The act of eating is a service.

[Shemaya]

We are back to the begnning.

I can NOT find any love coming from the above three posts. I hear a desire to divide, judge, and condescend. That is it.

Going round in circles, like an ouroboros eating it's tail. What is the common ground? If it's a desire to uplift the planet, then I would like to start with complete and full acceptance of Gaia, and the planet she has manifested, including the food chain, cycles of life and death, and the acceptance of death itself.

Death is just Gaia recycling, she makes compost and then reforms, and the cycle repeats. Compost is the organic substance from which new life springs. It's not dirty, and there is nothing immoral about the death that occurs to sustain life.

When we eat food, death is part of that process, and it is a normal and sacred part of the cycle of birth life and death in our current density.

I love Gaia and I honor her beauty and completely accept her manifestation.

She has given us everything.

[Patrick]

...if you burn down a house because you didn't like the way it ruined the look of your neighborhood, and someone died in that fire, whether or not you agreed with the decision doesn't change the fact that someone died because of that choice...

If I kill someone by accident, do I polarize in the negative ?

I'll explain myself more.

Is karma and polarity the same thing ?

I believe they are two different things.

Killing someone by accident may result in karma, but not necessarily in loss or gain of polarity.

Catch my drift ?

[Tango]

..Is the thinking that something is "right" or "wrong" applies to the self only or once you made that decision you must also apply it to your other selves in order to maintain positive polarity?
------------

I seriously don't know if the ending of your post was sarcastic or real ?

My questions exactly! Thanks Valtor.
-------------------------------
Definition of PREACH
intransitive verb
1: to deliver a sermon
2: to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action; specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner

Definition of SARCASM
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
------------------------------------

I'm wondering about both of these modes used to transport ideas .... and fail to find compassion in either.

[Patrick]

...
Going round in circles, like an ouroboros eating it's tail. What is the common ground? If it's a desire to uplift the planet, then I would like to start with complete and full acceptance of Gaia, and the planet she has manifested, including the food chain, cycles of life and death, and the acceptance of death itself.

Death is just Gaia recycling, she makes compost and then reforms, and the cycle repeats. Compost is the organic substance from which new life springs. It's not dirty, and there is nothing immoral about the death that occurs to sustain life.

When we eat food, death is part of that process, and it is a normal and sacred part of the cycle of birth life and death in our current density.

I love Gaia and I honor her beauty and completely accept her manifestation.

She has given us everything.

We really think alike.

Loved your post !

---

...
I'm wondering about both of these modes used to transport ideas .... and fail to find compassion in either.

My friend, may I share an advice here, not just to you, but to all? Pointing this sort of thing out can only result in even less compassion (or acceptance). I do agree with you. But the wisest thing one can do is to simply drop it. This is because people need to get to these conclusions by themselves for it to have any positive effect. That is why I contemplated the concept of activism for long and still am. It's not an easy subject for sure.

I've waited a long time to post this kind of post and I had to break my own personal rules to write this down. I can only offer to my other selves my sincere apology for the ruffling of feathers that may result from it.

Here is my advice TO ALL. Discuss the arguments not the arguer and not how the argument is presented, just the arguments themselves. If only one side of an argument puts this into practice it will work. There is no need for all to put this into practice for it to work. Then watch how the feel of the discussion changes by magic.

[Observer]

We are back to the begnning.

I can NOT find any love coming from the above three posts. I hear a desire to divide, judge, and condescend. That is it.

Going round in circles, like an ouroboros eating it's tail. What is the common ground? If it's a desire to uplift the planet, then I would like to start with complete and full acceptance of Gaia, and the planet she has manifested, including the food chain, cycles of life and death, and the acceptance of death itself.

Death is just Gaia recycling, she makes compost and then reforms, and the cycle repeats. Compost is the organic substance from which new life springs. It's not dirty, and there is nothing immoral about the death that occurs to sustain life.

When we eat food, death is part of that process, and it is a normal and sacred part of the cycle of birth life and death in our current density.

