I don't think this matter is a simple one. The concern about reaching a 51% polarization isn't necessarily selfish, though it is self-centered (which is not a "bad" thing). Wanting to "do good" and help others may be a first step in recognizing the importance of life beyond self and the beginnings of empathy, but I feel this is a first step only.
I think the underlying concept of STO is having no attachment to the service or outcomes, yet being compelled from within to offer it.
This is similar to Plenum's idea to come from the point of view of control vs. acceptance. But mere acceptance can only go so far. If a person comes upon a starving child on the street, this person may accept utterly that all is well, even suffering. Perhaps this person in accepting the idea that all is well, does not want to interfere or control the starving child's choice to suffer. So this person does nothing in order to allow the free will of another. But it must be added that the person is assuming the starving child chose it. No matter what anyone's beliefs are, they aren't facts in this world. The fact is: starving child; the assumption is: the child chose to suffer (what if the child chose to be saved by a passing stranger, or the child wanted to learn that it isn't alone, or any number of other possibilities). From this point of view of acceptance, the person may radiate love toward the starving child.
If the person helps the starving child because of the idea that "all is one," and by helping the child the person helps his- or herself because of everything being connected, to me that is still in the realm of self-centeredness. It is based on expecting an outcome.
But if this person comes upon a starving child and is compelled by the suffering to help, with no thought of any outcomes, just a heart reaching out to suffering and wanting to ease it with no thoughts of rewards or acknowledgment or even that the child survives and gets better—that to me constitutes a high service to others. It does not infringe upon free will, or have any desire to control, or include any thoughts of being rewarded even by feeling good about helping. It derives from an acceptance of what is—the person comes upon a starving child and does not spend any time judging why or how; the person attempts to help the starving child by offering water and food out of love—not because it would benefit the person, but because all thoughts are for the alleviation of the suffering; and the child's path still unfolds as it will—the person accepts this as there are no expectations, just the moment, the now, where there is suffering, two people, and the possibility of being of a service we know to be evident: starvation here in 3D. The person then moves on to whatever else lies in his or her path.
The thing is, you can intend to reach the stage of true detachment and act accordingly, but you are not quite there yet until you actually reach that stage of being. Because when you actually do reach it, there is nothing else—only the response to (suffering, or whatever else is calling). And it is in the moment of now, not about past or future or spiritual evolution.
In intending to reach that stage it is choice based on desire, which was based on becoming aware, which appears to be the natural progression of spiritual evolution in 3D.
I think the underlying concept of STO is having no attachment to the service or outcomes, yet being compelled from within to offer it.
This is similar to Plenum's idea to come from the point of view of control vs. acceptance. But mere acceptance can only go so far. If a person comes upon a starving child on the street, this person may accept utterly that all is well, even suffering. Perhaps this person in accepting the idea that all is well, does not want to interfere or control the starving child's choice to suffer. So this person does nothing in order to allow the free will of another. But it must be added that the person is assuming the starving child chose it. No matter what anyone's beliefs are, they aren't facts in this world. The fact is: starving child; the assumption is: the child chose to suffer (what if the child chose to be saved by a passing stranger, or the child wanted to learn that it isn't alone, or any number of other possibilities). From this point of view of acceptance, the person may radiate love toward the starving child.
If the person helps the starving child because of the idea that "all is one," and by helping the child the person helps his- or herself because of everything being connected, to me that is still in the realm of self-centeredness. It is based on expecting an outcome.
But if this person comes upon a starving child and is compelled by the suffering to help, with no thought of any outcomes, just a heart reaching out to suffering and wanting to ease it with no thoughts of rewards or acknowledgment or even that the child survives and gets better—that to me constitutes a high service to others. It does not infringe upon free will, or have any desire to control, or include any thoughts of being rewarded even by feeling good about helping. It derives from an acceptance of what is—the person comes upon a starving child and does not spend any time judging why or how; the person attempts to help the starving child by offering water and food out of love—not because it would benefit the person, but because all thoughts are for the alleviation of the suffering; and the child's path still unfolds as it will—the person accepts this as there are no expectations, just the moment, the now, where there is suffering, two people, and the possibility of being of a service we know to be evident: starvation here in 3D. The person then moves on to whatever else lies in his or her path.
The thing is, you can intend to reach the stage of true detachment and act accordingly, but you are not quite there yet until you actually reach that stage of being. Because when you actually do reach it, there is nothing else—only the response to (suffering, or whatever else is calling). And it is in the moment of now, not about past or future or spiritual evolution.
In intending to reach that stage it is choice based on desire, which was based on becoming aware, which appears to be the natural progression of spiritual evolution in 3D.
Quote:42.7 Questioner: I would like to try to make an analogy for this in third density. Many entities here feel great compassion toward relieving the physical problems of third-density other-selves by administering to them in many ways, bringing them food if there is hunger as there is in the African nations now, bringing them medicine if they believe they require administering to them medically, and being selfless in all of these services to a very great extent.
This is creating a polarization or a vibration that is in harmony with green ray or fourth density. However, it is not balanced with the understanding of fifth density that these entities are experiencing catalyst and a more balanced administration to their needs would be to provide them with the learning necessary to reach the state of awareness of fourth density than it would be to administer to their physical needs at this time. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)