THE LAW OF LOVE. The Spiritual Laws II.

Vicent Guillem Primo holds a PhD in

Chemistry from the University of
THE LAW OF LOVE
Valencia. He works as a researcher The Spiritual Laws II
in the determination of genetic
predisposition to cancer.
He is the author of the book The
Spiritual Laws. The Law of Love is his
second book.

The content of this book is a message of love

for you.

I hope that it will help you to know your feelings

better, that it will allow you to distinguish the
feelings of true love from the forms of
selfishness that imitate love but are not, that you
will seek to nourish the former and eliminate the
latter, as this is the only way to be happy. I hope
that you lose the fear of love, so that your life is
a reflection of what you feel. I hope that after
reading this book it will be clear to you that you
have a fundamental right that you should not
allow anyone to violate, and that is the right to
freedom of feeling.

With all my love, for you. Vicent Guillem

Vicent Guillem
P.V.P. Sale at a
higher price is
2€ 5 prohibited.
800079 152410
THE LAW OF LOVE
The Spiritual Laws II

Vicent Guillem
Title: The Law of Love.
Subtitle: The Spiritual Laws II
Author: Vicent Guillem Primo
Correction of the text: Raquel Martínez Sanchis.
Author of cover photo: Josep Guillem Primo
First edition, February 2012
Intellectual property registration number V-289-12
(Valencia, Spain).
Printed by: Grafo Impresores S.L.
Printed in Spain.

This work may be reproduced in whole or in part by any

means currently available, provided that it is not
reproduced for commercial purposes and its contents are
not modified.

Official website of the book:

http://lasleyesespirituales.blogspot.com
E-mail: [email protected]

2
INDEX

FOREWORD 4

INTRODUCTION 5

THE LAW OF LOVE 13

RELATIONSHIPS IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW OF LOVE 20

INFIDELITY IN THE RELATIONSHIP IN THE LIGHT OF THE

LAW OF LOVE 55

EGOSENTIMENTS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS 59

RELATIONS WITH THE CHILDHOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE

LAW OF LOVE 76

LOVING THE NEIGHBOR IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW OF LOVE 86

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW OF

LOVE 105

JESUS’ MISSION ON EARTH II 152

THE FAREWELL 167

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS BY THE AUTHORS 175

3
FOREWORD
Dear reader. If you are reading these lines, you have certainly
already read the book The Spiritual Laws. That is why you will
understand why I prefer to call you brother or sister. We began
the foreword of The Spiritual Laws by saying that the content of
the book was a message of love for all humanity. The content of
the book you are about to start reading is still a message of love,
for it is in fact a continuation of the previous book, where we will
go even deeper into one of those spiritual laws, perhaps the most
important one: The Law of Love. In this second part we will
continue asking our friend Isaías all those doubts that we still have
to ask about the meaning of life and about feelings. Many of the
questions that you will find below are your own questions, the
ones that you have sent us by e-mail, that you have asked us in
meetings or in person. We have selected those that were of most
interest to all of you and that had to do with the subject we are
going to deal with: love.
I hope that it will help you to know your feelings better, that it will
allow you to distinguish the feelings of true love from the forms of
selfishness that imitate love but are not, that you will seek to
nourish the former and eliminate the latter, as this is the only way
to be happy. I hope that you lose the fear of love, so that your life
is a reflection of what you feel. I hope that after reading this book
it will be clear to you that you have a fundamental right that you
should not allow anyone to violate, and that is the right to
freedom of feeling.

With all my love, for you.

4
INTRODUCTION
Are you happy? No, don’t answer me yet. Because I don’t think
it’s a question that can be answered joyfully. Besides, I would like
it to be a sincere answer, that you don’t answer simply to make
yourself look good by thinking about what answer I would like to
hear. Don’t think I’m asking you to be honest for my sake. You
could probably fool me and that would be fine. I am asking you
to be honest with yourself, not to try to deceive yourself, because
your whole life depends on the answer to this question. Why do I
think it is so important? Because I believe that the desire of every
human being is to be truly happy. Don’t you want to be happy?
I look at people and I don’t see that most of them are happy.
They don’t give off happiness. Why? Maybe we don’t know how
to be happy. Is it possible to be happy and how? I think we have
all asked ourselves this question at one time or another, how can
one become happy? Intuitively we relate being happy with
knowing love. I am referring to the love of a partner. That is why
we have often dreamt of finding that love that makes us happy.
Some people would say no. It is not true. Love does not bring
happiness because I have loved a lot and that love has made
me suffer. They are people who associate love with suffering, and
in order not to suffer they prefer not to love. But what is love, what
are feelings, do we know what love really is? Let’s leave this
question open. We will have time to think about it a lot in the
course of the book. Now I want to talk to you about another
subject.

After my first contacts with the spiritual world and my first

experiences with astral travel, a strong feeling of nostalgia for that
world and at the same time a lack of interest in the life of this one
awoke in me. My view of the world and of life had changed
radically. If before I did not understand what was going on, now,
after my first out-of-body experiences, I had the feeling that this
world is like a kind of theatre where human beings spend their
whole life playing a role, as if they were actors who, by spending
so much time playing the same play, end up so deeply immersed
in their character that they believe that their personality is that of
the characters they are playing, and that there is no other reality
than that of the play in which they are acting. I used to look at
5
people with the feeling that we were all robots acting
mechanically, unaware of the true reality, entertained by banal
and irrelevant things to which we gave a lot of importance. I am
referring to the importance we attach to being successful in life,
that is, to having recognition, fame, prestige, money or power.
Most people put all their efforts into achieving these goals, as if
their happiness depended on it. My feeling was that everything
to which people attach so much importance was totally
irrelevant to me, because in none of it did I find a reason to be
happy, happy as I had felt when I was on the spiritual plane. At
the same time, another concern made me uneasy, and that was
to be able to remember completely all the details of my
experiences on the spiritual plane, because even if I wrote down
everything I remembered, I had the feeling that it was impossible
to remember everything completely and expose as I had lived it.
And so, when I tried to relax in order to detach myself from the
body, I could not succeed. Disorganized thoughts came to my
mind preventing me from the complete relaxation I needed. My
conscience was not relaxed and calm enough for that
experience to happen again. This made me even more nervous
and helpless.

One of the many times I was trying to relax, lying on my couch,

locked in the room, in almost total darkness, in complete solitude
and silence, amidst the jumbled thoughts that came to my mind,
I heard very clearly: DON’T WORRY. This startled me enormously,
as when you are suddenly awakened when you are sleeping. My
first reaction was to open my eyes and look around. It was dark. I
fumbled to turn on the light. No one was there. Everything was
quiet. I never heard any opening or closing of doors or any other
noise at any time.

At that moment I thought to myself, could it be my imagination?

I turned off the light again and lay back on the couch, trying to
relax again through deep breathing exercises. But after a while I
heard again very clearly: DON’T WORRY. This second time I was
less startled, and instead of getting up, I remained completely still
and expectant. I realized that the voice was not actually ringing
in my ears. It was rather a voice speaking in my mind, like a very
6
clear thought, but not from myself.

- Who are you?- I asked mentally, just to try something, with no

hope that the question would be answered. There was no
immediate answer. A few minutes passed and nothing
happened, so I relaxed again.

-YOU, MAN OF LITTLE FAITH. WITH ALL YOU’VE BEEN THROUGH AND
YOU STILL HAVE DOUBTS? WHO DO YOU THINK I AM?

-Are you Isaías?- I asked.

-YOU TELL ME, DON’T ASK ME- he replied.

-I recognize “the voice of your thought”. But I don’t see you.

That’s why I doubt.

-FEEL AND DON’T JUST THINK AND YOUR DOUBTS WILL DISSIPATE.
YOU DON’T SEE ME BECAUSE YOU ARE BOUND TO YOUR BODY.
BUT YOU CAN HEAR ME CLEARLY AND THAT’S ENOUGH FOR WHAT
YOU WANT.

-And what do I want? I don’t know what you mean- I said.

-YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT SOMETHING AND I TOLD YOU NOT TO

WORRY.

-Yes? And why am I worried?- I said.

-YOU TELL ME. OR DO YOU WANT TO PLAY A GUESSING GAME?

I’M SURE I’D BEAT YOU. NOTE THAT I CAN READ THOUGHTS. BUT I
PREFER TO LEAVE IT FOR ANOTHER TIME, AS I DON’T LIKE TO PLAY
WITH AN ADVANTAGE.

-Well, there are several things that worry me. On the one hand, I
worry to see how people are, to see how they are suffering.

-BEFORE THEY ALSO SUFFERED AND IT DIDN’T WORRY YOU SO

7
MUCH.

-It’s because I didn’t realize it before. I mean, I didn’t realize it like

I do now- I said.

-OF COURSE, BECAUSE NOW YOUR SENSITIVITY HAS BEEN

AWAKENED AND IT’S NOT THAT YOU SEE IT, IT’S THAT YOU FEEL IT
AND YOU LIVE IT. THEY WERE SUFFERING BEFORE BUT BECAUSE YOU
DIDN’T REALIZE IT, IT DIDN’T AFFECT YOU. NOW THAT YOU ARE
AWARE IT AFFECTS YOU. IT’S VERY NORMAL. BUT SUFFERING
YOURSELF IS NOT GOING TO STOP THEM FROM SUFFERING.

-I would like to do something for them, but I feel powerless. I know

we talked about this when we were with Vesta and Juno. I’m
talking about letting people know the reality of how the world
works, about spirituality and the fact that human beings need to
develop their capacity to love in order to evolve and be happy.
But I don’t know where to start.

-SO START AT THE BEGINNING. HA HA!

I felt a bit annoyed because I had the feeling that Isaías was
making fun of something that for me was very serious. And of
course, he noticed it right away.

-DON’T GET ANGRY. DON’T THINK IT’S NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE

FOR ME, THAT’S WHY I’M HERE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE YOU
LAUGH A BIT TO RELAX. DON’T YOU KNOW THAT HUMOR AND
LOVE ARE RELATED? LAUGHTER IS A REFLECTION OF INNER WELL-
BEING, OF HAPPINESS, JUST LIKE LOVE.

-I’m sorry, I’m just very touchy.

-IT DOESN’T MATTER. I SAID I’M HERE TO HELP YOU.

-It may sound silly, but I don’t know how to get this message out,
and I’m also worried that I won’t remember what I’ve been
through. I also feel that I don’t know enough to be able to spread
all that people need to know. I don’t see myself as prepared, and
8
I myself have many questions. How will I be able to clarify the
doubts of others if I am not clear?

-YOU WILL, BECAUSE I WILL HELP YOU.

-I don’t think you understand me. Even if you help me, I’m afraid
I won’t remember what you’ve told me later, when I return to the
body.

-I UNDERSTAND YOU, BUT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ME BECAUSE

YOU’RE CONFUSED. I TOLD YOU BEFORE NOT TO WORRY ABOUT
THAT. EVERYTHING HAS A SOLUTION AND EVEN MORE SO AT THIS
TIME OF YEAR. CAN YOU TALK?

-What? I don’t understand you. Why are you asking me if I can

talk now? Aren’t we talking?- I said to him.

-YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND ME. NOT WITH THE MIND. NOW WE

COMMUNICATE WITH THOUGHT. I MEAN IF YOU CAN SPEAK WITH
YOUR VOICE, MAKE SOUNDS. REALIZE THAT YOU ARE STILL
ATTACHED TO YOUR BODY.

- I don’t know. I haven’t tried it- I answered.

-TRY IT, BUT TRY NOT TO LOSE FOCUS.

I tried to do what Isaías was asking me to do. That’s when I

realized what Isaías had told me. I was still in my body, even
though I had forgotten it. I mean, I hadn’t been paying attention.
Now that Isaías was asking me to speak is when I started to notice
it, even though it didn’t seem to respond to my commands and I
hardly felt it. I felt like I was paralyzed, numb. I tried to move my
mouth to speak, but I could not. I was in my body but I couldn’t
move it.

-I can’t- I said mentally.

-WAIT A MOMENT, I’M GOING TO HELP YOU A LITTLE.

9
After a while I started to feel a tingling sensation in the area of my
head, coming in at the crown of my head, very pleasant and soft.
The tingling went progressively down the inside of my head to the
neck area. It was as if I was suffering an electric shock, but of very
low intensity and not at all uncomfortable, but very pleasant. The
tingling had like pulses of greater and lesser intensity and
circulated from the top of the head to the neck as if it were a jet.
This stopped the numbness in the head area, although the rest of
the body was still in complete paralysis.

-TRY NOW- he said.

It was still difficult to move my mouth, but now I could move it a

little, although I couldn’t articulate a word. I could only barely
swallow saliva.

-I’m having a hard time- I thought.

-KEEP TRYING.

I was moving my mouth and tongue for about five minutes

without anything happening, until finally I could emit a small
whisper, which sounded more like a guttural snore.

-CAN YOU STILL HEAR ME?

-Yes– I answered mentally.

-THAT’S ENOUGH FOR TODAY. WE WILL PRACTICE THIS EXERCISE IN

OTHER SITUATIONS.

-And what is the point of this exercise?

-SO THAT YOU CAN TALK WHILE YOU LISTEN TO ME MENTALLY.

-What for?

-TO RECORD WHAT I SAY TO YOU.

10
-To record?

-YES. DON’T YOU HAVE VOICE RECORDING DEVICES? USE THEM.

SO YOU CAN RECORD IN DETAIL WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WITHOUT
HAVING TO REMEMBER. YOU’VE GOT YOUR PROBLEM SOLVED.

-And what do I do with that?

-DO YOU ALSO WANT ME TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO WITH IT? USE
YOUR IMAGINATION. WHAT DO YOU DO IN YOUR WORLD WHEN
SOMEONE HAS SOMETHING TO TELL AND WANTS TO MAKE IT
KNOWN?

-Write a book?

-FOR EXAMPLE. DIDN’T YOU WANT TO HELP PEOPLE? DIDN’T YOU

WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THE REALITY OF HOW THE WORLD WORKS
AND HELP PEOPLE TO DEVELOP THEIR CAPACITY TO LOVE IN
ORDER TO BE HAPPY? WELL, SO DO I. I WILL HELP YOU TO TRANSMIT
TO PEOPLE THE KNOWLEDGE THEY NEED TO AWAKEN THEIR INNER
SELF AND TO REMEMBER THE REASON WHY THEY CAME TO THE
WORLD, WHICH IS NONE OTHER THAN TO DEVELOP THEIR
CAPACITY TO LOVE SO THAT THEY CAN START TO BE A LITTLE
HAPPIER. ALTHOUGH ONE BOOK ALONE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH. IT
WILL TAKE A FEW VOLUMES. BUT EACH THING IN ITS OWN TIME. IF
YOU WANT TO START TODAY WITH THE TITLE. SEE IF YOU CAN
REMEMBER IT. THE TITLE IS “THE SPIRITUAL LAWS”.

-Oh! But what are “The Spiritual Laws”?

-LET’S WAIT UNTIL YOU CAN RECORD WHAT WE TALK ABOUT, SO

YOU WON’T FORGET IT LATER. I DON’T WANT TO CAUSE YOU ANY
TRAUMA. HA HA!

-Very funny.

-WELL, I AM GOING TO TELL YOU SOMETHING NOW. DO YOU

KNOW THAT ONE OF THOSE SPIRITUAL LAWS IS THE LAW OF LOVE?
IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE, BECAUSE EVERYTHING IN THE
11
UNIVERSE REVOLVES AROUND LOVE. AND WE HAVE A LOT TO TALK
ABOUT IT. THAT’S WHY WE’LL HAVE TO WRITE MORE THAN ONE
BOOK TO TALK ABOUT THE LAW OF LOVE.

12
THE LAW OF LOVE

• The destiny of the spirit is to attain

happiness through the experience of
unconditional love, by free choice.

• Without love there is no evolution.

Without love there is no wisdom. Without
love there is no happiness.

• Love is the harmonizing and energizing

force of the spiritual universe.

13
What do you consider to be the most important human
aspiration?
Achieving true and lasting happiness.

What is the secret to happiness?

To love, but it is no secret. Every spirit, that is, every human being
knows, intuits that he or she needs to love in order to be happy.
Its entire evolutionary process revolves around this objective, to
develop the capacity to love in order to be happy.

What is the way forward, I mean, if we want to move forward in

love, where do we start?
The path begins with oneself and continues with others. In other
words, one must love oneself in order to be able to love others.

And if every human being senses this path, why haven’t we

managed to reach it yet? My impression is that there are very few
people in the world who can say they are happy.
Do not think that it is a simple or short path. In the process of loving
oneself and loving others there are different stages to go through
in order to reach the final goal, which would be to
unconditionally love anyone as oneself. Jesus summed this up in
a very simple but profound message when he said: “love your
neighbor as yourself”. It is a path that involves living many
experiences through incarnating countless times. The work is
twofold. On the one hand we have the development of feeling
and on the other the elimination of selfishness. Earlier we spoke of
the different levels of selfishness from the spiritual point of view, of
the stages of vanity, pride and arrogance, and how selfishness
manifests itself in each of these stages. Now I would like us to go
deeper into the development of feelings, how they gradually
develop from oneself to others, starting with those closest to us to
those who have no special connection with us. We will talk about
love as a couple, love within the family (between parents and
children) and in human and social relationships. We will also look
at how selfishness infiltrates and adulterates feelings, causing
huge problems, confusing human beings and leading them
away from the path of love and happiness. Selfishness is the
greatest enemy of the development of love and has many
14
ramifications. If we are not aware of them, we can twist our
evolution to the point where we may come to believe that we
are loving, when in fact we are indulging in forms of selfishness
disguised as love, as if it were a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

But what is it to love oneself?

To act with freedom of feeling, that means to recognize one’s
affective needs and feelings and to develop them so that they
become the driving force of life, so that important life decisions
are made in accordance with these feelings.

What is it to love others?

Feeling others as oneself. When one feels others as oneself, one
feels the other’s happiness as well as one’s own, and perceives
the other’s suffering as if it were one’s own. When a person loves
others, he or she wants the happiness of others as much as his or
her own, and strives both to help them achieve that happiness
and to ensure that his or her actions do not harm them or create
suffering.

And where does the suffering come from?

Suffering can come as a consequence of the selfish actions of
others, or as a consequence of one’s own selfishness. That is,
sometimes we suffer because we are victims of the selfish actions
of others, while at other times our own selfish attitude causes us
to judge the actions of others wrongly, blaming them for our
suffering, when in fact we suffer because others do not act as we
expect or demand of them. One also suffers when represses his
or her feelings and does not live in accordance with them, but
against them. The latter is the cause of more intense suffering.

How can we know whether we suffer as a consequence of the

actions of others or whether it is a consequence of our own
attitudes?
By being honest with ourselves. Without sincerity there can be no
progress, for it will happen that instead of recognizing reality as it
is and changing our way of acting in accordance with that
recognition, we will distort it to justify our selfish acts, to justify the

15
selfish acts of others, or to justify the repression of our feelings.

How can we know whether others are suffering as a result of our

actions or not? Can it not happen that you generate suffering in
others even if you do not intend to harm them? What should we
do in such cases?
We must distinguish where suffering comes from, before deciding
whether it is a consequence of our selfish acts or our repressive
attitude towards feelings, or whether it is a consequence of the
selfishness of others.
There are certain sufferings that we cannot spare our loved ones,
which are those that appear in their lives as a consequence of
their own selfishness, because they are faced with the painful
consequences of their past selfish acts. In these cases the best
we can do for them is to advise them the best that we can to
become aware that the suffering may be a consequence of their
own selfish attitudes, and to take good note of the experience
they are going through so that they do not themselves generate
that suffering in others. There are sufferings that arise when faced
with some difficult trial that they chose before incarnating, and
this trial is part of their spiritual learning process. In these cases,
you can comfort the person who is experiencing this moment
and give them encouragement and hope so that they feel strong
enough to overcome this trial, making them see that this trial has
a meaning and that if they overcome it they will be able to
advance spiritually.

Let’s take the case that another person has let us know that we
are making them suffer. How should we deal with this situation?
With sincerity and realism. Let us first analyze our attitude towards
that person, whether we recognize selfishness on our part or not.
If we recognize a selfish attitude on our part that causes harm or
suffering to the other person, it is up to us to change our selfish
attitude. Awareness of our selfish attitudes is part of spiritual
learning, for we often act selfishly without realizing that this
selfishness causes harm to others. It is therefore necessary for us
to experience the consequences of our actions in order to
become aware of the suffering we have caused.
It can also be the case that the other person suffers because we
16
have repressed our feelings of love for them, because the
repression of feelings not only harms us, but also harms others. In
other words, they suffer from deprivation of love.
We should also consider the possibility that this person’s suffering
is not caused by our selfishness but by his or her own, that it is a
false appreciation of reality on the part of the other person. In this
case, their own selfish attitude makes them unfairly perceive our
actions as selfish, because they have not been satisfied in their
expectations or because we have not acted as they expected
or demanded of us.

In the latter case, should we satisfy the others’ demands? I mean,

should we give them what they expect from us in order to spare
them suffering?
Use common sense and assess whether what is being asked of
you is fair and honest and whether it is in your hand or your will to
do it or not. In any case it cannot be demanded, because the
demand itself is already an act of selfishness. At most it has to be
formulated as a request in which there is the possibility of saying
no without there being any kind of retaliation, otherwise it would
be an infringement of free will.
In any case, it is not good to force oneself to do things without
feeling them just to please others. If we renounce our own will or
freedom, all we achieve is useless suffering, because we neither
advance ourselves nor help the other person to advance. We
only satisfy their selfishness. To give an example, it would be as
useless an effort as that of someone who carries on his back
another person who pretends to walk with a limp and who can
walk perfectly well. In this case, the other person is pleased by
making an unnecessary overexertion, because what we do for
him, he can do for himself.

But there are people who believe that if you love someone you
have to sacrifice yourself for them, that is, they put their loved
one’s happiness before their own. What do you think about this?
That it is wrong to think this way. One person’s happiness cannot
be sustained by another’s suffering. It would be unfair on the part
of the spiritual world to ask anyone to give up their right to
happiness. All spiritual beings have the right to be happy, without
17
this diminishing the right of others. Therefore, it is not right to give
up one’s own happiness for the happiness of others, nor is it right
to demand renunciations or sacrifices from others for the benefit
of oneself. It is selfishness, not love, that diminishes the right to be
happy. What happens is that you have a mistaken conception of
what love is, because your way of loving is mostly impregnated
with selfishness, and that is why you believe that in order for others
to be happy you have to make sacrifices in your own right to be
happy, or you believe that you have the right to demand
sacrifices from others in order to be happy. That is why it is
important to analyze very well our way of loving, to separate
what are true feelings of love from what are selfish manifestations.
In this way you will not confuse yourselves by making or asking for
unnecessary sacrifices and renunciations.

But isn’t it true that sometimes it is necessary to give up certain

things for the benefit of loved ones?
Well, it depends on what you mean by giving up. Giving up
selfishness for love is a good thing. What makes no sense is to
renounce love for love’s sake.

I don’t understand exactly what you mean. Any examples to

clarify?
Imagine the case of a materialistic couple who are considering
having children. Having children can be experienced as a
renunciation of their material whims, because they now have to
provide support for their children, or they can experience it as a
renunciation of leisure time, because now they will also have to
devote part of their time to their children. If they experience it as
a renunciation, it is because selfishness prevails over love,
because they value material possessions and comfort too much
and value feelings too little. If, out of love for their children, they
strive to be less whimsical, it will be a good thing for them,
because what they lose is due to selfishness and what they gain
is due to feelings. A quite different case is that of the woman who,
because she has a child in common with a man, forces herself to
live with him without loving him, and who loves another, because
she thinks it is the best thing for her child, and condemns herself
to a life of suffering. This is the person who wrongly renounces love
18
for love, because she renounces her freedom of feeling in the
mistaken belief that this will favor the happiness of her child.

This example you have just given makes me reflect on how many
different situations can arise and how difficult it is to analyze them
all clearly and to know what to do in each one of them without
mistaking feelings for selfishness. You mentioned the subject of
relationships between partners and relationships with the
children. I think that analyzing these situations that occur within
personal relationships in an exhaustive way would be very useful
for all of us, me first, because I believe that they concern almost
everyone and I think that many people suffer as a consequence
of not knowing how to face them with clarity of spiritual
awareness. One could write a book on it alone.
Well. We are here to try to clarify all that. It is true that most of the
emotional suffering of human beings has to do with personal
relationships, starting with couple relationships and family
relationships (between parents and children, siblings, etc.), so it is
good that we deal with them comprehensively. Where do you
want us to start?

If I can choose, I would start with relationships.

Then go ahead. Ask away, I’m all ears.

19
RELATIONSHIPS IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW OF LOVE

I observe that one of the greatest causes of unhappiness in

human beings has to do with the subject of relationships between
couples. Some people suffer because they cannot find a partner
and others suffer because they are unhappy in their relationships.
Why are so many people unhappy in their relationships?
Because there is no real feeling of love between them as a
couple, or because their faults override their feelings, or both at
the same time.

What makes two people happy in a couple’s relationship?

Complete happiness in this relationship is only possible when
there is a complete affinity from within and a true feeling of
mutual, reciprocated and free love. But this is rarely the case in
your world.

Why is that?
Because selfishness and need predominate in choosing a
partner, and this is compounded by the fact that most people
lack sufficient development of the capacity to love to be able to
recognize the being who is kindred to them, to awaken and
recognize their feelings for them, and to have the courage to
fight for them.

When you talk about recognizing the kindred being, do you

mean recognizing the soul mate?
Yes, although a more accurate term than soul mates would be
kindred souls.

Why?
Because you identify the word twin with identical and you
believe that soul mates must be identical, equal in everything. But
this is not so. Kindred or twin souls are beings that come from the
same act of creation, from the same “spiritual birth”, so to speak.
They are one hundred percent complementary spirits, created at
the same moment to be united in love. But this does not mean
that they are equal.

20
And why aren’t they equal if they are created equal?
Because the fact that they are kindred does not mean that they
have only one will. Each one has his own personality, the result of
his personal evolutionary process, which is never identical,
because each one decides for him or herself. This marks
differences at all levels.

You mean they don’t have the same evolutionary level?

They are usually similar, but it is impossible to be identical,
because each one has his or her independent free will and has
had different experiences. Although they are not usually very
great differences, it may happen that one of the two advances
faster than the other, or that one advances more in some aspects
and the other more in others, and this marks a difference in their
spiritual personality and in their evolutionary level. But even
though they are different, they are still kindred.

So, if two people who come together as a couple are soul mates,
does it mean that they will achieve perfect happiness in their
relationship?
They will achieve perfect happiness when they have evolved
enough that their feelings for each other are stronger than their
faults. Being kindred does not mean that they are perfect. While
their capacity to love is underdeveloped, the selfishness of each
predominates and this creates obstacles to the manifestation of
affinity and feeling, and this prevents them from being
completely happy.

And can it happen that your soul mate is not simultaneously

incarnated with you in one lifetime?
Yes.

Well, I really don’t understand what the point of that would be. I
mean, if they don’t incarnate simultaneously, aren’t those spirits
being deprived of the possibility of being happy experiencing the
union of a couple?
You say that because you are seeing only the embodied part of
life. I remind you that the separation is only temporary, for the

21
physical life is an instant of the real life. It is only a part of the time
of the spirit’s life that is spent in incarnation, which is shorter in the
more advanced spirits, since they space out their incarnations
quite a bit.

But why choose such a circumstance, that is, not to incarnate

simultaneously?
These are choices made by the spirits, in this case the twin or
kindred souls, depending on the test or mission they wish to carry
out. This does not mean that they are totally separate, since
during the dream the incarnated spirit returns to the spiritual world
and is temporarily reunited with the loved ones who have
remained on the spiritual plane, and not only with the kindred
soul, but also with other loved ones who have not incarnated
simultaneously. In reality, both collaborate in this mission, each
from a different plane.

But does the incarnated person remember this contact during

sleep?
Consciously, most do not.

So what good is it if you can’t remember the moments of meeting

your disembodied soul mate?
Although they do not consciously remember it, inside they are
comforted by what they have experienced.

But is it not a frustration, at least for the incarnate, to live in this

way?
It is a difficult trial, similar to that of one who, having lived with the
loved one in life, sees them pass away and is left on the physical
plane without them. In the case we were just discussing, not
being fully aware that their kindred soul is on the other plane
saves them from further suffering.

And is there anyone who will become aware of this?

Yes, if they are sensitive, they can contact consciously.

So they will suffer a lot more, won’t they?

This depends on their evolutionary level, on how prepared they
22
are to deal with this situation. Keep in mind that even if they
incarnate simultaneously, it is very difficult for kindred souls to be
united permanently. It can take a relatively long time for them to
meet. Often, even though they meet, they do not fight to be
together, either because of lack of firmness of feeling, lack of
courage to fight for them, or because selfishness still
predominates in them. It also happens that the disincarnation of
one and the other may occur at different moments and spaced
out in time, so that one of them remains on the physical plane,
while the other returns to the spiritual plane. If, during this period
of separation, each fulfils the goal they have set for themselves,
the reunion will be wonderful.

What if when you return to the spiritual plane your soul mate has
already reincarnated?
Keep in mind that incarnations do not occur immediately. A fairly
long time is spent on the astral plane before incarnating again.
There is usually time for kindred souls to reunite and live together
on the spiritual plane before returning to the physical plane.

Does the awareness that your soul mate is on the other plane
prevent you from having a partner in the material world?
No. Just as a widowed person can have a new partner without
transgressing any spiritual law. The incarnates can do as they see
fit with regard to their life, to have or not to have a partner, for
they have their free will to decide.

Won’t the soul that remains on the other plane feel jealous that its
soul mate has another earthly partner?
No, because the perspective you have from the spiritual world is
broader than the one you have on earth. Your kindred soul
understands the situation and will want you to make the choices
that will lead you to be happier. Although it wishes for reunion, of
course.

But can them be happy in such a relationship?

That will depend on the affinity between them. If there is affinity,
you can achieve a certain degree of happiness. But it is true that
23
there will always be a gap inside that cannot be filled. They will
never be able to experience complete happiness in the
relationship, because the complete affinity is with the being on
the other plane.

And how can the two feelings be reconciled? I mean, how do

you reconcile your feelings for your spiritual partner and your
earthly partner? Isn’t that a dilemma with no possible solution?
The solution is the understanding of the situation. In any case, it is
a tremendous mistake to want to forget what they feel for their
spiritual partner who is in, or who has passed to, the spiritual plane
before them in order not to suffer, for then they suffer more for the
sake of annulling their feelings. It is also a mistake to force oneself
to feel for the earthly partner the same as for the kindred soul, or
to feel guilty for not feeling the same for the latter as for the
former, for the feeling arises from complete affinity, and if this is
not given, it is not possible, and no one is to blame for this. But it is
true that very advanced spirits who have known and
experienced the feeling with their kindred soul do not usually
commit themselves to another partner, but prefer to wait for the
reunion because they know that no other relationship will fulfil
them. Moreover, their capacity and sensitivity enable them to
maintain contact even though each one is on a different plane
of existence.

When two soul mates incarnate simultaneously, do they always

incarnate to be a couple?
They do not always incarnate for the purpose of being able to
unite as a couple, although this is most common.

Do soul mates have to be of the same earthly age or can they be

as much as 30 years apart?
There is a bit of everything. They can be many years apart, or only
a few. The moment of incarnation and the circumstances in
which it will take place are chosen before birth, and everything
has a reason.

And isn’t the age difference an obstacle for these spirits to

24
become a couple?
It will be as long as one is a child and the other an adult. Not when
they are both adults.

Can soul mates incarnate in a situation that makes it impossible

for them to be a couple, for example incarnate as mother and
child or be siblings?
Yes, there can be a multitude of situations, parents and children,
siblings, etc.

Does this situation make it impossible for them to find another

partner?
Of course not. But it is true that they will always have more affinity
for their kindred soul, incarnated as a family member, than for the
partner they choose in life.

And can two soul mates be incarnated in the same sex,

simultaneously?
Although this is not the most common occurrence, it can
happen.

It occurs to me that homosexuality may be due to the fact that

two soul mates incarnate in the same sex.
No, it is not for this reason. Just as incarnating as mother and child,
father or brother and sister does not incite incest.

If this is not the reason, what is the reason for the homosexual
condition from a spiritual point of view?
It is difficult to give a general answer applicable to all cases,
because each case is unique. But what is certain is that the
homosexual condition of a person who is born homosexual has to
do with what that spirit experienced in previous lives. The spirit
devoid of the material sheath has no sex. It is upon incarnation
that it acquires the sexual condition, and although there is usually
a preference for a particular sex when incarnating, in general,
the same spirit can incarnate in one life as a man and in the next
as a woman, or vice versa, as it chooses for its evolutionary needs.
It sometimes happens that the spirit who is to incarnate as the
opposite sex to the one chosen in the previous incarnation has
25
not completely shed the personality (including the sexual
condition) of the previous life, and this affects his or her
perception of sexuality in the current life. Depending on the
degree of identification with the sexual condition of the past life,
we will find different situations, from the transsexual, who directly
identifies with the opposite sex in everything, and wants to
acquire the physiognomy with which they identify; the
homosexual who, without identifying with the opposite sex feels
the same sexual inclinations as in the previous life in which they
incarnated in the opposite sex to the current one; or the bisexual,
in whom there are sexual inclinations proper to their current
condition and to the past life.

What are the reasons for this lack of detachment from the
personality of the previous life?
The causes of this lack of detachment can be many and varied,
but in general they are due to deep-seated selfish attitudes in the
spirit that have used and made use of the sexual condition to
manifest themselves, and have meant the violation of the free
will of others, including freedom of feeling.

Any examples?
A spirit who, when incarnated as a man, was extremely
chauvinistic, and abused women. For example, he may have
forced a woman who did not love him to be his wife, and
therefore forced her to have sexual relations, or mistreated and
humiliated her during his life, and in general had the same
attitude of contempt towards all women. In this life he incarnates
having the same sexual condition that he despised, but retains
the personality of the previous life, with similar tendencies,
because not having overcome them they are strongly
impregnated in his spirit. Or a spirit who, in incarnating as a
woman, used her physical attractiveness and power of seduction
to dominate and subjugate men. In this life she incarnates having
the same sexual condition as those she abused, but retains the
personality of the previous life because it is strongly ingrained in
her, and thus retains all or part of the same sexual inclinations.

And what is there to learn from that circumstance?

26
The spirit chooses to incarnate in the same sex it abused in order
to learn to respect the gender condition. That is, if as a man it
abused women, it incarnates as a woman in order to learn to
respect women, because now it is a woman too. Or if as a
woman it abused men, it now incarnates as a man in order to
learn to respect men, because now it is a man too. The condition
of transsexuality or homosexuality is self-generated in these
circumstances because they maintain the personality of their
previous life, including the sexual inclination, in whole or in part,
because it is strongly rooted in them.

Many religions, including Catholicism, have the concept that

homosexuality is a negative thing and that homosexuals should
renounce their homosexuality as they consider it deviant. It even
recommends that they seek to form a heterosexual relationship.
What is your opinion?
It makes no sense for homosexual people to force themselves to
be heterosexual when they are not, just to keep up appearances.
In other words, not admitting or repressing one’s homosexuality
leads to nothing good. This would be a cause of unhappiness for
him or herself and for the partner he or she chooses, because one
cannot force what does not come spontaneously. Homosexual
people, like any other, has to be themselves, to admit themselves
as they are and to seek their happiness accordingly. The
homosexual condition in itself is not negative. On the contrary.
For those spirits, it is a condition that can help them to advance
in appreciating the value of free will and freedom of feeling,
because when you are forced to be the way you are not or
forced to live the way you don’t want to live, you suffer a lot. That
is their test. To struggle to be themselves in spite of
incomprehension and rejection. When someone finds it difficult
to be himself or herself, he or she values respect for free will very
much and begins to realize that he or she should not force others’
free will in any way, because it is a great cause of suffering. I will
only add that homosexuality and transsexuality are very much
related to vanity, and as long as vanity is not overcome, these
kinds of circumstances will continue to occur.

Let’s go back to the subject of soul mates. If you are telling me

27
that happiness as a couple comes from the union of soul mates,
isn’t it a contradiction to choose circumstances in which they
cannot be together as a couple in that life, such as having a
blood tie?
Sometimes blood ties are chosen because it is a way of making
sure that your most closely related person will always be close to
you. When there is no blood bond there are usually more material
difficulties for two related beings to get to be together, so that,
although the union is desirable, in most cases it does not happen.
In this case, you play it safe, even if it is not the most desirable
situation.

Do you mean that most people who have a partner are not paired
with their soul mate?
Yes, we have already said it. One can count on one’s fingertips
the earthly couples that are the union of kindred souls. Though, of
course, hardly anyone will admit that this is their case, that is, that
their union is not that of kindred souls.

Yes, but there will be people who have doubts about who their
soul mate is. I mean, how can you recognize your soul mate? I
understand that it must not be easy.
It would be easier if you acted according to your feelings and
there was more freedom in your world to love. But since this does
not happen, what was possible becomes complicated.

What are those difficulties that prevent two soul mates from
coming together as a couple when they are incarnated?
We have already said it. Because the human being on your
planet is still so steeped in selfishness and has little developed
capacity for love, he or she takes other factors than feelings of
love into account when choosing a mate. Although before
incarnating kindred souls have made it a point to unite as a
couple, once incarnated they often end up with other people.

And what are these factors? In other words, why can a union take
place without love?
There are different motives. It may be because of physical
attraction, material or emotional convenience, mental affinity,
28
the need to be loved or the need to love.

Can you tell me more about each of these reasons, so that I am

clear on what they are?
Of course. Let us begin if you will with the number one reason in
your world: physical attraction or sexual instinct.
When the spirit is still undeveloped in its capacity to love, its will is
greatly influenced by the instincts, and in the specific case of the
choice of a partner the sexual instinct predominates over the
feelings. This is why it tends to choose according to what
activates its sexual instinct, it looks externally and not internally.
For this reason, people who are physically attractive have an
easy time finding a partner, while those who are unattractive
seem to be doomed not to find one. This behavior is common in
your world because, in general, the majority of beings have little
developed capacity for love, and it is more accentuated in
adolescence, because it is a stage where the sexual instinct
emerges, coinciding with the immaturity of youth, which makes
even the most advanced spirits predominate in the desire to
satisfy their sexual instinct over the awakening of feelings.

I believe that in a couple’s relationship there must necessarily be

a mutual sexual attraction; if there is no sexual desire between
them, what would be the point of them coming together as a
couple?
Of course, it is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient.
But do not confuse sexual instinct with sexual desire. There is a
nuance that differentiates the two. It is true that sexual desire can
be triggered by biological sexual instinct, but not only by instinct.
It can also be triggered by feelings. The biological sex instinct is
triggered primarily by physical attractiveness and novelty. It is a
biological programming, which drives the individual towards
promiscuity, because from a biological point of view this favors
genetic exchange and the proliferation of the species.
When two people get together out of physical attraction, without
any feelings in between, once they have satisfied each other
sexually, there is usually a decrease in sexual desire between
them, since the sexual instinct is no longer novel and is not
activated as it was at the beginning.
29
The consequence is that, if the relationship is prolonged, there is
often a loss of sexual appetite, as the sexual desire between them
used to depend entirely on instinct. Sexual relations become rare
and tedious. Interest in this partner is lost, as it is no longer a
novelty, and interest in other candidates is activated, because
they are a novelty. If these relationships are prolonged, they are
a constant source of unhappiness, because then the lack of
affinity and feeling, which at the beginning were overshadowed
because the sexual instinct covered them, comes to the surface.
And this is reflected in an increase in disagreements and
reproaches. It is then often said that love has ended in the
couple, that there is no passion, when in reality there was never
love, only instinctual attraction. When there is an affinity of
feeling, sexual desire is awakened and never dies out, because it
is not fed by instinct, but by feeling.

Let us now talk about the union due to material convenience.

There is not much to clarify about this one. It is the union for
material interests. It occurs when one of the two, or both spouses,
considers that he or she will gain some kind of material
advantage in life that he or she did not have before, such as
material comfort, social position, success, fame, wealth or power.
This motive of union is even poorer than the previous one,
because there is not even sexual attraction, and it is more
evident that there is no feeling of any kind, although there is
usually a pretense of feeling, that is to say, the other spouse is
made to believe that the motive of the union is the feeling of love.

This means that the motive that unites two people may be
different, because if it were a material interest in both, there would
be no need for pretense.
Indeed. It is often the case that in each of the spouses the motive
for the union is different. In one case it may be material interest
and in the other case physical attractiveness. For example,
unions between an unattractive millionaire who is attracted to
beautiful women and an attractive but penniless woman who
aspires to have money. In neither case are there feelings, only an
expectation of satisfying a desire, but both will probably pretend
that there is a feeling in order to hide their intentions. It will be a
30
relationship where neither of them will be happy, although initially
there may be a relative satisfaction in seeing their expectations
fulfilled.

And what does emotional bonding consist of?

It occurs when one of the two people considers that the
psychological profile of the other person may favor him or her
when it comes to manifesting certain characteristics of his or her
personality that he or she knows are selfish but does not wish to
change. For example, a dominant and authoritarian person may
find someone submissive and docile as a partner, a capricious
person may find someone complacent, a fearful person may find
someone determined, or a lazy person may find someone active.

But my understanding is that it does not have to be negative to

have seemingly opposite psychological traits, but rather it can be
an opportunity to help. For example, the determined person can
help to overcome the fear of the fearful partner.
Understand that the problem is not that there are personality
differences, but that the partner is chosen for emotional
convenience, not because there is a feeling for him or her. If a
person needs to overcome fear, they can seek psychological
help to overcome it, even from a partner, but they should not
choose their partner for that reason. In these cases what usually
happens is that the relationship between the partners is one of
dominance or psychological dependence. In a relationship of
domination, the dominated partner will feel enslaved in the
relationship, as he or she only receives orders from the other
partner and not feelings, while the other partner, the dominator,
also suffers, because although his or her selfishness is satisfied, the
absence of feelings on his or her part makes him or her feel empty
and unsatisfied in the relationship.

Tell me now about mental affinity union.

It is the union that occurs between two people who share the
same tastes, the same hobbies or the same interests. For
example, people who have the same social status, the same
type of work, similar intellectual level, the same professional or
material expectations, or who enjoy the same hobbies, for
31
example playing sports or going to parties.

But is there anything wrong with sharing tastes or hobbies? I think

it is natural and desirable in a couple.
There is nothing wrong with sharing hobbies or interests. The point
we are making here is that the decision to choose a partner
cannot be made on the basis of mental affinity, as this unites
them only on a mental level, but not on a feeling level.

For many people are convinced that having similar tastes and
interests has a lot to do with compatibility as a couple, and that
feelings can arise as a result of this compatibility. For example,
marriage agencies prepare compatibility tests to try to find the
ideal partner for their clients based on their tastes, interests and
aspirations, with the idea that this increases the likelihood of an
affinity between them.
It will only be a mental affinity, never a sentimental one. Feelings
do not understand probabilities, nor can they be planned. They
have to arise spontaneously, even if they do not fit into one’s
mental schemes of “the ideal partner”, which are usually
stereotypes, such as the tall, handsome, romantic guy for
women, or the sexy, blonde, hot girl for men. These are just mental
fantasies that feed the imagination and have little to do with
feelings. If feelings worked by probability, kindred souls could
never be united with each other, since the probability of such a
union occurring by chance is very low. These unions by mental
affinity often have a time of apparent smooth sailing, but they
generate a feeling of emptiness within, the source of which is
difficult to identify, for in the eyes of the outside, which functions
very much with the mind, it seems that one has all that is needed
in life to be happy. However, the only thing that is needed to be
happy, which is feelings, is missing.

Let us now talk about people who come together out of a need
to be loved.
This is a fairly common reason. It usually corresponds to people
who have felt unloved in life or nostalgic for a love that they have
not known in this life, but that their inner self senses they have
experienced (in their past before their present life). They have
32
such a great need to be loved that when someone is interested
in them as a partner they feel so grateful that they accept this
relationship regardless of their own feelings. They tend to be
people with low self-esteem. They feel unattractive and believe
that nobody will love them. They do not believe they have the
right to be happy. Many of these people have had a difficult
childhood, with huge emotional deficiencies, neglect or
situations of physical or psychological abuse. If they have not yet
freed themselves from the oppressive family environment, they
can use the relationship as an escape valve to free themselves
from this unbearable family relationship.

But is there anything wrong with feeling the need to be loved? I

think it is natural and inherent in every human being and I don’t
think there is anyone who doesn’t want it.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be loved. Indeed, it is
natural to every spirit and a symptom of a certain level of
evolution, because one is already aware that the key to
happiness has to do with love. The problem is that if this need to
be loved is very pressing, it can lead to desperation and
emotional blindness, anxiety to quickly find someone to fill this
void, which makes the person hasty when choosing a partner, as
he or she will surely accept as a partner anyone who presents
themselves at that moment, and not the one who awakens his or
her feelings. Affective emptiness causes emotional blindness,
which prevents the person from seeing their partner as they are.
Rather, they idealize them according to their expectations in
order to be able to love them.

These people also often live in relationships of domination or

dependency. Many of these people are those who have come
into the relationship fleeing from a stifling family relationship.
When they meet someone authoritarian and dominant, they are
often submissive and allow the other to dominate and humiliate
them. Emotional blindness, lack of clarity and the desire to
escape have made them choose the unknown in the belief that
it could not be worse than what they had previously
experienced. And it has turned out that the unknown was equal
to or worse than what they were trying to leave behind. The lack
33
of knowledge of something better even makes them accept this
situation as normal and they end up adopting the same role of
submission that they had in their family, so that in their life as a
couple they reproduce the same situations of suffering as in their
family life.

Sometimes they do make an informed choice, looking for the

opposite of what they have had, that is, they look for loving,
peaceful, tolerant and kind-hearted people, who they know will
treat them well. In these cases there is more of a paternal/filial or
maternal/filial relationship, as they seek to receive from the
partner the affection they did not have from their parents, and
therefore the spouse acts more as a protector than as a partner.
The person rescued from the family relationship of suffering feels
grateful and indebted to the protector who rescued them from
the situation of suffering and tries to compensate him or her in
some way, to the point of convincing him or herself that this
feeling of gratitude is partner love. A relationship of dependency
is generated between the two.

In the latter case I note that there is at least a happy ending.

There is less suffering, but still no happiness, because there is no
correspondence of feelings, for at least on one side there is only
gratitude and this makes neither person happy, the one because
he or she does not love and the other because he or she is not
loved.

This last example of the protective relationship then resembles

emotional convenience, doesn’t it?
It is similar in that one seeks a partner with a certain psychological
profile, with the nuance that in emotional convenience there is
no need to be loved, whereas in this case it is the need to be
loved that promotes the search for a certain psychological
profile in the partner.

I think that there are also many people who join other people out
of fear of loneliness. Can the person who seeks a relationship out
of fear of loneliness be considered to have a need to be loved,
or is it for emotional convenience?
34
Sometimes it is one thing and sometimes it is the other. There are
people who are afraid of loneliness and it is not because they
need to be loved, but for convenience, because they need
someone to please them in their desires, to make their life easier
or more comfortable, especially as they grow older, because
they fear old age and illness and do not want to be left alone at
the end of their lives. But it is true that in some cases the fear of
loneliness is a manifestation of the need to be loved.

Tell me now about the union that is sustained by the need to love.
Agreed. This type of relationship occurs when one or both of the
partners already has a well-developed capacity to love and
needs to manifest it in order to be fulfilled and feel happy. They
are also usually people who are nostalgic for having loved
intensely in a relationship that they have not known in this life, but
that their inner self senses that they have lived (in another life).
When this need to love and to find the loved one becomes very
pressing, it can happen, as in the case of those who need to be
loved, that the need to feel is imposed over one’s own feelings,
and the partner is chosen not on the basis of the feeling that
arises for them, but because of the need to love.

But is there anything wrong with the need to love? I say that if
there is no need to love there can be no feelings, because if there
were no need to love there would never be a search for a partner.
It seems a contradiction to the message of developing feelings,
doesn’t it?
As I said when we talked about people who need to be loved,
there is nothing wrong with feeling the need to love. As you say,
the need to love is linked to the capacity to love. People who
have a great capacity to love can love many people, but this
does not mean that they can fall in love with any of them,
because the feeling of love as a couple does not awaken with
just anyone. The problem comes when, out of a need to feel, one
forces oneself to feel what one does not feel, that is to say, forces
feelings, and in love relationships feelings cannot be forced, but
must occur spontaneously. Forcing feelings is different from
developing feelings, and what we are saying here is that forcing
feelings is not good, simply because it generates suffering instead
35
of happiness. The person who is dominated by the need to love
also suffers from an emotional blindness that prevents them from
distinguishing love from the need to love. In other words, they
convince themselves that they are in love, when in reality they
are striving to feel love. They also tend not to look at whether or
not they are reciprocated in their supposed feelings of love. They
simply convince themselves that they are, or that if they are not
at that moment, it will be reciprocated if they give themselves
totally to the other person, that is that the other person will not be
able to resist their flood of feelings and will end up falling in love
with them.

But I had understood that to love is to give without expecting

anything in return. But it seems that love as a couple is an
exception, because there has to be something in return, and that
is that the other person reciprocates.
And it is still true that those who truly love do so without expecting
anything in return, for they cannot demand to be reciprocated
in their feelings by the person they love, or if they are
reciprocated, they cannot force the other to recognize their
feelings or to agree to become a partner with them if they do not
want to. In other words, he or she must respect the will and
freedom of the other and be willing to take no for an answer,
even if he or she has given his or her heart. But it is true that in the
case of a couple’s relationship, in order to be happy, it is
necessary to have a reciprocated, mutual love. Not
reciprocated love does not allow either person to be happy.

You have outlined here different motivations, other than feelings,

that can give rise to a partnership. You have talked about
physical attraction, material convenience, emotional
convenience, mental affinity, the need to be loved, and the need
to love. Do these motivations stand alone or can they go
together? I mean, if a person can be physically attracted to
another person at the same time as feeling the need to be loved,
for example.
Yes, of course. In fact there is almost always a mixture of
motivations. Physical attraction is usually combined with almost
all the others, because the biological sexual instinct is in every
36
human being, although sometimes it is also absent. In reality,
depending on the spirit’s capacity to love, one type of
motivation predominates over another. In less advanced spirits,
who still have little knowledge and appreciation of love, any
combination of the first four is more common: physical attraction,
material convenience, emotional convenience and mental
affinity. In more advanced spirits, combinations of physical
attraction with the need to be loved and the need to love are
more common. And at an intermediate stage there may be
combinations of physical attraction, emotional convenience,
mental affinity, and the need to be loved. It is also sometimes the
case that these motivations do not occur simultaneously, but
appear at different points in the relationship. For example, a
relationship may be initiated by physical attraction, and when
this fades, other types of motives for prolonging the relationship,
such as material or emotional convenience, may come to the
fore.

Well, this complicates things even more. I think it must not be

easy, when it comes to analyzing what one feels, to know how to
distinguish feelings from everything else. For example, when there
is a mixture of sexual attraction, the need to love and the need to
be loved, I think it must be difficult to know what love is and to
separate it from needs and desires.
In your world it is difficult for the vast majority, because you do not
yet have clarity and firmness of feeling. But that is what the
process of evolution is for, to learn from what you have
experienced and to know how to distinguish what is from what is
not.

But I also understand that not all love is the same. I say this
because there are people who say they are very fond of their
partner, who get along very well, but who do not feel the need to
have sexual relations with them. What is happening in these
cases?
This person feels a brotherly love for his or her spouse, as he or she
might feel for a brother or a friend, but is not in love with him or
her. It is not a couple’s love. He or she confuses one feeling with

37
another.

And how does one know whether or not one’s love is a couple’s
love?
He who feels that something is missing in his relationship to fill him
completely, even if there are no quarrels or conflicts, knows that
he has not found true love. When one is not united to the kindred
soul, there is no complete affinity in the couple. The lack of affinity
manifests itself on all planes, sentimentally, mentally and sexually,
and this causes an emptiness within that is not filled. Those who
have experienced in this life the love of a kindred soul will know
how to distinguish it very well, because just the memory of the
loved one makes them vibrate inside and feel full. Those who
have not yet experienced in this life the feeling that is awakened
by the recognition of their kindred soul may have more doubts.
They will have to trust what they sense spiritually, for even if they
have not experienced it in this life, the feelings between kindred
souls are never destroyed and remain in the spirit forever, leaving
an indelible mark, even if the recall of past memories is
temporarily lost when they incarnate again. It is this sentimental
intuition that enables them to distinguish what is and what is not
true love.

Forgive me for insisting, but how can one distinguish between

brotherly love and soulmate love? Can one not be filled when
one loves one’s siblings or one’s children?
Those who see their partner as a brother and not as a partner
already know that it is not love as a couple. What I mean is that
if they have affection for their partner, as they have for a child or
a sibling, and do not feel sexual desire for them, or when they
have sexual relations with their partner, they experience an
emptiness or do not feel the need to give themselves in this
relationship and can go on without them, the love they feel is of
a brotherly or sisterly kind.

What if one discovers that one loves the partner fraternally and
not as a couple? Should one continue the relationship or not?
If you want to be happy you should be honest with yourself and
your partner about what your feelings are and what they are not
38
and act accordingly. There is no point in prolonging a relationship
when one of both knows that they are not in love, because they
are neither happy nor can you make the other happy. For
example, having unwanted sexual relations will be a source of
suffering for one partner and dissatisfaction for the other. And if
they stop having sex in order to avoid this, how is this different
from a brotherly relationship? In other words, that person loves his
or her partner as a brother or sister and lives the relationship as he
or she would live it with a brother or sister. It makes no sense for
them to continue the relationship as a couple, because they do
not live with their brother as a couple either.

There will be people who say that by loving their partner as a

brother or sister they are already happy and that it is better than
nothing. In other words, they are content with what they have. Are
they acting correctly or not?
Talking about right or wrong here is meaningless. It is better to talk
about being or not being truly happy. There are people who
resign themselves to this situation and convince themselves that
they are happy this way. But this is self-deception, because it is
not true.

There are people who find it difficult to take the step of separating
because they have conflicting feelings, because although they
recognize that they are not in love with their partner, they still
have great affection for them and do not want to lose the bond.
What would you say to them?
Recognizing that we do not feel love for our partner does not
necessarily mean that we have to dislike him or her, or that we
have to cut him or her out of our lives altogether. We simply have
to recognize the kind of feeling we have for someone and act to
make our life fit the kind of feeling we have. If there is a feeling of
friendship, that friendship can continue without forcing the
relationship to continue. If we do not admit this reality we will
come to feel rejection for that person, because we force
ourselves to live in a relationship that is not in line with our feelings
for that person.

Many people admit that they are not in love. They say that if it
39
were up to them they would take the step of separating. But
because they don’t want to hurt the other person, they prefer to
continue the relationship. What do you have to say about this?
That the damage is done by prolonging the relationship, because
if they do not love him or her they cannot make him or her happy.
If they prolong the relationship, they prevent them from finding a
partner who does reciprocate their feelings, and they are also
deceiving them, because they make them believe that they love
them as a partner when in reality it is not true. Prolonging the
relationship in these circumstances is more harmful than breaking
up, because there are no emotional ties. It will be a fictitious
union, a forced relationship that will generate suffering for both
partners.

There are people who, if their partner does not agree to leave the
relationship, believe that they should continue it because they
consider that as it is a couple’s issue they must both agree on the
decision they have to take. Are they right?
No. If one partner does not want to continue the relationship, it is
enough to leave the relationship. It does not matter if the partner
does not agree with that decision. No one, not even the partner,
has the right to force the other to continue, as this would be an
infringement of their personal free will. Often this argument is
nothing more than an excuse that reflects a lack of courage to
leave the relationship, and one expects the other to take the
steps that one does not dare to take.

But doesn’t it often happen that when a person tells their partner
that they are not in love and want to leave the relationship, it is
the partner themselves who takes it very badly and insists on
continuing the relationship in spite of everything?
It is true, because they refuse to admit reality. They are
comfortable, accustomed to this relationship and fear the
changes that are going to take place in their lives. They prefer
the bad things known than the good to be known. This is greatly
influenced by the education one has received, which, if it is of a
traditional type, considers that the break-up of a couple,
especially if there is a marriage contract involved, is something
dishonorable for a person’s reputation. It is also influenced by
40
attachment or possessive love, that egosentiment that simulates
love, which makes the person who suffers from it have a
tendency to consider the partner as his or her property and to
take very badly to lose that property. Despite being unhappy, the
person may have been pleased with his or her pretensions and is
not willing to give up what he or she is used to and believes they
belong to him or her. Unfortunately, because of attachment
there are very few people who are willing to admit a change of
sentimental status. In other words, they do not accept the
change from being a partner to being a friend and interpret the
change of status as a rejection or contempt. As they do not
respect the will of the other, they sometimes try to force the
continuity of the relationship using victimhood, persuasion,
blackmail and even aggression as weapons, causing their now
ex-partner great emotional and/or physical suffering that reflects
the little love they felt for them. The ex-partner is often forced to
avoid any kind of contact in order not to be attacked psychically
or physically, to the point that they wish they would never meet
the person who was once their partner.

What you say brings up another very common situation, that of

the person who does not dare to leave the relationship for fear of
their partner’s violent reaction. Some people even fear for their
lives if they leave the relationship.
Yes, unfortunately in your world there is little respect for the
freedom of feeling, and this means that many relationships are
not of love, but of domination and submission, because they
coexist as an executioner and a victim. In these cases the victim
of domination feels fear and not love for their supposed partner.
This fear paralyses them from deciding to leave the relationship,
because they know that when they take the step they will be
relentlessly persecuted. In addition, the abuser often
psychologically manipulates his victim into believing that he still
loves her, which makes some women feel guilty if they leave the
relationship.

Does the increase in the number of cases of gender-based

violence have to do with the fact that people, in this case men,
have become more aggressive towards women in their
41
relationships?
No. In the past, violence and aggression existed as much or more
than now, but because the husband felt more supported by the
law and social norms to dominate the woman, she did not dare
to break the chains of submission. Now there are more cases of
gender-based violence because there are more courageous
women who dare to break free from their abusers, especially in
countries where there is legislation to protect them and a greater
social awareness that abuse and mistreatment are intolerable.
The abuser, faced with the impossibility of continuing to dominate
his victim, resorts to more drastic actions to restrain her, even
going as far as murder.

I understand that there are women who, for fear of being killed by
their husband or partner, make the decision not to leave the
relationship. What should they do in this situation?
If they continue that relationship they are already dead in life,
because for the inner self to live like that is worse than dying. It is
better to fight to be free to be happy, even if you lose your life in
the attempt, than to lose your whole life under the tyranny of an
abuser.
Everyone has the right to be free and happy and no one has the
right more than oneself to decide about one’s own life and
feelings.

Spiritually, what can be learned from such an abusive situation?

These kinds of trials, although very painful, help the spirit to
acquire firmness and courage in its will to fight for its freedom of
feeling, and to become aware that no one should be deprived
of their right to freedom of feeling, because it is one of the causes
that generate the greatest suffering and unhappiness in the
human being.

There are people who argue that although they are not in love,
they do not separate because their partner has never given them
any reason to do so, because they have a cordial relationship,
they have never had any arguments and there has never been
any abuse. What would you say to them?
Sometimes it is believed that there must be an unpleasant reason
42
for leaving a relationship, for example physical or psychological
abuse, or that one of the partners has some kind of addiction
(drugs, alcohol, gambling) that ruins a normal cohabitation.
People who take this view, that is, that if there is no abuse they
have no justification for leaving the relationship, are usually those
who have received a traditional religious upbringing, because it
seems that in this upbringing abuse is the only case in which a
separation from the spouse is relatively tolerated, and they feel
obliged to make the relationship last for life regardless of whether
or not there are feelings between them as a couple. However,
this is not the case. All that is necessary to leave a relationship is
that there is no mutual partner feeling.

I think this statement may come as a surprise to some people,

who believe that breaking a marriage contravenes some divine
law. Is it not true that most monotheistic religions, and this includes
the Catholic religion, are against divorce?
Many religions are against divorce, but I say to you that forcing a
person to continue a relationship against their will does
contravene a spiritual law, which is the Law of Free Will. We are
saddened to see how many people are empty and loveless, but
at the same time they force themselves to be in unfeeling
marriage relationships, either out of fear, out of comfort, or
because they believe that if they divorce, by contravening the
religious law of the indissolubility of marriage, they are committing
a fault in the sight of God. Many people have been led to believe
that it is God who asks that a person’s marriage be for life, so that
the person believes that by suffering in a loveless relationship he
or she is “earning heaven”. However, this is not true. There is no
spiritual advancement in the person who renounces to live
according to his or her feelings, because it is not God who forces
him or her, but the person himself or herself or the social or
religious norms he or she professes that force him or her. It must
be clear that it is not God or the higher spirituality that demands
it, but the laws of men impregnated with selfishness, who trade
with everything, even with feelings.

So, if not from God, where does the idea of the indissolubility of
marriage come from?
43
In your selfish and mercantile mentality you put a price on
everything and establish title deeds to everything that exists, to
which you attach more value than your own life, for you do not
care to kill or die for them. You take it for granted that everything
can be bought and sold, and that if it were not beyond your
control you would seize even the air you breathe or even the rays
of sunlight and sell them at a price of gold to those who have less
power or ambition to say “this is mine”. In the same way you
believe that people, their will, their feelings, can be bought. You
believe that with the contract you sign in what you call marriage
you are entering into some commercial transaction, in which
some believe they are buying a person’s will and feelings, and
others convince themselves that they are bound by the contract
to surrender their will, their decision-making ability, their freedom
and their feelings to their spouse. In the height of selfish delirium,
you have made yourselves believe that the notary of this
contract is God, and you have convinced yourselves that this
contract must be fulfilled at all costs, regardless of your own
happiness or that of others, otherwise you will be dispossessed of
all your “goods” in the next life, like a person whose property is
seized when he or she cannot repay a bank loan. For know that
all this is a great lie invented by human selfishness. That God has
given you complete freedom with regard to your person, your
feelings and your thoughts, and that you do not transgress any
divine law at all when you fight for your freedom to feel and think.
No one can take away your right to be free, to decide about
your own life and feelings in any way and under any
circumstances, least of all in the name of God.

This could be taken as an incitement to break up marriages.

Although you may not want to admit it, a partnership that is not
based on mutual feeling does not really exist. Even if you can
keep the contracts signed for a lifetime, and even if you want to
give an image of union to others, it will be an apparent union, a
false one, because everyone inside knows what the reality is and,
even if you try to hide it from others, you will be unhappy because
you will experience the bitterness, emptiness and sadness of
feeling trapped in your own life. If you also set yourself the goal of
not letting anyone know about it, you will experience this suffering
44
in solitude, which makes it all the more painful.

You seem to make a big deal about emphasizing that people

have the right to separate or divorce if they wish to do so without
offending God.
For it is a great cause of deep unhappiness in many human
beings and this must begin to change, so that every person knows
that they have the right to be happy and that there is no divine
law that prevents them from being happy. On the contrary, the
spiritual world wants the happiness of every being that exists and
must do everything possible to help him or her discover the path
to happiness. It wants to help them to remove the obstacles that
stand in their way, and the laws of your world are like a gigantic
stone that stands in the way of happiness. Moreover, you have
made it appear that this stone has been thrown by God, and this
can no longer be tolerated.

So you mean we shouldn’t get married in order to regularize

relationships?
From a spiritual point of view it is only the mutual love between
two people that defines a true partnership, whether or not there
is a signed marriage contract is irrelevant. In your material world
it is often necessary to sign contracts to protect the spouse or the
descendants of the family, for example, so that if one of the
spouses dies, the other person can have a pension or so that
other relatives cannot dispossess the deceased’s spouse of his or
her home, and this is understandable. But be aware that this only
has a material validity and do not try to give it more value than it
has. In other words, the bond of marriage should not be used as
an argument to curtail a person’s freedom, nor ultimately to
withhold or blackmail him or her if he or she decides to leave the
relationship, for this is considered from a spiritual point of view to
be an act against the law of free will.

Let’s return to the subject of the reasons that make a couple

continue their relationship even though they are not in love. There
are people who fear material destitution if they leave their
partner, and continue with them because this guarantees them a
house and a livelihood. What do you have to say about these
45
cases?
They are a reflection of the fact that in reality it is a union where
material convenience predominates. If it was not the main
reason for the union in the beginning, it is now the main reason
for the prolongation. These people will have to decide what they
value more, their freedom of feeling or security and comfort. If
they choose to continue the relationship for these reasons, they
will probably lack nothing materially, but they will lack everything
emotionally, because they live without love. If they are
materialistic people who value feelings little, they will choose to
continue the relationship. If they are people who above all want
to be happy, they will overcome their fears and even if they have
to start from scratch materially speaking, they will gladly do so
because they will have regained their freedom of feeling.

Another argument of many people who have children from such

a relationship is that they do not separate in order to protect their
children. They say that they prefer to stick it out at least until their
children are of age. They believe that they are acting correctly,
out of love for their children, because they put their children’s
happiness before their own. They believe that a break-up of a
couple or marriage can cause severe emotional trauma for their
children and prefer to avoid it. Is that right?
No, that is not right. They come to the wrong conclusion because
when you divorce you don’t divorce your children, you divorce
your partner. If both parents love their children, they will love them
even if they are not together. This argument of “holding on for the
sake of the children” is very common among people who have
received a traditional religious upbringing, where the family unit
is put before personal happiness.

On the contrary, the prolongation of this relationship generates

suffering for the children, because when two people do not love
each other and are forced to live together, it generates an
emotionally negative environment for the children, because the
unhappiness they experience is radiated to the environment.
Often the children witness the fights and arguments between the
parents, they perceive their discomfort and suffering and this
generates emotional suffering for them. There are children who
46
grow up with the feeling that they are to blame for their parents’
unhappiness, because some parents tell them that if it were not
for them they would have divorced by now. In other words, they
blame the children for their own cowardice.

But for the child, the break-up of the parental relationship is a

radical change in his or her life. Isn’t it true that many children
experience the separation of their parents in a traumatic way?
When the child is young, the break-up in itself does not cause any
kind of emotional trauma, as the child does not yet have
sufficient knowledge for the conditioning of the upbringing to
have taken place.
The changes that occur in children’s life, if they continue to have
contact with both parents and they continue to show their love
for them, even if only separately, they will experience it as a
game.
What makes young children suffer the most is being used as a
weapon in marital disputes due to separation and witnessing
fights, quarrels and blackmail between the spouses. Therefore, if
this is avoided by the parents, they will be able to prevent the
children from being traumatized by the separation.

And what about the children who are older? Many of them
already have the knowledge of the cause and do not take this
change in their lives well.
Often the separation comes after years of enduring. Consciously
or unconsciously, the message conveyed to the children during
that time was that family unity comes before personal happiness.
Therefore, children tend to interpret what is happening from that
point of view. That is why they perceive the break-up as
something negative, because they see it as contrary to what they
had previously believed to be right and good. In order for them
to be able to deal with what they are experiencing, it is necessary
to deprogram them from the education they were given and
make them understand now that freedom of feeling and
personal happiness are above all else and that no one should
renounce them under any circumstances.

I think it is difficult for an almost adolescent child to fit all this in

47
overnight when he or she has already lived a whole childhood
brought up with other norms, instilled by his or her own parents.
He or she will probably think that his father or mother has gone
mad.
That depends on how evolved that child is. Some children are
more understanding than others. Sometimes it is the children who
advise and help the parents to take this step, because they are
more aware of reality than their parents. The one who is more
advanced is the one who will be more understanding and will fit
in better, because above and beyond the education he or she
has received will be his or her evolutionary level to make him or
her understand the situation. But even if it is difficult for them to fit
in at that moment, they will appreciate it in the future when they
are older if find themselves in a similar situation. I mean that if they
get into a relationship and realize that they are not in love and
have to decide whether to continue or leave the relationship, it
will be clear to them that they should not force themselves to
continue it for anything in the world. They will have an example
in their own parents that there is nothing wrong with being free.
They will be more confident and courageous and feel less guilty
about leaving a relationship in which they are unhappy.
However, if they have had the opposite example, that is, their
parents have forced them to continue living together against
their own feelings, they may take this bad example and repeat
the same unhappy life their parents had.

Summarizing all that we have discussed so far, I get the feeling

that the message is conveyed that the love of a couple is more
important than the love of siblings or children. Is it not selfish to
make a distinction between couple love and siblings or children
love? Does this distinction not contradict the concept of
unconditional love?
On what basis do you say that?

I guess in the example Jesus gave. He didn’t make any special

reference to couple love, did he?
You can’t know that, because you rely on the information in the
canonical gospels, which reflect very little of what he said. But I
tell you that he also spoke about couple love, especially to those
48
closest to him, who were more able to understand. He taught
them that it is only mutual and perfectly affine love that binds
couples together, and that the decision to unite or disunite a
couple should be taken by each of them in complete freedom.
This does not sound like a big deal now, as it seems reasonable to
any moderately sensible mentality. But at that time the mentality
of the human being was poorer in understanding and respect for
freedom of feeling was practically non-existent. Polygamy was
common and most unions were loveless, arranged marriages in
which one or both spouses were forced into marriage without
regard for their will.

I think many people today are aware that arranged marriages

are an abuse and are against this practice.
It may seem obvious in Western societies, with more advanced
legislation, which protects some of the rights and freedoms of the
individual. But still today this practice is common in many
countries, where laws, often encouraged and enforced by
“religious” leaders and regimes, allow even young girls to be
married to adults “in the name of God”, backing up the sexual
abuse, moral and physical exploitation of girls and women. They
are made to believe that if they do not submit to these abusive
practices, they are unclean, impure and disobedient to God’s
designs. And when, in spite of everything, they try to free
themselves from their inhuman condition, they are treated as if
they were criminals, sometimes even cruelly tortured and killed.
Know that arranged marriage is a form of institutionalized
prostitution, for a person is being forced to live together and have
a sexual relationship with someone they have not chosen, under
the guise of “honesty”, and this is a very serious violation of their
free will, specifically their freedom of feeling.

Well, I think that by now most people know that they are free, at
least in Western countries, and that the law protects individual
freedom, providing for the right to divorce and punishing those
who impede its exercise, right?
This is true. And this represents an enormous spiritual advance that
has been achieved with enormous sacrifices and struggles, which
unfortunately have been opposed only by the religious
49
authorities, who again, instead of contributing to the spiritual
progress of mankind, have done their utmost to hinder and
obstruct it. And the most regrettable thing is that they have done
so in the name of God. But religious customs and norms are
deeply rooted in societies, and sometimes, though they have no
power to prohibit, they have the power to influence
psychologically.

Know that still in your time and in your society, although there are
few arranged marriages, there are still many unions without love.
And it happens that when a person becomes aware of this and
wants to undo this union, he or she has many difficulties because
of these religious norms, as we mentioned earlier.

Let’s get back to where we were, about whether partner love is

selfish and contradictory to achieving unconditional love. If it is
not a teaching of Jesus, at least the Church has interpreted it this
way. I believe they rely on a quote from the Gospel (Luke 14:26)
in which Jesus supposedly says: “If anyone comes to me and
does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and
sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my
disciple”. I believe that the Church’s interpretation of this text is
that in order to love your neighbor unconditionally, you cannot
distinguish between your partner, your family and the rest,
because this makes you trapped by the love towards your
partner and the love towards your children, and prevents you
from a deeper dedication to your neighbor. I think the Catholic
Church requires priests to take the vow of chastity and celibacy
for this reason. Am I wrong?
This text you mention is a poor translation of what Jesus actually
said. Change the word hate to detach and you will understand
what he meant. He means that in order to attain unconditional
love (to follow him) it is necessary to overcome attachment,
possessive love, which is very common in families, because often
this selfish way of loving restricts the freedom of human beings
and limits them greatly when it comes to giving themselves to a
mission of unconditional love for their neighbor. Therefore, the
interpretation of what Jesus said is totally contrary to reality. I say
to you that those who have not experienced love as a couple
50
cannot experience unconditional neighborly love. The feelings of
partner-love, when one fights for them, are the strongest thing
there is.

It is these feelings that help us to move forward in life. To carry out

a mission of dedication to others as Jesus did, he needed an inner
strength. He had this inner strength because he was sure of what
he loved, whom he loved and why he loved. I tell you that all true
envoys of the spiritual world have felt and lived the love of
kindred souls, and have been nourished by that love to carry out
the work they have done. If one denies these feelings, what
happens is that one feels utterly empty and lacking in courage
and strength, and in the face of the adversities involved in such
a mission, one falls down.

I thought that these beings were nourished by the love of God

and that this was enough for them.
Their faith in God gives them strength, but the being in the human
stage of evolution needs the love of a being equal to itself, and
this being is the kindred soul. Why reject something that brings
happiness and fulfils the human being in all aspects? Where is the
problem? I say to you that to renounce the love of a partner, far
from making you evolve, stagnates the spirit in its process of
evolution. The prejudices that you have in this regard, that is, to
think that renouncing the love of a partner makes you more
evolved and more capable of loving your neighbor, are an
invention of the Church to subjugate the will of the human being
and are contrary to the Spiritual Laws, because they hinder the
freedom of feeling and prevent the human being from attaining
happiness.

But isn’t it true that sometimes a partner can be an obstacle in an

intense work of helping others?
It is not the fact of having a partner per se that hinders this work,
but when, because of attachment, one of the partners believes
that he or she has the right to restrict the freedom of the other
partner and holds him or her back because he or she believes
the other partner is his or her property and sees the others as
adversaries who steal his or her attention. This is often the case
51
when someone has joined a partner who is not in affinity with him
or her. The lack of affinity leads to misunderstanding and
divergent motivations in life.

It can also occur within a couple composed of kindred souls if

egosentiments get in the way, mainly attachment, but also others
such as fear. Generally, this is fear of the loved one’s suffering, or
fear of losing him or her if he or she gives himself or herself to a
mission that puts him or her in danger. When the partner is akin
and fears and other manifestations of selfishness have been
overcome, it is not an obstacle. Quite the contrary. If they agree
to incarnate together, they are both involved in the mission with
the same intensity. This makes the mission much more profound,
since mutual love strengthens, comforts and soothes all the
bitterness of the path they have chosen to live.

But it seems that Jesus did not have a partner during his life and
this did not prevent him from loving his neighbor and carrying out
his mission, did it?
We have talked about this before. Jesus is like everyone else. He
also has his kindred soul, but it did not incarnate simultaneously
with him, which does not mean that he did not maintain contact
with it. For beings of Jesus’ evolutionary level, the fact that the
loved one is not simultaneously incarnated with him is not an
insurmountable obstacle, for due to their capacity and sensitivity
they have relative ease in detaching themselves from the
material plane and are thus able to contact their kindred beings
on the spiritual plane.

So isn’t it selfish to love some people more than others?

You call selfishness what are simply differences of affinity. It is
always easier to love someone who is like-minded than someone
who is not. It is only when the spirit is very advanced that it is able
to love with the same intensity beings with whom it has
differences in affinity. I say to you that in order to experience
unconditional neighborly love, one must first have experienced
the love of the kindred soul, for this love is the nourishing force for
loving others. Therefore, those who want to love their neighbor
unconditionally but repress or cancel out the love of the soul
52
mate will never be able to achieve true neighborly love, for
lacking the source from which it is nourished, they will quickly
empty themselves in giving themselves to others when the first
signs of ingratitude begin to appear. To reach the tenth degree,
one must begin with the first, and pass through the intermediate
degrees. But you seem to think that you have reached the tenth
degree without being clear about the one, that is, if you still deny
love to those who are like-minded, as is the case with soul-mate
love, how can you want to love those who are not?

But it’s not so easy to get it right and find true love the first time.
Exactly because it is not easy to get it right, you should allow
yourselves to be able to turn back once you become aware that
you are not in love. What is really sad is not that unions occur
without love, but that you try so hard to prolong them by force,
establishing earthly chains that prevent you from releasing them
once you become aware that there is no love.

I think that young people are more aware that they are free to
decide who they want and don’t want to be with and are less
hesitant to leave a relationship if they don’t want to continue it.
Yes, it is true. Young people have more freedom now, especially
in Western countries, because they have not experienced such a
repressive upbringing. Above all, they have more freedom in
sexuality and they know that the fact of having sexual relations
with someone does not oblige them to be with that person for
life. And that is a good thing. The problem for young people is not
so much to leave relationships when they want to, but to know
how to find true love, because most of them get together for
reasons other than love. Despite having more freedom in life, they
are not taking advantage of it to develop feelings.

And for what reasons do they unite?

What predominates are unions through physical attraction,
especially in adolescence, or through similarity of mental
interests. Physical attractiveness is valued above all else, as well
as being important. That is why people with sexual attractiveness,
fame, money, are highly desired as partners. Physically attractive
young people are satisfied because their good looks guarantee
53
them suitors and they often choose according to their physical
attractiveness. Partner relationships tend to be short-lived
because once the sexual instinct has been satisfied, interest is lost
and a newer relationship is sought. But sexuality practiced
without love takes its toll, because in the most sensitive people it
generates an inner emptiness and is the reason why many young
people sink into deep depression, because they try to fill with sex
what can only be filled with feelings. On the other hand, the one
who is less attractive, while desiring the same, feels frustrated in
his intentions, as they have more difficulties in getting what they
want, because what is most valued is the physical attractiveness
that they do not possess. They live with a complex about their
physical appearance and feel undervalued and with little
chance of finding a partner. Complexes and repressions as a
result of physical appearance lead to depression and serious
disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, due to the desire to be
thinner and to increase attractiveness in order to be liked more.

Why does this happen to young people, if they have lived through
a time of greater freedom?
Now there is greater sexual freedom, but there is still no freedom
of feeling, because sentimental repression has yet to be
overcome.
Your way of bringing up children is still very materialistic and not
very spiritual. Children are not yet sufficiently educated in
feelings. They are not taught in life to seek happiness by
developing their feelings, they are not taught to value love and
to have a spiritual outlook on life. On the one hand, they develop
their minds, their intelligence and they are taught knowledge
that will help them to have a profession in life. This is the academic
training in schools. Outside of school, what is experienced in
families and what is transmitted through the media and social
relations is that happiness is achieved through the satisfaction of
vanity. That is, they are taught to value external qualities that
make one stand out from others, such as physical attractiveness,
intelligence, success, fame, power and money.
Many young people have taken refuge in the satisfaction of
whim and pleasure, in entertainment, in sex without feeling, in
drugs, as a way of escaping the emptiness and dissatisfaction
54
they feel in life. They try to fill with pleasure and fun what should
be filled with feeling, and in the absence of feeling, the inner self
becomes depressed.
A large part of the youth suffers because they are trapped by the
desire to satisfy their vanity and because their sensitivity to
feelings is repressed or suppressed. They lack meaning in life.
The young people of this age need to understand that life does
have a meaning beyond the amusement of gratification of whim
and pleasure. To be truly fulfilled, they need to develop and live
their feelings in complete freedom, as well as their spirituality. This
is the only way to be happy.

Some people have the notion that the reason why young people
have turned to consumerism, banality and sexual promiscuity is
that the moral values of the past have been lost, that there has
been a regression in spirituality. Are they right?
No. As we have already said, they take refuge in the material to
escape the emptiness inside. Things were never better in the past.
If the youth of the past did not reflect the same attitudes, it was
not because their values were better than today’s, but because
they were more repressed and suffered more economic
hardship. Religious puritanism stifled the free development of
sexuality and condemned it to secrecy. Young people were free
neither in their feelings nor in their sexuality and lived repressed
and fearful, because in the eyes of religious puritanism everything
was a sin. In the past, sexuality was almost completely repressed
and was only allowed within marriages. And since in many
marriages there was no love, but rather they were an imposition,
sexual experiences for many people were horrible and traumatic.
Many people had a double life, the one that was given
outwardly to maintain social appearances and the hidden one,
where many found an escape valve to a life full of taboos and
repressions. This way of acting, that of double standards, still
persists today, especially in older people who have lived a
repressive upbringing, accustomed to having two faces for fear
of what people will say.

INFIDELITY IN THE RELATIONSHIP IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW OF LOVE

55
What do you think about fidelity and infidelity within a couple?
That one can be faithful to an obligation or one can be faithful
to a feeling. Spiritually, only faithfulness to feelings has value.

What exactly do you mean by those words?

What I mean is that when there is no mutual feeling and affinity
in a couple’s relationship, fidelity is kept out of obligation, as a
duty to be fulfilled that is striven for, not felt. When there is true
feeling, fidelity arises spontaneously, without the need to make
an effort to maintain it. You place too much value on the
contract signed in front of the priest or the judge, which you call
marriage, and too little on whether there is love between the
spouses. That is why you condemn every extramarital sexual
relationship, even if there is no love between the spouses, even
though it may happen that in the extramarital relationship there
is true love. You speak of unfaithfulness in marriage when you
should know that the only unfaithfulness that exists spiritually is
unfaithfulness to feelings. There are people who have spent a
lifetime in a loveless marriage, even when they were in love with
another person, and who have renounced this feeling by
convincing themselves or being convinced that this was good,
right and in harmony with divine law. They are deeply unhappy
people who are considered by others to be saints, a display of
virtue and impeccable morals, because they have sacrificed
themselves to fulfil a promise that the priest solemnly sentenced
on their wedding day: “What God has joined together, let no
man put asunder”. From a spiritual point of view, however, things
look different, because only faithfulness to feelings has a spiritual
value. These people, who have an unblemished image in the
eyes of the norms and customs of their community, are people
who are being unfaithful to their feelings and have therefore
stagnated in their spiritual evolution. When they return to the
spiritual world they will realize that they have made a futile
sacrifice and that they will have to return in a future incarnation
to do what they did not dare to do in this one, to fight for their
feelings. On the other hand, those who were the executioners of
other people’s feelings, those people who do not seek to fight for
their feelings but take pleasure in persecuting those who struggle
56
to be happy by loving in freedom, and are satisfied when they
succeed in making someone unhappy caught in the bonds of
forced marriage, expose themselves in succeeding lives to being
themselves the victims of the repressive attitudes to their feelings
of other beings similar to themselves in selfishness.

On the other side, the person who fights for his or her feelings, to
be by the side of the person he or she loves, and who suffers
misunderstanding, humiliation, blackmail and physical and/or
psychological abuse, and who is considered by society, the
community or the family to be an adulterer, unfaithful or immoral
person, is the one who is truly advancing in his or her feelings. It is
the one who is truly in harmony with the spiritual law of love and
who will enjoy in the spiritual world the true happiness so hard won
in the physical world, for he or she will find that there will no longer
be any obstacle to the free manifestation of feelings.

I still don’t understand it. I think if you give me an example it would

be clearer for me
OK. Imagine that a woman is married to a man whom she does
not love, but loves another man with whom she would like to form
a couple and who corresponds to her in feelings. Both men, let’s
call them husband and lover, want to have sexual intercourse
with this woman. According to your world’s concept of fidelity, if
she maintains a relationship with the lover, she is acting wrongly,
because she is being unfaithful to her husband. But I tell you that
if she makes the opposite decision, that is, if she maintains a
relationship with the husband but not with the lover, she is being
unfaithful to her feelings, because she loves the lover and not the
husband.

I don’t understand at all. So it’s okay to have extramarital affairs?

You understand more than you pretend to. But I will make it clear
so that there is no doubt. Spiritually, earthly contracts have no
more validity than one wants to give them. That is to say, no one
is obliged to love anyone or to be faithful to anyone else because
of the obligation of a marriage contract, or for any other reason.
What is wrong is to deceive another person into believing that
57
there are feelings that do not really exist. It is right to be honest
about one’s feelings and to act accordingly. In the above
example, since the wife acknowledges that she does not love her
husband, it is right that she should tell him so and, consequently,
end the loveless relationship so that she can live the relationship
of feeling with the loved one without the need to hide.
There are people who know that they are not in love with the one
with whom they signed the contract of marriage, or the
commitment to be a couple, and who maintain the bond out of
convenience, out of necessity, out of guilt or out of fear of the
reaction of others. We have already talked enough about this.
On the other hand, there are people who know whom they love,
but out of fear or comfort, they do not fight to unite with the loved
one, but prefer to repress or annul their feelings so as not to suffer,
and they adapt to earthly relationships that are comfortable but
do not fulfil them, because they lack the essential, the mutual
and reciprocated love. They live a life of appearance on the
outside, and of emptiness and repressed suffering on the inside.
Be honest with your feelings and make your life a reflection of
your feelings. In this way you will avoid unnecessary suffering.
Have the courage to fight for your feelings, because it is the only
thing worth fighting for.

But can it not happen that even if people want to fight for their
feelings, they are prevented by circumstances from achieving
their goal? Continuing with the previous example, what happens
if the husband does not agree to leave the relationship and forces
the wife to continue it? In fact, there are women who are
murdered by their ex-husbands or ex-partners because they do
not accept the break-up of the relationship. Or what happens
when the legislation of a country rejects divorce and even
condemns the woman who leaves her husband to death? What
option is left to that woman?
It is true that you may encounter many difficulties, because
unfortunately in your world there is very little respect for freedom
of feeling, especially for the most defenseless. However, respect
for freedom of feeling has increased in comparison to the past
and is recognized as a right in the laws of many countries. In
Western countries, divorce is a right and there are laws that
58
protect against gender-based violence, although it is true that in
other countries the situation is intolerable and there is still much
room for improvement. But even if you have everyone against
you, I tell you that it will be worth it, because there is no better
reason to fight for than feelings, because it is the basis of spiritual
evolution and happiness. The one who chooses to fight for the
feelings will have the greatest of rewards, which is the happiness
felt when reunited with the loved one, to be able to feel and live
the feelings to the fullest. Though they may lose their physical life
in the attempt, because of the hindrances of human selfishness,
and thus fail on the material plane, let them be assured that what
he has sown in the physical life they will reap as a reward on the
spiritual plane.
On the contrary, those who do not fight for their feelings, who
repress and suppress them, and at the same time force and strive
to maintain a relationship without feelings, are already suffering
the consequences of their lack of courage and will have to return
in later lives to overcome what they have left unresolved in this
life.

EGOSENTIMENTS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS

Can it happen that a person has found his or her soul mate and
still does not value him or her and desires to have sexual relations
with other people, and even cheats on them?
Yes, when there is no firmness in the feelings, when there is no
struggle to care for and develop them, and when egos are
allowed to get in the way, this is often the case. In spirits that are
not very sensitive to feelings, the biological sexual instinct
predominates over the undeveloped feeling, and this results in
seeking the satisfaction of the body rather than the happiness of
the spirit. Sexual desire at this stage is aroused primarily by
physical attractiveness and novelty. When there is satisfaction of
the body, interest in the relationship is lost and new relationships
are sought. There is no special preference for anyone in particular
at this time. As the spirit progresses in the development of feelings
it becomes bored with the purely sexual relationship, for once the
desire is satisfied it feels an emptiness within, and seeks something
59
more in a relationship, that is, to love and be loved. And this is
where sentimental affinity comes into play, because if it does not
exist, the inner fullness cannot be reached. Then begins the
struggle for feelings, to find happiness in the relationship. On this
path, the spirit will live through innumerable experiences of
personal relationships, where it will experience everything,
instincts, feelings and egosentiments, and depending on the
degree of happiness and unhappiness that it experiences, it will
gradually perfect its sensitivity and its capacity to love. It will
gradually discard egosentiments and develop feelings of love. It
will be more and more clear about its feelings and will also be
firmer when it comes to living in accordance with what it feels. It
will also gradually show more respect for the freedom of feeling
of others.

What are the most important egosentiments that interfere with

feelings as a couple?
There are different ones. The main one is attachment and from it
derive other egosentiments such as absorption and victimhood,
jealousy, resentment and spite, sentimental obsession, guilt in
love, fear of love and sentimental confusion.

Can you explain to me what each of these egosentiments

consists of?
Yes, of course. Let’s start with attachment. Although we have
talked about it before, we will talk about it in more depth now.
Attachment is what is commonly known as “possessive love”. The
person suffering from attachment assumes that when a
partnership is created, it forces the partners to give up part of
their will and freedom in favor of each other and, at the same
time, that rights are acquired over the will and freedom of the
partner. We can differentiate between two facets of
attachment, active attachment and passive attachment.

Active attachment occurs in the person who considers the loved

one to be his or her property and therefore has certain rights over
him or her. It manifests itself as a desire to possess the will of the
other person and an eagerness to control his or her life so that the
other person does what one wishes. In other words, people with
60
active attachment believe they have the right to impose their will
on their partner’s will. They want to have someone who satisfies
their desires, who pleases them, and they believe they have the
right to demand this from the other person because they consider
this to be part of the obligations of the couple’s relationship.
Passive attachment happens when the person allows his or her
partner to infringe on his or her freedom and will because he or
she believes that the partnership obliges him or her to do so. The
person suffering from passive attachment has a tendency to turn
to the partner’s satisfaction and complacency, renouncing his or
her own freedom and will.

Traditional male chauvinist upbringing encourages attachment

in both variants, as it approves the active attachment of the man
and educates the woman to conform to living with passive
attachment. In a male chauvinist relationship, the husband
would act with active attachment, as he claims the right to
dominate the wife, imposing his will on her and restricting her
freedom, while the wife would act with passive attachment, as
she is forced to give up part of her will and freedom to her
husband.

Do you mean that, in general, men tend to act with active

attachment and women with passive attachment?
No. There are many cases that are the other way around. Active
and passive attachment can also occur in the same spouse and
in both at the same time. Whether there is active or passive
attachment has to do with the evolutionary level of each spirit.
Active attachment is most prevalent in the vanity stage, where
love is little known and is desired and needed more than loved.
One seeks in the relationship that the other satisfies one’s own
desires and needs. If this spirit in the vanity stage incarnates as a
man, it will take advantage of the male chauvinist upbringing to
justify its attitude of dominance, and if it is a woman, it will also
seek to dominate with other weapons.

Passive attachment is more common in proud people because

of their need to be loved and their greater capacity to love. They
believe that if they make an effort to please the other person they
61
will get them to love them, and as they have a great capacity to
love, they give a great deal in the relationship, to the point of
giving up their freedom and their will.

How can attachment be overcome?

Active attachment is overcome when we realize that wanting is
one thing and wanting to possess is another. That if you really love
someone you must start by respecting their will and their freedom
in all aspects of their life, just as much as you like your freedom
and your will to be respected.

Passive attachment is overcome when you realize that loving

someone does not imply giving up your freedom or your will, and
that it makes no sense to give them up because you want them
to love you, because if the person really loves you, they will not
ask you to give them up as a condition for loving you. The person
who demands a sacrifice in order to love you does not really love
you now and will not love you later, because true feelings arise
spontaneously, they are not conditional on you doing something
specific.

Absorption and victimhood

Absorption is the desire to attract the attention of others in order
to satisfy or please one’s own desires and needs. The person
dominated by absorption tends to think only of himself or herself
and demands and forces others to pay attention to him or her. In
a couple’s relationship, they often demand almost exclusive
attention from their partner, often violating their freedom and will,
by convincing them that this attention is rightfully theirs, because
of the emotional bond between them. If they do not get the
attention willingly, they often use victimhood to get it.

Victimhood is an egosentiment that characterizes a person who

seeks to attract the attention of others to himself or herself by
trying to arouse a feeling of pity, to make others feel sorry for him
or her, with the purpose of subjecting others to his or her will or
taking advantage of them. It is closely related to absorption, as
the victimizers are often absorbing, because they demand the
attention of others without respecting their free will. It is also
62
cowardly, for they do not fight to advance, but to get others to
take their place in their trials and responsibilities.
It is a very subtle form of manipulation, as the manipulated person
is often sucked in without realizing it. The victimizer often plays on
the feeling of guilt, that is, they try to make their victim feel guilty
if they do not agree to please or satisfy their demands.
For example, they often use their own illness to trap others. They
invent ailments or exaggerate their own to avoid responsibility or
to force others to take responsibility for them. Another argument
they often use to cause pity and justify their absorption is to say
that their discomfort is caused because they were not loved in
childhood, when it is not true that this is the main cause of their
discomfort. In relationships, they tend to look for compliant
spouses, who always accede to their demands. They make
themselves voluntarily dependent on their partner by their
behavior, pretending to be physically or psychologically unwell
all the time, in order to receive constant attention and for the
other person to bear the burden of everything. This behavior ends
up suffocating and exhausting the spouse, as they have
practically no life of their own, but their life revolves around
satisfying and pleasing the victimizer in the smallest details, as
they convince them that they cannot fend for themselves. They
themselves feed their discomfort and do not want to get better,
because they use it as a weapon to trap.

How do you overcome absorption and victimhood?

Renouncing to control the lives of others and respecting their free
will. This means that we must realize that we have no right to
demand or impose anything on anyone, least of all under the
pretext of having an emotional attachment to them. At the same
time, it is necessary to overcome cowardice, laziness and
comfort in order to face problems on one’s own, instead of
always looking for someone from outside to solve them.

Jealousy
We could define jealousy as an uneasiness that a person suffers
from the fear of losing someone they consider their property.
Jealousy in a couple’s relationship is characteristic of a person
with active, possessive and absorbing attachment, as they
63
consider their partner to be their property and demand exclusive
attention from them. This is why they become enraged when their
partner shows any attention or affection towards other people.
Jealousy usually manifests itself as a permanent distrust of the
partner and a recurrent obsession with the idea that the partner
may be unfaithful. This obsession leads to an exhaustive control
over the other person’s life under the pretext of avoiding the
possibility of infidelity, and makes them have animosity towards
those people who are related to their spouse, especially those
they consider as possible competitors as a partner. Jealousy can
feed other egosentiments, which are used to exert control over
the spouse’s life, such as aggressiveness, absorption, victimhood
or spite. The jealous person during the relationship is often the
scorned person when the relationship breaks up. The jealous
person reflects poverty and weakness of feeling. First, because
they do not pay attention to the other person’s happiness. They
think only of satisfying their desire for domination without thinking
of the great harm they cause to their partner. Secondly, because
they do not trust that the bond of feelings is sufficient to maintain
the union of the couple. That is why they resort to coercion and
intimidation. When there is true love, feelings are trusted and
there is no fear of interference from third parties. If a third person
appears in the relationship, it is a symptom of poor or non-existent
feelings.

How do you overcome jealousy?

Jealousy is a symptom of a lack of feelings, only active
attachment. Jealousy is overcome by recognizing this lack of
feeling and recognizing one’s own active attachment. To
overcome it, one must renounce the desire to possess the other
and respect the freedom of feeling. It is necessary to realize that
true love is free and cannot be forced, that it arises
spontaneously and that it is on the basis of this free and mutual
spontaneous feeling that the union will take place, without the
need for any obligation or effort to maintain it.

Resentment and spite

Resentment is an egosentiment characterized by animosity
64
towards someone we feel has wronged us. One feels hurt in one’s
self-respect, or feelings, and feels justified in harming the
wrongdoer because one expects satisfaction from that harm.
There is a desire for redress or revenge. When people act out of
resentment, they tend to harm not only those who have harmed
them, but everyone in general, because when resentment takes
over the people’s will, it makes them believe that all acts of others
towards them have a hidden intention to harm them. Resentful
people become extremely distrustful.

A variant of resentment is spite. In this case it is animosity towards

the partner because he or she decides to break off the
relationship.
The scorned person feels hurt in their feelings because they feel
that they have lost something that belonged to them and they
resent this loss. They want their ex-partner to suffer and often act
to harm them. The person feels that he or she is a victim and has
the right to hurt the other person, whom he or she considers to be
the cause of his or her pain. Their motto is: “For what you have
made me suffer I will make you suffer”.
The scorned person uses everything they consider a weapon to
make amends, victimhood, defamation, manipulation,
blackmail, threats, coercion or aggression.
They believe they are justified in taking actions that harm the ex-
partner, through aggression, threats, false accusations of
mistreatment, desire to dispossess the other of the material goods
that they have had in common, etc. If there are children in
common, they are used as a weapon, trying to impede their
relationship with the children or giving a bad image of the ex-
partner to the children so that there is discord between them. If
the ex-partner has a new relationship, the new partner may also
be the target of the scorned partner’s attack, especially if he or
she believes that his or her separation is related to this new
relationship.

But isn’t it normal that when someone is abandoned by their

partner they feel bad?
One can feel sadness, disappointment, frustration, loneliness or
nostalgia as a consequence of the break-up. But it is one thing to
65
feel sadness and quite another to wish suffering for the other
person and act to make him or her suffer. The scorned person also
reflects poverty and weakness of feeling, for the one who truly
loves never acts to harm the loved one, even when the loved
one makes a decision that one does not understand. This is
because there is still no respect for freedom of feeling, which
gives each person the right to decide with whom he or she does
or does not want to have a relationship. If there were respect for
freedom of feeling, there would be less suffering when a
relationship breaks up and less suffering for others.

How do you overcome spite?

It all revolves around the same thing, that is, overcoming
attachment and respecting freedom of feeling. As we said in the
case of active attachment and jealousy, we must realize that no
one belongs to anyone else. There is no right of ownership over
one’s spouse, and therefore no right to decide for him or her, let
alone to demand the continuity of the relationship if he or she
does not want it. Therefore, there is no justification for acting
against him or her.

Sentimental obsession or fascination

Obsession in personal relationships refers to the unfulfilled desire
to get or possess a person one has set as a goal. If the desire is
easily attainable, once achieved, interest is lost. But if it is costly,
it becomes a challenge. The desire increases and, when it is not
satisfied, it becomes an obsession. Often this does not reflect a
real feeling, but only a dissatisfaction and a need, which may be
sexual and/or affective. Therefore, obsession makes people lose
their sense of reality. Obsession is characteristic of capricious
people, who have lived a long time focused on satisfying their
whims and when these desires are not fulfilled, they become self-
obsessed. Also repressed people, who find it difficult to express
their feelings, are subject to sentimental obsession. They are often
fascinated by the person who is the object of their desire and
create a fantasy around him or her that does not correspond to
reality, but which feeds this desire and also the hope that if they
can achieve it, they can become happy.

66
The way you put it reminds me of what Don Quixote’s character
ends up feeling for Dulcinea del Toboso.
It is a good example of what fascination and sentimental
obsession are all about.
Obsession is all about the mind and little about feelings, to the
extent that one can come to believe that what one thinks is what
one feels. The lack of attention to feelings makes them not even
worry about whether they are reciprocated or not. They tend to
be people who do not act sincerely, as they are often afraid of
rejection and are unwilling to admit it. Their aim is to get the
desired person at any cost, even going beyond their will if
necessary. That is why they do not openly express their intentions,
but act cunningly to get what they want without giving the other
person a chance to say no. If they are physically beautiful, they
believe they can bend the other person’s will and feelings
through seduction. If they are intelligent, they study the other
person’s weaknesses and use that knowledge to win them over
through persuasion, flattery and satisfying the other person’s
needs and whims. If they are not very sensitive spirits, if they do
not succeed in these ways, they will use other methods that
violate free will even more, such as blackmail, intimidation,
coercion and violence.

What would happen if they got the person they wanted? Would
they be happy?
No. For a while they feel the satisfaction of having achieved what
they wanted. But when they realize that the reality does not live
up to their expectations, they suffer great disappointment and
quickly become disappointed with the relationship. In their eyes,
their partner, whom they once saw as a god or goddess, now
becomes ordinary and vulgar to them, and they gradually lose
interest in them. They often blame the other for the relationship
not working out, when in fact their dissatisfaction comes from the
lack of feeling behind the fascination. However, they can
become possessive if they perceive that other people are
interested in their partner, because they consider her a hard-
earned trophy that is their property. And then they neither live nor
let live, as they are neither happy in the relationship nor allow the
other person to free themselves from it and seek happiness
67
elsewhere. It is like the capricious child who kicks when the
parents do not agree to buy him a toy he wants and, when he
gets it, he plays for a little while and then gets tired of it. But if
another child is interested in the toy then he becomes interested
in it again, not because it is attractive to him again, but because
he does not want to give up what he consider his property.

How does one overcome sentimental obsession?

Active attachment, that is, the conception of love as a property
right, must be overcome. If the person’s feelings are not
reciprocated, he or she must accept this reality without trying to
force a change, since feelings are free and cannot and should
not be forced, as the only thing that would be achieved is to
suffer and make people suffer. If the obsession occurs in a
repressed person, it can be overcome by overcoming shyness
and repression, having the courage to express what you feel at
any given moment with sincerity, without hiding your intention for
fear of rejection. In this way, they will make their relationships real
and will not generate fantasies or obsessions about the person
they like, because if they are reciprocated, they will be able to
have a natural relationship with them, without the need for deceit
or manipulation, and if they are not, they will be able to turn the
page with a clear conscience, without clinging to the thought of
what could have been and was not because they did not try.

Sentimental guilt in the couple’s relationship

It is the feeling of guilt that occurs when a person tries to force
their own freedom of feeling, either because they force
themselves to feel what they do not feel, or because they force
themselves to repress what they feel. It occurs frequently in
people who suffer from passive attachment.
One of the situations in which sentimental guilt becomes evident
is when a person in a relationship realizes that he or she is not in
love, but believes that because the couple has formed a bond
and has spent time together, this obliges him or her to be in love
and to continue the relationship. In other words, they make an
effort to feel partner-love for their partner because they believe
it is their obligation. This effort includes giving the other person
what they are supposed to give them as their partner, such as
68
indulging them sexually, taking care of them and spending time
with them. And they do all this because they feel guilty for not
loving them, because they believe that they must compensate
them in some way for the lack of love on their part. Another
situation where sentimental guilt is evident is when a person falls
in love with another person but at the same time judges that this
love is wrong according to his or her moral code of conduct. Let
us take as an example the case of a person who falls in love with
someone who already has a partner, or this person already has a
partner. In this case the person feels guilty for loving this
“unsuitable” person whom he or she is not supposed to love and
forces himself or herself to repress or renounce this love that he or
she judges immoral or forbidden. In this way he or she condemns
himself or herself to be unhappy.

And what is a person supposed to do if this happens, I mean if

they fall in love with someone when they already have a partner?
They can do whatever they want. But if they want to be happy,
they will have to fight for their feelings.

