Organic Portals: Human variation

Which session was that, Saman?

I would like to refresh my memory on that point...I do remember they said it was possible-but the parameters were such it would be (virtually) impossible for the "average" person to attain-how did they put it? Oh yes- it would require one to attain LOFTY sprirituality-I will not use examples so as not to offend anyones convictions-and I am not certain everyone would have the same definition of LOFTY spirituality.

I could have sworn they said we cannot become true STO until we reach 4thD-and that we would have "time" to decide once there (in 4D) to make a choice -

I know new material has been added to the Wave in Laura's books, so I may be regurgitating "ancient" data?

Could you tell me which session-I obviously need to "bone up"
 
If you're really interested, which it seems you are not, my suggestion to you is [to] recheck the very same excerpts that you have twisted in your previous post to state that "The C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period" in order to refresh your memory, and then to look for the excerpt in question about the C's stating "discover".
 
Saman wrote:
"If you're really interested, which it seems you are not, my suggestion is to you is recheck the very same excerpts that you have twisted in your previous post to state that "The C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period" in order to refresh your memory, and then to look for the excerpt in question about the C's stating "discover".

Is this what you're hinting at Tschai?

#99/08/28

A: Not yet, because this issue is not yet resolved. You are confused because you seem
to think you must be STO to be an STO candidate. You are STS, and you simply
cannot be otherwise, until you either reincarnate or transform at realm border crossing.
 
Saman said:
If you're really interested, which it seems you are not, my suggestion is to you is recheck the very same excerpts that you have twisted in your previous post to state that "The C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period" in order to refresh your memory, and then to look for the excerpt in question about the C's stating "discover".
I'm a bit confused as to why you say that it seems that tschai is not really interested. How did you come to this conclusion? I must be missing something, (which would not be that unusual) because although Tschai has displayed some naivete in certain areas, it seems he/she has made efforts in learning so far. Again, if I'm missing something, don't hesitate to point it out, I'm just curious as to why you put things the way you did, that's all. =)
 
Hi guys,
Just to add a thought here, from my limited understanding in this area, I think having to graduate to STO or STS has nothing to do with one's awareness level, i.e. transition to 4D. Graduation to STO or STS has to do with one's FRV (Frequency Resonance Vibration) osit. This is an excerpt that indicates this thought process[ emphasis mine :)]
C's Session # 941217
[...]
Q: (L) Well, what worries me is that they are saying the STS guys have ahold of him and that's not good. (DM) Is E***
STS?
A: You all are still. You all are moving toward graduation to STO.
Q: (F) We all are still STS?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well, I still don't understand about E***... (DM) Would you please explain to me what service to others entails?
A: Complete lack of concern for self.
Q: (L) Well, that's a real tough one. (DM) It would be like being Mahatma Gandhi, is this correct?
A: Closer.
Q: (DM) Then there is no one that I know of that is going to make this?
A: Do you know anyone who is in 4th density?
Q: (L) Of course not. (DM) I'm not sure. (V) So, when we transition from 3rd density to 4th density we lose that need for service to self?
A: If you transition, you are ready to do so if you choose.
Q: (DM) So, it's like an instant thing? As soon as you are ready, you are gone!
A: No. Realm border crossing.
Q: (L) At the time of the realm border crossing those who are of the correct vibrational frequency to transition will do so, as it says in the Bible, in the twinkling of an eye. Almost instantaneously. We are getting ready... you have to be at least a
certain level... it all has to do with the coming of this wave...
A: We ride the wave.
[...]
 
anart said:
Saman said:
If you're really interested, which it seems you are not, my suggestion is to you is recheck the very same excerpts that you have twisted in your previous post to state that "The C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period" in order to refresh your memory, and then to look for the excerpt in question about the C's stating "discover".
I'm a bit confused as to why you say that it seems that tschai is not really interested. How did you come to this conclusion? I must be missing something, (which would not be that unusual) because although Tschai has displayed some naivete in certain areas, it seems he/she has made efforts in learning so far. Again, if I'm missing something, don't hesitate to point it out, I'm just curious as to why you put things the way you did, that's all. =)
No problem. In the original response to Tschai, I wrote: "moreover, the C's have not explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density period. If you recheck the sessions in regards to 3D STO, they said "discover". "

