04-25-2011, 07:04 PM
(04-25-2011, 05:50 PM)Confused Wrote:(04-25-2011, 11:57 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: .... I remember a time in high school when the ex boyfriend of a girl I was dating came up from behind and bashed my head with a beer bottle and so on and so forth. (he was 6" taller and 80lbs heavier than I). I turned to him and shouted with surity "God bless you!".
I guess you turned into a true student of Jesus the Christ that day.
I can never do what you did. I am sure the universe is proud of you for your compassion and for your trust in it, 3.
All things good will come to you, friend, of which I am sure
(04-25-2011, 03:31 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Polarizing isn't occurring during observation.
Going strictly by the LOO, that definitive statement may have little support, 3. Of course, I don't know, but please consider the following --
Quote:42.1 Questioner: I am going to make a statement and ask you to comment on its degree of accuracy. I am assuming that the balanced entity would not be swayed either towards positive or negative emotions by any situation which he might confront. By remaining unemotional in any situation, the balanced entity may clearly discern the appropriate and necessary responses in harmony with the Law of One for each situation. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is an incorrect application of the balancing which we have discussed. The exercise of first experiencing feelings and then consciously discovering their antitheses within the being has as its objective not the smooth flow of feelings both positive and negative while remaining unswayed but rather the objective of becoming unswayed. This is a simpler result and takes much practice, shall we say.
The catalyst of experience works in order for the learn/teachings of this density to occur. However, if there is seen in the being a response, even if it is simply observed, the entity is still using the catalyst for learn/teaching. The end result is that the catalyst is no longer needed. Thus this density is no longer needed. This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love. This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions. Thus the entity is now able to become co-Creator of experiential occurrences. This is the truer balance.
I just thought I would reiterate this post.
"This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love."
even murder
(04-25-2011, 07:03 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-25-2011, 07:01 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Yes, but he is doing little to no polarizing.
How do you know that?
The LOO is full of neutral/stagnant polarization examples
I am jumping in to defend a hypothetical murderer for his right to murder with compassion for his viewpoint, and that's what this all boils down to. He is me, you are he.(04-25-2011, 03:20 PM)Icaro Wrote: In the above case, if you were a 3d being watching the situation play out you would protect the victim.
I think you are limiting yourself in reaching a conclusion when you say that "acting against" a sts act in a sto fasion is controlling the sts entity. If you had to word it in any way, I would liken it more to not allowing them to have dominance. This isn't necessarily controlling them..you are keeping them neutral. You are only moving on a scale between sts and sto. This is what we do every day as the differences between sts and sto interact. I'm off to work myself!
As I see it, the only way to disallow their dominance would be to not be dominated. The only way to not be dominated would be to see the love in the situation and not the need to manipulate or control the other in response. I think you and Monica are using a justification that does not incorporate true love.