06-23-2011, 02:02 PM
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: since it is 51% of entire energy of the entity, red, orange, yellow at least should be open. it leaves 3 other chakras - green, blue, indigo.
doing red, orange, yellow and moving into green with 1% seems to be the thing, as far as i understood.
Am I understanding you correctly that green needs to be only 1% open? I am very surprised by this! That is totally not how I understand it! My understanding is that green must be 51% open for STO harvest.
With only 1% open, STO/STS would lose their meaning.
I don't have time right now to research quotes. Maybe we can start a new thread on this topic later (unless there is already one).
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote:Quote:It's a continuum. Just as we must individuate in 2D, in order to be harvestable to 3D, and then unify in 4D, so too must we first learn to love family, and then move beyond that, to love all.
That's not elitism. It's just the path of evolution. Sure, it would be nice to instantly love everyone, but that's not how it works. We have to start loving, and it probably doesn't matter whom we love, as long as we love.
that's something that needs to happen in late 2d. not late 3d.
I didn't say anything about late 3D. I said individuation must occur in (late) 2D, in order to be harvested from 2D into 3D.
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: even in this orange blocked world there are tribes and societies which treat anyone's child as anyone's child, and mothers who treat anyone's child as their child.
if you look at the general spiritual literature and channelings for info regarding how some entities lived in their past in positive settings (not in this planet), or currently living, you will see the same pattern.
Good point. There are indeed cultures in which 'the whole village raises the child.' But that doesn't necessarily indicate that they love the children all equally. It may just be that they consider it their duty to look after one another's children.
As for other planets, well yes, we know that they had a smoother evolution. This planet is very backwards.
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: it is not irrelevant for an entity that needs to undergo harvest. i dont even know how to respond to 'and there's a reason for that' -> for everything there is a reason but that doesnt make it compatible with any particular path an entity may be wanting to follow.
What I mean is, there is a reason that we have family structures on this planet. It was designed to facilitate caring for others, with the idea being that, as one learns to love those close to him/her, the s/he can start expanding that love to others outside the family circle.
With this planet so behind, it was probably decided that expecting the 3D entities to love others equally was too advanced, so starting with loving families was a way to progress towards the eventual goal of loving all.
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: its her responsibility to find a way to do both.
As I already stated, I absolutely agree that it's her responsibility to do both. As stated, I think she should work towards a livelihood that is in alignment with her values. However, I disagree that she should quit her job, leaving her children in need, before she has found a suitable replacement. That would be irresponsible.
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: let me ask you why it should ?
Because this entire game we play, is to facilitate our spiritual evolution. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that our awareness and intentions would be factors in how the cosmic laws are applied to us.
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: law of responsibility is something that stems from simple action-reaction. any action is a reaction.
I disagree. I think it is more than mere mechanics. Consciousness plays a part in this.
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: there is no differentiation in the eyes of existential mechanics like 'he is just...'. your cat still killed another 2d entity, and that set out dynamics in that direction. those dynamics fill return to your cat eventually.
Are you saying that cats incur karma when they kill birds?
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: one would wonder at this point why there is so much brutal killing of 2d entities in 2d on this planet.
Oh yes. As you well know, I am in agreement with you on that one! And doing what I can to change it. I fully intend to raise some hell about that, when I get the chance. I find the entire design of this planet barbaric! An experiment taken too far!
But again getting back to my point, I don't think a cat incurs as much karma when he kills a bird, as a human does when he kills a bird. There is an increase in responsibility, corresponding to the increase in awareness. I'm quite certain I read that in the Law of One, somewhere.
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: that mother is free to choose how to handle her responsibility. however, even if intentions and situations may change the response of higher self, complex totality, or social memory complex or its totality towards her act, law of responsibility will still act indiscriminately.
Yes, but do you see that the law of responsibility will also act on her irresponsible behavior in neglecting her children?
That is just trading one irresponsible act for another (and a much greater irresponsible act, in my opinion). I guess what I'm hung up on is your view that she should immediately quit her job. Or did I misunderstand you?
(06-23-2011, 07:43 AM)unity100 Wrote: there were multinational corporations, despite you could not legally say they were multinational in legal sense like today - there wasnt an east india company india as in a business entity in india, but east india company was doing business from india to london and usa. there were other, smaller globe spanning corporations doing business in all parts of the world. the employment of locals, other nationals was low, however present to some degree.
Ah. I will clarify what I mean by multinational.
The official definition is as you described: A company doing business in other countries, with a home base in some country, and branches in other countries.
But in practice, today's multinational corporations are so huge that they have no allegiance to any country. They exist outside of any national boundaries.