Bring4th

I've been reading about the importance of meditation from the Hatonn materials, and through the Law of One. I have read all of the Ra Material, and several of Carla's books, but am always learning.

I have had this question that has been eating at me though. I am wanting to polarize as strongly as possible to service to others while still being able to integrate what I am learning.

However, in the time I am meditating, I am working on myself, opening my chakras, and letting the energy flow through me. Since this is myself, is meditation in this sense service-to-self?

With Love,
Gemini Wolf

Any behavior that serves you or others ultimately serves the One Creator. But in a narrow sense, I believe meditation is not either sts or sto, any more than opening the door and inviting in whoever is outside is inherently positive or negative.

I believe that meditation is the intent to set aside the busy 3D mind and open to a deeper spiritual connection. What you connect with and welcome could be either sts or sto, depending on your intention and your level of awareness. What happens when you invite in that spiritual connection? It all depends on who is on the other side of the door when you wave them in and stand aside.

The reason that service to self has such a low harvestabilty percentage (51%) is that it allows for work on the self as well. Being service to others does not require unconditional selflessness, but a balance slightly in favour of service to others. Without the happy healthy self, there is no work on service to other self.

Loving yourself is not selfish.. how can you love others if you cannot find the love within yourself?

Exactly, STO starts with accepting yourself and giving yourself what you fairly need to survive and have fun. From that position you will be able to give more to others. STS is when you are unable to look beyond and never reach the point of giving to others just because you can.

My grandmother said: Wealth is the position and ability to give to others without expecting something in return because you have all you need already.

(01-28-2010, 11:47 AM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]However, in the time I am meditating, I am working on myself, opening my chakras, and letting the energy flow through me. Since this is myself, is meditation in this sense service-to-self?

With Love,
Gemini Wolf

If your intent is pure and if it results in you being a more productive and positive force in this reality, then I suggest, it is to the greater good of all that you continue--please do!

Consider this case: should a gifted singer continue on improving her voice? Can the act of relentless vocal and music training be considered STS or STO? Again, I suggest looking at the intent. If the she does so to pursue fame and wealth then it is probably STS. But if she uses her gift to inspire and heal others through the power of music (while also dedicating her commercial success to charitable endeavors), then I say, "thank you, dear sister, for sharing your gift."

(01-28-2010, 03:25 PM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]My grandmother said: Wealth is the position and ability to give to others without expecting something in return because you have all you need already.

Wise words saith your Grandmother!

Love--
fairyfarmgirl

(01-28-2010, 03:13 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly, STO starts with accepting yourself and giving yourself what you fairly need to survive and have fun. From that position you will be able to give more to others.

Again, that's the key lesson for me to learn: to love your neighbor as yourself, you do need to love yourself. I've been conditioned to think that service starts with totally depleting myself for those who are unhappy, and ends when this kills me. I'm now considering the premise that those who offered those lessons did not actually have my best interests at heart.

(01-28-2010, 01:26 PM)Questioner Wrote: [ -> ]Any behavior that serves you or others ultimately serves the One Creator. But in a narrow sense, I believe meditation is not either sts or sto, any more than opening the door and inviting in whoever is outside is inherently positive or negative.

I believe that meditation is the intent to set aside the busy 3D mind and open to a deeper spiritual connection. What you connect with and welcome could be either sts or sto, depending on your intention and your level of awareness. What happens when you invite in that spiritual connection? It all depends on who is on the other side of the door when you wave them in and stand aside.

Meditation is definitely a STO activity. The biggest help you can provide is to move towards your own bliss. When you are awakened all are awakened. And meditation will allow you to do it. STS happens when you do something without regards for others and even willful disregard for others.

I am not so sure about meditation being a potentially STS act. As STS you are isolating yourself from your higher self. That is the first isolation you create. You are not listening to your own inner voice. Here is what Ra had to say about this-
@@@@@@@@@@@@
Questioner: Was Himmler in any way in contact with his Higher Self at that time when he was incarnate during the 1940s?

Ra: I am Ra. We remind you that the negative path is one of separation. What is the first separation: the self from the self. The one known as Himmler did not choose to use its abilities of will and polarization to seek guidance from any source but its conscious drives, self-chosen in the life experience and nourished by previous biases created in other life experiences.
@@@@@@@@@@@@

But then again the free will is paramount and it probably can happen. Here is Ra again-
@@@@@@
Therefore, the Oversoul which makes its understanding available to all who are ready for such aid is towards the positive. However, the free will of the individual is paramount, and any guidance given by the Higher Self may be seen in either the positive or negative polarity depending upon the choice of a mind/body/spirit complex.
@@@@@@

(01-28-2010, 11:31 PM)Questioner Wrote: [ -> ]Again, that's the key lesson for me to learn: to love your neighbor as yourself, you do need to love yourself. I've been conditioned to think that service starts with totally depleting myself for those who are unhappy, and ends when this kills me. I'm now considering the premise that those who offered those lessons did not actually have my best interests at heart.

