Service without request?

[Namaste]

fleas bite, rain makes you wet, and some people don't like opinions.

I did actually laugh out loud reading that :¬)

Why is it amusing to me? Because what we have here is one infinite entity arguing with itself about the nature of itself, using the idea of finite steps/distortions, which is afterall infinite in scope and thus incapable of being pinned down.

Ra was attempting to disseminate concepts related to the nature of reality and infinity itself, through a highly distorted mechanism (channeling) which is further distorted due to the necessity of words which are the very definition of definition.

...

Don't get me wrong, I love putting things in their place and grasping their unique nature, attributes, etc, as much as the next guy/gal. This is what logic and thus science does and I appreciate science for its ability to do so. What science cannot do however is fathom the truly infinite nature of all things because a holistic approach is needed to do so, and such holism includes that which cannot be known quantitatively.

I didn't intend to distort this thread even further off its topical track but I felt the need to step in and add some perspective to an issue which is ultimately fundamentally unresolvable from the POV of 3rd density.

/:idea:

Very well put. I am also under the opinion that trying to understand higher densities while under a thick veil very interesting, but also a potentially distractive (from the point of third density) path.

Choosing the positive path in this density is very much about accepting others, and loving them for their uniqueness. This can, and does, cause catalyst and opportunities to polarise in this forum.

[LsavedSmeD]

@Solitary: Let it go... fleas bite, rain makes you wet, and some people don't like opinions.

@LsavedSmeD
I think you've got an important point. There is infinity in many different directions. We use to think in macro infinity... But there's also the micro infinity. Every time we look at an object on a smaller scale it will reveal a smaller micro cosmos with it's own laws and uniqueness.

Something without boundaries is either infinitely large or infinitely small.

This is representative of a fractal universe, not of an infinite universe in the traditional 3d sense. Infinity is a concept that is distorted in 3d consciousness. Infinity exists everywhere where we can keep reinventing the way we look at things. So that includes the finite and ordinary. When Ra speaks about intelligent infinity he's not speaking about something that has horizons. But not necessarily about something large in size either.

William Blake said it well in his famous poem.

To see the universe in a grain of sand
And heaven in a wildflower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

"IT SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD THAT ANY PORTION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, OF ANY DENSITY OR OF ANY ILLUSORY PATTERN CONTAINS, AS IN A HOLOGRAPHIC PICTURE, THE ONE CREATOR WHICH IS INFINITY. THUS ALL BEGINS AND ENDS IN MYSTERY."

-Ra

[Lavazza]

This is a very interesting subject- I have a similar situation. A friend of mine asked me to let him store his car in my garage for about two months while he traveled out of town and changed jobs. He volunteered to pay me $100 a month for this service. I agreed even though I probably would have been fine with him using it for free. The months go past and he comes back to town with his girlfriend, they come pick up the car and drive off to their new destination city. All the while he made no mention of the payment he offered. It was late so I figured it slipped his mind, but it's been over a month since then and he still hasn't remembered.

Now... I didn't expect payment initially, I don't need the money, and moreover he probably needs it more than I do. But in the context of this discussion and being 'honest' about my service, should I demand the repayment of the money he volunteered? Is it my call in other words, since he set the deal?

Would be very interested to see what you all think. For me it's more of a thought experiment, as I feel set in my decision about it (to let it go).

[Monica]

Now... I didn't expect payment initially, I don't need the money, and moreover he probably needs it more than I do. But in the context of this discussion and being 'honest' about my service, should I demand the repayment of the money he volunteered? Is it my call in other words, since he set the deal?

I've been on both sides of that scenario before. There have been times when I was overly eager to seal the deal (whatever it was) and stuck my foot in my mouth, offering way more than I needed to. In some cases, I got stuck with paying the overcompensation, but in that rare occasion when the other person realized my mistake and reassured me that it was unnecessary, I felt very grateful!

