Relationships are everything and how we interpret those relationships gives purpose and outcome to our individual experience. I think one of the more difficult things to manage in life is that of conflicting relationships. Why do they even exist?
The desire for separation is the greatest desire. Because of this, we create or find conflicting relationships, and I don’t think there is anyway to avoid this. If we don’t find it externally, we will at least create a conflicting relationship internally. This could be an imaginary person, which is just as real as anything if it does in fact fulfill the desire for separation. This might be Satan, this might be the demiurge, this might be some god, for some it might be something unique and special just for them.
What may be good for one might be bad for another.
This label for this relationship that cultivates separation isn’t the same for everyone, and it’s not supposed to be. What makes sense to one person, may or may not, make sense to another.
I looked at the difference between Adversary and Enemy on AI and I think it provided a good contrast.
According to my AI prompt, adversaries often operate within a shared framework or system. In a court of law, opposing counsel are adversaries who fight aggressively within the rules of procedure, but they may respect each other or collaborate afterward.
Enemies on the other hand, actively reject common ground. The relationship is inherently toxic or dangerous, often seeking the downfall, subjugation, or elimination of the other party.
In my view a good adversary is a mutually beneficial and a healthy relationship where both parties grow and develop together. An enemy is a toxic relationship caused by cultural hypnosis. An adversary could become an enemy through misunderstanding or conflict in ideology. In this, an adversary could become an enemy if there is failure to meet agreement based on a higher principle.
I would conclude that the formation of an enemy is ultimately a failure, a mistake, though that mistake may be necessary.
That which consents to war, consents to war. This is based on implied consent. Thinking about the world stage, if my brother attacks me, it might be an act of love, to reciprocate. But I would speculate that more often than not, war is cultivated by a failure to reach agreement. And who failed? Who ultimately trespassed? Who is caught up in hypnosis and fundamentally ignorant? And for what purpose?
And I don’t want to suggest this is 100% bad. It might be necessary, and probably is, why else would it be happening?
On the spiritual path, I think a common theme is some form of opposing party, some outside influence, creating friction, stress, angst, and misery. Maybe this comes in the form of intrusive thoughts, maybe in the form of negative self-talk, or maybe it’s more elaborate, in the form of some negative mystical experience, be it psychosis or a bad trip.
How we interpret these relationships, in my experience, has a lot more to do than anything when it comes to the outcomes we receive.
This friction… Is this ultimately for my benefit? Or is this ultimately for my detriment?
To give a small example. I used to experience panic attacks. I’d experience what I can only describe as a presence, which induced massive fear.
At first I interpreted this experience as bad, and I would have these panic attacks. When I interpreted the presence as holy and divine, labeling it the fear of god, my interpretation changed from seeing it as something bad, to seeing it as something good. I’d react, “O this is just God stopping by to say hello.” In this shift, the panic attacks ended. My interpretation was the key to solving my problem.
