Acceptance and Will

[native]

In the above case, if you were a 3d being watching the situation play out you would protect the victim.

I think you are limiting yourself in reaching a conclusion when you say that "acting against" a sts act in a sto fasion is controlling the sts entity. If you had to word it in any way, I would liken it more to not allowing them to have dominance. This isn't necessarily controlling them..you are keeping them neutral. You are only moving on a scale between sts and sto. This is what we do every day as the differences between sts and sto interact. I'm off to work myself!

[3DMonkey]

Polarization is a result of relationship. I think it is false to assume that I am polarizing positive on behalf of the "victim". If I am engaging with the aggressor, I am solely polarizing via this relationship, and at this point there is no relationship between "victim" and I, which is needed to activate toward polarization. Therefore, it is my approach toward the active relationship that has any bearring, or work, toward polarization.

I haven't turned to the topic of polarizing by way of the "victim", yet.

. Polarizing isn't occurring during observation.

So far, we have ignored the "victim" in the scenario.

---

Upon engaging the aggressor... Do I see him as myself or do I proceed with my own interests?

---

I say that the interests of the third party hold no bearring on my polarization. I say it is based solely on my interaction with whomever I am interacting with.

---

It is not my duty to defend an other. It is my free will to engage an other, and it is a choice to see them as Self or to see them as a tool to satisfy my Self. Sometimes my self gratification can be to "save" or "protect" something I value or hold on to. This does not serve the other I am engaged with, necessarily, and is a way to satisfy my ego.

[Confused]

.... I remember a time in high school when the ex boyfriend of a girl I was dating came up from behind and bashed my head with a beer bottle and so on and so forth. (he was 6" taller and 80lbs heavier than I). I turned to him and shouted with surity "God bless you!".

I guess you turned into a true student of Jesus the Christ that day.

I can never do what you did. I am sure the universe is proud of you for your compassion and for your trust in it, 3.

All things good will come to you, friend, of which I am sure

---

Polarizing isn't occurring during observation.

Going strictly by the LOO, that definitive statement may have little support, 3. Of course, I don't know, but please consider the following --

42.1 Questioner: I am going to make a statement and ask you to comment on its degree of accuracy. I am assuming that the balanced entity would not be swayed either towards positive or negative emotions by any situation which he might confront. By remaining unemotional in any situation, the balanced entity may clearly discern the appropriate and necessary responses in harmony with the Law of One for each situation. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an incorrect application of the balancing which we have discussed. The exercise of first experiencing feelings and then consciously discovering their antitheses within the being has as its objective not the smooth flow of feelings both positive and negative while remaining unswayed but rather the objective of becoming unswayed. This is a simpler result and takes much practice, shall we say.

The catalyst of experience works in order for the learn/teachings of this density to occur. However, if there is seen in the being a response, even if it is simply observed, the entity is still using the catalyst for learn/teaching. The end result is that the catalyst is no longer needed. Thus this density is no longer needed. This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love. This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions. Thus the entity is now able to become co-Creator of experiential occurrences. This is the truer balance.

[3DMonkey]

.... I remember a time in high school when the ex boyfriend of a girl I was dating came up from behind and bashed my head with a beer bottle and so on and so forth. (he was 6" taller and 80lbs heavier than I). I turned to him and shouted with surity "God bless you!".

I guess you turned into a true student of Jesus the Christ that day.

I can never do what you did. I am sure the universe is proud of you for your compassion and for your trust in it, 3.

All things good will come to you, friend, of which I am sure

---

Polarizing isn't occurring during observation.

Going strictly by the LOO, that definitive statement may have little support, 3. Of course, I don't know, but please consider the following --

42.1 Questioner: I am going to make a statement and ask you to comment on its degree of accuracy. I am assuming that the balanced entity would not be swayed either towards positive or negative emotions by any situation which he might confront. By remaining unemotional in any situation, the balanced entity may clearly discern the appropriate and necessary responses in harmony with the Law of One for each situation. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an incorrect application of the balancing which we have discussed. The exercise of first experiencing feelings and then consciously discovering their antitheses within the being has as its objective not the smooth flow of feelings both positive and negative while remaining unswayed but rather the objective of becoming unswayed. This is a simpler result and takes much practice, shall we say.

The catalyst of experience works in order for the learn/teachings of this density to occur. However, if there is seen in the being a response, even if it is simply observed, the entity is still using the catalyst for learn/teaching. The end result is that the catalyst is no longer needed. Thus this density is no longer needed. This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love. This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions. Thus the entity is now able to become co-Creator of experiential occurrences. This is the truer balance.

Yes, of course. This is along the same lines as using the imagination to explore all desires.
The above is not a lesson in polarization, it is a teaching of see all as love. Balance and polarization are not the same thing, as I understand it, or rather as I DON'T understand it
What is more is that perfect balance would not interfere in the now infamous scenario of murderer and "victim."

[Confused]

Balance and polarization are not the same thing, as I understand it...

I can sort of sense what you mean, and I think you are right there.

[Monica]

I think more highly of you than to portray you as in a state of fear.

Thank you. It's not about me. Or you. It was a fictitious scenario, to illustrate a point.

I was referring to your premise within the scenario.

My example never mentioned anything about locking anyone up, demanding that they agree, controlling them, murdering them, fearing death, or any other blanket statements. Nor did it negate loving and accepting the aggressor. The entire point was simply about declining to accept the aggressor's offer of violent service.

Apparently, my illustration backfired and failed to convey what I had hoped to convey, which was just succinctly stated by Icaro.

I would like to connect. I hope we continue and try to connect.

OK.

I don't really have anything to add at this point. Icaro pretty much summed it up for me!

I am beginning to feel as though I am a wanderer ostracized by wanderers.

No one is ostracizing you, 3DM! You are a valued and loved member of our community! You have made contributions with your insights and sense of humor that are appreciated by many.

---

you can accept another self and still act against them by refusing their service. This is a pretty clear statement by Ra.

Any act seems to be defined as a service in some way because it creates the opportunity for a decision to be made.

Their negative actions allow you to reaffirm your positive stance. This is their service.

Exactly! Thank you, Icaro. I should have just asked you to explain my point, instead of offering my clumsy illustration. :-/

[unity100]

Balance and polarization are not the same thing, as I understand it...

I can sort of sense what you mean, and I think you are right there.

since polarization means straying away from the imbalance, as evidenced by what Ra says about polarity choice in 3d (positive or negative) creating an imbalance in the greater balance of the entity (that needs to be fixed in the long run), polarity would mean only particular formatted imbalances leaning to one side or the other side.

this would make, polarity, a form of imbalance, which then in turn, would mean that it is a particular balance that is not in equilibrium.

in short, polarity and balance would be different states of the equilibrium.

[Monica]

Polarization is a result of relationship. I think it is false to assume that I am polarizing positive on behalf of the "victim". If I am engaging with the aggressor, I am solely polarizing via this relationship, and at this point there is no relationship between "victim" and I, which is needed to activate toward polarization. Therefore, it is my approach toward the active relationship that has any bearring, or work, toward polarization.

I haven't turned to the topic of polarizing by way of the "victim", yet.

I don't understand these statements.

My understanding is that polarization occurs based on our response to catalyst. Catalyst isn't a person or a relationship, though it may involve people and relationships. A person can be alone and experience catalyst.

[3DMonkey]

33.9 Questioner: I think that I do. Then from this I will extrapolate the concept which is somewhat more difficult because as you have explained before, even fourth-density positive has the concept of defensive action, but above the level of fourth-density the concept of defensive action is not in use. The concept of defensive action and offensive action are very much in use in our present density.

I am assuming that if an entity is polarized strongly enough in his thought in a positive sense that defensive action is not going to be necessary for him because the opportunity to apply defensive action will never originate for him. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is unknowable. In each case, as we have said, an entity able to program experiences may choose the number and the intensity of lessons to be learned. It is possible that an extremely positively oriented entity might program for itself situations testing the ability of self to refrain from defensive action even to the point of the physical death of self or other-self. This is an intensive lesson and it is not known, shall we say, what entities have programmed. We may, if we desire, read this programming. However, this is an infringement and we choose not to do so.

Category: Third Density: Programming

33.11 Questioner: This motion picture brought out the point about which we have been talking. The Colonel had to make a decision. I was wondering about his polarization. He could have knuckled under, you might say, to the negative forces, but he chose to defend his friend instead. Is it possible for you to estimate which is more positively polarizing: to defend the positively oriented entity, or to allow suppression by the negatively oriented entities?
Ra: I am Ra. This question takes in the scope of fourth-density as well as your own and its answer may best be seen by the action of the entity called Jehoshuah, which you call Jesus. This entity was to be defended by its friends. The entity reminded its friends to put away the sword. This entity then delivered itself to be put to the physical death. The impulse to protect the loved other-self is one which persists through the fourth-density, a density abounding in compassion. More than this we cannot and need not say.

Category: People: Jesus

---

How, then, are will and acceptance reconciled? How does one choose the STO path while accepting that which is not chosen?

Monica, I just visited the meat thread and I sort of realized from your statement there that this thread is probably an extension of some of the points discussed there.

I opine that the following two Ra exchanges speak directly to the many layered questions hiding behind your main question.

25.5 Questioner: You spoke of an Orion Confederation and of a battle being fought between the Confederation and the Orion Confederation. Is it possible to convey any concept of how this battle is fought?

Ra: I am Ra. Picture, if you will, your mind. Picture it then in total unity with all other minds of your society. You are then single-minded and that which is a weak electrical charge in your physical illusion is now an enormously powerful machine whereby thoughts may be projected as things.

In this endeavor the Orion group charges or attacks the Confederation armed with light. The result, a stand-off, as you would call it, both energies being somewhat depleted by this and needing to regroup; the negative depleted through failure to manipulate, the positive depleted through failure to accept that which is given.

25.6 Questioner: Could you amplify the meaning of what you mean by the “failure to accept that which is given?”

Ra: I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded and engulfed, transformed by positive energies.

This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say.

It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will, must then regroup.

It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation.

"At the level of time/space at which this takes place"

"being a battle of equals"

"on equal footing"

Not so much a defense for 3D interaction

---

19.12 Questioner: I will make a statement then of my understanding and ask you if I am correct. There is a, what I would call, physical catalyst operating at all times upon the entities in third density. I assume this operates approximately the same way in second density. It is a catalyst which acts through what we call pain and emotion. Is the primary reason for the weakening of the physical body and the elimination of body hair, etc. so that this catalyst would act more strongly upon the mind and therefore create the evolutionary process?
Ra: I am Ra. This is not entirely correct, although closely associated with the distortions of our understanding.

Consider, if you will, the tree for instance. It is self-sufficient. Consider, if you will, the third-density entity. It is self-sufficient only through difficulty and deprivation. It is difficult to learn alone for there is a built-in handicap, at once the great virtue and the great handicap of third density. That is the rational/intuitive mind.

Thus, the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call it, was designed to distort entities towards a predisposition to deal with each other. Thus, the lessons which approach a knowing of love can be begun.

This catalyst then is shared between peoples as an important part of each self’s development as well as the experiences of the self in solitude and the synthesis of all experience through meditation. The quickest way to learn is to deal with other-selves. This is a much greater catalyst than dealing with the self. Dealing with the self without other-selves is akin to living without what you would call mirrors. Thus, the self cannot see the fruits of its being-ness. Thus, each may aid each by reflection. This is also a primary reason for the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call the physical complex.

[Monica]

The quickest way to learn is to deal with other-selves.

No one is disputing that interactions with other-selves provide catalyst.

But that's not the only kind of catalyst.

Situations also provide catalyst.

A man stranded alone on an island is experiencing catalyst.