Does it mean that they should break off the previous relationship
in order to unite with the person they love?
A loveless relationship is already broken by the mere fact that
love is missing. You just need to recognize it and act accordingly.
We have talked about this before. If you do not love your partner,
you should be honest and have the courage to tell him or her
and then formally end the relationship. This is independent of
whether you love someone else or not. If you also love someone
else, you should admit the reality of your feelings and then
express them to the loved one, in order to know whether there is
a correspondence of feelings or not, and then accept the other
person’s decision, whatever it may be. If there is a
correspondence of feelings and a willingness to be together as a
couple, nothing and no one can or should prevent it, least of all
the feeling of guilt, because spiritually it has no basis.

But I understand that a situation like the above often arouses

feelings of guilt. How does one overcome such sentimental guilt?
It awakens feelings of guilt because you have a mistaken
69
conception of what love as a couple is, of a “possessive” or
attachment type, and because you have created equally
mistaken moral norms around it, such as marriage with property
rights and the indissolubility of marriage. To overcome guilt, it is
necessary to realize that feelings are free and spontaneous, that
they cannot and should not be forced, and that they do not
obey any conventionalism. Everyone has the right to love freely
whoever they want, and not even we can force ourselves to feel
what we do not feel, or to stop feeling what we feel, without this
being anyone’s fault. Again we come to the same point, respect
for freedom of feeling. In this case it is about respecting one’s
own freedom of feeling and not punishing oneself unjustly for a
supposed crime that does not exist. No one should feel guilty
about feeling true love, even if it means transforming one’s life
from end to end, because the feeling of guilt, if not overcome, is
an obstacle that prevents one from feeling and living these
feelings fully and from enjoying the happiness that emanates
from them.

What is the fear of love?

As its name suggests, it is the fear that someone may have of
feeling love because they believe that this will cause them
suffering.
It usually occurs in people who have lived traumatic experiences
in the past, either because their ex-partner made them suffer or
because third parties acted to destroy an existing sentimental
relationship, and achieved their goal. It also occurs in people
who have received a repressive upbringing with feelings since
childhood that has limited their freedom of feeling. They are
afraid to feel freely because they fear some kind of retaliation
against them. They are also often conditioned to feel remorse if
their feelings are not correct from the point of view of the norms
of behavior they have learned.

People who are afraid of love tend to be distrustful when it comes

to relating to others, because they fear that others will use what
they know about them to hurt them. That is why they tend to be
reserved and find it difficult to make themselves known as they
are. They fear misunderstanding, rejection, blackmail, threats,
70
manipulation, slander, aggression and believe that if they do not
make themselves known, if they hide or repress their feelings, they
will prevent anyone from acting against them. That is why they
have a tendency to emotional isolation, because they believe
that this is the best way to avoid being harmed.

So emotional isolation is a good weapon to avoid being hurt, isn’t

it?
No. The fear of emotional suffering causes the person to cover
themselves under a shell that apparently protects them from the
emotional aggressions of others, but at the same time prevents
them from being happy, because this shell also prevents them
from expressing the love they feel for others and from perceiving
the love that other people may feel for them. In this case, the
damage is not caused by others but by themselves, but it is
nonetheless a very intense suffering.

Can you give an example of how isolation creates suffering?

Yes, imagine that an emotionally isolated person meets their
kindred soul and the kindred soul approaches them with the
intention of expressing their feelings. Under normal conditions
both would be able to express their own feelings and feel the love
of the other, and this would make them happy. But the person
who is isolated, because of fear and mistrust, does not perceive
the love given to them and at the same time represses their own
feelings of love. And this is what makes them suffer. At the same
time they make their kindred soul suffer because they prevent
them from transmitting their love and because they does not feel
loved either. Their kindred soul will probably feel frustrated and
confused because they do not understand what is going on. They
may even feel guilty for their suffering, be afraid to express their
feelings and even question whether they are reciprocated, so
one may give up trying to start a relationship with the other. And
so, because of emotional isolation, which stems from fear and
mistrust of love, two kindred souls who could have been happy
together end up going their separate ways and continue to
experience no happiness.

But isn’t it true that there are people who have had no bad
71
experiences in life with regard to love relationships and yet are
still afraid to love or to fall in love? What is the reason for this fear
in these cases?
Emotional trauma can come from a previous life. Even if the
circumstances of the past are not retained in the memory, if the
trauma has not been overcome, it remains impregnated in the
spirit and is therefore retained in later life, and manifests itself in
the form of fear. People with a fear of love have no illusion about
life, because they believe that happiness cannot exist for them,
and they do not trust that anyone will truly love them. They feel
like the stray dog that has been beaten for a long time by an
abusive owner from whom it managed to escape. One day this
dog comes across some sensitive people who take pity on it and
decide to take it in for loving care. When one of them comes to
pet it, the fear of mistreatment makes the dog believe that the
hand that rises to pet it is a hand that rises to mistreat it and it runs
away terrified from the people who could have given it a better
life. This is what happens to many people who, because of fear,
lose their chance to be happy in life.

How can isolation and fear of love be overcome?

First of all by recognizing that one is afraid and that because of
fear one isolates oneself. One can overcome fear and overcome
isolation by allowing the free expression of one’s feelings, by
having the courage to fight to live in accordance with them, by
trusting in them when making decisions in life without thinking
about the opinion of others. No matter how difficult the
circumstances may seem, one should never give up one’s
feelings, nor repress them, because this is the only way to be
happy. It is necessary to regain faith and hope in love.

But there are people who, despite courageously fighting for their
feelings, do not achieve their goal of living together with the
person they love, or do not manage to free themselves from
forced relationships because other people prevent them from
doing so. We have already talked about gender-based violence
and the women who have been murdered for defending their
right to freedom of feeling. Have they failed in their fight?
You never fail when you fight for your feelings. If, because of
72
human misunderstanding and selfishness, that person does not
get to taste the happiness of love on the physical plane, rest
assured that they will be rewarded on the spiritual plane. And the
courage they showed in their struggle to live according to what
they felt will be an evolutionary achievement that will live on
forever in their spirit. They will have clarity and courage of feeling,
valuable spiritual qualities hard-won in the trials they have
experienced in their incarnations.
These will be qualities that they will manifest from then on and
forever, and this will help them to be happy and prevent them
from falling into the traps that made them unhappy in the past.

Sentimental confusion
Sentimental confusion is an emotional state that arises when
people force themselves to feel what they do not feel, or to
repress what they really feel, or both. If they persist in this attitude
for a long time, there comes a moment when they can no longer
distinguish between what they really feel and what they force
themselves to feel. And this is the confusion that these people
have, that they confuse feeling with “must-feel” and substitute
feeling for obligation. People who force themselves to feel what
they do not feel, suffer because this obligation to feel exhausts
them and generates emptiness, since feelings cannot be forced,
they either occur spontaneously or not at all. They can also suffer
from the repression of a true feeling, because they believe that
they should not or do not have the right to feel it. However, the
self-deception motivated by sentimental confusion makes them
believe that they suffer from remorse for having awakened an
inappropriate feeling, that this is the cause of their unhappiness
and that they must struggle to eliminate it.

Sentimental confusion often occurs in people who have nullified

their freedom of feeling. One of the reasons that nullify their
freedom of feeling may be that they have been brought up
according to a moral code that is repressive of the feelings they
have assimilated as their own. In this case their sensitivity is
strongly conditioned by the moral norms of that code. It may also
be because they have gone through some painful circumstance
in their life related to feelings in which they were forced to
73
renounce them.

I find it difficult to understand what sentimental confusion is and

how it manifests itself. Could you give me an example to clarify it
better?
OK, so let’s take the case of a person who is married in church
and has been married for several years. During that time this
person has realized that he or she is not really in love and that is
not happy in that relationship. If this person felt free, this person
would quickly realize that he or she is not in love with his or her
partner, would let them know and would ask for a divorce.

But if this person has a religious upbringing, which believes that

marriage should be for life and cannot be broken, his or her sense
of duty and fear of a negative reaction from others will force him
or her to continue the relationship. He or she may make the
decision to force himself to love his or her spouse because he or
she believes that it is also a moral obligation to “love forever the
person to whom you are joined in marriage”. This person will strive
to please him or her in every way so that the partner does not
realize that he or she is not in love, and this person will convince
himself or herself that he or she is making all these sacrifices out
of love. The fact that it is a sacrifice and that he or she
experiences it as an obligation actually reflects the fact that
there is no love, because the one who feels true love does not
experience giving himself or herself to the other as a sacrifice but
as an act that he or she does freely and that generates happiness
for him or her.

Another option to which one may resort is to justify the break-up

by a bad attitude of the spouse, in this way the responsibility for
the break-up is placed on the spouse, thus exonerating oneself
of having failed in their duty. In other words, “I love him but I
cannot go on living with him because I feel that he does not love
me, does not pay attention to me or has done this to me and I
cannot forgive him”.

Another option is to make the spouse’s life miserable so that he

or she takes the decision to leave the relationship. In this way, the
74
one who formally fails in the sense of duty-feeling is the other and
he or she is exempted from his or her responsibility for the breakup
of the marriage. In the eyes of others, one will make the other
person believe that they are the victim and the spouse is to
blame, when the opposite is true.

In this way, a situation of emotional conflict that had a clear origin

“I don’t love my partner” and a very simple solution “I’m leaving
the relationship”, because of sentimental confusion becomes a
monumental mess that causes suffering to oneself and to others.
In other words, reality has been falsified by the refusal to
recognize one’s lack of feelings and the cowardice to
contravene the religious moral code.

How can sentimental confusion be overcome?

By going deep into oneself with total sincerity in order to know
how to distinguish what are true feelings from what are
obligations acquired through repressive education. And once
one is clear about one’s feelings, one must have the courage to
live as one feels, without being influenced by the opinions of
others, disassociating oneself from all the repressions and
prejudices of one’s upbringing, because if they violate the right
to freedom of feeling, they are wrong rules and precepts from a
spiritual point of view and do not deserve to be taken into
consideration.

75
RELATIONS WITH THE CHILDHOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW OF
LOVE

Are there any measures that could be applied at the societal

level that would allow humanity to move forward spiritually
faster?
Yes, love the children and try not to hurt them, either physically or
emotionally. Never humiliate them. I warn you that from a spiritual
point of view one of the most serious crimes that exists is the
mistreatment of children. Allow children to be free, to express
their feelings, to play and to learn through play. If you raise a
generation of children with love your world will change quickly,
because love changes the world. You will not change the world,
they will change the world because of the love they have known.

Any advice on how best to deal with children?

Have you never been children? Put yourselves in their place.
Remember when you were children, the good and the bad.
Remember the bad things that were done to you so that you
don’t repeat them and the good things so that you can take
them as an example. And here we are not only talking about
physical abuse, but also about emotional abuse, because there
are many people in your world who emotionally abuse children,
starting with their own children, although very few people will
admit it. They are so wrapped up in their own problems that they
do not have a minimum of sensitivity to realize the harm they are
doing to their children. They think that children, just because they
are children, do not understand things as adults do and are
therefore less sensitive, so they have no compunction in dealing
with them, and they take out all their frustrations on them.
However, the opposite is true: children are more vulnerable and
sensitive to physical and emotional harm than adults, so more
emphasis should be placed on treating them as respectfully and
lovingly as possible. Accept and love them as they are.

Do not set any conditions for loving them. There are people who
do not love their children, they only use them to give themselves
importance, to boast about them because they are intelligent,
because they have some quality that makes them better in the
76
eyes of others, and if they do not have these qualities they look
down on them, and this greatly affects their self-esteem. He who
truly loves his children loves them as they are, whether they are
more or less handsome, more or less intelligent, more or less
determined.

Some people think that physical punishment is necessary to

educate children. What do you think about this?
Then they will also be in favor of their boss giving them a slap in
the face from time to time if they feel they have not done their
job properly.

Well, I don’t think they would be very happy about it, to be honest.
I think the normal thing to do would be to report the boss for
mistreatment at work.
Of course they don’t like it, because nobody likes to be hit. If you
consider hitting an adult a criminal and deplorable act, why
don’t you have the same criteria when adults hit children, who
are also weaker and cannot defend themselves? What you do
not want for yourselves, do not do to others, especially not to the
weakest and most defenseless, which are children. How sad it is
to observe how some parents, when their children hit other
children, punish them by doing the same thing they have just
forbidden them to do, that is, hitting them. What can the child
learn when he sees the adult doing the same thing he is censuring
himself, apart from the fact that the strongest is the one who
imposes his law through violence? Never hit a child and never use
the excuse that it is for his or her own good, to educate and teach
him or her discipline. Those who use physical punishment do not
educate, they only show their inability to educate, their lack of
tact, patience, tenderness and gentleness towards children. If we
fight against abuse and gender violence, equal or more
emphasis should be placed on fighting against child abuse.

Well, I believe that in many countries today, child abuse is a

punishable offense and the adult is punished if it is proven that the
child has been abused.
Yes, especially in the West, and this is a major step forward. The
problem is that it is often difficult to prove that a child is being
77
abused, because the evidence of abuse is not obvious. An adult
who has been abused has the capacity to defend himself and
file a complaint if he has been assaulted, but children need an
adult to defend themselves, and if the abuse occurs in the family
environment, who is going to defend them if those who are there
to protect them are their tormentors? Moreover, your society is
still excessively tolerant of minor physical punishment, as many
people consider a slap, a smack or a slap on the bottom to be
acceptable, although I am sure that if it were done to them, they
would not find it funny. Let everyone think to themselves how it
would feel to be the object of the treatment they give to children.
This will help you to be more sensitive to them.

Some people argue that the ideal would be not to use physical
punishment and agree with limiting its use, but that there are
children who are very rebellious and do not listen to reason, and
that in these cases it is necessary to have a “heavy hand”, that is,
to apply more forceful measures. What do you think about this?
Those who believe that educating their children, or children in
general, means imposing oneself on them and, in order to submit
them to their will, use verbal or physical aggression with the aim
of scaring them so that, out of fear, they end up obeying, reflect
their own incapacity and spiritual immaturity. When there is love,
sensitivity and understanding, there is always another way of
doing things, but if there is not, any excuse is a good one to bring
out the bad attitudes one carries inside.

But isn’t it true that many of the adults who abuse children were
themselves abused as children? I mean, they have not had a
good example to follow.
In such cases they should remember how they felt when they
were abused and how it hurt them to be treated with contempt
and insensitivity, so that they will try not to repeat with their
children or with any other child what they did not like for
themselves. There are many people who have been abused,
physically or psychologically, as children to a greater or lesser
extent, because in your world selfishness still prevails in all aspects.
Those who have taken good note of the experience and
remember the suffering they experienced will try to spare their
78
children, and childhood in general, the suffering they have
experienced.

What are the alternatives for education without resorting to

heavy-handedness?
Play is the way in which children learn in a natural way without
the need to force them. Through play, children can be taught
values and knowledge of all kinds. If they have acted negatively,
the first step is to talk to them so that they become aware of the
negative act they have committed. There is a very simple
question that can help them to reflect: how would you feel if
someone had done the same thing to you as you have done?
For example, if they have hit another child, a good argument to
induce them to reflect on this is to ask them “do you like being
hit?” It is necessary to encourage dialogue and reflection in the
resolution of conflicts, to help the child to become aware, to
understand where the problem lies in their actions and to offer
them the possibility of repairing the damage they have done. In
fact, there are educational currents in your world that act in
accordance with this philosophy. But for this to happen, it is
necessary that the child receives more attention than is usually
the case.

Some people think that education today is worse than in the past.
That children now learn little because these new educational
methods are too soft and all they do is make children tease their
teachers and pay little attention in class. What do you think about
this?
They are completely wrong. It is true that some people, especially
those with a rigid way of being, seem to be nostalgic for the
education of the past. They are the ones who tend to agree with
the proverb “spare the rod and spoil the child”. In times past,
religious schools were highly valued by some parents because
they had a reputation for educating with “discipline”, as God
intended. In reality, what they called “educating with discipline”
consisted of forcing obedience on students through fear, threats
and physical punishment, making the lives of these students bitter
who, more than children, were frightened little recruits whose
faces had lost all hint of the spontaneity, sensitivity and joy of
79
childhood. And all this, moreover, was done in the name of God.

But this education, although it may have made children more

submissive and obedient, did not make them smarter, happier or
freer. These children who have grown up with fear in their bodies
as adults have many shortcomings. If they have not overcome
the trauma of childhood, they tend to have difficulty expressing
feelings, low self-esteem and are prone to emotional problems,
although they may still remember the list of the Goths Kings by
heart, as their lives depended on it.

It is also questionable whether the students of the past were more

intelligent and better educated than those of today, as in the
past there was a strong emphasis on memorizing content and
little on logical reasoning. The appropriateness of educational
content was also questionable, the resources allocated to
education were less, and the length of compulsory schooling was
also shorter. Current education aims for children to have a
greater capacity for reflection and thinking, to memorize less and
reason more. On the other hand, the countries that show better
academic performance rates and lower school failure rates are
not those that opted for discipline-based educational models,
but rather the opposite, those that apply progressive educational
models. The difference is that they invest more human and
material resources in education than other countries. Finland, the
country with the best educational model in the world, is a clear
example of what I am telling you.

And why do some parents say they prefer an education with

more discipline, if it is not true that it is more effective?
Look, what happens is that often the problem is not the children
but the parents themselves, because many parents don’t know
their children’s feelings or their emotional needs. They suffer from
sentimental ignorance. They think that by feeding their children,
taking them to the doctor when they are sick, providing for their
material needs and getting them into a good school so that they
have a good education, they have done everything as parents.
They still lack something fundamental, and that is to take care of
the emotional care of their children. It is sad to observe how many
80
parents are bothered by their own children and therefore do not
spend time with them or express affection and understanding.
Rather, they are overwhelmed when they are with them, irritated
by everything they do and do not pay attention to them. In
addition, there is a common tendency for some parents to value
their children according to their academic merits. Some parents
only worry about their children if they get bad grades or if they
get sick.

This makes children feel unwanted and try to get their parents’
attention. They may use the tactic of lowering their academic
performance because they know that in this way parents will pay
attention to them. Or it simply happens that children feel so
emotionally bad that they lose interest in everything, including
their studies. Due to ignorance and lack of attention towards their
children, parents believe that their children’s problem is that they
are lazy in their studies and that they need to go to a school
where more discipline is imposed, with more authoritarian
teachers who force them to study more. And the problem is not
in the school but in the lack of attention from parents.

But is there anything wrong with wanting children to study, so that

when they grow up they will have a means to earn a living?
There is nothing wrong with wanting children to study. But this
should not be used as an argument for loving them more or less.

If they are only valued if they are intelligent and good students,
children can have problems with their self-esteem and also feel
under excessive pressure to study. Children should be loved
unconditionally as they are and cared for emotionally so that
they can be happy.

Sometimes it also happens that the adult tries to make the child
conform to rules that are absurd, as they greatly limit their
freedom and spontaneity, and then the child rebels against
these rules, which he or she considers unfair. It is absurd to ask a
child not to play or to sit still permanently. As they are unfair, it is
impossible to sustain them through reasoning, so some parents
resort to imposition and coercion.
81
So should children be allowed to do whatever they want, even if
what they want is harmful to themselves or others?
Not everything. Use common sense. Everything in its own time.
Children’s freedom and responsibility should increase as they
grow older and acquire greater abilities. When children are
young they are not aware of many of the dangers, they cannot
be left alone in the street without supervision, as they can commit
imprudent acts such as crossing the street without looking. They
should be taught progressively what is dangerous for them and
what is dangerous for others. They must be taught to respect
other children, not to hit, not to insult, to assume the
responsibilities of their age, such as doing their homework, picking
up their toys when they have finished playing, etc. No more and
no less than a child can assume according to their age, always
trying to be respectful, understanding, affectionate and patient
with them, and respecting their freedom and sensitivity.

But where is the limit? For example, if the child does not want to
go to school, or to do homework, should he or she be forced or
left alone?
Use your common sense. Instead of trying to force them to do
things, talk to them, talk to them about the importance of
learning, stimulate them, share with them the time to do their
homework, make it fun and enjoyable and you will see that the
child will respond much better than if you force them to do it.

And how can we get the child to learn what is necessary but at
the same time boring or tedious?
Make it fun and share this moment with them, make them feel
cared for and supported in what they are doing, as this stimulates
them to continue. We have already said that children have fun
playing and through play they can be taught many things
without finding it tedious, and so they themselves will want to
learn because learning will be fun for them.

What should education be like at home, in the family?

Spend time with your children, play with them, talk to them about
their things, their problems and worries. Always be open to answer
82
their questions. Remember that they are discovering the world
and that in order to learn they need to ask everything, although
it may seem obvious to you, for them it is not and if they see that
you are making fun of them they will hold back. Be very patient
with them. Allow them to play whenever possible, because for
children, playing is their life and if you stop them from playing you
are doing them a lot of harm. Constantly show them your feelings
in an expressive way, with words, kisses, caresses and hugs. Allow
them to develop their personality freely, do not impose on them
the personality you would like them to have. Love them as they
are and help them to gradually polish their selfishness and to
develop their sensitivity and affection without restrictions. Do not
allow your adult problems and worries, which have nothing to do
with them, to interfere in their lives.

But aren’t there times when if you are too benevolent with your
child, they become demanding and capricious and use tantrums
to get their own way? What can you do in such cases?
It is true that there are parents who allow children to do even
what is dangerous for them and give in to their every whim, out
of laziness, weakness of character or because they no longer
listen to the child’s complaint, and this causes the child to
become demanding and capricious and to use his or her
cunning to bend the parents’ will. In such cases, act firmly, do not
give in to the blackmail the child tries to use, but never respond
with violence or aggression. When the child acts in a despot-like
manner, that is when you should pay the least attention to him or
her. If they notice that when they act in this way they are ignored
and do not get anything they demand, they will eventually tire of
it. Help them to become aware of their own selfish attitudes
through dialogue and reflection.

Any recommendations for future parents?

Yes, that they try to conceive their children with love, so that they
come into the world with the certainty that they will be loved,
cared for in all aspects of their lives, especially emotionally. I
assure you that if the children who come into the world were
conceived with love, the suffering in the world would diminish
enormously.
83
I think things have improved nowadays compared to earlier
times. I mean that today’s parents are more aware of their
children’s needs, am I wrong?
It is true that there has been a certain level of progress. In earlier
times, children were brought into the world mostly through the
ignorance and unconsciousness of the parents. They were
brought into the world without the explicit wish of the parents.
They came into the world accidentally, because couples had
sexual relations without any form of contraception, because
there was neither the means nor the education that exists today.
As a result, they gave birth to as many children as biologically
possible, and this meant that the children were often born in very
difficult material circumstances. The only concern most parents
had for their children was to ensure their survival, while there was
little or no emotional care. These were not the best conditions in
which to come into the world, but since it is necessary for spirits to
incarnate in the material world in order to learn and evolve, they
took whatever opportunities were available to them. The
sensitivity of those spirits was less developed than it is now, both
in parents and children, and even if the children received little
emotional and sentimental attention, their suffering was also
tempered by the lesser sensitivity.

Today, in many countries, especially in the West, things have

changed. The percentage of children who come into the world
accidentally, without the will of the parents, has decreased.
Many are now conceived with the will and awareness of the
parents to have them. Because of the greater economic well-
being in the West and the lack of large numbers of offspring, the
survival and material care of the children is guaranteed by the
parents. They will be children who do not go hungry, thirsty, cold
or suffer from diseases caused by malnutrition and lack of
hygiene. But something fundamental is still missing, which is to
conceive children out of love and with love. Most children are still
conceived for reasons other than love.

What are the reasons other than love that drive parents to have
children?
84
Often this is done because there is a kind of obligation to
continue the family lineage, or because it is convenient for the
children to take care of the parents when they are older. There
are couples who reach a certain age and still do not wish to have
children because it implies making changes in their lives that they
are not very well disposed to. But they have them anyway
because biologically their chances of conceiving decrease with
age. As the saying goes, “they are past their prime”. Sometimes
children are conceived as a way of trapping the spouse and
forcing them to continue the relationship when they fear a
breakdown of the relationship, or as a desperate attempt to save
a relationship that is not working.

What are the consequences for these children conceived without

love?
Many of these children who come into the world conceived
without love will suffer from the lack of love from their parents, in
the form of mistreatment, misunderstanding, neglect, coldness,
and all of this will cause them to suffer greatly, for the children
coming into the world today are more advanced and sensitive
spirits than in times past, the fruit of learning acquired in a
multitude of incarnations. Therefore, their level of suffering in the
face of emotional neglect, in the face of psychological
discomfort, is greater than in times past. And this is the cause of
most of the suffering of children in the West, who are not loved by
their parents, even though the parents try hard to believe that it
is always the child’s problem because he or she has a bad
attitude. Many of these suffering children develop emotional
trauma or physical illnesses as a result of this suffering due to lack
of love, without most parents being aware of it. It is therefore
necessary for parents to become more aware and sensitive to
the emotional well-being of their children and in this way they will
avoid many of the sufferings that now plague them.

85
LOVING THE NEIGHBOR IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW OF LOVE

We have focused a lot on personal relationships, especially

relationships with couples and children, but I understand that
unconditional love goes beyond personal relationships.
Of course. There are no limits to love. The more a spirit has the
capacity to love, the more people it is capable of loving,
regardless of whether there is a blood relationship or not. The goal
is to achieve unconditional love, which embraces all beings in
creation without distinction of any kind. Jesus already spoke to
you about this when he told you to love your neighbor as yourself,
and when he said to love your enemy.

And why is it so hard for us to evolve? I mean, isn’t there a way to

get to that evolutionary level more quickly that allows us to love
unconditionally, as Jesus said?
Everything we talked about revolves around this. To evolve to the
levels of Jesus, much emphasis must be placed on eliminating
selfishness and developing the feelings. And this is not easy. It is
not a job of a single lifetime. It is hundreds of thousands of years
of evolution, thousands of incarnations. Moreover, although all
spirits incarnate for this purpose, once they are incarnated, they
do not become conscious of what they did it for.

Most people’s consciousness only extends as far as a physical life,

and while material fortune smiles on them, they devote their lives
to the satisfaction of material desires.
They take any existential reflection as meaningless talk, a waste
of time. They do not want to make any changes because they
are not interested in leaving the capricious life they lead.

Some evade their own inner concerns by developing their

intelligence under materialistic scientific education, and scoff at
or consider useless any kind of existential enquiry.

There are others who confuse spirituality and religion, and allow
themselves to be carried away by religion because it is an easy
path, believing that following rituals is enough to achieve a
privileged place in “heaven” and substituting spiritual work with
86
themselves for religious fervor, under the delusion that the latter is
pleasing to God.

There are people who do awaken existential concerns within

themselves. Often this awakening is a consequence of having
experienced circumstances in life of great suffering to which they
are not resigned and which they want to find an explanation for.
They are not satisfied with the biased or incomplete explanations
provided by religion or materialistic science about the meaning
of life. But they fall into despair when they do not find satisfactory
answers to their questions.

The conclusion of all this is that, out of disinterest, ignorance,

disbelief, fanaticism or hopelessness, most people fail to find the
true meaning of life, and thus live without understanding life or
learning from it, because they do not use it to evolve, that is, they
make little effort to detach themselves from selfishness and to
develop their feelings.

As I understand it, Buddhism talks about the cause of human evil

being due to the existence of desire in human beings, and that
the annulment of desire will bring inner peace and spiritual
advancement. What is your opinion on this?
Well, it is necessary to differentiate where the desire comes from.
A selfish desire is not the same as a desire motivated by feelings.
Some people confuse the elimination of selfish desire with the
elimination of all desire, and so they come to the conclusion that
they have to cancel their will in order to advance spiritually, and
this is a tremendous mistake that many people take advantage
of to manipulate others. The one you call the Buddha knew that
the cause of human evil was selfishness and that the elimination
of selfishness was necessary for spiritual advancement to take
place, and he referred to selfish desire as that impulse which
human beings must try to eliminate from within themselves in
order to become happy. But as always, as time goes on, words
and teachings are misinterpreted, and the spiritually insufficiently
advanced being has difficulty in distinguishing the true from the
adulterated, and takes an adulterated teaching for good just
because it is wrapped in the guise of spirituality.
87
Any examples?
The attitude towards sex. There are people who believe, because
they have been led to believe so in many religions, that sexual
desire, because it is desire, must be eliminated if one wants to
advance, and they make every effort to repress their sexual
desires in all circumstances. This is a great mistake, since sexual
desire can also be awakened as a manifestation of the love of a
partner, which brings happiness and of which they are wrongly
depriving themselves. Those who understand well will realize that
it is the sexual desire that comes from lust or lasciviousness, that is,
selfish sexual desire, which one must fight against in order to
overcome. In this case the breakthrough lies in bringing the desire
for sexuality in line with the feeling and not as a manifestation of
a vice. Do not, therefore, confuse the elimination of lust or
lasciviousness, that is, the manifestation of selfish sexuality, with
puritanism, which regards every manifestation of sexuality as
pernicious. We have already said that it is also a manifestation of
feeling, a reflection of the love of a couple. Puritanism is not
holiness but prejudice and repression, and the one who is most
scandalized by others is almost always the one who hides the
most from himself in prejudice and repression.

You said earlier that some people confuse spirituality with

religion. What is the difference between spirituality and religion?
Some people think they are the same.
It is not the same thing. Spirituality is an individual quality and
capacity of the spirit that drives it to evolve more and more. To
evolve implies freely developing the capacity to love and in this
way to reach progressively greater levels of feeling, sensitivity,
awareness, comprehension, wisdom and happiness, in order to
know, among other things, what is the meaning of one’s
existence and that of what surrounds them, the development of
their link with the rest of the beings of creation and their Creator
and how the universe of which they are a part works, including
the laws that govern it.

Religions are human organizations with a hierarchical structure

that are grouped around a series of more or less correct
88
dogmatic beliefs that are not open to discussion, that function
according to the criterion of authority, that is, the one with the
most authority within the hierarchical structure is the one who has
the power to decide which are the true and appropriate beliefs
that others should believe in.

How is it possible that, if love of neighbor is the basis of most

monotheistic religions, and with so many people in the world
believing in God at the same time, there is so much selfishness
and lack of love in the world?
We have talked about this before. In many religions love is only a
dead word that is used as a hook to catch, but it is not lived or
manifested by example. It is also overshadowed by other rules
and beliefs that are given greater prominence, many of them in
contradiction to love itself and the other spiritual laws. For
example, forcing faithful people to believe unquestioningly in a
set of dogmas violates the law of free will, as it prevents freedom
of belief. Religions are a phenomenon linked to human
selfishness, as they manipulate individual spirituality to suit the
selfishness of a few. In times past, the authorities of the dominant
religions imposed their creed by force and those who did not
submit were annihilated. Their power was such that there was no
possibility of dissent without risking one’s life. Today, although with
less force, in some countries religion is still a yoke that stifles human
freedom.

Do you mean that religions are an obstacle to the evolution of

human beings towards love?
What I mean is that human selfishness is an obstacle to evolution
in love, for it is so skillful that it infiltrates human spirituality to
adulterate and manipulate it, and the result of this mixture of
spirituality and selfishness is what gives rise to religions. We have
already mentioned that many of the religions have their starting
point in the missions of more evolved beings who transmitted true
spiritual messages that managed to penetrate the hearts of the
people, but that over time these messages were adulterated and
deformed by unevolved spirits with a desire for prominence and
ambition with the purpose of satisfying their lust for power and
wealth. Under the influence of these selfishly driven beings, true
89
spiritual laws are substituted for the laws of selfishness which are
cloaked in apparent spirituality with the trappings of rituals and
ceremonies.

Any examples of how true spiritual laws are replaced by the laws
of selfishness?
Yes, in your world, you have replaced the law of spiritual justice
with the selfish “law of the funnel”, that is, the wide for yourselves
and the narrow for others. Each one sees as fair what favors
oneself and as unfair what favors others. Although it is the same
thing, you see it differently depending on whether it is you who
do it or others who do it. You justify your own selfish actions and
criticize those of others with fervor, even though they are the
same thing. And the one who feels he has the most power to act
is the one who ends up imposing his law on the law of others. For
example, those in power often enjoy privileges that others do not
have, such as disproportionate salaries, abusive pensions and tax
exemptions, while the rest of the citizens are held to much stricter
standards.

You have substituted the law of love for the selfish law of the
satisfaction of wealth and success, and so you understand doing
good to mean acting to achieve the satisfaction of your material
interests and desires, success, fame, a comfortable life with an
abundance of whims and comforts, even at the cost of the
suffering of your fellowmen, and you understand evil when you
experience the slightest deprivation of those. But this is not so. To
do good, rightly understood, is to act in harmony with the law of
love, and to do evil reflects acts contrary to the law of love,
generally selfish acts which generate suffering and unhappiness.

You have replaced the law of free will with the law of the
strongest. That is to say, the stronger forces the weaker to do as
he pleases.
That is why in your world much attention is given to who says
what, what their position, their title, their rank, and not whether
what they say is true or not. The humble ones are not listened to
even if they speak the truth, while the powerful ones, the ones
who have the fame, the success, the ones who exalt themselves
90
with ranks and titles invented by human beings, can say
whatever they want and whatever they say will be taken into
consideration. Many of these celebrities convey false messages
that serve to manipulate and fanaticize people, and yet they are
considered to be above others. This dominance of the “law of
the strongest” and little respect for the law of free will is evident
when it comes to religious authorities. How is it possible that
people who consider themselves spiritually advanced are the
most intolerant, uncomprehending, rigid, who only make it a
point to scrupulously follow rules and rituals and criticize those
who do not, who readily condemn others in their actions and
behavior, and who place so little emphasis on correcting
themselves in selfish bad habits? Is not tolerance and
understanding of the ideas of others a spiritual virtue? Where is
this virtue in them?

But I understand that at least today there are many people who
recognize these selfish behaviors, who recognize the
manipulation that has taken place of spirituality within religions,
and who are going on a search for true spiritual knowledge.
This is a good thing, but it is not enough to know. It is necessary to
recognize what is true and separate it from what is false, because
not all that glitters is gold, even if it bears a supposed stamp of
spiritual knowledge. The most important thing is to put into
practice in oneself what one learns about feelings and selfishness,
otherwise no progress will be made. I mean, do not confuse
spiritual advancement with the fact of knowing certain spiritual
knowledge. If the knowledge learned, which should serve to
advance the development of feelings, is used to give free rein to
selfishness, thinly disguised in the guise of spirituality, one falls into
the same trap into which the religious hierarchs have fallen.

What do you mean?

I mean that there are many people who put a lot of effort into
knowing and studying spiritual knowledge from different sources.
But if they then use the acquired knowledge for profit or as a way
of acquiring fame, admirers, prominence, believing themselves
to be better than others, what they are doing, instead of
developing their feelings, is giving free rein to their vanity. And this
91
is even more serious not only when one loses oneself, but also
when one contributes to confuse and divert others from the
spiritual path, for by their example they confuse those who follow
them. This is exactly what Jesus denounced in his time when he
called the Jewish priests “blind leaders of the blind”. This is why it
is very important to look at oneself first before one starts to
“preach” to others, for they who do not look at themselves first
and do not recognize their own selfishness and try to eliminate it,
are not in a position to set an example of selfless behavior to
others.

I could use an example to clarify this point.

I will tell you a story as an example of this.
In a class in a spiritual school there was a professor with his group
of one hundred students. They had been learning about the
different stages of selfishness in the process of evolution (vanity,
pride and arrogance) and how selfishness manifested itself in
each of these stages. As a final summary of the whole lesson, he
told them: “The main characteristic of vanity is the desire for
prominence, the desire to be more than others. The main
characteristic of pride is the fear of being known as you are. The
main characteristic of haughtiness is that, although they are the
most humble of all, they are still not totally humble”.
After the explanation, he asked each student, according to what
they had learned, to place themselves on one of these three
levels and then to anonymously write it down on a piece of
paper. He then asked them each to place the paper in a ballot
box in order to make a tally to collectively analyze the
evolutionary level of the class. The professor, after counting the
ballots and analyzing the results, said to the students: “80 of you
are in the vanity stage, 19 of you are in the pride stage, and only
one is in the haughtiness stage”. In light of the results, the students,
surprised and disgruntled, begin to murmur among themselves.
They ask each other what their assessment of themselves has
been. In agreement, they choose a spokesperson, who
addresses the professor to express his disagreement with the
results.
“Professor, we asked each other what each of us had written on
the paper and they do not coincide with the results that you have
92
indicated, because at least ten people have recognized
themselves as haughty while you have only counted one.
The professor says to them: “If you disagree, count the votes
yourselves”.
The students take the box with the ballots and count them, and it
turns out that 80 of them voted in the haughtiness stage, 19 voted
blank and one voted in the vanity stage.
In light of the results, the students’ spokesperson takes the floor
and says: “Did you see, professor? We were right, because the
majority of the students were in the haughtiness stage, as we told
you.
The professor replies: “You have certainly given the results of the
count, but you have not found the true result”.
“We don’t understand what you mean,” said the spokesman.

To which the professor gladly replied, “I’ll explain it to you right

now. The 80 who voted for haughtiness are in fact in the vanity
stage, a stage characterized by the desire to be more important
and to want to be more than others. Knowing that haughtiness
was the most advanced stage, they did not want to be the last
but the first in everything, and they identified themselves as being
in the highest stage. The 19 who voted blank are actually those
who are in the stage of pride, which is characterized by the fear
of making themselves known. That’s why they voted blank,
because of the fear of being known. And the only one who voted
vanity is actually the one who is in the stage of haughtiness,
because he is the most humble of all, because when in doubt he
placed himself on the lowest rung of all”.

So is lack of humility a characteristic of the haughty or not?

The lack of humility is present in all the stages, in the stage of
vanity, in the stage of pride, and in the stage of haughtiness, and
is more pronounced in the vain than in the other two, because it
is a less advanced stage. The fact is that it is very difficult to
become truly humble, and even spirits in the stage of haughtiness
have not succeeded in completely ridding themselves of it.
When we say that the haughty person is characterized by a lack
of humility, it is because he or she has already overcome other
defects and this remains the main defect to be overcome,
93
whereas the vain or proud person has other defects to overcome
before he or she is faced with overcoming his or her lack of
humility. Some people believe that by recognizing that they lack
humility they have already reached the stage of haughtiness. In
reality they identify with this stage not because they like to
recognize that they lack humility, but because it is a stage more
advanced than pride and vanity and they like to see themselves
on the highest rung of spiritual advancement, above others. And
this is a characteristic of vanity, wanting to be more than others
and not wanting to be less than anyone else.

It would be good if you could clarify exactly what the moral of

the above story is, because it is not clear to me.
What I wanted to bring out in this story is that you have great
difficulty in admitting your own selfishness. That is why you try to
conceal it, to keep it out of sight, rather than to try to really
improve it, and this causes you to stagnate hopelessly, because
he who does not want to admit his selfishness cannot overcome
it. That is why you take very badly the advice of people who want
to help you and who point out to you the manifestations of
selfishness in you. You only want to be showered with flattery, but
you do not want to hear the truth. You praise those who praise
you while you criticize those who tell you the truth for the purpose
of moving you forward. It is very difficult to move forward in this
way.

But isn’t it true that we are living in a time of spiritual awakening

and that there are many people eager to do something for
others?
There are many people today who say they want to awaken to
spirituality and want to do something for others. And that is good.
But before helping others you have to take a good look at
yourself and know if what you want to do is to help others or is it
to get admiration and recognition from others. If it is the latter,
then it is better not to do anything. It is good to look at yourself
first and see how far you are able to go. Helping people is not
easy and requires a lot of preparation. If you are not trained, you
may get tired at the first opportunity or you may confuse others
instead of helping them.
94
I understand from your words that each person has a capacity to
love and not everyone can do the same for others. But what is the
first step one can take if one truly wants to love one’s neighbor?
The first step must always be to recognize one’s own selfishness
and to place great emphasis on avoiding acting selfishly towards
others. If this step is not taken, it is not possible to move on to more
advanced stages. Normally, almost nobody wants to do the work
of going deep inside and recognizing the selfish part of oneself.
That is why they get stuck at the beginning of the path and
cannot go one step further.

There are people who start on the path of helping others in the
right way by receiving the spiritual help they need to do so. But it
often happens that people are not satisfied with what they
receive, but would like to receive more and to have more
capacity than they have because they feel good in that
situation. But the capacity of the inner self does not increase
overnight, but with a great effort, with a long time of evolution, it
requires many lifetimes of constancy in the elimination of
selfishness and the development of feelings. But there are many
people who want to bypass this personal work. They would like a
wand to magically touch them and turn them into magicians
capable of the greatest wonders. They would like to be filled not
only with love, but with the praise and admiration of others, and
this ambition drives them to believe that what they desire is a
reality. It is then that their own defect makes them believe that
the thoughts that their own selfishness suggests to them are a
message from spiritual guides, and that what is now being done
with the intention of gaining prominence is a selfless help to
others. The aim is no longer to advance spiritually, but only to
appear to do so. Some people are more aware of this than
others, for selfishness has very subtle and suggestive ways of
convincing us. If a person is not aware of this, they will believe
that they are advancing spiritually when in fact they are only
increasing their selfishness. There are forms of selfishness that
especially interfere with the development of love of neighbor,
and if not countered, people will replace the intention to love
their neighbor with the intention to take advantage of their
95
neighbor.

What are these forms of selfishness that interfere with the

development of neighborly love?
They are perfidy, envy, ambition and hypocrisy, self-seeking and
arrogance.

Can we talk about them now?

Yes.

Tell me about perfidy.

Yes. Perfidy or malevolence is the egosentiment that defines one
who acts with the will or intention to do harm on purpose, who is
aware of it and who finds a certain satisfaction or enjoyment
when he or she succeeds in causing suffering in others. The
perfidious person usually uses his or her intelligence to find ways
to do as much harm as possible without being discovered, and in
this way also develops hypocrisy. Perfidy feeds on other
egosentiments, such as envy or ambition, so that the perfidious
person is often both envious and ambitious.

Tell me about envy.

Envy is the egosentiment that manifests itself as aversion or
rejection towards those who possess something that one wishes
to obtain. That something can be a material possession or a
material, mental or spiritual quality. That is, one can envy
someone for their wealth (material possession), for their beauty
(material quality), for their intelligence (mental quality), for their
goodness or for their capacity to love (spiritual qualities).
Envy is most pronounced in vanity, since it is born of the desire to
be more than others, which causes one to constantly compare
oneself with others with the intention of being more than others.
The person trapped by envy is capable of hatching any plan to
humiliate, harm or criticize the one he or she envies. The envious
person rejoices in the misfortunes of others and is saddened by
their joys.

Does envy manifest itself equally at different levels of spiritual

advancement, or are there nuances?
96
There are nuances. Envy for material matters is usually
characteristic of the stage from primitive to advanced vanity,
while envy aroused by spiritual qualities occurs from advanced
vanity and pride, and even in haughtiness. The severe vain
person may envy both the material and the spiritual. The proud
person envies all the spiritual and sentimental.

How exactly does envy manifest itself in the vain person?

The vain person envies those who possess goods or qualities that
he himself does not have. The vain and envious person has a
tendency to humiliate the one he envies, to defame and criticize
him in front of others in order to create a bad image of him. In
other words, vain people transform reality to make others believe
that they are being harmed by the person they envy or to justify
or cover up their aggressions towards the person they envy. They
will try to achieve their aims of discrediting the people they envy
through suggestion, manipulation, victimhood, falsehood and
deception. If they do not succeed in this way, they may resort to
more direct measures, such as verbal aggression, intimidation,
blackmail, coercion and even physical violence. They convince
themselves that they are right and that their hatreds and
animosities are justified. They put the satisfaction of their desire
above all else and do not take into account the harm they may
be causing to others.

How does envy manifest itself in proud people and what exactly
do they envy?
Proud people, in contrast to vain people, do not usually envy
people for what they have materially, but rather for matters
related to feelings. The greatest cause of envy in proud people is
in emotional relationships. If they have not yet found love and are
not happy, they may be envious of the feelings of love that exist
between other people.
Let us take an example. The envious proud one falls in love with
a person. If this person does not reciprocate because he loves
someone else, then the envious person will envy the receiver of
that love, because he considers that the other person has what
he desires for himself. That is to say, he will arouse animosity
97
towards the person whom he considers his competitor, because
he considers that he has deprived him of his love. The proud
person, trapped by his envy of feelings, tries hard not to make his
sentimental reality known. He hides his feelings from others, while
at the same time subtly trying to get what he wants, without
openly expressing it, because he is afraid of rejection. He will try
to outdo his supposed rival to win the person he supposedly loves.
He may make use of gallantry, good manners, suggestion, charm
and persuasion. Faced with the impossibility of achieving his goal,
he withdraws into himself in sadness, anger and impotence. He
isolates himself and rejects the help that can be given to him to
get out of his situation. He can cause deeper wounds to feelings
than the vain one, because he knows feelings better and can use
his knowledge to hurt feelings. For example, he can plot to
generate discord between the couple and give the person he
loves to understand that their partner does not really love them.
If he succeeds in sowing doubt, he will take advantage of this to
become the surrogate. Blinded by envy, he does not realize that
he is violating the free will of the person he supposedly loves, as
he does not respect his loved one’s will and do not admit that his
feelings are directed at someone else and not at them.

How can envy be overcome?

First, by admitting that one is envious, by acknowledging it. The
proud are more aware of their envy than the vain, for they are
more aware of egosentiments. Unfortunately, envy is a very
common egosentiment in your world, and most of the envious do
not recognize themselves as such, and so they stagnate, for he
who does not recognize his bad habit cannot change it. To
overcome envy, one must renounce the desire to be more than
others, renounce the desire to possess what others have, and
realize that happiness does not depend upon taking anything
from others, but upon awakening one’s own qualities and
feelings. On the contrary, both perfidy and envy are a great
cause of unhappiness, a disease of the interior, since they feed
the most pernicious egosentiments and the most contrary to the
love of others, because they generate rejection towards others,
which can be of greater or lesser intensity. It can range from

98
antipathy, repulsion and resentment to hatred. The impossibility
of getting what one wants also generates anger, impotence and
sadness.

And how can we overcome perfidy?

It is an evil that is difficult to solve through understanding and
awareness, because the person who suffers from perfidy acts in
full awareness that he or she is causing harm. Perfidious people
are very determined to cause suffering. Generally, it is not until
they suffer in themselves what they have done to others that they
begin to be moved. In those moments of weakness and
vulnerability, an act of unconditional and unselfish love towards
them by those who were their victims in the past can be the
trigger for their change, because it unsettles all their mental
schemes. They are beings accustomed to always acting in a self-
interested way. They cannot assimilate that those they hurt so
much, having the possibility to take revenge, decide to forgive
them and help them. It is then that the perfidy usually collapses
and is usually replaced by a feeling of unshakeable loyalty
towards their former victims who granted them forgiveness and
helped them when they were in need of help, even though they
knew that they were not worthy of clemency or help.

Now tell me about ambition.

Ambition is a powerful desire to possess or dominate. If the
possession that is coveted is of a material kind, then it manifests
itself in the form of greed and avarice. That is, greed and avarice
are actually variants of ambition. Ambition for power and
domination over territories and people is another variant of
ambition. Ambitious people are also often envious, because they
aspire to be above everything and everyone and do not allow
anyone to overshadow them. Ambitious people are never
satisfied with what they are acquiring and feel an unsatisfied
desire to possess more and more. They believe that by achieving
the goals they set for themselves they will be happy. However,
once they achieve what they set out to achieve, they are not
satisfied, but always want more. So they look for an even more
excessive and difficult to achieve goal.

99
But aren’t some people ambitious for noble goals, such as world
peace or the eradication of hunger or war? Are they acting
wrongly?
These are not ambitions, but aspirations. The difference between
aspiration and ambition in the sense that we are using the word
here is that ambitious people are driven not by noble ideals but
by selfish ideals, and therefore has no scruples in their actions.
Ambitious people never stop in their desire to possess and
dominate, because they are never satisfied with what they have.
In other words, ambition is insatiable and boundless. Ambitious
people have no respect for any ethical or moral code. They have
the concept that the end justifies the means, and therefore do
not respect free will. This is why they tend to impose their criteria
on others and do not admit failure. They get very angry when
their expectations are not met and tend to look for more
aggressive and harmful ways to try to achieve their goal. That is
to say, if they cannot get what they want by the easy way, then
they do it by the hard way. This is why ambition is rarely satisfied
without harm to others.

How does one overcome ambition?

Realizing that this powerful desire to possess or to dominate does
not lead to happiness, but only generates turmoil and unrest in
oneself and suffering of all kinds in others. Unbridled ambition is a
most pernicious manifestation of selfishness. It is people
dominated by unbridled ambition who cause the greatest harm
and suffering to humanity, but also great karmic indebtedness to
themselves. The great criminals of humanity are the powerful who
claim to be the masters of the material world, who pull the strings
of international politics and finance as they please, for in their
eagerness to dominate the world they do not hesitate to make
decisions that will bring suffering and death to millions of people,
if their wealth and power are thereby increased. But they do not
realize that all the suffering they have caused will come back to
haunt them when they return to the spiritual plane.

All that they have striven to achieve, everything, absolutely

everything, they will lose when they leave the material world, and
100
what they will find when they pass into the spiritual world is an
enormous karmic debt, which will begin with the experience in
themselves of all the suffering that they have brought upon
others. And until they have repaired all the evil they have done,
their spirit will not cease to suffer, which may take them so long
that it may seem like an eternity.

Now tell me about hypocrisy.

More than an egosentiment in itself, hypocrisy is a manifestation
of vanity. It is the desire to appear to be what one is not, to show
a good image. The hypocritical person is one who does not wish
to advance spiritually, but only to appear to do so in order to be
praised and admired. They do not seek to change, but only to
give an outward image. That is why hypocrisy is a great enemy
of spiritual advancement, since the person does not work to
change and eliminate his or her selfishness, but only to hide the
selfishness from others and to give an image of false goodness.
They are often people who act cunningly to convince others that
they are really good and will act on behalf of others, when in fact
they are acting to satisfy their own selfishness. Hypocritical
behavior is very common in politics, especially at election time,
as all candidates strive to give a good image and the
appearance of wanting to improve the conditions of citizens in
order to convince them to vote for them. But once in power they
act to further their own interests or those to whom they owe
favors. But it is not only in politics, in all areas of life there is a
tendency to give a different image of oneself in order to take
advantage of others. That is why hypocrisy is a great enemy of
neighborly love, since there are many who pretend to love others
when behind this appearance of goodness they hide selfish
purposes, which may be desires for recognition, fame, wealth or
power.

And how can we tell the difference between someone who acts
with true kindness and someone who only pretends to?
Kind people act with sincerity and selflessness and maintain
consistency between what they say and what they do. The
hypocrite pretends and contradicts himself or herself constantly,
saying one thing and doing something quite different. This puts
101
them on display. For example, they often boast of being humble,
when people who are modest never boast of the good they do
for others. It is enough for them to do so to fill themselves up.
Meanwhile, hypocrites do nothing for anyone unless they get
something in return. Hypocrites will at some point make a mistake
and expose their selfish purpose, and at that point it will be
possible to unmask them.

And what can be done to overcome hypocrisy?

First of all, we must recognize that we have it and that we must
fight to overcome it. It would also be good to realize that in
reality, pretending all one’s life is exhausting and generates
emptiness and, therefore, unhappiness. We should also realize
that in the spiritual world there is no possibility of deception and
that in the spiritual world everyone is seen as they are and not as
they try to appear, which from a spiritual point of view is a futile
and useless effort. Hypocrisy is born out of the desire to be more
than others, which is why it is closely related to vanity and the
desire to be the center of attention. When this desire is
renounced, it can be overcome.

Can you talk to me now about the desire for the spotlight?
Yes, in fact, we have already talked about the desire for the
spotlight and we are not going to say too much about it, as it
would be like repeating ourselves. By way of summary, we can
say that the desire for the spotlight is the desire to be the center
of attention, to be noticed by others. The desire to be in the
spotlight is most intense in the vanity stage, because of the desire
to obtain fame, success, admiration and praise from others. It can
also occur in the stages of pride and haughtiness, and in these
cases it is usually motivated by an emptiness of feeling and a
desire to be liked. The desire for the spotlight in people who are
in the stage of pride or haughtiness is called arrogance. The
arrogant person is one who feels superior to others and acts with
arrogance and despotism.

But is there anything wrong with wanting to be loved by others?

Again I say no, but this is not the right way to look for it. The one
who does something expecting something in return is often
102
disappointed or angry if that something does not come, thus
reflecting that he did not do things out of love for others but out
of self-interest. The one who truly loves is fulfilled by what he does
for others, without the need for recognition. We must also bear in
mind that it is not up to us to decide whether someone loves us
or not, but to the will of that person. Forcing this feeling on us,
demanding this as a form of gratitude for what we have done for
that person, would be an infringement of that person’s free will.

How do you overcome self-seeking and arrogance?

Practicing humility.

And what exactly is humility, could you define it?

We could define humility as the spiritual quality that characterizes
people who act with total sincerity, transparency and simplicity,
who are able to recognize their faults and mistakes and who do
not flaunt their virtues. Humility is a quality that is essential to
develop in order to be able to help others spiritually, because
without it, it is easy to fall into egocentricity or self-worship,
conceit and arrogance.

And how can a lack of humility lead to egomania, conceit and

arrogance?
If someone who shows an interest in helping others manages to
capture the attention of a growing number of people and is
lacking in humility, they will surely dazzle themselves, they will
surely be fascinated. Surely their desire for the spotlight will soar,
because they feel they are the center of attention of many
people. As they do not reflect on their faults, they will end up
believing that they are better than others, and that they are
above them. What motivates this person at this moment above
all else is to get the attention, admiration and praise of an
increasing number of people. But all this can be done in such a
subtle way, using such good manners, that at first it is only
perceptible to a spirit with a great capacity to grasp the spiritual
inner self. At the same time, they can be aroused to envy by
those who demonstrate greater spiritual aptitudes than
themselves, for they are seen as rivals who steal their followers. In
103
a cunning and malicious way, they may even belittle them if they
find that the comparison reveals they faults. They also tend to
elevate to a position of privilege, but subordinate to their own,
those who, without sufficient ability, are obedient followers of
their orders. At that point, the motivation to help others is put on
the back burner, even if it continues to be used as a cover for
gaining more followers. And all this has happened because
humility has not been cultivated, that is, there has been a failure
to act with total sincerity, transparency and simplicity, a failure to
recognize one’s faults (the desire to be the center of attention,
arrogance, envy) and a failure to flaunt one’s supposed virtues.

Seen in this way, it seems impossible to love others and to help

others, because it is very difficult to reach that state of humility
necessary to avoid being trapped by the desire to be the center
of attention. I mean, is it possible to love others and help others
without falling into the traps of selfishness?
Of course it is. You can when you do things from the heart and
are vigilant about your own shortcomings, to recognize them
when they appear and fight to prevent them from dominating
your will. You can do it when you are not presumptuous or
pretentious, when you do not want to go beyond what your own
capacity can reach. When one seeks to help others, one should
not do things for the purpose of standing out from others, nor to
compete or compare oneself with what others do, but only
because one is filled with the satisfaction of seeing that one’s
help has done some good for someone else. This is the way to
move steadily and surely towards unconditional love.

104
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW OF LOVE

What is the origin of the Ten Commandments: did God himself

dictate them, were they the invention of Moses or the work of
another human being?
God himself did not. That is saying a lot. But it is true that what you
call the original commandments were transmitted to Moses by
beings of higher evolution. Because of their high evolutionary
level they can be considered messengers of God.

And what was the intention of these beings in transmitting the

commandments?
To give some basic notions for the people of that time of where
spirituality was going. They were more like advice than
commandments, since highly evolved beings neither demand
nor oblige anything. Commandments is a mistranslation, but if
you like the word we will continue to use it.

Man, I’m glad that at least some truth has been left behind.
This is not to say that they have not been subject to manipulation,
modification and additions.

I thought so. And what has been manipulated and what hasn’t?
If you want we can go through them one by one. Some of the
manipulations you can see for yourselves, since they are more
recent and evident, simply by comparing what the Old
Testament text says with the Decalogue that has become official
in the Catholic Church.

Okay, let’s start with the first commandment. According to the

Catholic Church it is “Thou shalt love God above all things”. What
do you have to say about this one?
It is a good commandment, although it does not appear in the
text of Deuteronomy where Jehovah supposedly transmits the
commandments to Moses. Rather, this is what Jesus says when a
temple scribe asks him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
And he answers, “The first is: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the
Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,

105
with all your soul, and with all your strength.”. The second is this:
you shall love your neighbor as yourself. But the text of
Deuteronomy says: “You shall have no other gods before me. You
shall not make for yourself an image or any likeness of anything
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
any image, nor honor it.”

And what is the real one?

Both messages are spiritually advanced. Moses’ message was a
plea against the polytheism and idolatry so prevalent at that
time. He wants to give the message that there is only one God,
and that the worship of images has nothing to do with God and
spirituality. In other words, he says to the human being “Do not
build images to praise them as if they were gods.”
Jesus’, apart from confirming that there is only one God, adds
something more advanced: You shall love God and your
neighbor as yourself, a good summary of the law of love.

If both are fine, what’s the problem?

For me, none. The problem must be the one who believes that
the ten commandments of the Catholic Church are written in
Deuteronomy as Jehovah, Yahweh or whatever you want to call
it, made them known to Moses, because it is not true. Therein lies
the modern fraud. If we stick to what the Bible says, the first
commandment would belong to Jesus and not to Moses.

And what would be the reason for this change?

The first commandment according to Deuteronomy says to man:
“Do not build images to worship them as if they were gods”. If you
notice, the Catholic Church does not keep this commandment,
because it places too much emphasis on the worship of a
multitude of images of saints, virgins and Jesus himself in a
thousand different versions. One way to avoid this contradiction,
which reformers like Luther saw, was simply to remove this
commandment and replace it with a less cumbersome one.

And what is it that has made Catholicism so inclined towards

106
image worship?
We have already said that the Catholic Church, from
Constantine onwards, absorbed customs and rites from earlier
religions. In them the worship of images of “the Gods” was
frequent. It was a deeply rooted custom in many parts of the
Roman Empire and a forced conversion such as Constantine
decreed could not eliminate it at a stroke. Moreover, it was not
in their interest to do away with the custom either, for all this
image worship and offerings were a way of entertaining the
people so that they would not look at the really spiritual values,
nor question their selfish way of behaving, so contrary to those
values. The male god-figures of past became Jesus and the
saints, and the female god-figures became the Virgin and the
saints. Only images of animals were excluded, as it was impossible
to assimilate them to the prominent figures of the new religion. If
you find what I am telling you surprising, look at the more recent
but similar phenomenon that has occurred after the conquest of
America and the forced evangelization of the native
populations, where the same rites and worship of pre-Columbian
divinities are still performed, only now the names of these divinities
have been replaced by those of the saints of the Church. This is
one of the reasons why Jews do not worship images, while
Catholic Christians do, despite the fact that these two religions
supposedly accept the ten commandments as valid.

I would like to hear more about the spiritual world’s understanding

of rituals, since human beings, through religions, base much of
their belief on the supposed sacredness of ritual.
Rituals are games that human beings invent in the mistaken belief
that they are getting closer to God, but in reality they are a cover
that prevents them from accessing authentic spirituality. Rituals
have varied from age to age according to the customs and level
of sensitivity of human communities. In earlier times, rituals were
terrifying acts of barbarism, with human beings being tortured
and sacrificed in the belief that this was pleasing to the gods.
Later, human sacrifice was replaced by animal sacrifice, which is
still practiced in many societies. Thanks to Jesus, animal sacrifice
as a ritual act fell into disuse in Christian communities, and less
aggressive rituals were substituted. However, know that neither
107
God nor spirit guides ask for or need rituals or offerings in order to
grant their help. They regard it as a characteristic of unadvanced
humanities and are saddened by the destruction of life, suffering
and pain, and by the self-deception of those who perform them,
for rituals that cause harm, such as human or animal sacrifice,
actually produce the opposite, spiritual indebtedness, for they
are acts against the law of love, while those that are harmless are
irrelevant from a spiritual point of view. Nor do they require or
demand pilgrimages to holy places, or absurd renunciations,
such as prolonged fasting, or whippings, or physical punishments
which generate useless pain and endanger health, and which
benefit no one. All that is needed is a sincere will to move
forward. We have said it many times before, but we say it again:
the only thing that is useful for spiritual progress is the progress we
make in the elimination of selfishness and the development of
feeling, and this has to manifest itself in the day-to-day. Therefore,
there are no shortcuts, that is, there are no practices or rituals to
achieve this goal without self-effort, as many people like to
believe. Rituals, as well as image worship, repetitive prayers, all
are spiritually futile.

There are also people who promise the acquisition of spiritual

powers through certain rituals or spells. What is the truth of this?
Nothing. Of course, these are false promises that can only
deceive the unwary. We have already said that having
developed certain abilities, such as telepathy or clairvoyance, is
exclusively linked to spiritual advancement in love. Therefore, no
one will acquire superpowers through these practices.

Forgive me for insisting on this point, but what is your opinion of

sorcery and spells? Is it true that they work? I mean, can you get
certain spirits to cooperate with your requests, even if they are
intended to do harm, such as the evil eye or voodoo? Do they
have any basis in fact?
Neither spells nor incantations can be considered spiritual
practices. Like rituals, spells are a game, sometimes harmless,
when what is asked for involves no harm to anyone, such as one
who asks to win the lottery; but sometimes it is very macabre,
since what is asked for is done with the intention of harming other
108
people, thus manifesting a selfish intention.
It is true that there are negative spirits that can be linked to
certain requests from incarnates with bad purposes, who have
the same type of bad intentions, and who can try to harm
specific people. This is not to say that they will succeed, for it
would be a violation of the free will of the incarnate if these spirits
were allowed to harm anyone merely because of the desire of
themselves or an incarnate spirit to harm them. If negative spirits
had the capacity to harm whomever they wished, I assure you
that they would leave no one unharmed. We have already said
that their level of influence is limited and they will only be able to
negatively influence those who through their low intentions allow
that bad influence, or who through fear and auto-suggestion,
end up believing it to be real. Therefore, the best protection one
can have against the influence of negative spirits is one’s own
attitude towards life. The one who acts in good faith in life, trying
not to harm others, is automatically protected against such
influences. It is rather the one who wants to harm others through
sorcery who is the most frequent victim of such practices, for they
attract to themselves the influence of those same negative spirits
who, unable to harm others, will prey upon the one who opened
the door to them with their evil intentions. By the law of cause and
effect, the one who has used sorcery against others is exposed in
the future to be the victim of the sorcerous acts of others, and will
thus experience in themselves the dire consequences of the evil
they have brought upon others.

So what is your opinion of people who claim to be unwell

because someone has given them the evil eye or because they
feel tormented by a negative spirit?
In most cases this is not true. It is true that they feel bad, but it is
not because anyone has given them the evil eye, but because
of their own emotional problems or selfish attitudes. There are
people who believe that spirits can harm them, so they become
afraid and create in their imagination the evil beings they fear so
much. This causes them to become emotionally weak and
depressed, and they themselves generate the discomfort
through autosuggestion. All this happens because it is easier to

109
blame the discomfort on others than to go deeper into oneself to
find out where the discomfort comes from.

But can there be real cases of negative spirit influence, and are
there people who are possessed by evil spirits or possessed by
demons?
There is no such thing as demoniacs because there is no such
thing as the devil. Most of the “demoniacs” in the Scriptures were
actually mentally ill, people with very strong psychological
disorders, some of them caused by highly traumatic
circumstances, while others may have been victims of infectious
diseases such as rabies. But it is true that when one generates
egosentiments one can attract the influence of negative spirits
that feed them even more. And it is not because a curse has
been put on them and is effective, but it is a self-induced process.
But it is true that people can be influenced to a greater or lesser
extent by possessive spirits for different reasons: some because
they have asked to contact negative spirits, others because they
have a weakness that attracts their influence, such as drug
addiction, or because they have highly negative selfish attitudes.
Other influences occur because the incarnate has committed
negative acts in the past against the harassing discarnate spirit,
and the incarnate has a desire to make amends for the harm
done. But normally this influence is quite limited, usually limited to
generating negative thoughts in the victim’s mind, and never
becomes a possession. People who have the gift of mediumship
may be more strongly disturbed by negative spirits, as their very
nature favors contact with the spirit world predisposes them to
more intense contact. But this will only be the case if they are
driven by base instincts or perverse attitudes. The cases of
possession that you see in scary movies are pure fantasy.

In such cases, how can one free oneself from this influence? Do
so-called “exorcisms” have any power to free one from the
influences of negative spirits?
We have said it before. If there are any negative spirits bothering
us, it is usually a reflection of the fact that we have, by our
attitude, allowed them to enter. A positive change of attitude,
that is, by the abandonment of bad habits generated by
110
selfishness, will free us from that influence, and not by the practice
of any particular spell or ritual, such as what you call exorcism,
which, apart from being useless, is also ridiculous.

Can energy cleansing, based on the transmission of energies to

the person concerned, help to free him or her from the influence
of a negative spirit?
It helps, if the transmitters of these energies are good energetic
channels and do not use their capacity for selfish purposes, for
the advanced spirits can act through them to free them from this
influence. But if they maintain their negative attitude, this effect
will be short-lived. Therefore it is not up to others, but up to oneself,
to free oneself from the influences of negative spirits.

Are there people who are sensitive and can perceive

environments where there are negative spirits, without it being
due to a bad attitude of their own?
Yes. They may feel tired and exhausted. But this discomfort will be
temporary and will disappear when they leave the place. That is
to say, they will not be “stuck” with some negative spirit to
torment them because they have been in an environment
frequented by low vibrational spirits, as some people believe.
Sometimes that bad environment is generated by the incarnate
ones themselves with their egosentiments. People who are
sensitive may pick it up and feel bad, but it will only be a passing
sensation.

Is it true that some spirits cause so-called “paranormal

phenomena”, such as objects that move, lights and appliances
that turn on by themselves, or even voices or images that are
detected on video and audio devices, which cause great fear in
those who witness these phenomena?
Yes, but this does not mean that they have a negative purpose.
Sometimes they are just spirits who are trying to contact the
incarnate because they want to make it known that they are still
alive. They are usually people who have recently disincarnated,
who are still attached to physical life and do not want to leave
the environment in which they lived and the relationships they
had, and they try to get the attention of those close to them to
111
let them know that they are still alive. They try to talk to them and
touch them, but as their possibilities of communication and
contact with the incarnate are limited (depending on the
sensitivity of the incarnate), the incarnate is not aware of their
presence. Sometimes they manage to interfere with electrical
appliances (switching light bulbs on and off, TV, radio), as it is
easier for them to interact with energy than with matter.
Sometimes they can even move objects around with the help of
an incarnate’s energy, if the incarnate has some kind of
mediumistic faculty. And all this is very frightening to the
incarnate because of ignorance of what is going on, when in
reality there is usually no malicious intent but rather a desire to
attract attention and an unawareness of the fear they can cause
in the incarnate.

Can these discarnate beings be helped in any way to realize their

situation and to follow their path on the spiritual plane?
This depends upon them rather than upon you, for on the spiritual
plane they have the help they need to make this transition, but
sometimes they find it difficult to let go of the ties that have bound
them to the material world. The spirits who assist them are waiting
for them to decide of their own free will to continue on the path.
It is also good to talk to them mentally because in that state they
pick up the thoughts. It can be explained to them what their
situation is, that is, that they have left the physical life (some are
so confused that they do not even know that they have
disincarnated), and that they cannot stay there indefinitely, that
they must allow themselves to be helped by companions and
loved ones on the spiritual plane. What can help them most is to
avoid feelings of grief and desolation at the loss, for that holds
back the less prepared. The discarnate feels pity when loved
ones grieve for their absence and are sorry to leave them alone
in that state. Overcoming that state of loss and grief allows them
to leave more peacefully.

