Caring/Compassion/Sensitivity/Tact vs Lying/Faking

[Oceania]

do you think Ra could be a joker? really? you pwomise?

[3DMonkey]

Cats? Not me. They seem to be instinctual as insects and they seem to have really weird vision, like a constant LSD trip. I have been begging wife to allow us to get a couple pet rats.

(boy, sorry Steve, we are officially tromping on your memory now)

[Oceania]

that's not true! Cats are smart and intuitive and beautiful beings. and wise. and wonderful. stop dissing them!

[Namaste]

Cats? Not me. They seem to be instinctual as insects and they seem to have really weird vision, like a constant LSD trip. I have been begging wife to allow us to get a couple pet rats.

LOL!

We have two cats, boy and girl. I tend to think one is more 'advanced' than the other.

Boy, for example, is confident in his mannerisms - he figures things out. Girl on the other hand, looks as if, in each moment, she's a consciousness from another dimension that has just been teleported into a cats body on a strange physical earth. She constantly looks around as if to say "WTF?!" Cracks me up!

I love them both to bits :¬)

Ocean - I do think the contact is genuine :¬)

The point though, is that it might not be. The people who follow the Bible think that is genuine, the only way. This is no different, at all. In both cases, one is putting one's entire life in the words of another, balancing intellect and intuition (mainly intellect through fear on one case - i.e. [fear]I'm scared to go to hell, [logic]if I do this I don't need to be) in which to discern it's 'truthness'. People often look for external proof of another's truth, as they cannot validate it themselves.

Experience, however, needs no such proof. It simply is.

This is where 5th density comes into play. It's not an intellectual understanding, it's wisdom through experience. The experience of first, second, third, fourth and fifth densities.

Hurrah for experience! It is in fact, the entire point we're all conscious :¬)

[3DMonkey]

We have a couple cats that congregate in our front yard. One belongs to adjacent neighbor, she has only three legs and we watch her sitting in our trees many times. Gotta respect that. Then there's the black cat from across the way. Animal loving neighbors even refer to him as the bad cat. They pretty much own my front yard because it's the midpoint of their respective homes. They're cute. Black cat killed barn swallow babies when thy were preparing their first flight . Stupid cat. Didn't even eat them.

[Namaste]

Thats the nature of 2D life - instinct. It's the ape mentality that man crawls out of on his path of evolution. Much of this world is still in it!

[Aaron]

I'd like to point out something I learned awhile ago regarding discerning whether a person is STS or not.

We all have a mental concept of "person who is STS". This definition changes with time and experience. The problem lies in thinking in terms of unchanging states rather than spectrums, lines rather than circles. Say I am a blank slate 3rd density human, and I am polarizing towards STS. Well, the movement starts out unconsciously, and then becomes conscious. Furthermore, there is a range of behavior tied to this spectrum. How does one get from neutral 3D entity to STS polarized 3D entity? First, one must move through the stages of being a jerk, of being aggressive, of disregarding others' feelings, in order to later come to more conscious states of control and manipulations.

A couple of weeks after I joined the forums, I posted this thread which reflects this faulty black-and-white thinking and oversimplification of concepts:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=704

Someone who's a jerk isn't necessarily STS. It's not a prerequisite for it either... But they may be on their way to a state which we could all agree is "STS", or they may not... There are so many possibilities.

[Namaste]

I love the quote in your signature Aaron :¬)

[Monica]

sts needs to have exploitation of the other entity as an aim.

No it doesn't. Exploitation of an other-self is a characteristic of STS, but not the only one.

As its name implies, the most distinguishing characteristic of STS is Service to Self without regards to other selves.

In the process of serving Self, STS entities often end up exploiting other-selves. But exploitation of others isn't a prerequisite to be qualified as STS! Service to Self is the prerequisite.

this, has been the definition of sts.

You have confused an attribute of STS with definition of STS.

excuse me, but you cant redefine it.

I didn't. I fleshed it out, to distinguish attributes from definitions.

you cant just classify random undesirable acts that are manifestations of orange or yellow

You have misunderstood me, or haven't read all my comments. I specifically stated that undesirable acts are often ignorant or unconscious, and thus aren't necessarily indicative of negative polarity.

All of us have been guilty of sometimes losing our temper, yelling at someone, being curt or rude because we had a headache or were having a bad day, etc. All of those are within the realm of normal human experience and aren't indicative of negative polarity.

In other threads, I have even gone so far as to say that even violent criminals aren't necessarily STS. Many of them are just in extreme emotional and psychological pain, and passing their pain onto others. Many violent acts have been committed by severely messed up people, who, with some love, compassion and rehabilitation, were able to show remorse for their actions, forgive, heal, and even polarize STO.

Outward actions aren't good indicators of one's polarity. I had assumed that was a given, given what we know about one of the most outwardly vile entities on the planet, who didn't even make the grade for STS graduation.

I hope this clarifies what I wasn't saying.

Now, what I was doing, is countering your assertion that being brutally 'honest' with a young child, to the point of hurting that child and squashing her joy, is somehow desirable and even, in your words, "the right thing." You seem to insist that it is correct, appropriate, and even optimal for an STO-polarizing entity to disregard the feelings of an other-self and just tell them whatever you happen to feel or think, regardless of the possibility that you might be wrong, and regardless of the probability that you will severely hurt the entity.

That is what I am contesting.

OR, someone honestly expressing their feelings of extreme dissatisfaction in a politically incorrect manner, as sts.

I hope the above comments have clarified that that's not what I was saying at all.

something that is politically incorrect and rude in your society, is not as such in others.

You know that I have agreed with you in the past with the above assertion. I even defended your assertion by providing the example of the Chinese doctor's wife saying, "You go away now!" to her customers.

Of course, I agree with you that social norms vary from culture to culture and people often misinterpret well-intentioned comments for rudeness, because of cultural and societal differences.

However, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about doing whatever we can, from within our own cultural standards, to convey kindness, caring, compassion and consideration to others.

These are traits of an STO entity, and any STO entity can and will find a way to convey those traits, regardless of language barriers or cultural differences.

You seem to have been arguing that showing kindness, caring, compassion and consideration are unnecessary and even 'fake' and furthermore that brutal honesty is the 'right thing' for an STO entity.

---

Note: Post has been edited, to change are to aren't. (minor little detail!)

[Monica]

An entity who is less than 51% but making progress towards the 51% is polarizing towards positive, but not yet at the point of conclusively positive.

then that would mean that there can be NO positive 3d entity.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It's not an instantaneous occurrence, but a progression. 51% is just the minimum requirement. Many entities surpass that minimum, and may even have surpassed the minimum lifetimes ago, but chose to reincarnate in 3D again to help increase the harvest.

or, NO entity that is in early 3d, can be positively oriented.

It's possible that an entity could progress very quickly to positive in early 3D. Probably not likely, but always possible.

as i said, your effort to carry over 4d properties into 3d

Entities don't go poof and suddenly manifest 4D properties. It's a progression, begun in 3D. When an entity manifests enough (at least 51%) of the 4D properties, he is harvestable to 4D.

We discussed this previously on the Strictly Law of One > Advanced Studies > Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D thread (with which I will probably merge portions of this thread).

has basically redefined what positive means,

No, I haven't redefined anything. I simply have a different understanding of it than you do.

and totally delegated entire creation below end 3d into being non-positive/negative. congratulations. you had had basically removed the reality of positively inclined 3d societies, and even negatively oriented 3d societies that are present in orion confederation, from existence.

No, not at all. Those societies were inclined towards positive or negative, but still in the process of evolving and polarizing. Had they already completely polarized, they would have been classified as 4D, not 3D.

That's true. An entity who hasn't yet learned compassion might 'act like a jerk' unintentionally.

However, if the entity is aware of the feelings of others and still disregards them, then that is STS or polarizing in the direction of STS.

no it isnt. there are endless cases in which the entity may act like that, and if none of these involve desire for manipulation and exploitation of the entity for its own benefit, then it cannot be dubbed as a sts act.

Friend, I think you are very mistaken here. Again, those are indeed attributes of STS, but not the only attributes.

An absence of one or more attributes, does not negate STS orientation, if other STS attributes are present.

the reasons range from honesty

Looking at this alone, it's still STS. If Person A knows that his 'brutal honesty' will hurt Person B, but doesn't care, because he thinks honesty is necessary for his own development, then that is still STS, because he is putting his own development above the welfare of the other-self. It's still self-serving and shows a lack of green ray.

to dysfunctional behavior patterns.

I already addressed that. That falls in the category of not yet being evolved enough to care about others, despite any emotional or psychological deficiencies. Many people who were severely abused still end up being kind, loving, caring people.

being aware of the other entity's feelings does not mean that the entity will not act in any of these.

It's not enough to just be aware of the other-self's feelings. The STO-aspiring entity must also care about the other-self's feelings and well-being.

Certainly, at this late stage of the game, with harvest nigh, and knowing that all the souls presently incarnate are here because of seniority, it's reasonable to expect that any souls senior enough to be potentially harvestable, aren't in the category of 'not yet knowing'; thus if they behave in a cold, calloused way, it's because they are polarizing STS, not because they're ignorant.

Thousands of years ago, we might have given them the benefit of the doubt, but not now, so close to harvest.

precariously wrong.

entity may have problems in 4th suboctave of 3rd density. that does not make her a negative entity or negatively polarizing entity.

At this late stage, are you seriously suggesting that there are still entities who haven't even begun polarizing in either direction?

Obviously, there are still plenty of entities on the fence, who haven't polarized sufficiently in either direction to be harvestable. But even they have at least made some progress in 75,000 years. Maybe they are only 45% STO, or 85% STS. They aren't harvestable yet, but they have certainly polarized to some degree, to the point that they understand, at least subconsciously, the nature of their choice when they choose to be kind or cruel to an other-self.

you are exaggerating. or, the entity may have many other concerns in all other suboctaves than the 4th suboctave. that doesnt make the entity negative either,

I didn't say the entity was negative. I said it was leaning negative, polarizing negative.

you are carrying over properties of 4th DENSITY to 3rd density. this is another density.

I think you have segregated the densities too much. All attributes exist in all densities, but in potentiation. They don't just manifest all suddenly, as in poof. They manifest as the entity evolves. Different attributes are manifest more, and emphasized more, according to the density.

Again, this was discussed in the Strictly Law of One > Advanced Studies > Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D thread.

Any souls presently incarnate, aren't ignorant like a cat.

actually they are. the society is regressive towards orange, which was apparently a planet wide issue as Ra had dubbed the entire society as being in orange consciousness. when you are under the influence of a ray, you exhibit its properties.

You don't seem to allow for any progression. Also, we don't just magically go poof when we get to another density. It's an evolution and we go to the density we already resonate with. This is evidenced by what Ra tells us of the walking of the Steps of Light. The soul is already suitable for this or that density, and is placed accordingly. This means the soul has already developed those traits! In contrast to what you seem to be saying, which is that they obtain those traits when they are placed in that density. You have it backwards.

what is dubbed as kindness and compassion, however, differ in all cultures.

You are confusing expressions of kindness and compassion, with the actual kindness and compassion.

and the ways to exhibit those too. you people find telling someone directly that they are wrong, as something incompassionate in america. we dont think like that here. i didnt see any other culture so far among the ones i interacted on internet or in my life, with the same bias either. it is apparently an anglo-american cultural perspective.

You have said that 100 times and I have agreed, in matters of syntax. However, I emphatically disagree, in matters of caring about others.

No matter how you slice it, a mother saying something ugly to her child, and seeing the light go out of the child's eyes, is acting in a cold, calloused, uncaring way. Regardless of the reason, that is simply not acceptable for an entity aspiring to polarize STO.

Let's isolate the point here: The way she says it, her exact words, tone of voice, etc. might vary from one culture to another. Quit being hung up on that. The end result is, if the mother is uncaring, and knowingly hurts the child, that action, regardless of the words used, is incompatible with polarizing STO.

yes. but i have reconsidered, reassessed, examined my explanations and rationalizations, and saw that i was not wrong.

That's all fine and dandy. But, despite your best efforts, you might still be wrong.

you, on the other hand, have yet not provided any other explanation or reasoning, or mechanic or anything, other than 'maybe's.

That doesn't prove that you're right and I'm wrong at all. It simply shows that we have 2 different approaches.

Your approach is very similar to the Bible-thumper, who analyzes the book and decides what he considers the 'truth' then forms a rigid doctrine. Anyone deviating from that doctrine is considered a heretic. There is no room for disagreement or opposing interpretations. Yes, your approach is very similar to this.

My approach is different. I don't consider the Law of One a text for a religion, as the Christians consider their Bible. I don't consider it infallible, even though I personally resonate with it about 99%. But, most importantly, I don't consider it an authority. My own personal guidance is my only authority. The Law of One, however, is a blueprint for me, a guidelines, a wayshower. I am grateful for it and to those who made it possible. But my deep, inner knowing will not likely be changed because you 'prove' something in the text. In some cases, about certain details, sure, but not about important concepts like the nature of STS and STO. That understanding is stamped in my consciousness. I don't need Ra to explain that to me. I already understood it before I ever read the Law of One. The Law of One didn't introduce me to STS and STO; it just explained why we have STS and STO.

whereas i have assessed and considered all of your maybes.

I believe you have...with your intellect. But have tried considering them with your heart?

and you are now wanting me to consider that i was wrong.

Yes, I do, because I sincerely do believe you're wrong. Maybe not about that one word green or blue - I readily admitted I could be wrong on that - but about the concepts in general. I think you've missed the essence of what the polarities are all about.

But the reason I am inviting you to consider that you're wrong, is that I believe you are a sincere seeker, and I care about you. I really do.

However, if you choose to reject my suggestion, and remain rigid in your beliefs, then I accept that and honor and respect your choice.

However, I do ask that you do the same for others whom you think are wrong. Please grant them the same courtesy!

no - you WANT me to be wrong.

Nope. You are 100% absolutely WRONG on that. I don't 'want' you to be wrong! That is actually an offensive thing to say, unity. Why on Earth would I want you to be wrong? That would imply that I derive some joy from proving others wrong, as though an STS entity on a power trip!

No, I don't want you to be wrong. Neither do I 'want' you to be right. It is what it is. I have stated my views. It's up to you what you choose to do with what I've shared.

however, i have reconsidered, and in this situation, what i have had brought is much more clear than what you have brought.

In your mind. Not in mine.

And you still might be... wrong.

Notice I used the word might. That's because the Law of One isn't a religion and I refuse to make it such. I think you are doing it a disservice to keep trying to turn it into a dogma.

at this point you are even claiming wrongness on some quote that is found in the material you are relying in, without bringing any justification for its wrongness. despite, as i have explained, it complements much more deeper and advanced spiritual information in regard to creation.

I already provided my reasons for my speculations. The bottom line is, I really don't care whether the word was supposed to be green or blue. It really doesn't change my understanding of the polarities. But it sure seems to matter to you, because you seem to be relying solely on the books, rather than also incorporating your own personal guidance, resonance, and, there it is again - heart.

It seems almost as if you hadn't had 75,000 years of evolving here in 3D, never mind before that. Maybe you're new to this planet? But your conclusions seem very foreign to me, and I know they do to many others here also.

so, excuse me, but i cannot be wrong because you want me to be.

That's moot because I have no interest in whether you are right or wrong.

Nevertheless, you still could be wrong!

ok then interpret it differently, and make it one that doesnt revolve cultural traits that are found in america or britain.

I've already been doing that, throughout this entire discussion, and every other discussion I've ever participated in here at B4. Together, all of us have woven a tapestry that beautifully illustrates the Law of One, including any imperfections that each of us add to that tapestry.

Then why did Ra ask Don to be vigilant in detecting errors?

totally leaving aside whatever kind of aim don's social memory complex/totality and don, subconsciously may have arranged to be learned in this work for don's person, totally leaving out the fact that more alert and conscious participants would have more magical faculties manifesting, aiding with endless things ranging from intuition to psychic defense, being alert would provide the means for the questioner to feel more appreciated. an alert student/teacher is much more effective than one that has put his head on the desk.

That's mere speculation.

It seems much more logical to me that Ra asked Don to scan for errors, because Ra knew there might be errors.

You argue for the infallibility of Ra's words. Well, why aren't you taking this statement ("scan for errors") literally? Ra said, "scan for errors". Taken literally, Ra wanted us to scan for errors because there might be errors.

You argue for perfection of the source, but then you come up with a roundabout explanation about what Ra really meant in that very, very clear statement.

You can't have it both ways.

You have taken this discussion into a different direction. Initially, you stated that my mother did the right thing, implying, the right thing for an STO entity. I countered that by saying what she did was STS, not STO.

Now you are saying, no it wasn't STS.

However, that does not prove your original argument that what she did was actually 'the right thing' for an STO.

Please return to your original statement and explain how blatant disregard for a child's feelings can possibly be 'the right thing' for an entity attempting to polarize STO.

im not saying something as such. i expressed my opinion about your mother at that point. you have identified the behavior in particular as something sts. from that point on, i am discussing about that particular behavior, and telling you that it is not a sts behavior.

You are evading the question. You explicitly said, not once but at least twice, that my mother 'did the right thing.' Presuming that my mother was aspiring to polarize STO, that is an entirely different issue from whether it's STS or not. I would really like to know how you can justify hurting another entity as being 'the right thing' for an STO person.

sufficiently evolved, not sufficiently evolved ... a mother's instinct about its child, is not something that can be matched.

A healthy mother, sure. Unfortunately, not all mothers have a healthy, instinctual concern for their children. Thus, my mother's actions are subject to discussion about STS/STO, being that their presumed benevolence wasn't a given.

thats why she probably did a very big favor to you.

No, she didn't. She deprived me of one of the very few moments of joy in an otherwise horrible, miserable, traumatic childhood. That was despicable to do that, knowing how unhappy I was. One of the very few times I actually felt happy, she took it away!

Tell me again she "did the right thing."

apparently, she did not do the same about your acting didnt she.

That's different because I was older by then and no longer cared what she thought.

But actually, yes she did do the same thing; she told me I could never be an actress because I was too short.

The short part was ok, because it's true short women aren't wanted in the entertainment industry.

But, again, that's not the point. Kids dream. Dreams fuel their endeavors and that's how they learn and grow. The dreams of kids should not be squashed...and certainly not their joy or laughter.

Now, tactfully telling an 18-year-old woman who is under 5 feet tall that she won't likely succeed as a fashion model, is fine. Telling a 10-year-old child playing dress-up that she can never be a fashion model, isn't fine.

Tactfully telling an 18-year-old woman with a raspy voice that she might have trouble being an opera singer is fine. Telling a 10-year-old child whose voice hasn't even matured yet, and who is singing for fun, that her voice sounds terrible, isn't fine.

i wonder why.

Only because she didn't have to watch my acting, since it was done at school. She never went to any of my plays, so it didn't concern her.

a negative sts entity - per your definition - would do the same to you for your acting too.

Are you reading my comments? I have explained several times that you have it backwards - her cold, calloused remarks would have been appropriate for an STS entity, but not for an STO entity.

yet apparently you even entertained becoming an actress.

Only because I was older.

since it rather nullifies your arguments.

No, it doesn't. My mother wasn't an evil person. She wasn't blatantly STS. She meant well. She was just really messed up. That's all irrelevant. To anyone reading this: This isn't about my childhood or my mother. That's all past history and long ago healed and forgiven. I am simply using this scenario to illustrate what I believe to be a very important point:

Unless the person is polarizing STS, being cruel is never "the right thing" to do.

[3DMonkey]

Now, what I was doing, is countering your assertion that being brutally 'honest' with a young child, to the point of hurting that child and squashing her joy, is somehow desirable and even, in your words, "the right thing." You seem to insist that it is correct, appropriate, and even optimal for an STO-polarizing entity to disregard the feelings of an other-self and just tell them whatever you happen to feel or think, regardless of the possibility that you might be wrong, and regardless of the probability that you will severely hurt the entity.

That is what I am contesting.

It is possible that the 'honest' person desires more to serve his/her need of being honest than desires considering the needs of the other to hear his/her 'honest' opinion.

[Namaste]

Now, what I was doing, is countering your assertion that being brutally 'honest' with a young child, to the point of hurting that child and squashing her joy, is somehow desirable and even, in your words, "the right thing." You seem to insist that it is correct, appropriate, and even optimal for an STO-polarizing entity to disregard the feelings of an other-self and just tell them whatever you happen to feel or think, regardless of the possibility that you might be wrong, and regardless of the probability that you will severely hurt the entity.

That is what I am contesting.

It is possible that the 'honest' person desires more to serve his/her need of being honest than desires considering the needs of the other to hear his/her 'honest' opinion.

Is that not then service to self? :¬)

Having said that, not all actions are either STO or STS, black or white. They are a mix, one can polarise positively, yet have varying degrees of depolarisation due to negative influences. And visa-versa of course.

[3DMonkey]

It is STS. But who knows what the desire is. I must choose for myself to serve the other's needs. I suppose that means letting their need to be honest be.

An aside, I judge most of my posts to be self serving.

[yossarian]

I do believe there are people who are cruel out of a desire to serve others. I just think they usually figure out that it's a crappy way to serve and eventually change.

I know I've been insensitive and overly intellectual and basically just cruel lots of times, and I didn't intend to hurt people, I actually wanted to help. But when I realized that my strategies to help failed, then I changed my strategy.

There is nothing inherently wrong with telling the blunt truth. What makes it skillful or unskillful is how it is used. Often the blunt truth is just not helpful, not to them, not to you. So in those cases you think the thoughts and feel the feelings but deal with them in imagination, since you are aware that your best judgement says that telling the truth would not be a helpful service.

Just like when you feel angry at someone you might want to hit them, but the skillful thing to do is to refrain and deal with this in imagination through meditation and then to try and talk it out productively. It's not skillful to express your anger physically by punching, likewise it's not skillful to express your anger emotionally by insults or criticisms regardless of how truthful they may be.

Sometimes telling the truth is the right thing, and sometimes telling the truth hurts. Discernment is required to tell when it's helpful and when it's not. Hurting people's feelings is sometimes the right thing to do. But you do it after carefully discerning and making your best judgement. Doing it insensitively is failing to take the other person into consideration, it is failing to serve their best interests.

When it comes to arguing harshly and bluntly I find that some people thrive on it, like unity for instance who probably doesn't mind if I tell him "You are incorrect. You need to go read this book again."

But for other entities this identical message is not helpful to them. Being sensitive to the entity before communicating with them greatly aids the process of serving them.

I find it interesting how Monica was describing unity's approach as foreign. He does seem a lot like an alien who came down to earth and doesn't fit in and doesn't "get it". Like a movie or something where the alien doesn't understand how anything works so goes around offending people. In certain communities unity's style is welcome and appreciated, but on earth it's appreciated almost nowhere. Even mathematicians and physicists, who are desperate for people to criticize their work, prefer if you use some tact while you do it.

It was Newton himself who famously said, "Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy."

The most logical people in the world who most deeply desire to have their ideas criticized can still be offended. I have always been one of the people who loves to be criticized, yet when unity started in to me I was offended. He thinks it's because I was conditioned to hate socialism, but I was raised by devout communists! I was raised to love socialism, and I've had arguments with every political opinion from every angle for my entire life and I usually am not offended. All of his arguments I had heard before when I watched Zeitgeist and Venus Project years before. So what the hell does that mean? I believe I was offended due to his style, his lack of an attempt to understand my perspective, his misinterpretation of my words, and his insistence that I was wrong despite demonstrating a lack of understanding of my message. Earlier in this thread he said I was 100% wrong on something. It's just so extreme. He can't find a single thing to agree with me on? I'm not even 1% correct?

It's very difficult to offend me. Unity is catalyst from my perspective. I'm not sure what that says about his own goals.

[3DMonkey]

On the inside, I am Mark Whalberg's character in The Departed. Seriously. This is the person I have suppressed in order to exist in this world. If I ever let that dude out, in honesty, I'd lose everything. Ironically, all the spiritual hoo nanny says I should let to and give it to the universe, but you people, and everyone else, would lynch me in a split second if I did that.

---

Let go, that is. And so... My most honest mustering is to come clean that I am a Third Density Neanderthal. "3DMonkey"

---

Own it.

[apeiron]

Lets change the focus a little since we are not making much progress here although you guys/gals have some excellent points.

Lets say Monica's mom instead of saying what she said she just had flipped her middle finger (lets say this gesture can be used in different cultures so we are in the same page) or a very offensive gesture for that time and circumstance. (No offense please).

Now, is that blue? (it is the equivalent of the rude expressions Monica's mom manifested that day towards her)

Or is rather a orange/yellow "bark"; or is a blue that has severe orange/yellow undertones?

Is it really a blue expression when someone tailgates you in your car and we flip the birds?

Another point that is being made is "you have to tell the truth, etc" And I agree for the most part, but then, who holds the truth? Is probably tinted with your projections, CIRCUMSTANCES, etc.

And if we talk that is not about expressing the truth but also honestly expressing what you feel, think, then, capitalists then are doing the right thing, waging war is doing the right thing since "hey we are just expressing ourselves, this is what we want and feel in order to get what we want". But then we know that STS lacks blue. "So how can they communicate then?" "Well, they communicate but they are not honest" Not even when transmitting STS info/teachings to others of the same inclinations?

The thing it seems it that the use of blue in a orange/yellow negative allows the possibility of yellow negative/ or yellow positive expressions (and orange positive-negative trends), and even though it allows the possibility of development in the neg or pos entity, it seems a negative yellow expression (lack of consideration towards others) can have lasting repercussions if the entity is of a yellow positive. Probably more so if a wanderer since green ray is bright in the wanderer.

[Oceania]

i grew up socialist. i dunno what that has anything to do with it.

Monica, have you thought about singing again? if you're healed maybe somehow... btw Gillian Anderson is short. Kate Moss is 5'2. all people are saying is if you're not special enough, they care about your shortness. so it really doesn't matter. to make it in the industry you need to be special. and for anyone to say someone can't succeed is a lie.

[3DMonkey]

At first, I felt standoffish. Then, when you said guys and gals, I was like 'this person really cherishes me. Let's cozy up by the fire to listen further'. Let's just BE honest.

[apeiron]

Lets change the focus a little since we are not making much progress here although you guys/gals have some excellent points.

Lets say Monica's mom instead of saying what she said she just had flipped her middle finger (lets say this gesture can be used in different cultures so we are in the same page) or a very offensive gesture for that time and circumstance. (No offense please).

Now, is that blue? (it is the equivalent of the rude expressions Monica's mom manifested that day towards her)

Or is rather a orange/yellow "bark"; or is a blue that has severe orange/yellow undertones?

Is it really a blue expression when someone tailgates you in your car and we flip the birds?

Another point that is being made is "you have to tell the truth, etc" And I agree for the most part, but then, who holds the truth? Is probably tinted with your projections, CIRCUMSTANCES, etc.

And if we talk that is not about expressing the truth but also honestly expressing what you feel, think, then, capitalists then are doing the right thing, waging war is doing the right thing since "hey we are just expressing ourselves, this is what we want and feel in order to get what we want". But then we know that STS lacks blue. "So how can they communicate then?" "Well, they communicate but they are not honest" Not even when transmitting STS info/teachings to others of the same inclinations?

The thing it seems it that the use of blue in a orange/yellow negative allows the possibility of yellow negative/ or yellow positive expressions (and orange positive-negative trends), and even though it allows the possibility of development in the neg or pos entity, it seems a negative yellow expression (lack of consideration towards others) can have lasting repercussions if the entity is of a yellow positive. Probably more so if a wanderer since green ray is bright in the wanderer.

To simplify, its seems to me that in a yellow ray density, expressions of blue can be negative or positive due to the nature of yellow ray. At least, what expression of blue allows in these densities. That is why we learn, love, wisdom, etc in others.

[yossarian]

On the inside, I am Mark Whalberg's character in The Departed. Seriously. This is the person I have suppressed in order to exist in this world. If I ever let that dude out, in honesty, I'd lose everything. Ironically, all the spiritual hoo nanny says I should let to and give it to the universe, but you people, and everyone else, would lynch me in a split second if I did that.

---

Let go, that is. And so... My most honest mustering is to come clean that I am a Third Density Neanderthal. "3DMonkey"

---

Own it.

Have you tried imagining yourself as Mark Wahlberg and imagining saying all the things you feel like saying?

I forget what his character was like in that movie but I think you're saying you have a lot of anger and aggression. Both Ra and psychologists would recommend that you imagine yourself engaging in the aggression so that you can process it and come to terms with it. A psych would recommend deep breathing and EMDR while you imagine, as well as writing nasty letters and stuff like that which you don't need to send. Ra would recommend some kind of meditation I guess?

Anyway that would allow you to deal with the aggression and experience the lesson without incurring the bad karma.

I've done this process before and it has worked for me. After really feeling my anger and imagining beating people up and torturing them and stuff I was able to forgive. It all happened in my imagination just like Ra recommends. I believe this is a method of true forgiveness.

[apeiron]

On the inside, I am Mark Whalberg's character in The Departed. Seriously. This is the person I have suppressed in order to exist in this world. If I ever let that dude out, in honesty, I'd lose everything. Ironically, all the spiritual hoo nanny says I should let to and give it to the universe, but you people, and everyone else, would lynch me in a split second if I did that.

---

Let go, that is. And so... My most honest mustering is to come clean that I am a Third Density Neanderthal. "3DMonkey"

---

Own it.

Have you tried imagining yourself as Mark Wahlberg and imagining saying all the things you feel like saying?

I forget what his character was like in that movie but I think you're saying you have a lot of anger and aggression. Both Ra and psychologists would recommend that you imagine yourself engaging in the aggression so that you can process it and come to terms with it. A psych would recommend deep breathing and EMDR while you imagine, as well as writing nasty letters and stuff like that which you don't need to send. Ra would recommend some kind of meditation I guess?

Anyway that would allow you to deal with the aggression and experience the lesson without incurring the bad karma.

I've done this process before and it has worked for me. After really feeling my anger and imagining beating people up and torturing them and stuff I was able to forgive. It all happened in my imagination just like Ra recommends. I believe this is a method of true forgiveness.

Exactly, it seems at one point the only solution for STO's is to use the imagination in some cases.

[Monica]

Monica, have you thought about singing again?

Not in public!

if you're healed maybe somehow... By the way Gillian Anderson is short. Kate Moss is 5'2.

Thanks, sweetie! But I'm really short, and anyway now I'm too old. Acting was never a serious ambition. But I did enjoy it in high school. It helped me come out of my shell so I'm forever grateful to my speech&drama teachers.

I no longer have a complex about being short. Funny, whenever people meet me in person, after having talked to me on the phone, they often say, "But you don't sound short!"

[Oceania]

do you mind saying how short? i'm 5'2 and i've always felt short. lol most people are taller than that. there are actors that are really short, it really doesn't matter. you can even make your own movies and that way you're the lead. i've always wanted to be a director but maybe in another life. our dreams pave the way for other of our incarnations. except we're at the end. i wish i had another life still on this planet. to do all the things i failed at now.

[yossarian]

do you mind saying how short? i'm 5'2 and i've always felt short. lol most people are taller than that. there are actors that are really short, it really doesn't matter. you can even make your own movies and that way you're the lead. i've always wanted to be a director but maybe in another life. our dreams pave the way for other of our incarnations. except we're at the end. i wish i had another life still on this planet. to do all the things i failed at now.

be careful what you wish for!

do you really want to be sent back here? I think 4d has plenty of opportunities for movie making

[Oceania]

i don't want to be sent back for another 25 000 years on some other planet. but i feel like i've only had one incarnation. and i screwed it up royally afaic. so yeah i'd like another life before the book closes. only way i see that happening is if i died instantly and was born instantly into a new body and be a walk-in or clone.

[Monica]

do you mind saying how short? i'm 5'2 and i've always felt short.

Oh gosh, what I would give to be as tall as you!

lol most people are taller than that. there are actors that are really short, it really doesn't matter. you can even make your own movies and that way you're the lead.

It's ok, Oceania. I really don't even watch movies anymore.

[3DMonkey]

On the inside, I am Mark Whalberg's character in The Departed. Seriously. This is the person I have suppressed in order to exist in this world. If I ever let that dude out, in honesty, I'd lose everything. Ironically, all the spiritual hoo nanny says I should let to and give it to the universe, but you people, and everyone else, would lynch me in a split second if I did that.

---

Let go, that is. And so... My most honest mustering is to come clean that I am a Third Density Neanderthal. "3DMonkey"

---

Own it.

Have you tried imagining yourself as Mark Wahlberg and imagining saying all the things you feel like saying?

I forget what his character was like in that movie but I think you're saying you have a lot of anger and aggression. Both Ra and psychologists would recommend that you imagine yourself engaging in the aggression so that you can process it and come to terms with it. A psych would recommend deep breathing and EMDR while you imagine, as well as writing nasty letters and stuff like that which you don't need to send. Ra would recommend some kind of meditation I guess?

Anyway that would allow you to deal with the aggression and experience the lesson without incurring the bad karma.

I've done this process before and it has worked for me. After really feeling my anger and imagining beating people up and torturing them and stuff I was able to forgive. It all happened in my imagination just like Ra recommends. I believe this is a method of true forgiveness.

It's not about anger. It's about sensitive feelings of others. It's being able to say "that's f***ing stupid, dumb***" as a voice of honesty, but in no way derogatory or meant to be unaccepting. I'd rather say that than "I understand your reasoning but I disagree and I think you forgot to consider a few factors". That's just not acceptable to most people, and they get bent out of shape.

---

It means the same thing to me.

[Namaste]

On the inside, I am Mark Whalberg's character in The Departed. Seriously. This is the person I have suppressed in order to exist in this world. If I ever let that dude out, in honesty, I'd lose everything. Ironically, all the spiritual hoo nanny says I should let to and give it to the universe, but you people, and everyone else, would lynch me in a split second if I did that.

There are physical neurological pathways that promote repetitive negative emotional responses. Often people identify with said pattern and believe it to be them.

There is a fantastic presentation by Dr. Joe Dispenza - Evolve Your Brain (he also covers some topics in this interview), where he addresses this. He has based his work upon rational, scientific investigation. The end game of his talk; think greater than your circumstances. This enables one to literally break out of the negative pathways to create new ones.

It's very interesting to note that thinking greater than one's circumstances is often promoted by spiritually orientated therapists. It's also one of Bashar's key teachings.

It's not about anger. It's about sensitive feelings of others. It's being able to say "that's f***ing stupid, dumb***" as a voice of honesty, but in no way derogatory or meant to be unaccepting. I'd rather say that than "I understand your reasoning but I disagree and I think you forgot to consider a few factors". That's just not acceptable to most people, and they get bent out of shape.

They are indeed the same thing, and as we touched on before, the output one creates is dependent on their own unique ray integration/activation/balance. This balance will instinctively (edit: genuinely) sculpt the creation of said entities thought, word and deed.

Having said that, there is the trap of neurological pattern repetition. Which can be changed, by capturing the pattern and consciously changing it. Some dismiss this as surpression; but I think that's a fundamental mistake, as that limits you to reactive emotional patterns rather than conscious control.

You allow the emotion to surface, and refrain from the emotional outburst. You control yourself, rather than be controlled. The key point here is that you contemplate the emotional response as it happens. You let it flow. If this is difficult, and it may be to start, take 10 minutes before sleep and go over the day, and look into the root causes of emotional reactions. This is one of Ra's key teachings regarding conscious evolution.

Silence is not surpression. Choosing silence is the yin to talking's yang. They are two sides of the same coin. Each can be used both positively or negatively, depending on the context. To choose silence in such cases (emotional reactions), can be a very positively polarising deed, as long as one contemplates it's origin.

Over time, the emotional reaction will start to dissipate, until it occurs very rarely. In that case, you have overcome a limitation of the physical mind; negative neurological patterns. New pathways will have been created which point towards patience and understanding.

To me, that's evolution :¬)

If you can find Evolve Your Brain (DVD) second hand, I would highly recommend watching it :¬)

[3DMonkey]

It's all the wussys that need to get over it. Fragile pansies we have to tip toe around. That was a long post that views me as anger boy. I just want to say the word stupid without invoking the wrath of Khan. 'oh, but we won't let you, we're trying to help you, we all think YOU have a problem, conform to our standards, get in your cage, we outnumber you and agree you need to change'.

[Namaste]

It's all the wussys that need to get over it. Fragile pansies we have to tip toe around. That was a long post that views me as anger boy. I just want to say the word stupid without invoking the wrath of Khan. 'oh, but we won't let you, we're trying to help you, we all think YOU have a problem, conform to our standards, get in your cage, we outnumber you and agree you need to change'.

Therein lies the catalyst. You feel that you have to change yourself in which to please another, which causes specific emotions within you. Finding it frustrating that you have to quench your instinctive actions for the sake another is a valid choice as any.

Yes, you will meet people on here, like myself, who will offer words of advice because they have already been through what you are experiencing.

This is, after all, a forum dedicated to the Law of One. Generally, people here resonate with the material and are making efforts within their lives to choose the positive. That means they will want to help others.

Whether you take offence by that, find it neutral, or appreciate it, is up to you :¬)