Bring4th

Reposting

(09-18-2014, 04:53 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Rather than reinvent the wheel, I will direct you to what has already been discussed:

Don't plants feel pain, too?
post: #188

Eggs, dairy, and the life-force of plants
post: #263

Science shows that plants feel pain too! Therefore it's ok to eat animals!
Post #224 Pablísimo
Post #825 Monica (and a heated debate ensues, which continues for several pages)
Post #2675 Monica (plants communicating psychically - what does that signify?)
Post #2680-2682 Monica (group consciousness)
Post #2684-2692 Pickle
Post #873 Monica
Post #912 Namaste
Post #957 Monica
Post #2642 Monica
Post #1327 Diana
Post #1398 Pickle & Monica

Trying to justify one's self regarding the consumption of meat, by using
plants as a counter argument, holds no valid ground. And...what kind of
entities will cows be when they graduate to 3D?
Post #1405 Namaste
Post #1497 Monica
Post #1149 Monica - on Ra's statements about trees developing sentience
Post #2786 Monica
Post #2650 Diana
Post #2657 Diana

When Ra said "living foods" in 4D, did they mean bloody animals?
Post #1401 Monica

and will add these:

i]Eating plants saves more plants![/i]
Post #975 Monica
Post #1012Diana

What about killing trees for lumber?
Post #1008 Diana
Post #1018 Monica (also about plants being sentient...carrots vs trees)
Post #1025 (also a response to being told I think I know more than our Logos!)

Compassion for plants...raising carrots as pets!
Post #1165 Monica

Vegetarians are hypocrites because they eat plants!
Post #1483 Monica

Bottom line: We must eat plants. We don't have to eat animals.
Post #1501 Diana

Is it 'ok' to kill animals as long as they weren't tortured? (so-called 'humane' slaughter)
Post #1512 Monica

Are plants in constant agony?
Post #1532 Monica
Post #1534 Icaro

Plants vs. animals for food
Post: #1542 Diana

Most crops grown to feed meat animals - highly inefficient - we could end starvation by feeding people instead of farm animals, + kill fewer plants too!
post: 2026 (80% of corn) Pickle

(09-28-2014, 05:52 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-28-2014, 05:22 PM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]If you have found a way to not feed on life to survive, by all means, fill me in. Plants are alive, are they not?

Perhaps you are new to this thread and the others concerning eating animals vs. plants.

If you have any interest, there is a wealth of opinion and information in this thread and the closed but accessible, In Regards to Eating Meat, and A Friendly Conversation Exploring Omnivorous vs, Vegetarian, and in many other places on this forum.

In general, both plants and animals are alive with consciousness (as are all things). But there are a lot of differences, which seem relevant if one is to make choices based on compassion (the prerequisite for 4D).

Compassion isn't a pre-requisite for 4D, wat.

(09-29-2014, 02:08 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Compassion isn't a pre-requisite for 4D, wat.

The prerequisite for 4D is =>51% STO.

Compassion is the primary attribute of STO. Without compassion, there is no STO.

STO doesn't just mean actions. It must be based on the motivation of caring for others. If the service to others is based on getting points to serve self, then it is actually STS and therefore polarizing to STS. If it is based on love and compassion for others, then it is STO.

Compassion is the mechanism by which the heart is opened. Compassion is the very foundation of STO.

(09-29-2014, 09:37 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2014, 02:08 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Compassion isn't a pre-requisite for 4D, wat.

If the service to others is based on getting points to serve self, then it is actually STS and therefore polarizing to STS.

What does this mean? What kind of points? You mean like acting kind and doing loving actions for the appraisal and attention from others?

(09-29-2014, 11:25 AM)Folk-love Wrote: [ -> ]What does this mean? What kind of points? You mean like acting kind and doing loving actions for the appraisal and attention from others?

I was speaking figuratively. There are no points, but Ra did use a numerical system to convey the concept of the threshold of polarity required to graduate into 4D.

An entity at least 51% STO will be harvested to 4D positive. If someone does good deeds (like volunteering at soup kitchens, giving away money, going vegetarian, etc.) just to polarize STO, they have missed the point. Serving others just to polarize ('get points') is actually serving self and is thus polarizing to STS, which is the opposite of what was intended.

Genuine STO out of love and compassion for others is what polarizes to STO.

In regards to the topic of eating animals, the issue itself is an opportunity to choose compassion: serving others over serving self.

But, as discussed previously, if one were to become a vegetarian just to polarize STO, that won't work. Or if one tried to get others to be vegetarian out of a desire to control them, that is STS.

It's not about self. It's not about control. It's about compassion towards our younger other-selves who are crying out.

Their cries are getting louder.

What do you make of this quote then?

Quote: (80.11)Questioner: Could I say, then, that implicit in the process of becoming adept is the possible partial polarization towards service to self because simply the adept becomes disassociated with many of his kind or like in the particular density which he inhabits?

Ra: I am Ra. This is likely to occur. The apparent happening is disassociation whether the truth is service to self and thus true disassociation from other-selves or service to others and thus true association with the heart of all other-selves and disassociation only from the illusory husks which prevent the adept from correctly perceiving the self and other-self as one.

Kinda strange they would say that service to others as the adept develops also seems to include what appears to be service to self in the form of a certain dissociation.

Also, this is Ra's explanation of the "best form of service to others".

Quote: (17.30) The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Speaking to the intention of your question, the best way for each seeker in third density to be of service to others is unique to that mind/body/spirit complex.

So, how can you just say "this is what is service to others", when everyone really has their own way they will discover to be of service?

I agree that your approach is ONE way, but not THE way.

(09-29-2014, 01:39 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]What do you make of this quote then?

Quote: (80.11)Questioner: Could I say, then, that implicit in the process of becoming adept is the possible partial polarization towards service to self because simply the adept becomes disassociated with many of his kind or like in the particular density which he inhabits?

Ra: I am Ra. This is likely to occur. The apparent happening is disassociation whether the truth is service to self and thus true disassociation from other-selves or service to others and thus true association with the heart of all other-selves and disassociation only from the illusory husks which prevent the adept from correctly perceiving the self and other-self as one.

Kinda strange they would say that service to others as the adept develops also seems to include what appears to be service to self in the form of a certain dissociation.

Also, this is Ra's explanation of the "best form of service to others".

Quote: (17.30) The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Speaking to the intention of your question, the best way for each seeker in third density to be of service to others is unique to that mind/body/spirit complex.

So, how can you just say "this is what is service to others", when everyone really has their own way they will discover to be of service?

I agree that your approach is ONE way, but not THE way.

The STO path requires love of self also, but not at the exclusion of other-selves. All is One. Love of other-selves and love of self are the same. Whereas, STS is love of self, at the expense of other-selves. That is the difference.

Yes, we each choose our own path. But Ra has provided clear indications as to what polarizes STO and what polarizes STS.

How do you interpret the word "dissociation" then?

Also, I thought Ra made it clear it is intentional, conscious attempts to control other-selves that leads to STS polarization? There are many in the "sinkhole of indifference" caught in the many forms of "well-intentioned slavery", no? Surely not every single time something or someone is harmed as a result of actions of another it is STO? If that was true then second-density beings would polarize easily and frequently, but third density graduation really takes conscious, self-aware choice, no?

(09-29-2014, 01:57 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]How do you interpret the word "dissociation" then?

Ra explains 2 different types of dissociation:

In the STS adept, they are truly dissociated, by separating themselves from other-selves and bypassing the heart. (Little or No compassion.)

In the STO adept, they aren't truly separated, but simply appear to be, while in the illusion. This is due to societal differences and simply living a different type of life than the average person. Think of the Buddhist monk living in solitude, meditating on a mountaintop, as an example. If that monk is an adept, his/her lifestyle just naturally separates him/her from much of society, appearing as separation, but not actual separation because the heart is still connected in Oneness.

(09-29-2014, 01:57 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I thought Ra made it clear it is intentional, conscious attempts to control other-selves that leads to STS polarization?

Yes. This is why I made the distinction when Parsons claimed that vegans were trying to control others. No, control isn't the motivation at all.

