Friday, 8 March 2013

<a href="http://www.bloglovin.com/blog/4871573/?claim=8k9teytw6tz">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>

Wednesday, 26 December 2012

Day 163: Birthing ourselves as life, as a partnership Part 21 – Suppression.


Within the previous blog we had a look at how to assist and support one another within the removal of patterns within a partnership. Here we will look at suppressions.

Here we require defining the word ‘reaction’.
Reaction as we generally know the word is where we externally react to a situation and either ‘do’ something about it or ‘say’ something about it in a reactive way. Though this is only following through on the initial reaction that we had on an energetic level within and as ourselves. The actual reaction can be seen as a movement of energy within and as ourselves, where we are ‘driven to respond’ by the energy within ourselves, such as desire, fear, anger, resentment, loathing, aggression, etc. This energy is ‘driving’ our response system where we are not fully here within and as breath within the moment that we are facing, but is instead ‘driven to respond’ as though this entity within and as ourselves are driving our physical vehicle to respond in the manner of the pre-programmed design.

So – Understanding the word ‘reaction’ – we are able to clearly see that reactions have become part of our daily living lives where we have just accepted that this is the way that reality works because this is what we have all been taught through generations of pre-programming. We have been taught how to ‘control’ these ‘reactions’ to remain within the moral standings of society and we have been taught how to ‘supress’ these reactions as a means of saving face within the social contracts that we had created. Though neither of these methods have freed us or released us from the destructive patterns as reactions that keep us hostage within our own flesh; which is what the process of birthing ourselves as life, as a partnership is all about, to set ourselves free from the pre-programmed designs that drive our physical bodies to react as automated response systems based in self-interest and fear; which is where we now have a look at suppressions.

When one reacts within and as oneself to an external stimulus, this means that there is an energetic reaction / movement happening within and as oneself, which can either be triggered by an environmental stimulus or one’s partner making a comment or acting in a specific way; it is important to acknowledge this within and as oneself as it is very easy to suppress the reaction within and as oneself and thus not to face the point within and as self. Suppression happens in a matter of a split second, the second that self does not want to allow oneself to see that self has reacted to the point, which means that self does not want to allow oneself to see oneself as this limited version of oneself. Though to realise within this – this actually defeats the object because one is able to fool one’s partner in making them believe that self is no longer reactive to ‘any’ situation, though within and as self – self knows the truth, self lives the truth and self experiences the truth of oneself. Suppressing oneself to ‘keep face’ as to not allow another person to see the reaction within and as oneself is dishonest towards oneself as well as one’s partner and inadvertently creates time loops where self will just have to face the same points again until self has mastered these experiences and allowed self to let go of the pre-programmed response patterns.

So – Back to suppression. When we slow down the timeline of how suppressions occur we can clearly see that there is a trigger point that occurs to which self ‘reacts’ internally within and as oneself to which one then has a choice to either react, control or suppress within and as oneself.

Control was discussed in a previous blog – for info on this read:
http://earthsjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2012/09/day-110-control-and-self-control.html

Suppression occurs within the moment of internal reaction where the reaction is in conflict with how self had defined oneself. For instance – Let’s say that self had defined oneself as ‘I am not an angry person’ where self had placed a judgment on the expression of anger. When self is now faced with a trigger point that activates the anger pre-programmed design within and as self and the reaction of anger manifest internally within self, this expression of anger is in conflict with one’s own self definition which self would not like to see manifest within self. Suppression then becomes a coping mechanism of how to deal with this internal reaction of anger within self, where self does not have to face this reaction of anger that is existent within self, as the moment that the reaction of anger manifests internally it is also suppressed, where self can then maintain the self definition as a self concept that self had created self as.

For this very reason suppression are difficult to work with as they can elude us when we do not allow ourselves to be vigilant in our self awareness of breath in each moment, as one can easily use self justifications to not allow oneself to open up these points within and as ourselves to face the pre-programmed designs that are existent within ourselves. Using the same example as above – The moment that the reaction of anger occurs internally one will experience a negative energy but shortly thereafter self will remind oneself that self is a good person and a better person for not reacting. Though the self honest realisation within this example is that self did react internally – but only suppressed the reaction to uphold the self definition that self had created of oneself.

Monday, 17 December 2012

Day 162: Birthing ourselves as life, as a partnership Part 20 – Pattern removals in a partnership


Within a partnership focussed on bringing equality and ‘what is best for all’ into and as manifestation of the agreement one will walk through the manifested consequences of behavioural patterns that both partners are already manifested as. In a nutshell this means that both partners individually will have to face, walk through and change the behavioural patterns that they are already manifested consequential outflows of, or products of, their environment. It then thus essentially becomes a point to accumulation where once a pattern is identified the self-forgiveness and self-corrective application is applied to make the change within self that stands for and as the agreed upon ‘equality’ as well as the agreed upon ‘what is best for all’, to manifest these patterns that stand for and as life.

What is important to work through and understand within these points that manifest, show and reveal themselves are to ensure that neither partner takes the process personally. When one’s partner is reacting, throwing a temper tantrum, trying to manipulate, trying to justify, etc. – These are all just pre-programmed designs existent within and as self, where self-preservation as self-interest is placed before life. These patterns are just consequential outflows of the already existent patterned behaviour within and as self, that require to be identified and thus changed through self-forgiveness and self-corrective application, where one is able to walk through these designs and make the changes within self that stands up for what is best for all and what is best for life.

Each pattern that one faces is a test for and as oneself, where self is able to measure for oneself whether self had cleared these patterns within and as oneself to stand up for what is best for all or whether self is still holding onto one’s self interest as the patterns that self is living. So as mentioned above – What is important is not to take the process personally because when one’s partner is in a ‘reaction’ and self takes the process personally, self is then again allowing oneself to engage within this reaction game that is being played, which means that self failed one’s own test of standing up for life. Thus as one’s partner is ‘reacting’ – Stop and breathe and assess the point, do not take it personally as this is first and foremost their process that they are facing. The moment that you engage in this reaction game being played, by self also reacting (internally or externally) – it becomes your process as well; as self accepted and allowed oneself to become ‘reactive’, which is a reactive pre-programmed response and not a self willed, self driven response where self is looking at common sense and practicality to direct oneself effectively through the point.

Friday, 14 December 2012

Day 161: Birthing ourselves as life, as a partnership Part 19 – Examples of what is best for all.


Still using the example from the previous blogs, we will now look at how one can assess ‘what is best for all’. From the partner that manipulated the situation to keep their partner locked into the relationship we are able to name the game that is being played – namely ‘manipulation’ and we can see that the manipulation is done in self-interest, and as discussed before ‘self-interest’ does not consider all and is thus not what is best for all. When considering what is best for all one removes the self-interest from and as oneself and look at the relationship directly.

To look at the relationship directly one starts with self in assessing whether this relationship is ‘what is best for me, not from a self-interest perspective, but instead looking at the practical physical consequential outflows that this relationship brings to self.
Is this relationship supportive?
Is this relationship assisting and supporting me to become more effective within myself?
Is this relationship keeping me stuck in a pattern that I am not able to move from?
When I place myself and my partner together within and as myself do I see expansion or do I see constriction in the sense that I become stuck in the behavioural patterns that I have accepted and allowed myself to become?

Having assessed this point within self without the desire taking lead and speaking on one’s behalf or the fear speaking on one’s behalf – self has empowered oneself to look and see directly and the consequential outflows that this relationship brings to and as oneself. One is able to assess ‘who am I’ within this relationship.

Once self has directly assessed one’s own point of departure within the relationship, one is also able to look at the point from one’s partner’s point of view. Asking the same questions and seeing whether this relationship is supportive for one’s partner.

Another dimension to consider is the impact that this relationship has on one’s environment. Who are all the people who are affected by the decisions that self is looking at making? Here one is again able to check oneself for whether one’s decision is based in self-interest – For instance: If one is making a decision to be with a partner to spite a third party one can clearly see that this is not based in what is best for all as the starting point is ‘spite’ or ‘revenge’ or ‘blame’; inevitably these decisions lead to consequences that self will have to face again later as one’s starting point was not based in what is best for all but was instead a ‘reaction’ based in self-interest to get back at another person. Once self has cleared oneself of the self-interest within one’s environment it is again to look at how this partnership will play out within one’s environment.

