Lighting a candle not only for my loved ones

[Physics131]

Lighting a candle not only for my loved ones, but also for enemies. And I mean not for my enemies. Instead, I mean for enemies in general.

And not with the intention to have fewer enemies. Instead, doing so with the intention to dissolve the low vibrational state of individuals who think they have to be an enemy against someone else. This way, they can emerge into a higher vibrational state, where all kinds of competition and comparisons do not make any sense anymore.

And yet I am still comparing and competing, but I am comparing and competing with myself. It is fine for me to hurt myself when it brings me forward, as long as no one else is affected by it. However, writing this does not put me in a high-vibrational state. It is very paradoxical that my own low vibrational state is the reason I had these thoughts and wrote them down.

At the end, it is a state. Everyone at any time could be affected by higher or lower vibrational states, but I do not view this as an excuse.

In my opinion, it is not only and always about vibrational states. What matters instead is the value resulting from a state. While lower vibrational states could be viewed as negative, negative in which way? When the internal negativity results in a good impact for others, then I question this concept in some way. While I do so, I am still aware that some states are more likely to cause a good impact while others result in the opposite.

 

[rkba]

We all have vibrational states of all frequencies, low-high and all in between. I think that a full acceptance and understanding of any vibrational state, whether low or high, is a path to a healing of 'the fissure'.

 

[MAGMA17]

It should be considered that if y for x is an enemy, perhaps x for y is also considered an enemy... who is at this point the "protagonist" of the story who is being opposed? who is the main pivot on which to build derivatives?...

Furthermore, what seems like an enemy to you could instead be a useful element for the development of something superior, and therefore not be a negative element, but simply a necessary element which from a first external vision can be misinterpreted.

 

[Physics131]

I thought about this thread and the responses for a while.

It should be considered that if y for x is an enemy, perhaps x for y is also considered an enemy... who is at this point the "protagonist" of the story who is being opposed? who is the main pivot on which to build derivatives?...

Yes I agree that this situation can also be the case.
That brings me to the thought that an initiator should also be considered.
Someone starting "rivality" with someone else could be considered an enemy himself.
But then the other party agreeing with that rivality allows himself to get an enemy as well which is manifested by reaction.
If the initator retreats at that point, it does not make himself not an enemy.
What is interesting at that point is, that the exact opposite is "achieved".
It makes him an even worse enemy in case it was intentional.

But there could also be the case that one is an enemy against someone where "someone" is not aware of it.
Very hypothetical, person A could be an enemy against person B, where person B is very famous.
That implicates that person A knows B but person B does not neccessarily have to know person A.

But I also came to a point where I think that being an enemy is an agreement someone has with oneself.

Furthermore, what seems like an enemy to you could instead be a useful element for the development of something superior, and therefore not be a negative element, but simply a necessary element which from a first external vision can be misinterpreted.

That is an interesting aspect and I completly agree.
I agree that some characteristic could have a good and/or bad impact.
The question I currently have is, if being an enemy is always negative.
And If yes then we should maybe use a different word for the enemy which creates good impact.

I think rivality and competion should maybe be seperated.
While I think I can tell that an enemy can be rival and competing,
I definetly can not tell that a competitor could be not rival.
I am looking for a word I can not find currently.

Competition to a specific degree can be beneficial because it could help to push each other forward.
But too much competition could turn into rivality and result into hinderance.
I think as long as none is hindered we can talk about that as competition (or the word which fits better).

But even that type of relationship must be an agreement.
Only when two players are playing chess against each other, does not mean that rivality or competion is or must be involved.
When both players are playing against each other in a way where it is very important for them to win,
and each one plays in a competing way, then I think we can talk about a competition.
I do not think it can be considered a competition when only one player plays in a competing way.

What with the special scenarious where one player plays for fun and the other one plays either rival or competing?
I think the player playing for fun has 3 decisions, either continue to play for fun, competing or rival.
If the player continues to play for fun, he decides to not allow a competition or rivality.
The question I have at this point is, if he does not allow competition/revality, how would that impact the other player who is playing competing/rival?
Would that make his state dissolve?

Maybe this example can be used for a lot of other things as well?
This are some of my thoughts so far.

 

[Physics131]

We all have vibrational states of all frequencies, low-high and all in between. I think that a full acceptance and understanding of any vibrational state, whether low or high, is a path to a healing of 'the fissure'.

The vibrations you send out will be matched by Creation and reflected back to you. In this sense you create your own reality.

I am not questioning the concept of vibrations in general.
It feels legit for me as every emotion feels like some sort of energy.
I asked myself if it makes any sense to send out a different vibration out then one feels which doing that authentically?
When thinking about the most frequent scenarious then I would answer no.
For example: feeling anger will cause anger, feeling disappointed will cause disappointment, ..
But I think that is not an absolute rule.

If one agrees with oneselfs state then everything from above will happen.
But if someone is tired of his own state, will he try to achieve anything execpt causing that state he has been experiencing for others?
Will that work out well for every type of vibration/state?

Thinking about it, it should be possible but I am unsure if that will workout for every state and every individual.
Maybe the lower the vibration the harder it is to achieve.

A good example in my oppinion:
Someone very sad is tired of himself being sad and he know how that feels like.
And it is his interest to not cause that state for others.
With this example I think it should be possible to send out higher virbational states then he experiences himself.
But I also think that the vibrations he sends out can never be that qualitative compared to someone who is already in a high vibrational state.

This are all my thoughts so far.
What do you think?

 

[rkba]

Thinking about it, it should be possible but I am unsure if that will workout for every state and every individual.

One can arrest the initial response to a situation and reevaluate. In my own experience the lower the vibration the harder the suppression of the initial responses.

If the Self is sincerely tired of the programmed initial response one can most definitely change the response. You're essentially adjusting the initial program and, like with fighting, it is always easier to redirect the incoming force than to absorb it bluntly. So instead of letting the response 'go' you can redirect and replace it with a different response. This will be trial and error and lots of practice.

We're all different and require different approaches and solutions. The mechanism, however, is the same.

Also, the lower vibrations are not without merit, they are -just like the ego- there to protect your physical being. And don't let the highest vibrations fool you into thinking that they are more important.

Just like we are all equal, since we're All One, all vibrations are equal and One.

It's the initial programming we aim to adjust. Not the conscious Being itself. At least that's how I perceive it at the moment.

And what's life without joy? Flux butterfly, Flux with joy!

 

[MAGMA17]

But then the other party agreeing with that rivality allows himself to get an enemy as well which is manifested by reaction.

Yeah, we can say that the passive element has responsibilities in giving the other the possibility of perfecting his status of enemy.

At this point we can also add another scenario: subject A carries out actions that are not against anyone, but which he knows can trigger a reaction from subject B. At this point, although it is subject B who carries out the action of real opposition, we cannot say that it is the only responsible for that. And this leads to the consideration that it is not enough to look at the actions performed by the two subjects from the outside, but we should also understand the awareness of the subjects themselves about the situation.

And If yes then we should maybe use a different word for the enemy which creates good impact.

The problem is that it's not that easy to decide what creates a positive outcome versus a negative one. It's very relative.

I think rivality and competion should maybe be seperated.

For sure!

I do not think it can be considered a competition when only one player plays in a competing way.

I also think that.