The One is Love and What Else?

[jess9dob]

7-III. THE CREATOR = THE FOCUSING OF INTELLIGENT INFINITY INTO INTELLIGENT
ENERGY

RA: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have
called this by various names, the most common being ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚ÂƒÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚¢??logos' or ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚ÂƒÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚¢??love' [But
love
is actually the 2nd distortion]. (B1, 129)

RA: The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware conscious principle
called intelligent infinity. (B1, 129) (NOTE: When infinity focuses itself,
then creation occurs.)

RA: Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high order which
causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent
infinity in a particular way. All love emanates from the Oneness. (B2, 8)

Don Eli: But the Oneness is not all love, right? Or, as Oneness expresses
as both love of self (STS) and love of the One (STO), are these both considered
love of the Oneness? In other words, when RA speaks of love, does his love
include the kindest consideration and meanest selfishness? From 3-D
perspective, it seems there is virtue in resisting evil. If we do not resist
evil, are
we not complicit as enablers?

I understand the value of free will and the necessity of error for learning,
but is not each creature correct is protecting others from being victimized?
Should tyrants be allowed to terrorize the population because to stop them
would be to interfere with their free will and maybe thus inhibit their
progress,
or should tyrants be prevented from victimizing the people and thus
inhibiting the people's progress?

If there is good and evil (as I believe), is it not fair to say the
peacemaker acts against that evil part of the will of the One? Is not knowing
good
from evil the goal of free will? Is not choosing virtue and standing against
vice (within us and without) most important? Is that not supportive of the love
of Oneness and a rejection of the meanness of Oneness? If an STS entity
cannot be harvested into 7-D without switching to STO, Does not that imply a
rejection of selfishness by Oneness and an indication that evil is resisted by
Oneness? So, does not Oneness eventually resist the evil part of itself, just
as I
have come to do?

Agape,
Don Eli

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com, viviangardens@... wrote:
> 7-III. THE CREATOR = THE FOCUSING OF INTELLIGENT INFINITY INTO
INTELLIGENT ENERGY
> RA: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy.
You have called this by various names, the most common being 'logos'
or ÃÂà ƒÂ‚Ã‚ÂƒÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â‚Ãƒ ƒÂ‚¢??love' [But love is actually the 2nd distortion]. (B1, 129)
> RA: The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware conscious
principle called intelligent infinity. (B1, 129) (NOTE: When infinity
focuses itself, then creation occurs.)
> RA: Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high
order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential
of intelligent infinity in a particular way. All love emanates from
the Oneness. (B2, 8)
> Don Eli: But the Oneness is not all love, right? Or, as Oneness
expresses as both love of self (STS) and love of the One (STO), are
these both considered love of the Oneness? In other words, when RA
speaks of love, does his love include the kindest consideration and
meanest selfishness? From 3-D perspective, it seems there is virtue
in resisting evil. If we do not resist evil, are we not complicit as
enablers?

PI: This is one way i see love.
The Oneness is the same as & no different than the One. The Oneness
is all love. STS & STO are both considered to be different forms
constituted by free will (1st distortion), constituted of love (2nd
distortion), constituted with light energy (3rd distortion) to
express Love (of Creator, of self, of others). Maybe an egg could be
love. One egg could be scrambled; one egg, boiled; one egg, sunny
side up; one egg, fried; one egg, cracked raw; one egg, split into
yolk & egg white. Each egg (each soul) is changed by free will to
boiled Love scrambled Love sunny side up Lover, fried Love; etc.,
with the application of energy. Each type of egg (love) is a
different form representing the original Egg (Love). Each egg exists
in different form as an egg (Love). Collectively, the eggs may be
considered to be a part of Egginess (Oneness) Regardless of different
ways that each one looks, tastes, etc. each form is an egg (Love).
Yes, Ra tells us love is meanest selfishness & kindest consideration.

No virtue exists in resistance to evil. No virtue exists in surrender
or concession to evil, either. In 3d, love exits without duality. For
example, virtue & malice can't exist alone, kindness needs meanness
in order to be a whole. Male needs female; hope needs despair; faith
can only grow & flourish by virtue of fear; & STO is a bridesmaid to
STS. (<-- To understand this, consider that without a veil of limited
awareness that was introduced as catalyst to encourage choice-making
in 3d, STO and STS were not observed to be distinctive paths.)

> I understand the value of free will and the necessity of error for
learning, but is not each creature correct is protecting others from
being victimized? Should tyrants be allowed to terrorize the
population because to stop them would be to interfere with their free
will and maybe thus inhibit their progress, or should tyrants be
prevented from victimizing the people and thus inhibiting the
people's progress?

PI: If a premise of protecting others from victimization is that the
means may justify the ends. There's a built-in fallacy to discussion
of the questions and concerns being raised here. According to Ra, any
effort one wants to make to reconfigure the way things are in 3d must
(1) be steadfast in concern to honor free will choice of every one;
(2) begins & ends in love for the Creator, & (3) achieves forgiveness
of self & balance of energy centers within FIRST.

> If there is good and evil (as I believe), is it not fair to say the
peacemaker acts against that evil part of the will of the One? Is
not knowing good from evil the goal of free will? Is not choosing
virtue and standing against vice (within us and without) most
important? Is that not supportive of the love of Oneness and a
rejection of the meanness of Oneness? If an STS entity cannot be
harvested into 7-D without switching to STO, Does not that imply a
> rejection of selfishness by Oneness and an indication that evil is
resisted by Oneness? So, does not Oneness eventually resist the evil
part of itself, just as I have come to do?

PI: It may be helpful to consider that love isn't a choice of good or
evil; it is unconditional; it unconditionally accepts "the way things
are" before, during & after it faces some one or some thing. It gives
vibration without support of the negative, positive, or neutral path.
Love comes from within; it expresses self from within; it reflects
self from within. It is pro-active always in all ways for all ways of
being.

Peace & Love, pi

Don and group,

I tend to agree with you Don, I think STO implies we resist and discourage those
that infringe on another's free will or rights. With Rights come
responsibilities. STO implies we try and assist those less fortunate than us.
The "good" in the "bad", is that through the bad we are moved to "do" and be
"good", STO. Once we acquire a sufficient degree of STO polarity we are
rewarded by graduating, by being able to be closer to our Creator, in all the
Love and Beauty that our Creator is.

Best regards, Colin

Behalf Of viviangardens@...

Don Eli: But the Oneness is not all love, right? Or, as Oneness expresses
as both love of self (STS) and love of the One (STO), are these both
considered
love of the Oneness? In other words, when RA speaks of love, does his love
include the kindest consideration and meanest selfishness? From 3-D
perspective, it seems there is virtue in resisting evil. If we do not resist
evil, are
we not complicit as enablers? Agape, Don Eli

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/20/06 12:50:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
johnnypi@... writes:

> PI: It may be helpful to consider that love isn't a choice of good or
> evil; it is unconditional; it unconditionally accepts "the way things
> are" before, during & after it faces some one or some thing. It gives
> vibration without support of the negative, positive, or neutral path.
> Love comes from within; it expresses self from within; it reflects
> self from within. It is pro-active always in all ways for all ways of
> being.

I love the good I see in others, but I do not like the meanness...in others
or in myself. I feel there is good desire in all gods and humans so I love us
all and hate no one. But I do not love all behavior. Do you, PI? If someone
is mean to you, do you love that the same as when they are nice to you? If
someone means you harm or friendship, is it all the same to you? Or, am I
misreading you?

Agape,
Don Eli

Don Eli (viviangardens) said:


> I love the good I see in others, but I do not like the
> meanness...in others
> or in myself. I feel there is good desire in all gods and
> humans so I love us
> all and hate no one. But I do not love all behavior. Do you,
> PI? If someone
> is mean to you, do you love that the same as when they are nice
> to you? If
> someone means you harm or friendship, is it all the same to
> you? Or, am I
> misreading you?
>
> Agape,
> Don Eli
>
If someone is being mean, you make your choices however
you prefer to about whatever your response is to be. Rather than
resisting the neanness, just see it for what it is and be neutral.
Resisting or disliking something emotionally does no good other than
to serve as your own catalyst, i.e., I feel really bad about this, so
what lesson can I learn from it?

Your mean, nasty person is most likely someone seriously damaged by
abuse, but also they probably made choices in this incarnation to
experience that for their own purposes of learning. They may or may
not be deliberately on an STS path. They may have chosen to experience
karmic repayment to balance something they did in previous lifetimes.
Whatever their actual situation is, it is not your problem, it is
their choice.

So, if you are going to unconditionally love and serve the mean, nasty
person, you see and love the good soul underneath the mean behavior
and you make your choice on what your physical plane response to their
behavior should be, and don't judge self. What you do or not depends
on the circumstances. You might want to give a loving communication to
the good soul inside the personality who has suffered whatever it was
that made the person mean and nasty. If that person is truly STO or
neutral, you would be helping them, and if they are striving for STS,
they will avoid you because your STO loving vibration weakens their
STS resolve. In the latter case, it also weakens your own STO.

Whatever you do, the point is to see it objectively rather than to sit
in resistance. Ultimately if they are striving for STS there is
nothing wrong with distancing yourself from that influence. Use your
own intuition or knowingness in your response, after feeling and
releasing your emotional resistance.

All the best, Ed

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com, "Pi" <johnnypi@...> wrote:
> PI: This is one way i see love.
> The Oneness is the same as & no different than the One. The Oneness
> is all love. [...] Each type of egg (love) is a
> different form representing the original Egg (Love). Each egg exists
> in different form as an egg (Love). Collectively, the eggs may be
> considered to be a part of Egginess (Oneness) Regardless of
> different ways that each one looks, tastes, etc. each form is an egg
> (Love).

Very nice analogy Pi, the only thing I want to add is that some forms
off eggs are more consonant with the law of one then others.
STO trys to be as consonant as possible with the original egg, but
eventually everything no matter what kind of egg will become the
original egg once again.

I'm hungry, think I'll have an egg

Peace,
Filip

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com, Colin <colineck@...> wrote:
>
> Don and group,
>
> I tend to agree with you Don, I think STO implies we resist and discourage
those that
infringe on another's free will or rights.

Hi Colin...is "resist" the right word? Recall Jesus' famous injunction:
"Resist not evil."

>>With Rights come responsibilities. STO implies we try and assist those less
fortunate
than us.

Ra says that STO sees others as being the same as oneself, thus they are called
"otherselves." If we see others as "less fortunate" than ourselves, are we
really doing
them a favor?

>>The "good" in the "bad", is that through the bad we are moved to "do" and be
"good",
STO. Once we acquire a sufficient degree of STO polarity we are rewarded by
graduating,
by being able to be closer to our Creator, in all the Love and Beauty that our
Creator is.

I agree about the value of contrast, that's why we have incarnated into this
place of polarity.

all best,
Jen

>
> Best regards, Colin
>
> Behalf Of viviangardens@...
>
> Don Eli: But the Oneness is not all love, right? Or, as Oneness expresses
> as both love of self (STS) and love of the One (STO), are these both
considered
> love of the Oneness? In other words, when RA speaks of love, does his love
> include the kindest consideration and meanest selfishness? From 3-D
> perspective, it seems there is virtue in resisting evil. If we do not resist
evil, are
> we not complicit as enablers? Agape, Don Eli
>

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com, Don Eli wrote:
> I love the good I see in others, but I do not like the meanness in
others or in myself. I feel there is good desire in all gods and
humans so I love us all and hate no one. But I do not love all
behavior. Do you, PI? If someone is mean to you, do you love that the
same as when they are nice to you? If someone means you harm or
friendship, is it all the same to you? Or, am I misreading you? >

PI: You are asking questions that cut to the chase of difficulty we all
face in interpreting the LoO, choosing to serve other self or my self,
& deciding on the most appropriate way to apply that interpretation &
that choice to our values, goals, and actions.

No, i do not like all behavior. i do not like behavior that is mean to
me the same as that which is kind. If someone wants to befriend or harm
me, it is not all the same to me. It may appear by these statements we
agree, but it's more likely that we disagree. You may be misreading me,
but it's more likely we disagree based on differing interpretations of
the LoO. Different interpretations lead to the differences we share in
deciding on what values, goals, & actions are most appropriate.

Where i differ is with respect making a distinction between a behavior
& a person. i also may differ in making a distinction between members
of a group and an organization or corporation or nation. As i interpret
the LoO, i intend to love a person, regardless of the person's actions.
i intend to love someone who steals from me the same way i love someone
replacing what had been stolen. My interpretation of LoO is that love
is an intangible disposition, primarily of my heart chakra; it's 'felt'
by vibrations of energy within that extend without, & by vibrations of
energy without that i may choose to accept or decline. i see love as a
universal energy force; it's all-encompassing, not neutral or positve
or negative. i don't love what someone does. i love a person that does
something.

In the context of 3d, the LoO is most difficult to decide the best way
to live a life of love. To start with, Ra says 2 persons facing similar
circumstances may be expected to choose very different ways to respond.
For one, a pre-incarnation plan may have intended use of self-defense
to strengthen previous cowardice when in harm's way. For another, a pre-
incarnation plan may have intended the opposite. In relation to dealing
with someone who intends harm to me, LoO recommends meditation & prayer
on that person's behalf. On a macro level, for example, Muslims' desire
for peace on earth may include dissolution of Israel; Israelis' desire,
relocation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims from adjacent nations.
Neither goal is consonant with my idea of universal peace on earth, but
all persons associated with Middle East turmoil and domestic terrorism
deserve love and prayers. In 3d, business concerns about competition
are often a situation where one party fears harm by another, &
the 'other one' is inevitably portrayed as STS &/or intending to harm.
i reiterate, LoO says love is the essence of every situation; & perhaps
the most difficult challenge we face in 3d is to gain an awareness of
love, learn to identify the love in all situations, & sustain a focus
on love each nanosecond of every millenium.

peace & love, pi

> > johnnypi had written:
> > It may be helpful to consider that love isn't a choice of good or
evil; it is unconditional; it unconditionally accepts "the way things
are" before, during & after it faces some one or some thing. It gives
vibration without support of the negative, positive, or neutral path.
Love comes from within; it expresses self from within; it reflects self
from within. It is pro-active always in all ways for all ways of being.

Hi Jen and group,

Yes, "resist" may not be an appropriate term, maybe I should have just
stayed with "discourage"?

Colin wrote, "I tend to agree with you Don, I think STO implies we resist
and discourage those that
infringe on another's free will or rights."

Jen wrote, "Hi Colin...is "resist" the right word? Recall Jesus' famous
injunction: "Resist not evil."


Jen, I agree that to see others as ourselves is an accurate correlation, so
I will clarify, that by helping others we are helping ourselves. As for,
"are we doing them a favor?". This then implies we are doing ourselves a
favor. Caring and assisting others, is caring and assisting ourselves.

Cheers. - Colin

Colin wrote, "With Rights come responsibilities. STO implies we try and
assist those less fortunate
than us."

Jen wrote, "Ra says that STO sees others as being the same as oneself, thus
they are called
"otherselves." If we see others as "less fortunate" than ourselves, are we
really doing
them a favor?"



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

[jess9dob]

In a message dated 9/22/06 8:10:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
metasyn@... writes:

> If someone is being mean, you make your choices however
> you prefer to about whatever your response is to be. Rather than
> resisting the neanness, just see it for what it is and be neutral.
> Resisting or disliking something emotionally does no good other than
> to serve as your own catalyst, i.e., I feel really bad about this, so
> what lesson can I learn from it?

Don Eli: If you "feel bad" about it, that is "disliking it emotionally."
What kind of person would I be if I felt nothing in the presence of meanness and
abuse?

>
> Your mean, nasty person is most likely someone seriously damaged by
> abuse, but also they probably made choices in this incarnation to
> experience that for their own purposes of learning. They may or may
> not be deliberately on an STS path. They may have chosen to experience
> karmic repayment to balance something they did in previous lifetimes.
> Whatever their actual situation is, it is not your problem, it is
> their choice.

If it harms me or my people it is my problem.

>
> So, if you are going to unconditionally love and serve the mean, nasty
> person, you see and love the good soul underneath the mean behavior
> and you make your choice on what your physical plane response to their
> behavior should be, and don't judge self. What you do or not depends
> on the circumstances. You might want to give a loving communication to
> the good soul inside the personality who has suffered whatever it was
> that made the person mean and nasty.

The best service to a bully and to all of us is for me to give him the honest
response of one who cares. It only makes it harder for him to learn if I
pretend his behavior is OK.

> Whatever you do, the point is to see it objectively rather than to sit
> in resistance.

No one who cares can be truly objective.

> Ultimately if they are striving for STS there is
> nothing wrong with distancing yourself from that influence.

Running away is not an option if you care and know you can prevent further
injury to the innocent.

> Use your
> own intuition or knowingness in your response, after feeling and
> releasing your emotional resistance.

I guess our feelings are different on this, Ed. My intuition is to resist
evil and support virtue, inside me and in my community. I feel and reject my
own hate, but my anger against injustice I treasure as perhaps the highest form
of love, in my understanding. Blessed be the peacemaker. The meek shall
inherit the Earth...in the old-English version of "meek" that does not imply
weakness or lack of passion to resist evil.

Agape,
Don Eli