The above suggestion to discover the excerpt in question, which was a clue in [itself], was seemingly ignored. In response to Tshcai's second reply, I wrote the above making the suggestion to look at the very excerpts Tschai used to formulate this thought[:] "the C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period". So IF Tschai is really interested, that is if really Asking, [he/she] could then simply make the effort to find and recheck these excerpts in question and then [to] look at the details first to see what [is] the 'devil'. This was not apparently done, and hence the reason for the above response.

In regards to whether he/she is naive in certain areas is not what is under question from my end. The response above was specifically an invitation for a refresher of the sessions and [its] details in regards to his/her comment that "the C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period".

note: since once a message is edited, the original is changed as well, but unless of course a separate original post is kept on file by the mods and the admins for possible reference if needed, which by the way if so, I think it is a very good idea, I am going to use brackets [ ] to indicate where I have made some grammatical corrections, deletions, and additions that I originally missed on my original posts in order to sincerely clarify what is/was originally intended to be said from this end.
 
tschai said:
The C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period. We are not capable-but as said above-we can develop the DESIRE to do so-which is also an STS trait-but the C's said it's o.k. because we are STS anyway-so go ahead and be selfish-DESIRE to become STO!

So in that way it is a kind of paradox.
That pretty much explains it as I understand it from the totality of the sessions. We call it "the bootstrap method." We are STS, that's given, so let's be STS about STO things; Ibn al-'Arabi talks about this also. He calls it "assuming the traits." Since humans have both noble and base traits, instead of trying to "stamp out" what they ARE, by nature, which is discourteous toward God, they ought to work instead on using those base traits in a positive way.

This will take a little background to explain adequately, so I will quote from Chittick's "The Sufi Path of Knowledge" below with a few redactions. Keep in mind the context of the discussion, that it is framed in terms of God and religion, and the constraints of the time in which al-'Arabi lived. With that in mind, I think we can derive many clues from this work if read and considered carefully.

God is the root of all "noble character traits". He is also the root of the "base character traits, though the relationship here is more subtle and will need some explanation. ... Having been created in the divine form, man embraces all the divine names and contains within himself all God's character traits. The task of the spiritual traveler is to bring the names and character traits from latency into actuality in perfect balance and harmony.

Since this is the case, the use of the term "assumption of traits" is problematic since the literal meaning of the term takhulluq is "to exert oneself in acquiring character traits" whereas strictly speaking, man already possesses the character traits. ...

God creates the good and the evil, the ugly and the beautiful, the straight and the crooked, the moral and the immoral. Does the Gnostic become manifest in these attributes? The answer, of course, is "Yes and no." Between the yes and the no lie the manifold dangers that face the traveler and would-be traveler on the path to God. ...

Man faces a predicament as real as himself, and he is forced by his own nature to choose between the straight path which leads to balance, harmony, and felicity and the crooked paths which lead to imbalance, disequilibrium, and wretchedness. ...

As delimited creatures faced with perfection and imperfection, likes and dislikes, ambitions and desires, and the demands of "the law", human beings are forced to discern between good and evil at every stage of their existence in this world. If they could say that God is Incomparable and they, like Him, are infinitely beyond this world, they could ignore reality. But that would be absurd and discourteous toward God who has created Reality also. Reality assumes the properties of the "Names of God, and the cosmos is full of life-giving and slaying, forgiveness and vengeance, exalting and abasing, guidance and misguidance on all sorts of levels.


In each case where human interests are involved, man is required to see the secondary causes, [the events and situations and relationships of reality] as either good or evil. Even if he could, by some miracle, be totally indifferent to life and death, pleasure and pain, love and hate, still, he would be commanded by the Law to put each thing in its proper place. Hence, human beings must always separate "God's point of view" from their own point of view.

Ibn al-'Arabi sometimes distinguishes these two points of view by speaking of two divine commands. In respect of the first command, God says "Be!" and the whole cosmos comes into existence. In respect of the second, He says to human beings, "Do this and avoid that, or you will fall into wretchedness." The first command is known as the "engendering command" or the command without intermediary. The second is known as the "prescriptive command" or the command by intermediary [of "learning."] All created things obey the engendering command, so in this respect there is no evil in existence. But when the prescriptive command is taken into account, then some [learn and apply what they learn, and some do not." People bring both good and evil down upon themselves in respect of the prescriptive command. ...

If the engendering command alone is considered, there is no imperfection in the cosmos, since all creatures follow what God desires for them. In this respect, what is normally called "imperfection" is in fact perfection, since it allows for the actualization of the various levels of existence and knowledge. In other words, were there no imperfections - in the sense o9f diminishment, decrease, and lack - there would be no creation. Were there no creation, the Hidden Treasure would remain hidden. Hence Being would be unseen in every respect. There would be no self-disclosure of the Divine Reality, Light would not shine, and God would be the Non-manifest but not the Manifest.

But THIS is absurd because it demands the imperfection of Being Itself which by definition is nondelimited perfection. Being's perfection requires the manifestation of its properties. The effects of the names and attributes must be displayed for God to be God.

In short, the nondelimited perfection of the Divine Reality is made possible only by the existence of imperfection, which is to say that this "imperfection" is demanded by existence itself. It is to lack the divine attributes, beginning with Being.

But it is precisely the "otherness" which allows the cosmos and all the creatures within it to exist. If the things were perfect in every respect, they would be identical with God and there would be nothing "other than God." But then we would not even speak about the cosmos, since there would be no cosmos and no speaking. Hence it is imperfection which separates the creatures from their Creator and makes possible the existence of the cosmos. Imperfection is itself a kind of perfection.

Without imperfection, existence's perfection could not be actualized. All things are "imperfect" and thereby perfectly adapted to the roles they play in creation.

In their roles as human beings, those who have not attained to the station of human perfection are no less perfect than other creatures. However, because of the peculiar human situation, people are born with the possibility of actualizing a second kind of perfection. Unlike other creatures, they are not fixed in a specific ontological situation, but can change their situation through the gifts they have been given - such as knowledge, desire, and speech - by following the prescriptive command, the Scale of the Law.

The moment an animal is born, it is clearly this or that - a horse, an elephant, a mole, a mouse - and will never be anything else. But when a human being is born, only God knows what the person will be. He has the potentiality to become any one of a tremendous variety of human types, summarized by Ibn -al-'Arabi as unbeliever, believer, friend of God, prophet, and messenger. Whatever man becomes is"perfection" in one sense at least; but he will not be perfect in both sense unless be becomes a "perfect man."

Both mankind and jinn - called, in Koranic terms, the two "weighty ones" - are born into an ambiguous situation which, from their own point of view, remains ambiguous until death... Their freedom allows them to make choices which effect their becoming. Whatever they do, they follow the engendering command, but the extent to which they follow the prescriptive command determines whether they will join the felicitous or the wretched.

In contrast, all other creatures - like angels - are born into a "known station" which does not change.

ibn al-'Arabi said:
The Angels say, "None of us there is, but has a known station." So also is every existent thing except the two weighty ones. Though the two weighty ones are also created in their stations, these stations are designated and ordained within God's knowledge and unseen by them. Each individual among them reaches his station at the end of his breaths. So his last breath is his "known station" upon which he dies. That is why they have been called to travel. Hence they travel, either upwardly by answering the summons of the Law, or downwardly by answering the command of Desire from whence they know not, until after the object of the Desire has been attained.

Hence each individual among the two weighty ones reaches in his traveling the known station for which he was created. Among them are wretched and felicitous.
The fact that some people follow the divine guidance by obeying the prescriptive command, while others refuse to follow it, goes back to the engendering command, since everything is rooted in God. On the one hand, the prescriptive command is itself created by the engendering command, and on the other, it is God who says "Be"" to the [desire for law and acquisition of knowledge within the individual].

But this does not mean that God compels the servant to choose the wrong path and then punishes him for it. God compels no one, though one might say that each person compels himself, since his destiny stems from his own immutable being, his own reality according to the engendering command. [he is what he IS.]

God brings the entities into existence as they are in themselves. God does not make a pear tree into a pear tree; a pear tree is what it is. God merely brings it into existence and it yields pears. God does not make a person into his friend or enemy since the person has been immutably fixed as His friend or enemy for all eternity. Once in existence, the friend is a friend and the enemy an enemy, without anyone having made them so.

God creates all things on the basis of His knowledge of the things, and His knowledge of the things is identical with His knowledge of Himself. Hence, the things become manifest upon the form of God...

When God creates something, He does so on the basis of His knowledge of that thing, and He knows it through knowing Himself. His knowledge has no effect upon what He knows. Rather, the object of knowledge determines the knowledge. In Ibn al-'Arabi's way of speaking, "Knowledge follows its object." God does not "make" the thing the way it is, He merely knows the way it is. ...

Even the Gnostics do not know if God's engendering command will allow them to follow the Straight Path laid down by the prescriptive command, or if they will swerve from this path because their own realities demand deviation. ...

ibn al-'Arabi said:
The Gnostics experience nothing more difficult than the command of God to go straight... In other words, do not leave aside His command because you find in yourselves that He has created you upon the divine form. Do not say, "The likes of us are not the objects of this command." For the knowers of God do not know if God's command will conform to His will in them. Will they obey His command, or will they oppose it? Hence God's command is difficult for them and they become distressed. This is indicated by the Prophet's words, "Hud has whitened my hair," since Hud is the sura within which "Go thou straight as thou has t been commanded" was sent down. ...

The determining property belongs to the divine knowledge, not to the command. "God is never unjust toward His servants" since he only knows what the objects of knowledge give to Him, since knowledge follows the object of knowledge. Nothing becomes manifest in existence except the actual situation of the object of knowledge. ..

But man is ignorant of what will come into existence from him before it comes to be. When something happens from him, it only happens on the basis of God's knowledge of him. And God knows nothing except what the object of knowledge is in itself.
The fact that the servants are ignorant of God's knowledge concerning them is of particular importance, for the feeling of freedom to which this gives rise allows them to assume responsibility for their own choices. Moreover, they do in fact share in the reality of freedom, since they are made upon God's form....

Since the straight path takes one to Allah, and Allah as such is absolutely nondelimited, we have to inquire about the mode in which the straight path takes to Allah. In other words, does the path end up with the All-merciful and the All-compassionate? Or does it end up with the Vengeful and the Terrible in Punishment? ... Hence, concludes Ibn al-'Arabi, the "straight path of Allah" is a fact of existence, but it cannot guarantee our felicity.

ibn al-'Arabi said:
There is no path which is not straight, since there is no path which does not take one to Allah. But God said to His Prophet, "Go straight _as thou hast been commanded_" He did not address him in terms of _unqualified_ straightness. It has been established that, "Unto Allah all things come home" and that He is the end of every path. However, the important thing is which divine name you will reach and to which you will come home. For that names' effect - whether felicity and bliss or wretchedness and chastisement - will exercise its influence upon the one who reaches it.

"The paths to God are as numerous as the breaths of the creatures, since the breath emerges from the heart in accordance with the belief of the heart concerning Allah. The general belief is His existence. He who makes Him Time will reach Allah in respect of His name Time, since Allah brings together all the contrary and non-contrary names. ... When someone believes that Allah is Nature, Allah will disclose Himself to him as Nature. When someone believes that Allah is such and such - whatever that might be - He will disclose Himself to him in the form of his belief.
There are innumerable paths to Allah, but each one of them yields a different result for those who follow them.

ibn al-'Arabi said:
The path of the Blessing-giver is "the path of those whom" God "has blessed." It is mention in His words, "He has laid down for you as Law what he charged Noah with, and what We have revealed to thee, and what We charged Abraham with, and Moses, and Jesus". He mentions the prophets and the messengers, and then says, "those are they whom God has guided, so follow their guidance. This is the path that brings together every prophet and messenger. It is the performance of religion, scattering not concerning it, and coming together in it.
Just as there is nothing but good in existence and all paths lead to Allah, so also all character traits are noble and none is base. But the character traits are noble only in relationship to their ontological roots. As soon as the four levels of good and evil are taken into account, some are noble and some are base. In order to tell the difference between noble and base in what concerns ultimate felicity, human beings have need of [knowledge/Law] or, what comes down to the same thing, the light of faith.

ibn al-'Arabi said:
Perspicacity through faith is a divine light which God gives to the person of faith in the eye of his insight, just like the light which belongs to the eye of sight. When a person has this perspicacity, its mark is like the light of the sun through which sensory objects appear to sight. When the light of the sun is unveiled, sight differentiates among the sensory objects. It discerns the large from the small, the beautiful form the ugly, the white from the black, red, and yellow, the moving from the still, the far from the near, and the high from the low. In the same way, the light of perspicacity through faith discerns the praiseworthy from the blameworthy.

The reason that the light of perspicacity is attributed to the name Allah, which is the name which brings together the properties of ALL the names, is that this light unveils both the praiseworthy and the blameworthy, both the movement of felicity pertaining to the next abode and the movements of wretchedness. ...

If the light of perspicacity were attributed to the name Praiseworthy, for example, the possessor of this light would see only the praiseworthy and felicitous. In the same way, if it were attributed to any divine name, the perspicacity would accord with what is given by the reality of that name. But since the light is attributed to Allah, its possessor perceives the good things and the evil which occur in matters of this world and the next, the blameworthy qualities and the praiseworthy, the noble character traits and the base, and what is given by Nature and by the spiritual domain.
Man gains the light of perspicacity through assuming the noble character traits in perfect harmony, balance and "equilibrium".

Just as physical illness is caused by"disequilibrium" of the constitution, so also moral illness is caused by disequilibrium of the character traits. In order to bring the traits into balance, man has need of the divine physician. It is his task to show the seeker how to employ his innate character traits, since nothing can be added to man's creation. The "assumption of traits" which a person should undergo, cannot mean that he comes to possess traits which did not already belong to him. On the contrary, the traits which he possesses innately are redirected such that they will always be pleasing to God.

ibn al-'Arabi said:
The person in disequilibrium will display blameworthy and base character traits. He will seek his own individual desires and will not care what outcome he may reach by attaining them.

The disciplining [divine] physician leads him on step by step, state after state, by explaining to him the proper occupations, as mentioned. He comes to him with the perspicacity of faith and has knowledge of the best interest of this person. When he sees him perform an action which leads to something blameworthy, or that action itself brings about something blameworthy, he guides him to the extent he can...

If the person is in disequilibrium, his travel will consist of struggle and ascetic discipline. If he is in equilibrium, he will be cheerful and joyous in his wayfaring, full of gaiety and happy. Affairs which are difficult for others will be easy for him, and he will not have to force himself in any of the noble character traits.

When the soul becomes limpid and wholesome, joins up with the world of purity, looks with the divine eye, hears through the divine ear, and acts through the divine strength, and then it knows the origins of things and their destinations, where they rise up and whence they return. This is called "perspicacity through faith." It is a gift from God which is attained by those who are sound in nature and those who are not.
The function of the prophets and the friends of God are to help bring out the noble character traits which are intrinsic to human nature. They must also provide proper guidance for the base character traits, since all character traits, noble and base, go back to man's essence. In the last analysis, a character trait is called base not because of its ontological root, but because of the way in which it is put to use.

Everything that comes from God is good and follows the engendering command. Good and evil, as we saw above, need to be defined in terms of various relative factors: the Law, agreeableness to the constitution, perfection, and individual desire. The defining factor in questions of morality and character go back primarily to the Law, though the other factors may also be taken into account in certain cases and in various respects. The Law directs all character traits into proper channels so that people will employ their own innate attributes in the mode which corresponds to God's approval and satisfaction. Then these attributes are called "noble character traits." If employed wrongly, these same attributes become "base character traits."

