Good day good readers
I have a question, and thank you for your possible answers
I wonder if it is infringement to get involved, for example, between two people you see on the street who are fighting.
Is it good to end their messy business, and it maybe even be a service to them, but is it not infringing upon their business, their free will? I guess I still don't understand clearly how we can infringe upon our brothers and sisters of Earth.
And whilst on the same subject, how about the common: "Is there anything I can do?" "Do you need help?" when you are with someone who obviously needs a little help or assistance and dares not to ask you? Do you propose yourself when you feel it is appropriate, when you feel that the person is willing your help but doesn't 'want to bother you' or do you not do a thing because the one didn't ask you?
(05-11-2010, 03:52 PM)Intermediary Wrote: [ -> ]Good day good readers
I have a question, and thank you for your possible answers
I wonder if it is infringement to get involved, for example, between two people you see on the street who are fighting.
Is it good to end their messy business, and it maybe even be a service to them, but is it not infringing upon their business, their free will? I guess I still don't understand clearly how we can infringe upon our brothers and sisters of Earth.
And whilst on the same subject, how about the common: "Is there anything I can do?" "Do you need help?" when you are with someone who obviously needs a little help or assistance and dares not to ask you? Do you propose yourself when you feel it is appropriate, when you feel that the person is willing your help but doesn't 'want to bother you' or do you not do a thing because the one didn't ask you?
My personal experience is if you try and help people be prepared to get yourself hurt.
Being the type that has an instinctive desire to always be helpful to others I have learned that the hard way over the years.
Many a person has got themselves bitten pretty bad trying to break up a canine fight and humans are far more dangerous.
That being said I remember the last canine fight I broke up and perhaps there is a good lesson in it that could be applied to a human situation.
I heard the fight in my bedroom and began to walk to the front door in my bathrobe.
When I opened the front door my German Shepard had a Husky in my front yard; on the ground; by its throat.
Heres the rub. The other dogs owner was walking up in my yard carrying a club/big stick.
You don't mess with my dog. I acted without thinking. I opened the screen door and stepped out onto the porch and in a very meaningful loud voice directed at that man with the club I shouted
"How would like me to go get my shot gun?" implying to him he better not mess with my dog.
I meant it too. Only problem was I did NOT have a shot gun as I have never owned a gun in my life and I am a very non-violent person.
Half way through my sentence though that dogfight ended and both dogs retreated in opposit directions at my growl at that man. I was at least 20 feet away from them dogs but my growl broke it up.
One things for sure. Them dogs knew I meant it.
Lesson Learned? Just make sure you really mean it when you say what you say. Certainly they still have the free will to ignore you, but at least you tried to help.
The following Q/A from session 42 of the Law of One has always helped to guide me:
Quote:42.6 Questioner: I would like to try to make an analogy for third-density of this concept. Many entities here feel great compassion for relieving the physical problems of third-density other-selves by administering to them in many ways, with food if there is hunger as there is now in the African nations, by bringing them medicine if they feel that there is a need to minister to them medically, and being selfless in all of these services to a very great extent.
This is creating a vibration that is in harmony with green-ray or fourth-density but it is not balanced with the understanding of fifth-density that these entities are experiencing catalysts and a more balanced administration to their needs would be to provide them with the learning necessary to reach the state of awareness of fourth-density than it would be to minister to their physical needs at this time. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this.
On the other hand, however, you are correct in your assumption that the green ray response is not as refined as that which has been imbued with wisdom. This wisdom enables the entity to appreciate its contributions to the planetary consciousness by the quality of its being without regard to activity or behavior which expects results upon visible planes.
It seems to me that the free will of the individual needs to be preserved above all things barring certain examples where the physical well-being of an individual may be preserved as in the case of offering food to the hungry.
This is such a fascinating topic to go into, because there are so many instances where it is hard to resist helping someone out when you are not asked to do so. At times, I personally prefer to ask if someone would like help, before I jump in and try to help them. If it's something as simple to me as holding a door open for someone, then I don't feel the need to ask.
More complex situations really beg the seeker to contemplate what is one's potential "highest and best" service to offer. Ra describes that the more refined service lies not in how one responds physically but in how one contributes to the planetary consciousness through the state of being. This concept has been mentioned repeatedly in the L/L channelings.
This particular quote has always stood out to me as one of great inspiration, so I would love to share it with you.
Quote:17.2 Questioner: Is it possible by the use of some technique or other to help an entity to reach fourth-density level in these last days?
Ra: I am Ra. It is impossible to help another being directly. It is only possible to make catalyst available in whatever form, the most important being the radiation of realization of oneness with the Creator from the self, less important being information such as we share with you.
We, ourselves, do not feel an urgency for this information to be widely disseminated. It is enough that we have made it available to three, four, or five. This is extremely ample reward, for if one of these obtains fourth-density understanding due to this catalyst then we shall have fulfilled the Law of One in the distortion of service.
We encourage a dispassionate attempt to share information without concern for numbers or quick growth among others. That you attempt to make this information available is, in your terms, your service. The attempt, if it reaches one, reaches all.
We cannot offer shortcuts to enlightenment. Enlightenment is, of the moment, an opening to intelligent infinity. It can only be accomplished by the self, for the self. Another self cannot teach/learn enlightenment, but only teach/learn information, inspiration, or a sharing of love, of mystery, of the unknown that makes the other-self reach out and begin the seeking process that ends in a moment, but who can know when an entity will open the gate to the present?
/:idea:
In the Carla's Transcripts section, Carla speaks about this a couple times. I've found her insight helpful on this topic.
In your fighting example, I think it would be an infringement of free will to break up the fight. Unless it's completely one-sided, it's their argument to work out. If one of them were completely pummeling his/her other-self, then I would probably intervene to help the one who is losing.
I don't think it's an infringement either to offer help. You could actually be doing a great service to them, who knows, maybe they'll accept your help and you'll be the hero of the day! I think it would be an infringement, however, to give your input on something if you're not asked.
I think another thing to consider is how close (not distance wise, but I can't find a better word to replace it. The context will reveal what I mean) you are to the person/people. Incarnate entities of higher densities, for example, can do hardly anything in space/time without infringing on free will compared to what a fellow third density soul can do. A random stranger on the street wouldn't be as welcome as a shoulder to cry on as your mother, father, sister, brother, or great great aunt.
Quote:Many a person has got themselves bitten pretty bad trying to break up a canine fight and humans are far more dangerous.
I kind of disagree/don't fully agree here. While humans can be far more dangerous than dogs, I don't think humans
are far more dangerous because they have much more developed mental capacities. If you get in-between two dogs who are single-mindedly going at it, it's almost certain that they're going to reject your infringement on free will (bite you) (lol). Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to stop and think, "hey wait I don't have to do that..." or what have you.
Peace, Love, Light and Namasté
(05-11-2010, 10:57 PM)JoshC Wrote: [ -> ]I kind of disagree/don't fully agree here. While humans can be far more dangerous than dogs, I don't think humans are far more dangerous because they have much more developed mental capacities. If you get in-between two dogs who are single-mindedly going at it, it's almost certain that they're going to reject your infringement on free will (bite you) (lol). Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to stop and think, "hey wait I don't have to do that..." or what have you.
Peace, Love, Light and Namasté
When Tom was a child he lived in the woods and never had other children as friends to play with. Tom's friends were the animals and talking to animals came natural to him. That is how Tom knows
dogs can stop and think just like humans.
It was the VIBRATION in our voice that stopped the fight. Never mind the shocking stares I was subjected to from all the neighbors who were quite dumfounded at my ability to break up a BLOODY fight with just my voice.
I did not just talk to the dogs. The dogs talked to me. One of my dogs was one of my greatest teachers. I served her selflessly for 11 years. I got here when I was 23 years old. She taught me the reality of conscious interspecies communication. Prior to her it had always been instinctual. Through her I learned the depth of intelligence they possess.
We were as ONE person her and I. Inseparable we were and went everywhere together. With her I could leave the windows down in the vehicle and never worry about her while I did what I had to do even if it took hours. The biggest problem I had was if a stranger tried to get within three feet of me they would get bitten. She bit at least 10 people over all those years. 11 if you count me, but it was my fault for acting like one of the dogs down on all ours while my Mom was feeding treats. It took hours to stop bleeding. I had puncture holes on both sides of my nose. No I did not hit her back, nor did I even yell at her.
I gave her the silent treatment.
She freaked out when she realized she had bit me, but what I can never forget was how she apologized. That dog was more hurt than I was.
She was not a normal average dog though. Super intelligent predominant black lab mixed breed. Very rare. My best friend told me as far as he was concerned she was possessed. She was something. Canines are what I like to call Land Dolphins.
It is a humans mental capacities which makes them potentially more dangerous, but not because they are more developed. In some ways humans are actually less developed than canines and other animals as well. Most people would not give serious thought to the idea that a swarm of water gnats could have a conversation with a human much less have knowledge of the atomic structure, but I do.
The truth is humans are the most dangerous animal of all due to their lack of mental development, or perhaps spiritual development.
Then again when you think about it is there really a difference between the two? Perhaps it is like two sides of the same coin.
Gah! I dearly want to respond but I am wary of this thread getting derailed. Hmm...
On topic: I really don't have to add anything to the OP, apologies. Maybe it's better that there's a separate topic for what Dolphin and I are discussing? Just thinking aloud here... to the moderators lol.
@Dolphin: Interesting post; I really hadn't though about it that way. While I've never communicated so intelligently with my dog, or any animal for that matter, I do see how animals can communicate with each other to an extent.
Just for funsies, I'll play the devil's advocate :p
In the Law of One material, it's sort of laid out that we evolve through the densities. First density obviously starts in eternity, in water, earth, fire and wind. Second density includes single-celled organisms up to the bipedal apes of our planet. Second density includes dogs as well, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the main goal of second density is to realize illusory separateness in preparation for third density. We of third density are given the mental faculties so that we can consciously make the choice to polarize to STS or STO.
With this in mind, what do you think about me saying that I don't think that dogs are quite as developed as we humans are? I mean obviously wolves in packs know who's alpha and know how to challenge the alpha, secede from the pack and adhere to the alpha's will. I don't think that they can, however, have intricate discussions about abstract concepts.
I think it's been proven, or at least the argument has been made, that the smartest apes (chimpanzees) on the planet are as smart as an 8-year-old human. They can understand the concept of "zero" when trying to indicate how many solid objects are in front of them, which is something that requires at least some thought.
(05-12-2010, 12:26 AM)JoshC Wrote: [ -> ]With this in mind, what do you think about me saying that I don't think that dogs are quite as developed as we humans are?
I think it's been proven, or at least the argument has been made, that the smartest apes (chimpanzees) on the planet are as smart as an 8-year-old human. They can understand the concept of "zero" when trying to indicate how many solid objects are in front of them, which is something that requires at least some thought.
It is a subject that is near futile for me to debate with someone.
The reason is because I understand why you think the way you do and I also understand why you cannot comprehend it the way I do.
How can I impart experiences to you for you to understand? Perhaps the problem is that while you can know something you may not actually fully understand it and so you are unable to explain it.
What do you think about me saying to you that a mosquito taught me how to play the piano when it bit me? When I ask myself how I could possibly go about explaining to you that truth I am confronted with a language barrier in trying to explain it.
On ocasion I am asked about my religion, or my beliefs. I have neither, but over time I have managed to find words that I use to try and answer those questions, but even when I use them I know people will likely not understand what I mean.
I personally would much prefer to be refered to as an animal rather than a human and if someone calls me a man I genuinely feel insulted, but I keep my feelings about such things to myself. It makes life easier when living among humans.
Suggestion: In the meat eating thread, the subject of animal intelligence was touched upon. Perhaps a new thread devoted to the evolution of souls through the densities might be interesting to explore. Dolphin, I find your concepts of relating to animals fascinating, and would invite such a discussion, provided it is in the context of the Law of One.
For now, let's please get this thread back on track.
I will offer my opinion regarding the OP's question:
I think that, if we find ourselves on the scene of a violent act taking place or about to take place, it's not a coincidence. There's a reason we're there. It is up to our personal discernment and guidance as to what degree of intervention we offer - ie. break up the fight or just call 911 - but I don't think it's imposing on the free will of others to do what we can to stop violence.
Regarding whether to offer help to others: I believe in always offering to help if I can. It's not imposing to offer help. They can always refuse our help if they don't want it. It is imposing to continue to insist on help if they have made it clear they don't want it.
I would rather offer help and have it be refused, than to not offer it when it might have been wanted.
Doing what YOU think is the right thing to do for the good of all involved will not result in receiving negative polarity. I don't remember the exact Q'uote, but they said something to that effect.
Help out if you can…if you think that help will be welcomed..if you think it will be appropriate and will not endanger anyone else. If you think it’s the right thing to do. It’s a personal decision to be made on the spur of the moment or after a bit of thought. But trying to figure out the philosophical ramifications re: The LOO… of the act before acting is next to useless in my opinion.
As a philosophical question / quandary…well, that’s another thing altogether. Real life rarely leaves us so much time to react. Question and examine your reactions afterwards, sure. But saying this is how I’ll react the next time something like this happens without the context of that situation is unrealistic.
Richard
Humans can not infringe on other human's free will. I don't see how.
Do what you feel is the best course of action for you. If you like a little drama and can take a couple of punches yourself, then break up the fight. If you just want to not waste time and spend it rather on other things then walk away. If you feel you can offer help and other are hesitant in asking then offer it.
Is chaining someone in your basement not against their free will? Is physical violence against them not against their free will? There certainly are ways to infringe upon the free will of others, and this infringement is done by those seeking negative polarity.
Acceptance is the key to positive polarity. Control is the key to negative polarity.
That being said.... "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." ~ Desmond Tutu
It's like someone walking across the street and you push them out of the way of a car that was about to hit them. Did they ask for this service? No.
Will they be thankful for this service? The probabilities point to yes.
And even if it's no... Don't you have the free will to intervene anyway? Or don't you have the free will to attempt to avoid seeing a nasty accident and potentially needing therapy for it?
Perhaps their higher self led them to this point to be saved by you. So they can learn from the experience... I've thought about this non intervention principle, but I doubt it applies to us living on the earth in any but some very specific situations.. It's really not practical since we have no way of knowing the will of another persons higher self.
Right now I just assume that suffering is not a requirement. And as long as it harms no one I am free to do everything I wish. If it harms someone, it's a moral decision I need to think about on a case by case basis.
You can't make life decisions by application of a rulebook.
So as to the topic... "Getting involved".. You are already involved with anything that occurs in your sphere of awareness.. It may not be your fault, but whatever it is it is your responsibility to deal with it appropriately.
Nothing is by coincidence. What to do when you arrive at the place you are supposed to be is your free will.
(05-18-2010, 10:24 PM)thefool Wrote: [ -> ]Humans can not infringe on other human's free will. I don't see how.
By trapping your thoughts and locking you into doing nothing to oppose the creation and formation of a new mundane physical framework you would never have agreed to willingly accept had you not been distracted from participation in its creation. As long as you never awake from the paralysys you will never experience the awareness of in effect having had a loss of free will, but should you advance and experience a new level of conciousness which wakes you from that paralysys you will find yourself in a new physical reality framework with new rules and boundaries which you must now build into your physical perception and adapt your life arround. In effect your freewill will have been hijacked in order to preclude you from participating in the creation of the mundane circumstances you must now live with, or rather I should say more likely end this incarnation with. Like it, or not brainwashing and propaganda do work.
Plato's Mystical Science
of Dialectical Interchange--
Maieutic Psychagogy
This essay contains highly challenging metaphysical material which requires intense concentration, study--and participation. The key to this essay cannot be fully expressed in words, but requires that the Seeker actually enter into the elements (sensations, concepts, actions) delineated. In other words, this essay cannot be understod unless it is experienced.
The dynamic contained within this essay is conveyed by the
mutual action of the words and the reaction of the reader.
The necessary experience occurs by means of a process which
takes over at the point where words leave off--and the
reader responds appropriately to apprehend the experience.
Hence, while the essay has been deliberately created with
the potential for enabling experiential participation in higher consciousness,
the results are entirely determined by what
kind of response the reader is able to make.
http://www.hermes-press.com/platonic_dialectic.htm
(05-19-2010, 12:22 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ]Is chaining someone in your basement not against their free will? Is physical violence against them not against their free will? There certainly are ways to infringe upon the free will of others, and this infringement is done by those seeking negative polarity.
These are fine examples of control and restriction of 'freedom'. But are we to equate 'freedom' with 'free-will'? Bahai faith founder Bahaullah was born in a prison and had his physical freedom restricted but that did not dent his 'free will'. That might even have been plan of his higher-self all along, so it might have been part of his free will.
For me free will is violated when we are not able to learn the lessons, pleasant or unpleasant, on the 3D planet due to some interference with the rules of the game. For example you are reading a mystery novel and someone tells you the ending. Now you will miss out on all the emotional ups and downs of the experience. That would be robbing you of an emotional wealth. I believe that is why confederate sources are very reluctant to provide specific information. If they give you the information that you are supposed to find out on your own after much struggle and associated emotional experiences, they would be violating a contract and robbing you of that experience. That in my mind is the violation of free will. Any human interaction is just part of the dance and only helps us in our emotional and experiential enrichment...
