It is important to clarify what freewill is and what it isn’t, since many people think it is the freedom to act, even if another person may not appreciate being on the receiving end of such behavior. Whereas freewill is the freedom to create, ask questions, and receive anything we choose, it is not the freedom to give answers or anything else we choose to those who have not asked the question, nor have a desire to receive our gifts; and if we do give what is not asked for, it is considered a freewill violation and comes at a karmic cost to the violator. Karma is the consequence of forced giving freewill violations; it is an equalizing force that ensures that the violator eventually receives back at the same measure that they infringed upon others.
Freewill is closely connected to the emotional concept of boundaries, which define where a person begins and ends in relationship to self and others. Those who are prone to crossing the boundaries of others do not have a firm sense of Self, individuality, and the emotional wholeness that accompanies having a good understanding of personal boundaries. A freewill violation is a boundaries violation, they are one in the same thing, which is what makes the concept of agreements and consensual behavior such an important aspect of freewill and boundaries. It is okay to cross the personal boundaries of another person when they agree to it, and it is okay to give answers when it is in response to a direct or indirect question. Sexual relations when it is consensual between consenting adults is okay, but when one adult does not agree and the other still gives their gift without consent, it is considered rape, which is both a boundary and freewill violation.
Self-defense is NOT a violation of freewill, however, most people are agreeing to certain behaviors on an unconscious level and thus are still granting a certain level of consent to their external perpetrators. While they may verbally and consciously deny they give consent, they are exercising unconscious or subconscious thought patterns that allow such behavior, especially since in some way they are still acting as a perpetrator to others. If a person is still prone to violating the freewill of another, they are energetically open to having their freewill violated. This is why doing shadow work is so important, as it makes the unconscious-conscious, and allows for the removal of any unconscious agreements that may be suppressed. When a being tries to violate the freewill of an individual who has not consented on a subconscious, unconscious, or conscious level, they may experience what we call “instant karma” for their attempted infractions, or they may be unable to cross their intended victim’s boundaries at all; this is a defensive measure from the Universe that prevents the abuse of the law of freewill.
An attachment to being saved from our inability to be a powerful creator, and all of the effects that stem from that root cause, is the cause of our need to violate the freewill of others, for if we were truly responsible and capable of creating our life, we wouldn’t need to cross the boundaries of another to give them something that we think they need. An emotional attachments is all “shoulds” in life, which are how we think life “should” be because of our own woundings, traumas, and feelings of scarcity. If we were truly responsible as creators we wouldn’t impose our “shoulds” on others, since it is a violation of freewill, we would rather just create our life as we choose without giving their irresponsible behavior a second thought. If an irresponsible person chooses to learn self-responsibility, they are free to ask us questions, and we can answer them, and give them our gifts, per their request.
Again, freewill is the ability to choose how we will create our life as a sovereign being, and which beings we choose to both work with, and receive answers from; we do not have the freewill to give answers to just anybody, but only to those who ask the necessary questions and choose to receive from us. Let us reiterate, we do not have the freewill to freely violate another person’s freewill, the consequence of all such freewill violations is the accruing of karmic debt, and this debt can be accumulated from lifetime to lifetime. We feel that it is important to do shadow work, utilize the Unity Process, and use critical thinking skills to discover one’s boundaries, let go of attachments, take personal responsibility, and dissolve all subconscious, unconscious, and conscious agreements that may cause one to violate freewill and experience freewill violations.
EDIT July 20, 2015: We have since learned that having an attachment to saving a person’s own inner victim may also cause them to violate the freewill of another. If two people have conflicting inner victims, each will save their own victim, which causes them to play the role of the villain to the other; they may rationalize and moralize away their behavior as being for the good of the people, nation, planet, family, etc, but that doesn’t mean that they are indeed pure in the matter. This plays out as a savior, super hero, and messiah complex as their externalized reasoning, but it really boils down to their need to save their inner victim from perceived harm.
Additionally, many people confuse speaking their truth and bulldozing others with their truth as the same thing; they believe that it is ok to cross boundaries as long as it’s in the name of the truth. Now if there is a request or agreement to have such a relationship, and an agreement to mutually work through any feelings, patterns, and contradictions that prevent experiencing truth together, it’s not a boundary infraction, but a tool for growth. The key however is the trust and agreement to work through things together on a level playing field. Examples of such agreements are between a romantic couple, in coaching or therapy sessions, between good friends, choosing to visit a website, agreeing to watch a movie or video, and consenting through viewing a presentation; even in these however, it is beneficial to ask questions rather than using a judgmental attack on the individual or their information. Through asking enough questions, you may find that you learn more about yourself and them, and that they also benefit from the exchange, but blind truth speaking may win the war but ruin the relationship that the war was meant to protect. Crossing emotional boundaries is just as violent as crossing physical ones, even when it is done in the name of the truth.
Please, by all means, speak your truth, make it available to those who wish to listen to it, and who desire to cocreate with you; we are all meant to passionately speak, and more importantly live, our/the truth! However, if you choose to cross the boundaries of another in the name of the truth, do not be surprised if you experience resistance, pushback, or worse — live by the sword, die by the sword.
The post “Clearing up Confusion About Freewill — What is it?” is a response to someone saying something about forcefully speaking truth to those who don’t want to hear it:
> “We actually had a commenter on our YouTube channel tell us that freewill is the ability to violate the freewill of another, and that it was “self-defense” to force “the truth” upon those who have no desire to know the truth. This was written as a clarification for those who actually care about understanding freewill and personal boundaries, and how they relate to our experience as humans here and now.”
Here is what I have to say about the comment quoted as the subject of contention for the post above to correct, and my correction to the correction from the post in question above.
Freewill can violate the freewill of another, this it can do, but not without the consequences that come with it as per the reciprocal capacity of other free will agents to respond and react. This applies to all interactions with others, from assault, theft or any actual physical violation. People can reciprocate back the harm done, or choose other options, such as doing nothing. The commenter is referencing speaking truth into existence to counter falsity as I understand your representation, even upon those who have no desire to know. This is valid, yet is not understood in the post above. Although, there is some additional justification as “self-defense”. Those people who receive the truth someone is speaking, in response, can choose to ignore it, ignore the person forever, whatever they want. Like a physical input from someone else that is not desired, a response can be generated. They can respond in any way to the truth someone speaks to them. The person is not harassing them with falsity to harm them, even though the truth may hurt and it seems like its “mean”, “uncaring”, “discompassionate”, “disrespectful”, or even a “karmic violation”. Truth to correct falsity, wrongs, or immorality, is the opposite of those dismissal attempts to silence truth being spoken.
> “freedom to act, even if another person may not appreciate being on the receiving end of such behavior. Whereas freewill is the freedom to create, ask questions, and receive anything we choose, it is not the freedom to give answers or anything else we choose to those who have not asked the question, nor have a desire to receive our gifts; and if we do give what is not asked for, it is considered a freewill violation and comes at a karmic cost to the violator.”
Like speaking truth to counter falsity that others express as their behavior or other forms of expression of consciousness.
You and others don’t ask for corrections/answers, but I give them. I didn’t get asked to provide an answer or correction, but I did anyways! I am a violator by the standards in the post in question. No one can provide answers without someone asking for them, otherwise they violate a belief in some specific concept of karma, making it “bad” to do?
Remaining bound or attached to beliefs, having faith, trust and loyalty in ungrounded “realities”, unrealities, or falsities, is not beneficial to anyone, even if the person is not asking for corrections or “answers” they need them. It may not be what they want to hear, but it is what they need to hear to counter the falsity they are attached to. Giving people want they “want” is not an automatic association with “care” and true respect. Respecting these “boundaries” perpetuates your enslavement and theirs all in attempts to maintain relationships based on the silence of truth. That is not true respect, honesty, or caring for others, but an allowance to let the negative perpetuate into existence through their expressing of it. We all yearn for connection and being at peace with others, to belong and fit in somewhere, to not be alone, and speaking truth, that people don’t want to hear, puts that relationship and basic yearning “need” in jeopardy or being fulfilled or maintained. Much of my work deals with the need to correct errors in people. If they are expressing it in your experience, then it’s valid for you to correct it, and use it as an example to teach others.
This correction to the commenter differs greatly from the response provided by the post in question. The response formulated was tailored to the subject of speaking truth that people don’t want as being a violation of someone’s freewill? This is a perception from ignorance of the importance of truth in life, and the necessity in it being spoken into existence. I have explained some corrections about, but I will not explain everything that I have already tried to in my work, such as: Truth is Love; Degrees of Relativity and Learned Helplessness; Dualistic Conceptual Framework; Foundation Living and True Unity; and more places to explain the overall importance of Truth, and Higher, Realer, Truer Self in service, sacrifice and standing for that higher potential Truth that may not exist on reality overall or in some people, vs. service to self, relationships, keeping the peace, keeping friends, not rocking the boat, not upsetting people.
Truth, vs. being liked and “respecting” falsity that others perpetuate as “boundaries”…hmm… how deep of an understanding of the importance of truth does the latter choice have? Speaking truth that people do not want to hear does indeed attempt to break the bounds of attachment to delusion, illusion, deceptions, falsities, mind control, etc., and this is what is required to change things actively for the better, rather than passively in our own little bubbles, which is why things change but not really and the same cyclical violence repeats as we don’t learn what really matters, Morality and Truth, because we are always just trying to survive and get along in order to help our own survival, comfort and convenience through social co-dependent living. Social conformity is a strong pressure to not upset others, otherwise we could “lose” relationships and social viability.
Speaking truth gets one in trouble in the survival aspect, look at history and many people who have spoken against falsity (Socrates, Galileo, Giordano Bruno) and how that has infringed upon their true freedoms in physical living, simply for speaking truth, a right of free speech. We do have to tread more carefully in speaking truth to those we don’t know, as they may just murder us for doing so! Yet this right to speak is ignored, and becomes a “karmic violation” when it becomes “personal” rather than a public “free speech” that doesn’t target anyone specifically? Whenever a specific relationship is targeted, then it becomes an imaginary violation of some kind? People are ok with me correcting things in general, but when I correct some people specifically, they get all upset and then I lose a “facebook friendship” because somehow they think being a “friend” makes them impervious to being corrected by that “friend”, or their experience of falsity being used as a teaching demonstration for others. This is delusional living. All for the false unity of keeping the peace and allowing people to remain bound to and attached to their boundaries of falsity, of not being upset personally by someone personally in their lives that they think they have some personal duty to not to tell them things they don’t want to hear? That is “feel-good” attachment and fear of truth.
That is a failure of understanding Higher, Realer, Truer (TRUTH) Self. People choose personal attachment vs. standing for truth, because speaking truth into existence that people don;t want to hear not only hurts them, but it hurts you, as I started off saying “Freewill can violate the freewill of another”, since they can respond in any way. Tension, interference, friction, conflict of truth vs. falsity will create fractures in relationships. It does create “emotional” relationship and boundary issues, that is life and part of correcting errors, to feel reality and process that feedback! Cognitive dissonance. This is inherently what happens in an attachment to falsity, where the person does not want to let go. They choose their falsity and attachment to it, rather than facing the truth being spoken to them.
Here are some short posts on related material that I have expressed to help others understand the importance of Truth/Morality:
As for karma, believing in the so-called “spiritual” karma means you are subject to a belief in an externalized force called karma, which you are bound to, through your faith, trust and loyalty in this being real. It does not exist. You give it existence through your belief in it existing, as a way to explain another belief in a “natural” or “universal” balancing mechanism that is acting in its own capacity in response/feedback to other stimulus to maintain the imagined “natural/universal” state of “good”. It is one concept to another to reference each other, but it’s only conceptual, and free-floating as a belief construct to make sense of reality, personal desires, wants and wishes for things to be a certain way and then trying to explain this imagined conceptual way as the way it is, despite it not being demonstrable. This is how people have tried to reason a “good” and “lawful” “natural order”, rta/rota, dharma, karma, dao/tao, maat, and other concepts, like god, are related to wheels of this cosmic order putting things back into “balance”, etc. I have 5 presentations related to this symbolism to help explain demonstrable causality and karma in reality vs. belief in imaginary karma:
“Karma is the consequence of forced giving freewill violations; it is an equalizing force that ensures that the violator eventually receives back at the same measure that they infringed upon others.”
