Acceptance and Will

[Monica]

Acceptance is a core tenet of the Law of One.

But, what exactly is acceptance?

46.7 ...Control is the key to negatively polarized use of catalyst. Acceptance is the key to positively polarized use of catalyst.

46.8 Questioner: Then as I understand it you are saying that if the positively polarizing entity fails to accept the other-self or if the negatively polarizing entity fails to control the other-self, either of these conditions will cause cancer, possibly. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. The first acceptance, or control depending upon polarity, is of the self. Anger is one of many things to be accepted and loved as a part of self or controlled as a part of self, if the entity is to do work.

52.7 Questioner: Am I correct, then, in assuming that discipline of the personality, knowledge of self, and control in strengthening of the will would be what any fifth-density entity would see as those things of importance?
Ra: I am Ra. In actuality these things are of importance in third through early seventh densities. The only correction in nuance that we would make is your use of the word, control. It is paramount that it be understood that it is not desirable or helpful to the growth of the understanding, may we say, of an entity by itself to control thought processes or impulses except where they may result in actions not consonant with the Law of One. Control may seem to be a short-cut to discipline, peace, and illumination. However, this very control potentiates and necessitates the further incarnative experience in order to balance this control or repression of that self which is perfect.

Instead, we appreciate and recommend the use of your second verb in regard to the use of the will. Acceptance of self, forgiveness of self, and the direction of the will; this is the path towards the disciplined personality. Your faculty of will is that which is powerful within you as co-Creator. You cannot ascribe to this faculty too much importance. Thus it must be carefully used and directed in service-to-others for those upon the positively oriented path.

There is great danger in the use of the will as the personality becomes stronger, for it may be used even subconsciously in ways reducing the polarity of the entity.

Acceptance is often misunderstood and viewed as an 'anything goes' attitude. We know from Ra that this is the density of Choice, and, as indicated in bold above, will not only comes into play also, but is of paramount importance.

How, then, are will and acceptance reconciled? How does one choose the STO path while accepting that which is not chosen?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Your question, "How does one choose the STO path while accepting that which is not chosen?", brings this Ra quote to mind:

18.5 The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One, thus preserving the primal distortion of free will.

I have seen you point out in a post before, Monica, that when imagination is used, the brain cannot tell the difference. Perhaps this is one part of accepting that which is not chosen. "Anything goes," in our imagination, but not in the physical plane, as far as preserving our polarization goes.

[unity100]

you acknowledge that the thoughts/situations that you do not want to travel exists as a part of infinity. (in imbalanced states in any given creation at least). then, you use your will to walk towards the thought/situation you want to choose.

[zenmaster]

Acceptance is the conscious integration of something viable of the logos.

How, then, are will and acceptance reconciled? How does one choose the STO path while accepting that which is not chosen?

What does 'choosing the STO path' mean? Are the paths that clear? Apparently not, as entities switch their polarity even without the 3rd density veil.

The acceptance of principles or values that are consonant with the view of others as self, rather than suppression of something that is part of the logos, for example, leads in the STO 'working-bias' direction. So polarity is not so much the conscious choice, but rather what one makes viable of the opportunities provided. This results in polarization (if done in a conscious, honest manner), and is done with the use of the will. The will must be used in order to bring to light those things which may be accepted or rejected.

The first barrier to acceptance would seem to be honesty. Many people also say 'fear', because it's the common reaction to information that has the potential to be accepted or rejected. But fear is like a second barrier, along with 'hope', on top of the honest evaluation.

[Monica]

These are all good points. What prompted this thread was some comments made in another thread.

Monica, to accept another's choice to murder is STO. I don't mean that STO accepts killing, but they must accept the killer. Otherwise, there is not love.

Thank you for making that distinction!

acceptance of another's choice of murder, is acceptance of another's choice of murder. its not sto. its acceptance of a sts act.

acceptance of ANOTHER, despite its choice of murder, is what is sto.

That is exactly what I intended to convey but didn't. Thank for for the further refinement!

!!!!!!
One does not accept another unless they accept the choices of an other.

Frankly, we are all choices.

How do we accept another entity who is engaging in actions that conflict with our STO path? If those actions are actions that we wouldn't choose...because they would be depolarizing for us...must we accept the other person's actions, in order to accept them?

For example, if a man is about to kill another man, and we witness it, we would try to stop him if we can, right? Or do we just stand idly by and watch him commit this act of violence?

If he is negatively polarized, then his action is likely appropriate for him. But not for us.

What is acceptance of his action? If we try to stop his action, in order to remain true to our own polarity, then we aren't accepting it, are we? But we can accept him, without accepting his action.

---

Acceptance is the conscious integration of something viable of the logos.

Hmmm....interesting definition. I'll have to ponder that.

What does 'choosing the STO path' mean? Are the paths that clear? Apparently not, as entities switch their polarity even without the 3rd density veil.

I'd say the paths are very clearly defined. It's the actual polarity that isn't. An entity can choose either path, but still have percentages of the opposite polarity. In fact, it's the percentage of polarity that determines the choice. Regardless of what we might think we've chosen, the actual choice is determined by our percentage of polarity.

So polarity is not so much the conscious choice, but rather what one makes viable of the opportunities provided. This results in polarization (if done in a conscious, honest manner), and is done with the use of the will.

I just read this after I posted my last comment. I think we're saying the same thing!

[Confused]

But, what exactly is acceptance?

I think 'acceptance' could be a state of complete non-judgment of one's own self. It involves seeing both the light and the dark in one's inner being, I guess. And then may be using that knowledge of the self to promote radiance of the self for the benefit of others, while consciously on the STO path. And they need not be in earth shattering ways, I suppose. Only speculating.

From LOO 5.2 -

The second mental discipline is acceptance of the completeness within your consciousness. It is not for a being of polarity in the physical consciousness to pick and choose among attributes, thus building the roles that cause blockages and confusions in the already-distorted mind complex. Each acceptance smoothes part of the many distortions that the faculty you call judgment engenders.

[Monica]

you acknowledge that the thoughts/situations that you do not want to travel exists as a part of infinity. (in imbalanced states in any given creation at least). then, you use your will to walk towards the thought/situation you want to choose.

Succinctly stated!

I would add: Acceptance has the power to transform that which was previously denied or suppressed. Utilizing the will to choose acceptance is what provides the power for that transformation.

(something like that)

[spero]

i've thought about this before and found the below quote useful because it deals with picking and choosing between thought-forms and touches on the use of the will.

41.20 Questioner: You mentioned in the last session the concept of fasting for removing unwanted thought-forms. Can you expand on this process and explain a little bit more about how this works?

Ra: I am Ra. This, as all healing techniques, must be used by a conscious being; that is, a being conscious that the ridding of excess and unwanted material from the body complex is the analogy to the ridding of mind or spirit of excess or unwanted material. Thus the one discipline or denial of the unwanted portion as an appropriate part of the self is taken through the tree of mind down through the trunk to subconscious levels where the connection is made and thus the body, mind, and spirit, then in unison, express denial of the excess or unwanted spiritual or mental material as part of the entity.

All then falls away and the entity, while understanding, if you will, and appreciating the nature of the rejected material as part of the greater self, nevertheless, through the action of the will purifies and refines the mind/body/spirit complex, bringing into manifestation the desired mind complex or spirit complex attitude.

[zenmaster]

What is acceptance of his action? If we try to stop his action, in order to remain true to our own polarity, then we aren't accepting it, are we? But we can accept him, without accepting his action.

I see it as accepting the individual, regardless of the action we perceive. We can accept ourselves (what we've made conscious of our 'Self'), so we accept other-selves. I think it's also possible to be more conscious of any act, and do what is necessary to change it, without 'depolarizing'. It's just that we are necessarily 'entwined' with another's act to the extent we are not conscious of it, because it is manifesting something we have not yet accepted.

Obviously, the individual can't accept something with which they have no conscious awareness. Interestingly, it does seem that it's possible to reject something in awareness, however. The effective conscious rejection is the STS polarization.

Remember, you're always acting upon yourself in any case, hence the particular situations (of evaluation) with which we find ourselves in the unity of creation.

---

I would add: Acceptance has the power to transform that which was previously denied or suppressed. Utilizing the will to choose acceptance is what provides the power for that transformation.

I think that's also generally how learning and healing takes place.
For example, a misunderstanding (or 'distortion') from childhood is carried into adulthood, then is revisited, made conscious, and accepted. Immediately the weight is lifted and more energy is available. But what was missing all along? First it was lack of recognition and suppression of some part of self. We also recognize analogous dynamics at work in others, or more deeply, we 'are' those dynamics. Therefore we may have acceptance for the other seeker's beingness.

[Confused]

How, then, are will and acceptance reconciled? How does one choose the STO path while accepting that which is not chosen?

Monica, I just visited the meat thread and I sort of realized from your statement there that this thread is probably an extension of some of the points discussed there.

I opine that the following two Ra exchanges speak directly to the many layered questions hiding behind your main question.

25.5 Questioner: You spoke of an Orion Confederation and of a battle being fought between the Confederation and the Orion Confederation. Is it possible to convey any concept of how this battle is fought?

Ra: I am Ra. Picture, if you will, your mind. Picture it then in total unity with all other minds of your society. You are then single-minded and that which is a weak electrical charge in your physical illusion is now an enormously powerful machine whereby thoughts may be projected as things.

In this endeavor the Orion group charges or attacks the Confederation armed with light. The result, a stand-off, as you would call it, both energies being somewhat depleted by this and needing to regroup; the negative depleted through failure to manipulate, the positive depleted through failure to accept that which is given.

25.6 Questioner: Could you amplify the meaning of what you mean by the “failure to accept that which is given?”

Ra: I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded and engulfed, transformed by positive energies.

This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say.

It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will, must then regroup.

It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation.

[Monica]

Monica, I just visited the meat thread and I sort of realized from your statement there that this thread is probably an extension of some of the points discussed there.

Yes. This topic is deep enough that it deserves its own thread. (In addition to keeping the meat thread on-topic since that is a deep topic too.)

I opine that the following two Ra exchanges speak directly to the many layered questions hiding behind your main question.

YES!!! Good find! These quotes do address the question perfectly!

This statement in particular:

It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement.

[Confused]

YES!!! Good find! These quotes do address the question perfectly!

Thanks, Monica. And I think the following statement from the same exchange quoted attacks the key implicit point you raise, i.e. how to stay accepting of the ONE in the other, while resisting the evil in the actions. Many on the STO path may get tripped and all messed up, trying to project maximal purity (my humble opinion)

From 25.6 -

This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say.

The problem that people on the STO path face is that the STS have the license to destroy, pillage, and kill, which in turn increases their polarity. But when STO resist that, it could lead to lowering of the level of positive polarization within those adopting the path. This puts the STO at a slight disadvantage. That is why it is so important for the STO to magnify or strengthen themselves through the combined will of the numbers that make them. If isolated, the STO entity can easily be shut down in terms of the light it carries. Because there are some catalysts in the world like that and the STS have the license to kill and ravage.

Again, all my opinion all. Harmony, peace, and cooperation within - the main ingredients for STO resistance against STS.

[Monica]

Thanks, Monica. And I think the following statement from the same exchange quoted attacks the key implicit point you raise, i.e. how to stay accepting of the ONE in the other, while resisting the evil in the actions. Many on the STO path may get tripped and all messed up, trying to project maximal purity (my humble opinion)

Agreed!

Often, the principle of acceptance is cited, without regard to the accompanying principle of choice. We must balance free will and acceptance, by utilizing choice, as Ra explained they must do.

[unity100]

What does 'choosing the STO path' mean? Are the paths that clear? Apparently not, as entities switch their polarity even without the 3rd density veil.

being able to switch, does not mean paths are unclear.

i've thought about this before and found the below quote useful because it deals with picking and choosing between thought-forms and touches on the use of the will.

41.20 Questioner: You mentioned in the last session the concept of fasting for removing unwanted thought-forms. Can you expand on this process and explain a little bit more about how this works?

Ra: I am Ra. This, as all healing techniques, must be used by a conscious being; that is, a being conscious that the ridding of excess and unwanted material from the body complex is the analogy to the ridding of mind or spirit of excess or unwanted material. Thus the one discipline or denial of the unwanted portion as an appropriate part of the self is taken through the tree of mind down through the trunk to subconscious levels where the connection is made and thus the body, mind, and spirit, then in unison, express denial of the excess or unwanted spiritual or mental material as part of the entity.

All then falls away and the entity, while understanding, if you will, and appreciating the nature of the rejected material as part of the greater self, nevertheless, through the action of the will purifies and refines the mind/body/spirit complex, bringing into manifestation the desired mind complex or spirit complex attitude.

indeed, that is the key to this.

[3DMonkey]

Monica, to accept another's choice to murder is STO. I don't mean that STO accepts killing, but they must accept the killer. Otherwise, there is not love.

!!!!!!
One does not accept another unless they accept the choices of an other.

Frankly, we are all choices.

How do we accept another entity who is engaging in actions that conflict with our STO path? If those actions are actions that we wouldn't choose...because they would be depolarizing for us...must we accept the other person's actions, in order to accept them?

For example, if a man is about to kill another man, and we witness it, we would try to stop him if we can, right? Or do we just stand idly by and watch him commit this act of violence?

If he is negatively polarized, then his action is likely appropriate for him. But not for us.

What is acceptance of his action? If we try to stop his action, in order to remain true to our own polarity, then we aren't accepting it, are we? But we can accept him, without accepting his action.

---

I don't see it in the black and white terms you write here. Murder is an injustice, just to give you my stance off the bat....
If I am determined to polarize positive and I find myself observing the above scenario... I am to look at both entities involved, others, as self. You would prefer I focus on the murderer, so I will. From this point, I can assess what his needs are as they become my needs of self as well. This begins with accepting the thought in his mind that murdering is his desire. I can not reach him if I act in fear, or if I act in control. If I see this man as someone separate from myself, i.e. a crazy man that must be stopped, then I have not accepted him, and therefore I can not give him what he needs as Self. Acceptance is not a tool to allow whatever to happen, acceptance is a tool to see Other Self as Self, the action is secondary.
What I am getting at is that accepting murder is not a cowardly thing. That accepting the choice of an entity to murder allows us to see him as our Self. Then, looking deeper into to the Self (Other) we can see his true needs, which have nothing to do with the act of murder. The murderer has a feeling of separation from within, and we have an opportunity to reverse that if we first accept him. STO must reach for that person and draw him into us as One.

Now, the ideas that Ra talks on defensiveness. This is clear in my eyes as well. It is not taking action toward another, it is, quite literally, setting personal boundaries. It is putting one's foot down and saying, "I will not." Many times in my personal situations, others will view me as aggressive for my convictions. It isn't that I am infringing on their free will, it is simply that I choose not to do something. This frustrates them because I'm not participating with the group, but I have obligations to my Self that they haven't taken into account. Defense is an act of drawing the line for My Self, and not defending/arguing my principles to an Other.

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

[Confused]

The murderer has a feeling of separation from within, and we have an opportunity to reverse that if we first accept him. STO must reach for that person and draw him into us as One.

Very beautiful, 3. Truly wonderful. A statement of the most refined love in many ways, in my opinion. Thank you.

[Monica]

You would prefer I focus on the murderer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or he might not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3DMonkey]

Monica, you are not seeing this as I see it.

You fear for the "victim", but the victim is in a STS stance as well. We are looking at two people in an STS relationship. Both are vulnerable. Both are in need of love/light. The "victim" is equally responsible for the situation both entities are in.

There is only now. Either we accept now, or we control. You can control the actions of the murderer to stop him, and you place yourself in an STS relationship with him at this point. You can accept him now, and place yourself in an STO relationship with him now. Being murdered is not to be feared if you are actively loving the aggressor. In fact, to fear the aggressor's actions places you in a state of fear, which leads to actions of STS.

You can not love the other at the same time you are controlling the other. To force the other's hand to your will is to love self and not other. The realtionship becomes between you and aggressor and the third party which you call "victim" is not a factor.

The "needs" of each are different. To look on the "victim" with pity is not love. You look them in the eye and say "stand up and walk!".

To draw a line in defense is to stand between aggressor and "victim" and say "I accept your actions, but you and I need to express our relationship now that I am initiating it. Would you attack me as well?".

There is no control now so as to accept later. We are always in the now. You underestimate the power of love, and you see it as secondary to forceful control. I do not see it this way.

As for what I would do...there is no definite answer because all experience is unique. I do know that in my past, the more irate* the individual, the more I am able to relax and draw them to me. As for what anyone should do....there is no "should", there is only what your spirit tells you and your biases and your abilities. All will be okay. I encourage love, in myself as well as others. Controlling any Other is an sts desire. The choice is yours.

---

.... I remember a time in high school when the ex boyfriend of a girl I was dating came up from behind and bashed my head with a beer bottle and so on and so forth. (he was 6" taller and 80lbs heavier than I). I turned to him and shouted with surity "God bless you!". My adrenaline was flowing, I wasn't going to attack, I dodged and whatnot but I did not flee. He eventually fled the scene himself for fears unknown. ....Later that evening, he attacked a man with his knife and the man retrieved the knife and stabbed him. ....ICU....judicial system....after all that, this guy only wanted to repent for his sins against me, as if I cursed him or something. What he saw in me was somekind of "weird love stuff", and the universe put him in a situation to see it more clearly.

I trust love. I trust the universe. I am not in control. I accept this for what it is. I am a you.

----
alanea*, these are your scars

[Monica]

Monica, you are not seeing this as I see it.

Ha, I could say the same!

You fear for the "victim", but the victim is in a STS stance as well. We are looking at two people in an STS relationship. Both are vulnerable. Both are in need of love/light. The "victim" is equally responsible for the situation both entities are in.

Ultimately, of course. But do you see how that line of thinking could taken to the degree of not helping those in need, because "it's their karma"? I know people who say they'd walk away from such a situation, so as "not to interfere."

There is only now. Either we accept now, or we control.

It's not so black-and-white. Ra stated explicitly that, in order to remain polarized STO and be effective, they refuse the service of the STS entity.

We aren't controlling the STS entity if we simply decline their offer of service.

You can control the actions of the murderer to stop him, and you place yourself in an STS relationship with him at this point.

If his actions didn't affect anyone, then interfering with his choices would indeed be control. But if he is projecting onto someone else, interfering with their free will, karmic or not, and we accept that interference by allowing him to commit an act of violence, then that isn't controlling him; it's declining his offer of service.

Conversely, if we don't refuse his action of violent service, we are contributing to his STS action, and that would be STS polarizing for us.

I contend that allowing him to commit an act of violence against another, when we have the ability to stop him, is more depolarizing to our STO polarity, than stopping him is polarizing STS.

As Ra indicated, it's a dance. Not so simple.

You can accept him now, and place yourself in an STO relationship with him now. Being murdered is not to be feared if you are actively loving the aggressor.

Sure, allowing him to murder would be the ultimate expression of 4D love. This is what Jesus demonstrated. But he apparently chose to do that, because it served his greater mission. That was an exceptional circumstance. And Ra has indicated that his choice lacked wisdom.

That was ok in that particular case, because his mission was to demonstrate 4D love, so that 3D entities could reach for it, though rarely reaching such a high percentage of it.

Not even Ra submits to the aggression of STS entities.

Why? Because Ra has the benefit of 5D wisdom.

In fact, to fear the aggressor's actions places you in a state of fear, which leads to actions of STS.

Declining the aggressor's offer of violent service need not be based on fear. I doubt that Ra fears those STS entities who were messing with them.

the third party which you call "victim" is not a factor.

All parties are factors in any dynamic.

The "needs" of each are different. To look on the "victim" with pity is not love. You look them in the eye and say "stand up and walk!".

So, you do all that in those few seconds? What if the victim is a child?

You underestimate the power of love, and you see it as secondary to forceful control.

No, not at all. I absolutely believe in the power of love. You misunderstand me. My point is that one can simultaneously love the other-self, while choosing to decline their offer of negative service.

there is no definite answer because all experience is unique.

Very true. Which is precisely why I am attempting to convey a concept. The illustration is just to show an extreme example of when "I love you" might not work quickly enough to stop the violence, and in such cases, it's acceptable to decline the offer of negative service, in order to serve the STO objective, which might be to protect one's family, remain in 3D to accomplish a higher mission, or whatever.

I remember a time in high school

That's very cool and explains why you see it as you do. That is your experience, and it's natural to expect that future situations might be similar.

But, as you said, each situation is different.

[3DMonkey]

Monica, I can't go point for point, it's fruitless.

You keep returning to "quickly enough" as if something must be done immediately or ____ (what?). You are afraid of what may happen. You are afraid of death. You are afraid of not doing enough.

Monica, listen to me, sincerely, you must forgive yourself. The burden is not yours.


------

You disparage my personal experience.
I was the "victim" as you would have perceived it. What you are missing is that I wanted that experience. I am grateful for that experience. I needed that experience in my life.
There is now a unique bond between he and I. Although we never see each other, we each share a memory of this together and we have an invisible bond that connects us at this very moment.

[Monica]

Monica, I can't go point for point, it's fruitless.

You keep returning to "quickly enough" as if something must be done immediately or ____ (what?). You are afraid of what may happen. You are afraid of death. You are afraid of not doing enough.

Monica, listen to me, sincerely, you must forgive yourself. The burden is not yours.


------

You disparage my personal experience.
I was the "victim" as you would have perceived it. What you are missing is that I wanted that experience. I am grateful for that experience. I needed that experience in my life.
There is now a unique bond between he and I. Although we never see each other, we each share a memory of this together and we have an invisible bond that connects us at this very moment.

Wow, 3DM, we're just having a friendly discussion! No need to take anything personally or start analyzing another person.

You are mistaken in your assessment of my views. I definitely didn't intend to disparage your experience! Wow, I am astounded that my comments were perceived that way! I'm very sorry for whatever I said that came across in such as way that you would think such a thing. I wasn't even thinking about your personal experience at all. I apologize for inadvertently triggering any hurt feelings in you.

There's no reason to jump to conclusions and make such a grand, sweeping statement as "you are afraid of death." Quite simply, you are mistaken in that. It's not about fear of death at all. Not at all.

It's about a very fine distinction in concept, which I have failed to convey.

We aren't connecting. That's ok. Please just accept that our points are not being understood or accepted by the other, for whatever reason. There's no need to assume that the other person is in a state of fear, or whatever, just because they have a different viewpoint. I feel that my points haven't been understood, and your latest comment (which I see as a misinterpretation) confirms that for me. You apparently feel that I'm not understanding your views, even though in my mind, I am understanding them but just trying to make a different point.

So, let's just leave it at that. I gotta run anyway.

Peace, brother.

[3DMonkey]

LOL, I feel I understand yours and you don't see mine.

I wasn't negatively charged when I wrote the above. In fact, I was emitting love.

I really don't think you have stopped to read my words.

As I read yours, you are just short of murdering the murderer.

---

You would like to tell him how wrong he is after you lock him up in prison. And won't let him out until he agrees with you.

You want to save the "victim" at the cost of polarity.

[Monica]

LOL, I feel I understand yours and you don't see mine.

I wasn't negatively charged when I wrote the above. In fact, I was emitting love.

I really don't think you have stopped to read my words.

As I read yours, you are just short of murdering the murderer.

---

You would like to tell him how wrong he is after you lock him up in prison. And won't let him out until he agrees with you.

You want to save the "victim" at the cost of polarity.

No, you are completely, 100%, totally misunderstanding what I said.

I need to go.

Peace, 3D.

PS. Above post just got edited.

[3DMonkey]

We aren't connecting. That's ok. Please just accept that our points are not being understood or accepted by the other, for whatever reason. There's no need to assume that the other person is in a state of fear, or whatever, just because they have a different viewpoint.

I think more highly of you than to portray you as in a state of fear. I was referring to your premise within the scenario. I am able to remove the "you" from the "scenario you."

I would like to connect. I hope we continue and try to connect.

----
I am beginning to feel as though I am a wanderer ostracized by wanderers.

[native]

3DM - As already stated, you can accept another self and still act against them by refusing their service. This is a pretty clear statement by Ra.

If everything were as easy as just accepting, there would be no imbalance. Those working towards the STS path will refuse your acceptance, depolarize, and press forward.

[3DMonkey]

What does refusing service mean to you?

[native]

Any act seems to be defined as a service in some way because it creates the opportunity for a decision to be made.

Their negative actions allow you to reaffirm your positive stance. This is their service.

[3DMonkey]

How would you refuse it?

[native]

Refusing their service may not have been the best choice of words. Perhaps declining whatever opportunity they are trying to create with a successful outcome is a better way to put it. You refuse manipulation/domination.

[3DMonkey]

Seriously, I can only ask questions.

How does one refuse manipulation?