What should be mentioned here is that ‘what is best for all’ is not always a ‘rosy’ experience as many times ‘what is best for all’ requires a change in how we approach things. For instance: Let’s say that one has made the decision to be with one’s partner, but looking at the environmental influences and factors one is able to see that one’s friends may not approve. If the ‘not approved’ is based within the pre-programmed design of the cultural and social influences of one’s environment – one will find the decision difficult to make, as self will have to face the pre-programmed response patterns of one’s peers. If self has proven to oneself that self is able to stand within these points – self is able to affect and create change within being an example to one’s peers of showing and revealing the pre-programming existent within their response patterns. ‘What is best for all’ is that every human being becomes freed from their pre-programmed response patterns to be able to direct themselves as life, which here within this example – Self becomes a catalyst of this change through self being able to stand up and show the pre-programmed designs existent within humanity.

‘What is best for all’ is thus a matter of taking all the points into consideration in assessing the consequential outflows of ones actions; where self removes the self-interest starting point and thus allows oneself to see and look directly at all the consequential outflows that one’s decisions and choices will have and thus aligning these choices and decisions by what one finds when self had assessed all the points involved.

Day 160: Birthing ourselves as life, as a partnership Part 18 – Our only free choice we have is to do what is best for all or not continued…


How does one assess ‘what is best for all’ within a partnership? As mentioned within the previous blog moving through one’s own self-interest is the first step to allowing oneself to see what is best for all within the situation that self is facing, as self-interest always has a limited view of the point that self is facing with a one track minded approach which ensures one’s own self-interest.

When self moves through one’s own self-interest through self-forgiveness and self-corrective application, where self releases the emotions and feelings that drive one to make decisions and choices; self is able to slow down and look at the consequential outflows of all the decisions and all the choices that are possible within the situation.

For instance using the example in the previous blog:
The first partner faced ‘the fear of being alone’ as their self-interest point. When self moves through the fear of being alone utilising self forgiveness and self corrective application; all that remains is the decision or choice to be in the partnership; which one can then assess whether this agreement is what is best for self as well as best for one’s partner by looking at who the other person is in application of themselves and who self is in application of self and how this agreement as a union will play out as sequences of events due to the nature that each being brings to the table. One is able to assess whether the partnership as an agreement is supportive in nature or destructive in nature and this is the baseline from which one is able to assess whether this union is what is best for each individually as well as whether it is best for all involved.

What should be looked at here is the sentence “what is best for self” and “what is best for all”
What is best for all includes what is best for self as all the variables are taken into consideration, which includes self within the equation and assessment of a situation. Though what is best for self might not always include what is best for all especially when one is fixated on one’s own self-interest. It is thus always imperative to let go of self interest when looking at ‘what is best for all’ and it is also to realise that ‘what is best for me’ will be included in this equation.

Here is a scenario to look at as a point of reference to the above statement.
While self is fixated on one’s own fear and thus manipulating one’s partner to remain with self, self is temporarily ‘saving’ the relationship (Belief of what is best for me), though within the process creating inequality, where one’s partner makes a decision based on being manipulated, which means that one’s partner is not in the agreement because of making the decision for and as themselves, but are instead in the agreement due to the manipulation. This means that in the future self will have to come up with new ‘manipulation tactics’ to ensure the ‘survival of the relationship’ always looking over one’s shoulder and wondering when one’s partner is going to leave self. Living in this constant state of fear is not acceptable and is not what is best for self – even though the self interest part of oneself will disagree in the moment that this point plays out, as the self interested part of oneself is only looking at ‘what is best for me right now in this moment’ – It is thus looking at a belief of what is best for self and not following through on a timeline of looking what is best for self within one’s daily living application as a sequence of events that play out which leads to a sequence of what is best for all that is involved.

It is thus ‘best for all’ to let go of one’s self interest to allow oneself to remove the blinkers of the beliefs that self had created and thus allow oneself to look directly at the physical consequential outflows of the decisions and choices that one makes to come to a sequence of what is best for all involved.

As mentioned above looking at what is best for all involves oneself to slow down and look at the factors at play within the decision that self is looking at making. Within the scenario of where one is looking at the decision of going into a partnership with another being or remaining in a partnership with another being, the supporting factor is of paramount importance in looking at whether this partnership is supportive. Supportive here implies the agreement with which one has created the partnership with, and when one’s partnership is created with the principle of what is best for all and the principle of equality – ‘support’ implies that one’s partner is supporting oneself to become the living expressions of these principles that one has set out as the basis on which this agreement as a partnership is formed. When one’s partnership is not bringing forth these points of support in allowing each partner to walk their path, to birthing themselves as life, it is clear that the partnership is not supportive, but is instead only feeding the insecurities, fears and thus self-interest that each person is holding onto within the relationship. This obviously does not mean that there will not be self-interest within the partnership as it is to realise that we are already the manifested consequential outflows of our pre-programmed designs which are based in self-interest – It is instead to see and realise and apply that which one see’s within the agreement to support one another and support self to birth oneself as life, which is living and applying oneself to what is best for all.