The revealed law - revealed via knowledge - can transform the blameworthy traits into praiseworthy ones. The means of this transformation is to change the manner in which the so-called base character traits are applied or employed.

ibn al-'Arabi said:
The Prophet explained for us how to apply what are called "base character traits," such as eager desire, envy, covetousness, miserliness, timidity, and every blameworthy attribute. He explained for us proper occupations for these attributes such that, if we employ them in these occupations, they will turn into noble character traits, the name of blame will disappear form them, and they will become praiseworthy. ...

The attributes found in man's innate disposition do not change, since they are essential to this world's configuration and man's specific constitution. These include cowardice, avarice, envy, eager desire, tale bearing, arrogance, harshness, seeking subjugation, and the like.

Since no one can set out to change them, God explained various proper applications for them toward which they can be directed by the rulings of the Law. If the soul directs the properties of these attributes toward these applications, it will attain to felicity and high degrees.

These proper applications are as follows: The soul should be cowardly toward committing forbidden things because of the loss it can expect. It should have avarice in respect to [knowledge of reality]. It should envy him who spends his possessions in seeking knowledge. It should be eagerly desirous toward doing good and [acting generously toward those that ask]. It should tell tales that [convey knowledge]. It should be arrogant in spirit toward him who is arrogant toward God's commands. It should be harsh in its words and acts in the places where it knows that God would be harsh. It should seek the subjugation of him who is hostile toward God and resists him.

Such a soul does not leave its own attributes, but it directs them toward applications for which it can be praised. ... The Law has brought only that which aids nature. I do not know how it is that people suffer hardship, since they are not forbidden those attributes which their natures require. On the contrary, the Law explains their proper applications. Hence, people perish only when they are controlled by individual desires. It is that which allows them to suffer pain and to dislike things.

If man would direct his desire toward that which his Creator wants for him, he would be at rest.
All of this, of course, reflects what Gurdjieff said as quoted by Ken in his excerpt from Fritz Peter's book.

"Think of good and evil like right hand and left hand. Man always have two hands--two sides of self--good and evil. One can destroy other. Must have aim to make both hands work together, must acquire third thing: thing that make peace between two hands, between impulse for good and impulse for evil. Man who all 'good' or man who all 'bad' is not whole man, is one-sided. Third thing is conscience; possibility to acquire conscience is already in man when born; this possibility given--free--by nature. But is only possibility. Real conscience can only be acquired by work, by learning to understand self first. Even your religion--western religion--have this phrase 'Know' thyself'. This phrase most important in all religions. When begin know self already begin have possibility become genuine man. So first thing must learn is know self by this exercise, self-observation. If not do this, then will be like acorn that not become tree--fertilizer.
 
I think Fulcanelli supports this approach mentioned in the last couple of posts to our strange dualistic paradox of an existence in this world. This analogy Gurdjieff uses about us having 2 hands we should seek to have work together is simple and powerful. Sometimes, I need an elegant image like that. Fulcanelli refers to the two mercuries. He mentions that mercury corresponds to the feminine and that the 2 mercuries are regenerative and creative, respectively. He goes on to say that there are not really two mercuries but only one. Some places in his books he refers to the "clash of the two natures". Elsewhere, there is reference to the stable synthesis of sulfur and mercury (masculine and feminine). Okay... He is talking about synthesizing duality and a clashing duality. Is there a paradox here? How the heck does cutting off the serpent's head correspond to a stable synthesis? There is no paradox if one notices there are 2 different dualities. There is a natural duality apparent in our world on one hand: night vs. day; male vs. female; etc. These are the dual elements that need to be synthesized into a "stable" compound. Then on the other hand, there is the more fundamental duality that stretches actross several densities: STO vs. STS; entropy vs. creativity; etc. This is the duality being refered to by the clash of the 2 natures. This duality is where a choice is made and that choice will decide a fundamental approach towards handling the duality of the natural world.The reason Fulcanelli says there is really only one mercury is perhaps because one duality is more fundamental than the other.

Thus we can define another modus operandi for the STS and STO paths. We get from the transmission from such as Gurdjieff, Mouravieff, and Fulcanelli that the STO way is the synthesis of the natural duality. Maybe, we need some transmission from predecessors who made some progress about how to take those first few steps. Then, we can observe through our inner struggles, and maybe even more graphically, through the machinations of pathocracy that the STS way seeks not synthesis of the natural dual elements but to set them against each other. The material manifestation of this is the divide-and-conquer strategies we see pathocratic intelligence agencies using to control various target populations.

I think that a thorough understanding of what distinguishes the natural duality from the STS/STO duality is what many new agers are missing. They are so wrapped up in "everything is one" that there ends up being no reason not to do any particular thing over another. Why should I even get out of bed in the morning if everything is one, right? This is like a pale and lifeless version of the "unweighted decision" one theoretically makes between STS and STO. By "unweighted decision", it is meant that there can come a point in which one sees that STS and STO are both fundamental forces in the universe so artificial moralities such as "play nice" or "keep up with the Joneses" no longer cloud ones decision between which polarity to seek (assuming one even sees that there is such a decision to be made). All that is left is perhaps a profound predilection towards one or the other whose source is maybe karmic, hyperdimensional, a bit mysterious perhaps.

I heard an indigenous North American grandmother say something once years ago, which made no sense to me (new ager that I was) until I came upon the work of Laura and the C's. She said,

"At some point, I had to go to back before time began and choose either to serve myself or to serve others."

Many a new ager might ask, "Why can't I serve both? In fact, shouldn't I serve both?" In my estimation, such a reply is due to a misunderstanding of the two different levels of duality I have discussed in a hopefully semi-clear manner.

P.S. Even though I go over my posts before posting them, it never ceases to amaze me how many typographical errors I miss.
 
Thank you Laura-you went above and beyond, and to all the others who came to my defense as it were.

I am naive on certain points-I will be the first to admit it. Never denied it. But that is why we are here, is it not?

But Laura backed me up quite nicely-and added the bonus material for even more insight.

Thank you, thank you thank you !
 
If we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density, then why were we 3D STO before in 3rd Density? The implication of the following statement "the C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period" is that there is not STO in 3rd Density. Yes the C's have said that we cannot be STO in this Realm, but they have not said that we cannot be STO in 3rd Density.

01-22-2000
[...]
Q: But, you are always saying that we should
seek to gain knowledge. You are supposed to
be STO, and we are supposed to be STO
candidates, so how does that...
A: While you are in this realm, you are by
nature STS. Gaining knowledge is a separate
issue.
[...]

01-22-2000

[...]
A: When one "desires," one is expressing
STS.
Q: (A) Does this also relate to desire for
knowledge?
A: Yes.
Q: So, in our drive to obtain knowledge, we
are STS?
A: You are STS, period.
Q: But, once we have knowledge, we become
STO?
A: No.
Q: But, you are always saying that we should
seek to gain knowledge. You are supposed to
be STO, and we are supposed to be STO
candidates, so how does that...
A: While you are in this realm, you are by
nature STS. Gaining knowledge is a separate
issue.
[...]

So from the above you can see that the 'devil' here is the concept of Realm, and so, the statement that "the C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period" is not true since this is not what they have stated exactly.

Hope this clarifies my perception of your statement.
 
tschai said:
Thank you Laura-you went above and beyond, and to all the others who came to my defense as it were.
It was not so much defense as it was a clarification. I know and love Saman very much which is why I also know that he is very pure in his intentions and very full of energy and drive. Not everyone has his driving dedication to learning. I have felt the same way in my youth before I learned how easy it is to be distracted by emotion. Sometimes it is difficult for the very pure and driven to understand those who are, perhaps, different in their drives. And all are different and unique in other ways also. It is important for us to recognize when someone else has the same goal, but just a different way of approaching it.
 
Very well. I will accept that. But please, still accept my thanks, one and all.

I still contend my observation is/was correct-Please understand Saman, I came here not to argue-but to learn.

