, how do you know that there will ever be a point where "you" become awakened? People do not become awakened.

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I'm still not believing you that there's a level of form.

Also, how do you know that there will ever be a point where "you" become awakened? People do not become awakened.

It's okay that you don't believe me that there's a level of form. I have no need to convince you. I just share my perspective. As well, the notion of "I" becoming awakened is a foregone conclusion--there is no such thing as "time." Thus, if it takes me 10,000,000 lifetimes, from the perspective of no-time, my awakening took no time at all.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Balbrae

It's okay that you don't believe me that there's a level of form. I have no need to convince you. I just share my perspective. As well, the notion of "I" becoming awakened is a foregone conclusion--there is no such thing as "time." Thus, if it takes me 10,000,000 lifetimes, from the perspective of no-time, my awakening took no time at all.

My point is that there is no me to become enlightened.

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

My point is that there is no me to become enlightened.

From the perspective that "we're not really here," according to the Course in Miracle adherents, you have a point. From the perspective that we "seem" to be here in a "seeming" separation, then one's enlightenment might look like "stepping out of time," and "snapping out of a bad dream."

In the meantime...back at the level of form...life in the illusion continues. Where are you? I'm willing to be that, if you are writing your threads, then you have not stepped out of time, but are like the rest of "us" in many ways, chief among them, having a desire or need to reincarnate at the level of form. Do you really believe you are different in this regard? You exist in the world of form, or else you wouldn't be around to write your words. You don't truly contend that you are not partaking of this illusion called the dream of separation, do you? If not, then where are you?

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Balbrae

From the perspective that "we're not really here," according to the Course in Miracle adherents, you have a point. From the perspective that we "seem" to be here in a "seeming" separation, then one's enlightenment might look like "stepping out of time," and "snapping out of a bad dream."

In the meantime...back at the level of form...life in the illusion continues. Where are you? I'm willing to be that, if you are writing your threads, then you have not stepped out of time, but are like the rest of "us" in many ways, chief among them, having a desire or need to reincarnate at the level of form. Do you really believe you are different in this regard? You exist in the world of form, or else you wouldn't be around to write your words. You don't truly contend that you are not partaking of this illusion called the dream of separation, do you? If not, then where are you?

The question, "Where are you?" is meaningless, because, again, there is no "you" to be anywhere.

If you were in a dream, and a dream character, let's call him Joe, talks to you about how he really wants to awaken from the dream. Would you say, "I know, Joe, let me help you to awaken." Or would you say, "Joe, you're not even real, so how can you speak of awakening!" Even more, would you ask him, "Joe, are you still in the dream, or are you awakened?" That's just a silly question. He can't be anything but be in the dream because he is the dream. When the dream is gone, Joe is gone, because he never had an independent existence.

You're asking a dream character called ChristsLight (Brandon) why he is writing threads and participating in a forum, and whether he is awakened. Well, no dream character can ever be awakened. The question just doesn't make sense.

But I am not Brandon: I am Being. Therefore, I can never not be awakened. And you, too. You're jus manufacturing your own confusion. And I'm not saying you're doing so consciously, but nonetheless, that's what you are doing—Generating the fog that obscures the Light of Being.

[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

The question, "Where are you?" is meaningless, because, again, there is no "you" to be anywhere.

If you were in a dream, and a dream character, let's call him Joe, talks to you about how he really wants to awaken from the dream. Would you say, "I know, Joe, let me help you to awaken." Or would you say, "Joe, you're not even real, so how can you speak of awakening!" Even more, would you ask him, "Joe, are you still in the dream, or are you awakened?" That's just a silly question. He can't be anything but be in the dream because he is the dream. When the dream is gone, Joe is gone, because he never had an independent existence.

You're asking a dream character called ChristsLight (Brandon) why he is writing threads and participating in a forum, and whether he is awakened. Well, no dream character can ever be awakened. The question just doesn't make sense.

But I am not Brandon: I am Being. Therefore, I can never not be awakened. And you, too. You're jus manufacturing your own confusion. And I'm not saying you're doing so consciously, but nonetheless, that's what you are doing—Generating the fog that obscures the Light of Being.

For not being Brandon, you sure seem like him.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Balbrae

For not being Brandon, you sure seem like him.

Of course I do. You're in the dream. In the dream, you'll see dream characters. When you wake up, the characters will disappear.