Kundalini And Polarity

[Steppingfeet]

I think that rejecting is not the same thing as accepting that the service is offered but saying—or being in a state of—"thank you but no." On a deeper level, the energetic state of a being can be in the consciousness of accepting all but not all can penetrate the being's energy field (I'm not sure how to articulate this). So negative service that is offered can be accepted as being part of reality, but not possible simply because the being has reached a state where the negative service cannot assimilate.

If I think you're saying what I think you're saying, then that's what I think that I think I'm saying.

That is, this is the balance that Ra spoke to in 67.11:

Thus you may see, in many cases, the loving balance being achieved: the love being offered, light being sent, and the service of the service-to-self oriented entity gratefully acknowledged while being rejected as not being useful in your journey at this time. Thus you serve One Creator without paradox.

When you say that the "negative service cannot assimilate," it reminds me of this section of the same passage:

There is one vast panoply of biases and distortions, colors and hues, in an unending pattern. In the case of those with whom you, as entities and as a group, are not in resonance, you wish them love, light, peace, joy, and bid them well. No more than this can you do, for your portion of the Creator is as it is, and your experience and offering of experience, to be valuable, needs be more and more a perfect representation of who you truly are.

There is something to be said about the purity and integrity of the entity's field such that it becomes "immune" or impervious to incongruent lower-vibrational forms.

Though in total non-dual realization, I think that the self-realized entity sees the cascading matrix'esque 1s and 0s of creation, figuratively speaking, and the infinite void (or fullness) out of which it all arises. Such an entity is thus free of all outer form and relative polarity, walking the universe with "unfettered tread."

---

Sidenote: If in the following quote "those entities" refers to the negative entities, then Ra also strangely implies that acceptance = transformation of the other-selves:

"...the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded, engulfed, and transformed by positive energies."

It's the only passage I'm aware of where Ra seems to say that the other-self being accepted must correspondingly be transformed by the acceptance in order for the entity doing the accepting to progress. Feedback welcome.

I don't this passage the same. It is 25.6 for anyone who wants to read it in context. But I read that as an example of the penultimate positive response to negativity. An event which would be exceedingly rare in actual occurrence but possible nonetheless.

The next line makes it clearer,

This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say.

The user of the most accepting and loving energy would have to be at a higher level basically to be able to do this.

Dtris, can you clarify why you feel that acceptance of other selves = transformation of the other-selves is "an example of the penultimate positive response to negativity."

I was expressing confusion that the "most accepting and loving energy," as Ra says, is equated with the transformation of the other self. I've always understood that acceptance is not tied to how it's received on the other end, per se. (Though impact is a variable always to be considered.)

Jesus fully unstintingly loved and accepted those who put him up on the cross, but they weren't transformed, and he was still crucified. Was his acceptance less?

Had Jesus's identical twin brother been in the same predicament and so accepted his crucifiers that they opened their hearts and practiced forgiveness, would twin Jesus's acceptance have been more true?

Expecting our acceptance to "transform" the other self lands with me as a manner of control or manipulation. I mean, that's great if loving someone opens their heart and catalyzes their recognition of self by self, thus healing/transforming the self, but the trueness/strength/quality of our acceptance is not dependent upon the transformation or the outcome of our love of the other-self, in my understanding. Do you see otherwise?

(Also, did you mean "ultimate positive response"?)