Posted in

Contrarily to what we have learned, Forgiveness is not an act of Love, but an act of arrogance. During the time Jesus lived, he couldn’t preach this message because it was not the time for the people to understand this concept; he couldn’t speak about Ego and the roles of ego either because unfortunately the people of that time were not ready to receive these teachings. They would have distorted the messages. Now is the time! Since “there is a time for each revelation”

Medium: Jorge Raul Olguin.

Entity that came to dialogue: Master Ruanel.
Interlocutor: Master Can I ask you a question?
Ruanel: Sure, but it must be short
Interlocutor: Actually I have two questions one of them is related to the concept of Forgiveness, I’ll read the summary I have for the record and you will tell me if it is correct:
FORGIVENESS: Dict. Act of excusing a mistake or offense, end of blame, absolving the debt, offense, fault, crime or another thing that offends. ¦ Absolution of a well-deserved punishment ¦ Grupo Elron. Act of arrogance that comes from ego in which a person who considers he has been offended, in an ostentatiously expression of magnanimity absolves the alleged offender.
Pardon implies offense, to forgive a person means that one must be offended first, but nobody has the power to offend anybody unless one gives that power to the other person. Paradoxically forgiveness should never fall back on the person that allegedly offends us, but in oneself because oneself has given space fatuously to that offense. Each one of us create our own state of mind: "Men are not disturbed by things, but for the interpretation made about them". The offender, therefore, is always oneself: They offended you because you offended yourself. As a result when somebody forgives an offense, the only thing he or she is doing is unbind the responsibility that belongs to oneself and transfer it to the other.
Ruanel: The definition is correct because one forgives from one’s ego.
Interlocutor: So, contrarily to what everybody believes, forgiveness is an act of arrogance?
Ruanel: Forgiveness is not an act of Love, but an act of arrogance, I ratify it. And there are people that take forgiveness above Love. That is to say, it is as if I put Ego above Love.
Interlocutor: It has always been said that one forgives from the heart.
Ruanel: I repeat it, so that there is no doubt: One forgives from one’s ego. The heart doesn't forgive because it has to blame first and the heart doesn't blame.
I will be clear and concise on this matter, as you already know that I am: The heart doesn't blame; then, if there is no fault, there is no forgiveness. Therefore, the heart won't forgive what it has not blamed. Saying that one forgives from the heart, it is a total fallacy!
Interlocutor: The concept is perfectly clear. What attracts my attention is that a lot of people ask me questions that are obvious for me. For example, the definition of forgiveness they have not understood it completely.
Ruanel: Those people have mistaken information and for that reason they question. My brother Rah, from Antares IV always mentions as an example the communicating vessels. In elementary physics, if you have a liter of water in a container and you want to transfer it to another that has less capacity, you won't be able to do it because it will overflow.
Apply this example to these people, if they have their causal body full of concepts, they won't be able to put other concepts if they don't empty it first.
People that question the definition of pardon start from a fallacy that has its origin in erroneous information.
From the causal body one doesn’t blame. It is as if you told me that a Master of Light judges or condemns. A Spirit of Light doesn’t judge. Then, if he doesn’t condemn he cannot forgive.
I am speaking from the juridical point of view that you know well. If I don’t condemn, I don’t absolve either. If I don't blame, I don’t forgive. Absolution is forgiveness. Then, How will I forgive to whom I have not blamed?
Interlocutor: It is clear.
Ruanel: Well. And from which field can you blame?
Interlocutor: As you said it, only from the field of EGO.
Ruanel: Correct, only from the EGO! One plus one equals two. There is no one plus one equals four.
Interlocutor: What perplex me is that many people don't wait to know thoroughly our material, which is definitely the teachings of the Masters of Light, but rather they directly have an opinion from the small data they have. And obviously they misinterpret and hold mistaken opinions.
Ruanel: It is very difficult to introduce in the mind of people new concepts. Remember the example of the communicating vessels. First you have to empty the vessels before being able to transfer new content. Keep in mind that the new paradigms were always combated. Always!
It happened with Leonardo Da Vinci, with Galileo, with Giordano Bruno. And it will keep happening.
Remember to Simon Newcomb who said that a machine heavier than the air could never fly, imagine what he would say if he saw airplanes, rockets and satellites now. What would he think?
Interlocutor: Surely that they are work of heretics.
Ruanel: Exactly!
Interlocutor: Moving on to another topic, some days ago I incorporated in the Technical Dictionary of Psychointegration the word "Anger" that I extracted from the Technical Dictionary of Scientology. Here you say “Anger is simply the process of trying to hold everything still.” I don't understand it completely.
Ruanel: The person who is angry doesn't allow that anybody changes anything he has. There are several types of anger. The visible anger and the subtle anger, where a person, by sheer whim, doesn't allow another person to change a concept or idea.
The word "whim" which is used in the physical plane, is another root of Ego. Then, Anger is part of Ego: “Don't touch this, leave it as it is” It is a childish whim.
Interlocutor: And antagonism?
Ruanel: Anger has nothing to do with antagonism. People confuse Anger with Antagonism, but they are two different things. Antagonism is when you rebuke to the other. Anger, on the other hand, locks you up and it doesn't allow that anything changes.
Interlocutor: Now I see it clear.
Ruanel: “Leave my idea as it is” This is anger. Antagonism is when you overturn yourself negatively to the other that is to say, facing him. You don’t isolate it like in the case of anger. Most of the people confuse both things, taking antagonism as anger. The discharge of anger is antagonism, not anger.
The person that forgives is because he or she prejudged before… For example, if somebody tries to hurt me and I understand his limitations and I don’t prejudge him. What would I forgive If I don’t have anything to forgive? During the time Jesus was embodied maybe the people would not have understood the complete concept of forgiveness.
It’s easy to understand that pedantic and arrogant people get offended easily, it’s because they have EGO. People with low self-esteem and complex of inferiority get offended easily as well because they have EGO too. If they had their ego integrated, no insult, no aggression, no offense would harm them. Therefore, they wouldn’t have anything to forgive.
The Masters of Light don’t have ego because they think about the others, they live to serve others, and they don’t need anything, therefore nobody can offend them since they don’t prejudge either.
For example: A couple is quarreling about something, one of them –the one who has stronger character- says: “This time I’ll let you live, I’ll forgive you” That’s sheer pedantry!!
Another example: A young man is quarreling with another and he says: “Leave! before I change my mind, this time I’ll forgive you, you should thank me” That’s sheer arrogance!!
Finally, if Ego is the one that is offended. Why should I forgive an offense? Who has the power to offend me?
Jorge Olguin

This entry was posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 and is filed under .
Blogger Templates