Caring/Compassion/Sensitivity/Tact vs Lying/Faking

[Namaste]

extremely shallow and misinformed.

there is no mention of 4d love in 3d either. so, whats the rush for 4d compassion in 3d then ?

Yes there is.

Ra: I am Ra... You will find a sharp increase in the number of people, as you call mind/body/spirit complexes, whose vibrational potentials include the potential for fourth-vibrational distortions. Thus, there will seem to be, shall we say, a new breed. These are those incarnating for fourth-density work.

Ra: I am Ra. This query is indeterminate. We shall attempt to be of aid. However, the frequency that is the basis of each density is what may be called a true color. This term is impossible to define given your system of sensibilities and scientific measurements, for color has vibratory characteristics both in space/time and in time/space. The true color is then overlaid and tinged by the rainbow of the various vibratory levels within that density and the attraction vibrations of the next true color density.

What follows yellow (3D), attracting it - pulling it to evolve? Green (4D).

The point you seem to be missing/ignoring dear brother, is that to harvest positively, one must be genuinely aligned with service to others, and by definition, that entails the responsibility of your actions to another in terms of how you effect them.

It's so simple:

STO: I care about my actions and how they effect others
STS: I don't care if my actions effect others

That is the choice, it transcends the balancing of other rays - it's the foundation of all future polarisation!

Those who choose the path of STO, hence make decisions in alignment with that choice. They begin to balance positively.

On a side note, if I recall correctly, from previous conversations, your belief system is centered around Wanderers being an exception to the harvest of third density, i.e. they need not meet the STO/STS requirements.

From that, it's quite clear to see why our attitudes towards life and others (in my case, not just from the Ra material, but also from meditation, contemplation and introspection) is different. I am of the notion that love empowers wisdom, and the genuine caring and service towards others (albeit opening a door for an old person, choosing to not offend another in conversation, or sending them healing, making them smile) is the key to the evolution of mankind into 4D positive.

If you choose otherwise, that's fine. You're on your path, and it's perfect for you. You may continue to tell me I'm wrong and you're right, rather than simply accepting our differences, which will remain catalyst for you until you learn to balance yourself with respect to other's own paths and truths.

Peace :¬)

[yossarian]

in case you remember how monica has showed that in order to graduate from 3rd density, an entity was supposed to activate and open all chakras up to 6th, you would see that continually remaining in 4th chakra for a lifetime would not be appropriate.

and this is only 3d harvest even. not even an adept's or wanderer's work, who is supposed to activate chakras up to maximum as fast as possible, like can be seen from franklin roosevelt's example.

Agree entirely, in the context of third density and it's purpose.

Balancing the energy rays is of vital importance to those wanting to make the harvest, which is where the direct quote (Don asked: how can we balance?) from Ra, above, came from. No mention of 5D wisdom.

And regardless of what Monica said, no offense intended, Ra clearly states that finding love in the moment is the key. That love does not imply an imbalance (including an over stimulated) green ray, or that other rays can remain out of balance. The (positive) goal is to choose love and polarise, balance. Able to communicate one's truths, accept (love) others truths, be kind (love) and compassionate (love) with other selves, and within groups. To not wish to dominate or be dominated, and to feel happy (love) with one's identity in the context of other selves and groups, and have the courage (love) to act with integrity (love) with whomever, and wherever. To understand they are the Creator, and have infinite worth.

Hence, the moment contains love :¬)

I actually think courage and integrity are yellow ray, though this yellow expression can be motivated by love.

Other than that I agree with you very much.

Namaste, Namaste

[Namaste]

I actually think courage and integrity are yellow ray, though this yellow expression can be motivated by love.

Other than that I agree with you very much.

Namaste, Namaste

I agree brother, they are aspects of yellow ray. It's a combination of the choice, and the aspect of consciousness.

This is the density of choice, as Carla quite aptly names it. Love or fear. STO or STS. In my personal understanding, all positive emotions are a subset of love, while all negative emotions are a subset of fear. Which do we choose in each moment?

That primary choice (love/STO or fear/STS) is fed through (as so to speak) the corresponding energy rays with regards to the aspect of consciousness related to the context (i.e. personal power, groups = yellow, communication = blue, self worth = indigo).

Hence, one can feed the orange ray, the aspects of consciousness related to other selves, with or without the merging of green ray (love). Hence, one making choices without the green ray, and implementing the orange ray, are STS orientated. A person who then opens the heart, the green ray, feeds and blends these centres with that choice of love, making them STO.

It's an analogy that works for me, anyway :¬) Love empowers/blends with the other energy centres/aspects of consciousness.

This results in one's polarisation/balance and the 'reading' of the violet ray - the unique indicator produced by the culmination of choices and the corresponding thoughts/words/deeds.

[unity100]

extremely shallow and misinformed.

there is no mention of 4d love in 3d either. so, whats the rush for 4d compassion in 3d then ?

Yes there is.

Ra: I am Ra... You will find a sharp increase in the number of people, as you call mind/body/spirit complexes, whose vibrational potentials include the potential for fourth-vibrational distortions. Thus, there will seem to be, shall we say, a new breed. These are those incarnating for fourth-density work.

Ra: I am Ra. This query is indeterminate. We shall attempt to be of aid. However, the frequency that is the basis of each density is what may be called a true color. This term is impossible to define given your system of sensibilities and scientific measurements, for color has vibratory characteristics both in space/time and in time/space. The true color is then overlaid and tinged by the rainbow of the various vibratory levels within that density and the attraction vibrations of the next true color density.

What follows yellow (3D), attracting it - pulling it to evolve? Green (4D).

The point you seem to be missing/ignoring dear brother, is that to harvest positively, one must be genuinely aligned with service to others, and by definition, that entails the responsibility of your actions to another in terms of how you effect them.

excuse me but have you actually paid attention to the quote you were quoting to support your argument ?

the quote you named above pertains to entities who are already 4d, and incarnating for 4d work here in dual bodies. they are NOT 3d entities,
they are not here for 3d work.

and as for your second quote, 'being attracted' does not mean 'manifesting'. if so, there wouldnt be a 3rd density, and a 4th density for manifesting different emphasis of 3rd and 4th rays.

right as it says its an 'attraction'. you get attracted to what you yet do not know, and when you find it out, you graduate. just like how the same kind of attraction was named for 2d entities trying to find self-consciousnes in 2d.

with your false assumption, 2d entities should need to manifest 3rd ray in 2nd density while incarnated in that density for learning. they do not. the moment they manifest green ray, they graduate.

and there is no relevance in between service to others, and faking reactions.


...........................................

in regard to the topic,

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/10/30/...itchie-day

"Today we celebrate Dennis Ritchie Day, an idea proposed by Tim O'Reilly. Ritchie, who died earlier this month, made contributions to computing that are so deeply woven into the fabric that they impact us all. We now have to remark on the elephant in the room. If Dennis Ritchie hadn't died just after Steve Jobs, there would probably have been no suggestion of a day to mark his achievements. We have to admit that it is largely a response to the perhaps over-reaction to Steve Jobs which highlighted the inequality in the public recognition of the people who really make their world work."

[Namaste]

The true color is then overlaid and tinged by the rainbow of the various vibratory levels within that density and the attraction vibrations of the next true color density.

The true colour of the next density attracts those in the density below. A clear link between them. Hence, STO - love (compassion/kindness) - is a means of moving from 3D to 4D positive. It makes perfect logical sense to me. It's part of the upward spiral of seeking the Creator, it drives entities from one density to the next.

If you believe otherwise, that's fine! But again, you're ignoring the crux of my offered notions to you.

Balancing includes the acceptance of another's beliefs. Transcending the duality of right and wrong. Until you do so, you're locked within the wheel of matter and separation. Refusing to accept that myself, and other's on this forum, have different understandings to your own, and continuing to force your own beliefs in the "I'm right and you're wrong, I'm true and you're false" mindset, keeps you locked in the cycle.

I agree, entirely - you shouldn't have to fake STO. Compassion comes instinctively to those with an open green ray. There is nothing to think about; it's a state of being.

[Monica]

the moment they manifest green ray, they graduate.

Can you please define manifest green ray?

and there is no relevance in between service to others, and faking reactions.

I agree. However, being considerate of others, and choosing words that express respect while yet being honest, isn't faking.

"Today we celebrate Dennis Ritchie Day, an idea proposed by Tim O'Reilly. Ritchie, who died earlier this month, made contributions to computing that are so deeply woven into the fabric that they impact us all. We now have to remark on the elephant in the room. If Dennis Ritchie hadn't died just after Steve Jobs, there would probably have been no suggestion of a day to mark his achievements. We have to admit that it is largely a response to the perhaps over-reaction to Steve Jobs which highlighted the inequality in the public recognition of the people who really make their world work."

It's true that there have been many other contributors to the computer industry that haven't gotten nearly as much recognition. The media is very fickle and basically decides who gets recognition, based on what makes good news.

It's a lot like the music industry. I remember when Michael Jackson died. Based on all the accolades, you'd think he was the very first musical artist to make any good songs at all! Being a music connoisseur who likes a lot of music from obscure musicians who never made the pop charts, I could easily think, "yeah but xyz artist did that too, way before Michael Jackson, but never got recognition for it just because the timing wasn't right so he never made the pop charts. I can think of a lot of other musical artists who deserve recognition way more than Michael Jackson."

And I did think that very thing. But I didn't bother telling the Michael Jackson fans, at least not right after he died. It wouldn't have mattered to them, and they didn't want to hear it when they were in the midst of grieving over someone they loved and admired.

[unity100]

The true color is then overlaid and tinged by the rainbow of the various vibratory levels within that density and the attraction vibrations of the next true color density.

The true colour of the next density attracts those in the density below. A clear link between them. Hence, STO - love (compassion/kindness) - is a means of moving from 3D to 4D positive. It makes perfect logical sense to me. It's part of the upward spiral of seeking the Creator, it drives entities from one density to the next.

If you believe otherwise, that's fine! But again, you're ignoring the crux of my offered notions to you.

again, totally leaving aside the fact that you are equating compassion with faking - you are saying that the entity one density BELOW the density above, should manifest the understanding of the density ABOVE.

that wont happen. densities are 7 for some reason.

Balancing includes the acceptance of another's beliefs. Transcending the duality of right and wrong. Until you do so, you're locked within the wheel of matter and separation. Refusing to accept that myself, and other's on this forum, have different understandings to your own, and continuing to force your own beliefs in the "I'm right and you're wrong, I'm true and you're false" mindset, keeps you locked in the cycle.

I agree, entirely - you shouldn't have to fake STO. Compassion comes instinctively to those with an open green ray. There is nothing to think about; it's a state of being.

what you type above has no relevance to what was being discussed. you have gone on extreme tangents to support your falsification.

accepting someone does not mean faking reactions to him/her. that is wrong. if you think someone is wrong, you tell it. if you DONT tell what you think, but instead word your response so carefully as to paint a picture that the person seems as if s/he is right, only to proceed in veiled fashion that s/he is wrong, is LYING. its as simple as that. it is dishonest, it is insincere, it is FAKE.

and lying and faking are things that are used by negative entities to make the other entities amiable to their desires. the supposed 'compassion' act above, is a little distance off from subtly manipulating the other entity to change his/her mind, while appearing accommodating to his/her wrongness.

the moment they manifest green ray, they graduate.

Can you please define manifest green ray?

as per you have shown in an earlier discussion, its manifestation of 1st suboctave of the 4th octave. contact with intelligent infinity.

and there is no relevance in between service to others, and faking reactions.

I agree. However, being considerate of others, and choosing words that express respect while yet being honest, isn't faking.

if the other entity's expectancy of respect, takes the form of expecting the other entity to fake, then it is faking.

And I did think that very thing. But I didn't bother telling the Michael Jackson fans, at least not right after he died. It wouldn't have mattered to them, and they didn't want to hear it when they were in the midst of grieving over someone they loved and admired.

misinformation spread amongst michael jackson fans do not have the power to change public perspective and effect changes to the degree people are free on their information technology devices and on the internet.

the misinformation and cult propaganda around steve jobs, does. it is possibly another reason why the mainstream media is so very much propagating it - his trends, fit well with the desires of the established corporations' control schemes. and in a 'hip and trendy fashion' too.

[Namaste]

Unity, you seem yourself to have gone on a rather extreme tangent regarding faking. You mentioned it initially, and I agreed, it is not useful to anyone.

The point is simple; genuine STO actions are compassionate towards people. That compassion does not entail not speaking ones truth. It's about speaking one's truth while taking into consideration the emotional state of others.

[unity100]

Unity, you seem yourself to have gone on a rather extreme tangent regarding faking. You mentioned it initially, and I agreed, it is not useful to anyone.

The point is simple; genuine STO actions are compassionate towards people. That compassion does not entail not speaking ones truth. It's about speaking one's truth while taking into consideration the emotional state of others.

yes and that consideration must not take the form of faking. telling someone that s/he is wrong in a veiled fashion, while what you say appears as if you are not saying it.

at the minimum it is more disrespect for the other person, because it is manipulating. you are basically telling that s/he is wrong, but, it doesnt appear as if you are doing that.

[3DMonkey]

Unity, you seem yourself to have gone on a rather extreme tangent regarding faking. You mentioned it initially, and I agreed, it is not useful to anyone.

