Dear James,

Humans are virus meaning is not as body, but as who thinks they are separate then other things.

I agree with this, James. If we think we’re separate from other beings and from mother nature, that leads to huge problems, such as exploitation, destruction of the habitats, pollution… nowadays we’re experiencing the consequences of climate change more and more. And as Roberta said, the Western man has the infamous history of colonization, looking down at and exterminating indigenous populations, pillaging their resources… all very painful points for our “civilization”.

So I agree, there can be great darkness in humans, great cruelty and lack of understanding. At the same time there can be great light too…

Moreover, doctor can save a pet yet and kill it at the same time, like animals. Such as, cat can Save a kid from attack of dog, yet crocodile or shark can kill a human being.

Yes, the animal kingdom has its own rules. Sometimes the animal that is weaker or wounded is the one that gets eaten by a predator. Sometimes nature can be cruel, even as it can be magnificent and soothing. But it is all well, it is according to the laws of nature.

However, we humans should show more mercy, much more mercy towards our fellow human beings, as well as animals and plants too. There’s a saying “Homo homini lupus”. We shouldn’t behave like predators to each other. But unfortunately, we know examples from history and even the present day when this is not the case… where people do behave like predators to each other. And that to me is horrifying 🙁

That’s why realization is important, body and mind are one with universe. İf there is no water, body dies, if there is no air body dies, etc…

I agree – we’re one with the universe. We depend on Mother Earth’s resources for our sustenance. We depend on the Sun too, without which everything on Earth would die. We are so fragile, so small under the stars… and yet, our hearts can be huge and full of love… if we understand, if we connect to who we really are ❤️

Dear Roberta,

What animals don’t have though is self-awareness. You said it yourself

Is that really true?

You’re right Roberta, there are animals with very high intelligence, such as dolphins, elephants, horses, whales… And also there are many domesticated animals, such as dogs, even cats, who commune (and have loyalty and feelings) for people who care for them.

What you’ve shared is a very heart-warming story:

I have seen cat come & say goodbye to each member of our meditation group & he also visited others in the area that had looked after him at one time or another. our stories matched up on how he acted with each of us & this was just days before he died & yet he had not visited me in the previous year.

So perhaps animals, or some animals, do have a soul. Perhaps even some form of self-awareness, I don’t know. But I believe we have a different kind of self-awareness, the kind which allows us to observe ourselves, self-reflect and transcend our limitations. I don’t think that’s comparable to animals.

Anyway, my point was not in degrading animals and elevating humans, but just in saying that human mind is not necessarily the source of evil, even though it could be, if we get stuck in selfish, ego ways.

Dear Anita,

I like your honesty about your thoughts process while writing your previous post to me.

You’ve shared that you felt uneasy about how I would react to your greeting, or how I would react to you not understanding or not agreeing with what I said about the protector part. You’ve also shared that there’s a still a slight fear in you about me potentially shaming you:

So, yes, hypervigilant, afraid to say-not say- feel-not feel-think.. wrong. I noticed much improvement in this regard in the last year or two. But today, these scared, hypervigilant thoughts occurred because I felt helped by you, I felt a softening.. being on the receiving end of something good.. But being on the receiving end means being afraid of receiving something bad.

But what do I really have to fear with you, Tee..? You won’t hit me (no hand coming out of the computer screen to punch me), and no.. you will not shame me, I am quite sure of it (I typed “quite” because I am not absolutely sure). But.. no, you won’t shame me for being vulnerable here.

It’s good that you notice those thoughts and feelings and can speak openly about them. And I can assure you I won’t shame you, Anita. There’s nothing to be ashamed of in you openly sharing how you’re feeling and what your fears might still be regarding our communication. I appreciate your honesty 🫶

Probably your hypervigilance stems from your mother, who you say would attack you for just about anything you said (or didn’t say), even for your facial expressions:

I never knew what would make my mother (I’d like to refer to her as M) angry at me. It could be anything, I had no way of knowing. Could be a word I said, a word I didn’t say, an expression on my face, could be a thought she said I had which I didn’t have. She’d tell me what I was thinking (theme: thoughts about hurting her feelings) and when I tried to assure her that I wasn’t thinking that, she’d passionately argue that I was planning to hurt her feelings.. weeks or months in advance.. and no way to convince her otherwise.

And every time I was thinking wrong (so she said), saying wrong, not saying right, etc., there was hell to pay: long, elaborate sessions of shaming (the most painful), guilt-tripping and at least some of the times, hitting. She’d stop only when she was physically exhausted, not before.

“To be or not to be?”- not to be was what pleased her.

So you weren’t allowed to express yourself, to simply be, be a child, expressing yourself, laughing, crying, playing, talking to your mother…. None of that was allowed, because of your mother’s severe mental health problems, it seems.

You were exposed to both physical and psychological abuse, and you had no one to help you, since your father left when you were six, while people from the neighborhood didn’t react (it wasn’t socially acceptable to “poke one’s nose” in other people’s child rearing).

You had a good uncle (you said he asked you once something about yourself – he was interesting in getting to know you), but I guess he didn’t know about the extent of the abuse that you were suffering?

I’m very sorry, Anita, for you truly where all alone in those horrible circumstances, left to your own devices to manage the best you can. To survive, basically.

And you did survive, but or course, the trauma remained and it’s still affecting you to some extent. (Just to say that my C-PTSD is still present too. I still have parts of my life where I’m lead by fear and am having a hard time making a breakthrough. So it can be a decades-long process, unfortunately.)

So the question is how to heal. And of course, my answer is always: healing the inner child…

You’ve shared parts of your internal dialogue in your own thread (“A Personal Reckoning”), where you did the inner child exercise. You’ve shared what your inner child said, and also what some other parts said, including your adult self.

I might have some remarks about that, but I’m not sure if I should comment on it, since you said you want only witnessing, not advice or analysis?

So I’m refraining from that, unless you’re comfortable with me giving you feedback. I’ll respect that.

And again, Tee, I regret the pain I caused you. I never want this to happen again, and it will not. I promise!

It’s okay, Anita. I’m happy that you could step back from your own pain and see a bigger picture. I’m happy you’re open to self-reflection and personal reckoning, as you said.

I think you’re doing a great job in being brave and open with all of your feelings. I think it means you’re developing compassion for yourself, which is the key in healing. It’s really good to talk to you and share in your healing process ❤️

Hi dear Anita 😊

Thank you for saying this because it makes me think, go back in time, and what I remember is that I was too weak, too devastated to think that I could possibly prove her wrong. She was too dominant, too loud, dominating. It was all her, no me. I was sickeningly submissive to her.. was physically there, but no agency.

Right, I remember you said you let her clothe you and bathe you even in your teenage years. And now you say you let her hit you till you were in your early 20s. I’d say I wasn’t that resigned/subdued/helpless physically, however I felt like that emotionally and mentally, because I believed her criticism of me, her view of me (that I was worthless, not good enough, even a creep).

My attempts to resist her qualifications of me – at least those that I am consciously aware of – only started in my early 30s, when I started working on myself and became interested in personal growth. That’s when I became aware of a voice inside of my mind that is rebellious towards my mother and wants to prove her wrong.

There was a certain spite in that voice (“I’ll show you, just you wait!”). I was dreaming of doing something big, becoming very successful – there was a lot of grandeur in that voice. I remember you too said you were dreaming of becoming a world renowned dancer or performer, right?

That part of me belonged to my ego, and it tried to compensate for my feelings of worthlessness. So it had to achieve something extraordinary, something that figuratively speaking the entire world would get to see and admire. (I guess I had that drive in me since my early 20s, after finishing school and joining the workforce, but I only became aware of it in my early 30s, after starting working on myself and understanding my psychology).

I don’t remember trying to prove her wrong.. no, wait, I did try to defend myself against her accusations but she punished me for any effort to defend myself, every defense on my part was met with escalated offense.

Right, you were punished for trying to defend yourself and prove that you didn’t mean anything bad. And so you’ve realized after a while that there is no point in trying to defend yourself, because it will only make things worse. But the anger remained in you. You said you sometimes did give her an angry stare, right? Perhaps that was the only outward expression of anger that you sometimes dared to express?

This is true later in life. I suppose the “protector” part of me died early on, and then, many years later, resurrected.

Hmm, I don’t think it died. Your anger remained in you, as well as your impulse to defend yourself, to prove that you’re not a bad person. But it was suppressed, at least in front of your mother. Perhaps later, when you moved far away from your mother, this anger got more room to be expressed? Or perhaps therapy was the first time you allowed to express it?

You did start consciously expressing your anger – giving it voice – here on the forums, in your own threads. You gave yourself permission to express anger towards your mother, and you said it felt good to do it.

But my impression is that this anger then got stuck – because a part of you (your inner child) still didn’t feel good enough. A part of you still believed your mother, even if another part – your adult self – stopped believing her. As a result, you still had the need to prove that you’re not bad, and you would get angry if you perceived that someone believes you’re bad.

In other words, your angry protector part felt the need to protect you from your mother’s unfair accusations – because a part of you still believed them. At least that’s my impression of what was going on here on the forums, in some of the exchanges.

To use your own words, in the past you went “belly up” when faced with abuse (real abuse). And now, you chose to defend yourself – but from the angry protector part – when faced with real or perceived abuse.

Let me know if this sounds true?

Thank you, Tee, ❤️ back to you.

I hope this is not too heavy for you..?

You’re welcome, Anita ❤️ And no, it’s not heavy for me at all. I like to talk about and better understand our psychological defenses (both mine and those of other people), and so I’m happy that we can have this conversation. 🙏 I hope it is not heavy for you though? If it is, let me know…

Hi Alessa,

good to hear from you again! I hope you’ve recovered a little after the loss of your beloved dog ❤️

Yes, I’m a fan of do unto others as well. 😊 I think people have a lot of difficulty with love thy neighbour too, possibly because they have difficulties with loving themselves?

Yes, you’re really super caring with others, at least this is what I’m witnessing on this forum ❤️ And yes, I believe whenever people are harsh and uncaring towards others, that’s because they have a problem loving themselves…

Trauma does make things complicated. One of the hardest things is that once the experience is over it still continues in the mind.

I do have boundaries and stand up for myself. It is just that I don’t try as hard for myself as for other people. Boundaries and standing up for myself is a bare minimum. As you suggested before, cutting back on the effort I put into people who don’t put effort into me. The energy that I spend elsewhere could be spent on me.

Yes, trauma can make us hypervigilant and keen to please others, because that was our survival mechanism in childhood. That’s how we might have ensured to be “loved” and accepted, or even how we prevented physical abuse. Standing up for ourselves might really feel scary, even if we’re in completely different circumstances now, as adults…

It’s good that you do have boundaries and can stand up for yourself. Maybe the problem is that you give up standing up for yourself after a while? Perhaps staying in the relationship is more important to you than the person respecting your boundaries?

I think that most people (at least those who are emotionally healthy) are kind and wouldn’t have a problem respecting your boundaries when you ask them. But there are people who unfortunately don’t care about our boundaries and don’t have a problem crossing them. I guess you have a problem with that kind of people? Those who ignore your boundaries, and then you’d need to stand your ground, but you sometimes have a hard time doing that, because it feels uncomfortable to stay in conflict with them for too long?

I think I’ve been on both sides of the spectrum. Being too hard on people and going too easy on them. It is hard to find a balance.

That’s understandable. Finding a balanced approach is not easy, being assertive, and neither aggressive nor overly permissive. If I remember well, you said that nowadays you’re able to self-soothe when you feel that the other person isn’t respecting your boundaries. Whereas in the past you might have felt unable to self-soothe, and so you felt a greater pressure to react and “demand” that you be respected? Do you think that might be the reason why you’re more “lenient” nowadays?

But perhaps now you’re keen to preserve the relationship and are even hoping that the other person would change if you’re patient enough? And so you put a lot of effort in the relationship (“the effort I put into people who don’t put effort into me. The energy that I spend elsewhere could be spent on me”), even when the person is not really interested in changing their behavior?

This is just an idea, of course, doesn’t mean it’s true for you…

How are you otherwise, Alessa? I figure busy with your studies (and taking care of your son, of course)? ❤️

Hi Anita,

Peter, you wrote today (in your most recent post): “the moment consciousness split into opposites… self and other.”

Being that the concept of the-other is so instinctually entrenched in nature (all animal species, I think), and we humans are still an animal species.. How can any human undo or redo pre-human nature and not have a concept of the-other?

That’s a great observation! I’ll try to give you my perspective on duality. I don’t think that the notions of self and other are necessarily the consequence of the fall into duality. Rather, it’s how we see the other: is the other, who might be different than ourselves (different race, sex, gender, nationality, ethnicity, tribe, political preference, pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, etc etc) my enemy? Is the other (who is different and has different beliefs) evil, while I am good?

I think that might the consciousness of duality: when we see the other as a threat, as evil, and in the worst case, as someone who needs to be destroyed. The worst crimes and genocides in the past have happened when one group started to see the other as less than human. When there was the excuse to exterminate the other.

Now thinking about it, perhaps eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil refers to the state of consciousness when we start seeing ourselves as good and the other as evil? This is the first time that this interpretation has occurred to me, but perhaps it’s a feasible one?

Thanks Peter for the explanation. I see the mystical explanation as very likely:

The story of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is traditionally seen as the origin of sin where disobedience ruptured humanity’s innocence. But mystics read it differently. They see it not as a moral failure, but as the birth of duality: the moment consciousness split into opposites, good and evil, right and wrong, self and other.

In this view, the “fall” wasn’t into sin, but into ego. Into the mind’s habit of dividing and naming, of grasping and judging. It was the loss of unity with the divine, replaced by the illusion of separation.

Yes, if we start judging ourselves or others as “sinners”, and we see this as our main identity, that’s definitely the fall into ego, into separation from our divine nature. If we see ourselves as mortal sinners, and that there’s nothing divine in us, that’s the fall, I believe. The consciousness of separation.

As for naming, sometimes we need to name that something is hurtful. Such as hurtful behavior. We need to name the problem in order to solve it. But it doesn’t mean that the person who has said or done something hurtful is a horrible person. That they are a bad person. When we label someone (or ourselves) as bad, and we stop having compassion for them (or ourselves), that’s a recipe for duality and separation.

So I’d differentiate between naming and labeling – one is useful and can help us see things clearly, but the other can lead to judgment and deepening of separation.

Sadly, in my opinion, the traditional view holds the most sway and maybe why law is so often mistaken for love, discipline for devotion and righteousness for relationship. But that may be unkind…

Yes, there’s a lot of rigidity (and lack of compassion) in traditional religious doctrines. Henry Cloud, a Christian psychotherapist, says that healthy Christianity should possess both Truth and Love. Truth (as in law, rules) without Love (compassion, forgiveness) is harsh, judgmental, non-forgiving. Love without Truth is permissive and enabling (e.g. allows the abuse to go unchallenged). He says that we need both Truth and Love for healthy relationships, and I agree…

Hi Peter, James and everyone,

Tee a great break down though I might gently push back on the idea that “the answer should always be hope, love, focusing on the positive.” In my experience, such an approach often turns back on itself, creating the very suffering we seek to release or allow to die.

thanks Peter. I understand your viewpoint of not even hoping for anything positive (or for a specific positive outcome), because that in itself might create suffering if it doesn’t come about.

However, I was speaking from the perspective of someone who is in physical pain, who lost a part of their health and physical well-being irreversibly, and who needs to adapt to and accept the new circumstances.

If I don’t focus on the positive – on what I still have, rather than what I’ve lost – it could very easily lead to depression and despair. Which is the end of the soul.

A part of my hope is that things won’t get much worse health-wise, because they can. While being in the present moment means not focusing on the physical pain, which I feel in that same present moment, but choosing to focus on deeper realities: on my true self and the joy that can come out of it (and does come out of it), even if it doesn’t include the joy of moving freely, dancing etc, i.e. the things that gave me quite a lot of joy in the past.

Or take an extreme example: of people being held hostage. I’d assume that they need to hope that they would be freed some day, otherwise they would have a very hard time surviving the conditions in which they are kept.

So I think that sometimes hope is necessary and desirable, perhaps more so when we find ourselves in physically dire circumstances, perhaps existential circumstances. In other, less challenging circumstances, perhaps it is advisable to stop hoping for some preferred outcome, but simply enjoy the present moment:

The act of dying James speaks of I think points to something different: allowing space in our narratives to remain empty. Not rushing to fill the gap with positivity or certainty, but letting go of the compulsion to replace one story with another. Sometimes, the most compassionate move for ourselves is to leave room for silence, for unknowing because that space can become the doorway to freedom from the known, and to the joy of simply being.

Maybe I’m wrong about this, but it seems to me that enjoying the present moment can only happen if we feel a measure of safety in our body and in our physical environment. And for people who don’t feel that, I believe hope and a positive mindset can help them relax in the present moment and not get overwhelmed by it. Anyway, that’s my take on it, stemming from my personal experience.

I also think we all approach these deeper categories, such as hope, faith, God… from our own vantage point, trying to make sense of our suffering and trying to alleviate it. What works for one person might not work for another. I like what Thomas said that Buddha gave 3 different answers about God to 3 different people (Thomas, Oct 10, page 5 of this thread):

When asked, “Is there a God?” the Buddha answered according to the need of the person. For one person his answer was “No, there is no God.” For another, the answer was “Yes, there is a God.”. And yet a third person asked, “What can you tell me about God?”. The Buddha closed his eyes and the person closed his. After a half hour of silence. The person got up, thanked the Buddha and left.

If I understood well, Buddha gave the answers according to what each of those people needed to reach the next phase of their spiritual development, and eventually spiritual liberation. For some it is letting go of all preconceived ideas about God, or what it means to be a good, worthy person. For some it is finding a deeper meaning in life, not only focusing on material goals. For some, it is getting out of the rat-race and appreciating the present moment. Stopping to smell the roses rather than mindlessly rushing to the next achievement.

So perhaps the real question is what is it that each of us needs in the next phase of our spiritual development, which can help us reach freedom from suffering. If our thoughts keep us in pain and suffering – keep us in the illusion of separation – then we should get rid of those thoughts, as James says.

If for example we believe that we need to achieve something or behave in a certain way so we would be worthy of love – that’s a lie and needs to be abandoned. If we believe that God’s love is conditional and that we need to be perfect in order to be loved – that’s a false belief that needs to be abandoned.

However, if our thoughts and believes are not based on the illusion of separation, and we recognize that we are already loved and one with God – then there’s no need to abandon those thoughts and beliefs. Cognition is what makes us human, neocortex hasn’t developed in vain. Clear thought is a divine quality, I’d dare say.

Getting rid of all thought is not the goal. Getting rid of wrong thought – thought that keeps us in separation and consequently suffering – that’s the goal, in my opinion.