Gifts - Free Will Infringement

Strictly Law of One
1

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?

2 Likes
2

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…

1 Like
3

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?

4

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…”

2 Likes
5

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!

2 Likes
6

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.

7

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
8

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
9

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:

1 Like
10

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.

1 Like
11

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
12

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.

2 Likes
13

“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

2 Likes
14

I want to say that violation of free will/confusion law has degrees. So there’s a difference between forcing someone to do it with violence and asking questions. I’m talking about small free will violation. The best word I found for this is indoctrination.

Even if you ask a question the question itself has some foundation and there’s a chance you will interfere interlocutor’s free will. In many cases it’s indeed so. Sudden question “why didn’t you buy red ford fiesta made in 2013?” most probably places interlocutor in defender’s position. Another example: you’re just making some statement and interlocutor answers you “I didn’t ask you”. This time you broke free will with obtrusion of your opinion. And there so many ways of doing it.

83.12 At the present space/time the condition of well-meant and unintentional slavery are so numerous that it beggars our ability to enumerate them.

Greeting “merry Christmas” looks to me more serious. With positive reply interlocutor agrees with this religion and all consequences of it as affirmation he agreed that there was a person Jesus. Me personally count such greetings mostly as hidden subconscious indoctrination. Even if been subconscious, it’s a result of past choices so they came down to the subconscious, that’s why I don’t see difference if it’s done subconsciously or consciously. I remember I replied “congratulations on your holiday too”.

Interesting situation is with acting because non-acting might be considered as acting. Like “you didn’t congratulate me on my birthday!” During decades my mother wanted me to greet her with their wedding day. I was doing it, but I do not think attaching to such events and how many rounds this certain planet makes sense. So it became more and more indoctrinative. She was consistent here, so after I got married she was trying to congratulate me. It’s also interesting situation, because thinking that such dates must be congratulated she was trying to congratulate me on my date ignoring my attitude so it’s asymmetrical. But she run across problem: she didn’t remember the date and suffered because of it. She was asking me about the date but I didn’t remember. I was also consistent here: the date is not important so I didn’t remember.

I think as generalization such problems cannot be resolved without green-ray.

90.29 Ra: I am Ra. We came to your peoples to enunciate the Law of One. We wished to impress upon those who wished to learn of unity that in unity all paradoxes are resolved; all that is broken is healed; all that is forgotten is brought to light.

Nevertheless I want to avoid indoctrination. Even when writing in this topic I feel small ache because I might violate some free will. I like so much “We communicate now” phrase as it’s declaration that at least statement exchange will not disrupt.

So many times Ra couldn’t answer because they didn’t asked to do it. Like:

53.6 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of … ?

Ra: I am Ra. We could.

53.7 Questioner: Would you do this please?

Ra: I am Ra.

Every time I feel such ache as “you don’t ask them to say, you ask if they can do it”. But language is so clumsy. There’s so much love in their words:

85.1 Ra: I am Ra. We ask your permission to preface this answer by the inclusion of the greeting which we use.

85.2 Questioner: That’s agreeable.

Ra: I am Ra. We greet you in the love and in the light of the One Infinite Creator. … We beg your kind indulgence for our discourtesy. It was appropriate.

But returning to cause/effect interaction. I have algorithm:

  1. First do according to my believe.

  2. Believe is treat others the way you want to be treated.

  3. (as exception) I can treat others according to their own conception.

Unfortunately very often it flies straight of my head.

2 Likes
15

I think that anything that will violate the mental or physical autonomy of a person or group will be a violation of free will. A general definition of autonomy is independence, establishing norms for oneself, a state of self-reliance, the ability to decide for oneself.

I think that anything that an individual finds that he or she did not wish for one reason or another can be considered a violation of that individual’s free will.

Also doing things outside a person’s consciousness that affect him or immediate environment that affects the individual will also be a violation of free will.

Whether person B violate the free will of person A giving this person gift really depends on a lot of things, the level of affinity, the relationship between these people whether they like/love each other or not, the type of gift.

It could be that person A will consider any attempt to get a gift from person B as something offensive (it means free will violation). Or it could be that person A, despite being prejudiced and reluctant to receive the gifts, will suddenly be cheer up and consider the gift as something precious if previously thought that he/she didn’t want any gift.

It depends on many factors that need to be approached in relationship between people. The best thing to do is to ask yourself whether if we do something to the other person (give him a gift or anything), will he/she perceive it positively or negatively taking into account the whole context and all the information we have. If we consider that he/she will perceive it positively and indeed so, it will be free of free will violation, if he/she perceives something negatively, it means that we have violated free will.

If possible, we can also ask directly if the person wishes a gift or make a research question about it. Of course, with this also varies, because sometimes we can’t ask directly, or the answer will be insincere and further the matter will be open.

If we can’t tell from information or based on strong intuition that we can believe whether we should do a certain thing or not, like share a certain gift, then we are left to rely on our own Heart (green ray center) and how we feel what we should do in a given situation. If we continue to have doubts, then it is best to refrain from acting than to make someone uncomfortable or hurt by doing something and violate free will.

And as for the second situation:

There, too, there may or may not be a violation of free will. It may be that person A will offend person B with this and it will be a violation of person B’s free will, in which case it is advisable to act more diplomatically and carefully to refuse the gift.

It may also be otherwise person B after receiving the answer of refusal, may recognize: “Okay, I don’t see any problem with that.” So in that case, there is no question of violating person B’s free will.

Each case simply needs to be considered separately. In each action, theoretically, we can recognize whether the behavior will violate free will or not, whether it will be an STO action toward another person or an STS action also. However, a specific example is needed. Since under “person A” and “person B” there may be different people with different connections, under the word “gift” there may also be different kind of gift.

However, if you treat characters A and B as “cardboard” and simplify this situation only to what is given. Then the answer to the first question would be: Yes, this is a violation of person A’s free will, since he/she has clearly declared that he/she does not want gifts. There would be no violation of free will in this situation when person A asked for gifts, or was neutral or open to possible gifts, he/she still doesn’t decide that want or not want gift.

The answer to the second question would be: No, this is not a violation of person B’s free will, because person A acted in self-defense, and person B still has the option of sharing gifts with other people.

Of course, that’s just my point of view. Everyone should decide for themselves what they consider appropriate and what not.

1 Like
16

There’s a problem. When @AAR was asking about “would that be an infringement of the free will” he didn’t specify from point of view of whom (A or B or both) it is. It’s looking like “what’s your point of view in general”, so both mine (point of view) and general. Yes, there are some specific conditions, but it’s not a certain situation he’s asking, so the situation is general.

Replying to it you’re trying to be both generic and particular. Saying like “it’s a generic rule, but it depends on many factors”. And you finish it with “that’s just my point of view. Everyone should decide for themselves what they consider appropriate and what not.”. So you’re saying “if I’m A, it’s only my opinion that I did or didn’t infringe free will, and B might have different opinion”. But if we return to @AAR’s question, he didn’t ask “I’m A giving B the gift, do I infringe?”, he was asking at all and you’re answering “well, it’s only my opinion”.

If you say “it’s only my opinion” imaginary B will tell you “yes, it’s only your opinion, and my opinion is different” and you will try to return to the generalization again but saying “that’s only my opinion about how it’s in general”.

Of course I understand difficulty and we cannot escape from it as A and B are not the same. But I’m trying to exit from it as much as I can. If not, it will be endless roaming between “this is correct” and “it’s only my point of view”.

So the question is if there are more valid criteria to understand (only) for me if I do not infringe free will. What axiom should I put into the base? Looks like most valid criterion is agreement. But besides that if I go out the boundaries of agreement? That’s why I formulated what I called “algorithm”. Item 3 is important here as it fixes the difference between A and B when it’s not possible to avoid it.

I hope said above makes sense and my trying to formulate conception is successful. Also I see that saying “I want to have my own general rule” I repeat the cycle.

1 Like
17

I roughly share your opinion. You see… even if I would say that “it’s so-and-so” being completely objective, from my point of view, it would continue to be just my perception and opinion…

Your algorithm as much as possible is something legitimate. Just note that it is still just your way of doing things and approaching the situation. I in my position wanted to show that there is no perfect approach to the subject, because on very, theoretically, simple approaches to very basic issues you can already have differences and justify them logically, even like “raw” situations related free will from example. And that’s why I pointed out that what I wrote is my point of view.

If I were to put up something to act as a consensus, I would put forward the thesis that it would be a violation of free will to “do something that another given person does not wish or is not aware at all that such a thing is happening.” Doesn’t know if this is a sufficient answer. If not, let’s continue.