This can be falsified, as when nothing happens as an equalizing force… but then the imagined belief in karma, cyclic rebirths, reincarnation, etc. allows to “answer” these non-demonstrable beliefs and maintain them as “realities” through believing in an equalization from this external force in some other life. Real karma, behavioral moral consequences to behavior/actions, is simple, and it is enacted by causal agents capable of responding to reception of violations through feeling them. If no one does anything, there is no equalizing force to reciprocate back and do something about it. Free Will Causal Agents are required in moral behavioral reciprocity. There is a confusion between how Natural Laws of Cause and Effect operate universally in a system of reciprocity of physical balance, and how Natural Moral Law operates in allowing behavioral reactions, which also operates in a causal capacity but with free will affecting the reciprocity. I have explained this in the Natural Moral Law Science definition: http://evolveconsciousness.org/natural-moral-law-science/
Anything anyone does around you that demonstrates falsity, wrongness, or immorality, etc., is input in your perception of reality, and valid data for you to process, and if needed, output a correction of truth to that falsity. The Trivium Method of Living in action. In no way is output action/data to someone about falsities they perpetuate, or are unaware of, analogous to a violation of Morality. If you want to believe, to be bound to and attached in faith, trust and loyalty to this concept of a “karmic violation” when someone speaks truth, then that is your choice to live in that non-true, non-real, non-maa (maat), unreality, to condemn speaking truth that people don’t want to hear (true of voice, maa kheru). A freewill choice to remain attached to falsity, perpetuating it, is not a moral free will choice, as that choice forces me to live in the reality that they and others like them are choosing to create. I have a responsibility, as a higher order consciousness, in higher order consciousness living, realer, truer higher living in service, sacrifice and standing for truth and morality, to speak truth into existence to counter the falsity others perpetuate through expressions of their current state of being. That is a realer, truer, higher “firm sense of Self”.
Further, a volition (free will) to not receive truth is a not a valid volition to not be “violated”. Any volitional free will desire, want, wish, or alleged “need”, that is “violated” by others, then becomes a “violation” simply because it is what someone “free willy” wants to have or not have. Truth is not a real harmful violation, it is only a violation of a delusional desire to fear truth, to avoid, ignore, dismiss, deflect or deny truth, which the attachment and bounding to can cause harm and hurt to that person because they do not want to let go of their attachment to falsity. A delusional volition/desire to not be helped with truth, can be agreed to, or not, but not agreeing to not speak truth does not make you a violator in any moral capacity. Falsities, errors, wrongdoings, immorality, in my experience of reality, degrades my experience of reality, and can affect my capacity to trust in your abilities. This necessitates correction with truth, and I can speak the truth to counter someone’s falsity at any time I wish, even if they choose to terminate the relationship, then that is their choice through a fear of being corrected with truth, to have to let go of the falsity that is being bound and attached to.
Kris Nelson recently posted…Reality Processing
I have noticed this about you before Kris, where you have the tendency to jump to conclusions prior asking enough questions. For example, when I first contacted you and asked you to chat, your reply was “no thank you, I only like to chat about consciousness”, rather than asking “why, what is it that you would like to chat about?” If you would have asked me why, I would have replied with “so we can discuss subjects relating to consciousness, and discuss the possibility of an online interview.” In the same way, after reading my article, you could have sought to ask me questions, but you instead chose to write your article in a very cold and impersonal manner.
I consider you my peer, and enjoy conversing about possibilities, knowledge, understanding, and rhetoric with my peers. It is always a delight to hold discussions with those who enjoy expanding their consciousness, and yet you chose a rather cold assumption about my understanding without asking me any questions. You may have found through enough questions that like you, our view of karma is based on the Hermetic principle of cause and effect, but instead, you spent a long while writing several paragraphs on a subject that we do not inherently disagree with.
The power of life is found within the question, the trivium is all about asking questions, but when I present information to you that you disagree with, you do not ask me aayn questiosn, but rather start dissecting my blog post? So, my question to you Kris, is why do you feel it is not necessary to ask me questions, but instead feel it is necessary to “let me have it” and speak your truth? Why do you not work the Trivium in real world situation, why not with me? Why did you not ask me questions? Was I attacking you? Did you feel triggered? What emotions are you currently feeling when you were writing your response to my article? Did you feel that I was making a direct attack on your character or belief systems? Has this feeling ever come up before for you? Have you ever felt into any other time in your childhood that this pattern of relating to a peer may have arisen? Lastly, did you watch the video linked above?
This is the Trivium in action, it is living it in each moment.
I did not do this with the person who attacked my video, since they were actually being offensive in nature and attacking my character, rather than being inquisitive, they flamed me — but maybe I should have. At the least, now after your rather cold dissection, I am asking questions, and await your answers, and will also answer your questions, so that we might understand one another, rather than oppose each another. I look forward to hearing back from you.
Nathan & Aline recently posted…Polarized or Dualized?
This is really great! I think everyone should see this.