Is it possible to contact these disincarnated relatives through

mediums or psychics who act as intermediaries?
Contact can occur spontaneously through dreams or conscious
experiences, because the deceased usually wants to say
112
goodbye to the incarnate and takes advantage of moments of
heightened sensitivity to make contact. If this does not happen
spontaneously, there is no point in provoking it. Sometimes the
eagerness to contact the deceased is so great that we fall into
the hands of people who take advantage of us and promise us
the desired contact with the deceased, after paying a certain
amount of money, but often this contact is not real. It is only a
pretense. You should not worry if you have no immediate
evidence of contact with your disincarnated loved one. There is
no such thing as death, and everyone who has passed on
continues their life on the spiritual plane, even if you have not had
such contact. If it does not occur, it is sometimes due to your lack
of preparation for it. Often grief overwhelms you and blocks you
from perceiving what your loved one wants to convey to you. A
contact at that moment could increase the feeling of loss and
prolong the period of detachment and, therefore, the suffering.
Overcome the grief and then perhaps you will be able to have
what you desire. In sleep you are detached from the physical
body and can go where they are. If you are sensitive and
receptive you can remember that experience.

And what is your opinion of psychics and people who claim to be

able to tell the future or penetrate the past, through palmistry,
tarot and other similar techniques?
The future is not written. Access to the past memories and future
possibilities of each individual person, what are called “the
akashic records”, while possible, is highly restricted. Only
exceptionally is the incarnate allowed access to his personal
record, but not to that of other people, if it would be beneficial
to his evolution. This access usually occurs while sleeping and the
experience is remembered as a dream or premonition, and
sometimes even as visions in a state of deep relaxation. But it is
not when one wishes it, but when the spirit world sees fit.

Be clear that the spirit guides do not provide access to this

knowledge to satisfy curiosity, greed or some kind of selfish
interest, which is mostly why people want to know things about
their future or their past. However, it is astonishing to observe how
many people claim to be able to penetrate the akashic records
113
of others, often for a fee, and to be able to know the past and
future of a person with enormous ease, just by throwing a few
cards at random, or opening a book at random, or interpreting
the position of the entrails of a sacrificed animal, or any other kind
of game or ritual, more or less unpleasant. All this is false, of
course.

But isn’t it true that some of these psychics are correct in their
predictions?
In most cases, no. The appearance of success comes from the
fact that the supposed psychics act with cunning, and know how
to flatter the client, at the same time that they know how to
extract the necessary information to be able to respond and tell
the clients what they want to hear. And a satisfied client is a fixed
client who will gladly pay the price of the session again. Who can
believe that their destiny or future can be written in cards thrown
at random? Will it not happen that if the cards are thrown again
after shuffling them again, some different cards will appear and
in a different order? Does this mean that their future will then be
different? Use your common sense and you will realize that tarot,
for example, is nothing more than a game. Anyone who thinks
that by casting cards one can tell the future or penetrate the past
is like someone who thinks he is an economist because he plays
Monopoly well, or a pilot because he can play airplane games
well. Do not mix games with spirituality, nor give credibility to that
which has no foundation. All this is not spirituality, and if you are
not aware of it, you can mix lies with truths and confuse spirituality
with tricks.

What about the minority of cases where they are correct and
what they say is known to be true? For example, when they give
some details of one’s life that are true, what is the explanation?
It is true that some of these people have the gift of mediumship,
but they use it incorrectly, for mediumship is a spiritual gift not to
be used vainly or for profit, much less as a profession. Some less
advanced spirits join them because they find it amusing to see
the reactions of their clients when they get something right about
their past. But if they are correct, it is not because of what they
114
see in the cards, but because these spirits give them some
information that is true in order to gain the trust of the client, which
does not mean that everything they are told is true. There are also
mediums who have no bad faith in what they are doing, but
because of their ignorance they have allowed themselves to be
carried away by the selfishness of the world and have mixed their
true ability with earthly learned practices. In these cases they
often receive assistance from some spirits, who, though not very
advanced, have no evil intention.

What is your opinion about astrology, that is, the influence of the
stars on people’s lives, and about horoscopes and astrological
charts? Is it true that by knowing the date and time of a person’s
birth, one can predict personality traits or events that will happen
in their life?
It is true that all beings in creation are interconnected and that
the stars possess an energetic aura that influences the other stars
and the beings that inhabit them. It is also true that their influence
becomes more intense the closer one is to them, just as the
gravitational force is felt to a greater or lesser extent depending
on how close or far away one is from the Earth. It is also true that
certain astral influences may be more or less favorable for certain
spiritual work and, knowing this, advanced spirits may choose
certain times more favorable for certain work on the spiritual
plane. But know that these are only influences, not
determinations. The marathon runner always desires a pleasant
temperature and moderate humidity for competition, for he
knows that these are the conditions best suited to achieve a
good time. But it is not favorable weather that makes him a good
marathon runner, nor will unfavorable weather make him a bad
marathon runner. The influence is restricted to modulating his
performance. So it is with astrological influences. The spirit who is
advanced will be so regardless of the position of the stars at the
time of his birth, and the spirit who is not advanced will not be so
regardless of the position of the stars at the time of his birth, nor
will a favorable position of the stars make him an advanced spirit.
Who can think that a spirit who is soon to incarnate will have a
different life or personality because he is born two weeks earlier
or later? Have we not already said that the personality and
115
spiritual advancement of that being is the fruit of his spiritual
learning gained in innumerable incarnations? Or how can we
think that the events of his life are predetermined by the date of
his birth, when we are saying that the trials are chosen and
prepared for before incarnation by free choice and that it is up
to his will and freedom to overcome them or not? Be clear about
one thing: the future is not written. If the future of the human
being were decided by the date of his birth, where would free
will be then? If you focus too much on what is incidental, you will
miss much of what is important.

Well, let’s talk about the second commandment. You shall not
take God’s name in vain. What do you have to say about this
one?
This is in Deuteronomy, though mistranslated. The literal translation
of the Hebrew is “you shall not use God’s name to deceive”.
Therefore, the problem with this commandment is not the
commandment itself, which is correct, but the interpretation that
has been made of its meaning, which has to do with the
alteration of the translation of the original Hebrew. We have
discussed this before, but we will discuss it in greater depth here,
because it is quite important. Many people believe that “not to
take God’s name in vain” means that they are not to use God’s
name in crude expressions, otherwise very common in popular
language. They take great offence when they hear someone
uttering them, without thinking that the speaker is not even
thinking about the meaning of the phrase they have just uttered.
They consider it to be an offense to God, when in fact these
expressions, although they manifest vulgarity and tactlessness,
are harmless and have no spiritual consequence whatsoever.
However, the true meaning of this commandment is “Thou shalt
not use the name of God to justify selfish purposes”.
A common practice of mankind has been and is to violate this
commandment. In the name of God the greatest atrocities have
been committed. These range from sacrifices of human beings in
rituals to divinity, “the slaughter of infidels”, “religious” wars or
Crusades, forced evangelizations, persecutions, tortures and
murders of “heretics”, to the exploitation of human beings to
enrich religious power elites and the manipulation of religious
116
beliefs to take advantage of the faithful or to generate discord
and strife among humans. These are all very harmful selfish
purposes that humans have committed, in which they have used
the name of God. This is what is really serious and with dire
consequences on a spiritual level. And that is the deception, to
make the world believe that it is God who commanded them to
do all this, when it is all the fruit of their selfishness. It is intolerable
that even in their own sacred scriptures, people are led to believe
that God commanded the people of Israel to commit genocide
against other peoples, or that God himself, or Moses, who is
considered to be sent by God, sent plagues that caused the
death of the firstborn of Egypt in order to force Pharaoh to free
the people of Israel. If this were so, we would have to admit that
God and Moses behaved with the same cruelty and disregard
for life as any of mankind’s hitmen, murderers and genocidaires.

Although it’s a digression from the subject, I got curious when you
spoke of Moses and Pharaoh. If that’s not how it happened, what
actually happened? Because this thing about the plagues of
Egypt is given as an absolute truth within religion.
It happened that Moses convinced the Pharaoh of Egypt to let
the Hebrews go, for at that time they had a good relationship.

So the Hebrews were not pursued by Pharaoh with an army to

wipe them out?
They were pursued, but not by Pharaoh and his army, but by
powerful people in Egypt who did not agree with Pharaoh’s
decision. When they heard of their departure, they formed a
force of mercenaries to pursue them. They planned to trap them
outside Egypt’s dominions to avoid confronting Pharaoh.

And what happened next? The Bible says that it was Moses, with
the help of divine power, who parted the waters of the Red Sea
for the Hebrew people to pass through and then let them fall on
the Egyptians, who drowned.
That is not how it happened. First, it is not true that Moses parted
the waters. The route that Moses had mapped out involved
passing through an area that is normally under water, but which
occasionally, due to the effects of weather and tides, temporarily
117
lowered in level to allow passage through certain places. This was
known to Moses’ advisors, who informed him when it was going
to happen. They simply waited for the lowering of the tide to pack
up and leave. Even the Pharaoh’s workmen worked to prepare
the areas of passage. By the time the pursuers, who were several
days behind schedule, reached this point, the tide had already
begun to rise. It was obvious that if they entered this area the tide
would catch them. If they had used common sense they would
not have crossed. What simply happened is that the tide rose
further as they crossed and they drowned. You see, there was
nothing supernatural about what happened. They did not die
because of God’s wrath, as people have been led to believe.
They died out of their own anger, because they were more driven
by the desire to overtake the Hebrews and wipe them out than
by the common sense of preserving their own lives.

And why does the Bible tell a different story?

I have already said that everything is manipulated by selfish
interests. Keep in mind that the sacred texts were only accessible
to priests. When those who experienced it first hand were already
dead, it was relatively easy to change history to suit their own
interests. The rulers of the Hebrew church, as is often the case with
others, were interested in putting the fear of God into the body
of the people so that they would be submissive and not rebel
against their control. That is why they created this figure of the
punishing God and his implacable executing arm, Moses. Once
the myth was created, when they wanted to force the people to
obey them, it was enough to say that it was the word of God
spoken by Moses to make them tremble and, out of fear, obey.

Wow! I would like to know more about what really happened at

that time in history, since what happened has had such an
influence on the religious beliefs of mankind.
Now is not the time, for that would divert us from the subject at
hand, which is quite important. Take what I have told you as an
example of how human beings, in order to satisfy their voracious
selfishness, are capable of manipulating everything, including
spiritual teachings, and even of transmitting a totally misleading
and terrifying concept of God and His envoys.
118
So it seems that it is rather the religious authorities, especially in
the past, who have most commonly broken this commandment,
doesn’t it?
In the past and in the present. Although it is now done in a more
subtle way, the name of God is still being used for selfish purposes.
The name of God is still being used to justify religious dogmas that
are spiritually false and that hinder human spiritual progress. The
power that comes with the status of high ecclesiastical office
continues to be used to commit abuses and crimes of all kinds,
although many of them are now done clandestinely because, if
the perpetrators are discovered, they will be brought to justice.
Political power also makes use of religion when it suits it, to
convince its citizens of its selfish and conquering purposes, for
example, to go to war. They convince them that it is God who is
asking them to make this sacrifice and that He is on their side and
will protect them during the battle. But it is not only the religious
or political authorities who break this commandment, although
they have the most influence and have done the most damage.
Also individually, selfish and hypocritical behavior, which under
the guise of religious orthodoxy, or spirituality, restricts human
freedom and will, and which is driven by a selfish desire to control
and manipulate others, is a violation of this commandment.
Those who seek to use religious or spiritual beliefs for personal gain
are also in violation of this commandment. Therefore, if we
correctly develop the commandment “Thou shalt not use the
name of God to justify selfish purposes”, we will come to the
conclusion that this also implies “Thou shalt not trade in
spirituality”. That is to say, the one who trades in spirituality, also
breaks that commandment.

What exactly do you mean by “trading in spirituality”?

I mean that spirituality is an inherent characteristic of every spirit
by the mere fact of its existence. It is a gift, a quality that the
spiritual world bestows upon every being to be the force and
guide that drives it to evolve. Spirituality belongs to no one in
particular, but to everyone in general. Since it was given to us free
of charge, we must use it free of charge. Therefore, it cannot be
traded. It would be as if someone wanted to appropriate the air
119
and wanted to charge others for the right to breathe. If we have
within our reach spiritual knowledge and ability, and we allow
selfishness, through the mind, to take possession of it, then what
was meant to be exercised as a spiritual mission of helping others
and for one’s own evolution, in a selfless way, will become a
material trade from which to profit and gain.
Nor should one trade in the gifts that come from the spiritual
world, such as mediumship in all its manifestations, which also
includes the transmission of energies, or the help and contacts
one receives from the spiritual world, for all is given to us as an aid
to our evolution, not as a commodity to be traded. To the one
who misuses a spiritual gift, spiritual assistance is withdrawn, for
evolved spirits do not collaborate for selfish purposes.

Well, there are people who say that their aim is not to get rich, but
that having found their vocation in the spiritual, they want to
devote themselves fully to it, so they have no time for other work
and, as they need to support themselves with something to live
on, they need to get paid for what they do spiritually. What do
you have to say to this?
Who told them that they were exempted from material work? If
spiritual evolution concerned everyone and everyone made the
decision to give up their work to devote themselves to “the
spiritual”, what would the world be living on? Many people today
believe that their spiritual transformation has to do with giving up
material work and devoting themselves exclusively to what they
call spiritual work. In the absence of income from material work,
they believe they are justified in charging for transmitting
knowledge or giving advice on the spiritual, but this is not so.
Spiritual evolution is fully compatible with material work, and no
one is exempted from it, except for reasons of illness, old age, or
physical or mental incapacity. Do not use spirituality to evade the
responsibilities of life as an incarnate, such as work, for he who
evades work by claiming that he is already working spiritually,
reflects laziness and convenience, not spiritual elevation. It is
necessary for everyone to work in order to survive, and everyone
has the right to receive fair remuneration for it. What is not right is
to make the spiritual a material profession.

120
Are you telling me that from a spiritual point of view it is wrong for
spirituality to be professionalized?
Yes, it is wrong. The professionalization of spirituality, as you call it,
is what has brought religion and priesthood into existence. The
priests have believed and have made people believe that by
doing a supposed spiritual work (which in reality is not such either,
because dedicating time to ritualism and worship is spiritually
useless work), they were exempt from material work, and that to
maintain themselves they needed the believers or faithful to
contribute the money that they were not able to earn. I repeat,
no one should think oneself exempted from material work in order
to devote oneself exclusively to spiritual work.

But the Catholic Church bases the need to do things this way on
the example of Jesus and his apostles.
In what example? Jesus was the son of a carpenter and worked
in his father’s carpenter shop while he lived there. While it is true
that when he began his intense mission he did not have time to
be a carpenter, he never charged anything for the spiritual or
asked anyone to support him. Neither did any of the apostles.
Each one contributed what they had, and none of them failed
to take care of their family and work obligations, since they
combined their material work with their spiritual work. Notice that
none of the apostles were Jewish priests, the only ones who did
not work. While they were alive, they never structured themselves
as a church or proclaimed themselves priests, nor did they ask
anyone to support them. They simply lived humbly and shared
what they had. If the Hebrew priests were so bitter towards Jesus
and his followers, it was precisely because, as a result of his
preaching, many people stopped coming to the temple to make
animal sacrifices, which was the main source of income for the
Jewish clergy.

What has the Church, in this case the Catholic Church, done
wrong to become almost the same as the Hebrew Church,
contrary to what its founders did and preached?
We have already said that Jesus and his apostles did not build
any church, nor did they have any intention of doing so. It was

121
others who came later who, misusing the spiritual message that
their predecessors passed on to them, created such an institution.
Even in the way you ask questions, the importance you attach to
religious institutions is evident, for you speak of them as if they had
a life of their own. Keep in mind that churches do not really exist,
for they have no conscience and no will of their own. Therefore,
they do neither good nor evil. They are only material structures
created and run by individual human beings, even though these
may change from age to age. Fortunately, the brevity of physical
life prevents them from perpetuating their power beyond a few
decades. Better question, what have human beings done to
transform the true spiritual message, which was given to them to
be used for their spiritual growth, into just the opposite, that is, into
a doctrine that turns them into slaves, that overrides their will and
freedom, that fosters exploitation, fanaticism and inequality
among human beings? The Church has been conceived,
created and perpetuated over time by spirits driven by their
selfishness. In reality, it was simply a reconversion of previous forms
of oppression that took control by force of a spiritual movement
that got out of their hands. And little by little they succeeded.

What do you mean it was a reconversion of earlier forms of

oppression that took over by the force of a spiritual movement
that got out of their hands?
For after Jesus’ death, his message of unconditional love spread
rapidly, as his followers took it upon themselves to spread his
message wherever there was to be heard. As time went on, the
number of followers of the message of unconditional love
multiplied enormously. The powerful of the time saw a threat in
them, for their belief preached equality and fraternity among
human beings, and this was a clear demonstration of their way
of doing things. That is why several Roman emperors launched
persecutions against them. But despite the massacres, the
number of Christians, as they were called, grew steadily. And
since it was impossible to destroy this movement from the outside,
they decided to infiltrate it in order to direct it and change its
course. One of the most remarkable events of this new strategy
occurred during the rule of Emperor Constantine, who
supposedly converted to the new doctrine and decreed the
122
forced conversion of the empire to Christianity. But this
Christianity, which was already adulterated by the passage of
time, became more adulterated thereafter, because it no longer
had to be a belief of the poor and slaves, but had to be
compatible with wealth and power. And since it was not, they
changed it from end to end to make it so. We come back to the
same root of all the ills of humanity: it is human selfishness that is
the main problem. It is these same selfish spirits, setting themselves
up as moral authorities, who have made others believe that it was
important to maintain the Church and to make it great and
powerful, inciting people even to give their lives and to take the
lives of others for it, because they believed that this was pleasing
to God. And this is a great farce that is only sustained by the
ignorance, fear and fanaticism of beings who are still not very
advanced spiritually. Know the truth, these structures that you call
churches mean nothing to God or to the spiritual world, for the
spiritual world cares only for that which has spiritual life. In short,
God cares about the human being and not about the church.
Therefore, do not waste your life in striving to aggrandize religious
or spiritual institutions, nor to make them grow materially or in
numbers of parishioners. This is a futile effort from the spiritual point
of view and will not serve you in your evolution. Rather, strive to
eradicate selfishness from your heart and to develop your
feelings, for this is the only thing worth striving for and the only
thing that allows you to move up the spiritual evolutionary ladder.

Yes, but is there anything in particular, any manifestation of that

selfishness, that could have been avoided so that it did not
materialize in deeds? I mean, what concrete deeds can be
considered selfish actions that have contributed to the creation
of an institution like the Church?
The main fact is to have created a church or religion on the basis
of the spiritual message that Jesus conveyed. As I have already
said, Jesus never intended to create any church, but only to
convey a very simple message to humanity: to develop feelings
and to eliminate selfishness. This is an individual work that does
not require the creation of any material structure.

123
Any advice on how to prevent this from happening again in the
future?
Do not group yourselves together under any group name.
Because human beings have an immediate tendency to
distinguish between those who belong to their group and those
who do not, to favor those who belong to their group and to
discriminate against the rest, be it for reasons of religious beliefs,
politics or patriotism. This is collectively selfish behavior. One of the
consequences that knowledge of spiritual reality should bring is
the discovery that all human beings are brothers and sisters.
Labelling one or the other only leads to differences, which in time
are used as an excuse to provoke discord and strife.

I don’t know what you mean.

I mean that human beings have used religious beliefs to see
themselves as different from one another to the extent that they
have fought and continue to fight each other in fratricidal wars
over these beliefs. There is practically no combination that has
not occurred: Jews against Muslims, Christians against Muslims,
Christians against Jews. Within Christianity, Catholics against
Protestants, within Islam, Shiites against Sunnis. The curious thing is
that all these religions claim to believe in one God, and recognize
Abraham as the first patriarch and Moses as God’s prophet, who
received the law from God to give it to men.

Neither seek to separate yourselves from society nor to create

communities isolated from the rest of the world. On the contrary,
seek to transform society so that it becomes more and more in
harmony with spiritual laws, especially the law of love. Every
human being has the right to freedom and happiness and no one
should be excluded from that right. If you isolate yourselves from
the world by creating closed communities, you prevent other
human beings from benefiting from the achievements you have
been able to make.

But is it not the case that by mixing with the world, unity of action
is dispersed and there is a risk of catching bad spiritual habits?
Did not the early Christians, and even before them the Essenes,
group themselves together in communities isolated from the rest?
124
If the early Christians or the Essenes took refuge in secluded
places in the cities of their time, it was to save their lives because
of the continual persecution to which they were subjected, and
not out of a desire to separate themselves from society. There is
nothing wrong in seeking association with people who pursue the
same ideal, but this should not be an argument for separating
oneself from the rest, nor for excluding those who do not share
the same ideals or beliefs. Those who are clear about their
convictions are not easily swayed by those of others, and if they
are, it is because they were not so clear. On the other hand, there
is nothing wrong with getting to know other beliefs and cultures,
since this enriches the human being and allows him to have more
information to form his own ideas and beliefs. The person who is
Catholic because he is born in a Catholic country, or the person
who is Muslim because he is born in a Muslim country, has not
freely chosen his belief, since he had only one option to choose
from.

But isn’t not being able to create a type of material institution a

contradiction to the message of love for one’s neighbor, and
doesn’t it prevent the implementation of material aid projects, for
example for education, health care, or the reception of the
needy?
We refer here to the creation of an institution of a material kind
which has for its main object the support of itself, and which at its
expense can accumulate power and wealth. Wealth and power
are lures which attract the greedy and ambitious who seek to
place themselves in positions of privilege in which to satisfy their
selfish expectations, and which contribute still more to the spoiling
of everything. If you want to help the homeless you can create
shelters, if you want to care for the sick you can create hospitals,
if you want to educate children you can create schools. It is
important that they have a practical use in helping others, and
that they are not simply centers for performing rituals or storing
relics, for then they would no longer fulfil the function for which
they were supposed to be created, which was to help others. You
can make use of what is already created and underused for
social use, or create a new one if it does not exist, and in doing
so you do not violate the advice given here. What is being
125
censured here is not the use of material resources which, if
properly employed, can bring about the common welfare, which
is a just and noble ideal, but the abuse of them to achieve just
the opposite, that is, the satisfaction of selfish interests, which are
the origin of social inequality, that is, the opulence of a few at the
expense of the unhappiness of the rest.

So it is wrong to make collections, since people here are asked

for money for other people?
Asking to help those in need is not a bad thing. On the contrary,
if the money is intended for a good cause, which is to help those
in need, it is a spiritually noble act. What is wrong is to ask for
oneself for the purpose of avoiding work. It is also wrong to ask for
useless or selfish causes. And it is much more wrong to ask for a
just cause and then use that money for a selfish purpose, such as
one who asks for money to help the poor and once the money is
collected, invests it in the stock market.

But I understand that the person who raises the money often thinks
that his or her cause is a noble one. What is a noble cause for
some people may be a useless cause for others. How can we
distinguish one from the other? For example, some people may
consider it a noble cause to build a place of worship or to restore
an old church, while for others it may be a useless cause.
Helping the needy is a noble cause. Those that contribute
nothing to the elimination of inequalities and injustices, and which
are not aimed at helping the needy, are selfish causes. Let each
person look into their conscience to see what it is that moves
them when they ask others for money, because then they will
know if what moves them is a selfish ideal or not, because
although we can deceive others, we cannot deceive our own
conscience. The Catholic Church is a multi-millionaire and does
not need collections to restore cathedrals or make a new
building for worship, although if it gets others to foot the bill for its
house it will be very satisfied.

Anything else to avoid?

What we have said before. The professionalization of spirituality
126
must be avoided. This means that people should not aspire to
support themselves financially through their spiritual activity. The
one who charges for spirituality loses the status of a spiritual
counsellor and becomes a spiritual merchant. Spirituality should
also not be used to obtain goods or economic benefits,
advantages or favors in relation to others. This will prevent the
creation of hierarchies of religious professionals (the priesthood),
who maintain themselves with the resources of the organization
and who have no other function in the organization than to
attend to the worship and rituals of the church and the pursuit of
proselytizing as a formula for maintaining the structure. A current
example that may give you a better idea of what I am referring
to are pyramid-type enterprises.

You also said that proselytizing is a negative thing. This creates a

contradiction for me, because if you know about the spiritual, it
has helped you in your life and you want to make it known to
others so that it can help them too, are you acting wrongly?
Proselytizing refers to those who try to persuade or convince
others of something without respecting their free will. I am
referring to those who use force, manipulation or coercion to gain
adherents. Or those who help others on the condition that one
adheres to a certain belief, or those who try to convince those
who are not interested in listening, or those who try to impose their
ideas or beliefs on those of others. All this is forcing free will. Loving
others means helping them in their needs without expecting them
to share one’s own ideas or beliefs. There is nothing wrong with
spreading spiritual knowledge. On the contrary, it is good and
necessary for human beings to evolve and be happy. But it
cannot be done against the will of the other. That is to say, even
if one believes to be in possession of the truth, if one imposes it on
the other, one is already wrong. Therefore, do not force or burden
others by trying to convince them of your own beliefs. Never
impose your beliefs on anyone. Rather, apply them to yourselves
in order to be happier, to develop your feelings and to eliminate
your selfishness, because there is no better teaching for others
than the example lived in yourself.

And how should we act when others approach us for spiritual

127
help?
In helping others, do not make this help conditional on them
accepting or sharing your beliefs. Be open to responding and
sharing with those who take an interest. Be willing to admit
diversity of opinion and to respect other points of view that
disagree with your own, be open to listen and even to modify
your own views if you find that others’ are more accurate. When
someone asks you for help to solve an emotional problem, before
giving your opinion, ask them, “What is your heart telling you to
do?” or “What do you feel you should do?”, because there is no
better guide than one’s own feelings, even though feelings are
often confused with thoughts. Help them then to distinguish
between what they feel and what they think, for selfishness
influences thinking. You can give your opinion and present your
experiences, especially those that can help them to clarify. But
do not decide for others, but let each one decide for oneself
what concerns one’s own life. Each person needs a different kind
of help and a different depth. You have to put yourself at the
level of each person and give them as much as they need and
want to receive, no more and no less, and also as much as you
are capable of. Look at whether or not you are sufficiently
prepared to give the help that person needs. If you observe that
you are not, recognize it, and look for someone else who is more
prepared to give the help because, even if you have no bad
intentions, if you give advice without knowing, you can confuse
instead of helping. If someone needs help but does not want to
receive it, you have to respect their will. You can advise, but you
cannot impose. In this case, the only thing you can do is to wait
and see if they change their mind. In other words, do not close
the door on the person who did not want to enter, but rather
leave it ajar so that if they change their mind, they will dare to ask
for the help they refused before.

Anything else important to add?

Yes, that your beliefs are not formed by the criteria of authority,
but that you follow your own criteria. I mean, do not give more
validity to the word of certain people just because of who they
are, but evaluate them according to the quality of the message
itself that they convey, and take them into account or set them
128
aside according to your own judgement. In this way, true spiritual
messages will not be belittled because they come from humble
people, nor will self-serving messages be extolled because they
come from renowned authorities. The power of religions lies
precisely in having convinced their followers that the criterion of
authority is the one that counts, that is, that the word of the one
who has a higher rank is worth more than the word of the one
who has a lower rank or the one who has no rank. That the high
priest, pontiff, pope or whatever you want to call him, is in
possession of the absolute truth and that what he says is not open
to discussion, because no one has greater authority than he has
with regard to spiritual matters. In this way the religious authorities
have succeeded in having selfish beliefs which hinder the spiritual
progress of mankind, but which are in their own interests,
accepted as good, while they have condemned, defamed or
concealed beliefs which were spiritually true, but which were an
obstacle to their interests.

Anything else we should avoid?

Yes, do not seek recognition, fame and admiration in what you
do for others, for then you are not loving, you are only feeding
your vanity.

Well, let’s move on to the third commandment, which is “You shall

hallow the feasts”.
This is a commandment that has also undergone alterations,
because in the text of Deuteronomy it says: “Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all
your work. But the seventh day is the rest”. The meaning of this
commandment was to provide the worker with the deserved rest,
to recognize this right in the face of the abuse of the powerful.
Keep in mind that this was a time when slavery was common and
the powerful tended to exploit their workers, free or slave, without
allowing them rest. That is why it is specified that rest is for
everyone, including serfs and pack animals. It was a way of trying
to put a stop to all these abuses. It is a way of saying: “you shall
keep holy days to rest from work, at least one a week”. The
Church has also wanted to do its bit by modifying this
commandment to suit itself. What was initially a respect for days
129
of rest was conveniently transformed to emphasize the
celebration of rituals in honor of Jesus, the Virgin or the saints. This
is also an assimilation of the rites of the Roman Empire prior to
Constantine, since the festivals of the saints, including the birth of
Jesus, coincide with celebrations on the same dates of earlier
pagan festivals, such as the spring, summer or winter solstices,
which were reconverted into Christian celebrations (St. Joseph,
St. John and the Nativity of Jesus).

Let’s look at the fourth commandment: You shall honor your father
and mother. What do you have to say about this one?
This commandment was intended to protect the elderly. Keep in
mind that at that time there were no social security or retirement
systems to protect the elderly. Governments did nothing to
protect the dispossessed and weak, and therefore there was no
protection for the elderly either. Their only option for protection
was in the family, that is, that the children, once they became
adults, should take over the maintenance of the elderly, who
were no longer in a position to look after themselves.
But this commandment has also been perverted in its meaning
because mankind has transformed something that was positive,
namely respect and care for the parents, into the obligation of
the children to submit to the will of the parents. Under the
umbrella of this commandment, parents have been given the
right of ownership over their children, and many unscrupulous
people have tyrannized their children, turning them into slaves,
controlling and dominating their lives, bending the will of their
children by mistreatment, humiliation or manipulation, violating
their free will from their earliest childhood, as when marriages
were arranged for children against their will, and thus
condemning them to a life of unhappiness. They believed they
had a divine right to do so. That is why it is in strongly religious
societies that the dominance of parents over their children’s lives
is most evident, and it is not surprising that children, when they
grow up and find the strength to break their chains, often want
nothing to do with their parents. It is then that they complain
piteously that their children have abandoned them and say “I
have done so much for them... and look how they repay me”,
when in reality they are only reaping the fruits of their bad sowing.
130
That is why I tell you that it is not only the father and mother who
must be “honored”, but that understanding, respect and
affection must be extended to the whole family, grandparents,
fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, children and grandchildren,
especially the children, because they are the weakest. Children
are the most vulnerable and defenseless when they are young,
and should therefore be treated with the greatest understanding,
affection and respect. Children should never be beaten or
humiliated. We have already spoken about the love of children
in depth before, because it is so important. Therefore, understand
this commandment in a broader sense, show love, respect and
understanding to all those close to you with whom you share your
life, especially the most vulnerable, which are children.

Let us now turn to the fifth commandment, which is “Thou shalt not
kill”.
This commandment could not be clearer. This commandment is
preserved as it was given, by the spirit world. There is no room for
interpretation. Not to kill is not to kill, not to take life. We know that
the spirit is immortal and, fortunately, nothing human beings can
do is going to end that immortal life. The only thing we can do is
to interrupt a physical life. But physical life is one of the gifts that
the spirit world gives to the spirit. Physical life is the stage where
the spirit is tested in that which it has learned in the spiritual world.
The spirit needs physical life to evolve as much as the body needs
the air it breathes to live. Hence there is an instinct, the instinct of
survival, which programs living beings to preserve life for
themselves and their offspring even before they are aware of
their own existence. By taking life, the opportunity for a being to
evolve is being taken away, and this is a very negative thing from
a spiritual point of view. Therefore, as long as this simple but
fundamental commandment is not respected, terrestrial
humanity cannot be considered sufficiently prepared to make
the evolutionary leap to which it aspires.

Well, I don’t think there is a penal code in the world that does not
condemn murder.
That is true. But it seems that human beings make distinctions
between some deaths and others. Some lives seem more
131
important to them than others and they legitimize murder in many
cases.

What do you mean?

If a man kills others in peacetime, he is a serial killer and justice will
surely condemn him. If that same man kills others, in wartime, and
they are on the enemy side, then he is a war hero and his
government will give him a medal. But if that same man deserts
from the army because he does not want to kill those men, then
his government captures him and condemns him as a traitor, and
may execute him. If a man blows up a bomb that kills thousands
of people in a time of peace, then he is a terrorist, is prosecuted
as such and condemned if captured. If a leader orders his
country’s army to bomb an enemy country and thousands of
people are killed, he is doing his duty; and those killed, if they are
military, are called “casualties” and if they are civilians,
“collateral damage”. If that country wins the war, this leader will
be remembered as a hero and history will remember him with
honors. The streets and schools of his country will have his name
written on them. In many nations of the world, the death penalty
exists in the penal code depending on the crime, and it is applied
to “do justice”.

The conclusion of all this is that you apply the commandment

“Thou shalt not kill” with an addition, which is like the small print of
abusive contracts: “Thou shalt not kill... whoever does not deserve
it. But if he deserves it, then it is well done”. Now all that remains
is to find a good excuse so that the one who is to be killed
deserves it, because everyone who kills or orders to kill believes
that he or she has a reason to do so.

What is your opinion of the wars?

The collective killings and slaughter that you call wars are among
the most serious crimes from a spiritual point of view. It is not only
because the physical lives of countless beings are taken, but also
because of the destruction and suffering they create for the
survivors. That is why I say to you that it is also very important
spiritual advice not to promote war. The ultimate perpetrators of
wars will have to face harsh and prolonged atonements until they
132
make reparation for all the damage they have done.

But often those who go to war are not aware of the harm they are
doing, but are convinced that they are doing something good,
such as defending their homeland, their ideals or their religious
beliefs.
They deceived themselves or are deceived. There is no
justification for the killing of human beings, no homelands, no
religions, no ideologies. Therefore, there is no such thing as Holy
War. It is an invention of human beings to want to put God in the
middle to justify their lust for power and wealth, and to convince
others through fanaticism to agree to become the executioners
of their brothers. Thou shalt neither promote war nor participate
in it, for there is no justification for it.

