Life experiences represent interaction with "God"

[Shared Joy]

I think the idea that no act is evil in and of itself doesn't apply to us at this level. The idea that applies more directly here, I think, is that there IS good, there IS bad, and there is the specific situation which determines which is which, i.e. we have to choose. All of it is for the purpose of learning. Think of any experience or event as being displayed before a class on a projector screen, and each student being asked to pick answer A or B (or ask for more information first!).

Hi Joe and everybody,

I just reread the Session October 16, 1994 which is quite interesting in the light of current events.

Just to remain at the subject of suffering and perception and also the choice-action - which seems to be sort of a "neutralizing force" when it comes to decreasing tension, mitigate suffering and keep us advance,- here is this passage:

Q: (L) What do you mean "Challenge will be ecstasy"? What sort of challenge?

A: Living through the turmoil ahead.

Q: (L) Several books I have read have advised moving to rural areas and forming groups and storing food etc...

A: Disinformation. Get rid of this once and for all. That is 3rd level garbage.

Q: (L) We feel pretty helpless at the mercy of beings who can come in and feed off of us at will. Do we have someone on our side, pulling for our team, throwing us energy or something?

A: Who do you think you have been communicating with?

Q: (L) Are you going to be able to assist us through this turmoil?

A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are you going to?

A: Up to you.

Q: (L) If we call, can we get your assistance?

A: All you have to do is ask.

Q: (L) Will we go through any periods when we may be cut off from help?

A: You are never ever cut off.

Q: (L) Oh, I don't want to suffer!

A: You need not suffer. Stop thinking 3rd level.

Q: (L) I don't want anybody I love to suffer either. I don't want any pain. I've suffered enough!

A: You are stuck at 3rd level tonight.

Q: (L) It's not just that. There is so much disinformation you just don't know who to believe... I mean, how do we know we can believe you? There are so many sources out there deceiving and they do it so cleverly. Look at the Bible... for 2,000 years people have been believing that...

A: They deceive when you allow it.

Q: (L) I know you are supposed to take some things on faith... but, do you see my problem here?

A: Yes, but you don't.

Q: (L) What is my problem?

A: Mental block.

Q: (L) In the recent past you indicated that chapter 24 of Matthew and chapter 21 of Luke, were given by Jesus after his extended sleep state. Now, both of those chapters refer to the present time as being like the days of Noah. Is that a correct assessment?

A: In a sense and individual events are as yet undetermined.

Q: (L) Well, the story of Noah tells us that Noah was told to build an ark.

A: Symbolic.

Q: (L) Yet Noah built an ark. Was it true that certain individuals, whoever they were, built boats or did things to survive that terrible cataclysm?

A: No. Look at it this way. Noah built a boat because it seemed like an enjoyable enterprise and when the flood came it came in handy, see?

Q: (L) So, you are saying that if we do what we do because we enjoy it that we will be in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing when whatever happens happens, right?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Are you saying that we will be led to do what we should be doing and be where we should be?

A: You will just fall into it but if you force things you run the risk of going astray.

Well, I'll try to express what I understood: inspired joyful action could be the key to solving life situation. Even forcing preparedness and group forming is not an answer - there are natural ways that open up if one is in a receptive and aligned state of mind.

I think here applies this:

session 960811
Q: (L) So, desire to serve others, and to do something because it will help others, brings realization...
A: But, realization creates anticipation.
Q: (L) Well, how do we navigate this razor? I mean, this is like walking on a razor's edge. To control your mind to not anticipate, and yet, deal with realization, and yet, still maintain hope... (J) They said it was tricky... (L) This is, this is, um...
A: Mental exercises of denial, balanced with pure faith of a non prejudicial kind.
Q: (L) OK, so, in other words, to just accept what is at the moment, appreciate it as it is at the moment, and have faith that the universe and things will happen the way they are supposed to happen, without placing any expectation on how that will be?
A: Yes.

Also, there are not wasted efforts or experiences as long us I learn from them. What is a waste of energy ? Could be obsession, compulsion, anticipation, greed, self pity, and multiple other fears. As it was said before - "flex your muscles", be active, be aware, learn and apply it...and keep moving otherwise, when stuck in a repetitive pattern be it even a "proven method", you will be missing the opportunities (those gemstones stuck in the cracks of the road).

What I also see as a hindrance in personal evolution is the large offer of services of all kind meant to"solve" one's problems and put one to sleep, to put it mildly. And, during this sleep, one becomes suggestible...

FWIW

 

[sitting]

Why do we suffer?

Good question.

Here's the most direct answer I've come across (so far) in my investigations. It comes from Seth:

"You must be taught & trained to create responsibly. Yours is a training
system for emerging consciousness. The training will serve you for
existence in a variety of interrelated systems.

If the sorrows and agonies within your system were not felt as real,
the lessons would not be learned."

Seth can be wrong. But I think not ... as this essential concept is likewise reflected in Laura's personal signature. In a most poignant way.

FWIW.

 

[sitting]

As most of our deepest sufferings are often family & childhood related, this segment from Michael Newton's "Journey of Souls" may be pertinent:

"When clients tell me how much they suffered from actions of family, my
first question to their conscious mind is: 'If you had not been exposed
to this person as a child, what would you now lack in understanding?'

There are spiritual reasons for our being raised as children around certain
kinds of people, just as other people are designated to be near us as adults.

To know ourselves spiritually means understanding why we joined in life
with the souls of parents, siblings, spouses, and close friends. There's
usually some karmic purpose, for receiving pain or pleasure from someone
close to us.

Remember, along with learning our own lessons, we come to earth to play
a part in the drama of other' lessons as well."

What I get from the above, is that we really did choose our circumstances. There are deep prior agreements (made before birth.) And at the most intimate soul level, there really are no "accidents."

All the answers to all our questions -- do reside within.

I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[SeekinTruth]

I think that a lot of our concern about suffering is due to our anthropocentricity. We really are just puffs of smoke in an infinite Universe. Either we realize this and try to learn about it and align with its purposes, or we suffer without understanding.

"He who learns must suffer". If we start from nothing, and are allowed (through free will) to gain false knowledge (because free will enhances creation as seekingtruth said), and that knowledge becomes a part of our DNA, then the experience of unlearning certain things and replacing them with more objective truths, appears to be what we experience as suffering, and not just on an emotional and intellectual level, because even physical pain/suffering is learning in the same way. The 'insecurity' involved in letting go of something we have become used to, and adopting something new, is likewise experienced as suffering.

We are such creatures of habit that, as G said, we even will fight not to give up our suffering. I think Laura nailed it with the Castaneda excerpts and the fact that we are basically just a piece of meat to be eaten if we do not muster the necessary awareness of these facts. That's a really hard one for most people to understand and accept - even though they can intellectually understand that there's a food chain, and may even listen to someone under the right conditions tell them how unlikely it is that humans are at the top of that food chain.

But the thing that illustrates just how sedated/anesthetized we are is the one fact that humans can be 100% sure about - that the body will die within a relatively short time - is avoided like the plague. How weird is that? There is no way to avoid physical death, yet 99.99% of humans live as if it just ain't gonna happen to them. THAT'S a big part of the "terror of the situation" (another really big part being how much we've actually contributed to the system of deception and feeding in our ignorance).

Coming back to the monotheistic programming, I had the weirdest experience of freeing myself from that mindset in the late 1980's (I've described it before on the forum). First, I was never really religious, or read the Bible and been able to quote chapter and verse, etc. I was born Orthodox Christian, but other than when I was really young in Soviet Armenia and had a somewhat fascination with the whole spectacle of the church theatrics and incense, etc., I never really took the religion seriously at all. The attraction at the very young age when visiting church on special occasions may also have included a semi-unconscious awareness that it was unique in the Soviet Union to have such open "worship" going on - a forbidden fruit sort of thing (my father was totally not religious, he basically thought it (organized religion) was bunk, but embraced the cultural aspect of keeping church traditions because he was so anti-Soviet and shocked at how much of a culture change had happened in a short time).

But my conception of morality was still very subtly dominated by the monotheistic paradigm into my early 20's. Being completely freed from even the slack belief in any of it was as crazy painful as it was a huge relief. I still think about that after all these years and shake my head at what a mind job this whole Bible crap has been. I only started really reading the Bible at that time and was shocked at some of the material in it (including how obviously even following all commands by "Yahweh" had absolutely no bearing on outcomes, and the downright sadistic disposition of this "God"). Only after reading Laura's Wave series when I first found the Cass material, did the last pieces of the puzzle fall into place that the whole setup of the manipulation can only really be explained by the hyperdimensional overlords aspect, because even the most twisted, devious humans could not have enough knowledge and being to impose some of this kind of mind enslavement as what the monotheistic mind job has done.

For example, the whole issue of circumcision. How in heaven's name could people of that time know the effects of first circuit imprinting this would have for the lifetime of probably around 99.9% of those who would be subject to it. The demand for it is so precise as to have it done on the 8th day after birth. Just to give enough trust for the baby to shatter this trust with all the more devastating effect. There's just no way that came from human knowledge.

Anyway, the amount of influence the Bible has had on even those who have NEVER read it is just downright scary....

 

[luc]

Thanks SeekinTruth for your very interesting posts in this thread! As for this:

I can do thought experiments about even very extreme situations (that I've never actually experienced in life) such as killing someone can be an act of "good"/Service to Others (rather than inherently "evil"/Service to Self, as the Law of Three states that no action is "evil" in and of itself) in our 3D STS world, never mind things like lying or stealing, etc. So I can see where even killing can be the proper thing to do, and not be considered "evil" in certain situations. But I just haven't been able to apply the Law of Three in the case of rape. Just can't think of any situation where it's the situation that determines whether rape is "evil" or "good". It seems to be the only exception for me where I can only think of it as "evil".

Fwiw, I had similar thoughts a few times. I even tried to come up with scenarios where something like rape (or God forbid, child abuse) would be "good", but this leads to such sick thoughts that my mind refused to go any further. But I kind of came to the conclusion that while it's true that "there's good, bad and the situation which defines which is which", this doesn't mean that in our world, there aren't certain things that have a greater probability of being good or bad, or in other words: there are much more situations in which a certain action A is "good" than there are situations in which a certain action B is good. So in the case of rape, the likelihood that it is bad is so extremely high that we probably can forget the rest and just say "rape is bad". This is my current understanding at least...

 

[SeekinTruth]

Thanks SeekinTruth for your very interesting posts in this thread! As for this:

I can do thought experiments about even very extreme situations (that I've never actually experienced in life) such as killing someone can be an act of "good"/Service to Others (rather than inherently "evil"/Service to Self, as the Law of Three states that no action is "evil" in and of itself) in our 3D STS world, never mind things like lying or stealing, etc. So I can see where even killing can be the proper thing to do, and not be considered "evil" in certain situations. But I just haven't been able to apply the Law of Three in the case of rape. Just can't think of any situation where it's the situation that determines whether rape is "evil" or "good". It seems to be the only exception for me where I can only think of it as "evil".

Fwiw, I had similar thoughts a few times. I even tried to come up with scenarios where something like rape (or God forbid, child abuse) would be "good", but this leads to such sick thoughts that my mind refused to go any further. But I kind of came to the conclusion that while it's true that "there's good, bad and the situation which defines which is which", this doesn't mean that in our world, there aren't certain things that have a greater probability of being good or bad, or in other words: there are much more situations in which a certain action A is "good" than there are situations in which a certain action B is good. So in the case of rape, the likelihood that it is bad is so extremely high that we probably can forget the rest and just say "rape is bad". This is my current understanding at least...

Yeah, I'd have to totally agree. The thing is that killing someone is so much easier to understand how it can be justified in the right situations - even beyond personal self-defense which is a legal justification, but we're talking about much more than man-made laws here. And obviously, killing should be avoided if at all possible, no matter the situation, if the best outcome can be found without killing involved. But rape is such a violation - so completely and totally against free will - that no justification in a 3rd Density perspective can comprehend or justify it, it seems. I've read somewhere that murder is the killing of the body, whereas rape is the murder of the soul. I think that's a very good description.

