Law of One Channeling

[Patrick]

But in a church setting, the people are not asking questions. They are being fed dogmas.

IMHO, you cannot abridge freewill by answering questions if you are veiled. Since all answers are always just an opinion. If not veiled then the answers can be much more than simple opinions.

[Shin'Ar]

You don't have to be kind to be walking the positive path. As long as you accept all other selves as they are and do not try to control them, you are walking the positive path.

.

---

Isn't accepting others and not trying to control them the defintion of being kind?

And as for all of this % rating, I would love to see the meter or guage by which this is accomplished. What are you using to come to your conclusion that you are at 65 %?

---

But in a church setting, the people are not asking questions. They are being fed dogmas.

IMHO, you cannot abridge freewill by answering questions if you are veiled. Since all answers are always just an opinion. If not veiled then the answers can be much more than simple opinions.

THIS is a church? I'm sorry. I didn't realize that LL Researchg was a church. I will have to look into this.

[BrownEye]

EDIT: I just realized that these questions would resolve themselves if said person is a wanderer from 5d or 6d.

They become bound to the laws of karma by coming back.

[Shin'Ar]

EDIT: I just realized that these questions would resolve themselves if said person is a wanderer from 5d or 6d.

They become bound to the laws of karma by coming back.

Laws of Karma? Is that a study under Quantam Physics that I missed somewhere between the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Entropy?

[Siren]

This is very intriguing. Could you explain this in more detail? Particularly as applies to negative entities.

It is a paradox. And paradoxes are hard to assimilate in a 3D environment (particularly with a "veil" in between). All paradoxes ultimately resolves in 6D, for that is the spectrum of light in which the seemingly contradictory is unified. And to even try to illustrate 6D concepts with this verbal means of communication is self-defeating in itself.

I may offer an image for your contemplation.



It is normal in 3D (veiled) to see an apparent duality in everything. This is commonly perceived as opposite ends in a line. When it comes to positive and negative charges one may think that the further an entity polarizes either way, the further away it would be from its "opposite."

Now, instead of seeing the negative and the positive paths as two opposite ends in a rope, I suggest bringing that rope together to form a ring or a circle where the negative and the positive meet at each end. I propose this image because the essence of all Creation is spherical/cyclical in nature.



Contemplate upon this image for a moment and you may understand why it is, in a manner of speaking, "easy" for a negative entity to "swap" to the positive path (to balance itself out). In a way, the negative entity doesn't have much of a choice in the exploration of the negative path after a certain point; having plumbed into the depths of "darkness," having exhausted its negative resources, and seeing itself still unfulfilled or incomplete (for as all entities across the Creation, each one seeks to know itself), it becomes obvious for the the negative entity, in its wisdom, that its next step is to "swap" to positive polarity full-on.

I know this explanation may be insufficient, but the key lies in the simple fact that the more you understand one path, the more you come to understand the other, as illustrated in the above image.

Let me offer an example: take the murderer/rapist/psychopath who spontaneously "converts" to religion and seeks to "revert" his previous actions/thoughts. His zeal and dedication is perhaps even greater than that of the priest who has been preaching all his life and raised in a religious environment since childhood. The murderer/rapist/psychopath may come to a greater understanding of the "light" by having explored the depths of the "darkness."

This is a bad example, but it serves its purpose.

The religious priest, conversely, may find a great temptation in exploring rape and murder, deception and manipulation; thus he may in an instant drop his priestly duties, and become the next murderer/rapist/psychopath.

Extremes are like that. And yet, no matter which imbalance you seek to explore, imbalance naturally and inevitably leads to balance.

PS: Also, it would be wise to remember that when speaking of positive/negative one understands that a positive/negative entity is hardly ever 100% negative or 100% positive.

[Ankh]

I would agree with Ra here IF one was deliberately attempting to abridge free will.

You are free to agree/disagree with Ra as much as you wish.

But I think you are using his remark out of context to support your claims here.

I had no claims, but a quote in my post to answer a question of another member.

Evangelizing in such a way that others do not have the free will to choose to disagree with you would be infringement.

Or enslavement.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

That usually is the case.

[Patrick]

You don't have to be kind to be walking the positive path. As long as you accept all other selves as they are and do not try to control them, you are walking the positive path.

.

---

Isn't accepting others and not trying to control them the defintion of being kind?

And as for all of this % rating, I would love to see the meter or guage by which this is accomplished. What are you using to come to your conclusion that you are at 65 %?

---

It sure is a question of definition. Lets say, you chose not to answer any one who talks to you. Or you never return a smile. Most people could conclude that this person is not kind. But this does not prevent said person to be walking the positive path.

I got this number (61%) from here: http://www.icheckyoursoul.com/ and to my surprise I resonated with the answer.

But in a church setting, the people are not asking questions. They are being fed dogmas.

IMHO, you cannot abridge freewill by answering questions if you are veiled. Since all answers are always just an opinion. If not veiled then the answers can be much more than simple opinions.

THIS is a church? I'm sorry. I didn't realize that LL Researchg was a church. I will have to look into this.

No not at all. I was answering Ankh's post. I should have quoted it.

Here it is.

I thought it was impossible for any entity incarnated in 3d to infringe on the Way of Confusion? Are you not veiled like the rest of us?

73.12 Questioner: Many so-called evangelists which we have in our society at present have great desire and very great will, and possibly great polarity, but it seems to me that in many cases that there is a lack of awareness that creates a less than effective working in the magical sense. Am I correct in this analysis?

Ra: I am Ra. You are partially correct. In examining the polarity of a service-to-others working the free will must be seen as paramount. Those entities of which you speak are attempting to generate positive changes in consciousness while abridging free will. This causes the blockage of the magical nature of the working except in those cases wherein an entity freely desires to accept the working of the evangelist, as you have called it.

---

EDIT: I just realized that these questions would resolve themselves if said person is a wanderer from 5d or 6d.

They become bound to the laws of karma by coming back.

We are always bound by karma. It's just that without the veil, you see all the consequences of your choices before making them. Thus you nearly always chose the "right" one.

But this "edit" was regarding this part of my post "Do you think it is possible to go to 6d directly from 3d? It seems to me that having to go through 4d, where you need 98% to be harvested in 5d, is going to result in a great imbalance. And that we then need to balance this again is 5d. If we are already aware of this right now and here in 3d, could we just go to 6d or maybe 5d directly?".

[Siren]

I would agree that the extremes are not what we should seek. balance is what we seek

And balance is found in the "neutralization" or "equalization" of positive/negative, not in overcoming of the negative by the positive (or vice versa).

I disagree that we do not have a choice with regard to directions and decisions we make.

I don't believe I ever said you had no choice. In fact, I expressively stated you are free to do as you will.

If you walk toward the Light, you walk away from the darkness. And vice versa.

Just what is this "darkness" you speak of? Maybe I'm failing to understand you here.

It is somewhat funny, your statement of "walking towards the Light," when all of Creation is an illusion made of light; meaning all things, all beings are inherently creatures of light, and manifestation of Love.

Do we have choice, or not? It would seem that if we had no choice that your way of thinking might have merit, but as it stands you seem to be in contradiction of yourself.

I apologize, I am full of paradox.

I have repeatedly expressed that you have freewill to make whatever choices you wish. However, seeing it all from the perspective of the One Infinite Creator—which is the origination/termination point of All There Is—, you can only go back whence you came. How you get there, is up to you (and this is when individual Freewill comes into play). Regardless, your destiny/destination is already set. And in that context, there is only One Choice, which the the One Infinite Creator seeking to know Itself.

---

I thought it was impossible for any entity incarnated in 3d to infringe on the Way of Confusion? Are you not veiled like the rest of us?

I most certainly am "veiled." But are we all "veiled" to the same degree?

Needless to say, even within the Q/A format of teaching/learning, one must be watchful as to when one begins to "impose" him/her/itself over another. This is often overlooked by many.

[Ankh]

But in a church setting, the people are not asking questions. They are being fed dogmas.

People in a church are mostly there because if their free will.

IMHO, you cannot abridge freewill by answering questions if you are veiled. Since all answers are always just an opinion. If not veiled then the answers can be much more than simple opinions.

