The act of eating is a service.

[Shin'Ar]

We all know what is right and wrong.

Ya think so? I'm not so sure. Many don't even think there is such a thing as 'right and wrong' - they think those are antiquated concepts.

No they know. They may refuse to admit it, and may even delude themselves into professing differently, but they know.

[Patrick]

Ok let's discuss this with more dept.

We want to change the world for the better right? We want to heal the world?

"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."

1.6 Questioner: (The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.)

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

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.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?

4.20 Questioner: My objective is primarily to discover more of the Law of One, and [it would] be very helpful to discover techniques of healing. I am aware of your problem with respect to free will. Can you make… You cannot make suggestions. I will ask you if you can state the Law of One and the laws of healing to me?

Ra: I am Ra. The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

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.

One item which may be of interest is that a healer asking to learn must take the distortion understood as responsibility for that ask/receiving, thus healing. This is a honor/duty which must be carefully considered in free will before the asking.

54.13 Questioner: OK. Then I assume that the first distortion is the, shall I say, motivator or what allows this blockage. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. We wish no quibbling but prefer to avoid the use of terms such as the verb, to allow. Free will does not allow, nor would predetermination disallow, experiential distortions. Rather the Law of Confusion offers a free reach for the energies of each mind/body/spirit complex. The verb, to allow, would be considered pejorative in that it suggests a polarity between right and wrong or allowed and not allowed. This may seem a minuscule point. However, to our best way of thinking it bears some weight.

But then we also have this...

77.17 Questioner: Now, would it be possible for this work of our density to be performed if all of the sub-Logoi chose the same polarity in any particular expression or evolution of a Logos? Let us make the assumption that our sun created nothing but, through the first distortion, nothing— there was no product except positive polarity. Would work then be done in fourth density and higher as a function only of this positive polarization evolving from our original creation of sub-Logos?

Ra: I am Ra. Elements of this query illustrate the reason I was unable to answer your previous question without knowledge of the Logos involved. To turn to your question, there were Logoi which chose to set the plan for the activation of mind/body/spirit complexes through each true-color body without recourse to the prior application of [free will. It is, to our knowledge, only in an absence of free will that the conditions of which you speak obtain. In such a] procession of densities you find an extraordinarily long, as you measure time, third density; likewise, fourth density. Then, as the entities begin to see the Creator, there is a very rapid, as you measure time, procession towards the eighth density. This is due to the fact that one who knows not, cares not.

Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad. It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment but also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn.

Those Logoi whose creations have been set up without free will have not, in the feeling of those Logoi, given the Creator the quality and variety of experience of Itself as have those Logoi which have incorporated free will as paramount. Thusly you find those Logoi moving through the timeless states at what you would see as a later space/time to choose the free will character when elucidating the foundations of each Logos.

99.10 Questioner: In that case I will just ask one additional short question as we terminate for this session. May I ask if the Logos of this system planned for the mating process as possibly depicted in Card Six — I don’t know if this is related — by some type of DNA imprinting as has been studied by our science. In many second-density creatures seem to have some sort of imprinting that creates a lifetime mating relationship and I was wondering if this was designed by the Logos for that particular mechanism and if it was also carried into third density?

Ra: I am Ra. There are some of your second-density fauna which have instinctually imprinted monogamous mating processes. The third-density physical vehicle which is the basic incarnational tool of manifestation upon your planet arose from entities thusly imprinted, all the aforesaid being designed by the Logos.

The free will of third-density entities is far stronger than the rather mild carryover from second-density DNA encoding and it is not part of the conscious nature of many of your mind/body/spirit complexes to be monogamous due to the exercise of free will. However, as has been noted there are many signposts in the deep mind indicating to the alert adept the more efficient use of catalyst. As we have said, the Logos of your peoples has a bias towards kindness.

In "the knowledge of good and evil" who decided what was good and what was bad? Is it Lucifer ? Is it our Logos? Is it the One Infinite Creator?

If the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is innate, then where does it come from? Is it the same in all galaxies (as in for all Logoi)?

Much to ponder !

[BrownEye]

Well i guess there really is no point to guides or guidance now is there?

[Monica]

If the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is innate, then where does it come from?

It's relative, according to which path one has chosen (STS or STO).

