.

.

.

“Of course not!"

“Then break the emotional ties.   Instead of making others wrong for who they are or what they do, become the observer and simply say, ‘That’s something I’m simply not willing to accept in my life.’   Then allow the other person to be, have, or do as they will, without trying to fix them, change anything, or make them wrong.   Who says they’re wrong anyway?   Do you know with absolute certainty that they’re wrong?”

I say,   “Well, no, not always with absolute certainty.”

“Then you  might be wrong?”

“That’s possible.”

“Have you ever been wrong?”

Jokingly, I say, “Never!” and then add, “Of course!   Everyone has.”

“Well, when you were wrong, did you know you were wrong?”

Herbert looks at me and remains silent.   With nothing to say, I just look back at him.   I glance at Jazbell.   She smiles and remains silent.   After a very long pause, I reply, “Of course I didn’t know I was wrong.   That’s the nature of being wrong.”

Herbert continues, “Thank you for acknowledging that.   The vast majority of people believe that what they’re doing is right.   They do the best they can within their own set of beliefs, and they do the best they can under their present circumstances.”

I say,  “But some of the things we see others do are so obviously wrong that they must know they’re doing wrong.”

“Not necessarily.   Very few people will do something that they consider to be wrong without creating in their minds a justification for their behavior.   Then, to them, what they do becomes OK.   Do you recall Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge, a communist guerrilla group in Cambodia who, in the mid 1970’s, was responsible for killing about two million Cambodians?”

“Yes.”

“Even Pol Pot justified his actions in his own mind and convinced himself he was doing a good thing.   Researchers have found similar types of justification from all kinds of people who have committed terrible acts.  Of course, we have to stop acts of violence against persons or property, and we have a social structure designed to do just that.   For now at least, let’s leave that aspect of life to others and deal with our own lives.

    On a personal level in our day-to-day life, our job is to love and accept everyone else just as they are and just as they aren’t.   May I have your permission to make a personal example involving the two of you?”

I say, “Yes,” and look at Jazbell.   She also says yes.

Herbert continues, “I don’t know the nature of your relationship with each other, so may I assume you are at least good friends?”

I answer, “Yes.”

“So, the next time your friend does something you think is wrong or that you disapprove of or that triggers a negative emotion within you, you get to ask yourself this question, ‘Would I rather be right or would I rather have our relationship’?

    You’ll have the choice to give up your judgment or give up your relationship.   And in light of your just-admitted confession that you might be wrong, which is the wiser choice?”

I respond with, “To give up my judgments, of course, but can’t I have my opinions and still have the relationship?”

“Well, if arguing, fighting, disagreeing, disapproving and feeling resentment are what you want in your relationship, I suppose you could keep both.   How important is being right, any way?   Is it more important than your relationship?”

My defensive mode kicks in and I say, ”But what if it’s something that involves an either-or choice and accepting of one person’s choice automatically eliminates the other’s choice?”

Herbert replies, “Because harmony is job one in any successful relationship, I suggest you discuss the matter to see how you can come to a mutually agreeable resolution.   If that doesn’t work, bring in a friend or a professional mediator to assist you.   An outside person can often give you a perspective that neither of you could see on your own.

     If that still doesn’t work, ask an outside professional to act as an arbitrator.   Both of you communicate your feelings, desires and requirements to the arbitrator and then let him/her make the final decision — a decision that is a fair and equitable solution— a decision that is outside the will of either of one of you.   You’ll both need to agree ahead of time that the arbitrator’s decision will be final, that the decision will be accepted by both of you, and that both of you will let go of any emotional attachments to the final outcome.

    Whenever disagreements or conflicts arise, the ideal goal is to look for ways to create harmony.   To the degree that you can set your personal opinions aside is the degree to which you can have mastered the Law of Allowing.   It is also the degree to which you can have a committed, loving, harmonious relationship.”

Herbert points toward the window.   “Do you see that lamp post over there across the yard?”

“Yes,” I respond.

“Do you have emotional attachment to that post? — to where it is? — to what it does?”

“No."

“When you can hold that same attitude for all of your fellow human beings, you’ll have mastered the Law of Allowing.   Our job is simply to allow all others the free will choice to be who they are and do whatever they do.   By giving to others the same thing that we ask for ourselves, we walk our own talk.   We also become the role models and set the example for others to follow.”

“That lamp post stands there 24 hours every day, seven days every week, and at night, shines light on the surrounding area.   That is its nature.   That is what it is. That is what it does.   If you’re mad, sad, angry, jealous, hateful, or hold any other negative emotion regarding that post, is it going to change what the post is or what the post does?”

“No.” 

“If you bitch, moan and complain to the lamp post, is it going to change what it is or what it does?"

Again I say, “No.” 

“If you bitch, moan and complain to someone else about the lamp post, is that going to change what the lamp post is or what it does?”

“No.”

“The same is true for our fellow humans.   We each are whatever we are, and we do whatever we do.   We cannot change another’s nature, and, short of violence or threats of violence, we cannot force them to do other than what they do.   And even if we force them to do other than what they would freely do, they still remain who they are.”

I ask, “What about using  lies and deception?”

"You can con them, cheat them, lie to them, or otherwise trick them into being or doing as you would have them be or do, but if you do, you steal their soul, you steal their freedom, you steal their God-granted right of self determination."   Two things you should know about that:  first, "What you do onto the least of mine, you do onto me."   and second,  whatever you put out you'd best be prepared to receive it back ten times over.  

I say,   “Well, we could murder them.   Then, they would no longer be who they are.”

Jazbell adds, “Or we could con them, manipulate them, teach them illusions while they are still defenseless, little children and thus, make most of them into who we want them to be.” 

Herbert laughs and says, “You two make quite a team.”

“Thanks,” I say.

Herbert says,  “Stoney, your statement that if someone is murdered, they cease to be who they are  is an assumption on your part.   It assumes that we are our physical bodies and that who-we-are changes with the death of our physical bodies.   That assumption may or may not be true, but we’re getting off track here.   We can go into that more later if you like.”

“Yes, I would like to talk about that later.”

Herbert continues,  “Then back to the Law of Allowing.   Our job is to stop fighting the external world, to stop protesting, to stop arguing, to stop trying to change someone else’s behavior, to stop obsessing about what’s wrong in the out-there world.   And then, regarding our internal world, our job is to stop obsessing about what we think is wrong with ourselves."

“Why?” I ask.

“Because to fight anything is inadvertently to empower it and to attract more of it into your life.   Although many people do not believe this, to bitch, moan, and complain is to invite The Universe to send you more to bitch, moan, and complain about.”

“So are you saying that if we want something to be a certain way in our lives, our very first job is to go inside ourselves and change our own thoughts and attitudes?

“Yes!   And you could add beliefs to that, also.”

“What about government violence?” Jazbell asks.

Herbert responds, “Yes, government-sponsored violence is a major problem.   Actually governments are the major source of violence in the world today.   Government policies also precipitate and are the indirect cause of a significant portion of individual violence.  

The anti-marijuana war and the anti-drug war are the most blatant example of this.   Keeping these substances illegal is responsible for about 70% of all the crime in the entire united States.  

I ask, “Why are governments the major source of violence?”

Herbert replies, “You’ve probably heard the old saying, ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’   Governments become corrupt whenever there’s no one with the counterbalancing power to stop them.”   There are also several major, false assumptions which they rely on to justify mass violence; however, that’s another story for another time.” ^12-1  

Jazbell looks at me and laughs.   “Herbert, ‘another story for another time’ is one of Stoney’s favorite lines!”

I come back with,  “We can talk more about that at another time.   Right now I’d like to know more about how to apply The Law of Allowing to my own life.”

“And so you shall,” says Herbert as he continues.   “With regard to the behavior of other individuals, we simply step back and let them be who they are and do whatever they do.   While the controversies rage in the world around us, we quietly apply the three laws of the universe where the outside world has no power over us.”

“How do we do that?"

“That's what the third universal law is all about.   We’ll get to that in a moment.   Before we do, let’s complete with the first two principles.”

“OK.   Please proceed.”

“The traditional way to transcend evil and violence has been to be better at violence that your opponent, and then apply that greater violenin the name of God, good, flag, country, or the like.   He who is the most successful at being violent is the winner.   Thus, human conflict has grown from fists to sticks and stones to many times enough nuclear weapons to destroy every human being on the face of this Earth.   And the cycle is still escalating.   Biological warfare could make nuclear weapons look like child’s play.

In contrast to that, our goal is to create good and to be good in the face of evil.   In doing so, we’re also cycle breakers.   We end cycles of conflict when we give others the free will choice to be who they are, even when those others, if they were given the opportunity, would deny those same rights to us.   Like a plant we stop watering, we withdraw our energy from negative behavior.   We stop fighting what we don’t want because, as I’ve already said, to fight anything is to inadvertently empower it and attract more of it into our lives.

Our behavior will also serve as a role model for many who will see us as living examples of the way they’d like to be, and thus, they’ll change their own behavior without any interference from us.”

End of Chapter Fourteen --  The Universal Law of Allowing

.

.

. 

Site Map to  TLC-Life-Center's Sixty-Six Websites

   Home Page                 Site Map                Contact Us  

Eden   or   Cosmic Titanic

Your Choice ?

The Sensual Delights Network

The Yoni Dance Book Trilogy

See:    Terms of Use   and   Privacy Statement..

Site  yd22 - Sensual Delight - Yoni-Dance Trilogy  Book One - The Dream Catcher's Dream

   How to create a True Corporate Democracy 

   Six Steps That Will Change Your World   

   The Peaceful Revolution.com  

   Marijuana Sanity

   How to Return to Economic Sanity  

   The Magic Power of Forgiving  

   Grandmother Power  

   Foundation Power  

.

Footnotes and References

.