Is it ever right to kill someone?

[raistlinflux]

As some of you may know I'm not a regular poster, but when I do
get ideas, I like to analyze and think them through. It gives me
pleasure to share and find out others' beliefs, and in the past I've
enjoyed the interaction and civilized nature of this forum.
In any case, the idea this time that I haven't yet found an answer
to, is simply "Is it ever right to kill someone?"

1) There are views pro and con of course. A very common one
(especially among eastern religions such as buddhism) is that killing
another human being is never a good thing. Some groups I think such
as the Jains go as far as to avoid stepping on any creature as to not
kill it (bugs and ants too).
I believe that even Seth goes by this belief that killing is never
good, though from the first two books written by Jane Roberts ("seth
speaks" and "the nature of personal reality" he doesn't go into it
that much).
Jesus I believe, and Christianity, says that it is wrong to kill
another human being (yet how many people have been killed because of
their beliefs, especially because they were not "Christians")
This is the turn the other cheek mentality. That pain repaid with
pain serves no purpose. That only love can truly heal. If some
criminal came into your house and killed your infant child and your
sleeping wife or husband, you should not "return the favor" and kill
him. Instead try to make him see the suffering he has caused, but do
not hate him! Do not revenge your loved ones with hate and murder. It
will serve no purpose! And if you had the chance of stopping him you
should have tried to convince him otherwise, even restrain him if
possible, but never kill him. I mean if we are all One, then hating
another for whatever reason is hating yourself!
And I've read of a case I believe, in which a criminal who was in
jail awaiting his sentence was being sent letters of understanding,
and of love, and letters about the suffering he caused, from the
family of the victim. And eventualy he realized his mistake, and was
deeply sory and asked for forgiveness from the very people who's
loved ones he took away.
So there's one belief, that killing is never right!


2) Then comes the other belief about killing which I have been
having doubts about, but which I probably tend to agree with more
(even though never having been in that situation I do not know what I
would do. As a famous quote from the wonderful movie the Matrix
says: "You cannot see beyond the choices you don't understand!")
And that belief is, that if you're trying to protect the ones you
love (or anyone for that matter), and you have exhausted all the
options of trying to stop the killer from killing them, then it is Ok
for you to stop his crime, if there is no alternative, by killing him
first! (or for that matter to even punish him after the crime by
killing him)


But the question is, what do you do in that very instant where you
open your door and find a criminal bent over your sleeping child,
with a sharp knife, ready to take his/her innocent life away? What do
you do in that split second where there is no time to talk him out of
it? What do you do when the man can't be reasoned with? When he's
insane? What DO you do when in that split second you have one choice
to make while you pull out your gun, to save the ones you love or to
stand by and watch them die? Kill or not to kill!?
What, then, is the right thing to do?

In other words, should you ever stop someone from using their free
will by infringing on it, (by pulling that trigger)? When that
person's free will, his choice, has been to infringe on another's by
killing him/her.
The RA material has a reference on how there is a struggle, a
fight, in a way between the forces of STS and those of STO, and where
at some point those in service to others have to act, by infringing
on the free will of those entities in services of self, in order to
stop them from causing destruction. So I wonder how is that
applicable to us, humans? (I'm sory I don't have the exact quote of
what i'm refering to, but I believe it's in Book I or II of the Law
of One)


This is a difficult topic, but I would love to hear your thoughs
or beliefs on this.
I have been puzzled by this question for a very long time, and
though I would never want to be put in a situation where I would have
to choose between taking a life or loosing one, maybe by hearing
other thoughts it may be easier to come to an answer.
Since I became aware of my search for truth, I have answered so
many questions that I've held for so long, yet there are still some
that I cannot. This being one of them! Is it EVER right to kill
someone!?


a wonderer on his way home,
love is all

Vlad

[Mary]

Vlad,

I'm going to take a stab at this, of course this is just my thoughts . . . but
I think this would go back to the fact that there really is no right or wrong,
only 2 sides of the same thing. So I think that it would be going to far to say
it's NEVER right to kill someone, but also going to far to say that it ever is.
I think there are only individual experiences, but no blanket right or wrong.
You never really know how you are going to act in any situation until you are in
it, and some times what you actually DO will surprise you. I think that if you
do the right thing you will know it and feel okay about it, and if you do the
wrong thing you'll know it and eventually (perhaps in another incarnation) you
will have to deal with it, somehow make it better. But still it is not wrong in
a "right/wrong" sense . . . That is one thing that my studies in this area has
made me realize - all is love, and all is right. If we have to kill someone to
learn something it is likely that our soul has an agreement with that soul for
this act to occur. Of course we never know, do we? I guess that is part of the
game. :-) So the answer is not the same for everyone, or every situation.
IMHO

Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: raistlinflux
To: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=NpUz3m0FvcdkRwMUm0Fk8-temNLgv8pHnUYprRan67ZjSw7aPRDdGSRVspnItr1j9zwRTEbY ZncfccwIbhfd)
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:01 AM
Subject: [asc2k] Is it ever right to kill someone?


As some of you may know I'm not a regular poster, but when I do
get ideas, I like to analyze and think them through. It gives me
pleasure to share and find out others' beliefs, and in the past I've
enjoyed the interaction and civilized nature of this forum.
In any case, the idea this time that I haven't yet found an answer
to, is simply "Is it ever right to kill someone?"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[srachele2004]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=I6R7BF3gALSkVwmUYs2nEHvNpgNxNGK4mkydfM vmejwOdqHmV55bhdB2T-9zGazb5HrWmowI4T5Tx1e_DyI), "raistlinflux" <raistlinflux@y...> wrote:
Is it EVER right to kill someone!?

Sal here:
I think if we try to look from RAs perspective, they are vibrating at
a density where this is a non-issue, but they understand that in our
3D/4D world, we are confronted with these kind of decisions. Like
attracts like when it comes to vibration, and when we ascend into
higher densities we will not attract these kind of situations
requiring a split-second decision about taking a life. Until then, we
need to listen to our true self instead of ego. This is not easy in a
split-second decision -- the tendency in 3D is to react rather than
respond. We may not have time to ask, "What would RA do" or "What
would Jesus do". Since there is essentially no time in Spirit, if we
are listening to Spirit, we need to know that our response will be the
best one possible.

--Sal

[Kay Dayss]

Thank you, Mary! Very well said. I agree.

I believe that judgments of "right/wrong" and "good/bad" work well to
separate people from each other making one "holier" than the other, so they
are handy tools for an STS approach to use to divide and conquer. And of
course there is nothing at all "wrong" with an STS approach. It is just a
calling to live an STO path or STS path. It isn't that the STO path is
better than the STS path as all paths serve the Universe/Infinite Creator. I
think that is why Ra chose to call them STO and STS -- so that we would see
that both paths serve the one infinite creator who we all are.

I think that life reveals to us which path is our calling. We can watch our
responses. When the planes hit the WTC towers, I truly felt at one with the
towers and the planes and all the people. It was as if I (all of humanity --
the one earth consciousness) had taken a knife (the plane) and stabbed
myself in the side with it to commit suicide. For me, it was a wake up call,
a 911 call for humanity to come together. In other words, my response to
horror was to be at one with it. That is not the right or wrong response. It
is simply what my response was. It knocked me out of my normal day-to-day
feelings of being separate from other humans and everything else. I felt
great compassion and gratitude toward the local other selves in the
buildings and the people in the planes (including the pilots of course) --
for in my belief system they had all on some level agreed to participate in
this huge 911 call to bring humanity together.

Since that powerful 911 experience of oneness, I work on remembering it in
every moment. With each new catalyst, 911 helps me to remember to apply the
principle for my chosen STO path. Which choice will lead to the greatest
unity? Does this choice I'm about to make separate me from others or help
bring us together? 911 also helps me remember that the STO path is not in
any way better than the STS path. All paths serve the one.

Blessings,
Kay

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary" <marybearce@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ox8y2UkKVOsuRwjvVo8Dsq_xCk23_BMXTXxUkn FHKhHv3jBKbiRQjDxQlG6VUZno1cKvStjRx7JN7JOyTeXKEf4M pQ)>


Vlad,

I'm going to take a stab at this, of course this is just my thoughts . . .
but I think this would go back to the fact that there really is no right or
wrong, only 2 sides of the same thing. So I think that it would be going to
far to say it's NEVER right to kill someone, but also going to far to say
that it ever is. I think there are only individual experiences, but no
blanket right or wrong. You never really know how you are going to act in
any situation until you are in it, and some times what you actually DO will
surprise you. I think that if you do the right thing you will know it and
feel okay about it, and if you do the wrong thing you'll know it and
eventually (perhaps in another incarnation) you will have to deal with it,
somehow make it better. But still it is not wrong in a "right/wrong" sense
. . . That is one thing that my studies in this area has made me realize -
all is love, and all is right. If we have to kill someone to learn
something it is likely that our soul has an agreement with t
Mary

[pugg1979]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=iNjcAL5h9eUcHbElOfeggtCJokuQascPY-1viQIP2P4RvVulPl9tR21BaWqd2qeUm7q2AyI4-w4a94KwaQA), "raistlinflux" <raistlinflux@y...>
wrote:
> The RA material has a reference on how there is a struggle, a
> fight, in a way between the forces of STS and those of STO, and
where
> at some point those in service to others have to act, by
infringing
> on the free will of those entities in services of self, in order
to
> stop them from causing destruction. So I wonder how is that
> applicable to us, humans? (I'm sory I don't have the exact quote
of
> what i'm refering to, but I believe it's in Book I or II of the
Law
> of One)

I believe you're referring to Session 25 (book 1). Ra states that
the fourth density STO beings are the only ones that "[lack] the
wisdom to refrain from battle." It seems that war can be seen to be
justified in both 3rd and 4th density. While 5th and 6th density
have the knowledge to refrain from battle, someone (the collective
confederation? would this include 5th and 6th?) asks for four
planetary entities at a time to engage in battle.

I don't think any of these ethical questions are black and white.
For example, Ghandhi refrained from all killing and harm to other
beings (Autobiography of a Yogi, Yogananda). He believed that if he
was to be attacked by a wild animal he'd simply send the animal
loving vibrations to calm it -- probably likewise with a human.
This seems to be a 5th or 6th density point of view, because as we
can see from reading Ra, war IS seen as essential in higher
dimensions. Both lose polarity, but as Ra says "it is necessary
that fourth-density social memory complexes be used [for battle]."
Hitler, upon death, HADN'T achieved negative polarity. He tried to
polarize to quickly. Conversely, is it unwise to try to polarize
towards complete nonviolence and nonwar while in 3rd and 4th density?

"[The] Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing,
allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive,
for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been
placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you
may say."

Is it better to be a martyr for non-violence? Or to refuse to be
manipulated be STS forces?

Thoughts, anyone?

Harrison Koehli, former lurker

[lealdragon]

Hi, I am new to the group but not to the Ra material. I only just
recently discovered David Wilcock's work, however, and I am very
excited to have found all of this!

So, for my 1st post I would like to add my comments. I agree with all
that you said, up until the question of whether it is 'right' to kill
someone in order to prevent that person from killing someone else - in
your example, a loved one.

I believe it is never right to try to exact revenge on someone for
something that they have already done, and certainly we should exhaust
all other options b4 engaging in violence in a crisis situation.
However, in the event that the person is about to kill a loved one, I
believe that the NONaction of letting them do it is worse than the
action of killing the killer b4 he kills someone else. In other words,
by allowing the killer to kill someone, especially someone we are
responsible for, essentially it could be viewed that we are actually
contributing to that person's violence by not acting to prevent it. It
needn't be a black-and-white issue, however. It is usually not
necessary to KILL the person to STOP his action. In other words, why
would you have to necessarily kill him? Being shot in the leg, for
example might stop a person with a knife, but not a person with a gun,
who could still shoot the gun even tho he has just been shot in the
leg. So it would depend on the situation.

My husband is a martial arts instructor and has wrestled with these
concepts. He has sought the spiritual aspects of the martial arts: for
example there is a saying 'there is every reason to know how to fight,
but NO reason to ever fight' which means that an aware person should
seek to first avoid violence, but should be prepared. Another is
'better to avoid fighting than to injure, better to injure than to
maim, better to maim than to kill' which means to just do the least
amount necessary in that situation, and never kill someone when just
stopping them will suffice. Of course, this opens up alot of other
issues, such as, will the criminal come back later, etc.

Personally I do not like to live my life in fear and choose not to
worry too much about such contingencies - since we cannot possibly
prepare for every possible situation. And, in such a situation, even
in that moment of intensity, to call upon Higher guidance.

But, having said that, I do think it is acceptable to take very
seriously our responsibility of protecting our young. I personally
would not hesitate to use violence on someone who is about to kill
another, if that were the only option, but ONLY if that were the only
option.

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=iSh_xyz63si6zSSM5BMGUsAs3iHG44Cp10vlU1 1DKs_6C22Abq7CIROcNtopjSex3mhwyvOEXaZkwFE2), "raistlinflux" <raistlinflux@y...> wrote:
> As some of you may know I'm not a regular poster, but when I do
> get ideas, I like to analyze and think them through. It gives me
> pleasure to share and find out others' beliefs, and in the past I've
> enjoyed the interaction and civilized nature of this forum.
> In any case, the idea this time that I haven't yet found an answer
> to, is simply "Is it ever right to kill someone?"

[WanblyGaleshka@...]

Vlad,

In your original post you said, Jesus I believe, and Christianity,
says that it is wrong to kill another human being. Ok, correct me if
I'm wrong but didn't Jesus teach that we were to follow the original
Law as set out in the Ten Commandments? The problem that I usually
find is that ppl mistranslate the Hebrew. Most ppl say that the
commantment says, "Thou shalt not kill." But that's not what the
original Hebrew says. The commandment in Hebrew is, "Thou shalt not
commit premeditated murder." So that's one point that I wanted to
make. There is a vast difference between "killing" in general
and "murder" that one contmplated beforehand.

But let me also say this. If it is wrong for us to kill period. Then
we had better all just roll up and die right now. For we must kill in
order for us to live. It is the way of all things. For we need to eat
in order to live. I can hear the Vegans now, "But we don't kill to
eat!" Wanna bet? You take the life of plants, which David's own
research have shown to be sentient beings. I don't care if you eat
meat, vegetables, or whatever. The mere act of harvesting whatever we
are to consume, is killing. So I would have to take the stance that
you can not speak in absolute terms and say that it is always or
never right to kill or not to kill.

I do believe that we should not commit premeditated murder. But then
again, given the scenerio that you posited of someone about to murder
my child... I'd take him out in a heartbeat and not worry about it
one whit. I consider it more like an umpire in a ballgame
saying, "You're outta here for the remainder of this game for
breaking the rules." After all, if we do believe in multiple
incarnations, then what is the problem? Sometimes ppl break the rules
and need to be taken out of the game. They can wait out the finish of
this one and come back in for another try next game.

Plz, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating having ppl wander around
and endlessly "taking ppl out". But I am saying that I don't think
that we can apply that kind of absolute that you posited to the way
the Universe works. Sometimes it is wrong to kill someone. Sometimes
it isn't. I think a lot simply depends on the circumstances. The best
thing that we can do is to try to use our common sense and do the
best that we can for the greater good, as much as we have it in our
power to do so.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth,

Mitakuye Oyasin! (We are all related)


David Staller, aka WanblyGaleshka

[GenoNess1@...]

Of course killing a human being is a good thing or else it would never have
happened. Make sense? you could argue that it's not natural or something, but
everything that happens ANYWHERE EVER is in and of nature. So anyways this is
my opinion, and I am very content with it. so if anyone doesn't understand what
I mean, I would be delighted to answer specific questions! Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 8/1/2004 2:20:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hkoehli@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=I-cCHXp5TQgv3WojaiuxAjhuOyge37XiEnu9FWIGl_iLwKDqduyD zvsgNf83f5wg9uVc_0zDoal7)
writes:
Is it better to be a martyr for non-violence? Or to refuse to be
manipulated be STS forces?

Thoughts, anyone?


If someone throws an insulting glare your way, is it better to call them an
asshole because they were able to irritate you, or remain content in the
realization that you do not need to convince them of anything? which causes more
grief to both parties?

Is this the same question you asked of me? Maybe, maybe not. Its all a matter
or perspective. Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 8/1/2004 2:36:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
WanblyGaleshka@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=322cVoBYZHDui1IvOp-DjatMs1Pc06EBGABW73mdHb8oH08ARxO5WggsLlAVybvbR1CuC KfIaYuE-DvX5lkKuTE) writes:
Ok, correct me if
I'm wrong but didn't Jesus teach that we were to follow the original
Law as set out in the Ten Commandments?

Jesus disregarded most of the Old Testament when he said that the only 2
important commandments, when asked which 1 commandment was the 'best', was the
combination of 'love thy neighbor' and 'love god as you love yourself' or
whatever that one says. There is also a lot of collaboration backing the fact
that
Jesus believed that people didn't need to eat only kosher food, not shave, and
all that specific hygienic instruction that was only really valid in those
times. This is in the same category as homosexuality. Jesus basically preached
that purity of heart was all that mattered and the details are insignificant.
and
in the process disenfranchised the Old Testament (which we have yet to see
the results of - the church is still quite the franchise ;-) ) But this still
goes along with your point anyways, that premeditation is kind of an 'impure'
thing to do while 'reaction/self-defense' can possibly be very 'pure'. that is
of course from the perspective with duality. Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kay Dayss]

Hey, Kyle! I like your example. I have a third option to offer in the
insulting glare situation. I just recently was led to this option on another
site. When an STS glare comes my way that is designed to piss me off and
thus get my own STS part (you guys are calling this the ego it seems) to
react, here is another choice I can make:

Instead of reacting, I can honestly and sincerely thank the STS entity for
the negative energy sent to me and then transmute that negative energy to
positive energy that I can use in service to others. In this way, my happily
thanking the STS entity will probably encourage it to send me MORE negative
energy, which I can again be grateful for receiving because it is more
energy that I can transmute to positive and use.

I LOVE this approach because lately with all that is going on with the
transition, I have been exhausted. I have so very much needed energy. When I
first tried this transmutation of negative energy to positive I was shocked
at how easy it is to do. I imagine I have been practicing all my life during
every dark night of the soul that I've experienced in the last half century
plus. I remembered many times in my experiences where negative energy has
been very beneficial to me.

So now I'm working on this interesting choice -- especially when I am on the
road and my STS part gets so easily into road rage. Now I have a project.

Blessings,
Kay

----- Original Message -----
From: <GenoNess1@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=07_r9wfNUe8nSUcPP-NRngq_3VBOr4COyBfLvCxGZerNPwkE-KzI7XvgUImBJ6uWMROzGUyaYhic)>


If someone throws an insulting glare your way, is it better to call them an
asshole because they were able to irritate you, or remain content in the
realization that you do not need to convince them of anything? which causes
more
grief to both parties?

Is this the same question you asked of me? Maybe, maybe not. Its all a
matter
or perspective. Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[pugg1979]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=1QwI8VwnFZjqbO2tySM1RKl5_Nc4C6Igi72YKH iQuhNqe4IK9LqVb10VV_ceuN3YTrcvSUwZX8XJRomv9A), GenoNess1@a... wrote:
> If someone throws an insulting glare your way, is it better to
call them an
> asshole because they were able to irritate you, or remain content
in the
> realization that you do not need to convince them of anything?
which causes more
> grief to both parties?

I see the STS path as energy-stealing, like a black hole of
selfishness. If the glare achieves its goal and irritates me, the
STS being has fed off of my fear/anger/self-importance. To me the
question isn't whether I'll exact revenge, but whether I'll agree to
that "stealing" and whether I'm going to continue to let it happen.
I can choose not to interact with whoever I perceive as just being
out to harm and evoke violent response. Sure, that creates a small
sense of seperation, but I think that's what RA was trying to get
across.

I agree with you, though, that an angry response is only continuing
the vicious cycle. But on a larger scale, I think there IS
a "battle" going on. The STS forces want our planet to be
harvestable STS, the STO's would like to see us STO. I'm not
advocating continuing the violence in such petty matters, but was
trying to think about the bigger picture. Just what are the STO 4th
density beings doing in their thought-wars? They certainly aren't
calling the STS names for evil glares, however that translates into
4D terms. Is it possible that they are simply refusing to be
controlled, perhaps via non-interaction? Can we really understand
what RA means by saying those in battle are armed with "light"? If
anyone has another opinion I'd love to hear it.

Harrison

[lealdragon]

In defense of vegetarianism, I would have to say that if an entity
chooses the body of a carrot, and I eat it, I think in terms of its
life force merging with mine. Especially if the carrot is eaten raw,
it is still alive when I eat it, so no killing was done. I think if an
entity is evolved enough in terms of individual awareness to not want
to be killed and eaten, then it is more likely to incarnate into the
body of an animal that has the ability to run away. And, if it can run
away, and in fact cows, deer, chickens, etc certainly do attempt to
escape being killed and eaten, then why would I want to chase after it
and kill it?

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=92zUK0S4Bc6ZWnNN8mBOWceG9qHy4K0sjErUHG x_LIrCO2mFlAjUsX-NIJ0nn9Cqk4EMehR7m_QRVEi45_E8), WanblyGaleshka@c... wrote:
> > But let me also say this. If it is wrong for us to kill period. Then
> we had better all just roll up and die right now. For we must kill in
> order for us to live. It is the way of all things. For we need to eat
> in order to live. I can hear the Vegans now, "But we don't kill to
> eat!" Wanna bet? You take the life of plants, which David's own
> research have shown to be sentient beings. I don't care if you eat
> meat, vegetables, or whatever. The mere act of harvesting whatever we
> are to consume, is killing. So I would have to take the stance that
> you can not speak in absolute terms and say that it is always or
> never right to kill or not to kill.
>> David Staller, aka WanblyGaleshka

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 8/2/2004 7:05:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hkoehli@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=X4HIsgADsCtCXd7x06CYndIs-5fOg1RxjNdXAPSHYXe3Qihs_U_1mc9LtFJsG9vH1xSimG0)
writes:

I see the STS path as energy-stealing, like a black hole of
selfishness. If the glare achieves its goal and irritates me, the
STS being has fed off of my fear/anger/self-importance. To me the
question isn't whether I'll exact revenge, but whether I'll agree to
that "stealing" and whether I'm going to continue to let it happen.



That makes sense. But the 'black hole' only has power if you give your power
away. you have to take active STS action in order to feel STS effects of a
'STS glare', you know what I mean?



I can choose not to interact with whoever I perceive as just being
out to harm and evoke violent response. Sure, that creates a small
sense of seperation, but I think that's what RA was trying to get
across.



I think that separating yourself from this kind of energy, or this aspect of
yourSELF (since that's exactly what it is in my opinion) is a bit like running
away from the problem. I am not saying its the wrong thing to do or anything,
and I admit that the alternative I am going to present is not easy, but it
certainly has the potential for SELF-healing. I think an appropriate
reaction/response would be not to separate from this kind of occurrence, but
ACCEPT it
and LOVE it for what it has to teach you. Give gratitude...well more than that,
FEEL gratitude. What you said, "I can choose not to interact with whoever I
perceive as just being
out to harm and evoke violent response" makes a lot of sense on one level,
because it is not going to be productive to seek out violent situations and try
to 'fix' them. But on another level, if you KNOW and FEEL how this healing
process is possible, then you will likewise KNOW what to do. That's the only way
I can say it right now! And by the way....

" Just what are the STO 4th
density beings doing in their thought-wars? They certainly aren't
calling the STS names for evil glares, however that translates into
4D terms. Is it possible that they are simply refusing to be
controlled, perhaps via non-interaction? Can we really understand
what RA means by saying those in battle are armed with "light"? If
anyone has another opinion I'd love to hear it."


OOO OOO I have an opinion that ties in beautifully with my above sentiments!
I think that non-interaction is pretty close to the mark. Or at least, it is
in the right vane/reasoning process. I think that a better way to put it would
be through non-'action that is controlling'. One aspect of the "light" is the
acceptance and gratitude that I have outlined up there. I think this is how
healing of separation takes place by 'STO entities' whatever that may mean to
you. Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Beverly Thompson]

Dear asc2k friends:

I would like to make a comment about this: "I think if an entity is evolved
enough in terms of individual awareness to not want to be killed and eaten, then
it is more likely to incarnate into the body of an animal that has the ability
to run away."

I live on a farm and we have fruit trees and a garden and raise cows, horses and
chickens. I have read Peter Tomkins book, "The Secret Life of Plants" where he
accidentally found, through means of a lie detector, that plants reacted
violently when threatened by harm. I have struggled with the idea of lovingly
raising an animal which will be processed for food everytime that stock trailer
gets loaded to take them away.

A few years ago I had a vivid dream where I was in a slaughter house watching
the carcasses being cut open. And everytime a cow's body was cut open, there
was a woman's body inside. And then the dream switched to a chicken processing
facility, and inside each chicken was a woman's body. You might call this a
nightmare, but I received a profound teaching from this which showed me that
everything we consume, whether plant, vegetable, or mineral, is the earth,
Mother Earth, our planet.

Obviously the earth can't "run away" from us while we're living on it, but it
can do some pretty devastating things in reaction to the irresponsible and
thoughtless things we do to her both directly and indirectly. How do we
alleviate these drastic consequences? We pray, we show gratitude, we advocate
positive and constructive changes. We form together in groups and with our
combined power/intent do the work in time/space for the manifestation in
space/time for the highest good for all.

Healing Love,
Bev



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 8/3/2004 12:44:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kay@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=_vcKu1xaKZm_u9x8SLHgFp3pFt15qTDuVszC0T NEs4BKLTfky6xur8JDiwpJz11FlOGP4CNmzQ)
writes:
I think that is what gratitude
does -- it provides the doorway for the Universe to rush in and make whole.

Blessings,
Kay


Beautiful!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kay Dayss]

Kyle <GenoNess1@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=V8D6VtG08p90ig94dhlwgexY7a2ozQiaeYeXoV YxZTLi5ygrM9rHNc0wiDMHT7sWIQcuDZmjdXNGaHM)>, I just love your posts! I'll carry the following
Kyle quotes with me in my little "wisdom" pouch:

Kyle: you have to take active STS action in order to feel STS effects of a
'STS glare', you know what I mean?

Kyle: I think that separating yourself from this kind of energy, or this
aspect of yourSELF (since that's exactly what it is in my opinion) is a bit
like running away from the problem. I am not saying its the wrong thing to
do or anything, and I admit that the alternative I am going to present is
not easy, but it certainly has the potential for SELF-healing. I think an
appropriate reaction/response would be not to separate from this kind of
occurrence, but ACCEPT it and LOVE it for what it has to teach you. Give
gratitude...well more than that, FEEL gratitude. What you said, "I can
choose not to interact with whoever I perceive as just being out to harm and
evoke violent response" makes a lot of sense on one level, because it is not
going to be productive to seek out violent situations and try to 'fix' them.
But on another level, if you KNOW and FEEL how this healing process is
possible, then you will likewise KNOW what to do.

Kay: And I have something to add to the following Kyle statement about how
an STO warrior armed with light heals STS:

Kyle: I think that non-interaction is pretty close to the mark. Or at
least, it is in the right vane/reasoning process. I think that a better way
to put it would be through non-'action that is controlling'. One aspect of
the "light" is the acceptance and gratitude that I have outlined up there. I
think this is how healing of separation takes place by 'STO entities'

Kay: Yes, and I think even more. I describe it as bringing light to the
shadow, not to ignore or chase away the shadow but to study it, accept it as
part of me, and integrate it so that I can use its energy and passion. For
as you pointed out, the STS energy is, in the grand sense, an aspect of
mySELF. Integrating the STS energy heals it -- for the true meaning of "to
heal" is "to make whole". I think this is why to graduate into 4d, an STO
needs to just be 51% STO. Because integrating the shadow (STS) energy into
ourselves is very hard, and assuming a 50/50 balance, if we integrate just
1%, we are doing very well.

I see this in win/win terms too. Separating from, fearing, or rejecting
energy sent to me is "playing not to lose" which means nobody wins. Reacting
to STS energy with an STS response, though very tempting, is playing
lose/lose which again means nobody wins. But allowing and accepting and
responding with passionate gratitude heals the separation so the 'whole'
wins. It isn't really even win/win anymore; it's just WIN. 8-)

One exercise that I've used for over 25 years and find helpful is to yell
THANK YOU with great passion in a situation where I would otherwise swear. I
started doing this when I'd have a bunch of things in my arms and then
suddenly they fall on the ground. I'd yell THANK YOU because my daughter who
was just 5 or so at the time was right there and I didn't want to be
swearing in front of her. I found that I really liked the result. I still
was able to express the passion I felt; it was funny and we'd both laugh and
so gain energy from the laughter; and it was very healing/wholing to do it.
She then started doing it too and showing her friends how much fun it was.
This is, I believe, how a healing/wholing meme gets started through a
seemingly "accidental" doorway. The true healing energy from the
Universe/InfiniteCreator is able to enter every situation where I, little
local Kay-self, can provide a doorway. I think that is what gratitude
does -- it provides the doorway for the Universe to rush in and make whole.

Blessings,
Kay

[pugg1979]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=UgZEWN5ZWy6cTuGpKhWVXBwzLwVZ69K8fyRqWd XFqvmcBR3-zM0n5yLSIerfJ3Xd29ZHwBb5cLyZ0fFe1Wo), GenoNess1@a... wrote:

> That makes sense. But the 'black hole' only has power if you give
your power
> away. you have to take active STS action in order to feel STS
effects of a
> 'STS glare', you know what I mean?

Perfectly.


> I think that separating yourself from this kind of energy, or this
aspect of
> yourSELF (since that's exactly what it is in my opinion) is a bit
like running
> away from the problem.

I agree, but in my mind I was equating this running from the self as
the cost 4d (and 3d?) STO must deal with in the seemingly inevitable
thought-wars.


> I think that non-interaction is pretty close to the mark. Or at
least, it is
> in the right vane/reasoning process. I think that a better way to
put it would
> be through non-'action that is controlling'. One aspect of
the "light" is the
> acceptance and gratitude that I have outlined up there. I think
this is how
> healing of separation takes place by 'STO entities' whatever that
may mean to
> you.

I think I agree. ;) The separation is essential at times (polarity
is essential in 3D and 4D, and unity, after all, doesn't become a
true reality until 6D, as I see it), and the healing takes place by
that acceptance and gratitude. I don't necessarily think the best
path would be to accept that STS beings are out there to control you
and take your energy and therefore hand it over, becoming their one
of their cronies and entering the STS hierarchy; I think this is
what RA was saying that the 4D STO try to avoid. But the battle
must take place, despite it's ugliness. I think Lord of the Rings
fits in here, perhaps more symbolically than literally.

Harrison

[lealdragon]

In the Tomkins book, what sort of 'threat of harm' did he subject the
plants to? Do plants consider being eaten as a threat? This is a valid
point. It is conceivable that a plant might object to being trampled
needlessly, but not to lovingly and with thanks joining its spirit
with that of another. I would like to know exactly how that experiment
was conducted, if anyone has the book and would like to provide some
details.

The Native Americans gave thanks to the deer b4 eating it, and they
believed that its spirit would join with theirs. This is the same
concept, and is vastly different from buying meat wrapped in
cellophane, and the cow dying in a state of fear, right after seeing
the cow in front of her die.

The bottom line to me is, well actually there are 2 bottom lines:

1. It is true that we must eat something, until we can become
breatharians. It is virtually impossible to never kill ANYTHING, since
there are microbes and tiny critters everywhere. Acually, our bodies
are living eco-systems, filled with millions of microorganisms.
However, most people would save a human b4 a dog, and find the thought
of eating another human repulsive. Well, it follows from that, that if
I must eat something, I would rather eat a plant than an animal, just
as I would rather eat an animal than a human. Yes, there is some
evidence, sketchy tho it is, that plants might not want to be eaten
either. But I KNOW that animals do not want to be eaten!

2. Whatever we choose to eat, I think the way in which we eat it, with
love and gratitude to it for giving its life to us, is very important.

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Mg43F6kokuAMTvHaOEXTD35WooFeGjqrhUinBf 9TzRG_393H6RGGAKzADGfZoXXp3vjcSD0Hdaz4omknvg), "Beverly Thompson" <beverly46@r...> wrote:
>
> I live on a farm and we have fruit trees and a garden and raise
cows, horses and chickens. I have read Peter Tomkins book, "The
Secret Life of Plants" where he accidentally found, through means of a
lie detector, that plants reacted violently when threatened by harm.
I have struggled with the idea of lovingly raising an animal which
will be processed for food everytime that stock trailer gets loaded to
take them away.
>

[Bob Vanassen]

The plants responded to threats of being set on fire ( I have the book)
until they realized that the scientist was not serious. They also responded
to harm to other living things whether intended or not such as to the
bacteria in the sink and the microorganisms in the yogurt. When it comes to
cutting your grass. The first piece of grass being cut will relay a warning
to the rest of the lawn to shut down or go into a self-imposed shock ( I'm
relaying this from memory).
I myself will try to offer my thanks and sorrow when I find that I have to
trim branches or other yard upkeep and am in the process of trying to
convert my lawn into something more useful such as an organic garden.

bobstf@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=9x-yzqlmhZfZNJQMQSCIyu74hd9oYecuEKnmkifZ_weaoOkZmfMmE 4qsJN0w-l9Jvsxi9OQRsIy6-jF9Cg)
Every act is an act of self definition.

A life lived by choice is a life of conscious action
A life lived by chance is a life of unconscious reaction.

There is no condition, no circumstance, no problem that love cannot solve.

From: lealdragon [mailto:lealdragon@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Hqi8bPsTf41Vtkggk-8rjLiZPNoBqN9G-agtXXrO8S5wBhC5E5T-akqAd1SbtCugFtD_UmE7Yw3-CQVpwA)]
In the Tomkins book, what sort of 'threat of harm' did he subject the
plants to? Do plants consider being eaten as a threat? This is a valid
point. It is conceivable that a plant might object to being trampled
needlessly, but not to lovingly and with thanks joining its spirit
with that of another. I would like to know exactly how that experiment
was conducted, if anyone has the book and would like to provide some
details.

[Kay Dayss]

From: "pugg1979" <hkoehli@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=x35oYoHgOuBzCoiIrPNoasmoZjsZDNcMmBJ6gW n3YEmrBdhSxS7NKMvW22sYbt-joMzR-LjtIFDBtg)> "...But the battle must take place,
despite it's ugliness. I think Lord of the Rings fits in here, perhaps more
symbolically than literally."

Dear Harrison,

I find the Lord of the Rings symbology entering my thoughts too. My work is
around creating a gifting economy as a basis for a New Story for humans who
are currently caught in the dominator culture (old story). Part of my work
is in taking care not to draw the "eye" of the old story but rather to work
under the radar of the old story so that I can be successful.

I don't believe that the battle must take place, at least not as we normally
think a battle looks. I don't believe that I can create what I want by
fighting what I don't want. I believe in putting my focus on creating what I
want. In so many ways, my work is a metaphor for the transition from 3d to
4d as well as the creative tension between STS and STO, between what is and
what I want. Now it is very possible to call that creative tension, a
"battle" and think of ourselves are spiritual warriors -- that I would agree
with. But there is really no "battle" going on. It really is two parallel
realities with different memes where it looks like the STS-type memes are
winning big while the STO-type memes are losing -- BUT this is only because
the STO-type memes are NOT fighting that battle so that they can stay under
the radar and not draw the eye; instead the STO-type memes are quietly
focusing on creating the reality they want.

"You never change
things by fighting the
existing reality. To
change something
build a new model
that makes the
existing model
obsolete."
- Bucky Fuller

"It is our task - our
essential, central,
crucial task - to
transform ourselves
from mere social
creatures into
community creatures.
It is the only way
human evolution will
be able to proceed."
- Scott Peck

Just my 2 pennies,
Kay

[Lesley Schultz]

Dear Bob, & Everyone, L/L & Peace:

I've read that the Bushmen of the Kalahari will shoot
a tranqulizer dart into an antelope [or whatever
animal they need to kill for food] and then, when it
goes down, go and apologize to the animal for having
to kill it. Then, when the flesh is eaten, they give
thanks to the animal for providing its body to nourish
the tribe. Native Americans have also had rituals
that they perform to thank and praise the animals they
have to kill in order to maintain their lives. For
example, there is a buffalo dance, which is done every
year. According to the myth surrounding it, when the
dance is done it brings back to life again all the
buffalos that had to be killed during the year. The
function is to try to honor and return the gift of
life from the animals.

I was re-watching Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth" on
TV last night, and the part I caught was discussing
how a person that wants to lead a moral, ethical and
non-violent life can exist in such a violent, lawless
and uncaring/unethical world. Professor Campbell
asked this question of an Indian yogi, who said that
one must accept both the joyful things and the hurtful
things as manifestations of the One Being that is the
universe. You have to be able to be thankful for both
Mother Theresa and serial killers, rain and
devastating floods, drought and fire as well as spring
dew and sunsets. You can't have the one without the
other. They define each other and create the dynamic
tension by which we learn about what life is all
about.

I realize that it's all very well to say that the
conflict we've been discussing has no resolution that
would preserve human life and all other life, but it's
hard not to feel awful about biting into that chicken
sandwich. We all know what a food chain is. We
consume other forms of life, which have been nourished
by other forms of life, and right down the line.
Sooner or later human bodies break down, and we
appropriately wind up as food for all kinds of
creatures that would give us the heebie jeebies when
we were alive.

I think Beverly and Chris and some of the other folks
who have responded are correct when they say that the
best we can do is feel and express out thankfullness
for the gift of life that the plant or animal has
given to sustain us, and to Gaia perhaps for
sustaining all of us within the cycle.

Perhaps it also helps to recall that "right" and
"wrong" are moral human judgements, and have always
depended for their definition on which side you look
at the situation from. Is it ethical to shut down a
ventilator and a heart/lung machine on someone that is
brain-dead, who can't survive without mechanical and
chemical assistance? How different is this action
from refraining from destroying all stocks of smallpox
everywhere on the planet, so as to hopefully eradicate
a pestilence that killed millions, maybe billions of
human beings over the millenia? People hesitated to
destroy the smallpox stocks, even though at the time
it was stamped out in human populations through
vaccination and there was no animal vector. Why?
There was a fear that a new disease could arise that
would devastate human populations, and the smallpox
stocks could help find a cure for it.

Third density is not the density of understanding. It
is the density of choice, and of learning about the
consequences of choices. I'm hoping that in 4th
density we will have arrived at the point where there
can be understanding of options and the things that
drive choice, so we can make better use of the living
gifts we have.

Blessings,
~lesley




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[lealdragon]

Ah, very interesting. I can see why a plant being set on fire or
being cut down would be a 'threat', since those things mean death. I
would be interested in seeing that same test done on a carrot about
to be eaten. I am trying to make the point that, does the plant
consider being eaten a fearful thing, a threat, in the same way that
a deer running for its life in the forest would.

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=NCpuXf4xvuNtiipaIdfeUDH5vydVTVTWC_JSJn TzaVVodUZuxSSGeowaHE6Qabdxs_kTJ7VwXsgzUE2lhlo), "Bob Vanassen" <bobstf@i...> wrote:
> The plants responded to threats of being set on fire ( I have the
book)
> until they realized that the scientist was not serious. They also
responded
> to harm to other living things whether intended or not such as to
the
> bacteria in the sink and the microorganisms in the yogurt. When it
comes to
> cutting your grass. The first piece of grass being cut will relay a
warning
> to the rest of the lawn to shut down or go into a self-imposed
shock ( I'm
> relaying this from memory).
> I myself will try to offer my thanks and sorrow when I find that
I have to
> trim branches or other yard upkeep and am in the process of trying
to
> convert my lawn into something more useful such as an organic
garden.
>
> bobstf@i...
>

[lisswest@...>]

I haven't read the book you mention but have read a book called "Supernature" by
Lyall Watson which originally was printed in the '50's, I believe. He mentions
several instances of plants awareness to their environments including laboritory
tests made using electrodes.

I myself have channelled plants awareness to events that have happened around
them, they have a phenomenal memory, probably because they do not move so their
focus is very restricted. According to the writings about and of the community
of Findhorn in Scotland, the love they focussed on their plants and vegetables
produced enormous growths and delicious flavours. They were supposed to have
gone to the plants to be pulled the following day and asked their forgiveness
and permission!! They supposedly found that the following morning those plants
needed for the table had eased their roots from the soil enough for them to be
lifted without the effort of pulling on the roots!!!

Friends of mine used to 'hear' their vegetables scream when pulled - they never
did get them to lift themselves out of the soil! The chappy - a big lad over 6
foot, would often cry when he had to pull his cabbages for market!! Although
they themselves were vegetarians, he was often called for up and down the
country to kill farm stock because he killed them quickly and neatly with their
heads in a bucket of food, and would mutter a loving prayer over them as he did
the deed. Farmers swore that the meat tasted sweeter and was far more tender
than that from their other animals slaughtered at the abattoir. This is also the
Hallal way of slaughtering as is the Kosher way, or should be.

Peace and Happiness, Liss



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Beverly Thompson]

Dear asc2k friends:

Liss wrote, "According to the writings about and of the community of Findhorn in
Scotland, the love they focussed on their plants and vegetables produced
enormous growths and delicious flavours."

Bev: I have a great little paperback book titled, "The Magic of Findhorn, An
eyewitness account by Paul Hawken" published in 1975. I just flipped through
the book and this is an excerpt from p. 194-195:

The earth, once white and molten, represents a thought. It was a fire in
the heavens, glowing as a sun, visited by the Deva of the Wind which came and
blew across the surface, playing with the Fire Deva until all was mediated. The
Deva of Water and Rain formed and collected in the skies and fell to earth.
Great clouds of steam issued forth from the surface, the skies were enlivened
and heavy with its presence, and across the surface the Wind Deva began to cool,
carve, and chisel away at the crust of the planet. It created pools and eddies,
lakes and streams, and bigger bodies which we know as oceans. With each
successive change, a new Deva or impulse came forth until, like a procession,
did the Earth receive the new hosts, each Deva bringing with it a variation of
life ever present in the divine potential. The Earth prepared itself to receive
and serve the thought of a man and a woman. The Earth would be their temple and
guardian; the heavens would be their guide and vision. Humans affirmed the link
between the infinite spirit and the totality of matter. They related from the
highest spiritual planes to the most concrete levels of form. **The Earth was
for humanity to enshrine, make holy, to blend their unique qualities and work as
a family in cooperation with the Devas, the spiritual stewards of the planet.**
(emphasis added)

Bev: It seems to me as we grow in spiritual awareness, the basic foundation of
the first dimension consisting of the four elements, Fire and Wind in concert
with Water and Earth, becomes more than a mere platform upon which we evolve.
It is the basis to which we must return to if we are to grow at all.

Healing Love,
Bev

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]