+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? (/showthread.php?tid=17211)
Pages:
1
2
If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Cyan - 05-12-2019
In short, if a woman hits a man, is the man allowed to hit back or not, I could share some interesting clips from various fights but I dont think those are needed.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Merrick - 05-12-2019
A better question, if anyone at all hits you, should you hit them back? Why or why not?
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Minyatur - 05-13-2019
(05-12-2019, 11:39 PM)Merrick Wrote: A better question, if anyone at all hits you, should you hit them back? Why or why not?
That's more the question. I think we always hit someone out of an emotional energy and they tend to be irrational, so there's little value in wondering if you should or not and in what context. The hurt in you that can hit plainly does not care.
These things are a lot just energy transfers, like an accumulated lightning charge that strikes all of sudden. I had an ex that hit me twice in the face when she was in a black rage and in retrospective I can see that it passed part of her rage to me. I think that was her way to bring me to her level, rather than being stuck the only one that was enraged. She wanted me to feel her pain and share her rage and from there how I work with it becomes my own choice and opportunity. In both instances, I was already concerned for her so I kind of just did a "stare of death" in a vibe that said I would not tolerate further disrespect. I guess it helps to know the person and their issues, just as seeing them being unstable in other situations, which makes it easy to not hold any grudge. When you deal with a stranger, you know less of their background so it is easy to fall into judgment and a lack of compassion.
The key to end karma is always forgiveness. If you forgive then the charge that was passed on to you is alleviated and you don't make the wheel spin further so to say. If you are unable to forgive, then you are holding on to a charge that will come to strike back something in your life, even if you don't retaliate in the moment. It can very well be on other people, because emotional discharges rarely are about the current situation and instead the situation acts as a trigger for an accumulation.
Anyhow, whether it is about the one to do an offense first or someone that retaliates, of whatever gender, I think understanding the shortcomings that the Creator can have in facing its reflection in an other-self is the key toward healing. Even if you are peaceful and pacific and think you know how everyone should act, others are the mirror on your own potential. You are never above another, nor do you have the ability to do better if you step outside your circumstances into theirs. Like always, the Law of One solves all paradoxes and if in separation we are interconnected in karma that is because it was our will, we wanted to see the reflection of our One identity and that entails sometimes meeting the hard way what you can become through a differing path. No one is full of rage and hate through being nurtured in love, there is always a cause and effect to everything.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Cyan - 05-13-2019
I would like to know how the people who voted maybe came to the conclusion.
Isn't the right of self defense absolute and uninfringable, should there truly be any doubt that you are allowed to defend yourself with equal level of violence if violence is cast upon you?
Quick edit: Not saying its right or wrong to defend, saying you do have the right to defend as opposed to men who defend against women violence with violence should be cast out and destroyed by other men.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Merrick - 05-13-2019
(05-13-2019, 01:14 AM)Cyan Wrote: I would like to know how the people who voted maybe came to the conclusion.
Isn't the right of self defense absolute and uninfringable, should there truly be any doubt that you are allowed to defend yourself with equal level of violence if violence is cast upon you?
Allowed under the laws of various governments? Probably. Allowed under the law of free will? Absolutely. I don’t think there is any doubt that in many circumstances it is allowed. Is it beneficial or harmful for your soul evolution to strike back? You may feel your violence is justified, but you are only attacking yourself. When you forgive the transgression, you forgive yourself.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - ada - 05-13-2019
Depends as in if you are attacked and have no option of retreating, if you are at risk from serious injury, you fend only to stop the attack, with minimal force.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Cyan - 05-13-2019
(05-13-2019, 01:51 AM)blossom Wrote: Depends as in if you are attacked and have no option of retreating, if you are at risk from serious injury, you fend only to stop the attack, with minimal force.
While that is roughly the current norm and a yes and not a maybe as far as i feel, i do have another point to make, why would you, the victim, be assumed to have the responsibility of retreating before you are allowed to respond. In other words, why is the onus of de-escalation placed on the one that receives the situation. So shouldnt the answer be:
"If you are struck you are allowed to strike back until the situation calms or if the other person surrenders you are obligated to stop but as long as the violence follows the initial strike you are not obligated to retreat and have the legal right to defend yourself up to the death of the assailant."
