"there is no right or wrong" meaning

[loostudent]

In truth there is no right or wrong. (1.7)

The Law of One /.../ may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. (4.20)

How do you understand this statement?

[AnthroHeart]

Ra, in 6th density was the density of the Law of One. I think that applies mainly to 6th density. At 7th they say there is no more identity I believe.

[rva_jeremy]

Right and wrong are judgments about the degree of appropriateness of an act as defined by the norms and values of the social matrix. The norms, values, and other defining constructs of that matrix are often arbitrary or derived imperfectly from higher truths and insights. In order to realize these norms and values, moral rules are applied to everyday situations.

These rules can be considered a kind of heuristic that individuals can themselves apply to ascertain relatively consistent outcomes relative to the norms and values across a variety of situations, subjects, and people. This is important because the thoughts, feelings, intent, etc. of individuals are not transparent in third density, so the heuristic stands in for what would otherwise be obvious, effortless to perceive, and fully contextualized. In lieu of complete data about individuals within the social matrix, concepts of right and wrong allow for a kind of unity deriving from discipline instead of unconditional inclusion and acceptance.

However, the heuristics cannot yield accurate outcomes all the time, because the illusion is much more complex than the way the society within it is framed and understood. Both society and its rules are reductionist simplifications of a far more nuanced metaphysical process. Because we are greater than our third density consciousness, our interests are tied to a project that transcends the limitations of third density. Concepts of right and wrong cannot be rigidly clung to in every situation if we are to participate in our greater spiritual project while in third density.

It might also be contemplated that the limitations of right and wrong also serve a purpose, since they show us when we must rely on a faith-based, non-intellectual intuition or understanding in order to properly serve. Because in order to express ourselves fully we must sometimes act in ways of which society cannot approve, we can learn by being judged right or wrong at times when we might personally feel the opposite is more accurate. This builds our faith and trust in intuition, both faculties required in every constituent of a true social memory complex.

Hope that helps!

[Minyatur]

In truth there is no right or wrong. (1.7)

The Law of One /.../ may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. (4.20)

How do you understand this statement?

If you see things as with rights and wrongs, you can only be stuck emotionally blocked failing to reach acceptance toward the Creator reflected.

People often separate among people how they feel (very 3D), yet how they feel for any individual is at all times projected upon all others. Like GW said, it is a focus of 6D to seek to see unity, how each expression enables all others and is enabled by all others in an intertwined manner in which there is no separation. If all is One, then is this One all right or all wrong across all things that reflect what it is? I think It merely is always what it is labelling it in many ways through subjective focuses.

tl;dr : It is a perspective of confusion, fighting one's own infinite nature as Creator. The moment you have made any single thing wrong, you've began projecting the essence of what all things fundamentally are as wrong.

[Diana]

In addition to what others have already said here…

Labeling "right" and "wrong" closes the doors of perception. The minute one labels anything, the labeled thing is solidified into a definition of what it is, leaving no room for anything further to be considered. As is everything in this existence, possibilities are infinite, until perception collapses to a single outcome (wave to particle). While this works well for manifesting, which is creating; it does not work well for constricting, or tearing down, of how to behave in this existence based on artificial limitations and following a set of rules someone(thing) else created. 

As Jeremy pointed out, societal mores and laws create the general construct of what is allowed based on "right and wrong." But societal views change all the time. One look back through history will bear this out. 

For my part, I threw those labels out. Right and wrong don't have any meaning for me beyond the biases of present societies and cultures in 3D. Simply put, one can be in the box or outside the box. I like the outside: it's less cozy but infinitely roomier.

[ada]

Infinity just is.

[GentleReckoning]

That 12th density is the density where all energies are constantly harvested, sought, and refined to further evolution on all levels (it may be 12th on up, as I've been seeking to individuate at the highest density possible and that's my current peak). Meaning there is no way to 'sin' against 12th density on up. 8th density is the density of total service to self. (imagine dmt trips where reality becomes lensed to simple refined energies) Also realizing that karmic engines are extremely refined, as Jesus said allow God (aka their higher self) to take 'revenge'. Or something like that.

Service to others as this forum understands it is simple unawareness as to how we subconsciously take power from our environment. Once you understand the subconscious to a high enough degree (aka eat all the red pills), then 5th density service to others becomes possible. Before this, you simply spark at these other densities, and will have difficulty maintaining light at these frequencies.

[Nau7ik]

We have to take into consideration that this is Ra’s perspective. They literally live that consciousness and we humans do not know it, we are far from consciously knowing and perceiving the Unity of Creation. Thinking about unity (an intellectual understanding) is not unity 6D consciousness. It’s not the same as knowing it. To Ra, they’ve walked the spiritual path pretty far. They’ve transcended morality as we know it (I know someone will misinterpret this. Ra is biased Service to Others because that was their Choice. They won’t be teaching STS because that’s not their chosen way. They could if they wanted to. Ra is above the positive and negative paths.) They’re above polarity. This is why Ra can be detached from outcome. Ra knows the perfection of the Creator’s divine plan.

Now, to us in third density, there is very much a right and wrong. Ultimately this is for us to determine by our free will choice. Whether one chooses the left hand path or the right hand path we will all eventually return to Godhead / Source. It is the destiny of all Creation. But how do we get there? That’s our choice, and in the end, either path is capable of bringing us there. (Keep in mind the LHP ends in 6D and polarity is switched. Separation can go no further in Unity.) Therefore can you say either path is right or wrong?

In another sense, “there is no right and wrong” can be understood as: every success is a failure and every failure a success. All is well! There are no mistakes, there is no right and wrong. From the perspective of the Law of One, i.e. sixth density consciousness.

It hard to talk about a level of consciousness that I have not attained to. I can only offer my limited thoughts.

[Infinite]

From the perspective of the Infinite, all experiences are just that. Experiences.

[loostudent]

Ra omits the word mistake but they say there is a "wrong use" of pyramid for example. Here wrong means something that is not in line with designer's intention. Similarly there is wrong use of free will. A person can use free will to live against "God's will/plan" (Designer's intention) or ignore it. This will/plan however is general and open for individual way of refinement.

[unity100]

Starting from mid 6d onwards to 7d, everything unifies in increments. Not only the many existences of one particular entity across time and space which happen all at the same time from vantage point of 6d unify to that point in 6d among themselves, but also all existences of all entities start unifying first into their own 7d totalities, which are inside their 7d SMC complex totalities that are unifying to each other themselves. All culminating to point infinity at the end of 7d.

Therefore, from the vantage point of mid 6d and on, there is no right and wrong, because everything that happened for a reason and that reason is that they complement each other. One act one entity did in one incarnation against another entity is balanced by what that other entity did to the other entity in another incarnation in another point in space and time. Moreover, all the acts which every entity did balance among each other as well - the cause and effect chain or the balance doesnt need to be direct. 'Doesnt' instead of 'Dont need to be direct', because cause and effect chains and balance are inseparable as one concept.

Hence is the need for forgiveness. Because across infinity, one act someone else did balances many acts which other entities did, which eventually balances one's own acts throughout one's existence.

And thus, at that point in existence starting from mid 6d, there is no right and wrong for everything happened for a reason to balance each other towards that eventual point at the end of 7d at its harvest.

From the vantage point of 3d however, or 4d or 5d for that matter, there is 'right and wrong'. Except that all these right and wrongs combine into being valid and complementary at the point starting from mid 6d. As how time itself, a past and future exists in 3d, but it increasingly becomes synchronous across all existences while progressing towards higher densities.

[Stranger]

Ra is describing their perspective on illusion from almost the Creator's perspective. Labeling something "wrong" from the Creator's perspective would mean that 1) it should never happen, and 2) if it does happen, the Creator is making a mistake.

You can see how #1 would violate free will - the Creator's ability to freely play around with concepts, and with inhabiting concepts from the concepts' own vantage point and exploring what happens then.

And whatever happened when the Creator makes up a particular illusion is just what happens. It is not "right", it is not "wrong" - it just is.

You can also see how it would be silly for the Creator to make something, and then call it a mistake.

But, of course, there are consequences. Some actions/choices are consistent with the original thought of Love, others aren't. Some actions are effective in polarizing STO, but ineffective for polarizing STS, and vice versa. Certain avenues of action lead to suffering, others do not. However, all roads ultimately lead to the same destination - some just take longer and perhaps involve more hard knocks - but so what, if you are infinity? The suffering you experience now pays off in wisdom and compassion later. All allows the Creator to freely explore his Self.

Just like clouds can make the sun seem to have disappeared but in reality it's always there, so too underneath the thin cloud layer of suffering, the entire Creation is bathed in the sunshine of bliss.

[Infinite]

Ra omits the word mistake but they say there is a "wrong use" of pyramid for example. Here wrong means something that is not in line with desiner's intention. Similarly there is wrong use of free will. A person can use free will to live against "God's will/plan" (Designer's intention) or ignore it. This will/plan however is general and open for individual way of refinement.

This a paradox.

To macrocosm there is no wrong because everything are just experiences of learning. To microcosm there are mistakes which are distortions of one line of manifestation.

[loostudent]

You can also see how it would be silly for the Creator to make something, and then call it a mistake.  

It's not what Creator makes. It's what we do with free will. It's our wrong use. Yes, eventually all paths will end in One but it's not necessary to be so lost on the way.

[flofrog]

You can also see how it would be silly for the Creator to make something, and then call it a mistake.  

It's not what Creator makes. It's what we do with free will. It's our wrong use. Yes, eventually all paths will end in One but it's not necessary to be so lost on the way.

If that isn’t the truth , loostudent,

[Stranger]

You can also see how it would be silly for the Creator to make something, and then call it a mistake.  

It's not what Creator makes. It's what we do with free will. It's our wrong use. Yes, eventually all paths will end in One but it's not necessary to be so lost on the way.

Except that you are the Creator, in a state of confusion.  The state of confusion was intentionally created by the Logos, to explore a larger variety of possibilities.  It's hard not fall into holes when it's dark out and there seem to be more holes than solid ground between them.

In third density it is inevitable that what you call "wrong use" will occur, and this is clearly, blatantly by design.  We are to experience falling down.  Then, with the "benefit" of that experience, we have the choice: climb out and find compassion for ourselves and others who also inevitably fall (and hurt us and others in the process), or start digging even deeper on the STS path, providing catalyst for others. 

It's not a "bug", it's a feature - and in that sense it can't be called "wrong."  Painful, unhelpful, problematic, but still loved by God as we love the spice in our food even as it burns.

[Patrick]

 
There IS right and wrong, but it only applies to you and these personal judgments should not be extended unto others.  Enslavement is right to some and wrong to me.  Sometimes things seems so "wrong" to us that we can't imagine how it could ever be "right" even for others.  But still, this is really how things are.  These impossible things really are right from some point of view.

So if you are looking at any of it from far enough you will start to see how there is no right nor wrong.  Not so useful to us here other than to help us cultivate a non-judgmental attitude.
 

[Sacred Fool]

In truth there is no right or wrong. (1.7)

The Law of One /.../ may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. (4.20)

How do you understand this statement?

'Tis an interesting combination of quotes.


Ra's perspective on the right/wrong matter is articulated later in 1.7.

There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time.

So, get over it.  It's just a form of amusement.


About identity....

This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You* are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

You are consciousness crossed with identity.  The more you embody an identification with consciousness, the closer you come to vibrating like the Creator.


And how does one move from identifying with the temporal towards identification with the Eternal?

One of the primal distortions of the Law of One is that of healing. Healing occurs when a mind/body/spirit complex realizes, deep within itself, the Law of One; that is, that there is no disharmony, no imperfection; that all is complete and whole and perfect. Thus, the intelligent infinity within this mind/body/spirit complex re-forms the illusion of body, mind, or spirit to a form congruent with the Law of One. The healer acts as energizer or catalyst for this completely individual process.

*My edit: Probably meant "We."

 

[AnthroHeart]

The Creator is infinitely brave and confident. I have a hard time being like that.
Well, I probably should say something like "bravery and confidence comes easily to me"
because we do create our reality.

[Sacred Fool]

The Creator is infinitely brave and confident. I have a hard time being like that.
Well, I probably should say something like "bravery and confidence comes easily to me"
because we do create our reality.

Yes, but likewise, the Creator is infinitely a sissy as well.

 

[AnthroHeart]

I wonder what Creator's initial thoughts were when it split into many and made Creation.
I'm thinking it took a leap of faith and may have been scared of the unknown.
But fortunately for us, it went ahead with it.

[spiderdum]

I know this might be a little redundant. (And forgive me I am a bit of a novice in this material). But does the LOO basically say that you should be accepting of all viewpoints and opinions? How 'all inclusive' are you guys? I'm a little nervous because all other thought-structures i have analyzed (buddhism, christianity, etc.) seem to have 'rules' that you cannot break or else you are 'bad', instead of being able to openly discuss the different characteristics of any controversial decision. (lying, taking substances, anything other than straight monogamous relationships). I get that right= service to self+others and wrong= service only to self...I just want a little context..I hope I am making any sense here lol.

[Cainite]

(Didn't read everything.. so others may have already said what I'm saying, Sorry about that)

Even the best of us are capable of doing/becoming many things. and because of that, It is unwise to condemn others. also that is required for better utilization of catalyst as there will be less negative emotions experienced.

I know this might be a little redundant. (And forgive me I am a bit of a novice in this material). But does the LOO basically say that you should be accepting of all viewpoints and opinions? How 'all inclusive' are you guys? I'm a little nervous because all other thought-structures i have analyzed (buddhism, christianity, etc.) seem to have 'rules' that you cannot break or else you are 'bad', instead of being able to openly discuss the different characteristics of any controversial decision. (lying, taking substances, anything other than straight monogamous relationships). I get that right= service to self+others and wrong= service only to self...I just want a little context..I hope I am making any sense here lol.

The Law of One messengers never say what should another entity do. they may advise those seeking the positive path.
They want us to make ''The Choice''. which we shall make again and again.

[Infinite Unity]

In truth there is no right or wrong. (1.7)

The Law of One /.../ may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. (4.20)

How do you understand this statement?

That there is no right and wrong in a judgemental demeaning sense, or self rightounesss. There are still actions/thoughts consonant with being one. I would sum those up as usually moral actions/thoughts in the world of human definition and understanding.

[Patrick]

...But does the LOO basically say that you should be accepting of all viewpoints and opinions? How 'all inclusive' are you guys?...

If you are walking the STO path, then yes it would be helpful if you set your intention to become able to accept absolutely all point of views.

And to add unto my previous post in this thread.  I would say that truly there is no objective wrong.  Wrong (and right) will always depend on the point of view.  All is subjective for any entity experiencing veiled third density.

Personally, my intent is indeed to be ALL inclusive, although I fail very often in this endeavor.  But I don't worry myself with those failures.  
 

[loostudent]

I would say that truly there is no objective wrong.  Wrong (and right) will always depend on the point of view.  All is subjective for any entity experiencing veiled third density.

Then there would be no polarisation. There is STO/STS. Right is what goes along the desired path. It's only that both paths lead to 6d unity.

[xise]

Then there would be no polarisation. There is STO/STS. Right is what goes along the desired path. It's only that both paths lead to 6d unity.

I think this a workable and logical expansion/redefinition of the English language definitions of right and wrong, but it’s really easy for discussions to get super confusing imo when we use english language definitions/ra terminology/personal definitions/common non-Ra spiritual definitions interchangeably without overt acknowledgement.

I probably say this like once every five posts, but stating one’s personal definition is so important because so many of the spiritual concepts the human language cannot completely described so we’re often only left with poor definitions. But then throw in unacknowledged differences between various people’s own definitions can create a conversation where people use the same words but are actually talking about very different spiritual concepts.

[xise]

I know this might be a little redundant. (And forgive me I am a bit of a novice in this material). But does the LOO basically say that you should be accepting of all viewpoints and opinions? How 'all inclusive' are you guys? I'm a little nervous because all other thought-structures i have analyzed (buddhism, christianity, etc.) seem to have 'rules' that you cannot break or else you are 'bad', instead of being able to openly discuss the different characteristics of any controversial decision. (lying, taking substances, anything other than straight monogamous relationships). I get that right= service to self+others and wrong= service only to self...I just want a little context..I hope I am making any sense here lol.

I think a key aspect in unlocking the answer to you question involves contemplation of word of acceptance, as implied by Ra and/or other spiritual practices or experiences, and not necessarily as defined by the English language.

Another thing to contemplate is whether acceptance is or can be consistent or inconsistent with action on a given subject.

[loostudent]

I'm reading L/L Research transcripts and this is what Hatonn said:

We would like to comment, also, about the use of the term morality. We will simply say this, and you may take for what it is worth. It is difficult to understand intellectually. My friends, there is no morality. There is only love. If you will radiate love for all, you will never need to know what is right and what is wrong. The entire difficulty with morality is due to a desire to follow rules rather than a desire to follow the Father. Meditation, correctly pursued, quickly shows the basic simplicity of the way of the Father. That which you term moral decision is within each and available to all. No matter what the conscious frame of mind, and no matter how many chances have been missed, that which is redeeming lies always within, and not one bit has been taken away from anyone.

Similarly also St. Augustine:
"Love and do what you will."

[rva_jeremy]

Nice, loostudent, I was specifically thinking of that passage when I wrote my post 5 months ago or wherever. The full transcript is here: http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is...121_1.aspx