Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
03-21-2019, 11:25 AM,
#91
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
(03-21-2019, 11:13 AM)redchartreuse Wrote:  I was looking forward to seeing if there were any stimulating responses to the question of whether some people are truly choosing to sleep, or whether it is more like they have been drugged and put to sleep.

So far, I would say the overall weight of opinion in this thread is sharply biased toward the first option.  However, little has been offered in terms of any real consideration of the second option.


They are being drugged, since it is easier to sleep and not feel all this.
But they chose this before this incarnation.. what they chose was the extent of how much balance and growth would be expected of them in order to not get ill in the incarnation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Cainite's post:
Cyan, flofrog
03-21-2019, 12:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-21-2019, 12:48 PM by redchartreuse.)
#92
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
(03-21-2019, 10:59 AM)Diana Wrote:  Out in the world, this is not the case. People go about their business, shopping, working, taking care of their families, and all the things people do. They don't necessarily want to discuss anything, so this is not a given in the world of human interaction.

Well, yes.  But I'm just not sure what you are responding to.  Are you imagining somebody running wild in public and getting up in people's faces "telling them how it is"?   Or... where are you coming from on this?  

Quote:I do think evolving is an innate imperative, but most people resist that which points out the need to change or grow.

Why do you think that it is the case that "most people resist" growth?  And would you imagine that is typical behavior of 3D/4D entities at large, or might it be connected to something more specific to this sphere?  

Quote:So I don't think there is any level of consent one can assume with human interaction in general.

I would also invite you to consider the world where people do not smile at one another, out of concern not to offend.

There is definitely no need for one of us to be "right" and the other "wrong" on this, however to my perception I take the teachings about this place being a school at face value.  So the entire context is one of a classroom, for me.  I don't see it as out of place to expect others to learn in a place of teaching.  

Quote:I don't need to be asked by anyone to participate in any discussion here. I can see that maybe you feel I singled you out. That was not my intention. I was just expressing my thoughts on the subject—which are not rigid by the way. I reserve the right to change and evolve my perceptions.

No, of course you don't need to be asked in order to participate!  I was just offering the observation that you chose to take the opportunity to step in between an interaction, and speak on behalf of another person.  Or did you choose this?  Perhaps it was unconscious on your part.  I wouldn't know.

Quote:The OP seemed to me to reflect the idea that you wanted to make (anyone) asleep get your messages. But that was an assumption on my part. Apologies if I was wrong about that.

Apologies accepted.  I would invite you to re-read the OP and let me know if you see that again.  

Quote:Maybe in an inconsequential interaction such as a random greeting or casual conversation where there is nothing to attach to this is true (and might be what you mean?).

Yes.  The thing that I somewhat foolishly referred to as a "zen slap" would be something that occurs in the context of there already being some type of conversation at hand.  It may or may not be totally "casual" in terms of the topic, depending on how you would look at it.

But no, it has nothing to do with invading people's personal spaces while they are out and about doing their daily round of activities!  Besides... acting that way is likely to get somebody slapped for real, or worse.

I'm still not sure what sort of scenarios you are envisioning here.   Sounds to me kind of like the sort of behavior an overzealous activist might display in public toward others... is that what you are talking about?

What I am talking about is when another person treads into a conversation or other interaction, and makes a comment of some sort.  I take that as permission enough to offer my own perceptions and opinions in return.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2019, 12:17 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-21-2019, 12:18 PM by redchartreuse.)
#93
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
(03-21-2019, 11:25 AM)Cainite Wrote:  But they chose this before this incarnation.. what they chose was the extent of how much balance and growth would be expected of them in order to not get ill in the incarnation.

Why do you think someone might choose this?  I'm asking about the purpose- the will-  behind such a choice.  Because in seeing no purpose, I find myself concluding that a free will choice did not occur.

I'm not saying you would necessarily know!  I certainly don't know.  And it doesn't seem that anybody here in the thread knows either.

As for free will, this is what I am trying to say.  I believe that free will, first and foremost, requires an act of the will.  Secondly, that the will must be truly free.  

I'm assuming we would agree on at least that much.  I will leave it to you to point out where our views appear to diverge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2019, 12:22 PM,
#94
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
I'm strongly of the opinion that most spirits prefer sleeping and the joy of imagination to the reality and its harsh chores, i could be wrong but to me it seems very well a pleasure oriented choice and to be commended.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Cyan's post:
flofrog
03-22-2019, 10:17 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-22-2019, 11:12 AM by Cainite.)
#95
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
(03-21-2019, 12:17 PM)redchartreuse Wrote:  
(03-21-2019, 11:25 AM)Cainite Wrote:  But they chose this before this incarnation.. what they chose was the extent of how much balance and growth would be expected of them in order to not get ill in the incarnation.

Why do you think someone might choose this?  I'm asking about the purpose- the will-  behind such a choice.  Because in seeing no purpose, I find myself concluding that a free will choice did not occur.

I'm not saying you would necessarily know!  I certainly don't know.  And it doesn't seem that anybody here in the thread knows either.

As for free will, this is what I am trying to say.  I believe that free will, first and foremost, requires an act of the will.  Secondly, that the will must be truly free.  

I'm assuming we would agree on at least that much.  I will leave it to you to point out where our views appear to diverge.

To gather data/experience maybe? or provide catalysts that more evolved entities wouldn't normally provide (as I explained before, they provide suffering)

about freewill; I honestly haven't focused enough on it.
My current belief is that we are thrown into a video game with consequences. having ''freewill'' would be allowing us to have the freewill to trick each other and rob each other of freewill as well.

You may have noticed that so many things are paradoxical and utterly confusing. this is one of them I guess Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-22-2019, 11:37 AM,
#96
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
Ok I'm not going to be part of this discussion anymore. my time here is up.
I have to concentrate on something else for sometime and have to totally let go of my desire to come to this forum.


The 14 members that are in tune with my distortions don't need what I provide.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Cainite's post:
xise
03-22-2019, 01:10 PM,
#97
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
Be well Cainite, we’ll miss you for a while my friend. Much love
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like flofrog's post:
Cainite, xise
04-11-2019, 12:54 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-11-2019, 01:09 PM by einmal.)
#98
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
(03-08-2019, 07:01 PM)unity100 Wrote:  
Quote:Secondly- Ra says here that these two beings polarized negatively despite having created results contrary to their intentions.  So which is it that holds sway in determining the polarization?  Intentions or outcomes?

Dominating entities to physical death and exerting control over legions of people is negative polarization. There are no two ways to it. It cannot be 'i intended very good things but that just happened'. The complicated situations of these entities' spiritual development are their own, but in the end if you do negative acts, and accept the ensuing negative polarization, negative polarization happens...

That makes me wonder if it was Adolf, who was, described by those of Ra as largely-confused and negative in essence.

Perhaps it was Adolf who was one of the two wanderers that F'd up big-time? Ra was specifically discreet with references to this entity out of what seems to be some type of respect.

But you know Adolf has to repeat 3rd density ... there just isn't any other way about it. You can't insufficiently polarize (as stated by Ra) and then kill yourself and then expect to actually be able to go on to either 4D direction ... right? Remember that Adolf actually thought he was helping those by creating the elite/not-elite class structure (in pursuit of a very skewed kind of "stability" perceived by him as being helpful, at the time). And this confusion prevented his ultimate harvest-ability. Just another two cents re: the intention/outcome thing.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this matter. The fact that Hitler was so apparently interested in the 'occult matters' and seemed to really have quite a faith in ... something metaphysical ... makes me think he might not have originally been hailing from 2nd or 3rd density when he came in 1889. He announced his intentions to "help and lead his people" supposedly as early as 15 after seeing Rienzi for the first time in Linz. Read this interesting account: http://www.faem.com/books/yhik10.htm

Here's a short quote. Of course these accounts could be forged, I encourage everyone to use their own discernment.

Quote:Hitherto I had been convinced that my friend wanted to become an artist, a painter, or perhaps an architect. Now this was no longer the case. Now he aspired to something higher, which I could not yet fully grasp. It rather surprised me, as I thought that the vocation of the artist was for him the highest, most desirable goal. But now he was talking of a mandate which, one day, he would receive from the people, to lead them out of servitude to the heights of freedom.

It was an unknown youth who spoke to me in that strange hour. He spoke of a special mission which one day would be entrusted to him, and I, his only listener, could hardly understand what he meant. Many years had to pass before I realized the significance of this enraptured hour for my friend.

His words were followed by silence.

We descended into the town. The clock struck three. We parted in front of my house. Adolf shook hands with me, and I was astonished to see that he did not go in the direction of his home, but turned again towards the mountains.

"Where are you going now?" I asked him, surprised. He replied briefly, "I want to be alone."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2019, 02:00 PM,
#99
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
(04-11-2019, 12:54 PM)einmal Wrote:  
(03-08-2019, 07:01 PM)unity100 Wrote:  
Quote:Secondly- Ra says here that these two beings polarized negatively despite having created results contrary to their intentions.  So which is it that holds sway in determining the polarization?  Intentions or outcomes?

Dominating entities to physical death and exerting control over legions of people is negative polarization. There are no two ways to it. It cannot be 'i intended very good things but that just happened'. The complicated situations of these entities' spiritual development are their own, but in the end if you do negative acts, and accept the ensuing negative polarization, negative polarization happens...

That makes me wonder if it was Adolf, who was, described by those of Ra as largely-confused and negative in essence.

Ra mentions that those 2 entities later joined them in Ra's 4d experience. If they were in 4d already ~3-4 billion years ago, there is no way they will be in 3rd density as adolf hitler in 1930s.

Quote:Perhaps it was Adolf who was one of the two wanderers that F'd up big-time? Ra was specifically discreet with references to this entity out of what seems to be some type of respect.

I never saw any statement in Ra material towards any entity which was made without respect.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes unity100's post:
einmal
04-11-2019, 03:47 PM,
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
So agree, Ra has sacred respect for any entity of any density.

I curiously might have misread Ra. I was under the impression that Hitler did think he was doing something absolutely positive and as such, was confused after incarnation as to the effect of his actions. I must have really misunderstood what Ra was saying..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2019, 04:21 PM,
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
(04-11-2019, 03:47 PM)flofrog Wrote:  So agree, Ra has sacred respect for any entity of any density.

I curiously might have misread Ra. I was under the impression that Hitler did  think he was doing something absolutely positive and as such, was confused  after incarnation as to the effect of his actions. I must have really misunderstood what Ra was saying..

I am under the same impression regarding Hitler, that he was confused. I don't think you misunderstood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like IndigoGeminiWolf's post:
einmal, flofrog
04-11-2019, 04:39 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-11-2019, 04:41 PM by einmal.)
RE: Session 89 - Two Negatively Polarizing Wanderers
IGW, I actually agree with both of you completely.

I forget that the entities later rejoined in 4D. That definitely puts this out of the question (and actually makes the most sense, to me, to be honest)

(04-11-2019, 03:47 PM)flofrog Wrote:  So agree, Ra has sacred respect for any entity of any density.

I curiously might have misread Ra. I was under the impression that Hitler did think he was doing something absolutely positive and as such, was confused after incarnation as to the effect of his actions. I must have really misunderstood what Ra was saying..

Semantically I think right/correct would be the most accurate terminology. Hitler was too concerned about retribution and justification for positivity to have played a real role in his thought process. But I do agree with your basic statement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes einmal's post:
flofrog




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)