To the truly balanced entity no situation would be emotionally charged.

[godwide_void]

@Shin'Ar: By Lower Consciousness I take it you refer to the portion of self which is still bound to the material world and prone to act upon egoic desires, seeking self-gratification but not in the negative sense of pursuing such at the expense of others or using others to achieve your own ends, but as in pursuit of experiences which please the "I" such as relaxing, eating, masturbation, ingesting substances, for a few vague examples but ones that do not necessitate interaction with others as to allow the manifestation of these experiences, and mainly still retaining an outlook upon the world which still draws from illusory aspects of perceptions governed by the illusion we find ourselves in.

By Higher Consciousness I take it you mean that state of being in which one is completely and wholly aware that the "I" they perceive themselves as is the awareness of God and is essentially a pure, untainted and immovable being.

I'd like to hear your distinct definitions of the two however, as the above are just my brief interpretations of it.

---

Love this thread and the discussion being had. I've found Ra's balancing advice to be the most useful information from the material in my life. It has helped bring me a lot of peace.

Whenever I talk to people about the idea of balance meaning no emotional charge, they seem worried about the idea of becoming an emotionless, indifferent robot or something. I think Ra's words here are very important to remember when talking about "no emotional charge":

41.1
...The end result is that the catalyst 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 want to point out that just as there is a distinction between loneliness and solitude, so too is there a difference between apathy, being an emotionless zombie, and acquiescence, unattachment to things (not aversion, just neither grasping nor shying away from), the meditant stillness of ascetic monks or yogis. Indifferent mindless drones running on auto pilot are usually spaced out, sort of living unaware, allowing moments to fly by unnoticed. The meditant, to the outside observer, might be perceived as the former, but the difference is that where the former might be involuntarily "brain dead" or hold no emotion (or be emotionally unbalanced giving rise to random outbursts) the latter approaches the silence of mental activity of his own accord. Both take very contrasting routes in life but it appears that a similar destination is reached, but the similarity begins and ends only in the perceived "emptiness" of that state. The nature of that void-like disposition, how and why it came to be, and whether it is a beneficial (for the meditant) or detrimental (for the lifeless robot) conveys the true difference.

There are no "unnecessary" movements performed by the meditant, and by movements I am not speaking only in terms of physicality but emotional movement, mental movement, etc. It is inertia, but it is not stagnant in any sense. It is within this inertia that true progress is made possible.