What is an Other-Self? Are 2D Entities Other-Selves?

[Monica]

There are many references to the term other-self in the Law of One.

Here is the very first reference to other-self:

33.15 Questioner: Can you list any sub-headings under the self that would— or ways that the self is acted on catalytically to 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.

We have developed a philosophy based on an assumption about what an other-self is. The STO path is Service to Others...meaning other-selves.

We are instructed by Ra to accept and forgive other-selves...see them as us, as One...realize that they too serve the Creator...realize that they provide catalyst to us.

We also know from Ra that the key to polarizing STO is to love, accept, forgive and serve other-selves, while the key to polarizing STS is loving/serving self only. A great deal of our understanding about the Law of One is based on the premise that serving other-selves = serving other people; ie. human 3D entities.

However, did Ra ever explicitly define the term other-self?

Maybe they did and I missed it. If so, if someone could direct me to the quote in which Ra defines other-self, I would be most appreciative!

For now, it seems to me that there is an assumption being made, that to polarize STO we must love/accept/forgive/serve, and have compassion for, other humans.

My question is: Upon what basis are we concluding that? How can we be so sure that other-self refers to other human selves only?

Or, as some might think, 3D and up? Does other-self refer only to those entities who have evolved to 3D or beyond? Are ET's other-selves because they're 3D or higher?

This next quote is very enlightening:

19.15 Questioner: Then the newest third-density beings who have just made the transition from second are still strongly biased towards self-service. There must be many other mechanisms to create an awareness of the possibility of service to others.

I am wondering, first about the mechanism and I am wondering when the split takes place where the entity is able to continue on the road to service to self that will eventually take him on to fourth density.

I’m assuming that an entity can start, say, in second density with service to self and continue right on through and just stay on what we would call the path of service to self and never be pulled over. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The second-density concept of serving self includes the serving of those associated with tribe or pack. This is not seen in second density as separation of self and other-self. All is seen as self since in some forms of second-density entities, if the tribe or pack becomes weakened, so does the entity within the tribe or pack.

The new or initial third-density entity has this innocent, shall we say, bias or distortion towards viewing those in the family, the society, as you would call, perhaps, country, as self. Thus though a distortion not helpful for progress in third density, it is without polarity.

The break becomes apparent when the entity perceives other-selves as other-selves and consciously determines to manipulate other-selves for the benefit of the self. This is the beginning of the road of which you speak.

The last paragraph is about the STS path so I'm not going to address that, as it is off-topic for the present discussion. I'm interested only in the definition of other-selves.

Apparently, 2D entities consider their pack to be one with self, whereas new 3D entities do see their family/team/tribe/country as other-selves but has a bias towards them. We see this is quite prevalent in our society, wherein people become quite identified with their sports team, their religion, their political party, their country, etc. "I'm a Texan!...God Bless America!" (forget about the other countries)..."Only Christians go to heaven! I got my ticket!"...etc. and of course the more ugly expressions of such identification: racism, homophobia, bigotry, and the most hideous of all: war, in which it's ok to go kill someone else or their kids because they are "not us."

So we see that the concept of other-self as in "not me" is quite alive and well in our society. But as Law of One students, are we not tasked with evolving beyond such separation? Are we not tasked with exemplifying the concepts of Oneness and service to other-selves, rather than continuing to support the separation between self and other-selves?

Let's now take it a step further.

Where do 2D entities fit in?

We're not likely to hold a grudge against our dog for pooping on the carpet, in the same way we might harbor resentment towards our abusive father. So clearly, our little furry 2D brethren don't facilitate the same type of catalyst that 3D humans do.

But, in terms of service to others, and activating green ray by developing compassion for other-selves, how is it any different dealing with an animal, compared to dealing with a human?

Is compassion is compassion is compassion? Or, are there degrees of compassion? Is compassion bestowed upon a human somehow more evolved, more noble, more benevolent than compassion bestowed upon an animal?

Here's one of my absolute favorite stories of compassion. It's a story told in pictures...poignant pictures that get tears from me every time, no matter how many times I see them.

Pay special attention to the expression on the woman's face, in the pic of her right after she got her dog back, and the pic after that where she is hugging the hero.

http://lumberjocks.com/topics/34250

What a beautiful story!

Yet, I cannot help but wonder what went on in that man's mind when he jumped off that bridge. Was he thinking "I'm going to save the dog because I care about the woman" or was he thinking "I'm going to save the dog because I care about the dog." ??

Or was he thinking anything at all?

Did he simply take action because the situation presented itself? Did he analyze whether the woman's feelings were more important or the dog's life? Would he have saved the dog, had the woman not been present, and it was 'just' some feral dog whom no one would ever miss?

We'll never know. He might not even know himself.

The point is, that some questions are raised. If new 3D entities are just barely beginning to see themselves as individuals, after having been one with the pack, and then their next task after that (in order to graduate from 3D) is to develop compassion for other-selves, it makes sense that the first step in that process is to develop compassion for those other-selves closest to them: their families, their team, their church members, their country, because they are viewed as extensions of self. Is this really compassion for other-selves? Or is it just self-serving, because other-self is actually just an extension of self?

It seems to me that an act of compassion for an other-self who is quite different, might be quite different in terms of chakra activation and polarizing potential, than an act of compassion towards an other-self who is strongly identified with self.

In other words, a racist homophobe evangelical who finally feels compassion for a black, gay, Pagan man, will have a much stronger polarizing result than if he felt compassion for a white, straight, Christian man. Just getting over that mountain of bigotry, to the place where compassion dwells, took much more effort than easily sliding into compassion for a fellow church-goer with whom he has dinner after church.

What prompted him to finally feel compassion for that black gay Pagan man? Was it because his daughter had just announced she is a lesbian Pagan? Or maybe a black gay man just impressed him by rescuing his dog from icy waters? Something probably happened, to facilitate that sudden awareness that the person he formerly thought of as 'beneath him' is now an other-self.

All are part of the process.

Society has made great progress towards developing compassion towards those who are of a different race, sexual persuasion, etc. though there is still a long ways to go. At what point does this compassion extend towards those of other (lower) densities?

We've made progress in areas of sexism, racism, and various other isms...how about speciesism?

At what point, if ever, are 2D entities considered other-selves?

When a feral dog becomes family? Is that when it is no longer an 'it' - just a stray dog out on the street with zero worth - and then becomes a 'he' or 'she' with a name, a personality, and a vet bill of hundreds or even thousands of dollars, because s/he is now a loved and cherished member of the family?

Why is this dog any different from the feral dog running down the street?

Isn't this just extending that yellow-ray identification of self? Is it really love of others to care for that dog? Or is it love of self?

Further, why is that family dog any different from the cow or chicken that was eaten for dinner? Pigs make great pets. How is the next-door neighbor's potbelly pig, who plays fetch along with the dog, any different from the pig that was served for dinner? How is the pet parrot any different from the chicken that was served for lunch?

It is NOT my intention to get into another meat-vs-veg debate! Anyone wishing to do so may visit the threads already in place for that purpose.

So please, avoid any such debate in this thread. The purpose of this thread is to explore:

1. What is the definition of other-self?
2. Why is it assumed that other-self pertains only to humans?
3. When, if ever, are 2D animals considered other-selves?

...from a Law of One perspective of course. I think these are important questions, being that the concept of other-self is so integral to understanding the STO path and the Law of One in general.

The only clue from Ra I could find, as to the actual definition of other-self, was this:

68.18 Questioner: Then I am assuming if the negative polarity used any other approach that did not use the free will of the other-self, he would lose polarization and magical power. This is correct, isn’t it?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

Though not explicitly stated, the fact that Ra said "This is correct" without any corrections when Don mentioned the free will of the other-self, might be a clue that an other-self is defined as an entity who has free-will.

This doesn't, of course, preclude other possible attributes, but it does seem to imply that free will is an attribute.

[godwide_void]

The core of the perception of what is the distinction between self and other-self begins with the examination of the context of the 'self' being used and what it is encompassing. It does not refer to the self you know to be your decorative personality and form which you have gotten accustomed to identifying as being your actual identity due to the duration of your incarnational experience. The self being referred to is the indwelling observant essence which is the One Infinite Creator. An other-self is not referring to the notion that everyone you see around you is a clone of your physical 'you' manifestation in any way except when considering the attraction of circumstances and beings of similar vibrational orientation or any particular distortions you hold. It simply means that it is another form which the One Infinite Creator has taken. Animals are a form which the Creator has taken. Plant life too are lower manifestations of Its being. The elements as well are portions of its awareness which have undergone fragmentation. There exists only one singular being which is the Self of all selves for all selves exist as cells within the body of this all-encompassing Self. Service to other-selves thus denotes that one aspect of the Creator, being entirely the Creator, is positively interacting with another portion of the Creator, being entirely the Creator. In any mass interaction which takes place there exists only one being doing the interactions even if the lower manifestations are not aware of that which takes the reigns of their being and believe themselves to be creatures of separation and privacy. It is impossible for any self to be a distinct self outside of the influence of the One Infinite Creator. No individual is ever alone in any moment for one's awareness is not a confined island at the complete command of the visible manifestation of what one may constitute their 'self'. I will thus leave you with a quote which I have recently taken a liking to for its profundity and relevance to this excellent discussion topic of yours:

O Sariputra,
Form does not differ from the Void,
And the Void does not differ from Form.
Form is Void and Void is Form.
The same is true for feelings, perceptions,
volition, and consciousness.

[Patrick]

"What is an Other-Self?"

I would say that this is a question of perception. Where do you perceive that your Self begins and ends? The answer is probably different for all of us.


"Are 2D Entities Other-Selves?"

From my current perspective, yes they are.

[RonAl]

I agree with Patrick and G-V.
Giving compassion to a 2d entity is in effect giving compassion to all its "tribe" so to speak. This to me is as polarizing as to a 3D entity.

[Confused]

Dear Monica, first of all, please accept my thanks and congratulations for a spiritually profound and insightful post. The questions raised are not only brilliant in their own right, but provoke deep contemplation too. With respect to the questions --

1. What is the definition of other-self?
As GV said, it is probably just that the lowest common denominator is the ALL SELF, akin to a singular vista being viewed from multiple vantage points. The views and aspects may appear different to each individual viewing a mountain range from several platforms around; but the target of the view line for all is essentially one.

2. Why is it assumed that other-self pertains only to humans?[b]

I do not think that is the case, Monica. In 41.4, Ra states that

Metaphysically, the sun achieves a meaning to fourth through seventh density according to the growing abilities of entities in these densities to grasp the living creation and co-entity, or other-self, nature of this sun body. Thus by the sixth density the sun may be visited and inhabited by those dwelling in time/space and may even be partially created from moment to moment by the processes of sixth-density entities in their evolution.

The question raised here may sound funny if evolutionarily elevated self-conscious beings such as the Sun were to contemplate if other-self natures were to be prescribed only to other-self beings of equal evolutionary stature. It is of course well to remember that 3D is the first density of fully formed self-consciousness or individual awareness, which is a attribute that 2D entities of a very advanced level within the 2D octave develop in the course of the evolutionary journey, thus developing a critical spiritual mass before tipping over into 3D status.

3. When, if ever, are 2D animals considered other-selves?

To give a purely technical reply, it is when 2D beings become a mind/body/spirit complex, or in other words, when the spirit portion of the combined being complex appears in the conscious perceptual range or radar for the first time.

13.21 Questioner: Then how does the second density progress to the third?

Ra: I am Ra. The second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness. The striving takes place through the higher second-density forms who are invested by third-density beings with an identity to the extent that they become self-aware mind/body complexes, thus becoming mind/body/spirit complexes and entering third density, the first density of consciousness of spirit.

It is the abiding energies of life in all that is the spirit or the SELF, in my opinion.

[MichaelD]

I believe the definition has different meanings for each density. An overall definition of an other-self to me means, any individualized portion of the one infinite creator which is different from you in its uniqueness or attributes. Ra states that each individualized portion of the one infinite creator, while truly being One being, still has very perceptible differences/attributes making us all unique (otherwise there would be no polarity).

In second density, we see from Ra that sometimes the self is multiple individualizations of the one infinite creator, therefore an other-self could indeed be a pack/tribe of individualizations rather than just a single. This can be seem in wolf packs, schools of fish, and notably some species of birds which must fly in formation otherwise they wouldnt be able to migrate in time for the seasons.

In third density, an other-self appears to be any other individualized portion of the one infinite creator unique compared to you. In short, anything other than you.

In fourth density, we enter the arena of social memory complexes. I will not attempt to understand how the term other-self applies here, as this is likely above my ability to perceive in this density. I only bring it up to account for the fact that we are getting into very complex areas in terms of other-selves In higher densities.

Now, in terms of polarization in THIRD density, I believe there is a difference in each "level" of other-self. For instance, could you polarize STO if all you ever did was interact with second density other-selves? Possibly, but it would take much, much longer. I believe you need the incredibly complex set of emotions which only rises when interacting with third density other-selves. Would you ever discover the truly atrocious things in this world and in yourself by only interacting with second density other-selves? Then being able to accept these things and find compassion for the troubled beings which do them? This is just one of many examples of spiritual growth you would be denied if you only interacted second density other-selves.

This is a very interesting topic and you have my thanks for bringing up the discussion.

[anagogy]

--------------------------------------------------


1. What is the definition of other-self?

From a Law of One perspective, I would say the definition of an "other-self" would be anything that one does not identify as part of them-selves.

On the other side of the coin, we are taught by Ra that the great underlying truth and lesson of all densities and dimensions of experience is that we are all *one*. Essentially, the reality is that there is only one soul, or self, and we all share it. The distortion that we experience in our 3rd density plane of existence -- that we are all separate individuals -- is an illusion. Investment in that illusion naturally and reflexively generates and necessitates another distortion or illusion that we have come to know as "polarity". We could not polarize if we first didn't entertain the illusion of separation in the first place.

So positive polarization, or service to others, could be looked at as more of a means to an end -- that end being the realization of oneness consciously again. We serve, love, and mingle with what we perceive to be "other selves" to the point where we feel a kinship and harmony with those "others". Over time, this harmony increases and increases until a critical threshold is crossed. When that happens, a few of the lines that separated us, one from another, are dissolved. This dissolution of barriers, between us and other selves, is experienced as the evolution through the densities of our octave. When the harmony between self and others becomes absolutely pure, and refined, there is no longer self and others, there is only One .


2. Why is it assumed that other-self pertains only to humans?

I've never really made that distinction, so I can't really speak to why some people assume this. The whole of creation is alive, so I can't make arbitrary lines in the sand about what is a form of consciousness that can be assisted, or harmonized with, and one that cannot be assisted. One can show kindness to a human, animal, vegetable, home, or even a garden. Everything, from elemental matter to complex multi-cellular organisms, and even the planets themselves, are having experiences of some variety or another. *All* is alive and conscious.


3. When, if ever, are 2D animals considered other-selves?

At the precise same instant that we identify our consciousness as separate from them.


--------------------------------------------------

[caycegal]

I am wondering about some animals I have met that seem "different." Especially dogs who live in close contact with humans. Some dogs seem to serve as "counselors" for humans, in the sense that they bring them comfort, and it seems to be purposeful.

[Steppingfeet]

Monica, great question! Godwide_Void, loved and agree with your response. And Confused, brilliant thought about the other-self nature of the Sun, acknowledging that the *all* manifestations of the Creator, regardless of their position along, or outside of, the evolutionary timeline, can, from the perspective of the third-density entity, be considered "other-selves".

I believe that second-density creatures are certainly and undeniably "other selves". However, in determining how to respond and in what way to serve, it is best to take into account *who* you are attempting to serve - i.e., what their particular needs and wants are, what their intentions and basic understandings are, what service they can receive and what service they can't.

This is touched upon in the following passage:

42.3 Questioner: I will attempt to make an analogy. If an animal, shall I say, a bull, in a pen attacks you because you have wandered into his pen, you get out of his way rapidly but you do not blame him. You do not have much of an emotional response other than the response that he might damage you. However, if you encounter another self in his territory and he attacks you, your response may be more of an emotional nature creating physical bodily responses. Am I correct in assuming that when your response to the animal and to the other-self is that of seeing both as Creator and loving both and understanding their action in attacking you is the action of their free will then you have balanced yourself correctly in this area? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is basically correct. However, the balanced entity will see in the seeming attack of an other-self the causes of this action which are, in most cases, of a more complex nature than the cause of the attack of the second-density bull as was your example. Thus this balanced entity would be open to many more opportunities for service to a third-density other-self.

Though basic principles of the positive polarity ought to be present in all relationships with other selves, the "opportunities for service" are not equal among the various sorts of "other selves" that the self will encounter, whether those other selves reign from second density, third, fourth, or inner-plane beings, or entities outside of the densities, like the Logos (sun).

Also, it seems that the meat of our catalyst comes from dealing with other selves of a third-density nature. Take for instance:

19.13 Ra: 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 beingness. 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.

And take this one into consideration. Ra says that their third-density experience was focused upon "relationships with other selves". As they go onto say "sexual energy transfers", I believe that by implication they mean, primarily, third-density other-selves. Unless their sexual activities extended into unconventional areas.

88.14
Questioner: Was the concept given to or devised for a training tool for those inhabiting Venus at that time or was it devised by those of Venus as a training tool for those of Earth?

Ra: I am Ra. The tarot was devised by the third-density population of Venus a great measure of your space/time in your past. As we have noted the third-density experience of those of Venus dealt far more deeply and harmoniously with what you would call relationships with other-selves, sexual energy transfer work, and philosophical or metaphysical research. The product of many, many generations of work upon what we conceived to be the archetypical mind produced the tarot which was used by our peoples as a training aid in developing the magical personality.

GLB

[Monica]

Thank you for your response, Gary. I agree that there's no question the bulk of our catalyst comes from interactions with human other-selves. I stated this here:

We're not likely to hold a grudge against our dog for pooping on the carpet, in the same way we might harbor resentment towards our abusive father. So clearly, our little furry 2D brethren don't facilitate the same type of catalyst that 3D humans do.

But, in terms of service to others, and activating green ray by developing compassion for other-selves, how is it any different dealing with an animal, compared to dealing with a human?

Is compassion is compassion is compassion? Or, are there degrees of compassion? Is compassion bestowed upon a human somehow more evolved, more noble, more benevolent than compassion bestowed upon an animal?

However, my main question has to do with whether an entity is considered an other-self, for purposes of compassion.

As stated above, being that our primary requirement for polarizing is love and compassion for other-selves, then if we encounter an entity - any entity, any density - in a situation that is crying out for compassion, what is the appropriate response?

[kdsii]

I think that other-selves refers to those of the same density, more specifically, those who are your future Memory Complex family (but not exclusively)

Because, the most important part of STO philosophy, is forgiveness and compassion.
Can you forgive a cat? Can you harbor negative feelings against a tree?
'Adhering karma' takes effect when you use negative means to accomplish a set goal towards an other-self, i.e. violence, theft, murder, etc... True, emotional, negative, adhering karma happens usually between two or more beings within the same level of illusion.

Higher beings are usually smart enough to not become karmically entangled with us, and lower beings can't tangle with us, because they aren't truly self-aware to do so.

That's my train of thought.

[Patrick]

...if we encounter an entity - any entity, any density - in a situation that is crying out for compassion, what is the appropriate response?

If you are walking the STO path, it's the offering of compassion.

[Diana]

Though basic principles of the positive polarity ought to be present in all relationships with other selves, the "opportunities for service" are not equal among the various sorts of "other selves" that the self will encounter, whether those other selves reign from second density, third, fourth, or inner-plane beings, or entities outside of the densities, like the Logos (sun).

Also, it seems that the meat of our catalyst comes from dealing with other selves of a third-density nature.

I am not sure why the above matters. If all is one, the consideration of one's polarity and the comparison of service appears to me as egocentric in nature. To compare opportunities of service is to seemingly place more importance upon one service over another.

For me, the general attitude of being of service does not rest upon how much polarity is derived from it, rather that I pursue a path from an open heart and feeling of connection to all things.

I find it possibly more important from a certain perspective to do service for 2D creatures just as humans will do service for human babies and children. They are dependent upon us not to destroy them. They do not have the choices we do, or the means to counter our actions. We have more catalyst with each other, yes, because we are more complex, but also because we have collectively built a consciousness.

Other-selves include everything, in my mind. I treat my kitchen table with care and respect, and I have had it since 1986. This seems like a stretch of the term other-selves, but to me it is more of an attitude that all things are connected and derived from the same source; and that I touch the world lightly, leaving as little damage as possible.

Certainly to the most rudimentary human awareness having had the experience of a loving pet dog, animals are other-selves. To see plants and minerals as other-selves as well requires a bigger view. The largest view may include everything, in a manner of speaking.

[Steppingfeet]

Other-selves include everything, in my mind. I treat my kitchen table with care and respect, and I have had it since 1986. This seems like a stretch of the term other-selves...

In terms of the Law of One material, identifying the kitchen table as an "other self" may not be a stretch.

Here Ra describes a house that Don, Carla and Jim were seeking to prepare for contact as a "living entity".

95.4: Ra: "This should cleanse the house as you find it to the extent that it is neutral in its vibrations. We suggest that you then request of this living entity that it now be welcoming and absorbent for the vibrations of harmony, love, and thanksgiving which this group shall then, as the incarnational experience proceeds, offer to the domicile."

: ) GLB

[Plenum]

Other-selves include everything, in my mind. I treat my kitchen table with care and respect, and I have had it since 1986. This seems like a stretch of the term other-selves...

In terms of the Law of One material, identifying the kitchen table as an "other self" may not be a stretch.

Here Ra describes a house that the Don, Carla and Jim were seeking to prepare for contact as a "living entity".

95.4: Ra: "This should cleanse the house as you find it to the extent that it is neutral in its vibrations. We suggest that you then request of this living entity that it now be welcoming and absorbent for the vibrations of harmony, love, and thanksgiving which this group shall then, as the incarnational experience proceeds, offer to the domicile."

: ) GLB

I remember the table that Jim made was 'singing in praise'.

that's why I treat my comfy sofa with great kindness

[kdsii]

This is a plane of accelerated karmic learning. It makes all the world of difference. We're not on a planet of radically varying other-selves in this density so that we can learn to be oblivious of that fact, but so that we can temper ourselves with the catalyst.
Everyone that came here had pre-planned catalyst for this life. That doesn't mean that we can't stop to enjoy the unity of creation, but it does mean that we're here to grow, to polarize, to make up our minds. This is what Third is all about.

Though basic principles of the positive polarity ought to be present in all relationships with other selves, the "opportunities for service" are not equal among the various sorts of "other selves" that the self will encounter, whether those other selves reign from second density, third, fourth, or inner-plane beings, or entities outside of the densities, like the Logos (sun).

Also, it seems that the meat of our catalyst comes from dealing with other selves of a third-density nature.

I am not sure why the above matters. If all is one, the consideration of one's polarity and the comparison of service appears to me as egocentric in nature. To compare opportunities of service is to seemingly place more importance upon one service over another.

For me, the general attitude of being of service does not rest upon how much polarity is derived from it, rather that I pursue a path from an open heart and feeling of connection to all things.

I find it possibly more important from a certain perspective to do service for 2D creatures just as humans will do service for human babies and children. They are dependent upon us not to destroy them. They do not have the choices we do, or the means to counter our actions. We have more catalyst with each other, yes, because we are more complex, but also because we have collectively built a consciousness.

Other-selves include everything, in my mind. I treat my kitchen table with care and respect, and I have had it since 1986. This seems like a stretch of the term other-selves, but to me it is more of an attitude that all things are connected and derived from the same source; and that I touch the world lightly, leaving as little damage as possible.

Certainly to the most rudimentary human awareness having had the experience of a loving pet dog, animals are other-selves. To see plants and minerals as other-selves as well requires a bigger view. The largest view may include everything, in a manner of speaking.

[Monica]

Can you forgive a cat?

A cat won't likely do anything that requires us to forgive them (well aside from maybe peeing on one's jacket or something!).

But a could certainly be in need of compassion. (Say, for example, we come across a cat who was hit by a car and in need of veterinary care.) Isn't that the whole point? For us to develop compassion?

[Vasistha]

As Ramana Maharshi said:

Questioner: "How are we to treat others?"
Ramana Maharshi: "There are no others."

I see Ra allusion to other-selves as a way to bring you this realization. The "others selves" are simply "others YOU"; hence there is only One.

So are 2D entities others-selves? of course, as so is everything. There are no others.

[Confused]

As Ramana Maharshi said:

Questioner: "How are we to treat others?"
Ramana Maharshi: "There are no others."

I see Ra allusion to other-selves as a way to bring you this realization. The "others selves" are simply "others YOU"; hence there is only One.

So are 2D entities others-selves? of course, as so is everything. There are no others.

Hi Vasistha -- nice quote from the Maharshi. Thank you.

[Shin'Ar]

Of course any here who know of Monica's love and desire for our animal friends to be treated with compassion know the gist of this post.

Should our 2d otherselves be given the same consideration with regard to compassion as our 3d otherselves if we are truly polarizing toward STO?

The answer in simplicity is "most certainly".

However, reality is not simplistic in nature. And many aspects of reality are meant to be treated in an intelligent compromise between emotional response and rational response. There would be no lessons to learn and no wisdom to be gained if all were as simple as acting spontaneously on emotion without consideration of complexity.

Much is to be taken into consideration, as I have tried to point out in many similar discussion on this matter.

What Michael D has said here is key to undetsnading this,

"Now, in terms of polarization in THIRD density, I believe there is a difference in each "level" of other-self. For instance, could you polarize STO if all you ever did was interact with second density other-selves? Possibly, but it would take much, much longer. I believe you need the incredibly complex set of emotions which only rises when interacting with third density other-selves. Would you ever discover the truly atrocious things in this world and in yourself by only interacting with second density other-selves? Then being able to accept these things and find compassion for the troubled beings which do them? This is just one of many examples of spiritual growth you would be denied if you only interacted second density other-selves." UNQUOTE

This understanding is wise beyond words, and I have earlier acknowledged his unique offering to this community.

There is an aspect to evolving which must be considered when trying to comprehend compassion, and that is the state of being during various stages of that process. What may be compassion in one state of being may not be compassion in another.

Compassion is defined in our state of being as an act of loving concern toward the state of being of another. In that very defintion we see that it is the 'state of being' that takes pecedence and must be therefore considered. the state of being of a grasshopper for example is very different than the state of being of a dog or cat. As a matter of fact I think many would acknowledge that the state of being between the cat and dog are very different.

In comparing the human state of being to 2d state of being, if we ignore the actual state of being as essential in the process, we create a dilemma that need be there.

I think it is alos key to apply what GWV has stated about interaction of fragments as one.

I always return to the fields of consciousness which I understand as our states of being. and as the state of being of every form in every density.

And when we understand that we interact as fields of consciousness moreso than we do as the temporary aspects of our temporary vibration in any particlualr desnity, than we can realize how very different such interaction would be from one density to another, and even between beings in their partuclar state of being within different densities.

How we interact is very personal and circumstantial. State of being must always be considered. Compassion cannot be defined the same from one state of being to another.

However love is the one constant that never changes regardless of state of being. However, love is not always a matter of similar reaction and interaction. Love is as complex as the universe which has spawned from it. Is euthenasia a form of love? Many will say no. Many others will say yes. Much is to be considered.

I may see an old man walking a poor old crippled dog down the road that is obviously in agony from being pulled along on the leash. In my observation the old man is torturing the poor animal. But the old man is simply walking the dog because he loves it and wants it to enjoy what he thinks is a nice walk. Is his form of love not love at all because of my perception an dunderstanding of the dynamics involved?

Is the old man expressing love or not?

State of being!

Comprehenison!

Environment!

Density!

Degree of evolution!

All of these are key elements in comprehending interaction between fields of consciousness; or various forms of vibration, or 2d and 3d beings or states of being.

[Monica]

could you polarize STO if all you ever did was interact with second density other-selves? Possibly, but it would take much, much longer.

That's very rare...the lady living alone in a house with 79 cats...the man living with gorillas...We can only speculate as to what sort of catalyst they set up for themselves.

But for the vast majority of us, we have plenty of interactions with humans. I wasn't suggesting interacting with 2D entities instead of 3D entities. I was asking whether, when presented with an opportunity to feel compassion for a 2D entity, should we respond the same as we would for a 3D entity?

In other words, would it be appropriate to help the dog who just got hit by a car and is writhing in pain on the side of the road, just as we would help the child who got hit by a car? Is there any difference in terms of our response to an opportunity to serve?

[Shin'Ar]

Yes, but where do you draw that line Monica?

Is there a divine list made up somewhere that designates certain degrees of 2D that we would acknowledge and others that we do not have to concern ourselves with?

is it only the ones with pretty eyes? pretty fur? pretty feathers?

Do you see what I am pointing to here?

Some of us develop an affinity toward a particular 2D being and in so doing we set our boundaries to include that which we concern ourselves with.

But to try to make that line a designation for every body would be extremely diff cult. Some people have a great distaste for cats and may be more apt to drawing that line beyond including them, and might really like reptiles, and would include them within that designation.

We simply must address the differences and the circumstances of the diversity of the human experience when we try to evaluate these issues of compassion toward 2D.

Or do you suggest that every living being should be offered an exact amount of compassion in every situation anywhere in the world?

This would include plant life and insects and even animals that may be hazardous to the health and welfare of certain communities.

It could also intrude upon religious beliefs.

It is impossible to paint this over with a broad brush without imposing our own views and choices.

[Monica]

bump...

[Unbound]

Anything and everything is an other-self.

[kycahi]

The Law of One says that the One is all that is and all that is is the One. Hence, anybody, any dog, cat, insect etc., any flower, tree, weed etc., any star, planet, moon etc. is me and I am it.

We in the third density have an illusion that most things are not us, but the Law says that they all are. So every "non-me" person and thing actually is an other-self.

The more of this that I accept, the easier is my forgiveness.