Bring4th

Regarding STO, I have read varying theories in these forums as to the considerations of self vs. other-selves.

My working theory is that the self IS an other-self, reciprocal to the idea that the other-self is self. It would follow, according to this idea, that one would apply equal service to self as to service to other-selves, or, the same amount of consideration for self as for other-selves.

I think there may be a tendency to sacrifice, or simply not attend to, self in service to others. Carla, for instance, in her love for others, may have done this with resulting imbalances to her physical body.

Within this framework, there is also the idea that on the STO path, one might give up self-gratification (life goals or desires) in service to others. Things to consider:

1) Does the life goal serve others?

2) If the life goal serves self, might it not make the self so happy as to add joy, light, and bliss to the collective consciousness?

3) Some magic combination of the above 2?

Regarding the STS path, when an STS individual is focused on self, the person uses other-selves to further his/her path. In STO, I am referring to viewing the self as an other-self with the same amount of love and consideration.

What are your thoughts on responsibility to self within the STO path? I would like to explore this in more depth. I sometimes feel conflicted over the boundaries. As much as one might hold intention, challenges always arise. As an entrepreneur, to reach my goals I must necessarily focus on my businesses (which are of service to others but not directly--in person), and there are times when I feel as though I am shunning opportunities to be of service in my daily life (for instance, tending to an aging mother).

Diana Wrote:My working theory is that the self IS an other-self, reciprocal to the idea that the other-self is self.

I think you have this exactly right.

There is only one true Self, donning various masks and masquerading as many individual, seemingly different selves. Creator is Self. The term "other-self" is used to denote this, that the beings separate from you are merely various 'yous'. One must not view their actual Self as being defined by the temporary visage one is bound to here. It is the awareness of the same being behind all beings. Keeping this in mind allows clearer comprehension when considering that Self and other-Self is the same Self.

Your responsibility to your self is to ensure its continued functioning and maintenance, keeping it physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually healthy. Your responsibility to other-selves is determined by how you are most comfortable interacting with other-selves. If you feel that taking others into consideration, being kind, compassionate, etc. are how you'd best wish to express yourself to others than you are responsible for reflecting this in your actions. If one feels aversion towards others and prefer self-aggrandizement then that individual holds no obligation towards others and the only level of interaction would be that of benefiting at the expense of others.

Diana, how about we flip this question, as quite often the WAY that a question is posed sets up certain possible outcomes, and precludes others. That is just the nature of our language and is often unintentional.

the way your question is posed seems to suggest that there is a scarce allocation of resources (time, money, attention), and that we have to make a choice as to where these go.

however, if we look at this quote here:

Quote:7.15 However, service to others results in service to self, thus preserving and further harmonizing the distortions of those entities seeking intelligent infinity through these disciplines.

we see that boundaries of self/other-self become blurred and almost removed (the very opposite of separation).

I think that a STO attitude is to hear where the calls of service are the most urgent, yet also allowing oneself the freedom/free-will to choose where one serves.

in the case of an ageing parent, one is placed in the difficult reciprocal situation where they gave 10 years of their life raising you as a child, and they are now in a position where they are unable to physically tend for themselves.

While we are on the subject of service. Is there any one else here who feels that the concept of money is completely obsolete? IMHO, much of our current distortions comes from our use of the concept of money.

(03-23-2012, 01:56 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]the way your question is posed seems to suggest that there is a scarce allocation of resources (time, money, attention), and that we have to make a choice as to where these go.

I make those choices every day regarding time. Not that I hold with the idea of scarcity, but practically, my time is managed closely. I have a business almost 2 years into R&D. I have another business involving writing. I spend most of my time on these things.

My businesses are both services to the world in general, a "universal" service. I would categorize attending to an aging mother as "personal service."

(03-23-2012, 01:56 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]however, if we look at this quote here:

Quote:7.15 However, service to others results in service to self, thus preserving and further harmonizing the distortions of those entities seeking intelligent infinity through these disciplines.

Good quote. I agree. It's the fine line of where to put one's attention. It seems to be a balancing act.

There seems to be a gap between creating and being.

---

(03-23-2012, 01:41 PM)godwide_void Wrote: [ -> ]Your responsibility to your self is to ensure its continued functioning and maintenance, keeping it physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually healthy. Your responsibility to other-selves is determined by how you are most comfortable interacting with other-selves.

That's the way I live. But the criteria of one's "comfort level" could mean many different things.

---

(03-23-2012, 03:40 PM)Valtor Wrote: [ -> ]While we are on the subject of service. Is there any one else here who feels that the concept of money is completely obsolete? IMHO, much of our current distortions comes from our use of the concept of money.

Money is not obsolete--yet. It is still our medium of exchange even if it is shaky. However, a vision of a better way is how we evolve. It is really our attitudes and beliefs that cause problems, such as greed and elitism, not the money itself.

When we get to the point of a mechanized society with robotic labor, perhaps we can do away with a system of exchange. Everyone would have basic needs met.

I heard something recently to the effect that money is simply a reason to express gratitude.

Even if we do away with money, and everyone's "needs" are met - as long as we are in this dimension and it is shared by both STO & STS polarized entities, there will be inequity in the distribution of resources. Some will have more, some will have less. But then again, some will need/desire more and some will need/desire less. As long as there were no hurricanes, I could be happy in a shack on a beach somewhere as long as I had enough food and could do something to help others. Even if it was just to bring them their beer when they wanted one.

When I was 17 I spent 3 months in the heart of Mexico on a sort of "missions" trip through my church. I was there ostensibly to be a tourist. But I spent my time in a "home for children" helping out. The kids were not orphans, but had families who lived in very rural areas where they would have no access to schools. They could come stay at "the home" during the shool year and get an education.

Anyway - to get to the point and avoid derailing this thread - while I was there I did in fact get to tour around somewhat by escorting some of the kids home during their school breaks. I saw families living in caves, with no running water, no toilet facilities, etc. But you know what? They were healthy and happy and very welcoming when I came to visit. I shared their food and slept on their fresh straw beds. So "need" is really a very relative, subjective state of being, even in this dimension.

If pressed, I'd have to say that my answer would be most closely aligned with choice #3 - "some magic combination . . . ."

Light and love!

Good post, Diana!

(03-23-2012, 01:25 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding STO, I have read varying theories in these forums as to the considerations of self vs. other-selves.

My working theory is that the self IS an other-self, reciprocal to the idea that the other-self is self.

I believe so too. We know for instance that in the mid sixth density the difference between the self and other self is not seen, thus the whole polarity concept of STO vs. STS becomes pointless I'd guess, as the self is unified with other selves to such an extent. Another passage in this regard that has been fascinating to me is following:

Ra, 17:20 Wrote:The entity was absolved karmically of the destruction of an other-self when it was in the last portion of lifetime and spoke upon what you would call a cross saying, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” In forgiveness lies the stoppage of the wheel of action, or what you call karma.

In this quote I don't see that Ra mention that Jesus forgave himself. He only forgave those who were about to destroy his own body complex. Yet what Ra also states is:

Ra, 18:12 Wrote:Forgiveness of other-self is forgiveness of self. An understanding of this insists upon full forgiveness upon the conscious level of self and other-self, for they are one. A full forgiveness is thus impossible without the inclusion of self.

To me it means following: a) you can either realize that the self is one with another self, thus it is enough to forgive one of these entities. b) this realization may or may not occur automatically, or by itself, once you, in this case, find full forgiveness for either of these entities. c) realization of oneness may not occur on conscious level, but understanding is still available in the unconscious mind, since the experience was made that the full forgiveness of another self included the self.

Diana Wrote:It would follow, according to this idea, that one would apply equal service to self as to service to other-selves, or, the same amount of consideration for self as for other-selves.

