Another instant 'attack'?

[Saman]

Let me try to clarify my perspective in these responses. Please try to look at the spirit of the letter, as opposed to rigid definitions of terminology.

Well yes, I think this depends on what type of machine you have inherently. Some machines have a inherent tendency, an impulse, to "fight fire with fight" within, and so, the hyperdimensional "predator mind" does wish to persuade the owner of the inner dog to lash out through both its inherent[] agressiveness and self deception in order to have "two to tango". So knowledge and experience of both these types of manipulations blocks the draining of life force to the hyperdimensional "predator mind" above from the "predator mind" or say the inner dog below.

The problem is unconscious identification with the predator, meaning the "owner self" does not know where it ends and he/she begins. I believe we are speaking of formations of conditioned instinct regarding this "dog" here. I take the inner dog to be former natural instinct conditioned by predator programming, and not the predator itself (at least as I have been sorting out my thoughts on the matter here).

Yes, the natural instinct is fine and healthy since it is of "normal sex"; however, the "conditioned predator programming" is not healthy and of "infra sex". The "owner self", so to speak, does know where it begins and ends, and so, this is why the inner dog needs to be tamed to follow what is pure and healthy and not what is "conditioned predator programming". So now in regards to this "owner self" learning to find a way to tame this inner dog away from these conditioned predator programmings, please see what I wrote in reflection to Ruth recently.

Unless the three lower centers are aligned in one consciousness they are prone to mechanical conditioning. The predator is the software of that conditioning that imprints upon the three centers in different ways, osit.

Yes, affirmative :)

Observation identifies the program, and gives us the option of starving it, because it perpetuates itself through reinforcement, as you yourself expressed.

I understood what you meant until you stated "it perpetuates itself through reinforcement". Can you please clarify this in more simple terms.

The predator pushes the true self aside, and what is possessed cannot be given the consciousness that would liberate it.

What is the "what", that is what do you mean by it, that is possessed [] in the statement above? Can you please clarify?

Deception blocks the consciousness of the true self because it sets up conditions that invalidate it.

Yes the True self is nullified by the conditioned predator programmings that "push" one's Being's FRV back towards the STS Thought Center.

When you are deceived to thinking you are attacked, for example, the owner self is shunted aside and the conditioned defense programming takes over.

The devil here is that there are usually many levels to the stupendously cunning manners of deceptions by the hyperdimensional "predator minds", or say 4D STS, which are quite systematic if you notice the patterns in the aftermath [of] the attack, [that is] the indirect lesson, if it was successful [from their end]. So you might notice one of the levels of deception, but you might not notice one or more of the others, and the manner [] these levels of deception are step up [is] so that if you just miss one of them, then the others follow through and still initiate the attack in a different way, like if this then that but if not then this and so on, and these levels of deception are tied into to the senses of the three lower centers, [and] these senses can be deceived through conditioned predator programmings which are "genetically, spiritually and psychically manipulated/engineered" to make us bodycentric, or say to identify solely with the inner dog's needs and wants: i.e. not being able to see something while reading, and then, being chemically influenced through technology to falsely "think" that you have got the reading right the first time through the invoking [of] the machines "self importance" which makes the inner dog feel good, and so, the clever deception in which you don't bother to look back at the data to see if you were originally blinded through sight [and] thus missed something crucial. So due to this invoking of "self importance" and allowing oneself to identify with the inner dog's conditioned predator programmings of wanting to possess this feel- good "high", the hyperdimensional predators are fe[]d with life-force from your Being that has usurped your life-force to "taste" negative due to passing through the negative half of the lower emotional center.

This conditioning perverts natural instinct, natural emotion, natural mind, and these cannot act in harmony to their potential because alignment with owner consciousness is blocked.

Yes.

So the "owner" is either semiconscious or sometimes even unconscious. We can be decieved, but only when the owner is semi or unconscious because the owner does not participate in deceptions. We are decieved to the degree the real "I" is not present during this deception. Or it can be present and try to warn the whole psychic complex, but is not given credence because predatory presence is as yet overwhelming.

I think all the above is valid. There is also the case that the "owner" is kept intensely too busy within in order have some data through the deception of the senses simply flash by, and so, to miss the sight of it.

In addition, I consider the deceptive predator mind to be not really a machine, but a program imposed on our organic/psychic complex.

I think there is much, much more to it then the above. The deceptive predator mind below is much more then a program. It is much more complex because the predator mind above has through hyperdimensional technology duplicated our minds to its own image, and so, the very Essence of our Being is predominately aligned with it. Work on the Essence is not just through basic observation. It must be done intently based on what one understands to the Essential difference between STO and STS in terms of FRV.

This program blocks out the real "I" and replaces it with its own erroneous definitions of reality. Tendencies of "fighting fire with fire", for example, originate in the nature as part of individuality, but become perverted because the self is fragmented, and each fragment is conquered and led by the predatory program.

The program may be "mechanical" in its nature, but it is also very clever, and has access to the deepest recesses of our instinctual, emotive and mental expressions and potentials. The culprit, therefore, is not the "inner dog" as natural animal nature, but a very clever predator that has become the master of the dog, and with full access to our inner "files"/weaknesses.

This is why you have to tame the inner dog away from this clever predator. Please see what I wrote in reflection to Ruth.

Observation is in part to learn what is going on, but the deeper purpose is to activate the observer, which is the true "I". Through observation the true I is energized and can claim its rightful place in the psychic matrix. The true "I" cannot be manipulated, but it can be rendered impotent because it is shunted away from its true role.

Mechanical responses, like responding in a defensive manner when circumstances do not indicate attack, represent the predator defending itself. It is the predator that identifies with the real self. The real self, on the other hand, when semiconscious cannot identify itself in order to act. In this stage, howerver, it may be able to observe passively. As it becomes conscious, moreover, and discovers where the predator is attached to it, it can learn to intervene and make the choices.

This is usually a gradual process, and usually a battle for every inch gained. Every time the dog controls response the true I is lacking presence in the lower center where said response originates. So in the beginning the true "I" can begin to observe and regain consciousness, and after it has understood the inner topography of the predator's attachments it can actually intervene with knowledge.

So again, a software program cannot force anything except a false reality upon semi or unconscious centers of mind, emotion and instinct. These are parts of the psyche, but unless aligned and flooded with the consciousness of the true "I", they depend on the program to insure the survival of the organism of which they are a part, and the context of that survival is defined by the predator.

They are, therefore, parts of the natural psyche, misaligned, and divorced from the axis of true self, and enslaved to the predator because that is the only reality available to them. This condition, when the "I" begins to activate is not guaranteed for the predator, and a battle begins between two inner realities.

The three centers cannot choose without some consciousness to guide them. So the outcome depends on which consciousness is dominant at any given time. If it is the true "I", choices are based on truth. If it is the predator, energy is expended to fulfill its falshoods. When the real "I" begins to make itself known, the predator expends a large amount of energy in invalidate any and all conditions the promote the real "I's" empowerment.

This is how I view the dynamics of deception discussed here. It's a complex situation, and we are trying to elaborate upon what others have written volumes trying to convey, so it is not easy to clarify the points, even when focusing on immediate practicals.

What you describe above is the intense "friction" within between the animal man and the spiritual man, or say between the predator mind and the Real I or say True I "to be".

The animal man does not have a conscience, and so, it is [the] spiritual mant vibrates guilt through the inner dog, or say the physical body.

As I tried to describe above, the true "I", is the conscious observer and the axis of true free choice, and hence cannot be decieved. Guilt is felt through the emotion center, which responds to a false view of reality. Or it may respond to the consequences of falsely based thoughts or actions.

If one has been fully "seated" then yes, I agree with the above explanation. If if one is still a "seed" "growing", then one can still be deceived due not being the permanent "master" of the "carriage", "horse", and "driver".

The three centers are part of our "legitmate" psychic complex, but they are usurped, fragmented and controlled by predatory programming. For a human being to spiritualize, and the higher centers to be present in the psychic complex, the lower ones must be claimed by the axis of true consciousness and aligned with it. Then they do not respond to erroneous input, but to truth, and the powers of all centers combine as one to deal with any situation appropriately. In that situation, dissonance can be perceived, but it is an encounter with a dissonant energy as an objectively perceived (albeit unpleasant) energy, and not a response to identifying with an inner movie of the predator.

So this distinction between animal and spiritual man, can be taken out of context. The predatory program has no conscience. True conscience, in my honest opinion, is not self-recrimination as is often popularized. True conscience is natural perception of people and events, that can result in perceptual dissonance when the these are dissonant in nature. Events include those that are of our environment, and the pervieved actions of the predator within and upon the three centers.

The true "I" being knowledgable, and being the axis of identity channeling the flow from the higher to the lower centers, acts from a perspective of knowledge and honesty, and so does not involve itself in self-recrimination. It is the predator that punishes, and often "rewards". In truth, the three lower centers are the predator's lapdogs, when under its power.

"It is the predator that punishes, and often "rewards". In truth, the three lower centers are the predator's lapdogs, when under its power." This very statement can be cleverly used by the Predator Mind to rationalize and justify its sovereignty within through its conditioned predator programmings of the inner dog's natural instincts. Punishment, or say consequences for the inner dog to do something not in accord with the Essence of the True Self within and in accord with the predators conditioned predator programmings is not only necessary, it is paramount. This is the TRUE "battle" within between the spiritual man and the animal man.

That explains how it can make you do anything, by making you identify with it, and fooling you into thinking you are not. It vibrates itself, and you go along because you think it is vibrating you.

You make it sound Esoquest as if it can fool me on a regular basis. Why is this?

Your question is based on an assumption. From where did this assumption originate? Since my intent is to describe a process that can affect anyone to some degree, it also includes you and me. You happen to be the trigger of the discussion, and of the particular lesson dramatized here. So the only "making" is in yourself. From my part, I simply have to be blunt, trusting that those here realize that we are discussing a complex and challenging situation. I think, however, that I am being civil in doing so, contrary to what you read into this.

Another assumption is "regular basis". I don't know you personally. I do know the specific situation involving this lesson, because there is enough information to observe its dynamics. The truth is that the predator can make people do whatever it can get away with. And it doesn't do this in one push, but through deception built upon deception.

All of us are, therefore, fooled in very small things on a regular basis, stray thoughts, stray feelings, stray impuses often build into whole deceptive formations if we are not vigilant. That is why self-observation is difficult initially, because the observer is abscent for the most part. I am describing my take on what happens when you are fooled. Psychopaths are under permanent control.

The rest of us are not immune to exhibiting psychopathic reactions even if that is for a few seconds of impulse, or we can be suprized when hidden buttons are pushed. And we can resolve this not by addressing the symtoms, which may be conditioned responses to imagined stimuli, but the roots behind them. When the blind spot, furthermore, is covers a greater psychic territory we can react to a whole slew of imagined threats or imposed inner stimuli.

Self honesty is the foundation to counter this control, and it implies identification with true "I", which never lies. Self honesty is difficult, however, because of the prevalence of blind spots in our being. These are where we are blind and true "I" is not present, so the one who runs the show is the predator.

Brutal honesty is not easy, but with consitent observation it can lead to making correct assessments regarding being fooled or not. If it doesn't, there is always the lesson from circustance and others.

Understood and thank you for clarifying your intentions in that moment of writing.

Because the "fall" is a repeating syndrome in terms of FRV, and "ups" are when we are at [a] certain frequency that is not as low as the FRV of the "fall" due to the soverienty of the spiritual man within, and not the animal man

Others have described their experiences to self-observation in other threads. And even G says the epiphany of recognizing true "I" is very brief, and usually comes with a shock at first, and recognition does not stabilize usually until after a prolonged period of consistent deconditioning.

I, therefore, do not identify lack of crisis with being "up".

You have misunderstood what I mean. I never stated that a lack of crisis was a "up". What I was talking about was in regards to FRV, the "emotional pathway", and its Essential destination, and so, "ups" or "falls" in regards to reaching this destination, and getting there has to do with what the C's stated about "possession is the key".

Crisis is not a "fall", it is the shock of becoming aware of being fallen. The change from the fallen state to the one where we begin to rise is a radical one. Crisis comes when we encounter the walls of the labyrinth of our fallen state. Those who obey the predator implicitly navigate the labyrinth or matrix with proficiency and do not feel the dissonance of encountering its walls, hence being hit with the fact of their entrapment.

Or you can view the barriers as ceilings over our heads that we encounter as we attempt to rise. The encounter is an encounter with knowledge, the knowledge of our state. There is no fall here. Those who remain fallen, and are commited to stay that way, usually do not "fall" or encounter dissonance unless they are faced with the energy of others who are rising.

As mentioned above, the "fall" is in regards to FRV and your Being's chosen "emotional pathway".

As you can see, "falls" can become lessons and hence they are not "falls", but the process of actually rising up.

Yes. Why do think I quoted falls? To imply the very thing above. It's sort of like what MJ said back in a tv commercial years ago: "I fall and fall again, and that is why I succeed"

Again, let me clarify: What seem like falls are actually lessons of rising. The quote above is a version of "I learn from my mistakes". I want to clarify that lessons are not mistakes because there is a lot of negative bias against the word "mistake". A lesson cannot be a mis-take. Only denying the crisis (or not grokking it to its fullest) is a mistake. And that "mistake" is a conditioned reaction to the predator acting on a blind spot.

I never stated that a lesson was a mistake. Please see above in regards to what I mean about "falls" and "ups".

You cannot avoid crisis by doing things the right way in the sense of following a predetermined menu of behaviour. Only when you are aware can you be free of crises. The whole point of these is, after all, to accelerate awareness. Thus, at some point crises stop naturally because enough presence has been attained.

Trying to forcibly avoid them, however, can actually lead to them, because the predator functions cybernetically, and avoidance can easily align someone with that mechanical dynamic. The predator drives to certain outcomes, and avoids others in a simplistic manner. It can, furthermore, doctor our three centers to elaborate upon its simplicity with deceptive convolutions.

Let me make a clarification here: it seems that that number of individuals are under the impression that I am simply ignoring what has transpired in regards to the recent "fall" of my Being in the sense of sustaining an essential quality of FRV heading towards STO polarity. Telling me about it over and over again is not going to shock me. I have already experienced such shocks before in much more intense degrees, and so, the shock in regards to this recent "fall" is not as shocking as it was before. This doesn't mean however that such shocks are any less important for my aim due to my emotional center not identifying with the inner dog's conditioned predator programming of selfpity. It just means that my emotional center is not as overreactive as it used to be to such shocks.

The true self is open to all experience in its venue, and discriminates regarding what part of that experience is a predator trap. If it cannot discriminate, the "trap" is really a ceiling that it needs to encounter, and break through, to keep rising. When the self encounters crisis, it embraces it to the extent it is conscious in the totality of the person. Doing so is an investment to get beyond the need for crises.

Yes, as long as YOU are still in this realm, you are naturally still partially identified with it because you fit in this slot

We do ALL fit here. And what I write is based on encountering all of these things myself. Without the experience of all of these dynamics I would be simply speaking from the top of my head. Hitting that head on several ceilings tought me that the only thing speaking outside of experience (at least in terms of inner development) does is reveal more ceilings. So as long as those ceilings existed, I had the tendency to bypass experience and over-extrapolate.

What I meant by YOU was not you personally in the above context. what I meant by YOU is the REAL I within in general, or say that "part" of one that is in the process of becoming more REAL by gradually being "seated" permanently within.

I am confident that as long as I stay centered there will be no more head slams, and at the same time I am sensitive to even the slightest variations in the space of my rising so as to stop and look up before I hit anything. So although I learned not to slam my head, I am still moving through barriers. Slamming your head hurts alot more than moving through barriers consciously, I have to say.

Experience is the foundation of understanding, and the grounding that allows firm footing as we progress into unknown territory, and as we accumulate knowledge, we realize at some point we can continue growing without hitting our heads.

All in all, you can transcend the ceilings where the lesson finds you unaware, through increasing experience in THIS realm, and can consciously seek out learning in this realm without the discomfort of being shocked by your own consciousness coming abrubtly awake.

The devil here is that there is no blame in simply feeling psychopathic influences, but there is a "blame" if we identif[y] and ACT out on such influences. This "blame" is the "flame" or say "fricition" within between the animal man and the spiritual man.

If you define "blame" as awareness and response-ability (ability to responde) to an encountered crisis, I agree. If you define "blame" as self-recrimination, I have to disagree. Putting oneself on trial is a predatory impulse, that feeds on the conditioned compliance of semi-conscious portions of the self.

I define it as the former but with consequences, that is, consequences in relation to gently and yet firmly taming the inner dog away from its conditioned predator programmings, or say to take measures to "tune the reading instrument". Would you like me to give you a personal example of the manner of the taming? That way, you can see if I am self deceiving myself or not.

Personally, I am a bit reticent regarding the terms "animal man" and "spiritual man", especially when these are viewed as being in necessary opposition by their very nature. By condemning the animal nature offhand we tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and forget that this is a part possessed by the predator that needs to align with our central axis of being. By opposing it instead of understanding its point of view, we demonize our own nature.

It all goes back to what Laura wrote recently in regards to the Sufi explanation of the first command of "God" in relation to the animal man within, meaning that the imperfections of the animal man are perfect due to "God's" command to BE, and the second command of "God" in relation to becoming the "object of knowledge", or say to becoming the Perfect Man who Understands why imperfection is perfection, and so, why light cannot exist without darkness and vice versa.

The predator, on the other hand, can affect the mental center and make it think it is spiritual. This is tied to self-importance. Thus, this animal/spiritual duality is engendered by the predator acting between instinctual and mental nature (with the emotions caught in between) to keep alignment from occuring. I think we have to tread very carefully when thinking along dualistic lines.

Yes, and this is why there are TWO spiritual paths in physicality. We are by default alinged with what you describe above essentially by being in this Realm. So much work must be done to move our Being away from this default mode of Being that is moving essentially through the stream of Involution, and back into the stream of Evolution, that is, if this is our chosen "emotional pathway", or so I think.

Moreover, sometimes, external factors are the steps taken by the hyperdimensional predators to systematically decieve one, and not always the higher self taking steps to point out how one is self decieved.

In principle, this is true. If the higher self, however, were the only factor there would be no need for learning. Actually, one can say that learning can easily manifest as the friction between the higher self and the predator. It is through this friction that we learn to discern in the first place.

Yes, in this side of the Realm of physicality, or say in this side of the "sand box", this is the natural state of affairs, or perhaps say the reason for this "affair" is something or somewhere along the lines of "unstable waves can be static in their instability", or so I think, I think! :) However, lets just forget the latter notion for now since it is just a tangent thought I had while writing and reflecting. :)

The[] key is to notice the pattern of the same type of attack, and to learn to block the variations of it in the future, and this through experience, is what I [am] learning to do, and that is to be extra vigilant when one is in the process of taming the inner dog in order to break it away from its life force draining chemically feel-good emotional habits, and thus, save energy for other practical uses.

Again, I agree in principle, but I think a bit of qualification is in order here. The only way to understand such attacks is to understand the dissonance. It is through the imposed implications of that dissonance that our behavior is controlled to a great extent. The pattern itself is difficult to understand because its variations are very likely a very large number.

What we need to understand, therefore, is the weakness these varied attacks attempt to manipulate. Understanding dissonance leads to understanding the "sore spot" the attacks target. Simply trying to evolve through confronting predator strategy with counter-strategy through mental assessment of patterns, is not only limited in what it can do for us, but also dangerous. Without immersion in all levels of our lower centers, and the dissonance created in them, we can easily misinterpret the pattern, and end up avoiding our own growth, which is what the predator wants.

The above makes a lot of sense and I agree.

Regarding taming the inner dog, you yourself said (when speaking of your enthusiasm) that there is nothing wrong with feeling creative drive, which is a good feeling. And I was in agreement, despite the misunderstanding. The point is that the animal aspects of self are divorced from the consciousness that is its natural source of sustenance, and hence is forces to rely on the predator, and its addictive versions of "good feeling".

"Taming" is a metaphore that needs careful consideration, IMO. We do not "integrate" with our real-world domesticated critters, and conversly I don't think "taming" is an accurate analogy for integration of lower aspects of self. Such a term implies control, and you do not control that which is part of you, you align with it and sustain it through your "I" perspective so it ceases to be a "part", and can merge into a greater summation of selfhood.

This is why I suggested in my reflections to Ruth that you don't try to change its nature but to find a way to tame it through its own nature, and so, in this way "it can merge into a greater summation of selfhood" without forcing it. A scorpion is a scorpion because it has been coded through its DNA to be so; hence, the inner dog, the 3D STS physical body, has been recoded by 4D STS to be service to self oriented. So the key is to find a manner to strategically use this very orientation of the 3D STS physical body to move towards a different orientation essentially, that is, if you can first of all discern the differences in Essence between the STS "emotional pathway" and the STO "emotional pathway" in every moment through your Awareness, which due to your level of Knowledge, your Being's level of experiences, and your current point of Understanding...

The predator tends to present the real "I" as a slave-driver to the more primitive portions, and hence they resist it, and there is inner conflict. This lie must not be fed, IMO. To be consistent with the dog analogy, I think we need to befriend this aspect so it becomes our constant companion instead of the predator's attack dog.

Yes, 4D STS re-coded us to be slaves, and it is only natural that they will present a false real "I" as a slave-driver through the minds that they have given us in order for us to be come THEM in one of the potential branches in the future

This means owning it as ourself, because after all, the predator plays divide and conquer games with the psyche. The predator is, furthermore, conditioning, but it is US who are conditioned. We are the "hardware" under its "software" virus, if you will, as I see it at least.

The thing is that they gave us both the "hardware" and "software" of their minds because we obliged to "fall" in terms of FRV due to wanting to possess more sensate for the self.

So I think we are seeking to relieve portions of ourselves from a false master supplying false rewards and strict punishments to keep those portions in line. In that sense, integration is liberation from the source of manipulative addictions, not the suppression of well-being. Otherwise, again, we can encourage a greater rift between the three centers as well as with the higher centers, and end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

You see, if [we] strive to consciously not feed the hyperdimensional predators, they will systematically try to set up situations for you to loose faith in yourself and give up in attempting to break a habbit or addiction [or obsession], and so, if you allow them to decieve you and try to "fight fire with fire" within through that "foreign object", then those pains in the head and so forth, those feeling of constriction you have spoken of, have been effective [and affective] for their plan.

Sometimes, however, in striving to starve the predators we end up starving our lower centers and affirming the predators as the only viable source of sustenance to them. And of course that sustenance is conditioning, and it is addictive because we with-hold the natural alternative, the higher energies conducted by the true "I".

I don't think the hyperdimensional predators are a viable source of sustenance for any of the lower centers, but rather the sexual center through the emotional center:

July 13, 2002

Ark, Laura, BT, VG
[...]
Q: Does the recharging of the souled
being come from a similar pool, only
maybe the "human" pool?
A: No - it recharges from the so-called
sexual center which is a higher center of
creative energy. During sleep, the
emotional center, not being blocked by
the lower intellectual cener and the
moving center, transduces the energy
from the sexual center. It is also the time
during which the higher emotional and
intellectual centers can rest from the
"drain" of the lower centers' interaction
with those pesky organic portals so much
loved by the lower centers. This respite
alone is sufficient to make a difference.
But, more than that, the energy of the
sexual center is also more available to the
other higher centers.
Q: (L) Well, the next logical question was:
where does the so-called "sexual center"
get ITS energy?
A: The sexual center is in direct contact
with 7th density in its "feminine" creative
thought of "Thou, I Love." The
"outbreath" of "God" in the relief of
constriction. Pulsation. Unstable Gravity
Waves.
[...]

So it would make sense for the hyperdimensional predators - and to say "makes sense" is just to say the least - to drain one of energy by "zapping" them and hypnotizing them to "not see craft", and then to not allow one to recharge from the sexual center during sleep in order for one to be more receptive to the discernment of the higher centers, and they can do this through "Extremely Low Pulse" or ELF vectored towards one's local with technology. During the night that I was experiencing that painful headache, I was going to respond to Laura's post in this thread, however, every time I finished writing it with great difficulty due to the headache and looked it over, it did not feel right because it was full of self importance of a foreign nature. The more I tried to write down what I was thinking, the greater the headache became to the point that I decided it was best to turn off the computer and try to get some sleep. I finally managed to fall asleep but then about two hours later my mom woke me up calling my name, and the rest of the events I have already explained. Here is the excerpt in regards to strobe lights, sounds, and "extermely low pulse", and how if one is not careful, technology could be used to alter one's inner dog's FRV back towards the hyperdimensional predator mind's FRV orientation.

November 18, 1995 F***, Laura, TR and JR
[...]
(L) Okay, is the strobing of a
strobe light, set at a certain frequency in order
to do certain things?
A: Hypnotic opener.
Q: (L) Can we say that this is something we
are being acclimated to, so that other things
that happen to us in terms of our interactions...
it just keeps one in a continual state of
hypnosis?
A: Assumptions restrict the flow!
Q: (L) What is the purpose of the hypnotic
opener being used in this way?
A: You don't notice the craft.
Q: (L) Ohhhhhhhh! So we may be being
continuously flown over by alien craft...
A: Assumption!
Q: (L) Sorry! (T) Okay, we don't notice the
craft because we see the strobes. They are
hypnotic openers and are inducing a hypnotic
effect...
A: Assumption!
Q: (T) Okay, continue, then.
A: Well, ask a question, then!
Q: (L) Okay, they are telling us not to assume,
but to ask. (T) Okay, what craft are we NOT
seeing?
A: Opener. Is precursor to suggestion, which
is auditory in nature.
Q: (T) What suggestion?
A: Put on your thinking caps. Networking is
not making assumptions. Bold unilateral
statement of "fact" is.
Q: (T) Oh. Phrase your statements in the form
of a question! I'd like "Hypnotic Openers" for
$200, Alex! Cosmic Jeopardy! (L) Okay, you
said the "suggestion is auditory in nature." If
this is the case, where is the suggestion
coming from auditory?
A: Where do you normally receive auditory
suggestions from?
Q: (L) Radio, television... (T) Telephone...
(L) Is that what we are talking about?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) If you encounter a strobe while driving,
or you are sitting in front of your television,
then the suggestions can be put into you better
because of this hypnotically opened state? Is
that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What are these suggestions designed to
do, to suggest? In a general sense?
A: Review.
Q: (L) Not see the craft?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Do we get these signals from the radio
in the car even if it is turned off?
A: Depends upon whether or not there is
another source.
Q: (T) Another source such as?
A: ELP, for example.
Q: (L) What is "ELP?"
A: Extremely Low Pulse.
Q: (T) ELF, Extremely Low Frequency, and
ELP, Extremely Low Pulse - is this the same
thing?
A: Sometimes.
Q: (T) This would be an external pulse or
frequency?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Would it be originating from the source
of the strobe?
A: No. They act in unison.
Q: (T) Two separate sources acting in unison?
A: Close.
Q: (L) And this process prevents us from
seeing something, such as craft flying in our
skies at any given time?
A: Or maybe see them as something else.
Q: (L) Now, we have to stop for a minute
because I want to tell you something. In the
past few months, I have really been watching
the sky carefully every opportunity I get. On 3
or 4 separate occasions I have seen what I
thought was an ordinary airplane, and I would
watch it carefully and then scan to the left or
right, and when I looked back at the place
where this plane should be, based on
observable speed and direction, there would
be NOTHING there. I have stood there and
searched and searched and found nothing.
These things just VANISHED. I knew I had
seen it, I knew I wasn't crazy, I knew it
couldn't have gone away that completely - and
having it happen several times has just really
unsettled me. What are the implications of
this, other than the fact that we could be
completely overflown at all times for any
number of purposes and be, as a mass of
people, completely unaware of it?
A: Yes, monoatomic gold!
Q: (L) And what does the reference to
monoatomic gold mean?
A: Total entrapment of the being, mind, body
and soul.
Q: (T) That's what Hudson said... on the
video.
A: Strobes use minute gold filament.
Q: (L) How can that compare with taking
monoatomic gold internally?
A: What composes minute filament, do you
suppose? Hint, it ain't from Fort Knox!
Q: (T) Monoatomic gold.
A: Bingo. You see, this has extraordinary
properties.
Q: (T) I'm sure it does! The thing is, if it does
what Hudson says it does, the power structure
would have shut him down - he wouldn't have
gotten this far with it. So, if they are letting
him do it, it's because it doesn't do what he
says it does, it does the opposite. Which is
what he said. When you take the stuff for so
many days, you complete the program, it
restructures your genes. Isn't that what
happened to us before? Do we want to do it
again? (L) And, wasn't it said that LIGHT was
used to cancel certain DNA factors? (J)
Exactly! (L) Okay, how do we block this kind
of control?
A: You don't.
[...]

February 1, 1997 Present: Laura, F****, TR,
JR, V
[...]
Q: (L & T) Of course! (L) Let me ask; is there
going to be any attempt to further attack or
harm us in any way?
A: Well, let us put it this way: the future is
fluid, as you know. Knowledge protects you.
But, it would be wise to picture these letters
appearing on a screen somewhere, at the same
moment that they are uttered!
Q: (L) Is it the uttering that... (T) Uttering, or
spelled on the board? (L) ...'the moment they
are uttered'... is it the uttering that is the key.
A: Does not matter, in all reality. The key is
what the expectation is as to how they are
intended to be put to use. [Discussion about
outside monitoring possibilities.]
Q: (T) Remind me; I've got another
observation to make about the people on the
other end... (L) Is there an internal
configuration or frequency level that makes it
so that the persons who are selected to do this
monitoring, or to be involved in any of this
kind of activity, such as you have described,
as in the words appearing on the screen, etc.,
so that they are definitely selected because of
their STS orientation?
A: This process takes place naturally. Now, a
warning for you. Frequency resonance
modulations of vibration rate can be altered or
modified from outside if one is not cautious
and/or aware enough, and thus takes necessary
precautions. [Discussion]
Q: (L) Well, OK, we know that. So, in other
words, not only the information channel...
A: Yours can, ours cannot! [Tape off]
Q: ...and they're letting them go and do it,
because they figure it's going to be great,
because everybody'll think it's just TV, it's just
phony. And they are hoping it won't go. The
whole thing all goes together. It's all linked
together. Somebody's watching this stuff; it's
disseminated through their organization, too.
(L) I want to ask a question...
A: Now, remember technology can be used to
"zap" you in a number of ways. For example...
beware of any episodes of sudden storminess
that may occur between you and Ark. [Tape
off.]
[...]

What I think the interdimensional predators do often is try to create (or emphasize) conflicts and contradictions between the lower centers. This can generate a push-pull clash within that can easily result in muscular tension to a painful degree.

Yes. Please see above.

As I understand it pain is not the problem, but the symptom of the problem. It is nature's way of telling us there is a problem, and the pain also tends to point at the origin of the symptoms (although this is not always straighforward with psychosomatic cases).

Or perhaps pain could be the symptom of resisting the technologically induced manipulations through will power, which is not yet the "pure" will power of the fully "seated" Real I.

I also would like to say that when the real "I" is stabilized you do not even need faith in yourself, because you are rooted in its truth that transcends faith. So sometimes we lose this faith because it is a conditioned faith. If it is fragile, it means it is dependent on fragile states, which are not healthy states.

True Faith is rooted in Knowledge with a capital K. What the hyperdimensional predators do is to systematically try to make one loose faith in their Knowledge, and thus loose Faith in their own potential of overcoming the 4D STS manipulations of the inner dog

I mentioned somewhere that acknowledging not knowing can be as empowering as knowing. When one observes, one may simply not know. That is why one observes. But to be stuck on knowing, one cannot observe, because one is projecting beyond the current state of reality.

Objectively speaking, "losing faith" is simply admitting not knowing. Looking at it this way, this "loss" is stripped of its debilitating judgments, and simply becomes an affirmation of fact. The mind often creates dramas around the concept of faith, and forces the emotions into responses that compound direct attacks on the emotion center, and makes matters much worse.

And once you affirm what you observe, you realize that before you can "break" anything you have to understand it at its roots, and the only part of you that is qualified to do so is the true "I", which needs to come into presence. It does so through the energy of observation, which is really experiencing all three centers and increasing the depth of experience.

This increased in depth of inner perception corresponds to the power of the "I" to be aware. Then things can begin sorting themselves out, because as far as I'm concerned, the lower centers prefer their natural higher center sustanance rather then the addictive toxins of the predator, but cannot choose when the alternative is not present for them.

As I said before, I don't think that the hyperdimensional predators ever give any sort of sustenance to the lower centers because they only drain. However, they can manipulate and corrupt the energy, that is life-force, which [is] already circulating within one in order to sustain themselves, and one way they do this is by trying to invoke one's self importance through psychological and hypnotic suggestions which in turn if one is fooled, "juice up" the body to produce physiological mannerisms to usurp the life-force to "taste" negative and thus feed them THROUGH the inner dog [that has been conditioned, or say coded, to do so.]

 

[Guest]

I think we agree on some things and are stuck on terms in others. I will try to distill the basic points to keep the discussion from getting too convoluted. That, after all, makes difficult reading. I presented my ideas on the subject, and they are there for the record, but since there are some questions I'll try to clarify. We are all free to come to our own conclusions, as it should be.

Yes, the natural instinct is fine and healthy since it is of "normal sex";...

I wasn't referring to sex per se. The instinct nature goes well beyond it. And I think I made myself clear regarding misgivings to the word tame. Tame, as I see it, implies to subdue, and I do not think this is the correct attitude, for reasons already stated. Even if "tame" is not originally intended that way, it can imply that the lower nature is somehow "wild" and that wildness is detrimental.

If we think about it, however, wild animals are simply free beings within their own context. The lower nature, however, is not an independent being (or should not be in a healthy human). It is a portion of a whole, and not in the sense of a piece of a pie, but of a whole that is more than the sum of its parts.

The ancient symbol is the Centaur, a being combining the human with the animal, with all the intelligence and dexterity of a human and all the power of the horse. In Greek mythology Centaurs were bestial, indicating that this fusion of higher and lower centers was not really feasable for most. There was, however, one exception indicating it was possible. This was Chiron, a paragon of wisdom and healing capability, who trained many heroes.

Yet, even Chiron had to endure wounds he could not heal, and even death until he fervently prayed for it, and was placed like many figures of myth in the night sky, after in one version of the myth he traded places with Promethius.

Thus, even in ancient times, the merger could not complete itself. It is up to us to do so. It is US that are split in two, having one side dominate generates imbalance, and it is this imbalance that has thwarted this process in the past, and still does. The key, therefore, is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. A new being, a true being that is not yet born. It is our task to engender that birth of our beings through the alignment/merger of our separate fragments.

I understood what you meant until you stated "it perpetuates itself through reinforcement". Can you please clarify this in more simple terms.

As I said, volumes have already been written about these subjects, and it's hard to elaborate in these already long posts. The predator program perpetuates itself through reinforcement in the sense of reward and punishment. That is reinforcement. Tempation leads to reward, and dissonance to punishment. So if you simply follow the program the lower centers (including the lower mind) are rewarded, and delusions are maintained and reinforced. If you buck the trend there is an adverse reaction, hence "punishment".

You may find other strategies of the predator besides this one, but I believe this one is basic.

I think there is much, much more to it then the above. The deceptive predator mind below is much more then a program. It is much more complex because the predator mind above has through hyperdimensional technology duplicated our minds to its own image, and so, the very Essence of our Being is predominately aligned with it. Work on the Essence is not just through basic observation. It must be done intently based on what one understands to the Essential difference between STO and STS in terms of FRV.

Let me elaborate: The predator compared to the livingness and complexity of soul and true I is a cybernetic system, although not corporeal in the physical/molecular sense. It is a cybernetic self-sustaining pattern, as I see it. It's basic drives are simple, to subdue and feed. It's tactices are elaborations of the reinforcement mechanisms I described above, and its strategies can get very complex because they are adaptive to the complexity of our psyche.

The predator pushes the true self aside, and what is possessed cannot be given the consciousness that would liberate it.

What is the "what", that is what do you mean by it, that is possessed [] in the statement above? Can you please clarify?

What is possessed are all the fragments of true self. True "I" is the observer of true self, as I see it. I do not believe it can stand alone, any more than any single organ in our body can stand alone, at least if it wants to fulfill its evolutionary purpose.

So the perspective of "I" is our axis and starting point, like a seed crystal in solution drawing all the suspended elements into its matrix to grow into the wholeness of true self. I am trying to not only clarify, but attempt to build upon my previous posts, so I can better express where I am coming from. That is the purpose of dialogue, to stimulate the growth of an idea being communicated through its elaboration as the dialogue provides the prompting for that growth.

This is why you have to tame the inner dog away from this clever predator. Please see what I wrote in reflection to Ruth.

Is this the reflection to which you were referring?

Ruth, as usual, you are emotionally in a debate mode rather then a discussion mode, and in this instance, it is due to your machine's activation of a deflective program invoked by the word "faulty" and how the latter is related to your point of view, and thus, instead of providing data on why you think your point of view is not faulty, you rather allow the machine's "self importance", that is, the 'inner dog' who wants to possess the feeling of being right, to run the show within. Hence, it seems I am speaking to a stone wall that only mirrors some of what I have stated back to me but with a clever twist, that is, a twist that is even a contradiction to what was stated previously by "yourself" behind this wall that wishes to not sincerely answer any questions but to go on and on with deflective rhetoric.

I think as this thread and the one where this quote originated shows, we have to be careful about how we reflect. It's really not something that should be taken lightly, IMO, and we need to check and double check within to keep touch with our empathy. We are all mirrors of each other, and some mirrors are distorted so that we can easily find ourselves in a hall of mirrors, were reflections and objects become confused with each other.

I think it is important to understand why the "inner dog" as distinct from the predator itself, wants to "run the show". I believe it does so in order to defend itself from perceived threats to its integrity. In a hall of mirrors the illusion of threat to self can run rampant through its varied reflections, and the energy of self importance can be transferred or triggered from one image to another.

This makes group work precarious, but it also provides opportunity to uncover self-importance that would otherwise remain hidden. And it pays to observe that self-importance is a defense mechanism, where we overcompensate our sense of self because we percieve there are attempts to diminish it.

The predator eggs this illusion on. The role of the conscious or spiritual part is to dispell the illusion not reign in the deluded portions. Once the truth is revealed the lower self will come into natural alignment. We cannot force it to do so, IMO. It does not come into natural alignment because it is deluded into believing natural alignment is a threat, and it percieves the conscious self as an overbearing dictator or animal trainer.

When the delusion is dispelled the lower center gains the clarity of the upper and is supported by that energy. And that energy feels right to it, because it is supporting and not overbearing. The point, as I state before, is that often the tamer is the lower mind posing as spirit. Then we simply have the predator driving one portion to subdue another, and making the subdued part even more enraged and defensive in this divide and conquer strategy.

If one has been fully "seated" then yes, I agree with the above explanation. If if one is still a "seed" "growing", then one can still be deceived due not being the permanent "master" of the "carriage", "horse", and "driver".

Sometimes fear of deception can be the greatest deception of all. Our goal is to find the seed of truth within ourselves. We do not have to be fully seated to find that seed. Usually that seed is found in the context of a shock. The point is you know it when you discover it. You may, and probably will lose it time and again, but you can remember how it felt.

This is the touchstone of truth, and attaining it is a major goal of self-observation. I do not think there is any way anyone can convey how to avoid deception until this touchstone has been at least briefly encountered. Until then, trial and error will have to suffice, and that knowledge, I think, is a motivator for diligence in self-observation.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between those that have attained the glimpse and those that have not. Those that have attained the glimpse often use metaphores to describe it so other can better understand the dynamic. In doing so, they come from a perspective of attainment (if only brief and/or rudimentary). Still, having this glimpse, feeling the shock changes you. Things are never the same afterwards.

And one of the results it that it is easy to forget, just where those that have not had a glimpse are coming from. In a way, its like an adult forgetting what it was really like being a child. Some adults do, but they have to really make an effort to keep that reference alive in them.

So a rift is very often created between those who have glimpsed (and I am not going so far as to even include those with further attainment) and those who have not, and it is difficult to understand the nature of this rift.

It often results, however, in metaphores being conveyed that seem legitimate to those who convey them from the point of view of experiencing the power of the truth of self, yet can be full of hidden potential for misunderstandings to those who are not privy to this experience. I think many teachers may have glossed over this difficult to perceive issue.

Response-ablity, therefore, lies with those who have glimpsed, IMO, because they have had both (before/after) states, while the others are still rooted in the "before" state. And part of the lesson for them is to cultivate empathy even stronger than before to bridge their past and present selves. This, they may find, also helps in creating connections to their future selves, hence hastening growth.

So, although one is always vulnerable, with every deception one does learn, and when one has had even the briefest glimpse of the axis of true self and experienced that presence, the impact of the issue of vulnerability to deception becomes much less overwhelming, and keeps decreasing the more one learns.

This also pertains to the series of replies to my take on the nature of the "falls" we may take. I do not think we disagree here. However, the point of my elaboration was to emphasize that falls can be seen as something to be avoided. This is a very subtle point, where we must be cautious.

"Falls" or lessons of growth can be uncomfortable, and we should seek to minimize that potential discomfort. I am the very last person to advocate the "virtues" of suffering. However, we need to focus away from an attitude of avoidance and toward an attitude of learning, because paradoxically it is learning that leads to release from undue pain involved in these lessons.

I have observed many here on the forum falling into lapses, and others around them reflecting it back. Some of these others ended up also projecting their own lapses, as well as reflecting, triggered by the dissonance of the first lapser. Often in groups a chain reaction of dissonance can occur, which can disrupt the whole group into righteous defensiveness.

Thus, reflecting is not so simple, because at this stage of group dynamics where the majority has not even had a glimpse of true self, and most of the rest have had only a glimpse, the mirrors are all still "dirty", and we must all beware of casting the first stone in the name of reflecting.

That is why self importance, in my view, is not that someone thinks their "great", but that they try to compensate because they feel quite the opposite. And when doing the work all of us inevitably feel quite the opposite of important a lot of the time.

So what I am trying to point out is a potential bias against "making mistakes" in all of us. If one makes a mistake, others may over amplify the reflection, as you feel they have done. In your case, however, I would like to point out the quote of your response to Ruth above. If you compare it with this thread, that response was far more harsh than anything said to you. And also your treatment of Tschai was far more harsh than anything said to you. Anyone can read the material and see this.

Yet, it is you who object strongest to being reflected upon. If anything, and even though you are far more sensitive than Ruth or Tschai, at least outwardly, you have a basis of greater understanding of both sides of the coin now, and this is a valuable lesson that will come in handy in the future, because learning it will protect you from the predator's attempts to delude you (if and when it does).

And I see that it boils down to how we view these "falls". We may intellectually consider them lessons, but an emotional part may still consider them in terms of being punished for transgressing somehow. It is the rift between the mental and emotional perspectives that generates dissonance. When understanding comes in, the emotional self is provided the basis for another response, far healthier. This is a natural result of understanding, (which is the grokking of knowledge), and not a function of any taming.

And that is also how knowledge protects.

I think this suffices, because the interdimensional of extrinsic predatorial influences play upon the same weaknesses as the intrinsic ones, and if we deal with the within, the without will take care of itself, (also through us being able to easily take care of it.

 

[Nathan]

Again, let me clarify: What seem like falls are actually lessons of rising. The quote above is a version of "I learn from my mistakes". I want to clarify that lessons are not mistakes because there is a lot of negative bias against the word "mistake". A lesson cannot be a mis-take. Only denying the crisis (or not grokking it to its fullest) is a mistake. And that "mistake" is a conditioned reaction to the predator acting on a blind spot.

I never stated that a lesson was a mistake. Please see above in regards to what I mean about "falls" and "ups".

I don't think EsoQuest was suggesting you "stated that a lesson was a mistake". He appears to be clarifying something he said. Just another potential glitch in understanding that I thought should be pointed out. :P

I don't think the hyperdimensional predators are a viable source of sustenance for any of the lower centers...

But what about "punishment and reward"? Or the chemical high you often speak of? Would they not be sustenance of a more insidious sort? A sustenance that leads to a far greater amount of drain? I'm sure 4D STS would gladly offer a little sample of sustenance if they were sure they could accumulate interest on that amount. Like using small fish as bait to hook bigger fish, really.

So it would make sense for the hyperdimensional predators - and to say "makes sense" is just to say the least - to drain one of energy by "zapping" them and hypnotizing them to "not see craft", and then to not allow one to recharge from the sexual center during sleep in order for one to be more receptive to the discernment of the higher centers,

I was not aware that one can be blocked from recharging from the sexual centre during sleep. This is how souled individuals recharge after interaction with OPs, I know this much. But can it actually be blocked completely? An alarming thought indeed.

And I think I made myself clear regarding misgivings to the word tame. Tame, as I see it, implies to subdue, and I do not think this is the correct attitude, for reasons already stated. Even if "tame" is not originally intended that way, it can imply that the lower nature is somehow "wild" and that wildness is detrimental.

I'm glad this was mentioned. The word "tame", and even the phrase "inner dog", doesn't really sit well for me. It paints an image of an owner wrestling a choke chain onto his dog. Not exactly what I want to have in mind when self-observing!

The predator compared to the livingness and complexity of soul and true I is a cybernetic system, although not corporeal in the physical/molecular sense. It is a cybernetic self-sustaining pattern, as I see it. It's basic drives are simple, to subdue and feed. It's tactices are elaborations of the reinforcement mechanisms I described above, and its strategies can get very complex because they are adaptive to the complexity of our psyche.

To use the "virus" analogy, I would like to see if my understanding is correct and also assist the understanding of others. The virus - or predator's mind - is able to conceal itself so that detection is almost impossible. The virus can set up decoys as fake viruses so that the user spends much wasted time addressing these decoys and quarantining file after file while the actual virus is behind the scenes doing real damage unnoticed. The virus becomes acquainted with the hardware and software and learns how it can actually blend into the system and exist in a sort of symbiosis, but with a level of control that is parasitic in nature. The more the virus infects the system, the more the user may begin to think that their hardware and software is of extreme value and must be protected at all costs. The virus may purposely target useless files, deceiving the user into believing that these useless files are of supreme importance, and thus taking attention away from files that may be genuinely important. If the user were to raise the security level of the "virus scanner", this is likely to result in an overly defensive user who attacks suspicious files that are not infected, once again to the detriment of the hardware. Also, the virus itself may masquerade as the "virus scanner", seeking and infecting valuable files, or worse still, destroying them. The virus itself is almost impossible to remove cleanly as this could potentially damage hardware. Only with patience and observation can the user slowly remove the virus, bit by bit.

I hope this analogy doesn't confuse matters further! :P

I think it is important to understand why the "inner dog" as distinct from the predator itself, wants to "run the show". I believe it does so in order to defend itself from perceived threats to its integrity. In a hall of mirrors the illusion of threat to self can run rampant through its varied reflections, and the energy of self importance can be transferred or triggered from one image to another.

This makes group work precarious, but it also provides opportunity to uncover self-importance that would otherwise remain hidden. And it pays to observe that self-importance is a defense mechanism, where we overcompensate our sense of self because we percieve there are attempts to diminish it.

With this in mind, how would you react in a situation where someone is genuinely attempting to attack your sense of self? I imagine rather than moving immediately to the defensive, or to the offensive by attacking their sense of self, or ignoring the issue completely, that the best approach would be to directly enquire as to why the person is attempting to attack. In my opinion, this seems as the most productive response. Not only does it remove you from their power game, you offer yourself as a "second mirror".

I have observed many here on the forum falling into lapses, and others around them reflecting it back. Some of these others ended up also projecting their own lapses, as well as reflecting, triggered by the dissonance of the first lapser. Often in groups a chain reaction of dissonance can occur, which can disrupt the whole group into righteous defensiveness.

EsoQuest, I don't think I'm quite clear on what you mean by "lapses". Lapses of? Could you please elaborate on this or direct me to appropriate material? Thanks! :)

 

[Guest]

With this in mind, how would you react in a situation where someone is genuinely attempting to attack your sense of self? I imagine rather than moving immediately to the defensive, or to the offensive by attacking their sense of self, or ignoring the issue completely, that the best approach would be to directly enquire as to why the person is attempting to attack. In my opinion, this seems as the most productive response. Not only does it remove you from their power game, you offer yourself as a "second mirror".

I'm going to take this opportunity to elaborate on how I see the dealing with reactionaray crises in general, both for deliberate manipulations from without, and the impluses that generate misunderstanding and promote cascade reflections of misunderstanding in groups.

I think at least in the beginning trying to control the reaction inhibits learning, especially if the impulse to react is strong. It's easy to treat inner progress as a static application, like working on a machine in more or less the same way. In reality, I believe, our method grows and changes as we do.

So in the beginning we have to understand the reaction as it happens. Actually, I take that back. Before THAT even, we may have to be satisfied with just being able to reflect on the reaction after the fact. THAT would be the first step. Eventually, however, we attain enough presence to observe it even as we are going through it. And THEN there is a real-time presence of self during the event, although this is passive. But this stage, I think, is a milestone for the simple fact that we are present during the reaction. We need to be understanding, however, that it may take some time to achieve this kind of presence, and not get ahead of where we are.

Once we have passive presence, we can divorce the energy of the reaction from the idea or "justification" of the reaction. We can progressively do this by focusing on the sensation of the reaction instead of all those justifications running it, even if they are screaming and demanding at us to give them authority Those justifications are the predator talking, because they are based on the predators premises. Of course, we will probably not fully grok this until we have focused on the energy of the reaction a few times until the justifications have nowhere to go but to shut up.

Then something profound occurs. The energy of the reaction is free from the justifications without being supressed. It revolves around the true "I". That is the point when this energy fuels the true "I" to become an active observer instead of a passive one (which it is up to this point), because the energies are not its servant but one with it.

And when THAT happens, the NEXT time there is an impulse, we can observe the predator shouting to the four winds. The former reacting self, therefore, now one with the true "I" (or if you will, aligned with it), can confidently also get a clear sense of this disembodied voice trying to convince us to act out of all sense of what is real, as the paper tiger it is.

The above description shows that there is a progression, and although real crises can be few when we are honest, there will be felt reactions as opportunities for observation. The point of all this is, IMO, that it is healthy to FEEL, especially if we are directly attacked. Notice manipulators try to make us guilty for feeling, and in suppressing it we end up lost in self-recrimination, we end up bowing down to manipulation, and eventually we end up blowing up at them out of context, or even at innocents, whereupon the predator has won.

If you are attacked, you can FEEL angry, you can breath rapidly, you can let it run through your body, and you can know that that is enough when you are observing, because feeling is natural, and the way the body copes with adversity in an organic manner. If your body is convinced, however that feeling angry implies ACTING angry or acting to hurt, then a predatory association is more than likely involved.

And even if you are not manipulated by another, but are simply triggered by something someone said, it is still healthy to feel angry, because anyone would be pissed when the predator pokes at them. It is just that we must be honest and observant to identify that voice that is misguiding our response. We are responsible for that response in terms of acting on it, but we also are response-able to our lower nature to bring it within the bounds of our higher nature intact.

In many cases, the association between being triggered to dramatically respond as the predator dictates cannot be understood until observed many times. The energy of response, therefore, cannot be reclaimed in a day. That's why empathy is practiced at home, toward ourselves, as well as for others. It even works for psychopapths, because it allows us to realize that they feel nothing, which is always good to know.

And as we observe, with empathic openess combined with ever increasing objective clarity, we also learn to discern the real attacks from all those reverberating reflections of unresolved predatory associations that mark a long long stretch of the path of self-development, osit.

I hope I have not confused you more with all this.

EsoQuest, I don't think I'm quite clear on what you mean by "lapses". Lapses of? Could you please elaborate on this or direct me to appropriate material?

It's easier for me to elaborate. Lapses probably sounds like I'm describing a bunch of raving lunatics :/ . Not intended. I just wanted to emphasize the patterns of emerging lessons on the forum, represented by misunderstandings. You can almost time them. You know, ,when someone says something, then a second person feels bothered by it and replies harshly, then a third person intervenes and so on and so forth.

I noticed that it became a bit more frequent after the posts that were blatant manipulations stopped. As if something was saying: "Ok, we obviously can't get at them THAT way, so let's try doing it THIS way", so the stress is amplified within instead of coming from a deliberate manipulation without. Well, we DID elaborate on THAT lesson, so perhaps THIS one needs a bit of emphasis. And then prehaps some more manipulators will show up to make sure we did not forget the first series of lessons with them.

One really needs a sense of humour here, methinks, and of course empathy, empathy, empathy. Can never get enough of that. And when we forget that laughter does not HAVE to be derisive, perhaps we can laugh the predator off the stage a bit quicker. Lapses just means forgetting oneself and reacting impulsively.

We may very well be THINKING while doing so, and hence fool ourselves into believing we are consciously acting, but where are those thoughts coming from? The point is to think and FEEL as well. To basically be PRESENT in more ways than just intellect, because then we have more than one front covered, and can catch the predator as it is heading out the back door leaving our lower self with its hands in the cookie jar.

 

[Saman]

I think we agree on some things and are stuck on terms in others. I will try to distill the basic points to keep the discussion from getting too convoluted. That, after all, makes difficult reading. I presented my ideas on the subject, and they are there for the record, but since there are some questions I'll try to clarify. We are all free to come to our own conclusions, as it should be.

Yes, the natural instinct is fine and healthy since it is of "normal sex";...

I wasn't referring to sex per se. The instinct nature goes well beyond it. And I think I made myself clear regarding misgivings to the word tame. Tame, as I see it, implies to subdue, and I do not think this is the correct attitude, for reasons already stated. Even if "tame" is not originally intended that way, it can imply that the lower nature is somehow "wild" and that wildness is detrimental.

Sorry I was too vague and "externally inconsiderate" here. I wasn't referring to the carnal act of sex either, but of course this is also part of it, but to what Ouspensky calls "normal sex" in general with the exception that there are some things I am mulling over and might perhaps disagree with him in regards to his conception of what is "normal" in regards to one's sexual orientation, although I am still thinking about the latter in terms what is "normal" and why in Mother Nature, or to further elaborate sex, or say "sexual energy" from the sexual center and its forms of abuse by the lower centers. Moreover, I think a better and less confusing term to portray what I am thinking is to "teach" rather then to tame. I am not talking about subduing or vanquishing the inner dog but to teach it to not act in a possessive manner due to the conditioned predator programmings. So if the inner dog is "wild" due to these conditioned predator programmings of wanting to possess, then the so called "owner" of the inner dog must teach it to not make choices based on this need to possess, that is, a need that the inner dog sees as "love", which is NOT the choices and actions of Unconditional Love through Knowledge.

If we think about it, however, wild animals are simply free beings within their own context. The lower nature, however, is not an independent being (or should not be in a healthy human). It is a portion of a whole, and not in the sense of a piece of a pie, but of a whole that is more than the sum of its parts.

The ancient symbol is the Centaur, a being combining the human with the animal, with all the intelligence and dexterity of a human and all the power of the horse. In Greek mythology Centaurs were bestial, indicating that this fusion of higher and lower centers was not really feasable for most. There was, however, one exception indicating it was possible. This was Chiron, a paragon of wisdom and healing capability, who trained many heroes.

Yet, even Chiron had to endure wounds he could not heal, and even death until he fervently prayed for it, and was placed like many figures of myth in the night sky, after in one version of the myth he traded places with Promethius.

Thus, even in ancient times, the merger could not complete itself. It is up to us to do so. It is US that are split in two, having one side dominate generates imbalance, and it is this imbalance that has thwarted this process in the past, and still does. The key, therefore, is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. A new being, a true being that is not yet born. It is our task to engender that birth of our beings through the alignment/merger of our separate fragments.

Very, very interesting - thank you for this insight; I think it may actually be perhaps similar to what I wrote to Ruth in this thread...

I understood what you meant until you stated "it perpetuates itself through reinforcement". Can you please clarify this in more simple terms.

As I said, volumes have already been written about these subjects, and it's hard to elaborate in these already long posts. The predator program perpetuates itself through reinforcement in the sense of reward and punishment. That is reinforcement. Tempation leads to reward,

Um, did you mean temptation, or is it actually "tempation", and so, some sort of unique term that I am not familiar with, since it is not in the dictionary? Moreover, assuming you meant temptation, it makes sense to me that temptation of the inner dog due to following the conditioned predator programmings could lead to some sort of gentle "punishment" since I think temptation and dissonance, that is, IF identified with within and acted upon without through the inner dog, or in other words, say the negative programmings of the movement center linked to the negative halves of the emotional and intellectual centers that abuse sex, would both mean the exact same thing, since dissonance occurs when there is "fall" of FRV IF the inner dog is in accord with the conditioned predator programmings...would it not?

and dissonance to punishment. So if you simply follow the program the lower centers (including the lower mind) are rewarded, and delusions are maintained and reinforced. If you buck the trend there is an adverse reaction, hence "punishment".

I think I have confused the matter, methinks, in the manner that I have chosen in trying to elucidate what I mean by using the word "punishment" rather then punishment. What I am thinking of is in terms of correctional or say tuning measures taken, or say the consequences that only need be applied through the Knowledge of one's own machine/inner dog, IF the inner dog through its conditioned predator programmings acts in accord with the "predator mind" that is both below and above

You may find other strategies of the predator besides this one, but I believe this one is basic.

I still have think about this in relation to my personal and unexplained example of teaching the inner dog to not make possessive choices...

I think there is much, much more to it then the above. The deceptive predator mind below is much more then a program. It is much more complex because the predator mind above has through hyperdimensional technology duplicated our minds to its own image, and so, the very Essence of our Being is predominately aligned with it. Work on the Essence is not just through basic observation. It must be done intently based on what one understands to the Essential difference between STO and STS in terms of FRV.

Let me elaborate: The predator compared to the livingness and complexity of soul and true I is a cybernetic system, although not corporeal in the physical/molecular sense. It is a cybernetic self-sustaining pattern, as I see it. It's basic drives are simple, to subdue and feed. It's tactices are elaborations of the reinforcement mechanisms I described above, and its strategies can get very complex because they are adaptive to the complexity of our psyche.

Hmm, you are stating that "the predator compared to the livingness and complexity of soul and true I is a cybernetic sytem"...well, you stated compared to a "cybernetic system", so I am not sure I understand precisely what you mean, that is, the precise reasons on how and why you have come to formulate this term, but I will try to make a perhaps educated guess and go and ahead and state that you might be thinking about perhaps the "foreign" intraterrestrial technological implants that are part of the 4D STS MCS, and so, perhaps this is why and thus how you have chosen to use this term "cybernetic system", or maybe this is part of the reason, or am I wrong in this assumption and there is other reasons? Moreover, to further elaborate on why I have stated the above in the previous reply, I think the predator is corporeal in the physical/molecular sense at this level due to the our fragmented souls' current essential STS orientation of choosing to "fall" when it was once a "whole" with the "group mind" in 7th Density while simultaneously having this "fall" reflected from us below moving from 3D STO to 3D STS, and I think this due to what the C's have stated in the following excerpt in regards to the "Mark of Cain" and the "Reptilian Brain":

November 26, 1994 F*** and Laura, T*** and J***
[...]
Q: (L) The other night we were talking about the "Mark of Cain" and I lost part of the tape.
I would like to go back over that a little bit more at this time. What was the true event
behind the story of the "Mark of Cain?"
A: Advent of jealousy.
Q: (L) What occurred to allow jealousy to enter into human interaction?
A: Lizard takeover.
Q: (L) Wasn't the Lizard takeover an event that occurred at the time of the fall of Eden?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Was this story of Cain and Abel part of that takeover?
A: Symbolism of story.
Q: (L) This was symbolic of the Lizzie takeover, the advent of jealousy, and the attitude of
brother against brother, is that correct?
A: Partly. The mark of Cain means the "jealousy factor" of change facilitated by Lizard
takeover of earth's vibrational frequency. Knot on spine is physical residue of DNA
restriction deliberately added by Lizards. See?
Q: (L) Okay, J** is going to move her hand up my back and you tell her when to stop at the
"knot".
A: Okay.
Q: (L) You mean the occipital ridge?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What was the configuration of the spine and skull prior to this addition?
A: Spine had no ridge there. Jealousy emanates from there, you can even feel it.
Q: (L) Do any of these emotions that we have talked about that were generated by DNA
breakdown, were any of these related to what Carl Sagan discusses when he talks about the
"Reptilian Brain"?
A: In a roundabout way.
Q: (L) Okay, at the time this "Mark of Cain" came about, were there other humans on the
planet that did not have this configuration?
A: It was added to all simultaneously.
Q: (L) How did they physically go about performing this act? What was the mechanism of
this event, the nuts and bolts of it?
A: Are you ready? DNA core is as yet undiscovered enzyme relating to carbon. Light
waves were used to cancel the first ten factors of DNA by burning them off. At that point, a
number of physical changes took place including knot at top of spine. Each of these is
equally reflected in the ethereal.
Q: (L) Is that all?
A: No. But, do you need more?
Q: (L) Well, the question I do have is, how many people were there on the planet and did
they have to take each one and do this individually?
A: Whoa.
Q: (L) How many people?
A: 6 billion.
Q: (T) That's 500 million more than there are now.
A: No, 200 million.
Q: (L) Okay, there were this many people on the planet, how did they effect this change on
all of them?
A: Light wave alteration.
Q: (L) And light waves, actual light waves, affect DNA?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) What was the origin of the light waves?
A: Our center.
Q: (L) What is your center?
A: Our realm. STO.
Q: (L) So, how did the Lizzies use the light from the Service to Others realm...
A: They used sophisticated technology to interrupt light frequency waves.
Q: (L) Well, what I am getting out of this that you are saying from what you are not saying
is that it was almost like,... well, was there a battle and you guys lost?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is this the same battle that the Pleiadeans talk about?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Not to go off on a tangent, but I have only come into this recently, you are the
Cassiopaeans?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Are you also the Pleiadeans?
A: No.
Q: (T) Are you connected to the Pleiadeans?
A: Yes and so are others.
Q: (T) You are all the family of light?
A: Yes. Exactly. You have been "doing your homework".
Q: (T) I'm trying to. Now, another force in what we term as the past, defeated you and used
the power of the light in order to alter us in different ways, is this correct?
A: Yes. Now understand this: It is all part of natural grand cycle.
Q: (L) If this is all a part of a natural grand cycle, and correct me if I am wrong here, it
almost seems as if you guys, the "good guys", and the other "bad" guys, that you just really
kind of go at it just for fun, is that true?
A: No.
Q: (L) But you say it is a natural thing or part of a natural grand cycle. Is this natural grand
cycle just part of the interaction between light and darkness which just simply must be?
A: Yes. We are at "front line" of universe's natural system of balance. That is where one
rises to before reaching total union of "The One". 6th level.
Q: (L) Do you like being at 6th level?
A: Do you like being at 3rd level?
Q: (L) Frankly no, I don't. (T) If you answer the question by asking the question, and we
know that we are striving to reach higher, does this mean there are more levels above 6th
level?
A: Yes. One.
Q: (L) Is that union with the one?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Now, the battle you had with the other side...
A: Are having.
Q: (T) This battle goes on... do you have the light power back?
A: Never lost it, you did.
Q: (T) Okay, I guess that for us the Lizzies are the main force even though they have others
on their side...
A: Yes.
Q: (T) They took our light, not yours?
A: Not against you. Currently in union with you.
Q: (T) So we are but one battle in the universe in an overall, ongoing struggle?
A: Yes. Balance is natural. Remember, it's all just lessons in the grand cycle.
Q: (L) I am really curious... when you guys and the Lizzies "go to it", what do you do? I
mean, you obviously don't shoot guns at each other and you don't have tanks...
A: Too complicated for you to possibly understand because you are not at 4th level yet.
Q: (J) When you are fighting, is it any way at all possible for us to detect the battle?
A: First: We don't "fight." Second, yes; it's nature as in meteorology and earth changes.
Q: (T) Your form of confrontation takes the form of physical changes in the atmosphere and
environment of the planet?
A: And in space.
Q: (T) But that is how we detect it? The more activity, the more conflict is going on?
A: Remember, we are the light. They are the dark. We are both high level thought forms
reflected at all levels of reality.
Q: (T) So, what we perceive, then, is what comes through to third density which is not
what we would perceive if we were looking at it from 4th or 5th or 6th.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) We are talking 4th density to 3rd density. Is this what Hoagland is referring to when
he talks about the tetrahedral form he has detected from the Martian structures he has been
studying that he postulated...
A: Yes. This is a bridge to 4th density.
Q: (L) Isn't it a little unfair for you guys, at 6th level, to take on the Lizzies at only 4th
level?
A: The "Lizzies" are the 4th level representatives of the forces of the darkness not the 6th
level, and you are 3rd level representatives.
Q: (L) Is there a 6th level representative of the forces of darkness?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And what is this 6th level representative known as, or called, or look like or
whatever?
A: Orion in your "neighborhood."
Q: (L) The Orion's are 6th level STS beings?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are they like you, thought forms?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Do they ever appear in physical matter?
A: Can.
Q: (L) And they are the driving force that controls the Lizzies?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Is there some intermediary between the 6th level Orions and the 4th level Lizzies,
such as a 5th level force or being?
A: 5th level is contemplation zone for both "sides".
Q: (L) Does that mean that at the contemplation level that there is no activity? (J) Is it like a
"time out?"
A: Close. Balancer.
Q: (L) Is there a 3rd level representative of the forces of the light?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Who or what are they?
A: Don't exist on your planet.
Q: (L) Do they have a planet of their own?
A: Have quadrillions of them.
Q: (L) Well, this is beginning to sound like we are in pretty bad shape here. This is like the
Siberia of the universe as Gurdjieff said.
A: The Universe is infinitely huge.
Q: (L) If there are planets where there are 3 D beings who are STS oriented, in other
words, in a physical body, do they look something like us?
A: You are STS oriented. Did you really mean to say STO?
Q: (T) Is there a 3D race in this universe that is STO?
A: Yes. Already stated thus.
Q: (L) If there are planets with STO beings...
A: Some look like you.
Q: (L) What is life like on that sort of place? (T) They are not going to tell us that. That is
something that we are going to have to develop to find out.
A: Exactly.
Q: (J) Is part of being STS being so appearance oriented as we are?
A: Not physical issue at 3rd level.
[...]


So I think being physical does not simply equate to being a predator, or so I think. Physicality and its current state of orientation is just the chosen environ that "one" is learning the lessons of Grand Cycle within; however, the essential orientation of the soul due to the "fall" moving from the so to say "Edenic State" that I think is thought of being "Edenic" in this sense of being in the Realms of the Densities of STO Polarity, has transformed and manifested a STS physical body in this STS polarity, that is an inner dog with preconditioned predator programmings that by default due to being in this polarity is in accord to the orientation of the 4D STS predator, and so, also the 6D STS predatory Thought Center at the root due to what we see can observe in the Nature of this Realm, which is predominately a "dog eats dog" kind of world, or so I think.

The predator pushes the true self aside, and what is possessed cannot be given the consciousness that would liberate it.

What is the "what", that is what do you mean by it, that is possessed [] in the statement above? Can you please clarify?

What is possessed are all the fragments of true self. True "I" is the observer of true self, as I see it. I do not believe it can stand alone, any more than any single organ in our body can stand alone, at least if it wants to fulfill its evolutionary purpose.

Question: what if there are fragments of the True Self (spiritual man) and fragments of the False Self (animal man)? What if the fragments of the True Self do not wish to follow the fragments of the False Self? And lets say that the fragments of the True Self are "fused" into one whole, and the fragments of the False Self are "fused" into another whole...then what? Perhaps conscious suffering?

So the perspective of "I" is our axis and starting point, like a seed crystal in solution drawing all the suspended elements into its matrix to grow into the wholeness of true self. I am trying to not only clarify, but attempt to build upon my previous posts, so I can better express where I am coming from. That is the purpose of dialogue, to stimulate the growth of an idea being communicated through its elaboration as the dialogue provides the prompting for that growth.

Ditto :)

This is why you have to tame the inner dog away from this clever predator. Please see what I wrote in reflection to Ruth.

Is this the reflection to which you were referring?

No, sorry. I should had been more clear on what reply I was referring to. Here is the link to this reflection that is in this very thread:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1591.msg8698#msg8698

I will stop here since I think the rest of your reply was predominately due to my lack clarity of which reflection I was contextually referring to, or so I think.

 

[Saman]

Again, let me clarify: What seem like falls are actually lessons of rising. The quote above is a version of "I learn from my mistakes". I want to clarify that lessons are not mistakes because there is a lot of negative bias against the word "mistake". A lesson cannot be a mis-take. Only denying the crisis (or not grokking it to its fullest) is a mistake. And that "mistake" is a conditioned reaction to the predator acting on a blind spot.

I never stated that a lesson was a mistake. Please see above in regards to what I mean about "falls" and "ups".

I don't think EsoQuest was suggesting you "stated that a lesson was a mistake". He appears to be clarifying something he said. Just another potential glitch in understanding that I thought should be pointed out. :P

:) Thank you for pointing out this potential glitch.

I don't think the hyperdimensional predators are a viable source of sustenance for any of the lower centers...

But what about "punishment and reward"? Or the chemical high you often speak of? Would they not be sustenance of a more insidious sort?

I never stated that it was simply about punishment and reward. What I said was supposed to be a bit of humour in regards to giving the inner dog some choco for being a "good boy". I was trying to make the point that I am not "punishing" myself like some sort fanatical fundie :) Moreover, the chemical high is natural. It is due to release of hormones in the body. Now the REASON for the release of these hormones is where devil is, and so, this is what I have already aforementioned. To save you energy, I will repeat it here: If one's initial motive through introspection is to only seek this chemical feel-good high before making a choice to "give" whatever, or lets elaborate and say if their initial motive through introspection is to only seek a chemical feel-bad high before making a choice, that is to wish to suffer, then this is STS. If these chemical highs happens naturally in the aftermath of the choice, then this is natural and one should let the inner dog feel this since this would be more in accord to STO Candidacy, or so I think.

A sustenance that leads to a far greater amount of drain? I'm sure 4D STS would gladly offer a little sample of sustenance if they were sure they could accumulate interest on that amount. Like using small fish as bait to hook bigger fish, really.

It will lead to a drain if the initial motive before any choice is to seek these chemical highs as the payoff, although to different degree of draining depending on what one's choice is and why one is contexually choosing to do something in the first place in regards to throwing the predator some kind of strategical "meat" if one cannot as of yet cannot handle the "fire" upon the lower centers from the attacks that will lead to "light": "from the fire comes light"; furthermore, in relation to the manner of conduct with other individuals and one's chosen "emotional pathway", it will lead to a drain to 4D STS if one "gives" with the initial motive and payoff of making themselves chemically feel good, or to superficially look like a giving and kind person without the concern of whether or not the other individual has actually Asked for their affection, gifts, or say general "givings". So in regards to interpersonal relationships, I think it all comes down to discerning whether or not someone is Asking, and for this one needs to fine tune their "reading instruments" -- i.e. what I am learning to do step by step due to my Being's "falls"/lessons in regards to my chosen FRV pathway -- in order to learn to contexually discern whether another individual is Asking in different and various situations, and for this as Esoquest has emphasized, one needs to be make sure their emotional center has not been suppressed to lethargic and apathetic state of sleep, or as in my case to work with a recent example in regards to Tschai, first blinded intellectually of the context through sight, and then emotionally distracted through the invoking of the inner dog's conditioned predator programmigs of self importance into making the choice and then the actual followthrough of the choice with the Being's movement center, with an externally un-empathic manner of conduct, and then cleverly in the aftermath of the latter, being kept too busy "battling" "foreign" forces within that may perhaps be the causes of the headaches, and so in this way, making sure to keep the "reading instrument" outwardly away and unaware from making a review of details of the communication in that passed and crucial "flash" of a moment, until that is, later through hindsight of the attack.

So it would make sense for the hyperdimensional predators - and to say "makes sense" is just to say the least - to drain one of energy by "zapping" them and hypnotizing them to "not see craft", and then to not allow one to recharge from the sexual center during sleep in order for one to be more receptive to the discernment of the higher centers,

I was not aware that one can be blocked from recharging from the sexual centre during sleep. This is how souled individuals recharge after interaction with OPs, I know this much. But can it actually be blocked completely? An alarming thought indeed.

It is interesting that the more you save life force, that the less you feel hungry and the less you wish to eat, and also how less you wish to sleep in normal cases, that is, not abnormal cases where wish not to sleep due to your melatonin cycle being messed up due to light pollution, or perhaps, technologically tampering and induced causes...The question is then why do OPs not recharge from the sexual center. I mean, as far as I know, they do have the sexual center as well, do they not, and so, why is it that according to the C's "during sleep, the emotional center, not being blocked by the lower intellectual cen[t]er and the moving center, transduces the energy from the sexual center" for "potentially fully souled" individuals, and not organic portals who have a "soul imprint"...?

But this is a question heading towards being better suited for the OP thread...

Anyways, enough mulling from this end. Time for bed :)

 

[Guest]

I believe that there is always a danger in all forms of the work to lose their power to transform when the form of the truth becomes static, in other words when the form of the letter is taken more often than the spirit of the letter. That's why I'm trying to approach this in terms that describe the same basic thing, but from another viewpoint, and without much emphasis on specific terminology.

I believe the work can be understood as a science, but must be applied as an art. Here, I am trying to approach it as an art, which is why I want to emphasize how I understand the patterns of the work because we actually apply those patterns in a dynamic way.

So if the inner dog is "wild" due to these conditioned predator programmings of wanting to possess, then the so called "owner" of the inner dog must teach it to not make choices based on this need to possess, that is, a need that the inner dog sees as "love", which is NOT the choices and actions of Unconditional Love through Knowledge.

I guess what I believe is that integration occurs spontaneously when we set up the right conditions for it. To me, nature has tought the instinctual dynamic of our being (I gather that is the "inner dog") all it needs to know, but has not given it consciousness. Because it lacks the consciousness of true self, it takes in predator consciousness, and to make itself accepted the predator divides and conquers. And the predator presents the true "I" as a slave-driver.

The instinct nature in its dissociated state cannot tell the difference between the true "I" and the lower mind, which IS a slave driver because it is also influenced by the predator. The lower mind is our day to day intellect, which analyzes and intuits things, and comes to conclusions about them. So "taming" can easily become subduing, and "teaching" can easily become conditioning. This is a slippery slope to walk because the true "I" does not have an active presence in the being, until we are well along, even if it has awakened consistent passive presence through observation.

And this emergence of passive presence is a precarious phase because the lower mind can intervene and pose as true "I" with its concepts, thus being a "pseudo-spiritual" presence, unless identified as doing so. It is why "taming" and deconditioning need to be applied more to the lower mind than to the instinct self because the lower mind is the conduit of predator consciousness, and the patterns the predator presents to the instinct self. In terms of your analogy, the dog follows its master, so it is the master which is responsible for the dog's behaviour.

Unless we are a ways on the path the master is the predator, more often than not, posing as true conscousness, and acting through the lower mind that then creates a Matrix of false internal reality in the psyche. The dog must then follow this because it survives by taking the lead of consciousness, and also by alerting consciousness to any of its needs. Consciousness is response-able here. Predator consciousness blocks the needs of instinct and perverts them so it can control them.

Predator consciousness puts the choke-collar on the dog, and then releases it when it prods the dog to attack. The dog does not need to be taught anything. It needs to be liberated by a false, and abusive master. When that is done and the real master is present the dog naturally aligns.

Knowlege protects, because it counters falshood, and falshood is in the mind, and manipulates everything else. It is the human mind that makes humans deviant, not the emotions. Psychopaths actually dramatize empotions, but rarely feel anything but the dissonance of having their manipulations thwarted. The mind processes perception, processes emotional and instinctual input, and is the conduit of consciousness to the centers lower to it so their movements can be based on reality. With the predator, the movements of the instincts and emotions are based on lies, and the mind possessed by the predator interperts those reactions with more lies.

That is why liberation begins in the mind, which is the center separating the higher consciousness from the animal nature. This basically describes the same thing as my Centaur analogy, with which you apparently agree. And I think there is a reason why we call it the predator mind and not predator emotions or predator dog. The nest of the inner predator, and the conduit of external predators is the mind, the warping of thought and perception making everything else warp in accordance to it.

Um, did you mean temptation, or is it actually "tempation"...

Temptation is what I meant (that was a typing error).

I think temptation is a difficult topic, as far as practice is concerned. It is the pull of conditioning, and a result of an imbalance between the mental center and the centers lower to it, the instinctual in particular. Simply resisting temptation is difficult unless the source in the lower mind is addressed. Even then, every temptation (such as sexual temptation) can have its roots in a real inner need, (such as companionship in that example). Personally, I am not an advocate of the ascetic way, but believe if one is truly inclined in this direction, sexual temptation for example will not be much of an issue.

I also believe that trying to control the instincts such as the sexual one in a forceful manner is counterproductive until one has reclaimed the mind, and in doing so is better able to balance the instincts and understand true need as opposed to addictive pull. Learning to discern is one primary step in reclaiming the mind, and a result of this is a greater harmony in the emotions and instincts, since empathy flows much easier then. When empathy and self-empathy can flow, we can better understand our lower nature and can be natural instead of simply "appropriate".

There is a school that promotes that if you change your behaviour or the forms of your behaviour, you will change your nature. That is, if you act pure, you will become pure. I do not agree with this school. First one must understand, then one can integrate through allowing the elements of true self to come into alignment, and then one will change without the degree of struggle evident when one tries to impose one's will upon the two lower centers.

Hmm, you are stating that "the predator compared to the livingness and complexity of soul and true I is a cybernetic sytem"...well, you stated compared to a "cybernetic system", so I am not sure I understand precisely what you mean...

Nathan gives a pretty decent explanation IMO, in his virus analogy in the post above my former one.

So I think being physical does not simply equate to being a predator, or so I think. Physicality and its current state of orientation is just the chosen environ that "one" is learning the lessons of Grand Cycle within;...

I agree, and did not want to give the impression that being physical equates with being a predator. However, the current state of physicality is where we are, and what must be addressed. The lessons are here, not in 4D, so the predatory (instrinsic or extrinsic) influences upon our physical existence are of the greatest importance, osit.

...however, the essential orientation of the soul due to the "fall" moving from the so to say "Edenic State" that I think is thought of being "Edenic" in this sense of being in the Realms of the Densities of STO Polarity...,

"Edenic State" was invariably STO oriented, but I think it was incomplete. If it was complete, there would be no movement that led to the fall. I don't think it was a result of corruption, or that the fall was a mistake, or something that should not have happened. In other words, it was like entering a room that is yours, and that is right for you to enter, but that room is occupied by parasites that it is your task to clean out to be more of yourself.

Personally, I consider the "fall" to be a "dive", and all involved knew the what they were getting into tp some extent, and knew it had to be done, regardless if everyone knocked their heads at the bottom and went unconscious.

...has transformed and manifested a STS physical body in this STS polarity, that is an inner dog with preconditioned predator programmings that by default due to being in this polarity is in accord to the orientation of the 4D STS predator, and so, also the 6D STS predatory Thought Center at the root due to what we see can observe in the Nature of this Realm, which is predominately a "dog eats dog" kind of world, or so I think.

In terms of nature, there is predation (dog eat dog), but there is an equal amount of symbiosis and cooperation. So before we can really understand our STS nature, we must understand that it is perverted intrinsically and extrinsically by an influence that works against its symbiotic and cooperative qualities.

So by default, nature is aligned with the predator, but that does not mean nature IS the predator, and it does not mean that the "default" is eternal and not subject to evolutionary change. If it is subject to change, furthermore, the potential for change must be inherent in the nature of nature and embodied physicality. If I gather correctly, "Eden" was a garden described as a natural environment, with trees and animals.

Even if this was symbolic, I still think it is an important symbol that indicates the natural world can be part of the "edenic state" even if it was not literally so at the onset.

Question: what if there are fragments of the True Self (spiritual man) and fragments of the False Self (animal man)? What if the fragments of the True Self do not wish to follow the fragments of the False Self? And lets say that the fragments of the True Self are "fused" into one whole, and the fragments of the False Self are "fused" into another whole...then what? Perhaps conscious suffering?

Again let me clarify my view: I do not believe the False Self to be equated with the animal man. That is why I provided the analogy of the Centaur. Both spiritual and animal aspects are parts of the whole man, which I equate with the True Self. The False Self, IMO, is the conditioned result of predatory influence, a result of prolonged influence over the course of evolution, biological and social. The animal self has thus been falsified, but its Nature is True.

Spiritual man is incomplete without the animal self, which he must redeem from the predator to attain onenes with it. And we must include the mind of man as part of the animal self, IMO. Man may be unique in having a brain that expresses mentality, but that is still a result of biological evolution. Mind is as part of physicality as are emotions and instincts. All are regulated by the brain, and that brain is a physical construct.

So to answer your question, if things are as you say, then animal and spiritual selves are incompatible, and reality is meant to be eternally divided. This is a fundamental thesis because it is the foundation of a world view that is not compatible with the way I see things.

To continue with the conclusions of this world view of division, if the two selves are incompatible, there was nothing to gain from incarnation into this physicality except affirm the incompatibility. That we are aliens in our own bodies, that our instinctive and emotional natures are alien to the rest of us, and that there is, as you say, conscious (but also unconscous) suffering that is the cause of incompatible aspects forced together.

Then, however, self obervation in terms of aligning our lower centers with the higher ones, is a useless endeavour, because what we want is to separate what was never meant to be together. The work, therefore, would not be integrative in this case, but dissociative. This means we would have to break away from emotion and instinct, and also lower mind. Or perhaps a certain refined emotion and refined mentality will be compatible with spiritual nature. In any case, we would have to enter a path to become etherial and less tangible, less differentiated as individuals, less passionate (since the fuel and context for passion comes from the lower self).

I would consider this becoming less human, because human is really the merger of animal and spirit, as I understand it. I can understand this viewpoint of dissociation (if that is in fact what you are implying), and I interpret it as being a reasoning of: Suffering is bad, I suffer in this world, ergo being in this world is the cause of suffering, ergo I must separate from everything of this world including and especially the part of me that is most of this physical reality.

My reasoning is: suffering is bad, but suffering is also symptom and is useful in finding the cause behind it, the cause behind the symptom must be removed. My understanding is: this world is not the cause of suffering, but something afflicting it is. My presence here as a human was not to learn that I don't belong here, but to address the cause of suffering. My spirit is what discovers the cause, and takes steps to correct it in accordance with the material nature with which it merges.

As a human, I am the redeemer and the redeemed, and this includes claiming my whole nature.

Alchemy speaks of the Hieros Gamos or Holy Marriage, and this involves the merger of spirit self and nature self into something greater, which is mythically associated with the healing of the world and redemption from all that oppresses it and us in it.

The result of the Holy Marriage was (and is) considered the Great Secret, and it implies union, not division, and from that union a transformation of self and world that transcends the effects of all previous cycles. At least that is how I understand it.

Once again, I wrote more than I intended, but at least I hope I am clearer now.

 

[Saman]

I think we agree on some things and are stuck on terms in others. I will try to distill the basic points to keep the discussion from getting too convoluted. That, after all, makes difficult reading. I presented my ideas on the subject, and they are there for the record, but since there are some questions I'll try to clarify. We are all free to come to our own conclusions, as it should be.

Yes, the natural instinct is fine and healthy since it is of "normal sex";...

I wasn't referring to sex per se. The instinct nature goes well beyond it. And I think I made myself clear regarding misgivings to the word tame. Tame, as I see it, implies to subdue, and I do not think this is the correct attitude, for reasons already stated. Even if "tame" is not originally intended that way, it can imply that the lower nature is somehow "wild" and that wildness is detrimental.

Sorry I was too vague and "externally inconsiderate" here. I wasn't referring to the carnal act of sex either, but of course this is also part of it, but to what Ouspensky calls "normal sex" in general with the exception that there are some things I am mulling over and might perhaps disagree with him in regards to his conception of what is "normal" in regards to one's sexual orientation, although I am still thinking about the latter in terms what is "normal" and why in Mother Nature, or to further elaborate sex, or say "sexual energy" from the sexual center and its forms of abuse by the lower centers. Moreover, I think a better and less confusing term to portray what I am thinking is to "teach" rather then to tame. I am not talking about subduing or vanquishing the inner dog but to teach it to not act in a possessive manner due to the conditioned predator programmings. So if the inner dog is "wild" due to these conditioned predator programmings of wanting to possess, then the so called "owner" of the inner dog must teach it to not make choices based on this need to possess, that is, a need that the inner dog sees as "love", which is NOT the choices and actions of Unconditional Love through Knowledge.

If we think about it, however, wild animals are simply free beings within their own context. The lower nature, however, is not an independent being (or should not be in a healthy human). It is a portion of a whole, and not in the sense of a piece of a pie, but of a whole that is more than the sum of its parts.

The ancient symbol is the Centaur, a being combining the human with the animal, with all the intelligence and dexterity of a human and all the power of the horse. In Greek mythology Centaurs were bestial, indicating that this fusion of higher and lower centers was not really feasable for most. There was, however, one exception indicating it was possible. This was Chiron, a paragon of wisdom and healing capability, who trained many heroes.

Yet, even Chiron had to endure wounds he could not heal, and even death until he fervently prayed for it, and was placed like many figures of myth in the night sky, after in one version of the myth he traded places with Promethius.

Thus, even in ancient times, the merger could not complete itself. It is up to us to do so. It is US that are split in two, having one side dominate generates imbalance, and it is this imbalance that has thwarted this process in the past, and still does. The key, therefore, is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. A new being, a true being that is not yet born. It is our task to engender that birth of our beings through the alignment/merger of our separate fragments.

Very, very interesting - thank you for this insight; I think it may actually be perhaps similar to what I wrote to Ruth in this thread...

[...]

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1591.msg8698#msg8698

I will stop here since I think the rest of your reply was predominately due to my lack clarity of which reflection I was contextually referring to, or so I think.

Question: what were the wounds that Chiron had to endure and could not heal, and what do you mean by "and even death until he fervently prayed for it"? Are you saying he prayed for "death" or death from this world? I agree with you on the notion that the sum is greater then its parts. Now the question is that if Chiron was not bestial because of the fact that he did not allow "conditioned predator programming" of the animal man, to quote you dear Esoquest, to run the show "wildly" within, or was it something else. What I am trying to clarify is that these conditioned predator programmings are of the "False personality", and so, the reason for why the animal man, the inner dog needs to learn from the spiritual man to not abuse sex/"sexual energy" through strictly wanting to possess things for the self, and these programmings have been rienforced from the beginning of "time" by default thanks to the group mind choosing to have their Free Will abridged into this linear illusion of "time" in this side of the "sand box" due to wishing to have greater sensate for the self, or so I think.

This is why I think that what I wrote to Ruth in reflection, or say pondering, is similar to what you wrote here:

"In Greek mythology Centaurs were bestial, indicating that this fusion of higher and lower centers was not really feasable for most. There was, however, one exception indicating it was possible. This was Chiron, a paragon of wisdom and healing capability, who trained many heroes.

Yet, even Chiron had to endure wounds he could not heal, and even death until he fervently prayed for it, and was placed like many figures of myth in the night sky, after in one version of the myth he traded places with Promethius.

Thus, even in ancient times, the merger could not complete itself. It is up to us to do so. It is US that are split in two, having one side dominate generates imbalance, and it is this imbalance that has thwarted this process in the past, and still does. The key, therefore, is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. A new being, a true being that is not yet born. It is our task to engender that birth of our beings through the alignment/merger of our separate fragments."

Now what I am pondering is whether you think what I wrote to Ruth in the link above is also a case of one side wanting to dominate the other, and hence, cause a "desire based imbalance["] within[] for either side, which currently it seems to be the case in regard to your point of view, and so, if you could please point out the reasons why this seems to be the case step by step, I would really appreciate the help.

 

[Saman]

I agree with you on the notion that the sum is greater then its parts.

I've been mulling the above over a few times and there seems to be a devil here. So, here is what I think: to state that "the sum is greater then its parts" is not the same as stating that "the whole is more then the sum of its parts", which is what Esoquest stated. The former seems to indicate that the sum is of more importance then the parts and the latter does not have any such implications, or so I think. Hence, it seems that this was a clever twist by "predator mind". I've thought about this statement, "the sum is equal to its parts", which is [again] not the same as what Esoquest stated. Now if the "Prime Creator Manifests IN" US, I think this would be the whole that is more then the sum of its parts, and this whole does not see [itself] as more important then the part since the C's have stated:

June 9, 1996 F****, Laura
[...]
Q: (L) Al-Arabi describes unified thought
forms as being the 'names of God.' His
explication seems to be so identical to things
you tell us that I wonder...
A: We are all the names of God. Remember,
this is a conduit. This means that both
termination/origination points are of equal
value, importance.
Q: (L) So, it is a blending of the aspects of
God?
A: No.
Q: (L) What do you mean? Does this mean that
we are a part of this?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, it has to do with...
A: Don't deify us. And, be sure all others with
which you communicate understand this too!
Q: (L) What quality in us, what thing, enabled
us to make contact, because, obviously a lot of
people try and get garbage.
A: You asked.
[...]

 

[Saman]

:) Heh, I was back into bed trying to fall asleep when this thought came to mind[:] "we are your whole self" in regards to the above excerpts and thoughts; hence, I checked the sessions and I found the following:

December 10, 1994 F***, Laura, T*** and
J***.
[...]
Q: (L) You are not, by any chance, one of
those weird ant or preying mantis beings are
you?
A: Yes and no.
Q: (T) You are just another part of ourselves?
You, us, the Lizards, the ants, the grays, the
trees...
A: We are your whole self as you/we are in
6th density.
Q: (T) So, what we are working to become is
You? You are us?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) So, when we move to 4th density and
become whole with ourselves, we will know
you also for a short time?
A: Not whole yet when at 4th density.
Q: (T) But in order to move to 4th density...
A: Closer.
Q: (T) We, us, in this room, are closer than
others are?
A: No. Closer when at 4th density.
[...]

 

[Guest]

Question: what were the wounds that Chiron had to endure and could not heal, and what do you mean by "and even death until he fervently prayed for it"? Are you saying he prayed for "death" or death from this world?

In the myth, Hercules shot Chiron in the foot with one of his poisoned arrows, whose tips were dipped in the blood of the Hydra. The Hydra is an apt metaphore for the pretator, with multiple regenerating heads. You cut one head, and another grows in its place. So you have to cut all heads at once.

The archetypes of Greek myths exemplified ideals of that culture (probably borrowed from other cutlures and originate in deeper shamanic roots), but these myths were from a time when there really were no defined solutions to deal with the predator issue, IMO.

So although Chiron was immortal and a great healer, he could not heal the poison those arrows put in his system. Some interpret this by calling Chiron the wounded healer, stating that to heal you have to experience illness. Indeed, shamans would undergo profound crisis to earn their powers to contact the other world and heal others through that contact.

In this case, however, Chiron was already a successful teacher and healer. He was not an initiate. So he encountered something to which there was no solution at the time. That is my take, at least. It is possible that Chiron could not heal this because he was the polar opposite of the mortal Centaurs. He was polarized toward spirit, and they toward the animal nature. In neither was was true balance attained, although the potential for it was there.

So he was in constant torment, and prayed for death = oblivion. He was already practically a god and so was not restricted to this world. However, what Zeus gave him was the gift of transfiguration, where he was not put in another world, but altered his very nature, and hence was relieved of the physical condition. He became a constellation, among other mythic figures in the sky.

And thus mortals could still view Chiron, but as a series of stars.

I agree with you on the notion that the sum is greater then its parts. Now the question is that if Chiron was not bestial because of the fact that he did not allow "conditioned predator programming" of the animal man, to quote you dear Esoquest, to run the show "wildly" within, or was it something else. What I am trying to clarify is that these conditioned predator programmings are of the "False personality", and so, the reason for why the animal man, the inner dog needs to learn from the spiritual man to not abuse sex/"sexual energy" through strictly wanting to possess things for the self, and these programmings have been rienforced from the beginning of "time" by default thanks to the group mind choosing to have their Free Will abridged into this linear illusion of "time" in this side of the "sand box" due to wishing to have greater sensate for the self, or so I think.

Chiron was not bestial because he was polarized toward his spirit side. The other Centaurs denied their spirit nature to a great degree. Also Chiron was not a mortal Centaur, but of divine stock (hence more indication that he was spirit polarized, although whole in appearance). His parents were not Centaurs, but Titans I believe, or at least some kind of ancient Greek divinity. So Chiron was the spirit ideal that the mortal Centaurs could not reach, indicating that this access was not feasable at that time.

Chiron was wholeness imbalanced toward Spirit, and the other Centaurs were imbalanced toward the animal. The animal Centaurs were mortal, Chiron was imortal, but could not heal the effects of the poison. Not without incorporating the animal nature to a greater extent.

Originally, I figured that Chiron was whole, and that simply he did not know how to deal with the poison. However, even the gods could not deal with it. Upon closer inspection the myth hints that even if we contain animal and spirit nature in us, unless we balance them, the predatory influence corrupts us, one way or another.

Actually, the mortal Centaurs were not animals, but thinking beings whose thoughts were guided by the predator to twist their animal nature into what we call bestial, and addicted to fulfilling programmed instinct. Animals are in harmony with their natural environment and do not rape and murder, as the Centaurs did.

In runic lore Odin and his 8-legged steed Sleipnir, actually represents the microcosm of the nine worlds in the human ideal. In many representations Odin and his steed are fused into a Centaur-like image indicating that for the human microcosm to embody the macrocosmic ideal, this merger was necessary. Odin was a Norse shamanic archtype and the patron of Norse rune shamans.

It is said that only Odin had the knowledge to travel the worlds with this steed, whose 8 legs remind one of a spider and the worlds as parts of a dreamtime web. Like Odin, Chiron was an ideal and there is no reference that either dominated their bestial nature. The teaching I think is that they were one with it, and this was not something easily accessible to mortals. Often such archetypes are condensed templates of shamanic teaching.

The question, IMO, is what is the false personality? I think it has nothing to do with the inner dog directly, but is a pseudo-spiritual construct dominating it. The nature of instincts precludes them being "taught" in any mental manner, or even by example. Apples cannot teach oranges to be apples. The nature of instinct is to be informed by the spirit aspect through the lower mind, so it can inform the lower mind through the emotions and body of their needs. We must not forget that the mind is also overtaken by the predator, and in fact is its seat (predator mind). From the mind it creates a false matrix and instincts and emotions have no choice but to adapt to it, osit.

This "sand box" as you call it is the Matrix version of Nature. This Matrix is constructed by the predator mind. Instincts and emotions are adaptive to the reality in which they find themselves. Spirit is not prevalent in man. Mind is, and mind either conducts programming or spirit. The higher centers are already active, but are not conducting to the lower ones, which include lower mind, the mind behind our human civilization, where the impulses of higher mind and spirit are few and far between.

They (the higher centers) do not conduct into mind because it is separate and "superior" to the lower centers instead of being just higher to them. This possessed mind, distorts the expression of the lower centers. It is not they that want to "satisfy the self" as you say, but to satisfy the predator. In terms of sexuality, the thing about predator programming is that it does not lead to a satisfying sexual life. One seeks pleasure, but pleasure is always brief and one is left hanging afterward. So there really is no satisfaction of self, just a drainage until the body recovers and the mind pushes it again to alleviate the tensions it creates.

The instincts and emotions believe they will relieve stress by fulfilling the dictates of conditioning, but they are fooled again and again. When spirit replaces the predator as the central identity presence, mind, emotions and instincts are aligned, as mentioned before, and hence real fulfillment is possible. Until the presence of spirit is real (which in most it is not), we really cannot say what is natural sexuality for a human being (although we can and do speculate).

Our attempts at promoting imagined natural sexuality can, furthermore, serve the predator just as much as our addictive expressions. This occurs with repression and moralizing regarding sexuality. So we cannot just stop being sexual and think we have elliminated the problem. The problem will persist until the programs are ellminated, and this cannot be done by teaching emotions and instincts new tricks, osit.

Now what I am pondering is whether you think what I wrote to Ruth in the link above is also a case of one side wanting to dominate the other, and hence, cause a "desire based imbalance["] within[] for either side, which currently it seems to be the case in regard to your point of view, and so, if you could please point out the reasons why this seems to be the case step by step, I would really appreciate the help.

The issue with you and Ruth I pointed out, was similar to the issue with you a Tschai. This was discussed, and I believe is self evident in the pattern of your expression. As I mentioned, such responses indicate a lack of empathy, where another person is treated as if they were being put in their place. There is no "step by step", IMO, since one has to gain a sense of the underlying pattern, which permeates the expression.

Although singular phrases can be more representative of the pattern than others, over focusing on particulars implies that it is the words themselves that are the issue. The words simply reflect it. The issue is the state of mind behind the words, and reading them to recall that state of mind can lead to seeing what is involved here.

You either see the pattern or you don't. If you remember when you posted this, and if you remember if your mind, for example, as associated with irritation, a sense impatience and lack of empathy, then you may see the unseen. The pattern is associated with the inner state at the time it was expressed, and that can be read in the wording.

Perhaps there was an impulse to be in control. Maybe it wasn't a need to dominate a person (I don't see this myself), but wanting to dominate the situation. To present certain ideas and not be bothered by others, and not be bothered by those expressing ideas thought of as wrong and irrelevant. These are all observations, however, and one can only point out the possibilities sensed. It is up to the person who did the expression to see. If you don't then you either do not wish to do so, or there is no pattern, and the other or others who saw it was wrong.

If the pattern is unseen and exists, then it behooves the one inolved to see it. Seeing the unseen is the point of these lessons. Brutal self-honesty is the only solution, and if one is honest one can stick by his/her conviction. If one THINKS he/she is honest, another lesson will come along to point it out. Quite simple, I think.

I've been mulling the above over a few times and there seems to be a devil here. So, here is what I think: to state that "the sum is greater then its parts" is not the same as stating that "the whole is more then the sum of its parts", which is what Esoquest stated. The former seems to indicate that the sum is of more importance then the parts and the latter does not have any such implications, or so I think. Hence, it seems that this was a clever twist by "predator mind". I've thought about this statement, "the sum is equal to its parts", which is [again] not the same as what Esoquest stated. Now if the "Prime Creator Manifests IN" US, I think this would be the whole that is more then the sum of its parts, and this whole does not see [itself] as more important then the part

I could have easily said "greater" as well, because my mind simply did not make the association between "greater" and "more important" in the way you did. Actually everything is equal, but not equivalent. In other words, when we say "more important" I think we imply "least expendable". That is a contradiction here, because when even one part is missing the whole is nonexistent as such.

If there is a predatory influence here, I think it is in the promotion of a value judgment. I think that is what the C's were also pointing out, that making value judgments comparing this or that aspect of self is irrelevant to truth. Think of a hologram. Every part of the hologram contains the information of the whole, but not in focus. The more parts coming together, the greater the focus or presence.

This is the goal: presence of self, osit. You can also think of each part as a signal pattern. The whole is a harmony of superposition that cannot be predicted by any part, because the signal is not coherent in those terms. Unlike a hologram the different centers are not identical parts, but different ways of expressing being, each playing a role. Together all these roles precipitate into the whole presence.

Also you can think of it as having different actors on a stage. If only one or some of the actors are on the stage or if the actors play their parts out of sync the theme of the play is not understandable. Everything has to be in its right place and act according to its nature, and "part" for the complex theme of the "play" to be successfully conveyed.

To enter 4D successfully, one has to be whole in 3D. That is where the learning leads. By being whole in 3D, one is closer to greater wholeness beyond 3D. When one is not whole in 3D one cannot really do more than speculate loose approximations of what 4D is like, and even then one must accept that all those approximations can be quite different from the reality to be encountered.

So the point is to deal with 3D not 4D at this point. When at 4D options will be available that one could never even consider at 3D, and to access those options, one must be whole according to one's nature (meaning we all have different challenges and lessons here, although the essence of those lessons is universal).

All in all, the goal is to become more real, closer to the essence of one's nature. In that sense, aligned lower centers with higher ones IS better than our current discombobulated state, and that is because it is more coherent with the essential reality of our being. This is not a dominance of spirit over nature, but an alignment and coherence into that "greater" or rather more coherent wholeness.

 

[Nathan]

I am under the assumption that "inner dog" refers to the lower centres or the "horse" in the coach metaphor. For those who might need a bit more explanation for the term "inner dog", the following may be helpful.

Glossary - Centers

The 4th Way teaching attributes different areas of man's functioning to so-called centers. Different accounts of the teaching differ in particulars but generally centers are divided into 3 lower and 2 or 3 higher ones. The lower centers are 1. Moving, responsible for the physical body in its instinctive as well as learned functioning, 2 lower emotional, responsible for assigning values to things and emotion in general and 3 Intellectual, responsible for memory of facts and thinking in general.

[...]

The configuration of centers is expected to change as the Work proceeds. First the three centers will become subject to a single authority, the newly formed magnetic center. This is an intermediate step on the way of the lower emotional center merging with the higher emotional center. Finally, the higher emotional center is supposed to open the door to the higher intellectual center.

Then we have the coach metaphor, where the passenger is the predator until the real I takes shape and is able to wrestle for control of the coach (something that all the little I's were incapable of doing).

Glossary - Coach, The

In the 4th Way material, the horse-drawn coach is used as a metaphor for the human being. The driver corresponds to intellect, the horse to emotions, the carriage to the physical body. The passenger corresponds to the 'real I' or 'soul,' which most often, according to the 4th Way teaching is either asleep or absent. In the analogy, the horse is often depicted as neglected and abused, the driver as self-interested and shallow, sometimes drunk and reckless or asleep, the carriage as in bad repair, all performing way below their possibilities. All these stand in the cab rank, ready to be hired by whatever passenger comes along. In the ideal state of man, the passenger would be the permanent owner of the coach, directing intellect, emotions and body according to a conscious purpose, using each for its rightfull function. However this is hardly ever the case.

I take it that the "three [lower] centres" are, by default, subject to the authority of the predator's mind unless the magnetic center (the organ the seeker gradually develops for discerning between A and B influences) is formed in preparation for the real I to take control of the coach.

It has already been ascertained in this thread that taming the "lower centres" or "inner dog" (I will call it this to maintain consistency in this thread), is not an advisable approach because it doesn't resolve the programs, it just blocks them. But I can see where the word "tame" may have come from: "...the key to accessing the higher is to bring the lower into order" (Centers - Glossary).

Now, it says further in the glossary for "Centers" that "the idea is to energize the lower centers so that they can 'catch up' or meaningfully interact with the higher centers". Although, less encouragingly, it says further, "This condition is however very rare and nearly always transitory".

So it is a meaningful interaction that we are after here. Integration, not separation.

 

[Saman]

Actually, the mortal Centaurs were not animals, but thinking beings whose thoughts were guided by the predator to twist their animal nature into what we call bestial, and addicted to fulfilling programmed instinct. Animals are in harmony with their natural environment and do not rape and murder, as the Centaurs did.

Based on a recent show on TV, some animals like Chimps and Baboons do rape and murder their own kind, and these are supposed to be the higher primates that are closer to the configuration of the 3D STS Physical body and its conditioned predator programmings, then other beings, or so I think.

This "sand box" as you call it is the Matrix version of Nature. This Matrix is constructed by the predator mind. Instincts and emotions are adaptive to the reality in which they find themselves. Spirit is not prevalent in man. Mind is, and mind either conducts programming or spirit. The higher centers are already active, but are not conducting to the lower ones, which include lower mind, the mind behind our human civilization, where the impulses of higher mind and spirit are few and far between.

By "sand box" I am referring to the physicality, that is both the STS orientation and the STO orientation. The version of Nature in each side of the "sand box" is relevant to the default alignment of either the STS or STO Thought Center, or so I think.

Our attempts at promoting imagined natural sexuality can, furthermore, serve the predator just as much as our addictive expressions. This occurs with repression and moralizing regarding sexuality. So we cannot just stop being sexual and think we have elliminated the problem. The problem will persist until the programs are ellminated, and this cannot be done by teaching emotions and instincts new tricks, osit.

If it is imagined then yes. If it is Understood, then no. And I think you are correct in stating that we cannot just stop being sexual since as I have stated in another thread, you cannot move from point A to point C and skip point B, that is, point A being "infra sex", point B being "normal sex", and point C being "supra sex", or so I think.

Now what I am pondering is whether you think what I wrote to Ruth in the link above is also a case of one side wanting to dominate the other, and hence, cause a "desire based imbalance["] within[] for either side, which currently it seems to be the case in regard to your point of view, and so, if you could please point out the reasons why this seems to be the case step by step, I would really appreciate the help.

The issue with you and Ruth I pointed out, was similar to the issue with you a Tschai. This was discussed, and I believe is self evident in the pattern of your expression. As I mentioned, such responses indicate a lack of empathy, where another person is treated as if they were being put in their place. There is no "step by step", IMO, since one has to gain a sense of the underlying pattern, which permeates the expression.

Methinks I have failed again to point out to you dear Esoquest what I was talking about in regards to "step by step" in the above, even though I seemed to be quite clear...

Anyways, this time I will post the whole text in question in this response:

From http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1591.msg8698#msg8698 :

smile Cute indeed. I found this excerpt insightful in regards on how to tame the inner dog:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/arts/ ... ei=5087%0A :
[...]
Working with Americans and their dogs, he said, "I was surprised and a little confused by what I saw." Where he grew up, in Culiacan, Sinaloa, in Northwest Mexico, "everybody walks dogs," Mr. Millan said during a recent visit to New York. "But where I am from, the dog is always behind. Here the dog is always in front. I thought maybe you guys were doing it right and we were doing it wrong. Because to me America is the country where everybody is always doing it right. I thought you knew and we were wrong."

He quickly discovered: no. Americans were letting the dogs, rather than the humans, be the pack leaders, in almost every respect. "Americans work against Mother Nature, and that's why dogs don't listen to the general population of America," he said. "Why are dogs growing up on a farm much happier than a dog living in the city? Because on a farm, it gets to be a dog. And in the city they become a child, they become a husband, they become a soul mate. They become something the human wants before they are willing to do what is best for them."

So you could say that taming the inner dog is showing it that you are the pack leader within, and so because this does not go against it's nature since the inner dog likes to follow a capable pack leader, "the Infinite Sea of Potential" that is the "Mystic Female" of the right side of the brain is not ravished by the left side of the brain because the inner dog, the physical 3D STS consciousness container, is accepted as it naturally IS, while the left side of the brain is vigilant to make sure that pack leader within is sustained to be YOU and not the inner dog by building up on the intent to BE the "object of knowledge", and in order to BE the latter, YOU must DO and actualize in accord to what YOU potentially are deep within in regards to your "seed's" intrinsic FRV, and so, to make sure that YOU sustain and amplify this certain FRV by anticipating with vigilance the negative "fall" of this "up" FRV again in the nonlinear future, knowing full well that this will happen IF you are not [vigilant] of expecting the unexpected attacks of the hyperdimensional "Predator Mind."

Thanks for sharing that link Ruth! I might be on to something practical with these thoughts since I just finished re-reading Laura's http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave12a.htm

Moreover, I also think the movie "Eight Below" is a very cute movie as well, and also insightful in regards to taming the inner dog to be a "good boy" and loyal to your aim through learning step by step on how to strategically become a more capable pack leader within NOW with the intent to not "fall" as the pack leader in the nonlinear future - a gentle and yet firm balance of the right and left side of the brain working in union together, mirth smile

Well, I think I have got carried away with the italics to indicate [] abstract concepts, but I am experimenting here, and so, I will leave all the italics as they are for now. smile

Last edited by Saman (2006-05-25 03:46:42)

I've been mulling the above over a few times and there seems to be a devil here. So, here is what I think: to state that "the sum is greater then its parts" is not the same as stating that "the whole is more then the sum of its parts", which is what Esoquest stated. The former seems to indicate that the sum is of more importance then the parts and the latter does not have any such implications, or so I think. Hence, it seems that this was a clever twist by "predator mind". I've thought about this statement, "the sum is equal to its parts", which is [again] not the same as what Esoquest stated. Now if the "Prime Creator Manifests IN" US, I think this would be the whole that is more then the sum of its parts, and this whole does not see [itself] as more important then the part

I could have easily said "greater" as well, because my mind simply did not make the association between
"greater" and "more important" in the way you did.

Yes, this is why I stated it in the first place. However, later on through some mulling over of the phrase "the sum is greater then its parts", I realized that I should point the devil of another manner of interpreting "greater" since the words usually have more then one meaning and how they can be used to portray a concept is where the devil wishes [to] cause confusion through the tongues. So [just] to be vigilant that others might not misunderstand what I intended to say, I pointed this devil out and then gave my reasons for why I thought it was a devil.

Actually everything is equal, but not equivalent. In other words, when we say "more important" I think we imply "least expendable". That is a contradiction here, because when even one part is missing the whole is nonexistent as such.

Exactly.

If there is a predatory influence here, I think it is in the promotion of a value judgment. I think that is what the C's were also pointing out, that making value judgments comparing this or that aspect of self is irrelevant to truth. Think of a hologram. Every part of the hologram contains the information of the whole, but not in focus. The more parts coming together, the greater the focus or presence.

Yes.

This is the goal: presence of self, osit. You can also think of each part as a signal pattern. The whole is a harmony of superposition that cannot be predicted by any part, because the signal is not coherent in those terms. Unlike a hologram the different centers are not identical parts, but different ways of expressing being, each playing a role. Together all these roles precipitate into the whole presence.

Also you can think of it as having different actors on a stage. If only one or some of the actors are on the stage or if the actors play their parts out of sync the theme of the play is not understandable. Everything has to be in its right place and act according to its nature, and "part" for the complex theme of the "play" to be successfully conveyed.

To enter 4D successfully, one has to be whole in 3D. That is where the learning leads. By being whole in 3D, one is closer to greater wholeness beyond 3D. When one is not whole in 3D one cannot really do more than speculate loose approximations of what 4D is like, and even then one must accept that all those approximations can be quite different from the reality to be encountered.

So the point is to deal with 3D not 4D at this point. When at 4D options will be available that one could never even consider at 3D, and to access those options, one must be whole according to one's nature (meaning we all have different challenges and lessons here, although the essence of those lessons is universal).

All in all, the goal is to become more real, closer to the essence of one's nature. In that sense, aligned lower centers with higher ones IS better than our current discombobulated state, and that is because it is more coherent with the essential reality of our being. This is not a dominance of spirit over nature, but an alignment and coherence into that "greater" or rather more coherent wholeness.

Yes, and if conditioned predator programs of the inner dog by 4D STS that make one of "infra sex" through the "abuse" of sex are a[n] obstruction or say a "buffer" in the way of this ali[gn]ment of [the] lower centers to the higher, then this is where the essential work must be done. This is the point I am clarifying in regards to taming/teaching the inner dog.

 

[Guest]

Based on a recent show on TV, some animals like Chimps and Baboons do rape and murder their own kind, and these are supposed to be the higher primates that are closer to the configuration of the 3D STS Physical body and its conditioned predator programmings, then other beings, or so I think.

Is it the body as a material presence or the brain that is proximate, which causes similarities in behaviour? Is it the body or something in primitive mind that warps 3D STS? It seems that in 3D STS physicality confronts STO potential or at least a mind that is a precourser to STO potential. It's what you said about animal man and spiritual man being in close proximity and conscious suffering resulting. I agree that suffering results from this, but only because the merger is not complete, and conscious beings must integrate the paradox, before the next step is taken.

By "sand box" I am referring to the physicality, that is both the STS orientation and the STO orientation. The version of Nature in each side of the "sand box" is relevant to the default alignment of either the STS or STO Thought Center, or so I think.

Too bad. By viewing physicality as a "sand box" we focus on its apparent limitations as inherent to its nature instead of a stage of its evolution. We may be missing a point: that physicality has more potential than we think.

Methinks I have failed again to point out to you dear Esoquest what I was talking about in regards to "step by step" in the above, even though I seemed to be quite clear...

Ah yes, Ruth's tiny insert in a vast plain of text. Not easy to detect through vague referencing. I have no problem with being assumed dense sometimes. That way at least others can go out of their way in making things clear to me, and not have to backtrack. A link such as the one you provided would have solved the issue at the onset. Perhaps you can slow down, and not rush to put it all down, as it were, in one shot. You actually end up saving time that way. And patience is a virtue in more ways than one, patience with self and others...

Regarding the article I look at it this way: We walk the dog so the dog can do its business. Since it is the dog's business and not the human's it is impractical for the human to walk before the dog. When the dog finds a nice tree the person ends up being snapped back or the dog get choked. The moral of the story is do something in a way that matches the reason for which you are doing it, not to prove something else.

Now, I have two dogs, and never walk them because we have an acre of land and they go where they please. They are dogs, and do their business at the corners of the yard because they also run around and do not want to step in their own business, just like I don't.

Cities are harmful to humans as they are to dogs. There was a study once indicating that monkeys in a zoo exhibit psychopathic behaviour similar to humans in cities. This behaviour is not exhibited in the wild, or at least is much much rarer (murder, sadism, sexual deviation and rape). Yes there is rape and killing in the wild, but it is rare, and often a female in heat attracts many wild males, and the result is seen as rape. Yet the female is in heat, while rape in zoos occurs with males on males and males on females, and the latter need not be in heat.

A dog (unless it is one of those tiny breeds where the whole world seems big to it) wants freedom and space. Putting this in terms of our psychology relating to the dog once again misses the point, which is the dog. The article is a bit anthropocentric in a self-important kind of way, IMO.

And it points out the perspective the mind takes on the inner dog. It is always about the mind and its opinions. The mind confuses the inner dog's nature with its biases about it, just like the character who considered putting himself in front of the dog a matter of affirming his place in relation to the dog instead of a matter of effeciency regarding the dog doing its business.

In this case (and that exemplifies the point I am trying to make post after post, my dear Saman), the dog simply wants to be a dog, and in doing so wants the human to relate to it as a free being. When a human walks a dog, he/she can simply move in a certain direction when turning corners so the path leads back home after the dog is done. This way the human is not paranoid about its place, but simply shifts gently when shifting is needed, which is rarely and only when there is a fundamental course change.

When doing so the human does not drag the dog or try to teach it how to read road signs. The human simply shifts direction, and the dog follows. Of course, if the human truly understood the dog, and other humans were not driving fast cars all over the place or complicating this world more than it needs to be, the dog could have the space it needs to do what it needs, and always come home after it is done.

Of course, we are speaking of healthy dogs. My dogs aren't trained. Without them our house would have been robbed a hundred times over, since we live in the country. Yet because neighbors leave poisoned food around, and drive fast cars over the speed limit, and hunt birds but end up shooting dogs, the outer gate stays closed. That's because the humans are dangerous, not the dogs.

You see, most of us are still at the OP level prior to real individuation, so what we mistake as spirit man is really mental man, and this mental man likes to posture in a spiritual manner more often than not. Real spirit comes when mental man gets his act together and alignes with the lower nature instead of trying to play boss.

Of course a real dog is an independent being, and the inner dog is not. Another way of putting it is that we cannot teach our legs to walk and our eyes to see. If we cannot walk or see, something is interfering, and we must deal with that. If our legs are amputated and powered by a little motor, we cannot hope to teach them to carry us. We must remove the motor and attach them.

The analogy breaks down here, because the lower self does not need to be force-attached. When the predator is disempowered, and as it is disempowered the lower self does so on its own, and the result is the spiritual dog, chanting OM, and bestowing blessings upon the masses. Mighty Dog, with a cape and super decoder ring. ;) And Mighty Dog looks in the mirror and realizes he is human.

So...infra sex, normal sex, and supra sex (or is that super-sex?). I would think it's kinda hard to extrapolate the latter two from the first. Maybe its more practical to let sleeping dogs lie until we integrate them, and let the sexual aspect come into its own when that happens.

Otherwise we might be like St. Athanasius plagued by succulent "temptations" during his prayers and meditations. You know if you're under 30, too much abstinence can lead to prostate troubles later on, as some medical studies indicate. Another study says that sexually active people (especially monogamous ones- as long as they really like their partner) live longer. Just some dog wisdom.

 

[Saman]

Based on a recent show on TV, some animals like Chimps and Baboons do rape and murder their own kind, and these are supposed to be the higher primates that are closer to the configuration of the 3D STS Physical body and its conditioned predator programmings, then other beings, or so I think.

Is it the body as a material presence or the brain that is proximate, which causes similarities in behaviour?

I think both. It is the conitioned predator programmings of [the] lower brains influencing the higher brain and thus working through the body[,] and the conditioned sensitivities of the body connected to the brain which causes similarities of behaviour, and all this is due to 4D STS conditioned predator programmings. So then, I think the Work is about removing these "buffers", these conditioned predator programmings in order to achieve greater "recievership capability" through the "Mind through central nervous system connection to higher levels", and I think this "receivership capability" also has to do with how one views the right use of sex, since I also think that sex governs everything in existence, or say, Created Cosmos that IS, WAS, and will BE:

September 23, 2000
[...]
Q: Are there any limitations to what our
physical bodies can transform to if instructed
by the DNA? Could we literally grow taller,
rejuvenate, change our physical appearance,
capabilities, or whatever, if instructed by the
DNA?
A: Receivership capability.
Q: What is receivership capability?
A: Change to broader receivership capability.
Q: (A) That means that you can receive more
of something.
A: Close.
Q: (A) It means how good is your receiver.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What is your receiver? The physical
body?
A: Mind through central nervous system
connection to higher levels.
Q: So, that is the whole issue of gaining
knowledge and developing control over your
body. If your mind and CNS are tuned to
higher levels of consciousness, that has
significance in terms of your receivership
capability?
A: Close.
[...]

Is it the body or something in primitive mind that warps 3D STS? It seems that in 3D STS physicality confronts STO potential or at least a mind that is a precourser to STO potential. It's what you said about animal man and spiritual man being in close proximity and conscious suffering resulting. I agree that suffering results from this, but only because the merger is not complete, and conscious beings must integrate the paradox, before the next step is taken.

And the devil here is what is this integration you speak of exactly. You've stated that whole is more then the sum of its parts. This is fine and I agree with this notion. But how does one arrive to this "whole" if there is conditioned predator programmings that work against this aim because it is afraid of the whole, of the Unkown Creative potential? So this is why I think that spiritual man must work to remove these obstructive programmings that drain life force to 4D STS, and [] as I have already mentioned, its most practical to first acknoweldge what ones see to be "infra sex", and then to work to tune their reading instrument towards "normal sex", until later then when they may perhaps reach a natural state from the Work of moving from Point A to Point B to not even have the desire for carnal sex, [and thus, reach point C]

January 7, 1995 F***, Laura, TR, JR, V, D, T
[...]
Q: (L) I have read that when you are at the
higher spiritual levels that you can do a
spiritual merge which is better than orgasm. Is
that true?
A: Why do you need orgasm of any kind?
Q: (L) Well, it does seem to be like one of the
penultimate experiences of physicality. (T)
That's exactly it... it's physicality... (L) If that
is so, isn't everything that exists in the
physical, 3rd density world, in some way a
reflection of experiences or states of being on
higher realms?
A: 3rd density as you experience it is an
illusion you have been fed to continue your
imprisonment therein.
Q: (L) So, in other words, there is no cosmic
orgasm that keeps the worlds in existence as
exemplified by the eternally copulating Vishnu
and Shiva?
A: That is Bull! [laughter]
Q: (L) Well, they teach this stuff in the Eastern
religions and they even have the idols sculpted
in this posture...
A: That is a rationalization to continue the
illusion.
Q: (L) So, in other words, the orgasmic
experience is quite literally a lure to keep us...
(D) Controlled... (T) And in the third level...
(L) Is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Let's go back to a question I asked in
another session on this same subject: what
happens to our energy at the point of orgasm?
Where does that energy go?
A: Drains to 4th level STS.
Q: (T) Is this a manifestation of the Lizards
feeding off of us?
A: STSers there retrieve it.
Q: (T) So, orgasm is a 3rd density
manifestation of the 4th density consumption
of 3rd density energy?
A: One of their methods.
[...]

So if one tries to move from Point A to point C by sheer force of will and without actual Knowledge and rather dogmatic fundie notions, then this creates such unnecessary and unconscious suffering that it drains to 4D STS more life force then if one were to work to move from point A to point B, or so I think.

By "sand box" I am referring to the physicality, that is both the STS orientation and the STO orientation. The version of Nature in each side of the "sand box" is relevant to the default alignment of either the STS or STO Thought Center, or so I think.

Too bad. By viewing physicality as a "sand box" we focus on its apparent limitations as inherent to its nature instead of a stage of its evolution. We may be missing a point: that physicality has more potential than we think.

I think of the "sand box" "As the soil", or say 3D STS perception of "Time" and 3D STO perception of "Time", which [in regards to latter] as I [have] already aforementioned somewhere on this forum, I think [it was] the OP thread, is more REAL:

This is Halloween October 31, 1998
[...]
Q: So, my view of them is that they are trying
to take something from me that doesn't belong
to them and insisting that it does?
A: Close. Maybe something you do have.
Q: Trying to take something from me that is
mine by claiming that it is theirs?
A: Yes.
Q: Any other comment on this dream? This
was rather threatening to me and I thought I
ought to examine it because it was so realistic.
A: There is a karmic "twist" between you and
them.
Q: What is the karmic twist?
A: Just as it is... Unresolved issues -- like kids
playing in the sand box.
Q: Is there any indication from this dream that
they are going to swoop back into our lives?
A: Well, they probably will, will they not?
Q: I don't know. I thought it was singularly
unpleasant.
A: You fascinate and frustrate them.
[...]

February 24, 1996 Frank, Laura, S***, PZ, SZ,
[...]
Q: (L) He didn't say. I guess they want
short-term predictions and all sorts of little
tests...
A: Precisely, now what does this tell you?
Q: It tells us that he wants proof.
A: Third density "proof" does not apply, as
we have explained again and again. Now,
listen very carefully: if proof of that type were
possible, what do you suppose would happen
to free will, and thusly to learning, Karmic
Directive Level One?
Q: (L) Well, I guess that if there is proof, you
are believing in the proof and not the spirit of
the thing. You are placing your reliance upon a
material thing. You have lost your free will.
Someone has violated your free will by the act
of PROVING something to you.
A: If anyone CHOOSES to believe, that is
their prerogative!
Q: (PZ) [unintelligible remark]
A: You did not completely understand the
previous response, Pat. And what would
constitute proof?
Q: (L) Predictions that came true, answers that
were verifiable about a number of things.
A: Those would still be dismissed by a great
many as mere coincidences. We have already
given predictions, will continue to do so, but,
remember, "time" does not exist. This is a 3rd
density illusion. We don not play in that
sandbox and cannot and never will. The
primary reason for our communication is to
help you to learn by teaching yourselves to
learn, thereby strengthening your soul energy,
and assisting your advancement.
Q: (L) Are you saying that your primary
reason is just to teach us? This small group?
A: Because you asked for help.
[...]

Moreover, I agree that [it] is incorrect to focus on the limitations, but I think it is ok to feel and observe these limitations:

December 12, 1995 F***, Laura
[...]
Q: (L) I want you guys to know that I
sometimes feel a wee tiny bit like a pawn on a
chessboard!
A: You should, you inhabit 3rd density STS
environment.
Q: (L) I was at least hoping that if I was a
pawn, that some of the players were good
guys. Is that asking too much?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) To which statement?
A: Good guys don't play chess. [Note: yes dear O***..I mean Esoquest? :) ]
Q: (L) But there have been so many strange
events, so many synchronous events. Is that the
good guys helping or the bad guys leading me
astray?
A: Neither. It is Nature running its course.
Q: (L) Okay. One of the sensations I have
experienced is that I have had it up to the
eyebrows with the negative energies and
experiences of 3rd density, and I have thought
lately that this feeling of having had enough, in
an absolute sense, is one of the primary
motivators for wanting to find one's way out of
this trap we are in. I want out of it. Is this part
of this "nature" as you call it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) When a group of people...
A: When you see the futility of the limitations
of 3rd density life, it means you are ready to
graduate. Notice those who wallow in it.
Q: (L) Some people obviously wallow in
extreme materiality. And there seems to be
another kind that is more subtle, which has to
do with saying that you want to grow and
become enlightened, and yet such a person is
unable to pierce the veil of their own illusions
about how to become enlightened, and this
illusion is the wallowing...
A: Wallowing takes many forms.
Q: (L) Among the things I have noticed is the
type of person who says: "This is my LAST
life! Swami So-and-so told me!" And they are
wallowing in the enjoyment of the adulation
they receive from their followers who believe
that sort of thing can be known.
A: Sometimes, but avoid stereotyping,
because sometimes they are correct!!!
Q: (L) Okay. I am not trying to stereotype.
A: More often, the sign is someone who does
not feel alienated by the obvious traps and
limitations of 3rd density.
Q: (L) Well, that says a lot. One of the
questions on the list is: In many of the
Sumerian drawings and literature, the gods,
the Annunaki, are described as eating a plant
that grew at the bottom of the ocean, and this
plant was the source of eternal life.
A: Nonsense! The source of eternal life is
existence!
Q: (L) Well, the point was that there was
some sort of food that these beings ate that
was unusual or different that somehow
enhanced their abilities to an extreme degree...
A: Totally false and you should know it!! All
so-called "special powers" come from
non-physical sources!!!
Q: (L) Carlos Castaneda talks about the
"Eagle's emanations," the Eagle being, I
suppose, Prime Creator that emanates down
through all the densities, and that the Nagual
who can "see," sees the Eagle as a large black
and white object. Are they seeing the source,
or are they seeing something on just another
density?
A: Source? There is no such thing.
Q: (L) You mean there is no Prime Creator, no
origin or source of our existence?
A: You are Prime Creator.
Q: (L) But that is so esoteric... I am talking
about...
A: The point is: stop filling your
consciousness with monotheistic philosophies
planted long ago to imprison your being. Can't
you see it by now, after all you have learned,
that there is no source, there is no leader, there
is no basis, there is no overseer, etc... You
literally possess, within your consciousness
profile, all the power that exists within all of
creation!?! You absolutely have all that exists,
ever has, or ever will, contained within your
mind. All you have to do is learn how to use
it, and at that moment, you will literally,
literally, be all that is, was, and ever will
be!!!!!!!!
Q: (L) That is all fine and dandy and sounds
wonderful, except for one little item. You also
say that the monotheistic concepts were
IMPOSED on us to prevent us from knowing
this. So, if we are all that is, how can
something exist that can impose something so
unpleasant on us?
A: Choices follow desire based imbalances.
[...]

Methinks I have failed again to point out to you dear Esoquest what I was talking about in regards to "step by step" in the above, even though I seemed to be quite clear...

Ah yes, Ruth's tiny insert in a vast plain of text. Not easy to detect through vague referencing. I have no problem with being assumed dense sometimes. That way at least others can go out of their way in making things clear to me, and not have to backtrack. A link such as the one you provided would have solved the issue at the onset.

If you please recheck this link, you will see that I was quite clear on what pondering, or reflection I was referring to and I did provide the link you speak of:

From http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1591.msg8930#msg8930 :

[...]
"EsoQuest wrote:
Saman wrote:
This is why you have to tame the inner dog away from this clever predator. Please see what I wrote in reflection to Ruth.
Is this the reflection to which you were referring?
No, sorry. I should had been more clear on what reply I was referring to. Here is the link to this reflection that is in this very thread:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/for ... 8698#p8698

I will stop here since I think the rest of your reply was predominately due to my lack clarity of which reflection I was contextually referring to, or so I think."

[Saman here:]
Just because a devil flashed by you in that moment, and perhaps due to these damn strobe lights that drain and make it hard for one to focus at times, doesn't make me think that you are dense. On the contrary, if that was the case, then I would be as equally dense sometimes, and perhaps I am sometimes as I have quite ably demonstrated recently in regards to Tschai :) Mirth!

Perhaps you can slow down, and not rush to put it all down, as it were, in one shot. You actually end up saving time that way. And patience is a virtue in more ways than one, patience with self and others...

I will work to implement this sound advice. Thank you.

Regarding the article I look at it this way: We walk the dog so the dog can do its business. Since it is the dog's business and not the human's it is impractical for the human to walk before the dog. When the dog finds a nice tree the person ends up being snapped back or the dog get choked. The moral of the story is do something in a way that matches the reason for which you are doing it, not to prove something else.

This makes sense.

Now, I have two dogs, and never walk them because we have an acre of land and they go where they please. They are dogs, and do their business at the corners of the yard because they also run around and do not want to step in their own business, just like I don't.

:)

Cities are harmful to humans as they are to dogs. There was a study once indicating that monkeys in a zoo exhibit psychopathic behaviour similar to humans in cities. This behaviour is not exhibited in the wild, or at least is much much rarer (murder, sadism, sexual deviation and rape). Yes there is rape and killing in the wild, but it is rare, and often a female in heat attracts many wild males, and the result is seen as rape. Yet the female is in heat, while rape in zoos occurs with males on males and males on females, and the latter need not be in heat.

Maybe there is more heat then normal due to being confined, or at least this is a possibility that needs to be researched and verified from my end.

A dog (unless it is one of those tiny breeds where the whole world seems big to it) wants freedom and space. Putting this in terms of our psychology relating to the dog once again misses the point, which is the dog. The article is a bit anthropocentric in a self-important kind of way, IMO.

And it points out the perspective the mind takes on the inner dog. It is always about the mind and its opinions. The mind confuses the inner dog's nature with its biases about it, just like the character who considered putting himself in front of the dog a matter of affirming his place in relation to the dog instead of a matter of effeciency regarding the dog doing its business.

Well, maybe since he has been working with dogs for quite a while, he has a better understanding of their nature, and so, he trains them according to their nature without trying to change them, and so, I thought this is why he was training them to see him as the pack leader. If he tried to force his will on them as the pack leader from the very start of the training, then the dogs would [o]bviously rebel. So perhaps he had to f[ir]st walk behind the dogs, to the side of the dogs, let them go whereever they pleased until he gently over time manged to walk in the front, and so, he only did so because the DOGS allow[ed] him to since he has trained them to see him as the pack leader. This doesn't mean that he will keep walking and cho[c]k them if they have to stop and pee or poo[,]and [so], allows them to do their business, but he also, being the pack leader, has a destination to go to, and he cannot get their without his dogs; hence, the "Eight below" movie analogy.

In this case (and that exemplifies the point I am trying to make post after post, my dear Saman), the dog simply wants to be a dog, and in doing so wants the human to relate to it as a free being. When a human walks a dog, he/she can simply move in a certain direction when turning corners so the path leads back home after the dog is done. This way the human is not paranoid about its place, but simply shifts gently when shifting is needed, which is rarely and only when there is a fundamental course change.

This is what I thought I was stating...

When doing so the human does not drag the dog or try to teach it how to read road signs. The human simply shifts direction, and the dog follows. Of course, if the human truly understood the dog, and other humans were not driving fast cars all over the place or complicating this world more than it needs to be, the dog could have the space it needs to do what it needs, and always come home after it is done.

Yes, but this is not 3D STO, and so, the lessons of 3D STS are different :)

Of course, we are speaking of healthy dogs. My dogs aren't trained. Without them our house would have been robbed a hundred times over, since we live in the country. Yet because neighbors leave poisoned food around, and drive fast cars over the speed limit, and hunt birds but end up shooting dogs, the outer gate stays closed. That's because the humans are dangerous, not the dogs.

Dogs are naturally predators, and so, they are dangerous to their prey from that angle of perception[]. 3D STS humans are dangerous to everything in Mother Nature due to conditioned predator programmings that invoke us to take everything from Mother Nature for the self without due care of its natural ecological balances.

You see, most of us are still at the OP level prior to real individuation, so what we mistake as spirit man is really mental man, and this mental man likes to posture in a spiritual manner more often than not. Real spirit comes when mental man gets his act together and alignes with the lower nature instead of trying to play boss.

I think one has to regain sovereignty within from the "Predator Mind", and this can be [seen] by the "Predator Mind" as trying to play boss.

Of course a real dog is an independent being, and the inner dog is not. Another way of putting it is that we cannot teach our legs to walk and our eyes to see. If we cannot walk or see, something is interfering, and we must deal with that. If our legs are amputated and powered by a little motor, we cannot hope to teach them to carry us. We must remove the motor and attach them.

And yet we can teach our hands, our foot, our body, to play the piano and compose the music we might be tuned [to] and hear within [] due to the "Mind through central nervous system connection to higher levels." Or we might have to teach the mussels of our legs to walk again after a surgery on our knees, etc. etc.

The analogy breaks down here, because the lower self does not need to be force-attached. When the predator is disempowered, and as it is disempowered the lower self does so on its own, and the result is the spiritual dog, chanting OM, and bestowing blessings upon the masses. Mighty Dog, with a cape and super decoder ring. ;) And Mighty Dog looks in the mirror and realizes he is human.

Hehe Cute! :)

So...infra sex, normal sex, and supra sex (or is that super-sex?). I would think it's kinda hard to extrapolate the latter two from the first. Maybe its more practical to let sleeping dogs lie until we integrate them, and let the sexual aspect come into its own when that happens.

I don't understand the phrase or say[ing] "let sleeping dogs lie." I guess I am being dense. Hmm, let me check the web [and] see [if] I can find what this expression means.

From http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/letsleepingd.html :

"Do not stir up a problem that has lain quiet for some time."

Ah, I see, well, that is perhaps. Well, this problem has not lain quiet for some time, and so, one can look it at it as a problem or a lesson :) I choose the former. [note of correction: hehe, the latter "former" was supposed to be "latter", as in referring to the choice as being seen as a lesson!]

Otherwise we might be like St. Athanasius plagued by succulent "temptations" during his prayers and meditations.

Sounds like poor St. Athanasius was trying to move from point A to point C through simple prayer and no DOing, or so I think.

You know if you're under 30, too much abstinence can lead to prostate troubles later on, as some medical studies indicate. Another study says that sexually active people (especially monogamous ones- as long as they really like their partner) live longer. Just some dog wisdom.

Sounds quite healthy and of "normal sex" :)