Caring/Compassion/Sensitivity/Tact vs Lying/Faking

[unity100]

Does honesty requires a balance? Green/blue?

that is the work of 6th ray. you dont get to there, without practicing the 5th.

however, even when you get there, balancing can never take the form of faking/lying/dishonesty. that would be overriding of one ray, for the sake of another.

What about you think you're using blue and it is orange/yellow in reality? Power issues, etc.

you cannot use blue ray, if you are moving with negative forms of orange/yellow. for, blue ray is not found in negative spectrum as we are told. the use of blue in negative in regard to information and correspondence, takes the form of lying/misrepresenting information and correspondence in accordance for the desired manipulation of the entity, and this generally takes the form of telling the entity what it desires, or fears, or whatever is going to affect it at that particular point.

blunt honesty does not have a place in negative spectrum. leave aside honesty.

My mom's 'honesty' affected me deeply, to the point of completely eradicating any possibility of pursuing music. Did she do the 'right' thing?

she very probably did the right thing.

for, if you had any desire and passion in your soul for music, you would have pursued it anyway. and someone would already react honestly to something you have sung in that fashion because they did not like it. if you had a passion for it, you would just go over that, and keep doing it.

the life already provides endless amounts of tests to provide thresholds to entities who are pursuing anything. if a person who cannot pass over the honest expression of dissatisfaction in what you do breaks your desire, then it means you actually did not really desire that enough to pursue it.

that is no different in spiritual matters, and actually much more important. there are endless amount of stumbling blocks that wait in every step to hold people that are not really desiring/unready to move forward, from moving forward. and these can range from the attitudes of family to negative entities.

dishonesty does not provide anything. it is desirable that the interactions should be without hurt, but it is necessary that there should be honesty to directly and accurately depict the felt emotions and thoughts as they are, instead of modifying/faking/repressing/changing them.

otherwise a lot of people just keep ending up pursuing music careers while stumbling in the way because people around them were always accommodating and never honest. or someone singing opera with a loud voice next to you in a small compact car because he thinks when he does that people are just enchanted.

Unity100,

There remains one person who can testify to how the experience of Ra’s words and Ra themselves *felt*. So I asked Jim McCarty a couple of questions.

Me: “Jim, Ra could be rather blunt and to the point, at times telling Don that he was incorrect. Would you say Ra’s responses lacked compassion? Was there love in the contact?”

Jim: “Ra’s responses did not lack compassion. Yes there was love. But it was not unrelieved compassion, it was balanced with wisdom.”

Me: “How did you perceive this love?”

Jim: “In two ways. One, there was a constant love energy present that could be felt in the vibration of the contact that went beyond the words Two, the words that they did choose indicated their care towards the contact, their friendly feelings, their gratitude for the contact, and their love/respect of us.”


Unity100, in justifying what many consider a rather cold approach to relating to others, you fall back on the Law of One, invoking it as your model for how you go about relating to others. You explain that as Ra was blunt in telling the Questioner he was mistaken, you, too, are blunt and tell others they are mistaken. And whereas no one insinuates that Ra lacked compassion, no one should see you as being loveless.

Here’s the key difference.

Those who received the Ra contact (Don, Carla, and Jim) did not feel like they were being minimized, negated, condescended down to, belittled, treated as inferiors, or their right to a point of view completely eliminated. Those who received the Ra contact have never once said about Ra what’s been said about your approach.

the key difference here is, apart from the modicum amount of extra offstandishness in my language and correspondence (which is not always constant btw), i am in no position to spiritually be present in the room that another entity is reading these lines from, and i am by no means able to impart that much spiritual energy to their environment so they will feel loved and cared for. practically, none of us, are in that position.

therefore :

Further, as far as I’m aware, no seeker who has ever read and loved the Law of One has ever said of Ra’s approach what others have said of yours.

actually i know quite an amount of people who thought that Ra's correspondence was lacking emotion/love/compassion when read from a book. i myself, are among them, and there has been others who had had expressed the same thing, when i had had recommended the book to them and even lent them. the last case of that has happened just a week ago, when i recommended someone who was very into spiritual literature read Ra material due to its reliability. the person did not like it, and did not read it, but due to my recommendation about reliability, he is now trying to read it.

i myself personally stopped reading the material a few times and read other stuff, back in 1994-1997 period. due to the exact same reason.

Being in a moderator position, I’ve been privy to a great deal of disgruntlement from those who have felt disrespected by your seeming inability/refusal to relate with sensitivity and compassion and respect to the others' point of view. (Note, this does not mean people have necessarily been upset that you have not *agreed* with them, but rather that in your disagreement you approach them as if the conversation of equals is over. You approach others with a single-minded intensity bent on one thing: proving them wrong with little concern for the validity of viewpoints other than your own.)

i did not at any point deny that when i am defending something, i approach it with a single minded intensity. and, someone already should not attempt to defend anything if s/he does not believe or trust to be true/valid in front of others in the first place.

my reaction to this train of thought has been that, people who were not ready or wanting to engage in intense discussions, should not seek or engage intense discussions in the first place. this doesnt even encompass the spiritual aspect of this kind of necessity, which i have discussed with you and others through open and private discussions.

I add my own voice to the chorus of discontent and say that while I personally find your intellectual magnitude far beyond what I typically encounter, and am impressed to no end by the penetrating analysis you are able to at times provide (I don’t know how you juggle it all in your brain), I nevertheless seldom feel the love/wisdom balance from you that I and others feel from Ra.

i would like to state that i still feel the love/wisdom balance or love from Ra, even after 17 years of study. i had had my infinite intelligence contact experience when i first read silver birch, and i feel it whenever i open and gaze in the book even today. but, i have not at all felt the kind of love you speak of, from Ra material.

The likening of your approach to Ra’s is superficial, bearing only surface resemblance. The proof of what I say is contained within the testimony of the many who repeatedly feel the harshness of your energy.

i didnt at any point deny that my discussion and interaction can be intense and energy harsh at times. especially at times when people ignore/invalidate the very spiritual principles they seem to be apparently advocating by contradicting them openly based on convenience, only to switch to advocating them when the convenience is accomplished. hypocrisy and turnaboutness. this is a wide spectrum that ranges from icaro's attempt to invalidate almost entirety of Ra material in order to invalidate a quote about harvest date he did not like, a few pages later in discussion only to switch to relying on the later parts which he has had invalidated with his proposition to support another of his perspectives on the same subject to namaste basically telling me to fake my correspondence and refrain from a basic language construct that we liberally use in our country - actually it is necessary to use it in polite settings with intense discussions with plurals - because american cultural political correctness requires it. i have given names to identify the certain occasions, however i believe the mentioned people will not mind, since the occasion requires and they already know all of these.

You will of course employ your analytical acrobatics to circumvent everything I’ve written here. I expect that. But I thought I would do my best to offer a reflection in the spirit of for what it’s worth. Use it for your own spiritual evolution as you see fit, and if not, by all means continue on as you are, carrying out this same tired pattern in perpetuity.

With love and light,
GLB

as you can see, i didnt provide anything analytical. i bluntly, directly told what i have been thinking. i did not deny anything either, when it seemed inconvenient.