Session 12 July 2014

[Laura]

I'm having a problem reconciling two statements made by the C's in this latest session.

1) "By his death he was glorified and remembered for over 2000 years even if only under a fake legend."

2) "In reality, how many years ago was Caesar born?

A: 1635. {Difference of 479 years}"

If he was born 1635 years ago how could he be glorified for over 2000 years?

Am I missing something?

Yeah. You didn't read this: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,35409.msg507225.html#msg507225

 

[luc]

FWIW and as a little refresher on the historical background, here is the very interesting Michael Parenti talk "The assassination of Julius Ceasar" (it has been mentioned on the forum in other threads):

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO_Ldn2H4o

At minute 23, he starts talking about JC's policies. Interestingly, he also thinks that JC knew there was an assassination plot against him, but didn't know the exact time and place. Very worth the watch.

 

[Alvalsen]

at one session said that Lizzie constantly change our past, to make them a future desired

ie maybe tomorrow we will all have slightly different past than today

means and C-s will say is a little different, corresponding to new realities and the "new" past? is it possible?

 

[Zadius Sky]

I'm having a problem reconciling two statements made by the C's in this latest session.

Hi AnotherIdiot,

Seeing that this is your first post, I would like to welcome you to the forum. When you get a chance, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief introduction about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, a little bit about yourself, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc. Thank you so much.

:)

 

[LQB]

I found myself becoming very emotional as I read Caesar's remarks.

You're not the only one, and for me it was specially in this part:

I was wrong to think I could change the masses by example. Humans are fickle and self-centered for the most part. Thus, if you wish to really effect changes, it can only be done by early education, and even then it is fragile and will not last. In the end you must be true to your own nature and fear nothing. If you do that you may make a difference after you are gone. That is not exactly what you are looking for, but there are no 3 pieces of advice that serve all events.

First, supposedly the "greatest man that ever lived" admits that he was wrong before anything else. How many of us have trouble admitting even small mistakes?

Second, his analysis about the masses and humanity: As "pessimistic" as it may seem to most, not sending a message of hope or salvation or whatever, well, it is WAY better than what religion has been saying for centuries. And it is the truth. We have been seeing it for some time now. We can only do what is right, and see.

Third, "be true to your own nature": And we know how hard that one is!

Fourth: "fear nothing". That man knew he was going to be assassinated and still didn't fear it. Compare that with fears that rule everyone's lives, every day.

This doesn't even start to describe how these words felt.

It reminds me of John F. Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy's efforts to educate the masses. In the possibility's of teaching the population to accepting what peoples responsibility's were in order to make change within the power structure. ...

After the assassination of JFK, BFK, and MLK, humanity's decline accelerated, and is reminiscent of Julius Caesar efforts to be the beckon of hope in a world governed by psychopaths.

Yes and it makes me wonder: to what degree did JC (and even JFK/BK/MLK) suspect that they were dealing with a subset of "humans" that are not really human in a definition based in conscience/empathy (psychopaths)? The ponerization process might be expected to make changing the "masses by example" nearly impossible.

To be "be true to your own nature" is, itself, inspiring to those that can see, and I think all of these men had big positive impacts on many of those around them. To some extent this did extend to the masses but not enough to really change things in the sense that they desired.

The greatest hope - if there really is any - seems to lie in the education of the masses - a big part of what Sott (and Laura/team's efforts) is about.

 

[cliftonedward]

Thanks for the explanation and further insight Laura. As always, there is much to contemplate. :)

 

[Graalsword]

As the years have passed, I have become better able to see how this concept was conveyed through various interactions with the C’s, myself, and the other participants or attendees at the sessions. There are various points where the C’s were wrong – probably consciously – but I can see no fault or bad intent, because they were definitely working within the psychological parameters given them by those present. And this is a crucial thing to understand about this kind of work: it is definitely a reality where the observer/participant has a powerful influence and it is harder for a materially minded, black-and-white thinker to grasp the essence of this reality than that a camel should go through the eye of a needle!

I think that one of the best examples of this, is the few things they said in the early days about food and diet, . If they had told you about ketogenic diet in 1994, you wouldn't have learnt all the valuable and empowering lessons you learnt through research about diet and health in the last seven years.

 

[hesperides]

As a former follower of a master that was supposedly teaching ancient esoteric teaching, and at the same time pretended he was Cesar in one of his former lifes, I am more than amazed to come in such a direct way in touch with this famous historical figure again, although this time it´s more likely to be the actual Cesar (which will surely clear up on further sessions). No doubts, patience pays!

This was a long session but seems the shortest one to me, not evey day do I get such an outstanding guest visiting my home, even if only through a computer screen

Thank you all for spreading another session, and this is for Ark, I still can´t decide whether your glasses bent because you maybe need more rest or your inner/external vision are improving so you don´t need wearing them anymore ;)

 

[Mountain Crown]

Amazing session indeed. Much to think about.

Thanks, Laura and crew for sharing.