(09-29-2014, 01:57 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]There are many in the "sinkhole of indifference" caught in the many forms of "well-intentioned slavery", no? Surely not every single time something or someone is harmed as a result of actions of another it is STO?

Did you intend to say Surely not every single time something or someone is harmed as a result of actions of another it is STS?

(09-29-2014, 01:57 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]If that was true then second-density beings would polarize easily and frequently, but third density graduation really takes conscious, self-aware choice, no?

2nd density beings don't polarize to STS or STO because the criteria for graduation to 3D is self-awareness. Polarizing comes into play in 3D, the Density of Choice.

My understanding is that in early 3D, catalyst is pretty much automatic and even random, and polarizing isn't conscious. As the 3D entity evolves, catalyst and its resulting polarizing become increasingly more efficient and conscious.

This is precisely why I made the distinction between someone eating meat out of ignorance vs someone who knows about the suffering yet doesn't care, and chooses self-gratifying taste over compassion.

For the vast majority of people who eat animals, it's just a normal thing to them and they aren't conscious at all of how the animals are suffering. So although the cruelty to the animals is inherently an STS action, their eating the meat isn't polarizing STS for them at that point.

With awareness comes greater opportunity for polarizing, in either direction.

Standard practice on farms (1 minute)

(09-29-2014, 07:16 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Standard practice on farms (1 minute)

this is just rank cruelty, right?

(09-29-2014, 07:20 PM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2014, 07:16 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Standard practice on farms (1 minute)

this is just rank cruelty, right?

It's obscene. And it's standard practice in corporate farms, which are becoming more and more widespread all over the world. Small family farms are finding it increasingly difficult to compete. Many are selling out to corporate factory farms.

When one eats meat from any restaurant (not just fast food, but any restaurant), or buys meat from grocery stores, these are the practices they are supporting.

(09-29-2014, 11:58 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]An entity at least 51% STO will be harvested to 4D positive. If someone does good deeds (like volunteering at soup kitchens, giving away money, going vegetarian, etc.) just to polarize STO, they have missed the point. Serving others just to polarize ('get points') is actually serving self and is thus polarizing to STS, which is the opposite of what was intended.

I must be screwed then because I've often done such acts for the sake of finding greater joy and depth in my life. I thought service to others was service to all? Should such a person then refrain from doing such things?

(09-29-2014, 07:34 PM)Folk-love Wrote: [ -> ]I must be screwed then because I've often done such acts for the sake of finding greater joy and depth in my life. I thought service to others was service to all? Should such a person then refrain from doing such things?

I think you missed the part about at the exclusion of others. It's fine, even normal and natural, to get joy from helping others! Because yes, helping others helps the ALL, thus helping self as well.

It is only STS if the person doesn't care about other-selves and does it purely for self; ie. only for self. Do you see the difference?

Win-Win is ok, STO. Consciously doing a Win-Lose (when self wins at the expense of others losing) that is STS. You don't have to lose in order to help others. Just don't hurt them in order to help self, and when helping them, if you get helped too, that's ok.

I'm a little confused. How is someone who is volunteering at a soup kitchen for the sake of polarising STO excluding or hurting others? Who is losing when you donate to charity? Ahh shucks.

(09-29-2014, 07:29 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2014, 07:20 PM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2014, 07:16 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Standard practice on farms (1 minute)

this is just rank cruelty, right?

It's obscene. And it's standard practice in corporate farms, which are becoming more and more widespread all over the world. Small family farms are finding it increasingly difficult to compete. Many are selling out to corporate factory farms.

When one eats meat from any restaurant (not just fast food, but any restaurant), or buys meat from grocery stores, these are the practices they are supporting.

so it's just the drive to greater efficiency (ie lower prices) that is driving this process.

I guess it's the old saying - know where your food came from! ie, know the person who grew your food, and how it was raised and prepared.

(09-29-2014, 07:16 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Standard practice on farms (1 minute)

fucking sickening

i wish people would start kidnapping TONS of people with this job & refusing to let them go until change happens. i could see that doing the trick

(09-29-2014, 07:54 PM)Folk-love Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a little confused. How is someone who is volunteering at a soup kitchen for the sake of polarising STO excluding or hurting others? Who is losing when you donate to charity? Ahh shucks.

