Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

[Quantum]

Let me briefly state the purpose I have pursued in my postings on this thread. First, please consider the following quote or Ra:
[quote='Ra, Book I, Session 17']
Questioner: If an entity wants to be of service to others rather than service to self while he is in this third density, are there “best ways” of being of service to others, or is any way just as good as any other way?

Ra: I am Ra. The best way to be of service to others has been explicitly covered in previous material. We will iterate briefly.

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.

Note, my friends, that Ra does not state "the ability to open the self to other STO entities", or "to unpolarized entities", but "to the other-self without hesitation".

Hello again dear friend 3D. It is always enjoyable to exchange and play in thought with you. To that end, in reference to your Ra quote above I would offer that just as the sun shines on all man, I would agree that love is love is love, and as result and consequence radiated to all. No one is suggesting in any form that we not love our STS brother? This would be contrary and antithesis to the STO path. I am therefor missing your point? If I may, as previously offered by a Christian adage, I offer again, "I may love the sinner, but I certainly needn't in any manner love the sin." There is no fine distinction between the two?

Please be clear that it is not the other-selves that I find disagreeable, for all are the One Infinite Creator. It is rather their actions, which I do not condone.

As you can see here by your statement, as much as my intent, we are in more agreement than not? We both still love them (STS) irrespective. Agreed?

Personally, I have found that avoiding emotionally charged and socially judgmental words such as evil, have made it much easier for me to make progress on these lines. I still have far to go, and much, I'm sure, to learn.

Avoiding the term is one thing, as you have suggested above, and for yourself rightly so perhaps. Given you choose to avoid the term, it is fair to say that it is not you that suggested that STS is not evil. It was however previously stated nonetheless and as such makes it fair fodder to respond to. For myself, words have no power other than the choice we make to give them such. I am therefor quite OK with the word evil, as it in fact and indeed does carry an emotional charge to it. I am as a result in humble disagreement that STS is not synonymous to evil.

I have offered as evidential proof the challenge to anyone that may name an STS graduate into 4D that would not in fact be defined as evil, such as is the case in the examples offered by Ra of Genghis Khan or Rasputin? Herein lies my previous point to pragmatism. It is what it is irrespective of how we wish to dress it up or dress it down.

[quote='Quantum'] Ra has stated that the STS path delights in the willful causation of pain and suffering to others.

I suggest, that the basis of your statement above is the full quote of Ra that follows. Please note, that even in the metaphor that follows, certain of your assertions are missing, most notably the "willful causation" of the pain, difficulty and sufferings. Just as we do not "wish to engage in deconstructing the message of Ra", so too, do we not wish to biasedly embellish upon it.
[quote='Ra, Book I, Session 19']
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.

I respectfully and humbly disagree. I see no embellishment nor deconstruction to the intended meaning in my message, nor a bias implied. Their (STS) picnic being "suffering of others" seems clear enough. I admit I was indeed paraphrasing. But we would quibble over the minutia of commas or words were we not to agree that the delicious picnic of the night being the "suffering of others" were neither willful nor premeditated. May we then not agree that in delighting "in the suffering of others" lies therein also the delight in their pain and difficulty as consequence? What else would be the point?

You continue your point with:

The philosophy concerns the service of manipulating others that they may experience service towards the other self, thus through this experience becoming able to appreciate service to self.

I would suggest that this quote only strengthens my point, not one that lessens it? White Magic is the assistance to and for others, whereas Black Magic is the manipulation of others. Both forms of magic I would offer extend not only to high magic of the mystical nature, but to as simply the simple man next door giving (STO) or taking (STS). Using my analogy of the two, what else is Black Magic if not the manipulation of another self, whether it be deep magic, or simply the simple act of a simple minded and hearted STO or STS? Now, it may be said that we all practice both in greater or lesser varying degrees given we are of mixed polarity and not yet pure. We would however enter into the same territory and same conversation were we to suggest that the willful manipulation of others as being a more refined or cleaned up version of the very same energy we are addressing. As the Bard wrote:"What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." What then is in the name evil verses manipulation as both may be viewed as the same? Nothing by this Ra quote is argumentative ground to change the point, but in fact makes my earlier point that there is cautionary evidence to be made that by attempting to soften it up or sterilize it from the word evil to manipulation we run the risk of attempting to make it more digestible as consequence, thus dressing it down, thus making it more blurred, thus potentially dangerous for having done so. I submit that manipulation is evil.

I for one, am willing to concede, that I still have a biased view of STS, as witnessed by my continued, albeit attenuated, difficulty to "open the self to the other-self without hesitation", for what else could be the cause of such hesitation, than a bias? I leave it to each to examine within themselves if they harbor a similarly biased view of STS. For this was, I believe ChaoticMind's original point in starting the thread. Not that LOO had a biased view of STS, but rather that many on the forum did.

Once again, with great respect I disagree. I suggest that indeed the LOO is biased. How could it not be? Ra is biased. But the whole point in being here engaged in the game dear friend, as much as in 3D, is to chose your bias? This is not supposition on my part, nor is it interpretation. It is the Ra message, eloquently, beautifully, and academically put forth. I make no qualms with this fact, nor with the fact that I am clearly openly unabashedly biased. Ra is biased. Quo, as Monica pointed out in her quote by Quo in her previous post is admittedly and unabashedly biased. I ultimately suggest that Our Logos that created this great game is admittedly biased, this as stated by Ra. If we begin to move away from being biased, we then begin to move away from choice, which leads ultimately away from polarization to the one path or the other, which leads ultimately in restricting oneself from the Harvest? Indeed, to be unbiased would be demonstrative of the fact that one has yet to make a choice.

"Be Ye then ever more biased" sayeth Ra unto the students. This is the choice, not to be analyzed to the point of being paralyzed, studied, or moved away from in the intellectual pursuit alone thereof, but rather to revel in emotionally. This is the classic argument that Bones and Spock engaged in constantly. I am arguing for the Bones position.

Here dear 3D is where I attempt to humbly if not admittedly feebly make my greater point in my argument of the danger of intellectualism verses armchair philosophizing as regards the deconstruction of an intended message. We run the risk of loosing the intended message if not careful as a result of the unintended intellectual blur, if not blunder, that ironically intellectualism in fact often makes. Indeed, intellectualism is not the path as much as is the heart and the emotion involved therein, both requiring full-on biased choice.

I therefore make my choice, this day and every other day, this from the point forward that I came into the Ra realization that I am indeed biased to be STO, and this with full willed intent and conviction, and not apologetic or in defense for it. Quite the contrary. I seek ever greater bias towards the effort of polarizing so that I may unify, perhaps in hypothesis that polarization may no longer be the lesson in the next Octave, but that another no doubt awaits us.

If I may lovingly offer you this message in closing, this with the true intent of the Easter Holiday upon us, and as one stranger in the flesh to another, but more importantly as one brother in the spirit to another: to attempt to seek being unbiased through intellectualism at this early stage of present 3rd density, and even 4th beyond that, is overshooting the mark, if not the intended lesson of being in 3D to choose polarization. It is an easy point to make, but just as easily overlooked.

Thank you as always for your willingness to engage in further conversation.

Happy Easter to you Brother, and to all,

Q