Bring4th

As I understand the LOO so far (about halfway thru the Ra material) we require the dance of negative and positive here to provide catalysts for evolution on our chosen path.
So a scenario:
You are walking in the woods and come upon two people, one is brutalizing the other. The one being brutalized is screaming for help. They are not aware of you.

1) you leave before they see you. (no action the only person you have controlled is self, so a positive action)
2) you move closer so you are noticed, the one attacking stops (your action has in effect controlled one, and released one from control, so balanced action?)
3) you rush in and pull the attacker off (perhaps same as above but possibly stronger 'controlling action' so more negative than positive?)

At least for me this runs counter to sense of right and wrong, which perhaps is the great value of a catalyst - sorting it out may produce the needed balance.

Chett, the service-to-others path is about respecting each entity's right to choose their own path, inviting them to participate, and respecting if they choose something different. The service-to-self path involves using others as disposable resources, whether or not they would prefer something else.

In the case you described, this is violence that the victim explicitly says they don't want to be subjected to. They didn't ask for the violence, didn't initiate it, it is not any kind of self-defense.

In this scenario, the perpetrator is following a negative STS path of using the victim as a disposable resource for the perp's increase of self-power, at the expense of the victim.

For you to interfere and, if you can, interrupt that violence, is an STO action. It's respecting the right of the victim to prefer to not be victimized.

It does reduce the opportunity of the perp to accumulate more power. But it does this by respecting that the perp's desire to wield power and cause harm is no more important than the victim's desire to have their own power of their own life and to not be harmed. The implicit claim is that nobody's right of self-determination is important enough to override another's right of self-determination. The moral issue you mention is that self-determination does not include the right to determine for others that they have to give up their own self-determination.

If you leave without interfering (assuming you could have done something), then you are tacitly endorsing the perp's premise that their own desire to be violently powerful is more important than the victim's desire for peaceful self-determination. This is not just controlling yourself, it's accepting the perp's decision that the victim does not have the right to their own decisions.

Does this clarify?

By the way I'm going to ask the mods for this to be moved to the "Life on planet earth" forum, since we aren't exploring particular channeled passages from the L/L Research material.

I've thought of these things in the sto path. How about these scenarios:

a) An sto entity arrives on a scene whereby an sts entity is about to kill an sto entity, and the sto entity kills the sts entity. Does this interfere with the sts entities evolution? and how does this align with the LOO teachings?

b) An sto entity is being attacked with intent to kill by an sts entity. The sto entity kills the sts entity. How does this align with the LOO teachings?

c) An sto entity acting out of intent for the greater good kills another sto entity.

I guess what I am trying to figure out is how making unviable another mbs complex is viewed through the LOO. Having been a soldier I did my duty in what I considered sto circumstances. Is the only correct path to be Christlike?

Sure on the move - I am still a little fuzzy on where to post things.
I am still far from clear on this one. It seems to me that stopping someone from exercising control on another is in fact exercising control on them. I guess this is one I shall have to meditate on at some length (maybe I should have left out the screaming for help part so the desires of the second person are not so clear)

---

(01-26-2010, 12:46 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ]I've thought of these things in the sto path. How about these scenarios:

a) An sto entity arrives on a scene whereby an sts entity is about to kill an sto entity, and the sto entity kills the sts entity. Does this interfere with the sts entities evolution? and how does this align with the LOO teachings?

b) An sto entity is being attacked with intent to kill by an sts entity. The sto entity kills the sts entity. How does this align with the LOO teachings?

c) An sto entity acting out of intent for the greater good kills another sto entity.

I guess what I am trying to figure out is how making unviable another mbs complex is viewed through the LOO. Having been a soldier I did my duty in what I considered sto circumstances. Is the only correct path to be Christlike?

This is exactly the sort of thing I was getting at, without going so far as death which would stop evolution for this incarnation. It gets to the same point, how to act correctly without interfering in the path of another.

When in doubt, listen to your heart. It will always supply you with the correct answer. Sometimes only being forced into a situation can give us the answer we seek. Knowing that we have set up catalyst in this life to learn certain lessons, I'm not sure we can guess to a situation on who is STO and who is STS. I think Ra said somewhere that some entities "choose" to be martyrs so they may clear past karma (If they killed someone in the wrong in a previous life, they may choose to have the roles reversed in a future life so that they may balance out that action). I think that's right anyway?

So if an STS type wants to control you, you as an STO serve them by accepting. If you refuse you are serving self instead of other ... by this rationale we should all just be slaves to the will of other. Something about this is just not right.

Peregrinus, the Hindu answer is very clear about this in the Bhagavad Gita. Have you studied it? Although a soldier, Arjuna was dismayed at the prospect of ending the lives of his relatives and some he respected and loved. Krishna, the incarnate deity, explained that making the body unviable did not destroy the spirit's continued evolution - with all souls ultimately returning to divine union. Krisha also explained that, as a soldier, Arjuna's duty was to do his duty: fighting when there was a just war, without concern for whether his efforts would lead to success. I haven't pondered as much as I'd like to about how Hindu philosophy overlaps with the Law of One material.

Chett, you sure hit on the center of the problem. Two other entities have conflicting goals for their own lives, which leads to conflicting behavior towards each other. Any response you make - including walking away - endorses one of those goals over the other. There is no option of non-interference here, because that interferes with B's desire to be free of A's dominance. Yet if the issue is freedom from dominance, your action would then dominate A's choice to be the dominator of B.

Thanks for bringing up an intriguing thread. I feel that there is something more to be said that I wasn't able to put into words. Perhaps someone else will be able to express the feeling I can't quite explain; or something even better. You've helped me realize that my convictions in this area are far more a matter of feeling than of analysis.

(01-26-2010, 02:02 AM)Chett Wrote: [ -> ]So if an STS type wants to control you, you as an STO serve them by accepting. If you refuse you are serving self instead of other ... by this rationale we should all just be slaves to the will of other. Something about this is just not right.

If you investigate other STS/STO threads you will find that a number of us attempts to ignore to deem our actions as anything, we simply are ourselves. If you focus on the thought that all you do is proper and well and perfect, you need not deem. If you look upon all with love, you need not know wrong or right.

As for the 'not just right' perhaps you're referring to the paradox of servitude.
If I am you, then I serve you by serving me. STO becomes STS
If you am I, then I serve me by serving you. STS becomes STO

This obvious dilemma makes me refrain from judging. This is not the density of understanding. That's a long way to go!
We all serve each other by being ourselves - we serve the infinite creator which is you/me.

(01-26-2010, 06:29 AM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-26-2010, 02:02 AM)Chett Wrote: [ -> ]So if an STS type wants to control you, you as an STO serve them by accepting. If you refuse you are serving self instead of other ... by this rationale we should all just be slaves to the will of other. Something about this is just not right.

If you investigate other STS/STO threads you will find that a number of us attempts to ignore to deem our actions as anything, we simply are ourselves. If you focus on the thought that all you do is proper and well and perfect, you need not deem. If you look upon all with love, you need not know wrong or right.

As for the 'not just right' perhaps you're referring to the paradox of servitude.
If I am you, then I serve you by serving me. STO becomes STS
If you am I, then I serve me by serving you. STS becomes STO

This obvious dilemma makes me refrain from judging. This is not the density of understanding. That's a long way to go!
We all serve each other by being ourselves - we serve the infinite creator which is you/me.

Indeed which makes the whole STS/STO question absolutely moot. Some of us simply accept I guess, and some of us wish to analyze. Perhaps a bigger difference in approach than sts/sto.

If you do not accept this you may be of 6th density where there polarities and paradoxes are 'solved'. There is no STS/STO there. Well, most wanderers are anyway, so it's a good chance.

RA Wrote:We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized; the complexities are simplified; and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.

(01-26-2010, 12:46 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ]a) An sto entity arrives on a scene whereby an sts entity is about to kill an sto entity, and the sto entity kills the sts entity. Does this interfere with the sts entities evolution? and how does this align with the LOO teachings?

b) An sto entity is being attacked with intent to kill by an sts entity. The sto entity kills the sts entity. How does this align with the LOO teachings?

c) An sto entity acting out of intent for the greater good kills another sto entity.

You know, I read a wonderful Q'uo session about this very topic a while back, but now I cannot find it! The group posed a question about a hero in a movie they had viewed the evening prior. In the story, the hero ends up killing a good number of people in order to save a greater number of people. Essentially, Q'uo said, the burdun of karma will not befall one who believes they are acting for the greatest good. But that's the crux of the matter, what it is that person believes they are doing. If you know you are doing wrong, or if you know what you are doing is right, that's how it falls. This makes a good deal of sense I think, considering that out every action in today's society from large to small actions will ultimately effect someone else. My very lifestyle, living in the USA has consequences for others in smaller nations even though I am not consciously aware of those consequences. But it would not be very helpful from the standpoint of spiritual evolution to be held accountable for things that I am not aware of! It also speaks to the validity of the idea that whatever your intent is behind something is what matters. Consider the Christmas gift given out of obligation. Yes, it is a gift, but does it mean much? No.

I have also put some thought in to hypothetical scenarios involving my loved ones and what I would do. Although the odds of it happening are remote, in the event that a chain-saw wielding maniac were to saw down my front door in the middle of the night, I would make little hesitation in attempting to arrest that individual by whatever means in order to protect my loved ones from harm. I've also imagined scenarios in which I dive in front of vehicles to save children, etc.

If you *really* want a hairy hypothetical to mull over, consider one that my (slightly dark mooded) friend posed to me. Were you given the choice of seeing one of your loved ones killed, or one hundred people you don't know killed, what would you do? When I heard that question initially I rebuked it, claiming that it was a false choice given that it would almost never happen. But apparently I am wrong about that, he cited some African genocide or other where, reportedly, similar things had happened. I still don't know quite what to say about that one.

---

(01-26-2010, 06:29 AM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]If I am you, then I serve you by serving me. STO becomes STS
If you am I, then I serve me by serving you. STS becomes STO

This obvious dilemma makes me refrain from judging. This is not the density of understanding. That's a long way to go!
We all serve each other by being ourselves - we serve the infinite creator which is you/me.

Yes, I believe this is the best approach to this seeming paradox. Paradoxes by their very nature do not have resolve (at least with present understanding) so one of the best solutions, so to speak, is to hold it at arms length and do not become overly concerned until you have more information to work with.

I consider STO and STS to be of a metaphorical nature anyways. In fact, most all of our language is metaphor. All our language does is describe things, certainly not very well on topics of the metaphysical. Just take a look at any of our friends here who have attempted to describe mystical experiences, viewing the start of creation, or witnessing god. Words fail... And pretty much all channeled entities that I've ever read complain about our limiting language at one point or another. LOL!

Yet, even at thought transmitting level there are limitations. Words aren't really that much better. Infinity is never what you say it to be. It just is. You cannot condition infinity.
The truth lies in the paradoxes I think, for they are more true than the idea that something is more true than another. The previous sentence is of course a paradox too. Haha

(01-26-2010, 12:01 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]If you *really* want a hairy hypothetical to mull over, consider one that my (slightly dark mooded) friend posed to me. Were you given the choice of seeing one of your loved ones killed, or one hundred people you don't know killed, what would you do? When I heard that question initially I rebuked it, claiming that it was a false choice given that it would almost never happen. But apparently I am wrong about that, he cited some African genocide or other where, reportedly, similar things had happened. I still don't know quite what to say about that one.

---

were such a situation ever to occur i think any answer would always depend on the details - particularly that since from a LOO perspective death is nothing to fear

on an sto path one wouldn't think twice about sacrificing oneself for 100 strangers, but would someone on the sto path be able to chose to sacrafice another individual for 100 people? isn't that an infringement of your loved ones' free will, unless they made that choice themselves?

(01-26-2010, 12:24 PM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]The truth lies in the paradoxes I think, for they are more true than the idea that something is more true than another. The previous sentence is of course a paradox too. Haha

That idea rings true for me, perhaps the real value here is in simply asking the questions. This, the questioning is what makes us thinking, aware humans. Following an idea unevaluated, blind faith probably doesn't polarize at all.

I think that if any one of us came upon a situation where someone was beating someone else we would not think with our brains but with our hearts. We might very well jump in between and take the blows ourselves. If however, we ran away in panic we should never be hard on ourselves. Our Higher Selves will always lead us forward in Love. The Path that we are on is magical and mysterious to be sure but we have wondrous safety nets everywhere.

dear chett

i believe the situation u describe is too unclear. what if he is beating
the person in the woods because the person killed someone in his
family. we dont know why he is doing it

how about this

you are at a party and u walk into a bedroom and u find a man
molesting a child . what would u do. what i would do is stop him
get the boys parents and report the guy to the police. i wouldnt think
twice about it. a situation of child abuse is pretty clear cut . i guess what im saying is that if the situation is clear cut im going to act
another situation youre somewhere where somebody goes on a
murderous rampage and randomly starts killing people. if i can take him
out i will no doubt about it. and not even a second thought.

we werent put here to be doormats and if somebody wants to violate
my boundaries or the boundaries of one of my loved ones i wont think
twice about stopping them in whatever way it calls for

norral

(01-27-2010, 06:14 AM)norral Wrote: [ -> ]dear chett

i believe the situation u describe is too unclear. what if he is beating
the person in the woods because the person killed someone in his
family. we dont know why he is doing it

well a somewhat muddy situation is exactly the point, they all are in some way or another since we can never really know what is in the heart of another.
the point here is not so much to change behavior in any given situation but to prod ourselves into consideration and understanding.

This discussion is crazy making! I know I have attempted to understand this! :idea::idea::idea: So I vote with the follow your HEART crowd! We can only do that we can do at any time the Best we can do---- I have also spent a good part of my life seeking penance for things that I did not directly contribute to and/or I did not know any better until after the fact. I have resolved that I will simply Follow MY HEART and it will all work out for the best for myself and others even if I am unable to see all variables and understand all the permutations.

fairyfarmgirl

I don't think there are clear answers on this. However, STO and STS are not absolutes. A thing is STO on a level and may be STS on another level. It's never one or the other, it's always a bit of both

I usually just look at my self, my intent with the behavior, and the world around me... If it hurts none in no way I assume what I do is absolutely acceptable. If people can get hurt, I try to judge the situation from my perspective, is my behavior acceptable in my eyes. It's very subjective I know.

But like you say, it's not clear, the distinction is for purpose of guidance, not as an absolute rule, if you want absolute rules. I have a few religions for you that might serve you better.

For example Discordianism absolutely insists you eat a hot dog on Fridays. You missed a Friday? You're out... Rightly so, the Goddess Eris would never accept a non hot dog eating follower.

This, like every material should not be expected to answer all your question, and should not be expected to be literally applicable in every situation. It expresses a mode of thinking a way of dealing with things. But it does not take away the need for us to do the actual thinking.

(01-27-2010, 08:13 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]This, like every material should not be expected to answer all your question, and should not be expected to be literally applicable in every situation. It expresses a mode of thinking a way of dealing with things. But it does not take away the need for us to do the actual thinking.

As far as I can tell the thinking is the main thing of the LOO, we are not going to solve all these puzzles, at least not this time around.
Its the thinking thats the thing ...how else to you process all those feelings and raise the vibrations?
That said, discussing the puzzles is good fun.

Hello everyone,

Great thread you've got going here! I am one of the moderators for the Bring4th forums and in the process of doing some housekeeping I thought that this particular thread would have better pride of place on the shelf labeled "Life on Planet Earth".

Though this thread is working within the concept of polarity, that which is integral to the Law of One, it otherwise does not make any reference to or incorporation of the Law of One material, for which the particular sub-forum known as "Strictly Law of One" was designed.

Discussion which draws more directly and consistently from the Law of One material belongs in "Strictly Law of One". Discussion which explores a variety of perspectives within the parameters of the Confederation philosophy but not so married to the Law of One material itself should rightfully be placed in "Life on Planet Earth".

No harm done! The Bring4th Admin team itself has trouble at times determining where a particular thread should go. : )

Much love to all,
GLB

(01-26-2010, 02:03 AM)Questioner Wrote: [ -> ]Peregrinus, the Hindu answer is very clear about this in the Bhagavad Gita. Have you studied it? Although a soldier, Arjuna was dismayed at the prospect of ending the lives of his relatives and some he respected and loved. Krishna, the incarnate deity, explained that making the body unviable did not destroy the spirit's continued evolution - with all souls ultimately returning to divine union. Krisha also explained that, as a soldier, Arjuna's duty was to do his duty: fighting when there was a just war, without concern for whether his efforts would lead to success. I haven't pondered as much as I'd like to about how Hindu philosophy overlaps with the Law of One material.

I have not studied the Bhagavad Gita to any great extent. All I can say is that I have gotten my feet wet in many religions. This does bring me solace though, this entire thread, for making another's body unviable was/is something I never took lightly and always wondered about. In relation to the Law of One, I see it as not being an evil thing as most organized religions always seem to make it out to be, but something which should be respected and done only with the most honorable of intentions. That I can say I did, for I believed I was doing the right thing. Actually, at the time, I neglected feeling the experience of empathy for the fallen, but only felt in my heart that it was justifiably honorable and the right thing to do.

Peregrinus, based on what you've written here and in your other posts, I suspect that you may find ample food for thought and solace within the Gita, with many interesting comparisons to the Law of One.

One of the interesting things about it is that there are some people who believe it's based on historical events, an actual war that took place and killed countless people, and perhaps a development of rocket technology and "dirty" nuclear weapons thousands of years ago. From this point of view, the Gita is not just spiritual advice, but includes remnants of factual accounts that can help us understand specific situations that occurred in objective reality.

Meanwhile, other people believe there might not be a single incident in the Gita that relates to anything that actually occurred. These people interpret the whole thing as a metaphor for the warring aspects of the human personality that find integration and peace in seeking union with the divine.

Either way, it's clear that the whole story is kicked off by the report of a soldier seeking spiritual wisdom about his ultimate duty.

Thank you then. I will look into it and see what resonates.

I second that recommendation! The Bhagavad Gita has been an important step in my spiritual growth. And compared to other holy books, it's actually a very decent read. You might want to look up a commented version. This will add a dimension to the reading experience. You simply won't spot all nuances and information on your own.

(01-28-2010, 08:44 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]I second that recommendation! The Bhagavad Gita has been an important step in my spiritual growth. And compared to other holy books, it's actually a very decent read. You might want to look up a commented version. This will add a dimension to the reading experience. You simply won't spot all nuances and information on your own.

I Third that recommendation. A beautiful book of course.

---

(01-26-2010, 12:46 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ]I've thought of these things in the sto path. How about these scenarios:

a) An sto entity arrives on a scene whereby an sts entity is about to kill an sto entity, and the sto entity kills the sts entity. Does this interfere with the sts entities evolution? and how does this align with the LOO teachings?

b) An sto entity is being attacked with intent to kill by an sts entity. The sto entity kills the sts entity. How does this align with the LOO teachings?

c) An sto entity acting out of intent for the greater good kills another sto entity.

I guess what I am trying to figure out is how making unviable another mbs complex is viewed through the LOO. Having been a soldier I did my duty in what I considered sto circumstances. Is the only correct path to be Christlike?

I am with the follow your heart people on this one. Different people will respond differently. And funny thing is that the same action of killing the intruder or perpetrator would be either STO or STS depending upon who you are and what your path has been so far and what your intentions are at the time. If you kill with glee and enthusiasm then it is STS, If you kill in defense and to save more lives while honoring all lives then it may be STO.

I have to say that none of these choices are good choices as they say. We are choosing between bad and worse. There is distortions in both but maybe less distortion in saving more lives, with an intention for respecting all lives including yours.

I believe Jesus had his own path and we have our own. We can not imitate his actions just blindly. Where is the wisdom in that? Although be inspired by his being...

Hi Everyone!

I haven't been around the last couple of weeks...trying to get caught up. Great topic!

(01-26-2010, 12:46 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ]I've thought of these things in the sto path. How about these scenarios:

a) An sto entity arrives on a scene whereby an sts entity is about to kill an sto entity, and the sto entity kills the sts entity. Does this interfere with the sts entities evolution? and how does this align with the LOO teachings?

I think it's important to remember what the nature of STS is: to control and be controlled...to infringe upon the free will of other-selves and in turn have one's own free will infringed upon. Such is the nature of STS!

Thus, it would seem to me that killing the STS entity in order to save the victim would actually enhance the STS entity's evolution, while at the same time answering the call of the victim who wishes to be saved!

Sounds like a win-win to me.

As for the STO person who killed the STS perp, it's not quite that simple. Did s/he relish the chance to get violent? Was there ego involved, in being the hero? Was there any other recourse that might have saved the victim without killing the perp? Was it absolutely necessary to kill the perp in order to save the victim, or could he have saved the victim without resorting to violence?

(01-26-2010, 12:46 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ]b) An sto entity is being attacked with intent to kill by an sts entity. The sto entity kills the sts entity. How does this align with the LOO teachings?

See above. It doesn't matter who the victim is, whether self or other-self. If there is a way to stop the violence without resorting to more violence, that would be preferable, would it not? But, if the only way to save one's life was to take the life of the perp, then that is self-defense...that is stopping an STS entity from taking the free will of another...that is exercising one's free will to live and not be a victim. I think the STS entity is going to polarize either way...whether he kills or is killed. But it can make a vast difference to the polarization of the STO entity, whether s/he is drawn into an incident of violence willingly or grudgingly...As above, the attitudes and intentions have a great deal to do with how polarizing the action could be.

(01-26-2010, 12:46 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ]c) An sto entity acting out of intent for the greater good kills another sto entity.

Ra was clear on this point...that such an action can be STO in nature even though the action might seem STS on the surface.

(01-26-2010, 12:46 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ]I guess what I am trying to figure out is how making unviable another mbs complex is viewed through the LOO. Having been a soldier I did my duty in what I considered sto circumstances. Is the only correct path to be Christlike?

I don't think there is any such thing as a single 'correct' path. Each situation is different, and we are different at different times in our lives. What might have been acceptable before might not be acceptable now.

If you are feeling bothered by your past actions, you are not any different from the rest of us. We've all done things that may have seemed like the most appropriate action at the time, but now seem less than optimal. We're not the same as we were then. We've changed...we've grown in our understanding and love. We might respond differently now. We might not even put ourselves in that situation now. But we did then, and that was where we were at, and we learned and grew from that experience.

If there is anything that could be considered a 'correct' path it is the path of forgiveness...of both self and other-self...of both victim and victimizer.

Jesus demonstrated the epitome of the STO path. Q'uo has stated that it might not always be practical for us to be martyrs; nor are we expected to be. (Something like that...I'll see if I can dig up that session.)

Rather than trying to categorize a violent action as either 'wrong' or 'ok since it was in the name of war/duty' it might be more useful to just recognize that we did the best we could in a very ugly situation. Why should anyone ever have to justify an act of violence? Does violence become somehow acceptable if it's justified? And justified by whose standards? Those who are promoting the violence? Is it our responsibility to answer to the instigators of violence? What is duty? Do we really have duty, or is duty just something we've been led to believe we must have, in order to justify actions we otherwise would not have been willing to engage in? Why should anyone ever act out of duty rather than love? Is duty a real, tangible concept that's part of our STO path, or is it a mechanism used by STS entities to control others and make unpalatable actions seem more palatable?

(These are just some questions to consider.)

Ra/Q'uo have spoken about the 'bellicose' nature of Earth inhabitants. Violence has been a way of life since they planted us on this planet...and before, on our respective planets, in which many of us failed to be harvestable due to violence, resulting in making the home planet uninhabitable, thus necessitating this Earth 1-room-schoolhouse/school for juvenile delinquents experiment. Violence can be dressed up, glossed over, excused and justified...even glorified! All of us have likely participated in violence at one time or another...probably many times! And all of us have likely taken part in the illusion that we are separate, ie. that there is such a thing as an 'enemy' that must be annihilated in order to save ourselves. We know now that this is an illusion. We must forgive ourselves for what we did when we didn't know what we know now.

I don't think justification is the solution to resolving discomfort/grief/remorse over questionable past actions. Justification only drives the pain deeper. Totally karma-free actions need no justification! Rather than justifying the action, why not try confronting it head-on, in all its ugliness, and FORGIVE self for that action? Only forgiveness erases the pain and the karma.

(my 2 cents)

---

(01-26-2010, 12:10 AM)Chett Wrote: [ -> ]You are walking in the woods and come upon two people, one is brutalizing the other. The one being brutalized is screaming for help. They are not aware of you.

1) you leave before they see you. (no action the only person you have controlled is self, so a positive action)
2) you move closer so you are noticed, the one attacking stops (your action has in effect controlled one, and released one from control, so balanced action?)
3) you rush in and pull the attacker off (perhaps same as above but possibly stronger 'controlling action' so more negative than positive?)

At least for me this runs counter to sense of right and wrong, which perhaps is the great value of a catalyst - sorting it out may produce the needed balance.

