CONVERSATIONS WITH RAJ
Volume 1 - Number 5
QUESTION: Why is it that when I have sex with women, I feel a sense of obligation to them, and also I create that they should be obligated to me?
ANSWER: This is typically the way the ego works, and it is typically the technique it uses to bind people together in a relationship, even though it is a flawed basis and includes within itself a constant sense of tension and fear.
Conditioning makes it difficult for you to come out of your heart center, to come out from your sense of your Completeness and Wholeness, and allowing the sharing of intimacy to be just that—an open sharing. You should not be surprised that this is the spontaneous feeling, even though you do not like it. I am not suggesting that it is your point of view that is causing this. Because, unless you are with someone who has been involved in a process of getting out of the ego sense and opening up at the heart level, any partner you might find yourself with will be employing the same techniques of binding, which constitute what the ego defines as a “meaningful” and “committed” relationship, or at least tending in that direction.
Now, there is no requirement for you to approach a woman on this basis, even if she is coming from that standpoint. To the degree that you begin to cultivate an awareness of your Wholeness, to the degree that you begin to feel for it and sense into it and actually begin to consciously experience it, you can approach intimacy out from that sense of your Wholeness and introduce into the intimacy a genuineness that will not be overlooked by your partner, even though she may not understand it and even though it may temporarily throw her for a curve, because she will be anticipating moves [ego-games] that you are not making.
The significance of approaching the intimacy in this way, is that it provides the opportunity for the one you are with to spontaneously respond from her heart level, once she gets over the surprise of your not coming from the ego place, even though she would not think to define it that way.
To the degree that you are coming out of a sense of Wholeness which doesn’t require manipulation from you, you will feel more satisfaction from the encounter, and you will also be coming from a level where you are not subject to ego manipulations on her part. Thus, you will not experience a sense of obligation from her that you must act on. You may be aware of the attempt, but you will not find yourself feeling that it is valid, and that you must therefore “react” to her.
Coming out from your Wholeness is more powerful than one coming out of a sense of incompleteness and the necessity of obligating another in order to provide a sense of completeness. Therefore, of the two of you, (with you coming out of a sense of Wholeness and her coming out of a sense of obligation), you become the effective agent for a change in the level of the sexual relationship—not her. This is important to understand.
QUESTION: I would like to know what in the name of heaven is going on right now. I feel like I am opening up to greater energy flows than I’ve ever experienced, working some stuff out, feeling more vulnerable, more emotional in some respects and holding myself less tightly, and yet I find myself being very confused by the process. I would just like some sort of a general commentary on what is going on with me right now.
ANSWER: You are correct that you are being more open, allowing yourself to be in that position which feels vulnerable and you are in a position for growth.
***********Part of the problem here, is that this vulnerability and the corresponding movement are becoming split, so that part of the movement is being experienced as internal growth, and part of it is being experienced as a reaction to external potential, so that your attention is not being allowed to remain centered with the actual cause of your feeling of vulnerability.
The ego is picking up on the external potentials and attempting to quickly figure out how to deal with them—not only to its benefit, but in order not to goof up the successful facilitation of those potentials.
The necessity is to drop the external reactionary syndrome. At this point don’t try to be on top of those details so far in advance, nor attempt to find the ways in which those details will be egotistically satisfying.
Literally, you are feeling the unsettledness coincidental with stepping up to the edge of the “known” within yourself and allowing movement to occur which will be transformative for you. The ego is, in an attempt to explain this feeling, projecting it to the externals and pulling your attention out. You need to not play into that, and continue to abide at this centered allowing focus, wherein the movement, the growth, can be experienced and cooperated with so that you can truly arrive at the point where dealing with the external potentials can be done with centered perspective. It is unreasonable for you to expect to feel “at home” with the new territory at first. So, be willing to abide with the movement, since it is the movement of your Being, while the state of flux is occurring. To the degree that you don’t allow yourself to be sidetracked to the externals and to the external potentials, which will or may result from the inner shift, you will facilitate a speedier transition, and one, which will be more comfortable.
QUESTION: Is what you’re saying, then, that I need to let go of some of my involvement in the externals and spend a little bit more time just relaxing into being conscious of the internals?
ANSWER: That is correct. The movement causes you to ask, “What is this all about? And then, search intellectually for its meaning. If you will instead, not ask the question, other than by being willing to be with the movement, you will find the movement, itself, revealing what it’s all about, both in terms of external effects as well as defining the new “you,” the clarified consciousness that you “will be” when this movement has come into focus.
QUESTION: So, if I’m understanding correctly, it’s okay for me to do the externals and it’s necessary for me to take time for the internals. The problem results when I do too much thinking about the internals and attach it to the external stuff.
The impression that I’m getting is that what I’m doing is, I’m trying to define—I’m defining myself too early in a process that is not complete, and I need to drop the defining, do whatever I need to do externally, let happen whatever is happening internally, and just relax and flow with it for the time being, and that the definitions will come of their own accord farther down the line?
QUESTION: How long is this process going to take?
ANSWER: It has a relative brevity to it.
Understand that while this movement is occurring, it does not render you unable to be appropriate with things that need to be dealt with. And therefore, there is no need to conceptualize a future span of time as being a period in which you are treading water until things become clear.
To the degree that you withdraw from consideration of what potential benefit there will be from all this, and simply be with the energy, be with the movement, you will be in the place where you can know how to appropriately deal with externals, which have nothing to do with this movement.
QUESTION: Raj is my ego learning how to cooperate with the self?
ANSWER: Absolutely not. It is incapable of cooperating at any point, because its existence depends upon its ability to be independent. The question is: -- Are you willing to shift the focus of your sense of “self” from the ego to your inner centered Place where Who and What You Are has the opportunity to register with you consciously, so that you may cooperate with it rather than the ego?
Although this sense of “self,” which you are moving to the inner Place, appears not to be the Self, because it is putting itself in a position of accessing the Self, do not be fooled! The desire to replace the “I” at your center is, indeed, the Wisdom of the Self penetrating the ego’s bailiwick, so that the attention can be shifted and you are not bound by the ego sense of self with no awareness that it is not YOU.
The sense of being at your center and listening to your Self is still illusory, but it is a better illusion, because you are not bound. Once you have succeeded in doing this, there does remain the necessity of recognizing that the self that you are listening to IS your Self, and a subsequent merging, so that you are not listening to your Self, but are the actual Experience, with no sense of separation of any kind.
QUESTION: I would like to be able to understand the difference between what is meant by “the Mind” and what is meant by “the brain,” or what is the relationship between the Mind and the brain?
ANSWER: Simply and not articulately put, the brain functions as a transducer, translating the directives of Mind into “language,” which organizes and coordinates the grosser functions of the body. When I say “the grosser functions,” I mean that it does not include the ordering of form at atomic and subatomic levels, only in terms of organ, muscular, and functional action. It does not order the function from the tissue level on down.
I said that to speak of the brain, the organ, as a transducer, is an inarticulate way of speaking of it because, in actuality, every single aspect of the body exists only as the visibility and tangibility of the presence of your individuality, which is constituted of Mind, and therefore the body exists entirely as the reflection of the Presence of your individuality in specific, identifiable form.
At this point, however, in light of the nature of your question, this is a satisfactory explanation.
QUESTION: The various images or visualizations that people have—for example, my mother can close her eyes and see a picture of my grandmother or my father, and my sister has very active images, too. My curiosity about it is somewhat related to whether or not those images are coming from Mind (with a capital “M”) or Eternal Self, or whether those images are being manufactured by the ego. That is, is the ego, itself, a part of what the brain manufactures, or is that part of Mind?
ANSWER: The ego constitutes a finite, circumscribed area of the Totality of Mind, and is not arising out of the brain at all.
Thinking does not occur in the brain, but the activity of thought as it is transduced into the “physical system” registers as activity in the brain.
The ability to visualize is a capacity of Mind, and is not governed by the brain. The government of Mind is reflected as activity in the physical organ (the brain), but the brain does not originate the government.
The inability to visualize, therefore, is not due to any dysfunction of the brain, but is due to a conditioned resistance to visualization within your consciousness, which can be overcome. And, as I indicated before, this is something, which your Guide can specifically help you with.
QUESTION: There are a couple of reasons why I’m trying to understand this area better, and that is, that I had this conversation with a friend and just the way she was talking about these images that she got, I had the feeling that they tied her to the past. She can recall all of these faces, all of these people who were so important to her in the past—some of them pleasant, some unpleasant—so, at least with this friend, it seems to be something that is not altogether positive. Could you comment on that? Is there an intent factor that—is it just a matter of maybe turning a little notch or “switch,” and using that power to liberate?
ANSWER: Oh, exactly! As well as being able to conceptualize new and more fulfilling form, in terms of architecture, art, any creative process which deals with a finished product that has form, as well as the ability to conceptualize social structures and their improvement, etc.
Visualization is not, in itself, negative or a trap. The use it is put to can be either binding or releasing. But, in itself, it is a benign capacity.
QUESTION: My question is kind of complicated. I’ve been getting a lot of conflicting ideas about what happens after death. I’ve read a lot of metaphysical literature—new age and old time.
For example, Ruth Montgomery’s guides claim that there is reincarnation, and they go into specific details as to how people reincarnate.
Then, another book I’ve read claims that the physical life is the very first life and, as a matter of fact, we all start at conception—that our soul starts at conception, and after death it’s just one huge evolution on new planes, but there is no reincarnation.
I know that there are still books out where the Virgin Mary is appearing to people and still claiming that there is a hell and a heaven and a purgatory. I’m wondering what Raj has to say about that.
ANSWER: Without going into a long, complicated explanation, the simple fact is that reincarnation is the accurate description of the process by which the inseparable unity of God, and therefore of his expression, man, is being brought into the level of conscious awareness.
The common theory about reincarnation suggests that it is for the refinement and individual growth of man. The fact is, however, that—again, without going into complicated explanations—there has been a preoccupation that has developed with a large portion of the Sons of God with the stimulating data, which the five physical senses provide man with while in incarnation, to the exclusion of his awareness of his Totality, thereby using only the data of the five physical senses to come to all conclusions about what constitutes life.
Now, the intent behind reincarnation is to move into the three-dimensional or finite realm of the ego in order to bring to it the Awakened remembrance of the Totality, rather than just the limited partial view of the five physical senses.
This process has been successful, and we are presently in the last stage of this process of reincarnation, because a sufficient number of the Brotherhood of Man has awakened.
You see all theories about death have arisen out of the belief that man is on a timeline, passing from the past to the future. The actuality, and the only thing you need to concern yourself with, is the process of Awakening to your True Nature. And, this lifts you out of the whole conceptual framework in which the concept of a timeline, a future and a past, a birth and a death, seem to take place. Because, the simple fact is that no facet of the infinite expression of God has ever been born, nor has it died, but has always been. It is only from the limited framework of the ego that any imagination could be employed to come up with any of the various theories about what happens after one dies, and how one is born again.
QUESTION: Then my question is, if all these people are on “the other side,” they see the Truth, they see the wholeness and oneness and reality—I don’t understand why they disagree, why there’s even a conflict.
ANSWER: It is incorrect to assume that everyone who has passed on sees everything with total clarity. Passing on does not necessarily lift one out of an ego-oriented, finite sense of things.
It is essential for you to be willing to trust your inmost feeling about what is true, because it is only to the degree that you are willing to bring your trust to your deepest Knowing that it can expand by virtue of the trust.
You, of course, recognize that you can find all sorts of interpretations and explanations, but the essential Knowing that you are looking for is embraced within you. And, it is here that your trust must be brought in order to have that Knowing enlarge and be more consciously available to you. Your inclinations are correct, in spite of what you read, and I urge you to pay more attention to your insight.
It is also important for you to realize that the “channel” affects the quality of the message. The clearer he or she is, and the less ego he or she brings into the process of communication, governs the clarity of the message.
In the final analysis, your own inner Knowing is your final word. And, to the degree that any external source aids you in trusting your Being, it can be valuable to you. To the degree that it causes you to become disoriented and confused, you should steer clear of it, because it is only through the experience of your Integrity, your “togetherness,” that your Awakening can occur.
QUESTION: I’m very puzzled about where my career is going right now. For a long time I did theatre, and I was very good at it. I feel that I’ve gotten worse in it, or kind of lost the talent, and I feel that that’s happening because I’m supposed to go somewhere else; that there’s somewhere else that I’m supposed to be heading. But I don’t see where I’m supposed to be, and I’m afraid the hand won’t be held out to me to show me the way.
ANSWER: The fact is that you have not lost the “spark” or the talent. Your attention, however, as time has passed, has shifted to “others,” and their reaction, their response, their credit, their recognition; and in doing that, you have virtually left the source of the energy, or the spark, which is within you. When you began, you did it out of a love for it and a desire to do it, and you were willing to do it whether anyone recognized you yet, or not. You did it all out from your own desire, your own withinness, your own motivation. But, you have been willing to forego that because you have achieved a certain amount of recognition, which has a wonderful feel to it, but which literally acts as a narcotic and dulls you to your own Self-awareness.
Being dulled to your Self-awareness, you are dulled to your spark. The necessity here, and it’s the only necessity here, is for you to get in touch with your Self again as it relates to theatre. Your energy is there!
QUESTION: How would I get back to the source, if, indeed I’m supposed to be at the source?
ANSWER: The “place” of the Source is the only place for you to be, because it is literally your function to BE the Place where the Source enters into manifestation.
Get in touch with your love, your love for what you do. It is still there. Forget about the “love” coming from others! When you are coming from your love, you will find love coming from others, but the necessity is to just let it come, and not make the mistake of stepping apart from your love to simply bask in the “recognition”. And that, very simply is it!
QUESTION: I want to ask about the concept of “twin flames. “ I’ve read just a little bit from different sources on that, and I’ll just quote from one here. It says, “Twin flames are one in spirit and spiritual origin. “ For example, when the soul is created there’s usually that complement to you. So when the soul is created, two souls are created from that spark, and that’s your complement, your twin flame, and there’s only one of those who would be your complement. What do you have to say about that?
ANSWER: As beautiful as the concept is, it nevertheless could only arise from the level of the ego, which is not the Universal level. The idea of having a complement implies (no matter how satisfying the idea is) that there is another one who is complementary to you and therefore constitutes to some degree a completeness, which the two of you make up. It must be very clear that you, or anyone are, the complete and full expression of the Life-Principle.
The only sense in which one could express the idea of there being a complement would be in that every single individual expression of the Life-Principle constitutes the Brotherhood of Man, in which every single individuality is a necessary part. In this sense, every other individualization of the Life-Principle is your complement. But to exclude the Totality of the Brotherhood of Man and narrow it down to “one” other individuality as your complement expresses the fundamental concept of separation and isolation and the projection of one’s completeness to be gained by the union of two individualities.
This is the fundamental structure of the ego sense or ego experience of life. This is the basic illusion upon which all of the ego structures are built.
No matter how sweetly it [the ego] speaks, no matter how beautifully it covers up the lie of separation by explaining in what way “togetherness” can be achieved, even if it is utilizing spiritual or universal terms, it is a concept, which will keep you bound from awakening to your own experience of your own Totality, of your completeness. So, be alert and cautious in embracing any idea or any conceptual framework that implies a division of any kind, because it is not an actual fact in the Universal terms of your Being.
QUESTION: I want to ask about my relationship with my husband, and if it has outlived its usefulness in learning lessons, or what lessons I am still working on?
ANSWER: It certainly has not outgrown its usefulness, although I would prefer to use the word “meaningfulness. “
Do not view your relationship as though it were a temporary tool for growth. The relationship is a relationship of love, and that relationship will serve to promote and support your growth. But that is not its primary intent. Its primary intent is the sharing of love. And, as the understanding of the meaning of Love grows and becomes more and more the awareness one has of the divinity in his or her spouse, the more secure the relationship becomes, and the more supportive each of you will be in terms of substantiating the other’s divinity, which, in itself, provides the atmosphere for further Self-discovery on each of your parts, a further expansion of each of your awarenesses of yourself as the Fourth-dimensional Conscious Experience of Being.
QUESTION: I was wondering why it is that I feel that I don’t have much communication between myself and my husband. It seems like I speak at a different level, and I just feel that that particular level that I wish to have communication on is never met.
ANSWER: In the first place, it is not necessary for him to be able to be everything you want him to be, although he will always be everything you need him to be in order for you to most easily experience Enlightenment and growth.
At this particular time, and in response to this specific question, I am going to suggest that you have the dynamics reversed. If at times you find yourself apparently in advance of him—which will not always be the case—but when you do find yourself standing in advance of his position, the onus is upon you to find ways to communicate with him. And the reason is, that with the advanced standpoint, you have the greater capacity to be sensitive to where he is, and to be able to know how to express yourself so that you arouse the least amount of resistance, and by virtue of the absence of that resistance, put him in a position where it is easier for him to move forward with the same Self-discoveries, which have brought you to the point where you are.
It will do you absolutely no good to stand in your position complaining because he can’t communicate with you, because inherent in that attitude is some egotism and some self-righteousness, and some pleasure at being where you are.
As I say, Love is a matter (especially when it is apparently more enlightened) of caring enough to turn around to the one apparently behind and providing the opportunity for him or her to move forward, because you have taken the time to sense what is needed, and also to sense into what is appropriate in terms of encouraging him to move forward also.
You can use our relationship—yours and mine—as an example. It would be totally foolish for me to stand where I am and complain because you cannot communicate with me in the clear, undivided, absolute terms of Universal Being. And yet, I could in no way help you move forward toward that point where we do not need to speak in finite terms, if I did. This is the fundamental lesson of Love, and it is a marvelous lesson.