Precisely, free will in this regard is not being able to do what you want to do. It's being able to do what you are meant to do without any impedance from anything at all. Otherwise if you got it into your head that you wanted to fly, gravity would be impeding on your free will.
This quote also might be helpful:
Quote:October 8, 2006, Q'UO
This entity has lived on Earth. He has worked and
eaten and sweated and died. This entity has a
belonging. He is part of the tribe of humankind on
planet Earth. Those of a tribal family may speak to
each other. They may give advice. They may share
any information that they have available. They have
the right to interfere with the free will of others of
their family.
Those of us in the Confederation of Planets in the
Service of the Infinite Creator have not had
incarnations on Earth. We are not part of the tribe
of humankind on planet Earth. We come from
elsewhere. We do not have the right to interfere with
your decisions. That is the difference between an
inner guide and what this instrument calls an outer
source, meaning that it is from elsewhere rather than
from inner planes.
(05-11-2010, 03:52 PM)Intermediary Wrote: [ -> ]Good day good readers
I have a question, and thank you for your possible answers
I wonder if it is infringement to get involved, for example, between two people you see on the street who are fighting.
Is it good to end their messy business, and it maybe even be a service to them, but is it not infringing upon their business, their free will? I guess I still don't understand clearly how we can infringe upon our brothers and sisters of Earth.
And whilst on the same subject, how about the common: "Is there anything I can do?" "Do you need help?" when you are with someone who obviously needs a little help or assistance and dares not to ask you? Do you propose yourself when you feel it is appropriate, when you feel that the person is willing your help but doesn't 'want to bother you' or do you not do a thing because the one didn't ask you?
I think depends on the situation,your own limitations, and abilities.
Also, use discretion that you can help. Sometime just your presence is enough.
The one thing you are allowed to do without someone permission is Love them, unconditionally.
Oh, you would be filled with great joy if you knew how much your replies helped me understand more on the subject of free will and the respect of other's free will. Uff.
And I love the phrase "If you got it into your head that you wanted to fly, gravity would be impeding on your free will." Ah, that makes me laugh.
I wonder if it is infrigement to give a simple advice and/or ask a person to simply consider a little bit more what the person is doing, for example when you see a close friend doing something which from your point of view - perhaps a bigger picture of the situation - is not at all constructive/useful/positive/"good" for him - and sometimes also for others around -, or simply isn't at all what the one is thinking it is going to be but realizes this not, and you see/notice that the person just didn't think clearly and deeply enough and therefor found itself going in that particular direction; So is it an infringement?
Also, when you feel that a person would truly appreciate you sharing an opinion regarding this person's work for example, do you remain saying nothing if the one doesn't ask you for your opinion?
(05-11-2010, 03:52 PM)Intermediary Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if it is infringement to get involved, for example, between two people you see on the street who are fighting.
This has already been discussed at great length in some existing threads.
Quote:And whilst on the same subject, how about the common: "Is there anything I can do?" "Do you need help?" when you are with someone who obviously needs a little help or assistance and dares not to ask you? Do you propose yourself when you feel it is appropriate, when you feel that the person is willing your help but doesn't 'want to bother you' or do you not do a thing because the one didn't ask you?
Now this is really a different situation. If a person doesn't seem to be oppressed by someone else, then you are simply offering to assist. It's polite to the other person ask what they are trying to accomplish, and if they can use some help. It's also polite to yourself to not make an offer that depletes your own life, and the good you could do on into the future, particularly when there has not been any expression of discontent or any request for help from the other person.
If the other person has the right to say "No thanks," of course you have the right to make a kind-hearted offer. And if you have the right to say "No, not now," then of course other people have the right to ask for your help. In both of these situations, there is no infringement or disrespect of the other person's right to their own free will decisions.
In terms of demonstrating how unconditional loving compassion, omitting any balance of self-preservation, can lead to an entity's termination of life... well, Jesus perfectly demonstrated how that works better than any of us could hope to do so. There's not really a need for any of us to try to repeat that demonstration. Remember that Ra points out that in this human lifetime, offering loving service half the time is enough of a goal to move on.
(05-11-2010, 03:52 PM)Intermediary Wrote: [ -> ]Good day good readers
I have a question, and thank you for your possible answers
I wonder if it is infringement to get involved, for example, between two people you see on the street who are fighting.
I would just stand there and watch.
