rebel against ritual

[Inti]

Throughout my life, ritual has always kind of repelled me...I don't really mean in a horrific way, just that I often found that when offered the opportunity to attend a ceremony or ritual I'd turn the offer down. It didn't really matter what kind it was, I'd always say "no thanks". And I have, over my life, been invited to many, only to turn them down. Even if the belief system was interesting to me - eg, shamanism - the ritual element or ceremony was not. Just under a year ago, a friend of mine invited me to a ceremony - a fairly harmless looking one to my eyes - but still I turned it down, saying "no, I don't really like ceremonies". For the first time, I was asked "why?". I'd never really paid it much thought, but this question prompted some thinking on my behalf...the only answer I could come up with was that ritual made me feel like I was going in the wrong direction, somehow further away...I then thought to the times when, for some reason or another, I had been forced to go to ceremonies and realised that either I had refused and hidden somewhere till it was over or if I had attended, a somewhat mischievous element seemed to automatically emerge from me to disrupt the whole thing - often not in a really mean way, but usually by introducing silliness to reduce the serious atmosphere..
A while later, I came across the following words:

All ritual is an attempt, through symbolism, to return to the timeless state. Ritual is a gesture of abstraction from that state, however, a false step that only leads further away

Only the last bit, "a false step that only leads further away" is what I can understand and relate to.
Having read that a while back I began to see that perhaps there was some good reasoning behind my not liking ritual. So it was interesting for me to come to the following words of the Cassiopaeans today:

A: Yes. Ritual drains directly to Lizard beings.
Q: (L) Even our saying of the Lord's prayer?
A: It is okay to pray. Why do you think organized religion is obsessed with rituals?
Q: (L) Is the same thing true of modern day shamanistic practices and so forth?
A: Exactly.

The curious thing is the context this excerpt is from. This is from chapter xx of The Wave, which is the part I have just come to. The rest of book 2 "The soul hackers" is predominantly about mind programming. The book largely talks about attacks and programming from STS forces, which I have found a bit horrifying to be honest. There's information in this book that I was not aware of. But I can't help wondering if the opposite is also true? Are there STO programmers out there? I imagine that this question may be premature, in which case just tell me to keep on reading! :)

 

[Mountain Crown]

Inti,

STO doesn't program, since that would be an abridgement of free will. Keep reading.

 

[Rauno]

Firstly, thank you Inti for leading me through your first quote to the interesting article by John Zerzan, named "Time and its Discontents". This quote, actually seemed so "Eliade-like" at the initial look.

To investigate this issue of ritual further, we must I think clearly define - about what we are talking of, when that word "ritual" is in question. So let's say that for us, ritual means the same thing as for Cassiopaean's in the second quote. Then it would be good to aquire knowledge of a characteristics that define certain activities from others. What are rituals, what is distinct about them? Maybe there is no outward distinction at all between two supposed gestures, labeled as rituals - and everything depends on relation between subject i.e. performer and "things done". One way "leads further away" and drains energy. The same action, other-way performed leads into liberation and destruction of old psychological structure. The key words from separating one from another, seem to be - disidentification, seeing the relativity and limits of ritual forms, playfulness, seeing the symbolic value etc. For example, if ritual is a more or less complex pattern repeated (often by a large group of people), then the same thing can lead into numbness, automatisms and routine as well as into integrity, "one-pointedness", remembrance, more defined perception or whatever positive effect you can think of. But to be clearer enough we must specify what is the exact ritual - agni hotra, sundance, lesser banishing ritual of a pentagram, circumambulation of sacred saites, zikr, chanting of mantras, pranayama, daily prayer towards mecca, daily reading of "sacred" texts (Mouravieff, New Testament, Plato, Upanishads, Wave etc.)... Complex issue, to say at least.

I can't help wondering if the opposite is also true? Are there STO programmers out there?

In a certain sense, metaphorically speaking, light or knowledge is like water that seeks most appropriate channels to propagate itself.

 

[PepperFritz]

Complex issue, to say at least....

No, not really. As indicated in the Cassiopaea Glossary entry (which appears in full below), the defining characteristic of a "ritual" (in the sense meant by the Cassiopaeans) is as follows:

"The idea of ritual vests the ritual act with some power that the person performing the ritual wishes to appropriate. The power is seen as external to the self, a sort of mechanical resource that can mysteriously be commanded by will and form."

If the action performed is understood by the performer to be purely "symbolic" in nature, and not one that involves any real transfer of "power" or "change" to the performer from a source outside of himself, then it is simply not a "ritual" in the sense meant by the Cassiopaeans. It is, rather, a "ceremony" or "symbolic gesture".

What is a "ritual" to one person, may simply be a "symbolic ceremony" to another, and a meaningless act of rote to another. An example would be the Christian rite of "Holy Communion". The strict Catholic teaching is that in the sacrament of Holy Communion, the bread and wine is literally changed into the body and blood of Christ (called "transsubstantiation"), and that through it the recipient receives "divine grace", which is defined in Catholic theology as "an enabling power sufficient for progression". If a Catholic literally believes in that teaching, then for him Holy Communion is a restrictive "ritual" that drains power to an outside source, by affirming the belief that he does not have the power within himself to "spiritually progress" without that ritual. However, if a more "progressive" Catholic believes that his taking Holy Communion is no more than an expression of his faith, then for him it is simply a symbolic ceremony or gesture, celebrating the "power of Christ within", and therefore could be, for that person, an "empowering" act. And for the man who simply goes through the motions of taking Holy Communion to satisfy the requirements of his family and/or community, the act has no meaning one way or the other, and is simply an act of "rote".

Hope that provides some clarity....


__________________________________

RITUAL
(from the Cassiopaea Glossary)

In general usage, a ritual is a formalized sequence of actions, often ceremonial or symbolic, performed according to a fixed format in a fixed circumstance. Rituals most often relate to religious or spiritual contents and seek to mark something or to obtain something from the spiritual world.

Some rituals are purely secular and are done for added solemnity, as if associating the secular process to a spiritual content. The value of pomp is well understood by government also when this government recognizes no spiritual authority above itself.

Sometimes the word is used in an allegoric sense and simply means engrained habit.

A ritual by definition is not creative. The idea of a claim to power is central to the idea of ritual. Even when a secular body engages in rituals such as national celebrations, it makes a formalized statement where it claims and displays power. This is a message of power to the constituency, as in evoking patriotic sentiment as well as to the rest of the world where the government entity proclaims its separateness and power.

Some rituals are markers of passage. Various initiations, whether inauguring a government or accepting a new student to a class or the graduation formalities of a school all play on the concept of establishing a link. The power there has to do with claiming the authority of a tradition. Whether by nature or culture, man is generally susceptible to this and this claim seems to meet some inner need of security.

In a religious or spiritual context the claim to power also exists. The most obvious example is the black magician performing rituals with the intent of commanding spiritual forces. Church rituals are not as obvious in this regard and there is much variation among them.

The difference between ritual and a procedure done for a specific end is that in the case of the ritual there is a belief and expectation that the ritual will accomplish a function simply because it is done as it always has been. Performing a procedure involves understanding the steps and how these interrelate, why they are done and what the effect of each is. Even though it may be done for a specific end and in the same way each time, baking a bread is not a ritual, that is, unless its ostensible purpose be something other than making bread.

The idea of ritual vests the ritual act with some power that the person performing the ritual wishes to appropriate. The power is seen as external to the self, a sort of mechanical resource that can mysteriously be commanded by will and form.

All these properties make ritual a feature of the service to self polarity. The Cassiopaeans have linked ritual to anticipation, restricting the creative potential of the universe by placing limits on what is accepted and seeking to command and control.

 

[PepperFritz]

I can't help wondering if the opposite is also true? Are there STO programmers out there?

In a certain sense, metaphorically speaking, light or knowledge is like water that seeks most appropriate channels to propagate itself.

No, as indicated by Mountain Crown, "STO" would not involve "programming" of any kind, "metaphorically" or otherwise, as STO does not violate free will. STO "gives all to all who ask", but the "asking" is a pre-requisite....

 

[John G]

I can't help wondering if the opposite is also true? Are there STO programmers out there?

In a certain sense, metaphorically speaking, light or knowledge is like water that seeks most appropriate channels to propagate itself.

No, as indicated by Mountain Crown, "STO" would not involve "programming" of any kind, "metaphorically" or otherwise, as STO does not violate free will. STO "gives all to all who ask", but the "asking" is a pre-requisite....

