advise me, but, based on The Law of One

[kristina]

From the Camelot Journals & Jim McCarty 4/26/2019
excerpt:
The third blockage resembles most closely that which you have called ego. It is the yellow-ray or solar plexus center. Blockages in this center will often manifest as distortions towards power manipulation and other social behaviors concerning those close and those associated with the mind/body/spirit complex. Those with blockages in these first three energy centers, or nexi, will have continuing difficulties in ability to further their seeking of the Law of One."



So, I believe that the reason that Ra feels that the ego is not a term which can be worked with in their frame of reference is that Freuds' definition of ego as the conscious mind is too broad a definition. I don't think that Ra would see the ego as having that much scope or identity as the conscious. The conscious mind is-I believe-much larger that any particular distortion in it which may be associated with only one energy center. Ra placed it within the yellow-ray energy center, and there are six other centers, each of which contributes a unique level of energy expenditure that, when all are taken together, represents how one person is expressing its consciousness.



Ra's placing the ego term in the yellow-ray energy center makes sense to me as the yellow ray deals with how we relate to groups. Our exercising of our thoughts and opinions in relation to the groups that we associate with offer us an avenue into the possibility of becoming more than simple individuals and enlarging our concept of our self to take on the characteristics of the group.



But as you begin moving up the energy centers to the universal, all-compassionate love at the green-ray energy center, the total honesty and inspiration of the blue-ray energy center,....

I have a huge delima.
Firstly, let me say, I use to say what was on the forefront of my mind but now I am cautious in how I approach another person in order to respect them in all ways.
So, I have a person in which I have encountered. I gave this person permission to use something of mine but gave them a strict request on how I expect the items to be cared for. The instructions were....return them the way you found them which is clean and unblemished. The items were not returned in this condition. So, I made a request and a reminder that my expectations be honored PLEASE. And they were not. I want to tell this person not to use my items because they're not caring for them as we had discussed previously. I also do not wish to hurt, make angry, alienate or make this person feel rejected. Mostly, because I care about their feelings. Can someone give me a little advice? Or tell me how I am confusing the situation further because of my own fear of hurting another person? Thanks guys.

[David_1]

   I’m often wrong.  But this is how I see it.
   I interpret the ego as how I relate to others.  Is my concern about them, or is it all about me?
   Consider a child.  Many times a parent must say “No”, because it is for the benefit of the child.  The “No” in this case is not the parent acting in a service-to-self manner.  Rather it is for the best for the child.
   Some adults are old enough.  But they are still children in some respects.  I think it can be a service-to-others activity to tell someone “I cannot accept your continued using these items.”
   I have never encountered a store with a posted sign that said “Shoplifting is accepted here!”  Even if the store owner cared about others, such a sign simply would result in the store going broke.

[Diana]

I get your frustration, from the point of view of boundaries, a possible feeling of betrayal, and not wanting to hurt someone.

I can only relate how I deal with this sort of thing. As a little background, I treat all things with honor and respect, even inanimate things. I also learned a long time ago that my feelings, awareness, understanding, and comprehension are not the same as others'. 

What I know, in my world, is that expecting others to understand what I understand is an expectation that will disappoint. Expectations always do, in one way or another. So, my philosophy (and I realize you asked for an answer from the POV of the LOO and I have no reference to any passages) is to just let things go and accept they may not come back. I make my choice before lending something, whether or not I'm willing to let it go. If the borrower returns it, good. If they don't or it's damaged, also good. Because the choice was made when I gave it to the borrower to use. I make the action of lending rest completely on me, and let the results be what they are—because I can't control what others' are or do.

Once I started seeing lending and giving this way, there was still disappointment (in human behavior) but I don't get angry because I have reached a state of acceptance. When I was in my early 20's, for example, I angrily confiscated a piece of artwork I did from my mother's wall that I gave to her, because I felt she wasn't taking care of it (and she wasn't—the frame had no glass, it was dusty, etc.). Now when I give, there is no attachment. And if I lend something there is no attachment, because I cannot control another person's actions, or expect them to understand my conditions. So the bottom line is that lending and giving are unconditional, and it's on me to choose whether or not I will lend or give. 

[EvolvingPhoenix]

You asked them repeatedly to take care of the items they borrow, and they didn't do it, so just tell them that they didn't honor this simple request and now you refuse to let them borrow the items. How they choose to feel about it is their business.

[Minyatur]

I think if you want to bring it to the Law of One level, then you can address the issue by removing the distinction between self and other-self. On one hand there is an expression of good will and a desire for respect, while on the other hand there is a certain lack of good will, how does these two reconcile? Do we have to blindly endure, or is there to an extent a need to accept a lack of resonance in certain scenarios.

The scenario is not much polarizing, so personally I'd let go of expectations, but that is somewhat just what is natural to me and it is something that I think has to be sincere and not faked because you think you have to. The duality of wanting to exchange with someone in mutual respect, when that person has no such intention, can be brought to various levels where it may become apparent that making yourself a martyr (unlike many people think) is not the answer. Let's say you are in an abusive relationship, is sticking to it polarizing in a STO fashion? No it is not, because that can only happen through very deep imbalances and vibrating at the heart-ray requires not being blocked in the lower rays. (note that if for every unbalanced energy you absorbed you did the full work of transmuting it, then you could just not see yourself as a martyr but a patient helper that co-learns something and heals something within itself alongside the other person, sometimes pre-incarnative choices are made from a perspective like this, but it is hard to apply to the 3D mind and would instead resolve to a perception of feeling unwhole more than that you are so whole you can just let yourself experience seeming disharmony).

I think the word "others" in STO is a big misnomer, because it removes the oneness between self and other-selves, that they are nothing different and instead truly the one same thing. Then what is the self in contrast to its other-selves? It is the very incarnation of what others are that you are closest to, in disrespecting it and in disrespecting what it feels you are disrespecting every other in how you relate to them in the closest possible manner, that is being unified to the vantage point of being that self. I think if you really make it about the Law of One though, then you have to realize there's a root of something to forgive within yourself. Something you are not acceptant of being and so have a distortion to want to control. To forgive someone you have to forgive that part of yourself, because truly all relationships act as mirrors and as we go about our lives truly the One sees the One. A lot of times here, people replace STO with STA, Service-to-All, as to recognize the Law of One and that the goal of STO is to be one with the Universe and not a tool without self-worth. The thing is that in your energy field, as you are in the illusion of being self before being other-selves, you need to address your needs first and once that is done all that there is left to do is to answer your further needs found in others. STO is a lot about transparency and empathy, if you are well and someone is sad next to you, this sadness becomes a part of you and you treat it as if it is your own, if someone is joyful then you share that joy as if it was your own also. That is why the discipline of the personality has to do with accepting every side of every thought, because our nature is to be all the things and the world reflects it as exactly that.

Anyhow there are multiple things in the material that can be good to contemplate in recognizing how polarized entities work with one another. First of all, why do you think positive and negative densities are separate? There are also passages about how service from either end can be rejected as not useful. I like this part of the quote 67.26, when Don asks how to be of service to the Orion entity (follows a bit after "There is great humor in your attempt to be of polarized service to the opposite polarity"): "two services offered, mutually rejected, and in a state of equilibrium in which free will is preserved and each allowed to go upon its own path of experiencing the One Infinite Creator". You don't have to comply with everything, nor let yourself be manipulated or used, because of a false belief that this is what it means to serve others. Serving others as a lot more to do with teaching respect and compassion, teaching love. Allowing yourself to be stepped upon is the exact opposite, as it teaches a lack of respect and compassion. You are that other person's reflection and in allowing someone to mistreat you, you teach disrespect for your own self and in turn for that other-self to disrespect itself and others. The service of that person to you is to teach you to respect yourself, once it is recognized and learned, you have no more use for the service and have to acknowledge each's individual journey. In disallowing yourself to be an abstraction of the other's issues, you offer the opportunity for them to face themselves in the issues that they have.

While positive love tends toward being unconditional, you don't just get there either in a single moment and it is a lengthy work of balancing similar things over and over again. Then when you get there, you become truly what offers without expectation of return, but not in a manner that is forced or faked, but instead through simple sincerity of not wanting nor needing anything other. To be what is unconditional, you have to feel whole and complete, otherwise you are not balancing your own conditionalities in a manner that is unconditional to them, it lacks acceptance of where you are at. To be STO, you have to treat others as yourself, to offer someone respect you have to first respect yourself, to offer someone love you have to first offer yourself love. If this is not so, then you are simply not looking at others for what they actually are and instead love a false idea that is not them, and so the distortions and lack of love of self will be projected unto them by your unconscious.

Anyhow, whatever you do, my advice would be to focus more on your intent than the end result. You can deny and be harsh with another in a compassionate way, just like you can do the same in a way that lacks compassion. If a positive entity rejects the service of a negative entity, it does not necessarily lack love for it, let's just say that as it loves itself it will wait for that entity to reach better days to interact with it in the ways of love and could be there for that entity if it seeks to heal, but if that entity seeks not to heal then there is nothing much that can be done in honoring its free will.

[kristina]

OK! Thanks guys. Each had a terrific perspective and I feel I can utilize for now and for future use. And in a fantastic way, you each sounded somewhat alike though the words were lined up a little differently for each.
There are times people simply do not hear you. Even the second go around. And though we are from the same Creator, we don't go about our lives the same way. I am careful with all my "things" simply because I do not own a lot but what I do own is quality because I intend it to last. I am also careful with the items that belong to others because I realize they too may appreciate what they have and intend it to last. But, with that being said, we are all at different levels in our learning and our understanding of how others feel. This girl may not know how to look at my feelings in relationship with her own and vice versa. I am always honest but I have a hot head at times and can come across as crass. And these perspectives from those of you who wrote most definitely cleared my thinking and how I can proceed further with this little delima without the fear of hurting another human being. David and Minyatur a special thanks.

[Plenum]

thanks for posting the thread kristina!

I've moved it to the Strictly Law of One forum.  Your other thread has also been moved to the same forum.

I can't think of anything more 'Law of One' than these two threads you posted

Thanks again!

[Nau7ik]

Excellent kristina! This passage from the Ra Material has somewhat confused me. I used to study with and listen to Scott Mandelker and he misquoted what Ra said regarding the ego. He says there is no ego. I understood Ra’s words as: the way that you’re using the term ego is improper and understanding cannot come from it.

[kristina]

Excellent kristina! This passage from the Ra Material has somewhat confused me. I used to study with and listen to Scott Mandelker and he misquoted what Ra said regarding the ego. He says there is no ego. I understood Ra’s words as: the way that you’re using the term ego is improper and understanding cannot come from it.

Yes completely! Our teachers are completely distorted in their total understandings of personality and ego, etc.
I am in the midst of some sort of balancing and nuancing my personality and really taking a closer view of how I feel with others, how they feel with me, why I care, why they care and then the negative aspects of each of the things I just listed. It's more than me wanting to "do the right thing" per se. I have a firm grip on that sort of stuff. I am not a rug that can be walked upon either. I know this too. I posted this because I knew that you all would lend me a view (from my communities perspective) that could perhaps shift my own and I could see things in a more delicate way. And I have. Because of this community, I have understood myself a little more.