+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material (/showthread.php?tid=4547)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - zenmaster - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 01:26 PM)ShinAr Wrote:This is almost laughable. They're referring to ontologically distinct densities or learning paradigms which are subsumed and therefore no longer identified with."We offer the Law of One, the solving of paradoxes, the balancing of love/light and light/love."(03-25-2012, 01:14 PM)Valtor Wrote: We should also not discard all because there are parts we do not resonate with.
I agree with you there Valtor, but when a person says to me that they are not of light and love, I would not have reason to heed them any further, and I would most definitely use great discernment to anything else they had to say.
"Our rituals, as you may call them, are an infinitely subtle continuation of the balancing processes which you are now beginning to experience.
We seek now without polarity. Thus we do not invoke any power from without, for our search has become internalized as we become light/love and love/light. These are the balances we seek, the balances between compassion and wisdom which more and more allow our understanding of experience to be informed that we may come closer to the unity with the One Creator which we so joyfully seek.
Your rituals at your level of progress contain the concept of polarization and this is most central at your particular space/time."
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Patrick - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 01:20 PM)ShinAr Wrote:(03-25-2012, 01:14 PM)Valtor Wrote: Each of us creates our own Truth. This is the true meaning of the Creator experiencing itself.
Well I will have to disagree with that wholeheartedly My friend.
There is only one truth, that which has taken place, the past.
We do not create our own versions of it. What happened in the past is only that which actually happened, and NOT what we think happened or believe might have happened.
I love these conversations!
IMHO all pasts exists as does all futures. What we actually are is the One consciousness tracing paths within all the pasts and futures.
- Our Self is one of those paths.
- Our Higher-Self is at the top (or the root) of a tree of paths.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - zenmaster - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 01:26 PM)ShinAr Wrote: And so you, even though you had a hammer at your disposal, would pound the nail in with your fist, just to avoid being seen as applying wisdom?Each circumstance is unique and blanket wisdom or the "solutions in search of a problem" methods are necessarily going to be impotent.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Shin'Ar - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 01:34 PM)zenmaster Wrote: This is almost laughable.
Was that meant as an insult Zen? If so I was told to be careful how I used my words so as not to be insulting. That might be good advice in this situation.
As to those quotes, which interpretation were those from?
(03-25-2012, 01:35 PM)Valtor Wrote: IMHO all pasts exists as does all futures.
How can something that has never taken place exist in the past?
(03-25-2012, 01:39 PM)zenmaster Wrote:(03-25-2012, 01:26 PM)ShinAr Wrote: And so you, even though you had a hammer at your disposal, would pound the nail in with your fist, just to avoid being seen as applying wisdom?Each circumstance is unique and blanket wisdom or the "solutions in search of a problem" methods are necessarily going to be impotent.
Blanket wisdom? you do not have a strong respect for wisdom, do you Zen? It almost seems as that which you define as wisdom is based more upon whether or not you like its source and how it presents that wisdom to you, rather than whether or not there is actually wisdom to be had.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - zenmaster - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 01:40 PM)ShinAr Wrote:Not as an insult, it's just that you aren't familiar with the terminology and don't even know it, yet you still go off half-cocked. So that is indicative of lack of wisdom, and there is plenty of irony.(03-25-2012, 01:34 PM)zenmaster Wrote: This is almost laughable.
Was that meant as an insult Zen? If so I was told to be careful how I used my words so as not to be insulting. That might be good advice in this situation.
(03-25-2012, 01:40 PM)ShinAr Wrote:Blanket, as in something intended to address all and applied in all circumstances. Yet nothing in 3D anyway is of that nature. Do you not see that you looking for problems to apply your ready-made solutions, and in thereby doing are creating new ones?(03-25-2012, 01:39 PM)zenmaster Wrote:Blanket wisdom? you do not have a strong respect for wisdom, do you Zen?(03-25-2012, 01:26 PM)ShinAr Wrote: And so you, even though you had a hammer at your disposal, would pound the nail in with your fist, just to avoid being seen as applying wisdom?Each circumstance is unique and blanket wisdom or the "solutions in search of a problem" methods are necessarily going to be impotent.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Shin'Ar - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 01:50 PM)zenmaster Wrote:(03-25-2012, 01:40 PM)ShinAr Wrote:Not as an insult, it's just that you aren't familiar with the terminology and don't even know it, yet you still go off half-cocked. So that is indicative of lack of wisdom, and there is plenty of irony.(03-25-2012, 01:34 PM)zenmaster Wrote: This is almost laughable.
