I will simulate a situation close to what is happening, several friends are studying the law of the one Creator, each of us does it in different ways, each is in search and discovers different understandings of the law of one, friends periodically exchange information with each other, is this process a violation of the law of free will?, how to avoid violating this law?, is it a violation of the law of free will if I tell about its existence to a person who does not know about it? I notice that in a certain circle of communication I am a central figure, I constantly tell my friends about new discoveries on the topic of serving the Creator and about the law of the one Creator, since I constantly do this, does it mean that I hopelessly violate the law of free will?
To me, there is only one law, and that is the law of one
I just did a quick search for âlaw of freewillâ and it doesnât come up once in the channelings
Are you referring to infringement?
When ra refers to speaking about something and it infringing on another spirit it is because he is playing from outside of our game and has answers that we are here to learn through lessons
In my understanding, it is impossible for us to infringe on another human
Since we donât have the answers I donât even see telling somebody the same answer as Ra as infringment.
I was even surprised, this happens when the text is translated back and forth several times, but you understood my question correctly, I wonder how this law sounds that RA constantly reminds us of)), in the Russian version it sounds like this âthe law of free will or the law of confusionâ, when we were being trained we were forbidden to prompt each other, it was believed that in this way we do more harm than good.
Violation of free will can occur whenever an individual feels that their mental or physical autonomy has been infringed upon.
When one hears words that convey spiritual teachings, such as those from Ra, they may receive them with curiosity, fascination, or joyâor they may react in an entirely different manner. The message we share might be at odds with someoneâs perception of reality, potentially evoking discomfort or even aversion. In such cases, this constitutes a violation of free will.
Therefore, one must be mindful of the words spoken to others and equally careful in how they interact with anotherâs physical being. Even a touch that we perceive as gentle or friendly may be unwelcome to another, and if so, it becomes an infringement upon their free will.
While sharing knowledge and engaging with others is valuable, it is crucial to consciously calibrate our words and actions. Often, it is wiser to withhold certain words or to seek a more receptive audience. Ultimately, the greatest focus should be on self-development. From a metaphysical standpoint, the most effective path is to refine oneâs own body, mind, and soulâbecoming ever more radiantâso that love and light may flow through us freely, influencing others not through direct persuasion, but through the natural emanation of our being.
Just a quick question
If I had a different perception than this and I didnât like your post. Because it made me feel uncomfortable, but would that be breaking the law of free will?
We say - do not wake the sleeping, but feed the awakened, I do not know how the phrase will sound in English. We were taught that the task of the teacher is not to teach the student but to light a fire in him to study the subject, therefore the information was always given limited, so that they would engage in self-study. For me it turned out to be valuable to study the law of the one Creator for six years and only now to discover these books âRA materialsâ, after reading them it became clear why my teachers were so stingy with information.
For the most part, people misunderstand the outcome they seek. They seek specific knowledge hoping that one concept will lead to another and then they will somehow be in a better position. But this is a fallacy in this sense. Person A plus Knowledge B equals simply Person A wearing different clothes, as compared to Person A grown into a larger being.
In other words, itâs the growth we seek. Knowledge can be helpful, or spending all our time chasing it can be a waste of our time, because we cannot actually benefit from the knowledge until we have grown inside sufficiently to use it.
The teacherâs job, then, should be not only to light the fire, but to assist in the inner growth, bolster the meditation and help intuitive development.
Iâm not trying to give specific advice, Iâm just reacting to your words.
In terms of discussion among peers, unless someone expresses or implies that another must believe what they say, there is no direct violation because the other is free to reject the information. However, saying things which discourage another or cause them to despair of their seeking also should be avoided as a general principle.
Thank you for your detailed answer.
I think it is difficult for us to really violate free will because most of us have a relatively low status and you really need status, leadership status, for people to take you seriously enough to take your information and violate their own free will with it.
The Law of One contact did come down as basically an all knowing diety to a âgroup that honours usâ.
I do think we can make errors and step on these principles. For instance, being careful about telling others your dreams. But I think if you tell people the Law of One stuff they will probably dismiss you as a wack job and thus free will is preserved.
