Bring4th

So it seems one can engage in war and still be of a positive or STO polarity if it is done mostly in defense or love of others. If one engages in war solely or partially out of hate or desire to control the aggressing party, then polarity is lost. The key is always intention: Do you hate the enemy while still loving what is being attacked? Should you still love your enemy as you realize they are still the creator, despite their transgressions? Do you still accept your violence and the violence of your counterpart as acts of love? These are the questions that need to be asked during conflict. Your answers will determine your progress.

It's only easy to lose polarity during conflict because we cease being good sportsman: We begin to yearn for destruction of whom we are competing against. Just like in a game of sports, we should be able to shake the hand of our opponent and wish them the best in all that they do for they too are acting as the creator. This is incredibly hard to do in a life-or-death situation.

Quote:34.14 Questioner: Can you give me the same type of information that we’ve been working on now with respect to the self relationship with war and rumors of war?

Ra: I am Ra. You may see this in relationship to your gadgets. This war and self relationship is a fundamental perception of the maturing entity. There is a great chance to accelerate in whatever direction is desired. One may polarize negatively by assuming bellicose attitudes for whatever reason. One may find oneself in the situation of war and polarize somewhat towards the positive activating orange, yellow, and then green by heroic, if you may call them this, actions taken to preserve the mind/body/spirit complexes of other-selves.

Finally, one may polarize very strongly [fourth ray] by expressing the principle of universal love at the total expense of any distortion towards involvement in bellicose actions. In this way the entity may become a conscious being in a very brief span of your time/space. This may be seen to be what you would call a traumatic progression. It is to be noted that among your entities a large percentage of all progression has as catalyst, trauma.

My interpretation of this is that one can polarize STO while engaged in war not because of the violence, but despite it.

It isn't the violence itself that is polarizing, in the case of STO, but the choice to focus on helping others, regardless of environmental circumstances.

In other words, one would polarize STO by engaging in an act of bravery to help others just the same, regardless of whether it's jumping in a frigid, raging river to save a drowning child, or jumping in the line of combat to save a comrade.

The river and the war are both external circumstances; is the choice to help an other-self that is polarizing.

Those who choose to engage in war, however, for the purpose of harming a perceived 'enemy' would polarize STS, even though their actions might appear the same. Both might engage in violence but their motivation is different.

Meh. Forgive me. It seems I misunderstood your post. I think we are in agreement. Feel free to engage in the words below.

(04-15-2013, 11:08 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]...

So you don't believe there can be any positive service towards the creator through defense or preservation of what is loved if it entails harm or death towards another? Do you believe the killing of an animal to prevent starvation in a group of people is mostly STS?

I see destruction as a defining point of our creation. We actively destroy and then create with our every breathe, thought and movement. Great destruction only becomes oh-so very clear when death is brought to our concious minds. Despite all the destruction and removals we make whether it be a change of habit or thought, we still leave a net gain in service towards our creator. Cannot the same apply to our societies? Death can be viewed as unfortunate but can it not be accepted as a part of nature especially in the direction of positive creation?

---

Quote:Finally, one may polarize very strongly [fourth ray] by expressing the principle of universal love at the total expense of any distortion towards involvement in bellicose actions.

Additionally, it's very clear Ra is referring to "bellicose actions" which one may define as violence. Ra is not refering to one abstaining from war or helping others through various services during war but engaging in it out of love. So, if you kill combatants to prevent them from setting your village on fire, you are likely still polarized towards the positive although polarity might be lost in any hate you feel for those whom are attacking you. Despite that hate, your core intention puts you in the positive or at least in a unpolarized state.

---

I think it's important to remember that in order to further creation and to maximize the experience for the creator we must not only be compassionate but apply that compassion effectively and competently.

Martyrdom is often seen as an ultimate act of compassion. Martyrdom such as dying in a war in refusal to participate in violence in defense of oneself might be loving but it is often not wise, for greater service can often be made after self-preservation.

Love alone does not give us the power to be of greater service to the creator. Again, we need wisdom to apply it effectively and to do service effectively, with great power.

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]So you don't believe there can be any positive service towards the creator through defense or preservation of what is loved if it entails harm or death towards another?

It appears that you interpreted my words the opposite of what I intended.

There absolutely can be STO service/polarizing, but it is because of the intention to defend/help/save an other-self, not because of harming an other-self.

In other words, it is the service that is STO polarizing, not the act of violence.

Such a service (defending/saving/helping) may involve violence (defending against an aggressor) but it's an act of self-defense or defense of others, rather than an initiation of violence.

Does this clarify?

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Do you believe the killing of an animal to prevent starvation in a group of people is mostly STS?

No.

I believe such an act would rarely be necessary, because if there is food to feed the animal, then that food could be fed directly to the humans instead. If it's a wild animal, it is eating something. A more peaceful, harmonious (and yes, more STO) choice would be to find the foods the animal eats, and give that to the people.

Where animals can find food, humans wouldn't starve.

So, the action probably isn't necessary, but the person killing the animal probably thinks it's necessary. His/her intentions are likely good (to feed the humans) and s/he probably doesn't value the animal's life. Therefore, it's not a consciously STS act, and is probably STO polarizing, because the person's intentions were to help save the humans.

On the other hand, if the person understands that there is plenty of vegetation to feed the starving people, but chooses instead to kill an animal because s/he enjoys the spilling of blood or the thrill of the kill, then it would be STS polarizing.

It all depends on the motivation.

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I see destruction as a defining point of our creation. We actively destroy and then create with our every breathe, thought and movement.

Perhaps actively, but not consciously.

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Death can be viewed as unfortunate but can it not be accepted as a part of nature especially in the direction of positive creation?

Death and killing are 2 entirely separate issues.

Death is natural and happens in due time.

Killing is imposing death on another entity.

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Additionally, it's very clear Ra is referring to "bellicose actions" which one may define as violence. Ra is not refering to one abstaining from war or helping others through various services during war but engaging in it out of love.

I disagree. Ra states:

Quote:One may find oneself in the situation of war and polarize somewhat towards the positive activating orange, yellow, and then green by heroic, if you may call them this, actions taken to preserve the mind/body/spirit complexes of other-selves.

The key word here is by. The STO polarizing is caused by actions which help others. These actions may or may not include violence. The action isn't important, but the motivation behind the action.

Two people might both commit the same act, but with entirely different actions. The man killing another man out of hatred polarizes STS, whereas the man killing another man in order to save the life of another person, would polarize STO. The action is the same but the motivation is different.

Thus, I think Ra meant that someone helping save another person during war, may polarize STO, because of the action of helping the other-self, not because the action is violent.

The action of helping an other-self is the same, regardless of when, where or how it occurs. Whether in war or not, matters not. Thus, the point Ra was trying to make, in my opinion, is that one can polarize STO, even in such extreme circumstances as war, given the right motivation and intention.

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Martyrdom is often seen as an ultimate act of compassion. Martyrdom such as dying in a war in refusal to participate in violence in defense of oneself might be loving but it is often not wise, for greater service can often be made after self-preservation.

Agreed!

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Love alone does not give us the power to be of greater service to the creator. Again, we need wisdom to apply it effectively and to do service effectively, with great power.

Wisdom is more advanced and wouldn't be expected of an entity graduating to 4D. A child isn't expected to understand calculus.

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Finally, one may polarize very strongly [fourth ray] by expressing the principle of universal love at the total expense of any distortion towards involvement in bellicose actions.

Additionally, it's very clear Ra is referring to "bellicose actions" which one may define as violence. Ra is not refering to one abstaining from war or helping others through various services during war but engaging in it out of love. So, if you kill combatants to prevent them from setting your village on fire, you are likely still polarized towards the positive although polarity might be lost in any hate you feel for those whom are attacking you. Despite that hate, your core intention puts you in the positive or at least in a unpolarized state.

I understand that Ra quote as opposite of what you said. What I understand that Ra is saying is that you may polarize positively (very strongly) if you *refrain* from any actions of bellicose nature during the war.

(04-16-2013, 01:59 AM)Ankh Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Finally, one may polarize very strongly [fourth ray] by expressing the principle of universal love at the total expense of any distortion towards involvement in bellicose actions.

Additionally, it's very clear Ra is referring to "bellicose actions" which one may define as violence. Ra is not refering to one abstaining from war or helping others through various services during war but engaging in it out of love. So, if you kill combatants to prevent them from setting your village on fire, you are likely still polarized towards the positive although polarity might be lost in any hate you feel for those whom are attacking you. Despite that hate, your core intention puts you in the positive or at least in a unpolarized state.

I understand that Ra quote as opposite of what you said. What I understand that Ra is saying is that you may polarize positively (very strongly) if you *refrain* from any actions of bellicose nature during the war.

I understand your interpretation and I am open to it being the correct one. However, I interpret Ra as saying that being involved in bellicose actions is a great expense that may come with expressing universal love.

Again, I am open to being wrong.

---

(04-16-2013, 01:48 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2013, 11:32 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Love alone does not give us the power to be of greater service to the creator. Again, we need wisdom to apply it effectively and to do service effectively, with great power.

Wisdom is more advanced and wouldn't be expected of an entity graduating to 4D. A child isn't expected to understand calculus.

If I am communicating with my higher-self without distortion, it appears I came to Earth long ago as a wanderer from 5th density. It seems I did come here to enhance my wisdom through my experience in war and where I am now.

Higher-level concepts can be practiced in lower densities. Everyone doesn't learn the same.

Anyways, I fully understand you now. It's been a pleasure discussing this!

(04-16-2013, 01:59 AM)Ankh Wrote: [ -> ]What I understand that Ra is saying is that you may polarize positively (very strongly) if you *refrain* from any actions of bellicose nature during the war.

I agree, and would add to that, also stopping an aggressor, to save a victim.

How do you guys explain the mentions of trauma in the same paragraph? Within the context of the paragraph, it doesn't make sense that trauma would occur from abstaining from bellicose actions unless you have an intense blood lust.

Quote:Finally, one may polarize very strongly [fourth ray] by expressing the principle of universal love at the total expense of any distortion towards involvement in bellicose actions. In this way the entity may become a conscious being in a very brief span of your time/space. This may be seen to be what you would call a traumatic progression. It is to be noted that among your entities a large percentage of all progression has as catalyst, trauma.

(04-16-2013, 02:13 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]If I am communicating with my higher-self without distortion, it appears I came to Earth long ago as a wanderer from 5th density. It seems I did come here to enhance my wisdom through my experience in war and where I am now.

Yes, for Wanderers, wisdom may indeed be an important part of the curriculum!

(04-16-2013, 02:13 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Higher-level concepts can be practiced in lower densities. Everyone doesn't learn the same.

Agreed! My only point was that an entity graduating to 4D for the first time, who has not yet learned wisdom, is serving the Creator just as fully as a Wanderer who has already learned wisdom. The richness of service is in serving to the best of one's ability, not the density one vibrates at (in my opinion).

(04-16-2013, 02:13 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Anyways, I fully understand you now. It's been a pleasure discussing this!

Yes, and the same to you!

(04-16-2013, 02:45 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]In this way the entity may become a conscious being in a very brief span of your time/space. This may be seen to be what you would call a traumatic progression. It is to be noted that among your entities a large percentage of all progression has as catalyst, trauma.

I think what Ra means here is that acute trauma has the potential for rapily awakening the entity.

It is the same with animals who die a violent death, and even more so with factory farm animals who live their entire lives in extreme suffering. The acute trauma awakens the consciousness.

Is this optimal? In my opinion, no. I have speculated in other discussions that such acute, traumatic catalyst may often bias the entity towards the STS path. But that is, of course, only speculation.

And now I see. Interesting. I stand corrected. May Ra forgive me for distorting his words.

(04-16-2013, 02:53 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]And now I see. Interesting. I stand corrected. May Ra forgive me for distorting his words.

Please don't think of this as me 'correcting' you! I am simply sharing my own interpretation! My interpretation isn't necessarily any better than your interpretation! We are all learning and trying to understand Ra's words. I don't think Ra expects full understanding from us. We all distort Ra's words to some degree.

I don't think war or killing anyone for any reason gains you any polarity, I think it actually depolarizes. That is not to say I wouldn't defend myself and my family in certain situations:

25.6 Wrote:

Questioner Wrote:Could you amplify the meaning of when the— what you said by “failure to accept that which is given?”

