Kundalini And Polarity

[Steppingfeet]

Dtris, can you clarify why you feel that acceptance of other selves = transformation of the other-selves is "an example of the penultimate positive response to negativity."

I was expressing confusion that the "most accepting and loving energy," as Ra says, is equated with the transformation of the other self. I've always understood that acceptance is not tied to how it's received on the other end, per se. (Though impact is a variable always to be considered.)

Jesus fully unstintingly loved and accepted those who put him up on the cross, but they weren't transformed, and he was still crucified. Was his acceptance less?

Had Jesus's identical twin brother been in the same predicament and so accepted his crucifiers that they opened their hearts and practiced forgiveness, would twin Jesus's acceptance have been more true?

Expecting our acceptance to "transform" the other self lands with me as a manner of control or manipulation. I mean, that's great if loving someone opens their heart and catalyzes their recognition of self by self, thus healing/transforming the self, but the trueness/strength/quality of our acceptance is not dependent upon the transformation or the outcome of our love of the other-self, in my understanding. Do you see otherwise?

(Also, did you mean "ultimate positive response"?)

How do you know that those who crucified Jesus were not transformed in the process? What changes happened in their hearts would not have been recorded for historians. The loving acceptance of another is not dependent on the other person receiving it in any way.

True, no one today knows what became of the Roman soldiers, Pontius, the rabbis, or any other entity co-responsible for the crucifixion. However, if so dramatic a conversion of heart had happened, history has missed one of the greatest epilogues to one of its greatest stories.

It seems unlikely to me that they had a change of heart. But, it is ever possible.

However just as the negative polarity creates a gravity well, which draws all in to it, the positive illuminates and banishes all shadows. If the light radiating is strong enough, it could transform the negative entity, it may not be any more voluntary than it would have been for a positive being to be transported to negative time/space and having to become STS.

"...it could transform the negative entity." (Emphasis added.) I agree completely.

The degree to which that transformation (of the negative entity into a positive one) is voluntary vs. involuntary is an interesting discussion. In short, the further one has progressed along either path, the more power they have available to them, the less likely that a change as dramatic and consequential as a switch in polarity will be made involuntarily, in my understanding. In fact I would venture that by fourth density, polarity conversions happen only voluntarily.

Even in the anomalous event you highlight above, the positive entity would still voluntarily choose to undergo the lessons of the negative path. But "voluntary" becomes a problematic word to parse in that particularly unique event because there is no other alternative save to remain indefinitely suspended in negative time/space.

The event that Ra describes, however, whereby "...the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that [the crusading negative entities] were surrounded, engulfed, and transformed by positive energies," would not involve a manipulative relocating of the negative entity into positive time/space, thus giving the negative entity no real choice save to switch polarities.

Positive energy inherently honors free will. That negative energy does not honor free will is why, as you note above, it acts as a gravity well upon others.

As 71.14 explains "Although the negatively oriented entity may find it difficult to polarize negatively in the midst of such resounding harmony, it will not find it impossible."

If you were running around intentionally trying to use your positive ability to transform others, that would not be very positive, and you probably would not be able to or not for long. What I think you are ascribing the transformation to is some type of interplay between the parties, one intentionally radiating love and acceptance, the other party accepting that love and desiring to be transformed, despite its previous life spent doing the opposite.

While we cannot know for certain, my view is that it would be more akin to the one who is loving and accepting, does so because that is truly what they are, for them reacting with love and acceptance would be just as involuntary as a transformation. This would have the effect of transforming the other self, as the intensity of the light would be too much for it to bear. An equally negative being on the other hand, would be able to reject the light.

In your second paragraph I see a description of how such a transformation could unfold. And I agree (save for the idea of "involuntary.")

However, the main point of my own confusion is not how a transformation could transpire, or that a transformation could transpire, but that Ra described how "...the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that [the crusading negative entities] were surrounded, engulfed, and transformed by positive energies,"

The word "most" implies a ranking.

The "most" is the apex, the maximum, the highest. Like you said when you wrote "read that as an example of the penultimate positive response to negativity. An event which would be exceedingly rare in actual occurrence but possible nonetheless."


(Indeed "penultimate" means "next to final or last," which is why I thought you meant "ultimate.")

This idea of "most" or "ultimate" says to me that if the negative entities are not transformed by the positive love, then positive beings have not exercised "the most accepting and loving energy."

Though perhaps there is some insight in the context of “At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war…”. Maybe in the mentality of this war, there is a desire to “convert” the other side. Though that still makes little sense to me.

This is why the statement of it being a battle of equals is important, in context it tells us that the example of loving acceptance transforming the other self, would not be among equals.

Hmm. Ra's word "However" in the second paragraph does lend some credence to your theory above. I don't read it that way, but I don't fully understand it either.

I used penultimate because it felt right. I just looked at the definition and it doesn't quite mean what I thought, but close. It means "next to last". I would imagine the ultimate positive response, would be to be so positive that no other self could even contemplate taking that kind of action in the first place.

Interestingly the "transformation" is similar to how the Buddhists are depicted in Chinese Xianxia novels with an ability to turn weak minded individuals into faithful worshippers.

The Buddha's effect on a fourth-density negative adept would be interesting to observe.

Thanks for the good convo, Dtris.

[Louisabell]

In my interpretation, the calling that that which is not makes for that which is refers to that moment in sixth density when the negative path meets its end. In that moment, the negative being relinquishes its polarity (the darkness of "that which is not") to call and welcome the light (of "that which is").

That is likely, but perplexingly, Ra does state that this occurs in third density...

That which is not may be seen as a self-imposed darkness in which harmony is turned into an eternal disharmony. However, that which is not cannot endure throughout the octave of third density and, as darkness eventually calls the light, so does that which is not eventually call that which is.

From my recollection, Ra has stated that third-density veiling does not completely limit our evolution through the higher densities. If anything, Ra implies that the veil can be skillfully used to potentiate our polarisation.

So perhaps what you said, about transformation occurring in sixth-density, still applies. Don did touch on how it was an intentional design of the Logos to offer the permeability of densities...

90.26 Questioner: Then as I see the plan for the evolution by this Logos it was planned to create as vivid an experience as possible but also one which was somewhat informed with respect to the Infinite Creator and able to accelerate progress as a function of will because of the permeabilities of densities. Have I covered accurately the general plan of this Logos with respect to Its evolution?

Ra: I am Ra. Excepting the actions of the unmanifested self and the actions of self with other-self, you have been reasonably thorough.

Very mysterious indeed!

[Infinite]

Well, that thread has grown fast and I won't be able to answer everyone.

Reconciling acceptance with boundaries and rejection of service is not fully clear to me.

Not accepting everything from the other self is shortening his free will. That's how I understand it.

In the Ra quotes above, Ra seems to imply that full acceptance = yielding to and not resisting the negative service on offer, i.e., enslavement.

Since the 4D+ entities are unable to accept the enslavement, they lose some polarity.

It seems to me that they choose not to accept.

[flofrog]

from Steppingfeet

In short, the further one has progressed along either path, the more power they have available to them, the less likely that a change as dramatic and consequential as a switch in polarity will be made involuntarily, in my understanding. In fact I would venture that by fourth density, polarity conversions happen only voluntarily.

So agree.  Which would explain why we probably have to wait till 6th density to see the switch happen ?