Gifts - Free Will Infringement

Since we are coming up on a significant “gifting” holiday in the USA, I have been thinking about this in reference to the infringement of free will.

Let’s say person A is very intentional about what they bring into their home. They generally don’t like people giving them gifts because most of the time the items are not things they wish to keep.

Person B really find giving gifts a great joy and does so whenever they have an opportunity.

Would person B giving a gift that is not asked for to person A be a free will infringement against person A… since they do not want random gifts?

And, if person A told person B that they do not want gifts, would that be an infringement of the free will of person B?


Person B likes to give, without contracts, in an authentic manner… Then nothing else matters.

Person A, filled with resistances, has a choice, embrace the gift of love, recognize the internal struggle, or run away… It is a choice… It is free will.

Person B if truly authentic, Person B will not be hindered by the choices of person A…

I see no infringement, you have brought each other into your experience, there is purpose… catalyst for learning/wisdom, wisdom/learning.

You asked, this is just my perspective…

Isnt the reason Ra sought a channel because they gave a “gift” of sorts to humanity before humans were fully ready?

Ra out of the love they offered wanted to bring higher knowledge to humans but were naive in doing so.

Is this different than person B giving person A a gift?

my opinion is everything happens for a reason, Ra as an identity, is also a presence as you and I, much more evolved, experienced, understanding, Wise… The intent was Love, but what happened was catalyst, for both of our paths. I see no difference, but I don’t know either, and I cannot know from behind the veil.

Ra being person B

Humanity being person A…

I feel my statement still holds true, from my perspective and interpretation, I am not so sure about humanity deciding if we like to receive or not, perhaps this is the question, but either way it is the lessons we are learning from today, and I feel a gratefulness for the opportunity to be where we are now. As within our own distortions in our current density whatever that means, I do feel that we cannot get it wrong, no matter how difficult it may seem even at a logos level.

“Things are neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so…”

1 Like

In the Germanic traditions a gift was a great responsibility, since this imposes on the recipient the responsibility to respond appropriately with a counter-gift.

In this sense Merry Christmas!


This sounds like a contract to me, perhaps I don’t understand the tradition. Like a trade, not a gift…

To me the concept of giving is without any expectation to receive, and done purely for the love and support of the needs and wants and wellbeing of the recipient.

Isn’t it an unwritten “social contract” that every gift has to be replied appropriately?

If you receive a valuable gift without having helped the giver in advance in some way, then no liability goes along with it?
Or how about if someone gives you something for some occasion and you can’t return it, because you forgot to give him something for the same occasion?

Is it therefore not much more considerate to interact without gifts that lead to remorse or responsibilities for the recipient that the one does not want?

Mostly it is enough to think of someone and let him know this, or to do something for him that comes from the heart.

1 Like

If someone gives me a gift from their heart because they care… if I feel loved I will receive whole heartedly and share in the giving experience of the one who gave…

I need to think more on this, in my past I used to hate it when I was given something. Sine then I have learned to receive, and this too is also a gift.

Merry Christmas tadeus!

1 Like

Interesting topic! :slight_smile: I guess my first question is, what exactly do you mean by “infringement on free will?”

In “normal person” parlance, your query makes total sense in its totality, although it’s a bit of an odd choice of verbiage, I think, to say that Person B is infringing on Person A’s “free will,” per se. I do see why you would suggest that, however – Person A may then feel compelled to keep the gift, which was not asked for, and is not wanted, against his or her desires. This might be considered a bit of a violation of free will, because if Person A is not very strong of will, he or she might feel that they had “no choice.”

In a healthy relationship, mentally and spiritually, between two healthy people, however, I do not believe that it is so. Person B enjoys giving gifts, and thus, he or she must recognize that these gifts will not always be what the recipient wanted and therefore won’t take offense if they aren’t always taken in and used. Person A, meanwhile, has every right to determine what objects go into his or her house, and therefore, has every right to graciously and gratefully accept the gift in essence or in spirit, but not in material reality. In this case, we truly have coined the cliche: “It’s the thought that counts.”

… Because it does! … Just yesterday, two of my best friends came over with the gift of a very beautiful piece of furniture. They had realized only after they bought it for me that I might not have anywhere to put it. Indeed, I don’t, and it’s just not quite what I am looking for at the moment – and I am indeed Person A when it comes to “stuff in my house” at this point in my life. :wink: However, the joy that my friends felt in buying it for me was very palpable, and I was very deeply grateful and appreciative, and now if I cannot figure out where to put it, we will all have the joy of figuring out who it truly belongs to.

(Then again, all of my friends and I share that in common: We cannot keep a thing that is not “ours.” We must then begin the very joyful and fun task of figuring out who to give it to!)

Okay. All that being said – this is a Law of One forum. Ra’s definition of an infringement on free will is very different from the mainstream. In this case, I would have to suppose that the gift somehow gave the person access to what we, in this space-time, would consider foreknowledge that altered his or her choices in some way. If that is what you mean by this, please elaborate, for I am very curious! :wink:

So Ra always talks about when polarizing to the positive, to always remain in a space of allowing others free will in how we interact with them.

Ra says that they do not give information unless it is requested. This is to stay within the boundary of free will.

If person B wants to give a gift, even if it is out of a pure heart, and person A does not want it, a “solution” to this issue can only occur when BOTH parties are awake enough in love to, as your example pointed out with your friends, figure out what to do with such a gracious and loving offering.

If either A or B is not awake enough it love, it could cause a slightly negative polarization.

Person A could get frustrated that they have to find someone or somewhere to give the gift if they dont want it. Person B could feel hurt if they were met with less than appreciation for the gift.

Yes - but this is not the regular case of gifts - just think at gifts at emplyment for example.

There is a beautiful song by the Prinzen, but it refers to the loved ones:

Here is a translation of the songtext, unfortunately without the nice rhymes:

Every day and every night,
Mu I think about it,
Every day and every night,
What shall I give her?
What shall I give her?
For everything, everything she already has,
Everything, everything and more,
Everything, everything she already has,
What shall I give,
Without her - without crnking her.

A rubber tree? - (she already has!)
Bath foam? - (she already has!)
A red cloth? - (she already has!)
A savings book? - (she already has!)
A hickey? - (she doesn’t want!)
A boomerang? - (she’s got me there!)
Even a mattress - she’s got it, she’s got it, she’s got it!
What should I give,
Without scratching it?!

Every day and every night
I have to think about it,
Every day and every night,
What shall I give her?
What should I give her?

A guinea pig? - (she already has!)
A halo? - (she already has!)
A ring on her finger? - (she already has!)
So se things? - (she already has!)
A washcloth? - (she already has!)
Blinkers? - (she already has!)
I’m not making myself any supper today,
I’m so worried,
Where will I get her present,
I need something until tomorrow!

Every day and every night,
Mu I think about it,
Every day and every night
What shall I give her
Without her - without her to crnk?

Maybe it just came to me,
But it’s still top secret,
Maybe I’ll give her -
A night with me!

1 Like

Infringing on free will means to interfere or restrict someone’s ability to make their own choices and decisions freely, without external influence or coercion. In the context of the Law of One, free will is seen as a fundamental principle that allows individuals to experience and evolve in their own unique way. Infringing on free will is considered a violation of this principle, as it interferes with an individual’s ability to follow their own path and makes it more difficult for them to learn and grow.

In the light of the teachings of the Law of One, I would say that the act of giving an unwanted gift or expressing a preference not to receive one, does not constitute a breach of free will. Instead, it reflects the emotions that are at play.


“Ra says that they do not give information unless it is requested. This is to stay within the boundary of free will.”

My understanding of this was that Those of RA were on the other side of the viel and knew things that we were specifically excluded from knowing while incarnate. Knowledge of these things would lead to vastly different decisions/outcomes for incarnates and probably short circuit the learning/teaching plans for incarnation. There were many times that even direct questions were rejected by Those of RA for the same reasons.

In the Love and the Light of the one Infinite Creator…
Blessings All