I see, realize, and understand that I connected the physical act of massaging to and as particular-specific relationships within my mind of and as being submissive to a female's emotional and feeling volatility that I defined as 'weak' because of me connecting massaging to pampering the female in which -- if we have a look at the word 'pampering' it means to gratify the tastes, appetites, or desires of a particular-specific person. Thus, when and as I am massaging a female, my mind connect the massaging to gratifying the tastes, appetites, or desires of a female -- instead of just physically massaging 'here'. I see, realize, and understand that when and as I have an 'aversion' for massaging females because of this starting point, it is because I formed / created a relationship of 'pleasure' / 'pampering' to my own self because there are particular-specific desires within me wherein I like to see a female pleasured sensually, and so I formed different kind of relationships with the word 'pleasure' in and of itself within 'liking' certain dimensions of pleasure, and 'not liking' other dimensions of pleasure and sensuality. So it is for me to redefine 'pleasure' in and as itself. If I have a look at the word 'pleasure', I can see the word 'please-you'. But that 'YOU' that I have been pleasing is in-fact the mind as 'energy'. So I can have a look at what it is within me -- within my thoughts, imaginations, back-chats, and reactions of emotions and feelings -- that I am trying to gain from a female by / through 'pleasing' them, and give that pleasure back to myself in and as the form of / as self-pleasure -- seeing, realizing, and understanding that I am my own source of happiness. Thus, pleasing / pleasure becomes 'PLEASE YOUrself' -- as equality and oneness.
I see, realize, and understand that that which I resist will persist within and as my mind because that resistance is in-fact a part of me that I didn't want to take self-responsibility for. So instead of taking self-responsibility to come up with an equal-and-one solution, I resisted it -- believing that when and as resisting the point, it will just 'go away'. So with me resisting to massage my agreement partner, I accept and allow my own self to be / become submissive and reactive to and as 'emotional volatility' . This 'emotional volatility' I connected to the fear, or the abdication thereof -- of not taking self-responsibility for what happens in reality -- thinking that if I am not experiencing the pain and hardship within this world -- that my life is too 'easy', and that if I give in to 'pleasures', I am really 'failing' as a 'person'. So I defined 'responsibility' as going out and experiencing the pains and hardships of the world -- as a form of taking self-responsibility for and as myself to 'equalize' myself with the world. But this 'equalizing' is in-fact not a real 'equalizing', but in-fact a point of 'equalizing' in separation -- because it's not about trying to gain all of these experiences so self can talk about it with and as others to get others to 'change'. That is in-fact separation. It is to become equal and one with and as my own self in and as my physical body because it is the mind that creates and perpetuates separation. So it is to commit myself to redefine the word 'responsibility' as RESPONSIVE to I which as PHYSICAL STABILITY. If we have a look at the word 'responsive' -- it means readily reacting or replying to people or events or stimuli. If I am responsive to "I" -- that "I" has different dimensions in and of itself because of the relationships that I developed created with the "I" as the mind -- so it is to also redefine the word "I" -- to properly redefine the world 'responsibility' from and as this context. So if I am 'responsive' to "I" -- it means that I am 'reacting' to myself -- which is what we do. We react to ourselves because when and as we react to each other / others in our world / reality, we are in-fact reacting to ourselves as the mind. Therefore, it is imperative to also redefine the word 'responsive', and to redefine the word 'responsive' would be to RE-SPONSOR-I. We see that the word SPONSOR is in-fact part of the word 'reSPONSIVE'. So to 're-sponsor' myself would basically mean to assume responsibility for or leadership of and as myself. It is to take self-responsibility for and as myself. Therefore to be in-fact 'responsive', from a 'best-for-all' perspective is to re-establish / re-assume responsibility for or leadership of and as myself. Now this 'myself' as the "I" would have to be redefined also because we see within and as this world how we are in-fact assuming responsibility for and as ourselves, but from a perspective of perpetuating this entire system. Therefore, leadership is presently about having the ability to lead self and others in and as a specific itinerary for the perpetuation of the system, and has no measure in what it means to in-fact lead from a perspective of changing who self, as the "I", is in and as the entirety of / as self 'here' within / as this world / reality. The 'self' in and as this world that is being developed / perpetuated is simply the self that is molded and shaped to learn how to effectively support the system for the perpetuation of it. So when and as I redefine the word "I" -- firstly, I see, realize, and understand that the word "I" sound like the word "eye" in which the eye's responsibility is to 'look' or 'see'. Therefore, as the I -- if I 'look' within and as myself, I am able to 'see' what it is that I am accepting and allowing to exist within and as myself -- that I project onto and as others. Therefore, it is for me to look self-honestly as the "I" -- to see the nature of and as myself -- as what I have accepted and allowed myself to be and become, and to walk as a 'redefinition' of myself as the "I" as the one who is in-fact seeing oneself for who self really is in relation to the world as a whole through and as 'looking' within self -- self-honestly making sure that self is stable within self in every moment of breath to not define the "I" as self into and as a 'relationship' of and as the mind. So therefore, the word RESPONSIBILITY becomes redefined as re-establishing / re-assuming responsibility for or leadership of and as myself through and as seeing self-honestly who self is in any given moment in relation to the world as a whole through and as 'looking' within self -- self-honestly making sure that self is stable within self in every moment of breath to not define the "I" as self into and as a 'relationship' of and as the mind, but to move self into and as an equal-and-one solution with and as the moment 'here' -- making sure that the applications thereof within and as the moment are what is 'best for all'.
I see, realize, and understand that because I have created a 'relationship' with the word 'weakness' (within and as females), I am in-fact seeing myself as 'weak' in particular-specific dimensions of and as myself -- within and as the mind's perspective. I see myself being dependent and wanting 'security' from another as a sign of weakness because of my 'experience' with females. And so I try to make myself 'independent' and self-sufficient so I do not have to go into / participate in and as a point of dependency and security. But really, I see, realize, and understand that that which is creating the 'personality' of independency and self-sufficiency, from this perspective, is in-fact being fearing to be 'dependent', and wanting 'security' from and as another because there are points within me that I have not taken self-responsibility for, but instead, covered it up with 'personalities' of 'independency' and 'self-sufficiency'. Therefore, it is to commit myself to redefine dependency and security, firstly, and then to walk back within my mind of why and how I have accepted and allowed myself to create 'relationships' with the word 'dependency', and 'security'. If I have a look at the word 'dependent', it sounds like the words DEPEND-ANT. When and as one see ants in our world, we see that ants are very self-sufficient, yet at the same time, they depend on each other -- to form and create the necessary establishment that they are creating. So this 'dependency' that ants reveal to me is not a depending on another in separation, but it is in-fact the ants taking self-responsibility within and as their own tasks, and that task at hand forms and creates an infrastructure, or an integrity, wherein all of the ants are taken cared of and for -- because each of the ants did their part in ensuring that their tasks were done in a way that is best for all. This can be defined as a co-dependency, but if we have a look at the letters 'DE' and the word PENDANT, and put it together, it means to 'remove' the 'value' that has been defined into and as a 'superiority', and this is what dependency is today. It is relying on or requiring a person or thing for support, supply, or what is needed because of a 'value' that we placed in them 'holding' them into and as a 'superiority' position'. Thus, I redefine dependency as the state of trusting self to move self into and as the direction / task that is needed in the moment, and performing the task / assignment that will not only support self, but support life equally. I additionally have redefined the word 'security' in a previous post as an 'unbroken freedom' — which is a freedom that can never be influenced or broken, and this freedom is a self-freedom as an actual / real expression when a person is no longer influenced by relationships. And this is done through a process of exposing the falseness or pretensions of relationships that are normally not seen initially, and so lived out as an actual perceived ‘real’ relationship. One is then able to direct oneself in and as all situations and events without depending on how one would've made decisions from a starting-point of judging a particular-specific event in relationship to oneself or judging oneself in relation to a particular-specific event. Because when a person judges themselves in relation to something or someone else, then that is how a relationship is being played-out, and thus the person / individual is always limited to how the relationship is structured, and how the relationship (experience) travels to others. So the point of self-forgiveness would release oneself from the perceived ‘security’ within relationships, because the ‘security’ was actually a point of how one ‘controlled’ themselves to exist as — as a defined character / personality that is created and influenced through relationships. Thus, one can really become ‘secure’ for real when one releases oneself from the web of relationships because one is not then influenced by relationships. One is simply stable ‘here’ — ‘sound’ and ‘clear’ in the physical.
In the next post, I will continue with the self-commitment statements.