Those evangelizing do not answer the questions they are asked, but force their opinion/understanding/belief system on others, whether these opinions/understandings/belief systems are asked for or not. That, imho, is abrigement of free will.

Q'uo about Free Will and sharing its own truth:

We are a service-to-others principle and our polarity would be disturbed were we to indicate in any way that we were authorities who must be trusted.../.../...You do have the right to offer your opinion to each other when asked. You have the right to influence each other when you are using your power in ways that are appropriate, within the bounds of your relationships and that which has been requested of you. You do not have to be as concerned as we in the normal run of your life and in your interactions with those in your environment. It is acceptable and within the bounds of free will to express your opinion when asked, and even to discuss that opinion again when it is asked of you.../.../...And when you are asked questions, whether of a physical, emotional or spiritual nature, it is entirely appropriate to offer your opinion, again using your own sense of rightness and goodness to shape your replies. However, it is indeed possible within third density for people to infringe upon each others’ free will in ways that do involve karma.../.../...We understand that when you have been awakened and excited and impassioned for the good, the true, and the beautiful by truths that have been revealed to you that seem fair and worthy of being shared, it is a great temptation to share these wonderful truths with others as a way of relating to them. However, we would suggest that you refrain from doing so, relating to entities not by what you think but by who you are; giving yourself to the relationship with them, not your ideas. When relating self-to-self you may encourage and support the good that you see in another in any way that comes to you, but rest from sharing your opinions except insofar as they seem to spring up in conversation of their own accord.../.../...Realize that it is a delicate thing to determine what is a just communication and what is a bullying or a manipulative conversation.

March 14, 2009

[Shin'Ar]

Hmmm, you say we all have free choice, BUt there is only One choice, and than you say that we have the freedom to make different choices. You are full of paradoxes arent you.

Okay lets just agree that I am not going to be able to understand that dynamic.

But with reagrd to direction your representation of the circle as the reason as to why you think there is no directio and everything meets where positive and negative come together, is innacurate IMO. Not preching. You are free to understand me or to disagree with me. But my understanding is that one can travel in two directions on that circle. It has nothing to do with the fact that at some point you will still be on the circumference. One can still travel one way or the other.

One way leads to Light, the other way leads away from it.

You say that all things are made of Light. That all creation is the result of Light.

But what you are leaving out of your design is Choice. We have the choice to walk in Light, instead of in darkness, and that is the defintion of free will. IMO, your defintion of choice seems to contradict it actually being an option.

[Patrick]

But in a church setting, the people are not asking questions. They are being fed dogmas.

People in a church are mostly there because if their free will.

I was raised in the Catholic faith and my experience does not match with your statement. Unless we count the fact that we chose this before incarnation.

IMHO, you cannot abridge freewill by answering questions if you are veiled. Since all answers are always just an opinion. If not veiled then the answers can be much more than simple opinions.

Those evangelizing do not answer the questions they are asked, but force their opinion/understanding/belief system on others, whether these opinions/understandings/belief systems are asked for or not. That, imho, is abrigement of free will.
...

Yes. That is exactly what I was trying to say.

I feel that we are in agreement. Maybe in this context you could expend on what you mean with this statement: "People in a church are mostly there because if their free will." ?

[Unbound]

Just for the sake of this discussion I will mention this:

Ra discusses Free Will as being the "first distortion", or primal distortion. In that case, if we are to consider a universe that is completely without distortions, or illusions, could we then conclude that Free Will is actually only an illusion?

[Patrick]

...We understand that when you have been awakened and excited and impassioned for the good, the true, and the beautiful by truths that have been revealed to you that seem fair and worthy of being shared, it is a great temptation to share these wonderful truths with others as a way of relating to them. However, we would suggest that you refrain from doing so, relating to entities not by what you think but by who you are; giving yourself to the relationship with them, not your ideas...

Yes, that is probably the crux of the mater. In the case of awakening, it may simply mean that we are lifting the veil somewhat.

[Ankh]

I was raised in the Catholic faith and my experience does not match with your statement. Unless we count the fact that we chose this before incarnation.

Sorry to hear that. That is why I said *mostly*, like for the most part, those adults attending church services are there because they want to. Children and perhaps other people may have been dragged there against their will, which is in that case, an abridgement.

[Patrick]

Just for the sake of this discussion I will mention this:

Ra discusses Free Will as being the "first distortion", or primal distortion. In that case, if we are to consider a universe that is completely without distortions, or illusions, could we then conclude that Free Will is actually only an illusion?

Yes it is an illusion. It is the first illusion (or distortion). In reality, there is only One. Many-ness is also the first distortion, since freewill automatically results in many-ness.

---

I was raised in the Catholic faith and my experience does not match with your statement. Unless we count the fact that we chose this before incarnation.

Sorry to hear that. That is why I said *mostly*, like for the most part, those adults attending church services are there because they want to. Children and perhaps other people may have been dragged there against their will, which is in that case, an abridgement.

From my personal experience, the great majority of people going to church went there because they had to. All your childhood your are not given a choice. You have to go as it was really not good for the parents' image if they did not go or did not go with all the family.

When you get married in the Christian faith, you have to promise to raise your children in this faith.

Also, lets not forget that if you do not follow properly you go to hell for all eternity.

You can certainly see that parents did not want their children or themselves to end up in hell. So they forced their children and they forced themselves to attend mass.

Now imagine being raised like this. Obviously once an adult yourself, you will continue to go there. Unless you understood the true message hidden behind the dogmas. The real message that Jesus came here to deliver. Love one another, do not judge, forgive all and forgive self, etc... Those who saw this could stop attending church if they wanted to, because they were not afraid of hell anymore. Or they could still attend while using proper discernment and getting what they needed from it.

Now that said, I should say was the great majority. Because nowadays, people are not attending church anymore and so those attending are either there by choice or they are older and still afraid of eternal hell.

[Shin'Ar]

Just for the sake of this discussion I will mention this:

Ra discusses Free Will as being the "first distortion", or primal distortion. In that case, if we are to consider a universe that is completely without distortions, or illusions, could we then conclude that Free Will is actually only an illusion?

Distortion is vibration, not illusion. And so I am not sure exactly what Ra means by that because all things have a vibration. Free will would be the first actual vibratory experience of awareness and decision making. But it would not be the first vibration. There is no such a thing as a universe without vibration because vibration is what creates the universe.

[Unbound]

You are expressing a literal definition of distortion, whereas I believe theirs is more philosophical.

They refer to the "illusion" as the the perception of separation between Self and Other Self, resulting in the two polarities, Service to Self, and Service to Others. This is is caused by vibration, as you say, or distortion, of the One Field of Consciousness, which in its pure state is like a motionless pool of water. (Metaphorically, of course.) I believe it is actually a sort of reference to a MIRAGE. They do not mean illusion to mean unreal, but as something which arises as an image.

Now, it seems that these two polarities have always existed since this first "distortion". Which, imo, could be considered the "aberrations" of the first vibration(s?), or the first vibration self interacting as two.

As you say, awareness and decision making, as there became cause for decisions with the primal masculine and feminine Choice.

Now this is where it gets kind of confusing. In this case, they use distortion as something to imply an obscuring of the awareness of Oneness, even a little. In absolute awareness of Oneness in all parts of the One, there would be no distortion, vibration would cease as all hit equilibrium. At least, momentarily...

[Tenet Nosce]

Why is this the dark path? It sounds like common sense to me.

In and of themselves, they're not- what I mean is certain elements that tend to be associated with it, such as the tendency toward solitariness and aversion to group dynamic.

See- this might seem like "common sense" to you and me... but it doesn't appear at all to make sense to the "common" person. Most people revel in the yellow ray group dynamics. Following the crowd, team sports, trusting in societal institutions and group authority, or taking a vote on everything. Most people operate under the assumption that whatever the "majority" feels is the right choice- is actually the right choice. Things like that...

[Shin'Ar]

You are expressing a literal definition of distortion, whereas I believe theirs is more philosophical.

They refer to the "illusion" as the the perception of separation between Self and Other Self, resulting in the two polarities, Service to Self, and Service to Others. This is is caused by vibration, as you say, or distortion, of the One Field of Consciousness, which in its pure state is like a motionless pool of water. (Metaphorically, of course.) I believe it is actually a sort of reference to a MIRAGE. They do not mean illusion to mean unreal, but as something which arises as an image.

Now, it seems that these two polarities have always existed since this first "distortion". Which, imo, could be considered the "aberrations" of the first vibration(s?), or the first vibration self interacting as two.

As you say, awareness and decision making, as there became cause for decisions with the primal masculine and feminine Choice.

Now this is where it gets kind of confusing. In this case, they use distortion as something to imply an obscuring of the awareness of Oneness, even a little. In absolute awareness of Oneness in all parts of the One, there would be no distortion, vibration would cease as all hit equilibrium. At least, momentarily...

EXACTLY! Which is exactly why I always say that we shall never reach that point because should perfect harmony with the One be acquired by All, creation will cease to be.

Creation is the process of the Creator experiencing it, and the vibrations that that create it. Should those vibrations come to a stop, creation itslef ends as the Creator would be no longer 'BEING'.

The Great Lord Thoth refers to this as chasing the Great Mystery, which is Infinity.

[Unbound]

Yes, it must be understood that MYSTERY, that is "a state which is UNKNOWN", shall never cease to exist, as it is a part of existence. As each Great Mystery is captured and unfolded, a new one arises in ways most unexpected...

---

Actually, come to think of it, since vibration is in fact modulation between two states we could consider the First Vibration to have been composed of the Primal Distortion, that is Free Will or Polarity.

[Shin'Ar]

Yes, it must be understood that MYSTERY, that is "a state which is UNKNOWN", shall never cease to exist, as it is a part of existence. As each Great Mystery is captured and unfolded, a new one arises in ways most unexpected...

This is the intelligent design behind creation, and the process in which we all, either move forward, or fail to grow in. (Fail to grow may not be appropriate, maybe I should say 'suffer retardation of optimal growth'.)

[Tenet Nosce]

There is your problem in a nutshell. You really don't like the whole aspect of being a person constantly expressing love toward others. It sounds like you are not comfortable with it. And it sounds like your definition of love has something to do with charitable works and constant washing of feet and carrying of bags.

Mmm... not exactly. But you aren't totally off. It has more to do with different experiences where I did express love, and felt like I had it twisted against me or thrown back in my face or was taken advantage of because of it.

For example- I had a long time friend who struggled with some deep personal issues. While there was certainly love and kindness within this person, he often displayed some truly repulsive characteristics. He was very jealous of others, vindictive and spiteful, judgmental, and manipulative. Especially toward women. I was one of the few people who acted as a true friend toward him. While I was by no means perfect, I showed compassion and acceptance toward him. To make a long story short, he eventually succumbed to drugs and alcohol and had a complete mental breakdown- including paranoid delusions that I was spearheading a mass conspiracy against him and had actually implanted devices in his brain to control him. This was ten years ago (almost to the day, actually). He still believes all of this, and will send me nasty emails telling me all the horrible things about myself. Or he will call friends, family, or business associates trying to get my cell phone number so he can harass me on the phone, etc. Point being- it seems like I would be much better off had I cut ties with this person much earlier in the friendship, but I kept on thinking that I was being "loving". All I got in return was anger and hatred.

Another example- a woman I dated who was... well basically kind of nuts. She would be all lovey-dovey one minute and the next minute turn on me like a rabid dog. She consistently took advantage of my propensity toward forgiveness by doing outrageous things. It was almost like she was pushing me to see how awful she could act toward me, and I went along with it for a while naively thinking that I was supposed to learn how to be more "loving" toward her. Yet the more loving and forgiving I was, the more she tried to take advantage of it.

Another example- a friend who I co-signed on an auto lease for thinking I would do a nice thing because she had no credit, and her dad was being a jackass and wouldn't help her out. Turned out to be several years of monthly torment trying to get the payments out of her- a couple of times we went late damaging my credit. But somehow- in her mind I was the one being an a$$hole towards her every time I mentioned something to the effect of... gee do you think it is a good idea to be dropping a hundred dollars on the bar when your car payment is due next week?

So these are three examples of the lessons of "loving folly". Basically, it means there are people out there who prey on the lovingkindness of others and seek to take advantage of these types of situations. Nowadays, I don't tend to get into these types of situations anymore because I have learned to better discern between those who are just out looking to take advantage of the kindness of others, and those who are genuinely in need of service.

IMO, it would do you a great deal of benefit to come to a better understanding of what it means to love others. Maybe then, when you are more comfortable with your experiences, than you will also be more confident about teaching others what you have experienced and come to realize. As well as appreciating those things being expressed to you by others.

Perhaps ironically to your way of thinking- I believe I now have a better understanding of what it means to love others. And that involves the realization that one does not need to sacrifice what is in their own best interest in order to serve others. This along with the realization that some people are as "bottomless pits". You can keep pouring in the love, but they never quite get their fill. And as soon as you stop pouring for a brief moment- they fly into fits and drama.

In a nutshell- there are those who function as "energy vampires" and it is folly to attempt to engage them with so-called loving behaviors. Until they learn a modicum of self-love, i.e. the ability to recognize the self as a source of love, they will continue to prey upon others leaving destruction in their wake without so much as a second thought.

I agree with Diana here. What you(Tenet) proclaim and profess here as the loving folly of others is simply your own distaste for it, not a true defintion of love. And expressing love and applying it to one's life can be done with as much careful and willful construction as anything else that one can do.

Again, I partially agree with you, and partially think you have missed what I am saying. Yes- you are right- one may express love with careful and willful construction as you say. The part I don't agree with is the notion that many people hold- including many "lightworkers" (not necessarily you)- that being loving essentially means being a doormat for others to wipe their feet on while they pursue their own selfish goals with little to no regard for how their behavior affects those around them. In other words, martyrdom. And beyond this, are those who would point the finger at others who refuse to martyr themselves, and accuse them of "consorting with the devil". THAT is what I find distasteful.

Another concept which really grinds my gears is the notion that being "loving" means always being "nice". For example, I frequently employ sarcasm when discussing with others. The reason being- it works. It strikes right to the heart of the issue rather than pandering to one's fickle emotions and all the "niceties" which some believe are "right and proper" in conversation. Now I recognize that this form of service is not appreciated by all, and doesn't work in all cases. But it has worked in enough cases for me to know that it does work. For example, I get frequent PM's from other members in this forum telling me "thank you" for saying what needed to be said while others were beating around the bush trying to be "nice" to each other. Why must one always be "nice" when debating? Why not just say what is on one's mind, and let the chips fall where they may? To my kind of thinking, all of this emphasis on "being polite" and "political correctness" is actually a disservice, and gets in the way of real communication.

Maybe you(Tenet) need to clarify what you mean by the naivete, lack of foresight and folly of those who walk toward the Light.

You are mistaken if you believe I said walking toward the Light is folly. It is not folly to walk toward the Light. Rather it is folly to seek the Light using only the faculty of love, while ignoring wisdom or faith.

Gosh, there are so many examples, I don't even know where to begin! Other than the examples I gave above from my own personal experience, here are some others:

A husband/wife who take out a second mortgage on their home in order to pay for their 30-something-year-old son to go through drug rehab AGAIN after he repeatedly failed to get his act together.

Any sort of enabling of drug users, alcoholics, gambling addicts, etc.

Any sort of martyrdom where one sacrifices their own personal growth and development to attend to another who is unwilling to take responsibility for their own life.

Native americans naively accepting tainted blankets offered by Englishmen as a "peace offering".

Anybody who works their a$$ off for a company which repeatedly takes advantage of them and doesn't pay them what they're worth. Meanwhile the CEO gets millions of dollars in bonuses.

People who hoard animals- turning their own home into a makeshift animal shelter as if they could ever possibly "save the animals". Meanwhile, they have no close relationships with other human beings.

Elderly people who fall prey to all manner of scams, naively trusting in that "nice man" who came by their house.

People who join various pyramid money-making schemes, trusting in the false promises of others who claim to have their best interests at heart.

A woman who stays with an abusive man because she "loves" him.

A forum moderator who sacrifices their own time and energy which could be put to their own family or business in order to police grown-ass adults who can't seem to get along on their own without bickering and fighting like little children.

People who sign up for the military and put their own lives at risk fighting illegal wars because they "love" their country, and trust in what their political leaders are telling them.

People who naively trust in doctors that are little more than legal drug pushers.

An obese mother who feeds her family a bunch of garbage food because she "loves" them, while ignoring that she is actually destroying their health, and her own.

People who snub their noses at any type of "conspiracy theory" because they just won't believe that there are others out there lying to them and trying to control them.

I could go on and on...

The point is that so many people get all bent out of sorts when they learn about these "evil" or "STS" people at the top of various power pyramids controlling the masses. But the reason they get away with these various schemes is precisely because the "ignorant masses" fail to learn these lessons about loving folly and naivete. They fall for the same old plots again and again and again. This is why "STS" laughs. It is such easy pickings!

Rather, if people learned to be a little more discerning. A little less trusting in appearances and what appears to be on the surface (all the smiles and niceties, and false promises of a better future (e.g. "Change We Can Believe In!), then the dark forces would not be able to keep their toehold in this reality. We are not victims to "STS". We open the door to them as vampires seeking shelter in the sunlight, foolishly thinking that we are going to rehabilitate them with our love.

Rehabilitation is possible, and love is the way. But they need to take the first step. One doesn't let a wolf into the farm to mingle with the chickens until the wolf has demonstrated that they can be trusted. If a wolf comes knocking at the gate claiming "You should love and accept me for who I am!" the appropriate response is to tell the wolf that you do love and accept them- but that doesn't mean you will grant them access to your chickens.

[Patrick]

...
Now, it seems that these two polarities have always existed since this first "distortion". Which, imo, could be considered the "aberrations" of the first vibration(s?), or the first vibration self interacting as two.
...

Actually, these two polarities (STO and STS) are fairly "recent" concepts, if you'll permit me to use this word even if there is only an eternal present.

It is only when a Logos created an illusion of separation (the veil) that STS came to being. Before the veil, in 3d there was still STO. You could either increase or decrease in STO, but there was no STS.

Entities where taking a very long linear time to increase enough in STO for harvest into 4th density, hence why Logoi looked into ways of speeding this up. And STS resulted from these experiments as being the speediest when STS interacts with STO.

Such a thing as STS was never conceived of before the veil made it possible.

If all the Ra quotes that supports this view are requested, I will provide.

[Unbound]

Questioner: Then prior to the

first extension of the first distortion

the veil or loss of awareness did not occur. From this I will make the assumption that this veil or loss of remembering consciously that which occurred before the incarnation was the primary tool for extending the first distortion. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. Your correctness is limited. This was the first tool.

The Veil is only an extension or amplification of that which is inherent in the First Distortion of Free Will.

---

Let us note, that there is a difference between Service to Self/Others and AWARENESS of Service to Self/Others.

The polarities still existed, but since all were still in awareness of the Self as One with All, the idea of Service to Self was necessarily the same as Service to Others.

---

I would consider the Veil the "making kinetic of that potential which is service to self".

[Patrick]

Here are some relevant quotes.

78.13 Questioner: Then we have, at the beginning of this galactic evolution, an archetypical mind that is the product of the previous octave which this galaxy then used as and acts upon under the first distortion so as to allow for what we experience as polarity. Was there any concept of polarity carried through from the previous octave in the sense of service-to-others or service-to-self polarity?

Ra: I am Ra. There was polarity in the sense of the mover and the moved. There was no polarity in the sense of service-to-self and service-to-others.

78.15 Questioner: Then I am assuming that the central suns of our galaxy, in starting the evolutionary process in this galaxy, provided for, in their plans, the refinement of consciousness through the densities just as we experience it here. However, they did not conceive of the polarization of consciousness with respect to service-to-self and service-to-others. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

77.19 Questioner: Do the Logoi that choose this type of evolution choose both the service-to-self and the service-to-others path for different Logoi, or do they choose just one of the paths?

Ra: I am Ra. Those, what you would call, early Logoi which chose lack of free will foundations, to all extents with no exceptions, founded Logoi of the service-to-others path. The, shall we say, saga of polarity, its consequences and limits, were unimagined until experienced.

77.20 Questioner: In other words you are saying that originally the Logoi that did not choose this free will path did not choose it simply because they had not conceived of it and that later Logoi, extending the first distortion farther down through their evolution, experienced it as an outcropping or growth from that extension of the first distortion. Am I correct in saying that?

Ra: I am Ra. Yes.

[Unbound]

There was no polarity in the sense of service-to-self and service-to-others.

Free Will or Polarity includes more than simply the polarized concept of service to self and service to others.

Consider, the conception for an idea is preluded by the ingredients which constitute that idea. The Logoi had not conceived of it, that does not mean that it did not already exist within the Creator. The Logoi are still evolving as well.

This is my point, is that all potentials exist within the Creator, but indeed they do not exist until they are experienced and they are not experienced until the conditions for the arising of the experience are configured, which takes a period of time.

[Patrick]

Indeed, but then this is what the Creation is. The Creator experiencing itself.

---

STS is probably one of the most useful concept harvested from our current octave. I really wonder how it's used in the next octave?

[Unbound]

The fine generation of Light.

[Siren]

Allow me to make a small interjection here. Reality is an illusion, and the illusion is real. The word "illusion" has its roots in Light (illumination, illustration, luminare, lumen, lux, lucere, etc). The 7 vibratory color spectrum (or densities) of Creation are all sub-illusions of the Grand Illusion as a whole (which is the whole octave). 3D is as much an illusion as is 6D, only that as one progresses towards the Creator and further awareness is accrued, the illusion(s) begin to be seen (and utilized) more and more for what they are.

Light is the manifestation of Love.

The "veil" is, basically, a division between the space/time and time/space mind/awareness of (certain) 3D environments.

To think in terms of illusion VS reality is ineffective, inconvenient and misleading.

Truth is, all of this is a dream in the imagination/thought of the One Infinite Creator.

On this planet human beings tend to think in black & white terms of either this or that, illusory/imaginary or real, when in fact, there is no such distinction (this befogging is product of the "veil" upon the mind).

The same applies to the stark dichotomy of true VS false. Such a distinction is extreme. To see something as wholly true or wholly false is folly and self-deceptive. Perhaps one should instead recognize that all is True, yet there are varying degrees of truth depending on each individual's own degree of awareness/perception/consciousness/knowledge/intelligence (which is the capacity to interpret/understand/know the Creation/Creator).

As one grows, progresses and evolves through the Creation, one is merely peeling the layers of the onion, so to speak. Yet there is only one onion, One Creator, One Truth.

As I often say, instead of seeing all in the light of white VS black, see the rainbow of colors in between: there are gradients of depth and understanding to absolutely everything, whether that be consciousness, mathematics or cooking recipes.

[Tenet Nosce]

On this planet human beings tend to think in black & white terms of either this or that, illusory/imaginary or real, when in fact, there is no such distinction (this befogging is product of the "veil" upon the mind).

An astute observation. Isn't this- really- the most fundamental "lesson" which needs to be learned? The ability to think beyond "black and white", "good and evil", etc?

Which leads me back into some of our previous discussion. A notion which is associated with the dark path is that some people are just too ignorant to know what is in their own best interest. As this notion goes, spiritually speaking most people on earth are as infants, and as such, need somebody else to make decisions for them until they are developed enough to discern all the "colors of the rainbow" as you have put it.

I have to say- and I know I am probably going to get jumped on for this- that I can really see where this thought is coming from. Look at what we have created with our "democracy" here in the U.S. It's a total mess! Now, a democratic system would work very well if its constituents had moved beyond this simplistic, dualistic way of thinking which insists on dividing everything into two camps. But most people refuse to do the inner development necessary to move beyond this infant mentality.

Is it truly beneficial for the whole that people be allowed to vote when their thinking is at such a rudimentary stage? I tend to think, no, what this does is actually harm the collective because what we have is most people running around voting on important issues based on an extremely simplistic worldview where everything fits into one of two neat and tidy "boxes". Now I know- this is exactly how one ends up down a path of "elitism"... and I know better than to "go there"...but then what is the alternative solution? Personally speaking, I am growing increasingly irritated and tired with all these laws and restrictions put upon me by others who refuse to develop beyond this kind of mentality, and who in their arrogance seek to use democracy as a means to push their self-righteousness onto others, and force them to behave in ways which conform with their own simplistic view of reality.