There can be programming in 5th density for an STO cause but that would be a free will decision in 5th density. In some sense I think we've given permission for the STS programming done in 3rd density too.

 

[PepperFritz]

This is just a "side" note, not related to the subject of this thread:

In my last post in this thread, I made a passing reference to a phrase that appears in the C transcripts: "STO gives all to those who ask". Please note that this can be misinterpreted to mean that STO always gives, no matter what is being asked for and/or how it is being asked for. For the sake of clarify, and a fuller understanding of what is meant by the phrase, I'm posting below the All to Those Who Ask entry from the Cassiopaea Glossary. If anyone wants to discuss the issues raised in that entry, it would be best if they did so by joining the ongoing discussion in the Helping: STS or STO thread, rather than hijack the subject of this one.

:)

All to Those Who Ask

The Cassiopaea material states that a service to others being gives all to those who ask. This invites the question of what is meant by giving and by asking and who truly are the parties of the exchange.

The crux of the matter is the difference between asking and manipulation. Manipulation seeks to control the manipulated and thus by definition limit the other's free will. Asking is an open-ended request which leaves the response up to the other party. Manipulation generally implies covert intent whereas asking generally does not. Distinguishing the two is difficult and not always clear-cut. Furthermore, humans generally neither ask nor manipulate as a single, unified being. More often than not, people are amalgams of contradicting programs and impulses, some of them tending towards STS, some maybe towards STO.

Acceding to manipulation generally amplifies the STS-ness of the manipulator. Thus for STO to be expressed, manipulation should be refused. Asking by people can be highly ambiguous and contradictory. For example, some people may actually ask to be refused when they make excessive demands. With proper discernment, one can give to the STO-tending parts of another and deny from the STS-tending parts of the same person. Denying manipulation may be seen to be doing a favor to the part which does not wish to take unfair advantage, should there be such a part.

We may consider for example lies to be an indirect request for truth. Thus giving all could be said to be giving all things their due, in accordance with upholding the principle of service to others. Discerning the true nature of the asking/request/manipulation is key here.

As with any general principle, this cannot be applied mechanically, without awareness of context. While our first connotation for giving is an exchange between persons, the idea is not limited to this. We can speak of giving all to a principle, as in dedicating one's life to a cause. We could say that making service to others oriented esoteric information available is a giving to the principle of free will. This is on one hand a response to a spirit of spiritual questing that exists among people often disillusioned with standard religion or the New Age, on the other hand a response to the lies and half truths promoted by the control system under the guise of these same movements.

In this world of mixed contents, the motives of giving, whether for personal satisfaction or as an expression of alignment with an impersonal principle cannot always be distinguished nor do they occur separately. Pure expressions of STO or STS are rare.

From Ra:

RA: I am Ra. Picture, if you will, your mind. Picture it then in total unity with all other minds of your society. You are then single-minded and that which is a weak electrical charge in your physical illusion is now an enormously powerful machine whereby thoughts may be projected as things. In this endeavor the Orion group charges or attacks the Confederation armed with light. The result, a stand-off, as you would call it, both energies being somewhat depleted by this and needing to regroup; the negative depleted through failure to manipulate, the positive depleted through failure to accept that which is given. QUESTIONER: Could you amplify the meaning of what you mean by the "failure to accept that which is given?" RA: I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded and engulfed, transformed by positive energies. This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say. It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will, must then regroup. It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation.

 

[Inti]

Thank you to all who commented. Thanks PepperFritz for all the links to further reading and further clarification of the points raised - it has been helpful to me, although I think Ra's words in your last post are little beyond my understanding at present...I'll read them again to try and get a better understanding!

I realised after I'd posted that my asking whether there were STO programmers would have probably resulted in responses similar to Mountain Crown's:

STO doesn't program, since that would be an abridgement of free will. Keep reading.

I was aware when posting that STO does not violate free will. My question was meant to be more similar to what Bluelamp brings up:

There can be programming in 5th density for an STO cause but that would be a free will decision in 5th density. In some sense I think we've given permission for the STS programming done in 3rd density too.

I mean I don't know if this is possible or not, but that's what I was wondering. Is it possible that at some stage I may have asked to be protected or guided and that I have forgotten some of that in this incarnation? I just asked because some of my automatic responses seem to do this (protect or guide). That's not to say I don't have STS programs running too, but I just wanted to know if it's possible that there are also STO "programs" so to speak?

 

[Mountain Crown]

There can be programming in 5th density for an STO cause but that would be a free will decision in 5th density. In some sense I think we've given permission for the STS programming done in 3rd density too.

That's not to say I don't have STS programs running too, but I just wanted to know if it's possible that there are also STO "programs" so to speak?

For the sake of clarity, caution is in order regarding terminology. The above quotes as stated can lead to a paralogical interpretation.

If by programming Bluelamp is referring to a preincarnation "lesson plan," or access to memory of previously acquired knowledge, then this would not be the kind of automatic mechanism such as a computer's set of instructions or a Greenbaum program, neither of which includes free will.

Inti's question answers itself by the juxtaposition of STS and STO "programming" since STS and STO motives and operations are polar opposites.

 

[Inti]

For the sake of clarity, caution is in order regarding terminology. The above quotes as stated can lead to a paralogical interpretation.

This is not particularly clear to me. Do you just mean that Bluelamp and I should be careful how we use the word "programming"? And if so, why exactly?

If by programming Bluelamp is referring to a preincarnation "lesson plan," or access to memory of previously acquired knowledge, then this would not be the kind of automatic mechanism such as a computer's set of instructions or a Greenbaum program, neither of which includes free will.

Sorry to be so slow, mountain crown, but I really don't understand what you are saying here. Perhaps you or someone else could explain in simpler terms? I probably need to just read further in The Wave to understand this, but Bluelamp's point raised is what I would like further clarification of, if possible, because I am wondering whether there is truth in it

There can be programming in 5th density for an STO cause but that would be a free will decision in 5th density. In some sense I think we've given permission for the STS programming done in 3rd density too.

I am trying to understand if someone could have chosen to have some "program", or whatever you want to call it, installed at another stage so that it would kick in as an automatic mechanism to defend when unaware of potential dangers in 3D. I am also unclear about the STS programming being a violation of freewill. I do not mean that people would choose it here in 3D, but as Bluelamp suggests, has there been permission given for STS programming at another level?

Inti's question answers itself by the juxtaposition of STS and STO "programming" since STS and STO motives and operations are polar opposites.

This has just confused me, because the answer is not clear to me.

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=Inti]This is not particularly clear to me. Do you just mean that Bluelamp and I should be careful how we use the word "programming"? And if so, why exactly?[/quote]
The word program, which can have the meaning of planning ahead, also has the more common connotation of mechanical instructions which run without volition.

Most members of this forum are dedicated to freeing themselves from what is known as "the terror of the situation," which simply put, is that everything here is under the control of STS hyperdimensional forces for their food. Through restructuring DNA, mind control in the form of religions and philosophies, government hierarchies, and technology, humans are kept in a semi-conscious hynotic state in which the management of energy (psychic, emotional, sexual) is beyond one's control. It is mechanical and consumable, not only by hyperdimensional entities, but sometimes by other humans as well.

What is critical therefore is to be truly conscious and maintain one's energy in a way that is not consuming/draining (STS), but sharing/enriching (STO).

STS results in entropy, STO is all about conscious creativity.

I am trying to understand if someone could have chosen to have some "program", or whatever you want to call it, installed at another stage so that it would kick in as an automatic mechanism to defend when unaware of potential dangers in 3D

The Cs have emphatically stated that all there is is lessons, and that protection from STS dangers comes from knowledge, i.e., conscious activity.

I am also unclear about the STS programming being a violation of freewill. I do not mean that people would choose it here in 3D, but as Bluelamp suggests, has there been permission given for STS programming at another level?

Without presuming a total grokking of such a profound issue, it seems by the very definition of free will, any usurpation of it would entail it being handed over, and therefore Bluelamp's post makes sense.

Helpful reading:

Program
Confluence and waking sleep
3rd Density
5th Density
STO & STS
Being mentation

 

[PepperFritz]

I am trying to understand if someone could have chosen to have some "program", or whatever you want to call it, installed at another stage so that it would kick in as an automatic mechanism to defend when unaware of potential dangers in 3D....

As Mountain Crown states, the C's emphasize that we are here in third-density to learn lessons -- conscious lessons. Wouldn't a built-in, "pre-programmed" mechanism designed to make one unconsciously and automatically act in a certain way eliminate the need to consciously learn how to protect oneself, indeed, the need to consciously choose one's orientation?

Interestingly, I think the idea of such a "built-in" self-protection is very closely aligned with ritualistic thinking. Like the idea that wearing a special talisman will protect you from evil spirits, it drains energy away from youself to an outside source. It negates the basic message of the C's: That one CAN protect oneself, through the conscious acquisition and application of KNOWLEDGE.

It is also closely aligned with the idea that one can spiritually progress without conscious application, that one can do so "intuitively", "instinctively", without the hard conscious work of getting to know ourselves and our machine.

I think that is what Mountain Crown meant when he said one must be "careful" in using the word "programming" in the way you are suggesting.

 

[mada85]

I am also unclear about the STS programming being a violation of freewill. I do not mean that people would choose it here in 3D, but as Bluelamp suggests, has there been permission given for STS programming at another level?

If those human beings who are trying to awaken are ‘projections’ of a soul, then it could be assumed that each soul (assuming there’s more than one) chose to ‘project’ a part of itself into this 3D world for the purpose of learning. Possibly with full knowledge of conditions ‘down here’, including the probability of programming and consumption by STS forces. In that sense I think that one could say that permission was ‘given for STS programming at another level’.

I am trying to understand if someone could have chosen to have some "program", or whatever you want to call it, installed at another stage so that it would kick in as an automatic mechanism to defend when unaware of potential dangers in 3D.

Inti, I wonder, from reading your remark above, if this isn’t some wishful thinking on your part. Are you hoping for some form of mystical protection that keeps you out of danger?

 

[Inti]

Thankyou again for your replies. I feel a real fool because I still do not understand. If this is just a drain on other people, please let me know and I will stop posting on this thread and just keep reading.

Interestingly, I think the idea of such a "built-in" self-protection is very closely aligned with ritualistic thinking. Like the idea that wearing a special talisman will protect you from evil spirits, it drains energy away from youself to an outside source. It negates the basic message of the C's: That one CAN protect oneself, through the conscious acquisition and application of KNOWLEDGE.
It is also closely aligned with the idea that one can spiritually progress without conscious application, that one can do so "intuitively", "instinctively", without the hard conscious work of getting to know ourselves and our machine.

Inti, I wonder, from reading your remark above, if this isn’t some wishful thinking on your part

It's interesting you both write this because, as you are both aware, I have posted on both wishful thinking and ritual, so you may have points....what is it? That the mild aversion is really to a program I have in myself??
The thing is I don't feel any attachment in this case. As far as I am aware (which is looking to be not very! :D), I am just curious as to why someone would have certain inclinations towards certain things. I agree that knowledge is important to gain protection and I don't really think there are short-cuts, because any short-cut would miss out on the in-between bits and therefore not lead to the same learning as a longer perhaps more difficult route..Nor do I necessarily trust instinct or intuition, partly because I'm not really sure what either of those are and I might mistake them for something else or be deceived by them.
But is there not something inside that drives a person to either STO or STS? In book 2 of the Wave it talks of STS programs that play out and can completely blind a person, so what is the other that seeks to wake up? Some enjoy searching for knowledge but why? I was interested by the phrase that there is a COINTELPRO for everyone and I see it as quite true, but why do some go beyond it and others not....what pushes one to knowledge to overcome that and another to sleep or giving up?
I asked about this in relation to ritual because, as far as I'm aware, I don't seem to have had much interest in it. Some people do. I don't think it's necessarily that there are forces out there protecting me from it, I just wondered if it was a possibility. And I asked in this case because it wasn't a very conscious lack of interest or dislike (as in I didn't give it much thought) and the silliness that emerged when in ceremonies seemed quite automatic to me. I'm also quite open to the fact this might be STS because maybe ritual or interest in it could teach me something...because there are lessons to be learnt from mistakes and delusions too...I don't know.
Also, I'm not particularly clear as to why questioning if STO programming could be chosen at another level to offer protection is wishful thinking any more than asking whether STS programs are running or not to also explain behaviour...

Are you hoping for some form of mystical protection that keeps you out of danger?

That might be nice but it might also prevent from learning lessons.

 

[Inti]

The other thought going on in my head that troubles me is that perhaps I am so completely asleep that I might not even need the rituals, TV or other show-business deception to keep me asleep. I can see that might be the case because I have often found myself to be my greatest deceiver.