[3DMonkey]

33.14 Questioner: What I would like for you to do is list all the major mechanisms designed to provide catalytic experience that do not include interaction with other-self. That is the first part.
Ra: I am Ra. We grasp from this question that you realize that the primary mechanism for catalytic experience in third-density is other-self. The list of other catalytic influences: firstly, the Creator’s universe; secondly, the self.

Category: Third Density: Catalyst

33.15 Questioner: Can you list any sub-headings under self or ways the self is acted upon catalytically which would produce experience?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, the self unmanifested. Secondly, the self in relation to the societal self created by self and other-self. Thirdly, the interaction between self and the gadgets, toys, and amusements of the self, other-self invention. Fourthly, the self relationship with those attributes which you may call war and rumors of war.

Category: Third Density: Catalyst

33.16 Questioner: I was thinking possibly of the catalyst of physical pain. Does this go under this heading?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct, it going under the heading of the unmanifested self; that is, the self which does not need other-self in order to manifest or act.

Category: Third Density: Catalyst

---

The quickest way to learn is to deal with other-selves.

No one is disputing that interactions with other-selves provide catalyst.

But that's not the only kind of catalyst.

Situations also provide catalyst.

A man stranded alone on an island is experiencing catalyst.

Yes, but he is doing little to no polarizing.

[drifting pages]

Hey Monica

You mentioned the first sub density of 4th density as the one that still does thought wars, all the other sub-densities and densities above do not engage in the defensive battle they regard it as foolish.

By the scenario you built up every other entity that is sto must help and defend the so called victims , Yet that is precisely what the above densities do not do.

They radiate their love/being and they teach when they are called but they can't and won't bend infinity towards their perspective it is impossible.

As Ra said in the end their is no right or wrong only identities, and we as these identities get to pick of the sea of infinite potential the realities we prefer.

At least that is how i see it

It feels to me rather foolish to try to stop infinity's (awareness) exploration of everything that can be explored

The paradox is that the attempt to make only one kind of existence or reality valid is also explored.

Everything is explored is infinity's womb.

I myself as a human personality get to pick my path and story in this unfoldment but i don't get to invalidate all the other experiences that happen.

IN fact i only exist as an experience because awareness explores everything there is to explore.

That is how i see this. The sto path folds nicely unto the 6th density higher self personality because it is the view that allows all experiences while the sts does not and insists in only one kind (or kinds of view).

[Monica]

Yes, but he is doing little to no polarizing.

How do you know that?

[3DMonkey]

.... I remember a time in high school when the ex boyfriend of a girl I was dating came up from behind and bashed my head with a beer bottle and so on and so forth. (he was 6" taller and 80lbs heavier than I). I turned to him and shouted with surity "God bless you!".

I guess you turned into a true student of Jesus the Christ that day.

I can never do what you did. I am sure the universe is proud of you for your compassion and for your trust in it, 3.

All things good will come to you, friend, of which I am sure

---

Polarizing isn't occurring during observation.

Going strictly by the LOO, that definitive statement may have little support, 3. Of course, I don't know, but please consider the following --

42.1 Questioner: I am going to make a statement and ask you to comment on its degree of accuracy. I am assuming that the balanced entity would not be swayed either towards positive or negative emotions by any situation which he might confront. By remaining unemotional in any situation, the balanced entity may clearly discern the appropriate and necessary responses in harmony with the Law of One for each situation. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an incorrect application of the balancing which we have discussed. The exercise of first experiencing feelings and then consciously discovering their antitheses within the being has as its objective not the smooth flow of feelings both positive and negative while remaining unswayed but rather the objective of becoming unswayed. This is a simpler result and takes much practice, shall we say.

The catalyst of experience works in order for the learn/teachings of this density to occur. However, if there is seen in the being a response, even if it is simply observed, the entity is still using the catalyst for learn/teaching. The end result is that the catalyst is no longer needed. Thus this density is no longer needed. This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love. This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions. Thus the entity is now able to become co-Creator of experiential occurrences. This is the truer balance.

I just thought I would reiterate this post.

"This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love."

---

even murder

---

Yes, but he is doing little to no polarizing.

How do you know that?

The LOO is full of neutral/stagnant polarization examples

---

I am jumping in to defend a hypothetical murderer for his right to murder with compassion for his viewpoint, and that's what this all boils down to. He is me, you are he.

---

In the above case, if you were a 3d being watching the situation play out you would protect the victim.

I think you are limiting yourself in reaching a conclusion when you say that "acting against" a sts act in a sto fasion is controlling the sts entity. If you had to word it in any way, I would liken it more to not allowing them to have dominance. This isn't necessarily controlling them..you are keeping them neutral. You are only moving on a scale between sts and sto. This is what we do every day as the differences between sts and sto interact. I'm off to work myself!

As I see it, the only way to disallow their dominance would be to not be dominated. The only way to not be dominated would be to see the love in the situation and not the need to manipulate or control the other in response. I think you and Monica are using a justification that does not incorporate true love.

[Monica]

...sees all things as love...even murder

I think I'm beginning to see why there is misunderstanding. My perception of what you're saying is that if one loves another, then they would accept everything the other-self offers. If the other-self offers them heroin, or offers sex, or offers to kill them, or whatever, one must accept the other-self's offer, no matter what.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Whereas, I am saying, one can love the other-self, while, at the same time, declining their offer of violence, drugs, or whatever it is they're offering.

Previously, the example was given wherein Ra stated that they had refused the service of the STS entity. Would Ra then be accused of not being loving, or of controlling the STS entity?

That quote seems to have been ignored.

The LOO is full of neutral/stagnant polarization examples

That doesn't mean that every situation can be neatly categorized. We cannot assume from that, that the man on the island isn't polarizing. He might choose to spend those months or years on the island to do some serious reflection, and forgive many people, thus polarizing.

I am jumping in to defend a hypothetical murderer for his right to murder with compassion for his viewpoint

I have compassion for the murderer. But I would never agree that he has the right to murder an other-self. He might choose to do so, and thus polarize negatively. That's not the same as having the right to impose on the free will of another.

I believe in the adage, One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

As I see it, the only way to disallow their dominance would be to not be dominated. The only way to not be dominated would be to see the love in the situation and not the need to manipulate or control the other in response. I think you and Monica are using a justification that does not incorporate true love.

You're saying that we lack true love, and that I am close to murdering the murderer, etc. but have not responded to the points I made in response to your points.

Thus, I have nothing to add, without just repeating myself.

---

By the scenario you built up every other entity that is sto must help and defend the so called victims , Yet that is precisely what the above densities do not do.

Hi drifting pages and welcome to B4!

The above densities don't interfere unless called, because 3D is veiled.

They radiate their love/being and they teach when they are called but they can't and won't bend infinity towards their perspective it is impossible.

Right. Ra also stated that they decline the offer from STS entities.

It feels to me rather foolish to try to stop infinity's (awareness) exploration of everything that can be explored

Every choice we make affects Infinity's exploration. Inaction is also a choice.

[3DMonkey]

...sees all things as love...even murder

I think I'm beginning to see why there is misunderstanding. My perception of what you're saying is that if one loves another, then they would accept everything the other-self offers. If the other-self offers them heroin, or offers sex, or offers to kill them, or whatever, one must accept the other-self's offer, no matter what.

Am I understanding you correctly?

No. I am saying that to reach the other self, self must accept the desire of other self to make the choice to offer. There is no love if one does not accept the will of the other. The action is secondary, and the will of love by the self will have a very real effect that immediately impacts the situation and immediately forms the situation into a new situation. It would be foolish to act with ignorance and let someone else choose for me instead of my own free will.

Consequently, if one finds themselves restrained in an impossible situation to refuse, it would be better for balance and polarization that they accept the situation and the other. Sooner or later, this integration will take place.

---

That doesn't mean that every situation can be neatly categorized. We cannot assume from that, that the man on the island isn't polarizing. He might choose to spend those months or years on the island to do some serious reflection, and forgive many people, thus polarizing.

I think that is good work for the m/b/s complex, but it is not necessarily polarization.

---

I am jumping in to defend a hypothetical murderer for his right to murder with compassion for his viewpoint

I have compassion for the murderer. But I would never agree that he has the right to murder an other-self. He might choose to do so, and thus polarize negatively. That's not the same as having the right to impose on the free will of another.

I believe in the adage, One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

Do you? This is the point of all that I have said. If you have compassion, you will accept his choice to murder. This is love. You still defend the "victim" as if they are helpless, as if you know what is best for them. You hold incarnation above higher spiritual work. You have your own set of situations you agreed upon, and this may very well include stopping a murderer. The "victim" has chosen a set of situations, and this may include sacrificing life to release karma. The point is, saving an incarnation from ending is not the definition of love.

[Monica]

No. I am saying that to reach the other self, self must accept the desire of other self to make the choice to offer.

I've already agreed with that. I was making a distinction between accepting the other self's choice, vs. accepting their choice of service to the degree that it affects us.

There is no love if one does not accept the will of the other.

When the will of the other imposes on an other self's will, it changes the dynamic. Key word here being imposes.

The action is secondary, and the will of love by the self will have a very real effect that immediately impacts the situation and immediately forms the situation into a new situation.

I agree with this part...in general. Yes, our love/acceptance will change the dynamic. But we cannot predict in what way it will be changed. We may still need to take action, to preserve our own polarity. We cannot know exactly how the other self will respond.

I think that is good work for the m/b/s complex, but it is not necessarily polarization.

You don't think forgiveness polarizes? Wow. I consider forgiveness the most potent polarization tool there is!

[3DMonkey]

I did not so you lack true love. I said your justification is one not incorporating true love.

[Monica]

I did not so you lack true love. I said your justification is one not incorporating true love.

Thanks for the clarification, but I still disagree. I would say that, in many cases, to NOT stop the aggressor, would be to act without true love, because that would be a disservice to the victim.

[3DMonkey]

Forgiveness releases karma.

---

I did not so you lack true love. I said your justification is one not incorporating true love.

Thanks for the clarification, but I still disagree. I would say that, in many cases, to NOT stop the aggressor, would be to act without true love, because that would be a disservice to the victim.

I know you feel this way. I know this.

To stop him is to impose your will over him, thus infringing on his free will. By definition, is this not serving self?

[Monica]

Forgiveness releases karma.

Yes, and that polarizes. Rather, the choice to forgive is what polarizes.

To stop him is to impose your will over him, thus infringing on his free will. By definition, is this not serving self?

No, stopping him isn't imposing my will over his. It's simply NOT allowing him to impose his will over mine.

Subtle but distinct difference.

[3DMonkey]

You continue to empathize with the victim rather than the one you are suggesting we engage with.

---

Forgiveness releases karma.

Yes, and that polarizes. Rather, the choice to forgive is what polarizes.

To stop him is to impose your will over him, thus infringing on his free will. By definition, is this not serving self?

No, stopping him isn't imposing my will over his. It's simply NOT allowing him to impose his will over mine.

Subtle but distinct difference.

forgiveness is a step in reaching intelligent infinity, but it is not polarization.

----
now you have made yourself the "victim" instead of observing the two. This indicates that you feel "victimized" in this scenario. All STS, A L L, is an agressor and a "victim" and BOTH are polarizing STS. BOTH

[Monica]

You continue to empathize with the victim rather than the one you are suggesting we engage with.

---

Forgiveness releases karma.

Yes, and that polarizes. Rather, the choice to forgive is what polarizes.

To stop him is to impose your will over him, thus infringing on his free will. By definition, is this not serving self?

No, stopping him isn't imposing my will over his. It's simply NOT allowing him to impose his will over mine.

Subtle but distinct difference.

forgiveness is a step in reaching intelligent infinity, but it is not polarization.

----
now you have made yourself the "victim" instead of observing the two. This indicates that you feel "victimized" in this scenario. All STS, A L L, is an agressor and a "victim" and BOTH are polarizing STS. BOTH

I have nothing further to say. Thank you for sharing your perspective, 3DM.

[3DMonkey]

I'm not sure what to tell you either, Monica.

I've had this exact same drawn out discussion with my neighbor when he wants me to be against Muslims and their jihad. I can not.

I'm not sure what would satisfy you. Would you like me to say I will stop every murder? How should I do this? Military powers have an answer and a justification as to how to stop them.

How do you intend to stop a murder? This is the info I lack, and Icaro did not tell me either. How will you stop a murder in an STO way?

The only way I know is to look him in the eye and say "I Love You"

---

And, from you comment on my observation in another thread...I am not claiming that I would not hesitate to "finish" an entity who held my childs life in their hands. But if I did, I would not claim it to be an act of compassion, or an act of STO. No, it would be full blown anger, and I would have to forgive myself for it.

---

I wholehearted believe that "I Love You" is a very valid option, and acceptable to the LOO.

[Monica]

I'm not sure what to tell you either, Monica.

I've had this exact same drawn out discussion with my neighbor when he wants me to be against Muslims and their jihad. I can not.

Please tell me you're not comparing stopping a murder with being against Muslims. Although, being against Muslims and being against jihad are 2 distinctly different things.

I'm not sure what would satisfy you.

It's not necessary to satisfy me. I am clear in my views and I respect yours, even though I disagree.

Would you like me to say I will stop every murder? How should I do this? Military powers have an answer and a justification as to how to stop them.

I never said anything about any of that. It's not my place to judge your choices.

(Nor yours to judge mine, for that matter.)

How do you intend to stop a murder? This is the info I lack, and Icaro did not tell me either. How will you stop a murder in an STO way?

The only way I know is to look him in the eye and say "I Love You"

It's not about the how. Each situation is different, so there's no way to provide a list of methods.

It's about the philosophical questions asked in this thread.

I will attempt again:

It is far more STS for a mother to allow someone to harm her child, than to stop the aggressor.

"I love you but I WILL NOT allow you to hurt my child."

[3DMonkey]

Well, I obviously disagree. You can't eat your cake and expect it to still be there when you are finished. It is our nature to protect our children, and most all ways are self serving.

I'm not saying it's unnatural, and I'm certainly not saying it is wrong (which is judgement). I am only saying that it is definitively not STO.

---

Can you give me a scenario in which an action to stop an offender is STO? (I'll probably disagree, but I would love to hear it)

[Monica]

It is our nature to protect our children, and most all ways are self serving.

You think it's self-serving to protect your own child? Once again I'm puzzled by your views.

Ask any mother. Most mothers would do anything, even gladly sacrifice their own lives, to save the lives of their children. How is that not STO?

Having a child is one of the most beautiful opportunities for STO polarizing, because the parent learns to care about others as much as, or even more than, self.

That is the very definition of STO!

In a moment of danger, for that parent to put self aside and think only about the welfare of the child, that too is STO.

This can be done while simultaneously loving and accepting the aggressor. But the parent's first responsibility is to the helpless (yes, helpless) child who has been entrusted into her care.

The aggressor initiated the action. It is an offer of STS service. To accept that offer, is to assist in STS polarization.

[3DMonkey]

Sacrifice is STO. Ding ding ding. We have a winner

[native]

The action is secondary, and the will of love by the self will have a very real effect that immediately impacts the situation and immediately forms the situation into a new situation.

In the case of a fully realized sts entity, they would ignore your efforts. They want nothing to do with you or your sympathy, and would take advantage of this naivete to carry out their intentions by plowing right over you.

True love would totally disregard any polarity loss and karma incurred, and would protect the victim at all costs. True love would sacrifice themselves for the victim and disregard the aggressor. But in the case we're talking about, I don't see any of this happening.

I think we all agree that any thought/action is ok..that we can accept their intentions within the self as being an aspect of the self. But we cannot allow manipulation/domination to be carried out.

Are you saying that you would allow murder? Or attempt to stop it through acceptance?

[Monica]

Sacrifice is STO. Ding ding ding. We have a winner

Please don't skew my words.

Sacrificing self to save another from an STS act, isn't the same as sacrificing self, to allow an STS act.