applying principles of Oneness vs separation

[Monica Leal]

in accordance with dw's comments below: if we must love in order to be
harvestable, but the very harvest itself means separating from the 3d
other-selves who are not harvestable, then should we be attempting to
stay connected to those (apparently unharvestable) people, or allow
that separation to occur? and, if we allow the separation to occur
now, then wouldn't that be counterproductive to our goal of love and
oneness?

lately, to my chagrin, i have been noticing that i have been
disconnecting from certain people, sometimes despite, and other times
because of, my 'good' intentions.

case in point: i have 9 siblings, but am close only to 1 brother. this
brother has had some serious challenges in marriage, finances, and
health. last year he nearly died from heart problems, and, being
indigent, had few options.

i gave him some supplements known to help the heart, and he improved
dramatically. encouraged, i enlisted the aid of 2 brothers and 2
sisters, all of whom are fairly well-off. i proposed that we each
pitch in $50 monthly, rather than me footing the entire bill. they all
flat-out refused, calling this brother a 'loser' because he has been
homeless and on welfare.

this 'poor' brother is far richer in love, compassion, and even
intelligence than all the rest of my siblings combined!

initially i felt resentment, and betrayal. i realized that i really
had no family at all, for if another member of the 'family' were in
need of assistance, there would no assurance that any assistance would
be forthcoming. i felt very alone, and refused to go to any more
family gatherings and give fake hugs, when it was all such a farce.

i have since been working on transmuting the resentment into love and
forgiveness, but the question remains: am i promoting separation by no
longer wishing to be in their company? am i acting against my natural
'wanderer' inclinations, by severing the connection with these
'uncompassionate' people whom, by my own assessment, will probably be
stuck in 3d anyway?

or, is this just a natural part of the process of letting go of those
who will not be going where we, the harvested, will be going?

somehow, these very questions bother me tremendously. they smack of
elitism, and remind me so much of the "i'm saved, you're not"
mentality that i dislike so much in the fundamentalist christians.

yet, i find myself struggling to reconcile these thoughts.

perhaps i am a 4d wanderer, and do not need to learn love, since i've
already learned that, and i only need to learn wisdom, a 5d lesson? is
love a weakness, then, for a 5d or 6d being? all throughout my life,
people spat at me that i was 'weak' for being so 'nice,' and i
defended my 'niceness' because i thought it was a virtue, a gift, a
blessing.

but now, i am confused.

dw also stated in another post that (i paraphrase) 4d wanderers tend
to just love, love, love, and have yet to learn wisdom. so, then, is
it wisdom to separate oneself from those whom we perceive as not
loving, so we don't have to deal with them? is being 'nice' a weakness
after all?

but there goes the circular logic again: if that is wisdom, that is
also separation, according to dw's comment below. how can that be?

and, if other-selves are but mirrors of ourselves, then aren't we
missing the point if we just avoid people we don't 'like'? doesn't
that mean that we have not really learned how to love, after all?

now there's a disconcerting thought! am i just on an ego trip,
thinking that i am wanderer? is such a thought actually getting in the
way of love?

i have experienced beautiful moments of joy in which intense conflicts
were transformed. always, these occurred when i succeeded in
transmuting anger/hatred/resentment into love/forgiveness/gratitude.
these constitute the most profound moments of my life! yet, i also
remember that, in all cases, a very long road of intensely hard work
preceeded that moment of revelation in which love was born in my
being. it's so much easier to just walk away from conflicts, and if
that is acceptable, then why not?

just when i start to think i understand, i realize how very much i do
not understand. my foundation has been shaken, and i seek
understanding. this situation with my brother is but one of many such
examples in my daily life. comments welcome!

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ufg2tt1ii-zcaue0yopz9nozcxhcwbjqddimgwpdrdw1x3x8vnhwedlupgoe mqjygujm5jvlnnzgxbmnc6eiwq), "david wilcock" <djw333@i...> wrote:

> dw: '...the process of
> individuation is a necessary component of ascension from 3d...
> <snip>
> the minute that you create separation, <snip>...you are on the path
that opens a
> door to the "dark side."

[Manuel erizaldo]

greetings monica,

may i comment on oneness and separation. i read
somewhere that, "the opposite of love is fear."

in the most loving way, may i ask you, what is it that
you fear that some of your family members are not
meeting your expectations about helping your brother.


as dw said about "opening doors to the dark side,"
could maybe your frustration, anger and/or judgement
of your family members opening you up to separation
due to your fears about what they should do. to me
the darkside is just a blockage from the light that
surrounds us all the time. we block this energy flow
ourselves.

freedom and freewill, are at issue here for all the
parties involved. from what you said you chose to be
angry and chose to judge your family members and
thereby created an energy block to your own body
energy system. this blockage is the real separation i
believe that we create on our own in our own bodies
and as such the person with the anger or judgement
emotion suffers.

and based on your comments, i believe you are
suffering from your expectations of what somebody else
should do. i would say that this emotional expectation
is a fear or again, opposite of love. it does matter
what your brother's situation appears to be to you,
nobody interpreted his condition, nobody else
interpreted the response of your brothers, except
yourself thus creating an anger , expectation or fear.


i believe the answer is just do what you feel you want
to do to help your brother's situation, do what you
can, and believe that all what you have done will be
enough because there are a lot more helpful forces out
there helping your brother and you that what you may
realize. may i also suggest that your anger may also
be projecting to your brother who needs help and that
your anger is also impeding his improvement in life?
becsaue obviously its not love your projecting to all.


there are many ways that your brother's situation can
improve dramatically without any direct monetary
assistance. it just a matter of knowing that wishes
and requests (ask and u shall recieve) are fulfilled.
group healings, prayers aand/or meditations really
work.

my comments are all given with the utmost love and
respect with no intention to offend anyone. so please
take my thoughts, wishes, and blessing in the kindest
light.

--- monica leal <lealdragon@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=s53cyflqxryz4xw6ipq4agf4t71wnkyu8rkiwy ls5oulviqavqrv5hmeadx2jp9s3cgjdngxaz-avtc)> wrote:

> in accordance with dw's comments below: if we must


> love in order to be
> harvestable, but the very harvest itself means
> separating from the 3d
> other-selves who are not harvestable, then should we
> be attempting to
> stay connected to those (apparently unharvestable)
> people, or allow
> that separation to occur? and, if we allow the
> separation to occur
> now, then wouldn't that be counterproductive to our
> goal of love and
> oneness?
>






__________________________________
yahoo! mail - pc magazine editors' choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Neil Haddon]

monica wrote:

"lately, to my chagrin, i have been noticing that i have been
disconnecting from certain people, sometimes despite, and other
times
because of, my 'good' intentions."



dear monica.



if you recall, dw also wrote about co-dependency. we know a lady
who simply **has** to be needed - by everybody about her -
husband, children (now grown and at uni), friends, work
colleagues, local church etc.etc. unfortunately, she is so much
wrapped up in trying to service the needs (of others) that she
herself has created, that she is totally ineffective. her mind is
so busy with all these demands she cannot think straight, which
shows in her work, her relationships etc. ( i am not being
judgmental, only observing and relating for the good of other
selves. - how wonderful if we could see ourselves as clearly we
see 'others'!)



at the same time, we have the dilemma you speak of: you try to
help, you want to be of service, but the attitude of others
inclines you to disconnect (for your own sanity/safety/peace of
mind). what's to do?



i believe it is a matter of perspective. you are not
disconnecting. look at it this way.



unknown to us, our higher forces lay before us opportunities for
us to progress along the path we chose before incarnation. if we
take those opportunities, fine: if we don't see or seize them,
also fine; but then those loving forces lay before us further
opportunities to progress along the chosen path. and they keep
doing that, with infinite love, until we 'get it' and are
able/ready to move on. (some call this karma).



i believe we, as co-creators with the creator should adopt the
same approach, even though we are mere earthlings stuck 'down '
here on 3d. ( even wanderers are bound by 3d constraints to a
large extent). we can still 'be there' for our brothers and
sisters, without them necessarily knowing it. but until our help
is 'requested' in some way - however subtle, or implied if not
openly asked for - the other self is not ready to accept it, and
may resent our 'intrusion', "i don't take orders from you!",
"what's it got to do with you?", "keep your nose out of my
affairs" etc. at the very least, 'imposed' help will not be
appreciated by the 'unready' and it is most likely that any
growth, or lesson will not be learned by them, because it is not
**theirs** - it is after all, 'yours'.



i hope you can see where i'm coming from because this is a fine
line to follow. we all want to be of service, and tend to rush
in, sometimes to the point of overwhelming a brother or sister.
but we cannot - must not - presume upon their attitudes,
thinking, view-point, free-will.



we have to recognize that 3d is about our individual choices
(sorry, chris, i hope 'individual' is not heresy on asc2k!). our
principle objective here is to achieve what we planned before we
picked our human parents. this is not sts - before i generate
another volume of discussion. being of service to yourself to be
better able to serve others is essential: it's exactly what we
came here to do. any airplane steward will tell a parent that in
event of an emergency, you put *your* life jacket on before you
put one on for your child: how can you assist your child if
you've drowned?



so, we also must allow our brothers and sisters to follow their
own path at their own pace and in their own way. this inevitably
means we must recognize 'differences'. although all is one, we
are not all the same: we are 'souls of distortion' or as recently
discussed, "aspects of the creator".



also, of course this means that some (of us?) are not ready for
4d.



this is a difficult pill to swallow, and need not smack of
'elitism'. belief in the more informed wisdom of our higher
forces will surely indicate that those who must 'go round again'
would in fact be disadvantaged by being catapulted to a density
for which they were not yet prepared: fish out of water. (i
remember years ago being 'promoted' to a maths group beyond my
-then- knowledge: i still have a 'hole' in my maths ability -that
area which i never learned properly- and which still gives me
difficulty.

(how about that for bathos?) but the illustration is the same.



and, monica, "just when i start to think i understand, i realize
how very much i do
not understand." it is not for us to understand on 3d, but to
experience and grow. in 3d we are deliberately 'individuated': it
is the only density where we are so - in 2d we have the herd
instinct, as we move into 4d we start to coalesce into a social
memory complex. so not being able to understand, but having to
make our best choice is all part of the plan.



this necessarily implies that sometimes we 'get it wrong' -
that's how we learn, isn't it? we walk by falling down a lot! but
we don't have to beat ourselves up over it. value the lesson, be
grateful for the experience and move on, bigger and better than
before.



ain't it fun!



love.

neil







[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Petrus]

hi monica,

> that separation to occur? and, if we allow the separation to occur
> now, then wouldn't that be counterproductive to our goal of love and
> oneness?

i'm not entirely sure, because i don't know if an answer exists for this
specific issue, but i'm inclined to believe, based on some of their other
answers, that ra would advocate a stance of compassionate neutrality here,
rather than specific closeness or rejection of any individuals.

> pitch in $50 monthly, rather than me footing the entire bill. they all
> flat-out refused, calling this brother a 'loser' because he has been
> homeless and on welfare.

i am an advocate of a discerning, mutually beneficial form of capitalism
personally, however i will admit that i have noticed that the american
interpretation of the concept specifically is usually destructive, lacking
in compassion and ethics, and sts generally. there seems to be a tendency
among a large number of americans to somehow view welfare as an outgrowth of
communism, and to be inclined towards focusing primarily on their own
welfare as opposed to that of other people. i'm not saying that everyone in
the us is guilty of that attitude, but a disproportionate number of the
population do seem to be. i'm also inclined to believe that that is why
there is such a concentration of catalyst in the us at the moment; the sts
crew have essentially set up headquarters there because they know that that
is where their biggest supporter base is.

i'm not wanting to generalise excessively about an entire nation of people,
here; the degree of distress i have felt over america's current plight has
developed primarily in response to me having known a number of americans of
(in my own opinion, anywayz) genuinely outstanding character online. i do
however consider the us to be the primary theatre in the current sto/sts
conflict; the contemporary equivalent of tolkien's middle earth, in that
sense. the polarisation there in particular does seem to be very strong. i
guess it's the old saying...the brighter the light, the darker the darkness.

> initially i felt resentment, and betrayal. i realized that i really
> had no family at all, for if another member of the 'family' were in
> need of assistance, there would no assurance that any assistance would

"brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child."
one of the things i've had to learn in recent years is to identify which
specific individuals (among those to whom i am genetically related) that i
can rely upon, and the number certainly is by no means all of them. my
parents can be relied on in emergencies for brief periods, but my father in
particular has made it quite clearly known that he primarily desires a life
spent in persuit of his own gratification, at least now. some will say that
of course parents are entitled to such when they reach a certain age, but
although my father i believe does come from fundamentally sto motivations,
he has had considerable struggle with sts inclinations as well. he is an
amway distributor, and that organisation is imho the living archetype of the
sts interpretation of capitalist philosophy, despite the organisation's
vigorous claims to the contrary.

> 'wanderer' inclinations, by severing the connection with these
> 'uncompassionate' people whom, by my own assessment, will probably be
> stuck in 3d anyway?

this might not be something which ra addresses specifically, but it is a
subject that jesus devoted a few words to. his position essentially was
that different people tend to want to go in different directions, and that
although we can love them, if they do not wish to develop and we do, the
only thing staying with them is likely to do is prevent us from exercising
our own free will.

> or, is this just a natural part of the process of letting go of those
> who will not be going where we, the harvested, will be going?

i think so, yes. i also believe that, contrary to the attitude of
fundamentalist christians, there does not need to be any attitude of elitism
on our part whatsoever. it's a realisation that we're all at a given point
in our current development, and that probably none of us are constantly
moving forward anyway. given this, there are those of us who take longer
breaks from their forward movement than others, and who make different
choices to others...and who do so for their own reasons. it must be
remembered that the sts path can be extremely superficially appealing; i
would be lying if i tried to claim that i was never tempted by elements of
it, as i suspect are we all. that however is part of the point; in order
for the choice to be genuinely valid, from the *immediate* perspective of
the person making the choice, both options must have equal power of appeal.
my own perspective however is that from a non-emotional point of view, the
sto polarity is more conducive to development long-term, as i believe ra
implies. from an emotional point of view, i must confess to a degree of
empathy which at times borders on debilitating...and this is not meant as a
boast either, as i have spent most of my life searching for ways to
anaesthetise said empathy. given such, however, i find sts behaviour
towards individuals to cause me something approaching physical pain at
times...and this is why, although i know intellectually that i am meant to
hold both polarities in equal esteem, it is emotionally virtually impossible
for me to do so.

> perhaps i am a 4d wanderer, and do not need to learn love, since i've
> already learned that, and i only need to learn wisdom, a 5d lesson? is
> love a weakness, then, for a 5d or 6d being? all throughout my life,

i will admit that my own definition of love has become to consider it an
emotion/energy which more than anything else, is conducive to the creation
or sustenance of life. love to me at its core is about the
creation/sustenance/existence of life in often diverse forms, and an
environment which allows for such could be in my view said to be loving.
hate, conversely, produces/is associated with the opposite...barren,
stagnant, or chaotic environments...places where life is either impossible,
or possible only in distorted or stunted forms, depending on the degree of
hate present. this is why, as ra says, eventually all entities must abandon
the sts path. the sts path is ultimately the path of hate, and thus, if
followed continually, would eventually result in said entity ceasing to
exist...at least in a coherent form. many would of course describe these as
being two sides of a coin, in terms of love being the presence of itself,
and hate merely being its absence. i however have difficulty with that
definition on more than an intellectual basis. i must, as must we all,
attempt to understand these things from within the contextual framework of
my own distortions, some of which i am reluctant to give up at this time.

> dw also stated in another post that (i paraphrase) 4d wanderers tend
> to just love, love, love, and have yet to learn wisdom. so, then, is

i personally believe that any use of the word wisdom by an individual in
reference to themselves is a trap of the ego. to quote socrates:- "the
only true wisdom lies in knowing that i know nothing." being called wise is
the one compliment which i will not accept, as i believe that growing to
believe in my own wisdom would entrap me egoistically speaking more than
anything else, and thus halt my further growth. to me, it is much more
conducive to my development to continue to see myself (while not abusively
so) as ignorant and immature...thus i am continuing to acknowledge the truth
that there is always a vast amount more to learn...which grants me the
ability to do so.

> it wisdom to separate oneself from those whom we perceive as not
> loving, so we don't have to deal with them? is being 'nice' a weakness
> after all?

the litmus test here is to ask yourself what is more genuinely conducive not
only to the survival and continued existence of all, including yourself. i
think after pondering that question for a time, you may come to the answer
that being "nice" is not a weakness...on the contrary, the opposite is.
however, i believe what dw has meant (and what the purpose of 5d perhaps is,
if i could be so audacious as to suggest such) is not to learn "wisdom" as
we would usually describe it, but judicious discernment as to the most
effective approach to each given situation for maximising/preserving our
chosen polarity, whether it be sto or sts.

> now there's a disconcerting thought! am i just on an ego trip,
> thinking that i am wanderer? is such a thought actually getting in the
> way of love?

as i said above with regards to use of the word wisdom, i myself try to have
reservations about the usual human tendency to label things in an
excessively simplified manner. this does not mean that i am intending to
criticise carla for her classification system at all, but rather that (at
least as far as i am concerned) i consider the question of whether or not i
am a wanderer to actually be rather irrelevant. i mean this only from the
point of view that adhering to our chosen polarity is surely the focus,
whether wanderer or non-wanderer. also, as you say the classification of
wanderer could become an additional ego trap if the implication of wanderer
superiority develops. assuming hypothetically that wanderers *were* some
type of chosen group, then i could actually only hope that i am *not* one
myself, since such associations with elitism are far more conducive to
adherence to the sts polarity, rather than the sto polarity which is my own
desired focus. (though i do not for one moment claim that, despite my
intent, my actual adherence to being sto is yet particularly consistent)

> preceeded that moment of revelation in which love was born in my
> being. it's so much easier to just walk away from conflicts, and if
> that is acceptable, then why not?

as i believe ra says, discernment needs to be used as to whether or not a
given conflict can provide beneficial catalyst. many conflicts merely serve
to weaken the polarity of those involved. others however do offer lessons
for growth...it is different in each situation.

> understanding. this situation with my brother is but one of many such
> examples in my daily life. comments welcome!

i am grateful for this post...it has given me much food for thought.
with love,
petrus

[Petrus]

> picked our human parents. this is not sts - before i generate
> another volume of discussion. being of service to yourself to be

what i've picked up as the definition of sts:-
1. the aim/motivation of the action is primarily or purely
self-enrichment...this is the core element.
2. the act is performed without any regard whatsoever for other
individuals, although at times deception is used to make it appear as though
sts acts will benefit others. this is more passive, in the sense that some
such actions can be taken without regard for whether others are harmed or
not. i would probably put the sale of marijuana in this category, since
although it has arguably not been categorically proven that marijuana is
harmful, its' sale is illegal, and thus there's a fairly good chance that
the seller of such would not be actively concerned about the consequences of
his or her actions. i'd also include the "we know what's best for you,"
mentality here, since there can be self-deception involved that the act/s
are sto in nature, when they in fact aren't.
or
3. the act enables self-enrichment through the active and conscious
domination/harm/exploitation of other individuals/lifeforms. the previous
practice of bludgeoning baby harp seals to death in order to profit from the
sale of their pelts would be a good example of this. another example would
be the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and such known harmful drugs as
cocaine.

a woman putting her lifejacket on before putting one on her child is imho
not sts. to me an sts act here would be for the woman to put a lifejacket
on and either actively prevent her child from putting one on, or simply feel
and demonstrate apathy with regards to whether or not the child had a
lifejacket on themselves.

[Pi]

monica,

your perspective seems pretty finely tuned to the illusion & dilemmas
we face, & your sensitivities are charming. overall, it may help to
remind your self to project a duality between a 'reality' of extreme
inequality & separation & a reality that you endorse as the highest
good for (the self of) all. imo, this is what ra means by advising us
to 'find the love' in a(ny) situation. in relation to what i/we see
as 'reality', this attunes consciousness 1) to be aware of how i am &
2) to always be mindful of love.

i find this will get me mind off the dime, so to speak --it frees me
from thinking the worthiness of what i am doing can be determined by
results of my efforts to address issues of inequality & separation.
if i know that reality actually is an illusion, then why assess what
i do by its effect on reality? the intent takes precedence. you are
indeed aware of this, yet you still seem troubled by what seems to be
an imperviousness of the reality to change.

here's a reminder: "don't worry - be patient & happy!" ;-) if nothing
seems to change around us, it doesn't matter. mass consciousness is a
personality in & of it self. to be able to free up energy i formerly
used to assess situations & relationships around me is what counts.
according to the loo, using consciousness to apply this energy to
love for the creator inside our self is all that matters.


--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=mrykqzxb8zenhnhtqtssb6m--setzjhsjknhqz2ui-8xdx_zxuhmn7vqddsrstyvywpvudwucpdcze4igsfnbw), "monica leal" <lealdragon@g...> wrote:
>
> in accordance with dw's comments below: if we must love in order to
be harvestable, but the very harvest itself means separating from the
3d other-selves who are not harvestable, then should we be attempting
to stay connected to those (apparently unharvestable) people, or allow
that separation to occur? and, if we allow the separation to occur
now, then wouldn't that be counterproductive to our goal of love and
oneness?

pi: on the other hand, by attaching self to an other self who is not
harvestable means i am separating my self from an other self who i am
being invited to join in 4d. so whatever the choice, it's separation
(of a sort), isn't it?
>
> or, is this just a natural part of the process of letting go of
those who will not be going where we, the harvested, will be going?

pi: how do we presume to know who will be going?

> perhaps i am a 4d wanderer, and do not need to learn love, since
i've already learned that, and i only need to learn wisdom, a 5d
lesson? is love a weakness, then, for a 5d or 6d being? all
throughout my life, people spat at me that i was 'weak' for being
so 'nice,' and i defended my 'niceness' because i thought it was a
virtue, a gift, a blessing.

pi: the expression of love is what matters, not the 'learning'. and i
do indeed extend peace & love with this message. :-) pi

[Gene Martin]

hi monica,

i appreciated your post, especially some of your stated concerns. for, i too,
seem to bobble to and fro in attempting to truly "understand" what is going on.
questions continually cram my head, so to speak.

the loo teaches us great stuff, yet at times i feel that i need to overcome my
"distortion" towards the loo itself. when i find conflicts or questions related
to what should i be doing, oftentimes i am reminded that all i am needing to do
is to be, just simply be who and what i truly am. and, if what i truly am is a
part of the infinite creator, or the infinite creator itself, then i simply need
to be love, because in the final tally of all our densities, lives,
reincarnations, distortions, etc - love is all there is!!

ra tells us that the most important thing we can "do", if we seek diligently is
to "meditate". however, in my opinion, when one meditates, one truly isn't doing
anything at all, but during the periods of meditation, one is being done unto.
this done unto is when the "knowing" is felt, the "love" is felt and experienced
within us. for me this is what i have experienced. my task then, if i wish to be
of sto is to find the love in each moment, to find the love in the now. another
way to try and state this is to observe the now and find the love in it.
because, truly, is there really a "past" or "future"? all we truly have is
"now". by looking back at the past or looking forward to the future, we are not
aware of now, and now is all we truly have. so, if love is all there is, and now
is all we have, then this simplifies living tremendously in my opinion. life's
purpose is simply to love now - find the love in each moment of each and every
day, regardless of where you are, what you are
doing, or with whom you happen to be. simply be love now.

sometimes i picture life as simply a game we are playing. when we die, we then
leave this illusion, and truly understand reality for what it is because reality
is in the next realm, not this earthly one. some of the material i have studied
has stated that we are making all of this up, and that all the scenarios and
outcomes are determined and therefore we can not get "hurt"... that all paths
lead to god, or the infinite creator.

in some of my dreams i have truly known that what was going on was not "real",
that i was actually dreaming. in a few of my dreams, i knew that i was
dreaming, but in this dream i was also dreaming something else - in other words
2 dreams in 1 like a smaller box contained inside a larger box. in other words,
i had to 'wake up' twice, cause the first time i woke up i was still inside the
first dream. wow, that was weird !!!

what i have come to understand at this time in my life is simply that love is
everywhere, love is all there is.

so, you may consider chosing to find the love when with your siblings, even
those who were not supportive of helping your brother that is in need of
financial support. love is the key which unlocks the door to miracles.

take care,

gene




monica leal <lealdragon@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=vxlgakc3rafzpnj5lrz48_2jbc-winukfjrqx5omidsni5r1chpzd9j8uz8vyvgkhzce7uv2z2qet fijbook)> wrote:

in accordance with dw's comments below: if we must love in order to be
harvestable, but the very harvest itself means separating from the 3d
other-selves who are not harvestable, then should we be attempting to
stay connected to those (apparently unharvestable) people, or allow
that separation to occur? and, if we allow the separation to occur
now, then wouldn't that be counterproductive to our goal of love and
oneness?




---------------------------------
yahoo! farechase - search multiple travel sites in one click.

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Monica Leal]

thanks neil. i understand about co-dependency - but that does not
apply here. i have definitely been guilty of that in the past, but in
this case, it was not a matter of me imposing help where it was not
wanted. my brother asked me for help, and i helped him, and he
appreciated it very much. i am not asking whether i should have helped
him - i am totally comfortable with my actions regarding the help i
gave to my brother.

rather, my question has to do with the other siblings who refused to
help in the time of my brother's need. is it separation for me to not
want to associate with these people because they did not live up to my
standards? or, is it within an sto perspecitve to justify my feelings,
telling myself that these people are not worth my time, that i should
not have to deal with such negative people? (i do, after all, have
more important things to do than go to family gatherings, anyway.) or
is that actually being judgmental?

dw has stated that (i paraphrase) anything that promotes oneness is
sto, and anything that promotes separation is sts. well, by not going
to family gatherings because my siblings let me down, isn't that
promoting separation? we were never close anyway. yet, i have gotten
the impression from much of the discussion on this group, that
sometimes we need to protect ourselves from negative people, and that
is acceptable.

but, if we were stronger in our love, would we need to separate
ourselves from negative people? it seems to me that it would be an
ideal for me to go to the family gathering, and just be in a state of
pure love, and no matter what they did, it should not bother me. but
alas, if i realistically might not pull that off, then it's ok to just
withdraw from the situation. my question is: isn't that still
separation? justified though it may be, is it not still acting out of
judgment and separation, rather than oneness and love?

(and therefore acting from an sts perspective?)

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=vhfnbxg6_qjkpkbyg4ieumb9dfqy6xwm-dsm6yvmglno2_8bn1f0tblmkqjhnl5rlosuahhacddaedusktu ), "neil haddon" <wayshower@g...> wrote:
>
> if you recall, dw also wrote about co-dependency. we know a lady
> who simply **has** to be needed ...
>
>
> at the same time, we have the dilemma you speak of: you try to
> help, you want to be of service, but the attitude of others
> inclines you to disconnect ...we all want to be of service, and tend
to rush in, sometimes to the point of overwhelming a brother or sister.
> but we cannot - must not - presume upon their attitudes,
> thinking, view-point, free-will.

[Monica Leal]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=qtdg6hmg3fthivatfagwca32p93n5m-hz_pcsjdnly2d3vl8uufwvqml9ja-rv8vdrrvs4zdif8_owfzjxco), "petrus" <petrus@b...> wrote:
> ... any use of the word wisdom by an individual in
> reference to themselves is a trap of the ego. to quote socrates:-
"the
> only true wisdom lies in knowing that i know nothing." being
called wise is
> the one compliment which i will not accept, as i believe that
growing to
> believe in my own wisdom would entrap me egoistically speaking
more than
> anything else, and thus halt my further growth. to me, it is much
more
> conducive to my development to continue to see myself (while not
abusively
> so) as ignorant and immature...thus i am continuing to acknowledge
the truth
> that there is always a vast amount more to learn...which grants me
the
> ability to do so...
>
> the litmus test here is to ask yourself what is more genuinely
conducive not
> only to the survival and continued existence of all, including
yourself. i
> think after pondering that question for a time, you may come to
the answer


ah, key word here being 'all.' awhile back, dw gave the example of a
sts entity tricking an sto entity, by eliciting sympathy from the
sto entity to the point that the sto entity was willing to actually
kill for the sts entity (the example of the abused child). the
lesson being, as i understood it, was to not be so blind in our
efforts to help others that we get suckered into helping someone who
doesn't really want our help, or, worse, is actually trying to trick
us into doing something really bad in our efforts to `rescue' the
victim.

could this not also work in reverse? ie we are so careful to avoid
potentially draining experiences, and are so careful to protect
ourselves from potentially negative people, that we become paranoid
and actually end up avoiding opportunities to learn love?

> that being "nice" is not a weakness...on the contrary, the
opposite is...i myself try to have
> reservations about the usual human tendency to label things in an
> excessively simplified manner. ... wanderer could become an
additional ego trap if the implication of wanderer
> superiority develops.

are we not arrogant if we think that, just because we believe
ourselves to be wanderers, that we no longer have to deal with the
lesser task of being loving to others? is this wisdom? or is it just
avoiding love?

it has been suggested to me on this forum that i perhaps should
consider less focus on being loving, and more on learning wisdom.
however, could there not be a greater wisdom, to realize that this
too can be a trap? the trap of thinking we are wise, when in fact we
are blind to the possibility that we have failed to be loving?

i have met so many `new age' leaders who seem to be rather cold and
insensitive, all under the guise of some perceived wisdom. for
example, i have a friend, a woman who is a new age leader and
teacher of workshops in my city, who teaches people about
empowerment and all sorts of cool stuff. but, if any one of her
followers ever questions her or asks for personal guidance, she
refuses, unless they pay her handsomely, because she does not want
to be drained of energy. she has told me repeatedly that i am `too
nice' and will never be successful unless i follow her example. the
truth is, that i'm not sure i even want to be `successful,' if it
means i have to be cold and uncaring like her!

on the other hand, i recently attended a workshop on psychic
healing. the teacher gave of himself freely. he never turned anyone
away for lack of $$. this man, although in his 70s, positively
glowed with a brilliant white aura! his nonprofit organization is
thriving, he is personally prospering, and many people attest to the
effectiveness of his work. he is currently teaching others how to do
the healing, so the work can be carried on.

what a contrast!

so, this led me to wonder: are we perhaps putting too much emphasis
on defensive techniques? yes, the banishing ritual was performed in
preparation for the loo channeling sessions, but did not ra also say
that carla was afforded great protection by the love and harmony of
the group?

so, coming full circle now to my original question about my family
situation (which is really only an example to illustrate the point,
btw), there is a part of me that is justifying my decision to
separate from them ? they are really not very nice people anyway, so
why should i be around them? ? yet another part of me feels that to
intentionally avoid them is nothing more than a glorified cop-out.

> as i believe ra says, discernment needs to be used as to whether
or not a
> given conflict can provide beneficial catalyst. many conflicts
merely serve
> to weaken the polarity of those involved. others however do offer
lessons
> for growth...it is different in each situation.
>

very true. some situations are obvious. just yesterday i counseled a
friend to divorce her husband, rather than stay in a highly abusive
relationship. that was easy, since there was only person working on
that marriage, and marriage takes two. but situations like the one
with my family are a bit more nebulous ? there is no abuse, only
dislike. no hatred, only a lack of love. no one is hurting me; they
are just `rubbing me the wrong way.' is this enough justification
for separation? by avoiding them, could i be missing a wonderful
opportunity for learning oneness? not to mention, an opportunity to
cause a ripple of love to go out into the world, as q'uo suggested.
should i withdraw my love, just because it might not be received, or
they might not `deserve' it?

thanks for your thought-provoking comments, petrus, and to everyone
else who responded as well. much to think about!

[Monica Leal]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=krenn5stg0iwzms3_wax4sdgu-jacqkyksaqfkbfngwpkkoz2sdyyzzbptnhdv9j9k7ecfdqgc15 53s4bgk), "petrus" <petrus@b...> wrote:
> reference to themselves is a trap of the ego. to quote socrates:-
"the
> only true wisdom lies in knowing that i know nothing." being
called wise is
> the one compliment which i will not accept, as i believe that
growing to
> believe in my own wisdom would entrap me egoistically speaking
more than
> anything else, and thus halt my further growth. to me, it is much
more
> conducive to my development to continue to see myself (while not
abusively
> so) as ignorant and immature...thus i am continuing to acknowledge
the truth
> that there is always a vast amount more to learn...which grants me
the
> ability to do so...
>
> the litmus test here is to ask yourself what is more genuinely
conducive not
> only to the survival and continued existence of all, including
yourself. i
> think after pondering that question for a time, you may come to
the answer


ah, key word here being 'all.' awhile back, dw gave the example of a
sts entity tricking an sto entity, by eliciting sympathy from the
sto entity to the point that the sto entity was willing to actually
kill for the sts entity (the example of the abused child). the
lesson being, as i understood it, was to not be so blind in our
efforts to help others that we get suckered into helping someone who
doesn't really want our help, or, worse, is actually trying to trick
us into doing something really bad in our efforts to `rescue' the
victim.

could this not also work in reverse? ie we are so careful to avoid
potentially draining experiences, and are so careful to protect
ourselves from potentially negative people, that we become paranoid
and actually end up avoiding opportunities to learn love?

> that being "nice" is not a weakness...on the contrary, the
opposite is...i myself try to have
> reservations about the usual human tendency to label things in an
> excessively simplified manner. ... wanderer could become an
additional ego trap if the implication of wanderer
> superiority develops.

are we not arrogant if we think that, just because we believe
ourselves to be wanderers, that we no longer have to deal with the
lesser task of being loving to others? is this wisdom? or is it just
avoiding love?

it has been suggested to me on this forum that i perhaps should
consider less focus on being loving, and more on learning wisdom.
however, could there not be a greater wisdom, to realize that this
too can be a trap? the trap of thinking we are wise, when in fact we
are blind to the possibility that we have failed to be loving?

i have met so many `new age' leaders who seem to be rather cold and
insensitive, all under the guise of some perceived wisdom. for
example, i have a friend, a woman who is a new age leader and
teacher of workshops in my city, who teaches people about
empowerment and all sorts of cool stuff. but, if any one of her
followers ever questions her or asks for personal guidance, she
refuses, unless they pay her handsomely, because she does not want
to be drained of energy. she has told me repeatedly that i am `too
nice' and will never be successful unless i follow her example. the
truth is, that i'm not sure i even want to be `successful,' if it
means i have to be cold and uncaring like her!

on the other hand, i recently attended a workshop on psychic
healing. the teacher gave of himself freely. he never turned anyone
away for lack of $$. this man, although in his 70s, positively
glowed with a brilliant white aura! his nonprofit organization is
thriving, he is personally prospering, and many people attest to the
effectiveness of his work. he is currently teaching others how to do
the healing, so the work can be carried on.

what a contrast!

so, this led me to wonder: are we perhaps putting too much emphasis
on defensive techniques? yes, the banishing ritual was performed in
preparation for the loo channeling sessions, but did not ra also say
that carla was afforded great protection by the love and harmony of
the group?

so, coming full circle now to my original question about my family
situation (which is really only an example to illustrate the point,
btw), there is a part of me that is justifying my decision to
separate from them ? they are really not very nice people anyway, so
why should i be around them? ? yet another part of me feels that to
intentionally avoid them is nothing more than a glorified cop-out.

> as i believe ra says, discernment needs to be used as to whether
or not a
> given conflict can provide beneficial catalyst. many conflicts
merely serve
> to weaken the polarity of those involved. others however do offer
lessons
> for growth...it is different in each situation.
>

very true. some situations are obvious. just yesterday i counseled a
friend to divorce her husband, rather than stay in a highly abusive
relationship. that was easy, since there was only person working on
that marriage, and marriage takes two. but situations like the one
with my family are a bit more nebulous ? there is no abuse, only
dislike. no hatred, only a lack of love. no one is hurting me; they
are just `rubbing me the wrong way.' is this enough justification
for separation? by avoiding them, could i be missing a wonderful
opportunity for learning oneness? not to mention, an opportunity to
cause a ripple of love to go out into the world, as q'uo suggested.
should i withdraw my love, just because it might not be received, or
they might not `deserve' it?

thanks for your thought-provoking comments, petrus, and to everyone
else who responded as well. much to think about!