The Law of Responsibility

[xise]

Hello all,

Recently I have been guided to study and better understand the "Law of Responsibility." I have only found the two following passages on the phrase thus far:

22.5 Questioner: Then can you give me a— Can I assume then that this drastic drop from 700-year life span to one— less than one hundred years in length during this second 25,000-year period was because of an intensification of a… of a condition of lack of service to others? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is in part correct. By the end of the second cycle, the Law of Responsibility had begun to be effectuated by the increasing ability of entities to grasp those lessons which there are to be learned in this density. Thus, entities had discovered many ways to indicate a bellicose nature, not only as tribes or what you call nations but in personal relationships, each with the other, the concept of barter having given way in many cases to the concept of money; also, the concept of ownership having won ascendancy over the concept of non-ownership on an individual or group basis.

Each entity then was offered many more subtle ways of demonstrating either service towards others or service to self with the distortion of the manipulation of others. As each lesson was understood, those lessons of sharing, of giving, of receiving in free gratitude— each lesson could be rejected in practice.

Without demonstrating the fruits of such learn/teaching the life span became greatly reduced, for the ways of honor/duty were not being accepted.

101.8 Questioner: Thank you. Could Ra give information on any way that we could give information to Greta Woodrew as to how to alleviate her present condition of swelling?

Ra: I am Ra. We may only suggest that the honor of propinquity to light carries with it the Law of Responsibility. The duty to refrain from contumely, discord, and all things which, when unresolved within, make way for workings lies before the instrument of which you speak. This entity may, if it is desired by the scribe, share our comments upon the working of the latter entity.

The entity which is given constant and unremitting approval by those surrounding it suffers from the loss of the mirroring effect of those which reflect truthfully rather than unquestioningly. This is not a suggestion to reinstate judgment but merely a suggestion for all those supporting instruments; that is, support, be harmonious, share in love, joy, and thanksgiving, but find love within truth, for each instrument benefits from this support more than from the total admiration which overcomes discrimination.

The above quotations did not paint a clear picture for me.


What is the Law of Responsibility? Are there other LOO Q&A that refer to the Law of Responsibility? Your thoughts, opinions, and insight are appreciated.

[GentleReckoning]

It is your honor/duty to learn from reality. If you do this, the body functions well for a very long time. If not, the body retires and reincarnates with a lesson plan that forces the lessons down one's throat so to speak.

The second part was more about people unconditionally reinforcing deleterious habits in individuals and the response broke the law of confusion. Notice the immediate voice switch. The immediate projection of good/bad so as not to confuse the polarized channeling group.

"The entity which is given constant and unremitting approval by those surrounding it suffers from the loss of the mirroring effect of those which reflect truthfully rather than unquestioningly. This is not a suggestion to reinstate judgment but merely a suggestion for all those supporting instruments; that is, support, be harmonious, share in love, joy, and thanksgiving, but find love within truth, for each instrument benefits from this support more than from the total admiration which overcomes discrimination."

My thoughts are invite judgement in so that the soul has the greatest pallet of information from which to draw from. And teach people to accept and process judgement as people's judgments essentially are the greatest determining factor in the amount of freedom a person has on Earth. If you don't do it consciously, you're doing it subconsciously. (judging others)

Did that sound negative?

[Minyatur]

I'd say the law of responsibility lies in the polarity generated through being more conscious. In greater awareness, your thoughts and choices are more polarized by how they interconnect with yourself and others. Polarity has weight and its play of gravity with the cosmos.

Unlike what GR says, I don't think it is in any way the nature of Creation to force lessons down anything's throat and instead it answers free will as it calls. Having the impression of being forced lessons is a mean of experience to gain your own uniquely desired direction as a spark. Usually it'd boil down to rejecting awareness of your own personal attraction of catalysts as if it was the world's desire to throw them at you when you're really just attracting them yourself.

Remember, no spirit was forced here and if it was of your free will to have a super slow growth in an eternal wellness 3D world paradise, then you'd have gotten just that.

[Sprout]

I've a feeling this might relate.

18.7 Questioner: As an entity in this density grows from childhood, he becomes more aware of his responsibilities. Is there an age below which an entity is not responsible for his actions, or is he responsible from the time of birth?

Ra: I am Ra. An entity incarnating upon the Earth plane becomes conscious of self at a varying point in its time/space progress through the continuum. This may have a median, shall we say, of approximately fifteen of your months. Some entities become conscious of self at a period closer to incarnation, some at a period farther from this event. In all cases responsibility then becomes retroactive from that point backwards in the continuum so that distortions are to be understood by the entity and dissolved as the entity learns.

18.8 Questioner: Then an entity, say, four years old would be totally responsible for any actions that were against or inharmonious with the Law of One. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. It may be noted that it has been arranged by your social complex structures that the newer entities to incarnation are to be provided with guides of a physical mind/body/spirit complex, thus being able to learn quickly what is consonant with the Law of One.

[Jade]

My understanding of the Law of Responsibility is that when we know better, we should do better. Yes, we all have a very thick veil, but we are afforded "holes" in the veil that give us a truer picture of reality. If we continue to live in our falsehood after seeing that reality, I believe that is when we begin to incur karma, which is what Ra is referring to when Ra says that money was a side effect of the Law of Responsibility - as we were less willing to stand up for what was right, what was wrong became much more available.

As far as Greta, Ra uses some weird wording, but basically what they are saying is that the closer that one gets the purity, the more care they have to take with being pure. If you stand close to the light, and then get lazy about it, your Higher self will give you catalyst/lessons/"workings" (which seems to refer to a negative greeting) that give you the catalyst to either return to a higher form of loving nature, or continue basically to be mean to others/the self. Ra goes on to say that this is the value of others who reflect negative internal states: So that we can see ourselves in our negativity, and adjust/correct. Otherwise, if you start to slip too much to "the dark side", you will surround yourself with sycophants who never challenge you, and avoid those who do, and then you lose that ability to check yourself.

I posted this quote of Tolstoy's recently, I like it a lot; I think it, specifically, is about the Law of Responsibility. You can take ownership of your role as being hitched to a cart with other horses and do what you know you are supposed to do (be kind, compassionate, accepting, and recognizing unity), or, you can refuse (be bellicose), and the cart and other horses that you have hitched yourself to will drag you with it. We are responsible for taking action, within the confines of our reality, to make our reality better, or else reality is going to beat on us until we wake back up.

Tolstoy also refers to our freedom as a "trivial degree of freedom", meaning, when we know better, we don't actually have free will as much as we believe. It also makes me think of Ra speaking of the STO path as "strait and narrow".

I think it also helps to remember that "free will" are those actions which we take because of the veil. Before the veil, there was no free will - so, presumably, those actions which are most congruent with unity, are only those actions which were taken before we received "free will". Free will is the will to act as separate from the Creator - which is what the illusion is all about, after all.

Truth not only points out the way along which human life ought to move, but reveals also the only way along which it can move. And therefore all men must willingly or unwillingly move along the way of truth, some spontaneously accomplishing the task set them in life, others submitting involuntarily to the law of life. Man's freedom lies in the power of this choice.

This freedom within these narrow limits seems so insignificant to men that they do not notice it. Some--the determinists--consider this amount of freedom so trifling that they do not recognize it at all. Others--the champions of complete free will--keep their eyes fixed on their hypothetical free will and neglect this which seemed to them such a trivial degree of freedom.

This freedom, confined between the limits of complete ignorance of the truth and a recognition of a part of the truth, seems hardly freedom at all, especially since, whether a man is willing or unwilling to recognize the truth revealed to him, he will be inevitably forced to carry it out in life.

A horse harnessed with others to a cart is not free to refrain from moving the cart. If he does not move forward the cart will knock him down and go on dragging him with it, whether he will or not. But the horse is free to drag the cart himself or to be dragged with it. And so it is with man.

The quote goes on, and I think it continues to speak of the Law of Responsibility, and the responsibility we have to our social memory complex to stand up with what is learned to be true by our efforts to pierce to veil. I think it's about blue-ray.

Whether this is a great or small degree of freedom in comparison with the fantastic liberty we should like to have, it is the only freedom that really exists, and in it consists the only happiness attainable by man.

And more than that, this freedom is the sole means of accomplishing the divine work of the life of the world.

According to Christ's doctrine, the man who sees the significance of life in the domain in which it is not free, in the domain of effects, that is, of acts, has not the true life. According to the Christian doctrine, that man is living in the truth who has transported his life to the domain in which it is free--the domain of causes, that is, the knowledge and recognition, the profession and realization in life of revealed truth.

Devoting his life to works of the flesh, a man busies himself with actions depending on temporary causes outside himself. He himself does nothing really, he merely seems to be doing something. In reality all the acts which seem to be his are the work of a higher power, and he is not the creator of his own life, but the slave of it. Devoting his life to the recognition and fulfillment of the truth revealed to him, he identifies himself with the source of universal life and accomplishes acts not personal, and dependent on conditions of space and time, but acts unconditioned by previous causes, acts which constitute the causes of everything else, and have an infinite, unlimited significance.

"The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." (Matt. xi. 12.)

It is this violent effort to rise above external conditions to the recognition and realization of truth by which the kingdom of heaven is taken, and it is this effort of violence which must and can be made in our times.

Men need only understand this, they need only cease to trouble themselves about the general external conditions in which they are not free, and devote one-hundredth part of the energy they waste on those material things to that in which they are free, to the recognition and realization of the truth which is before them, and to the liberation of themselves and others from deception and hypocrisy, and, without effort or conflict, there would be an end at once of the false organization of life which makes men miserable, and threatens them with worse calamities in the future. And then the kingdom of God would be realized, or at least that first stage of it for which men are ready now by the degree of development of their conscience.

Just as a single shock may be sufficient, when a liquid is saturated with some salt, to precipitate it at once in crystals, a slight effort may be perhaps all that is needed now that the truth already revealed to men may gain a mastery over hundreds, thousands, millions of men, that a public opinion consistent with conscience may be established, and through this change of public opinion the whole order of life may be transformed. And it depends upon us to make this effort.

Hope this gives you some further understanding!

[rva_jeremy]

I concur with everything said on this thread, but allow me to offer a very slightly different perspective.  

One can see "not teaching what you are learning" as a "violation" of the "Law of Responsibility" that then gets corrected in the form of undesired events in one's life.  Almost like it's a "punishment" for not living according to what we understand to be true, or as Ra puts it "not teaching what you are learning".  However, it's also valid to simply see the Law of Responsibility non-normatively, as an ideal of alignment between what the spirit conveys, how the mind conceptualizes it, and how the body manifests it.  

To the extent that these three areas of our being are in harmony, we can process catalyst and ground our experience with maximum efficiency.  This is a condition of "taking responsibility" for the increases in power, love, and wisdom that accompany evolution and allowing spirit to channel through the mind into the body with fidelity.  The Creator's will is stepped down or channeled through the mind into material manifestation, allowing for all levels to be engaged in the Creator's experience of itself.

To the extent they are misaligned -- we do not think in line with our inspiration, or we do not act in line with our thinking -- catalysis is generated for experiences that announce and articulate the misalignment in increasingly coarser, harsher, and less easily ignored ways.  These experiences allow us to identify the manner in which there is a misalignment and choose to either "take responsibility" for addressing it or "take responsibility" for the suffering that not changing our minds creates.

I really appreciate Jade's points on free will because it strikes me as very important to understand the degree to which our confusion makes our third density concept of free will possible.  It is a confusion borne out of the veil that cloaks one part of ourselves from another.  But the way in which that confusion presents also appears to me to involve a mismatch between these different layers of ourselves, not understanding fully the many levels on which we exist and serve.  

The work of being a Creator experiencing itself seems to me to have something to do with the manifesting spirit through mind into the material illusion, which serves as a kind of inflection point that yields back up to the Creator the novelties inherent in experiencing a mere portion of itself as contrasted with the totality of pure spirit.  It is our very confusion, it seems to me, that yields the most novel experience to the Creator, and in our material experience we encounter the most separate, most limited, most discrete and finite, and therefore most focused representation of the Creator's vastness.  Perhaps this is where faith comes in: even when we're confused, our belief in the rightness of things, our refusal to shut down and determination to pay attention and participate in the confusion, all of this empowers us to yield back the fruit of our unfathomable lives to the Creator.

I apologize for any derailment I've introduced.

[Night Owl]

The word responsibility mostly revolve around the root of response. For each call there is an answer. The reason responsibility is a law I think is because no matter how you respond, you offer a response, even if you respond by not responding, it is still a response, it is a choice. The dualistic qualities of this relationship is much like an echo. It seems to me like the catalyst or teach/learning in play is about trustworthiness. Can you be accountable to offer a truthful answer to the information you receive? Each call can either be accepted and looked into, or rejected, or ignored. This is very much similar to how polarity is described.

Now what are you responsible for? I think everything your consciousness is directly holding and touching is your responsibility, nothing more, nothing less, but this is in constant motion. How you offer that response is totally up to you, an offering from the creator to the creator.

[Minyatur]

I just want to point out that it is not the nature of catalysts to be harsh, one's catalysts reflect oneself and so if they are harsh then that reflects your own relationship with yourself. The notion of catalyst is without any notion of right or wrong, good or bad nor any desire toward where you head and at what pace. To me they really are a response to your own will in term of what transformation you desire and they are literally there to guide you in whatever choice of path you make without having a leaning of their own as to what path you should take. If you want to see everything as good or bad and right or wrong, then obviously this will creates pulls in your reality everywhere you feel charged about this subjective-dualization in your mind.

3D is not even designed to be harsh of itself, it is what is held within the minds that create this climate more than the density. A lot of people see the world as cold and harsh and cut themselves from its warmth, a lot of people see others as ill and attract to see the ills of others, a lot of people expect the worse of others and attract the worse of them, a lot of people think they deserve no good and attract little of it, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. This is a build up of confused perceptions over time. Another reason to atrract harsh catalysts could be because of justifying negative charges as positive ones, i.e. thinking it is positive within a certain context to hold a negative charge when a negative charge is what it is, this would create a polarized play of tensions within your energy.

Another angle to it, which may resonate more with the people of this forum, is that the harshness of catalysts may represent how much the way you attempt to become oversteps what can't be overcome in you. Some wanna be a badass beacon of light while not having any focus on balancing the elements within themselves that block this from happening and so they instead seek a greater flow hoping the distortions of self will be overcome through it, when instead they are magnified by plain direct cause and effect. The first step of the positive path is embracing and loving where you are at to then move from there. If instead the first step taken is to reject the self for what it is and where it is at, then don't expect a pleasant road because the further you'll go and the more it'll try to make you look back at square 1, which was the beginning of this road and where the paradox of it can melt, because that step you took was all along the greatest hinderment to the direction you sincerely desire to walk.

Much like catalysts, the law of responsability resolves around your perception of things, it does not judge but just responds to your charges.

[Minyatur]

Now what are you responsible for? I think everything your consciousness is directly holding and touching is your responsibility, nothing more, nothing less, but this is in constant motion. How you offer that response is totally up to you, an offering from the creator to the creator.

That's really the crux of it I think.

Say you are not empathic and walk into a place where someone feels depressed, you have no conscious responsibility because you are not aware of the ambient energy and will merely absorb unconsciously a small portion of it (small responsibility of having drawn yourself to walk in it).

Say you are empathic and walk into a place where someone feels depressed, you are conscious of the ambient energy and can't be unaware there is someone depressed. Because of this you are forced a polarized choice, you can either ignore the energy or work with it within yourself or find the person to help them directly. The awareness created a responsibility in that whatever your choice is, you can't not have a response because you are aware. Then the charge it held is balanced with your other charges and if you were untrue with yourself and your aims in your response, then you will attract catalyst to work those charges so that the various implicated aspects of yourself are balanced together (the initial event already was a catalyst refining these aspects).

[ScottK]

Hello all,

Recently I have been guided to study and better understand the "Law of Responsibility." I have only found the two following passages on the phrase thus far:

Hey Xise,

Good question.  It led to a bit of contemplation on my part.

The first thing that struck me though in reading those quotes was Carla's unbelievable vocabulary..  propinquity?  contumely?  OMG..

I ran a search of the L/L site in Google - put "law of responsibility site:www.llresearch.org" in the google search box, and the best result appears to be from Q'uo:

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0407.aspx

Questioner: Yes, Q’uo, could you describe please the Law of Responsibility, how does (inaudible) that all (inaudible) on a spiritual (inaudible)?

I am Q’uo, and I am aware of your query, my brother. Each seeker in the process of seeking will find those resources that are of assistance in the revealing of the heart of love and the nature of truth to the seeker. As the seeker becomes aware of more principles, shall we say, that are applicable to the life pattern the seeker has the responsibility of utilizing these resources in the service to others and in the enhancing of the life pattern. If the seeker is unable or unwilling to use that which it has learned, then it will find greater difficulty in its future seeking in discovering further principles and resources that will assist in this process. Thus, the Law of Responsibility simply asks each seeker to use that which is learned to the best of its ability in the life pattern, in revealing love to self, love for self, love to others, love for others.

Or perhaps the cliff-notes version - "the iterative integration of love and truth used to the best of the seeker's ability", or something like that.

Knowing that, are we still allowed to eat ice cream?

[Night Owl]

That's really the crux of it I think.

Say you are not empathic and walk into a place where someone feels depressed, you have no conscious responsibility because you are not aware of the ambient energy and will merely absorb unconsciously a small portion of it (small responsibility of having drawn yourself to walk in it).

Say you are empathic and walk into a place where someone feels depressed, you are conscious of the ambient energy and can't be unaware there is someone depressed. Because of this you are forced a polarized choice, you can either ignore the energy or work with it within yourself or find the person to help them directly. The awareness created a responsibility in that whatever your choice is, you can't not have a response because you are aware. Then the charge it held is balanced with your other charges and if you were untrue with yourself and your aims in your response, then you will attract catalyst to work those charges so that the various implicated aspects of yourself are balanced together (the initial event already was a catalyst refining these aspects).

Exept I don't believe there is such a thing as a non-empathetic person, and even less a non-empathetic person who would theoretically be true to oneself. I think that people who appear as non empathetic or think they're non empathetic are just exactly that which you describe as being not true to themselves. A person who identifies as empathetic basically just mean that person acknowledge and recognize the similitude of other people's emotion and their own. That this similitude exist isn't really a case of who is inside this room but who will recognize this happening. Emotions reflect whether that recognition is given or not. So I think someone identifying as not empathetic is simply using the mind construct of empathy to dissociate from a part of themselves.

Just keep in mind that while you are in the same room as someone else, they have already entered your consciousness.

[Minyatur]

In french we write it responsabilité which is pretty much response-ability.

The Law of Response-Ability.

[Jade]

Knowing that, are we still allowed to eat ice cream?

What a perfect example! Good thing there are cruelty free versions of ice cream, so the short answer is "yes!"

[Sprout]

Thank you Jade, your love and awareness is much appreciated. May I ask if  this can basically be applied to everything available to us? I mean as in, human and children labor for the products/gadgets/food/clothes/jewelery/transportation you name it. Something is always abused at some shape or form. I am not opposing this is the way things are and that we should shrug and justify our actions by that. But can we, is it possible to, love all who/that gave thier service, and ask for forgiveness and for them to be healed by the light of the creator in our meditations, and promise ourselves that we will learn to be better, and in time adapt to live without consuming these products. This reminds me of a paragraph by Ra that said you should try and teach/learn the other self from their level of knowledge. Yes we can use any type of information to wrong a persons actions at any given time, but we are all one and the same, we all came from earth, feed from earth, and return all this material to earth. I honestly thank you for opening up these harsh but non the less truthful matters.

Also;

40.14 Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the most or the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products.

[unity100]

Law of Responsibility is actually very simple to understand:

You are responsible with what you understand.

If your spiritual maturity has reached the point of being able to understand something, then you are responsible with living/doing according to that new understanding. Not doing so mobilizes cause-effect consequences which would be stronger according to the difference in between the understanding and the misaligned life or actions you take.

Mental conditioning, cultural biases, mental blockage, psychological issues, blockages, health issues - law of responsibility acts regardless of the situations preventing compliance with the new understanding.

Subconscious understanding seems to have stronger effect than conscious/mental understanding of something, and understanding something both consciously and subconsciously seems to be much, much stronger than just subconscious understanding. 

The impact seems to be proportional to the strength and clarity of understanding, and the importance and impact of the particular thing that is understood in life of the entity, or the society and planet in general.

Example of a person who had been enjoying a corporate career in a high position up until the point s/he realized internally, subconsciously that that life course is not compatible with his/her internal drive and spiritual desires, but keeps continuing what s/he had been doing due to societal conditioning, financial concerns, backlash from his/her social circle, only to start suffering backlash due to law of responsibility is an example.

Backlash may be anything. Higher levels of stress, manifesting as physical or psychological issues to more severe impact, and even being unable to just force oneself to stomach one more day at the office. Or, the backlash can come from his/her social circle, with entities in the family or friends circle who end up having to bear the burden of the impact of consequences from law of responsibility due to sharing their life and energies with the entity in question - anything, depending on the circumstances and nature of the person is possible.

Just conscious realization of something doesnt seem to have too much effect. For example the same person understanding that the corporate career s/he is in is a thankless treadmill which will bring some benefits and security in the end, but not being a vivid and pleasant way to live, will not suffer much effect impact from consequences from law of responsibility, as long as there isnt an accompanying subconscious understanding. 

The impact however, hits like a truck when a spiritual understanding is channeled to the entity's life through a subconscious and mental understanding. In such cases the effect is generally impossible to resist, and people end up changing their ways drastically in such cases. We can classify most of the cases which involve great life altering decisions by people in this classification.

Examples can be increased with however, whatever you may pick, since law of responsibility is all encompassing like any other spiritual law.

A person who subconsciously understands that animals have consciousness just like him/her, and realizes that eating another being would be as brutal as some other conscious being eating him/her...

A vegetarian person who subconsciously understands that plants also have consciousness of varying levels, and eating an uprooted plant is not so much different than eating an lower consciousness animal, or cutting down a tree is akin to killing a higher level animal...

............

Law of Responsibility is one of the most important spiritual laws acting on this society due to the tendency of this planet's society to denial, hypocrisy, irresponsibility and similar distorted behaviors. 

Just as Ra mentions in one relevant quote, people would learn and accept the spiritual lessons and concepts they were given during initiation, only to discard all of them the moment they exit the temple. 

Beyond societal irresponsibility, spiritual seekers generally have problems with the Law of Responsibility - many dont put into practice what they learn and understand. 

Law of Responsibility is rewarding as well as punishing: When the entity acts responsibly according to this law, the positive impact of the consequences of acting according to the new spiritual understanding is also proportionally great.

In cases of higher seeking and more spiritual advanced-ness, an entity which consciously oserves the Law of Responsibility consistently would have more autonomy and power in taking decisions, spiritual and non-spiritual, akin to the principle that allows an entity to be able to plan its own life before incarnation to the degree of its spiritual advanced-ness.

[Jade]

Thank you Jade, your love and awareness is much appreciated. May I ask if  this can basically be applied to everything available to us? I mean as in, human and children labor for the products/gadgets/food/clothes/jewelery/transportation you name it. Something is always abused at some shape or form. I am not opposing this is the way things are and that we should shrug and justify our actions by that. But can we, is it possible to, love all who/that gave thier service, and ask for forgiveness and for them to be healed by the light of the creator in our meditations, and promise ourselves that we will learn to be better, and in time adapt to live without consuming these products. This reminds me of a paragraph by Ra that said you should try and teach/learn the other self from their level of knowledge. Yes we can use any type of information to wrong a persons actions at any given time, but we are all one and the same, we all came from earth, feed from earth, and return all this material to earth. I honestly thank you for opening up these harsh but non the less truthful matters.

Also;

40.14 Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the most or the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products.

I believe so, personally. I don't think my personal convenience trumps someone else's freedom. As it stands, after a very long process of acknowledging what is wrong and trying to do better, I basically refuse to buy anything new that I can buy perfectly well used, because I don't want to contribute to the slave economy that is set up on our planet. Obviously I need basic things - food for myself, food for the other beings in my care - but eventually I want to work to growing all my own food, so that I am not contributing to that system as well. I buy all my clothes used. I buy any gadgets/tools that I need used. I try to repurpose things, avoid throwing creating more trash, compost - there are many little things we can do to lower the amount of energy drain we are putting on our planet just for our own personal convenience.

I think you are perfectly in the right position to say that we should recognize what we are doing wrong and work towards bettering it. Sometimes, it's easy to flip a switch and say "Okay, I'm done with that dirty part of third density!" but other times it takes a little longer, a little more thorough processing of catalyst.

I know at this point Tolstoy is my personal dead horse, but let me share this passage, which I think sums up what I would try to say in response to you, but I feel this does a better job than I can (ps: Tolstoy uses the word "Christian" interchangeably with how I would use "green ray"):

Men have long been living in antagonism to their conscience. If it were not for hypocrisy they could not go on living such a life. This social organization in opposition to their conscience only continues to exist because it is disguised by hypocrisy.

And the greater the divergence between actual life and men's conscience, the greater the extension of hypocrisy. But even hypocrisy has its limits. And it seems to me that we have reached those limits in the present day.

Every man of the present day with the Christian principles assimilated involuntarily in his conscience, finds himself in precisely the position of a man asleep who dreams that he is obliged to do something which even in his dream he knows he ought not to do. He knows this in the depths of his conscience, and all the same he seems unable to change his position; he cannot stop and cease doing what he ought not to do. And just as in a dream, his position becoming more and more painful, at last reaches such a pitch of intensity that he begins sometimes to doubt the reality of what is passing and makes a moral effort to shake off the nightmare which is oppressing him.

This is just the condition of the average man of our Christian society. He feels that all that he does himself and that is done around him is something absurd, hideous, impossible, and opposed to his conscience; he feels that his position is becoming more and more unendurable and reaching a crisis of intensity.

It is not possible that we modern men, with the Christian sense of human dignity and equality permeating us soul and body, with our need for peaceful association and unity between nations, should really go on living in such a way that every joy, every gratification we have is bought by the sufferings, by the lives of our brother men, and moreover, that we should be every instant within a hair's-breadth of falling on one another, nation against nation, like wild beasts, mercilessly destroying men's lives and labor, only because some benighted diplomatist or ruler says or writes some stupidity to another equally benighted diplomatist or ruler.

It is impossible. Yet every man of our day sees that this is so and awaits the calamity. And the situation becomes more and more insupportable.

And as the man who is dreaming does not believe that what appears to him can be truly the reality and tries to wake up to the actual real world again, so the average man of modern days cannot in the bottom of his heart believe that the awful position in which he is placed and which is growing worse and worse can be the reality, and tries to wake up to a true, real life, as it exists in his conscience.

And just as the dreamer need only make a moral effort and ask himself, "Isn't it a dream?" and the situation which seemed to him so hopeless will instantly disappear, and he will wake up to peaceful and happy reality, so the man of the modern world need only make a moral effort to doubt the reality presented to him by his own hypocrisy and the general hypocrisy around him, and to ask himself, "Isn't it all a delusion?" and he will at once, like the dreamer awakened, feel himself transported from an imaginary and dreadful world to the true, calm, and happy reality.

And to do this a man need accomplish no great feats or exploits. He need only make a moral effort.

But can a man make this effort?

According to the existing theory so essential to support hypocrisy, man is not free and cannot change his life.

"Man cannot change his life, because he is not free. He is not free, because all his actions are conditioned by previously existing causes. And whatever the man may do there are always some causes or other through which he does these or those acts, and therefore man cannot be free and change his life," say the champions of the metaphysics of hypocrisy. And they would be perfectly right if man were a creature without conscience and incapable of moving toward the truth; that is to say, if after recognizing a new truth, man always remained at the same stage of moral development. But man is a creature with a conscience and capable of attaining a higher and higher degree of truth. And therefore even if man is not free as regards performing these or those acts because there exists a previous cause for every act, the very causes of his acts, consisting as they do for the man of conscience of the recognition of this or that truth, are within his own control.

So that though man may not be free as regards the performance of his actions, he is free as regards the foundation on which they are performed. Just as the mechanician who is not free to modify the movement of his locomotive when it is in motion, is free to regulate the machine beforehand so as to determine what the movement is to be.

Whatever the conscious man does, he acts just as he does, and not otherwise, only because he recognizes that to act as he is acting is in accord with the truth, or because he has recognized it at some previous time, and is now only through inertia, through habit, acting in accordance with his previous recognition of truth.

In any case, the cause of his action is not to be found in any given previous fact, but in the consciousness of a given relation to truth, and the consequent recognition of this or that fact as a sufficient basis for action.

Whether a man eats or does not eat, works or rests, runs risks or avoids them, if he has a conscience he acts thus only because he considers it right and rational, because he considers that to act thus is in harmony with truth, or else because he has made this reflection in the past.

The recognition or non-recognition of a certain truth depends not on external causes, but on certain other causes within the man himself. So that at times under external conditions apparently very favorable for the recognition of truth, one man will not recognize it, and another, on the contrary, under the most unfavorable conditions will, without apparent cause, recognize it. As it is said in the Gospel, "No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." That is to say, the recognition of truth, which is the cause of all the manifestations of human life, does not depend on external phenomena, but on certain inner spiritual characteristics of the man which escape our observation.

And therefore man, though not free in his acts, always feels himself free in what is the motive of his acts--the recognition or non-recognition of truth. And he feels himself independent not only of facts external to his own personality, but even of his own actions.

Thus a man who under the influence of passion has committed an act contrary to the truth he recognizes, remains none the less free to recognize it or not to recognize it; that is, he can by refusing to recognize the truth regard his action as necessary and justifiable, or he may recognize the truth and regard his act as wrong and censure himself for it.

Thus a gambler or a drunkard who does not resist temptation and yields to his passion is still free to recognize gambling and drunkenness as wrong or to regard them as a harmless pastime. In the first case even if he does not at once get over his passion, he gets the more free from it the more sincerely he recognizes the truth about it; in the second case he will be strengthened in his vice and will deprive himself of every possibility of shaking it off.

In the same way a man who has made his escape alone from a house on fire, not having had the courage to save his friend, remains free, recognizing the truth that a man ought to save the life of another even at the risk of his own, to regard his action as bad and to censure himself for it, or, not recognizing this truth, to regard his action as natural and necessary and to justify it to himself. In the first case, if he recognizes the truth in spite of his departure from it, he prepares for himself in the future a whole series of acts of self-sacrifice necessarily flowing from this recognition of the truth; in the second case, a whole series of egoistic acts.

Not that a man is always free to recognize or to refuse to recognize every truth. There are truths which he has recognized long before or which have been handed down to him by education and tradition and accepted by him on faith, and to follow these truths has become a habit, a second nature with him; and there are truths, only vaguely, as it were distantly, apprehended by him. The man is not free to refuse to recognize the first, nor to recognize the second class of truths. But there are truths of a third kind, which have not yet become an unconscious motive of action, but yet have been revealed so clearly to him that he cannot pass them by, and is inevitably obliged to do one thing or the other, to recognize or not to recognize them. And it is in regard to these truths that the man's freedom manifests itself.

Every man during his life finds himself in regard to truth in the position of a man walking in the darkness with light thrown before him by the lantern he carries. He does not see what is not yet lighted up by the lantern; he does not see what he has passed which is hidden in the darkness; but at every stage of his journey he sees what is lighted up by the lantern, and he can always choose one side or the other of the road.

[Sprout]

Your reply is a blessing, it took me a while to read through the quote but I made some sense of it and the the duality within.

I just want to ask of you, if you claim that

I don't think my personal convenience trumps someone else's freedom.

Then why do you include tarrot into your replies?

[Jade]

Can you expand upon what you mean about adding the tarot into my replies? I'm not sure what you are asking. In the quote you made, I was talking mostly about human slave labor creating most of our goods. I add the tarot as just a nudge towards what I think the archetypical energies are being talked about. I don't think this affect's anyone's freedom, as this is a Law of One forum and everyone is aware of the tarot, and if you have no understanding of the tarot as such my insertion of images would probably make very little sense.

[Sprout]

You made a reply to my post and you included a tarrot, I did not give you a permisson to do me a reading in tarrot.

[Jade]

You made a reply to my post and you included a tarrot, I did not give you a permisson to do me a reading in tarrot.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. That wasn't a tarot reading. It was signalling that I believed that Tolstoy was speaking of the Potentiator of the Body and the Catalyst of the Body. The last line of the quote is very specifically talking about the Hermit archetype, and I think when he speaks about the being able to decide whether our decisions are beneficial or harmful is talking about the sphinx at the top of the wheel, the human consciounsess/conscience that can rise above our instinctual/habitual urges.

[Sacred Fool]

Hi, Jade.

Reading your thoughts, as it were, brings to mind Ra's comment on Martin Luther King, saying, as I recall, that he was more focused on third ray, not fourth ray issues: that is, on social responsibility, not spiritual responsibility.  Granted that these two can be inter-twined, I'm wondering how you view the emphasis of your (and Leo's) commitments.  Do you view them as working more on a social or on a spiritual level?  Do they appear more yellow or more green, so to speak?

 

[Jade]

Hi, Jade.

Reading your thoughts, as it were, brings to mind Ra's comment on Martin Luther King, saying, as I recall, that he was more focused on third ray, not fourth ray issues: that is, on social responsibility, not spiritual responsibility.  Granted that these two can be inter-twined, I'm wondering how you view the emphasis of your (and Leo's) commitments.  Do you view them as working more on a social or on a spiritual level?  Do they appear more yellow or more green, so to speak?

I'm not surprised you are reminded of MLK, as he was very heavily influenced by Tolstoy! But, I don't see what you are referring to as far as what you seem to remember. This is the only quote about MLK that I know of that Ra made:

34.9 Questioner: Thank you. Would you give me the same type of information about the self in relation to the societal self?

Ra: I am Ra. The unmanifested self may find its lessons those which develop any of the energy influx centers of the mind/body/spirit complex. The societal and self interactions most often concentrate upon the second and third energy centers. Thus those most active in attempting to remake or alter the society are those working from feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration. This may be seen to be of a full travel from negative to positive in orientation. Either will activate these energy ray centers.

There are some few whose desires to aid society are of a green-ray nature or above. These entities, however, are few due to the understanding, may we say, of fourth ray that universal love freely given is more to be desired than principalities or even the rearrangement of peoples or political structures.

34.10 Questioner: If an entity were to be strongly biased toward positive societal effects, what would this do to his yellow ray in the aura as opposed to an entity who wanted to create an empire of society and govern it with an iron fist? What would be the difference in the yellow-ray activity of these two entities?

Ra: I am Ra. Let us take two such positively oriented active souls no longer in your physical time/space. The one known as Albert, who went into a strange and, to it, a barbaric society in order that it might heal. This entity was able to mobilize great amounts of energy and what you call money. This entity spent much green-ray energy both as a healer and as a lover of your instrument known as the organ. This entity’s yellow ray was bright and crystallized by the efforts needed to procure the funds to promulgate its efforts. However, the green and blue rays were of a toweringly brilliant nature as well. The higher levels, as you may call them, being activated, the lower, as you may call them, energy points remain, in a balanced being, quite, quite bright.

The other example is the entity, Martin. This entity dealt in a great degree with rather negative orange-ray and yellow-ray vibratory patterns. However, this entity was able to keep open the green-ray energy and due to the severity of its testing, if anything, this entity may be seen to have polarized more towards the positive due to its fidelity to service to others in the face of great catalyst.

(I added the previous quote for context in the discussion as well)

Being that Tolstoy was an anarchist, I don't think he believed that rearranging social structures was the answer to our problems, quite the contrary. He believed that each individual person taking responsibility for nonviolence and total selflessness towards others (turn the other cheek) was what would transform society.

I think we incarnated to work with the yellow-ray sphere, directly, hence this is part of our honor/responsibility, since the yellow ray sphere of this planet is severely distorted. I do not see the yellow ray as less spiritual. The yellow ray must be functioning properly for the green ray to be activated, work that still is in progress on this planet.

I'm happy to further elaborate if this doesn't clarify your question!

[Glow]

Hello all,

Recently I have been guided to study and better understand the "Law of Responsibility." I have only found the two following passages on the phrase thus far:

22.5 Questioner: Then can you give me a— Can I assume then that this drastic drop from 700-year life span to one— less than one hundred years in length during this second 25,000-year period was because of an intensification of a… of a condition of lack of service to others? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is in part correct. By the end of the second cycle, the Law of Responsibility had begun to be effectuated by the increasing ability of entities to grasp those lessons which there are to be learned in this density. Thus, entities had discovered many ways to indicate a bellicose nature, not only as tribes or what you call nations but in personal relationships, each with the other, the concept of barter having given way in many cases to the concept of money; also, the concept of ownership having won ascendancy over the concept of non-ownership on an individual or group basis.

Each entity then was offered many more subtle ways of demonstrating either service towards others or service to self with the distortion of the manipulation of others. As each lesson was understood, those lessons of sharing, of giving, of receiving in free gratitude— each lesson could be rejected in practice.

Without demonstrating the fruits of such learn/teaching the life span became greatly reduced, for the ways of honor/duty were not being accepted.

101.8 Questioner: Thank you. Could Ra give information on any way that we could give information to Greta Woodrew as to how to alleviate her present condition of swelling?

Ra: I am Ra. We may only suggest that the honor of propinquity to light carries with it the Law of Responsibility. The duty to refrain from contumely, discord, and all things which, when unresolved within, make way for workings lies before the instrument of which you speak. This entity may, if it is desired by the scribe, share our comments upon the working of the latter entity.

The entity which is given constant and unremitting approval by those surrounding it suffers from the loss of the mirroring effect of those which reflect truthfully rather than unquestioningly. This is not a suggestion to reinstate judgment but merely a suggestion for all those supporting instruments; that is, support, be harmonious, share in love, joy, and thanksgiving, but find love within truth, for each instrument benefits from this support more than from the total admiration which overcomes discrimination.

The above quotations did not paint a clear picture for me.


What is the Law of Responsibility? Are there other LOO Q&A that refer to the Law of Responsibility? Your thoughts, opinions, and insight are appreciated.

Karma aka cause and effect.

I would see the second quote explaining that Greta did not have accurate mirrors to reflect her "cause"/behavior so her "effect"/catalyst was presenting different/physically.
Even when not aware consciously we are still responsible(note the retroactive responsibility in sprouts quote). It is cause and effect. All healed by forgiveness of self and otherself but to do that one truly needs to understand thereby making the catalyst unnecessary.

[Sprout]

You made a reply to my post and you included a tarrot, I did not give you a permisson to do me a reading in tarrot.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. That wasn't a tarot reading. It was signalling that I believed that Tolstoy was speaking of the Potentiator of the Body and the Catalyst of the Body. The last line of the quote is very specifically talking about the Hermit archetype, and I think when he speaks about the being able to decide whether our decisions are beneficial or harmful is talking about the sphinx at the top of the wheel, the human consciounsess/conscience that can rise above our instinctual/habitual urges.

Your apology is much much appreciated, I hope this has caused no conflicts between us and that all is done from pure love and teach/learn learn/teach.
Tarrot, in my person opinion is an area where one should ask for permission from the other before introducing to such magical and catalytic gadgets.

[Jade]

You made a reply to my post and you included a tarrot, I did not give you a permisson to do me a reading in tarrot.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. That wasn't a tarot reading. It was signalling that I believed that Tolstoy was speaking of the Potentiator of the Body and the Catalyst of the Body. The last line of the quote is very specifically talking about the Hermit archetype, and I think when he speaks about the being able to decide whether our decisions are beneficial or harmful is talking about the sphinx at the top of the wheel, the human consciounsess/conscience that can rise above our instinctual/habitual urges.

Your apology is much much appreciated, I hope this has caused no conflicts between us and that all is done from pure love and teach/learn learn/teach.
Tarrot, in my person opinion is an area where one should ask for permission from the other before introducing to such magical and catalytic gadgets.

I appreciate your feedback. So you believe it is improper to refer to the archetypes as Ra uses them in Book 4? I guess I was of the opinion that if you had read the Law of One, that you were already aware of the archetypes and therefore it wouldn't be a free will violation, as I am not the one introducing them to anyone. But, I think this is a perfect example of the Law of Responsibility - if they mean something to you, you can't ignore it. If they weren't meant to be a magical trigger, you would just ignore them.


You can't escape the archetypes, they are encoded into reality. I personally don't think putting a picture to the energetic motion is really a free will violation. But if I hear enough otherwise, I will avoid using them in my posts. I just thought it was a helpful way of understanding the philosophy on a deeper level. I don't believe that just looking at the pictures will cause significant magical changes within one unless they have developed a relationship to the symbology. And if you have, then it is a responsibility to apply what you have learned and not ignore it! I'm definitely open to more feedback, however, if others have a problem with my posting style, in any way. I try to internalize any constructive criticism, even if I disagree, that doesn't mean I won't change my behaviors to suit the needs of the greater good.

[Sprout]

You made a reply to my post and you included a tarrot, I did not give you a permisson to do me a reading in tarrot.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. That wasn't a tarot reading. It was signalling that I believed that Tolstoy was speaking of the Potentiator of the Body and the Catalyst of the Body. The last line of the quote is very specifically talking about the Hermit archetype, and I think when he speaks about the being able to decide whether our decisions are beneficial or harmful is talking about the sphinx at the top of the wheel, the human consciounsess/conscience that can rise above our instinctual/habitual urges.

Your apology is much much appreciated, I hope this has caused no conflicts between us and that all is done from pure love and teach/learn learn/teach.
Tarrot, in my person opinion is an area where one should ask for permission from the other before introducing to such magical and catalytic gadgets.

I appreciate your feedback. So you believe it is improper to refer to the archetypes as Ra uses them in Book 4? I guess I was of the opinion that if you had read the Law of One, that you were already aware of the archetypes and therefore it wouldn't be a free will violation, as I am not the one introducing them to anyone. But, I think this is a perfect example of the Law of Responsibility - if they mean something to you, you can't ignore it. If they weren't meant to be a magical trigger, you would just ignore them.


You can't escape the archetypes, they are encoded into reality. I personally don't think putting a picture to the energetic motion is really a free will violation. But if I hear enough otherwise, I will avoid using them in my posts. I just thought it was a helpful way of understanding the philosophy on a deeper level. I don't believe that just looking at the pictures will cause significant magical changes within one unless they have developed a relationship to the symbology. And if you have, then it is a responsibility to apply what you have learned and not ignore it! I'm definitely open to more feedback, however, if others have a problem with my posting style, in any way. I try to internalize any constructive criticism, even if I disagree, that doesn't mean I won't change my behaviors to suit the needs of the greater good.

The tarot are a tool to study the archtypes, there is a place and time for everything. I know and believe that you act from a truthful heart to teach/learn learn/teach, this is why instead of ignoring away I actually wanted us to share both our hearts knowledge.
The place and time for developing a magical peraonality via tarot is to the decision of the co-creator. What I interpret from that tarot in regard to a specific topic is distorted and not what you view/interpret. Even if you came in good will, the other-self might get thrown into great turmoil if said co-creator hasn't prepared for such magical teaching.

[Jade]

I guess I was under the impression that if one was posting on these forums, that they were doing so as a means of working on developing their magical personality. There is a "point of no return" where Ra tells Don that he is taking on the responsibility of being a healer by asking for this information, and I think at that same point the reader commits to the honor/responsibility of learning the information, as well.

[quote]4.15 Questioner: Then would it [be] possible for you to train us in healing practice?

Ra: I am Ra. It is possible.

4.16 Questioner: Will you train us?

Ra: We will.

....


[4.20]One item which may be of interest is that a healer asking to learn must take the distortion understood as responsibility for that ask/receiving, thus healing. This is a[n] honor/duty which must be carefully considered in free will before the asking.[quote]

[Sprout]

So you're basically saying it is an honor/duty of the self to decide when it is appropriate to do magical working via tarot for the other-self? This can't be it. That's brainwashing.
I will study the archtypes in relation to my reality and personal progress not because of a harmless exchange in distortions. You've basically taken an honor/duty into your hands and applied a great magical power to enchance what was said by someone who isn't even amongst us to provide further energy and vocabulary exchange. Unless the veil is lifted these are all opinions. (Not that I do not agree with some of what was said, but I hope you can understand me)

[xise]

I actually meant to specifically put in the OP that I was interested in how the Law of Responsibility interacts or is present with the Ra-tarot archetypes, but forgot to after all the cutting and pasting. Thank you Jade.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

I thought the Law of Responsibility was a Sub-Law to the Law of Karma.  A nuance.

I don't come here to practice a magical personality, I think it's really dangerous for me so I refrain.  I come here to learn more about Unity and Love.

Like for instance, this is just off the top of my head.  Aion pointed out my astrology chart was one to reconcile Death and Love, this information might have set me up to karmically begin receiving catalyst related to that lesson.  It is considered, I thought, a karmic duty to try to notice that lesson to respond with it in mind.  The responsibility being simply to try.

As a irresponsible person with catalyst, I like to think I have a good idea of Responsibility, otherwise I couldn't shirk it so well...

Other ideas are interesting here, I think facebook had a list of Karmic Laws floating around it somewhere that I once edited for clarity to great affection by a lot of people who were put off by its almost kindergarden tier grammar and spelling errors.  I should have saved it to a Word document when I had the chance.  2014 was a magical time for me, everything made sense.  What I would do to be 22 again.