Unless the respective missions were, individually, to stick together!
I thought about it some more after my double post and thought similar to the above, but didn’t want to triple post
The way I’d put it is, the respective missions (in the context of this idea of keeping the group together) would be doing our own, individual inner work that is unique to us, so that we can control ourselves, our emotions, our automatic reactions, our thought loops.
I think there’s a ‘multi-level’ aspect to this also. The point for me in the second post I made wasn’t AS much the fact that doing the Work so that we don’t break as a group was the important thing, but that what stood out to me, which might contradict my ‘stay together’ idea, was that the C’s said it was extremely difficult.
But I realise that I do not live at the château, and I have not had to go through everything you guys have over the years. But what would have happened if the chateau crew fell apart? Then the wider network would have fallen apart too. So the major part of the networking and discussing thoughts and feelings, and in the context of the quote about how ‘you are all important and have your individual missions’, may have been
primarily for the chateau, but it had wider and greater implications for the group as a whole.
Having said that, speaking personally, there have been three occasions when I ‘left’ the group. And the reasons for my leaving were always my emotional programming: fear, shame and embarrassment, frustration at what I was doing at the time and what I was not doing at the time, self-pity and self-loathing, self-destruct programming and despair, a lack of proper understanding of how things really were compared to how I thought they were, making mountains out of molehills.
All these things are the result of limiting emotions, subjectivity, a lack of networking. And so it’s all well and good for me to say, “Oh, staying together as a group sounds too simplistic. It can’t just be as simple as that.” But I speak from experience when I say that it is not at all simple.
Which leads me to another idea. There’s always been this ongoing topic with the C’s that they can’t tell Laura/the group what ‘the mission’ is. It would violate free will, etc.
If the mission is to stick together, and the C’s had said that from the beginning, then it wouldn’t have worked properly. The group would have stayed together just because the C’s said it, and would not have done the Work in the same way. The group would have stayed together for the wrong reasons, and not developed the proper modes of communication conducive for unity.
For example, let’s say one person had an issue with another. If they were stuck on the
belief that the group had to stay together at all costs, then they might have decided not to say anything, out of fear of causing a split; whereas, because the importance has been placed on networking, rather than the aim of staying together, then the networking has lead to the
result of staying together.