service & stuff

[lynn51]

intersting Rosi. alot of what you said makes sense . but how can you
say that there is no right or wrong? a serial killer is not wrong? do
you put him in the same category as mother Theresa? I can see that
from God's point of view that may be true, but I feel in the life that
we have in this reality , there is right and wrong. you spoke about
going into a negative place and feeling better once you righted
yourself. Is this not going down a "wrong" path? and instinctively
knowing right from wrong?
let us know how you like the movie!
blessings, Lesta

[Rosi]

Who am I to say that a serial killer is wrong...what we have here is
choice. I choose not to cut someone's life short, and inevitably
shorten their time in this incarnation. However, there are those
that would choose to do otherwise. I'm no judge or jury. I can only
make decisions for myself and I choose not to judge others. I know,
at least this is the truth that I resonate with, that if a serial
killer chooses to select me as one of their victims...I am not
afraid. I know that they are merely killing my physical body.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed, and my spirit will not be
destroyed. What I believe, is that my spirit will either ascend to
another level, or be reincarnated upon this earth. To me, there is
no death.

Aren't we all God's creatures...and if so, aren't we all the same?
We just choose to follow different paths. God, as we call the
Creator, is within all of us. God has given us the gift of free
will. How are we to know who we are, without knowing first, who we
are not? We don't have to know this by firsthand experience, we can
also look at the world around us and decide who we are.

I know I'm not a serial killer. I know that I do not want to cut
short anyone's physical experiential time here. How do I know that?
By looking around me and seeing what cutting someone's life short,
does to others. That is what we are all about! Learning from
experience. All of those people who have died by accident, or by
murder, have (in my mind) reincarnated again or ascended to another
dimension. And we (some of us), as a result...the living physical
bodies, have seen through the experience of others, that we do not
want to do that.

I still stand by my statement there is no right or wrong. To me, if
we call something wrong, we are denying that which we are. Which is
God.

Rosi

PS. Haven't watched Pay it Forward, yet, but I did rent it. May try
to watch it now, although sleepy time is setting in! =)

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hey everbody!

I think this topic and the hypothetical "serial killer" scenario is
very interesting and gives quite an insight into exactly *what* these
ideas are and how they are applied. So I'm gonna resurrect this
thread for a bit and give my two cents on it...

> Who am I to say that a serial killer is wrong...what we have here
is
> choice. I choose not to cut someone's life short, and inevitably
> shorten their time in this incarnation. However, there are those
> that would choose to do otherwise. I'm no judge or jury. I can
only
> make decisions for myself and I choose not to judge others. I
know,
> at least this is the truth that I resonate with, that if a serial
> killer chooses to select me as one of their victims...I am not
> afraid. I know that they are merely killing my physical body.

I agree with this in principle. However, we may be oversimplifying
the situation just a *tad* - let me explain what I mean. I know
precisely what you mean about not wanting to judge: you want to
accept this criminal as the creator just like everyone else. And
that is a choice that is in harmony with unity and the law of one, as
I understand it. However, there's another connotation of "judging"
that implies discrimination, as in being able to discriminate between
desirable or undesirable, legal or illegal, violent or peaceful. We
do this type of judging everyday, from what brand of detergent we
buy, to what route we take to work, to how we deal with a person. I
don't believe that all these judgements are exercises in acceptance
or denial - they are simply decisions to be made. So what I'm saying
is that we can "judge" this criminal's actions to not be conducive to
society's established limits on personal perogative without rejecting
him as a creator, and punish him accordingly. As long as we live in
3D, we need to have a society that allows peaceful people to thrive,
but I don't believe we have to demonize or reject aspects of
ourselves in order to accomplish this.

> Energy can neither be created or destroyed, and my spirit will not
be
> destroyed. What I believe, is that my spirit will either ascend to
> another level, or be reincarnated upon this earth. To me, there is
> no death.

I agree that we are not *really* vulnerable in the ultimate sense.
However, (according to Ra) even 4D and 5D positive entities do resist
the negatives. They do incur some polarity loss by not
being "completely" accepting of the negative, but it is nevertheless
neccesary to allow them to serve the 3D entities who call on them.

Like I said, I find this discussion really fascinating, and look
forward to any wisdom anybody else could offer on this.

Thanks,
Jeremy

[Rosi]

Hi All! I just read back and found Jeremy's reply to my post on
service, and wanted to say "YAY", and "Whoo Hoo"! I love you, group,
because this is exactly why I'm here...to learn and to hear other
perspectives, and to share in our joy! I do know what you mean,
Jeremy, and I know my weaknesses in this area. I'm working on
discernment. I do know that if I don't feel comfortable with a
person, and their energy, I move away. I gravitate to positive
beings on a personal level. This, in some way, explains to me what
you are trying to say...that I do discern. Whether or not I realize
it. I do resist the negatives. Aren't the negatives here, though, to
give us an idea of what we are not?

Punishment...are we punishing to influence the negatives to be
positives, or are we protecting our society by showing them what
happens if you are openly negative? This is a question, that I still
have.

--- In asc2k@y..., "Jeremy Weiland" <jweiland@n...> wrote:
> Hey everbody!
>
> I think this topic and the hypothetical "serial killer" scenario is
> very interesting and gives quite an insight into exactly *what*
these
> ideas are and how they are applied. So I'm gonna resurrect this
> thread for a bit and give my two cents on it...
>
> > Who am I to say that a serial killer is wrong...what we have here
> is
> > choice. I choose not to cut someone's life short, and inevitably
> > shorten their time in this incarnation. However, there are those
> > that would choose to do otherwise. I'm no judge or jury. I can
> only
> > make decisions for myself and I choose not to judge others. I
> know,
> > at least this is the truth that I resonate with, that if a serial
> > killer chooses to select me as one of their victims...I am not
> > afraid. I know that they are merely killing my physical body.
>
> I agree with this in principle. However, we may be oversimplifying
> the situation just a *tad* - let me explain what I mean. I know
> precisely what you mean about not wanting to judge: you want to
> accept this criminal as the creator just like everyone else. And
> that is a choice that is in harmony with unity and the law of one,
as
> I understand it. However, there's another connotation of "judging"
> that implies discrimination, as in being able to discriminate
between
> desirable or undesirable, legal or illegal, violent or peaceful.
We
> do this type of judging everyday, from what brand of detergent we
> buy, to what route we take to work, to how we deal with a person.
I
> don't believe that all these judgements are exercises in acceptance
> or denial - they are simply decisions to be made. So what I'm
saying
> is that we can "judge" this criminal's actions to not be conducive
to
> society's established limits on personal perogative without
rejecting
> him as a creator, and punish him accordingly. As long as we live
in
> 3D, we need to have a society that allows peaceful people to
thrive,
> but I don't believe we have to demonize or reject aspects of
> ourselves in order to accomplish this.


>
> > Energy can neither be created or destroyed, and my spirit will
not
> be
> > destroyed. What I believe, is that my spirit will either ascend
to
> > another level, or be reincarnated upon this earth. To me, there
is
> > no death.
>
> I agree that we are not *really* vulnerable in the ultimate sense.
> However, (according to Ra) even 4D and 5D positive entities do
resist
> the negatives. They do incur some polarity loss by not
> being "completely" accepting of the negative, but it is
nevertheless
> neccesary to allow them to serve the 3D entities who call on them.
>
> Like I said, I find this discussion really fascinating, and look
> forward to any wisdom anybody else could offer on this.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy

[lynn51]

Thanks Jeremy for expanding on this subject with helpful insights.
In seeing an action as wrong , would not neccessarily cause one to be
blaming and punishing. It seems neccessary to direct one's convictions
toward shining the light on the shadow side of oneself- the hidden
agendas , and find the serial killer in oneself. wouldn't harsh words
and thoughts and negative energies towards someone be a a degree of
killing a bit of the spirit of another? And even then blame and
punishment of oneself isn't the answer.To see the error , find the
roots, whether it be a postulate from an earlier time in this life or
a former one often works.If one has a goal of ascending to a higher
plane, then wouldn't such actions be" wrong" steps ie. steps out of
line with our own goal?And if God has designed us with ascension in
the plan,it seems these negative actions be wrong in the sense that
they are making us take the long detours? A jewel theif might have all
sorts of dreams and aspirations and goals, and define a wrong step as
mistake in his strategy.But wouldn't the angels be whispering
other hints to this person that surely he would not wanting to be
hearing?

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hey Lesta and group!

> In seeing an action as wrong , would not neccessarily cause one to be
> blaming and punishing. It seems neccessary to direct one's convictions
> toward shining the light on the shadow side of oneself- the hidden
> agendas , and find the serial killer in oneself.

ABSOLUTELY. In one sense, there is a "serial killer" side to each of us
that hides in the darkness and as worthy of love as any other part. In
another sense, that serial killer himself, he IS a part of you, and he IS
that part that you must accept and love. This idea is so foreign to the way
we are taught to think that it takes a practically herculean effort to fully
switch to seeing everything and everybody as creator and as self. But once
you realize that this is the root message of all religions, it makes perfect
sense. Like the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you - that makes sense now because now we know that that other guy *is*
you - so it's completely in your own interest to love and accept him.

I love these more philosophical discussions, but whenever I get into one
about spiritual ideas, it always seems to me that all our problems and
struggles and spiritual and evolutional goals come down fundamentally to one
concept: identity. It seems to me that, in the end, man's whole problem
from the beginning of time has been an identity problem. Do you identify
with your separated self or with the unity of all life? "Who am I?" is the
question that, I believe, is the source of all man's suffering. So learning
to accept others is really answering that question, "Who am I?"

Sorry, I may be repeating past information, but this is such a powerful
point that I like to talk about it :-)

> wouldn't harsh words
> and thoughts and negative energies towards someone be a a degree of
> killing a bit of the spirit of another? And even then blame and
> punishment of oneself isn't the answer.To see the error , find the
> roots, whether it be a postulate from an earlier time in this life or
> a former one often works.If one has a goal of ascending to a higher
> plane, then wouldn't such actions be" wrong" steps ie. steps out of
> line with our own goal?

