The One is Love and What Else?

[jess9dob]

7-III. THE CREATOR = THE FOCUSING OF INTELLIGENT INFINITY INTO INTELLIGENT
ENERGY

RA: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have
called this by various names, the most common being ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚ÂƒÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚¢??logos' or ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚ÂƒÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚¢??love' [But
love
is actually the 2nd distortion]. (B1, 129)

RA: The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware conscious principle
called intelligent infinity. (B1, 129) (NOTE: When infinity focuses itself,
then creation occurs.)

RA: Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high order which
causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent
infinity in a particular way. All love emanates from the Oneness. (B2, 8)

Don Eli: But the Oneness is not all love, right? Or, as Oneness expresses
as both love of self (STS) and love of the One (STO), are these both considered
love of the Oneness? In other words, when RA speaks of love, does his love
include the kindest consideration and meanest selfishness? From 3-D
perspective, it seems there is virtue in resisting evil. If we do not resist
evil, are
we not complicit as enablers?

I understand the value of free will and the necessity of error for learning,
but is not each creature correct is protecting others from being victimized?
Should tyrants be allowed to terrorize the population because to stop them
would be to interfere with their free will and maybe thus inhibit their
progress,
or should tyrants be prevented from victimizing the people and thus
inhibiting the people's progress?

If there is good and evil (as I believe), is it not fair to say the
peacemaker acts against that evil part of the will of the One? Is not knowing
good
from evil the goal of free will? Is not choosing virtue and standing against
vice (within us and without) most important? Is that not supportive of the love
of Oneness and a rejection of the meanness of Oneness? If an STS entity
cannot be harvested into 7-D without switching to STO, Does not that imply a
rejection of selfishness by Oneness and an indication that evil is resisted by
Oneness? So, does not Oneness eventually resist the evil part of itself, just
as I
have come to do?

Agape,
Don Eli

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=UUVVKo3vjx40rgWKujLeTxA5HgcWQtIDxgGf6R XwrzOl406NDFYbIH34W_wbLGyED--v7Cbt65hdl-v_), viviangardens@... wrote:
> 7-III. THE CREATOR = THE FOCUSING OF INTELLIGENT INFINITY INTO
INTELLIGENT ENERGY
> RA: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy.
You have called this by various names, the most common being 'logos'
or ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚ÂƒÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚¢??love' [But love is actually the 2nd distortion]. (B1, 129)
> RA: The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware conscious
principle called intelligent infinity. (B1, 129) (NOTE: When infinity
focuses itself, then creation occurs.)
> RA: Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high
order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential
of intelligent infinity in a particular way. All love emanates from
the Oneness. (B2, 8)
> Don Eli: But the Oneness is not all love, right? Or, as Oneness
expresses as both love of self (STS) and love of the One (STO), are
these both considered love of the Oneness? In other words, when RA
speaks of love, does his love include the kindest consideration and
meanest selfishness? From 3-D perspective, it seems there is virtue
in resisting evil. If we do not resist evil, are we not complicit as
enablers?

PI: This is one way i see love.
The Oneness is the same as & no different than the One. The Oneness
is all love. STS & STO are both considered to be different forms
constituted by free will (1st distortion), constituted of love (2nd
distortion), constituted with light energy (3rd distortion) to
express Love (of Creator, of self, of others). Maybe an egg could be
love. One egg could be scrambled; one egg, boiled; one egg, sunny
side up; one egg, fried; one egg, cracked raw; one egg, split into
yolk & egg white. Each egg (each soul) is changed by free will to
boiled Love scrambled Love sunny side up Lover, fried Love; etc.,
with the application of energy. Each type of egg (love) is a
different form representing the original Egg (Love). Each egg exists
in different form as an egg (Love). Collectively, the eggs may be
considered to be a part of Egginess (Oneness) Regardless of different
ways that each one looks, tastes, etc. each form is an egg (Love).
Yes, Ra tells us love is meanest selfishness & kindest consideration.

No virtue exists in resistance to evil. No virtue exists in surrender
or concession to evil, either. In 3d, love exits without duality. For
example, virtue & malice can't exist alone, kindness needs meanness
in order to be a whole. Male needs female; hope needs despair; faith
can only grow & flourish by virtue of fear; & STO is a bridesmaid to
STS. (<-- To understand this, consider that without a veil of limited
awareness that was introduced as catalyst to encourage choice-making
in 3d, STO and STS were not observed to be distinctive paths.)

> I understand the value of free will and the necessity of error for
learning, but is not each creature correct is protecting others from
being victimized? Should tyrants be allowed to terrorize the
population because to stop them would be to interfere with their free
will and maybe thus inhibit their progress, or should tyrants be
prevented from victimizing the people and thus inhibiting the
people's progress?

PI: If a premise of protecting others from victimization is that the
means may justify the ends. There's a built-in fallacy to discussion
of the questions and concerns being raised here. According to Ra, any
effort one wants to make to reconfigure the way things are in 3d must
(1) be steadfast in concern to honor free will choice of every one;
(2) begins & ends in love for the Creator, & (3) achieves forgiveness
of self & balance of energy centers within FIRST.

> If there is good and evil (as I believe), is it not fair to say the
peacemaker acts against that evil part of the will of the One? Is
not knowing good from evil the goal of free will? Is not choosing
virtue and standing against vice (within us and without) most
important? Is that not supportive of the love of Oneness and a
rejection of the meanness of Oneness? If an STS entity cannot be
harvested into 7-D without switching to STO, Does not that imply a
> rejection of selfishness by Oneness and an indication that evil is
resisted by Oneness? So, does not Oneness eventually resist the evil
part of itself, just as I have come to do?

PI: It may be helpful to consider that love isn't a choice of good or
evil; it is unconditional; it unconditionally accepts "the way things
are" before, during & after it faces some one or some thing. It gives
vibration without support of the negative, positive, or neutral path.
Love comes from within; it expresses self from within; it reflects
self from within. It is pro-active always in all ways for all ways of
being.

Peace & Love, pi

[Colin]

Don and group,

I tend to agree with you Don, I think STO implies we resist and discourage those
that infringe on another's free will or rights. With Rights come
responsibilities. STO implies we try and assist those less fortunate than us.
The "good" in the "bad", is that through the bad we are moved to "do" and be
"good", STO. Once we acquire a sufficient degree of STO polarity we are
rewarded by graduating, by being able to be closer to our Creator, in all the
Love and Beauty that our Creator is.

Best regards, Colin

Behalf Of viviangardens@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=tteHpchsJhqGcBvREyy7O5jVNAMm_1UDj2FaeG CFhEgbyzOHJ5EK5Om4sWkP33eIUxvjbuG7SIYb6OXR6A)

Don Eli: But the Oneness is not all love, right? Or, as Oneness expresses
as both love of self (STS) and love of the One (STO), are these both
considered
love of the Oneness? In other words, when RA speaks of love, does his love
include the kindest consideration and meanest selfishness? From 3-D
perspective, it seems there is virtue in resisting evil. If we do not resist
evil, are
we not complicit as enablers? Agape, Don Eli

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/20/06 12:50:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
johnnypi@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=RFg21YQnVosmHqBKvrScrpi3p2qWh_5wUyEA8c qYVCJTW-QuAeyENVQJovbPg8RdsBjaSsA_ytBH-cHj) writes:

> PI: It may be helpful to consider that love isn't a choice of good or
> evil; it is unconditional; it unconditionally accepts "the way things
> are" before, during & after it faces some one or some thing. It gives
> vibration without support of the negative, positive, or neutral path.
> Love comes from within; it expresses self from within; it reflects
> self from within. It is pro-active always in all ways for all ways of
> being.

I love the good I see in others, but I do not like the meanness...in others
or in myself. I feel there is good desire in all gods and humans so I love us
all and hate no one. But I do not love all behavior. Do you, PI? If someone
is mean to you, do you love that the same as when they are nice to you? If
someone means you harm or friendship, is it all the same to you? Or, am I
misreading you?

Agape,
Don Eli

[Ed]

Don Eli (viviangardens) said:


> I love the good I see in others, but I do not like the
> meanness...in others
> or in myself. I feel there is good desire in all gods and
> humans so I love us
> all and hate no one. But I do not love all behavior. Do you,
> PI? If someone
> is mean to you, do you love that the same as when they are nice
> to you? If
> someone means you harm or friendship, is it all the same to
> you? Or, am I
> misreading you?
>
> Agape,
> Don Eli
>
If someone is being mean, you make your choices however
you prefer to about whatever your response is to be. Rather than
resisting the neanness, just see it for what it is and be neutral.
Resisting or disliking something emotionally does no good other than
to serve as your own catalyst, i.e., I feel really bad about this, so
what lesson can I learn from it?

Your mean, nasty person is most likely someone seriously damaged by
abuse, but also they probably made choices in this incarnation to
experience that for their own purposes of learning. They may or may
not be deliberately on an STS path. They may have chosen to experience
karmic repayment to balance something they did in previous lifetimes.
Whatever their actual situation is, it is not your problem, it is
their choice.

So, if you are going to unconditionally love and serve the mean, nasty
person, you see and love the good soul underneath the mean behavior
and you make your choice on what your physical plane response to their
behavior should be, and don't judge self. What you do or not depends
on the circumstances. You might want to give a loving communication to
the good soul inside the personality who has suffered whatever it was
that made the person mean and nasty. If that person is truly STO or
neutral, you would be helping them, and if they are striving for STS,
they will avoid you because your STO loving vibration weakens their
STS resolve. In the latter case, it also weakens your own STO.

Whatever you do, the point is to see it objectively rather than to sit
in resistance. Ultimately if they are striving for STS there is
nothing wrong with distancing yourself from that influence. Use your
own intuition or knowingness in your response, after feeling and
releasing your emotional resistance.

All the best, Ed

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=0nY3IHxoCvBh4JEVkhivVJnF2vzjgH9qhdsJ--OqHHAVXeGrePXN2cV__UPmBxsDXqFP7v7SvcqNxnmQPIY), "Pi" <johnnypi@...> wrote:
> PI: This is one way i see love.
> The Oneness is the same as & no different than the One. The Oneness
> is all love. [...] Each type of egg (love) is a
> different form representing the original Egg (Love). Each egg exists
> in different form as an egg (Love). Collectively, the eggs may be
> considered to be a part of Egginess (Oneness) Regardless of
> different ways that each one looks, tastes, etc. each form is an egg
> (Love).

Very nice analogy Pi, the only thing I want to add is that some forms
off eggs are more consonant with the law of one then others.
STO trys to be as consonant as possible with the original egg, but
eventually everything no matter what kind of egg will become the
original egg once again.

I'm hungry, think I'll have an egg :)

Peace,
Filip

[Jenifer]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=nUNg99zHFSHUSrPHcHsFLPkv7uKABH0UH-t-aBmeCduAe_3qo2mPcAQLNnkiahS5LvcNS9AZ1p8aPSE), Colin <colineck@...> wrote:
>
> Don and group,
>
> I tend to agree with you Don, I think STO implies we resist and discourage
those that
infringe on another's free will or rights.

Hi Colin...is "resist" the right word? Recall Jesus' famous injunction:
"Resist not evil."

>>With Rights come responsibilities. STO implies we try and assist those less
fortunate
than us.

Ra says that STO sees others as being the same as oneself, thus they are called
"otherselves." If we see others as "less fortunate" than ourselves, are we
really doing
them a favor?

>>The "good" in the "bad", is that through the bad we are moved to "do" and be
"good",
STO. Once we acquire a sufficient degree of STO polarity we are rewarded by
graduating,
by being able to be closer to our Creator, in all the Love and Beauty that our
Creator is.

I agree about the value of contrast, that's why we have incarnated into this
place of polarity.

all best,
Jen

>
> Best regards, Colin
>
> Behalf Of viviangardens@...
>
> Don Eli: But the Oneness is not all love, right? Or, as Oneness expresses
> as both love of self (STS) and love of the One (STO), are these both
considered
> love of the Oneness? In other words, when RA speaks of love, does his love
> include the kindest consideration and meanest selfishness? From 3-D
> perspective, it seems there is virtue in resisting evil. If we do not resist
evil, are
> we not complicit as enablers? Agape, Don Eli
>

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=_H25_l9V2LlkSnLPgqJjBdJsDVyRb4uKtYzbOF EtAFx27Gx3jbXbmv3ZDJ6TUmjhEa55GEYGlWtKZ27AK9M), Don Eli wrote:
> I love the good I see in others, but I do not like the meanness in
others or in myself. I feel there is good desire in all gods and
humans so I love us all and hate no one. But I do not love all
behavior. Do you, PI? If someone is mean to you, do you love that the
same as when they are nice to you? If someone means you harm or
friendship, is it all the same to you? Or, am I misreading you? >

PI: You are asking questions that cut to the chase of difficulty we all
face in interpreting the LoO, choosing to serve other self or my self,
& deciding on the most appropriate way to apply that interpretation &
that choice to our values, goals, and actions.

No, i do not like all behavior. i do not like behavior that is mean to
me the same as that which is kind. If someone wants to befriend or harm
me, it is not all the same to me. It may appear by these statements we
agree, but it's more likely that we disagree. You may be misreading me,
but it's more likely we disagree based on differing interpretations of
the LoO. Different interpretations lead to the differences we share in
deciding on what values, goals, & actions are most appropriate.

Where i differ is with respect making a distinction between a behavior
& a person. i also may differ in making a distinction between members
of a group and an organization or corporation or nation. As i interpret
the LoO, i intend to love a person, regardless of the person's actions.
i intend to love someone who steals from me the same way i love someone
replacing what had been stolen. My interpretation of LoO is that love
is an intangible disposition, primarily of my heart chakra; it's 'felt'
by vibrations of energy within that extend without, & by vibrations of
energy without that i may choose to accept or decline. i see love as a
universal energy force; it's all-encompassing, not neutral or positve
or negative. i don't love what someone does. i love a person that does
something.

In the context of 3d, the LoO is most difficult to decide the best way
to live a life of love. To start with, Ra says 2 persons facing similar
circumstances may be expected to choose very different ways to respond.
For one, a pre-incarnation plan may have intended use of self-defense
to strengthen previous cowardice when in harm's way. For another, a pre-
incarnation plan may have intended the opposite. In relation to dealing
with someone who intends harm to me, LoO recommends meditation & prayer
on that person's behalf. On a macro level, for example, Muslims' desire
for peace on earth may include dissolution of Israel; Israelis' desire,
relocation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims from adjacent nations.
Neither goal is consonant with my idea of universal peace on earth, but
all persons associated with Middle East turmoil and domestic terrorism
deserve love and prayers. In 3d, business concerns about competition
are often a situation where one party fears harm by another, &
the 'other one' is inevitably portrayed as STS &/or intending to harm.
i reiterate, LoO says love is the essence of every situation; & perhaps
the most difficult challenge we face in 3d is to gain an awareness of
love, learn to identify the love in all situations, & sustain a focus
on love each nanosecond of every millenium.

peace & love, pi

> > johnnypi had written:
> > It may be helpful to consider that love isn't a choice of good or
evil; it is unconditional; it unconditionally accepts "the way things
are" before, during & after it faces some one or some thing. It gives
vibration without support of the negative, positive, or neutral path.
Love comes from within; it expresses self from within; it reflects self
from within. It is pro-active always in all ways for all ways of being.

[Colin]

Hi Jen and group,

Yes, "resist" may not be an appropriate term, maybe I should have just
stayed with "discourage"?

Colin wrote, "I tend to agree with you Don, I think STO implies we resist
and discourage those that
infringe on another's free will or rights."

Jen wrote, "Hi Colin...is "resist" the right word? Recall Jesus' famous
injunction: "Resist not evil."


Jen, I agree that to see others as ourselves is an accurate correlation, so
I will clarify, that by helping others we are helping ourselves. As for,
"are we doing them a favor?". This then implies we are doing ourselves a
favor. Caring and assisting others, is caring and assisting ourselves.

Cheers. - Colin

Colin wrote, "With Rights come responsibilities. STO implies we try and
assist those less fortunate
than us."

Jen wrote, "Ra says that STO sees others as being the same as oneself, thus
they are called
"otherselves." If we see others as "less fortunate" than ourselves, are we
really doing
them a favor?"



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

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/22/06 8:10:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
metasyn@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=9m8VXe0aFK5BkqxhL161VrEdkNM7PH6JY0cjWi y8viQeO0JHc4dHYh2KNF1NUn-PZQy80KD7pRQPnp9VXdmq) writes:

> If someone is being mean, you make your choices however
> you prefer to about whatever your response is to be. Rather than
> resisting the neanness, just see it for what it is and be neutral.
> Resisting or disliking something emotionally does no good other than
> to serve as your own catalyst, i.e., I feel really bad about this, so
> what lesson can I learn from it?

Don Eli: If you "feel bad" about it, that is "disliking it emotionally."
What kind of person would I be if I felt nothing in the presence of meanness and
abuse?

>
> Your mean, nasty person is most likely someone seriously damaged by
> abuse, but also they probably made choices in this incarnation to
> experience that for their own purposes of learning. They may or may
> not be deliberately on an STS path. They may have chosen to experience
> karmic repayment to balance something they did in previous lifetimes.
> Whatever their actual situation is, it is not your problem, it is
> their choice.

If it harms me or my people it is my problem.

>
> So, if you are going to unconditionally love and serve the mean, nasty
> person, you see and love the good soul underneath the mean behavior
> and you make your choice on what your physical plane response to their
> behavior should be, and don't judge self. What you do or not depends
> on the circumstances. You might want to give a loving communication to
> the good soul inside the personality who has suffered whatever it was
> that made the person mean and nasty.

The best service to a bully and to all of us is for me to give him the honest
response of one who cares. It only makes it harder for him to learn if I
pretend his behavior is OK.

> Whatever you do, the point is to see it objectively rather than to sit
> in resistance.

No one who cares can be truly objective.

> Ultimately if they are striving for STS there is
> nothing wrong with distancing yourself from that influence.

Running away is not an option if you care and know you can prevent further
injury to the innocent.

> Use your
> own intuition or knowingness in your response, after feeling and
> releasing your emotional resistance.

I guess our feelings are different on this, Ed. My intuition is to resist
evil and support virtue, inside me and in my community. I feel and reject my
own hate, but my anger against injustice I treasure as perhaps the highest form
of love, in my understanding. Blessed be the peacemaker. The meek shall
inherit the Earth...in the old-English version of "meek" that does not imply
weakness or lack of passion to resist evil.

Agape,
Don Eli

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/22/06 1:26:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jenifer@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Wn-AQCzt8GUo78bY0tP1Ku0KSEWX8CeXvWF2ZonwzN7s-UfORAdVld4n9uUCmXtD7BxqkTWMeRt1SPg) writes:

> ..is "resist" the right word? Recall Jesus' famous injunction: "Resist
not
> evil."

The words of that prophet were changed and twisted in many cases. I remember
Peter carried a sword. And Jesus attacked the moneychangers in the Temple.

>
> >>With Rights come responsibilities. STO implies we try and assist those
> less fortunate
> than us.
>
> Ra says that STO sees others as being the same as oneself, thus they are
> called
> "otherselves." If we see others as "less fortunate" than ourselves, are
we
> really doing
> them a favor?

If someone stands beside you when you are under attack, do you feel belittled?

>
> >>The "good" in the "bad", is that through the bad we are moved to "do"
and
> be "good",

Not if the bad works for us, and no one complains.

Agape,
Don Eli

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/22/06 2:10:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
johnnypi@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=m-e7KeFHs4Qr2jhKg64pcMC7YldApJZXGQcFRSbS1n8xTDCChaRT QOSbQoTyfTA4KrQYJYNlLiHKeA) writes:

> Muslims' desire
> for peace on earth may include dissolution of Israel; Israelis' desire,
> relocation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims from adjacent nations.
> Neither goal is consonant with my idea of universal peace on earth, but
> all persons associated with Middle East turmoil and domestic terrorism
> deserve love and prayers.

But I, as an American citizen sharing responsibility for the actions of my
government overseas, must study the issue and take a position on our foreign
policy. As long as my country supports one side whether right or wrong, this
conflict will not end well. Would it offend the Great Spirit or you if mass
murder can be averted by greater concern, wisdom and understanding turned into
effective actions that facilitate peace? Or would we be better served allowing
eventual nuclear war because that will teach us?

Agape,
Don Eli

[Jenifer]

Certainly Colin, by caring and assisting others we are also caring and
assisting ourselves. My question had to do with seeing others as
"less fortunate" than ourslves. This in itself is a separating perception,
I feel.

I think we honor others the most when we see the truth about them,
rather than the illusion. It is truth that people are glorious sovereign
beings, and an illusion that they are "unfortunate." This is not necessarily
at odds with offering assistance.

As for discouraging those who infringe on others, I think we ought
to take a stand, and this may or may not mean interacting with
them directly.

Jen


--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=mg7ZQuJ43xFYRjDVi_5k612xQw1cGe0-gdr9nUZ7SHH90crb--Kx2RWS4X_fqrp6Dg0vjXD3RZeTy2zGoem2), Colin <colineck@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jen and group,
>
> Yes, "resist" may not be an appropriate term, maybe I should have just
> stayed with "discourage"?
>
> Colin wrote, "I tend to agree with you Don, I think STO implies we resist
> and discourage those that
> infringe on another's free will or rights."
>
> Jen wrote, "Hi Colin...is "resist" the right word? Recall Jesus' famous
> injunction: "Resist not evil."
>
>
> Jen, I agree that to see others as ourselves is an accurate correlation, so
> I will clarify, that by helping others we are helping ourselves. As for,
> "are we doing them a favor?". This then implies we are doing ourselves a
> favor. Caring and assisting others, is caring and assisting ourselves.
>
> Cheers. - Colin
>
> Colin wrote, "With Rights come responsibilities. STO implies we try and
> assist those less fortunate
> than us."
>
> Jen wrote, "Ra says that STO sees others as being the same as oneself, thus
> they are called
> "otherselves." If we see others as "less fortunate" than ourselves, are we
> really doing
> them a favor?"
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Jenifer]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=UkNj0qhikCr9uh_f4LPRqjWCA2ms_5_jHvgtx3 Jw4liQ24PwId_XWHL7vIvXbEJlNBe8igQ3BxPUvSedaA), viviangardens@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/22/06 1:26:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jenifer@... writes:
>
> > ..is "resist" the right word? Recall Jesus' famous injunction: "Resist
> not
> > evil."
>
> The words of that prophet were changed and twisted in many cases. I remember
> Peter carried a sword. And Jesus attacked the moneychangers in the Temple.

OK, so he didn't always practice what he preached. No one's perfect. :-)

I do feel there is truth in the concept of nonresistance. It's not about being
a doormat, but about lifing ourselves up in consciousness, out of the range
of the trouble or "evil." For basically, we are the cause of the effects we
meet in life.

Here's an interesting essay on the subject:
http://wahiduddin.net/mv2/VIIIa/VIIIa_2_3.htm

> > >>With Rights come responsibilities. STO implies we try and assist those
> > less fortunate
> > than us.
> >
> > Ra says that STO sees others as being the same as oneself, thus they are
> > called
> > "otherselves." If we see others as "less fortunate" than ourselves, are
> we
> > really doing
> > them a favor?
>
> If someone stands beside you when you are under attack, do you feel belittled?

As I said to Colin, we can still offer assistance, without seeing someone as
"unfortunate."

> > >>The "good" in the "bad", is that through the bad we are moved to "do"
> and
> > be "good",
>
> Not if the bad works for us, and no one complains.

Dunno about that, in any case, that was Colin you are responding to there, not
moi.

Jen
>
> Agape,
> Don Eli
>

[Colin]

Dear friends,

Again, for what it's worth I generally agree with Don. I don't believe it
is enlightened to covey to anyone that it is acceptable in a civilized
society to indicate indifference to anyone who infringes upon the rights of
another. I would not dislike any person, but I may really dislike their
evil/negative behaviour/action. Yes, sometimes there could be a karmic
balancing act going on but I see that as being an individual thing and not
so much as a societal thing. Society makes its laws to protect its citizens
and our Creator has His/Her set of discernments. God's discernment would
transcend society's laws for it would take into account a persons karmic
state.

Cheers. - Colin

Don wrote: "My intuition is to resist evil and support virtue, inside me and
in my community."




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

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=UA0w6Lk4cYlmIDldM0y-WiMFigaDTjSNbHSSLxHVeMqweWspOt8coWiYasetMTpbfSO_tV 0o0rZccEl9NUML), Don Eli wrote:
> The words of that prophet were changed and twisted in many cases.
I remember Peter carried a sword. And Jesus attacked the
moneychangers in the Temple.

PI: The above statements are misleading. Though Peter carried a
sword, that was his free will choice.

There's a channeled account of Jesus life by Levi H. Dowling titled
The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus, the Christ of the Piscean Age that
may be a more accurate account of activities & teachings of Christ.

The Aquarian gospel describes Peter's use of the sword this way in
CHAPTER 164: v24 But Peter had a sword, & rushing up he smote the man
& wounded him. v25 But Jesus said, Stay, Peter, stay; put up your
sword; you are not called to fight with swords & clubs. Whoever
wields the sword shall perish by the sword. v26 I do not need
protection by the sons of men, for I could call this moment & a
legion, yea, twelve legions of the messengers of God, would come &
stand in my defence; but then it is not well. v27 And then he said to
Malchus, Man, I would not have you harmed. And then he laid his hand
upon the wound that Peter made, & it was healed.

And it describes Jesus' "attack" on the money changers this way in
Chapter 72: v5 ...he saw the money changers in the house of God, & he
was grieved. v6 The courts had been converted into marts of trade, &
men were selling lambs & doves for offerings in sacrifice. v7 And
Jesus called the priests & said, Behold, for paltry gain you have
sold out the temple of the Lord. v8 This house ordained for prayer is
now a den of thieves. Can good & evil dwell together in the courts of
God? I tell you, no. v9 And then he made a scourge of cords & drove
the merchants out; he overturned their boards, & threw their money on
the floor. v10 He opened up the cages of the captive birds, & cut the
cords that bound the lambs, & set them free. v11 The priests &
scribes rushed out, & would have done him harm, but they were driven
back; the common people stood in his defence.

> > jenifer had written:
> > ..is "resist" the right word? Recall Jesus' famous
injunction: "Resist not evil."

PI: We give out energy that can be used to empower a person or idea
or charge that we resist. Maybe it'd be better to persist in finding
love within the moment and the self. Though i can't explain why / how
it works, imo, love helps one to withstand negative energy that could
otherwise spawn fear and physical disequilibrium.

Love & Peace, john

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/23/06 10:15:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jenifer@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=9-GkZhf4oN1yjW5WthzqIkvty4bXGJQRixiJJ5MVmqvJTCvR5WnF 9rhqqAhKV2Odo1g_Sffdd-9JwVy4) writes:

> > jenifer@... writes:
> >
> > > Recall Jesus' famous injunction: "Resist
> > > not evil."
Don Eli:
> > The words of that prophet were changed and twisted in many cases. I
> remember
> > Peter carried a sword. And Jesus attacked the moneychangers in the
Temple.
>
>
> OK, so he didn't always practice what he preached. No one's perfect. :-)

Actually, many Christians would disagree because they think Jesus is a
perfect and almighty god. I disagree for a different reason: Jesus would not
have
attacked the moneychangers in the temple, and thus attack the priesthood and
Rome, without serious consideration of the results. This was an act of
rebellion that would result in revolution or the death or imprisonment of the
rebels.
Such an attack by Jesus could not have been a spur of the moment impulsive
action, I think.

> I do feel there is truth in the concept of nonresistance. It's not about
> being
> a doormat, but about lifing ourselves up in consciousness, out of the range
> of the trouble or "evil." For basically, we are the cause of the
effects
> we meet in life.
>
I just finished reading "The Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield (1993).
The metaphysical philosophy of this book suggests that we suffer in
relationships involving power struggles--we struggle competitively to make
others give
us their energy. The key word here is "make," as in "against their will." We
develop strategies in childhood. If the parents use the strategy of
intimidation, the child might counter with the "poor me" strategy (guilt). Both
strategies are about control and taking energy from (defeating) the other (as in
debate, which comes from the French "to beat").

We suffer because we take energy from each other, and it seems like the
energy available is limited. When we take the energy of another (without giving
back), we deplete that source. If we perceive of our relationships as contests
to see who will walk away with the energy and who will be emptied, our only
option is to fight or flee or give up our energy and feel weak.

The book suggests that we instead get our energy from the universe by
meditating on the beauty of nature and each other. This practice generates love
for
the universe, which allows us to connect to an inexhaustible source of energy,
like that of the stars. Then we are not dependent on others for energy
(although we can still enjoy energy freely given by others) and we can give
loving
attention (energy) to others without needing anything in return; because as we
empty ourselves of energy a void is created which the universe gladly fills.

So, back to resisting evil. The idea is that we need to tell people what
they do wrong (taking against the will of another), while at the same time
giving
powerful loving energy to this frightened child who feels taking by force or
trickery is the only way to get needed energy. We serve the bully by speaking
truth of good and evil, and we give him what he really craves (loving energy)
without him needing to struggle to overpower us and take it.

For example, if a bully calls me names and wants to fight; rather than trying
to outbully him with force or "poor me" guilt-tripping, I can simply ask why
he is so angry, while loving the good that I know is in him, and the
frightened child that needs someone to show him what love is.

The attack by Jesus on the moneychangers in the temple was about telling the
truth (by example) about an evil. I imagine he was not coming from fear, but
from anger against injustice and love of the people and the One and especially
the individuals he attacked.

Agape,
Don Eli

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=lF_z0Br4RRpXkhQ3X5QE4tjQs6jdYZTiB88egQ rdi2zTI2fi9WYPDKN9NLeJq0OjPAQti6U_ukEWHDMiFoNm), Don Eli wrote:
> But I, as an American citizen sharing responsibility for the
actions of my government overseas, must study the issue and take a
position on our foreign policy. As long as my country supports one
side whether right or wrong, this conflict will not end well. Would
it offend the Great Spirit or you if mass murder can be averted by
greater concern, wisdom and understanding turned into effective
actions that facilitate peace? Or would we be better served allowing
eventual nuclear war because that will teach us? >

PI: i am an American citizen, so i take no offense & applaud your
desire to avert mass murder & concern for effective actions to
facilitate peace. Although i hope you will succeed, i differ with the
priorities that are involved. imo, the circumstances we face involve
choices like these:

Do I pledge primary allegiance to the law of the Constitution of the
United States of America, & to the Republic for which it stands: one
Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty & justice for all?
OR
Do I pledge primary allegiance to the Law of One, & to the Spirit of
Love & Service to Others for which it stands: One Universe under God,
indivisible, with free will & karma for All?

Do I credit (or owe) the birthright to be Me, My Self, & I to the
constitutional law of the USA & ideals of liberty, justice, & the
American way for all?
OR
Do I credit (or owe) the birthright to be Me, My Self, & I to the Law
of One & ideals of free will, karma, & the Unconditional Love of all?

To make this Earth a better place to live, do I give primary priority
to resolution of global, international & national issues affecting
present & future status of the USA?
OR
To make this Earth a better place to live, do I give primary priority
to resolution of personal, behavioral, & spiritual issues affecting
the past, present, & future status of Me, My Self, & I?

To choose all would require one to serve two Masters, & that can't be
done, due to conflicting principles & ideals between LoO & law of USA.

Peace & Love, pi

> > johnnypi had written:
> > Muslims' desire for peace on earth may include dissolution of
Israel; Israelis' desire, relocation of hundreds of thousands of
Muslims from adjacent nations. Neither goal is consonant with my idea
of universal peace on earth, but all persons associated with Middle
East turmoil and domestic terrorism deserve love and prayers.

[James Stephens]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=XrNuzFi8eC2rVxv2jGITp4gBP2xwKTYpZjJuan Z7Uq3ikxXGNLTTZ5_69uXTGoB7NDIa-qfsHjHEUZw), Colin <colineck@...> wrote:
Society makes its laws to protect its citizens
> and our Creator has His/Her set of discernments.
> Cheers. - Colin

Hi all,

Not to sound negative but only to point out a fact. Society does not
make it's laws to protect it's citizens. Laws are a function of
government, government is a function of those who are members of it.
Laws are made to protect the government and the elite who support it.
If Society were to truly make the laws we would live in a very
different place indeed.

[Jenifer]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=3abnUj3fkuS7y0i83Hp63Ca6Ymm6laWhKy9E5A 3BVo27fW6VwSmuCWbUD5xUcNI6_K6asUvF4oEO8D_Mrsk), "Pi" <johnnypi@...> wrote:
>
> --- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=3abnUj3fkuS7y0i83Hp63Ca6Ymm6laWhKy9E5A 3BVo27fW6VwSmuCWbUD5xUcNI6_K6asUvF4oEO8D_Mrsk), viviangardens@ wrote:

> > If there is good and evil (as I believe), is it not fair to say the
> peacemaker acts against that evil part of the will of the One? Is
> not knowing good from evil the goal of free will? Is not choosing
> virtue and standing against vice (within us and without) most
> important? Is that not supportive of the love of Oneness and a
> rejection of the meanness of Oneness? If an STS entity cannot be
> harvested into 7-D without switching to STO, Does not that imply a
> > rejection of selfishness by Oneness and an indication that evil is
> resisted by Oneness? So, does not Oneness eventually resist the evil
> part of itself, just as I have come to do?
>
> PI: It may be helpful to consider that love isn't a choice of good or
> evil; it is unconditional; it unconditionally accepts "the way things
> are" before, during & after it faces some one or some thing. It gives
> vibration without support of the negative, positive, or neutral path.
> Love comes from within; it expresses self from within; it reflects
> self from within. It is pro-active always in all ways for all ways of
> being.

Hi pi, what is your take on this, from Conversations With God, Book One?
Perhaps saying no to evil is not the same as resisting it, and perhaps, as
"God" says, allowing abuse to continue is not the way of Love:

"...if you look to what is best for you in these stuations where you are
being abused, at the very least what you will do is stop the abuse.
And that will be good for both you and the abuser. For even an abuser
is abused when his abuse is allowed to continue.

This is not healing to the abuser, but damaging. For if the abuser finds
that his abuse is acceptable, what has he learned? Yet if the abuser finds
that his abuse will be accepted no more, what has he been allowed to
discover?

Therefore, treating others with love does not necessarily mean allowing
others to do as they wish.

[Jen: Jesus' actins with the moneychangers in the temple seems an
example of this.]

Parents learn this early with children. Adults are not so quick to learn it
with
other adults, nor nation with nation.

Yet despots cannot be allowed to flourish, but must be stopped in their
despotism. Love of Self, and love of the despot, demands it.

[...]

This does not mean, in human relationships, that if you are being hurt,
you have to 'hurt back.' {Nor does it mean so in relationships between
nations.) It simply means that to allow another to continually inflict
damage may not be the most loving thing to do--for your Self or the other.

This should put to rest some pacifist theories that highest love requires no
forceful response to what you consider evil...no serious explanation of
this statement can ignore the word 'evil', and the value judgments it invites.
In truth, there is nothing evil, only objective phenomena and experience.
Yet your very purpose in life requires you to select from the growing
collection of endless phenomena a scattered few which you call evil--for unless
you do, you cannot call yourself, or anything else, good--and thus cannot
know, or create, your Self.

By that which you call evil do you define yourself--and by that which you call
good.

The biggest evil would therefore be to declare nothing evil at all."

Jen
>
> Peace & Love, pi
>

[James Stephens]

Hello all,

It's interesting that I happened to read something inadvertantly that
is relative to this conversation after I read the posts. This is a
quote from some of the RA material concerning the conflict between the
Confederation and the Orion group. It has bearing on the current
conversation concerning resistance.

Q:You spoke of an Orion Confederation and of a battle being fought
between the Confederation and the Orion Confederation. Is it possible
to convey any concept of how this battle is fought?

A:I am Ra. Picture, if you will, your mind. Picture it then in total
unity with all other minds of your society. You are then single-minded
and that which is a weak electrical charge in your physical illusion
is now an enormously powerful machine whereby thoughts may be
projected as things.
In this endeavor the Orion group charges or attacks the Confederation
armed with light. The result, a stand-off, as you would call it, both
energies being somewhat depleted by this and needing to regroup; the
negative depleted through failure to manipulate, the positive depleted
through failure to accept that which is given.

Q:Could you amplify the meaning of what you mean by the "failure to
accept that which is given?"

A:I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the
form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving
energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those
entities were surrounded and engulfed, transformed by positive energies.
This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware
that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in
order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be
of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of
darkness under the heel, as you may say.
It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive
rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service
to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion
Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some
polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will,
must then regroup.
It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which
has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this
planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in
this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation.

From this we can see that as beings in the STO path it is indeed
imperative that we do resist evil, although it does come at some cost.

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=hdVnlR41iBre-YAuo5TgPU2B1_h6Hn-9YVgOeLJOXmZW6fOKOS3tZEQWPliPHoY6APztgIe2rAJ9qhA7b Wo), Jen wrote:
> Hi pi, what is your take on this, from Conversations With God, Book
One? Perhaps saying no to evil is not the same as resisting it, and
perhaps, as "God" says, allowing abuse to continue is not the way of
Love:
> "...if you look to what is best for you in these stuations where
you are being abused, at the very least what you will do is stop the
abuse. And that will be good for both you and the abuser. For even an
abuser is abused when his abuse is allowed to continue.
> This is not healing to the abuser, but damaging. For if the abuser
finds that his abuse is acceptable, what has he learned? Yet if the
abuser finds that his abuse will be accepted no more, what has he
been allowed to discover?
> Therefore, treating others with love does not necessarily mean
allowing others to do as they wish.
> [Jen: Jesus' actins with the moneychangers in the temple seems an
example of this.]

PI: Yes, loving every one does not give any one carte blanche to
treat me / you as they please, since we are loving the (one) person
without reference to that person's behavior. So the love we give is
different from the way we choose to treat every one. If this doesn't
confuse some one, please help Pi clarify how the way we decide to
treat a person uses a different protocol than the process of loving
that person. All i can offer for now is that love is from within & is
not contingent on a person's behavior --it comes from openness of our
own heart & our inner cultivation of green ray.

The web page for the following quotes may be helpful info to address
abusive conduct:
HATONN: the first step in removing abuse from yourselves is to know
that you always have free will, that you are safe,.... <SNIP>
The next step in dealing with those who abuse...is to refrain from
listening to the sense of what that entity is saying.... Surround
yourself with a silence. You may hear but you do not have to attend,
you do not have to react. <snip >The third level of protection is the
walking away, the physical removal of the self from the source of the
vampiric & abusive entity. Move to that room which has the lock upon
the door, & lock it.
HATONN: ...pray for those who are not your friends, but your enemies,
who wish you ill, through unhappinesses & agonies & distortions of
their own. Pray for them with all your heart, pray to forgive,... the
you that was weak....

LATWII: Only one thing stops the wheel of karma...total forgiveness
<SNIP> that which is forgiven by you will be forgiven [in you], &
that which is retained by you will be retained [in you]...
LATWII: In order to forgive the unforgivable, which is part of the
lesson of learning to love without condition, it is extremely helpful
to take that person within yourself & earnestly & humbly to pray for
that person,...
LATWII: Forgiving entities does not mean that it is necessary for the
forgiving entity to continue to accept acts upon the part of the
other self which are subjectively seen to be abusive & destructive
enough that the self?or those young selves for whom you are
responsible-[is] in danger of any kind, be it mental, or physical,
but as you do those things that you must, as you decide upon the
separation because you see that union is impossible, as the other
entity cannot do the work that you are doing in forgiveness, you
simply do that which you have to do, with love & compassion & peace,
staying within the forgiveness, accepting the unacceptable that may
occur, loving the unlovable...
http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/issues/1990/1990_0617.htm

JEN: "The biggest evil would therefore be to declare nothing evil at
all."

PI: i agree, though i may be confused about what i;m agreeing with. :)
imo, by saying "nothing" you refer to a behavior, not a person ("no
one"), right? And evil's not wrong or right, it's just a negative
energy (sts).

Peace & Love, pi

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=xdHj2q3cTXgU0mgaisDGTgwBYWfG-oHYISINfc261-2DZPCIKNKeZhoJAZKfz_CWRhTlhDUB-BEvEm6uu2Ho7Q), James Stephens wrote:
> Q:You spoke of an Orion Confederation and of a battle being fought
between the Confederation and the Orion Confederation. Is it possible
to convey any concept of how this battle is fought?
A:I am Ra. Picture, if you will, your mind. Picture it then in total
unity with all other minds of your society. You are then single-minded
and that which is a weak electrical charge in your physical illusion
is now an enormously powerful machine whereby thoughts may be
projected as things.
In this endeavor the Orion group charges or attacks the Confederation
armed with light. The result, a stand-off, as you would call it, both
energies being somewhat depleted by this and needing to regroup; the
negative depleted through failure to manipulate, the positive depleted
through failure to accept that which is given.
Q:Could you amplify the meaning of what you mean by the "failure to
accept that which is given?"
A:I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the
form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving
energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those
entities were surrounded and engulfed, transformed by positive
energies.
This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware
that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in
order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be
of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of
darkness under the heel, as you may say.
It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive
rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service
to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion
Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some
polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will,
must then regroup.

From this we can see that as beings in the STO path it is indeed
imperative that we do resist evil, although it does come at some
cost. >

PI: The scenario refers to thought war in time/space AND a battle of
equals on equal footing. We aren't discussing thought wars or battle
of equals on equal footing. And besides, it seems "the most accepting
& loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate
that those entities were surrounded & engulfed, transformed by
positive energies." That's hardly a recommendation to resist. But it
still concerns post-3d development & is irrelevant to learning love
in 3d.
Peace & Love, pi

[James Stephens]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=PLzhd2C97fBKpyft-uLHuXKqyiiWQNFd-4p9jkJWKq9IznwagiUwNb1VkViHiMwLFM6tZ0wz3njY6D91obk r), "Pi" <johnnypi@...> wrote:
>
> --- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=PLzhd2C97fBKpyft-uLHuXKqyiiWQNFd-4p9jkJWKq9IznwagiUwNb1VkViHiMwLFM6tZ0wz3njY6D91obk r), James Stephens wrote:
> > Q:You spoke of an Orion Confederation and of a battle being fought
> between the Confederation and the Orion Confederation. Is it possible
> to convey any concept of how this battle is fought?
> A:I am Ra. Picture, if you will, your mind. Picture it then in total
> unity with all other minds of your society. You are then single-minded
> and that which is a weak electrical charge in your physical illusion
> is now an enormously powerful machine whereby thoughts may be
> projected as things.
> In this endeavor the Orion group charges or attacks the Confederation
> armed with light. The result, a stand-off, as you would call it, both
> energies being somewhat depleted by this and needing to regroup; the
> negative depleted through failure to manipulate, the positive depleted
> through failure to accept that which is given.
> Q:Could you amplify the meaning of what you mean by the "failure to
> accept that which is given?"
> A:I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the
> form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving
> energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those
> entities were surrounded and engulfed, transformed by positive As
above, so below...

I think it is perfectly relevant. The scenario is the same whether it
is in 4d or 3d. The same activities are going on between governments,
ideologies, and between people. Our response should also be the same.
The conflicts between governments, ideologies, and between individuals
are also thought wars, one trying to control the other in order to
enslave them. It is our duty to ourselves and otherselves to resist
the attempts to undermine free will. The question is the method used.

"...the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who
wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded and engulfed,
transformed by positive energies."

From this we can see that violence is never the answer, in every
situation we must seek to fulfill the need that has precipitated the
fear that has resulted in the undesired behavior. Give. Whether it be
a dictatorship seeking to conquer it's neighboring country or the
child molester looking for an expression of unconditional love, the
answer is the same. Fighting, killing, and incarceration does nothing,
it only exacerbates the problem.

Focusing on service and the delivery of true help is the path. It's
implementation is as varied as the situations presented. Punishment is
based on FEAR. Fear is the problem to begin with.

Sorry, maybe I'm rambling. My point is that resistance is necessary,
it's the manner of implementation that is the question.

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/24/06 7:07:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jpstephenslives@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ZHKSos87R6cDYP9_q782Aai3VB_OcJucRqA9zP DuUul0pq3ZlnXggDq0EWTS67L_ckWq9MAiN9VS_VfqoSgHQ7ho vQ) writes:

> those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive
> rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service
> to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion
> Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some
> polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will,
> must then regroup.
> It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which
> has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this
> planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in
> this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation.
>
> From this we can see that as beings in the STO path it is indeed
> imperative that we do resist evil, although it does come at some cost.

One cannot resist evil if one assumes it not to exist. RA defines evil
(above) using these words: "enslavement" and "planetary annihilation."

And RA defined good (above) with this: "lessening the chances of planetary
annihilation" and being "defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve
their (the Confederation's) usefulness in service to others" (when faced with
evil of equal energy/power).

I wonder how the Confederation would lose STO "usefulness" by accepting and
not resisting these evils? Do we have less to give if we become less virtuous?
I think so, as free people have more to give than slaves. Or, put another
way, what is given freely has more energy/power than what is given by a slave.
I think what is given by a slave, or one who resists not evil, is not love.

Agape,
Don Eli

[Pi]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=hgz3GPteZUoO6Zn_0re8PvfvVYFVUA0tN09Wo9 va-8I7QQb6XgmeRowAkhfxwRHpKZq3Fh2mQw0x8sk), Jen wrote:
> > If there is good and evil (as I believe), is it not fair to say
the peacemaker acts against that evil part of the will of the One?
Is not knowing good from evil the goal of free will? Is not choosing
virtue and standing against vice (within us and without) most
important? Is that not supportive of the love of Oneness and a
rejection of the meanness of Oneness? If an STS entity cannot be
harvested into 7-D without switching to STO, Does not that imply a
rejection of selfishness by Oneness and an indication that evil is
resisted by Oneness? So, does not Oneness eventually resist the evil
part of itself, just as I have come to do? > >

PI: i think i answered incorrectly yesterday. Ra actually recommends
non-resistance in Book 2, Session 42, 3/28/81, as follows:

"Questioner: Would a perfectly balanced entity feel any emotional
response in being attacked by the other-self?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. The response is love.
Questioner: In the illusion that we now experience it is difficult to
maintain this response especially if the attack results in physical
pain, but I assume that this response should be maintained even
through physical pain or loss of life. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and further is of a major or principle
importance in understanding, shall we say, the principle of balance.
Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by
any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love."

JEN: pi, what is your take on this, from Conversations With God, Book
One?
Perhaps saying no to evil is not the same as resisting it, and
perhaps, as God" says, allowing abuse to continue is not the way of
Love:
"...if you look to what is best for you in these stuations where you
are being abused, at the very least what you will do is stop the
abuse.
And that will be good for both you and the abuser. For even an abuser
is abused when his abuse is allowed to continue.
This is not healing to the abuser, but damaging. For if the abuser
finds that his abuse is acceptable, what has he learned? Yet if the
abuser finds that his abuse will be accepted no more, what has he
been allowed to discover?
Therefore, treating others with love does not necessarily mean
allowing others to do as they wish.
[Jen: Jesus' actions with the moneychangers in the temple seems an
example of this.]

PI: What makes this confusing is that in the same session, Ra says to
release one's feelings:

"Questioner: How can a person know when he is unswayed by an
emotionally charged situation or if he is repressing the flow of
emotions, or if he is in balance and truly unswayed?
Ra: I am Ra. We have spoken to this point. Therefore, we shall
briefly iterate that to the balanced entity no situation has an
emotional charge but is simply a situation like any other in which
the entity may or may not observe an opportunity to be of service.
The closer an entity comes to this attitude the closer an entity is
to balance. You may note that it is not our recommendation that
reactions to catalyst be repressed or suppressed unless such
reactions would be a stumbling block not consonant with the Law of
One to an other-self. It is far, far better to allow the experience
to express itself in order that the entity may then make fuller use
of this catalyst."

PI: So we're told that it's acceptable to engage in defensive action,
since we're biologically programmed from 2nd density that way. It's
best however, to be loving without resistance.
Peace & Love, pi

[Michael Abrient]

On 9/25/06, Pi <johnnypi@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=8Atnx6VGs8mwwdqDcWEYvuc2HAfpPlLg3ZDXNI y43vJxW1p91ROImaWuT-cddCp8KdeIYEtUlUOXNw)> wrote:
>
>
> PI: So we're told that it's acceptable to engage in defensive action,
> since we're biologically programmed from 2nd density that way. It's
> best however, to be loving without resistance.
> Peace & Love, pi


A : It's a double edge. We have the right to resist, but the means always
justify the ends, whatever you give you should be prepared to receive, etc.,
and to do so costs polarity, one argues. The masters are always vicious
pacifists-- Buddha was a prince of a warrior tribe who renounced violence,
Mahavera the same, Jesus was supposed to be a conquering king but refused
and it cost him his life (he was fulfilling an old Essene prophecy from when
the Greeks ruled Judea of the "Great Teacher" and not the mainstream Hebrew
messianic prophecy), and so on.

But I thought about this, and came to the conclusion this is why most
cultures, particularly those with a martial tradition that runs close to
their spirituality, like the Zulus, Native Americans, Japanese, always have
a code of honor when it comes to physical conflict. There are qualifiers of
who fights, why they fight, what is appropriate behavior, what rituals are
to be done before and after, etc. For instance, the Zulus would go for weeks
through intense self-purification before going back into society after a
war, and the Japanese had bushido and a code of honor that would guide a
warrior through all their life.

The seeking of forgiveness and trying to re-attain polarity, signs of
conscience, are always what will separate the warrior from the murderer. The
warrior will always kill with the strictest of intent, and for what they
believe to be the greater good, willing and knowing that the same may be
done to them, and will always seek forgiveness and balancing karma for
taking a life no matter how stern-- the murder does it for the gratification
of self-serving second/ orange ray needs, meaning a negative expression of
power. The serious seeking of forgiveness and balancing the karma, I think
is the crucial part, and it is possible to reattain polarity, but I can see
the masters, ethically, as seeing their polarity, their relationship with
the other and God, as so precious that nothing could ever be worth
exchanging for it, and that a life freely given is given freely to in
return, in this world or the next. But I can see how the rules are different
in 4D.

The imam I saw the day after NineElven said, there are two paths, the one of
retaliation and the once of peace. Retaliation and self-defence is
acceptable, certainly, but the greater reward lies down the path of peace.
To me violence is another tool of communication which can be social,
anti-social or asocial, so I'm agnostic towards whatever inherent nature it
may or may not have. But I agree with what the imam said.

My flamboyant interfaith rambling is over.

Be well,
A


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

[whitcombnina]

the greater reward lies down the path of peace.
A
Michael,
As you wrote,self-purification is the key. As Colin wrote, "Our
Creator has His/Her set of discernments." James added Ra perspective
about thought-war and about the loving energy to transform by positive
As above, so Below. Many have posted about this topic.
David/Ra speaks of solar cycles and harvest. I'm still trying to grasp
impact of his valuable earlier incarnation Cayce reading 5757-1.
"The sun, the moon, the planets - have their marching orders from the
divine, and they move in same. Man alone is given that birthright of
free will. He alone may defy his God....know that thy disobedience in
the earth reflects into the heavenly hosts and thus influences the
activity of God's command!"
Rather exact in description here, "As the sun is made to shed light
and heat upon God's children in the earth...do you wonder then that
there becomes reflected upon even the face of the sun those turmoils
and strifes that have been and that are the sin of man?...the more ye
become aware of thy relationships to the universe and the influences
that control same, the greater the ability to rely upon the God-force
within, but still greater thy responsibility to thy fellow man. For as
ye do it unto the least, ye do it unto thy Maker - even as to the sun
which reflects those turmoils that arise with thee, even as the
earthquakes, even as wars and hates, even as the influence in thy life
day by day. Then , what are the sunspots? A natural consequence of
that turmoil which the sons of God in the earth reflect upon same."
"All that was made was made to show to the sons, the souls, that God
is mindful of His children."
"Know that thy mind - thy mind is the builder! As what does thy soul
appear? A spot, a blot upon the sun? or as that which gives light unto
those that sit in darkness, to those who cry aloud for hope?" NINA

[Colin]

The thread of the information below seems obvious, I am in agreement. Very
nicely put Nina! - Colin

-----Original Message-----
From: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Zmo6KqcOaWTBX8QbOnHYpehcs9UPa1MI97ZnDZ eOHvagE6VqAKIne_mxAvdb51BKsxakEYStU32cEZ68DHxd) [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Zmo6KqcOaWTBX8QbOnHYpehcs9UPa1MI97ZnDZ eOHvagE6VqAKIne_mxAvdb51BKsxakEYStU32cEZ68DHxd)]On Behalf Of
whitcombnina
Sent: September 26, 2006 5:59 AM
To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Zmo6KqcOaWTBX8QbOnHYpehcs9UPa1MI97ZnDZ eOHvagE6VqAKIne_mxAvdb51BKsxakEYStU32cEZ68DHxd)
Subject: [asc2k] Re: The One is Love and What Else?


the greater reward lies down the path of peace.
A
Michael,
As you wrote,self-purification is the key. As Colin wrote, "Our
Creator has His/Her set of discernments." James added Ra perspective
about thought-war and about the loving energy to transform by positive
As above, so Below. Many have posted about this topic.
David/Ra speaks of solar cycles and harvest. I'm still trying to grasp
impact of his valuable earlier incarnation Cayce reading 5757-1.
"The sun, the moon, the planets - have their marching orders from the
divine, and they move in same. Man alone is given that birthright of
free will. He alone may defy his God....know that thy disobedience in
the earth reflects into the heavenly hosts and thus influences the
activity of God's command!"
Rather exact in description here, "As the sun is made to shed light
and heat upon God's children in the earth...do you wonder then that
there becomes reflected upon even the face of the sun those turmoils
and strifes that have been and that are the sin of man?...the more ye
become aware of thy relationships to the universe and the influences
that control same, the greater the ability to rely upon the God-force
within, but still greater thy responsibility to thy fellow man. For as
ye do it unto the least, ye do it unto thy Maker - even as to the sun
which reflects those turmoils that arise with thee, even as the
earthquakes, even as wars and hates, even as the influence in thy life
day by day. Then , what are the sunspots? A natural consequence of
that turmoil which the sons of God in the earth reflect upon same."
"All that was made was made to show to the sons, the souls, that God
is mindful of His children."
"Know that thy mind - thy mind is the builder! As what does thy soul
appear? A spot, a blot upon the sun? or as that which gives light unto
those that sit in darkness, to those who cry aloud for hope?" NINA






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