05-30-2015, 01:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2015, 01:57 AM by APeacefulWarrior.)
At the risk of being overly reductionist, I would say that whether or not an entity/construct has Free Will mostly boils down to whether it can say "no."
I tend to think people often worry too much about the origination of their thoughts. Like in that Quo quote, it's easy to get into a mindset of "well, my higher group mind told me to do that, so it wasn't MY Free Will." Except it still was Free Will, because in most/all cases it's still up to the entity in the body to decide to go along with that idea. The incarnate entity is (usually) the proverbial captain of the vessel and gets last word on what that vessel does. They can say "no," at least once one becomes self-aware and/or dense enough to start doing more than acting on pure impulse.
What matters here is not whether a particular impulse originates in a 6D S-M-C or from Gaia or whatever other source. What matters is what the incarnate entity does with those impulses, upon receiving them.
Likewise, acceptance/submission/cooperation/etc within a larger mental structure is ALSO an act of Free Will. It's the conscious act of deciding not to say no. From everything I've seen from Ra and Quo about the structure/hierarchy of S-M-Cs, being part of one requires actively and willfully NOT interfering with the larger operations. A member of one decides to allow their actions to be mostly dictated by the larger whole, and since their vibrations are closely in tune with the larger entity, there is little to distinguish the ideas of one sub-entity from those of the whole.
An idea occurs to them, and they decide to go along with it because they see no reason not to, and without worrying about the origination point.
It's sorta like that one guy on a road trip who never cares where the car stops for lunch, and he (or she) just goes along with whatever the group car-mind decides. That's still an act of conscious will - the decision to be deliberately passive. Like Rush said, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. At the same time, nothing stops that person from suddenly demanding Taco Bell and nothing but, if they ever decided to be more active.
An entity's will can be voluntarily turned towards supporting someone else's will, basically, without being a violation of Free Will. It's mostly just a decision in how one applies their will, or in what direction it is focused.
But as long as they can say "no," if they choose, there is still Free Will there.
I tend to think people often worry too much about the origination of their thoughts. Like in that Quo quote, it's easy to get into a mindset of "well, my higher group mind told me to do that, so it wasn't MY Free Will." Except it still was Free Will, because in most/all cases it's still up to the entity in the body to decide to go along with that idea. The incarnate entity is (usually) the proverbial captain of the vessel and gets last word on what that vessel does. They can say "no," at least once one becomes self-aware and/or dense enough to start doing more than acting on pure impulse.
What matters here is not whether a particular impulse originates in a 6D S-M-C or from Gaia or whatever other source. What matters is what the incarnate entity does with those impulses, upon receiving them.
Likewise, acceptance/submission/cooperation/etc within a larger mental structure is ALSO an act of Free Will. It's the conscious act of deciding not to say no. From everything I've seen from Ra and Quo about the structure/hierarchy of S-M-Cs, being part of one requires actively and willfully NOT interfering with the larger operations. A member of one decides to allow their actions to be mostly dictated by the larger whole, and since their vibrations are closely in tune with the larger entity, there is little to distinguish the ideas of one sub-entity from those of the whole.
An idea occurs to them, and they decide to go along with it because they see no reason not to, and without worrying about the origination point.
It's sorta like that one guy on a road trip who never cares where the car stops for lunch, and he (or she) just goes along with whatever the group car-mind decides. That's still an act of conscious will - the decision to be deliberately passive. Like Rush said, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. At the same time, nothing stops that person from suddenly demanding Taco Bell and nothing but, if they ever decided to be more active.
An entity's will can be voluntarily turned towards supporting someone else's will, basically, without being a violation of Free Will. It's mostly just a decision in how one applies their will, or in what direction it is focused.
But as long as they can say "no," if they choose, there is still Free Will there.