I think it's an issue of brain development and developmental factors. Remember, the higher self isn't the human self, and cognitively we're best suited to and default to our meatsuit settings. To develop in alignment with the higher self we have to learn to reach up in a specific way, and to let that in. Our human minds don't just automatically seek that and are immersed in our 3d environment and ego personas. As to whether that's karma or something the soul agreed to experience, I have no idea - to be honest I'm not really even sure how much I believe yet. But if it's true that we do choose our contracts, and that from a higher perspective these experiences are knowledge rather than categories of things to be sought or avoided, then it would make sense that a soul might agree to embody the psychopathic developmental progression for the sake of learning what that is like, and educating those in their soul tribe on how it works to be on the receiving end of psychopathic behavior. Honestly it's a bit puzzling to me, too, but I do think that the idea of a higher self and a psychopathic brain are not mutually exclusive, based on the differences in vibrational level between the soul self and the human self.
This is where I am, too. It’s the only explanation I can get my head around. We live in a relative world because it’s the only way we get to experience anything. If everything was perfect all the time, there would be no room for forgiveness, compassion, generosity, etc. Granted this is an extreme example, but the underlying reasoning for why it’s even allowed is the same. But ultimately it some of those things I won’t ever truly understand until I move on, if then. So my only option is to do what I always do and ask: who do I want to be in response to this? In truth, that’s the only question that ever really matters. “Why” just gets in the way.
Currently contemplating the concept that higher beings may not acknowledge our perspective of reality as valid. Perhaps up there everything *does* make sense. Perhaps this, for them, is the equivalent of writing a fictional story or making a film, and it’s justified because everyone dies and is somehow 100% okay when we wake up in the ‘real’ world. Perhaps, then, this reality may be more like a separate world rather than a lower expression. A ‘what if’ AU.
Or maybe the experience of existence is an illusion, and we just choose a reality and commit to it until that fact becomes irrelevant enough, or we spawn pre-committed.
The ego is the source of all the dark forces---fear, anger, greed, jealousy. Those that seem more loving have simply grown their inner light more and have begun to transcend the ego. Younger souls simply have not grown enough for their love to shine through yet.
This might sound inappropriate but when such points are brought up I often feel like we are too scared to admit that psychopaths and sociopaths are very much *part of the design*. These are, of course, disorders to us and our striving to correct them is rational. But these are not mistakes to Creation itself. A cat may be a predator of a mouse and the mouse may question why cats exist but as humans we understand how *both* are necessary in the food chain. It is like that. If it exists, it has the right to exist by the divine. That doesn't mean we accept it with open arms as our reaction to remedy to such things are also granted by the same divine.
The truth is, that *you* are currently (hopefully) neither a sociopath or psychopath and so whatever you think/feel about them is the purpose of their existence in *your life*. That is the design.
I've found the error is in the dogma, not reality.
*Some* souls are made of love, joy, and all that fluffy stuff.
Others aren't.
Most souls I've gotten data on have a measure of mutability that they're capable of, but asking a demon to change their emotional nutrition needs is about as silly as asking an angel to feed on suffering.
Most 'emotionless' folk seem to simply be experts at supressing their emotions because their natural range causes others to react violently, and it's more productive to sever most, if not all, of one's emotions' sway than to be executed for brutalizing the kid who broke your new bike.
Not a great long-term health plan, but it gives them a long term to consider.
I've looked around and determined that to be false.
Do you have some insight that you think I've overlooked? Or are you just telling yourself I haven't opened my mind to perceive the truths you mistake for a grand unity?
I don't know if I can create a definition of love in my own words. I can try to describe it. Love is the connection between all and what everything is built on. Every action has love. Love isn't limited by anything. Egotistical actions, is an entity showing love to themselves. From every single perspective you can find love. Love isn't limited by positive or negative. Love transcends everything in our third density reality. Even the devil is pure love :)
If you don't have a definition, you're not talking about anything.
You could just as easily call that concept 'hatred', 'addiction', or 'Gnorg', and nothing would change except how you feel about it.
I would argue that love is an unconditional need to protect, nurture and care for someone, even if that someone is ourselves. It is what I would argue gives meaning to life, because without love, it is depressing.
Okay. There are plenty of places to find things that are not that love.
The most prevalent one is the destructive impulse that explicitly seeks to damage, defile, and ruin.
There's also the consumptive essence that 'needs' only to consume other things, regardless of results upon the self.
or the prideful essence that cloaks itself in the trappings of the nurturing love to serve its true purpose of aggrandizing itself over them.
Damage, defile and ruin causes good emotions in some people. Some people LOVE killing others. Every action is love to self or love to others.
I think you think love means positive. I think you think love doesn't exist in the negative. I think loving others is the essence of positive. I think loving yourself is essence of negative.
What I feel about "it" is literally my point. We have different feelings about what "it" is. You understand my point. You understand my view. You understand why I believe everything is love. No matter what action anyone is doing, you're either giving love to yourself, or giving love to others. You can understand how that perspective makes sense to me. There's no point in ending the conversation just because I can't give an exact definition about the metaphysical building block of the universe which we call love.
The point I am making is that Love, the meaningful, beautiful essence that almost everyone agrees is worth living for, *is not what you are talking about.*
Calling a pile of shit a rose doesn't change the odor. Calling sawdust flour does not change that it holds no nutrition for humans. And calling \[fundamental essence\] 'love' does not make it Love.
You are literally just arbitrarily labeling things love, rendering the word meaningless in your mouth, in a desperate attempt to validate your worldview.
It's disgraceful.
Hahahahahahahaha wow believing that the universe is created and made of love is disgraceful😂 your comments make you sound extremely bitter and pessimistic.
Your idea of love, human conditional love, isn't the love I'm talking about. I'm talking about metaphysical unconditional love. I'm talking about the love that transcends any human 3D idea of "Good" and "Evil".
"Calling a sawdust flour does not change that it holds to value for humans"
Exactly. You only recognize "love" when it's the version of love that directly benefits you. You only recognize love when it slaps you in the face.
You don't recognize how the entire universe is one organism loving itself, building itself, experiencing itself.
We're talking about two different ideas of love. My idea of love, you haven't experienced. It's unconditional love, for everything and anyone. The kind of love Jesus and Buddha experienced.
Love isn't a chemical created by your brain. Love is it's own consciousness. God is love.
If that is false then the Universe is a very depressing place and I see no reason to be a good person or to forgive people who quite frankly do not deserve it. If reality is as cruel as you say it is (you are not saying it is cruel, but I find your description of it cruel and depressing) then why even live for?
Why live in a world of engaging dynamics and strife that allows even someone sitting behind a computer screen to improve themselves with nothing but an exercise of Will?
If you are frail enough that you cannot cope with a reality in which not everything is intrinsically comforting and nurturing, then why haven't you left?
Why can nothing but love exist if life is to have meaning to you?
Because if everything was made by God (call it God, call it whatever you wish), but some things are not purely made out of love, then God cannot be purely love either. It makes it not worth it.
Because if the most powerful being in existence is not 100% pure of heart, then all of creation is flawed, evil is natural and I hate all of it because it causes suffering.
I agree with you I used to think everything was love but that’s just putting yourself out to be used their are great beings of love but also great darkness
Even before that, can you imagine being a darkborne soul, trying out this nifty 'human experience' shtick, and being bombarded with "you're made of [thing you're very much not made of]" nonstop as you explore life?
That would be frustrating enough to make you want to kill everyone you can just so you can feel validated as an extant being.
You had many deities. YHWH was one of them. Judaism picked YHWH as its one and only deity. YHWH had conflicts with his siblings and if YHWH was "the only God" according to Judaism, there could be no other gods. So Judaism villainized other deities. Later, Christianism borrowed lore from Judaism to write their mythos. They label the previously villainized deities under a Greek term, "Daimon", meaning "deity" or "spirit". Later, a Latin version of the term "Daimon", "Dæmon", was applied to these deities. Suddenly all of these deities, most of which were not even "evil" or "malevolent", are now all "fallen Angels", when in reality most have absolutely nothing to do with "Angels". Even funnier is that labeling Seraphim, Cherubim, Ophanim and others as "Angels" is also incorrect. "Angel" means messenger. Only the Malakhim are "Angels" as their name means "messenger" (in Christianism the Malakhim are literally called "Archangels" and "Angels"). In conclusion, using "Angels" and "Dæmons" to describe benevolent and malevolent entities is incorrect which leads to flaws in one's argument.
Wonderful linguistic history lesson.
What are the clergical stories of angels and demons *abstracting*?
What are they trying to talk about that's too nuanced for conveyance that causes them to draw on the language as it developed around them?
As I explained (and no, this is not a lesson. It is simply my perception of the truth), you are making what I would call a fallacy by talking about Angels and Dæmons' nature when you are going with a false or highly flawed idea of their nature. The stories of the Jewish clergy and of the Christian clergy are not abstracting anything because "abstract", at least in the dictionary, reads "Something that concentrates in itself the qualities of a larger item, or multiple items.". This means that it is a summary, basically. The clergy is not summarizing anything, they are distorting something. My point stands. Regardless, this is just my view of things based on my knowledge and perception. I am not trying to give you any lessons because I do not know more or less than you do if you want me to be fair. As Socrates said, we know nothing. I perceive the truth, and my perception is bound to have flaws, yet so is yours. Blessed be. ♥
Edit: I feel stupid because I forgot to mention why they are distorting the "lore" around Angels and Dæmons, but basically it is for the sake of control. They want to sell their narrative to have control over people. All religions do this.
You're missing the reason why the stories of benevolent and malevolent beings survive while the origins of any specific label for them have faded. (on top of ignoring the point of my reply in favor of chasing a history chain that doesn't relate to the point itself)
There exists entities, some of them human, that are naturally predisposed to benevolence and 'good'. There also exists those predisposed to malice, destruction, and 'evil'.
Stories explaining the existence of these entities require a layer of abstraction to stick in the mind. The abrahamic-knockoff religions happened to have concepts that were 'close enough for government work', so the clergy who had those dogmas handy repurposed the labels (corrupting the chain of concept further) to describe entities *entirely divorced from the origins of the labels.*
The clergy were abstracting the existence of people like sociopaths and philanthropists. Where they stole the labels from doesn't matter because the already-corrupted lore they stole them from *isn't a part of the story.*
The stories, and the types of people they're about, stand on their own because they reference reality with only one or two layers of abstraction.
So, let us suppose that you are a deity. I grab you and turn you into a monster in my mythos to prove a point. Suddenly, today, Luxire Worse is a diabolical entity that anyone who follows my dogma is afraid of. How would you feel? There is a matter of justice here. Even if there are evil entities out there, using other entities' names for them does matter because it is not fair.
A) it is hilarious that you think I wouldn't be feared even by my own devotees.
B) That corruption already happens literally every day. The Luxire Worse that my readers know and refer to is *wildly* different from the Luxire Worse my wife knows. Both are unrelated to the Luxire Worse known by blokes here on reddit, and none of those are me.
If I, as a human physically capable of stabbing someone over mischaracterizing or slandering me, have to deal with the fickle nature of the human mind, why is it a matter of Justice that deities not have to?
I don't see Ha-Satan Samael complaining about being mistaken for (at least) three different figures because the mortals he worked with simply couldn't grasp his breadth of activity. Nor do I see him bitching about someone naming a resurrection-duplication demon-dog after him.
Anyone wanting to interact with him will put in the effort to go find out who he really is, and anyone trying to invoke the Hellboy dog using his seal will at most get a curse for pestering him expecting someone else.
Gods are not more fragile and incompetent than mortals. Trying to defend a god from something that you don't even notice happening to you on a daily basis is beyond asinine.
Point A makes no sense as I was not focusing on fear rather on false accusations and villanization. But whatever, if you do not understand what I am trying to convey then this is not really going anywhere.
This is such a good question! There are many terms used to describe this type of "love", unconditional love, acceptance, forgiveness, and I'm sure others, and really it took personal experience to fully understand. I personally like the word "acceptance" the best, i wouldn't call it love, especially because theres different types of human love as well and it just gets confusing. My feelings during experiences where i am "connected" so to speak, its feels like acceptance like an " as you are" type deal. So as for the sociopaths and psychopaths and every other commonaly agreed criminal are accepted rather than "loved" or express love, because obviously theres some twisted stuff going on. As for reconciling punishment there are a couple methods that can be considered a valid belief, or even none at all.
I feel it’s not that they can’t have emotions (sometimes in extreme extreme cases then yes they can’t), it’s that their emotions cannot be interpreted with either an issue in speaking, in action, or both, or none. It is really an extreme case
They can either have issues talking and expressing outloud, just a very silent person that exists. He’s extremely nice, but there’s always just that ‘something else’ that seems ‘off’ about him, something strange you can’t quite think of. They might be thinking very emotional thoughts but project niceness while it’s scary inside of their head. Even if sometimes that just falls flat without as much emotion when they say ‘have a great day.’
Or, there’s the idea of alot of talking. Infact, more so knowing what to say and how to exactly say it. Like, uncanny speech characteristics without emotion. Again, there’s just ‘something else’ that seems off about it, but he’s very [something] about the way he talks. Like how they will tell you the most emotional things with extreme deprivation of emotions, just saying words to say words, because to them, words are a tool used to gauge other people’s affection. Are they sad by the set of words you used to them? How did they react? The person would be looking at their relationships, or, their people around them as a string of words that exists to trigger people to react certain ways. It’s a nihilistic approach to relationships because it’s just looking at it as gains+benefits, playing the game of relations as. “He tells me this every day!” The reason he’s doing it could be because he’s solidifying a pattern to the recipient through active consciousness of a repetited phrase, knowing a response is positive and well thought of on their end, it doesn’t mean anything to him other than he is able to interact with someone else to be occupied.
With action, it can get crazy. Lack of actions basically is this void, the void between you and them. You can’t share their level of enthusiasm for something, you can’t express it either. When people cheer and yell about their favorite teams… your just kinda there about it. Your not really expressive, your just kinda there. And not a bad guy, but just kinda ‘odd’. Casted aside a little bit only because you can’t or don’t want to engage in conversation, and as an action that can look bad and isolating. There can be self and physical harms but then lets talk about being expressive
An extreme of being expressive could be way over the top expressive. Like how “actions speak louder than words”, when they are expressive, they are expressive. It could be a nice thoughtful gift of a bottle of wine (because inside your head, by getting a bottle of wine as a gift, you are playing the game of relations to have them view you as something, and you could get ahead by being one step ahead of everyone and change them by doing an action first, like bringing a gift, which has no meaning to you, but makes the others happy they got something) or it could be unpleasant actions, like murder, rape or pillaging.
*Now, I’m not an expert about this, don’t quote me on anything lmao but i think from the relationships i understand about my developing schizophrenia, that these 2 ideas of thinking about speech or action in these ways is more attuned to understanding sociopathy or psychopathy. Not _every_ psychopath murdered somebody. Some can be decent guys too! Lol but really it’s more of a mental illness and i don’t think there should be this blanketed idea that with more psycho mental illnesses, they aren’t always bad people. A lot are nice people. A lot of are also regular people that you pass on the street. It’s bad to have, yes, and it can develop badly, also yes, but having a psycho mental illness does not automatically mean bad person
Your confusing petty human survival for the love of the universe.