 

[Cosmos]

Yes and it makes me wonder: to what degree did JC (and even JFK/BK/MLK) suspect that they were dealing with a subset of "humans" that are not really human in a definition based in conscience/empathy (psychopaths)? The ponerization process might be expected to make changing the "masses by example" nearly impossible.

To be "be true to your own nature" is, itself, inspiring to those that can see, and I think all of these men had big positive impacts on many of those around them. To some extent this did extend to the masses but not enough to really change things in the sense that they desired.

The greatest hope - if there really is any - seems to lie in the education of the masses - a big part of what Sott (and Laura/team's efforts) is about.

I think what Caesar (if we assume it was really him) realized is that it is impossible to educate the masses of humanity in the full sense. There seems to be a "rule" which Gurdjeff also described here:

During one conversation with G. in our group, which was beginning to become permanent, I asked: "Why, if ancient knowledge has been preserved and if, speaking in general, there exists a knowledge distinct from our science and philosophy or even surpassing it, is it so carefully concealed, why is it not made common property? Why are the men who possess this knowledge unwilling to let it pass into the general circulation of life for the sake of a better and more successful struggle against deceit, evil, and ignorance?"

This is, I think, a question which usually arises in everyone's mind on first acquaintance with the ideas of esotericism. "There are two answers to that," said G. "In the first place, this knowledge is not concealed; and in the second place, it cannot, from its very nature, become common property. We will consider the second of these statements first. I will prove to you afterwards that knowledge" (he emphasized the word) "is far more accessible to those capable of assimilating it than is usually supposed; and that the whole trouble is that people either do not want it or cannot receive it.

"But first of all another thing must be understood, namely, that knowledge cannot belong to all, cannot even belong to many. Such is the law. You do not understand this because you do not understand that knowledge, like everything else in the world, is material. It is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality. One of the first characteristics of materiality is that matter is always limited, that is to say, the quantity of matter in a given place and under given conditions is limited. Even the sand of the desert and the water of the sea is a definite and unchangeable quantity. So that, if knowledge is material, then it means that there is a definite quantity of it in a given place at a given time.

It may be said that, in the course of a certain period of time, say a century, humanity has a definite amount of knowledge at its disposal. But we know, even from an ordinary observation of life, that the matter of knowledge possesses entirely different qualities according to whether it is taken in small or large quantities.

Taken in a large quantity in a given place, that is by one man, let us say, or by a small group of men, it produces very good results; taken in a small quantity (that is, by every one of a large number of people), it gives no results at all; or it may give even negative results, contrary to those expected.

Thus if a certain definite quantity of knowledge is distributed among millions of people, each individual will receive very little, and this small amount of knowledge will change nothing either in his life or in his understanding of things. And however large the number of people who receive this small amount of knowledge, it will change nothing in their lives, except, perhaps, to make them still more difficult.

"But if, on the contrary, large quantities of knowledge are concentrated in a small number of people, then this knowledge will give very great results. From this point of view it is far more advantageous that knowledge should be preserved among a small number of people and not dispersed among the masses.

"If we take a certain quantity of gold and decide to gild a number of objects with it, we must know, or calculate, exactly what number of objects can be gilded with this quantity of gold. If we try to gild a greater number, they will be covered with gold unevenly, in patches, and will look much worse than if they had no gold at all; in fact we shall lose our gold.

"The distribution of knowledge is based upon exactly the same principle. If knowledge is given to all, nobody will get any. If it is preserved among a few, each will receive not only enough to keep, but to increase, what he receives.

"At the first glance this theory seems very unjust, since the position of those who are, so to speak, denied knowledge in order that others may receive a greater share appears to be very sad and undeservedly harder than it ought to be. Actually, however, this is not so at all; and in the distribution of knowledge there is not the slightest injustice.

"The fact is that the enormous majority of people do not want any knowledge whatever; they refuse their share of it and do not even take the ration allotted to them, in the general distribution, for the purposes of life. This is particularly evident in times of mass madness such as wars, revolutions, and so on, when men suddenly seem to lose even the small amount of common sense they had and turn into complete automatons, giving themselves over to wholesale destruction in vast numbers, in other words, even losing the instinct of self-preservation. Owing to this, enormous quantities of knowledge remain, so to speak, unclaimed and can be distributed among those who realize its value.

"There is nothing unjust in this, because those who receive knowledge take nothing that belongs to others, deprive others of nothing; they take only what others have rejected as useless and what would in any case be lost if they did not take it.

"The collecting of knowledge by some depends upon the rejection of knowledge by others.

"There are periods in the life of humanity, which generally coincide with the beginning of the fall of cultures and civilizations, when the masses irretrievably lose their reason and begin to destroy everything that has been created by centuries and millenniums of culture. Such periods of mass madness, often coinciding with geological cataclysms, climatic changes, and similar phenomena of a planetary character, release a very great quantity of the matter of knowledge.

This, in its turn, necessitates the work of collecting this matter of knowledge which would otherwise be lost. Thus the work of collecting scattered matter of knowledge frequently coincides with the beginning of the destruction and fall of cultures and civilizations.

