Acceptance and Will

[Monica]

I continue to maintain that this is not STO because it is not seeing the killer (other) as self. "for the sake of" is a distortion of the mother that she is holding onto a part of the illusion, and she does not want to let go, therefore she is serving her self interest.

You don't know that she isn't seeing the killer as self.

You don't know whether she is saving the children out of self-interest or out of love for the children.

Neither of these can be known, based on her outward actions.

However, I think I stated, when I offered the fictitious example, that for the purpose of illustration, we could assume that she was seeing the killer as self, and she was acting out of love, not self-interest.

In this hypothetical scenario:

The mother chooses, in that split second, to recognize the killer as self, and even has compassion for the killer. However, her love for her children prevails. Focused on that love, she chooses to act according to STO principles, which are to serve her children, rather than contributing to STS principles, and she stops the killer.

I invite you to let go of presuppositions and re-read what I just wrote, with an open mind.

It may very well turn out to be a positive vibration after the event, but there is no way we could know that because it could go either way.

The examples Ra gave of polarization were based on intention, not on outcome.

The choice is in the now. "stopping the killer", in the now, is a polarization toward the negative.

There is simply no way any of us can make such a blanket statement. Actions alone don't determine polarization.

---

I suggest we leave examples or analogies involving family/blood relations outside the ambit of tough topics. It can needlessly provoke the intended reader, and taint the river of harmony that we want to see here flow.

How else can we dig deeply into these difficult questions, if not with fictitious illustrations? Examples make the intangible concepts tangible.

---

They acknowledged the 'service' of the orion entity without resistance but did not accept it.

There it is right there. Why are we still discussing this? Either we choose to accept Ra's guidance on this or we don't. This isn't one of those ambiguous cases subject to myriad interpretations; Ra's choice and explanation of that choice were very clear.

We can think of acceptance and will (your intentions) as being on two ends of a line, with a slider in between them, setting how much acceptance in relation to will and vice versa. I think one's determination of ethics determines where the slider will lie.

Excellent illustration! This is what I was trying to convey when I said both free will and acceptance must be taken into consideration.

And thanks Monica

Thank you!

---

that wouldnt matter - in your current situation, you dont know whether you have made an arrangement as such or not, and you need to act on the best principles as possible in compliance with your path. blind flight, during which you only have your high principles to guide you.

Exactly! Nor do we know what the killer will do in the future, or what the children will do in the future. The killer might repent and turn into a saint, or he might kill more people. The children might facilitate world peace or end starvation, or they might grow up to be killers. We have no way of knowing any of that at this point; therefore, we are not responsible for those eventualities.

We are only responsible for acting on our highest principles.