 

[Windmill knight]

Thanks SeekinTruth for your very interesting posts in this thread! As for this:

I can do thought experiments about even very extreme situations (that I've never actually experienced in life) such as killing someone can be an act of "good"/Service to Others (rather than inherently "evil"/Service to Self, as the Law of Three states that no action is "evil" in and of itself) in our 3D STS world, never mind things like lying or stealing, etc. So I can see where even killing can be the proper thing to do, and not be considered "evil" in certain situations. But I just haven't been able to apply the Law of Three in the case of rape. Just can't think of any situation where it's the situation that determines whether rape is "evil" or "good". It seems to be the only exception for me where I can only think of it as "evil".

Fwiw, I had similar thoughts a few times. I even tried to come up with scenarios where something like rape (or God forbid, child abuse) would be "good", but this leads to such sick thoughts that my mind refused to go any further. But I kind of came to the conclusion that while it's true that "there's good, bad and the situation which defines which is which", this doesn't mean that in our world, there aren't certain things that have a greater probability of being good or bad, or in other words: there are much more situations in which a certain action A is "good" than there are situations in which a certain action B is good. So in the case of rape, the likelihood that it is bad is so extremely high that we probably can forget the rest and just say "rape is bad". This is my current understanding at least...

Yeah, I'd have to totally agree. The thing is that killing someone is so much easier to understand how it can be justified in the right situations - even beyond personal self-defense which is a legal justification, but we're talking about much more than man-made laws here. And obviously, killing should be avoided if at all possible, no matter the situation, if the best outcome can be found without killing involved. But rape is such a violation - so completely and totally against free will - that no justification in a 3rd Density perspective can comprehend or justify it, it seems. I've read somewhere that murder is the killing of the body, whereas rape is the murder of the soul. I think that's a very good description.

The reason why rape is always evil might be a matter of semantics. That is, because rape is violently forcing sex upon someone who does not want it, which is a very specific situation that already includes the evil aspect in it. It already has the 'third force' implied in the definition. It would be like saying "could killing unjustly ever be just?" Or, "could terrorism ever be good?". No, because if you were to believe that your 'terrorism' was good, you would call it 'freedom fighting' instead.

Having sex, however, as a more basic concept, does follow the rule of three. Depending on the circumstances it can be as different as heaven and hell.

On an emotional level, I have to agree that rape is one of the worst crimes that humanity has ever come up with, particularly when the victim is a child. :(

 

[neema]

I've read somewhere that murder is the killing of the body, whereas rape is the murder of the soul. I think that's a very good description.

If you let it.

Rape, is one of the heavier lessons of the physical world.

I will also admit I have struggled with the concept myself.

But I have noticed do to its effect on peoples fear, it is used quite often as a source of propaganda. In my opinion if everything in this world is a symbol of something higher, when you look deeply at rape, it is nothing more than an extreme form of feeding.

When we look at it from our limited perspective, we may want to label it according to our understanding. But isn’t this what this whole thread is about?

Life experiences representing interaction with "God".
Suffering leading to enlightenment.

If all there is are lessons, it seems to me that this too is chosen at a higher level. IMO, in the end it is the choices and what we do after the "suffering" event that make us who we become.

The following is a great example of three inspirational women who took “ownership” of the experience and became stronger for it. (a little warning, if you struggle with this, the descriptions may be upsetting)
__http://www.contributoria.com/issue/2015-05/54f6cee36bc9f0cf75000026/_

Some lessons that I can see from the stories above: awareness, speaking out, forgiveness, fear and strength of the soul.

“What you fear the most will meet you halfway”
Pearl Jam - Crazy Mary
Modify message

 

[number six]

Life experiences represent interaction with "God"......or everything is symbolic of greater meaning and it is personal pov or judgment that determines the individuals relationship towards it.

If, as was said, "murder is the killing of the body, whereas rape is the murder of the soul" then could it be that rape is the validation for humanity of its misunderstood collective belief in its powerlessness? Seeing it in that light from that perspective does not justify rape nor condone it in anyway, but it does allow one to see it as having greater meaning.

What if mankind's interaction with God is teaching it (mankind) the ultimate lesson of judgment, and understanding rape as an interaction with God is the final lesson before humanity realizes it has created the separation itself by identifying with its human form.

Unless of course 'you' believe that 'sh!t happens' and thus believe in victimization. Then there is not much more to say except

"...........................................LIFE EXPERIENCES REPRESENT INTERACTION WITH "GOD" *................................................... "

but then you need to ask yourself, does "God" use asterisks?

 

[Bar Kochba]

My thought process is aligned with Laura's on this matter. I notice that many people speak of "God" as if "God" is divine, or a deity, or that "God" actually exists in a factual sense. The more I learn, the more I see this is probably not the case. Why do we feel the need for a "God?" Why do we feel the need for an "afterlife?" I think that these things are possible, but I myself have never experienced anything concrete to cause me to believe these theories 100%. I've never seen a miracle that couldn't be explained, I've never seen a UFO, I've never had a paranormal experience. And this is not for lack of willingness.

I realize that just because I personally haven't experienced anything along these lines does not mean these things do not exist; I simply prefer to work mostly with what I know and what makes sense to my level of understanding. Wishful thinking has gotten me into so much trouble in the past that I recoil from it as if I were touching a hot stove.

Does the title of this thread imply that interacting in certain ways with "God" may gain or lose favor with said "God," thus providing motivation for "believers" to act a certain way?

 

[Joe]

Does the title of this thread imply that interacting in certain ways with "God" may gain or lose favor with said "God," thus providing motivation for "believers" to act a certain way?

To a certain extent, yes.

 

[Kisito]

Hello to all my sisters and my brothers future Cassiopaeans.
I tried to post in the idea of ​​fantasy and the impact of suffering.
This is a reflection, not an affirmation, and this is not a belief. Maybe my thoughts are far from the truth, but this text seemed appropriate.
Reading the latest interesting topics on Joe suffering, and Laura, the session of 6 November 1994 on the sexual energy, I thought I could raise my reflections, that unite the desire and suffering.
I hope my explanations are not too convoluted, and not too perceived as presumptuous. There is a French translation at the end of the text.
- I came to the idea that fantasy is the birth of our repressed emotions. This delivery will evacuate by different media. The major media would seem to be, speech, Cree, writing, art, reflection, thought, dream, sweat, tears, urine, fecal matter, spermatozoid, oocyte, and childbirth .
In the concept of fantasy, I have listed two main areas, the Desire and the "to want" or Envy, I do not know exactly the right translation in English. :
1. Desire: it has a character unconscious, strongly linked to our karma / past / genetic / "4D STS" (psycho-genetic program). We can name the male . He always goes forward like a jet. When we become aware of desire, we enter the stage of libido. This powerful energy of desire, and often associated with sexual energy, but I consider it as a semantic shift. It can be named because she is unconscious, but become conscious, it could be called "psyche".
2. Envy/Want: it has a conscious, intellectual, strongly linked to the future. We can appoint female . Envy is a mixture of our ego, our mind and our source "STO 4D, 6D, 7D" (our free will, our will, our psyche). But the source or mental depend on the ego. Envy/Want is always suit the desire as a couple. Envy/Want would be an interconnection between our ego and our mind.
The fantasy is the interaction (the meeting) between desire and envy/Want. The desire receives the desires, the desire directs our fantasies. Our Ego seems to be a reflection of our fantasies.
In the demo below for convenience or clarity, I associated "source" to the mind. There will be three main factors: the desire, the mind (source), and the Ego.
I have listed twelve combinations possible, to show twelve types of fantasies. With these twelve categories of fantasies, I assumed that there might be twelve types of people. This is only my opinion, and I would be very interested to see if you have suggestions.
"Tell me what fantasy you have, and I'll tell you who you are."
A) fantasy setting where envy (want) and desire are of equal proportion. Type 1-4:
1st type ( Want=Desire). A person who has a lot of ego and little mental, will have a chance to be dominant and male fantasies.
2nd type ( Want=Desire). A person who has a lot of ego and a lot of mental, will tend to be haughty. It respects the order and power.
3rd kind ( Want=Desire). A person who has little ego and a lot of mental, will tend to be fearful, disgusted, and just submitted.
4th kind ( Want=Desire). A person who has little ego and little mind will tend to follow the shepherd, without asking any question and without rebelling.
B) fantasy setting where desire is above envy. Type 5-8:
5th-type (Desire <Want). A person who has a lot of ego and little mental, will be very dominant and very male fantasies. Perhaps a "p.o.".
6th kind (Desire <Want). A person who has a lot of ego and a lot of mental, will tend to be Machiavellian, perverse narcissist.
7th kind (Desire <Want). A person who has little ego and a lot of mental, will tend to be sado-masochism.
8th-type (Desire <Want). A person who has little ego and little mind will tend to follow their interests and pleasures.
C) Framework fantasy where the desire is greater than the desire. 9-12 Type:
9th-type (Want <Desire). A person who has a lot of ego and little mental, will be recognition of fantasies. They can be found among the fanatics.
10th types (Want <Desire). A person who has a lot of ego and a lot of mental. This category seems difficult, because I feel that it is at this stage that the way to "4DSTS" or "4DSTO" splits. We find in these categories psychopath envy and envy empathetic. These two categories of the type 10, have much knowledge. I do not know exactly what would make the difference in choice? Perhaps their karma or the fact that it is a "PO"? Compassion and guilt will tend to suffer that trying to go to the "STO". This move towards the "STO" are writers, artists, thinkers, researchers truths. The path of "STS" are the elite psychopaths.
11th types (Want <Desire). A person who has little ego and a lot of mental, will tend to be spiritual and full of wisdom. It can be a lonely or be a spiritual guide.
12th types (Want <Desire). A person who has little ego and little mind will tend to be selfish, and let go, but an opportunity to be a "PO".
This description can be very controversial, but it is a tentavive to explain the consequences of fantasy.
This seems to join Laura in the subject on libido: it says that we should direct our fantasies (libido) to good deeds. I think so too, but it is not easy to cope with the harmful power of our karma ... The Envy/To want is everything, but our Envy/To want is often led by our ego, when it should be directed our mind (our source).
Envy home runs and fantasies based on his spiritual level.
I spoke of the danger of the category of "Type 10". Because it seemed to be a point of separation and choice between "STS" and "STO". We see that this "Type 10" is located in the frame C, where the Envy/To want is greater than the Desire. This not only means that the mind and the ego are powerful, but that desire is diminished. If the desire has decreased, it is also the libido decreased. Also, as "Type 10" has a strong ego, he will wish to recover lost sensations. The addiction he feels, may tend to develop perverse scenarios. The other in the "Type 10" are also subject to addiction, they will at first feel guilty to have "unhealthy" fantasies, and will "accept" the decreased libido, to redirect sexual energy ( male and femal).
The "acceptance" would reduce our ego, and we would head to a source-mind.
We suffer because of too full of knowledge that we do not understand, and we do not want to repress.
Suffering is a strong belief developed by our knowledge, and directed by our ego.
It would be enough to melt down our ego, that suffering ceases. This seems very difficult, because the ego is in proportion to our ignorance. We have beliefs based on illusions. Illusions are proof of our ignoring.
So to lessen our suffering, we must stop believing, and to stop believing we must learn not to believe. Learning without faith leads us to the KNOWLEDGE and knowledge would reduce our egocentric level. Believe that we should not believe is also a belief. It should not protect its opinion of an egocentric point of view, but do not be afraid to assert his thoughts because it would underline that we fear the judgment of others. If we fear the judgment of others is that we attach importance to our ego.
So the paradox is that the more we rise in knowledge and we are prey to suffering, but we seem nearest the final delivery.
I think I am "type 10 STO". I try to put these principles to my own person, but I find that I can not rid myself of the beliefs of programs that make me suffer.
I think to erase the ego to the maximum, we must eradicate the roots of our own identity. You must not believe that we are primarily a male or female, white or black, a worker or a boss, a country, a nation, an ethnic group or a family. Because believe, it leads us to an identification, and thus an affiliation, and protection of this identification, and if one attacks what one considers "our integrity," we avenge. But explain to a person's race, his people, his family and his sexuality is "nothing," we would fall under the defamation and perhaps ostracism. People are not prepared that their say what they believed, has no real value. The identification we used for comparison, and the comparison gives us our level value. The level of value creates jealousy. So the real question of the acceptance, it would not accept the difference, but to deny its existence! deny its existence linked to its 3D identification (male, female, etc.) Our social and cultural identification us blind. The error hurt us.
Jealousy is spreading negative energy. Accept differences is to accept the negative energies. It's not good.
Deny the existence of differences, it's harmonize energies.
Accept or not accept, is believing. Believe, it is the illusion, the illusion is suffering.
Refuse to believe in identification in the difference, is not in duality, contradiction and suffering. This seems to be not suffering. I am "All", I mean is "nothing".
Also the "Nothing" is not pejorative, but embrace all things. things are only the fractures and distortions "Nothing." The "Nothing" would be the harmony of all things. All things are fracture, duality, confrontation, struggle, and suffering. "Everything," God or "Nothing" would be unity.
Suffering is therefore the refusal to unite, and the desire to keep his little identity.

French translation
Boujour à tous mes soeurs et mes frères, futurs Cassiopéens.
J'ai essayé d'écrire sur l'idée du fantasme et sur les répercussions de la souffrance.
Ceci est une réflexion, ce n'est pas une affirmation, et ce n'est pas une croyance. Peut-être que mes réflexions sont éloignées de la vérité, mais ce texte m'a semblé opportun.
En lisant les derniers sujets très intéressants de Joe sur la souffrance, et de Laura, sur la session du 6 novembre 1994, sur l'énergie sexuelle, j'ai pensé que je pouvais évoquer mes réflexions, qui unissent le désir et la souffrance.
J'espère que mes explications se seront pas trop alambiquées, et pas trop perçues comme présomptueuses.
- Je suis venu à l'idée que le fantasme est l'accouchement de nos émotions refoulées. Cet accouchement s'évacuerait par différents supports. Les principaux supports sembleraient être, la parole, le cri, l'écrit, l'art, la réflexion, la pensée, le rêve, la sueur, les larmes, l'urine, matière fécale, spermatozoïde, ovocyte, et l'enfantement.
Dans la notion du fantasme, j'ai répertorié deux grands axes :
1. Le désir : il a un caractère inconscient, fortement lié à notre karma/passé/génétique/"4D STS"(programme psycho-génétique). Nous pouvons le nommer masculin "positif". Il va toujours de l'avant, comme un jet. Quand nous prenons conscience du désir, nous rentrons dans le stade de la libido. Cette puissante énergie du désir, et souvent associée à l'énergie sexuelle, mais je peux la considérer comme un glissement sémantique. Elle peut être nommée ainsi, parce qu'elle est inconsciente, mais devenue consciente, elle pourrait se nommer "psyché".
2. L'envie : elle a un caractère conscient et intellectuel, fortement lié au futur. Nous pouvons la nommer féminin "négatif". L'envie est un mélange de notre Ego, de notre mental et de notre source "STO 4D, 6D, 7D", (notre libre arbitre, notre volonté, notre psyché). Mais la source ou le mental sont tributaires de l'Ego. L'envie s'emboite toujours au désir comme un couple. L'envie serait donc une interconnexion entre notre Ego et notre mental.

Le fantasme serait l'interaction (la rencontre) entre le désir et l'envie. L'envie reçoit les désirs, l'envie dirige nos fantasmes. Notre Ego semble être le reflet de nos fantasmes.
Dans la démonstration ci-dessous, pour plus de facilité ou de clarté, j'ai associé "la source" au mental. Il y aura donc trois facteurs principaux : le désir, le mental (source), et l'Ego.
J'ai répertorié douze combinaisons possible, afin de montrer douze types de fantasmes. Avec ces douze catégories de fantasmes, j'ai supposé qu'il pouvait y avoir douze types de personnes. Ceci n'engage que moi, et je serais vivement intéressé de voir si vous avez des suggestions.
"Dis-moi quel fantasme tu as, et je te dirais qui tu es."


A) Cadre du fantasme où l'envie et le désir sont de proportion égale. Types 1-4 :

1er type (Envie=Désir). Une personne qui a beaucoup d'Ego et peu de mental, aura une probabilité à avoir des fantasmes dominateurs et masculins.

2ème type (Envie=Désir). Une personne qui a beaucoup d'Ego et beaucoup de mental, aura tendance à être hautaine. Elle respecte l'ordre et le pouvoir.

3ème type (Envie=Désir). Une personne qui a peu d'Ego et beaucoup de mental, aura tendance à être craintive, révoltée, et un peu soumise.

4ème type (Envie=Désir). Une personne qui a peu d'Ego et peu de mental, aura tendance à suivre le berger, sans se poser de question et sans se révolter.

B) Cadre du fantasme où le désir est supérieur à l'envie. Type 5-8 :

5ème type (Désir<Envie). Une personne qui a beaucoup d'Ego et peu de mental, aura des fantasmes très dominateurs et très masculins. Peut-être un "P.O".

6ème type (Désir<Envie). Une personne qui a beaucoup d'Ego et beaucoup de mental, aura tendance à être machiavélique, pervers narcissique.

7ème type (Désir<Envie). Une personne qui a peu d'Ego et beaucoup de mental, aura tendance à être sado-masochisme.

8ème type (Désir<Envie). Une personne qui a peu d'Ego et peu de mental, aura tendance à suivre ses intérêts et ses plaisirs.

C) Cadre du fantasme où l'envie est supérieure au désir. Type 9-12 :

9ème type (Envie<Désir). Une personne qui a beaucoup d'Ego et peu de mental, aura des fantasmes de reconnaissance. On peut les trouver chez les fanatiques.

10ème type (Envie<Désir). Une personne qui a beaucoup d'Ego et beaucoup de mental. Cette catégorie me semble délicate, car j'ai l'impression, que c'est à ce stade que le chemin vers "4DSTS" ou "4DSTO" se divise. On trouve dans ces catégories, l'envie psychopathe et l'envie empathique. Ces deux catégories du type 10, ont beaucoup de connaissances. Je ne sais pas exactement ce qui ferait la différence de choix? Peut-être leur karma ou le fait que ce soit un "PO" ? La compassion et la culpabilité aura tendance à faire souffrir ce qui tentent d'aller vers le "STO". Ce qui se dirigent vers le "STO" sont des écrivains, des artistes, des penseurs, des chercheurs de vérités. Le chemin des "STS" sont l'élite des psychopathes.

11ème type (Envie<Désir). Une personne qui a peu d'Ego et beaucoup de mental, aura tendance à être spirituelle et remplie de sagesse. Elle peut être un solitaire ou être un guide spirituelle.

12ème type (Envie<Désir). Une personne qui a peu d'Ego et peu de mental, aura tendance à être égoïste, et se laisser aller, mais possibilité d'être un "PO".

Cette description peut être très contreversée, mais c'est une tentavive pour expliquer les conséquences du fantasme.
Cela semble rejoindre Laura, dans le sujet sur la libido: elle explique qu'il faille diriger nos fantasmes (libido) vers de bonnes actions. Je le crois aussi, mais il n'est pas facile de faire face à la puissance nocive de notre karma... L'envie fait toute chose, mais notre envie est trop souvent dirigée par notre Ego, alors qu'elle devrait être dirigée par notre mental (notre source).

L'envie dirige et accueil ses fantasmes en fonction de son niveau spirituel.

J'ai parlé du danger de la catégorie du "type 10". Car elle semblait être un point de séparation et de choix entre "STS" et "STO". Nous voyons que ce "type 10", est situé dans le Cadre C, là où l'envie est supérieure au désir. Cela ne signifie pas seulement que le mental et l'Ego sont puissants, mais que le désir est diminué. Si le désir a diminué, c'est aussi que la libido a diminué. Aussi, comme ce "type 10" a un fort Ego, il va souhaiter retrouver ses sensations perdues. L'addiction qu'il éprouve, peut avoir tendance à développer des scénarios pervers. D'autre dans ce "type 10" sont aussi sujet à une addiction, ils vont dans un premier temps culpabiliser d'avoir des fantasmes "malsains", puis vont "accepter" la diminution de la libido, pour rediriger l'énergie sexuelle (mâle et femelle).
"L'acceptation" ferait diminuer notre Ego, et nous dirigerait vers un mental-source.
Nous souffrons à cause d'un trop plein de connaissances que nous ne comprenons pas, et dont nous ne voulons pas refouler.
La souffrance serait une forte croyance développée par nos connaissances, et dirigé par notre Ego.
Il suffirait de faire disparaître notre ego, afin que la souffrance cesse. Cela semble très difficile, car l'Ego est proportionnel à notre ignorance. Nous avons des croyances en fonction de nos illusions. Les illusions sont la preuve de notre ignorance.
Donc pour diminuer notre souffrance, nous devons arrêter de croire, et pour arrêter de croire nous devons apprendre sans croire. L'apprentissage sans croyance nous amène vers la connaissance, et la connaissance ferait diminuer notre niveau égocentrique. Croire qu'il ne faut pas croire est également une croyance. Il ne faudrait pas protéger son opinion d'un point de vue égocentrique, mais il ne faut pas non plus avoir peur d'affirmer ses pensées, car cela soulignerait que nous craignons le jugement d'autrui. Si nous craignons le jugement d'autrui, c'est que nous attachons de l'importance à notre Ego.

Aussi le paradoxe, est que plus nous nous élevons dans la connaissance, et plus nous sommes en proie à la souffrance, mais plus nous semblons proche la délivrance finale.

Je pense être de "type 10 STO". J'essaie de mettre ces principes à ma propre personne, mais je constate que je n'arrive pas à me défaire des programmes de croyances qui me font souffrir.
Je pense que pour effacer l'Ego au maximum, il faut éradiquer les racines de notre propre identité. Il ne faut plus croire en priorité que nous sommes une femme ou un homme, un blanc ou une noire, un ouvrier ou une patronne, un pays, une nation, une éthnie ou une famille. Car croire à cela, nous conduit à une identification, et donc à une appartenance, et à une protection de cette identification, et si l'on agresse ce que l'on considère comme "notre intégrité", nous nous vengeons. Mais expliquer à une personne que sa race, son peuple, sa famille et sa sexualité ne représente "rien", cela tomberait sous le coup de la diffamation et peut-être de l'ostracisme. Les gens ne sont pas préparés qu'on leurs disent que ce à quoi ils croyaient, n'a pas de véritable valeur. L'identification nous sert de comparaison, et la comparaison nous donne notre niveau de valeur. Le niveau de valeur engendre la jalousie. Aussi la vrai question sur l'acceptation, ce ne serait pas d'accepter la différence, mais de refuser son existence !
Jalouser une personne, c'est diffuser des énergies négatives. Accepter la différence, c'est accepter les énergies négatives.
Refuser l'existence des différences, harmoniserait les énergies.
Accepter ou ne pas accepter, c'est croire. Croire c'est l'illusion, l'illusion c'est la souffrance.
Refuser de croire à l'identification dans la différence, c'est ne plus être dans la dualité, la contradiction et la souffrance. Je suis "Tout", signifierait je suis "Rien".
Aussi le "Rien" ne serait pas péjoratif, mais embrasseraient toutes choses. Les choses ne seraient que les fractures et les distorsions du "Rien". Le "Rien" serait l'harmonie de toutes les choses. Toutes les choses représentent la fracture, la dualité, la confrontation, la lutte, et la souffrance. "Tout", Dieu ou "Rien", seraient l'Unité.
La souffrance serait donc le refus de s'unir, et le désir de garder sa petite identité.

 

[happyliza]

Reading the new posts in this thread the last couple of days and thinking about it all, I think the problem again comes back to the human condition not being conducive to seeing above one's own level (we can't see things completely as they really are). We can only approximate objectivity, but our subjectivity is still present to one degree or another. So our suffering seems to be part and parcel of our subjectivity which is inherent to being a 3 Density Service to Self being.

Since so much interesting points were made and relevant quotes were posted, I think it might help to just repeat some previous discussions on the forum. I think there is a "muddying of the waters" that can come into play from the monotheistic nonsense that has influenced everyone. The point being that there IS no all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good "God". And being influenced by such nonsense increases suffering because it leads to totally unrealistic expectations, disappointments, and feelings/resentments about "unfairness." It all goes back to the ideas of Gurdjieff about "World Creation and World Maintenance" (even if G's teachings may be less than 100% accurate, as well) - that it all must follow certain laws, and each "World lower from the 'Absolute'" becomes more and more mechanical and subject to more and more order of laws (until "inanimate matter" where the level of consciousness is so low that everything is dictated by mechanical physical laws - the level of freedom/free will approaching nil). Much of this was covered really well in the excerpt from High Strangeness that Chu posted. But the point I wanted to add is that besides the Thought Centers of Being and Non-Being, there are very real limits to the processes of Creation in terms of what is viable. Chance and Free Will are absolutely necessary for the processes of "World Creation and World Maintenance", I think. And once these are introduced into the "process of Creation" to make possible all that is then manifested, so to speak, the limitations and suffering come into existence by necessity or by default, as well.

If, as our working hypothesis posits, that in the multilevel Universe - the different Densities - the creative energies, so to say, come DOWN and create the material world from consciousness and the transmission of information, then it really clarifies for me G's statements about the evolutionary process becoming more and more conscious, and the involutionary process starting out consciously and becoming more and more mechanical at each step lower. So I think the suffering we experience is just inherent in all this - the more subjective and mechanical the less options of avoiding what we consider to be suffering (which is real for our level). Free will allowing all kinds of suffering to be imposed on others added to all that, just increases the potential for suffering even more.

Going back to the Law of Three. Having thought about all these kinds of things for a long time, the thing I've been stumped the most by is applying the Law of Three to different circumstances just to sharpen the sense of what actions are "evil" or "good" AKA Service to Self or Service to Others in what situations. I can do thought experiments about even very extreme situations (that I've never actually experienced in life) such as killing someone can be an act of "good"/Service to Others (rather than inherently "evil"/Service to Self, as the Law of Three states that no action is "evil" in and of itself) in our 3D STS world, never mind things like lying or stealing, etc. So I can see where even killing can be the proper thing to do, and not be considered "evil" in certain situations. But I just haven't been able to apply the Law of Three in the case of rape. Just can't think of any situation where it's the situation that determines whether rape is "evil" or "good". It seems to be the only exception for me where I can only think of it as "evil". Even having thought of Karma and planning of life lessons, etc., I just can't seem to wrap my mind around it; which only reinforces my feeling that we just can't really grasp certain things from "higher" perspectives. We see through a glass darkly, as it were. That's part of my confusion about how suffering serves a purpose, for what it's worth. I can understand and apply a philosophical outlook to some situations, but not all. Just doesn't seem to make the same amount of sense in certain circumstances, such as the example of rape. I can only say that I can't get my human mind to understand from a level where it all makes sense equally....

I agree with you about the 'rape' scenarios. The only thing I can point out on this is that the idea of free will. Now saying that - I too find it difficult to accept. But the perpetrator abridged somebody's free will but had his 'free-will'. The only thing I can say about the 'victim' is that either it is karmic and that even maybe the rape victim had done something to the perpetrator in a previous life - which can be stretching it a bit. Or, from books I studied as a spiritist about life in 'the next world' - it seems - and this is hos 'aliens abduct and double cross people for their 'acceptance' - it seems that in the etheric world (and I was warned about this in my OBE training - which thankfully I did not fulfil the practical) entities can pose, as they do here, as anything in order to 'steal energy' have 'sexual' encounters etc. In etheric we can 'become anything' we wish to be. And there are always deceivers!

So FWIW the only explanation that I can come up with is AWARENESS. DISCERNMENT and that the person who was raped did not possess that in enough vigilance at the time. Thus it was a painful 'lesson' for the rape 'victim' . I cannot though posit the same for attacks on children by paedophiles, though I think a similar 'past' karmic equation may go some way to understanding it - if we have to be as objective as we can. We do not know the big picture, people's pasts etc. But even reviewing the situation of the karmic lessons of the black african and their suffering this life, we could never have guessed 100% without the C's explaining this to us.

So can this also be 'love' in a very disguised way to our narrow vision. Like the murderer, or your child that dies prematurely? How many people could be 'brave enough in 5D to actually agree - if they loved you so much - and were in your same soul group - to murder you, or cause you suffering - eg by dying as your child?, if it wasn't for the lessons that you needed. I cannot agree that in this instance 'learning is fun' unless one is aware of the bigger picture at the time of suffering (which I doubt would be the case if you needed the lesson), BUT that COULD you see it later, as the lesson that you needed. Then that would be the greatest love, the greatest 'sacrifice'? And that evil/love is purely 'perception'. Knowing we are eternal and not just 3d entities. There are so many variations/machinations on this one element that because of the 'veil' we just cannot fully comprehend. But we DO know that there are NO mistakes in the Universe - per se, so as the well coined phrase goes 'ours is not to reason why -but to DO and die'. But saying that - it is a good question for the C's if they can explain easily cos I feel there are too many variants for just one explanation.

I would certainly like more info on this. We also have the 'suffering' of all the children missing in EU and being abused - and since we can recall - the whole of our past on this planet. Which then brings in the 4DSTS feeding too. Which will also have a lot to do with this. How to cattle feel about the mutilations -same as humanity does. Perverse world is an understatement. I feel your 'pain' on this, especially having had to undergo the 'experience' myself.

 

[happyliza]

In pondering this inspirational post (another good one, Joe ~ Thanks!!), during my drive into work this morning, these thoughts below came flowing through in a kind of "stream of consciousness":

If awareness for us were more open, namely to the extent that full transparency exists, with no barriers to objectivity, and full capability to not only instantaneously code/decode signals-messages-communication-information but also to know and transmit via a telepathic link (pineal?), then dancing with Universe would be much more sublime. And therefore much of what we normally experience that produces/induces our suffering would perhaps be nonexistent or more fleeting...

But, just think how grand it would be if this state of awareness is not only achievable but also awaiting us (at least at some turn of the Grand Cycle). Indeed, maybe this is what the C’s intimated regarding their message of a “level playing field” existing for those graduating into 4th Density?

With the above in mind then, maybe the role of suffering is more a function of objectivity barriers (awareness blind spots?), including the inclination to experience amnesia regarding our true history (non-remembrance of past/future lives, for instance). In other words, the less we know and see, the greater the potential for suffering.

Through our efforts (work), we suffer struggles and pains along the way, but as we apply our ever expanding knowledge base and, step by step, sometimes falling but steadfastly pushing onward, more and more awareness and creativity comes to us, trickles and flows through us (osit), and big opportunities for growth presenting as extreme challenges , first interpreted and experienced as major hurdles and stressors, can eventually be seen with hindsight as precious treasures…

But, as we move onward and upward, it may be that we are better equipped to receive and assimilate denser information loads (receivership capability increase) that in turn may prepare us for major changes in state (quantum leap to an elevated density as a function of higher awareness based on enhanced receivership)…

Likewise, as we know and see more objectively, we gain greater momentum towards more masterful free will action by way of clear seeing (perspicacity) and accurate decision-making that helps propel us in a progressive trajectory into fields of greater Being and Creativity.

With an awareness increasingly unencumbered by coding/decoding impediments and encountered deceptions more easily cognizable and known, our courses are therefore more easily directed/corrected, and therefore our heightened navigation skills permit greater latitude in minimizing or averting other dangers…

But regardless, some suffering still remains by way of our empathetic link to others still ensconced in sleepiness, mechanization, denial, limited knowledge and awareness, etc … in other words, as our brothers and sisters suffer, since, at our sacred roots we are all connected in Universal Being , we as compassionate relations, suffer with them…

FWIW Leòmhann I could not agree more. I may well be very limited in my current perception but what I have tried to deduce about 4D i that is WILL be a more level playing field. As you say because of Telepathy. And this may well happen here first, and maybe was our state here before the 'fall' and everything we 'lost'. Telepathy allows everyone to know what everyone else is thinking. That means that before you even encounter someone face to face you know what their intentions are. Thereby being able to assess whether they are STO or STS. Also meaning perhaps no 'prisons' are needed as people will automatically gravitate to those who are similar frequency and avoid confrontations with those who are not. There could also be the possibility of creating frequency 'fences' as after all we can create what we can 'imagine'.
Having said that - the whole purpose of suffering must be to allow is to align and gather the right 'experience' discernment and awareness to succeed in such a change of 'consciousness'. Without the knowing of right/wrong Law of 3 and much much more, we would only be a nuisance/liability to ourselves. Not able to be STO candidates or STS candidates - eg confusion = the first food available!

Telepathy is one thing but without knowledge it would blow people's minds. They could not 'acclimatize' and/or lies and evil intentions could soon be 'masked' in some way, putting those that believe all is 'good' now in immediate danger. Let alone the ability to travel by volition and what people would encounter doing so! Thus the need to understand the 'dark side' NOW. So it would be a level playing field for those with knowledge and awareness. But for the 'love and light' brigade it would be a total nightmare!!! Creativity would be fantastic once you got the understanding for the need for total detail. Yet what would people choose to create that had no awareness. Let alone the 'creations' made by STS entities! Traps, snares etc etc for the unaware would be even less apparent!!Not saying they are not same now for the 'blind'. So suffering in this case is again for our own good, to prepare us for this and far far more at a next level!

Yes we will still suffer as you say, because we suffer for those who are still not awake, still learning, still lost. But I think there will also be far more charitable work - genuine helping work that is done by those that choose rightly. More responsibility given and chosen to work for the universe. Perspicacity in this sense, I think, would mean a wider seeing, understanding, knowledge of the 'unseen' world because it would become visible. Also that the 'veil' being lifted somewhat more 'history' of ourselves and others would maybe become more apparent/obvious. This is just a few of my subjective deductions from previous study. But I use it to underline what we see as 'suffering' now is purely for our own good, for learning for the next 'level' perhaps. Choice will ALWAYS exist. Including choice in how we perceive things. And HOW we 'perceive' things can only be eased, create less suffering, once we have light on the matter. EG Knowledge - which sheds the the light, which leads us to see that all just IS - all is just lessons/learning - and unless we choose to go towards the light (house) of knowledge and learning, we will never come to realize/see/ experience/know that all was truly based on LOVE. IMHO. Only the big picture can open that door. Only service STO can (explain 'suffering' and fulfill that yearning/emptiness/experience of LOVE - the DCM. OSIT.

 

[Sol Logos]

I think that a lot of our concern about suffering is due to our anthropocentricity. We really are just puffs of smoke in an infinite Universe. Either we realize this and try to learn about it and align with its purposes, or we suffer without understanding.

Would a similar analogy be a cell in our bodies trying to define who we are? Seems to me if it's anything like that, then us seeking to settle on one definition of God is an exercise in futility and would likely result in needless suffering. Case in point the history of religion to date.

But I don't feel it's all-togeher pointless to reach at this idea of there being a God whatever we understand that to mean. To be honest its helped me discover and let go of my own preconceptions of what I imagined God should be and what my place in all of this should be also. That means there's sure to be more elimination of preconceptions coming my way! It's value I guess hits a ceiling when we start holding on to a limited concept of God based on the limits of our present awareness and circumstances.

Anyway after reading through this thread I started to wonder about whether the law of three applies here to what God is from our perspective. As we're talking about a level of awareness above our own perhaps we can say it does if that's where the law of three operates in more observable ways. If so, would it imply a synthesis between what we define as monotheism and pantheism, or even between a personal and impersonal God?