Bring4th

This is something that seems to be a staple in a lot of so-called "positive" philosophies and web sites, the idea that self-control is somehow "negative", when it seems to me that an entity which desires control of others would, in fact, be the ones actively discouraging one's own control of self.

Could anyone help clear this up for me?

The positive adept "controls" him/herself using understanding, acceptance and direction of the will. The negative uses repression and self discipline to empower and direct, for example, sexual desire or anger like a steam powered weapon.

Not sure i completely understand you,
i'd offer my thoughts thoughts on this.

I would say, there are different Levels of Self-control.

If you try to control your outer life to a high degree, this could well indicate you try to avoid catalyst, or rather your try to control what would arise as a reaction in you.
An example would be all the "The Secret" stuff (not as a basic principle but how it's commonly practiced). It seems that many try to control how their life unfolds, instead of dealing with what arises.
The result would be a seperation from self.
You would rob yourself of the opportunity to get to know yourself more deeply and instead Chose to control.

Another Level would be, you highly control your emotions, in the sense of suppressing what is Insider of you, usually suppressing emotions, by various control means.
That could be intellectual control, avoidance of certain situations, avoidance of relationships.
What would be the Core here, is control of emotions, in the sense of not allowing oneself to feel them.

(i would say however, although this is ultimately "polarizing negatively", it is also a necessity, als Long als the entity is stable and "strong" enough to Face this.)

Behaviour patterns like this most likely also lead to (unconsciously) Control of others.
An example would be, youre talking with someone who is about to display deeper emotions (which in that case you dont want to face), the reaction could be making a (seemingly) joking comment or responding in a highly intellectual way and thus kind of "killing" the emotional atmosphere.
I was especially skilled in this until i was thirty

The means to be controlling in relationships are endless, and i think everybody dös this to a degree, but it's ultimately connected to what i wrote above, one does not want to face unpleasant emotions.
This kind of control usually is completely invisible to oneself.

There is also a "positive" kind of control, this would be feeling an intense negative emotion, like anger, but experiencing it consciously and consciously choosing to not act it out.
Being really angry but choosing to not Beat someone up, in simpler words.

This is my view of the control/ self-control subject.

In Ra's philosophy the crux seems to be that of control or acceptance of Catalyst. This may involve controlling the other self or attempt to control the situation surrounding that which feels out of control, most usually emotions.

Quote:46.9 Questioner: Certainly.

Ra: The entity polarizing positively perceives the anger. This entity, if using this catalyst mentally, blesses and loves this anger in itself. It then intensifies this anger consciously in mind alone until the folly of this red-ray energy is perceived not as folly in itself but as energy subject to spiritual entropy due to the randomness of energy being used.

Positive orientation then provides the will and faith to continue this mentally intense experience of letting the anger be understood, accepted, and integrated with the mind/body/spirit complex. The other-self which is the object of anger is thus transformed into an object of acceptance, understanding, and accommodation, all being reintegrated using the great energy which anger began.

The negatively oriented mind/body/spirit complex will use this anger in a similarly conscious fashion, refusing to accept the undirected or random energy of anger and instead, through will and faith, funneling this energy into a practical means of venting the negative aspect of this emotion so as to obtain control over other-self, or otherwise control the situation causing anger.

Control is the key to negatively polarized use of catalyst. Acceptance is the key to positively polarized use of catalyst. Between these polarities lies the potential for this random and undirected energy creating a bodily complex analog of what you call the cancerous growth of tissue.

Strange that you bring up this quote now, I have just witnessed someone else's same catalyst. From what I just observed, I am under the impression that most people who have no conscious polarization facing this catalyst will move back and forth between the 2 in a matter of seconds with much confusion and cognitive dissonance without realizing the process happening. I think it brings great relief to be able to contemplate the process with no intent to control but simply understand. It does require strenght and self mastery in order to simply let go while trying to control whichever aspect of the process seems like the easy way out even though it can appear very strong for a short while. I think it most likely comes with regrets also unless someone is really dedicated on polarizing negative energy consciously.


Do you think the growth of cancerous tissues is a reversible process through positive polarization and the release of the energies that were involved in their creation?

It's sometimes hard to amplify anger in my mind when I don't feel much of it at all.

Control of self in the positive and negative sense are quite different. Someone above already spoke to the positive way, which would be understanding and acceptance of the self, such as with anger. As one does this the emotional charge dissipates and falls away.

Discipline of the personality is central to both polarizing positive or negative. The negative adept seeks to bring total domination upon the self and others. In fifth density, the negative adepts realizes the futility of domination over others, he then seeks total subjugation of his mind. Fifth density negative in my understanding would be almost entirely solitary. We saw how they operate in the Law of One. He's doing his magick and sorcery in a cave on a distant planet.

I think the dynamic here in third density between positive and negative polarization is acceptance and control. The positive seeks to understand and accept himself. Also, intentionality in mind is important.

Anyway these are just my thoughts with a limited, small understanding.

(03-14-2017, 10:53 PM)Mahakali Wrote: [ -> ]This is something that seems to be a staple in a lot of so-called "positive" philosophies and web sites, the idea that self-control is somehow "negative", when it seems to me that an entity which desires control of others would, in fact, be the ones actively discouraging one's own control of self.

Could anyone help clear this up for me?

I think the idea of self-control is one of those areas within the Ra material that could use a bit of clearing up. I'd put the concept in the same category as something like judgment. The concept of judgment can be viewed in various ways, and Ra sometimes encourages judgment but other times discourages it. It seems they use this word to mean slightly varying things. A person can use judgment to be discerning and determine the appropriate action in a given circumstance, or they can use judgment to withhold acceptance.

Similar with self-control, I don't think that the concept, in general, is negative. There may be some positive sites which label it as such, but in the Law of One, Ra speaks about discipline, and Discipline of the Personality, and this being a appropriate path for a positive seeker. It's true that they say the "proper role of the entity is to experience all things desired," and "all things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity." I don't think that necessarily means to give up self-control and live completely by instinct and intuition.

It takes some form of control to practice discipline - discipline in meditation, discipline in processing catalyst, discipline in analyzing desires. I think what Ra discourages is a more focused control, one that forces the self to overcome something, to bury something, to wield something to further one's control on their environment, rather than spend time with it, experience it, understand it, and accept it. In this sense, as Ra says, control is a short-cut to discipline.


But your point may have merit. I imagine that a negative entity could take this idea and use it to confuse an otherwise positive-seeking entity. Discouraging all forms of discipline and introspection, labeling them as "self-control," could open one up to be more easily manipulated. On the other hand, a positive philosophy which encourages self-control isn't necessarily negative, either. They may simply be encouraging discipline, or feel that control of self is truly a path to doing good in the world (I know some Buddhist philosophies are like this).

(03-15-2017, 02:39 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]It takes some form of control to practice discipline - discipline in meditation, discipline in processing catalyst, discipline in analyzing desires. I think what Ra discourages is a more focused control, one that forces the self to overcome something, to bury something, to wield something to further one's control on their environment, rather than spend time with it, experience it, understand it, and accept it. In this sense, as Ra says, control is a short-cut to discipline.

But your point may have merit. I imagine that a negative entity could take this idea and use it to confuse an otherwise positive-seeking entity. Discouraging all forms of discipline and introspection, labeling them as "self-control," could open one up to be more easily manipulated. On the other hand, a positive philosophy which encourages self-control isn't necessarily negative, either. They may simply be encouraging discipline, or feel that control of self is truly a path to doing good in the world (I know some Buddhist philosophies are like this).

It's also worth mention that there's no requirement one go permanently all-in on one strategy or another. Like someone with poor self-control could, through meditation, learn enough restraint to stop getting themselves into bad situations, but without completely clamping down on their emotions and desires. Or, going the other direction, someone who's "too" introverted/repressed can learn to be a bit more open about their emotions without turning into a manic pixie.

In sort of the opposite side of Mahakali's coin, I personally get worried when I see self-proclaimed STOs refusing to ever consider their actions or ever exercise any restraint. I've even occasionally seen the argument made that "We're here to learn love, not wisdom" as a justification for never attempting to apply a little foresight or deeper thought. As you say, this allows someone to potentially be very easily manipulated, or -in worst cases- end up engaging in negative behaviors while convinced of their own self-righteousness. And that's a slippery slope which is hard to stop sliding down, once someone starts.

Either way, I'd think that for BOTH paths, a measure of thought and moderation is ultimately needed whether someone is called towards expression or repression of their desires.

(03-14-2017, 10:53 PM)Mahakali Wrote: [ -> ]This is something that seems to be a staple in a lot of so-called "positive" philosophies and web sites, the idea that self-control is somehow "negative", when it seems to me that an entity which desires control of others would, in fact, be the ones actively discouraging one's own control of self.

Could anyone help clear this up for me?

I think learning self control is a natural part of self development. So control is not inherently negative. It only becomes negative if the reasons for the self control are negative. As in: are you controlling yourself to more purely separate yourself from other selves, or are you controlling yourself to more eloquently connect with other selves? Both require some sort of finessed manipulation of this apparatus/instrument we call the "self". There is always the self aware driver -- the conscious 'chooser' that has to be taken into account. Every choice could be seen to be a sort of application of 'control' in some sense. We are all beset by a bewildering and contradictory array of impulses that pull us in various directions. Someone may say something that makes us angry, and we might feel like punching that other self in the face. Control of self to restrain the impulse in this circumstance would be an exercise in preserving the harmony, or oneness, with that other self to whatever extent the situation allowed given the strength of the inharmonious impulses.

The same could be said for 'self development'. Is one developing self for selfish reasons, or for more finessed interaction with other self (i.e. service to others)? One is an act of love of self, the other an act of love of other self. I think it is natural for someone seeking unity to have a desire to connect with other selves in some way, so if one is repressing that natural desire for some reason, it would be more of a negative control of self for the purposes of seeking separation. Separation from otherselves is synonomous with the need to control otherselves. The need to control otherselves is the only thing that separates us from other selves. The need only arises when the desires of other self are seen to be in conflict with the desires of self. That is the essence of separation (which is natural at the 3rd density level to a large extent).

So in acknowledging the desires of self, we must acknowledge the fact that often times these desires will naturally involve control of self much of the time, and we mustn't repress these desires either. Again, its a natural part of self development to explore control on this level. Its only when this desire spills over into the need to control others that it truly become negative (separative) in my opinion.

Understanding how your ideals manifest and directing them to do is magic. The approach determines your orientation. One would accept, the other would control.

What is commonly refered to as self control is a seperation of inner and outer. As Ra said those adepts led by the moonlight are many. The potential for polarity demand using the self as a resource, but to what end and how. This is when the acceptance, control methodology comes into play as applied to catalyst.

Applying such to self one may make a devlish assumption in the moonlight. When one commits to a path there is a more and more conscious recognition that the embodiement of freewill and free will itself are different. Would you attempt to control, accept yourself being a conduit?

Our language is very clusmy. One can see that understanding is dependent of ones framing of the string of words. As Ra pointed out the words control and allow are negative for one and based on a faulty assumption for the latter. So to clarify control when it comes to catalyst is a negative approach. But control or denial when it comes to self perception is simply poor application of interacting with the world and approapiate when desires or perceptions are not consanent with the Law of One.

Thanks for the input, that helps me to clarify what i meant!

What i meant was:

Self-control would be negative, when it causes seperation from Self, if you refuse to feel emotions and Control them so you dont feel them anymore, you would seperate yourself from your Self, thus polarizing negatively!

To me its about accepting or repressing the creator, your nature. What is there to really control or accept, if you are all things? I believe all the discipline, all the meditation and so forth. Are really just different paths or techniques. To bringing you to the moment. The moment in which you are all things. You are the very nature in the air.

(03-15-2017, 06:05 PM)Infinite Unity Wrote: [ -> ]To me its about accepting or repressing the creator, your nature.  What is there to really control or accept, if you are all things? I believe all the discipline, all the meditation and so forth. Are really just different paths or techniques. To bringing you to the moment. The moment in which you are all things. You are the very nature in the air.

Exactly, STO and STS are both stories of love and light.

Control is of a negative nature for it cannot happen without the self being non-acceptant of it's own feelings and without it seeking to overcome them which creates a separation with the emotional body as it is controlled rather then distilled.

I don't think you can link control with the positive polarity other than that it would be considered a negative step along a positive path, it will require later distillment and there is no avoiding that. Linking control with the positive polarity seems more like an attempt at linking the positive with right and negative with wrong, which is really a poor view of these facets of the Creator.

Ultimately though, I think the notion of control and acceptance are somewhat illusionary notions which cannot be truly dissociated as they share the exact same core that Love is. Consider then that control happens out of the self containing contradictions and paradoxes whereas in acceptance lies the release of all contradictions and paradoxes, so control forever is a temporary step of the journey that will find its resolution.

These concepts are probably easier to contemplate within the idea that others do reflect your choices in a perfectly equal fashion as those of your individualization do. But I guess it is a natural aspect of this density to view yourself as not others and others as not yourself. If you make 2 different choices at two different moments, that is because in each moment you have different configuration and emotional fondation upon which these choices are made, much like how you can make different choices as 2 different individuals through a cause and effect that makes each make a choice based on different feelings. Yep, all is One and you do make all the choices and none is better or lesser but instead merely the reflection of what you are. It does seem all more beautiful if you have awareness of the background upon which each choice is made, but then you lose the perk of fasely believing that some of them could be, in your paradoxal conception of things, made without love.

(03-15-2017, 06:32 PM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-15-2017, 06:05 PM)Infinite Unity Wrote: [ -> ]To me its about accepting or repressing the creator, your nature.  What is there to really control or accept, if you are all things? I believe all the discipline, all the meditation and so forth. Are really just different paths or techniques. To bringing you to the moment. The moment in which you are all things. You are the very nature in the air.

Exactly, STO and STS are both stories of love and light.

Control is of a negative nature for it cannot happen without the self being non-acceptant of it's own feelings and without it seeking to overcome them which creates a separation with the emotional body as it is controlled rather then distilled.

I don't think you can link control with the positive polarity other than that it would be considered a negative step along a positive path, it will require later distillment and there is no avoiding that. Linking control with the positive polarity seems more like an attempt at linking the positive with right and negative with wrong, which is really a poor view of these facets of the Creator.

Ultimately though, I think the notion of control and acceptance are somewhat illusionary notions which cannot be truly dissociated as they share the exact same core that Love is. Consider then that control happens out of the self containing contradictions and paradoxes whereas in acceptance lies the release of all contradictions and paradoxes, so control forever is a temporary step of the journey that will find its resolution.

These concepts are probably easier to contemplate within the idea that others do reflect your choices in a perfectly equal fashion as those of your individualization do. But I guess it is a natural aspect of this density to view yourself as not others and others as not yourself. If you make 2 different choices at two different moments, that is because in each moment you have different configuration and emotional fondation upon which these choices are made, much like how you can make different choices as 2 different individuals through a cause and effect that makes each make a choice based on different feelings. Yep, all is One and you do make all the choices and none is better or lesser but instead merely the reflection of what you are. It does seem all more beautiful if you have awareness of the background upon which each choice is made, but then you lose the perk of fasely believing that some of them could be, in your paradoxal conception of things, made without love.

I agree with a lot you say.

The point I was trying to make was that acceptance and repression is intimately linked as strands of a rope, to confusion. Or the law of confusion. Con fusion.

I have experienced many time a situation where my desires and those of other selves conflicted in opposition. In such situation I usually see no problem in giving up my desires as long the other selves do not impose their desires on me. Yet it seems like it's been recurrent I would find myself very confused as to which would be the positive and harmonious choice when the other selves still push on me for their desires to manifest even though I have given up mine and the recurrent theme seems to be that I found myself unacceptable in their parameters. Not only unacceptable but profoundly being troubled by being within their desires. I still haven't figured out the proper way to deal with it but my natural reaction is so far to simply give up the entire situation in which I have found myself bound by these other selves even if that decision made me in a situation where I would be perceived as the antagonist among a group. I have come to accept the situation and all but still don't see how I could have made everyone happy in such a situation. Maybe there isn't and it is the nature of conflicting desires to find someone will somewhat ''lose''. I just prefer to lose and give up than being used for purposes I do not support. I'm still not sure what to think of it.