Can the human infringe by doing the learning for another?

[Steppingfeet]

Ali Quadir wrote: It seems to me that a 6d wanderer who in his natural form is able to oversee the consequences of his actions can thus be held accountable for them. But a 6d wanderer who cannot oversee the consequences of his actions due to the presence of the veil cannot be held accountable.

Ali, that opens up a whole other (but related) can of worms: to what extent is an entity responsible for its actions?

Without diving too deep into the question, two points:

1) In my understanding, I don't think the wanderer in third-density is any more or any less responsible for their actions than third-density natives simply because the wanderer originate from a higher density. Ra does mention that the Law or Way of Responsibility basically kicks in or increases as an entity advances - but that should apply across the board, wanderer or not.

2) I don't quite understand where responsibility begins and ends, but regardless of our level of ignorance (veiled consciousness), I think we are all accountable on some level for the choices we make. As I understand it, that accountability, as I believe you are saying, increases as the entity progresses.

In a positive and open scenario (STO), one cannot learn for another, as learning is a process in which the learnee (this word should exist - actually now it does!) actively chooses. The teacher will offer their notions and the learnee takes on board what they choose.

If you are implying that ultimately it is the learnee (I've just cemented the word's official status!) who is responsible for their own learning process, whether they take conscious responsibility or abdicate their choice-making faculties to a perceived authority, then I would agree.

However, I would disagree with your statement that in a positive and open scenario, one cannot learn for another.

It's actually a bit confusing. Ra says twice that they cannot "learn/teach" for the student.

94.14 http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=94&ss=1#14

90.29 http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=90&ss=1#29

They also say that if "if we learned for you, this would cause imbalance in the direction of the distortion of free will".

15.13 http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=15&ss=1#13

By "cannot", I believe Ra means, "will not". It is not that it is physically (or metaphysically) impossible to learn for another. It certainly can be done - it is called abridging free will and as such, Ra wisely refrains from doing so.

What I am trying to get at is this: Is the human being in the same position as Ra? Does this human need to withhold information for the same reason that Ra withheld information?

Namaste wrote: ...one could consider that any child who is in school and does not want to be there is having their free will infringed upon by their parents and the school organisation. The proverbial can of worms :¬)

Yeah, where the balance is between infringement and promotion of free will in the parent/child relationship is beyond me.

GLB previously wrote:

...I’ve never heard of any teacher in recorded history having espoused a philosophy or cosmology quite like the Law of One (though I’ve crossed paths with virtually every element of the Law of One in other philosophies, excepting the viability of the STS path).

Presupposing that there have been entities who have known and become the One in planet Earth's history (as I believe there have), why has nothing quite like the Law of One been communicated?

Namaste responds: A quick side note - remember that STS entities on this planet have purposely witheld this kind of empowering information for centuries. They have done this to keep people in a state of fear, and hence control. It is the advent of the Internet that has enabled this information to spread and become readily available to a large proportion of the world.

Good point. Similar philosophies may have existed at one time but got themselves squashed by the status quo.

Namaste wrote: I posted this in the inspiration quotes thread, it's worth sharing here due to it's relevance...

Thanks for sharing! I haven't heard Bill Hicks in a few years. I've got to find the CD or two I had of his comedy.

Namaste wrote:
Don, being a very intelligent and dedicated seeker, allowed much information to surface due to his questions. Had another person been asking questions, the material could have been entirely different. Although very comprehensive, it was limited by Don's questions.

Agreed. By "entirely different" though, I would qualify that by saying it would be different only in emphasis, not heart. The heart of Ra's message of unity would have remain unchanged, but a different questioner would have emphasized different facets of the "information which is ever and always the same". (http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=1&ss=1#0)

Namaste wrote: Hence, one should not take this material as the only useful information available in the world.

You're right, there is also The Daily Show and Calvin and Hobbes which are useful sources of information. : )

Without a disclaimer to the contrary, I'm left wondering if you are implying that I (GLB) am treating the Law of One material in this manner.

The reason I asked the question above about why nothing like the Law of One has appeared in the pages of history (to my knowledge, there is no system of thought prior to the flourishing of channeling in the latter half of the twentieth century that speaks of octaves of creation, STO vs STS, wanderers and so forth) was not precisely to say, "This is the ultimate and only source of valid information", but rather to contrast Ra's situation to the human's.

Unity100 is contending that, there being no boundaries, the human can access any and all information if the appropriate conditions have been satisfied. I am contending that, while I essentially agree, the enlightened human at the same time does not enjoy the "overview" (for lack of a better term) that Ra does. *If* the human, of its own faculties of awareness, could see what Ra sees, why has nothing even remotely similar to the Law of One appeared in the past five or so thousand years of recorded history?

Namaste wrote: Especially so when one has not experienced anything contained in the material. I am of the impression that wisdom is gained through personal experience and intellect is gained through understanding other peoples experiences. One should hold caution when promoting the experience of others, regardless of the source of the material, as experience empowers a much more solid foundation of faith.

Agreed. Experience is the ultimate teacher - there is no substitute for it.

Namaste wrote: Back onto particular people, Jesus taught the Law of One through parables/metaphors. His words were chosen very purposefully as to not 'force' learning onto people, rather to get them to open their minds/hearts and find meaning themselves. This is how one can direct others on the path of self discovery/wisdom.

You raise a good point: the proclivity of enlightened teachers to speak through parable and metaphor so as to veil their message, making its true meaning available only to those with the eyes to see and ears to hear. Does this, then, point to the possibility of a human being able to infringe upon the free will of another by sharing information?

Namaste wrote: This is the case with many masters and guru's both in the past and alive today. The impetus is to ignite the fire within each soul, generate that spark that leads the spirit to the self, asking inwardly, and most importantly experiencing it for the self, rather than be told of the experience.

Well said. : )

Love/Light,
GLB