Within the next blog we will look at practical examples of ‘what is best for all’ within the decisions and choices that one makes.

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

Day 159: Birthing ourselves as life, as a partnership Part 17 – Our only free choice we have is to do what is best for all or not continued…


Within the previous blog we started having a look at making decisions that are based within the principle of what is best for all. Here we will have a look at an example of dilemma that partnerships face and assessing ‘what is best for all’ within a partnership.

When we make our decision based in self-interest we can find that within our consideration of the changes that we make we are only considering ourselves, we are only considering our own fears, our own desires, our own Self Interest.

If our partner is indecisive and we really want the relationship to work, through our fear we may start using manipulation tactics and persuasive tactics to get our partners to stay. Our starting point within this equation is fear and we are moving from the starting point of fear within each decision we make and each action we take to ensure our own self-interest in ensuring that our partners do not leave us. One dimension within this is that as we are ‘resonating fear’ within our interaction with our partner we are ‘feeding’ the ‘fear design’ within ourselves and thus creating this as a manifested consequential outflow as a point of creation that we will have to deal with as a manifested consequence in our world. Our partner is further pushed away by this fear as no-one wants to be in the presence of ‘fear’, which makes the partner pull away from the relationship. We are thus creating and manifesting our own fear through our participation and attention that we give the fear in creating the manifested consequences of our creation.

If we do succeed in manipulating our partner to stay with us in our relationship, the relationship will then be based on a lie where our partner did not stand within themselves to make a clear decision of remaining within the relationship, which when walking through the timeline of how this relationship will develop over time one can clearly see that the relationship is not based on equality or what is best for all, because the partner who was manipulated will hold onto a backdoor to be able to leave the relationship, thus when things don’t go the way that they had envisaged, they will use this backdoor as their escape route from the relationship. When a relationship starts on a lie it will end on a lie as one experience one and equal as to that which one creates within one’s world.

From the partners perspective, if they felt indecisive about going into an agreement, one can clearly see that there are aspects about the agreement that the person ‘likes’ as well as aspects about the agreement that the person ‘dislikes’ – hence the indecisiveness. Though even likes and dislikes are pre-programmed designs that one has to deal with, within and as oneself which one’s partner will only stand as representatives of this pre-programmed designs that we either ‘like’ or ‘dislike’. Making decisions based on ‘likes and dislikes’ is still making a decision based on the pre-programming that one has accepted and allowed oneself to become – self is thus trapped and enslaved by one’s own pre-programming where self in incapable of making an actual ‘free willed’ decision as the programming as making the decisions using ‘likes and dislikes’ as the justified reasons as to why self is or isn’t making the decisions for and as oneself.

Looking at the first partner mentioned above where fear was the starting point, and fearing to lose the partnership as the point of self interest: Moving past one’s own self interest through living the self corrective application is how one is able to open the point up to be able to see more and thus also more clearly to whether going into this partnership is what is best for 'all', which includes what is best for self as well as one’s partner, as the partners are the two primary points that require consideration within walking into this partnership. As long as self interest – in this case ‘fear’ is driving one’s decisions one is not in a position of authority within and as oneself but is instead being directed by the emotions as pre-programmed designs.

From the second partners perspective where ‘likes and dislikes’ creates indecisiveness within the agreement: This partner is also controlled by their pre-programmed designs where they fear that they may be making the ‘wrong’ choice, which is again based in the ‘likes and dislikes’. Fear here is also the starting point within attempting to make a decision which is the self interest point within this equation. As with the partner above to make a decision that is best for all one must first remove the self interest starting point, by self-corrective application within and as oneself within the moment that one see’s this pattern, to give one a chance to see clearly for and as oneself of ‘what is best for all’. As within this example the indecisiveness is only coming from one’s pre-programmed designs which is dictating what is ‘liked’ and what is ‘disliked’.
Removing one’s self interest is the first step to allowing oneself to see what is best for all – which we will discuss in the next blog.