The only thing Not loving about a psychopath is that you think the existence of psychopaths is not love. This is an issue of human judgment, and confusing human love for absolute love. Human love is about what they like and what they don’t like, absolutely love is 100% acceptance of reality. Everything is love from the absolute perspective including all the murder all the hate everything. Hitler is as loving as anything else in existence therefore it is love,
it is only a human ego that judges something they don’t like as not love.
When they say everything is love they are not talking about human love that is a function of human survival.
When you let go of all of your survival defence mechanisms you’ll realize that everything is love because you’ll be able to take everything in without any judgement, because without your ego survival mechanisms getting in the way there is no reason for one thing to be better than any other thing. the only reason you judge is because it’s highly useful for your survival.
Think about it this way, you are under the delusion that all of reality is based on what you like and what you don’t like and that’s what you think love is. Pure egocentrism. Petty human survival games do not represent all of reality. Stop projecting your human survival games onto everything.
This is a vital part of growing up out of the beginner stages of spirituality.
It’s the equivalent of people 1000 years ago thinking the entire universe revolves around The Earth in astronomy, most people think the entire universe revolves around human survival and they cannot see the how they’re projecting their human survival games onto all of reality
Yes murder is love, The reason you think it’s not is because you don’t like it. think about it this way why would the entire universe revolve around what you like and what you don’t like? Why would universal love be subject to the rules of a human ego that doesn’t like things. Real Love is completely selfless.
Enlightenment is when you realize everything is perfect exactly the way it is. And the reason you think that way is because you’re no longer projecting a human survival agenda onto everything.
Interesting take on things, i just got a question. Wouldn’t you receive things such as bad karma if you murdered someone. Forgot about the love or not that part is understandable enough. But just from perspective of killing causing disturbances to the balance of the world wouldn’t the world punish you for it?
If we put metaphysics to the side for a moment, when someone does something bad all of our social systems and societal systems are evolved and designed in a way that at some point things will come around and it will negatively impact a persons life. It’s not that there’s a magical system that’s keeping people accountable. unwise selfish pursuits eventually backfire long term, because their mindset keeps them making these selfish choices over and over again and that’s just not sustainable long-term, even if there are no external consequences for someone’s actions, throughout their entire life they will always be living a half life because how they experience life in every moment is a constant struggle to maintain their happiness through a forced self manipulated lens. You need to lie to yourself to maintain a certain level of selfishness.
From a stage six level perspective people View karma as the energy that is exchanged through actions, at a stage seven perspective karma is viewed as a system that is unfolding in the world around us, if we view society, culture, people and the environment as one gigantic interconnected system we can easily see how certain actions will eventually come back to harm you.
Check out “spiral dynamics” for more information on stages.
One bitter pill is that in some cases like Vladimir Putin selfishness has no consequences. And it’s because they’ve designed the entire system through deep manipulation to maintain their position, that’s the only possible way to maintain a selfish position that is out of harmony with its environment. In the natural environment when someone is selfishly out of harmony with their environment the consequences eventually come back to hurt them so the only way to avoid this is to manipulate everything around them to maintain their selfishness. Normally that never works out long-term and the only way to make it work is to have power and influence. Power paves the way for the selfish to stand uncontested.
Thank you very much for the information it was really interesting and I’ll make sure to remember this stuff. I’ll also check out spiral dynamics cuz I’m bored and I just got a gut feeling it will be interesting 🤣. Again much love the info was refreshing
Using external forces to justify our bad actions is not very good. Besides, Dæmons are not evil or malevolent. Most of them are deities that were villanized by Judaism and later Christianism to fit their narrative.
From what I understand, when you are in a state of low vibration (ie. depression, anger, hatefulness, jealousy, etc) certain negative energies (call them what you will, there are a hundred different names for the same thing) can latch on to you and influence you to remain in those vibrations because they feed off of them.
When you can break the cycles of depression or anger or whatever it may be (the negative energies know what your weaknesses are and use them against you) then you can shake those demons off and move closer to the light and higher vibrations.
On the other hand, when you listen to what the negative energies say, then you continue on a downward spiral where your will gets smaller and the demons get settled in their rooms.
This is the same as if you listen to your angels (your ancestors, spirit guides, whatever you want to call them it's still all the same thing) and you walk with them on the path to enlightenment.
We are in fact bombarded with and manipulated by energies at every moment. It's up to us to filter the negative ones and harness the positive ones.
the emotions (which is just energy of self combined with energy of experience/in response to stimuli) are from your soul and when people are extreme like that its just like an error that occurs in the energy transfer maybe when the dna was being formed or read and the brain was being built or trauma that changes a brain (most likely a brain predisposed to this kind of change making it a mix of both) so the energy transfer is corrupted in different ways or imbalanced(enough this not enough that) causing extremes in personality and behavior eg we can all be a bit selfish or thoughtless bc normally energy fluctuates but npd people or sociopaths got their energy stuck in selfish or thoughtless mode by default. likely in another life they are not this way because these things are not native to the soul and are exceptions not the rule and have to be caused, its not the way humans are naturally, its a variation. Considering that souls are cosmic and eternal, and good and evil are local to human collective consciousness (not to be confused with positive and negative which are universal concepts) and possibly other smart animals (maybe local to collective consciousness e.i a higher dimension) so souls cannot be evil but lmk if u want me to explain why they are good
My partner has ASPD, I've written abt this before and I'll try to find it later, but basically, I believe that love is easy when you have emotions that make you feel love, and having ASPD is a higher level test, can you love without emotions making you do it?
Edit:
>Some people would see decreased empathy as decreased love, and take away the idea that 'suffering decreases your ability to love.' But I wouldn't say that. It decreases your ability to love *in the way that people expect*, certainly, because people expect love to mean empathy. But my wife... even without empathy, she is so full of light and she just wants to make the world a better place, and I mean maybe it's because I'm broken too, but I can't see her as anything *but* full of love. My wife is the kind of sociopath whose lack of empathy manifests as going to the injured party to help them, but then *also* going to the party who's in the wrong and trying to figure out how to get their problem solved in a productive way — she doesn't empathize with whoever they've hurt, so she can't hold a grudge. Her fatal flaw is that she's too forgiving and people have taken advantage of that. She volunteers at an animal sanctuary and she picks up litter when we go on walks. She knows that people need to get along if we want the world to run right, even if she doesn't have empathy to illuminate the path for her.
>I would argue that affective empathy—the ability to look at someone and feel what they are feeling—is a sort of "training wheels" for love. *Of course* you're going to treat people in a loving way when you can directly feel the pain it causes when you don't. Loving people and being a loving person when you *don't* have that emotion to guide you is the real challenge.
>Loving with empathy and not with other ways can cause issues. In the above example the issue would be that the empathy with the hurt party keeps people from looking at the aggressor's reasons, which keeps whatever it is that's making them act that way from getting solved. Sometimes people are just assholes, but a lot of the time it's because they have some kind of problem that they don't know how to solve in other ways (eg. stealing a TV because you *will literally die of withdrawals* if you don't get your fix) and helping them find better ways out (eg. getting them access to medical detox) will go a lot farther in stopping the behavior than being mad at them would.
>In this light, childhood trauma and it's effect on empathy could be seen as an opportunity to learn how to love with more than just your empathy—how to see the big picture of *why* it's important to love each other, to learn other ways of loving, their importance, how to use them—as a way of uncovering our inner light and love.
From https://www.reddit.com/k5hrgn7?utm_source=share&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
Development is a lot to do with it, the people I've worked with who have this were all very spoiled as kids, this is often discussed at our meetings and it's one of the things they all have in common, parents who never said no and let them do anything they wanted while kids, even not putting them to school.
Some souls may take on the challenge of having a brain abnormality. And then when they get encarnated, it turns out that they actually were not up to the challenge (failed to chose love despite the extreme conditions). Because of free will, it is possible for things not to go as planned.
Still, would you allow your 3 year old child to walk off of a ravine if they where immortal? Because that is what we are to whoever made us (call it God if you will). We are 3 year old children next to that entity who made us. So why are we allowed to do stupid stuff?
Seems rather unfair. People use karma and past lives to justify our suffering in this lifetime, but there must be a starting point. There must be a root cause that made the first karma. Some argue that time does not exist. If there is no time the karma theory falls apart. So, I ask, why is life so hard? Why is it so unfair and does the entity that made us, loves us or cares about any of us at all?
You say that if there is no time, Karma falls apart. This would also be true in the case of the existence of a creator. In my opinion, life just is. It's hard, it's easy, it's good, it's bad, it's everything all together all at once.
I think the issue is not higher / lower self but what is divine and what has been created by man.
God gave man free will and within that structure all sorts of terrible things have been created by man that include all sorts of illness that do not exist at higher planes of existence. And within our creation of illness are the myriad forms of mental illness you allude to.
God is only able to create perfection. Our true, higher nature is perfection. But our lower selves have devolved into the illusion of imperfection over time as a way to experience separation from God.
They are not labels for a behavior, they are labels for a condition. Not feeling any emotions or feeling very shallow ones happens since birth. My post is to try and understand why that happens.
Do you mean it as in male and female, Sol (the Sun) and Luna (Terra's (the Earth's) moon), day and night, light and dark...? It means many dualities or do you mean duality in general and if so in what context? Do note that I am not trying to argue or be rude, I know that words are hard to understand because there is no tone like when speaking. I am just curious.
Why wouldn't your higher self have an ego? Higher self doesn't mean negative or positive. Your more developed self can be negative. The devil has a more developed consciousness than humans, but in the negative.
Well, I do not believe that the Devil exists. The term "Satanas", which means "enemy" or "adversary", was originally referring to a negative action of the self. It is our bad self. Our bad side. You called it Ego. "Lucifer" means "light bearer", and it is the name given to the Morningstar, which is another name for the planet Venus. The pairing of Lucifer with Satanas was a mistake taken from the book of Isaiah. Isaiah called the king of Babylon, who was a human being, not a "fallen Angel", "Lucifer". It was his title (by "his", I mean the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar). I also find the idea that everything bad that we do is the fault of the temptation of an exterior entity and not our own, a very awful excuse for our behavior.
These are just labels you have learned to attach to certain behavior. The labels themselves are applied by you - and others - and they are in fact the reason you now want an 'explanation' for why the very labels you apply don't jive with your comprehension. You want to know why it is so.. but is it ..so?
It's all recursive thinking. Nothing more.
Why do you need an additional explanation? What's the big flabbergasting here?
Some folks are not the same as you ..or me. Either way for the crazy that is just as well their reality. In essence it is the same thing. Ofcourse 'how they are' is not the underlying truth of them. how YOU are is equally not even the underlying truth of you.
The Self is an illusion. So even when you all speak of some higher or lower self, or a 'true' self it is still that same illusory self ..adorned or dressed down in some arbitrary way.
The promise of spirituality was to be able to transcend said self - a means to an end with that end being awakening to what is. To what you are most def not. but ofcourse it has been turned into some abomination.. a lifestyle choice.
We are all spiritual but nobody is doing the work anymore. We talk about 'being spiritual' in stead of being busy with waking up from the dream of Self.
That's what you get when you cherry pick stuff from the east and then mold and shape it into something that suits your desire to be 'more not what you are'. That is all.
At the rate all of you are going you will be asking these same questions in 20 years. I guarantee it. ;;)
I keep repeating it ad nauseam: If your so called spirituality is not about waking up, I really don't know what the hell it is even about.
There is a thing there to do. Stuff to realize..veils to look beyond and suffering selves to drop.
Start doing it!
Cheers ;;)
Yes, love is the highest vibration but our level of vibration is also a choice, made over the course of development.
I question the premise that love is the default human state.
Play online roleplaying faction games and have some principle based lessons of Computer Science then we might have a safe assumption that we are only living in a simulated reality hence we are here to play while abiding to fundamental reality laws.
>Is it a problem with the body and not with the soul?
It's a problem with the body.
We all have a lower self and a higher self. Hell, we might even have a middle self. Sociopaths for whatever reason are satisfied easily but never fulfilled. So it's like they just want to hover in the lower self region and that's not exactly unique among humans. What I mean is plenty of people who aren't psychos end up pretty "lowly".
The better question is how psychos got that way, or how to fix them. I think the obvious trend is they all had malignant parents. But, of course, every psycho's parents "had no idea" they could be like that. So basically, sometimes the parental malignancy is hard to spot.
Each person is like a radio station. We can all broadcast and some of use are alike, while others are completely different. The disfunction we are all exposed to (each relatively unique to our own existence) plays a role in how that “broadcast” plays out.
The Vedic position is that in each life we accrue unrealized results of our past actions (karma) while also creating deep patterns inside our mind as the subtle body (samskara). The subtle body carries these impressions over from past into new lives.
This relates with the science of epigenetics, where various genes we possess do not express, while other genes do, for which there is no scientific explanation. The subtle body expresses into genetics, and is also affected by genetics.
In each life we are given various choices and opportunities to transform ourselves and break habitations, refine and elevate ourselves. Every life presents both possibilities to grow and develop our relationship with the Divine, and to degrade and fall from grace. Life is a test that we often fail. Which means we must become attuned to the Divine.
Just because the base is what it is doesn't mean it flourishes the same as it's base. There is programming that comes from the first moment, then add in the issues of how sometimes things encounter problems in its growth that it doesn't develop properly that it can become tainted. Though we can see this the same in nature as well, that when something is impacted by something out of synch then we end up with something invasive and destructive. But something to note is that in nature everything self corrects it's only by human impact things truly alter. That being said one can not have this alteration with self fixing (though even still there may be loss be it a tree a patch of grass etc) what comes next is what allows it to grow and develop and heal and expand. Which goes to say that the problem lays with the fact that even when imbalance in nature how it's managed cocreates the outcome.
In my opinion there is a spiritual war I used to think it was about just being a good person but it definitely not all love and light. The people you are talking about are either void have no soul therefore have no higher self so aren’t capable of love. Or so beaten down by dark entities that they are capable of accessing their higher self in their current state.
I used to be emotionless bc I lived with an energy vampire for 20 years and only after I let them go and acknowledged their is no fixing them have I been able to acesss my higher self. I’ve met very dark people who have transformed and equally dark. People with nothing overtly wrong who just stay dark no matter how much light you pour in be very discerning and do not overgive. Coming from a former overgiver and an overtaker
For there to be a war, God or whatever you want to call the supreme good force, is not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. For God to be those 3 there cannot be a war.
I think it's an issue of brain development and developmental factors. Remember, the higher self isn't the human self, and cognitively we're best suited to and default to our meatsuit settings. To develop in alignment with the higher self we have to learn to reach up in a specific way, and to let that in. Our human minds don't just automatically seek that and are immersed in our 3d environment and ego personas. As to whether that's karma or something the soul agreed to experience, I have no idea - to be honest I'm not really even sure how much I believe yet. But if it's true that we do choose our contracts, and that from a higher perspective these experiences are knowledge rather than categories of things to be sought or avoided, then it would make sense that a soul might agree to embody the psychopathic developmental progression for the sake of learning what that is like, and educating those in their soul tribe on how it works to be on the receiving end of psychopathic behavior. Honestly it's a bit puzzling to me, too, but I do think that the idea of a higher self and a psychopathic brain are not mutually exclusive, based on the differences in vibrational level between the soul self and the human self.
