(05-04-2011, 07:24 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Does anyone else notice how much threads connect Uniquely on a daily basis as much as I notice?

(05-04-2011, 07:10 PM)Confused Wrote: I would add to it that it is also useful to release the feeling of wanting to receive gratitude from the others for whom we feel worry.

If we start feeling entitled to gratitude from the others for the concern that we experience for them, we might be left disillusioned as they suddenly seem to move away oblivious to our feelings for them. In many cases, we might even end up feeling used. As Ra said, do your work and relinquish desire for any particular outcome.

(05-04-2011, 08:15 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I heard 1 famous guru say that if you see someone in need of help, to walk away, so as to not interfere with their karma.

(05-04-2011, 09:17 PM)Confused Wrote:

(05-04-2011, 08:15 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I heard 1 famous guru say that if you see someone in need of help, to walk away, so as to not interfere with their karma.

I know what you mean there. In fact, I get to see that a lot among 'my' own community in my country.

Quote:42.1 Questioner: I am going to make a statement and ask you to comment on its degree of accuracy. I am assuming that the balanced entity would not be swayed either towards positive or negative emotions by any situation which he might confront. By remaining unemotional in any situation, the balanced entity may clearly discern the appropriate and necessary responses in harmony with the Law of One for each situation. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is an incorrect application of the balancing which we have discussed. The exercise of first experiencing feelings and then consciously discovering their antitheses within the being has as its objective not the smooth flow of feelings both positive and negative while remaining unswayed but rather the objective of becoming unswayed. This is a simpler result and takes much practice, shall we say.

The catalyst of experience works in order for the learn/teachings of this density to occur. However, if there is seen in the being a response, even if it is simply observed, the entity is still using the catalyst for learn/teaching. The end result is that the catalyst is no longer needed. Thus this density is no longer needed. This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love. This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions. Thus the entity is now able to become co-Creator of experiential occurrences. This is the truer balance.

Quote:33.8 Questioner: Thank you. From this I would extrapolate to the conjecture that the orientation in mind of the entity is the only thing that is of any consequence at all. The physical catalyst that he experiences, regardless of what is happening about him, will be a function strictly of his orientation in mind. I will use as an example (example deleted) this being a statement of the orientation in mind governing the catalyst. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. We prefer not to use any well-known examples, sayings, or adages in our communications to you due to the tremendous amount of distortion which any well-known saying has undergone. Therefore, we may answer the first part of your query asking that you delete the example. It is completely true to the best of our knowledge that the orientation or polarization of the mind/body/spirit complex is the cause of the perceptions generated by each entity. Thus a scene may be observed in your grocery store. The entity ahead of self may be without sufficient funds. One entity may then take this opportunity to steal. Another may take this opportunity to feel itself a failure. Another may unconcernedly remove the least necessary items, pay for what it can, and go about its business. The one behind the self, observing, may feel compassion, may feel an insult because of standing next to a poverty-stricken person, may feel generosity, may feel indifference.

Do you now see the analogies in a more appropriate manner?

(05-13-2011, 12:36 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Response or no response. Both are valid.
...
Although, NOT even a guru can make that decision for another.
It is the orientation of the Self that will decide what is best suitable.

(05-16-2011, 04:55 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(05-13-2011, 12:36 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Response or no response. Both are valid.
...
Although, NOT even a guru can make that decision for another.
It is the orientation of the Self that will decide what is best suitable.

I think validity and appropriateness are 2 different things. All paths are valid. All choices are valid. But a choice that is appropriate for an entity wishing to polarize STS, might not be appropriate for an entity wishing to polarize STS.

(05-16-2011, 07:07 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Seeing all things as love initiates no response to observation. When we see all things as love, even what we would deem horrific now, we have reached a new level, a positive level. A level where "we don't need that."

(05-16-2011, 07:56 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: It's Ra's, not mine.

(10-05-2010, 11:53 PM)Questioner Wrote: In carrie's thread "Do you expect your country to continue to exist in 4D," unity100 vigorously suggested for us to look at human socialism as a model for the spiritual harmony, cooperation, and shared rules we can expect in 4D+. Others including myself just as vigorously suggested that different interpretations of politics and private property may be more appropriate.

I started this thread so we can split off that discussion, which has a lot of deep possibilities but isn't much related to carrie's original question.