«
»

condemning condemnation

You may have the experience of setting yourself up as the judge of which expressions of “love’s essence” are the true ones and which are false. There may be the idolizing of “unconditional love” and the shaming of everything else (which is not especially loving, but just more idolizing!).  That to me is the pinnacle of silliness (and vanity/idolatry).

Consider that what some “spiritual people” may reference as “our essential nature” and “unconditional love” are like the seed or roots of a tree. All of the branches of the tree come from the root, but are distinct from the roots, right? The branches are all conditional, like affinity and personal relations like marriage and biological ancestry. Those are extremely conditional, but they are not “false,” just “specific!”

So, all of the branches are specific (as in conditional) yet they all proceed and are nourished by the roots. For anyone to “sit in judgment” of their own tree of life and say “those branches are good and these branches are evil” is living from sin, from maya/error, from hell, from agonizing, from guilt, from condemnation.

The branches are distinct. They are not better or worse from each other.

The branch of condemnation is also an expression of unconditional love. You cannot experience that through the rational mind, but consider it possible anyway even though it seems like a logical paradox.

Try this instead first. Everything is an expression of “god’s will” or it would not exist. That is logically solid. The idea that there is some other will in operation besides God‘s will is not consistent with the definition of God that I use. That is foolishness, silliness, vanity: “my will is not god’s will.” What? That is like saying that this one branch over here is not part of the tree. That is total nonsense. Only one deep in maya/error/sin would assert a personal will that is not itself the expression of divine will.

So, if you get the logic of the analogy, then it is possible to experience the behavioral process of condemnation from an entirely distinct perspective. Condemnation, like so many processes in language, is always an expression of an inner purpose. It is always the will of God or it would not ever happen.

Condemning something sets up a hypothesis or theory focusing on that something. It is a sorting process of rejecting something consciously while still giving it some energy and attention (like a root system feeding a branch). \

As the condemnation “hypothesis” gets explored, people eventually may come to appreciate something they previously condemned. It is like 7 year old boys making fun of girls then, by the age of 14, reversing their rejection to adoration… for the exact same girls perhaps (now young women).

At age 7, the boys need to develop certain qualities of masculinity, which means getting the distinctions of masculinity. By age 14, the same feminine traits that were repulsive may suddenly be attractive (of course, noting that there is an immense physiological difference between 7 year old girls and 14 year old girls) – a new polarity or charge is created, but first we may express our divine purpose by condemning something as we focus primarily elsewhere. “That energy is too much for me right now!”

Later, at age 14, a boy tends not to ridicule 7 year old girls with antagonism, but perhaps with appreciation or at least neutrality. Thus what before was actually in some ways truly terrifying (yuck, 7 year old GIRLS!) is later the object of light-hearted teasing, like saying nonsense things to a neighbor or cousin: saying “oh, now you are acting like a 7 year old” to someone who actually is 7.

7 year old boys can be quite mean to little girls, with the classic behavior of pulling pigtails and so on. 14 year old boys do not typically do that, right? They may tease little girls, but they just are not INTERESTED enough to actually put out the energy of condemning 7 year old girls because 7 year old girls are no longer a THREAT to the average 14 year old boy.

What is the bottom line of 7 year old boys condemning and ridiculing girls? “I am too immature to contain my intense attraction to the feminine, so it is best for now for me to push away any feminine magnet in my midst. When I mature further, I may chase after what I have chased away. I may even use the same words like ‘I hate you’ but said with a ‘devilish’ smile, a lusty honesty, a playful non-chalance.”

Condemnation is simply revealed as a developmental stage. Those in the middle of that stage may not see that. To them, one part of the tree must be good and one part must be evil. They simply condemn condemnation, establishing behaviorally that they are still in that stage of condemnation.

Instead of condemning many branches as evil, they condemn the behavior of condemning as evil. Again, that is the extreme of irony, of silliness, of vanity.

Upon recognizing this, the tree of life is revealed to be holy- complete. Then, unconditional love shifts from being a good idea that we may talk about until we are blue in the face to something we do, a behavior, the activity or process of loving. Every stage on the way to the process of unconditional loving is part of the process of unconditional loving, just as every stage on the way to being a butterfly IS itself already the process of the emergence of a butterfly.

Some caterpillars may go around condemning butterflies (or caterpillars). That may change nothing as to their future.

Words are trivia. Notice the energy patterns directly.

Caterpillars are part of the process that is butterfly. Yes, a butterfly is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “caterpillar.”

Condemnation is part of the process of unconditional loving. Yes, unconditional loving is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “condemning.”

Do not miss the forest for the tree. Or, if it fits for you, focus elsewhere and miss the forest for the tree! FINE, JUST BE THAT WAY! Either way, there is no forest except for a mutltide of trees.

Related articles

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on June 12, 2010 at 5:15 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “condemning condemnation”

  1. Katarina Rönnqvist Says:
    June 14, 2010 at 2:00 am | Reply

    maybe stop beliving we are sheeps, and money please how did it cast such a spell on us, that we become ashamed of our nature…On one point I tend to agree with illuminati; competition is sin…but we don´t want to look closely and investigate human history enslavement, yes there is where spirituality “part 2” begins….relaxed people tend to be aware and be reliable. No we are no good buisness if we stay healthy and happy,,,,”let´s thorture them sheeps, and let them play out eachother// Bilderberg et co…..

  2. jrfibonacci Says:
    June 14, 2010 at 2:24 am | Reply

    Hi! Glad to have your interest and input. Some of what you wrote there stimulates me to respond:

    So, we ourselves are the spell casters, right? We use LANGUAGE to “cast spells.”

    Among the spells we may cast are curses of shaming. We may shame certain actions (or even particular people) out of a perception of danger, such as a lack of understanding or familarity.

    For instance, if I do not speak Swedish, and two people near me start speaking Swedish and I feel anxious- for whatever reason, even total paranoia having nothing to do with them- then I may ridicule their use of Swedish and so on. I am just expressing to them my distress at their use of that language. My shaming them is because I may lack an alternative method that I might otherwise suggest to them ot use instead of Swedish. So, I begin shaming to interrupt them and perhaps they will notice that and then recognize some other method and use that method to include me- or perhaps not.

    As for the idea that competition is sin, I suggest that competition is competition, while sin is misperceiving something, shaming it for lack of understanding, judging against “God” for allowing such a thing to exist without consulting us first.

    This is why shaming may seem infantile. It is like a tantrum, an act of desperate rage, calling for attention and assistance.

    For an infant, it is perfectly fitting. For anyone who shames, that must also fit for them or they would not do it. That may indicate that they do not know any better- or not yet. Perhaps they will mature more and be more reposnsible and adaptive later.

    Such distressing and shaming is the kind of thing Jesus referenced with “they know not what they do.” He said “let the one among you without sin cast the first stone.” Rather than shame the shamers for shaming, he rebuked them, which is not the same. Was there any distress or antagonism or condemnation in his rebuke? He set them free with his rebuke. Their distressing was interrupted and they relaxed.

    So, yes, people may associate shaming with competition. Sometimes, in some competition, such as the birds and the squirrels are all gathering from the same limited local supply of nuts and seeds, we know that shame is not a factor. Shame requires language. The birds and squirrels compete and if there is not enough to satisfy all of them in a local area, the birds, who move faster, may go somewhere else. However, species sometimes go extinct from lack of supply, harsh winters and ice ages and so forth.

    Humans are different. We may think that the squirrels should be ashamed (of victimizing the birds) and the birds should be proud (for competing heroically against the villainous squirrels). We assert things like that the birds have rights that the squirrels do not, or that the squirrels should be different than how they are, or that Swedish is a language that people only use when they are trying to hide something from me.

    All those conceptual conclusions are “sin.” Our sins perpetuate our suffering. Stop sinning, and what happens to suffering?

  3. Katarina Rönnqvist Says:
    June 15, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Reply

    do not agree wit you…but that is ok!

Leave a comment