Q: (L) Okay, now Eddie says:
'Laura brought up several comments about Love that
confused me. I do not understand how could giving love
when not being asked could harm instead of improve.' Can
you remark on this?
A: "Giving" love is not giving, in such a case.
Q: So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you are
NOT giving?
A: You are taking, as usual.
Q: When you say you are 'taking,' what are you taking?
A: Energy, a la STS.
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.
Q: I don't understand how that means you are taking energy?
A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one
"gives" where there is no request, therefore no need, this
is a free will violation! And besides, what other
motivation could there possibly be in such a scenario?!?
Think carefully and objectively about this.
Q: My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one
gives love to someone who has not asked or requested, that
it seems to be a desire to change the other, i.e. a desire
to control.
A: You got it!!
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 Sylvia 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.
Q: Any other comment about that?
A: No.
Q: He says: 'I believe that if we do not send love energy to
the world that the egocentric STS energy will be
dominating.
A: Why would one choose to send this? What is the
motivation?
Q: To change it to your idea of what it is supposed to be.
To control it to follow your judgment of how things ought
to be.
A: Exactly. The students are not expected to be the
architects of the school.
Q: So, when you seek to impose or exert influence of any
kind, you are, in effect, trying to play God and taking it
upon yourself to decide that there is something wrong with
the universe that it is up to you to fix, which amounts to
judgment.
A: Yes, you see, one can advise, that is okay, but do not
attempt to alter the lesson.
Q: He also says: 'I believe that an enlightened being is
emanating love where ever that person is, and this is even
without being asked. It just happens because that is what
they are - love.' Comment, please.
A: An enlightened being is not love. And a refrigerator is
not a highway.
Q: What?! Talk about your mixed metaphors! I don't get that
one!
A: Why not?
Q: They are completely unrelated!
A: Exactly!!!
Q: What IS an enlightened being?
A: An enlightened being.
Q: What is the criteria for being an enlightened being?
A: Being enlightened!
Q: When one is enlightened, what is the profile?
A: This is going nowhere because you are doing the proverbial
round hole, square peg routine.
Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an
enlightened being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have
the idea that an enlightened being IS LOVE, and that is
what they radiate, and that this is a result of being
enlightened.
A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good.
Just smart.
Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?
A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.
Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?
A: An intelligent being who only gives.
Q: Well, since we have dealt with the idea of not giving love
to those who don't ask, what do they give and to whom do
they give it?
A: All; to those who ask.
Q: He says: 'As you can see, I believe in the power of love.
I am open to try to understand that which I have not yet
been able to. Perhaps that is why I am here with you
guys. So, could we talk more about this subject? Could
provide more of what the C's have said about Love?' I
collected the excerpts from the text about love and how
you had said that Knowledge was love and light was
knowledge and all that. Anything further you can add to
that?
A: No, because the receiver to this does not wish to receive.
Q: Okay. Sylvia responded:
'Eddie thank you for your
pointing out the paradox of the concept of the expression
of love between the C's and that as some of us think we
know, but KNOW what we experience. I feel that it may be
very difficult for the C's to deliver adequate
understanding into our 3rd density or dimension. [...] My
view of the paradox is thus: If one emanates love as a
natural course to the Universe it is not consciously
limited or directed - at least I, for one, cannot do this;
that simply is the way some of us are a lot of the 'time.'
To eliminate groups or individuals, is beyond my
comprehension to constantly define since a lot of this is
done unconsciously anyway; and it certainly would
compromise my experience of sending love. Unless one is
Bodhisattva, love is probably only directed with greater
intensity when focused toward an individual; how is one to
know whether the intended recipient is not ready/able to
receive?' [...] And 'receive,' I think is a clue: the
intended recipient can either remain oblivious or ward off
the love energy - free agency.
A: Yes.
Q: If it IS 'love energy' is it subsequently corrupted by
STS?
A: Maybe.
Q: She then says: 'If one directs love very specifically
toward an individual it can be directed freely,
judgementally, subjectively..... One challenge is to
direct love freely...'
A: No.
Q: 'Giving love to the Universe may be the best way
generally, but if one does focus toward a loved one and it
CAN be effective, could the general Universe be JUST as
effective?'
A: The universe is about balance. Nuff said!
Q: Next, in regard to this not giving of love when not asked,
she says: 'That does not mesh with networking to spread
KNOWLEDGE among those who care and love. THAT is
directed...'
A: What?
Q: Well, I DID point out that the only reason we have even
gotten anything is because we asked for a LONG time,
repeatedly and sincerely.
A: The bottom line is this: You are occupying 3rd density.
You are by nature, STS. You can be an STO candidate, but
you are NOT STO until you are on 4th density. You will
NEVER grasp the meaning of these attempted
conceptualizations until you are at 4th and above.