Was that meant as an insult Zen? If so I was told to be careful how I used my words so as not to be insulting. That might be good advice in this situation.
(03-25-2012, 01:40 PM)ShinAr Wrote:Blanket, as in something intended to address all and applied in all circumstances. Yet nothing in 3D anyway is of that nature. Do you not see that you looking for problems to apply your ready-made solutions, and in thereby doing are creating new ones?(03-25-2012, 01:39 PM)zenmaster Wrote:Blanket wisdom? you do not have a strong respect for wisdom, do you Zen?(03-25-2012, 01:26 PM)ShinAr Wrote: And so you, even though you had a hammer at your disposal, would pound the nail in with your fist, just to avoid being seen as applying wisdom?Each circumstance is unique and blanket wisdom or the "solutions in search of a problem" methods are necessarily going to be impotent.
No, but I do know insult when one is given. That would be wisdom of a sort would it not. However I have discussed with you enough here to know that is just your character so we can laugh it off.
No, I do not see why you have a problem with my presentation and assume it to be blanket wisdom. You don't get to make an assumption like that without giving reason for it. Unless you can I won't bother to respond to it.
As I said I think that your problem is more with the messenger than the strength of its message. if i wore a 'go Zen go' T-shirt you would probably have an entire outlook on my wisdom. With regard to the terminolgy the quote read thusly:
Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We, too, have our place. We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.
Do you see the part where it says "We are not those of the Love or of the Light"?
When it comes to various interpretations, and commentaries, you might hear that one way while I hear it in another, but I assure you my friend, regardless, it warrants extra attention.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Patrick - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 01:26 PM)ShinAr Wrote:(03-25-2012, 01:14 PM)Valtor Wrote: We should also not discard all because there are parts we do not resonate with.
I agree with you there Valtor, but when a person says to me that they are not of light and love, I would not have reason to heed them any further, and I would most definitely use great discernment to anything else they had to say.
Just as when I realize that someone is quoting from a source that is not the actual source of the quote, but an edited and reinterpreted opinion of the actual quotes, I will now understand that what they are quoting may not be actual quotes.
IMHO, the original written material is still very close to what Ra said. But, like you, I prefer reading what was actually said.
(03-25-2012, 01:26 PM)ShinAr Wrote:(03-25-2012, 01:24 PM)Valtor Wrote:(03-25-2012, 01:16 PM)ShinAr Wrote:(03-25-2012, 01:06 PM)Valtor Wrote: If you want the least distorted source of the Ra material, you should read the re-listened version.
The least distorted? Really? Now what does that tell us! And Ankh seems to like that.
It tells us that all Creation is distortion.
Without distortion, there is only One person.
My friend, you do not have to be comfortable with what we write or what we quote. Like I said before, you should take in only what you resonate with.
That said, I would note that IMHO a big part of the positive path is accepting that other selves have other Truths. And those who resonates with a large enough set of Truths will be able to form social memory complexes based on this set of Truths. Then you have other memory complexes based on other set of Truths.
I am afraid that you are using the word distortion in two different meanings here Valtor. When Ra uses the word distortion they are speaking about how a thing vibrates. they are speaking about vibration. That is different than using the word to mean a corruption of truth or information.
Well I am using that word with only one meaning, but it's quite possible that we do not ascribe the same meaning to the word.
I would say that my understanding of the word "distortion" as used by Ra is inline with my understanding of the teachings of Ra themselves. So it's possible that my understanding is not what Ra meant. And this is why I said that we all create our own Truths.
Nevertheless, I feel that the understanding I have of the Ra material, including my understanding of the word "distortion" as used by Ra, is quite useful to my Self at this time.
