Posted by: phaelosopher | March 21, 2007

Thoughts on Love: The Greatest Power

Love is a power… not a force. In fact, love is the greatest power there is. Although we can’t touch it, everyone knows when it is present, and mourns when it is thought to be missing.

Love is greater than any force, and it is available to all. Love can change the worst of situations into the best. That includes war, whether it is waged with our neighbors, other nations, or within our own body.

We don’t have to agree with what another is doing in order to show our love and respect. However, under such circumstances, we tend to withhold love when we feel it is not being shown to us in the way we want it delivered. “If you don’t love me, then I’m not going to love you,” is the logic. That’s not really love though; it’s attempted manipulation.

Yet, the joke is on the manipulator, because if we don’t love others, then we won’t be loving our self. What we withhold from giving unconditionally to others, we summarily withhold from ourselves. Love is the one thing we can afford to give unconditionally, because it is limitless and ever available to flow for the choosing. Yet, we tend to be miserly of this precious energy.

Love is indeed precious, but not because it is scarce. It’s precious because, given its power and profound beneficence to the giver, it is so rarely shared.

We are the first beneficiary of our love. In other words, when I choose to love you, I will benefit from having made the choice, before you do. If you choose not to reciprocate, I will still benefit by the choice to remain loving. I will continue receiving the energy, inspiration, and self-healing qualities that come from being “in” love and having love emanate from within me. I will yet be enabled to love others, as I love myself. Doing so brings balance within ourselves, which then turns magical, serendipitous moments into the rule, rather than exceptions in our life.

By choosing to stay in a loving posture, and being a “channel” for love, we will be “recognized” by others who are doing the same thing. The recognition will be on another level than what we see.

The option for those who choose not to be loving, is to be fearful. We couch fear in other words, such as “cautious,” “safe,” “skeptical,” “wary,” “practical,” etc. They all represent varying degrees of fear, or love with limits and conditions.

Yet, love remains the greatest power, and perhaps our greatest fear.

Love is so powerful we’re afraid we might actually get what we want if we embrace and embody it. If that happened, what would we do with the pitiful stories that we’ve been so proud of telling others? How hollow would our excuses for being unloving sound when we collectively know that loving action would have helped a bad situation? What would we do with the anger that no longer “fits” us?

Love and peace go hand-in-hand. Many are skeptical, but by expressing and practicing love, we can end — and WIN — the “War on Terror,” and bring peace to Iraq and the Middle East. How? It starts by becoming loving, and gaining peace within ourselves. Becoming loving means treating the Iraqis the way we want to be treated, not the way that we fear they may treat us.

This same approach applies to Iran, where president Bush is so fearful of their perceived ability to develop nuclear weapons, there is great talk of an invasion of yet another sovereign nation and destablizing it, thus giving them ample reason to continue their weapons development.

We need to love president Bush, who is doing the best that he can, given his upbringing. His upbringing taught him to respect force, and use it. He doesn’t understand the power of power over force, or the very real power of love. (For more on this relationship, please consider reading Power vs. Force, by David R. Hawkins, Ph.D.) If he did, he would stand military action in Iraq down NOW. This doesn’t mean that troops wouldn’t be able to protect themselves, but the PRESIDENT can let the world know that our troops will no longer represent an aggressive, lethal threat. Our nuclear carriers will begin a retreat from the area.

The president would mark the inflowing of LOVE, by announcing to the world that he as head of a sovereign nation, RESOLVES to seek non-destructive ways to truly end our conflicts and create no new harm. He has that power, for we, the People, have given it to him. He would announce to the world that the United States will NO LONGER present a deadly force to the nation and people of Iraq, and will WITHDRAW said deadly force.

Who here feels secure enough in themselves not to need to oppress the free will another nation and people in order to feel “safe?”

This doesn’t mean that we put our heads in the sand, or curl our tails between our legs and become uninvolved in the peace process. It doesn’t mean that we withdraw our involvement from the area. It means that we’d celebrate the conception of peace as the new child of our time, and eagerly await and facilitate its birth.

Replacing the military presence, the president could announce that the United States will make an INTELLECTUAL FORCE available to the nation of Iraq — if its PEOPLE so desire — to help it get on its feet and rebuild. If the people of Iraq choose not to have a KNOWLEDGE CORPS of Americans available to assist them in infrastructure planning and building, then so be it. We would respect their decision.

He has that power, as President of the United States, and as a loving human being.

The president would leave channels of communication open at all times, and wait for the Iraqi people to ASK for constructive assistance, as opposed to our current strategy of unilaterally IMPOSING destructive “assistance”.

With all due respect to our military, the United States has a far greater, and abundant asset that can change the course of history: as a nation of people with the great capacity to be compassionate and LOVING.

The freedom of expression and tolerance that we have practiced for so many generations — not perfectly or fully, but more profoundly than any other nation, given our diversity — has allowed us to create a level of abundance and standard of living beyond compare, especially for a nation of our size.

There are nations with higher per capita income than America. But none have such a diversity of people, backgrounds, cultures, religions, and beliefs. America remains the benchmark, not only for freedom, but for its social ethos. No other nation has experienced as much freedom… even the freedom to disagree, as we have. We have prospered because of it. That is the power of love in action.

Who has the courage to love? It takes no courage to be fearful, and there is no real leadership being demonstrated when the “top guy” and his cronies are being directed by fear. There’s enough fear in the minions already. Our leader should demonstrate the courage to renounce destruction, and the will to transcend destructive, disruptive ways. This is the only way that our conscience is truly cleared.

Instead of trying to force Iran to give up the pursuit of something that we have, why don’t we remove the fear of impending doom that they are living under? This does not mean that we don’t continue developing methods and technologies that can neutralize nuclear material, or protect us from the effects of radiation. But we can certainly stop using depleted uranium materials in our weapons. We can stop “seeding” the atmosphere with more toxins, perhaps to the chagrin of the heads of pharmaceutical companies because their cancer drug sales will go down.

Love is the greatest power, and can heal the greatest wounds; the invisible ones of the heart. It begins at home… right where you and I sit, right now. The love we open ourselves up to and share, will travel to the ends of the universe, as well as next door, through our heartfelt willingness, and intent.

Give it a go.

Responses

So it is fearful to be skeptical of pseudoscience, but loving to give up critical thiking? So it is loving to believe in applied kinesiology, but fearful to state factually that it has been disproved in double-blind studies? Love speaks the truth, it does not cower in fear. God bless.

Further, Hawkins is a neo-con who supports war, as written in later works.

[...] Thoughts on Love Redux I received the following comments from Fred, a man who read my essay, Thoughts on Love: the Greatest Power. [...]

RE: “Thoughts on Love Redux”

So if I disagree with the death penalty and war it is fearful to put the ideas down?

Kinesiology does not work period. It is only delusion that makes one think otherwise. Reality is real regardless of what we conclude about it.

Loving has to do with critical thinking (i.e., discernment), but I agree that it has nothing to do with being critical.

All of the double-blind studies and experience indicate that it does not work.

“Kinesiological testing is the same way
if you don’t allow doubts and fears to short-circuit your power to learn.”

This is false. Things are true or not regardless or what I think about them.

My inner voice says it does not work. It is used as an authority and for proof for ridiculous statements.

“Others wish to benefit from what kinesiological testing allows. And they do.”

Such as judgment and elitism?

Reality is as it is regardless of what I think.

The purpose of double-blind studies is to see what is true or not without respect to our personal opinions. They have served the purpose of showing that it is not true, though it could have been and is not.

See http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ideomotor.html

Thanks for your response. I appreciate the idea of loving but I think it is also alright to trust reality in love. Mindfulness is also part of love, and it is seeing what is true and what is not true. I do not think that it is loving to discard my mind and reality.

Peace.

FYI

James Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation has publicly challenged Hawkins to win Randi’s One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge prize with Hawkins’ “arm-pressing technique,” suggesting it would only take thirty minutes of easy work, but believing that Hawkins would not even attempt to apply for the challenge for “obvious” reasons.

Eric Pierotti, the current president of the International College of Applied Kinesiology since 1999, states that it “could not be further from the truth” that Hawkins’ methodology even is applied kinesiology, further adding that Hawkins’ “assertion that what he does is AK is akin to suggesting that lancing boils is total medical practice.”

Psychiatrist John Diamond, who originated Behavioral Kinesiology (BK) with the approval of the founder of applied kinesiology, George Goodheart, did not train Hawkins and never gave approval to use his name in Hawkins’ book. Hawkins only attended one of Diamond’s seminars. Diamond believes Hawkins has had no training in AK, and if that is the case he should not be using AK. As a “serious researcher,” Diamond uses neither AK or BK as a “truth detector.”

http://www.answers.com/topic/david-hawkins

Best.

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories