Question regarding the Law Of Free Will

[rva_jeremy]

It is never an infringement to send pure love/light, formless and without expectation. A universe saturated in love/light would, according to that hypothesis, be infringing on somebody just by pure fact of being.

technically, it does. the distress the entity is in, may have been chosen pre-incarnation in order to effect various things. by supplying that entity with various energies and changing the energetic situation, it is possible to remove or dampen the dynamics that the entity was going to use as potential to make various choices.

That is not how I understand these matters, my friend. Why is one catalyst experienced by an entity deemed "chosen" and another "not chosen"? Why is an encounter with an other-self suddenly not itself valid catalyst? This seems like trying to reduce an entity's experiences to "valid catalyst" and "invalid catalyst" without justifying the assertion or accounting for the limited vantage point of the judging party.

Let's attack this from another angle. Can you give me a better idea of what you think infringement is, in essence?

moreover, any kind of energy always carries the imprint of the source that had reflected or generated it. in the end, it gets generated or reflected by that particular source. it will carry the characteristics emanating from that focus.

I don't disagree here; I just don't see it as significant. The infringement, to my understanding, does not arise because the love/light has a signature. The infringement arises in essence when the love/light is offered with conditions or expectations. That said, there are very few pure radiations of love/light in our density, of course.

What does not ring true to me, with all due respect, is the idea that radiation of love/light itself is something that should be withheld. I might be wrong about that, but that's my gut feeling. I think this is explained in a Ra quote I'll look for.

its rather uninformed to think that green ray compassion (or blue ray, indigo ray, violet ray even) would just be all-in one joker that would work in any situation and be compatible with everyone. if it was, there wouldnt be many confederations in a galaxy that has 67 million (ra's number approx) conscious planetary bodies. there would only be one.

I agree that it seems like a silver bullet, at least to one who places a great deal of emphasis on wisdom and the nuanced employ of our capabilities. I disagree most fervently, my friend, that it is for that reason uninformed. I shall back this up when I have a moment to research.

Thanks for your feedback, unity100!

---

I've found a few quotes so far here and here but I don't consider them unimpeachable references. I'll try to look around because I really feel like Ra addressed this directly at some point.

Let me ask you this: assume I have committed to respecting the first distortion to the greatest extent possible in third density. As such, I am recognizing a duty to my otherselves to not engage in actions that infringe upon their free will choices. Given this background, are you suggesting that it contradicts my commitment to simply radiate love/light - at least, to the extent that avoiding infringement is possible in third density?

I find this a specious claim because:

1. that would effectively infringe on my free will. If an other-self has the "right" to experience their distortions without infringement by others, then to the same extent, so do I. To say I must change my being to cease radiation, when this is just about the most basic activity possible, simply in order to respect another's free will seems ridiculous.
   
2. if it is true that an other-self's distortions and catalyst are indeed chosen, then my offering of love/light is yet another element from which they can choose their response. You're suggesting I never give them anything to work with unless specifically requested, it seems like, when by my very nature I provide catalyst just by being.
   
3. offering undifferentiated love/light is not undermining catalyst. They still have to work through their issue. Even accepting love/light, they still have to use it, and they can certainly choose to reject it. Infringement, in my view, comes from limiting choice, and I don't see how a pure radiation of love does this.
   

Perhaps you can shed some light on this, my friend, as your assertion hits me where it hurts, so to speak. If you are indeed right, I have some serious reflecting and re-evaluating to begin! I appreciate your patience and kind understanding.