Here is my current understanding: All Creation is made out of vibrations and even before physicality. All concepts are vibrations too. Thoughts are vibrations.
This understanding is not static and is always evolving as it is with discussions such as this one.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Shin'Ar - 03-25-2012
well valtor I can agree that distortion as used by Ra means vibration. But I cannot agree that we create our own truths for the reasons I posted above. Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Ankh - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 01:16 PM)ShinAr Wrote: The least distorted? Really? Now what does that tell us! And Ankh seems to like that.
Perhaps distorted was a wrong word. Replace it with: containing more Q/A's than the Books you are reading.
(03-25-2012, 01:26 PM)ShinAr Wrote: I agree with you there Valtor, but when a person says to me that they are not of light and love, I would not have reason to heed them any further, and I would most definitely use great discernment to anything else they had to say.
Great discernment to use as a tool when reading/studying any source of information is a great tool indeed.
Again, I want to point you to what it is actually said in the Ra material:
Ra, 1:1 Wrote:We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One.
Ra, 1:6 Wrote:You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.
4th density is the next density, that is the density of love.
5th density is the density of wisdom, or light.
Ra is neither from these densities. Ra is from 6th density, which is the density of love/light, light/love.
Shin'Ar Wrote:Just as when I realize that someone is quoting from a source that is not the actual source of the quote, but an edited and reinterpreted opinion of the actual quotes, I will now understand that what they are quoting may not be actual quotes.
The quotes coming from lawofone.info contain more information as it was given by Ra, than those in the Books.
Again, the lawofone.info offers not reinterpreted information, but additional information.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Patrick - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 01:40 PM)ShinAr Wrote:(03-25-2012, 01:35 PM)Valtor Wrote: IMHO all pasts exists as does all futures.
How can something that has never taken place exist in the past?
This is one of the seeming paradoxes for which we will eventually see a solution to. I currently do not see it. I often try to see the mechanics of it, but so far I have failed.
But note that it is only the mechanics of it that I do not see at this time. I simply must accept that all pasts exists in order for the rest of my Truths to be valid.
(03-25-2012, 02:13 PM)ShinAr Wrote: well valtor I can agree that distortion as used by Ra means vibration. But I cannot agree that we create our own truths for the reasons I posted above. Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
If we all agreed, we would all be One.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Shin'Ar - 03-25-2012
From my study of various religions around the world and the many commentaries and opinions, I am always hesitant about interpretations of interpretations, and comments on commentaries.
I like to try to remain in the original sources when possible. And I do not mean to take away from the creedence of your sources at all. I am just stating my own preference and caution in that regard.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Unbound - 03-25-2012
It is the original source material that is on Lawofone.info.
The books were printed with edited information, so the books were in fact incomplete. Recently, in the past year, they decided they were comfortable enough to share the information that had been edited out of the books and applied them to the Lawofone.info site, which is, more or less a complete referendum of the sessions with Ra I believe.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Shin'Ar - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 02:31 PM)TheEternal Wrote: It is the original source material that is on Lawofone.info.
The books were printed with edited information, so the books were in fact incomplete. Recently, in the past year, they decided they were comfortable enough to share the information that had been edited out of the books and applied them to the Lawofone.info site, which is, more or less a complete referendum of the sessions with Ra I believe.
I will have to look into that Azreal, as I would much prefer to be working with the most original material.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Patrick - 03-25-2012
(03-25-2012, 02:43 PM)ShinAr Wrote:(03-25-2012, 02:31 PM)TheEternal Wrote: It is the original source material that is on Lawofone.info.
The books were printed with edited information, so the books were in fact incomplete. Recently, in the past year, they decided they were comfortable enough to share the information that had been edited out of the books and applied them to the Lawofone.info site, which is, more or less a complete referendum of the sessions with Ra I believe.
I will have to look into that Azreal, as I would much prefer to be working with the most original material.
http://lawofone.info/ is very nearly as it was said.
The wiki though http://wiki.lawofone.info/ is actually as it was said. Including the lapses, the mentions when the sound from the tape was too low and when sides were being turned over. etc...
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Plenum - 05-13-2012
if I could add my 2 cents:
my own personal condensation of the 2 paths is thus:
the path of acceptance
the path of separation
- -
of course, confusion can then arise from what and how one interprets "acceptance" and "separation"; but that is a personal matter, and 100 people will have a 100 varying ways of seeing these 2 words.
this way of viewing polarity has especial significance for me because I do a lot of work with what Ra calls the "unmanifest self". This is work done without reference to other selves; and so a typical STO/STS reading of things is not as applicable here.
it comes down to 2 ways of perceiving/reacting to catalyst. One can accept it/integrate it, or one can reject it/separate it.
that is just my own personal placing of things.
namaste.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Ashim - 05-13-2012
(05-13-2012, 09:41 AM)plenum Wrote: if I could add my 2 cents:
my own personal condensation of the 2 paths is thus:
the path of acceptance
the path of separation
- -
of course, confusion can then arise from what and how one interprets "acceptance" and "separation"; but that is a personal matter, and 100 people will have a 100 varying ways of seeing these 2 words.
this way of viewing polarity has especial significance for me because I do a lot of work with what Ra calls the "unmanifest self". This is work done without reference to other selves; and so a typical STO/STS reading of things is not as applicable here.
it comes down to 2 ways of perceiving/reacting to catalyst. One can accept it/integrate it, or one can reject it/separate it.
that is just my own personal placing of things.
namaste.
I have observed friends and family close to me and have come to the provisional conclusion that the path of seperation leads to an overall 'shrinking' of the world one inhabits.
One tends to 'mold' observations so that they 'fit' into the individual world view.
How many of the scenarios played out in the course of earth history have been about 'being right'?
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - JustLikeYou - 05-14-2012
plenum, I don't think that rejection is part of the STS approach to catalyst. I think that rejection is a confused approach by those who are afraid of what the catalyst reveals. The STS entity must face the catalyst just as anyone else. The major difference is how it is integrated into the self. I'll use catalyst of the mind as an example.
Whereas the STO entity will take hold of the catalyst and seek to know and love it, the STS entity must similarly take hold of the catalyst but seek to control it, putting it in the place deemed appropriate by the entity. STS is a path of seeing the entire panorama of one's experience as a canvas which will receive the Creation of the entity. Centrally controlled "communist" regimes like Soviet Russia and China, for example, are very similar to the approach of the STS entity to its experience. Nothing is rejected outright unless the entity is foolish; rather, it is subordinated. For example, if an STS entity finds itself faced with the mental catalyst of bloodlust, it will not reject the catalyst; rather, it will simply stifle the emotion and then allow it to bust forth at a moment deemed appropriate. In doing so, the bloodlust becomes no longer a habit that undermines the STS entity's agenda, and is transformed into a weapon which strikes awe into those who watch the entity's wrath.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - 3DMonkey - 05-14-2012
Rejection is control, IMO. I would say the bloodlust is not a catalyst but a result of rejecting the full exploration of the moment.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Meerie - 05-15-2012
I think rejection belongs more to the unpolarization.
Sweeping stuff under the carpet.
Not wanting to be bothered by it / looking at it.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Plenum - 05-15-2012
I think my choice of wording could have been better. I will default to the wisdom of the forums
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - BrownEye - 05-15-2012
(05-15-2012, 03:03 AM)Meerie Wrote: I think rejection belongs more to the unpolarization.That would be correct.
Sweeping stuff under the carpet.
Not wanting to be bothered by it / looking at it.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - 3DMonkey - 05-16-2012
(05-15-2012, 03:03 AM)Meerie Wrote: I think rejection belongs more to the unpolarization.
Sweeping stuff under the carpet.
Not wanting to be bothered by it / looking at it.
This is serving the self. The self wants to remain as it is, rejecting the others that would become part of it, thinking it isn't already a part of it, and controlling it where to go. This relates to how anger becomes cancer when applied in the STS fashion.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Ashim - 05-16-2012
(05-15-2012, 03:25 PM)Pickle Wrote:The stuff that I 'swept under the carpet' in life came back and blew itself into my face. Now I just clean more often and with more attention to detail and the dust fails to manifest to any great extent.(05-15-2012, 03:03 AM)Meerie Wrote: I think rejection belongs more to the unpolarization.That would be correct.
