AGREEMENT is a wonderful word: agree-meant. It implies that two parties or more have journeyed together and arrived at a place of mutual choosing. This place may very well be dissimilar to the one that they have formerly anticipated or chosen, yet because of their time together, considering, discussing, contributing and in listening with mutuality, there has been a point where the rays of their stars have crossed over in dear mind, illumined with a now happy intention.
When we go to someone for something to be approved, with a preconceived plan or idea, we are often seeking their consent rather than consensus. The path to agreement is difficult if not impossible, when a set proposition is formed within the will and want of the other beforehand. The forces to mutual discovery are blocked, simply by this formula of putting forth ideas, and the responsibility bearing down on the individual who has been approached is very different.
Firstly let us say that there is a supreme contrast between etiquette and its underlying reasons. Within the material world impasse today, many formalities are considered to be superficial to any reality at all. Yet in truth, within the unseen but underpinning realities, there are certain things that a man does or enters into, which will predicably hold very definite consequences for him. There are book-loads of customs, procedures and rituals in which the reality has been misunderstood or now unthought-of, but regardless is quite evident for the observant to see, that even today, it all goes to purpose! Therefore we do not discriminate to accommodate mere pedantry, but rather to better ourselves amongst the hitherto unseen qualifications.
Now when it comes to one individual approaching another requesting their consent upon a matter or an action, there are two things resulting from this initial request. When we go to ask for consent for something it may be that we go to another because:
- They are somehow involved in this area of our lives already and this will affect them.
- That we should like them to be involved in this area of our lives and that they would willingly participate in something further.
- That this consent would ensure that further roads were open to things other than are being asked primarily, yet implicated in the answer.
- That because of one or more of the above we genuinely do not want to proceed against their wishes and therefore need to know their true reply.
- That because of one or more of the above we cannot proceed without their consent, and therefore need to know their reply.
If we were simply looking for a point of view this would not be a matter of consent sought for. If we approach someone with a distinct concept on something we seek their approval about, then we are requesting a definite reply; and just by our very asking alone we are involving them in the outcome in a manner of speaking.
The first consent we are asking for in this process is one of consenting to reply. Once this has occurred the individual is karmicly implicated thereafter, and subtly knows this - as we do also. So it could be said, that simply by asking someone for an agreeable point of view on something you propose about your own life, commissions from them a form of impending involvement. Likeso and commensurately as well, we are also bound karmicly to consider their position, for the very minute we have asked them we have entitled them to have an answer.
And so, it goes initially like this:
- We approach someone asking for something in particular, and/or consent/approval about something concerning ourselves/themselves and/or others.
- They have been given the initial choice before their soul of replying to this, or turning away from the situation completely. Arterially this is the right of all individuals to choose their involvements.
If having decided to enter into this complementary decision-making there is an inner knowing from the respondent as to his implication within this matter now put before him, he will sense the very weight of the karma there for you (and also for him therefore) and deliberate.
Now comes the interesting differentiation between what takes place after this! How many times have you gone to someone and asked them for something which they have consented to, but you have known that their heart was not in it? What exactly has taken place when this occurs? Today we discuss that there is a very real and outstanding difference between one issuing a consent for something or experiencing approval.
Arterially, a person knows immediately when they feel good about something. This is the point of the arterial knowledge, the inner referral which takes us most quickly to our confidence with Father God, into His Silent Contemplative Knowing where we may view our own heart without disruption, away from the will and wanting of others, protected from the waves of desires without, safe from even the past karmic recalls, but simply flowing from a current knowing of one's own true self. We can acknowledge immediately what feels good and right for us.
If someone has asked us to be involved somehow in at the very least (and this means a lot as discussed previously) with our consent to something proposed, and we feel good about it, they will experience our approval accordingly. This of course is most probably what they are looking for. Yet it cannot be manufactured or pretended. If the heart is glad or understanding, if it is delighted, hopeful or commemorative, if it is enlivened, enthused or inquisitive because … then there is a palpable approval experienced by both.
Now approval does not indicate the rightness, the correctness, the justness or the freedom of any situation. But importantly - though we can never determine physical outcome ourselves, by ourselves - it does mean that the involvement with both parties is wholesome and properly tenured for times to come.
But given that you cannot 'fake' responses arterially, there is also a situation whereupon the individual who is set upon to give approval does not genuinely feel good about this (or inwardly the karmic picture either; even if it is simply doubt or lack of information etc. prevailing in the doubt). Then it can be that rather than displaying disapproval there is a measure of 'giving in' and trusting the other in their wishes or demands and offering consent.
So today we have defined a difference between these two seemingly similar responses. Approval is given in accordance with the Arterial Self, whilst consent though decided, goes contrary to the arterial response. To recognize this within ourselves and others and begin to take notice of what is occurring is very, very useful indeed.
In a moment we shall review the karmic implications of both, but also to add here that there are many situations where the consent from one unto another is quite forced. With a salesperson for example, it may be that they are quite willfully demanding and incorporate into their lives this routine of ignoring the true response and actually enjoying the 'conquest' of the consent, without realizing what is lost in the process.
You see we have freedoms to remain who we are at all times. One of these freedoms is highlighted in this simple transaction, in that a person can say 'yes' to something, yet not negate themselves completely in that affirmation and involvement.
Often we are given decisions to make which are presented in an innocuous way yet have considerable consequences. All decisions are important to the soul. Every single one weighs in concerning the future forming of the individual to come.
Many times decisions will come to us which truly appear to be irrelevant to us because they are couched in terms of their affecting only others. Yet the truth of this is, that every time we decide something it affects ourselves, for the soul does perceive our brother as our self. There is no discriminating factor which says that one thing is all right for another besides myself. As far as the soul is concerned it is all one of the same. Our love for our brothers is quite naturally, as the love for ourselves, and the pictures given to our soul within the environment of decision-making incorporate the lot.
So one can see here another complication when we are choosing something for another. Although you may presume that it does not matter in the same context, it karmicly, ethically and actually does. What you do consent to for them will most probably come upon you.
So in the spirit of freedom you may have judged it better to go along with their wishes; perhaps you did not want to be or appear unkind. However, once you are involved, the advice here is that it is better to go by your own instincts and have for them as you would have for yourself, and be clear about this. If you are in doubt about something which you have been asked to be positive, it is far more secure to be clear about your arterial position and at all times demonstrate that, rather than be 'open-minded' or give way, determining that it is only their business after all, when in reality by their asking, it is now yours.