Visitors Online: [an error occurred while processing this directive]

Love and Relationships

Not surprisingly a common focus of questions from visitors and from people seeking consultations has been around love and relationships, both in relation to the earth and spirit realms. People have either been wanting to get a spiritual perspective on the nature of love and relationships or they have had a more specific focus and they have been seeking guidance because of some change or difficulty with a relationship with a partner, mother,father,daughter,son,friend or some other relationship. Sometimes they have been facing dilemnas and choices. The theme of love and relationships is also one which Hai and the other spirits are constantly returning to as they it as the very bedrock of life.

Unconditional Love
Q: If there are people that we find very hard to feel affection for is that our fault?

Hai: We all have our limitations and we must be patient with ourselves, honest with ourselves. So you must strive to develop, to grow. If we find somone hard to love, you understand, you should try to look deeper, try to see the human soul behind the characteristics we find so difficult. Our ability to love is inevitably relative. Some of us manage more, some not as much, but as with all things intent is important. If we have a fervent wish to grow and develop in love then we will be aided. This is as much as anyone can do: that we should have this fervent wish. There are few who can be spotless in their love. We can just try to do our best. There are none on this side who are over critical of peoples' failings. There is understanding, there is love, which sees the soul, the essence of the spirit, and with this vision comes love, a knowledge that if change is necessary change can come about, though it may take some time for some. There is no judge. You ultimately are your own judges. But with the blessing of the One Mind, with the aid of the community, all will come together in the One Harmony in the fullness of time.

Q: What are spirits' views on whether couples should be married?

Hai: It is the quality of the relationship which is important is it not? Marriage is a condition which has been invented, created by human kind, an institution created by humans. It is the commitment of one to another and the quality of that commitment and the relationship. Whether it is important, not whether it can have the label of marriage attached to it. Marriage partly came about to regularise human relationships, because for many it simplifies the understanding of a person's roles and relationships and how they should relate to those people. But in essence what I said before holds. It is the quality and commitment of the relationship which is the important thing here.

Q: In the spirit world is there a way for two spirits to come together to show love?

Hai: Yes. We have already indicated that communication between us is a communication between souls, between beings, between our hearts and minds. So you may think of this as a kind of blending or a kind of fusion between two spirits. It is a beautiful experience, a closness which is much beyond any sense of closeness which the physical act of copulation gives to you. So this is how we may commune with another spirit if it is mutually desired. The beauty is one of experiencing the beauty of another spirit, the beauty of sharing that experience with another spirit. It is a feeling beyond description, the closeness of that sharing. You can get an indication, a partial experience of what I speak of while you are still on the earth plane. You must occasionally find that you are in rapport, in communion, with a close loved one, a momentary feeling, a sensation of being at one, yes? And it is this of which I speak. But the quality of the experience of which I speak, in the spirit world, is greatly intensified. But in principle it is similiar to the experience which you have on earth. I know it is hard to convey these things with words.

Loved Ones in the Spirit World
Q: When we go from the earth dimension to your dimension is it possible to get lost or are we always met by someone?

Hai: No you are always met. Somtimes people are briefly on their own as they feel, but there is sombody ready and waiting to come and guide you, to meet you. You should have no worry on that.

Q: Are you always with the people you loved on the earth plane?

Hai: Always is a long time, but you will be able to meet up again with those with whom you have the bond of love. The bond of love, I have said before, cuts accross all barriers, all barriers of time and space, and the barriers between the two worlds. I use "two worlds" here in a simple sense to convey the meaning. But you understand what I mean? The bond of love cuts across all barriers. But if you ask are you with those you love for all time in the sense which you use time here, then this is not the case, because there is ever change, there is movement. There comes a time for instance when our loved ones must move forward, into other realms for instance, and we would not wish to hold them back. Sometimes they do hold themselves back because of the attachment that they have for those whom they love, but change occurs even in our world, though the time scales as you would understand them are much greater. The important thing is the love that we have for each other. This love is a strong bond and carries on infinitely. While we have this bond of love we can never really feel separated from those we love. You should be aware though also, like I've said, your present life is like the blink of an eye. You have many others whom you have loved, with whom you have a strong bond of love, who you do not remember, who you have had lives with in the past, whom you have known in the past, and your love for these people was as great as the love you have had for anyone in your present lifetime. So you view your situation from your present vantage point, but as I said before, your present vantage point is unable to take in the wider picture. You understand?

Apply the Test of Love
Q: You always say we should question what comes from spirit. I recently read an article which said you shouldn't question spirit, and should always go with any guidance unquestioningly.

Hai: No, no. What do you think of this thing that was said?

Q: I didn't agree with it.

Hai: Well you are right are you not for you are a wise soul. No. But what he may be saying perhaps is, that when our own discernment grows, when our feel for the ring of truth grows, we may acknowledge the truth when we hear it, spontaneously, without having to think about it, without having to think long and hard about it. We instantaneously know the ring of truth. Where we know the ring of truth we feel its truth. Then, of course, we would wish to follow it without question. But I would say that always we should question and test what is given to us with the conscience of our own hearts, against the wisdom which we have built up in our own hearts, against the wisdom we have come to accept from others as feeling right and true and just and offering us the right direction for our lives both in this world and the next. There are too many who say "follow me, I have the truth", "no, follow me I have the truth", "that person over there is deceived", "this person over here is deceitful", and so on. We must accept responsibility for our own actions, for our own choices. If we do so this provides the great hope for the deliverance of humanity, for we must test all against the human heart, aginst human love, against the welfare of all.

You ask yourselves a simple question. Would it be a desirable thing to have our eyes poked out? So we form a question at this basic level and we come to the conclusion: "this is a most undesirable thing". It is a thing that we would find hard to associate with love would we not? Therefore we form a judgement, we would never wish to poke anyone's eyes out or have our own eyes poked out. But if you look through your history, at the thousands if not millions of people who have had their eyes poked out throughout the ages of your history, in the name of truth love and justice, we have a dileama, we have a contradiction to our basic judgement based on our own understanding of human love and what is for peoples welfare. If we ask ourselves as a starting point always what is promoting the welfare of others and what would not promote their welfare, we have wise judgments which will follow from this. But there are those who start their deliberations from other considerations, blaming those for not following their own path and deciding therefore that such people should be punished in certain ways. Such people are not worthy. Such people should be harmed for their own good. Is this not a contradiction to human love that some people should be harmed "for their own good"? We cannot possibly reconcile this with human love. But there are many who have advocated it throughout your ages. Your Aztec friend told you "better to throw away, better to abandon all religion, than to abandon human love for your fellows". And this is an admirable precept of his. But we would not of course criticise religions fundamentally, for at their heart they have been based on love, they have promoted love. But it is in the hands of men that they have been contaminated.

Love Endures
Hai: The bonds which you establish endure. They endure over time and space. They endure beyond the illusion of death. These bonds continue, and in part, it is part of the karma to which I referred. So because these bonds exist, and they are bonds of love usually to which I refer, then sometimes these bonds of love require us, drive us, to be reborn at the same time period as our friends. But you should not be too attached to roles here. By this I mean the roles which you occupy while you are on the earth plane: of mother, father, son ,daughter, husband, wife and so on. The bond of love that is within all these roles is deeper than the roles themselves. And it is the love to which I refer and not the bond of the role. So love endures. The bond of love endures. Roles may change and you may have had experience of being a wife or a husband to someone in a previous lifetime, but you may choose perhaps to be reborn in a different relationship with them, a relationship perhaps of a friend, a daughter, or a son and so on. But the bond of love runs through all these roles. It's what is important. It's what is ultimately valuable.

Relationships and Non-Attachment - (Added January 2005)

One night when we arrived upstairs for our usual sitting, Eileen complained that the room was cold and asked Paul why he hadn't put on the supplementary heating earlier. The group was in "banter mode" and there was some laughter and reference to Paul being in the "dog house". When Hai came through, one member of the group asked him whether he'd had a wife to "nag" him in a previous life. Hai indicated that he did have, but in a previous life, before his most recent one. The conversation then turned to Davia (as he claims to have many wives still with him in the Spirit Land) and continued from there.

Hai then told us he'd had three wives at the same time when he'd lived in The Arctic Circle. He gave us some personal information about himself and following on from questions that followed he offered his thoughts on relationships, attachment, and non-attachment. He finishes with one of his parables to demonstrate his point. The questions started with much joviality:

Q: Did you once have wives, Hai, to nag you and make you patient?

Hai: Only in a previous life, Jane, not in my last life.

There was further banter regarding Jane's use of the word "nag". Amongst much laughter, Jane apologised and said she would rephrase the question. Hai interrupted with:

Hai: Davia say you get it right first time. (Laughter from everyone, including Hai).

Q: So did Davia just make an excuse and go off fishing when he was in trouble with his wives?

Hai: (Smiling). He did not need to because he was so skilled you see. He would deflect the attack before it was conceived.

Q: Did you have a happy marriage in your other life, Hai?

Hai: Yes I had three wives.

Q: You mean you had three wives at the same time, like Davia?

Hai: Yes.

Q: Was it your religion?

This brought about further laughter. Hai smiled and replied:

Hai: Religion? - That sounds like some kind of penance. We were allowed up to four wives but there is a difference here.

Q: Where did you live, Hai?

Hai: I lived in the frozen country, Eskimo.

Q: Do you still meet up with your wives now?

Hai: I sometimes do.

Q: Were you good friends?

Hai: Yes, good friends. We had to be good friends in this violent difficult climate. It really did truly test friendship, yes, truly.

Q: Did you live in an igloo?

Hai: Yes some of the time.

Q: Have you had another life since your incarnation as Hai?

Hai: No - the life was enough life.

Q: Are you happy being Hai or are you likely to take on another persona?

Hai: Hai is provisional but I am happy as Hai. Hai was happy.

Q: Do spirits tend to take on their last earth identity?

Hai: This is the most common occurrence, for they relate to the last life more than previous lives because of recency. But they are at liberty to concoct whatever identity they wish.

The conversation returned to people who have more than one partner and to cultures where it is normal for a husband to have more than one wife. Hai was asked:

Q: Do you think it's possible for someone to care about and have a reasonable relationship with more than one person at the same time?

Hai: Yes it is possible but they must all be understanding about this.

Some general discussion followed about the possible difficulties of this kind of relationship. Another person asked:

Q: Do you have to be really well evolved to be able to cope with that kind of a relationship, Hai?

Hai: You should be non-attached and this will help this to succeed. But it is not easy as you say. For people have their egos and have difficulty in being even handed to all.

Q: It seems to me that there could be a problem if someone wants more than one relationship and the other person doesn't. Wouldn't this leave the other person feeling out of line, so to speak? Is this simply a way of someone justifying having more than one relationship, or is it really non-attachment.

Hai: (Smiling). No they are truly none-attached, yes; they are truly none-attached.

There was a silence. Hai laughed and added:

Hai: They are none-attached to the person in the first place - for this kind of attachment is literally 'none attachment'. (Hai meant here; that this was a different none-attachment to the non-attachment he was referring to)

There was some further discussion between the group about this and Hai continued:

Hai: This is not, non-attachment. Like I said before, it is 'none-attachment' in the sense that they are not attached to the person in the first place. To be truly non-attached you must have 'attachment' then you must evolve and grow into non-attachment. Therefore I say it is like; if you think about my beautiful landscape when I was living as an Eskimo - you could see in the noon day sun a little statue of ice; it glistened in the sun; a thing of beauty. At certain times of the year it would only survive a short time because it was warmer. You could watch it as it melted away into the ground. So you could delight in its beauty, connect with it even, in its beauty. But watch it; allow it, to dissolve away - with no regrets.

So it is about the ego this non-attachment, about the ego's wishes being put away, quietened, put to one side. It is not about the relationship, or the nature of the relationship. It is rather about putting aside, putting away ego and its wishes. If I were to say; I do not want this ice, this beautiful little statue to melt, and I try to start to do all manner of things to preserve it; this is my ego interfering with it, for it is the nature of the little ice statue to melt in the sun. Do I deny it its nature? No I should not. But the ego is forever trying to deny the nature of things. Forever trying to interfere with the nature of things.

Therefore when a person, man person you say, enters into a relationship with woman person, he has entered into a relationship with her and she has entered into a relationship with him. Therefore they have created a reality. If he says: "Oh I want to go and make same kind of relationship with lots of other people", then this may be ok if they both agree about this, but it will change of necessity the nature of the first relationship. Therefore there is a consequence to this and so both must be aware of the consequence and decide what they wish to do about this consequence.

You must also realise that in societies which have promoted, tolerated even, many relationships between one man and many women, they have created rules for this to function by. There is good understanding of the nature of these rules. There is good understanding of the nature of relationships between the different wives and between wives and man. If a human being decides to create own rules - says: "I will have seven wives scattered all over place"; then he has created his own rules and what he has done has been to create rules based on his own ego, his own needs. And this is not, non-attachment.

Ego is a slippery thing, yes; so easy to slide on mud. (Smiles). Therefore we say; if you want a deep loving relationship between man and woman then you must have one man-one woman. If you want less deep relationship between one man and seven women then you can have this, but you will have less deep, less intense relationship. You change nature of reality; you create a different reality, which is ok so long as people understand it, and are wishing for this kind of reality.

Q: Is it an ego thing to want to be in a one man-one woman relationship? Is, not wanting to share your partner with someone else, an ego thing, Hai?

Hai: No, it can become an ego thing if there is jealousy or possessiveness; this is where it can become an ego thing. For you are all like ships in the ocean. Ships in the ocean pass by other ships and connect with them and cooperate with them and commune with them. This is the nature of life. If you have difficulty with this then this is ego. But otherwise what we said before is true. You must rather decide what nature of relationship you wish for. If you wish for commitment between one man and one woman and the depth and intensity of relationship which this can generate, then you must go down this road. If you do not wish for this depth of intensity then people will go down the other road. You must decide what you want but you must decide what is honourable, what is good, what is dutiful to other people. It is like - I give you a parable.

I give you parable of a young man, yes, who was a dealer in beautiful things, shells. He met the "love of his life" and he gave her a beautiful oyster shell; so beautiful, such a thing of beauty this oyster shell. He gave this to his "love of his life" and said to her:
"This symbolises my love for you, this is the plight of my troth to you, a symbol of my promise to you."
And she says:
"It is beautiful my love and I shall wear this thing of great beauty in my hair."
Some time later she goes to the market and after a short time she sees a young woman approaching her and as the young woman passes by she sees an oyster shell in her hair. She says to the young woman:
"That is remarkable, I have one just like it; the love of my life gave me this oyster shell to wear."
And the other young woman says:
"This is remarkable for the love of my life gave me this oyster shell to wear in my hair."
Well, what is his name, she asked?"
The woman replied:
"Han Shan."
"Han Shan!" she said, "But that is my love of my life's name. Oh, perhaps it is coincidence", she says.
They both pass by and walk on. Later she finds another young woman approaching her and lo and behold with a beautiful oyster shell in her hair. She stops her and says: (Hai laughs here).
"What is the name of your love of your life?"
"Han Shan", she says.
"Han Shan", she says, "but that is my love of my life." So they decide that they shall walk together through the market and as they walk together they come across other young women with an oyster shell in their hair. Lo and behold Han Shan has been very busy. (Hai laughs again)

You have the point of this parable? Each thought they were special but in truth they were not special. Only in their own eyes were they special, beguiled by Han Shan's words. Han Shan was abandoned by all.

Q: Well at least he kept them all happy for a short while.

Hai: It was very short lived, Jane, very short lived. He deluded himself in thinking he was being loving to all.

Q: Ah, so he genuinely thought he was being loving to all?

Hai: But he lived in delusion.

Q: But he wasn't conning them?

Hai: He was conning them, but in his own deluded way.

Q: You said earlier that to be non-attached you have to be attached first. Can you expand on that and explain what you mean?

Hai: We mean by this that you must be able to laugh with those who laugh, to love with those who love, to cry with those who cry, yet not to be attached to your own ego to any of these conditions. This is what we mean by this. So you must live to the full yet not be attached with your own ego. This is non-attachment.

It is like, for example, even for a simple thing; you can look upon the beauty of an apple. It is a beautiful thing; such a simple thing an apple, if you look at its colour, its form, its shape and its texture. Yet you can enjoy this beauty, you can love it even, yet walk away from it without pangs, without feelings of wishing to grasp it. You can also look at a beautiful picture and admire it, marvel at its beauty and love it, yet not desire to possess it, not desire to covet it.

Therefore it is responding to life, the beauty, the love, and the glory of life, free of ego. Yet you must not turn this into a principle, for as soon as you turn this into a principle you will become attached to it and you are not able to be non-attached for you have become attached to the principle of non-attachment.

Therefore you must be a free spirit, free soul, like the wind that caresses all the trees with love but does not stick to them. The rain falls on all the trees and plants, it nourishes them but lays no claim to them. Gives them its love, its bounty, freely loving all, embracing all, without attachment, without demands placed upon them.

So we speak of love here in another way, another form; we speak of love. For if love is to find its perfection, its ultimate expression, it must be given freely without demand, it must be given freely without expectation of return. This is what we speak of when we speak of non-attachment.