There is something we were never told, or taught, about the nature of relationships. They are for enemies, not for friends. Crazy, right? Who wants to have a relationship with one's enemies; who wants to be engaged day and night loving them? Probably very few because to enter such relationships requires self-empowerment and total detachment.
Relationships were designed to bring order from chaos, not to protect order from chaos. Notice the distinction: it's not subtle. Relationships are always for that which is diametrically opposite to where we are. From chaos (opposites) comes order (relationship of opposites).
What was it Jesus said? "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even "pagans" love those who love them. But I say to you: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you..." and so on it went. Why would any reasonably intelligent teacher ask his student/followers to do that which would only see them abused, perhaps killed? Instead of asking that question futilely, why don't we ask ourselves what "they" left out of his teaching? What if he did explain the adversarial aspect of healthy relationships? Wasn't he talking about love as it appears at the Avatar level?
Let's look at love. For years I've denied love as a working concept because I based my understanding of it from observing Earthians and reading their "smart guys" stuff written about it. Love was a fool's paradise, utterly unattainable, utterly unworkable. So butt-stupid were their explanations of it that "love" came down to basic rutting instinct. As a transgendered being past the stage where that instinct affects me I can look again at the concept of love.
What is love? It's an energy field; a force. How does such a force manifest? It flows between juxtaposed opposites. Love could be called a reconciliation mechanism. Love has no holding power between "lovers" for example. They don't need it! Anything already set up to do a nurturing, sustaining, protecting work has transcended the need for love. Friends, presumably are people who get along; who like to be together; who know how to work out their differences, so they don't need love. Members of a family don't need to love each other: they are beyond that need. The family guarantees their safety and equality.
Mutually supportive relationships are essences of order. Love is that force that brings chaos and order together, always for a higher "grade" of life experience.
Understanding this, it becomes "de rigueur" to seek out one's enemy with an open mind and complete detachment; fearlessly and without the least expectation, just to allow love to begin flowing between adversaries and do its healing work. I've had to correct my understanding here also: love is not something I do, but something I allow to happen to me and between me and another.
The reason love is so misunderstood is because it can be faked, and to allow the real thing to possess one means to become a 'universal' servant of others. It means I have to completely change everything I was taught about relationships.
Here's a question for "me": Can I go to my job tomorrow morning just to serve without being aware that there is a pay check at the end... and what if I found out there will be no pay. If I could afford to work without pay, would I continue? I can't answer that one... not yet. But it's not the first time I've heard the question in the back of my mind.
So, what's missing in our relationships? An innocent willingness to serve the adversary, regardless of how we are treated. We are never special, nor "deserving" of special treatment. But to be self-empowered enough to carry love to an enemy by making oneself vulnerable, that's a mega wow in my world!
That is the path of the Avatar.
Sue P.
Commitment to ourselves; commitment to our loved one(s); to better ourselves (physically, morally, spiritually); commitment to fiscal soundness; commitment to our Earth and its creatures...
Commitment is such a simple word...but so powerful!
Just expounding on your thoughtful words, Reg/Sha'Tara...who, as usaual, keeps us on our 'toes'...
Micke
thank you for posting them...
John
Georg
Love, or 'turning the other cheek' may work as a temporary measure, to assuage an enemy; but, if said enemy has no conscience whatsoever, like a psychopathic killer, you WILL DIE! Lack of common sense, a sense of self-preservation, or pure survival instinct, will lead to your demise. The HOLOCAUST attests to this.
A DEAD LOVER, who tried to love an enemy, is unable to help others who truly want and need love. KAPUT! FINITO! I see no wisdom in this type of folly.
At age 67, I can honestly say that throughout a lifetime of a myriad of relationships: personal, business, social, community, and any others - I could count on one hand the number of ABSOLUTE, ARROGANT, OBNOXIOUS INDIVIDUALS - who I totally gave up on!
This means that the vast greater majority of people, say the high nineties percentile - WILL RESPOND TO - love, caring, understanding, empathy, sympathy, and compromise - but that infinitestimal FEW, who: feel no remorse, have anti-social or sociopathic tendencies, or huge ego-centric desires and goals - WILL NEVER EVER RESPOND FAVORABLY - UNLESS IT SUITS THEIR PURPOSE TO FOLL YOU TEMPORARILY.
A WIN-WIN result can only occur where there is a MUTUAL DESIRE TO: PLEASE, HELP, OR SERVE OTHERS.
"Fool me once, shame on You - fool me twice, shame on Me!"
Good, thought-provoking write! That's my two cents' worth. Tom.
It is good to see your works again. A Stunning article
that makes everyone think a little further.
Bless you,
Beckers