Re: What is Perfect? - All

[Guest guest]

Dear Andy,

thank you for your questions, I am still considering them as I write

this.

The point at wich I felt I wanted to answer you is the one of the rape.

Am 17.08.2004 um 16:57 schrieb Andy:

> Some people here use the word " perfect " to describe things.

>

> Some also use the word " love " in certain circumstances.

>

> I am curious -- for those who are willing to look closely at their

> wiring, to challenge their unrecognized beliefs, to investigate their

> unconscious motives and who are moved to respond:

>

> 1) how do you hold these words, what meaning do you attribute to them

> when you use them?

>

> 2) do you feel that something can be seen as being " perfect " and yet

> arise alongside an emotional response of dislike -- both states

> appearing simultaneously, like an oxymoron ( " an original copy " )?

>

> 3) can you " love " something and at the same time feel repugnance

> towards it?  [My favorite defintion of " love " is..... " love is

> harmony, even in discord. "   While fortune-cookie-like, to me, it says

> it all.]

I don't think so. When I love it, I want it, fully.

> For me, both " perfect " and " love " are loaded with conscious and

> unconscious meanings, resonances from childhood upbringing and

> societal imprinting.

getting anything different from what is " perfect " , is getting less. And

I am not saying that that is possible.

> Because of that, for me, I find " accept " a more accurate term for

> what happens.  I can *accept* things as they are, and yet not " love "

> them (as love -- for me -- conveys a feeling of attraction towards, a

> resonance with, the love object).

And I understand that. I know how that feels for me.

> I can accept the rape of a six-year-old child, but there is no love

> present towards the action.  I do not find it possible to see such an

> event as " perfect " either since, the conditioning here attaches

> particular meaning and substance to that word.  Here, " perfect "

> echoes such synonyms as " intact, sound, unblemished, unbroken,

> undamaged, unimpaired, uninjured, " and some events in phenomenality

> do not appear, to this particular conditioning at this particular

> moment, to fit that description.  I could not say nor think, " the

> rape of that child was perfect. " At this time, I could not " love "

> such an action nor could I feel love towards the rapist. 

Today I heard a tape where this situation occurs: a child is raped. I

don't remember the words that were said. What I feel is:

if I am not available for the raped child as well as for the rapist, I

seperate. I don't separate from the rapist, since he does not exist,

but I separate from the part inside of myself that rapes. How do I

rape, without penetrating? I try to force you to give me something of

which I believe you would not give me, freely. I use sex, money, tears,

I say: " I love you " … anything.

A thought appears wich I can't love, and yet it appears. I teach what I

need to learn. Nothing else is possible. I accept the rape, as

something that happened. And I love the rape, the child *and* the

rapist, all the same. Not always. Just now.

The rapist could not stop. Can I stop?

> At the same time, there is a recognition that it is all the flowing

> of What Is, an acceptance of that happening.  But that doesn't make

> the rape any less horrific.  And the reaction here, the abhorrence,

> the disgust, the sadness....all of that is also What Is.  Neither

> reaction " It's perfect " or " It's horrible " is a more correct response

> to the event.

Yes, there is no wrong reaction. No mistake.

The thought that a rape is horrific is very popular. And what do you

know about that child, or woman, or man that was raped? How it/she/he

feels? Try to understand how *you* feel, before going to someone else.

Or don't.

> The most we can say, I think, is that every event in phenomenality

> elicits a multitude of reactions, responses, and none of them are any

> more appropriate or " better " than any other.  Each conditioned entity

> will have its own response, born out of its conditioning at that

> moment, and for it, that response will be the " right " one.

>

> But some people dearly want consensual agreement with their response,

> they crave the security of knowing " their " reaction was the " right "

> one.

The same as the above.

> The incessant attempts to compare and contrast one entity's " world "

> with other's, while a very common and habituated behavior, is really

> counter-productive.

counter-productive to what?

>  It tends to reinforce the notion that some

> responses/reactions are more universally " right " than others, as if

> there is an Absolute response to any particular event.   Every

> phenomenal occurence elicits the infinite permutations of being.

You could be right.

> You think one of them is more perfect than any other?

No I don't. And I notice that I am not there, yet.

Love,

[Guest guest]

" Andy " wrote:

>

> I can accept the rape of a six-year-old child, but there is no love

> present towards the action. I do not find it possible to see such an

> event as " perfect " either since, the conditioning here attaches

> particular meaning and substance to that word. Here, " perfect "

> echoes such synonyms as " intact, sound, unblemished, unbroken,

> undamaged, unimpaired, uninjured, " and some events in phenomenality

> do not appear, to this particular conditioning at this particular

> moment, to fit that description. I could not say nor think, " the

> rape of that child was perfect. " At this time, I could not " love "

> such an action nor could I feel love towards the rapist.

Hi Andy-

I'm just going to respond to this one paragraph.

Love for me is never not present - except when I am in the illusion.

