The Spectrum of Service to Others - My personal Belief and Understanding

I would like to share my personal understanding and belief with regards to what one could call the spectrum of service to others. What is meant by this, is the range of possible ways or approaches for an entity to live a life, i.e. to be interacting with its environment, that would lead to a classification of the entity as a positively polarized one in accordance with the definition given in the channeled Ra Material.

The spectrum as I understand it can be thought of as being continuous in the degree of selflessness - or - to be more descriptive - continuous in the extent to which the illusion of separation and the associated fears that are generated by it are seen through and disregarded.

While being continuous, i.e. infinitely nuanced, the spectrum has a finite range.

One end of the spectrum being total self-abandonment with the intent to exert positive influence on others. One might call this an impulsive service to others. Impulsive - because - since requiring self-destruction - can only be exerted a single time within an existence. Just like a strong impulse.

The other end of the spectrum being a self-preserving way of serving others with the degree of self-preservation being chosen as high as necessary to be of service for the longest possible time and in the most capable way (capable in terms of the self-energization needed to help others).

However, also including at least one single moment in life, in which the illusion of separation is seen through, the fears generated by it are disregarded and an act of self-abandonment in order to serve others is sincerely considered and embraced or taken.

One might call this the enduring service to others.

One might further classify the impulsive and enduring ways to serve others as being wise or unwise.

For example - if a being is sincerely convinced that it - as the Orion Group controlled media of this planet constantly propagates- is a parasite of this earth and the being therefore decides to destroy itself (self-abandonment) to benefit the earth. This would be an act of service to others that is motivated by love but suffers from a considerable lack of wisdom. Simply because earth will not benefit from the couple of kg of CO2 that are saved by the death of said being (given that 5/6 of totally emitted CO2 is released from the earths crust anyhow). On the contrary, earth will miss the invaluable grace, beauty and kindness of said being that could have had a life long positive impact on earth and humans.

On the other hand, if a powerful being is set up by another being and ends up in a situation
where it would have to use its powers in order to preserve its existence and knows that this would exert negative influence on others and then decides not to exert this negative influence but instead prefers self-destruction: This would be an act of service to others that is motivated by love and wisdom, i.e. it is a well-informed way to serve others.

Now it seems to me the Ra Material was intended to convey the concept of - what I would call - the enduring way to serve others at one end of the spectrum by using a numerical allegory for something which is - by all means - very hard to quantify… that is from a human standpoint.
(And if you ask me, also pointless to be actually quantified by humans).

One should rather find an understanding of the variety of ways to serve others. And as I see it, there is an entire spectrum of it, finite but continuous and thus infnitely nuanced.

More concretely and less abstractly spoken, there are services that require time, effort and energy. They may require a being to take care of its nutrition, housing situation, making sure to have a relationship and so forth. All of this to varying degrees depending on the particular service in question.

If you ask me the notion of something like: This kind of service is more valuable than that one - namely, by 23.647 % is not helpful… and one could even argue whether this is a negatively polarized way of looking at things.

If anyone knows of passages within the Ra Material that deal with this question/topic, except “the numerical allegory of 51 %”. Any referral to these passages would be greatly appreciated.

1 Like

What you say reminds me

81.8 Questioner: What could be the result of this continued wearying effect after a long period?

Ra: I am Ra. You ask a general query with infinite answers. We shall over-generalize in order to attempt to reply.

One group might be tempted and thus lose the very contact which caused the difficulty. So the story would end.

Another group might be strong at first but not faithful in the face of difficulty. Thus the story would end.

Another group might choose the path of martyrdom in its completeness and use the instrument until its physical body complex failed from the harsh toll demanded when all energy was gone.

This particular group, at this particular nexus, is attempting to conserve the vital energy of the instrument. It is attempting to balance love of service and wisdom of service, and it is faithful to the service in the face of difficulty. Temptation has not yet ended this group’s story.

We may not know the future, but the probability of this situation continuing over a relatively substantial period of your space/time is large. The significant factor is the will of the instrument and of the group to serve. That is the only cause for balancing the slowly increasing weariness which will continue to distort your perceptions. Without this will the contact might be possible but finally seem too much of an effort.


Your approach to these issues makes sense to me and resonates with me.
Following your thoughts I was thinking about an intermediate solution between these two spectrums.

Something that is between these two spectrums, if I think logically at this point… is to undertake a certain work that would assume that what we give to others comes back to us. I am assuming here the existence of an invisible and unproven principle of operation of the metaphysical Universe, where everything is based on balance.

In this approach, instead of committing to martyrdom and burning yourself out (impulsive service) for the benefit of others, and instead of undertaking work for both yourself and others (self-preserving), i.e. working 50% for yourself and 50% for others.

And it would be an approach that would include the principle I mentioned (balance), and work in such a system (that could be in my opinion balanced version between these two spectrums you described) would look like that we would serve other people in such a way as to fill those desires or those gaps that we see in ourselves.

To simplify it as much as possible to make it understandable: We help others meet their desires and needs and help them in terms of what we wish for ourselves and want to develop in self. We behave towards others in the way we would like others to behave towards us.

And in such approach, I see a balance between your examples of the spectrum, in that on the one hand we have impulsive and heroic actions, because we only act for the benefit of others. On the other hand, we have this egoism, because we do it to ultimately develop ourselves, which will come because we get what we give to others. I think this still qualifies as an STO.

The opposite to this would be the STS attitude, where we deny balance and instead of first directing our actions outward to help others, in order to obtain what we have given to others, we are immediately inclined to work only for ourselves in the first time and always, we never go outside of it. In this situation, the principle of balance works in such a way that we wouldn’t get what we expect from the environment, but we give it to ourselves directly, somehow trying to climb to the very top of it all and make our own despite everything, despite that surrounding act against us or do not support us.

Of course this is just my opinion. I have followed this principle here and there in the past. It is difficult to clearly state its usefulness, although I will certainly use it to see possible effects, it certainly requires faith and there is no clear evidence of the existence of such a balance in life.

1 Like

I am really enjoying this discussion with you!

I also try to improve my own understanding of and find the most resonating way of service to others and this is a great help.

Your approach to serve others quote: " in such a way as to fill those desires or those gaps that we see in ourselves" also makes a lot of sense to me.

I think what is well reflected by what you say is that in essence the notion of service to others and service to self are concepts of densities that feature a veil. While in truth, there is just the one all and there is no way to only serve a separated entity.

I think we had a misunderstanding with regards to what I mean by spectrum. I have the tendency to apply mathematical and abstract concepts in a rather unusual way.

What I meant by spectrum is a “range” that “starts” at that one example I gave with the kind of balanced self-preservation and help for others which however also contains this one moment of realization of the importance of altruism/ self-abandonment (corresponding to what was described in the Ra Material as the 51% tipping point) and “ends” at total self-abandonment.

In between this range one has a multitude (actually infinite) ways to serve others.

For example, consider a monk, who lives a modest life dedicating most of his actions to others. His services require a certain extent of self-preservation but in total, in terms of the numerical percentages that are mentioned in the Ra Material, the fraction of self-preservation (service to self) maybe in his case is 10 %, while 90% of his actions are dedicated to being of service to others.

What I am trying to point out is:

His particular way of service to others - in a sense - relies and depends on having this particular amount of self-preservation. While there are other ways of service to others that require more or less of it.

For example: NIkola Tesla. He had the wish to provide energy and new technologies to the world in order to free humans from the necessity to perform work they do not enjoy.

In order to perform his research and development work he had to ensure a higher degree of self-preservation than the monk, because he had to use his central nervous system to invent and design his devices, found companies, lead negotiations, raise capital, defend himself and his company against the attacks of competitors and so on , while the monk performs many simple loving actions on a daily basis following his heart and faith in that which is good.

Therefore - in a sense - Nikola Tesla’s way of serving others required more self-energization and hence more service to self but he still always may have been driven by his original wish to have a positive impact on the world and humanity.

In his case - one may speak of “percentages” of 70 % service to others and 30% service to self or similar.

However, the point I am trying to make is:
It is not appropriate and not justified to speak of one kind of service as being more positively polarized than the other simply because it “contains less service to self”.

Different ways of serving others rely and depend on different amounts of self-preservation, and thus service to self.

One should not speak of one kind of service as being more valuable simply because it contains less service-to-self than others.

In this respect, I kind of like your definition of positive polarization.

1 Like

I’m thinking that harvestability is a function
of polarization, and the degree of polarization
is what’s detected in the harvest process.

It seems like a three way sort, STO accepted,
STS accepted, and harvest rejected. I ponder
this as some form of existentialism, however
the degree of polarity gained or lost be some
function of conscience.

In other words, a leveraged act which has
good probability of helping millions might
boost the polarization of someone who is
cognizant, as opposed to a similar act by
someone who considers it random and of
little consequence.

So embracing an illusion that your acts
are tremendously beneficial might offer
some advantage over not.

I find an approach of being non grasping,
releasing attachment to outcome, might
on some level have advantage on higher
densities over lower - as if the advantage
posed by the veil upon polarization
lessens as the veil falls away.

Thanks for the example with Tesla, it’s a good example for further discussion. This is exactly the issue to consider in my opinion… as when we are dealing with STO and when it is already STS when it comes to taking care of yourself or your business. I think that if Tesla 100% of his efforts to take care of himself and his business ultimately tranformed into the benefit of others, that would give him 100% positive polarity.

Albeit, this is just a theory. Tesla like most, even prominent and objectively positive people, have their moments where they pick up something from it for their benefit, maybe material goods, maybe stimulants, maybe entertainment or maybe good mood. I don’t know what Tesla was like and I don’t care to judge him at the moment, overall he was a positive figure without question.

What I’m getting at is to say that it can be STO when someone takes care of themselves only to ultimately take care of others. However, in practice, even I know from myself, it’s never the case that I spend all the money I earn or all my free time on STO activity. Something of it for the time being I’m utilizing for myself, but I also do a lot for others, well at least I’ve added more than one post here, involving my energy.

if I didn’t earn money I wouldn’t survive I’d die of hunger and I wouldn’t write any post and I think that some of the food I ate that directly gave me energy can be considered STO, even though I gave it to myself. But the fact is, not all this food was burned for the sake of doing something in STO, and this in turn changes the ratio of negative/positive polarization in me, I used some of the fuel I had for some form of entertainment and that was clear STS.

I think “self-preservation” could also be broken down into STS and STO. What intentions does someone have to take care of themselves, are they STO or STS intentions? I think it can be further considered in this way, still to be delved into. Of course, to be clear, it’s not like this is some kind of ready-made recipe or formula for this, all this is opening some new paths and deepening something that neither contradicts nor makes something right way better than what you propose.

Understanding “self-preservation” as the STO, can bring subtleties in which it’s easy to lose yourself and taking care of yourself ultimately can take a development into a negative polarity. Or, on the contrary, only by taking care of the self, someone creates a new self, the best version of self. For some, it may be that fully committing to solitude and caring only for oneself will give the greatest rewards to others paradoxically, because when this would not be the case for them, perhaps for these certain people, any exit and leaving this way of working would be something that would embroil them wrong acts and negative attitude toward others and they go in unnecessary directions on their path from the perspective of development to the STO.

So far, so much for that. Still taking the opportunity, I would like to refer to two other ways to develop towards STO, already beyond the question of placing it on the spectrum.

The approach that comes to mind is that an adept can direct himself to Serve those who are STO. In such a case we are dealing with the fact that we are moving from working on green ray center to blue ray center because the distinction and service of those who currently are STO from those who are STS (including those STS who present themselves as STO) requires a certain amount of wisdom that comes with the blue ray center.

So the unconditional love and desire to serve and spread that radiates to everyone and everything, thanks to the blue ray center, would be directed only towards those who are STO. If the Heart were invincible in the unconditional expression of love and the Mind worked at its highest to always separate STO from STS. Then we would have two fully functioning and sustainable green and blue centers. Love would be in full power and always in the right direction. Perhaps this is the kind of Service to Others that could be named “the highest” way of STO.

The last way that comes to my mind is a way of working where we see ourselves and others as someone who will be served. We stop identifying with our “I”, we go outside ourselves to think and turn towards ourselves as to another person. For example, you look at yourself and say: “Bernard-henrique in this situation, this and that will be good for you…”. And you set to work for this person (“yourself”), but taking a completely different perspective than the one if you consider yourself in the body as yourself and you think of yourself as “I”.

Let me tell you, I practice with it and have interesting results. Such a look at myself and others, from outside myself, allowed me to gain some joy and satisfaction from creating this person “myself”, without any burdensome attachment of myself to myself, and the best thing is when you have such a perception of yourself and others and at that moment you will turn to yourself. Suddenly you realize that in a sense you do not exist, that you have no existence, and at the same time you maintain a kind of sacred self that simply exists and you see all creation around you and also your current you. It is difficult to express in words, but I believe it allows us to actually find the Creator within us and feel that we really are Him.

In contrast, the STS version of the above would be to not distans from current self and do everything from personal perspective, from within who we currently are, rather than from outside and/or however distancing from self, but still taking care only about self, looking at self from the outside and ignoring others.

I feel you’re very correct here.

I agree, I cannot recall Ra’s phrase now, it was about spending energy for service to self and service to others.

Thinking about spectrum I probably have my own spectrum definition: how far the service to others if from service to self in term of interaction. I mean you can interact with very service to self situations in very direct way (you might call it a face-off), or you can help people who help people how to interact with service to self.

I have different understanding here, distinguishing Body and Spirit even if being in the complex, in this sense Body is becoming rather means than end in itself. So feeding might have both polarities depending on feelings.

Significator of the Body, The Hanged Man or Martyr

1 Like

When I ponder the title of this topic,
Spectrum of STO - I spontaneously
thought about that Gary Chapman
book The Five Love Languages.

These languages paraphrased include:
Giving Others Words of Affirmation
Giving Others Quality Time
Giving To Others and Receiving Gifts
Giving Others Acts of Service
Giving Others Physical Loving Touch

There’s a golden rule, treat others
how you’d like to be treated - and
a spiritually progressed group may
uplevel their density of service to
others by helping others experience
love. I say as conjecture based on
my own aims. A byproduct of such
practice can be a state of grace,
difficult to describe.

How? Maybe such service entails
a spectrum of love languages.

1 Like

Hello, thank you for sharing your views and reasoning. I like to view it as “serving others including me“ which in my opinión falls within the range of 51% and a little bit more and “only serving others”.

Maybe intention factors into it as well. For example take a the classic scenario where a kid helps an older person cross the street. In example A the kid hates old people and is only “helping” because they fear retribution for not doing so. Is that really service to others if there’s no intention to serve? In example B the kid loves the feeling they get from helping and does not even think about the other person per se. So to feel better about themselves they help others without caring at all about the other. Is that service to others if their intention is focused on their own feeling?

Basically (maybe) it comes down to do our actions speak louder than our intentions? I don’t know and that’s something I struggle with myself.

1 Like