Does sending love violate free will?

[Angela*]

Hello everyone! I've been lurking in the forums for a couple of days now and this is my first post here, so I wanted to start by thanking you all so much for all of the information that you've shared here. It's been invaluable in helping me to better understand the Law of One and I'm incredibly grateful to everyone for that.

Though I've been thoroughly exploring spirituality for a while now I'm still very, very new to the Ra material and have only just begun to try to understand and honor the Law of One in my life. As far as I understand it, the most essential rule when it comes to following a path of service to others is to impinge as little as possible on the free will of others, but I'm a little confused about whether sending love without the other person's knowledge would be considered a violation. Earlier today my roommate discovered that her pet rat was ill and likely on the verge of death and she became almost inconsolable in her grief. I wasn't able to think of any kind words to say to her that wouldn't just make her feel worse, so I did what I could and silently sent as much loving energy as I could muster. But then I started to wonder if, because I hadn't explicitly asked her if she would like to receive it, sending that love to her was considered a violation of her free will.

Also, on a different but slightly related topic, if we choose to follow the path of service to others does that include respecting the free will of animals and wildlife as much as you would another human? If I were to tell my dog to 'sit' would that be impinging on her free will?

I'd appreciate any clarification that anyone can offer! (Also, as I said, I'm very new to the Ra material and struggling to understand it all, so if you could dumb down the terminology used as much as possible that would be very helpful to me.   )

[Angela*]

Umm... I'm sorry 78940392, but I don't understand your question

[Diana]

Very good questions.

In my opinion, as long as you are not attached to an outcome, sending love is fine. It's when you want to control something that free will becomes an issue. For example, if I give a homeless person money, I don't care how that money is spent. Whether the homeless person spends it on drugs or food doesn't matter because the choice is not mine to make—my choice was to share my money.

When it comes to animals it gets a little trickier for many reasons. If one has a pet, there must be some rules when entities live together; what's tricky is there is no verbal agreement. So as far as telling a dog to "sit" for example, I would look at why it's being said. Is it for a reason that's important? How much of the desire for the dog to sit is based on a need to control? Also, if one has a pet, I would hope the animal could live its natural animal life as much as possible. For example, caged animals and animals that never go outside would be very unnatural and controlling. I'm kind of out of the box here, but I don't like fish aquariums, zoos, stabled riding horses, etc. for that very reason—because humanity is infringing upon the free will lives of those animals. (And this is to say nothing of the industries that abuse animals.)

Thank you for caring about these things.

[Ray711]

Welcome to the forum, Angela.

I agree with Diana's thoughts on the notion of not being attached to an outcome.

Overall, I think we must separate how entities that come from elsewhere work under the notion of free will, such as those entities of the Confederation, and how we members of humanity do it when we interact with each other. I think these are two very different situations. The Confederation has to be extra careful around the notion of free will because they cannot offer undeniable proof to humanity that such and such beliefs that we hold are true, proof that aliens exist, or proof that there is even life after death. This is different for us. We have more freedom in what we can do with other humans or what ideas we can share with them, simply because none of us has undeniable proof that any such things are true. We can talk about life after death to someone, for example, and it will always be their decision what to believe in, no matter what we say. So, we don't have to be as careful with free will as the Confederation. I couldn't say how careful exactly we need to be. Being so concerned with free will has the danger of not putting up on display those valuable things that you have to offer. How is someone going to ask you to share your gifts, if they don't even know about them? But then there's the opposite problem, which you're well aware of, of possibly imposing the self upon others. I think every situation is different, and that it's up to us to decide every time where to draw that line. Always looking at one's own intentions, and without being attached to an outcome, like Diana said.

In the particular case that you mentioned of sending love and light, I think that's perfectly alright each and every single time. I see this love that we send as a resource that we are making available to the other entity. It's up to them whether to make use of it or not.

If you think about it, sending love even to an STS entity that is repelled by it is not a violation of free will. This is because the only other options with STS entities are:

1) To ignore them, which is unlikely to work, because they do not respect free will and they will find any means they can to get your attention if this is what they want.

2) To battle their negativity with more negativity; obviously not an option for us.

3) To wish they get what they desire, which is enslavement of other entities. As such, we respect the STS entity's free will, but we infringe upon the free will of other entities who don't wish to be enslaved.

Sending love and light, then, is the only remaining option. We're not imposing anything on the STS entity. We offer it another possibility. We teach it that it can be loved, even when it itself is not being loving. They have the option of either accepting this love onto themselves, or going away back into the darkness.

[David_1]

   Thanks for the question, Angela.
   God is love.  The Creator loves everyone.  Does love violate free will?  Of course not!
   The nature of a service-to-others person includes qualities like: patience, kindness, caring, loving, honesty, seeking truth, not controlling others, having self-control.  If you have qualities including things like this, then you are living a life that is true to your nature.  Such a life is to be appreciated!

[kristina]

Whats 145049384093- 8?

1.4504938E11

[kristina]

Whats 145049384093- 8?

or perhaps 5 lol

[kristina]

Very good questions.

In my opinion, as long as you are not attached to an outcome, sending love is fine. It's when you want to control something that free will becomes an issue. For example, if I give a homeless person money, I don't care how that money is spent. Whether the homeless person spends it on drugs or food doesn't matter because the choice is not mine to make—my choice was to share my money.

When it comes to animals it gets a little trickier for many reasons. If one has a pet, there must be some rules when entities live together; what's tricky is there is no verbal agreement. So as far as telling a dog to "sit" for example, I would look at why it's being said. Is it for a reason that's important? How much of the desire for the dog to sit is based on a need to control? Also, if one has a pet, I would hope the animal could live its natural animal life as much as possible. For example, caged animals and animals that never go outside would be very unnatural and controlling. I'm kind of out of the box here, but I don't like fish aquariums, zoos, stabled riding horses, etc. for that very reason—because humanity is infringing upon the free will lives of those animals. (And this is to say nothing of the industries that abuse animals.)

Thank you for caring about these things.

You know that stabled riding horses caught my eye...
Do you own a stabled riding horse? I can't speak for aquarium fish and zoos but I can for a stabled horse and maybe another animal or two . I think there are people who care and love these animals to the fullest capacity of which they are able. I have two meat rabbits that I saved. They are in a "cage", yeah it is a custom cage and has two levels and multiple rooms. I would like to also include that these particular rabbits do not know how to dig a burrow. They dig in the ground but not to dig a burrow (I have provided a run for them on the ground that is also "fenced in" to keep them safe). I think sometimes we are provided with the choice of lesser of two evils. I could allow them loose and be eaten by a hawk or I can care for them the best way I know how. They could run, jump and play until they are eaten or I could provide them quality food, treats, a clean home and live for 5-8 years with my family. These little bunnies want for nothing and we get to learn from one another. I get to learn more about them and they from me. Same with my horses who beg to come in on a freezing cold day or a bistering hot day where they have a fan to stand in front of. Horses can live more than 30 years if they are kept with humans and not nearly as long if they are left to roam freely. Of course, not all horses are meant to be with humans and not all humans are meant to have such an animal. In this case we must examine our intentions. How and what we intend to do with our desires. It also heps to know ourselves and what we can and cannot accept.

[Diana]

You know that stabled riding horses caught my eye...
Do you own a stabled riding horse?

I do not, and never would, but I misspoke.

Apologies Kristina. It was late last night when I wrote that and I meant horses just stuck in dirt patches and tiny penned areas. I see them all around me where I live, with no shade in the desert sun. etc. Please forgive the lazy typing. I was tired and should have considered better what I had written.

There are horses across the road from me who never leave their small pens (though they do have shade) except to occasionally be put in a corral for exercise, and I hear them kicking their stalls and neighing in distress often. No one ever rides them so they get out of their small existences.

I think that's great that you saved the rabbits, and it's lovely that you provide such a nice environment for them. I am torn on this issue. First of all, if they were destined to be for meat, that is one of humanity's abuses I was referring to. But I do feel the best scenario for any animal is to be free, to live a life in the wild in nature where they can experience the full spectrum of what that life can be. I understand that some people like you provide wonderful homes for some animals and give them love—and there is a lot of value in that. But being a pet with no free access to nature does diminish the experience of being that animal. 

I absolutely know that animals in the wild face harsh conditions sometimes, and I don't like that at all. But they do get to navigate that environment freely—seeking shade when they want under a tree; finding a mate; having babies (captive animals often can't conceive); moving with a herd in solidarity; running from predators (think of so many people who do thrill-seeking things just to get that rush); for predators, the thrill of the chase. These things are denied captive animals for the most part. To me, zoos and aquariums are like animal prisons.

There is also the complication of diminishing habitats caused by humanity, which has created imbalances in the food supply and access for wild animals. Coyotes and javelina are constantly wandering into populated areas here because their habitats are getting smaller.

When it comes to pets and rescued animals, I don't mean to cast judgment. Certainly I am for rescuing animals from the abuses of humans. I applaud anyone who is out there doing what they can to help the situation. 

[kristina]

You know that stabled riding horses caught my eye...
Do you own a stabled riding horse?

I do not, and never would, but I misspoke.

Apologies Kristina. It was late last night when I wrote that and I meant horses just stuck in dirt patches and tiny penned areas. I see them all around me where I live, with no shade in the desert sun. etc. Please forgive the lazy typing. I was tired and should have considered better what I had written.

There are horses across the road from me who never leave their small pens (though they do have shade) except to occasionally be put in a corral for exercise, and I hear them kicking their stalls and neighing in distress often. No one ever rides them so they get out of their small existences.

I think that's great that you saved the rabbits, and it's lovely that you provide such a nice environment for them. I am torn on this issue. First of all, if they were destined to be for meat, that is one of humanity's abuses I was referring to. But I do feel the best scenario for any animal is to be free, to live a life in the wild in nature where they can experience the full spectrum of what that life can be. I understand that some people like you provide wonderful homes for some animals and give them love—and there is a lot of value in that. But being a pet with no free access to nature does diminish the experience of being that animal. 

I absolutely know that animals in the wild face harsh conditions sometimes, and I don't like that at all. But they do get to navigate that environment freely—seeking shade when they want under a tree; finding a mate; having babies (captive animals often can't conceive); moving with a herd in solidarity; running from predators (think of so many people who do thrill-seeking things just to get that rush); for predators, the thrill of the chase. These things are denied captive animals for the most part. To me, zoos and aquariums are like animal prisons.

There is also the complication of diminishing habitats caused by humanity, which has created imbalances in the food supply and access for wild animals. Coyotes and javelina are constantly wandering into populated areas here because their habitats are getting smaller.

When it comes to pets and rescued animals, I don't mean to cast judgment. Certainly I am for rescuing animals from the abuses of humans. I applaud anyone who is out there doing what they can to help the situation. 

No apologies needed Diana. Seriously, I want a green cheeked conure because I had one and loved him so much (Chuck, lol, that was his name). I can't do it though. I just can't bring myself to put another bird in a cage, UNLESS of course, I were to rescue the bird from inhumane conditions. I feel you and your stand on abuse and what is and isn't humane, healthy and all those other things humans forget "sometimes" to consider. It's a very confusing subject with the exception of one considering their own heart based upon their unique experience within this creation. And then, we can only judge that from a distance in this illusion as we are unique until we finally leave this illusion only to really discover that we have always been the same entity. My heart goes out for your cry for the horses. I see some of the same abuses you do and I sink low and my heart hurts for these creatures. Their abusers as hard as it is to do, deserve the same love and understanding that we do as they are The Creator. We can only monitor our own intentions. I love ya girl.

[unity100]

Naturally, sending love to those who strongly reject it could be a questionable practice.

Then again, Ra notes that 4d entities send love to all creation.

[kycahi]

We third density beings are born into a third density world with a lot of forgiveness built into it. When we involve ourselves into lives of animals, we will make mistakes as we stumble toward enlightenment. Most of the animals we interact with are pleased to experience us as we do them. We will make mistakes with them just as they might "have accidents" on the carpet. They get over their mistakes and so should we.

Making a lot of mistakes is better than staying by ourselves and doing little.

[Strannik]

As far as I understand it, the most essential rule when it comes to following a path of service to others is to impinge as little as possible on the free will of others, but I'm a little confused about whether sending love without the other person's knowledge would be considered a violation
...
Also, on a different but slightly related topic, if we choose to follow the path of service to others does that include respecting the free will of animals and wildlife as much as you would another human? If I were to tell my dog to 'sit' would that be impinging on her free will?

Fairly reasonable question. A person who has embarked on the path of knowing himself must be prepared for the fact that on his way he will meet with contradictions. The world consists of contradictions, because it exists.

The concept of self-service and service to others in the absolute sense are not attainable and do not exist in reality, they are abstract. People to one degree or another can come close to them, manifesting in their minds one or another extreme for understanding the world.

In the Ra materials, from my understanding:

Those who serve themselves seek to subjugate others, seeing in them not a person, but an object, part of their body (as a person looks at his finger and does not think about what he wants the finger, he just leads it.)

Those who serve others perceive people as unique parts of a single whole, they see them as a creator, themselves, and strive to help them on their way where there is a need for this help.

The manifestation of kindness and love is common to all.

The main thing that a person needs to understand is that he is a unique person, his development is important for the Creator of the universe. A person then develops fully and quickly when he has learned to listen to his higher Self (Creator in himself) and live by his movements and desires. In your example, it was not you who wanted to console a friend, it was her higher self through you who wanted to console yourself.

[AnthroHeart]

Sending love with the highest good of all won't violate free will.

[Loki]

Sending love with the highest good of all won't violate free will.

agree, each can accept or reject anyone's love. and if "love" is forced on someone then is not love for that someone but love for self which is negative. Infringing someone's free will regardless of reason is negative.