Session 10 July 1999

transientP

Jedi Council Member
taratai said:
I don't have any research to give you to follow, but i can at least give my thoughts on the matter.


As we get closer to a planet, the gravity increases. If planets have consciousness we can assume the planet's consciousness of us also increases the closer we get to it. The closer we are, the stronger it pulls us to get closer with us. We can say that there's an interaction of the planet and any object within its gravitational field.

So, would it be far-fetched to say, that gravity is the effect of a consciousness interacting with other objects? Or, going to the core, we could say that gravity is the effect of a consciousness interacting with other consciousness, and that is what we perceive as a planet dragging the space object closer to itself.

Two space objects drag themselves closer to each other, because the consciousness behind each of them tries to interact with the consciousness behind the other object.

Living creatures on the planet affect the planet with their consciousness, and the planet affects the creatures living on it with hers. The creatures will react to the state of the planet even if everything seems to be fine, and the planet will react to what the creatures on it do and how they feel.

If there is a human-cosmic connection, if humans really do affect the planet with just their consciousness and mental state, wouldn't this explain why?


Then, if gravity is the effect of consciousness, what is really matter? If matter is "half-life" of energy, then matter isn't really something of its own. Matter is an effect of something else that we perceive as matter, just as a wave on the sea is perceived as something of its own. But it's still the same sea.
And just like each wave needs a vibration in the sea to be created, matter would need a vibration in the "sea" of energy to be created. Matter is also always accompanied by gravity, which means there's a consciousness behind it, interacting with other consciousness.

So, would that actually make matter a wave in the "ether" of the universe (whatever it is), created and sustained by the vibration of accompanying consciousness, which can interact with other consciousness, which we perceive as gravity?


That's all i have. Maybe it will be helpful.

This is going in the right direction IMO.
It has been stated that a completed UFT takes consciousness into account.

May 27th 1995 said:
Q: (L) What is the thing that collapses the wave function?

A: ?

Q: (L) Is it consciousness?

A: Yes...


Q: (L) There is more. Can this consciousness be expressed... (T) We are trying to get from a third density concept to a fourth density concept where there is no physicality, per se. At fourth density they don't have a problem with going at the speed of light and disintegrating, because it doesn't exist there...

A: Close.

Q: (T) So, for us to try and think of this in third density...

A: Variable physicality is the key.

Q: (L) What makes the physicality variable?

A: Awareness of link between consciousness and matter.

Q: (L) What is the link between consciousness and matter?

A: Illusion.


Q: (L) What is the nature of the illusion? (T) That there isn't any connection between consciousness and matter. It is only an illusion that there is. It is part of the third density...

A: No. Illusion is that there is not.

Q: (L) The illusion is that there is no link between consciousness and matter.

A: Yes.


Q: (T) The illusion is that there is not a link. In third density... (L) I got it! (T) Don't disappear on me now! [Laughter] The relationship is that consciousness is matter.

A: Close. What about vice versa?

Q: (L) Just reverse everything. Light is gravity. Optics are atomic particles, matter is anti-matter... just reverse everything to understand the next level... it can't be that easy. (J) Wait a second: gravity equals light, atomic particles equals optics, anti-matter equals matter? It is all about balance. (L) And the answer must always be zero.

A: And zero is infinity.

Q: (L) So, you are saying that it is not that there is a link, the illusion is that there is separation. There is no difference, they are the same?

A: Yes.
 

sitting

Dagobah Resident
transientP said:
Q: (L) The illusion is that there is no link between consciousness and matter.

A: Yes.

So a clear link exists--between consciousness & matter. That much is settled.

In other transcripts, they said that most power to alter reality resides in the belief centers of the mind. This strongly hints at manifestation I think.

Now Seth is more explicit. He flatly says consciousness creates matter.

In Chapter 5 of Seth Speaks ("How Thoughts Form Matter"), the process is described in great detail. I've gone over this material repeatedly, comparing it to numerous comments made by C's on the subject. And have yet to come up with any strong contradiction. (Although I did find a variance in their foundational assertions. Seth starts with "Consciousness Units". But the C's begin with "Information." No small difference!)

Aside from that, everything seems good.

There's also convergence regarding the reason why this linkage exist. It's a teaching tool. To show us (through physical manifestation) the consequences of our thoughts. To hammer home the point that our thoughts MATTER ... through our experiential reaction to physical matter.

I believe this IS the key lesson. The "simple understanding" hinted at by the C's but never elaborated upon. I had hoped they would at some point make this explicit. But so far they have not (to the best of my knowledge.) Hence my own feeble attempt.

And I think I found it in the Seth material. Not Seth himself, but from a personality known as Seth II, as mentioned by Seth. Interestingly, he called Seth II his "future self."

And here's what Seth II had to say about the nature & purpose of these simple lessons:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The human race is a stage through which various forms of consciousness travel.

Before you can be allowed into systems of reality that are more extensive and
open, you must first learn to handle energy. And see, through physical
materialization, the concrete results of thoughts & emotion.

In more advance systems, thoughts & emotions are automatically & immediately
translated into action. Therefore, the lessons must be learned well.

The responsibility for creation must be clearly understood.

If you realize that you create your physical reality through your own thoughts and
desires, then you have learned the most important aspects of reality. This is what
you've been setting out to do in your other lives, in your past existences.

The realization of these truths--nullifies so-called debts from other lives.

When you realize this, and act on it, there's no reason for you to come back here
again, unless you want to.

Any of your difficulties in past lives were caused because you did not realize these
basic truths.

You are in physical existence to learn & understand that your energy, translated
into feelings, thoughts & emotions causes ALL experience. There're NO exceptions.

If you still do not realize that you create the reality that you know, then you return.
And again you learn to manipulate. Again and again, you see results of your own
inner reality as you meet it objectified.

You teach yourself the lesson until you've learned it. And when you have, then
you have begun to learn how to handle the consciousness that is your--
intelligently and well.

The very point of physical existence is that you realize your thought become matter
while you're here.

You are meant to judge physical reality. To realize that it's a materialization
of your thoughts and feelings and images. That the inner self forms that world.

You cannot be allowed to go into other dimensions until you have learned the
power of your thoughts & subjective feelings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is a direct explanation of why we are here (from Seth II.) And the purpose of this school.

I have substantial sympathy for this line of thought. I've approached it from several angles. So far, I see no contradiction to the C's assertions. In fact I find general agreement. I also find great similarity to the Madhyamika (Nagarjuna) school of Buddhist thought. Especially in regards to meditation and imaginative practices.

It so reminds me of Goyacobol's transcript highlights involving Faith -- Psychic Orientation -- and Meditation.

As our "time" is running short, I feel an inner urge to lay things out explicitly as best I see them. To share. Even at risk of appearing either foolish or veering off track. Regardless, I can assure you of this, that I've put in serious time, effort and thought into these questions.

FWIW.
 

transientP

Jedi Council Member
sitting said:
[..]

In other transcripts, they said that most power to alter reality resides in the belief centers of the mind. This strongly hints at manifestation I think.

[..]

One way to look at it could be;
What if everything that exists right now is already your manifestation in concert with all "other" beings' manifestations guided by "gravity" which is a 7th density guiding or binding principle.
Meaning, right now, in this moment, you are manifesting the entire universe.
This has to do with karma and lessons, as well as the specific path that unfolded for each being prior to their final (current) form.

Sure, you could learn how to manifest some specific thing more quickly, especially when in higher density mode, but what is the purpose ?
If it's done in order to force something or because the being would like a specific outcome then there's still fear / desire / aversion present.
I know that you're familiar with this line of thought already.
It has an eastern flavor and also coincides with "anticipate not".

[..]
In Chapter 5 of Seth Speaks ("How Thoughts Form Matter"), the process is described in great detail. I've gone over this material repeatedly, comparing it to numerous comments made by C's on the subject. And have yet to come up with any strong contradiction. (Although I did find a variance in their foundational assertions. Seth starts with "Consciousness Units". But the C's begin with "Information." No small difference!)

Aside from that, everything seems good.
[..]

I too don't really see any incompatibilities between what Seth expounds and what the C's do.
There are different styles for illumination, as it were.

[..]
The above is a direct explanation of why we are here (from Seth II.) And the purpose of this school.

I have substantial sympathy for this line of thought. I've approached it from several angles. So far, I see no contradiction to the C's assertions. In fact I find general agreement. I also find great similarity to the Madhyamika (Nagarjuna) school of Buddhist thought. Especially in regards to meditation and imaginative practices.

It so reminds me of Goyacobol's transcript highlights involving Faith -- Psychic Orientation -- and Meditation.

Agree. How could any being handle more direct manifestation, when it occurs, if it occurs, before they learn to know themselves and to be balanced ?
It would just go splat. Also again, I think the more important lesson isn't learning that we DO manifest, even though it is vastly important, but understanding What to manifest and Why to manifest.
Because IMO the questions of What and Why, when answered with knowledge and balance are the roads to STO polarization.
STO polarization being much more important than merely going "up" a level.
What use is it to graduate if you just continue to create more false selves afterwards but instead do it infinitely more ?
Thankfully, Even in 4d, STS can still move to STO.

As our "time" is running short, I feel an inner urge to lay things out explicitly as best I see them. To share. Even at risk of appearing either foolish or veering off track. Regardless, I can assure you of this, that I've put in serious time, effort and thought into these questions.

I definitely understand this. I can say that this feeling is shared. I'm not sure our "time" is running short though.
I really do believe that there is a balancing in process. A natural one, not man made in the constricted sense.
What's happening now can be equated, I think, with each person accepting their assignment for studies and going to their respective classrooms. This doesn't necessarily mean that many people have to exist the shared reality. People have existed side by side for ages while going through their respective lessons "individually". (I use quotation marks here in light of our interactive nature with others).

As for the last part which I've underlined, It is very obvious that you have done major thinking and on many levels.
Personally, I thoroughly enjoy your posts and am sure that they are helpful to many people who read them including those who prefer not to be active participants in the conversation.
 

Spur

Padawan Learner
Great discussion guys, I liked the Quote of Seth -

"Before you can be allowed into systems of reality that are more extensive and
open, you must first learn to handle energy. And see, through physical
materialization, the concrete results of thoughts & emotion.

In more advance systems, thoughts & emotions are automatically & immediately
translated into action. Therefore, the lessons must be learned well.

The responsibility for creation must be clearly understood."

Tom Campbell mentions this concept when his consciousness is projected into non-physical reality. There may be the form of a rock in the non-physical, but he can change the rock into something else or simply delete the existence of the rock. In physical reality there are various rule-sets to prevent this kind of manifestation (although I've seen some amazing incidents that would be hard pushed to be related to 'coincidence').

Such abilities should carry a strong responsibility and it seems clear this physical reality is where we learn to 'grow up' enough to exercise that responsibility.

I still don't grasp all the issues related to gravity. - OK, consciousness can 'collapse the wave form' to create an aspect of physical reality from the various data streams. That much I'm comfortable with.

The resulting physical forms have an element of attraction/gravity, which seems like it is the 'glue' that keeps the physical together at least for some period of 'time'. The consciousness may move on to other projects and the strength of the 'glue' of gravity keeps the manifestation together. So what determines the strength of the 'glue'? Is some of the consciousness still resident in the physical reality manifestation?

Here's another issue related to gravity. Perhaps the strong pull of the Earth's gravity tends to keep lesser developed consciousness tightly bound to the Earth. Think of it as the fence around a school yard or a compound for the 'consciousness challenged'.

Perhaps physicists have asked these questions, but I've only got a basic college Newtonian physics background, so something like a UFT is way above my pay grade.

One of reoccurring issues on the forum is the 'graduation' to 4D. This is where I come back to my questions about the 'breakaway civilisation'. Perhaps there is a group that has learned to 'graduate', that is, that can exist in both the 3D and 4D by focusing their intent. If so, then it could be informative if the C's were asked questions about the existence of the breakaway civilisation and if it does exist, what is the criteria for 'membership'.
 

transientP

Jedi Council Member
Spur said:
[..]
Perhaps physicists have asked these questions, but I've only got a basic college Newtonian physics background, so something like a UFT is way above my pay grade.
One of reoccurring issues on the forum is the 'graduation' to 4D. This is where I come back to my questions about the 'breakaway civilisation'. Perhaps there is a group that has learned to 'graduate', that is, that can exist in both the 3D and 4D by focusing their intent. If so, then it could be informative if the C's were asked questions about the existence of the breakaway civilisation and if it does exist, what is the criteria for 'membership'.

What's the criteria for finishing third grade ?

If you buy a fake university degree does that mean that you have the knowledge that the degree symbolizes ?

The crossover to higher functioning could happen an infinite amount of ways, but pushing it and trying to get there faster is sts.

IMO, it's better to go with the natural flow of things. Obviously this doesn't mean to be lazy.

So there's a breakaway civilization.. The whole planet is a breakaway civilization and it's breaking away from itself continuously.

Edit: fixed quote box.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
A: What if matter were the "half-life" of energy?

Q: (C) Well, half-life is the decay factor. What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are saying?

A: Be careful of the quote marks, they bring you to the crossroads. As in: "you take the high road, I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before ye."

Q: (L) I guess that means that we are not to use the usual interpretation of 'half-life,' but that there is a pun, a clue intended here that is to be deciphered.

A: Look folks, we cannot just spill the secrets of all existence all over this board, but we sure can open the doorways, yeah.
On finds the quote used in The Wave Chapter 70: You Take the High Road and I’ll Take the Low Road and I’ll Be in Scotland Afore Ye!

It turns out it is from: The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond written in its modern version by Robert Burns. The singer Ella Roberts has made a version of "The Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond"

"The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond", or "Loch Lomond"
a Scottish song (Roud No. 9598).[1][2] The song prominently features Loch Lomond, the largest Scottish loch, located between the council areas of West Dunbartonshire, Stirling and Argyll and Bute. In Scots, "bonnie" means "attractive", "beloved", or "dear".[3]
There are two versions, one in light Scots, see here:
By yon bonnie banks and by yon bonnie braes,
Where the sun shines bright on Loch Lomond,
Where me and my true love will ne'er meet again
On the bonnie, bonnie banks o' Loch Lomond.

(Chorus)
Oh! ye'll tak' the high road and I'll tak' the low road,
And I'll be in Scotland afore ye;

But me and my true love will ne'er meet again
On the bonnie, bonnie banks o' Loch Lomond.

'Twas then that we parted in yon shady glen,
On the steep, steep side o' Ben Lomond,
Where in purple hue the hielan hills we view,
And the moon comin' out in the gloamin'.

(Chorus)

The wee birdies sing and the wild flowers spring,
And in sunshine the waters are sleeping,
But the broken heart, it kens nae second Spring again,
Tho' the waeful may cease frae their greeting.

(Chorus)
And in English:
By yonder lovely* banks and by yonder lovely slopes,
Where the sun shines bright on Lake Lomond,
Where me and my true love will never meet again
On the lovely, lovely banks of Lake Lomond.

(Chorus)
Oh! you'll take the high road and I'll take the low road,
And I'll be in Scotland before you;

But me and my true love will never meet again
On the lovely, lovely banks of Lake Lomond.

'Twas then that we parted in yonder shady glen,
On the steep, steep side of Beacon Mountain,
Where in purple hue the Highland hills we view,
And the moon coming out in the twilight.

(Chorus)

The little birdies sing and the wild flowers bloom,
And in sunshine the waters are sleeping,
But the broken heart, it knows not second Spring again,
Though the woeful may cease from their weeping.

(Chorus)
Interpretation
According to the Wiki
Historian Murray G. H. Pittock writes that the song "is a Jacobite adaptation of an eighteenth-century erotic song, with the lover dying for his king, and taking only the 'low road' of death back to Scotland."[4] It is one of many poems and songs that emerged from Jacobite political culture in Scotland.[4]
There is a different interpretation, but before that more about Jacobitism where the Wiki writes:
Jacobitism (/ˈdʒækəbaɪˌtɪzəm/; Scottish Gaelic: Seumasachas, [ˈʃeːməs̪əxəs̪]; Irish: Seacaibíteachas, Séamusachas) was a largely 17th- and 18th-century movement that supported the restoration of the senior line of the House of Stuart to the British throne. The name is derived from Jacobus, the Latin version of James.

When James II and VII went into exile after the 1688 Glorious Revolution, the Parliament of England argued that he abandoned the English throne and they offered it to his Protestant daughter Mary II and her husband William III.[2] In April, the Scottish Convention held he "forfeited" the throne of Scotland by his actions, listed in the Articles of Grievances.[3]

The Revolution created the principle of a contract between monarch and people; if that was violated, he or she could be removed. Jacobites argued monarchs were appointed by God, or divine right, and could not be removed, making the post-1688 regime illegitimate. While this was the most consistent difference, Jacobitism was a complex mix of ideas, many opposed by the Stuarts themselves; in Ireland, it meant tolerance for Catholicism, which James supported, but it also meant granting Irish autonomy and reversing the 17th-century land settlements, both of which he opposed. In 1745, clashes between Prince Charles and Scottish Jacobites over the 1707 Union and divine right were central to the internal conflicts that ended it as a viable movement.
Nurseryrhymescollections.com suggest include a more critical interpretation.
There's an ending o' the dance, and fair Morag's safe in France,
And the Clans they hae paid the lawing,

Charles Edward is free and back in France, and the Clans, the Highlanders, pay the bill.

It can be taken for granted that the song is about the last battle of the house of Stuart to reconquer the throne of England and Scotland, but whether the song is really based on a letter of Donald McDonald, or expresses just the desperate situation of the Highlanders after the battle of Culloden is not clear. In the center of the discussion are these verses:

O ye’ll tak’ the high road and I’ll tak’ the low road
And I’ll be in Scotland afore ye
For me and my true love will never meet again
On the bonnie, bonnie banks o’ Loch Lomon'.


One possible interpretation is that the two soldiers of the defeated army had been captured. One of them was a professional soldier (who were generally sentenced to death), and the other one just adhered to the cause of Charles Edward, and was therefore left free. The soldier sentenced to death will take the low road back to Scotland, in other words under the soil as an errant soul. The other soldier will take the high road, above the soil.
I wondered who the professional soldiers were, suspecting they might have been officers. Indeed, as one in the Wiki about the Battle of Culloden finds: "The high-ranking "rebel lords" were executed on Tower Hill in London.":
While in Inverness, Cumberland emptied the jails that were full of people imprisoned by Jacobite supporters, replacing them with Jacobites themselves.[63] Prisoners were taken south to England to stand trial for high treason. Many were held on hulks on the Thames or in Tilbury Fort, and executions took place in Carlisle, York and Kennington Common.[67] The common Jacobite supporters fared better than the ranking individuals. In total, 120 common men were executed, one-third of them being deserters from the British Army.[67] [note 5] The common prisoners drew lots amongst themselves, and only one out of twenty actually came to trial. Although most of those who did stand trial were sentenced to death, almost all of these had their sentences commuted to penal transportation to the British colonies for life by the Traitors Transported Act 1746 (20 Geo. II, c. 46).[74] In all, 936 men were thus transported, and 222 more were banished. Even so, 905 prisoners were actually released under the Act of Indemnity which was passed in June 1747. Another 382 obtained their freedom by being exchanged for prisoners of war who were held by France. Of the total 3,471 prisoners recorded, nothing is known of the fate of 648.[75] The high-ranking "rebel lords" were executed on Tower Hill in London.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom