I have been following this thread, on and off, with mixed feeling. I would offer that it would seem that many on the intended STO path have difficulty with certain attitudes as regards what we define love to be, most particularly as regards the courage to simply and graciously muster the courage to be in dissent. I conjecture that in some manner dissent seems as though viewed as being discordant, which in turn is perceived to be less than the love that STO is intended or viewed as. I respectfully disagree. Jesus was discordant and was a dissenter and yet represented an embodiment of love. So too did Mahatma Gandhi. So too did Martin Luther King. There are many other examples. May one love enough to be in dissonance to a popular theme being played?
Allow me then, in love, and with great respect, to be in dissent and disagreement for a moment then, if I may. It seems to serve no practical ground for a philosophy spoken to or agreed to if it can not be applied directly into one's life pragmatically. To what purpose, and for what? Certainly not to catalyze. We are speaking then in the academic only and for no other purpose. In other words, it serves no purpose. It is merely for academic and/or intellectual entertainment. For example, speaking at length to the STS path as an armchair philosophy, as though a viable path is an easy task for a perceived STO oriented individual academically. But in practice, well, with certainty that would be an altogether different matter if faced with it directly. Were indeed one faced with the irrational madman, or worse, the composed STS'er in full blooming power of himself, either of who may hold a loved one at bay, or worse at personal risk at the threat of death, would be no time for armchair philosophizing. It would require an extreme time for action. As such, all armchair philosophizing on the viability of the STS path would flee as quickly out the window as would the wind in a maelstrom of chaos, pandemonium and fear that it would create. To the converse, such a case could never be made by an opposite example of anything truly loving by an act of STO love, this by either an STO'er or indeed even an STS'er, either acting as participant or observer.
Defending the STS path through arm chair philosophy by suggesting that it is largely misunderstood, and therefore devoid of evil, bends the truth as though patently preposterous to what it in fact is. The examples of the cast of characters that abound in history that may be utilized as the definition of STS are simply ghastly as such. No amount of understanding may change this. May we not simply speak to the truth of our studies? Did the Ra teachings ever speak to the STS path by example as one that was largely misunderstood or one that was devoid of evil? In fact the examples that Ra gave were Genghis Khan, Taras Bulba, and Rasputin. Neither of these three gentlemen were candidates to be invited lightly for tea and crumpets to either a garden party or a wedding. I dare say that the Ra readings were self evident, even as sterile of an approach as might have been intended by Ra. These three gentleman were successful in STS. Can we argue they were not evil? Is it not sociopathic to be evil as has been repeatedly argued against on this thread? Well, I suppose from one sociopath's definition to another the answer might be no. But I dare say that from total honesty, and a well grounded STO individual's perspective, the answer in response would be a self evident resounding yes. Anything less than this response would be irrational or disingenuous.
Was Carla's life itself not at dire risk more than once during her sessions, this by the direct and willed attempt of a negative greeting that if successful would have terminated not only the Ra message, which was the point, but her life as well? Lets us remember that this was an advanced negative greeting, and from higher realms at that, not to be confused with the smaller details of academic debate in 3D as to what STS is and is not. Does this sound like STS is not clearly understood to be exactly what we feel it is? And if this is so in the higher realms, and with greater intensity, what would lead us to believe that it is not exactly so in 3D? Is there a confusion here that is missed? A child would see it for what it is and simply speak the truth. Why should we not be as open and as innocently honest? We know what we know, but seemingly allow ourselves to be distracted, perhaps solely out of what may be civility and kindness and the willingness to engage as a result.
Let us turn not to those on the self proclaimed STS path for definition, or even to those that were but now have found their way back. Let us instead simply keep our eye focused on the reason we are here, to study what the LOO and Ra teaches. Need we have opinion verses source light our way?
Very plainly Ra states what STS is:
Now, this is source. Is there a dispute? Intended pain, willed difficulty, purposefully caused suffering of others. As a student of the LOO, I am quite happy to "open" myself, as it were, to the lovingness that Ra and Quo offer. I am however neither discordant, nor am I in dissonance should I choose to "not to open myself" to the self professed students on the STS path attempting either innocently or purposefully to subvert what is otherwise obvious in definition by Ra, as much as in example, as much as I "am not open" to be dissuaded by admittedly self professed recently converted students to the STO path who used to be STS, although I do applaud them whole heartily. I am being honest, as much as I am being humble, as much as I am being discerning, as much as I am offering my love to both through these simple truths shined into the dark that even a child would offer had he the words or thought processes to express it so.
Agreed. To the converse however, understanding is an absolute prerequisite to be in full grounded and empowered disagreement. Beware of the man in full knowledge and in full power who is capable of being in disagreement, for he has the power to either change the world for the better...or the worse.
I would once again, with great respect, disagree. Let us remember that understanding and love are entirely mutually exclusive as seemingly intended by the STO definition as given above, and as such are not synonymous, this as evidenced by the fact that the Density of Understanding is every bit the domain of 4D negative STS as well. Thus is understanding not reserved exclusively as the domain of love "by way of the STO definition" as is seemingly indicated. As stated above, beware of the man in full understanding and knowledge and as such operating in full power, for such a man may be a man to be reckoned with, as history and the nightly news demonstrate each eveining.
Let us keep our eye on the ball, and stay forever focused on what our knower already knows.
Q
Allow me then, in love, and with great respect, to be in dissent and disagreement for a moment then, if I may. It seems to serve no practical ground for a philosophy spoken to or agreed to if it can not be applied directly into one's life pragmatically. To what purpose, and for what? Certainly not to catalyze. We are speaking then in the academic only and for no other purpose. In other words, it serves no purpose. It is merely for academic and/or intellectual entertainment. For example, speaking at length to the STS path as an armchair philosophy, as though a viable path is an easy task for a perceived STO oriented individual academically. But in practice, well, with certainty that would be an altogether different matter if faced with it directly. Were indeed one faced with the irrational madman, or worse, the composed STS'er in full blooming power of himself, either of who may hold a loved one at bay, or worse at personal risk at the threat of death, would be no time for armchair philosophizing. It would require an extreme time for action. As such, all armchair philosophizing on the viability of the STS path would flee as quickly out the window as would the wind in a maelstrom of chaos, pandemonium and fear that it would create. To the converse, such a case could never be made by an opposite example of anything truly loving by an act of STO love, this by either an STO'er or indeed even an STS'er, either acting as participant or observer.
Quote:"Do you love fully", asked the Master. "Yes", replied the student enthusiastically. "Do you love with all of your heart", asked the Master once more, but more fervently and with greater passion. "Yes, yes, yes", replied the student with even more fervor and even more passion. "Do you love so much young student, that you would kill a victimizer if absolutely need be to defend an innocent child as victim?"
Defending the STS path through arm chair philosophy by suggesting that it is largely misunderstood, and therefore devoid of evil, bends the truth as though patently preposterous to what it in fact is. The examples of the cast of characters that abound in history that may be utilized as the definition of STS are simply ghastly as such. No amount of understanding may change this. May we not simply speak to the truth of our studies? Did the Ra teachings ever speak to the STS path by example as one that was largely misunderstood or one that was devoid of evil? In fact the examples that Ra gave were Genghis Khan, Taras Bulba, and Rasputin. Neither of these three gentlemen were candidates to be invited lightly for tea and crumpets to either a garden party or a wedding. I dare say that the Ra readings were self evident, even as sterile of an approach as might have been intended by Ra. These three gentleman were successful in STS. Can we argue they were not evil? Is it not sociopathic to be evil as has been repeatedly argued against on this thread? Well, I suppose from one sociopath's definition to another the answer might be no. But I dare say that from total honesty, and a well grounded STO individual's perspective, the answer in response would be a self evident resounding yes. Anything less than this response would be irrational or disingenuous.
Was Carla's life itself not at dire risk more than once during her sessions, this by the direct and willed attempt of a negative greeting that if successful would have terminated not only the Ra message, which was the point, but her life as well? Lets us remember that this was an advanced negative greeting, and from higher realms at that, not to be confused with the smaller details of academic debate in 3D as to what STS is and is not. Does this sound like STS is not clearly understood to be exactly what we feel it is? And if this is so in the higher realms, and with greater intensity, what would lead us to believe that it is not exactly so in 3D? Is there a confusion here that is missed? A child would see it for what it is and simply speak the truth. Why should we not be as open and as innocently honest? We know what we know, but seemingly allow ourselves to be distracted, perhaps solely out of what may be civility and kindness and the willingness to engage as a result.
Let us turn not to those on the self proclaimed STS path for definition, or even to those that were but now have found their way back. Let us instead simply keep our eye focused on the reason we are here, to study what the LOO and Ra teaches. Need we have opinion verses source light our way?
Very plainly Ra states what STS is:
Quote:Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates the momentum towards the chosen path of service to self?
Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.
All these experiences are available. It is the free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.
Now, this is source. Is there a dispute? Intended pain, willed difficulty, purposefully caused suffering of others. As a student of the LOO, I am quite happy to "open" myself, as it were, to the lovingness that Ra and Quo offer. I am however neither discordant, nor am I in dissonance should I choose to "not to open myself" to the self professed students on the STS path attempting either innocently or purposefully to subvert what is otherwise obvious in definition by Ra, as much as in example, as much as I "am not open" to be dissuaded by admittedly self professed recently converted students to the STO path who used to be STS, although I do applaud them whole heartily. I am being honest, as much as I am being humble, as much as I am being discerning, as much as I am offering my love to both through these simple truths shined into the dark that even a child would offer had he the words or thought processes to express it so.
(04-03-2009, 09:39 AM)3D Sunset Wrote: Agreement is not a prerequisite for understanding.
Agreed. To the converse however, understanding is an absolute prerequisite to be in full grounded and empowered disagreement. Beware of the man in full knowledge and in full power who is capable of being in disagreement, for he has the power to either change the world for the better...or the worse.
(04-06-2009, 12:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: This is why I believe that the word "understanding" is associated with the word "love" in the LOO books when Ra refers to the fourth density as the density of love or understanding.
I would once again, with great respect, disagree. Let us remember that understanding and love are entirely mutually exclusive as seemingly intended by the STO definition as given above, and as such are not synonymous, this as evidenced by the fact that the Density of Understanding is every bit the domain of 4D negative STS as well. Thus is understanding not reserved exclusively as the domain of love "by way of the STO definition" as is seemingly indicated. As stated above, beware of the man in full understanding and knowledge and as such operating in full power, for such a man may be a man to be reckoned with, as history and the nightly news demonstrate each eveining.
(04-06-2009, 03:12 PM)AppleSeed Wrote: Unconditional love needs no understanding, as far as I, um, understand it.Here is a quote that may be truer than all, dear Appleseed. Unconditional love may simply accept in and through all that it is, and as such may resolve, unify, and dissolve all in its wake. In this one sentiment expressed by you am I reminded of the Christian adage that in order to love the sinner, one needn't love the sin.
Let us keep our eye on the ball, and stay forever focused on what our knower already knows.
Q