(06-08-2012, 09:23 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]I think the term 'Service to Others' has a great potential for being mis-understood. This is because our cultural heritage has legacied to us various christian notions of service and self-sacrifice. Most prominent among these are:
* doing charitable deeds (visible service)
* donating money/time (pouring one's personal resources into an organisation)
* martyrdom ('sacrifice' of the self, for the perceived benefit of the other).
Here are my thoughts, as I understand these concepts:
I don't think these are merely 'Christian notions' but profound expressions of compassion that predate Christianity and are revered by nearly all religions. To call them 'notions' is to demean them. These are the actions that go down in history as the greatest of human attributes, exemplifying the indomitable human spirit, and the ability of humans to show compassion to others. Actions alone indicate nothing about the polarity of the person taking action; it is the intentions behind them that do. But the results might be the same for the recipients of said action. And, being that we cannot know the intention behind the action, it might behoove us to take them at face value, especially when obvious good (or 'service' if you prefer) manifests as a result of those actions.
Quote:75.15 Questioner: The chink then, as I understand it, was originally created by the decision of Jesus to take the path of martyrdom? Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is, in relation to this instrument, quite correct. It is aware of certain over-balances towards love, even to martyrdom but has not yet, to any significant degree, balanced these distortions. We do not imply that this course of unbridled compassion has any fault but affirm its perfection. It is an example of love which has served as beacon to many.
For those who seek further, the consequences of martyrdom must be considered, for in martyrdom lies the end of the opportunity, in the density of the martyr, to offer love and light. Each entity must seek its deepest path.
(06-08-2012, 09:23 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]The Ra material offers much advice on self-balancing, and these are keyed around the notion of 'acceptance'. Now, some might say this is putting too much emphasis on the technique, but Ra offers us Archetype 22 as the 'choice'; which is a unifying concept. What more unifying concept is there than making a choice of accepting something, or rejecting it?
Ra came to explain to us the
resolution of paradox. Acceptance isn't the opposite of rejecting. A situation can be both accepted and rejected at the same time. This is transmutation. In order to transmute, it
must be both accepted and rejected at the same time!
Herein lies the paradox. It extends to the simultaneous application of Free Will and detachment.
Acceptance is also a term that is frequently misunderstood, in my opinion. It seems that many people interpret
acceptance as
passivity. They have an 'anything goes...do nothing...nothing matters' attitude. I think this is a misinterpretation and an oversimplification.
In my understanding, Ra's use of the term
acceptance has more to do with the awareness that we are part of something much bigger than ourselves; we are a tiny microcosmic spark of the Whole; we are One with All, and therefore
accept and flow with the Cosmic energies, rather than trying to control them. At the same time, it is recognizing that we, as individual mind/body/spirit complexes, are part of that flow, and our contribution is important. We must also accept ourselves, and our innate drives, desires and tendencies, while at the same time recognizing that our Free Will is a powerful force, with the capability of playing an important role in the Cosmic design.
Acceptance that we are part of this Oneness engenders a feeling of awe and wonder, as well as gratitude for even the darkest of circumstances, for it is through acknowledging what IS, that we are able to transform and transmute.
The Christians have a saying:
In all things give praise. This is the concept of acceptance. And yet, it doesn't end there. That is only the first step; the prerequisite.
Quote:46.10 Questioner: Then as I understand it you are saying that if the positively polarizing entity fails to accept the other-self or if the negatively polarizing entity fails to control the other-self, either of these conditions will cause cancer, possibly. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. The first acceptance, or control depending upon polarity, is of the self. Anger is one of many things to be accepted and loved as a part of self or controlled as a part of self, if the entity is to do work.
Acceptance is only the first step, followed by
doing work. Many misinterpret acceptance as passivity, ie. doing
nothing. One cannot do work by doing nothing!
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.
Acceptance is merely the KEY! It doesn't end there! What follows acceptance? Positively polarized use of catalyst! This is WORK. This is transformation! Acceptance is the key to transformation. It is a stepping stone; Not the end result!
Denying the reality of the situation, being unwilling to face our inner demons, glossing over negativity, sweeping unpleasantness aside, pretending it's all peachy, sweeping anger and other negative emotions under the rug, etc. are all examples of NOT accepting, but being in a state of denial.
For example, pretending to be happy while denying some feelings of anger isn't acceptance. It's denial. The anger cannot be transmuted into joy until it is first acknowledged. Acceptance doesn't mean that one stays in a state of anger! it doesn't mean "Oh I must accept being angry and just sit here, making no effort to quit being angry." No, that is being passive. Rather, acceptance is "YES I AM ANGRY AND THIS IS A VALID EMOTION" and THEN, once it has been acknowledged and expressed (in a harmless way) then and ONLY THEN can it be transmuted. Then the Free Will comes into play; the Choice can be made to transmute that anger into joy and gratitude. (Or not, according to the person's inclination.)
Accepting isn't necessarily being passive and allowing situations to continue, when we have the capability to effect change. Sometimes passivity is appropriate; other times action is appropriate. Or, to be more accurate: Sometimes a drawing, receptive, attracting (Yin) energy is appropriate, while other times a proactive (Yang) energy is appropriate, depending on the situation. Yin and Yang energies ebb and flow constantly. To ride the wave of that ebbing and flowing is to exist in the Tao. To reject both is to stagnate in the sinkhole of indifference.
Acceptance has nothing to do with whether we take action or not, or whether we try to make a difference in the world or not. Acceptance is about acknowledging and confronting the negativity head-on, being totally ONE with it, being totally awake and aware of it, truly recognizing it for what it is, instead of pretending it's something it's not. Acceptance is also realizing that, though we are part of the One, in our present veiled state, we must sometimes surrender to the cosmic ebb and flow of the tide, the astrological influences, the collective consciousness, etc. It's a delicate balance between asserting our Free Will and taking an active part in the process, while, at the same time, detachedly working together with forces bigger than ourselves.
Quote:42.5 Questioner: In the illusion that we now experience it is difficult to maintain this response especially if the entity’s attack results in physical pain, but I assume that this response should be maintained even through physical loss of life or extreme pain. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and further is of a major or principal importance in understanding, shall we say, the principle of balance. Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.
17.33 Questioner: Why is the negative path so much more difficult a path to attain harvestability upon than the positive?
Ra: I am Ra. This is due to a distortion of the Law of One which indicates that the gateway to intelligent infinity be a gateway at the end of a strait and narrow path as you may call it. To attain fifty-one percent dedication to the welfare of other-selves is as difficult as attaining a grade of five percent dedication to other-selves. The, shall we say, sinkhole of indifference is between those two.
Acceptance is often confused with the sinkhole of indifference.
(06-08-2012, 09:23 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]this further expands on the notion of the spiritual path as one of BEING, rather than DOING. The Doing, of course, arises when an opportunity presents itself, and when there is a calling; but the emphasis is on the cultivation of an attitude which is kindly and accepting, and embracing.
Your statement implies that
being and
doing are opposites. But they aren't. Being might
include doing.
Quote:42.2 Questioner: I will just read it very rapidly the question, then.
I am going to make a statement and ask you to comment on its degree of accuracy. I am assuming that the balanced entity would not be swayed either towards positive or negative emotions by any situation which he might confront. By remaining unemotional in any situation, the balanced entity may clearly discern the appropriate and necessary responses in harmony with the Law of One for each situation.
Most entities on our planet find themselves unconsciously caught up into every emotional situation which they come in contact with according to their own unique biases and because of these biases are unable to see clearly teach/learning opportunities and appropriate response in each emotional situation and must therefore, through a process of much trial and error and enduring of resulting pain repeat such situations many many times until they become consciously aware of the need to balance their energy centers and thusly their responses and behaviors. Once a person becomes consciously aware of the need to balance their energy centers and responses the next step is to allow the appropriately positive or negative responses to emotional situations to flow smoothly through their being without retaining any of the emotional coloration after it has been consciously observed and allowed to flow through the being. And I am assuming that this ability to consciously observe the positively or negatively charged energy flowing through the being may be augmented by practice of the balancing exercises you have given us with the result in balance being achieved for the entity which would allow him to remain unemotional and undistorted in regards to the Law of One in any situation much like the objective viewer of the television movie.
Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is an incorrect application of the balancing which we have discussed. The exercise of first experiencing feelings and then consciously discovering their antitheses within the being has as its objective not the smooth flow of feelings both positive and negative while remaining unswayed but rather the objective of becoming unswayed. This is a simpler result and takes much practice, shall we say.
The catalyst of experience works in order for the learn/teachings of this density to occur. However, if there is seen in the being a response, even if it is simply observed, the entity is still using the catalyst for learn/teaching. The end result is that the catalyst is no longer needed. Thus this density is no longer needed. This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love. This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions. Thus the entity is now able to become co-Creator of experiential occurrences. This is the truer balance.
The question then becomes:
Is one feeling unswayed because they have risen above that catalyst? or because they have not yet reached the point of responding to the catalyst, and are still dwelling in the sinkhole of indifference?
and
When one feels indifference, or thinks that they must be passive because "passivity = acceptance", have they reached the point where they no longer need that catalyst, and are truly dwelling in a state of
finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love? Or, are they in the sinkhole of indifference?
...
![[Image: xWxt72t.png]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-031xWYuNs6I/VS1jIs2VnvI/AAAAAAAABiM/GdwyJ7uqG9c/s1600/xWxt72t.png)