My point in asking you to direct me to the session was that you knew, apparently, EXACTLY where that passage was-yes I certainly could go and look it up myself-I do a lot of self research all the time-and I am certainly no stranger to the Wave series-and read it at random quite alot-and so felt confident in my statement.

But if you are in a library full of books-looking for a particular tome-and don't quite know where to look-and you approach the librarian to inquire -and the librarian told you to "go find it yourself! That way you'll learn how to use the library dummy!"

Would you not feel rather put out by such a response? And you must admit dear Saman, this site is very much like a HUGE library-the Wave series alone is rather large-and yes I could spend countless hours re-reading through the material to find that particular "book" as it were.

But if you imagine yourself as the librarian-and know exactly where one may find that precious book-and save the patron time by escorting them to where it might be found-even to merely pointing out the row it should be in-that would be appreciated. This does NOT mean the inquiring patron is disinterested, lazy or stupid.

Do the librarians feel they are so lofty in their knowledge they must give the patron contempt and scorn, because beside them they know nothing? Do the librarians know this for certain? Perhaps it is another Einstein who seeks their aid-lofty in his OWN knowledge and ways-but ignorant in the ways of the librarians.

I am not lazy-nor stupid-and Laura did agree with my take on what the C's said-but she also agrees with your point of view as well-as do I. Many of the issues discussed here have more than one view point.

The C's have also said-and this I know for certain-that every person is as they are-and they do things in the way that they do because that is the only way they CAN do them.

It depends on your point of view in many cases-"subjective" as the C's like to say.

As far as this subject- and these Forums-I am done for a time. Laura holds you in the highest regard-so shall I.

I leave all in friendship and again express my thanks.
 
StrangeCaptain said:
I think Fulcanelli supports this approach mentioned in the last couple of posts to our strange dualistic paradox of an existence in this world. This analogy Gurdjieff uses about us having 2 hands we should seek to have work together is simple and powerful. Sometimes, I need an elegant image like that. Fulcanelli refers to the two mercuries. He mentions that mercury corresponds to the feminine and that the 2 mercuries are regenerative and creative, respectively. He goes on to say that there are not really two mercuries but only one. Some places in his books he refers to the "clash of the two natures". Elsewhere, there is reference to the stable synthesis of sulfur and mercury (masculine and feminine). Okay... He is talking about synthesizing duality and a clashing duality. Is there a paradox here? How the heck does cutting off the serpent's head correspond to a stable synthesis? There is no paradox if one notices there are 2 different dualities. There is a natural duality apparent in our world on one hand: night vs. day; male vs. female; etc. These are the dual elements that need to be synthesized into a "stable" compound. Then on the other hand, there is the more fundamental duality that stretches actross several densities: STO vs. STS; entropy vs. creativity; etc. This is the duality being refered to by the clash of the 2 natures. This duality is where a choice is made and that choice will decide a fundamental approach towards handling the duality of the natural world.The reason Fulcanelli says there is really only one mercury is perhaps because one duality is more fundamental than the other.

[...] such a reply is due to a misunderstanding of the two different levels of duality I have discussed in a hopefully semi-clear manner.
StrangeCaptain, I just want to say that this post was very clear for me, and helped clear up some concepts that I wasn't clear on. I've got a question about the alchemical symbols, though. According to the Cass Glossary, mercury corresponds to the thinking center. With how much flexability are theses terms to be used? Perhaps the glossary can be expanded to cover more angles?
 
hkoehli said:
StrangeCaptain, I just want to say that this post was very clear for me, and helped clear up some concepts that I wasn't clear on. I've got a question about the alchemical symbols, though. According to the Cass Glossary, mercury corresponds to the thinking center. With how much flexability are theses terms to be used? Perhaps the glossary can be expanded to cover more angles?
There are folks around here that know WAY more than me. I have read Fulcanelli only, and he connects mercury to the feminine principle in plain, straight forward language. I do not know how much latitude there is nor what other symbols are used. The idea that Fulcanelli's acknowledgement of 2 mercuries (and then saying that there is truly only one) hints at the existence of two dualities (one being more fundamental than the other) is an idea only and could easily be wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom