Many women have grown up in a part of the world that is not as repressive of women as the Muslim countries, so it is clear that when you look at these countries, you can see that they are behind where your own country is at—even if your country is not, strictly speaking, a modern democracy. But, while it is easy to see what needs to happen to women’s situation in these other countries, it might not be as easy to see what needs to happen to women’s situation in the modern democracies.
You have a concept in the Bible where the Jews were in captivity in Egypt under the Pharaoh and they were tasked by the Pharaoh to make a certain amount of bricks. In order to make bricks at that time, they had to use straw. But then the Jews did something that Pharaoh disliked and now he demanded of them that they should make bricks without straw. Well, this has become sort of a symbol for when an authority figure demands something of people that they are not really capable of delivering. You are demanding the impossible of your own people. Most so-called advanced, modern democracies on earth are demanding something of their own people that they are incapable of delivering. You are making, in these modern democracies, an impossible demand. The people simply do not have the means to fulfil that demand. Why is this so?
Well, let us take these modern democracies—not all of them are in Europe, of course, but let us look at the situation in Europe because it is such an obvious example. You go back 500 years in Europe, what do you see in those societies? You can look back at the past, look beyond events, look for trends, and then project them into the future. What do you see 500 years ago in Europe? You saw societies that were much more closed than what you have today. The laws were more closed, society was more restricted – the majority of the population lived almost as slaves of the noble class and the feudal lords and the kings, with very little possibility of improving their lives. So, from a certain perspective, you can compare this to today and say: “What has happened in the past 500 years is that societies have become much more open.” In other words, a democracy is clearly a more open society than a dictatorship.
But why has this happened? Yes, you can point to a number of outer factors: political, economic, so forth and so on, and you can say this is why societies moved towards democracy. But, there is a factor that is generally overlooked, and that has actually had an enormous and decisive influence on the evolution of democracies—the transformation of these dictatorial societies into democracies. What is that factor? It is communication. What is the difference between a closed society, a dictatorship, and an open society, a democracy? There is more free and open communication. Many people will point to the fact that in a democracy you have freedom of speech. But that is not what this is about. Yes, of course, it’s part of what changes a society into a democracy that people are granted freedom of speech. But, it is one thing to have freedom of speech, it is another to be able to exercise it. In other words, even though people are free legally, to speak about any topic, it doesn’t mean that in their minds they are capable of talking about any and every topic.
If you look back 500 years ago in these medieval societies, what do you see? Well, of course, you saw that there were certain outer restrictions to what people could talk about, for example, what was imposed by the Catholic Church. But, beyond that, you saw that these societies had a number of taboos that people did not dare to talk about because it was considered that it was either forbidden, or it was bad luck. Bad things would happen to you if you talked about these topics. One such topic was the devil. If you talked about the devil, he might come and get you. This was believed by many people. What has happened in the past 500 years in many European countries is that there has been an opening of communication. There are things that people are able to talk freely about today that they could not talk about 500 years ago. Now, there are some people who believe that in some of these more advanced democracies, we can talk about anything; there is no topic that is taboo for us, we can talk about any topic.
This is of course, completely naive. If you look at the so-called self-declared, most advanced democracies today, what do you see? You see that there are many, many topics that people are not capable of talking about. They are not free to talk about them. Why are they not free?
Well, let us let that thought rest for a minute. Why say that modern democracies make demands on their people that the people do not have the capability of fulfilling? Well, what is a democracy? Communication has become more open, and in order to shift a society from a dictatorship to a democracy, communication must become more open, it must improve. Normally, when we say communication, you think about people talking in words, communicating in words. But, from a certain perspective, all human interactions could be said to be a form of communication. Some people have said that war is the result of communication breaking down—you have failed to communicate with words, you have failed to talk your way into an agreement. Therefore, you grab the sword, or the spear, or the machine gun, or the nuclear bomb. But, one could say that even the sword and the nuclear bomb is a form of communication. It is, of course, a very destructive form of communication that doesn’t really resolve anything, but it is still a form of communication.
If you look back at human history, you can see that you live on a planet where there has been much conflict between people. There are many conflicts, much opposition between groups of people, and so you could look at history as a process of conflict resolution, or at least an attempt at conflict resolution. You could say: “Why do we have democracies today?” It is because people have become better at resolving conflict. This is because they have become better at communicating, they have become better at communicating with words, instead of having to communicate with swords or machine guns. War is still an attempt at conflict resolution. It’s a very primitive and violent attempt, but it is essentially an attempt to resolve conflict. Machine guns are a form of communication. It is a violent and primitive form of communication, but it is used when words were not adequate for communication. What you see in a modern democracy is that here you have a society that, in its very essence, is based on one principle: nonviolent conflict resolution. This is the essence of a democracy. You are seeking to resolve conflict without using violence.
When you look back at the history of the last hundred years, democratic countries have been pulled into using war as a means of conflict resolution. Some will say that those wars were, to some degree, started by dictatorial countries. But, nevertheless, the point is that a democratic society is, in its essence, a society dedicated to resolving conflict in a non-violent way. This is mirrored by the fact that democratic countries give rights to their people. In other words, a democratic government is, in essence, saying to its people: “We are not going to use violence against you. Therefore, you should not use violence against each other.” Democratic countries are not openly saying this, but this is essentially what they are saying. What a democratic nation is saying to its own citizens is: “You should find a way to resolve conflict without violence.”
Well this is like asking people to make bricks without straw. How can people resolve conflict without violence? Well, they can do so only through communication: non-violent, non-aggressive, non-dualistic communication. But, how can people have this form of communication? Well, they can only have this kind of communication if they know something about human psychology and have used that knowledge to gain a certain control over their own psychology.
Which modern democracy starts at the kindergarten level and gives its own people basic knowledge of human psychology? Well, none obviously! So, all modern democracies are asking their people to make bricks without straw, because they are saying: “Find a way to resolve your conflicts peacefully” without giving them the means: psychological knowledge and tools to do so. In a sense, people in democratic nations are facing an impossible task. Now, many people are still able to do this (to resolve conflict in a non-violent way), but this is not because society has made an effort to give them the tools to do so. It is exclusively because reincarnation is a reality. Many of the people who are incarnating in modern democracies today have a long history on this planet and they have over many lifetimes learned these universal lessons that, for example, are embedded in the Christian religion, but also certainly, the Buddhist religion and other religions, of how to free themselves from the more aggressive tendencies in human psychology. But you also see, of course, many people in the modern democracies who are not at that level and who are, therefore, not able to resolve conflict peacefully.
What do you see as a dynamic in these modern democracies? There is a certain expectation from the level of the government. There is an expectation that people should be able to resolve their conflicts non-violently, and when they can’t, the government then will first attempt to ignore it. The government will say: “Oh, this is not something we should be dealing with, this is something people should take care of themselves.” But again, people do not have the tools, they have not been given the tools to take care of it themselves. So, what usually happens is that the problem continues to grow, or at least awareness about the problem grows, until there comes a point where the government says: “Now, we can no longer ignore this, we have to do something about for example, domestic violence, or violence against women.” The government is essentially saying this shouldn’t be happening in our country. We have such a sophisticated democracy that these problems should not be here. People should be able to deal with this on their own. Why should we, as the government, have to do anything about this?
The government, from the very beginning, is in an antagonistic state towards its own people. It’s not taking responsibility for saying: “We as a democratic government should have given our people the tools to deal with their problems in a non-violent way, by giving them knowledge of psychology. We haven’t done this, we don’t feel it’s our responsibility to do so. Now we have to deal with this problem of violence against women or domestic violence. How do we deal with this? We don’t really have the tools, so we must develop some tools.” And what is the attitude that the government takes? It is that, here is a problem, we need to fix this. These people have a problem, they need to be fixed. Something needs to be fixed here. We need to somehow force these people to change, enact perhaps laws that give punishment, or we have to force them into psychological counselling that doesn’t necessarily solve their problem. But, nevertheless, what can society do? Well, it can only do what it can see.
This is not said to blame these modern democracies. This is not blaming them and saying: “You should not have this approach!” It is saying that it is time and it is high time that these societies realize that the next step in their evolution is to deal with human psychology.
What causes physical violence? What causes a man to become so angry that he beats up his wife and children? Well, it is obviously, on the immediate level, his feelings. His feelings are overwhelming him. He has such negative feelings, perhaps of anger, perhaps of feeling powerless, feeling he can’t do anything with his situation that he cannot control himself. But why can’t he control himself? That is the question that societies are not asking. Of course, there are many reasons for this. He can be open to lower forces that are overwhelming his emotional body. But, on the level of what we call the universal ideas, it is because he does not have the knowledge of human psychology that enables him to deal with his own feelings so that they do not build up until he is overwhelmed by them. He has not learned to redirect his emotional energies so that they do not accumulate as anger.
When you look back at history, look at how many situations in all societies seen on the planet, there are many situations where you see this very same pattern repeated. A man becomes overwhelmed by his emotions and acts out in violence against other men, against women, or against children. Just look at world history. Look at the individual level of ordinary people; how often a man has become overwhelmed by his feelings of anger and frustration and has acted out in violence. Then, look at some of these dictatorial rulers that you see throughout the world. How often has a king become overwhelmed by his own emotions and started a war with another king that has led to the killing of tens of thousands of people. Look at Hitler, who was essentially overwhelmed by his own feelings of anger and hatred, so that he started the Second World War. Look at Stalin, who was overwhelmed by his own fears and paranoia, leading to the killing of millions of his own people. Look at Mao, who did the same thing.
You see these men, you can look beyond the outer context and see it is the same pattern. A man is overwhelmed by feelings of fear and anger and hatred, and now acts out in violence. Do we really need to continue this pattern, even in the, so-called, most sophisticated societies on earth?
Isn’t it time, in the evolution of planet earth, in the historical enfoldment of planet earth that some societies will wake up, take a look at this and say: “We need to give our own people the tools to deal with these basic patterns in human psychology.” Men becoming angry is not the only one, there are many others. But, isn’t it simply time to do this? Now then, who can bring about this change? Can the men? Not likely! Who can bring about this change? Women can! Why can women do so? Because history clearly proves that women are better at talking together and working together. Women are better at resolving conflicts without violence. They are far better at this than men are. This isn’t, of course, the case for all men. But, as a general perspective, women are far better at nonviolent conflict resolution than men are. Realistically, only women can drive the shift. What needs to be seen here is that the world in general, and certainly democratic nations, are standing at a crossroads.
You can take one of two ways. You can do something to rise to a higher level (a higher level of non-violent conflict resolution) or you can allow your democratic nations to be pulled into the dualistic mindset, the black-and-white thinking that will escalate conflict within societies. If you want a textbook example of this, just look to the recent developments in the United States. It started, on an outer level, with violence by the police against a black man leading to his death. Then there were demonstrations against this police brutality and police violence. Some of these demonstrations became violent because there is an element that took advantage of the situation, to plunder stores and so forth. There is an element that just wants anger and hatred. What was the response of the government? Well, some Governors attempted to take a non-violent approach to this. But look at the President (Trump at the time), what was his response? Well: “If the Governors won’t deal with this, I will send in federal troops to deal with this.” In other words, what was the only way that the President could see to deal with this situation? It was to put force against force. He thought that the demonstrators are using force and the only way to stop this was to use more force than them. And grant you, the demonstrators, some of them were using force. But why? What were they demonstrating against? The use of excessive force by the police, which is essentially the government.
A democratic government has this assumption that its people should be able to solve conflicts in a non-violent way. Here is the American government, and what is it essentially demanding of its people? “You should not demonstrate against us, we are the good guys, we are the government. We are doing the best for you. You should accept that and not demonstrate against us. If you do, you are using force, you are not using your responsibility to resolve conflict non-violently. So what do we have to do? Well, we have to use force against you.” Can you not see that this is cognitive dissonance? There is no other way to look at it. A government has now been seduced by a certain mindset, a certain blindness, to think that even though it claims to be a democracy, it is justified in using force against its own citizens, instead of listening to what the citizens are saying.
Why are people taking to the streets and communicating and demonstrating? Because they feel they cannot reach their government in any other way. They cannot communicate with the government through other means—they cannot even get the attention of the government. What is a demonstration? It is an attempt to communicate with the government. But instead of listening to what the people are trying to communicate, the government does not see this as an attempt to communicate. It does not feel that it has any responsibility to listen. It just says: “The people should not be doing this. We need to stop this. What means do we have? The Governors won’t do it, so we have federal troops that can go in.” Essentially, why won’t the Governors do this? Because the Governors live in their own state. And they will not send their own police force to arrest their own citizens, because they know this will not solve the problem. It will only escalate the problem. What does the President do? He says: “Well, if the local police won’t arrest people, I’ll send in some federal troops who don’t know these people, don’t live in that state, and they will do it.” This is a very, very dangerous development in a democratic nation.
The democratic world is, in a certain sense, at a crossroad, where you can go further and further into this using force against your own people, whereby the people, at least some of them will use force back at you. And it will escalate and escalate and who can tell how far this will go? Or democratic governments can step up and say, is there a different way to deal with these situations? The obvious way is better communication. But saying that we need to have better communication is not going to do it.
How can people have better communication if they do not have a basic understanding of human psychology? It cannot be done. Where does this leave us? Who can bring about the shift? Well, men cannot do it but women can, if they are willing to make that necessary shift in their own minds. This is not trying to paint a dreary picture that the world is on the brink of disaster. Instead, it is trying to paint an optimistic picture that shows you that there has been an upward trend in these modern democratic societies. There has been an upward trend and it has been brought about by a gradually improving communication. People have overcome these taboos of things they could not talk about. Some of them, they have become more free and open to talk about things. Yet when you then project this tendency into the future, what do you see? You see, of course that the trend will continue and gradually, steps will be taken to improve communication further.
What is the task that women have the opportunity to perform and that will have tremendous impact on society? Well it is of course to become more aware of communication, how important communication is and become more free in communicating. How do you do this? Well, obviously by working first of all on your own psychology, but also working on the psychology of your children and the men in your life.
Essentially, you could say that if you look at a democratic society, (even any society, but it is more clear in a democratic society), you could say: What is the very core of what drives that society forward? What is the very key to improving a society?” It is very, very simple. The key is the relationship between men and women in their homes, the personal relationship between men and women. And the key to that relationship is their communication. Can they communicate or can they not? You could say here that if you are a woman, if you are concerned about the political situation in your country and in the world, if you feel a desire to improve that political situation, what can you do? Well, of course, this is in no way saying that women should not go out and take action, engage themselves in politics or in other parts of society. Of course, for many women, this is part of their Life plan, and they should certainly do this. But there are also many women who look at this and say: “I feel powerless to do anything about my society, what can I do?” And what higher awareness is hoping to help people see is that you are never powerless, there is always something you can do.
Whatever your situation may be, there is something you can do to improve that situation. Even when you look at your country, what can you as an individual woman do to improve the political situation in your country? Well, you can start with yourself. You can always start with yourself, working with your own psychology, but the goal is not just to work with your own psychology. You can also work on your relationship to the man or men in your life. How can you improve that situation? Well, you can do it by improving communication. You may say: “Well, my husband doesn’t want to talk about feelings. Men don’t want to talk about feelings.” One could say: “You’re correct. Men do not want to talk about feelings the way women talk about feelings, the way you have so far been talking about feelings. But is that necessarily the only way to talk about feelings? Is it possible to find a different way to talk to the man in your life than what you have been doing so far?” Well, it is only possible if you are willing to look at your own psychology, look at your reactionary patterns, look in what context you were brought up—in what culture you were brought up.
As a woman, you need to be willing to look at your own culture and identify what are the roles for men and women that are defined in my culture? How did my mother relate to my father? How did my grandmother relate to my grandfather? This is what I grew up with. I grew up seeing this, seeing the adults around me relate to each other as men and women in specific ways. These were not explained to me. They were not identified as being roles. They were presented to me as this is the only way that men and women can interact. This is just how we do it. This is how women are, this is how men are and therefore this is how we interact. If you are willing to improve your own life and society, you can take a look at these roles. Identify the characteristics of them and you will see that these roles lock men and women in a certain pattern for how they react to each other. Men and women are locked.
Look at your own families, your parents, your grandparents, you may even see that there has been a shift between your grandparents’ generation and your parents generation. Maybe there hasn’t been but in some societies there has been. Look even at popular culture, look at movies and TV series, and how they portray the interaction between men and women. If you look at movies and TV series in your own country, or if you look at the mass culture being spat out, one might say, by Hollywood, what do you see about how they portrayed the interaction between men and women? And you will see that they almost universally portray that men and women can’t talk to each other. At least they can’t have a free and open and neutral communication. They have certain patterns that they are locked in to. They talk to each other a certain way. They may use a certain tone of voice and it blocks them. It blocks their open communication. How can you really communicate in this way?
If you look back at all societies on the earth, but especially the modern democracies, you will see that men and women in general cannot have any deeper sincere neutral conversation, there is always a charge, an emotional charge. People are reacting to the emotions and they are not able to take the conversation to a higher level that is beyond emotions. You can see many times in movies and TV shows how in the modern age for example, it is often portrayed that women are no longer subservient to men. Women are no longer quiet and obeying their men. This is what you see in many of these modern movies and TV series. But what have they done instead? They have adopted this ironic, sarcastic tone of voice where they are talking to their men with this derogatory tone, putting the men down seeking to put the man in his place, so that he will feel guilty feel obligated to respond a certain way. Many women have gone into this. They think this is the way modern liberated women communicate with men. Well, it may be modern women communicate this way, but a liberated woman certainly does not. Because a woman is as much trapped in this pattern as the man is.
So what do you see in relationships? Again, in many cases, you see that a man gets overwhelmed by his emotions because he can’t deal with his feelings. He becomes angry or irritated. The woman instantly goes into a reactionary pattern, reacts to this a certain way and comes back at him with irony or sarcasm, or anger of her own and instantly communication is blocked. There is no possibility of any real communication here. There is an emotional charge being sent out by the man. It triggers an emotional charge in the woman, she sends that emotional charge back at him. And now there is a ping pong match of these emotional reactions back and forth. Now, you also see some women in the modern world who have freed themselves from this emotional reaction, but they have gone into a mental level reaction, where they are seeking to talk in a certain intellectual way, reasoning way, rationalizing. But this is not real communication either, even though it is a step up from the purely emotional interaction.
So what can you do as women? Well, you can look at your relationships and you can see if they are locked in a pattern and you can say: “What are my choices? Well, I can live the rest of my life with this man being locked in this pattern. As I saw my father and mother do, as I saw my grandparents do, as I see so many other people in society are doing.” This is one option: I can live my rest of the life the way it is now. Is this bearable to me? Well, maybe it is bearable to you. But then the question is, would this lead to growth? And the answer is clearly no, it may be bearable, but it’s not going to lead to growth. So what can I then do? Well, I can leave my current man and go out there and hope I will find another man. Many women have done this. Many men have done the same, of course. But what is the result, almost inevitably? You attract a person who has the same tendency, the same psychology perhaps even in a more extreme way, and the pattern repeats itself. Why is that? Because you haven’t changed your psychology.
So you can say to yourself: “What can really change the equation? It is that I change myself. I look at my psychology I look at my patterns and overcome them. Before I even try to change my husband or change something about my husband, I change myself. If you do this honestly and sincerely using whatever tools are available, you can achieve progress.
A relationship between two people is a relationship between two people. This is a statement that needs qualification because in many cases, a man and a woman are locked in a relationship but they are not actually having a relationship with each other. The man has a certain mental image in his mind, and he is not really relating to his wife. He’s relating to the mental image he has of how the ideal woman should be. The wife has a mental image in her mind of how the ideal husband should be. She is not really relating to her husband but to her mental image. This is why they cannot communicate. They are not seeking to discover “what kind of a person am I really in a relationship with?” Nor are they seeking to discover “what kind of person am I actually.” Nevertheless, the reality is that when you are in a physical relationship with another human being, both of you influence that relationship, both of you are part of the equation and that means what? It means that if you change yourself, you will change the equation of the relationship—it can be no other way.
Give up the dream that you can change your husband, find another man and this will be the ideal relationship. Recognize that this cannot happen until you have changed your psychology. So, focus on working on your psychology. When you have overcome the patterns that you have, perhaps they are your own patterns, perhaps they are patterns put upon you by your culture, by your mother by your grandmother. When you have overcome that, you will be able to talk to your husband, man in another way. When you change the way you communicate, it gives him an opportunity to change how he communicates with you. This can put the relationship in an upward spiral that leads to growth for both people.
Now, it may be possible and there will be many cases where he will not respond. He will continue to be who he is, refuse to talk about certain things, certainly refuse to talk about feelings, or psychology or other “long hair” topics— whatever the man may use in your particular culture to put this down. And in that case, you can then face a different choice of whether you should leave that man and look for another. When you have changed your psychology, you might very well attract a man who also has a different psychology. But until you change your psychology, how can you really attract a man who has the kind of psychology you’re looking for?
There are millions of women who have taken embodiment in today’s age because it is part of their Life plan to improve communication between men and women. This is the essential key to improving society, especially in the democratic nations. The democratic nations have, so to speak, reached a plateau. They cannot go up to the next level until the communication between men and women has been improved. Progress has been made, but not enough. People still cannot talk about psychology and this means in the short run that women need to look at ways to deal with their psychology on their own. But in the long run, women need to work on the fact that society can acknowledge this problem and will do something about it to educate children from an early age to deal with human psychology. It is simply the next logical step.
How does positive change happen in a society? You can look at outer factors and you can say: “Oh, this country enacted a constitution or that law was enacted, and this initiative was taken by the government or by the intellectual elite or so forth and so on.” But why were these steps taken? Why did they have an impact? Because there was a shift in the consciousness of at least a critical mass of people, and what was that shift? It was that suddenly some people woke up to a new perspective and they saw: “Oh, this is obvious, this is self-evident. It is self-evident that women should be allowed to vote. It is self-evident that women should be allowed to run for public office. It is self-evident that women should not be obedient to their husbands, should not be beaten up by their husbands and should not live in economic slavery of their husbands.” This is how a society truly changes.
The view you were given of history is the elitist view—the top-down management view, where there is an elite, perhaps a benevolent elite, that enacts changes in society and the people just follow them. This is not so. There may be a certain elite, in the sense that there are a certain number of people in the population who are more aware and therefore they shift their consciousness to accept that certain things are obvious. And when a critical mass of people, such as the top 10%, make that shift in their consciousness, then the politicians can make a change and enact a new law. Until there has been a shift in the collective consciousness, the elite have limited options for what they can do.
They can use force as you see in dictatorial governments. A ruling elite can rule through force, but force does not lead to the kind of positive changes that have produced modern democracies. Force cannot lead to a free society because force always restricts. Some people are applying force and the force is restricting other people but in order to apply that force, the people who are applying the force have first restricted themselves. Otherwise they could not use force against other human beings. Look at the current situation in America with the demonstrations. The more the government is in this mindset of using force, the more the government traps itself and limits its options, limits its freedoms for how it can relate to its own people. And the more a democratic government uses force, the less democratic the government becomes. It is inevitable, there can be no other way. There are people out there who are ready to wake up and realize that this is self-evident. Some already have but more are ready to wake up and see this can only lead to disaster. Therefore, we need to find a new way to change the public discourse where the people in the government can communicate in a nonviolent and non-forceful way. And again, who can do this? Well, not the men in Congress, but the women might.
What have we been talking about?” About communication yes, but what is the highest form of communication? It is a conveyance of love. When we talk about men and women and how their relationships are locked in these patterns, what is it that really happens there? Well, the flow of love is blocked. When a man becomes angry, can he feel love? When a woman goes into this sarcastic attitude towards the man, can she feel love? Can she express love? What is it truly that will transform a relationship? It is the expression of love. You look at many relationships, you have this popular saying that it starts out in this euphoric state and then there comes a point where the “honeymoon is over” and the people now start interacting based on their psychological patterns. So what did happen on the honeymoon? What happened in the courtship phase? What happens when two people decide to go into a relationship? It is that they have been able to set aside their normal patterns and treat each other differently and therefore they have been able to express love. Then, when they engage in a relationship and now feel they are locked in the relationship, suddenly the patterns start coming back in. In many cases, it is because men in a certain culture have a certain view of what their wives should do, they cannot apply this to you before they are married to you, they set you free from it, but once you have married them, now you’re supposed to fulfill that role.
Women also have a view of how their husbands should behave and so now there comes this element of, there is an expectation you should behave a certain way and if you don’t, then I have a right to blame you for not doing this. And then I can apply various kinds of force to try to get you to perform your role. And as soon as that dynamic comes into the picture, what have you blocked? The flow of love.
If you want to look at this, strive to come to a point where you can express love towards your current partner. It may be rejected, then you can move on. But at least strive to come to that point. Because until you can express love towards your current partner, however that partner is, you have not really freed yourself from the patterns in your psychology that blocked the flow of love through you.
What will transform the relationship between men and women is not just communication. There are many, many women who have it as part of their Life plan to improve communication between men and women. That is a part of the reason why they have come into embodiment. But many women, when they awaken to this, will take the approach that is so often taken in Western societies, where you use the rational, reasoning, linear mind to say: “Our goal is to improve communication, how do we do this?” We need to understand communication, we need to break it down into its components and say: “What is it? How is it that we communicate? What is good communication? What is bad communication? How can we eliminate the bad and open up to the good?” Even though this may lead to a more open conversation at an intellectual level, the question is, is that the highest level of human communication? And of course, it is not. Open communication is good. But it is the Omega aspect of better communication—free and open communication where you can talk about any topic. You can talk about it in a way that is not emotionally charged.
But true communication is not just intellectual, it is not at the mental level either. True communication, or the highest form of communication, is transforming communication, it is transformative communication. And that is not done at the emotional level, at the mental level or even at the identity level. That can only happen when a person becomes an open door for something that is more, something to stream from higher awareness into, and being expressed through that communication. And that is, first of all love. It can be other aspects of higher awareness, but the obvious one to start with is love.
Besides all of the, we might say, mechanical aspects of communication, can your communication express love? Because it is truly love that will transform relationships. Why did most relationships start with love? It may have been limited, it may have been possessive, but there was some flow of something beyond the ordinary. What can re-establish communication in the relationship? Well, there must be a flow of something beyond the ordinary, there must be a flow of love. What can transform modern democracies? There is a flow of love. You could and you will, in the Age of Higher Awareness, have prime ministers and presidents who will be able to express love even publicly. You will have public officials who can do this. But this is some ways ahead, but where it will start is in the home, in individual people being able to express love.
And that must start with women doing this, because on an overall scale, men will not do it. Some men will, some have already done it but women are the ones who have the potential to carry this torch to the point where it transforms these modern democracies and takes them to the next level of their evolution. That level is so much higher than what you see today that most people in the modern democracies could not even imagine and envision it. They would think it was a utopian fantasy, but it is a very real potential.
Stretch your minds to grasp this vision of how a love-based society can be. Because you have plenty of examples when you look back at history, when you look around you today, of how a fear-based society can be. So dare to realize that there is a different kind of society, a love-based society and then open your mind to getting a glimpse of it and higher awareness will surely give it to you. Because this vision of what the earth could become, is constantly raining down through the identity, mental and emotional realms of earth from higher awareness, and it is just a matter of you opening your mind to it. Right now, your mind, your vision may be blocked by an umbrella. But if you fold down the umbrella, does it not rain upon you? Will the rain not fall and hit you? Well of course it will. And so the love from higher awareness is constantly raining upon the earth.
If you do not feel it, then seek to open your mind to it and you will feel it. What is the greatest desires that higher awareness has for the lifestreams on earth? It is simply this: that they could experience the love coming from higher awareness to earth.