[TheFifty9Sound]

On the subject of right and wrong, I'd like to throw this into the mix. In my current bible study, I have come to the conclusion that this passage might be the most misunderstood concept in the NT.

Matthew 16:19
"And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven."

This is interpreted as Jesus literally giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the authority to decide what is right and wrong. But I read it a completely different way. To me it's like Jesus is saying, "I'll give you the key concept to understanding the Kingdom of Heaven", like "The Key to the puzzle is.."

If you were to entertain this as truth, right and wrong is decided by each individual deep within their own heart of hearts. It exists only within our own consciousness, according to our own biases. It's innate and it's intuition. We know when we're doing wrong because it goes against our intuition. We feel remorse for actions. We feel stressed, uneasy. We know when we're doing right because we feel light, easy and.. Well, right!

[Patrick]

Well i guess there really is no point to guides or guidance now is there?

So then, the knowledge of right and wrong comes from our guidance system ?

---

If the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is innate, then where does it come from?

It's relative, according to which path one has chosen (STS or STO).

It's relative only to our polarity then ?

---

On the subject of right and wrong, I'd like to throw this into the mix. In my current bible study, I have come to the conclusion that this passage might be the most misunderstood concept in the NT.

Matthew 16:19
"And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven."

This is interpreted as Jesus literally giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the authority to decide what is right and wrong. But I read it a completely different way. To me it's like Jesus is saying, "I'll give you the key concept to understanding the Kingdom of Heaven", like "The Key to the puzzle is.."

If you were to entertain this as truth, right and wrong is decided by each individual deep within their own heart of hearts. It exists only within our own consciousness, according to our own biases. It's innate and it's intuition. We know when we're doing wrong because it goes against our intuition. We feel remorse for actions. We feel stressed, uneasy. We know when we're doing right because we feel light, easy and.. Well, right!

I would say that you're right! But if you're right, then I may be the only one who believes you are right. Others may know deep down that you're wrong.

[Monica]

It's relative only to our polarity then ?

Yes

[TheFifty9Sound]

I would say that you're right! But if you're right, then I may be the only one who believes you are right. Others may know deep down that you're wrong.

Exactly. We are all responsible for defining our own realities.

[Monica]

Exactly. We are all responsible for defining our own realities.

So do you think we can redefine the criteria of graduation to 4D?

[BrownEye]

I would say that you're right! But if you're right, then I may be the only one who believes you are right. Others may know deep down that you're wrong.

Exactly. We are all responsible for defining our own realities.

This is what scares me. What i want is a better natural world. What everyone else wants is more consumption and entitlement.

[TheFifty9Sound]

Exactly. We are all responsible for defining our own realities.

So do you think we can redefine the criteria of graduation to 4D?

When you say the word "criteria", it brings to my mind the concept of.. a checklist. And my understanding is it doesn't work quite like that.

The concept of right and wrong, as I said earlier is all relative to our values and morals. Right and wrong is not a tangible thing. Our actions can thrown into either category depending on the viewpoint of the individual. However, it is only the intention of the individual performing that action that counts towards their graduation to 4D.

For example, a patient might be critically ill with cancer, and very much desire euthanasia. One doctor might accept these demands out of compassion and put the patent out of his misery. In giving the patient the most dignified possible death for himself and his family, he has chalked up a STO act and taken steps towards being harvestable.

Another doctor might accept these same demands, but without any compassion in his heart, but instead thinking "He's going to die anyway, it'll shorten my rounds. I won't have to worry about him anymore", and is more concerned with the mechanics of having the patient gone, and making his own life easier.

Both doctors could theoretically take the same action on the same patient, but it depends on what is in their hearts as to whether or not it will get them any closer to being harvestable to 4D.

This is how I see it.

[Monica]

When you say the word "criteria", it brings to my mind the concept of.. a checklist. And my understanding is it doesn't work quite like that.

Is your understanding based on the Law of One? Do you disagree with Ra, or are you saying you disagree with my interpretation of Ra's words about the criteria for graduation to 4D?

The concept of right and wrong, as I said earlier is all relative to our values and morals. Right and wrong is not a tangible thing. Our actions can thrown into either category depending on the viewpoint of the individual. However, it is only the intention of the individual performing that action that counts towards their graduation to 4D.

For example, a patient might be critically ill with cancer, and very much desire euthanasia. One doctor might accept these demands out of compassion and put the patent out of his misery. In giving the patient the most dignified possible death for himself and his family, he has chalked up a STO act and taken steps towards being harvestable.

Another doctor might accept these same demands, but without any compassion in his heart, but instead thinking "He's going to die anyway, it'll shorten my rounds. I won't have to worry about him anymore", and is more concerned with the mechanics of having the patient gone, and making his own life easier.

Both doctors could theoretically take the same action on the same patient, but it depends on what is in their hearts as to whether or not it will get them any closer to being harvestable to 4D.

This is how I see it.

I agree. But do we disagree that Ra indicated a certain percentage of green ray activation (love/compassion/Service to Others) is necessary for graduation?

Thus, as I see it, 'wrong' is defined as simply that which interferes with polarizing to the desired polarity.

For an entity desiring to polarize STO, knowingly causing the suffering of another being would be classified as wrong; ie. depolarizing. The very same action might be 'right,' ie. polarizing, for an STS entity.

[BrownEye]

The concept of right and wrong, as I said earlier is all relative to our values and morals. Right and wrong is not a tangible thing.

Pain sucks. Misery and suffering sucks. That is, if you happen to be in the position to experience it.

If you were to come back in 10, 30, 50, or even a 100 years after you die, what would you change in this moment for your future existence?

What would you do to prepare the way for your next ride?

Is there a right and wrong way to setup shop? Are you willing to make every single mistake and experience every single pain all over again? Or are you willing to ensure that you do not go through all of the same mistakes again?

-----------
This may be easier understood if you had done work on your geneology, and understood that removing just a single link in your lineage would most likely remove you as well. Just take a few steps back and imagine yourself to be in a position higher up in the tree, and look at how many people under that one have shaped the history you experience now. You are in that position to create the future.

Let's say you bring about laws that govern how you will be treated later. (Martin Luther King) Let's say you nuke the landscape so that certain plant life no longer exist, and your return goes through a deficiency making you allergic to sunlight. Let's say you are in a lab and create a biogerm that shortens attention spans permanently, and the population becomes permanently changed.

Do morals fit into this picture or does logical thought fit better? Are you creating the future with morals or rational thought?

I think religion tried to create using morals. And it looks like theosophists tried to create using logic. I think religion failed, many of them can't wait for the rapture to take them away from what they created.

[TheFifty9Sound]

When you say the word "criteria", it brings to my mind the concept of.. a checklist. And my understanding is it doesn't work quite like that.

Is your understanding based on the Law of One? Do you disagree with Ra, or are you saying you disagree with my interpretation of Ra's words about the criteria for graduation to 4D?

You know, I don't even know exactly what I meant by that! I had considered removing it from my post. I think what I was getting it as that the word "criteria".. In my brain.. Sound so finite, and I think there are infinite paths to graduation. It was actually more I couldn't go ahead and make my point without first removing that concept from my head - more so than an argument against your interpretation on graduation.. if that even makes a lick of sense?

The concept of right and wrong, as I said earlier is all relative to our values and morals. Right and wrong is not a tangible thing. Our actions can thrown into either category depending on the viewpoint of the individual. However, it is only the intention of the individual performing that action that counts towards their graduation to 4D.

For example, a patient might be critically ill with cancer, and very much desire euthanasia. One doctor might accept these demands out of compassion and put the patent out of his misery. In giving the patient the most dignified possible death for himself and his family, he has chalked up a STO act and taken steps towards being harvestable.

Another doctor might accept these same demands, but without any compassion in his heart, but instead thinking "He's going to die anyway, it'll shorten my rounds. I won't have to worry about him anymore", and is more concerned with the mechanics of having the patient gone, and making his own life easier.

Both doctors could theoretically take the same action on the same patient, but it depends on what is in their hearts as to whether or not it will get them any closer to being harvestable to 4D.

This is how I see it.

I agree. But do we disagree that Ra indicated a certain percentage of green ray activation (love/compassion/Service to Others) is necessary for graduation?

Thus, as I see it, 'wrong' is defined as simply that which interferes with polarizing to the desired polarity.

For an entity desiring to polarize STO, knowingly causing the suffering of another being would be classified as wrong; ie. depolarizing. The very same action might be 'right,' ie. polarizing, for an STS entity.

No, I think we are in agreement.

I could add a third doctor to that scenario, who simply agreed to the patients demands because he loved the feeling of dominance associated with ending a life. If that doctor was trying to polarize STS, in his mind that would be the right thing to do. It could even be a sacred experience. He might not be able to fathom how everyone else didn't enjoy murder. That would just be his reality. Thus, it would make him more harvestable.

Thats what was in his heart and he went with it.

I truly believe polarizing, in either direction, begins and is then measured by your heart. Always go with your heart.

---

The concept of right and wrong, as I said earlier is all relative to our values and morals. Right and wrong is not a tangible thing.

Pain sucks. Misery and suffering sucks. That is, if you happen to be in the position to experience it.

If you were to come back in 10, 30, 50, or even a 100 years after you die, what would you change in this moment for your future existence?

What would you do to prepare the way for your next ride?

Is there a right and wrong way to setup shop? Are you willing to make every single mistake and experience every single pain all over again? Or are you willing to ensure that you do not go through all of the same mistakes again?

-----------
This may be easier understood if you had done work on your geneology, and understood that removing just a single link in your lineage would most likely remove you as well. Just take a few steps back and imagine yourself to be in a position higher up in the tree, and look at how many people under that one have shaped the history you experience now. You are in that position to create the future.

Let's say you bring about laws that govern how you will be treated later. (Martin Luther King) Let's say you nuke the landscape so that certain plant life no longer exist, and your return goes through a deficiency making you allergic to sunlight. Let's say you are in a lab and create a biogerm that shortens attention spans permanently, and the population becomes permanently changed.

Do morals fit into this picture or does logical thought fit better? Are you creating the future with morals or rational thought?

I think religion tried to create using morals. And it looks like theosophists tried to create using logic. I think religion failed, many of them can't wait for the rapture to take them away from what they created.

I always go back to this Tom Robbins quote -

If you believe in peace, act peacefully; if you believe in love, act lovingly; if you believe in every which way, then act in every which way, that's perfectly valid- but don't go out trying to sell your beliefs to the System. You end up contradicting what you profess to believe in, and you set a bum example. If you want to change the world, change yourself.

This is the only way I know how to make a positive change. If I was to go back up the family tree, or to try and prepare the way for a future incarnation, I'd still live by this same principle.

I personally, wasn't built to lead, or to teach, or to govern. I have no interest in politics, and little faith in the way scriptures have been interpreted and the stigma and dogma that comes with them. I do my best on a personal level day to day, to cultivate compassion and bring about a change of heart in those around me, by setting the best example I know how. For me, that's enough. For the next person, maybe not so. And that's understandable.



(I should mention, I didn't read the first 12 pages of this thread, and I'm not sure how this relates to the original topic. Sorry if I've played a part in derailing this thread! )

[Tenet Nosce]

For an entity desiring to polarize STO, knowingly causing the suffering of another being would be classified as wrong; ie. depolarizing.

Yes, I can see how if I decided to torture somebody, that would most likely be depolarizing! But other scenarios come to mind that aren't so straightforward, methinks.

First scenario is: Emotional entrapment. You know, the kind of person who gets butthurt at the drop of a hat? Then, supposedly because you know that some word or action is going to "cause" them to be butthurt, it becomes even more your fault (in their mind) when it happens? What I am getting at is, especially on an emotional level, there is a decision being made to suffer. People are entirely in control of how they wish to perceive a situation, and when it comes down to it, isn't most emotional suffering due to one's own perception? I'm gonna stick with the Buddha on this one!

Second scenario is: Necessary physical pain. Occasionally, it is necessary to suffer some form of physical pain NOW in order to avoid a greater pain, or even death, later. I can think of some really gory examples, but a rather tame one would be ingrown toenail removal. Is the doc depolarizing in causing their patient to suffer in the short term in the hopes of reducing suffering in the long term?

---

I always go back to this Tom Robbins quote -

If you believe in peace, act peacefully; if you believe in love, act lovingly; if you believe in every which way, then act in every which way, that's perfectly valid- but don't go out trying to sell your beliefs to the System. You end up contradicting what you profess to believe in, and you set a bum example. If you want to change the world, change yourself.

:idea:

[Patrick]

- Where does the knowledge of right and wrong comes from ?

- Could any of you please show me where can I read the list of what is right and the list of what is wrong ? Because, it looks like until I find this ultimate list, I'll be stuck in 3d.


If the Law of One is not easy enough to understand on these matters, we might as well take a look at other teachings.

Matthew 15-11: "It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth."

- Could anyone help me understand this ?

http://bible.cc/matthew/15-11.htm

...The first food of man was herbs; after the flood he had an allowance of the flesh of beasts, without distinction; under the Levitical dispensation, a difference of meats was enjoined to be observed; the laws respecting that distinction are now abolished, and not binding on us under the Gospel dispensation. Some scruples, about some of these things, did arise among the first Christians; but in process of time these difficulties were got over: nor is there any religion in abstinence from any sort of food; men, indeed, on a "physical" account, ought to be careful what they eat and drink, but not on a religious one; moderation in all ought to be used; and whatever is ate or drank, should be received with thankfulness, and done to the glory of God, and then no defilement can arise from hence:

but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. It is sin, and that only, which takes its rise from the heart, lies in thought, and is either expressed by the mouth, or performed by some outward action, which defiles the man, and renders him loathsome, abominable, and odious in the sight of God. The heart is the source of all evil; the pollution of it is very early, and very general, reaching to all the powers and faculties of the soul; which shows the ignorance of some, and folly of others, that talk of, and trust to the goodness of their hearts; and also the necessity of new hearts and right spirits being formed and created; and that the sinful thoughts of the heart, and the lusts thereof, are defiling to men; and that they are sinful in God's account, and abominable in his sight; that they are loathsome to sensible sinners, and are to be repented of, and forsaken by them; and need the pardoning grace of God or otherwise will be brought into judgment. Sinful words, which, through the abundance of wickedness in the heart, come out of the mouth, have the same influence and effect: words are of a defiling nature; with these men pollute both themselves and others: the tongue, though a little member, defiles the whole body; and evil and corrupt communication proceeding out of the mouth, corrupts the best of manners, and renders men loathsome to God, and liable to his awful judgment. And this is the nature of all sinful actions; they are what God can take no pleasure in; they are disagreeable, to a sensible mind; they leave a stain, which can never be removed by any thing the creature can do; nothing short of the blood of Christ can cleanse from it; and inasmuch as they are frequently committed, there is need of continual application to it. These are now the things men should be concerned about, as of a defiling nature; and not about meats and drinks, and the manner of using them, whether with hands washed, or unwashed...

Are those who wrote this STS ?
Maybe it was distorted by Orion ?
Maybe they were deluding themselves?
They were barbaric and didn't know better?
They lacked compassion?
They lacked the wisdom to see what is truly right ?


-

---

...
(I should mention, I didn't read the first 12 pages of this thread, and I'm not sure how this relates to the original topic. Sorry if I've played a part in derailing this thread! )

The original topic never really took off.

[Tenet Nosce]

Matthew 15-11: "It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth."

- Could anyone help me understand this ?

This quote, attributed to Jesus both in the canonical gospel of Matthew, as well as in Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, is in itself quite unambiguous.

However, in some of the Essene texts, many quotes about "defilement by food" are also attributed to Jesus.

So- who can really say?

But according to my understanding and belief, the notion of "defilement by food" is a manipulation which originated with Zoroastrianism, the philosophy of which divided up the world into the "righteous" and the "wicked". It's an interesting concept, but at its root is divisive. If for nothing else because nobody can seem to ever agree upon which foods are "defiling" and which are not.

[Patrick]

Matthew 15-11: "It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth."

- Could anyone help me understand this ?

This quote, attributed to Jesus both in the canonical gospel of Matthew, as well as in Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, is in itself quite unambiguous.

However, in some of the Essene texts, many quotes about "defilement by food" are also attributed to Jesus.

So- who can really say?

But according to my understanding and belief, the notion of "defilement by food" is a manipulation which originated with Zoroastrianism, the philosophy of which divided up the world into the "righteous" and the "wicked". It's an interesting concept, but at its root is divisive. If for nothing else because nobody can seem to ever agree upon which foods are "defiling" and which are not.

Thank you my friend !

- So without judgments there can be no right and there can be no wrong?

Shin'Ar mentioned that we all knew deeply what was right and what was wrong.

- Is this deep knowledge the same for all ?

- Who judged what was right and what was wrong and put this deep into our hearts ?

[Tango]

Matthew 15-11: "It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth."

- Could anyone help me understand this ?

This quote, attributed to Jesus both in the canonical gospel of Matthew, as well as in Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, is in itself quite unambiguous.

However, in some of the Essene texts, many quotes about "defilement by food" are also attributed to Jesus.

So- who can really say?

But according to my understanding and belief, the notion of "defilement by food" is a manipulation which originated with Zoroastrianism, the philosophy of which divided up the world into the "righteous" and the "wicked". It's an interesting concept, but at its root is divisive. If for nothing else because nobody can seem to ever agree upon which foods are "defiling" and which are not.

Thank you my friend !

- So without judgments there can be no right and there can be no wrong?

Shin'Ar mentioned that we all knew deeply what was right and what was wrong.

- Is this deep knowledge the same for all ?

- Who judged what was right and what was wrong and put this deep into our hearts ?

Ra: I am Ra. The proper role of the entity is in this density to experience all things desired, to then analyze, understand, and accept these experiences, distilling from them the love/light within them. Nothing shall be overcome. That which is not needed falls away.

The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.

The reason it is unwise to overcome is that overcoming is an unbalanced action creating difficulties in balancing in the time/space continuum. Overcoming thus creates the further environment for holding onto that which apparently has been overcome.

All things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity, and in experiencing, in understanding, in accepting, in then sharing with other-selves, the appropriate description shall be moving away from distortions of one kind to distortions of another which may be more consonant with the Law of One.

It is, shall we say, a shortcut to simply ignore or overcome any desire. It must instead be understood and accepted. This takes patience and experience which can be analyzed with care, with compassion for self and for other-self.

[Shin'Ar]

Patrick,Valtor,

The knowledge of good and evil is not a matter of criteria or categorization.

It is called knowledge because it is "knowing". Not the recall of past stored data or gathered information that one chooses to accept as truth or possibility.

This is flat out "knowing/knowledge", without doubt.

It is not a matter of opinion based upon what individual minds decide to be evil or good. This is a matter of "knowing the difference between the two."

That automatically assumes that each are definite opposing elements of creation. Not based in morality or understanding or emotional response. rather based in natural fact that like dark and light, back and white, big and small, there are opposites. And the fact that there are in between and blendings does not change the natural desi9gn of the universe in that there are also extreme opposites which cannot be the other. regardless of how much one would like to declare that everything is perfectly balanced in the Infinite All. we know this is not reality.

And we know when something is evil. Just like we know when a thing is good.

To love is good. Anyone want to argue that? Why? Because it is undeniable.

Indiscriminate murder is not good in any way regardless of the reason. We all "know" that.

So where does this knowledge comes from? And how do we know if we are instilled the proper degree of understanding it to earn harvest?

Well the second question I leave to those who know much more about the Ra Material than I, but the two are bound together in this one way that really answers both questions:

Harvest is the result of natural evolution. And so is this "knowing" of good and evil and all things natural.

The consciousness evolves through the experiencing of many various forms and realities. In ancient past any one fragmented consciousness was once unfragmented. That bond remains even though much of the access to those memories are out of reach at this stage. But in natural ways and subtleties there are natural aspects, attributes, and instincts that are a part of our consciousness that we are not even really aware of. That we love is one. That we fear is another. and that we know, instinctively reveals an aspect of our consciousness that relates to past experience.

In short we know the difference between good and evil because we have evolved.

The lion does not tear open the throat of the lamb to feast on self-gratification, and such is not evil. But the lion does not kill for the joy of killing just to walk away and leave the victim writhing half alive in agony. That would be evil. And that is the difference between the evolved consciousness of the human and the lower degree of the animal. The lion would not even consider an act of evil because greed and self gratification is not in its nature.

This is however the nature of man, and a result of our evolution. Why? Because choice and decision making is a large part of how we evolve.

The human that deliberately chooses to torment another life form for the sheer pleasure of self gratification, knows the evil in their choice because of the simple fact that it is the natural course of their evolution.

Coincidentally something I have just spoken to a friend is applicable here:

"These self gratifiers that seek only to get something for themselves out of this creation must learn the difference between the joy of self pleasure and the joy of giving to the All. Until then they travel the cycle of darkness in search of their own pleasures, all the while being the sole reason themselves why they cannot seem to find it."

The lion will never know the pleasure of deliberately going hungry to allow a mother to escape to return to her children because it has not evolved to the degree of such understanding and "knowledge".

So what does that say about the human who has, and yet still cares more about his 'animal' than his humanity?

Yes, we have choices to make that involve evolved thinking and the kind treatment of other beings. This is the Divine Process in which we are caught up. But we have lives to survive and many priorities to set. Let us not judge each other by where we set our priorities. Let us not judge another at all. Let us live according to what we know to be right and wrong, and let history judge us by the legacy we leave.

This is my humble, uninformed opinion and not a part of any doctrine or teaching of religious faith in any way. I have no intention of proselytizing to anyone. Each can take what they choose from the discussion. I have nothing to recruit anyone into except my own personal understanding.

[Unbound]

We seek within.

[Shin'Ar]

"So what does that say about the human who has, and yet still cares more about his 'animal' than his humanity?"

I would, perhaps, attach on to this, those who care for animals, but not for humanity? We find it oh so easy to love innocence, which we apply to animals, but can we accept the capacities of our total self, that is aware, and perhaps not always wholesome?

Acceptance is the thing we to avoid I think.

As soon as we consider a thing to be acceptable, we also consider it to be in no need of change, and that is not the state f mind we require to evolve.

I know that you understood I was implying the 'animal of man's nature, and I do agree with what you are noting here.

I would just not want someone to misinterpret your words to mean that if we accept that we can by nature also be evil, that simple understanding of that makes evil suddenly a good thing, or creates a situation where there is no real aspect of difference between good and evil.
The All is not good and evil existing in unity, the All is good and evil existing as opposites.

The human Being, as a process of the evolving All, evolves based upon their discrimination of opposites and the choices they make around such discrimination.

Whether the innocence of the animal consciousness, or the morality of the human consciousness, evolution is revealed in deliberation of knowledge. Choosing, knowing and acting.

[Unbound]

We seek within.

[Tenet Nosce]

Acceptance does not constitute approval.

[3DMonkey]

The human Being, as a process of the evolving All, evolves based upon their discrimination of opposites and the choices they make around such discrimination.

Whether the innocence of the animal consciousness, or the morality of the human consciousness, evolution is revealed in deliberation of knowledge. Choosing, knowing and acting.

The action is choosing and the choice is between acceptance or control. We can not know.

[Tenet Nosce]

The human Being, as a process of the evolving All, evolves based upon their discrimination of opposites and the choices they make around such discrimination.

And if an individual discerns that apparent opposites are actually two sides of the same coin then... ?

I would just not want someone to misinterpret your words to mean that if we accept that we can by nature also be evil, that simple understanding of that makes evil suddenly a good thing, or creates a situation where there is no real aspect of difference between good and evil.

Shin'Ar- I accept your point, and even agree with it! But if I may ask, you appear to be reiterating this point over and over again in multiple threads. What's the hangup about, web-friend? Personally, I don't believe I have observed any regular members here advocating for "evil".

Perhaps it would be instructive for me to know your definition of "evil". How does one discern evil intentions in another?

[Diana]

Shin'Ar . . . But if I may ask, you appear to be reiterating this point over and over again in multiple threads. What's the hangup about, web-friend?

Every member here has his or her view and perspective; their own particular concerns and wisdom. I see no difference between Shin'Ar's contribution to a particular subject and others.' Why see it as a hangup; or conversely, we all have "hangups" so why single this one out? I, myself, repeat certain understandings I have over and over, and I have seen others do the same. Let's let Shin'Ar do the same without having to defend himself so much, and debate the concepts rather than the person.

The question of defining what "evil" constitutes for him is efficacious to the discussion, although I thought he made that clear. Perhaps it is only the unfortunate connotation from the religious texts that is ruffling feathers; and the word, evil, has an emotional charge not desired when one is seeking acceptance of all things.

[Tenet Nosce]

Shin'Ar . . . But if I may ask, you appear to be reiterating this point over and over again in multiple threads. What's the hangup about, web-friend?

Every member here has his or her view and perspective; their own particular concerns and wisdom. I see no difference between Shin'Ar's contribution to a particular subject and others.' Why see it as a hangup; or conversely, we all have "hangups" so why single this one out? I, myself, repeat certain understandings I have over and over, and I have seen do the same. Let's let Shin'Ar do the same without having to defend himself so much, and debate the concepts rather than the person.

The question of defining what "evil" constitutes for him is efficacious to the discussion, although I thought he made that clear. Perhaps it is only the unfortunate connotation from the religious texts that is ruffling feathers; and the word, evil, has an emotional charge not desired when one is seeking acceptance of all things.

Why not allow Shin'Ar to speak for himself? He's a big boy, and he's not under attack. Thus, he does not need to be defended by you.

There was no attack on his person, and from my perspective, it is detrimental to any conversation when a third-party swoops in and starts projecting "attacks" on others, and electing themselves their "defender". This type of behavior invariably results in further distortions and drama. If Shin'Ar is feeling attacked, he is free to indicate as such on his own behalf, and he and I can work it out amongst ourselves, like grownups do. You are not his representative.

As you alluded, we each have the freedom here to respectfully speak our own minds and opinions. My opinion is that it is somewhat derailing to threads to keep having to rehash this same discussion about "condoning evil." Nobody is condoning evil here in this forum. If one wishes to discuss the manners and implications of the condoning of evil, they are free to start their own thread which, by the way, has been already done multiple times.

It has also been discussed multiple times, in multiple threads, that the word acceptance, as employed by Ra in the Ra Material is not synonymous with approval or agreement. While we each may enjoy freedom to define words as we will according to a personal lexicon, the context of this forum is the Ra Material, thus it is sensible to defer to the meaning of the word as used in the context of the material. Otherwise, we might as well be speaking in tongues and gibberish, foolishly expecting for some greater understanding to emerge from this.

If so many threads must needs, from Shin'Ar's perspective, be directed to the discussion of condoning evil, then from my perspective, I would rather discuss what is at the root of his concern.

[Diana]

It's the realization that change happens regardless of need that detaches one from the need to try and "control" the forces of good and evil.

Also, in my view, there is nothing that is "in need of change", as the very idea is completely redundant. Everything is constantly changing, so of course there is no "need" for it, it is inevitable. I strongly believe in the concept within Dzogchen of all things being self-perfected.

There is not just one way of looking at control and acceptance. I don't think this is a binary system where one either "accepts" or "controls." It is more multidimensional than that. We make choices, either consciously or unconsciously. These choices affect the all.

Nothing may be "in need of change." But that does not mean change, in a certain direction, would not benefit self, evolution, and the All. One can certainly accept everything and go through this life passively, thinking all is perfect as is, not getting involved with any forward motion, just being and loving, and that is fine. But some may wish to make active choices based on his or her vision of what beautiful and expanded direction existence might evolve toward. This individual may accept everything, yet wish to participate in creation: co-creating; and this does not necessarily mean trying to control, rather, it might only mean adding to the upward spiral of evolution. This individual accepts the perfection of all AND makes every choice consciously based on vision, rather than only generally accepting everything based on the perfection of all. I'm not saying one way is better than another, only that there is more than one way to see the self participating in existence.

---

Why not allow Shin'Ar to speak for himself? He's a big boy, and he's not under attack. Thus, he does not need to be defended by you.

Shin'Ar may certainly speak for himself. I wasn't defending him, I was responding to a certain kind of question asked which points to persons ("hangup") rather than concepts.

That said, I apologize for wording my post in a way which set you up as the attacker.

Explore whatever avenues you like (not that you need my permission). I find all of this engaging, amusing, enlightening, and informative. I am one of those opinionated persons who just can't help jumping in with my responses (and though they seem objective to me in my flawed perception, sometimes they clearly are not seen that way by others) . . . so as long as I can do that, I hope you and everyone else will do the same.

[Tenet Nosce]

Shin'Ar may certainly speak for himself. I wasn't defending him, I was responding to a certain kind of question asked which points to persons ("hangup") rather than concepts.

Ah, I see. Allow me to clarify- a "hangup", in the context of my post, refers to a concept which repeatedly gets interjected/projected into various discussions which isn't really about the subject matter at hand. It doesn't mean it is totally off-topic, however. For example, if I had a strong belief that eating ice cream is "wrong", and then proceeded to jump around from thread to thread posting about my beliefs about ice cream, that would constitute a "hangup". Even then, it isn't "wrong" to have a hangup, merely that it is an indicator that there is some underlying concern that it may be helpful to address more directly. For example, if I thought that this forum were being used to recruit people into an "ice cream cult" or something silly like that. Better to just come out and say it, in my opinion.