I love Gaia and I honor her beauty and completely accept her manifestation.

She has given us everything.

So beautiful.
The love is felt.

[Tango]

...
I'm wondering about both of these modes used to transport ideas .... and fail to find compassion in either.

My friend, may I share an advice here, not just to you, but to all? Pointing this sort of thing out can only result in even less compassion (or acceptance). I do agree with you. But the wisest thing one can do is to simply drop it. This is because people need to get to these conclusions by themselves for it to have any positive effect. That is why I contemplated the concept of activism for long and still am. It's not an easy subject for sure.

I've waited a long time to post this kind of post and I had to break my own personal rules to write this down. I can only offer to my other selves my sincere apology for the ruffling of feathers that may result from it.

Here is my advice TO ALL. Discuss the arguments not the arguer and not how the argument is presented, just the arguments themselves. If only one side of an argument puts this into practice it will work. There is no need for all to put this into practice for it to work. Then watch how the feel of the discussion changes by magic.

Thank you Valtor, your direction is of much help to me personally as I muddle through this very type of situation often and am also often left wondering for a compassionate direction.

So if I have a good take on your direction, I might just simply state that I understand and relate to the passion involved as we move into a new paradigm and wish to support the concept of personal autonomy.

[Shin'Ar]

...if you burn down a house because you didn't like the way it ruined the look of your neighborhood, and someone died in that fire, whether or not you agreed with the decision doesn't change the fact that someone died because of that choice...

If I kill someone by accident, do I polarize in the negative ?

I'll explain myself more.

Is karma and polarity the same thing ?

I believe they are two different things.

Killing someone by accident may result in karma, but not necessarily in loss or gain of polarity.

Catch my drift ?

Not really Valtor, I admit to having great difficulty understanding this whole aspect of STs and polarity.

My definitions do not seem to meet with those of this community.

To me polarity is the natural design of the universe and not a path of either positive or negative. so I do not know what you mean by polarize to to the negative or gain polarity.

And my understanding of Karma would have nothing to do with polarity/duality.

someone being murdered and someone being killed accidentally are obviously two different matters so I really don't know what your comparison is.

[BrownEye]

If I kill someone by accident, do I polarize in the negative ?

I'll explain myself more.

Is karma and polarity the same thing ?

Karma and polarity are not the same, and killing someone purposely is not "polarizing" sts. It is more depolarizing than anything. Does a carnivorous animal polarize? The majority of Mankind is still an animal.

Going round in circles, like an ouroboros eating it's tail.

I keep asking myself why everyone gets on the ride if they dislike it so much. I even asked this twice on the thread. Doesn't look like anyone knows.

I love Gaia and I honor her beauty and completely accept her manifestation.

Same here. Although I am not happy with what humans manifest. If you notice, wherever Man settles, nature vanishes. That is not enough, Man spreads his fumes far and wide and the destruction precedes his advance.

Perception is key here.

The more we become either sensitized or desensitized to a matter the more or less it becomes an issue.

Perception is lacking, this is why sarcasm causes so much butthurt here. I have only seen this much butthurt on a forum of orthodox Christians.

We are back to the begnning.

I can NOT find any love coming from the above three posts. I hear a desire to divide, judge, and condescend. That is it.

You are not here to find love. You are here to take things personally. Last time your "indifference" got you segregated. Now you are telling me your indifference is an expectation of love?

I love the Soul within all of you. But that is not what I am interacting with on this forum. I am interacting with I.D jackets that are produced by their environments. And, on rare occasion those that outgrew their environments.

That is the real experience for sure, when I interact with a real individual rather than an individualized portion of their subculture.

---

To me polarity is the natural design of the universe and not a path of either positive or negative. so I do not know what you mean by polarize to to the negative or gain polarity.

Polarize is alignment of direction. Aligning the majority of your will towards self gain or others.

If you look at the natural field of polarities you will see two ends, top and bottom, or north and south, or positive negative.

Just like stroking a piece of metal to get all the electrons to align polarity and become magnetized, when we consciously make choices in directing our will, it "puts us in the flow". Getting in the flow becomes movement in one direction or the other.

[Patrick]

Not really Valtor, I admit to having great difficulty understanding this whole aspect of STs and polarity.

My definitions do not seem to meet with those of this community.

To me polarity is the natural design of the universe and not a path of either positive or negative. so I do not know what you mean by polarize to to the negative or gain polarity.

And my understanding of Karma would have nothing to do with polarity/duality.

someone being murdered and someone being killed accidentally are obviously two different matters so I really don't know what your comparison is.

That's because the natural design of polarity within this octave of reality that you speak of does not include concepts like STS and STO. I agree with what I know of your understanding of natural polarity as discussed in other threads. STS and STO is different, it was not planned for, it was a big surprise, it's a relatively new concept.

Also, I'm not sure that STS/STO is a useful concept to begin with. I can certainly understand your distaste for it. I struggle with it too.

[Plenum]

animals are clearly malicious:



this is why they need to be eaten

[Shin'Ar]

Polarize is alignment of direction. Aligning the majority of your will towards self gain or others.

If you look at the natural field of polarities you will see two ends, top and bottom, or north and south, or positive negative.

Ah well then there it is. That is why I have been confused about the use of this word.

I have been speaking of polarity as a synonym for opposite or duality.

---

Not really Valtor, I admit to having great difficulty understanding this whole aspect of STs and polarity.

My definitions do not seem to meet with those of this community.

To me polarity is the natural design of the universe and not a path of either positive or negative. so I do not know what you mean by polarize to to the negative or gain polarity.

And my understanding of Karma would have nothing to do with polarity/duality.

someone being murdered and someone being killed accidentally are obviously two different matters so I really don't know what your comparison is.

That's because the natural design of polarity within this octave of reality that you speak of does not include concepts like STS and STO. I agree with what I know of your understanding of natural polarity as discussed in other threads. STS and STO is different, it was not planned for, it was a big surprise, it's a relatively new concept.

Also, I'm not sure that STS/STO is a useful concept to begin with. I can certainly understand your distaste for it. I struggle with it too.

I believe Pickle has just pointed out where our confusion on different usage of polarity has occurred.

---

animals are clearly malicious:



this is why they need to be eaten

yes, but how do you know the guy was not using that sheep's wiener for bait. do we really know what instigated the attack? Are we seeing the whole picture.

maybe you were behind the camera and kicked the sheep to provoke it.

by the way, yeeeowtch. whiplash anyone?

[Diana]

animals are clearly malicious:



this is why they need to be eaten

Maybe the sheep is in communication with the fish. The fish want the man to go away because the man has a hook for a fish's lip that will pierce and drag, then the fish will suffocate in a slow death.

What is more likely is that this video was set up. I know because I have directed many photo shoots. I know, for instance, that the cute photos of bunnies and other animals cuddling in ads is because they are drugged. Humans will do anything for notoriety (the Guinness Book of World Records will attest to that).

[Patrick]

Polarize is alignment of direction. Aligning the majority of your will towards self gain or others.

If you look at the natural field of polarities you will see two ends, top and bottom, or north and south, or positive negative.

Ah well then there it is. That is why I have been confused about the use of this word.

I have been speaking of polarity as a synonym for opposite or duality.

---

Not really Valtor, I admit to having great difficulty understanding this whole aspect of STs and polarity.

My definitions do not seem to meet with those of this community.

To me polarity is the natural design of the universe and not a path of either positive or negative. so I do not know what you mean by polarize to to the negative or gain polarity.

And my understanding of Karma would have nothing to do with polarity/duality.

someone being murdered and someone being killed accidentally are obviously two different matters so I really don't know what your comparison is.

That's because the natural design of polarity within this octave of reality that you speak of does not include concepts like STS and STO. I agree with what I know of your understanding of natural polarity as discussed in other threads. STS and STO is different, it was not planned for, it was a big surprise, it's a relatively new concept.

Also, I'm not sure that STS/STO is a useful concept to begin with. I can certainly understand your distaste for it. I struggle with it too.

I believe Pickle has just pointed out where our confusion on different usage of polarity has occurred.

Yes, the main way the word polarity is used by Ra in TLoO refers to STO and STS, but what's confusing is that these two "paths" are not part of the design of the Logos. The existence of such a thing as service-to-self with the exclusion of others was never even thought of or imagined before it was experienced. The whole saga that it put into motion is still playing itself out and we are right in the middle of it.

[Meerie]

Valtor, where did you get that idea from, that STS was not part of the original plan?
is it somewhere mentioned in the Ra material?
it is interesting

[Diana]

Going round in circles, like an ouroboros eating it's tail.

I keep asking myself why everyone gets on the ride if they dislike it so much. I even asked this twice on the thread. Doesn't look like anyone knows.

I second this, Pickle. If someone thinks we are going round and round, why not try to help the situation with kindness, rather than complain about it?

I love Gaia and I honor her beauty and completely accept her manifestation.

Same here. Although I am not happy with what humans manifest. If you notice, wherever Man settles, nature vanishes. That is not enough, Man spreads his fumes far and wide and the destruction precedes his advance.

Many do not seem to be getting this. Humans have created an unnatural world. Does anyone really think Gaia has manifested air pollution, medical waste in the oceans, nuclear bombs?

I can NOT find any love coming from the above three posts. I hear a desire to divide, judge, and condescend. That is it.

Why complain? Help to create the love here. You may be wrong about this anyway. And aren't we here to discuss? Just because someone doesn't give lip service to love with flowery words does not mean they are not coming from a place of love. I am an example. I write more intellectually. Will you judge me thus because I don't add hearts or say "nice" things? I try to be reasonable instead.

[BrownEye]

animals are clearly malicious:



this is why they need to be eaten

This logic may lead us to eating malicious people as well.

Hmm, isn't there a book about this?

[Patrick]

Valtor, where did you get that idea from, that STS was not part of the original plan?
is it somewhere mentioned in the Ra material?
it is interesting

Sure. Here are some quotes. There are better ones, where Ra explains this better, but I can't find them! It's always like that when you look for them.

77.19 Questioner: Do the Logoi that choose this type of evolution choose both the service-to-self and the service-to-others path for different Logoi, or are they— do they choose just one of the paths?

Ra: I am Ra. Those, what you would call, early Logoi which chose lack-of-free-will foundations, to all extents with no exceptions, founded Logoi of the service-to-others path. The, shall we say, saga of polarity, its consequences and limits, were unimagined until experienced.

78.16 Questioner: Then the— I am assuming that the central suns of our galaxy, in starting the evolutionary process in this galaxy, provided for, in their plans, the refinement of consciousness through the densities just as we experience it here. However, they did not conceive of the polarization of consciousness with respect to service to self and service to others. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

78.19 Questioner: So the original, the first evolution then was planned by the Logos but the first distortion was not extended to the product. At some point this first distortion was extended and the first service-to-self polarity emerged. Is this correct and if so, could you tell me the history of this process and emergence?

Ra: I am Ra. As proem let me state that the Logoi always conceived of themselves as offering free will to the sub-Logoi in their care. The sub-Logoi had freedom to experience and experiment with consciousness, the experiences of the body, and the illumination of the spirit. That having been said, we shall speak to the point of your query.

The first Logos to instill what you now see as free will, in the full sense, in its sub-Logoi came to this creation due to contemplation in depth of the concepts or possibilities of conceptualizations [of what we have called the significators. The Logos posited the possibility] of the mind, the body, and the spirit as being complex. In order for the significator to be what it is not, it then must be granted the free will of the Creator. This set in motion a quite lengthy, in your terms, series of Logois improving or distilling this seed thought. The key was the significator becoming a complex.

78.21 Questioner: You stated previously that The Choice that is made in this density, third density, is the axis upon which the creation turns. Could you expand on your reason for making that statement?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a statement of the nature of creation as we speak to you.

78.22 Questioner: I did not understand that. Could you say that in a different way?

Ra: I am Ra. As you have noted, the creation of which your Logos is a part is a protean entity which grows and learns upon a macrocosmic scale. The Logos is not a part of time. All that is learned from experience in an octave is, therefore, the harvest of that Logos and is further the nature of that Logos.

The original Logos’s experience was, viewed in space/time, small; Its experience now, more. Therefore we say, as we now speak to you at this space/time, the nature of creation is as we have described. This does not deny the process by which this nature has been achieved but merely ratifies the product.

78.24 Questioner: What is the function— What— This is a hard question just to ask, but why— what is the function, or the— what is the, the value experientially of the formation of positive and negative social memory complexes, of the separation of the polarities at that point rather than the allowing for the mixing of mind/body/spirit complexes of opposite polarity at the higher densities?

Ra: I am Ra. The purpose of polarity is to develop the potential to do work. This is the great characteristic of those, shall we say, experiments which have evolved since the concept of The Choice was appreciated. Work is done far more efficiently and with greater purity, intensity, and variety by the voluntary searching of mind/body/spirit complexes for the lessons of third and fourth densities. The action of fifth density is, viewed in space/time, the same with or without polarity. However, viewed in time/space, the experiences of wisdom are greatly enlarged and deepened due, again, to the voluntary nature of polarized mind/body/spirit action.

78.25 Questioner: Then you are saying as a result of the polarization in consciousness that has occurred later in the galactic evolution, that the experiences are much more, shall I say, profound or deeper along the two paths. Does— Do these exper— Are these experiences independent of the other path or must there be action across the potentiated difference between the positive and negative polarity, or is it possible to have this experience simply because of the single polarity? This is difficult to ask.

Ra: I am Ra. We would agree. We shall attempt to pluck the gist of your query from the surrounding verbiage.

The fourth and fifth densities are quite independent, the positive polarity functioning with no need of negative and vice-versa. It is to be noted that in attempting to sway third-density mind/body/spirit complexes in choosing polarity there evolves a good bit of interaction between the two polarities. In sixth density, the density of unity, the positive and negative paths must needs take in each other for all now must be seen as love/light and light/love. This is not difficult for the positive polarity, which sends love and light to all other-selves. It is difficult enough for service-to-self polarized entities that at some point the negative polarity is abandoned.

78.27 Questioner: Are they accurate, or have I made mistakes?

Ra: I am Ra. There are no mistakes.

78.28 Questioner: Let me put it this way. Have I laid— Have I made missteps in my analysis of what has led to the construction of the archetypes that we experience?

Ra: I am Ra. We may share with you the observation that judgment is no part of interaction between mind/body/spirit complexes. We have attempted to answer each query as fully as your language and the extent of your previous information allow. We may suggest that if, in perusing this present material, you have further queries, refining any concept, these queries may be asked and, again, we shall attempt adequate rejoinders.

[BrownEye]

Definition of SARCASM
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

Sorry friend, some work outside of common definition.

Looking at communication and language learning, Kruez, Long and Church (1991) were, in fact, able to
demonstrate that irony‐based communication achieves its goals better and results in better retention
and recall than communication that was literal.

http://gangasudhan.com/blog/Using%20Sarc...0Ganga.pdf

This describes the ability of children to understand the meaning behind sarcasm by about 11 years old. You have no idea how much this made me laugh.

---

animals are clearly malicious:



this is why they need to be eaten

Someone said the sheep was defending the fish.

In the hierarchy of defending the defenseless, where do you stand?

[Unbound]

We seek within.

[Patrick]

...In the hierarchy of defending the defenseless, where do you stand?

Interesting question. Is it at all possible to stand outside the hierarchy, any hierarchy for that matter?

---

Many do not seem to be getting this. Humans have created an unnatural world. Does anyone really think Gaia has manifested air pollution, medical waste in the oceans, nuclear bombs?

This state of affairs is the result of our choices so far. I remain ever optimistic of our future. Technology has brought the possibility of more potent and more global catalysts. Still, it's what we choose to do with tech that has a desirable or undesirable effect on Gaia.

We could use tech for the betterment of all, including mother Gaia. In fact I would say this is what is happening, maybe not as fast as we would like, but I can glimpse it. IMHO tech is part of the process of switching from 3d to 4d in space/time.

[BrownEye]

Interesting question. Is it at all possible to stand outside the hierarchy, any hierarchy for that matter?

Changing your perspective to consider a new or unfamiar perspective, even if you do not remain, is still growth.

[Patrick]

Interesting question. Is it at all possible to stand outside the hierarchy, any hierarchy for that matter?

Changing your perspective to consider a new or unfamiar perspective, even if you do not remain, is still growth.

I confess myself confused.

[BrownEye]

It sounded like you were maneuvering yourself to view another angle. If that is the case, then i say that is growth.

It's like trying something new for the first time. There is a first time for everything, and then choice is available.

[Patrick]

Ah I see. Thank you my friend. Mostly the purpose behind my questions are to understand the point of view of my other selves. There is more of self within my other-selves than within this self. I ask questions in order to know who I am.

So yes I would agree that maneuvering this self to view another angle is what I'm doing.

[BrownEye]

Everyone on this thread "believes" they know what food is best for them.

I have a pointed question regarding intuition.

How many of you, being dropped off in a foreign land, have the ability to discern what food or drink is safe to ingest? I am talking no tools or weapons or anything, just dropped in a lush forest somewhere.

I do mean foreign, as in every plant and animal is alien and unknown to you.

[Patrick]

I know the protocols to find out if a plant is tolerated by the body and provides nourishment, but that takes a lot of time (like days) to give proper results, you really have to go with baby steps. So if I would find myself truly out of reach of any known food source, I would try hunting while I put into action the protocol for plants that looks promising to me.

Or side step all this and simply use a pendulum to find out what plant I could eat.

PS: Incidentally, I do not know what food is best for me.

[Cyan]

Everyone on this thread "believes" they know what food is best for them.

I have a pointed question regarding intuition.

How many of you, being dropped off in a foreign land, have the ability to discern what food or drink is safe to ingest? I am talking no tools or weapons or anything, just dropped in a lush forest somewhere.

I do mean foreign, as in every plant and animal is alien and unknown to you.

Meat of any kind is usually safe. IF you take any berries and chew and spin them around in your mouth and spit out and are unaffected in 15-20 minutes you are probably safe, ingest small amounts. Most plant leafs are good to eat if cooked but provide little. The more fragrant the smell the more likely it is to be edible, the more bitter the less likely it is to be edible. Seeds are usually edible but should be ground up first. Inner substance of bark is edible as well if scrapped and washed properly.

IF that which you eat shines off the call for you to eat it, it is safe to eat.

[Tango]

Definition of SARCASM
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

Sorry friend, some work outside of common definition.

Looking at communication and language learning, Kruez, Long and Church (1991) were, in fact, able to
demonstrate that irony‐based communication achieves its goals better and results in better retention
and recall than communication that was literal.

http://gangasudhan.com/blog/Using%20Sarc...0Ganga.pdf

This describes the ability of children to understand the meaning behind sarcasm by about 11 years old. You have no idea how much this made me laugh.

---

animals are clearly malicious:



this is why they need to be eaten

Someone said the sheep was defending the fish.

In the hierarchy of defending the defenseless, where do you stand?

Interesting take on sarcasm. I don't hold the notion of hierarchy, so I don't have a stand there but thanks for asking. I've not had the urge to eat the malicious. I'm fond of the untamed and free. However I do have a fondness for sweet pickles. Cucumbers might view me as malicious.

[Diana]

Mostly the purpose behind my questions are to understand the point of view of my other selves. There is more of self within my other-selves than within this self. I ask questions in order to know who I am.

Do you consider only humans your other-selves, or do you include plants, animals, etc.?

[Patrick]

I consider All There Is to be other-self. The self in 3d is unimaginably limited, the rest of self that we call other-self is infinite.