If you needed the $$, and the negotiation had been very clear, then you would be within your rights to speak up. But since you don't need the $$ (or at least not as much as he does), and it didn't cost you anything to store his car, I would suggest letting it go. It sounds like it may be one of those cases where he thought about it later, and realized, Hey my friend would have been happy to store the car...it's not costing him anything...why did I offer $200?? ...What was I thinking!!?? then either blocked it out of his mind or hoped you'd forget. Or maybe something else came up and now his finances are much tighter than they were when he offered.

Finances cause rifts between friends enough already. This one doesn't sound worth risking a rift, especially since you're not out anything.

I would suggest letting it go...or, at most, saying something like, Oh by the way, don't worry about the $100 per month you offered...it really wasn't any problem and I was happy to do it for you.

That might be a way to clear the air without putting your friend in an awkward position.

[Namaste]

Agreed, if you're not in need of the money, it's an opportunity to offer generosity. As Monica states, tell him directly next time you see him that you are happy to waiver the cost. His smile will be worth a lot more

[Lavazza]

Solid advice my friends Indeed, I'm definitely going to let it go as receiving his compensation was never a big deal for me initially.

I'm not sure I really even want to mention it to him however, because in doing so I very likely would cause him some embarrassment. If he intentionally "forgot" or if he genuinely forgot, I could see awkwardness resulting from even raising the topic. And furthermore, that I would take the time to mention it might communicate erroneously to him that I am actually still expecting to receive something, given that I would otherwise not have mentioned it.

But in not mentioning it to him, am I not more or less putting myself in the same place as the original poster of this thread, Blargg, was in? If I understood correctly- it was the covert nature of his service that turned it in to a disservice in the eyes of some. Although the circumstances and arrangement of the situations are different, they are the same in that someone is receiving a service in the form of financial aid in a "secret" fashion, or at least an unspoken / indirect one.

However so, I still feel that the best path for service in my case is to let it go. And I still can't really make my mind up about Blargg's example, although good points are made on both sides. This discussion could be expanded out to other areas as well. The whole area of charitable organizations are essentially ones that operate under the motto of service without request. Where is the line drawn there? Can we apply Ra's response to Don's question concerning the feeding of starving people in Africa? Ra said the appropriate response was the feed first, and then teach second (love, and then wisdom). Can we apply this to people who are not starving, but who are still in need of service? I suspect so, but will reserve judgment, it may be a large topic. I think this line of thought has great potential our philosophical scalpels.

Please jump in!

Yours,
L.

[Namaste]

I'm not sure I really even want to mention it to him however, because in doing so I very likely would cause him some embarrassment. If he intentionally "forgot" or if he genuinely forgot, I could see awkwardness resulting from even raising the topic. And furthermore, that I would take the time to mention it might communicate erroneously to him that I am actually still expecting to receive something, given that I would otherwise not have mentioned it.

But in not mentioning it to him, am I not more or less putting myself in the same place as the original poster of this thread, Blargg, was in? If I understood correctly- it was the covert nature of his service that turned it in to a disservice in the eyes of some. Although the circumstances and arrangement of the situations are different, they are the same in that someone is receiving a service in the form of financial aid in a "secret" fashion, or at least an unspoken / indirect one.

However so, I still feel that the best path for service in my case is to let it go. And I still can't really make my mind up about Blargg's example, although good points are made on both sides. This discussion could be expanded out to other areas as well. The whole area of charitable organizations are essentially ones that operate under the motto of service without request. Where is the line drawn there? Can we apply Ra's response to Don's question concerning the feeding of starving people in Africa? Ra said the appropriate response was the feed first, and then teach second (love, and then wisdom). Can we apply this to people who are not starving, but who are still in need of service? I suspect so, but will reserve judgment, it may be a large topic. I think this line of thought has great potential our philosophical scalpels.

Please jump in!

Yours,
L.

