Tunia: “Service to others“
My dearest brothers and sisters,
This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.
There are famous Ra channelings, called the Law of One or the Ra material.
In it, a distinction is made between the "service to self" path and the "service to others" path.
The service to self path basically means being evil, and the service to self path basically means being good. However, it is pointed out that both paths are valid from a high enough perspective. After all, all roads lead back to Source, and ultimately we're reincarnating immortal souls. So the true us isn't being harmed if some service-to-self person harms our lower self.
Now, higher perspectives should not invalidate lower perspectives. So while on one hand it is good to acknowledge that the service to self path is valid, it is also perfectly understandable to not like people who are doing horrendous harm, and want to see them stopped. Both perspectives have merit.
I think all of this makes sense, except that I don't like the term "service to others." And that is the new information I wish to contribute today.
First, "service to others" makes it sound like sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others is the right thing to do. It's really not: putting yourself below others, or assigning less value to yourself than you assign to others, isn't unity consciousness. The proper thing to do is to actually serve yourself a bit (in a non-destructive way) and to serve others a bit. Because after all, you can't give from an empty cup.
And second, it's sort of separation consciousness to label people who aren't you as "others." From a unity consciousness perspective, those so-called others are in fact a part of you. They're not really other.
So personally I would name the good path as the "service to all" path, because then the self is included. And the evil path is still the "service to self" path.
Or alternatively, one could call the good path the "unity" path and call the evil path the "separation" path. And walking those paths reinforce either unity consciousness or separation consciousness.
This reflects that good people often see others as part of themselves to a degree, and so are motivated to help them in the same way that you are motivated to help your own arm if it is wounded. So a person on the "unity" path might help others just because those others are part of them. And that is perfectly fine.
Meanwhile evil people often see themselves as completely separate from others, which means that harming others isn't a big deal, and furthermore you can't rely on others which means that you are the only one who can make sure that you are okay. Hence stepping over other people to get what you want is the proper thing to do.
Another benefit is that this correctly indicates that the separation path is actually harder and more painful in the medium term than the unity path is.
So in summary: I personally prefer talking about either "service to all" versus "service to self", or talking about the "unity" path versus the "separation" path.
What do you think? Or do you have suggestions for other names? Feel free to leave comments. I would love to read your thoughts.
With all my love,
Your star sister,
Tunia
Note by the channeler: the Youtube voice actress for Tunia, Kim Seacord, has recently passed away. My condolences to her family. Thank you, Kim, for your diligent work, for your clear recordings, for your optimism, for your service and for your bright soul.
If you want to meet like-minded Earth humans, please see https://eraoflight.com/2024/06/19/hakann-local-meetings-for-those-seeking-first-contact-with-benevolent-ets/
If you want to learn about a useful healing modality, please see https://channelings.substack.com/p/hakann-onion-healing
I think for normal people, "service to all" is a good alternative wording, and its corresponding explanation is a very valuable analysis or supplement to the past wording.
I think if we analyze it further, we may involve three levels of statements like "service to all", "service to part" and "service to self", although "service to all" and "service to self" can also be understood as two directions. Because there seems to be a lack of transition between "service to all" and "service to self", which leads to a lack of transition between good and evil based on this definition. It sounds like if a person does not "service to all" roundly well, then he is "service to self", which means he is evil and has big problems. Or, a person only serves one or a few people very selflessly, and may use some ways that are harmful to society, but literally speaking, this person is almost not "service to self" at all, but "service to others". Of course there are also conventional transitional situations, such as some people may focus on serving their own families and treat family members selflessly; while some people may be more kind, and focus on serving the entire village or community; and some people may have a larger scope, including the entire country, for an isolated civilization, that may technically be equivalent to "service to 15%"; and a person may have different levels of service and identification for different scopes. If a person is "service to 99%", it often means that this person is driven by universal love, but also has some inappropriate prejudice against individual small groups.
I feel "unity" and "separation" can be understood as two directions, but I may be more inclined to understand them as how much percentage of a person's power to influence the environment is used to promote cooperation or harmony among entities or groups in the environment, and how much percentage is used to promote differentiation or disharmony among entities or groups in the environment. In this way, the "service to" system and the "unity/separation" system can be combined to describe a person's polarity, it's a bit like, the former describes how much area the person's sympathy covers, and the latter describes how many thorns, suckers, or fuzz extend outward from the boundary of this area. In this way, a person who cares a lot about the entire country but is more racist or militaristic, may have a similar overall score of good and evil as a person who only cares about his own circle of acquaintances, but is more moderate in diplomatic attitude.
On the other hand, the "service to" system may feel more comfortable after adding transitions, and it may also strengthen the comparison mentality. From a simple point of view, it seems that "service to all" is better than "service to part", "service to part" is better than "service to self", or good is necessarily better than evil, just like getting $80 is better than getting $20, but I want to say that this is not an unconditional and inevitable judgment. In a more complex analysis, a behavior or a role that harms others may service to all appropriately, because most people may want to occasionally experience thrilling or painful challenges or accidents, or at least potential threats, and want to occasionally experience playing tricks on others or bullying others from a superior position, or at least some potential threat advantages, etc. So from this perspective, although it's technically feasible to simply evaluate the goodness or badness of a behavior, a mentality, or even a person, it seems to have little meaning. Just like simply evaluating whether a handful of chili powder is delicious or not, the result is of course not delicious, so what? Should all chili powder be replaced with sugar? Because sugar tastes better? In fact, by adding them appropriately, they all make a banquet or food tour more successful, which is similar to better serving the soul or the source. So from this perspective, it can be expressed that higher perspectives should not simply invalidate lower perspectives, good should not simply invalidate evil, and criticism of evil deeds or evil people should not be absolute. So it may be inappropriate to stand in the good camp and haughtily and insultingly punish the evil people, but according to this theory, it may also be appropriate, because it's also an attractive or valuable experience under certain conditions.