"This aspect of the question is clear. The crowd neither wants nor seeks knowledge, and the leaders of the crowd, in their own interests, try to strengthen its fear and dislike of everything new and unknown. The slavery in which mankind lives is based upon this fear. It is even difficult to imagine all the horror of this slavery. We do not understand what people are losing. But in order to understand the cause of this slavery it is enough to see how people live, what constitutes the aim of their existence, the object of their desires, passions, and aspirations, of what they think, of what they talk, what they serve and what they worship.

Consider what the cultured humanity of our time spends money on; even leaving the war out, what commands the highest price; where the biggest crowds are. If we think for a moment about these questions it becomes clear that humanity, as it is now, with the interests it lives by, cannot expect to have anything different from what it has.

But, as I have already said, it cannot be otherwise.

Imagine that for the whole of mankind half a pound of knowledge is allotted a year. If this knowledge is distributed among everyone, each will receive so little that he will remain the fool he was.

But, thanks to the fact that very few want to have this knowledge, those who take it are able to get, let us say, a grain each, and acquire the possibility of becoming more intelligent. All cannot become intelligent even if they wish. And if they did become intelligent it would not help matters. There exists a general equilibrium which cannot be upset.

'That is one aspect. The other, as I have already said, consists in the fact that no one is concealing anything; there is no mystery whatever.

But the acquisition or transmission of true knowledge demands great labor and great effort both of him who receives and of him who gives.

And those who possess this knowledge are doing everything they can to transmit and communicate it to the greatest possible number of people, to facilitate people's approach to it and enable them to prepare themselves to receive the truth.

But knowledge cannot be given by force to anyone and, as I have already said, an unprejudiced survey of the average man's life, of what fills his day and of the things he is interested in, will at once show whether it is possible to accuse men who possess knowledge of concealing it, of not wishing to give it to people, or of not wishing to teach people what they know themselves.

"He who wants knowledge must himself make the initial efforts to find the source of knowledge and to approach it, taking advantage of the help and indications which are given to all, but which people, as a rule, do not want to see or recognize. Knowledge cannot come to people without effort on their own part.

They understand this very well in connection with ordinary knowledge, but in the case of great knowledge, when they admit the possibility of its existence, they find it possible to expect something different.

Everyone knows very well that if, for instance, a man wants to learn Chinese, it will take several years of intense work; everyone knows that five years are needed to grasp the principles of medicine, and perhaps twice as many years for the study of painting or music.

And yet there are theories which affirm that knowledge can come to people without any effort on their part, that they can acquire it even in sleep. The very existence of such theories constitutes an additional explanation of why knowledge cannot come to people.

At the same time it is essential to understand that man's independent efforts to attain anything in this direction can also give no results. A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it. This must be understood from the very beginning. One must learn from him who knows."

So it seems evident that it is impossible that we, Caesar, Gurdijeff or anybody else who posses a great deal of knowledge can bring the masses of humanity to that level. In our experience as well as Gurdijeff described above, it is only ever possible for a relatively small amount of people in a certain time to "get it" or have that knowledge. That seems to be a universal law and the only thing we can try to do is, as Gurdijeff said, to spread that knowlege as far and wide as possible in the hopes that as many people that are ready or tuned to that frequency can "get it". So it indeed seems to be impossible that the masses will wake up.

 

[Joe]

I'm having a problem reconciling two statements made by the C's in this latest session.

1) "By his death he was glorified and remembered for over 2000 years even if only under a fake legend."

2) "In reality, how many years ago was Caesar born?

A: 1635. {Difference of 479 years}"

If he was born 1635 years ago how could he be glorified for over 2000 years?

Am I missing something?

The 2000 years comment was made before we asked how many years since his birth. As the Cs mentioned previously in the session, when a question is asked with prejudice or belief, the answer given conforms to that belief. In this case, we all assumed that the dating we had was correct. Then came the question about the dating.

 

[naorma]

Thank you very much for this session!
After reading this I felt some kind of relief, like a burdon that went down and I can now see more clearly.
The burdon that went down was that old feeling of the catholic Jesus which I never could attend in a good and helpful way.
Now with the confirmation of Jesus=Caesar and also with the direct channeling I feel that there is some very good and sofrt energy.

 

[shellycheval]

WOW--Do we live in "Interesting Times" or what!!!

Thank you all for an amazing session that bears much revisiting and thought.

 

[Alejo]

What a tremendous session! Wow!!

A: I was wrong to think I could change the masses by example. Humans are fickle and self-centered for the most part. Thus, if you wish to really effect changes, it can only be done by early education, and even then it is fragile and will not last. In the end you must be true to your own nature and fear nothing. If you do that you may make a difference after you are gone. That is not exactly what you are looking for, but there are no 3 pieces of advice that serve all events.

This part specially fascinated me! Wow still working on processing all the information ! Thanks so much!

 

[cliftonedward]

And doesn't this reading in some way fulfill the reading about July being a start to a new calendar counting system? Correlations abound.