I would also like to get your opinion on the death penalty, since
in many countries on earth it is considered a just form of
punishment for the most serious crimes.
The death penalty, wherever it comes from, for whatever reason,
is infamous, atrocious, horrible, repulsive and spiritually
repugnant. With what deep sadness do we contemplate that it
is precisely those states that presume to be the most religious and
God-believing that most assiduously apply the death penalty as
a punishment for criminals. How is one better than a murderer if
the representatives of justice are equal to the condemned when
they carry out a punishment equal to the crime committed? In
some even crueler countries, the death penalty is even applied
for minor offences, even though some of them are not punishable
from a spiritual point of view, such as when women who have
been unfaithful to their husbands are executed, even though
most of them have been forced to marry someone they did not
love.

Three monotheistic religions, billions of people in hundreds of

countries recognize as divine commandments among which is
“thou shalt not kill”. But how many actually respect it in practice,
if it seems that those who consider themselves to be the greatest
believers in God are the ones who respect it the least? It often
happens that there are people who consider themselves
133
fervently religious, who observe all the rites and rules of their
religion and are scandalized by those who do not, but are at the
same time the most insensitive and ruthless, having no respect for
the life and suffering of others, supporting the death penalty or
encouraging their children to join armies to exterminate their
brothers in another country in war, firmly convinced that it is God
who blesses them.

Anyone who wants to consider oneself a true believer in God

must be totally against this horrendous crime disguised as an act
of justice, and must know that it is not God who encourages them
in their belief that the death penalty is just, but that it is fed by the
fanaticism of those who want to make their own selfishness into a
god in their own image.

What is the fate of incarnates who committed murder, or who

were responsible for the death of someone or many people, once
they pass away?
They are usually held in certain areas of the lower astral plane,
commonly referred to by some spirits as The Abyss. They remain
there for a more or less prolonged period of time, depending on
the greater or lesser burden of the crimes they committed,
together with other beings who committed crimes similar to theirs.
In these places they relive the scenes of the crimes they
committed over and over again, perceiving in this case as their
own the same suffering that their victims experienced, which
makes them suffer enormously. These beings torment each other
and can be tormented by disincarnated victims who are not very
advanced and who retain a desire for revenge. When they show
signs of realization of what they have done and of repentance,
they are rescued from the Abyss by more advanced spirits who
transfer them to relief centers where they are cared for in their
recovery, and prepare them for the rectification of their crimes,
which begins on the spiritual plane, for example by attending to
the rescue of those who were in their situation and, when the time
comes, continues when they reincarnate on the physical plane
with lives dedicated to repairing the harm they have done.

And what do you have to say about suicide?

134
Suicide is tantamount to self-murder and from a spiritual point of
view it is a negative thing, for you are wasting an opportunity for
spiritual progress. It is equivalent to a missed exam. What you
interrupt at that moment you will have to face again in the next
life.

What is the fate of suicides on the spiritual plane?

They often enter a state of confusion in which they repeatedly
recall the moment when they cut their life short and perceive the
pain felt by their loved ones as if it were their own. In this process
they become aware of the futility of the act they committed.
When they show signs of realization and repentance, they are
prepared for a new incarnation, which is usually quite immediate,
where they will have to face the same trials they came to
overcome in the life they suddenly cut short.

What is your opinion on euthanasia, and is it justified in some

cases, for example in the case of incurable or terminally ill
patients?
We have already said that life is sacred and should not be cut
short before the time comes for death to occur of its own accord.
Interrupting life, even if it is with the good intention of preventing
suffering, is a negative thing from a spiritual point of view. Keep in
mind that if every person in a situation of suffering were to have
his or her life taken away, there would be no one left alive in the
world. All the circumstances that human beings live through,
congenital illnesses, paraplegia, all have a meaning which is to
help the spirit to evolve. They are tests chosen by that spirit before
incarnating. Interrupting them prematurely forces them to come
another time to finish the unfinished test, which does not help
them at all. Sometimes the spirit in such a situation of suffering
becomes cowed and wants to escape from it by cutting off life,
but this is not the way to do it.

And is euthanasia justified in cases of the terminally ill?

If they are dying, what is the point of bringing their death
forward? Let them die on their own.

I suppose the point is to shorten their suffering, because many of

135
them experience unbearable pain.
Relieve their pain then, but do not cut off their lives.

What about cases of prolonged coma? Is euthanasia justified?

Nor is it justified. When someone has finished his time of
incarnation and must leave the earthly world, the spirit world
helps them to get rid of the physical body as soon as possible. If
the body remains alive, then that life has meaning, for if the time
had come for that spirit to disincarnate, nothing you could do
could prevent its departure.

What is your opinion on abortion?

We have discussed this issue in depth before and we will not
repeat it. The murder of a newborn baby does not cease to be
murder just because you do not see the victim’s face and
perceive how he or she suffers. Nor do those who order a
bombing see the faces of their victims, and that does not make
the crime they commit any less serious. The spirit attached to the
unborn child suffers just as much as those who are tortured to
death. Spare them that suffering and spare yourselves the
suffering that comes with being the executioners of your own
children. Respect life, which is a precious spiritual gift for
evolution, and do not interrupt it in any way or under any
circumstances, neither by murder, war, death penalties, suicide,
euthanasia nor abortion, and you will avoid much suffering for
yourselves and for others.

The sixth is “Thou shalt not commit impure acts”.

This is another commandment that has been varied over time as,
in Catholic or Christian translations of Deuteronomy, it appears as
“Thou shalt not commit adultery”.

And what is the correct version?

Neither. Take the Hebrew version of the Ten Commandments in
Deuteronomy and you will realise that the original translation of
the commandment is not “thou shalt not commit adultery”, but
“thou shalt not commit prostitution” which is equivalent to saying,
“do not force anyone to engage in unwanted sexual relations”.

136
This commandment would also cover arranged marriages, since
one or both spouses, usually the woman, are forced into
unwanted relations. This means that no one can be forced to
engage in unwanted sexual relations, either inside or outside
marriage.

Bear in mind that at that time the rights of women and children
(especially girls) were virtually non-existent. They were treated
little better than cattle. From their earliest childhood they were
traded, especially those who belonged to the lower classes. They
were bought and sold as slaves and prostitutes, to satisfy the base
instincts of those who could pay. Abduction of women and rape
were the order of the day. In wars, they were often considered as
spoils of war, raped by soldiers, and then forced into prostitution
and slavery.

Arranged marriages were also the order of the day. The families
themselves considered it good business if they could marry off
one of their daughters to someone with money and power.
Marriages of girls to adult or elderly men or between boys and
girls for parental interests were very common. Practically we
could say that more than 90% of the marriages were decided
without the weaker spouse being involved in this decision, as they
were decisions made by the parents when the children were still
children or not even born. Powerful and ambitious people used
marriage as a way to accumulate more wealth or power, to
annex neighboring domains, or simply to satisfy the whim of
sexually possessing whomever they pleased. Polygamy for men
was normal and a sign of power and wealth, and was well
regarded. Imagine the suffering of all those women and girls
subjected to such extreme abuse and humiliation. The intention
of this commandment was to put a stop to all those abuses. But
human selfishness took it upon itself to pervert this commandment
and made the victim the executioner and the executioner the
victim, for from very early on the woman forced into prostitution
was punished, and not the pimp, the rapist or the forced
“husband”, or the parents who negotiate with the lives of their
daughters, who are the ones who prostitute and break the

137
commandment.

What would be the reason why there would be an interest in

modifying this commandment? I mean, when and why does it
change from “thou shalt not commit prostitution” to “thou shalt
not commit adultery”?
If the powerful raped and prostituted openly, it was clear that
they were in breach of the commandment “thou shalt not
commit prostitution”. Arranged marriages and polygamy were in
fact covert forms of prostitution and rape that the more powerful
could afford, since in return they had to provide for the
maintenance of wives or concubines and their offspring. In fact,
all this was going on long before Moses was born and was
widespread. He was aware of all these abuses, which caused him
great indignation, and he tried to legislate to prevent their
continuation, relying on a Divine Council. While he was alive he
was able to curb the most flagrant cases of abuse. But when he
was gone, the powerful interpreted the commandment to suit
themselves. They did not dare to change the commandment.
What they did was to add new laws of their own invention that
obscured the meaning of the original commandment. The first
was to give the image that arranged marriage, polygamy and
the possession of concubines was “pleasing to God” and that
marriage itself was a sacred institution. Then, in order to avoid
bearing the burden of supporting wives who were of no interest
to them, they invented repudiation and laid the blame for
repudiation on women, misinterpreting the law itself in a self-
serving way, under the accusation that they were engaged in
prostitution. In some cases it was true that these women had
sexual relations with another man, precisely the one they were in
love with, since they were forced to be the wives of the powerful
man and could not establish an open relationship with him, so
they lived their love affairs clandestinely. Other women, having
been repudiated, had no choice but to resort to prostitution in
order to survive, as they were totally excluded from society, thus
confirming the false accusation that had been made against
them.
Catholicism was bolder and eventually modified the
commandment to give full importance to the institution of
138
marriage and none to the freedom of choice of partner, for the
powerful of later ages continued to use arranged marriage as a
weapon to satisfy their selfishness and were unwilling to give it up.
They therefore introduced the concept of adultery and used it in
the redefinition of the commandment as “thou shalt not commit
adultery” to punish the spouse who had sexual relations outside
marriage. In practice, only the woman was condemned for
adultery, since the Catholic society was profoundly male
chauvinist, as was the Hebrew one, and the man continued to
lead the double life he wanted without anything happening to
him.

Well, despite what you say, societies that consider themselves

more religious still consider arranged marriage to be normal and
pleasing to God, and it is a common practice. What do you have
to say about this?
Know that arranged marriage is a form of institutionalized rape
that has been given the appearance of “honesty”. For the
avoidance of doubt, I would add that from a spiritual point of
view it is a blatant violation of free will, a horrendous manipulation
of a person’s feelings, forcing them to live together and have a
sexual relationship with someone they have not chosen.
Moreover, they are prevented from freeing themselves from this
bondage by a multitude of threats and blackmail, including
making them believe that if they do not submit, they are unclean,
impure and disobedient to God’s will, thus also violating the
commandment “thou shalt not use God’s name for selfish
purposes”.

But then is adultery a negative thing from a spiritual point of view

or not?
We have already discussed this topic at length when we talked
about relationships and said that faithfulness to feelings is the only
thing that matters on a spiritual level, for it is the key to happiness.
Fidelity arises spontaneously when there is a feeling of mutual love
between the spouses, and this cannot be forced. Your
conventions are of little importance here. If a marital union is
forced, be sure that there will be a complete rejection, an
aversion to the sexual relationship with the forced partner and a
139
desire to have a relationship of one’s own free will, including the
sexual relationship. If it is a voluntary relationship but there are no
feelings, there is dissatisfaction, a lack of desire and even a
rejection of the sexual relationship and an unsatisfied desire that
seeks to be satisfied in another relationship. In these cases
infidelity, adultery or whatever you want to call it, is a reflection
of the absence of couple feeling between the spouses, who
force themselves or are forced to maintain a relationship without
love, and who seek outside that relationship what they cannot
find within it. The problem then lies in wanting to force or prolong
unwanted unions.

Etymologically, the word adultery comes from adulterate, to alter

the quality or purity of something by the addition of a foreign
substance, or also to falsify or tamper with the truth. These
meanings bring us closer to the spiritual definition that the word
adultery should have. An adulterous relationship is when two
people come together as a couple under the appearance that
there is a feeling and there is not really a feeling. In other words,
the union of a couple is manipulated or falsified, the purity of the
union is altered when it is not given out of love. When couple
relationships are based on a feeling of mutual love and affinity,
there will be neither adultery in its spiritual nor in its earthly
definition, because by being united to the loved one, the sexual
relationship with the partner will be truly fulfilling and other
relationships will not be sought to satisfy sexuality.

But for this to be possible, there must be freedom of feeling. That

is why I say to you that this commandment, “Thou shalt not
prostitute”, since mankind has advanced sufficiently to assimilate
it, can be reformulated today in this way: “Thou shalt respect
freedom of feeling”. In other words, every human being has the
right to choose freely with whom he or she does and does not
want to have a relationship, including a sexual relationship, and
no one may violate this right. Therefore no one is obliged to unite
with another person if he or she does not want to, nor is anyone
obliged to perpetuate a relationship if he or she does not want
to.

140
According to what you have said, what would be the status of the
indissolubility of marriage, so extolled by the Church?
We have already said it before. The prolongation of a couple’s
relationship, if there are strong feelings within the couple, will
happen spontaneously, whether or not there is a signed marriage
contract. But it cannot be forced, as this would be a violation of
free will. Therefore, the indissolubility of marriage is not a divine
law, but a human law and does not come from Moses or Jesus.
In fact, it is a rule that was introduced more than a thousand
years after Jesus came to earth. If you look back in your history
you will see that divorce was in force during the reign of all the
Christian Roman emperors. Civil law at the time of the Christian
emperors permitted remarriage after divorce. It was also in force
in all the states that originated after the fragmentation of the
Roman Empire. It was Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) who, out of
enmity towards the emperors and kings of the time, seeing that
they were in the habit of changing their wives frequently,
imposed indissoluble marriage in the Christian kingdoms by
decree.

So divorce does not contravene any divine law?

Of course it does not. On the contrary, it allows free will and
freedom of feeling to be exercised. As we have already said, no
one is obliged to perpetuate a relationship if they do not wish to
do so, and it will not be the spiritual world that will hinder the free
will and the freedom of feeling of the human being.

Some people interpret the increase in the number of divorces as

a reflection of a decrease in the feeling of love within couples.
Are they right?
No. It is a reflection of the fact that there is greater freedom to
break off relationships and that people feel freer to get out of
relationships when they are not satisfactory. If there were not
more divorces before, it was not because relationships were
better, nor because there was more love, but because either the
law did not allow divorce, or because, even if it did, repressive
upbringing meant that many people felt obliged to continue the
relationship even if they did not feel in love.

141
Since we are talking about the commandment “Thou shalt not
commit prostitution”, I would like to get your opinion on
prostitution, from a spiritual point of view.
Prostitution is a reflection of the little progress that exists with
regard to the development of feelings, for an advanced spirit
cannot conceive of having a sexual relationship without love,
much less without mutual desire between the partners. He who
satisfies himself with the sexuality of prostitution reflects poverty of
feeling and the predominance of instinct over feeling and
sensibility.

Yes, but how should prostitution be legislated? Should it be

allowed or prohibited?
It should be prohibited in all cases involving minors, and both
pimps and clients, in this case pedophiles, should be prosecuted,
and minors should be protected from further abuse. In the case
of prostitution involving adults, forced prostitution should be
prohibited, that is when the person practicing prostitution has
been forced or pressured in some way to do so, and the justice
system should prosecute those who forced them into prostitution,
as they are violating their free will, and also the client if he knows
that the person is practicing prostitution against their will. The
person who has been prostituted must be protected from further
harm. Governments must also provide for the support of people
with scarce economic resources so that no one engages in
prostitution out of economic necessity, as there are those who
resort to it as a last resort to earn a living for themselves or their
families, because they have no other way of earning a living, for
this is a form of prostitution in which society itself is an accomplice.
However, it cannot be prohibited when a person, in full possession
of his or her faculties and by free and voluntary decision, without
there being a need for family support, wants to sell his or her
body. Although such a decision reflects little progress from within,
it is not an infringement of their free will, as they exercise it of their
own free will, nor is the client committing a crime, as they did not
force their free will.

On the other hand, I would add that a total ban on prostitution,

142
the way your world is, where there is a great demand for the
satisfaction of the rather primitive sexual instinct and a lack of
respect for free will, would not serve to eradicate it. Rather, it
would result in an increase in rape and sexual abuse and in
prostitution going underground. On the face of it, people who
voluntarily engage in prostitution in your world avoid much rape
and sexual abuse, since they voluntarily satisfy the baser instincts
of many low spirits, who in the absence of such a possibility would
seek sexual gratification by force. Therefore, the eradication of
prostitution in your world cannot be brought about by force, but
will happen when human beings increase their sensitivity
sufficiently so that sexual desire is transformed from the
satisfaction of a biological instinct into the expression of feelings
of love for a partner. And for all this to happen, human beings
must be able to have freedom of feeling and freedom with
regard to their sexuality. Then, sexual relations will be natural and
not a business or a reason for exploitation.

The next commandment is “Thou shalt not steal”.

Yes, one generally understands stealing as theft, the act of taking
from another a material possession that belongs to them without
their consent, and considers only pickpockets, robbers of banks,
jewelers’ shops and other establishments as thieves. But I say to
you that he who deprives the worker of his just wages in order to
enrich himself thereby, he who accumulates power and wealth
at the expense of the harm, suffering and need of others, using
deceit, fraud, blackmail, even though the laws may never find his
crime, is the greatest thief there is. That is why the commandment
“Thou shalt not steal” can be grouped together with “Thou shalt
not bear false witness or lie” and “Thou shalt not covet the goods
of others”, since they are all part of the same intention, that of
harming others in order to satisfy one’s own selfishness.
Accordingly, it is possible to enunciate a piece of advice that
unites the three mentioned above, which would be: “You shall
not act out of selfishness to harm others”. The most materialistic
manifestations of selfishness are greed, avarice and ambition, for
they are responsible for people giving themselves to the
accumulation of wealth and power without paying attention to
the harm they cause to others. But also other manifestations of
143
selfishness that are not materialistic, such as all the egosentiments
that we discussed in the topic of personal relationships like
attachment, jealousy, hatred, anger, absorption, resentment
and spite cause harm to others.

If people enrich themselves without causing harm to others, do

they incur some kind of spiritual debt or violate the maxim “Thou
shalt not act out of selfishness to harm others”?
They do not violate the commandment, but neither do reflect
great advancement, for the advanced spirit does not covet
wealth, nor does it waste its time and effort in becoming wealthy,
for nothing attracts it to that condition. They may do no direct
harm, but if they possess wealth or material power and do not
use it to help others, but rather to satisfy material whims, they miss
a good opportunity to help others and to advance their own
evolution in love, for though they could have done much good,
they did not do it. If a spirit incarnated asking for material wealth
to be used for the common good, and then, once incarnated,
devotes itself to the satisfaction of its selfishness, it fails in its
mission. In any case, in your world it is difficult for a person to
become rich without causing harm to anyone, unless it is
because they receive an inheritance or wins the lottery, for in
your way of functioning in economics and commerce the law of
the strongest prevails, and people of goodwill can hardly prosper
in such an aggressive system without being infected by its evil
practices.

What exactly do you mean?

The economic system that reigns on Earth, which you call
capitalism, is a system born of human selfishness and contradicts
this commandment from end to end, since it can be said that it
is a system that allows and pursues unbridled enrichment, without
the slightest respect for the rights of the human being.

I don’t understand much about economics, but the truth is that I

find it quite complicated to understand what drives the world
economy, with so many macroeconomic indicators. I observe
that there are many inequalities, injustices and a lot of poverty
that is increasing, and this is exacerbated in times of economic
144
crisis like the current one. I find it difficult to envisage a better
future for human beings as we are, and I don’t see what the
solution is.
It is simpler than it seems, although you are led to believe that
everything is complicated and that no one is responsible for the
way things work the way they do, so that you do not see any
solutions and cannot hold anyone accountable. Your current
economic system is like a large pyramid-like enterprise. It is based
on a sophisticated loan system with increasing interest where
each intermediary increases the interest in order to make a profit,
suffocating the one who ultimately receives the money and does
not lend it, because he has to pay back the loan and its interest
with his work or his production. These, those at the bottom of the
pyramid, who are the majority, are the ones who sustain the
whole system with their effort. The rest live off usury and
speculation, as they also create speculative buying and selling
markets where they make profits by buying cheap and selling
anything at a high price. Some of the products that are bought
and sold are real, such as agricultural products, livestock, fishing,
mining or industry, while others are fictitious products, what are
called “financial products”, such as shares, bonds, investment
funds. In reality, it is all very simple nowadays: a few have
appropriated the right to mint money. In other words, they have
the money-making machine. They practically make money for
free and lend it to everyone else at interest, so that everyone is
indebted to them, and with this system they get everyone to do
what they want, speculating on the markets they created,
always with privileged information that allows them to buy cheap
and sell expensive.

Does this have anything to do with the economic crisis?

Yes. Economic crises do not happen by chance, but are
generated from the top of the pyramid. First, low-interest loans
are made available to promote indebtedness. Those at the
bottom of the pyramid, after passing through several rungs of
intermediaries, receive this borrowed money at higher interest
rates and use this money to run their businesses or purchase
goods, which leads to an activation of the economy and an
increase in consumption. This is called a boom time. There is an
145
appearance of wealth and well-being, but it is only an
appearance, because everything has been built with borrowed
money, which has to be paid back with interest. When the
fishermen at the top see that many fish have taken the bait, that
is, that there are many people in debt, they pull in their line to
catch their prey. In other words, at a certain point they turn off
the loan tap. This makes money scarce. To get credit you have
to pay a higher interest rate and loans that have already been
granted also increase in interest. All this hampers economic
activity. Those who got into debt cannot afford the loan
repayments and are dispossessed of all their assets. The standard
of living of the population worsens dramatically while all the
wealth that has been generated in that period passes into the
hands of those who dominate the system. The rich get richer and
the poor get poorer. This is how an economic crisis comes about.

And what is the solution to all this?

The solution is very simple: renounce selfishness, greed, avarice,
each in whatever position he or she is in, and begin to share, to
see the other as oneself and to seek the other’s welfare as much
as one’s own. If everyone would take that step, the world would
change rapidly. This system is sustained because greed, avarice
and ambition abound in human beings, and love and generosity
are in short supply. There is little willingness to share. Those who
have much are not content with what they have. They do not
think of sharing their abundance with those who have less, but
aspire to have even more, more money and more power, even
if it is at the cost of harming others. Many of those who have less
wish to be like those at the top, to succeed in life and to be rich
and powerful. They would do the same as those who have a lot
in their circumstances. That is why it is not enough for those at the
top to change, but there has to be a general change of
consciousness, encompassing every human being, in the sense
of recognizing that in reality we are all spiritual beings, brothers
and sisters who share the same path, the path of spiritual
evolution, and the same destiny, to become happy through
experiencing love, and that for this we need each other. It is
necessary to understand that accumulating wealth is useless
because it does not make us happy, but that depriving ourselves
146
of what we need to live does generate suffering, so if there is an
abundance of everything and we share what we have, no one
is harmed and we all benefit. But I repeat, for that we have to
renounce the accumulation of wealth and be willing to share.

I think this is very nice but very utopian. I think there should be
more concrete measures.
There is no recipe book of measures to be taken, if that is what
you are asking me to do, because everything depends on the
human being’s intention and willingness to renounce selfishness
and a greater disposition towards brotherly love and sharing.
Without such a predisposition every effort would be futile. There
should be a desire on the part of the majority of people to bring
about the changes that will lead to a society based on love, a
willingness to cooperate actively in their implementation, for
nothing can be done by imposition or without the cooperation of
all in general. People should be elected as rulers who have a high
spiritual capacity, people who are loving, humble, of great
generosity, totally devoid of greed, avarice and ambition,
knowledgeable about the situation and willing to implement
measures that promote the common good, social justice and the
equitable redistribution of wealth. They would know what to do
at any given moment. One of the things that should be done
most urgently is to dismantle the whole economic system based
on usury and speculation and to enact fairer and more equitable
laws that pursue and prevent selfish practices from regaining
control of the world. Thus the commandment “Thou shalt not act
out of selfishness to harm others” would be completed as follows:
“Thou shalt promote the common good, social justice and the
equitable redistribution of wealth”.

After having analyzed three commandments in one go, there is

only one commandment left: “You shall not indulge in impure
thoughts and desires”. What about this one?
That this commandment does not exist. It is not even in
Deuteronomy. It is a later invention. Nor do the Protestant
Christian Churches contemplate it. It would be too much to ask
of human beings, who find it so difficult to act without selfishness,
not even to have selfish thoughts. The term “impure” is also rather
147
ambiguous, although it surely refers to sexual desire that does not
fall within the canons permitted by the Church, that is when
sexual desire occurs outside the marriage relationship. It is a
commandment created by man for the purpose of repressing
freedom of feeling, thought and sexual freedom.

But if we have combined three commandments into one and

removed another, we are left with seven commandments and not
ten.
And who said it had to be ten? Well, it doesn’t matter because
there are three more tips I would like to add that I think are quite
important and that you should bear in mind.

What are they?

Respect free will, respect the law of spiritual justice and resolve
individual and collective conflicts peacefully. These three pieces
of advice are closely interrelated, as resolving conflicts
peacefully involves being fair and respecting the free will of
others, individually and collectively.

Could you elaborate a little on each of them to clarify what they

refer to?
Yes, although we talked about this when we discussed the law of
free will and the law of spiritual justice. To respect free will is to
respect the freedom of others, that is, to respect their will, their
opinions, their beliefs, their feelings and the decisions they make
about their own lives. Freedom of feeling is only a variant of free
will. No one belongs to anyone else, so no one has the right to
appropriate the will of others or to decide for others. To respect
the law of spiritual justice is to treat others as you would want
them to treat you and not to do to others what you would not
want them to do to you, for in reality whatever you do to others
you do to yourself. And this has to be respected both individually
and collectively.

The individual form is clear to me. But at the collective level, what
do you mean?
That humanity as a whole, in order to live together harmoniously,

148
must respect justice and free will and put it into practice, and this
must be reflected in the way societies function, in forms of
government, laws, the economy, education and culture. And
although in theory some countries of the world enshrine the
principles of freedom and justice in their laws, in practice human
selfishness destroys them and they remain a dead letter.

Any examples of what you are saying?

Formal slavery is illegal in all countries, but virtually all of humanity
is governed by an economic and political system that tolerates
and encourages the exploitation and abuse of human beings in
a way that is so similar to formal slavery that it is confused with it.
Many countries hide under the guise of democracy governments
that pretend to serve the people but in reality use the people for
selfish purposes, or that pretend to want peace but encourage
war and justify it to make it appear as the only option for resolving
conflicts, when in reality they never sought any other option.
Those who see no other option are blinded by their selfishness,
ambition and greed and want to have their way no matter what
the cost. But there is always another option if there is willingness,
respect and understanding for others and a willingness to
renounce selfish attitudes. Therefore, bear in mind this advice that
will save you and others a lot of suffering: resolve conflicts, both
individual and collective, peacefully. Never use violence,
coercion or blackmail, and never impose your will on others, even
if you think you are right.

This raises some doubts in my mind. If a person is attacked,

abused or coerced, in short, if they feel their free will violated by
another in some aspect of their life, do they have to allow this
abuse in order to avoid conflict, or do they have the right to
defend themselves?
Of course they have the right to defend themselves. It is just as
important to respect the freedom of others as it is to defend one’s
own freedom. It is not a matter of avoiding conflicts by submitting
to the will of the strongest, but of resolving them by avoiding
violence. But this does not mean that one has to put oneself on
the same level as the other.
149
Any examples to clarify this point?
If a woman is abused by her husband, she should not tolerate it
under any circumstances. But this does not mean that the way to
avoid it is to respond with the same aggression, as this would
make her equal to the aggressor. The logical thing to do is to get
away from the aggressor and report the abuse so that the courts
can deal with it.

But surely the aggressor is going to be more enraged by such

measures and may increase his level of violence, thus making
the conflict more violent; this seems to contradict the message of
resolving conflicts peacefully. What can you tell me about this?
That violence is not generated by the victim’s actions, but by the
aggressor because he does not get his own way. It is the
aggressor who should apply the advice we give you here to
resolve conflicts without violence, not the victim. Please do not
confuse being peaceful with being submissive, because they are
different things. Here we advise you to be peaceful, but not to
be submissive. A good example that will make the difference
clear to you is the person who, because he is a pacifist, refuses to
do military service in those countries where it is compulsory. Don’t
you call him an insubordinate? A pacifist is insubordinate to
violence, and acts with consistency and firmness in his
convictions. He does not allow others to force him to do
something that his conscience tells him is wrong, so he is fighting
to ensure that his free will is not violated.

And at the collective level, if one country is attacked or invaded

by another, does it have the right to defend itself or not?
It has the right to defend itself, but it must always exhaust the
peaceful way. There you have the example of Gandhi to prove
that there is a difference between being submissive and being
pacifist, and how conviction in noble and just ideals, will and
firmness, can achieve great things without resorting to violence.
Wars, warlike conflicts in general, do not happen overnight, nor
do those who have the will to generate them form the majority.
There are usually selfish interests behind armed conflicts, the
desire of a few to seize something, and these are the ones who
150
trick others into doing their dirty work for them. Remove the
ambitious belligerents from governments and you will see that all
wars and violent conflicts in general are avoidable.

Well, I think what Gandhi achieved is an exception, because the

norm is that the strong always prevail over the weak. And yet
there were many innocent victims.
There would have been more victims if there had been a war.
And even if it were as you say, understand that the goal of life is
not political struggle, it is spiritual advancement. And even if you
believe that it is unjust for one country to invade another, and
conclude that the strong ultimately take over the weak, you must
realize that the invaded of today may be the invaders of the past
who are now living through what they put them through. Review
history and you will see that struggles between peoples have
been a constant in human history and that the position of
oppressor and oppressed has changed over time. Peoples who
were oppressed become oppressors very easily, because if they
were not oppressed before it was not because they did not want
to, but because they could not. And this is because in all peoples,
in all races, there embodied spirits with a very primitive selfishness,
full of ambition, greed and avarice, who fought among
themselves to see who would become the richest and most
powerful. This is what has driven and drives human beings to fight
against each other, ambition, greed, avarice and fanaticism. But
all empires, however mighty they may have become, have
crumbled over time, because what is not based on love is
ephemeral. What is to be learned from all this is that selfishness in
the form of ambition, greed and avarice generates much
suffering, and that no one is happy to experience such suffering,
so each one must strive to eliminate such selfishness from his or
her heart. When this lesson is learned, there will be no more strife
between countries, peoples, races or religions, for the spirits who
incarnate will be very clear that no motive justifies harming one’s
brother, for that would be like harming oneself.

151
JESUS’ MISSION ON EARTH II

I find it surprising that, if reincarnation is so important to the

process of spiritual evolution, Jesus did not speak clearly and
directly about reincarnation.
Yes, he did. He also spoke of the Spiritual Laws and all that
pertains to spiritual evolution in a clear and simple manner.
Whether the information you have from him is correct and
complete is another matter.

And is there documentary evidence of this?

The whole truth about Jesus, about his personality and his work,
no one in your world knows. Barely a few scraps have remained
of some of his thoughts, his personality and the message he came
to convey. And of the little good that has remained, most of it has
been modified, manipulated or hidden from the people by those
who have ruled and have ruled your world ever since. And so
they continue to maintain it, for it is their intention that none of it
should be known, for they consider the truth to be detrimental to
their selfish interests.

So all this information is not new?

Of course not! This is the same message that has been given
throughout history in different parts of the globe. The transmitters
were, in reality, always the same spiritual envoys, with a higher
level of evolution than the average person on the planet,
knowledgeable in the law of love and the rest of the spiritual laws,
but known by different names according to the historical epoch
in which they lived.

And why have we not been aware of this?

We have already said this. When the spiritual envoys disappear
and the message is left in the hands of less advanced spirits, they
infiltrate their selfish ideas into the original message, and this
cannot be prevented, for the original transmitters are no longer
there to rectify the deviations. In the specific case of Jesus, the
same thing happened. Over the centuries, the message Jesus
gave was adulterated, always to favor the powerful, or not to
152
harm their interests. The true teachings were consciously modified
by hiring scribes who removed what the powerful did not want to
be known and added what they wanted to be there.

And what kind of teachings were omitted?

The same that we are now making known. The knowledge about
the reincarnation of souls and the law of evolution. The right of
each being to decide for itself about its life and its feelings. The
call for the protection and respect of life and the rights of the
weakest and most defenseless beings, including animals. All
those messages that condemned and denounced selfishness in
all its manifestations, such as greed, avarice, hatred, abuse and
exploitation of some beings by others, were consciously
eliminated or modified so that their original meaning was no
longer recognizable.

And why didn’t Jesus prevent his teachings from being

manipulated once he was gone?
For neither Jesus nor any other envoy from the spiritual world can
force the world to do what they want, for that would be an
infringement of free will. The only thing he can do is to incarnate
again to remake what human selfishness undoes.

Do you mean that Jesus will be incarnated on earth again? That

is to say, will he come back a second time?
Yes. But it won’t be the second time, just one of the many times
he’s been here.

So are the prophecies of a second coming of Christ true?

We have already said that the Christ does not incarnate, for he is
an evolutionarily very advanced entity, having passed the
human phase of evolution many eons ago, and that what he
does is to influence spirits in the human phase of evolution when
they incarnate with a spiritual mission. But it is certain that Jesus
will incarnate again. Although, as I said, it will not be the second
time. But he will not come to head the Catholic Church, as some
expect. Nor will he be welcomed by many who consider
themselves Christians, especially by the hierarchy, because,

153
among other things, he will come to dismantle all the falsehood
and error that the Church has created in his name, as he did two
thousand years ago with the Hebrew Church.

Why is it that when I asked you before about whether Jesus would
incarnate again on earth you answered me by talking about
Christ, and now when I ask you about Christ you answer me by
talking about Jesus, if they are two different entities?
Because you identify Jesus with the Christ. And it is true that when
Jesus incarnates again he will have the inspiration of the Christ.
But it is also true that the Christ can inspire other beings of great
evolution when it is necessary for them to incarnate again to
continue the work of spiritual evolution.

I understand from your words that the Christ has inspired beings
other than Jesus.
Of course.

And can this Christ inspire less evolved beings, even if the
incarnation of the Messiah has not taken place?
Of course, for the Christ in particular, and advanced spiritual
beings in general, are not limited to inspiring only one being at
any one time, but all beings who act out of unconditional love,
even if they are not of such a high level as Jesus. Whether the
connection with the Christ and other evolutionarily advanced
entities is more or less intense will depend on the degree of
evolution of the incarnated being. Many desire to be “chosen”
in order to feel important, and appear to want to love, but are
unwilling to give up their selfishness. The spiritual world helps those
who wish to advance on the path of love. But one who acts out
of selfishness cannot expect the advanced spiritual entities to
second him in his goals. The choice, therefore, is one’s own, and
it is a choice between selfishness and love. Depending on which
you choose, you will attract one influence or the other.

How are we to understand this Christ-Jesus combination? As a

state of Christ consciousness?
The Christ is a highly evolved spiritual being who exists just as each

154
of you exist, with your own will and individuality. It is therefore
much more than a state of consciousness, for a state of
consciousness is not a being, but a manifestation of a being.
Certainly the connection of a human being with the Christ allows
the human being to expand his consciousness to far greater limits
than he could possibly encompass on his own, and being under
the inspiration of this super-evolved being allows him to act with
far greater clarity, courage and decisiveness in pursuit of his
mission than if he had only his own capacity.

What is the most advanced being after God, is he incarnated,

and what is his specific and general mission?
If you are asking if the Christ or Jesus are the beings immediately
below God in evolution, I can tell you that they are not. The
spiritual Universe is very large and there are an infinite number of
very advanced beings, more advanced than the Christ and
Jesus. The birth of these beings is so far back in time that it would
be impossible for me to explore that far back in the history of
evolution, which has no beginning, for God has always existed
and never ceased to create. You believe, in your limited
conception, that the most help these beings can give is to come
down to the planet in incarnation in a human personality. That is
why you even think it normal for God himself to incarnate in a
human, when you consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God
himself. With your small-mindedness, you cannot even imagine
the extent of the capacity of these super-evolved beings. They
are charged with far greater responsibilities than you can
imagine, as creators and directors of infinite worlds and
humanities; an incarnation in a human personality would be to
restrict their capacity to act to an infinitesimal part of their
potential. Therefore, they do not incarnate in human
personalities, for it would be akin to expecting a human being to
incarnate in the body of an ant in order to lead the life of an ant.
So, it is beings evolutionarily closer to you who take on this type of
mission, though they are assisted by beings of higher evolution.

And why, if Jesus was not the direct incarnation of God or the
Christ, did he say of himself I am the Way, the Truth and the Life?

155
Jesus never uttered that phrase as you know it, for he could not
personalize to himself a message that was universal. It is a
simplification of the following message: I came to show you, as
an envoy from the spirit world, the way of spiritual evolution, the
truth of the spirit world and what the life of the spirit really is.

You said that Jesus had come more times, do you mean that
Jesus has incarnated more times in the past, before coming in the
personality of Jesus of Nazareth?
Of course. He was previously incarnated on Earth, in times of
antiquity that your official history neither records nor admits.

And what did he do in those other lives?

Jesus was like you, like all of you. And when he evolved enough,
he came as a spiritual messenger.

But before he came as Jesus, I suppose he also did similar

missions in the past. Is there any historical record of what he did?
Missions are spiritual works which leave their mark on souls in every
age of history. And though the history books do not record it, or
record it in a distorted way, the work is not fruitless, for the spirit
that is touched within by the spiritual message never forgets this
teaching and will manifest it in its subsequent incarnations. When
Jesus came to leave His message of love, He did so in different
times and places in the world. Jesus’ great endeavor was to find
a way to convey to the people of those times that all the evils of
the world were the result of selfishness. And also to be able to
convey to them the basic spiritual notions so that they would
understand the process of spiritual evolution and the spiritual laws
in the simplest possible way. But the world of the past did not
recognize him, nor was it willing to implement the changes he
proposed, since most people of that time, compared to today,
were very limited in both intelligence and sensitivity. They were
therefore very fascinated by the acts, supernatural for them, that
Jesus performed, but they did not understand the profound
spiritual message that he conveyed. They knew he was an
exceptional being, but they did not understand him. Only a few,
his closest disciples, came to understand him.
That is why it is necessary to continue that same work. And those
156
who understood him in the past are responsible for continuing his
work in the present, to help in the present those who, for lack of
evolution, did not understand his teachings in the past.

Does the salvation of mankind depend on the new incarnation of

Jesus, or can mankind be saved without his incarnation, since he
was already incarnated in the past?
“Salvation”, if we understand it as a spiritual change towards love
of the human being, does not depend on the incarnation of any
particular advanced spirit. If many people come to make a
change simultaneously, this will bring about a positive change
towards love on a collective level, let’s call it “salvation of
humanity”, but it does not depend on anyone in particular, but
on everyone in general. We have already said that spiritual
advancement depends on what each one does and decides for
oneself. Jesus, or other highly evolved beings, cannot be
burdened with the obligation to evolve other less evolved
brothers and sisters. Advanced spirits can by their example help
other beings to awaken, but evolution is individual and voluntary.
Even God, who is omnipotent, does not force you to advance.

Perhaps one of the consequences of this lack of understanding of

Jesus’ mission is the fact that we have believed that his coming
would redeem our sins.
That is right. For if he could save all mankind by his sacrifice, it
would mean that human beings, whether do good or evil, will be
saved even against their will and merit. And this would be against
free will. The coming of advanced spiritual beings to the planet is
always for the purpose of instructing humanity to become
conscious and to evolve. Whether it does so or not is up to
humanity itself.

So if the salvation of mankind did not depend on Jesus dying on

the cross, I don’t know how great a sacrifice was necessary.
You see, Jesus’ choice was to come into this world to deliver a
message of love to humanity, knowing that as a consequence
he was at risk of being killed. At a certain point in his life he was
clearly made aware, through visions, that as events unfolded he
157
would be killed by crucifixion and was given the option to
withdraw, since the higher spirit world fully respects free will, and
never compels anyone to do anything, even those it knows to be
totally in sympathy with it.

And if he knew he was going to be killed, why didn’t he avoid it?

Wouldn’t this be a kind of suicide, which, you say, is contrary to
spiritual law?
It is not that he wanted to be killed, nor that he had a special
predilection for dying by crucifixion, if that is what you mean. But
because of his personal courage and because of the example
he wanted to set of carrying his message of love to its ultimate
consequences, he decided to continue. I have already said that
Jesus’ merit was not in having died on the cross, but in the
courage he had to fulfil his mission as God’s messenger, for
despite knowing that it would cost him tremendous suffering that
would end in his martyrdom and murder, he accepted this
sacrifice in spite of everything.

So, if Jesus did not come to redeem our sins, is Jesus the Savior
announced in the Old Testament or not?
Jesus is indeed the envoy announced in the Old Testament.
Whether he came for the purpose for which the Catholic Church
has led you to believe, or for which the people of Israel expected
him, is another matter. Israel expected a political king, like their
King David, who would deliver them from foreign rule and make
them a conquering people. But Jesus did not come for that
purpose. His mission was to all mankind, not as a material ruler,
but as a messenger of God, a conveyor of the truth of the spirit
world, who came to lead confused humanity out of darkness, lost
in misunderstood, absurd and erroneous beliefs. He came to
show the true path of spiritual evolution to a humanity utterly
confused as to its concept of God and human evolution, and
totally trapped in selfishness.

And could it be that some of the great avatars or prophets

recorded in history - I am thinking of Moses, Krishna or Buddha -
were earlier incarnations of Jesus?

158
None of those you mentioned was Jesus. But they were
messengers of God, that is, envoys from the spirit world, with the
same mission as Jesus. They all served the same cause and their
work was more or less fruitful, according to the receptiveness of
the mentalities of the people among whom they incarnated.

Could we then say that Jesus and Buddha are the most evolved
beings ever to have been on planet Earth?
Of those you know, yes.

But isn’t it true that the Jewish people rejected Jesus because
they saw his ideas as contrary to the law of Moses?
Not the entire Jewish people. It was the Hebrew clergy and those
who were influenced by them. And it was not Jesus’ ideas that
were contrary to the law of Moses, but to the laws that the
Hebrew clergy had established for the people, using Moses as a
cover. Therefore, he did not come to abolish the law of Moses,
but to show it again as it was originally given, stripped of the lies
and manipulations to which it had been subjected, and to fulfil it.

You mean the Ten Commandments?

It turns out that the Ten Commandments are among the few
things that have been kept, even if some of them have been
altered to change their original meaning. We have already
discussed this at length and will not repeat it. The true writings of
Moses were brief, simple but spiritually true. Nothing like the so-
called Pentateuch, attributed to Moses, which was written well
after he died and is full of altered, fanciful accounts and
abominable acts ordered by the leaders of the Hebrew people,
which, in order to justify themselves and silence dissenters, they
attributed to God or to Moses.

Let’s go back to Jesus. Was the last time Jesus was incarnated on
earth two thousand years ago or has he come some more times
since then without us recognizing him?
He last incarnated as Jesus 2000 years ago and has not
incarnated on Earth since.

159
Is Jesus currently incarnated on Earth?
No. Not yet. But it won’t be long now.

Is the decision to incarnate, and when that incarnation will occur,

made by him or by another higher entity?
He decides on his own free will, knowing what the evolutionary
needs of the planet are and what are the most favorable
moments to achieve a greater impact of the message.

Exactly how long before he will be incarnated again?

I cannot answer that. He will come back in the not too distant
future, depending on how events develop. But not yet in this
generation. But those who will pave the way for him have been
incarnating for some time now.

What do you mean by those who will “pave the way”?

For spiritual missions are not individual and isolated works, nor are
they improvised, but are thoroughly and painstakingly prepared
long before they are carried out. They are collective aid missions
in which many beings participate who, though not as highly
evolved as Jesus, act in harmony with him for the purpose of
advancing humanity spiritually. Some assist and cooperate from
the spiritual plane, and others on the physical plane, incarnating
before, during and after the main messenger does so.

What does this preparation consist of?

In making the message known, on a small scale, so that there is
already a good predisposition in the people to the spiritual
message, so that when the avatar incarnates, his message will
have greater penetration.

What characteristics does the planet have to have in order for a

greater number of evolved beings to manifest?
We have already said that the missions of spiritual aid are not new
now, but are linked with work done in other ages. The same spirits
incarnate in different ages for the same purpose, the less
advanced ones attempting to learn the basic notions of love,
and the more advanced ones with the responsibility both to

160
develop further their own capacity to love, and to educate in
love those who know less of it by their example.
As the “educating” spirit progresses, its missions take on greater
depth. As the less advanced spirits also evolve as a result of this
work, the number of spirits who understand more deeply the
meaning of the spiritual message and who choose to put it into
practice increases, and they themselves also become
transmitters of the message. With each wave of spiritualization,
more and more spirits progressively join the evolutionary
bandwagon, and this increases the number of advanced spirits.
Therefore, the incarnation of more advanced spirits is a reflection
of the increasing spiritual level of humanity.

What you just said about more advanced spirits being incarnated
brings to mind a passage in the Gospels where Jesus supposedly
says: “Greater things than I will you do!” You will agree with me in
acknowledging that to this day, those he did have not been
equaled by anyone and two thousand years have passed. Was
Jesus wrong in saying this or is this statement also misunderstood?
He is making reference here to something we have said before,
and that is that when human beings evolve sufficiently, they will
be able to reach the level of evolution that Jesus had when he
incarnated on this planet. And since there is no limit to evolution,
they will also be able to achieve higher levels of evolution. This
means that in that state of evolution they will have the same or
greater capacities than Jesus had when he incarnated on this
planet. If there is still no one on your planet who manifests as great
a capacity to love as Jesus did, it is because there has not yet
been enough time for even the most evolved beings on your
world to have reached that level. Although it may mean a long
time to you, spiritually speaking 2000 years is a short space of time.
So neither was he wrong, nor is the message manipulated, it is just
that the time has not yet come for that statement to be fulfilled.

There are many people who consider themselves spiritually

advanced and claim to be messengers of God. Are they right?
Most do not. They express a desire for notoriety that they have,
fueled by their desire for prominence, which is not a reality. The
advanced spirit is recognized by its capacity for love and
161
humility, and by respect for the ideas and beliefs of others. Many
people who claim to be God’s messengers flaunt this supposed
status and use this supposed superiority to impose themselves on
others and to profit from it. Those who boast of being more than
others and also want to impose themselves on others lack humility
and lack respect for free will. In that they are known to be not
what they say they are.

When talking about a new incarnation of Jesus, it came to my

mind that the Apocalypse seems to announce this coming. Is this
interpretation correct?
Yes.

But the Revelation makes a prediction of events regarding the

future of the Earth, many of them of a catastrophic nature. Are
these predictions true? Can you shed some light on this subject?
Revelation, as I said, is a vision of the possible future of the Earth
that John had. Within that vision he had access to certain events
that might occur on Earth in the future, some human-made and
others the result of natural geological changes, which he tried to
convey, to the best of his ability, to the people of his time, and
also the events and transformations that humanity would
experience during that period. It may give the impression that, by
telling it all at once, it was all going to happen very quickly, but
in reality these events span a fairly long period of time, thousands
of years, at the end of which there will be a spiritual breakthrough
in humanity. The human being will then become aware of his
origin, of his destiny, of the existence of a spiritual world and of
the discovery that there are entities above him, beginning with
God, Christ, Jesus and other beings unknown to you or to those
of you who have no name, who love him, watch over his spiritual
development and his happiness.

Just as Revelation speaks of the coming of Christ it speaks of the

reign of the Antichrist. My question is, does the Antichrist exist? Is
he going to incarnate? When?
We have already said that there is no omnipotent being in evil,
nor does any spirit incarnate for the manifest purpose of doing
harm. If it ends up doing so, it is not because it carries this purpose
162
as if it were a spiritual mission. No spirit incarnates with a negative
purpose beforehand, but because of his lack of spiritual evolution
he is inclined to evil by the impulse of his own selfishness, once
incarnated. Therefore, if you expect the Antichrist to be a
powerfully evil being, who incarnates for the purpose of
destroying the world, or of destroying Christ or His followers, I tell
you, he does not exist.

And if he does not exist, what is the meaning of this word used in
Revelation, or is it just another manipulation of the scriptures?
The evangelist saw in the events of the future that there was great
selfishness in humanity, that it was governed by selfish values
contrary to love. In addition, part of the message was given in
encrypted form so that it would be more difficult to manipulate it
later. In this context, the Antichrist is a symbolic figure,
representing the selfish, ambitious and ruthless facet of the
unevolved human being, who as a consequence acts in a way
that causes great harm to his fellow human beings. It is selfishness
personified. And the reign of the Antichrist represents the world
ruled by selfishness. If we assume that the message of Christ is
unconditional love, the antichrist is one who acts contrary to
Christ, that is, who is strongly opposed to love.

So were the likes of Nero, Napoleon and Hitler, who did so much
damage to humanity, the Antichrist or not?
The historical figures you mention who have been identified with
the antichrist were extremely selfish people who, driven by
ambition and the desire for power, have caused great harm to
humanity. But there have been many like them in history, there
are and there will continue to be as long as selfishness reigns
supreme in the world. What you call them does not make them
better or worse, though perhaps more important and more
terrifying in the eyes of the world.

The end of the world, the Apocalypse, also reminds me of the

Mayan prophecies, which place catastrophic events for
humanity in the year 2012.....
You mean that Westerners have wanted to see that in the Mayan
scriptures, because if you ask the descendants of the Mayans
163
they will tell you that this is not the case.

But is something apocalyptic going to happen, like a planetary

cataclysm, or the outbreak of a third world war that destroys
humanity in 2012 or not?
Nothing of the sort will happen in 2012. Natural disasters will
continue to occur in roughly the same proportions, but none will
be so severe as to cause planet-wide destruction. You worry a lot
about natural disasters, which you cannot avoid, and little about
the ones you can avoid, which are wars and barbarism, the work
of human beings. The conflicts of war, unfortunately so frequent
in your world, will continue to develop more or less along the lines
of those that currently exist, and will continue to do so as long as
there is no change of consciousness towards love. But nothing
that will destroy the Earth or Humanity, for the time being. If you
remember, at the end of the last century there was a similar
psychosis predicting different catastrophic events for the end of
the century or the beginning of the next, supposedly based on
the prophecies of Nostradamus. And the year 2001 passed and
nothing of the sort happened. It is the fanaticism, fantasy and
ignorance of many people that have made a mountain out of a
molehill. People who buy into these bad omens are trapped in a
psychosis of fear or hallucination that prevents them from
focusing on what is important, which is spiritual evolution. We
have already said that the fundamental change that is coming
is of a spiritual nature and is not limited to a specific year or date,
but spans an epoch that may be hundreds of years in the future.
Anyone expecting the end of the world in 2012 is in for a
tremendous disappointment.

In different parts of the world there have also been supernatural

manifestations with a certain apocalyptic air that have had a lot
of repercussions. I am referring to the so-called Marian
apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima. Is there any truth in this, if there
is any?
What is true is that there are spiritual beings who communicate
directly with people with mediumistic abilities, with the purpose of
transmitting messages, some of a more personal nature and
others of a collective nature. In general, these manifestations do
164
not usually have great repercussions because the people who
have them are usually discreet and do not give publicity to these
events, because they know that they are most likely to be
branded as mentally unbalanced. The cases of Lourdes and
Fatima gained notoriety for the fact that they were seen by
children and the children naturally told of what they had seen.

But in the specific cases of Lourdes and Fatima it is said that it is

the Virgin Mary who manifested herself. Is this true? What was the
message she conveyed?
No, it was not Mary who manifested, though this is of no great
importance. It is true that they were advanced spirits who
appeared in the guise of a woman. But they never said they were
Mary. They do not usually give names, or if they do, they are
generic names. The identification with Mary usually occurs
because the children identify her with the characters of the
religious beliefs in which they have been educated, or because
after the visions they have been conditioned by adults to identify
her with Mary. The message they give is usually very clear, along
the lines of what we are talking about, that human beings are in
the world to evolve, that to do so they have to develop their
capacity to love and detach themselves from selfishness.
Sometimes they warn about the future risks that individual and
collective selfish attitudes may entail at the collective level, such
as future armed conflicts. But then the Church comes along and
manipulates all the messages to suit itself, and keeps quiet about
what it is not interested in making known because it harms its
interests. Above all, it makes people believe that the
appearance of the supposed Virgin Mary is a call for the
conversion of humanity to its religion in order to gain more
followers or to secure the ones it already has. Fanaticism and
superstition do the rest, turning these places into pilgrimage
centers, which bring in huge profits at the expense of the
fanaticism and ignorance of the faithful.

And what is the third secret of Fatima, if it can be known? Does it

have something to do with the end of the world?
If the spirit world wanted to keep a secret it would not have

165
revealed it to the world. It is the selfishness of mankind, especially
those who wield the material power of the world, that keeps the
revelations of the spiritual world under lock and key and does not
want to make them known for fear of being exposed. In any
case, do not rack your brains over it, for what was said there has
already been revealed in other ways.

166
THE FAREWELL

One of the times when I was relaxing talking to Isaías, he said to

me:

-HELLO BROTHER. TODAY I WOULD LIKE YOU TO COME OUT OF

YOUR BODY BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO SEE SOMETHING.

And immediately I was out of the body catapulted at full speed

into one of the glass pyramids that were part of that beautiful
place Isaías used to take me to. He took me to a place that
looked like some kind of circular exhibition hall. In the center there
was like a small circular stage surrounded by bleachers all around
it. In the center of the stage there was like a stand holding a
crystalline stone that looked like quartz, very big and well cut.

-SIT WHEREVER YOU WANT AND WAIT - he said.

After me, the bleachers began to fill with other people who were
also accompanied like me. I understood that those people were
incarnate like me, and I deduced from the way they were
dressed, in robes, and from the light they gave off, that they were
their spirit guides. They sat down as I did while the spirit guides, like
Isaías, moved to the center, forming a circle around the stone
stand. They all held hands. At a certain point the light in the room
dimmed to almost extinct. Then we began to see how the quartz
crystal gradually lit up, and suddenly we saw how the light from
the crystal hit the ceiling and activated some unknown
mechanism that made the whole center of the circle light up, as
if forming a kind of luminous cylinder. Then the luminous cylinder
expanded until it encompassed all of us in the room, as if it were
putting us inside. “DON’T BE AFRAID, NOTHING CAN HAPPEN TO
YOU. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE” - we
could hear in our minds. Little by little the light faded and we
began to see images. It was like a 3D movie but much more real,
because it was as if we were inside, with total realism. The images
were so perfect that I would have said I was really in that place.
We started to see men who looked like politicians making
speeches in front of a crowd of people and the crowd was
167
cheering and roaring. Although I couldn’t understand the words,
I could perceive the thoughts. The politicians were obeying the
orders of other beings whose physiognomy we did not see, but
who were dark and who transmitted streams of darkness to the
politicians who were speaking. They were inciting them to wage
war. As the politicians spoke, the stream of darkness spread like a
fog over the audience and penetrated them in such a way that
they were as if impregnated with this dark fog. I felt a great
current of fear, hatred and fanaticism that had a deep impact
on me. Then the images disappeared and other images
appeared where we saw armies parading. Then we began to
see images of planes, tanks, warships, missile launchers in full
activity. We saw soldiers with machine guns getting ready for
action. Then we began to see bombs falling and explosions
destroying everything in their path. We saw how so many people
died, men, women and children, some riddled with bullets, others
blown up by bomb blasts, others burned. We also saw how
soldiers took women and raped them without any regard and
then killed them without any contemplation. We saw prisoners
beaten and tortured to death. Cities, towns, villages, fields totally
destroyed, lots of corpses scattered everywhere. It was the most
horrible thing I have ever seen in my life because it was
happening as if I was there. I was in shock, we all were. At one
point it was as if we were suddenly ascending in an aircraft and
we saw all the destruction from above. We started seeing missiles
in the sky and we saw what was happening when one of the
missiles hit a very big city. There was a huge roar, at the same time
as a blast wave of fire was spreading out at high speed and
sweeping everything away with an impressive destructive power.
A huge cloud of gigantic dust was formed. I can’t estimate the
extent of it, but it was enormous. In a moment we descended
back down to ground level at quite a distance from where the
bomb had exploded. I saw the shape of the cloud. It was similar
to the mushroom cloud of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic
bomb explosions, but the feeling was that they were much more
powerful and destructive detonations. We saw several similar
atomic bombs explode in different places. The spectacle was
Dantesque. In some places there was nothing left standing.
Nothing. Everything completely razed to dust and ashes. In other
168
places there were ruins where you could see mangled corpses
everywhere. In some places we could see emaciated, ragged
survivors wandering aimlessly, trying to flee the most devastated
areas. That vision passed. And then we began to see another
vision of a place where the earth was beginning to shake and
split open in many places. There were very strong earthquakes
that were shattering what little was left standing. Volcanoes also
formed in many places, and lava was flowing everywhere,
washing away everything on the surface of an already
devastated earth. At another time we experienced a much
greater rumbling, which I have no words to describe. The earth in
that place was sinking. We simultaneously saw images of different
places, all undergoing a similar cataclysm. The sinking of the land
caused gigantic waves to form in the surrounding seas, like
gigantic tsunamis that when they reached the coasts of the
continents that had not sunk, they swept everything away in a
huge, hard-to-determine expanse. The sudden contact of the
lava with the water caused an enormous evaporation of water.
The sky was completely covered with very thick clouds. Huge
storms and tempests were raging and the sunlight was no longer
visible. Then we moved further and further away from the earth’s
surface until we could see the entire earth sphere from space. It
looked bleak. We could no longer see the blue of the sea and
the brown and green of the continents, nor the white of the
clouds. We could see a sphere completely covered by a gray
and dense atmosphere, which prevented us from seeing the
surface. What a sadness to see what had been the fate of our
world! That was the end of the vision. The cylindrical screen
dwindled back to the centre of the room and then went out. The
light in the projection room became bright again. All of us in the
audience were in shock. We watched as one of the guides
approached the centre of the room and removed the quartz
crystal, replacing it with another. Before we had time to react,
the cylinder was reactivated in the same way as before, and
again the cylindrical screen of 3D images enveloped us. We saw
again the same politicians of before, the ones who made
speeches in favour of war, with the dark entities transmitting
negative influences to them. But this time they were doing it on
television sets. They were communicating through television the
169
decision to go to war against other countries. But the people
reacted differently from the previous vision. They also formed
crowds, but this time it was not to support their warmongering
rulers, but to protest against them. The demonstrations were
massive. The rulers tried to quell the protests by ordering the army
and police to act against the people. But the soldiers and police
themselves refused to obey the orders to attack their fellow
citizens and joined the protest. We saw the fall of these rulers in
the face of the momentum of popular rebellions and how they
were arrested and imprisoned. This was happening
simultaneously in all the countries that were about to go to war.
We then saw the appearance of other people who conveyed
very different sensations from those of the politicians. They were
accompanied by luminous beings who transmitted luminous
flows to them, and they spread them over others. They exuded
humility, serenity. We saw how a halo of light spread from them
to the people, transmitting peace and love. These new leaders
decreed the cessation of all violent activity and formed a kind of
world congress to decide what the new direction for humanity
would be. We saw another vision where all the war machines
were dismantled and melted down, armies were dismantled and
all those who had contributed to bringing the world to the brink
of war were brought to trial. The vision disappeared. We were told
mentally that we were going to see the changes that had taken
place in the world after this decision, after a time that I could not
specify. Everything had changed for the better. We saw people
going about their daily activities. There were no wars, no conflicts,
no poverty, no inequalities. Humanity lived in harmony. You could
see people’s faces and they were happy. The vision ended, as
before, with an image of the Earth as seen from the outside. What
a contrast to the first vision, how beautiful it looked now,
compared to the previous vision! The luminous cylinder shrunk
back to the center of the ring and then went out. The lights came
on. I was extremely moved and excited. I looked at the others
and saw that they were also as impressed as I was. There had
been a lot of very strong and contradictory emotions in a very
short time. The guides dispersed from the circle they had formed
and rejoined their protégés. I could see them transmitting waves
of energy to help them recover from the impact of their
170
experience. In a short time they had all disappeared from the
room. “IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO COME BACK TOO”. It was Isaías who
spoke to me. I felt a strong tug and a free fall that took me straight
into my body. However, I did not wake up immediately, but
remained in a state of paralysis.

-LET’S TALK A BIT BEFORE YOU WAKE UP. WE DO IT THIS WAY SO

THAT YOUR MIND REMEMBERS BETTER.

-Who were they?- I asked.

-THEY ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU, INCARNATE SPIRITS FROM YOUR

WORLD- said Isaías- THEIR COMPANIONS WERE BROTHERS FROM
THE SPIRITUAL WORLD HELPING THEM.

-They looked very affected- I said.

-YES. YOU TOO. MANY OF THEM WILL NOT REMEMBER THIS

EXPERIENCE CONSCIOUSLY. IT WOULD BE TOO STRONG AN
IMPACT FOR THEIR EARTHLY MIND. BUT THEIR INNER SELF WILL
REMEMBER IT AND TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT.

-What did we see?- I asked.

-WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN ARE TWO DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES FOR THE
FUTURE OF YOUR WORLD. THE FIRST IS THE FUTURE THAT IS POSSIBLE
IF HUMANITY IS DRIVEN BY SELFISHNESS AND THE SECOND IS THE
FUTURE THAT AWAITS IT IF IT CHOOSES LOVE.

-So none of that has happened yet, nor does it necessarily have
to happen. I mean I wouldn’t want the first possibility of the future
to happen.

-EXACT. NONE OF THIS HAS HAPPENED. YET.

-And there are more future possibilities, apart from the ones
we’ve seen?

-YES. WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN ARE THE NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE
171
EXTREMES. THERE ARE INTERMEDIATE SITUATIONS. BUT BASICALLY
ALL THE POSSIBILITIES CONVERGE, IN A GREATER OR LESSER TIME
OF DEVELOPMENT, TOWARDS ONE OF THESE TWO. THESE ARE
THINGS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. BUT IT’S
GOOD THAT YOU HAVE A LONGER-TERM PERSPECTIVE, BEYOND
THE DURATION OF AN INCARNATION.

-And who is seeing these possibilities about the future?

-THOSE INCARNATE ONES WHO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD

SPIRITUALLY. LIKE THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN HERE TODAY,
MANY INCARNATED HUMANS ARE BEING LED BY THEIR GUIDES AT
NIGHT, IN THEIR SLEEP, TO WITNESS THESE KINDS OF PROJECTIONS
ABOUT THE FUTURE.

- And for what reason?

-IT IS PART OF A PREPARATION OF YOUR INNER SELVES, TO BECOME

AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS ON A
GLOBAL LEVEL, SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION
ON WHICH SIDE OF THE SCALE YOU WANT TO BE ON, SELFISHNESS
OR LOVE.

-I don’t think anyone wants to live in the situation of the possible

first future.

-OF COURSE. NOBODY WANTS TO SUFFER. THE ONE WHO ACTS

SELFISHLY ALWAYS THINKS THAT HE WILL NEVER SUFFER THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE
YOU UNDERSTAND IS THAT EVERYTHING IS INTERCONNECTED AND
THAT WHAT YOU DO TO OTHERS WILL SOONER OR LATER HAVE
REPERCUSSIONS ON YOU. ON ALL OF YOU.

-But why this particular vision? It is very disturbing.

-BECAUSE A PART OF HUMANITY ON YOUR PLANET IS REACHING

SUCH AN EXTREME OF SELFISHNESS AND DESTRUCTIVENESS THAT IT
IS ENDANGERING THE SURVIVAL OF ALL HUMANITY. ARE YOU

172
GOING TO COLLABORATE IN THIS DESTRUCTION, OR ON THE
CONTRARY, ARE YOU GOING TO COLLABORATE IN TRYING TO
PREVENT IT? BECAUSE IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU, ON YOUR FREE
WILL. AT SOME POINT IN THIS OR OTHER LIVES, IT WILL BE UP TO YOU
TO CHOOSE WHICH SIDE YOU ARE ON. THE FATE OF THE WORLD IS
IN YOUR HANDS.

-Wow, the fate of the world is in your hands. What an enormous

responsibility! it’s too much for anyone!

-UNDERSTAND THAT THE FATE OF THE WORLD DOES NOT DEPEND

ON THE ACTIONS OF A SINGLE PERSON, BUT ON THE SUM OF
MILLIONS. EVERYONE CONTRIBUTES A LITTLE BIT WITH THEIR LOVING
OR SELFISH ATTITUDE TO MAKE THE WORLD A LITTLE BIT BETTER, OR
A LITTLE BIT WORSE. ALTHOUGH SOME MAY DO MORE OR LESS
HARM, OR CONTRIBUTE MORE OR LESS LOVE THAN OTHERS,
DEPENDING ON THEIR ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO DO GOOD OR
EVIL. IT’S LIKE ONE OF THOSE COMPETITIONS OF STRENGTH WHERE
TWO TEAMS FACE EACH OTHER, EACH PULLING ON ONE END OF
THE ROPE TO TAKE THE HANDKERCHIEF TIED IN THE MIDDLE TO THEIR
SIDE. YOUR CHOICE IS WHICH END OF THE ROPE YOU WANT TO
PULL, THE SELFISH END OR THE LOVING END. THE HANDKERCHIEF IN
THE GAME IS IN THIS CASE THE FATE OF YOUR WORLD. THE MORE
PLAYERS PULL ON THE SIDE OF LOVE, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT
THE FATE OF THE WORLD WILL BE IN THE DIRECTION OF LOVE.

-And how is the competition going so far?

- IF I TELL YOU IT’S GOING WELL YOU MIGHT RELAX, AND IF I TELL
YOU IT’S GOING BADLY YOU MIGHT DESPAIR, HOW DO YOU THINK
IT’S GOING?

- Okay, you’re not going to tell me anything. I thought so. I think

selfishness is winning at the moment. But I see that people are
changing sides, because they are realizing that things, the way
they are going, are not going to end well. I mean, they used to
take the extreme of selfishness but they’ve changed and now
they’re taking the side of love.

173
-AND THERE ARE MANY OTHERS WHO PULL ONE WAY FOR A WHILE
AND THEN THE OTHER, DEPENDING ON WHAT SUITS THEM, HA, HA...

- I don’t think it’s a subject to be taken as a joke.

-I’M NOT JOKING. I’M JUST TRYING TO TAKE THE HEAT OFF THE
MATTER, BECAUSE I SENSE THAT YOU’RE SCARED AND SHOCKED
BY WHAT YOU’VE BEEN THROUGH. BUT YOU’LL GET OVER IT. WELL,
NOW IT’S TIME FOR ME TO SAY GOODBYE.

-Leaving so soon?- I said.

- IT’S TIME FOR ME TO GO HOME. I’M FINE HERE WITH YOU, BUT I’M
BETTER OFF THERE. DON’T WORRY. WE WILL SEE EACH OTHER
AGAIN SOON. LOVE, BROTHER. A HUG FOR ALL THE FAMILY. YOU
KNOW, OUR DEAR HUMANITY.

THE END

174
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS BY THE AUTHORS.

It is our express wish that the message expressed through this work
may reach everyone in a completely free and disinterested way,
in line with the philosophy of unconditional love that we have set
out, that is, giving without expecting to receive anything in return.

We therefore support and allow the free dissemination, total or

partial reproduction of this work by all means currently available,
on the condition that this is not done for profit and that its content
is not modified.

It is our intention that this work will continue to grow with

everyone’s contribution. If you have questions about the subject
of the book, that is, about spirituality and love, be they personal
or general, please feel free to ask them and send them to us by
e-mail, and we will be happy to answer them as soon as possible.
Those questions that are considered of general interest and
represent new and valuable contributions to the objective of the
work, will be included together with their answer in future works.
In this book, THE LAW OF LOVE (THE SPIRITUAL LAWS PART II), some
of the questions asked by some readers of THE SPIRITUAL LAWS
PART I have been incorporated. We also ask for the collaboration
of people interested in translating this work into other languages,
so that its message can reach as many people as possible.

If you are interested in having us come to your city or town

because you think there is a sufficient number of people
interested in listening to a talk on the subject of this book, please
let us know. It doesn’t matter if your city or town is in another
country or on another continent, we will do our best to meet your
demand. The realization of the talk will not involve any financial
cost for applicants, as we do it completely free of charge and
disinterested, and travel and accommodation expenses are on
us. The condition is that the entrance is always free for all those
interested.

Address your request to:

175
Vicent Guillem Primo
E-mail address: [email protected]
On the website: http://lasleyesespirituales.blogspot.com you can
download the book free of charge in electronic format, request
a paper copy and consult the agenda of talks about the book.

With all our love, for you. See you soon.

176