Hmm.
Hard topic.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Merrick - 05-13-2019
(05-13-2019, 02:03 AM)Cyan Wrote:(05-13-2019, 01:51 AM)blossom Wrote: Depends as in if you are attacked and have no option of retreating, if you are at risk from serious injury, you fend only to stop the attack, with minimal force.
While that is roughly the current norm and a yes and not a maybe as far as i feel, i do have another point to make, why would you, the victim, be assumed to have the responsibility of retreating before you are allowed to respond. In other words, why is the onus of de-escalation placed on the one that receives the situation. So shouldnt the answer be:
"If you are struck you are allowed to strike back until the situation calms or if the other person surrenders you are obligated to stop but as long as the violence follows the initial strike you are not obligated to retreat and have the legal right to defend yourself up to the death of the assailant."
Hmm.
Hard topic.
If we’re just talking about human laws there are places with laws similar to that. Florida’s stand your ground law is a good example.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Jade - 05-13-2019
Wasn't the argument in the other thread that men are just so much more physically capable than women that women should be barred from jobs as protectors? That women can't play football literally because they can't take a hit from a man, like a man? So how do we get from there, to here?
Anyway, I believe in "turn the other cheek" to the extreme, so no, I don't think anyone should hit anyone back. *If your life is in danger*, which it probably isn't from "being hit", especially by a woman, I'm not going to deny anyone's right to defend themselves. But we are quite hysterical and afraid as a people and we use lethal force way more often than is necessary, so in general I prefer to err on the side of, let's try to refrain from hurting others, even if they hurt us first.
You do realize that arguments like this are just full of misogyny, right? This isn't a logical or even clever argument, it's the same focus on separation. The basis of this hypothetical is that there exists some desire in men to hit women. I don't have a desire to hit anyone, so it's just incomprehensible to me.
If we want to talk about "natural order", then please, let us look at the animals, and how males are the ones who fight each other almost without exclusion. This happens usually over resources, like territory or mates, and often because of hormonal influxes at certain times of the years, like the rut, which is when males of a certain species battle it out over weeks until only the strongest remain and get to mate with the majority of the females. Male animals fighting other male animals is super common, but male animals do not fight the females of the species, and usually females do not fight each other, either. This doesn't happen because the female, whether or not she is more fragile (this varies from species to species) must maintain her physical vitality to incubate, birth, and rear the progeny of the males. A male can die after copulating with a female, because he has already done his job in the natural order to further the proliferation of his DNA. The female, usually, must survive at least another year or two for the children to have any viability. Of course there are examples where the males help take care of the newborn children, but almost all species that require rearing from parents require the presence of the mother to survive. This is also why males grow things like antlers, tusks, and super fancy colored feathers - they don't have to expend the same amount of personal bodily energy to create another life form. Males have always been compensating for this inequality of roles, which is why I understand the role of "protector" and "those who carry brute force" are being gatekept from females.
There are also species where males will kill newly born offspring that don't carry their DNA, which causes the female to ovulate again, and then he can mate with her and force her to care for his child, instead.
Anyway, I went off a little bit of a tangent there, but I think we can all agree that violence has a gender bias, just by evolution and natural selection. And on that note, please don't post video clips of people fighting, they will be removed.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Merrick - 05-13-2019
(05-13-2019, 11:06 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: Wasn't the argument in the other thread that men are just so much more physically capable than women that women should be barred from jobs as protectors? That women can't play football literally because they can't take a hit from a man, like a man? So how do we get from there, to here?
Anyway, I believe in "turn the other cheek" to the extreme, so no, I don't think anyone should hit anyone back. *If your life is in danger*, which it probably isn't from "being hit", especially by a woman, I'm not going to deny anyone's right to defend themselves. But we are quite hysterical and afraid as a people and we use lethal force way more often than is necessary, so in general I prefer to err on the side of, let's try to refrain from hurting others, even if they hurt us first.
You do realize that arguments like this are just full of misogyny, right? This isn't a logical or even clever argument, it's the same focus on separation. The basis of this hypothetical is that there exists some desire in men to hit women. I don't have a desire to hit anyone, so it's just incomprehensible to me.
If we want to talk about "natural order", then please, let us look at the animals, and how males are the ones who fight each other almost without exclusion. This happens usually over resources, like territory or mates, and often because of hormonal influxes at certain times of the years, like the rut, which is when males of a certain species battle it out over weeks until only the strongest remain and get to mate with the majority of the females. Male animals fighting other male animals is super common, but male animals do not fight the females of the species, and usually females do not fight each other, either. This doesn't happen because the female, whether or not she is more fragile (this varies from species to species) must maintain her physical vitality to incubate, birth, and rear the progeny of the males. A male can die after copulating with a female, because he has already done his job in the natural order to further the proliferation of his DNA. The female, usually, must survive at least another year or two for the children to have any viability. Of course there are examples where the males help take care of the newborn children, but almost all species that require rearing from parents require the presence of the mother to survive. This is also why males grow things like antlers, tusks, and super fancy colored feathers - they don't have to expend the same amount of personal bodily energy to create another life form. Males have always been compensating for this inequality of roles, which is why I understand the role of "protector" and "those who carry brute force" are being gatekept from females.
There are also species where males will kill newly born offspring that don't carry their DNA, which causes the female to ovulate again, and then he can mate with her and force her to care for his child, instead.
Anyway, I went off a little bit of a tangent there, but I think we can all agree that violence has a gender bias, just by evolution and natural selection. And on that note, please don't post video clips of people fighting, they will be removed.
I will add a bit of nuance to this argument. Females of a species will fight each other if access to males is a limiting factor. Males compete for females because usually reproductive success relies on access to a limited number of females, and females can only reproduce with one male at a time. In species where access to males is more limited, females will usually try and gain sole access to a male and will fight other females for it, despite the fact that males could procreate with multiple females. Often in those cases males also have a significant hand in incubating and/or rearing the offspring.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - BastionPath - 05-13-2019
Why are children allowed to hit but adults aren't?
Isn't it just communication?
What if one or two punches communicate what would otherwise take 20 or 50 years?
If you repress communication, then you basically don't have an actual relationship. Get it out, deal with it, and decide whether you want to move on or not.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Cyan - 05-13-2019
Quote: A male can die after copulating with a female, because he has already done his job in the natural order
Right, I thought you thought like that.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - isis - 05-13-2019
![[Image: cGWvvUU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/cGWvvUU.png)
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Merrick - 05-13-2019
(05-13-2019, 11:58 AM)BastionPath Wrote: Why are children allowed to hit but adults aren't?
Isn't it just communication?
What if one or two punches communicate what would otherwise take 20 or 50 years?
If you repress communication, then you basically don't have an actual relationship. Get it out, deal with it, and decide whether you want to move on or not.
Are all forms of communication equal? Is all communication good?
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - BastionPath - 05-13-2019
You're thinking in 1 dimension.
Always bad. Black and white. Think in more than 1 dimension.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Merrick - 05-13-2019
(05-13-2019, 12:34 PM)BastionPath Wrote: You're thinking in 1 dimension.
Always bad. Black and white. Think in more than 1 dimension.
I was asking you questions, and you proclaim to know my mind?
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Minyatur - 05-13-2019
(05-13-2019, 11:06 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: You do realize that arguments like this are just full of misogyny, right? This isn't a logical or even clever argument, it's the same focus on separation. The basis of this hypothetical is that there exists some desire in men to hit women. I don't have a desire to hit anyone, so it's just incomprehensible to me.
If we want to talk about "natural order", then please, let us look at the animals, and how males are the ones who fight each other almost without exclusion. This happens usually over resources, like territory or mates, and often because of hormonal influxes at certain times of the years, like the rut, which is when males of a certain species battle it out over weeks until only the strongest remain and get to mate with the majority of the females. Male animals fighting other male animals is super common, but male animals do not fight the females of the species, and usually females do not fight each other, either. This doesn't happen because the female, whether or not she is more fragile (this varies from species to species) must maintain her physical vitality to incubate, birth, and rear the progeny of the males. A male can die after copulating with a female, because he has already done his job in the natural order to further the proliferation of his DNA. The female, usually, must survive at least another year or two for the children to have any viability. Of course there are examples where the males help take care of the newborn children, but almost all species that require rearing from parents require the presence of the mother to survive. This is also why males grow things like antlers, tusks, and super fancy colored feathers - they don't have to expend the same amount of personal bodily energy to create another life form. Males have always been compensating for this inequality of roles, which is why I understand the role of "protector" and "those who carry brute force" are being gatekept from females.
There are also species where males will kill newly born offspring that don't carry their DNA, which causes the female to ovulate again, and then he can mate with her and force her to care for his child, instead.
Anyway, I went off a little bit of a tangent there, but I think we can all agree that violence has a gender bias, just by evolution and natural selection. And on that note, please don't post video clips of people fighting, they will be removed.
I really don't see your point here.
If I try to follow your logic. You seem to hint that if a woman hits a man, she should really expect to be hit back and could only be considered foolish to not have thought of that, due to how in the natural order of things men are more likely to use violence?
I guess that is an interesting way to look at it, but the point of the thread was more about fairness and equality I think, rather than natural tendencies. If a young boy hits another young boy, it is likely that a fight will break out and the young boy won't just let himself be offended. But if a girl does it, there is a social conditionning to suck it up and endure for the boy. The boy will be rejected by others if he strike back because caught up in his emotions, which from what you were saying can be seen as a natural reaction. If two girls are fighting, then it goes back to being the same as two boys fighting.
It is great that you do not have any desire to hit someone, things would be quite simple if that was the balance of everyone. I guess though, we live in a world where that isn't the case. Now if we apply what the material teaches on how on to deal with desires, it would be inapropriate in the extreme to encourage overcoming such desire, except to suggest imagination rather than the carying out in the physical plane. I guess this applies as unrelated to the gender of the parties, or any other separative trait that make it seem like the Creator as self is unlike the Creator as other-self. Not like there ever are really two males of exactly equal strength either.
In light of that it is unwise to overcome desires, BastionPath position on communication seems interesting.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Glow - 05-13-2019
Cyan are you just pot stirring, or trying to figure more out about fellow posters?
Surely this can’t be a real question you can’t decide right or wrong about.
If someone is being violent towards you, you can defend yourself to protect your body then just stay the heck away from them. No excessive violence should be required to protect yourself regardless of sex. You know that though.
These threads pitting sexes against one another over and over will just solidify the mental separation you obviously already feel. Maybe instead of focusing on the angry divisive energy all the time you/we could also spend some time revelling in our unity. We are both male and female and have and will be both male and female.
Are you angry? Bored? Hurt? Would you like to more directly address the issues with relating to women YOU have experienced? Not virtual experience or theories about women you have been exposed to but your own personal life?
And how much better have men been to you than women?
I will start. I have always had mostly male friends, still do. I really didn’t connect with women well until maybe the last few years. I was not reached for to be their close friends like the guys have always reached even just to be buddies. It felt quite isolating to not click with my own sex.
Bad mother experience vs the absent father experience and several male childhood sexual abusers and physical violence as a child by men to boot yet somehow I always blamed my mother for not protecting me vs the several men who perpetrated the acts.
My mother didn’t even directly know about all of it( though she was abusive in other ways that left huge phycological scars) yet I think as a society we are so separate from the mother energy we scape goat her for all. As if she should be perfect while everyone else fails wildly.
and omg do they/ we fail wildly. I am finally making a relationship with the female energy other than my own. Male and female energy on the 3D planet is full of illusion perhaps it’s time to accept the failing are human not male or female. There is no bad just distortions within each and stop carrying the axe.
I am (this frequency of the one) male in two parallel lives at this time, soul has no gender. Wanting good, love and healing, happiness and freedom for all people and yes focusing to lift the oppressed should be what we are looking to do, not cause further separation by illusory divisions.
Let’s face the real issues. What do you with your PERSONAL not VIRTUAL or PROPAGANDA based experiences have to work through regarding women? What have “we” done to you as a sex, you are/have been female in other lives as a women so what did we including you do to hurt you and piss you off?
If we don’t start working to reconnect to all parts of ourself we will just life after life after life keep experiencing the same karma of separation from ourselves. That’s fine if you want that. I certainly don’t so will be working to embrace the divine feminine as much as I have always embraced the divine masculine.
And if this seems like off topic jibber jabber of a crazy lady know I tried with sincerity to reach the real issue because I see you going round in circles with this and hope addressing stuff head on might help. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it’s just fun for you and that is ok too.
Be well
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Cyan - 05-13-2019
Im not trying to troll, rather asking questions I sincerely want answers to. No intention to "troll".
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Minyatur - 05-14-2019
Not sure why and sorry if it is out of context, but each time I listen to this song today I feel inspired to post it in this thread.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - RitaJC - 05-14-2019
(05-13-2019, 01:14 AM)Cyan Wrote: I would like to know how the people who voted maybe came to the conclusion.
Isn't the right of self defense absolute and uninfringable, should there truly be any doubt that you are allowed to defend yourself with equal level of violence if violence is cast upon you?
Quick edit: Not saying its right or wrong to defend, saying you do have the right to defend as opposed to men who defend against women violence with violence should be cast out and destroyed by other men.
I don’t believe in answers that are “figured out” and afterwards applied to all seemingly similar situations. I believe in the uniqueness of each experience and in striving to be always present enough to act in a way that is for the highest good of everybody involved to the best of our ability.
If there would at least be a back story it would make more sense to me to ask the question: was it the man’s best option to hit the woman back.
And were are children allowed to hit each other?
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - David_1 - 05-14-2019
This is a strange thread!
Yes, I think it is acceptable to protect yourself from attack. But is striking back the only option? About 50 years ago I was in a situation that seemed to me to be getting totally out of control. I ran away. Soon after, police arrested a large number of people.
Can we ask the question, “Where is love in this situation?” and then act accordingly?
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - AnthroHeart - 05-14-2019
I got slapped twice by a woman in high school in the face. I didn't hit back, but if she had tried a third time I would have blocked it.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Infinite - 05-15-2019
Dude, is this thread serious? On the forum about Law of One? Really? How distorted the conversations became here... On the other hand, this is the beauty of free will, someone who desire seek STO path but believe that feminism is a bad thing.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - kristina - 05-15-2019
Can I ask a simple question? Why a simple question to a complex issue that has so many variables? Like this for instance:
Is anyone's life in danger?
Is it an argument that escalated?
Is it from mental illness?
Is this question to see more drama? You're a man, has this happened to you that you cannot find the answers on your own so you seek answers from all of us? If this is the case, why don't you say what it is instead posting a poll about an issue with tons of variables! Otherwise, it sounds like a way to create more drama in the forum. I say that at the risk of making others NOT LIKING MY RESPONSE and even saying something negative to me. You're a man. How do you think? Do you hit back? Do you not hit back? Have you been hit and what did you do? Do you want to hit a woman and need someone to help you to balance your feelings regarding hitting a woman? Are you stirring the pot? Do you like to see the drama unfold? I'm a little befuddled by your question and the poll. Explain please.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - RitaJC - 05-15-2019
(05-13-2019, 07:12 PM)Cyan Wrote: Im not trying to troll, rather asking questions I sincerely want answers to. No intention to "troll".
What ARE you trying to do then? Honestly
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - David_1 - 05-15-2019
I believe that in life everything happens for a reason.
Sometimes that reason is that I made a foolish choice!
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Minyatur - 05-15-2019
(05-15-2019, 08:06 AM)Infinite Wrote: Dude, is this thread serious? On the forum about Law of One? Really? How distorted the conversations became here... On the other hand, this is the beauty of free will, someone who desire seek STO path but believe that feminism is a bad thing.
I disagree with your idea that the question does not have its place on a Law of One forum. The Law of One would be about recognizing yourself equally in both man and woman and turn to questions like how do you want to respond to being hit? How do you want to be responded to when you hit someone? Should you be protected for phisiological reasons when you lack respect for another? Should you be returned your own energy?
Technically, the aids given for an entity to grow toward the Law of One in the material are to recognize that the proper role of an entity in 3D is to experience all things desired, with an emphasis that it is unwise and inapproriate in the extreme to suggest overcoming any desire, and to have an understanding that all things are acceptable in their proper time. The Law of One is about Unity, that you are truly all things, all events, all actions and so on, you are both sides of every story and so need to internalize and distill them.
I'm sorry to say this, but posts like your own make me realize there are little people on this forum who have an actual focus toward the Law of One. On this, Cyan makes a better job as an aid since his post address questions many are unable to look at in a manner they can even distill their own truthful answer. The subject is valid in that there is indeed a notion of special treatment socially expected and that boys are told to endure upon receiving hate, which is repression and as per the material unwise, which is of itself neither feminism nor recognizing the Law of One.
There are actually women that agree that a man should hit back. Why? Because they are able to recognize that they should not receive a special treatment when doing something bad and this is not how they would want to be treated. I guess they want actual equality, not being treated as something apart or different.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Jade - 05-15-2019
This is absolutely twisted. There is nothing Law of One about justifying violence towards someone, period. No one should be hitting anyone. We should set an example of nonviolence for others, even if they inflict violence upon us. This point was made in the first reply to the OP, so yeah, I think usually the forum does a good job understanding the Law of One. Unfortunately, it's easy to twist and use it to justify anything.
Quote:42.4 ▶ Questioner: Would a perfectly balanced entity feel an emotional response when being attacked by the other-self?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. The response is love.
42.5 ▶ Questioner: In the illusion that we now experience it is difficult to maintain this response especially if the entity’s attack results in physical pain, but I assume that this response should be maintained even through physical loss of life or extreme pain. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and further is of a major or principal importance in understanding, shall we say, the principle of balance. Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.
RE: If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back? - Minyatur - 05-15-2019
(05-15-2019, 11:58 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: This is absolutely twisted. There is nothing Law of One about justifying violence towards someone, period. No one should be hitting anyone. We should set an example of nonviolence for others, even if they inflict violence upon us. This point was made in the first reply to the OP, so yeah, I think usually the forum does a good job understanding the Law of One. Unfortunately, it's easy to twist and use it to justify anything.
Quote:42.4 ▶ Questioner: Would a perfectly balanced entity feel an emotional response when being attacked by the other-self?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. The response is love.
42.5 ▶ Questioner: In the illusion that we now experience it is difficult to maintain this response especially if the entity’s attack results in physical pain, but I assume that this response should be maintained even through physical loss of life or extreme pain. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and further is of a major or principal importance in understanding, shall we say, the principle of balance. Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.
Well first of all, you totally miss the point of it being a questionning. In itself it promotes nothing but offers an opportunity to balance your own energies that find conflict.
Then, if you expect anyone on this plane to be in a state of perfect balance, you will yourself feel nothing but disappointment for both yourself and yourself found in others. Perfect balance is an ideal that you cannot expect of anyone.
Since it is clear that no one is in a state of perfect balance, how does the material say to go at that to grow toward the Law of One?
Quote:18.5 ▶ Questioner: Thank you. I have a question here from Jim that I will read verbatim: “Much of the mystic tradition of seeking on Earth holds that belief that the individual self must be erased or obliterated and the material world ignored for an entity to reach ‘nirvana,’ as it’s called, or enlightenment. What is the proper role of the individual self and its worldly activities in aiding an entity to grow more into the Law of One?"
Ra: I am Ra. The proper role of the entity is in this density to experience all things desired, to then analyze, understand, and accept these experiences, distilling from them the love/light within them. Nothing shall be overcome. That which is not needed falls away.
The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.
The reason it is unwise to overcome is that overcoming is an unbalanced action creating difficulties in balancing in the time/space continuum. Overcoming thus creates the further environment for holding onto that which apparently has been overcome.
All things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity, and in experiencing, in understanding, in accepting, in then sharing with other-selves, the appropriate description shall be moving away from distortions of one kind to distortions of another which may be more consonant with the Law of One.
It is, shall we say, a shortcut to simply ignore or overcome any desire. It must instead be understood and accepted. This takes patience and experience which can be analyzed with care, with compassion for self and for other-self.
When I said the Law of One I did not mean the Ra material and any of the concepts they speak about, like what perfect balance is taken out of context of the means to reach it, but the actual Law of One as a portion of their message.
My own response to the thread spoke of my own balance and why I would not promote violence as this self. Thinking that violence on Earth has no place or that it can just be overcome is what is dissonant with the Law of One, because the truth of the matter is that you are at the center of all of it and that won't disappear.