Another instant 'attack'?

[Ruth]

I've just finished doing a Reiki I course with Barbara McGregor (Beth Gray-Takata...etc, ect) and what she said about the back was interesting. In fact, what she had to say about how the whole body reacts to the mind was interesting.

When we get ill or hurt ourselves, our body is telling us something. Perhaps that it is 'sick and tired' of whatever we are doing which relates directly to the area of the body that gets sick/ill. We had a gentleman in our class who had put our his lower back at work... The teacher asked him - was he sick of bending over backwards? It was possible that he unconsciously felt that way about his life situation, and instead of consciously recognising it and 'fixing' his reaction to the problem, he manifested illness or sickness in the area which 'related' to it. It was also strange how various normal language seemed to relate so aptly to various problems that we have. eg: "under the thumb" "venting ones spleen" being "livid", "broken hearted" being "pissed off" ect. We had quite a few perfectionists in our class who got migranes... Their body was telling them not to be perfectionists and to stop constantly worrying about what other people think about them or they'll get a headache!

The hand was quite an interesting part of the body too. Barbara bought up the action of smoking. Which fingers do people use to hold a cigarette? You can see why there's an association between the most commonly know one (hand facing you in a v sign) and DEFIANCE! lol.

Anyway, the thing I would suggest is that maybe Reiki would help. You could do a course, practice on your Mum and try to find out why she thinks she's 'bending over backwards'. The back also relates to burdens too, so you may like to look at why your Mum feels burdened. Because these things are subconciously things that we won't admit to, this is why they manifest in our body in the way they do.

I don't think you can take on anybody's problems, but I do think that knowledge of Reiki will give a person an interesting insight into why a body reacts as it does. And the thing is to be non-judgemental too. Once you 'know' of an oestoteric link between a person's feelings and their physical manifestations. Sometimes its best not to say anything, apply Reiki and let them make the connection for themselves.

Our society seems to spend an awful amount of time repressing feelings and being bound by 'duty'. In many cases of sickness, the subconscious problem has only one other way to 'come out' and that is through the body. Its an interesting thing to think about. Maybe your Mum's body is trying to tell her something that she is denying to herself. That's what it is most of the time. We can either 'work' on that ourselves or 'suffer the consequences'.

 

[Ruth]

Moreover, as far as having an emotional attachment to the speculations about 4D and so forth in the Organic Portal thread due to the 'inner dog's' self importance, I don't see this to be the case within because I was not seeking emotionally feel-good chemical confirmation for perhaps my own "sacred cows" about 4D reality....

We often speak about things that most bother us about ourselves. What do you think about that?

...there isn't anything really new or significant within the context of that post in my opinion since most of what was stated in that post has been already mentioned in CassChat before in the 'past' by different individuals but I currently don't think it was all organized in one post as far as I know, which however, doesn't make it any special feat in itself anyways...

When we're not trying to project onto others what we are currently feeling ourselves. Self importance may be a bigger problem here than you realise. If you think about the idea of 'like attracting like', then it is possible that our inner 'challenges' may be trying to do just that in the outer world. That could be a problem. Therefore this current musing on the past, Casschat and what other people have 'said' in it.... sounds a bit like 'stuck' to me. If people haven't 'moved on' from that, then how come? The world changes, don't they change with it? Why can't they move on? Just because 'everybody' agreed (in the past) on something, that doesn't make it 'right'.... now. It was just another 'step' in the past, that's all. This seems to be an opportunity for something, but I'm not sure that its mine to claim. I'm thinking that I have other stuff in need of a good chasing down.

 

[Saman]

Hi Saman,

They were just some notions based on some concepts that the C's had explained in the sessions and nothing more or nothing less.

"...for perhaps saying too much in the Organic Portal thread..."

I was very surprised of what happened just when I finished the post in question because there isn't anything really new or significant within the context of that post in my opinion...

Interesting... You start with the past tense and then shift into the present.

Hi Craig. I started with the past tense because I was in the process of recollecting of what I had wrote in the OP thread. I shifted the discription of my thoughts into the present tense because now I was no longer in the this process of recollection.

You say you were surprised because of something to do with what you wrote at the time ("for perhaps saying too much"?), but then it's as if another 'I' comes in which does acknowledge that there was nothing new or significant there. You must have ascribed some importance to your post to make the association and interpretation of "attack" in the first place?

The importance that I ascribed to the post was my strive to network on this forum. The 'attack' that I speculated as a possiblity was due the synchronicity of what I have already aforementioned in this thread within that moment, and the reason for the speculation of this possibility was due to other experiences in the so to say linear past.

You also said: "It seems the MCS has already made a sudden and unexpected attack upon me..." What did you mean "already made" and why did you then seem to contradict yourself and say it was "unexpected"?

What I meant by already was in regards to the possibility that my mother was perhaps targeted again in order to get to me through her. This is what the MCS does, if they cannot drain you directly of life-force, then it finds other more clever ways of doing it. I stated that it was unexpected because due to my lack of vigilance in that moment, as in "always expect the unexpected".

 

[Saman]

Moreover, as far as having an emotional attachment to the speculations about 4D and so forth in the Organic Portal thread due to the 'inner dog's' self importance, I don't see this to be the case within because I was not seeking emotionally feel-good chemical confirmation for perhaps my own "sacred cows" about 4D reality being the way that I imagine it to be due to some speculations and intuitions, which may be false anyways since as you have stated, we won't really "get it" until we graduate to 4D, whenever that may be, or perhaps may not be since it is "open". They were just some notions based on some concepts that the C's had explained in the sessions and nothing more or nothing less. I was very surprised of what happened just when I finished the post in question because there isn't anything really new or significant within the context of that post in my opinion since most of what was stated in that post has been already mentioned in CassChat before in the 'past' by different individuals but I currently don't think it was all organized in one post as far as I know, which however, doesn't make it any special feat in itself anyways.

Interesting assessment.

I often find external events in our immediate environment to reveal hidden energetic dynamics in our lives. It often helps to look at these events symbolically, similar to how we view dreams, since external life has a lot in common with dreams. In waking life, our bodies are participating in mobile fashion, and interdimensional variables in dreams are supplanted with the materially "real" in the waking state.

There are, furthermore, energetic connections between people, and there are connections between people and interdimensional variables and influences. All of these are modulated by ouru psychic state, which opens and closes doors regarding these connections.

Yes, I believe this to be the case as well. For instance, while I was at my job, I started to get [a] real pounding headache that had an odd feeling to it. Let me try to describe this. It has happened before as well. It first starts with pain right on the crown of my head and then moves towards the lobes of my forehead. This happened a while back as well, but I can't currently recollect when exactly. I just know it was not too long ago, perhaps a month or so ago. Anyways, it was around 7:45 PM at my work that I started to get this sensation on my head and [it] kept getting worse all night. I got home and was shocked that my mother was in the hospital since she told me was going to go to my brothers place, and when my brother called me, I thought it was perhaps my mother using his cell phone. So maybe there is a[n] energetic connection to my mother's backpain and the headache [that] I had from yesterday, which even got worse to the point that I could not sleep till 4:00 AM in the morning. At around 6:00 AM my mother woke me up by calling my name. She was having trouble breathing and [in] my severely drowsy state, and still feeling some headache, I thought she was asking me to take her to the hospital again. After I pushed myself to get dress to do so, she clarified that she wanted me to simply call the hospital and book a private room for her in the upcoming week for her surgerey, and that it was ok if I went back to sleep, which I happily accepted due to feeling somewhat light headed now at that point. It's funny that while I am typing this reply, I am starting to feel the pain on my crown area again...it is causing me to squint my eye while writing.

Saman, your mother experienced stress on her spine. The synchronicity between that spasm (where the build-up of stress could not be sustained), and your posting of the forum was so profound that you could not help but notice it, and associate a cause/effect relationship between the two events.

The thing is that spinal stress does not generate spasm without prior build-up. If the energy pattern of you mother's spinal stress was associated with your recent postings, then you need to understand the energy associated with those postings in a much clearer fashion. I decided to take a look at those postings again, and could not help but notice a pattern of enthusiasm building with each one.

There was enthusiasm in the fact that we were exchanging thoughts in a discussive manner, and so, giving each other the opportunity to see how we might had contexually misunderstood a concept, which Laura helped me to see in regards to the erred notion I had in thinking that the C's meant "predominately 4th Density STO" by stating "STO predominates" which was in fact a specific answer in regards to a specific question about what was the source of the channel.

You claim:

...there isn't anything really new or significant within the context of that post in my opinion since most of what was stated in that post has been already mentioned in CassChat before in the 'past' by different individuals but I currently don't think it was all organized in one post as far as I know, which however, doesn't make it any special feat in itself anyways...

This may be objectively true, but from what I observed you seemed to be "on a roll", and picking up momentum the more you posted. Although the information may not be new, you did seem to think it important to organize it as if it was going to lead you to something. You were "into" it, that much was obvious, and getting more into it all the time.

Please [see] above in regards to what I was into and "on a roll" with.

The enthusiastic energy of being into something is a "high", and results from the release of neurotransmitters and hormones that sustain it. This energy is useful because it keeps us going at a task, keeps us focused, and keeps our actions constructive. However, because it IS a chemical high at its roots, it CAN be addictive.

Is it not okay for this chemical to be released if one is not initially seeking this "high" as a payoff through [their] actions? I think it is ok for the 'inner dog' to feel this "high" as long as one isn't after it initially like an ad[d]ict, but I could be wrong. What do you think about this?

When this happens, our motives subtly shift from our creative exploration to the desire to keep ourselves "on a roll". Addiction to what we believe is creative enthusiasm is a manifestation of self-importance, because the truth becomes a means to keep ourselves going, even if we tell ourselves we are onto something.

So your claim that what you wrote was nothing special contradicts the apparent intensity with which you tackled a topic whose practical significance for the group seemed to be secondary to extended self-satisfying speculation.

Yes, this would be true if I was consciously seeking the selfish goal described above, and thus, allowing the 'inner dog' to [] possess this feeling of self-satisfaction.

Your abrupt response to Tschai was, furthermore, indicative of someone who did not want to be bothered with "trifles", and was a further indication that you placed speculation above the here and now aspects of the work, and your own "thing" above the needs of others. So you definitely were more than likely attached to your speculations, and more than likely started getting deeper into self-importance, and expressing rather than communicating.

It was not placing a speculation above the here and now aspects of the work. The response to Tschai was in regards of his bold statement that he was certain that the C's had stated there was no 3rd Density STO Beings. This not a speculation on my part but what the C's had said; however, before pointing this out to him, I checked the very session in question in regards to the formulation of []his thoughts, and noticed that they said "realm", as in "while you are in this realm, you are by nature STS".. Therefore, it is reasonable to see [] that he had combined the latter statement with "you are STS, period" in order to formulate: "the C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period". Question: is striving to point this out to him in a step by step manner by not abridging his Free Will due to giving him a chance to discover this 'devil' on his own indicative of self importance []?

At the same time, you are obviously at a level where you could have easily intuited this. I believe you did intuit the possibility, and pushed it away because of positive and negative reinforcement. Positive, because it felt good to express yourself as you were, and negative to avoid the dissonance of addressing the issue.

I was simply trying to point out to him that the C's had not stated what he had said exactly, and I even gave him an exact clue on where to go and look for the information. If he had simply typed "3rd Density STO" into the sessions, which seemed very likely that he had due to him stating tha[t] []he had read the Wave series before the new additions, there is only one result and if he follows through and reads the context from that point, it ends with the C's stating "discover". Is this manipulation or striving to honour his Free Will by allowing him to discover the excerpt in question on his own due to his matter of fact bold statement in regards to what the C's have said?

Go back, read your posts, and remember how you felt while writing them. Did you have a strong sense of purpose, of scholarship, of doing something that needed to be done? If not, I think you would have been more open to the signals coming from others.

As mentioned above, there was enthusiasm in the process. This is natural in regards to the 'inner dog'. There was however no initial motive to seek the "high", but to allow the "high" of the 'innder dog' to be as it is after the introspection within to make sure that seeking the "high" is not the initial selfish motive in the discourse.

Instead, you were bent on keeping the ball rolling. And the energy of the lesson presented itself with every post I think, and you brushed it by. And each time you brushed it by, your mother (who may have sensed your enthusiastic energy as a good thing- a thought that may have been inspired by forces that benefit from self-importance in seekers) accomodated you. She absorbed the energy of the lesson so it would not "pressure" you with doubt. Instead it pressured her.

Here is some actual data. My mother was hiking with a friend two days ago and she felt some pain on the back from the hike but she managed and felt that on the day after she could move furniture on her own since she had brushed off the warning from her body that something was not right with her muscles. You are right that she has spinal problems. In fact this is what the docotor [had] told [her] long before this had happened. An X-ray taken had showed, that is according to her and what the doctor had said to her, that she had some minor dislocation of the spinal around the neck area and that she needs to do light excersise and do nothing heavy. As you have said above, it is likely that this is the cause, but I don't understand how you have interpreted that she was acting as a "sponge" for my 'inner dog's' self importance that caused my Being to brush off the lesson that was presented in every post.

And the pressure was strong because the farther along into knowing we are, the stronger the consequences of resisting true knowing, and hence the more response-able we are for our knowing. I believe each post increased self-importance, and constituted a denial of the true lesson placing more pressure on your mother's spine, until it gave.

So you are speculating that I am directly responsible for my mother's current state due to brushing off the lessons being presented in each post in regards to my, or say the 'inner dog's', self importance... I still don't understand how you came up with this formulation.

The point is that if you keep resisting the lesson, you will feel dissonance because there is apparently nowhere to push it (unless your mother absorbs it in other ways), and knowing and self-importance cannot easily exist in the same mental space. It pays to observe this dissonance, because its deeper cause, the cause that pushed away the first lesson of empathic discontinuity is actually the more profound lesson, the one whose learning will assist even more than the first.

I believe the cause is a judgment against self-importance, which is also indicative of self-importance. You identify self-importance not as your own (refusing responsiblity even for its possibility) but your "inner dog's". Of course you did not invent this term, and it may be a decent analogy in a certain context, but I do think you are looking at this inner dog, and hence yourself, in self-depreciating terms (which is a reciprocal effect of placing importance on "non-dog" aspects, instead of the true teacher, the "dog").

Now I understand what you are stating in the above in regards to brushing off the lessons in regards to self importance, well, or so I think. It is true that I have identified this Being's self importance as not of my own but of the 'inner dog', which is this STS Being, or say this STS physical body, that has a possesive "mind" of its own. However, I fail to see why you have stated that I have refused to take responsibility for this body and its "mind". If this was the case, then I would simply throw in the towel and give up the "soul questing", and of course, I will NEVER to this because then I would not be a considerate and 'gentle' and yet 'firm' "owner" of this 'inner dog'. In this realm, in this side of the 'sandbox', this 'consciousness container', this 'inner dog' IS what I have to work with and learn to "grow". I only have chosen to use the term 'inner dog' because it portrays intuitively how one through the needs of the bodies "mind" seeks to rationalizes and justify to oneself the STS desire to possess everything for the self, or say not [to] give "friction" within in regards to [the] "minds" desire to rationalize and continue the illusion.

I think you consider self-importance as beneath you. If you are dissociated in your perception from your "inner dog", then of course you may not percieve what is going on with it/you. And you may judge yourself harshly for such a "fall", which is not a fall, but just being 3D human and learning from it.

We do not punish ourselves for being human, and there is no need to "confess" to anyone. Simple honesty with self and understanding of the dynamic will greatly assist to rebalance the energies, and activate your capacity to observe the emergence of similar patterns.

When a disruption in empathic sense is reflexive, and when we seek to cover the reflex with speculative noise, there is more often than not avoidance of dissonance that is out of proportion to the original disruption. It pays to examine this, because your environment is indicating it should be examined. At the same time, there are forces that do not want you to examine the situation and increase learning.

I think this is a valuable lesson for everyone. Attacks do not just come from outside, but from within as well, and these are the most difficult to address, because it is easy to confuse self-assessment (which implies correction) with self-judgment (which implies condemnation).

Since we are in an STS reality, and we are OP-compatible to an extent, we are open to inner attacks through our own conditionings, and what these attacks want is to make us avoid confronting dissonance, and hence avoid learning.

That said, I want to add that since you are sincere in your quest for truth, you will obviously not resolve this contradiction by becoming more STS. That means that dissonance can only increase in your life, if not within then through external events that will become your avenues of potential learning. Personally, I prefer internal avenues as the discomfort is subjective, and does not involve others.

As I am expressing my view on this matter, the decision and final assessment is always yours, of course. If you are still adamant that your self-importance is a non-issue, and that there was no discontinuity in your ability to self-reflect, then I have nothing more to say about this.

Well, the self importance of the 'inner dog' is not 'of' the REAL I, it is not what I AM. It think it is important for one to remember this [and] to repeat to him or herself []"that is not of the REAL I" [in regards to the selfish needs of the 'inner dog']. But it IS the responsibility of the REAL I to keep the self importance of the 'inner dog' in check by learning how to 'tame' "it" within, otherwise there is no "friction" within and by default what is REAL is silenced again due being 'dragged' back closer into the 'black hole' of the STS Thought Center through the bodies "mind". Those who do not keep the desires of the 'animal' in check within are those who have either aligned themselves with Entropy consciously or those who have not yet awakened, and so, they allow the 'inner dog', the "animal man", to "run the show" within, and this is mirrored through their 'animalistic' and inhuman actions on how they "run the show" without in the outside world of this STS Realm, by striving to be on the top of the 3D STS pyramidal food chain due to listening to the "mind" of the body programmed by 4D STS to work against the 'good' "seeds" strive in learning not to possess others, and so, understand that "Love is all that is needed". This is why 'sex' that is abused governs the majority of this world. It governs it because the "mind" of the body, the 'inner dog', is seeking to possess, and to control others for "its" own benefit, and without the consideration of others' Free Will. Like a dog pulling on a bone until it snatches it and burries it under the soil for it own and no one else. Even so, you can't blame dogs for being dogs and you can't blame nature for being what it is. They are what they are, it is what it is, and so, you can't blame the 'inner dog' for being what it is either, but if one has the potential to be more then a supped version of the Neandertal Man, then they [can] work to learn not to identify with the 'inner dog' within, and so, as I have recently noticed the Sufis to say, to follow the second command of "God" accoridng to what is inherent within, but also at the same time, learn how to be 'gentle' and yet 'firm' in regards to "God"'s first command in regards to one's 'inner dog'; otherwise, you might become a die hard extremist and fundamentalist of one of todays monotheistic religions. This is the impression I get from you in regards to how you think I treat the 'inner dog'. You know, it is not like I don't give it some say choco from time to time for being a 'good' boy! ;) I've come to understand that it all depends on what kind "meat" you are going to throw at "it" and precisely how much in order to 'tame' the 'inner dog' away from seeking possession, and this creates "friction" within between yes and no. And the kind of "meat" also depends on what 'point' of learning you are in regards to letting go of your own addiction of the feel-good chemical "highs" that can be hindering to your 'aim' and not an assistance if the motive is initially just seeking this "high" for the self, or say to "give" when someone has not Asked because it simply feels good.

Morever, there is self importance and there is 'self respect'. One aspect of Self Importance is about wanting to be right because it feels good. 'Self respect' on the other hand is about seeking understanding between individuals through discourse and clarification. Question: is what I have stated thus far in this post about self importance or 'self respect'? I am asking this question because I have given you more data of what was going on within and without, and I value your insight as teacher, as I do Laura's, and others. If after this post, you guys still see that I am acting through self importance, then I will shut it for now and look within harder.

Thank you.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Saman, you might want to consider that your particular predator can deflect important work through complicated philosophizing and endless rationalizations.

Let's cut to the heart of the matter which people are trying to show you. Why didn't you quote the relevant passage to Tschai? Why make him do a search? Why give him (her?) only a clue? Were you trying to be his teacher?

Why not simply apologize to Tschai and move on?

Your abrupt response to Tschai was, furthermore, indicative of someone who did not want to be bothered with "trifles", and was a further indication that you placed speculation above the here and now aspects of the work, and your own "thing" above the needs of others. So you definitely were more than likely attached to your speculations, and more than likely started getting deeper into self-importance, and expressing rather than communicating.

It was not placing a speculation above the here and now aspects of the work. The response to Tschai was in regards of his bold statement that he was certain that the C's had stated there was no 3rd Density STO Beings. This not a speculation on my part but what the C's had said; however, before pointing this out to him, I checked the very session in question in regards to the formulation of []his thoughts, and noticed that they said "realm", as in "while you are in this realm, you are by nature STS".. Therefore, it is reasonable to see [] that he had combined the latter statement with "you are STS, period" in order to formulate: "the C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period". Question: is striving to point this out to him in a step by step manner by not abridging his Free Will due to giving him a chance to discover this 'devil' on his own indicative of self importance []?

 

[Guest]

It's funny that while I am typing this reply, I am starting to feel the pain on my crown area again...it is causing me to squint my eye while writing.

It seems the link between you and your mother is a key dynamic in your life now. Funny that I started getting the symptoms of the headache you described as I just glanced over your reply, and can see why upon reading this. This is not just a tension, but a strong constricting energy. It stands to reason that such a strong energy is affecting all aspects of your life. Such an energy usually involves a knot that is possibly karmic in nature seen as it ties your posting on the forum, your work and your mother, which I would gather form three major parts of your life, almost as if the areas are triangulating your life.

So there apparently is resistance somewhere (as I sense this), a conflict between energies of transition and patterns of keeping things as they are. I can see how you associated your mother's back problem with your posting, but more may be involved here, since it affects you at times when your mother is not present. Something may not want to be addressed, possibly because there are either real or imagined implications to addressing it. Such headaches as you described are caused by muscular contractions, which block emotional and sensate flows, similar to muscular armouring. Your mother's situation seems to be tied to this blocking.

In any case, there is more to this than meets the eye, and when under such a challenging situation intellectual discourse can seem to generate an energy covering what is occuring in the here and now. That is one very good reason to become attached to the enthusiasm theoretical meanderings sometimes generate.

There was enthusiasm in the fact that we were exchanging thoughts in a discussive manner, and so, giving each other the opportunity to see how we might had contexually misunderstood a concept, which Laura helped me to see in regards to the erred notion I had in thinking that the C's meant "predominately 4th Density STO" by stating "STO predominates" which was in fact a specific answer in regards to a specific question about what was the source of the channel...Please [see] above in regards to what I was into and "on a roll" with.

I was not referring to the content of that discussion. In my view, that is completely beside the point. I was referring to the pattern of expression, and the context. Let's look at it as it is expressed in the OP thread, where this issue sprang.

The discussion on that thread is always lively, and you exhibited mental intensity since page 18, where I begin my reference, which was precise and well-defined, with constant references to the C's material. To me this mental intensity seemed to demand high standards of logic from other forum members. Nothing wrong with that as long as we maintain an objective perspective in attitude as well as in the material we are posting, although there was a bit of tension, an abruptness in expression, even there.

At the same time, although I understand your interest in the topic, I noticed the focus and mental acuity was increasing the more you posted. The topic moved from OP's to STS/STO understandings relating to 3D behaviour, and in that phase, the total pattern of your postings and expressions were intense and I would say strict and highly defined, but other members seemed well-adapted to that, even Ruth.

And if someone found the mental environment too acute and a bit intense for them, there are plenty of other threads. So your rather intense expression pattern was a major contribution to the tone of the thread at that point. On page 20 something about crytogeographic beings (CB's) was mentioned. On page 21 of the thread, Tschai posted asking what these were, even though they were defined a page before by StrangeCaptain.

Now my take on discussions is that the group accomodates and is polite to its members, at least within reason and if they are sincere. When Tschai asked what are CB's, I pasted some of the post of the previous page for him and told him where to find it. I could have told him to go find it himself, or I could have implied that he was not applying himself. Especially if I was locked in high intellectual gear and didn't want to downshift to his "level".

Instead, I figured I would accomodate him the first time, and if a second situation arose I would point him precisely where to go. I understood that many people have family responsibilities who post here and are tired when posting late at night. Anyway, it was no big deal to help the guy, because I understand how difficult this material can be (including the constant referencing) for people new to it. Discussing the material is even more difficult, and the difficulty compounds when the intellectual environment becomes intense as this OP discussion thread is.

Tschai posted again on page 21, apparently having read the convoluted complexity of the previous pages of the thread (and I have to give him credit for that) and tried to simplify the understanding. Here you replied to him:

Hi. I just posted something recently in regards to these thoughts above. Moreover, the C's have not explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density period. If you recheck the sessions in regards to 3D STO, they said "discover".

Now for the life of me I must be dense as dense can be, because for someone with such sharp intellectual drive demanding so much precision of others you were pretty vague here and made a lot of assumptions.

First you "just" had posted a number of things, with a lot of session quotes, and you demanded that someone "study" that long spiel. Tschai had to have read it already because his comments came from somewhere, but demanding somebody sift through all those details without a bit of assistence is indicative of lack of consideration for a new member trying hard to keep up. At least it seems so to me.

You assumed Tschai would automatically grok you and put in the right search terms, and go off a-studying just because you dangled the word "discover" at him. The man politely asked for your assistence, because he, like myself I admit seemed to be a bit retarded for your high teaching standards.

I'm sorry, but when he questioned your flippant response, you turned the tables on him, in a rather rude manner. Have you ever been a beginner at anything Saman, or were you a born expert all your life?

I am not alone here.

The above almost sounds cryptic like Saman is trying to be the C's and give Tschai a clue. When I read it, the first thought I had was that Saman is trying to emulate the C's style as if he is the teacher (but a teacher above others).

...

If you're really interested,which it seems you are not, my suggestion to you is [to] recheck the very same excerpts that you have twisted in your previous post to state that "The C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period" in order to refresh your memory, and then to look for the excerpt in question about the C's stating "discover".

Personally, I detect irritation tending toward malice here, and I don't know if it is deliberate or the result of emotions acting apart from intellect. I suspect it's the latter. Were you suffering from one of those headaches, and simply got cranky? There is an undertone here that is at odds with clear thinking. Some people can brush it off, but for others who are struggling with the material it can be pretty painful to be treated in this manner, especially when these beginners half-believe they are less "worthy" than others.

The way I see this, in one fell swoop, you turned mental acuity into a stabbing knife, and invalidated any information you may think you have mastered. You are obviously informed, but in terms of real knowledge you need to sorely catch up with yourself.

Now this would be no big deal, IMO if you were not constantly trying to rationalize around it.

To me you set your own standards for discussion and demanded everyone revolve around them. You were not applying your own definition of self respect (that which you expressed in the last part of your last post). That to me smacks of self importance. And when it became clear you insulted another member of the forum, you brushed it off and went off on theoretical tangents more than ever. All I could think of was an image of "hit and run".

Yes, you were on a roll regarding the topic that interested you. That energy was clear to me.

The problem was you did not have the patience to be specific to someone asking you a question, then compounded that problem by insulting him in a holier than thou fashion, and compounded it even more by going on as if nothing happened. And aside from my general observation on the OP thread I would have left it at that, but when you went off claiming you mother was attacked to keep you from posting...I was starting to think: what next?

Let me follow up.

I'm a bit confused as to why you say that it seems that tschai is not really interested. How did you come to this conclusion? I must be missing something, (which would not be that unusual) because although Tschai has displayed some naivete in certain areas, it seems he/she has made efforts in learning so far. Again, if I'm missing something, don't hesitate to point it out, I'm just curious as to why you put things the way you did, that's all.

No problem. In the original response to Tschai, I wrote: "moreover, the C's have not explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density period. If you recheck the sessions in regards to 3D STO, they said "discover". "

The above suggestion to discover the excerpt in question, which was a clue in [itself], was seemingly ignored.

The above is a "seeming" assumption, because your cryptic hint certainly went above my sorry head. We are hear to reveal knowledge through discussion, not demand that others study, and not chastise them when they are not in a position to do so. Even if you did not want to take the trouble to do so, you could have just said so.

In response to Tshcai's second reply, I wrote the above making the suggestion to look at the very excerpts Tschai used to formulate this thought[:] "the C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period". So IF Tschai is really interested, that is if really Asking, [he/she] could then simply make the effort to find and recheck these excerpts in question and then [to] look at the details first to see what [is] the 'devil'. This was not apparently done, and hence the reason for the above response.

Sincerely, I believe that if your apparent definition of "asking" was true for this forum, its membership would swiftly dwindle. I believe this is a public forum, with many and varied viewpoints, not a hierarchy where those well-versed in the terminology play Zen master for others. I don't think a network can function that way. When you post an opinion, you have a response-ability to clarify when someone plainly asks, not twist meaning of the word "asking" to play the role of teacher.

I noticed that usually on this forum, when someone has a question, someone else kindly informs them specifically where to look, with a relevant link. Why not do the same?

In regards to whether he/she is naive in certain areas is not what is under question from my end. The response above was specifically an invitation for a refresher of the sessions and [its] details in regards to his/her comment that "the C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period".

The response above was a challenge, indicative of self-importance. I do not think the point is to memorize sessions, but to discuss ideas, where those knowledgable can use sessions to back up their thoughts. What's the point of a public forum when it is a literal instead of a figurative "classroom"? For a second I thought you were telling Tschai to go back and read his bible.

Not to sound repetitive, and maybe I have it all wrong here, but I thought we were discussing ideas, not text. And to really get at the juice of an idea and make it applicable, you have to be able to go beyond singular terminologies or any one form of its expression. You have to learn to think beyond the session (although using it as a base that can propell you beyond it). That is what Tschai was trying to do, and in my view grokked in the spirit of the discussion (even with his lack of experience) much more than you.

Morever, there is self importance and there is 'self respect'. One aspect of Self Importance is about wanting to be right because it feels good. 'Self respect' on the other hand is about seeking understanding between individuals through discourse and clarification. Question: is what I have stated thus far in this post about self importance or 'self respect'? I am asking this question because I have given you more data of what was going on within and without, and I value your insight as teacher, as I do Laura's, and others. If after this post, you guys still see that I am acting through self importance, then I will shut it for now and look within harder.

Really, I see myself more as opinionated than as any kind of teacher. I'm pretty much an upstart regarding the whole formalization of the teacher concept. I believe in what I say, however, and believe I have good reason to stand by my views. And I admit that I sometimes forget to add "I could be wrong" or "this is just my opinion", so please forgive the attachment to being passionate regarding my viewpoint. I do make an effort to moderate that passion with clarity as best I can.

I just want to convey to you that to me there is an obvious imbalance of energies here, and for me your posting the incident with your mother after the other thread indicates that some part of you at least wants to call attention to something that ties this thread to the last few pages of the OP's thread.

So in a sense, by bringing up the issue and tying events together, you have asked although indirectly that the situation be addressed.

What you said about self respect is correct in principle (at least I agree). And that is just the point. You are apparently split between theory and practice. You know the theory, but are relatively in the dark regarding its application in simple situations. Your mental center is working well, but is not aligned with your centers of feeling and action, at least regarding the dynamic involving the two threads in mention.

And my own emotional coloring of the situation is present because I respected Tschai and still do, and was bothered to see him treated in the manner in which you treated him, and then brushing the whole thing off. A lesson came up front and center, and you were focused in useless information. And believe me, no matter what you know about 3D/4D STS/STO, it will help you not one iota from being called to dinner if the simple lessons are so brushed off. So when I compare the situtuation enacted with the volume of information you presented in the OP thread, something does not compute for me.

The real danger here is to use your mind to cover up imbalances in your emotion and action centers. Then you are off on the path to self-delusion. I could go back and edit my post and tone it down, but I do not think that would be appropriate. No reason to dilute how I see this. And really, I am not moralizing, but concerned because there are strong energies in your life, and the last thing you want is to fool yourself about anything right now.

No need to look within harder, softer or whatever. It's a matter of aligning the mind with the emotions and physical state for starters. Simple remembering what you felt as events unfolded. There may be an attack involved, but you need to also observe the unfolding of events and the unfolding of your response to events to begin to guage its true pattern.

And you need, IMO, to ask yourself "what is going on?", and just pay attention. In other words, the situation calls for practice, not study.

 

[Saman]

Saman, you might want to consider that your particular predator can deflect important work through complicated philosophizing and endless rationalizations.

I will have to think about this notion. If this is true, then this means that what ever I have wrote is nothing but philosophizing and based on no direct experience.

Let's cut to the heart of the matter which people are trying to show you. Why didn't you quote the relevant passage to Tschai?

From his response that the thought that the C's teachings were LOFTY in regards to moving from 3D STS to 3D STO, which there isn't even such teachings because they said "discover", it seemed quite reasonable that the "the receiver to this does not wish to receive", or so I thought. This is was further evident when he chose to not participate afterwards due to self importance.

Why make him do a search? Why give him (her?) only a clue? Were you trying to be his teacher?

In that context, I was striving to honour his Free Will because it seemed he did not wish to recieve. Hence I gave him a clue, but a very exact one for the most part. If the latter means that I was trying to be a teacher, will I guess this is what it might mean, but I don't view myself as a teacher who knows more then others, and so , I see myself as more of a student, to say the least.

Why not simply apologize to Tschai and move on?

I did apologize and did so because it was evident that I had offended him with this manner of reply, which was not the motive. I did move on and continued to exchange thoughts with Peam, Anart, and others since they asking questions about why I percieved things the way I did in regards to some concepts. However, Esoquest and others can apparently see something here that I apparently am not seeing, and so, Laura brought up the issue with my commnunication with Tschai again in this thread, and this is why we are having this exchange at the moment.

I am short on time. I have to reread Esoquest recent response tonight. bye for now.

 

[tschai]

Hello everyone,

I did say I was going to be absent, but still reading the Forums-and to my surprise and disappointment and horror- find the thread regarding Saman and myself (Tschai) continuing-and apparently HE (Saman) is not done with defending his actions-and making statements- to which I feel compelled to respond to-unfortunately.

I would rather let sleeping dogs lie, to use a phrase-but I guess, since I am of Irish descent-I cannot go down without a fight. (Never pick a fight with an Irishman!) or a least "a word or two in me' own defense"

And quite frankly-I did not want to come "down" to a level where one must engage in virtual fisticuffs.

The reason for my withdrawl was as I explained - because I needed to devote time to other pursuits, which had been neglected-NOT because of self importance, as he (Saman) states.

Further-I did not say the teachings of the C's was LOFTY-what I said was in reference to an individual-in this case -YOU (Saman)-acting in the role of a Librarian and having someone- in this case ME(Tschai)-coming and asking for assistance and being told basically to help myself because in comparison to the Librarian (YOU)- I was obviously lazy and stupid and did not DESERVE your help-in other words the Librarian (you) believes their knowledge and wisdom to be so LOFTY that they merely heap scorn and contempt upon the person asking for their help (ME)-and assumes this person (ME) to not be applying themselves TO THE WORK and therefore not WORTHY of their PRECIOUS time (to which you allude several times in this and previous posts)

As if MY time is of little or no consequence-and what I have to do cannot POSSIBLY take precedence over what YOU have to do.

I also explained that the subject of STO vs STS was OFF TOPIC for this thread (I merely stated my take on what some previous posters had already said) and was (as far as this topic was concerned) finished. If you wanted to continue this "argument"you needed to move it to another thread.

My statement regarding there being no such thing as STO in 3D also stands as "technically" correct-you even pointed it out yourself (unwittingly, I might add) in the very passage where the C's say we cannot be STO in this REALM-PERIOD.They use language almost IDENTICAL to that which I used.

The "devil" as you say lies in the definition of the word REALM and how it is used in context with the statement made by the C's in your example. REALM in this case-IMO-means 3rd Density-and if that is so,

We must cross from this REALM (3rd density) into the next REALM (4th density) via the REALM BORDER CROSSING (The WAVE) BEFORE we can become STO. So technically-we CANNOT be STO in 3rd density-period.

The C's said it themselves- in exactly this way-but did give ONE way it might be possible-and I did concede this point -and that is if one (as a human being) achieves LOFTY spirituality, but only a handful of humans- Buddah and Jesus given as a couple of examples-have ever managed to achieve this. This was the ONLY way in which I use the word LOFTY-not in relation to the C's or their teaching.

My statement was not twisted nor cobbled together-nor misconceived. It was formed from an over-all understanding of the material-plus the fact the C's repeatedly make this statement (in regard to STS/STO) because they are asked this same question on many occasions-and they always respond the same way-and use the words REALM /DENSITY interchangebly-or so it seems to me-BUT SOME TIMES it is difficult to determine if they actually mean the same thing. On that point, I may just be wrong-and will gladly accept that if someone should care to elucidate-that's why I am here.

SAYING that because humans were STO before the "FALL"and were in 3rd Density invalidates my statement is not really correct. My statement refers to humans in their PRESENT state-NOW. Perhaps if you had asked me to clarify my position-which I would have done... Gladly.And the C's said that the human condition was actually closer to 4th D than 3rd D-so IMO doesn't really qualify as true 3rd D STO-plus they were not the same type of humans (if I understand it correctly) as exist now. They had a different "soul" complex.

I could not make the same type statement regarding Gurdjief or Oupenski because I am not as familiar with their material-but when I read it, I understand it. Just as I understood the Ra material. Instinctively. I naturally "resonate" to this material-don't know how, I just do. That doesn't mean I am right on all occasions-and sometimes it is hard to comprehend-and I have to "digest" the material before it gels. No brag-just fact.

I have to have it shoved under my nose, though. I don't channel Gurdjief or Oupenski-this doesn't just pop into my head, like with some folks-but when I do see it, I readily seem to grasp it.

Another reason I withdrew (from this particular forum)- because it is obvious-although several folks have attempted to point this out-that you are not willing to let this go and continue doggedly on like nothing has transpired-and I did not want the interaction to escalate into a "flame" war.

I made my apologies-in a sincere attempt to make peace-and even parted in friendship-in hopes that there could be intellectual exchange in some future Forum.

We are here to learn-and there are many lessons to learn besides the C's material, one of those things is personal interactions-which you apparently do not grok, for whatever reason.

You cannot say "I'm sorry and be done"-you have to follow it up with some rationalization even more offensive than the first-and further expect the folks here to help YOU with your alleged "attacks"-when you will not extend the same courtesy (HELP) to others-WHEN ASKED. STO- No regard for self. HELP when ASKED.

So I withdrew to stop wasting precious time and bandwidth on a topic which quite frankly should have run it's course way before now.

My advice to you is-do not post anything more on this topic- especially with my screen name attached in connection-take some time away.

Deal with your Mother's health situation and YOURS if need be-that is most paramount right now-then come back to the Forums when your energies are in harmony and you can be more receptive-right now they are being blocked and misdirected by your concern for your Mother.

Peace.

 

[Ruth]

Hello everyone,
<snip>
I would rather let sleeping dogs lie, to use a phrase-but I guess, since I am of Irish descent-I cannot go down without a fight. (Never pick a fight with an Irishman!) or a least "a word or two in me' own defense"

And quite frankly-I did not want to come "down" to a level where one must engage in virtual fisticuffs.

Yeah, it tends to be wasted energy, but the weird thing that 'jumped out at me' is that here is another reference to 'dogs'. Saman speaks about his 'inner dog' and you said 'let sleeping dogs lie'. I'm wondering if some thinking on the canine architype would be beneficial? Perhaps focusing on the more positive aspects of their behaviour.

 

[Saman]

Further-I did not say the teachings of the C's was LOFTY-what I said was in reference to an individual-in this case -YOU (Saman)-acting in the role of a Librarian and having someone- in this case ME(Tschai)-coming and asking for assistance and being told basically to help myself because in comparison to the Librarian (YOU)- I was obviously lazy and stupid and did not DESERVE your help-in other words the Librarian (you) believes their knowledge and wisdom to be so LOFTY that they merely heap scorn and contempt upon the person asking for their help (ME)-and assumes this person (ME) to not be applying themselves TO THE WORK and therefore not WORTHY of their PRECIOUS time (to which you allude several times in this and previous posts)

Hi Tschai, All. After re-reading Esoquests reply again tonight, and thinking about what Laura and others have 'mirrored' recently while away from home, I going to make an acknowledgement here. It was due to 'my', that is "Saman" the imposter, self importance that I, the REAL so to say Saman, failed to see and thus replied to you in an empathic-less manner that I did. I see now that all the rationalizations that I have stated thus far about honouring your Free Will and so on are simply very clever self justification for the "Predator Mind's" self importance. The trigger that unconsciously invoked 'my' self importance was in thinking that you were stating that the C's teachings were lofty when you stated:

"I would like to refresh my memory on that point...I do remember they said it was possible-but the parameters were such it would be (virtually) impossible for the "average" person to attain-how did they put it? Oh yes- it would require one to attain LOFTY sprirituality-I will not use examples so as not to offend anyones convictions-and I am not certain everyone would have the same definition of LOFTY spirituality."

Moreover, what is odd is that I missed this part from the context above completely until just now:

"I do remember they said it was possible-but the parameters were such it would be (virtually) impossible for the average" person to attain."

So the reason for this is most likely because I was blindingly too focused on the misconceived notion of you making a so called accusation of the C's teachings as being lofty, and this was due to the "Predator Mind's" very clever manner of invoking 'my' self importance in order to blind me within from seeing this. I should had simply asked you for the clarification of your thoughts, but instead I projected this loftyness which I dislike so much onto you, and even missed the very short excerpt above where you stated that you were aware [] that they [had] said it was possible.


So to 'conclude' this current introspection, self importance was at the root behind the reply to Tschai, but it was cleverly camouflaged with some rationally lofty misconceptive notion of honouring his Free Will.

Thank you Tschai for your recent response, and All who have shared their 'mirroring' with this Mr. lofty, who has been acting quite fouty in regards to you, without even knowing it till now due to the intense "friction" of energies within. Tschai, please forgive me for this "fall", but I hope you don't forgive and forget.

 

[Nathan]

It's amazing how things can escalate from such simple misunderstandings - or confusion of tongues.

It was due to 'my', that is "Saman" the imposter, self importance that I, the REAL so to say Saman, failed to see and thus replied to you in an empathic-less manner that I did.

Forgive the semantics here but the division made between "Saman" the imposter and the "REAL so to say Saman" does strike me as a potential trick for the predator's mind to somehow dodge part of the responsibility and keep possession of at least some pride. Much like how one would explain one's behaviour while intoxicated by saying, "That really wasn't me last night, it was the alcohol talking". The fact is, whether it's the self-important you or the hula-hooping you, it's still you! :P

Having said that, I'm not suggesting you haven't taken responsibility for this; I thought it might be worth pointing out.

 

[Guest]

Another reason I withdrew (from this particular forum)- because it is obvious-although several folks have attempted to point this out-that you are not willing to let this go and continue doggedly on like nothing has transpired-and I did not want the interaction to escalate into a "flame" war.

I made my apologies-in a sincere attempt to make peace-and even parted in friendship-in hopes that there could be intellectual exchange in some future Forum.

Not to nitpick here, but I think you meant "thread" where you said "forum". Forum is the whole spectrum of topics of discussion (OSIT) and thread is the disscussion surrounding one topic. I say this, because I had the impression you were leaving the "forum" for another "forum", looking to shop for another site.

This perception gave me the impression that you were perhaps bothered more than you were, and that influenced my responses a bit I think, as I didn't consider that you were just busy and needed to attend to other things. No big deal, and I have to say, I didn't participate in the last few pages of the OP thread myself because I also thought it was getting too convoluted and abstract (at least for me). I thought I would just wait till the steam was spent, but I couldn't resist posting a general observation as I find the OP thread very constructive, and would have liked to see it get back to more down to earth matters.

Anyway, I think it is important to observe the nuances of resistance, the details that we may take for granted like placing emphasis that the weakness induced by the predator is "other" than us, because it is those nuances that can grow into full blow self-manipulation if permited to do so.

There are two extremes here. In one case we may consider predatory mind as something other and shunt a bit of our response-ability by viewing ourselves as innocent victims to its ways, and in the other we carry full blame, guilt and responsibility, and end up beating ourselves up instead of addressing what is really going on.

So it pays to have a perspective that there IS a predator and extraneous influences manipulating our weaknesses, because elliminating the predator is elliminating an alien presence, while if we take all the blame we resist that ellimination because we think we are denying a part of ourselves.

On the other hand, we must never forget that it takes two to tango, and the vampire must be invited and welcomed to stay in the abode of our psyche where it does latch onto OUR weaknesses. The balanced perspective is not as easy to attain as it may sound (OSIT), but that perspective makes the work a whole lot easier and is worth attending.

 

[tschai]

As always your insight is welcome.

And Ruth's reference to the "dog" "canine" aspect is something I really did not think about whilst writing my post...hmmm-most interesting!

I'll have to think about that and see where it may lead, if anywhere.

And, yes, my bad-thread not Forum...thanks for pointing that out.

I hope Saman is able to work through his difficulties and all goes well for his Mother-he seems really distressed on that issue as anyone would be.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Glad this is resolved. So Saman has an inner dog and Tschai has an inner Irishman. So Saman can say "Down boy!" to it. Tschai can say"Sit down and have another Guinness!" I guess mine may be an inner college professor. I would have to say, "Get down off that podium and shut up!" :)

As always your insight is welcome.

And Ruth's reference to the "dog" "canine" aspect is something I really did not think about whilst writing my post...hmmm-most interesting!

I'll have to think about that and see where it may lead, if anywhere.

And, yes, my bad-thread not Forum...thanks for pointing that out.

I hope Saman is able to work through his difficulties and all goes well for his Mother-he seems really distressed on that issue as anyone would be.

 

[knowledge_of_self]

You identify self-importance not as your own (refusing responsiblity even for its possibility) but your "inner dog's". Of course you did not invent this term, and it may be a decent analogy in a certain context, but I do think you are looking at this inner dog, and hence yourself, in self-depreciating terms (which is a reciprocal effect of placing importance on "non-dog" aspects, instead of the true teacher, the "dog").

Hi everyone:
Just a quick question in regards to the term "inner dog". EsoQuest, you state in the above that Saman did not invent the term. Could you or someone please point to me where this term originates? I've reaserached for this term on the Glossery,on this forum, cass-chat, but have not come to the term of "inner dog" until it was mentioned by Saman, and thus I am somewhat confused as to the actual meaning of the term. Maybe I have just missed it before and sometimes we miss seeing things that are right under our nose.
Thanks kindly
Nina