What is 'right and wrong' but an innate (though over-simplified) understanding of the STO path? Is what we consider 'right and wrong' as STO entities the same as what would be considered 'right and wrong' for an STS entity?

We are STO entities...so I suggest that it isn't necessary to try to figure out a 'right' response to every single contingency, from both STO and STS perspectives.

From an STO perspective, one person's freedom ends where another's begins.

So, my opinions regarding your hypothetical scenarios are:

1. This wouldn't be a positive response, because you chose to not help when you could have. Just a mere lack of control does not make the action STO; answering the call of another self makes it STO. Since, in this scenario, you chose to ignore the call of the victim, I'd say that was STS, not STO.

2. Inconclusive. All you're doing at this point is observing. We all coexist on this planet. I don't think we need to be concerned about whether we're controlling someone just by walking down the street. The other-selves aren't being controlled by our very presence! That fact that the attacker stopped might have just been lucky. You can't assume he will stop just because he sees you, so it doesn't solve your dilemma. What if he doesn't stop? What then?

3. Why would this be more negative than positive? There's a 3rd person here - the victim! Saving the victim from the attacker would be a positive action, imo. How could it be otherwise? A more assertive action does necessarily mean it's a more controlling action. Rushing in to save the victim isn't controlling - it's stopping the attacker from controlling another! The attacker is just getting his own action reflected back to him. He initiated the cycle of control. I don't think stopping the control action (by stopping him) would be considered controlling. Quite the opposite! It's honoring the victim's wish to not be controlled...and being of service to the victim.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it's important to remember the nature of STS. They have different rules. The attacker in this scenario is going to get his rocks off whether he kills or is killed...2 sides of the same coin. So leave him be and focus on answering the victim's call for help.

And who knows? If the attacker isn't actually STS but just having a fit of rage due to drugs/alcohol or some other unusual catalyst, then your action just might bring him back from the brink of destruction over to STO. We can't assume that every attacker is a fully polarized STS entity. Sometimes otherwise 'good' people do bad things in moments of desperation or pain...and in these cases, it is even more important that we take action! Because then we are affecting the polarity of not 1, not 2, but 3 entities!

When in doubt, I'd say always go for involvement rather than turning a blind eye...peace rather than violence...right and wrong aren't as simple and easy to categorize as our religions would have us believe, but that doesn't mean we should just toss out all concepts of 'right action' either. I think it's sometimes tempting to over-analyze these things...hypothetical scenarios might be useful to ponder, but ultimately I would say the best action is the one you feel compelled to take, AFTER asking your Higher Self for guidance, and affirming your intention to act out of LOVE for ALL, in the heat of the moment.

Quote:I think it's important to remember what the nature of STS is: to control and be controlled...to infringe upon the free will of other-selves and in turn have one's own free will infringed upon. Such is the nature of STS!

Do you have a reference for this? I understood that STS meant service to self, how does this mean 'control'? Can not a person focus on actions to serve themselves with little or no regard for others, not caring about 'control'?

Here are some quotes regarding negative control.

Quote:32.2 Ra: I am Ra. The orange ray is that influence or vibratory pattern wherein the mind/body/spirit expresses its power on an individual basis. Thus power over individuals may be seen to be orange ray. This ray has been quite intense among your peoples on an individual basis. You may see in this ray the treating of other-selves as non-entities, slaves, or chattel, thus giving otherselves no status whatever.

The yellow ray is a focal and very powerful ray and concerns the entity in relation to, shall we say, groups, societies, or large numbers of mind/body/spirit complexes. This orange—we correct ourselves—this yellow ray vibration is at the heart of bellicose actions in which one group of entities feels the necessity and right of dominating other groups of entities and bending their wills to the wills of the masters. The negative path, as would call it, uses a combination of the yellow ray and the orange ray in its polarization patterns. These rays, used in a dedicated fashion, will bring about a contact with intelligent infinity.

Quote:46.7 Ra: 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.

Quote:46.8 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.

Quote:54.19 Questioner: In the case of service-to-self polarization, what type of catalyst would entities following this path program when they reach the level of programming their own catalyst?

Ra: I am Ra. The negatively oriented entity will program for maximal separation from and control over all those things and conscious entities which it perceives as being other than the self.

Thanks for answering that, Peregrinus!