The Line of acceptance.

[anagogy]

When does acceptance become out of balance? I mean you wouldn't you tell a drug user to simply accept his drug use and be done with it? It would seem that balance is in order after acceptance meaning that one would goto a distortion that is more in tune with the original thought rather than the distortion in question. In this case the acceptance might be more along the lines perhaps of someone who is at an AA meeting or something like that with the classic standing up and saying my name is such and such and i am a alcoholic rather?

I didn't read every reply in the thread, so if I regurgitate what someone else said, my apologies.

To my understanding, acceptance is a conscious recognition/understanding/appreciation of "what is".  The recognition of truth, as it were.  So, in the case of the drug addict, they would accept that they have an addiction.  They have recognized, honestly and objectively, to their best discernment, what "is".  Now what?  Now they also discern and accept what is the true orientation of their desires with this understanding and recognition.  All these distortions are being bathed in the fire and light of clear awareness.  Part of that is the recognition that a part of them probably very much still wants to do drugs for the feelings they produced.  But there is also the acceptance of a larger part of themselves (which is the overarching reason why they are engaging in this balancing exercise in the first place) that wants to be free of the addiction.  And this sets in motion the "that which is not needed, falls away" part.

You see, acceptance does not mean that no action is to occur, because we have all sorts of desires, and those motivators to behavior and action in the tangible world are to be accepted and balanced as well.  But the real question is: is the action that is occurring a result of acceptance of who you are, or is it the result of rejection of who you are?  Are your actions toward others accepting of who they are, or rejecting of who they are?  Another way of saying this in the form of a contemporary aphorism: hate of war won't bring peace, only love of peace will bring peace.  You see, one action is rejection, the other acceptance.  One action negatively polarized, the other positively polarized.  If you love peace, your actions are simply movement towards who you really are.  If you hate war, the focus is on a condition that is not wanted, and so you feel a need to control the circumstance that you hate (so you can be happy).

So with the acceptance of their greater desire to be free of addiction, they then move in the direction of that which is truly wanted.  In my experience, any action that is taken to "get away from something unwanted" will inevitably fail in terms of positive polarization.  Because that is not acceptance, that is *rejection*, which is a negatively polarized motivation.  It has to be from the framework of movement towards what is wanted.  Towards what is loved.  You have to make peace with where you are, to get where you want to go (at least in an STO way).  

If the movement is an effort to control an unwanted circumstance, then obviously your focus is on control.  That's not love.  More like fear or hate.  The key to negative polarization is control, and it is all about rejection of "what is".  If "what is" were acceptable "as is" it would not necessitate control.  Now, having said that, both polarities still both control and accept to some degree.  Obviously no one incarnating in 3rd density is 100% efficient either way.  Not even in many of the higher densities.

But what about other people's behaviors?  Do you accept them, or reject them?  If you are trying to control what other people do, you are rejecting them "as is" and your actions, even if your intentions were good, are essentially negatively polarized.

16.20 Questioner: It would be unlike an entity fully aware of the knowledge of the Law of One to ever say “Thou shalt not.” Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

So what is the STO approach to other people's behaviors?  What does acceptance mean in that context?  In my opinion it means to not judge, and accept that there are a lot of different ingredients in the cosmic kitchen.  The ingredients are a representation of all the potentials that may be experienced.  

Perhaps some of those ingredients do not taste good to you.  That is understandable and expected.  Anything with manifest form will have opposing manifestations which are completely incongruous and disharmonious with its form.  That is duality.  One person's hell, is another person's heaven.  So you don't like a particular ingredient.   You don't have to put it in your pie.  But there is no sense getting mad at others for putting those ingredients in their pie.  Again, that's not love.  It's fear or hate.  If the ingredients were not meant to be used, they would simply not be in the cosmic pantry, or part of the cosmic self.  It's that simple.      

The STS perspective, does not accept all ingredients in the cosmic pantry.  From that vantage point, only certain entrees are allowed, and so those that would dare violate that must be policed and prevented in some way for making unapproved dishes of food.  They must be controlled.  The STO perspective is: let's make delicious food, and be creative about it, and not try to dictate to others what they should and should not partake of.  However, if they ask, you can certainly tell them what you like, or do not like.  It is the difference between guidance, and dictating.  One is a suggestion, the other an ultimatum.

So when does acceptance become out of balance?  Never, if you are doing it correctly.   

Ra: [...] 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.