STO VS STS

[undistinguished]

Hey, I did a brief search on the forum, and couldn't find a dedicated thread about this subject (???). If it already exists, delete this post! I'll post this here as a question for the C's, because I'm having some difficulty understanding exactly what is STO and what is STS, and maybe in some future session you could ask the C's to clarify it more, or do some back and forth with them? It's a subject that has been discussed quite a lot already, but I still don't exactly understand this.

What is STS and what is STO? Sounds simple enough, but...

What makes this difficult for me grasp, is that, in the end we humans are all "hardwired" STS... I'd like to think of myself a STO candidate, and I feel like I'm on the edge of making the decision, but the decision making requires me to understand the STO first, which is the hard part. I'm trying to reason different takes on the subject, but I always find STS-wants and STS-needs and STS-motivations in the background. What I have gathered so far, is that STO is the natural path, and in the end you just kind of end up being STO. Every struggle trying to become STO seems to have STS elements in it.

In the past C's have also talked a lot that there is no "good" or "evil" in the higher planes, and that goes for STS vs STO too. It's about perspective. I used to think of STS as the "bad guys", but I'm second guessing myself now. Let's have an example, where someone walks in the mountains and sees a beautiful sunset. He/She appreaciates the beauty of the scenery of the evening sun. This seems innocent, but it's STS. The person is not helping anyone, but only enjoying him/herself, and feeling good feelings and such about the sunset scenery. Is this really that bad? Is it evil to enjoy the beautiful nature? No, I'd say it's not evil, even though it is STS behaviour. Or is it? Is enjoying nature STS or STO? This is not an easy subject for me. You could also argue, that enjoying nature is paying the respects for the one who created it, and that would make it STO?

If not a question for the C's, maybe someone could join the discussion here to brainstorm about the terms STO and STS, their differences, similarities etc.

I've also heard plenty of times, that "you should heal yourself before helping others"... Is this statement something of a value? Can we help others if we don't know how to help ourselves first? Again, this is STS, but it has STO motivation in the background.

These terms are elusive. STO VS STS. Thoughts? Is it black and white?

 

[Claus]

Hi @undistinguished, you may want to read the wave series first, you will be surprised how much knoledge you will gain, if you do so and your question will be answered too ;)

Edit: Grammar

 

[undistinguished]

Hi @undistinguished, you may want to read the wave series first, you will be surprised how much knoledge you will gain, if you do so and your question will be answered too ;)

Edit: Grammar

Yes, thanks for the recommendation, but I have read it twice already! At the moment I'm going through the raw transcripts for the second time. It's a quite difficult text, so I'm gaining more insight as I'm re-reading the texts. Still, I don't understand everything, and was hoping for a discussion.

I guess I'd like to know more about "what is the STO way of doing things". Since there always seems to be more than one answer. Let's have a simple everyday situation like this:

I am person A riding my bike. I'm approaching a crossroads, and there's a person B driving his car from a 90 degree angle. As we come closer the intersect, we both notice each other and slow down. Now what is the STO way to do things? I'm person A with bike, so do I
A) Stop, and let the car go first, or
B) Don't stop, and go first myself.

Obvious answer is, that I stop and let the car go first. This is the kind "STO" way, right?

But if I don't slow down and just continue riding... Doing this I create a situation, where I let the cardriver be "the good guy who stops and lets me cross first". So... Which one is the correct approach? Should I be kind and let the other person go first, or should I play the bad guy here, and let the other person do the good deed of stopping?

STO VS STS is not a clear concept for me just yet... Maybe there's always more than 1 side to things.

 

[undistinguished]

^ I'm so new writer here that I can't edit my posts. But to correct the above example of crossroads... Yeah, me going first is not STO, because here I force the driver to stop violating his free will. So let's say, that we both slow down at the intersection to a complete halt, and we're just waiting now for the other one to go first.

 

[EmeraldR]

this may be useful -well worth going through

Thread 'Characteristics of STS or STO Candidate'

Aug 3, 2022

We are living in this STS planet, but gather here and learning to be become STO beings and thus self proclaimed to be STO candidate.
So, I gather some of informations about different characters that STS or STO displays or shows from inner make-up.
Appreciate if someone else have more information to share.

STS Candidate Characters,

A: Wishes are strictly STS.

Q: (L) So, acceptance of experience in the sense of just allowing things to happen and responding in a balanced and helpful way is an STO response or experience in 4th density, is that correct?

A: Close.

Q...

• Kay Kim
• Replies: 21
• Forum: The Work

• 
• 

 

[Arwenn]

Hi @undistinguished, here is the excerpt from Cass wiki (the PDF can be downloaded here) on the topic of STO vs STS (p 563-566):

Service to others and service to self
The concepts of service to others (STO) and service to self (STS) are the central cornerstone of the teaching of first Ra and then the Cassiopaeans. We find these same fundamentals expressed in different terms throughout esoteric culture. The fundamental nature and extreme breadth of these concepts makes them difficult to define since these are in one way or another reflected in all things.

Ra said that at the human level, speaking of STO vs. STS was the most appropriate terminology because humans tend to think in terms of action and its ethical basis. The concepts of absorption for STS and radiance for STO could also be used as a metaphor. At any rate, the principles are beyond words.

Cosmologically, the Cassiopaeans speak of ’dual emergence’ from the One. This is the source of all which is and this is where the first duality comes into being. The principle of free will, at its various levels of manifestation, mediates between these. This can be compared to George Gurdjieff’s first triad, the Sun Absolute dividing into three at the start of the ray of creation. In the most abstract sense, the existence of two dissimilar forces or tendencies plus free will is the simplest basis for an open universe. All the forms of creation follow from these, through a series of increasingly restricted or mechanical levels of being. These levels correspond to the densities of Ra and the Cassiopaeans or the cosmoses of the Fourth Way.

Depending on the context, the STO/STS duality manifests differently. Specific aspects of this duality are described in a number of other articles. Below is a list of different dualities and how they can be seen in relation to STO and STS. A comprehensive description is impossible at our level and we will need to have recourse to allegory.

• Spirit vs. matter. STS beings worship the physical universe [C’s]. We could say that all is consciousness but a full half of the consciousness is asleep, in the form of matter. The second half then uses this as a canvas or material for creation. Pure STS cannot exist without some form of materiality, hence does not occur past fourth density.[C’s]
• Creation vs. entropy. Creation is multiplicity of forms, entropy is sameness or homogeneity. STS preoccupation with control is in the end entropic.
• Being vs. non-being. See Being vs. non-being.
• Dispersion vs. collection of gravity. According to the Cassiopaeans, gravity is the fabric that ties all existence together, across all densities. Dispersing gravity corresponds to STO, collecting gravity to STS. This leads to a black hole being the physical representation of the idea of STS, as the C’s put it. Light is the energy expression of gravity, in this sense radiance and the trapping of light inside the black hole allegorically correspond to STO/STS.
• Balance vs. imbalance. C’s: :STO is balance because you serve self through [serving] others.
[...] STO is balance. STS is imbalance. [...] STO flows outward and touches all including point of origin, STS flows inward and touches only origin point.’
The last item above explains why the terms are sometimes defined as service to self through serving others (STO) or serving others through serving the self (STS). Or as Ra puts it, worshiping God in self or worshiping God in creation – all service is thus of the One in the end.
• Light vs. darkness. The darkness is the backdrop into which the light shines. Both are necessary for defining each other. See Gravity.
• Radiance vs. absorption. STS corresponds to absorbing or concentrating energy. STO corresponds to radiating energy outward.
• Freedom vs. control. STS is concerned with control over all aspects of self and others. STS also believes that by imposing its laws it is helping the universe to return to the One, thus it thinks its action is a service to others. STO sees creation as inherently limitless and is not concerned with determining what is ’good’ for another.
• Expansion vs. contraction - Exploring possibilities corresponds to STO, imposing limits on others to STS.
• Network vs. hierarchy - In terms of social organization, STS naturally tends towards the hierarchy with internal competition for resources and power. STO tends towards sharing and passing around that which is received. See Networking and Service to self hierarchy.
• Giving vs. Taking. According to the C’s, an ”enlightened” (meaning ”smart”) being can be either STS or STO. An enlightened STO being only gives, while an enlightened STS being only takes. The C’s have also commented as follows regarding the taking/consuming/eating that defines STS: STS does not eat according to protocol. It takes if it is capable. STO gives all to those who ask. See All to those who ask regarding this latter remark.
• Objectivity vs. subjectivity. Wishful thinking is the hallmark of STS. They only see what they want to see. [C’s] See Objectivity and Subjectivity regarding this aspect of STO/STS duality and mentality.
• Good vs. evil. In human ethical terms, what is generally considered evil most often corre- sponds to STS. The terms are however laden with a baggage of subjectivity and what is good for one can be bad for another, thus these can easily be misleading. The polarization to either STO or STS cannot be reduced to an external code of ethics only. The Law of Three must be taken into account: there is good, there is evil, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

From a cosmic standpoint, both polarities are necessary. This does not however mean that these can be effectively reconciled at the human level. Thus the cosmic call on the human is to choose one or the other.

Gurdjieff discusses STO and STS in Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson as follows:
“If the notions recorded on this Boolmarshano were put into ordinary language, they
could be stated in the following words:

“’Evidently we men, also like all the existing units of the World, are formed and always consist of the same three independent forces, by means of which the process of reciprocal maintenance of everything existing proceeds; namely, of the following three independent World forces:

”’The first of these forces constantly arises from the causes which proceed in the Prime Source itself and from the pressure of the newly arisen, and issuing from it by momentum flows out of that Prime Source.

”’The second World force is what this first force be- comes, when, after having spent the momentum which it has received, it strives to re-blend with the source of its arising, according to the fundamental World law called ”The effects of a cause must always re-enter the cause.”

”’Both of these forces in the general process of reciprocally maintaining forces are en- tirely independent, and in their manifestations have always and in everything their own properties and particularities.

”’The first of these two fundamental forces, namely, that one which for compelling reasons always manifests outside the source of its arising, must constantly involve; and the second one, on the contrary, striving to blend with the cause of its arising, must always and in everything evolve.

”’Owing to the fact that the first of the mentioned three independent forces arises from vivifying actions proceeding in the very foundation of the cause of everything existing and thus receives in its presence the germ of the possibility of manifesting vivifyingness, it may be considered as ”Good,” that is, as a factor for the actualizing of the backward-flowing effects which in relation to this first force can and must be considered as ”Evil.”

”I Moreover, the first of these forces, which is manifested from inevitable and compelling causes arising in the Prime Source itself, can from this point of view be considered as passive. And the second backward-flowing force, because it must constantly resist in order to have the possibility of penetrating backward or at least the possibility of with- standing the opposite-flowing first passive force which has received its momentum from the Prime Source causes, must be regarded as active. ”And as for the third independent World force, this force is nothing else but only the result of the clash everywhere and in everything of these two fundamental descending and ascending independent forces.

”’Although this third independent force is only the result of both first fundamental forces, it is nevertheless the spiritualizing and reconciling source of every World forma- tion. ”’And it is the spiritualizing source of every World formation because it arises and must exist in them as a presence all the time while the given results exist which arise from various unusual mutual resistances occurring between the said two fundamental forces flowing in entirely opposite directions.’ ”And so, my boy, it was in this sense and in this meaning that the words ’Good’ and ’Evil’ were first used by this unfortunate Makary Kronbernkzion.”

There is also this article on Cassiopaea website written by Laura:
Stalking or Précis on The Good and The Evil

 

[Jones]

Hi undistinguished, there is also this page for searching the transcripts if that's of any help.

 

[Wandering Star]

Should I be kind and let the other person go first, or should I play the bad guy here, and let the other person do the good deed of stopping?

September 19, 1998

Q: How does it come that you are taking energy from someone by giving them love when not asked?

A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.

.......................................................................

With what they have suggested to you in the previous posts to read, everything is pretty much covered.

 

[furryfrog]

This might help also.

STO/STS | Northern Orthodox Church

northernorthodox.com

More STO symbols:

Hindu Ashtanga Yantra

 

[Alejo]

Obvious answer is, that I stop and let the car go first. This is the kind "STO" way, right?

It would depend on your motivations, much like the enjoying of nature in the forrest, the motivation that determines the orientation of the choice.

It reminded me of a session with a similar discussion.

A: It is simply the introduction of the concept of self-gratification of a physical sort.

Q: On many occasions you have said that the ideal thing is to have perfect balance of physicality and ethereality. This has been said on a number of occasions. Now, I don't understand how it can be that gratification of a physical body can be the mechanics by which one is entrapped? Is it not gratifying to look at something beautiful? Is it wrong, sinful, or a form of a fall, to look at beauty, to hear something beautiful such as music, or to touch something that is sensually delightful such as a piece of silk or the skin of a loved one? These various things that the human being derives pleasure from very often elevate them to a spiritual state.

A: Possession is the key.

Q: What do you mean?

A: In STS, you possess.

Q: That's what I am saying here...

A: If you move through the beautiful flowers, the silk, the skin of another, but do not seek to possess...

Q: It seems to me that it is possible to experience all of these things, including sex, without the need or desire to possess; only to give. In which case, I still don't understand how it can be a mechanism for a 'fall.'

A: If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to give. Do you eat a piece of chocolate cake because it is good to give to the stomach?

Q: Well, you could!

A: No, in STS, which is your realm do not forget, one gives because of the pleasant sensation which results.

Q: Could it not be said that, if everything that exists is part of God, including the flesh, that if one gives to the flesh, without being attached to the giving, that it could be considered a giving to the 'All?'

A: Explain the process.

Q: For example: there are some people who like to suffer, because they believe that the flesh is sinful. That is a big thing that the Lizzies have instituted. For centuries they have wanted people to suffer, and they have made this big deal about sex and anything that might be considered pleasant or desirable should be denied, and that a person should suffer, and revel in their suffering. And, actually, making a person...

A: If one seeks to suffer, they do so in expectation of future reward. They desire to possess something in the end.

Q: What I am saying is: if a person can simply BE, in the doing and being of who and what they are, in simplicity; to become involved in doing everything as a meditation, or as a consecration, whether they are walking down the street and being at one with the air, the sunshine, the birds and trees and other people; in this state of oneness, doesn't that constitute a giving to the universe as giving oneself up as a channel for the universe to experience all these things?

A: Not if one is "feeling this oneness."

Q: We are what we are. Nature is nature. Progression is progression. And if people would just relax and be who and what they are in honesty, and do what is according to their nature without violating the Free Will of others, that this is a more pure form of being than doing things out of any feeling of expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want... just BE?

A: Yes, but STS does not do that.

Q: (A) From which I draw conclusions: if there STS around us, we cannot just...

A: You are all STS. If you were not, you would not be where you are.

Q: (A) There are those who are happy in the STS mode; and there are those who are trying to get out of the STS mode...

A: STO candidate.

 

[undistinguished]

Hmm, I think the answer is the level of awereness. Sometimes STS behaviour is STO behaviour, depending on perspective.
Imagine two 3D STO -beings standing at the doorway. Both of them are saying "please, go ahead, you go first." "No, You go first" "No, I insist, please go ahead!" Etc.

This situation is not solvable with just Service to Others behaviour. One of them has to _downgrade_ themselves momentarily and be the selfish one to just go first. And doing so, the selfish STS behaviour becomes actually STO resolving the status quo. Right? "Let me take the Hit here and be the selfish guy, so we can both move through the doorway."

Also, every action has 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D and 7D elements to it... It's just the level of awareness of the one doing the action. I think that most of the 3D STS are not realizing, that their 3D STS actions can be considered STO actions too, if you look at it from 6D.
3D STS beings are showing us the aspects of life, which can't be learned from the STO standpoint... They (we) might act egoistically etc, but if they were aware, that they are doing us a favor by doing this... They are "sacrificing" their own potential growth in order to show us STO candidates the other way of doing things. Of course everyone here is still STS...

In the 6D where me and you doesn't exist anymore, it's impossible to be STS anymore. Being "selfish" in 6D is the same as being STO, because at that level Me and You are the same thing, right?

 

[fifty_five]

Cognitive dissonance is a valuable input for understanding the dynamics of this realm, and thus for cultivation. The important thing ihmo is not to underestimate neutralization strategies, and do the Work

 

[Wandering Star]

Imagine two 3D STO -beings standing at the doorway. Both of them are saying "please, go ahead, you go first." "No, You go first" "No, I insist, please go ahead!" Etc.

Perhaps two beings of service to others will, in a nanosecond, assess the situation in terms of efficiency and profit for all, in addition to a scrupulous respect for free will.

So no one says anything, just the person closest to the door opens it for everyone to come in and nothing else.

Who knows.

 

[undistinguished]

Perhaps two beings of service to others will, in a nanosecond, assess the situation in terms of efficiency and profit for all, in addition to a scrupulous respect for free will.

So no one says anything, just the person closest to the door opens it for everyone to come in and nothing else.

Who knows.

Yeah, that's probably how it goes in "real life". That was just a theoretical example...

I'm still getting frustrated about this STS / STO thing... I wish there was an easy explanation, because it's such a core concept for cassiopaea and similar material. At some level every action is STO (if you look at it from 6D perspective), even though it might seem STS on these lower levels...

And humans aren't exactly the easiest co-existers to convince me to be pure STO either. Because all of us are evil STS's here... I mean there are a lot of good people out there, and it's easier to be helpful to them, but how do I differentiate who is deserving my help and who is not? Should I help the most evil manipulative jerks just the same? How do I help them? If a murderer asks for my help, should I help him, and how? Is saying "you shouldn't kill innocent people" considered helping here? It's kind of mean to tell someone that the way they live is wrong, but if the intention is to help, then I guess it's a good thing? Like telling a body-positive morbidly obese person that "No, you are not beautiful, you are fat." That is mean, but true.

I will probably never fully understand the STS vs STO, because it goes D _ E _ E _ P.

It's also about balance, I think, helping others but not forgetting that you yourself are also "others"... So martyring yourself for the sake of others is not the way?

I don't know. It's such an endless sea to try to understand this... Such a simple thing, but also no...

 

[Wandering Star]

I don't know. It's such an endless sea to try to understand this... Such a simple thing, but also no...

It's very simple.

It is very difficult.

Being yourself is that.

Are we going to make a mistake?

Yes.

Perhaps a genuine clue is that when you have really helped someone, we do not feel good and they even attack us.

STS stock feels good, it's enjoyable.

There's a thread here about the biblical phrase "a thorn in the flesh" (I think it was something like that).