Session 31.5/ 18.8, maybe 49.6. Complete responsibility?

Strictly Law of One
1

It seems to me that the Law of One puts forward a path of almost complete responsibility. Or that they comment that karma gives complete responsibility/ accountability.

Session 31.5 here I’ve been thinking a bit recently. There are a lot of people out there that want to say that the deep state is fully responsible for the worlds problems. But this line clearly states that it is often, even in big societal corruption, simply people themselves making these choices.

Then session 18.8 states a four year old is fully karmically responsible for events!

The last one is not particularly clear. It is talking about the Kundalini but it uses the term, when working on the self, of ‘Seating the issue within the self’. So this is a bit obtuse, but it could mean, what it seems to mean, is that everything comes back to what is going on with the self. So… it’s not the economy etc. if we are talking about Red Ray. It is some sort of thing that can be processed internally.

I dunno, I just thought it was interesting. I have not seen any of the Law of One that pushes against this viewpoint.

Session 31.5:

Questioner: Would the Orion group, then, be able, shall we say, to impress on entities this orange-ray effect, or did they… Is this the way that this came about, is what I’m trying to get at. Is this the way these concepts came about on this planet? Because if we go back to the beginning of third density, there must be a primal cause of this.

Ra: I am Ra. The cause of this is not Orion. It is the free choice of your peoples. This is somewhat difficult to explain. We shall attempt.

The sexual energy transfers and blockages are more a manifestation or example of that which is more fundamental than the other way about. Therefore, as your peoples became open to the concepts of bellicosity and the greed of ownership, these various distortions then began to filter down through the tree of mind into body complex expressions, the sexual expression being basic to that complex. Thus these sexual energy blockages, though Orion influenced and intensified, are basically the product of the beingness chosen freely by your peoples.

This will be the final question unless we may speak further upon this question to clarify, or answer any short queries before we close.

Then this one:

Questioner: Then an entity, say, four years old would be totally responsible for any actions that were against or inharmonious with the Law of One. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. It may be noted that it has been arranged by your social complex structures that the newer entities to incarnation are to be provided with guides of a physical mind/body/spirit complex, thus being able to learn quickly what is consonant with the Law of One.

Also:

Questioner: What process would be the recommended process for correctly awakening, as they say, the kundalini and of what value would that be?

Ra: I am Ra. The metaphor of the coiled serpent being called upwards is vastly appropriate for consideration by your peoples. This is what you are attempting when you seek. There are, as we have stated, great misapprehensions concerning this metaphor and the nature of pursuing its goal. We must generalize and ask that you grasp the fact that this in effect renders far less useful that which we share. However, as each entity is unique, generalities are our lot when communicating for your possible edification.

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

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

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

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

1 Like
2

In my opinion, taking responsibility for everything that happens to us is one of the corner stone of personal evolution.

This first step then orients one towards finding all the tools required to effect changes in consciousness for the betterment of the self and others.

Thus changing our world one person at a time until a turning point is reached where it all snowballs.

2 Likes
3

OK, so say you met a woman who was complaining about poverty. Single mother who works like 50 hours a week to support her three kids and is always poor. Which of the following would more likely come up in discussion with you?:

A) Yes, these are hard times. Deep state actors. Inflation etc.

B)… So… Just asking… How did you end up with three kids that you can’t support?

4

I would not say any of that. :slight_smile:

In my opinion, it would not be very skillful to spout philosophical concepts in the face of someone currently suffering unless they are very clearly requesting such (not likely).

No, the response to this hypothetical woman would be to meet her needs at the level she’s comfortable with. It could be as simple as just listening to her plea or as involved as offering to help with daytime child care while she’s working. Whatever one decides to do to help should not be done reluctantly. So helping with child care, for example, would be done only if it truly makes you happy to help her in this way. But there is always something we can do to help. It might only be giving her a small smile while passing her on the street. Or just looking her in the eyes for a glimpse in order to acknowledge that she exists, she matters, that you see her. All that is also helpful.

For anyone to reach a point where they are able and wanting to work on stuff like being self responsible, the required pre conditions must already be fulfilled or the person is greatly desiring of working on the self in this way.

All this kind of work is not mandatory while incarnated down here. This is just bonus work.

The only true work required of any of us in 3d is making The Choice.

We are not here to fix it. We are here to love.

5

Yes, but in such a situation the conversation would go one of two ways. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum like person approaches you and you give her a box. In a box processing plant as an example. If you meet someone like that the conversation will revolve around things like where the issue comes from in some manner. I.e. in your real life, you would have to respond like a human being not simply quote from the Law of One:

Questioner: Thank you. In yesterday’s, or the day before yesterday’s session, you mentioned variable speed of rotation or activity of energy centers. What did you mean by that, speed of rotation?

Ra: I am Ra. Each energy center has a wide range of rotational speed or as you may see it more clearly in relation to color, brilliance. The more strongly the will of the entity concentrates upon and refines or purifies each energy center, the more brilliant or rotationally active each energy center will be. It is not necessary for the energy centers to be activated in order in the case of the self-aware entity. Thusly entities may have extremely brilliant energy centers while being quite unbalanced in their violet-ray aspect due to lack of attention paid to the totality of experience of the entity.

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

raising children 50 hours - Copy
raising children 50 hours - Copy1042×432 37 KB

Is there anyone in your real life you have provided child care for as per your example?

6

I have an additional point here.

I heard an example from a woman called Dr Ramani that talks about narcissists. She said that she had a client whose mother really requested her help in a caring role but she had not wanted to help her, because she was abusive. It was hard work, then when the mother died it turned out she had concealed the fact that she had loads of money that could have been used to pay for carers that would have lightened the load. Also, the daughter doing the caring didn’t get any money from the inheritance this was all sent to another child that was also a narcissist.

How does what you have quoted help with this situation? The mother, pre caring, would have been given forgiveness without contrition according to your understanding yes?

I also just want to state that when the Law of One talked about that they were referencing third density. Many wanderers here are from higher densities so would likely be experiencing more than the binary choice of “love/ not love”.

7

Of course, and this is what I do with those who comes to me for help. Most of them are not even aware that I cultivate a spiritual side. Such things does not often come up and I will not bring this up either without being asked.

Yes. But this is not usual for me. Not really my style. It was a special catalyst and I did not offer this to another once the support was no longer needed from me. As I have said, whatever one does to help must be whole heartedly offered as part of your beingness. My work is usually via other means. A small part of which is moderating this forum, for example.

Rather, from what I am told, what is appreciated of me is simply to be there to listen and from time to time to provide useful advice that is directly related to what the person is dealing with at the time. Other times, it is I who is in need of someone to listen to me and provide advice.

That being said, this kind of interpersonal interaction would not be taking place on a public forum such as this one. Here I discuss philosophy, Confederation teachings and other spiritual subjects.

So the “help” that is provided rather takes the form of generalities, concepts, motivation and inspiration. But I do understand that some might find this next to useless. Yet it is my service and my beingness to offer at this time.

2 Likes
8

It helps us understand and accept the situations as they are. Again, some might find this pretty unhelpful, but in my experience this is what truly helps this planet. In the end, it helps more than trying to fix the situations themselves.

Yes. Although, as you are aware, this is a very large subject and my simple yes over here will certainly seem futile. Yet that is what I truly believe is the answer in a nutshell.

Indeed and so we can use this opportunity to work on that bonus stuff. What Ra called doing the work of the adept. Yet even to wanderers this is all just bonus work. We are still deepening The Choice while here, some might even switch their choice.

9

I don’t think so. This was something I used to think as well. But I’ve realised how little a lot of people think about things. Not that that’s a bad thing they might be do-ers or carers of some description. But for someone like me that has thought a lot from day one about the meaning of it all, it took me a while to realise that other people do not have that same comfort and do appreciate being given information and thoughts. Wisdom.

I know people that I have said small insightful (I think) things to and they have seemed to apply it to their lives. Changing a whole bunch.

Yes. Although, as you are aware, this is a very large subject and my simple yes over here will certainly seem futile. Yet that is what I truly believe is the answer in a nutshell.

Wait a sec, weren’t we talking about responsibility a second ago? In this example where the mother started out abusive, wasn’t challenged, thus carried on being abusive. Where is the responsibility here? Where is the pressure on her to take accountability?

10

In my opinion, taking responsibility or becoming accountable is not something that can be enforced on another. Trying to do so will only inspire them to “fake” taking responsibility, or in other words this might be called conformity. The desire for true accountability needs to come from them and for themselves.

Instead, we can demonstrate, by the way we live our own everyday lives, alternate ways of thinking and doing which might hopefully inspire another to muster a desire to better themselves, which along the way includes accepting self responsibility, among other things.

I mentioned this in the other thread, but forgiveness, just like compassion, should be well balanced with wisdom. Which means that one should feel entitled to protect themselves and others from harm. The ones doing harm are the Creator and so are entitled to do as they wish, but the ones being harmed are also just as much the Creator and are also just as much entitled to protection. For example, it can be decided collectively that imprisonment is how others should be protected by those who do harm and are not ready, able or willing to work on themselves (not sure imprisonment is the best solution personally).

Yet we can and should forgive those that were imprisoned, whatever they did to get there. We can accept and love them just the way they are while doing so with compassionate-wisdom for them, us and all. Which means that, even if forgiven, they might remain imprisoned for safety.

11

Inconsistency.

It doesn’t sound like you are being consistent here to me.

A note on hypotheticals. I used to have a friend when I was young who used to always use a hypothetical uniquely created so that he could win the argument and eventually I realised that a lot of hypotheticals are not legitimate because reality forms in a way that they would never happen. Also, if someone comes up with a ridiculous hypothetical to win an argument: “Say there was a serial killer then no one could catch the serial killer and he would only give in if xyz”. Then obviously that should be rejected. Like storywriters can abuse the created world (cough cough The Mentalist). So can people in general.

So I have made sure to source my “hypotheticals” in things that actually happened somewhere. They are hypotheticals because we can’t know the full story and can’t ask additional questions. But they are based as close as possible to a real example. Which was why I provided the screenshot on the 50 hours single mother example.

I think I was quite clear on my hypothetical here and that it was based on a real case. We can’t know more about it so we have to put in some details but none that I think are unrealistic. So the hypothetical I started that part of the conversation with is that an a child yields to the request to take care of a mother who was previously abusive, who then gets her to do a lot of care work while concealing the fact she can afford it, and then gives the inheritance to another narcissistic “golden child”.

So I started with that example and it was clear. I believe. Highlighted, that as i understand that the mother, pre caring, would have been forgiven without contrition (thus the caring would have gone ahead). The delineation here being that I don’t believe in forgiveness without contrition. So for me the caring phase would not have happened after the original child abuse. But you seem to state here that pre caring, you would forgive the mother without contrition, or cousel the daughter to:

Yes. Although, as you are aware, this is a very large subject and my simple yes over here will certainly seem futile. Yet that is what I truly believe is the answer in a nutshell

Because, obviously, you would never say to the mother anything like: Unless you apologise for the child abuse you inflicted on this woman as a child she won’t even consider it. The mother expected the child to take full accountability of everything as a 10 year old child, and was probably beaten for their perceived transgressions. But they should not be expected to take accountability for having laid down those punishments as a fully fledged adult? The 30 year old adult who beat a child, shouldn’t be pressured to take accountability as an older individual because “taking responsibility is not something that can be forced on another?”:

In my opinion, taking responsibility or becoming accountable is not something that can be enforced on another. Trying to do so will only inspire them to “fake” taking responsibility, or in other words this might be called conformity. The desire for true accountability needs to come from them and for themselves.

OK, and by not bringing it up with the mother, is that not an act of cowardice and a refusal to be truthful in the situation? Is that not in fact self abuse to have to live a life defined by the abuser, to walk on eggshells around such a sensitive topic? It seems your idea of accountability is full accountability for the abused, and zero accountability for the abuser?

Also, are we able to change things up like that? I think there is an Edgar Cayce quote that says something like, we have to give others what we give ourselves as surely as dawn follows night. If we give peace to ourselves we give others peace. Is accountability excluded from this? If we give ourselves accountability we do not expect it of others?

A small point here is that in my view this is not an accurate part of the hypothetical as well. I originally stated with the 50 hours a week single mother that in real life, the conversation would come up as to why she had this issue, because that is real life. Perhaps her or someone else would blame the deep state or perhaps someone else would ask her how things happened and you would have to weigh in. Which highlights the relevant question. Do you push the non responsibility option (deep state) or the responsibility option (how did you end up with three kids?) It seems to me you evaded that question though.

The completed being.

Also, a point I brought up previously is that in the way you put things forward you are jettisoning understanding and acceptance from the picture, the fall law of one quote in session 34 includes understand acceptance then forgiveness. To me, the way it would go is that after the initial child abuse, the woman should try to understand the situation. To understand an individual like that you would have to understand that they have no conscience and nothing is ever going to change. Then they would have to accept that. To really accept another won’t change means that you would not interact with someone that is an unrepentent child abuser, even if they do need care. After that, it’s not clear that forgiveness is relevant in my view, the process stops at acceptance. Like, why would forgiveness have any relevance if it is something that exists purely in ones mind and isn’t able to influence the real world?

12

I agree. I dislike hypotheticals as well.

The interactions I would have with that woman cannot be reduced to this format. All of the magic happens in the now. Where this takes place, there are no hypotheticals. It can only be experienced and then that creates true understanding in the ones having the interaction.

We all get opportunities to change. Each of us has a team of helpers with us while we are here.

Also, each of us is having an effect on each others. There is no need to pressure others. It’s inevitable. I find it helpful to have faith that all paradoxes have their solution, that for each of us there are moments of illumination, that anyone can inspire such in others.

This is a crucially good question. In my opinion, forgiveness has a very real influence on the real world. Noting that what you call the real world is actually an illusion. The extremely powerful effects that forgiveness has on others are mostly unseen. But the effects this has on our personal experience is very noticable. This becomes apparent once one starts practicing forgiveness in their everyday living.

You see, by forgiving yourself and others, you are no longer trying to influence the external world. Instead, you are influencing your self in a way that will ripple on the external world. We are talking about magic of an extremely high degree here. Think about it, if you will, that this is the only magical force powerful enough to stop karma dead in its tract. Can you imagine a more powerful force that would have a real influence on the world?

I am interested in having more details about what you mean by “forgiveness without contrition” ? I feel I am misunderstanding this and it seems centrally important to you.

I am just saying that humanity has already tried nearly everything to resolve this by tweaking what is external to the self. Yet here we are again trying to find another external tweak that would perhaps work this time around. I would rather wish to focus on what the Confederation has been trying to impress on us, part of which is that a true resolution to such conundrum is found within and not without.

An old but still inspiring video on the subject of forgiveness:

13

Well, kind of makes things hard to discuss then don’t you think? Hypotheticals are kind of thought experimenting abstract concepts like these.

We all get opportunities to change. Each of us has a team of helpers with us while we are here.

Also, each of us is having an effect on each others. There is no need to pressure others. It’s inevitable. I find it helpful to have faith that all paradoxes have their solution, that for each of us there are moments of illumination, that anyone can inspire such in others.

That doesn’t mean anything. In the practical everyday world people very very rarely change. If a child abuser did one day wake up with a functioning conscience they would probably kill themselves. Assuming evolutionary psychology presumably it becomes impossible after a while to interact with a conscience after a long period and behaviours of not doing so, rather like it is currently impossible to regrow an arm that has been cut off.

This is a crucially good question. In my opinion, forgiveness has a very real influence on the real world. Noting that what you call the real world is actually an illusion. The extremely powerful effects that forgiveness has on others are mostly unseen. But the effects this has on our personal experience is very noticable. This becomes apparent once one starts practicing forgiveness in their everyday living.

You see, by forgiving yourself and others, you are no longer trying to influence the external world. Instead, you are influencing your self in a way that will ripple on the external world. We are talking about magic of an extremely high degree here. Think about it, if you will, that this is the only magical force powerful enough to stop karma dead in its tract. Can you imagine a more powerful force that would have a real influence on the world?

I think this line here is part of where our disagreement is. I’ve realised since coming back here that even though I am and probably always will be a deeply spiritual person. I actually don’t accept a part of the spiritual paradigm that you just outlined (but it nevertheless is, or at least could legitimately be offered, as part of the spiritual paradigm). I have found a lot of comfort, in fact I am feeling a warmth and excitement I have not felt in about a decade, from looking at philosophy as a subject. I would term your paragraph ‘magical thinking’.

I am interested in having more details about what you mean by “forgiveness without contrition” ? I feel I am misunderstanding this and it seems centrally important to you.

Firstly, I realised when writing these posts that a big crux of the conversation we have already had on this has not been resolved. That is, how to define forgiveness? To me it is not something that can happen without reference to the real world. You can’t just ‘forgive’ inside yourself and not tell the person or interact with them or change your behaviour at all. That makes no sense. I could, and perhaps sometimes will, write an essay on the multiple reasons for this. I already mentioned one I think on my youtube.

I did look again through the law of one quotes on forgiveness and they do not clarify its meaning. I suppose this was a bit of an oversight from either Don or the contact because it is an extremely important point. The closest I found is that forgiveness can happen in Time/ Space but that doesn’t mean much since we know little about Time/ Space.

Anyway, forgiveness without contrition is when someone that is unapologetic and likely doesn’t even acknowledge their wrongdoing is forgiven. I want to note the contrition aspect that they should act in the real world in a way that proves they are indeed apologetic. There are many reasons this is dysfunctional. But it should be obvious it is not respecting free will.

Say you have an abuser that physically abused a child and maintains the moral highground. The child becomes a teenager, leaves home, becomes an adult. One day they say to the abuser they are forgiven. The abuser would say… “What for? I was a brilliant parent.”

The abusive parent does not want to acknowledge their own behaviour. It is forcing a paradigm on them that they will not acknowledge in a sense.

However, challenging the parent to take accountability for reality is not quite the same. Because there is an element of self defense in that. Someone can’t say that if I tell them my experience on something it violates their free will because it is my experience.

I am just saying that humanity has already tried nearly everything to resolve this by tweaking what is external to the self. Yet here we are again trying to find another external tweak that would perhaps work this time around. I would rather wish to focus on what the Confederation has been trying to impress on us, part of which is that a true resolution to such conundrum is found within and not without.

Not got anything on this one.

You already know our values differ here, and I consider that video kind of sick (I have already seen it). To me that basically just says that the father did not love the child that was killed. I can’t of course know that. But that would make sense to me.

I have another one:

forgiver killed - Copy
forgiver killed - Copy1162×780 91.8 KB

14

Yes indeed. It’s not just hard, it’s nearly hopeless when it comes to this type of discussion. Yet it can be very useful for readers in some fashion. So it’s worth our time nonetheless.

This type of understanding comes from being demonstrated. Without experience, talking about it can only highlight the shadows those concepts are casting. We can see an outline, but experience is required to see deeper into it. One needs to relate somehow for an anchoring to take hold.

Without this, it remains thumbling in the mind.

It is indeed. :slight_smile:

I believe our “reality” is truly magical. Things are not as they seem. I have experienced this magical nature of “reality” for myself, but it is not something that can be shared directly. We can only inspire others to seek this experience for themselves.

Yes.

And of course, without sharing the same semantic we are then not really having a discussion on the subject. We are just trying to understand each others’ semantic, outlook or point of view.

It should be noted that, while doing this exercise, I have no interest in convincing others or winning an argument as you have put it before.

My interest is in inspiring others to notice the availability of alternate ways of being, thinking and doing. Alternate to what our upbringing, our education or society has provided us until this point.

I have absolutely no proof to offer. No argumentative, reasoned or mathematical proof. What I have to offer is very easily discardable. This planet at this time is designed this way. So that no proof of this kind can be offered.

The magical premise is this. If enough people accept these concepts within themselves without proof and starts practicing it in their own down to Earth everyday lives, then the whole world and everyone in it will change completely. Those you think are unmovable would be uplifted inevitably by this wave or vibration. This would not be against their free will, because we all come here for a chance at riding such a wave (however unlikely it is that it would happen during our incarnation).

It makes no sense, but it works and it can be experienced for oneself. You can experience the alleviation of issues you have or had with people in the outer world as a rippling effect of the work you are doing on yourself. This does not make sense, it cannot be proven, but it can be demonstrated and experienced.

Also, our behaviour does change by putting this in practice within ourselves.

So this “forgiveness with contrition” sounds like conditional forgiveness to me. My understanding of forgiveness is that any attached conditions are going to prevent forgiveness to take effect. It is akin to conditional love. The positive polarity is striving towards unconditional love. Hence unconditional forgiveness or “real” forgiveness (without jettisoning wisdom).

To your other point, I would like to know more about how unconditional forgiveness would be an abrogation of free will?

The thing is that karma is hold unto by both parties. If we forgive, we release our hold on the karmic situation, the other is still bound by it, but it is now only up to them to forgive themselves. We are no longer a part of the equation. The situation has already started healing on our side.

In this quote, that I had already provided, Ra is trying to impress this on us. But since we all see what we want to see, so it is that I am going to see this in Ra’s words and others see something else possibly. This is as it should be.

These steps:

understanding → acceptance → forgiveness.

They are there as training wheels.

It is quite possible to accept without understanding. It’s just really hard to do if you still need the understanding.

Just the same, it is quite possible to forgive without acceptance. It’s just that much harder to accomplish without first having accepted that everything is acceptable.

The need to understand falls away as faith strengthens. We do get unshareable personal proofs, more and more and eventually, there is no need to understand the newer catalysts that comes our way, we just trust and accepts that there is a good reason for it.

The article you provided brings us back to wisdom. It looks very much like the sort of thing that can happen while practicing compassion without wisdom. Forgiveness is the same, it does not mean that because we let go of our side of the karmic situation, we no longer protects ourselves and others. It would have been unwise for that father in that video, after having forgiven, to then release that killer from prison for example.

We can love unconditionally, we can accept, all the while remaining wise to our situation. I find it very hard to explain this into words. It’s really the sort of thing that is best demonstrated by the way one lives their lives.

15

These steps:

understanding → acceptance → forgiveness.

They are there as training wheels.

It is quite possible to accept without understanding. It’s just really hard to do if you still need the understanding.

You see, here I see a bit of a problem. I am able to reasonably summarise your argument on this whole area having talked to you, I believe. I had not quite taken in that it includes that much magical thinking. But I got the bare bones in a sense. I am not sure that you have the faintest idea what I have been saying so far, which puts in doubt the relative productiveness of the discussion.

Firstly, Jim asked this question of the contact and they said something like ‘It is fully necessary to understand that which you are to be accepting’. So it is not, in fact, possible to accept without understanding in my opinion.

Secondly, this is my understanding of understanding, acceptance and forgiveness. As I had already said in the previous thread, I see it as a “process”. But like any process in an individual situation, parts of the process might not be possible. Such as the forgiveness in a lot of cases. The thing that is the non negotiable in that sentence, is that there is a process happening. Not every part of the process.

But let’s take another example. Again I will base it on a real instance, and it is only a hypothetical for any bits I have to add given lack of information. Say a guy gets married to a woman, he has two daughters with her and she goes nuts on him. Falsely accuses him and all that.

He goes to someone that really knows what they’re talking about in psychological terms, and finds out that the root of his problems is that his father was abusive to him when he was young. His father was in fact so abusive physically to him he nearly died a few times. So say, his father got angry and strangled him a few times. (“We are born into sin” i.e. we are born into chaos)

This built a defense mechanism where whenever someone talks to him, and starts to get to some sort of objective facts in a situation, he becomes extremely tactically non committal. It’s like ‘Why did you do that if x was an issue?’ ‘Oh the situation was a’ ‘OK, well in that case when did x become a problem?’ ‘Oh, x was always a problem’… ‘But you just told me a stopped x from happening?’ Hope that makes sense. (The sin has become internalised and is damaging to others)

This being an extremely tiring process for anyone interacting with him. Most people just don’t like this individual, and he obviously doesn’t attempt to get any objective truth in any situation, not being even able to process the idea of objective truth. Which was what lead to him choosing his wife. (The realisation of this though, and the commitment to virtue, has given him something positive, which he didn’t technically deserve perhaps)

In a practical way karma has ended since the psychological motivating factor that caused it has ended. He spends day and night for a while undoing this excuse making habit within himself and eventually relates to his daughters better. The wife can come around or she might not. If she does not, then he can’t forgive her. Because… well why would he? On top of other reasons not to there simply is no benefit to him to do so and no drawback to not doing so.

The idea that forgiving her would change her behaviour regardless of the concept of free will obviously makes no sense. The respecting of free will is that she is able to choose to be deluded. She obviously will not experience the cessation of karma if her behaviour does not change. People usually get in relationships with people roughly as messed up as they are.

BUT, like I said, the “karma” has ended. It makes sense to me. Notably from the fact he can now have a real relationship with his daughters. The option is there, and that’s all that is provided. Not the certainty because that requires her free will.

It should be noted that, while doing this exercise, I have no interest in convincing others or winning an argument as you have put it before.

I don’t believe that. I think you avoid any objectivity in these situations and jump off into constant overly abstract areas precisely, and only, because you don’t want to be proven wrong. You might not agree with that, or at least state you don’t agree with that, but that seems logical for me given the relevant facts at hand.

Think of the way conversations typically go. This conversation for instance. I posted about full responsibility because it was a surprise to me to put this together. Like, when I hear things that I had attributed to the “deep state” such as poverty or whatever, broken down to be about the persons own behaviour, it is not something I am comfortable with. Perhaps this is partly living with a quite serious disability, and perhaps I am an exception to this in general. I can’t take a lot of responsibility for the negative effect it has on others. I have massively reduced free will you might say having less capability. I have slept WAY too much over the last 24 hours.

But you answer that of course full responsibility is true. Then I give you a very simple hypothetical that comes with a fairly simple in the head answer.

So I will show this by answering myself. If I met a woman like that. Now, as oppose to even five years ago. I would probably enquire as to how she ended up with three kids that she couldn’t support. I realise as I write this my cousin is in the same position. Strange thing to only just notice. Like the same EXACT position excepting she has managed to snag a six figure earner that supported a single mother with three kids. She must be a demon in the sack, omg!

Anyway, part of her problem is that she shacks up with bad characters including her first baby daddy that is in jail (and that her first kid does not now who the real father is and believes it is the same as the second kid!). So this kind of thing is important wouldn’t you say? If I were to give her resources as an example, will she shack up with another similar character? Will those resources be lost and should she be facing karma that I shouldn’t save her from? Will I make the situation worse by giving said resources? Freeing up her time to invite unsavoury characters into her life?

There we go, fairly simple question, you might not like my answer. But it is a fairly simple process to answer. Reveal your values etc. So why didn’t you? Because you don’t want to answer. You don’t make people accountable perhaps and would go for the deep state being fully responsible and don’t want that revealed.

This makes sense to me because there is no other reason that I can see that you would avoid the question. The practical reality, regardless of the reason given (and people will always choose the most charitable interpretation of their own behaviour) is that the reason you don’t answer is because you don’t want to. In almost all cases people don’t answer questions like that because they don’t want to be wrong.

16

Let me say that I appreciate all the efforts you’ve put in your last post in sharing as clearly as possible your perspective. I believe I now have a much better grasp of it. I think we have both been expanding a lot of energies sharing the individual frameworks we have built for ourselves. This offered a great window into each others’ Universes to any readers of this thread.

I think I can perhaps attempt to clarify a tiny little bit more my peculiar perspective, but I feel I am nearing the edge of my ability to put this into words any better than I already did so far.

I can only hope other members will participate and keep this interesting thread alive.

If so, I do hope they will not follow in our footsteps and discuss ideas instead of each others, as opposed to what we have been doing.

My meaning was about being able to accept a particularly difficult situation without understanding the reasons behind said catalyst. Having faith that there is a good reason for it happening. The understanding that Ra is talking of, is about understanding ourselves, who we are. Enough that we can come to an acceptance that we are all that there is. All situations. All happenings. There is no them ultimately. We are hurting ourselves. We are not victims of an other’s actions since we are also the perpetrator. And so on.

This larger understanding is part of accepting self responsibility for everything that happens to us. We programmed it with all participants before coming down here enacting the play (including those we call Orion).

It is indeed a process. But more universal. Happening within. Rather than a process that needs to be applied externally to each single catalysts.

Well, I’ve already mentioned that I do not believe in objectivity, not even in mathematical proofs. I don’t know what else I could say that would highlight this any better.

My answers are there, but they are simply not being heard. :slight_smile:

My absolute favorite quote from all of the Confederation teachings is this one from Ra.

I cannot top that with any of my own words. This says it all for me.

17

I think I can perhaps attempt to clarify a tiny little bit more my peculiar perspective, but I feel I am nearing the edge of my ability to put this into words any better than I already did so far.

I can do your perspective. Like I said. I can approximate it. I have previously been diagnosed schizotypal and am very able to move into that hyper abstract zone. I understand your absolute faith in forgiveness, and a different kind of faith to what I have in the Law of One… I just don’t agree!

I can only hope other members will participate and keep this interesting thread alive.

I’ve been thinking a little about this forum. I notice that the forum is not so high in activity now that the Olio thread has been removed and in my opinion. The reason that is, is that the people that are inclined to EXCLUSIVELY talk about highly metaphysical concepts are rare. Like, I am an extremely unusual type of person. Being an example of someone that DOES constantly talk and think of these things. Most people do normal real life stuff most of the time, and then slip into spirituality and such things sparingly.

It’s probably for the best.

If so, I do hope they will not follow in our footsteps and discuss ideas instead of each others, as opposed to what we have been doing

Had the personal side of the conversation not happened it would have simply repeated in a week or so. Perhaps a few times.

I do think the personal is relevant to conceptual understandings. It is instinctively understood with all philosophers and religious/ spiritual people that if they are not living up to their message they are immediately discredited. When someone has a message whether that person is indeed following said message is of very high importance. The person and the message are linked.

It talks to something primal in us. We do not allow people to speak high minded things we call them out for hypocrisy. Probably something to do with the tribal ‘attention’, because attention is power.

Best Wishes,

1 Like
18

Thank you. And you’re absolutely right. This is why I am open to sharing my personal life within such a discussion.

Our guidelines ask members to refrain from doing so, simply because most people find themselves triggered in such situations and the original discussion is quickly forgotten on the ensuing battlefield that such thread would have become.

As an aside, I am working on hosting another spiritual forum where all types of discussions would be allowed. Somewhat like the original bring4th.

I think this could be good for the community.

1 Like
19

Forgiveness doesn’t exonerate the abuser. Forgiveness is for the purification of the self. Holding on to anger and resentment because you think this person doesn’t “deserve” to be forgiven is only self destructive.

We forgive to set ourselves free. You can hold someone accountable legally, morally, boundary wise, while dwelling in complete forgiveness.

Like the other commenter said, yours seems to be conditional forgiveness expressed through conditional love.

Forgiveness isn’t justification. It’s letting go of the poison of fear, anger, and resentment.

1 Like
20

I do not plan to come back here. But I have heard and processed things in this area and this specific post allows me to express them. So here I am. My emails from this site though are switched off.

The problem that I had previously when discussing this on this forum is that I will offer deep, relevant and complex responses to a point. The other person will not even acknowledge that point. They will just repeat the same mantra. “Forgiveness without contrition is virtuous”. There is no reason to interact with someone like that obviously. My reason is to articulate this argument since I have been inspired by it. But that is obviously relevant.

For this post I am going to move forward the argument from the idea that forgiveness without contrition is simply dysfunctional. Through to the idea that forgiveness without contrition is specifically service to self.

Firstly it is not forgiveness that I was talking against but forgiveness without contrition. That you well know.

Forgiveness isn’t justification.

Well of course it is! Not because that is it’s specific unique function necessarily. But all humans do all the time is justify themselves. We are ‘justifying’ machines, and there is a simply reason for that. We have a conscience! If someone feels that they might have done bad whether right or wrong it knaws at them. So they have to either do the work of delineating the truth of a complex situation and/ or creating a “wall of text” kind of justification.

This is all people do all the time. So it will be relevant to this interaction. Loads of tik toks every day with people justifying their decision for whatever reason.

If a person is to “forgive” another person, that did something negative towards a person “in practice”, rather than in utopion relativist theory, then there would be some justification of that. People don’t do anything, even emotional things, without some justification. Either a rational process of decision making or a justification after the fact. But a justification all the same.

The justification is usually along the lines ‘Well they had a bad childhood’, ‘They did the best with the knowledge they had’. Or something along those lines.

But here’s the rub. To then ‘forgive’ that individual, who has done evil to say, person A. The person then has to justify all evil doing. This is the devils bargain. A small release perhaps from the discomfort of having to accept evildoing. An excuse to not stare evil in the face. But, the Law is One. So those same rules have to be given to every other person and situation. That’s just how the brain works. To oppose this function creates something called “cognitive dissonance”, which causes a complete psychological break with the individual.

If the same rules have to be given to every other person and situation then when that individual was transgressed on does evil to others. They then have the same excuse. “Well, I did the best I could with the information I have” or some other thing. So this is obviously, Service to self. The evasion of moral responsibility/ accountability is not service to others.

Holding on to anger and resentment because you think this person doesn’t “deserve” to be forgiven is only self destructive.

We forgive to set ourselves free. You can hold someone accountable legally, morally, boundary wise, while dwelling in complete forgiveness.

There is no proof of any of this it is just random things laid down as though they are meant to be followed without question. I.e. Dogma. You can’t prove this, partly of course because it is ridiculous. A point I have already covered on this forum which is why it is not productive to post here. A point that is just ignored.

Holding some strange quasi forgiveness in the mind, that can never ground in the real world, with all the mind bending to justify that sounds a lot more difficult and painful than simply acknowledging reality. I have plenty of difficult unpleasant people in my past I haven’t “forgiven” and they have never asked for it, and it doesn’t seem self destructive to me. In some cases it is directly positive and inspiration for music.

Like the other commenter said, yours seems to be conditional forgiveness expressed through conditional love.

OK, so in your definition. In the definition of those here, as I understand it. Forgiving without contrition is the higher spiritual way. So this is a put down. It is a condescension.

I think this mindset, shows something that is wrong with the spiritual community as a whole. It makes sense why Christians have a bad reputation for being holier than thou. There is a literally a phrase for it.

This kind of spirituality in general. Rules are handed down from a higher entity/ channelling of some sort, or the bible or something, and the humans here interpret and follow that “higher guidance”.

In contradiction to something like philosophy. There is no need to actually justify the belief because of this style. In philosophy, if you state something you are expected to prove it. Of course you can refuse debate and writing books and such, but your work won’t last long if you do that. Philosophy has a kind of meritocracy to it.

That is in contrast to here. You have come in with the stated view that forgiveness without contrition is virtuous. You have not justified it or specifically answered my so far thoughts on it. So you are taking a position of spiritual authority based on this. Certainly someone that states something without a justification is expecting to rely on spiritual authority.

But what work have you done to prove that? In what way have you earned any position of authority on these matters? Have you spoken with any wisdom on any particular law of one subject or argument?

And that’s the problem. This leaves the door open for people to come in and justify decisions that go against their own conscience with the Law of One quotes (and to spread this same material to others!). And to me, that is quite a serious indictment on the material.