fourth density STO relationships

[ocean59]

I've found the following two articles to be tremendously helpful in my understanding of the differences between STS/STO relationships in practice, and the more specific mindsets that accompany each way of looking at things. I wanted to share the two links with you all, and am interested in any feedback.

The two channellings, while by two different groups, seem to have accurate information IMHO. I am familiar with Lyssa Royal's other work, and I don't generally care for it, but this particular session seems to have clarity. I am largely unfamiliar with the Kalumet group, but again feel the information is worth sharing.

Have a great day!
Jason in Cincinnati


snippet from http://www.worldtrans.org/lyssa/112edit.html

Principles of 3D relationships are: secrecy, fear-based monogamy, conditional love, expectation, manipulation and the need to control. And in 4D relationships : honesty (non-secrecy), absolute trust, 'allowingness' and relationships by choice. The 4D version of "divorce" will be the recognition of two people that the relationship is going in a different direction, and that is allowed.

So the idea of commitment is a 3D illusion. How many people make commitments and do not follow through? A commitment never insures your security. It placates you into thinking you are secure.

snippet from http://www.4dshift.com/back/september98.htm

So, in your physical state, you looked outwardly into the world for many lives and said: "My reality is based on how much I can control." But you also understand now as a human being that what you think you control and how much you think you control is an ILLUSION. And the more you believe you control, the more out of control you are. Because there is nothing that you control except that which is inside your consciousness; i.e. the choice of your thinking to create manifestations of values, manifestations of beliefs, manifestations of judgment, manifestations of desire. The only thing you control is visualizing the possibilities of what you want to create. When you interact with someone, you tend to reflect your projection of your identity on the other person and are nearly always willing to receive the identity of the other person upon you. We're not asking you to consider the idea of being taken over by another person, but we are asking you to observe the other person as somebody that you have chosen to put in front of you, that you have chosen to magnetize to you for the purpose of teaching you how to evolve.

 

[PopHistorian]

Hi Ocean59 -- As the C's said, "All is of value if examined with an open mind and proper perspective." And, of course, "Can you weed?" The message is simply to use the knowledge you have to be discerning. If the above helps you think and makes sense to you, or clicks with something else you've researched and come to understand, maybe it's of value for you. Just take care. Check the example below of a channeled message that starts out sounding clear and unrefutable. My apologies if you've read my other stuff and this is a re-tread for you. I just love to harp on it. :)

Mike Quinsey's August 25 message from Atmos:

the media are so controlled that you are fed only what they wish you to know. Very few are truly independent, and you are more reliant on your Internet sources for the truth.

Can't argue with that, but it's followed immediately by:

Even there (internet), information is not always as it seems, but with care you can get a "feel" as to what is reliable.

OK, catch now he's now pulling you ever so subtly toward the murkier realm of feelings. And then

Much that you believe has to be accepted on face value, and often requires that you have total faith in the writers.

Now, he's just made a conclusion for you and a suggestion that you put total faith in what feels right. This is more dangerous ground, don't you think? But what a smooth transition. Now you're all set up to accept this:

...you are left with our word for what is happening, and we try to keep you up to date with our plans. Of necessity you cannot be given too much information, that is unless you are one of our many allies.

So, he's gone from reinforcing your well-researched understanding that the media is playing you, and the statement of fact that there is better information on the internet, to suggesting that you believe everything he says. This is all in one paragraph.

If you uncover techniques like these being used in the channeled literature you read, look for what it's asking or advising you to do. That's all. Let's be careful out there. Good luck!

 

[ocean59]

Definitely good advice. I've found the vast majority of published channellings (in my limited exposure) to be either subtly corruptive on that same level of influence, or nonsense alltogether. The C's, as well as a lot of what comes out from LL Research seem to be the only sources that consistently make sense to me personally. I'm going to check out the few other offerings from this "blue group" to see how it adds up. I am skeptical, as often times I'll find a group that offers one or two very clear, and STO in my perception channellings, but the rest of the material seems to be heavliy corrupted. That's how I feel about Lyssa Royal's work for example. Not to bash anyone, or anything like that (everyone is free to channel whomever whenever they want), just an example, and just my opinion.

peace,
Jason

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Principles of 3D relationships are: secrecy, fear-based monogamy, conditional love, expectation, manipulation and the need to control.

