Acceptance and Will

[Monica]

You would prefer I focus on the murderer,

No, actually in this scenario, the focus is on helping the victim and quickly assessing how one might help him. In order to do that, the aggressor must be stopped, so the focus then shifts to the aggressor. But the impetus for action is the victim.

From this point, I can assess what his needs are as they become my needs of self as well. This begins with accepting the thought in his mind that murdering is his desire. I can not reach him if I act in fear, or if I act in control. If I see this man as someone separate from myself, i.e. a crazy man that must be stopped, then I have not accepted him, and therefore I can not give him what he needs as Self.

If you can accomplish all that in just a split second in an emergency situation, then you would be a very advanced soul indeed!

What I am getting at is that accepting murder is not a cowardly thing.

What you just said all points to accepting the person, not the murder itself. Would you or would you not stop the aggressor from killing his victim? In those few seconds? If the answer is yes, then you are putting a stop to an aggressive, STS action. I'd say that isn't accepting his action. Accepting his action would mean allowing him to continue his action. You can accept him without accepting his action. Once the victim is safe, you've got plenty of time to work on accepting (and therefore perhaps helping) the aggressor. But in that single second, you must make a decision of whether or not to help the victim, which necessitates not accepting the aggressive action.

Ra advised Carla to not accept the STS entities offer of service. She was advised to thank the entity, but decline the service. If we are declining the service, we aren't accepting it. We can accept that the entity is engaging in xyz action because they're STS, and we can love the STS entity, but that all falls under the heading 'accept the entity'.

That accepting the choice of an entity to murder allows us to see him as our Self.

That's fine. Accepting the choice of the entity...accepting the entity...all fine. That doesn't mean we accept the entity's aggressive action into our reality.

I still contend that accepting the entity and accepting his action are 2 different things.

Then, looking deeper into to the Self (Other) we can see his true needs, which have nothing to do with the act of murder. The murderer has a feeling of separation from within, and we have an opportunity to reverse that if we first accept him. STO must reach for that person and draw him into us as One.

Sure. If that can be done in a single second, that would be optimal. If you could pull it off, you might transform the entity in that single second and he will suddenly switch polarities.

Or he might not.

Not all STS entities make the choice to switch, when confronted with STO love and acceptance.

Or he might switch, but later...not just yet. Not in time to halt his aggressive flow of energy.

So if he doesn't switch in that second, then what? Does our decision about whether to accept his aggressive action depend on whether he switches polarity or not?

I'd say no. I'd say our first responsibility is to preserve our principles of STO, and that means doing whatever we can to put up a boundary which doesn't allow aggression. That cannot be dependent upon what the aggressor does. He might have an instant transformation...he might not. If we're waiting for that to happen, then that would mean we're dependent on him for our own STO stance.

More appropriate would be to remain firm in our boundary...NOT accept the aggressive action, and simultaneously focus on love and acceptance of the entity, at the same time as declining his offer of aggressive service. That is the paradox and that is where the power lies.

While remaining unattached to the outcome...Then, if our love/acceptance is received by him, he may change at some point...or he may not. That is irrelevant to our decision. We can't control what the STS entity chooses. We can only remain true to our own polarity and act accordingly.

Now, the ideas that Ra talks on defensiveness. This is clear in my eyes as well. It is not taking action toward another, it is, quite literally, setting personal boundaries.

In the above scenario, how would one set personal boundaries without taking action? If an aggressor is becoming violent, action is required to stop the violence. By not stopping the violence, we are contributing to the violence, and thus depolarizing ourselves.

It is putting one's foot down and saying, "I will not."

Right. Now extend that statement. "I will not allow the aggressor to be violent towards me or the victim whom I am in a position to help."

In most cases, it's not enough to just say that. Action is required.

I fully believe that, as we become more adept at manifesting our desires and intentions, as the veil thins, just that intention, if strong enough, might defuse the situation. But that is an ideal we're working towards. It might not yet be the reality in any given situation. Action might still be required, as we are still in 3D.

Many times in my personal situations, others will view me as aggressive for my convictions. It isn't that I am infringing on their free will, it is simply that I choose not to do something. This frustrates them because I'm not participating with the group, but I have obligations to my Self that they haven't taken into account. Defense is an act of drawing the line for My Self, and not defending/arguing my principles to an Other.

In a non-violent situation, I would agree. But the concept is still the same. By 'drawing a line' you are declining the other self's offer of service. By refusing to participate, you are refusing to accept the other self's request that you do xyz. (Even though you might accept the person.) Thus, you are NOT accepting the other self's offer. That is NON-acceptance of xyz.

I will finish with an analogy. If a child is holding a knife by the blade, we would not reach over to pull the blade out of the child's hand. This would cause more harm than good. What we would do is create an immediate bond with the child so as to show the child how to gently release the blade.

Fine. But in so doing, you still aren't accepting the action of the child running around with a knife.