Bring4th

I have to admit, this has been a tough one for me to totally assimilate.

basically, what Ra says is that as soon as one becomes conscious of 'self' in this incarnation, then the law of responsbility is in effect. This 'awareness' might be at 15 months old or maybe 2.5 years old. I am thinking it is the point of the earliest conscious memories.

Quote:18.7 Questioner: As an entity in this density grows from childhood, he becomes more aware of his responsibilities. Is there an age below which an entity is not responsible for his actions, or is he responsible from the time of birth?

Ra: I am Ra. An entity incarnating upon the Earth plane becomes conscious of self at a varying point in its time/space progress through the continuum. This may have a median, shall we say, of approximately fifteen of your months.

Some entities become conscious of self at a period closer to incarnation, some at a period farther from this event.

In all cases responsibility then becomes retroactive from that point backwards in the continuum so that distortions are to be understood by the entity and dissolved as the entity learns.

18.8 Questioner: Then an entity, say, four years old would be totally responsible for any actions that were against or inharmonious with the Law of One. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. It may be noted that it has been arranged by your social complex structures that the newer entities to incarnation are to be provided with guides of a physical mind/body/spirit complex, thus being able to learn quickly what is consonant with the Law of One.

this amazed me somewhat, that karma could begin to be accumulated at such an early age (acting against the Law of One).

previously, I had been inculturated with the notion that there are 'children' who are unknowing, and therefore in 'the eyes of the law' are subject to a different standard of ruling from an 'adult'; and that the rites of adulthood (getting a drivers licence, reaching voting age, reaching drinking age) then delineate certain 'responsibilities' of a growing individual.

but such 'social standards' do not seem to apply to karmic law (law of responsbiliity).

Jesus got mad as a child, and killed a fellow child, Ra says; and this was karmic.

I mean, when people are tried or drunk, they make the excuse - well, I wasn't in my right mind, I can't be responsible for what I did or said, even if it was something really silly or stupid.

- -

or I was stoned or in a bad mood ... 'I'm not responsible for what I said or did'.

such an attitude does not seem to acknowledge that karma is in effect at all times. And what is karma?

acting, full well, knowing that it is unloving (ie being deliberately hurtful, desiring to injure the other with words, sarcasm, or blunt fists, or any other manner of being 'unloving')

Quote:12.29 Questioner: What could one of these entities do to become karmically involved? [Inaudible] example.

Ra: I am Ra. An entity which acts in a consciously unloving manner in action with other beings can become karmically involved.

so yeah, I've made any number of excuses for myself in the past. Especially for my younger years. Oh, I was bullied, that's why I behaved the way that I did to my brother and sister. Oh, I had a physically debilitating ailment that sapped me of energy, and I was justified in being grumpy and attacking towards my best friend. Oh, I had financial pressures, and so I was justified in taking the actions that I did.

that just doesn't cut it. It seems spiritual law (responsibility) is in effect at all times. And it takes a fair bit of forgiveness to say, hey, I screwed up plenty in the past. And to own what you did.

peace guys,

plenum

It's ok man. Don't beat yourself up, we've all done stuff like that. Just send those memories your love energy when they are bouncing around your head and that will negate thier charge and start the healing process. Sometimes doing something to make things "right" can help - sometimes that can be as simple as apologizing silently or out loud to the higher self of the people you feel you've wronged. Try it out - it really works.

Don't forget. You are always loved.

I always remember Shin'Ar saying that there are the many sides and perspectives of an event, and then there is what actually happened, the truth. I think I understand that it isn't possible to accomodate the truth from only one perspective because every event has multitudes of facets of a unified field of perception. The truth is not just the combination of those things, though, because the truth, the essence upon which the matrix of the gem or flower of life is impossible to define except as an infinity unity of infinite intelligence.

We are our choices from start to finish. To deny our choices is to deny our existence. Responsibility is more than accountability: It's about creating who you are and who you wish to be.

When you take responsibility for all things ["Are you not all things?"] you then become empowered to make a change and create the reality you desire to see, but as long as you feel that you are not responsible for something, you relinquish your power to grow in that area. This song displays the issue with people not taking individual responsibility:

Another way to look at it maybe dear plenum, is that a lot of the things that we allow excuses for are the things for which society as a whole allows excuses. This in turn is a reflection of yourself again of course, by the situations occurring and the other players being there "condoning" your actions. If they/you were able to forgive you back then in the now, then you should afford yourself the same forgiveness in the here and now. It's easy to fall into a groupthink point of view, especially in a family dynamic. Sometimes we lower our vibrations to facilitate our accepted role in the group, just think of all the catalyst you facilitated: the role you played to your siblings as their brother, the patience you taught your friend in having to deal with your impatience AND your illness, the chain of events that occurred after the desperate actions you took. None of these are mistakes and were very valuable to the other selves involved, don't devalue them!

Even the societal idea that children aren't as responsible for their actions as "adults", is just society's way of indulging our child selves with the graciousness of free will. Be grateful for that.

From my own point of view, my first memories as a child were dealing with catalyst, and polarizing. I accepted a lot of responsibility at a very young age, and have rarely been afforded the luxury of playing the "jerk". Delight in your freedom! There are ways it makes your journey so much more hard fought.

(07-15-2013, 03:15 PM)Guenivere Wrote: [ -> ]Delight in your freedom! There are ways it makes your journey so much more hard fought.

I have plenty of freedom, but I still feel restless. I wonder if I'm karmically responsible for the things I did when I was under schizophrenia sickness, thinking I was doing it for God.

That's up to you, Gem. Ra states that once we forgive ourselves through the awakening process we step off the karma wheel, basically when we sincerely decide that we don't want to play in 3D anymore.

Quote:34.5 Questioner: If an entity develops what is called a karma in an incarnation, is there then programming that sometimes occurs so that he will experience catalyst that will enable him to get to a point of forgiveness thereby alleviating the karma?

Ra: I am Ra. This is, in general, correct. However, both self and any involved other-self may, at any time through the process of understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness, ameliorate these patterns. This is true at any point in an incarnative pattern. Thus one who has set in motion an action may forgive itself and never again make that error. This also brakes or stops what you call karma.

Just to note, just because the law of responsibility is in effect at all times, it doesn't necessarily logically follow that all people of any age in all situations have the same percentage of responsibility. Perhaps this may or may not be how reality works, but I don't find clarification in the Ra material.

In fact, I find that Ra's discussions of how free will can be fully or partially infringed upon, from his discussions about how negatives tip-toe around total infringement, may indicate that in fact that the law of responsibility does in fact include the concept of partial responsibility.

There are countless situations one can construct where someone is less than 100% responsible, yet still be responsible. I would interested in whether anyone else had any thoughts in the matter: Would the law of responsibility operate identically in situations where you kill your best friend out of anger, as opposed to killing your best friend because a drug-lord threatened to kill your family if you did not?

I think the golden rule is that what is solely your choice is your responsibility. As I've said, it's not about just being accountable for "sins" but shaping who you are.

To deny people their choices is to divide them into pieces. Like this kind of fallacy: "You're not your anger. You're only your kindness."

The latter situation is completely your choice. There is no "morality" involved. Only you will interpret your choices and that's where the responsibility extends. You are responsible for your choices as far as your interpretation sees them.

Morality and punishment is a completely artificially contrived illusion. It's not about that. It's, again, about shaping your person and creating who you are.

---

What you'll notice is that 18.7 and 18.8 does not directly reference karma. This isn't about karma. This is about YOUR responsibilities to YOURSELF.

Even karma is self-imposed.

(07-15-2013, 08:52 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I think the golden rule is that what is solely your choice is your responsibility. As I've said, it's not about just being accountable for "sins" but shaping who you are.

To deny people their choices is to divide them into pieces. Like this kind of fallacy: "You're not your anger. You're only your kindness."

The latter situation is completely your choice. There is no "morality" involved. Only you will interpret your choices and that's where the responsibility extends. You are responsibile for your choices as far as your interpretation sees them.

Morality and punishment is a completely artificially contrived illusion. It's not about that. It's, again, about shaping your person and creating who you are.

---

What you'll notice is that 18.7 and 18.8 does not directly reference karma. This isn't about karma. This is about YOUR responsibilities to YOURSELF.

But would you not agree that in the above example I posted the scenarios would be different in terms of polarization/depolarization?

(07-15-2013, 08:59 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2013, 08:52 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I think the golden rule is that what is solely your choice is your responsibility. As I've said, it's not about just being accountable for "sins" but shaping who you are.

To deny people their choices is to divide them into pieces. Like this kind of fallacy: "You're not your anger. You're only your kindness."

The latter situation is completely your choice. There is no "morality" involved. Only you will interpret your choices and that's where the responsibility extends. You are responsibile for your choices as far as your interpretation sees them.

Morality and punishment is a completely artificially contrived illusion. It's not about that. It's, again, about shaping your person and creating who you are.

---

What you'll notice is that 18.7 and 18.8 does not directly reference karma. This isn't about karma. This is about YOUR responsibilities to YOURSELF.

But would you not agree that in the above example I posted the scenarios would be different in terms of polarization?

Polarization is about seeing the unity or disunity in your actions. There's a Q'uo quote about this. I am just going to be frank: A small minority of the people here actually know what polarization is about. It's a mindset. It's not morality.

One can polarize positively as a soldier with over 1000 confirmed kills if he's doing it with full awareness of the love that is in creation. Depolarization towards the negative is when you become the illusion itself and begin to deny the unity in all things towards darkness and inevitably the compacting and rejecting of the self.

How those situations polarize anyone depends solely on their mindset and intent.

This where the law of responsibility comes in: You will be responsible for your choices through the intent you made them.

Anger does not necessarily mean contempt so that's why I don't say I agree or disagree. Everyone will judge themselves.

Quote:There are countless situations one can construct where someone is less than 100% responsible, yet still be responsible. I would interested in whether anyone else had any thoughts in the matter: Would the law of responsibility operate identically in situations where you kill your best friend out of anger, as opposed to killing your best friend because a drug-lord threatened to kill your family if you did not?

I don't believe so, I don't think it would be identical at all. Anger is a selfish and thoughtless motive, protecting your family is selfless, and if your friend was polarized even somewhat, would probably see the value of giving his life to save your entire family.

Of course then you have to consider what actions you took to get yourself so indebted to said druglord, etc... I think there are countless subtleties to murder, but I think comfort can be had knowing that in grave circumstances of those kind, the entities have preincarnational agreements as to what lessons they need to experience.

I will add that you could love your family and try to save them by killing their kidnapper, so to speak, but that will not necessarily polarize your positively if you deny the unity that exists within the situation and the kidnapper.

If you wish to "control" the kidnapper enough, you will likely polarize negatively.

If you choose to embrace and accept the unity in the situation, the opposite will happen.

Polarization is about enlightening you towards loving all things. It's not a karmic game.

I found something to indicate that the law of responsibility may be total:

Quote:18.8 Questioner: Then an entity, say, four years old would be totally responsible for any actions that were against or inharmonious with the Law of One. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. It may be noted that it has been arranged by your social complex structures that the newer entities to incarnation are to be provided with guides of a physical mind/body/spirit complex, thus being able to learn quickly what is consonant with the Law of One.

And I do think the law of responsibility may be different than karma.