The point is simple; genuine STO actions are compassionate towards people. That compassion does not entail not speaking ones truth. It's about speaking one's truth while taking into consideration the emotional state of others.

yes and that consideration must not take the form of faking. telling someone that s/he is wrong in a veiled fashion, while what you say appears as if you are not saying it.

at the minimum it is more disrespect for the other person, because it is manipulating. you are basically telling that s/he is wrong, but, it doesnt appear as if you are doing that.

I agree with unity100. You gotta be you. .... But, I would have been banned from this forum by now, if I had not "faked it". ... The funny thing is, I gotta accept you, fake or not. Dang. Life's a ____ that way.

[Namaste]

yes and that consideration must not take the form of faking. telling someone that s/he is wrong in a veiled fashion, while what you say appears as if you are not saying it.

at the minimum it is more disrespect for the other person, because it is manipulating. you are basically telling that s/he is wrong, but, it doesnt appear as if you are doing that.

Jesus spoke in parables - through a veil - as to not force his own wisdom onto people.

73.13 Questioner: What was the orientation with respect to this type of communication for the one known as Jesus of Nazareth?

Ra: I am Ra. You may have read some of this entity’s workings. It offered itself as teacher to those mind/body/spirit complexes which gathered to hear and even then spoke as through a veil so as to leave room for those not wishing to hear.

I suppose Jesus was wrong also? :¬)

When one, acting from compassion, talks to another with regards to offering an alternative notion, they will naturally offer it in a way as to not offend them. That is the nature of compassion/kindness. It's not something one thinks about (fakes), it's inherent in their nature.

Fakery is an issue only for those not acting genuinely out of compassion. It's as simple as that.

3DM - I too agree that everyone needs to be themselves. Read my signature. One assumes that when on the path of STO, being one's true self is that of unconditional love; patience, acceptance, compassion, kindness, consideration, courage etc.

[Oceania]

Unity, sometimes lies are kind. truth can be hurtful or something given too soon. who are you to decide when to give people the naked truth regardless of their feelings?

[Monica]

genuine STO actions are compassionate towards people. That compassion does not entail not speaking ones truth. It's about speaking one's truth while taking into consideration the emotional state of others.

Exactly.

[Monica]

Unity, sometimes lies are kind. truth can be hurtful or something given too soon. who are you to decide when to give people the naked truth regardless of their feelings?

Sometimes people lie out of kindness, but such lies often do more damage than good. The other person will be more hurt when they find out later that they were lied to.

It needn't be an all-or-nothing proposition. There is a way to take the high road, and speak truthfully, yet with kindness and consideration for where the other person is at.

We can't always know the other person's feelings, or how they will respond to what we say. That's where wisdom and intuition come in.

Case in point: I know some people who are very judgmental, closed-minded, and hateful, based on their religious views. When dealing with such people, my inclination is to point out the hatred, bigotry and violence in their 'holy' book, to make a point. In other words, I might be more inclined to be 'brutally honest' with such people, because that is the only language they are likely to understand. Still, one can be 'brutally honest' from a place of love. It just depends on the appropriateness in that particular situation.

However, I also know some very kind, loving, charitable people who worship the very same 'holy' book, and I wouldn't dream of talking about reincarnation or pointing out the falsities in their book, because it would uproot them and do damage. So I would be more inclined to soften my words among such people. Is that faking it? Is it lying? No and no. It's just tuning in to the person and choosing my words in the most loving way possible. Being 'brutally honest' with such a gentle person would be harmful. What would that accomplish? So when dealing with sweet, gentle people, I used sweeter, gentler language than I would with a harsher personality. Is that being fake? No, not at all. It's being flexible. It's utilizing more communication skills, instead of the same approach with everyone.

Who gets to decide which approach to use? We all do, because we are all in similar situations. We often have to use discernment. I will never lie when asked directly by such a religious fundamentalist. But I will say it in such a way that they can absorb it, rather than shutting it out. It's like feeding mushy baby food to a baby. A baby can't yet chew a hard, crisp apple because he doesn't have teeth yet. It would be a disservice, and UNloving, to intentionally freak someone out by rubbing their nose in some lofty 'truth' that they cannot even yet comprehend.

Presumably, students of the Law of One might be able to handle a greater portion of truth. Presumably. Not necessarily.

Then, there gets into the issue of, what is the truth, anyway? What we think is the 'truth' might be wrong. The other person, the one we're saying is incorrect, might actually be right. Or, we might both be partially right and partially wrong. Rare indeed is an absolute. More common is that both are partially right, based on their perspectives. Treating others with respect means leaving the door open to being wrong, or, at the very least, open to enhancing and broadening our own perspective.

The more certain we are that we're right, the more likely we are actually wrong at least in some way. Humility opens the door to the light of Truth; whereas arrogance blinds us to the simple truths that are right in front of our noses. Hence, the homeless junkie might actually illuminate some truth that previously had eluded us, if we open our hearts long enough to truly consider what he has to say.

[unity100]

yes and that consideration must not take the form of faking. telling someone that s/he is wrong in a veiled fashion, while what you say appears as if you are not saying it.

at the minimum it is more disrespect for the other person, because it is manipulating. you are basically telling that s/he is wrong, but, it doesnt appear as if you are doing that.

Jesus spoke in parables - through a veil - as to not force his own wisdom onto people.

did he fake his intent in parables ?

73.13 Questioner: What was the orientation with respect to this type of communication for the one known as Jesus of Nazareth?

Ra: I am Ra. You may have read some of this entity’s workings. It offered itself as teacher to those mind/body/spirit complexes which gathered to hear and even then spoke as through a veil so as to leave room for those not wishing to hear.

I suppose Jesus was wrong also? :¬)

where is the immunity of jesus of nazareth in regard to being right/wrong comes from ?

he can indeed be wrong.

however, he was not wrong in that case. telling something in a veiled fashion, and faking what you are actually meaning, are two different things.

When one, acting from compassion, talks to another with regards to offering an alternative notion, they will naturally offer it in a way as to not offend them. That is the nature of compassion/kindness. It's not something one thinks about (fakes), it's inherent in their nature.

Fakery is an issue only for those not acting genuinely out of compassion. It's as simple as that.

acting out of compassion does not change what is untruth to truth. it does not alleviate any grand karmic implications of lying or faking either. one pertains to 4th ray, one pertains to 5th. neither can override or undo the other.

making some talk appear as if you are agreeing/not disagreeing with someone and then telling them in a veiled fashion that they are wrong, is fake. its as simple as that. justifying that fakery with political correctness, or compassion, wont change the fact that fake is fake.

.........

that is why you dont find fake in the material you are supposedly studying. the source you are reading, directly tells the questioner that he is incorrect, bluntly answers 'no' to various questions, and even at times directly says that a question or a formulated proposition is unintelligible.

why arent you accusing or criticizing them for their lack of compassion and bluntness ?

[unity100]

the source you are reading, directly tells the questioner that he is incorrect, bluntly answers 'no' to various questions, and even at times directly says that a question or a formulated proposition is unintelligible.

why arent you accusing or criticizing them for their lack of compassion and bluntness ?

Because Ra was in the position of providing information, of which Ra was an authoritative source.

ooooookaaaay then.

then its ok to ignore compassion and sto if you are in a position to give authoritative information ?

Even then, Ra acknowledged that they learned as well as taught, and that we were advised to use our own discernment.

still, they kept on telling questioner that he was wrong, bluntly answered 'no' at times, and some more.

Still, Ra was the teacher, the provider of answers, while Don was the student, the questioner.

so if you are teacher, its ok to waive compassion and not act in a sto manner as defined, towards your students ?

In an online discussion forum, none among us is in the position that Ra was in. None among us is the undisputed teacher. None of us are 'experts' in the subject we are discussing. We are all students.

not only being students does not justify manipulative faking of communication and emotion, but also being teachers does not allow violation of something that is defined to be an universal guideline.

its hypocrisy.

[Monica]

then its ok to ignore compassion and sto if you are in a position to give authoritative information ?

That's not what I said.

still, they kept on telling questioner that he was wrong, bluntly answered 'no' at times, and some more.

Of course. If I am teaching 1st graders how to add 2+2 and they say "5" of course I will tell them they are wrong, because I am teaching a very specific thing, and I am the designated teacher.

Ra was the designated teacher.

No one member in this community is a designated teacher of others.

so if you are teacher, its ok to waive compassion and not act in a sto manner as defined, towards your students ?

That's a stretch. But the question is irrelevant, since no one here is a designated teacher.

not only being students does not justify manipulative faking of communication and emotion, but also being teachers does not allow violation of something that is defined to be an universal guideline.

its hypocrisy.

Being considerate, and choosing words that convey a point more gently rather than harshly, isn't manipulative faking.

Ra did indeed display compassion, by always showing concern for Carla's wellbeing. There was no hypocrisy.

Don had a scientific mind and approach. Ra's demeanor seemed appropriate, given Don's approach. This supports my position, that a compassionate entity will adjust their approach according to the disposition of the other-self s/he is dealing with.

Ra's objective was to disseminate the Law of One information. The objective could not have been met with, say, a fundamentalist Christian preacher. Ra's approach fit the task.

You seem to be advocating the patterning after Ra, in every situation, regardless of the entities you're dealing with. It is, in my opinion, presumptuous to assume that Ra would have used the same demeanor in every situation, with every entity.

[3DMonkey]

I think the allowance of correction by the teacher has everything to do with the submissiveness of the student.

[Monica]

I think the allowance of correction by the teacher has everything to do with the submissiveness of the student.

But first it must be established who is teacher and who is student.

[3DMonkey]

Again, the ball is in the student's hands.

---

A willing teacher is a willing student. Imo

[unity100]

then its ok to ignore compassion and sto if you are in a position to give authoritative information ?

That's not what I said.

it is what it boils down to. therefore, its exactly what you said.

its not ok for us to be blunt, direct and tell that we think someone else is wrong, directly,

but,

its ok for Ra, who is in a position to give authoritative information.

still, they kept on telling questioner that he was wrong, bluntly answered 'no' at times, and some more.

Of course. If I am teaching 1st graders how to add 2+2 and they say "5" of course I will tell them they are wrong, because I am teaching a very specific thing, and I am the designated teacher.

Ra was the designated teacher.

No one member in this community is a designated teacher of others.

so you are really saying that if someone is in a position of authoritative information, they are free to ignore the 'compassion' and 'sto behavior' as defined in relevance to not saying 'you are wrong'.

not only being students does not justify manipulative faking of communication and emotion, but also being teachers does not allow violation of something that is defined to be an universal guideline.

its hypocrisy.

Being considerate, and choosing words that convey a point more gently rather than harshly, isn't manipulative faking.

taking the negative of some word phrase wont make it something different.

if you faked something, it is faked. you cant redefine it to be non fake.

giving the impression to someone else as if you are NOT telling them they are wrong, but, in a veiled fashion telling them they are wrong and trying to get them to reconsider, is, fake, and manipulative.

Ra did indeed display compassion, by always showing concern for Carla's wellbeing. There was no hypocrisy.

yes and then they proceeded to answer with 'no' to paragraphs full of queries, and then not elaborating if asked.

not to mention direct wording of 'you are wrong' in manner when situation arose.

Don had a scientific mind and approach. Ra's demeanor seemed appropriate, given Don's approach. This supports my position, that a compassionate entity will adjust their approach according to the disposition of the other-self s/he is dealing with.

you are saying that people should fake their responses to appear in non disagreement of others and do not tell that they think that someone/something is wrong in a direct fashion if the person in front of them is someone from united states of america, a place in which some percentage of the population living in the coasts do not like to be told that they are wrong and instead faked for political correctness, out of a problem of not being able to accommodate the many cultures within the mix, and a fear/irritation for hearing the word 'no' or similar rejection/refusal wordage.

then, will the compassionate entity here in this forum, including americans, adjust their attitudes to someone who is joining from tokyo area, and modify their behavior in order to accommodate the cultural undertones japanese society has in greater tokyo area ?

and also for people from bangalore ?


................

all of these, totally leaving out the fact that the 5th ray is defined as the ray of radiation of self, regardless of reactions from others.

You seem to be advocating the patterning after Ra, in every situation, regardless of the entities you're dealing with. It is, in my opinion, presumptuous to assume that Ra would have used the same demeanor in every situation, with every entity.

ra used the same demeanor while channel-hopping the channels at their time of first contact.

[Oceania]

lol Unity you sound like a petulant child going if Ra can be blunt i want to be too! *pout*

[unity100]

lol Unity you sound like a petulant child going if Ra can be blunt i want to be too! *pout*

haha lol but there are NO exceptions in regard to spiritual laws, and how positive/negative works haha lol.

[Monica]

it is what it boils down to. therefore, its exactly what you said.

No, it's not. See post #113.

its not ok for us to be blunt, direct and tell that we think someone else is wrong, directly,

but,

its ok for Ra, who is in a position to give authoritative information.

You are oversimplifying.

I will try again:

In a direct teacher/student relationship, with both parties clear as to who is in the position of teacher and who is in the position of student, blunt answers are fine.

But not in a social discussion, in which both parties are on equal footing, such as what we have here.

so you are really saying that if someone is in a position of authoritative information, they are free to ignore the 'compassion' and 'sto behavior' as defined in relevance to not saying 'you are wrong'.

A school teacher telling a child that no, 2+2 doesn't equal 5, isn't being uncompassionate. That is the equivalent of what Ra was doing.

if you faked something, it is faked. you cant redefine it to be non fake.

A person acting from the heart, with love and compassion, isn't faking.

giving the impression to someone else as if you are NOT telling them they are wrong, but, in a veiled fashion telling them they are wrong and trying to get them to reconsider, is, fake, and manipulative.

Depends on the motivation.

yes and then they proceeded to answer with 'no' to paragraphs full of queries, and then not elaborating if asked.

So....? That doesn't negate the genuine caring for Carla. Nor does it prove any sort of lack of compassion.

not to mention direct wording of 'you are wrong' in manner when situation arose.

See post #113.

you are saying that people should fake their responses to appear in non disagreement of others and do not tell that they think that someone/something is wrong in a direct fashion if the person in front of them is someone from united states of america, a place in which some percentage of the population living in the coasts do not like to be told that they are wrong and instead faked for political correctness, out of a problem of not being able to accommodate the many cultures within the mix, and a fear/irritation for hearing the word 'no' or similar rejection/refusal wordage.

then, will the compassionate entity here in this forum, including americans, adjust their attitudes to someone who is joining from tokyo area, and modify their behavior in order to accommodate the cultural undertones japanese society has in greater tokyo area ?

and also for people from bangalore ?

Yes, all compassionate people, acting from the heart with love, WILL make an effort to adjust their approach, to be considerate of others, in whatever small way they are able to. Yes.

See, the part you are missing, is that you are trying to establish a set of rules. That can't be done. Acting from the heart will always find the right response for that particular situation.

all of these, totally leaving out the fact that the 5th ray is defined as the ray of radiation of self, regardless of reactions from others.

But of course one wouldn't want to operate from 5th ray only. ALL the chakras must be balanced. There's a term for higher chakras operating without the foundation of 4th: STS.

ra used the same demeanor while channel-hopping the channels at their time of first contact.

We don't know anything about any other Ra contacts because this is the only one we have recorded.

[unity100]

In a direct teacher/student relationship, with both parties clear as to who is in the position of teacher and who is in the position of student, blunt answers are fine.

But not in a social discussion, in which both parties are on equal footing, such as what we have here.

so its ok for a teacher to be not compassionate and sto towards his/her students then.

A school teacher telling a child that no, 2+2 doesn't equal 5, isn't being uncompassionate. That is the equivalent of what Ra was doing.

it does. telling someone that s/he was wrong directly, was defined as an uncompassionate act. its the reason we are having this discussion,.

A person acting from the heart, with love and compassion, isn't faking.

i dont even understand what you are saying.

you seem to be implying that because you acted out of 'compassion' (which apparently teachers are not obliged to btw), something you FAKED, does not end up being FAKE. even though, you FAKED it.

giving the impression to someone else as if you are NOT telling them they are wrong, but, in a veiled fashion telling them they are wrong and trying to get them to reconsider, is, fake, and manipulative.

Depends on the motivation.

a lie is a lie. regardless of motivation.

yes and then they proceeded to answer with 'no' to paragraphs full of queries, and then not elaborating if asked.

So....? That doesn't negate the genuine caring for Carla. Nor does it prove any sort of lack of compassion.

so its ok if they were uncompassionate towards don then now. because they were compassionate about Carla.

on top of the teacher exceptionalism, now we have Carla exceptionalism. its ok if you are being incompassionate towards don.

not to mention direct wording of 'you are wrong' in manner when situation arose.

See post #113.

Yes, all compassionate people, acting from the heart with love, WILL make an effort to adjust their approach, to be considerate of others, in whatever small way they are able to. Yes.

ok then. please make adjustments to your behavior as to use plural when addressing me. in turkish and german it is necessity of polite conduct to refer to the person in front of you in first person plural form.

See, the part you are missing, is that you are trying to establish a set of rules. That can't be done. Acting from the heart will always find the right response for that particular situation.

not telling that someone is wrong directly, but indirectly telling them that they are wrong, without making them feel that you were telling them they are wrong, was defined as compassion just now. with the exception of teachers of course. they dont have to be compassionate towards their students.

But of course one wouldn't want to operate from 5th ray only. ALL the chakras must be balanced. There's a term for higher chakras operating without the foundation of 4th: STS.

there is no overriding a higher ray with a lower ray in the process of balancing.

you cannot lie, because you think it is more plausible for your 4th chakra.

absence of 4th AND 5th rays, define the negative. 'green and blue is missing from the negative model'.

[quote='unity100' pid='59085' dateline='1320128073']
ra used the same demeanor while channel-hopping the channels at their time of first contact.

We don't know anything about any other Ra contacts because this is the only one we have recorded.

then you cant proceed based on assumptions.

even for the assumption you have just made, the channel hopping demeanor makes clear that they dont change their character per the whims of their channels or whomever they were interacting with.

[Monica]

so its ok for a teacher to be not compassionate and sto towards his/her students then.

No, that's not what I said. You are equating a set response with compassion. The same words can be spoken, with or without compassion.

it does. telling someone that s/he was wrong directly, was defined as an uncompassionate act. its the reason we are having this discussion,.

Not quite. A distinction was made between a teacher telling a student s/he is wrong, vs a forum member telling another forum member s/he is wrong.

A person acting from the heart, with love and compassion, isn't faking.

i dont even understand what you are saying.

The only way to understand this, is to draw one's consciousness into the heart chakra, and allow the energy to flow. Then it will be clear.

[unity100]

so its ok for a teacher to be not compassionate and sto towards his/her students then.

No, that's not what I said. You are equating a set response with compassion. The same words can be spoken, with or without compassion.

it seems you lost track of the original focus of the discussion.

namaste defined directly telling to someone that s/he was wrong, even if s/he was wrong, instead of indirectly telling it while seeming to be not telling it, as an incompassionate, even non-sto act.

this is why we are discussing. in that regard, directly telling someone what you think instead of wording it so differently that it wont seem like you are telling that at all, became an incompassionate act.

it does. telling someone that s/he was wrong directly, was defined as an uncompassionate act. its the reason we are having this discussion,.

Not quite. A distinction was made between a teacher telling a student s/he is wrong, vs a forum member telling another forum member s/he is wrong.

there are no differentiations in between 'forum members' and 'teachers' in terms of positive/negative, spiritual laws and basics of how these things work.

if something is incompassionate for you, its incompassionate for Ra. spiritual laws work the same for every density.

A person acting from the heart, with love and compassion, isn't faking.

i dont even understand what you are saying.

The only way to understand this, is to draw one's consciousness into the heart chakra, and allow the energy to flow. Then it will be clear.

thinking that you are doing good, wont make a lie something honest. nomatter what.

[Oceania]

not everything is so black and white Uni. do you really see things like that?

[Monica]

it seems you lost track of the original focus of the discussion.

No, it seems that you have missed key points that have been made by myself and others.

namaste defined directly telling to someone that s/he was wrong, even if s/he was wrong, instead of indirectly telling it while seeming to be not telling it, as an incompassionate, even non-sto act.

You are oversimplifying. It's not a simple definition.

this is why we are discussing. in that regard, directly telling someone what you think instead of wording it so differently that it wont seem like you are telling that at all, became an incompassionate act.

Compassion isn't something that can be defined based on outward actions.

there are no differentiations in between 'forum members' and 'teachers' in terms of positive/negative, spiritual laws and basics of how these things work.

Yes, there are indeed differentiations. The state of a being is in flux. The dynamic is what's important. No one is stagnant. Relationships are constantly changing, flowing. Principles apply to these dynamic relationships, not just to stagnant entities.

if something is incompassionate for you, its incompassionate for Ra. spiritual laws work the same for every density.

You are trying to label specific actions, or words, as compassionate/uncompassionate. That can't be done. Each situation is unique. Yes, principles apply, but compassion is something that originates in the heart. Actions are either driven by compassion or they aren't. The same action might be compassionate in one instance, and uncompassionate in another. The motivation is what makes the difference.

And yes, motivation does matter, according to Ra.

A person acting from the heart, with love and compassion, isn't faking.

i dont even understand what you are saying.

The only way to understand this, is to draw one's consciousness into the heart chakra, and allow the energy to flow. Then it will be clear.

thinking that you are doing good, wont make a lie something honest. nomatter what.

Respectfully, dear friend, you continue to miss my point. It's not about thinking.

[unity100]

namaste defined directly telling to someone that s/he was wrong, even if s/he was wrong, instead of indirectly telling it while seeming to be not telling it, as an incompassionate, even non-sto act.

You are oversimplifying. It's not a simple definition.

it is a simple definition. at the posts namaste accused me of being incompassionate, the only thing that was different was 'that is wrong' or 'you are wrong' sentences. nothing else.

Compassion isn't something that can be defined based on outward actions.

namaste just did that, and you just argued with me for it for over 2 pages.

Yes, there are indeed differentiations. The state of a being is in flux. The dynamic is what's important. No one is stagnant. Relationships are constantly changing, flowing. Principles apply to these dynamic relationships, not just to stagnant entities.

there are no differentiations in between ANY entity existing in this universe, in regard to spiritual laws.

spiritual laws, do not change.

And yes, motivation does matter, according to Ra.

Respectfully, dear friend, you continue to miss my point. It's not about thinking.

no amount of motivation, no amount of anything, will turn a lie/fake into truth/honesty.