To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/07/03 13:07
Subject: [K-list] wave cancellation was Re: Love the Enemy
From: SA Carlson
On 2000/07/03 13:07, SA Carlson posted thus to the K-list:
I am having trouble with stuff getting thru. If so ignore this repeat.
Hello Rob,
> >
> >This is not the intention of 'Love thy enemy'.
> >In a sense, healing is the practice of 'wave cancellation.'
>
> Yes, that resonates for me. :-) However, wave cancellation requires
one to> know the wave form... one has to understand the wave
sufficiently to know> how the cancellation can be carried out.
I think there is more to it than knowing it. It is important, IMO, to
embody it. If it is carried within one's self, in body and soul, we
naturally radiate it and it can transform the waves around us. It
can be 'infectious'.
> In so doing one recognises the> cancellation wave is not "oneself",
("I am going to cancel out that wave"),> but a method that achieves
an aim, in this case healing (as defined here).> It may be a thought
to consider that the original wave may well be one that
> the other person still identifies with. Thus cancelling out the
wave may be> seen as cancelling out the other person's sense of
identity. And they may> temporarily need that identity to work
something out (for instance, that> they are not right just by
being "better" than someone else :-))...
Yes, I can see that. If people are uncomfortable with a 'healthy'
wave carrier, they either move away or attack :). So in some ways,
being a 'healthy' wave carrier can provoke someone deeper into that
identity with the original wave.
>
> It may be important to that person's health at that time to be
angry. The> wave itself may be a healing. Just floating this stuff,
by the way. And I'm> aware that I'm talking to myself here also... :-)
> >
Yes, I have said before with qualifiers, anger is a healthy emotion.
Rage is not. Expressing anger is generally taboo cause it makes so
many other people feel uncomfortable. Hmmm, does that mean someone's
clean expression of anger drives others deeper into their
identification with their original carrier wave for the purposes of
growth?
> >> Maybe we should just go our own way in the
> >> face of anger,
> >
> >Is it best to go our own way or love's?
>
> Sometimes it may be that doing nothing is best... Maybe any action
will
> work out somehow...
I think a proper response to anger is just to listen and to listen
with whole attention. That is also, IMO, an appropriate response to
love.
>
> I often feel the need to assert a sense of self as different to
another's.> Perhaps it lies in the choosing to assert that
difference, knowing that we> are freer to choose than the person who
maintains a more rigid identity? I> don't know, and I keep finding
new experiences that demand (it seems) that> I loosen up my ideas on
what I believe to be "the right way".
Instead of looking for the right way, examine Captain Jean Luc
Picard's decree of 'there is a better way.' :)
> >
> >> maybe we are meeting the enemy to work out something
> >
> >I believe you hit the nail on the head.
> >
> >> to learn that needs to be "out of resonance" in order to be
noticed. I> am not sure> >> I want to be in resonance with an angry
something,
> >
> >Then resonate love. But if you resonate anger you need to ask
where does> this resonance> >come from? If someone touches you, where
is it felt?
>
> I agree with that. But continuing abuse of my right to differ would
become> something that I might distance myself from. Of course in the
process of> working through my own issues brought up by the conflict,
I might also get> angry and respond unkindly to the other person. So
I guess, in learning to> see where my own stuff is and resolve my
internal conflicts I'm learning> how to heal the pain and rigidity in
the other person. They may also have> something I can learn from...
Yes...as we release ourselves from our issues we create an
opportunity, a window, for others to release their own. Once we are
healed ourselves totally of something we may still notice similiar
wounds in people but our initial strong gut reactions will have been
very diminished. There will be more of an awareness of "wow, I would
have been very emotional about that same issue a year ago, but
now...something's different. The pain is gone or almost gone."
If a person states that an individual is very angry and wants to jump
into the drama surrounding that individual's anger I think it would
be safe to say, resonance is happening but in a reactive way to the
angry individual rather than being proactive and compassionate.
> >
> >> or is this wrong thinking? Maybe I need to understand what love
means in> this context> >> or is it compassion that is really meant?
> >
> >Even a murderer is doing the best he can.> >Can you see that? That
would require compassion.
Back to using another Star Trek metaphor: The Prime Directive, non
interference in the culture of any world, is the ultimate act of
compassion.
How many emotional episodes were crafted about The Prime Directive?
How many passionate pleas for interference did I hear? And yet, the
Captain held firm.
It's reflected in an old theology argument, balancing Justice with
Mercy. How could a just God allow such evil and depravity in the
world he created. How could He not? It is the ultimate act of
compassion, allowing individuals their free will regardless of the
outcome.
I like to think of it in this story. A mother is in her kitchen,
cooking dinner. Her noisy and rambunctious kids are outside playing
with the equally noisy and rambunctious neighborhood children.
Playing cops and robbers there will be casualties. Same in playing
war games. Mother knows that the death is not real and soon the
children will get up off the dirt and begin to play again.
She watches from the kitchen window, smiling. It is only when things
truly get out of hand, in her opinion, when there can be true damage
does she intervene.
In the same way, the Captain would look for a better way, to bring
resolution without interference. There is a better way.
Balancing justice and mercy with compassion is wisdom.
Who here can say they are very wise? We all make mistakes. Wisdom
begins when we recognize we are not wise :)
> Here's (yet another) something that still puzzles me: what about a
> situation in which the people in conflict are at such variance that
they> cannot read each other's actions and words as the originator
intended them?> You know the kind of thing - misunderstandings and
wrong attributions to> another's behaviour. My current belief is that
it involves the placing of> our abstract values onto their apparent
behaviour and making decisions> about it. But I know that we seem to
have a need to make decisions in the> world, to navigate through the
actions and reactions of those around us, as> our sense of
self "sees" our path.
I call doing this thing trusting in positive outcomes. Angelique
calls it 'giving it to Goddess. Goddess has it handled' We can choose
to make decision about our behaviour, how we react or pro-act, but we
can't make anyone anyone behave the way we want to unless it is with
their permission in our own sphere of influence.
>
> In a situation like that, on what can one base one's understanding,
or act> correctly to cancel the wave? After all, we may have got that
person wrong> to begin with, in our limited understanding. How far
can we become the> person we "see" them to be, in order to learn
enough to "cancel the wave"?
We can't change anyone except ourselves. To think otherwise is to
invoke heartache and misunderstanding in ourself because other people
are not living up to our expectations, our scripting, our standards.
One of my mental constructs is that anyone or anything outside of
myself is a reflection of my subconscious. Herein is the essence of
mirroring or projection. If I don't like what I see around me, change
the lens on my projector or at least rewrite the script of the movie
that runs behind the projector :)
> >
> >But no, don't condone murder. That would be absurd.
> >As absurd as condoning the death penalty.
> >
> Yes, I agree, though case by case, always, in my view.
yes, murder,the death penalty..they are all the same. Too bad when we
kill someone in our minds we don't see such outraged complaints and
actions against our injustice.
Love,
Susan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
962655017/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.