Another instant 'attack'?

[Lan8r]

This is a very informative thread. I have been following it with interest and I just wanted to add a few thoughts.

Regarding 'Inner Dog' and 'Animal Man'. IMO we need to be very careful to remember that the knowledge we are given on animal psychology comes from Human beings whose minds have been programmed by higher density predators wishing to keep us under their control and domination. It would be in their best interest for us to believe that a hierarchial system of control is the way of Nature.

In my experience working with dogs I have observed that most dog training schools of thought promote such a system when advocating that the 'person' needs to assume a dominant pack leader/boss/master position over the dog which then becomes tamed/subdued/enslaved. Behaviour modification, conditioned response, punishment and reward, its manipulation and mind control no different than what our 'Lizzie' predators do with us.

I think we have a skewed interpretation of what we see in nature.

It seems that if we were to view our animal man as our inner dog, and our spiritual man as its master and attempt to tame or control our animal man as we would our dog according to popular dog training philosophy, we would be promoting the 'Lizzie' ideology internally. We would actually create within ourselves an STS hierarchy. Okay that may be a crazy thought, but i do think we would be wasting alot of energy chasing our tail so to speak.

I think that if we put our energy into raising our awareness and aligning with the STO thought center. Increasing the positive polarity rather than trying to control the negative polarity. As we naturally progress, and our higher centers become our leader, animal man will follow and we will become less and less appetizing to our hyperdimentional predators. Animal man will fall prey to their manipulations less and less as we progress.

Just my two cents or dog bisquits!

Laurie

 

[Guest]

Thank's for posting Lan8r!

You basically summed up much what I've been trying to convey in a more drawn out manner.

I think we have a skewed interpretation of what we see in nature.

And to add to that, I think we have a skewed interpretation of what we see AS nature.

Animal man does not need a master, but its other half. Something is blocking the two halfs from being one, and when mental man deals with that something, instead of focusing on changing the nature of animal man, spirit man can have some space to enter the picture, and nature will take its course. True nature, and not our skewed take of it.

 

[Guest]

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...

I guess that is what the Work is all about. But who is spiritual man? Spiritual man doesn't act when we are not fully grounded in true "I" awareness. And who is acting in his place in the meantime? I think it is mental man. And mental man cannot remove squat. Mental man can only align with the two lower centers to bring in spiritual man. And until that happens those programmings will always be rearing their ugly heads, so we can experience them with all three centers. That experience generates the alignment.

And that alignment allows the entrance of Spiritual man. And Spiritual man cannot exist in the same space as programming because they are mutually exclusive. So there IS no HOW in the removal. There is a "how" in the alignment, which does not involve interference with the expression of the three centers. It seeks to experience reality through all of them at once. This brings conscious empathy into greater focus, and conscious empathy as a sense of being based on the state of knowledge (as opposed to information and data acquisition) draws in the energy of the higher centers. It is this energy that displaces the programming.

The point is, and this is important IMO, one has to trust in the truth of one's nature instead of trying to be in control of it. One is then free and conscious instead of self-regulating. Self-regulation is just another form of conditioning, where you try to lead yourself on a leash. It may seeem that you are teaching yourself, but the dynamic is really one of training, which is just another word for conditioning.

As for sex, it seems to be something upon which you are focused at this time. I think you have a pretty good idea of normal sex, or point B. And there is no way you can train yourself through points B and C. They pretty much settle themselves as a result of the progression of the alignment of the lower centers.

Since you place the C's quote regarding orgasm, I just want to say that it is invariably a misunderstood term. The biological version is certainly not what goes on in the cosmos. To really understand what DOES go on regarding the Bliss of Being, the sexual nature needs to expand, along with the rest of the being. Otherwise you are like a color blind person trying to describe a rainbow. Sometimes speculations are a waste of time, when we don't even have the basis to perceive what we are trying to understand.

That's another reason why patience is a virtue in the work. First we need to grow some wings, and then we can fly. Until then we are only fantasizing about it. And such fantasizing can be comforting when we are under confusing transition states, but it tends to slow the work down as well.

And I agree about receivership capability. Without it one is not channeling higher centers but projecting mental shadows onto the lower ones. These shadows usually fuel ideas of being in control of our lower nature.

The session does say

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?

But notice the answer:

A: Close.

We need to be careful in our understanding of what it means to have "control" over your body, I think. Receivership means just that, being able to receive.

I do agree that the basis for sex, not what we consider sex, is the basis for creation. But my point is that until we align the lower nature, we are in danger of making false assumptions regarding that basis. It's a given that we understand ethical sexual behaviour, so we don't hurt others. That is really all we need to know until we have attained that receivership that will allow us to come to deeper conclusions based on knowledge.

There are many sub stages between B and C sexual levels. And I have seen a lot of people claim access to level C, where at best they were at a minor B+ or even went to a B-. To attain level C one needs a radical shift in receivership potential. And then things are different.

Here is an example. I don't have the links, but recent MRI scans of people women orgasm indicated that the only part of the higher brain (cortex) active at that time is the somatic sensory center, a neural band running from one ear, over the top of the head to the other. Everything else in the higher brain is shut down.

Reseach has also shown that the chemistry of sex undergoes a radical shift after 45 min of sexual contact, and this shift increases with time. The fact is that level C is in our genetic potential, and latent in our instinct nature. It cannot, however, be taught since it involves radical shifts in our biochemistry, that are the result of inner alignment, not of anything we impose on the lower nature.

As I said, let "sleeping dogs lie", which to me means do not stir up a problem that does not need stirring.

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.

I think Lan8r explains this pack leader thing quite well.

And I tried to explain it in what you quoted below the paragraph above, and you say you agree with it. The problem is the whole analogy is limited because it is based on the concept of the leash. What I am saying is that you cannot keep your lower self on a leash, because then you keep yourself on a leash, and by proxy the predator mind in you keeps you on a leash. That is what conditioning is, the leash.

I tried to explain this through the dog analogy, but it only leads to compromising my views. Basically to speaking in terms of a benign master of the dog slave, instead of an equal. And, as we agree, (from all this talk on the whole being more, but not greater than the sum of its parts) the lower self is equal to the higher, and not less. it should, therefore, be treated according to its nature, not to our conditionings of what we think is its nature (as Lan8r also implied).

And I basically ignored your first posted link to your reply to Ruth because there was much more to say on other things. I thought it secondary, because I would have repeated myself if I had addressed that portion. Before that link, however, you were vague regarding that post. You admitted this, and posted the link. I looked at it, did not want to repeat myself in saying the same things to different questions, so I bypassed it.

And this was also promted by what you said:

"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."

Since you did place emphasis on this again, I commented on it (being a bit amused that you thought I could easily locate this little post the first time). The thing is, these posts are long, and commenting on every point only to say the same things is tiresome and pointless. I think the main theme here is evident, and that is to point out an attitude of putting the lower nature in a secondary position because of some assumption that it will otherwise dominate us.

Yet, the predator is already dominating in this case, because it is the mind that fills us with these thoughts of taking on what amounts to a superior position to part of our nature. We, therefore, need to be careful about presuming the role of spirit, when the highest access we have is our human mentation.

The bottom line in all this is that you do not seem to have a perspective of being equal with the lower nature. At this state, however, you are the lower nature, which includes most of your cognitive faculties. Don't let the mind try to sneak apart here and play spirit man, which it is not. What you write, IMO, indicates that you have very little experience of what is spirit man. Most of us have little or no experience of this, anyway, and the wisest of us keep with the work before we come to any definitive conclusions. The work is based on observation, which precludes assumptions of spirit nature.

Personally, I have spend some years with the attitude you have regarding the "inner dog", and the only thing they have tought me is that the attitude serves the predator. This is, infact, why I am so adamant about this, and not to play a superior role here. And no matter how you put it, unless you trust the sacredness of your lower nature, you will end up taking a condescending attitude toward it, and this will result in inner psychic stress.

The predatory nest is in your lower mind. That should be the focus that needs to clear first, because that is the first order of receptivity with the higher centers as well. From all you have written, and how you have written it, it is the mind I see that needs to calm and clear because it is too high strung at this point.

It shows in how you communicate. And this can create headaches at times. If you need to teach anything, it is to teach your mind to relax. Then observation of self will be easier, and everything else will follow.

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.

I hope what I wrote previous put this link thing into perspective. The dog on a leash thing is interesting, but to me it just shows a skewed attitude about the lower nature as a whole. I do admit, that it is hard to focus at times when reading posts, and I sometimes tend to jump around to weave the whole of a long text together.

It is not, however, a matter of strobe-lights, but the damned length of the posts themselves. And your tendency to write very long sentences.

We are here to learn, and that needs to occur at a pace compatible with our whole being. Often that pace is slow. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated many many times before it is understood, which is why we end up repeating ourselves in these discussions. We are not a school orbiting around a single teacher, but a lesson in progress in the form of a forum of discussion. So I like being dense, and don't need devils to

Right now there isn't even such thing as a network anywhere. I think we are trying to forge one, and learn the fundamentals in the process, and this involves a very slow and careful exposition of all the ideas communicated. In that sense, being "dense" is a good thing, and simply a realistic assessment of the lower nature coming into alignment with itself.

So as a further application of densness, I'd like to say that this one went over my head:

A: Good guys don't play chess. [Note: yes dear O***..I mean Esoquest?]

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...

...Q: What is the karmic twist?
A: Just as it is... Unresolved issues -- like kids
playing in the sand box.

Yes, but in this session the sand box is a place of limitation. Nothing really grows in a sand box, and it is a place where immature beings play at being grown up. I think the attitude of some people reflects that of kids in a sand box, but this reality is certainly not one.

Here is something from a session you quoted:

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.

This little section has truth, as long as we know the traps and limitations, and don't judge as a trap what is not. Learning to tell the difference is why so much effort is needed. Just as knowing that sometimes we do stereotype when we clump things in categories. This, again, is a problem of the lower mind.

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.

Actually Athanasius was one of those church fathers involved in a lot of doing, mainly to establish orthodox Christian dogma. His thing was throwing the whole ABC dynamic out the window, a bit like Origen who castrated himself to be free of his inner dog.

 

[knowledge_of_self]

It seems that if we were to view our animal man as our inner dog, and our spiritual man as its master and attempt to tame or control our animal man as we would our dog according to popular dog training philosophy, we would be promoting the 'Lizzie' ideology internally. We would actually create within ourselves an STS hierarchy. Okay that may be a crazy thought, but i do think we would be wasting alot of energy chasing our tail so to speak.

I think that if we put our energy into raising our awareness and aligning with the STO thought center. Increasing the positive polarity rather than trying to control the negative polarity. As we naturally progress, and our higher centers become our leader, animal man will follow and we will become less and less appetizing to our hyperdimentional predators. Animal man will fall prey to their manipulations less and less as we progress.

Animal man does not need a master, but its other half. Something is blocking the two halfs from being one, and when mental man deals with that something, instead of focusing on changing the nature of animal man, spirit man can have some space to enter the picture, and nature will take its course. True nature, and not our skewed take of it.

The point is, and this is important IMO, one has to trust in the truth of one's nature instead of trying to be in control of it. One is then free and conscious instead of self-regulating. Self-regulation is just another form of conditioning, where you try to lead yourself on a leash. It may seeem that you are teaching yourself, but the dynamic is really one of training, which is just another word for conditioning.

Hi guys:

Reading the above quotes I thought about the term 'Being' and how the above quotes are to me, a perfect example to describe the term. From what I understand Laurie, and EsoQuest are trying to say is that all we should really try to do is BE. If the nature of our Being is towards STO polarity, by choosing to just BE, and through doing the Work through our very Being, the true nature of our Being is leading us to align with our spiritual man which by nature weakens the voice of the animal man or the "inner dog" osit.

Just a thought,
Nina

 

[Saman]

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...

I guess that is what the Work is all about. But who is spiritual man? Spiritual man doesn't act when we are not fully grounded in true "I" awareness. And who is acting in his place in the meantime? I think it is mental man. And mental man cannot remove squat. Mental man can only align with the two lower centers to bring in spiritual man. And until that happens those programmings will always be rearing their ugly heads, so we can experience them with all three centers. That experience generates the alignment.

And that alignment allows the entrance of Spiritual man. And Spiritual man cannot exist in the same space as programming because they are mutually exclusive. So there IS no HOW in the removal. There is a "how" in the alignment, which does not involve interference with the expression of the three centers. It seeks to experience reality through all of them at once. This brings conscious empathy into greater focus, and conscious empathy as a sense of being based on the state of knowledge (as opposed to information and data acquisition) draws in the energy of the higher centers. It is this energy that displaces the programming.

The point is, and this is important IMO, one has to trust in the truth of one's nature instead of trying to be in control of it. One is then free and conscious instead of self-regulating. Self-regulation is just another form of conditioning, where you try to lead yourself on a leash. It may seeem that you are teaching yourself, but the dynamic is really one of training, which is just another word for conditioning.

As for sex, it seems to be something upon which you are focused at this time. I think you have a pretty good idea of normal sex, or point B. And there is no way you can train yourself through points B and C. They pretty much settle themselves as a result of the progression of the alignment of the lower centers.

Since you place the C's quote regarding orgasm, I just want to say that it is invariably a misunderstood term. The biological version is certainly not what goes on in the cosmos. To really understand what DOES go on regarding the Bliss of Being, the sexual nature needs to expand, along with the rest of the being. Otherwise you are like a color blind person trying to describe a rainbow. Sometimes speculations are a waste of time, when we don't even have the basis to perceive what we are trying to understand.

That's another reason why patience is a virtue in the work. First we need to grow some wings, and then we can fly. Until then we are only fantasizing about it. And such fantasizing can be comforting when we are under confusing transition states, but it tends to slow the work down as well.

And I agree about receivership capability. Without it one is not channeling higher centers but projecting mental shadows onto the lower ones. These shadows usually fuel ideas of being in control of our lower nature.

The session does say

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?

But notice the answer:

A: Close.

We need to be careful in our understanding of what it means to have "control" over your body, I think. Receivership means just that, being able to receive.

Yes. You have made quite a reasonable case in regards to everything mentioned above, since everything you have stated thus far makes more sense then before in this particular response. Thank you Esoquest.

I do agree that the basis for sex, not what we consider sex, is the basis for creation. But my point is that until we align the lower nature, we are in danger of making false assumptions regarding that basis. It's a given that we understand ethical sexual behaviour, so we don't hurt others. That is really all we need to know until we have attained that receivership that will allow us to come to deeper conclusions based on knowledge.

There are many sub stages between B and C sexual levels. And I have seen a lot of people claim access to level C, where at best they were at a minor B+ or even went to a B-. To attain level C one needs a radical shift in receivership potential. And then things are different.

Here is an example. I don't have the links, but recent MRI scans of people women orgasm indicated that the only part of the higher brain (cortex) active at that time is the somatic sensory center, a neural band running from one ear, over the top of the head to the other. Everything else in the higher brain is shut down.

Reseach has also shown that the chemistry of sex undergoes a radical shift after 45 min of sexual contact, and this shift increases with time. The fact is that level C is in our genetic potential, and latent in our instinct nature. It cannot, however, be taught since it involves radical shifts in our biochemistry, that are the result of inner alignment, not of anything we impose on the lower nature.

As I said, let "sleeping dogs lie", which to me means do not stir up a problem that does not need stirring.

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.

I think Lan8r explains this pack leader thing quite well.

And I tried to explain it in what you quoted below the paragraph above, and you say you agree with it. The problem is the whole analogy is limited because it is based on the concept of the leash. What I am saying is that you cannot keep your lower self on a leash, because then you keep yourself on a leash, and by proxy the predator mind in you keeps you on a leash. That is what conditioning is, the leash.

I am pondering about some personal examples that are the root of what I have stated thus far in regards to trying to convey what I mean by taming or teaching the inner dog. I agree with you that the leashing of your inner dog is a manipulation. The insight that resonated with me from the excerpt from the link that Ruth provided was the following, and I didn't place much emphasis on the leash in the analogy, which is of course, as you have mentioned, and most correct, is the devil. And this devil, that is the leash, limits the insight of the quote in question if one focus[es] on the leash and not the following:

"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 when I said pack leader using italics, I did not mean pack leader literally who uses a leash to control the inner dog by imposing its leadership. A true pack leader of the inner dog does not use a leash. So the devil is then in regards to whether I am using a leash, pretending to be the I of spiritual man to teach myself, that is the whole of my Being or say "seed" in this Realm, or not; hence, I will share two personal examples, which are oaths, for analysis of whether I am using a leash on the inner dog or not:

Example one:

"I Saman ******, promise to *****, to NEVER EVER again allow these subtle negative emotional sub-routines to keep cycling back and forth and ruin our friendship. "Saman", not the REAL Saman, as been acting like a weak little "feminine vampire" with the poor "oh boo hoo" victim program running about within with the camouflaged corresponding thoughts such as "if you really love me, then you would had done this, or that in the past", or "if I do this, maybe she will come back to me," or "if I be a good friend, maybe she will be intimate with me again", etc, etc, which is an unconscious form of demanding from the one he Loves DUE to "Saman", the imposter, wanting to possess her, which is purely due to sexually instinctual needs, and not of the Unconditional Love that the REAL Saman is Working to move his Being, step by step, towards to.

Therefore, I am going to make an oath here, which is something that I rarely do due to the "fluid" nature of the Universe, but I think it is very necessary given the circumstances of "Saman" repeatedly running this clever program: IF I, that is Real Saman, EVER allow this 'consciousness container' or say this "machine" to ever again run this program of "determining the needs of others" in regards to ****** due to "Saman's", the imposter, sexually instinctual needs, I shall punish "Saman" each time by not having the privilege of seeing ****** for two weeks each time, that is, only if this program is allowed to control Saman's 'consciousness container' to make selfish choices not in accord to the Saman's 'aim' to BE."


Example two:

"I, that IS the REAL Saman *****, and not the imposter "Saman", will at this moment make the following oath in the name of honor and my 'aim': I will not any longer waste that which is most sacred to my Being in an act of relief and wasteful self-indulgence, and so, the punishment for the 'inner dog' for not being able to fulfill this oath is no food for the day on the same day of the failing until the night of the next day, and so on if other failings occur in other days."


:D, well, If you have stopped laughing by now of the so called wanna be Mr. "knightlyness" of the above, mirth, which is simply who I am whether I like it or not, what do you think...should I take off this so called "leash" and allow the "predator mind" to continue running the show within with its imprinted, and so, conditioned predator programmings that are of "infra sex", that drain that which is most scared to my Being to 4D STS above? This is why I am so adamant from my end in regards to taming, or say teaching, the inner dog to not follow these imprinted conditioned predator programmings...

And I basically ignored your first posted link to your reply to Ruth because there was much more to say on other things. I thought it secondary, because I would have repeated myself if I had addressed that portion. Before that link, however, you were vague regarding that post. You admitted this, and posted the link. I looked at it, did not want to repeat myself in saying the same things to different questions, so I bypassed it.

And this was also promted by what you said:

"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."

Since you did place emphasis on this again, I commented on it (being a bit amused that you thought I could easily locate this little post the first time). The thing is, these posts are long, and commenting on every point only to say the same things is tiresome and pointless. I think the main theme here is evident, and that is to point out an attitude of putting the lower nature in a secondary position because of some assumption that it will otherwise dominate us.

Yet, the predator is already dominating in this case, because it is the mind that fills us with these thoughts of taking on what amounts to a superior position to part of our nature. We, therefore, need to be careful about presuming the role of spirit, when the highest access we have is our human mentation.

Agreed in regards to being careful in presuming the role of spiritual man because since I think there are two spiritual paths, we may fool oursevles due to the "predator mind" and take the wrong path which we didn't intend to in the frist place - paving the way to "hell" with good intentions, so to speak.

The bottom line in all this is that you do not seem to have a perspective of being equal with the lower nature. At this state, however, you are the lower nature, which includes most of your cognitive faculties. Don't let the mind try to sneak apart here and play spirit man, which it is not. What you write, IMO, indicates that you have very little experience of what is spirit man. Most of us have little or no experience of this, anyway, and the wisest of us keep with the work before we come to any definitive conclusions. The work is based on observation, which precludes assumptions of spirit nature.

...I will have to think about this more, that is, your proposition that I have little or no experience in regards to the souls intrinsic STO "emotional pathway."

Personally, I have spend some years with the attitude you have regarding the "inner dog", and the only thing they have tought me is that the attitude serves the predator. This is, infact, why I am so adamant about this, and not to play a superior role here. And no matter how you put it, unless you trust the sacredness of your lower nature, you will end up taking a condescending attitude toward it, and this will result in inner psychic stress.

As I have been trying to say, the inner dog is fine and not the issue, the "conditioned predator programming" or programmings of the inner dog are the issue, and what needs to be eradicated from within by its roots.

The predatory nest is in your lower mind. That should be the focus that needs to clear first, because that is the first order of receptivity with the higher centers as well. From all you have written, and how you have written it, it is the mind I see that needs to calm and clear because it is too high strung at this point.

Um, what...? I am not calm and too high strung at this point? I don't understand why you state this...

It shows in how you communicate. And this can create headaches at times. If you need to teach anything, it is to teach your mind to relax. Then observation of self will be easier, and everything else will follow.

If you mean my rather long sentences, well that is just a personal style. However, due to the feedback by Harrison, Craig, and yourself of the sentences being too long and hard to follow, I will strive to make them shorter.

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.

I hope what I wrote previous put this link thing into perspective. The dog on a leash thing is interesting, but to me it just shows a skewed attitude about the lower nature as a whole. I do admit, that it is hard to focus at times when reading posts, and I sometimes tend to jump around to weave the whole of a long text together.

It is not, however, a matter of strobe-lights, but the damned length of the posts themselves. And your tendency to write very long sentences.

I will try to consciously experiment with this and see if it makes any difference. Thank you for the suggestion.

We are here to learn, and that needs to occur at a pace compatible with our whole being. Often that pace is slow. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated many many times before it is understood, which is why we end up repeating ourselves in these discussions. We are not a school orbiting around a single teacher, but a lesson in progress in the form of a forum of discussion. So I like being dense, and don't need devils to

Right now there isn't even such thing as a network anywhere. I think we are trying to forge one, and learn the fundamentals in the process, and this involves a very slow and careful exposition of all the ideas communicated. In that sense, being "dense" is a good thing, and simply a realistic assessment of the lower nature coming into alignment with itself.

So as a further application of densness, I'd like to say that this one went over my head:

A: Good guys don't play chess. [Note: yes dear O***..I mean Esoquest?]

It seemed to me that you were playing a game of chess by stating that I had not provided a link to what I was stating the second time around, and now you have stated that you had noticed it but that you chose to ignore it since you didn't wish to repeat yourself...So which is it? Did you ignore it [because] you didn't wish to repeat yourself, or was it that I didn't provide the link after the confusion to portray clearly what I was referring to, when I did.

Anyways, in post 9007 http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1591.msg9007#msg9007 I took the liberty to highlight what I was talking about, but again you chose to ignore what I was referring to by your reply in post 9055 http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1591.msg9055#msg9055, and in which I responded in post 9118 http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1591.msg9118#msg9118 with the following:

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

So after all that, in post 9219 http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1591.msg9219#msg9219 you stated:

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...

So as you can see dear Esoquest, I have been quite patient to say the least, and this the reason why I thought some part of "you" was playing a game of chess...and course, I might be wrong. It is just an offered observation. Moreover, you have stated that I was not clear in the first place by referring to what I had recently posted in reflection to Ruth. I agree with this, but if you look at what I wrote in clarification in the second instance with the following context from post 8930....

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

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...

[...]

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.

So as you can see, I was referring to this thread the second time around with a clarification and not the one you chose to pick out of the blue from the Organic portal thread which had nothing to do with the current discussion contextually. So you have stated that you ingored the link and the content that I provided because you didn't want to repeat yourself, but then you contradict yourself by stating "A link such as the one you provided would have solved the issue at the onset" which is infact what I did! So it is either you ignoring it or that I didn't provide the link, and this is why I thought some part of "you" was playing chess because we do not ignore something in a discussion and then bring something else out of the blue that has really nothing to do with the context of what we are discussing within...if we did that, then it would be a "part" of us determining the needs of others, and hence, putting ourselves on a pedastal thinking that we already know what is already superior to another individual due to our experiences in tandem with our scholar and historical and mythological knowledge...just an observation, and again, please clarify if what I've seen is correct or incorrect in regards to why you chose to ignore and then state that "A link such as the one you provided would have solved the issue at the onset"...

...Q: What is the karmic twist?
A: Just as it is... Unresolved issues -- like kids
playing in the sand box.

Yes, but in this session the sand box is a place of limitation. Nothing really grows in a sand box, and it is a place where immature beings play at being grown up. I think the attitude of some people reflects that of kids in a sand box, but this reality is certainly not one.

So you think nothing "grows" in the "sand box" if the "sand box" is thought if as the illusion of "time" or say to quote to the C's "as the soil"? So nothing grows in "soil"?

Here is something from a session you quoted:

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.

This little section has truth, as long as we know the traps and limitations, and don't judge as a trap what is not. Learning to tell the difference is why so much effort is needed. Just as knowing that sometimes we do stereotype when we clump things in categories. This, again, is a problem of the lower mind.

So are you stating that allowing oneself to follow imprinted and conditioned predator programmings is not a trap because this trap does not limit the lower mind? How so?

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.

Actually Athanasius was one of those church fathers involved in a lot of doing, mainly to establish orthodox Christian dogma. His thing was throwing the whole ABC dynamic out the window, a bit like Origen who castrated himself to be free of his inner dog.

And this is why I think he is of "infra sex" due to trying to force his way from point A to point C and without bringing the spiritual man and the animal man into harmony at point B by removing/eradicating imprinted and conditioned predator progammings that are there from the default thanks to 4D STS at point A. If one doesn't erradicate these conditioned predator programmings through conscious suffering which [is] suffering to the "predator mind", how then does one move his Being from point A to point B? If one is an addict in his own skin[,] what must one do? Move gradually from point A to B to C, or so I think. This is what I think the C's refer to as "natural progression" and why they have stated:

June 29, 1996 F*****, Laura, SV
[...]
Q: (L) What kind of lessons are we talking
about here?
A: Karmic and simple understandings.
Q: (L) What are the key elements of these
understandings, and are they fairly universal?
A: They are universal.
Q: (L) What are they?
A: We cannot tell you that.
Q: (L) Do they have to do with discovering
the MEANINGS of the symbology of 3rd
density existence, seeing behind the veil... and
reacting to things according to choice? Giving
each thing or person or event its due?
A: Okay. But you cannot force the issue. When
you have learned, you have learned!
Q: (L) I just want to make sure that I am doing
the most I can do. I don't want to have to come
back to 3rd density. If I can accelerate things a
little...
A: You cannot, so just enjoy the ride. Learning
is fun!
[...]

Trying to move from point A to point C by skipping Point B is forcing the issue.

 

[Guest]

I think we're beginning to wind this down. There is an understanding on the fundamental points. The rest of the stuff from the second half of your reply I will hope to clear up in this message, since they are what I think misunderstandings.

My points regarding your own disposition refer to emphasis on the mental center, which can create a block. Don't take it as an accusation or a put-down, just as an observation of a block that can lead to or result from a perspective of divorcing the mental center from the lower two, or at least keeping it apart and in control.

High strung may give an exaggerated image, but that can also be taken as emphasis, and is not derogatory. High strung means having an over-energetic mind that is going too fast to digest the energy or basic awareness off the meanings circulated into the lower centers.

In other words it's cycling exceeds that of the two lower centers and goes over their "heads". High strung means the opportunity to feel into a matter and digest it at all levels is often missed, and the understanding needs to be repeated again and again until it finally cycles through (or if it is felt definitively to be false, to be honestly rejected).

This is the general sense I got from your postings. An excessive mental energy (compared to the lower centers) and a slight defensiveness or at least a wariness, as if I might put you down at a moments notice. In speaking generally, however, I have also included some observations to encourage self-reflection.

Who am I to dare encourage self-reflection. As Ulysses said to the Cyclops: "No one". However, when you ask to understand, and generalized discussion does not seem to do the trick, sometimes trying to combine it with encouraged self-reflection helps. You have also encouraged me to self-reflect, with your opinion that I am playing chess, which is playing a game, which is strategically maneuvering to defeat an opponent.

I have been strategic to a degree, but the aim was to clarify, not to defeat an opponent. If you think I see you as an opponent, then you are defensive, and that was my point.

As I see from your observations regarding not responding immediately to your post, you still have an idea that I am either avoiding something or manipulating you, even though I have done my best to clarify. Yet, I would like to place attention to the fact that your posts have been long, demanding long replies on my part regarding a topic that is obviously not easy to get accross, not because it is complex, but because there was a reluctance to see into it.

Given how many posts I put down here saying basically the same things in different ways, if you have been patient, I have been very patient. So forgive me if I skipped your second reference to Ruth's post (the one where you placed the first link), but I needed to economize.

And I'm not going to look at all the links you placed, not to brush you off dear Saman, but because it is turning into a "game" of who said what when. I don't think this is relevant. What was relevant was the extended clarification of the issue of the inner dog, not to convince you, but to assist you in understanding my view so you can accept or reject it on its own mert.

A: Okay. But you cannot force the issue. When
you have learned, you have learned!

So in truth, I have been elaborating extensively, and emphasizing, knowing I am walking a fine line of forcing the issue. And you have also been persistent, so we have both been walking that fine line. Let's not lose our balance here.

Sorry for quoting this out of context (as you were referring to the ABC's of sex), but it applies here as well. I am very happy that after all this discussion we have come to a balanced consensus regarding what matters. And if there is still doubt, you can reread this thread, which I think is quite constructive from both our parts. As for the rest it constitutes a slippery slope of ego, in my opinion, and not constructive.

So if you still think I am playing chess, I forfeit the game and declare you the winner :)

PS. The sexual example is valid, but I don't see where there is disagreement there between us. If you are working through this lesson in your life, it may be worth it to address it in terms of the balance of the three centers, as we discussed in this thread (and as it has been discussed throught this "work" topic).

 

[Lan8r]

EsoQuest & All, I am glad to finally contribute after fence watching for a time!

After reading the latest posts, I thought I'd contribute again, for whatever it is worth.

EsoQuest wrote:
"The predatory nest is in your lower mind. That should be the focus that needs to clear first, because that is the first order of receptivity with the higher centers as well.
...The dog on a leash thing is interesting, but to me it just shows a skewed attitude about the lower nature as a whole."

EsoQuest also wrote:
... The problem is the whole analogy is limited because it is based on the concept of the leash. What I am saying is that you cannot keep your lower self on a leash, because then you keep yourself on a leash, and by proxy the predator mind in you keeps you on a leash. That is what conditioning is, the leash.

Saman wrote:
"should I take off this so called "leash" and allow the "predator mind" to continue running the show within....This is why I am so adamant from my end in regards to taming, or say teaching, the inner dog to not follow these imprinted conditioned predator programmings..."

This explanation of how the leash is used may help you see what I think Eso means when he states that the leash is conditioning.

In dog training the actual physical leash is only a tool. A popular phrase in that world is "The Strongest leash is from my mind to the mind of the animal".

The goal in using the leash is to set up the illusion in the animals mind that he has free will. The leash also sets up the illusion that he (the animal) is bringing on the punishment (jerk on the leash) himself. Which eventually allows the person to have control of the animal even when not on the leash, the ultimate illusion of free will, and also disassociates the person from the correction (punishment) bearing the blame on the animal for his infraction.

That whole scenario is an act of the Predator Mind attempting to enforce its will upon a another being. That is why it is predatory by proxy to keep a leash on animal man.

Saman, I respectfully ask you, what makes you think that your animal man is The Predator in you? You mention the 'conditioned predator programming' of the 'inner dog', but..."The Predator gave us his Mind". I agree with EsoQuest that the 'conditioned predator programming' is in mental man, not animal man.

By keeping a leash on our inner dog we only create an illusion of self control.

Anyway, I say throw out the leash! Stop beating yourself with it. You cannot teach yourself to not fall prey to the predator mind. True Knowledge cannot be taught, it can only be learned. Learning comes from knowledge plus experience. It must be learned by all three centers before it is truley known to the whole man.

As I read your posts it feels as if you may be stuck in an intellectual processing loop. It feels like analysis paralysis. The devil is in the details, and our predator is very aware of this. They use that truth against us and keep us stuck in mental man where they hold all the cards, by our endless drive to search out and analize every detail.

Once we break free of the mental paralysis, and begin to feel our way through the emotional and moving centers, we then begin to bring our lower centers into balance. Then we can begin to align animal man (the combination of our lower centers) with spiritual man (our higher centers).

Well, this is just my take on things based on my previous life experience. Having been stuck in mental man myself to the point that I thought my brain was going to literally explode. Advil was my constant companion due to the headaches until I finally realized that I think too much!!

I learned that I had to 'do' and 'be' as Nina pointed out. I had to let the knowledge from my mind in the top of my head travel through my body to the tips of my fingers and toes and be shared with my whole self. To be assimilated by my entire being, all three centers.

It was a great feeling. When confronted with a petty tyrant, internally or externally, I began to be able to feel my way through it. Rather than having to say 'Excuse me, Mr Petty Tyrant, can you give me a few minutes here, I know I have the answer to this challange somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind. Five years ago I learned this, now where did I file that knowledge"! Instead it was right there at my fingertips!

And I learned that sharing this knowlege with my whole self allowed me to free up some space in my mind for more knowledge. And the doing and the being became easier. It is a slow process and did not happen overnight. (and it is still happening!!) I had to trust myself. I had to set my intention on aligning with my higher self and allow my lower self to feel its way there, so to speak.

Anyway, just my thoughts and feelings. Thank you for letting me share them.

Laurie

 

[Saman]

I think we're beginning to wind this down. There is an understanding on the fundamental
And I'm not going to look at all the links you placed, not to brush you off dear Saman, but because it is turning into a "game" of who said what when. I don't think this is relevant. What was relevant was the extended clarification of the issue of the inner dog, not to convince you, but to assist you in understanding my view so you can accept or reject it on its own mert.

Thank you sharing the extended clarifications. They are much food for thought, especially the mythological insights.

A: Okay. But you cannot force the issue. When
you have learned, you have learned!

So in truth, I have been elaborating extensively, and emphasizing, knowing I am walking a fine line of forcing the issue. And you have also been persistent, so we have both been walking that fine line. Let's not lose our balance here.

Yes agreed, since I think striving for balance is striving for Perfection, or say becoming a Man that is the "object of knowledge", as aforementioned before in this thread :)

Sorry for quoting this out of context (as you were referring to the ABC's of sex), but it applies here as well. I am very happy that after all this discussion we have come to a balanced consensus regarding what matters. And if there is still doubt, you can reread this thread, which I think is quite constructive from both our parts. As for the rest it constitutes a slippery slope of ego, in my opinion, and not constructive.

So if you still think I am playing chess, I forfeit the game and declare you the winner :)

Speaking of "powers" playing chess with "pawns", or perhaps just life taking its natural course, today my car's transmission broke AGAIN while I was driving over the bridge heading towards my Loved friend's home. I was lucky that I manged to use the momentum of the car to keep the car moving and stop at the side of the highway just off the bridge, and not in the middle of the highway causing huge traffic. So first, my friend got called in to work this morning on her day off, and so, our plans to go out for lunch and see Deep Sea 3D afterwards got ruined. So I thought no worries and offered to change plans so that we would just rent a movie and watch it at her place, and afterwards I would give her a ride to her work. So my car's transmission just had to break again on this day! Now I can't even pick up my mother from the hospital tomorrow, but I hope my brother can. For "God" sake, I have changed the clutch once, and month later when I was driving home from a friend's place in the country side, so to speak, oil apparently leaked from my car's transmission on to the clutch; therefore, I ended up changing the clutch again and because of oil leaking on the clutch, the warrenty was void. At the same time I ALSO changed my trans to a second hand transmission with 3 month warrenty. Now as, everything seemed to be fine with the car finally, my trans. again has a problem! Shesh. Just costing me energy and money this damn car! Hehehe

PS. The sexual example is valid, but I don't see where there is disagreement there between us. If you are working through this lesson in your life, it may be worth it to address it in terms of the balance of the three centers, as we discussed in this thread (and as it has been discussed throught this "work" topic).

Yup. This is the way I think of it. Right now there is still a bit of an imbalance through the movement/instinctual center causing the energy of emotional center to influence the thinking center into subtle choices camouflaged as being of Unconditional Love in regards to 'my' Loved friend[. <--- look period! :) Opsie, too long a sentace, hehe] [That is, STS choices that are] due to the conditioned predator programmings
of the inner dog that seek to possess her as the payoff DUE to the anticipation of the "predator mind", that is, the anticipation which is causing the inner dog to wish to possess[.] [So this anticipation is] blocking the right side of the brain from creating a reality in accord to the "blue print" of karmic lessons of the soul, or so I think. So through introspection, when I see that I am making a choice in regards to seeking a chemical-feel good "high" when 'my' Loved friend as not Asked, this is when I STOP and self remember my oath in the name of honor, or say less high strungly ;) :) , Self Respect to my aim that is also in accord to my chosen "emotional pathway" of striving to honour the Free Will of 'my' Loved One through the STO expression of "thou I Love". :D hehe

[Note: I just made some editions to make the sentences shorter since I remembered that I said I would do so! ;) ]

 

[Saman]

Saman, I respectfully ask you, what makes you think that your animal man is The Predator in you? You mention the 'conditioned predator programming' of the 'inner dog', but..."The Predator gave us his Mind". I agree with EsoQuest that the 'conditioned predator programming' is in mental man, not animal man.

Hi Laurie. I think I have already aforementioned what I mean. Here is what I wrote previously in post 9252

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1591.msg9252#msg9252 :

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.
[...]

So it's not the animal man per se, but rather the default condition of animal man due to conditioned predator programmings of the hyperdimensional "predator mind" that gave us a body with a "mind through central nervous system connection" which is not receptive to the higher levels/centers due to conditioned predator programmings, and why? Because "Others have genetically, spiritually and psychically manipulated/engineered you to be bodycentric. Here are some excerpts in relevance to these conditioned predator programmings and how they influence one within to make choices, forming a "branch" in reality through the "flapping of butterfly wings", that manifest STS future selves that seek to possess due to choices made while still in the illusion of "time", or say "soil", or so I think.

July 25, 1998 Frank, Ark, Laura
[...]
A: Now, we have also told you that the
experience of the "Native Americans" vis a
vis the Europeans may be a precursor in
microcosm. Also, what Earthian 3rd density
does to Terran 2nd density should offer "food
for thought." In other words, thou are not so
special, despiteth thoust perspective, eh? And
we have also warned that after conversion of
Earth humans to 4th density, the Orion 4th
density and their allies hope to control you
"there." Now put this all together and what
have you? At least you should by now know
that it is the soul that matters, not the body.
Others have genetically, spiritually and
psychically manipulated/engineered you to be
bodycentric. Interesting, as despite all efforts
by 4th through 6th density STO, this "veil
remains unbroken."
[...]

August 28, 1999
[...]
Q: I really fail to understand - and I know it is
a big issue that has been hinted at and alluded
to, and outright claims have been made
regarding sex in all religions and mythologies
- but I fail to understand the mechanics of how
this can be the engineering of a 'fall.' What,
precisely, are the mechanics of it? What
energy is generated? How is it generated?
What is the conceptualization of the misuse of
this energy, or the use of the energy?
A: It is simply the introduction of the concept
of self-gratification of a physical sort.
Q: On many occasions you have said that the
ideal thing is to have perfect balance of
physicality and ethereality. This has been said
on a number of occasions. Now, I don't
understand how it can be that gratification of a
physical body can be the mechanics by which
one is entrapped? Is it not gratifying to look at
something beautiful? Is it wrong, sinful, or a
form of a fall, to look at beauty, to hear
something beautiful such as music, or to touch
something that is sensually delightful such as a
piece of silk or the skin of a loved one? These
various things that the human being derives
pleasure from very often elevate them to a
spiritual state.
A: Possession is the key.
Q: What do you mean?
A: In STS, you possess.
Q: That's what I am saying here...
A: If you move through the beautiful flowers,
the silk, the skin of another, but do not seek to
possess...
Q: It seems to me that it is possible to
experience all of these things, including sex,
without the need or desire to possess; only to
give. In which case, I still don't understand
how it can be a mechanism for a 'fall.'
A: If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to
give. Do you eat a piece of chocolate cake
because it is good to give to the stomach?
Q: Well, you could!
A: No, in STS, which is your realm do not
forget, one gives because of the pleasant
sensation which results.
Q: Could it not be said that, if everything that
exists is part of God, including the flesh, that
if one gives to the flesh, without being
attached to the giving, that it could be
considered a giving to the 'All?'
A: Explain the process.
Q: For example: there are some people who
like to suffer, because they believe that the
flesh is sinful. That is a big thing that the
Lizzies have instituted. For centuries they have
wanted people to suffer, and they have made
this big deal about sex and anything that might
be considered pleasant or desirable should be
denied, and that a person should suffer, and
revel in their suffering. And, actually, making
a person...
A: If one seeks to suffer, they do so in
expectation of future reward. They desire to
possess something in the end.
Q: What I am saying is: if a person can simply
BE, in the doing and being of who and what
they are, in simplicity; to become involved in
doing everything as a meditation, or as a
consecration, whether they are walking down
the street and being at one with the air, the
sunshine, the birds and trees and other people;
in this state of oneness, doesn't that constitute
a giving to the universe as giving oneself up as
a channel for the universe to experience all
these things?
A: Not if one is "feeling this oneness."
Q: We are what we are. Nature is nature.
Progression is progression. And if people
would just relax and be who and what they are
in honesty, and do what is according to their
nature without violating the Free Will of
others, that this is a more pure form of being
than doing things out of any feeling of
expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want...
just BE?
A: Yes, but STS does not do that.
Q: (A) From which I draw conclusions: if
there STS around us, we cannot just...
A: You are all STS. If you were not, you
would not be where you are.
Q: (A) There are those who are happy in the
STS mode; and there are those who are trying
to get out of the STS mode...
A: STO candidate.
[...]

So all comes down to allowing the animal man to BE, and you can do this by moving your Being from "infra sex" to "normal sex" and then naturally to whenever that will be, to "supra sex", and the C's I think have stated the following in regards to the latter notions:

January 7, 1995 F***, Laura, TR, JR, V, D, T
[...]
Q: (L) So, for a thousand years we will be
living as physical beings in 4th density... so to
speak... making this transition during this
period... and, by the time it is over we will
have done away with our physical appetites?
A: Close. Some will be there at the beginning,
others will need more "time."
[...]

So I think needing more "time" is in learning to tune "the Mind through central nervous system to higher levels" in order to BE the "object of knowledge", or say to follow that which is intrinsic to YOU deep within essentially. And in regards to what is deep within and what is not, there is going to be some coming to terms to in regards to "what is not", or so I think:

December 9, 1994 F***and Laura
[...]
Q: (L) Well, what do we do about these
essence parts of ourselves? I mean, I don't like
it that there may be something of the predator
in me. I would like to not have it, or get rid or
it, or transform it, or whatever.
A: Wait and see.
Q: (L) Well, am I going to have to remember
myself doing things like that in order to come
to terms with it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is that going to happen to me, that I am
going to have memories like that surfacing?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well, I can't even cope with it in
someone else, how am I going to deal with it
in myself?
A: You will.
Q: (L) Is this something we are all going to
have to do?
A: All eligible.
Q: (L) And who is eligible?
A: 4th density candidates.
[...]

And it is not a matter of one seeking this "suffering" by trying to force the matter by trying to forcefully move those essential parts of their Being that are not from "deep within", but rather what is natural for the "death" and "birth" of the "seed" to the a higher "seed" when one is focused on the intent of their aim without anticipation, or so I think. So perhaps these "little deaths" are like the following form of suffering that happens naturally in regards to the "death" of the conditioned predator prorammings of the "predator mind" within and the "birth" of a higher "seed" or self that is in accord to the "branch" that has "grown" from the "soil" of what is intrinsic "deep within", or so I think:

February26, 2002
[...]
A: Suffering activates neuro-chemicals which turn on DNA receptors.
[...]

Hope this clarifies things a bit more.

 

[Guest]

Yup. This is the way I think of it. Right now there is still a bit of an imbalance through the movement/instinctual center causing the energy of emotional center to influence the thinking center into subtle choices camouflaged as being of Unconditional Love in regards to 'my' Loved friend[. <--- look period! Opsie, too long a sentace, hehe] [That is, STS choices that are] due to the conditioned predator programmings
of the inner dog that seek to possess her as the payoff DUE to the anticipation of the "predator mind", that is, the anticipation which is causing the inner dog to wish to possess[.] [So this anticipation is] blocking the right side of the brain from creating a reality in accord to the "blue print" of karmic lessons of the soul, or so I think.

If I may be so bold here, and in view of what we were discussing, it is often the case that the conditioned programmings are in the mind, and it is the mind obsessing the emotions. In other words, (and I've been through something similar more than once), it is our THOUGHTS about love that condition and entrap our emotional as well as instinctual reactions. Both right and left brain are cortex, and hence represent higher mental functions.

Love is this, love is that, this must be love, etc, and our emotions and instincts are forced to dance to the mental tune and add their natural energies. I love, therefore I lust. If I am romantic I will resist lust where there is not love, but if I find love...well release the hounds! ;)

And sometimes we fall in love (or become infatuated) with the IDEA of love. I myself am a recovering romantic, finally in my old age becoming a romantic with some realistic perspective. I ended up losing my idealism for a while because my sacred cows of love were shattered (for which I take full response-ability/ nobody did it to me).

My predator used a sacred ideal against me, by divorcing it from a human reality it is meant to inspire and transform. It cannot as yet fully represent the human reality, and so there is rarely a one to one corresondence between real and ideal. At least not until ideal grounds and begins transforming the real within us so we may conduct that inspiration. Part of this grounding involves shattering the more rigid aspects of the ideal.

It is healthy to want love. The predator, however, can manipulate our natural draw to this powerful ideal by warping our perceptions and thoughts regarding the specific situation we define as love. The lower centers are just doing their natural thing because the mind is encouraging them. And in this case the mind may be split in two: a part that does observe what is going on, and a part that is muddying the waters of percpetion and thought.

So perhaps the crux is in the mind and the realm of clinging ideas, and not in the lower centers that seem to be so unruly. Perhaps the mind must quiet down and see what happens when it moves toward the thought of "this is not the love I want". I would expect emotional resistance in this case.

That resistance, however, is not because emotions per se are programmed, but because once you start a lower center cycle, you have to let it run its course and spend itself. That inherent inertia in the lower centers is often confused for stubborness. If one changes mental orientation and is patient the view of the other will change and reactions will adjust. This takes time. As long as there is "hope", however, (hope fueled my mental expectations) the cycle is being fed and cannot die down.

Love is an ideal. But when love is an ideal idea, it is most often a sacred cow. And we know what we must do with those. True love is more than a thought stimulating lower centers. So if there is a thought, posing as an ideal that is stimulating lower centers, it is usually predatory. Shoot the thought, be patient with the emotions/instincts.

Just some thoughts...

On another note...

For "God" sake, I have changed the clutch once, and month later when I was driving home from a friend's place in the country side, so to speak, oil apparently leaked from my car's transmission on to the clutch; therefore, I ended up changing the clutch again and because of oil leaking on the clutch, the warrenty was void. At the same time I ALSO changed my trans to a second hand transmission with 3 month warrenty. Now as, everything seemed to be fine with the car finally, my trans. again has a problem! Shesh. Just costing me energy and money this damn car! Hehehe

You know, I had this happen to me once. At one point the gears just gave and I was left coasting in traffic! It so happened that this whole gear box problem in my case went on while I was struggling with my "love" ideals. I think I was driving my life in the wrong gear for each situation, and my car reflected this.

Actually, my father was using the car before me and he screwed the gears. Well, he was leaning on me heavily also at the time, and much of my personal gear bungling was in trying to accomodate my way with his. That was a rough time!!

 

[Lan8r]

"...Others have genetically, spiritually and
psychically manipulated/engineered you to be
bodycentric...."

Saman, while reading the experts from the transcripts you posted this line stuck out. I had interpreted your desire to tame the inner dog as focusing energy and concern to control the manifestation of STS polarity by contoling the physical. As such, it appeared to me as a form of bodycentricity. If the hand sins, cut off the hand, so to speak.

I am at times, sometimes often, a little slow on the up take. You know, draw me a picture!! So please bear with me as I try to digest your words and better understand your point of view.

EsoQuest, your post has inspired me. I am at a point in my life where I have kicked several sacred Love cow carcasses from underfoot. And even though my definition of love has gone through many changes, most drastically in the past few years as I began to enter into the second half of my life, I am still hanging on to an Ideal. I am not sure how to define this Ideal, and I am sometimes tempted to just let it go, but something inside me tells me to keep hold and be patient the answers will come.

To just let go seems to be giving up on love. But am I just holding onto some swooning feminine romantic IDEA? Oh well, I guess only time will tell.

Thanks for sharing your wisdom,

Laurie

 

[Nathan]

Perhaps a step in the right direction here, where removing sacred cows of love are concerned, is letting go of any "ideal partners" you may envision, or "ideal relationships" for that matter. To remove the anticipation from this, you are no longer trying to harness it or mould it into any preconceived models, which gives it the chance of developing beyond just the lower centres.

Like many of you I'm sure, I know too many people who have been desperate to rush this, to force or expect a particular emotion, or a subjective template for interaction that must be precisely fulfilled. In the past, I was one of those people. And time and time again I was crushed or frustrated when it all falls apart. It is in effect sabotaging the outcome by retarding the true potential for love to just the lower centres - and that can be many things - attachment, comfort, infatuation, lust, dependency, possessiveness, the list goes on. Too often it is painted over with a fancy brush and labelled "love", but once you strip it back to the canvas, what is left?

 

[Guest]

Nothing wrong with Ideals. Here is what I said:

Love is an ideal. But when love is an ideal idea, it is most often a sacred cow. And we know what we must do with those. True love is more than a thought stimulating lower centers. So if there is a thought, posing as an ideal that is stimulating lower centers, it is usually predatory. Shoot the thought, be patient with the emotions/instincts.

Love is a real ideal. It's just that we have a bunch of ideas around this ideal that weigh it down. My big sacred cow was that love conquers all. WRONG (or partially so). The partially is the devil here. Love conquers all when it is strong enough to do so, and it is strong enough when it is cultivated through a relationship that provides fertile ground for it.

What kept me enslaved was just that: By letting go of a relationship I am letting go on love. But relationships depend not just on chemistry, but on where we are in life, our energy and balance which leads us to our lessons and circumstances. When we try to plant a seed in ground that is not fertile, it will not grow no matter what we do.

By searching for better ground, we need not abandon the seed, for it is always in our hearts. This is the difference. When love does not flourish, we cannot make it flourish. Cultivation is only meaningful when the ground is already fertile. And the ground must be fertile in us first, meaning not too wet (needy/dependent) and not too dry (hardened).

We must be realistic regarding the initial fragility of love, but not cynical because it does not meet our unrealistic expectations as a cure for problems we must face ourselves FIRST.

So we must be wary of thoughts about love that are really masked crutches supporting our lack of faith in ourselves. And even if the love is real, it may also be conditional in other ways, and dependent on circumstances and life conditions which can fluctuate.

It may flourish when times are good and flounder when times are hard. If so, we have work to do and are planting our seed prematurely regardless of how old we are or think we are. Love is founded on inner balance, independence, fortitude and knowing who you are. When these qualities are there or at least under development the energy attracts people with similar qualities.

Love is a need (meaning it is our birthright), but need is not love. Expectation in the sense of knowing what we want is natural, IMO. It is forcing that expectation to solve all our problems that kills the fragile seed of love and replaces it with conditions that foster manipulation, either one-sided or mutual.

It is a difficult subject, because our culture has transcended many traditions where society imposed pair-bonding under rigid conditions. Now that people are free of this, they have to face themselves when alone, and that is what we all try to avoid. And yet, that is the only way to find the Ideal and elliminate the thoughts choking it. And also know when we are ready, and when we are not for that ideal to be in our lives, and to have the courage to admit the truth to ourselves either way.

Like all things, we cannot expect perfection from ourselves, or expect the Ideal to bestow perfection that we have not earned, and should not throw out the baby with the bathwater when we are disillusion by our illusions. Often to find the ideal you have to think you have rejected it, only to eventually discover that you have only rejected all the thoughts about it. Then the real ideal may reveal a tiny sprout formerly hidden under all that thought clutter.

 

[Saman]

I agree with the C's notion that "Love is Light is Knowledge". Hence, a STO expression of "thou I Love" must be in accord to the latter notion since a STO candidate is striving to honour Knowledge, hence Light, and hence Love, and that can be the "object of knowledge" intrinsic within. A STS expression of "thou I Love", since it is a need, since it is due to a desire for the self, an anticipation for self indulgence, is not the same. It is essentially different since it is about possession.

 

[Saman]

For "God" sake, I have changed the clutch once, and month later when I was driving home from a friend's place in the country side, so to speak, oil apparently leaked from my car's transmission on to the clutch; therefore, I ended up changing the clutch again and because of oil leaking on the clutch, the warrenty was void. At the same time I ALSO changed my trans to a second hand transmission with 3 month warrenty. Now as, everything seemed to be fine with the car finally, my trans. again has a problem! Shesh. Just costing me energy and money this damn car! Hehehe

You know, I had this happen to me once. At one point the gears just gave and I was left coasting in traffic! It so happened that this whole gear box problem in my case went on while I was struggling with my "love" ideals. I think I was driving my life in the wrong gear for each situation, and my car reflected this.

Actually, my father was using the car before me and he screwed the gears. Well, he was leaning on me heavily also at the time, and much of my personal gear bungling was in trying to accomodate my way with his. That was a rough time!!

I just got my car an hour or so ago. This time, it only cost me 60 dollars to the mechanic and 80 dollars including tip to the tow truck guy, to fix the problems with the car. And I say only this much energy or money because compared to before, it is much, much less. The mechanic said that there was a bolt, and old one, that had broken and caused the problem of loosing control of gear shift[]ing [with] the car. So he just replaced that and charged me cheap for the labor, or so I think. So the trans., the clutch, gearbox, etc, seem to be fine, for now. :)