10-09-2010, 09:04 PM
(10-09-2010, 06:08 PM)unity100 Wrote: (their comment about polarization being salvation of 3d despite it being imbalancing in the greater scheme of things).
You have conflated polarization with compassion. Ra's quote actually referred to compassion, not polarization: "The fourth-density, as we have said, abounds in compassion. This compassion is folly when seen through the eyes of wisdom. It is the salvation of third-density but creates a mismatch in the ultimate balance of the entity."
(10-09-2010, 06:08 PM)unity100 Wrote: polarizing compassion would be reckless, for an entity who is not in 3d, and has a particular balance, because it would upset that balance. unless changing the balance is an intent, it would be reckless to change it.
martyrdom, seems to be the apex of polarization compassion, from what we understand regarding the Ra text, and the examples of jesus of nazareth and its density situation.
Your whole argument makes perfect sense if one just substitutes "compassion" every time you write "polarization".
(10-09-2010, 06:08 PM)unity100 Wrote: no, it wasnt. what information was produced was usable for both polarities, negative and positive. so, as for the end result or nature of it goes, it is an unpolarized work. there is much information. in that respect, it is relevant to wisdom, blue ray. it has undertones of indigo ray unification.
My point wasn't that the work was polarized, it was that the service was. However, the work was clearly also positively charged, else why would a fifth-density negative entity spend so much time and effort, risking its own polarity, in an attempt to end it?
(10-09-2010, 06:08 PM)unity100 Wrote: im not going to comment on your newly introduced phrase, 'highly charged'.
Highly charged is the definition of polarized that Don and Ra were working with.
(10-09-2010, 07:52 PM)peregrine Wrote:(10-09-2010, 06:08 PM)unity100 Wrote: i dont associate polarizing with recklessness. however, polarizing, we know to be upsetting to an entity's balance in greater scheme of things, from Ra. (their comment about polarization being salvation of 3d despite it being imbalancing in the greater scheme of things).
No comprende, amigo. Isn't the ever deepening desire to serve the same force that compels polarization in 3D as well as balancing in 6D. In that sense it's all the same thing. I can't see how it would cause "imbalancing (sic) in the greater scheme of things."
Exactly. This is the sense of polarizing that I believe Ra and Don were using.