Most people do love their neighbor as they love themselves... Tha'ts just not so much. If you love yourself in a true way, meaning it's real love and not addiction to certain concepts or stimuli you will automatically love your neighbor. It's our base vibration after all. If nothing stops us from doing it, then it's what we do.

If I were you I'd do more than just consider that premise my friend.. STS often wants us to serve and labels it like STO..

(01-29-2010, 12:35 AM)thefool Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest help you can provide is to move towards your own bliss.

That's an astounding concept and wonderful food for meditation. Thank you!

---

(01-29-2010, 11:41 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]If I were you I'd do more than just consider that premise my friend.. STS often wants us to serve and labels it like STO..

There is a lot more than considering, and I deeply thank you for the encouragement. More about this will come as I share my own story later this year.

Hi Gemini Wolf!

(01-28-2010, 11:47 AM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I've been reading about the importance of meditation from the Hatonn materials, and through the Law of One. I have read all of the Ra Material, and several of Carla's books, but am always learning.

Hatonn is a curious character that I find very intriguing. I discuss the Hatonn contact in both 1981.01.15 Last Hatonn Contact Before Ra and 1984.04.15 First Hatonn Contact After Ra. Would love to have your input!

Quote:I have had this question that has been eating at me though. I am wanting to polarize as strongly as possible to service to others while still being able to integrate what I am learning.

Why are you wanting to polarize as strongly as possible? Why not just allow yourself to move at whatever pace seems natural. I have found that depolarization is part of the whole process. It is kind of like in a healing crisis, where an individuals condition will get worse before it gets better. It is the long term that counts.

Quote:However, in the time I am meditating, I am working on myself, opening my chakras, and letting the energy flow through me. Since this is myself, is meditation in this sense service-to-self?

Well, of course! I would advise to use discretion when discussing the concept of STS/STO as it is an area with potential for massive distortion. Remember, the paths harmonize in 6D where the self is the other and the other is the self.

So in the highest sense, any service you do toward another, you do toward your self. And vice-versa. I think you may find an interesting discussion here in Service to Self/Others.

As for me, when my mind starts to spin with this material, I simply return to the most complete statement of the Law of One, from Session One:

Ra Wrote:In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

I believe the ultimate difference between a STO and a STS entity is in the chakras? So if meditation help you open your heart rather than closing it, then you are polarizing towards positive. Sometimes it can be tricky to view from the STO and STS perspective as people have different definition of self and other self.

Hatonn is 4D right? Ra said those of 4D are naive enough to self sacrifice too much in their love, because they haven't got the wisdom of 5D. so i'd take what anyone says with a grain of salt because even higher beings can make mistakes according to Ra.

also, to no love yourself, is being STS, you are part of the others aren't you? i think it means you have to be nice to yourself then too. i don't get it though, why can't it be 50/50?

(07-16-2011, 06:21 AM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]also, to no love yourself, is being STS

STS and STO refer to orientations of polarity. The word 'love' is where the confusion lies. 'Love' is the 'logos'. It is a form of acceptance of the logos- the more acceptance, the more polarity. There are acts without polarity, that is - without acceptance and these have no orientation - neither STS or STO. They are based on fear, distraction, ignorance, misunderstandings, non-acceptance. So to not love oneself is absolutely not being 'STS'.

(07-16-2011, 09:37 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-16-2011, 06:21 AM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]also, to no love yourself, is being STS

STS and STO refer to orientations of polarity. The word 'love' is where the confusion lies. 'Love' is the 'logos'. It is a form of acceptance of the logos- the more acceptance, the more polarity. There are acts without polarity, that is - without acceptance and these have no orientation - neither STS or STO. They are based on fear, distraction, ignorance, misunderstandings, non-acceptance. So to not love oneself is absolutely not being 'STS'.

How is this? 'to not accept yourself is sts'

(07-16-2011, 10:01 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-16-2011, 09:37 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-16-2011, 06:21 AM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]also, to no love yourself, is being STS

STS and STO refer to orientations of polarity. The word 'love' is where the confusion lies. 'Love' is the 'logos'. It is a form of acceptance of the logos- the more acceptance, the more polarity. There are acts without polarity, that is - without acceptance and these have no orientation - neither STS or STO. They are based on fear, distraction, ignorance, misunderstandings, non-acceptance. So to not love oneself is absolutely not being 'STS'.

How is this? 'to not accept yourself is sts'

Not sure what your question is.

instead of the quote 'to not love yourself is being STS'. Would the quote 'to not accept yourself is being STS' be more appropriate to your understanding?

(07-16-2011, 10:08 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]instead of the quote 'to not love yourself is being STS'. Would the quote 'to not accept yourself is being STS' be more appropriate to your understanding?

No. Not accepting oneself is basically what you start with. It's without polarity.

(07-16-2011, 10:13 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-16-2011, 10:08 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]instead of the quote 'to not love yourself is being STS'. Would the quote 'to not accept yourself is being STS' be more appropriate to your understanding?

No. Not accepting oneself is basically what you start with. It's without polarity.

How so? It sounds to me like you are referring to not knowing oneself rather than not accepting oneself..

(07-16-2011, 10:17 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-16-2011, 10:13 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-16-2011, 10:08 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]instead of the quote 'to not love yourself is being STS'. Would the quote 'to not accept yourself is being STS' be more appropriate to your understanding?

No. Not accepting oneself is basically what you start with. It's without polarity.

How so? It sounds to me like you are referring to not knowing oneself rather than not accepting oneself..

Acceptance is primary to knowing. Acceptance is an ability, capacity, an integration or actualization. Events unfold through what has been accepted and are interpreted through 'knowing' or knowledge systems.

"Acceptance is an ability, capacity, an integration or actualization" - This I agree.


Events unfold through stepping into the unknown. Then something is known, or experienced. After this, acceptance as an integration comes into play. As I see it.

(07-16-2011, 10:36 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]"Acceptance is an ability, capacity, an integration or actualization" - This I agree.


Events unfold through stepping into the unknown. Then something is known, or experienced. After this, acceptance as an integration comes into play. As I see it.

The interpretation of events comes from 'something known'. Stepping into the unknown takes acceptance. Acceptance is the ability to even have an interpretation of events or interact on some level. If we allow ourselves to learn, that requires acceptance.

I can understand rejecting or not loving oneself as basically non-acceptance of catalyst being presented. The action then of not looking at catalyst carries with it no polarity.

---

I guess I shouldn't say 'not looking at catalyst', because all catalyst is examined and you either see value in it or you don't. Without value there is no polarization. Likewise, seeing value in catalyst that affirms a lack of self love is basically reaffirming a hollow belief, so no polarization in that situation either.

Honestly,

The post of Ocean's was understood by me to be a relay of a Ra discussion about how we can't serve others well if we first don't accept ourselves. This entire understanding by me came across from the simple sentence Ocean posted.

Your post to explain more depth about the use of the word love was understood by me to be Zenmaster's desire to bring out a better understanding and use of the word 'love'. My understanding was that you chose a quote that did not present your definition of 'love' in order to articulate your desire to detail your definition.

My post was to reconcile the two of my understandings of these two posts. I don't think Ocean was misusing the word 'love'. I also don't think that your defining of the word was misplaced. I do what I do

---

(07-16-2011, 10:44 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-16-2011, 10:36 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]"Acceptance is an ability, capacity, an integration or actualization" - This I agree.


Events unfold through stepping into the unknown. Then something is known, or experienced. After this, acceptance as an integration comes into play. As I see it.

The interpretation of events comes from 'something known'. Stepping into the unknown takes acceptance. Acceptance is the ability to even have an interpretation of events or interact on some level. If we allow ourselves to learn, that requires acceptance.

Ah! You did not see Ocean using the word 'love' in 'correct' application. Likewise, in this post, I do not see your use of the word 'acceptance' in a 'correct' application.

---

It does not take acceptance to step into the unknown. It takes ignorance.

Um, Ocean said 'to no love yourself, is being STS'. This is an untrue statement, regardless of the opportunity it may have afforded me to interject my understanding of 'love'.

---

(07-16-2011, 10:48 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]It does not take acceptance to step into the unknown. It takes ignorance.

Do you really think so? I guarantee that in this sense, the 'unknown' must have prior context in the known.

If you take the unconscious as the ultimate example of the unknown, there is no stepping out of the bounds of the known without acceptance. What we call the 'ego' ensures the boundaries are known, otherwise there would be no learning based on prior experience.

Ocean isn't concerned with writing "true" statements, and this idea is applicable to reading her post.


Is the unconscious the ultimate of the unknown? I don't think so.

Also, is learning based on prior experience? I don't think so.

What I think you are saying is that the ego sees where it is and where it wants to go and must, through an act of acceptance, move across the boundary in order to register a 'known something.'

Sometimes this is the case, but great 'knowns' are achieved without ever an ego contemplation. I think there exist 'unknowns' to the unconscious as well.

(07-16-2011, 11:27 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]Ocean isn't concerned with writing "true" statements, and this idea is applicable to reading her post.

Is the unconscious the ultimate of the unknown? I don't think so.

Also, is learning based on prior experience? I don't think so.

What I think you are saying is that the ego sees where it is and where it wants to go and must, through an act of acceptance, move across the boundary in order to register a 'known something.'

Sometimes this is the case, but great 'knowns' are achieved without ever an ego contemplation. I think there exist 'unknowns' to the unconscious as well.

I understand ocean isn't concerned about writing true statements.

Is the unconscious the ultimate of the unknown? No I don't think so either. It's just a very good example, that we have made here, of the concept of mind - 'that which knows'.

Learning based on prior experience is a given. It is principle to discernment. All that is intuition or perceptual, is antecedent to discernment.

The ego can see where it is, it doesn't always. But it always is 'somewhere' in its landscape. The curiosity is part of that acceptance. It is an act of allowing. That new thing is necessarily contextualized within what has been known prior.

If you think there exists unknowns to the unconscious, then you are not using Jung's definition (for example), which necessarily has everything unconscious as that which is separate from self.

(07-16-2011, 06:21 AM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]Hatonn is 4D right? Ra said those of 4D are naive enough to self sacrifice too much in their love, because they haven't got the wisdom of 5D. so i'd take what anyone says with a grain of salt because even higher beings can make mistakes according to Ra.

Yes! I think it is very important to discern where the entity is coming from, in terms of densities, as well as to keep on the lookout for corruption of the channel. That can come at any moment. I think many people come at channeled information from the perspective that it must be infallible, and that the entity being channeled MUST be wiser than they are, simply because they don't have a physical body! Others won't come anywhere NEAR channeled information, because it is heresy, and "of the devil". Both are confused.

Same thing goes for angels and spirit guides. Years ago I had made a considerable effort to contacting "my" angels and guides, only to end up "firing" them as they were clouding my mind with all manner of garbage thought. Well-intentioned, or not, it really didn't appear to me that I was being served all that well. Angels and demons, ahuras and daevas, wickedness and righteousness. Bah! It's all a bunch of confusion to me.

I need to know who -I- am, and in that respect, the supreme ultimate authority is my own inner wisdom. External sources are not even a close second. Not even the "Great and Powerful" Hatonn!

Oceania Wrote:also, to no love yourself, is being STS, you are part of the others aren't you? i think it means you have to be nice to yourself then too. i don't get it though, why can't it be 50/50?

Here's the thing- at least in my mind. The more aware you become, the easier it is to perceive STS within STO, STO within STS, and all manner of subtle and interesting combinations. Like the taichi. It actually becomes more difficult to discern between them. I think SO many "spiritual" people think that service has to do with denying oneself (sacrifice) in order to benefit others. I say, what would be the POINT of serving, if it is not done with an inner vibration of peace, love, or joy?

Which makes sense because STS/STO is an illusion anyway. The reality is that All Is One and Everything Is Connected. Sometimes I think folks struggle considerably because they have been programmed to believe in "right" and "wrong" and so attempt to project that programming onto "STO" and "STS" when they come across the Ra material.

The FORM of the service is irrelevant. For all anybody knows, meditation is the "best" form of service as it helps to reconcile dissonant vibrations within the group mind. I believe it is possible that meditation may be the key to putting an end to the earth changes, or "inconveniences" once and for all. I would suggest to go back and read Session One while paying close attention to where your mind wants to skip and wander over the words. Very interesting exercise!

So given that, the mind has a propensity to read the material with the intention of discerning some absolute moral principle that they think Ra is withholding. Ra is not withholding information. It is the mental biases in the Questioner's mind that keeps distorting the transmission. In particular, the use of the word "should" and "wrong" in the query.

Interesting how easy it is to slip past it right there in Session One of the Law of One, where Ra states:

Quote:Ra: In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?

Questioner: No.

Ra: I am Ra. Is there another query at this time?

Questioner: Can you comment on the coming planetary changes in our physical reality? [Noise of cassette tape being flipped.]

Ra: I am Ra. I preferred to wait till this instrument had again reached the proper state of depth of singleness or one-pointedness before we spoke.

The changes are very, very trivial. We do not concern ourselves with the conditions which bring about harvest.

This is one of the few times that Ra states a preference, and we would be wise to take notice! :idea: