Copyright © 2012, 2026 The One Project Foundation Ltd - All Rights Reserved.
Chapter 6 - Service
Service is its own reward: deception masks itself with deception - love or contradiction removes the mask.
Serving based on giving is love. Service based on an expected reward is not. Service to the common good or God is therefore an act of love.
There are those who would think that they are in the service of God or the common good. Here are some questions that can be asked as how strongly supportable this is, whether or not this is self-deceiving:
- Who am I learning for - myself or one-self ultimately to teach truth and meaning to others?
- Who am I praying for - myself or one-self that focuses on others?
- Who am I meditating for - myself or for reconnection with others and the One?
- Do I think that there is only one path back to Source, which is my chosen way, and that those who would have the same intention to reconnect are wrong?
- Who am I thinking about - myself or one-self that focuses on others in need?
- For whom am I acting - myself or one-self that focuses on others?
- What is my readiness to help others, by going out into the world, sharing what I know, and being prepared to be challenged in order to continue the learning?
- What are my views on conflict - is conflict acceptable?
- Does the change start in others or within one-self?
- Have I made my peace with everyone, even those who have wronged me, based on my incorrect or incomplete perception or judgement of ‘them’?
To come up with the perfect set of answers is never easy, but that is the choice. The focus of service does not need to be on everyone, you do not know everyone. However, those already in your life are a good starting point. Whether or not a person belongs to a particular faith or has a particular belief system, the self-questioning is the same.
To be a person of the common good or God must necessarily be based on a desire for both positive thoughts and actions for all, which gives life and creation its’ meaning. These must by definition include others and for the One, without any separation or thought of separation, and certainly without any focus on self-promotion or self-benefit that could exclude others.
Consider the disconnected examples of so-called philosophers and scientists who try to disprove the existence of the One, which serves no purpose which can be ultimately called common good, other than by falsely arguing that religious beliefs cause conflict, which I will address separately.
Firstly philosophers:Philosophy literally means a love of wisdom. Since wisdom includes all things that can be known, it cannot exclude anything. The One represents the whole, including both reality and the process of creation, therefore it cannot exclude knowledge of the whole, which would deny the concept and therefore the existence of the One.
The concept exists, so it must be true in reality. To say that the Human mind can create this without reference to creative energy does not make any sense. It is nonsense - it is a posteriori knowledge. The concept is also sensible with or without reference to prime movement in the act of creation, which is pure energy to create form. The concept is therefore also a priori. To look at this either as a priori or a posteriori in isolation is reducing the whole to something less than the whole, which makes no sense.
Relating this to Human Beings, which are certainly less than the whole, a computer can certainly learn from itself and add to its’ own development, but it needs to be created and programmed to be able to do so before it is able to achieve this. I certainly do not think that Human consciousness was created from the mind of dinosaurs or early mammals! Since all evolutionary process must fulfill the purpose of filling available niches in nature, consciousness of one’s own energy form serves no purpose for survivability, unless that survivability relates to something of a higher order relating to that energy.
Secondly scientists: philosophy created a branch of philosophy that we now call science. The philosopher Pythagoras is sometimes known as a father of mathematics, an important branch of science based on numerology. All mathematicians owe much of what they understand and know to the life and work of Pythagoras.
Scientific method is based on a systematic observation of anything that happens, and then providing empirical and measurable evidence of the stated hypothesis relating to the verifiable truth of that observation. Since a system is a bounded set of components, it must by definition exclude anything that sits outside of the system, in other words its’ environment of the whole.
Analyzing a system cannot presume to be able to synthesize or represent the whole, because the analysis is by definition a reduction of a defined system that can only be a sub-set of the whole, and that cannot possibly include the whole!
Each system has a critical mass that can be approximated by observing, identifying and describing its’ critical components, or by measuring the content of its’ component energy and dimensions by one scientific method or another.
The critical mass defines the extent of the form of the object or the observed phenomenon in existence, which can be described at many different levels and in many different ways, even through analogies. In any case, these forms are connected to one another within broader connected systems or by energy connecting across different systems or dimensions from one form to another (transformation).
This energy connection is best described as the attractive energy between material objects. For example, through the important work of Isaac Newton, an eminent physicist and Professor of Mathematics (who was also a Pantheist), Human Beings can understand the concept and observable phenomenon of ‘gravity’. Only disconnection can deny this. The fall of the apple was more than just apples.
According to Erwin Schrödinger, another eminent physicist and pioneer of quantum mechanics, the atomic weight of the Human body is the same as air, so if this was not true Human Beings would be floating in mid-air! Gravity as we sense it is simply the attractive energy between the critical mass of a Human body and the critical mass of the Earth. If the critical mass of neither existed, neither would be objects in their current form.
If the Human body did not exist, the Earth would continue to exist, indicating that Human Beings are critically dependent upon the Earth and not the other way round.The Earth is our environment, and also a part of the whole. If Human Beings self-servingly abuse the Earth to the point of ecological, and environmental imbalance, the existence of Human Beings is not sustainable. If Human Beings ever self-servingly decided to abuse the Earth and then used science technology to try to escape to another world, the universe would also ensure that this is not possible. Morality is essential to create consensus and sustainability.Moral consensus would play its’ part.
Scientists have much to add to the sum of Human knowledge, which is by definition incomplete otherwise there would be no more need for science! However, the only reason we listen to famous scientists is because they are famous scientists. To say that the One or God does not exist cannot be empirically evidenced, let alone proved or disproved by scientific method. Therefore the opinion of scientists is of no more consequence than that of any other Human Being.
Some works and teachings are self-serving, and others are not. What distinguishes them is whether or not they are constructive and benevolent for the whole.
If you read many of the works and writings that aim to ‘analyze’ the whole in order to understand the whole, you will probably find contradictions either within the method, for example scientific method, within the process, for example professed exclusivity within a faith, or with any of the conclusions or exclusions resulting from either of these. They are full of assumptions, or are writings that go beyond the core messages of the avatars that evolved and manifested them. The avatars messages were intended to be neither exclusive nor conclusive.
These are one of the foremost contradictions because within eternity and infinity there simply can be no end! As Ludwig Wittgenstein, one of the most eminent philosophers of modern times showed in his ground breaking work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, neither words nor mathematics can conclude ultimate understanding or knowledge. Therefore we are all within an ongoing learning model, a perfect learning model, in which each Being is tested through service to one another. Exclusion from the whole is self-evidently a contradiction.
I had the privilege of leading a group of sixty young analysts on a five day course on professional self-development. The basis of the course was how to be authentic, by being one-self and not pretending to be something else to others. The premise is that in doing so you will build trust and relationships, one of the most important things to do in collaborating with others in order to achieve a constructive and benevolent outcome, which is also the basis for leading a moral life. Deceiving others is one of the worst things that any Being can perpetrate, but deceiving one-self is by far one of the most self-destructive. Deception can be highly self-deceptive when it starts in one-self.
During this training course, one of the trainers gave an insight into how to achieve service through work. He said there are three broad types of work: having a job, a career or a vocation. The first helps you to survive, and may be necessary at times. The second helps you to progress in your professional learning, but is essentially for you, serving you. The last of these is the equivalent of having a calling, or serving others.
Some of the more obvious examples of a vocation or calling are nursing, charity projects or faith ministry. However, the principle of vocation can be applied to any type of work, provided that it there is never any intention to cause harm to others, and the authenticity of your actions support your intention. Integrity creates continuity.
If you have worked in commerce, you will probably have heard the terms ‘quality of service’ or ‘product quality’. The best way of describing this is as being ‘fit for purpose’. Since what you produce, the outcome, can only be fit for the purpose of those you are producing for or are of service to, nothing that you do will have any quality of value unless it is for others. If you want to be the best you can be, quality must also be a part of the virtue of excellence if you are also authentic about excelling in what you are trying to do.
You will know when you have found your true vocation or calling when the work that you do gives you the personal joy and the opportunity for personal development and learning through that service to others. Therefore it does not really matter if you are a parent, tend communal gardens, serve food or beverages, build commercial systems, are a surgeon, look after family or friends, or whatever else you do in your work, provided that you do that work with love; in other words, in the service of others, by helping others or by sharing the outcome, and by never deliberately hurting others either directly or indirectly.
It is our striving to survive that makes Human Beings worldly and base. It is also our greed, wanting more than others, that is our debasement. Why? Because focusing on our wants over the needs of others blinds us to bigger and better possibilities, things we have already benefited from through the giving of others around us and before us, in other words the universal concept of the common good.
Is any type of love the same as pure love? Two situations will help to illustrate and frame the truth.
The first situation is outlined by this additional question: should the love for our own children be greater than our love for all created Beings?
The incomplete answer is that parental love is partially based our own selfish desires for ‘eternal’ survival through our genes. However, that should not be interpreted that the love of our children is unimportant. They are also created Beings. They may also be an anchor, and a reason that we strive to survive, if not in fact then within the laws of nature. Our children may be the only cause for which we would be prepared to die.
This second question completes the situation: what other causes would we die for?
If we take the view that other love is just as important, we may be prepared to risk our lives for other causes. If you doubt this, ask any warrior that has truly bonded with his or her unit. There are many instances of warriors sacrificing their own lives to protect those around them, and also those much further away at home. An ancient example is Leonidas and the other Spartans and allies, who knowingly sacrificed their lives during the Battle of Thermopylae in order to protect and save others who would have suffered had they not done so.
What both distinguishes and unites these two situations is the understanding gained from close proximity, common interest and an acceptance of our own relative unimportance to the whole. Our children and family are a part of us, but so are others. Without others our lives would be much shorter and there could be no continuity.
It is highly self-deceptive to deny that there are those who would risk their lives to protect our children when we would not do the same for theirs. It is hypocritical, and hypocrisy is an ultimate form of both deception and self-deception. To say it was their choice to sacrifice is immoral, being neither constructive nor benevolent. The first duty of any parent is to set an example that would create a better world for all our children. It cannot possibly be some children to the exclusion of others, since this would not set a good example to our own children. It is not only a contradiction by the genetic laws of nature, it is also a ‘sin’ or separation from creation and the whole.
Therefore the real gift we can give our children until they can make their own choices is never to implant our own discrimination, but to lead, live and show by our own example our willingness to give and sacrifice part of our lives to theirs, serving not their worldly wants, but rather their innate need for love, support, belonging and safety that we all have within us. To exclude others is deceptive and denies this reality.
The most important dimension of service to consider for all Human Beings is therefore leadership by example. True leaders are those that serve their followers.
The most extreme leadership situation is in the universally unacceptable scenario of conflict and war, the opposing force of connection and love. People will say, ‘but how do you stop war?’ The answer to this is the most simple imaginable: do not start war in the first place.
The only conceivable justification for war can be to stop known and sustained destructiveness from dark and antagonistic forces, such as Adolf Hitler and the ideology behind it, since it is also known that all fires will eventually burn themselves out. However, the only other possible justification, even within these circumstances, is when all other strategies have been exhausted and leadership failure has been acknowledged.
All conflict and war is deceptive because it is the failure of all other alternatives, and other alternatives are never exhaustible. With authentic leadership, strategy, foresight, insight and the negation of personal power, all conflict and war is avoidable. Conflict and war is therefore the pursuit of personal power, insufficient insight or foresight of consequences, for example the reparations imposed by control on Germany after the First World War, poor leadership or incorrect strategy.
You might liken Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ to the Art of Peace. We should also therefore consider Plato’s principle of ‘Philosopher Kings’ to lead in the spirit of constructiveness and benevolence, everywhere in the world and within all cultures, nations, organizations, and faith or belief systems. This is the effective end of ‘us’ and ‘them’, which starts with an understanding and knowledge of the end of ‘you’ and ‘me’.
To uncover leadership deception, which applies in any set of circumstances, there are a series of questions that can be asked as a test before electing or following anyone:
- Would they sacrifice themselves before others?
- Do they think and act in the interests of all, including those within other assumed groups?
- Do they derive personal power from their position, or do they empower others?
- Do they derive personal benefit from the situation other than that which the followers would want for them?
- How would they create collaborative, constructive and benevolent outcomes?
- Do they contradict themselves?
- Would they step down of their own volition if they transgressed any of the above?
Trust is earned through authenticity, displayed and reinforced through integrity. No one in their right mind would elect or follow a leader who said, ‘follow me, I am deceptive!’
Deception is a form of control. It is immoral, because it cannot display the values of constructiveness and benevolence. It is false, because it has no sustainable benefit, either to the group or to the individual. It runs counter to both the common good and the longer term interests of the individual. If deception gains a personal benefit, it can only be sustained by power or control over others, which is another form of deception, since all created things are essentially the same thing. Deception will reinforce itself until it becomes out of balance with its’ environment and is deconstructed. Leadership deception is therefore unsustainable.
There is another perspective to consider: control without any intention to be immoral is a form of insecurity, which is often perceived as a weakness in another. The greatest strength any Human Being can aspire to is through acknowledgement of a personal weakness, including the attempted and unsustainable control of others, something that needs experience in order to turn this weakness into a sustainable learning and strength.
If a Human Being attacks a perceived weakness in another, it discloses more about the immorality or insecurity of the perpetrator than the personality being attacked - who is the one who is not trying to deceive themselves or others? Conversely, no Human Being should assume that kindness in another equates to weakness. Many Beings have made that mistake. Kindness shows a wisdom and strength beyond measure. The warriors of the light are leaders that are stronger than any other, and will always be.
A wise leader will construct guidance that prevents self-harm or harm of the individuals and group being led, whether this is within a community, an organization or a nation. This will include rules not to harm other individuals or groups except perhaps in exceptional circumstances in order to stop any immediate threat through self-defense, in which case these leaders would need to step down as failed strategists. Potential self-harm of the group through pre-emptive action or failed leadership is a contradiction, even if the leader is the first to suffer or take the risk. As the leader is also a member of the group, all pre-emptive war and conflict is contradictory and unjustifiable. The truth therefore shows that there are no perhaps.
Religious and other belief systems of the good never cause war. Only the power and control wielded by individuals over others, using religion or ideology by deception, can do this. You can never beat deception with deception and stand on higher moral ground. The avatars of faith would be horrified by any form of separation, including any form of deception, self or otherwise, that had the possibility to result in conflict. Not one of them professed war or conflict as the solution. Leaders who claim otherwise should be open to question. True leaders serve their followers. Any leader that claims to be a guru cannot be; self-declaration is a contradiction.
Interference with the free will mind of others is part of the deception, and cannot be acceptable in any set of circumstances since this is a form of manipulation and control. We cannot therefore choose or make moral choices for others, including the inverse of implanting our discrimination on others, including children. However, this should not be confused with morally protecting, leading and influencing others, which means guiding others in flow to help them make their own free will choices and decisions. We should therefore encourage children to become aware of sustainable values as soon as they are able, an intrinsic morality based on constructiveness and benevolence.
Is there any such thing as a good or bad organization?
The culture of an organization always comes from its’ leadership. Authentic leaders, those worthy of following, are those who serve their followers, never their own self-interest. The only sustainable organizations are those that meet the needs of those they serve based on sustainable and moral values that make the world a better place for all, both in this world and the next.
www.110011.org
www.the-one-project.net
www.ridley.one