Something we all need to remember and keep in mind is that we're under a heavy veil, and are not expected to make 'perfect' (we are perfectly imperfect) choices at every step.

Whatever we choose, if it is chosen with integrity based upon our own truths, and out of love (to be of service to another), then quite simply it is the right choice to make.

[Monica]

I'm not sure I really even want to mention it to him however, because in doing so I very likely would cause him some embarrassment. If he intentionally "forgot" or if he genuinely forgot, I could see awkwardness resulting from even raising the topic. And furthermore, that I would take the time to mention it might communicate erroneously to him that I am actually still expecting to receive something, given that I would otherwise not have mentioned it.

Good point! I would just drop it. I only suggested mentioning it if you felt the air needed to be cleared. But if he seems to have moved on and all is well, then I see no reason to mention it.

But in not mentioning it to him, am I not more or less putting myself in the same place as the original poster of this thread, Blargg, was in? If I understood correctly- it was the covert nature of his service that turned it in to a disservice in the eyes of some. Although the circumstances and arrangement of the situations are different, they are the same in that someone is receiving a service in the form of financial aid in a "secret" fashion, or at least an unspoken / indirect one.

I don't think the 2 situations are the same at all. In the other example, the service was covert because the other person didn't know at all. Your case is different, because the compensation was mentioned and even offered. And, you didn't spend any money. You didn't even spend any time. And it wasn't done in secret at all.

The whole area of charitable organizations are essentially ones that operate under the motto of service without request. Where is the line drawn there? Can we apply Ra's response to Don's question concerning the feeding of starving people in Africa? Ra said the appropriate response was the feed first, and then teach second (love, and then wisdom). Can we apply this to people who are not starving, but who are still in need of service? I suspect so, but will reserve judgment, it may be a large topic. I think this line of thought has great potential our philosophical scalpels.

We have, from Ra, the idea of not teaching others unless they have indicated that they want the teaching. Ra offers teaching only when there is a call for it. But Ra is in a different situation since most humans don't know about Ra.

This subject was discussed on another thread - not sure which one - the question was raised regarding whether we have to follow the same guidelines that Ra follows. I don't think this is necessarily true, since we have different circumstances.

I find the idea of waiting for a starving person to ask for food to be absurd and the twisting of Ra's philosophy. If we see a starving person, why in the world would we wait for them to ask for food?

That is entirely different from meeting a fundamentalist religious person, and telling them about reincarnation, and shaking their foundation of faith, when they were perfectly happy in their little world.

My personal approach is, when in doubt, OFFER the help. They can always refuse it if they don't want it.

[Lavazza]

Something we all need to remember and keep in mind is that we're under a heavy veil, and are not expected to make 'perfect' (we are perfectly imperfect) choices at every step.

I think this just about sums up the whole issue for me, actually. When in doubt, I have always operated on what 'feels' right. I can only hope that it is, actually, right. Well said Namaste.

We have, from Ra, the idea of not teaching others unless they have indicated that they want the teaching. Ra offers teaching only when there is a call for it. But Ra is in a different situation since most humans don't know about Ra. ... I find the idea of waiting for a starving person to ask for food to be absurd and the twisting of Ra's philosophy. If we see a starving person, why in the world would we wait for them to ask for food?

I completely agree with you when it comes to people who are starving. At the same time I also have a bend towards helping others even if they are unaware of it or have not asked. It "feels" right to me. I know what you mean when you say they are completely different things, but I don't think they actually are- I think there are similar roots here.

But no, I don't mean to say that we should follow the same guidelines that Ra uses. The differences between ourselves, 3rd density entities using yellow ray chemical vehicles and Ra, 6th density ethereal beings are so vast that that would be folly. Nor do I mean to imply that we twist Ra's philosophy and deny the hungry food! I am simply suggesting that to those who are overly concerned about the implications of offering service without request (a concern I do not have) that there may be more that can be gained by thinking these topics over more and their possible connection.

& :idea: