The Law of Responsibility

[Sacred Fool]

[quote pid='237469' dateline='1514049275']

Hi, Jade.

Reading your thoughts, as it were, brings to mind Ra's comment on Martin Luther King, saying, as I recall, that he was more focused on third ray, not fourth ray issues: that is, on social responsibility, not spiritual responsibility.  Granted that these two can be inter-twined, I'm wondering how you view the emphasis of your (and Leo's) commitments.  Do you view them as working more on a social or on a spiritual level?  Do they appear more yellow or more green, so to speak?

I'm not surprised you are reminded of MLK, as he was very heavily influenced by Tolstoy! But, I don't see what you are referring to as far as what you seem to remember. This is the only quote about MLK that I know of that Ra made:

34.9 Questioner: Thank you. Would you give me the same type of information about the self in relation to the societal self?

Ra: I am Ra. The unmanifested self may find its lessons those which develop any of the energy influx centers of the mind/body/spirit complex. The societal and self interactions most often concentrate upon the second and third energy centers. Thus those most active in attempting to remake or alter the society are those working from feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration. This may be seen to be of a full travel from negative to positive in orientation. Either will activate these energy ray centers.

There are some few whose desires to aid society are of a green-ray nature or above. These entities, however, are few due to the understanding, may we say, of fourth ray that universal love freely given is more to be desired than principalities or even the rearrangement of peoples or political structures.

34.10 Questioner: If an entity were to be strongly biased toward positive societal effects, what would this do to his yellow ray in the aura as opposed to an entity who wanted to create an empire of society and govern it with an iron fist? What would be the difference in the yellow-ray activity of these two entities?

Ra: I am Ra. Let us take two such positively oriented active souls no longer in your physical time/space. The one known as Albert, who went into a strange and, to it, a barbaric society in order that it might heal. This entity was able to mobilize great amounts of energy and what you call money. This entity spent much green-ray energy both as a healer and as a lover of your instrument known as the organ. This entity’s yellow ray was bright and crystallized by the efforts needed to procure the funds to promulgate its efforts. However, the green and blue rays were of a toweringly brilliant nature as well. The higher levels, as you may call them, being activated, the lower, as you may call them, energy points remain, in a balanced being, quite, quite bright.

The other example is the entity, Martin. This entity dealt in a great degree with rather negative orange-ray and yellow-ray vibratory patterns. However, this entity was able to keep open the green-ray energy and due to the severity of its testing, if anything, this entity may be seen to have polarized more towards the positive due to its fidelity to service to others in the face of great catalyst.

(I added the previous quote for context in the discussion as well)

Being that Tolstoy was an anarchist, I don't think he believed that rearranging social structures was the answer to our problems, quite the contrary. He believed that each individual person taking responsibility for nonviolence and total selflessness towards others (turn the other cheek) was what would transform society.

I think we incarnated to work with the yellow-ray sphere, directly, hence this is part of our honor/responsibility, since the yellow ray sphere of this planet is severely distorted. I do not see the yellow ray as less spiritual. The yellow ray must be functioning properly for the green ray to be activated, work that still is in progress on this planet.

I'm happy to further elaborate if this doesn't clarify your question!

My understanding of the Law of Responsibility is that when we know better, we should do better.


As far as Greta, Ra uses some weird wording, but basically what they are saying is that the closer that one gets the purity, the more care they have to take with being pure. If you stand close to the light, and then get lazy about it, your Higher self will give you catalyst/lessons/"workings" (which seems to refer to a negative greeting) that give you the catalyst to either return to a higher form of loving nature, or continue basically to be mean to others/the self. Ra goes on to say that this is the value of others who reflect negative internal states: So that we can see ourselves in our negativity, and adjust/correct. Otherwise, if you start to slip too much to "the dark side", you will surround yourself with sycophants who never challenge you, and avoid those who do, and then you lose that ability to check yourself.

Sorry I wasn't more clear about this.  What first struck me about the MLK passage was that I had theretofore considered him an exemplar of righteousness and was surprised to see him get a relatively poor "report card," especially next to Schweitzer whom I had regarded in the same way.  Pondering this led me to look more deeply into what I might suppose was their doing and their being.  It may be that, his prodigious doings aside, Schweitzer put more emphasis on the positive functioning of his energy system by giving concerts of J. S. Bach's music (for fundraising), many years of medical missionary work in Gabon and endeavoring to persuade his fellow Europeans to behave better towards those whom they have colonized.  Whereas King championed high ideals, he was also involved in numerous sexual affairs which may have had a negative aspect and was constantly working against difficult social catalyst, both within his ranks as well as that offered by his opposition.

What I'm trying to posit here is that their being had a lot more to do with their spiritual outcomes than their doings.  And so, when I look at Tolstoy's thoughts and your own account of your actions, I see more emphasis on positive doing than on the being aspect.  I see an emphasis on physical outcome rather than the heart or throat centered response--if it's even possible to see such things.

Well, what's the difference if the actions are positive, I'm wondering?  It would seem that developing dependable fluidity and balance in the lower energy centers so that more energy is available to respond to catalyst from the higher centers is more significant than worrying about responsibility in terms of do's and don't's, in terms of what appears true or false.  Or maybe it's not that simple?  But congruency of being seems more important than congruency of action, yes?  No?  At what point does focusing upon this distinction really matter?

[/quote]
Aside:  It's very interesting to see in the MLK passage that a person can polarize both negatively and positively in a single lifetime.