Exploring close relationships — Exit the soul mate

Introduction

The following notes are not intended to be a lecture to people as to how they should live their lives, but are included as an encouragement and inspiration to anyone who senses that there's something inadequate about the close human relationships that are approved of and seen as desirable in our cultures. It's up to people to come to their senses in their own good time!

On the physical level it would appear superficially that I myself can claim no expertise on the subject of close relationships*, having had no significant visible ongoing close relationship with another person so far in this lifetime, and no obvious likelihood of that happening during my remaining years. I am, however, an explorer, who is getting inspired and relieved at what he's finding through sweeping away all preconceptions and uncovering the reality that our cultures and religions train us to deny. My own discoveries are of nothing new; many deeply aware people have found these things before and indeed find them today.

However, what they've missed is the fact that their attempted actual practice of those ideals typically falls far short of the intellectual understandings they've gained. My special interest here at the original time of writing this page was in moving beyond that intellectual understanding and actually putting it all into practice in everyday life, so that we could let go of our needless limitations based upon gender and sexual orientations and preferences, and instead we could be fully open to each other as loving companions regardless of how briefly and at what level we interact.

Over time I've had cause to modify my initially still rather distorted view on this subject area.

I'm therefore putting these ideas out again in my particular way in the hope that they'll touch people who haven't been touched by them before. And yes, I do realize that my writings on this subject will probably stir up some negative and highly critical responses. At least if I do get that I can be well assured that I've done something right!

For 'love' read 'attempting not to feel loneliness'!

Love is the way we naturally feel about ourselves and each other (and indeed about all we perceive or experience), when all emotional traumas and painful emotions are out of the way. However, the almost universal situation is that we have, or are connected to, stored memories of painful situations such as loneliness, isolation and insecurity, which become restimulated the moment we experience a positive 'resonance' with another person, so that our intrinsic quality (NOT emotion) of love becomes buried under something else, which then takes over, to give the actually extremely distorted emotional experience that people generally call love.

So, the fact still goes widely unrecognised that when we feel that we want a close relationship, or want to hold on to one, the driving force isn't actually our love — that natural positive resonance and unattached delighting in all life experience, including each other — but unacknowledged feelings of loneliness and insecurity that spring maybe from forgotten events in our childhood, but particularly from experiences that are not of this lifetime*. This doesn't mean that we don't experience love too**, but it routinely gets hijacked by our compulsions. Because we're conditioned to act out of our loneliness and insecurity rather than allow ourselves to feel and release those painful emotions, we imagine that the desire and compulsions that we feel towards others, whether or not including the sexual element, are love.

The reality is that if you systematically release those various painful emotions such as loneliness, your love becomes progressively more predominant, but it also progressively becomes shorn of desire and clinging, and sexual arousal occurs under your direction in appropriate circumstances instead of coming up unbidden in all sorts of inappropriate circumstances and driving you wild with desire.

It also progressively becomes less 'conditional' and more 'open' and universal, so that it progressively ceases to be an issue, for it's then taking its rightful place as simply the natural way you feel about people — any person. How different all this is from what's called love in most close relationships, which involves a clinging-together that to a considerable degree shuts everyone else out and stunts each other's opening-out and self-actualization process into the bargain!

Most of the time, in our relationships we're seeking to make ourselves feel comfortable and good, rather than giving our full attention to the other person and considering his/her needs. If you think you love a person because (s)he is one way or another, then that isn't really love but a desire of yours to be comforted by the particular way the particular person is or probably looks.

You'd find it difficult to allow or encourage that person to change from that way, even if it's what (s)he really needs. Similarly your partner would reckon (s)he loves you because of the way you are, and would resist any change affecting that. Such mutual restrictiveness is what I see going on in most marriage and similar relationships. This sort of restrictiveness in relationships, where perceived needs are attempting to be fulfilled to the advantage of neither partner, is what we commonly refer to as a co-dependent relationship.

However, what's almost universally not recognised is that co-dependency isn't restricted to those relationships that are really brazenly co-dependent and which would widely get recognised as co-dependent ones. So, it's not enough to think That's all right — my own close relationship isn't co-dependent [/ is without attachment] and is thus perfectly healthy!.

The reality is that almost all people's very concept of a 'close relationship' is actually an attached relationship in some degree — and if it's an attached relationship, then, whether you recognise it or not, it's in some way co-dependent, albeit maybe in a less unbalanced way, for otherwise there would be no attachment. So, basically, the very use of that notion of 'a close relationship', as generally understood, is a sham and self-deception, because it's putting a fig leaf over the co-dependency and attachment that's really implicit in that notion.

One good indicator of how much the 'love' in a relationship — and indeed the relationship itself — is off the rails is the extent to which the relationship is based on a sense of need. If even one partner is 'loving' or otherwise entangled in a relationship on the basis of need, then that isn't what's meant by love in any deeply aware and human way, and thus it isn't compatible with any genuine self-actualization process, but instead it's just the gratification of one's own wish-fulfilment urges without regard to the true needs of the other person.

The 'need for sex' deception

How many people have you encountered who claim that sex is a need (and usually they 'need' quite a bit of it)? Or who brag, discreetly or volubly, that they're satisfying such a 'need' — even perhaps calling it an appetite, almost implying that one consumes one's sexual partner? (I've even heard the odd individuals talk of 'eating p*ssy', as part of an evident boasting about their supposed manliness!) Perhaps you're one of them, in which case you may find yourself being highly dismissive of what I have to say on the subject.

The truth is that unbidden sexual arousals, and hankering after sex, are the product of emotional hurts from early in our lives and, particularly importantly, from extraneous sources such as previous lifetimes or attached 'entities', thought forms or, particularly, certain types of garbage interference, and are NOT our natural sex drive.

Virtually all of us carry these interfering emotional influences and the behaviour patterns that they cause. However, most people, particularly in the area of anything to do with sex, prefer to live in denial of the underlying cause of their feelings, and hang onto the compulsive desires and behaviour, defending them as though their whole identity and indeed existence depended on them. Typically they will insist that their own sexual feelings are 'normal' or 'natural sex drive' and anything different (and indeed holding them up to question or proper scrutiny) is unnatural or abnormal (and therefore implicitly bad).

The truth of my conclusion about this was brought home to me when I was active in the Re-evaluation Counselling community, and learnt that a small but steadily increasing number of people had used the procedures of Re-evaluation Counselling to release and heal what they took to be all their emotional hurts and tensions relating to sex and sexuality. I learnt that in every case where people had seemingly fully worked through and released such material they no longer had sexual arousals coming up unbidden, and neither did they have sexual arousals when they were not in a situation of physical closeness and it was clearly not appropriate to do so.

In appropriate situations, however, they could choose, with full command of themselves, in a relaxed way and with the agreement of the 'partner', to allow arousal and 'consummation' to occur, and this could then be a truly magnificent experience. However, one would then draw a line under it and not spend one's life seeking repeats of that sort of experience.

I myself have observed gradual changes in that direction occurring for me relating to my sexual feelings as I've continued to clear out the old emotional issues and garbage interferences — though I haven't yet found a way altogether to prevent the garbage causing me unbidden and unwanted arousals at times. What's different nowadays is that I no longer kid myself that those arousals are more that garbage attack, and thus I recognise them as not for acting upon in real life situations, and neither do I see them as cause for getting involved in longings or desires for particular individuals who the garbage is trying to get me craving for.

So, what are these hurt feelings that we hang on to and which manifest as sexual desires? Among the various loneliness and insecurity issues mentioned previously, more precisely we need to look at early deprivation of aware, warm physical contact, especially in our first few years of life*. Virtually none of us had enough of that when we were very young, and at that stage, when we were so emotionally vulnerable, it was a real, present-time need.

Undoubtedly some parents manage to give a lot of warm and loving contact, but in few cases indeed is even the most loving, caring parent sufficiently deeply aware and clear of their own emotional issues to give sufficient closeness and contact, and of sufficient quality, to prevent some of these deprivation hurts from occurring. The occurrence of such hurts wouldn't be any great problem, if only the parents also had sufficient understanding and awareness to encourage the child's natural emotional healing processes — particularly crying, trembling, laughing and bright angry tantrums.

Because full healing is rarely allowed, the child accumulates more and more of these deprivation hurts, the old ones actually getting restimulated every time some new situation — even an intrinsically unhurtful one — reminds it of a previous situation which was experienced as hurtful. When this happens, the new situation also is experienced as a hurtful one, and once again full release of the feelings isn't allowed, so that the growing child becomes more and more disposed to experience that feeling of deprivation in many or all areas of her life.

When sexual feelings start to occur, they're at once hijacked by the garbage, which interferes with everyone (whether directly or via programming held in the soul), which combines a measured quantity of painful emotion — particularly fear — into the sexual feelings in order to give them a strongly compelling and addictive quality that they wouldn't have otherwise.

In this way the feeling of a deep need for warm and aware physical contact becomes ingrained in the system, and all tied up and confused with sexual feelings that have been made addictive by the garbage interference, even though during the growing-up process the original need for such a high level of physical closeness has fallen away because as we grow up we understand the world around us (well, to a point!) and, at least theoretically, don't any longer need all that very close contact to convince us that our surroundings are safe.

You could call this feeling of need a 'frozen need', in the sense that it's all the feelings of an early need and deprivation, just lodged there, stuck in the mind, pretending that it's still a current need. But because it's just stuck there as a repetitive pattern of feeling, to get close contact now doesn't meet the need because there's no such need at all at the present time!

That's part of the reason why so many of us have constantly felt the need for more and more, or again and again, when it comes to sex — though the primary reason is the garbage interference that's always seeking to cultivate attachment and addiction. Gratifying the feelings doesn't clear the perceived need, and neither does it clear the garbage interference, so we continue to feel the desire for 'it'. In fact our true natural sex 'drive' (which isn't a drive at all in fact) and sexuality has been hidden from us by all these compulsive feelings.

There are very many people who would claim that their own 'relationships' or erotic feelings aren't 'needy' at all, and are fully healthy. Actually, that's just their belief, without objective data to back it up. In virtually all cases the matter here is unawareness. It's by accepting and acting into their actually distorted notions and feelings of 'love' without proper scrutiny, that these people keep themselves oblivious to what's really going on for them, and thus never come to see how dysfunctional their lives really are.

Then, when they do get separated by a death or the other person simply splitting up with them, they almost always experience very major upset, which takes some time to 'get over' (not that they really get over anything because they're taking no actions that would actually heal the emotional issue(s) involved.

That upset or 'bereavement' is such a big deal for these people NOT because it's intrinsically a very major upset suddenly to become permanently parted from somebody who one had been living with, but because they're suddenly faced with the feelings of loneliness and grief within the buried emotional traumas that they're carrying, which all along had been the major part of the basis of the particular 'relationship'.

That would be a great opportunity to recognise what's really going on and then get to work using proper emotional clearance methods to dissolve that crippling emotional baggage they're carrying, but instead people generally keep firmly in denial and so actually believe they're experiencing such a big and horrible upset because they were so much 'in love with' (actually attached to) the parted or deceased person.

So, when a person believes that there's no sense of neediness in any particular close 'relationship' that (s)he has, that person is being dishonest with him/herself and to anyone else to whom (s)he communicates that belief. Such people never experiment in any meaningful manner, nor put themselves through the deep and thorough scrutiny, that would actually show whether their belief was actually based on fact.

That may all sound rather depressing, but the good news is that it's possible to release ourselves from these compulsions and reclaim our wonderful, relaxed non-compulsive, non-addictive natural sexuality — which isn't at all like the 'drive' that most of us experience — and, most importantly, the genuine love that's a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of every person, albeit usually well hidden. Read on…

The 'I love you' myth

A conspiracy of circumstances caused me even in early childhood to wall myself around to avoid close relationships of the sorts I could see around me. I longed for a degree of shared awareness, acceptance, openness and total trust that seemed to me so simple and natural, yet wasn't in evidence in people's relationships around me. Everyone was manipulating each other, playing all manner of role-play games, mostly quite unaware of what they were doing.

I myself was tormented by longings that made my own loneliness particularly difficult to bear, and it took me many years to work through my confusions — not helped by the fact that I had no contact at all for my first 30 years with any model or description of what in my mind's eye would constitute a healthy and fully nurturing relationship. At first it seemed to me that some spouse-type relationships theoretically could be such, but I didn't observe this working out in practice, even though many people around me blandly accepted the limitations of the relationships they got into and thus could claim that they were living happy lives. You don't miss what you keep yourself unaware of!

It's an old and ubiquitous trick, to shut down your self-awareness to whatever level hides most of your discomforts, so that you can then seem to be more or less satisfied with life. That's simply living in denial. One trouble about living that way is that you unwittingly water down your positive experiences as well as negative ones, so the 'happiness' of living in denial bears no comparison with the deep inner security, joyfulness, creativity and sense of loving power (not power that one wields over other people for any harmful or otherwise untoward purpose!) that can be opened up by facing and releasing all the painful emotions and limitations.

On the extremely rare occasions I mentioned to anyone what I really wanted in a relationship I was at once criticized for being naive, unrealistic, idealistic (using the latter as a term of abuse — the fools!) , and out of touch with the 'real' world.

It was in the 1970's, when I took up Re-evaluation Counselling, that I learnt about how hidden painful emotions distort all 'normal' relationships and hide the real nature of love, which latter is the way we would naturally feel about each other without exception if we released all our painful emotions. But then, when in 1997 I recognised my innermost nature (crossed the threshold of enlightenment), I perceived directly that love was in fact not something you do at all.

If I told you I love you, in a sense it would be true. But yet it would also be a nonsensical statement. What I came to understand was that love is simply a particular aspect of my true nature. This love is simply an intrinsic delighting in all that one experiences, and thus in all people. That's actually just as true for you. Love is an intrinsic aspect of your true nature.

Loving isn't something we do, because love is an intrinsic aspect of us anyway. How can you 'do' what's simply an intrinsic aspect of yourself — any more than you could talk of a tree treeing? What we are doing, indeed most or all of the time, is hiding or at least distorting our love, our true nature, because we have forgotten who and what we truly are! When we're being genuinely loving, it's because we're temporarily trying less hard to stifle it!

You would be astounded if you perceived all the work and energy you've been habitually expending — indulging in fantastic feats of complexity — to hide and stifle the healing and inspiring qualities of the love that's your true nature. If you were not doing all that, actually you could easily be a distinct advance over Jesus, Buddha or other reputedly 'great' people who were supposedly open manifestations of universal love, because even those people were all displaying evidence of distortions of their own awareness and manifestation of love, thanks to the garbage interference that each of them was getting.

How, then, can we learn to stop doing all this that gets in the way of our true nature manifesting? — In fact there are many ways, but undoubtedly the most powerful methods that I'm currently aware of are those that I present in Healing and self-actualization — The safest and quickest way. If these or other suitable methods are used thoroughly, then all those compulsive patterns relating to closeness and sexual feelings would progressively weaken and eventually dissolve, leaving progressively more and more free.

For me the very concept of 'I love you', with all its connotations of exclusivity and very likely desire and possessiveness, is nowadays abandoned in favour of simply opening to the wonderful experiences of closeness, however simple and transient it may be on the physical plane. Not only does the expression 'I love you' no longer make sense as something to say to anyone, but it no longer makes sense to say even any replacement statement.

Without desire and clinging, it's the easiest thing in the world to accept not only the beauty and power of aware closeness but also to accept each other's free will to develop and change, and for any friend or partner to move away, developing in different directions. Words to express the love are pointless because they immediately become decoys, distractions, from experiencing the moment. This way, the present can't be clouded by hurt feelings nor emotional after-tastes from what's past; there can be no significant 'separation blues', and jealousy is meaningless.

So, you think that at least your own close and more or less exclusive 'relationship' is based on healthy and pure love? Well, then, in your mind's eye just try separating, or have your partner involved in an additional close relationship with somebody else or become stronger, more upright and independent, and see how you feel then! That would be when you come face to face with the feelings that have caused all that clinging and exclusiveness, and you then have a golden opportunity to recognise those feelings for what they are and start releasing them, so that your future close interactions with people can be freer and more aware.

On being HONEST with yourself!

One important guideline to use when reviewing what you imagine to be your love for another person is, to consider carefully to what extent you're seeking to bend the will of that person to meet your desires. If you're doing that at all, you're not in the healthiest possible relationship, and genuine love (which always respects other people's freedom) has been consigned to the back burner. If you're already in a close relationship with the person, consider carefully — are you at ease with that person changing according to his / her needs?

Indeed — more to the point — are you positively supportive to such changes in the other person, even if it could mean your both eventually going off in different directions? If you're not, love isn't your primary motivation, never mind that your feelings are masquerading to you as 'love'. Similarly, if you're seeking a close relationship with a particular person, consider carefully what's going on for you. Are you seeking a close and even physical relationship with that person regardless of what his / her wishes and needs are? Indeed, are you actually intruding on that person's space and right of self-direction by pestering that person with your unsolicited attentions?

This latter phenomenon is a very common compulsion among men towards women, and unfortunately in our deluded culture it's often regarded as chivalrous and even noble to behave in such inconsiderate and unloving ways. Think how many instances there are in our literary and operatic heritage of such behaviour being portrayed as noble and heroic! The 'chivalrous' man keeps pestering some frightened and insecure woman with gifts and 'love' messages that simply frighten her more and deny her personal stature and dignity.

The 'chivalrous' man decides out of his own egotism what he thinks the woman needs, and of course also 'knows' that he's the answer to those 'needs' that he's decided that she has… And because most women have had patterns of passivity or/and diffidence towards men's advances ingrained into them during their upbringing, the chivalrous man will take any diffidence or uncertainty in a woman's rejections of his advances as an invitation to continue his pressure upon her, with the aim of 'conquering' her…

Conversely, the kindest thing the woman could do in such circumstances would be not to be 'a nice little girl' and let the man continue like that, but instead to stand her full height and say a firm NO!, in thought, word and deed. If her suitor doesn't take 'No!' for an answer she may need to give up any allegiance to the 'niceness' that she was taught in her childhood and show a responsible hard edge toward him.

It's not my intent simplistically to paint men as the 'baddies' and women as the 'goodies', for all manner of manipulative role-play games can occur one way or the other between the genders. A favourite women's ploy is to pester and burden the man of her desire with acts of helplessness, or / and to keep presenting herself to him when dressed and made-up in such a fashion as to arouse his desires. It's a bit disingenuous of her then to complain of unwanted attentions, or indeed even of being raped, when at least part of the answer was all along in her own hands!

To these deluded people my message is clear. The way out is to STOP and give yourself time and space to look deep within yourself where the root of your compulsive feelings lies. There you will find pain. You will find loneliness. The need is to take courage and recognise it! You can gradually release these hurts through the natural release processes of crying, trembling, laughter, etc, but that could take a long time to clear everything, so the best way is to use one or more fast-track emotional clearance methods, such as I present in Healing and self-actualization — The safest and quickest way. Also, a 'must read' is Understanding loneliness — The real practical solution.

In this manner you get progressively recovering your true humanity, clearing out garbage interference, and become clearer in thought and perception. This way you can become more respectful of another's space and needs — and, in so doing, you're uncovering the true, unconditional, love that was hidden by your compulsions before. Are you 'man' (or woman) enough to be that honest with yourself?

The importance of physical contact — how well do you hug?

This section has now been moved and adapted to be read as a separate page — Hugging is for everybody.

Forget the spouse — Enter the Soul Mate!

It was really when I started involving myself in spiritual healing* late in 1998 that I found that the ideal close relationship that I'd always (misguidedly) longed for was recognised by many people on 'spiritual paths', and particularly 'healers', who would use the expression 'soul mate' rather than 'partner' or any of the other familiar terms. Just to confuse us all, there's also a common loose usage of the term, simply to mean an ultra-compatible partner in a conventional sense, with whom one could supposedly live 'happily ever after' in a stultifying state of attachment.

That's emphatically not what I was concerned with. No doubt different people would have their own idea of what would constitute a soul mate relationship in my sense of the term, but in my view when I originally wrote this article it had the following characteristics, as described in my rather confused understanding at that time. I've added some more recent comments in square brackets.

Gain clarity: forget the soul mate — enter rational, self-actualized living!

I now have a significantly different view of the situation, because I've let go of the distorted notions that have tended to get associated with 'healing' and indeed the whole so-called New Age movement. I'd got things right in many important respects, but had also taken on board the odd highly problematical distortions that were widely being cultivated in people by the garbage.

For one thing, I recognise now that not everyone reincarnates and has past life connections with people in the way that channelled information generally claims, for there's a serious problem about ALL channelled information, as I point out in Channelling and clairvoyance problems — The safe alternative.

So, the notion of a permanent connection or bond having been formed, which would keep bringing you together with a supposed soul mate in different lifetimes is applicable only to some people, and indeed in those cases it's nothing positive and is actually a trap set up by the garbage to keep the person away from true self-actualization and thus away from real freedom (see further below).

Undoubtedly there are particular people with whom one feels very distinct 'energy' resonances and in some cases who one seems to recognise from a long time ago, even though it's a first encounter in this lifetime, but there are alternative explanations for what appear to be one's past life memories or connections, so it's most helpful to keep a very open mind on the subject and not surround it with unverifiable 'story'.

Indeed, my current understanding is that all so-called relationship chakra cords — purported 'energy' connections that link people who are or have been close in some way — are actually illusory and are just figurative representations of particular emotional attachments that need dissolving — i.e., apart from an inevitable certain degree of attachment between parent and child (up to a quite young age).

Those cords, then, are nothing more than a bit of 'story' given by the garbage to 'healers' and some psychics to help reinforce the supposed validity of particular attached relationships. Truly healthy relationship between people, however deep and fundamental, would be free of such attachment. From this perspective, the New-Age-type view of soul mate connections looks to be one of the many parts of the highly problematical, garbage-sourced illusory realities that are being cultivated in the New Age movement.

Also, when you stop and think about it, the very notion of a bond of supposed love or indeed of anything else between soul mates (or between anyone else) is an absurdity, because a bond is all about restriction of freedom, and indeed about control agenda — i.e., of the garbage's if not overtly of the involved people. Indeed, the garbage cultivates in the mind of many people who are relatively 'open' and psychic the notion of this bond leading the bonded pair into an ultimate 'consummation', which is then seen as the ultimate goal of the whole life experience.

That supposed 'consummation' is envisaged actually as a sort of fusion into one (one what?, one might well ask!), which really equates with a sort-of joint self-annihilation — abandonment of the whole life experience just to be in some (actually illusory) state of Tristan and Isolde-type 'Liebestod' ('love death'). NOBODY would hanker after anything like that but for the way the garbage is manipulating their stored painful emotions and directing them away from clearing themselves of that garbage and getting to live genuinely happy lives. Few people know what real happiness is — and you don't find it by abandoning the life experience for an illusory reality!

A particular New Age concept is the so-called twin flame, who is somebody with whom one purportedly has a unique soul connection, and with whom one is destined to come together at some very advanced stage of one's evolution. That, then, goes beyond the normal notion of a soul mate; you could call the twin flame the 'ultimate' soul mate, perhaps. However, I see this whole notion again as being part of the illusory realities that the garbage is seeking to lure us into, via channellings from invented and indeed illusory higher beings such as the purported ascended masters and archangels.

That twin flame scenario exploits our weaknesses, for nearly all of us carry at least some level of emotional issue causing us to crave for 'the ultimate' close, happily-ever-after (i.e., extremely attached and almost certainly exclusive and thus extremely limiting and stultifying) relationship with one person. All that diverts people from living fully in the present and being fully in harmony with 'What Is' — which latter is the true way to become enlightened or deepen your state of self-actualization, and experience interactions and relationships with other people that are altogether healthy.

Some people experience strong and often persistent erotic feelings and/or sexual arousals relating to a particular person and thus believe, or wonder if, that person is their soul mate or twin flame. The 'sad and sorry' explanation is quite a come-down, for what's happening in virtually all such cases is that the garbage is attacking with the feelings of sexual arousal or erotic ecstasy in order to get one into an unhealthy, attached relationship with that person (or at least tormented by unrequited longings for him/her), with whom one may or may not have a true and deep compatibility but with whom there's NO actual predestination to come together*, except as engineered by the garbage for highly problematical reasons.

In fact the notions of both soul mate and twin flame have been given to us by the garbage for one very specific reason (in addition to any others) — and that's to divert us from cultivating and opening up our one most important relationship of all — with ourselves! That is, with our own deepest aspects, which are based in 'the Ultimate'. Yes, if you really have any 'twin flame' at all, it's none other than yourself!

Yes, the 'twin flame' concept is in fact an externalization of that relationship with ourselves (and thus 'the Ultimate'), with the aim of getting us to look anywhere but the right place to find that deepest and most fundamental harmony. It's thus another aspect of the same phenomenon as the externalization of fundamental consciousness (our deepest aspect or level of consciousness) into some external presence or 'God', in order to turn us away from enlightenment and genuine self-actualization.

When all your aspects are properly open to and in loving harmony with each other you love other people and indeed the whole life experience most healthily, and then the whole notion of soul mate and especially twin flame is meaningless. You simply recognise those people with whom, in 'energy' terms, you're most compatible for any sort of friendship or companionship, but don't actually need such relationships and don't make them actual goals of your life or things that you hang on to if / when they arise.

To most people the notion of actually living an enlightened life and having enlightened closeness with people appears to be a far-off ideal. It is in fact realizable, at least theoretically, though it does require some work on the individual's part. However, that work is in itself joyful and brings about a progressive increase in health and happiness, so that you get a much more balanced outlook that isn't at all constrained or preoccupied with longings or cravings for any particular type of relationship or indeed generally what people currently think of as a 'relationship'.

So, how then to go about achieving that surely ideal state? — Simple! As good a starting point as any is Affirmations & declarations of intent for healing & self-actualization — assuming you follow the links through for the various methods and practices and don't rely on the affirmations alone. However, for that to work properly you'd need not to allow any wish, desire or longing for any particular type of 'relationship' figure in your motivation, or you'd be distorting and inhibiting the whole process by still cherishing an attachment.

If you want to establish whether forming any specific sort of relationship with a particular person would be truly in your best interests at the present time, then the 'cool' and effective way to do this is by Helpfulness Testing — the only problem being that the vast majority of people are too programmed (yes, by the garbage again!) to be able to find their own most helpful / beneficial answers by Helpfulness Testing, for their deeply ingrained preconceived notions would simply direct the results and completely obscure any genuine answers that were seeking to come from their deepest aspects.

However, probably a fair proportion of people who would read this page would be amenable to at least somewhat effective Helpfulness Testing, provided that they observe the various cautions and caveats that I give in my instructions for using it.

Warning! Ordinary dowsing, channelling, asking a medium or clairvoyant, or divining of any kind (including but not limited to Tarot, I Ching, palmistry, astrology, numerology, angel cards or runes) aligns you immediately with the garbage, and any 'information' gained from such sources, however plausible or convincing it may appear, WILL contain distortions specifically aimed to lead you away from what's in your best interests.

I say this not out of belief but out of hard personal experience and aware observations of what's going on for others. The garbage is unscrupulous and unremitting in its trying to get people into inappropriate and unhealthy relationships to an extent that's beyond most people's wildest imagination. Forewarned is forearmed!

Now we can altogether leave the 'sheep' majority well behind and drop the weary notion of the soul mate, and the so-called twin flame too, and indeed close 'relationships' as anything to aim for, and breathe one mighty sigh of relief — and at last really get living!

These writings are very anti-LTGB+, and show that you yourself are greatly lacking in awareness.

The problem there is that in the field of gender identification, a lot of people are intensely attached to their perceived gender identity, and terrified of holding it up to proper scrutiny. I've even been called 'fascistic', simply because I recognised early in my adulthood that my gender identification as 'homosexual male' (I reject the word 'gay for that) was something to step aside from, for I saw that the really important thing was for me to me to perceive myself as who- and what-ever I really am — whatever that is —, without any limiting preconceptions or labels.

Did all that mean that I was rejecting my apparent homosexual orientation? No, silly — of course not! I was simply neither rejecting it nor identifying myself with it, any more than I identify myself by my skin colour (dirty shade of pink, actually) nor indeed my gender, my 'lazy' right eye, crooked left arm or my testicular varicocele. As I say, I'm simply who- or what-ever I am, whatever that is! — And the same is true for every single other person too. Surely not rocket science! Genuine self-actualization enables you to open up who you really are and to progressively dissolve all the false IDs you're currently acting-out.

There is thus no valid cause to hang onto cripplingly limiting labels, under the misapprehension that they're somehow liberating to take on board and be attached to! — Wow, I'm free at last to live in my own chosen prison, sort-of thing!

So, yes, my rational and fully human approach is indeed anti-LTGB+ — but only in that I'm rejecting the labels and the stereotypes, while I accept the humans.

Note that I completely reject the use of Q (for 'queer') for any category of people. In that sort of usage it's a widely used pejorative term for a homosexually oriented person, and I wince at the irrationality of those who take on that label, supposedly as some sort of personal liberation. Claiming that you're giving 'queer' some special different meaning is no worthwhile justification; the need is to step outside all such categorizations and simply be who and what you genuinely are in all your own uniqueness.

Craving to change gender? Believe you're in a wrong-gender body? — Think very carefully!

While on this matter of attachment to gender identity stereotypes, let's squash one now quite widely-held belief, and no doubt enrage some of the 'Political Correctness Brigade' in the process.

If a person feels a craving or supposed 'need' to be in a different-gender body, the first thing that person needs is to use methods such as I present on this site to dissolve all illusory realities / beliefs they are carrying, in which they're in a wrong-gender body and need gender-change surgery / treatments.

It's not for me to say that nobody should ever have a gender change, BUT I am clear that seeking to fulfil a craving is a complete non-basis for making any life choice — at least if you're wanting more personal freedom and harmony and altogether a happier life. You may believe that you're in a wrong-gender body, but belief ALWAYS, without exception, stands in the way of seeing what's really there and what's really going on, so you need to dissolve that belief first, before you can even begin to understand what your true needs are, if any, with regard to your gender identity.

You can then use Helpfulness Testing to enable you to get pointers from your own deeper aspects of consciousness as to what would be your most beneficial or indeed most harmful choice in that or any other situation.

It's pretty hideous that people can nowadays get gender-change surgery without anyone involved understanding what work needs to be done first to clear all longings and cravings and then to look at one's situation from a properly rational viewpoint. I can guarantee that in at least almost all cases, if that prior work were carried out properly the person concerned would discover that (s)he didn't need to have a gender change after all and was now at last comfortable with his/her original gender, and unbelievably happier in their new-found inner harmony.

My own inner inquiry on that issue suggests that generally to have a physical gender change is harmful in various ways — not least through one's having put a seal upon a false gender ID that one is living because one never dissolved the emotional issue(s) that were driving one to seek that gender change in the first place. Deeper within oneself one would then be in a new state of more fundamental disharmony, never mind how one seeks to cover that up.

So, again, this all comes down to the real need to be for letting go of labels and categorizations and opening up progressively the so-far blocked-off greater part of the true and genuine 'you', so you then can accept yourself as you've never been able to before.