03-11-2013, 09:56 PM
(03-11-2013, 08:53 PM)anagogy Wrote:But you don't actually have that situation existing *ever*, in such an abstract matter, that you are conveniently pointing at as an example. That's why it's silly, because it's unknowable (thus nothing to "take care" of).(03-11-2013, 01:52 PM)zenmaster Wrote: All you have to do is say, in retrospect, that "the course is not as originally planned" to say that the entity did not "take care". Which of course is silly.
The situation I was referencing was the situation in which a positive wanderer incarnates in 3rd density for the purpose of raising the planetary vibration and assisting potential harvestees. That is the "original plan" of the higher density being that "wanders". So, in this particular context "taking care" with their polarization would simply mean not polarizing towards the negative (in effect, behaving in a way towards other selves that was not consonant with positive polarity). I don't really interpret that as "silly", rather, just pragmatic.
(03-11-2013, 08:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: Even if they were relatively neutral in their interactions with other selves, their purpose in wandering would be more or less negated in such a circumstance. Not necessarily negated in the sense that they can't go home after a death, but negated in that it would kind of defeat the whole purpose.But that is what most wanderers indeed do - "chill out". After all, they can be "passive radiators". And the fact that it negates whatever purpose may have been intended has nothing to do with what I was saying.
After all, they aren't here to just "chill out".
(03-11-2013, 08:53 PM)anagogy Wrote:The chosen polarity is "good" by definition. There is congruence, resonance and sincerity at work regardless of service orientation. It's a universal principle which offers a way of expression, after all.(03-11-2013, 01:52 PM)zenmaster Wrote: One can't judge their own polarity any more than you can judge another's. People resonating with their sincere, "highest good" will be "taking care" and still polarize negatively. Understanding is not of this density, so it's silly to say "take care".
I guess I disagree with that assertion. Someone resonating with their sincere "highest good" will not polarize negatively, from my perspective. Someone resonating with their sincere "highest personal pleasure" might polarize negatively however.
(03-11-2013, 08:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: I don't see it as particularly hard to judge one's own polarity. One need merely take an honest look at one's behavior and one's dominant intent to know what direction one is polarizing. If one is even somewhat conscious of the spiritual path, one can plainly see if one's actions are done in the spirit of helping the whole, or merely helping the self. Certainly there are individuals who delude themselves into thinking their self-serving behavior is actually service to others, but I wouldn't regard such individuals as very conscious. With consciousness comes the ability to honestly and objectively evaluate one's true motivations.Nah. In 3D, most people aren't really that polarized. The horrific STS acts are almost entirely, without question, the result of non-polarized action coming from psychological problems which Ra might say is "confusion".
(03-11-2013, 08:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: Anyone who is conscious enough to be beyond the "sinkhole of indifference" is undoubtedly aware of what direction they are polarized in.I believe the idea is "chosen path" which got conflated with polarization, which is a concept regarding ability to do work.
(03-11-2013, 08:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: Knowing may not be of this density, but that doesn't mean we can't understand or know anything.Right it means what we can know is "illusory" and only circumstantially applicable within the current distortion. The knowledge basically offers *no insight whatsoever* into polarity and only an inkling about a service-orientation morality.
(03-11-2013, 08:53 PM)anagogy Wrote:Right, I was talking about polarized action being unnecessary for return to home density and you responded that polarized action could affect ability to return to home density (which had already been established and was no one had said contrary to that except for the OP).(03-11-2013, 01:52 PM)zenmaster Wrote: And that degree of significance is called "polarity", which is what you were saying, whether or not you want to acknowledge it.
I wasn't aware I had said otherwise. My whole point was simply in response to your assertion that, "[...] it is not important at all to have STO action (or STS action) in order to go back to their density."
(03-11-2013, 03:46 AM)anagogy Wrote: So wanderers may do as they like, but if that involves significantly STS behavior (i can't imagine what else "negative orientation towards other selves" would mean if not "service to self"), they wouldn't necessarily return to their native density.
(03-11-2013, 03:46 AM)anagogy Wrote:(03-11-2013, 01:52 PM)zenmaster Wrote: Which no one but the OP had claimed.
Claimed what exactly? Not entirely sure what you are referring to?
That if you're a wanderer "you'll make yourself harvestable by nature." by aiding that planet, etc.??
(03-11-2013, 03:46 AM)anagogy Wrote: You were claiming that polarization wasn't a factor in whether a wanderer returns to their native density after their sojourn of 3rd density "wandering".No I did not. You even quoted what I said and you just forgot it again.
(03-11-2013, 03:46 AM)anagogy Wrote: I'm simply offering my understanding that polarization *IS* a factor, as that Ra quote corroborated.No one said it wasn't a factor. How did you even get that idea?