09-24-2010, 01:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2010, 09:19 AM by Steppingfeet.)
Hey Joe,
My own study of the positive polarity and those sources which expound its philosophy, e.g., the Law of One books, indicates that effective, positively oriented service can be rendered only to the extent that it is requested, something echoed again and again in the forums, as it should be.
Which begs the question, how does one know when service is being requested? Followed by, and what type of service is needed, and when and how much should be offered, and how to fulfill the request if there is a request?
Ra, I think, implies that there is no "best", no one foolproof plan to serve purely in a manner which fulfills the highest/deepest need of the other. (Though they do suggest that simple being, that effortless radiance of the Creator through the transparent outer identity, is of greatest import. This is I believe along the lines of what Ahktu was suggesting when she discussed teaching by example.) Your meeting with the other self in that particular moment is so utterly, infinitely unique that the Creator leaves it in your capable hands to make a choice regarding the expression of who you are, and in so doing co-creating an experience of mutual learning.
I would suggest that one possible means of assessing whether service is being requested, or whether the other is open to your desire to be of service, is to throw some feelers out there. For instance, in the other's promulgation of what to you is a fear-based perspective, you could look upward with a mischievous grin, remarking something along the lines of, "My philosophy suggests that there are better responses than fear to a universe of unending beauty." To which, if the other is interested, he or she may reply, "Oh, really? How so?"
While the exchange could go a million other ways, much more creative than the paltry exampled I've offered, the basic gist I'm trying to get across is that the other is going to hear you only if interest motivates the operation of their ears. If you move beyond their own interest and desire to hear what you have to say, then you may be infringing simply because you are assuming that where there will is absent, your will can take the lead and chart the course for them.
Interest, desire to know, need to know, curious to know, are all self-generated of course, but these things can be peaked and teased out of the other by careful and appealing presentation. Many entities with Messages to share probably use the arts for this basic reason, to communicate deeper truths through modalities or vehicles which stimulate the other self to generate their own interest.
The self's otherwise closed doors open with the key of interest or desire, and if the self is ready for and desirous of what it sees on the other side of the now open door, it will consciously or unconsciously move through that embarking point into novel understanding and experience. Point being, you, the sharer, the one desiring to serve, if you are intent on giving this information which you feel will be of genuine aid to the other, you may help to stimulate actual interest in an other so that they, of their own free will, walk through that door into territory they desire to explore.
But that's a fine line to walk too I think. Because there is a determination on your part that the other is in need of what you have to offer. Chances are so much of what so many of us do in the name of service, even with the best of intent, is not actually requested from the other self but is rather just a projection of how we, in our limited state, feel the world should be. So again you're back to assessing whether there is a request for service or not.
Following this pattern, an other perfectly legitimate and positively oriented approach is the one Questioner suggest. What's important to take note of in Questioner's approach, in my fallible opinion, is that you're not compelling the other person to give particular weight to what you have to say by employing means of persuasion, fear, promise of reward, catering to ego, pressure to conform, etc. Notice all the disclaimers in Questioner's statement along with the space such an approach makes around the other self, space for the other's free will to move by means of its own motivation and discretion, not by what you, the sharer, think the person ought to believe.
And as Questioner suggests, if the response you get from other is a "no" in any form, especially if they throw old cabbage and tomatoes at you, then it's probably best to respectfully back away and love that other self as they are, as perfect gestures of a perfect Creator, no matter how imperfect, stuck, flawed, close-minded, or lost you perceive them to be. (Not an easy one for me, let me tell you!)
A subject for endless exploration, indeed. Good question. : )
KYAYBC,
GLB
My own study of the positive polarity and those sources which expound its philosophy, e.g., the Law of One books, indicates that effective, positively oriented service can be rendered only to the extent that it is requested, something echoed again and again in the forums, as it should be.
Which begs the question, how does one know when service is being requested? Followed by, and what type of service is needed, and when and how much should be offered, and how to fulfill the request if there is a request?
Ra, I think, implies that there is no "best", no one foolproof plan to serve purely in a manner which fulfills the highest/deepest need of the other. (Though they do suggest that simple being, that effortless radiance of the Creator through the transparent outer identity, is of greatest import. This is I believe along the lines of what Ahktu was suggesting when she discussed teaching by example.) Your meeting with the other self in that particular moment is so utterly, infinitely unique that the Creator leaves it in your capable hands to make a choice regarding the expression of who you are, and in so doing co-creating an experience of mutual learning.
I would suggest that one possible means of assessing whether service is being requested, or whether the other is open to your desire to be of service, is to throw some feelers out there. For instance, in the other's promulgation of what to you is a fear-based perspective, you could look upward with a mischievous grin, remarking something along the lines of, "My philosophy suggests that there are better responses than fear to a universe of unending beauty." To which, if the other is interested, he or she may reply, "Oh, really? How so?"
While the exchange could go a million other ways, much more creative than the paltry exampled I've offered, the basic gist I'm trying to get across is that the other is going to hear you only if interest motivates the operation of their ears. If you move beyond their own interest and desire to hear what you have to say, then you may be infringing simply because you are assuming that where there will is absent, your will can take the lead and chart the course for them.
Interest, desire to know, need to know, curious to know, are all self-generated of course, but these things can be peaked and teased out of the other by careful and appealing presentation. Many entities with Messages to share probably use the arts for this basic reason, to communicate deeper truths through modalities or vehicles which stimulate the other self to generate their own interest.
The self's otherwise closed doors open with the key of interest or desire, and if the self is ready for and desirous of what it sees on the other side of the now open door, it will consciously or unconsciously move through that embarking point into novel understanding and experience. Point being, you, the sharer, the one desiring to serve, if you are intent on giving this information which you feel will be of genuine aid to the other, you may help to stimulate actual interest in an other so that they, of their own free will, walk through that door into territory they desire to explore.
But that's a fine line to walk too I think. Because there is a determination on your part that the other is in need of what you have to offer. Chances are so much of what so many of us do in the name of service, even with the best of intent, is not actually requested from the other self but is rather just a projection of how we, in our limited state, feel the world should be. So again you're back to assessing whether there is a request for service or not.
Following this pattern, an other perfectly legitimate and positively oriented approach is the one Questioner suggest. What's important to take note of in Questioner's approach, in my fallible opinion, is that you're not compelling the other person to give particular weight to what you have to say by employing means of persuasion, fear, promise of reward, catering to ego, pressure to conform, etc. Notice all the disclaimers in Questioner's statement along with the space such an approach makes around the other self, space for the other's free will to move by means of its own motivation and discretion, not by what you, the sharer, think the person ought to believe.
And as Questioner suggests, if the response you get from other is a "no" in any form, especially if they throw old cabbage and tomatoes at you, then it's probably best to respectfully back away and love that other self as they are, as perfect gestures of a perfect Creator, no matter how imperfect, stuck, flawed, close-minded, or lost you perceive them to be. (Not an easy one for me, let me tell you!)
A subject for endless exploration, indeed. Good question. : )
KYAYBC,
GLB
Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi