More Positive but Less Harvestable
06-23-2011, 06:15 PM,
#1
More Positive but Less Harvestable
Quote:34.17 Questioner: Is it possible for you to use as an example our General Patton and tell me the effect that war had on him in his development?
Ra: I am Ra. This will be the last full question of this working. The one of whom you speak, known as George, was one in whom the programming of previous incarnations had created a pattern or inertia which was irresistible in its incarnation in your time/space. This entity was of a strong yellow ray activation with frequent green ray openings and occasional blue ray openings. However, it did not find itself able to break the mold of previous traumatic experiences of a bellicose nature.

This entity polarized somewhat towards the positive in its incarnation due to its singleness of belief in truth and beauty. This entity was quite sensitive. It felt a great honor/duty to the preservation of that which was felt by the entity to be true, beautiful, and in need of defense. This entity perceived itself a gallant figure. It polarized somewhat towards the negative in its lack of understanding the green ray it carried with it, rejecting the forgiveness principle which is implicit in universal love.

The sum total of this incarnation vibrationally was a slight increase in positive polarity but a decrease in harvestability due to the rejection of the Law or Way of Responsibility; that is, seeing universal love, yet still it fought on.

This quote has so many facets.

There is a man who touches universal love but chooses his activist mentality for mankind instead.

There is flapping doors of green and blue energy waves.

There is a DECREASE in harvestability even when he is inching closer to positive. Does this mean he was around 96% negative and moved to, say, 94%?

If only he had used the Way of Responsibility to be even more bellicose towards others, he would have become harvestable. No?

Can we just 'bombard' this quote with our ideas?
I suppose he would've reincarnated as a terrorist to make harvest?
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 07:03 PM,
#2
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
Soooo he was more positive in that he gained more understanding during the incarnation of universal Love (through whatever catalys he experienced) Yet was less harvestable because even in recognizing this love he Continued to fight?? ORR it means he became more positive and less harevestable for negative polarity. Securing his place in the wash out of 3d souls to reincarnate in 3d?? The second seems more likely. He chose in this last incarnation to pursue a positive path through 4d, so began moving the opposite direction??
11 Namaste 11
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 07:20 PM,
#3
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-23-2011, 07:03 PM)111 Wrote:  Soooo he was more positive in that he gained more understanding during the incarnation of universal Love (through whatever catalys he experienced) Yet was less harvestable because even in recognizing this love he Continued to fight?? ORR it means he became more positive and less harevestable for negative polarity. Securing his place in the wash out of 3d souls to reincarnate in 3d?? The second seems more likely. He chose in this last incarnation to pursue a positive path through 4d, so began moving the opposite direction??

patton lost harvestability because he REJECTED law of responsibility.

law of responsibility was requiring that he no longer engaged in bellicose acts, since he was now able to see universal love of green ray.

he rejected law of responsibility, and fought on. therefore, lost harvestability.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 07:27 PM,
#4
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
Lost positive or negative harvestability?
11 Namaste 11
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 08:15 PM,
#5
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
. The law of responsibilty was requiring that he use the new found light. Either MORE bellicose in self serving fashion OR in a others serving fashion.

The fact that he didn't do anything with it is what caused him not to Break the mold.

I would like to reiterate that law of responsibility isn't obligation to 3D perceived morality.
(06-23-2011, 07:27 PM)111 Wrote:  Lost positive or negative harvestability?

I know, right?

Is it possible to lose positive harvestability whilst gaining polarization toward positive?
If it is, we are all up a creek, no?
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 09:29 PM,
#6
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
I'm pretty sure it means he gained a slight positive polarity. Enough to keep him from graduating 4d negative. But I could be wrong Big Grin
11 Namaste 11
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 09:46 PM,
#7
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
Quote:34.18 Questioner: Do we have enough time for me to ask if the death, almost immediately after the cessation of war, of this entity could have been so that it could have immediately been reincarnated so that it could make harvest?
Ra: I am Ra. This is precisely correct.

This is the follow up question.

So, he couldn't "make" harvest in time/space.

I suppose he could've incarnated at a time past also.

It is curious still. His harvestability decreased, his positive polarity increased, and he wants to make harvest.

This all seems very flimsy to me.
Quote:41.18 Questioner: Thank you. In the session from the day before yesterday you mentioned variable speed of rotation or activity of energy centers. What did you mean by that?
Ra: I am Ra. Each energy center has a wide range of rotational speed or as you may see it more clearly in relation to color, brilliance. The more strongly the will of the entity concentrates upon and refines or purifies each energy center, the more brilliant or rotationally active each energy center will be. It is not necessary for the energy centers to be activated in order in the case of the self-aware entity. Thusly entities may have extremely brilliant energy centers while being quite unbalanced in their violet ray aspect due to lack of attention paid to the totality of experience of the entity.

The key to balance may then be seen in the unstudied, spontaneous, and honest response of entities toward experiences, thus using experience to the utmost, then applying the balancing exercises and achieving the proper attitude for the most purified spectrum of energy center manifestation in violet ray. This is why the brilliance or rotational speed of the energy centers is not considered above the balanced aspect or violet ray manifestation of an entity in regarding harvestability; for those entities which are unbalanced, especially as to the primary rays, will not be capable of sustaining the impact of the love and light of intelligent infinity to the extent necessary for harvest.

Here is a clue.

In a sense, he reached a level of will and then retracted from it.

Geez. I am in big trouble. (see, it's better to just be ignorant)
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 10:33 PM,
#8
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-23-2011, 07:27 PM)111 Wrote:  Lost positive or negative harvestability?

you dont lose negative harvestability for keeping on aggressive acts for 4d negative harvest.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 11:08 PM,
#9
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-23-2011, 10:33 PM)unity100 Wrote:  
(06-23-2011, 07:27 PM)111 Wrote:  Lost positive or negative harvestability?

you dont lose negative harvestability for keeping on aggressive acts for 4d negative harvest.

no, I assume you would lose negative harvestability by polarizing toward positive.

You see? Patton's overall incarnation was a polarizing toward positive although he "fought on".

So, the imaginary scale meter moved toward positive and away from harvestability.
Perhaps there are some hidden clues here. Like his thoughts of seeing universal love caused his polarization toward positive.
And his actions, under the law of responsibility, ignored his seeing of universal love (his will looked away) and this, in turn, denied him the action of breaking the mold he had created for himself. Turning away from his "responsibility" to himself, he became less harvestable despite his polarization level. Maybe?
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 11:37 PM,
#10
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
I think he was positive. He had frequent green ray openings and occasional blue ray openings, neither of which would be likely for a harvestable negative entity. He was fighting to defend what he found true and beautiful, which is an instinct that Ra says continues through fourth density positive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 11:41 PM,
#11
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-23-2011, 11:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:  I think he was positive. He had frequent green ray openings and occasional blue ray openings, neither of which would be likely for a harvestable negative entity. He was fighting to defend what he found true and beautiful, which is an instinct that Ra says continues through fourth density positive.

What do you make of the "decrease of harvestability?"
(06-23-2011, 11:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:  He was fighting to defend what he found true and beautiful, which is an instinct that Ra says continues through fourth density positive.

I see this as well. Doesn't it say something for intention being a polarizing quality?
In addition to that, he rejected the Law/Way of Responsibility by not acting on what he found true and beautiful, instead he continued to fight. He rejected his new found green ray opening and looked back to his trusty yellow ray. Thus, rejecting the light. Thus, not breaking away from his 3D existence.
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 11:51 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-24-2011, 12:06 AM by Bring4th_Austin.)
#12
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
Ra says he lost harvestability "due to the rejection of the Law or Way of Responsibility; that is, seeing universal love, yet still it fought on," not due to the increase in positive polarity.

I think he gained positive polarity because he saw universal love, and lost harvestability because he ignored it. He didn't see other beings as something to be used, manipulated, or ignored (STS), he saw them as beings deserving of love (STO), yet he ignored that awareness.
_____________________________
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Bring4th_Austin's post:
kycahi, Monica
06-23-2011, 11:57 PM,
#13
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
Nitpicking, but slight correction, Austin. "he gained [positive] polarity".

....
Obviously, I'm enjoying trying to grasp this.

Okay, so, he wanted to REincarnate quickly so that he could try again to apply the achieved light level through the Law of Responsibility (basically, put it to use), not so much to achieve a particular polarization?
If that is the case, polarization isn't the only ticket into the Fourth Density.

If I'm not applying my light level moment by moment, I am in jeopardy of becoming less harvestable.

(Yikes. I'm not even sure what my light level is, or my polarization level.)
(more personal musings: This leads me right back to the beginning of existence. To just go through the motions, step out into experiences, and let the chips fall where they may)
(I could be ordering men to murder others in war and still be polarizing toward positive. Or I could be operating an orphanage but be so misguided in my intentions that I polarize toward negative. )
(all the while, if I catch a glimpse of green ray love and don't use it, polarization is irrelevant)
Quote this message in a reply
06-24-2011, 12:06 AM,
#14
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-23-2011, 11:41 PM)3DMonkey Wrote:  In addition to that, he rejected the Law/Way of Responsibility by not acting on what he found true and beautiful, instead he continued to fight. He rejected his new found green ray opening and looked back to his trusty yellow ray. Thus, rejecting the light. Thus, not breaking away from his 3D existence.

(06-23-2011, 11:51 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote:  He didn't see other beings as something to be used, manipulated, or ignored (STS), he saw them as beings deserving of love (STO), yet he ignored that awareness.

I agree with you both. To get specific, I would guess that he saw America and the American way of life as something true, beautiful, and to be defended, and that his green-ray openings, which he ignored, had to do with feelings of compassion for the Germans and others that he was fighting against.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-24-2011, 07:28 AM,
#15
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
Quote:Questioner: What process would be the recommended process for correctly awakening the kundalini and of what value would that be?
Ra: I am Ra. The metaphor of the coiled serpent being called upwards is vastly appropriate for consideration by your peoples. This is what you are attempting when you seek. There are, as we have stated, great misapprehensions concerning this metaphor and the nature of pursuing its goal. We must generalize and ask that you grasp the fact that this in effect renders far less useful that which we share. However, as each entity is unique, generalities are our lot when communicating for your possible edification.

We have two types of energy. We are attempting then, as entities in any true color of this octave, to move the meeting place of inner and outer natures further and further along or upward along the energy centers. The two methods of approaching this with sensible method are first, the seating within one’s self of those experiences which are attracted to the entity through the south pole. Each experience will need to be observed, experienced, balanced, accepted, and seated within the individual. As the entity grows in self-acceptance and awareness of catalyst the location of the comfortable seating of these experiences will rise to the new true color entity. The experience, whatever it may be, will be seated in red ray and considered as to its survival content and so forth.

Each experience will be sequentially understood by the growing and seeking mind/body/spirit complex in terms of survival, then in terms of personal identity, then in terms of social relations, then in terms of universal love, then in terms of how the experience may beget free communication, then in terms of how the experience may be linked to universal energies, and finally in terms of the sacramental nature of each experience.

Meanwhile the Creator lies within. In the north pole the crown is already upon the head and the entity is potentially a god. This energy is brought into being by the humble and trusting acceptance of this energy through meditation and contemplation of the self and of the Creator.

Where these energies meet is where the serpent will have achieved its height. When this uncoiled energy approaches universal love and radiant being the entity is in a state whereby the harvestability of the entity comes nigh.

The "uncoiled serpent," or the locus of the meeting of the energies, traveled north towards universal love. The experiences of promoting bellicosity, despite the green ray opening (I guess that's what Ra considers polarization here), was not understood with universal love, thus the locus lowered from the heart, and harvestability was lost
_____________________________
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-26-2011, 09:26 PM,
#16
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
3DMonkey Wrote:
Quote:Turning away from his "responsibility" to himself, he became less harvestable despite his polarization level. Maybe?

Quote:(all the while, if I catch a glimpse of green ray love and don't use it, polarization is irrelevant)

I think you got it right there. Smile

I also think Ra's wording in the phrase "a slight increase in positive polarity but a decrease in harvestability" rules out a decrease in negative harvestability. In that case, it would be "and" instead of "but".

Couldn't a being be incredibly positively polarized, but not harvestable if they "sat on" their potential, not doing anything with the increased ability that a high positive polarization brings? It would be in that way that they don't follow the Law of Responsibility. They wouldn't be harvestable because although they had the being side down, they didn't DO much of anything positive, giving to the people around them.
"A mountain holds an echo deep inside. That's how I hold your voice."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-26-2011, 09:47 PM,
#17
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
Thank you, Aaron.

This is something I want to read over again and think about some more. I'm still quite fascinated by it.

I'm thinking about the great discussion recently about the percentage of activated green ray necessary.

Musing: I could have a momentary flash of, say, 85% of positive green ray activation. It would be wonderful, no doubt. The thought of applying this in love could actually scare me (probably due to unbalanced lower chakras), cause me to revert, *ziiiip*, back down to a sustainable 22.35% open green, which actually might be an improvement to my usual 21.85% I had the day before.
Smile... And then I might proceed to whine about how 'I'm not experiencing this stuff' or 'if I could only catch a glimpse of the possibilities, I would be ready'. And somewhere there is a Guardian or a rep. of my HS that is shaking their head, 'you had a glimpse and turned away dude!'
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2011, 11:44 AM, (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011, 03:10 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
#18
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-26-2011, 09:26 PM)Bring4th_Aaron Wrote:  Couldn't a being be incredibly positively polarized, but not harvestable if they "sat on" their potential, not doing anything with the increased ability that a high positive polarization brings? It would be in that way that they don't follow the Law of Responsibility. They wouldn't be harvestable because although they had the being side down, they didn't DO much of anything positive, giving to the people around them.

That's an interesting view. I have always taken the concepts of polarization and harvestability to be related to one's level of being, rather than doing.

Personally, I have found the idea that one needs to go out and "save the world" to be a red herring. The world does not need to be saved. And past a certain point, dedicating one's life to this or that cause can actually hold one back once their level of consciousness expands beyond the form of service that is chosen.

I think this is what happened with Patton. His consciousness grew, but he refused to step aside from the role in which he had cast himself. I mean... the man planned the deaths of others for a living. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.

My read is that Patton was a man who developed enough to have some opening on the green and blue rays, but failed to translate those vibrations into his everyday life. Other than perhaps to his immediate family. I understand his daughter was quite fond of him. Smile

In my mind, the reason that Patton was not "harvestable" had to do more with the immense counterweight on his soul from making war and not taking personal responsibility for all the death and destruction he created. This is a far cry from somebody living a peaceful, secluded life, and failing to "live up to their potential" for whatever that means. Can anybody really live up to their full potential? My understanding is that, no matter what level of consciousness is attained, there is always something greater.

I guess I'm a bit confused about the confusion. It's not like we are talking about Mother Teresa here. The man came from a military family going back all the way to the Revolutionary War. The only reason he is cast as a hero is because he ended up on the "right" side of history.

It's interesting to me how easily we set aside the mass killing of people simply because we "believe in something" and they are on the "other side". This persistent idea that war is a "necessary evil" and that killing each other is justified for the "greater good" is nonsense to me. We've got the people at the top saying, "Well I just give the orders, I don't pull the trigger." and the people on the front lines saying "Well I just pull the trigger, I don't give the orders." How convenient.

As if a Declaration of War suddenly absolves everybody of the responsibility for taking another person's life. This is what I think is meant by the reference to the Law of Responsibility. I don't believe there is a place in 4D/positive for those who believe that killing and war-making is the best course of action in any situation, despite how "noble" the cause may be.

Think about it... if there is anything at all to this idea of a 4D world that is orders of magnitude more harmonious than this one then how in the world can war help us get there? Sorry, but the "One War to End All Wars" idea was a massive failure. All it did was divide the world up into "good guys" and "bad guys" with everybody disagreeing about who is who. So I guess we can thank Patton for showing us very clearly that war is not the answer. I will honor him for that, but sincerely hope that his soul has found a more peaceful approach to standing up for freedom by now.
We are unsure as to our success in realigning your modes of mentation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like Tenet Nosce's post:
@ndy, Aaron, Monica, Nyu
06-28-2011, 04:50 PM,
#19
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
The idea that any of you can be the judge of someone else being "sts" or "sto" is seriously distorted. How can any of you be so bold to decide who is and who isn't harvestable based on your tiny little view of the universe?

It seems that we spend a lot of time around here, figuring out who isn't and who is harvestable, who is and who isn't sto or sts.. who are you judging really? If you need to make yourselves feel better about being better than someone else, i suggest you start watching Jerry Springer.
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2011, 05:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011, 05:11 PM by unity100.)
#20
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-28-2011, 04:50 PM)seejay21 Wrote:  The idea that any of you can be the judge of someone else being "sts" or "sto" is seriously distorted. How can any of you be so bold to decide who is and who isn't harvestable based on your tiny little view of the universe?

maybe they are daring to do that, with the information they have been given ?

we were given guidelines and information about what constitutes positive behavior, what constitutes negative behavior.

and even, how you can recognize an entity which would be harvestable.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=17&sc=1&ss=1#15

Quote:17.15 Questioner: I would like to make a point clear now that I am sure of myself. The people of this planet, following any religion or no religion at all, or having no intellectual knowledge at all of the Law of One, can still be harvested into the fourth density if they are of that vibration. Is that not correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. However, you will find few who are harvestable whose radiance does not cause others to be aware of their, what you may call, spirituality, the quality of the mind/body/spirit complex distortion. Thus, it is not particularly probable that an entity would be completely unknown to his immediate acquaintances as an unusually radiant personality, even were this individual not caught up in any of the distortions of your so-called religious systems.

that is totally leaving aside the fact that, positive, negative were defined, and examples of positive and negative paths were given.

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

personally, i think you are the one using rather bold words in talking about this matters, since it thoroughly ignores any of the important information we were given.

but more importantly, how are you going to follow a positive path, without knowing what positive is, and a negative path, without knowing what negative is ?

by not knowing, not talking, not thinking the knowledge that was given about these ?

then there is no point in reading any part of the ra material. [/i]
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:
Monica
06-28-2011, 05:24 PM,
#21
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-28-2011, 04:50 PM)seejay21 Wrote:  The idea that any of you can be the judge of someone else being "sts" or "sto" is seriously distorted. How can any of you be so bold to decide who is and who isn't harvestable based on your tiny little view of the universe?

It seems that we spend a lot of time around here, figuring out who isn't and who is harvestable, who is and who isn't sto or sts.. who are you judging really? If you need to make yourselves feel better about being better than someone else, i suggest you start watching Jerry Springer.

I don't even know what I am, let alone somebody else. I'm trying to find clues to how or what I could be or do.
(06-28-2011, 05:10 PM)unity100 Wrote:  and even, how you can recognize an entity which would be harvestable.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=17&sc=1&ss=1#15

Quote:17.15 Questioner: I would like to make a point clear now that I am sure of myself. The people of this planet, following any religion or no religion at all, or having no intellectual knowledge at all of the Law of One, can still be harvested into the fourth density if they are of that vibration. Is that not correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. However, you will find few who are harvestable whose radiance does not cause others to be aware of their, what you may call, spirituality, the quality of the mind/body/spirit complex distortion. Thus, it is not particularly probable that an entity would be completely unknown to his immediate acquaintances as an unusually radiant personality, even were this individual not caught up in any of the distortions of your so-called religious systems.

This has usually been a worrisome quote for me. Not as much these days. In a sense, it's saying "you can see it", much like Monica claims she could see it in Ron Paul. (not to bring up politics, pleease)
Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes 3DMonkey's post:
Monica
06-28-2011, 05:43 PM,
#22
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-28-2011, 05:10 PM)unity100 Wrote:  
(06-28-2011, 04:50 PM)seejay21 Wrote:  The idea that any of you can be the judge of someone else being "sts" or "sto" is seriously distorted. How can any of you be so bold to decide who is and who isn't harvestable based on your tiny little view of the universe?

maybe they are daring to do that, with the information they have been given ?

we were given guidelines and information about what constitutes positive behavior, what constitutes negative behavior.

and even, how you can recognize an entity which would be harvestable.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=17&sc=1&ss=1#15

Quote:17.15 Questioner: I would like to make a point clear now that I am sure of myself. The people of this planet, following any religion or no religion at all, or having no intellectual knowledge at all of the Law of One, can still be harvested into the fourth density if they are of that vibration. Is that not correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. However, you will find few who are harvestable whose radiance does not cause others to be aware of their, what you may call, spirituality, the quality of the mind/body/spirit complex distortion. Thus, it is not particularly probable that an entity would be completely unknown to his immediate acquaintances as an unusually radiant personality, even were this individual not caught up in any of the distortions of your so-called religious systems.

that is totally leaving aside the fact that, positive, negative were defined, and examples of positive and negative paths were given.

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

personally, i think you are the one using rather bold words in talking about this matters, since it thoroughly ignores any of the important information we were given.

but more importantly, how are you going to follow a positive path, without knowing what positive is, and a negative path, without knowing what negative is ?

by not knowing, not talking, not thinking the knowledge that was given about these ?

then there is no point in reading any part of the Ra material. [/i]

Nowhere in the LOO have I found Ra stating anything conclusively about anyones sts/sto orientation. The closest thing might be Hitler in which Ra states "..followed the pattern of negative polarization.." but refrains from actually saying that he was STS. So I don't know what you mean by discussing this material, as Ra NEVER says anything about judging others all day long. I would conclude that you aren't discussing the LOO at all, as this is never discussed in the LOO.

As far as the quote you reference, the part that needs more respecting is "Thus, it is not particularly probable that an entity would be completely unknown to his immediate acquaintances". I don't know any of us could be so bold to label hitler, patton, george bush or any of the others we judge as sts if we don't even know them as a long distance acquaintance.

Yes, my words are bold, as we have moved far away from what the LOO is here to teach us, such as this:

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=50&sc=1&ss=1#7

Where does it say in the LOO "knowledge base" say that we should insashibly judge others. The word "Judgement" does not show up in the LOO even once.

<quote>
26.8 Questioner: Can you tell me about what percentage is of Orion influence in both the Old and New Testaments?

Ra: I am Ra. We prefer that this be left to the discretion of those who seek the Law of One.<b> We are not speaking in order to judge. Such statements would be construed by some of those who may read this material as judgmental. We can only suggest a careful reading and inward digestion of the contents.</b> The understandings will become obvious.
</quote>
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2011, 05:51 PM,
#23
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
seejay, did you read the starter post? Ra says about Patton: "The sum total of this incarnation vibrationally was a slight increase in positive polarity"

seejay21, what are you attacking internally? There is something there that is not of this thread. The posts triggered something deeper in you. We aren't trying to lynch anyone by our claims of their polarized level.
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2011, 06:35 PM,
#24
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-28-2011, 05:51 PM)3DMonkey Wrote:  seejay, did you read the starter post? Ra says about Patton: "The sum total of this incarnation vibrationally was a slight increase in positive polarity"

seejay21, what are you attacking internally? There is something there that is not of this thread. The posts triggered something deeper in you. We aren't trying to lynch anyone by our claims of their polarized level.

Someone along the way here stated Patton participated in War, he clearly isn't harvestable. This statement is wildly distrorted. the opposite is actually more true, participating in war might be the defining catalyst to see things clearly.

I'm actually very humble about what i've come to know. I'm so humble about it, I don't want to even really mention it, or even say I'm humble about it either. I don't ever talk about it, except for my wanderer story.

I came to know that it doesn't matter what you do in this existance we are calling the "veiled 3d illusion". Well, it does matter, but it doesn't exactly. What matters in the end is how you reconsile it, being able to forgive yourself and others, and finding the Love and Light. Even a cold blooded baby killer can find his way through it. It's easier to reconsile if you're not a cold blooded baby killer, but it doesn't mean that you can't be harvested 4d positive.


The LOO also is incomplete and far from perfect. It only has the answers to the questions that Were asked, (some AMAZING questions BTW), but not all questions were asked. One of the things that doesn't get much play in the LOO is the "rubber band theroy". this concept, from a different channel, is more to the point of what I'm talking about.

Yes it does cause me internal conflict. You are 100% right about that. It pains me that the message is being distorted, that many of us here are infactuated with how to measure ourselves and others as either STS or STO, when that idea is actually the opposite of what it takes to reconsile.
BTW, just because Don asked the questions, doesn't make the questions Divine, or the answers.
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2011, 06:56 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011, 07:01 PM by unity100.)
#25
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-28-2011, 05:43 PM)seejay21 Wrote:  Nowhere in the LOO have I found Ra stating anything conclusively about anyones sts/sto orientation. The closest thing might be Hitler in which Ra states "..followed the pattern of negative polarization.." but refrains from actually saying that he was STS. So I don't know what you mean by discussing this material, as Ra NEVER says anything about judging others all day long. I would conclude that you aren't discussing the LOO at all, as this is never discussed in the LOO.

two parts of your above statements contradict each other - first, you say that various information about negative polarization patterns were given, second, you say that 'this is never discussed in ra material'.

as you already yourself said, it was discussed in ra material.

conclusive information was not given, because it cant be given. however, general information pertaining to identifying polarization paths were given.

you cant ignore the information you have just because you think 'judging' others is something that you need to refrain from.

its not about judging - its about what you DO with your judgment.

Quote:As far as the quote you reference, the part that needs more respecting is "Thus, it is not particularly probable that an entity would be completely unknown to his immediate acquaintances". I don't know any of us could be so bold to label hitler, patton, george bush or any of the others we judge as sts if we don't even know them as a long distance acquaintance.

i gave that quote about identifying harvestable entities from 3d - even that information is present in the above form. i gave it, because it was the extreme end. hardest information to discern and use.

actually, there is endless amounts of information in regard to positive, negative behavior patterns. i didnt feel the need to list these, because these information occupy a few volumes of the material already. i reckoned that you would remember these, by memory. which apparently, you either dont, or, just dont want to remember.

Quote:Where does it say in the LOO "knowledge base" say that we should insashibly judge others. The word "Judgement" does not show up in the LOO even once.

firstly, if you keep making such outlandish statements, i will have to discontinue discussing with you, since you are apparently talking about something which you havent read, or havent attentively read or spent time, or outright dont remember.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?search_string=judgment&search_type=phrase&ss=1&sc=1

'judgment' is something which is advised, emphasized, and actually to some degree, required :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=32&sc=1&ss=1#9

Quote:Fourth density Wanderers, of which there are not many, will tend to choose those entities which seem to be full of love or in need of love. There is the great possibility/probability of entities making errors in judgment due to the compassion with which other-selves are viewed.

as you can see, the entities are expected to use their judgment. however, not all wanderers from all densities are capable of making good judgments. for example, the 4th density may err in judgment due to compassion, we are told.

in summary, if you dont have faculties of judgment, or dont use it while living your life, basically you go astray.


Quote:Yes, my words are bold, as we have moved far away from what the LOO is here to teach us, such as this:

We prefer that this be left to the discretion of those who seek the Law of One.

you should re-read the part i bolded with the q/a you showed in support of what you have been speaking of.

ra did not say 'dont judge' -> Ra left the judging of the old testament, to the pursuant of Law of One.

Quote:http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=50&sc=1&ss=1#7

i am at a loss to see where it says 'dont judge' or 'dont use your judgment' in the above quote. it talks about accepting things as they are, in pursuit of love.

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

let me put this into perspective :

what you call judgment, is discernment of things.

at no point there is any recommendation of NOT judging things in ra material - there is no relevance in between judging and acceptance/love.

a person who ignores all judgments, ignores all differences, ignores the nature of things and people will not end up 'loving'. s/he will end up as willfully ignorant.

love is, knowing what things are, and THEN accepting them. you cannot accept what you ignore the nature of. it just means, you are ignoring it.

in the end, what matters is what you do with your judgment. not whether you judge, or not.

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

all in all, i think that this 'judgment' thing is something that plagues american culture as far as i see it. there are a lot of cultural, political, religious, racial, social differences, and the apparent solution found to these things - as far as i can see from media, laws and whatnot - is to encourage ignoring of these, rather than acceptance of these. these wont go away and bring about harmony by ignoring them though.

as for spiritualism, if an entity doesnt use its judgment, how is it supposed discern right or wrong according to its path ?

the question is rhetorical.
(06-28-2011, 06:35 PM)seejay21 Wrote:  
(06-28-2011, 05:51 PM)3DMonkey Wrote:  seejay, did you read the starter post? Ra says about Patton: "The sum total of this incarnation vibrationally was a slight increase in positive polarity"

seejay21, what are you attacking internally? There is something there that is not of this thread. The posts triggered something deeper in you. We aren't trying to lynch anyone by our claims of their polarized level.

Someone along the way here stated Patton participated in War, he clearly isn't harvestable. This statement is wildly distrorted. the opposite is actually more true, participating in war might be the defining catalyst to see things clearly.

ra had said that, because he saw universal love and STILL continued to fight, he lost harvestability. not 'someone'. they outright stated that, seeing universal love, and STILL warring, reduces harvestability.

Quote:I'm actually very humble about what i've come to know. I'm so humble about it, I don't want to even really mention it, or even say I'm humble about it either. I don't ever talk about it, except for my wanderer story.

with all due respect, maybe it is not that you are humble about what you know, but rather you are unwilling to know and take responsibility ? there have been a lot of statements you have made about ra material in your above objections, which went as far to say the word 'judgment' doesnt pass in the material. not to even mention awareness of judgment being necessary for an entity to discern what is right/wrong for its particular path.

it goes without saying that entities should use judgment to discern what is right or wrong, according to their conscience. proposing anything to the contrary, would be "Aleister Crowley".

i think it is more likely that what is being discussed in this thread, has touched a personal situation of your own, and hence you are a bit overreacting.
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:
Monica
06-28-2011, 07:43 PM,
#26
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-28-2011, 06:56 PM)unity100 Wrote:  
(06-28-2011, 05:43 PM)seejay21 Wrote:  Nowhere in the LOO have I found Ra stating anything conclusively about anyones sts/sto orientation. The closest thing might be Hitler in which Ra states "..followed the pattern of negative polarization.." but refrains from actually saying that he was STS. So I don't know what you mean by discussing this material, as Ra NEVER says anything about judging others all day long. I would conclude that you aren't discussing the LOO at all, as this is never discussed in the LOO.

two parts of your above statements contradict each other - first, you say that various information about negative polarization patterns were given, second, you say that 'this is never discussed in Ra material'.

as you already yourself said, it was discussed in Ra material.

What i'm saying in my example is Ra never states that Hitler was STS. Yet we here everyday give people this "label".

(06-28-2011, 06:56 PM)unity100 Wrote:  you cant ignore the information you have just because you think 'judging' others is something that you need to refrain from.

its not about judging - its about what you DO with your judgment.

I say that judging others is something you should refrain from, because it will take you further away from the truth. If there isn't a Ra quote for this, it is because the question wasn't asked.

(06-28-2011, 06:56 PM)unity100 Wrote:  i gave that quote about identifying harvestable entities from 3d - even that information is present in the above form. i gave it, because it was the extreme end. hardest information to discern and use.

actually, there is endless amounts of information in regard to positive, negative behavior patterns. i didnt feel the need to list these, because these information occupy a few volumes of the material already. i reckoned that you would remember these, by memory. which apparently, you either dont, or, just dont want to remember.

List a few, I'll tell you what i think about them. What someone does as being of negative polarity, someone else could do the exact same thing, and be of positive polarity. Dicern that.

(06-28-2011, 06:56 PM)unity100 Wrote:  firstly, if you keep making such outlandish statements, i will have to discontinue discussing with you, since you are apparently talking about something which you havent read, or havent attentively read or spent time, or outright dont remember.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?search_string=judgment&search_type=phrase&ss=1&sc=1

'judgment' is something which is advised, emphasized, and actually to some degree, required :

opps. what i mean is the judgement of other beings. Where is the quote that says we should look at all other beings under the microscope, and tatoo a label on their foreheads with our findings?

(06-28-2011, 06:56 PM)unity100 Wrote:  http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=50&sc=1&ss=1#7

i am at a loss to see where it says 'dont judge' or 'dont use your judgment' in the above quote. it talks about accepting things as they are, in pursuit of love.

exactly! It doesn't say anything about Judgement and Judging others! it is the OPPOSITE!

(06-28-2011, 06:56 PM)unity100 Wrote:  as for spiritualism, if an entity doesnt use its judgment, how is it supposed discern right or wrong according to its path ?

It doesn't matter what anyone else does. You aren't being graded or measured against anyone but yourself.
..."You cannot remember your hand, their hands, perhaps even the rules of this game. This game can only be won by those who lose their cards in the melting influence of love, can only be won by those who lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.” This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love. This cannot be done without the forgetting, for it would carry no weight in the life of the mind/body/spirit being-ness totality"

It doesn't say in here, and decide if they are sts or sto before showing them your hand...
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2011, 07:59 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011, 08:02 PM by unity100.)
#27
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-28-2011, 07:43 PM)seejay21 Wrote:  What i'm saying in my example is Ra never states that Hitler was STS. Yet we here everyday give people this "label".

then what you are saying is, excuse me, but incorrect. you again made a grand statement, this time saying that ra 'never' mentioned that adolf hitler was sts.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?category=People&subcategory=Adolf+Hitler&sc=1&ss=1

Quote:7.14 Questioner: I’ll just ask about Orion. You said that Orion was the source of some of these contacts with UFOs. Can you tell me something of that contact, its purpose?

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, a simple example of intentions which are bad/good. This example is Adolf. This is your vibratory sound complex. The intention is to presumably unify by choosing the distortion complex called elite from a social memory complex and then enslaving, by various effects, those who are seen by the distortion as not-elite. There is then the concept of taking the social memory complex thus weeded and adding it to a distortion thought of by the so-called Orion group as an empire. The problem facing them is that they face a great deal of random energy released by the concept of separation. This causes them to be vulnerable as the distortions amongst their own members are not harmonized.

Quote:This entity followed the pattern of negative polarization which suggests the elite and the enslaved, this being seen by the entity to be of an helpful nature for the societal structure. However, in drifting from the conscious polarization into what you may call a twilight world where dream took the place of events in your space/time continuum, this entity failed in its attempt to serve the Creator in an harvestable degree along the path of service to self. Thus we see the so-called insanity which may often arise when an entity attempts to polarize more quickly than experience may be integrated.

seejay, really.

either you havent read the material in full, or..... i dont know what to say at this point.

ill cease discussing with you, since apparently you either havent read what you are talking about so surely, or, forgot. there is no point in discussing this with you at this point, since you apparently dont remember a lot of things. else, this will deteriorate into the format in which you will make grand statements, and i will have to find and show you q/as, which is unfruitful.

out of respect, i will finish replying this post, and i may reply to you in case you wish to bring whatever particular personal situation is causing you to not only react to this in this manner, but also make grand statements to the contrary to what we already read in the material. however, i wont reply to you in regard to material if you discuss as such, since you dont remember a lot of things.

Quote:I say that judging others is something you should refrain from, because it will take you further away from the truth. If there isn't a Ra quote for this, it is because the question wasn't asked.

there is little difference in judging 'others' or judging thoughts. all are part of infinite intelligence, and its central logos - what you call 'the creator'.

and, additionally, a quote was especially given, warning that 4 d entities' judgments about OTHERS is not too strong, and they are prone to mistakes, ending up with wrong people.

Quote:List a few, I'll tell you what i think about them. What someone does as being of negative polarity, someone else could do the exact same thing, and be of positive polarity. Dicern that.

you cannot enslave others and be of positive polarity. period. i dont know how finer this can be put.

you should read entire book 2 and 3. i dont have the time to elaborate on the paths of positive, negative and their preferences in book-size volumes here.

Quote:opps. what i mean is the judgement of other beings. Where is the quote that says we should look at all other beings under the microscope, and tatoo a label on their foreheads with our findings?

you should look at all other beings under the microscope, tattoo a label on their foreheads as to their character, and THEN decide what you will do about it - accept, or reject.

ignorance is not polarization. unawareness is not love.

Quote:exactly! It doesn't say anything about Judgement and Judging others! it is the OPPOSITE!

it doesnt say the opposite either. excuse me, but i started to think you are trying to have some fun.

Quote:It doesn't matter what anyone else does. You aren't being graded or measured against anyone but yourself.

first, the above sentence doesnt make sense. 'measured against yourself' -> what ? even the existence of a creation in which more than 1 entity is present is possible with the presence of more than one entity interacting with each other.

you are being measured against a light source, to discern whether you are emitting 51%, or holding 95%.

and for that, you are polarizing against others, which are in different orientations towards you. if you insist on ignoring the nature of what catalyst you are receiving in the form of other people's attitudes, it wont polarize you - it will just make the catalyst keep coming, and repeating until you consciously or subconsciously are aware, and decide to do something with it.

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

at this point i will cease discussing with you on the grounds that i have explained, recommending you re-read (in case you actually read) books 2 and 3.

thank you.
(06-28-2011, 07:43 PM)seejay21 Wrote:  It doesn't matter what anyone else does. You aren't being graded or measured against anyone but yourself.
..."You cannot remember your hand, their hands, perhaps even the rules of this game. This game can only be won by those who lose their cards in the melting influence of love, can only be won by those who lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.” This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love. This cannot be done without the forgetting, for it would carry no weight in the life of the mind/body/spirit being-ness totality"

It doesn't say in here, and decide if they are sts or sto before showing them your hand...

please read the quotes that you are going to present in support of your perspective before posting. you arent even aware that the very thing you are posting, is contradicting your argument.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2011, 08:38 PM,
#28
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
The word 'judgement' has different connotations for different people. I typically use it to refer to a rational evaluation that Jung indicated as the functions of psyche's thinking and feeling faculties. Judgements are what create experiential knowledge or a 'rational worldview'. It's a tool for polarization. The archetypal principle behind it is the 'experience of mind', or Tarot emperor card.

Other people may feel that judgement suggests non-acceptance. But I believe that would only be the case if one somehow blindly identified with their current opinions to the exclusion of acceptance (i.e. 'close-mindedness'). If you know that your 'weltanschauung' is necessarily, inherently limited, and have the presence of honesty to put new learning before past learning, then you have a powerful tool for polarization - as Ra suggests.

To the extent a person does not develop worldview, they are subject to the determination of others that will do so. Progress continues regardless of self-imposed limitations, as the ones that bother to use their discernment simply become the 'logos' for those that do not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2011, 09:09 PM,
#29
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
(06-28-2011, 07:59 PM)unity100 Wrote:  
(06-28-2011, 07:43 PM)seejay21 Wrote:  What i'm saying in my example is Ra never states that Hitler was STS. Yet we here everyday give people this "label".

then what you are saying is, excuse me, but incorrect. you again made a grand statement, this time saying that Ra 'never' mentioned that adolf hitler was sts.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?category=People&subcategory=Adolf+Hitler&sc=1&ss=1

Actually, in my statements I said it is the closest Ra comes to calling someone either sts or sto outright, but don't be confused, he does not call out Hitler as being STS. He said Hitler is following a "pattern", but this may, or may not have anything to do with what leads him to this pattern. Who he is . Perhaps his daddy was mean to him as a child, and created a monster. If Hitler, by some miracle, is able to forgive his father, and himself, to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love, EVEN IN THE LAST SECOND OF THE LAST HOUR, he'd be free to move onto 4d postive harvest, NO PROBLEM. If Ra stated that Hitler was STS, he wouldn't have this opportunity. He can STILL be harvested 4d positive.

You know what? You are still 4d positive harvestable too! We all have our karma to work off, right? hating hitler will be negative karma to work off. (Thanks Hitler for messing with all our heads.) Look at the other-self. See the Creator.


(06-28-2011, 07:59 PM)unity100 Wrote:  seejay, really.

either you havent read the material in full, or..... i dont know what to say at this point.

ill cease discussing with you, since apparently you either havent read what you are talking about so surely, or, forgot. there is no point in discussing this with you at this point, since you apparently dont remember a lot of things. else, this will deteriorate into the format in which you will make grand statements, and i will have to find and show you q/as, which is unfruitful.

out of respect, i will finish replying this post, and i may reply to you in case you wish to bring whatever particular personal situation is causing you to not only react to this in this manner, but also make grand statements to the contrary to what we already read in the material. however, i wont reply to you in regard to material if you discuss as such, since you dont remember a lot of things.
I remember, but you are right in that I've forgotten most things. There is much more to the LOO than the questions asked too.

I don't understand that you don't understand my understanding? See the Creator? Have you heard any fishsticks jokes? Do you like fishsticks? Tongue JK Seems like that is the kind of disconnect you and I are having on this point.


(06-28-2011, 07:59 PM)unity100 Wrote:  first, the above sentence doesnt make sense. 'measured against yourself' -> what ? even the existence of a creation in which more than 1 entity is present is possible with the presence of more than one entity interacting with each other.

you are being measured against a light source, to discern whether you are emitting 51%, or holding 95%.

and for that, you are polarizing against others, which are in different orientations towards you. if you insist on ignoring the nature of what catalyst you are receiving in the form of other people's attitudes, it wont polarize you - it will just make the catalyst keep coming, and repeating until you consciously or subconsciously are aware, and decide to do something with it.

Yes. I'll say it again. "Measure against yoursef". It is part of the process. You're conclusion of the "process" might not be what you think it could be, or even relaveant to the question. You might even call it a joke, but it doesn't mean that it isn't part of the process.

By dicerning what others orientation is, you in a small way are asking yourself this question. The thought is actually much deeper. judging others is an infantile method.
.............

(06-28-2011, 07:59 PM)unity100 Wrote:  please read the quotes that you are going to present in support of your perspective before posting. you arent even aware that the very thing you are posting, is contradicting your argument.

In my Ra quote, you underlined "to know" you should have also underlined "love". In other words "to know" is "to know love" not to know if "so and so" was sts or sto.

I understand completely what I'm posting, and it is relaveant to this topic.
Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes seejay21's post:
111
06-28-2011, 09:26 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011, 09:30 PM by 111.)
#30
RE: More Positive but Less Harvestable
Its easy to blast someones statements by saying "You don't know what your talking about" or "You don't understand fully what you post" and to try everything you can to keep "your" personall truths intact in your mind. The real challenge in unity is to disregard what "you" know and try accepting others words as a diffrent perspective of the same truth. That we are all one. Like my mama always said, If you don't have something nice ta say, don't say anything at all. I think we all can do better at this Smile P.S. This bugs me this happens in forums meant for L/L I think seejay had some pretty good points and is far more than entitled to them. Thanks for you contribution buddy Big Grin
In all fairness tho, I'm just as guilty of this All day everyday... I'm preaching to myself most of the time in these forums Lol Big Grin It was just an observation.
11 Namaste 11
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes 111's post:
Tenet Nosce




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)