That's funny! Secrecy is necessary for STS and STO at all levels, osit. STS uses it to control. STO uses it to prevent others from causing harm to themselves and to others. In other words, do not share knowledge with "the enemy", otherwise it compromises your side. But also do not give guns to babies. Not all monogamy is fear based. Otherwise one could just as easily say "fear-based polygamy" and be right in some cases as well. And if their point is just the word "fear" then one could say fear is an element of all STS to some degree. Conditional love? That's a tough one - depends on how one defines love, and good luck reaching any agreement on that one lol. But if by "love" they mean to care about someone (empathy), then I think this selective empathy is a property of STS on any level. But if they mean love as in actual act of assistance, then I'd say that STO and STS both use conditions before assisting anyone. One condition STO has is, "if they ask". Another might be "if it does not violate free will". Another might be "if it does not interfere with lessons". Another might be "if it is not dangerous" etc. STS's condition might be "if it benefits me to assist" etc. Expectation? As far as I understand, this is more a property of STS in general than any particular density level. Manipulation and need to control? I don't think there's any "need" to control, just desire. And again, those 2 things exist on all levels of STS, not just 3D, osit.

And in 4D relationships : honesty (non-secrecy), absolute trust, 'allowingness' and relationships by choice. The 4D version of "divorce" will be the recognition of two people that the relationship is going in a different direction, and that is allowed.

Honesty? Even when that honesty endangers you and others and the person you give dangerous info to? That would imply that at 4D no one takes any responsibility for their words and actions, they just reveal everything to everyone, to hell with consequences. Somehow I doubt that. I think STO would be honest as much as possible, and if they cannot say they simply will not say anything instead of actually lying. But again, I think honesty/dishonesty is more an issue of STO/STS than any density level differences. Absolute trust? Give me a break! That requires the assumption and absolute certainty that another being will NEVER deceive you or EVER do anything not in your best interest. That seems extremely naive and unreasonable considering it's a free will universe and therefore ANY being at ANY time can CHOOSE, if it so desires, to do something that is not entirely honest or in YOUR best interests. And because of free will you have no way to have absolute certainty in the choices of another being, and so absolute trust would be pretty silly to have, osit. Otherwise you do not remain open and open yourself up for attack.

So the idea of commitment is a 3D illusion. How many people make commitments and do not follow through? A commitment never insures your security. It placates you into thinking you are secure.

Just like absolute trust never ensures your security. It placates you into thinking that the other being WILL do exactly what you expect them to and never ever choose otherwise. There simply is NO WAY to absolutey guarantee that as long as that being has any free will! How can they miss that one?! I don't think the idea of commitment is an illusion - it's the absolute trust in the other person that they WILL follow through that is the illusion. So it's funny they contradict themselves, they say that on 4D people realise that the other being can never be guaranteed to commit so they don't even bother making a commitment, and yet inexplicably they say "absolute trust" is a property of 4D existance which assumes absolute expectation of the choices of another being!

Oh wait I got it! Unless they "absolutely trust" the idea that nobody can be absolutely trusted! That must be it :P

But you also understand now as a human being that what you think you control and how much you think you control is an ILLUSION. And the more you believe you control, the more out of control you are.

I agree that most people are under a serious illusion about how much of their existance is really a choice as opposed to programming. But the keyword here is "believe". It's misreading objective reality, because some things CAN be controlled objectively. The problem is when we think we are in control where we are not, and where we think we have no control but we actually do. So the problem isn't that nobody really has any control, but our misreading of what we do control, and what we do not, osit. Like when we can't see the difference between things that we DO and things that simply "happen".

Because there is nothing that you control except that which is inside your consciousness; i.e. the choice of your thinking to create manifestations of values, manifestations of beliefs, manifestations of judgment, manifestations of desire.

Actually I think the opposite is true. Most people do not control their consciousness, their thinking, their values, beliefs, judgements, and desires. They probably have more success in controlling the material world around themselves than their own consciousness. But I think at the root they are probably right - we can only directly control ourselves, and everything else we more or less manipulate but do not exactly control directly as we can our own soul/consciousness. But as long as our minds are manipulated by something else, then we don't have control over ourselves either.

 

[PopHistorian]

ScioAgapeOmnis wrote:

I think this selective empathy is a property of STS on any level.

I'm not sure that empathy fits the profile of the most polarized of STS, or is it psychopaths I'm thinking of? Those things are probably close enough anyway, for the purpose of this issue. Psycopaths don't actually empathize but see friends, family, useful collaborators, inner circle of any kind as extensions of themselves, and will thus protect them as self, until of course they become obstructions, useless, or turn against in some way. That would seem to be selective something, but not quite empathy, I think.

Consider the fictional example of TV's Tony Soprano, who loves, absolutely loves his lifelong friend, Pussy. Pussy emotes and apparently cares for Tony, too -- at one point earnestly impressing upon Tony's son that Tony is a "real stand-up guy." For some reason, Pussy started cooperating with police. Tony murdered Pussy without a second thought (the show, though, continaully tries to suggest that Tony has at least some kind of twisted, corrupted conscience). I've seen the same "extension of self" thing revealed in real-life interviews with career criminals -- if they "know" you, they "care" about you. But, they can kill anyone they don't "know" without reservation or guilt. "That's just business" is the saying. I would say they practice STS relationships, indeed.

Interestingly, Tony also revealed in one episode that he was sure he was going to heaven, as were all his associates. When asked what kind of people go to hell, he mentioned "the worst" kind of people: "your Hitlers, your child molestors, that type." I thought that was a great example of the sujectivity we all need to recognize and battle. Most everyone thinks they're a "good driver," a "good employee," or a "good person."

 

[ocean59]

Hello,

I guess I just don't really agree with all of the conclusions and assumptions you make regarding the quotes you chose, ScioAgapeOmnis. We do agree on some points tho.

Now, granted, I think a lot of the times when they (re: the first two quotes on your message) mention that these are differences between 3rd and 4th density, they seem to be talking more about STS vs. STO ways of approaching situations. But I think the lists of characteristics and adjectives describing two different ways of doing things are much more open in interpretation and application then you are giving credit for. For example,

Secrecy is necessary for STS and STO at all levels, osit. STS uses it to control. STO uses it to prevent others from causing harm to themselves and to others. In other words, do not share knowledge with "the enemy", otherwise it compromises your side.

This article is describing the different ways of viewing relationships in your life. IMO, If you and and another being are engaged in a relationship whose primary motivation is to serve self, then secrecy is going to be key in withholding information from one another to better exert control or manipulate each other into further STS mindset. If you engaged in a relationship whose primary polarity was STO in nature, you would need to be completely honest with each other. I don't believe secrecy is a necessary component of a true STO relationship, and based on a lot of what I've read and feel to be true, there simply are fewer secrets in a 4th density state of awareness. I think everybody is transmitting all the time, thoughts are real, and the more awareness you attain of larger groups of consciousness, the easier it will be to simply know what another's intentions are. Just as the 6th density being(s) being channelled in the Cass experiment seem to have that uncanny ability to know what someone is thinking/feeling/what is happening almost anywhere any time, I can only imagine that 4th density would be a leap from where we are at now. I try to remember that my current faculties/methods of perception are so limited right now, that I probably can't truly imagine what the next density really means in terms of how I will perceive events and interactions differently. But it doesn't seem too farfetched to me that this may contains characteristics we currently find beyond our ability, seeing in 360 degrees, knowing what other people are feeling, even thinking, better understanding the interconnectednes of all beings, seeing auras around all physical objects, travelling in ways barely imaginable to us now, variability in physicality -- these possible ways of being may lead to a completely different set of "rules" if you will, and while secrecy will certainly continue to exist, I think that it will be most concentrated on the STS clan trying to manipulate others, and that the STO clan (having no such motivation to manipulate or attempt infringement upon others) will simply be honest in all their interactions, especially when in the company of or relationship to another STO-based individual.
When mixing STS and STO interactions occur, with one side being polarized one way, and so on, STO can still act honestly without compromising a position. Honesty does not mean total divergence of information. Honesty does not mean complying with every request put before you. Honesty simply means being and acting in a way that is true to yourself, and what you are feeling, and being very clear about your intentions and choices made along the way to yourself, and then others as necessary on a choice by choice case by case analysis.

Moving on...

I do agree with you that not all monogamy is fear-based. The article makes no such claim anyhow. And yes, certainly polygamy can also exhibit this characteristic. But I think a large percentage of STS relationships that we are currently experiencing ourselves here on the planet ARE fear based relationships. And conditional love...well I think love is just a type of energetic expression, focussed by thought and intent towards another being or all beings. I don't think unconditional love is equal to unconditionally doing whatever the person tells you to do like you suggest. Some times acts of love involve one being unable to fulfill the request of another, but this varies from situation to situation. As far as I can tell, the article does not support the equation of love=act of assistance, but if you can show me differently, I am open to it.

And again, I do agree that this (very basic) list of adjectives is tending more towards a description of STS/STO than 3rd vs. 4th density, so we do agree there.

Honesty? Even when that honesty endangers you and others and the person you give dangerous info to? That would imply that at 4D no one takes any responsibility for their words and actions, they just reveal everything to everyone, to hell with consequences. Somehow I doubt that. I think STO would be honest as much as possible, and if they cannot say they simply will not say anything instead of actually lying.

I don't think that being honest implies not being responsible or taking responsibility for one's actions. I also don't think it means revealing everything to everyone either. Honesty is not such a closed or limited topic, IMO.

Absolute trust? Give me a break! That requires the assumption and absolute certainty that another being will NEVER deceive you or EVER do anything not in your best interest.

It requires your assumption in order to be true? I'm not sure how to respond...My opinion is that absolute trust refers more towards a universal way of looking at things. One can have absolute trust, for example, in the concept that beings will do what they will do. One can have absolute trust that we will within a framework of free will within this portion of creation, and trust this to be true at all times, absolutely. Or even that "Knowledge Protects, Ignorance Endangers" There are many ways to look at this concept, that do not require an "assumption and absolute certainty that another being will never deceive you." In fact, I would say it is much safer to have absolute trust in the concept that other beings WILL try and deceive you.

Just like absolute trust never ensures your security.

Nowhere in either article does it say anything about absolute trust ensuring anyone's security.

It placates you into thinking that the other being WILL do exactly what you expect them to and never ever choose otherwise.

It does no such thing! Unless of course, you have absolute trust that the other being will do what you want them to do, but this would seem very foolish to me, as we can both agree that we do live in a free will universe. Again, it's about where and when and in which concepts/constructs we place that absolute trust in that determine the role or polarity this belief can hold. I think if used properly, honestly and with a goal of acting in as STO manner as possible, absolute trust in what is actually true as far as one can tell can be a very strong and helpful trait in one's quest. Absolute trust may be related to the concept of faith as well based on my limited understanding.

they say "absolute trust" is a property of 4D existance which assumes absolute expectation of the choices of another being!

they say nothing about absolute expectation of the choices of another being. I simply do not understand where you keep coming up with this idea. Do you understand my confusion about your declarations? Can you back up these claims based on what was actually written/channelled in the links I provided? It would help me to understand your point of view better.

I agree that most people are under a serious illusion about how much of their existance is really a choice as opposed to programming. But the keyword here is "believe". It's misreading objective reality, because some things CAN be controlled objectively.

I think even programming is a choice. What is an example of something that can be controlled objectively? Who or what is doing the controlling?

Like when we can't see the difference between things that we DO and things that simply "happen".

What is the difference really? My belief (and by the word belief, I simply mean something I personally accept as truth right now) is that everything we do affects everything that happens. And I believe that on many different levels. The more I try to view the bigger picture of everything that happens around me, the more I begin to take responsibility for every event in my life, removing the word accident from my vocabulary as much as possible, seeing what my role is in everything that happens and all that I do...the more difficult it becomes for me to see the difference. This is just what I'm working on right now though, and I would appreciate to hear yours and anybody else's input on the matter.

Actually I think the opposite is true. Most people do not control their consciousness, their thinking, their values, beliefs, judgements, and desires. They probably have more success in controlling the material world around themselves than their own consciousness.

How is the material world controlled? Is it not controlled in part by peoples' consciousness, the thoughts they have (which lead directly to the action they take), their values, beliefs, judgments, and desire -- all these things are used to control the material world as far as I can see in day to day life! The original statement you responded to here was "Because there is nothing that you control except that which is inside your consciousness; i.e. the choice of your thinking to create manifestations of values, manifestations of beliefs, manifestations of judgment, manifestations of desire." And you think the opposite is true?

We've already agreed that we have no control over another being due to free will, and we agree that we can never expect another person to do what we want them to do, and that these are foolish ways of thinking. So what is left to control? That which is inside our consciousness gives birth to the thoughts that give birth to the actions in a continually unfolding process...the only thing left to control, since we've ruled out all other beings, is the structure of our own consciousness. Which then leads to thought, action, and manifestation of these components realized in the work performed by any being in question. I think that makes sense, but I am open to any other points of view as well! :)

Sorry for the length, but I like to be as clear as possible since we're not in person talking.
Take care,
Jason

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

IMO, If you and and another being are engaged in a relationship whose primary motivation is to serve self, then secrecy is going to be key in withholding information from one another to better exert control or manipulate each other into further STS mindset. If you engaged in a relationship whose primary polarity was STO in nature, you would need to be completely honest with each other.

I think there's also a gray area. For example, many people who are on this path are not completely honest about it (for good reason imo) with their loved ones, their families, etc. The primary motivation of those relationships does not have to be STS per se, just that those "significant others" are not necessarily capable to handle the truth, nor really care for it. They may still be very loving and good-intentioned people, osit. I agree though, when both people are waking up, and moving towards STO, they should have less and less secrets. But what if only one is waking up, or maybe they're at different stages of progress?

But I think a large percentage of STS relationships that we are currently experiencing ourselves here on the planet ARE fear based relationships.

I just wanted to express that anything can be fear-based, and I don't see fear-based monogomy as being necessarily any worse than fear-based polygamy for example.

And conditional love...well I think love is just a type of energetic expression, focussed by thought and intent towards another being or all beings.

I guess it's just that you cannot really "love" all parts of someone as far as I can see. What I mean is, you can certainly accept all the parts and acknowledge them and allow them to do what they will do, but at the same time, you must pick and choose which parts you will give your support. So if you do not support the ego, predator, illusions, etc - but you do give aid/assistance/support to the parts that seek honesty, truth, open-mindedness, creativity, etc. Then isn't that like loving some parts but not loving others?

There are many ways to look at this concept, that do not require an "assumption and absolute certainty that another being will never deceive you." In fact, I would say it is much safer to have absolute trust in the concept that other beings WILL try and deceive you.

I guess I was coming from how most people use trust. When you "trust someone" usually it implies that you have "faith" in their integrity and good intentions, or their loyalty, or both etc. I didn't mean absolute trust in the universe itself, as in, allowing the universe to do what it will do, allowing all things without anticipation, fear, assumptions, or desire to alter it. With that I'd agree though.

Just like absolute trust never ensures your security.

Nowhere in either article does it say anything about absolute trust ensuring anyone's security.

I know I was just following up what I was saying about trust itself in the meaning that is commonly given to it - where people assume someone will remain honest and loyal and it gives them a false sense of security. And if that other person at some point is dishonest/disloyal it comes as a shock due to that false cacoon of security, osit.

It placates you into thinking that the other being WILL do exactly what you expect them to and never ever choose otherwise.

It does no such thing!

But if you were to use trust as it is commonly used, do you think the statement would be true then? For example, as in: "Trust me, I'm an expert" or "Trust me, I have good intentions" etc. I guess another way of saying "trust" is "believe" in this sense.

they say "absolute trust" is a property of 4D existance which assumes absolute expectation of the choices of another being!

they say nothing about absolute expectation of the choices of another being. I simply do not understand where you keep coming up with this idea.

The idea comes from how I perceived the word "trust", as I applied the common definition/meaning to it instead of the one they used. I guess just reading the term "absolute trust" instantly sends up warning flags in my mind as it is associated with "absolute certainty" and "belief" and "assumption" and "anticipation". Instantly I think of government leaders saying "trust us". And it is from that perspective of the word that I was coming from, not necessarily anything they said. But you're right, they do not seem to be talking about the "common" definition of "trust". I'm not sure I fully understand their perspective, or rather, how exactly is trust opposite of "control". If anything, the topic below it called "allowingness" seems more appropriate. As you said earlier, I think trust is closely related to faith as used by the C's (not as used by religions and/or common understanding of it). And again, the common version of faith is just belief/assumption. But this is not how the C's use it.

Do you understand my confusion about your declarations?

I think so, and do you understand my confusion about the meaning of trust and why I said what I said?

Like when we can't see the difference between things that we DO and things that simply "happen".

What is the difference really?

I think at the root there isn't - we can choose not to be programmed just as we allowed ourselves to be programmed in the first place, osit. But after we allow ourselves to be programmed, then I'd say that when we just react based on the programming, that's something that happens. Or when we believe something uncritically, that's also something that happens, osit. This implies surrendering free will, and I think by extension, surrendering ability to DO.

My belief (and by the word belief, I simply mean something I personally accept as truth right now) is that everything we do affects everything that happens. And I believe that on many different levels. The more I try to view the bigger picture of everything that happens around me, the more I begin to take responsibility for every event in my life, removing the word accident from my vocabulary as much as possible, seeing what my role is in everything that happens and all that I do...the more difficult it becomes for me to see the difference.

I agree that free will is most likely at the root of everything, at some level. But that level can be far enough removed that for all intents and purposes, it just "happens". The C's say plants have free will, that all things do to some degree - but that degree can be pretty small. Most things in plants just happen, they are mechanical/chemical reactions. And I guess when people go "guess what I did today?" it is more often than not simply "guess what my impulses/programs/conditioning/false personality forced my body to do today?". I think free will is there deeply buried somewhere, but it is very very weak, so weak that almost non-existant, or so it seems to me at the moment.

How is the material world controlled?

I mean like if you pick up a pen and write something. You control the pen and what is written. At least to some extent.

The original statement you responded to here was "Because there is nothing that you control except that which is inside your consciousness; i.e. the choice of your thinking to create manifestations of values, manifestations of beliefs, manifestations of judgment, manifestations of desire." And you think the opposite is true?

They say "the choice of your thinking". But what if most of your thinking isn't yours? Then neither are the actions that follow, osit.

We've already agreed that we have no control over another being due to free will, and we agree that we can never expect another person to do what we want them to do, and that these are foolish ways of thinking. So what is left to control? That which is inside our consciousness gives birth to the thoughts that give birth to the actions in a continually unfolding process...

But isn't that assuming that our own consciousness is the only thing that "gives birth to the thoughts"? But what about the fact that most people's thoughts are not even their own? I agree that consciousness is there, but just as free will, it seems suppressed and ineffective in most people, just barely there (and sometimes not at all). And it seems that mostly it's other factors that influence their thoughts and their actions, their consciousness being just one of those factors and usually an insignificantly tiny one, osit.

And when I said that people are probably better at controlling the material world than they are themselves, I just mean like developing technology and other ways of manipulating our material reality seems far ahead of developing our will and BEing. So it just appears that our ability to manipulate physical world using technology and science is far ahead of our ability to manipulate our own consciousness - which seems to be manipulated by everything BUT our own wills.

 

[ocean59]

Cool, thanks for the clarifications. I definitely have a better understanding of where you were coming from, and your viewpoints make a lot more sense to me now.

I agree though, when both people are waking up, and moving towards STO, they should have less and less secrets. But what if only one is waking up, or maybe they're at different stages of progress?

This is definitely a very relevant issue! Living in an STS environment, the conflict of one partner choosing to polarize towards STO, and the other who still wishes to pursue that which they were raised with (STS) can certainly create issues within the relationship. I have a lot to learn about this. What has helped me so far, is the following, from the http://www.worldtrans.org/lyssa/112edit.html link:

Here is an example of what we are not talking about. You say to the person, "I want a monogamous (or polygamous, whatever) relationship, and I will continue this relationship with you only if you agree to that." No. The choices are entirely for you. If you choose monogamy, then it is only you who chooses not to have sex with others. You don't require the other person to make the same choice. The choices are all for you. They have nothing to do with the other person. If you choose to be non-monogamous, then that choice is for you. Your mate can do whatever they want. You only make the choices for you and no one else. You do not demand that the other person reciprocate. That is what we meant by conscious choice.

and

Q:That is what I've been finding out. I've finally been making choices for myself, and people have been getting upset. But I still want these people as friends.

A:You cannot sacrifice your own growth and the growth of others for a relationship based on illusion.

(good advice, but not entirely true, because of course you CAN choose to sacrifice your own growth as far as I can tell)

and lastly, if you will excuse the semantic issues with the following quote, but I cannot think of a better way to paraphrase the following point:

Q:Where does the hurt come from and why is it still there if we're in this transition and we should be looking at these fourth-dimensional relationships? Why do we feel third-dimensional hurt?

A:You are looking at the fourth-density relationships. In letting go from the third density to the fourth density, many people are choosing to feel the hurt. Almost in the same way as when you're frostbite, and you start getting the feeling back in your feet that it really hurts. It's a significator. Many people are using it that way, to remind you that you can still feel.

So it is quite all right to continue to choose third-density principles. Absolutely, it's fine. It's all equal anyway. However, do not expect to choose third-density principles and expect the package deal that comes with fourth density, because the cruise control does not come with third density. It's one package or another package. You cannot mix the packages!

In all honesty, those in the room, reading this, and listening to the tape are groundbreaking these ideas. These are threatening ideas for a lot of people, and those who do choose to embrace the fourth-density principles are going to choose to be exposed to the ground breakers. You all must start identifying yourselves and sticking together!

Q:If I have truly chosen fourth-density relationships or to move into fourth-density relationships which are by choice, honesty, unconditional love, allowance, I won't feel any pain, correct? If I'm feeling pain in my relationship, then actually...

A:You're holding onto something from third density.

Q:So whenever I feel pain, then I need to go back and look at this versus that, honesty versus this and find out which concept I'm holding onto.

A:Exactly, exactly. If you could 100% embrace the fourth-density idea of relationships, no, you will not feel pain. But some of you are holding onto some of the third as your are grasping for fourth, and you're feeling the pain, which an indicator that you are making the change, and that's quite all right. But if you feel that you're really in fourth but there's still this one thing, then go back and examine what premise or belief that you have that is based on third-density separation.

Q:Again, let me repeat myself. If you are feeling any pain in a relationship, then I am desperately trying to hold onto some third-density concept within that relationship.

A:Yes, exactly. Now, with respect to your channel, we will have a short break.

So, for the past few years, this is how I've been trying to view conflicts within my own relationships. And I try to remember, that I can only choose what I express. I can only choose how I act and behave. I cannot choose or decide for anyone else, even a significant other. And therefore, I try to remove any expectation of him or her acting in a "certain way." I try to avoid the loophole of deluding myself that I know "what's best" for anyone else. I don't. I can't, not at this stage in the game. I simply do not have that level of awareness on a conscious level yet.

As far as the love issue we've been discussing, you're right, it definitely depends on what the working definition of love is. And the same with the trust issue. It is easy to play the word association game, and many people do think that if you love someone, you must assist them. That if you trust someone, this means they will do as you expect and live up to your expectations. I can understand that, but I try to work very hard to see these terms from a more open and objective state of mind, which is very difficult to do at times. Throwing in the complex situations created by OPs, psychopaths, and even understandibly confused souled beings, wanderers, etc., it can be very difficult to wade through the muck, and figure out who is responsible for what portions of the conflicts.

But again, I think we can only truly take responsibility for ourselves, and our own actions - never that of another person, despite that being the common belief expressed in so many ways in the cultures at large (i.e. the road to hell is paved with good intentions, societies that institutionalize folks in so many ways also reinforcing the concept of "somebody else knows what's best for you", helping people who do not ask for help, etc.)

And this relates to what you were saying about people having freely handed over their free will on a platter, so to speak, to the point of seeming like unconscious automatons (to paraphrase what I understood you to be saying) flying through life on autopilot, mostly reacting from programming and external influences alone, rarely focussing their intent with conscious thought or control. This perhaps seems to complicate the issue, but does it? Or is it our own expectations of how they should act clouding things? I'm really not sure.

But I do enjoy talking about these kinds of topics...I feel that my "intellectual" understanding of these issues grows each day, but I need a lot of work on the application!!

Maybe it would be beneficial to go over a couple real life scenarios, and see if and how this framework of examining and understanding relationships as described in the two articles apply??

Whatever anyone is into. I think it would be fun, kind of like relationship school, lol, where we could share the dilemmas that crop up when trying to live life in preparation for a 4th density shift utilizing STO based ideals...

Have a great weekend,
Jason

 

[moonwalker]

The 4th density (characterized by Ra as the density in which are learned the lessons of Love and Understanding) calls consciousness, vaguely or urgently according to the quality of attentiveness, to the experience of its psychic dimension as the first overtly "spiritual" zone disclosed to awakening intelligence. From the clarified value of this density revealing certain secrets of Consciousness to itself, it is learned just why the 3rd level of self-reflection was patterned in such a way as to initially mask the character of Reality as a spiritual magnitude, substituting a representative alphabet of symbolically modeled "name and form".

From the parting of the Veil draped across the perceptual threshold of 4th density, a distilled sense may be obtained of how previous Logoic experience with worlds of soul-development found such process slow or positively stagnant, due to the absence of an adequate catalyst which might serve to move mind toward active search for a deeper Being ultimately commensurate with conscious-ness-in-itself. Thus according to Ra the device for the succeeding Logoic pattern was formulated, i.e. that of screening the value of spiritual inherence (or Void-nature) from the perceptual potential of 3rd density where consciousness first takes estimable stock of itself.

 

[Cyn]

Thanks for the great links, Ocean59. Great topic!!

I've been facing these very issues in my personal life recently. I have to assure everybody the 4D model of relationships is valid and worth working toward. My old 3D relationship has been transforming into one of complete honesty, trust and mutual respect.

I wish now that I had kept a diary of the changes we have gone through, my husband and I. It hasn't necessarily been easy... lol. But I can attest that it can be done.