07-13-2011, 02:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-15-2011, 06:53 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Those 'spiritual' people, whether fundamentalist religious, New Age, Wanderers, or whatever - all doing the same thing: Trying to change the world in a positive way.
I am not trying to make anybody "wrong" for trying to change the world in a better way. I am just saying pay attention to the "way" that some people go about it... that will have some RA-mifications later on in mid 4th density that one would do well to consider.
All of these various causes are going to eventually have to be reconciled in a harmonious way...? Yes?
Bring4th_Monica, you seem like you have a balanced head on your shoulders. And we know how much you care for the animals. I just don't understand why it is so easy in your mind to make excuses for those who "go way too far in the direction of control". Honestly, I think those folks are getting more in the way of the "cause", than helping it. I really do..
How is this:
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Some work for peace, others work to champion the oppressed (whether those 'oppressed' be cancer victims, rape victims, victims of war, gays, animals, unborn babies, or whatever). By championing the oppressed, by necessity they must tell the oppressors to stop oppressing, thereby "telling them how to live."
congruent with this:
The Law of One 3:65 Wrote:Could your planet polarize towards harmony in one fine, strong, moment of inspiration? Yes, my friends. It is not probable; but it is ever possible.
So.... ? I really am confused. It looks to me that you have given up on possible, and went for probable.
How does "telling someone how to live" help one polarize more positively? Doesn't that open up the door for negative manipulation? Forcing one's will upon another. Can we learn anything from Akhenaten, or are we doomed to repeat the same mistake over and over again? Are we going to carry this distortion with us into 4D? Or will we let it go?
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:We can't agree on what that might be.
How about this?
Quote:All things, all of life, all of the creation is part of one original thought.
or this?
Quote:In truth there is no right or wrong. 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. 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.
I do think it is very odd/strange/interesting/curious that so much conversation I see going on in this forum seems to ignore the above paragraph, which is pretty much the most developed statement of the Law of One that we have available to us. Some people appear to want to just skip right past that one there... just as the Questioner did in Session One. :idea:
No right or wrong? Oh certainly Ra couldn't have meant that literally. No, no, no. That wouldn't make any sense. Oh no, there is DEFINITELY right or wrong. Ra just didn't get into that because they wanted to hurry up and tell us about the coming earth changes. :-/
Also, just want to go on record that the "..." in your quote, I feel is important. Do you have a comment on the "..." or do we concur on that?
Tenet Nosce Wrote:If I had to guess, I would be somewhere in the 75 - 85% range. But even in my guessing, you can clearly see how ABSURD it is to continue with this line of thinking. It doesn't get you anywhere you want to be. So what? Tenet is 55.7% and PFC JoeBob is 55.4%, so Tenet's view comes out on top? That actually sounds kind of like how a highly polarized STS entity would arrange things.
In fact, Ra rarely uses the word "should" in the material. And when Ra does, it is in reference to how to make for a clearer channel. So, given the goal of improving the transmission, what "should" the group do?
Most of the "should"s in the material come from the questioner. Personally, I happen to feel that the persistent use of this word in the query causes more distortion of the message than whether or not the candle was facing in the "right" direction, for example.