Sorted by relevance. Sort by session.
* (Works if order is placed within 24 hours for items not already in cart.)
33.11 ▶ Questioner: This motion picture brought out this point of which we have been talking. And the entity, the Colonel, had to make a decision at that point. I was just wondering, with respect to polarity, his polarization. He could have either knuckled under, you might say, to the negative forces, but he chose to defend his friend instead. Is it possible for you to estimate which is more positively polarizing: to defend the positively oriented entity, or to allow the suppression by the negatively oriented entities? Can you answer this even?
Ra: I am Ra. This question takes in the scope of fourth density as well as your own and its answer may best be seen by the action of the entity called Jehoshua, which you call Jesus. This entity was to be defended by its friends. The entity reminded its friends to put away the sword. This entity then delivered itself to be put to the physical death. The impulse to protect the loved other-self is one which persists through the fourth density, a density abounding in compassion. More than this we cannot and need not say.
42.10 ▶ Questioner: How can a person know when he is unswayed by an emotionally charged situation if he is repressing the flow of emotions, or if he is in balance and truly unswayed?
Ra: I am Ra. We have spoken to this point. Therefore, we shall briefly iterate that to the balanced entity no situation has an emotional charge but is simply a situation like any other in which the entity may or may not observe an opportunity to be of service. The closer an entity comes to this attitude the closer an entity is to balance. You may note that it is not our recommendation that reactions to catalyst be repressed or suppressed unless such reactions would be a stumbling block not consonant with the Law of One to an other-self. It is far, far better to allow the experience to express itself in order that the entity may then make fuller use of this catalyst.
Hide question numbers Show categories Show notes Hide audio
Version (?): Lightly Edited, Relistened, Original
Back to top
The Law of One books are copyright ©1982, 1984, 1998 L/L Research. This site copyright ©2003–2019 Tobey Wheelock.
Questions? Comments? Email me: tw at law of one dot info.