"The experience of no need to find the necessary emolument."

[xise]

Alright it seems there is a significant miscommunication here... When I wrote to you last night Icipher, what I meant, and I will repeat for the second time, is that Adonai One tends to play around and exaggerate sometimes in his posts. I PMed you because you seemed to take his posts very literally when they were simply meant to be taken in jest. He doesn't truly believe there is only a void. I was hoping to dissipate some confusion and ended up creating more, ha... He is not trolling, simply talking in extremes to be humorous and cause reflection, thinking. He was well aware I wrote you.

I haven't read this entire thread, so I can't comment on what's going on in this thread.

But in reference to what vervex is talking about here - "talking in extremes to ... cause reflection" reminds me of playing devil's advocate - a method I find very useful in analyzing a particular thought or concept.

Wikipedia - Devil's Advocate:

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.

[Icipher]

Oh, I am absolutely not labeling Adonai STS. Nor am I judging his intent.

Vervex has elucidated his intent. Although, I would have appreciated Adonai himself chiming in instead, "Oh hey just kidding guise". Perhaps this would have come across as more loving.

I feel strongly that misleading others is a poor way to encourage knowledge. I'm sure Adonai views his intentions as STO, but so far his actions only serve himself.

[reeay]

I think the label STS is often used to describe actions that appear to be manipulating and controlling. Tho, STS would imply there was intent to go all 'Joffrey' onto people (you know, Game of Thrones).

I am not sure what the purpose is in playing devil's advocate - it's emotionally provocative. Sure, people can say 'well it's going to help you to tell you about catalyst that needs to be attended to', yet there is a degree of dishonestly here bc the other is unaware of what is happening. Bit of a power play here.

Playing devil's advocate and this notion that one is enjoying a playful moment and amusement at the expense of other's passionate and honest beliefs around something doesn't seem balanced to me.

Personal opinion.

[Adonai One]

Well, for future notice: I don't really take arguments seriously with a tangible goal in mind, an expectation of formality, if you will. I just consider it social discourse.

You can ask my wife about the man behind the keyboard. While I support honest discourse that has an attainable goal of intelligible sharing, beyond that, I don't find myself too sobered by the idea of "not taking things seriously enough." I am not the guy who has a sense of honor in this regard.

I just like talking and getting to know people. I'm just expressing myself in a very detached manner.

Mystical semantics and non-sequiturs will push my buttons though because it's just avoiding the discussion while pretending to be in it.

---

Additionally, it seems sarcasm needs to be denoted. I thought it was obviously sarcasm.

[Bring4th_Austin]

This is rather off-topic, if this discussion goes too far I'll probably move it to its own thread, or put it in Cognitive Distortions.

I am a pretty big fan of the idea of playing a Devil's Advocate with in depth discussions. It can be used irresponsibly, in the way reeay is talking about, where if a person is intentionally being emotionally provocative in order to amuse themselves rather than further the discussion. The idea of playing the Devil's Advocate is not to present emotional catalyst based on calculated statements, but to present an idea that is antithetical to another person's idea, or an idea to which an antithesis may be presented, so that the full range of discussion is made available and all viewpoints are presented. Sometimes it can be unconsciously used as an emotionally provocative tool when a discussion carries an emotional charge.

I've read Adonai's posts over and over and I'm struggling to really see what someone might consider "intentionally emotionally provocative." I also don't see what Vervex described as him "misleading" people. Is it not possible to present a counter argument and explore the logic of something without completely subscribing to what you are saying? How else can we explore new ideas?

I understand other people are seeing some dishonesty though. I think there is misunderstanding going on. I do see what could be a rather fruitful discussion of opposing viewpoints possibly changing into a personal matter.

In a discussion, if someone wants to counter Adonai One's ideas that he posts, it should be done by presenting a logical counter-argument to his idea. To start discussing Adonai One himself in order to delegitimize his statements derails the discussion, and ignores a very important part of the first guideline - "The participant may disagree to the bone with an idea without personally attacking the author of the idea."

[reeay]

I guess then, this humorous event was an epic fail (bc it wasn't humorous even reading this thread) and a source of misunderstanding.

Did you enjoy your popcorn?

[Ankh]

From the unpublished Ra material:*


Questioner: I've heard from [name] that there are actually 23 Archetypes. Can Ra comment on this?

Ra: I am Ra. We can.


[Ninety-second paus.]


Questioner: Will you please do it?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. However, there are few of your people who will find this additional Archetype, twenty-three, helpful in their learn/teaching.


Questioner: Can you tell me more about this Archetype?

Ra: I am Ra. We can.


[Sixty-second paus.]


Questioner: Will you please do it?

Ra: I am Ra. This Archetype has been taught to a race of your planetary kind which you call Egyptians. Your people called this Archetype "The Drama Queen", or sometimes "The Devil's Advocate". We prefer to call it "The Great Distortion of the Mind". After we taught this Archetype to the priests and peoples of that era, we found that this teach/learning quickly distorted their mind complex. After we spoke to one who heard and understood our message, this entity instructed to destroy all knowledge of this Archetype. However, there are some who still remember this teaching, such as the entity known as [name].


Questioner: Can Ra tell me why this Archetype is so dangerous?

Ra: I am Ra. We can.


[Fifteen-second paus.]


Questioner: Will you please do it?

Ra: I am Ra. This Archetype, the Drama Queen, is dangerous because it greatly distorts the mind complex of the already distorted mind complexes of your people. We found that the tools which have been helpful to our people, such as a pyramid, as you call it, and the twenty third Archetype, instead increase the distortions of the mind complexes of your people.


Questioner: Can Ra tell me in what way this Archetype increase the distortions of the mind complex of our people?

Ra: I am Ra. We can.


[No paus.]


Questioner: Will you please do it?

Ra: I am Ra. This Archetype, The Distortion of the Mind, is designed to teach/learn the vagaries of the infinite nature of the mind complex. However, among your people this instead creates an increased distortions towards what you would call drama.


Questioner: I have an image here of what might be the Drama Queen Archetype. Is this picture correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This picture will do. You will notice an image of what seems to be the Drama Queen. The student will ponder that the Infinite Nature of the mind, or Distortion of the Mind, may be seen in this way. Among your people the studies of this Archetype, or an unconscious contact with this Archetype, manifests itself as what you would call dramatic interpretation of experience, or acting out in a dramatic way. It must instead be understood and accepted. This takes patience and experience which can be analyzed with care, with compassion for self and for other-self.

We ask you, who have been our friends, to not share this information.


______________________________________________________

I guess then, this humorous event was an epic fail (bc it wasn't humorous even reading this thread) and a source of misunderstanding.

Don't blame me for not trying!

_______________________________________________________

*This post is a joke and is designed to bring at least a smile on faces of the readers.

[Unbound]

Mod note: the following 60 posts have been split from the Cognitive Distortions thread as they are a fully fledged conversation about an important topic.

The thread title is just a bit of Ra humor

---

Power and authority dissipate as a concept when all is seen as one being. Whether that can occur in this density or not should be discerned by the individual human subject.

Well, in the working world of human relationships this is a catalyst available for experience, so it may seem that dissapating is the goal but really, it's a yellow and orange ray learning playground here so why not accept the catalyst?

If the self is analogous to the Infinite One as microcosm to macrocosm then wouldn't the structure of the universe be reflected in our bodies, just as our mind and spirit is, and our body in them? Certainly, all parts of the body are equal in their importance or "relevance" (depending on your belief of vestigial organs though, I suppose) in terms of the totality of the self as one being but their function and the relationships that exist between them are more complex and not so much "unequal" as in a dynamic equilibrium. The parts of the self exchange energy with other part always in an attempt to maintain homeostasis. This happening between individuals is a macrocosm of the individual's community of cells. The macrocosm beyond that would be the planet as part of the solar system.

My point here being that "authority" (authorship, imo) is really the right of the sovereign and thus in a world of all sovereign beings then that authority always then rests with the self. However, as sovereign beings we are also intelligent, capable and aware enough to be able to notice what our relationship with the next expansive level of reality (e.g, family > community > planet > solar system) that we are experiencing is.

May I ask you, my dear friend, Immanuel, though I vastly agree with you that you are not under any requirement or obligation to do anything ever by anything, are you doing all that you are capable of doing? You are right that you don't /need/ to do anything, whether they are things you want to do or not. However, that doesn't mean you are doing everything that is within your full capacity to do, the height of your potential. This is especially true if our individual potential is indeed infinite. I am curious to know how you would gauge or perceive or judge your own estimation of the use of your full capabilities?

[Parsons]

Apologies, I am a bit behind in the thread.

I am not sure what the purpose is in playing devil's advocate - it's emotionally provocative. Sure, people can say 'well it's going to help you to tell you about catalyst that needs to be attended to', yet there is a degree of dishonestly here bc the other is unaware of what is happening. Bit of a power play here.

Playing devil's advocate and this notion that one is enjoying a playful moment and amusement at the expense of other's passionate and honest beliefs around something doesn't seem balanced to me.

I agree. I think there is a time and a place to play Devil's Advocate, but I feel it is vastly overused. I typically very carefully digest a concept before I discuss it. So I tend to get annoyed when someone brings up a devil's advocate argument against me when I have already considered said viewpoint and discounted it.

Mystical semantics and non-sequiturs will push my buttons though because it's just avoiding the discussion while pretending to be in it.

I also get very annoyed when someone starts arguing semantics of a metaphysical term when I am trying to have a meaningful discussion.

[AnthroHeart]

My job is pretty chill. Have to give a presentation every so often. May have to manage a project in the future.
Otherwise I get to work from home 4 days a week. I could do 5 days, but I like to come in on Fridays.

[Regulus]

..I believe unconditional love towards the self is just as important as love towards others

“We say to you, my friends, that you must love yourself. Not because your ersonality has any virtue or because your ego, as you call it, needs shoring up by means of a selfindulgent love. No, my friends, we are speaking of a love that is one with the Creator” —Hatonn, May 1979
—

To vervex:

February 18, 1979
Questioner: Thank you
Those of Latuah/Latwii: Oh, we thank you, my brother. Without your questions we’d be flying around up here with nothing to do

And all the majesty of mother Earth without her children to receive, to share with, would have nothing to do as there are none to personally appreciate her work and thus without others to love, her love unfelt, reflection unseen, her spiritual advancement minimal. Applied to your case, vervex, you have the better end of the deal on a contract seemingly unfair to one for:

..the more deeply committed that you are to finding, feeling and freely giving to others the love that is in every situation, the more quickly you will become what you might call a conscious being, controlling your destiny, improving the harmony, aiding the vibration of your life

Similar merits recognized in the case of mother caring for her daughter. Rapid spiritual advancement is the exercise by which mental and physical hardships, tears and sweat are the natural cause/effect of intensive workout. Although rewards are not as obvious since we’re easily drawn in all the commotion, absorbed in our emotions causing us to reexamine ourselves and our ideals

The ideas among your people having to do with purpose are all accepted ambitions, and the ideas of greatness and dramatic accomplishment. But we say to you, my friends, that your purpose is to love and to share. The details matter not..

—lost in our small details of daily life—of social programing, straying far away. Where do we go to find ourselves

How far can we go with you, my friends? Through how many dimensions can we take you until you are in a place of light where things begin, where things end, where things are. You see, my friends, we wish to answer your questions as best we can, but we wish you to realize more than all else that questions and answers are meaningless. Feelings and emotions are meaningless. All of the tools with which you are familiar at this time are not helpful outside your locality. You have one useful attribute, and that is the quality of your love. Have you loved today?

As is and always has been matters of the heart. How could one have the heart to stand by and watch his wife labor when he could do something about it
—

To A1:

On your respite that is a serene island, pondering clouds that come and go, accept that which has arrived upon your shore and receive with grace—catch her should she ever fall

Express in your own special way, though allow us to encourage you to work on all things necessary keeping you both afloat as there is faith that many here mean well and would like to see you well

We wish both of you the best as we love each and every one of you with your own unique vibrations, your light, incomplete if missing just one for you have colors that I do not


-Regulus

[Icipher]

I agree with all points Regulus made, and would echo thus: there is no higher ideal than sacrificial love. Not giving up anything, but cleansing yourself of the false belief, the distortion, that you are separate from others and that there is even an ego to deny in the first place.

This 51% defines the Service to Others path. Those clinging to ego love being "just as important" as universal love are distorted in the direction of a red-ray blockage wherein they feel threatened at the concept that love of others may supplant love of self. Fear not, my kin. There is nothing to fear, and all to gain.

Hey comrade
What will it be like on the day that we face our mortal life
We're all given the misfortune of loss
But that's a gift we call impermanence

We don't own our work
We don't own the Earth at all

We're eternal Nunc Stans soldiers
The eternal warriors

We're accountants in the firm of life
Entrusted with a body, heart and mind
Hey comrade, did I love well?
Have I learned to live moment to moment?

We don't own our work
We don't own the Earth
We don't own our minds
We don't own anything at all

We're eternal Nunc Stans soldiers
The eternal warriors

It was not death
It was not life
It was love...

[Adonai One]

"You. The world. It’s only a matter of discovering the lever. If you learn how to rule one single man’s soul, you can get the rest of mankind. It’s the soul, Peter, the soul. Not whips or swords or fire or guns. That’s why the Caesars, the attilas, the Napoleons were fools and did not last. We will. The soul, Peter, is that which can’t be ruled. It must be broken. Drive a wedge in, get your fingers on it – and the man is yours. You won’t need a whip – he’ll bring it to you and ask to be whipped. Set him in reverse – and his own mechanism will do your work for you. Use him against himself. Want to know how it’s done? See if I ever lied to you. See if you haven’t heard all this for years, but didn’t want to hear, and the fault is yours, not mine.

There are many ways. Here’s one. Make man feel small. Make him feel guilty. Kill his aspiration and his integrity. That’s difficult. The worst among you gropes for an idol in his own twisted way. Kill integrity by internal corruption. Use it against himself. Direct it towards a goal destructive of all integrity. Preach selflessness. Tell man that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one has ever reached it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don’t you see what you accomplish ? Man realises that he’s incapable of what he’s accepted as the noblest virtue - and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness. Since the supreme ideal is beyond his grasp, he gives up eventually all ideals, all aspiration, all sense of his personal value. He feels himself obliged to preach what he can’t practice. But one can’t be good halfway or honest approximately. To preserve one’s integrity is a hard battle. Why preserve that which one knows to be corrupt already? His soul gives up its self respect. You’ve got him. He’ll obey. He’ll be glad to obey – because he can’t trust himself, he feels uncertain, he feels unclean. That’s one way.

Here’s another. Kill man’s sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognise greatness or to achieve it. Great men can’t be ruled. We don’t want any great men. Don’t deny conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, the difficult, the exceptional. Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept – and you stop the impetus to effort in men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection. Laugh at Roark and hold Peter Keating as a great architect. You’ve destroyed architecture. Build Lois Cook and you’ve destroyed literature. Hail Ike and you’ve destroyed the theatre. Glorify Lancelot Clankey and you’ve destroyed the press. Don’t set out to raze all shrines – you’ll frighten men, Enshrine mediocrity - and the shrines are razed.

Then there’s another way. Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It’s simple. Tell them to laugh at everything. Tell them that a sense of humour is an unlimited virtue. Don't let anything remain sacred in a man’s soul – and his soul won’t be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you’ve killed the hero in man. One doesn’t reverence with a giggle. He’ll obey and he’ll set no limits to obedience – anything goes – nothing is too serious.

Here’s another way. This is most important. Don't allow men to be happy. Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living. Take away from them what they want. Make them think that the mere thought of a personal desire is evil. Bring them to a state where saying ‘I want’ is no longer a natural right, but a shameful admission. Altruism is of great help in this. Unhappy men will come to you. They’ll need you. They’ll come for consolation, for support, for escape. Nature allows no vacuum. Empty man’s soul – and the space is yours to fill..."

- Ellsworth Toohey, The Fountainhead

[Fang]

I can guarantee this view will dissipate if you guys ever have children.

How about this, instead of focusing on the "self sacrifice" involved in working at wal-mart think of the lessening of the sacrifice others will go to, especially your wife, to support your lifestyle?

One month of experience at one job is hardly going to give an accurate reflection of the working lifestyle, who knows maybe you'll find something you really enjoy? All that said though there's basically no jobs around where I live, so if it's like this over there you'll probably get to be unemployed for a while whether you want to or not lawl

[Adonai One]

If my wife is ever truly sacrificing herself to be in my presence and share food with me, I'll happily go on my way, move back to Texas and find a job that doesn't kill my health that lets me work for less than 25 hours a week. I'll rent a studio apartment and find a new set of social contacts.

I will never support a relationship where anyone has to sacrifice for me and I shall never have a son or daughter and tell him/her I have sacrificed for them. May they spit in my face if I ever say such hateful words to them. Instead, I will call them -- in all honesty -- blessings and ask nothing in return for what I will freely give them. There is no sacrifice in what is inherently loved in unity.

[Sagittarius]

If my wife is ever truly sacrificing herself to be in my presence and share food with me, I'll happily go on my way, move back to Texas and find a job that doesn't kill my health that lets me work for less than 25 hours a week. I'll rent a studio apartment and find a new set of social contacts.

I will never support a relationship where anyone has to sacrifice for me and I shall never have a son or daughter and tell him/her I have sacrificed for them. May they spit in my face if I ever say such hateful words to them. Instead, I will call them -- in all honesty -- blessings and ask nothing in return for what I will freely give them. There is no sacrifice in what is inherently loved in unity.

If you work a job that kills your health as you say to be with your wife how is that not sacrificial by your own admissions. If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't make a dramatic note about it as some sort of justification.

If you have to prove/justify your intention it's hardly freely given is it. Perhaps some recognition of your own words about the "idea bullets" expressing that this and this will make you happy sounds like a bullet to the throat of the now to me. There are no small discretions but reciprocally there are no large discretions.

[Adonai One]

Can you make the first sentence clearer for me?

[Sagittarius]

I will never support a relationship where anyone has to sacrifice for me and I shall never have a son or daughter and tell him/her I have sacrificed for them. May they spit in my face if I ever say such hateful words to them.

and find a job that doesn't kill my health that lets me work for less than 25 hours a week. I'll rent a studio apartment and find a new set of social contacts.

[reeay]

I wouldn't mind having a partner who agrees to participate equally in the relationship by taking a specific role for the family, not necessarily going out there to work. That said, I would agree if the decision is due to the partners' commitment to chosen role, it is highly fulfilling & works for the family, fulfillment of responsibilities, and that it's not a way to avoid going out into the world bc partner doesn't sit well with the way the world works. Would want someone to do things that aligns with someone's highest potential, even if we're veiled from that potential (best guess). Then carefully thinking thru the practical stuff like how the family is going to eat and be housed.

Seems people are challenging you, Adonai, because you're a person w/ great potential with your intelligence and charm and thirst for learning. It's a great acknowledgment. They seem to be highlighting some trigger issues like authority, social expectations, your notion of sacrifice, conformity, being assimilated by borgs. Resistance is futile. I do understand that vervex believes in your potential and that is pretty amazing to have such faith in a person. I totally look forward to the development of you guys, the first marriage on b4th lol. Hope your heart & mind is open to potentials to understanding these catalysts. That was the original point when we went off-topic in Cog Dis.

lol re: drama queen archetype I fit that bill being a difficult diva

[Aaron]

This quote has bearing on this discussion, I think:

19.13 Questioner: I will make a statement with respect to my understanding, then, [and] ask if I am correct. There is a, what I would call, a physical catalyst operating at all times upon the entities in third density. I assume this operated approximately the same way in second density. It’s a catalyst that acts through what we call pain and emotion. Is the primary reason for the weakening of the physical body and the elimination of body hair, etc., so that this catalyst would act more strongly upon the mind and therefore create the evolutionary process?
Ra: I am Ra. This is not entirely correct, although closely associated with the distortions of our understanding.

Consider, if you will, the tree for instance. It is self-sufficient. Consider, if you will, the third-density entity. It is self-sufficient only through difficulty and deprivation. It is difficult to learn alone for there is a built-in handicap, at once the great virtue and the great handicap of third density. That is the rational/intuitive mind.

Thus, the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call it, was designed to distort entities towards a predisposition to deal with each other. Thus, the lessons which approach a knowing of love can be begun.

This catalyst then is shared between peoples as an important part of each self’s development as well as the experiences of the self in solitude and the synthesis of all experience through meditation. The quickest way to learn is to deal with other-selves. This is a much greater catalyst than dealing with the self. Dealing with the self without other-selves is akin to living without what you would call mirrors. Thus, the self cannot see the fruits of its beingness. Thus, each may aid each by reflection. This is also a primary reason for the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call the physical complex.

My thought on it is that the social groups that we form in our workplaces are a necessary part of third density catalyst. It's working this way because of the Logos' desire for third density evolution to take place in the most efficient way. It's necessary to deal with eachother, to discover what you give to, and what you get from the society in general, and your local community. It helps you discover who you are in the context of your society and culture.

[Adonai One]

The society and culture is defined by its individuals. We all define it by our choices, all choices even the ones that are not existent in the present day.

One man's vision can change the world in a day.

---

My point: I am humanity in what I choose to do in reflection of what it has taught me. You cannot consider any man less than human in his choices.

I am allowed to be who I am today directly by humanity. I am a choice of humanity just as the man that conforms to the mean. If a man chooses not to work, not to contribute, humanity chose that condition as well.

Every individual represents the whole.

[Parsons]

Here’s another. Kill man’s sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognise greatness or to achieve it. Great men can’t be ruled. We don’t want any great men. [...]

Here’s another way. This is most important. Don't allow men to be happy. Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. [...]

I readily perceive the game; I did not need that quote to notice the social manipulation.

I am a great man; a happy man, and I see the potential greatness in all men.

I work a 40 hour job at a call center who does not value it's employees. Yet I have found happiness in my existence.

If a person sweeps streets for a living, he should sweep them as Michelangelo painted, as Beethoven composed, as Shakespeare wrote.

Don't you see my friend? You can be free! You don't have to try to avoid their game, you can beat them at their game.

You can respond with love. For yourself, for them, for the ones they manipulate, and everyone else.

[Adonai One]

Parsons, am I not playing "the game" to my favor as we speak?

Additionally, congratulations.

[Ankh]

I've been wondering where I would post this, whether it would be in a new thread which I would create, or somewhere else, but since this discussion is the one which triggered both the catalyst, analysis of it, and perhaps now the transformation, I decided to post it here.

What I will tell now is highly personal, and I am going to be completely open about it, "without hesitation".

For 13 years I've been together with my husband, before we divorced. In the beginning, when he just moved to Stockholm, he moved to a place which I owned, and where already couple of other girls/friends lived. We viewed our home, at that time, as some sort of collective where our motto was "mi casa, su casa", which means "my home is your home". We tried to share everything with each other, in what I now believe was a pure wanderer spirit. When T, my future to be husband, moved in there, he was of the same thinking, but he didn't have any job nor education to pay even the rent. And so I paid it for him, cause I fell in love, and I knew in my heart he was a decent person who would rather die than screw me in any way. And indeed, he got a what some here would call a "slave" job, but he started to earn some money, and bring them home, to us all. During this time, him and I got together and became a couple.

Fast forward, after being together for 13 years, getting married, and getting a child, we divorced...

So I started to date other guys. And there has been different entities, and different distortions, each of them shocking me in different ways...

In order to tie this back to the original topic of this thread, my mom told me once, not so long ago actually, some few very wise words. She said something like: "Lana, you got lucky with T! He is that kind of person who will never screw you or anyone in any way. If you would give or pay anything to him, he would double this up, and pay it back twice, if not more. And you are just like him. You would never screw anyone either. If someone would give you or pay anything for you, you would just give them back twice if not more. So you both got very, very lucky when you met each other. But you are also naive (that happened when I experienced a certain catalyst of dating a guy who was not like T), and you think that everyone are like T. They are not! You need to wake up and see people as they are!"

Some time after that I met a person who became my best friend just in a matter of couple of days or weeks. After a very short time, it felt like we have known each other our whole lives. This person, let's call her A., has taught me how to accept and love all people, all catalyst, and all things *in real life*! This far, I have only been reading this in the Ra material, trying to practice in manifestation, but I have never seen any physical person doing it! I have been having just theorical knowledge without actually ever meeting a person who would show me *how*. And there she came! An amazing, glorious wanderer woman, who just had it in her nature, without reading a single word in the Ra material! How about that...

I have known her for over a year now. But in order to once again tie this to the topic of this thread, she has a trait which has both fascinated and upset me.

She has an ex-hubby with lots of money, like I do, but she thinks that it is completely ok to demand him to buy things both for their daughter, and for herself personally, and her new family with her new husband, or just simple ask him for money, because he has more than her...?

In the beginning, I was completely opposed to it, thinking that no matter how little I have, I will not ask for money from another self, regardless of how much money this other self has. Buuuut with time, after spending alot of time with her, and listening to her arguments which sounded more and more logical, I started to incorporate more and more of her "philosophy" in this regard. It started to make sense to me in some way?

I get so little compared to my ex-husband, so why shouldn't he pay for this...? and that...? and this...? and that...? and with time it turned into more and more... Not to the point of complete negativity, where I was draining him, but still to the point of him paying for things that I would never consider him to pay for before....

Now, to the main question, is this "right" or is this "wrong"? He didn't suffer from it, so it *can* continue, so why not to continue this?

Well, as we know, there is no right or wrong. What is proper distortion for one, is improper distortion for another. So my unique, personal, answer to this is that this lies completely within each mind/body/spirit complex. What Adonai One finds acceptable, I find unacceptable. What my friend, A finds acceptable, again I find unacceptable.

This catalyst has been slowly growing inside of me, and now I think I found myself! I will now go back to my former self, demanding *nothing* from my wonderful ex-husband, no matter how much money he has, and going back to what I find joy in, and that is *giving*, not receiving!

I have always found joy that even when I have so little money, I buy expensive gifts for my ex-husband for instance (and they are expensive not because of showing off the money it costed for me for him, but simply because he enjoys expensive stuff, so I buy what he likes because I know he will like it, not becasue they are expensive). And I pay everything back to him, would he ever need to help me out with anything sometimes. And he does the same.

So thank you, my best friend A, although you will probably never read this post, and thank you, Adonai One and vervex, for this amazing and needed catalyst of finding myself, and dare I even say a *magical* catalyst of showing me who I am!

I love you all! Thank you.

And there is even a Ra quote about this:

"All are the Creator. There is one vast panoply of biases and distortions, colors and hues, in an unending pattern. In the case of those with whom you, as entities and as a group, are not in resonance, you wish them love, light, peace, joy, and bid them well. No more than this can you do for your portion of the Creator is as it is and your experience and offering of experience, to be valuable, needs be more and more a perfect representation of who you truly are."

The thing is that Ra talks about a negative entity in the above piece, but in third density people don't need to be of negative orientation, they can just be of an orientation which is simply not of a resonance with your own path. With time, and patience, perhaps, one can accept their choice (what other choice do we have than acceptance?), but you can just simply say "love and light and peace, brother/sister" and move on to a vibration which is of more resonance, or more of a "representation of who you truly are". Another quote that I thought of was this:

"The seeker seeks the One. This One is to be sought, as we have said, by the balanced and self-accepting self, aware both of its apparent distortions and its total perfection. Resting in this balanced awareness, the entity then opens the self to the universe which it is. The light energy of all things may then be attracted by this intense seeking, and wherever the inner seeking meets the attracted cosmic prana, realization of the One takes place."

Peace, love, light and joy, my brothers and sisters.

[xise]

Demanding, requesting, and accepting freely given gifts are all different types of receiving.


I'm not cool with demanding, but I know I'm completely ok with accepted freely given gifts. Making requests without expectation I think I'm ok with, but I think expectation and requests can be hard to untangle sometimes. Also have to be careful that your request is done in such a way that the other person doesn't feel obliged and truly understands you accept whatever decision. I would actually say that most of my prayers as well as donation requests fall into the making requests without expectation category. I'm cool with giving donations, as well as receiving them upon request. I'm also generally comfortable with spiritual prayer requests from the universe as I am with physical material requests from other human beings. For me, the underlying theme is not trying to control other's or infringe on their free will in any way. Demanding is on the other side of this line for me, while requesting without expectation and accepting gifts is not.


Of course, giving is different than all of three of the above.


I like to give material things; I like to receive material things. I like to give love, and receive love. I'm all about spreading and sharing the wealth and love, in every which way. After all, we're all one and the same

[Aaron]

The society and culture is defined by its individuals. We all define it by our choices, all choices even the ones that are not existent in the present day.

One man's vision can change the world in a day.

---

My point: I am humanity in what I choose to do in reflection of what it has taught me. You cannot consider any man less than human in his choices.

I am allowed to be who I am today directly by humanity. I am a choice of humanity just as the man that conforms to the mean. If a man chooses not to work, not to contribute, humanity chose that condition as well.

Every individual represents the whole.

My only point with what I said was, to tie into the discussion on page one, that you might be denying yourself potentially valuable catalyst by choosing to not engage yourself in a workplace situation because there is quite a difference between seeking the self in solitude vs. seeking the self in a social group environment. It's the nature of this creation that we're dependant on eachother while we're here. It's the choice of the wanderer to seek in solitude or to seek with respect to the inherent connections we have with others, especially those closest to us and most affected by us.

Of course, each entity generates its own catalyst, and you're generating what's most valuable for you. And beyond that there is the fact that "each Wanderer, in offering itself before incarnation, has some special service to offer in addition to the doubling effect of planetary love and light and the basic function of serving as beacon or shepherd." I have met at least one wanderer who had somewhat severe problems merging with the society in that way... job, car, and all that. But the more I got to know him the more it seemed like his unique service as a wanderer was a more art-focused career path, and if he were to concentrate on trying to achieve and maintain the status quo like that, he might lose sight of the fire within him, which he was barely beginning to discover.

But then even knowing that one's own unique service as an awakened wanderer is something that lies far beyond the constraints of society, how does one approach that in respect to the shared connections we have with eachother? (That question was not directed at you in particular)

[Adonai One]

We seek what we resonate with and leave what we cannot give to ourselves.

I don't reject humanity entirely because I reject being in a job that requires much of my time.

[michael430]

[deleted]

[Phoenix]

Post deleted.

[Ankh]

I saw this on Facebook, and thought that this would fit here:



michael430, I reacted very strongly too. It felt like a slap in the face, as someone so eloquently put it.

Our whole existence is possible *because* of hard work and efforts of other people in the past, and in the present. Adonai is not the first one bringing this catalyst, and he will probably not be the last one either. Gary asked him once if he acknowledges the fact that his existence is possible because of hard work of other people, but he never replied to that. I think that this is what I reacted at most. Some people (and as I said, Adonai is not the only one) just don't recognize that their existence is based upon work of others.

Some people have money, or in some other way are being supported by others, and they can do "whatever they want to", while telling others that they are slaves under our salaries, companies, governments and whatnot. But as it is said in the above image, it is not about that. It is about *people*, and as you also so eloquently put it: "My job and family are not my "masters" who will whip or kill me if I decide to leave them. I am so fortunate to have a job and family that both make me feel important, loved, respected, and keep me well-fed and emotionally supported." That is what's important.

Much love.