Can love cause pain?

[@lakwak]

Mind-blowing! thank you.

[@namename7847]

Beautifully stated 🙏🏼💖🙏🏼🕊👏🏻😊

[@jamesstarseed7885]

@ 3:56 Those sound like demands and not requests, and I feel confident that if someone is demanding something of someone they are perhaps less likely to get their needs met. And I feel confident and have practiced it in my life, and see it in the work of Non-violent communication, that we can all get our needs met without is being at the expense of other people. And even Buckminster Fuller showed us that we have enough resources on the planet. Is this all about the ego? Some perhaps, and I feel confident that this is about being conditioned by a culture of dominance. And Dr. Mates next book with Peter meets my need for reassurance that we are aligning with that honesty of our human history. Like Christopher Ryan expresses in "Sex At Dawn" the "fall" is when dominance was derived from the misunderstanding that we are like Chimpanzees and that's why we are violent, and really it this "separate self" is perhaps more the product of the concept of agriculture and private property that has unfolded like a virus to give to the concept of individualism and personalized license plates. :P Where did the pathological thinking arise? Pathological meaning, not allowing for the natural unfolding of impermanence and change? Maybe it was all the plan of the Vril all along, we'll see...

[@jamesstarseed7885]

While it's in absolute Truth that Witness, may have no needs, and I feel skeptical, otherwise why did Consciousness choose human beings to develop so Consciousness could, what some has suggested to, "learn about Itself?" And about needs, what about the Consciousness Marshal Rosenberg raised on the planet with non-violent communication? It expresses that life and values/needs are synonymous. And that needs are life. I feel skeptical hearing words like "higher" when said with the language in association with a word like "Self" because if we value honesty how can there be comparisons and evaluations from the point of view of Witness? "High" and Lower" are concepts of Mind. While there may be no needs that Witness or pure Consciousness needs, the relative self-does have needs, that Maslow and Marshal Rosenburg, and we all innately are aware of on some level. We need autonomy, and integrity and spiritual communion, otherwise what is life, except a spiritual reductionistic view that we are all to be sitting in caves void of Mind and emotions. I feel concerned, because to dismiss needs entirely is perhaps throwing the baby out with the bath-water, and getting into the realm of Spiritual Bypassing that Robert Masters expresses in his work of people devaluing of the personal relative to the spiritual. I value honesty, in both dimensions: absolute and relative. So when I hear devaluing of the personal relative to the spiritual, I feel confident that it's a symbiosis. And I feel confident that there is a holarchy like Ken Wilber and Amit Goswami have shared: that the physical is subject to the vital, is subject to the mental, is subject to the supra-mental/archetypal, which is subject to the Bliss body or Consiousness as being the ground of all being, and I want reassurance that when a message about the spirit is being communicated to people, and it's expressing that "Barking up the needs tree, it's not going to happen" I feel cautious to subscribe to that. Perhaps youa re speaking of Aristotle's Nicomachean when he talks of "Higher goods are those to whihc lower goods are referred." And I feel skeptical even of this "higher" and "lower" concept, along with "good" and "bad" because they are perhaps moralistic value judgements. Is there really a "higher" and "lower" or is there subjective and objective? Because I feel confident that you are refering to the "higher" Self as our subjective nature as Consciousness or Witness. And just because that is source, I feel stimulated to express that just because Witness is source, it's valuable to our Integral Self, that we be mindful when an attempt is made to devalue of the personal relative to the spiritual, that's just one point of view. I'm curious if you would be willing to consider another side? And this is the one you are more familiar with in your work with people perhaps that has to do with us human beings devaluing of the spiritual relative to the personal. I feel confident that a coin has three sides, not two. Two is duality, so a third step is perhaps nessicary to transcend and include the two prior perspectives, which would be they are both valuable and INTEGRAL: that absolute Witness realizing that we are not our story helps meet our need for honesty, AND that our relitave truth, is we have needs/values/wants/desires that can be met while contributing to life, and met met without it being at the expense of another. Because looking at the work of Marshal Rosenberg and the conflic resolution he has done between tribes murdering people, marragies, gangs, etc. How is it he has shown that feeling s and needs are precious, and that everyone can get their needs met without it being atthe expense of another human being. These absolute and relative qualities are and always have been self evident. I feel concerned and cautious though, when there is a shadow side of spirituality that may devalue the personal relative to the spiritual, and how that is important to be aware of because it meets our need for authenticity and honesty and integration.