The man who raped the child did nothing wrong. The child and the man

simply were attracted to each other to get their desires met. To see

a victim and a perp when there is none IS the illusion and is the only

way to make the act an imperfect one. Each entity is serving the

other. Each entity is giving the other a gift. If one is in

illusion, one sees victim/perp, right/wrong. Love is omnipresent -

there is no place that it is not.

Although one is not one's thoughts, the thoughts that we attach to and

believe create/draw our world towards us. For me this journey is

about responsibility. If I get raped, I must take responsibility and

have great compassion that I thought love was somehow to be found in

domination and so I at a deep level of my being called out for love in

such a manner and a rapist came along and answered that call - I then

simply learn that I was mistaken and learn to see the truth.

So yes, I can love the rapist and the child and I can see that the act

was absolutely perfect.

I enjoyed looking at this again.

Blessings - Jan

[Guest guest]

>

> I can accept the rape of a six-year-old child, but there is no love

> present towards the action. I do not find it possible to see such an

> event as " perfect " either since, the conditioning here attaches

> particular meaning and substance to that word. Here, " perfect "

> echoes such synonyms as " intact, sound, unblemished, unbroken,

> undamaged, unimpaired, uninjured, " and some events in phenomenality

> do not appear, to this particular conditioning at this particular

> moment, to fit that description. I could not say nor think, " the

> rape of that child was perfect. " At this time, I could not " love "

> such an action nor could I feel love towards the rapist.

Hi Andy-

I'm just going to respond to this one paragraph.

Love for me is never not present - except when I am in the illusion.

The man who raped the child did nothing wrong. The child and the man

simply were attracted to each other to get their desires met. To see

a victim and a perp when there is none IS the illusion and is the only

way to make the act an imperfect one. Each entity is serving the

other. Each entity is giving the other a gift. If one is in

illusion, one sees victim/perp, right/wrong. Love is omnipresent -

there is no place that it is not.

Although one is not one's thoughts, the thoughts that we attach to and

believe create/draw our world towards us. For me this journey is

about responsibility. If I get raped, I must take responsibility and

have great compassion that I thought love was somehow to be found in

domination and so I at a deep level of my being called out for love in

such a manner and a rapist came along and answered that call - I then

simply learn that I was mistaken and learn to see the truth.

So yes, I can love the rapist and the child and I can see that the act

was absolutely perfect.

*********Of course, all this is speculation, the realm of thought, in

which both you and I are wading, and I appreciate that how you would

feel & react if you or a loved one were the " victim " (term used

loosely) of a rape can only be known at the moment of knowing, but in

light of the dialogue I am curious:

If such an event happened, and if the rapist's identity was known,

can you imagine taking some kind of action to prevent a recurrence?

I'm not talking about punishment, getting even, or retribution. Not

even " justice. "

What I am picturing is a female who is injured, hurt, wounded,

perhaps both physically and mentally. And yes, this is all within

the illusory world of the relative. I get that; and that is a part

of where I live. So....seeing the *relative* harm that was done, and

having no reason to assume that the rapist would not continue the

behavior, can you imagine that you would feel moved to take some

action so that another rape might not occur at this person's hands?

Or would you simply do nothing?

[Guest guest]

" Andy " wrote:

>

>

> *********Of course, all this is speculation, the realm of thought, in

> which both you and I are wading, and I appreciate that how you would

> feel & react if you or a loved one were the " victim " (term used

> loosely) of a rape can only be known at the moment of knowing, but in

> light of the dialogue I am curious:

>

> If such an event happened, and if the rapist's identity was known,

> can you imagine taking some kind of action to prevent a recurrence?

> I'm not talking about punishment, getting even, or retribution. Not

> even " justice. "

>

> What I am picturing is a female who is injured, hurt, wounded,

> perhaps both physically and mentally. And yes, this is all within

> the illusory world of the relative. I get that; and that is a part

> of where I live. So....seeing the *relative* harm that was done, and

> having no reason to assume that the rapist would not continue the

> behavior, can you imagine that you would feel moved to take some

> action so that another rape might not occur at this person's hands?

> Or would you simply do nothing?

In my experience, I've played both roles - the victim and the perp.

The only action that prevents a reocurrance lies within my own heart.

When I learn to remove (drop) my illusory beliefs and agreements, I

change and no longer conceive of the victim perp game in the thoughts

that I attach to. Without the internal thought, there can be no

external action. The object of this game is total responsibility.

You are responsible for you 100% of the time. You have 100% of the

power - 100% of the time.

(Most of the time) Its my experience that no one outside me can cause

me pain. My pain is self-created based on my stories.

What I would do and how I would handle such a situation I could only

determine if I was in that situation.

I've been drawn into this hypothetical discussion about a hypothetical

event. This dialog for me is just another addictive moment...a

distraction.

I know in this situation, I've indulged myself in a hypothetical

discussion - just another distraction and a way of abandoning myself

and seeking entertainment elsewhere....again!!!

Blessings - Jan