I'm just going through a really rough patch with myself.
I can't seem to comprehend how Indifference and Unconditional Love are any different in action when viewed side by side, especially when dealing with indifference.
I see it as. In indifference you may sometimes act the same way as if you were providing unconditional love.
Someone attacks, with indifference or love as a response, does one not basically allow ones self to be attacked?
But is it still the fault of the attacked for letting the attacker attack?
Or. My biggest issue is just plain indifference. I'm having a hard time loving its infinite ways of letting people do whatever they want to me...
Unconditional love would include yourself so letting yourself be attacked would not actually be unconditionally loving, whereas indifference, in my mind, is more like apathy, where one simply isn't concerned. If someone makes an attempt to infringe upon your free will, I believe it is within the law of free will to correct or defend your free will without infringing upon the person. This is because I think there is a confusion regarding free will in that people think it means that people should always be able to do whatever they want to do. I don't think this is actually how free will is and instead there is more of a fine balance of distribution of will. When this becomes imbalanced through the intentional choice of an individual to weight the will in their direction it is seen as infringement in that one attempts to take a greater portion. I don't believe infringement happens unconsciously, unconscious actions are more random catalyst. I think the more conscious a creator of catalyst is, the less random the catalyst.
Thus, if someone intentionally comes at you with the intent to harm you, I think this is infringement, but if someone accidentally ran in to you and knocked you down because they weren't looking, this is more random catalyst. In both cases you have catalyst to deal with. In the case of infringement, I believe to 'correct' the infringement, you would be able to use self-defense. This choice would thereby be your free will choice to not accept the offer of infringement from the attacker, preserving your free will. This is where I think the key idea comes in.
When the attacker attacks, I believe in the offer of infringement they are opening themselves to whatever it is that they offer. In otherwords if you were to harm them as a result of self-defense it would not be an infringement on their will because they already invited themselves to engage in harm and so when they receive harm it is actually already within their free will, they have accepted this the moment they decided to harm another.
This is the venom of the dark path. It poisons the user while feigning the giving of power. This is why the negative polarity eventually always leads to violence in some form in third-density because they can only gain power through successful infringement. To that effect, they must be able to infringe without being caught or the individual regaining their free will. They attempt to 'trap' the will and use it as a power for themselves. At least, in fourth and early fifth negative.
Positive might defend the self, subdue the attacker to prevent more infringement and then afterwords work to heal whatever emotional, mental or physical imbalance that resulted from the catalyst to thus restore balance. This may include healing for the attacker, or working on feelings of fear, mistrust, anger, revenge, etc.
Negative would take those traumatic feelings they gained from being attacked and turn them upon their attacker.
Lets stop talking in terms of selfless and selfish.
And turn to a different perspective because that one for all intents and purposes, is more detrimental to me than I wanted to admit as it does not properly provide any emphasis on the entirety of Gray-area issues what is and is not relatively actual vs thought in the ways of things.
A.
B. It supposes in absolution that all actions are encompassed in selfishness or selflessness and must be tied to an aspect of that which,
C. We're human, and amnesiac, our own being is not known to be synonymous with anything in our realities until we know, at which point we become responsible for all we do despite when we knew or not. So thus we're always responsible.
So, I'm truly left with concerns for 3D and why as a human I'm born into it, and from the higher perspectives, its basically my responsibility or else my fault, and all reasons are excuses for lack of responsibility. But not knowing why, I receive things across the day that again, not knowing so, how i treat them is how I'll be treated.
Yet now knowing so and in practice, does not occur for the things i actually desire. And if these issues or catalyst are not learned from, i may end up suffering.
By what is said to be choice in a configuration closer to, who I was planned this, then I forgot everything, got a new life, but these things from not my current life but something i had no say in as a 3D being that I planned for are now coming forth,and hurting me, and Im.left being told i did this all to myself.
So hence there's also an issue of perceiving the forms of Unconditional Love as closer to Indifference in a 3D setting.
It forces a lot without actual consent in the form of utilizing a consensual form of operation on a being with no capability of offering consent until its far into the operation of getting caught up in karma.
Please dont say 3D is not actually differentiatable from the rest, only here is there a veil,and only here are there a myriad of excuses for Why beings suffer without consent but are told they already consented in a system they may not, as a human being or otherwise, want anything to do with. Or basically, who dont actually consent with being born just to suffer to learn.
Id explain all in depth except I dont feel like trying to coherently make sense of that jumble of thoughts.
I feel like right now im trying to learn how to love absolute indifference with unconditional love, in a way that doesn't make me lose my mind lol
Quote:When the attacker attacks, I believe in the offer of infringement they are opening themselves to whatever it is that they offer. In otherwords if you were to harm them as a result of self-defense it would not be an infringement on their will because they already invited themselves to engage in harm and so when they receive harm it is actually already within their free will, they have accepted this the moment they decided to harm another.
I understand this differently. I believe there is a distinction between self-defense and retaliation. Self-defense is protecting the self by blocking the attack or leaving the interaction. Retaliation is inflicting harm on the attacker. Any time we return harm for harm, it damages us (karmically) and provides catalyst to the other party. It doesn't matter if it's in retaliation or if we're the original instigator. What others do is their karma, what we do is ours.
The other level of this topic that hasn't yet been mentioned is emotion. Emotion is the essence of our being, it's how our consciousness experiences and channels the Creator's energy as it flows through us. At that level, there is a vast difference between unconditional love and indifference. They are entirely distinct states of being with nothing in common, energetically/emotionally.
This is relevant to self-defense also. Positive self-defense includes transforming our instinctive negative emotional reactions into love and acceptance for the attacker. Learning to react to catalyst with love and acceptance is the essence of the positive path, and all kinds of good things happen when we learn to do this. We have the examples of Jesus, who showed us that it is more beneficial to die than to cause harm to one's attackers, and even Socrates, who said we must "improve our enemies". Someone else - I don't recall who - said, "If I've turned my enemy into a friend, have I not defeated my enemy?" All of those express the same idea.
One of the most useful things I've realized so far is this: there is no external reality. All reality is internal; it's all about consciousness interacting with consciousness. The rest is just props - which are simply ideas held in consciousness. So, what happens or does not happen externally matters only insofar as it affects one's own consciousness and the consciousness of those around oneself, and those effects take place primarily through emotion, which is energy. And the highest energy in all circumstances, as far as I can tell, is love, the universal healing and integrating force.
@Stranger:
Quote:". . . do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" Abraham Lincoln
@Tan.rar What free will are you talking about? Lowly 3D free will which purpose is to be adhered or infridged?
Or real free will which is the first distortion and which infridgment is not possible in any way as it is the very foundation of our existence?
I did not like "random catalyst", I'd call it a less important catalyst but surely not random.
(05-26-2015, 10:23 AM)Stranger Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:When the attacker attacks, I believe in the offer of infringement they are opening themselves to whatever it is that they offer. In otherwords if you were to harm them as a result of self-defense it would not be an infringement on their will because they already invited themselves to engage in harm and so when they receive harm it is actually already within their free will, they have accepted this the moment they decided to harm another.
I understand this differently. I believe there is a distinction between self-defense and retaliation. Self-defense is protecting the self by blocking the attack or leaving the interaction. Retaliation is inflicting harm on the attacker. Any time we return harm for harm, it damages us (karmically) and provides catalyst to the other party. It doesn't matter if it's in retaliation or if we're the original instigator. What others do is their karma, what we do is ours.
The other level of this topic that hasn't yet been mentioned is emotion. Emotion is the essence of our being, it's how our consciousness experiences and channels the Creator's energy as it flows through us. At that level, there is a vast difference between unconditional love and indifference. They are entirely distinct states of being with nothing in common, energetically/emotionally.
This is relevant to self-defense also. Positive self-defense includes transforming our instinctive negative emotional reactions into love and acceptance for the attacker. Learning to react to catalyst with love and acceptance is the essence of the positive path, and all kinds of good things happen when we learn to do this. We have the examples of Jesus, who showed us that it is more beneficial to die than to cause harm to one's attackers, and even Socrates, who said we must "improve our enemies". Someone else - I don't recall who - said, "If I've turned my enemy into a friend, have I not defeated my enemy?" All of those express the same idea.
One of the most useful things I've realized so far is this: there is no external reality. All reality is internal; it's all about consciousness interacting with consciousness. The rest is just props - which are simply ideas held in consciousness. So, what happens or does not happen externally matters only insofar as it affects one's own consciousness and the consciousness of those around oneself, and those effects take place primarily through emotion, which is energy. And the highest energy in all circumstances, as far as I can tell, is love, the universal healing and integrating force.
Have you ever been in a fist fight? Even blocking an opponent may potentially harm them, it's something you have to accept when you choose to defend yourself. The other option is to martyr yourself. So you only block, what if they break your guard and proceed to harm you because you are only guarding?
I certainly appreciate your reasoning philosophically and ideally, but it doesn't always seem to relate to actual experience.
Let's see some love for the fist hammering your face.
@Van
Good text, I do get where you trying to go.
Indifference might not be the right word as it would imply not caring. When this indifference can come from caring equally to all sides. You don't want to tip any balance.
(05-26-2015, 11:26 AM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ]@Tan.rar What free will are you talking about? Lowly 3D free will which purpose is to be adhered or infridged?
Or real free will which is the first distortion and which infridgment is not possible in any way as it is the very foundation of our existence?
I did not like "random catalyst", I'd call it a less important catalyst but surely not random.
I don't believe in your concept of free will determinism. I refer to the dynamics between individuations of the Creator. Each is free to do as they will but everything affects everything. I think free will is the same top to bottom, only affected by degrees of consciousness. One can impede the freedom of awareness of other individuations whether you justify it by universal philosophy or not. That is what this often appears to me as, a tool of justification.
(05-26-2015, 10:12 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: [ -> ]I feel like right now im trying to learn how to love absolute indifference with unconditional love, in a way that doesn't make me lose my mind lol
So what do you do if you accept that you don't consent to your own life? Isn't that self-destructive and self-depreciating?
Whatever way you act is dependent on your origination and in-progress awareness of your pre-set path.
If you look at the earth, it takes a lot of it on itself but ends up retaliating with time as it is necessary part of growth.
If you provide love in being attacked, you provide catalyst.
If you provide retaliation in being attacked, you provide catalyst.
What does decide which is to happen is what catalyst is needed by you and what catalyst is needed by the other-self. It simply sets the required conditions for what is to happen, to happen. There is no "random".
How is need defined here? Again, sounds like another tool of justification. "Well if I kick your ass, it's because you wanted it."
(05-26-2015, 11:39 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 11:26 AM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ]@Tan.rar What free will are you talking about? Lowly 3D free will which purpose is to be adhered or infridged?
Or real free will which is the first distortion and which infridgment is not possible in any way as it is the very foundation of our existence?
I did not like "random catalyst", I'd call it a less important catalyst but surely not random.
I don't believe in your concept of free will determinism. I refer to the dynamics between individuations of the Creator. Each is free to do as they will but everything affects everything. I think free will is the same top to bottom, only affected by degrees of consciousness. One can impede the freedom of awareness of other individuations whether you justify it by universal philosophy or not. That is what this often appears to me as, a tool of justification.
Why do you think Ra called the first distortion Free Will?
What I'm saying is presenting is at the very first law of our Universe, unbreakable and standing above all else. Our lives under this law are awareness of what we are to become aware of, hence the Creator will know Itself.
(05-26-2015, 11:45 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]How is need defined here? Again, sounds like another tool of justification. "Well if I kick your ass, it's because you wanted it."
I've never fought with anyone in this life, I'm very peaceful and never got any catalysts of the sort.
I'm not trying to justify something I do.
Need is defined as what calls the person who respond in the manner it does to be there at that time. As I said there is no random.
I believe in an actual element of chaos in the universe so "random" is possible. I think infinity would be incomplete without it. Ra even says that too much order is by its essence negative and it seems to me like you want absolute order. Maybe that is our difference. I think there is a mysterious chaos which permeates all things that sometimes causes 'mutations' of experience.
(05-26-2015, 11:47 AM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 11:39 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 11:26 AM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ]@Tan.rar What free will are you talking about? Lowly 3D free will which purpose is to be adhered or infridged?
Or real free will which is the first distortion and which infridgment is not possible in any way as it is the very foundation of our existence?
I did not like "random catalyst", I'd call it a less important catalyst but surely not random.
I don't believe in your concept of free will determinism. I refer to the dynamics between individuations of the Creator. Each is free to do as they will but everything affects everything. I think free will is the same top to bottom, only affected by degrees of consciousness. One can impede the freedom of awareness of other individuations whether you justify it by universal philosophy or not. That is what this often appears to me as, a tool of justification.
Why do you think Ra called the first distortion Free Will?
What I'm saying is presenting is at the very first law of our Universe, unbreakable and standing above all else. Our lives under this law are awareness of what we are to become aware of, hence the Creator will know Itself.
They describe it as the freedom of will of awareness. The first distortion is infinity becoming aware of itself, the freedom of awareness is a result of its self-awareness. This self-awareness was then focused infinitely in finite ways to explore itself, this is Logos. From focus comes light and from there experience. These are the distortions.
The Law of Confusion or Free Will is a law which relates the mechanics of interactions between Logo according to their use of freedom of awareness.
(05-26-2015, 11:49 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]I believe in an actual element of chaos in the universe so "random" is possible. I think infinity would be incomplete without it. Ra even says that too much order is by its essence negative and it seems to me like you want absolute order. Maybe that is our difference. I think there is a mysterious chaos which permeates all things that sometimes causes 'mutations' of experience.
Yet time never was something other than a force that kept things in their place for awareness to move through.
You path already had it's end becore your awareness of it even started. You've always been where you were required by self and other-selves. You've always done what was required by self and other-selves.
You've truly always been the One, simply not in awareness.
(05-26-2015, 11:49 AM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 11:45 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]How is need defined here? Again, sounds like another tool of justification. "Well if I kick your ass, it's because you wanted it."
I've never fought with anyone in this life, I'm very peaceful and never got any catalysts of the sort.
I'm not trying to justify something I do.
Need is defined as what calls the person who respond in the manner it does to be there at that time. As I said there is no random.
So then you really don't know what that kind of situation is actually like.
(05-26-2015, 11:26 AM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ]@Tan.rar What free will are you talking about? Lowly 3D free will which purpose is to be adhered or infridged?
Or real free will which is the first distortion and which infridgment is not possible in any way as it is the very foundation of our existence?
I did not like "random catalyst", I'd call it a less important catalyst but surely not random.
This is where the perspective of Love and a perspective of indifference meet again in a way that is nearly the same looking from 3D.
I've an understanding that all things are love and sacred. Why is an 3D Entity's free will not equal up to the first distortion free will?
I understand Free Will allows all. Is there a potential 3D unethical use by spirit from a 3D perspective?
If the Human becomes aware, and isnt okay with the operations, how is it maintaining free will of the first distortion? A human may very well know itself in the 3D as more of an experiment to be experienced through.
A life they may not be okay with not really that much different from potentially farming animals just to slaughter them. They don't even know, they got no choice from a self-awareness perspective.
(05-26-2015, 11:55 AM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 11:49 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]I believe in an actual element of chaos in the universe so "random" is possible. I think infinity would be incomplete without it. Ra even says that too much order is by its essence negative and it seems to me like you want absolute order. Maybe that is our difference. I think there is a mysterious chaos which permeates all things that sometimes causes 'mutations' of experience.
Yet time never was something other than a force that kept things in their place for awareness to move through.
You path already had it's end becore your awareness of it even started. You've always been where you were required by self and other-selves. You've always done what was required by self and other-selves.
You've truly always been the One, simply not in awareness.
Again, redundant. So I've done it all, cool, now what?
(05-26-2015, 11:56 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 11:49 AM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 11:45 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]How is need defined here? Again, sounds like another tool of justification. "Well if I kick your ass, it's because you wanted it."
I've never fought with anyone in this life, I'm very peaceful and never got any catalysts of the sort.
I'm not trying to justify something I do.
Need is defined as what calls the person who respond in the manner it does to be there at that time. As I said there is no random.
So then you really don't know what that kind of situation is actually like.
I know many would act in different manners and that's the point of what I'm saying.
The two players are inter-connected. Everything is always much more inter-connected than awareness seems to make it look like.
How I'd act is unimportant, me having a role in it brings me to act the way I would while another could act differently. We call each other constantly and unawarely as the One to Itself.
That's basically saying 'stuff happens because it happens'.
(05-26-2015, 12:01 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]That's basically saying 'stuff happens because it happens'.
Because they are required to happen.
Remember there is only One, things are much more inter-connected than what are aware of.
Whether you do something conciously, unconsciously, willingly, unwillingly, etc. There is always purpose. The whole of reality exists solely for you just as you exist as part of reality solely for others, and this is true in anythjng that you do.
Required by who? Infinity? How can infinity require anything?
I am not denying infinite cosmic oneness interconnect ness or whatever, I'm saying, so what?
(05-26-2015, 12:07 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]Required by who? Infinity? How can infinity require anything?
I am not denying infinite cosmic oneness interconnect ness or whatever, I'm saying, so what?
If infinity didn't require anything, there would be nothing.
(05-26-2015, 12:09 PM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 12:07 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]Required by who? Infinity? How can infinity require anything?
I am not denying infinite cosmic oneness interconnect ness or whatever, I'm saying, so what?
If infinity didn't require anything, there would be nothing.
Again, totally circular thinking. Infinity would not be infinity if it was lacking.
(05-26-2015, 12:13 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 12:09 PM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 12:07 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]Required by who? Infinity? How can infinity require anything?
I am not denying infinite cosmic oneness interconnect ness or whatever, I'm saying, so what?
If infinity didn't require anything, there would be nothing.
Again, totally circular thinking. Infinity would not be infinity if it was lacking.
Reality is circular, evolution of consciousness is circular.
Circular thinkings are purposeful as awareness changes with time.
(05-26-2015, 11:35 AM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 10:23 AM)Stranger Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:When the attacker attacks, I believe in the offer of infringement they are opening themselves to whatever it is that they offer. In otherwords if you were to harm them as a result of self-defense it would not be an infringement on their will because they already invited themselves to engage in harm and so when they receive harm it is actually already within their free will, they have accepted this the moment they decided to harm another.
I understand this differently. I believe there is a distinction between self-defense and retaliation. Self-defense is protecting the self by blocking the attack or leaving the interaction. Retaliation is inflicting harm on the attacker. Any time we return harm for harm, it damages us (karmically) and provides catalyst to the other party. It doesn't matter if it's in retaliation or if we're the original instigator. What others do is their karma, what we do is ours.
The other level of this topic that hasn't yet been mentioned is emotion. Emotion is the essence of our being, it's how our consciousness experiences and channels the Creator's energy as it flows through us. At that level, there is a vast difference between unconditional love and indifference. They are entirely distinct states of being with nothing in common, energetically/emotionally.
This is relevant to self-defense also. Positive self-defense includes transforming our instinctive negative emotional reactions into love and acceptance for the attacker. Learning to react to catalyst with love and acceptance is the essence of the positive path, and all kinds of good things happen when we learn to do this. We have the examples of Jesus, who showed us that it is more beneficial to die than to cause harm to one's attackers, and even Socrates, who said we must "improve our enemies". Someone else - I don't recall who - said, "If I've turned my enemy into a friend, have I not defeated my enemy?" All of those express the same idea.
One of the most useful things I've realized so far is this: there is no external reality. All reality is internal; it's all about consciousness interacting with consciousness. The rest is just props - which are simply ideas held in consciousness. So, what happens or does not happen externally matters only insofar as it affects one's own consciousness and the consciousness of those around oneself, and those effects take place primarily through emotion, which is energy. And the highest energy in all circumstances, as far as I can tell, is love, the universal healing and integrating force.
Have you ever been in a fist fight? Even blocking an opponent may potentially harm them, it's something you have to accept when you choose to defend yourself. The other option is to martyr yourself. So you only block, what if they break your guard and proceed to harm you because you are only guarding?
I certainly appreciate your reasoning philosophically and ideally, but it doesn't always seem to relate to actual experience.
Let's see some love for the fist hammering your face.
Tan, here also I see intent as important. Is your intent to limit harm to yourself, or to destroy the attacker? Those are different energies and states of being, and create a LOT of space to move in between retaliation and martyrdom.
Also, in the course of a fight/argument/conflict negative emotion can often rage, but the trick, I find, is to transform that into love and forgiveness for self and other as early as possible afterwards, once the animal instincts recede. Ideally before going to sleep, because of my strong suspicion that the day's karma gets consolidated into our personality configuration during sleep.
Funny you should mention the fist in the face. I've had that exact situation, and not all that long ago. Some negative entities (not incarnate) were trying to prevent me from taking an important trip, and with the help of some thugs created the catalyst of a fistfight. I recall distinctly the moment where I could have brought a chair down on my attacker's head, and was certainly tempted, but chose not to because I did not want to harm him. Throughout the fight, I kept thinking, "I really don't want to hurt this guy." Afterwards, one of the STS organizers of this event growled, "how did you enjoy that?". I calmly replied, "It was helpful. I probably needed it on some level." He almost exploded with frustration. In a large part because of the way I handled it emotionally/spiritually, I was able to get over the whole thing very quickly to the point where it did not bother me at all.
I think the argument that pacifism is "unrealistic" is a large part of what continues to maintain the world in the sorry state it's in, geopolitically. "There will always be a need for war, guns, missiles, strongarm tactics." Well guess what - that sort of thinking is exactly what makes it true. Jesus' life showed that it's possible for a human being to live in unconditional love. The purpose of life is to learn and grow, not to stay alive as long as one possibly can. His life ended early, but achieved more than a thousand of "realistic" lives could possibly have achieved.
(05-26-2015, 12:18 PM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 12:13 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 12:09 PM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2015, 12:07 PM)Tan.rar Wrote: [ -> ]Required by who? Infinity? How can infinity require anything?
I am not denying infinite cosmic oneness interconnect ness or whatever, I'm saying, so what?
If infinity didn't require anything, there would be nothing.
Again, totally circular thinking. Infinity would not be infinity if it was lacking.
Reality is circular, evolution of consciousness is circular.
Circular thinkings are purposeful as awareness changes with time.
Yeah, but you have to leave the thought you are on to get back to it.