I don't get it.... why not destroy evil?

[Ricardo]

Lots of good advice here, regards cancer , and fwiiw , somewhat relates to threads topic :

Session 10 December 1994 :

Q: (L) I would like to know if there is anything T G could do to enhance his recovery from cancer?

A: PMA. Positive Mental Attitude.

Session 24 August 1996 :

(V) I have been helping a woman who has cancer. I see her cancer as a sideline even though it is in the lymph system. Is this correct?

A: Cancer is always a "sideline."

Q: (V) When I was working with her, I felt a lot of energy flow coming up from her solar plexus. Was this the disease energy leaving?

A: Constriction easing. If she wants to remain on third density, she must change a 28 year long outlook, and purge feelings, rather than collecting them as a "sponge." Also, dietary changes are needed. We suggest sauerkraut extract and fruit juices and broccoli. She needs colonic therapy, and if diagnosis is "terminal," why are poisonous treatments a consideration? We strongly recommend that you suggest a change in the 28 year long outlook. She must purge and cleanse her mind, body, and soul, as with ALL cancer patients.

Session 18 January 2003 :

Q: We have learned that a former group member has cancer and is likely to die soon if something drastic isn't done. Is there any hope for this situation?

A: Not without her letting go of the bitterness inside.

Session 18 July 2015 :

(L) So... Are you suggesting that, for example, if there are people who get infectious diseases that cause atherosclerosis, heart disease, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, or any of these so-called autoimmune diseases, that these diseases are not genetically caused as they have been saying for the last 50 or 60 years, but that perhaps they were designed for people who carry certain genetic markers in their DNA, which then get labeled as the causative gene? Is that what we're getting at here?

A: Very close indeed. There is also the "tinkering" that can take place.

Session 13 March 2021 :

(L) Deckard wants to know why he got cancer.

A: FRV.

Q: (Pierre) Entropic FRV?

A: Not "entropic" so much as negative internalizations.

Session 13 May 2023 :

(Z) Question relating to cancer treatment: is the guy who was working on the metabolic approach, i.e. glucose and glutamine restriction, onto something?

A: Yes.

Q: (Z) Is this a game changer?

A: For some.

Session 23 September 2023 :

Q: (Mrs. Peel) What is the optimum dosage of fenbendazole to help treat cancer and/or keep it in remission?

(Gaby) We have a thread about that on the forum, with the doses and things like that for everybody... It varies upon tolerance. Some people prefer to "go, go, go!". Others prefer to take a break. I think it varies.

Q: (L) Is Gaby right that it varies, and the person has to experiment individually?

A: Yes.

 

[Cruiseraurora]

Oh, I'll have to watch a lot of sessions. Then a relative of someone in the group died (Laura's relative?), a male. It's in the old sessions. I'll do a search. It wasn't about the causes of cancer. It was just asking how he was after the transition. Before he died he was getting painkillers, Laura asked about that, if it was good. Cass replied that it was OK. And added about a “good death”. I paid attention to that comment. Is there a problem with it?
Perhaps there are translation difficulties here. What I meant was that even though transition is ecstatic for the soul, but while I'm in the physical body the realization of death can worry me. Also, it might worry me if I'm doing well in my life. It's normal for any living person.

 

[Cruiseraurora]

In my language, good, excellent, beautiful are the same thing. I have a double translation going on. Is that word the only problem? Or did you not like my opinion on principle? Since I'm a psychologist, another person's anxiety has an explanation, as it does for me.

 

[Nienna]

Oh, I'll have to watch a lot of sessions. Then a relative of someone in the group died (Laura's relative?), a male. It's in the old sessions. I'll do a search. It wasn't about the causes of cancer. It was just asking how he was after the transition. Before he died he was getting painkillers, Laura asked about that, if it was good. Cass replied that it was OK. And added about a “good death”. I paid attention to that comment. Is there a problem with it?
Perhaps there are translation difficulties here. What I meant was that even though transition is ecstatic for the soul, but while I'm in the physical body the realization of death can worry me. Also, it might worry me if I'm doing well in my life. It's normal for any living person.

In my language, good, excellent, beautiful are the same thing. I have a double translation going on. Is that word the only problem? Or did you not like my opinion on principle? Since I'm a psychologist, another person's anxiety has an explanation, as it does for me.

The reason I ask about what are said in the sessions that I don't remember is that there have been, over the years, people who have mis-quoted the sessions and other believe what was mis-quoted when that was not what was said at all. So I try to confirm things I see that I don't remember the Cs as saying. And I do this frequently because we don't want there to be people thinking the Cs said something they didn't. My asking has nothing to do with the person or what was said, I just want to make sure that what was said was accurate.

Does this make sense to you?

 

[christx11]

The reason I ask about what are said in the sessions that I don't remember is that there have been, over the years, people who have mis-quoted the sessions and other believe what was mis-quoted when that was not what was said at all. So I try to confirm things I see that I don't remember the Cs as saying. And I do this frequently because we don't want there to be people thinking the Cs said something they didn't. My asking has nothing to do with the person or what was said, I just want to make sure that what was said was accurate.

Does this make sense to you?

The only reference I can find (this does not mean there is not another instance), was the recent session '27 August 2022' in regards to Jar's passing. Laura referred to Jar as 'brother jar' and that could be interpreted as Laura's brother but its meaning is actually comrade jar. There are references to passing while under the influence of drugs/pain medication. But there is nothing about it being good, excellent, beautiful.

===========================================================================
Session 27 August 2022
===========================================================================
(L) Alright. Okay, we want to ask if our brother jar had a smooth passing?

A: More or less as such things go.

Q: (L) Does that mean that there was difficulty in his passing?

A: Some

Q: (L) Why was there difficulty?

A: Drugs always cause such.

Q: (L) But in his situation and that of many other people, ya know, it's just too much suffering for them to endure without drugs.

A: Yes

Q: (L) So, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. What is he doing now?
===========================================================================

If this is what 'Cruiseraurora' is referring to then it is a good example of projecting to the forum members 'The C's said' - where that is not really what was said and it is how so many newbie's get misled what the C's sessions actually conveyed.

 

[Nienna]

The only reference I can find (this does not mean there is not another instance), was the recent session '27 August 2022' in regards to Jar's passing. Laura referred to Jar as 'brother jar' and that could be interpreted as Laura's brother but its meaning is actually comrade jar. There are references to passing while under the influence of drugs/pain medication. But there is nothing about it being good, excellent, beautiful.

Yes, that's the one I specifically went and looked at.

 

[Cruiseraurora]

The context of my post is that even though we already have some idea of what death is, it is inherently human to worry about it.
(In no way does this context distort the session materials)
There is a discussion of death and dying right here.

Descriptions of the "afterlife"/5th Density

Earlier in the thread, there was on May 4, 2022 How to Die, Dying 101 This is not about the afterlife, but about the period of transition. Many pages back there was: Curious if the booklet or book on "How to Die" mentioned above is still in the process of being written? I think it could be of...

cassiopaea.org

Session 3 May 2014
I mentioned this session (the translation is indeed slightly different here, but it doesn't change the context of my statement in any way)

Session 25 July 1998

A: How long did you expect to "live?"
Q: (L) Well, under the normal circumstance, 70 or 80 years, optimistically.
A: And is that long?
Q: (L) No, it is not. By cosmic standards it is a whiff of vapor. What are you getting at here?
A: Think about it. ? Have you had any contemporaries who transited to 5th density?
Q: (L) Yes.
A: How come? How can this be possible?
Q: (L) Because they died. The body died.
A: Why?
Q: (L) Because that is what bodies do.
A: But is it "fair?"
Q: (L) Is it fair?! I guess if that is what they choose.
A: And...
Q: (L) I don't know where you are going with this!
A: You seem to be under the impression that only "good” experiences are acceptable.
Q: (L) No, I am not under the impression that only good experiences are acceptable, but I AM in a little bit of a quandary here because, here we are talking to you guys who are supposed to be 'us' in the future. Here we are in this period of time on this planet, where things are in a very strange state. There is some kind of huge transition going on, and I am just wondering what is the whole point. Why are we talking to you? What's the point?
A: It is the lesson. Do you not understand still? The lesson, the lessons, that is all there is. They are all immeasurably valuable.
Q: (L) Okay, we are having these lessons. You have told us what is going on. We see it going on around us. I am convinced that what you have said is so from a LOT of other circumstantial evidence as well as the research of others who have come to the same conclusion and, DAMN IT, IT'S UGLY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?! IT'S UGLY!
A: That is your perspective.
Q: (L) Well, as Chloe said on the phone the other day, what are we supposed to awaken to? Are we supposed to just awaken to the fact that we can SEE all this stuff going on?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And just waking up and seeing it is the whole thing? Okay, once we wake up and SEE it, why can't we just check out at that point? If you know what the script is, you don't have to watch the movie!
A: But then you miss out on the experience.
Q: (L) So, we are all here to experience being munched and crunched...
A: No.
Q: (L) Imprisoned, controlled, being treated like rats in a cage in a laboratory...
A: Ecstasy, remember?
Q: (L) Ecstasy?! WELL SWELL! We can just ALL be BURNED AT THE STAKE! I understand that is QUITE an ECSTATIC experience! I'm sure William Wallace felt perfectly ecstatic when they castrated him and removed his bowels and burned them in a brazier in front of his face!
A: Not so long ago, your face smashed upon the pavement...
Q: (L) Was that an ecstatic experience?
A: Yes.

Despite the fact that death (if it's face against the sidewalk) is ecstatic, it is inherently human to worry!
Laura's emotional reaction is vivid here. And it's natural.

Once again.
Worrying about one's life and death is natural for a human being.
No distortion of context here!

***********
As for some unknown to me “people who have been here” who I have nothing to do with, and mentioning them in connection with me - those are the projections, your projections.
And an attempt to publicly discredit you.
As well as labeling.

You should apologize.

 

[Ricardo]

Foolishy living as a fool , what do you expect to meet :P , Aurora please don't bear your fangs , mercy meets same , spaceeba :)

 

[Aiming]

As for some unknown to me “people who have been here” who I have nothing to do with, and mentioning them in connection with me - those are the projections, your projections.
And an attempt to publicly discredit you.
As well as labeling.

You should apologize.

Actually, Nienna was trying to be helpful - helpful in a wider context.

As we've seen during the many years of this forum, a watering down or changing of what the C's have said, however unintentionally, has been happening many times. Who doesn't remember instances where our memory fails us to recollect things exactly as they were being said? So it's important to keep an eye out for that and make corrections if that happens. So that's the whole context of what Nienna did here and I think she explicated it very cleary here:

The reason I ask about what are said in the sessions that I don't remember is that there have been, over the years, people who have mis-quoted the sessions and other believe what was mis-quoted when that was not what was said at all. So I try to confirm things I see that I don't remember the Cs as saying. And I do this frequently because we don't want there to be people thinking the Cs said something they didn't. My asking has nothing to do with the person or what was said, I just want to make sure that what was said was accurate.

Does this make sense to you?

So there's no apology necessary, as this wasn't directed towards you personally, but it served the higher goal of making sure whether that is what the C's actually said.

So it might be good to look into why you've taken it personally when it wasn't.

 

[Ricardo]

Personal perspective , a few days ago i was listening ( linked by a forum member ) , to let it be, performed by aretha franklin , found myself crying , a personal win , "matter" of fact, STS gives us all that we want but , not . what we need.

 

[bozadi]

As for some unknown to me “people who have been here” who I have nothing to do with, and mentioning them in connection with me - those are the projections, your projections.
And an attempt to publicly discredit you.
As well as labeling.

You should apologize.

Cruiseraurora, does the bolded part above refer to the following? And is that the cause of your expectation for an apology (from me)?

My reactions might have been unnecessarily harsh. Sorry for that, Cruiseraurora and Hok.

If that's the case, then apparently you are resented for my mentioning you together with Hok? I might be misinterpreting the situation but if that's actually what you mean, then, can you please tell why? Is that because you tried to support Hok after my criticism of her statements, and then you were subjected to my further criticisms about her, but then Hok herself didn't say anything either about her own statements or about your support of her. Is that the situation here or I'm competely misinterpreting?

 

[bozadi]

I mean, if my above scenario is accurate, then it's Hok who should apologize you for failing to answer my criticisms of her and to thank you for your support of her.

 

[Cruiseraurora]

Foolishy living as a fool , what do you expect to meet :P , Aurora please don't bear your fangs , mercy meets same , spaceeba :)

You don't see the rudeness here? To whom are the words “stupid”, “fool”, “teeth”, etc. addressed?
“Teeth” is my argument? Or my self-respect?
Or that I consider premature and unfounded conclusions, labels and projections to be incorrect?
In my culture, it's considered an insult. And it is customary to apologize. But I don't insist if it's not customary in your culture.
Respect is at the heart of healthy communication.

bozadi said:
My reactions might have been unnecessarily harsh. Sorry for that, Cruiseraurora and Hok.

I found your comment to be correct and dignified and a show of respect, which makes me have mutual respect for you. Thank you.
(Whether you mention together or separately, I didn't pay attention).
I had no beef with you or reason to discuss this further. No, no, don't worry

 

[Ricardo]

In advance , begging for forgivness, 3x centered that human beings are , why are you asking to be met by what is unmet , bozadi ?, where both wolfs fight , where only one is fed , no "matter " where...

 

[bozadi]

Ricardo, maybe you write very important and beneficial things, but I often fail to comprehend them. If you write your explanations longer and more comprehendible for the sake of objectivity, so that your messages can be analyzed more easily and effectively, are you afraid that then people can find objectionable points in your messages? Maybe you believe that short cryptic statements help you become objection-proof?