04-25-2011, 08:38 PM
(04-25-2011, 07:49 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-25-2011, 07:04 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: ...sees all things as love...even murder
I think I'm beginning to see why there is misunderstanding. My perception of what you're saying is that if one loves another, then they would accept everything the other-self offers. If the other-self offers them heroin, or offers sex, or offers to kill them, or whatever, one must accept the other-self's offer, no matter what.
Am I understanding you correctly?
No. I am saying that to reach the other self, self must accept the desire of other self to make the choice to offer. There is no love if one does not accept the will of the other. The action is secondary, and the will of love by the self will have a very real effect that immediately impacts the situation and immediately forms the situation into a new situation. It would be foolish to act with ignorance and let someone else choose for me instead of my own free will.
Consequently, if one finds themselves restrained in an impossible situation to refuse, it would be better for balance and polarization that they accept the situation and the other. Sooner or later, this integration will take place.
(04-25-2011, 07:49 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: That doesn't mean that every situation can be neatly categorized. We cannot assume from that, that the man on the island isn't polarizing. He might choose to spend those months or years on the island to do some serious reflection, and forgive many people, thus polarizing.
I think that is good work for the m/b/s complex, but it is not necessarily polarization.
(04-25-2011, 07:49 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-25-2011, 07:04 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: I am jumping in to defend a hypothetical murderer for his right to murder with compassion for his viewpoint
I have compassion for the murderer. But I would never agree that he has the right to murder an other-self. He might choose to do so, and thus polarize negatively. That's not the same as having the right to impose on the free will of another.
I believe in the adage, One person's freedom ends where another's begins.
Do you? This is the point of all that I have said. If you have compassion, you will accept his choice to murder. This is love. You still defend the "victim" as if they are helpless, as if you know what is best for them. You hold incarnation above higher spiritual work. You have your own set of situations you agreed upon, and this may very well include stopping a murderer. The "victim" has chosen a set of situations, and this may include sacrificing life to release karma. The point is, saving an incarnation from ending is not the definition of love.