Well, it depends on your goal. The path of unity would involve looking
at that part of yourself that you are rejecting, looking at the roots, and
working through and integrating (Ra's favorite word) that aspect in
yourself. It's the path of *reality*, because accepting that all is one is
accepting the reality of the universe, not the illusion of separation.
However, Ra says that there is a great deal of power in illusion and denial.
This is the negative path - the path of illusion and unreality. One who
would not look at and integrate the different parts of the self, but rather
simply alienate those parts more, would be polarizing negatively in my
opinion. There's nothing "wrong" per se, I believe, about negative
polarization, it's simply the path of separation. This would be the path
that would reject the serial killer as different and unworthy of inclusion
in the self, and seek to separate further. But you are right: it is not
"wrong". Doesn't Ra say somewhere that the 10 commandments were negative
influenced because a positive entity would never say "thou shalt not"?

With that said, I can say that it does seem that Ra prefers that it's
fellow entities take the positive rather than negative path, hence its/their
work on our planet. So the negative, sts path is not wrong, but simply
undesirable.

> And if God has designed us with ascension in
> the plan,it seems these negative actions be wrong in the sense that
> they are making us take the long detours?

Maybe "inefficient" is a better word to use. Both paths are acceptable;
both lead to the creator and to unity; one just takes longer. God cannot
stand in the way of one who, for some reason that I believe Ra doesn't even
fully understand, wants to take the separation detour and thereby incur a
very long journey to oneness.

> A jewel theif might have all
> sorts of dreams and aspirations and goals, and define a wrong step as
> mistake in his strategy.But wouldn't the angels be whispering
> other hints to this person that surely he would not wanting to be
> hearing?

Sorry, Lesta, not sure what you mean here.

Look forward to hearing from you and, of course, others!

Later,
Jeremy

[Tiffani Boswell]

hi rosi and jeremy!

yes been good to follow this conversation...

"moving away from the negative"

what do you do if the situation is not condusive to be able to move away
from the negative?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Weiland" <jweiland@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=zgmKRcOZJPYKkX43lJrciFu77j6eKYKk7Uqca0 J4Tm-0n5Nuq2_lBLgQfys6OyEZ345rinJvC9RSKXbG_A)>
To: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=S8eC52FtDfj41vA5X431Xh-w841UKSTAI6u7yd1EgrGTIK00ciYBlShjXdGWqS78PIKP1gVSI emmfk9VkA)>
Sent: July 03, 2001 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [asc2k] Re: service & stuff


> Hoo boy, Rosi... you're hitting on some *great* points. This is
really
> interesting and very engaging. Thank you!!!
>
> > I do know what you mean,
> > Jeremy, and I know my weaknesses in this area.
>
> Whoa whoa whoa - back up. You don't have any weaknesses that the rest
> of us don't have. We're *all* trying to integrate each other back into
> ourselves - don't forget that we're learning about this together. :-)
>
> > I'm working on
> > discernment. I do know that if I don't feel comfortable with a
> > person, and their energy, I move away. I gravitate to positive
> > beings on a personal level. This, in some way, explains to me what
> > you are trying to say...that I do discern.
>
> Of course - the desire to be closer to higher energies and away from
> lower energies is completely understandable. And like Ra says, you do not
> *owe* anyone service - you always have the option of leaving the situation
> if you do not want to be of service without incurring loss of polarization
> (if I understand Ra correctly). So why would you want to be in the
vicinity
> of a negative?
>
> > Whether or not I realize
> > it. I do resist the negatives. Aren't the negatives here, though, to
> > give us an idea of what we are not?
>
> Yeah, I guess so we can integrate that into ourselves, right? The
idea,
> I'm starting to think, is to find a way to accept them as the creator
while
> rejecting their service.
>
> > Punishment...are we punishing to influence the negatives to be
> > positives, or are we protecting our society by showing them what
> > happens if you are openly negative? This is a question, that I still
> > have.
>
> This is a difficult question; one to which I wish I knew the answer.
> But I know how I would approach it. When you say "we" you're basically
> talking about society. As a society in 3D, it is very hard for us to
> understand each other on a fundamental level. So we construct governments
> to bring some basic order to our society so that there are certain minimal
> guarantees of freedom and protection that enable us to move forward in our
> evolution (you might say). I don't think we can talk about the government
> being compassionate or accepting of others, since the mechanism of gov't
is
> not similar at all to the mechanism that allows me to accept or reject
> others. What I mean is, gov't can't really accept or reject people as the
> creator - only individuals can do that. So when the gov't punishes people
> for breaking the law, they are simply being punished for breaking rules of
> society. However, this punishment is not spiritual in nature because
gov't
> is not spiritual - and we shouldn't expect it to be. It's a wordly, crude
> machine that usually works in our best interests here in 3D land, but it's
> not perfect and shouldn't be expected to be, and it certainly has no
> capacity to accept or reject people - it simply provides a cause and
effect
> relationship for certain actions in certain situations in order to
preserve
> an order in our society.
>
> So to answer your question, punishment in a societal/governmental
> context has nothing to do with positive/negative (for example, many
> negatives use gov't to oppress positives). When we're talking about
> positive and negative ideas, we're sorta talking about morality - and
> government has nothing to do with morality, it simply enforces rules.
> Punishment, I believe, is not to make negatives into positives. It
> certainly can have a catalytic effect on anyone, though, be they sts or
> sto. We're protecting our society in a purely worldly way with a purely
> worldly enforcement of rules that has nothing to do with the path one is
on,
> really. Government has no capacity to make judgements in an ultimate,
> sts/sto sense - it simply provides a reaction to the action of violating
> worldly laws.
>
> I can explain further if those monstrous paragraphs above are not
clear.
>
> Later,
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=WGpXO5k6tLkRC-_DqOcSsUck-1yWWQaS0TgT9WUz-SrKv_wTgpv86Ja0cYRcstZ8jdhU5TP77YdhqooHE_3FtsH8n4l cPw)
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hoo boy, Rosi... you're hitting on some *great* points. This is really
interesting and very engaging. Thank you!!!

> I do know what you mean,
> Jeremy, and I know my weaknesses in this area.

Whoa whoa whoa - back up. You don't have any weaknesses that the rest
of us don't have. We're *all* trying to integrate each other back into
ourselves - don't forget that we're learning about this together. :-)

> I'm working on
> discernment. I do know that if I don't feel comfortable with a
> person, and their energy, I move away. I gravitate to positive
> beings on a personal level. This, in some way, explains to me what
> you are trying to say...that I do discern.

Of course - the desire to be closer to higher energies and away from
lower energies is completely understandable. And like Ra says, you do not
*owe* anyone service - you always have the option of leaving the situation
if you do not want to be of service without incurring loss of polarization
(if I understand Ra correctly). So why would you want to be in the vicinity
of a negative?

> Whether or not I realize
> it. I do resist the negatives. Aren't the negatives here, though, to
> give us an idea of what we are not?

Yeah, I guess so we can integrate that into ourselves, right? The idea,
I'm starting to think, is to find a way to accept them as the creator while
rejecting their service.

> Punishment...are we punishing to influence the negatives to be
> positives, or are we protecting our society by showing them what
> happens if you are openly negative? This is a question, that I still
> have.

This is a difficult question; one to which I wish I knew the answer.
But I know how I would approach it. When you say "we" you're basically
talking about society. As a society in 3D, it is very hard for us to
understand each other on a fundamental level. So we construct governments
to bring some basic order to our society so that there are certain minimal
guarantees of freedom and protection that enable us to move forward in our
evolution (you might say). I don't think we can talk about the government
being compassionate or accepting of others, since the mechanism of gov't is
not similar at all to the mechanism that allows me to accept or reject
others. What I mean is, gov't can't really accept or reject people as the
creator - only individuals can do that. So when the gov't punishes people
for breaking the law, they are simply being punished for breaking rules of
society. However, this punishment is not spiritual in nature because gov't
is not spiritual - and we shouldn't expect it to be. It's a wordly, crude
machine that usually works in our best interests here in 3D land, but it's
not perfect and shouldn't be expected to be, and it certainly has no
capacity to accept or reject people - it simply provides a cause and effect
relationship for certain actions in certain situations in order to preserve
an order in our society.

So to answer your question, punishment in a societal/governmental
context has nothing to do with positive/negative (for example, many
negatives use gov't to oppress positives). When we're talking about
positive and negative ideas, we're sorta talking about morality - and
government has nothing to do with morality, it simply enforces rules.
Punishment, I believe, is not to make negatives into positives. It
certainly can have a catalytic effect on anyone, though, be they sts or
sto. We're protecting our society in a purely worldly way with a purely
worldly enforcement of rules that has nothing to do with the path one is on,
really. Government has no capacity to make judgements in an ultimate,
sts/sto sense - it simply provides a reaction to the action of violating
worldly laws.

I can explain further if those monstrous paragraphs above are not clear.

Later,

Jeremy

[Tiffani Boswell]

negative situations (like i think someone said yesterday...the killings are
giving an opportunity for people to have love rise up in them, and for some
other things) maybe these "negative" situations give us the opportunity to
express love and serve as well.....but it is ALOT easier to deal with random
people and things in negative situations then everyday ones with close
friends and family situations......

and on your comment that maybe it is providing a chance to learn deal with
that part of yourself....any ideas on being blocked in seeing that....the
"mirror" sort of scenario....and if you do figure it out and "deal" with
that part of yourself you still have the negativity on the other side coming
in .... so what then....


(which is a whole different discussion as i don't see the mirror
illustrations working in every situation)


From: "Jeremy Weiland" <jweiland@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=x-067FA_1G83wlyyUbW0qZJJzwpX2LBBW5pwtKIE88dWT9R7_OHx cbjZ0EhrndlZKCZU5wsnib_nHCGl)>
To: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=4G2KmK7y_-n5sbvpdY9EUhj3oXFF3nTXABD6M-mxm6VaWk4Q6pgTsDEoZtQE5y0NhSoPXBWKwiH8SpQX)>
Sent: July 03, 2001 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [asc2k] Re: service & stuff


> Hmmm.... interesting. I'm not sure, but something tells me I should
ask
> for a specific example.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "moving away from the negative?" Like
> physically moving away?
>
> Here's a guess: Maybe if you are in a situation where you are forced
to
> deal with a negativity (cannot escape), that is because you really need to
> deal with that part of yourself. I don't know, but I'm gonna read the
study
> guide again and see if it provides any answers.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jeremy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tiffani Boswell" <tiffani@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=JW1TDizNj9MRWEcE4i-W0-HhkwvqXBGnzimeAXGMLhTVERac9XWdrYB6sB2L9CyvW6UAgu_g AQyOSwaiH-o)>
> To: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=4G2KmK7y_-n5sbvpdY9EUhj3oXFF3nTXABD6M-mxm6VaWk4Q6pgTsDEoZtQE5y0NhSoPXBWKwiH8SpQX)>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 10:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [asc2k] Re: service & stuff
>
>
> > hi rosi and jeremy!
> >
> > yes been good to follow this conversation...
> >
> > "moving away from the negative"
> >
> > what do you do if the situation is not condusive to be able to move away
> > from the negative?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeremy Weiland" <jweiland@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=x-067FA_1G83wlyyUbW0qZJJzwpX2LBBW5pwtKIE88dWT9R7_OHx cbjZ0EhrndlZKCZU5wsnib_nHCGl)>
> > To: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=4G2KmK7y_-n5sbvpdY9EUhj3oXFF3nTXABD6M-mxm6VaWk4Q6pgTsDEoZtQE5y0NhSoPXBWKwiH8SpQX)>
> > Sent: July 03, 2001 9:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: [asc2k] Re: service & stuff
> >
> >
> > > Hoo boy, Rosi... you're hitting on some *great* points. This is
> > really
> > > interesting and very engaging. Thank you!!!
> > >
> > > > I do know what you mean,
> > > > Jeremy, and I know my weaknesses in this area.
> > >
> > > Whoa whoa whoa - back up. You don't have any weaknesses that the
> rest
> > > of us don't have. We're *all* trying to integrate each other back
into
> > > ourselves - don't forget that we're learning about this together. :-)
> > >
> > > > I'm working on
> > > > discernment. I do know that if I don't feel comfortable with a
> > > > person, and their energy, I move away. I gravitate to positive
> > > > beings on a personal level. This, in some way, explains to me what
> > > > you are trying to say...that I do discern.
> > >
> > > Of course - the desire to be closer to higher energies and away
from
> > > lower energies is completely understandable. And like Ra says, you do
> not
> > > *owe* anyone service - you always have the option of leaving the
> situation
> > > if you do not want to be of service without incurring loss of
> polarization
> > > (if I understand Ra correctly). So why would you want to be in the
> > vicinity
> > > of a negative?
> > >
> > > > Whether or not I realize
> > > > it. I do resist the negatives. Aren't the negatives here, though,
to
> > > > give us an idea of what we are not?
> > >
> > > Yeah, I guess so we can integrate that into ourselves, right? The
> > idea,
> > > I'm starting to think, is to find a way to accept them as the creator
> > while
> > > rejecting their service.
> > >
> > > > Punishment...are we punishing to influence the negatives to be
> > > > positives, or are we protecting our society by showing them what
> > > > happens if you are openly negative? This is a question, that I
still
> > > > have.
> > >
> > > This is a difficult question; one to which I wish I knew the
answer.
> > > But I know how I would approach it. When you say "we" you're
basically
> > > talking about society. As a society in 3D, it is very hard for us to
> > > understand each other on a fundamental level. So we construct
> governments
> > > to bring some basic order to our society so that there are certain
> minimal
> > > guarantees of freedom and protection that enable us to move forward in
> our
> > > evolution (you might say). I don't think we can talk about the
> government
> > > being compassionate or accepting of others, since the mechanism of
gov't
> > is
> > > not similar at all to the mechanism that allows me to accept or reject
> > > others. What I mean is, gov't can't really accept or reject people as
> the
> > > creator - only individuals can do that. So when the gov't punishes
> people
> > > for breaking the law, they are simply being punished for breaking
rules
> of
> > > society. However, this punishment is not spiritual in nature because
> > gov't
> > > is not spiritual - and we shouldn't expect it to be. It's a wordly,
> crude
> > > machine that usually works in our best interests here in 3D land, but
> it's
> > > not perfect and shouldn't be expected to be, and it certainly has no
> > > capacity to accept or reject people - it simply provides a cause and
> > effect
> > > relationship for certain actions in certain situations in order to
> > preserve
> > > an order in our society.
> > >
> > > So to answer your question, punishment in a societal/governmental
> > > context has nothing to do with positive/negative (for example, many
> > > negatives use gov't to oppress positives). When we're talking about
> > > positive and negative ideas, we're sorta talking about morality - and
> > > government has nothing to do with morality, it simply enforces rules.
> > > Punishment, I believe, is not to make negatives into positives. It
> > > certainly can have a catalytic effect on anyone, though, be they sts
or
> > > sto. We're protecting our society in a purely worldly way with a
purely
> > > worldly enforcement of rules that has nothing to do with the path one
is
> > on,
> > > really. Government has no capacity to make judgements in an ultimate,
> > > sts/sto sense - it simply provides a reaction to the action of
violating
> > > worldly laws.
> > >
> > > I can explain further if those monstrous paragraphs above are not
> > clear.
> > >
> > > Later,
> > >
> > > Jeremy
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=QLNPXQQkma-mlr2So9cCjuQGe4fybbNwfnBoHL5A8Jhy33PRDrTwMQl8ljWPz mL1cW0T9tE4uko1Y6LELR1yksx6n6uVZg)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=QLNPXQQkma-mlr2So9cCjuQGe4fybbNwfnBoHL5A8Jhy33PRDrTwMQl8ljWPz mL1cW0T9tE4uko1Y6LELR1yksx6n6uVZg)
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=QLNPXQQkma-mlr2So9cCjuQGe4fybbNwfnBoHL5A8Jhy33PRDrTwMQl8ljWPz mL1cW0T9tE4uko1Y6LELR1yksx6n6uVZg)
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hmmm.... interesting. I'm not sure, but something tells me I should ask
for a specific example.

What exactly do you mean by "moving away from the negative?" Like
physically moving away?

Here's a guess: Maybe if you are in a situation where you are forced to
deal with a negativity (cannot escape), that is because you really need to
deal with that part of yourself. I don't know, but I'm gonna read the study
guide again and see if it provides any answers.

Thanks!

Jeremy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tiffani Boswell" <tiffani@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=3sm-Lx05JihwPAG5VtZJfx-daslIBuiU4yyDR7NEWyBtbR7U8UCZav2mZx6dGpbJl6CJArDgn u8BwC8F)>
To: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=dj4tN8d9-kLqYmnhsfcSC7PqU7gZKbhFJWfFAG_gJtdB2Mcqcsl-VtxnjZLIWB89f3GL7F299-jSdTBe)>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [asc2k] Re: service & stuff


> hi rosi and jeremy!
>
> yes been good to follow this conversation...
>
> "moving away from the negative"
>
> what do you do if the situation is not condusive to be able to move away
> from the negative?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeremy Weiland" <jweiland@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=6YBeGEd0hmpg1rXcvaKIUyOF_azNCCbXgxuBjA lA-Acv8OKJbcsm4FOBtGgsgXRjJqgnwhOMtU5EWXd-LQ)>
> To: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=dj4tN8d9-kLqYmnhsfcSC7PqU7gZKbhFJWfFAG_gJtdB2Mcqcsl-VtxnjZLIWB89f3GL7F299-jSdTBe)>
> Sent: July 03, 2001 9:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [asc2k] Re: service & stuff
>
>
> > Hoo boy, Rosi... you're hitting on some *great* points. This is
> really
> > interesting and very engaging. Thank you!!!
> >
> > > I do know what you mean,
> > > Jeremy, and I know my weaknesses in this area.
> >
> > Whoa whoa whoa - back up. You don't have any weaknesses that the
rest
> > of us don't have. We're *all* trying to integrate each other back into
> > ourselves - don't forget that we're learning about this together. :-)
> >
> > > I'm working on
> > > discernment. I do know that if I don't feel comfortable with a
> > > person, and their energy, I move away. I gravitate to positive
> > > beings on a personal level. This, in some way, explains to me what
> > > you are trying to say...that I do discern.
> >
> > Of course - the desire to be closer to higher energies and away from
> > lower energies is completely understandable. And like Ra says, you do
not
> > *owe* anyone service - you always have the option of leaving the
situation
> > if you do not want to be of service without incurring loss of
polarization
> > (if I understand Ra correctly). So why would you want to be in the
> vicinity
> > of a negative?
> >
> > > Whether or not I realize
> > > it. I do resist the negatives. Aren't the negatives here, though, to
> > > give us an idea of what we are not?
> >
> > Yeah, I guess so we can integrate that into ourselves, right? The
> idea,
> > I'm starting to think, is to find a way to accept them as the creator
> while
> > rejecting their service.
> >
> > > Punishment...are we punishing to influence the negatives to be
> > > positives, or are we protecting our society by showing them what
> > > happens if you are openly negative? This is a question, that I still
> > > have.
> >
> > This is a difficult question; one to which I wish I knew the answer.
> > But I know how I would approach it. When you say "we" you're basically
> > talking about society. As a society in 3D, it is very hard for us to
> > understand each other on a fundamental level. So we construct
governments
> > to bring some basic order to our society so that there are certain
minimal
> > guarantees of freedom and protection that enable us to move forward in
our
> > evolution (you might say). I don't think we can talk about the
government
> > being compassionate or accepting of others, since the mechanism of gov't
> is
> > not similar at all to the mechanism that allows me to accept or reject
> > others. What I mean is, gov't can't really accept or reject people as
the
> > creator - only individuals can do that. So when the gov't punishes
people
> > for breaking the law, they are simply being punished for breaking rules
of
> > society. However, this punishment is not spiritual in nature because
> gov't
> > is not spiritual - and we shouldn't expect it to be. It's a wordly,
crude
> > machine that usually works in our best interests here in 3D land, but
it's
> > not perfect and shouldn't be expected to be, and it certainly has no
> > capacity to accept or reject people - it simply provides a cause and
> effect
> > relationship for certain actions in certain situations in order to
> preserve
> > an order in our society.
> >
> > So to answer your question, punishment in a societal/governmental
> > context has nothing to do with positive/negative (for example, many
> > negatives use gov't to oppress positives). When we're talking about
> > positive and negative ideas, we're sorta talking about morality - and
> > government has nothing to do with morality, it simply enforces rules.
> > Punishment, I believe, is not to make negatives into positives. It
> > certainly can have a catalytic effect on anyone, though, be they sts or
> > sto. We're protecting our society in a purely worldly way with a purely
> > worldly enforcement of rules that has nothing to do with the path one is
> on,
> > really. Government has no capacity to make judgements in an ultimate,
> > sts/sto sense - it simply provides a reaction to the action of violating
> > worldly laws.
> >
> > I can explain further if those monstrous paragraphs above are not
> clear.
> >
> > Later,
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=HR1yxv4RxG1x8RMk9UAmJUKYsyPAJJQ3vdmeNI U__p7ja07RfWBwjR1AStwLB96HYSDjCZ8qrVGZ1nyY2bTDVfBf u4fj)
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=HR1yxv4RxG1x8RMk9UAmJUKYsyPAJJQ3vdmeNI U__p7ja07RfWBwjR1AStwLB96HYSDjCZ8qrVGZ1nyY2bTDVfBf u4fj)
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[David Wilcock]

<table bgColor="#ffffff">
><tt>what do you do if the situation is not condusive to be able to move away
from the negative?
</tt>
><tt>- Sounds like a classic question to me. Often this type of question is phrased in lieu of a dysfunctional relationship with others, either romantic, work-related, family related, et cetera. After all, any situation that is entirely within Self is always a choice. And ultimately, any statement of "not being able" to go positive is a choice, not a requirement.</tt>
><tt></tt>
><tt>A perfectly balanced entity could be tortured to death and still have forgiveness for its tormentors and no fear. So this is what it comes back to. </tt>
><tt></tt>
><tt>Yes, there are indeed negative beings around us, and there are gradations of negativity within each person. The key is to realize that our responses to these people are the key. There is nothing quite like fostering the strength and courage of forgiveness in the face of incredible odds. Hence, "don't take anything personal."</tt>
><tt></tt>
><tt>Peace be with you - </tt>
><tt></tt>
><tt>- David</tt><tt></tt>

[Lynn Ferguson]

We have all been contributing so many riveting thoughts, ideas, and questions
about this...the conversation continues to make me think about the nature
of detachment and being centered as 'service' to Love.

When I find myself in the presence of someone or something I consider
'negative', I am now able to simply 'allow' them their state of consciousness,
their expression, their emotion, their truth, without reacting. That's
been such a huge test for me - for decades! As a mother, teacher, and
therapist; my inclination has been to assist in a process of change and
transformation. The most difficult position for me is to be centered
without resistance or a countering energy that is attempting to move
for a 'change' in their chosen state of being.

I intuitively and intellectually KNOW that 'detachment' is one of the
steps on the path to Oneness and Masterhood, but to 'Be' detached and
not react...that is the challenge. What I'm doing now, is to explore
what the individual is perceiving and thinking as it serves their life,
rather than how it would serve mine. That must be part of 'taking it
personally'...to remove yourself from the equation, the detached state
makes it only about the other person and no longer energetically involves
you/me. There is a subtle 'freedom' in that, which I am still learning
about in my daily encounters, especially with my two teenagers.

I find that I have to make a choice. Will I engage this person and their
attitude on their terms, or will I maintain my balance and centeredness
without any reaction emotionally? It's the emotion that perpetuates
the attitude and the 'draw' it has on us.

If we are detached, then that person or situation must take the 'energy'
of the attitude elsewhere to further its expression and obtain the desired
result/reaction. Why does a tiger attack the villager that is afraid,
and will not attack the person who has no fear? Is it that there must
be two entities to give/receive the emotional energy of the attitude
of victim/victor/hunter/prey? There are people in my life who have major
fights with other people, but we don't fight...I don't get angry any
more, so anger doesn't have anywhere to go with me...it would be wasted
energy without a recipient.

So, in my Mind it stands to reason, that if I don't react or engage the
emotion that mirrors the other, then the other person goes elsewhere
to have the need satisfied. Remember that StarTrek Next Generation episode,
where the Captain instructs Worf, Number One, and the other crew members
not to interact with the Romulan who was holding the Vulcan artifact
that could be used telepathically as a weapon? It only worked if there
was 'resistance', namely fear, retaliation, anger, or aggression. So
the crew dropped their weapons and focused their Minds by emptying them
of any aggressive thoughts. The weapon was useless!

That's my thought for the day...back to work!

--
Lynn Ferguson
meridianhealth@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=JADuI0z0K_SDmy-4Vj6Yq4D6xs_LB4MS4Dk1Og8oh1qUE5aRii1k9s7ig4ndhcPbc Mb0MCf-e89WxCAI-KjY39ry)

---- "Tiffani Boswell" <tiffani@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=kVt59TkOV6NRhKd_X34Lu3acAsmsg-oUPzR1dUiEt79BqaTRJSgdIB9-Zdj3Bqoq5Pkgs2M5BZYjT5Ei)> wrote:
[Non text/plain message body suppressed]


__________________________________________________
FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place.
Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com

[Tiffani Boswell]

---The most difficult position for me is to be centered
without resistance or a countering energy that is attempting to move
for a 'change' in their chosen state of being. ---

wow lynn, that is so me! I am the oldest of 7 kids and have an innate
therapist/mother tendency especially when negativity is around...but i
struggle with being too loving...then "enables" the negativity to
continue....

----What I'm doing now, is to explore
> what the individual is perceiving and thinking as it serves their life,
> rather than how it would serve mine. That must be part of 'taking it
> personally'...to remove yourself from the equation, the detached state
> makes it only about the other person and no longer energetically involves
> you/me. -----

WOW again! I will have to sit and ponder this one for awhile...that might
need to go in my journal!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Ferguson" <meridianhealth@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=RWUBxaCvRaMuCf7hMG-erWKXfpySuAVwkOV9kc4V7LlPPTucBqSZPOshLVBgUtmrKMfw0 uvrK-D_R8Z6NlAVZB-q)>
To: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=gOeQ1OwVSY8-Ab0X14D989lYnY7P5TahBOxdfu_hE7isWPUbCqXPySiQnrCj0G u_P_5iQzLD6kPhAPl7_S-K)>
Sent: July 03, 2001 2:38 PM
Subject: [asc2k] Re: service & stuff


> We have all been contributing so many riveting thoughts, ideas, and
questions
> about this...the conversation continues to make me think about the nature
> of detachment and being centered as 'service' to Love.
>
> When I find myself in the presence of someone or something I consider
> 'negative', I am now able to simply 'allow' them their state of
consciousness,
> their expression, their emotion, their truth, without reacting. That's
> been such a huge test for me - for decades! As a mother, teacher, and
> therapist; my inclination has been to assist in a process of change and
> transformation. The most difficult position for me is to be centered
> without resistance or a countering energy that is attempting to move
> for a 'change' in their chosen state of being.
>
> I intuitively and intellectually KNOW that 'detachment' is one of the
> steps on the path to Oneness and Masterhood, but to 'Be' detached and
> not react...that is the challenge. What I'm doing now, is to explore
> what the individual is perceiving and thinking as it serves their life,
> rather than how it would serve mine. That must be part of 'taking it
> personally'...to remove yourself from the equation, the detached state
> makes it only about the other person and no longer energetically involves
> you/me. There is a subtle 'freedom' in that, which I am still learning
> about in my daily encounters, especially with my two teenagers.
>
> I find that I have to make a choice. Will I engage this person and their
> attitude on their terms, or will I maintain my balance and centeredness
> without any reaction emotionally? It's the emotion that perpetuates
> the attitude and the 'draw' it has on us.
>
> If we are detached, then that person or situation must take the 'energy'
> of the attitude elsewhere to further its expression and obtain the desired
> result/reaction. Why does a tiger attack the villager that is afraid,
> and will not attack the person who has no fear? Is it that there must
> be two entities to give/receive the emotional energy of the attitude
> of victim/victor/hunter/prey? There are people in my life who have major
> fights with other people, but we don't fight...I don't get angry any
> more, so anger doesn't have anywhere to go with me...it would be wasted
> energy without a recipient.
>
> So, in my Mind it stands to reason, that if I don't react or engage the
> emotion that mirrors the other, then the other person goes elsewhere
> to have the need satisfied. Remember that StarTrek Next Generation
episode,
> where the Captain instructs Worf, Number One, and the other crew members
> not to interact with the Romulan who was holding the Vulcan artifact
> that could be used telepathically as a weapon? It only worked if there
> was 'resistance', namely fear, retaliation, anger, or aggression. So
> the crew dropped their weapons and focused their Minds by emptying them
> of any aggressive thoughts. The weapon was useless!
>
> That's my thought for the day...back to work!
>
> --
> Lynn Ferguson
> meridianhealth@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=RWUBxaCvRaMuCf7hMG-erWKXfpySuAVwkOV9kc4V7LlPPTucBqSZPOshLVBgUtmrKMfw0 uvrK-D_R8Z6NlAVZB-q)
>
> ---- "Tiffani Boswell" <tiffani@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=IE8AKsm_4GXfam9ouvedvGolMyC_xiSdca-mhzu5QARyZ6qzT8BpppUx2dF4k6Pe9nKpmRfKvgiY09-X0sT2)> wrote:
> [Non text/plain message body suppressed]
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place.
> Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=hzgOetZvnZdqPqGQX3cGOiX_wI4V3HIMKsVDAI IJkGmH6UlGjHDRhLltEGio2VevhCNwubgnGLEBpRddljisH375 Jw)
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>