Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

[Steppingfeet]

Quantum wrote:

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.

Greetings fellow seeker,

About "dissenting" or not agreeing with what you perceive to be the collective thinking of the moment, it is entirely acceptable, appropriate, and conducive to the dialectic of critical thought to offer a counter-position, or to disagree. Further, you need not, unless you truly enjoy doing so, invoke historical figures of eminence in order to pave your way for disagreeing with the prevailing thought. The merit of your own thought is sufficient for disagreeing. It's quite okay to disagree. : )

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.

If I may, I disagree whole-heartedly with your implication here - that being that talk is cheap and the net result of that which occurs on these forums is null and void in the face of "real" life.

Though I recognize the obvious limits of the intellect in the face of spiritual reality, the intellect nonetheless does have an important role to play in our evolution and the living of our daily lives, from the decisions we make to the interactions we have with others; from the integrity of our thought processes to the quality of our lives; from the bathroom, to the bedroom, to the book - the intellect plays a role.

Increasing intellectual understanding through honest and open discussion, refining our ideas as they are subjected to the critical thought of others, and being exposed to a diversity of angles regarding the spiritual path can and does have direct bearing on the daily life.

My contention being: what happens here *is* helpful - to relegate it to "armchair philosophy" diminishes and attempts to render ineffectual the real work being undertaken on this forum. The work of contributing ones thoughts in a way respectful and harmonious with others, the work of attempting to understand a perspective other than our own, and the work of taking that which we perceive to be helpful and applying it to the various situations encountered in our respective lives.

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.

Agreed. Our responses to situations are often automatic and are the cumulative expressions of a great deal of interior work done up to that point. By studying our spontaneous reactions to the moment, we are afforded a glimpse into where our blockages and imbalances lie.

In the heat of the moment, as the catalyst requires a speedy and immediate response, we won't be aided by referring to the philosophical dimension of life. However, no one on this forum is claiming such significance and purpose for the thinking contained within their post.

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.

If, as you say, "armchair philosophy" is moot and of no value in the face of the real catalyst of the moment, why then participate in so futile an exercise yourself?

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.

I don't think that anyone said that the service to self polarity is "devoid" of evil, just that the service to self polarity represents a path of the Creator that does not, key word, necessarily conform to popular notions of "evil".

Though I personally and unconsciously use the term "evil" when referring to those I consider to be service to self, I see the wisdom in Ra's complete abstention from the use of this term in reference to service to self entities. "Evil" is an emotionally loaded term which, though in some ways describes the abhorrence felt in the heart of the "good" person in relation to the "evil" person or act, nevertheless fails to capture what is fundamentally an energetic orientation, not a moral orientation.

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?

An odd statement to purport that increased understanding will not change the "real" underlying truth, which is not, as you see it, simply your truth, but the truth which, it seems, must be made apparent to the members of this forum.

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?

I may be wrong but I believe that Ra implied that everything is misunderstood by the third density entity, as "understanding" is not of this density.

Did Ra ever say that any of the examples you referenced were "evil"?

There were only a few instances in which Ra used the term "evil", one of which was this paragraph from Session #77:

Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad. It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment and also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn.

In this instance, Ra communicates the *value* of the negative polarity,(in Christian theology, "the knowledge of good and evil"), in terms of catalyzing movement, work, and the desire to learn.

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 may be in error but I think that the work each participant on this forum is doing is within their own heart. I don't recall any mention of a desire for the sharing of brunch with the autocrat or the mass-murderer.

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?

Again, I would refer to these three as evil... at the same time I would recognize the limitations of the word and, being inspired by the Confederation material, would seek to reach for a perspective which transcends the limited notion of "evil" *in order to*, as Monica was suggesting, shine a light into the darkness. (GREAT post btw, Monica!)

Words like "separation", "darkness", and "the path of that which is not" are more technically accurate and evocative of that which the service to self polarity is, in my opinion.

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.

Firstly, throughout the Ra contact, Ra emphasized repeatedly what the most helpful response was to the "advanced negative greeting" which you refer to, both in terms of protection and polarization, that being to respond with unconditional love while rejecting the service of the negative greeter. Each on this forum, as far as I can tell by their expressed thought, is attempting to move closer to that position of loving the negative entities as described by Ra, not in having them over for Parcheesi.

Secondly, while entitled to your own perspective, I disagree with the intellectual argument that minimizes and finds no value in intellectual arguments.

We all live, to one degree or another, an intellectual life. Our thinking - especially thinking that is informed, educated (in one fashion or another), and refined by exposure to others' thinking - plays an important role in our lives. The thinking of Don, Carla, and Jim had direct bearing on and application to the situation which you reference. Their philosophy and their ideas as to, as you said, "what STS is and is not" played a vital role in determining their response to the situation.

The wedge you drive between philosophy and "real life" is exactly what you are railing against: an intellectual position with no experiential analog.

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.

Children and Gandhi notwithstanding, because something is clear and obvious to you does not necessarily mean that you have encountered objective truth which others of this forum would do well to see as you see.

Also, if you sense civility and kindness in operation here, this is something to be celebrated. These qualities are not indicators of understanding being watered down.

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.

3D Sunset addressed this in a later post better than I could by discussing in depth what he means by "opening up".

I would only add here that the STS entities you mentioned, those who reached such a degree of purity on the service to self path that they harvested themselves, i.e., Rasputin and the Kahns, are not represented on these forums.

Were any member actively engaging in the ugliness of service to self on these forums, they would politely be asked to continue their activities elsewhere. Those on this forum creating an emotional rejection within yourself have been playing with the others in this sandbox with extreme courtesy and respect in a spirit of cooperative discussion.

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.

Thank you, truly, for sharing your thoughts, Quantum. Though I have challenged your thoughts in this post, please know that I have the utmost respect for your thought process and gratitude for the privilege of being able to freely discuss these topics from our opposite corners of this room.