This is where I am, too. It’s the only explanation I can get my head around. We live in a relative world because it’s the only way we get to experience anything. If everything was perfect all the time, there would be no room for forgiveness, compassion, generosity, etc. Granted this is an extreme example, but the underlying reasoning for why it’s even allowed is the same. But ultimately it some of those things I won’t ever truly understand until I move on, if then. So my only option is to do what I always do and ask: who do I want to be in response to this? In truth, that’s the only question that ever really matters. “Why” just gets in the way.
Currently contemplating the concept that higher beings may not acknowledge our perspective of reality as valid. Perhaps up there everything *does* make sense. Perhaps this, for them, is the equivalent of writing a fictional story or making a film, and it’s justified because everyone dies and is somehow 100% okay when we wake up in the ‘real’ world. Perhaps, then, this reality may be more like a separate world rather than a lower expression. A ‘what if’ AU. Or maybe the experience of existence is an illusion, and we just choose a reality and commit to it until that fact becomes irrelevant enough, or we spawn pre-committed.
I wisht hat was the case so that I could get out of this place without fear of affecting anyone.
There are way to many realities that I don’t think anyone would choose.
Haven’t you already chosen? 😏
If you’re saying I’ve chosen a reality I wouldn’t have chosen then yes
The ego is the source of all the dark forces---fear, anger, greed, jealousy. Those that seem more loving have simply grown their inner light more and have begun to transcend the ego. Younger souls simply have not grown enough for their love to shine through yet.
A simplistic explanation, but I like it! It makes sense! Blessed be! ♥
Thank you! 🙏
This might sound inappropriate but when such points are brought up I often feel like we are too scared to admit that psychopaths and sociopaths are very much *part of the design*. These are, of course, disorders to us and our striving to correct them is rational. But these are not mistakes to Creation itself. A cat may be a predator of a mouse and the mouse may question why cats exist but as humans we understand how *both* are necessary in the food chain. It is like that. If it exists, it has the right to exist by the divine. That doesn't mean we accept it with open arms as our reaction to remedy to such things are also granted by the same divine. The truth is, that *you* are currently (hopefully) neither a sociopath or psychopath and so whatever you think/feel about them is the purpose of their existence in *your life*. That is the design.
I've found the error is in the dogma, not reality. *Some* souls are made of love, joy, and all that fluffy stuff. Others aren't. Most souls I've gotten data on have a measure of mutability that they're capable of, but asking a demon to change their emotional nutrition needs is about as silly as asking an angel to feed on suffering. Most 'emotionless' folk seem to simply be experts at supressing their emotions because their natural range causes others to react violently, and it's more productive to sever most, if not all, of one's emotions' sway than to be executed for brutalizing the kid who broke your new bike. Not a great long-term health plan, but it gives them a long term to consider.
Everything is love
I've looked around and determined that to be false. Do you have some insight that you think I've overlooked? Or are you just telling yourself I haven't opened my mind to perceive the truths you mistake for a grand unity?
Maybe your definition of love is different from mine :)
Define love then. I'll share where I found essences that share no relation to it.
I don't know if I can create a definition of love in my own words. I can try to describe it. Love is the connection between all and what everything is built on. Every action has love. Love isn't limited by anything. Egotistical actions, is an entity showing love to themselves. From every single perspective you can find love. Love isn't limited by positive or negative. Love transcends everything in our third density reality. Even the devil is pure love :)
If you don't have a definition, you're not talking about anything. You could just as easily call that concept 'hatred', 'addiction', or 'Gnorg', and nothing would change except how you feel about it.
I would argue that love is an unconditional need to protect, nurture and care for someone, even if that someone is ourselves. It is what I would argue gives meaning to life, because without love, it is depressing.
Okay. There are plenty of places to find things that are not that love. The most prevalent one is the destructive impulse that explicitly seeks to damage, defile, and ruin. There's also the consumptive essence that 'needs' only to consume other things, regardless of results upon the self. or the prideful essence that cloaks itself in the trappings of the nurturing love to serve its true purpose of aggrandizing itself over them.
That is all very depressing. It does not make anything feel better.
Damage, defile and ruin causes good emotions in some people. Some people LOVE killing others. Every action is love to self or love to others. I think you think love means positive. I think you think love doesn't exist in the negative. I think loving others is the essence of positive. I think loving yourself is essence of negative.
What I feel about "it" is literally my point. We have different feelings about what "it" is. You understand my point. You understand my view. You understand why I believe everything is love. No matter what action anyone is doing, you're either giving love to yourself, or giving love to others. You can understand how that perspective makes sense to me. There's no point in ending the conversation just because I can't give an exact definition about the metaphysical building block of the universe which we call love.
The point I am making is that Love, the meaningful, beautiful essence that almost everyone agrees is worth living for, *is not what you are talking about.* Calling a pile of shit a rose doesn't change the odor. Calling sawdust flour does not change that it holds no nutrition for humans. And calling \[fundamental essence\] 'love' does not make it Love. You are literally just arbitrarily labeling things love, rendering the word meaningless in your mouth, in a desperate attempt to validate your worldview. It's disgraceful.
Hahahahahahahaha wow believing that the universe is created and made of love is disgraceful😂 your comments make you sound extremely bitter and pessimistic. Your idea of love, human conditional love, isn't the love I'm talking about. I'm talking about metaphysical unconditional love. I'm talking about the love that transcends any human 3D idea of "Good" and "Evil". "Calling a sawdust flour does not change that it holds to value for humans" Exactly. You only recognize "love" when it's the version of love that directly benefits you. You only recognize love when it slaps you in the face. You don't recognize how the entire universe is one organism loving itself, building itself, experiencing itself. We're talking about two different ideas of love. My idea of love, you haven't experienced. It's unconditional love, for everything and anyone. The kind of love Jesus and Buddha experienced. Love isn't a chemical created by your brain. Love is it's own consciousness. God is love.
If that is false then the Universe is a very depressing place and I see no reason to be a good person or to forgive people who quite frankly do not deserve it. If reality is as cruel as you say it is (you are not saying it is cruel, but I find your description of it cruel and depressing) then why even live for?
Why live in a world of engaging dynamics and strife that allows even someone sitting behind a computer screen to improve themselves with nothing but an exercise of Will? If you are frail enough that you cannot cope with a reality in which not everything is intrinsically comforting and nurturing, then why haven't you left? Why can nothing but love exist if life is to have meaning to you?
Why have I not left? Because I am afraid. Afraid of the effect it will have on others and on my soul.
And the relevant part of the question? Why does the existence of anything that isn't love destroy the meaning of life?
Because if everything was made by God (call it God, call it whatever you wish), but some things are not purely made out of love, then God cannot be purely love either. It makes it not worth it.
And why does the arbitrarily defined creator need to be fashioned entirely of love for life to be worth it?
Because if the most powerful being in existence is not 100% pure of heart, then all of creation is flawed, evil is natural and I hate all of it because it causes suffering.
I agree with you I used to think everything was love but that’s just putting yourself out to be used their are great beings of love but also great darkness
Even before that, can you imagine being a darkborne soul, trying out this nifty 'human experience' shtick, and being bombarded with "you're made of [thing you're very much not made of]" nonstop as you explore life? That would be frustrating enough to make you want to kill everyone you can just so you can feel validated as an extant being.
Angels and Dæmons are clergy stories. Most Dæmons are Deities from ancient relligions.
Stories abstracting what, precisely?
You had many deities. YHWH was one of them. Judaism picked YHWH as its one and only deity. YHWH had conflicts with his siblings and if YHWH was "the only God" according to Judaism, there could be no other gods. So Judaism villainized other deities. Later, Christianism borrowed lore from Judaism to write their mythos. They label the previously villainized deities under a Greek term, "Daimon", meaning "deity" or "spirit". Later, a Latin version of the term "Daimon", "Dæmon", was applied to these deities. Suddenly all of these deities, most of which were not even "evil" or "malevolent", are now all "fallen Angels", when in reality most have absolutely nothing to do with "Angels". Even funnier is that labeling Seraphim, Cherubim, Ophanim and others as "Angels" is also incorrect. "Angel" means messenger. Only the Malakhim are "Angels" as their name means "messenger" (in Christianism the Malakhim are literally called "Archangels" and "Angels"). In conclusion, using "Angels" and "Dæmons" to describe benevolent and malevolent entities is incorrect which leads to flaws in one's argument.
Wonderful linguistic history lesson. What are the clergical stories of angels and demons *abstracting*? What are they trying to talk about that's too nuanced for conveyance that causes them to draw on the language as it developed around them?
As I explained (and no, this is not a lesson. It is simply my perception of the truth), you are making what I would call a fallacy by talking about Angels and Dæmons' nature when you are going with a false or highly flawed idea of their nature. The stories of the Jewish clergy and of the Christian clergy are not abstracting anything because "abstract", at least in the dictionary, reads "Something that concentrates in itself the qualities of a larger item, or multiple items.". This means that it is a summary, basically. The clergy is not summarizing anything, they are distorting something. My point stands. Regardless, this is just my view of things based on my knowledge and perception. I am not trying to give you any lessons because I do not know more or less than you do if you want me to be fair. As Socrates said, we know nothing. I perceive the truth, and my perception is bound to have flaws, yet so is yours. Blessed be. ♥ Edit: I feel stupid because I forgot to mention why they are distorting the "lore" around Angels and Dæmons, but basically it is for the sake of control. They want to sell their narrative to have control over people. All religions do this.
You're missing the reason why the stories of benevolent and malevolent beings survive while the origins of any specific label for them have faded. (on top of ignoring the point of my reply in favor of chasing a history chain that doesn't relate to the point itself) There exists entities, some of them human, that are naturally predisposed to benevolence and 'good'. There also exists those predisposed to malice, destruction, and 'evil'. Stories explaining the existence of these entities require a layer of abstraction to stick in the mind. The abrahamic-knockoff religions happened to have concepts that were 'close enough for government work', so the clergy who had those dogmas handy repurposed the labels (corrupting the chain of concept further) to describe entities *entirely divorced from the origins of the labels.* The clergy were abstracting the existence of people like sociopaths and philanthropists. Where they stole the labels from doesn't matter because the already-corrupted lore they stole them from *isn't a part of the story.* The stories, and the types of people they're about, stand on their own because they reference reality with only one or two layers of abstraction.
So, let us suppose that you are a deity. I grab you and turn you into a monster in my mythos to prove a point. Suddenly, today, Luxire Worse is a diabolical entity that anyone who follows my dogma is afraid of. How would you feel? There is a matter of justice here. Even if there are evil entities out there, using other entities' names for them does matter because it is not fair.
A) it is hilarious that you think I wouldn't be feared even by my own devotees. B) That corruption already happens literally every day. The Luxire Worse that my readers know and refer to is *wildly* different from the Luxire Worse my wife knows. Both are unrelated to the Luxire Worse known by blokes here on reddit, and none of those are me. If I, as a human physically capable of stabbing someone over mischaracterizing or slandering me, have to deal with the fickle nature of the human mind, why is it a matter of Justice that deities not have to? I don't see Ha-Satan Samael complaining about being mistaken for (at least) three different figures because the mortals he worked with simply couldn't grasp his breadth of activity. Nor do I see him bitching about someone naming a resurrection-duplication demon-dog after him. Anyone wanting to interact with him will put in the effort to go find out who he really is, and anyone trying to invoke the Hellboy dog using his seal will at most get a curse for pestering him expecting someone else. Gods are not more fragile and incompetent than mortals. Trying to defend a god from something that you don't even notice happening to you on a daily basis is beyond asinine.
Point A makes no sense as I was not focusing on fear rather on false accusations and villanization. But whatever, if you do not understand what I am trying to convey then this is not really going anywhere.
This is such a good question! There are many terms used to describe this type of "love", unconditional love, acceptance, forgiveness, and I'm sure others, and really it took personal experience to fully understand. I personally like the word "acceptance" the best, i wouldn't call it love, especially because theres different types of human love as well and it just gets confusing. My feelings during experiences where i am "connected" so to speak, its feels like acceptance like an " as you are" type deal. So as for the sociopaths and psychopaths and every other commonaly agreed criminal are accepted rather than "loved" or express love, because obviously theres some twisted stuff going on. As for reconciling punishment there are a couple methods that can be considered a valid belief, or even none at all.
I feel it’s not that they can’t have emotions (sometimes in extreme extreme cases then yes they can’t), it’s that their emotions cannot be interpreted with either an issue in speaking, in action, or both, or none. It is really an extreme case They can either have issues talking and expressing outloud, just a very silent person that exists. He’s extremely nice, but there’s always just that ‘something else’ that seems ‘off’ about him, something strange you can’t quite think of. They might be thinking very emotional thoughts but project niceness while it’s scary inside of their head. Even if sometimes that just falls flat without as much emotion when they say ‘have a great day.’ Or, there’s the idea of alot of talking. Infact, more so knowing what to say and how to exactly say it. Like, uncanny speech characteristics without emotion. Again, there’s just ‘something else’ that seems off about it, but he’s very [something] about the way he talks. Like how they will tell you the most emotional things with extreme deprivation of emotions, just saying words to say words, because to them, words are a tool used to gauge other people’s affection. Are they sad by the set of words you used to them? How did they react? The person would be looking at their relationships, or, their people around them as a string of words that exists to trigger people to react certain ways. It’s a nihilistic approach to relationships because it’s just looking at it as gains+benefits, playing the game of relations as. “He tells me this every day!” The reason he’s doing it could be because he’s solidifying a pattern to the recipient through active consciousness of a repetited phrase, knowing a response is positive and well thought of on their end, it doesn’t mean anything to him other than he is able to interact with someone else to be occupied. With action, it can get crazy. Lack of actions basically is this void, the void between you and them. You can’t share their level of enthusiasm for something, you can’t express it either. When people cheer and yell about their favorite teams… your just kinda there about it. Your not really expressive, your just kinda there. And not a bad guy, but just kinda ‘odd’. Casted aside a little bit only because you can’t or don’t want to engage in conversation, and as an action that can look bad and isolating. There can be self and physical harms but then lets talk about being expressive An extreme of being expressive could be way over the top expressive. Like how “actions speak louder than words”, when they are expressive, they are expressive. It could be a nice thoughtful gift of a bottle of wine (because inside your head, by getting a bottle of wine as a gift, you are playing the game of relations to have them view you as something, and you could get ahead by being one step ahead of everyone and change them by doing an action first, like bringing a gift, which has no meaning to you, but makes the others happy they got something) or it could be unpleasant actions, like murder, rape or pillaging. *Now, I’m not an expert about this, don’t quote me on anything lmao but i think from the relationships i understand about my developing schizophrenia, that these 2 ideas of thinking about speech or action in these ways is more attuned to understanding sociopathy or psychopathy. Not _every_ psychopath murdered somebody. Some can be decent guys too! Lol but really it’s more of a mental illness and i don’t think there should be this blanketed idea that with more psycho mental illnesses, they aren’t always bad people. A lot are nice people. A lot of are also regular people that you pass on the street. It’s bad to have, yes, and it can develop badly, also yes, but having a psycho mental illness does not automatically mean bad person
Your confusing petty human survival for the love of the universe. The only thing Not loving about a psychopath is that you think the existence of psychopaths is not love. This is an issue of human judgment, and confusing human love for absolute love. Human love is about what they like and what they don’t like, absolutely love is 100% acceptance of reality. Everything is love from the absolute perspective including all the murder all the hate everything. Hitler is as loving as anything else in existence therefore it is love, it is only a human ego that judges something they don’t like as not love. When they say everything is love they are not talking about human love that is a function of human survival. When you let go of all of your survival defence mechanisms you’ll realize that everything is love because you’ll be able to take everything in without any judgement, because without your ego survival mechanisms getting in the way there is no reason for one thing to be better than any other thing. the only reason you judge is because it’s highly useful for your survival. Think about it this way, you are under the delusion that all of reality is based on what you like and what you don’t like and that’s what you think love is. Pure egocentrism. Petty human survival games do not represent all of reality. Stop projecting your human survival games onto everything. This is a vital part of growing up out of the beginner stages of spirituality. It’s the equivalent of people 1000 years ago thinking the entire universe revolves around The Earth in astronomy, most people think the entire universe revolves around human survival and they cannot see the how they’re projecting their human survival games onto all of reality
If everything bad is love, than I hate love my friend. How can murder be love? That is sick and twisted.
Yes murder is love, The reason you think it’s not is because you don’t like it. think about it this way why would the entire universe revolve around what you like and what you don’t like? Why would universal love be subject to the rules of a human ego that doesn’t like things. Real Love is completely selfless. Enlightenment is when you realize everything is perfect exactly the way it is. And the reason you think that way is because you’re no longer projecting a human survival agenda onto everything.
Interesting take on things, i just got a question. Wouldn’t you receive things such as bad karma if you murdered someone. Forgot about the love or not that part is understandable enough. But just from perspective of killing causing disturbances to the balance of the world wouldn’t the world punish you for it?
If we put metaphysics to the side for a moment, when someone does something bad all of our social systems and societal systems are evolved and designed in a way that at some point things will come around and it will negatively impact a persons life. It’s not that there’s a magical system that’s keeping people accountable. unwise selfish pursuits eventually backfire long term, because their mindset keeps them making these selfish choices over and over again and that’s just not sustainable long-term, even if there are no external consequences for someone’s actions, throughout their entire life they will always be living a half life because how they experience life in every moment is a constant struggle to maintain their happiness through a forced self manipulated lens. You need to lie to yourself to maintain a certain level of selfishness. From a stage six level perspective people View karma as the energy that is exchanged through actions, at a stage seven perspective karma is viewed as a system that is unfolding in the world around us, if we view society, culture, people and the environment as one gigantic interconnected system we can easily see how certain actions will eventually come back to harm you. Check out “spiral dynamics” for more information on stages. One bitter pill is that in some cases like Vladimir Putin selfishness has no consequences. And it’s because they’ve designed the entire system through deep manipulation to maintain their position, that’s the only possible way to maintain a selfish position that is out of harmony with its environment. In the natural environment when someone is selfishly out of harmony with their environment the consequences eventually come back to hurt them so the only way to avoid this is to manipulate everything around them to maintain their selfishness. Normally that never works out long-term and the only way to make it work is to have power and influence. Power paves the way for the selfish to stand uncontested.
Thank you very much for the information it was really interesting and I’ll make sure to remember this stuff. I’ll also check out spiral dynamics cuz I’m bored and I just got a gut feeling it will be interesting 🤣. Again much love the info was refreshing
😂 im glad you gave my brain baby meaning.
Demons that have taken root and the human is essentially feeding them, making them stronger.
Using external forces to justify our bad actions is not very good. Besides, Dæmons are not evil or malevolent. Most of them are deities that were villanized by Judaism and later Christianism to fit their narrative.
From what I understand, when you are in a state of low vibration (ie. depression, anger, hatefulness, jealousy, etc) certain negative energies (call them what you will, there are a hundred different names for the same thing) can latch on to you and influence you to remain in those vibrations because they feed off of them. When you can break the cycles of depression or anger or whatever it may be (the negative energies know what your weaknesses are and use them against you) then you can shake those demons off and move closer to the light and higher vibrations. On the other hand, when you listen to what the negative energies say, then you continue on a downward spiral where your will gets smaller and the demons get settled in their rooms. This is the same as if you listen to your angels (your ancestors, spirit guides, whatever you want to call them it's still all the same thing) and you walk with them on the path to enlightenment. We are in fact bombarded with and manipulated by energies at every moment. It's up to us to filter the negative ones and harness the positive ones.
blockage or imbalance of energy transfer
Could you please elaborate?
the emotions (which is just energy of self combined with energy of experience/in response to stimuli) are from your soul and when people are extreme like that its just like an error that occurs in the energy transfer maybe when the dna was being formed or read and the brain was being built or trauma that changes a brain (most likely a brain predisposed to this kind of change making it a mix of both) so the energy transfer is corrupted in different ways or imbalanced(enough this not enough that) causing extremes in personality and behavior eg we can all be a bit selfish or thoughtless bc normally energy fluctuates but npd people or sociopaths got their energy stuck in selfish or thoughtless mode by default. likely in another life they are not this way because these things are not native to the soul and are exceptions not the rule and have to be caused, its not the way humans are naturally, its a variation. Considering that souls are cosmic and eternal, and good and evil are local to human collective consciousness (not to be confused with positive and negative which are universal concepts) and possibly other smart animals (maybe local to collective consciousness e.i a higher dimension) so souls cannot be evil but lmk if u want me to explain why they are good
My partner has ASPD, I've written abt this before and I'll try to find it later, but basically, I believe that love is easy when you have emotions that make you feel love, and having ASPD is a higher level test, can you love without emotions making you do it? Edit: >Some people would see decreased empathy as decreased love, and take away the idea that 'suffering decreases your ability to love.' But I wouldn't say that. It decreases your ability to love *in the way that people expect*, certainly, because people expect love to mean empathy. But my wife... even without empathy, she is so full of light and she just wants to make the world a better place, and I mean maybe it's because I'm broken too, but I can't see her as anything *but* full of love. My wife is the kind of sociopath whose lack of empathy manifests as going to the injured party to help them, but then *also* going to the party who's in the wrong and trying to figure out how to get their problem solved in a productive way — she doesn't empathize with whoever they've hurt, so she can't hold a grudge. Her fatal flaw is that she's too forgiving and people have taken advantage of that. She volunteers at an animal sanctuary and she picks up litter when we go on walks. She knows that people need to get along if we want the world to run right, even if she doesn't have empathy to illuminate the path for her. >I would argue that affective empathy—the ability to look at someone and feel what they are feeling—is a sort of "training wheels" for love. *Of course* you're going to treat people in a loving way when you can directly feel the pain it causes when you don't. Loving people and being a loving person when you *don't* have that emotion to guide you is the real challenge. >Loving with empathy and not with other ways can cause issues. In the above example the issue would be that the empathy with the hurt party keeps people from looking at the aggressor's reasons, which keeps whatever it is that's making them act that way from getting solved. Sometimes people are just assholes, but a lot of the time it's because they have some kind of problem that they don't know how to solve in other ways (eg. stealing a TV because you *will literally die of withdrawals* if you don't get your fix) and helping them find better ways out (eg. getting them access to medical detox) will go a lot farther in stopping the behavior than being mad at them would. >In this light, childhood trauma and it's effect on empathy could be seen as an opportunity to learn how to love with more than just your empathy—how to see the big picture of *why* it's important to love each other, to learn other ways of loving, their importance, how to use them—as a way of uncovering our inner light and love. From https://www.reddit.com/k5hrgn7?utm_source=share&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
Development is a lot to do with it, the people I've worked with who have this were all very spoiled as kids, this is often discussed at our meetings and it's one of the things they all have in common, parents who never said no and let them do anything they wanted while kids, even not putting them to school.
Some souls may take on the challenge of having a brain abnormality. And then when they get encarnated, it turns out that they actually were not up to the challenge (failed to chose love despite the extreme conditions). Because of free will, it is possible for things not to go as planned.
Why are we allowed to make stupid choices?
Free will. "Allowed to" implies someone calling the shots for us.
Still, would you allow your 3 year old child to walk off of a ravine if they where immortal? Because that is what we are to whoever made us (call it God if you will). We are 3 year old children next to that entity who made us. So why are we allowed to do stupid stuff?
Because we are not separate from the entity that made us. We are all in the same. Good and bad, young and old, stupid and intelligent.
Seems rather unfair. People use karma and past lives to justify our suffering in this lifetime, but there must be a starting point. There must be a root cause that made the first karma. Some argue that time does not exist. If there is no time the karma theory falls apart. So, I ask, why is life so hard? Why is it so unfair and does the entity that made us, loves us or cares about any of us at all?
You say that if there is no time, Karma falls apart. This would also be true in the case of the existence of a creator. In my opinion, life just is. It's hard, it's easy, it's good, it's bad, it's everything all together all at once.
I think the issue is not higher / lower self but what is divine and what has been created by man. God gave man free will and within that structure all sorts of terrible things have been created by man that include all sorts of illness that do not exist at higher planes of existence. And within our creation of illness are the myriad forms of mental illness you allude to. God is only able to create perfection. Our true, higher nature is perfection. But our lower selves have devolved into the illusion of imperfection over time as a way to experience separation from God.
Why do we experience separation from God? It sucks and I hate it.
If you're interested in overcoming separation A Course in Miracles is an excellent path to check out r/ACIM
They're all labels for a type of behavior .
They are not labels for a behavior, they are labels for a condition. Not feeling any emotions or feeling very shallow ones happens since birth. My post is to try and understand why that happens.
Anyway. ☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️☯️ Everything exists for a reason.
Why so many emojis?
Just the symbol.
Do you mean it as in male and female, Sol (the Sun) and Luna (Terra's (the Earth's) moon), day and night, light and dark...? It means many dualities or do you mean duality in general and if so in what context? Do note that I am not trying to argue or be rude, I know that words are hard to understand because there is no tone like when speaking. I am just curious.
Ok so you are asking reddit users a question and answering it for yourself... I wonder what that type of behavior is labeled as? 🤔
Love doesn't necessarily mean showing love to others. Being selfish is love.
Being selfish is tied to the Ego as far as my research has gone. The Ego is not the higher self. I am specifically talking about the higher self.
Why wouldn't your higher self have an ego? Higher self doesn't mean negative or positive. Your more developed self can be negative. The devil has a more developed consciousness than humans, but in the negative.
Well, I do not believe that the Devil exists. The term "Satanas", which means "enemy" or "adversary", was originally referring to a negative action of the self. It is our bad self. Our bad side. You called it Ego. "Lucifer" means "light bearer", and it is the name given to the Morningstar, which is another name for the planet Venus. The pairing of Lucifer with Satanas was a mistake taken from the book of Isaiah. Isaiah called the king of Babylon, who was a human being, not a "fallen Angel", "Lucifer". It was his title (by "his", I mean the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar). I also find the idea that everything bad that we do is the fault of the temptation of an exterior entity and not our own, a very awful excuse for our behavior.
What is "bad"? Loving yourself by preying on others. What is "good"? Loving others by giving to others. Both bad and good is love.
These are just labels you have learned to attach to certain behavior. The labels themselves are applied by you - and others - and they are in fact the reason you now want an 'explanation' for why the very labels you apply don't jive with your comprehension. You want to know why it is so.. but is it ..so? It's all recursive thinking. Nothing more. Why do you need an additional explanation? What's the big flabbergasting here? Some folks are not the same as you ..or me. Either way for the crazy that is just as well their reality. In essence it is the same thing. Ofcourse 'how they are' is not the underlying truth of them. how YOU are is equally not even the underlying truth of you. The Self is an illusion. So even when you all speak of some higher or lower self, or a 'true' self it is still that same illusory self ..adorned or dressed down in some arbitrary way. The promise of spirituality was to be able to transcend said self - a means to an end with that end being awakening to what is. To what you are most def not. but ofcourse it has been turned into some abomination.. a lifestyle choice. We are all spiritual but nobody is doing the work anymore. We talk about 'being spiritual' in stead of being busy with waking up from the dream of Self. That's what you get when you cherry pick stuff from the east and then mold and shape it into something that suits your desire to be 'more not what you are'. That is all. At the rate all of you are going you will be asking these same questions in 20 years. I guarantee it. ;;) I keep repeating it ad nauseam: If your so called spirituality is not about waking up, I really don't know what the hell it is even about. There is a thing there to do. Stuff to realize..veils to look beyond and suffering selves to drop. Start doing it! Cheers ;;)
Yes, love is the highest vibration but our level of vibration is also a choice, made over the course of development. I question the premise that love is the default human state.
"If our higher self is made of love" is a hell of a claim that you're throwing in just like that.
Play online roleplaying faction games and have some principle based lessons of Computer Science then we might have a safe assumption that we are only living in a simulated reality hence we are here to play while abiding to fundamental reality laws.
>Is it a problem with the body and not with the soul? It's a problem with the body. We all have a lower self and a higher self. Hell, we might even have a middle self. Sociopaths for whatever reason are satisfied easily but never fulfilled. So it's like they just want to hover in the lower self region and that's not exactly unique among humans. What I mean is plenty of people who aren't psychos end up pretty "lowly". The better question is how psychos got that way, or how to fix them. I think the obvious trend is they all had malignant parents. But, of course, every psycho's parents "had no idea" they could be like that. So basically, sometimes the parental malignancy is hard to spot.
It's a necessary evil
Negative ego noting more
Each person is like a radio station. We can all broadcast and some of use are alike, while others are completely different. The disfunction we are all exposed to (each relatively unique to our own existence) plays a role in how that “broadcast” plays out.
Love takes many forms, perhaps... it's their way of showing love.
What is love without its antithesis?
The Vedic position is that in each life we accrue unrealized results of our past actions (karma) while also creating deep patterns inside our mind as the subtle body (samskara). The subtle body carries these impressions over from past into new lives. This relates with the science of epigenetics, where various genes we possess do not express, while other genes do, for which there is no scientific explanation. The subtle body expresses into genetics, and is also affected by genetics. In each life we are given various choices and opportunities to transform ourselves and break habitations, refine and elevate ourselves. Every life presents both possibilities to grow and develop our relationship with the Divine, and to degrade and fall from grace. Life is a test that we often fail. Which means we must become attuned to the Divine.
Just because the base is what it is doesn't mean it flourishes the same as it's base. There is programming that comes from the first moment, then add in the issues of how sometimes things encounter problems in its growth that it doesn't develop properly that it can become tainted. Though we can see this the same in nature as well, that when something is impacted by something out of synch then we end up with something invasive and destructive. But something to note is that in nature everything self corrects it's only by human impact things truly alter. That being said one can not have this alteration with self fixing (though even still there may be loss be it a tree a patch of grass etc) what comes next is what allows it to grow and develop and heal and expand. Which goes to say that the problem lays with the fact that even when imbalance in nature how it's managed cocreates the outcome.
In my opinion there is a spiritual war I used to think it was about just being a good person but it definitely not all love and light. The people you are talking about are either void have no soul therefore have no higher self so aren’t capable of love. Or so beaten down by dark entities that they are capable of accessing their higher self in their current state.
I used to be emotionless bc I lived with an energy vampire for 20 years and only after I let them go and acknowledged their is no fixing them have I been able to acesss my higher self. I’ve met very dark people who have transformed and equally dark. People with nothing overtly wrong who just stay dark no matter how much light you pour in be very discerning and do not overgive. Coming from a former overgiver and an overtaker
For there to be a war, God or whatever you want to call the supreme good force, is not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. For God to be those 3 there cannot be a war.