RS2--daniel

On the subject of the post, I want to discuss this with you guys. Can't find it now, but there are either mentions in released papers and/or forum posts where there is this interpretation of STS/STO that seems very dark. The message is basically that why are we given 2 choices when there might be more. And why are we given 2 choices both the word "service" in them as if we 'should' serve in one way or another, as if we are somehow being manipulated into serving gods or masters' agenda. Not a very inspiring prospect.

I propose that the problem is one of concept and language, not one of lack or presence of "service". When we think of service, we come from a human culture that things of service as WORKING for the benefit of someone else, at some kind of cost to oneself. Whatever the motivation, the situation seems to be painted that there is some degree of freedom being denied - whether voluntary or forced. But what if this is a misinterpretation or misunderstanding? What if we have "colored" the word "service" the wrong way because of our limited understanding of concepts through language, combined with our fear and sense of self-preservation?

What if, this "service" is actually better translated as "style preference of interaction with others". Take rapport for instance. Its voluntary. There's implied mutual benefits. Its conscious cooperation. There's a style of interaction with others that benefit them and that is in agreement with something that you want too. So how would this be translated in summarized words? Wouldn't that be summarized as "service to others"? And if not, why not? Why does STO have to imply "servitude" to "masters" that portray fake freedom - why can't it be simply "honor" or "responsibility" in the form of rapport? Why should "STO" have a "master" being served? Why can't it just be "service" as is, and those that want to benefit may do so, those who do not, won't have to. Those that give the service, may choose who to give it to, and who not to. Not giving service to others doesn't imply service to self. It simply implies a passive stance or posture, an unresponsive one.

Are you guys getting what I'm trying to say here? What are your thoughts. If you agree that STS/STO seems dodgy and there is something fishy about it, please debate with me. If you are reconsidering how we interpret/apply the idea, then share your thoughts. Let's chew a bit on this. It feels unresolved at this stage.

Yes, Infinity, your post is spot on.
When you work in rapport with others, especially in a creative way, there is a resonance effect [Daniel's point] which uplifts all. So its NOT just a the colorless drudgery that STO implies.

Thanks for pointing out how subtle language cues can keep us all in slave-think.

infinity wrote:Are you guys getting what I'm trying to say here? What are your thoughts. If you agree that STS/STO seems dodgy and there is something fishy about it, please debate with me. If you are reconsidering how we interpret/apply the idea, then share your thoughts. Let's chew a bit on this. It feels unresolved at this stage.

Yeah that's a very good point mate and something i've had on my mind, the way I see it is that as we got the term from the Law of One (which i'm leaning on less as time goes by since the whole channeling thing can't be trusted) in the way we refer to it on the forum, it could be that this was the best choice of words that Ra could find to describe it when speaking through Carla.

I'm still not comfortable with the whole "harvest" thing either and i'm pretty sure they also said things would happen around late 2011 which we kind of stretched to 2012 but now it's 2014 and i'm not seeing anything happening in that respect... Solar transition and Earth expansion seem to be the next big thing that's on the horizon and are they referring to this as the ascension/harvest point?! I'm kind of tired thinking about all that. It now seems a bit "Wilcock"! I don't see nature worrying about percentages when it comes to species evolving.

infinity wrote:Why does STO have to imply "servitude" to "masters" that portray fake freedom - why can't it be simply "honor" or "responsibility" in the form of rapport? Why should "STO" have a "master" being served? Why can't it just be "service" as is, and those that want to benefit may do so, those who do not, won't have to. Those that give the service, may choose who to give it to, and who not to. Not giving service to others doesn't imply service to self. It simply implies a passive stance or posture, an unresponsive one

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head with this. Can't we just do as the LM do? I don't hear of them worrying about STS or STO.

daniel wrote:The path of rapport (similar to chi kung) is to eliminate the gateways, remove the chokepoints and obstructions, and allow the "traffic" (bioenergy) to flow the way it WANTS to flow--you assist the intelligent bioenergy of the various complexes of the psyche to get their job done faster and more efficiently, then those complexes have the time to help you out, as well. It is a positive feedback loop. This is what many of the old sages refer to about "letting go of control/ego."

...

Just apply a little common sense to what you hear--if it's based in rivalry, it is disinformation. Remember that rapport does not need artificial borders, it does not need artificial "value" (money), it does not need people to run the lives of other people. The original "agenda" of Enki and the LMs was very simple--the ancient Greeks of Arcadia talked a lot about it in their discourses: it's all about the evolution of consciousness--helping man become all that he can be. That's what you should look for.

My common sense says that STS/STO are in rivalry with each other, I want my bioenergy to go with the flow and continue to help me improve as a person and get into that positive feedback loop and not have to worry about whether i'm serving myself or others when I do things. It's all about the balance. STO/STS seems like a crutch and if the later Law of One channelings aren't to be trusted, and all other channeling is most probably dodgy too, then why trust even the first Law of One book?

To quote Bruce:

The only way you can really understand human life, is to live it.

And Daniel:

Well, because I'm not on the same "timeline" as most of humanity, when I use my intuitive senses I don't see anything coming--because nothing IS coming in that 3D, temporal landscape, from my timeline perspective.

I'm moving away from the STO/STS ascension harvest timeline and living my life, in the best way I can, letting my intuition guide me and directing myself along the path to improvement while attracting what I need into my life and things are going pretty well for me just now I have to say and that's having a positive knock on effect for my family, friends and workmates, even the stranger in the street!

Well that's my chewing the cud on the subject...

Great thread, I notice common opinions also. As if, with consciousness expanding all the old schemas are being peeled away like the layers of an onion. Even the more recent or "current" concepts are under scrutiny.

Djchrismac wrote: I'm moving away from the STO/STS ascension harvest timeline and living my life, in the best way I can, letting my intuition guide me and directing myself along the path to improvement while attracting what I need into my life and things are going pretty well for me just now I have to say and that's having a positive knock on effect for my family, friends and workmates, even the stranger in the street!

Ditto. Couldn't say it better.

Djchrismac wrote:I'm moving away from the STO/STS ascension harvest timeline and living my life, in the best way I can, letting my intuition guide me and directing myself along the path to improvement while attracting what I need into my life and things are going pretty well for me just now I have to say and that's having a positive knock on effect for my family, friends and workmates, even the stranger in the street!

Same here I tend to do things that my intuition suggests me to do and thus stay away from most stressful situations if not all of them, but perhaps some situations lead to another so in that way possible to keep on the "right track".

For my understanding of the STS/STO thing it is not actual servitude, to my understanding its more like service as an lesser of two evils. You do things and things come back at you as it were karma like good and bad things from good and bad karma. However I'm beginning to "believe" that karma doesnt exist in that way unless otherwise created by oneself from consciousness. Its like laws on a nation they are created. If karma doesnt exist in nature then it doesnt actually exist as a natural law like gravity for instance. Karma thing like "if you hurt another you will get hurt by another" is more of an moral thing that if you really do some things them things may come back at you. Maybe it really means that karma exists in our on selves in our consciousness as more of directional tool towards rapport and then again it exists in nature therefore so forget all other above then I like to think and write/talk at the same time it may reveal some new things and stuff, but this may be boring to read sorry for that.

I realize that this is an unpopular opinion on this board, but I have never seen a problem with the STO/STS idea. It just seemed to be a way of categorizing the ways one can interact with the universe or the attitudes one holds while interacting. There are other ways to conceptualize ones attitudes and interactions and they place their emphasis differently but if they have any long lasting value must all touch the same ideas in some form. The way I see it is that the lens of perception in this model is the degree of the primacy of self relative to the rest of the universe.It seems to be expressed as either how can I get the universe to do what I want, or how can I help the universe (or at least interact with it).
I can see the limiting nature of using the word "service" in defining the paths because our normal use of the word does not readily adapt to all the ways one would interact when "serving others" or "serving self". The word choice may be an artifact of the way those who were first communicating the notion to us though. To your main point, I don't see servitude or limitation in it since this is self chosen in the overall category (STO/STS), and especially in the details of how one goes about being STO/STS.
Daniel suggests that these notions end when one enters the "Density of Honor". It seems to me that there notions would remain but are tempered with the wisdom of the limits that these paths have. One still sees fundamentally the universe through the same lens (either what can I get out of it or how can I help) but knows that taking/giving without understanding or balance will bring harm. Perhaps I am mistaken in this thought though, it isn't like I have walked the path far enough to know with certainty.

Keeping in mind that the Law of One distinctly portrays a reciprocal relation ship between the two polarities of action; service to self is service to others and vice versa. A person acting with selfish intentions (STS) creates the environment around him which serves as a catalyst for spiritual growth for others. Our world leaders act extremely selfishly and we see as a result extreme polarization of the serfs to do good in spite of our global predicaments. Alternatively the person who performs selflessly and gives to those around him is likely to turn the karma wheels in their favor in the future, improving your environment improves your life as well.

Also, the being willing to perform a service to others is too commonly taken advantage of, creating a reciprocal karmic catalyst experience for the being who has selfishly taken.

All I can offer is my own personal experience.
Looking back on it now, I must have arranged for me to be tested - STO or STS?
I was asked for a favour by someone I barely knew.
But I knew enough of this person to realise that he was doing something which brought him into conflict with a very powerful Satanic group.
And he needed me to help him out on something.
There was nothing in it for me at all; nothing to be gained whatsoever but there was a helluva lot to be lost because I knew those Satanists were on to me through my connection with this guy.
They had even tried to harm me in a really bad way though they failed to achieve what they wanted to do.
I knew they were observing me and they knew I know of them too.
I had even passed a message to one of them, promising to keep my nose out of their affairs since I have no dog in the race.
Then this man asked me to do him a favour.
There was no-one else who could have done this for him and it was really, really important (but not to me personally).
I agonised over this for a week and asked for advice from a friend who's a Reiki master and also the medium who was running the series of psychic workshops I was attending.
They couldn't help at all.
It was my decision.

What would you have done?

Looking back now, I can see that it was the test of this lifetime.
All the things I had done and gone through were leading up to that test.
I even met 2 very psychic children that weekend who were probably old friends elsewhere - they came to give me moral support.
After I decided and did the deed, I was rewarded with what the author of Matrix V called a rout.
I commend the Matrix V books to you though the author does warn that they are not for everyone.
In one of those books (maybe Book 1), he writes of the rocky road and the smooth one.
It's only by choosing the rocky road that a soul makes the fastest progress.
Most people will stay with the smooth path where they stick with what they know and are familiar and comfortable with.
But those who choose the risky, wild side are on the fast track.
There' s a great leap of faith which many Higher Selves will have to decide whether or not to take when the current Galactic Game ends.
Many have sent incarnations here as a taster of what these Games are like.
Decisions, decisions, decisions.

I spent a lot of time analyzing the Ra / Law of One material; I'm even quoted in Carla's "Wanderer's Handbook." One of the things that became apparent is the difference between Ra's style and Carla's... Carla uses conventional interpretations of words when she writes, but during a channeling session, Ra does not--Ra uses the Medieval Latin meaning of words. Which would make sense, since that's when Ra claims that they were present on Earth. (Even though Egyptian, Latin was the trade language that everyone spoke in order to do business.)

To get an understanding of what Ra meant by "service," just turn to the Latin definition, servus, which translates to "slave or servant." So the terms literally mean, "Slave to Self" or "Slave to Others." Considering that humanity was created to be a slave by those very "gods," it is a sensible conclusion. How may people are a "slave to their passions?" Slave to Self would be ego-centrism, where the needs of the body outweigh the needs of the soul. Slave to Others would be its conjugate; the needs of the soul outweigh the needs of the body.

As in any binary system with two variables, there are actually 4 possibilities:
We have discussed the None and Both concepts on Antiquatis in the past; here are the relevant links if you are interested:
The Law of nOne
A Path that Doesn't Play the Game

The Service to Both path is analogous to the Alchemists search for the balance between the internal masculine (body) and feminine (soul), leading to the hermaphrodite. (In the 17th century, you did not find women on this kind of quest, so it is very male-biased.)

Anyway, that is my "take" based on my study of the Ra Material at L/L Research.