Ra Wrote:I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded, engulfed, and transformed by positive energies.

This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say.

It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will, must then regroup.

It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation.

(04-16-2013, 11:24 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think war or killing anyone for any reason gains you any polarity, I think it actually depolarizes. That is not to say I wouldn't defend myself and my family in certain situations:

I agree. I don't think any act of violence is polarizing STO. What I meant was that the motivation behind the act might be.

There's probably a trade-off, depending on the situation.

(04-16-2013, 02:45 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]How do you guys explain the mentions of trauma in the same paragraph? Within the context of the paragraph, it doesn't make sense that trauma would occur from abstaining from bellicose actions unless you have an intense blood lust.

If I would be an editor of this quote, I would break it differently, like this:

Ra, 34.14 Wrote:Finally, one may polarize very strongly [fourth ray] by expressing the principle of universal love at the total expense of any distortion towards involvement in bellicose actions. In this way the entity may become a conscious being in a very brief span of your time/space.

This [=war] may be seen to be what you would call a traumatic progression. It is to be noted that among your entities a large percentage of all progression has as catalyst, trauma.

As I understand this whole 34.14 quote: one *may* polarize *somewhat* towards the positive if one preserves/saves other selves, which is *not* to say that one is taking bellicose actions towards yet another self when saving those other others.

Furthermore, as I understand this "expressing the principle of universal love" in both this quote and in relationship to for instance general Patton, fighting when seeing universal love, is a rejection of the Law of Responsibility:

Ra, 34.17 Wrote:The sum total of this incarnation vibrationally was a slight increase in positive polarity but a decrease in harvestability due to the rejection of the Law or Way of Responsibility; that is, seeing universal love, yet still it fought on.

So my understanding is that, yes, it is *perhaps* possible to polarize *somewhat* towards the positive if you are fighting in some way during the war *when* you are saving someone, but - it is *not* expression of universal love. Because as I understand the above quote - if you are seeing universal love, you can not continue fighting... :/

Here's a paradox I see: Does true universal love not consist of loving your own desires and the nature of your own reality along with everything else? If universal love requires rejection of a part of you, then does it remain to be universal love? I guess in such a case one could accept and love this rejection. In another case, there could be a total lack of desire for self-preservation, which does not seem universally loving either.

---

Here's my conclusion from all this: Polarity is not the end goal. It is a barometer. The universal goal is never to reach 100% STO or otherwise but rather to keep your polarization in balance with what you wish to experience. For when one realizes that everything is universal service, that's all polarity remains to be: A tool towards maximum experience for the creator.

Depolarization will naturally occur through life and should be accepted within third-density at the least. As long as your polarity is within your chosen range, things are acceptable.

Am I incorrect?

"Sereia" ["Mermaid"] -- Suba, São Paulo Confessions (1999)
(Suba/Dranoff/Cavalli)

Tenho tua palma na alma da mão [I have your soul in the palm of my hand]
Tenho tua mão no meu corpo no chão [I have your hand over my body in the sand]
Tenho teu corpo e tua alma de são [I have your body and the core of your soul]
Na mão e na calma da intuição [In my hands and in tranquil intuition]

Quero esse simples tão livre de ser [I want this simple freedom to be]
Quero esse livre tão simples de ver [I want this freedom so simple to see]
Quero te ver em teu livre tecer [I want to see you growing to be]
Teu antes teu hoje teu simples viver [Your yesterday, your today, simply to live]

No mar [In the sea]
Sereia  [Mermaid]
No fundo do mar . . . [ Deep under the sea . . .]

Eu vou ter você [I'll have you]
Acima da lua cheia [Above the full moon]
Eu vou ter você [I'll have you]
No fundo do mar [ Deep under the sea]
Eu vou ter você [I'll have you]
Lá fora [Outside]
Já brilha Vênus [Venus glow]
Bem dentro pele na pele [Inside skin against skin]

Sereia
No fundo do mar . . .

http://www.brazzil.com/musmar00.htm

   

------------------------------------

Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends? -- Abraham Lincoln

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. -- Rev. Martin Luther King