Ultimately yes, but this is perhaps not realized until sixth density, in its fullness? And needs to be explored through fourth and fifth. We are in third density where we need to make the choice of how this oneness is to be realized - by service to others or the self. At the end it would be the same thing I guess. I don't know...

These are difficult questions.

Diana Wrote:I think there may be a tendency to sacrifice, or simply not attend to, self in service to others. Carla, for instance, in her love for others, may have done this with resulting imbalances to her physical body.

I think that the imbalances in her physical body were due many, different reasons. For instance pre-incarnative choice, pre-incarnative plan, her wish to leave the incarnation during young years which resulted in difficulties for her physical body for the rest of incarnation etc... But she had problems with dimmed indigo center, and Ra adviced her couple of times to contemplate herself as the Creator. That was a reason too.

Diana Wrote:Within this framework, there is also the idea that on the STO path, one might give up self-gratification (life goals or desires) in service to others. Things to consider:

1) Does the life goal serve others?

2) If the life goal serves self, might it not make the self so happy as to add joy, light, and bliss to the collective consciousness?

3) Some magic combination of the above 2?

Oh yeah... This what it seems to me like right now... I stand and look at that choice and there is like a vision inside of me, that when you have made the choice, there will be no more self and your goals and desires will be spend in each moment thinking about others. Now it is said in the material that only 51% is required, but it is also said that these 51% are as hard to attain as 95% service to self. And also that this path is straight and narrow, at which end there is a gateway to graduating. =)

Those few times when I happened to attain high polarization and feel what I would call fourth dimensional vibration, I experienced being high on being in service to others. That was the whole self gratification as you called it. There was an understanding that the goals and desires of the self were no longer there. All that was important was the service to the Creator in all beings, and one became unconcerned with the details.

Diana Wrote:What are your thoughts on responsibility to self within the STO path?

Ra advices to see the self as the Creator.

Diana Wrote:I sometimes feel conflicted over the boundaries. As much as one might hold intention, challenges always arise. As an entrepreneur, to reach my goals I must necessarily focus on my businesses (which are of service to others but not directly--in person), and there are times when I feel as though I am shunning opportunities to be of service in my daily life (for instance, tending to an aging mother).

Welcome to 3D!

(03-23-2012, 01:32 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]

Diana Wrote:My working theory is that the self IS an other-self, reciprocal to the idea that the other-self is self.

I think you have this exactly right.

I agree, and would add that this is so because all entities, self or other, are a thought.

There are times when speaking about the higher-self providing catalyst to the current self, they refer to that current self as other-self from the higher-self's perspective. It does seem that the various aspects of the self is the other-self.

This idea is tied into karma as Ankh points out, because if you can't look backwards (which is what the higher-self does), and forgive that 'other-self', further learning is needed. But you really have to make yourself conscious of who you are, what possibly contributed to the action or the development of that trait, and then accept/forgive.

(03-23-2012, 03:40 PM)Valtor Wrote: [ -> ]While we are on the subject of service. Is there any one else here who feels that the concept of money is completely obsolete? IMHO, much of our current distortions comes from our use of the concept of money.

Money is serving as a substitute for our ability to determine relative value, just as laws serve as a substitute for our ability to recognize the uniqueness of each and every situation within our experience. When situations, people and things become more obvious as they are, tokens and codes, as such, will not be a necessity. Their use will change significantly by virtue of better insight into cause/effect and a better sense of balance.

IMHO, the self is nothing more than our physical brain trying to interpret its interaction with its environment through the physical senses.

Everything that we recognize in the mirror is what our brain has been seeing and interpretting since the day of our birth into this form. But are we more than just the fleshy organ that sits within our skull and how it interpres existence?

It is when we can begin to look beyond the mirror reflection and see the sacred fire that dances in our very molecules, that we will begin to comprehend our true self.

There is something beyond the physical senses and the biological functioning that makes us what we truly are, and to gaze into our reflection and assume that to be our true self, is like the cow looking at its reflection in the stream while it drinks and not seeing itself as a hamburger.

The Mystery of what we might become. That is what we do not see, that if we could, would reveal our true self.

(03-24-2012, 04:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-23-2012, 03:40 PM)Valtor Wrote: [ -> ]While we are on the subject of service. Is there any one else here who feels that the concept of money is completely obsolete? IMHO, much of our current distortions comes from our use of the concept of money.

Money is serving as a substitute for our ability to determine relative value, just as laws serve as a substitute for our ability to recognize the uniqueness of each and every situation within our experience. When situations, people and things become more obvious as they are, tokens and codes, as such, will not be a necessity. Their use will change significantly by virtue of better insight into cause/effect and a better sense of balance.

Yeah I think I understand that. But somehow, I still have a problem with the concept of money, jobs and even our justice system. I am not sure where this comes from within me.

Maybe it's simply because I feel ready to, and to some extent already do, live by 4th density perspectives. And so, I feel that all these concepts are throttling us.

But these ideas do not seem to be shared by many people, even among awaken individuals. So I try to ground my Self back into our systems, but find it exceedingly difficult.

From my perspective, all these are simply tools of greed and slavery. For while we try to abide by them, the elites instead use these to keep us enslaved and obedient and they obviously do not play by these rules.

I'm pretty sure that there are catalysts for me with these concepts and acceptance of them. For the great majority of me, my other selves, is quite content to function and use them.

What possible 'ways of being' there are, will inherited from what social structures are already in place, so even with new insights afforded to '4D thinking', any (unnecessary) complexities we have to work with will need to be addressed in a practical manner (as opposed to a potential, wait and see manner). 'Harmony' is necessarily a learning process, and we always think we see a better way without actually 'going there'. Hey, that's why we're so dependent on society (for better or worse).

(03-24-2012, 11:46 AM)Ankh Wrote: [ -> ]

Ra, 18:12 Wrote:Forgiveness of other-self is forgiveness of self. An understanding of this insists upon full forgiveness upon the conscious level of self and other-self, for they are one. A full forgiveness is thus impossible without the inclusion of self.

To me it means following: a) you can either realize that the self is one with another self, thus it is enough to forgive one of these entities. b) this realization may or may not occur automatically, or by itself, once you, in this case, find full forgiveness for either of these entities. c) realization of oneness may not occur on conscious level, but understanding is still available in the unconscious mind, since the experience was made that the full forgiveness of another self included the self.

Very good points. And I will add, that when I have been able to forgive myself it naturally followed that I had forgiven, with no conscious volition, the others' involved.

(03-24-2012, 11:46 AM)Ankh Wrote: [ -> ]

Diana Wrote:It would follow, according to this idea, that one would apply equal service to self as to service to other-selves, or, the same amount of consideration for self as for other-selves.

Ultimately yes, but this is perhaps not realized until sixth density, in its fullness? And needs to be explored through fourth and fifth.

It is certainly a challenge in 3D. :-/

(03-24-2012, 11:46 AM)Ankh Wrote: [ -> ]Oh yeah... This what it seems to me like right now... I stand and look at that choice and there is like a vision inside of me, that when you have made the choice, there will be no more self and your goals and desires will be spend in each moment thinking about others. Now it is said in the material that only 51% is required, but it is also said that these 51% are as hard to attain as 95% service to self. And also that this path is straight and narrow, at which end there is a gateway to graduating. =)

Those few times when I happened to attain high polarization and feel what I would call fourth dimensional vibration, I experienced being high on being in service to others. That was the whole self gratification as you called it. There was an understanding that the goals and desires of the self were no longer there. All that was important was the service to the Creator in all beings, and one became unconcerned with the details.

I know what you're talking about. There are some very transcendent times when one is completely "in the flow."

There is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The premise is that the needs at the bottom must be met before moving up to attend to the needs above (ie. if you are hungry, it is difficult to concentrate on self-esteem).

However, I have been able to attain an attitude of "being of service" apart from where I was at in the hierarchy, but these times were very transient.