Hello,

My name is MJ and I have been reading this forum for many years. I have been thinking about many things in my life and have some questions that I hope you may be able to help me understand things better.

It's my understanding that we are only limited by our own belief systems about how things are or should be and we become "free" when we allow ourselves to move beyond these beliefs. I recall the discussions about some people becoming "stuck" in a particular place or pattern because they simply aren't aware they can change their beliefs to move on. I think I understand that idea clearly.

I would prefer to use an example of someone famous versus my own personal experiences (simply because I'm not quite ready to delve into all that). For this purpose, I will use Hitler. Let's say Hilter truly believes that he is *right* in his thinking and that he deserved to earn his place of leadership and possibly world domination. Let's argue that he truly, sincerely and honestly believed this to his core and was simply following through on what he believed to be the right course of action for the "good of society." I am in no way suggesting he was right in his thinking or actions, but just assuming that he THOUGHT he was since the premise of life agreements is based on our belief systems.

Now, imagine that Hilter's body has died and he is facing life review whereby he gets to see a moving picture of all his choices and their impact on everyone. Let's say, throughout his life review, he absolutely does not falter in his belief that his actions are anything but good, right and correct. He sees and acknowledged the pain and destruction he's caused to countless people, but only sees that as a "necessary consequence" for the right and correct choice.

In the above situation, isn't it not only probable, but likely that he would transition to the next phase of existence without any sort of judgment (since he is only judging his own actions) or punishment (since he is the judge, jury and executioner)? I'm not keen on believing in organized religion so I'm not suggesting all hell and damnation. I'm just trying to understand this concept within the context of someone who steadfastly believes they are ABSOLUTELY right in their actions and behaviors.

I will end there and hope we can discuss this matter further. I'm really confused about how to heal certain aspects of my own life and toxic relationships for which I have no control. And, it seems like I will have no choice but to "repeat" this pattern with the same hate-filled, abusive and destructive being in future lifetimes with this person. I don't see the point in trying to go on if I am completely helpless to heal the relationship now or in the future because this person's belief system will rationalize and justify their behavior toward me and others.

Any comments and insight are greatly appreciated. I have been waiting years to try to formulate this question in my mind and reach out for open discussion on it.

Thanks for your time,
mj

Somehow I just can't bring myself to imagine Hitler being permitted to move on anywhere. I would imagine that any transcendence towards becoming a higher consciousness would more likely involve a far different mind-set than Hitler possessed. I would imagine he would be unable to move on to anything higher without some major changes.

On a side note, if you are in an abusive relationship please do not try to justify it. Any possible way to try to justify the abusive relationship in your mind is incorrect. There are over 6 billion people on this planet.

Go find a decent person that knows better than to hurt you.

Do it.

RIGHT NOW.

I guess that is where I'm confused about all this. My understanding (albeit, very little at this point) is that it doesn't really matter what anyone besides Hitler thinks of his actions. It only matters what he thinks of his actions and how he judges himself.

In much the same way, I've met people who believed in particular religions and who were downright distraught to learn they have a family member or closer friend who is an atheist. The person has expended time and energy to pray for their loved ones soul to "get to Heaven" (or wherever they believe they *should* go in the afterlife) without any regard for what that person believes or accepts as their personal truth. Again, my interpretation leans toward it not being of any consequence except to the person within their own belief system. Therefore, an atheist will be wherever s/he believes they will be upon physical death and a theist will be wherever s/he believes they will be upon physical death with no input from anyone else.

Beyond that, I can assure you that I never intended to imply and I am certainly NOT in an abusive situation. My question moreso pertains to an abusive person in my family who harbors constant ill will and hatred toward me. All efforts on my part to extend an olive branch and open the lines of communication (with the goal toward healing) have been wrought with more destructive behavior toward me and general chaos. I have since given up exposing myself to this person's toxicity. The person continues to try to hurt me by influencing people around me, but I've learned to insulate myself from that secondary harm after all these years of putting up with it. My main concern, at this point, is not further physical or emotional harm in this lifetime, but repeated lifetimes with this person since we couldn't figure out our life lessons together this go 'round. I can't fathom the thought of living even another nanosecond with such a mean, hate-filled and selfish person/entity. I just don't see any way of avoiding it since we clearly aren't "breaking bread" in this lifetime.

Thanks for the warning, though. I do appreciate that you were kind enough to comment. I have never been willing to tolerate any type of abuse because of my early experiences with the above referenced family member. I would not and will not ever accept that kind of toxicity as something to be justified, regardless if it's directed toward me or within my presence.

Thanks for your response.

Hi MJ,

Welcome to the board.  With regard to your example of Hitler, I want to point out a few premises I disagree with; first that there is some kind of external judgement from outside of us that assigns us to our post-mortem fate.  None of the near-death experiences I've read or other information seems to back that up.  So really, when someone sheds their mortal skin, they follow the "like attracts like" rule, and  in general, when all pretense is stripped away, they actually want to go to the area of consciousness that is most like their own (even a "hell").   

Also, here's the thing.  All of the layers of protection and pretense are stripped away when we die.  We are left with our core emotional feelings and beliefs, and we no longer put up a "front" to show others.   If the millions of victims of war appeared before Hitler's eyes, then his soul couldn't help but react to the suffering.  If he was aware of the potential for love and happiness, as most are who die, the natural reaction would be to feel sorrow and shame, that his actions could have directly caused such sorrow and karma.  The normal response to this is to want to make amends.  Hence the notion of purgatory or purging that which one does not want.

However, if emotionally and spiritually he was a sadist, he certainly could have seen all the suffering and have been unmoved.  Still, that state of mind is unloving.  Since our afterlife state is, in general related to the degree of love (or PUL) we express and how we live through love, it is clear that no matter what rational thought or philisophy he invoked, to not be moved by all the suffering he caused would be to act and think unlovingly. 

I have heard/read that some sadistic people enter the afterlife without a life review, and find themselves simply in a dark plane with others of their kind.  I suppose you sort of have to want to learn from your life review, if there is one, and most of us would want to make amends if we had harmed others.

With regard to your own situation, it is important to realize that you are not a victim of forces you can not control.  You have the ability to use thought and action to shape your life and rid yourself from those who might harm you.  Some on this board use meditation and affirmations during meditation to gain control of their subconscious connection to the universe.  The techniques are particularly easy to do.  They are the basis of "magic" of old, but they simply show us that we can be powerful creative forces for our own lives, and don't have to consider ourselves as just being "acted upon" by an outside force. 

You can PM me if you want to more information about this - there is a lot of free good material available on the web these days.

Matthew

This isn't addressed to anyone in particular nor is it a particular response to the above posts. Having said that...

We don't know the full story on Hitler. We don't know how much his judgement and actions were influenced by mental illness, genetics, upbringing, socialization, ect.

The consciousness that incarnated as Adolf Hitler is made of the same stuff as you and I.

If, as one Harvard psychologist* insists, 3 - 4% of us are sociopaths then we all have previous incarnations as such and have these among our higher selves. In other words: we are him and he is us.

His higher self may very well include those we would consider saints or holy people. So whom are we judging, really?

No one, and I mean NO ONE, is completely good or evil.

Nothing is ever as simple as black and white.


*Stout, M. Ph.D., The Sociopath Next Door. 2005.

Well said, Rob.

I sensed that MJ's concern was more about whether there was any consequence to Hitler's actions vis-a-vis his potential afterlife course, as Hitler may have "believed" the stuff he spouted. 

My answer is simple.  I feel that philosophy doesn't matter if love is the driving force behind us - it is how much love you express and how you act in accordance to love. 

I agree with you that we are a unity and there is an argument to be made that no one is pure evil, there are some souls who do not want to change, and may take a long long time.


Matthew

Greetings mjd,

Regarding the relative who won't back off, perhaps you've already learned your intended lesson, since you've found some peace in buffering yourself rather than retaliating. I know it's not that simple to do.  :)

Betson

Just Me wrote on Jan 10^th, 2012 at 2:49am:

Hello, My name is MJ and I have been reading this forum for many years. I have been thinking about many things in my life and have some questions that I hope you may be able to help me understand things better. It's my understanding that we are only limited by our own belief systems about how things are or should be and we become "free" when we allow ourselves to move beyond these beliefs. I recall the discussions about some people becoming "stuck" in a particular place or pattern because they simply aren't aware they can change their beliefs to move on. I think I understand that idea clearly. I would prefer to use an example of someone famous versus my own personal experiences (simply because I'm not quite ready to delve into all that). For this purpose, I will use Hitler. Let's say Hilter truly believes that he is *right* in his thinking and that he deserved to earn his place of leadership and possibly world domination. Let's argue that he truly, sincerely and honestly believed this to his core and was simply following through on what he believed to be the right course of action for the "good of society." I am in no way suggesting he was right in his thinking or actions, but just assuming that he THOUGHT he was since the premise of life agreements is based on our belief systems. Now, imagine that Hilter's body has died and he is facing life review whereby he gets to see a moving picture of all his choices and their impact on everyone. Let's say, throughout his life review, he absolutely does not falter in his belief that his actions are anything but good, right and correct. He sees and acknowledged the pain and destruction he's caused to countless people, but only sees that as a "necessary consequence" for the right and correct choice. In the above situation, isn't it not only probable, but likely that he would transition to the next phase of existence without any sort of judgment (since he is only judging his own actions) or punishment (since he is the judge, jury and executioner)? I'm not keen on believing in organized religion so I'm not suggesting all hell and damnation. I'm just trying to understand this concept within the context of someone who steadfastly believes they are ABSOLUTELY right in their actions and behaviors. I will end there and hope we can discuss this matter further. I'm really confused about how to heal certain aspects of my own life and toxic relationships for which I have no control. And, it seems like I will have no choice but to "repeat" this pattern with the same hate-filled, abusive and destructive being in future lifetimes with this person. I don't see the point in trying to go on if I am completely helpless to heal the relationship now or in the future because this person's belief system will rationalize and justify their behavior toward me and others. Any comments and insight are greatly appreciated. I have been waiting years to try to formulate this question in my mind and reach out for open discussion on it. Thanks for your time, mj

MJ,
Its tempting to think that we are only "judging" ourselves when we pass over. But that would lead to  moral relativism, a slippery slope if ever there was one. There is, I believe, absolute truth. And it is the quality and quantity of love (PUL) with which we have lived and passed to others. Hitler would likely be as far away from that absolute quality as could be imagined. But that does not mean that he could not and would not progress in that direction.

  Along the lines of what Bardo said: during Life reviews very wise and purely PUL attuned Consciousnesses help the individual to see where they may have missed the mark and where they can improve. 

  These very wise, completed Beings do this in two ways, their very presence temporarily speeds up/expands the consciousness/ perception and vibratory rate of the individual before them to some extent or another (how much depends on the individual) and sometimes they deliberately point out a pattern, specific life event, or what not and ask the individual to think/feel on it or point out something the person missed about same. 

   It is true though, that what might be a very creative/constructive choice (or the reverse) for one individual within a certain context and situation, might not be as creative/constructive a choice (or the reverse) for another individual within a similar context and situation. 

Hence, there is some "relativity" involved.  But, in many ways, we are as similar, as we different than each other. 

  Because we are both One and Individual at the same time, both equally important, PUL can be and is the standard that applies to all, but not in a rigid way, but in a somewhat relative way. 

Matthew,

DocM wrote on Jan 10^th, 2012 at 11:51am:

I sensed that MJ's concern was more about whether there was any consequence to Hitler's actions vis-a-vis his potential afterlife course, as Hitler may have "believed" the stuff he spouted.

I interjected because I felt someone reading needed to hear that perspective or something within it.  I have no idea who.



DocM wrote on Jan 10^th, 2012 at 11:51am:

My answer is simple.  I feel that philosophy doesn't matter if love is the driving force behind us - it is how much love you express and how you act in accordance to love.

Now that's the hard part, isn't it?!

Rob

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the responses to my post. I really appreciate it. I will try to address everything in this one post to help keep things cohesive.

DocM...
It is my understanding there is no "external" review process either. I was raised Catholic, but was quickly broken of that belief system for a myriad of reasons. However, I did go back and reread my original post and can see how/why you may think I believed that.

If you think there is something that might be useful or I may not have considered in trying to "cut the cords" to my toxic family member, I am open and receptive to listening. I'm truly out of ideas and any insight is appreciated.

Rob_Roy...

Thanks for your comments. I ABSOLUTELY agree with you on this. I do not believe anyone of any culture, race, ethnicity, region, etc. is ALL/NONE of something. I tend to learn toward the idea that the media controls much of what we see/hear about the world around us in an effort to keep us fighting and bickering about "non-issues."

On a personal note, at one time I volunteered with a ministry involved in ministering to men in jail. I attended a few of their services inside the jail and was moved by the experience. I have been volunteering in various capacities since I was a teenager so the idea of being exposed to people I would not necessarily know or associate with in "real life" was not the issue. I remembering going around the room and sitting with the men who reached out for those of us there. One man was heavily tattooed and clearly the "leader" among his peers. I reached out to take his hand and I could see a glistening in his eyes. I opened my arms to hug him and this huge guy cried. I held on for as long as he did. That was many years ago and his face is still in my memory.

In this regard, I believe Hilter was loved and adored by the people in his life just like my family member is loved and adored by people. I am one of those people, myself. Yet, I don't believe loving someone means allowing myself to be constantly hurt by another either. I do not stand in judgment of Hilter (or anyone else). I've been on the receiving end of that and it's not helpful in the least. So, no, I am the person that people think is "crazy" and "weird" because I do NOT ever make snap judgments about people. I accept people where they are versus where I *think* they should be. It's a philosophy that's gotten me in trouble more than once.  :-/

DocM...

You are correct. I only used Hilter as an example of someone in recent history who most people know about. I certainly don't believe he was all evil or bad (he had to gain a fair amount of allegience and the fear-factor probably wouldn't have worked very well or for long).

Betson...

Thanks for your post. I've pondered the idea that maybe that is it, but I have reason to suspect it's not. For one, I keep "repeating" the same lesson - meeting people exactly like this family member and finding myself throwing my hands up and just walking away because I refuse to engage in a fight and I don't want to be the recipient of non-sensical physical and emotional battering.

I also suspect it's not that simple because I've never been a vengeful person and don't relish in other people's misery. It is not something I've had to learn, but the way I've always been. In fact, it is a HUGE point of contention within the family because they hate the way I love people unconditionally and will reach out to help a stranger. I have no idea *why* I'm that way, but know I have always been. It never occurs to me that someone is a different race or religion or "status" in society. I feel that a person in need has crossed my path for a reason and I try to help when I can.

I honestly wish it was as simple as "just loving" this family member. I would have "passed" the lesson many moon ago if that were the case.  ;)

Rob_Roy...

Hi again. I appreciate your comments and understand your message. I don't have trouble loving others although some people have made it difficult for me to tolerate being around them. I don't hate anybody I can think of at the moment. It's just not something that comes to me regardless of what has transpired. I know many people who know my situation have commented they don't understand why I DON'T hate the family member. I guess I don't see the value in that for me or the other person.

I recall several years ago being terminated from a job I loved. Some said it was because the President was jealous that so many clients were praising me for a job well done. Some said she was upset that her lover really admired my work ethic. I don't know the real reason behind my firing; just that I was unfairly fired. Several months after this incident, a former client called to tell me the Board fired the President and her cronies. She was gloating and laughing about the situation to which I didn't really have a response. She paused and asked me if I was "happy they were fired?" to which I told her I was not because I know what losing one's job is like and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, even people who fired me unjustly. She became upset with me and said I wasn't "normal." She stopped speaking to me after that. I never understood her position because being happy for their pain wouldn't get my job back and it certainly wouldn't repair my damaged reputation from the lies they spread to various clients in the area. What possible "good" could come from me celebrating something so painful and awful? I still don't get that.

Thanks again to you all for your input. I really appreciate it.

Uh, oh...Hi Bardo...Somehow I missed your response when I was scrolling through trying to answer everyone (I opened another window and was trying to go back and forth). Sorry about that. I certainly didn't intend to overlook your response.

Thank you for responding. I guess my next question is "What is truth?" and "What is ABSOLUTE truth?" I've heard some say there is no right or wrong, just our perception of what is so. I'm not refuting any of these beliefs as I simply don't understand enough to formulate an opinion on their validity. I think, though, it begs the question "Who defines ABSOLUTE truth?" and if it is, why is there so much ambiguity and question about the rules in the world?

Does that make sense?

MJD-

'She paused and asked me if I was "happy they were fired?" to which I told her I was not because I know what losing one's job is like and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, even people who fired me unjustly. She became upset with me and said I wasn't "normal." She stopped speaking to me after that. I never understood her position because being happy for their pain wouldn't get my job back and it certainly wouldn't repair my damaged reputation from the lies they spread to various clients in the area. What possible "good" could come from me celebrating something so painful and awful? I still don't get that. '

Your words resonate with me. That idea of hurting the ones who hurt never really made any sense to me- logically all you get is double the hurt. I visualise people who hurt others as like being a person invited to a party who then hides in a dark broom cupboard as others have all the fun i.e evil is its own reward, no external punishment necessary. I can understand how it is natural to want to strike out at those who hurt us but forgiveness is the vision to see the ultimate folly in this.

p.s why be normal if that is normality ?!

MJD,

You are a sincere and loving person; it comes through in your writing.  The reason your friend from work stopped calling is the same reason that people may separate themselves apart into what some call "hells" or "heavens."  You couldn't rejoice in the suffering of another, even if it was her karma.  This other employee seemed to relish the comeuppance.

I know you posed the queston to Bardo, but I can't resist butting in about what is truth or is everything relative.  In my humble opinion, this really gets down to whether we believe in anything at all.  You see, you can argue that truth is only judged from perspective, but one is then left with a sort of emptiness; a uselessness to the entire process of thought and consciousness. 

I see it this way; if multiple explorers and many religions believe that love is the underlying force behind our spirit, and if this love comes from God (the essence of love), then this sets up a form of a "truth," and a "right" thought and "right action."  Seen this way, although you can make a logical argument that truth is relative or good is relative, this logic fails if compared to the gold standard of love.  Is this action good?  Is it performed out of love and in a loving way?  If the answer is yes, than the test for "good" has been accomplished. 

I suppose what I am saying is that in my gut, I've always abhored moral relativism.  The idea of "do as thou will" regardless of the consequences may be defensible, but just didn't make sense to me.  Only after I factored love into the equation did I begin to understand that the geniuses who pontificate on how truth is all relative just don't get it.


Matthew

Hitler...

For Hitler to move on he has to accept PUL into his "heart", and if he does, he will feel the pain he has caused others. If he doesn't and also doesn't get stuck in F 23, he will end up in one of the Hells of the BSTs, most likely in F 24.

In Moen's 4th book there is alot of writings about this matter of people in Hells.

MJ,
I agree with Doc's thoughts on this. Good and bad to me are the relative position to Pure Unconditional Love (or whatever you call the prime moving substance of the universe). One's position relative to this "ideal" and how one characterizes it is what we refer to as morality and its what we judge ourselves on, in my very humble opinion. However, there is an absolute purity of PUL, and that is what we (or I) think of when I say God. Certainly, do as you wish, and call it what you will, but all things are anchored in their relation to God.

Hi mjd,

"Yet, I don't believe loving someone means allowing myself to be constantly hurt by another either. I do not stand in judgment of Hilter (or anyone else). I've been on the receiving end of that and it's not helpful in the least."

Judging as in 'never gonna change' is different than judging as in 'this is not good for me, pull out'. Measuring situations, as you seem to have done with not allowing yourself to be constantly hurt. When you're on the receiving end you're on the light side, that is, too light possibly since it doesn't stop. Defense can be light, trying to reason with someone or connecting with their heart/feelings. Another light way is some sort of a "bribe". Making a clear cut break from a person/situation can be a very clean way, and can make the other party think about why you suddenly are gone. The main thing is that it stops, but the break can also become an open door to reconciliation, if that was a goal. Oomph, as in fighting someone off (with the intent to make it stop) does seem harder for people who are prone to be on the receiving end. My assumption is that you're vary or afraid of hurting the other party.

"So, no, I am the person that people think is "crazy" and "weird" because I do NOT ever make snap judgments about people. I accept people where they are versus where I *think* they should be. It's a philosophy that's gotten me in trouble more than once."

I could accept you where I think you are. I'm not you so I don't *know* where you are. Very good going with not placing others where you think they should be. I'm not there but working on it and recognize it as progress towards freedom for self and others. The trouble might be about that you're not participating anymore and they act as crabs in a bucket when you're on your way to do it your way.

heisenberg69 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:48am:

Your words resonate with me. That idea of hurting the ones who hurt never really made any sense to me- logically all you get is double the hurt. I visualise people who hurt others as like being a person invited to a party who then hides in a dark broom cupboard as others have all the fun i.e evil is its own reward, no external punishment necessary. I can understand how it is natural to want to strike out at those who hurt us but forgiveness is the vision to see the ultimate folly in this. p.s why be normal if that is normality ?!

Hi,

I guess the truth is I don't want to be "normal" if that's normality. However, I do want to be able to go to work, do my job and earn a living without constant harassment and animosity from my co-workers and employers. I want to have friends and for my children to have friends without constantly being rejected and having to pick up the pieces because of my unwillingness to be "normal." I want to lead by example and show my children that it's okay to be different as long as we know, in our hearts, that we are doing the "right" thing versus the popular thing. I want to know that after I die, my children have learned to stand by their convictions and know the right thing to do regardless of the pressure from their peers. I want them to see, in me, that standing up for what's right does not always end in rejection and/or termination. At this point, I certainly can't teach them that because I haven't mastered it. I'm a work in progress, though, so I haven't given up trying.

Thanks again,
mj

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the compliment. It's been rare these qualities have been considered positives.

As far as my former employer's *deserving* the termination and it being her karma...I think I pause at this kind of thing because it's not my place to judge another and her karma is hers to work out. Beyond that, I find myself feeling sorry for her. I can't imagine how unfulfilled and unhappy a person must be in order to make tormenting others a hobby of sorts. I have never felt that way toward anyone so I can't claim to understand why it happens though.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the questions posed. I tend to agree with you and have never understood how easy it is for people to rationalize certain behaviors based on the sign of the times. I was involved in politics as an intern while in college. I remember thinking that I could not wait to finish my internship so I could get as far away from those people as possible. I was talking to a woman about a candidate for some office (can't recall now) and I mentioned that he was a crook and was known for lying, stealing and cheating. Without a beat, she replied "But, he's a crook on MY side!" To this day, I have no clue how that line of thinking works. ;-)

Thanks again,
mj

PauliEffectt wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 11:54am:

Hitler... For Hitler to move on he has to accept PUL into his "heart", and if he does, he will feel the pain he has caused others. If he doesn't and also doesn't get stuck in F 23, he will end up in one of the Hells of the BSTs, most likely in F 24. In Moen's 4th book there is alot of writings about this matter of people in Hells.

Hi PauliEffectt,

I think I understand the concept better now. In essence, our human form allows us to rationalize and justify behaviors moreso than in the afterlife. It sounds like that doesn't always happen, for some, but has the potential of transcending certain internal blocks. Am I understanding that correctly?

Thanks again,
mj

Bardo wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

MJ, I agree with Doc's thoughts on this. Good and bad to me are the relative position to Pure Unconditional Love (or whatever you call the prime moving substance of the universe). One's position relative to this "ideal" and how one characterizes it is what we refer to as morality and its what we judge ourselves on, in my very humble opinion. However, there is an absolute purity of PUL, and that is what we (or I) think of when I say God. Certainly, do as you wish, and call it what you will, but all things are anchored in their relation to God.

Hi Bardo,

Yes! This is what I was getting at. If I remove my "need to be right" and/or "be ahead" then it follows very easily that choices are made based on a Universal "truth" versus a conditional one.

Recently, I was reading an article about the plans to leave Kim Jong-il's body in state indefinitely. The comments and reactions on the message board were so hateful and nasty, it was unbelievable. Some posters argued that he is getting this elaborate service and such while the people are starving. I posed the question asking why it's any different than all the people in the U.S. starving or homeless or without medical care while celebrities make millions upon millions of dollars and we (some) worship movie "stars" and athletes. Of course I was lambasted for this, but the question remains. Why is it okay to value one person's life over another because of some superficial (and, often artificial) contribution to society? Why is their leader any less revered and important to them than ours are to us? It's clearly ethnocentrism at its finest. :-? Yet, I can't help but wonder why we, as a people, can't understand that centuries of fighting and arguing is not helping anybody. I think it's time for a Plan B.  ;D

Thanks again,
mj

Volu wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Hi mjd, Judging as in 'never gonna change' is different than judging as in 'this is not good for me, pull out'. Measuring situations, as you seem to have done with not allowing yourself to be constantly hurt. When you're on the receiving end you're on the light side, that is, too light possibly since it doesn't stop. Defense can be light, trying to reason with someone or connecting with their heart/feelings. Another light way is some sort of a "bribe". Making a clear cut break from a person/situation can be a very clean way, and can make the other party think about why you suddenly are gone. The main thing is that it stops, but the break can also become an open door to reconciliation, if that was a goal. Oomph, as in fighting someone off (with the intent to make it stop) does seem harder for people who are prone to be on the receiving end. My assumption is that you're vary or afraid of hurting the other party. I could accept you where I think you are. I'm not you so I don't *know* where you are. Very good going with not placing others where you think they should be. I'm not there but working on it and recognize it as progress towards freedom for self and others. The trouble might be about that you're not participating anymore and they act as crabs in a bucket when you're on your way to do it your way.

Hi Volu,

Thanks for your response. I am probably "too light" and clueless on how to change that, thus far. I do not strike back at the family member because it's not my nature. There is nothing to be gained by trying to defend myself and the potential for exacerbating the situation makes the "price" way too high. I've already been ostracized by the church and our ENTIRE family (they all sided with the abusive family member) so the price has already been too high in my lifetime. I don't miss the church so much, but I certainly miss having any family interaction. I never went to my college graduation, had a wedding or had any family there when I gave birth. I cherish the family I have now (and appreciate them more-so because I know how it is on the other side) but it doesn't replace the void of not having that other part. All in all, I know it's my journey this time around and I'm trying my best to learn from it.

As far as them not interacting anymore...that's true, but only because I moved across the country last year and did not utilize any options that would help them find me (ie. forwarding orders, giving former neighbors my new contact info, updating school records, etc.). It may seem paranoid and/or drastic, but my separating from them in the past has caused them to "raise the ante" to the point of interfering with my school scholarships and employment. After picking up the pieces so many times and them trying to play the same games with my children - I drew the line in the sand. Fortunately, my children were very, very young when it happened so they don't have any conscious memory of my being attacked that day. That was the final time I made any effort to "extend the olive branch."

I know there will be a point where they will find me and I will have to address it, but, for now, I am enjoying hearing the phone ring and knowing it's not a verbal assault or hearing the doorbell and knowing there is nobody there ready to physically harm me. Maybe, I will find a workable solution before I have to face that again. All in all, though, the most important thing is keeping my children safe and helping them reach a point of self-respect and self-esteem before they have to know the truth about that part of the family. At least I know they should be able to respond from a place of love and tolerance rather than fear and guilt (as I did all those years ago). All I can do is work on myself and I make that effort everyday.

Thanks again,
mj

MJ,
I often whine on this board about how I want the best for my kids, and how I want to help them grow spiritually without being indoctinated into any particular religion. Pretty much, I always hear from the other folks here that the best I can do is provide a good example for my children, and help them to understand the importance of love, compassion and giving in their lives. It seems like you are doing this for your youngsters, so I'm sure they are on the right path along with you. I'm sorry you have to deal with som much trauma from family members.

Bardo wrote on Jan 13^th, 2012 at 2:27pm:

MJ, I often whine on this board about how I want the best for my kids, and how I want to help them grow spiritually without being indoctinated into any particular religion. Pretty much, I always hear from the other folks here that the best I can do is provide a good example for my children, and help them to understand the importance of love, compassion and giving in their lives. It seems like you are doing this for your youngsters, so I'm sure they are on the right path along with you. I'm sorry you have to deal with som much trauma from family members.

Hi Bardo,

Thanks for sharing this. It really helps to know that someone understands why this is so important and how it impacts our future generations. Fortunately, this time around, I have more control over the exposure and counter-attacks. I'm hoping that will be the correct formula to impart the best lessons on life and love.

All the best,
mj

‘I suppose what I am saying is that in my gut, I've always abhored moral relativism.  The idea of "do as thou will" regardless of the consequences may be defensible, but just didn't make sense to me.  Only after I factored love into the equation did I begin to understand that the geniuses who pontificate on how truth is all relative just don't get it.’

The reason I don’t reject moral relativism outright is because I believe that its polar opposite, moral absolutism, has been the driving force behind most of the world’s moral outrages. Perpetrators of such actions are not amoral in the sense of having no morals but of having skewed ones. The Hitlers and Stalins of this world have complete certainty that their version of morality is the right one and therefore they are justifying in crushing those who don’t share their view. You could even argue that they act out of a version of love, but a terribly constricted one only extending to the chosen few. In a more personal example how many times do we hear the jealous boyfriend justify his violence or the spouse use emotional blackmail with a ‘it’s because I love you’ and from their perspective they do. But when people grow spiritually what they consider to be love changes and expands.

The reason I believe moral relativism has some value in it (or at least my version !) is that it simply recognises that morality and consequent actions are relative to the level of the love (PUL attunement) we are currently operating at. Pure unconditional love is love operating at the highest, most expansive level but in our everyday world we don’t usually operate there. I think we are justified in making the judgment that relatively speaking one action is more PUL attuned than another (hence better) as long as we have the humility to understand, like MJD,  that we are all ‘work in progress’ . Added to that is the understanding (which MJD recognises with ‘All I can do is work on myself and I make that effort everyday’) that enlightenment cannot be imposed on anyone else. Maybe the absolute-relative moral dichotomy needs updating.

I think a belief in the afterlife is programmed into all humans...

......it is part of our thought process.....

We see ourselves as more than our body. We see this daily as we go about our routine keeping our mind satisfied with accomplishments and activities.

However.....

This does not mean it is a fact that we are more than our body!

In reality, it is just as likely that our intelligence is simply creating a fantasy of greater meaning, purpose, and existence.

Focus27 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2012 at 5:58pm:

I think a belief in the afterlife is programmed into all humans... ......it is part of our thought process..... We see ourselves as more than our body. We see this daily as we go about our routine keeping our mind satisfied with accomplishments and activities. However..... This does not mean it is a fact that we are more than our body! In reality, it is just as likely that our intelligence is simply creating a fantasy of greater meaning, purpose, and existence.

Hi Focus27,

I agree, to an extent. I think it's easier to cope with the death of a loved one if we believe they've gone on to a "better place" regardless if we have proof (as a society) or not.

However, if we are nothing more than our body, why do so many people have these *other* experiences? We can't all be hallucinating. Of course, Freud was convinced that sexual abuse was not as prevalent as reported by his female patients so he came up with the idea of "thingy envy" and "female hysteria." Lo and behold, it is not only as real as probably reported, it is currently estimated that a certain percentage of survivors, of both genders, never report it or seek any kind of help.

Kind regards,
mj

I just want to add that while there is evidence that the afterlife exists, none of the evidence meets my requirements for acceptance of proof of the afterlife......

.....It has nothing to do with failure to research the afterlife.

I have done more research than you may think based on my conclusions. Ultimately, I conclude that the evidence for the afterlife is inconclusive, proving nothing. Therefore, logically I can only make the following factual statement:

"The afterlife may or may not exist."

The evidence for NDE, OBE, Ghosts, Mediums, etc. is often hokey, untrustworthy, and not well documented.

You give me a case of extreme scientific testing that I can add to the evidence, completely controlled environments, several, varied cameras, showing all areas of the room, at least 7 or more cameras including infrared and others, and I will be the first one to say WOW! This is not just evidence... this is proof!

When this type of extreme controlled testing is brought up, the reaction is always the same.

"It cannot be done..... If done.... the tests would always fail because afterlife occurrences can't happen under those conditions."

....Well isn't that awfully convenient for pro afterlife belief systems? Set the limitations so that you can justify your belief system. I see this all the time in organized religions.

Focus27-

'You give me a case of extreme scientific testing that I can add to the evidence, completely controlled environments, several, varied cameras, showing all areas of the room, at least 7 or more cameras including infrared and others, and I will be the first one to say WOW! This is not just evidence... this is proof!'

To me what you're saying is a little like a scientist saying that the Higgs-Boson particle does'nt exist because it cannot be reproduced under normal laboratory conditions. To detect it scientists have to accelerate particles to near light speeds in a large hadron collider costing billions of dollars- not your average lab ! In other words it requires a set of exceptional circumstances- maybe definitive afterlife proof is of the same nature. I think your skepticism relates to your frustration  that afterlife evidence cannot be summoned 'to order'. The truth is that we don't know enough to understand why this is so but the fact remains that as a body the evidence for the afterlife is impressive, perhaps more so than for the elusive Higgs-Boson !

Focus27 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2012 at 4:44am:

I just want to add that while there is evidence that the afterlife exists, none of the evidence meets my requirements for acceptance of proof of the afterlife...... .....It has nothing to do with failure to research the afterlife. I have done more research than you may think based on my conclusions. Ultimately, I conclude that the evidence for the afterlife is inconclusive, proving nothing. Therefore, logically I can only make the following factual statement: "The afterlife may or may not exist." The evidence for NDE, OBE, Ghosts, Mediums, etc. is often hokey, untrustworthy, and not well documented. You give me a case of extreme scientific testing that I can add to the evidence, completely controlled environments, several, varied cameras, showing all areas of the room, at least 7 or more cameras including infrared and others, and I will be the first one to say WOW! This is not just evidence... this is proof! When this type of extreme controlled testing is brought up, the reaction is always the same. "It cannot be done..... If done.... the tests would always fail because afterlife occurrences can't happen under those conditions." ....Well isn't that awfully convenient for pro afterlife belief systems? Set the limitations so that you can justify your belief system. I see this all the time in organized religions.

Hi Focus27,

First, let me clarify, I NEVER make judgments about what other people think, feel or believe. So, I did not and do not have any foregone conclusions about what research you may or may not have done on the afterlife. Your truth is yours regardless of how/why you reached it. I accept that.

Secondly, some of us recently had this discussion in another thread. I agree that research is not as unbiased and "open to finding" results as it's made out to be. If for no other reason that most medical doctors will not even consider the idea their patient is sane when presented with symptoms/reactions that are not the "known" side-effects of a medication or procedure. Of course, there are some decent doctors out there but, in my experience and knowledge, they are usually bullied and pushed out of business by others who don't appreciate their so-called "forward thinking." Think about how many people are permanently injured or have died simply because they were told to see a psychiatrist or take psychotropic drugs because they were not having a "typical" reaction. And, if evidence can be so easily dismissed countless times in examining rooms, it is not hard for me to believe that it's even more likely when there are millions of dollars in research funding on the line (read that as "we need to achieve a certain outcome.")

Notwithstanding the obvious encumbrances in research models, I believe the reason there is no concrete proof for the afterlife is simply that it's too much of a threat to dogma-based conditioning and control. It would not be possible to guilt-trip people if everyone knew, without any doubt, that they are the masters of their own fate and have access to any/all spiritual teachings in every realm. How many people would be put out of work by such a thing?  8-) As they say...follow the money to get the answer. There are billions upon billions of dollars pumped into keeping religion based teachings (and fighting) alive. Anything and everything that poses even a small annoyance to their regime is going to eradicated...and quickly.

There is a quote I use in my private emails that I really like. It's "To those who believe, no proof is necessary; to those who don't, no proof is possible." (attributed to Stuart Chase).

Kind regards,
mj

It amazes me how hard we work to create doubt in ourselves about what we innately know to be true.

Bardo wrote on Jan 30^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

It amazes me how hard we work to create doubt in ourselves about what we innately know to be true.

Agreed there!

When you're in a negative state of mind it can be very hard to shake it off, I know this from experience and I struggle with this from time to time.

I'm not talking about afterlife matters with what I experience but it's the same thing overall.

Every person I have seen since researching afterlife stuff who has been opposing to it has clearly had problems with their state of mind, there's been a few on this board since I've been here and also a lot more when I have looked back through the posts before I was here.

There's also the people who have made their mind up already and only oppose it because it offends their currently held beliefs. I've not come across anyone like this on this board so far.

If you want to look at investigating the afterlife or anything else for that matter then you should leave your opinions and negativity at the door before you walk through it. It's the only way that you can be truly objective, above all this is for your own good than anything else.

P.S. If you want to say that NDE's, "ghosts" etc. are not evidence of the afterlife then it would be very helpful to your cause and credibility if you tell us what they really are rather than saying what they aren't. So far no one has been able to do this. 

Andy

And, I propose there is another group of people. People whose minds simply can't allow them to face the reality of a situation so they hold onto any/all methods by which to avoid knowing the truth of things around them.

As a former child abuse advocate I have seen it time and time and time again. Parents and other adults sometimes absolutely refuse to believe the truth of the situation because they are incapable or unwilling to handle it. The most heartbreaking discussion I ever had was with a mother of a six year old girl who had been violated in the most awful way. Her mother could not stop focusing on her own heartache and confusion to even consider the possibility that her precious, defenseless child needed her love and support. I witnessed this exchange for months and this woman simply did not have anything to give her child who needed a loving, supportive and understanding mother more than anything in that moment. Not in that case, but I have seen mothers deny the truth even in the face of inrefutable physical evidence. The human brain is designed to protect and will go to great measures to do so at almost any cost.

It's disheartening and unfair to give the impression of superiority simply because other people have not reached the same level of understanding. Is it not true that everyone is our teacher and everyone is our student? (I think that's a Chinese proverb, but I'm tired so I could be mistaken).

Kind regards,
mj

I and others find it unsurprising that we don't have "scientific" proof of an afterlife or the survival of consciousness beyond the survival of the body.  After all, "science" only concerns itself with the physical.  If your entire universe is contained within a small box, there is no way you can prove the existence of the much larger box outside your small box since only things within your small box exist and are valid as far as you are concerned.  Tom Campbell said it much more eloquently in "My Big Toe".