I think the more dangerous violations of free will are lying. Playing victim and misrepresenting and such. Anything where if people knew the full truth they would make different decisions.
We have already learned this lesson ))), we were warned to keep our mouths shut, but we tried to tell everyone what we learned, they perceived us as crazy )), we continue to communicate with each other, but not everyone takes the initiative, so I think it would be useful not to tell them about new discoveries, the truth is that it is impossible to stop yourself from communicating, of which there is already very little ).
When someone tries to forcefully persuade an individual how to think or feel about a subject, without any thought given to allowing that other person to think for themself and develop their own opinions or feelings, that is what I consider to be a violation of free will.
Expressing your opinion is not a violation of free will unless it is in an attempt to control or coerce.
Your expression âdo not wake the sleeping, but feed the awakenedâ reminds me of the advice in The Law of One Session 18 (18.6) which I think you will find relevant to your question.
Thank you, it was important for me to hear advice from living people, I read the proposed texts quite recently and continue to study everything accumulated on this resource. In the texts from RA, information from ancient Russian culture often comes across, an example is this proverb, a very long time ago they were called Apostles, there are more than 1000 of them, they were considered when placing in the Epistolary Circle or the Sophia Circle or the Star of Numbers or the Tarrot Table, all these are applied tools of our and your ancestors for studying the law of the one Creator.
This is absolutely bang on for me, especially the quote above. Iâd go far as to say that society is collapsing because of it.
Lying is so normalised that people canât even see it and donât want to.
I receive emails on LinkedIn which start âHiâ (pretends to be my friend), âWeâre reaching out because we feel your company will benefit from our consultancy/expertise/blah blahâŚâ
But itâs not true. Nobody has looked at my company. This is an automated mass email. Nobody âfeelsâ anything. If they had, it would be clear that I donât need their sh1t.
In the IT world, which has long spilled over into everyoneâs lives, manipulative tricks are common place. Hereâs an acronym: ATM - ask, tell, make. I.e., Give the illusion of choice, when actually there actually is none.
âContinueâ or âMaybe laterâ - the âContinueâ pretends to be a default âcarry onâ, but actually youâve just agreed to something. The âmaybe laterâ - again, like you have a choice!
If you point out the lies, then youâre an alien.
The danger of lies is not that people believe them, but that no one can recognise the truth.
Well, yeah, that is very true in my own life. Like, a few years ago I noticed people connecting on facebook all the time and that things had just become hopelessly artificial, from where they were ten years before that.
Not sure that influences free will.
The kind of thing I see as a violation of free will is when someone gets in a relationship with someone and is very strategically lied to. Or just has something âmisrepresentedâ.
Like, imagine a woman that has slept around a lot in her twenties. She âfinds Jesusâ in her thirties. Then, because she was chasing guys that were out of her league in her twenties, who were players and didnât have time for her, she concocts this idea that her previous partners were ânarcissistsâ and such, and that she was abused. But what really happened was that she went for guys that had hundreds of options and were far out of her league.
In her thirties, she and the gaggle of church women set up this narrative that she was âabusedâ in her past, then, it can limit the free will of the church guy she settles down with. Because, rather than getting a clear picture of her past and allowing himself to think that he doesnât really want a girl like her, he is told constantly that she was âabusedâ and is now âsavedâ so you shouldnât hold her past against her.
He gets with her, has vanilla sex and finds a video of her a few years into the marriage where she is doing far more adventurous sex. So, from this place, he would not have made the free will choice to be with her if he understood the real details of her past without the cover of her playing victim.
So in this situation the entire church has come together to fix a narrative, to violate the guys free will. Then obviously, when a lot of information comes out in general about this kind of pattern with women free will starts to be restored.
I heard recently from someone, a philosopher, that the victim card is how someone violates their own free will in a sense. Then the falsely claimed victim card can allow that individual to violate others free will, because we have to give ourselves something before we can give it to others.
Of course it does. Nothing is real. Nothing is what it seems. Everything is black mirror stuff.
I very much liked your post and appreciate your focus on personal relationships. It applies everywhere.
If youâre lying to someone, or intentionally hiding things, I think it better to just tell them and live with the consequences. Sometimes I feel like I âovershareâ, and perhaps I do, but I still prefer the honesty.
Today, I visited my friend and business partner in hospital. I never knew, but he was drinking on a transplanted liver. His big story was that he originally needed a transplant (5 yrs ago now) because of a genetic defect. Over recent weeks, I have since learned that he has a long alcoholic history.
I was angry at first, not because he drank, but because he hid it, especially from me after I told him about my own history. I had a lot invested in the man.
He now lies in a hospital bed dying an excruciating death. He cries out in pain and there is nothing anyone can do. He has dragged others into the mess who are left to pick up the pieces the best they can.
The price of lying is too high.
Yes, perhaps it is that every act of deception is violating free will in some manner. Because if someone is withholding or misrepresenting information, they are probably doing it for the purposes of influencing someone on a certain area.
The church women example was specifically chosen because it illustrates that there are a group of people, purposely misrepresenting information in such a way as to influence how someone is thinking and the (very serious) decisions they are making. This is quite clear cut.
I think there are other examples that are not quite as clear cut. My mother only found out when she was pregnant certain things about my father. Which was serious enough that she would not have made the same decision had she known earlier (as she tells it). But I donât know that this was even necessarily consciously done on my fathers behalf. Why do I say that? Because they were together for three months before they started trying for a kid. So it is a little different from the church example. If someone wants to jump into a serious life long relationship on the basis of hedonism, without any real vetting of their partner. Then there are going to be those issues.
I understand what you mean with your friend and the liver there. Those are horrible moments I feel. I had a female friend that had a lot of âdepressiveâ issues. Like, as she told it, for no reason connected to her real life and psychology, she just had a deep, malevolent, depressive sensation that she said was an illness of some sort. A lot later I found out that even though I asked her everyday how she was (knowing how it is people operate), she had concealed from me a lot of the problems going on in her real life that were influencing this.
I made a bit of a song about this:
Two years, of wasted time.
Omit, so much, it might as well, have, all been a lie and I.
I feel⌠betrayedâŚ
Oh yeah, I suppose it ties in to your end statement there âThe price of lying is too highâ. She killed herself a few years ago. Our friendship had been two years ref the song.
Would it have changed my behaviour had I have known? Perhaps. But it is a very halfway example. Because it seems to me, it was motivated as much by her own dysfunction as much as any real deception on her behalf.
It is notable the negative uses free will in a slightly different way, but I donât think it is really going to add to the conversation to explain that. So our examples might both include actually messing with free will and losing polarity, or using it in a negative way. Both of them are errors to us here on (I assume) the service to others path.
âYes, perhaps it is that every act of deception is violating free will in some mannerâ
Thought about this a little, I prefer to be express information freely, but there may be instances where lying is actually needed and just. If the other actor is violating your free will, for example in security or well being you can lie. If you know that the other actor is a negative one, it is just to lie and give him what he likes and deserves.
Having some experience in IT.
For example when you are given a choice and there are 2 buttons, the one they prefer is usually full and the one they donât prefer is just a border. This is kind of psychological manipulation, when it is easier to notice their preferred action and when you rush, you just press the easier one. Same with making small text, small button, button in pushed aside.
Guilty me of considering and doing that 
Now I make buttons on the same line and equal style when there is a choice to be made.
An example of this is when we Canadians legalised marijuana. When entering the USA, the border agents can ask you if you ever consumed marijuana. If you say yes, you are banned for life from entering the USA.
It so happens that I do not in fact use any such substances, but I can remember âexpertsâ telling Canadians that they should not answer such questions and instead cancel their request to enter the USA and go back home. This is of course a disguised way of telling people that they should lie if they happen to have tried marijuana after it was legalised.
I donât approve this example.
What I meant, if you are attacked by someone or someone is trying to steal something from you or trick you. That is disrespectful for the country of USA and people of USA when the country of USA requests you to state basically who you are to enter their âhomeâ.
Negative polarization example, I believe.