Dorothy and The Frog Prince Meet Flight 19 in Oz, from The Wave Series

[Meg]

Excerpted. I wasn't sure how to quote from the online book,

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 receiver 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. 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 candidates.
~~
Q: So, you seem to be suggesting that the real trick is to just become non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing, and just dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no do, no be, no anything!

A: If you are STS, that does not fit, but, if you did exactly that, you would reincarnate in an STO realm, where such energy does fit.


A few things jump out at me about this section of the chapter:

If you can choose to go into STO mode, by attempting to be non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing. To be of service to others without attachment is a goal.

Reading the part about negative energy towards the end of the chapter leads me to think that I am wasting energy (or sending negative energy) being of service just to benefit to myself. I think that makes sense:)

“Being at one" with the universe is different than “feeling at one" with the universe. (?)

Just some thoughts. Jumbled as they are. The Wizard of Oz analogy in this chapter is great. I will have to watch it again.

 

[Azur]

Excerpted. I wasn't sure how to quote from the online book,

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 receiver 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. 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 candidates.
~~
Q: So, you seem to be suggesting that the real trick is to just become non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing, and just dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no do, no be, no anything!

A: If you are STS, that does not fit, but, if you did exactly that, you would reincarnate in an STO realm, where such energy does fit.


A few things jump out at me about this section of the chapter:

If you can choose to go into STO mode, by attempting to be non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing. To be of service to others without attachment is a goal.

Reading the part about negative energy towards the end of the chapter leads me to think that I am wasting energy (or sending negative energy) being of service just to benefit to myself. I think that makes sense:)

“Being at one" with the universe is different than “feeling at one" with the universe. (?)

Just some thoughts. Jumbled as they are. The Wizard of Oz analogy in this chapter is great. I will have to watch it again.

You've hit on something that has been on my mind for a while.

It may be the case that some might want to aspire or come close to being STO in an abstract form of way only for self-preservation (seems the thing "to do"), and thus in a self-serving manner without really understanding what it means.

If self-preservation trumps, or is the basis of intent, it must surely be STS.

 

[anart]

Yes, it seems that they're also saying (and my interpretation may be off) - that, "sure, if you 'just become non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing, and just dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no do, no be, no anything' - then you'd reincarnate in an STO realm. However, as as STS being, you can't just 'do' that. You can think you're doing it, or dream you're doing it, but without doing a lot of Work to get to the point where you could conceivably do such a thing sincerely, it's not going to happen.

If you can choose to go into STO mode, by attempting to be non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing. To be of service to others without attachment is a goal.

Perhaps, but before a person can even attempt to be 'non-attached', that person must know their own machine inside and out and must have removed all the programs instilled over a lifetime, and fused some sort of real 'I', so that they can even begin to Do anything. Everything before that is just dreaming that you're doing and choosing things, instead of actually choosing and doing them. However, practicing non-attachment to 'the goal' or practicing non-anticipation is a good idea in general - as long as you try to keep in mind that until you've Worked on cleaning your machine, it is sort of like shadowboxing (which is better than not boxing at all)- at least that's my understanding at the moment.

 

[Art]

As I understand it, or as i try to picture it to my self, to exist is a frequence. Let's say, a "0" frequence, and from there, it is all cascading down: -1, -2, -3, etc. Living. Breathing. Feeling. Eating. No-eating. Shoping, No-shopnng, that is, all activities one realizes on existance are a -X.
STO is a high frecuence. it is a "+" for the activities we perform while in existance, so they push existance activities back, that is, towars the zero line.
What I think anart is saying, is that, to go beyond the zero point, that is, into the +1, +2, +3, etc, one need powerful STO input into one's existance activities as for that high frecuence to actually allow us be able to ascend, that is, to go from -3 to -1, to 0, to +1, etc...
In one sence (from OUR optic here on sts), STO would be a "push-back force", as i was exposing, pushing us back (from -n), towars zero and beyond. Or a push-up, if you want, from the -n's to +n's.
"Non-attatched to anything and anybody, do nothing, dissolve into nothing, no thought, no want, no do, no be, no anything" = Zero.
That is, stop being STS. ANd in a STS ambient, that basically boild down to zero, to not being sts, to stop being sts: Zero STS, whihc is not to exist where we exist.
Is this a goal? I do not think so. Instead, I think a goal could be to "push-up" towards the zero line and beyond. This goal offers and requires conscient effort, where the former interpretation goes about vanishing into nothingness -and it is not my apreciation that such is the idea.
Or thats how I see it.

 

[Meg]

So, in

cleaning your (my) machine

We will be able to progress &

"push-up" towards the zero line and beyond.

Essentially going from a negative on the scale, pushing towards zero and beyond. How does one clean the machine?

 

[Ruth]

How does one clean the machine?

With difficulty, I believe. I guess the first part of 'cleaning' a machine is to know:

A: That it is there in the first place...!
B: What it consists of... even if you can only see parts of it...

Of course, it is always easier to look at other people's 'machines' (i.e. what 'drives' them to react in a certain manner) and realise that most human beings spend a lifetime emotionally reacting to the programming that they've been 'given' - or at least half of them do... 8| The rest act and react to 'needs' mainly physical requirements...

So, it seems to me that the programming a person receives (especially whilst in childhood - the most vulnerable time for a person) is a particularly important part of a person's 'machine'. When a person (or oneself, for instance) starts to emotionally react to a 'program' - recognising it will become an important step to cleaning a their machine.

How does a person 'react' to a program? Well, anger is the most obvious one, but there are other ways too.

 

[Pierre]

most human beings spend a lifetime emotionally reacting to the programming that they've been 'given' - or at least half of them do... 8| The rest act and react to 'needs' mainly physical requirements...

Before undertaking the Work any human being (adamic or pre adamic) is a machine whose lower centers (moving, intellectual, emotional) are actived by external factors.

So before the Work, OPs and non-OPs are totally similar. The only difference being that non-OP can access higher centers if the Work is properly done.