They're not; thus, it isn't STS. It would only be STS if they were hurting others.

But, if they are volunteering at the soup kitchen only to impress others about how 'good' they are, then it isn't STO either.

Here's a better example:

Let's say Pastor Don really cares about helping people so he accepts only a very modest salary from his church, and donates the rest to charity. He feels very good when he helps others, but that's just a bonus, because what motivates him is compassion. His donations have the effect of helping him polarize STO.

But another pastor, let's call him John, doesn't have any compassion for the poor. He just cares about his own image. So when he donates to charity, it doesn't polarize him STO at all because there wasn't any compassion involved.

A 3rd pastor, Bill, also collects from his church, but lies to them and tells them it is going to charity, when in fact he is putting it into his own pocket. So he is being deceptive and even stealing what should have gone to charity. He is serving self while hurting others. His actions polarize him in the direction of STS.

On the surface, all 3 pastors seem to be doing the same thing, but the effect on their polarity is different.

---

(09-29-2014, 08:13 PM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]so it's just the drive to greater efficiency (ie lower prices) that is driving this process.

On the surface, yes. But I think something far more insidious lurks beneath the surface.

(09-29-2014, 08:13 PM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]I guess it's the old saying - know where your food came from! ie, know the person who grew your food, and how it was raised and prepared.

That's an improvement anyway. People often say "oh I buy humanely [sic] produced meat" but they still eat at restaurants.

I think that there is something to be said about the magnitude of polarisation in relation to each act. The more open your heart is, the stronger you polarise. This is what I am aiming for.

(09-29-2014, 11:29 PM)Folk-love Wrote: [ -> ]I think that there is something to be said about the magnitude of polarisation in relation to each act. The more open your heart is, the stronger you polarise. This is what I am aiming for.

Agreed. How, then, does one open the heart?

There is a Buddhist idea I have always found to express how I feel about this.

The situation is the idea of a monk whom is offered a meal as a gift of appreciation. However the meal being served consists of pork. The Buddha would say that it is better to be grateful and appreciative of the meal, gracious towards those who have offered the gift, as that is more beneficial and of service than to "sit on one's principles". Thus to eat the meal is to accept the love offered.

Isn't it also self-serving to be so attached to one's principles that the good intentions of others are ignored for the sake of one's own comfort?

Also, I could have sworn service to others is about acceptance, not about whether or not one is by definition compassionate.

(09-29-2014, 11:37 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2014, 11:29 PM)Folk-love Wrote: [ -> ]I think that there is something to be said about the magnitude of polarisation in relation to each act. The more open your heart is, the stronger you polarise. This is what I am aiming for.

Agreed. How, then, does one open the heart?

Perseverance I guess.

Don't you polarize STS by keeping your heart closed? That is the "technical" difference between STS and STO, the exclusion of the heart and sometimes the aspect that is the throat.

(09-30-2014, 01:24 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you polarize STS by keeping your heart closed? That is the "technical" difference between STS and STO, the exclusion of the heart and sometimes the aspect that is the throat.

yeah, that is the end effect of positive and negative polarization. It can be seen in the 4th chakra.

I guess then, the question then becomes of what are the thoughts or the belief patterns that end up affecting this region.

(09-30-2014, 12:46 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]There is a Buddhist idea I have always found to express how I feel about this.

The situation is the idea of a monk whom is offered a meal as a gift of appreciation. However the meal being served consists of pork. The Buddha would say that it is better to be grateful and appreciative of the meal, gracious towards those who have offered the gift, as that is more beneficial and of service than to "sit on one's principles". Thus to eat the meal is to accept the love offered.

That is a parable, intended to convey a certain concept. Yogananda relays a similar parable about the monk who instructed his students to be vegetarians, but then when they were traveling and offered a place to stay for the night, he accepted the meat offered and ate it, much to the shock of his students.

The next day, when the students asked the master about his seeming hypocrisy, he answered them by eating some red-hot nails. Without saying a word, he made his point that when they were evolved enough to eat molten steel, they could transmute anything.

