ascension + STS clarification

Jeff Wellman · 11-18-2001, 09:47 AM

<table bgcolor="#ffffff"><tt>
>previous note:
>could be. spending your spare time wishing for ascension is not
>service to others, but plainly service to self. obviously, this
>only involves self and no other.
>how could this possibly be service to others?
>clearly we are thinking only of our own desire.

>
class="msonormal">i think we need to help define the sts concept. in my view of what i understand from the ra books, simply focusing on or doing something for yourself, does not mean you are service to self oriented. especially in the case of spending your free time wishing for ascension, i just don’t see this as sts. however, it may not be the best way to learn/teach yourself new ideas, as ra states below. 
class="msonormal">
”the quickest way to learn is to deal with other-selves. this is a much greater catalyst than dealing with the self. dealing with the self without other-selves is akin to living without what you would call mirrors. thus, the self cannot see the fruits of its beingness. thus, each may aid each by reflection.” (ra i, p180)<o></o>
class="msonormal"><o

></o

>
class="msonormal">so, what then does it mean to be of service to self? i understand it to encompass the manipulation of others. to me, this is the key point in discerning service to self characteristics. having the need to control and manipulate other beings for the pleasure and desire of self. 
class="msonormal"><o></o>
class="msobodytext">“the philosophy concerns the service of manipulating others that they may experience service towards the other self, thus through this experience becoming able to appreciate service to self. these entities would become oriented towards service to self and in turn manipulate yet others so that they in turn might experience the service towards the other self.” (ra i, p125)
class="msonormal"><o></o>
class="msobodytext">“these become the elite. through these, the attempt begins to create a condition whereby the remainder of the planetary entities are enslaved by their free will.” (ra i, p119)
class="msonormal"><o

></o

>
class="msonormal">the question was also asked in the ra material, about the comparison of negative societal complexes against those of positive complexes. why are there so many fewer negative complexes, than positive ones?
class="msonormal"><o

></o

>
class="msobodytext">“their numbers are perhaps one-tenth ours at any point in the space/time continuum as the problem of spiritual entropy causes them to experience constant disintegration of their social memory complexes.” (ra i, p100)
class="msonormal"><o

></o

>
class="msonormal">so, looking back a few posts ago, this was my reluctance to agree with having a percentage of sts as one proceeds towards ascension. personally i do not see any need to hold on to any form of sts (meaning manipulation of others). 
class="msonormal"><o

></o

>
class="msonormal">it was stated that if you had too much sto, you would have a higher desire to possibly martyr yourself. to me, this is simply a means of keeping yourself well balanced, adding wisdom to the equation of sto/love. with balance, you can keep your sto beingness and also protect yourself from martyrdom. i believe it is a misnomer to think that sts is required to protect against martyrdom.
class="msonormal"><o

></o

>
class="msonormal">don elkins presented ra with an analogy as to why there are fewer negatively oriented social complexes. ra responded with, “this is correct”.
class="msonormal"><o

></o

>
class="msobodytext">“in a positively oriented society with service to others, it would be simple to move a large boulder by getting everyone to help move it. in a society oriented towards service to self, it would be much more difficult to get everyone to work for the good of all to move the boulder; therefore, it is much easier to get things done to create the service to others principle and to grow in positively oriented communities that in negatively oriented communities.” (ra i, p155)
class="msobodytext"><o

></o

>
class="msobodytext">what a great analogy! it reminds me of all the participants on this group list. each one of us is helping each other move that boulder (this concept of ascension).<o

></o

>
class="msobodytext"><o

></o

>
class="msobodytext">thanks for listening everyone, lol<o

></o

>
class="msobodytext">jeff<o

></o

>
class="msobodytext"><o

></o

>
>
</tt>

Jeremy Weiland · 11-18-2001, 11:52 AM

way to lend some much needed perspective, jeff!
thanks.

> it was stated that if you had too much sto, you
> would have a higher desire to possibly martyr
> yourself. to me, this is simply a means of keeping
> yourself well balanced, adding wisdom to the
> equation of sto/love. with balance, you can keep
> your sto beingness and also protect yourself from
> martyrdom. i believe it is a misnomer to think that
> sts is required to protect against martyrdom.

yes, i agree with what you're saying here, jeff, with
one addition. the condition of martyrdom, while
perhaps not the most helpful service that one can
provide, is still a valid service through which one
can gain experience. if somebody is working on the 4d
task of becoming more loving, part of the catalyst
that is going to start them in the direction of
searching for 5d wisdom to go with that love is the
type of experiences they would have where lack of
wisdom resulted in inefficient, not dangerous or
counterproductive, service.

this is my interpretation of what ra meant when he was
saying that jesus was working on integrating wisdom -
he had experiences on earth with martyrdom that caused
him to search for more efficient ways of providing
service, and that the next step for him was to
integrate more wisdom into his approach. thus, the
martyrdom is not a mistake, but rather a milestone and
a catalyst for further growth and development.

but yes, i agree whole heartedly that the condition of
martyrdom is not a result of love based action without
the proper degree of wisdom to balance the love out.

maybe the lack of wisdom and lack of sts is the same
thing, in a way. this is just conjecture, but isn't
sts a way of polarizing to wisdom or cleverness
without love? so isn't integrating that wisdom into
the love a form of integrating sts?

i mean, the whole point of sts is separation from sto;
wouldn't a sufficient degree of sto philosophy require
an integration of some of those aspects of sts, since
sto strives for unity? is it possible that a certain
degree of manipulation could be sto if imbued with the
degree of love that a 5d being would have accquired in
its 4d progress?

just something to think about...

jeremy

__________________________________________________
do you yahoo!?
find the one for you at yahoo! personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

**theodorepong** · 11-18-2001, 12:04 PM

--- in asc2k@y..., "jeff wellman" <jswell66@a...> wrote:
> previous note:
> >could be. spending your spare time wishing for ascension is not
> >service to others, but plainly service to self. obviously, this
> >only involves self and no other.
> >how could this possibly be service to others?
> >clearly we are thinking only of our own desire.
>

well thought out post, jeff.

> i think we need to help define the sts concept. in my view of what
i understand from the ra books, simply focusing on or doing something
for yourself, does not mean you are service to self oriented.
especially in the case of spending your free time wishing for
ascension, i just don't see this as sts. however, it may not be the
best way to learn/teach yourself new ideas, as ra states below.

in a system based on duality it is not sto. that leaves only one other
option.

when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever
remains,
however improbable,
must be the truth." --sherlock holmes

>
> "the quickest way to learn is to deal with other-selves. this is a
much greater catalyst than dealing with the self. dealing with the
self without other-selves is akin to living without what you would
call mirrors. thus, the self cannot see the fruits of its beingness.
thus, each may aid each by reflection." (ra i, p180)
>
> so, what then does it mean to be of service to self? i understand
it to encompass the manipulation of others. to me, this is the key
point in discerning service to self characteristics. having the need
to control and manipulate other beings for the pleasure and desire of
self.

yes,
this is why most sts are people in some sort of power orientation,
police, politics, sex, ghurus, religous leaders etc.

but attempting to control and manipulate other beings for any reason
is sts. sts also is manifest in attitude toward self and others.
ie. "i am better than you 'cause i am sto would be a sts act".

this is why most sts are people in some sort of power orientation,
police, politics, sex, ghurus ect.

>
> "the philosophy concerns the service of manipulating others that
they may experience service towards the other self, thus through this
experience becoming able to appreciate service to self. these
entities would become oriented towards service to self and in turn
manipulate yet others so that they in turn might experience the
service towards the other self." (ra i, p125)
>
> "these become the elite. through these, the attempt begins to
create a condition whereby the remainder of the planetary entities are
enslaved by their free will." (ra i, p119)
>
> the question was also asked in the ra material, about the comparison
of negative societal complexes against those of positive complexes.
why are there so many fewer negative complexes, than positive ones?
>
> "their numbers are perhaps one-tenth ours at any point in the
space/time continuum as the problem of spiritual entropy causes them
to experience constant disintegration of their social memory
complexes." (ra i, p100)
>
> so, looking back a few posts ago, this was my reluctance to agree
with having a percentage of sts as one proceeds towards ascension.
personally i do not see any need to hold on to any form of sts
(meaning manipulation of others).
>
> it was stated that if you had too much sto, you would have a higher
desire to possibly martyr yourself. to me, this is simply a means of
keeping yourself well balanced, adding wisdom to the equation of
sto/love. with balance, you can keep your sto beingness and also
protect yourself from martyrdom. i believe it is a misnomer to think
that sts is required to protect against martyrdom.
>
> don elkins presented ra with an analogy as to why there are fewer
negatively oriented social complexes. ra responded with, "this is
correct".
>
> "in a positively oriented society with service to others, it would
be simple to move a large boulder by getting everyone to help move it.
in a society oriented towards service to self, it would be much more
difficult to get everyone to work for the good of all to move the
boulder; therefore, it is much easier to get things done to create the
service to others principle and to grow in positively oriented
communities that in negatively oriented communities." (ra i, p155)
>
> what a great analogy! it reminds me of all the participants on this
group list. each one of us is helping each other move that boulder
(this concept of ascension).
>
> thanks for listening everyone, lol
> jeff

Jeremy Weiland · 11-18-2001, 12:25 PM

> in a system based on duality it is not sto. that
> leaves only one other
> option.

but remember: that duality is not the truth. the
truth is that all is one.

try to keep in mind that terms like sto and sts are
labels devised to neatly delineate different
philosophies. however, those labels don't represent
every aspect of that philosophy. the philosophy is
neccessarily more complex; that's why we need a simple
label for it.

obviously, you are entitled to your own opinions, and
i'm not trying to marginalize you. but how could work
on the self be sts in and of itself? this is one of
the main paths of sto that ra talks about. ra
constantly emphasizes the importance of meditation.
that's because when we meditate, we learn *how* to
serve others best. so think of meditation as
preparation for sto activities, and therefore itself
sto.

besides, i see nothing manipulative about meditation
on ascension.

jeremy

__________________________________________________
do you yahoo!?
find the one for you at yahoo! personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

Rosi · 11-18-2001, 01:39 PM

jeremy states:
> but remember: that duality is not the truth. the
> truth is that all is one.
>
> try to keep in mind that terms like sto and sts are
> labels devised to neatly delineate different
> philosophies. however, those labels don't represent
> every aspect of that philosophy. the philosophy is
> neccessarily more complex; that's why we need a simple
> label for it.
>
> obviously, you are entitled to your own opinions, and
> i'm not trying to marginalize you. but how could work
> on the self be sts in and of itself? this is one of
> the main paths of sto that ra talks about. ra
> constantly emphasizes the importance of meditation.
> that's because when we meditate, we learn *how* to
> serve others best. so think of meditation as
> preparation for sto activities, and therefore itself
> sto.
>
> besides, i see nothing manipulative about meditation
> on ascension.
>
> jeremy

rosi: i concur, jeremy. i feel that as long as we are serving
ourselves in love so that we can better serve others, then that
service to self is equilibrious with service to others.

it is a challenge and a reminder to me, and meditation definitely has
helped me with this!

blessings
rosi

**theodorepong** · 11-18-2001, 02:24 PM

--- in asc2k@y..., jeremy weiland <greenlantern113@y...> wrote:
> > in a system based on duality it is not sto. that
> > leaves only one other
> > option.
>
> but remember: that duality is not the truth. the
> truth is that all is one.

duality is what we must deal with.

>
> try to keep in mind that terms like sto and sts are
> labels devised to neatly delineate different
> philosophies. however, those labels don't represent
> every aspect of that philosophy. the philosophy is
> neccessarily more complex; that's why we need a simple
> label for it.

all is one system. neither is inherantlly good or evil, but
merely percieved as such by 3d.

>
> obviously, you are entitled to your own opinions, and
> i'm not trying to marginalize you. but how could work
> on the self be sts in and of itself? this is one of
> the main paths of sto that ra talks about. ra
> constantly emphasizes the importance of meditation.
> that's because when we meditate, we learn *how* to
> serve others best. so think of meditation as
> preparation for sto activities, and therefore itself
> sto.
>

meditation is fine, but is not just a sto function.
sts are quite adept at contacting higher powers also, and at
dispersing truths when needed.

> besides, i see nothing manipulative about meditation
> on ascension.

as long as ascention is not an obsession.

>
> jeremy
>
> __________________________________________________
> do you yahoo!?
> find the one for you at yahoo! personals
> http://personals.yahoo.com

Jeremy Weiland · 11-18-2001, 07:28 PM

> > but remember: that duality is not the truth. the
> > truth is that all is one.
>
> duality is what we must deal with.

of course you must deal with duality. that doesn't
mean that it has to dictate your outlook on life, does
it? if it does, how do you ever expect to transcend
it?

> all is one system. neither is inherantlly good or
> evil, but
> merely percieved as such by 3d.

right. but that's not what i was saying. i was
saying that just because the "sts path" means service
to self, that doesn't mean that all service to self
falls under "sts". sts is just a label for a system
of thought and action much broader than simply "being
selfish." at least consider the possibility that
there's more to sts than what you see.

> meditation is fine, but is not just a sto function.

of *course* not. but it's a way to get clear about
your path, whichever one it is.

> sts are quite adept at contacting higher powers
> also, and at
> dispersing truths when needed.

i guess so. i'm not especially worried about it,
though.

> > besides, i see nothing manipulative about
> meditation
> > on ascension.
>
> as long as ascention is not an obsession.

well, obviously obsession about anything is not good.
but meditating about ascension does not mean you are
obsessed.

i'm ok with differences of opinion; i'm glad i've
gotten a chance to at least argue my point of view.
it's made my understanding of the topic clearer.

jeremy

__________________________________________________
do you yahoo!?
find the one for you at yahoo! personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

Tiffani Boswell · 11-19-2001, 09:51 AM

was said: yes, i agree with what you're saying here, jeff, with
one addition. the condition of martyrdom, while
perhaps not the most helpful service that one can
provide, is still a valid service through which one
can gain experience.

tiffani says:
what was interesting about this and the ra quote about martyrdom "for those
who seek further, the consequences of
martyrdom must be considered, for in martyrdom lies the end of the
opportunity, in the density of the martyr, to offer light and love. "

i find this very interesting because (whether by chance of "evil" making
jesus out to be something he was not, or even if he was everything he is
believed to be by some) it seems that his martyrdom was not the end of his
opportunity to offer light and love...even if it is misunderstood by
christians...he seems to be something that many people strive to be an
imitator of, christian and non-christian alike...it seems that his light and
love still resonate through to today...

just a thought

tiffani

----- original message -----
from: "jeremy weiland" <greenlantern113@...>
to: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com>
sent: november 18, 2001 1:52 pm
subject: [asc2k] ascension + sts clarification

> way to lend some much needed perspective, jeff!
> thanks.
>
> > it was stated that if you had too much sto, you
> > would have a higher desire to possibly martyr
> > yourself. to me, this is simply a means of keeping
> > yourself well balanced, adding wisdom to the
> > equation of sto/love. with balance, you can keep
> > your sto beingness and also protect yourself from
> > martyrdom. i believe it is a misnomer to think that
> > sts is required to protect against martyrdom.
>
> yes, i agree with what you're saying here, jeff, with
> one addition. the condition of martyrdom, while
> perhaps not the most helpful service that one can
> provide, is still a valid service through which one
> can gain experience. if somebody is working on the 4d
> task of becoming more loving, part of the catalyst
> that is going to start them in the direction of
> searching for 5d wisdom to go with that love is the
> type of experiences they would have where lack of
> wisdom resulted in inefficient, not dangerous or
> counterproductive, service.
>
> this is my interpretation of what ra meant when he was
> saying that jesus was working on integrating wisdom -
> he had experiences on earth with martyrdom that caused
> him to search for more efficient ways of providing
> service, and that the next step for him was to
> integrate more wisdom into his approach. thus, the
> martyrdom is not a mistake, but rather a milestone and
> a catalyst for further growth and development.
>
> but yes, i agree whole heartedly that the condition of
> martyrdom is not a result of love based action without
> the proper degree of wisdom to balance the love out.
>
> maybe the lack of wisdom and lack of sts is the same
> thing, in a way. this is just conjecture, but isn't
> sts a way of polarizing to wisdom or cleverness
> without love? so isn't integrating that wisdom into
> the love a form of integrating sts?
>
> i mean, the whole point of sts is separation from sto;
> wouldn't a sufficient degree of sto philosophy require
> an integration of some of those aspects of sts, since
> sto strives for unity? is it possible that a certain
> degree of manipulation could be sto if imbued with the
> degree of love that a 5d being would have accquired in
> its 4d progress?
>
> just something to think about...
>
> jeremy
>
> __________________________________________________
> do you yahoo!?
> find the one for you at yahoo! personals
> http://personals.yahoo.com
>
> to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> your use of yahoo! groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>