School boy saves elderly man

[Tigersoap]

Mark O'Dwyer owes his life to a 14-year-old punk rocker and an edgy television science program.

The 54-year-old was waiting at Lisarow train station on the Central Coast at 2.45pm on October 19 when he fainted and toppled two metres from the platform onto the tracks below, as a freight train bore down on the station.

Julian Shaw, who is 180 centimetres tall and weighs 70 kilograms, was travelling home from school with classmates when he saw Mr O'Dwyer, who is 187 centimetres tall and weighs 110 kilograms, fall. Julian leapt into action.

"I jumped down on to the tracks, lifted him off the ground and put him on my shoulder - he was heavy but there was enough adrenaline rushing through to help me," said Julian, who is in year 9 at Lisarow High School and plays guitar in punk rock band Checkered Fist.

With the train "just a couple of metres away", Julian moved the North Gosford resident to the edge of the track and rolled him under the platform.

But danger was not totally averted.

"[As the train roared past] the noise pierced your ears and there was a suction that pulled us in," Julian said.

"I'd seen that on MythBusters, so I stayed right back and pulled Mark back towards me."

The train eventually passed safely, and the pair chatted until ambulance officers arrived.

"What an amazing young man," said Mr O'Dwyer, recovering at home with a back injury, three fractured ribs, a fractured shoulder, damaged knee and general bruising.

"What he did was amazing. He took it upon himself and saved my life.

"I was very emotional [afterwards], I gave him a hug and thanked him for saving my life."

Mr O'Dwyer said teenagers usually did not get much positive publicity, but it was important to "highlight when someone of this age group stands up and does what Julian's done".

"I had my girlfriend make him a medallion recognising his bravery, humanity, and what he did," he said.

The Department of Education has also sent Julian a formal letter of commendation.

Julian has already written a song about the incident for his band, featuring the chorus "I saved your soul".

He couldn't explain what spurred him to help Mr O'Dwyer - a stranger - despite the danger to himself.

"It was scary [but] I probably would have felt heaps bad if I didn't jump in," he said.

"Everyone at school knows about it - kids are buying me ice-blocks and hamburgers."

Julian's proud mother, Rachel, said the public reaction to Julian's brave deed had surprised her.

"A lot of people have called up saying 'I don't think I could've done what he did,' " she said.

Source :_http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/julians-mythbuster-moment/2007/11/08/1194329387281.html


I think this is a good story, not only because the Boy saved the man but also because it shows how someone can DO something, right there because that's the only good thing to do even faced with an imminent danger.

That cheered me up.

 

[QueenVee]

I'd say the young man is definitely an STO-candidate. What a great story to balance out all of the news about psychopathic behaviour. Thanks so much for posting it.

 

[Stevie]

Yup totally agree, thanks for posting this wonderful story. So good to see that some people have a conscience amongst a world of lies.

Perhaps courageous acts like this occur every day, but don't often get reported that much. Maybe they don't sit well with the scare mongering stories of Terrorists and folks trying to steal our freedom?

S.


p.s I wouldn't say 54 years old is that elderly lol ;)

 

[Craig]

I'd say the young man is definitely an STO-candidate. What a great story to balance out all of the news about psychopathic behaviour. Thanks so much for posting it.

Is saving somebody from dying an act of service? Isn't it determining the needs of another and denying them free will and their lessons? Was the boy simply running an instinctive or egoistic program all about survival of the species, or wanting to be seen as a hero? Maybe he just didn't want to see the elderly man killed because it might cause him to suffer! How selfish is that?! So many important questions and perspectives to think about in this world of deception, self-aggrandizement and where things are rarely what they seem.

 

[QueenVee]

Is saving somebody from dying an act of service? Isn't it determining the needs of another and denying them free will and their lessons? Was the boy simply running an instinctive or egoistic program all about survival of the species, or wanting to be seen as a hero? Maybe he just didn't want to see the elderly man killed because it might cause him to suffer! How selfish is that?! So many important questions and perspectives to think about in this world of deception, self-aggrandizement and where things are rarely what they seem.

Well, as you say, the STO-quality of an act is laregely determined by the motivation of the person performing the act. From the description of the act in question, the split-second decision involved, and the comments of the young man as well as the man he rescued, I see nothing that suggests that the boy was influenced by anything other than altruism. And until such time as information to the contrary arises, I shall continue to think of the young man as an admirable STO-candidate. Not that it matters one way or another, for in the larger scheme of things I actually have no say whatsoever in judging/determining such matters.

Somewhere I recall someone asking the C's whether it is "determining the needs of another" to "rescue" a starving child in Africa, because after all that might be where their lesson lies. The C's replied that when faced with someone who is starving to death, the proper STO response is ALWAYS to feed that person, regardless of what that person's lessons might be. I would suggest that the same is true in a situation where someone is facing a life-threatening situation; regardless of whether that person was "meant" to die, or not, the STO response is to help them.

Interesting question: Can one do a "good deed" that genuinely benefits another person, even if the motivation for performing that deed is largely selfish?

 

[anart]

Somewhere I recall someone asking the C's whether it is "determining the needs of another" to "rescue" a starving child in Africa, because after all that might be where their lesson lies. The C's replied that when faced with someone who is starving to death, the proper STO response is ALWAYS to feed that person, regardless of what that person's lessons might be.

I don't recall this, actually - could you reference the session in which they said this? I'm just curious, because I certainly could have, and very well may have, missed it - I don't have all the sessions memorized by any means. It may also be that this is how you interpreted what they said - not that I disagree with feeding starving children - it's just that the devil is in the details and if one utilizes unlimited thinking, it very well may be interfering - or determining the needs of another.

In this case, it is, of course, impossible to determine exactly what dynamic was at play. There could have been a karmic connection between these two individuals, or it could have been some sort of 'divine intervention' that prompted this young man to help. It seems as though it was an instantaneous reaction on his part, so it may have not been 'divine intervention' so much as a mechanical reaction that interfered with an 'exit point' for the man who fell. With the information at hand, it's rather impossible to know for sure.

Interesting question: Can one do a "good deed" that genuinely benefits another person, even if the motivation for performing that deed is largely selfish?

Absolutely, one can do such a thing - but it is still STS. STS actions can benefit others, but if the motivation, if the intent, if the ultimate point is to make oneself feel good, it is still STS.

 

[Kesdjan]

Is saving somebody from dying an act of service? Isn't it determining the needs of another and denying them free will and their lessons? Was the boy simply running an instinctive or egoistic program all about survival of the species, or wanting to be seen as a hero? Maybe he just didn't want to see the elderly man killed because it might cause him to suffer! How selfish is that?! So many important questions and perspectives to think about in this world of deception, self-aggrandizement and where things are rarely what they seem.

Julian has already written a song about the incident for his band, featuring the chorus "I saved your soul".

How humble of him...

 

[QueenVee]

Somewhere I recall someone asking the C's whether it is "determining the needs of another" to "rescue" a starving child in Africa, because after all that might be where their lesson lies. The C's replied that when faced with someone who is starving to death, the proper STO response is ALWAYS to feed that person, regardless of what that person's lessons might be.

I don't recall this, actually - could you reference the session in which they said this?

I went searching for it, and couldn't figure out WHY I couldn't seem to locate it. Then I remembered that the information I had in mind was actually given in the "Ra" material (precursor to the Cassiopaea material). MY MISTAKE, AND MY APOLOGY! I shall always use direct quotes in future, rather than relying on my memory.

Nonetheless, I feel that it is still valid in terms of how it relates to the subject of this thread, and I don't believe it contradicts the Cassiopaea material (other than the way the term "Fifth Density" is used, which the C's have pointed out is an error in the Ra material).

Here is the direct quote:

Exerpt from "Ra: The Law of One"
(Link to source, click HERE)

Questioner: ...Many entities here feel great compassion for relieving the physical problems of third-density other-selves by administering to them in many ways, with food if there is hunger as there is now in the African nations, by bringing them medicine if they feel that there is a need to minister to them medically, and being selfless in all of these services to a very great extent. This is creating a vibration that is in harmony with green-ray or fourth-density but it is not balanced with the understanding of fifth-density that these entities are experiencing catalysts and a more balanced administration to their needs would be to provide them with the learning necessary to reach the state of awareness of fourth-density than it would be to minister to their physical needs at this time. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this. On the other hand, however, you are correct in your assumption that the green ray response is not as refined as that which has been imbued with wisdom. This wisdom enables the entity to appreciate its contributions to the planetary consciousness by the quality of its being without regard to activity or behavior which expects results upon visible planes.... Your previous assumption was correct as to the catalytic action of this starvation and ill health. However, it is within the free will of an entity to respond to this plight of otherselves, and the offering of the needed foodstuffs and substances is an appropriate response within the framework of your learn/teachings at this time which involve the growing sense of love for and service to other-selves....

 

[anart]

"Nonetheless, I feel that it is still valid in terms of how it relates to the subject of this thread, and I don't believe it contradicts the Cassiopaea material in any way." [note to those referencing your post - it was edited after I had quoted it - thus, this quote is slightly different from how your post now appears. ]

Well, perhaps this session might help you understand that from our current viewpoint, what we consider to be 'good and bad' is quite often exactly reversed if viewed from an objective viewpoint. So, I don't agree with you that what you've said doesn't contradict the Cass material 'in any way'. As always, the devil is in the details.

980919
Q: Now he says further: 'Yes, everything is lessons and if a person has chosen a specific path they should be allowed to go and learn their way. But, let's say this is happening to someone you really love. And let's say that the person may be in a period of his life that his/her thoughts are probably taking her/him to commit, let's say, a murder. Don't you think that if you send this person love, even unconsciously, that it may provide the necessary energy (influence) to stop that murder?'
Comment please.
A: No, no, no!!! In fact, if anything, such an energy transference even could enhance the effect.
Q: In what way?
A: Imbalanced waves could be drawn upon by the receiver.
Q: I think that this word he used is a clue: 'Don't you think that if you send the person love, it could provide the person the necessary energy' and in parentheses he has the word 'influence' which implies control of the other person's behavior, to 'stop that murder.' So, it seems that there is a desire to control the actions of another person.
A: Yes.
Q: But, his intent is entirely benevolent because he wants to stop a murder which is the saving of a life, as well as prevent the loved one from going to prison. So, it SEEMS to be benevolent in intent. Does this not make a difference?
A: Have we forgotten about Karma?
Q: Well, both S and I mentioned the fact that one cannot always judge these situations because we don't know. We cannot know. For all we know the potential murder victim is an Adolf Hitler type or the potential parent of one, or something like that, and then the murder would save many lives with the sacrifice of two lives, or that this murder is supposed to happen because of some karmic interaction that is essential between the murderer and victim, and that we simply cannot KNOW these things and judge them.
A: Yes.

 

[QueenVee]

Well, perhaps this session might help you understand that from our current viewpoint, what we consider to be 'good and bad' is quite often exactly reversed if viewed from an objective viewpoint.

Yes, "quote often", but that does not mean NEVER.

I am very familiar with (and agree with) the concept of "non-interference" expressed in the C passage you quote. Both the Ra material and the C material emphasize both the potential wrong-headedness and damaging effects of "helping" when (1) your help/love has not been requested, and (2) you may not have the wisdom/knowledge to know what truly constitutes help/love for that person in terms of their lessons and karma. However, the point of my previous post and the Ra excerpt is that in the case of someone who is lacking "basic needs", such as food, water, shelter, etc., we are dealing with a case of simple COMPASSION, and that, as the Ra material says, choosing to provide those basic needs can be an "appropriate response within the framework of your learn/teachings at this time which involve the growing sense of love for and service to other-selves....

Now, in terms of the subject of this thread -- someone reacting quickly to save someone whose life is in imminent danger -- I was suggesting that saving someone's life in such a circumstance could reasonably be on the same level as compassionately providing someone with food when they are starving to death.

I think the C material is strongly advising restraint and objective discernment when we are faced with the urge to "help" another, lest we interfere with another's lessons, karma, and free-will; and the necessity of gaining self-knowledge in terms of our own motives in wanting to provide such help. However, I do not think it is advising that we so distrust our own impulses that we NEVER act to assist another, lest it be coming from "the wrong place", or that EVERYONE who performs a "good deed" is automatically assumed to be less than altruistic in terms of their motives, or in violation of another's free-will, lessons, karma, etc. What if it is part of THEIR lessons/karma to perform such an act? What if it is part of YOURS?

 

[anart]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how the Cassiopaea passage you quoted contradicts the Ra passage. Neither I nor the Ra passage addressed the question of "sending [unsolicited] love" to someone, or trying to prevent someone from committing a murder -- both were only addressing the question of giving food to someone who is starving. I have yet to read anything in the C material that disagrees with that particular Ra passage.

If you mean a C's quote that deals with 'starving people' then I certainly can't contradict you - however if you look at the meaning behind what they are saying, then, yes, it very well might contradict it.

I am very familiar with (and agree with) the concept of "non-interference" expressed in the C passage you quote.

Unless it deals with a starving person?

Both the Ra material and the C material emphasize both the potential wrong-headedness and damaging effects of "helping" when (1) your help/love has not been requested, and (2) you may not have the wisdom/knowledge to know what truly constitutes help/love for that person in terms of their lessons and karma.

Unless it deals with a starving person?

However, the point of my previous post and the Ra excerpt is that in the case of someone who is lacking "basic needs", such as food, water, shelter, etc., we are dealing with a case of simple COMPASSION, and that, as the Ra material says, choosing to provide those basic needs is an "appropriate response within the framework of your learn/teachings at this time which involve the growing sense of love for and service to other-selves....

And if this person's lesson plan necessitates that they experience, in all the pain and struggle, that they starve to death - does your subjective decision that you are 'helping them' by feeding them not interfere? (this is within the framework that you are presenting this situation - of course there are always exceptions, but the idea that just because someone is lacking 'basic needs' means that one should necessarily provide them, is a flawed premise when one understands that a person's life often represents their relationship with the Universe, and as such, offers them the situations in which the most needed lessons can be learned. If all there is is lessons - then they must be allowed to 'play out'.)

Now, in terms of the subject of this thread -- someone reacting quickly to save someone whose life is in imminent danger -- I was suggesting that saving someone's life in such a circumstance could reasonably be on the same level as compassionately providing someone with food when they are starving to death.

See above.

I think the C material is strongly advising restraint and objective discernment when we are faced with the urge to "help" another, lest we interfere with another's lessons, karma, and free-will; and the necessity of gaining self-knowledge in terms of our own motives in wanting to provide such help. However, I do not think it is advising that we so distrust our own impulses that we NEVER act to assist another, lest it be coming from "the wrong place", or that EVERYONE who performs a "good deed" is automatically to be distrusted in terms of their motives.

So, it advises restraint unless our impulses over-ride that restraint? How can that be?

As far as:

or that EVERYONE who performs a "good deed" is automatically to be distrusted in terms of their motives.

I'm not sure where you came up with such a concept as it has not even been suggested. It seems rather a 'straw man argument' - one that bears no relation to the reality of the discussion at hand, but is easily knocked down to support, by association, the rest of one's viewpoint.

What if it is part of THEIR lessons/karma to perform such an act? What if it is part of YOURS?

You added this last part after I had written my response (seems to happen consistently) - but if this is the case, then that would be the exception of which I spoke above - and as an exception, it cannot, by definition, be attributed to the way 'things must work' in general. Exceptions exist, without question, but when discussing Universal patterns and understandings (basic and karmic understandings), to focus on exceptions as the rule is to lose the whole point.

 

[QueenVee]

Unless it deals with a starving person?

Yes, among other possible situations. Sorry, but I do not share your apparent view that "non-interference" is a hard-and-fast RULE. I think what the C's are saying is much more subtle than that.

And if this person's lesson plan necessitates that they experience, in all the pain and struggle, that they starve to death - does your subjective decision that you are 'helping them' by feeding them not interfere?

It may and it may not. And if YOUR lesson plan necessitates that you experience compassion by providing food to the starving person in front of you, does your subjective decision that you are taking the high road of "non-interference" not result in avoidance of your lesson?

...of course there are always exceptions, but the idea that just because someone is lacking 'basic needs' means that one should necessarily provide them, is a flawed premise...

I never asserted that "one should necessarily provide them". I do not share your liking for RULES. I simply agreed (and continue to agree) with the Ra material that it is an "appropriate response within the framework of your learn/teachings at this time which involve the growing sense of love for and service to other-selves.... I do not believe that it is necessarily an "inappropriate" response.

When one understands that a person's life often represents their relationship with the Universe, and as such, offers them the situations in which the most needed lessons can be learned. If all there is is lessons - then they must be allowed to 'play out'.

You must also allow your own lessons to "play out", and those may (or may not) involve compassion for the poor. One cannot set oneself up as an island, disconnected from your fellows. Often our "lessons" involve the complex interactions between us. To me, to assume that someone else's suffering is "for their own good" is just as arrogant and presumptuous as assuming that your "help" is "for their own good". The solution is not hard-and-fast RULES, it is the acquisition of wisdom, discernment, and self-knowledge, which must be applied to every individual situation in a careful self-aware fashion. Just as the C's teach us.

You added this last part after I had written my response (seems to happen consistently)....

I edited my posts before your responses appeared, and did not mean to create confusion. I shall avoid doing so in future. I'll read my posts over more carefully before posting, to ensure they reflect exactly what I mean to say.

 

[anart]

Unless it deals with a starving person?

Yes, among other possible situations. Sorry, but I do not share your apparent view that "non-interference" is a hard-and-fast RULE. I think what the C's are saying is much more subtle than that.

Could you explain what you mean by 'more subtle than that'? It is rather a subjective interpretation - no offense - just trying to clarify. Also, what do you mean by 'RULE' as you write it here and throughout the rest of this post. Is it your reaction to any disagreement with what you have written to assume that the person disagreeing with you is engaging in 'RULES'? Just curious, since this is the second time you have reverted to such accusations. http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7434.msg52866#msg52866

And if this person's lesson plan necessitates that they experience, in all the pain and struggle, that they starve to death - does your subjective decision that you are 'helping them' by feeding them not interfere?

It may and it may not.

Absolutely, and that is what I meant by 'exceptions' in my previous post. You had previously written that one should ALWAYS (your emphasis) feed one who is starving.

And if YOUR lesson plan necessitates that you experience compassion by providing food to the starving person in front of you, does your subjective decision that you are taking the high road of "non-interference" not result in avoidance of your lesson?

Here you miss the point. Experiencing compassion has nothing to do with interfering or not interfering. They are two wholly different subjects - to tie the two together is another 'straw man argument'. The ultimate feeling of compassion may very well be tied to the recognition of another soul and the deep respect of the lessons that soul has chosen to learn - not to one's own subjective understandings and doing what makes one 'feel better' about themselves.

...of course there are always exceptions, but the idea that just because someone is lacking 'basic needs' means that one should necessarily provide them, is a flawed premise...

I never asserted that "one should necessarily provide them". I do not share your liking for RULES.

Fascinating - to what 'RULES' do you refer? You are now saying that you don't think one should provide basic needs to those lacking them?

I simply agreed (and continue to agree) with the Ra material that it is an "appropriate response within the framework of your learn/teachings at this time which involve the growing sense of love for and service to other-selves.... I do not believe that it is necessarily an "inappropriate" response.

Apologies, but you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit, in what seems an effort to 'be right', and, thus, you seem to be rather confusing things.

When one understands that a person's life often represents their relationship with the Universe, and as such, offers them the situations in which the most needed lessons can be learned. If all there is is lessons - then they must be allowed to 'play out'.

You must also allow your own lessons to "play out", and those may (or may not) involve compassion for the poor.

You seem to be, again, confusing the issue - not interfering does NOT mean one has no compassion for the poor or for anyone else. Can you understand the distinction? Can you understand that deep compassion can and often does include a wider understanding that all is as it needs to be for learning in any particular situation? This does not mean in 'every situation'.

Also, it is one of our aims to become conscious enough that we have an active hand in our lessons - that we are no longer subject to the General Law in a way that lessons just 'play out' so much as we play in concert with them. To do this, one of the first steps is getting rid of all 'sacred cows' or hard and fast beliefs about the Universe and ourselves, in order to be able to approach an objective understanding of both.

One cannot set oneself up as an island, disconnected from your fellows. Often our "lessons" involve the complex interactions between us.

Absolutely true, but what does this statement have to do with understanding the larger context of human life on earth and simple and karmic understandings? In short, what does this statement have to do with the conversation at hand?

To me, to assume that someone else's suffering is "for their own good" is just as arrogant and presumptuous as assuming that your "help" is "for their own good". The solution is not hard-and-fast RULES, it is the acquisition of wisdom, discernment, and self-knowledge, which must be applied to every individual situation in a careful self-aware fashion. Just as the C's teach us.

Again, fascinating, because you are engaging in 'black and white thinking' by saying that it is 'arrogant and presumptuous' - as if there is nothing between 'ALWAYS feeding the starving' and an arrogant disregard for suffering. This sort of thinking wholly misses the point. At the same time, you earlier stated that it was ALWAYS correct to feed someone who was starving. How does this latest statement reconcile with your earlier statement?

And, again, what does this have to do with 'RULES'? Are you, perhaps, reacting mechanically to being challenged on your viewpoints by attributing such disagreement not with a possible inherent misunderstanding of the larger picture on your part, but with a dogmatic or 'rule' mindset on the part of that person disagreeing with you?

In short, do you consider a possible correction to, or challenge of, your personal understanding of a concept (your sacred cows) with dogmatic thinking - and, if so, why?

I ask you these questions in the spirit and understanding that you are quite sincere about being here and about truly learning - fwiw.

 

[Tigersoap]

Well, I did not go as far as labelling the boy STO or STS but surely he his enjoying a lot his moment of fame.
I totally overlooked this at first but now it stares blatantly in my face.
Mostly because I needed some comfort that some people are still good people at heart.

I guess I projected a lot on his action without seeing the whole picture.
But I do think he did the right thing but it looks like his ego got a massive boost as the same time.

 

[Stevie]

Yes, well I kind of agreed that he could be a STO-candidate mechanically too. With the info so far provided we can't make that assumption.

Ugh.. it's a tough one to decipher that if we intervene within a given situation are we taking it upon ourselves in trying to fix the universe, or are we allowing the universe to work through us creatively. I understand in theory the devil is in the details, and I just don't know how I would have responded if I were in that boys shoes.. at the time of the incident. As in there is good and evil, and the third force that dictates which is the proper action..

Also, it is one of our aims to become conscious enough that we have an active hand in our lessons - that we are no longer subject to the General Law in a way that lessons just 'play out' so much as we play in concert with them. To do this, one of the first steps is getting rid of all 'sacred cows' or hard and fast beliefs about the Universe and ourselves, in order to be able to approach an objective understanding of both.

Yes this does involve giving up the ghost of our preconceptions and sacred cows. The more one considers 'interference lessons', we really have been taught that 'Black is White', 'All Giving' is good, 'Holding Back' is bad.

[A]ppropriate response within the framework of your learn/teachings at this time which involve the growing sense of love for and service to other-selves....

Then the learning/teaching of this nature, to the indiviual deciding to act, could be of a positive or a negative lesson learned (depending on the given situation). As I understand so far, this Ra statement does not conclusively suggest that interference should always necessarily be acted upon within an STO framework, only that there are LESSONS to be learned.