Did that parable give the monks free license to eat meat on a daily basis? No. The parable must be taken in context, along with the monks' daily teachings, which were of compassion.

The monk taught his students to be vegetarians, to aspire to ahimsa. This was to be the foundation of their daily lives, and this means living with compassion. This is in alignment with Law of One teachings about STO and opening the heart chakra. Compassion is the key by which the heart is opened.

After 4D love, comes 5D wisdom. The monk's parable was a 5D lesson of wisdom, which is to respond to each situation (catalyst) according to what is for the highest good in that present moment, rather than blindly following a set of rules (religious dogma).

In no way should 5D wisdom replace 4D love! No, they work together!

In no way did those monks intend for those parables to be used as a justification to eat dead animals on a daily basis!

Context must also be taken into consideration. Those incidents occurred thousands of years ago, in a different culture, in a different situation. In modern times, at least here in the US, virtually everyone is familiar with people being on special diets for ethical or health reasons. When faced with the offering of meat, it might be appropriate to plant a seed about animal cruelty, or it might not. It depends on the situation, the people, the culture, whether they are receptive or not, and one's own personal guidance in that moment. If I am having dinner with friends, of course I will tell them the truth about why I don't eat animals, if they ask. But if an elderly grandmother in her 90s made lunch for me and served meat, I would instead say that I was on a special diet and leave it at that. The elderly woman can understand 'special diet' and accept it, no problem. But there is really no point in explaining to Grandma about animal cruelty! She wouldn't understand, so I don't. But there is simply no reason at all to eat the offered meat. Even 90-yo Grandma can understand 'special diet.'

Those living in 3rd world countries would surely find such situations much more challenging, due to differences in culture. I cannot speak for them.

Even in Yogananda's time (which was in the earlier part of the last century), or even thousands of years ago, those parables were never intended to give free license to daily consumption of animals.

(09-30-2014, 12:46 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it also self-serving to be so attached to one's principles that the good intentions of others are ignored for the sake of one's own comfort?

Perhaps, in some cases.

Some pedophiles, in their twisted minds, truly think they are 'loving' that beautiful child. Do we let them harm the child, just because they have 'good intentions'?

Even Hitler had 'good intentions.' Ra stated that he failed to polarize STS - Hitler! - because of his 'good intentions.'

Does that mean we let him slaughter people, just because he has 'good intentions'?

It depends on the situation. My mother had 'good intentions' when she was concerned about whether my child would be healthy without meat. I appreciated her 'good intentions' but my responsibility was to my child. I never let her give him meat. I explained to her that he was getting plenty of protein, blah blah blah, but she still didn't get it. She was too old school. I did my best to soother her concerns, but at the end of the day, I did what was best for my child.

At any rate, vegans don't eschew meat out of their own comfort. We do it for the comfort of the animals. (Not even comfort...just relief from torture!) And, some of us do it for our health as well. It isn't STS to choose a healthy lifestyle and take care of one's bodily vehicle. It isn't STS to say 'No thank you' when offered poison.

The good intentions of others should always be appreciated. But in my 33 years of being a vegetarian, I have never encountered a single instance in which I had to 'ignore the good intentions of others.' There was always a way to express appreciation while adhering to my convictions.

(09-30-2014, 12:46 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I could have sworn service to others is about acceptance, not about whether or not one is by definition compassionate.

To focus on acceptance only, while leaving out STO choice, is to miss the point of Ra's teachings. All of the teachings must be taken into consideration, not just little snippets.

This thread explores these concepts and how to reconcile them:

Acceptance and Will

---

(09-30-2014, 01:24 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you polarize STS by keeping your heart closed? That is the "technical" difference between STS and STO, the exclusion of the heart and sometimes the aspect that is the throat.

That's a whole other topic. I'm sure there are several threads devoted to how STS entities polarize.

Here is one about how STO entities polarize:

Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D

Okay, well then I have a thought.

Say you have a person who day to day lives their lives in service to others, simply because that feels natural to them. They volunteer, they help old ladies cross the road, they aid the poor and in general spend their days spreading love and working to do good for others. The only twist is that despite all of this service, this person eats meat, not constantly, but it is part of their diet.

Is this person STS or STO? Is the apparent service to self of eating meat enough to completely dispel the service to others? Will this person inevitably be unharvestable because of this aspect of themselves? No matter how much good the person might do because they eat meat, they will, for their lives, be serving themselves?

(09-30-2014, 12:23 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2014, 12:46 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I could have sworn service to others is about acceptance, not about whether or not one is by definition compassionate.

To focus on acceptance only, while leaving out STO choice, is to miss the point of Ra's teachings. All of the teachings must be taken into consideration, not just little snippets.

The 'STO' choice of this density IS acceptance and love of the experience of catalyst.

Quote:46.16 ▶ Questioner: What is the plan for use of the catalyst of cancer?
Ra: I am Ra. The catalyst, and all catalyst, is designed to offer experience. This experience in your density may be loved and accepted or it may be controlled. These are the two paths. When neither path is chosen the catalyst fails in its design and the entity proceeds until catalyst strikes it which causes it to form a bias towards acceptance and love or separation and control. There is no lack of space/time in which this catalyst may work.

(09-30-2014, 02:03 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, well then I have a thought.

Say you have a person who day to day lives their lives in service to others, simply because that feels natural to them. They volunteer, they help old ladies cross the road, they aid the poor and in general spend their days spreading love and working to do good for others. The only twist is that despite all of this service, this person eats meat, not constantly, but it is part of their diet.

Is this person STS or STO? Is the apparent service to self of eating meat enough to completely dispel the service to others? Will this person inevitably be unharvestable because of this aspect of themselves? No matter how much good the person might do because they eat meat, they will, for their lives, be serving themselves?

This kind of thinking is not the way I view this subject matter. I don't care if I'm "harvestable." I don't care about any "rewards" I might get if I don't eat meat, or if I do service for others. I don't do it for me, or because I am the other, or because what I do to others I do to myself.

I do STO because I have compassion. Because I am not so egocentric that everything has to be about me. That is not to say that I don't take the one full responsibility in this life—me and the way I live and decisions I make.

I don't eat meat, and support the industry which inflicts cruelty, because I care about the animals. Because they experience horrible lives often from day one (on factory farms—cows, pigs, chickens...), because it isn't necessary, because being part of an industry which inflicts unnecessary pain is something I cannot do based on compassion. I wasn't always aware of what goes on in the industry. When I became aware, I had to make decisions based on that awareness.

That's a big reason I just got a new job. Couldn't stand the waste and lack of care for the sources of food.

(09-30-2014, 02:03 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, well then I have a thought.

Say you have a person who day to day lives their lives in service to others, simply because that feels natural to them. They volunteer, they help old ladies cross the road, they aid the poor and in general spend their days spreading love and working to do good for others. The only twist is that despite all of this service, this person eats meat, not constantly, but it is part of their diet.

Is this person STS or STO? Is the apparent service to self of eating meat enough to completely dispel the service to others? Will this person inevitably be unharvestable because of this aspect of themselves? No matter how much good the person might do because they eat meat, they will, for their lives, be serving themselves?

The requirement for graduation to 4D+ is 51% STO. That means one can be 49% STS and still graduate to positive. We all have our dark natures to some degree, and that can vary from person to person. It would be impossible to assess the polarity of another entity, even if that person was an obvious STS (Hitler) or an obvious STO (Mother Theresa).

We can't assess someone's external actions because we don't know their motivations and intentions.

This post addresses this in more depth:

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.ph...7#pid14197

---

(09-30-2014, 02:19 PM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]The 'STO' choice of this density IS acceptance and love of the experience of catalyst.

Quote:46.16 ▶ Questioner: What is the plan for use of the catalyst of cancer?
Ra: I am Ra. The catalyst, and all catalyst, is designed to offer experience. This experience in your density may be loved and accepted or it may be controlled. These are the two paths. When neither path is chosen the catalyst fails in its design and the entity proceeds until catalyst strikes it which causes it to form a bias towards acceptance and love or separation and control. There is no lack of space/time in which this catalyst may work.

Ra said a whole lot more than that about the STO path. As I said, the entire concept of STO cannot be reduced to that little snippet. There is much more to it than that.