Sweeping stuff under the carpet.
Not wanting to be bothered by it / looking at it.
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Meerie - 05-16-2012
(03-25-2012, 02:31 PM)Daddy Ra Wrote: 46.9 Ra: The entity polarizing positively perceives the anger. This entity, if using this catalyst mentally, blesses and loves this anger in itself. It then intensifies this anger consciously in mind alone until the folly of this red-ray energy is perceived not as folly in itself but as energy subject to spiritual entropy due to the randomness of energy being used.
Positive orientation then provides the will and faith to continue this mentally intense experience of letting the anger be understood, accepted, and integrated with the mind/body/spirit complex. The other-self which is the object of anger is thus transformed into an object of acceptance, understanding, and accommodation, all being reintegrated using the great energy which anger began.
The negatively oriented mind/body/spirit complex will use this anger in a similarly conscious fashion, refusing to accept the undirected or random energy of anger and instead, through will and faith, funneling this energy into a practical means of venting the negative aspect of this emotion so as to obtain control over other-self, or otherwise control the situation causing anger.
Control is the key to negatively polarized use of catalyst. Acceptance is the key to positively polarized use of catalyst. Between these polarities lies the potential for this random and undirected energy creating a bodily complex analog of what you call the cancerous growth of tissue.
Sweeping under the carpet is not control, imo. Control is actively doing something about the situation, using it. What I meant goes more into the direction of ignoring it, closing your eyes on it...
semantics
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - 3DMonkey - 05-16-2012
(05-16-2012, 08:23 AM)Meerie Wrote:(03-25-2012, 02:31 PM)Daddy Ra Wrote: 46.9 Ra: The entity polarizing positively perceives the anger. This entity, if using this catalyst mentally, blesses and loves this anger in itself. It then intensifies this anger consciously in mind alone until the folly of this red-ray energy is perceived not as folly in itself but as energy subject to spiritual entropy due to the randomness of energy being used.
Positive orientation then provides the will and faith to continue this mentally intense experience of letting the anger be understood, accepted, and integrated with the mind/body/spirit complex. The other-self which is the object of anger is thus transformed into an object of acceptance, understanding, and accommodation, all being reintegrated using the great energy which anger began.
The negatively oriented mind/body/spirit complex will use this anger in a similarly conscious fashion, refusing to accept the undirected or random energy of anger and instead, through will and faith, funneling this energy into a practical means of venting the negative aspect of this emotion so as to obtain control over other-self, or otherwise control the situation causing anger.
Control is the key to negatively polarized use of catalyst. Acceptance is the key to positively polarized use of catalyst. Between these polarities lies the potential for this random and undirected energy creating a bodily complex analog of what you call the cancerous growth of tissue.
Sweeping under the carpet is not control, imo. Control is actively doing something about the situation, using it. What I meant goes more into the direction of ignoring it, closing your eyes on it...
semantics
I'm an Aries. Maybe I just can't see sweeping it under the carpet and leaving it there. To me, it's just step one in "refusing to accept...". I suppose there could be a long hiatus after this step. ... (I'm just going to burn the damn rug)
RE: Our definitions of polarity per the Law of One material - Sena - 07-15-2021
(03-23-2012, 01:01 PM)godwide_void Wrote:
Choice is not polarity, it is direction.
Ultimately one's polarity is determined by the choices, so it is safe to assume that polarity is NEVER a set thing for an individual. Polarity is sustained by the continuing nature of every subsequent choice. I bolded your last sentence because it was a very profound and perceptive word choice to deem it as "direction". No being begins life as polarized one way or another. Nobody has a native polarity, but at the same time the capacity to become either polarity exists in all. Visualizing this as a simple meter really helps, or if you've any experience with RPG video games it makes it easier.
Thanks for helping me understand the relationship between polarity and choice.