Sunday, 9 December 2012

Day 158: Birthing ourselves as life, as a partnership Part 16 – Our only free choice we have is to do what is best for all or not.


Within our individualistic world we have adopted the belief system that we should ensure our own happiness through the decisions and choices that we make. Our focus then becomes ‘me’ and ‘my own’ where self-interest is the driving force of our relationships, claiming that we have ‘free choice’ and ‘free will’. As long as our partners give to us what we believe we want and as long as our partners fulfil our desires we ‘believe’ that we had made the right choice to remain with them, but as soon as this equation changes we become disgruntled and our eyes start wondering at the greener prospects across the fence.

No wonder we are looking at the highest rates of divorces that the world has ever seen as the decision of going into marriages are taken so lightly that ‘in the event that I become unhappy’ I am able to divorce the person I married, because ‘it is my right’ and ‘it is MY choice’.

We make decisions based on our ‘feelings’, though when we start slowing down we start to realise that even our feelings are compressed pre-programmed designs that we respond to by having a ‘feeling’ about the events that are taking place. Having a look at the track record of humanity and how we make decisions we can clearly see in the results that there is something ‘wrong’ with our programming as the results are showing destructive behaviour, even bringing it down to the level of our marriages.

How do we then make decisions in our partnerships as well as about our partnerships?

Let’s investigate the dimension of making decisions within our partnerships. As were noticed in the previous blogs:




We are able to draw a golden thread through all of these designs of ‘self-interest’, where each one of these designs have one goal in mind = ‘To ensure the happiness of self’. We thus employ these characters as designs in order to have our own desires met or to ensure that our own image remains intact, the way we would like to preserve it. Though again we must ask ourselves the most basic form of common sense questions – When we look at the world today in how humans interact with humans – There must be something wrong with our programming because everyone believes that their intentions are good, though the results, as manifested consequential outflows of how we had designed ourselves is revealing a completely opposite picture and we must really be ignorant to believe that our programming is benevolent, as our actions and behaviours manifest cruel and harsh conditions for our fellow human beings.

The only way we stop the recreation of the behavioural patterns that are malevolent towards other human beings is to start by looking inwardly as we are the product of the behavioural patterns that came before us and we are also the creators of the future generations that will follow the examples that we leave behind.
So – Looking at the blogs mentioned above we can clearly see these behavioural patterns are employed to ensure our own happiness where we would blame, manipulate, justify the ideas and beliefs that we had created about our reality; but have we investigated these beliefs or these ideas? Are they standing within and as a position of ‘what is best for all’ or are they only designed in our self-interest?

What must be understood about self-interest is that one’s actions will be followed to produce a result that places self in a ‘winning’ position. How this affects those around us we do not consider in this equation – So when the consequential outflows of our actions suites the other person, we will be ok with it and if it does not suite the other person we won’t mind either. The ‘problem’ within this equation though on a global scale is that people’s livelihoods are affected through such decision where when actions of companies are focused on self-interest we have consequential outflows that manifest in war and starvation which are all justified in the name profit. On the scale of a partnership it creates conflict within the agreement as the partner that is placed in the loosing position will experience this on a conscious or subconscious level which creates an accumulative effect of friction within the partnership.

It is easy to understand what another would experience when one’s actions are based in self-interest – Just ask yourself these questions:
How would I feel when I find out that my partner made a decision where they would benefit at my expense?
How will I feel when I find out that my partner manipulated me into giving them what they wanted at the expense of me giving up what I wanted?
How will I feel when I find out that my partner justified their ideas and beliefs at the expense of me giving up what I would’ve liked to experience?

These are really basic questions that one is able to ask oneself to see how self would respond to pre-programmed designs that are based in self-interest where the self-interest happens at the expense of oneself.

When we change our starting point to ‘what is best for all’ within the decisions we make, we start to look at our partnership in a different light as we no longer make decisions in self-interest, we start to consider ‘all that is involved’ within the decisions that we make, this includes the ripple effects that we create through the actions and decisions that we make. We are here no longer only considering what is best for me, but also considering how what I am doing affects those around me. ‘What is best for all’ then becomes an act of self-responsibility within and as oneself, taking responsibility for the lives that one affects through the actions that one takes, realising within this that the ‘self-interested’ actions that one would’ve have used have consequential outflows that affect other people’s lives at first and then ripples out into the world which creates the world as we know it today which then comes back to us in experiences that we have with our fellow human beings.