Argument 1 (Majority): People need to strive harder to consider one another and love each other.
Argument 2 (Minority): People will naturally consider one another and love each other once people are allowed to live lives they want to live and have time to freely give to one another.
The former argues that we aren't pushing ourselves hard enough. The other argues this pushing is the problem.
I'm more in line with the second argument I think. I see the act of loving as more of a lowering of the barriers to allow ones self to experience the love that is inherent to any relationship.
I've also definitely noticed there are seemingly those two schools of thought concerning means of service, and I'm definitely in the second category.
For me, brute force willpower to serve others feels less balanced than motivational desire-based willpower to serve others, though both are means to serve others. It doesn't mean I don't occasionally brute force things, but I try to naturally develop my desire to help in any given situation (such as by thinking of reasons to help that excite me) rather than simply apply brute force will.
Letting oneself blossom into someone who naturally wants to give to others is beautiful and this idea has been the model for how I'm trying to evolve. The service you give others simply flows from your being, as natural as breathing. It's wonderful and feels effortless in that state.
1) 'Strive' is such an emotionally charged word - relationships are hard work bc you put in lots of self into it.
2) Putting people into an either/or category (either 1 or 2) is simply weak
Why is this weak?
In my experience with my wife, there is little effort in our relationship. We both find our relationship easy. Why should it be hard?
In fact, I have only found relationships difficult when a lot is asked by everyone involved with great expectations. I have had these and simply choose not to maintain them out of respect for myself. I will say no to forceful requests.
(05-28-2014, 11:17 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Argument 1 (Majority): People need to strive harder to consider one another and love each other.
Argument 2 (Minority): People will naturally consider one another and love each other once people are allowed to live lives they want to live and have time to freely give to one another.
The former argues that we aren't pushing ourselves hard enough. The other argues this pushing is the problem.
(05-28-2014, 11:17 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this weak?
In my experience with my wife, there is little effort in our relationship. We both find our relationship easy. Why should it be hard?
In fact, I have only found relationships difficult when a lot is asked by everyone involved with great expectations. I have had these and simply choose not to maintain them out of respect for myself. I will say no to forceful requests.
2 choices - so people either think we need to strive or it's that 2 people allow each other to be who they are? Of all the people in this forum, there are only two views... Impossible.
Not talking whether relationships are hard but that it *can* be hard work in certain situations - e.g., when challenging catalysts occur there may be challenges for both - orange ray lessons or yellow ray lessons or whatnot. It's a possibility not a certainty tho - really depends on the couple and individual factors. When # 1 happens, you would hope # 2 kicks in. If expectation is #1 perhaps there is some relational template that is playing out unconsciously in all intimate relationships for person. But there are so many views around relationships it's crazy to reduce it down to 2 'arguments'.
I base it on there being two polarities:
Either everything is accepted or nothing is.
The middle is an inconsistent application of the former waiting for a momentum of polarity to occur. The latter is an anomaly but exists in this reality when people refuse to express the natural positive inclination of the will and that is eventual unconditional acceptance of the entire macrocosm.
#1 is denying the present moment and what exists for the future which may or may not. When that ideal future does not happen, further will against the present moment builds. When the present moment is completely denied, a pure hatred forms.
There are not many forms of unconditional love. There is one. However, there are various paths, various ways of abstaining from unconditional love. This planet's way is self-denial and projecting that self-denial on the other, the ideal of people never being good enough, never trying hard enough, not accepting enough responsibility. In this ideal of responsibility, the present moment and the present self is completely denied. In this view, the only responsibility is towards an ideal for a future self that may or may not exist, the self you may consider the ego.
I stand for one thing and that is the love for the present self in all-selves.
According to the Ra material, there are two choices and they are mirrored in the choices above: Acceptance and rejection.
Arguing over love? No way..
Love is literally just a breath away.
(05-29-2014, 07:06 AM)Melissa Wrote: [ -> ]Arguing over love? No way.. Love is literally just a breath away.
This is a matter of finding love in truth
(05-29-2014, 03:32 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]According to the Ra material, there are two choices and they are mirrored in the choices above: Acceptance and rejection.
Please show me something to back this statement up.
In a mixed polarity 3d world, if those of positive polarity accepted all things, they merely become "spiritual punching bags" of the negative polarity, and the world destroys itself or becomes a very dark place.
Speaking for myself, I reject the limitation of free will - the acts by which one entity limits the free will of another entity.
On Edit:
(05-29-2014, 03:32 AM)Ra Wrote: [ -> ]25.6 Questioner: Could you amplify the meaning of what you said by “failure to accept that which is given?”
Ra: 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.
(05-29-2014, 03:32 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I base it on there being two polarities:
Either everything is accepted or nothing is.
The middle is an inconsistent application of the former waiting for a momentum of polarity to occur. The latter is an anomaly but exists in this reality when people refuse to express the natural positive inclination of the will and that is eventual unconditional acceptance of the entire macrocosm.
#1 is denying the present moment and what exists for the future which may or may not. When that ideal future does not happen, further will against the present moment builds. When the present moment is completely denied, a pure hatred forms.
There are not many forms of unconditional love. There is one. However, there are various paths, various ways of abstaining from unconditional love. This planet's way is self-denial and projecting that self-denial on the other, the ideal of people never being good enough, never trying hard enough, not accepting enough responsibility. In this ideal of responsibility, the present moment and the present self is completely denied. In this view, the only responsibility is towards an ideal for a future self that may or may not exist, the self you may consider the ego.
I stand for one thing and that is the love for the present self in all-selves.
According to the Ra material, there are two choices and they are mirrored in the choices above: Acceptance and rejection.
Largely agree, though instead of "Either everything is accepted or nothing is" I'd say "Everything is accepted or only one thing is (the one thing being the negative entity's version of reality)."
Quote:Please show me something to back this statement up.
In a mixed polarity 3d world, if those of positive polarity accepted all things, they merely become "spiritual punching bags" of the negative polarity, and the world destroys itself or becomes a very dark place.
Speaking for myself, I reject the limitation of free will - the acts by which one entity limits the free will of another entity
1) Accepting all is the ideal. As you point out, even in 4D it's not possible to accept all and enslavement of the self is rejected. However, consider this exception is when the situation basically involves the removal of free will. Most actions on the physical plane may infringe your physical reality choices but do not actually removal your free will as the 4D enslavement situation you quote does.
2) More importantly and more relevant to non-absolute free will removal situations, acceptance is a state of being and is a relationship to the present. You can do many of the exact same acts from a place of acceptance or from a place of control/rejection - it's more about your emotional relationship to what's going on. It's not healthy to believe that acceptance means that you roll over. Even if you accept that there are murderers, I think you can defend yourself from murder (you still have free will even if you are killed, as your soul continues, it's not like total enslavement) - if you truly accept the existence of murders, I think your emotional response during such self-defense to be still love (and it may help you deepen your understanding of why people murder), while self-defending from a place of rejection/control will substantially change your emotional state during said self-defense (ie you'll probably get much more angry and upset at some level due to the rejection/control and you'll probably control that anger and use again it at a later date).
(05-29-2014, 08:01 AM)ScottK Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2014, 03:32 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]According to the Ra material, there are two choices and they are mirrored in the choices above: Acceptance and rejection.
Please show me something to back this statement up.
In a mixed polarity 3d world, if those of positive polarity accepted all things, they merely become "spiritual punching bags" of the negative polarity, and the world destroys itself or becomes a very dark place.
Speaking for myself, I reject the limitation of free will - the acts by which one entity limits the free will of another entity.
On Edit:
(05-29-2014, 03:32 AM)Ra Wrote: [ -> ]25.6 Questioner: Could you amplify the meaning of what you said by “failure to accept that which is given?”
Ra: 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.
I will attempt to resolve this with a simple question:
Is not acceptance of all things an acceptance of one's desires and the desire of others in unison?
(05-29-2014, 11:40 AM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]1) Accepting all is the ideal. As you point out, even in 4D it's not possible to accept all and enslavement of the self is rejected. However, consider this exception is when the situation basically involves the removal of free will. Most actions on the physical plane may infringe your physical reality choices but do not actually removal your free will as the 4D enslavement situation you quote does.
2) More importantly and more relevant to non-absolute free will removal situations, acceptance is a state of being and is a relationship to the present. You can do many of the exact same acts from a place of acceptance or from a place of control/rejection - it's more about your emotional relationship to what's going on. It's not healthy to believe that acceptance means that you roll over. Even if you accept that there are murderers, I think you can defend yourself from murder (you still have free will even if you are killed, as your soul continues, it's not like total enslavement) - if you truly accept the existence of murders, I think your emotional response during such self-defense to be still love (and it may help you deepen your understanding of why people murder), while self-defending from a place of rejection/control will substantially change your emotional state during said self-defense (ie you'll probably get much more angry and upset at some level due to the rejection/control and you'll probably control that anger and use again it at a later date).
I do like your definition. It's one of those cases when we really need a new word, because the word "acceptance" implies too much permissiveness. Ambiguity of words is a large problem both in law, and now, spirituality.. Ugh.
The funny thing is I had to look up the word "acceptance" in Black's law fifth yesterday to write a real estate deed template. Just kinda funny
(05-29-2014, 12:07 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Is not acceptance of all things an acceptance of one's desires and the desire of others in unison?
Well yes, but this definition in the form of a question doesn't help you live your life better - it only creates more questions, so it doesn't really help unless you wish to ponder spiritual questions and the nature of existence all day long.. Meanwhile, I have things to do, and occasionally, I have to p*ss someone off to preserve another person's free will - so when you say I have to accept all things, like a mortgage foreclosure or IRS criminal action, I say "no", I reject those things
I also have trouble accepting all. I guess that's a blockage in green-ray.
There may be commitment to work together with partner to accept catalyst, however the actuality may be that the process of 'accepting catalyst' comes with many ups and down moments. There may be relationships where altho catalyst is controlled to point it seems like the couple is striving to make things work, yet the couple stays together in a loving relationship on the long term because they consider each other and love each other on a fundamental level. Then there are those who have a goal of creating loving relationships yet they just can't handle the difficulties that come up. Many examples.
Relationships do come w/ something called compatibility, too. It's pretty easy to spot couples who stay together for the long term and those who would probably have a hard time & split.
I understand this is the 2-split in regards to accept/control catalyst yet when we look at relational catalyst, there is variation when you look at relationships very closely & look @ the context of catalyst.
It seems I simply strive for a relationship without any controlled catalyst that inherently accepts itself.
I don't know what I look for in a relationship. I was almost in one, but we broke up after our first encounter.
Certainly I don't look for added catalyst if I can have that. Not to avoid said catalyst, but just to not
bring up unnecessary challenges.